Readings in Philippine History

Republic of the Philippines
Province of Ilocos Sur

ILOCOS SUR COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Quirino Stadium, Zone V, Bantay, Ilocos Sur
Readings
in
Philippine History
Prepared by:
KAREN P. DELA CRUZ-SINGSON

Instructor I
Email add: karenp.delacruz@yahoo.com.ph
Messenger account: Rhen Cruz
For HM IA & IB
For IT IA & IB
CHERRYL ANN M. ALMARE

Instructor
GMAIL ACCOUNT: cherryl.almare10@gmail.com
Messenger account: Che Rryl
For HM IC, ID, & IE
For Agri IA & IB
Quirino Stadium, Zone V, Bantay, Ilocos Sur
READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
What is this module

This is a 3-unit course offered as a general education subject for all first-year students.
This is a self-instructional module for undergraduate students in Ilocos Sur Community College in
response to the new normal. The discussions will tackle traditional topics in history and other
interdisciplinary themes that will deepen and broaden understanding in Philippine political, economic,
cultural, social, scientific and religious history. Priority is given to primary materials that could help the
students develop their analytical and communication skills. The end goal is to develop the historical and
critical consciousness of the students so that they will become versatile, articulate, broadminded, morally
upright and responsible citizens.
This course includes mandatory topics on Philippine Constitution, agrarian reform and taxation.
There are exercises to be accomplished in this particular module which are expected to be submitted to
the faculty via schedule or to the google classroom. Before answering the exercises, the student should
have fully understood the concepts presented. Please answer the activities honestly and patiently. One can
read the module several times and no one could stop him/her. We have provided a google classroom as
part of the blended learning in order to cater your learning needs. Recorded discussions, quizzes shall be
uploaded therein. For the enrolment of this google classroom, clarifications, and other concerns please
message me during your scheduled time only.
Iscc/kpdcs READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY 1

MODULE 1
LESSON 1
CONTENT AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PRIMARY SOURCES IN

PHILIPPINE HISTORY
▪ History Defined
▪ Purposes of Studying History
▪ Sources of Historical Data
▪ External and Internal Criticisms
▪ Causative Interpretations of History
The students must be able to:

➢ Demonstrate an understanding of history
➢ Explain the significance of history.
➢ Identify the differences between a primary sources and a secondary source.
➢ To learn history through primary sources.
➢ Evaluate materials in terms of authenticity, credibility, and provenance.
“He who does not know how to look back

At where he came from will never get
To his destination”
DR. JOSE P. RIZAL
CONTEXT ANALYSIS
Context Analysis considers the time and place the historical document was written as well as the
situation or the circumstances during the time. Works pertaining to events in the past are analyzed by also
taking into account the author of the document, his/her biographical background, role in the event, and
the intent for writing the document.
The two other questions to consider when doing a context analysis are as follows:
1.How authoritative is the account/source?
2. How is it relevant today?
What is History?

To make sense of history, it is necessary to first understand what it is all about. Many people think
that history is merely list of names, dates places, and “important” events. However history or the study of
history is more than just knowing and memorizing facts.
It is a historian’s duty to draw insights from the ideas and realities that have shaped the lives of men
and women and the society. And in understanding these ideas, a historian can comprehend how situations
happened, identify their elements and think of how these situations can solve today’s predicaments and
help them plan for the future.
The study of history, therefore is the study of the beliefs and desires, practices and institutions of
human beings.
With this definition, history becomes an active factor in the study of Philippine society. It also
includes a look into the development of Philippine culture through time especially with the influences of
the colonial period that would eventually shape the present Philippine identity.
Why Study History?
An examination of the past can tell us a great deal about how we came to be who we are. It means
looking at the roots of modern institutions, ideas, values and problems.
Looking at the past teaches us to see the world through different eyes such as appreciating the
diversity of human perceptions, beliefs and cultures. Different and/or new perspectives will enable us to
analyze critically the present context of society and beings.
UNDERSTANDING SOURCES
What are sources?
Historical sources ascertain historical facts. Such facts are then analyzed and interpreted by the historian
to weave historical narrative. Long before, we just relied on books when it comes to history. However, as
years passed by some critics says that the sources were mistakenly interpreted and thus giving us different
information and worst others are contradictory.
SOURCES OF HISTORICAL DATA

1. Written Source
It can be either primary or secondary. Primary sources are products of events that have taken place while
secondary are materials that interpret and analyze primary source.
Primary Sources
These are materials produced by people or groups directly involved in the event or topic being studied.
These people are either participants or eyewitnesses to the event. These sources range from eyewitness
accounts, diaries, letters, legal documents, official documents (government or private and even
photographs.
There are eight examples of these primary sources:
1. Photographs that may reflect social conditions of historical realities and everyday life.
2. Old sketches and drawings that may indicate the conditions of life of societies in the past
3. Old maps that may reveal how space and geography were used to emphasize trade routes,
structural build up, etc.
4. Cartoons for political expression or propaganda
5. Material evidence of the prehistoric past like cave drawings, old syllabaries and ancient writings
6. Statistical tables graphs and charts
7. Oral history or recordings by electronic means of accounts of eyewitnesses or participants; the
recordings are then transcribed for research.
8. Published and unpublished primary documents, eyewitness accounts and other written sources
Secondary Sources
Gottschalk simply defines secondary sources as “the testimony of anyone who is not an eyewitness –
that is of one who was not present at the event of which he tells”. These are books, articles, and scholarly
journals that had interpreted primary sources or had used them to discuss certain subjects of history.
Examples:
1. Orally transmitted materials

This are unwritten historical accounts which are passed on from generation through word of
mouth.
2. Artistic production
Historical sources that are in the form of visual arts and sculptures.
3. Electronic data
Historical sources that can be acquired from films, documentaries, television shows, etc.
4. Relics and Remains
Historical sources that can be crafted from artifacts, fossils, potteries, bones etc.
LESSON 2
UNDERSTANDING PERSPECTIVE ON SELECTED PRIMARY SOURCES IN PHILIPPINE

HISTORY
The students must be able to:

➢ Analyze the content, context, and perspective of the document.
➢ Discuss Magellan-Elcano expedition and experience based on the journal.
➢ Explain the importance of Pigafetta’s account on the study of Philippine history
➢ Determine the main teaching and guiding principles of the Kartilya
➢ Recognize the importance of the Kartilya in the past and today’s society
Historical sources are written by various authors with different perspectives. Perspective refers to the
point of view of the said writer who was a witness to the event. Though historical sources are important
in the writing of history, the historian is careful in using these sources as the writer may be biased or
prejudiced in the subject he/she is discussing.
Hereunder are some of the Primary sources of the events in the past:
1. MAGELLAN’S VOYAGE AROUND THE WORLD by ANTONIO PIGAFETTA

