Readings in Philippine History: Aklan State University School of Arts and Sciences Banga, Aklan 2020-2021

Readings in Philippine History

Module 3
May Ann R. Pastrana

Aklan State University
School of Arts and Sciences
Banga, Aklan
2020-2021
No part of this module may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, electronic,
photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the author/s. This module is distributed for the students of
Aklan State University intended for academic purposes only.
May Ann R. Pastrana 1
Table of Contents
Preface
Module 3
Unit 3 Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippine History
Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the 4
Philippines: A Reexamination of the Evidence by Miguel A.
Bernard
The Two Faces of Cavite Mutiny by Chris Antonette Piedad- 23
Pugay
The Retraction Controversy of Rizal 29
Pugadlawin, Balintawak or Bahay Toro? 40
Preface
The K to 12 Program is a much-needed reform in the basic education system in the

country. With this, there is also a need for higher education institutions to respond in reforming
course offerings and programs. The Commission on Higher Education then approved the New
General Education Program that includes Readings in Philippine History among others.
In this subject, Philippine History is viewed from the lens of selected primary sources in
different periods, analysis, and interpretations. Students are given opportunities to analyze the
author’s background and main arguments, compare different points of view, identify biases,
and examine the evidences presented in the document (CHED, Course Description). Using
various techniques, the students are expected to study and analyze the sources (like a detective)
and come up with an understanding of a historical truth. They are participating in the writing
of history and not just merely studying and memorizing it.
The course also includes mandatory topics on the Philippine Constitution, Agrarian
Reform, and Taxation.
The material provides strategies or approaches on how to use primary sources in
studying Philippine History hoping that students will have the best opportunity to learn and
study the past while understanding the present and planning the future.
May Ann R. Pastrana
UNIT 3
Controversies and Conflicting
Views in Philippine History
This module analyzes the different controversies and conflicting views in Philippine
history through the use of primary and secondary sources. It synthesizes four historical events
in Philippine history, namely, (1) the first mass in the Philippines; (2) the Cavite Mutiny; (3) the
retraction of Rizal; and (4) the Cry of Balintawak. These historical events need to be understood
carefully to better contextualize present-day Philippine society in terms of culture, economy,
and qualities.
Objectives
After completion of the lesson, the students should be able to:
 criticize conflicting views concerning certain historical issues;
 compare and contrast views of prominent people on particular issues; and
 demonstrate ability to argue for or against a particular issue using primary
source.
Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the

