Week 3 and 4: Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interprefation

In this lesson, we will analyze three historiographical problems

in Philippine history in an attempt to apply what we have learned thus
far in the work of a historian and the process of historical inquiry.
Earlier, we have been introduced to history as a discipline, the
historical method, and the content and context analysis of primary
sources. Two key concepts that need to be defined before proceeding
to the historical analysis of problems in history are interpretation and
multiperspectivity.
History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary
definition is centered on how it impacts the present through its
consequences. (Geoffrey Barraclough defines history as "the attempt
to discover, on the basis of fragmentary evidence, the significant
things about the past. He also notes the history we read, though based
on facts, is strictiy speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted
judgments. Such judgments of historians on how the past should be
seen make the foundation of historical interpretation.

The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic

history Maragtas. Before it was revealed as a hoax, it was a source
of pride for the people of Aklan. In fact, a historical marker was
installed in the town of Batan, Aklan in 1956, with the following
text:

"CODE OF KALANTIAW.Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw,

third Chief of Panay, born in Aklan, established his
government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup.
Considered the First Filpino Lawgiver, he promulgated in
about 1433 penal code now known as Code of Kalantiaw
containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zarugoza,
Spain, obtained the original manuscript from an old chief
of Panay which was later translated into Spanish by
Rafael Murviedo Yzamaney.”
lt was only in 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when William
Henry Scott, then a doctoral candidate at the University of Santo
Tomas, defended his research on pre-hispanic sources in Philippine
history. He attributed the code to a historical fiction writtern in
1913 by Jose E. Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de la lsla de
Negros. Marco attributed the code itself to a priest named Jose
Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent to Scott
 s findings, but there are still some who would like to believe that
the code is a legitimate document.

Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history

and then draw their own reading so that their intended audience may
understand the historical event, a process that in essence, "makes
sense of the past. The premise is that not all primary sources are
accessible to a general audience, and without the proper training and
background, a non-historian interpreting a primary source may do
more harm than good-a primary source may even cause
misunderstandings; sometimes, even resulting more problems.
Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who
reads the primary source, when it was read, and how it was read. As
students of history, we must be well equipped to recognize different
types of interpretatons why these may differ from each other, and
how to criticaly sift these interpretations through historical evaluation.
Interpretations of historical events change over time; thus, it is an
important skill for a student of history to track these changes in an
attempt to understand the past.
 Sa “Aking Mga Kabata" is a poem purportedly written by
Jose Rizal when he was eight years old and is probably one of
Rizal's most prominent works. There is no evidence to support
the claim that this poem, with the now immortalized lines "Ang
hindi magmahal sa kanyang salita/mahigit sa hayop at
malansang isda was written by Rizal, and worse, the evidence
against Rizals authorship of the poem seems all
unassailable.
There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by
Rizal. The poem was first putblished in 1906, in a book by
Hermenegildo Cruz.

