Divine Word College of San Jose

San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

College Department

Module 5
 Lesson 8-9
1. Title: Readings in Philippine History

2. Scope: Controversies and Conflicting Views in History of Philippines

3. Overview: It have been introduced the controversies and issues about historical facts,
method and content and context analysis of primary sources.

4. Objectives:
Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or against a
particular issue using primary sources.

5. Discussion of the Topics

Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippine History

A. Cavite Mutiny

B. Retraction of Rizal

V arious historian report that through a document Rizal has retracted his anti-Catholic
ideas. The authenticity of the retraction papers of Jose Rizal has raised problems,
skepticism, and heated discussion between those trying to learn the truth about this controversy
for decades. The fact that significant individuals involved lacked evidence and statements only
contributed to the complications and the uncertainty surrounding this fiery argument.

Reasons for Retraction

T he introduction from Hessel (1965) illustrates how unfortunate it is that some people
talked about the Retraction without actually knowing what Rizal did or didn’t retract.
The mature, quite uniform and systematic religious thinking of Dr. Rizal has been given
insufficient attention. Only once this is done first can the significance of the retraction be
evaluated. Some people would mean nothing to withdraw because they have so little to withdraw.
He explains the four common positions to “retreat” and its influence on Dr. Rizal’s life and nature.

1. Some insists that the “converted” Rizal is remembered and respected. Those insist.
That is the official position of the Roman Catholic. Father Cavanna says in the Preface in
 his single “official” book dealing with every aspect of the Retraction (the “official” because
it bears Archbishop Santos ‘Imprimatur):
“ the glory of Rizal as a scholar, as a poet, as a scientist, as a patriot, as a hero, may fade
away someday, as all worldly glories do, sooner or later. But his glory, that at the very
hour of his death what he had lost for a time is his unfortunate GLORY, the Truth, the Way,
and the Life.”

Source: Jesus Ma. Cavanna y Manso, C. M. Rizal’s Unfading Glory, a Documentary

History of the Cnversion of Dr. Jose Rizal, 2nd Ed. Rev and improved (Manila: n.n. 1956),
p. vi. Subsequently referred to as “Cavanna”.

The declaration issued in 1956 and signed by the Archbishop regarding the Noli
and the Fili echoes this same sentiment:

“It is precisely in that which we have to imitate [Rizal] when we were about to
coronate all of his life, by sealing with his blood, that we have to withdraw, as he bravely
did at the moment of his supreme sacrifice, whatever was against his status as a son of the
Catholic Church in his writings, in his publication and his conduct.”

Source: Jesus Ma. Cavanna y Manso, C. M. Rizal’s Unfading Glory, a Documentary

History of the Cnversion of Dr. Jose Rizal, 2nd Ed. Rev and improved (Manila: n.n. 1956),
p. vi. Subsequently referred to as “Cavanna”.

2. Some argue that Rizal was a free thinker and a disbeliever throughout his adult life,
so retracting is necessary a lie. That is the far opposite to the position of the Roman
Catholic. The main premise on which this thesis has been based is not true in my previous
writing.
3. A third implicit view can be summed up: the Rizal that matters is the Rizal of pre-
return so that the Rizal can be ignored. Many students and admirers of Rizal have the
basic assumption here, but the conclusion does not follow necessarily. This brings us to the
fourth possible retreat attitude.
4. It is desirable to study all aspects of life and to think of Rizal. We are entitled and also
obliged to look into the retreat facts in the best interest of the truth to which Rizal has
devoted himself.
Major Arguments of Retraction
Hessel (1965) argued that fancy could still be acknowledged if scholarly research
continues. It would be nice to speak about bibliography and method before we proceed further. In
the course of this study, more than 20 books and brochure were investigated in addition to
numerous articles. Many Retraction writings repeat previous arguments and do not add anything
new. Others are more sentimental and sarcastic than illuminating. However, almost all of them
have gained some value. Two general categories include literature.

The biography and works that specifically deal in the Retraction are Guerrero and
Laubach, they accepted the Retraction, and the other two rejected it as most appropriate. Of the
works dealing with the retraction in particular, Pascual and Father Cavanna are the most
objective because it is academic and complete. Until now no book is the same Father Cavanna as
a compendium of almost complete information and arguments for. A total of 123 articles of the
text, annexes, and a bibliography consists of 353 page(s). Personal debt to among other authors
consulted. In defense of retraction, Garcia is a profile popular writer, the other two are against
him.

