LATAGAN, Patricia Renee R.

AB Political Science 1 - A

1. Where did the first mass take place in the Philippines? Limasawa or
Masao?

LIMASAWA LOCATION

 Jaime de Veyra stated that the first mass was celebrated in Limawasa not in Butuan.
 Historian Pablo Pastells stating by the footnote to Francisco Colin’s Labor Evangelica
that Magellan did not go to Butuan but form Limasawa to Cebu.
 Francisco Albo ( pilot of Magellan’s flagship does not mention the first mass but he
writes that they erected a cross on a mountain which overlooked three islands the
west and the southwest.
 James Robertson agreed with Pastells in a footnote that ―Mazua‖ was actually
Limasawa.
 In the authentic account of Pigafetta, the port was not in Butuan but an island
named Mazua ( Masawa)
 Father Bernard studied all the Pigafetta’s maps, which place in Mazau off the
southern tip of the larger island of Leyte., a check with the modern maps will show
that this jibes with Limasawa and not Masao or Butuan.

MASAO LOCATION

 1872: A monument to commemorate the site of first mass on the Philippines was
erected in Butuan.
 1953: The people in Butuan asked the Philippine Historical Committee to rehabilitate
the monument or place a marker on the site.
 On the basis of this objection the monument was re-erected but the marble slab
stating it was the site of first mass was removed.
 Zaide identified Masao in Butuan as the location of the first mass. The basis Zaide’s
claim is the diary of Antonio Pigafetta, chronicle of Magellan’s voyage

ANALYSIS

Several historians crafted their own versions of where exactly in the Philippines did the
first mass take place based on Antonio Pigafetta’s journal. Based from the abovementioned
information, it is very evident that there were many historians, geography experts and
eyewitnesses who supported Limasawa—provided with evidences—as the exact place where
the first mass took place. Gregorio Zaide who is a Filipino historian and known as the “Dean
of Filipino Historiographers” identified Masao in Butuan as the location of the first mass
through the diary of Antonio Pigafetta. However, as stated in the findings of the Limasawa
location section and as also inferred from the authentic account of Pigafetta, the first
Christian Mass celebrated on Philippine soil was indeed made in an island which he called
''Mazaua.'' Zaide falsely concluded the island “Mazaua” as the same Masao in Butuan. This
can be further substantiated in another finding in the Limasawa section. According to Father
Bernard, after studying all of Pigafetta’s maps, he identified that the island of Mazaua in
Pigafetta’s map lies in a position roughly equivalent to the actual position of the island of
Limasawa; therefore the “Mazaua” island that Pigafetta was pertaining to was Limasawa all
along. This can also be proved by other researches based from Pigafetta’s account.
Other than basing from Pigafetta’s maps, the Limasawa section also contained a
testimony from the pilot of Magellan’s flagships named Francisco Albo. This can be
considered as useful evidence because the person involved was actually present at the exact
date of the incident. His description of the place also coincides with that of Limasawa.
All of the information that can be found in the Limasawa location section is supported
with factual evidences not only found in the provided data above but also in other sources
(those written statements in the form of photos were gathered from another credible
source).

2. What happened in the Cavite Mutiny?

1872 CAVITE MUTINY: SPANISH PERSPECTIVE

Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it
as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of
it to implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization. The
two accounts complimented and corroborated with one other, only that the general’s report
was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of
privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and
exemption from force labor were the main reasons of the ―revolution‖ as how they called it,
however, other causes were enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which
overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press,
democratic, liberal and republican books and pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most
importantly, the presence of the native clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish
friars, ―conspired and supported‖ the rebels and enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo
blamed the unruly Spanish Press for ―stockpiling‖ malicious propagandas grasped by the
Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the ―rebels‖ wanted to overthrow the
Spanish government to install a new ―hari‖ in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The
general even added that the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them
charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with
handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the
army. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate
propensity for stealing.