Cruz said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato Francisco,

who claimed to have received it in 1884 tirom Rizal's close
friend, Saturnino Raselis. Rizal never mentioned wrting this
poem anywhere in his writings, and more importanty, he never
mentioned of having a close triend by the person of Raselis.
Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the
wrongful attribution of the poem to Rizal. The poem was written
in Tagalog and reterred to the word "kalayaan. But it was
documented in Rizal's letters that he first encountered the word
through a Marcelo
H. del Pilar's translation of Rizal's essay El Amor Patrio, where it
was spelled as kalayahan.
While Rizal's native tongue was Tagalog. he was educated
in panish, starting from his mother, Teodora Alonso. Later on, he
would express disappointment in his difficulty in expressing
himself in his native tongue.
The poem's spelling is also suspect-the use of letters "k
and "w" to replaced c and u, respectively was suggested by Rizal
as an adult. If the poem was indeed written during his time, it
should use the original Spanish orthography that was prevalent
in his time.
when we were younger does not mean that it is set in stone-history
is, after all, a construct. And as a construct, it is open for
interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing accounts
otthe past that need one's attention, and can impact the way we
view our country's history and identity. It is important, therefore, to
subject to evaluation not only the primary source, but also the
historical interpretation of the same, to ensure that the current
interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the
past.
Multiperspectivity
With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another
important concept that we must note is multiperspectivity. This can
be defined as a way of looking at historical events, personalities,
developments, cultures, and societies from ditferent perspectives.
This means that there is a multitude of ways by which we can view
the world, and each could be equally valid, and at the same time,
equally partial as well. Historical writing is, by definition, biased,
partial, and contains preconceptions. The historian decides on what
sources to use, what interpretation to make more apparent,
depending on what his end is. Historians may misinterpret evidence,
attending to those that suggest that a certain event happened, and
then ignore the rest that goes against the evidence. Historians may
omit significant facts about their subject which makes the
interpretation unbalanced. Historians may impose a certain ideology
to their subject, which may not be appropriate the period the subject
was from. Historians may also provide a single cause for an event
without considering other possible causal explanations of said event.
These are just many of the ways a historian may fail in his historical
inference, description, and interpretation. With multiperspectivity as
an approach in history, we must understand that historical
interpretations contan diserepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and
are often the focus of dissernt.
Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires incorporating
source materials that reflect different views of an event in history,
because singular historical narratives do not provide for space to
inquire and investigate. Different sources that counter each other may
create space for more investigation and research, while providing
more evidence for those truths that these sources agree on.
Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths
-an official document may note different aspects of the past than, say,
a memoir an ordinary person on the same event. Different historical
agents create different historical truths, and while this may be a
burdensome work for the historian, it also renders more validity to the
historical scholarship. Taking these in close regard in the reading of
historical interpretations it provides for the audience a more complex,
but also a more complete and richer understanding of the past.
Case Study 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in
the Philippines?
The popularity of knowing where the "firsts" happened in history
has been an easy way to trivialize history, but this case study will not
focus on the significance (or lack thereof) of the site of the First
Catholie Mass in the Philippines, but rather, use it as a
historiographical exercise in the utlization of evidence and
interpretation in reading historical events.
Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. In
fact,this has been the case for three centuries, culminating in the
erection of a monument in 1872 near Agusan River, which
commemorates the expedition's arrival and celebration of Mass on 8
April 1521. The Butuan claim has been based on a rather elementary
reading of primary sources trom the event.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the
twentieth century, together with the increasing scholarship on the
history of the Philippines, a more nuanced reading of the available
evidence was made, which brought to light more considerations in
gong aganst the more accepted interpretation ot the first Mass in the
Philhppines, made both by Spanish and Filipino scholars.
It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that
historians refer to in identifying the site of the first Mass. One is the
log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot of one of Magellan's ship, Trinidad.
He was one of the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano
on the ship Victoria after they cireumnavigated the world. The other,
and the more complete, was the account by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo
Uaggio intorno al mondo (First Voyage Around the World). Pigafetta,
like Albo, was a member of the Magellanexpedition and an eyewitness
of the events, particularly, of the first Mass.
Primary Source: Albo's Log
Source:Diario o derotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo se S.
Agustin en el Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria,
escrito por Frandsco Albo," Document no. xxii in Colleción de viages
descubrinmientos que hicieron por mar los Españoles desde fines del
siglo XV, Ed. Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (reprinted Buenos Aires
1945, 0 Vols) IV, 191-225. As cited in Miguel A. Bernad "Butuan or
Limasawa The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of Evidence 1981, Künaadman: A Journal of Southern
Philippines, Vol. 111, 1-35.
1. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course
from Ladrones, they saw land towards the northwest; but owing
tomany shallow places they did not approach it. T'hey found later that its
name was Yunagan.