Historical Context
On Aug. 10, 1519, Magellan set sail with 270 men and five ships: the Trinidad (commanded by
Magellan), the San Antonio, the Victoria, the Conception, and the Santiago. From Spain, the fleet sailed
to Brazil and then headed south, hugging the coast. They were searching for a fabled water passage that
would allow them to cross South America without going around Cape Horn.
On Oct. 21, 1520, he finally found the passageway that would come to bear his name. The Strait of
Magellan is a curvy, narrow channel that separates Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America from the
continental mainland. Sailing through it was treacherous: dangerous to navigate, freezing cold and foggy.
It took the fleet over a month to pass through the 350-mile strait. After 38 days on the strait, the fleet
finally emerged at the Pacific Ocean in November 1520. They were the first Europeans to see this ocean.
Magellan named it Mar Pacifico because its waters appeared calm in comparison to the difficult strait
waters.
Upon landing at Cebu, Magellan was overcome with religious zeal and decided to convert the natives to
Christianity. Some of the natives agreed to convert, while others did not — and the split caused problems
in the population. The Cebuana king became Christian, and sought to fight against a neighboring group,
the Mactan, who did not convert. The Cebuanas asked Magellan to join them in their fight, and he
agreed.
Against the advice of his men. Magellan led the attack, assuming his European weapons would ensure a
quick victory. The Mactan people, however, fought fiercely and struck Magellan with a poison arrow.
Magellan died from the wound on April 27, 1521.
After Magellan’s death, Sebastian del Cano took command of the two remaining ships, the Trinidad and
the Victoria (the Conception was burned because there were not enough men left to operate it). A former
mutineer, del Cano led the ships to the Spice Islands. After securing the spices they had so long ago set
out for, the ships set sail for Spain. The Trinidad was attacked by a Portuguese ship and left shipwrecked.
In September 1522 — three years and a month since the journey began — the Victoria docked back in
Seville. Only one ship of the original five — and only 18 men of the original 270 — survived the voyage.
Among them was Antonio Pigafetta, a scholar who had kept a detailed diary of the expedition.
About the Author (Antonio Pigafetta)

About the Book
Pigafetta kept a detailed journal of what happened to them from the time they left Seville in 1519 until
they returned to Spain three years after. When he returned to Italy, many of his associate ask him to write
a formal account of the Magellan expedition and have it published. He followed their advice and after
doing it, he presented his draft to Pope Clement VII, Philippe de Villiers L’Isle-Adam (grandmaster of
the Knight of Rhodes) and to Louis of Savoy (mother of King Francis I of France), hoping that they
would help him finance its publication. Unfortunately, he was unable to find a financier who would pay
the deposit required by the printer because by that time, the accounts of Maximilianus Transylvanus and
Peter Martyr were already out and interest on Magellan expedition had died down. Sometime in 1536, a
condensed version of his manuscript was published in Venice by Jacques Fabre.
The original journal of Pigafetta did not survive time. What was handed down to us are copies of the
manuscript that were never printed in his lifetime. Of the four known primary sources that dealt with the
Magellan expedition, Pigafetta’s account is the longest and most comprehensive. It recounted the
individual fates of the five ships (Trunidad, San Antonio, Conception, Santiago, and Victoria) that
comprised the Magellan expedition. It narrated lucidly how they gallantly survived the unforeseen
problems and challenges, such as shortage of food, various types of diseases, the crew’s lack of confidence
in Magellan’s leadership, and the hostile attitude of the people they encountered during the journey.
Pigafetta’s account also included maps, glossaries of native words, and geographic information and
descriptions of the flora and fauna of the places they visited.
Pigafetta’s travelogue contributed immensely to the enrichment of Philippine histography . His

writing provided us a glimpse of the political, economic and social conditions of the islands in the
Visayan region during the 16th century. He described vividly the physical appearance, social life, religious
beliefs, and cultural practices of the people they encountered in the islands of Samar, Leyte, and Cebu.
His account also contains data about the economic activities of the local folks and the goods they offered
for trade. He got all this information through the help of Magellan’s slave/interpreter Enrique de
Malacca. Pigafetta likewise gave us an eyewitness account of the death of Magellan in the Battle of
Mactan.
EXCERPTS FROM MAGELLAN’S VOYAGE AROUND THE WORLD

Saturday, the 16th of March, 1521, we arrived at daybreak in sight of a high island, three hundred
leagues distant from the before-mentioned Thieves' island. This isle is named Zamal.. Monday, the 18th
of March, after dinner, we saw a boat come towards us with nine men in it: upon which the
captain-general ordered that no one should move or speak without his permission. When these people
had come into this island towards us, immediately the principal one amongst them went towards the
captain-general with demonstrations of being very joyous at our arrival. Five of the most showy of them
remained with us, the others who remained with the boat went to call some men who were fishing, and
afterwards all of them came together.
These people became very familiar and friendly with us, and explained many things to us in their
language, and told us the names of some islands which we saw with our eyes before us. *The island where
they dwelt is called Zuluam, and it is not large. The island we were at was named Humunu; nevertheless
because we found there two springs of very fresh water we named it the Watering Place of good signs, and
because we found here the first signs of gold.
Sunday, the 7th of April, about midday, we entered the port of Zzubu, having passed by many
villages. There we saw many houses which were built on trees. On approaching the principal town the
captain-general commanded all his ships to hang out their flags.
We set out from Zubu at midnight, we were sixty men armed with corslets and helmets; there were
with us the Christian king, the prince, and some of the chief men, and many others divided among twenty
or thirty balangai. We arrived at Matan three hours before daylight. The captain before attacking wished
to attempt gentle means, and sent on shore the Moorish merchant to tell those islanders who were of the
party of Cilapulapu, that if they would recognise the Christian king as their sovereign, and obey the King
of Spain, and pay us the tribute which had been asked, the captain would become their friend, otherwise
we should prove how our lances wounded. The islanders were not terrified, they replied that if we had
lances, so also had they, although only of reeds, and wood hardened with fire. They asked however that
we should not attack them by night, but wait for daylight, because they were expecting reinforcements,
and would be in greater number. This they said with cunning, to excite us to attack them by night,
supposing that we were ready; but they wished this because they had dug ditches between their houses and
the beach, and they hoped that we should fall into them.
We however waited for daylight; we then leaped into the water up to our thighs, for on account of
the shallow water and the rocks the boats could not come close to the beach, and we had to cross two
good crossbow shots through the water before reaching it. We were forty-nine in number, the other
eleven remained in charge of the boats. When we reached land we found the islanders fifteen hundred in
number, drawn up in three squadrons; they came down upon us with terrible shouts, two squadrons
attacking us on the flanks, and the third in front. The captain then divided his men in two bands. Our
musketeers and crossbow-men fired for half an hour from a distance, but did nothing, since the bullets
and arrows, though they passed through their shields made of thin wood, and perhaps wounded their
arms, yet did not stop them. The captain shouted not to fire, but he was not listened to. The islanders
seeing that the shots of our guns did them little or no harm would not retire, but shouted more loudly,
and springing from one side to the other to avoid our shots, they at the same time drew nearer to us,

