Readings in Philippine History

UNIT 3
HISTORIC CONTROVERSIES

Figure 10. Ambeth Ocampo’s picture of Jose Rizal’s alleged retraction document. (Chua, 2016).

87
 Readings in Philippine History

 Lesson 1 

THE SITE OF THE FIRST MASS

Overview:

Philippine History is full of controversial issues. In fact some of them are still
unresolved up to the present time. Dealing with controversies takes extra care because
historians who have raised their arguments on them have their respective points. Moreover,
dealing with them would take great effort in reviewing historiographic approaches employed
in the gathering, analyzing and interpreting sources. The existence of discourses concerning
these controversies makes history alive and very much interesting to study.

The site of the First Mass had been the subject of heated debates for the past few
decades. There were two leading contenders on this controversy–Limasawa and Butuan.
Although the then National Historical Institute through the Gancayco Commission officially
recognized Limasawa as the site of the First Mass and although its finding was affirmed by a
committee headed by Dr. Benito J. Legarda in 2008 and recently by the Mojares Panel in
2018, the controversy still continued up to the present time due to the pieces of evidence
presented by the pro-Butuan camp.

Leaning Outcomes:

At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:

1. Apply the ability of evaluating sources by using the methods of History discussed
in Unit 1 of this module.
2. Show competence in formulating arguments in favor of or against a particular
issue through the use of primary sources.

The First Mass and the Gancayco Commission

The National Historical Institute, (NHI; now a Commission) through the Gancayco
Commission, declared that the first Catholic mass in the country was celebrated by Fr. Pedro
de Valderrama in Limasawa, in the present-day province of Southern Leyte on March 31,
1521. The Commission which was headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Emilio
Gancayco, along with Atty. Bartolome Fernandez and Dr. Maria Luisa Camagay, was tasked
to resolve a very sensitive historical issue concerning the Philippines and its people. Through
a 24-page decision, the Commission concluded that the First Mass was celebrated in
Limasawa due to the following circumstances:

88
 Readings in Philippine History

• James Robertson's English translation of the original Italian manuscript of Pigafetta's

account is considered most reliable for being ''faithful'' to the original text as duly
certified by the Department of European Language of the University of the Philippines.

• Pigafetta's Mazaua, the site of the First Catholic Mass held on Philippine soil, is an
island lying off the southwestern tip of Leyte while Masao in Butuan is not an island
but a barangay of Butuan City located in a delta of the Agusan River along the coast
of Northern Mindanao. The position of Mazaua, as plotted by Pigafetta, matched that
of Limasawa.

• The measurement of distances between Homonhon and Limasawa and between

Limasawa and Cebu, as computed by the pro-Limasawa group, matches or
approximates the description made by Pigafetta of the distances between Homonhon
and Mazaua and between Mazaua and Cebu.

• Magellan's fleet took a route from Homonhon to Mazaua and from Mazaua to Cebu
that did not at any time touch Butuan or any other part of Mindanao. The docking
facilities at Limasawa did not pose any problem for Magellan's fleet which anchored
near or at some safe distance from the island of the eastern shore.

Although the Commission submitted its findings to Dr. Samuel Tan of the National
Historical Institute on March 20, 1998, the finding was formally turned over to Limasawa
officials on March 31 of the same year on the occasion of the 478th anniversary of the First
Mass.

Reiteration through the 2009 Legarda Commission

On June 15, 2009, the National Historical Institute adopted the recommendation of this
Commission on the site of the First Mass on Philippine soil. The Commission reiterated the
conclusion of the previous Gancayco Commission which declared Limasawa as the site of the
First Mass. The Commission which was headed by Dr. Benito J. Legarda with members Fr.
Jose Cruz and Mr. Pedro Picornell aimed at re-examining the matter by conducting a hearing
on August 29, 2008 at the National Museum (NM) in order to hear the respective positions of
the Butuan and Limasawa sides. Subsequent meetings were held on January 30 and March
21, 2009 with Dr. Celestina Boncan of UP Manila and Dr. Ricardo Jose of UP Diliman. “The
committee used as bases for re-examination the timeline, direction, and duration of the sailing
routes, the presence or absence of land forms (islands and river deltas), and geographical
location by latitude as contained in the primary sources, the Gancayco Report, and the study
of the late Fr. Miguel Bernad.”

The Mojares Panel

In line with the 500 years of the coming of Christianity to the Philippines, the National
Historical Commission of the Philippines and the National Quincentennial Committee created
a new panel with the view of reexamining the Butuan claim. The panel which was headed by
Dr. Resil Mojares, with Dr. Danilo Gerona from the Partido State University, Dr. Carlos Madrid
Alvarez-Piñer from the Instituto Cervantes de Manila, Fr. Antonio Francisco B. De Castro, SJ,
who represented the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), Dr. Francis
Navarro from the Ateneo de Manila University and Dr. Jose Victor Torres from the De La Salle

89
 Readings in Philippine History

University—Manila as members, conducted evaluation proceedings on December 12 and 13,

2018 in Cebu City. Through this panel, new perspectives emerged.