The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought
of it as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers,
residents of Manila and Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators
of Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be followed by the
massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila
and Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros.

According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc
celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast
celebrated the occasion with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite
mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the
200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish
officers at sight and seized the arsenal.

When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the
reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The ―revolution‖ was
easily crushed when the expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major
instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA
were tried by a court-martial and were sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots like
Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos
were suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the practice of law, arrested and were
sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo
dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of artillery force to be
composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill

fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the
GOMBURZA were executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces
that shaped Filipino nationalism.

A RESPONSE TO INJUSTICE: THE FILIPINO VERSION OF THE INCIDENT

Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the
Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident was a
mere mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned
out to be dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov.
Izquierdo’s cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges of the workers and
native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of school of arts
and trades for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization of
a political club.

On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and
residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the
commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support
from the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny
reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of
Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.

Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a
powerful lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army
but also included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to
overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time,
the Central Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of all the
powers of intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and management of
educational institutions. This turnout of events was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars
to do something drastic in their dire sedire to maintain power in the Philippines.

Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain

welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of
sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree
proposed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching
positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was
warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.

The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took
advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy
organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty.
Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the scheme was
true without any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged ―revolution‖
reported by Izquierdo and the friars.

Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life
imprisonment while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and
executed by garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to
the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund Plauchut’s
account complimented Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened due to
discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The Frenchman,
however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he actually
witnessed.

ANALYSIS

Based on the article entitled “The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny” published by the
National Historical Commission of the Philippines, there are four accounts which can serve
as bases regarding the truth about what really happened in the Cavite Mutiny. The Spanish
version was based on the statements and analyses of a prolific Spanish historian named
Jose Montero y Vidal and the official report given by Governor General Rafael Izquierdo. On
the other hand, the Filipino version of the incident was based on the perspective—supported
with facts—of Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher.
In addition, the French writer, Edmund Plauchut, also confirmed the credibility and
truthfulness of Tavera’s work. He was able to do this because he also wrote about a
connected happening which is the execution of the three martyr priests which he actually
witnessed. Basing from these four accounts, there were some unvarying statements that
can help in the formation of facts.

First, both versions of the Cavite Mutiny claimed that there was dissatisfaction among the
workers of the arsenal as well as the members of the native after their privileges were
drawn back by Gen. Izquierdo. This gives the reason as to why the Spanish version claims
that Cavite Mutiny is considered as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish
government in the Philippines. The Filipino version also supports this first statement by
claiming that the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal are indeed
dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. Second, Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid and
strict policies that made the Filipinos move and turn away from Spanish government out of
disgust. Both the Spanish and Filipino version of the incident contain varying versions of this
statement. According to the Spanish version, the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the
workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and exemption from force labor
were pushed through because of the careless and rebellious acts of the Filipinos. These
included the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas
proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and pamphlets
reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who out of
animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and enemies of
Spain. From the viewpoint of Tavera, the Filipinos did all of these conspiracies and treason
only because of Gov. Izquierdo’s cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges of
the workers and native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of
school of arts and trades for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the
organization of a political club. The Spanish version didn’t recognize both sides of the
situation. It only focused on the crisis faced by the Spanish government in the Philippines
but it never addressed as to why the Filipinos did such case disregarding whether such
reasons are in favor or not to them. Third, the Central Government failed to conduct an
investigation on what truly transpired but relied on reports of Izquierdo and the friars and
the opinion of the public. The Spanish version focused more on the statements of Izquierdo
rather than doing a proper investigation of what happened. This gives the Filipino version
the favor highlighting that believing in the Spanish version only cannot show the truth of
how our fellow Filipinos were denied of their rights and deserved privileges. Fourth, the
happy days of the friars were already numbered in 1872 when the Central Government in
Spain decided to deprive them of the power to intervene in government affairs as well as in
the direction and management of schools prompting them to commit frantic moves to
extend their stay and power. At first, this may be considered as an assumption made only
by Tavera but considering all the facts and circumstances, it is really more likely one of the
reasons why the powerful Spaniards, most especially the friars did some very detrimental
measures just to stop the Filipinos from completely removing the power that they hold in
the Philippines. Fifth, the Filipino clergy members actively participated in the secularization
movement in order to allow Filipino priests to take hold of the parishes in the country
making them prey to the rage of the friars. This is also another analysis presented in the
Filipino version. Since it is actually true that Spanish friars didn’t want any participation
from the Filipino priests in their field of work, there really is a great chance that the they
were outraged by the sudden active participation of these Filipino priests; therefore, they
will do everything that they can to stop these priests—execution of GOMBURZA. Sixth,
Filipinos during the time were active participants, and responded to what they deemed as
injustices. Filipinos wouldn’t do any move as great as the 1872 Cavite Mutiny if there wasn’t
any reason to. Besides, Filipinos at that time were really somehow outnumbered in terms of
fighting equipment, but because of their growing rage to the abuses of the Spaniards, they
chose to fight back to gain the independence that they deserve.

