READINGS IN PHILIPINE HISTORY

Enrique G. Santos
Mario F. Diozon
Francisco C. Doble
Arthur Robert P. Limongco
 Table of Contents

Module 5: Historical Interpretation

Introduction 67
Learning Objectives 67
Lesson 1. Interpretation 68
1.1 Case Study - Site of the First Mass 68
1.2 Case Study - Cavite Mutiny 70

Module 6: Historical Mutliperspectivity

Introduction 83
Learning Objectives 83
Lesson 1. Mutliperspectivity 84
1.1 Case Study - Retraction of Rizal 84
1.2 Case Study - Cry of Rebellion 88

Module 7: The Philippine Constitution

Introduction 96
Learning Objectives 96
Lesson 1. Evolution of the Philippine Constitution 97
1.1 1897 Constitution of the Biak-Na-Bato 97
1.2 1899 Malolos Constitution 98
1.3 1935 The Commonwealth Constitution 100
1.4 1973 Constitutional Authoritarianism 103
1.5 1987 Constitution 107
1.6 Attempts to Amend the 1987 Constitution 108

Module 8: Agrarian Reform

Introduction 114
Learning Objectives 114
Lesson 1: Agrarian Reform 115
1.1 Landownership (Spanish Period) 115
1.2 Landownership (American Period) 117
1.3 Post War Intervention 118
1.4. Agrarian Reform (Marcos Regime) 120
1.5 Agrarian Reform (Post 1986) 122
1.6 CARPER and the Future of Agrarian Reform 123
In the Philippines
 List of Figures

Figure Description

5.1 First Catholic Mass 68

5.2 Execution of GOMBURZA 70
5.3 Jose Montero y Vidal 71
5.4 Governor Rafael Izquierdo 72
5.5 Trinidad Pardo de Tavera 74
5.6 Edmund Plauchut 76
6.1 Retraction of Rizal 83
6.2 Cry of Rebellion 87
7.1 Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo (Revolutionist) 96
7.2 Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo (President) 97
7.3 Pres. Manuel Quezon 99
7.4 Pres. Ferdinand Marcos 102
7.5 Pres. Corazon Aquino 104
 MODULE 5
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION

This module will attempt to analyze two historiographical problems in Philippine History. It
will attempt to apply what you have learned in the work of the historian and the process of
historical inquiry. As students, you have been introduced to history as a discipline, historical
method, and the content and context analysis of primary sources. Thus, you are now going to
make use of two historical concepts namely Interpretation and Multiperpectivity. The two primary
documents that we are going to investigate are the Site of the First Mass and the Cavite Mutiny.
Attention is focus more on the interpretation of historical events.

Learning Outcomes

1. To interpret historical events using primary sources;

2. To recognize the multiplicity of interpretation that can be read from historical text; and
3. To identify the advantages and disadvantages not employing critical tools in
interpreting historical events using primary sources.

67
Lesson 1. Interpretation

Historical interpretation is an explanation or establishment of the meaning or significance

of something that happened in the past. But interpretation of the past vary according to who reads
the primary source, when it was read and how it was read. Students of history must be well
equipped in recognizing different types of interpretation and why they differ from each other and
how to sift them to historical evaluations. Interpretation of historical events change over time and
it is important that students of history must have the skill in tracking these changes in an attempt
to understand the past (Candelaria, 2018).

1. 1 Case Study - Site of the First Mass

Where did the first Catholic Mass take place in the Philippines?

Figure 5.1 First Catholic Mass (2020)

Source: https://www.mypope.com.ph/first-easter-sunday-mass-held-in-limasawa-island/ (2020)

Bernard (1981) relayed the controversy regarding the site of the first Mass ever
celebrated on Philippine soil. Pigafetta tells us that it was held on Easter Sunday, the 31" of March
1521, on an island called "Mazaua." Two native chieftains were in attendance: the rajah of
Mazaua and the rajah of Butuan. After the Mass the party went up a little hill and planted a wooden
cross upon its summit. The subject of controversy is the identity of this place which Pigafetta calls
"Mazaua." There are two conflicting claims as to its identity: one school of thought points to the
little island south of Leyte which in the maps is called Limasawa; the other school rejects that

68
claim and points instead to the beach called Masao at the mouth of the Agusan River in northern
Mindanao, near what was then the village now the city of Butuan.

Candelaria (2018) stated that the popularity of knowing where the First Mass"
happened in history has been an easy way to trivialize history, but this case study will not focus
on the significance (or lack thereof) of the site of the first Catholic Mass in the Philippines, but
rather use it as a historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence and interpretation in
reading historical events.

Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. In fact, this has been the
case for three centuries, culminating in the erection of a monument in 1872 near Agusan River,
which commemorates the expedition's arrival and celebration of Mass on 8 April 1521. The
Butuan claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century, together with the
increasing scholarship on the history of the Philippines, a more nuanced reading of the available
evidence was made, which brought to light more considerations in going against the more
accepted interpretation of the first Mass in the Philippines, made both by Spanish and Filipino
scholars. It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that historians refer to in
identifying the site of the first Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot of one of
Magellan's ship, Trinidad. He was one of the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on
the ship Victoria after they circumnavigated the world. Albo's account of the location of Mazaua
fits the location of the island of Limasawa, at the southern tip of Leyte, 9°54'N. Also, But Albo did
not mention the first Mass, The other, and the more complete, was the account by Antonio
Pigafetta, like Albo was a member of Magellan’s expedition and an eye witness of the events,
particularly the first mass. and made mention of the planting of the cross upon a mountain-top
from which could be seen three islands to the west and southwest, which also fits the southern
end of Limasawa (Candelaria, 2018).

It is therefore concluded that both Albo and Pigafetta’s testimonies coincide and
corroborate each other, Pigafetta only gave more details on what they did during their weeklong
stay at Limasawa. Although some still believed that the first mass happened in Butuan and made

69
mention of a river (Agusan River). It should be explained that it was done after Magellan’s death
(Candelaria et al., 2018).

1.2 Case Study: Cavite Mutiny (What happened in the Cavite Mutiny?)

Figure 5.2 Execution of GOMBURZA

Source:http://horaciodelacosta.blogspot.com/2016/10/gomez-burgos-and-zamora-priests-and.html (2016)

Agoncillo (2010) stated that the Cavite Mutiny broke out during the tenure of Rafael de
Izquierdo who had dramatic ally, said upon his arrival, "I shall govern with a cross on one hand a
sword in the other." Galvanized by discontent against the Spaniards, some 200 Filipino soldiers,
joined in by some workers in the arsenal of the artillery corps led by Sgt. La Madrid, guard at Fort
San Felipe, mutinied in the night of January 1872. The year was of two historic events: the Cavite
Mutiny and the martyrdom of the three priests, Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto
Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are very important milestones in
Philippine history and have caused ripples throughout time, directly influencing the decisive
events of the Philippine Revolution toward the end of the century. While the significance is
unquestioned, what made this year controversial is the different sides of the story, n battle of
perspectives supported by primary sources. In this case study, we zoom in to the events of the
Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos of that time
(Agoncillo, 2010).

70
 The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal centered on how the
event was an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in the Philippines. Although
regarded as a historian, his account of the mutiny was criticized as woefully biased and rabid for
a scholar. Another account from the official report written by Governor General Rafael Izquierdo.
Implicated the native clergy, who where then active in the movements towards secularization of
the parishes. The two accounts collaborated each other (Candelaria, 2018).

Excerpts from Montero's Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Figure 5.3 Jose Montero y Vidal

From http://www.dipalme.org/Servicios/IEA/edba.nsf/xlecturabiografias.xsp?ref=344 (2020)

The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of exemption from
the tribute was, according to some, the cause of the insurrection. There were, however, other
causes. The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne: the propaganda carried on by
an unbridled press against monarchical principles, attentatory sic of the most sacred respects
towards the dethroned majesty, the democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the
speeches and preaching of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the outbursts of the
American publicists and the criminal policy of the senseless Governor whom the Revolutionary
government sent to govern the Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas were the
determining circumstances which gave rise, among certain Filipinos, to the idea of attaining their
independence. It was towards this goal that they started to work with the powerful assistance of

71
a certain section of the native clergy, who out of spite toward friars, made common cause with
the enemies of the mother country (Jiongco, 2020).

At various times but especially in the beginning of year 1872, the authorities received
anonymous communications with the information that a great uprising would break out against
the Spaniards, the minute the fleet at Cavite left for the South, and that all would be assassinated,
including the friars. But nobody gave importance to these notices. The conspiracy had been going
on since the days of La Torre with utmost secrecy. At times, the principal leaders met either in
the house of Filipino Spaniard, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, or in that of the native priest. Jacinta
Zamora, and these meetings were usually attended by the curate of Bacoor, the soul of the
movement, whose energetic character and immense wealth enabled him to exercise a strong
influence (Jiongco, 2020).

Figure 5.4. Governor Rafael Izquierdo

Source: https://kahimyang.com/kauswagan/articles/2429/today-in-philippine-history-september-30-1820-
governor-general-rafael-izquierdo-was-born-in-santander-spain (2020)

...It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and

prepared try the native clergy, by the mestisos and native
lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos...

72
 The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice of the
government in not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and against the usury that some
practice in documents that the Finance department gives crop owners who have to sell them at a
loss. They encouraged the rebellion by protesting what they called the injustice of having obliged
the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute starting January 1 and to render personal service,
from which they were formerly exempted (TurtlePerson, 2020)

Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to establish monarchy or a
republic, because the Indios have no word in their language to describe this different form of
government, whose head in Tagalog would be called hari: but it turns out that they would place
at the head of the government a priest... that the head selected would be,
D. Jose Burgos, or D. Jacinto Zamora

Such is the plan of the rebels, those who guided them and the means
they counted upon for its realization….

