GEC 12 READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Shaine Therese R. Aguado AB Political Science 1A 

CASE STUDY NO. 1

Where did the first Catholic mass take place in the Philippines, Masao or Limasawa? 

A case study analysis

I. Introduction

The fifteenth and sixteenth centuries brought an era of worldwide exploration and

expansion that resulted from the desire to gain new lands, power, and wealth for the explorers

and their countries. In the last two centuries of the Middle Ages (1300-1500), the Europeans,

while regaining the Holy Land from the Muslims, were able to establish commerce with the

Orient through trade routes. Spices like pepper, ginger, nutmeg, onions, and garlic were the

most important items of trade from the East, owing to the desire of the Europeans to enhance

the taste of food and to preserve meat during wintertime. After these remarkable voyages,

Portugal and Spain became keen rivals in colonizing new lands because of gold, spices, and

other merchandise found in the Orient, as well as their religious zeal to proselytize the natives.

European adventures made daring voyages and sought new lands and riches. Great explorers

were able to discover various routes for their expeditions, which  marked the Age of Exploration

(1492-1682).  

To commemorate the expedition were Europeans first reached the Philippines, we

celebrated the 500th anniversary of Ferdinand Magellan and his fellow sailors’ first landing in

the Philippines last March 16, 2021. Magellan–a member of the nobility of Portugal–left the port

of San Lucar de Barrameda, Spain on September 20, 1519 with five ships namely: Trinidad,
Conception, Santiago, San Antonio and Victoria together with 250 men. Accompanying him, to

name a few, were Fr. Pedro de Valderrama (fleet chaplain), Antonio Pigafetta (chronicler of the

expedition), Duarte Barbosa (Magellan’s brother-in-law) and his Malay slave, Enrique of

Malacca (acting as interpreter).  An article from National Geopgraphic says that Enrique, an

enslaved man Magellan had purchased before the journey, could understand and speak the

indigenous people’s language. It turned out he was likely raised there before his enslavement—

making him, not Magellan, the first person to circumnavigate the globe. Magellan was credited

for orchestrating the first expedition to circumnavigate the world in the service of Spain. His

expedition to find the Spice Islands located at Moluccas or Maluku Islands in Eastern Indonesia

and open a new trading route for Spain, brought him to the Philippines. 

The Christian history of the Philippines began in 1521 when Ferdinand Magellan first

landed in the archipelago. Though he was Portuguese, Magellan was sailing on behalf of the

Spanish crown on a journey that began two years earlier in Spain. There’s a never-ending

debate regarding the geographical location where the first mass in the Philippines was

celebrated because it marks the introduction of Christianity in the Philippines. Such introduction

is commemorated with what has been the supposed first celebration of the Eucharist and the

saying of the mass, the location of which has been the subject of long-term serial acrimony.

I. Discussion 

References: 

1. The Social Sciences in the Philippines Reflections on Trends and Developments by

Maria Cynthia Rose Banzon Bautista 

2. Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of

the Evidence by Miguel A. Bernad

31st of March 1521, on an island called "Mazaua." Two native chieftains were in attendance: the

Rajah of Mazaua and the Rajah of Butuan. After the Mass, the party went up a little hill and

planted a wooden cross upon its summit. The subject of controversy is the identity of this place

which Pigafetta calls “Mazaua." There are two conflicting claims as to its identity: one school of

thought points to the little island south of Leyte which on the maps is called Limasaw and the

other school rejects that claim and points instead to the beach called Masao at the mouth of the

Agusan River in northern Mindanao, near what was then the village, now the city of Butuan. 

In this paper, I’ll present pieces of evidence for these two claims. As a recapitulation of

our previous lesson about the types of historical sources, primary sources are valuable to

historians because they give insight into the ways in which historical figures understood or

internalized what they experienced, their place or significance in history, and give historians an

understanding of historical figures' opinions. First, let’s examine the primary sources presented

by Antonio Pigafetta in his The First Voyage Around the World by Magellan and Francisco

Albo’s log book also known as Derrotero to find pieces of evidence to prove where the first

mass in the Philippines was celebrated; Limasawa, Southern Leyte or Masao located at Agusan

del Norte. 

