Appendix

Learning Resource Materials

II
ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES: Controversies and conflicting views in Philippine history

Target Outcomes

At the end of the course, the learners will be able:

1. To State the different version of controversial issues in the Philippine History;
2. Analyze the conflicting views presented on some historical events that shaped the history of the Philippines; and,
3. Make a critical evaluation of the issues in the Philippine History

Abstraction

V. MEANING AT THE SITE OF THE FIRST MASS IN THE PHILIPPINES:

MASAU OR LIMASAWA?

We are a confused people. It is because our

history as a people is laden with controversies and
conflicting views. We do not even know who we
really are, what we want and how to and with
whom we identify ourselves.
Four of the controversies that have
continuously been subjects of discussions,
conflicts, and at times misunderstanding among friends who differ in their views about them are the site of
the first mass in the Philippines, the Cavite Mutiny, the Retraction of Rizal and the Cry of Balintawak.
For decades, children have been taught that Limasawa was the site of the first mass in the Philippines.
As chronicled by Pigafetta, the historian of the Magellan expedition, the first mass in the Philippines
archipelago was celebrated on March 31, 1521 along the shores of what was referred to by him as Mazaua.
Mazaua was believed to be Limasawa, an island located at the tip of Southern Leyte. According to his
accounts, Magellan ordered the planting of a large wooden cross on the top of a hill overlooking the sea.
Pigafetta wrote of this first mass: "After the cross was erected in position, each of us repeated the Pater
Noster and an Ave Maria and adored the cross; and the kings Colambu and Siagu did the same”.
Pigafetta was an Italian who was in the service of the king of Spain. He served as the chronicler of the
Magellan expedition and was one of the men of Magellan who was able to return to Spain on board the
Victoria, the only ship which survived the expedition, He gave a copy of his diary to the king of Spain,
Charles V. Two years after arriving in Spain, he wrote a book, The Navigation and Discovery of Upper
India, based on his diary. The book was first published in French. In 1905, its Italian version was translated
into English by James Robertson which he titled Magellan's Voyage Round the World.
J. Mallat wrote of Magellan's expedition: "The expedition went towards the southwest, where it was not
long before it discovered a tip of land to which was given the name Cape of St. Augustine. This cape formed
the southwest extremity of the island of Mindanao. From there, the expedition went up towards the North,
coasting along a gold-rich province. It entered the strait of Surigao and cast anchor near the little island of
Limasagua”.
Upon being informed that the gulf and river of Butuan which is in the northern coast of the island of
Mindanao and south of Limasagua, Magellan dispatched an armed craft with an interpreter. He instructed
his men to ask some food from the natives of Butuan in exchange for some objects which he told his men to
bring with them. They were given several goats and pigs and rice.
Writing on the first Mass in the Philippines, Mallat continued: "On Palm Sunday, Magellan went in
person to the village of Butuan, erected an altar decorated with leaves and flowers and had the crew of his
three vessels go ashore to hear the first Mass ever celebrated in those far away regions, in which he was so
anxious to have said in order to give thanks to the God of the seas for the protection which He had given to
the expedition. The natives attended the ceremony peacefully, and Magellan treated them with the greatest
kindness; he planted on top of a hillock the sacred emblem of Christianity, and by a solemn act, took
possession of the island of Mindanao for the crown of Castille, in the name of the emperor and king, Charles
V.
In commemoration of the birth of Christianity in the Philippines, RA No. 2733 was enacted on June 19,
1960. Known as the Limasawa Law, it declared the site in Magallanes, Limasawa Island in Leyte as a
national shrine, the place having been the site of the first Mass in the Philippines. However, it was not
signed by the President.
The declaration of Limasawa as the site of the first Mass in the Philippines as embodied in the unsigned
law was contested by some historians, Sonia Zaide in particular. She identified Masao in Butuan as the
location of the first Christian Mass. She based her claim on the diary of Pigafetta. In view of this claim of
Zaide, Congresswoman Ching Plaza of Agusan del Norte filed a bill in Congress in 1995 contesting the
Limasawa claim, asserting that Butuan was the site of the first Mass.
The controversy was referred to the National Historical Institute (now National Historical Commission
of the Philippines) for further study and recommendation. After a thorough study, Dr. Samuel K. Tan, then
Chairman of the NHI, reaffirmed Limasawa as the site.
Despite the reaffirmation of the NHI that Limasawa was the site of the first Christian Mass in the
archipelago, this controversy and conflicting view continue to haunt many scholars and students of
Philippine history. There is a need, therefore, for a more in-depth and continuing research on this issue.
The controversy on the site of the first Mass did not stop there. It was made more conflicting by the
claim of many Pangasinense that the first Mass was celebrated in Pangasinan in around 1334 by Odoric of
Perdenone, a late-medieval Franciscan friar-missionary explorer. In fact, a marker was placed in front of the
Bolinao Church in Pangasinan stating that the first Mass on Philippine soil was celebrated in Bolinao Bay
in 1324 by a Franciscan missionary, Blessed Odorico.
However, this claim was considered as one of the hoaxes in Philippine history. Zaide wrote that Fr.
Odorio was never in the archipelago.

