Inconsistency - a state where two facts don’t match. Information also may be incoherent in investigations.

Controversy - a discussion marked by expression of opposing views. It is also a result of inconsistent

information.

History is not perfect, and the historian is only retelling the story based on the pieces of evidence left for
him/her to use. It can be riddled with trivial information because of several reasons:

• human memory

• manipulation of artifacts

• personal bias

These inconsistent facts will become a controversy when left unresolved.

Case Examples of Different Viewpoints in Historical

Events 1. Viewpoints on Ferdinand Magellan’s Arrival

a. Magellan arrived and set foot on March 16, 1521, but the early Filipinos said that there were
“others like him” who’ve been in the country before. He took an unknown route, now known as the Pacific,
because the Indian route was under Portugal.

b. Ferdinand Magellan was a European navigator who was hailed as the “first man to reach the
Philippines.” He didn’t complete his circumnavigation due to his death at Mactan.

2. Viewpoints on the 1899 Battle of Manila

a. The incident happened at the San Juan Bridge in 1899, where Pvt. William Grayson, an
Englishman, shot and killed Anastacio Felix, a Filipino lieutenant.

b. The incident, which led to the Filipino-American War, actually broke out from the intersection
of Sociego and Silencio Streets. The initial bout eventually reached San Juan Bridge.

3. Viewpoints on the introduction of Philippine Public School System

a. Spain installed various schools to educate the natives at the time due to the Educational Decree
Act of 1863, creating separate public schools for boys and girls. Manuel Luis Quezon attested this.

b. The Philippine Public School system was introduced by the American military, with its teachers
imported from the US riding aboard USS Thomas.

From the several examples of historical events with opposing information, history has difficulties in
changing the already established knowledge because there is information that has been tried and verified,
but it is not impossible. By using the historical method, historians have been able to find these
inconsistencies, researched them, and finally discovered new insights that could support or debunk
already existing knowledge, which could improve history.
The Site of the First Mass

Site of the First Mass, After 488 years Controversy Continues

Important scenarios in the given information:

Commemoration of the 488th First Mass Celebration:

A Tridentine mass was held in Pinamanculan to commemorate the 488th anniversary of the First
Mass in the Philippines, which was officiated by Father Pedro Valderrama during the Spanish expedition
led by Ferdinand Magellan on March 31, 1521.

Dispute Over the Location of the First Mass:

There is an ongoing controversy regarding the actual location of the First Mass. Two places,
Limasawa Island and Masao in Butuan, contest the claim, with some historians favoring one location over
the other.

Historical Textbook Controversy:

Dr. Gregorio Zaide and his daughter, Sonia, published history textbooks during the 1980s

that insisted the First Mass took place in Masao, Butuan, and dismissed the Limasawa claim as
erroneous. This contributed to the debate.

Intervention by Historians:

Historian experts have been called upon to intervene and help settle the dispute.

The National Historical Institute

previously ruled in favor of Limasawa Island as the site of the First Mass, but the

Butuan Cultural and Historical Foundation Incorporated continues to contest this decision.

Legislation of History:

Republic Act 2733 declared Magallanes,

Limasawa Island, in the province of Leyte, as the site of the First Mass in the Philippines and a
national shrine. This legislative act plays a role in the debate over the historical location.

Influence of Local Historians:

Mr. Greg Hontiveros, a local historian who authored books on the subject, and the Butuan
Cultural and Historical Foundation argue that the First Mass was held in Masao, Butuan, and have
convinced many historians of this claim.
These scenarios highlight the ongoing controversy and debate regarding the location of the First Mass in
the Philippines and the roles played by historical figures, legislation, and historians in shaping the historical
narrative.

St James the Great Fortress

The information provided offers details about St. James the Great Fortress (Bolinao Church) in Bolinao,
Pangasinan, and its historical significance. Key points to note from the text include:

Historical Claim of the First Mass:

There is a historical claim that a Mass was celebrated at St. James the Great Fortress around 1324
by Blessed Fr. Odorico, a Franciscan missionary.

This claim suggests that it predates the more widely recognized First Mass celebrated by Ferdinand
Magellan in 1521 by approximately 197 years.

William Henry Scott, have questioned the authenticity of this claim.

