Chapter 3

Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies

Making Sense of the past:Historical Interpretation

History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary definition is centered on how it
impacts the present through its consequences. Geoffrey Barraclough defines history as the
attempt to discover, on the basis of fragmentary evidence, the significant things about the past.
He also notes the history we read, though based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all,
but a series of accepted judgment. Such judgement of historians on how the past should be
seen make the foundation of historical interpretation.

The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic history Maragtas. Before it was
revealed as a hoax, it was a source of pride for the people of Aklan. In fact, a historical marker
was installed in the town of Batan, Aklan in 1956, with the following text:

" CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third chief of Panay, born in Aklan,
established his government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered the first
Filipino Lawgiver, the promulgated in about 1433 about penal code now known as a Code of
Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained the original
manuscript from an old chief of Panay which was later translated into Spanish by Rafael
Murviedo Yzamaney.

It was only in my 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when William Henry Scott, then a doctoral
candidate at the university of Santo Tomas, defended his research on pre-Hispanic sources in
Philippines history. He attributed the Code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E.
Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de lang Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the Code itself to a
priest named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent to Scotts findings
but there are still some who would like to believe that the Code is a legitimate document.

Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history and then draw their own
reading so that their intended audience may understand the historical event, ah process that in
essence, makes sense of the past. The premise is that not all primary sources are accessible to a
general audience, and without the proper training and background, and non historian
interpreting and primary sources may do more harm than good- a primary source may even
cause misunderstanding; sometimes, even resulting in more problems.

Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads primary sources, when it was
read, and how it was read. As student of history we must be well equipped to recognize
different types of interpretation why these may differ from each other, and how to critically sif
the interpretations through historical evaluation. Interpretations of history event change over
time; thus, it is an important skill for a student of history to track these changes in an attempt to
understand the past.

"Sa Aking Mga Kabata " is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal when he was 8 yrs. old and
is probably one of Rizals most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that
this poem, with that now immortalized lines "Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang sariling wika
mahigit pa sa malansang isda" was written by Rizal, and worse the evidence against Rizals
authorship of the poem seems all unassailable.

There exist no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first published in a
1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato
Francisco, who claimed to have received it in 1884 from Rizals close friend, Saturnino Raselis
Rizal never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his writings and more importantly, he
never mentioned of having a close friend by the person of Raselis.

Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful attribution of the poem to Rizal.
The poem was written in Tagalog and referred to the word "Kalayaan". But it was documented
in Rizals letters that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilars translation of
Rizals essay "El Almor Patrio", where it was spelled as "kalayahan ".

While Rizals native tounge was Tagalog, the was educated in Spanish, starting from his mother,
Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would express disappointment in his difficulty in expressing
himself in his native tounge.

The poems spelling is also suspect-the use of letters "k" and "w" to replace "c"and " u ",
respectively was suggested by Rizal as an adult. If the poem was indeed written his time, it
should use the original Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time.

Many of the things we accept as true about the past might not be the case anymore; just
because these were taught to us as facts when we were younger does not mean that it is open
for interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing account of the past that need ones
attention, important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary sources, but also
the historical interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past.

Multiperspectivity

With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept that we must note
is multiperspectivity. This can be defined as a way of looking at historical events, personalities,
development, culture and societies from different perspective. This means that there is
multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each could be equally partial as well.
Historical writing is, by definition, biased, partial, and contain preconception. This historical
decides on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more apparent, depending on
what his end is. Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest that a
certain event happened, and then ignore the rest that goes against the evidence. Historians may
omit significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation unbalanced.
Historians may impose a certain ideology to their subject, which may not be appropriate to the
period the subject was from. Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without
considering other possible causal explanations of said event. These are just many of the way a
historian may fail in his historical inference, description, and interpretation. With
multiperspectivity as an approach in history, welcome must understand that historical
interpretations contain discrepancies, contradiction, ambiguities and are ofen the focus of
dissent.

Exploring multiple perspective in history requires incorporating source material that reflect
different views of an event in history, because singular historical narrative do not provide for
space to inquire and investigate. Different source that counter each other may create space for
more investigation and research, while providing more evidence, truths that there sources
agree on.

Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truth-an official document may note
different aspect of the past than, say, ah memoir of an ordinary person on the same event.
Different historical agent create different historical truths, and while this may be a burdensome
work for the historian, it also renders more validity to the historical scholarship. Taking these in
close regard in the reading of historical interpretation, it provides for the audience a more
complete and richer understanding of the past.

Case Study 1:Where Did the first Catholic Mass take place in the Philippines?