Both the Spanish and Filipino versions presented the claims of their subjects. However,
the Spanish version failed to recognize both sides of the story and only focused on favoring
the Spaniards. The Filipino version did not only state incidents but also presented
explanations as to why the Filipinos did such acts and also deep analysis as to why the
Spaniards did such measures.

3. Did Rizal retract?

For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizal’s retraction documents have raised issues,
skepticism, and heated debates among those who seek to know the truth regarding this
controversy. However, the lack of evidence and different statements by significant
people involved have only contributed to the complications and uncertainty which
envelope this fiery argument.

"I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct
have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church.", this was the
statement in the document which made the historians believed that Rizal had retracted.

However, there have been claims that the document, as compared to the original file
which was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia, an archdiocesan archivist in 1935, was a
forgery. Regardless of these claims, there are several people who believe that the
retraction documents are authentic. These people include eleven eyewitnesses who
were present when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a Catholic prayer book, recited
Catholic prayers, and the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix before his
execution. Fr. Marciano Guzman, a great grandnephew of Rizal, cites that Rizal's
4 confessions were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7
newspapers, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and
anti-clericals. Because of what he sees as the strength these direct evidence have in the
light of the historical

method, in contrast with merely circumstantial evidence, UP professor emeritus of history

Nicolas Zafra called the retraction "a plain unadorned fact of history." Guzmán
attributes the denial of retraction to "the blatant disbelief and stubbornness" of some
Masons.

REASONS FOR RETRACTION

Why would Jose Rizal write the retraction documents? What possible reasons could have
pushed Jose Rizal to write his retraction document, assuming that he truly wrote the said
document?

The following four reasons would have been worthy of his character and mentality.

1. To save his family and town from further persecution. Rizal may have been told that
he faced the dilemma of signing the retraction or of having his relatives pursued by
further persecutions. Since he hoped his death would stop the persecution of
his relatives, the retraction may have seemed to him to be the only way of
achieving that purpose.
2. To give Josephine a legal status as his wife. Rizal, even though he for a time
suspected Josephine as a spy, seems to have become convinced that she now
loved him, and he may have desired to give her a legal status in the eyes of the
church, and so provide for her future.
3. To secure reforms from the Spanish government.
4. To help the church cut away from the disease which harmed his country. Rizal did
not desire to injure the Roman Catholic Church, but to remove the cancer
which ruined both church and state in the Philippines—friar control of land and
domination by the government. He was also struggling for freedom of thought
and of conscience to the individual. He may have felt that much of his
propaganda had produced the insurrection, and have repented of that. His
letter to Paciano, written the night before his execution, supports that theory.
It also had been suggested that Rizal may have written the word "Catholic"
in the broad sense of the "Church Universal" as it is used by all branches
of the Christian Church excepting the Roman Catholics. All churches repeat, "I
believe in the Holy Catholic Church," in this broad sense.