Philippines: A Reexamination of the Evidence
by Miguel A. Bernad
There is a controversy regarding the site of the first Mass ever celebrated on Philippine
soil. Pigafetta tells us that it was held on Easter Sunday, the 31st of March 1521, on an island
called “Mazaua.” Two native chieftains were in attendance; the Rajah of Mazaua and the Rajah
of Butuan. After the Mass the party went up a little hill and planted a wooden cross upon its
summit. The subject of controversy is the identity of this place which Pigafetta calls “Mazaua.”
There are two conflicting claims as to its identity: one school of thought points to the little
island south of Leyte which in the maps is called Limasawa; the other school rejects that 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 paper we shall try to reexamine and reassess the evidence of these two claims.
And we shall begin with the Butuan tradition.
I. The Butuan Tradition
The Butuan claim rests upon a tradition that was almost unanimous and unbroken for
three centuries, namely the 17th, the 18th and the 19th. On the strength of that tradition and
embodying it, a monument was erected in 1872 near the mouth of the Agusan River at a spot
that was then within the municipal boundaries of Butuan, but which today belongs to the
separate municipality of Magallanes, named after Ferdinand Magellan. The monument was a
brick pillar on which was a marble slab that contained an inscription which might be translated
as follows:
To the Immortal Magellan: The People of Butuan with their Parish Priest and the
Spaniards resident therein, to commemorate his arrival and the celebration of the First Mass on
this site on the 8th of April 1521. Erected in 1872, under the District Governor Jose Ma. Carvallo.
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 First Mass (8 April, 1521) may be an obvious error, or it may be a clumsy and anachronistic
attempt to translate the original date in terms of the Gregorian calendar. In any case, that
monument is a testimonial to the tradition that remained vigorous until the end of the 19 th
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 17 th 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) whose Labor
Evangelista was first published in Madrid in 1663, three years after his death. The work was
reissued 240 years later in a magnificent three-volume edition annotated by Father Pablo
Pastells S.J. (Madrid, 1903). Here is Colin’s account of Magellan arrival and of the first Mass:
At the end of three months and twelve days during which they traversed 4,000 leagues,
having crossed the Equator a second time, they climbed up to 15 degrees North latitude where
they came upon two islands which they named Las Velas [the Sails]. At 12 degrees North they
came upon the Ladrones Islands. A few days later they saw the island of Ibabao [Samar] in this
Archipelago. But the first island they touched at was Humunu, a small uninhabited island near
Guluan Point… To that and other islets they gave the name Buenas Senas [Good Omens] but
to the entire Archipelago they gave the name San Lorenzo, being the Saturday of Saint Lazarus’
Sunday in Lent of the year 1521.
On Easter Day, in the territory of Butuan, the first Mass ever offered in these parts was
celebrated and a cross planted. Magellan then took formal possession of the Islands in the name
of the Emperor and of the Crown of Castille.
The man who gave the most signal service to our men was the chief of Dimasaua [sic],
relative of the chief of Butuan and of that of Zebu, whether he led the armada, which entered
that harbor at noon on the 7th of April, the Octave of Easter.
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 got there. Then he brings him to Limasawa (which he misspells Dimasaua),
and from there the account becomes again accurate and detailed. The important thing in Colin’s
account as far as our 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 possessions of the Islands in
the name of the Crown of Castile, as having taken place at Butuan on Easter Sunday of 1521.
The other Jesuit writer of the mid-17th century was Father Francisco Combes S.J. (1620-
1665) who, like Colin, had lived and worked as a missionary in the Philippines, and whose
Historia de Mindanao y Jolo was printed in Madrid in 1667, two years after the author’s death
and five years after Colin’s work was published. Combes’ History of Mindanao was also
reissued 230 years afterwards in a handsome edition edited by Weceslao Retana assisted by
Father Pastells. In his account of Magellan’s voyage, Combes gives a somewhat different version
of the route by the Discoverer. Here is his account:
The first time that the royal standards of the Faith were seen to fly in this island (of
Mindanao) was when the Archipelago was first discovered by the Admiral Alonso [sic] de
Magallanes. He followed a new and difficult route [across the Pacific], entering by the Strait of
Siargao, formed by that island and that of Leyte, and landing at the island of Limasaua which
is at the entrance of that Strait. Amazed by the novelty and strangeness of the [Spanish] nation
and the ships, the barbarians of that island welcomed them and gave them good refreshments.
While at Limasaua, enjoying rest and good treatment, they heard of the River of Butuan,
whose chieftain was more powerful. His reputation attracted our men either to see for
themselves or be disillusioned, their curiosity sharpened by the fact that the place was nearby.
The barbarian [chief] live up to our men’s expectations, providing them with food they
needed… Magellan contented himself with having them do reverence to the cross which is
erected upon a hillock as a sign to future generations of their alliance… The solemnity with
which the cross was erected and the deep piety shown by the Spaniards, and by the natives
following the example of the Spaniards, engendered great respect for the cross.
Not finding in Butuan the facilities required by the ships, they returned to Limasaua to
seek further advice in planning their future route. The Prince of Limasua told them of the three
most powerful nations among the Pintados [Visayans], namely those of Caraga, Samar, and
Zebu. The nearest of Zebu, the facilities of its port, and the new developed social structure
(being more monarchial) aroused everyone’s desire to go there. Thus, guided by the chief of
Limasaua, passing between Bohol and Leyte and close to the Camotes Islands, they entered the
harbor of Cebu by the Mandawe entrance on the 7th of April 1521, having departed from
Limasaua on the first day of that month.
For our present purpose, the main point in that account is that Magellan landed at
Butuan and there planted the cross in a solemn ceremony. Combes does not mention the first
Mass. What he mentions are the two events which, from Pigafetta’s account, had occurred on
the same day as the first Mass, namely the planting of the cross and the formal claiming of the
Archipelago on behalf of the Castilian Crown.
These events, says Combes, took place at Butuan.
There are features of Combes’ narrative which subsequent writers would take over, and
in some cases distort. Combes’ pictures Magellan as entering Philippine waters through the Strait
of Siargao (or Surigao).
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 two visits to Limasawa: in his version,
Magellan visits Limasawa first; from there he goes to Butuan; then he returns to Limasawa and
then to Cebu.
Both Colin and Combes agree that it was from Limasawa and with help of Limasawa’s
chieftain that the Magellan expedition went to Cebu. Both Colin and Combes also agree that
Magellan arrived in Cebu on the 7th of April 1521: that is to say, on the Octave of Easter, or
one week after the first Mass which – in this tradition – was supposed to have been celebrated
at Butuan.
Both Colin and Combes were exercise a strong influence over subsequent writers. An
example of the quick and wide diffusion of Colin’s influence is the following. In 1689 (thirty-
five years after Colin’s work had appeared in Madrid) there issued from the press in Naples a
multi-volume work (subsequently reprinted several times in several places) entitles Giro del
Mondo (A Voyage Around the World). It was written by Calabrian, Giovanni Francesco
Gemelli Carreri, who had visited many places, including Philippines. Of the first Mass on the
Philippine soil, he says:
On Whit Sunday the first Mass was said on the land of Butuan, a cross erected and
possession taken in the name of the most invincible Charles the 5th. The lord of Oimasau (sic),
kinsman of the king of Butuan and to him of Cebu, was assisting to Magellan, for he brought
the ships into that port on the 7th of April. Before Mass was said on Whit Sunday, the lord and
the king of Cebu were baptized, and by their means, many men of note and others to the
number of 500, and after dinner the queen with 300 more.
Careri has obviously confused two distinct events; one event was the first Mass (which
he places at Butuan; the other event was the baptism of the Rajah of Cebu. Careri is also
confused regarding dates. Neither event took place on “Whitsunday”; the first mass occurred
on Easter Sunday, the baptism in Cebu took place two weeks later. But the important point at
the moment, is the fact that Careri may have read (or misread). Colin: note his misspelling of
the word for Limasawa. Alternatively, Careri and Colin were using the same source.
The 18th Century
One passge in Colin which seems to have been misunderstood, and which may have
misled some later writers, occurs in an early section of his book in which he describes the island
of Mindanao:
After that on Manila, the island of Mindanao is the largest in size and the best in qualities
among the islands of this Philippine Archipelago. Upon these two largest islands, the other
islands depend for protection and security. Mindanao takes its name from the principal Province
or Kingdom in it, and this is so called from its many lakes: for danao in the language most
widely used in these islands means “lake”; where, “Maguindanao”, the place and the dwellers
of lakes…
The first Province that faces the sea from across New Spain [Mexico] is that of Caraga,
which begins at the Cape of San Agustin stretches some fifty leagues to the point of Surigao in
the north east; and from there the coastline stretches westward some fifteen leagues to the river
of Butuan, noteworthy in the history of these Islands, not so much for its gold and other good
qualities as for the fact that it was one of the first places where the Discoverer, the Illustrious
Hernando de Magallanes, landed and was accorded good treatment…
Colin does not say that Magellan first sighted the Cape of San Agustin and then sailed
northwards along the Pacific coast of Mindanao, rounded Surigao point, and then sailed
westward to Butuan. Indeed in another place (as we have seen) he said explicitly that Magellan
entered Philippine waters father north, namely, near Samar, landing first at Homonhon. But
careless readers, seeing Colin’s description of eastern Mindanao, coupled with Combes’
statement that Magellan had “entered” Philippine waters through Siargao Strait, jumped to the
conclusion that Magellan must have come by the southern route as later explorers did. This
mistake became quite widespread in the 18th and 19th centuries.
One of the major historians who made this error (and who in turn influenced later
writers) was the Augustinian: fray Juan de la Concepcion (1724-1787) whose 14-volume History
of the Philippines was published in Mnaila shortly after his death. Here is what fray Juan says
about Magellan’s coming and about the first Mass in the islands:
The general left the islands which he called las Velas Latinas or Archipelago of San Lazaro
– a name which they still retain, although they have also added the name of Marianas Islands.
It is said that this was the Celebes of antiquity, although I do not think this opinion is solidly
founded. They sailed 300 leagues west ward, discovered many islands with abundant supplies.
Magellan had with a native Indian who understood their language, which was a great help.
They first saw Cape of San Agustin at the southern tip of the large island of Mindanao. They
sailed along the coast of the province of Caraga, entered the strait of Siargao which is formed
by the Banajao Point and the island of Leyte, and they landed at the island of Limasawa which
is the entrance of the strait… With the good reception given them by the natives of Limasawa,
they rested and recovered from past sufferings. There, Magellan heard of the River of Butuan,
whose datu or chieftain was more powerful. He decided to go to the mouth of that river, being
led there by the hopes aroused by its fame. The chieftain [of Butuan] lived up to those hopes.
He sent a boat with ten men to inquire what kind of ships, of men, etc. Magellan replied
through the interpreter that they were vassals of the great and powerful King of Castile; that
all they sought was peace and free trade; that they desired to buy food supplies in a fair price.
The chieftain replied that he did not have enough to supply so large an expedition, but that he
would bring what he could. They brought on board 4 pigs, 3 goats, and a supply of rice. It was
Easter Sunday. The General ordered the construction on land of shelter made of branches. Then
he ordered all his men to disembark to hear Mass, which was celebrated with great devotion
by all, thanking God for His blessings. And this was the first Mass ever offered in these Islands.
He then ordered a large cross to be set up on a hill.
Certain phrases in the foregoing account are reminiscent of Combes and Colin; yet 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 southern tip of Mindanao and sailing northwards along Pacific coast of this island, and then
entering by the Siargao Strait into Limasawa “which is at the entrance of the strait.”
In the late 18th and in the 19th century, we find writers (including some who were
otherwise careful in their scholarship) who repeat fray Juan de la Concepcion’s error that the
“Archipelago of San Lazaro” was another name for Marianas Islands. But even more often
repeated was fray Juan’s reconstruction of Magellan’s route. For instance, we find the following
passage in Robert MacMicking’s Recollections (first published in London in 1851); “Coasting
along the shores of Caraga, the ships anchored off Limasawa where Magallanes was well
received by the natives…”
The 19th Century
Towards the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th, one of the important
writers who accepted the Butuan tradition was the Augustinian, fray Joaquin Martinez de
Zuñiga (1760-1818), whose Historia de Filipinas was published in Sampaloc in 1803. His other
work, a descriptions of his travels around the Islands, remained in manuscript for nearly a
century, until Retana brought it out in a two-volume edition in 1893. In this latter work, fray
Joaquin has this to say:
On Easter Sunday of the year 1521 Magellan was in Butuan. He ordered the sacrifice of
the mass to be celebrated ashore, and he planted a cross on a hillock near the beach. The natives
were present at these ceremonies, and they also witnessed the taking of possession of the land
in the name of the Crown of Castile. These rites over, Magellan proceeded to Cebu where they
killed him.
By the 19th century, the Butuan tradition was taken for granted, and we find it
mentioned in writer after writer, each copying from the previous, and being in turn copied by
those who came after. Among the many who could be cited as mentioning the first Mass in
Butuan is the Englishmen, John Foreman:
On the 16th of March 1521 the Ladrones Islands were reached… the fleet continued its
course westward. Coasting along the North of the Island of Mindanao they arrived at the
mouth of the Butuan River, where they were supplied with provisions by the chief. It was Easter
Week on this shore the first Mass was celebrated in the Philippines.
Unfortunately, in copying what previous authors had written, some subsequent writers
were copied not only the essence of the Butuan tradition but also a good deal of the erroneous
details that were peripheral to that tradition. The accumulated errors of three centuries may be
found illustrated in the work of a Dominican friar, whose two-volume treatise on the friars was
published at Santo Tomas in Manila in 1901. Here is his account of the coming of Magellan and
the first Mass:
After many days of good sailing, he caught sight of the Marianas Islands which he named
the Archipelago of San Lazaro, having discovered them on the Saturday of Passion Sunday (7
March 1521). A little alter he came to the Philippine territory where the Spaniards were well
received by the natives at Punta Guiguan to the east of Samar; and passing later through the
Strait of Surigao, they dropped another anchor at Limasagua, whose chieftain came aboard and
was entertained by Magellan. The latter, on Easter Sunday, disembarked at Butuan, a town in
the island of Mindanao, where the first Mass in the Philippines was celebrated. He returned to
Limasagua; and learning of the importance of Cebu, he proceeded there; following the coast
between Samar and Leyte and passing by the Camotes, he arrived in Cebu on 7 April 1521.
The misstatement in that short passage is numerous, not the least of which is the almost
incredible notion that Magellan had sailed from “Limasagua” (sic) to Cebu by coasting between
Samar and Leyte! The good friar had only checked on original sources: he had not even
bothered to look at a map!
Yet fray Valentin was merely following (down to the misspelling of Limasagua and
Guiguan) the account in two works of the historian, Jose Montero y Vidal, whose El
Archipielago filipino had appeared in Madrid in 1886. Followed a year later by his three-volume
Historia general de Filipinas. In both works, the well-known historian had Magellan sailing to
Cebu from “Limasagua”, following the incredible route between Leyte and Samar. By that route
Magellan should have ended up in the Bicol Peninsula, not in Cebu.
But, shorn of 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. In his edition of Martinez de Zuñiga’s
Estadismo in 1893. He made no adverse comment on the mention of the first Mass in Butuan.
Not only that, Retana himself supplied the following information in an Appendix:
Butuan (corregimiento de). – Antigou nombre de la provincial de Caraga. Esta tiena fue
la primera que Magallanes incorporoa la Corona de Espana. En el pueblo de Butuan se celebro
la primera Misa que se rezo en Filipinas.
When Retana published that in 1893, the Butuan tradition was already very well
entrenched. Two decades earlier, in 1872, the provincial and municipal authorities, together
with the Spanish Augustianian Recollect missionaries of Butuan, had erected the monument of
which mention was made earlier in his article. That monument was not only a witness of the
Butuan tradition, but it also was accepted in turn as confirmatory evidence for that tradition’s
veracity. The Jesuit scientists of the Manila Observatory, in compiling their two-volume work
El archipelago Filipino (published in Washington in 1900) mentioned that monument and did
not question the tradition which it represented.
As late as the 1920’s the textbook in the Philippine History in use at the Ateneo de
Manila accepted the Butuan tradition, although it took care to correct pervious author’s
mistakes concerning the Marianas Islands and other mistakes:
Magellan sailed on and reached the Southern Ocean on November 27 with only three
vessels. He sailed a northerly and later a northwesterly course… Finally, they made port in the
islands of the “Lateen Sails” or “the Ladrones”, for the natives robbed them of whatever they
could find in the ships, which they had allowed to board. In the 17th century these islands took
the name of “Marianas.” On March 16th they descried the island of Samar and to the southeast
that of Homonhon, Malhon or Jomonhol, all which names it bears at present. Here they
stopped and were well received by the inhabitants who offered them abundant provisions.
In Limasawa, the chief, named Bancao, made himself the friend of the voyagers and
received from the admiral the title of Prince. From Limasagua the voyagers sailed to the coast
of Butuan. A cross was planted on a little promontory near the seashore, on the left side as one
enters the Agusan River. There the first Mass said on Philippine soil was celebrated. A simple
monument stands as a record of this important event.
It is obvious that the passage accepts not only the Butuan tradition but specifically the
testimony of the Butuan monument regarding the site of the first Mass on Philippine soil.
II. The Shift in Opinion
How then did the shift in opinion – from Butuan to Limasawa – come about? How was
the Butuan tradition – so well entrenched for three centuries – finally dislodged? Some recent
defenders of the Butuan tradition have blamed the shift of opinion on two Americans, namely
Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, whose 55-volume collection of documents on the
Philippine Islands was published in Cleveland from 1903 to 1909. But the “blame” (if blame it
is) does not rest alone upon Blair and Robertson. They indeed contributed enormously to the
shift in opinion but the man initially responsible for the shift seems to have been a Spanish Jesuit
scholar. Father Pablo Pastells S.J. A word about career of this remarkable man may not be out
of place before we proceed.
Pablo Pastells was born in 1846 in Figueras, in the province of Gerona, Spain. At 15 he
entered Condliar Seminary in Barcelona which at the time was directed by the Jesuits, and
eventually, at the age of 20, he entered the Jesuit novitiate in Spain and later did further studies
in France. He was ordained a priest in 1871, and five years later came to the Philippines (1875),
where, after a brief stay in Manila, he was assigned as missionary to Mindanao. He served on
the Pacific coast (Bislig, Caraga, Cateel) and took part in an expedition in 1884 that explored
the Agusan River to its sources. In 1887 he was transferred to the northern coast of Mindanao,
with headquarters at Jasaan in Misamis Oriental. The following year he was recalled to Manila
and was appointed Superior of the entire Jesuit Mission in the Philippines, a post which he
occupied for six years (1888-1893). It was after he left the Philippines and returned to Barcelona
that he did his most notable work as a scholar. He collected an enormous amount of documents
from the Archivo de Indias in Seville and from other sources. He also had at his disposal the
magnificent Philippine library of the Tabacalera (Compañia Gereal de Tabacos de Filipinas) in
Barcelona. Pastell’s published works included (a) his three-volume edition of Colin (Madrid
1903); (b) his three-volume History of the Jesuit Missions in the Philippines in the 19th Century
(Barcelona 1916-17); and (c) his History of the Jesuits in Paraguay (Madrid 1912). He had earlier
collaborated with Retana in the latter’s edition of Combes (Madrid 1897).
The shift in opinion from Butuan to Limasawa was due to a rediscovery and a more
attentive study of two primary sources on the subject: namely, Pigafetta’s account and Albo’s
log. What the effect of that study was may be seen in the change in Pastell’s thinking.
Pastells had collaborated with Retana in a new edition of Combes. Retana (as we have
seen) had accepted the Butuan tradition in his edition of Martinez de Zuñiga in 1893. In their
joint edition of Combes of 1897, neither Retana nor Pastells showed any sign of change of
opinion. They accepted the Butuan traditions as if they were not aware of any contrary opinion.
Meanwhile, however, Pastells was preparing his own edition of Francisco Colin’s Labor
evangelica, which was eventually published in three volumes in Madrid in 1903. While
preparing that edition, Pastells had occasion to restudy both Pigafetta and Albo, and it was then
that he realized that the three-century Butuan tradition had been erroneous. Colin, of course
(as we have seen earlier) had contributed materially to the strengthening of that tradition by
stating that the first Mass had been celebrated at Butuan. To that statement Pastells appended
a footnote:
Magellan did not go to Butuan. Rather, from the island of Limasawa he proceeded
directly to Cebu. In that island he had dealings with Rajah Siagu, chieftain of Butuan; and this
would explain that author’s [i.e. Colin’s] error. See the “Voyage” of Pigafetta and the diary of
Albo, both of whom were eyewitnesses.
We have spoken of the “rediscovery” of Pigafetta’s account and of Albo’s log. The word
“rediscovery” is not unwarranted. Although these works had been published earlier and were
available in the great libraries, they were not well known to many people at the time. Or those
who knew of these works may not have studied them with the attention that they deserved.
This may explain how much well-read scholar and biographers like Retana did not seem to take
them into consideration when preparing his editions of Martinez de Zuñiga and of Combes.
How little known Pigafetta’s work was may be illustrated from the experience of Rizal.
Rizal apparently had not known of Pigafetta’s work until he came across the Italian text in the
British Museum. To “Plaridel” (Marcelo H. del Pilar) who was in Spain, Rizal wrote from
London on 4 February 1889.
See to it that someone there should learn Italian, because I have here some manuscripts
in Italian that deal with the first coming of the Spaniards to the Philippines. They were written
by one of Magellan’s companions. As I have no time to translate them myself, being busy about
many things, it would be good if one of our countrymen should translate the work into Tagalog
or Spanish, so that the situation of our people in 1520 may become known. Italian is easy to
learn. By the Ahn method it can be learned in one month. I am now learning Dutch.
It seems dear from that passage that Rizal had not previously known of Pigafetta’s work
and that he took it for granted that the other Filipinos in Spain knew nothing of it.
A fact such as this makes us realize what a great service to the Philippine scholars was
made by James A. Robertson when he reproduced the Italian text of Pigafetta’s account,
together with an English translation. Robertson’s work came out in a limited tree-volume
edition published in Cleveland in 1906. But it was given wider circulation when it was
incorporated into the larger series, comprising volumes, 33 and 34 of Blair and Robertson’s
The Philippine Islands.
Pastells’ footnote on Colin, therefore, and the inclusion of the Pigafetta account in Blair
and Robertson series must be considered the main reasons for the shift in scholarly opinions
regarding the site of the first Mass. Among the Philippine scholars of the early 20th century who
rejected the Butuan tradition in favor of Limasawa were Trinidad Pardo de Tavera and Jayme
de Veyra. The Limasawa opinion has been generally accepted since then, although there is still
today a small but vigorous group determined to push the Butuan claim.
III. The Evidence for Limasawa
We now come to the evidence in favor of Limasawa. The evidence may be outlines 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;
d. The seven days at “Mazaua”;
e. An argument from omission.
3. Summary of the evidence of Albo and Pigafetta
4. Confirmatory evidence from Legazpi expedition
1. The Evidence of Albo’s Log Book
Francisco Albo joined the Magellan expedition as a pilot (“contramaaestre”) in