The popularity of knowing where the first happened in history has been an easy way to trivialize
history, but this case study will not focus on the significance of the site of the First Catholic Mass
in the Philippines, but rather, use it as as a historiographical exercise in the utilization of
evidence and interpretation in reading historical event.

Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. In fact, this has been the case for
three centuries, culminating in the erection of a monument in 1872 near Agusan River, which
commemorate the expedition arrival and celebration of Mass on April 8, 1521. The Butuan
claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event.

Toward the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century, together with the
increasing scholarship on the history of the Philippines, ah more nuanced reading of the
available evidence was made, which brought to light more consideration in going against the
more accepted interpretation of the first Mass in the Philippines, made both by Spanish and
Filipino scholars.

It must be noted that there are only 2 primary sources that historians refer to an identifying the
site of the Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, ah pilot of one of Magellans ship,
Trinidad. The was one of the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano in the ship
Victoria afer they circumnavigated the world. The other, and the more complete, was the
account by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno al mondo, (The Voyage Around the world ).
Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the Magellan expedition and an eyewitness of the event,
particularly, of the Mass.

Primary source: Albo's Log

Source: "Diario o` derotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo se S. Agustin en el Brazil hasta
el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albo, " Document no. xxii in
Collecion de viages y descubrimientos que hicieron por mar los Españoles desde fines del siglo
XV, Ed. Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (reprinted Buenos Aires 1945, 5 Vols.) IV 191-225. As
cited in Miguel A. Bernad "Butuan or Limasawa? The site of the first Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of evidence" 1981, Kinaadman: A journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III 1-35

1. On the 16th day of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course from Ladrones, they saw
land towards the northwest; but owing to many shallow places they didn't approach it. They
found later that its name was Yunagan.

2. They went instead that same day southwards to another small island named Suluan, and
there they anchored. There they saw some canoes but these fled at the Spaniards approach.
This island was at 9 and two-thirds degrees North latitude.

3. Departing from those 2 islands, they sailed westward to an uninhibited island of "Gada"
where they took in a supply of wood and water. The sea around that island was free from
shallows. (Albo does not give the latitude of this island, but from Pigafettas testimony, this
seems to be the "Aquada" or Homonhon, at 10 degrees North latitude.)

4. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island names Seilani that was
inhabited and was known to have gold. (Seilani-or, as Pigafetta calls it, Ceylon-was the island of
Leyte.)

5. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest to a
small island called " Mazava". That island is also at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North.
6. The people of that island of Mazava we're very good. There the Spaniards planted a cross
upon a mountain top, and from there they were shown three islands to the west and
Southwest, where they were told there was was much gold. They showed us how the gold was
gathered, which came in small pieces like peas and lentils.

7. From Mazava they sailed northwards Seilani. They followed the coast of Seilani in a
Northwesterly direction, ascending up to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw three small
islands.

8. From there they sailed westwards some 10 leagues, and there they saw 3 islets, where they
dropped anchor for the night. In the morning they sailed southwest some 12 leagues, down to a
latitude of 10 and one-third degrees. There they entered a channel between 2 islands, one of
which was called "Matan" and the other "Subu".

9. They sailed down that channel and then turned westward, anchored at the town (la villa) of
Subu where they stayed more days and obtained provisions and entered into a peace-pact the
local king.

10. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the island of Suluan and Mazava. But
between Mazava and Subu, there were so many shallows that the boats could not go westward
directly, has to go in a round about way.

It must be noted that in Albos account, the location of Mazava fits the location of the island of
Limasawa, at the southern tip of Leyte, 9°54. Albo does not mention the first Mass, but only a
planting of the cross upon a mountain-top from which could be seen 3 islands to the west of
southwest, which also fits the southern end of Limasawa.

Primary source: Pigafetta's Testimony on the Route of Magellan's Expedition

Source:Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as
cited in Miguel A. Bernard, "Butuan or Limasawa? The site of the first Mass in the
Philippines:Reexamination of evidence 1981, Kinaadman:Ah Journal of Southeast Philippines,
Vol. III, 1-35.

Saturday, March 16, 1521- Magellans expedition sighted a high land named "Zamal" which was
some 300 leagues westward Ladrones (now Marianas) island.

2. Sunday, March 17- "The following day afer sighting Zamal Island, they landed on another
island which was uninhabited and which lay" to the right " of the above-mentioned island of"
Zamal ". (To the right here would mean on their starboard going southwest.) There they set up 2
tents for the sick members, the crew and had and sow killed for them. The name of this island
was" Humunu " (Homonhon). This island was located at 10 degrees North latitude.
3. On that same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the entire archipelago the "Islands of
Saint Lazarus", the reason being that it was Sunday in the Lenten season when the gospel
assigned for the Mass and the liturgical office was the 11th chapter of St. John, which tells of
the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

4. Monday, March 18- In the afernoon of their second day on that island, they saw about
coming towards them with 9 men in it. And exchange of gifs was affected. Magellan asked for
food supplies, and the men went away, promising to bring rice and other supplies in four days.