ANALYSIS: As to the reasons presented under Jose Rizal’s believed act of retraction, it
can be considered acceptable. For many years, we have known Jose Rizal as our country’s
national hero. He was considered as the Filipino who started to ignite the fire within our
nationalistic hearts. Although he did not promote violence in attaining our independence, he
was a firm believer that we, Filipinos, deserved independence within our own land. We,
Filipinos, deserved to be freed from the abuses of the Spanish regime. However, just like a
normal human being, he also has his fears and hopes; just like a father and a son, he cared
a lot for his family; and just like a lover, he wanted to give happiness to the woman that
she loved. The first reason may be true as seen on the perception of being a father and a
son. All throughout the Spanish regime, the officials and friars have been very abusive of
the Filipinos. Most of their acts and punishments were made not because they believed that
it was the right thing to do, but because they were too greedy for power. Since they
consider Rizal as a major hindrance in attaining their goals, of course, they wanted to stop
him from any means of overthrowing the Spanish government that is why he was captured
in Dapitan. And the worst thing that he may get as a punishment is further persecution of
his family even after his death punishment. There is a big possibility that he never would
have wanted for his family to suffer under the hands of the Spaniards; thus, the retraction
may be the only way left to stop this from happening. For the second reason, he loved
Josephine Bracken. One of the common things that Josephine would wish for while Jose
Rizal was still alive was legal status as Rizal’s wife. In order to attain this, a “Roman
Catholic Marriage” at that time was needed. There could be no marriage without a
retraction. In addition, other sources also provided that Father Balaguer convinced Jose
Rizal to retract so that he could grant marriage to Josephine. That is why this may really be
one of the reasons as to why Jose Rizal would sign the retraction. For the third reason, since
there was only little chance that Jose Rizal could escape the prison in Dapitan, he may have
thought that the Spaniards may consider granting us, the Filipinos, with the reforms that we
deserve if he would retract. For the fourth and the last reason, Jose Rizal may have been
confused that time. He may be on the verge of blaming his self for producing a propaganda
that uplifted the spirits of the Filipinos to revolt and in turn triggered the Spanish
government causing more damages and stricter policies and unjust punishments to his
fellow Filipinos. He may be relying on retraction as the only way to fix the relationship
between the Spaniards and the Filipinos.

All of these reasons adhere to an acceptable character and mentality analysis.

However, these aren’t enough given that there are only few evidences in many sources.

CASES AGAINST THE RETRACTION

1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. There are four points against the
document itself.
 First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date, the only scientific
study criticizing the authenticity of the document was made by Dr. Ricardo R.
Pascual of the University of the Philippines shortly after the document was
found. Having some of Rizal’s writings dating from the last half of December
1896 as his ―standard‖, he notes a number of variations with the handwriting
of the document, he further concluded that it was a ―one-man document‖
because of the similarities in several respects between the body of the
Retraction and the writing of all three signers: Rizal and the two witnesses.
The only scholarly answer and criticism to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I.
Del Rosario. Rosario’s main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not
include enough of Rizal’s writings by way of comparison and concluded that
the hand-writing is genuine.
 A second argument directed against the authenticity of the document itself is
based on the principles of textual criticism. Several critics have noted
differences between the text of the document found in 1935 and other
versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father Balaguer. To
date, from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting
numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the text with significant
differences with regards to the use of certain phrases within the document.
The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father Balaguer or
Father Pi made errors in preparing a copy of the original and these have been
transmitted from this earliest copy to others. Some have wondered if the
Retraction Document was fabricated from the ―wrong‖ version of a retraction
statement issued by the religious authorities.
 A third argument applies to the Retraction itself is that its content is in part
strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic Religion ―I wish to live and die,‖ yet
there was little time to live, and also Rizal’s claim that his retraction was
―spontaneous.
 Finally, there is the ―confession‖ of ―the forger.‖ Antonio K. Abad tells how on
August 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija a
certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by the Friars earlier that
same year to make several copies of a retraction document
2. The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other acts
and facts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to
by writers as follows:
 The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even members
of the family did not see it. It was said to be ―lost.‖
 No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of
the Retraction. The usual rebuttal is that Rizal’s death was due to political
factors and with this the religious authorities could not interfere.
 Rizal’s burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of the
Paco cemetery; and the record of his burial was not placed on the page for
entries of Dec. 30th.
 There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with
Josephine Bracken.
 Rizal’s behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and during
the last 24 hours in particular does not point to a conversion.
3. The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that it is out of character.
 Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the Philippines
and a prominent Mason, also argued that if Rizal retracted, it would
have been a very drastic change of character in Rizal which is very
hard to believe knowing how mature and strong in his beliefs Rizal
was. He called the retraction story a "pious fraud.‖