Magellan’s flagship “Trinidad”. He was one of the eighteen survivors who returned with
Sebastian Elcano on the “Victoria” after having circumnavigated the world. Albo began keeping
his own diary – merely only a log book – on the voyage out, while they were sailing southward
in the Atlantic along the coast of South America, off Brazil. His account of their entry into
Philippine waters (or, as it was then called, the archipelago of San Lazaro)… may be reduced
to the following points:
a. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course from the Ladrones, they
saw land towards the northwest; but owing to many shallows places they did not
approach it. They found later that its name was Yunagan.
b. They went instead that same day southwards to another small island name Suluan, and
there they anchored. There they saw some canoes but these fled at the Spaniard’s
approach. The island was at 9 and two-thirds degrees North latitude.
c. Departing from those two islands, they sailed westward to an uninhabited island of
“Gada” where they took in a supply of wood and water. The sea around the island was
free from shallows. (Albo does not give the latitude of this island, but from Pigafetta’s
testimony, this seems to be the “Acquada” or Homomhon, at 10 degrees North
latitude.)
d. From the island they sailed westward towards a large island named Seilani which was
inhabited and was known to have gold. (Seilani – or, as Pigafetta calls it, “Ceylon” –
was the island of Leyte.
e. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest
to a small island called “Mazava”.
f. The people of that island of Mazava were very good. There the Spaniards planted a
cross upon a mountain-top, and from there they were shown three islands to the west
and southwest, where they were told there was much gold. “They showed us how the
gold was gathered, which came in small pieces like peas and lentils.”
g. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seilani. They followed to the coast
of Seilani in northwesterly direction, ascending up to 10 degrees latitude where they
saw three small islands.
h. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, and there they saw three islets,
where they dropped anchor for the night. In the morning they sailed southwest some
12 leagues, down to a latitutde of 10 and one-third degree. There they entered a channel
between two islands, one of which was called “Matan” and the other “Subu”.
i. They sailed down that channel and then turned westward and anchored at the town
(la villa) of Subu where they stayed many days and obtained provisions and entered
into a peace-pact with the local king.
j. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the islands of Suluan and Mazava.
But between Mazava and Subu, there were so many shallows that the boats could not
go westward directly but had to go as they did) in a round-about way.
Such is Albos’s testimony. The island that he calls Gada seems to be the acquada of
Pigafetta, namely the island of Homonhon where they took in supplies of water and wood.
The large island of Seilani which they coasted is the island of Leyte. Coasting southwards along
the eastern coast of that island, then turning southwest they came upon a small island named,
Mazava, which lies at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North.
That fits the location of the small island of Limasawa, south of Leyte. The island’s
southern tip is at 90 54’ N.
It is to be noted that Albo does not mention the first Mass, but only the planting of the
cross upon a mountain-top from which could be seen three islands to the west and southwest.
This is also fits the southern end of Limasawa. It does not fit the coast of Butuan from which no
islands could be seen to the south or the southwest, but only towards the north.
2. The Evidence from Pigafetta
The most complete account of the Magellan expedition is that by Antonio Pigafetta
entitled Primo viaggio intorno al mondo (First Viyage 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 Philippine Archipelago, but which
Magellan called the Islands of Saint Lazarus. Of Pigafetta’s work there are two excellent English
translations, one by Robertson (from the Italian) and another by Skelton (from the French).
The pertinent section in Pigafetta’s account is that part 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 7th of April when the expedition landed at Cebu. That was a period of approximately three
weeks.
In examining the evidence from Pigafetta, we shall consider five points: (a) Pigafetta’s
testimony as regards to the route taken by the expedition from the Pacific Ocean to Cebu; (b)
The evidence of Pigafetta’s map; (c) The presence of two native kings; (d) The events of the
seven days at the island of “Mazava”, and (e) An argument from omission.
(a) Pigafetta’s Testimony Regarding the Route
The route taken by Magellan expedition may be constructed if we follow Pigafetta’s