WHERE WAS THE FIRST MASS HELD? Masao or Limasawa?

WHERE WAS THE FIRST KINGDOM? Masao or Limasawa?
The first kingdom visited by Magellan in 1521, and the site of the first recorded Mass in the Philippines,
have been the subject of controversy since the Spanish era. In 1872, a Spanish district governor erected a
marble monument at Magallanes, then, the center of Butuan, to celebrate Magellan’s first arrival and the
commemoration of the first Mass. On the other hand, in 1958, the National Historical Commission placed
an historical marker at Barrio Magallanes, Limasawa Island, commemorating the same events.
So where is the site of the first mass and the first kingdom that so impressed the Western Explorers?
Although Limasawa, Southern Leyte, has the official title at present, and it would take new legislation to
dislodge it, the evidence points to Masao, now a Municipality of Butuan, Agusan del Norte, as the site of the
first kingdom, and hence, the first mass.
The evidence for Masao, rather than Limasawa, are as follows:
1. The name of the place. In all the primary sources, including the diary of Antonio Pigaffeta, the
chronicler of Magellan’s voyage, the name of the place was three syllables – “Masao” or something close to
it. Limasawa has four syllables and begins with another letter.
2. The route from Homonhon. According to the primary records, again, the expedition travelled 20 to 25
leagues from Homonhon, their first landing point, to the site of the first mass, taking a west-southwest
course. If they had been at Limasawa Island, the distance is only about 14.6 leagues, or one half of that
length. Moreover, the island of Limasawa is blocked from Homonhon by the tip of Southern Leyte.
3. The latitude position. Some of the primary sources locate the place at 90 North latitude, and others at
9 2/3 degrees. The latitude position eliminates Limasawa, because it is closer by ten degrees, and
strengthens the claim of Masao, Butuan because it is exactly at nine degrees.
4. The route to Cebu. The route to Cebu taken by the explorers is almost exactly similar to the one now
taken by motor vessels from Cebu to Butuan. The King of Masao (Kolambu) even guided the explorers to
Cebu and acted as their interpreter and intermediary when they met the Cebu king. On the contrary, there is
no sea traffic from Limasawa to Cebu, then or now. And the distance to Cebu, according to Pigaffeta, was
35 leagues (140 miles). If it were Limasawa that they came, the distance would only be 80 miles, or only
half of the alleged distance travelled.
5. The geographical features. The following physical features of the first kingdom point to Butuan,
rather than Limasawa, as follows:
a. The bonfire: the explorers were attracted to the light present the night before they came to
shore. Now, the name “Masao”, in Butuanon precisely means “bright”, which could refer to the local
custom of celebrating a harvest by cooking rice flakes in open fires. By contrast, there are no ricefields
in Limasawa.
b. The balanghai: which was a prominent feature of the story of their stay in the first kingdom.
It was said that the king came to their ship in a “balanghai”, and Pigaffeta and his companion attended a
party in a ritual “balanghai”, with the local king. Butuan is now the site of at least nine excavated
“balanghai” relics; by contrast, Limasawa has no significant archaeological relics or “balanghai”
tradition.
c. Abundance of gold: the Western explorers got excited at the abundance of gold in Masao and
Butuan, for that was the main currency at that time. Both archaeological relics (e.g. the “Gold Image of
Agusan”) and gold mines today attested to the abundance of gold in the Agusan valley. However, there
is no gold in Limasawa.

VI. THE CAVITY MUTINY

There are four versions related to the

Cavite Mutiny - the Jose Montero y Vidal,
Spanish historian version; the version of
Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo; the
version of Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de
Tavera; and that of the French writer,
Edmund Plauchut.