ANALYSIS: In knowing the truth, mere assumptions of possible decisions are not enough
to say that something is true. This is what happened in the stated reasons for Jose Rizal’s
possible retraction. The thing that’s important in assessing if one thing is real or not is the
evidence which can be provided. The cases against retraction concede to the fact there were
really eye-witnesses not only in the exact incident but on the “original” copy itself. However,
even these main proponents failed to show the original copy of the document. There was
also an issue based on other sources that it took Father Balaguer several years to reveal
that he had the copy of the “original” document. Many people wanted to know the truth
regarding this controversial issue and Father Balaguer only showed it years after. The funny
thing about this confession was that he, together with Father Pio failed to show to the public
this “original” copy. As stated in the first case, it may be because both of them made a
mistake not to reproduce the “original” copy as it is. But isn’t this suspicious because as
Jesuits, they should be knowledgeable enough that that type of document is important that
is why they should’ve secured a copy that wouldn’t be questionable to several historians and
experts. Now, several versions of the “original” copy vary in the information included. Also,
when the supposedly “original” copy was already found, Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the
University of the Philippines confirmed that the writing of this document is indeed similar to
Jose Rizal’s writings. However, Dr. José I Del Rosario objected that Pascual did not include
enough of Rizal’s writings by way of comparison and concluded that the hand-writing is
genuine. Because of this existing objection, the similarities of the writings of Rizal in his said
retraction cannot be fully confirmed. The third argument under the first case examined the
content of the retraction document. There were conflicting statements to the current state
of Rizal being a prisoner in Fort Santiago. Also, one strong proof that this “original”
document believed by Dr. Pascual was forged was the existence of a testimony from the
forger himself. It was stated that Antonio K. Abad gained the information from Roman
Roque—the forger—himself. This gives a highlighting moment to the rejection of the
existence of this retraction document. The second case against the retraction removes the
credit from all of the reasons to why the retraction must have existed. There was no official
marriage certificate (well, some sources have presented a document but there was no
confirmation as to its credibility) of Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken. This is very disturbing
since many sources have stated that this is one of the main reasons why Rizal chose to
retract. Also, since retraction is considered as a big step for Jose Rizal; thus, there must
have been someone who would help him from not having death penalty or lowering the
punishment to be given, but there was no one. Even though it was stated that religious
authorities could not interfere with the political factors, they might have made some
adjustments with the government granted that the friars believed that they are of great
power. Another addition to the question of the said “original” document is that the family
never saw this. The official statement of the family might have been helpful in knowing the
truth but even they were not sure of the credibility of this document because they never
saw it. Members of the family might have been more reliable in assessing if the said
retraction document was really written by Jose Rizal.

There have been so many objections as to the retraction of Rizal. Because of this, it
cannot be confirmed that Rizal really did retract.