It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the revolution" the abolition of
privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from payment of tribute
and being employed in Polos y Servicios, or force Iabor. They also identified other reasons which
seemingly made the issue a lot more serious, which included the presence of the native clergy,
who, out of spite against the Spanish friars," conspired and supported the rebels. Izquierdo, in an
obviously biased report, highlighted that attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines, to install a new hari in the persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. According to him,
native clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail
because they have God's support aside from promises of lofty rewards such as employment,
wealth, and ranks in the army (TurtlePerson, 2020).

In the Spaniard's accounts, the event of 1972 was premeditated, and is part of a big
conspiracy among the educated leaders, mestizos, lawyers, and residents of Manila and Cavite.
They allegedly plan to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers, then kill the friars. The signal they

73
identify among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired from Intramuros
(TurtlePerson, 2020).

The account detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast
of the Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were some fireworks display. The Caviteños allegedly
mistook this as the signal to commence with the attack. The 200-men contingent led by Sergeant
Lamadrid attacked Spanish offices at sight and seized the arsenal. Izquierdo, upon learning of
the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The
"revolution" was easily crushed, when the Manileños who were expected to aid the Caviteños did
not arrive. Leaders of the plot were killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos
and Zamora were tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be executed. Others who were
implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Bass, and other
Pilipino lawyers were suspended from the practice of law, arrested and sentenced to life
imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and
ordered the creation of an artillery force composed exclusively by Peninsulares (Smaugazz,
2020).

On 17 February 1872, GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos never

to attempt to fight the Spaniards again (Smaugazz, 2020).

Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872

Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdo and
Montero, First, the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and
researcher, who wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite and the account of
Edmund Plauchut (Piedad-Pugay, 2012).

74
 Figure 5.5. Trinidad Pardo de Tavera
From http://fyumul.blogspot.com/2012/07/trinidad-hermenegildo-pardo-de-tavera.html (2012)

This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by the Spanish
residents and by the friars (Nuguid, 2020). The Central Government in Madrid had announced its
intention to deprive the friars in these islands of powers.

This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by the Spanish
residents and by the friars. The Central Government in Madrid had announced its intention to
deprive the friars in these islands of powers of intervention in matters of civil government and of
the direction and management of the university. it was due to these facts and promises that the
Filipinos had great hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their country, while the friars, on the
other hand, feared that their power in the colony would soon be complete a thing of the past.

Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain,

and the only suspiration of the people was to secure the material and
education advancement of the country..

According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and
laborers of the Cavite arsenal. Soldiers and laborers of the arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising
from the draconian policies of Izquierdo, such as the abolition of privileges and the prohibition of

75
the founding of the school of arts and trades for Filipinos, which the General saw as a
smokescreen to creating a political club.

Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a
way to address other issues by blowing out of proportion the isolated mutiny attempt (Charity,
2020). During this time, the Central Government in Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of
all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and direction and management of
educational institutions. The friars needed something to justify their continuing dominance in the
country, and the mutiny provided such Opportunity.

However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational decree fusing

sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree aimed
to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these
schools to be filled by competitive examinations, an improvement welcomed by most Filipinos.
Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut complemented Tavera's account
and analyzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny (Coursehero, 2020).

Figure 5-6. Edmund Plauchut

From https://chateauducoudray.jimdo.com/les-h%C3%B4tes-du-coudray/edmond-plauchut/ (n.d)

76
 General La Torre created a junta composed of high officials...including some friars and six
Spanish officials (Coursehero, 2020). At the same time there was created by the government in
Madrid a committee to investigate the same problems submitted to the Manila committee. When
the two finished work, it was found that they came to the same conclusions. Here is the summary
of the reforms they considered necessary to introduce:

1. Changes in tariff rates at custom, and the methods of collection (Coursehero, 2020)
2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
3. Reduction of export fees.
4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy freedom
of worship, and operate commercial transports flying the Spanish flag
5. Establishment of an advisory Council to inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in
Madrid on the necessary reforms to be implemented (Coursehero, 2020)
6. Changes in primary and secondary education. Establishment of an Institute of Civil
Administration in the Philippines, rendering unnecessary the sending home of short-
term civil officials every time there is a change of ministry
7. Study of direct-tax system.
8. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly

...The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo... put a sudden end to all dreams of
reforms... the prosecutions instituted by the new Governor General were probably
expected as a result of the bitter disputes between the Filipino clerics and the friars.
Such a policy must really end in a strong desire on the part of the other to repress
cruelly.

In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should be in Manila a

Society of Arts and Trades to be opened in March of 1871... to repress the growth
of liberal teachings, General Izquierdo suspended the opening of the school... the
day previous to the scheduled inauguration (Jiongco, 2020).

77
 The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public roads construction
and pay taxes every year. But those who were employed at the maestranza of the
artillery, in the engineering shops and arsenal of Cavite, were exempted from this
obligation from time immemorial.
Without preliminaries of any kind, a decree by the Governor withdrew
from such old employees their retirement privileges and declassified them
into the ranks of those who work on public roads (Coursehero, 2020).
The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement their dominance,
which has started to show cracks because of the discontent of the Filipinos. They showcased the
mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish
Government. Unintentionally, and more so prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 resulted to
the martyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way to the revolution culminating in 1898
(Coursehero, 2012).

78
 Assessment Task 5-1

A. Instruction: True or False. Write true if the statement is True and write False in the
space provided.(1-10 Pts.)

1. ___________ Historical interpretation is based on the historian’s judgement

on how the past should be seen.

2. ___________ We make sense of the past through historical interpretation.

3. ___________ There is only one account of the First Catholic Mass in the Philippines.

4. ___________ The significance of the martyrdom of GOMBURZA is questioned by

Historians.

5. ___________ The Cavity Mutiny is an event that led to the execution of GOMBURZA.

6. ___________ Ceylon is the pre-colonial name of Leyte.

7. ____________ The First Mass in the Philippines happened in Leyte.

8. ____________ the Cavite Mutiny Happened on 1872.

9. ____________ Montero and Izquerdo share different account of the Cavite Mutiny.

10. ___________ The Cavite Mutiny contributed in the development of Filipino

Nationalism.

79
B. Instruction: In your how interpretation, why or how did Governor Izquierdo and Pardo de
Tavera turn to have different accounts on the Cavite Mutiny. Write your discussion in the space
provided below.

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

80
 Summary

The different controversial issues tackled in this module show how historical event can be
subject to different interpretations. Historical writing can be biased, partial, and contains
preconceptions. The historian decides on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more
apparent, depending on what his/her end is. Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to t
those that suggest that a certain event happened, and then ignore the rest that goes against the
evidence. Historians may omit significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation
unbalanced. Historians may impose a certain ideology to their subject, which may not be
appropriate to the period the subject was from Historians may also provide a single cause for an
event without considering other possible causal explanations of said event. These are just many
of the ways a historian may fail in his or her historical inference, description, and interpretation
that leads to multiple perspectives.

References

A Reexamination of Evidence. (n.d). Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines. Vol. II, 1-35.
Agoncillo, T. A. (2010) History of the Filipino People, Garotech Publishing Co., Quezon City.
Bernard, M. A. (1981). "Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines:
Candelaria, J. P.( 2018). Readings in Philippine History, Quezon City, Rex Book Store Inc.
Charity. (2020). Scribd. Retrieved from https://www.scribd.com/document/431964716/Chapter-3-
Philippine-History
Coursehero. (2020). Coursehero. Retrieved from Primary source excerpts from plauchuts
account of the: https://www.coursehero.com/file/p2ofrlm/Primary-Source-Excerpts-from-
Plauchuts-Account-of-the-Cavite-Munity-Edmund/

81
Jiongco, S. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.coursehero.com/file/67658043/What-Happened-
in-the-Cavite-Mutinypptx/
Nuguid, N. (2020). Stuartxchange. Retrieved from The Cavite Mutiny:
http://www.stuartxchange.com/CaviteMutiny.html
Piedad-Pugay, C. A. (2012, September 12). GOVPH. Retrieved from https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-
faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
Smaugazz. (2020). CourseHero. Retrieved from In the spaniards accounts the event of 1872 was:
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p1plg1h/In-the-Spaniards-accounts-the-event-of-1872-
was-premeditated-and-was-part-of-a/
TurtlePerson, B. (2020). Official-Report-of-Governor-Izquierdo-on-the-Cavite-Mutiny-of-1872.
Retrieved from Course Hero: https://www.coursehero.com/file/48740498/Official-Report-
of-Governor-Izquierdo-on-the-Cavite-Mutiny-of-1872pptx/

82
 MODULE 6
Historical Multiperspectivity

Introduction

This module will again attempt to analyze two historiographical problems from the
point of view of multiperspectivity in Philippine History. It will attempt to apply what you have
learned in the work of the historian and the process of historical inquiry. As students, you have
been introduced to history as a discipline, the historical method, and the content and context
analysis of primary sources. Thus, you are now going to make use of two historical concepts
namely Interpretation and Multiperspectivity. The two primary documents that we are going to
investigate are the Retraction of Rizal and the Cry of Rebellion. Attention this time will be focus
more on the Multiperpectivity of the historical events.

