Module 1: The Meaning and Relevance of History

This module emphasizes the relevance of studying Philippine history in the 21st Century. It
focuses on analyzing Philippine history from multiple perspectives based on selected primary
sources from various disciplines and genres.

Section 2: Evaluation of Primary and Secondary Sources

➢ This section explains how to evaluate primary and secondary source materials. This also
elaborates on the primacy of primary sources over secondary sources. In addition, this
presents the different points of consideration in analyzing both types of source.

Intended Learning Outcomes

At the end of this section, the students are expected to:
1. identify the criteria in evaluating primary and secondary source materials;
2. assess primary and secondary source materials; and
3. evaluate the provenance of primary sources.

Diagnostics

Fake News or Real News?

Instructions: On the space provided, write your insights on the following story behind the
Oblation statue of the University of the Philippines (UP). Is it a credible source material or not?

When you visit any UP campus, it is not difficult to see the Oblation. In the UP
Diliman campus, the popular statue, measuring 3.5 meters in height, was constructed
during the university presidency of Rafael Palma. First-time observers, whether part of the
UP community or not, usually ask “Who is the model of the famous UP symbol, the
Oblation?”

The answer is Fernando Poe, Sr., a UP student during the time. National artist
Guillermo Tolentino, a professor at the UP School of Fine Art, created the statue.

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
 It is already common knowledge in the academe that both primary and secondary sources are
important in fleshing out the details of significant events in history. However, classifying a source as
primary or secondary has never been an easy task. Nevertheless, the primacy of primary over
secondary sources has always been recognized. This is due to the fact that a primary source provides
better and more accurate historical details compared to a secondary source. However, the
authenticity and reliability of primary sources should be scrutinized before they are used.
In this day and age, the proliferation of fake news is evident in both print and digital media
platforms. Thus, it becomes more apparent that sources of texts should be scrutinized for their
credibility. However, in a nation where there is minimal documentation of oral history, it is very
difficult to trace the primary sources of many written historical records that can help in understanding
the relevance of historical events in addressing contemporary social issues.
Although primacy is given to primary sources, they are instances when the credibility of these
sources are contestable. Garraghan (1950) identified six points of inquiries to evaluate the authenticity
of a primary source:
1. Date – When was it produced?
2. Localization – Where did it originate?
3. Authorship – Who wrote it?
4. Analysis – What pre-existing material served as the basis for its production?
5. Ontegrity – What was its original form?
6. Credibility – What is the evidential value of its content?
The absence of primary documents that can attest to the accuracy of any historical claim is really
a problem in the extensive study of history. In that sense, the significance of secondary sources should
not be discredited. Secondary sources are readily available in print and digital repositories. Secondary
accounts of historical events are narratives commonly passed on from one generation to the next or
knowledge that is shared within a community. Yet, similar to the usual problem with passing
information from one point to another, details can be altered. As information is relayed from person
to person, the accuracy source materials in the study of Philippine history without conjectures and
refutations have the capacity to fill in gasps caused by the lack or absence of primary sources.
Louis Gottschalk (1969) emphasized that it is possible for historians to avoid using secondary
sources dur to difficulty in accessing primary sources. Most often, historians depend on secondary
sources to improve their background knowledge of contemporary documents and detect any errors
they may contain. Specially, Gottschalk suggested that secondary sources must only be used for (1)
deriving the setting wherein the contemporary evidence will fit in the grand narrative of history; (2)
getting leads to other bibliographic date; (3) acquiring quotations or citations from contemporary or
other sources; and (4) deriving interpretations with a view of testing and improving them but not
accepting them as outright truth. Historians should be prepared to verify the information provided by
secondary sources.
Martha Howell and Walter Prevenier (2001) stated that before any source can be considered
as evidence in a historical argument, it must satisfy three preconditions. First, it must be
comprehensible at the most basic level of vocabulary, language, and handwriting. The first
precondition sets the ground for the contentions on the acceptability of the source and for all the
aspects of the debate. Second, the source must be carefully located in accordance with place and time.
Its author, composer, or writer, and the location where it was produced/published should be noted
for the checking of authenticity and accuracy. One example is a personal letter which usually indicates
when (date) and where (place) it was written. This information can assist in corroborating the details
of the source given the whereabouts of its author as stated in a letter. Third, through the first two
preconditions, the authenticity of the source must always be checked and counterchecked before
being accepted as a credible source in any historical findings. Subtle details such as the quality of paper
used, the ink or the watermark of the parchment used, the way it was encoded using a typeface or
the way the tape was electronically coded should be carefully scrutinized to check if it was forged or
mislabeled by archivists.
 Cases of forgery and mislabeling are common in Philippine historiography. One example of
the latter is Ambeth Ocampo’s discovery of the alleged draft of Jose Rizal’s third novel, the Makamisa.
The stack of writings was labeled Borrador del Noli Me Tangere. However, upon reading the draft, it
is clear that it is not connected to Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. This is a clear case of
mislabeling for the discovered draft seems misplaced in the stack where it was taken from. A closer
look at the characters in the novel, however, reveals a different setting and story. This falsifies the
alleged third novel of Rizal. An example of forgery in historical documents is the story of the great
forger, Roman Roque, who allegedly forged the signature of Gen. Urbano Lacuna that led to the
captivity of Gen. Emelio Aguinaldo. Roque also forged the signature of Jose Rizal in the great retraction
controversy. Another example, the claim that the supposed autobiography of Josephine Bracken
written on February 22, 1897, which asserts her marriage to Rizal under Catholic rites, was badly
forged. The penmanship on the document varies significantly when compared to the other letters
written by Bracken.
Given the possibility of forgery and mislabeling, historians not only evaluate the sources in
terms of external characteristics that focuses on the questions of where, when and by whom. They
also evaluate in terms of internal criteria which include seven factors identified by Howell and
Prevenier (2001):
1. The genealogy of the document – refers to the development of the document. The document
may be original, a copy, or a copy of the copy;
2. The genesis of the document – includes the situations and the authorities during the
document’s production;
3. The originality of the document – includes the nature of the document wether it is an
eye/earwitness account or merely passing of existing information;
4. The interpretation of the document – pertains to deducing meaning from the doument;
5. The authorial authority of the document – refers to the relationship between the documents’s
subjects matter and its author;
6. The competence of the observer – refers to the author’s capabilities and qualifications to
critically comprehend and report information; and
7. The trustworthiness of the observer – refers to the author’s integrity-whether he or she
fabricates or reports truthfully.
In general, the reliability of primary sources is assessed on how these sources are directly related
and closely connected to the time of the events they pertain to. On the other hand, the reability
of secondary sources depends on the elapsed time from the date of the event to the date of their
creation. More likely, the farther the date of creation from the actual event, the more reliable the
source is. This is because as time passes, more materials are likely to be made availbale. With this,
those who engage in historical research have the oppotunity to exhaust all available materials in
order to come up with extensive outputs.
EXERCISE 1.2.1

