Chapter 5

1898 Declaration of the Philippine Indipendence

Four hundred years ago, Ferdinand Magellan anchored his little exploring fleet in Philippine
waters in the evening on March 16, 1521. Herein, to most people Philippine history begins with
Antonio Pigafetta’s splendid diary of Magellan’s voyage. Spanish colonization both in the
Americas and the Philippines has been characterized by a fanatic zeal for the Christian faith and
corresponding hatred for all other forms of belief led them to regard the native writings and art as
works of the devil—to be destroyed wherever found.

During the Spanish-American War , Filipino rebels led by Emilio Aguinaldo

proclaim the independence of the Philippines after 300 years of Spanish rule. By
mid-August, Filipino rebels and U.S. troops had ousted the Spanish, but
Aguinaldo’s hopes for independence were dashed when the United States formally
annexed the Philippines as part of its peace treaty with Spain

Emilo Aguinaldo's Background

 Emilio Aguinaldo, (born March 22/23, 1869, near Cavite, Luzon, Philippines

 died February 6, 1964, Quezon City),

 Filipino leader and politician who fought first against Spain and later
against the United States for the independence of the Philippines

Independence Day in the Philippines

The Philippine Declaration of independence was proclaimed on June 12, 1898 in Cavite II el
Viejo (present-day Kawit, Cavite), Philippines. With the public reading of the Act of the
Declaration of independence (Spanish: Acta dela proclamación de independencia del pueblo
Filipino), Filipino revolutionary forces under General EmilioAguinaldo proclaimed the
sovereignty and independence of the Philippine Islands from the colonial rule of Spain.

In 1896, the Philippine Revolution began. Eventually, the Spanish signed an agreement with the
revolutionaries and Emilio Aguinaldo went into exile in Hong Kong. At the outbreak of the
Spanish-American War, Commander George Dewey sailed from Hong Kong to Manila Bay
leading a squadron of U.S. Navy ships. On May 1 1898, the United States defeated the Spanish
in the Battle of Manila Bay. Later that month, the U.S. Navy transported Aguinaldo back to the
Philippines
The Biak-na Bato Republic

The Pact of Biak-na-Bato, signed on December 14, 1897, created a truce between Spanish
Colonial Governor Emilio Aguinaldo established his headquarters in Biak-na-Bato in Bulacan
province. The news immediately spread throughout the country, and the revolutionaries were
once more in high spirits. General llanera, who was in Nueva Ecija, declared his support for
Aguinaldo. In July 1897, Aguinaldo established the Biak-na-Bato Republic and issued a
proclamation stating the following demands:

▪ Expulsion of the friars and the return of the friar lands to the Filipinos
▪ Representation of the Philippines in the Spanish Cortes
▪ Freedom of the press and of religion
▪ Abolition of the government’s power to banish Filipinos
▪ Equality for all before the law.

A charter based on the Cuban Constitution was also drafted by Felix Ferrer and Isabelo Artacho.
It was signed on November 1, 1897. The Biak-na-Bato Constitution provided for the
establishment of a Supreme council that would serve as the highest governing body of the
Republic. It also outlined certain basic human rights, such as freedom of religion, freedom of the
press, and the right to education. Emilio Aguinaldo and Mariano Trias were elected Supreme
Council president and vice president, respectively.

Philippine Independence Day History: When is Philippine Independence declared?

Between the 16th and 19th centuries, the Philippines was under the Spanish rule. In 1896,
Filipinos attempted to break free, which resulted in what’s called the Philippine Revolution.

When Emilio Aguinaldo declared Philippine independence on June 12, 1898, it lacked two
essential elements of statehood: territory and sovereignty. The territory lacked legitimacy that
comes from recognition by other states. And since the Philippines was still under Spanish rule at
that time, Aguinaldo’s government also lacked sovereignty.

In August 1898 when the Philippine Revolution ended, the Philippine-American War took place
the following year, and the Philippine was colonized by America for the next 50 years. Then on
July 4, 1946, the Philippines gained independence from the West. That was the time when the
Philippines officially became a state where it had people, territory, government, and sovereignty.

Some of the most notable proclamations include Andres Bonifacio’s declaration on April 12,
1895 and Emilio Aguinaldo’s on October 31, 1896.

Then on October 14, 1943, Japan symbolically granted independence to the Pearl of the Orient
Seas by establishing a new government headed by its Filipino president, Jose P. Laurel.
Historians branded Laurel’s government as “Puppet Government” because of the tight control
that the Japanese wielded over its affairs.

But the official Araw ng Kalayaan date as stated by the law is June 12, 1898

1898 – (April 21) Start of Spanish-American War following the sinking, on February 15 in
Havana Harbor, of the battleship USS Maine.

1898 - (May 19) Aguinaldo returned to the Philippines and he immediately resumed
revolutionary activities against the Spaniards, now receiving verbal encouragement from
emissaries of the U. S. In a matter of months, revolutionary forces conquered nearly all of
Spanish-held territories, with the exception of Manila, which was completely surrounded. The
Filipinos now controlled the Philippines. Aguinaldo also turned over 15,000 Spanish prisoners to
the Americans, offering them valuable intelligence.

June 12 - Aguinaldo declared independence from Spain at his house in Cavite El Viejo. The
declaration, however, was not recognized by the United States or Spain, as the Spanish
government ceded the Philippines to the United States in the 1898 Treaty of Paris. Tensions
between the Philippine Revolutionary Government and the American government existed
because of the conflicting movements for independence and colonization, aggravated by feelings
of betrayal on the part of Aguinaldo.

1899 – (March 23) The insurgent First Philippine Republic formally established with the
proclamation of the Malolos Convention in Malolos, Bulacan.

June 2 – The Malolos Congress declared war on the United States, with Pedro Paterno, President
of Congress, issuing a Proclamation of War. The date marked the beginning of the Philippine-
American War, which ensued between 1899 and 1902.

July 4, 1946: The Philippines Gained Independence from the United States

 The 4th of July used to be considered an important national holiday in the Philippines.
Not because it was the United States’ birthday, but because it was Philippine
Independence Day in 1946. Seventy five years ago, the Philippines was recognized as an
independent, sovereign country by the United States, which withdrew its authority over
the archipelago as colonizer.

The Proclamation on June 12

Independence was proclaimed on June 12, 1898 between four and five in the afternoon in Cavite
at the ancestral home of General Emilio Aguinaldo some 30 kilometers South of Manila. The
event saw theun furling of the National Flag of the Philippines, made in Hong Kong by Marcela
Agoncillo, Lorenza Agoncillo, and Delfina Herboza, and the performance of the Marcha Filipina
Magdalo, as the national anthem, now known as Lupang Hinirang, which was composed by
Julián Felipe and played by the San Francisco de Malabon marching band
Why June 12 is the pinnacle of Philippine independence

 Macapagal said the recognition of the independence of a nation should not be accorded
by any other country but itself.

 "It is proper that what we should celebrate is not the day when other nations gave
recognition to our independence, but the day when we declared our desire to exercise our
inherent and inalienable right to freedom and independence," Macapagal said in a 1962
public address on Independence Day.

 Macapagal underscored that June 12, 1898 is the "true birthday of an independent
Filipino nation" for it was on this day that the country showcased to the world its resolve
to consider itself "absolved of allegiance to the Spanish crown".

Chapter 6

Filipino Grievance Against Governor Wood

Leonard Wood Background

 October 9, 1860 – August 7, 1927

 was a United States Army major general, physician, and Public official. He served as the
Chief of staff of the United States Army, Military Governor of Cuba, and Governor
General of the Philippines.

 Wood retired from the U.S. Army in 1921, after which he was chosen to serve as provost
of the University of Pennsylvania. The college granted him a leave of absence before he
assumed the position, enabling him to carry out a one-year appointment as Governor
General of the Philippines. In 1922 he decided to remain in the Philippines, so he
resigned the provost's position

The Administration of Leonard Wood (1921-1927)

The choice of Leonard Wood as Governor General demonstrated that President Harding
accepted the Wood-Forbes Mission's recommendations as to Philippine policy and that he looked
to Wood to remedy the unfortunate conditions pointed out in the Mission's report. It is, indeed,
unfortunate that Wood became Governor General so soon after the completion of his mission, a
difficulty which he himself had for seen, and which situation undoubtedly colored his relations
with the Filipino politicians whose performance he had just indicted. After an initial period
marked by amicable relations and cooperation, the administration of Governor

Wood was marked by vigorous political agitation - the most intense in Philippine-
American relations since the end of the Filipino-American War. Wood was unlike Harrison. He
took the position that the Jones Law - the organic act operating in the Philippines - could not be
modified except by action of the US Congress itself, and that no subsequent legislation or
executive action on the part of the Governor General or the President of the United States,
working in conjunction with the Philippine Legislature, could operate to change this fundamental
law. Fully cognizant of Wood's political philosophy, the Filipino leaders were on guard against
expected "encroachments" on their powers by the Governor General.