Learning Outcomes

1. To interpret historical events using primary sources;

2. To recognize the multiplicity of interpretation that can be read from historical text;
and
3. To identify the advantages and disadvantages not employing critical tools in
interpreting historical events using primary sources.

83
Lesson 1. Multiperspectivity

With the possibilities of different interpretation of the past, an important concept that need
to be noted is Multiperpectivity. It can be defined as a way of looking at historical events,
personalities, developments, culture, and societies in different perspective. This means that there
are a multitude of ways by which historians can view the world, and each of which can be equally
valid or at the same time partial. Historians may misinterpret, omit or imposed a certain ideology
in looking to historical evidence. And these are just of the many ways by which historians may fail
in his historical inference, description and interpretations. That historical interpretation can always
be subject to multiperspectivity of different historians. (Chu, 2016)

1.1 Case Study: Retraction of Rizal (Did Rizal retract?)

Retraction of Rizal

Figure 6.1. Retraction of Rizal

From https://www.slideshare.net/bencruz2005/rizal-contro-and-exec (2012)

Candelaria (2018) stated that Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his
writings that center on ending colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute to creating
the Filipino nation. The great volume of Rizal's lifework was committed to this end, particularly the

84
more influential ones. Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the Catholic
religion, but the friars, the main agents of injustice in the Philippine society.

Uckung (2012) states that It is understandable therefore, that any piece of writing from Rizal
that recants everything he has written against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines
could deal heavy damage to his image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary. Such document
purportedly exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a few hours before his execution. This document,
referred to "The Retraction," declares Rizal's belief in the Catholic faith, and retract everything he
has written against the Church.

According to Zaide (1999), the retraction of Rizal is now a controversial document for the
Rizalist scholar who are either Masons or anti-Catholic, claim it to be a forgery. While the Catholic
Rizalists believe it to be genuine. This debate between two hostile groups of Rizalists is futile and
irrelevant. Futile in the sense that no amount of evidence can convince the Masonic Rizalists that
Rizal retracted and the Catholic Rizalists that Rizal retract. As a famous saying goes: "For those
who believe - no justification is necessary; for the skeptics, whose criterion for belief is not in their
minds but in their wills- no justification is possible". It is likewise irrelevant because it does not
matter at all to the greatness of Rizal. Whether he retracted or not, the fact remains that he was
the greatest Filipino hero.

The following are some documents and testimonies that support the allegation that Rizal
made his retraction which are subject to controversy (Chu, 2016).

Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia

C.M. on 18 May 1935

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 I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to

85
 whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is
of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The
Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make
public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the
scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people
may pardon me.

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal

There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La
Voz Española and Diario de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896. The second
text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on the magazine La Juventud, a few months after the
execution, 14 February 1897, from an anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be Fr.
Vicente Balaguer. However, the original text was only found in the archdiocesan archives on 18
May 1936, after almost four decades of disappearance (Chu, 2016).

The Balaguer Testimony

Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only one eyewitness
account of the writing of the document exist that of the Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According
to his testimony, Rizal woke up several times, confessed four times, attended a mass, received
communion, and prayed the rosary, all of which seem out of character. But since it is the only
testimony of allegedly a "primary" account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction document, it has been
used to argue the authenticity of the document. (Escalante, 2019).

86
The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the research of Professor Rene R.
Escalante. In his research, documents of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia, included a report on the last
hours of Rizal, written by Federico Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de
Vigilancia to Moreno. Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal. (Coursehero, 2020)

Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort Santiago to report on
the events during the (illegible) day in prison of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date
of the following (Coursehero, 2020):

At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by

his counsel, Serior Taviel de Andrade and the Jesuit priest Villaclara. the
urgings of the former and moments after entering, he was served a light
breakfast. At approximately 9, the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure,
asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at the moment he only
wanted a prayer book, which was brought to him shortly by Father March.

Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the
Jesuit fathers, March and Villaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It
appears that these two presented him with a prepared retraction on his life
and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter until 12:30
when Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken. Afterwards he asked
to leave to write and wrote for a long time by himself

At 3 a in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed
him what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Señor del
Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, were informed. They
entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that the
accused had written.

87
 At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison...dressed
in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a military
chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes and
aided by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who
had been his lover were performed at the point of death (in articulo mortis).
After embracing him she left. Hooded with tears.

This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving it credence.
However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which makes the friar a mere
secondary source to the writing at the document.

The retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy, many scholars, however, agree
that the document does not tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His relevance remained solidified to
Filipinos and pushed them to continue the revolution, which eventually resulted to independence
in 1898 (Coursehero, 2020).

1.2 Case Study: Where did the Cry of Rebellion happen?

Figure 6.2. Cry of the Rebellion

From https://muntingnayon.com/104/104267/ (2015)

88
 The news of the discovery of the Katipunan spread throughout Manila and the suburbs.
Bonifacio, informed of the discovery, secretly instructed his runners to summon all the leaders of
the society to a general assembly to be held on August 24. They were to meet at Balintawak to
discuss the steps to be taken to meet the crisis. That same night of August 19, Bonifacio,
accompanied by his brother Procopio, Emilio Jacinto, Teodoro Plata, and Aguedo del Rosario,
slipped through the cordon of Spanish sentries and reached Balintawak before midnight. Pio
Valenzuela followed them the next day. On the 21st Bonifacio changed the Katipunan code
because the Spanish authorities had already deciphered it. In the afternoon of the same day, the
rebels, numbering about 500, left Balintawak for Kangkong, where Apolonio Samson, a
Katipunero, gave them food and shelter. In the afternoon of August 22, they proceeded to
Pugadlawin. The following day in the yard of Juan A. Ramos, the son of Melchora Aquino who
was later called the Mother of the Katipunan". Bonifacio asked his men whether they were
prepared to fight to the bitter end. Despite the objection of his brother-in-law, Teodoro Plata, all
assembled agreed to fight to the last. "That being the case, Bonifacio said, "bring out your cédulas
and tear them to pieces to symbolize our determination to take up arms!” The men obediently tore
up their cédulas, shouting: "Long live the Philippines!” This event marked the so-called "Cry of
Balintawak," which actually happened in Pugadlawin (Agoncillo, 2010).

The former statements was somehow challenge by different controversy regarding this
event stems from the identification of the date and place where the Cry happened. Prominent
Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncillo emphasizes the event when Bonifacio tore the cedula or tax
receipt before the Katipuneros who also did the same. Some writers identified the first military
event with the Spaniards as the moment of the Cry, for which, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned a
"Himno de Balintawak to inspire the renewed struggle after the Pact of the Biak na Bato failed. A
monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the intersection of Epifanio de los
Santos (EDSA) Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion road, and from then on until
1962, the Cry of Balintawak was celebrated every 26th of August. The site of the monument was
chosen for an unknown reason (Candelaria, 2018).

89
Different Dates and Places of the Cry
Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A guardia civil, L. Olegario
Dinx, identify the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 25 August 1896. Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino
historian, marks the place to be in Kangkong, Balintawak, on the last week of August 1896.
Santiago Alvarez Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, leader of the Magdiwang faction in
Cavite, puts the Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on 24 August 1896. Pio Valenzuela, known
Katipunero and privy to many events concerning the Katipunan stated that the Cry happened in
Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. (Alchetron, 2020)

Historian Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 26 August
1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo puts it at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896, according to statements
by Pio Valenzuela. Research by historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and
Ramon Villegas claimed that the event took place in Tandang Sora's born in Gulod, Barangay
Banlat, Quezon City, on 21 August 1896 (Alchetron, 2020).

Accounts of the Cry

Guillermo Masangkay

Donor (2020) explains that on August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the
House of Apolonio Samson, then the cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who
attended. I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remigio,
Briccio Pantas. Teodoro Pinto, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They
were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the organization.
Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong were also present.

At about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting was opened with Andres
Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the
uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were all opposed
to starting the revolution too early... Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he would lose in the discussion
then, left the session hall and talked to the people, who were waiting outside for the result of the
meeting of the leaders. He told the people that the leaders were arguing against starting the

90
revolution early, and appealed to them in a fiery speech in which he said: "You remember the fate
of our country men who were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the
Spaniards will only shoot us Our organization has been discovered and we are all marked men.
If we don't start the uprising the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you say? (Donor,
2020)
"Revolt!" the people shouted as one.

Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told them that
the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax charged each citizen. "If it is true that
you are ready to revolt... I want to see you destroy your cedulas. It will be a sign that all of us have
declared our severance from the Spaniards." (Donor, 2020)

Pio Valenzuela

The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro
Plata. Agredo del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the first five arriving there on August 19,
and I, on August 20, 1896. The first place where some 500 members of the Katipunan met on
August 22, 1896, was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Aside from the
persons mentioned above, among those who were there were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago,
Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others. Here, views were only exchanged, and no
resolution was debated or adopted. It was at Pugad Lawin, the house, store house, and yard of
Juan Ramos, son of Melchor Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and
carried out considerable debate and discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on
whether or not the revolution against the Spanish government should be started on August 29,
1896. After the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates and
shouted "Long live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines" (GOV.PH, 2020)

From the eyewitness counts presented above, there is indeed, marked disagreement
among historical witnesses as to the place and time of the occurrence of the Cry. Using primary
and secondary sources, four places have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin,
and Bahay Toro, while the dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26 August 1896 Valenzuela's account should

91
be read with caution: He once told & Spanish investigator that the "Cry happened in Balintawak
on Wednesday, 26 August 1996. Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the Revolution that it
happened at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Such inconsistencies in accounts should always
be seen as a red flag when dealing with primary sources (GOV.PH, 2020).
Richardson (2019) states that according to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these
places are in Balintawak, then part of Caloocan, now, in Quezon City. As for the dates, Bonifacio
and his troops may have been moving from one place to another to avoid being located by the
Spanish government, which could explain why there are several accounts of the Cry.

