One Past Many Histories

Learning Module Surigao State College of Technology
MODULE 3
TITLE: “One Past but Many Histories”: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippine
History
TOPICS: 1. Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation

2. Multiperspectivity
3. Site of the First Mass in the Philippines
4. The Two Faces of 1872 Cavite Mutiny
5. Retraction of Rizal
6. Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin
TIME FRAME: 9 hours
INTRODUCTION:
This chapter will analyze 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. In the last modules, we
introduced history as a discipline, the historical method, and the content and context
analysis of primary sources. Two key concepts that need to be defined before
proceeding to the historical analysis of problems in history are interpretation and
multiperspectivity.
OBJECTIVES/INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES: In this lesson, learners will be able

to:
a. formulate critical interpretation in historical events using the primary sources;
b. illustrate the multiplicity of interpretation that can be read from historical
texts/documents;
c. criticize conflicting views concerning certain historical issues;
d. compare and contrast views of prominent people on particular issues; and,
e. create a position paper on the issues in Philippine history.
PRE-TEST:
EXPLANATION. Direction: Answer the following questions in the space provided.
1. Why it is important to interpret a historical text base on the primary sources?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
General Education – Readings in Philippine History

_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________.
2. How multiperspectivity affect the interpretation of historical facts?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________.
3. Give at least one historical issue in Philippines history that needs to be criticized and
resolved.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES:
Activity 1: Read-Me-Now: Read the following concepts and understand it.
1. Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation
Start History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary definition is
here! centered on how it impacts the present through its consequences. Geoffrey
Barraclough defines history as “the attempt to discover, on the basis of
fragmentary evidence, the significant things about the past.” He also notes “the
history we read, though based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but
a series of accepted judgments.” Such judgments of historians on how the past
90
should be seen make the foundation of historical interpretation.

The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic

history of Maragtas. Before it was revealed as a hoax, it was a
source of pride for the people of Aklan. In fact, a historical marker
was installed in the town of Batan, Aklan in 1956, with the
following text:
“CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara
Kalantiaw, third Chief of Panay, born in Aklan,
established his government in the peninsula of Batang,
Code of Kalantiaw, the Aklan Sakup. Considered the First Filipino Lawgiver,
number one historical hoax in he promulgated in about 1433 a penal code now known
the Philippines as Code of Kalantiaw containings 18 articles. Don
Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained the
original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which
was later translated into Spanish by Rafael Murviedo
Tzamaney.”
It was only in 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when William
Henry Scott, a doctoral candidate at the University of Santo Tomas,
defended his research on pre-Hispanic sources in Philippine history.
He attributed the code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose
E. Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de la Isla de Negros. Marco
attributed the code itself to a priest named Jose Maria Pavon.
Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent to Scott’s findings, but
there are still some who would like to believe that the code is a
legitimate document.
William Henry Scott
Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources
of history and then draw their own reading so that their intended
audience may understand the historical event, a process that in
essence, “makes sense of the past.” The premise is that not all
primary sources are accessible to a general audience, and without
the proper training and background, a non-historian interpreting a
primary source may do more harm than good – a primary source
may even cause misunderstandings; sometimes, even resulting in
more problems.
Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to
who reads the primary source, when it was read, and how it was
read. As students of history, we must be well equipped to
recognize different types of interpretations, why these may differ
Jose E. Marco from each other, and how to critically sift these interpretations
through historical evaluation. Interpretations of historical events change over
time; thus, it is an important skill for a student of history to track these changes
in an attempt to understand the past.
91

“Sa Aking Mga Kabata” is a poem purportedly written by Jose

Rizal when he was eight years old and is probably one of Rizal’s most
prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that this
poem, with the now immortalized lines “Ang hindi magmahal sa
kanyang salita ay mahigit sa hayop at malansang isda” was written by
Rizal, and worse, the evidence against Rizal’s authorship of the poem
seems all unassailable.
There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal.
The poem was first published in 1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz.
Cruz said he received the poem from Gabriel Bento Francisco, who
José Rizal claimed to have received it in 1884 from Rizal’s close friend, Saturnino
Raselis. Rizal never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his
writings, and more importantly, he never mentioned having a close
friend by the person of Raselis.
Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful
attribution of the poem to Rizal. The poem was written in Tagalog and
referred to the word “kalayaan.” But it was documented in Rizal’s letters
that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilar’s
translation of Rizal’s essay “El Amor Patrio,” where it was spelled as
“kalayahan.”
While Rizal’s native tongue was Tagalog, he was educated in
Teodora Alonso Spanish, starting from his mother, Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would
express disappointment in his difficulty in expressing himself in his
native tongue.
The poem’s spelling is also suspect – the use of letters “k” and
“w” to replace “c” and “u,” respectively were suggested by Rizal as an
adult. If the poem was indeed written during his time, it should use the
original Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time.
Many of the things we accept as “true” about the past might not be the
case anymore; just because there were taught to us as “facts” when we were
younger does not mean that it is set in stone – history is, after all, a construct.
And as a construct, it is open for interpretation. There might be conflicting and
competing accounts of the past that need one’s attention, and can impact the
way we view our country’s history and identity. It is important, therefore, to
subject to evaluation not only the primary sources but also the historical
interpretation of the same, to ensure that the current interpretation is reliable to
support our acceptance of events of the past.
92