5. There were 2 springs of water on that island of Homonhon. Also they saw there some
indications that there was gold in these islands. Consequently Magellan renamed the island and
called it the "Watering Place of the Good Omen" (Acquada la di bouni segniali).

6. Friday, March 22- At noon the natives returned. This time they were in 2 boats, and they
brought food supplies.

7. Magellans expedition stayed 8 days at Homonhon: from Sunday, March 17, to the Monday of
the following week, 25 of March.

8. Monday, March 25-In the afernoon, the expedition weighed anchor and lef the island of
Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day was the feast day of the Incarnation, also
called the feast of the Annunciation and therefore "Our Ladys Day". On this day, as they were
about to weigh anchor, and accident happened to Pigafetta: he fell into the water but was
rescued. He attributed his narrow escape from death as grace obtained through the intercession
of the Blessed Virgin Mary on her feast day.

9. The route taken by the expedition afer leaving Homonhon was toward the west southwest,
between 4 islands: namely Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson and Albarien ". Very probably "Cenalo"
is a misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what Pigafetta in his map calls"Ceilon" and "Albo"
calls "Seilano": namely the island of Leyte." Hiunanghan seemed to Pigafetta to be a separate
island, but is actually on the mainland of Leyte (Ceilon). On the other hand, Hibuson (Pigafettas
Ibusson) is an island east of Leytes southern tip. Thus, it is easy to see what Pigafetta meant by
sailing "towards west towards" past those islands. They lef Homonhon said westward towards
Leyte, then followed the Leyte coast southwest passing between the island of Hibuson on their
portside Hiunangan Bay on their starboard, and then continued southwest then turning
westward to "Mazaua ".

10. Thursday, March 28-In the morning of Holy Thursday, March 28, they anchored off an island
where the previous night they seen a light or a bonfire. That island lies in a latitude of 9 two-
thirds towards the Arctic Pole (North) and in a longitude of 162 degrees from the line of
demarcation. It is 25 leagues from the Aquada, and is called Mazaua.
11. They remained 7 days on Mazaua Island.

12. Thursday, April 4-They lef Mazaua, bound for Cebu. They went guided thither by the king of
Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past 5 islands namely: Ceylon, Bohol,
Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan.

13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the 3 islands of Camotes Group, namely: Poro, Pasihan
and Ponson. Here the Spanish ships stopped to allow the king of Mazaua to catch with them,
since them, since the Spanish ships were much faster than native Balanghai-a thing that excited
the admiration of the king of Mazaua.

14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards "Zubu".

15. Sunday, April 7- At noon they entered the harbor of Zubu (Cebu). It had taken them 3 days
to negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to the Camotes Islands and then southward
to Cebu.

It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta testimony coincide and corroborate each
other. Pigafetta gave more details on what they did during their weeklong stay at Mazaua.

Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua

Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as
cited in Miguel A. Bernad, "Butuan or Limasawa? The site of the first Mass in the
Philippines:Reexamination of evidence" 1981, Kinaadman:And Journal of Southwest Philippines,
Vols. III, 1-35.

Thursday, March 28-In the morning they anchored near in island where they had seen a light
the night before a small boat (boloto) came with 8 natives, to whom Magellan threw some
trinkets as presents. The natives paddled away, but 2 hrs. later 2 larger boats (balanghai) came,
in one of which the native king sat under an awning of mats. At Magellans invitation some of
the natives went up the Spanish ships, but the native king remained seated in his boat. An
exchange of gifs was affected. In the afernoon that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and
came closer to shore, anchoring near the native kings village. This Thursday, March 28, was
Thursday in Holy Week, i. e. Holy Thursday.

2. Friday, March 29-Next day. Holy Friday, Magellan sent his slave interpreter ashore in a small
boat to ask the king if he could provide the expedition with food supplies, and to say that they
had come as friends and not as enemies. In reply the king himself came in a boat with six or 8
men, and this time went up Magellans ship and the 2 men embraced. Another exchange of gifs
was made. The native king and his companions returned ashore, bringing with them 2 members
of Magellans expedition as guest for the night. One of the 2 was Pigafetta.
3. Saturday, March 30-Pigafetta and his companions had spent the previous evening feasting
and drinking with the native king and his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was
Good Friday, they had to eat meat. The following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his
companions took to leave of their hosts and returned to the ships.