account day by day. Here is a summary of his account.
1. Saturday, 16 March 1521 – Magellan’s expedition sighted a “high land” named “Zamal”
which was some 300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now the Marianas) Islands.
2. Sunday, March 17 – “The following day” after sighting Zamal Island, they landed on
“another island which was uninhabited” and which lay “to the right” of above-
mentioned island of “Zamal.” (To the “right” here would mean on their starboard going
south or southwest). There they set up two tents for the sick members of the crew and
had a sow killed for them. The name of this island was “Humumu” (Homonhon). This
island was located at 10 degrees North latitude.
3. On the same day (Sunday, 17 March) Magellan named the entire archipelago the
“Islands Saint Lazarus,” the reason being that it was the Sunday 7 in the Lenten Season
when the Gospel assigned for the Mass and the liturgical Office was the eleventh chapter
of Saint John, which tells of the raising of Lazarus from the dead.
4. Monday, 18 March – In the afternoon of their second day on this island, they saw a
boat coming towards them with nine men in it. An exchange of gifts was effected.
Magellan asked for food supplies, and the men went away promising to bring rice and
other supplies in “four days.”
5. There were two springs of water on that island of Homonhon. Also they saw there
some indications that there was gold in these islands. Consequently Magellan renamed
the island and called it the “watering Place of Good Omen” (Acquada de di buoni
segnialli).
6. Friday, 22 March – At noon the natives returned. This time they were in two boats, and
they brought food supplies.
7. Magellan’s expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday, 17 March, to the
Monday of the following week, 25 March.
8. Monday, 25 March – In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor and left the
island of Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (23 March) was the feats
day of the Incarnation, also called the feast of the Annunciation and therefore, “Our
Lady’s Day.” On this day, as they were about to weigh anchor, an accident happened
to Pigafetta: he fell into the water but was rescued. He attributed his narrow escape
from death as a grace obtained through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary on
her feast day.
9. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon was “toward the west
southwest, between four islands: namely, Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson and Albarien.”
Very probably “Cenalo” is misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what Pigafetta in his
map calls “Ceilon” and Albo calls “Seilani”: namely the island of Leyte. “Hiunganghan”
(a misspelling of Hinunangan) seemed to Pigafetta to be a separate island, but it is
actually on the mainland of Leyte (i.e. “Ceylon”). On the other hand, Hobuson
(Pigafetta’s Ibusson) is an island east of Leyte’s southern tip. Thus, it is easy to see what
Pigafetta meant by sailing “toward the west southwest.”
10. Thursday, 28 March – In the morning of Holy Thursday, 28 March, they anchored off
an island where the previous night they had seen light or a bonfire. That island “lies in
a latitude of nine and two-thirds towards the Article Pole [i.e. North] and in a longitude
of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of demarcation. It is twenty-five
leagues from Acquada, and is called Mazaua.”
11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island. What they did during those seven days,
we shall discuss in a separate section below, entitled “Seven Days at Mazaua.”
12. Thursday, 4 April – They left Mazaua, bound for Cebu. They were guided thither by
the king of Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past five “islands”
namely: “Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan.”
Pigafetta bought that Ceylon and Baibai were separate islands. Actually they
were parts of the same island of Leyte. “Canighan” (Canigao is our maps) is an island
off the southwestern tip of Leyte. They sailed from Mazaua west by northwest into the
Cabigao Channel, with Bohol Island to port and Leyte and Canigao Islands to starboard.
Then they sailed northwards along the Leyte coast, past Baibai to “Gatighan.” The
identity of Gatighan is not certain. But we are told that it was twenty leagues from
Mazaua and fifteen leagues from “Subu” (Cebu).
13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes Group, namely,
Poro, Pasihan and Ponson. (Pigafetta calls them “Polo, Ticobon, and Pozon.”) Here the
Spanish ships stopped to allow the king of Mazaua to catch up with them, since the
Spanish ships were much faster than the native balanghai – a thing that excited the
administration of the king Mazaua.
14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed [southwestward] towards “Zubu”.
15. Sunday, 7 April – At noon on Sunday, the 7th of April, they entered the harbor of “Zubu”
(Cebu). It had taken them three days to negotiate the journey from the Mazaua
northwards to the Camotes Islands and then southwards to Cebu.
That is the route of the Magellan expedition as described by Pigafetta. It coincides

substantially and in most details with the route as described in Albo’s log. In that route, the
southernmost point reached before getting to Cebu was Mazaua, situated at nine and two-
thirds degrees North latitude.
The question may now be asked: Could this “Mazaua” have been Butuan? Or more
precisely, could it have been the “Masao” beach in the Agusan River delta, near Butuan?
To answer that let us look at Pigafetta’s map, and consider confirmatory evidence
regarding the two kings.
(b) The evidence of Pigafetta’s Map
Both the Ambrosian and the Nancy codices of Pigafetta’s narrative are illustrated with
maps, or more precisely, diagrams or sketches. Pigafetta was no cartographer and his maps had
probably no value as navigational charts. But they are exteremely useful in helping to identify
the islands which he mentions in the narrative, and they help to establish the relative positions
(and even the relative sizes) of those islands.
One such map (Blair and Robertson, Vol. 33) shows the Irge island of Samar (in the
map it is spelt Zzamal), and the smaller islands of Suluan, Abarien, Hiunangan, and “Humunu”
(Homonhon), which is also described as “Aguada ly boni segnaly.”
A second map (BR 33) is really a double map. One map shows the island of Mindanao
or Maguindanao (the map spells in Mamgdanao). It shows on the northern shore a deep
indentation which is recognizably Panguil Bay. To the west of that is “Cippit.” To the extreme
east, bordering on the Pacific, are Butuan, Calagan, and Benasan (spelt in the map Butuan,
Calagam, Benasam) the other map shows the southern tip of Zamboanga, the island of Basilan,
and the Sulu archipelago.
A third map (BR 33) as the one most pertinent to our present investigation, because it
shows the island of Mazaua (the map spells it Mazzana) in relation to the “islands” of “ceilon”
and “Baibai” (i.e. Leyte) and to those of Bohol, Gatighan and three islands of the Camotes
Group (in the map called Polon, Pozon, and Ticobon).
We have reproduced these maps on these pages. Note that they are all drawn facing
South, i.e. with the south at the top of the page, probably because Pigafetta first encountered
some of these islands while they were sailing southwards from Samar.
From a comparison of these maps, the following inferences seem justified:
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 Mindanao), the same island in which “Calagan”,
“Cippit”, and “Mamgdanao” are also located.
(c) The Two King
There is confirmatory evidence in the presence of two native “kings” or rajahs at

Mazaua during the Magellan visit. One was the “king” of Mazaua – who later guided the
Magellan expedition to Cebu. The other was a relative (“one of his brother’s” as Pigafetta says),
namely the king or rajah of Butuan.
Of the latter individual, Pigafetta says that he was “the finest looking man” that he had
seen in those parts. (We shall have more to say about him later.) At the moment, the relevant
fact is that he was a visitor of Mazaua. His territory was Butuan, which was another island:
That island of his was called Butuan and Calagan. When those kings wished to see
another, they both went to hunt in that island where we were.
The “island where we were” was Mazaua could not have been Butuan.
(d) Seven Days at Mazaua
In that island of “Mazaua” – which according to both Pigafetta and Albo was situated
at latitude of nine and two-thirds degrees North – the Magellan expedition stayed a week. “We
remained there seven days,” says Pigafetta. What did they do during those seven days?
Was it possible (as some writers have suggested) that the expedition left Mazaua, went
south to Butuan, offered Mass there, and then returned to Mazaua before proceeding to Cebu?
The answer must be sought in Pigafetta’s day-by-day account of those seven days. Here
is the summary of this account:
1. Thursday, 28 March – In the morning they anchored near an island where they had
seen a light the night before. A small boat (boloto) came with eight natives, to whom
Magellan threw some trinkets as presents. The natives paddled away, but two hours
later two larger boats (balanghai) came, in one of which the native king sat under an
awning of mats. At Magellan’s invitation some of the natives went up the Spanish ship,
but the native king remained seated in his boat. An exchange of gifts was affected. In
the afternoon of that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and came closer to shore,
anchoring near the native king’s village. This Thursday, 28 March, was Thursday in Holy
Week: i. e. Holy Thursday.
2. Friday, 29 March – Next day, Holy Friday, “Magellan sent his slave interpreter ashore
in a small boat to ask the king if he could provide the expedition with food supplies,
and to say that they had come as friends and not as enemies. In reply the king himself
came in a boat with six or eight man, and this time went up Magellan’s ship and the
two men embraced. Another exchanged of gifts was made. The native king and his
companions returned ashore, bringing with them two members of Magellan’s
expedition as guests for the night. One of the two was Pigafetta.
3. Saturday, 30 March – Pigafetta and his companion had spent the previous evening
feasting and drinking with the native king and his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that.
Although it was Good Friday, they had to eat meat. The following morning (Saturday)
Pigafetta and his companion took leave of their hosts and returned to the ships.
4. Sunday, 31 March – “Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter Day,”
Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men and to prepare for the Mass. Later in
the morning Magellan landed with some fifty men and Mass was celebrated, after which
a cross was venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the noon-
day meal, but in the afternoon, they returned ashore to plant the cross on the summit
of the highest hill. In attendance both at the Mass and at the planting of the cross were
the king of Mazaua and the king of Butuan.
5. Sunday, 31 March – on that same afternoon, while on the summit of the highest hill,
Magellan asked the two kings which ports he should go to in order to obtain more
abundant supplies of food ports to choose from: Ceylon, Zubu and Calagan. Of the
three, Zubu was the port with most trade. Magellan then said that he wished to go to
Zubu and to depart the following morning. He asked for someone to guide him there.
The kings replied that the pilots would be available “any time,” But later that evening
the king of Mazaua changed his mind and said that he would himself conduct Magellan
to Zubu but that he would first have to bring the harvest in. He asked Magellan to send
his men to help with the harvest.
6. Monday, 1 April – Magellan sent men ashore to help withTuesday and Wednesday, the
2nd and 3rd of April.
7. Thursday, 4 April – They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu. “We remained there seven
days,” says Pigafetta. Everyday is accounted for. The Mass on Easter Sunday celebrated
on that island of Mazaua, and not in Butuan or elsewhere.
(e) An Argument from Omission
If “Mazaua” were Butuan, or in the vicinity of Butuan, there is a curious omission in

