MODULE 1 MEANING AND RELEVANCE OF HISTORY

Overview
This module will prepare students to the topics in history of the Philippines from pre-colonial period to the
discovery of Magellan to the Philippine Revolution outbreak. Important events are selected facts incidents,
and episodes of this period, which are based on materials collected from primary and secondary sources.
The student not only will acquire a fuller knowledge of, may gain familiarity with the topics studied but also
appreciation of the vast storehouse of materials on History of the Philippines. The end goal is to enable the
students to understand and give critical observation of the events and appreciate our rich past by deriving
insights from those who were actually present at the time of the event. A glimpse of History is discussed for
better understanding of the topics.
Some activities and assessment to determine if the student understand the lessons will be given. There will
be quizzes given after each module. There will be assigned groupings of students in order to develop self-
confidence, cooperation and collaboration with other groups. To facilitate checking of students’ activities,
this will be based on rubrics of presentation of group assignment.
Learning Outcomes
At the end of the course the students should be able to
1. Describe, analyze and appreciate history and its relevance
2. Distinguish primary sources to secondary sources of information
3. Learn how to draw the Philippine map and vital locations and regions
4. Develop critical thinking of the content of the information.
Course Content:
What is history?
History is the study of some subject in chronological order: tracing ideas back to their origin and studying
the evolution of ideas or events. History is most commonly used to study government and politics, but
history can also be used to illuminate other topics, such as science, technology, or law. Feb 18, 2013. By
studying history in the past, we could know how people cope or solve their problems, hence this will enable
us to response to present problem we shall be encountering by looking in the past history of the people.
Science and technology develop ways to improve life of the present generation owing it to past history.
Importance of History
1. History helps us develop a better understanding of the world.
History draws us a detailed picture of how society, technology, and government worked way back
when so that we can better understand how it works now.
2. History helps us understand ourselves.
History tells you the story of how the nation, city, or community came to be everything that it is. It
tells you where your ancestors came from and tells you who they were. Most importantly of all, it
gives you the ability to spot (and appreciate) the legacies you may have inherited from them.
3. History helps us learn to understand other people.
History Is not just an essential introduction to your own country, ethnic heritage, and ancestry. It’s
also a valuable tool when it comes to understanding those who are different from us. Global,
national, and regional history books help us understand how other cultures affect our own.
 They encourage us to develop a greater appreciation for multicultural influences within our own
communities as well – exactly why everyone should study Philippine history, and other nations
immigrant history, and so forth, regardless of their own cultural background.
4. History teaches a working understanding of change.
Change can be a difficult concept to understand because we have different experiences with the
rest of the world – an experience shaped by societal norms, cultural differences, personal
experiences, and more. We know when we as individuals crave change and why. History helps us
better understand how, when, and why change occurs on a larger scale.
5. History gives us the tools we need to be decent citizens.
Good citizens are always informed citizens, and no one can consider himself to be an informed
citizen without a working knowledge of history. This is the case whether we’re talking about our role
in our community or in regards to our nation on the whole. History helps us become better voters
and more effective members of any type of society. It helps put us in a position to better inform
others as well.
6. History makes us better decision makers.
“People who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.” Those words were first spoken by
George Santayana, and they are still very relevant today because of how true they are. History
gives us the opportunity to learn from past mistakes. It helps us understand the many reasons why
people may behave the way they do. As a result, it helps us become more compassionate as
people and more impartial as decision makers. Our judicial system is a perfect example of this
concept at work.
7. History helps us develop a new level of appreciation for just about everything.
History is more than just the living record of nations, leaders, and wars. It’s also the story of us. It is
packed with tales of how someone stood up for what they believed in, or died for love, or worked
hard to make their dreams come true. All of those things are concepts we can relate to; it is
enriching to know that Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, or Martin Luther King gives us the
inspiration of appreciation for anything for love of people.

Further, history is interesting. Everything you like about your favorite movies, television shows, and
fiction novels is yours to experience right here in reality when you study history. Explore the
possibilities today and step into a whole new world that will change who you are forever. What Is
History and Why Is History Important?
https://www.google.com.ph/?gfe_rd=ctrl&ei=1IgdU56PBYW6iAfax4HACQ&gws_rd=cr

Another compelling reason for studying history is that a society's identity is the product of the many
individuals, forces, and events that constitute that society's past. History is society's collective
memory. Our sense of personal and social identity is a direct outgrowth of our history, and to study
that history is to discover a "means of access to ourselves achievements. Closely related to the
notion that history is a road to self-knowledge is the belief that to comprehend the present, one
must study the past. History is vital for understanding the issues and problems that presently
confront the world. However, this is not to say that history can have the answer or solution to
present day problems. To some extent, all historical events are unique because history never
exactly "repeats itself". As a matter of fact, we are fully aware that the burdens and legacies of the
past and the long-term continuities are still with us. But we cannot live without history because
without historical perspective we are in danger of falling into the prideful, naive notion that the
problems we face and the solutions we propose are unprecedented and bear no relationship to
human problems of the past. (Goh Chor Boon) https://www.amazon.com/History-Goh-Chor-Boon-
Books/s?rh=n%3A9%2Cp_27%3AGoh+Chor+Boon

In relation to this, Philippines' history is as important as other nation's history. Knowing the history
gives us a sense of identity and helps us understand how our nation came to be. The significance
of Philippine History is that it teaches lessons particularly in politics, that should not be repeated, if
we want to move forward. Agoncillo said: “History deals with the past, not with the future. We use
history to avoid the mistakes of the past, not to recreate the very same events “.(Teodoro A.
Agoncillo@100 | Inquirer Opinionopinion.inquirer.net Nov 8, 2012)

Brief Glimpse of Philippine History

In the past, human beings have different actions and interactions to satisfy its physiological needs
and environmental change. with and environmental change. An example of this the development
are spears, bow and arrow to kill animal for food to ease their hunger and developed a cup from a
mud when they fetch water from the river.

The people in the past also responded to the uncontrollable environmental phenomena like volcanic
eruptions, storms, tidal waves, rains and thunders which gave them the feeling of fears 4 and
danger in which they decided to seek refuge in caves that gives them feeling of security. Thus, they
decided to build houses which is the shape mostly like cave.

Some of the past are written in papyrus, walls, temples, coliseums, sphinx, obelisks and other
monumental relics of the past. The present civilization has the glimpse of the past ad in so many as
referential books for them to decipher the exciting events that happened in the past that shaped the
present and affect the future. History lets you travel through a world of books, documents, artifacts,
digital media, and images to places (Delos Santos, R. et.al 2019).

The history of the Philippines -its cultures, traditions, form of government and way of living are
written both in primary and secondary sources.

What are primary sources?

Primary sources provide a first-hand account of an event or time period and are considered to be
authoritative. ... Often these sources are created at the time the events occurred but they can also
include sources that are created later. They are usually the first formal appearance of original
research.

Some examples of primary source formats include:

archives and manuscript material
photographs, audio recordings, video recordings, films
journals, letters and diaries
speeches
scrapbooks
published books, newspapers and magazine clippings published at the time
government publications
oral histories
records of organizations
autobiographies and memoirs
printed ephemera
artifacts, e.g. clothing, costumes, furniture research data, e.g. public opinion polls

What are secondary sources?

Secondary sources were created by someone who did not experience first-hand or participate in the
events or conditions you're researching. For a historical research project, secondary sources are
generally scholarly books and articles.

Secondary sources offer an analysis, interpretation or a restatement of primary sources and are
considered to be persuasive. They often involve generalization, synthesis, interpretation,
commentary or evaluation in an attempt to convince the reader of the creator's argument. They
often attempt to describe or explain primary sources.

Some Examples of Secondary Sources

journal articles that comment on or analyze research
textbooks
dictionaries and encyclopedias
books that interpret, analyze
political commentary
biographies
dissertations
newspaper editorial/opinion pieces
criticism of literature, art works or music

Primary sources and secondary sources https://www.library.unsw.edu.au/study/information-

resources/primary-and-secondarysources

How to Evaluate Historical Data

We need to be critical in taking information about history of the Philippines because it is vital that
the reader or researchers are well informed accurately as this will reflect the history of a particular
nation. There are two ways of evaluating the primary and secondary sources: Internal criticism and
External criticism. Delos Santos and others (2019) explained the internal and external criticism of
primary and secondary resources.

Internal criticism
The following guide could help: Verify the data to determine the truth-facts and the reasonable
interpretation. It includes looking at the personal data provider’s apparent or possible motives
apparent or pose motives and it indicates the accuracy, trustworthiness and integrity of the
materials to which historical data will be based.

External criticism
Some researchers use experimental science to certify the authenticity of the material that holds the
data in which historical information will be based. It entails such physical and technical tests as the
dating of paper when was document is written. It involves knowledge of when certain things existed,
or it supports the claim whether it is possible or impossible to exist and it evaluates the authenticity
and genuineness of data.

