Malek [1

PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Intramuros: The Philippine Story

Introduction
“Intramuros, the story of the Philippines.” Thus a friend of mine made through the
research of this project described Intramuros, the walled Spanish settlement that once was
Manila. The story of Intramuros is an incredible one as it has been witness to many key events
that comprise the history of the Philippines. It has been the scene of multi-cultural contact among
the Chinese, Spanish and American nations; it has seen the repression and oppression of the
Filipino people; it has been the symbol of foreign occupation by the Spanish, Japanese and, to
certain extent, the United States. It is also a story of colonialism, decolonialism and the
development of national identity, for instead of hiding these relics of a past that brings up mixed
images in the Filipino heart, the people of the Philippines have embraced this site full heartedly
and made it their own. It is today a proud Philippine attraction, as well as a fully functioning part
of Metro Manila.

Pre-Hispanic Settlement & Initial Contact

The current city of Manila is built upon the foundations of the original native settlement
of Raja Sulayman, which sat on the small jut of land where the Pasig River flowed into Manila
Bay. This pre-Hispanic settlement was fortified by a palm log palisade with spaces for Filipino
cannons. Thus, led by Filipino chieftains, Manila was already a vibrant community that traded
with Islamic, Japanese and Chinese traders.1
Fortifications in the Philippines were prevalent by the time the Spanish arrived.2 The
local Filipinos had been in contact with Chinese, Japanese and Muslim traders and pirates for a
while already, and so there was an existing need for fortified spaces.
The major Spanish figure involved in the initial contact with the local Tagalog tribe, and
the settlement of European Manila, is Miguel Lopez de Legazpi. Originally, Legazpi had settled
south of Manila on the site of modern day Cebu City in Cebu province. Due to hostility from
local natives and a need for a better source of provisions, Legazpi moved his settlement to the

1
Aseya M Santiago, The Restoration of Historic Intramuros: A Case Study in Plan Implementation, (Quezon City:
University of Philippines Diliman, 2003), 48
2
Rene B. Javellana, Fortress of Empire: Spanish Colonial Fortifications of the Philippines, 1565-1898. (Makati
City, Philippines: Bookmark, Inc., 1997), 13

1
Malek [2
PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE WITHOUT PERMISSION
modern day site of Manila, where he encountered Raja Sulayman.3 Legazpi sent an exploratory
mission to Manila on 8 May 1570, led by Martin de Goiti. Sulayman met Goiti on the shore
under the watchful eye of the lantaka, the cannon of the Filipinos, which were mounted on a
surprisingly strong palisade. Although initial contact went smooth enough, there was a noticeable
tension in the air. Hostilities broke out when the Spanish discharged a cannon shot seaward in an
attempt to send a message to one of the ships. Thinking that their settlement was under attack,
the lantaka of Manila opened fire, but did not cause damage to the ships. Immediately, the
Spanish ships opened fire and the city was stormed. After the battle, Goiti retreated to Panay,
south of Luzon province where Manila was situated.
The next year, 1571, Legazpi set out to formally occupy Manila. When his fleet and
contingent of 230 soldiers arrived, the locals set fire to Manila and fled. Not wanting to fight the
Spanish, Lakan Dula, who had taken over from Rajah Sulayman, sued for peace. It was agreed
that the Spanish would occupy the south bank of the Pasig River, over the remains of Sulayman's
village, and that the Tagalogs would pay a tribute. Thus, on 16 May 1571 the Spanish began their
occupation of Manila. Legazpi ordered that a fort be built on a strategic tongue of land where the
Pasig ran into Manila Bay. The fort was protected on the north and west by water, but, because
of a lack of stone masons, was made out of coconut trunks with earthen embankments, mounted
with artillery. This rudimentary fort was the first incarnation of what would be Fort Santiago and
would form the heart of Intramuros.