Architectural Features:

The church is made of black coral stones and features a High Renaissance style characterized by
symmetry, proportion, semicircular arches, hemispherical domes, a trefoil arch main door, and a plain and
simple facade design.

Historical Events:

St. James the Great Fortress has endured various natural and man-made calamities over the years,
including an earthquake in 1788 that damaged the church tower, a fire that burned the convent in 1819,
and damage from Typhoon Emong in 2009.

Church Tower:

The church tower of Bolinao was once the tallest in Pangasinan, measuring 75 feet. However,
part of it was destroyed by an earthquake in 1788.

This information provides insights into the historical and architectural significance of St. James the Great
Fortress and the associated historical claims regarding the First Mass in the Philippines.

Butuan

Key points from the provided text about the controversy surrounding the location of the first Catholic
mass in the Philippines and the criminal complaint filed against the Mojares Panel:
The Controversy:

The controversy centers around the location of the first Catholic mass in the Philippines, which has long
been debated. The commonly accepted belief is that the first mass was held in Limasawa Island in
Southern Leyte.

Advocacy for Butuan:

Dr. Potenciano R. Malvar, a local historian, has been advocating for the recognition of Butuan
City as the location where the first Catholic mass was celebrated in 1521.

NHCP Decision:

In July of the previous year, the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP)
sustained previous conclusions that the first mass took place in Limasawa Island, based on
recommendations from an investigating panel led by Dr. Resil B. Mojares.

Criminal Complaint:

Dr. Malvar filed a criminal complaint against the members of the Mojares Panel, alleging
violations of Articles 355, 171, and 172 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), including libel and falsifications
by public officers and private individuals.

Allegations in the Complaint:

Malvar's complaint alleges that the conclusions of the Mojares Panel dishonored his reputation
and the extensive research he conducted. He also claims that the panel made untruthful statements and
alterations in their report, including a claim about the inspection of the proposed mass site in Magallanes,
Agusan del Norte.

Position Paper:

Malvar submitted a position paper to the panel, titled "Pigafetta’s 9° 2/3N Hidden Facts," which
was based on the accounts of Antonio Pigafetta and Francisco Albo and included extensive research from
various sources.

The Third Panel:

The Mojares Panel was the third panel created by the government to resolve the controversy
surrounding the first Catholic mass site. Previous panels had also concluded that Limasawa was the site,
but the Legarda panel's report was inconclusive.

This development highlights the ongoing debate and legal actions related to the location of the first
Catholic mass in the Philippines, with advocates like Dr. Malvar seeking official recognition for Butuan City
as the historical site.
Limasawa vs. Butuan: the first Easter Mass

Key points from the provided text about the location of the first Easter Mass in the Philippines and the
research conducted by Dr. Antonio Sanchez de Mora:

Historical Controversy:

The location of the first Easter Mass in the Philippines has been a subject of historical debate.
Traditionally, it was believed to have been held near the mouth of the Agusan River in Magallanes, Agusan
del Norte. However, a shift to the Limasawa tradition occurred in 1921 following the publication of a ship
logbook transcription indicating the presence of an island called "Mazaua" closer to Cebu.

Dr. Antonio Sanchez de Mora's Research:

Dr. Antonio Sanchez de Mora, an expert in Spanish medieval history and head of the reference
service at the Archivo General de Indias in Seville, Spain, conducted research on this historical question.
He examined sources in the archive related to the initial encounter and first Mass in an island called
Mazaua and compared them with other archival sources.

Confirmation of Limasawa as the Site:

Dr. Mora's research concluded that the island of Mazaua, where the first Easter Sunday Mass was
held on March 31, 1521, corresponds to modern-day Limasawa, Leyte. He relied on documents, primary
sources, maps, and geographical descriptions from the 16th century that confirm Limasawa as the site.

Shift from Agusan to Limasawa Tradition:

The shift from the Agusan tradition to the Limasawa tradition took place in 1921, following historical
corrections made by Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, who wrote the program for the Limasawa exhibit during
the 1921 quadricentennial celebration of Magellan's arrival in the Philippines. The change was not without
resistance, and multiple panels of historians came to the same conclusion.