Any historian usually gives critical evaluation and analysis of the information he is working on
gathering facts about the history of the Philippines or any nation. Because by doing so, they are
confident they are giving facts not opinion.
MODULE 2: CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PRIMARY
SOURCES
Philippines has a rich history and heritage of its own. Today, we acknowledge ourselves as
a product of racial intermarriages. As a functional member of society, we understand that we have
a social origin that helps explain our roles. The 6 C’s of analyzing primary sources as discussed
previously will strengthen your understanding of the formation of early Philippine society.
Before the arrival of the Spanish invaders, natives of the Philippine islands already had
heritage of their own – vastly affluent and colorful. The vastness of our pre-colonial culture was
described in some documents written by Spanish government officials and priests who traveled
across the archipelago.
Through these sources, they described what they saw and experienced within the context
of their own time. Remember that the context is an important factor in order to determine the
historical importance of the text. In understanding a document, you must consider what is
happening in and around the time period of the historical data or event at hand to create a full
picture.
Read the exerpt below from the “Customs of the Tagalogs” written by Fr. Juan de
Plasencia as he described the people and their social statuses in a time when Spaniards were
completely unaware of our pre-colonial background.
“This people always had chiefs, called by them datos, who governed them and were captains in
their wars, and whom they obeyed and reverenced….
These chiefs ruled over but few people; sometimes as many as a hundred houses, sometimes
even less than thirty. This tribal gathering is called in Tagalog a barangay. It was inferred that the
reason for giving themselves this name arose from the fact … that when they came to this land,
the head of the barangay, which is a boat, thus called … became a dato. And so, even at the
present day, it is ascertained that this barangay in its origin was a family of parents and children,
relations and slaves.
In addition to the chiefs… there were three castes: nobles, commoners, and slaves. The
nobles were the free-born whom they call maharlica. They did not pay tax or tribute to the dato,
but must accompany him in war, at their own expense… Moreover, when the dato went upon the
water those whom he summoned rowed for him.
If he built house, they helped him, and had to be fed for it. The same was true when the whole
barangay went to clear up his lands for tillage. The lands which they inhabited were divided
among the whole barangay, especially the irrigated portion, and thus each one knew his own…
The chiefs in some villages had also fisheries, with established limits, and sections of the rivers for
markets. At these no one could fish, or trade in the markets, without paying for the privilege,
unless he belonged to the chief’s barangay or village.
The commoners were called aliping namamahay. They are married, and serve their master,
whether he be a dato or not, with half of their cultivated lands… They accompanied him whenever
he went beyond the island, and rowed for him. They live in their own houses, and are lords of their
property and gold. Their children inherit it, and enjoy their property and lands…
The slaves are called aliping saguiguilir. They serve their master in his house and on his cultivated
lands, and may be sold. The master grants them, should he see fit, and providing that he has
profited through their industry, a portion of their harvests, so that they may work faithfully. For this
reason, servants who are born in the house of their master are rarely, if ever, sold. That is the lot
of captives in war, and of those brought up in the harvest fields.”
On the other hand, according to Fr. Francisco Colin, a Jesuit priest, the Visayan people had a
different term designated to each social class.
“There are three kinds and classes of people: the chiefs whom the Visayan called dato and the
Tagalogs maginoo; the timauas, who are the ordinary common people, called maharlica among
the Tagalogs; and the slaves, called oripuen by the Visayans and alipin by the Tagalogs…
…The most general origin of those slaveries was interest and usury… if payment was not made
when promised, the debtor remained a slave until he paid. That happened often, for the interest or
increase continued to accumulate just so long as the payment was deferred… Other slaveries
were due to tyranny and cruelty. For slave were made either in vengeance on enemies, in the
engagements and petty wars that they waged against one another, in which the prisoners
remained slaves, even though they were of the same village and race… The worst thing is that all
those who had been made slaves by war, or for punishment of debts, were rigorously regarded as
such, as slaves for any kind of service or slavery, and served inside the house. The same was
true of their children, in the manner of our slaveries, and they could be sold at will… The Tagalogs
called such true slaves sanguiguilir, and the Visayans halon.
Other slaves were called namamahay, for they did not serve their master in all capacities, nor
inside his house; but in their own houses, and outside that of their masters. They were bound,
however, to obey their master’s summons either to serve in his house and its repair, and in the
seasons of sowing and harvest. They [also had] to act as his rowers when he went out in his boat,
and on other occasions, in which they were obliged to serve their master without any pay.”
MODULE 3. “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND
CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHIIPPINE HISTORY

Overview

This module will prepare students to the topics in history of the Philippines, its content
and contextual analysis of important events are selected facts, incidents, and episodes
of particular period, which are based on materials collected from primary resources. The
students not only will acquire a fuller knowledge of, may gain familiarity with the topics
studied but also appreciation of the vast storehouse of materials on History of the
Philippines. This module also explains content and contextual analysis of selected past
events which had affected the lives of the Filipinos. They will also learn how to examine
the author’s main argument and point of view. The end goal is to enable the students to
understand and give critical observation of the events derived from primary sources. A
glimpse of past History is discussed for better understanding of the topics and some
activities and assessment to determine if the student cope up with the lessons.
Learning Outcomes

At the end of the course the students should be able to

1. Communicate and articulate, using various techniques and genres, the historical
analysis of a particular event or issue that could help other people understand and
manage present day issues and concerns;

2. Discuss and appreciate the rich history of the Filipino people, from pre-colonial times
to the present, through selected primary and secondary sources

3. Present the searched information about different events in selected primary and
secondary sources with pictures or images.

COURSE CONTENT

There are various events that brought the Filipinos into indoctrination of Christianity.
Some of these are the sites of First Mass A. (Delos Santos, etc. 2019). Some important
events such as Cavite mutiny and Cry of Balintawak were discussed to shed light on the
mutiny or revolution by Filipinos against the Spaniards.

According to Pigafetta and others, and edited by Lord Stanley, of Alderly. (1874.) the
Four Sites of the First Mass On Easter Sunday, 31st of March 1521 a small island port
named Mazaua hosted the first Christian mass. The two eyewitnesses Antonio Pigafetta
(1523) and Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas (1601) have told two identical accounts of
this event. “Masawa,” a word found in 181 of the Philippine languages, is found only in
Butuanon and its scion, Tausog. It means bright light and clear crystal.

Some Filipino historians have long challenged the notion that Limasawa was the location
of the country’s first Catholic mass. The historian Sonia Zaide identified the site of the
first Christian mass in Butuan as Masao (also Mazaua). Zaide’s claim was supported by
the diary of Magellan’s chronicler, Antonio Pigafetta. In 1995 Congresswoman Ching
Plaza in Agusan Del Norte – Butuan, subsequently, submitted a bill to the Congress
contesting the Butuan was the site of the first mass.

To examine the issue and recommend the factual findings, the Philippine Congress
referred the matter to the national historical institution. Then Dr. Samuel K. Tan,
chairman of NHI, asserted the first Mass on Eastern Day, which according to the number
one pro-Butuan author, was not recorded in observing Easter Sunday on 31st of March
1521, still under discussion, includes countless experts in education, history, religion,
politics, or other subjects (Salazar 2015). These are the paragraphs from Pigafetta,
translated by Lord Stanley of Alderley, the lead writer of the’ first travel around the
world’:

“On Sunday, the last day of March, and feast of Easter, the captain sent the
chaplain ashore early to say mass, and the interpreter went with him to tell the king that
they were not coming on shore to dine with him, but only to hear the mass. The king
hearing that sent two dead pigs. When it was time for saying mass, the captain went
ashore with fifty men, not with their arms, but only with their swords, and dressed as well
as each one was able to dress, and before the boats reached the shore our ships fired
six cannon shots as a sign of peace. At our landing, the two kings were there, and
received our captain in a friendly manner, and placed him between them, and then we
went to the place prepared for saying mass, which was not far from the shore. Before
the mass began the captain threw a quantity of musk rose water on those two kings, and
when the offertory of the mass came, the two kings went to kiss the cross like us, but
they offered nothing, and at the elevation of the body of our Lord they were kneeling like
us, and adored our Lord with joined hands. The ships fired all their artillery at the
elevation of the body of our Lord. After mass had been said, each one did the duty of a
Christian, receiving our Lord. After that, the captain had some sword-play by his people,
which gave great pleasure to the kings.”

“Then he had a cross brought, with the nails and crown, to which the kings made
reverence, and the captain had them told that these things which he showed them were
the sign of the emperor his lord and master, from whom he had charge and
commandments to place it in a ll places where he might go or pass by. He told them that
he wished to place it in their country for their profit, because if there came any ships
afterward from Spain to those islands, on seeing this cross, they would know that we
had been there, and therefore they would not cause them any displeasure to their
person nor their goods and if they took any of their people, on showing them this sign,
they would at once let them go. Besides this, the captain told them that it was necessary
that this cross should be placed on the summit of the highest mountain in their country,
so that seeing it every day they might adore it, and that if they did thus, neither thunder,
lightning, nor the tempest could do them hurt.”

The kings thanked the commander and said that they would do so voluntarily.
Then he asked if the Moors or the Gentiles, and what they thought they were. They
replied that they did not do any worship, but they joined their hands and looked up to the
sky, calling their God Aba. When the captain heard this, he was pleased to see the first
king reached into the air and said that he wished that the affection he felt for him could
be shown. He was asked by the interpreter why there was not enough to be eaten in this
place, and the king replied that he did not live there unless he came to hunt and see his
brother and that he lived on another island where his whole family lived. So the captain
inquired whether he had enemies who went to war against him and that if he had any,
he would go with his men and boats to overcome them and place them under his
obedience. The King thanked him and replied that there were two islands whose
enemies were the inhabitants, but the time has not come to attack them.

Salazar (2015) disprove that the First Mass on Easter was not a Biblical Festival not
practiced in the Book of Acts since the original New Testament Church which started
only on the Day of Pentecost in 31 A.D./C.E. The Mass was not observed as described
in Acts.

Four Sites of the First Mass

1. Limasawa Island, Southern Leyte. The most famous is Limasawa Island, and
island town in Southern Leyte, which the Philippine government recognized as the actual
site of the First Mass. Limasawa Island was also known by the powerful Roman Catholic
Church as the site of the first mass landed by Magellan with his crew. The Spanish
Embassy also acknowledge Limasawa as a landing site for Magellan and that it also
dispatched the Galleon of Andalusia for five days to Maasin City and about three hours
to Limasawa. Limasawa has been recognized by the Embassy of Portugal in Metro
Manila as the’ Mazzaua,’ written by Pigafetta on which Magellan and his soldiers
observed the first mass in Easter or introduced the people of the island to Christianity.
“The Treaty of Tordesillas on June 7, 1494, virtually divided the unknown world between
Spain and Portugal with the approval of the Holy See. Did you know that Magellan, in a
previous expedition, had [landed] in the Moluccas, just south of Mindanao? In those
days, Portugal had something that the Spanish didn’t have: cartographic maps of the so-
called Spice Islands. Therefore, since he was a Portuguese, it is safe to assume that
Magellan used Portuguese cartographic maps during his historic expedition that brought
him to Cebu on March 16, 1521 (this is a wrong date).”