1. The Jose Montero y Vidal and Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo Versions

The versions of Jose Montero y Vidal and Governor-General Izquierdo were almost the same
except that the Izquierdo version was more biting. In his documentation of this event Montero
referred to it as a "revolution," an attempt by the Indios to topple down the Spanish government
in the Philippines. Izquierdo on the other hand, used this event as a vehicle to implicate the
Filipino priests who were then active in their secularization of Philippine parishes' campaign.
In the report submitted by these two Spaniards, they stated that the primary reasons for the "revolution"
were the removal of the privileges which the workers in the arsenal were enjoying. These privileges
included the exemption from the payment of tribute and from rendering the polo. They also pointed to the
following reasons as aggravating factors in the "revolution": the revolution in Spain which overthrew what
they referred to as "secular throne" the black propaganda resorted to by the unrestrained press; books and
pamphlets containing and democratic articles which reached the Philippines: and most importantly, the
native who because of their dislike of the friars plotted with and helped the rebels and enemies of Spain.
Izquierdo blamed the "unruly Spanish press for stockpiling malicious propagandas."
Izquierdo, in his report to the Spanish king pointed to the intention of the rebels to topple down the
Spanish government in order to put in power a new "king" in the persons of Father Jose Burgos and Father
Jacinto Zamora. He stressed in his report that the Filipino priests urged the natives to support the
"revolution," which they were assured of victory since God was on their side. He added that the Filipino
priests promised the natives that when they won the "revolution," those who joined in the "revolution"
would be rewarded with job, wealth and promotion in the army. Izquierdo mentioned in his report that the
Indios were possessed with the natural tendency of stealing.
Both Montero and Izquierdo believed that the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was planned earlier; that it was a
conspiracy among the educated, the mestizos, the native lawyers, citizens of Manila and Cavite and the
Filipino priests The insinuated in their reports that the conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to
liquidate the top Spanish officials and to be followed by the murder of the friars.
They stated that the signal of the "revolution" would be the explosion which would come from
Intramuros and that since that date January 20, 1872 coincided with the feast of the Our Lady of Loreto,
which the district of Sampaloc was observing, the rebels mistook the explosion coming from the fireworks
for the signal they were waiting for to start the "revolution". Thus, the 200 contingents under the command
of Sergeant Lamadrid started the "revolution" by attacking the Spanish officials they saw and captured the
arsenal.
The reports of Montero and Izquierdo further stated that when Izquierdo learned of the uprising, he
immediately dispatched reinforcement to Cavite which made possible the quelling of the uprising. They also
added that the reinforcement from Manila which the rebels were waiting failed to come, thus those who
instigated the "revolution were killed including Sergeant Lamadrid; the Gomburza was subjected to
investigation through a court martial and were sentenced to death by garrote; Joaquin Pardo de Tavera,
Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other lawyers were suspended from practicing their profession,
were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Marianas Islands.
2. The Trinidad Pardo de Tavera Version
From the point of view of Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, the Cavite event was just a mutiny of the natives,
soldiers and workers in the Cavite arsenal who were disheartened because of the removal of the privileges
which they used to enjoy earlier. He put the blame on Izquierdo for his policies such as the removal of the
privileges of the arsenal soldiers and workers and the prohibition to put up a school of arts and trades for the
Filipinos.
The report of Tavera stated that on 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, labourers of
the arsenal, and residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the
commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support from the bulk of
the army but unfortunately, that didn't happen. The news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and
Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the
mutiny was officially declared subdued.
Tavera was convinced that Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as an attempt of the Filipinos to topple
down the Spanish government and presented it as a blown-up conspiracy involving not only the local
soldiers but also the natives of Manila and Cavite, most specifically the Filipino priests.
3. The Edmunde/Edmund Plauchut Version
In 1877, Edmunde Plauchut a Frenchman who was residing in Manila at the time the event happened,
published in the Revue des Deux Mondes, his version of the Cavite Mutiny. His account was a dispassionate
one which reaffirmed the Tavera version. It stated that the Cavite Munity happened because of discontent of
the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort which originated from the order of the governor (Izquierdo)
which exacted taxes from the Filipino laborers in the engineering and artillery corps in the Cavite arsenal,
and required them to perform forced labor which they had been exempted from both. On January 20, 1872,
when they received their pay, the workers found the amount of the taxes and the corresponding fee in lieu of
the forced labor deducted from their pay envelopes. That night they mutinied. Forty infantry soldiers and
twenty men from the artillery took over command of the Fort of San Felipe and fired cannonades to
announce their victory, which was a short-lived one. Apparently, the mutineers had expected to be joined by
their comrades in the 7th infantry company assigned to patrol the Cavite Plaza. But when they beckoned to
them, their comrades did not join them and instead started attacking them. Terror-stricken, the rebels bolted
the gates and decided to wait for morning expecting support from Manila. Plauchut in his report also
focused on the execution of the three priests, Gomez, Burgos and Zamora which he personally witnessed.

