READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

CONTENT AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS HISTORICAL SOURCES

Submitted by:
Sheldon Angelo Pasahol

Submitted to:
Ms. Daniella M. Decena
 CAVITE MUTINY

I. INTRODUCTION

Cavite is one of the province in the Philippines located in the Calabarzon region in Luzon. Located

on the southern shores of Manila Bay and southwest of Manila, it is one of the most industrialized

and fastest-growing provinces in the Philippines. It is historically known to be one of the provinces

that battled for the Philippine Independence, with many landmarks in the province which used to be

historical battle sites. The word “mutiny” comes from the old verb “mutine” means revolt, it’s a

rebellion or against on authority. In the year of 1872 have a huge impact on Cavitenos and having a

dark memory.
II. CONTENT AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

PRIMARY /
HISTORICAL SOURCE CLAIM SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
SECONDARY

 They claimed the

abolition of

privileges and
They claimed that it
prohibition of the
Jose Montero y Vidal & highlighted as an
They are primary founding of the
Governor-General attempt of the Indios to
sources school of arts
Rafael Izquierdo overthrow the Spanish
and trade
government.
 Exempted of

paying tax.

 Polos y servicios

Trinidad Pardo de He is a primary source He claimed that the  He claimed that

Tavera incident was a merely a from the

mutiny by Filipinos dissatisfaction

soldiers and laborers of arising from the

the Cavite arsenal. draconian

 policies of

Izquierdo.

Edmund Plauchut He is a secondary He claimed that he

source traced the immediate He traced that the

cause to a peremptory primary cause of the

order from the mutiny is believed to

governor, Izquierdo, "be an order from

exacting personal Governor-General Carlos

taxes from the Filipino to subject the soldiers

laborers in the of the Engineering and

engineering and Artillery Corps to

artillery corps in the personal taxes, from

Cavite arsenal ,and which they were

requiring them to previously exempt. The

perform forced labor taxes required them to

like ordinary subjects. pay a monetary sum as

well as to perform
 forced labor called, polo

y servicio. The mutiny

was sparked on January

20, 1872 when the

laborers received their

pay and realized the

taxes as well as the

falla, the fine one paid

to be exempt from

forced labor, had been

deducted from their

salaries.

III. CONCLUSION
 Cavite Mutiny: A Success or a Failure? Explain.

In conclusion, the Cavitenos uprising was a failure because they made a mistake that they weren't

sure first if that was really the signal of their enemy's attack. In other word they had a false alarm. And

according to the account details that on January 20 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the Feast of

the Virgin Loreto, came with it were some fireworks display and the Cavitenos mistook this as the signal to

commence with attack.

RETRACTION OF RIZAL
I. INTRODUCTION

José Protasio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda was a Filipino nationalist, writer and polymath active

at the end of the Spanish colonial period of the Philippines. Rizal retraction is the issue of whether

Jose Rizal, a Philippine national hero, renounced his views against the Catholic Church and the

Spanish colonial rule before his execution in 1896.There are different versions of the retraction

document and the circumstances of its signing. Some claim that it is authentic and that Rizal wrote

it willingly, while others argue that it is a forgery or that Rizal was coerced or deceived . The

retraction has been a subject of controversy and debate among scholars and historians

II. CONTENT AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

HISTORICAL SOURCE PRIMARY / SECONDARY CLAIM SUPPORTING

 EVIDENCE

Fr. Vicente Balaguer He is a primary source. He argued that Rizal  Claimed that he

retracted managed to

persuade Rizal to

denounce

mansory and

return to the

Catholic fold.

 Doubts on the

retraction

document

abound,

especially

because only one

witness account

of the writing of

the document

exists – that of
 the Jesuit Friar

Fr. Vincente

Balaguer.

Fr. Pio Pi He is a secondary He claimed that he was  He claimed that he

source. involved only in
securing the retraction
 He claimed that he
 He claimed that he
hasn’t visited nor
talk to Dr. Rizal while
he was staying in the
chapel before
accompanying him
by the other fathers
to the Bagumbayan.
did not know Rizal
and did not come to
see him when he
was on their
Church, but he
knew what was
happening and the
proceedings of
Rizal's execution
through his fellow
Fathers.
 copied and modified
his own retraction
document and signed
it together with the
two witnessed. After
that, Dr. Rizal went
to the altar and
knelt down and
read this document
aloud

Austin Coates He is a secondary He claimed that Rizal  He claimed that

source. did not retract. Rizal believed that

the primed mover of

fraud is the friar

bishop and this friar

is the one who

wanted his

retraction.

