Chapter 3

Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies

In this chapter, we will analyze four 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.

Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation

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,

tempt 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
strictly 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 [Link] Bendehara Kalantiaw, third Chief of Panay,

born in Aklan, established his government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan
Sakup. Considered the First Filipino Lawgiver, he promulgated in about 1433
a penal code now known as Code of Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don
Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained the original manuscript from an
old chief of Panay which was later translated into Spanish by Rafael
MurviedoYzamaney."

It 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 written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco titled Las
AntiguasLeyendas de la Isla 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 in more
problems.

Interpretation 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 interpretation, why
these may differ from each other, and how to critically sift these interpretations
through historical evaluation. Interpretations of historical events change over
time; thus, it is an important skill for a student of history rack these changes in
an attempt to understand the past.

Sa AkingMgaKabata" 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 hindimagmahalsakanyangsalita/mahigitsahayop at
malansangisda" was written by Rizal, and worse, the evidence against Rizal's
authorship of the poem seems all unassailable.

There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The

poem was first published 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 from Rizal's close friend, SaturninoRaselis. Rizal never
mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his writings, and more importantly,
he never mentioned of having a close friend 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 referred
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 Spanish

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 replace "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.

Many of the things we accept as "true" about the past might not be the
case anymore; just because these were taught to us as facts 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 of the 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 different 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 to 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 contain
discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and are often the focus of dissent.
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
of 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 Catholic Mass in the
Philippines, but rather, use it as a historiographical exercise in the utilization
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 from 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 going against the more accepted
interpretation of the first Mass in the Philippines, 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 circumnavigated the world. The other, and the more complete, was the
account of Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggiointorno al mondo (First Voyage
Around the World). Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the Magellan
expedition and an eyewitness of the events, particularly, of the first Mass.

Primary Source: Albo's Log 

Source: "Diario o derotero  delviage de Magallanes desde el cabo se
S. Agustínen el Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escribe
porFrandscoAlbo." Document no. xxii in Colleción de viages y
descubrimientos que hicieronpor mar los Españolesdesde fines del siglo XV,
Ed. Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (reprinted Buenos Aires 1945, 5 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,
Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 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 to many shallow
places they did not approach it. They 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 Pigafetta'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 followed the coast of
Seilani in a northwest up to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw three small
islands. 
8. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, saw three
islets, where they dropped anchor for morning they sailed southwest some 12
leagues, of 10 and one-third degree. There they entered a two islands, one of
which was called “Matan” and the other ”Subu.”
9. They sailed 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°54'N. 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.
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 "right" here would
mean on their starboard going south or uthwest.) 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
3. On that same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the entire
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 from the 4.
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 bounisegnialli).
6. Friday, March 22 - At noon the natives returned. This time they were
in two boats, and they brought food supplies.
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 Incarnation, 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 Pigafetta: 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 "Сenalo" 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 (i.e., "Ceylon"). On the other hand, Hibuson
(Pigafetta'sIbusson) is an island east of Leyte's southern tip.
Thus, it is easy to see what Pigafetta west southwest" past those
islands. They left westward towards Leyte, then followed the Leyte coast
southward passing between the island of Hibuson on their portside and
Hiunangan Bay on their starboard, and then continued southward, then
turning westward to "Mazaua."
10. Thursday, March 28 - In the morning of Holy Thursday, March 28,
they anchored off an island where the previous night they had seen 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 It is twenty-five leagues from the Acquada, and is called
Mazaua."
11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island.
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 balanghai-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 king's 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
theprevious evening feasting 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 t ports to choose from: Ceylon. Zubu, and Calagan.
Of the three, Zubu was the port with the most trade. Magellan the n 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 wit 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, April 3 - Work on the harvest
during the "next to days," i.e., Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of
April.
8. Thursday, April 4 - They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.
Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad in his
work Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of Evidence (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 of
Masao is in the delta of said river. It is 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 domains. Initially,
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 shortcut 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 Philippine and
claim it for the Spanish crown Later on, other European rulers would
compete with the activities of exploring and conquering

It must also be pointed out that later on, after Magellan's death, th.
survivors of his expedition went to Mindanao, and seemingly 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 Philippine Revolution
toward the end of the century. While the significance is unquestioned, what
made this year controversial are the different sides to the story, a battle of
perspectives supported by primary sources. In 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 Cavite Mutiny

Source: Jose Montero y 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), 269273.
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 propaganda carried
on by an unbridled press against monarchical principles, attentatory (sic) of
the most sacred respects tow dethroned majesty; the democratic and
republican books and pamphlets; the speeches and preaching’s of the
apostles of these new ideas in Spa the outbursts of the American publicists
and the criminal policy 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 the
idea of attaining their independence. It was towards this goal t 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 especially 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
exercise a strong influence.

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, protest 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 a loss. They encouraged the rebellion by
protesting what they called the injustice of having obliged the workers in the
Cavite arsenal to paybtribute 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 Zamora... 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 from 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 against 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 who were implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma.
Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa, and other Filipino lawyers were suspend
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
wyPeninsulares.
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 Filipino 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 Cavite Mutiny," in
Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,
Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 274280.
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a 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 arsenal 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 for Filipinos 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 of proportion
the isolated mutiny attempt. During this time, the Central Government in
Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in
matters of civil government and direction and management of educational
institutions. The friars needed something to justify 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 Philippines 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 Sources 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 real estate, enjoy freedom of
worship, an transports flying the Spanish flag.
5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of
Overseas Affairs in Madrid on the necessary reforms to be implemented.
6. Changes in primary and secondary education.
7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration 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 friars. Such a policy must really end in a strong desire on the
part of 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 of the
artillery, in the engineering shops and arsenal of Cavite. were exempted from
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 of those who worked on public
roads.
The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement
their dominance, which had started to show cracks because of the discontent
They showcased the mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the
Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish Government.
Unintentionally, and more so, prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
resulted in the martyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way revolution
culminating in 1898.

