Controversies and Conflicting views in

Philippine History
“One Past But Many Histories”

Reporters Group 1:
M. Clemente, A. Taruc, J.
Tamayo, A.Gatchalian, A.
Querubin, A. Vidad, C.
James, C. Aringay, D.
Santiago, J. Miranda,
R. Langaman, S. Agullana,
Z. Reyes, A. Lopez, T. Barut

-Group 1 (BsChE1B-SocSci01)
Site of the First Mass:
- On April 1, 1521 (Originally March 31) the first mass in the Philippines happened in
“Mazaua”
- Dr. Sonia M. Zaide, presented evidenes that the site of the first mass was in Limasawa
but in Masao, Butuan Agusan del Norte
- The site of the first mass was first mentioned by Maximillian Transylvanus on his “De
Moluccis” in 1523 because he interviewed the survivor of Magellan expedition.
- The survivor mentioned that they landed in “Messana” where the first mass was
officiated.
- Fr. Francisco Colin wrote a book about the spread of Christianity in the Philippines but
could not exactly determine the site but he Based in Limasawa claim because of the
writings of Antonio Herrara who based his writings to Andres San Martin that the site
was “Mazaua”
- Gian Battista Ramusio (1536) wrote a chronicle about the voyage of Magellan where he
insisted Butuan as the side of the first mass.

Retraction Of Rizal
What is Retraction?
- A public statement made about an earlier statement that withdraws, cancels, refutes or
reverses the original statement.
Rizal’s Retraction
- The letter, dated December 29, 1896 was said to have been signed by the national hero
himself. Rizal retracted because the church would not allow his marriage to Josephine
Bracken unless he refracted his masonic affiliation
- Rizal stated “I declare myself a catholic and in this religion in which I was born and
educated I wish to live and die” I retract with all my heart whatever in my words,
writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the
Catholic Church. I believe and confess whatever she demands. I abominated masonry, as
the enemy of the church, and as a society prohibited by the church. Manila 29 of
December of 1896 Jose Rizal – The Retraction Letter
- After his marriage. Rizal dedicated a Catholic Devotion book, “To my dear and unhappy
wife Josephine” (Gracia, 1964)
Main Issues concerning the retraction
- Rizal retracted his masonic affiliation
- Rizal wrote and signed the retraction
- Rizal’s marriage to Josephine

Cry of Pugadlawin or Cry of Balintawak

Side A: Cry of Balintawak
On July 11, 1869, Pio Valenzuela, a Filipino
physician and a major figure during the Philippine
Revolution against Spanish colonizers, was born
in Polo, Bulacan (present day Valenzuela
City).Valenzuela was a medical student at
theUniversity of Santos Tomas when he joined the
barely week-old Katipunan, a secret society
founded by Andres Bonifacio on July 7, 1892 in
Tondo, Manila.He secretly established Katipunan
Side B: Cry of Pugadlawin
In the midst of this dramatic scene, some
Katipuneros who had just arrived from Manila
and Kalookan shouted "Dong Andres! The civil
guards are almost behind us, and will reconnoiter
the mountains." Bonifacio at once ordered his
men to get ready for the expected attack of the
Spaniards. Since they had inferior arms the rebels
decided, instead, to retreat. Under cover of
darkness, the rebels marched towards Pasong

-Group 1 (BsChE1B-SocSci01)
 branches in many areas in Morong (nowRizal
province) and Bulacan.It was Dr. Valenzuela who
was commissioned by Bonifacio to talk to Dr.
Jose Rizal, who was deported to Dapitan in
Zamboanga, about the founding of the Katipunan
and its plan torise against the Spanish authorities.
He left for Dapitan on June 15, 1896.Rizal
however insisted that the country came first and
warned against embarking on a change of
government for which the people were not
prepared. Rizal declared that education was first
necessary, and in his opinion general
enlightenment was the only road to progress
Tamo, and the next day, August 24, they arrived
at the yard of Melchora Aquino, known as
Tandang Sora. It was decided that all the rebels in
the surrounding towns be notified of the general
attack on Manila on the night of August 29, 1896.
At ten in the morning of August 25, some women
came rushing in and notified Bonifacio that the
civil guards and some infantrymen were coming.
Soon after, a burst of fire came from the
approaching Spaniards. The rebels deployed and
prepared for the enemy. In the skirmish that
followed, the rebels lost two men and the enemy
one. Because of their inferior weapons, which
consisted mostly of bolos and a few guns, the
rebels decided to retreat. On the other hand, the
Spaniards, finding themselves greatly
outnumbered, also decided to retreat. So both
camps retreated and thus prevented a bloody
encounter. This was the first skirmish fought in
the struggle for national emancipation.

On August 26, Spanish reinforcements were

dispatched to Pasong Tamo to drive away the
rebels. But the latter, who were going to or were
already in Balara, could not be found. The
Spaniards, frustrated in their attempt to contact
the Filipino contingent, shot, instead, two
innocent farmers who were leisurely going on
their way home. Returning to Manila, the Spanish
soldiers boasted that a great fight has taken place
at Pasong Tamo, and that they had driven the
rebels to the interior. This was the origin of the
so-called "Cry of Balintawak", which neither
happened on August 26 nor in Balintawak.

Meanwhile, the rebels, skirting the mountain trails

day and night, finally arrived in Mariquina. Later
in the day, however, they abandoned it and
proceeded to Hagdang Bato on August 27. The
following day, Bonifacio issued a manifesto
inciting the people to take up the Filipino cause
and to get set for a concerted attack on the
Spaniards on August 29.

So the cry did happen in Pugad Lawin and not in Balintawak?

- In 1911 Valenzuela claimed that the Katipunan began meeting on August 22 white the
“Cry” took place on August 23rd at Apolion Samsons house in Balintawak, from 1928 to
1940 Valenzuela maintained that the Cry happened on the 24th of the house of Tandang
Sora or also known as Melchora Aquino in pugad lawin.
- Valenzuela memoirs (1964, 1978) claimed that the “Cry” took place on August 23 at the
house of Juan Ramos at Pugad Lawin as the official stand of the National Historical
Institute.
- The later accounts of Pio Valenzuela and Guillermo Masangkay on the tearing of cedulas
on August 23 are basically in agreement, but in conflicts with each other on the location.

-Group 1 (BsChE1B-SocSci01)
 - Valenzuela points to the house of Juan Ramos in Pugad Lawin, While Masangkay refers
to the Apolonio Samson’s in Kangkong in Balintawak.

Cavite Mutiny
1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective
Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it
as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. Meanwhile,
Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate
the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts
complimented and corroborated with one other, only that the general’s report was more spiteful.
Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the
workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and exemption from force labor were
the main reasons of the “revolution” as how they called it, however, other causes were
enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty
propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and
pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who
out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and enemies of
Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious
propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted
to overthrow the Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and
Zamora. The general even added that the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them
charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with
handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo,
in his report lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing.
According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated
the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated the occasion
with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign
for the attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant
Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.
When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement
of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the
expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant
Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and
were sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma.
Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High Court)
from the practice of law, arrested and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas
Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the
creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.
On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill
fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the GOMBURZA
were executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that shaped Filipino
nationalism.

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident

Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the
Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident was a mere
mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be

-Group 1 (BsChE1B-SocSci01)
dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo’s
cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges of the workers and native army members
of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of school of arts and trades for the Filipinos,
which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization of a political club.

On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and
residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the commanding
officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support from the bulk of the
army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny reached authorities in
Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite.
After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.
Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful
lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also
included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the
Spanish government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central
Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and management of educational
institutions. This turnout of events was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to do something
drastic in their dire sedire to maintain power in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain
welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of
sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree proposed
to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such
schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was warmly received by
most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.
The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took
advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy
organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera
sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the scheme was true without
any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by
Izquierdo and the friars.
Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment
while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by
garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of
Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented
Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened due to discontentment of the arsenal
workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of
the three martyr priests which he actually witnessed.

Unraveling the Truth

Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that remained
to be unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal as well as the
members of the native army after their privileges were drawn back by Gen. Izquierdo; Second,
Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid and strict policies that made the Filipinos move and turn away
from Spanish government out of disgust; Third, the Central Government failed to conduct an
investigation on what truly transpired but relied on reports of Izquierdo and the friars and the
opinion of the public; Fourth, the happy days of the friars were already numbered in 1872 when
the Central Government in Spain decided to deprive them of the power to intervene in

-Group 1 (BsChE1B-SocSci01)
government affairs as well as in the direction and management of schools prompting them to
commit frantic moves to extend their stay and power; Fifth, the Filipino clergy members
actively participated in the secularization movement in order to allow Filipino priests to take
hold of the parishes in the country making them prey to the rage of the friars; Sixth, Filipinos
during the time were active participants, and responded to what they deemed as injustices; and
Lastly, the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of the Spanish government, for
the action severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired Filipino patriots to call
for reforms and eventually independence. There may be different versions of the event, but one
thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898.

The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and
unnamed shed their bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898 may be a
glorious event for us, but we should not forget that before we came across to victory, our
forefathers suffered enough. As weenjoy our freeedom, may we be more historically aware of
our past to have a better future ahead of us. And just like what Elias said in Noli me Tangere,
may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”

Ferdinand Marcos buried at the libingan ng mga bayani

JULY 1998
 Then President Joseph Estrada abandoned his plan of finally burying Marcos at the
Libingan ng mga Bayani, supposedly scheduled on July 11, 1998, after it was met with
“various emotions and sentiments that flared up.”
APRIL 2011
 Jejomar Binay, then vice president, recommended to then president Benigno Aquino III
to let Marcos be buried in Batac City with full military honors. In 2016, Binay said that
Aquino did not act on it.
AUGUST 7, 2016
 After consistently declaring that the late dictator deserves to be buried at the Libingan ng
mga Bayani, President Rodrigo Duterte on August 7, 2016 gave the orders to go on with
the process on the grounds that he was a “former president and a soldier.” Duterte’s plan
was opposed by several stakeholders, especially by the victims of abuse during the
Martial Law period. He, however, argued that his decision was consistent with upholding
the law, stating that the Aquinos and their supporters should have passed a law banning a
hero’s burial for Marcos.
NOVEMBER 18, 2016
 Marcos’ body was interred at the Libingan ng mga Bayani after being flown from Ilocos
Norte. The exact date of the burial was never publicly confirmed prior to Friday,
November 18
Opposition
Vice President Leni Robredo, who opposed the burial, said the surprise burial showed the
Marcos family was acting “like a thief in the night.”
“(Marcos) is no hero. If he were, obviously his family would not have to hide his burial like a
shameful criminal deed.” Others said it was “a shameless betrayal.”

-Group 1 (BsChE1B-SocSci01)
hey cite a clause that states “personnel who were convicted by fine judgment of an offense
involving moral turpitude,” were disqualified, according to a statement released by the coalition.
Many young Filipinos have little or no knowledge of Marcos and martial law.

In recent years the Marcos family has re-emerged on the political scene.
Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. narrowly lost the election for Vice President of the
Philippines this year.
The late dictator’s widow, Imelda Marcos, has been elected four times to the House of
Representatives, despite ongoing controversies over the huge sums of money she and her
husband plundered from the country.

-Group 1 (BsChE1B-SocSci01)