Permanent Spanish Settlement

Four years following the permanent Spanish occupation of Manila, King Philip II, after
whom the Philippines was named in honour of, conferred on Manila the title “the noble and ever
loyal city,” and gave to it the coat of arms that still adorns its walls today.4 Despite the strategic
location of Manila's fortress, the defence of the site was poor. The fortification was not strong,
and its garrison was insufficient as a sizable portion of its troops were often out subjugating the
area and foraging for gold and other loot. In late 1574 – two years after Legazpi died – the pirate
Limahong descended upon Manila with a fleet of 70 Chinese ships. Limahong was likely seeking
to settle on the site of Manila, for he had brought 4 000 men and 1 500 women. The Spanish

33
Javellana, 25
4
Ibid., 34

2
Malek [3
PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE WITHOUT PERMISSION
never had a chance – many died in the battle, including Goiti, and it was only the timely return of
another Spanish commander, Juan de Salcedo, that saved Spanish Manila from total annihilation.
Under the leadership of Guido de Lavezares, successor of Legazpi, a wooden palisade
was built around the city, joining with the walls of Fort Santiago, in only two months. To do this,
wood was cut from Pampanga, a region south of Manila, and floated down the Rio Grande to
Manila Bay, then finally up the Pasig River to the city. After an accidental fire consumed much
of the city, the Spaniards ordered that all structures be built in stone. Around the time that
Spanish Manila burned, the Jesuit Antoñio Sedeño arrived in the Philippines. He was to serve as
the architect that would begin the rebuilding of Manila in stone, having acquired a rudimentary
understanding of architecture while he had served under the Duke of Feria as a youth. He taught
a workforce of Chinese and Tagalogs how to hew rock and slake limes in the kiln.
The governor of Manila, Santiago de Vera, in 1583 requested that Sedeño begin
fortifying the southern flank of Manila that faced the plain known as Bagumbayan, which meant
‘new town’ and referred to the new settlement of Tagalogs who had been displaced from Manila.
Unprotected by the bay or the river, this was the vulnerable front of Manila. The first task
performed by Sedeño in fortifying the city was to build a round, medieval-like tower. The use of
this tower was questioned by some of Sedeño’s contemporaries, and by author René Javellana as
well in his extensive book on Spanish fortifications in the Philippines: “Why Sedaño chose a
backward looking design which had been rendered obsolete by the year 1500 seems strange.”5
However, it need not seem strange. For a free standing tower, a round medieval design would
have worked best. Moreover, such a tower would only have been obsolete in a European context.
While some of the Spaniard’s more threatening enemies would have had cannon, their war styles
were not European, for which the trace italienne design had been created for. The immediate
concern of de Vera and Sedeño was to erect a sturdy fortified tower that could provide defense
against the Tagalogs and raiders like Limahong. In a colonial setting, a fortification was often
constructed to defend against expected enemies. The fortifications discussed in my other paper
within the present volume were similarly medieval. Fort Chambly, although with bastioned
towers, has tall, thin walls that would not have withstood a strong European battery. But, like
Sedeño’s tower, it was not built to withstand such attacks, but rather to counter smaller cannon
fire and native resistance, a job Sedeño’s tower would be fully capable of fulfilling. As the wall

5
Javellana, 42

3
Malek [4
PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE WITHOUT PERMISSION
around Manila grew, the tower’s top courses of stone work were removed and the remnants
integrated into the wall, most likely where the Bastion de San Diego now stands.
It was Governor Gomez Perez de Dasmariñas who was largely responsible for the walls
of Manila. Beginning in 1590, he extended the south wall to join with Fort Santiago, along the
north side which faced the Pasig River. Following a rebellion of local Chinese labourers in 1639-
1640, general improvements were made to the walls, including covered walkways and
strengthening of the walls. In 1645 a severe earthquake damaged much of Manila and its
defences, which took ten years to repair. The governor at the time took the opportunity to make
further improvements to the walls and bastions, but no major work was done. In 1663, work on
the wall began again and continued until the end of the century. Other than renovations made to
the ravelin protecting the Puerta Real, which faced the south, no major work was carried out in
the first half of the 17th century until the British occupation of Manila.
Manila & the Seven Years’ War6
British interest in obtaining territories in the Pacific began with Francis Drake’s
circumnavigation of the globe in 1577-80. An attempt to gain a trading foothold in this area was
made by the establishment in 1600 of the English East India Trade Company. The lucrative trade
with China was frustrated by the restriction that Cantonese merchants could only accept silver
for their silks, spices, and chinaware as the major source of silver in this region was New Spain.
However, Spanish mercantilism prevented non-Spanish merchants from working out of Manila,
which lead to an inefficient and indirect trade system, utilizing Asian middlemen, which the
Spaniards were able to exploit for profit. In an attempt to side-step this, Alexander Dalrymple in
1759 sought to establish a trade base at Sulu in the southern Philippines where Chinese
merchants could trade restriction-free with the British. This idea of securing a foothold in the
Philippines, free of Spanish restrictions, acted in large part as an inspiration for the 1762 assault
although Dalrymple had nothing to do with the planning or actual assault.
At the beginning of the siege, Brigadier General William Draper, commander of the
ground forces, despaired at the poor quality of his troops and ships, although after the campaign
he sang praises of his men and soldiers. He was also distressed by the limited availability of