2. They went instead that same day southwards to another small

island named Suluan, and there they anchored. There they saw some
canoes but these fled at the Spaniards' approach. This island was at
9 and two-thirds degrees North latitude.
3. Departing from those two islands, they sailed westward to an
uninhabited island of Gada" where they took in a supply of wood and
water. The sea around that island was free from shallows. (Albo does
not give the latitude of this island, but from Pigatetta's testimony, this
seems to be the "Acquada or Homonhon, at 10 degrees North
latitude.)
4. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island
names Seilani that was inhabited and was known to have
gold.(Seilani- or, as Pigafetta calls it, "Ceylon-was the island of Leyte.)
5.Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani,
they turned southwest to a small island called "Mazava." That island
is also at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North.
6. The people of that island of Mazava were very good. There the
Spaniards planted a cross upon a mountain-top, and from there they
were shown three islands to the west and southwest, where they were
told there was much gold. "They showed us how the gold was
gathered, which came in small pieces like peas and lentils.
7. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seilani. Tney
followed the coast of Seilani in a northwesterly direction, ascending
up to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw three small islands.
8. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, and there they
saw three islets, where they dropped anchor for the night. In the
morning they sailed southwest some 12 leagues, down to a latitude
of l0 and one-third degree. There they entered a channel between two
islands, one of which was called "Matan" and the other "Subu."
9.They sailed down that channel and then turned westward and
anchored at the town (la villa) of Subu where they stayed many days
and obtained provisions and entered into a peace-pact with the local
king.
10. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the islands
of Suluan and Mazava. But between Mazava and Subu, there were so
many shallows that the boats could not go westward directly but has
to go (as they did) in a round-about way.
It must be noted that in Albo's account, the location of Mazava fits the
location of the island of Limasawa, at the southern tip of Leyte, 9°54N.
Also, Albo does not mention the first Mass, but only the planting of
the cross upon a mountain-top from which could be seen three islands
to the west and southwest, which also fits the southern end of
Limasawa.
Primary Source: Pigafetta's Testimony on the Route of
Magellan's Expedition
Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine
Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, "Butuan or
Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of Evidence" 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern
Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
1. Saturday, 16 March 1521- Magellan's expedition sighted a "high
land" named "Zamal" which was some 300 leagues westward of
Ladrones (now the Marianas) Islands.
2 Sunday, March 17 "The following day" after sighting Zamal Island,
they landed on "another island which was uninhabited" and which lay
"to the right" of the above-mentioned island of "Zamal." (To the "righť
here would mean on their starboard going south or southwest.) There
they set up two tents for the sick members of the crew and had a sow
killed for them. The name of this island was Humunu (Homonhon).
This island was located at 10 degrees North latitude.