4. Sunday, March 31- "Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day",
Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the morning
Magellan landed with some fify men and Mass was celebrated, afer which a cross was
venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the noon day meal, but in the
afernoon they returned ashore to plant the cross on the summit of the highest hill. In
attendance both at the Mass and at the planting of the cross we're the king of Mazaua and the
king of Butuan.

5. Sunday, March 31-Om that same afernoon, while on the summit of the highest hill, Magellan
asked the two kings which ports he should go to in order to obtain more abundant supplies of
food than we're able in that island. They replied that there were ports to choose from:Ceylon,
Zubu, and Calagan. Of the Zubu was the port with the most trade. Magellan then said, the
wished to go to Zubu and to depart the following morning. He asked for someone to guide him
thither. The king replied that pilots would be available any time. But later that evening, king of
Mazaua changed his mind and said that he would conduct Magellan to Zubu but he would first
have to bring harvest in. He asked Magellan to send him men to help with harvest.

6. Monday, April 1-Magellan sent men ashore to help with harvest, but no work was done that
day because the 2 king we're sleeping off their drinking bout the night before.

7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday April 3-Work on the hand during the "next to days, i. e. then
and 3rd of April.

8. Thursday, April 4-They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.

Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernard his work Butuan or
Limasawa:The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines:And Reexamination of Evidence (1981)
lays down the argument that in the Pigafettas account, and crucial aspect of Butuan was not
mentioned- the river of Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach
Masao is in the delta of said river. It is a curious omission in the account of the river, which
makes part of a distinct characteristics of Butuans geography that seemed to be too important
to be missed.

The Age of Exploration is a period of competition among European rulers to conquer and
colonize lands outside their original domain. Initially, the goal was to find alternative routes by
sea to get to Asian the main source of spices and other commodities. Existing routes to Asian
we're mainly by land and cost very expensive. And sea route to Asia means that Europeans
could access the spice trade directly, greatly reducing costs for traders. Spains major foray into
the exploration was through Christopher Columbus, who proposed to sail westward to find a
shortcut to Asia. He was able to reach the Americans, which was then cut off from the rest of
the known world.

Spain colonized parts of the North America, Mexico, and South America in the 16th century.
They were also able to reach the Philippines and claim it for the Spanish crown. Later on, other
European rulers would compete with the activities of exploring and conquering lands.

It must also be pointed out that later on, afer Magellans death, the survivors of his expedition
went to Mindanao, and seemingly went to Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta vividly describe a
trip in a river. But note that this account already happened afer Magellans death.

Case Study 2:What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?

The year 1872 in a historic year of 2 events: The Cavite Mutiny and the Martyrdom of the 3
priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA.
These events are very important milestones in the Philippine history and have caused ripples
throughout time, directly influencing the decisive events of the Philippine Revolution toward
the end of the century. While the significance is unquestioned, what made this year
controversial are the different sides to the story, and battle of perspective supported by primary
sources. In this case study, welcome zoom in to the events of the Cavite Mutiny, and major
factor in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipino of that time.

Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny

The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal centered on how the event was
an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in the Philippines. Although regarded as a
historian, his account of the mutiny was criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a scholar.
Another account from the official report written by then Governor General Rafael Izquierdo
implicated the native clergy, who were then, active in the movement toward secularization of
parishes. These two accounts corroborated each other.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Momteros Account of the Cavite Mutiny

 Source:Jose Montero y Vidal, "Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872", in Gregorio
Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7,
(Manila:National Book Store, 1990), 269-273.

The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of exemption from the
tribute was, according to some, the cause of the insurrection. There were, however, other
causes. The Spanish Revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda carried on by
an unbridled press against monarchical principles, attentatory [sic] of the most sacred respect
towards the dethroned majesty; the democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the
speeches and preaching of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the outburst of the
American publicist and the criminal policy of the senseless Governor whom the revolutionary
government sent to govern the Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas were the
determining circumstances which gave rise, among certain Filipinos, to the idea of attaining
their independence. It was towards this goal that they started to work, with the powerful
assistance of a certain section of the native clergy, who out of spite towards friars, made
common cause with the enemies of the mother country.

At various times but especially in the beginning of year 1872, the authorities received
anonymous communications with the information that a great uprising would break out against
the Spaniards, the minute the fleet at Cavite lef for the South, and that all would be
assassinated, including the friars. But nobody gave importance to these notices. The conspiracy
had been going on since the days of La Torre with utmost secrecy. At times, the principal leaders
met either in the house of Filipino Spaniard, D. Juaquin Pardo de Tavera or in that of the native
priest, Jacinto Zamora, and these meeting were usually attended by the curate of Bacoor, the
soul of the movement, those energetic character and immense wealth enabled him to exercise
and strong influence.

Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny
of 1872

Source:Rafael Izquierdo, "Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny", in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia
Zaide, Documentary Sources of the Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila:National Book Store,
1990), 281-286.

It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native clergy, by the
mestizos and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos.

The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice of the
government in not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and against the usury that some
practice in documents that the Finance department gives crop owners who have to sell them at
a loss. They encouraged the rebellion by protesting what they called the injustice of having
obliged the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute starting January 1 and to render
personal service, from which they were formerly exempted.

Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to establish a monarchy or a
republic, because the Indios have no word in their language to describe this different form of
government, whose head in Filipino would be called hari; but it turns out that they would place
at the head of the government a priest... that the head selected would be

D. Jose Burgos, or D Jacinto Zamora...

Such as... the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and the means they counted upon for
its realization.

It is apparent that the account underscore the reason for the revolution; the abolition of
privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from payment of
tribute and being employed in polos y servicios, of force labor. They also identified other
reasons which seemingly made the issu'e a lot more serious which included the presence of the
native clergy, who, out of spite against the Spanish friars “conspired and supported”the rebels.
Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report, highlighted that attempt to overthrow the Spanish
government in the Philippines to install a new “hari” in the persons of Fathers Burgos and
Zamora.‘ AIccoIrding to him, native clergy attracted supporters by giving them Charismatic
assurance that their fight would not fail because they had God’s support, aside from promises
Iotfy rewards such as employment,wealth, and ranks in the army.

In the Spaniard’s accounts the event of 1872 was premeditated and ' was part of a big
conspiracy among the educated leaders mestizIos, lawyers, , and residents of Manila and Cavite.
They allegedly plan to liquidate high ranking Spanish officers then kill the friars. The signal they
identified among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired from
Intramuros.

The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the
Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were some fireworks display. The Caviteños allegedly mistook
this as the signal to commence with the attack. The 200-men contingent led by Sergeant
Lamadrid attacked Spanish officers at Sight and seized the arsenal. Izquierdo, upon learning of
the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The
“revolution” was easily crushed, when the Manilefios who were expected to aid the Cavitends
did not arrive. Leaders of the plot Were killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez,
Burgos and Zamora were tried by a court martial and sentenced to be executed. Others who
were implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera,Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa, and
other Filipino lawyers were suspended from the practice of law, arrested, andsentenced to life
imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and
ordered the creation of Ian artillery force composed exclusively by Peninsulares'.

On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos never to
attempt to fight the Spaniards again.

Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872

Two other primary accounts must that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdo and Montero.
First, the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo PardO de Tavera a Filipino scholar and
researcher who Wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite.

Primary Source' Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera's Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, “Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny,” in Gregorio Zaide and
SOnia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History , Volume 7 (Manila National Book:
Store, 1990), 274.

This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level "by the Spanish
residents and by the friars the Central Government 'in Madrid had announced its intention to
deprive the friars in these islands of powers of intervention in matters of civil government and
of the direction and management of the university... it was due to these facts and promises that
the Filipinos had great hopes of ah improvement in the friars of their country, while the friars on
the other hand, feared that their power in the colony would soon be complete a thing of the
past.

.. Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain and the only aspiration
of the people was to secure the material and education advancement of the country...

According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and laborers of
the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian polices of Izquierdo, such as
the abolition of privileges and . the prohibition of the founding of the school of arts and trades
for Filipinos,which the General saw smokescreen to creating a political club.

Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a way ,to
address other issues by blowing out of proportion; the isolated mutiny attempt. During this
time; the General Government in Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of
intervention ' in matters of. Civil government and direction and management of educational
institution. The friars needed somethmg to justify their continuing dominance in the countrv
and the mutiny provided such opportunity.
However the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational decree fusing sectarian
schools run by the friars into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree aimed to
improve the standard of education the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these
schools to be filled by competitive examinations, an improvement welcomed by most Filipinos.

Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut, complemented Taveras account
and analyzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite MutIny.

Primary Source:Excerpts from Plauchut’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source:Edmund Plauchut “The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom Burza in
Gregorio Zaide and Senia Zaide Documentary Sources of Philippine History , Volume 7
(Manila:National Book Store, 1990), 251-268.

General La Torre created a Junta composed of high officials including some friars and 6 Spanish
officials. At the same time there was created by the government Madrid Ia‘ committee to
investigate the same problems submitted to the Manila committee. When the two finished
work, it was found that they came to the same conclusions. Here is the summary of the reforms
they considered necessary to introduce:

1.Changes in tariffs rates at customs and the methods of collection.