Wood vs. the Filipino Politicos

On July 17, 1923, Manila's metropolitican dailies headlined the resignation of all the
Filipino members of Governor Wood's Cabinet, thus precipitating the "Cabinet Crisis" which
brought the Philippines to the focus of the US government and public attention. Nationalistic
feelings were aroused by holding up the Governor as the enemy of Philippine autonomy and
independence.

The open break between Wood and the Filipino leaders led by Senate President Quezon
was not unexpected. Since assuming his position as Governor General, Wood had let it be known
that unlike his predecessor, he was bent on exercising the powers of his office after the manner
of an American chief executive and definitely not as an impotent figurehead. He was deter mind
to govern and to assume active leadership to remedy the maladministration which he had found
in the country. His determination to truly govern was met by the Filipino leaders with counter-
offensives, for they interpreted this as a threat to the autonomy they already enjoyed.
Accustomed as they were to playing a dominant role during the previous Harrison
administration, they desired supremacy in insular affairs, and no interference from the Governor
General except in matters directly affecting the interests of the United States in the Philippines.

Wood not only found himself unable to sympathize with the desire of the Filipino
nationalists for an increasing measure of self-government, but he also opposed independence,
except. perhaps in the very distant future. The American government, he explained, would not
consider any extension of further autonomy until the weaknesses pointed out in the Wood-Forbes
Mission Report had been corrected. Complete independence would not be opposed, he said, if
the Filipinos were "industrially strong and could defend themselves and hold their country. " He
advised the Filipinos to cooperate wholeheartedly in making the government efficient, for in so
doing they would strengthen their plea for independence. In the meantime, he insisted on
attempting to persuade the Filipinos to postpone the issue of independence o to forget it
altogether.

In addition to differences of opinion on the operation of the Jones Law and the
prerogatives exercised by the Governor General, there was an equally significant circumstance
which brought on the "crisis and that was the political situation confronting Quezon. Quezon, in
1922, was having trouble assuring his ascendancy among his own followers and political rivals
within the Nacionalista Party. After launching his bid for supremacy by breaking away from
Osmeña's Partido Nacionalista, Quezon found his leadership none too secure especially with the
enhanced strength of the minority Democratas after the elections of 1922. In order to dominate
the Legislature, Quezon reconciled with Osmeña's Nacionalistas, a move his followers
considered an "outrageous betrayal of the people's trust." Faced with a rebellious segment of his
party and a resurgent Democrata Party, Quezon needed an issue to strengthen his leadership and
his party. The Governor General got himself caught in the web of Filipino partisan politics and
this, combined with the highly emotional issue of independence, magnified tensions with
Governor Wood,

The Conley Case and the Cabinet Crisis

Mr. Ray Conley, an american detective in the police force of Manila, was suspended by
Dr. Jose P. Laurel,S e c r e t a r y o f t h e I n t e r i o r , b e c a u s e o f
t h e administrative charges against him. Governor Wood intervened and ordered secretary
Laurel to reinstate Conley. out of defence to his superior's command, [Link] obeyed and then
resigned. because of the high-handed action of governor wood which was believed to be
curtailment of self-government, all the filipino members of the cabinet and the council
of the state resigned on July 17, 1923

Wood's action in a police matter known as the Conley Case provided Quezon with an
issue, and he used it to bring on the Cabinet Crisis." By engineering this crisis Quezon succeeded
in electrifying an electorate which promptly supported the Quezon-Osmeña coalition.

The controversy arose over charges of misconduct in office filed against an American
named Ray Conley, chief of the vice squad of the Secret Service Branch of the Manila Police
Depart ment. Charges had been made against Conley from time to time, apparently in retaliation
for his efficient crusade against organ ized crime in Manila.

In 1922, charges, including the keeping of a mistress and the making of certain false
statements relating to her, were pre sented by a local attorney to the Prosecuting Attorney of the
City of Manila who, after thorough investigation, found no grounds to proceed. The charges
were then repeated to the Director of the Civil Service, who refused to take any action because of
the manifest connection of Conley's accusers with gambling elements in Manila.
The charges were then sent to the Office of the Governor, on July 17, 1922, and the office
referred them the next day to the Mayor of Manila, Ramon J. Fernandez, for investigation. The
papers were not returned by the Mayor until December 28, During this period, a most exhaustive
investigation was con ducted, under the Mayor's orders, by the Chief of Police, John Green, who
reported, in effect that the charges were instigated by gamblers in order to get rid of Conley, who
was making the gambling business unprofitable. The Mayor, in returning the papers to Governor
Wood, made no comment other than to inviteattention to the findings of the Chief of Police. The
Governor General accordingly dimissed the charges.

Subsequently, the Secretary of the Interior, Jose P. Laurel, who had confirmed Conley's
appointment to the police force, received numerous complaints that Conley had received
bribesfrom gamblers in Manila. Mayor Femandez and Secretary Laurel, expressing the belief
that they had conclusive proof that Conley had been taking bribes, secured the approval of the
Governor General to suspend Conley and file charges against him if they had evidence. They
were insistent upon an administrative in vestigation to be conducted in their own departments,
but Wood insisted that the case be submitted to the Court of First Instance to give Conley a fair
trial.

After a prolonged trial the court found that charges were not sustained and dismissed
them. Though the court acquitted Conley, in its decision it had stated that the detective's record
was not free from doubts and suspicions Secretary Laurel seized upon this statement and
requested again that Wood appoint a com mittee to investigate Conley administratively.

At first objecting, the Governor subsequently appointed a Committee on Investigation

instructed to investigate the Manila Police Department in general. The Committee, in prelimary
report, recommended Conley's reinstatement, whereupon the Governor endorsed the immediate
compliance by Secretary Laurel of Conley's reinstatement. Secretary Laurel transmitted the wish
of the Governor General to the City Mayor, requesting compliance, while he tendered his
resignation in protest to Con ley's reinstatement. Upon receipt of Laurel's endorsement, the
Mayor left his office without complying with the request, and then subsequently submitted his
own resignation. The Chief of Police reinstated Conley, who was subsequently retired.

Accusing the Governor with having meddled with and dicta ted details of Philippine
government which should have been left entirely to the Filipino officials, the President of the
Senate (Manuel L. Quezon), the Speaker of the House (Manuel A. Roxas), and all the Filipino
Secretaries tendered their resignations as members of the Council of State and as heads of
Departments on July 17, 1923.

With the resignations of the Department Secretaries, the Undersecretaries promptly took
over the positions and dministered the Departments till the end of Wood's term in 1927, for the
Senate refused to confirm the Governor's appointments to vacancies in the Cabinet.
In presenting the Filipino side, the Legislature explained that "it was a protest against the
encroachment by the Governor General on the constitutional rights already enjoyed by the
Filipinos and against the usurpation of power in direct violation of existing laws." Wood pointed
the finger of accusation at Quezon and his followers. Quezon, who was concerned about his
political future, "became impatient and provoked" the Cabinet Crisis. Be that as it may, Quezon
succeeded in making the resignation episode a "national issue," raising various issues to stir up
public sentiment against the Governor's administration.

The chasm created by the Cabinet Crisis was never really bridged during the remaining
years of Wood's administration. The major issue remained the delineation of executive and legis
lative powers, or the autonomy of the Filipino people versus the powers of the Governor General
as the representative of American sovereignty.

The Governor's Veto Power

The veto power of Governor Wood, in the eyes of the Filipino leaders, was being
excessively exercised, "on the most flimsy motives." Governor Wood's veto record showed the
following: From October 1923 to February 1924, the Sixth Philippine Legislature passed 217
bills and concurrent resolutions, out of which 46 were vetoed, the bills not having been presented
until after the adjournment of the Legislature so that, Wood comment ed, conference with a view
to modification or correction of errors was possible. In the first session of the Seventh
Legislature in 1925, twenty-four out of seventy-two bills were vetoed; and in the second session
in 1926, the Legislature passed 122 bills, out of which 44 were vetoed. Harrison vetoed only five
measures in seven years in office.

Not only did the Governor exercise liberally his power to veto bills passed by the
Legislature, but he even went to the extent of altering measures already passed by the
Legislature, and then 'affixing his signature after the alteration was made. The Filipino leaders
were also annoyed that Wood should veto bills of local interest and insisted that before the
Governor General acted unfavorably on any bill, their views must first be heard.

Nearly all vetoes, Wood explained, were due to serious defects or unconstitutional
provisions. This unsatifactory condition was largely due to the rushing through of a large number
of bills during the last hours of the session, without opportunity being given for their careful
consideration. This delay, Wood maintained, occurred every year and often prevented desirable
legislation from being approved. In some instances, Wood was convinced that the Filipino
leaders deliberately showered him with im practicable legislation to draw his vetoes and thus
give them fresh opportunity to charge him with "despotism."

The Board of Control Controversy

Wood was determined to get the government out of business, the government in
Harrison's time having created and controlled stocks in various government corporations through
the Board of Control. Wood was convinced that the Board was illegal because the Governor
General occupied a minority position in it (in violation of the Organic Act which placed supreme
executive control in the hands of the Governor General), and so he could never get the consent of
the two Filipino members (the Senate President and the House Speaker) to the government out of
business.