Theological and Symbolic Value:

The importance of determining the exact location of the first Mass was discussed during the lecture. While
the first Mass holds theological and symbolic significance, it did not result in the immediate establishment
of a lasting Christian community. It took several decades for systematic and durable evangelization to
occur in the Philippines.

Dr. Mora's research and the discussion highlight the ongoing historical exploration of the first Easter Mass
in the Philippines and the significance of understanding its historical context.
The Cavite Mutiny

Key points about the two major events in 1872, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of the
GOMBURZA priests:

1872 Cavite Mutiny:

The 1872 Cavite Mutiny was a significant event that occurred in Cavite, Philippines, in 1872. It was
a mutiny led by Filipino soldiers or "criollos" against the oppressive practices and discrimination within
the Spanish colonial military. The mutiny was ultimately suppressed, leading to the arrest and trial of
several individuals.

Martyrdom of GOMBURZA:

The martyrdom of Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, collectively known
as GOMBURZA, is another major event that took place in 1872. These Filipino priests were falsely accused
of involvement in the Cavite Mutiny and were executed by the Spanish authorities. Their execution had a
profound impact on the awakening of nationalism among Filipinos.

Different Accounts:

There are different historical accounts and perspectives regarding these events. While the official
narrative often portrayed the GOMBURZA priests as conspirators in the mutiny, some historians argue
that they were wrongly accused and executed as a means to suppress Filipino dissent.

Nationalism:

The events of 1872, particularly the execution of GOMBURZA, served as a catalyst for the development
of Filipino nationalism. The unjust treatment of Filipino intellectuals and the suppression of dissenting
voices contributed to a growing sense of national identity and resistance against Spanish colonial rule.

These events are significant in the context of Philippine history and the struggle for independence from
colonial powers. They highlight the importance of understanding different perspectives and
interpretations of historical events.

Key points from the provided text about the Spanish version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and its
historical context:

Jose Montero y Vidal:

Jose Montero y Vidal was a Spanish historian who wrote the book "Historia General de Filipinas."
This book provided a Spanish version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872.

While Montero was generally regarded as a good historian, his narrative of the Cavite episode
was criticized for its bias and exaggeration.
Exaggeration of the Mutiny:

Montero's account of the Cavite Mutiny was characterized by a strong pro-Spanish bias. He
depicted the mutiny, which involved a small number of disgruntled native soldiers and laborers, as a full-
blown revolt aimed at overthrowing Spanish rule. This portrayal was not supported by documentary
evidence.

Change in Leadership:

The text mentions a change in leadership in the Philippines. Carlos Maria de la Torre was relieved
of his post, and a new government with less radical views was established in Spain.

Rafael de Izquierdo:

Rafael de Izquierdo assumed control of the government in the Philippines during this period.

Cause of the Insurrection:

The text states that the insurrection was triggered by the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the
laborers of the Cavite Arsenal, particularly their exemption from paying tribute.

Personal Letter by Izquierdo:

Another version of the events was conveyed in a personal letter written by Rafael de Izquierdo
himself. The content of this letter was similar to Montero's account and was addressed to the new Spanish
government following the overthrow of the monarchy in Spain's own civil war.

The text highlights the role of historical narratives and differing perspectives in shaping the understanding
of historical events such as the Cavite Mutiny and its causes. It also underscores the impact of changes in
leadership on colonial policies and their consequences.

Key points from the Filipino version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872:

Mutiny Against Harsh Policies:

According to Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, the Cavite Mutiny was primarily a mutiny of native
Filipino soldiers and laborers at the Cavite arsenal. They revolted against the harsh policies imposed by
Governor and Captain-General Rafael de Izquierdo, particularly the abolition of their privileges, such as
exemption from paying the annual tribute and forced labor (polo).

Loss of Privileges:

The revocation of these privileges was a significant factor that fueled the revolt. The loss of these
privileges was deeply resented by the soldiers and laborers, leading to dissatisfaction and discontent
throughout the colony.
Despotic Rule:

Governor Izquierdo's leadership was characterized by a harsh and despotic style of governance.
He made it clear that he intended to rule with a crucifix in one hand and a sword in the other, indicating
a strong and authoritarian approach.

School of Arts and Trades:

Despite the harsh rule, Izquierdo established the School of Arts and Trades in the country, which
might have been seen as a positive development.