“With the Treaty of Tordesillas, Prof. De Sousa said the Philippine archipelago fell under
the jurisdiction of Portugal… but Magellan made his claim for the King of Spain who paid
for his expedition. Thus in 1750, Spain and Portugal signed the Treaty of Madrid
whereby the Portuguese exchanged the Philippines for the South Frontier of Brazil,
which gave Portugal control of Rio de la Plata. Again, this is something we’ve never read
in our history books. History tells us that Spain sold the Philippines to the United States
for a measly sum of $20 million, but we never knew about this exchange deal between
Spain and Portugal for Brazil!”

“Talking about rewriting history, we all know about the claim made by some Butuanons
that a place called Mazaua was allegedly the site of the first Holy Mass instead of
Limasawa Island off Southern Leyte. Well, Prof. De Sousa has another insight on this,
which I’m sure puts an end to this endless debate and enrich our pre-Spanish history. It
turned out that the ill-fated Magellan expedition ended Spanish exploration of these
islands. But Portuguese navigators like Joao de Barros, Gaspar Correia, Diogo do
Couto, Francisco de Castro, and Antonio Galvao have been exploring Mindanao from
1520 to 1565 until the Spaniards resumed its conquest of the Philippines through
another expedition led by Miguel Lopex de Legazpi.”Limasawa:
http://7th_millennium.tripod.com/7mc/Limasawa.html

2. Masao or Mazaua in Butuan City, Agusan del Norte. The next popular one is
Mazaua in Butuan City, the capital of Agusan del Norte in Northern Mindinao. The
Butuanons and their supporters advocate that Magellan and his men landed in Mazaua
for the reason that it has the anchorage, rice fields, gold, antique “balanghai” and other
artifacts which they unearthed in scattered areas in Butuan City.
In the so-called ‘Magellan’s Harbor’ in Butuan, the real harbor for the cargo and
passenger ships traveling to and departing from Butuan City is actually in Nasipit, which
is 25 kilometers west of Mazaua. Mazaua or Butuan City’s offshore is too shallow for
ship navigation!

If Mazaua had the abundant rice fields, other food supplies, and water at the time when
Magellan and his troops landed and held the ‘First Mass’ or observed Easter Sunday,
how come Magellan and his fellow sailors sought for a more significant island? Mazaua
was and is attached to Mindanao, the second largest island in the entire Philippines.

Since the pro-Mazaua supporters emphatically claimed that Magellan and his fellow
sailors held the ‘First Mass’ or observed Easter Sunday in their ‘island of plenty’. But
what happened to the abundant foods, drinks, and other supplies in Mazaua and their
next neighbor, the ‘Kingdom of Butuan’? Why did the two rajahs of ‘Mazzaua” and
Butuan volunteer as pilots to Magellan to obtain provisions in Cebu, which is much
smaller than Mindanao?

The pro-Butuan proponents claimed that Magellan and his troops landed in Mazaua,
Butuan City because Pigafetta wrote in his book about the small gift items made of gold
supposedly from Butuan which Rajah Kalambu gave to Magellan. Well then, if gold was
such a big deal in Butuan, Magellan and his sailors could have sailed easily south to
Surigao, Mindanao while they were still sailing off the eastern coast of Panaon Island.
They had seen Surigao which was and is in northeast Mindanao before nighttime
because Mindanao is the second biggest island in the entire Philippines. Surigao was
known to have gold at that time and up to the present day. Magellan and his men in 3
ships did not search for spices only. They searched for anything or things of value to
bring home and hand them over to the King of Spain.

Furthermore, the pro-Butuan supporters claimed that the antique ‘balanghai’ that some
of them found under the ground in Masao or Mazaua is one proof that Magellan was in
Mazaua.

Salazar (2015) refers to the writings of de Jesus wrote a lengthy article entitled,
‘Mazaua: Magellan’s Lost Harbor.’ The government of Butuan City, Mindanao,
commissioned him to do extensive research on the Mazaua landfall isuue. He concluded
that Magellan an dhis troops landed in Mazaua, Butuan City, Philippines. He wrote:

“For most Philippines, two events define the meaning of Mazaua, Easter mass and the
plantation of a big cross on top of the highest hill. In a hube sea lined with mighty waves
of Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, and other beliefs, The Philippines is the isolated rock of
Christianity. 83% of its people are Catholics, 9% Protestants. Therefore, mazaua is an
icon for a highly religious people, a major event. This aspect of a signal event has
unfortunately served to distortion the way the event is seen in world geography and
Renaissance navigation.”

Source: De Jesus, Vicente. Mazaua: Magella’s Lost Harbor (A Lee Shore Stands For
1521 Safe Haven Thanks To Errors of Translation, Copying, Bad Logic, Superficial
Research And An Attempt At Fraud By A Government Historical Agency).

The Portuguese knew that the fleet of Magellan was bound even before it sailed;
the ships would undoubtedly be waiting for it to be stopped. While Magellan is looking for
the Moluccas, he loaded his ships with precious spices, but after he went away, most of
the port and trading stations on the way back to Spain would be Portuguese outposts.’
As some Portuguese navigators and their crew had explored and settled in Mindanao
Island, they would have arrested Magellan and its men for staying there. After the ship
was loaded with spices during it eastward journey from Spice Islands to Central America
to Panama as planned, the Portuguese authorities arrested and imprisoned the entire 54
members of Trinidad, Magellan’s flasgship.

3. Homonhon Island, Eastern Samar. After they landed in Guam and called Las
Islas de lod Ladrones (the theft island), Magellan’s troops had a terrible experience
staying there. Some people in Homonhon Island and Samar claimed, shortly after the
arrival of Magellan and his companions on the island, they ahd a mass in the Isle to
thanks God for their safe journey from Guam and the vast Pacific Ocean. According to
the groups that were supporting the’ first mass’ in Homonhon:
“Pigafetta did not exactly say that it was their first mass, he only reported that a mass
was celebrated on Easter Sunday [in Mazzaua Islan]. Atty. Mendiola concludes that on
the island of Homonhon on 19th of March 1521 the first mass celebrated was held in the
Philippines not one on the 31st of that month, Limasawa or Mazaua. In the modern
historiography, any passage or statement to the contrary in our history books would be
unsustainable.
“However, the fact remains that Magellan first landed in homonhon, despite these
discussions, when the first mass took place. And today, we are commemorating and
celebrating that event. The historian Agoncillo writes that the Europeans learned of the
existence of the Philippines for the first time during this trip. It also proved that the earth
was round, that the Pacific Ocean had been vast, that East India was reachable by the
Pacific and that America was one entirely separate land mass of Asia. It showed that
America was a land mass.”
“While Magellan discovered the existence of the Philippines, for me, the greater
significance of Magellans’ arrival in Homonhon, was it showed the world, that we in
Samar, already had a society, a culture of our own. Pigafetta wrote that ‘their seignior
was an old man who was painted. He wore two gold earrings in his ears and the others
many gold armlets on their arms and handkerchiefs about their heads. They have black
hair that falls to the waist and uses daggers, knives, and spears and ornamented with
gold, large shields, fascines, javelins and fishing nets that resemble rizali and their boats
are like ours.”

“Later on, Jesuit missionaries who came and settled our island would document this
culture. Our society then was structured according to social classes which dictated not
only the behavior of men and women but also the manner of dressing from head to toe,
from cradle to their graves.” Cabardo, Charo (2004)..

4. Mahaba Island, Placer, Surigao del Norte. Finally, in the North-East of

Mindanao, another group, said that the expedition of Magellan was the first Mass in
Surigao del Norte, Mahaba Island.

“It was recorded that when he was nearing the shores of Mindanao, Magellan saw lights
of a settlement which he avoided and sailed farther north [south] and anchored near an
island named Mazzava, now mark on maps as Mahaba Island, located at latitude nine
and two-thirds degrees.”
“Magellan during that time was using an astrolable to determine his latitude location, and
the accuracy of this instrument was plus or minus one degree. They must have landed
and then check their latitude location which was why they read to one-third of a degree,
which they could not have done [so] on a moving ship. There was no way during that
time to determine [the] longitude was only invented by James Harrison, an Englishman,
in 1740.”

“Mazzava Island appears on present detailed maps of the area to be Mahaba Island in
the Municipality of Placer, Surigao del Norte. Magellan could have mistaken Mahaba
Island, a small island to be part of Masepilid Island because it is almost touching this
bigger to the bigger island at the northern tip. This could be the reason that the island
where they landed was described as shaped like a stingray, which Masepilid is, and
about 10 x 5 miles in area.”
“If present maps will be examined today, it will be noted that Mahaba Island is very close
to the island of Masepilid and the flotilla of Magellan most probably anchored between
these two islands. It will also be noted that Masepilid is shaped like a stingray as
described by Pigafetta.” Limasawa:http//7th_millennium.tripod.com/7mc/Limasawa.html

While in Bolinao, Pangasinan, there is small monument that marks the site of the
first Christmas mass ever held in the Philippines. A Franciscan friar called Odoric from
Pordenone, Italy is said to have landed on the shore of Pangasinan, two centuries
before Magellan wandered through the Philippine archipelago seeking shelter from a
stormy sea.