VII. THE RETRACTION OF JOSE RIZAL

One of the most controversial issues in Philippine history is

the retraction of Jose Rizal. Until today, this retraction issue is a
subject of discussion among historians, researchers and students of
history.

What is really the truth behind this controversy?

We can have a better understanding of the issue if we will

look back at some of the developments in the life of Jose Rizal.

1. Rizal's Doubts on the Catholic Church

The publication of Rizal's two novels, the Noli Me Tangere
and the El Filibusterismo, made Rizal a target of the ire and persecution of the friars. Clearly written on the
pages of these two novels were Rizal's attacks on the friars and practices of the Catholic Church. He was
declared an excommunicado, which means that he was expelled from the Catholic Church and thus he could not
receive its sacraments.
But Rizal was never cowed in his desire to expose what he believed were abusive practices of the
religion which he was brought up to. One of his attacks on the Catholic Church was mirrored in a letter he sent
to his friend, Ferdinand Blumentritt who, like him, was also a liberal thinker. He wrote him
What happens in the Philippines is horrible. The friars abuse the name of religion to enrich their
large landed estates, religion to seduce innocent young women, religion to do away with an enemy,
religion to disturb the peace between husband and wife...if not to sully the wife's honor
In his novel, Noli Me Tangere, Rizal expressed his doubts about the teachings of the Catholic Church on
the salvation of mankind through Pilosopong Tasyo:
If the Catholics are the only ones that can be saved and of them only five per cent, as many
priests aver; and if the Catholics constitute but a twelfth part of the world's population if statistics are to
be believed, the result would be that after thousands upon thousands of people had been punished
during the countless ages that passed before the coming of the Redeemer, God's son who died for us,
only five out of every twelve hundred souls could now be saved. Surely, that cannot be true….. No, so
colossal a calamity is impossible. To believe it is blasphemy.
Expressing further the argument on man's salvation, Rizal speaking through Pilosopong Tasyo, continued:
Man is not a necessary part of creation. but an accident of it. God could not have created him, if to
make one happy He had to condemn to eternal misery hundreds of people in a moment and all for some
congenital faults….. If such a belief were not a blasphemy against that God who must be the Highest God, then
the Phoenician Moloch, that bloody deity, that horrible divinity, who gorged himself on human victims and
innocent blood, and in whose entrails, babes torn from their mothers' breasts were burnt, would be beside Him
a frail maiden, a sweetheart, the mother of humanity.
Fr. Pablo Ramon, dean of Ateneo de Municipal and Fr. Federico Faura, a teacher of Rizal, tried to bring
Rizal back to what to them was "the right path." Although Rizal was respectful of these two priests, he bluntly
told them that anv attempt to discuss with him anything that had something to do with religion was futile since
he no longer believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church. To Rizal, what the two priests believed to be the
"right path" was not the right path for him.
Thus, as a result, their supreme efforts to persuade and convert the "unfortunate fellow" prove
unavailing."
Fr. Faura was hurt and angry. However, he was also worried about Rizal's safety if he stayed in the
Philippines. He advised him to leave the country for his own safety.
During his exile in Dapitan, Fr. Pablo Pastrells, head of the Jesuits, requested Fr. Antonio Obach, parish
priest of Dapitan, to accommodate Rizal in his mission house, if Rizal would like to stay with him. Fr. Obach
agreed. Collas wrote in his book:
Several strings were attached to the offer for Rizal to stay in the mission house. First, Rizal must retract
publicly his "errors" on religion; Second, he must observe the religious practices of the Church and make a
general avowal of his past: and, Third, he must conduct himself in an exemplary manner when it comes to
religion and to Spain.
Rizal did not agree with the conditions set forth by Fr. Obach. He considered them as too heavy
conditions in exchange for his short stay in the place of Fr. Obach.
The desire of the Jesuits headed by Fr. Pastells to bring back Rizal to the fold of the Catholic Church
was too strong that he sent Fr. Francisco de Paula Sanchez, a former teacher of Rizal in Ateneo to Dapitan.
Collas looked at this mission of Fr. Sanchez as a way of trying "to win the conscience of the relapsed exile.
Why did they choose Fr. Sanchez to carry out this mission? Collas said of this: "If there not only a
formidable master of rhetoric, but also of dialectics; and secondly, because Rizal was was anyone capable of
convincing Rizal, it was Father Sanchez. First, because Sanchez was quite fond of him and would gladly give
him the benefit of any doubt."
But Fr. Sanchez was also a failure in his mission. Retana wrote that Rizal refused to believe the
arguments of Fr. Sanchez by saying that he no longer believes in the Eucharistic and ritual of the Catholic faith.
Captain General Ricardo Carnicero who had become a good friend of Rizal also failed in his attempt to
bring back the faith of Rizal to the Catholic Church. Fr. Pastells, therefore, decided to do the convincing of
Rizal himself.
Fr. Pastells, according to Collas was "an erudite man, a finished scholar. Surely, with his vast learning,
Father Pastells should have no difficulty whatever, in persuading Rizal to return to the fold and enjoy the
"inestimable treasure of faith."
Thus, started the exchanges of letters between Fr. Pastells and Rizal. Such exchanges of letters between
the two lasted for two years, both of them presenting brilliant arguments on what they believe in, Collas wrote
these exchanges of communication between the two: "the two protagonists debated brilliantly with all the
eloquence of passion and the strength of conviction. Often, the Jesuit drew heavily on his armory of faith and
the Calamban on his artillery of reason. "