There were two fundamental reasons advanced by Wood for getting the government out
of business: first, that the Philip pine treasury needed the money invested in the business enter
prises to spend it for the greater benefit of the public; and second, that governments were not
qualified, in any nation of the world, to conduct business or engage in any industries which
would compete with private initiative. Wood was unhappy with the graft and mismanagement
which he saw and felt that the only hope for the enterprises was to put them in the hands of
experi enced American businessmen.

The Filipino leaders, on the other hand, wished the continuance of the companies and a
share in their management through the Board of Control, for to them, acceptance of the
Governor's policy would have meant domination by American capital, a situation which might
prejudice their campaign for independence. All efforts toward amicable settlement proved futile.

By early 1926, Governor Wood had reached the end of his patience with the "perfectly
impossible" Board of Control and was eager to get rid of the dominating control in it of Quezon
and Roxas. On November 9, 1926, acting upon opinions received from American officials in
Washington, he abolished the Board of Control, thus removing what he saw as the most serious
encroachment on the executive power in the Philippines. The order provided that thereafter, all
duties of the Board of Control would be exercised by the Governor General.

The Philippine Supreme Court upheld the legality of the action of the Governor General
and the US Supreme Court sustained the decision.

Leonard Wood: In Retrospect

Leonard Wood's tenure as Governor General of the Philip pines was marked by deadlock
and political strife, with the Filipino politicos led by Quezon openly challenging the authority of
the American representative in Manila. The friction grew out of the Governor's program to
restore American supervision and control, particularly with respect to the functions of the Legis
lature. But there were some who thought it was greatly exacerbated by the clash between the
personal ambitions of the Filipino political leaders and Wood's desire to exercise what he saw as
"the inherent rights of the Governor General." And because the contest was hopelessly enmeshed
in the consuming emotional issue of independence, the political rancor was fanned by distrust
and prejudice.
Any Governor General who was sent to the Philippines after Harrison probably would
have found the Filipino leaders parti cularly difficult to handle, unless he went as far as Harrison
did in allowing the Filipinos a generous share in the direction of their affairs. Wood was of a
different mind he was convinced that the Filipinos had taken an enormous stride backward
during the Harrison administration. He found the Philippine govern ment bogged down in a
major financial crisis and riddled with inefficiency, graft and nepotism. He, therefore, saw it as
his responsibility to reform the "critical situation" and restore the country to an efficient and
orderly govenment worthy of Amer ican sponsorship. He probably had the right prescription for
the Philippines - honesty in government and a tight administration but his approach was hardly
the most effective one. Contentious and imperial, he showed little consideration for the sensitive
feelings of the Filipinos, for who a self-esteem, personal honor, and that incomprehensible (to
the Westerner) worship of "face" were important matters. Governor Wood's experience all his
life had been that of an administrator with absolute authority, con cerned with results. Had he
thought more of methods and aimed somewhat lower in results, he might have gotten on better in
the Philippines. But so forceful a personality, so powerful a will, such devotion to results
produced compelling power. Filipino leaders reacted against that power of intervention in their
affairs.

Wood's political philosophy and economic views, his military background (thirty years in
the military), his personality as well as his physical condition, all contributed to his troubles in
the Philippines. It would not be fair and accurate, however, to speak as if the only responsibility
was Wood's. The Filipino leaders, especially Quezon, must share in the burden for the state of
affairs during Wood's tenure in the Philippines.

Partisan politics undoubtedly had much to do with the "crisis" which clouded most of
Governor Wood's term. Quezon's lust. for power (in the struggle to win supremacy over
Osmeña's leader ship) and his various maneuvers to shore up his sometimes faltering leadership
made him difficult to deal with. After 1923, Quezon exaggerated his dissatisfaction with many
aspects of the administration of Governor Wood for his own political needs.

Perhaps the situation in Manila would not have been what it was had Wood faced a man
unlike Quezon. Quezon was a proud, volatile, charismatic personality, with a tremendous
capacity to manipulate people and events and to mobilize them to serve his needs. In 1923, he
found the "supreme moment" he needed to establish his leadership. So he turned an otherwise
trivial matter into a national issue and succeeded in setting himself up as the heroic champion of
Filipino nationalism. Having launched the attack on Wood, he found it politically useful to
disagree with the Governor General on almost every fundamental issue affecting the Philippines.
The Governor General unwittingly helped him by stubbornly resisting him and insisting on his
rights.
It also did not help that, to the Filipinos, Governor Wood was not an endearing
personality. He was not simpatico. Except to his close friends, he was a very frigid personality,
who for the most part wore the look of seriousness, if not severity.

Though at bottom there was, indeed, much politics in the confrontation between Wood
and the Filipino leaders, that was certainly not all of it.

A serious bone of contention between Wood and the Filipino leaders was, of course, the
issue of independence. Wood opposedPhilippine independence and bitterly resented the agitation
for it by the nationalistic políticos. It was impossible, he said, to even think of independence
when conditions were so unsatis factory and the Filipino leaders were totally lacking in quali ties
for leadership. He believed that America undertook a re sponsibility towards the Philippines, and
it was futile for the Filipinos to wish for independence until America's "noble task" had been
completed. He possessed an exalted vision of the future of the Philippines and was baffled that
the Filipino leaders did not have the same consuming passion as he had for devotion to duty,
service to country, and the highest ideals of public morality.

By consistently arguing against Filipino capacity and character, Wood offended Filipino
pride, for the argument implied (un intended perhaps) a natural white superiority unacceptable to
the Filipinos. As an ardent nationalist himself, Wood failed to under stand the aspirations of
"backward peoples for self-government, for to him the greatest blessing such peoples could
receive was American rule over them.

Wood failed to realize that after over two decades of pro gressive autonomy, it was
unrealistic to expect the Filipinos to agree to a prolonged postponement of independence, unless
there was a definite declaration from the United States that independence would come, say, in 25
or 50 years, while in the meantime steps were taken to assure them that they were progress ing
towards independence. It was even more unreal to expect that the Filipinos would elect self-
government under foreign tutelage in preference to complete independence. For the United
States had consciously set about to encourage Philippine national ism and through political,
economic, and educational devices, had advanced the desires as well as the means for its
expression.

No doubt Wood's opposition to independence was due also to what he sincerely believed
was the Filipino position. He accepted that the Filipinos all wanted independence, but be lieved
they were willing to trust the good faith of America so long as America did not seek to take a
backward step (in rela tion to insular autonomy) and did not seek to turn the Philip pines over to
interests which would exploit them and keep them permanently.

It is unfortunate that Quezon and his colleagues felt themselves forced to maintain a false
and insincere position when they insisted on complete, immediate, and absolute independence,
despite being aware that their country was not ready for in dependence politically and financially
(this is probably symp tomatic of the indirection which often characterizes Philippine society).
But they were compelled to take that position because no declaration of definite policy was
forthcoming from Washing. ton, and party politics dictated that they espouse the independ ence
cause to enable them to keep their hold on the people.

Wood, as a consequence, dismissed the independence move ment as the agitation of a

handful of self-interested political leaders, and this apparent distaste for the current generation of
politicians did not go well with the Filipino leaders. It was Wood's wish that the United States
would hold the Philippines until a young and clearer-visioned class of leaders had succeeded to
power. Perhaps it would have made for more constructive relations had Wood accepted the force
of the independence sentiment, however unreasonable it might have seemed to him, and then
tried to work out the problems with the Filipino leaders in a manner that would not have been
emabarrassing for the politicos.

In addition to opposing the movement towards independence, Wood also opposed any
further concessions with regards to auto nomy, so long as the irregularities that had been pointed
out by the Wood-Forbes Report remained uncorrected. Yet it would be unfair to say that
Governor Wood reversed the movement towards autonomy. He could not have done so for while
he wanted a modification of the Jones Law, he could only recommend such action. Congress had
the prerogative of taking action, and did not do so. So Wood, in running the government, was
also limited by the Jones Law.

Besides political matters, the Filipino leaders disagreed with Wood on another
fundamental issue on economic policy affect ing the disposition of the public domain and the
administration of government-owned corporations. Governor Wood stressed the need for
economic development as a prerequisite to a stable government (which in turn was a prerequisite
to independence) and favored attracting foreign, or specifically, American, capital to develop the
country. The Filipinos were afraid that foreign capital would mean exploitation by foreigners and
would nullify the economic policy established by the Legislature "for the protection of the rights
and interests of the Filipino people in the development of the resources of the islands." So
theyopposed the liberalization of land laws to accommodate tropical plantations (which would be
foreign-financed and -owned) and the sale of government-owned businesses to foreign interests.

Despite his shortcomings of body and mind, few would deny that Governor Wood was an
able and devoted administrator. He worked hard and he knew the Philippines as few knew the
country. Few would doubt that he was sincerely interested in the welfare and interests of the
Philippines and the Filipinos, while, understandably enough, he also sought to work for Amer
ican interests. Though Filipino leaders resented his unbending refusal to accede to their many
efforts to undermine American control of the executive branch as Harrison had allowed them to,
they recognized sincerity and honesty and had a high respect for his administrative ability. Many
conceded that in spite of con troversy, in spite of a serious illness, he had given the Filipinos a
tradition of service in government and a loyalty to duty which were unmatched.

