A Resistance, not a Revolution: The 1896 Philippine Revolution

Introduction:

The 1896 Philippine Revolution was one of the highlights of Philippine history. This event

in our history gives us a glimpse of what happened in the year 1896 and the years following it.

In this paper, we will argue that this turning point in the history of our country is a resistance

through the following points: 1. Incompetence of the Katipunan and Bonifacio during the first

major war of the organization, 2. Internal conflict, and 3. Impaired Unity.

Historical Background:

It is written in the history of the Philippines about the long-enduring suffering of the

Filipinos under Spanish rule. For 333 years under such a regime, countless abuses and

injustices were borne by our ancestors, until the 1896 Philippine Revolution against the Spanish

colonists took place. What led to the uprising of the Filipinos back then, and why is it one of the

turning points in every Filipino's life, past, present, and future? During the Spanish colonial era,

Filipinos, or Indios (Natives), were refused countless privileges and rights. The Spaniards took

advantage of the decentralized system of government in the archipelago; they used several

strategies to gather the natives under their belt so it would be easier for them to rule their

policies and power. Another thing would be the lack of education of the majority of Filipinos at

the time; however, with the rise of the New Principalia’s or wealthy native Filipinos, things

started to change. With the Filipinos slowly starting to gain consciousness of the injustices and

abuses of the colonizers, this led to different movements, from the propagandists and the

katipuneros, which brought about the spark of a resistance.

This nationalist consciousness was triggered by the deaths of three Filipino Catholic

priests, or GomBurZa (Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora), after being wrongly accused of leading

the Cavite Mutiny back in the year 1872. Their deaths sparked the consciousness of a variety of

Filipinos; one of them is our national hero, Jose Rizal. Rizal established a biweekly newspaper

called La Solidaridad, which served as the voice of Filipinos abroad, particularly in Spain. Its

chief goal is to expose the abuses and injustices the Spanish colonists inflicted upon its colony

in order to gain reforms in the country; in short, La Solidaridad was aiming for equality. La

Solidaridad wasn’t the only propaganda movement exhibited by the illustrados (enlightened

ones, mainly Filipinos who studied abroad); there was also Diariong Tagalog and later on La

Liga Filipina.

However, despite the efforts of the individuals behind the propaganda movement, it did

not succeed for two reasons: Spain was also undergoing internal problems at the time. The

friars were at the height of their power. After the downfall of the propaganda movement, a new
movement rose, namely the KKK (Kataastaasan Kagalang-galang na Katipunan ng mga Anak

ng Bayan), established by Andres Bonifacio, whose main goal is total separation from Spain

and to protect Filipinos from harm and abuse. This movement then led to what we now know as

the 1896 Philippine Resistance against Spanish authority.

POINT 1. Uncovering the Amateurish and Unprompted Nature of the 1896 Philippine

Revolution

The Katipunan movement is best described as amateurish and unprompted. One of the

main reasons they were unable to achieve revolt was due to their lack of group competence and

Bonifacio's lack of proper leadership. Let us look at the first major battle of Katipunan, which

took place on August 30, 1896, in San Juan del Monte. The Katipunan, led by Andres Bonifacio,

had no formal mechanisms for command decisions, leading to personal problems and delays in

the Battle of San Juan del Monte. The Katipunan chapters attacked separately and acted with

little cooperation, resulting in Filipinos skirmishing with Spanish armed contingents. The Spanish

sent a cavalry and infantry detachment to reinforce the troubled forces, forcing the Katipunan to

disperse in disorder. This resulted in many of them being killed or captured, and the whole affair

was a disaster for Bonifacio's reputation as a commander. This lack of coordination was due in

part to Bonifacio's leadership style, which was often characterized by impulsiveness and a lack

of strategic planning. Two engagements—a small skirmish in Pasong Tamo on August 26 and a

larger attack on the waterworks in San Juan del Monte on August 30—were fought almost

entirely by Bonifacio and other Manila members of the Katipunan.