Again Fr. Pastells proved himself a failure in convincing Rizal to return to his faith. Collas described
this intellectual encounter between the two as "in a way like the physical duel between David and Goliath. As in
the biblical story, the Filipino David with his sling of reason and his stones of logic bested the religious Goliath
with his heavy, shining armor and spear of faith adorned with Latin quotations. Critics outside the clergy,
including a number of foreigners, agree that Rizal had the better part of the argument."
Rizal was firmed in his belief that there were abuses committed by the friars and that they did not preach
the truth about Christianity and that the Filipinos were abused through the use of religion.
The strength of Rizal's conviction was tested with the coming of Josephine Bracken to Dapitan. They
fell in love with each other. Rizal wanted to marry her. But marriage was one of the sacraments which Rizal had
been stripped of when he was excommunicated.
He loved Josephine. He did not like to place her in a situation in which she would be the subject of
ridicule of people because she was living in with a man without the blessing of the church. Rizal made an
appeal to Fr. Obach to marry them. However, Fr. Obach replied that they would only be married if Rizal would
retract everything he said against the Catholic Church. Driven by his strong desire to marry Jospehine, Rizal
prepared his own retraction version and sent it to Fr. Obach, which the latter ignored. Thus, Rizal decided to
forget about his plan of marrying Josephine and they just lived together as husband and wife. They lived
together happily for four years, unmindful of the unkind words of the people and the unceasing attacks of Fr.
Oback done in the pulpit.
Retana wrote of this episode in the life of Rizal: "Rizal remained an impenitent free thinker despite the
attacks and condemnation of society.
2. The Beginning of the Retraction Controversy
When and how did this controversy on the retraction of Rizal start?
The retraction issue started with the publication of Retana claiming that he had the retraction document
of Rizal. When this was published, Fr. Pio Pi came out with his own retraction document which he claimed as
the original. He said that the document was given to Archbishop Nozaleda for safekeeping. He had it published
in an article entitled La Muerte Christiana del Rizal, which he claimed he published to prove that Retana's
document was not original. The issue became more confusing when Fr. Manuel Gracia revealed that he
accidentally found the original retraction document among the files of the Archbishop. But his revelation came
out after four decades of silence. Another priest, Fr. Francisco A. Ortiz published an English document which
he claimed as the original retraction of Rizal. This brought more confusion to the retraction issue.
3. Analyzing the Retraction Issue
Are the Jesuits telling the truth about the retraction document of Rizal? If it is true that they have an
original retraction document, why did it take them so long before they revealed about it? Why did they not do it
immediately after the execution of Rizal or even before he was executed? If Rizal really retracted, why did they
allow his execution to push through? Why did they not do something to prevent it?
They were claiming that Rizal returned to the fold of the Catholic faith. If it was true, why was Rizal
buried in the most despicable manner? He was buried without a coffin!
Rizal's name was entered in the list of those who died without repenting their sins. II he retracted,
therefore, he repented for his sins, if he had sin, from the point of view of the Catholic Church. Why was his
name included in the list?
And why are there three versions of the retractions of the national hero? Which one is true, if he really
retracted?
Let us take a look once again at the attempts to bring Rizal back to the Catholic Church.
Padre Pablo Ramon, Federico Faura, Padre Paula de Sanchez and Padre Pablo Pastells - these priests had
soft spots in the heart of Rizal. They all tried their best with their brilliant argument to convince him to go back
to "the right path." No one of them succeeded! How come an ordinary priest in the person of Fr. Balaguer was
able to convince Rizal to retract everything he had said against the church in so short a time left before his
execution? And what did Fr. Balaguer use in convincing Rizal to retract? The simple threat of condemnation to
hell!
Collas wrote of that threat which according to Fr. Balaguer he used: "that threat, the most infamous and
outrageous libel on God, was coupled with the absurd doctrine of exclusive salvation long exploded and
rejected by European thinkers."
How Rizal, who was possessed of a very strong character, could be cowed by this threat of eternal
damnation in hell when he argued and stressed that he did not believe in hell because the God that he knew was
a loving and forgiving God? He would never punish his children. It should be clear that Rizal turned his back on
the Catholic Church but he never turned away from God. Even in his Mi Ultimo Adios, he wrote, "For I go
where no slave before the oppressor bends. Where Faith can never kill, and God reigns e'er on high "
Did Fr. Balaguer lie when he claimed that Rizal retracted by the virtue of the document.
Miguel de Unamuno, a Spaniard who was classmate of Rizal in the Central University of Madrid, said
that the authenticity of the retraction document which Fr. Balaguer claimed was done by Rizal was doubtful. He
further said: "one must read between the lines the stupidities and vulgarities with which Father Balaguer must
have bludgeoned poor Rizal."
In order to prove that Spanish friars at that time could resort to lies, Unamuno stressed: "friars are
generally recruited in Spain from among the coarsest, most uncouth and most unpolished classes."
Laubach wrote of the Rizal retraction: "Father Balaguer did what Spanish friars did in his day, framed a
story so as to discredit a Filipino, and incidentally to give himself, a Spaniard, credit for a marvelous
conversion."
A perusal of the three retraction documents is necessary to give the student of history a chance to make
their own analysis of this controversial issue.