3. On that same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the enure
archipelago the "Islands of Saint Lazarus," the reason being that it
was Sunday in the Lenten season when the Gospel assigned for the
Mass and the liturgical Office was the eleventh chapter of St. John,
which tells of the raising of Lazarus trom the dead.
4. Monday, March 18- In the afternoon of their second day on that
island, they saw a boat coming towards them with nine men in it. An
exchange of gifts was effected. Magellan asked for food supplies, and
the men went away, promising to bring rice and other supplies in "four
days.
5. There were two springs of water on that island of Homonhon. Also
they saw there some indications that there was gold in these islands.
Consequently Magellan renamed the island and called it the "Watering
Place of Good Omen" (Acquada la di bouni segniali).
6. Friday, March 22-At noon the natives returned. This time they were
in two boats, and they brought food suppies.
7. Magellan's expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from
Sunday, March 17, to the Monday of the following week, March 25.
8. Monday, March 25 In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor
and left the island of Homonhon.In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day
(March 25) was the feast-day of the lncarnation, also called the feast
of the Annunciation and therefore "Our Lady's Day. On this day, as
they were about to weigh anchor, an accident happened to Pigafëtta:
he fell into the water but was rescued. He attributed his narrow escape
from death as grace obtained through the intercession of the Blessed
Virgin Mary on her feast-day.
9. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon was
"toward the west southwest, between four islands: namely, Cenalo,
Hiunanghan, Ibusson and Albarien." Very probably "Cenalo is a
misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what Pigafetta in his map calls
"Ceilon and Albo calls "Seilani: namely the island of Leyte.
Hiunanghan" (a misspelling of Hinunangan) seemed to Pigafetta to be
a separate island, but is actually on the mainland of Leyte G.e.,
"Ceylon'"). On the other hand, Hibuson (Pigafetta's Ibusson) is an
island east of Leyte's southern tip.
Thus, it is easy to see what Pigafetta meant by sailing toward
the west southwest" past those islands. They left Homonhon sailing
westward towards Leyte, then followed the Leyte coast southward,
passing between the island of Hibuson on their portside and
unangan Bay on their starboard, and then continued southward, then
turning westward to "Mazaua.
10. Thursday, March 28 In the morning of Holy Thursday, March 6,
they anchored off an island where the previous night they hadseen a
light or a bonfire. That island "lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds
towards the Arctic Pole (i.e., North) and in a longitude of one hundred
and sixty-two degrees from the line of demarcation. lt is twenty-five
leagues from the Acquada, and is called Mazaua.
11. They remained seven days on Mazaua lsland.
12. Thursday, April 4-They left Mazaua, bound for Cebu. They were
guided thither by the king of Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their
route took them past five "islands" namely: "Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan,
Baibai, and Gatighan."
13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the
Camotes Group, namely, Poro, Pasihan and Ponson. Here the Spanish
ships stopped to allow the king of Mazaua to catch up with them, since
the Spanish ships were much faster than the native balangha-a thing
that excited the admiration of the king of Mazaua.