throwing arrows, javelins, spears hardened in fire, stones, and even mud, so that we could hardly defend
ourselves. Some of them cast lances pointed with iron at the captain-general.
He then, in order to disperse this multitude and to terrify them, sent some of our men to set fire
to their houses, but this rendered them more ferocious. Some of them ran to the fire, which consumed
twenty or thirty houses, and there killed two of our men. The rest came down upon us with greater fury;
they perceived that our bodies were defended, but that the legs were exposed, and they aimed at them
principally. The captain had his right leg pierced by a poisoned arrow, on which account he gave orders
to retreat by degrees; but almost all our men took to precipitate flight, so that there remained hardly six
or eight of us with him. We were oppressed by the lances and stones which the enemy hurled at us, and
we could make no more resistance. The bombards which we had in the boats were of no assistance to us,
for the shoal water kept them too far from the beach. We went thither, retreating little by little, and still
fighting, and we had already got to the distance of a crossbow shot from the shore, having the water up to
our knees, the islanders following and picking up again the spears which they had already cast, and they
threw the same spear five or six times; as they knew the captain they aimed specially at him, and twice they
knocked the helmet off his head. He, with a few of us, like a good knight, remained at his post without
choosing to retreat further. Thus we fought for more than an hour, until an Indian succeeded in thrusting
a cane lance into the captain's face. He then, being irritated, pierced the Indian's breast with his lance, and
left it in his body, and trying to draw his sword he was unable to draw it more than half way, on account
of a javelin wound which he had received in the right arm. The enemies seeing this all rushed against him,
and one of them with a great sword, like a great scimetar gave him a great blow on the left leg, which
brought the captain down on his face, then the Indians threw themselves upon him, and ran him through
with lances and scimetars, and all the other arms which they had, so that they deprived of life our mirror,
light, comfort, and true guide. Whilst the Indians were thus overpowering him, several times he turned
round towards us to see if we were all in safety, as though his obstinate fight had no other object than to
give an opportunity for the retreat of his men. We who fought to extremity, and who were covered with
wounds, seeing that he was dead, proceeded to the boats which were on the point of going away. This
fatal battle was fought on the 27th of April of 1521, on a Saturday; a day which the captain had chosen
himself, because he had a special devotion to it. There perished with him eight of our men, and
four of the Indians, who had become Christians; we had also many wounded, amongst whom I
must reckon myself. The enemy lost only fifteen men.
2. THE KARTILYA OF THE KATIPUNAN by Emilio Jacinto
Historical Context:
The first move towards independence begun on July 7, 1892 when the Katipunan was established by
Andres Bonifacio. This was a result of the failure of the Reform Movement in Spain in which Filipinos
attempted to demand reforms for the Philippines from the Spanish government. Bonifacio saw the
futility of the efforts of the Filipinos propagandists and organized an underground movement against
Spain.
The Kataastaasang Kagalang-galangan Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan or KKK was a revolutionary
society that espoused independence and freedom for the Philippines through force of arms. The two
principal aims of KKK as gathered from the writings of Bonifacio:
1. Unity of the Filipino people
2. Separation from Spain by means of Revolution
To achieve unity of the Filipinos, propaganda work must be done and this was through massive
education and civic trainings of the Katipuneros. To that end, Bonifacio prepared his now well-known
decalogue, and Jacinto his famous “kartilya ng Katipunan.
About the Author

Emilio Jacinto
- born on December 15,1875 in the district of Trozo in Tondo Manila. He was the son of
Mariano Jacinto and Josefa Dizon.
- He joined the Katipunan in 1894 and take the symbolic name Pingkian.
- Through his enthusiasm and ideas, he became a guiding light to the members of the society
- He wrote the Kartilya as well as the oath of the Katipuneros.
- He also edited the Katipunan newspaper, Kalayaan, and was the author of several literary
writings using the pen-name “Dimas Ilaw”
- Served as secretary, fiscal, editor and later appointed as General and became as an adviser to the
supremo.
- After the death of Bonifacio,he continued the fight against the Spaniards even after the truce
following the Pact of Biak-na-Bato.
About the Text

The term Kartilya was derived from the Spanish cartilla which was the primer used for grade schools
during the Spanish period. And like the cartilla, this document (Kartilya) served as the primary lessons
for the members of the Katipunan.
The Kartilya presents not only the teachings for the neophyte Katipunero but also the guiding
principles of the society. These teachings are epected from the members even after the attainment of
freedom from the colonizers. The Kartilya ends with a document of affirmation by the member to the
society’s teachings.
KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN
Tagalog Text
MGA ARAL NG KATIPUNAN NG MGA A.N.B.

Ang kabuhayang hindi ginugugol sa isang Malaki at banal na kadahilanan ay kahoy na walang lihim, kundi damong
makamandag.
Ang gawang magaling na nagbubuhat sa pagpipita sa srili, at hindi sa talagang nasang gumawa ng kagalingan, ay di kabaitan.
Ang tunay na kabanalan ay ang pagkakawang gawa, ang pagibig sa kapua at ang isukat ang bawat kilos, gawa’t pangungusap
sa talagang Katuiran.
Maitim man at amputi ang kulay ng balat, lahat ng tao’y magkakapantay; mangyayaring ang isa’y higtan sa dunong, sa
yaman, sa ganda….; ngunit di mahihigitan sa pagkatao.
Ang may mataas na kalooban inuuna ang puri sa pagpipita sa sarili; ang may hamak na kalooban inuuna ang pagpipita sa
sarili sa puri.
Sa taong may hiya, salita’y panumnumpa.
Huag mong sasayangin ang panahun; ang yamang nawala’y mangyayaring magbabalik; ngunit panahung nagdaan na’y di na
muli pang magdadaan.
Ipagtangol mo angnaapi, at kabakahin ang umaapi.
Ang taong matalino’y ang may pagiinagt sa bawat sasabihin at matutong ipaglihim ang dapat ipagluhim.
Sa daang matinik ng kabuhayan, lalaki ay isang patnugot ng asawa’t mga anak; kung ang umaakay ay tungo sa sama, ang
patutunguhan ng inaakay ay kasamaan din.

Ang babai ay huag mong tignang isang bagay ba libangan lamang, kun di isang katuang at karamay sa mga kahirapan
mitong kabuhayaan; gamitan mo ng boong pagpipitagan ang kaniyang kahinaan at alalahanin ang inang
pinagbuhata’t nagiwi sa iyong kasangulan.
Ang di mo ibig na gawin sa asawa mo, anak at kapatid ay huag mong gagawin sa asawa, anak at kapatid ng iba.
Ang kamahalan ng tao’y wala sa pagkahari, wala sat angus ng ilong at puti sa mukha, wala sa pagkaparing halili ng Dios,
wala sa mataas na kalagayan sa balat ng lupa; wagas at tunay na mahal na tao, kahit laking gubat at walang
nababatid kundi ang sariling wika, yaong may magandang asal, may isang oangungusap, may dangal at puri; yaong
di napaaapi’t di nakikiapi; yaong marunong magdamdam at marunong lumingap sa bayang tinubuan.
Paglaganap ng mga aral na ito at maningning na sumikat ang araw ng mahal na Kalayaan ditto sa kaabaabang Sangkalupaan,
at sbugan ng matmis niyang liwanag ang nangagkaisang magkalahi’t magkakapatid ng ligayang walang katapusan,
ang mga ginugol na buhay, pagud at mga tiniis nakahirapa’y labis nang natumbasan.
Kung lahat ng ito’y mataruk na ng nagiibig pumasok at inaakala niyang matutupad ang amga titingkulin, maitatala ang
kaniyang ninanasa sa kasunod nito.
Note: The teachings are followed by a form to be filled out with name, hometown, age, occupation,
status, and address. The Kartilya conclude with a brief undertaking to be signed by the person who
intends to join the association.
3. THE ACT OF PROCLAMATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE

(ACTA DE LA PROCLAMATION DE LA INDEPENDENCIA DEL PUEBLO FILIPINO).
Historical Context
The first phase of the Philippine Revolution ended in the stalemate between the Spaniards and the
Filipino rebels. There was an agreement between the leader of the Filipinos in the person of General
Emilio Aguinaldo agreeing to be exiled to Hong Kong while the Spaniards indemnify for the damages
caused to Filipinos. The agreement lasted only for a few months as both the Spaniards and Aguinaldo did
comply with the agreement. Spaniards failed to pay the agreed amount and Aguinaldo on the other hand,
connived with the Americans in Hong Kong in preparation of his return in the Philippines. During that
time, Americans is in conflict with the Spaniards. This eventually led to Spanish-American War in 1898
in the Philippines which led to the arrival of a new colonizer to the Philippines- the Americans.
Even before the Battle of Manila in 1898, Aguinaldo had already been meeting with Americans in
Singapore. He talked with consul E. Spencer Pratt regarding US-Filipino collaboration against the
Spaniards before he went back Hong Kong to meet up with Commodore George Dewey, commander of
the Asiatic Fleet.
On May 19, 1898, Aguinaldo finally returned to the Philippines on board the US cruiser MsCulloch.
Aguinaldo conferred with Dewey on Philippines conditions and was supplied with arms captured from
the Spaniards. From his headquarters in Cavite, Aguinaldo announced the resumption of the revolution
against the Spaniards. On May 28, the Filipino forces won their first victory in Alapan, Imus.
Earlier, On May 24, Aguinaldo announced the creation of the dictatorial government. T He emphasized
that the dictatorship was only temporary as it would be a prelude to the establishment of a republican
form of government.
On June 12, 1898, Aguinaldo declared Philippine independence from Spanish rule at a ceremony in his
house in Kawit, Cavite. Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista read the declaration that was later signed by 177
persons, including an American military officer. The Philippine National Anthem, then known as
“Marcha Nacional Filipina,” composed by Julian Felipe, was played by the Banda de San Francisco de
Malabon and the Philippine flag was again unfurled.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The proclamation was considered as a primary source of Philippine History as it was written by the one
who read the declaration and that was Ambrosio Bautista.
(Although the actual author of the proclamation was Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, the initiator of
Philippine independence that led to the making of the proclamation was Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo)
Emilio Aguinaldo was born on March 22, 1869 in Kawit Cavite (Cavite el Viejo), the second to the
youngest of eight children of Carlos Aguinaldo and Trinidad Famy. The Aguinaldo were a wealthy and
influential family with Carlos being gobernadorcillo for several terms. Aguinaldo followed in his father’s
footsteps and was chosen capitan municipal of Kawit in 1894. Months later, he joined the Katipunan
choosing the name Magdalo.
When the revolution began in 1896, the Katipunan in Cavite succeeded in driving away the Spaniards
from the province. But territorial and logistical problems between the two groups soon forced Aguinaldo
to ask for help from Supremo Andres Bonifacio in settling the conflict. Bonifacio’s intervention, however,
only worsened the situation and the solution the two factions saw was to create a revolutionary
government.
Elections for Katipunan Government was held and Emilio Aguinaldo was elected as the President.
Andres Bonifacio, the founder, protested and angrily declared the result of the elections null and void and
walked out. The Magdalos (follower of Aguinaldo) considered the election binding and the new
government was founded. When Bonifacio tried to put up his own government with an armed group, he
was arrested and tried for sedition. Found guilty, Bonifacio and his brother Procorpio were executed on
May 10, 1897.
The internal dissent caused by Bonifacio’s death weakened the Katipunan. The Spanish groups regained
Cavite and Aguinaldo was forced to retreat to the mountains of Biak-na-Bato. But the Spaniards soon
realized that going after the rebels in their mountain hideout was futile. A stalemate ensued by a proposal
to which the rebels agreed. In exchange for an indemnity, amnesty and colonial reform, Aguinaldo and his
officers went into exile in Hong Kong in December 1897.
The history of how Aguinaldo return back to the Philippines was discussed a while ago.
But Filipinos soon realized that the Americans were to become a new colonizers. After the Spanish defeat
in 1898, the United States began to send fresh troops to the Philippines. In 1899, Aguinaldo convened
a Congress in Malolos, Bulacan in which the delegates wrote a Constitution and established the
Philippine Republic with Aguinaldo as President in January 1899.
Three weeks later, the continuing friction with the Americans erupted into a conflict in February 1899.
The Philippine-American war eventually ended in 1901 with the capture of Aguinaldo. Soon after, he
pledge allegiance to the United States and returned to his private life on his family farm. He briefly

hugged the limelight when he ran for presidency of the Philippine Commonwealth but lost to Manuel L.
Quezon.
ABOUT THE TEXT
On June 10, 1896, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo issued a one sentence decree appointing his Auditor General
of War, Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, as a “special commissioner” to write the Act of Declaration of the
Independence. The result was a sixteen-page document that contained the aspirations of freedom form
Spanish rule, the sacrifices made, and the revolution that resulted from it. It was the text of this
declaration that was read in Kawit in the afternoon of the celebration of the declaration of independence.
Copies were distributed but there was a problem in determining how many witnesses really signed the
declaration. The copies classified under the Philippine Revolutionary Papers (PRP) in the National
Library had varying numbers. Later research by historian-writer Jim Richardson placed the total number
of signees at 177.
LESSON 3
“ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: controversies and conflicting views in Philippine History.
There are several issues on some of the facts of our History. Different books do not corroborate each
other and worst gives us different answers especially that in history, specific detail are necessary. In order
to settle on the conflicts of some issues, the aim of this subject is to reconcile by using primary sources
and interpret and favor the nearest and most acceptable evidence presented.
1.THE RIZAL RETRACTION

Historical Context
A leader of the reformist movement in Spain, Dr. Jose Rizal was arrested, tried and sentenced to
death by a Spanish court martial after being implicated as a leader of the Philippine Revolution. The
night before his death by firing squad at the Luneta on December 30, 1896, accounts exist that Rizal
allegedly retracted his Masonic ideals and his writings and reconverted to Catholicism following several
hours of persuasion by Jesuit priests. There was considerable doubt to this allegation by Rizal’s family
and friends until in 1935, the supposed retraction document with Rizal’s signature was found. Until
today, the issue whether Rizal retracted or not and whether the document is forged or real is a subject of
continuous debate between historians and Rizal scholars alike.
The following primary sources are of two kinds: the first two are the official accounts as witnessed by
the Jesuits who were instrumental in the alleged retraction of Rizal. The other two are critical analyses by
two Rizalist scholars who doubted the story of the creation.
Fr. Vicente Balaguer’s Statement