Pigafetta’s account which would be difficult to explain. Butuan is a riverine settlement. It is
situated on the Agusan River. The beach called Masao is in the delta of that river. If the Magellan
expedition were at that delta, and if the Mass was celebrated there, why is there no mention
of the river?
Later on, after Magellan’s death and after the Cebu debacle, the survivors of his
expedition went to Mindanao and it seems, actually went to Butuan. Pigafetta describes quite
vividly a trip up river to see the queen. But that was after Magellan’s death. Forty years later,
members of Legaspi’s expedition visited Butuan, and the river anchorage forms a very important
part of their account.
The fact that there is no mention of the river is a significant fact in Pigafetta’s account
of their seven-day stay at “Mazaua.” We must therefore take him literally: Mazaua was an
island surrounded by sea, not a river delta.
3. Summary of the Evidence of Albo and Pigafetta
Taking the evidence of Albo’s log-book together with that from Pigafetta’s account, we
may take the following points as established:
a. Magellan’s expedition entered Philippine waters south of the island of Samar and
dropped anchor at Homonhon where they stayed a week. Then they sailed westward
towards Leyte and then southwards parallel to the eastern coast of that island and that
of the adjoining island of Panaon. Rounding the southern tip of the latter, they anchored
off the eastern shore of a small island called Mazaua. There they stayed a week, during
which on Easter Sunday they celebrated Mass and planted the cross on the summit of
the highest hill.
b. The island of Mazaua lies at a latitude of nine and two-thirds degrees North. Its position
(south of Leyte) and its latitude correspond to the position and latitude of the island of
Limasawa, whose southern tip lies at 9 degrees and 54 minutes North.
c. From Mazaua the expedition sailed northwestwards through the Canigao channel
between Bohol and Leyte, then norther wards parallel to the eastern coast of this latter
island, then they sailed westward to the Camotes Group and from there southwestwards
to Cebu.
d. At no point in that itinerary did the Magellan expedition go to Butuan or any other
point on the Mindanao coast. The survivors of the expedition did go to Mindanao later,
but after Magellan’s death.
4. The Legazpi Expedition
There is confirmatory evidence from the documents of the Legazpi expedition, which
sailed into the Philippine waters in 1565, forty-four years after Magellan. One of the places that
Legazpi and his pilots quired “Mazaua” from Camotuan and his companions, natives of the
village of Cabalian at the southeastern end of the island of Leyte. Guided by these natives, the
Legazpi ships rounded the island of “Panae” (Panaon), which was separated from Leyte by a
narrow strait, and anchored off “Mazaua” – but they found the inhabitants to be hostile,
apparently as a result of Portuguese depredations that had occurred in the four-decade interval
between the Lagazpi and Magellan expeditions.
From Mazaua they went to Camiguing (which was “visible” from Mazaua), and from
there they intended to got to Buruan on the island of “Vindanao” but were driven instead by
contrary winds to Bohol. It was only later that a small contingent of Spaniards, in a small vessel,
managed to go to Butuan.
The point seems clear: As pilots of the Legazpi expedition understood it, Mazaua was
an island near Leyte and Panaon; Butuan was on the island of Mindanao. The two were entirely
different places and in no wise identical.
IV. The Geography of “Mazaua”
They 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 island?
The answer must be sought in geography. He was coasting southward down the eastern coast
of Leyte (Albo’s “Seilan”; Pigafetta’s “Ceylon”) with Hibuson Island on his left. This took him
down to the southern tip of what looks like a part of Leyte but is really a separate island, the
island of Panaon. When his ships rounded the tip od Panaon, the wind was blowing westward
from the Pacific. It was late March: in March and April in this part of the Philippines, 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. Having seen a light on the island one night, they decided the following day
to anchor off it.
A visit to Limasawa will convince the traveler that here indeed is the place
circumstantially described by Pigafetta. The island is shaped “like a tadpole, running north to
south. The northern portion is almost all hills, with the slopes dropping steeply to the sea,
leaving only narrow coastal strip. But the southern portion of the island is almost all level land
with a few hills. It has a good harbor, protected on the west Panaon Island and on the east by
Limasawa. The fields in this portion of the island are fertile. It is easy to understand why an
expedition should wish to stay a week anchored off this fertile island where the natives were
friendly and there was enough food, water and wood. Here the Mass could be said with
solemnity. Here, on one of the hills, the cross could be planted which everyone could see from
the plain. And from the top of that hill could be seen the islands to the south, to the west and
to the east.
It is unfortunate that in the controversy that has arisen between the supporters of Butuan
and those of Limasawa, this question of geography has been given little notice.
If the island of Limasawa is the “Mazaua” of Pigafetta and the “Masava” of ALbo, why
then it is now called Limasawa? Were Pigafetta and Albo wrong? Or were the historians and
map-makers wrong from the 17th century onward?
We do 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 fisherfolk as “Masao”, not Limasawa.
V. 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 conjuncture, but a number of reasons could be adducted to account for the
tradition.
First, it must be remembered that the tradition is based on secondhand information.
One author repeat (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.
A second reason is suggested by Pastells. Magellan and his men got to know the rajah
of Butuan at Masaua. According to Pigafetta, that rajah was at Masaua only on a visit. But it is
easy to see how the fact that Magellan had known the rajah of Butuan could be misunderstoon
by later historians as meaning that he had known him at Butuan.
There is a third reason. It must be remembered that 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.
(The riverine community described by Pigafetta in a later section of his account could have been
Butuan.) Certainly, forty years later, members of Legazpi’s expedition visited Butuan. The
people of the district would remember these visits by the bearded white-skinhead men from
Europe in their big ships, and a tradition could have grown among the people that “the first
Spaniards came here.” The Spanish missionaries coming to Butuan would pick up this tradition
and come to the conclusion that Magellan’s expedition had visited Butuan. They would not
have been entirely wrong in that conclusion, as survivirs of Magellan’s expedition may actually
have visited Butuan but after Magellan’s death at Mactan. From the tradition that “Magellan
visited Butuan, “it is easy for incautious historians to conclude that “therefore the first Mass
must have been celebrated at Butuan.”
On the other hand, The Butuan tradition may not have started in Butuan but in Europe.
In that supposition, two questions might be asked: Who started it, and how was it started? The
answer to the first question (who) is not clear, the answer to the second (how) is clear enough.
To illustrate how easy a second hand source could be mistaken in a matter like the site of the
first Mass, all we have to do is to examine the evidence of the earliest and most important of
the second-hand source could be mistaken in a matter like the site of the first Mass, all we have
to do is examine the evidence of the earliest and most important of the second-hand sources,
namely Maximilian of Transylvania, commonly known as Transylvanus. His letter, De Moluccis
Insulis was the first published account of Magellan expedition. It was first printed at Cologne in
January 1523, only two years after Magellan’s discovery of the Philippine Islands. Maximilian
got his data from the survivors who had returned on the “Victoria.” His account is therefore
important, but it is a second-hand account. Here is what he says:
Our men having been taken in Acaca, sailed towards Selani; here a storm took them, so
that they could not bring the ships to that island, but were driven to another island called
Massaua, where lives a king of three islands, after that they arrived at Subuth. This is an excellent
and large island, and having made a treaty with its chieftain they landed immediately to
perform divine service, according to the manner of the Christians, for it was the feast of the
resurrection of Him who was our salvation…
Maximilian locates the first Mass on Easter Sunday, 1521, at Cebu, which he spells
Subuth. He is clearly wrong: but if he could make a mistake who had eyewitnesses of the event
for his source, how much easier was it for later writers to err, who had to depend on second
or third or fourth - hand testimony for their data?
One thing is clear: whoever started the tradition that the first Mass was celebrated at
Butuan, it was certainly neither Pigafetta or Albo, nor Maximilian of Transylvania.
Brief Discussion
Direction: Answer the following questions briefly.
1. What are the issues concerning the site of the first Mass held in the Philippines?
2. Which of the contentions on the site of the first Mass is more believable? Why?
3. Why is it significant to establish the accuracy of the details on the first Mass?
Name __________________________________________________ Score ____________________

Course/Year/Section ______________________________________ Date ____________________
Activity 1 The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines

Comparison and Contrast
To compare is to tell how two or more things are alike. To contrast is to tell how two
or more things are different. Clue words such as like or as show comparisons. Clue words such
as but or unlike show contrasts. Often authors don’t use clue words. Readers must make
comparisons for themselves. Use this chart to compare and contrast the conflicting accounts of
the site of the first Mass in the Philippines.
Subjects being compared

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Reasons for comparison

__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Limasawa
Point 1 Point 2
Butuan
Point 1 Point 2
Similarities/ Differences
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Rubric
3 Full Accomplishment Students compared and contrasted the conflicting versions of the
venue of the first Mass in the Philippines in a clear and consistent
manner.
2 Substantial Students compared and contrasted the conflicting versions of the
Accomplishment venue of the first Mass in the Philippines but do so in a somewhat
consistent manner
1 Little or Partial Students have difficulty comparing and contrasting the conflicting
Accomplishment versions of the venue of the first Mass in the Philippines consistently
References
Bernad, M. (2013). Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexaminationof the Evidence. Budhi: A Journal Of Ideas And Culture, 5(3 6.1), 133-166.
Retrieved from
https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579
Blair, Emma and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited
in Miguel A. Bernad, “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-
35.
Danao, E.L. (2015, January 23). Where was the first mass in the Philippines held? Manila
Times. Retrieved from http://www.manilatimes.net/first-mass-philippines-held/157730
The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny

By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay
https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
Posted September 5, 2012
The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for all the Filipinos. In
this particular day, the entire Filipino nation as well as Filipino communities all over the world
gathers to celebrate the Philippines’ Independence Day. 1898 came to be a very significant year
for all of us— it is as equally important as 1896—the year when the Philippine Revolution broke
out owing to the Filipinos’ desire to be free from the abuses of the Spanish colonial regime. But
we should be reminded that another year is as historic as the two—1872.
Two major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the other was
the martyrdom of the three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos
and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA). However, not all of us knew that there were different
accounts in reference to the said event. All Filipinos must know the different sides of the story—
since this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of our history—the execution of
GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the
Filipinos.
1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective
Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted
it as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of
it to implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization. The two
accounts complimented and corroborated with one other, only that the general’s report was
more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of privileges
enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and exemption from
force labor were the main reasons of the “revolution” as how they called it, however, other
causes were enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular
throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican
books and pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native
clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels
and enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling”
malicious propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the
“rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the likes of
Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The general even added that the native clergy enticed other
participants by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because God is
with them coupled with handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks
in the army. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate
propensity for stealing.
The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought
of it as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers,
residents of Manila and Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators of
Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be followed by the
massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and
Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros.
According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated
the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated the occasion
with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign
for the attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant
Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.
When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the
reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily
crushed when the expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators
including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by
a court-martial and were sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de
Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the
Audencia (High Court) from the practice of law, arrested and were sentenced with life
imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native
regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of
the Peninsulares.
On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill
fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the GOMBURZA
were executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that shaped
Filipino nationalism.
A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident
Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the
Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident was a mere
mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be
dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo’s
cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges of the workers and native army
members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of school of arts and trades for the
Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization of a political club.
On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and
residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the commanding
officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support from the bulk of
the army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny reached authorities in
Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in
Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.
Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful
lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also
included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow
the Spanish government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central
Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and management of educational
institutions. This turnout of events was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to do
something drastic in their dire sedire to maintain power in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain
welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of
sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree proposed
to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such
schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was warmly received by
most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.
The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took
advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy
organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera
sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the scheme was true without
any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by
Izquierdo and the friars.
Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment
while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by
garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of
Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented
Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened due to discontentment of the arsenal
workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution
of the three martyr priests which he actually witnessed.
Unraveling the Truth
Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that remained
to be unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal as well as the
members of the native army after their privileges were drawn back by Gen. Izquierdo; Second,
Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid and strict policies that made the Filipinos move and turn away
from Spanish government out of disgust; Third, the Central Government failed to conduct an
investigation on what truly transpired but relied on reports of Izquierdo and the friars and the
opinion of the public; Fourth, the happy days of the friars were already numbered in 1872
when the Central Government in Spain decided to deprive them of the power to intervene in
government affairs as well as in the direction and management of schools prompting them to
commit frantic moves to extend their stay and power; Fifth, the Filipino clergy members
actively participated in the secularization movement in order to allow Filipino priests to take
hold of the parishes in the country making them prey to the rage of the friars; Sixth, Filipinos
during the time were active participants, and responded to what they deemed as injustices; and
Lastly, the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of the Spanish government, for
the action severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired Filipino patriots to call
for reforms and eventually independence. There may be different versions of the event, but
one thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898.
The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and
unnamed shed their bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898 may be
a glorious event for us, but we should not forget that before we came across to victory, our
forefathers suffered enough. As we enjoy our freedom, may we be more historically aware of
our past to have a better future ahead of us. And just like what Elias said in Noli me Tangere,
may we “not forget those who fell during the night.” (Piedad-Pugay, 2012).
Brief Questions
Directions: Answer the following questions briefly.
1. What exactly did Jose Monteclaro and Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo tell about the Cavite
Mutiny?
2. Do you think the Cavite Mutiny could have been avoided if reports were more truthful
and factual? Defend your answer.
3. It is believed that the Cavite Mutiny inspired the 1898 revolution? Why do you think it
took 26 long years before Filipinos staged the 1898 revolution?
Name __________________________________________________ Score ____________________