Despite the problems of his administration, especially after 1923, there was sufficient
cooperation between the Filipino and American elements to allow for some advances in govern
ment- such as in the rehabilitation of finances, advances in health and sanitation, efforts at
infrastructure, and general economic prosperity. Wood governed the Philippines after 1923
without any serious disruptions to governmental functions, in spite of the publicly avowed
Filipino policy of non-cooperation.

The Administration of Henry L. Stimson: Cooperation Restored

Henry L. Stimson was inaugurated Governor General of the Philippines on March 1,

1928. Fully cognizant of the controversies his predecessor had gotten himself involved in,
Stimson had determined to re-establish a working relationship with the Filipino leaders to
remove the ill-feelings left over from the Wood Administration. Stimson consciously followed a
different path. He seemed better able to understand the uses of power in dealing with dependent
peoples. Thus, he was willing to compromise to win the confidence of the Filipino leaders. At
the same time. he was firm in asserting his rights as Chief Executive.

Stimson steered away from the emotional independence issue and concentrated on
political or administrative cooperation, while forthrightly expressing his view that only that
would "save the Islands from the danger of immediate independence." in the mean time, he
favored a greater degree of autonomy, for he sym pathized with the Filipino demand for more
responsibility.

Stimson had only one year in the Philippines, but this year was generally characterized by
very cordial relations between the Filipino and American elements in government and society. In
fact, the first complete Cabinet since July 1923 was named.

Stimson proceeded with the necessary steps for the creation of machinery for the
restoration of "regular and responsible cooperation between the legislative and executive
branches of the Philippine Government." Among them were the provision of technical advisors
and assistants to the Governor General through the Belo Act; the appointment of a Cabinet
nominated by the Governor General, after conference with the leaders of the major ity party in
the Legislature; and the revival of the Council of State.

Stimson also established a "new era" for the Philippines by a change of emphasis as to
the prerequisites for independence -- from the previous stress upon fitting the Filipinos for
independ ence and sovereignty through training and responsibility in the political sphere, to an
emphasis upon economic and industrial development of the Philippines' natural resources as a
sound basis for her independence. Stimson was, however, able to imple ment only a portion of
his economic program because of the genuine and natural fear of Filipinos of exploitation by
foreign capital. Philippine land laws, for instance, were not amended to allow for large
landholdings.

Nonetheless, at the end of his year's experience in the Philip pines, Stimson was pleased
at the "general mental change" he had discerned among the Filipino leaders, who had begun to
consider the, "economic foundations of their political problems" and had come to realize that
economic development could actual ly aid their aspirations for self-government.

Probably the most significant achievement of Stimson's year in the Philippines was "the
cessation of the period of acrimonious deadlock" and the substitution of cooperation and friendly
feelings between the American authority and Filipino leadership. This Stimson was able to
accomplish because he understood what was necessary in order that the sensitive Filipinos would
not be "provoked into fanatical outbursts."

Henry L. Stimson's successors Dwight F. Davis (1929 1932), Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.
(1932-1933) and Frank Murphy (1933-1935) all got along quite well with the Filipino
politicians.
Polit
ical
Cari
catu
res
duri
ng
the
Am
eric
an
Peri
od
Politi
cal
Caric
ature
s
durin
g the
Amer
ican
Perio
d
Politi
cal
Caric
ature
s
durin
g the
Amer
ican
Perio
d
A picture,
description,
or imitation
of a
person in
which
certain
striking
characteristic
s are
exaggerated
in order
to create a
comic or
ridiculous
effect.
or complimentary and

can servajdsldme a political purpose or be drawn

solely for entertainment

Chapter 7

Alfred McCoy: On Political Caricatures of the American Era

Alfred McCoy

 born June 8, 1945, in Concord

 an American historian and educator

 currently the Fred Harvey Harrington Professor of History at the University of

Wisconsin–Madison

 Columbia University
University of California, Berkeley
Yale University

Political Caricatures

 Modern art form that turned away from classical art by exaggerating human features and
prodding fun at its subjects.

 It is also known as Editorial Cartoon that contain a commentary that express the artist
opinion toward certain issues.

 This art became part of the print media as a form of political and social commentary that
usually pin point the person’s power and authority. It is a unique way to present ideas and
capture the audience or readers’ imagination

 Philippine Cartoons
is a compilation of 377
editorial cartoons and
caricatures made by
various Filipino
 artists that tackle the
situation during the
American occupation
in the Philippines.
Dated from 1900 to
1941, each
 individual caricature
recorded national
attitudes toward the
coming of the
Americans as well as
the changing
 mores and times.
Some of the cartoons
presented the condition
of Filipino farmers on
the hands of American
 tenants who self-
owned the lands of the
laborers and imposed
unbearable and unjust
taxes on them. The
cartoons
 also compared the
job situation of a
Filipino and an
American by
portraying unequal
salaries despite having
the
 same nature of work,
which highlighted
racial discrimination in
terms of work
condition, wages, job
opportunities,
 and career positions.
Aside from that, the
caricatures also
depicted Americans as
controlling and
enslaving people
 by taking over the
insular civil service and
making Filipinos do
most of the work for
their own benefit,
paying
 off authorities for
their personal security,
and demanding highest
respects from the
Filipinos. From here,
growing
 corruption was
shown to be taking
over the political
processes in the
Philippines. Moreover,
they exemplified
 American
imperialism as the
primary reason for the
war between Muslim
and Christian Filipinos
in Mindanao
 and for other feuds
among Filipino people
who should have been
supporting one another
in fighting Americans
 to regain their
independence. McCoy
was able to provide a
comprehensive
background for each
caricature to give
 readers details of the
turbulent period the
Filipinos have
experienced under the
hands of the
Americans.
 Philippine Cartoons is a
compilation of 377 editorial
cartoons and caricatures
made by various Filipino
 artists that tackle the
situation during the American
occupation in the Philippines.
Dated from 1900 to 1941,
each
 individual caricature
recorded national attitudes
toward the coming of the
Americans as well as the
changing
 mores and times. Some of
the cartoons presented the
condition of Filipino farmers
on the hands of American
 tenants who self-owned the
lands of the laborers and
imposed unbearable and
unjust taxes on them. The
cartoons
 also compared the job
situation of a Filipino and an
American by portraying
unequal salaries despite
having the
 same nature of work,
which highlighted racial
discrimination in terms of
work condition, wages, job
opportunities,
 and career positions. Aside
from that, the caricatures also
depicted Americans as
controlling and enslaving
people
 by taking over the insular
civil service and making
Filipinos do most of the work
for their own benefit, paying
 off authorities for their
personal security, and
demanding highest respects
from the Filipinos. From
here, growing
 corruption was shown to
be taking over the political
processes in the Philippines.
Moreover, they exemplified
 American imperialism as
the primary reason for the
war between Muslim and
Christian Filipinos in
Mindanao
 and for other feuds among
Filipino people who should
have been supporting one
another in fighting
Americans
 to regain their
independence. McCoy was
able to provide a
comprehensive background
for each caricature to give
 readers details of the
turbulent period the Filipinos
have experienced under the
hands of the Americans.
Philippine Cartoons

is a compilation of 377 editorial cartoons and caricatures made by various Filipino artists that

tackle the situation during the American occupation in the Philippines. Dated from 1900 to 1941,

each individual caricature recorded national attitudes toward the coming of the Americans as

well as the changing mores and times. Some of the cartoons presented the condition of Filipino

farmers on the hands of American tenants who self-owned the lands of the laborers and imposed

unbearable and unjust taxes on them. The cartoons also compared the job situation of a Filipino

and an American by portraying unequal salaries despite having the same nature of work, which

highlighted racial discrimination in terms of work condition, wages, job opportunities, and career

positions. Aside from that, the caricatures also depicted Americans as controlling and enslaving

people by taking over the insular civil service and making Filipinos do most of the work for their

own benefit, paying off authorities for their personal security, and demanding highest respects

from the Filipinos. From here, growing corruption was shown to be taking over the political
processes in the Philippines. Moreover, they exemplified American imperialism as the primary

reason for the war between Muslim and Christian Filipinos in Mindanao and for other feuds

among Filipino people who should have been supporting one another in fighting Americans to

regain their independence. McCoy was able to provide a comprehensive background for each

caricature to give readers details of the turbulent period the Filipinos have experienced under the

hands of the Americans.

Philippine Magazine
as established. It was the first publication to be called a magazine in the Philippines, and

according to Maslog (1960), “the first periodical to carry miscellaneous information.” The

publication started as the Philippine Teacher, a semi-government publication for public school

teachers but was renamed Philippine Magazine in 1905 and then became privately owned the

next year.

