1

CHAPTER 2

Content and Contextual Analysis of Selected Primary Sources in Philippine

History

Learning Objectives:

 To familiarize oneself with the primary documents in different

historical periods of the Philippines.
 To learn history through primary sources.
 To properly interpret primary sources through examining the content
and context of the document.
 To understand the context behind each selected document.

In the preceding chapter, we have discussed the importance of

familiarizing oneself about the different kinds of historical sources. The
historian’s primary tool of understanding and interpreting the past is the
historical sources. Historical sources ascertain historical facts. Such facts are
then analyzed and interpreted by the historian to weave historical narrative.
Specifically, historians who study certain historical subjects and events need
to make use of various primary sources in order to weave the narrative.
Primary sources, as discussed in the preceding chapter, consist of documents,
memoir, accounts, and other materials that were produced at the period of the
event or subject being studied.

Using primary sources in historical research entails two kinds of criticism.

The first one is the external criticism, and the second one is the internal criticism.
External criticism examines the authenticity of the document or the evidence
being used. This is important in ensuring that the primary source is not
fabricated. On the other hand, internal criticism examines the truthfulness of
the content of the evidence. However, this criticism requires not just the act
establishing truthfulness and or accuracy but also the examination of the
 2

primary sources in terms of the context of its production. For example, a

historian would have to situate the document in the period of its production,
or in the background of its authors. In other words, it should be recognized
that facts are neither existing in a vacuum nor produced from a blank slate.
These are products of the time and of the people.

In this chapter, we are going to look at a number of primary sources from

different historical periods and evaluate these documents’ content in terms of
historical value, and examine the context of their production. The primary
sources that we are going to examine are Antonio Pigafetta’s First Voyage
Around the World, Emilio Jacinto’s “Kartilya ng Katipunan,” the 1898
Declaration of Philippines Independence, Politgical Cartoon’s Alfred McCoy’s
Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941), and
Corazon Aquino’s speech before the U.S. Congress. These primary sources
range from chronicles, official documents, speeches, and cartoons to visual
arts. Needless to say, different types of sources necessitate different kinds of
analysis and contain different levels of importance. We are going to explore
that in this chapter.

Lesson 1

A Brief Summary of the First Voyage Around the World by the Magellan
by Antonio Pigafetta

This book was taken from the chronicles of contemporary voyagers

and navigators of the sixteenth century. One of them was Italian nobleman
Antonio Pigaffeta, who accompanied Ferdinand Magellan in his fateful
circumnavigation of the world. Pigaffeta’s work instantly became a classic
that preminent literary men in the West like William Shakespeare, Michel de
Montaigne, and Giambattista Vico referred to the book in their interpretation
 3

of the New World. Pigaffeta’s travelogue is one of the most important

primary sources in the study of precolonial Philippines. His account was also
a major referent to the events leading to Magellan’s arrival in the Philippines,
his encounter with local leaders, his death in the hands of Lapulapu’s forces
in the Battle of Mactan, and in the departure of what was left of Magellan’s
fleet from the islands.

Examining the document reveals several insights not just in the

character of the Philippines during the precolonial period, but also on how
the fresh eyes of the Europeans regard a deeply unfamiliar terrain,
environment, people, and culture. Locating Pigafetta’s account in the context
of its writing warrants a familiarity on the dominant frame of mind in the age
of exploration, which pervaded Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth century.
Students of history need to realize that primary sources used in the
subsequent written histories depart from certain perspectives. Thus,
Pidafetta’s account was also written from the perspective of Pigafetta himself
and was a product of the context of its production. The First Voyage Around the
World by Magellan was published after Pigafetta returned to Italy.

For this chapter, we will focus on the chronicles of Antonio Pigafetta as

he wrote his firsthand observation and general impression of the Far East
including their experiences in the Visayas. In Pigafetta’s account, their fleet
reached what he called the Ladrones Islands or the “Islands of the Thieves.”
He recounted:

“These people have no arms, but use sticks, which have a fish bone at
the end. They are poor, but ingenious, and great thieves, and for the sake of
that we called these three islands the Ladrones Islands.”

The Ladrones Islands is presently known as the Marianas Islands.

These islands are located south-southeast of Japan, west-southwest of Hawaii,
north of New Guinea, and east of Philippines. Ten days after they reached
Ladrones Islands, Pigafetta reported that they reached what Pigafetta called
 4

the isle of Zamal, now Samar but Magellan decided to land I another
uninhabited island for greater security where they could rest for a few days.
Pigafetta recounted that after two days, March 18, nine men came to them and
showed joy and eagerness in seeing them. Magellan realized that the men
were reasonable and welcomed them with food, drinks and gifts. In turn, the
natives gave them fish, palm wine (uraca), figs, and cochos. The natives also
gave them rice (umai), cocos, and other food supplies. Pigafetta detailed in
amazement and fascination the palm tree which bore fruits called cocho, and
wine. He also described what seemed like a coconut. His description reads:

“This palm produces a fruit named cocho, which is as large as the

head, or thereabouts: its first husk is green, and two finger in thickness, in it
they find certain threads, with which the make the cords for fastening their
boats. Under this husk there is another very hard, and thicker than that of a
walnut. They burn this second rind, and make with it a powder which is
useful to them. Under this rind there is a while marrow of a fingers thickness,
which they eat fresh with meat and fish, as we do bread, and it has the taste of
an almond, and if anyone dried it he might make bread of it (p. 72)”

Pigafetta characterized the people as “very familiar and friendly” and

willingly showed them different islands and the names of these islands. The
fleet went to Humunu Island (Homonhon) and there they found what
Pigafetta reffered to as the “Watering Place of Good Signs.” It is in this place
where Pigafetta wrote that they found the first signs of gold in the island.
They named the island with the nearby islands as the archipelago of St.
Lazarus. They left the island, then on March 25th, Pigafetta recounted that
they saw two ballanghai (balangay), a long boat full of people in Mazzava/
Mazaua. The leader, who Pigafetta referred to as the king of the ballanghai
(balangay), sent his men to the ship of Magellan. The Europeans entertained
these men and gave them gifts. When the king of the balangay offered to give
Magellan a bar of gold and a chest of ringer, Magellan declined. Magellan
sent the interpreter to the king and asked for money for the needs of his ships
 5

and expressed that he came into the islands as a friend and not as an enemy.
The king responded by giving Magellan the needed provisions of food in
chinaware. Magellan exchanged gifts of robes in Turkish fashion, red cap, and
gave the people knives and mirrors. The two then expressed their desires to
become brothers. Magellan also boasted of his men in armor who could not be
struck with swords and daggers. The king was fascinated and remarked that
men in such armor could be worth one hundred of his men. Magellan further
showed the king his other weapons, helmets, and artilleries. Magellan also
shared with the king his charts and maps and shared how they found the
islands.

After a few days, Magellan was introduced to the king’s brother who
was also a king of another island. They went to this island and Pigafetta
reported that they saw mines of gold. The gold was abundant that parts of the
ship and of the house of the second king were made of gold. Pigafetta
described this king as the most handsome of all the men that he saw in this
place. He was also adorned with silk and gold accessories like a golden
dagger, which he carried with him in a wooden polished sheath. This king
was named Raia Calambu, king of Zuluan and Calagan (Butuan and
Caragua), and the first king was Raia Siagu. On March 31 st, which happened
to be Easter Sunday, Magellan ordered the chaplain to preside a Mass by the
shore. The king heard of this plan and sent two dead pigs and attended the
Mass with the other king. Pigafetta reported that both kings participated in
the mass. He wrote:

“…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.”

After the Mass, Magellan ordered that the cross be brought with nails
and crown in place. Magellan explained that the cross, the nail, and the crown
were the signs of his emperor and that he was ordered to plant it in the places
that he would reach. Magellan further explained that the cross would be
 6

beneficial for their people because once others Spaniards saw this cross, then
they would know that they had been in this land and would not cause them
troubles, and any person who might be held captives by them would be
released. The king concurred and allowed for the cross to be planted. This
Mass would go down in history as the first Mass in the Philippines, and the
cross would be famed Magellan’s Cross still preserved at present day.