It was said that the first mass was held in Limasawa because of the following reasons; In

Albo’s log book, it was mentioned that Francisco Albo joined the expedition as a pilot in

Magellan's flagship “Trinidad". He was one of the returnees. Albo began keeping his own diary–

merely only a log book– on the voyage out, while they were sailing southward South America,

off Brazil. His account of their entry into Philippine waters (or as it was then called, the

archipelago of San Lazaro) may be reduced to the following points:

saw land towards the northwest; but owing to many shallow places they did not approach it.

They later found out that its name was Yunagan. They went instead that same day southwards

to another small island name Suluan and there they anchored. There they saw some canoes

but these fled at the Spaniard's approach. The island was at 9 and two-thirds degrees North

latitude. Departing from those two islands, they sailed westward to an uninhabited island of

"Gada" where they took in a supply of wood and water. The sea around the island was free from

shallows. (Albo does not give the latitude of this island, but from Pigafetta's testimony, this

seems to be the "Acquada" or Homonhon, at 10 degrees North latitude). From that island they

sailed westwards towards a large island named Seilani which was inhabited and was known to

have gold (Pigafetta calls Seilani, "Ceylon") found in Leyte.  Sailing southwards along the coast

of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest to a small island called "Mazava". That

island is also at a latitude of (and two-thirds degrees North). The Spaniards thought that the

people of Mazava were kindhearted so they planted a cross upon a mountain-top, and from

there they were shown three islands to the west and southwest. They were told that the island is

abundant in gold.  In his writing, he says "They showed us how the gold was gathered, which

came in small pieces like peas and lentils." From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards

Seilani. They followed the coast of Seilani in a northwesterly direction, ascending up to 10

degrees of latitude where they saw three small islands. From there they sailed westwards some 

ten leagues, and there they saw three islets, where they dropped anchor for the night. In the

morning they sailed southwest some 12 leagues, down to a latitude of 10 and one-third degree.

They entered a channel between two islands, one of which was called "Matan" and the other

"Subu". They sailed down that channel and then turned westward and anchored at the town of

Subu where they stayed many days, obtained provisions and entered into a peace pact with the

local king. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the islands of Suluan and
Mazava. But between Mazava and Subu, there were so many shallows that the boats could not

go westward directly but had to go 9 as they did in a roundabout way.

In Albo's testimony, the island that he calls Gada seems to be the “Acquada” of Pigafetta

the island of Homonhon where they took in supplies of water and wood. The large island of

Seilani which they coasted is the island of Leyte.  Coasting southwards along the eastern coast

of that island, then turning southwest they came upon a small island named Mazava, which lies

at a land of 9 two-thirds degrees North. That this the location of the small island of Limasawa,

south of Leyte. The island's southern tip is at 90 54'N. It is to be noted that Albo does not

mention the first Mass, but only the planting of the cross upon a mountain-top from which could

be seen three islands to the west and southwest. This also fits the southern end of Limasawa. It

does not fit the coast of Butuan from which no islands could be seen to the south or the

southwest but only towards the north.

On the other hand, let’s examine the evidence from Pigafetta’s The Voyage Around the

World by Magellan. The most complete account of the Magellan expedition is that by Antonio

Pigafetta. Like Albo, he was a member of the expedition, therefore, an eyewitness of the

principal events including the first mass in what is now known as the Philippine Archipelago or

Islands of Saint Lazarus. Of Pigafetta's work, there are two excellent English translations, one

by Robertson and another by Skelton. The pertinent section in Pigafetta's account is the part in

which he narrates the events from the 16th of March 1521 when they first sighted the islands of

the Philippine Group, up to the 7th of April when the expedition landed at Cebu. That was a

period of approximately three weeks. In examining the evidence from Pigafetta, we shall

consider five points: (a) Pigafetta's testimony as regards the route taken by the expedition from

the Pacific Ocean to Cebu; (b) The evidence of Pigafetta's map; (c) The presence of two native
kings; (d) The events of the seven days at the island of "Mazava"; and (e) An argument from

omission. 