Activity 2 The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny

Comparison and Contrast
To compare is to tell how two or more things are alike. To contrast is to tell how two
or more things are different. Clue words such as like or as show comparisons. Clue words such
as but or unlike show contrasts. Often the authors don’t use clue words. Readers must make
comparisons for themselves. Use this chart to compare and contrast the conflicting accounts of
the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.
Comparison Contrast
Jose Montero y Vidal’s Version
Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera’s Version
Conclusion
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Rubrics
3 Full Accomplishment Students compared and contrasted the conflicting accounts in the
1872 Cavite Mutiny in a clear and consistent manner.
2 Substantial Students compared and contrasted the conflicting accounts in the
Accomplishment 1872 Cavite Mutiny but do so in a somewhat consistent manner.
1 Little or Partial Students have difficulty comparing and contrasting the conflicting
Accomplishment accounts in the 1872 Cavite Mutiny consistently.
References
Piedad-Pugay, C.A. (2012, September 5). The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny. National
Historical Commission of the Philippines. Retrieved from
https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
The Retraction Controversy of Rizal

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that center on ending
colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute to creating the Filipino nation. The great
volume of Rizal’s lifework was committed to this end, particularly the more influential ones,
Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the Catholic religion, but the friars,
the main agents of injustice in the Philippine society.
It is understandable, therefore that any piece of writing from Rizal that recants
everything he wrote against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines could deal
heavy damage to his image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary. Such document purportedly
exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a few hours before his execution. This document, referred to as
“The Retraction,” declares Rizal’s belief in the Catholic faith, and retracts everything he wrote
against the Church.
Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction

Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. on 18 May 1935
Original Spanish Text English Translation

Me declare catolica y en esta Religion I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion
en que naci y me eduque quiero vivir y morir. in which I was born and educated I wish to live
and die.
Me retracto de todo Corazon de I retract with all my heart

cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, inpresos whatever in my words, writings, publications,
y conducta ha habido contrario a mi cualidad and conduct has been contrary to my character
as son of the Catholic Church. I believe
de hijo de la Iglesia Catolica. Creo
and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit
y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me somento to whatever she demands. I abominate
a cuanto ella manda. Abomino de la Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church,
Masonaria, como enigma que es de la Iglesia, and as a Society prohibited by the Church.
y como Sociedad prohibida por la Iglesia.
The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior
Puede el Prelado Diocesano, como Autoridad Ecclesiastical Authority, may make public this
Suuperior Eclesiastica hacer publica esta
manifastacion espontanea mia para reparar spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to
el escandalo que mis actos hayan podido repair
causar y para que Dios y los hombres’ the scandal which my acts may have
caused and so that God and people
me perdonen. may pardon me.
Manila 29 de Deciembre de 1896 Manila 29 of December 1896

Jose Rizal Jose Rizal
Jefe del Piquete

Jefe del Piquete Juan del Fresno
Juan del Fresno
Ayudante de Plaza
Ayudante de Plaza Eloy Moure
Eloy Moure
Comparison of Documents
Text of the Retraction Document discovered by Text of the Retraction as reported by Father
Father Garcia in 1935 in the Archives of the Balaguer in his Notarial Act of August 8, 1917*
Archdiocese*
Me declare católico y en esta Religion enque nací Me delare católico y en esta religión en que nací
y me eduqué quiero vivir y morir. y me eduqué quiero vivir y morir. Me retracto de
todo Corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos,
Me retracto de todo Corazon de cuanto en mis impresos y conducta ha habido contrario a mi
palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha habido cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia. Creo y profeso
contrario á mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia cuanto ella enseña; y me someto á cuarto ella
Católica. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me manda. Abomino de la Masonería, como enegma
someto á cuarto ella manda. Abomino de la que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida
Masoneria, como enemiga que es de la Iglesia, y por la misma Iglesia. Puede el Parelado diocesano,
como Sociedad prohibida por la Iglesia. Puede el como Autoridad superior eclesiástica, hacer
Parelado Diocesano, como Autoridad Superior pública esta manifestación, espotánea mía para
Eclesiástica hacer pública esta manifestación reparar el escándalo que mis actos hayan podido
espontánea mia para reparar el escándalo que mis causar y para que Dios y los hombres pe
actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los perdonen.
hombres me perdonen.
Manila, 29 de Decembre 1896.
José Rizal
Esta… retractación la firmaron con el Dr. Rizal, el
El Jefe del Piquete El ayudante uplaze Sr. Fresno Jefe del Piquete y el señor Moure,
Ayudantede de Plaza.
Juan del Fresno Eloy Moure
*Cf. Gonazlo Ma. Piñana, Murió el Doctor Rizal
*Based on a photostat of the Retraction in the Cristianamente? (Barcelona: Editorial Barcelonesa,
files of Rev. Manuel A. Garcia, C.M. S.A., 1920), p.155
A copy of the alleged retraction letter of Jose Rizal
Different Sources
There are at least four (4) sources of the alleged Rizal’s retraction that have surfaced.
1. December 30, 1896. The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila
on the very day of Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30, 1896.
2. December 31, 1896. The second text appeared in El Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s
execution. It is the short formula of the retraction.
3. February 14, 1897. The third text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897,
in the fortnightly magazine La Juventud. It came from an anonymous writer who
revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer.
4. May 18, 1935. The alleged “original” text was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M.
on May 18, 1935 in the archdiocesan archives after it disappeared for thirty-nine years
from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.
Analysis Rizal’s Retraction

(Jose Rizal University, 2004)
We know not the reproductions of the lost original had been made by a copyist who
could imitate Rizal’s handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his letter
to his former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said that he had received “an exact copy of the
retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do
remember whose it is…” He proceeded: “I even suspect that it might have been written by
Rizal himself. I am sending it to you that you may… verify whether it might be of Rizal
himself…” Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn statement.
The “exact” copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately
preceding Rizal’s execution, Rizal y su Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his
biography of Rizal, Vida y Escritos del Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses
taken from the texts of the retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi’s copy of Rizal’s retraction
has the same text as that of Fr. Balaguer’s “exact” copy but follows the paragraphing of the
texts of Rizal’s retraction in the Manila newspapers.
Regarding the “original” text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of
La Voz Española. That newspaper reported: “Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s)
own hand-written retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…” On the
other hand, Manila pharmacist F. Stahl wrote in letter: “besides, nobody has seen this written
declaration, in spite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to see it. “For
example, not only Rizal’s family but also the correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in
Madrid, Don Manuel Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr. Santiago Mataix of El herald, were not
able to see the hand-written retraction.
Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace the Archbishop ascertained whether Rizal himself was the
one who wrote and signed the retraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary because it
was possible for one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting aforesaid holograph; and keeping
a copy of the same for our archives, I myself delivered it personally that the same morning to
His Grace Archbishop… His Grace testified: At once the undersigned entrusted this holograph
to Rev. Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of the Chancery.” After that, the documents could
not be seen by those who wanted to examine it and was finally considered lost after efforts to
look for it proved futile.
On May 18, 1935, the lost “original” document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by
the archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts
about Rizal’s retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction
differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies. And, the fact
that the texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could be shown to
be the exact copies of the “original” but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who
controlled the press in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the “original” while the
Jesuits had only the imitations.
Significant Differences Between Copies

