MODULE 3.

“ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”: CONTROVERSIES AND

CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

COURSE CONTENT

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

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

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

To examine the issue and recommend the factual findings, the Philippine Congress
referred the matter to the national historical institution. Then Dr. Samuel K. Tan,
chairman of NHI, asserted the first Mass on Eastern Day, which according to the number
one pro-Butuan author, was not recorded in observing Easter Sunday on 31st of March
1521, still under discussion, includes countless experts in education, history, religion,
politics, or other subjects (Salazar 2015). These are the paragraphs from Pigafetta,
translated by Lord Stanley of Alderley, the lead writer of the’ first travel around the
world’:
“On Sunday, the last day of March, and feast of Easter, the captain sent the
chaplain ashore early to say mass, and the interpreter went with him to tell the king that
they were not coming on shore to dine with him, but only to hear the mass. The king
hearing that sent two dead pigs. When it was time for saying mass, the captain went
ashore with fifty men, not with their arms, but only with their swords, and dressed as well
as each one was able to dress, and before the boats reached the shore our ships fired
six cannon shots as a sign of peace. At our landing, the two kings were there, and
received our captain in a friendly manner, and placed him between them, and then we
went to the place prepared for saying mass, which was not far from the shore. Before
the mass began the captain threw a quantity of musk rose water on those two kings, and
when the offertory of the mass came, the two kings went to kiss the cross like us, but
they offered nothing, and at the elevation of the body of our Lord they were kneeling like
us, and adored our Lord with joined hands. The ships fired all their artillery at the
elevation of the body of our Lord. After mass had been said, each one did the duty of a
Christian, receiving our Lord. After that, the captain had some sword-play by his people,
which gave great pleasure to the kings.”

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

The kings thanked the commander and said that they would do so voluntarily.
Then he asked if the Moors or the Gentiles, and what they thought they were. They
replied that they did not do any worship, but they joined their hands and looked up to the
sky, calling their God Aba. When the captain heard this, he was pleased to see the first
king reached into the air and said that he wished that the affection he felt for him could
be shown. He was asked by the interpreter why there was not enough to be eaten in this
place, and the king replied that he did not live there unless he came to hunt and see his
brother and that he lived on another island where his whole family lived. So the captain
inquired whether he had enemies who went to war against him and that if he had any, he
would go with his men and boats to overcome them and place them under his
obedience. The King thanked him and replied that there were two islands whose
enemies were the inhabitants, but the time has not come to attack them.
Salazar (2015) disprove that the First Mass on Easter was not a Biblical Festival not
practiced in the Book of Acts since the original New Testament Church which started
only on the Day of Pentecost in 31 A.D./C.E. The Mass was not observed as described
in Acts.

Four Sites of the First Mass

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

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

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

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

If Mazaua had the abundant rice fields, other food supplies, and water at the time when
Magellan and his troops landed and held the ‘First Mass’ or observed Easter Sunday,
how come Magellan and his fellow sailors sought for a more significant island? Mazaua
was and is attached to Mindanao, the second largest island in the entire Philippines.
Since the pro-Mazaua supporters emphatically claimed that Magellan and his fellow
sailors held the ‘First Mass’ or observed Easter Sunday in their ‘island of plenty’. But
what happened to the abundant foods, drinks, and other supplies in Mazaua and their
next neighbor, the ‘Kingdom of Butuan’? Why did the two rajahs of ‘Mazzaua” and
Butuan volunteer as pilots to Magellan to obtain provisions in Cebu, which is much
smaller than Mindanao?

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

Salazar (2015) refers to the writings of de Jesus wrote a lengthy article entitled,
‘Mazaua: Magellan’s Lost Harbor.’ The government of Butuan City, Mindanao,
commissioned him to do extensive research on the Mazaua landfall isuue. He concluded
that Magellan an dhis troops landed in Mazaua, Butuan City, Philippines. He wrote:
“For most Philippines, two events define the meaning of Mazaua, Easter mass and the
plantation of a big cross on top of the highest hill. In a hube sea lined with mighty waves
of Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, and other beliefs, The Philippines is the isolated rock of
Christianity. 83% of its people are Catholics, 9% Protestants. Therefore, mazaua is an
icon for a highly religious people, a major event. This aspect of a signal event has
unfortunately served to distortion the way the event is seen in world geography and
Renaissance navigation.”
Source: De Jesus, Vicente. Mazaua: Magella’s Lost Harbor (A Lee Shore Stands For
1521 Safe Haven Thanks To Errors of Translation, Copying, Bad Logic, Superficial
Research And An Attempt At Fraud By A Government Historical Agency).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who was Odoric?

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

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

The Pangasinan connection

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

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

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

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

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

“It is possible that these observations were made in the Philippines- but not likely.
The west coast of Borneo is on the direct route between Java and Champa, and it would
seem strange, moreover, that such long voyages as the direct Java-Philippines or
Philippines-Champa passages should bypass the standard trading ports mentioned in
Chinese accounts of the period. Moreover, none of these details are mentioned in the
longer Philippine description by Friar Odorics’ younger contemporary, Wang Tayuan. But
if there is a possibility that Friar Odoric set foot on Philippine soil, there is no reason to
think that he baptized anybody or celebrate mass two centuries before Magellans’
arrival—there is no reason even to think that he was a priest.” Sir Henry Yule (ed.). China,
Issue 36. Pp. 84-86.
 Thalamasin, somewhere between Java and Champa, now part of Vietnam, is in
the narrative places of Odoric, and he said that he was near the “south sea”. Bolinao,
however, is a 16-degree point north of the equator and is a significant detour from the
direct route from both.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1872 Cavite Mutiny SPANISH PERSPECTIVE

