Synthesis

The first Cry that spurred the Philippine revolution against the Spanish occupation,
spearheaded by Andres Bonifacio and the Katipuneros, is deemed as significant as it is
controversial. The exact place and date of the Cry is said to be in contention due to a wide array
of competing accounts and ambiguity of multiple sources regarding this event. There have been
many claims, backed up by complimentary and contradictory sources that intensified this
controversy. The event was claimed to have occurred in many different places, however only two
have been subjected to an intense debate by historians: Balintawak or Pugad Lawin. This two
claims have been specifically the subject of this analysis.
The aforementioned controversy has personally baffled us tremendously. We realize as we
scour for sources that there were torrents of contradictory and complimentary sources that only
made this controversy even more problematic. Although the National Historical Commission
already took their stance that it happened in Pugad Lawin on August 26 and hence we celebrate it
nationally on the said date and place, it couldn’t be shunned that the other claims have many
convincing merits.
As a product of our analysis, we were able to muster our own interpretation of the causes
and consequences of the said controversy. We realize three main roots as why the venue and date
of the said event is held in contention: the conflicting accounts of eyewitnesses, lack of consensus
of the real definition of the term cry, and lastly the differently defined geographical jurisdictions
at the turn of the century. These main reasons led to the conflicting accounts and ambiguity of the
sources. First, accounts from eyewitnesses gives conflicting information such as Dr. Pio
Valenzuela in his initial testimony, Julio Nakpil, and Spanish Lt. Olegario Diaz who contended
that it happened in Balintawak, contradicting now the accounts of Teodore Agoncillo and even Dr.
Pio Valenzuela himself in his joint statement with other two KKK members, attesting that it
happened in Pugad Lawin. Second, there is no agreement as to what the real definition of the cry
is. Defining the cry would resolve the major portion of this controversy. For example, if the cry is
defined as the first encounter of the Katipuneros and Civil guard, then affirming that the cry
happened in Balintawak would be favored, however if the cry is defined as the tearing of cedula,
then the claim that it happened in Pugad Lawin would be rather nodded. Third, the differently
defined geographical areas before against now has also been a factor to the ambiguity of several
primary sources. We noticed that the term Balintawak and Caloocan has double meaning now in
the contemporary time, hence the debate regarding the place would be too problematic.
We realize many things from this analysis. Initially, this issue did not transpire to us at any
point in our educational background. This issue was non-existent to us until our analysis. Hence,
dealing with this topic was both challenging and refreshing. Mostly, the learnings we acquired in
the analysis were new, thus only miniscule reinterpretation took place. Furthermore, we realize
that in school, we were only immersed to the event dubbed as only “Cry of Pugad Lawin.” We
thought that the curriculum only presented the event as if it absolutely happened in Pugad Lawin,
which compliments the stance of the National Historical Commission. The same is true for the
popular media. Based on the shows we have watched, the event is usually shown as the tearing of
cedula which clearly happened in the Pugad Lawin. Now, we realize that there is more to what we
see in the movies or what we read from our textbook. There is clearly a complimentary-
contradictory equilibrium occurring in our current understanding of the issue. Until more accounts
will come to light, that equilibrium will stay constant.