Assessment Task 6-1

A. Instruction: True or False. Write true if the statement is True and write False if the statement
is False in the space provided. (10 Pts.)

1. __________ Multiperspectivity is a quality of historical writing attributed to a variety

of lenses that may used to view the past .

2. __________ Jose Rizal’s essay go against the Catholic church.

3. __________ There is no doubt that Rizal retracted his writings to be able to marry

Josephine Bracken.

4. __________ The Cry of Rebellion happened in present day Quezon City.

5. __________ The site of the monument to the Heroes of 1896 was chosen because
it is the actual place where the Cry of Rebellion.

92
6. __________ The cry of Rebellion happened in present- day Quezon City.

7. __________ The retraction of Rizal remains a controversy to the present day.

8. __________ The Cry of Rebellion marks the start of the Philippine Revolution.

9. ___________ The account of Father Balaguer provided that Rizal married

Josephine Bracken.

10. __________ One of the most significant act of the Cry of Rebellion was the tearing
of Cedulas.

B. Instruction: Given the Multiperspectivity of Rizal’s Retraction and your argument

as to “yes” or “no”, Write a short discussion supporting your
argument. (10 Pts.)

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

93
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Summary

Multiperspectivity of different historical issues were shown in this module. In history, it must
understand that historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and
are oftentimes the focus of dissent. Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires
incorporating source materials that reflect different views of an event in history, because singular
historical narratives do not provide for space to inquire and investigate. Different sources that
counter each other may create space for more investigation and research, while providing more
evidence for those truths that these sources agree on. Different kinds of sources also provide
different historical truths-an official document may note different aspects of the past Different
historical agents create different historical truths, and while this may be a burdensome work for
the historian, it also renders more validity to the historical scholarship. Taking these in close
regard in the reading of historical interpretations, it provides for the audience a more complex, but
also a more complete and richer understanding of the past.

94
 References

Agoncillo, T. A. (2010) History of the Filipino People, Garotech Publishing Co., Quezon City.
Alchetron. (2017). Cry of Pugad Lawin ~ Complete Details with Photos Videos. Retrieved 4
October 2020, from https://alchetron.com/Cry-of-Pugad-Lawin
Candelaria, J. P.( 2018). Readings in Philippine History, Quezon City, Rex Book Store Inc.
Chu M. C. (2016). "Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at Pananaw."

Course Hero. (2020). Doubts on the retraction document abound especially because only one

eyewitness | Retrieved 4 October 2020, from https://www.coursehero.com/file/p34qlmst/Doubts-

on-the-retraction-document-abound-especially-because-only-one-eyewitness/

Donor, D. (2020). The Events of August 1896 : A Chronology - Filipino Journal. Retrieved 4

October 2020, from https://filipinojournal.com/the-events-of-august-1896-a-chronology/

Escalante, R. (2019). Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? Revisiting Rizal’s Last 24 Hours Using

Spy Reports South East Asian Studies Vol. 8, No. 3, Retrieved 4 October 2020, from

https://englishkyoto-seas.org/2019/12/vol-8-no-3-rene-escalante/

Richardson, J. (2019) Notes on the "Cry" of August 1896 - Katipunan: Documents and Studies.
(2020). Retrieved 4 October 2020, from http://www.kasaysayan-kkk.info/studies/notes-on-the-
cry-of-august-1896
Santos, T. (2011). Rizal’s retraction: Truth vs Myth Retrieved 4 October 2020
https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_retraction_truth_vs_myth
The Tandang Sora bicentennial | GOVPH. (2020). Retrieved 4 October 2020, from
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/the-tandang-sora-bicentennial/
Uckung, P. (2012) The Rizal Retraction and other cases - National Historical Commission of the
Philippines. Retrieved 4 October 2020, from https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-
cases/

Zaide G. and Zaide S. (1999). Jose Rizal: Life, Works, and Writings of a Genius, Writer,

Scientist and National Hero, All Nations Publishing Co. Inc.

95
 MODULE 7
The Philippine Constitution

INTRODUCTION

Constitution is defined as the fundamental law of the land, in accordance with which
the powers of sovereignty is habitually exercise. The Constitution of the Philippines, the supreme
law of the Republic of the Philippines, has been in effect since 1987. There are only three other
constitutions that have effectively governed the country: the 1935 Commonwealth Constitution,
the 1973 Constitution, and the 1986 Freedom Constitution and later adapted and became the
1987 Constitution. However, there were earlier constitutions attempted by Filipinos in the struggle
to break free from the colonial rule. They were the 1897 Constitution or the Biak-na-Bato
Constitution and the 1899 Constitution or the Malolos Constitution.

Learning Outcomes

1. To explain some basic concepts in the study constitution.

2. To analyze the transition of the different Philippine Constitution;
3. To interpret some basic provisions of the past and present constitution; and
4. To illustrate the different measures of changing or amending the constitution.

96
Lesson 1. Evolution of the Constitution

1.1 1897 Constitution of the Biak-na-Bato

Figure 7.1. Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo (Revolutionist)

From https://deadliestfiction.fandom.com/wiki/Emilio_Aguinaldo (2020)

The Constitution of Biak-na-Bato was the provisionary Constitution of the Philippine

Republic during the Philippine Revolution, and was promulgated by the Philippine Revolutionary
Government on 1 November 1897 (NHI Doc., 1997). The constitution, borrowed from Cuba, was
written by Isabelo Artacho and Felix Ferrer in Spanish, and later on, translated into Tagalog The
organs of the Government under the Constitution are:
(1) the Supreme Council, which is vested with the power of the Republic, headed by
the president and four department secretaries the interior, foreign affairs, treasury, and war, (2)
the Consejo Suprenio de Gracia Y Justicia (Supreme Council of Grace and Justice), which is
given the authority to make decisions and affirm or disprove the sentences rendered by other
courts, and to dictate rules for the administration of justice and (3) the Asamblea de
Representantes (Assembly of Representatives), which was to be convened after the revolution to
create a new Constitution and to elect a new Council of Government and Representatives of the
people. The Constitution of Biak-na-Bato was never fully implemented, since a truce, the Pact of
Biak-na-Bato, was signed between the Spanish and the Philippine Revolutionary Army.

97
 From the Preamble of the Biak-na-Bato Constitution, the separation of the Philippines from
the Spanish monarchy and their formation into an independent state with its own government
called the Philippine Republic has been the end sought by the Revolution in the existing war,
begun on the 24th of August, 1896; and, therefore, in its name and by the power delegated by
the Filipino people, interpreting faithfully their desires and ambitions, we the representatives of
the Revolution, in a meeting at Biak-na-bato, November 1, 1897 unanimously adopted the
following articles for the constitution of the State (Candelaria, 2018).

1.2 1899 Malolos Constitution

Figure 7-2. Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo

From https://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/aguinaldo.html (2012)

After the signing of the truce (Pact of Biak-na-Bato) the Filipino revolutionary leaders
accepted a payment from Spain and went to exile in Hong Kong. Upon the defeat the Spanish to
the Americans in the Battle of Manila Bay on 1 May 1898 the United States Navy transported
Aguinaldo back to the Philippines. The newly re-formed Philippine revolutionary forces reverted
to the control Aguinaldo, and the Philippine Declaration of Independence was issued on 12 June
1898, together with several decrees that formed the First Philippine Republic. The Malolos
Congress was elected, which selected a commission to draw up a draft constitution on 17
September 1898, which was composed of wealthy and educated men (Candelaria, 2018).

98
 The document they came up with, approved by the Congress on 23 November 1998 and
promulgated by Aguinaldo on 21 January 1899, titled "The Political Constitution of 1899" and was
written in Spanish. The constitution has thirty-nine articles divided into fourteen titles, with eight
articles of transitory provisions, and a final additional article. The document was patterned after
the Spanish Constitution of 1812 with influences from the charters of Belgium, Mexico, Brazil,
Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Guatemala and the French Constitution of 1793. According to Felipe
Calderon, main author of the constitution, these were studied because these countries shared
similar social, political, ethnological, and governance conditions with the Philippines. Prior
constitutional projects in the Philippines also influenced the Malolos Constitution, namely: the
Kartilya and the Sanggunian Hukuman, the charter of laws and morals of the Katipunan written
by Emilio Jacinto in 1896; the Biak-na-Bato Constitution of 1897 planned Isabelo Artacho:
Mabini's Constitutional Program of the Philippine Republic of 1898, the provisional constitution of
Mariano Ponce in 1898 that followed the Spanish constitutions, and the autonomy projects of
Paterno in 1898 (Candelaria, 2018).

Preamble of the Political Constitution of 1899. We, the Representatives of the Filipino
People, lawfully convened. in order to establish justice, provide for common defense, promote the
general welfare and insure the benefits of liberty, imploring the aid of the Sovereign Legislator of
the Universe for the attainment of these ends, have voted, decreed, and sanctioned the following
political constitution.

As a direct challenge to colonial authorities of the Spanish empire, the sovereignty was
retroverted to the people, a legal principle underlying the Philippine Revolution. The people
delegate governmental functions to civil servants while they retain actual sovereignty. The 27
articles of Title IV detail the natural rights and popular sovereignty of Filipinos, the enumeration
of which does not imply the prohibition of any other rights not expressly stated. Title III, Article V
also declares that the State recognizes
the freedom and equality of all beliefs, as well as the separation of Church and State. These are
direct reactions to features of the Spanish government in the Philippines, where the friars were
dominant agents of the state (Candelaria, 2018).