Fr. Vicente Balaguer was one of the Jesuit priests who visited Rizal during his last hours in Fort
Snatiago and claimed that he managed to persuade Rizal to denounce Masonry and return to the catholic
fold. In an affidavit executed in 1917 when he had returned to Spain, Balaguer also claimed that he was
the one who solemnized the marriage of Josephine Bracken and Rizal hours before the hero’s execution.
Fr. Pio Pi’s Statement
Fr. Pio Pi was the Jesuit Superior in the Philippines during the time when Rizal was executed. In
1917, he issued an affidavit recounting his involvement in the alleged retraction of Rizal. Unlike Father
Balaguer, however, he was involved only in securing the retraction document from the Archbishop of
Manila Bernardino Nozaleda, and writing another shorter retraction document as well which was the one
Rizal allegedly copied.
RELEVANCE OF RIZAL’S RETRACTION IN THE PHILIPPINE HISTORY
Rizal’s extraction from religious error has been a very controversial claim since it was first brought up. In
it, Rizal disowns all his life’s work. In the supposed retraction document, he is alleged to have written:
“ I declare myself a Catholic and its religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my
heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic
Church”
This document is critical as Rizal became the inspiration of Katipunan which advocated for Philippine
Independence. Ironically, enough, Rizal was not really pro-independence himself. He is aware that of the
time he was in, the people are not yet ready to launch a fight for independence and any attempt will just
result in heavy losses and suffering to the people. He was an advocate of better treatment for the people,
representation in the Spanish Cortes, and education for the people-presumably to better prepare the
people for Independence. When the Katipunan visited him in Dapitan, he himself emphasizes it to Dr.
Pio Valenzuela. However, when pressed further, he advised that should a revolution be unavoidable, to at
least have the rich be neutral as they have could easily turn the tide on the revolutionaries. He even
suggested that they that they contact his friend, Antonio Luna (who is also by then still pro reform
instead of pro independence).
By showing a retraction document, the Spanish authorities are hoping that Rizal’s death will not become
rallying cry for the Filipinos in the quest for independence. They fear it so much that authorities even
broke a promise to the Rizal family to release the body to them after the execution and instead dumped
his body on a secret, unmarked grave.
This document will also serve as a face saving measure for the friars whom Rizal made fun of and
criticized in his novels. However, there has been no definitive proof whether this supposed retraction is
real or not. While a copy of the original retraction document was supposedly found in the 1930’s, it
could also be a forgery. Two other documents could also indirectly debunk the retraction:
1. The “Mi Ultimo Adios”- the person who supposedly witnessed the retraction, Fr. Balaguer, never
mentioned Rizal writing the poem during Rizal’s last night.
2. The marriage certificate- it was also claimed that upon retracting, Rizal married his sweetheart
Josephine Bracken. Josephine whereabouts during the days of the execution is not known. If she was at his
cell that night, it would have been noted by the guards and the other people in the area. When Josephine
was trying to claim Rizal’s library from his friend Jose Basa, she was asked to produced their marriage
certificate as a proof. She stopped the claim then, assumption of which is that she cannot produce any as
there really was no marriage which puts into question the accounts made by Father Balaguer.
II. THE FIRST CRY OF REVOLUTION

Historical Context
The Philippine Revolution of 1896 began with what later became unknown as the “First Cry” or the
initial move of the Filipinos to begin the revolution for independence. This they did by tearing up their
cedulas and proclaiming the start of the fight for independence. The event happened after the Katipunan
was exposed on August 19, 1896 and the Spaniards began to crack down on suspected rebels. The
Katipunan Supremo Andres proceed to a designated meeting place outside the city to decide on their next
move. The original plan was to start the revolution at the end of August but following the arrests of the
Katipuneros, Bonifacio found it wise to begin the revolution that day and attack Manila at the end of the
month.
In 1911, a monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in Balintawak where beginning in 1908, it
was believed that the first cry occurred there on August 26. However, the date and place of the event were
later contradicted by different Katipunan personalities who claimed that they were there at the time. In
1963, the National Historical Commission decided that, following extensive research of primary sources,
the First Cry of the Philippine Revolution of 1896 at Pugad Lawin, now part of Project 8 in Quezon
City.
The controversy, however, persists, with historians and other personalities claiming that the official
date and place are wrong.
Dr. Pio Valenzuela’s Account
The official date and place of the First Cry were largely based on the account of Dr. Pio Valenzuela,
an official of the Katipunan and a friend of Andres Bonifacio, who was present during the event. His
account was published as Memoirs of the K.K.K. and the Philippine Revolution (Manila, n.d.)
Guillermo Masangkay’s Account