OVERALL ANALYSIS

There’s still isn’t any official document/article confirming or rejecting the retraction of
Rizal. Those who believe that there was really a retraction document believe that it was a
manifestation of Rizal’s moral courage to recognize his mistakes. On the other hand, those
who reject the retraction document believe that Rizal had a firm nationalistic heart and he
was too dedicated to his writings that this retraction couldn’t be possible. Nonetheless,
whether Rizal retracted or not, his contribution to our history will never be forgotten. He will
be forever remembered as a great hero who used his intelligence, writings and wit to fight
for what we deserve. And we, Filipinos, should all be proud of that.

4. Where did the Cry of Rebellion happen? Include the different dates
and places of the cry.

PIO VALENZUELA’S SEVERAL VERSIONS OF THE CRY

 In September 1896, Valenzuela stated beore the Olive Court, which was charged
with investigating persons involved in the rebellion, only that Katipunan meetings
took place from Sunday to Tuesday or 23 to 25 August at Balintawak.

 In 1911, Valenzuela averred that the Katipunan began meeting on 22 August while
the Cry took place on 23 August at Apolonio Samson’s house in Balintawak.

 From 1928 to 1940, Valenzuela maintained that the Cry happened on 24 August
at the house of Tandang Sora (Melchora Aquino) in Pugad Lawin, which he
now situated near Pasong Tamo Road.

 In 1935 Valenzuela, Pantas and Pacheco proclaimed ―na hindi sa Balintawak

nangyari ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na kinalalagian ngayon ng bantayog,
kung di sa pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugad Lawin.‖

 In 1940, a research team of the Philippines Historical Committee (a forerunner of the

National Historical Institute or NHI), which included Pio Valenzuela, identified the
precise spot of Pugad Lawin as part of sitio Gulod, Banlat, Kalookan City.

 Valenzuela memoirs (1964, 1978) averred that the Cry took place on 23 August
at the house of Juan Ramos at Pugad Lawin.

ANALYSIS

Dr. Pio Valenzuela is one of the surviving witnesses of the Cry of “Pugad Lawin”, and
this is confirmed by the list drawn up by Guillermo Masangkay (who himself was present). If
we are to believe Masangkay, Dr. Valenzuela would be the only doctor participating in the
cry. However, it seems that he presented several versions of the incident which were all
inconsistent. If I were to assess these accounts, I wouldn’t give much credibility to any of
his accounts because he gave various statements not always compatible with one another.

TEODORO AGONCILLO’S ACCOUNT

The prevalent account of the Cry is that of Teodoro Agoncillo in Revolt of the masses
(1956):

It was in Pugad Lawin, where they proceeded upon leaving Samson’s place in the
afternoon of the 22nd, that the more than 1,000 members of the Katipunan met in the yard
of Juan A. Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino,…in the morning of August 23rd.
Considerable discussion arose whether the revolt against the Spanish government should be
started on the 29th. Only one man protested… But he was overruled in his stand… Bonifacio
then announced the decision and shouted: ―Brothers, it was agreed to continue with the
plan of revolt. My brothers, do you swear to repudiate the government that oppresses us?‖
And the rebels, shouting as one man replied: ―Yes, sir!‖ ―That being the case,‖ Bonifacio
added, ―bring out your cedulas and tear them to pieces to symbolize our determination to
take arms!‖ .. . Amidst the ceremony, the rebels, tear-stained eyes, shouted: ―Long live the
Philippines! Long live the Katipunan!

Agoncillo used his considerable influenced and campaigned for a change in the
recognized site to Pugad Lawin and the date 23 August 1896. In 1963, the National
Heroes Commission (a forerunner of the NHI), without formal consultations or
recommendations to President Macapagal.

The NHI files on the committee’s findings show the following:

 In August 1983, Pugad Lawin in barangay Bahay Toro was inhabited by squatter
colonies. The NHI believed that it was correct in looking for the house of Juan Ramos
and not of Tandang Sora. However, the former residence of Juan Ramos was clearly
defined. There was an old dap-dap tree at the site when the NHI conducted its
survey in 1983. Teodoro Agoncillo, Gregorio Zaide and Pio Valenzuela do not mention
a dap-dap tree in their books.