99
 The form of government, according to Title II, Article 4 is to be popular, representative,
alternative, and responsible and shall exercise three distinct powers, namely: legislative,
executive, and judicial. The legislative power was vested in a unicameral body called the
Assembly of Representatives, members of which are elected for terms of four years, Secretaries
of the government were given seats in the assembly, which meets annually for a period of at least
three months. Bills could be introduced either by the president or by a member of the assembly.
Some powers not legislative in nature were also given to the body, such as the right to select its
own officers, right of censure and interpellation, and the right of impeaching the president, cabinet
members, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and the solicitor. general. A permanent
commission of seven, elected by the assembly, and granted specific powers by the constitution,
was to sit during the intervals between sessions of the assembly (Candelaria, 2018).

Executive power was vested in the president, and elected by a constituent assembly of
the Assembly of Representatives and special representatives, The president will serve a term of
four years without re-election. There was no vice president, and in case of a vacancy, a president
was to be selected by the constituent assembly. The 1899 Malolos Constitution was never
enforced due to the ongoing war. The Philippines was effectively a territory of the United States
upon the signing of the Treaty of Paris between Spain and the United States, transferring
sovereignty of the Philippines on 10 December 1898 (Candelaria, 2018).

1.3 1935 The Commonwealth Constitution

FIGURE 7-3: Pres. Manuel Quezon

From https://history.house.gov/People/Detail/20053 (n.d)

100
 It is worth mentioning that after the Treaty of Paris, the Philippines was subject to the
power of the United States of America, effectively the new colonizers of the country. From 1898
to 1901, the Philippines will be placed under a military government, until a civil government will
be put into place. Two acts of the United States Congress were passed that may be considered
to have qualities of constitutionality. First is the Philippine Organic Act of 1902, the first organic
law for the Philippine Islands that provided for the creation of a popularly elected Philippine
Assembly, and specified that legislative power would be vested in a bicameral legislature
composed of the Philippine Commission as the upper house, and the Philippine Assembly as
lower house. Key provisions of the Act included a bill of rights for Filipinos and the appointment
of two non-voting Filipino Resident Commissioner of the Philippines as representative to the
United States House of Representatives. The second Act that functioned as a constitution is the
Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, commonly referred to as "Jones Law," which modified the
structure of the Philippine government through the removal of the Philippine Commission,
replacing it with a Senate that served as the upper house and its members elected by the Filipino
voters, the first truly elected national legislature. It was also in this Act that explicitly declared the
purpose of the United States to end their sovereignty over the Philippines and recognize
Philippine independence as soon as a stable government can be established (Candelaria, 2018.
In 1932, with the efforts of the Filipino independence mission led by Sergio Osmeña
and Manuel Roxas, the United States Congress passed the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act with the
premise of granting Filipinos independence. The bill was opposed by then Senate President
Manuel L. Quezon and consequently, rejected by the Philippine Senate. By1934, another law, the
Tydings-McDuffie Act. also known as the Philippine Independence Act, was passed by the United
States Congress that provided authority and defined mechanisms for the establishment of a
formal constitution by a constitutional convention. The members of the convention were elected
and held their first meeting on 30 July 1934, with Claro M. Recto unanimously elected as
president. The constitution was crafted to meet the approval of the United States government,
and to ensure that the US would live up to its promise to grant independence to the Philippines
(Candelaria, 2018).

101
 The Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine Providence, in order to
establish a government that shall embody their ideals, conserve and
develop the patrimony of the nation, promote the general welfare, and
secure to themselves and their posterity the blessings of independence
under a regime of justice, liberty, and democracy, do ordain and
promulgate this constitution.
Source: Preamble of the 1935 Commonwealth

The constitution created the Commonwealth of the Philippines, an administrative body

that governed the Philippines from 1935 to 1946. It is a transitional administration to prepare
the country toward its full achievement of independence. It originally provided for a
unicameral National Assembly with a president and vice president elected to a six-year term
without re-election. It was amended in 1940 to have a bicameral Congress composed of a
Senate and a House of Representatives, as well as the creation of an independent electoral
commission, and limited the term of office of the president and vice president to four years,
with one re-election. Rights to suffrage was originally afforded to male citizens of the
Philippines who are twenty-one years of age or over and are able to read and write; this was
later on extended to women within two years after the adoption of the constitution
(Candelaria, 2018).
While the dominant influence in the constitution was American, it also bears traces of the
Malolos Constitution, the German, Spanish, Mexican constitutions, constitutions of several
South American countries, and the unwritten English Constitution. The draft of the
constitution was approved by the constitutional convention on 8 February 1935 and ratified
by then US President Franklin D. Roosevelt on 25 March 1935. Elections were held in
September 1935 and Manuel L. Quezon was elected President of the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth was briefly interrupted by the events of the World War II, with the
Japanese occupying the Philippines. Afterward, upon liberation, the Philippines was declared
an independent republic on 4 July 1946 (Candelaria, 2018).

102
1.4 1973 Constitutional Authoritarianism (De Leon, 2010)

Figure 7.4: Pres. Ferdinand Marcos

From https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ferdinand_E_Marcos.jpg (2015)

The experience of more than three decades as a sovereign nation had

revealed flaws and inadequacies of the 1935 constitution. Ferdinand E. Marcos with the
Congress passed a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to change the 1935
Constitution. Elections of the delegates to the constitutional convention were held on 20
November 1970, and the convention began formally on 1 June1971, with former President
Carlos P. Garcia being elected as convention president. Unfortunately, he died, and was
succeeded by another former president, Diosdado Macapagal (De Leon, 2010).

Before the convention finished its work, martial law was declared. Marcos cited a
growing communist insurgency as reason for the martial law, which was provided for in the
1935 Constitution. Some delegates of the ongoing constitutional convention were placed
behind bars and others went into hiding or voluntary exile. With Marcos as dictator, the
direction of the convention turned with accounts that the president himself dictated some
provisions of the constitution, manipulating the document to be able to hold on to power for
as long as he can. On 29 November 1972, the convention approved its proposed constitution.
The constitution was supposed to introduce a parliamentary-style government, where
legislative power was vested in a unicameral National Assembly, with members being elected

103
to a term of six years. The president was to be elected as the symbolic and ceremonial head
of state chosen from the members of the National Assembly. The president would serve a
six-year term and could be re-elected to an unlimited number of terms, Executive power is
relegated to the Prime Minister, who is also the head of government and Commander-in-
Chief of the Armed Forces who was also to be elected from the National Assembly (De Leon,
2010).

President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 73 setting the date of the plebiscite
to ratify or reject the proposed constitution on 30 November 1973. This plebiscite was
postponed later on, since Marcos feared that the public might vote to reject the constitution.
Instead of a plebiscite, Citizen Assemblies were held, from 10-15 January 1973, where the
citizens, coming together and voting by hand, decided on whether to ratify the constitution,
suspend the convening of the Interim National Assembly, continue martial law, and place a
moratorium on elections for a period of at least several years. The President, on 17 January
1973, issued a proclamation announcing that the proposed constitution has been ratified by
an overwhelming vote of the members of the highly irregular Citizen Assemblies (De Leon,
2010)

The constitution was amended several times. In 1976, Citizen Assemblies, once again,
overwhelming decided to allow the continuation of martial law, as well as approved the
amendments: an Interim Batasang Pambansa to substitute for the Interim National
Assembly, the president to also become the Prime Minister and continue to exercise
legislative powers until martial law is lifted and authorized the President to legislate on his
own on an emergency basis. An overwhelming majority will ratify further amendments
succeedingly. In 1980, the retirement age of members of the judiciary was extended to 70
years. In 1981, the parliamentary system was formally modified to a French-style, semi-
presidential system where executive power was restored to the president, who was, once
again, to he directly elected; an Executive Committee was to be created, composed of the
Prime Minister and fourteen others, that served as the president's Cabinet; and some
electoral reforms were instituted. In 1984, the Executive Committee was abolished and the
position of the vice president was restored (De Leon, 2010)

104
 After all the amendments introduced, the 1973 Constitution was merely a way for the
President to keep executive powers, abolish the Senate, and, by no means never acted as
a parliamentary system, but instead, functioned as an authoritarian presidential system, with
all the real power concentrated in the hands of the president, with the backing of the
constitution. The situation in the 1980s has been very turbulent. As Marcos amassed power,
discontent has also been burgeoning. The tide turned swiftly when in August 1983, Benigno
Aquino Jr., opposition leader and regarded as the most credible alternative to President
Marcos, was assassinated while under military escort immediately after his return from exile
in the United States. There was widespread suspicion that the orders to assassinate Aquino
came from the top levels of the government and the military. This event caused the coming
together of the non-violent opposition to the Marcos authoritarian regime. Marcos was then
forced to hold "snap" elections a year early, and said elections were marred by widespread
fraud. Marcos declared himself winner, despite international condemnation and nationwide
protests. A small group of military rebels attempted to stage a coup, but failed; however, this
triggered what came to be known as the EDSA People Power Revolution of 1896, as people
from all walks of life spilled onto the streets. Under pressure from the United States of
America, who used to support Marcos and his martial law, the Marcos family fled into exile.
His opponent in the snap elections, Benigno Aquino Jr.'s widow, Corazon Aquino, was
installed as president on 25 February 1986.