In 1932, Guillermo Masangkay, a friend and fellow Katipunero of Andres Bonifacio, recounted his
experiences as a member of the revolutionary movement. In an interview with the Sunday Tribune
magazine, Masangkay said that the First Cry happened in Balintawak on August 26, 1896. In the first
decade of American rule, it was his account that was used by the government and civic officials to fix the
date and place of the First Cry which was capped with the erection of the “Monument to the Heroes of
1896” in that place.
However, in an interview published in the newspaper Bagong Buhay on August 26, 1957, Masangkay
changed his narrative stating that the revolution began on August 23, 1896, similar to the assertion of Dr.
Pio Valenzuela. But Masangkay’s date was later changed again when his granddaughter, Soledad
Buehler-Borromeo, cited sources, including the Masangkay papers, that the original date was August 26.
III.THE TEJEROS ASSEMBLY
The first days of the Revolution saw the defeat of the Katipunan in Manila, forcing Bonifacio to retreat
and his men to the mountains of Montalban. It was a different story in Cavite. Here, The Katipunan
under Emilio Aguinaldo managed to subdue the Spanish forces by surprise and take control of the
province. The victory, however was short lived as the Cavite Katipuneros-which consisted of two groups,
the Magdiwang (supporters of Bonifacio) and Magdalo (supporters of Aguinaldo)-were soon fighting
each others over territory and logistics. Unable to resolve their differences, Aguinaldo invited the
Supremo Andres Bonifacio to Cavite to mediate. The two groups finally agreed to form a revolutionary
government(pamahalaang paghihimagsik) which would lead the revolution. The Assembly was set to be
held in the friar’s estate house in Barrio Tejeros, a part of the town of San Francisco de Malabon (now
General Trias). On March 22, 1897, The Cavite Katipuneros, as well as representatives of the Katipunan
from the nearby provinces, converged at the state house. Emilio was not at the assembly as he was
commanding the Filipino forces.
Andres Bonifacio opened the meeting saying: "As you desire to set up a supreme government to direct the
insurrection, abolishing what was organized by the Katipunan and the resolution approved in the assembly
of Imus, as President of the Supreme Council of the Katipunan, I accede to your just petition, but first of
all I desire to ask you to recognize a principle as a basis of agreement in this or in other meetings, which is:
that we respect and obey the will of the majority". All gave their approval to this.
The Republic of the Philippines was agreed on and proclaimed, with enthusiastic hurrahs. Then followed
the election of those who were to occupy the following offices in the government of the Republic of the
Philippines: President, Vice-President, Captain-General, Director of War, Director of Interior, Director of
State, Director of Finance, Director of Fomento and Director of Justice.
Ballots were then distributed and after one hour the result was announced. Emilio Aguinaldo was elected
President of the government of the Republic of the Philippines, by majority vote, against Andres Bonifacio
and Mariano Trias. The President-elect was proclaimed by means of applause and hurrahs.
Immediately after they proceeded to the election of Vice-President, Severino de las Alas stood up and said
that as Andres Bonifacio secured second place in the election of President, he should be declared and
proclaimed Vice-President of the government of the Republic of the Philippines. Nobody spoke for nor
against the proposition of de las Alas so the presiding officer decided that they should proceed to vote. The
result was the election by majority vote of Mariano Trias Closas against Andres Bonifacio, Severino de las
Alas and Mariano Alvarez.
The same procedure was followed in the election of the Director of the Interior which resulted in the
selection, by a majority, of Andres Bonifacio against Mariano Alvarez and Pascual Alvarez. Amid the din of
hurrahs, acclaiming Andres Bonifacio, rose the voice of Daniel Tirona asking for permission to speak and
he commenced thus:
The position of Director of the Interior is an exalted one and it is not meet that a person without a lawyer's
diploma should occupy it. We have in our province a lawyer, Jose del Rosario, therefore we should protest
against the elected and acclaimed'. And, shouting with all his might, said: 'Let us vote for Jose del Rosario!'
His personal feeling wounded, Bonifacio stood and said: Did we not agree that we have to abide by the
decision of the majority whatever may be the social conditions of those elected?" Having said this, he asked
Daniel Tirona to repeat all that he had said, and to give satisfaction to the assembly for his phrases
defamatory to the one elected. As Daniel Tirona tried to hide himself in the crowd without paying any
attention, Bonifacio pulled his revolver and was about to fire at Tirona when the secretary of the assembly
grabbed his hand and prevented the incident from becoming more than a scare. As the people began to leave
the hall, Andres Bonifacio, in high tone, said: 'I, as chairman of this assembly, and as president of the
Supreme Council of the Katipunan, as you all do not deny, declare this assembly dissolved, and I annul all
what has been approved and resolved'. He and his followers then left the room."
This narrative essentially coincides with what Andres Bonifacio, himself, wrote to Emilio Jacinto in a
letter dated at Indang April 24, 1897. The proceedings of the assembly were again the object of a
written protest subscribed to by more than forty persons, among whom were Andres Bonifacio, Mariano
Alvarez, on the ground that fraudulent means were used in the elections for the different offices in the
government. Notwithstanding this, Emilio Aguinaldo, president elect, and Mariano Trias Closas,
Vice-President elect, took their respective oath of office in the convent of Santa Cruz de Malabon,
before a crucifix, on the day following the election.
Andres Bonifacio, with his men went to the barrio of Jalang, and then to Limbon, both within the
municipality of Indang, with the object of returning to Manila. When Aguinaldo received charges that
Bonifacio was recruiting in Limbon to overthrow the revolutionary government, he sent some of his
loyal followers to that place under the command of Colonels Bonzon, Pawa and Topacio. These forces
engaged the forces of the "Supremo" at dawn of April 28, which resulted in the death of two of the
followers of Andres Bonifacio and one of his brothers. Andres Bonifacio, himself was seriously
wounded. This tragic incident caused the government of Aguinaldo to create a courtmartial to try the
Bonifacio brothers and some of his soldiers, on a charge of sedition. Colonel Pantaleon Garcia was
appointed Judge Advocate. The decision of the courtmartial was forwarded to a Council of War
presided by General Mariano Noriel which condemned to death the Bonifacio brothers. When the
document reached President Aguinaldo, however, he commuted the sentence to a mera exile. The whole
proceedings which we publish in toto reproduce the testimonies of both sides and the condemnatory
decision. The leading witness of the prosecution was Pedro Giron, a confidential man of Bonifacio, of
whom it was said, at least by Mrs. Andres Bonifacio that he was bribed.
Whoever reads the briefs of both sides, will understand that the conflict between the two leaders of the
Revolution, had, in its foundation, a legal nature, within the relative legality, possible in a revolutionary
situation. Did Bonifacio continue being the Head of the Katipunan with jurisdiction all over the
Archipelago, or was he subrogated by Aguinaldo from the time the latter took the oath of his new office?
Such was the real issue. Aguinaldo and his followers maintained the negative, and for this reason they
considered Bonifacio as seditionist. On the other hand, Bonifacio and his men, not recognizing the
legality of the Tejeros Assembly, maintained that the Katipunan organization was still in force. The
court martial was called upon to review this legal conflict. Even if this court could be charged with
partiality because it was composed of men of only one side, the fact that Bonifacio and his followers
submitted to it without any protest, prevented them from taking exceptions to its decision. Such
decision having been given, it had to be complied with.
Thus far everything went well. But, since some ordinary process of law was adopted, why did they not
abide by the final decision? Why was not the President order followed as drafted? Mysterious as it was,
the death of the two Bonifacios, when the final order was only for exile, will always be a black page in the
history of the Revolution, and a stain to those who planned and brought it about. The life of a man is
precious, and even under the most abnormal conditions, when absolute powers over life and property are
given to a dictator, capital punishments require an order that explains their reason. If the procedure
followed was legal; the disappearance of the accused, being illegal, was a crime; if the procedure was a
farce, it carried in itself its own condemnation. In brief, if the accused had to die, why were they
pardoned? And if they were pardoned, why were they executed?
TEODORO M. KALAW
Manila, July, 1926
Source:
The court martial of Andress Bonifacio
IV. SITE OF THE FIRST MASS
Butuan or Limasawa?
The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of the Evidence
There is a controversy regarding the site of the first Mass ever celebrated on Philippine soil. There are
two conflicting claims as to its identity; one school of thought points to the little island south of Leyte
which in the map is called Limasawa; the other school rejects the claim and points instead to the beach
called Masao at the mouth of the Agusan River in northern Mindanao, near what was then the village
(now the city) of Butuan.
In this module, we shall try to examine and reassess the evidence for these two claims. And we shall begin
with the Butuan tradition
I. THE BUTUAN TRADITION
The monument was erected apparently at the instigation of the parish priest of Butuan, who at the time
was a Spanish friar of the Order of Augustinian Recollects. The date given for the Mass (April 8, 1521)
may be an obvious error but in any case, that monument is a testimonial to the tradition that remained
vigorous until the end of 18th century, namely that Magellan and his expedition landed at Butuan and
celebrated there the first Mass ever offered on Philippine soil.
The 17th century
The Butuan tradition was already in possession by the middle of the 17th century; so much so that it was
accepted without question by two Jesuit historians who otherwise were quite careful of their facts.
One of these historians was Father Francisco Colin S.J. (1592-1660) who labor evangelica was first
published in Madrid in 1663, three years after his death.
Colin had obviously read some authentic accounts of Magellan’s voyage, for his narration is accurate up
to the landing in Homonhon. He spells it Humunu, as does Pigafetta). After that, Colin’s account
becomes vague. He abruptly brings Magellan to Butuan without explaining how he get there. Then he
brings him to Limasawa (which he mispells Dimasaua), and from there the account becomes accurate and
detailed. The important thing in Colin’s account as far as the present purpose is concerned, is the fact that
he represents the first Mass, as well as the solemn planting of the cross and the formal taking possession
of the Islands in the name of the Crown of Castile(Spaniards), as having taken place in Butuan on Easter
Sunday of 1521.
The other Jesuit writer of the mid 17th century was Father Francisco Combes S.J., who like Colin, had
lived and worked as a missionary in the Philippines, and whose book Historia Mindanao y Jolo (History
of Mindanao. The main point in that account is that Magellan landed in Butuan and there planted the
cross in a solemn ceremony although Combes does not mention the first Mass.
COLIN AND COMBES COMPARED:

It is to be noted that both Colin and Combes picture Magellan as visiting both Butuan and Limasawa. In
Colin’s account, Magellan went first to Butuan, then to Limasawa and from there to Cebu. Combes on
the other hand, mentions visits to Limasawa first then to Butuan then return to Limasawa then to Cebu.
Both agreed however that with the help of Limasawas chieftein that the Magellan Expedition went to
Cebu. Both of them agreed that Magellan arrived in Cebu on the 7th of April 1521; that is to say on the
Actave of Easter, or one week after the first Mass which-in this tradition- was supposed to have been
celebrated at Butuan.
Th 18th Century
Of the historians interpreted Colin’s book with error and as years passed by, adopted by many authors
and historians. One of the major historians who made error (and who in turn influenced later writers) was
Augustinian; Juan de la Concepcion (1724-1787) whose 14-volume History of the Philippines was
published in Manila shortly after his death. Fray Juan has misread his sources. He has mixed up several
things. First, he seems to think that the islands called “Las Velas” and the Marianas Islands and the
Archipelago of San Lazaro were all one and the same thing. Second, he has misconstrued Magellan’s
route, depicting him as sighting the southeastern tip of Mindanao and sailing northwards along the
Pacific coast of this island, and then entering by the Siargao Strait into Limasawa”which at the entrance
of that strait”.
The 19th Century
Towards the end of the 18th century and at the beginning of the 19th, one of the important writers who
accepted the Butuan tradition was the Augustinian, fray Joaquin Martinez de Zuniga (1760-1818),
whose work Historia de Filipinas was published in Sampaloc in 1803. Unfortunately, in copying what
previous authors had written, some subsequent writers copied not only the essence of the Butuan
tradition but also a good deal of the erroneous details that were peripheral to that tradition.
One of the misstatements is the most incredible notion that Magellan had sailed from “Limasagua” (sic)
to Cebu by coasting between Samar and Leyte. The good friar had not only checked on original sources:
he had not even bothered to look at a map. Notwithstanding with these peripheral errors, the essence of
the Butuan tradition was accepted by even otherwise careful scholars at the end of the 19th and the early
decades of the 20th century. Retana certainly accepted the Butuan tradition.
THE SHIFT IN OPINION

How then the shift in opinion- from Butuan to Limasawa come about? How was the Butuan tradition so
well entrenched for 3 centuries finally dislodged? Some defenders of the Butuan tradition have blamed
the shift of opinion on two Americans, namely Emma Blair and James Alexander Roberston, whose 55
volume collection of documents on the Philippines Islands was published in Cleveland but the blame (if
blame it is) does not rest alone upon Blair and Robertson. They contributed enormously to the shift in
opinion but man initially responsible for the shift seems to have been a Spanish Jesuit scholar. Father
Pable Pastells S.J. A word about the career of this remarkable man may not be out of place before we
proceed.
II. The Evidence for Limasawa

We now come to the evidence in favor of Limasawa. The evidence may be outlined as follows:
1. The evidence of Albo’s Log-Book
2. The evidence of Pigafetta
A. Pigafetta’s testimony regarding the route;
B. The evidence of Pigafetta’s map;
C. The two native kings;.
The Evidence of Albo’s Log book
Francisco Albo joined the Magellan expedition as a pilot in Magellan’s flagship “Trinidad”. He was one
of the eight survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on the “Victoria” after having circumnavigated
the world.
He kept a diary of his own on the voyage out. In his diary, Albo does not mention the first Mass, but only
planting of the cross upon a mountain top from which could seen three islands to the west and southwest.
This also fits the southern end of Limasawa. It does not fit the coast of Butuan which no islands could be
seen to the south or the southwest, but only towards the north.
The Evidence from Pigafetta
The most complete account of the Magellan expedition is that by Antonio Pigafetta entitled Primo
viaggio intomo el mondo (first Voyage Around the World). Like Albo, he was a member of the
expedition and was therefore an eyewitness of the principal events which he describes, including the first
Mass in what is now known as the Philippine Archipelago, but which Magellan called the Islands of Saint
Lazarus. Of Pigafetta’s work there are two excellent English translations, one by Robertson and another
by Skelton. The pertinent section in Pigafetta’s account is that in which he narrates the events from the
16th of March 1521 when they first sighted the islands of the Philippine Group, up to the 7 th of April
when the expedition landed at Cebu.
Let us examine and consider some points:

A. Pigafetta’s Testimony Regarding the Route:
They remained 7 days in Mazau, bound for Cebu where where the cross was planted. The question may
now be asked? Could Mazaua, situated at nine and two thirds degrees North latitude have been Butuan?
Or more precisely, could it have been the Masao beach in Agusan River delta, near Butuan?

To answer that let us look at Pigafetta’s map, and consider the confirmatory evidence regarding the two
king:
B. The Evidence of Pigafetta’s Map:
1. Mazaua (Mazzana in the map) is a small island which lies off the southwestern tip of the larger island
of Ceilon(Southern Leyte), and is to the east of the island of Bohol. It lies near the passage between Bohol
and the western coast of Ceilon (Leyte)
2. The island of Mazaua in Pigafetta’s map, therefore lies in a position roughly equivalent to the actual
position of the island of Limasawa.
3. In no way can Mazaua be identified with Butuan, which is situated in another and much larger island
(which we now call Mindanoa).
C. The Two kings
There is confirmatory evidence in the presence of two native Kings o rajahs at Mazau during Magellan
visit. One was “king: of Mazau who later guided the Magellan expedition to Cebu. The other was a
relative (one of his brothers as Pigafetta says, namely the king or rajah of Butuan. Of this latter individual,
Pigafetta says that he was “the finest looking man” that he had seen in those parts. At the moment, the
relevant fact is that he was a visitor to Mazaua. His territory was Butuan, which was in another island.
“that the island of his was called Butuan and Caligan. When those kings wished to see one another, they
both went to hunt in that island where we were.”
The “island where we were” was Mazaua, where they stayed seven days. Therefore Mazaua could not
have been Butuan since the king came from Butuan. Mazaua might be Limasawa.
THE GEOGRAPHY OF MAZAUA
The question may be asked; If Mazaua is the little island of Limasawa, why did Magellan go there? Why
go to an insignificant little island; why not instead to the larger islands? The answer must be sought in
geography. He was coating southward down the eastern coast of Leyte. This took him down to the
southern tip of what looks like a part of Leyta but is really a separate island, the island of Panaon. When
his ships rounded the tip of Panaon, the wind was blowing westward from the Pacific. It was late March:
in March and April in this part of the Philippnes. The east wind is strong. It is what the people of
Limasawa call the “Dumagsa”, the east wind. Sailing with the wind, Magellan’s vessels would find
themselves going west or southwest, toward the island of Limasawa.
If the island of Limasawa is the “Mazaua” of Pigafetta, why then it is now called Limasawa? Were
Pigafetta wrong? Or were the historians and map makerd wrong from 17th century onward?
We dot not have the answer to that question. Except to state that in the southern part of Leyte. The
island is still referred to by the fisherfoll as “Masaoa” not Limasawa
WHY THEN THE BUTUAN TRADITION?