2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.

3. Reduction of export fees.

4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy freedom of
worship, and operate commercial transports flying the Spanish flag.

5.Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in Madrid on

the necessary reforms to be implemented.

6. Changes in primary and secondary education.

7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines rendering unnecessary

the sending home of short térm civil officials every time there is a change of ministry.

8. Study of directtax system

9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly.

The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo... put a sudden end to all dreams of reforms the
prosecutions instituted by the new Governor General were probably expected as a result of the
bitter disputes between the Filipino clerics and the friars. Such a policy must really end in a
strong desire on the part of the other to repress cruelly.

In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should be in Manilaa Society of Arts
and Trades to be opened in March of 1871 to repress the growth of liberal teachings General
Izquierdo suspended the opening of the school... the day previous to the scheduled
inauguration.

The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public roads construction and pay taxes every year.
But those who were employed at the maestranza of the artillery, in the engineering shops and
arsenal of Cavite were exempted from this obligation from time immemorial... Without
preliminaries of any kind a decree by the Governor withdrew from such old employees their
retirement privileges and declassified them into the ranks of those who worked on public
roads.

The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement their deminance, which
had started to show cracks because of the discontent of the Filipinos. They showcased the
mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish
Government. Unintentionally, and more so, prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 : resulted in
the martyrdom of GOMBURZA and paved the way to the revolution culminating in 1898.

The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests , Mariano Gomez, Jose
Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, who were tagged as the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They
were prominent Filipino priests charged with treason and sedition. It is believed that the
Spanish clergy connected the priest to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to the movement of
secular priests who desired to have their own parishes instead of being merely assistants to the
regular friars. The GOMBURZA were executed by garrote in public, a scene purportedly
witnessed by a young Jose Rizal.

Their martyrdom is widen accepted as the dawn of Philippine nationalism in the nineteenth
century , with Rizal dedicating his second novel, El Filibusterismo to their memory:

“The Government, by enshrouding your trial in mystery and pardoning your co-accused, has
suggested that some mistake was committed when your fate was decided; and the whole of the
Philippines in paying homage to your memOry and calling you martyrs totally rejects your guilt.
The Church by refusing to degrade you has put in doubt the crime charged against you.

Case Study 3:Did Rizal Retract?

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that center on ending
colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute to creating the Filipino nation. The great
Volume of Rizals lifework was committed to this end particularly the more influential ones; Noli
Me ‘ Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays verify not the Catholic religion, but the friars, the
main agents of injustice in the Philippine society.

It is understandable therefore that, any piece of writing from Rizal that recants everything he
wrote against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines c0uld deal heavy damage to
his image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary. Such document purportedly exists, allegedly
signed by Rizal a few hours before his execution. This document, referred to as “The
Retraction ,” declares Rizal’s belief in the Catholic faith, and retracts everything he wrote
against the Church. Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction.

Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia,

C. M on 18 May 1935.

I declare myself a Catholic and in this is Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I
retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to
my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to
whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society
prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public
this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused
and so that God and people may pardon me.

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal

There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La Voz Espanola and
Diario de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896. The second text appeared in
Barcelona, Spain, in the magazine La Juventud, a few months afer the execution, 14 February 1897,
from an anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be Fr. Vicente Balaguer. However, the "original"
text was only found in the archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935, afer almost four decades of
disappearance.

The Balaguer Testimony

Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only one eyewitness account of the
writing of the document exists- that of the Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony,
Rizal woke up several times, confessed four times, attended a Mass, received communion, and prayed
the rosary, all of which seemed out of character. But since it is the only testimony of allegedly a
"primary" account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction document, it has been used to argue the
authenticity of the document.

The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016,through the research of Professor Rene R. Escalante. In his
research, documents of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia included a report on the last hours of Rizal, written by
Federico Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to Moreno.

Primary Sources: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal

Source: Michael Charleston Chua, "Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at Pananaw," GMA
News Online, published 29 December 2016.

Most Illustrious Sin, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort Santigo to report on the
events during the [illegible] day in prison of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the
following:

At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel, Senor Taviel de
Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and moments afer entering, he was
served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the Assistant of the Plaza, Senor Maure, asked Rizal if he
wanted anything. He replied that at the moment he only wanted a prayer book, which was brought to
him shortly by Father March.

Senor Andrade lef death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the Jesuit fathers March and
Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It appears that these two presented him with a prepared
retraction on his life and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter until 12:30 when
Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken. Aferwards he asked to leave to write and wrote for a
long time by himself.

At 3 in the afernoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him what he had written.
Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Senor del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Senor Maure,
were informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that the accused
had written.