The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests

Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Lam the masterminds of the
Cavite Mutiny. They priests charged with treason and sedition. It is clergy
connected the prieste to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to stifle the
movement of secular priests who 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: Did Rizal Retract?
Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that
center on ending colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute to
creating the Filipino nation. The great volume of Rizal's lifework was
committed to this end, particularly the more influential ones, Noli Me Tangere
and El Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the Catholic religion, but the friars,
the main agents of injustice in the Philippine society.
It is understandable, therefore, that any piece of writing from Rizal that
recants everything he wrote against the friars and the Catholic Church in the
Philippines could deal heavy damage to his image as a prominent Filipino
revolutionary. Such document purportedly exists, allegedly signed
Rizal a few hours before his execution. This document, referred to as
"The Retraction," declares Rizal's belief in the Catholic faith, and retracts
everything he wrote against the Church.

Primary Source: Rizal's Retraction

Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia,C.M. on 18 May
1935
I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and
educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my
words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character
as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches
and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate. Masonry, as the enemy
which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The
Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public
this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which
my acts may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal
There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was
published in La Voz Española and Diario de Manila on the day of the
execution, 30 December 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona,
Spain, in the magazine La Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14
February 1897, from an anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be Fr.
Vicente Balaguer. However, the "original" text was only found in the
archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935, after almost four decades of
disappearance.

• The Balaguer Testimony

Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only
one eyewitness account of the writing of the document exists-that of the Jesuit
friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony, Rizal woke up several
times, confessed four times, attended a Mass, received communion, and
prayed the rosary, all of which seemed out of character. But since it is the only
testimony of allegedly a "primary" account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction
document, it has been used to argue the authenticity of the document.
• The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia
Another evewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the research of
Professor Rene R. Escalante. In his research, documents of the Cuerpo de
Vigilancia included a report on the last hours of Rizal, written by Federico
Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to
Moreno.

Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal

Source: Michael Charleston Chua "Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong
Dokumento at Pananaw," GMA News Online, published 29 December 2016.
Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in rt
Santiago to report on the events during the sillegible] day in prison of the
accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following:
At 7:50 yesterday morning. Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied
by his counsel, SeñorTaviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara.
At the urgings of the former and moments after entering, he was
served a light breakfast. At approximately 9. the Assistant of the Plaza,
SeñorMaure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at the
moment he only wanted a prayer book, which was brought to him shortly by
Father March.
Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while
with the Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it
seems. It appears that these two presented him with a prepared retraction on
his life and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter until
12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken. Afterwards he
asked to leave to write and wrote for a long time by himself.
At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal
handed him what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad,
Señor del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, SeñorMaure, were informed.
They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that the
accused had written.
At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison ...
dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a
military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes
and aided by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who
had been his lover were performed at the point of death (in articulo mortis).
After embracing him she left, flooded with tears.
This account corroborates the existence of the retraction
document, giving it credence. However, nowhere in the account was Fr.
Balaguer mentioned, which makes the friar a mere secondary source to
the writing of the document.
The retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many
scholars, however, agree that the document does not tarnish the heroism of
Rizal. His relevance remained solidified to Filipinos and pushed them to
continue revolution, which eventually resulted independence in 1898.
Rizal's Connection to the Katipunan is undeniable in fact, the
precursor of the Katipunan as an organization is the La Liga Filipina, an
organization Rizal founded, with Andres Bonifacio as one of its
members. But La Liga Filipina was short-lived as the Spaniards exiled
Rizal to Dapitan. Former members decided to band together to establish
the Katipunan a few days after Rizal's exile on 7 July 1892.
Rizal may not have been officially part of the Katipunan, but the
Katipuneros showed great appreciation of his work toward the same goals.
Out of the 28 members of the leadership of the Katipunan (known as the
Kataas-taasangSanggunian ng Katipunan) from 1892 to 1896, 13 were former
members of La Liga Filipina. Katipuneros even used Rizal's name as a
password.
In 1896, the Katipuneros decided to inform Rizal of their plans to
launch the revolution, and sent Pio Valenzuela to visit Rizal in Dapitan.
Valenzuela's accounts of his meeting with Rizal have been greatly
doubted by many scholars, but according to him, Rizal objected to the
plans, saying that doing so would be tantamount to suicide since it
would be difficult to fight the Spaniards who had the advantage of
military resources. He added that the leaders of the Katipunan must do
everything they could to prevent the spilling of Filipino blood.
Valenzuela informed Rizal that the revolution could inevitably break out
if the Katipunan were to be discovered by the Spaniards. Rizal advised
Valenzuela that the Katipunan should first secure the support of
wealthy Filipinos to strengthen their cause, and suggested that Antonio
Luna be recruited to direct the military movement of the revolution.

Case Study 4: 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 eventsare
important markers in the history of 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 tax
receipt before the Katipuneros who also did the same. Some
writersidentified 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 chosen 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
PugadLawin 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 PugadLawin 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 Zaideind
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History. Volume 8
(Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 307–309.

On August 26th, a bigmeeting 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 Remigio,
BriccioPantas, 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 all present.
At about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting was opened
with Andres Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The
purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata,
BriccioPantas, 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 fate 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 PugadLawin," 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 were wereBriccioPantas. Alejandro
Santiago, Ramon Bernardo Apolonio Samson, and others. Here, views were
only exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It was at
PugadLawin, 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 considerabledebate 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, four
places have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong, PugadLawin, 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 PugadLawin on 23 August 1896. Such inconsistencies in
accounts should always be seen as a red flag 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.