The Philippines Free Press

was originally founded in 1907 by Judge W.H. Kincaid, as a bi-lingual English and Spanish

newspaper. However, the paper proved to be only of very little success. So in 1908 Robert

McCulloch Dick, a former editor at the Manila Times, bought the paper for a peso, and the used

up his life savings of 8 000 as operating capital. It was re-released, still as bi-lingual (English and

Spanish) publication, but this time as a weekly magazine up until World War II. was originally

founded in 1907 by Judge W.H. Kincaid, as a bi-lingual English and Spanish newspaper.

However, the paper proved to be only of very little success. So in 1908 Robert McCulloch Dick,

a former editor at the Manila Times, bought the paper for a peso, and the used up his life savings

of 8 000 as operating capital. It was re-released, still as bi-lingual (English and Spanish)

publication, but this time as a weekly magazine up until World War II.
Editorial cartoon showing President Quezon’s support of the woman suffrage movement,

published on April 3, 1937 in the Philippines Free Press

Christmas message from President Manuel Quezon to the Filipinos, published at December 1939

by the Philippines Free Press

Success of Philippine Free Press

The rereleased Free Press was a success as much as its initial run wasn’t. By 1941 it had a

circulation of 80,000 copies a week. Feliciano (1967) said that “Always lively, critical, and

carefully edited, the Free Press is an example of a magazine that has drawn vitality from its staff

and its widely spread readers.” And indeed, it became the most influential English-language

weekly

Liwayway(A Tagalog Magazine)

Another magazine, this time Tagalog, enjoyed much of the same success (perhaps even more)

that the Free Press had, and this was the Roces-owned Liwayway. Liwayway was a Tagalog

publication founded in 1923 by Ramon Roces, son of Alejandro Roces Sr., which he co-edited

with the novelist Severino Reyes.

After a retreat to Mindanao, Roces returned to Manila to revive the magazine, this time in pure

Tagalog. He called it Liwayway as it meant “dawn” and therefore, a “new beginning.” Roces and

Reyes made every effort to ensure that the Liwayway would not suffer the same fate of their ill-

fated Photo News. The revamped magazine was published weekly. It was sold at 12 centavos

and had up to 40 pages each (Photo News had only 20 and cost more). The editors added more
pictures and illustrations. It contained local and foreign news and an expanded section of essays,

short fiction, and poetry.

Liwayway proved to be a critical success. Even though Liwayway was basically intended as a

magazine for the man on the street, its prose and poetry were considered the best Tagalog literary

output of the era. Severino Reyes’ own “Mga Kuwento ni Lola Basyang” appeared regularly in

the magazine much to the delight of many of its readers. Severino and Roces also recruited the

country’s leading literary giants at that time. It had as contributors poets Jose Corazon De Jesus,

Florentino Collantes, Julian Cruz Balmaseda, Cecilio Apostol and writers Lope K. Santos,

Rogelio Sicat, Inigo Ed Regalado, Romualdo Ramos, Francisco Laksamana and Fausto Galaura.

Some serialized stories were even published later on as novels. There was also a commendable

focus on design, art, and layout.

Chapter 8

The Cry of Pugad Lawin/Balintawak

Cry of Pugad Lawin The Cry of Pugad Lawin

(Filipino: Sigaw ng Pugad Lawin)

alternately and originally referred to as the Cry of Balintawak (Filipino: Sigaw ng Balíntawak,

Spanish: Grito de Balíntawak), was the beginning of the Philippine Revolution against the

Spanish Empire. At the close of August 1896, members of the Katipunan secret society

(Katipuneros) led by Andrés Bonifacio rose up in revolt somewhere in an area referred to as

Caloocan, wider than the jurisdiction of present-day Caloocan City which may have overlapped
into present-day Quezon City. Originally the term "cry" referred to the first clash between the

Katipuneros and the Civil Guards (Guardia Civil). The cry could also refer to the tearing up of

community tax certificates (cédulas personales) in defiance of their allegiance to Spain. This was

literally accompanied by patriotic shouts. Because of competing accounts and ambiguity of the

place where this event took place, the exact date and place of the Cry is in contention. From 1908

until 1963, the official stance was that the cry occurred on August 26 in Balintawak. In 1963 the

Philippine government declared a shift to August 23 in Pugad Lawin, Quezon City.

Different dates and places Various accounts give differing dates and places for the Cry.

An officer of the Spanish guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, stated that the Cry took place in

Balintawak on August 25, 1896. Historian Teodoro Kalaw in his 1925 book The Filipino

Revolution wrote that the event took place during the last week of August 1896 at Kangkong,

Balintawak. Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, the leader of the

Magdiwangfaction in Cavite, stated in 1927 that the Cry took place in Bahay Toro, now in

Quezon City on August 24, 1896. Pío Valenzuela, a close associate of Andrés Bonifacio,

declared in 1948 that it happened in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide

stated in his books in 1954 that the "Cry" happened in Balintawak on August 26, 1896. Fellow

historian Teodoro Agoncillo wrote in 1956 that it took place in Pugad Lawin on August 23,

1896, based on Pío Valenzuela's statement. Accounts by historians Milagros Guerrero,

Emmanuel Encarnacion and Ramon Villegas claim the event to have taken place in Tandang

Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City. Some of the apparent confusion is in part

due to the double meanings of the terms "Balintawak" and "Caloocan" at the turn of the century.
Balintawak referred both to a specific place in modern Caloocan City and a wider area which

included parts of modern Quezon City. Similarly, Caloocan referred to modern Caloocan City

and also a wider area which included modern Quezon City and part of modern Pasig. Pugad

Lawin, Pasong Tamo, Kangkong and other specific places were all in "greater Balintawak",

which was in turn part of "greater Caloocan".

Definition of the Cry

The term "Cry" is translated from the Spanish el grito de rebelion (cry of rebellion) or el grito for

short. Thus the Grito de Balintawak is comparable to Mexico's Grito de Dolores (1810).

However, el grito de rebelion strictly refers to a decision or call to revolt. It does not necessarily

connote shouting, unlike the Filipino sigaw.

First skirmish Up to the late 1920s, the Cry was generally identified with Balintawak. It was

commemorated on August 29, considered the anniversary of the first hostile encounter between

the Katipuneros and the Guardia Civil. The "first shot" of the Revolution (el primer tiro) was

fired at Banlat, Pasong Tamo, then considered a part of Balintawak and now part of Quezon

City.

Tearing of cédulas Not all accounts relate the tearing of cédulas in the last days of August. Of

the accounts that do, older ones identify the place where this occurred as Kangkong in

Balintawak/Kalookan. Most also give the date of the cédula-tearing as August 26, in close

proximity to the first encounter. One Katipunero, Guillermo Masangkay, claimed cédulas were
torn more than once – on the 24th as well as the 26th. For his 1956 book The Revolt of the

Masses Teodoro Agoncillo defined "the Cry" as the tearing of cedulas, departing from precedent

which had then defined it as the first skirmish of the revolution. His version was based on the

later testimonies of Pío Valenzuela and others who claimed the cry took place in Pugad Lawin

instead of Balintawak. Valenzuela's version, through Agoncillo's influence, became the basis of

the current stance of the Philippine government. In 1963, President Diosdado Macapagal ordered

the official commemorations shifted to Pugad ng uwak, Quezon City on August 23.

Formation of an insurgent government An alternative definition of the Cry as the "birth of the

Filipino nation state" involves the setting up of a national insurgent government through the

Katipunan with Bonifacio as President in Banlat, Pasong Tamo on August 24, 1896 – after the

tearing of cedulas but before the first skirmish. This was called the Haring Bayang Katagalugan

(Sovereign Tagalog Nation).

Other Cries In 1895 Bonifacio, Masangkay, Emilio Jacinto and other Katipuneros spent Good

Friday in the caves of Mt. Pamitinan in Montalban (now part of Rizal province). They wrote

"long live Philippine independence" on the cave walls, which some Filipino historians consider

the "first cry" (el primer grito).

Commemoration The Cry is commemorated as National Heroes' Day, a public holiday in the

Philippines.[7] The first annual commemoration of the Cry occurred in Balintawak in 1908 after

the American colonial government repealed the Sedition Law. In 1911 a monument to the Cry (a

lone Katipunero popularly identified with Bonifacio) was erected at Balintawak; it was later
transferred to Vinzons Hall in the University of the Philippines-Diliman, Quezon City. In 1984,

the National Historical Institute of the Philippines installed a commemorative plaque in Pugad

Lawin.

The Cry of Pugadlawin News

about the discovery of the Katipunan spread to Manila and nearby suburbs, and Andres

Bonifacio immediately called for a general meeting. Various wings of the Katipunan gathered at

the house of Juan Ramos in Pugadlawin on August 23, 1896. Ramos was the son of Melchora

Aquino, also known as “Tandang Sora” and was later acknowledged as the Mother of the

Katipunan." Bonifacio asked his men whether they were willing to fight to the bitter end.

Everyone shouted their approval, except for Teodoro Plata, who though that it was too soon for a

revolution. Heartened by his men’s response, Bonifacio then asked them to tear their cedulas

(residence certificates) to pieces, as a sign of their defiance and determination to rise against the

Spaniards. The men immediately tore up their cedulas, shouting, Mabuhay ang Pilipinas (long

live the Philippines) -known as the Cry of Pugadlawin.