After seven days, Magellan and his men decided to move and look for
islands where they could acquire more supplies and provisions. They learned
of the islands of Ceylon (Leyte), Bohol, and Zzubu (Cebu) and intended to go
there. Raia Calambu offered to pilot them in going to Cebu, the largest and
the richest of the islands. By April 7th of the same year, Magellan and his men
reached the port of Cebu. The king of Cebu, through Magellan’s interpreter,
demanded that they pay tribute as it was customary, but Magellan refused.
Magellan said that he was a captain of a king himself and thus would not pay
tribute to other kings. Magellan’s interpreter explained to the king of Cebu
that Magellan’s king was the emperor of a great empire and that it would do
them better to make friends with them than to forge enmity. The king of Cebu
consulted his council. By the next day, Magellan’s men and the king of Cebu,
together with other principal men of Cebu, met in an open space. There, the
king offered a bit of his blood and demanded that Magellan do the same.
Pigafetta recounts:

“Then the king said that he was content, and as a greater sign of
affection he sent him a little of his blood from his right arm, and wished he
should do the like. Our people answered that he would do it. Besides that, he
said that all the captains who came to his country had been accustomed to
make a present to him, and he to them, and therefore they should ask their
captain if he would deserve the costum. Our people answered that he would;
but as the king wished to keep up the costum, let him begin and make a
present, and then the captain would do his duty.”
 7

The following day, Magellan spoke before the people of Cebu about
peace and God. Pigafetta reported that the people took pleasure in Magellan’s
speech. Magellan then asked the people who would succeed the king after his
reign and the people responded that the eldest child of the king, who
happened to be a daughter, would be the next in line. Pigafetta also related
how the people talked about, how at old age, parents were no longer taken
into account and had to follow the orders of their children as the new leaders
of the land. Magellan responded to this by saying that his faith entailed
children to render honor and obedience to their parents. Magellan preached
about their faith further and people were reportedly convinced. Pigafetta
wrote that their men overjoyed seeing that the people wished to become
Christians through their fee will and not because they were forced or
intimidated.

On the 14th of April, the people gathered with the king and other
principal men of the islands. Magellan spoke to the king and encouraged him
to be a good Christian by burning all of the idols and worship the cross
instead. The king of Cebu was then baptized as a Christian. Pigafetta wrote:

“To that that the king and all his people answered that thy would obey
the commands of the captain and do all that he told them. The captain took
the king by the hand, and they walked about on the scaffolding, and when he
was baptized he said that he would name him Don Charles (Carlos), as the
emperor his sovereign was named: and he named the prince Don Ferdinand
(Fernando), after the brother of the emperor, and the King of Mazzava, Jehan:
to the Moor he gave the name of Christopher, and to the others each a name
of his fancy.”

After eight days, Pigafetta counted that all of the island’s inhabitant
were already baptized. He admitted that they burned a village down for
obeying neither the kin nor Magellan. The Mass was conducted by the shore
every day. When the queen came to the Mass one day, Magellan gave her an
image of the Infant Jesus made by Pigafetta himself. The king of Cebu swore
 8

that he would always be faithful to Magellan. When Magellan reiterated that

all of the newly baptized Christians need to burn their idols, but the natives
gave excuses telling Magellan that they needed the idols to heal a sick man
who was a relative to the king. Magellan insisted that they should instead put
their faith in Jesus Christ. They went to the sick man and baptized him. After
the baptismal, Pigafetta recorded that the man was able to speak again. He
called this a miracle.

On the 26th of April, Zula, a principal man from the island of Matan
(Mactan) went to see Magellan and asked him for a boat full of men so that he
would be able to fight the chief named Silapulapu (Lapulapu). Such chief,
according to Zula, refused to obey the king and was also preventing him from
doing so. Magellan offered three boats instead and expressed his desire to go
in daylight. They numbered 49 in total and the islanders of Mactan were
estimated to number 1,500. The battle began. Pigafetta recounted:

“When we reached land we found the islanders fifteen hundred in

number, drawn up in three squadrons; they came down upon us with terrible
shouts, two squadrons attacking us on the flanks, and the third in front. The
captain then divided his men in two bands. Our musketeers and crossbow-
men fired for half an hour from a distance, but did nothing, since the bullets
and arrows, though they passed through their shields mad of thin wood, and
perhaps wounded their arms, yet did not stop them. The captain shouted not
to fire, but he was not listened to. The islanders seeing that the shots of our
guns did them little or no harm would not retire, but shouted more loudly,
and springing from one side to the other to avoid our shots, they at the same
time drew nearer to us, throwing arrows, javelins, spears hardened in fire,
stones, and even mud, so that we could hardly defend ourselves. Some of
them cast lances pointed with iron at the captain-general.”

Magellan died in that battle. The natives, perceiving that the bodies of
the enemies were protected with armors, aimed for their legs instead.
Magellan was pierced with a poisoned arrow in his right leg. A few of their
 9

men charged at the natives and tried to intimidate them by burning an entire
village but this only enraged the natives further. Magellan was specifically
targeted because the natives knew that he was the captain general. Magellan
was hit with a lance in the face. Magellan retaliated and pierced the same
native with his lance in the breast and tried to draw his sword but could not
lift it because of his wounded arm. Seeing that the captain has already
deteriorated, more natives came to attack him. One native with a great sword
delivered a blow in Magellan’s left leg, brought him face down and the
natives ceaselessly attacked Magellan with lances, swords, and even with
their bare hands. Pigafetta recounted the last moments of Magellan:

“Whilst the Indians were thus overpowering him, several times he

turned round towards us to see if we were all in safety, as though his
obstinate fight had no other object than to give an opportunity for the retreat
of his men.”

Pigafetta also said that the king of Cebu who was baptized could have
sent help but Magellan instructed him not to jointhe battle and stay in the
balangay so that he would see how they fought. The king offered the people
of Mactan gifts of any value and amount in exchange of Magellan’s body but
the chief refused. They wanted to keep Magellan’s body as a memento of their
victory.

Magellan’s men elected Duarte Barbosa as the new captain. Pigafetta

also told how Magellan’s slave and interpreter named Henry betrayed them
and told the king of Cebu that they intended to leave as quickly as possible.
Pigafetta alleged that the slave told the king that if he followed the slave’s
advice, then the king could acquire the ships and the goods of Magellan’s
fleet. The two conspired and betrayed what was left of Magellan’s men. The
king invited these men to a gathering where he said he would present the
jewels that he would send for the king of Spain. Pigafetta was not able to joing
the twenty-four men who attended because he was nursing his battle
wounds. It was only a short-time when they heard cries and lamentations.
 10

The natives had slain all of the men except the interpreter and Juan Serrano
who was already wounded. Serrano was presented and shouted at the men in
the ship asking them to pay ransom so he would be spared. However, they
refused and would not allow anyone to go to the shore. The fleet departed
and abandoned Serrano. They left Cebu and continued their journey around
the world.

Analysis of Pigefatta’s Chronicle

The chronicle of Pigafetta was one of the most cited documents by

historians who wished to study the precolonial Philippines. As one of the
earliest written accounts, Pigafetta was seen as a credible source for a period
which was prior unchronicled and undocumented. Moreover, being the
earliest detailed documentation, it was believed that Pigafetta’s writings
account for the “purest” precolonial society. Indeed, Pigafetta’s work is of
great importance in the study and writing of Philippine history. Nevertheless,
there needs to have a more nuanced reading of the source within a contextual
backdrop. As student of history should recognize certain biases
accompanying the author and his identity, loyalties and the circumstances
that he was in; and how it affected the text that he produced. In the case of
Pigafetta, the reader needs to understand that he was a chronicler
commissioned by the King of Spain to accompany and document a voyage
intended to expand the Spanish empire. He was also of noble who came from
a rich family in Italy. These attributes influenced his narrative, his selection of
details to be included in the text., his characterization of the people and of the
species that he encountered, and his interpretation an retelling of the events.
Being a scholar of cartography and geography, Pigafetta was able to give
details on geography and climate of the places that their voyage had reached.
 11

In reaing Pigafetta’s description of the people, one has to keep in mind

that he was coming from a sixteenth century European perspective. Hence,
the reader might notice how Pigafetta, whether implicitly or explicitly,
regarded the indigenous belief systems and the way of life as inferior to that
of Christianity and of the Europeans. He would always remark on the
nakedness of the natives or how he was fascinated by their exotic culture. P
igafetta also noticeably emphasized the natives’ amazement and illiteracy to
the European artillery, merchandise and other goods in the same way that
Pigafetta repeatedly mentioned the abundance of spices like ginger, and of
precious metals like gold. His observations and assessments of the indigenous
cultures employed the European standards. Hence, when they saw the
indigenous attires of the natives, Pigafetta saw them as being naked because
from the European standpoint, they were wearing fewer clothes indeed.
Pigafetta’s perpective was too narrow to realize that such attire was only
appropriate to the tropical climate of the islands. The same way was true for
materials that the natives used for their houses like palm and bamboo. These
materials would let more air come through the house and compensate for the
hot climate in the islands.

It should be understood that such observations were rooted from the

context of Pigaffeta and of his era. Europe, for example, was dominated by the
Holy Roman Empire, whose loyalty and purpose was the domination of the
Catholic Church all over the world. Hence, other belief systems different from
that of Christianity were perceived to be blasphemous and barbaric, even
demonic. Aside from this, the sixteenth century European economy was
mercantilist. Such system measures the wealth of kingdoms based on their
accumulations of bullions or precious metals like gold and silver. It was not
surprising therefore that Pigafetta would always mention the abundance of
gold in the islands as shown in his descrption of leaders wearing gold rings
and golden daggers, and of the rich gold mines. An empire like that of the
Spain would indeed search for new lands where they could acquire more
gold and wealth to be on top of all the European nations. The obsessions with
 12

spices might be odd for Filipinos because of its ordinariness in the

Philippines, but understanding the context would reveal that spices were
scarce in Europe and hence were seen as prestige goods. In the era, Spain and
Portugal coveted the control of Spice Islands because it would have to lead to
acertain increase in wealth, influence and power. These context should be
used and understood in order to have a more qualified reading of Pigafetta’s
account.
 13

Assessment #1

Direction: Answer the following questions in not more or less than 5

sentences.

1. Who is Antonio Pigafetta? What is his role in Magellan-Elcano

expedition?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

2. According to PIgafetta, how did the locals of the island welcome

Magellan and his crew?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

3. How are the islander’s way of life, cultural practices and religious
beliefs described? What does Pigafetta’s account tell us about the
conditions of the Visayan Islands in the 16th century?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

4. Based on Pigafetta’s account, how did the battle of Mactan start?

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

5. Why was Pigafetta’s journal not published?

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
 14

References:

Aquino, C. (1986). “Restoring Democracy by the Ways of

Democracy.” In
http://www.coryaquino.ph/index.php/works/article/353b89aa-
f2dc-11df-b3cf-001617d76479. Retrived 18 May 2017.

Bautista, A. (1898). “Declaration of the Philippine Independence.”

Trans. SUlpicio Guevarra in The Laws of the First Philippine Republic
1972. Manila :National Historical Commission.

Candelaria, J. L. (2018). Readings in Philippine history

Jacinto, E. (1986). “Kartilya ng Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan.”

Trans. Gregorio Nieva, 1918. Text from Philippine Center for Masonic
Studies,

http://www.philippinemasonry.org/kartilya-ng-katipnan.html.
Retrieved 18 October 2017.

McCoy, A., & Roces, A. (1985). Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature

of the American Era, 1900-1941. Quezon City: Vera-Reyes.

Pigafetta, A. (1874). The First Voyage Around the World by Magellan.

trans. Lord Stanley of Alderley. London: Hakluyt Society.

Torres, J. V. (2018). Batis: Sources in Philippine history.

 15

Lesson 2

The KKK and the “Kartilya ng Katipunan”

The Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan

(KKK) or Katipunan is arguably the most important organization formed in the
Philippine history. While anti-colonial movements, efforts and organization
formed in the Philippine history. While anti-colonial movements, efforts and
organizations had already been established centuries prior to the foundation
of the Katipunan, it was only this organization that envisioned (1) a united
Filipino nation that would revolt against the Spaniards for (2) the total
independence of the country from Spain. Previous armed revolts had already
occurred before the foundation of the Katipunan, but none of them
envisioned a unified Filipino nation revolting against the colonizers. For
example, Diego Silang was known as an Ilocano who took up his arms and
led one of the longest running revolts in the country. Silar, however was
mainly concerned about his locality and referred to himself as El Rey de Ilocos
(The King of Ilocos). The imagination of the nation was largely absent in the
aspirations of the local revolts before Katipunan. On the other hand, the
propaganda movements led by the ilustrados like Marcelo H. del Pilar, Graciano
Lopez Jaena, and Jose Rizal did not envision a total separation of the Philippines
from Spain, but only demanded equal rights, representation, and protection
from the abuses of the friars.

In the conduct of their struggle, Katipunan created a complex struxture

and a defined value system that would guide the organization as a collective
aspiring for a single goal. One of the most important Katipunan documents
was the Kartilya ng Katipunan. The original title of the documents was ”Manga
[sic] Aral Nang [sic] Katipunan ng mga A.N.B.” or “Lessons of the Organization
of the Sons of Country.” The document was written by Emilio Jacinto in the
1896. Jacinto was only 18 years old when he joined the movement. He was a
 16

law student at the Universidad de Santo Tomas. Despite his youth, Bonifacio
recognized the value and intellect of Jacinto that upon seeing that Jacinto’s
Kartilya was much better than the Decalogue he wrote, he willingly favored
that the Kartilya be distributed to their fellow Katipuneros, Jacinto became the
secretary of the organization and took charge of the short-lived printing press
of the Katipunan. On 15 April 1897, Bonifacio appointed Jacinto as a
commander of the Katipunan in Northern Luzon. Jacinto was 22 years old. He
died of Malaria at a young age of 24 in the town of Magdalena, Laguna.

The Kartilya can be treated as the Katipunan’s code of conduct. It

contains fourteen rules that instruct the way a Katipunero should behave, and
which specific values should he uphold. Generally, the rules stated in the
Kartilya can be classified into two. The first group contains rules that will
make the member an upright individual and the second group contains the
rules that will guide the way he treats his fellow men.

Below is the translated version of the rules in Kartilya:

I. The life that is not consecrated to a lofty and reasonable purpose is a

tree without a shade, if not a poisonous weed.

II. To do good for personal gain and not for its own sake is not virtue.

III. It is rational to be charitable and love one’s fellow creature, and to

adjust one’s conduct, acts and words to what is in itself reasonable.

IV. Whether our skin be black or white, we are all born: superiority in
knowledge, wealth and beauty are to be understood, but not
superiority by nature.

V. The honorable man prefers honor to personal gain; scoundrel, gain to

honor.

VI. To the honorable man, his word is sacred.

VII. Do not waste thy time: wealth can be recovered but not time lost.
 17

VIII. Defend the oppressed and fight the oppressor before the law or in the
field.

IX. The prudent man is sparing in words and faithful in keeping secrets.

X. On the thorny path of life, man is the guide of woman and the children,
and if the guide leads to the precipice, those whom he guides will also
go there

XI. Thou must not look upon woman as a mere plaything, but as a faithful
companion who will share with thee the penalties of life; her (physical)
weakness will increase thy interest in her and she will remind thee of
the mother who bore thee and reared thee.

XII. What thou dost not desire done unto thy wife, children, brothers and
sister, that do not unto the wife, children, brothers and sisters of thy
neighbor.

XIII. Man is not worth more because he is a king, because his nose is
aquiline, and his color white, not because he is priest, a servant of God,
nor because of the high prerogative that he enjoys upon earth, but he is
worth most who is a man of proven and real value, who does good,
keep his words, is worthy and honest; he who does not oppress nor
consent to being oppressed, he who loves and cherishes his fatherland,
though he be born in the wilderness and know no tongue but his own.

XIV. When these rules of consider of conduct shall be known to all, the
longed for sun of Liberty shall rise brilliant over this most unhappy
portion of the globe and its rays shall diffuse everlasting joy among the
confederated brethren of the same rays, the lives of those who have
gone before, the fatigues and the well-paid sufferings will remain. If he
who desires to enter has informed himself of all this and believes he
will be able to perform what will be his duties, he may fill out the
application for admission.
 18

As the primary governing document, which determines the rules of conduct

in the Katipunan, properly understanding the Kartilya will thus help in
understanding the values, ideals, aspirations, and even the ideology of the
organization.

Analysis of the “Kartilya ng Katipunan”

Similar to what we have done to the accounts of Pigafetta, this primary

source also needs to be analyzed in terms of content and context. As a
document written for a fraternity whose main purpose is to overthrow a
colonial regime, we can explain the content and provisions of the Kartilya as a
reaction and response to certain value systems that they found despicable in
the present state of things that they struggled against with. For example, the
fourth and the thirteenth rules in the Kartilya are an invocation of the
inherent equality between and among men regardless of race, occupation, or
status. In the context of the Spanish colonial era where the indios were treated
as the inferior of the white Europeans, the Katipunan saw to it that the
alternative order that they wished to promulgate through their revolution
necessarily destroyed this kind of unjust hierarchy.

Moreover, one can analyze the values upheld in the document as

consistent with the burgeoning rational and liberal ideals in the eighteenth
and nineteenth century. Equality, tolerance, freedom, and liberty were values
that first emerged in the eighteenth century French Revolution, which spread
throughout Europe and reached the educated class of the colonies. Jacinto, an
ilustrado himself, certainly got an understanding of these values. Aside from
the liberal values that can be dissected in the document, we can also decipher
certain Victorian and chivalrous values in the text. For example, various
provisions in the Kartilya repeatedly emphasized the importance of honor in
words and in action. The teaching of the Katipunan on how women should be
 19

treated with honor and respect, while positive in many aspects and certainly a
significant stride form the practice of raping and physically abusing women,
can still be telling of the Katipunan’s secondary regard for women in relation
to men. For example, in the tenth rule, the document specifically stated that
men should be the guide of women and children, and that he should set a
good example, otherwise the women and the children would be guided in the
path of evil. Nevertheless, the same document stated that women should be
treated as companions by men and not as playthings that can be exploited for
their pleasure.

In the contemporary eyes, the Katipunan can be criticized because of

these provisions. However, one must not forget the context where the
organization was born. Not even in Europe or in the whole of the West at that
juncture recognized the problem of gender inequality. Indeed, it can be
argued that Katipunan’s recognition of women as important partners in the
struggle, as reflected not just in Kartilya but also in the organizational
structure of the fraternity where a women’s unit was established, is an
endeavour advanced for its time. Aside from Rizal’s known Letter to the
Women of Malolos, no same effort by the supposed cosmopolitan Propaganda
Movement was achieved until the movement’s eventual disintegration in the
latter part of the 1890s.

Aside from this, the Kartilya was instructive not just of the Katipunan’s
conduct to ward other people, but also for the members’ development as
individuals in their own rights. Generally speaking, the rules in the Kartilya
can be classified as either directed to how one should treat his neighbour or to
how one should develop and conduct one’s self. Both are essential to the
success and fulfilment of the Katipunan’s ideals. Fr example, the Kartilya’s
teaching on honouring one’s word and not wasting time are teachings
directed toward self-development, while the rules on treating the neighbour’s
wife, children, and brothers the way that you want yours to be treated is an
instruction on how Katipuneros should treat and regard their neighbours.
 20

All in all, proper reading of the Kartilya will reveal a more thorough
understanding of the Katipunan and the significant role that it played in the
revolution and in the unfolding of the Philippine history, as we know it.
 21

Assessment #1

A. Direction: Answer the following questions in not more or less than 5

sentences.

1. What was the socio-political context when the Kartilya was written?
How crucial was the document in the 19th century Philippines?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

2. How would you describe the Kartilya in terms of its form/writing

style and content? What are its main teachings and how are they
presented?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

3. Why can the Kartilya be considered timeless and relevant to the

industrializing and globalizing present?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

4. As a student, how will you embody the main teachings and guiding
principles of the kartilya? Concretize your answer and cite specific lines
from the document.
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
 22

B. Direction: Rewrite a portion or a condensed version of the Kartilya

ng Katipunan in a way that that it can encourage millennial like you
to read and practice its teachings.

Rubrics for making a Kartilya

(own version)
Criteria Score
Illustration 15
(Effective and creative use of an
illustration enhances the
Kartilya’s meaning)
Poetic techniques 15
(Effectively uses poetic
techniques to reinforce the
theme.)
Organization- 10
Over-all Impact 10
Total 50 points

My Own Version of Kartilya ng Katipunan

I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
 23

References:

Aquino, C. (1986). “Restoring Democracy by the Ways of

Democracy.” In
http://www.coryaquino.ph/index.php/works/article/353b89aa-
f2dc-11df-b3cf-001617d76479. Retrived 18 May 2017.

Bautista, A. (1898). “Declaration of the Philippine Independence.”

Trans. SUlpicio Guevarra in The Laws of the First Philippine Republic
1972. Manila :National Historical Commission.

Candelaria, J. L. (2018). Readings in Philippine history

Jacinto, E. (1986). “Kartilya ng Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan.”

Trans. Gregorio Nieva, 1918. Text from Philippine Center for Masonic
Studies,

http://www.philippinemasonry.org/kartilya-ng-katipnan.html.
Retrieved 18 October 2017.

McCoy, A., & Roces, A. (1985). Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature

of the American Era, 1900-1941. Quezon City: Vera-Reyes.

Pigafetta, A. (1874). The First Voyage Around the World by Magellan.

trans. Lord Stanley of Alderley. London: Hakluyt Society.

Torres, J. V. (2018). Batis: Sources in Philippine history.

 24

Lesson 3

Reading the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence”

Every year, the country commemorates the anniversary of the

Philippine Independence proclaimed on 12 June 1898, in the province of
Cavite. Indeed, such event is a significant turning point in the history of the
country because it signalled the end of the 333 years of Spanish colonization.
There have been numerous studies done on the events leading to the
independence of the country but very few students had the chance to read the
actual document of the declaration. This is in spite of the historical
importance of the document and the details that the document reveals on the
rationale and circumstances of that historical day of Cavite. Interestingly,
reading the details of the said document hindsight is telling of the kind of
government that was created under Aguinaldo, and the forthcoming hand of
the United States of America in the next few years of the newly created
republic. The declaration was a short 2,000-word document, which
summarized the reason behind the revolution against Spain, the war for
independence, and the future of the new republic under Emilio Aguinaldo.

The proclamation commenced with a characterization of the condition

of the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period. The document
specifically mentioned abuses and inequalities in the colony. The declaration
says:

“…taking into consideration, that their inhabitants being

already weary of bearing of the ominous yoke of Spanish
domination, on account of the arbitrary arrests and harsh
treatment practiced by the Civil Guard to the extent of
causing death with the connivance and even with the
express orders of their commanders, who sometimes went to
the extreme of ordering the shooting of the prisoners under
 25

the pretext that they were attempting to escape, in violation

of the provisions of the Regulation of their Corps, which
abuses were unpunished and on account of the unjust
deportations, especially those decreed by General Blanco, of
eminent personages and of high social position, at the
instigation of the Archbishop and friars interested in
keeping them out of the way for their own selfish and
avaricious purpose, deportations which are quickly brought
about by the method of procedure more execrable than that
of the Inquisition and which every civilized nation rejects on
account of a decision being rendered without a hearing of
the persons accused.”

The above passage demonstrates the justifications behind the

revolution against Spain. Specifically cited are the abuse by the Civil Guards
and the unlawful shooting of prisoners whom they alleged as attempting to
escape. The passage also condemns the unequal protection of the law between
the Filipino people and the “eminent personages”. Moreover, the line
mentions the avarice and greed of the clergy like the friars and the
Archbishop himself. Lastly, the passage also condemns what they saw as the
unjust deporatation and rendering of other decisions without proper hearing,
expected of any civilized nation.

From here, the proclamation proceeded with a brief historical overview

of the Spanish occupation since Magellan’s arrival in Visayas until the
Philippine Revolution, with specific details about the latter, especially after
the Pact of Biak-na-Bato had collapsed. The document narrates the spread of
the movement “like an electric spark” through different towns and provinces
like Bataan, Pampanga, Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna and Morong, and the
quick decline of Spanish forces in the same provinces. The revolt also reached
Visayas: thus, the independence of the country was ensured. The document
also mentions Rizal’s execution, calling it unjust. The execution, as written in
 26

the document, was done to “please the greedy body of friars in their insatiable
desire to seek revenge upon the exterminate all those who are opposed to
their Machiavellain purposes, which tramples upon the penal code prescribed
for these islands.” The document also narrates the Cavite Mutiny of January
1872 that caused the infamous execution of the martyred native priests Jose
Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, “whose innocent blood was
shed through the intrigues of those so-called religious orders” that incited the
three secular priests in the said mutiny.

The proclamation of independence also invokes that the established

republic would be led under the dictatorship of Emilio Aguinaldo. The first
mention was at the very beginning of the proclamation. It stated:

”In the town of Cavite Viejo, in this province of Cavite, on

the twelfth day of June eighteen hundred and ninety-eight,
before me, Don Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista, Auditor of
War and Special Commissioner appointed to proclaim and
solemnize this act by the Dictatorial Government of these
Philippine Islands, for the purposes and by the virtue of the
circular addressed by the Eminent Dictator of the same Don
Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy.”

The same was repeated toward the last part of the proclamation. It states:

“We acknowledge, approve and confirm together with the

orders that have been issued there from, the Dictatorship
established by Don Emilio Aguinaldo, whom we honor as
the Supreme Chief of this Nation, which this day
commences to have a life of its own, in the belief that he is
the instrument selected by God, in spite of his humble
origin, to effect the redemption of this unfortunate people, as
foretold by Doctor Jose Rizal in the magnificent verses which
he composed when he was preparing to be shot, liberating
 27

them from the yoke of Spanish domination in punishment of

the impunity with which their Government allowed the
commission of abuses by its subordinates.”

Another detail in the proclamation that is worth looking at is its

explanation on the Philippine flag that was first waved on the same day. The
document explained:

“and finally, it was unanimously resolved that this Nation,

independent from this day, must use the same flag used
heretofore, whose design and colors and described in the
accompanying drawing, with design representing in natural
colors the three arms referred to. The white triangle
represents the distinctive emblem of the famous Katipunan
Society, which by means of its compact of blood urged on
the masses of the people to insurrection; the three stars
represent the three principal Islands of this Archipelago,
Luzon, Mindanao and Panay, in which this insurrectionary
movement broke out; the sun represents the gigantic strides
that have been made by the sons of this land on the road of
progress and civilization, its eight rays symbolizing the eight
provinces of Manila, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, Nueva
Ecija, Bataan, Laguna and Batangas, which were declared in
a state of war almost as soon as the first insurrectionary
movement was initiated; and the colors blue, red and white,
commemorate those of the flag of the United States of North
America, in manifestation of our profound gratitude
towards that Great Nation for the disinterested protection
she is extending to sun and will continue to extend to us”

This often overlooked detail reveals much about the historically

accurate meaning behind the most widely known national symbol in the
Philippines. It is not known by many for example, that the white triangle was
 28

derived form the symbol of the Katipunan. The red and blue colors of the flag
are often associated with courage and peace, respectively. Our basic
education omits the fact that those colors were taken form the flag of the
United States. While it can always be argued that symbolic meaning can
always change and be reinterpreted, the original symbolic meaning of
something presents us several historical truths that can explain the
subsequent events, which unfolded after the declaration of independence on
the 12th day of June 1898.

Analysis of the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence”

As mentioned earlier, a re-examination of the document on the

declaration of independence can reveal some often overlooked historical
truths about this important event in Philippine history. Aside from this, the
document reflects the general revolutionary sentiment of that period. For
example, the abuse specifically mentioned in the proclamation like friar
abuse, racial discrimination, and inequality before the law reflect the most
compelling sentiments represented by the revolutionary leadership.
However, no mention was made about the more serious problem that
affected the masses more profoundly (i.e., the land and agrarian crisis felt by
the numerous Filipino peasants in the nineteenth century). This is ironic
especially when renowned Philippine Revolution historian, Teodoro
Agoncillo, stated that the Philippine Revolution was an agrarian revolution.
The common revolutionary soldiers fought in the revolution for the hope of
owning the lands that they were tilling once the friar estates in different
provinces like Batangas and Laguna dissolve, if and when the revolution
succeeded. Such aspects and realities of the revolutionary struggle were
either unfamiliar to the middle class revolutionary leaders like Emilio
 29

Aguinaldo, Ambrosio Rianzares-Bautista and Felipe Buencamino, or were

intentionally left out because they were landholders themselves.

The Treaty of Paris was an agreement signed between Spain and the United
States of America regarding the ownership of the Philippine Islands and
other Spanish colonies in South America. The agreement ended the short-
lived Spanish-American War. The Treaty was signed on 10 December 1898,
six months after the revolutionary government declared the Philippine
Independence. The Philippines was sold to the United States at $20 million
and effectively undermined the sovereignty of the Filipinos after their
revolutionary victory. The Americans occupied the Philippines immediately
which resulted in the Philippine-American War that lasted until the earliest
years of the twentieth century.

The proclamation also gives us the impression on how the victorious

revolutionary government of Aguinaldo historicized the struggle for
independence. There were mentions of past events that were seen as
important turning points of the movement against Spain. The execution of the
GOMBURZA, for example, and the failed Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was narrated
in detail. This shows that they saw this event as a significant awakening of the
Filipinos in the real conditions of the nation under Spain. Jose Rizal’s legacy
and martyrdom was also mentioned in the document. However, the
Katipunan as the pioneer of the revolutionary movement was only mentioned
once toward the end of the document. There was no mention of the
Katipunan’s foundation. Bonifacio and his co-founders were also left out. It
can be argued, thus, that the way of historical narration found in the
document also reflects the politics of the victors. The enmity between
Aguinaldo’s Magdalo and Bonifacio’s Magdiwang in the Katipunan is no
secret in the pages of our history. On the contrary, the war led by Aguinaldo’s
men with the forces of the United States was discussed in detail.
 30

The point is, even official records and documents like the proclamation
of independence, while truthful most of the time, still exude the politics and
biases of whoever is in power. This manifests in the selectiveness of
information that can be found in these records. It is the task of the historian,
thus, to analyze the content of these documents in relation to the dominant
politics and the contexts of people and institutions surrounding it. This tells
us a lesson on taking primary sources like official government records within
the circumstances of this production. Studying one historical subject, thus,
entails looking at multiple primary sources and pieces of historical evidences
in order to have a more nuanced and contextual analysis of our past.
 31

Assessment #1

Direction: Answer the following questions in not more or less than 5

sentences.

1. Who is Emilio Aguinaldo? How did he end up as the leader of the

revolution?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________

2. According to the declaration, how did the Spanish colonization begin?

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

3. Who were the inspirations of the revolution?

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

4. What role did the Americans play in the narrative?

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

5. Considering the Americans and Japanese occupations as well as the

current state of the Philippines, how important is the 1898 Declaration
of Independence?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
 32

References:

Aquino, C. (1986). “Restoring Democracy by the Ways of

Democracy.” In
http://www.coryaquino.ph/index.php/works/article/353b89aa-
f2dc-11df-b3cf-001617d76479. Retrived 18 May 2017.

Bautista, A. (1898). “Declaration of the Philippine Independence.”

Trans. Sulpicio Guevarra in The Laws of the First Philippine Republic
1972. Manila :National Historical Commission.

Candelaria, J. L. (2018). Readings in Philippine history

Jacinto, E. (1986). “Kartilya ng Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan.”

Trans. Gregorio Nieva, 1918. Text from Philippine Center for Masonic
Studies,

http://www.philippinemasonry.org/kartilya-ng-katipnan.html.
Retrieved 18 October 2017.

McCoy, A., & Roces, A. (1985). Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature

of the American Era, 1900-1941. Quezon City: Vera-Reyes.

Pigafetta, A. (1874). The First Voyage Around the World by Magellan.

trans. Lord Stanley of Alderley. London: Hakluyt Society.

Torres, J. V. (2018). Batis: Sources in Philippine history.

 33

Lesson 4

A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy’s

Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941)

Political cartoons and caricature are a rather recent art form, which
veered away from the classical art by exaggerating human features and
poking fun at its subjects. Such art genre and technique became a part of the
print media as a form of social and political commentary, which usually
targets persons of power and authority. Cartoons became an effective tool of
publicizing opinions through heavy use of symbolism, which is different form
a verbose written editorial and opinion pieces. The unique way that a
caricature represents opinion and captures the audience’s imagination is
reason enough for historians to examine these political cartoons.
Commentaries in mass media inevitably shape public opinion and such kind
of opinion is worthy of historical examination.

In his book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era

(1900-1941), Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo Roces, compiled political
cartoons published in newspaper dailies and periodicals in the
aforementioned time period. For this part, we are going to look sat selected
cartoons and explain the context of each one.
 34

The first example shown above was published in The Independent on

May 20, 1916. The cartoon shows a politician from Tondo, named Dr. Santos,
passing his crown to his brother-in-law, Dr. Barcelona. A Filipino guy (as
depicted wearing salakot and barong tagalog) was trying to stop Santos, telling
the latter to stop giving Barclona the crown because it is not his to begin with.

The second cartoon was also published by The Independent on 16 June

1917. This was drawn by Ferndando Amorsolo and was aimed as a
commentary to the workings of Manila Police at that period. Here, we see a
Filipino child who stole a skinny chicken because he had nothing to eat. The
police officer was relentlessly pursuing the said child. A man wearing a
salakot, labeled Juan de la Cruz was grabbing the officer, telling him to leave
the small-time pickpockets and thieves and to turn at the great thieves
instead. He was pointing to huge warehouses containing bulks of rice, milk,
and grocery products.
 35

The third cartoon was a commentary on the unprecedented cases of

colorum automobiles in the city streets. The Philippine Free Press published
this commentary when fatal accidents involving colorum vehicles and taxis
occurred too often already.

This fourth cartoon depicts a cinema. A blown-up police officer was at

the screen saying that couples are not allowed to neck and make love in the
theater. Two youngsters looked horrified while an older couple seemed
amused.
 36

The next cartoon was published by The Independent on 27 November 1915.

Here, we see the caricature of Uncle Sam riding a chariot pulled by Filipinos
wearing school uniforms. The Filipino boys were carrying American objects
like baseball bats, whiskey, and boxing gloves. McCoy, in his caption to the
said cartoon, says that this cartoon was based on an event in 1907 when
William Howard Taft was brought to the Manila pier riding a chariot pulled
by students of Liceo de Manila. Such was condemned by the nationalists at that
time.

The last cartoon was published by Lipang Kalabaw on 24 August 1907.

In the picture, we can see Uncle Sam rationing porridge to the politicians and
members of the Progresista Party (sometimes known as the Federalista Party)
wile members of the Nacionalista Party look on and wait for their turn. This
cartoon depicts the patronage of the United States being coveted by
politicians for either of the party.
 37

Analysis of the Political Caricature during the American Period

The transition from the Spanish colonial period to the American

Occupation period demonstrated different strands of changes and shifts in
culture, society, and politics. The Americans drastically introduced
democracy to the nascent nation and the consequences were far from ideal.
Aside from this, it was also during the American period that Filipinos were
introduced to different manifestations of modernity like, healthcare, modern
transportation, and media. This ushered in a more open and freer press. The
post-independence and the post-Filipino-American period in the Philippines
were experienced differently by Filipinos coming from different classes. The
upper principalia class experienced economic prosperity with the opening up
of the Philippine economy to the United States but the majority of the poor
Filipino remained poor, desperate, and victims of state repression.

The selected cartoons illustrate not only the opinion of certain media
outfits about the Philippine society during the American period but also paint
a broad image of society and politics under the United States. In the arena of
 38

politics, for example, we see the price that Filipinos paid for the democracy
modeled after the Americans. First, it seemed that the Filipino politicians at
that time did not understand well enough the essence of democracy and the
accompanying democratic institutions and processes. This can be seen in the
rising dynastic politics in Tondo as depicted in the cartoon published by, The
Independent. Patronage also became influential and powerful, not only
between clients and patrons but also between the newly formed political
parties composed of the elite and the United States this was depicted in the
cartoon where the United States, represented by Uncle Sam, provided dole
outs for members of the Federalista while the Nacionalista politicians looked on
and waited for their turn. Thus, the essence of competing political parties to
enforce choices among the voters was cancelled out. The problem continues
up to the present where politicians transfer from one party to another
depending on which party was powerful in specific periods of time.

The transition from a Catholic-centered, Spanish-Filipino society to an

imperial American-assimilated one, and its complications, were also depicted
in the cartoons. One example is the unprecedented increase of motorized
vehicles in the city. Automobiles became a popular mode of transportation in
the city and led to the emergence of taxis. However, the laws and policy
implementation was mediocre. This resulted in the increasing colorum and
unlicensed vehicles transporting people around the city. The rules governing
the issuance of driver`s license was loose and traffic police could not be
bothered by rampant violations of traffic rules. This is a direct consequence of
the drastic urbanization of the Philippine society. Another example is what
McCoy called the “sexual revolution” that occurred in the 1930s. young
people, as early as that period, disturbed the conservative Filipino mindset by
engaging in daring sexual activities in public spaces like cinemas. Here, we
can see how that period was the meeting point between the conservative past
and the liberated future of the Philippines.
 39

Lastly, the cartoons also illustrated the conditions of poor Filipinos in

the Philippines now governed by the United States. From the looks of it,
nothing much has changed. For example, a cartoon depicted how police
authorities oppress petty Filipino criminals while turning a blind eye on
hoarders who monopolize goods in their huge warehouses (presumably
Chinese merchants). The other cartoon depicts how Americans controlled
Filipinos through seemingly harmless American objects. By controlling their
consciousness and mentality, Americans got to control and subjugate
Filipinos.
 40

Assessment #1

1. Produce an artwork that will reflect or express any pressing social,

political, or socio-political, economic, or environmental issue in our
country. Explain your work and the rationale for using certain
materials or elements in your artwork. Artworks could be caricature,
cartoon painting, photo essay, photo collage, sculpture or mixed
media.

2. What is the significance of artworks such as caricature, editorial

cartoons, paintings, or photographs in the mapping of history?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
 41

_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

References:

Aquino, C. (1986). “Restoring Democracy by the Ways of

Democracy.” In
http://www.coryaquino.ph/index.php/works/article/353b89aa-
f2dc-11df-b3cf-001617d76479. Retrived 18 May 2017.

Bautista, A. (1898). “Declaration of the Philippine Independence.”

Trans. Sulpicio Guevarra in The Laws of the First Philippine Republic
1972. Manila :National Historical Commission.

Candelaria, J. L. (2018). Readings in Philippine history

Jacinto, E. (1986). “Kartilya ng Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan.”

Trans. Gregorio Nieva, 1918. Text from Philippine Center for Masonic
Studies,

http://www.philippinemasonry.org/kartilya-ng-katipnan.html.
Retrieved 18 October 2017.

McCoy, A., & Roces, A. (1985). Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature

of the American Era, 1900-1941. Quezon City: Vera-Reyes.

Pigafetta, A. (1874). The First Voyage Around the World by Magellan.

trans. Lord Stanley of Alderley. London: Hakluyt Society.

Torres, J. V. (2018). Batis: Sources in Philippine history.

 42

Lesson 5

Revisiting Corazon Aquino’s Speech Before the U.S. Congress

Corazon “Cory” Cojuangco Aquino functioned as the symbol of the

restoration of democracy and the overthrow of the Marcos Dictatorship in
1986. The EDA People Power, which installed Cory Aquino in the presidency,
put the Philippines in the international spotlight for overthrowing a dictator
through peaceful means. Cory was easily a figure of the said revolution, as
the widow of the slain Marcos oppositionist and former Senator Benigno
“Ninoy”Aquino Jr. Cory was hoisted as the antithesis of the dictator. Her
image as a mourning, widowed housewife who had always been in the
shadow of her husband and relatives and had no experience in politics was
juxtaposed against Marcos’s statesmanship, eloquence, charisma, and
cunning political skills. Nevertheless, Cory was able to capture the
imagination of the people whose rights and freedom had long been
compromised throughout the Marcos regime. This is despite the fact that
Cory came from a rich haciendero family in Tarlac and owned vast estates of
sugar plantation and whose relatives occupy local and national government
positions.

The People Power Revolution of 1986 was widely recognized around the
world for its peaceful character. When former senator Ninoy Aquino was shot
at the tarmac of the Manila International Airport on 21 August 1983, the
Marcos regime greatly suffered a crisis of legitimacy. Protests from different
sectors frequented different areas in the country. Marcos’s credibility in the
international community also suffered. Paired with the looming economic
crisis, Marcos had to do something to prove to his allies in the United States
that he remained to be the democratically anointed leader of the country. He
called for a Snap Election in February 1986, where Corazon Cojuangco
Aquino, the widow of the slain senator was convinced to run against Marcos.
 43

The canvassing was rigged to Marcos’s favor but the people expressed their
protests against the corrupt and authoritarian government. Leading military
officials of the regime and Martial Law orchestrators themselves, Juan Ponce
Enrile and Fidel V. Ramos, plotted to take over the presidency, until civilians
heeded the call of then Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin and other
civilian leaders gathered in EDSA. The overwhelming presence of civilians in
EDSA successfully turned a coup into a civilian demonstration. The
thousands of people who gathered overthrow Ferdinand Marcos from the
presidency after 21 years.

On 18 September 1986, seven months since Cory became president, she

went to the United States and spoke before the joint session of the U.S.
Congress. Cory was welcomed with long applause as she took the podium
and addressed the United States about her presidency and the challenges
faced by the new public. She began her speech with the story of her leaving
the United States three years prior as a newly widowed wife of Ninoy
Aquino.

She then told of Ninoy’s character conviction, and resolve in opposing

the authoritarianism of Marcos. She talked of the three times that they lost
Ninoy including his demise on 23 August 1983. The first time was when the
dictatorship detained Ninoy with other dissenters. Cory related:

“The government sought to break him by indignities and

terror. They locked him up in a tiny, nearly airless cell in a
military camp in the north. They stripped him naked and
held a threat of sudden midnight execution over his head.
Ninoy held up manfully under all of it. I barely did as well.
For forty-three days, the authorities would not tell me
what had happened to him. This was the first time my
children and I felt we had lost him.”
 44

Cory continued that when Ninoy survived the first detention, he was
then charged of subversion, murder, and other crimes. He was tried by a
military court, whose legitimacy Ninoy adamantly questioned. To solidify his
protest, Ninoy decided to do a hunger strike and fasted for 40 days. Cory
treated this event as the second time that their family lost Ninoy. She said:

“When that didn’t work, they put him on trial for

subversion, murder and a host of other crimes before a
military commission. Ninoy challenged its authority and
went on a fast if he survived it, then he felt God intended
him for another fate. We had lost him again. For nothing
would hold him back form his determination to see his fast
thorugh to the end. He stopped only when it dawned on
him that the government would keep his body alive after
the fast had destroyed his brain. And so, with barely any
life in his body, he called off the fast on the 40 th day.”

Ninoy’s death was the third and the last time that Cory and their
children lost Ninoy. She continued:

“And then, we lost him irrevocably and more painfully

than in the past. The news came to us in Boston. It had to
be after the three happiest years of our lives together. But
his death was my country’s resurrection and the courage
and faith by which alone they could be free again. The
dictator ahd called him a nobody. Yet, two million people
threw aside their passivity and fear and escorted him to his
grave.”

Cory attributed the peaceful EDSA Revolution to the martyrdom of

Ninoy. She stated that the death of Ninoy sparked the revolution and the
responsibility of “offering the democratic alternative” had “fallen on (her)
 45

shoulders.” Cory’s address introduced us to her democratic philosophy,

which she claimed she also acquired from Ninoy. She argued:

“I held fast to Ninoy’s conviction that it must be by the

ways of democracy. I held out for participation in the 1984
election the dictatorship called, even if I knew it would be
rigged. I was warned by the lawyers of the opposition, that
I ran the grave risk of legitimizing the foregone results of
election that were clearly going to be fraudulent. But I was
not fighting for lawyers but for the people in whose
intelligence, I had implicit faith. By the exercise of
democracy even in a dictatorship, they would be prepared
for democracy when it came. And then also, it was the only
way I knew by which we could measure our power even in
the terms dictated by the dictatorship. The people
vindicated me in an election shamefully marked by
government thuggery and fraud. The opposition swept the
elections, garnering a clear majority of the votes even if
they ended up (thanks to a corrupt Commission on
Elections) with barely a third of the seats in Parliament.
Now, I knew our power.”

Cory talked about her miraculous victory through the people’s

struggle and continued talking about her earliest initiatives as the president
of a restored democracy. She stated that she intended to forge and draw
reconciliation after a bloodly and polarizing dictatorship. Cory emphasized
the importance of the EDSA Revolution in terms of being a “limited
revolution hat respected the life and freedom of every Filipino.” She also
boasted of the restoration of a fully constitutional government whose
constitution gave utmost respect to the Bill of Rights. She reported to the U.S.
Congress:
 46

“Again as we democracy by the ways of democracy, so are

we completing the constitutional structures of our new
democracy under a constitution that already gives full
respect to the Bill of Rights. A jealously independent
constitutional commission is completing its draft which
will be submitted later this year to a popular referendum.
When it is approved, there will be elections for both
national and local positions. So, within about a year from a
peaceful but national upheaval that overturned a
dictatorship, we shall have returned to full constitutional
government.”

Cory then proceeded on her peace agenda with the existing

communist insurgency, aggravated by the dictatorial and authoritarian
measure of Ferdinand Marcos. She asserted:

“My predecessor set aside democracy to save it from a

communist insurgency that numbered less than five
hundred. Unhampered by respect for human rights he
went at it with hammer and tongs. By the time he fled, that
insurgency had grown to more than sixteen thousand. I
think there is a lesson here to be learned about trying to
stifle a thing with a means by which it grows.”

Cory’s peace agenda involves political initiatives and re-integration

program to persuade insurgents to leave the countryside and return to the
mainstream society to participate in the restoration of democracy. She
invoked the path of peace because she believed that it was the moral path that
a moral government must take. Nevertheless, Cory took a step back when she
said that while peace is the priority of her presidency, she “will not waiver”
when freedom and democracy are threatened. She said that, similar to
Abraham Lincoln, she understands that “force may be necessary before
 47

mercy” and while she did not relish the idea, she “will do whatever it takes to
defend the integrity and freedom of (her) country.”

Cory then turned to the controversial topic of the Philippine foreign

debt amounting to $26 billion at the time of her speech. This debt had
ballooned during the Marcos regime. Cory expressed her intention to honor
those debts despite mentioning that the people did not benefit from such
debts. Thus, she mentioned her protestations about the way the Philippines
was deprived of choices to pay those debts within the capacity of the Filipino
people. she lamented:

“Finally may I turn to that other slavery, our twenty-six

billion dollar foreign debt. I have said that we shall honor
it. Yet, the means by which we shall be able to do so are
kept form us. Many of the conditions imposed on the
previous government that stole this debt, continue to be
imposed on us who never benefited from it.”

She continued that while the country had experienced the calamities
brought about by the corrupt dictatorship of Marcos, no commensurate
assistance was yet to be extended to the Philippines. She even remarked that
given the peaceful character of EDSA People Power Revolution, “our must
have been the cheapest evolution ever.” She demonstrated that Filipino
people fulfilled the “most difficult condition of the debt negotiation,” which
was the “restoration of democracy and responsible government.”

Cory related to the U.S. legislators that wherever weh went, she met
poor and unemployed Filipinos willing to offer their lives for democracy. She
stated:

“Wherever I went in the campaign, slum area or

impoverished village. They came to me with one cry,
democracy. Not food although they clearly needed I but
democracy. Not work, although they surely wanted it but
 48

democracy. Not money, for they gave what little they had
to my campaign. They didn’t expect me to work a miracle
that would instantly put food into their mouths, clothes on
their back, education in their children and give them work
that will put dignity in their lives. But I feel the pressing
obligation to respond quickly as the leader of the people so
deserving of all these things.”

Cory proceeded in enumerating the challenges of the Filipino people

as they tried building the new democracy. These were the persisting
communist insurgency and the economic deterioration. Cory further
lamented that these problems worsened by the crippling debt because half of
the country’s export earnings amounting to $2 billion would “go to pay just
the interest on a debt whose benefit the Filipino people never received.” Cory
then asked a rather compelling question to the U.S. Congress:

“Has there been a greater test of national commitment to

the ideals you hold dear than that my people have gone
through? Yu have spent many lives and much treasure to
bring freedom to many lands that were reluctant to receive
it. And here, you have a people who want it by themselves
and need only the help to preserve it.”

Cory ended her speech by thanking America for serving as home to her
family for what she referred to as the “three happiest years of our lives
together.” She enjoined America in building the Philippines as a new home
for democracy and in turning the country as a “shining testament of our two
nations’ commitment to freedom.”
 49

Analysis of Cory Aquino’s Speech

Cory Aquino’s speech was an important event in the political and

diplomatic history of the country because it has arguably cemented the
legitimacy of the EDSA government in the international arena. The speech
talks of her family background, especially her relationship with her late
husband, Ninoy Aquino. It is well known that it was Ninoy who served as
the real leading figure of the opposition at that time. Indeed, Ninoy’s
eloquence and charisma could very well compete with that of Marcos. In her
speech, Cory talked at length about Ninoy’s toil and suffering at the hands of
the dictatorship that he resisted. Even when she proceeded talking about her
new government, she still went back to Ninoy’s legacies and lessons.
Moreover, her attribution of the revolution to Ninoy’s death demonstrates not
only Cory’s personal perception on the revolution, but since she was the
president, it also represents what the dominant discourse was at that point in
our history.

The ideology or the principles of the new democratic government

can also be seen in the same speech. Aquino was able to draw the sharp
contrast between her government and of her predecessor by expressing her
commitment to a democratic constitution drafted by an independent
commission. She claimed that such constitution upholds and adheres to the
rights and liberty of the Filipino people. Cory also hoisted herself as the
reconciliatory agent after more than two decades of a polarizing authoritarian
politics. For example, Cory saw the blown-up communist insurgency as a
product of a repressive and corrupt government. Her response to this
insurgency rooted from her diametric opposition of the dictator (i.e., initiating
reintegration of communist rebels of the mainstream Philippine society). Cory
claimed that her main approach to this problem was though peace and not
through the sword of war.
 50

Despite Cory’s efforts to hoist herself as the exact opposite of

Marcos, her speech still revealed certain parallelisms between her and the
Marcos’s government. This is seen in terms of continuing the alliance between
the Philippines and the United States despite the known affinity between the
said world super power and Marcos. The Aquino regime, as seen in Cory’s
acceptance of the invitation to address the U.S. Congress and to the content of
the speech, decided to build and continue with the alliance between the
Philippines and the United States and effectively implemented an essentially
similar foreign policy to that of the dictatorship. For example, Cory
recognized that the large sum of foreign debts incurred by the Marcos regime
never benefitted the Filipino people. Nevertheless, Cory expressed her
intention to pay off those debts. Unknown to many Filipinos was the fact that
there was a choice of waiving the said debt because those were the debt of the
dictator and not of the country. Cory’s decision is an indicator of her
government’s intention to carry on a debt-driven economy.

Reading through Aquino’s speech, we can already take cues, not

just on Cory’s individual ideas and aspirations, but also the guiding
principles and framework of the government that she represented.
 51

Assessment #1

Direction: Answer the following questions in not more or less than 5

sentences.

1. Watch the speech of Cory Aquino. Describe the scene. How was the
speech? How did the audience react to her half-hour-long address?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

2. How did the speech affect you as a viewer? In what way would it be
rendered relevant to the current conditions of our country? Cite
specific lines form the speech.
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________

3. What are the points in her speech that you agree and disagree with?
Which lines hit home?
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
 52

References:

Aquino, C. (1986). “Restoring Democracy by the Ways of

Democracy.” In
http://www.coryaquino.ph/index.php/works/article/353b89aa-
f2dc-11df-b3cf-001617d76479. Retrived 18 May 2017.

Bautista, A. (1898). “Declaration of the Philippine Independence.”

Trans. Sulpicio Guevarra in The Laws of the First Philippine Republic
1972. Manila :National Historical Commission.

Candelaria, J. L. (2018). Readings in Philippine history

Jacinto, E. (1986). “Kartilya ng Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan.”

Trans. Gregorio Nieva, 1918. Text from Philippine Center for Masonic
Studies,

http://www.philippinemasonry.org/kartilya-ng-katipnan.html.
Retrieved 18 October 2017.

McCoy, A., & Roces, A. (1985). Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature

of the American Era, 1900-1941. Quezon City: Vera-Reyes.

Pigafetta, A. (1874). The First Voyage Around the World by Magellan.

trans. Lord Stanley of Alderley. London: Hakluyt Society.

Torres, J. V. (2018). Batis: Sources in Philippine history.

 53

Chapter Exercises

A. True or False. Write true if the statement is true. Otherwise,

write false in the space provided.

_____ 1. Non-written documents are not usefl as primary sources in

conducting historical research.

_____ 2. The assassination of Ninoy Aquino is an important historical

event that fueled people’s anger and condemnation of the
dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

_____ 3. Apolinario Mabini penned the “Kartilya ng Katipunan.”

_____ 4. Magellan and his fleet received a warm welcome form all of
the chieftains and local leaders in the Philippine Islands.

_____ 5. The Americans radically altered the social structure in the

Philippines after they took over from Spain in terms of
socioeconomic equality.

_____ 6. The “Proclamation of Philippine Independence” reflects the

social and economic discontent of the masses about land
ownership and other agrarian issues.

_____ 7. The enmity between Aguinaldo and Bonifacio did not affect
how the former’s revolutionary government credited
Bonifacio to the beginnings of the Philippine Revolution.

_____ 8. Corazon Aquino did not want to forge alliance with the
United States because the latter was a known important ally
of Marcos.

_____ 9. The conservative attitude of the youth toward sexuality did

not chage since the Spanish period until the 1930s.
 54

_____ 10. The forces of Magellan were successful in defeating and

conquering Lapulapu.

B. Critical Essay. Identify a primary source in Philippine history

from the examples provided in this chapter. Write an essay
discussing (1) the importance of the text, (2) the background of
the text’s author, (3) the context of the document, and (4) the
text’s contribution to understanding Philippine history.
 55

References:

Aquino, C. (1986). “Restoring Democracy by the Ways of

Democracy.” In
http://www.coryaquino.ph/index.php/works/article/353b89aa-
f2dc-11df-b3cf-001617d76479. Retrived 18 May 2017.

Bautista, A. (1898). “Declaration of the Philippine Independence.”

Trans. Sulpicio Guevarra in The Laws of the First Philippine Republic
1972. Manila :National Historical Commission.

Candelaria, J. L. (2018). Readings in Philippine history

Jacinto, E. (1986). “Kartilya ng Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan.”

Trans. Gregorio Nieva, 1918. Text from Philippine Center for Masonic
Studies, http://www.philippinemasonry.org/kartilya-ng-
katipnan.html. Retrieved 18 October 2017.

McCoy, A., & Roces, A. (1985). Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature

of the American Era, 1900-1941. Quezon City: Vera-Reyes.

Pigafetta, A. (1874). The First Voyage Around the World by Magellan.

trans. Lord Stanley of Alderley. London: Hakluyt Society.

Torres, J. V. (2018). Batis: Sources in Philippine history.

56