ANALYSIS: Even if we are to consider the statement of Agoncillo that the Cry of Rebellion
happened in Pugad Lawin as true, it is still confusing as to where it happened exactly. In
Agoncillo’s complete account of the incident, the descriptions of the place favored the
residence of Juan Ramos as the place of the incident. However, it is also said that during the
NHI survey, there was an old dap-dap tree at the site. This small detail is quite disturbing
because neither Teodoro Agoncillo nor Pio Valenzuela stated the existence of dap-dap trees
in their book, as based again in the findings of the NHI. Even the Filipino historian named
Gregorio Zaide who is known as the “Dean of Filipino Historiographers” never mentioned
this type of tree in his account of the incident. This gives rise to the confusion as to whether
the Cry of “Pugad Lawin” happened in the residence of Juan Ramos or in Tandang Sora’s.

 Pio Valenzuela, the main proponent of the ―Pugad Lawin‖ version, was dead by the
time the committee conducted its research.

ANALYSIS: Although it’s true that Valenzuela is not considered by many as a credible
source due to his varying statements of the incident, we can still infer that the place Pugad
Lawin as the location for the cry was more dominantly stated in his given versions
compared to Balintawak. This is one of the reasons why he was considered as the main
proponent in the Pugad Lawin version. And since Valenzuela was already dead at the time
when the NHI committee conducted its survey in the residence of Juan Ramos and Tandang
Sora, findings and details such as the existence of a dap-dap tree in the Ramos’ place were
not really confirmed. This is another reason as to why the residence of Ramos in Pugad
Lawin cannot be fully relied to as the location for the Cry of Rebellion.

OVERALL ANALYSIS OF AGONCILLO’S ACCOUNT

Even though there was a conflict with the existence of a dap-dap tree in the
residence of Juan Ramos in Pugadlawin, since the proponents of the Pugadlawin version
never stated there wasn’t any dap-dap tree in the place (there was also no confirmation of
its existence), the NHI still pushed through with their 1983 committee’s findings. They
placed a marker in 23 August 1984 in Pugadlawin. However, there was also a problem with
the place name “Pugad Lawin”. In History of the Katipunan (1939), Zaide records
Valenzuela’s mention of the site in a footnote and not in the body of text, suggesting that
the Historian regarded the matter as unresolved; therefore, there must be something more
to be discovered about it. The questionable mind of a credible historian is an important
contribution to the truthfulness of the place of the cry.

In relation to this, the cartographic descriptions were considered:

Was there a Pugad Lawin in maps or literature of the period?

A rough sketch or croquis de las operaciones practicadas in El Español showed the
movements of Lt. Ros against the Katipunan on 25, 26, and 27 August 1896. The map
defined each place name as sitio ―Baclac‖ (sic: Banlat). In 1897, the Spanish historian
Sastron mentioned Kalookan, Balintawak, Banlat and Pasong Tamo. The names mentioned
in some revolutionary sources and interpretations- Daang Malalim, Kangkong and Pugad
Lawin- were not identified as barrios. Even detailed Spanish and American maps mark only
Kalookan and Balintawak.

In 1943 map of Manila marks Balintawak separately from Kalookan and Diliman. The
sites where revolutionary events took place are within the ambit of Balintawak.

Government maps issued in 1956, 1987, and 1990, confirm the existence of
barangays Bahay Toro, but do not define their boundaries. Pugad Lawin is not on any of
these maps.

According to the government, Balintawak is no longer on the of Quezon City but has
been replaced by several barangays. Barrio Banlat is now divided into barangays Tandang
Sora and Pasong Tamo. Only bahay Toro remains intact.