First, Pigafetta's Testimony Regarding the Route. The route taken by the expedition may

be constructed if we follow Pigafetta's account day by day. Here is a summary of his account: 

On Saturday, March  16, 1521, Magellan's expedition sighted a high land named “Zamal” which

was 300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now the Marianas) Islands. On Sunday, March 17, the

following day after sighting Zamal Island, they landed on another island that was uninhabited of

the above-mentioned island of “Zamal" (To the right their starboard going south or southwest).

There they set up two tents for the sick members of the crew and had a sow killed for them. The

name of this island was "Humumu" (Homonhon). This island was located at 10 degrees North

latitude. On the same day, Sunday, 17th of March, Magellan named the entire archipelago the

“Islands of Saint Lazarus,” the reason being that it was the Sunday in the Lenten season when

the Gospel assigned for the Mass and the liturgical Office was the eleventh chapter of St. John,

which tells of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. On Monday, 18th of March, in the afternoon

of their second day on the island, they saw a boat coming towards them transporting nine men.

An exchange of gifts took place. Magellan asked for food supplies, and the men went away,

promising to bring rice and other supplies in "four days." There were two springs of water on the

island of Homonhon. They saw indications that there was gold in these islands. Consequently,

Magellan renamed the island and called it the “Watering Place of Good Omen." On Friday, 22nd

of March, at noon the natives returned. This time they were in two boats, and they brought food

supplies. Magellan's expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon (from Sunday, 17th of March, to

the Monday of the following week, 25th of March. Monday, 25th of March, in the afternoon, the

expedition weighed anchor and left the island of Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar, this

day (23rd of March) was the feast day of the Incarnationation, also called the feast of the

Annunciation or "Our Lady's Day." On this day, as they were about to weigh anchor, an accident
happened to Pigafetta: he fell into the water but was rescued. He attributed his narrow escape

from death as a grace obtained through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary on her feast

day. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon was toward the west southwest,

between four islands: namely, Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson and Albanien or probably Cenalois

due to a  misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what Pigafetta in his map calls "Ceilon" und

Albo calls "Seilani" or the island of Leyte. "Hiunganghan” (a misspelling of Hinunangan),

Pigafetta presumes to be a separate island, but it is actually on the mainland of Leyte. On the

other hand, Hobuson (Pigafetta's Ibusson) is an island east of Leyte's southern tip. Thus, it is

easy to see what Pigafetta meant by sailing “towards the west southwest.” Thursday, 28th of

March, in the morning of Holy Thursday,  they anchored off an island where the previous night

they had seen light or a bonfire. That island lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds towards the

Article Pole and in a longitude of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of

demarcation. It is twenty-five leagues from Acquada, and is called “Mazaua.” They remained

seven days on Mazaua Island. On Thursday, 1st of  April, they left Mazaua, bound for Cebu.

They were thither by the king of Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their route took past five

islands namely: Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan. Pigafetta thought that Ceylon

and Baibai were separate islands. Actually they were parts of the same island of Leyte.

Canighan or Canigao in our maps is an island on the southwestern tip of Leyte. They sailed

from Maza hy northwest into the Canigao Channel, with Bohol Island to port and Leyte and

Canigao Islands to starboard. Then they sailed northwards along the coast, past Baibai to

gatighan. The identity of Gatighan is not certain but we are told that it was twenty leagues from

Mazaua and fifteen leagues from "Subu" (Cebu). At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three

islands of the Camotes Group namely, Poro, Pasihan, and Ponson. (Pigafetta calls them Polo,

Ticobon and Pozon). Here the Spanish ships stopped to allow the king of Mazua to catch up

with them since the Spanish ships were much faster than the native balanghai–a thing that

excited the admiration of the king Mazaua. From the Camotes Islands they sailed
southwestward towards "Zubu.” At noon On the Sunday of April 7th, they entered the harbor of

Zubu. It had taken them three days to negotiate the journey from the Mazaua northwards to the

Camotes Islands and then southwards to Cebu. This is the route of the Magellan expedition as

described by Pigafetta. It coincides substantially and in most details with the route as described

in Albo's log book. In that route, the southernmost point reached before getting to Cebu was

Mazaua, situated at nine and two-thirds degrees North latitude.

