 Picture of Henri de Toulouse Lautrec 012 from Wikimedia Commons

 Other photos from Wikimedia Commons

 Manual Ocampo – Filipino Visual Artist
 Gaston Damag’s statements – Filipino Visual Artist in Paris
 The documentary itself

Sources of History - I-Witness…

2. Why did Constancio Ongpin and Mara Pardo de Taveria had a different
interpretation about the same event? Based on the sources they presented who
is more convincing among the two? Why?

- There are two sides to every story. Constancio Ongpin and Mara Pardo de
Tavera had different perceptions of the same event presumably because they
heard or investigated from distinct viewpoints. Ongpin claims that Luna's crime
was accidental, whilst Mara affirms that it was intentional. Since Constancio
Ongpin comes from Luna’s family, he would likely know primarily their side of the
story and that is why Mara Pardo de Tavera classified their version which she
called the “Nationalist History Point of View,” biased. Mara Pardo de Tavera may
also come from Paz Pardo de Tavera’s family but her claims are supported by
credible evidence, one of which is the case history. Based on this, I am more
convinced by her theory. For me, there is no sane person who would shoot
through a door knowing that someone may be on the other side. Moreover, Luna

initially shot Paz's older brother Felix on the ground floor of the house before
them, which supported Pardo de Tavera's argument. The fact that Juan Luna had
a history of abusing his wife and had the possibility to do more was further
proven by her statement in the case. For me, Mara Pardo de Tavera's claims
appears to be more thorough, factual, and comprehensible.

3. Did Howie Severino presented the documentary objectively? Explain your

answer.

- Yes, Howie Severino presented the documentary objectively. This is because he

decided to explore Juan Luna's life from different perspectives. With Juan Luna’s
amazing works, he proved that Filipinos are not savages. However, his personal
life showed otherwise, let alone the tragic fate Luna inflicted upon his wife and
mother-in-law. Severino’s goal was not to criticize what happened, but to clarify
and learn about what could have happened at the time. It is clear that he
Home University High School Books
conducted thorough study on his ideas, studied related literature and material,