VIII. THE CRY OF PUGAD LAWIN: WHEN AND WHERE?

Where and when? These are the two questions

asked of this significant event in the history of the
Philippines, the Cry of Pugad Lawin/Balintawak.
How and when did this controversy start?

Balintawak had always been the site for the cry

recognized by historians and students. This was in all
the books in Philippine history being used in all
schools. Aside from this, every August 26, this event
was commemorated in this place. However, Teodoro Agoncillo stirred the controversy when he said that the
event actually happened on August 23, 1896, not August 26, and the site was Pugad Lawin and not
Balintawak. This claim of Agoncillo started the confusion among the teachers and students of history.
There are five dates and places which are cited as the actual place where this event happened. These are
August 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 and the places are Balintawak, Pugad Lawin, Kangkong, Bahay Toro and
Pasong Tamo.
Where did Agoncillo base his claim that the cry happened on August 23 1896 and in Pugad Lawin? The
historian, Ambeth Ocampo averred that Agoncillo based his claim not on a primary source but a "tertiary or
at least, a second-generation translation." He wrote:
In 1989, after a series of articles on the controversy over Balintawak and Pugadlawin, I
received a batch of photocopied manuscripts with an invitation to peruse the originals of what
appeared to be the papers of Bonifacio. Knowing that these were transcribed and printed by
Agoncillo in two separate books, I did not bother to decipher Bonifacio's fine script. Months later,
on a lazy afternoon, I decided to compare the Agoncillo transcriptions with the Bonifacio originals.
I was surprised to find discrepancies in the text. While Agoncillo reproduced the "orihinal sa
Tagalog," it proved to be slightly different from the manuscripts. I realized immediately that
Agoncillo did not have access to the original Bonifacio papers. He merely translated an English
translation of the Bonifacio papers, which were themselves translated from Spanish by Epifanio
de los Santos who possessed the original Tagalog manuscripits.
Actually, Agoncillo's claim that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896 was
based on Pio Valenzuela's account. A photograph showing the latter with the granddaughter of
Melchora Aquino named Monica Ramos, and other revolutionists stated that place, Pugad Lawin,
was the site of the general meeting of the Katipunan on August 23, 1896. In that meeting, it was
determined that the fighting against the Spaniards would start and thus, the "Cry" marking the
start of the Philippine revolution against Spain. Pugad Lawin, in fact was within the Balintawak
area and should not be much of an issue except for the date which was from what was known
earlier was August 26, 1896 to August 23, 1896. But a stickler to accuracy as he was known for,
Agoncillo replaced Balintawak to Pugad Lawin.
Valenzuela's grandson, Arturo Valenzuela, in his unpublished work which was based largely on his
grandfather's memoirs elaborated that the First Cry of Balintawak was held on August 23 in the backyard of
Tandang Sora's house. They moved to Malanday on Augustv 26, 1896. Thus, when the Spaniards arrived in
Pasong Tamo, they found no katipuneros in the place. They shot two farmers they saw in the place, and then
reported a "Cry of Balintawak." This was the reason, according to Valenzuela's grandson why his
grandfather, who was under Spanish interrogation in 1896, referred to the date of the "Cry" as August 26.
Had the memoirs of Valenzuela matched the signed testimony he gave to the Spaniards. when he was
interrogated, there could have been no issue on this historical event. But his memoirs published by