Writer and linguist Sofronio Calderon, conducting research in the late 1920s on the
toponym ―Pugad Lawin,‖ went through the municipal records and the Census of 1903 and
1918, could not find the name, and concluded that ―Isang…pagkakamali… ang sabihing
mayroong Pugad Lawin sa Kalookan.‖ (It would be a mistake to say that there is such as
Pugad Lawin in Kalookan.)

ANALYSIS

Based from the information above, Pugad Lawin was never officially recognized as a
place name in any Philippine map before Second World War. It only appeared in
historiography only from 1928, or some years after the incident took place. Because of this,
the Cry of Rebellion in Pugad Lawin can only be considered as a mere assumption. Not to
mention that not only the geographical state of Pugad Lawin was investigated, but the
papers such as the municipal records and censuses never encountered the existence of such
place during the incident. And since the original record says that the cry happened in
Balintawak and that it geographically and legitimately—with papers—exists; thus, it is a
more accurate choice of place for the Cry of Rebellion.

ANOTHER SET OF CAMPARISON OF ACCOUNTS

ANALYSIS

From all the stated eyewitness accounts presented, there has been a disagreement
as to the place and time of the Cry of Rebellion. Using primary and secondary sources, four
places have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin and Bahay Toro while the
dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26 August 1896.

The exact place and time of the cry cannot be completely determined since there
weren’t enough evidences presented. Although it’s true that the statement came from
eyewitnesses of the event; however, each of them—Magsakay and Pio—only somehow
narrated the whole incident. But, one thing’s for sure, Pio Valenzuela’s statement cannot be
fully trusted because other sources (like the information in my first set of accounts
regarding the cry of rebellion) show that he presented inconsistent versions of the cry. He
once told a Spanish investigator that the “Cry” happened in Balintawak on Wednesday 26,
1896. Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the Revolution that it happened at Pugad
Lawin on 23 August 1896. This is only an indication that there’s more doubt than trust with
the statements that he released. In this circumstance, it is much safer to believe in
Guillermo Magsakay’s statements. In addition, this was also the concluded place of the cry
based on the cartographic descriptions in my analysis in the first set of the accounts that
I’ve stated.

Even though I have concluded that the much safer choice of the Cry of Rebellion is in
Balintawak, I’m still fully aware of the credible statements of the other side—Pugad Lawin.
In my opinion, varying versions of the incident were created because there was
inconsistency with the definition of each eye witness account of what the “cry” really meant.
There are still a lot of information which can be inferred in the internet and in books
regarding this but I will just leave it here since I have only analyzed the credibility of all the
accounts that I found suitable for analysis and argumentation considering my level of
knowledge about the incident.

SOURCES:

Bernad, M. A. B. (2013, January 17). Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the
Philippines: A Reexamination of the Evidence | Bernad | Budhi: A Journal of Ideas
and Culture. Retrieved March 10, 2019, from
https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579?fbclid=IwAR1
yUPHB_TjJG42Cdk5YWVA8HeCq5TITr7EuA5_yi6xn_VQt49tASFK-NO4
Piedad-Pugay, C. A. P. (2015, September 7). The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny –
National Historical Commission of the Philippines. Retrieved March 10, 2019, from
http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite
mutiny/?fbclid=IwAR1FweVUbHRiNvqTU-
OiPuiLp70cwOYBYjw80ArwzKGfMxIUxVMV2tkUmWE

Mendoza, A. M. (n.d.). Rizal - Retraction Controversy.docx - PDF Free Download. Retrieved

March 10, 2019, from https://edoc.site/rizal-retraction-controversydocx-pdf-
free.html

Guerrero, M. C., Encarnacion, E. N., & Villegas, R. N. (2003, June 06). In Focus:
Balintawak: The Cry for a Nationwide Revolution. Retrieved from
https://ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/in-focus/balintawak-the-cry-for-a-
nationwide-
revolution/?fbclid=IwAR0x3v8Ifsy_en9EqieI2ZzJvyc4GI9HWE0XUinYV1iDIwQIYLtB-
hqYLkM