According to the article published at the Manila times by the historian Xiao Chua
(2019), two respondents gave their arguments: Gabriel Atega and Dr. Potenciano Malvar.
Atega argued that “the measurements as recorded in a French manuscript of the Magellan
Expedition chronicle by Antonio Pigafetta… provided accurate measurements and thus the 9
degrees 2/3 N latitude referred therein passes through Mindanao, the island of which
Magallanes, Agusan del Norte (Old Butuan) was part” (para. 10).

On the other hand, Dr. Malvar suggested that “based on the agreement of Magellan
with King Charles V, profits from trade from discovered lands will benefit Magellan’s
descendants, Pigafetta will not let other travelers accurately know the exact location of
‘Mazaua’ because the area was rich in resources” (para. 11).

In that same article, Chua mentioned that both Atega and Malvar agreed “that the site
of the Mass was a different place from Mazaua and that the clue is in an 1872 monument for
the aforementioned mass in Magallanes, Agusan del Norte. They also pointed out to [sic]
Francisco Albo’s testimony that when they planted the cross on the highest hill then, they saw
three islands west-southwest. Both of them claimed ‘that climbing the two nearest mountains
to the 1872 monument, one would see Camiguin Island west-southwest, but only its three
mountains were visible (which made them look like islands)” (para. 12).

▪
Activity▪
▪
▪
1. Create a Venn Diagram comparing the points of argument used by the Masao
side
▪ and Limasawa side in claiming that the First Easter Mass in the Philippine
occurred in their respective localities. ▪
2. Out of the arguments presented by the two sides, write a short essay stating
▪
your view on the issue.
3. Are you in favor with the conclusions made▪ by the various committees tasked
to discuss the controversy? Explain your answer.

❖

References:

Arnaiz, Jani. (1999). 1st mass controversy: It's Limasawa. Retrieved from https://www.
coursehero.com/file/35785173/1st-Mass-controversydocx/

Bernad, M. (2002). Butuan or Limasawa: The site of the First Mass in the Philippines - a
reexamination of the evidence. In Budhi: A journal of ideas and culture. Retrieved
from https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579

90
 Readings in Philippine History

Mascariñas, E. (2012, April 4). Butuan historians ask CBCP to resolve first mass
controversy in city’s favor. In MindaNews. Retrieved from https://www.mindanews.
com/top-stories/2012/04/butuan-historians-ask-cbcp-to-resolve-first-mass-
controversy-in-citys-favor/.

Chua, X. (2016). Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga bagong dokumento at pananaw. GMA News
Online. Retrieved from https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/artandculture/
594027/retraction-ni-jose-rizal-mga-bagong-dokumento-at-pananaw/story/

Chua, X. (2019). The Mojares panel. Manila Times. Retrieved from

https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/01/20/opinion/columnists/the-mojares-
panel/499056/.

Schreurs, P. (1981). The first mass site revisited. In Philippine quarterly of culture and
society (9, No. 3, pp. 192-216). University of San Carlos Publications.

91
 Readings in Philippine History

 Lesson 2 

THE CAVITE MUTINY

Overview

The Cavite Mutiny or what was more popularly known among the Spaniards as La
Algarada Caviteña was a brief uprising of some Filipino soldiers and laborers who served the
Spanish armed forces in Fort San Felipe in the Province of Cavite. The soldiers and laborers
had the nerve to instigate a mutiny due to their belief that it could be escalated into a
nationwide uprising. However, it was easily crushed by the Spanish military and thus
repressed the burgeoning of the initial nationalist movement in the country.

The uprising, though not that sprawling, was magnified into an issue of national interest
by Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo and was made as an excuse in order to crack down
the Filipinos who enjoyed the atmosphere of liberalism during the time of Carlos Maria de la
Torre y Navacerrada. A number of secularists who campaigned for reforms were arrested
because of the alleged support they provided among the mutineers. Several priests and
intellectuals were arrested including Fr. Jose Burgos, Fr. Jacinto Zamora and Fr. Mariano
Gomez. While the others were banished in the deserted Marianas and the Carolines, the
three priests would be executed in Bagumbayan.

Leaning Outcomes:

At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:

1. Apply the ability of evaluating sources by using the methods of History discussed
in Unit 1 of this module.
2. Show competence in formulating arguments in favor of or against a particular
issue through the use of primary sources.