Source: Eugene A. Hessel, The Religious Thought of Jose Rizal(Manila: Philippine Education Co.,
1961), p 255.

Hessel(1965) refers to Father Cavanna’s writings (1952) as it provides a well-oriented

summary that later defenders adopt. The following points are based on Cavanna with several slight
amendments:
1. The retraction documents, as a principal witness to the retraction reality, is considered since
the discovery in 1935. The defenders have said I works or with implications, those who
challenge the removal now lie in the burden of evidence.

2. The press testimony at the time of the event, eye testimonies and others, i.e, those closely
linked to the events, like the Jesuit head, the archbishop.

3. According to the reports, Dr. Rizal has recited “Acts of Faith, Hope, Charity” and signed
it as attested by “Witnesses” and the Prayer Book. This is very strong testimony, if needed
because Rizal did not agree with Catholic Romanesque teaching in general as was the case
with the Retraction Statement, but in particular with several convictions that he has
previously rejected. By the Father Balaguer’s testimony, Rizal was offered a prayer book
following the signing of the Retraction “He took the prayer book, read the deeds slowly,
accepted them, put the pen on it, and said, ‘Credo’(I think) signed them on the book itself.
What was signed by Rizal? The ‘Act of Faith” should be cited in detail.
One of the documents found by the Fr. Garcia and the Retraction was the signed prayer book.

4. The acts of piety Rizal carried out in the last few hours as “witnesses” have testified.
5. His ‘Roman Catholic Marriage’ by ‘witnesses’ to Josephine Bracken. Without a retraction,
there could be no marriage.
 These are powerful arguments. Many think of them as ‘irrefutable facts’, as Cavanna does.
However, to call them the fact is to prejudge the case or to misuse the words, a retraction document
was found in 1935, is probably a matter of facts. As we will see soon, many Retraction opponents
use the Document as their main argument. So there’s also a book of prayers signed. But a number
asked, is this the signature of Rizal? According to the argument, what is the meaning of a mere
signature apart from Father Balaguer’s testimony as to why Rizal signed it?

Case Against the Retraction

ith Hessel’s (1965) remarks above, it is no less true that the testimony is impressive.
W It cannot be dismissed with a few sarcastic comments, as some have tried to do. The
argument from the testimony as well as the arguments as a whole can be better judged only if this
evidence is weighed against the argument that rejects the removal.

1. It is said that the Retraction Document is a falsification. As we have noted on both sides of
the debate, the Document plays an important part. The case against the document itself
is divided into four prongs.
a) First of all, handwriting is an issue. Using a study he has incorporated into his book
“Rizal beyond the Grave,” Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the Philippines has
only to date produced a detailed scientific study leading to an attack on the authenticity of
the document. Taking some half a dozen unquestioned Rizal’s writings from the last half
of December 1896 as his “standard”, he noted a number of variations in the handwriting of
the Retraction Document, the following being the most significant according to the current
lecturer:
i) The slanting of the letters in the standard writings indicates, on average, several
points higher than the Retraction Document average and perhaps more
significantly, the slanting letters in the Document
ii) There are significant variations in the way individual letters are formed;
iii) With regards to the signature, Pascual notes no less than seven differences, one of
the most important being indications of ‘stops’ which, according to the critic, are
explained most naturally by the fact that a forger may stop at certain points to
determine what form to take next;
iv) In several respects, there are marked similarities between the Retraction body and
the writing of all three signatories, i. e., Rizal and the two witnesses, pointing out
that his is a ‘one-man document’.