Analyzing Primary Sources

Name:____________________________________ Section:_____________________

Instructions: Read the full transcript of the undelivered Arrival Speech of Senator Benigno S. Aquino,
Jr. and answer the following questions.

I. First Impressions
A. What are your first impressions about the undelivered speech?
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

B. What kind of document is it (letter, ad, newspaper, etc.)?

______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________

II. Looking More Closely

A. Make a list of unusual or unfamiliar words or phrases you encountered while reading the
speech.
1. ____________________________________________________________
2. ____________________________________________________________
3. ____________________________________________________________
4. ____________________________________________________________
5. ____________________________________________________________
6. ____________________________________________________________
7. ____________________________________________________________
8. ____________________________________________________________
9. ____________________________________________________________
10. ____________________________________________________________
11. ____________________________________________________________
12. ____________________________________________________________
13. ____________________________________________________________
14. ____________________________________________________________
15. ____________________________________________________________
B. Is there a specific date on the speech? If so, when is it? If there is none, are there clues that
might indicate when it was written?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
C. In there an indicated location? Where is it?
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
 D. Who authored the document? Why did you say so?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
E. To whom was the written document addressed? How did you know?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
F. What is the purpose of the document? What made you think so?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
III. Thinking Further
A. What do you think is the most important information that the author of the document
was conveying? Why?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
B. Does the document convey a certain tone? What is it?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
C. What does it imply?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
D. What is the point of view of the author? Is it objective? Why?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
E. What is the relationship between the writer and the audience? Explain.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
IV. Drawing Conclusions
Integrate your background knowledge of the context of the speech with the content
of the speech. What conclusions can you draw about the historical period when the
speech was written?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
 Undelivered speech of Senator Benigno S. Aquino Jr.
(Upon his return from the United States of America on Aug. 21, 1983)

