5.

Why do you think the author said that without mentioning the Cavite
Mutiny, Aguinaldo “historicized” about the account on the declaration of
Philippine Independence?

As mentioned in the past lesson, history is recorded based on the perception

of the one who gets to write it. As for what Aguinaldo did in the account of the
declaration of Philippine Independence, he historicized it because he omitted
certain points that should have been included in the declaration. He wrote it in a
way that sides his biases and inclinations, without regards to what has really
happened.
He failed to mention the forefather of the revolution, which is Andres
Bonifacio. It’s interesting to think about how he did not give the due credit to the
person who led and created the Katipunan for a really long time. We cannot also
say that he just forgot about it because he mentioned other historical events that led
up to the Philippines independence. He specifically didn’t mention Andres because
of their infamous faction inside the Katipunan.

6. What are the reasons why the three priests were implicated in the staging the
Cavite Mutiny?
There were many reasons why the three priests were implicated in the
staging of the Cavite Mutiny, it just depends on the perspective that narrates it.
As for the Filipino Version of the incident, the GOMBURZA was implicated
by friars and Izquierdo, because they wanted to give them a bad name in the eyes
of the Central Government of Spain. Due to the decision of the Spanish
government to take away the power of the friars, they resorted to associating the
priests in the Cavite Mutiny. This was easily believed by the Central government,
without any investigation.
As for the Spanish version, the priest was implicated in the mutiny because
they were the ones who urged the people to rise up against the Spanish
government. They insist that local priests are hungry for power, and they want to
put an end to Spanish rule in the Philippines.

True and False

9. True

10. False