6
The following section is based upon Nicolas Tracy, Manila Ransomed: The British Assault on Manila in the Seven
Years War. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1995. This is a little known episode in the history of Manila, and one
that has not merited much scholarship in the West. Indeed, Tracy’s text, while still highly useful and informative, is
written in the context of Britain the Seven Years’ War.

4
Malek [5
PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE WITHOUT PERMISSION
ships to transport his troops in. Because of the small size of the expedition force, as well as the
limited supplies and skills of the soldiers, Draper felt that if the assault was to be successful it
would have to be furious and fast, because a formal, long drawn siege was impossible. As
Nicholas Tracy described it, “The plan was very bold and not a little foolhardy. The success of it
would depend almost entirely on the surprise gained and the quick exploitation of advantage.”7
The trip to Manila from Madras was confounded by poor maps of the area and difficult
sailing conditions. They sailed late August, which was late in the monsoon season and was thus
accompanied by unpredictable winds. Despite these risks and a few minor delays along the way,
most of the fleet met at Manila Bay on 24 September 1762. The British began the siege
immediately upon arrival. That night, boats were sent to sound out the approach to their landing
spot, looking for an area clear of rocks and where the surf would not be too strong.
The next morning the Spanish woke to the British presence in Manila Bay. However, the
Spanish believed that they were safe in their walls and so refused to capitulate to the British. The
fortifications of Manila were indeed well constructed, however, the city lacked an appropriately
prepared garrison, as well as poor and divided leadership. The British attack was based in an
outlying settlement the fortified Church of San Diege, which was within 300 yards of the city
walls, and used its bell tower as a sniper position. The buildings in the settlement were all built
with earthquake proof walls, as defence against a constant cause of destruction of the settlement.
This gave cover to the British from Spanish cannon and musket fire, and saved the army precious
time and casualties that would have been wasted had they needed to construct their own
defensive position. As Tracy stated, “the small army probably would have been defeated by
exhaustion” working under the near point-blank range of the Spanish guns and amid torrential
rain fall.
After an intense attack focused on the bastion San Antonio, which faced the
Bagumbayan, a breach was soon made. However, the Spanish commander acted too slowly and
the demoralized Spanish troops – those that remained from the intense mortar and sniper fire –
fell back, as if materializing into nothingness, thus allowing the British to storm into the city.
The British loses were slight for a siege, while Spanish reports indicated that around
three hundred Spaniards died while attempting to flee across the Pasig River in a panic. This
does not include losses during actual fighting which, due to intense British concentration of fire

7
Tracy, 24

5
Malek [6
PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE WITHOUT PERMISSION
power, was relatively high. Spanish commentators and critics of the Manila government felt that
they lacked the resolution to mount a decent defence or the wisdom even to surrender. The
governor of the place Archbishop Rojo compounded the problem for the Spanish with a lack of
military knowledge and a stubborn refusal to let those capable to run the defence. In Tracy’s
opinion, such “intriguing within the Spanish camp preclude an effective defence.”8 The most
resistance experienced by the British did not come from the Spanish, but instead from a frenzied
attack of the native Filipinos who attacked with bows and arrows. According to Cornish, one of
the main leaders of the British attack: “…our little Army were surrounded and harass’d by
numersou Bodys of Indians, who tho’ undisciplin’d, and armed only with Lances Bows and
Arrows, yet by a daring resolut[ion] and Contempt of Death they became not only troublesome
but formidable.”9
British occupation of Manila lasted from October 1762 until April 1764, and the entire
time they were dogged by native and Spanish resistance from among the Philippine Islands. In
the end, the entire expedition was for nothing. The settlement of the Seven Years War with the
Peace of Paris was performed without knowledge of the city's capture by the British. As such, all
territory gained in the Philippines had to be returned to the Spanish.