We now proceed to show the significant differences between the “original” and the
Manila newspapers texts of the retraction on the one hand and the texts of the copies of Fr.
Balaguer and Fr. Pio Pi on the other hand.
1. First, instead of the words “mi cualidad” (with “u”) which appear in the original and
the newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have “mi calidad” (without “u”).
2. Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word “Catolica” after the first
“Iglesias” which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.
3. Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third “Iglesias” the word
“misma” which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.
4. Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical
reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences
while the original and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately
with the second sentences.
5. Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the Manila newspapers
have only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.
6. Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the
witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.
In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named the witnesses.
He said “This… retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Senor Fresno, Chief of the
Picket, and Senor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza.” However, the proceeding quotation only
proves itself to be an addition to the original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr.
Balaguer said that he had the “exact” copy of the retraction, which was signed by Rizal, but he
made no mention of the witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses signed the retraction.
How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal’s retraction? Fr. Balaguer never alluded
to having himself made a copy of the retraction although he claimed that the Archbishop
prepared a long formula of the retraction and Fr. Pi a short formula. In Fr. Balaguer’s earliest
account, it is not yet clear whether Fr. Balaguer was using the long formula of nor no formula
in dictating to Rizal what to write. According to Fr. Pi, in his own account of Rizal’s conversion
in 1909, Fr. Balaguer dictated from Fr. Pi’s short formula previously approved by the
Archbishop. In his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer admitted that he dictated to Rizal the
short formula prepared by Fr. Pi; however; he contradicts himself when he revealed that the
“exact” copy came from the Archbishop. The only copy, which Fr. Balaguer wrote, is the one
that appeared on his earliest account of Rizal’s retraction.
Where did Fr. Balaguer’s “exact” copy come from? We do not need long arguments to
answer this question, because Fr. Balaguer himself has unwittingly answered this question. He
said in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:
“… I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of the two
formulas of retraction, which they (You) gave me; that from you and that of the Archbishop,
and the first with the changes which they (that, is you) made; and the other the exact copy of
the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I
remember whose it is, and I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself.”
In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he received two original texts of
the retraction. The first, which came from Fr. Pi, contained “the changes which You (Fr. Pi)
made”; the other, which is “that of the Archbishop” was “the exact copy of the retraction
written and signed by Rizal” (underscoring supplied). Fr. Balaguer said that the “exact copy”
was “written and signed by Rizal” but he did not say “written and signed by Rizal and himself”
(the absence of the reflexive pronoun “himself” could mean that another person-the copyist-
did not). He only “suspected” that “Rizal himself” much as Fr. Balaguer did “not know nor…
remember” whose handwriting it was.
Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the “exact copy” came from the Archbishop! He called
it “exact” because, not having seen the original himself. He was made to believe that it was the
one that faithfully reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in which “changes”
(that is, where deviated from the “exact” copy) had been made. Actually, the differences
between that of the Archbishop (the “exact” copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with “changes”) is that
the latter was “short” because it omitted certain phrases found in the former so that, as Fr. Pi
had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it.
According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate
from the short formula of Fr. Pi. Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but he
insisted on adding the phrases “in which I was born and educated” and “[Masonry]” as the
enemy that is of the Church” – the first of which Rizal would have regarded as unnecessary and
the second as downright contrary to his spirit. However, what actually would have happened,
if we are to believe the fictitious account, was that Rizal’s addition of the phrases was the
restoration of the phrases found in the original which had been omitted in Fr. Pi’s short formula.
The “exact” copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort Santiago to convince
them that Rizal had retracted. Someone read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who
claimed in his “Notes’ that Rizal read loud his retraction. However, his copy of the retraction
proved him wrong because its text (with “u”) and omits the word “Catolica” as in Fr. Balaguer’s
copy but which are not the case in the original. Capt. Dominguez never claimed to have seen
the retraction: he only “heard.”
The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had written a retraction
in Dapitan. Very early in 1895, Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with her adopted father
who wanted to be cured of his blindness by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela Orlac, who was
agent and a mistress of a friar. Rizal fell in love with Josephine and wanted to marry her
canonically but he was required to sign a profession of faith and to write retraction, which and
to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. “Spanish law had established civil marriage in the
Philippines,” Prof. Craig wrote, but the local government had not provided any way for people
to avail themselves of the right…”
In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction
to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his
friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; “The document
(the retraction), enclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came
hurrying I to reclaim it.” Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to
a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.
Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction. What they
saw was a copy done by who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the original (almost eaten
by termites) was kept by some friars. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently because
they did not distinguish between the genuine and the imitation of Rizal’s handwriting. (Jose
Rizal University, 2004)
Forging Rizal, 1
by Gemma Cruz Araneta
January 9, 2011
This day (30 Dec 2010), one hundred and fourteen years after Dr. Jose Rizal was
executed at Bagumbayan, the myth about his retraction continues to confuse, if not obfuscate.
Although the retraction strategy was hatched by Spanish Jesuits in the 19th century, soon after
they were discombobulated by the NOLI ME TANGERE, Rizal’s first seditious novel published
in Belgium in1837, as late as 1961, a facsimile of the alleged retraction document, supposedly
signed by the hero, was printed in the textbook PHILIPPINE HISTORY FOR HIGH SCHOOLS
by Dr. Gregorio F. Zaide.
Incredibly prescient, Rizal knew he was going to be vilified after death. When he
returned to Manila in 1887, he visited the Ateneo, talked to Padre Faura who told him that
everything he had written in the NOLI was true, but that he may lose his head for it and if he
should persist in his beliefs (Masonry) he should never again set foot in his alma mater. The
Jesuits were probably alarmed because their famous alumnus had turned his back at Mother
Church, others would eventually follow suit.
In July 1892, four days after he established La Liga Filipina in Manila, Rizal was arrested
and hastily deported to the wilderness of Dapitan. According to Rafael Palma, an early
biographer of Rizal, the Jesuits there offered him quarters at their mission house (probably the
most livable) but only after a spiritual retreat during which he would recant his anti-religious
and politically subversive ideas. Needless to say, the steadfast Rizal politely refused.
From his execution on 30 December 1896 to the 1960’s six (6) retractions all ludicrous
and blatant forgeries have surfaced. These are:
1. “Rizal’s Retraction,” Photostat copy, in Jose M. Hernandez’s, RIZAL, (Alemars, 1950);

2. “Rizal’s Retraction” in “I Abjure Masonry” allegedly by Jose Rizal, San Beda College,
pamphlet, 1950;
3. “Rizal’s holograph,” in RIZAL’S UNFADING GLORY, by Fr. Jesus M. Cavanna (revised
edition, 1950)
4. “Facsimile of Rizal’s Retraction.” SELECTED READINGS FROM RIZAL, Ricardo C. Bassig,

1959;
5. “Facsimile of Rizal’s Retraction,” PHILIPPINE HISTORY FOR HIGH SCHOOLS,
Gregorio F. Zaide, 1961;
6. “Facsimile of Rizal’s Retraction,” “Statement of the Catholic Hierarchy of the
Philippines,” 1956.
Absolutely no one has seen the original retraction document from where all these
facsimiles were supposedly taken. Amazing, to say the least.
Reference: Runes, Ildefonso T. & Buenafe, Mamerto M. (1962) The Forgery of Rizal’s Retraction
and Josephine’s Autobiography, Manila: Pro-Patria Publishers, p 198.
Here are some reproductions of some of Jose Rizal’s handwritings. Be familiar with
them. Your familiarity with his handwriting might help you solve the issue at hand.
Facsimile of parts of a trilingual letter written by Rizal in Dapitan
On December 30, 1896 at 5:00 AM, teary-eyed Josephine Bracken and Josefa Rizal came.
According to the testimony of the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia, Josephine and Rizal were
married. Josephine was gifted by Rizal with the classic Thomas á Kempis book Imitations of Christ
in which he inscribed, “To my dear and unhappy wife, Josephine, December 30th, 1896, Jose
Rizal.” They embraced for the last time.
Above - Facsimile of the opening lines of Rizal’s last

verses.
Left - Regulations of La Liga Filipina in Rizal’s
handwriting
Left - The first page of the “Mi Ultimo Adios” in Rizal’s own handwriting. The writing of this poem and the
alleged retraction document must have been just hours apart, and hence, must have no obvious differences as to
the handwriting.
Right - A reproduction of the alleged retraction in 1935
The Debate
The debate as to whether or not Dr. Jose Rizal retracted before his execution is still on.
Find out the arguments and evidences of historians and other claimants to this controversy.
Here are some resources:
1. Pascual, Ricardo R. (1935) Rizal Beyond the Grave: a vindication of the martyr of
Bagumbayan. Manila: Manlapit Press, 187 p.
2. Cavanna, Jesus Ma. (1961) Rizal’s Unfading Glory: a documentary history of the
conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal. Manila. 235 p.
3. Runes, Ildefonso T 7 Buenafe, Mamerto M. (1962) The Forgery of Rizal’s Retraction
and Josephine’s Autobiography, Manila: BR Book, 198 p.
4. Garcia, Ricardo P. (1964) The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction. Foreword by Jose
W. Diokno. Quezon City, R.P. Garcia, 216 p.
5. Locsin, Teodoro M. (1978). Esmeraldo Z. Izon (Illustrator) The Heroic Confession,
Manila: Vera-Reyes Inc. 167 p.
6. Hessel, Eugene A (1969) Rizal’s Retraction: A Note on the Debate in Studies in Philippine
church history. Edited by Gerald H. Anderson. Ithaca [N.Y.] Cornell University Press. Pp
133-151
http://ningaskugonbaga.blogspot.com/2011/10/rizals-retraction-note-on-debate.html
7. Araneta, Gemma Cruz (January 9, 2011) Forging Rizal 1 & 2
http://talkingpointsgca.blogspot.com/2011/01/forging-rizal-1.html
http:// talkingpointsgca.blogspot.com/2011/01/forging-rizal-2.html
8. Santos, Tomas U. (October 4, 2011) Rizal’s retraction: Truth vs Myth.
http://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_retraction_truth_vs_myth
9. Uckung, Peter Jaynul V. (September 19, 2012) The Rizal Retraction and other cases. The
National Historical Commission.
http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/
10. Francia, Luis H. (January 2, 2013) A Rizal Who Never Was. Inquirer.net
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/60807/a-rizal-who-never-was
11. Nidoy, Raul (June 18, 2013) Jose Rizal’s retraction: the controversy
http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-rizals-retraction-controversy.html
12. Chua, Xiao (December 29, 2016) Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga bagong dokumento at
pananaw. GMA News
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/artandculture/594027/retraction-ni-jose-
rizal-mga-bagong-dokumento-at-pananaw/story/
13. Makabenta, Yen. (December 30, 2017) No grave for Jose Rizal, fake retraction for his
criticism. Manila Times.
http://www.manilatimes.net/no-grave-jose-rizal-fake-retraction-criticism/371274
14. Makabenta, Yen. (January 2, 2018) Rizal remains a living and burning issue among us.
Manila Times
http://www.manilatimes.net/rizal-remains-living-burning-issue-among-us/371727/
Name __________________________________________________ Score ____________________

Activity 3 The Retraction Controversy of Rizal

Exploring the Text and the Film
1. Watch the film Bayaning Third World, after the discussion of the Rizal’s Retraction
Controversy. It is hoped that the topic will be more vivid and clear.
2. Compare and contrast the debate on Rizal’s retraction letter and the film.
3. Identify what values or lessons that are evident in the text or film.
4. Write your own observations about Rizal’s retraction controversy.
5. Make a persuasive essay about the controversy of Rizal’s retraction letter. Did he retract
or not? Would Rizal’s works be deemed irrelevant and futile because of his retraction?
References
Chua, X. (2016, December 29). Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga bagong dokumento at pananaw.
GMA News Online. Retrieved from
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/artandculture/594027/retraction-ni-jose-rizal-
mga-bagong-dokumento-at-pananaw/story
Constantino, R. (2, April 2008). Veneration Without Understanding. Retrieved from