2. Multiperspectivity
With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important
concept that we must note is multiperspectivity. This can be defined as a way
of looking at historical events, personalities, developments, cultures, and
societies from different perspectives. This means that there is a multitude of
ways by which we can view the world, and each could be equally valid, and at
the same time, equally partial as well. Historical writing is, by definition, biased,
partial, and contains preconceptions. The historian decides on what sources to
use, what interpretation to make more apparent, depending on what his end is.
Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest
that a certain event happened, and then ignore the rest that goes against the
evidence. Historians may omit significant facts about their subject, which makes
the interpretation unbalanced. Historians may impose a certain ideology to their
subject, which may not be appropriate to the period the subject was from.
Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without considering
other possible causal explanations of said event. These are just many of the ways
a historian may fail in his historical inference, description, and interpretation.
With multiperspectivity as an approach in history, we must understand that
historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and
are often the focus of dissent.
Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires incorporating source
materials that reflect different views of an event in history because singular
historical narratives do not provide for space to inquire and investigate.
Different sources that counter each other may create space for more
investigation and research while providing more evidence for those truths that
these sources agree on.
Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths – an
official document may note different aspects of the past than, say, a memoir of
an ordinary person on the same event. Different historical agents create different
historical truths, and while this may be a burdensome work for the historian, it
also renders more validity to the historical scholarship.
Taking these in close regard in the reading of historical interpretations,
it provides for the audience a more complex, but also a more complete and richer
understanding of the past.
3. Case Study 1: Site of the First Mass in the Philippines

The first recorded Christian mass was held on Easter Sunday. March 31,
1521, at a little island-port named Mazaua. Two identical accounts report this
event, by eyewitness Antonio Pigafetta (1523) and Antonio de Herrera y
Tordesillas (1601). “Masawa” is a word found only in Butuanon and its scion,
Tausog, out of 181 Philippine languages. It means brilliant light and crystal
clear.
93

Some Filipino historians have long contested the idea

that Limasawa was the site of the first Catholic mass in the
country. Historian Sonia Zaide identified Masao (also Mazaua)
in Butuan as the location of the first Christian mass. The basis
of Zaide’s claim is the diary of Antonio Pigafetta, chronicler
of Magellan’s voyage. In 1995 then Congresswoman Ching
Plaza of Agusan del Norte, Butuan City filed a bill in Congress
contesting the Limasawa hypothesis and asserting the ‘site of
the first mass’ was Butuan. The Philippine Congress referred
the matter to the National Historical Institute for it to study the
issue and recommend a historical finding. Then NHI chair Dr.
Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas Samuel K. Tan reaffirmed Limasawa as the site of the first
mass.
For the past centuries, innumerable numbers of Filipinos
including the top experts in education, history, religion,
politics, and other subjects are still debating as to the exact
location of the “First Mass on Easter,” which according to the
number 1 pro-Butuan author, the word “first” was not recorded
during the observance of Easter Sunday on March 31, 1521.
Here are Pigafetta’s paragraphs as translated by the foremost
writer of the “The First Voyage Round the World,” Lord
Sonia Zaide Stanley of Alderley:
“On Sunday, the last day of March, and feat 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 onshore 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 reach the shore
First Mass in the Philippines 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 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
Four Lord with joined hands. The ships fired all their
artillery at the elevation of the body of our Lord. After
94
mass had been said each one did the duty of a Christian.
Lord Stanley of Alderley

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 [a] 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
commandment to place it in all 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 afterward any ships 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
The Cross in Limasawa displeasure to their persons 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 captain and said they would do it willingly. Then
he asked whether they were Moors or Gentiles, and in what they believed. They
answered that they did not perform any other adoration, but only joined their
hands, looking up to heaven and that they called their God, Aba. Hearing this,
the captain was very joyful, on seeing that, the first king raised his hands to the
sky and said that he wished it were possible for him to be able to show the
affection which he felt towards him. The interpreter asked him for what reason
there was so little to eat in that place, to which the king replied that he did not
reside in that place except when he came to hunt and to see his brother, but that
he lived in another island where he had all his family. Then, the captain asked
him if he had any enemies who made war upon him, and that if he had any he
would go and defeat them with his men and ships, to put them under his
obedience. The king thanked him and answered that there were two islands the
inhabitants of which were his enemies; however, that for the present it was not
the time to attack them.
Salazar (2015, as cited by Umali & Amvida, 2018) refute that the First
Mass on Easter was not a Biblical Festival not practiced in the Book of Acts.
The original New Testament Church which started on the Day of Pentecost in
31 A.D./C.E. as described in Acts did not observe the Mass.
95

 Butuanons and their supporters

support this claim
 Recognition from
 The presence of “balanghai”
Philippine Government,
and gold
Roman Catholic Church,
 Abundance of rice fields, other
Embassy of Spain, and
food supplies, and water
Embassy of Portugal in
 Mazaua as “Magellan’s Lost
Metro Manila
Harbor
Limasawa Masao or Mazau

Island, VS in Butuan City,
Southern Leyte Agusan del Norte
The Four V
V
S
S Sites of the
First Mass
Homonhon Mahaba Island,
Island Eastern Placer, Surigao
VS
Samar del Norte
 Proponents are the people

who live the Homonhon
Island and Samar
 Magellan and his men  Mazzava Island could be
thank God for the safe trip mistakenly Mahaba Island
from Guam and the vast
Pacific Ocean
Fig. 1 The Four Sites of the First Mass
The figure above shows the four sites of the first mass. To understand
these various events, the following situations are presented below. After reading
the different views, answer the activity given.
1. Limasawa Island, Southern Leyte. The most famous is Limasawa Island, an
island town in Southern Leyte, which the Philippine Government recognized as
the actual site of the First Mass. The powerful Roman Catholic Church also
recognized Limasawa Island as the site where Magellan and his crew landed
and held the First Mass. Furthermore, the Embassy of Spain recognized
96
Limasawa as the site of Magellan’s landfall such that they also sent the Galleon

Andalucia to visit Maasin City for five days and Limasawa

for about three hours. The Embassy of Portugal in Metro
Manila recognized Limasawa where Magellan and his troops
observed the First Mass on Easter or introduced Christianity
to the island’s inhabitants.
“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
Limasawa Island, Southern Leyte 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.”
“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 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
know 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 of 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 the Spanish exploration of these
islands. But Portuguese navigators like João de Barros, Gaspar
Correia, Diogo do Couto, Francisco de Castro, and Antonio
Galvão have been exploring Mindanao from 1520 to 1565 until
the Spaniards resumed its conquest of the Philippines through
another expedition led by Miguel López de Legazpi.”
Miguel López de
Legazpi
97

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 Mindanao. The
Butuanons and their supporters advocate that Magellan
and his men landed in Mazaua for the reason that it has the
anchorage, rise fields, gold, antique “balanghai” and other
artifacts that they unearthed in scattered areas in Butuan
City.
In the so-called ‘Magellan’s Harbor’ in Butuan,
Masao Beach, Butuan City
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 supplied, 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 bigger island? Mazaua was and is attached to
Replica of Balanghai Mindanao, the second largest island in the entire
Philippines.
Since the pro-Mazaua supporters strongly claimed that Magellan and
his fellow sailors held the ‘First Mass’ or observed Easter Sunday in their
‘island of plenty’ what happened to the abundant foods, drinks, and other
supplied 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 logbook 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 three 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,
Butuan is one proof that Magellan was in Mazaua.
Salazar (2015) refers to the writings of de Jesus wrote a lengthy article
98
entitled, ‘Mazaua: Magellan’s Lost Harbor’. The government of Butuan City,

Mindanao, commissioned him to do extensive research on the Mazaua landfall

issue. He concluded that Magellan and his troops landed in Mazaua, Butuan
City, Philippines. He wrote:
“Two events define the meaning of Mazaua for most Filipinos,
the Easter mass and the planting of a large cross atop the tallest
hill. The Philippines is an isolated rock of Christianity in a huge
ocean lashed by the powerful waves of Islam, Buddhism, Hindu,
and other beliefs. Og its 76 million people 83% are Catholics,
9% Protestants, Mazaua, therefore, is an icon to a deeply
religious people, an event of overarching importance. This
aspect of a signal event n world geography and Renaissance
navigation has unfortunately served to distort the way the event
is viewed.”
It may be an icon and a very important event to the professed
‘Christians’ and Holy Bible illiterates, but to those who practice Biblical
Christianity, the First Mass on Easter is meaningless and worthless! Most
Filipinos have all the time in the world to read the newspapers, tabloids, the
political, sports, and entertainment publications, and the comics but not few
minutes to read and study the Holy Bible.
The so-called experts on Mazaua, Butuan denied or ignored the
‘unwritten history of the Portuguese’ colonization of Mindanao before
Magellan and his explorers sailed across the Pacific Ocean from South
America. They ignored or pretended not to know the fact that the Portuguese
navigators, such as João de Barros, Gaspar Correia, Diogo do Couto, Francisco
de Castro, and Antonio Galvão had explored Mindanao from 1520 to 1565. The
Portuguese were ahead of Magellan’s expedition in the Philippines by
at least one year.
Before Magellan’s explorers landed in March 1521, the Roman
Catholic Portuguese sailors more likely had conducted the ‘First Mass’
in Southern Philippines. Therefore, the pro-Butuan proponents had the
right to assume and claim the ‘First Mass’ in Mindanao, but not
recorded in history, before Portugal exchanged the entire Philippines
for Brazil with Spain. In a Portuguese map made around 1535 to 1538,
Butuan’s name was Butan or Butuão. Spain did not even know that
Butuan existed!
Thus, carrying the flag of Spain and being financed by the
Spanish King Charles V, Magellan and his fellow explorers did not sail
south to Mazaua, Butuan in Mindanao. The Portuguese navigators who
sailed eastward from Portugal to Mindanao via Indonesia had occupied
the big Mindanao Island one year before Magellan and his troops
Charles V landed in Limasawa Island, Southern Leyte. The Natives of Mazaua,
Butuan mistook the Portuguese explorers from Portugal as that Magellan’s
99
explorers from Spain.

The Portuguese had known where Magellan’s fleet was

bound before it even sailed; warships would surely be
waiting to stop it from reaching the Moluccas. Even if
Magellan found the Moluccas, loaded his ships with precious
spices and then got away, most ports and trading stations on
the route back to Spain would be Portuguese outposts and
closed to him.” Since some Portuguese captains and
navigators and their crew had explored and colonized
Moluccas Mindanao Island, they would have arrested Magellan and his
men if they landed in Mazaua, Butuan which was a Portuguese outpost and
trading station in Mindanao. The Portuguese authorities arrested and jailed the
entire fifty-four crew members of Trinidad, Magellan’s flagship, after the ship
was repaired and loaded with spices on its eastward voyage from the Spice
Islands to plan Panama in Central America, where they could transship the
spices to another ship bound for Spain!
3. Homonhon Island, Eastern Samar. Some people in

Homonhon Island and Samar also claimed that
Magellan and his fellow sailors must have some kind
of religious festivity shortly after they landed on the
island. Magellan’s troops had a terrible experience
after they landed in Guam, which they called Las Islas
de los Ladrones (the island of thieves). So, according
to the groups supporting the ‘First Mass’ in
Homonhon, Magellan and his sailors had a mass in
the island to thank God for their safe trip from Guam
Homonhon Island
and the vast Pacific Ocean:
“Pigafetta did not exactly say that it was their first mass, he only
reported that a mass was celebrated on Easter Sunday [in
Mazzaua Island]. Atty. Mendiola concludes in his paper, ‘that
the mass on Homonhon Island on the 19th day of March 1521,
was the first one celebrated in the Philippines, not one at
Limasawa or Mazaua on the 31st of that month. Any passage or
statement to the contrary in our history books would be
unsustainable under present historiography.
“Notwithstanding these debates when the first mass was
celebrated, the fact remains that it was in Homonhom that
Magellan first landed. And today, we commemorate that event
and celebrate its greater significance. The historian Agoncillo
writes that it was through this trip that the Europeans first
learned of the existence of the Philippines. It also proved that the
100
earth was round; it established the vastness of the Pacific Ocean;

it proved that the East Indies could be reached by crossing the

Pacific and finally, it showed that the Americas was readily a

landmass entirely separate from Asia.”
“While Magellan discovered the existence of the Philippines, for
me, the greater significance of Magellan’s 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 kerchiefs
about their heads…They have very black hair that falls to the
waist and uses daggers, knives, and spears ornamented with
gold, large shields, fascines, javelins, and fishing nets that
resemble rizall 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.”
4. Mahaba Island, Placer, Surigao del Norte. Finally, another

group of people in northeastern Mindanao claimed that
Magellan’s expedition had the First Mass in Mahaba Island in
Surigao del Norte:
“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 [actually 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 astrolabe to
determine his latitude location and the accuracy of this
Map of Placer, Surigao del Norte 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 as the chronometer which could
measure [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
101
part of Masepilid Island because it is almost touching this bigger

Astrolabe island, and at low tide, it could easily be mistaken to be connected

to be a 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 be noted also that Masepilid is shaped like a
stingray as described by Pigafetta.”
The location of the mass was contentious. Originally, it was thought to
be on the island of Limasawa, in Leyte, but other historians argue that a
mistranslation resulted to that error and that the place should be Butuan (the
place where the Golden Tara was also discovered).
That issue reached the Congress, which in 1996 directed the National
Historical Institute to recommend a historical finding. The panel was composed
of several historians, some of which are professors in UP Diliman Department
of History. The panel and the NHI reaffirmed in 1998 that the place is
Limasawa, but the controversy is still alive until today.
Activity 2: Lets Divide: Base on the four sites of the first mass, give its
similarities and differences. Write it in the space provided. The rubric was also
given for your guidance in giving points.
SIMILARITIES DIFFERENCES
102

Rubric
2pts Answer is incorrect but there is some correct support.
4pts Answer is correct but no support is provided.
6pts Answer is correct and there is some support.
8pts Answer is correct and the support is developed.
10pts Answer is correct and the support is fully developed.
4. Case Study 2: The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny

By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay
Spanish Filipino
Perspective Two Faces of Cavite Mutiny
Perspective
Figure 2. Two Faces of Cavite Mutiny

The figure above is the two conflicting views of what had happened
during 1872. To understand much better, the events, read the story written by
Pugay.
The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for
all the Filipinos. On 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
GOMBURZA 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
103
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
complemented 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 forced labor were the main reasons of
the “revolution” as to 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 a
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
104
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 by 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 the 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 desire 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 the Philippine Institute. The decree proposed to improve the standard of
105
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 the 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
Execution of GOMBURZA 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.
106
The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots
named and unnamed shed their blood 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.”
Activity 3: Lets-Find-Out: Below is a Venn diagram in which you need to

compare and differentiate the two perspectives in Cavite Mutiny. Write your
answers in the space provided. Below is the rubric for your guide in giving the
points.
Two Perspectives
Spanish Filipino
Rubric
5. Case Study 3: Retraction 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
create 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
107
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 of Rizal’s Retraction

Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia,
C.M. on 18 May 1935
José Rizal
I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born
and educated I wish to live and die.
I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings,
publications, and conduct has been contrary to my character as son
of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she
teachers and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate
Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society
prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the
Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous
manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts
may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896
Jose Rizal
Retraction Letter of Rizal
There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was
published in La Vaz Española and Diario de Manila on the day of the execution,
30 December 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, in the
magazine La Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14 February 1897,
from an anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be Fr. Vicente Balaguer.
However, the “original” text was only found in the archdiocesan archives on 18
May 1935, after almost four decades of disappearance. Below are the accounts
related to Rizal’s retraction.
Two Eyewitness Accounts

of Rizal’s Retraction
Fr. Vicente Balaguer Cuerpo de

108
Vigilancia
Fig. 3 The Two Eyewitness Accounts of Rizal’s Retraction

The Balaguer Testimony

Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only one
eyewitness account of the writing of the documents exists – that of the Jesuit
friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony, Rizal woke up several
times, confessed four times, attended a Mass, received communion, and prayed
the rosary, all of which seemed out of character. But since it is the only
testimony of allegedly a “primary’ account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction
document, it has been used to argue the authenticity of the document.
The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the research of
Professor Rene R. Escalante. In his research, documents of the Cuerpo de
Vigilancia included a report on the last hours of Rizal, written by Federico
Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to Moreno.
Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal
Source: Michael Charleston Chua, “Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong
Dokumento at Pananaw,” GMA News Online, published 29 December 2016.
Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort
Santiago to report on the events during the [illegible] day in prison of the
accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following:
At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his
counsel, Señor Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara. At the urgings
of the former and moments after entering, he was served a light breakfast. At
approximately 9, the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, asked Rizal if he
wanted anything. He replied that at the moment he only wanted a prayer book,
which was brought to him shortly by Father March.
Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the
Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It
appears that these two presented him with a prepared retraction on his life and
deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter until 12:30 when
Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken. Afterwards, he asked to leave
to write and wrote for a long time by himself.
At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him
what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Señor del Fresno
and the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, were informed. They entered death
row and together with Rizal signed the document that the accused had written.
At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison…dressed
in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a military
109
chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes and aided
by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been

his lover were performed at the point of death (in articulo mortis). After
embracing him she left, flooded with tears.
This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document,
giving it credence. However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer
mentioned, which makes the friar a mere secondary source to the writing of the
document.
The retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many
scholars, however, agree that the document does not tarnish the heroism of
Rizal. His relevance remained solidified to Filipinos and pushed them to
continue the revolution, which eventually resulted in independence in 1898.
Activity 3 My Opinion: With the knowledge that you learned in this case, write
your understanding in the space provided. Below also is the rubric for your
guidance in giving the points.
Rubric
110


6. Case Study 4: Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawain

Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in
the late nineteenth century, including the Philippines.
Journalists of the time referred to the phrase “El Grito
de Rebelion” or “Cry of Rebellion” to mark the start of
these revolutionary events, identifying the places where
it happened. In the Philippines, this happened in August
2896, northeast of Manila, where they declared
rebellion against the Spanish colonial government.
These events are important markers in the history of
Cry of Balintawak colonies that struggled for their independence against
their colonizers.
The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of the
date and place where the Cry happened. Prominent Filipino historian Teodoro
Agoncillo emphasizes the event when Bonifacio tore the cedula or tax receipt
before the Katipuneros who also did the same. Some writers identified the first
military event with the Spaniards as the moment of the Cry, for which, Emilio
Aguinaldo commissioned an “Himno de Balintawak” to inspire the renewed
struggle after the Pact of the Biak-na-Bato failed. A monument to the Heroes of
1896 was erected in what is now the intersection of Epifanio de los Santos
(EDSA) Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion road, and from
then on until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was celebrated every 26 th of August.
The site of the monument was chosen for an unknown reason.
Pio Valenzuela
(August 23, 1896)
DIFFERENT Gregoria de Jesus

VERSIONS (August 25, 1896)
OF
THE
Santiago Alvarez
CRY
(August 24, 1896)
Guillermo Masangkay
(August 26, 1896)
Fig.4 The Different Versions of the Cry of Balintawak
To fully understand the different versions of the Cry of Balintawak,

different primary and secondary sources were analyzed. On the next page is the
111
explanation of the different witnesses.

Different Dates and Places of the Cry
Pio Valenzuela’s “Cry of Pugad Lawin” (August 23, 1896)

The controversial “Cry of Pugad Lawin” which has been
confirmed by the other witnesses of the event that Dr. Pio
Valenzuela is the second and later version of the first rally of the
Katipunan by Dr. Valenzuela himself. The first version, which he
gave, told of the ‘Cry of Balintawak’ as the staging point of the
Philippine revolution. He related the first version when events were
still fresh from his memory and he abandoned the revolutionary
cause after its outbreak and fled to Biñan, Laguna for safety. Taking
advantage of Governor-General Ramon Blanco’s proclamation of
amnesty of the revolutionists, Valenzuela returned to Manila on
September 3, 1896, and surrendered to Blanco. He was imprisoned
in Fort Santiago, where, upon investigation, he told Francisco
Olive, the Spanish investigator that the ‘Cry’ was staged at
Balintawak on Wednesday, August 26, 1896.
Pio Valenzuela
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 19 August, and 1 on 20 August 1896. The first place
where some 500 members of the Katipunan met was the house and yard of
Apolonio Samson at Kangkong, on 22 August. Aside from the persons
mentioned above, among those were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santos, 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 met and carried out considerable debate and
discussion on 23 August 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the
revolution against the Spanish government should be started on 29 August
1896. Only one man protested and fought against war, and that was Teodoro
Plata [Bonifacio’s brother-in-law]. Besides the person names above, among
those present at this meeting were Enrique Cipriano, Alfonso Pacheco, Tomas
Remigio, and Sinfroso San Pedro. After the tumultuous meeting, many of those
present tore their cedula certificates and shouted “Long live the Philippines!
******
Gregoria de Jesus’ Version of the First “Cry” (August 25, 1896)
One of the participants in the drama of the Philippine Revolution of 1896
was Gregoria de Jesus, the wife of Supremo Andres Bonifacio, and the “Lakambini
of the Katipunan”. She was the custodian of the secret documents, seal, and some
112
weapons of the Katipunan, and constantly risked her life in safeguarding them.
After the outbreak of the Revolution, while Bonifacio and his men gathered in the
hills of Balintawak for the war of liberation, while Bonifacio and his men gathered

in the hills of Balintawak for the war of liberation. When warned that
the Spanish authorities were coming to arrest her, she fled to Manila
and later joined her husband in the mountains and shared the
hardships and sacrifices of a patriot’s life with him. According to her
version of the First “Cry,” it occurred near Caloocan on August 25,
1896, as follows:
The activities of the Katipunan had reached nearly all corners
of the Philippines archipelago so that when its existence was
discovered and some of the members arrested, we immediately
returned to Caloocan. However, as we were closely watched by the
agents of the Spanish authorities, Andres Bonifacio and other
katipuneros left the town some days. It was then that the uprising
Gregoria de Jesus
began, with the first cry for freedom on August 25, 1896. Meanwhile,
I was with my parents. Through my friends, I learned that the Spanish were coming
to arrest me. Immediately, I fled the town at eleven o’clock at night, secretly going
through the rice fields to La Loma, with the intention of returning to Manila. I was
treated like an apparition, for, sad to say, in every house where I tried to get a little
rest, I was driven away as if the people therein were frightened for their own lives.
Later, I found out that the occupants of the houses which I had visited were seized
and severely punished – and some even exiled. One of them was an uncle of mine
whom I had visited on that night to kiss his hand, and he died in exile.
******
The “Cry of Bahay Toro” (August 24, 1896)
by Santiago Alvarez
Another version of the “Cry” which launched the Philippine
Revolution is that written by Santiago Alvarez, a prominent
Katipunan warlord of Cavite, son of Mariano Alvarez, and relative of
Gregoria de Jesus (wife of Andres Bonifacio). Unlike Masangkay,
Samson and Valenzuela, Alvarez was not an eyewitness of the
historic event. Hence, his version cannot be accepted as equal in
weight to that given by actual participants of the event. Although
Alvarez was in Cavite at the time, this is his version of the first “Cry,”
as follows:
Sunday, August 23, 1896
As early as 10 o’clock in the morning, at the barn of Kabesang
Melchora, katipuneros met together. About 500 of these arrived,
ready and eager to join the “Supremo” Andres Bonifacio and his
men…
113
Monday, August 24, 1896

There were about 1,000 katipuneros…The ‘Supremo” decided to hold a

meeting inside the big barn. Under his leadership, the meeting began at 9 o’clock
in the morning.
It was 12 0’clock noon when the meeting adjourned amidst loud cries of
“Long live the Sons of the Country” (Mabuhay ang mga Anak ng Bayan!)
******
The “Cry of Balintawak” (August 26, 1896)
by Guillermo Masangkay
The historic first rally of the Philippine Revolution of 1896
occurred at the rustic barrio of Balintawak, a few kilometers north of
the city of Manila. On August 26, 1896, according to this eyewitness
account by Katipunan General Guillermo Masangkay, Bonifacio’s
childhood friend. Similarly, this date and site were American
regimes, after having consulted the surviving katipuneros and
prestigious historians at the time. A monument depicting the event
was erected near the site, financed by funds donated by the people,
and was inaugurated on September 11, 1911. In his memoirs,
General Masangkay recounts the “Cry of Balintawak,” as follows.
On August 26th [1896], a big meeting was held Balintawak at the
Guillermo Masangkay house of Apolonio Samson, then the cabeza of the 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 and composed of directors of the organization. Delegates from Bulacan,
Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong (now Rizal), was also present.
At about nine o’clock on the morning of August 26, the meeting
was opened with Andres Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto
acting as Bonifacio’s secretary. The purpose was to discuss when
the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata [Bonifacio’s brother-
in-law], 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 that
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 the discussion
Teodoro de Jesus Plata 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
114
leaders were arguing against starting the revolution early, and appealed who
was 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
the slavery of the Filipinos was (sic) the cedula tax
charged on each citizen. “If it is true that you are ready
to revolt,” Bonifacio said, “I want to see you destroy
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
Cedula rule. With their cedulas destroyed, they could no longer
go back to their homes because the Spaniards would persecute them, if not for
being katipuneros, for having no cedulas. And people who had no cedulas
during those days were severely punished. 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, and they have destroyed
their cedulas,” 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 protest of Plata and Valenzuela, voted for the
revolution. And when this was decided, the people outside shouted: “Long live
the Philippine Republic!”
At about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, while the gathering
at Balintawak was celebrating the decision of the Katipunan
leaders to start the uprising, the guards who were up in trees to
watch for any possible intruders or the approach of the enemy
gave the warning that the Spaniards were coming. Led by
Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, and other leaders of the Katipunan, the
men were distributed in strategic positions and were prepared for
the attack of the civil guards. I was with a group stationed on the
bank of a small creek, guarding the places where the Spaniards
were to pass in order to reach the meeting place of the
katipuneros. Shots were then fired by the civil guards, and that
was the beginning of the fire which later became such a hug
Emilio Jacinto conflagration.
From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed marked
disagreement among historical witnesses as to the place and time of the
occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources, four places have
been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and Bahay Toro, while
115
the dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26 August 1896.

Valenzuela’s account should be read with caution: He once told a
Spanish investigator that the “Cry’ happened in Balintawak on Wednesday, 26

August 1896. Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the Revolution that it
happened at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Such inconsistencies in accounts
should always see as a red flag when dealing with primary sources.
According to Guerrero Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are in
Balintawak, then part of Caloocan, now, in Quezon City. As for the dates,
Bonifacio and his troops may have been moving from one place to another to
avoid being located by the Spanish government, which could explain why there
are several accounts of the Cry.
Activity 4 Let’s Collect! Write in the space provided the different consistent
and inconsistent details in the four accounts of “Cry of Balintawak.” A rubric is
provided for your guide in giving the points.
Different Accounts Consistent Details Inconsistent Details
Pio Valenzuela
Gregoria de Jesus
Santiago Alvarez
Guillermo
Masangkay
116

Rubric
SELF-EVALUATION:
COLLECT-ANALYZE-JUDGMENT
Direction: Base on the different primary and secondary sources
provided, select at least one case and answer what is needed in the table. A
rubric is given for you reference in giving the points.
Title of the Evidence 1 Evidence 2 Evidence 3 Evidence 4
Selected
Case
Analysis 1 Analysis 2 Analysis 3 Analysis 4
Judgment 1 Judgment 2 Judgment 3 Judgment 4

117

Rubric
REVIEW OF CONCEPTS:
We have one past but there are many histories and it was proven with the
different cases presented in this module. The most important while reading these
conflicting views is being vigilant enough on what specific sources are reliable. There
are numerous accounts given by the author that may seem true. The history of the First
Mass in the Philippines, Cavite Mutiny, Retraction of Rizal, and the Cry of Balintawak
are only a few of the controversies that need to be settled. Until now some chapters in
the past that needs strong evidence just to approve what is real and what is not. Since
there is no enough evidence, further study may have conducted by the experts.
POST-TEST:
POSITION PAPER
Direction: In 300 to 500 words, write your position paper on the topic that you
selected. Do not repeat the case that you chose in the self-evaluation. Highlight the
significant findings through analyzing primary and secondary sources. You may opt to
agree or disagree with your selected case. Just answer in the space provided and rubric
will be given for your guidance in giving the points.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
118
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________

RUBRIC FOR POSITION PAPER

Criteria 100-90 89-80 79-70 69-60 59-50 Total
Developed a Developed a Developed a Developed a Thesis statement
strong thesis and strong thesis strong thesis thesis needs to be
included it in the and included it and included statement and developed
Thesis appropriate in the it in the included it in further or is not
Statement place in the appropriate appropriate the paper. included in the
(10%) paper. The thesis place in the place in the Some of the paper. The thesis
was the focal paper. The paper. Most information is not fully
point of the thesis was the of the supported the supported in the
paper and was focal point of information thesis paper. A clear
both strongly the paper and supported the statement. position is not
and thoroughly supported thesis present
supported throughout the statement. throughout the
throughout the paper. paper.
paper.
Position is Position is Position is Position is Reasons are
supported with supported with supported supported weak and/or
well-developed well- with a with a repetitive.
Strong and thought out developed and minimum of minimum of Reasons are not
Reasons reasons thought out three distinct three distinct developed or are
(40%) (minimum of reasons reasons. reasons. repetitive. Ideas
three). Reasons (minimum of Reasons are Reasons are can be difficult
show strong three). Reasons developed, developed, to understand.
analysis and are well- but more but are more
conclusions developed, but analysis and general and
based on the analysis and conclusions need to be
information. conclusions are needed. developed
need to be further.
strengthened.
Position is Position is Position is Position Paper lacks valid
supported in supported with supported needs to be and accurate
depth with a a variety of with a supported information.
variety of sources. variety of with more Some of the
sources. Adequate valid sources. valid and information is
Depth and Substantial valid and accurate Valid and accurate not relevant and
Variety of and accurate information accurate information. does not support
Evidence information in has been used information Some of the the position.
(40%) the form of throughout the has been information Little to no
expert opinion, paper. used may not be support from
statistics, Information is throughout relevant researched
research studies, relevant and the paper. and/or does information is
etc. has been supports the Most of the not support present in the
used throughout writer’s ideas. information the thesis. paper.
the papers. is relevant
119
Information is and supports

relevant and the writer’s

supports the ideas. A mix

writer’s ideas. of general
and specific
information
is used.
Ideas are well- Most ideas are Organization Paper has Paper lacks
organized and well-organized of the paper some organization and
free of and free of needs to be organization there are
mechanical mechanical strengthened. but some numerous
Organizati errors. errors. Some Mechanical diversions or mechanical
on and Transitional transitional errors are abrupt shifts errors which
Mechanics words and words and present in purpose are make
(10%) phrases are used phrases are throughout present. comprehension
to connect ideas used to connect the paper. Many difficult. Lack of
and coherence ideas and Too few mechanical transitions.
between maintain transitions errors are
paragraphs. coherence used or used present as
between correctly. well.
paragraphs. Sentence
structure
needs to be
strengthened.
Too few
transitions
used.
Total
Reference: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images-archive-read-only/wp-
content/uploads/sites/213/2014/09/05175903/BUS280-Position-Paper-RUBRIC.pdf
REFERENCES:
Main References:
Candelaria, J. L. P., Alporha, V. C. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. 84-86 P.
Florentino St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City: Rex Printing Company, Inc.
Finding primary sources: Evaluating primary & secondary sources. (2020, April 30).
Retrieved from https://library.defiance.edu/c.php?g=334227&p=2243654
Martinez, R. M., Bumidang, J. G., Tayaban, D. B., Battung, J. T., Fragata, R. D.,
Viloria, M. I., Dulay, M. J., Cristobal, J. M. (2018). The Readings in Philippine History.
Rm. 108, Intramuros Corporate Plaza Bldg., Recoletos St., Manila: Mindshapers Co.,
Inc.
Umali, V., Ramos, O., Amvida, M. Maliban, N. (2018). Readings in Philippine

120
History. No. 185 3F/C Pascual Avenue Brgy. Acacia, Malabon City: Jodeh Publishing
Supplemental References

Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas [Image]. (2011). Retrieved from

https://jedeballemesoamerique.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/le-tlachtli-reel-jeu-ou-
fonction-social/
Astrolabe [Image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.mhs.ox.ac.uk/astrolabe/catalogue/browseReport/Astrolabe_ID=220.htm
l
Cedula [Image]. (2019). Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com/lifestyle/arts-and-

culture/2019/11/11/1967609/lifestyle
Cry of Balintawak [Image]. (2013). Retrieved from https://emaniuz-

collection.blogspot.com/2013/09/postcard-philippines-cry-of-pugadlawin.html
Charles V [Image]. (2020). Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-V-Holy-Roman-
emperor#/media/1/107009/205757
Code of Kalantiaw, the number one historical hoax in the Philippines [Image]. (n.d.).
Retrieved from https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/video/angpinaka/348081/code-
of-kalantiaw-isang-historical-hoax/video/
Emilio Jacinto [Image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://philippineheroesandheroines.blogspot.com/p/who-is-emilio-jacinto.html
Execution of GOMBURZA [Image]. (2019). Retrieved from

https://www.pinoystop.org/17-february-1872/
First Mass in the Philippines [Image]. (2011). Retrieved from

https://thepinoycatholic.blogspot.com/2011/04/first-mass-in-philippines-
commemorated.html
GOMBURZA [Image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://filipinojournal.com/the-1872-

cavite-mutiny/
Gregoria de Jesus [Image]. (2013). Retrieved from

https://xiaochua.net/2013/03/01/xiaotime-1-march-2013-ang-pagdiriwang-ng-ika-
150-anibersaryo-ng-red-cross/
Guillermo Masangkay [Image]. (2019). Retrieved from

https://www.geni.com/people/Guillermo-Masangkay/6000000097313845518
Homonhon Island [Image]. (2020). Retrieved from https://usscmc.com/foreign-

cargo-vessel-barred-from-docking-at-isle-off-eastern-samar-due-to-covid-19-scare/
Jose E. Marco [Image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from
121
https://www.pinterest.ph/pin/47217496074250267/

José Rizal [Image]. (2020). Retrieved from

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jose-Rizal#/media/1/505015/138279
Limasawa Island [Image]. (2009). Retrieved from
https://samarnews.com/news_clips12/news220.htm
Lord Stanley of Alderly [Image]. (2020). Retrieved from
https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O123740/the-right-honourable-lord-stanley-oil-
painting-barwell-frederick-bacon/
Map of Placer, Surigao del Norte [Image]. (2011). Retrieved from
http://www.surigaotoday.com/2011/03/manila-mining-operations-in-surigao-
on.html
Masao Beach, Butuan City [Image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.pinterest.ph/pin/837317755692505991/
Miguel López de Legazpi [Image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.amuraworld.com/en/topics/history-art-and-culture/articles/5491-
miguel-lopez-de-legazpi-2
Moluccas [Image]. (2004). Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-
pacific/7330204.stm
Pio Valenzuela [Image]. (2013). Retrieved from
https://xiaochua.net/2013/04/06/xiao-time-4-april-2013-papel-ni-pio-valenzuela-sa-
katipunan/
Replica of Balanghai [Image]. (2013). Retrieved from
https://www.mindanews.com/top-stories/2013/04/replica-of-butuans-historic-
balanghai-boat-undergoes-repair-2/
Retraction Letter of Rizal [Image]. (2016). Retrieved from
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/artandculture/594027/retraction-ni-
jose-rizal-mga-bagong-dokumento-at-pananaw/story/
Santiago Alvarez [Image]. (n.d.). Retrived from http://malacanang.gov.ph/8720-
national-heroes-day/
Sonia Magbanua Zaide [Image]. (2009). Retrieved from
https://thefilipinohistorian.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/sonia-magbanua-zaide/
Teodora Alonso [Image]. (2012). Retrieved from
https://xiaochua.net/2012/11/08/xiaotime-8-november-2012-teodora-alonso-ang-
dakilang-ina-ng-ating-bayaning-si-dr-jose-rizal/
Teodoro de Jesus Plata [Image]. (2013). Retrieved from
https://www.geni.com/photo/view/6000000019410636230?album_type=photos_of_
me&photo_id=6000000019410766014
122
The Cross in Limasawa [Image]. (2014). Retrieved from

http://www.lagataw.com/2014/11/limasawa-most-underrated-island-in.html

Treaty of Tordesillas [Image]. (2016). Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PW1Un98ucg
Trinidad Pardo de Tavera [Image]. (2014). Retrieved from
http://darthphilatelist.blogspot.com/2014/04/today-in-philippine-history-trinidad-
h.html
William Henry Scott [Image]. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/662033.William_Henry_Scott
123

One Past Many Histories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

One Past Many Histories

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

One Past Many Histories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning Module Surigao State College of Technology

TOPICS: 1. Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation

TIME FRAME: 9 hours

OBJECTIVES/INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES: In this lesson, learners will be able

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

should be seen make the foundation of historical interpretation.

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

“Sa Aking Mga Kabata” is a poem purportedly written by Jose

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

3. Case Study 1: Site of the First Mass in the Philippines

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

Some Filipino historians have long contested the idea

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

 Butuanons and their supporters

Limasawa Masao or Mazau

 Proponents are the people

Fig. 1 The Four Sites of the First Mass

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

Andalucia to visit Maasin City for five days and Limasawa

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

2. Masao or Mazaua in Butuan City, Agusan del Norte.

entitled, ‘Mazaua: Magellan’s Lost Harbor’. The government of Butuan City,

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

explorers from Spain.

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

The Portuguese had known where Magellan’s fleet was

3. Homonhon Island, Eastern Samar. Some people in

earth was round; it established the vastness of the Pacific Ocean;

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

Pacific and finally, it showed that the Americas was readily a

4. Mahaba Island, Placer, Surigao del Norte. Finally, another

part of Masepilid Island because it is almost touching this bigger

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

to be a bigger island at the northern tip. This could be the reason

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

4. Case Study 2: The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny

Figure 2. Two Faces of Cavite Mutiny

government in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

and ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident

education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such schools to

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

Activity 3: Lets-Find-Out: Below is a Venn diagram in which you need to

5. Case Study 3: Retraction of Rizal

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

It is understandable, therefore, that any piece of writing from

Primary Source of Rizal’s Retraction

Two Eyewitness Accounts

Fr. Vicente Balaguer Cuerpo de

General Education – Readings in Philippine History

The Balaguer Testimony

The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

General Education – Readings in Philippine History