The Katipunan in Cavite Cavite soon became the center of the Revolution, and the Katipuneros

there divided themselves into the Magdalo and Magdiwang factions. Baldomero Aguinaldo,

brother of Emilio Aguinaldo, headed the Magdalo group, which was stationed in Kawit. General

Mariano Alvarez led the Magdiwang group, which was stationed in Noveleta. The two groups

fought in separate battles. Emilio Aguinaldo overran Kawit on August 31, 1896, while Alvarez

attacked Noveleta. In Bacoor, Aguinaldo tried to intercept Spanish reinforcements coming from

Manila; but he was repulsed and forced to retreat to nearby Imus. Here, on the morning of
September 5, he defeated the Spanish troops under the command of General Aguirre. A hundred

Spaniards were killed and 60 weapons were confiscated. Aguinaldo was hailed as a hero. The

adoring Caviteños referred to him as “General Miong” and no longer “Kapitan Miong.” General

Aguinaldo’s numerous victories in the battlefield made him the acknowledged revolutionary

leader in Cavite. He issued a proclamation on October 31, 1896 enjoining the people to take

courage and continue fighting for Philippine independence. Owing to the defeat of the Spaniards

in Cavite, Camilo de Polavieja replaced Ramon Blanco as governor general on December 13,

1896. Polavieja was more successful than his predecessor and slowly regained one-third of the

province. Andres Bonifacio's Execution While Aguinaldo was recognized as leader by the

Magdalo faction, Bonifacio was recognized as the leader of the Katipunan by the Magdiwang

faction. An assembly was held in Imus, Cavite on December 31, 1897 to settle the leadership

issue but was not successful. Then on March 22, another assembly was held at Tejeros (known as

the Tejeros Convention) to elect officers of the revolutionary government. Aguinaldo won as

president while Bonifacio was relegated as the Director of the Interior. Bonifacio rejected the

elections and declared it void. Bonifacio later formed the Naic Military Agreement, essentially

creating a government contending Aguinaldo's. Soon after, Bonifacio was captured, stood trial,

and was sentenced to death by a War Council of Aguinaldo's government. Aguinaldo initially

commuted the sentence to deportation but later reversed the commutation upon pressure from

Pio Del Pilar and other officers. On orders from General Mariano Noriel, Andres Bonifacio was

executed at the foothills of Mt. Buntis by Major Lazaro Makapagal on May 10, 1897. The

Revolution Continues Bonifacio’s death did not deter the Filipinos from fighting for their

freedom. The Spanish government, for its part, doubled its efforts in trying to control Cavite,

which was considered the seat of the Revolution. When Governor General Primo de Rivera
replaced Camilo Polavieja on April 27, 1897, he immediately marched to Naic, Cavite to

persuade the Filipinos to surrender. The rebels, however, stood their ground. Aguinaldo realized

that Cavite was no longer safe for his men. They moved to Batangas, where they temporarily set

up camp in the town of Talisay. However, Spanish soldiers were able to pursue them there. Thus,

they retreated to Morong on June 10, 1897 and proceeded to Biak-na-Bato in Bulacan. Click here

to continue with Pact of Biak-na-Bato.

Balintawak or Pugad Lawin? WELL OVER two decades ago, the late National Artist Nick

Joaquin, in his INQUIRER column “Small Beer,” argued repeatedly for a return to the traditional

“Cry of Balintawak.” All our textbooks, following a resolution from the National Historical

Commission, state that the spark of the Revolution started with a cry, followed by the tearing of

cedulas led by Andres Bonifacio in Pugad Lawin, Quezon City. The issue is not just

historiographical but political. If the National Historical Commission, upon review of the facts,

reverses its earlier resolution and moves the site of the “Cry” back to Balintawak then history

will be moved from Quezon City to Caloocan. Mayor Herbert Bautista’s loss will be Mayor

Recom Echiverri’s gain. Re-opening the issue looks simple because people think it’s just like

tossing a coin to decide between Balintawak or Pugad Lawin. If you bring two to three historians

together you would not get a consensus. To the above options, you must add other contenders to

the historical site: Kangkong, Bahay Toro, Pasong Tamo, Banlat and God knows where else,

depending on the primary source being cited. If you think location is the only issue, look again.

The date declared by the National Historical Commission as the start of the Philippine

Revolution—Aug. 23, 1896—is but one date proposed, the others being Aug. 20, 24, 25 and 26,

1896. And, if I remember from a historical forum in UP, one scholar even insisted on a wildcard
date of Sept. 5, 1896! All these debates on dates and places, which may seem trivial to the

general public, is the lifeblood of historians. Teodoro A. Agoncillo said that Bonifacio scheduled

a general assembly of the Katipunan for Aug. 24, 1896, the Feast of San Bartolome, in Malabon.

This date was chosen to enable Katipuneros to pass security checkpoints carrying their bolos

because Malabon is famous for manufacturing a long bladed weapon called “ sangbartolome.”

Bonifacio and his men were in Balintawak on August 19. They left Balintawak for Kangkong on

August 21, and on the afternoon of August 22 they proceeded to Pugad Lawin. The next day,

August 23, in the yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, better known as “Tandang

Sora,” the Katipuneros listened to the rousing speech of Bonifacio, tore their cedulas, and vowed

to fight. Teodoro Agoncillo convinced the National Historical Commission to move the

traditional Aug. 26 date to Aug. 23 and transfer the historical site from Balintawak to Pugad

Lawin. If Agoncillo’s personality wasn’t enough for the Commission, he cited as his principal

source Dr. Pio Valenzuela, a close associate of Bonifacio. I wonder if other members of the

commission bothered to remind Agoncillo that Valenzuela may have been in Bonifacio’s inner

circle, but may be unreliable as a primary source. In Wenceslao Emilio’s fivevolume compilation

of historical documents, Archivo del Bibliofilo Filipino, Valenzuela’s signed testimony before

Spanish interrogators dated September 1896 stated that the Cry of Balintawak was held in

Balintawak on Aug. 26, 1896. Years later, in his memoirs published in English after World War

II, Valenzuela stated that the Cry was actually held in Pugad Lawin on Aug. 23, 1896. Agoncillo

explained that the September 1896 account was extracted from Valenzuela under duress and

couldn’t be trusted. Balintawak was the place determined by tradition and many eyewitness

accounts, including Guillermo Masangkay who, in an interview in the Sunday Tribune in 1932,

declared the place as

Balintawak and the date Aug. 26, 1896. Spanish Lt. Olegario Diaz in 1896 pinpointed the place

as Balintawak but placed the date on Aug. 24, 1896. Depending on your source, the dates and

places do not seem to match. In 1928 Gregoria de Jesus Nakpil, widow of Andres Bonifacio,

wrote a short autobiography, entitled “Mga tala ng aking buhay,” where she stated, among other

things, that the Cry of Balintawak took place on Aug. 25, 1896 in Pasong Tamo! This place isn’t

in Makati but in Caloocan. How more authoritative can you get than the Supremo’s widow?

Oryang was revered as the muse, the Lakambini of the Katipunan. To complicate things further,

another Bonifacio associate, the composer of the Katipunan, Julio Nakpil, second husband of

Gregoria de Jesus, deposited his handwritten notes on the Philippine Revolution in the National

Library under Teodoro M. Kalaw in 1925. Here he wrote, “swearing before God and before

history that everything in these notes is the truth”: “The revolution started in Balintawak in the

last days of August 1896.” On another page he wrote, “Bonifacio uttered the first cry of war

against tyranny on Aug. 24, 1896.” Finally, he remembered that “the first cry of Balintawak was

in Aug. 26, 1896 in the place called Kangkong, adjacent to Pasong Tamo, within the jurisdiction

of Balintawak, Caloocan, then within the province of Manila.” Now, which of these three

declarations do we choose? Last but not least, we have Santiago Alvarez whose memoirs identify

the place as Bahay Toro and the date as Aug. 25, 1896. There are more conflicting sources

available, so to keep the peace, and until more conclusive evidence can be presented, let’s just

stick to Pugad Lawin and Aug. 23, 1896.

The "Cry" of Pugadlawin The news of the discovery of the Katipunan spread throughout Manila

and the suburbs. Bonifacio, informed of the discovery, secretly instructed his runners to summon
all the leaders of the society to a general assembly to be held on August 24. They were to meet at

Balintawak to discuss the steps to be taken to meet the crisis. That same night of August 19,

Bonifacio, accompanied by his brother Procopio, Emilio Jacinto, Teodoro Plata, and Aguedo del

Rosario, slipped through the cordon of Spanish sentries and reached Balintawak before midnight.