1.5 1987 Constitution (De Leon, 2010)

Figure 7.5. Pres. Corazon Aquino

From https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/corazon-aquino-6919.php (2020)

105
 President Corazon Aquino in her vision to have truly democratic and constitutional
government considered that it is necessary that the Constitution be initially drafted by duly
elected member representatives of a constituent assembly or convention and later on
approved by the people in a plebiscite. She had three options
regarding the constitution: revert to the 1935 Constitution, retain the 1973 Constitution and
be granted the power to make reforms, or start anew and break from the "vestiges of a
disgraced dictatorship." They decided to make a new constitution to that, according to the
president herself should be "truly reflective of the aspirations and ideals of the Filipino
people." In March 1986, President Aquino proclaimed a transitional constitution to last for a
year while a Constitutional Commission drafted a permanent constitution. This transitional
constitution, called the Freedom Constitution, maintained many provisions of the old one,
including in rewritten form the presidential right to rule by decree. In 1986, a constitutional
convention was created, composed of 48 members appointed by President Aquino from
varied backgrounds and representations. The convention drew up a permanent constitution,
largely restoring the set-up abolished by Marcos in 1972, but with new ways to keep the
president in check, a reaction to the experience of Marcos rule. The new constitution was
officially adopted on 25 February 1987. The Constitution begins with a preamble, and
eighteen self-contained articles. It established the Philippines as a "democratic republican
State" where "sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from
them." It allocates governmental powers among the executive legislative, and judicial
branches of the government (De Leon, 2010)

The Executive branch is headed by the president and his cabinet, whom he appoints.
The president is the head of the state and the chief executive, but his power is limited by
significant checks from the two other co-equal branches of government, especially during
times of emergency. This is put in place to safeguard the country from the experience of
martial law despotism during the presidency of Marcos. In cases of national emergency, the
president may still declare martial law, but not longer than a period of sixty days. Congress,
through a majority vote, can revoke this decision, or extend it for a period that they determine.
The Supreme Court may also review the declaration of martial law and decide if there were

106
sufficient justifying facts for the act. The president and the vice president are elected at large
by a direct vote, serving a single six-year term.

The legislative power resides in a Congress divided into two Houses: the Senate and
the House of Representatives. The 24 senators are elected at large by popular vote, and can
serve no more than two consecutive six- year terms. The House is composed of district
representatives representing a particular geographic area, and make up around 80% of the
total number of representatives. There are 234 legislative districts in the Philippines that elect
their representatives to serve three-year terms. The 1987 Constitution created a party-list
system to provide spaces for the participation of under-represented community sectors or
groups. Party-list representatives may fill up not more than 20% of the seats in

the House. Aside from the exclusive power of legislation, Congress may also declare war,
through a two-thirds vote in both upper and lower houses. But the power of legislation,
however, is also subject to an executive check, as the president retains the power to veto or
stop a bill from becoming a law. Congress may only override this power with a two-thirds vote
in both houses.

The Philippine Court system is vested with the power of the judiciary, and is composed of
a Supreme Court and lower courts as created by law. The Supreme Court is a 15-member court
appointed by the president without the need to be confirmed by Congress. The appointment the
president makes, however, is limited to a list of nominees provided by a constitutionally specified
Judicial and Bar Council. The Supreme Court Justices may hear, on appeal, any cases dealing
with the constitutionality of any law, treaty, or decree of the government, cases where questions
of jurisdiction or judicial error are concerned, or cases where the penalty is sufficiently grave. It
may also exercise original jurisdiction over cases involving government or international officials.
The Supreme Court also is charged with overseeing the functioning and administration of the
lower courts and their personnel (De Leon, 2010).

The Constitution also established three independent Constitutional Commissions, namely:

the Civil Service Commission, a central agency in charge of government personnel. the

107
Commission on Elections, mandated to enforce and administer all election laws and regulations;
and the Commission on Audit, which examines all funds, transactions, and property accounts of
the government and its agencies. To further promote the ethical and lawful conduct of the
government, the Office of the Ombudsman was created to investigate complaints that pertain to
public corruption, unlawful behavior of public officials, and other public misconduct. The
Ombudsman can charge public officials before the Sandiganbayan, a special court created for
this purpose. Only the House of Representatives can initiate the impeachment of the president,
members of the Supreme Court, and other constitutionally protected public officials such as the
Ombudsman The Senate will then try the impeachment case. This is another safeguard to
promote moral and ethical conduct in the government (De Leon, 2010).

1.6 Attempts to Amend or change the 1987 Constitution (Candelaria, 2018)

The 1987 Constitution provides for three ways by which the Constitution can be amended,
all requiring ratification by a majority vote in a national referendum. These modes are a
Constituent Assembly, a People's Initiative, or a Constitutional Convention. Using these modes,
there were efforts to amend or change the 1987 Constitution, starting with the presidency of Fidel
V. Ramos who succeeded Corazon Aquino. The first attempt was in 1995, when then Secretary
of National Security Council Jose Almonte drafted a constitution, but it was exposed to the media
and it never prospered. The second effort happened in 1997, when a group called PIRMA, hoped
to gather signatures from voters to change the constitution through a people's initiative. Many
were against this, including the Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, who brought the issue to court
and won-with the Supreme Court judging that a people's initiative cannot push through without an
enabling law (Candelaria, 2018).

The succeeding president, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, formed a study commission to

investigate the issues surrounding charter change focusing on the economic and judiciary
provisions of the constitution. This effort was also blocked by different entities. After President
Estrada was replaced by another People Power and succeeded by his Vice-President, Gloria
Macapagal- Arroyo, then House Speaker Jose de Venecia endorsed constitutional change

108
through a Constituent Assembly, which entails a two-thirds vote of the House to propose
amendments or revision to the Constitution. This initiative was also not successful, since the term
of President Arroyo was mired in controversy and scandal, including the possibility of Arroyo
extending her term as president, which the Constitution does not allow.

The administration of the succeeding president, Benigno Aquino III, had no marked interest
in charter change, except those emanating from different members of Congress, including the
Speaker of the House, Feliciano Belmonte Jr., who attempted to introduce amendments to the
Constitution that concern economic provisions that sim toward liberalization. This effort did not
see the light of day. In an upsurge of populism, President Rodrigo Duterte won the 2016
presidential elections in a campaign centering on law and order, proposing to reduce crime by
killing tens of thousands of criminals. He also is a known advocate of federalism, a compound
mode of government combining a central or federal government with regional governments in a
single political system. This advocacy is in part an influence of his background, being a local
leader in Mindanao that has been mired in poverty and violence for decades. On 7 December
2016, President Duterte signed an executive order creating a consultative committee to review
the 1987 Constitution (Candelaria, 2018).

109
 Assessment Task 7-1

A. Instruction: True or False. Write true if the statement is True and

write False in the space provided.(1-10 Pts.)

___________1. The 1935 Commonwealth Constitution was the result of the

passage of the Hare-Hawes Cutting Law of the United States Congress.
__________ 2. The Commonwealth Government was interrupted by the Second
World War.
_________ _3. Before the 1973, the Constitution in effect was the 1935
Constitution.
__________ 4. The 1899 Constitution was also the Biak-na-Bato Constitution.
__________ 5. The 1897 Constitution was also the Malolos Constitution.
__________ 6. The 1973 Constitution was otherwise known as the Authoritarian
Constitution.
__________ 7. The 1987 Constitution provided for the two (2) ways of changing
the constitution.
__________ 8. The Senate of the 1987 Constitution can initiate the impeachment
of the President.
__________ 9. The Treaty of Paris prevented the implementation of the Malolos
Constitution.
__________10. The 1986 Constitution was otherwise known as the “Freedom
Constitution.

110
B. Instruction: Write a short discussion on how the present Constitution can be change
or amend in different ways. (10 Pts.)

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

111
 Summary

The glorious Philippine Revolution of 1896 paved the way for establishment of the Biak-na-
Bato Republic under the 1897 Constitution. The revolution was continuously launched against
Spain and the revolutionaries declared Philippine independence in Kawit, Cavite on June 12,
1898. This prompted the Malolos Congress to convene on September 15, 1898 and drafted the
1899 Malolos Constitution. The constitution was approved on January 20, 1899 and provided for
the First Philippine Republic. The independence was short lived because the US immediately
proceeded to suppress the Philippine independent movement.

In 1916, the US passed the Jones Act which specified that independence would only be
granted upon the formation of a stable democratic government modeled from the American not
the French model as the previous constitution had been. The US approved a ten-year transition
plan in 1934 and drafted a new 1935 Constitution. World War II and the Japanese invasion on
December 8, 1941, however, interrupted its implementation. The Japanese forces were finally
defeated by the Allies in 1945
and Philippine independence was eventually achieved on July 4, 1946 and 1935 Constitution
became operative.

Ferdinand Marcos was elected president in 1965 and was re-elected in 1969. His
manipulation of the political system and the ongoing Constitutional Convention made him caused
the drafting and approval of a new 1973 Constitution allowing him to rule by decree. Marcos had
himself declared the winner constitutionally on the snap election of 1986 amidst fraud,
international condemnation and nationwide domestic protests. But the “People Power” revolution
of the people with the help of the military who deflected from the government removed him from
office. His election opponent Corazon Aquino widow of Benigno Aquino Jr. was installed as
president on February 25, 1986. A more democratic constitution was drafted and promulgated by
the Filipino people which turned to be the 1987 Constitution that is in effect up to the present time.

112
 References

Candelaria, J. ( 2018) Readings in Philippine History, Quezon City, Rex Book Store Inc.

