CHAPTER 6

ANNOTATION OF ANTONIO MORGA’S

SUCESOS DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:
1. analyze Rizal‟s ideas on how to rewrite Philippine history
2. compare and contrast Rizal and Morga‟s different views about Filipinos and
Philippine culture

Class Activity:
1. Read the introduction and last chapter of Rizal‟s Annotation of Antonio Morga‟s
Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas
2. Read: “A Legacy of the Propaganda: The Tripartite View of Philippine History” by
Zeus Salazar

Background
Among Rizal‟s works that typically
shown his nationalistic sentiments, his
annotations of Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas by
Antonio Morga was not as popular as his two
novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo.
We can actually say that his annotations of
Sucesos is as equally-important as all his works.
As Ocampo in his article published in
Philippines Studies would say, it shows that
there is history of the Philippines before the
time of colonization.
Photo taken by Ambeth Ocampo

Rizal’s Propositions
Rizal agued in three main propositions in his annotations: 1) The inhabitants of the
Philippines has a culture even before Spanish colonization; 2) Filipinos then, were depressed,
oppressed and marginalized by mechanism of colonization and; 3) Philippines at present was
not necessarily more ahead than to its past.

71
 In these arguments, we can see how much in favor is Rizal in the history of his
motherland. He insisted on the importance of knowing the cultural identity Filipinos have
even before colonization. Basing his arguments on the notes of a Spanish conquistador
himself (Morga), he has supported in full conviction the state of the Philippines and its people
under the rule of the colonizers. That, even if the Philippines was largely Hispanized because
of more than 300 years of colonization, Filipinos and the Philippines itself can equally be
proud of the pre-conquest past with its culture and existence.

Rizal‟s annotation of the Morga shows his social scientist side, most especially his side
of being a historian. Even if it is a question whether his work (being a mere annotation of
somebody else‟s work) can be a contribution in Philippine historiography, we cannot argue
for the fact that he was a nationalist in his arguments. Although in the streams of historical
writing, what he had written was somewhat invaluable because of it being as secondary
source. As what Ocampo has written in his journal article:

Rizal‟s annotation are largely disregarded today stems basically from

the recent advances in historical, archeological and ethnographic
research. Although many of Rizal‟s assertions have been validated by
recent research, the fact is that his work is now dated. Moreover Rizal‟s
annotations are secondary, and today‟s scholars concentrate more on
the primary source, Morga, than on Rizal‟s notes. Few Filipinos today,
even the most patriotic, would find the time and energy to read the
small text of Rizal‟s footnotes, even if penned by the national hero
(Ocampo, 1998).

Rizal‟s views on pre-conquest past were valid if and only if we have to look into his
nationalistic ideals. However, there are some notes on Morga which were validated by today‟s
scholars which are exaggerations on the part of Rizal so as not to deviate in his major
argument. Some examples were actually mentioned in Ocampo‟s article. For the matter, it
was however obvious why he made those inconsistencies. Morga, being a Spanish who
actually, according to Rizal made one of the most accurate accounts of history before and
during Spanish colonization, had still his own biases in writing. Other writers would even
immortalize almost everything because it is their way of pacifying the Filipino natives. How
religious groups (religious missionaries, the first three before the Jesuits) have made stories
just to get convert everyone is something Rizal, himself recent. His choice of annotating the
work of Morga has somehow show his anti-clergy sentiments and that would also show,
ironically his own bias in how history is portrayed during Spanish colonization. As Ocampo
would say: Rizal maintained mixed feelings for the Morga, depending on its usefulness for his
thesis, that, „Spanish colonization retarded, rather than brought civilization to, the Philippines
and its inhabitants‟ (Ocampo, 1998).

72
Conclusion

Rizal‟s annotation of Sucesos delas Islas Filipinas is a gem in the stream of Philippine
historiography. He did well in his ambitions of giving justice in the pre-colonial life of the
Filipinos. His patriotism was very evident in this piece and he did not get away in his
personality in doing this work. He also has set a good example in doing making researches
(thus having his social scientist side).

Among many Spanish writers who had so much interest in writing about the
Philippines and his people, he chose Morga because he believes he was less biased than those
from the religious orders. Morga had connections to the Spanish government being a
lieutenant but he was not a part of the church. He also chose Morga because of his wide
experience in the different places and cultures in the Philippines. And as what Rizal has said
in his annotations, it is very much evident in the accounts made by Morga that our country
can stand in terms of the richness of culture even without the influence of the Spaniards.

Rizal has his own biases in writing his annotations, but he was never unaware of his
arguments and he never get away in his love for his country and countrymen. And more
importantly, Rizal began the task of writing the first Philippine history from the viewpoint of
a Filipino. (Ocampo, 1998).

73