Wenceslao Retana stated that the former mentioned that the "Cry" happened in Balintawak on August 26.
However, his memoirs which were published after the war stated that the "Cry" happened in Pugad Lawin
on August 23, 1896. Thus, the inaccuracy.
The late historian, Pedro Gagelonia wrote:
The controversy among the historians continues to the present day. The 'Cry of Pugad Lawin'
(August 23, 1896) cannot be accepted as historically accurate. It lacks positive documentation
and supporting evidence from eyewitnesses. The testimony of only one eyewitness (Dr. Pio
Valenzuela) is not enough to authenticate and verify controversial issue in history. Historians and
their living participants, not politicians and their sycophants, should settle this controversy.
Why was Valenzuela's account of the "Cry" doubted by historians like Gagelonia despite the fact that
the renown historian Teodoro Agoncillo referred to him as the "most credible authority on the issue citing
his being educated and a close friend of Bonifacio as well as his possession of retentive memory, the degree
of his involvement in the event, and his narrative ability, three factors which are important in historical
recollection?
Simply because in many instances when Valenzuela was interviewed, he gave conflicting statements on
this significant event of 1896. These statements and the dates when Valenzuela gave them are shown in the
matrix below:
Year Statement Given Statement of Pio Valenzuela
September 2 & 3, 1896 “They remained in Balintawak Sunday, Monday and Tuesday”
September 6, 1896 after his “The fight between the Guardia Civil and the rebels in Banlat and
surrender in Manila Balintawak took place Wednesday August 26…. During the three days prior
to that, he was in the company of Andres Bonifacio…. in a house in
Balintawak
August 31, 1911 statements “… at kung kinabukasan ika 23 ay muling nagkatipon sa Kankong, sa bahay
ni Apolonio Samson…. Pinagtalunan sa pulong na ito kung ipagpapatuloy o
hindi ang paghihimagsik at nagkasalungatan ng mahaba si Andres Bonifacio
at Teodoro Plata. Nagpasiya ang karamihan na ipagpapatuloy ang laban.
Pinagtalunan din naman kung kalian gaganapin ang paghihimagsik at pinag
kasunduan na sa ika 29 ng gabi ay lulusubin ang Maynila sa daang Sta.
Mesa magdadan, at pasisimulan sa ika 5 ng hapon ang pagtitipon sa San
Juan del Monte at mula doon papasukin ang Maynila sa gabi sa oras na
kinakailangang ipasok. Kinabukasan, ika 24, ay kami lumipat sa Paso de
Laha sa bahay ni Felix Doopa at doo’y sinulat mula sa umaga hanggang
hamon ni Emilio Jacinto ang mga kalatas na yaon ay sinasaysay ang mga
pinagkasunduan sa pulong noong ika 23. Ng gabi ring yaon ika 24 kami ay
lumipat sa nayon ng Pasong-tamo sa bahay ni Aling Melchora.”
1930’s Statements “The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio
Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak,
the first five of us arriving there on August 19, and I on August 20, 1896.
The first place where some 500 members of the Katipunan was the house
and yard of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong, on August 22… here views
were only exchange and no resolution was debated or adopted. It was in the
house, the storehouse and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, in
Pugad Lawin that over 1000 members of Katipunan met and debated
lengthily on August 23, 1986. The discussion was wether or not the
revolution against the Spanish Government should be started on August 29
1896.
1935 statements together with “Hindi sa Balintawak nangyari ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na
Briccio Brigido Pantas and kinalalaguian ngayon ng bantayog, kundi sa pook na kilala sa tawag na
Cipriano Pacheco Pugad Lawin.”