De Leon H. (2012) Textbook on the Philippine Constitution, Quezon City, Rex Printing Co. Inc.

GOVPH. (2020). The 1899 Malolos Constitution. Retrieved 3 October 2020, from
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1899-malolos-constitution/

GOVPH. (2020). The 1897 Constitution of Biak-na-Bato. Retrieved 3 October 2020, from
https://www.academia.edu/37221257/T

GOVPH. (2020). The 1935 Constitution. Retrieved 3 October 2020, from

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1935-

GOVPH. (2020). 1973 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved 3 October 2020,
from https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1973-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-
philippines-2/

GOVPH. (2020). The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Retrieved 3 October 2020,
from https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution

National Historical Institute (1997). Documents of the 1898 Declaration f Philippine

Independence, the Malolos Constitution and the First Philippine Republic. Manila: National
Historical Institute.

113
 MODULE 8
Agrarian Reform

Introduction

Agrarian reform is the redistribution of lands to farmers and regular farm workers who are
landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangements. Agrarian reform is not just the transfer of lands; it
also includes a package of support services: economic and physical infrastructure support
services, credit, extension, irrigation, roads and bridges, marketing facilities) and human resource
and institutional development or social infrastructure building and strengthening (Candelaria,
2018).
Its main objective is provide equitable land ownership with empowered agrarian reform
beneficiaries who are effectively managing their economic and social development for a better
quality of life. It seek to have a massive and rapid increase in agricultural productivity and the
improvement of access of the masses to resources, particularly land. It features the redistribution
of agricultural land, the education and organization of beneficiaries, and the delivery of support
services such as credit, infrastructure, post-harvest facility and the like.
It covers all alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for
agriculture, all lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits, all other lands owned by
the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised
or that can be raised thereon.

Learning Outcomes

1. To analyze social, political and economic issues of farmers deriving their livelihood
from agriculture;
2. To recognize that the problems in agriculture of today are of consequences of what happened
in the past;
3. To understand several enduring issues in Philippine Agricultural System in our society
through history; and

114
4. To propose recommendations or solutions to present day agricultural problems based on
understanding of our historical past.

Lesson 1. Agrarian Reform

Agrarian Reform means the redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced to
farmers and regular farm workers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to
include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the
beneficiaries and all other. In the Philippines it is essentially the rectification of the whole system
of agriculture, an important aspect of the economy because nearly half of the population is
employed in the agricultural sector, and most citizens in rural areas. Agrarian reform is centered
on the relationship between production and the distribution of land among farmers. It is also
focused on the political and economic class character of the relations of production and
distribution in farming and related enterprises, and how these connect to the wider class structure
(Nolledo, 1999).
Through genuine and comprehensive agrarian reform, the Philippines would be able to gain
more from its agricultural potential and uplift the Filipinos in the agricultural sector, who have been
for the longest time, mired in poverty and discontent. In our attempt to understand the
development of agrarian reform in the Philippines, we turn our attention to our country's history,
especially our colonial past, where we could find the root of the agrarian woes the country
experiences up to this very day (Nolledo, 1999).

1.1 Landownership in the Philippines under Spain (Candelaria, 2018)

The Spaniards colonized the country, they brought with them a system of pueblo
agriculture, where rural communities, often dispersed and scattered in nature, were organized
into a pueblo and given land to cultivate. Families were not allowed to own their land-the King of
Spain owned the land, and Filipinos were assigned to these lands to cultivate them, and they pay
their colonial tributes to the Spanish authorities in the form of agricultural products.

115
 Later on, through the Law of the Indies, the Spanish crown awarded tracts of land to (1)
religious orders; (2) Spanish military as repartamientos or reward for their service, and (3) Spanish
encomenderos, those mandated to manage the encomienda or the lands given to them, where
Filipinos worked and paid their tributes to the encomendero. Filipinos were not given the right to
own land, and only worked in them so that they may have a share of the crops and pay tribute.
The encomienda system was an unfair and abusive system, as "compras y vandalas" became
the norm for the Filipino farmers working the land they were made to sell their products at a very
low price, or surrender their products to the encomenderos, who resell this at a profit. Filipinos in
the encomienda were also required to render services to their encomenderos that are unrelated
to farming.

From this encomienda system, the hacienda system developed in the beginning of the 19th
century, as the Spanish government implemented policies that would fast track the entry of the
colony into the capitalist world. The economy was tied to the world market, as the Philippines
became an exporter of raw materials and importer of goods. Agricultural exports were demanded
and the hacienda system was developed as a new form of ownership. In the 1960s, Spain enacted
a law ordering landholders to register their landholdings, and only those who knew benefitted from
this, Lands were claimed and registered in other people's names, and many peasant families who
were "assigned to the land in the earlier days of colonization were driven out, or forced to come
under the power of these people who claimed rights to the land because they held a title.

This is the primary reason why revolts in the Philippines were oftentimes agrarian in nature.
Before the colonization, Filipinos had communal ownership of land. The system introduced by the
Spaniards became a bitter source of hatred and discontent for the Filipinos. Religious orders, the
biggest landowners in the Philippines, also became a main source of abuse and exploitation for
the Filipinos, increasing the rent paid by the Filipinos on a whim.
Filipinos fought the Philippine Revolution in a confluence of motivations, but the greatest desire
for freedom would be the necessity of owning land. Upon the end of the Philippine Revolution,

the revolutionary government will declare all large landed estates, especially the friar lands,
confiscated and became government property. However, the first Philippine republic was short-

116
lived. The entrance of the Americans will signal a new era of colonialism and imperialism in the
Philippines

1.2 Landownership in the Philippines under the Americans (Candelaria, 2018)

The Americans were aware that the main cause of social unrest in the Philippines is
landlessness, and they attempted to put an end to the deplorable conditions of the tenant farmers
by passing several land policies to increase the small landholders and distribute ownership to a
bigger number of Filipino tenants and farmers. The Philippine Bill of 1902 provided regulations on
the disposal of public lands. A private individual may own 16 hectares of land while corporate
landholders may have 1,024 hectares. Americans were also given rights to own agricultural lands
in the country. The Philippine Commission also enacted Act No. 496 or the Land Registration Act,
which introduced the Torrens system to address the absence of earlier records of issued land
titles and conduct accurate land surveys. In 1909, the homestead program was introduced,
allowing a tenant to enter into an agricultural business by acquiring a farm of at least 16 hectares.
This program, however, was limited to areas in Northern Luzon and Mindanao, where colonial
penetration has been difficult for Americans, a problem they inherited from the Spaniards

Landownership did not improve during the American period; in fact, it even worsened,
because there is no limit to the size of landholdings people can possess, and the accessibility of
possession was limited to those who can afford to buy, register, and acquire fixed property titles.
Not all friar lands acquired by the Americans were given to landless peasant farmers. Some lands
were sold or leased to American and Filipino business interest. This early land reform program
was also implemented without support mechanisms-if a landless peasant farmer received land,
he only received land, nothing more Many were forced to return to tenancy, and wealthy Filipino
hacienderos purchased or forcefully took over lands from farmers who cannot afford to pay their
debts. The system introduced by the Americans enabled more lands to be placed under tenancy,
and led to widespread peasant uprisings such as the Colorum and Sakdal Uprising in Luzon.
Peasants and workers found refuge from millenarian movements that gave them hope that
change could still happen through militancy

117
 During the years of the Commonwealth government, the situation further worsened, as
peasant uprisings increased and landlord-tenant relationship became more and more disparate.
President Quezon laid down a social justice program focused on the purchase of haciendas,
which were to be divided and sold to tenants. His administration also created the National Rice
and Corn Corporation (NARICC) to assign public defenders to assist peasants in court battles for
their rights to the land, and the Court of Industrial Relations to exercise jurisdiction over
disagreements arising from landowner-tenant relationship. The Homestead Program also
continued, through the National Land Settlement Administration (NLSA) Efforts toward agrarian
reform by the Commonwealth failed because of many problems such as budget allocation for the
settlement program and widespread peasant uprisings. World War II put a halt to all interventions
to solve these problems, as the Japanese occupied the country.

1.3 Post-War Interventions toward Agrarian Reform (Candelaria, 2018)

Rehabilitation and rebuilding after the war was focused on providing solutions to the
problems of the past. The administration of President Roxas passed Republic Act No. 34 to
establish a 70–30 sharing arrangement between tenant and landlord, respectively, and reduced
the interest of landowners' loans to tenants at six percent or less. The government also attempted
to redistribute hacienda lands, falling prey to the woes of similar attempts since no support was
given to small farmers who were sold lands.

Under the term of President Quirino, the Land Settlement Development Corporation
(LASEDECO) was established to accelerate and expand the resettlement program for peasants.
This agency later on became the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration
(NARRA) under the administration of President Ramon Magsaysay. Magsaysay saw the
importance of pursuing genuine land reform program and convinced Congress, majority of which
are landed elites, to pass legislation to improve the land reform situation. Republic Act No. 1199
or the Agricultural Tenancy Act was passed to govern the relationship between landholders and
tenant farmers, protecting the tenurial rights of tenants and enforced tenancy practices. Through
this law, the Court of Agricultural Relations was created in 1955 to improve tenancy security, fix
land rentals of tenanted farms and resolve land disputes filed by the landowners and peasant

118
organizations. The Agricultural Tenancy Commission was also established to administer
problems created by tenancy. The Agricultural Credit Cooperative Financing Administration
(ACCPA) was also created mainly to provide warehouse facilities and assist farmers in marketing
their products, The administration spearheaded the establishment of the Agricultural and
Industrial Bank to provide easier terms in applying for homestead and other Farmlands

NARRA accelerated the government's resettlement program and distribution of agricultural

lands to landless tenants and farmers. It also Rimed to convince members of the Huks, a
movement of rebels in Central Luzon, to resettle in areas where they can restart lives as peaceful
citizens Despite a more vigorous effort toward agrarian reform, the situation for the farmers
remained dire, since the government lacked funds and provided inadequate support services for
the programs. The landed elite did not fully cooperate and criticized the programs.
A major stride in land reform was during the term of President Macapagal through the Agricultural
Land Reform Code (Republic Act No. 3844).