14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards "Zubu.
15. Sunday, April 7 - At noon they entered the harbor of "Zubu (Cebu).
It had taken them three days to negotiate the journey from Mazaua
northwards to the Camotes Islands and then southwards to Cebu.
It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta's testimonies
coincide and corroborate each other. Pigafetta gave more details on
what they did during their weeklong stay at Mazaua.
Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua
Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine
Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, "Butuan or
Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of Evidence" 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern
Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
1. Thursday, March 28-In the morning they anchored near an island
where they had seen a light the night before a small boat (boloto)
came with eight natives, to whom Magellan threw some trinkets as
presents. The natives paddled away, but two hours later two larger
boats (balanghai) came, in one of which the native king sat under an
awning of mats. At Magellan's invitation some of the natives went up
the Spanish ship, but the native king remained seated in his boat. An
exchange of gifts was effected. In the afternoon that day, the Spanish
ships weighed anchor and came closer to shore, anchoring near the
native kings village. This Thursday, March 28, was Thursday in Holy
Week, i.e., Holy Thursday.
2. Friday, March 29-"Next day. Holy Friday, Magellan sent his slave
interpreter ashore in a small boat to ask the king if he could provide
the expedition with food supplies, and to say that they had come as
friends and not as enemies. In reply the king himself came in a boat
with six or eight men, and this time went up Magellan's ship and the
two men embraced. Another exchange of gifts was made. The native
king and his companions returned ashore, bringing with them two
members of Magellan's expedition as guests for the night. One of the
two was Pigafetta.
3. Saturday, March 30 Pigafetta and his companion had spent the
previous evening teasting and drinking with the native king and his
son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was Good Friday,
they had to eat meat. The following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and
his companion took leave of their hosts and returned to the ships.
4. Sunday, March 31-"Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of
March and Easter day," Magellan sent the priest ashore with some
men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the morning Magellan landed
with some fifty men and Mass was celebrated, after which a cross was
venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the
noon-day meal, but in the afternoon they returned ashore to plant the
cross on the summit of the highest hill. In attendance both at the Mass
and at the planting of the cross were the king of Mazaua and the king
of Butuan.
5. Sunday, March 31-On that same afternoon, while on the summit of
the highest hill, Magellan asked the two kings which ports he should
go to in order to obtain more abundant supplies of food than were
available in that island. They replied that there were three to choose
from: Ceylon, Zubu, and Calagan. Of the three, Zubu was the port
with the most trade. Magellan then said that he wished to go to Zubu
and to depart the following morning. He asked for someone to guide
him thither. The kings replied that the pilots would be available "any
time. But later that evening the King of Mazaua changed his mind and
said that he would himself conduct Magellan to Zubu but that he would
first have to bring the harvest in. He asked Magellan to send him men
to help with the harvest.
6. Monday, April 1 - Magellan sent men ashore to help with the
harvest, but no work was done that day because the two kings were
sleeping off their drinking bout the night before.
7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday, April3- Work on the harvest
during the "next to days, 1.e., Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and
3rd of April.
8. Thursday, April 4-They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.
Using the primary sources avallable, Jesuit priest Miguel A.
Bernad in his work Butuan or Limasauwa: The Site of the First Mass
in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Euidence (1981) lays down the
argument that in the Pigafetta account, a crucial aspect of Butuan was
not mentioned-the river. Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on
the Agusan River. The beach off Masno is in the delta of said river. It
18 a curious omission in the account of the river, which makes part of
a distinct characteristic of Butuan's geography that seemed to be too
important to be missed.
 The Age of Exploration is a period of competition among
European rulers to conquer and colonize lands outside their
original domaims. Initialy, the goal was to find alternative routes
by sea to get to Asia, the main source of spices and other
commodities. Existing routes to Asia were mainly by land and cost
very expensive. A sea route to Asia means that Europeans could
access the spice trade directly, greatly reducing costs for traders.
Spain's major foray into the exploration was through Christopher
Columbus, who proposed to sail westward to find a shorteut to
Asia. He was able to reach the Americas, which was then cut-off
from the rest of the known world.
Spain colonized parts of North America, Mexico, and South
America in the sixteenth century. They were also able to reach the
Philippines and claim it for the Spanish crown. Later on, other
European rulers would compete with the activities of exploring and
conquering lands.
It must also be pointed out that later on, after Magellan s
death, the survivors of his expedition went to Mindanao, and
seemingiy went to Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta vividly
describes a trip in a river. But note that this account already
happened after Magellan's death.