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00472337185390141
The Retraction and other Cases. Retrieved from https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-

other-cases/
Santos, T.U. (2011, October 4). Rizal’s retraction: Truth vs myth. The Varsitarian. Retrieved
from http://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_retraction_truth_vs_myth
Uckung, P. J. V. (2012, September 19). The Rizal Retraction and Other Cases. National Historical
Commission of the Philippines. Retrieved from https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-
other
cases/#:~:text=With%20the%20president%20captured%2C%20his,witnesses%2C%20most
%20of%20them%20Jesuits.
Pugadlawin, Balintawak, or Bahay Toro?
Historical Context
The Philippine Revolution of 1896 began with what later became known 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 Bonifacio 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 (today’s National
Historical Commission of the Philippines [NHCP]) decided that, following extensive research of
primary sources, the First Cry of the Philippine Revolution of 1896 happened on August 23,
1896 at Pugad Lawin, now part of Project 8 in Quezon City.
The controversy, however, persists, with historians and other personalities (especially
the descendants of the Katipunero witnesses) claiming that the official date and place was
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.)
The Account
The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio,
Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the first five arriving there on
August 19, and I, on August 20, 1896. The first place were some 500 members of the Katipunan
met on August 22, 1896 was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Aside from
the persons mentioned above, among those who were there were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro
Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others. Here, views were only exchanged
and no resolution was debated or adopted. It was at Pugad Lawin, in the house, store-house
and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the Katipunan
metand carried out considerable debate and discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was
whether or not the revolution against the Spanish government should be started on August 29,
1896. Only one man protested and fought against a war that was Teodoro Plata. Besides the
persons named above, among those present at this meeting were Enrique Cipriano, Alfonso
Pacheco, Tomas Remigio, Sinforoso San Pedro, and others. After the tumultuous meeting many
of those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted “Long live the Philippines! Long Live
the Philippines!”
Santiago Alvarez’s Account
In 1927, a pre-World War II Tagalog weekly magazine named Sampaguita began

publishing the Katipunan memoirs of Gen. Santiago Virata Alvarez, (nom-de-guerre: Kidlat ng
Apoy) one of the leaders of the Cavite revolution. The series appeared in 36 parts. It told the
story of the Philippine Revolution starting in March 1896 until late 1897 interspersed with
personal accounts and stories to events during the revolution taken from Alvarez’ notes. The
series was later published as a book, titled The Katipunan and the Revolution (QC: ADMU,
1992) with an English translation by Paula Carolina Malay.
The story of the First Cry is found in Chapter 6 of the memoirs. Alvarez presents an
account devoid of any dramatic description as it is merely a narration of the events that
happened in Bahay Toro (now part of Project 8 in Quezon City) on August 24, 1896.
The Account
We started our trek to Kangkong at about eleven that night. We walked through the
rain over dark expanses of muddy meadows and fields. Our clothes drenched and our bodies
numbed by the cold wind, we plodded wordlessly. It was nearly two in the morning when we
reached the house of Brother Apolonio Samson in Kangkong. We crowded into the house to
rest and warm ourselves. We were so tired that, after hanging our clothes out to dry, we soon
left asleep…
The Supremo began assigning guards at five o’clock the following morning, Saturday 22
August 1896. He placed a detachment at the Balintawak boundary and another at the backyard
to the north of the house where we were gathered…
No less than three hundred men assembled at the building of the Supremo Andres
Bonifacio. Altogether, they carried assorted weapons, bolos, spears, daggers, a dozen small
revolvers and a rifle used by its owner, one Lieutenant Manuel, for hunting birds. The Supremo
Bonifacio was restless because of fear of a sudden attack by the enemy. He was worried over
the tought that any of the couriers carrying the letter sent by Emilio Jacinto could have been
intercepted; and in that eventuality, the enemy would surely know their whereabouts and
attack them on the sly. He decided that it was better to move to a site called Bahay Toro.
At ten o’clock that Sunday morning, 23 August 1896, we arrived at Bahay Toro. Our
number had grown to more than 500 and the house, yard, and warehouse of Cabesang
Melchora was getting crowded with us Katipuneros. The generous hospitality of Cabesang
Melchora was no less than that of Apolonio Samson. Like him, she also opened her granary
and plenty of rice pounded and animals slaughtered to feed us…
The following day, Monday, 24 August, more Katipuneros came and increased our
number to more than a thousand. The Supremo called a meeting at ten o’clock that morning
inside Cabesang Melchora’s barn. Flanking him on both sides at the ehad of the table were Dr.
Pio Valenzuela, Emilio Jacinto, Briccio Pantas, Enrique Pacheco, Ramon Bernardo, Pantelaon
Torres, Francisco Carreon, Vicente Fernandez, Teodoro Plata, and others. We were so crowded
that some stood outside the barn.
The following matters were approved at the meeting:
1. An uprising to defend the people’s freedom was to be started at midnight of Satuday,
29 August 1896…
2. To be on a state of alert so that the Katipunan forces could strike should the situation
arise where the enemy was at a disadvantage. Thus, the uprising could be started earlier
than the agreed time of midnight of 29 August 1896 should a favorable opportunity
arise at that date. Everyone should steel himself and be resolute in the struggle that was
imminent…
3. The immediate objective was the capture of Manila…
After the adjournment of the meeting at twelve noon, there were tumultuous shouts of
“Long live the Sons of the People!”
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.
The Account
On August 26, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio Samson,
then the cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who attended, I remember, were
Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remigio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata,
Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They were all leaders of the Katipunan
ans composed the board of directors of the organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan,
Cavite, and Morong (now Rizal) were also present.
At about nine o’clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting was opened with Andres
Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the
uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were all opposed
to starting the revolution too early. They reasoned that the people would be in distress if the
revolution were started without adequate preparation. Plata was very forceful in his argument,
stating the uprising could not very well be started without arms and food for the soldiers.
Valenzuela used Rizal’s argument about the rich not siding with the Katipunan organization.
Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he would lose in discussion then left the session hall and
talked to the people who were waiting outside for the result of the meeting of the leaders. He
told the people that the leaders were arguing against starting the revolution early, appealed to
them in a fiery speech in which he said: “You remember the fate of our countrymen who were
shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us.
Our organization has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don’t start the uprising,
the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then do you say?”
“Revolt,” the people shouted as one.
Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told them
that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax charged each citizen. “If it is
true that you are ready to revolt,” Bonifacio said, “I want to see you destroyed your cedulas.
It will be the sign that all of us have declared our severance from the Spaniards.”
With tears in their eyes, the people, as one man, pulled out their cedulas and tore them
to pieces. It was the beginning of the formal declaration of the separation from Spanish rule…
When the people’s pledge was obtained by Bonifacio, he returned to the session hall
and informed the leaders of what took place outside. “The people want to revolt, a they
destroyed their cedula,” Bonifacio said, “So now we have to start the uprising otherwise the
people by hundreds will be shot.” There was no alternative. The board of directors, in spite of
the protests of Plata, Pantas, and Valenzuela, voted for the revolution. And when this was
decided, the people outside shouted, “Long Live the Philippine Republic.”
Brief Discussion
Direction: Answer the following questions briefly.
1. Who are the three primary sources of the story? How did they participate in the
revolution?
2. According to the accounts, where and when did the first cry of revolution happen?
3. What is the significance of tearing of the cedulas? What did the cedulas signify?
4. What are the similarities and differences among the three accounts?
5. How does the National Historical Commission of the Philippines verify or authenticate
the historical accounts?
Name __________________________________________________ Score ____________________

Activity 4 Pugadlawin, Balintawak, or Bahay Toro?
Direction: Access and watch the YouTube video titled “Xiao Time: Ang Unang Sigaw ng
Himagsikan sa Balintawak, Kalookan” posted by PTV. Then answer the following questions:
1. What does the video tell you about the many different accounts?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
2. Is there a chance that all sources are valid?

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
3. What other information on the revolution did you learn from the video?
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
References
Guerrero, M., Encarnacion, E., & Villegas, R. (2015, February 24). In focus: Balintawak: The cry
for a nationwide revolution. National Historical Commission of the Philippines. Retrieved from
http://ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/in-focus/balintawak-the-cry-for-a-nationwide-
revolution
Richardson, Jim. (2019 March). Notes on the “Cry” of August 1896. Retrieved from
https://sites.google.com/site/katipunandocumentsandstudies/studies/notes-on-the-cry-of-
august-1896
May Ann R. Pastrana

Associate Professor I
Teaches General Education subjects like Readings in Philippine History, The Contemporary
World, and Rizal. A faculty of Aklan State University - School of Arts and Sciences. Currently
pursuing PhD in Social Science at West Visayas State University. A graduate of BSEd major in
Social Science at West Visayas State University. Finished Master of Arts in Education major in
Social Science at Aklan State University.

Readings in Philippine History: Aklan State University School of Arts and Sciences Banga, Aklan 2020-2021

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: Aklan State University School of Arts and Sciences Banga, Aklan 2020-2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Readings in Philippine History

Readings in Philippine History

May Ann R. Pastrana

The K to 12 Program is a much-needed reform in the basic education system in the

May Ann R. Pastrana

Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the

I. The Butuan Tradition

The 17th Century

Colin and Combes Compared

The 18th Century

The 19th Century

II. The Shift in Opinion

III. The Evidence for Limasawa

1. The Evidence of Albo’s Log Book

Francisco Albo joined the Magellan expedition as a pilot (“contramaaestre”) in

2. The Evidence from Pigafetta

(a) Pigafetta’s Testimony Regarding the Route

The route taken by Magellan expedition may be constructed if we follow Pigafetta’s

That is the route of the Magellan expedition as described by Pigafetta. It coincides

(b) The evidence of Pigafetta’s Map

(c) The Two King

There is confirmatory evidence in the presence of two native “kings” or rajahs at

(d) Seven Days at Mazaua

(e) An Argument from Omission

If “Mazaua” were Butuan, or in the vicinity of Butuan, there is a curious omission in

3. Summary of the Evidence of Albo and Pigafetta

4. The Legazpi Expedition

IV. The Geography of “Mazaua”

V. Why then the Butuan Tradition?

Name __________________________________________________ Score ____________________

Activity 1 The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines

Subjects being compared

Reasons for comparison

The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident

Unraveling the Truth

Name __________________________________________________ Score ____________________

Activity 2 The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny

Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera’s Version

The Retraction Controversy of Rizal

Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction

Original Spanish Text English Translation

Me retracto de todo Corazon de I retract with all my heart

Manila 29 de Deciembre de 1896 Manila 29 of December 1896

Jefe del Piquete

A copy of the alleged retraction letter of Jose Rizal

Analysis Rizal’s Retraction

Significant Differences Between Copies

1. “Rizal’s Retraction,” Photostat copy, in Jose M. Hernandez’s, RIZAL, (Alemars, 1950);

4. “Facsimile of Rizal’s Retraction.” SELECTED READINGS FROM RIZAL, Ricardo C. Bassig,

Above - Facsimile of the opening lines of Rizal’s last

Name __________________________________________________ Score ____________________

Activity 3 The Retraction Controversy of Rizal

Constantino, R. (2, April 2008). Veneration Without Understanding. Retrieved from

The Retraction and other Cases. Retrieved from https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-

Pugadlawin, Balintawak, or Bahay Toro?

Dr. Pio Valenzuela’s Account

Santiago Alvarez’s Account

In 1927, a pre-World War II Tagalog weekly magazine named Sampaguita began

Guillermo Masangkay’s Account

In 1932, Guillermo Masangkay, a friend and fellow Katipunero of Andres Bonifacio,

Name ______________________________ Score

Name ______________________________ Score

Name ______________________________ Score

Name ______________________________ Score