Taking a black crucifix onto the beach, he met “hostile indigenous people who
were soon pacified by his courage and faith. After showing the local people a few photos
of Jesus, Joseph and Mary, the friar and his companion-built a cross and planted a
Christmas tree. The first Christmas mass was held in the Philippines, and several
Pangasinians were baptized later in the Philippines. It took place on December 25, 1324,
perhaps that was in 1200, or it was between 1280 and 1320 on a particular Christmas
day. As some history buffs could say, the facts are “open for interpretation.” Friar Odoric
was a real person, but he probably did not ever visit the Philippines, held baptisms and a
mass in Pangasinian.

And the Christmas tree? Probably on his sea voyage the Italian friar didn’t carry a
pine tree with him. Tree decoration was at that time also considered a pagan habit, and
Christians did not become fashionable until the 1500s in Germany and the rest of
Europe until the mide- to late 1800s. Even today, trees decorating in the Odoric country
of Italy, where births are more popular, is not a significant part of Christmas celebrations.

Who was Odoric?

Biographers of the church have reported that Odoric Mattiussi of Pordenone was
born in 1286 and entered the Order of Franciscans in Udine around 1300. Odoric set sail
to Asia in 1318. He spent three years in Turkey, Iran, India, Sri Lanka, Java, Sumatra,
Vietnam, Borneo and China (some historians like William H. Scott doubted that he was a
priest). Then he came back to Italy via an overland route through Mongolia and Tibet.

When Odoric arrived back home in 1330, he told a friar named William of
Solagna in Padua the story of his 12 years of adventure, but he did nothing about a
Christmas Mass with Christmas tree on all his travels.

The Pangasinan connection

So what fits this story in Pangasinan? Mythology believers point to a place called
Thalamasin by Odoric. Probably its supposed link to Pangasinan is based on the
excessively hopeful interpretation of Henry Yule’s book, Cathay, and the way it is. In
examining the account of Odoric, Yule spoke about the possible meaning in Malaysian
of the name Thalamasin, noting that tanah masin is a “land of salt”. This has been
sufficiently proved to some historians that the name Pangasinan means “the place
where the sun is made.”

Odoric has visited the Philippines. Some also notice the connection to a
legendary land of the Tawalisi name, home to the warrior princess of Pangasinan,
Urduja – but this is a different myth.

The name Panten knew Thalamasin, in the account he said, Odoric had no say
on salt. The men of this place used protective amulets and blowpipe weapons placed
under their skin. He said there were several trees in this land that could produce meal,
wine and poison. Yule however pointed out that these features can be described by
many places in the Malaysian archipelago.

Thalamasyn, Thalamasim, Talamasin, Thamalsi, Talamosa, Malamasin, and

Malamasmi have been described in a wide variety of manuscripts covering the story. For
Talaga Masin or Salt Lake, Thala Masim is Malay or Javanese. William H. Scott’s
geographical view of this matter:

“It is possible that these observations were made in the Philippines- but not likely.
The west coast of Borneo is on the direct route between Java and Champa, and it would
seem strange, moreover, that such long voyages as the direct Java-Philippines or
Philippines-Champa passages should bypass the standard trading ports mentioned in
Chinese accounts of the period. Moreover, none of these details are mentioned in the
longer Philippine description by Friar Odorics’ younger contemporary, Wang Tayuan. But
if there is a possibility that Friar Odoric set foot on Philippine soil, there is no reason to
think that he baptized anybody or celebrate mass two centuries before Magellans’ arrival
—there is no reason even to think that he was a priest.” Sir Henry Yule (ed.). China, Issue
36. Pp. 84-86.

Thalamasin, somewhere between Java and Champa, now part of Vietnam, is in

the narrative places of Odoric, and he said that he was near the “south sea”. Bolinao,
however, is a 16-degree point north of the equator and is a significant detour from the
direct route from both.

The best guess of Henry Yule was that Odoric probably referred to a place on the
south coast of Borneo known by now as Banjarmasin, which means “salt garden.” Yule
also referred to the site on the east coast of Borneo, which was known as Biru (now
Berau), which was listed in atlases called Talisian and Panteh.

Unfortunately, the pre-colonial Philippines have no written history; in fact, nearly

no written documents at all. Foreign accounts are outlined and almost never mention
places with recognizable names in the Philippines. For historians and Filipino nationalist,
this was frustrating and has brought some of them to cross the line between history and
myth. Whenever there is no information, some people always want information gaps to
make them feel important, regardless of how desperately far-reaching this information is.
Scientists and historians, however, are often depicted as villains, who do legitimate
research that can debunk these myths. The location of the mass until now has been
contentious as many, undeniable and compelling reasons exist for believing that the first
mass was highly possible in a single are in many locations.

A. Cavite Mutiny
At the time the Spanish Liberals took over the reins of power in Spain following the
overthrow of Queen Isabel II, a heated controversy was raging in the Philippines over
the question of the status and ownership of certain curacies in the archbishopric of
Manila. The fundamental issue in the controversy was whether Filipino priests should be
allowed greater participation in the management of the religious and excclesiastical
affairs of their country or not. This was a question which concerned the interests and
welfare, not only of the native clergy but of the Catholic Church herself.

The beginnings of this question may be traced to the times of Archbishop Sta.
Justa and Governor Anda in the last quarter of the 18th century (1767-1776). To fill the
vacancies which were created at that time in many parishes of his diocese, Archbishop
Sta. Justa availed himself of the services of newly ordained Filipino secular priests. The
latter were place in curacies which had been vacated as a result of differences and
misunderstandings between the Spanish friar curates who previously administered them
and the Archbishop over matters of ecclesiastical government.

The significance of the Archbishop’s actuation was quite clear to many people at
the time. Archbishop Sta. Justa’s course was a radical departure from the long-
established policy followed in the administration of parishes. It meant that, ultimately,
Filipino secular priest would take over the duties and responsibilities connected with the
administration of parochial affairs. It can well be presumed that Archbishop Sta. Justa
envisioning such an eventuality felt keenly the need of building up a body of competent
Filipino priests to carry on the work of the Catholic Church in the Philippines.

Unfortunately for the cause of the Filipino clergy, the immediate results of
Archbishop Sta. Justa’s initial policy of secularization of the curacies were quite
discouraging and disappointing. Many of the newly installed Filipino parish priests lacked
not only the necessary training and preparation of parochial work but also the moral
qualities required of those who would go into the religious life. Their conduct as a parish
priest was far from edifying. It was clear that Archbishop Sta. Justa, in his eagerness
and enthusiasm to Filipinize the curacies, did not exercise due care in the granting of
holy orders and that he appointed newly ordained seminarians to parishes without
careful examination of their fitness and character.

Because of the unfavorable results of his policy, it was felt advisable, in the
interest of religion, to have it suspended and discontinued. Governor Anda, who was a
strong believer in the wisdom and desirability of that policy, and who had given
wholehearted support to Archbishop Sta. Justa’s efforts to Filipinize the curacies were
constrained to reverse his stand on the matter. He wrote to the King reporting the
unfavorable effects which Archbishop Sta. Justa’s actuations had produced and be
recommended that the Filipinization of the curacies be suspended and that the curacies
which had been secularized be returned to the regular Spanish clergy. In compliance
with Anda’s recommendations, the King of Spain-in a decree promulgated on December
11, 1776, ordered the suspension of the secularization of the curacies and the
restoration of those parishes which had been given to Filipino priests to their former
pastors.

The suspension of the Filipinization policy, however, was presumed to be only

temporary. One of the provisions of the decree of December 11, 1776, ordered that
steps should be taken to prepare and train a competent body of clerics so that the filling
of the curacies with Filipino secular priests would eventually be affected in conformity
with the plans and desires of Archbishop Sta. Justa. This was understood at the time to
mean that the secularization of the curacies would be resumed, when and if, duly
qualified Filipino secular priests were available for appointment to the curacies.

Unfortunately, the Spanish Government did not comply with the directive
contained in the provision of the decree of December 11, 1776. Far from living up the
promise implied in that law, it adopted and put into effect a course of action which
tended to discourage the growth and development of the Filipino clergy. Several laws
promulgated by the Spanish Government in the nineteenth century reflected this
tendency of Spanish colonial policy. On July S, 1862, a royal cedula was issued
reiterating the previous decree which commanded the return to the regular Spanish
clergy of the curacies which have been given to Filipino secular priests during the
governorship of Anda (1770-1776). “The royal decree of March 9, 1849, ordered the
return of several parishes in Cavite to the regular Spanish clergy. Finally, on September
10, 1861, a royal order gave to the Recollects parishes held by Filipino priests in the
Archbishopric of Manila.

Sir: the undersigned, Archbishop of Manila, respectfully addresses your

Excellency, impelled by his true love of country, and by a sense of duty to maintain the
tranquility of his Diocese, which has been frequently disturbed as a result of the practice,
which for some time now has been followed, of turning over curacies administered by
the secular clergy to the religious corporations. This policy is the cause of an ever-
growing enmity which is becoming more and more manifest between seculars and
regulars, and which, sooner or later, may bring lamentable results to our beloved Spain.
To fix the origin of this enmity, I shall mention the Real Cedula of July 8, 1826, which
returned to the religious corporation’s curacies administered by the secular clergy since
the period of the second governorship of Simeon de Anda y Salazar. However just this
measure might appear, the native priests, because they had held those curacies for
more than half a century and, considered them their own, felt grieved every time a
curacy because of the death or transfer of the incumbent was assigned to a regular
priest. With the death of the curate of San Simon which occurred this year, the purpose
of the foregoing Real Cedula has been fulfilled in every respect.

“As a circumstance tending to aggravate this enmity the Royal Order of March 9, 1849,
may be mentioned, by virtue of which seven curacies of Cavite belonging to the secular
clergy were given to the regulars, as follows: Bacoor, Cavite el Viejo and Silang to the
Augustinian Recollects; and Santa Cruz, San Francisco de Malabon, Naic and Indang to
the Dominicans. Of these, five have already been occupied, being taken possession of
as fast as they become vacant. But what brought the antagonism to a climax and filled
the native clergy with indignation was the Royal Order of September 10, 1861. To this
decree and its consequences, the undersigned especially desires to call the attention of
your Excellency.