War of Independence (1898) & World War II

The essay will now briefly jump ahead to cover the last two hundred years of Intramuros.
After Manila was returned to the Spanish, repairs were made to the city walls but little else was
done to improve the city’s fortifications. Indeed, there was little need to as the city saw no major
military action, although it remained an active trade city in the region. The last Spanish
modification to the fort was in 1872 with the construction of Puerta Isabel II. Construction ended
as the Spanish realized that the style of defense represented by Intramuros was giving way to
heavy artillery, which its walls could not stand up to: “By the latter part of the nineteenth
century, however, it was clear that modernity had breached the Walls, and made them
obsolete.”10
The first revolution against Spanish occupation occurred in 1897, although was soon
ended with the Truce of Biyaknabato in December, 1897. The news of this was greeted with

8
Tracy, 32
9
Cited in Tracy, 3
10
Esperanza Bunag Gatbonton, Intramuros: A Historical Guide, (Manila: Intramuros Administration, 1980), 14

6
Malek [7
PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE WITHOUT PERMISSION
celebration both by the Spanish population in Manila and in Spain, but these festivities were in
haste; a few months into 1898, armed confrontations erupted between the Filipino population and
Spanish forces once more, and an air of doom fell across the city when the United States
declared war on Spain. This war demonstrated to the world the new power of the American navy,
which quickly sank the entire Spanish fleet in Manila Bay. While many in the Spanish camp
wanted to capitulate, especially after the show of Americans force, Spanish pride forbade such an
easy victory. A secret deal was agreed upon where the Spanish and Americans would have a
mock gunfight using live ammunition, after which the city would surrender with its honour
intact.11 In the afternoon of August 13, 1898, the temporary terms of capitulation had been
signed and Manila passed to American control.
In stark contrast to the relatively bloodless conquest of Manila by American forces in
1898, the coming of World War II to the Philippines ushered in an era of darkness for the
Filipino psyche. The Japanese began bombing of the Philippines in December 1941, on the Feast
of the Immaculate Conception. Japanese bombs dropped day and night, destroying much of the
historic city’s architectural heritage. But the real pains for the city and its inhabitants did not
begin until 2 January 1942 when Japanese forces entered and occupied Manila. Heavily armed
sentries were posted on every street corner. During Japanese occupation, Manila, and in
particular Fort Santiago, turned into a place of torture and death for countless Filipino resistance
fighters. Today, the tower of Fort Santiago that served as the Japanese dungeon is treated with a
sort of repressed horror by local residents.12
What Teodoro Agoncillo called the “death blow”13 came in September 1944 when the
Americans began aerial bombing of the city, including Intramuros. Although these attacks
brought a certain sense of excited anticipation from the Filipinos, the light at the end of the
tunnel would not be reached until much more death and destruction struck Intramuros. American
bombing and heavy artillery fire destroyed nearly all the standing structures of the city and
damaged sections of the walls. In January 1945 American forces landed near Manila and began a
final assault. Because they attacked by surprise in North Manila, the Japanese retreat was hasty
and damage done to the area minimal. However, the Japanese holed themselves within
Intramuros and made it clear that they were not going to surrender to American forces and would

11
Agoncillo, Teodoro A. “The Last Years of Intramuros.” Archipelago. Vol. 2, No. A-23, 1975. 18
12
This statement comes from discussion by the author with a resident of Manila.
13
Agoncillo, 21