At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison... dressed in mourning. Only the
former entered the chapel, followed by a military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his
formal clothes and aided by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been
his lover were performed at the point of death (in aticulo mortis). Afer embracing him she lef, flooded
with tears.

This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving it credence. However,
nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which makes the friar a mere secondary source to
the writing of the document.

The Retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many scholars, however, agree that the
document does not tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His relevance remained solidified to Filipinos and
pushed them to continue the revolution, which eventually resulted in independence in 1898.
Rizal's Connection to the Katipunan is undeniable - in fact, the precursor of the Katipunan as an
organization is the La Liga Filipina, an organization Rizal founded, with Andres Bonifacio as one of its
members. But La Liga Filipina was short-lived as the Spaniards exiled Rizal to Dapitan. Former members
decided to band together to establish the Katipunan a few days afer Rizal's excile on 7 July 1892.

Rizal may not have been officially part of the Katipunan, but the Katipuneros showed great appreciation
of his work toward the same goals. Out of the 28 members of the leadership of the Katipunan (known as
the Kataas-taasang Sanggunian ng Katipunan) from 1892 to 1896, 13 were former members of La Liga
Filipina. Katipuneros even used Rizal's name as a password.

In 1896, the Katipuneros decided to inform Rizal of their plans to launch the revolution, and sent Pio
Valenzuela to visit Rizal in Dapitan. Valenzuela's accounts of his meeting with Rizal have been greatly
doubted by many scholars, but according to him, Rizal objected to the plans, saying that doing so would
be tantamount to suicide since it would be difficult to fight the Spaniards who had the advantage of
military resources. He added that the leaders of the Katipunan must do everything they could to prevent
the spilling of Filipino blood. Valenzuela informed Rizal that the revolution could inevitably break out if
the Katipunan were to be discovered by the Spaniards. Rizal advised Valenzuela that the Katipunan
should first secure the support of wealthy Filipinos to strengthen their cause, and suggested that Antonio
Luna be recruited to direct the military movement of the revolution.

Case Study 4: Where did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?

Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late nineteenth century, including the Philippines.
Journalists of the time referred to the phrase "El Grito de Rebellion" or "Cry of Rebellion" to mark the
start of these revolutionary events, identifying the places where it happened. In the Philippines, this
happened in August 1896, northeast of Manila, wher they declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial
government. These events are important markers in the history of colonies that struggled for their
independence against their colonizers.

The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of the date and place where the Cry
happened. Prominent Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncilo emphasizes the event when Bonifacio tore the
cedula or tax receipt before the Katipuneros who also did the same. Some writers identified the first
military event with the Spaniards as the moment of the Cry, for which, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned
an "Himno de Balintawak" to inspired the renewed struggle afer the Pact of the Biak-na-Bato failed. A
monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the intersection of Epifanio de los Santos
(EDSA) Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion road, and from then on until 1962, the Cry of
Balintawak was celebrated every 26th of August. The site of the monument was chosen for an unknown
reason.

Different Dates and Places of the Cry

Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, identified
the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 25 August 1896.Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino historian, marks the
place to be in Kangkong, Balintawak, on the last week of August 1896. Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and
son of Mariano Alvarez, leader of the Magdiwang faction in Cavite, put the Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon
City on 24 August 1896. Pio Valenzuela, known Katipunero and privy to many events concerning the
Katipunan stated that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on 23 August 18. Historian Gregorio Zaide
identified the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 26 August 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo put it at
Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896,according to statements by Pio Valenzuel. Research by historians
Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas claimed that the event took place in
Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City, on 24 August 1896.

Primary Sourc: Accounts of the Cry

Guillermo Masangkay

Source: Guillermo Masangkay, "Cry of Balintawak" in Gregorio Zaide and Zonia Zaide, Documentary
Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 307-309.

On August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio Samson, then cabeza of
that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo
del Rosario, Tomas Remegio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and
Francisco Carreon. They were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the
organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite and Morong were also present.

At about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26,the meeting was opened with Andres Bonifacio
presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to
take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were al opposed to starting the revolution
too early... Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he would lose in the discussion then, lef the session hall and
talked to the people, who were waiting outside for the result of the meeting of the leaders. He told the
people that the leaders were arguing against starting the revolution early, and appealed to them in a
fiery speech in which he said: "You remember the fate of our countrymen who were shot in
Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us. Our organization has
been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don't start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us
anyway. What then, do you say?"

"Revolt" the people shouted as one.

Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told them that the sign of
slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax charged each citizen. "If it is true that you are ready to
revolt... I want to see you destroy your cedulas. It will be a sign that all of us have declared our severance
from the Spaniards."