Case Study 2: What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?

The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavite Mutiny
and the martyrdom of the three priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos,
and Jacinto Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA. These
events are very important milestones in Philippine history and have
caused ripples throughout time, directly influencing the decisive
events of the Philhppine Revolution toward the end of the century.
While the significance is unquestioned, what made this year
controversial are the ditferent sides to the story, a battle of
perspectives supported by primary sources. ln this case study, we
zoom in to the events of the Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the
awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos of that time.
Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny
The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal
centered on how the event was an attempt in overthrowing the
Spanish government in the Philippines. Although regarded as a
historian, his account of the mutiny was criticized as woefully biased
and rabid for a scholar. Another account from the official report written
by then Governor General Rafael Izquierdo implicated the native
clergy, who were then, active in the movement toward secularization
of parishes. These two accounts corroborated each other.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Montero's Account of the Cavity

Mutiny
Source: Jose Monteroy Vidal, "Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of
1872," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of
Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990),
269- 273.
The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite
arsenal of exemption from the tribute was, according to some, the
cause of the insurrection. There were, however, other causes. The
Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne, the propaganda
carried on by an unbridled press against monarchical principles,
attentatory [sic] of the most sacred respects towards the dethroned
majesty; the democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the
speeches and preachings of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain;
the outbursts of the American publicists and the eriminal policy ot the
senseless Governor whom the Revolutionary government sent to
govern the Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas were the
determining circumstances which gave rise, among certain Filipinos,
to the idea of attaining their independence. It was towards this goal
that they started to work, with the powerful assistance of a certain
section of the native clergy, who out of spite toward friars, made
common cause with the enemies of the mother country.
At various times but especlally in the beginning of year 1872,
the authorities received anonymous communications with the
information that a great uprising would break out against the
Spaniards, the minute the fleet at Cavite left for the South, and that
all would be assassinated, including the friars. But nobody gave
importance to these notices. The conspiracy had been going on Since
the days of La Torre with utmost secrecy. At times, the principal
leaders met either in the house of Filipino Spaniard, D. Joaquin Pardo
de Tavera, or in that of the native priest, Jacinto Zamora, and these
meetings were usually attended by the curate of Bacoor, the soul of
the movement, whose energetic character and immense wealth
enabled him to exerc1se a strong infuence.
Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor
Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Source: Rafael Izquierdo, "Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny," in
Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine
History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 281-286.
...It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared
by the native clergy, by the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those
known here as abogadillos..
The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested
against the injustice of the government in not paying the provinces
for their tobacco crop, and against the usury that some practice in
documents that the Finance department gives crop owners who have
to sell them at a loss. They encouraged the rebellion by protesting
what they called the injustice of having obliged the workers in the
Cavite arsenal to pay tribute starting January 1 and to render personal
service, from which they were formerly exempted..
Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to
establish a monarchy or a republic, because the Indios have no word
in their language to describe this different form of government, Whose
head in Filipino would be called hari; but it turns out that they would
place at the head of the government a priest.. that the head selected
would be D. Jose Burgos, or D. Jacinto ZamOrä. Such is... the plan of
the rebels, those who guided them, and the means they counted upon
for its realization.
It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the
"revolution": the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of the
Cavite arsenal such as exemption trom payment of tribute and being
employed in polos y servicios, or force labor. They also identified other
reasons which seemingly made the issue a lot more serious, which
included the presence of the native clergy, who, out of spite aganst
the Spanish friars, "conspired and supported the rebels. Izquierdo, in
an obviously biased report, highlighted that attempt to overthrow the
Spanish government in the Philippines to install a new "hari in the
persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. According to him, native
clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic assurance that
their fight would not fail because they had God's support, aside from
promises of lofty rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in
the army.
In the Spaniard's accounts, the event of 1872 was
premeditated, and was part of a big conspiracy among the educated
leaders, mestizos, lawyers, and residents of Manila and Cavite. They
allegedly plan to liquidate high ranking Spanish officers, then kill the
friars. The signal they identified among these conspirators of Manila
and Cavite was the rockets fired from Intramuros.
The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of
Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, and came with
it were some fireworks display. The Caviteños allegedly mistook this
as the signal to commence with the attack. The 200-men contingent
led by Sergeant Lamadrid attacked Spanish officers at sight and seized
the arsenal. Izquierdo, upon learning of the attack, ordered the
reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The
"revolution was easily crushed, when the Manileños who were
expected to aid the Caviteños did not arrive. Leaders of the plot were
killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and
Zamora were tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be executed.