The only scholarly response to Pascual is that given by Dr. Jose I. del Rosario as part of
the thesis he prepared at the University of Sto. Tomas for this Ph. D. in Chemistry in 1937.
Although most of the details are the result of a later study to be prepared explicitly by Father
Cavanna, the main criticism of Dr. del Rosario can be said to be that by comparison, Pascual does
not include enough of Rizal’s writings. He can challenge several of Pascual’s statements based in
a broader selection of standards, although this lecturer has noted errors in del Rosario’s data. Dr.
del Rosario concludes that handwriting is authentic.
b) A second prong directed against the document’s authenticity itself is based on
textual criticism principles. Several critics have noted differences, starting as far as I
know with Pascual, between the text of the document found in 1935 and other versions of
the Retraction, including the one issued by Father Balaguer. Since this kind of criticism
relates to my work in Biblical studies, I am now engaged in an essential textual study of
my own, which consists primarily of collecting all available forms of the text. To date, it
is clear from my studies that there have been two distinct forms of the text with significant
differences, at least since the morning of December 30, 1896, discounting numerous minor
variations. The one form is represented by the 1935 discovered Document and some other
early Retraction records. In particular, two phrases should be noted: in line 6, Catholic
Church, and in line 10, Catholic Church. The other text form is much more common,
starting with Balaguer’s 1897 published text. Instead of ‘Iglesia Catolica in line 6, there is
the single word ‘Iglesia and the same church’ appears instead of the Church.. There also
tend to be consistent differences in the use of capital letters between the two types of text.
The second form also claims to be the original accurate representation.
The usual explanation for these differences is that either Father Balaguer or Father
Pi made mistakes in the preparation of a copy of the original, which were transmitted to
others from this earliest copy. Fr. Cavanna makes the genius suggestion that Father
Balaguer made corrections to the formula which he gave Rizal for his writing, but not all
of them. Instead, it seems that the copy had been carefully compared at the same time or
some other early date before the original had disappeared. It is not surprising if people
wondered if a false version of a retraction statement issued by the religious authorities
made the Retraction Document.
c) A third argument against the authenticity of the Retraction Document, which also applies
to the Retraction itself, is that its content is somewhat strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic
religion “I want to live and die, ‘yet there was little time to live, as well as Rizal’s claim
that his retraction was spontaneous.

d) Finally, there is the forger’s confession. This story has only Runes. He and his co-author
reported an interview with a certain Antonio K. Abad who told on August 13, 1901, a
certain Roman Roque, at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija ( when
Abad was fifteen) how he had been employed by the Friars earlier that year to make several
copies of a retraction document. Colonel Funston had previously employed this same
Roque to forge the revolutionary General Lacuna’s signature on the document that led to
Aguinaldo’s capture. Runes also include a letter from former provincial secretary of Nueva
Ecija, Lorenzo Ador Dionisio, dated November 10, 1956, who was also present when
Roque told and confirmed his story.
 Based on the above arguments taken as a whole, it would appear that at least the Retraction
Document has reasonable ground to be questioned.

2. The second main argument against the withdrawal is that the withdrawal story does not
suit other events.

The most frequently mentioned by writers starting with Hermenegildo Cruz in 1912 are:

a) The Retraction document was not published until 1935. Even family members didn’t
see it. It was said that it was ‘lost’.
b) After signing the Retraction, no effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty.
The usual rebuttal is that the death of Rizal was due to political factors that could not
be interfered with by the religious authorities.
c) The funerary was kept a secret, buried outside the Paco cemetery interior and his burial
record was not placed on the entry page of 30 December, but on a special page where
one or more admitted non-penitents are recorded (perhaps others, the evidence is
inconsistent). The funeral of Rizal was kept secret. The retraction defenders are
asking how else to treat an executed felon? Maybe the ground outside the wall was also
sacred or could have been consecrated in particular. Rizal’s Christian Burial
Certificate was found in the same file with the Retraction Document on May 18, 1935
to top the rebuttal. All admit that penmanship is an amanuensis. It is open to question
whether the signature is genuine.
d) Rizal’s marriage with Josephine Bracken does not have a marriage certificate or public
record. It’s not very convincing to say they weren’t needed.
e) Finally, the behavior of Rizal as a whole during the last 24 hours does not indicate a
conversion. Whether written over the past 24 hours or somewhat earlier, Rizal’s Ultima
(Ultimo) Adios suggests no change in Rizal’s thinking. There is no indication of
conversion or even religious turmoil in the letters Rizal wrote during his last hours.
Rizal’s mother and sister Trinidad arrive in the evening, and they are told nothing about
the Retraction although Father Balaguer claims that the attitude of Rizal was beginning
to change even in the afternoon and he was asking for the retraction formula. It’s all
good and right to point out that before the actual retraction, all of the above happened.
Many people still have a question in their minds.