7
Malek [8
PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE WITHOUT PERMISSION
fight to the last man. Thus, American bombing intensified and artillery fire continued mercilessly
until the Japanese soldiers occupying the city were dead.
This assault indeed seemed to sound the final ring of the death knell of the city. Nearly
every building was destroyed or heavily damaged. The only church – of the seven of which were
the pride of Intramuros – to survive was San Agustin, although it was damaged. The true tragedy
of the assault was the human cost. The number of the Japanese dead itself is a tragedy, but
thousands of innocent Filipino citizens, who had been kept in buildings as hostages by the
Japanese and denied the chance to flee, had died in the American bombing or were killed by the
Japanese during the final assault. As always is the case, the toll of liberating Manila was costly,
and the lives of the innocents paid much of the blood price expected by such a battle.
The rebuilding of Intramuros was slow in happening, even though Manila was handed
back to the Philippines in 1946. Writing in 1975, author Teodoro Agoncillo, who was present
during the liberation of Manila, described Manila after the war: “The Walled City did not die a
natural death, but a death so brutal and so swift it could hardly be borne by any tender heart.
Intramuros began and ended its life in tragedy: it sprang from the ruins of Sulayman’s kingdom
and was laid to rest amidst its own ruins.”14 Surely, his view that Intramuors then lay in its ruins
was shared by others. At the time that he was writing, much of Intramuros was still in ruins, and
buildings that betrayed its Spanish heritage had risen, breaking the zoning laws set for
Intramuros that no one seemed willing to enforce. Squatters had taken over much of the walled
city and transport containers were stored in empty, rubble filled lots. Intramuros was not a source
of Filipino pride, but rather a pressure point of social distress. However, within a few years of
Agoncillo’s statements (“The Walled City is dead. Long live the Walled City!”), more and more
attention was given to Intramuros, finally breathing into it a new vigour that has propelled it to
the prestige and prominence in the Filipino psyche that it has today.
The main figure behind this was President Ferdinand Emmanuel Edralín Marcos, who
served as president from 1965-1986.15 His Presidential Decree 1616 stated “for four hundred
years, Intramuros has been a priceless heritage of the past for the City of Manila and a major
historical landmark of the Philippines” and declared that the site should be “developed and

14
Agonicllo, 22
15
Actually, the process behind the restoration reaches farther than President Marcos to when Manila was restored to
the Philippines in 1965. However, this process is too long to recount here; because it was realized through President
Marcos, he shall be focused upon. For a more detailed study, see Aseya M. Santiago, The Restoration of Historic
Intramuros: A Case Study in Plan Implementation, (Quezon City: University of Philippines Diliman, 2003)

8
Malek [9
PLEASE DO NOT CIRCULATE WITHOUT PERMISSION
administered for the perpetuation of Filipino heritage and the enhancement of our national
identity”.16 This presidential decree saw the founding of the Intramuros Administration, which
to this day administers and maintains the site, ensuring that all building codes, designed to
protect and encourage the site’s architectural and cultural history, is maintained.
In the decades following P.D. 1616, Intramuros has been transformed. The scars of war
have been repaired and the site restored to an active part of Metro Manila. Today, universities
and businesses thrive alongside magnificent cathedrals and the formidable Fort Santiago. Jaime
C. Laya, the first president of the Intramuros Administration, called Intramuros “among the few
jewels of Manila’s heritage.”17 For centuries the Filipino people had been kept away from what
Esperanza Gatbonton called the “forbidden territory of the walled city.”18 But, to cite Laya, “it
was the modern Filipino’s ancestors who build Intramuros, learned the skills of masonry and of
military design and construction. Their industry built the walls. Their art and craft adorned the
city. Their heroes walked its streets, suffered and were tortured and executed in its
prisons….Intramuros is in many ways a shrine and a monument.”19 Even when barred from the
land that held the original settlement of Raja Sulayman, the site was always Filipino. Today,
amid its history of exclusion and repression, the site of historic Intramuros is a testament to the
Filipino people, standing as a proud source of and monument to Pinoy Pride.

16
Presidential Decree 1616 (1979), http://www.asianlii.org//cgi-
bin/disp.pl/ph/legis/pres_decree/pdn1616181/pdn1616181.html?query=presidential%20decree%201616. Accessed
15 November 2008.
17
Gatbonton, 9
18
Gatbonton, 18.
19
Jaime C. Laya in Gatbonton, 8.