All of these factors contributed to the Katipunan's lack of competence as a group and the

lack of proper leadership by Andres Bonifacio himself. The Katipunan's unpreparedness was

the primary factor that dictated the course of events. Bonifacio’s style of leadership and

command seemed to rely very heavily on face-to-face meetings with their followers, where

matters of basic strategy had to be voted on. This was not a system that often worked on

achieving a revolt that would shift the entire course of the 1896 Philippine Revolution. The

actions of the Katipunan did not qualify for the category of revolution; instead, they set in motion

a series of events that continuously evolved the movement into resistance rather than revolt.

POINT 2: Internal Conflict

As stated above, a revolution is defined as an act of overthrowing something, perhaps a

structure of government and their implemented laws, in favor of a new system. Not with this in

mind, it would only make sense for a revolution on a national level to be successfully achieved if

all parties involved share a solitary goal behind such an attempt. Unfortunately, this has never
been the case for the Katipuneros during their pursuit of freedom from the hands of the Spanish

colonists in 1896. Due to the internal conflict between the Filipinos, there is no actual concrete

“new system” that was favored by everyone involved. Although there was a common ground

between everyone which was to have a better and a fairer society for the Filipino people, their

visions on how to attain such a goal were on absolutely different paths. What made the 1896

event more of a resistance than that of a revolution was the inability of the leaders to unite their

perception on how to attain freedom. In fact, if we try to go through various history books and

accounts about this particular period in the country, we will most likely be reading more about

the disputes of the Katipuneros and their leaders, and how it affected the movement and their

chances of achieving what they were aiming for.

Take for example, perhaps the most crucial turning point of the dispute between the

leaders of the Katipunan, the Tejeros Convention. It was a foreshadowing of how divided the

country was as well as the fall of the revolutionary dream of its people. The Tejeros convention

highlights the disagreement between the two factions of KKK; Magdalo and Magdiwang, led by

Aguinaldo and Bonifacio. One of the purposes of such assembly, presided by Andres Bonifacio,

was to discuss whether to retain the current Katipunan government or to set up a new

revolutionary government. The Magdalo supported the idea of having a revolutionary

government while on the other hand, the Magdiwang favoured the old Katipunan government.

Nevertheless, they ended up having an ineffective election to determine who will become the

president of the new government due to bad politics that got in the way of building a

revolutionary government. Therefore, if the Katipuneros failed to even conduct a peaceful and a

uniting election for their revolutionary goals, how would they even be able to implement or put

one into action.

POINT 3: Impaired Unity

Furthermore, as a third argument, contending the 1896 uprising as a mere force of

resistance, the lack of unity among the members of the movement contributed greatly to the fall

of their mission. This is evident in the letter of Andres Bonifacio dated April 16, 1897 sent to

Emilio Jacinto, where it stated “ang sunod sunod na pagka-agaw ng kalaban sa mga bayan…

ay buhat sa kakulangan ng pagkakaisa at pananatili ng dating kaugalian na pag-iiringan ng mga

pinuno na magpahanggan ngayo’y nananatili pa, kahit inaabot na ang mahigpit na kalagayang

tinatawid ng bayan.” It further emphasized the conflict created after the convention called by

presidente M. Mariano in hopes to continue the fight against the Spanish government, agreeing

to raise “gobierno ng revolucion.” However, upon discovering the deceit of the Magdalo, the

assembly lost meaning and efficacy in their drive towards revolution.

 It is melancholic to think Katipuneros, amidst their inadequacy of manpower, have to

hardly deal first with their own fellowmen before dealing finally with the growing power of the

foreign foes. This impaired unity has been long inflicting the history of the archipelago. If we go

back to the reasons as to why the Philippines was easily colonized, history stipulated the (1)

absence of centralized government and (2) having no unity as factors for colonizers’ quick

capture. What became the reason for colonization made its way to being still a reason for the

fall of their fervent mission.

Moreover, the scope of an ambitious goal for revolution requires unified, solid effort.

What could have strengthened the foundation is a mixture of gravel and cement binding the

elements for a concrete, solid whole. If there has been a moment of unified goal, ideas, and

drive, the force for revolt executed 127 years ago could be a force for the Spaniards to reckon

with. Revolution is achieved only when the solidarity of the Filipinos prevailed at a national level

of manpower. It was unfortunate that the lack of unity, coupled with conflicts amongst the

factions and movements, enabled the revolutionary commitment disabled.