I have returned on my free will to join the ranks of those struggling to restore our rights and
freedoms through nonviolence.
I seek no confrontation. I only pray and will strive for a genuine national reconciliation founded on
justice.
I am prepared for the worst, and have decided against the advice of my mother, my spiritual adviser,
many of my tested friends and a few of my most valued political mentors.
A death sentence awaits me. Two more subversion charges, both calling for death penalties, have
been filed since I left three years ago and are now pending with the courts.
I could have opted to seek political asylum in America, but I feel it is my duty, as it is the duty of
every Filipino, to suffer with his people especially in time of crisis.
I never sought nor have I been given assurances or promise of leniency by the regime. I return
voluntarily armed only with a clear conscience and fortified in the faith that in the end justice will
emerge triumphant.
According to Gandhi, the willing sacrifice of the innocent is the most powerful answer to insolent
tyranny that has yet been conceived by God and man.
Three years ago when I left for an emergency heart bypass operation, I hoped and prayed that the
rights and freedoms of our people would soon be restored, that living conditions would improve
and that blood-letting would stop.
Rather than move forward, we have moved backward. The killings have increased, the economy
has taken a turn for the worse and the human rights situation has deteriorated.
During the martial law period, the Supreme Court heard petitions for Habeas Corpus. It is most
ironic, after martial law has allegedly been lifted, that the Supreme Court last April ruled it can no
longer entertain petitions for Habeas Corpus for persons detained under a Presidential
Commitment Order, which covers all so-called national security cases and which under present
circumstances can cover almost anything.
The country is far advanced in her times of trouble. Economic, social and political problems bedevil
the Filipino. These problems may be surmounted if we are united. But we can be united only if all
the rights and freedoms enjoyed before September 21, 1972 are fully restored.

The Filipino asks for nothing more, but will surely accept nothing less, than all the rights and
freedoms guaranteed by the 1935 Constitution—the most sacred legacies from the Founding
Fathers.
Yes, the Filipino is patient, but there is a limit to his patience. Must we wait until that patience
snaps?
The nation-wide rebellion is escalating and threatens to explode into a bloody revolution. There is
a growing cadre of young Filipinos who have finally come to realize that freedom is never granted,
it is taken. Must we relive the agonies and the blood-letting of the past that brought forth our
Republic or can we sit down as brothers and sisters and discuss our differences with reason and
goodwill?
I have often wondered how many disputes could have been settled easily had the disputants only
dared to define their terms.
So as to leave no room for misunderstanding, I shall define my terms:
1. Six years ago, I was sentenced to die before a firing squad by a Military Tribunal whose jurisdiction
I steadfastly refused to recognize. It is now time for the regime to decide. Order my IMMEDIATE
EXECUTION OR SET ME FREE.
I was sentenced to die for allegedly being the leading communist leader. I am not a communist,
never was and never will be.
2. National reconciliation and unity can be achieved but only with justice, including justice for our
Muslim and Ifugao brothers. There can be no deal with a Dictator. No compromise with
Dictatorship.
3. In a revolution there can really be no victors, only victims. We do not have to destroy in order to
build.
4. Subversion stems from economic, social and political causes and will not be solved by purely
military solutions; it can be curbed not with ever increasing repression but with a more equitable
distribution of wealth, more democracy and more freedom, and
5. For the economy to get going once again, the workingman must be given his just and rightful
share of his labor, and to the owners and managers must be restored the hope where there is so
much uncertainty if not despair.
On one of the long corridors of Harvard University are carved in granite the words of Archibald
Macleish:
“How shall freedom be defended? By arms when it is attacked by arms; by truth when it is attacked
by lies; by democratic faith when it is attacked by authoritarian dogma. Always, and in the final act,
by determination and faith.”
I return from exile and to an uncertain future with only determination and faith to offer—faith in
our people and faith in God.