3. The third main argument line against the Retraction is that it’s out of character. This
argument has been presented more persistently and consistently than any other argument.
Starting with the anonymous leaflet of Dec. 31, 1896, since that time it has been claimed
or implied in any significant statement against the Retraction. Too many have appeared,
including the current lecturer, that the Retraction is not in line with Rizal’s character and
faith as well as inconsistent with his earlier religious thought declarations.
 Let’s look at the man’s character first. Anyone who knows his life’s facts know this is so.
Thirty-five are not exactly young, and at this age, Rizal was much older than the average.
Therefore, it is unlikely that he would have been shocked by the threat of death into
abnormal behavior. For a while, he had expected that authorities would destroy him and
even priests admit that, during the most of his last 24 hours. Rizal had demonstrated a type
of behavior that was consistent with everything previously demonstrated in his mature
years. For some ten years, I worked closely with prisoners, accompanying two of them to
the scaffold. Their behavior was consistent and restrained. I’d expect Rizal’s to be the
same. Also, Rizal was already a believer in the most profound sense of the word.

Hessel strongly argued that in the usual sense of the word, Rizal was not a free-
thinker. History is full of unchanged reports of real conversions, but the essential meaning
of true transformation is a shift from unbelief to belief, not just a shift in ideas.

The conversion of Rizal is also out of the line with his mature religious thinking. It is not
as if Rizal was bowled over by confrontation with Europe’s new thinking ( and by antagonism to
religious authorities who had injured his family and worked with Europe’s new thinking (and by
antagonism to religious authorities who had injured his family and worked hand-in-hand with a
restrictive colonial regime) but never thoroughly thought through his religious convictions. It is
apparent from writing to writing and making a very harmonious whole that similar views are found
that theology, as he did, is completely his own. Theology was quite harmonious. Rizal had a
consistent and meaningful Christian though system, so it’s more challenging to think of his sudden
exchange of it with another.
Please wait for my instruction for Activity # 4

Please watch this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyD760wSw_M&t=173s) &

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEm6S65l-ys&t=14s

C. Cry of Pugad Lawin or Balintawak?

ournalist of the nineteenth century used the phrase ‘el Grito de revillion’ or the cry of
J rebellion to describe the momentous events that swept the Spanish colonies;
in Mexico it was the ‘Cry of Dolores’ (September 16, 1810),
in Brazil it was the City of Ypirage (September 7, 1822), and
in Cuba it was the Cry of Matanza (February 24, 1895)
Similarly, Filipinos declared their rebellion against the Spanish colonial government in
August 18, 1896, northeast of Manila. The phrase was institutionalized for the Philippines by
Manuel Sastron, the Spanish historian, in his 1897 work, La Insurrection en Filipinas. All these
‘Cries’ have been milestones in the world’s various colonial-to-nationalist histories.
 The issue of when and where the Katipunan uprising started has involved scores of
historians. The dates of the Revolution’s launch in August 1896 vary from source to source. The
phrase Cry of Balintawak remained unchallenged until it was replaced by Cry of Pugad Lawin by
Teodoro Agoncillo in his book Revolt of the Masses. Agoncillo’s sources were Pio Valenzuela
and General Emilio Aguinaldo. To Andress Bonifacio, Valenzuela claimed to be closed. But he
contradicted other witnesses and himself on numerous occasions. One finds him untrustworthy.
The Cry was held on August 26, according to the inscription on the monument-the year 1896. This
date has been officially accepted as the date of the event.

Let us take a look from what other witnesses said:

A. Guillermo Masangkay – He wrote in the Sunday Tribunev Magazine on August 21, 1932,
that on August 26, 1896, the Cry took place in Balintawak. During the historic event, he
said he was present.

B. Santiago Alvarez – He wrote in his “Ang Katipunan at Paghihimagsik” because of this

historic event. He presented the events from 23 August to 25 August 1896. “The Katipunan
were immediately ready to encounter the foe, and at a point between Kangkong Balintawak
and Buhay Toro a short meeting was held,” he said on “Tuesday, August 25, 1896, at 2:00
p.m., a Katipunero watch from a Sampaloc tree.”

C. Oligarion Diaz report dated October 28, 1896 – Diaz was the Guardia Civil Veterana
officer. His account was prepared based on official reports of the actions of the Guardia
Civil and on the information given by person captured by the Spanish after the discovery
of the Katipunan or surrendered, taking advantage of the amnesty offer extended by
Governor Blanco to the Filipino rebels. The report says, ‘On the 23rd, Bonifacio moved to
the barrio of Balintawak followed by 200 men from Caloocan, on the 24th the Guardia Civil
attacked them in the outskirts of the said town…. “the Supreme Council called for an
important meeting to be held in the neighborhood as mentioned above the following day.
More than 500 members attended it. The meeting started with a discussion about what
course to take.. to put it to a vote. An overwhelming majority approved Bonifacio’s
proposal….” Orders for the Katipunan to strike at dawn on Sunday, august 30 were sent to
Manila, Cavite, Nueva Ecija, and other provinces.”

How varied and numerous are the points of disagreement, both primary and
secondary sources, will be seen from the statements presented above. The event’s scene
was no less than four different places – Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and Bahay
Toro. Also mentioned are five different dates-20 August, 23 August, 24 August, 25 August,
and 26 August.

In a round table conference held on February 9, 1996, some members of the panel
stressed that “there is only one past but many histories.” Then Chairman Ambeth Ocampo
noted that in this controversy, discussion often lead to more confusion than enlightened.
 Dr Guerrero, who acted as the moderator, suggested that all the individual events from
August 23 to August 26, 1896, for lack of consensus and resolution by the National
Historical Institute, be considered as integral aspects of a historical event that signified the
beginning of the 1896 revolution.

D. Different Dates and Places

D ifferent accounts give Cry different dates and places. An officer of the Spanish Civil
Guard, Lt. Olegario Diaz, stated that on August 25, 1896, the Cry was held in
Balintawak. In his 1925 book. The Filipino Revolution, historian Teodoro Kalaw wrote that the
event took place in Kangkong, Balintawak, during the last week of August 1896. The Cry took
place in Kangkong, Balintawak, during the last week of August 1896. The Cry took place in Bahay,
Toro in the City, on 24th August 1896, Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and a son of Cavite leader
Magdiwang, Pio Valenzuela, closely associated with Address Bonifacio, declared this in Pugad
Lawin in 1948 on 23 August 1896.
In 1954, the historian Gregorio Zaide stated in his books that on August 26, 1896, the “Cry”
took place in Balintawak.. Teodoro Agoncillo, a fellow historian Gregorio Zaide stated in his
books that on August 26, 1896, the “Cry” took place in Balintawak. Teodoro Agoncillo, a fellow
historian, had written in 1956 that it took place in Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896, based on Pio
Valenzuela’s statement. The event was held at Gulod, barangay Banlat, Quezon City’s Tandang
Sora grenade, according to historians Milagro Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion and Ramon
Villegas.
Some of the apparent confusion is due in part to the twin meanings at the turn of the century
of the terms “Balintawak” and “kalookan”. Balintawak referred to both a specific location in
modern Caloocan and a referred to modern Caloocan as well as a wider area that included modern
Quezon City as well as part of modern Pasig. Pugad Lawin, Pasong Tamo, Kangkong and other
particular places were all in “Grater Balintawak,” which in turn was part of ‘Greater Caloocan.”
Ambeth Ocampo remarked that in Caloocan, which at the time was a district of Balintawak, are
all the venues mentioned for the cry.

First Skirmish
The Cry had been generally identified with Balintawak until the late 1920s. On 26 August,
the first encounter with the Guardian of the Civilian Guard was commemorated as the anniversary
of the Katipuneros. In Banlat, Pasong Tamo was considered part of balintawak and now a part of
Quezon City. The first shot of the Revolution was fired.
Tearing of Cedulas
Not all accounts related in the days of August to the tearing of cedulas. Older accounts
identify the place where Kangkong happened in Balintawak/Kalookan. The most frequent date is
the cedulas-tearing date of the first meeting on 26 August. On the 24th and 26th, Guilermo
Masangkay, one Katipunero claimed that more than once cedlas had been torn.
Teodoro Agoncillo described the ‘cry’ for his 1956 book “The Revolt of the Masses” as
tearing of cedulas and distancing himself from the case that defined it as the first scarcity of the
revolution. His version was based on Pio Valenzuela’s later testimonies and others in Pugad Lawin
instead of Balintawak claiming the cry took place. The version of Valenzuela, through the
influence of Agoncillo, became the basis of the Philippine government’s current position. In 1963,
on August 23, President Diosdado Macapagal ordered the official commemoration to be
transferred to Pugad Lawin, Quezon City.
Insurgent Government Formation
n alternative definition of the Cry as the “birth of the nation of the Philippines” is the
A establishment of a national insurgent government through the Katipunan with
Bonifacio as a president in Banlat, Pasong Tamo on August 24, 1896-after the tearing of cedulas.
This was called the Catagalugan Republic (Tagalog Republic) before the first skirmish.

Other Cries
1895 – in the caves of Mt. Pamitinan in Montalban (now a part of the Rizal province) Bonifacio,
Masangkay, Emilio Jacinto and other Katipuneros spent Good Friday. They wrote on the walls of
the cave “long live Philippine independence,” and some Philippine historians considered it the first
cry.
1896 – Pio Valenzuela backtracked. Valenzuela testified that Rizal was vehemently opposed to
the revolution when the Katipunan consulted Jose Rizal as to whether the time had come to revolt.
Later, in Agoncillo’s mass revolt, Valenzuela retracted and claimed that if specific prerequisites
were met, Rizal was actually for the uprising. According to Agoncillo, Valenzuela lied to save
Rizal.
Pugad Lawin
1. It was never officially recognized as a place name on any Philippine map before the Second
World War,
2. Only from 1928 or some 32 years after the events, Pugad Lawin appeared in
historiography.
3. In the area of Balintawak, which was distinct from Kalookan and Diliman, the revolution
was always traditionally held to have taken place.
Pugad Lawin – is more romantic, it is more accurate to adhere to the original Cry of Balintawak.
Though it is debatable, the NHI stands is that it was held on 23 August 1896.
Pio Valenzuela and Guillermo Masangkay later accountson the tearing of cedulas on August 23
are mostly in agreement, but at the location, they conflict with each other.
Valenzuela –points to Juan Ramos’ house in Pugad Lawin
Masangkay – refers to the Kangkong house of Apolonio Samson
The final statement by masangkay has more weight as it is corroborated by many eyewitnesses
who were photographed when the earliest “23rd August marker was installed in 1917
The date of Valenzuela (23 August) – in his memoirs conflicts with the survey photographs of
1928 and 1930 with several Katipunan officers, published in La Opinion, claiming that the Cry
took place on the 24th.

Cry of Balintawak – nearly a century

- A significant turning point in Philippine history – has been the subject of controversy

Buehler (1999) – helps to resolve this controversy by analyzing previously unquoted, misquoted,
or misrepresented eyewitness accounts and contemporary documents. In her reconstruction of
what happened in Balintawak – when the katipuneros, led by Andress Bonifacio assembled in
August 1896 in Pook Kangkong – she shows that Pugad Lawin’s Cry was a hoax.
Pio Valenzuela – there were several versions of Cry
It will only be possible to determine what happened after they are comapared and
reconciled with the other accounts
September, 1896 – Valenzuela stated only that Katipunan meetings took place in Balintawak from
Sunday to Tuesday 0r 23 to 25 August before the Olive Court, which was charged with
investigating persons involved in the rebellion.
Please wait for instructions Quiz
Please watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh7oowrwvJQ &
Cry of Pugad Lawin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLI_rkwsG5M&t=300s

6. Self-Assessment and Evaluation of the Activities.

Activity # 2 &Quiz #1 (Wait for Instructions)
A. Identification/Multiple Choices
B. Matching Type.
(Please answer this to Google Form from Google Classroom or LMS. Wait for the my
instructions)
 Grading System
Output =50%
Mid-Term/Final Examination =25%
Quizzes =15%
Attendance =10%
100%

*Final Rating = Midterm (50%) + Final Term

7. References
Halili, MC N. (2004). Philippine History, Rex Booksrote.
Agoncillio, T.A. (1984). Kasaysayan ng Bayang Pilipino, Ikaapat na Edisyon, Garotech
Publishing.
Zaide G. F & Zaide, S.M. (2004). Kasaysayan at Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas. Ikaanim na
Edisyon. All-Nations Publishing Co, Inc.
Delos Santos A. R., Ramos, O.H, Ambida M. N. & Maliban N. P (2019). Readings in
Philippine History, Books Atbp. Publishing Corp.
Candelaria, JL P & Alphorha, V. C (2018). Reading in Philippine History, Rex Bookstore

L. P. FLORITA
College Instructor

Noted:

MRS. ELVIE D. ARAGONES, PhD (cand.)

Program Chairperson

Approved by:

LUIS I. GANTE JR., PhD

Dean of College