Declaration of Policy under RA No. 3844, Section 2 (GOVPH, 1963)

It is the policy of the State:

(1) To establish owner-cultivatorship and the economic family size farm as the basis of
Philippine agriculture and, as a consequence, divert landlord capital in agriculture to industrial
development:
(2) To achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious institutional
restraints and practices;
(3) To create a truly viable social and economic structure in agriculture conducive to greater
productivity and higher farm incomes
(4) To apply all labor laws equally and without discrimination to both industrial and agricultural
wage earners
(5) To provide a more vigorous and systematic land resettlement program and public land
distribution; and
(6) To make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a
source of genuine strength in our democratic society

119
 This Code abolished share tenancy in the Philippines and prescribed program to convert
tenant-farmers to lessees and later on owner-cultivators It also aimed to free tenants from tenancy
and emphasize owner-cultivatorship and farmer independence, equity, productivity improvement,
and public land distribution. Despite being one of the most comprehensive pieces of land reform
legislation ever passed in the Philippines, Congress did not make any effort to come up with a
separate bill to fund its implementation, despite the fact that it proved beneficial in the provinces
where it was pilot tested.

1.4 Agrarian Reform (Marcos Regime) (GOVPH, 1972)

President Marcos declared martial law in1972, enabling him essentially wipe out the
landlord-dominated Congress. Through technocrats," he was able to expand executive power to
start a "fundamental restructuring" of government, including its efforts in solving the deep
structural problems of the countryside. Presidential Decree No. 27, or the Code of Agrarian
Reform of the Philippines, became the core of agrarian
reform during Marcos regime.

Presidential Decree No. 27, 21 October 1972

This shall apply to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands primarily

devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy
whether classified as landed estate or not.

The tenant farmer, whether in land classified as landed estate or shall be

deemed owner of a portion constituting a family-size farm five 6)
hectares if not irrigated and three (3) hectares if irrigated;

In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven
(7) hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or will now
cultivate it

120
For the purpose of determining the cost of the land to be transferred the
tenant-farmer pursuant to this Decree, the value of the land she be
equivalent to two and one-half
(2 1/2) times the average harvest three normal crop years immediately
preceding the promulgation this Decree:

The total cost of the land, including interest at the rate of six (6) centum
per annum, shall be paid by the tenant in fifteen (15) years fifteen (15)
equal annual amortization;

In case of default, the amortization due shall be paid by the farmers'

cooperative in which the defaulting tenant-farmer is a member, with the
cooperative having a right of recourse against him;

The government shall guaranty such amortizations with shares of stock

in government-owned and government-controlled corporations;

No title to the land owned by the tenant-farmers under this Decree

shall be actually issued to a tenant-farmer unless and until the tenant-
farmer has become a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmer's
cooperative;

Title to land required pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform

Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by
hereditary succession or to the Government in accordance with the
provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian Reforms and other
existing laws and regulations;

The Department of Agrarian Reform through its Secretary is hereby

empowered to promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation
of this Decree.

121
 Operation Land Transfer" on lands occupied by tenants of more than seven hectares on
rice and corn lands commenced, and through legal compulsion and an improved delivery of
support services to small farmers, agrarian reform seemed to be finally achievable. Under the rice
self-sufficiency program "Masagana '99, formers were able to borrow from banks and purchase
three hectare plots of lands and agricultural inputs. However, the landlord class still found ways
to circumvent the law. Because only rice lands were the focus of agrarian reform, some landlords
only needed to change crops to be exempted from the program, such as coconut and sugar lands.
Lands worked by wage labor were also exempt from the program, so the landed elite only had to
evict their tenants and hired workers instead, Landowners increased, which made it all the more
difficult for the program to succeed because landless peasants were excluded from the program.
Many other methods were employed by the elite to find a way to maintain their power and
dominance, which was worsened by the corruption of Marcos and his cronies who were involved
in the agricultural sector.

1.5 Agrarian Reform (Post 1986) (Candelaria, 2018)

The overthrow of Marcos and the 1987 Constitution resulted to a renewed interest and
attention to agrarian reform, as President Corazon Aquino envisioned agrarian reform to be the
centerpiece of her administration's social legislation, which proved difficult because her
background betrayed her-she comes from a family of a wealthy and landed clan that owns
Hacienda Luisita.
On 22 July 1997, Aquino issued Presidential Proclamation 131 and Executive Order 229,
which outlined her land reform program. In 1988, the Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657,
or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), which introduced the program with the same
name (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program or CARP). It enabled the redistribution of
agricultural lands to tenant-farmers from landowners, who were paid in exchange by the
government through just compensation, and allowed them to retain not more than five hectares.
Corporate landowners were, however, allowed under law to voluntarily divest a proportion of their
capital stock, equity, or participation in favor of their workers or other qualified beneficiaries
instead of turning over their land to the government.

122
 CARP was limited because it accomplished very little during the administration of Aquino.
It only accomplished 22.5% of land distribution in six years owing to the fact that Congress,
dominated by the landed elite, was unwilling to fund the high compensation costs of the program.
It was also mired in controversy, since Aquino seemingly bowed down to the pressured her
relatives by allowing the stock redistribution option. Hacienda Luisita reorganized itself into a
corporation and distributed stocks to farmers.

Under the term of President Ramos, CARP implementation was speeded in order to meet
the ten-year time frame, despite limitations and constraints in funding, logistics, and participation
of involved sectors. By 1996, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) distributed only 58.25%
of the total area target to be covered by the program. To address the lacking funding and the
dwindling time for the implementation of CARP. Ramos signed Republic Act No. 8532 in 1998 to
amend CARL and extend the program
another ten years.

1.6 CARPER and the Future of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines (Candelaria, 2018)

The new deadline of CARP expired in 2008, leaving 1.2 million farmer beneficiaries and
1.6 million hectares of agricultural land to be distributed to farmers. In 2009, President Arroyo
signed Republic Act No. 9700 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with
Reforms (CARPER), the amendatory law that extended the deadline to five more years. Section
30 of the law also mandates that any case and/or proceeding involving implementation of the
provisions of CARP, as amended, which may remain pending on 30 June 2014 shall be allowed
to proceed to its finality and executed even beyond such date.

From 2009 to 2014, CARPER has distributed a total of 1 million hectares of land to 900,000
farmer beneficiaries. After 27 years of land reform and two Aquino administrations, 500,000
hectares of lands remain undistributed. The DAR and the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) are the government agencies mandated to fulfill CARP and CARPER, but
even the combined effort and resources of the two agencies have proved incapable of fully
achieving the goal of agrarian reform in the Philippines. The same problems have plagued its

123
implementation: the powerful landed elite, and the ineffectual bureaucracy of the Philippine
government. Until these two challenges are surmounted, genuine agrarian
reform in the Philippines remains but a dream to Filipino farmers who have been fighting for their
right to landownership for centuries.

Assessment Task 8-1

A. Instruction: True or False. Write true if the statement is true. Otherwise, write False in the
space provided. (1-10 Pts.)

__________1. Before the colonization, Filipinos had communal ownership of land.

__________2. Landownership in the Philippines during the Spanish period was a great

source of hatred and resentment among the Filipinos.

__________3. The cedula personal was optional during the Spanish period.

__________4. The Americans were aware that the main cause of social unrest in the

Philippines was landlessness.

__________5. The American period ushered in a great improvement in landownership

in the country.

__________6. The commonwealth government divided hacienda lands and sold them

to the farmers.

__________7. The 50-50 Crop Sharing System was introduced after the Second World

War.

124
 __________8. Agrarian reform under the dictator Ferdinand Marcos was failure.

__________9. President Corazon Aquino envisioned agrarian reform to be the

centerpiece of her administration through the CARP.

__________10. President Arroyo extended the CARP under R.A. 9700 for the next 10

years under a new program called CARPER.

B. Instruction: Write an essay that explain how the political and social history of the Philippines
contributed in the deplorable condition of the farmers at present time. You may add a piece of
paper limited to one. (10Points.)

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

125
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

References

Candelaria, J. (2018) Readings in Philippine History, Quezon City, Rex Book Store Inc.
GOVPH. (1963). Republic Act No. 3844.Retrieved 3 October 2020, from
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1963/08/08/republic-act-no-3844/
GOVPH. (2009). Republic Act No. 9700. Retrieved 3 October 2020, from

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2009/08/07/republic-act-no-9700/

GOVPH. (1988). Republic Act No. 6657.Retrieved 3 October 2020, from

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1988/06/10/republic-act-no-6657/

GOVPH. (1972). Presidential Decree No. 27, s. 1972. Retrieved 3 October 2020, from

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1972/10/21/presidential-decree-no-27-s-1972/

Nolledo, J. (1999) Principles of Agrarian Reform, Cooperative and Taxation, Mandaluyong City:

National Book Store.

126