Pio Valenzuela

Source: Pio Valenzuela, "Cry of Pugad Lawin", in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources
of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: Natinal Book Store, 1990), 301-302.
The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo
del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the first five arriving there on August 19, and I, on August 20,
1896. The first place where some 500 members of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was the house
and yard of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who
were there was Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others.
Here, views were only exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It was at Pugad Lawin, the
house, store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the
Katipunan met and carried out considerable debate and discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion
was on whether or not the revolution against the Spanish government should be started on August 29,
1896... Afer the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted "
Long live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!.

From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed marked disagreement among historical
witnesses as to the place and time of the occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources,
four places have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and Bahay Toro, while the dates
vary: 23,24,25, or 26 August 1896.

Valenzuela's account should be read with caution: He once told a Spanish investigator that the "Cry"
happened in Balintawak on Wednesday, 26 August 1896. Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the
Revolution that it happened at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Such inconsistencies in accounts should
always be seen as a red flag when dealing with primary sources.

According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are in Balintawak, then part of
Caloocan, now in Quezon City. As for the dates, Bonifacio and his troops may have been moving from
one place to another to avoid being located by the Spanish government, which could explain why there
are several accounts of the Cry.

I. Identify the following:

A. 1. He considered as the first Filipino lawgiver and 3rd chief of Panay.

2. And mythical legal code in the epic history Maragtas.

3. Obtained as the original manuscript from an old chief of Panay.

4. Poem written by Jose Rizal and most prominent works.

5. A way of looking historical event, personalities, culture and societies.

B. Write ✅ if it is correct, and ✖ if it is wrong.

1. Historians may omit significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation balanced.

2. Historians may provide a multiple causes for an event considering other possible causal explanations
of said event.

3. Historians may impose a certain ideology to the subject.

4. Historians may interpret evidence, attending to those that suggest for a certain event.

5. Historians decide on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more apparent.

Answers:

A. 1. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw

2. Code of Kalantiaw

3. Don Marcelino Orilla

4. Sa aking Mga Kabata

5. Multiperspectivity

B. 1. ✖

2. ✖

3. ✅

4. ✖

5. ✅

II. Choose the letter of the best answer.

1. He is one of the pilot of Magellans ship, Trinidad and one of the 18 survivors.

A. Pigafetta B. Magellan C. Albo

2. One of the member of Magellans expedition and an eyewitness of the events of First Mass.

A. Pigafetta B. Magellan C. Albo

3. According to Albos account, their are 3 islands of Camoted group at Gatighan, EXCEPT

A. Pono B. Ponson C. Bohol

4. In the island of Homonhon, they saw some indications of gold in that island, what are the other name
of that island according to Magellan?

A. Watering Place of Bad Omen B. Watering Place of Good Omen C. Ladrones Island

5. Afer leaving in Homonhon they go toward west southwest between 4 islands, EXCEPT

A. Cenalo B. Baibai C. Albarien

6. The goal is to find alternative routes by sea to get to Asian we're mainly by land.

A. Age of exploration B. Age of exploitation C. Age of experimentation

Answers:

1. C 4. B

2. A 5. B

3. C 6. A

III. Identify the following

1. The opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a way to address other
issues by blowing out proportion the isulated mutiny attempt.

2. The collective name of the three martyred priests.

3. The feast of the Virgin of Loreto celebrated.

4. Date issued that the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipino never to attempt to
fight the Spaniards again.

5. And Filipino scholar and researcher who wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite.

6. The Central Spanish Government introduced an educational decree fusing secretarian schools run by
the friars into a school.

7. The in identified as a hero of the revolution for his writing that center on ending colonialism and
liberating Filipino minds to contribute to creating the Filipino nation.

8. The Rizals belief in Catholic faith and everything he wrote against the church.

Answers:

1. Tavera 5. Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera

2. Gomburza 6. Philippine Institute

3. January 20, 1872 7. Jose Rizal

4. February 17, 1872 8. Retraction

IV. Identify the following questions.

1. Rebellion against the Spanish Colonial Government.

2. The cry of Balintawak was celebrated.

3. And Filipino historian, marks the place to be in Kangkong, Balintawak.

4. And Katipunero, leader of the Magdiwang faction in Cavite.

5. Known Katipunero and privy to many events concerning the Katipunan stated that the cry happened in
Pugad Lawin.

6. The sign of slavery of the Filipino citizen.

Answers:

1. Cry of Rebellion 4. Santiago Alvarez

2. August 26 5. Pio Valenzuela

3. Teodoro Kalaw 6. Cedula Tax