Pio Valenzuela followed them the next day. On the 21st, Bonifacio changed the Katipunan code

because the Spanish authorities had already deciphered it. In the afternoon of the same day, the

rebels, numbering about 500, left Balintawak for Kangkong, where Apolonio Samson, a

Katipunero, gave them food and shelter. In the afternoon of August 22, they proceeded to

Pugadlawin. The following day, in the yard of Juan A. Ramos, the son of Melchora Aquino who

was later called the "Mother of the Katipunan", Bonifacio asked his men whether they were

prepared to fight to the bitter end. Despite the objection of his brother-in-law, Teodoro Plata, all

assembled agreed to fight to the last. "That being the case, " Bonifacio said, "bring out your

cedulas and tear them to pieces to symbolize our determination to take up arms!" The men

obediently tore up their cedulas, shouting "Long live the Philippines!" This event marked the

socalled "Cry of Balintawak," which actually happened in Pugadlawin.

The Cry of Balintawak First Skirmishes In the midst of this dramatic scene, some Katipuneros

who had just arrived from Manila and Kalookan shouted "Dong Andres! The civil guards are

almost behind us, and will reconnoiter the mountains." Bonifacio at once ordered his men to get

ready for the expected attack of the Spaniards. Since they had inferior arms the rebels decided,

instead, to retreat. Under cover of darkness, the rebels marched towards Pasong Tamo, and the

nextday, August 24, they arrived at the yard of Melchora Aquino, known as Tandang Sora. It

was decided that all the rebels in the surrounding towns be notified of the general attack on
Manila on the night of August 29, 1896. At ten in the morning of August 25, some women came

rushing in and notified Bonifacio that the civil guards and some infantrymen were coming. Soon

after, a burst of fire came from the approaching Spaniards. The rebels deployed and prepared for

the enemy. In the skirmish that followed, the rebels lost two men and the enemy one. Because of

their inferior weapons, which consisted mostly of bolos and a few guns, the rebels decided to

retreat. On the other hand, the Spaniards, finding themselves greatly outnumbered, also decided

to retreat. So both camps retreated and thus prevented a bloody encounter. This was the first

skirmish fought in the struggle for national emancipation. On August 26, Spanish reinforcements

were dispatched to Pasong Tamo to drive away the rebels. But the latter, who were going to or

were already in Balara, could not be found. The Spaniards, frustrated in their attempt to contact

the Filipino contingent, shot, instead, two innocent farmers who were leisurely going on their

way home. Returning to Manila, the Spanish soldiers boasted that a great fight has taken place at

Pasong Tamo, and that they had driven the rebels to the interior. This was the origin of the so-

called "Cry of Balintawak", which neither happened on August 26 nor in Balintawak.

Meanwhile, the rebels, skirting the mountain trails day and night, finally arrived in Mariquina.

Later in the day, however, they abandoned it and proceeded to Hagdang Bato on August 27. The

following day, Bonifacio issued a manifesto inciting the people to take up the Filipino cause and

to get set for a concerted attack on the Spaniards on August 29.

Bonifacio's Manifesto of August 28 This manifesto is for all of you. It is absolutely necessary for

us to stop at the earliest possible time the nameless oppressions being perpetrated on the sons of

the people who are now suffering the brutal punishment and tortures in jails, and because of this

please let all the brethren know that on Saturday, the revolution shall commence according to our
agreement. For this purpose, it is necessary for all town to rise simultaneously and attack Manila

at the same time. Anybody who obstructs this sacred ideal of the people will be considered a

traitor and an enemy, except if he is ill or is not physically fit, in which case he shall be tried

according to the regulation we have put in force.

Chapter 9

The Cavite Mutiny

In a previous article in this journal I have attempted to establish definitely the inailthenticity of
various manuscripts and published works concerning, or attributed to, Father Jose Burgos, but
actually written in the twentieth century.' Likewise in preparation for the centenary of the
martyrdom of Fathers Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora, various scholars have published
documentation concerning Father Burgos in particular, and in my recent book I have edited and
translated some genuine works of Burgos in part hitherto unknown.~ The fact remains, however,
that we still possess no definitive account of the Cavite Mutiny, nor a satisfactory biography of
any of the three priests. Not only are primary source materials still lacking however, but there is
considerable confusion as to the worth of the various published accounts of the events of 1872
both as to primary and to secondary sources.

FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS

There were several men who appear to have been living in Manila at the time of the events which
culminated in the Cavite Mutiny who wrote accounts of the events. The account of Josh Montero
y Vidal, a Spanish official in Manila at the time, is the fullest account of the mutiny itselL3 It
embodies the official interpretation of the mutiny in Cavite as part of a general revolt directed by
the three priests and their lay and clerical colleagues in Manila and Cavite, having as its aim the
assassination of the Governor-General and a general massacre of all Spaniards. Published only in
1895, at the height of the Filipino nationalist campaign, Montero's account is strongly hostile to
Filipino reformist aspirations, has no doubt of the guilt of those executed or exiled, and places
much of the blame for the revolt of 1872 on the alleged tolerance of Governor General Carlos
Maria de la Torre in the period 1869-1871. In a lengthy appendix to his own account4 Montero
reproduces selections from that given by Edmond Plauchut, a Frenchman resident in Manila for
some years, indignantly or sarcastically denying various allegations of the latter. The narrative of
Plauchut is actually only a part of a series of articles on the Philippines published in the
internationally known French journal, Revue des Dem Mondes, in Paris in 1877.5 His account of
the events of 1872 has often been called "the Filipino version" of the events, having been
translated.
SCHUMACHER: CAVITE MUTINY

into Spanish and published in La SolicEaridad in 1892 and afterwards republished more than
once from this ~version.~ The version of Plauchut presents several difficulties, even if we ignore
the xenophobic attacks of Montero y Vidal. On the one hand, for example, he implies the
innocence of the three priests as to any part in the mutiny. On the other, he asserts that "from
several accounts worthy of belief, the plot of the conspirators was known to many in the capital
as well as in the province." Similarly he refers to the three priests on their way to execution as
being cheered by the Filipinos as <& . . . those who were going to die for having dreamed of the
independence of their country. . . .

The account of the execution itself, though apparently that of an eyewitness, agreeing on
substantial points with that of Montero y Vidal, likewise contains numerous melodramatic details
which do not inspire great confidence in the historian. It is, for example, difficult to believe that
in the atmosphere of terror created by Izquierdo's harsh repressive measures-an atmosphere
emphasized by Plauchutthousands of people would have flocked in from the provinces to visit
the condemned priests in their cell or that this would have been permitted in any way, or that the
crowds would have ventured to cheer the priests on triumphantly as they made their way to the
place of execution. One need not accept totally the version of Montero to be able to agree in part
with his characterization of Plauchut's account as novelesoo. No doubt the author wished to liven
up his articles with some dramatic items of human interest for the delectation of his French
readers to whom the Philippines was a far-away, exotic country.

For the rest of Plauchut's account, however, there is a further problem-namely the source
of his knowledge of the events prior to the execution, to which he could not have been
eyewitness. As remarked above, he is notably deficient in his knowledge of the more remote
background of events in the Philippines and has numerous glaring historical errors, e.g., with
regard to Sim6n de Anda and his career. On the other hand, he clearly had some knowledge of
the then secret letter of Archbishop MeliMn Martinez to the Spanish Regent, written in 1870.7 It
is true that though he purports to quote from it, the quotation is badly garbled, and is rather a
mere summary of the ideas of the Archbishop. On the other hand, it contains sufficient genuine
and distinctive elements in it to have certainly come eventually from one who had at some time
seen the original. This fact, together with other details which Plauchut could hardly have known
by himselfls points to the fundamental accuracy of Montero's assertion that Plauchut's account
had been inspired by the "separatistas antiespafioles de Filipinas." Prescinding from whether or
not they were separatists, among those exiled as a result of the Cavite Mutiny, probably Joaquin
Pardo de Tavera and almost certainly Antonio Regidor were in contact with Plauchut in Paris at
the time he was writing, and either or both must have served as a source for the events prior to
the execution. For after their escape from the Marianas in 1874 both Pardo de Tavera and
Regidor made their way from Hong Kong to Europe. The former settled permanently in Paris
until his death in 1884, and Regidor lived there for some time before moving to L~ndon.~ When
Rizal was planning his Association Internationale des Philippinistes to meet in Paris in 1889,
while he was still in London in almost daily contact with Regidor, it was Plauchut who was
named vice-president of the association and Regidor one of the counsellor^.^^ It must have been
either Regidor or Trinidad Pardo de TaVera, nephew of the now-deceased Joaquin, who put
Rizal in contact with Plauchut, most likely the former; given the evident contacts between
Plauchut and Regidor in their writings. Hence Regidor and possibly also Pardo de Tavera would
have been what Plauchut refers to in speaking of his source having been "several accounts
worthy of belief."