Resistance and Suspects:

Those who supported the former Governor de la Torre were labeled as "persona sospechosas"
or suspects, indicating their opposition to the ruling authorities.

Culmination in Spanish Sovereignty Overthrow:

The mutiny and the subsequent spread of dissatisfaction and discontent led to the breaking of
the peace in the colony and, ultimately, the overthrow of Spanish sovereignty in the Philippine islands.

Influence of Spanish Residents and Friars:

The uprising in Cavite was utilized as a powerful tool by Spanish residents and friars, suggesting
their involvement and influence in the events of the mutiny.

This version of the Cavite Mutiny emphasizes the grievances of the native Filipino soldiers and laborers,
the harsh rule of Governor Izquierdo, and the role of dissatisfaction and discontent in the broader context
of Spanish colonial rule in the Philippines.

Jose Rizal's Retraction

The controversy surrounding Jose Rizal's retraction before his execution has been a subject of debate
among historians and scholars. Here are some key points regarding the retraction controversy:

Pro-Retraction Arguments:

Discovery of the "Original" Text:

Archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M., discovered the so-called retraction formula in the archdiocesan
archives in 1935, thirty-nine years after Rizal's execution. This document was considered essential
evidence to support the retraction.

Eyewitness Testimonies:

Proponents of the retraction point to eyewitness testimonies that suggest Rizal's involvement in
the retraction process. These testimonies include Fr. Vicente Balaguer, who claimed that Rizal confessed,
celebrated mass, had Communion, and prayed the Rosary multiple times before his execution, and
Mariano Martinez Gallegos, a former Lieutenant of the Infantry, who stated that Rizal signed a retraction
document along with other witnesses.

New Documents:

New documents and interpretations have been released to support the retraction claims. These
include the Cuerpo de Vigilancia transcript, which mentioned that Rizal wrote a document regarding his
retraction that was signed by key witnesses.

Rizal's References to the "Cross":

Supporters of the retraction argue that Rizal made frequent mentions of the "cross" in his final
writings, indicating a spiritual change.

Counter-Arguments:

Authenticity of the Retraction Letter:

Some historians dispute the authenticity of the retraction letter itself. They argue that the
document discovered in 1935 may not be genuine and question its validity.

Josephine Bracken's Marital Status:

The fact that Josephine Bracken remained unmarried after Rizal's execution raises doubts about
the retraction, as some believe that Rizal's retraction was a condition for marrying Josephine. If this
condition was met, it is suggested that Rizal and Josephine would have married.

Aftermath of Pro-Retraction Arguments:

Skeptics argue that the consequences of accepting the pro-retraction arguments point to a
different direction. If Rizal indeed retracted, it could be assumed that the Church would have
acknowledged this, but there is no definitive record of such acknowledgment.

The controversy over Rizal's retraction remains a subject of debate, and historians continue to examine
the available evidence to determine the authenticity and implications of the retraction letter.

The Katipunan's Cry

The Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan, commonly known as Katipunan
or KKK, was a revolutionary society founded in 1892 in Manila, the Philippines.

It was established with the primary goal of achieving independence from Spanish colonial rule through a
revolution. The Katipunan was organized as early as January 1892 but may not have become active until
July 7 of the same year, coinciding with the banishment of José Rizal to Dapitan.

Key founders of the Katipunan included Filipino patriots such as Andrés Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, and
Ladislao Diwa. The organization was kept secret until its discovery in 1896, leading to the outbreak of the
Philippine Revolution. Katipunan members adhered to strict rules and maintained the utmost secrecy
within the society.

Initially, membership in the Katipunan was open to male Filipinos, but later women were accepted into
the organization. The Katipunan had its publication called "Kalayaan" (Freedom), which issued its first
and last printing in March 1896. The society served as a platform for revolutionary ideals and works,
contributing to the expansion of Filipino literature through the efforts of its prominent members.

In planning the revolution, Andrés Bonifacio sought support from José Rizal for the Katipunan in exchange
for a promise to rescue Rizal from his detention. In May 1896, Katipunan leadership attempted to secure
a source of arms for the revolution by meeting with the Captain of a visiting Japanese warship, but their
efforts were unsuccessful.