With the approval in article 13 of the Royal Decree of July 30, 1859, regarding the
establishment of the Government of Mindanao and the arrangement of that the Fathers
of the Society of Jesus- it should take charge of the administration of the parishes,
doctrinas, and active missions in that Island, which at the time were under the
administration of the Recollects of the Province of San Nicolas de Tolentino. Became
necessary to promulgate the rules which should govern, properly, the carrying out of the
provisions of that article. For this purpose, the Royal Order of September 10, 1861, was
promulgated which, among other things, granted to the Recollects, in the form of an
indemnity, the administration of the curacies in the province of Cavite or elsewhere (in
the Archbishopric of Manila, as subsequently was ordered) which were being served by
the native clergy.

Under the circumstances, the Royal Order was issued. In the first place, the
Archbishopric was vacant, and, under the circumstances, the sacred cannons prescribe,
and prudence counsels, that no innovation be introduced. In the second place, the
opinion of the ordinary ecclesiastical authority (autoridad ordinaria ecclesiastica) was not
heard in this particular case, although here the practice is to have voluminous reports
even in cases of much less importance. And, in the third place, it was known that the
ecclesiastic appointed to the Diocese of Manila was not familiar with the anomalous
condition of the ecclesiastical administration of the Philippines, or with the customs and
usages of the people (circumstances which would impel him to renounce the post and
which he had to disregard only because of strong representations made to him), and
that, therefore, it must take him some time before he could remonstrate with full
knowledge of the facts. These circumstances are brought to the impartial judgment of
Your Excellency.GREGORIO, ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA - Manila, December 31, 1870.
TO THE REGENT OF THE KINGDOM.. (Nicolas, 1956)

The Cavite Mutiny in January 1872 cannot yet be concluded completely since the
trials have not however been recorded. Although they were declared lost by the Spanish
government, and researchers did not locate copies in the Philippine National Archives
(PNA), there are still rumors of their lives in Spain from time to time, but nothing has
been discovered. It also appears that the investigations of the defendants in what was
supposed to be the PNA (Artigas y Cuerva 1911, 126-28) at least once were recorded,
although they may have died during the war. The treatments of textbooks are based
mainly on a few often-contradictory accounts; and, although they have valuable
documentary materials, they only deal in part with their subject and contain spurious and
contradictory material, without reaching a definitive end (Schumacher 1991, 83-85). (Los
Sucesos de 1872). Its relatively recent English translation (Artigas 1996) will most
probably perpetuate Artigas ‘weaknesses. The book can hardly accept the prolific praise
given to the translator (ibid,xii). In many of the textbooks, the Filipino soldiers and
workers are described as local ammunition, reacting to Gov. Rafael de Izquierdo’s
decree that suppressed Arsenal workers ‘privilege to be exempt from tribute and the
obligation of labor. Some consider it motherhood instigated by the friars to involve the
Filipino priests led by Fr. Jose Burgos, who asked the Filipino secular clergy to restore
the parishes that were occupied by the friars. The mutiny was the pretext for executing
or exiling activist priests and their partners between lawyers and people in business who
were agitating for liberal reforms. Some of the textbooks, which are based on a false
Artigian document, even speak of a friar similar to the Burgos who went to a revolt
among the workers and soldiers of Cavite. The source for these interpretations is usually
found in the different accounts of Antonio Regidor. One of Burgos’ liberal reformists was
exiled to the Marianas and in various publications, after escaping and going to Europe,
sometimes gave contradictory accounts of the mutinies.

Jose Rizal devoted his novel “El Filibusterism” to the three priests, 85-year old
Jose Burgos, and 35-year-old Jacinto Zamora, executed on February 17, 1872, at
Bagumbayan Field. The first was the 1872, Cavite Mutiny and the second was the
martyrdom of the three priests who were martyred in the person of Fathers Mariano
Gomes, Jose burgos and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA). Not all of us, however, knew
that the said event had different accounts. The different sides of the story must be
known to all Filipino people – because this event has led to another sad yet significant
part of our history – the execution of GOMBURZA, which is indeed an essential factor to
the development of the Philippine nationalism.

History books state that Philippine nationalism has been born with this tragic
event. It is assumed that people felt they were no nation before that date, and any sign
of protest against the presence of Spain abroad was a rebellion that was located
elsewhere.

The execution of three Philippine priest-one of whom an ecclesiastical priest-was

a source of sympathy for the martyrs and rejection of the alien leaders, who could put
the axis on the innocents ‘ necks. The common enemy soon took shape, and people felt
like one in their fight for a rights to govern themselves after a three and a half hundred
years of foreign domination characterized by unexplained governments, direct
exploitations, of persons and natural resources, and sometimes half-heard reform efforts
and governed, Sporadic and desultory demonstrations of resistance.

The garrote was summarily tried and sentenced to death Father Gomez, Father
Burgos, and Father Zamora on January 20, 1872, Cavite arsenal revolt. The priest who
were active in the clergy’s struggle for secularization (or indeed nationalization) created
trouble for despotic Governor Rafael Izquierdo and the country’s powerful regular
religious orders. By linking them to the Cavite arsenal uprising, whether or nor they had
anything to do with it, the administration found a convenient way to get rid of the
troublesome trio.

Was the three involved in the revolt? The fact that the proceedings have
disappeared and the star prosecution witness himself and three of his testimonies have
been ordered to execute will take a painful investigation. The question is likely to remain
one of the great mysteries in the struggle for freedom of the Filipinos. Until he breathed
his last, in dedicating the Filibusterismo to the three condemned men, Father Burgos
protested the innocence of the crime attributed to him and Rizal, underlining the doubt
shared by the Filipinos about their guilt.

Meliton Martinez, Archbishop of Manila, has received a copy of the penalties for
murder asking the deprivation of the clergy. The Archbishop responded by saying that
he required more compelling proof of his culpability and declined to contribute to its
humiliation. The privacy of the supposed proceedings, the mysterious disappearance of
Court-Martial results and documents, and the suspect haste of the judgment were
contributing to the generalized conviction that these three had been trumped-up. Two
days later, on February 17, they were sentenced to death and taken to the garrote.

But even if irrefutable evidence had been cited against Father Gomez, Burgos
and Zamora, the three-one an octogenarian is known for the charities, the other, half-
crazed at the prospect of a gruesome death, and the third primarily admired for his
courageous support for the rights of the Filipinos, in particular, the clergy-would have
been regarded by their compatriots as martyrs just as much the time for revolt was ripe,
and the fact that the people believed the executions were a miscarriage of justice only
hurried history’s march. Public outrage has risen to a peak. For those who had seen the
need to unite by now, the job became more comfortable. Nationalism’s first seeds have
been sown and taken root. In deciding to set the priests as an example to the people of
what was in store for them if they continued to be insolent, the authorities then
constituted quickly sealed their doom. The groundwork was laid for the inevitable
revolution a quarter of a century later.

1872 Cavite Mutiny SPANISH PERSPECTIVE

The event was documented and highlighted by Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific
Spanish historian, as an Indian attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines. Meanwhile, the official report of Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo magnified the
event and used it to involve the native clergy, who then became active in the call for
secularization. The two accounts complimented one another and corroborated only that
the report of the general was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo pointed
out that the abolition of the privileges enjoyed by the Cavite arsenal workers, susch as
the non-payment of tributes and the exemption from forced labor, were the main reasons
for the “revolution” as they called it, but they enumerated other causes, including the
Spanish Revolution that overthrew the secular throne and the dirty propaganda that
proliferated through it. The report added also that the indigenous priests encouraging
other attendees by offering them powerful assurances that they will not hesitate to battle
because they have the excellent commitments of incentives, such as jobs, and the
Spanish rebellion, which is the revelation of the King of Spain, who told the king of Spain
that the rebellious wished the Spanish state to reverse and establish a fresh “har”, In his
report, Izquierdo lambasted the Indians as gullible and had an innate propensity to steal.

The two Spaniards considered the event of 1872 to have been planned earlier
and considered it as great conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, lawyers or
native lawyers, Manila and Cavite residents, and the native clergy. They mentioned that
Manila and Cavite’s conspirators were planning to liquidate high-ranking Spanish
officers, followed by the fraternal massacre. The alleged pre-concerted signal among
Manila and Cavite’s conspirators was rocket firing from Intramuros’ walls.

According to the two accounts, the Sampaloc district celebrated the Virgin of
Loreto’s feast on January 20, 1872. Unfortunately, the festival participants celebrated the
occasion with the usual displays of fireworks. The bells in Cavite supposedly mistreated
as a symbol of the assault; as arranged, the 200-man unit of Sergeant La Madrid
initiated an attack against Spain official’s insight and confiscated in the arsenal.

When the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo arrived, he readily ordered the Spanish army
to reinforce Cavite to quench the rebellion. When the reinforcement from Manila did not
come ashore, “the revolution” was easily broken. Primary instigators including Sergeant
La Madrid were murdered on the encounter while a court-martial trial of the GOMBURZA
was held and convicted to life imprisonment on Marianas Islands by the Audencia (the
High Court). Also Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native artillery regiments and ordered
artillery force creation to consist exclusively of the Peninsulars.

On February 17, 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed in an attempt by the

Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill fear among the Filipinos in order never
again to commit such a daring act. This event was tragic, but it served as one of Filipino
nationalism’s moving forces.