One further apparently contemporary account remains, whose author cannot be

determined with certainty, and which has been published only indirectly. The published version
is that contained in Father Pablo Pastells' history of the Jesuit Philippine mission in the
nineteenth ~entury.~~astells arrived in Manila only in 1875, hence was not himself a
contemporary witness. But a comparison of the account to be found in his book with a
manuscript history of the Ateneo Municipal extant in Jesuit archives in Spain, entitled "Historia
del Colegio de la Inmaculada Concepci6n que tiene la Misi6n de la Compaiiia de Jestis de las
Islas Filipinas en Manila," shows that Pastells has copied it almost word for word from the
manuscript history. This latter account was written by a Jesuit resident in the Ateneo, and
completed by 1874 at the latest.'" The account of the revolt adds nothing to the facts established
from the general agreement of the other contemporary accounts, except to add some details on
the role of the Jesuits in assisting the condemned priests. The account of the "Christian
resignation" with which the three priests went to their execution, though couched in general
terms, would seem to support Montero y Vidal's rejection of the dramatic incidents related by
Plauchut. Unlike Montero, however, the narrator (and Father Pastells) express the general
conviction of Manileiios that many of those condemned were unjustly or at least excessively
punished and did not receive a fair trial. Since the original account was apparently not written for
publication and its eventual publication took place only in 1916, long after the period in which
any political considerations might have influenced the narrator, the account possesses a
reliability-for the limited area covered-superior to that of others that have been treated here.

SECOND-HAND ACCOUNTS

In this group may be included those who assert that they had received their information from
contemporaries of the events or who, because of their relationship to such men, may be
legitimately supposed to have done so.
In the first category fall two documents which, though they remain unpublished as a whole, seem
to have been circulated in copies to a considerable degree and thus to have entered into later
accounts. The two documents in question were written by Father Agapito Echegoyen, a
Recoleto, and Father Antonio Piernavieja, an Augustinian, both of whom were taken prisoners
by the revolutionary forces in Cavite in 1896.27 Both documents confess to and condemn
various crimes and abuses allegedly committed by the friars, beginning with the period just prior
to the Cavite Mutiny. Both accounts agree in attributing the execution of the three priests to friar
intrigues. Allegedly the four friar Provincials met to decide on how to eliminate their opponents,
and for this purpose, knowing that a revolt was in the offing in Cavite, sent a iriar similar in
appearance to Burgos, to stir up the prospective rebels under the name of the latter, and to
distribute money among them. Likewise the Provincials are alleged to have bribed Izquierdo
heavily so as to bring him to execute the three priests when the revolt did break out and they
were implicated by the captured rebels. Piernavieja did not give the source of his knowledge, but
Echegoyen, who came to the Philippines a few months after the events, alleged that his account
came from a fellow-friar, Father Cipriano Navarro. The account of Echegoyen does not name the
suposed impersonator of Burgos, but declares him to have been a Franciscan (though he later
adds that others say he was a Recoleto). The account of Piernavieja, on the other hand, attributes
the deed to a Father Claudio del ArcoZs whom he does not further identify, but who was actually
a Recoleto parish priest of Santa Cruz, Zambales. Though it is most probable that the documents
were actually written by the individuals whose names are appended to them, since thei contain
accurate data which only the persons named could have known--e.g., the various parishes the
writers had held and the dates in which they had arrived in each of their assignmentszg-they can
scarcely be accepted as reliable documents, given the facts that both men were prisoners, and are
known to have been tortured by the Magdiwang leader Mariano Alvarez before being finally
executed at the orders of Andres Bonifa~io.~~ The very profuseness with which they repeatedly
insist that everything they say is said with perfect freedom from coercion, and out of pure love
for the truth and to honor these martyrs, make them worthless to a critical historian, as being
evidently confessions extorted by torture. They were, however, to have considerable subsequent
influence, as will be seen below.

Apart from these accounts allegedly based on information received from contemporaries of the
events, there are those which, though not explicitly stating that they were such, have a reasonable
possibility of such an origin, since their authors were close relatives of participants. The two
principal ones are those by Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, nephew of Joaquin Pardo de Tavera,
and brought up in his household; and that of Pedro Paterno, son of Miiximo Paterno, another of
those exiled to the Marianas in 1872.

OTHER CONTEMPORARIES

Two other figures of approximately the same generation as those just treated but without known
direct contacts with contemporaries of the events were Father Salvador Pons and Apolinario
Mabini. Both spoke briefly about the events of 1872 in connection with their other writings.

Pons was an Augustinian friar who first came to the Philippines in 1884, left his order in 1899 in
Manila, and for the next decade spent much of his time in writing against the friars, and
cooperating with the founders of the Iglesia Filipina Independie~~te.~"inally being reconciled
with the Catholic Church, he re-entered [Link] Augustinians and spent the rest of his life in a
monastery in Germany. Since he retracted his anti-friar and anti-Catholic writings as a whole,
and spent much of the rest of his life in refuting them, all of his writings must be used with some
caution, particularly since those which may in some sense be qualified as historical were
composed in great haste, and comparable carelessness and exaggeration.

The two works in question here are Defensa del clero filipino, and El clero filipino." The first of
these reproduces Plauchut's account, and for the rest contains no facts that could not be found in
Montero y Vidal, and indeed, it is in general short on facts. The second book contains a series of
biographies and bibliographies of outstanding Filipino secular priests, among them Burgos and
G6mez. In his account of Burgos' academic career (which is replete with factual errors in the
matter of dates) he attributes the revolt of 1872 to the friars, "as was said almost publicly." The
reason given is that Burgos had incurred the ire of the Recoletos by his defense of the rights of
the Filipino clergy, and of the Dominicans by his just severity in refusing to give a passing grade
to incapable friars when he acted as a member of the board of examiners for candidates for
degrees at the University of Santo Tomas. (No explanation is given how such a motive would
have brought about the execution of Zamora or Gdmez.) Given the many factual errors and open
contradictions in the account, it may be safely ignored as an independent source, and is
dependent on Plauchut and/or Regidor. The biography of G6mez is similarly dependent on
Regidor, as would seem to be shown by the erroneous statement that the former founded the
Madrid newspaper La Verdad, "exclusively dedicated to the defense of Filipino int,erests. . . ."
La Verdad was, of course, the newspaper in which the attacks on the Filipino clergy by the
Recoleto procurator in Madrid, Father Guillerrno Agudo, were published, provoking the
Manifiesto of Burgos in 1864.

CONCLUSIONS

The foregoing analysis of these early accounts of the Cavite Mutiny would seem to lead to the
following conclusions as to the reliability of these sources and the relationships existing among
them:

(1) There are only three certainly independent major versions of the events which deserve serious
considerationthose of Montero y Vidal, of Regidor, and of Pardo de Tavera. If it could be shown
that Plauchut was actually present in Manila in 1872, perhaps his account could be included for
the little it might contain independent of Regidor. But there is nothing to indicate that he actually
was in Manila in 1872, and everything solidly reliable in his account can be found in Regidor.

(2) Only Montero maintains fully the official thesis that the mutiny was part of a larger revolt
aimed at independence; the others deny it, though Regidor and Plauchut have certain apparent
contradictions in their explanations, as well as numerous highly improbable details and dialogue.

(3) The partial account reproduced in Pastells, and less clearly, that of Govantes, reject Montero's
full position without clearly giving complete support to the contention that nothing more than a
local mutiny was involved.
(4) The account of Pardo de Tavera, prescinding from the emotional anti-friar tone that pervades
it, gives evidence of being the most reliable, even though fairly general, account except for its
failure to recognize that De la Torre had also been suspicious of the Filipino reformists. That of
Montero, apart from its anti-Filipino tone and its supposition of a revolutionary conspiracy,
contains the most details and, to all appearances, most reliable account of the actual course of the
revolt itself, as well as of the execution of the three priests.

(5) The notion of a deliberate and concerted friar conspiracy to provoke a revolt which would
enable them to eliminate their enemies comes solely from Regidor, whose description contains
clearly false assertions. The story that such a provocation was carried out by means of a friar
impersonating Burgos is first found in the torture-extorted confessions of the friars executed at
the orders of Bonifacio in 1897. These latter "confessione" are clearly in contradiction with
Regidor at several points. The lack of a reliable basis for these allegations against the friars does
not, however. necessarily invalidate the more general assertion of Pardo de Tavera that a large
group of conservative Manila Spaniards, including many or most friars, were suspicious of the
Filipino priests and other liberal reformists from the time of De la Torre, and were quick to make
of the Cavite Mutiny a revolution aimed at independence, and even to favor the drastic
punishments meted out.

(6) Of all those existing, the account of Artigas combines the maximum of information,
documentation, and detail with at least a minimum of critical treatment of his sources. However,
depending as heavily as he does on Regidor, and having made use of such other unreliable
sources as the Piernavieja-Echegoyen accounts, it falls far short of providing a fully reliable
treatment of the events of 1872. Useful as it is in the absence of any satisfactory account, it can
only be employed with any surety by the historian who is aware of Artigas' own sources and
their value.

The evaluations and indications of this article are intended as aids to the use of these published
sources. But as is obvious, even after evaluating them, they must be used in conjunction with
documentary archival sources to arrive at any more complete and reliable historical picture. If
the failure to locate the records of the trials is a serious loss, still there remains a rather large
amount of documentary material which has either been published in recent times or the exisknce
of which is known or hinted at in various publications, which should make it possible to obtain a
more critical and satisfactory synthesis than has hitherto been made available.