 He claimed that Rizal

is aware that once

 made a retraction

there would be

damage that would

affect him.

 He claimed that he

believed that before

God he had nothing

to retract.

Rafael Palma He is a primary source.  He argued that a  He claimed that

retraction is not in no marriage

keeping with Rizal’s certificates or

character and public record of

natural beliefs. the marriage of

Rizal with

Josephine

Bracken

 He claimed that the

 document of

retraction was kept

secret so that no one

was able to see it

except the

authorities.

 He claimed that he

called the retraction

a story a “pious

fraud”.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on your analysis, did Jose Rizal retract? Explain.

 There’s a lot of arguments in Rizal retractions but for me, Rizal did not retract because based on

the account of Austin Coates that “Rizal believed that the primed mover of fraud is the friar bishop and this

friar is the one who wanted his retraction” and also believed that before God he had nothing to retract. We

know that friars are angered with Rizal because of the two books he publish so that the friars told that

Rizal did retract even it’s not.

FIRST CRY OF THE REVOLUTION

I. INTRODUCTION
 As the nation marks on Monday the 125th anniversary of the "Cry of Pugad Lawin," formerly called the
"Cry of Balintawak”, it is also worth recalling how the “First Cry” monument was relocated from its original
site in Balintawak to the University of the Philippines (UP) campus in Diliman, Quezon City in 1968 or 53
years ago. The so-called "Cry" of Pugad Lawin or Balintawak is considered as the beginning of the
Philippine revolution against more than 300 years of Spanish occupation. The First Cry of the Revolution
remains unsolved due to the different dates and places that were mentioned by different eyewitnesses of
the event. These include Pio Valenzuela “Cry of Pugad Lawin”, Santiago Alvarez “The Cry of Bahay Toro”,
Gregoria de Jesus’s “First Cry”, Guillermo Masangkay’s “The Cry of Balintawak”.

II. CONTENT AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS

PRIMARY /
HISTORICAL SOURCE CLAIM SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
SECONDARY

Dr. Pio Valenzuela He is a primary source. He claimed that the  He was present at

First Cry of Revolution the event as an

happened in official of the

 Katipunan and a

friend of Andres

Bonifacio

 August 20 1896

when he was

arrived and

August 22 1896

500 members of
Balintawak.
Katipunan met at

Kangkong.

 He claimed that

on August 23

1896 when the

first cry of

revolution.

Santiago Alvarez He is a secondary He claimed The Cry of  He claimed

source. Bahay Toro in that on Sunday

 August 23

1896, the

Katipunero’s

met togther at

place called

Sampaluka n

barrio of Bahay
Balintawak.
Toro

 He claimed

that on

August 24

1896 – the cry

of Bahay Toro

Guillermo Masangkay He is secondary He claimed “The Cry of  He claimed

source. Balintawak” that the big

meeting was

held in
 Balintawak

with the

purpose of

discussing

when would

the uprising

take place.

 He claimed

that on August

26 1896 – the

first cry of

Balintawak
III. CONCLUSION

Following extensive research and considering the accounts of various primary sources,

when and where did the First Cry of the Revolution transpire? Explain.

 In conclusions, the first cry of the revolution was held on August 23 1896 at Balintawak because Dr. Pio

Valenzuela account are the only one of having strong evidence. According to his account, he He was

present at the event as an official of the Katipunan and a friend of Andres Bonifacio unlike the others

account they did not know. Others accounts did not mention the first cry of revolution even they are the

same place happen.

REFERENCES:
References (Cavite Munity)
 Foreman, J., 1906, The set course for her patrol area off the northeastern coast of the main Japanese island Honshū. She
arrived, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons
 The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny
 Jump up to:abTwo Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny
 Jose Montero y Vidal, “Spanish Version of the Cavite Munity of 1872” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia, Documentary Sources of Philippine
History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990),281 – 286
 Rafael Izquierdo, “Official Report on the Cavite Munity” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,
Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990),281 - 286
 Cry of the Philippine Revolution (2020).Sir Jhuls Ortega Retrieved from: www.youtube.com