It is not enough for such an ambitious mission geared only on heart burning with desire

for liberty to drive off the goal. Practical capacity in terms of weaponry, size of manpower, and

the like, should have been granted. Their efforts, after all, fall to the resistance criterion instead

of revolution.

Counter Argument: The Nature of The 1896 Philippine Revolution

Because of its transformative nature and the nature of its objectives, the Philippine

Revolution of 1896 should be viewed as a revolt rather than a resistance. This revolution was a

voluntary outgrowth of massive Filipino resistance to oppressive and long-standing Spanish

colonial rule, rather than a retreat from specific policies or grievances. Unlike most opposition

movements, which seek minor changes to an existing system, the 1896 Revolution sought to

completely destroy Spanish sovereignty and establish an entirely new sovereign state. Aside

from taking a firm and aggressive stance against colonial power, the revolution's sections and

differences among Filipino leaders emphasized its insurgent-like character, while internal power

struggles prevented the group from combining around one agenda. The 1896 Philippine

Revolution was a transformative and prevalent struggle against colonial rule, with elements

more akin to "revolt" than "resistance."

Conclusion:

In conclusion, we unanimously agree that the 1896 Philippine revolution is actually a resistance

and not a revolt. While it is imperative to acknowledge how the Filipino citizens at the time

endeavored to rebel against the oppression of the Spanish regime; it is fair to highlight the
necessary actions taken as a means of achieving such a goal. During their intentions of revolt,

the Filipinos experienced setbacks from within their movements. The KKK (headed by Andres

Bonifacio), while ambitious, was quite incompetent. Attacks orchestrated by the movement were

often disorganized, and led to the deaths and incarceration of many Filipinos. Another factor

was Bonifacio’s lack of leadership. To illustrate, they mostly held meetings in order to decide the

best course of action for potential attacks, which mostly led to ineffectiveness in their execution.

In order for it to be considered a revolution, each individual member must uphold a common

belief and approach for obtaining the end goals of the movement as a whole. However, this was

not the case for the Katipuneros. There had been conflicts in terms of their visions and interests.

While they shared a common end goal, they could not find a steady approach in which every

member could agree upon. This led to a divide among their ranks. The Tejeros Convention is a

major example of the divide within the KKK. Bonifacio was to discuss whether to retain the

current Katipunan government or to set up a new revolutionary government. Magdalo supported

the idea of a new government, whereas Magdiwang supported the old government.

Consequently, they were unable to decide on who is to be elected as the president of the new

government. Unity is an integral aspect for maintaining a stable movement against oppression.

It is what guarantees effective leadership and execution of plans. The sheer bond and

camaraderie between individuals is what fuels the success of a revolution. On the contrary,

Impaired unity constituted its downfall. The goal of freeing the country from the shackles that

bind it is an admirable endeavor, but how can such a dream be achieved if it is only the burning

passion that acts as its foundation? Solidarity among the Filipinos could have been a driving

factor behind the strength of their revolution. Unfortunately, it has all been undone through the

disagreements between its fellowmen. It is clear to us that the movement itself was not unified,

and their endeavors do not qualify as a revolution, but merely, a series of events that evolved

into a resistance

REFERENCES:

Alvarez, Recalling the Revolution, 46-48; Quirino, Filipinos at War, 104-107; Sastrón, La

Insurección en Filipinas, 74-77; Foreman, The Philippine Islands, 368. Foreman, The

Philippine Islands, 368.

Graciano Lopez Jaena: Speeches, Articles and Letters

Jose Rizal: Political and History Writing

Letter to Emilio Jacinto by Andres Bonifacio (April 16, 1897)

May, Glenn Anthony. “Warfare by Pulong Bonifacio, Aguinaldo, and the Philippine Revolution

against Spain.” Philippine Studies 55, no. 4 (January 1, 2007): 449–477.

https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=137113756512125;res=IELIND.

Pilapil, Vincente R. “The Cause of the Philippine Revolution.” Pacific Historical Review 34, no. 3

(August 1, 1965): 249–264. https://doi.org/10.2307/3636522.

Sinco, Avron. “Katipunan Disputes: The Tejeros Convention - Avron Sinco - Medium.” Medium,

December 12, 2021. https://medium.com/@assinco/katipunan-disputes-the-tejeros-

convention-1b2369f1b07d.