Injustice Response: THE VERSION OF FILIPINOS TO THE INCIDENT

Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a Philippine scholar, and researcher

wrote the Philippine version of Cavite’s bloody incident. In his view, the incident was a
mere mutiny by the Cavite arsenal’s native Filipino soldiers and workers who turned out
to be dissatisfied with their privileges being abolished. Indirectly, Tavera blamed the
cold-blooded policies of Gov. Izquierdo, such as abolishing the privileges of the arsenal’s
workers and indigenous army members and prohibiting the founding of the Filipino arts
and trade school, which the general believed to be a cover-up for organizing a political
club.
About 200 men, including soldiers, arsenal workers and Cavite residents headed
by Sergeant Lamadrid, rose in arms on 20 January 1872 and assassinated the
commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents expected support form
the majority of the army. That didn’t happen, unfortunately. In Manila and Gen.
Izquierdo, the news of the mutiny reached authorities immediately ordered the
strengthening of Spanish troops in Cavite. The mutiny was officially declared subdued
after two days.

In Tavera’s belief, Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite mutiny as a
powerful lever to magnify the Cavite magnified as a complete conspiracy involving not
only the indigenous army but also residents of Cavite and Manila. Note: the central
government of Madrid announced its intention during that period to deprive the monks of
all powers of intervention in civil government affairs as well as in the management and
leadership of educational facilities. The turnout of events was believed by Tavera,
prompted the friars to do something drastic in their desire to maintain power in the
Philippines.

Meanwhile, the Central Government of Spain welcomed and educational decree

written by Segismundo Moret promoting the fusion of parochial schools run by the friars
into a school called the Philippine Institute, intending to implement reforms. The decree
proposed to improve the educational standard in the Philippines by requiring competitive
examinations to fill teaching positions in such schools. Most Filipinos warmly received
this improvement despite the zest for the secularization of the native clergy.

The Friars took advantage of the event and presented it to the Spanish
government as a vast conspiracy organized in the entire archipelago to destruct the
Spanish sovereignty because they fear it would be forgotten in the Philippines. Tavera
sadly confirmed that the Madrid administration was satisfied that the scheme was true
without attempting the facts or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by Izquierdo
and the brothers.

Convicted educated men who took part in the mutiny were sentenced to life
imprisonment while garrote tried and executed members of the native clergy headed by
the GOMBURZA. This episode leads to nationalism awakening and ultimately to the
outbreak of the 1896 Philippine Revolution. The account of the French writer Edmund
Plauchut complimented the account of Tavera by confirming that the event occurred due
to the discontent of the Cavite for arsenal workers and soldiers. However, the
Frenchman dwelt more on the execution of the three priests he witnessed as martyrs.
 Considering the five accounts of the Mutiny of 1872, there were some basic facts
that remained unchanged: first, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the
arsenal as well as among the members of the indigenous army that Gen. Izquierdo
dragged their privileges back; second, Gen. Izquierdo has implemented strict and rigid
policies that have caused the Philippines to move away from the Spanish Government.
Third, in 1872 the central Spanish government had decided to take away the power to
interfere with the administration of government and the management of schools,
prompting them to undertake frenzied movements to extend their stay and power, the
happy days of the brothers had already been numbered; fourth, the members of the
Filipino clergy were actively involved in the movement for secularization. Finally, the
Spanish government’s execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder, for the action cut off the
Filipinos ‘ill-feelings and the event inspired Filipino patriots to call for reforms and
eventually independence. Various versions of the event may exist, but one thing is
certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved the way for a momentous 1898.
MODULE 4. “ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: RETRACTION OF RIZAL, CRY OF

BALINTAWAK

Overview
This module is a continuation of previous topics on fie masses that had occurs, Cavite mutiny and
other related topics. It discusses the retraction of Rizal has retracted his anti Catholic ideas.
Hence, made this as one of the strong evidences of Spaniards in persecuting him.

This module will prepare students to the topics in history of the Philippines, its content and
contextual analysis of important events are selected facts, incidents, and episodes of particular
period, which are based on materials collected from primary resources. The students not only will
acquire a fuller knowledge of, may gain familiarity with the topics studied but also appreciation of
the vast storehouse of materials on History of the Philippines particularly of Rizal’s life and
persecution. This module also explains content and contextual analysis of selected past events
which had affected the lives of the Filipinos. They will also learn how to examine the author’s main
argument and point of view. The end goal is to enable the students to understand and give critical
observation of the events derived from primary sources.

Learning Outcomes
At the end of the course the students should be able to
1. Understand the reasons of Rizal for hist retraction of the Catholic ideas.;
2. Discuss and appreciate the purpose of Rizal through his written books in motivating the
Filipinos to protect themselves from the abuses of the Spaniards
3. Present the searched information about different events in selected primary and
secondary sources with pictures or images.
Course Content

B. Retraction of Rizal
Various historians report that through a document Rizal has retracted his anti-Catholic
ideas. The authenticity of the retraction papers of Jose Rizal has raised problems,
skepticism, and heated discussions between those trying to learn the truth about this
controversy for decades. The fact that significant individuals involved lacked evidence
and statements only contributed to the complications and the uncertainty surrounding
this fiery argument.

Reasons for Retraction

The introduction from Hessel (1965) illustrates how unfortunate it is that some
people talked about the Retraction without actually knowing what Rizal did or didn’t
retract. The mature, quire uniform and systematic religious thinking of Dr. Rizal has been
given insufficient attention. Only once this is done first can the significance of the
retraction be evaluated. Some people would mean nothing to withdraw because they
have so little to withdraw. He explains the four common positions to “retreat” and its
influence on Dr. Rizal’s life and nature.
1. Some insist that the “converted” Rizal is remembered and respected. Those
insist. That is the official position of the Roman Catholic. Father Cavanna says in the
Preface in his single “official” book dealing with every aspect of the Retraction (the
 “official” because it bears Archbishop Santos ‘Imprimatur):

“the glory of Rizal as a scholar, as a poet, as a scientist, as a patriot, as a hero, may

fade away someday, as all worldly glories do, sooner or later. But his glory, that at the
very hour of his death what he had lost for a time is his unfortunate GLORY, the Truth,
the Way, and the Life.” Jesus Ma. Cavanna y Manso, C. M. (1956)

The declaration issued in 1955 and signed by the Archbishop regarding the Noli
and the Fili echoes this same sentiment:

“It is precisely in that which we have to imitate [Rizal] when we were about to coronate all of his
life, by sealing with his blood, that we have to withdraw, as he bravely did at the moment of his
supreme sacrifice, whatever was against his status as a son of the Catholic Church in his writings,
in his publications and his conduct.” Jesus, Ma. Cavanna y Manso, C. M..( 1956), p. vi.

2. Some argue that Rizal was a free thinker and a disbeliever throughout his adult
life, so retracting is necessarily a lie. That is the far opposite to the position of the Roman
Catholic. The main premise on which this thesis has been based is not true in my
previous writing.

4. A third implicit view can be summed up: the Rizal that matters is the Rizal of pre-
return so that the Rizal can be ignored. Many students and admirers of Rizal have
the basic assumption here, but the conclusion does not follow necessarily. This
brings us to the fourth possible retreat attitude
.
5 It is desirable to study all aspects of life and to think of Rizal. We are entitled and
also obliged to look into the retreat facts in the best interest of the truth to which Rizal
has devoted himself.

Major Arguments of Retraction

Hessel (1965) argued that fancy could still be acknowledge if scholarly research
continues. It would be nice to speak about bibliography and method before we proceed
further. In the course of this study, more than 20 books and brochure were investigated
in addition to numerous articles. Many Retraction writings repeat previous arguments
and do not add anything new. Others are more sentimental and sarcastic than
illuminating. However, almost all of them have gained some value. Two general
categories include literature:

The biography and works that specifically deal in the Retraction are Guerrero,
and Laubach, they accepted the Retraction, and the other two rejected it as most
appropriate. Of the works dealing with the retraction in particular, Pascual and Father
Cavanna are the most objective because it is academic and complete. Until now no book
is the same as Father Cavanna as a compendium of almost complete information and
arguments for. A total of 123 articles of the text, annexes, and a bibliography consist of
353 page(s). Personal debt to Collas, Ricardo Garcia, Runes and Buenafe, should be
mentioned among other authors consulted. In defense of retraction, Garcia is a prolific
popular writer; the other two are against him. Hessel, (1961, p. 255)
 Hessel (1965) refers to Father Cavanna’s writings (1952) as it provides a well-
oriented summary that later defenders adopt. The following points are based on
Cavanna with several slight amendments:

1. The retraction document, as principal witness to the retraction reality, is

considered since the discovery in 1935. The defenders have said in words
or with implications, those who challenge the removal now lie in the burden of
evidence.

2. The press testimony at the time of the event, eye testimonies and others, i.e.,
those closely linked to the events, like the Jesuit head, the archbishop.

3. According to the reports, Dr. Rizal has recited “Acts of Faith, Hope, Charity” and
signed it as attested by “Witnesses” and the Prayer Book. This is very strong
testimony, if indeed because Rizal did not agree with Catholic Romanesque
teaching in general as was the case with the Retraction Statement, but in
particular with several convictions that he had previously rejected. By Father
Balaguer’s testimony, Rizal was offered a prayer book following the signing of the
Retraction “He took the prayer book, read the deeds slowly, accepted them, put
the pen on it, and said, ‘Credo’ (I think) signed them on the books itself. What
was signed by Rizal? The “Act of Faith” should be cited in detail.

“I believe in God the Father, I believe in God the Son, and I believe in God the Holy
Ghost, Three distinct Persons, and only One True God. I believe that the Second Person
of the Most Holy Trinity became Man, taking flesh in the purest womb of the Virgin Mary,
suffered, died, arose again, ascended into Heaven, and that He will come to judge the
living and the dead, to give glory to the just because they have kept his holy
commandments, and eternal punishment to the wicked because they have not kept
them. I believe that the true Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are present in the
Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I believe that the Blessed and ever Virgin Mary,
Mother of God, was in the first moments of her natural life conceived without the stain of
original sin. I believe that the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ, visible Head of the
Church, is the Pastor and Teacher of all Christians; that he is infallible when he teaches
doctrines of faith and morals to be observed by the universal Church, and that his
definitions are in themselves binding and immutable; and I believe all that the Holy,
Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church believes and teaches, since God who can neither
deceive nor be deceived, has so revealed it; and in this faith I wish to live and die.”

Source: Eugen A. Hessel, The Religious Thought of Jose Rizal (Manila Philippine
Education Co., 1961), p. 255.
One of the documents found by Fr. Garcia and the Retraction was the signed
prayer book.

4. The acts of piety Rizal carried out in the last few hours as “witnesses” have
testified.

5. His ‘Roman Catholic Marriage’ by ‘witnesses’ to Josephine Bracken. Without a

retraction, there could be no marriage.
These are powerful arguments. Many thinks of them as ‘irrefutable facts,’ as Cavanna
does. However, to call them the fact is to prejudge the case or to misuse the words, a
retraction document was found in 1935, is probably a matter of fact. As we will see soon,
many Retraction opponents use the Document as their main argument. So, there’s also
a book of prayers signed. But a number asked, is this the signature of Rizal? According
to the argument, what is the meaning of a mere signature apart from Father Balaguer’s
testimony as to why Rizal signed it?

Case Against the Retraction

With Hessel’s (1965) remarks above, it is no less true that the testimony is
impressive. It cannot be dismissed with a few sarcastic comments, as some have tried to
do. The argument from the testimony as well as the arguments as a whole can be better
judged only if this evidence is weighed against the argument that rejects the removal.

1. It is said that the Retraction Document is a falsification. As we have noted, on

both sides of the debate, the Document plays an important part. The case against the
document itself is divided into four prongs.
a. First of all, handwriting is an issue. Using a study, he has incorporated into his
book “Rizal beyond the Grave,” Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the
Philippines has only to date produced a detailed scientific study leading to an attack on
the authenticity of the document. Taking some half a dozen unquestioned Rizal’s
writings from the last half of December 1896 as his “standards,” he noted a number of
variations in the handwriting of the Retraction Document, the following being the most
significant according to the current lecturer: (i) The slanting of the letters in the standard
writings indicates, on average, several points higher than the Retraction Document
average and, perhaps more significantly, the slanting letters in the Document; (ii) there
are significant variations in the way individual letters are formed (iii) With regard to the
signature, Pascual notes no less than seven differences, one of the most important
being indications of ‘stops’ which, according to the critic, are explained most naturally by
the fact that a forger may stop a certain points to determine what form to take next; (iv)
In several respects, there are marked similarities between the Retraction body and the
writing of all three signatories, i.e., Rizal and the two witnesses, pointing out that this is a
‘one-man document.’

The only scholarly response to Pascual is that given by Dr. Jose I. del Rosario as part of
the thesis he prepared at the University of Sto. Tomas for his Ph.D. in Chemistry in
1937. Although most of the details are the result of a later study to be prepared explicitly
by Father Cavanna, the main criticism of Dr. del Rosario can be said to be that by
comparison, Pascual does not include enough of Rizal’s writings. He can challenge
several of Pascual’s statements based in a broader selection of standards, although this
lecturer has noted errors in del Rosario’s data. Dr. del Rosario concludes that
handwriting is authentic.
b. A second prong directed against the document’s authenticity itself is based on
textual criticism principles. Several critics have noted differences, starting as far as I
know with Pascual, Between the text of the document found in 1935 and other versions
of the Retraction, including the one issued by Father Balaguer. (19) Since this kind of
criticism relates to my work in Biblical studies, I am now engaged in an essential textual
study of my own, which consists primarily of collecting all available forms of the text. To
date, it is clear from my studies that there have been two distinct forms of the text with
significant differences, at least since the morning of December 30, 1896, discounting
numerous minor variations. The one form is represented by the 1935 discovered
Document and some other early retraction records. In particular, two phrases should be
noted in line 6, ‘Catholic Church,’ and in line 10, ‘Catholic Church.’ The other text form is
much more common, starting with Balaguer’s 1897 published text. Instead of ‘Iglesia
Catolica’ in line 6, there is the single word ‘Iglesia’ and ‘the same Church’ appears
instead of ‘the Church.’ There also tend to be consistent differences in the use of capital
letters between the two types of text. The second form also claims to be the original
accurate representation.

The usual explanation for these differences is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi
made mistakes in the preparation of a copy of the original, which were transmitted to
others from this earliest copy. Fr. Cavanna makes the genius suggestion that Father
Balaguer made corrections to the ‘formula’ which he gave Rizal for his writing, but not all
of them. Instead, it seems that the copy had been carefully compared at the same time
or some other early date before the original had disappeared. It is not surprising if
people wondered if a “false” version of a retraction statement issued by the religious
authorities made the Retraction Document.

c. A third argument against the authenticity of the Retraction Document, which also
applies to the Retraction itself, is that its content is somewhat strangely worded, e.g. in
the Catholic religion ‘I want to live and die, ‘yet there was little time to live,’ as well as
Rizal’s claim that his retraction was ‘spontaneous.’

d. Finally, there is ‘the forger’s confession.’ This story has only Runes. He and his
co-auther reported an interview with a certain Antonio K. Abad who told on August 13,
1901, a certain Roman Roque, at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva
Ecija (when Abad was fifteen) how he had been employed by the Friars earlier that year
to make several copies of a retraction document. Colonel Funston had previously
employed this same Roque to forge the revolutionary General lacuna’s signature on the
document that let to Aguinaldo’s capture. Runes also include a letter from the former
provincial secretary of Nueva Ecija, Lorenzo Ador Dionisio, dated November 10, 1936,
who was also present when Roque told and confirmed his story.
Based on the above arguments taken as a whole, it would appear that at least the
Retraction Document has reasonable ground to be questioned.
2. The second main argument against the withdrawal is that the withdrawal story
does not suit other events. The most frequently mentioned by writers starting with
Hermenegildo Cruz in 1912 are
a. The Retraction document was not published until 1935. Even family members
didn’t see it. It was said that it was ‘lost’.
b. After signing the Retraction, no effort was made to save Rizal from the death
penalty. The usual rebuttal is that the death of Rizal was due to political factors that
could not be interfered with by the religious authorities.
c. The funerary was kept a secret, buried outside the Paco cemetery interior and
his burial record was not placed on the entry page of 30 December, but on a special
page where one or more admitted non-penitents are recorded (perhaps others, the
evidence is inconsistent). The funeral of Rizal was kept secret. The Retraction defenders
are asking how else to treat an executed felon? Maybe the ground outside the wall was
also sacred or could have been consecrated in particular. Riza’s Christian Burial
Certificate’ was found in the same file with the Retraction Document on May 18, 1935, to
top the rebuttal. All admit that penmanship is an amanuensis. It is open to question
whether the signature is genuine.
d. Rizal’s marriage with Josephine Bracken does not have a marriage certificate or
public record. It’s not very convincing to say they weren’t needed.
e. Finally, the behavior of Rizal as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and
especially during the last 24 hours does not indicate a conversion. Whether written over
the past 24 hours or somewhat earlier, Rizal’s Ultima [Ultimo] Adios suggests no change
in Rizal’s thinking. There is no indication of conversion or even religious turmoil in the
letters Rizal wrote during his last hours. Rizal’s mother and sister Trinidad arrive in the
evening, and they are told nothing about the Retraction although Father Balaguer claims
that the attitude of Rizal was beginning to change even in the afternoon and he was
asking for the retraction formula. It’s all good and right to point out that before the actual
retraction, all of the above happened. Many people still have a question in their minds.

3. The third main argument line against the Retraction is that it’s out of character.
This argument has been presented more persistently and consistently than any other
argument. Starting with the anonymous leaflet of Dec. 31, 1896, since that time it has
been claimed or implied in any significant statement against the Retraction. Too many
have appeared, including the current lecturer, that the Retraction is not in line with
Rizal’s character and faith as well as inconsistent with his earlier religious thought
declarations.

Let’s look at the man’s character first. Anyone who knows his life’s facts knows this is so.
Thirty-five are not exactly young, and at this age, Rizal was much older than the
average. Therefore, it is unlikely that he would have been shocked by the threat of death
into abnormal behavior. For a while, that, during the most of his last 24 hours, Rizal had
demonstrated a type of behavior that was consistent with everything previously
demonstrated in his mature years. For some ten years, I worked closely with prisoners,
accompanying two of them to the scaffold. Their behavior was consistent and restrained.
I’d expect Rizal’s to be the same. Also, Rizal was already a ‘believer’ in the most
profound sense of the word.

Hessel strongly argued that in the usual sense of the word, Rizal was not a ‘free-thinker’.
History is full of unchallenged reports of real conversions, but the essential meaning of
true transformation is a shift from unbelief to belief, not just a shift in ideas.
The conversion of Rizal is also out of line with his mature religious thinking. It is not as if
Rizal was bowled over by confrontation with Europe’s new thinking (and by antagonism
to religious authorities who had injured his family and worked hand-in-hand with a
restrictive colonial regime) but never thoroughly thought through his religious
convictions. It is apparent from writing to writing and making a very harmonious whole
that similar views are found that theology, as he did, is completely his own. Theology
thought system, so it’s more challenging to think of his sudden exchange of it with
another.

A. Cry of Pugad Lawin or Balintawak?

Journalists of the nineteenth century used the phrase ‘el Grito de rebellion’ or ‘the cry of
rebellion’ to describe the momentous events that swept the Spanish colonies in Mexico it
was the ‘Cry of Dolores’ (September 16, 1810), in Brazil it was the ‘City of Ypiraga’
(September 7, 1822), and in Cuba it was the ‘Cry of Matanza’ (February 24, 1895).
Similarly, Filipinos declared their rebellion against the Spanish colonial government in
August 1896, northeast of Manila. The phrase was institutionalized for the Philippines by
Manuel Sastron, the Spanish historian, in his 1897 work, La Insurreccion en Filipinas All
these ‘Cries’ have been milestones in the world’s various colonial-to-nationalist histories.
The issue of when and where the Katipunan uprising started had involved scores of
historians. The dates of the Revolution’s launch in August 1896 vary from source to
source. The phrase Cry of Balintawak remained unchallenged until it was replaced by
Cry of Pugad Lawin by Teodoro Agoncillo in his book Revolt of the Masses. Agoncillo’s
sources were Pio Valenzuela and General Emilio Aguinaldo. To Andres Bonifacio,
Valenzuela claimed to be closed. But he contradicted other witnesses and himself on
numerous occasions. One finds him untrustworthy. The Cry was held on August 26,
according to the inscription on the monument- the year 1896. This date has been
officially accepted as the date of the event. Let us take a look from what other witnesses
said:

A. Guillermo Masangkay – He wrote in the Sunday Tribune Magazine on August 21,

1932, that on August 26, 1896, the Cry took place in Balintawak. During the
historic event, he said he was present.

B. Santiago Alvarez - He wrote in his “Ang Katipunan at Paghihimagsik” because of

this historic event. He presented the events from 23 August to 25 August 1896.
“The Katipuneros were immediately ready to encounter the foe, and at a point
between Kangkong Balintawak and Bahay Toro a short meeting was hel,” he
 said on “Tuesday, August 25, 1896, at 2:00 p.m., a Katipunero watch from a
Sampaloc tree”.

C. Oligarion Diaz report dated October 28, 1896 – Diaz was the Guardia Civil
Veterana officer. His account was prepared based on official reports of the actions of the
Guardia Civil and on the information given by persons captured by the Spaniards after
the discovery of the Katipunan or surrendered, taking advantage of the amnesty offer
extended by Governor Blanco to the Filipino rebels. The report says, ‘On the 23rtd,
Bonifacio moved to the barrio of Balintawak followed by 200 men from Caloocan, on the
24th the Guardia Civil attacked them in the outskirts of the said town… “The Supreme
Council called for an important meeting to be held in the neighborhood as mentioned
above the following day. More than 500 members attended it. The meeting started with a
discussion about what course to take… to put it to a vote. An overwhelming majority
approved Bonifacio’s proposal…” Orders for the Katipuneros to strike at dawn on
Sunday, August 30 were sent to Manila Cavite, Nueva Ecija, and other provinces.’
How varied and numerous are the points of disagreement, both primary and secondary
sources, will be seen from the statements presented above. The event’s scene was no
less than four different places – Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and Bahay Toro.
Also mentioned are five different dates-20 August, 23 August 24, August 25, August,
and 26 August.

In a round table conference held on February 9, 1996, some members of the panel
stressed that “there is only one past but many histories.” Then Chairman Ambeth
Ocampo noted that in this controversy, discussions often lead to more confusion than
enlightenment. Dr. Guerrero, who acted as the moderator, suggested that all the
individual events from August 23 to August 26, 1896, for lack of consensus and
resolution by the National Historical Institute, be considered as integral aspects of a
historical event that signified the beginning of the 1896 revolution.

Different Dates and Places

Different accounts give Cry different dates and places. An officer of the Spanish
Civil Guard, Lt. Olgario Diaz, stated that on August 25, 1896, the Cry was held in
Balintawak. In his 1925 book The Filipino Revolution, historian Teodoro Kalaw wrote that
the event took place in Kangkong, Balintawak, during the last week of August 1896. The
Cry took place in Bahay, Toro in the City, on 24th August 1896, Santiago Alvarez, a
Katipunero and a son of Cavite leader Magdiwang. Pio Valenzuela, closely associated
with Andres Bonifacio. Declared this in Pugad Lawin in 1948 on 23 August 1896. In
1954, the historian Gregorio Zaide stated in his books that on August 26, 1896, based
on Pio Valenzuela’s statement. The event was held at Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon
City’s Tandang Sora grenade, according to historians Milagro Guerrero, Emmanuel
Encarnation and Ramon Villegas.

Some of the apparent confusion is due in part to the twin meanings at the turn of
the century of the terms “Balintawak” and “Kalookan.” Balintawak referred to both
specific location in modern Caloocan and a wider area comprising parts of modern
Quezon City. Likewise, Kalookan referred to modern Caloocan as well as wider area that
included modern Quezon City as well as part of modern Pasig. Pugad Lawin, Pasong
Tamo, Kangkong and other particular places were all in “Greater Balintawak,” which in
turn was part of “Greater Caloocan.” Ambeth Ocampo remarked that in Caloocan, which
at the time was a district of Balintawak, are all the venues mentioned for the cry.

First Skirmish
The Cry had been generally identified with Balintawak until the late 1920s. On 26
August, the first encounter with the Guardian of the Civilian Guard was commemorated
as the anniversary of the Katipuneros. In Banlat, Pasong Tamo was considered part of
Balintawak and now a part of Quezon City. The first shot of the Revolution (el primer tiro)
was fired here.
Tearing of Cedulas

Not all accounts related in the last days of August to the tearing of cedulas. Older
accounts identify the place where Kangkong happened in Balintawak/Kalookan. The
most frequent date is the cedula-tearing date of the first meeting on 26 august. On the
24th and 26th, Guillermo Masangkay, one Katipunero claimed that more than once
cedulas had been torn.

Teodoro Agoncillo described ‘the cry’ for his 1956 “The Revolt of the Masses” as
tearing of cedulas and distancing himself from the case that defined it as the first scarcity
of the revolution. His version was based on Pio Valenzuela’s later testimonies and
others in Pugad Lawin instead of Balintawak claiming the cry took place. The version of
Valenzuela, through the influence of Agoncillo, became the basis of the Philippine
government’s current position. In 1963, on August 23, President Diosdado Macapagal
ordered the official commemorations to be transferred to Pugad Lawin, Quezon City.

Insurgent Government Formation

An alternative definition of the Cry as the “birth of the nation of the Philippines” is
the establishment of the national insurgent government through the Katipunan with
Bonifacio as president in Banlat, Pasong Tamo on August 24, 1896-after the tearing of
cedulas. This was called the Catagalugan Republic (Tagalod Republic) before the first
skirmish.

Other Cries
In 1895, in the caves of Mt. Pamitinan in Montalban (now a part of the Rizal
province) Bonifacio, Masangkay, Emilio Jacinto and other Katipuneros spent Good
Friday. They wrote on the walls of the cave “long live Philippine independence,” and
some Philippine historians considered it “the first cry.”
On another point, Pio Valenzuela backtracked. In 1896, Valenzuela testified that
Rizal was vehemently opposed to the revolution when the Katipunan consulted Jose
Rizal as to whether the time had come to revolt. Later, in Agoncillo’s mass revolt,
Valenzuela retracted and claimed that if specific prerequisites were met, Rizal was
actually for the uprising. According to Agoncillo, Valenzuela lied to save Rizal.

The term ‘Pugad Lawin’ was never officially recognized as a place name on any
Philippine map before the Second World War. Second, only from 1928, or some 32
years after the events, ‘Pugad Lawin’ appeared in historiography. And third, in the area
of Balintawak, which was distinct from Kalookan and Diliman, the revolution was always
traditionally held to have taken place. Although the name Pugad Lawin is “more
romantic”, it is more accurate to adhere to the original ‘Cry of Balintawak.’ Though it is
debatable, the NHI stand is that it was held on 23 August 1896.

Pio Valenzuela and Guillermo Masangkay’s later accounts on the tearing of

cedulas on August 23 are mostly in agreement, but at the location, they conflict with
each other. Valenzuela points to Juan Ramos’ house in Pugad Lawin, whereas
Masangkay refers to the Kangkong house of Apolonio Samson. The final statement by
Masangkay has more weight as it is corroborated by many eyewitnesses who were
photographed when the earliest ‘23rd August’ marker was installed in 1917. The date of
Valenzuela (23 August) in his memoirs conflicts with the survey photographs of 1928
and 1930 with several Katipunan officer, published in La Opinion, claiming that the ‘Cry’
took place on the 24th.

For nearly a century, the Cry of Balintawak – a significant turning point in

Philipipne history – has been the subject of controversy. Buehler (1999) helps to resolve
this controversy by analyzing previously unquoted, misquoted, or misrepresented
eyewitness accounts and contemporary documents. In her reconstruction of what
happened in Balintawak—when the katipuneros, led by Andres Bonifacio, assembled in
August 1896 in Pook Kangkong – she shows that Pugad Lawin’s Cry was a hoax.
After the meeting at the residence of Apolonio Samson in Hong Kong, was there
a meeting at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896? Where in Kangkong or Pugad Lawin
were the cedulas torn?

There were several versions of ‘Cry” by Pio Valenzuela. It will only be possible to
determine what happened after they are compared and reconciled with the other
accounts. In September 1896, Valenzuela stated only that Katipunan meetings took
place in Balintawak from Sunday to Tuesday or 23 to 25 August before the Olive Court,
which was charged with investigating persons involved in the rebellion.

John N. Schumacher, S.J. of the University of Ateneo de Manila commented on

the credibility of Pio Valenzuela:
“……I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio
Valenzuela, and to the interpretations Agoncillo got from him verbally, since Valenzuela
gave so many version from the time he surrendered to the Spanish authorities and made
various statements not always compatible with one another up to the time when as an
old man he was interviewed by Agoncillo.” Source: Schumacher, John N. (1997). The
Propaganda Movement 1880-1895. Quezon city Ateneo de Manila University Press.