How then did the strong three-century tradition in favor of Butuan arise? Here we are in the realm of
conjecture, but a number of reasons could be adduced to account for the tradition.
First, it must be remembered that the tradition is based on second-hand information. One author repeats
(and often distorts) what previous authors have written, and is in turn copied (and distorted) by
subsequent authors. In such a chain, one author making a mistake could easily start a tradition that could
last three centuries.
There is a third reason. It must the Butuan tradition, while erroneous as to the site of the first Mass, is not
entirely without validity. Magellan’s expedition, after Magellan’s death, visited several places in
Mindanao, very probably including Butuan.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
LIMASAWA not BUTUAN
The National Historical Commission of the Philippines has determined that Portuegese explorer
Ferdinand Magellan and his Spanish contingent held the event in Limasawa town, Southern Leyte.
This was decided on July 15, 2020.

Quirino Stadium, Vigan City
READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
ACTIVITY SHEETS FOR MODULE 1
________________________
NAME OF STUDENT
________________________
COURSE YEAR & SECTION
CHERRYL ANN M. ALMARE

INSTRUCTOR
Note: Detached and submit only this activity sheets which will be used in answering the activities for
Module 1. It will be returned to your subject teacher/adviser on the scheduled date of submission.

ACTIVITY 1.1
I. IDENTIFICATION
______________________1. Considers the time and place the historical document was written as
well as the situation or the circumstances during the time.
______________________2. Study of beliefs and desires, practices and institutions of human beings
______________________3. These are products of events that have taken place. These people are
either participants or eyewitnesses to the event.
______________________4. Testimony of anyone who is not an eyewitness-that is one who was not
present at the event of which he tells.
______________________5. Artistic production is an example of?
______________________6. Books is an example of?
______________________7. He wrote Magellan’s Voyage.
______________________8. It is a secret passageway of Magellan.
______________________9. The only place in Cebu that did not convert to Christianity
______________________10. It was names as waterplace of good signs.
______________________11. First move of independence.
______________________12. A revolutionary society that espoused independence and freedom for
the Philippines through the force of arms.
______________________13. He wrote Kartilya
______________________14. It is a document that served primary lessons for the members of the
Katipunan.
______________________15. He wrote the act of declaration of Independence.
______________________16. A guiding principles of the Katipunan society.
______________________17. He is a commander of the Asiatic Fleet whom Aguinaldo met in
Hongkong regarding US-Filipino collaboration
______________________18. When did Aguinaldo declared Philippine independence from Spanish
rule at a ceremony in his house in Kawit, Cavite.
_________________________19. He was exiled in Hongkong as part of the agreement between Filipinos
and Spaniards.
_____________________ 20. The scripted battle between Americans and Spaniards.
_____________________ 21. Founder of the Katipunan.
_____________________ 22. The government established by Andres Bonifacio.
_____________________ 23. The government established by Emilio Aguinaldo upon return here in
the Philippines.
_____________________ 24. The alleged place where First Mass happened during the 17th century.
_____________________ 25. The religious ideals allegedly retracted by Jose Rizal.
_____________________ 26. One of the Jesuit priests who claimed to have persuaded Rizal to return
to the Catholic fold.
_____________________ 27. The alleged woman whom Rizal married.
_____________________ 28. The “First Cry” or the initial move of the Filipinos to begin the
revolution for independence.
_____________________ 29. It was believed that the first cry occurred there on August 26.
_____________________ 30. According to National Historical Commission, First Mass happened
where?

II. TRUE or FALSE. Write the word TRUE if the statement is correct and FALSE of the statement is
wrong
_________1. An official of the Katipunan and a friend of Andres Bonifacio Pio Valenzuela, who was
present during the event state that tearing of cedula happened Balintawak.
_________2. Masangkay said that the First Cry happened in Quezon City on August 26, 1896.
_________3. Bonifacio and Aguinaldo were both members of Katipunan.
_________4. A war was broke up between Aguinaldo and Bonifacio because of issue over territory and
leadership.
_________7.The Katipuneros abolished the Katipunan government and established a new government.
_________8. The newly formed Revolutionary government by the Tejeros assembly declared Andres
Bonifacio as the new President.
_________9. The Election to resolve controversy between Aguinaldo and Bonifacio happened in
Tejeros, Cavite.
________ 10. With the assembly and organization put up by Andres Bonifacio, he was chosen as secretary
of Interior even to the least position.
________ 11. Andres Bonifacio was executed and prosecuted by the government of Aguinaldo
________ 12. Secondary source are books, articles and scholarly journals that had interpreted or discuss
certain subjects of history.
________ 13. The original journal of Pigafetta were never printed.
________ 14. Magellan is an eyewitness of the death of Lapu-lapu.
________ 15. March 15, 1521 when Magellan first arrived in the Philippines.
________ 16. The Island of Humunu was named Archipelago of St. Lazarus.
________ 17. From Zubu, Magellan’s group headed to Mactan.
________ 18. Between Magellan’s group and Lapu-lapu, the former is greater in number
.________ 19. Magellan was poisoned by an arrow.
________ 20.Aguinaldo put up a Republican government when he returned back to the Philippines
from Hongkong.
III. ESSAY:
1. Who is Antonio Pigafetta? What is his role in the Magellan-Elcano expedition?

__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________.
2. What is the importance/ impact of Rizal’s retraction to the Spaniards?

__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________.


Readings in Philippine History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Readings in Philippine History

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Readings in Philippine History

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Province of Ilocos Sur

KAREN P. DELA CRUZ-SINGSON

CHERRYL ANN M. ALMARE

READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

What is this module

Iscc/kpdcs READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY 1

CONTENT AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PRIMARY SOURCES IN

The students must be able to:

“He who does not know how to look back

Iscc/kpdcs READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY 2

Why Study History?

What are sources?

SOURCES OF HISTORICAL DATA

1. Orally transmitted materials

UNDERSTANDING PERSPECTIVE ON SELECTED PRIMARY SOURCES IN PHILIPPINE

The students must be able to:

1. MAGELLAN’S VOYAGE AROUND THE WORLD by ANTONIO PIGAFETTA

Iscc/kpdcs READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY 4

About the Author (Antonio Pigafetta)

Iscc/kpdcs READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY 5

Pigafetta’s travelogue contributed immensely to the enrichment of Philippine histography . His

EXCERPTS FROM MAGELLAN’S VOYAGE AROUND THE WORLD

Iscc/kpdcs READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY 7

2. THE KARTILYA OF THE KATIPUNAN by Emilio Jacinto

About the Author

About the Text

MGA ARAL NG KATIPUNAN NG MGA A.N.B.

Iscc/kpdcs READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY 9

3. THE ACT OF PROCLAMATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Iscc/kpdcs READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY 11

ABOUT THE TEXT

1.THE RIZAL RETRACTION

Iscc/kpdcs READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY 12

II. THE FIRST CRY OF REVOLUTION

Guillermo Masangkay’s Account

IV. SITE OF THE FIRST MASS

I. THE BUTUAN TRADITION

The 17th century

COLIN AND COMBES COMPARED:

The 19th Century

THE SHIFT IN OPINION

Iscc/kpdcs READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY 18

II. The Evidence for Limasawa

The Evidence of Albo’s Log book

The Evidence from Pigafetta

Let us examine and consider some points:

Iscc/kpdcs READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY 19

B. The Evidence of Pigafetta’s Map:

C. The Two kings

THE GEOGRAPHY OF MAZAUA

WHY THEN THE BUTUAN TRADITION?

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

LIMASAWA not BUTUAN

Iscc/kpdcs READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY 21

READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY