Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Debate Pugadlawin Balintawak
Debate Pugadlawin Balintawak
Debate Pugadlawin Balintawak
INTRODUCTION
OPEN STATEMENT
From the book entitled” Revolt of the Masses” (1956) by Teodoro Agoncillo .It
was in Pugadlawin where they proceeded upon leaving Samson’s place in the
afternoon of the 22nd , that the more than 1000 members of the Katipunan met in
the yard of Juan A. Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino. In the morning of August 23rd
, considerable discussion arose whether the revolt against the Spanish government
should be started on the 29th . One man protested, but he was overruled in his
stand .Bonifacio the announced the decision and shouted “Brothers , it was agreed
to continue with the plan of revolt. My brothers , do you swear to repudiate the
government that oppress us?” and the rebels shouting , as one man replied, “Yes ,
Sir!” then Bonifacio added, “ Bring out your cedulas and tear them to pieces to
symbolizes our determination to take arms!” Amidst the ceremony, the rebels in
their tear- strained eyes, shouted “Long live the Philippines! Long live the
Katipunan!”
ARGUMENT 1
THE CRY OF BALINTAWAK OCCURRED ON AUGUST 26, 1896
According to Dr. Milagros Guerrero, Ramon Villegas and Emmanuel
Encarnacion, all these mention places are in Balintawak or Caloocan.
ARGUMENT 2
Argument 3
There are only one eye witness which clearly stated that the “unang sigaw ng
himagsikan”
Accounts:
Lt. Olegario Diaz – August 25, 1896
Teodoro Kalaw – last week of August 1896 at Kangkong, Balintawak
Santiago Alvarez – Quezon City on August 24, 1896
Pio Valenzuela – Pugadlawin on August 23, 1896
Gregorio Zaide – Balintawak on August 26, 1896
Teodoro Agoncillo – Pugadlawin on August 23, 1896 bases on Pio Valenzuela’s
statement.
Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion and Ramon Villegas – Tandang Sora’s
barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City.
In 1970, the historian Pedro A. Gagelonia pointed out the controversy among
historians to the present day. The “Cry of Pugadlawin” claimed that happened on
August 23, 1896 cannot be accepted as historically accurate. It lacks positive
documentation and supporting evidence from the witness. The testimony of only
one eyewitness, Dr, Pio Valenzuela, is not enough to authenticate and verify a
controversial issue in history. Historians and their living participants, not
politicians and their sycophants, should settle this controversy.