Others wno were implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio
Ma.Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa, and other Filipino lawyers were
suspended from the practice of law, arrested, and sentenced to life
imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Izquierdo dissolved the native
regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force
composed exclusively by Peninsulares.
On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve
as a threat to Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again.
Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872
Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the
accounts of Izquierdo and Montero. First, the account of Dr. Trinidad
Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a Pilipino scholar and researcher, who
wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera's Account of
the Cavite Mutiny
Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, "Filipino Version of the Cavity
Mutiny," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of
Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 274
280.
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as s
powerful level by the Spanish residents and by the friars. the Central
Government in Madrid had announced its intention to deprive the
friars in these islands of powers of intervention in matters of civil
government and of the direction and management of the university ..
it was due to these facts and promises that the Filipinos had great
hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their country, while the
friars, on the other hand, feared that their power in the colony would
soon be complete a thing of the past.
...Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain,
and the only aspiration of the people was. to secure the material and
education advancement of the country...
 According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by
Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite rsenal to the dissatisfaction
arising from the draconian policies of Izquierdo, such as the abolition
of privileges and the prohibition of the founding of the school of arts
and trades tor Filpinos, which the General saw as a smokescreen to
creating a political club.
Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo
used the Cavite Mutiny as a way to address other issues by blowing
out oE proportion the isolated mutiny attempt. During this time, the
Central Government in Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all
the powers ot lntervention in matters of civil government and direction
and management ot educational institutions. The friars needed
something to justity their continuing dominance in the country, and
the mutiny provided such opportunity.
However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an
educational decree fusing sectarian schools run by the friars into a
school called the Philippine Institute. The decree aimed to improve the
standard of education in the Phiippines by requiring teaching positions
in these schools to be filled by competitive examinations, an
improvement welcomed by most Filipinos.
Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut,
complemented Tavera's account and analyzed the motivations of the
1872 Cavite Mutiny.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut's Account of the
Cavite Mutiny
Source: Edmund Plauchut, The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the
Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Souroces of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila:
National Book Store, 1990), 251-268.
General La Torre.. created a junta composed of high officials...
including some friars and six Spanish officials.... At the same time
there was created by the government in Madrid a committee to
investigate the same problems submitted to the Manila committee.
When the two finished work, it was found that they came to the same
conclusions. Here is the summary of the reforms they considered
necessary to introduce:
1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection.
2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
3.Reduction of export fees
4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real
estate, enjoy freedom of worship, and operate commercial transports
fiying the Spanish fiag.
5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Mnister of
Overseas Affairs in Madrid on the necessary retorms to be
implemented.
6. Changes in primary and secondary education.
7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the
Philippines, rendering unnecessary the sending home of short-term
civil officials every time there is a change of ministry.
8. Study of direct-tax system.
9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly.
...The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo... put a sudden end to all
dreams of reforms... the prosecutions instituted by the new Governor
General were probably expected as a result of the bitter disputes
between the Filipino clerics and the triars. Such a policy must really
end in a strong desire on the part ot the other to repress cruelly.
In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should
be in Manila a Society of Arts and Trades to be opened in March of
1871... to repress the growth of liberal teachings, General Izquierdo
suspended the opening of the school... the day previous to the
scheduled inauguration..
The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public roads
construction and pay taxes every year. But those who were employed
at the maestranza ot the artillery, in the engineering shops and
arsenal of Cavite, were exempted trom this obligation from time
immemorial... Without preliminaries of any kind, a decree by the
Governor withdrew from such old employees their retirement
privileges and declassified them into the ranks ot those who worked
on public roads.
The friars used the incident as a part ot a larger conspiracy to
cement their dominance, which had started to show cracks because
of the discontent of the Filipinos. They showcased the mutiny as part
of a greater conspiracy in the Philippines by Fipinos to overthrow the
Spanish Government. Unintentionally, and more so, propheticaly, the
Cavite Mutiny of 1872 resulted in the martyrdom ot GOMBURZA, and
paved the way to the revolution culminating in 1898.
 The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred
priests Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, Who
were tagged as the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They were
prominent Filipino priests charged with treason and sedition. It is
believed that the Spanish clergy connected the priests to the
mutiny as part or a conspiracy to stifle the movement of secular
priests who desired to have their own parishes instead of being
merely assistants to the regular friars. The GOMBURZA were
executed by garrote in public, a scene purportedly witnessed by a
young Jose Rizal.
Their martyrdom is widely accepted as the dawn of Philippine
nationalism in the nineteenth century, with Rizal dedicating his
second novel, El Filibusterismo, to their memory:

“The Government, by enshrouding your trial in

mystery and pardoning your co-accused, has suggested
that some mistake was committed when your fate was
decided; and the whole of the Philippines, in paying
homage to your memory and calling you martyrs, totally
rejects your guilt. The Church, by refusing to degrade
you, has put in doubt the crime charged against you.

Case Study 3: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?

Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late
nineteenth century, including the Philippines. Journalists of the time
referred to the phrase El Grito de Rebelion" or "Cry of Rebellion" to
mark the start of these revolutionary events, identifying the places
where it happened. In the Philippines, this happened in August 1896,
northeast of Manila, where they declared rebellion against the Spanish
colonial government. These events are important markers in the
history of colonies that struggled for their independence against their
colonizers.
The controversy regarding this event stems from the
identification of the date and place where the Cry happened.
Prominent Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncillo emphasizes the event
when Bonifacio tore the cedula or tax receipt before the Katipuneros
who also did the same. Some writers identified the first military event
with the Spaniards as the moment of the Cry, for which, Emilio
Aguinaldo commissioned an "Himno de Balintawak to inspire the
renewed struggle after the Pact of the Biak-na-Bato failed. A
monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the
intersection of Epifanio de los Santos (EDSA) Avenue and Andres
Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion road, and from then on until 1962,
the Cry of Balintawak was celebrated every 26th of August. The site
of the monument was cho8en for an unknown reason.
Different Dates and Places of the Cry
Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A
guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, identified the Cry to have happened in
Balintawak on 25 August 1896. Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino historian,
marks the place to be in Kangkong, Balintawak, on the last week of
August 1896. Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son of Mariano
Alvarez, leader of the Magdiwang faction in Cavite, put the Cry in
Bahay Toro in Quezon City on 24 August 1896. Pio Valenzuela, known
Katipunero and privy to many events concerning the Katipunan stated
that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Historian
Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on
26 August 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo put it at Pugad Lawin on 23
August 1896, according to statements by Pio Valenzuela. Research 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, on 24 August 1896.
Primary Source: Accounts of the Cry
Guillermo Masangkay
Source: Guillermo Masangkay, "Cry of Balintawak" in Gregorio Zaide
and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume
8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 307-309.
On August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the
house of Apolonio Samson, then cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan.
Among those who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio
Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remigio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro
Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They
were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors
of the organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and
Morong were also present.
At about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting
was opened with Andres Bonifacio presiding and Bmilio Jacinto acting
as secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to
take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were all
opposed to starting the revolution too early... Andres Bonifacio,
sensing that he would lose in the discussion then, left the session hall
and talked to the people, who were waiting outside for the result of
the meeting of the leaders. He told the people that the leaders were
arguing against starting the revolution early, and appealed to them in
a fiery speech in which he said: "You remember the tate of our
countrymen who were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to
the towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us. Our organization has been
discovered and we are all marked men. If we don't start the uprising,
the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you say?
"Revolt!" the people shouted as one.
Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were
to revolt. He told them that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were
(Sic) the cedula tax charged each citizen. "If it is true that you are
ready to revolt... I want to see you destroy your cedulas. It will be a
sign that all of us have declared our severance from the Spaniards.
Pio Valenzuela
Source: Pio Valenzuela, "Cry of Pugad Lawin," in Gregorio Zaide and
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8
(Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 301-302.
The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto,
Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was
Balintawak, the first five arriving there on August 19, and I, on August
20, 1896. The first place where some 500 members of the Katipunan
met on August 22, 1896, was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson
at Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those
who were there were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Kamon
Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others. Here, views were only
exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It was at
Pugad lawin, the house store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of
Melchora Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met
and carried out considerable debate and discussion on August 23,
1896. The discussion was on whether or not the revolution against the
Spanish government should be started on August 29, 1896... After
the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula
certificates and shouted "Long live the Philippines! Long live the
Philippines!
From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed
marked disagreement among historical witnesses as to the place and
time of the occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary
sources, tour places have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong,
Pugad Lawin, and Bahay Toro, while the dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26
August 1896.
Valenzuela's account should be read with caution: He once told
a Spanish investigator that the "Cry happened in Balintawak on
Wednesday, 26 August 1896. Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of
the Revolution that it happened at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896.
Such inconsistencies in accounts should always be seen as a red fiag
when dealing with primary sources.
According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these
places are in Balintawak, then part of Caloocan, now, in Quezon City.
As for the dates, Bonifacio and his troops may have been moving from
one place to another to avoid being located by the Spanish
government, which could explain why there are several accounts of
the Cry.