The existence of the Katipunan was revealed to the Spanish authorities, and in August 1896, Bonifacio
and his men initiated the Cry of Balintawak by tearing up their cédulas, which marked the beginning of
the Philippine Revolution of 1896.

Andrés Bonifacio, born on November 30, 1863, and later executed on May 10, 1897, was a prominent
Filipino revolutionary leader and the president of the Tagalog Republic. He is often referred to as "The
Father of the Philippine Revolution" and was one of the founders and the later Supremo (Supreme Leader)
of the Katipunan. Bonifacio played a vital role in the movement for Philippine independence from Spanish
colonial rule and in initiating the revolution.

Cry of Pugad Lawin

The Cry of Pugad Lawin (also known as the Cry of Balintawak) is a significant event in Philippine history
that marked the beginning of the Philippine Revolution against Spanish colonial rule. However, there have
been disputes and varying accounts regarding the exact date and location of this event, as you've pointed
out.

The historical discrepancies in accounts about the Cry of Pugad Lawin can be attributed to multiple
factors, including the ambiguity of place names, the passage of time, and differing interpretations. These
discrepancies led to different dates and locations being associated with the event. Here's a summary of
the main points:

1. Different Dates and Places:

Lt. Olegario Diaz claimed that the Cry of Rebellion took place in Balintawak on August 25, 1896.

Teodoro Kalaw suggested that the event occurred during the last week of August 1896 in Kangkong,
Balintawak.

Santiago Alvarez stated that the Cry took place in Bahay Toro, which is now in Quezon City, on August 24,
1896.

Pío Valenzuela, a close associate of Andrés Bonifacio, declared that it happened in Pugad Lawin on August
23, 1896.
Historian Gregorio Zaide indicated that the "Cry" occurred in Balintawak on August 26, 1896.

Historian Teodoro Agoncillo, following Pío Valenzuela's statement, suggested that the event took place
in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896.

Accounts by historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas claimed that the
event took place in Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City.

2. Tearing of Cédulas:

Some accounts relate the tearing of cédulas (community tax certificates) in the last days of August, with
the older accounts identifying the place as Kangkong in Balintawak. Most accounts mention the tearing
of cédulas on August 26, near the time of the first skirmish.

3. Formation of an Insurgent Government:

Some definitions of the Cry emphasize the "birth of the Filipino nation state," which involved setting up
a national insurgent government through the Katipunan with Andrés Bonifacio as President. This
government was established in Banlat, Pasong Tamo, on August 24, 1896, following the tearing of cédulas
but before the first skirmish.

4. Why Balintawak:

Some argue that the Cry of Rebellion in the Philippines initiated the revolution, and the term "Cry of Pugad
Lawin" was only coined later because of a hawk's nest found at the backyard of Tandang Sora in Banlat,
Gulod, Kaloocan.

Ultimately, the exact date and location of the Cry of Pugad Lawin remain the subject of debate among
historians. The event's significance lies in its role as a catalyst for the Philippine Revolution, regardless of
the specific details of when and where it took place.

BALINTAWAK OR PUGAD LAWIN?

• Controversy surrounds the date and location of the Cry of Pugad Lawin (Cry of Balintawak),
illustrating the complexities of historical research and interpretation.
• Numerous conflicting accounts, eyewitness testimonies, and varying sources make it challenging
to establish a definitive version of events.
• Different historians and researchers may arrive at varying conclusions influenced by sources,
biases, and the evolving nature of historical research.
• National historical commissions and historians often rely on the preponderance of evidence and
significant eyewitness accounts to determine historical events.
• Teodoro Agoncillo significantly influenced the promotion of the Pugad Lawin version, based on
Pio Valenzuela's testimony, a close associate of Andrés Bonifacio.
• Historical sources can have inconsistencies and discrepancies, adding complexity to historical
research.
• For consistency, the National Historical Commission and many historians have settled on the
Pugad Lawin date of August 23, 1896.
• This choice is based on available information and scholarly consensus, aimed at providing clarity
for educational purposes, national remembrance, and commemorations.
• The controversy and differing accounts emphasize the complexity of historical research and the
need for ongoing scholarship to accurately understand and interpret past events.