Because of these conflicting statements of Valenzuela, another historian, John N. Schumacher, S. J

expressed doubt on his credibility. He stated:
I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio Valenzuela, and to the
interpretations Agoncillo got from him verbally, since he gave so many versions from the time he
surrendered to the Spanish authorities and made various statements not always compatible with one another
up to the time when as an old man he was interviewed by Agoncillo.
In the account of the Filipino revolution by Antonio Mendoza Guevarra, referred to as Matatag, he
wrote:
August 25, 1896. This day two companies of Guardias Civiles, one of artillery and the other of infantry,
scaled the hill, coming upon us in the area called Pasong Tamo. The fight began at once. The brothers of the
Katipunan had among them only four ancient flintlocks, which a heavy downpour rendered out of
commission in no time. The Katipuneros scattered, the enemy troops withdrawing. Thanks to God we
suffered no casualty despite the closely fought skirmish and our being poorly armed. This was an account of
the thick woods, rough terrain, and the timely and providential rain that saved us from the Spaniards who
outnumbered us and had better arms.
Other accounts of the "Cry" included the following: General Guillermo Masangkay stated that it was
August 26, 1896; Lt. Olegario Diaz, recalled the event as having happened on August 24, 1896; Gregoria de
Jesus, Bonifacio's widow in her memoirs stated that the "Cry" happened on August 25, 1896 in Pasong
Tamo (Caloocan not Makati); Santiago Alvarez, a katipunero from Cavite, referred to the event as having
taken place on August 25, 1896 in Bahay Toro which was also in Caloocan.
Zafra in 1960 made a review of the literature related to the 'cry' from 1896 to 1956 which revealed the
following:

Year
Author Place Date of Cry
Published
1896 Olegario Diaz Balintawak 25 Aug 1896
1911 Manuel Artigas y Ceurva Balintawak 20 Aug
1925 Teodoro M. Kalaw Kangkong in Balintawak Last week of August
1926 Leandro Fernandez Balintawak 20 Aug
1927 Santiago Alvarez Bahay Toro 24 Aug
1932 Guillermo Masangkay Balintawak 26 Aug
1948 Pio Valenzuela Pugad Lawin 23 Aug
1954 Conrado Benitez Kangkong 20 Aug
1954 Gregorio F. Zaide Balintawak 26 Aug
1956 Teodoro A. Agoncillo Pugad Lawin 23 Aug

As can be gleaned from the above data, there were several dates and places mentioned in the works of
the above-mentioned authors related to the "cry". Encarnacion wrote: "While the sole aim was to pinpoint the
start of the 1896 Philippine Revolution, Bonifacio's cry often led to different interpretations. And as time went
on, the event became more absurd. Government issued policies that changed the date of the "Cry"
commemoration from "24 August 1896" to 26 1897, "26 August 1896" in 1911, and to "23 August 1896 in
1963. Likewise, the place identified kept on changing as more frivolous surveys muddled the significance of
that event." Still on this controversy, Adrian Cristobal wrote: The official dating and placing of the
revolutionary "cry"- 23 August 1896 in Pugad Lawin has been challenged by a new breed of historians, Dr.
Milagros C. Guerrero, Ramon N. Villegas and Emmanuel Encarnacion. The "more accurate time and place" was
24 August 1896 at the barn of Melchora Aquino, a.k.a Tandang Sora, in what is now barangay Banlat in
Quezon City. Of course, like Agoncillo, the new breed of historians was not there when it happened, but they
based their contention on many other sources and on the fact that Pugad Lawin could not be located in the
cartography of the period.

END OF CHAPTER 2