The Versions of the Report

There are three versions of the report: (1) the Spanish Version made by Jose Montero
y Vidal, (2) the Filipino Version written by T.H. Pardo de Tavera and (3) the Official Report of
Governor General Rafael de Izquirdo. The versions used in this module are the English
translations included in the Volume 7 of the Documentary Sources of Philippine History which
was compiled by the late historian Greogio Zaide and published by the National Bookstore,
Inc. in 1990. For the students reading convenience, the brief copies of the reports have been
included here.

92
 Readings in Philippine History

Figure 11:
Photo of the
Spanish arsenal
in Cavite taken
during the
American
Period.
(Retrieved from
http://www.wata
wat.net/the-
cavite-
mutiny.html).

93
Readings in Philippine History

94
Readings in Philippine History

95
Readings in Philippine History

96
 Readings in Philippine History

Biases of the Reports

According to the historian Gregorio Zaide (1990), Jose Montero y Vidal’s report on the
Cavite Mutiny was bias against the Filipinos and the Jesuits and it supports the official report
of Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo. In spite of that, however, his account remains as
one of the surviving accounts about the uprising.

Zaide also related the observation of the American historian James LeRoy who noticed
the bias version of Montero y Vidal. Zaide quotes LeRoy with the following words: “The
usually sober and colorless Montero y Vidal becomes very rabid in his recital of the Cavite
episode in the Philippine History and is very positive not only in denouncing the priests who
were executed and the deportees as guilty, but in proclaiming their movement as actually
separatist in character. He ridicules at length the account of the Frenchman Plauchut. But
Plauchut, as well as Montery y Vidal, was a resident in or near Manila at the time of the
occurrences.” Indeed, no matter how objectively a person is when his personal interest and
that of his country is put at risk, that person might become unreasonable and defend his
concerns at whatever means.

Considered historian during his time, Montero y Vidal was a government official who
resided in Manila. Among his works are: El Archipelago Filipino y las islas Marianas,
Carolinas y Palaos: Su historia, geografica y estadistica; Historia general de Filipinas desde
el descubrimiento de dichas islas hasta nuestras dias (3 volumes); and, Historia de la pirateria
Malayo-mahometina de Mindanao, Jolo y Borneo (2 volumes). All of his works were published
in Madrid respectively in 1886, from 1887 to 1895 and in 1888 (Zaide, 1990).

97
Readings in Philippine History

98
Readings in Philippine History

99
Readings in Philippine History

100
Readings in Philippine History

101
Readings in Philippine History

102
Readings in Philippine History

103
 Readings in Philippine History

Figure 12. Map of Cavite Arsenal. (Retrieved from http://www.watawat.net/

the-cavite-mutiny.html).

104
Readings in Philippine History

105
Readings in Philippine History

106
Readings in Philippine History

107
 Readings in Philippine History

Figure 13. Sergeant Fernando La Madrid, a Figure 14. An Indian carpenter of the Cavite
mestizo who served as one of the leaders in the Arsenal. (Retrieved from http://www.watawat.
Cavite Mutiny. (Retrieved from http://www. net/the-cavite-mutiny.html).
watawat.net/the-cavite-mutiny.html).

108
Readings in Philippine History

109
 Readings in Philippine History

Figure 15. Fathers

Gomez, Burgos and
Zamora, the martyrs
of Filipinism.
(Retrieved from
https://www.bayaniart
.com/gomburza/).

Activity

Given the full texts of the versions of their accounts on the Cavite Mutiny, make a
matrix on their differences [and similarities, if any] following the matrix below.

Differences of Versions of…

arguments in terms T.H. Pardo de
of the following: Montero y Vidal Rafael de Izquierdo
Tavera
Description of the
event
Reasons for instigating
the mutiny
Description of the
mutineers
Response of the colonial
government
Implication of the
GomBurZa
❖

110
 Readings in Philippine History

References

Coates, A. (1992). Rizal: Filipino nationalist and patriot. Solidaridad Publishing House.

GOMBRUZA. (n.d.). Bayani Art. Retrieved from https://www.bayaniart.com/gomburza/.

Izquierdo, R. (1990). Official report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite mutiny. In Gregorio
Zaide (Ed.), Documentary sources of Philippine history (Vol. 7, pp. 281-286).
Navotas: National Bookstore, Inc.

Pardo de Tavera, T. H. (1990). Filipino version of the Cavity mutiny. In Gregorio Zaide (Ed.),
Documentary sources of Philippine history (Vol. 7, pp. 274-280). Navotas: National
Bookstore, Inc.

Montero y Vidal, J. (1990). Spanish version of the Cavity mutiny. In Gregorio Zaide (Ed.),
Documentary sources of Philippine history (Vol. 7, pp. 269-273). Navotas: National
Bookstore, Inc.

Quibuyen, F. C. (2008). A nation aborted: Rizal, American hegemony and Philippine

nationalism. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

The Cavite mutiny. (n.d.). Watawat. Retrieved from http://www.watawat.net/the-cavite-

mutiny.html.

111