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

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

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

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

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

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

Injustice Response: THE VERSION OF FILIPINOS TO THE INCIDENT

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

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

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

Meanwhile, the Central Government of Spain welcomed and educational decree

written by Segismundo Moret promoting the fusion of parochial schools run by the friars
into a school called the Philippine Institute, intending to implement reforms. The decree
proposed to improve the educational standard in the Philippines by requiring competitive
examinations to fill teaching positions in such schools. Most Filipinos warmly received
this improvement despite the zest for the secularization of the native clergy.
 The Friars took advantage of the event and presented it to the Spanish
government as a vast conspiracy organized in the entire archipelago to destruct the
Spanish sovereignty because they fear it would be forgotten in the Philippines. Tavera
sadly confirmed that the Madrid administration was satisfied that the scheme was true
without attempting the facts or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by Izquierdo
and the brothers.

Convicted educated men who took part in the mutiny were sentenced to life
imprisonment while garrote tried and executed members of the native clergy headed by
the GOMBURZA. This episode leads to nationalism awakening and ultimately to the
outbreak of the 1896 Philippine Revolution. The account of the French writer Edmund
Plauchut complimented the account of Tavera by confirming that the event occurred due
to the discontent of the Cavite for arsenal workers and soldiers. However, the
Frenchman dwelt more on the execution of the three priests he witnessed as martyrs.

Considering the five accounts of the Mutiny of 1872, there were some basic facts
that remained unchanged: first, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the
arsenal as well as among the members of the indigenous army that Gen. Izquierdo
dragged their privileges back; second, Gen. Izquierdo has implemented strict and rigid
policies that have caused the Philippines to move away from the Spanish Government.
Third, in 1872 the central Spanish government had decided to take away the power to
interfere with the administration of government and the management of schools,
prompting them to undertake frenzied movements to extend their stay and power, the
happy days of the brothers had already been numbered; fourth, the members of the
Filipino clergy were actively involved in the movement for secularization. Finally, the
Spanish government’s execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder, for the action cut off the
Filipinos ‘ill-feelings and the event inspired Filipino patriots to call for reforms and
eventually independence. Various versions of the event may exist, but one thing is
certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved the way for a momentous 1898.

READ:

Agoncillo, Teodoro A. (1990). History of the Filipino People. Quezon City: Garotech
Publishing

Cabardo, Charo (2004). Homonhon, 482 Years Later. Gugma Han Samar – Cyberspace
Movement.

Delos Santos, R. and others. (2019) Readings in Philippine History

Goh Chor Boon- https://www.amazon.com/History-Goh-Chor-Boon-

Books/s?rh=n%3A9%2Cp_27%3AGoh+Chor+Boon
Hessel, Eugen A. (1961) The Religious Thought of Jose Rizal (Manila Philippine
Education Co., p. 255

Magellans’ First Voyage Round the World. Translated from Pigafetta and others, and
edited by Lord Stanley, of Alderly (1874)

.Cavanna Jesus Ma y Manso, C. M. (1956) Rizal’s Unfading Glory, a Documentary

History of the Conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal. 2nd. Ed. Rev. and improved (Manila: n. n.
1956), p. vi. Subsequently referred to as “Cavanna”

Sir Henry Yule (ed.). Cathay and the Way Thither: Being a Collection of Medieval
Notices of China, Issue 36. Pp. -86.
Zafra, Nicolas (1956). Readings in Philippine History, University of the Philippines,
Quezon City,

REFERENCES

Agoncillo, Teodoro A. (1990). History of the Filipino People. Quezon City: Garotech
Publishing

Cabardo, Charo (2004). Homonhon, 482 Years Later. Gugma Han Samar – Cyberspace
Movement.

Delos Santos, R. and others. (2019) Readings in Philippine History. Mandaluyong City :
Books Atbp Publishing Corp.

Goh Chor Boon- Importance of History . https://www.amazon.com/History-Goh-Chor-

Boon-Books/s?rh=n%3A9%2Cp_27%3AGoh+Chor+Boon

History of Books and Libraries-PowerPoint

Information sources and its use-PowerPoint

Limasawa-: http://7th_millennium.tripod.com/7mc/Limasawa.html
Cavanna Jesus Ma y Manso, C. M. (1956) Rizal’s Unfading Glory, a Documentary
History of the Conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal. 2nd. Ed. Rev. and improved (Manila: n. n.
1956), p. vi. Subsequently referred to as “Cavanna

Primary sources and secondary sources

https://www.library.unsw.edu.au/study/information-resources/primary-and-secondary-
sources
Magellan’s’ First Voyage Round the World. Translated from Pigafetta and others, and
edited by Lord Stanley, of Alderly (1874)

Sir Henry Yule (ed.). Cathay and the Way Thither: Being a Collection of Medieval
Notices of China, Issue 36. Pp. -86.

MODULE SUMMARY / SYNTHESIS

Module 3. The students know varied histories of indoctrination of the Filipinos by the
Spaniards and various revolts in different places which are discussed in primary sources
and secondary sources. They also learned to analyze and evaluate the contents of the
information given by authors in particular topic, hence developed their critical thinking
skills and creativeness by doing assigned activities. This is enhanced by grouping them
to share ideas on the assigned topics. Further, the students learned to analyze and
compare the analysis of the different authors views about Philippine History. Hence it
also made them to be analytical and critical in their readings as well as appreciate
history of the Philippines.