Second, The evidence of Pigafetta's Map. Both the Ambrosian and the Nancy codices of

Pigafetta's narrative are illustrated with maps, or more precisely, diagrams or sketches.

Pigafetta was no cartographer and his maps had probably no value as navigational charts but

they are extremely useful in helping to identify the islands which he mentions in the narrative,

and they help to establish the relative positions and even the relative sizes) of those islands.

One such map (Blair and Robertson, Vol. 33) shows the Irge island of Samar (Zzamal), and the

smaller islands of Suluan, Abarien, Hiunangan, and "Humunu" (Homonhon). A second map (BR

33) is a double map. One map shows the island of Mindanao or Maguindanao (Mamgdanao). It

shows on the northern shore a deep indentation which is recognizably Panguil Bay. To the west

of that is "Cippit.” To the extreme east, bordering on the Pacific, are Butuan, Calagan, and

Benasan (Butuan,Calagam, Benasam) the other me shows the southern tip of Zamboanga, the

island of Basilan, and the Sulu archipelago. A third map (BR 33) is the one most pertinent to our

present investigation, because it shows the island of Mazaua (Mazzana) in relation to the

islands of "Ceilon" and "Baibai" (Leyt)e and to those of Bohol, Gatighan and three islands of the

Camotes Group (in the map called Polon, Pozon, and Ticobon). From a comparison of these

maps, the following inferences seem justified: (a.)Mazua (Mazzana in the map) is a small island

which lies off the southwestern tip of the larger island of Ceilon (Southern Leyte), and is to the

east of the island of Bohol. It lies near the passage between Bohol and the western coast
Of Ceilon (Leyte); (b.)The island of Mazaua in Pigafetta's map, therefore lies in a position

roughly equivalent to the actual position of the island of Limasawa; (c.) In no way can Mazaua

be identified with Butuan, which is situated in another and much larger island (which we now call

Mindanao), the same island in which Calagan, Cippit, and Mamgdanao) are also located. 

The third evidence is the confirmatory evidence in the presence of two native kings or

“rajahs” at Mazaua during the Magellan visit. One was the king of Mazaua who later guided the

Magellan expedition to Cebu. The other was a relative (one of his brothers as Pigafetta says),

namely the king or rajah of Butuan. This latter individual, Pigafetta says that he was "the finest

looking man” The relevant fact is that he was a visitor to Mazaua. His territory was Butuan,

which was on another island. That island of his was called Butuan and Calagan. When those

kings wished to see one another, they both went to hunt in Mazaua and it could not have been

Butuan. 

Fourth is the Seven Days at Mazaua wherein a list of Pigafetta’s day-by-day account

within a week of staying at Mazaua was recorded. On Thursday, 28th of March, they anchored

near an island where they had seen a light the night before. A small boat (boloto) came with

eight natives to whom Magellan gave trinkets as presents. The natives paddled away but two

hours later two larger boats (bahalanghai) came, in one of which the native king sat under an

awning of mats. At Magellan's invitation some of the natives went up the Spanish ship, but the

native king remained seated in his boat. Magellan and the king exchanged gifts. In the afternoon

of that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and came closer to shore, anchoring near the

native king's village. March 28 was Thursday in Holy Week. The next day, Holy Friday (March

29) Magellan sent his slave interpreter ashore in a small boat to ask the king if he could provide

the expedition with food supplies and to say that they had come as friends and not as enemies.

 In reply, the king himself came in a boat with six or eight men, and this time went up Magellan's

ship and the two men embraced. Another exchange of gifts was made. The native king and his
companions returned ashore, bringing with them two members of Magellan's expedition as

guests for the night. One of the two was Pigafetta.  On Saturday, March 30, Pigafetta and his

companion had spent the previous evening feasting and drinking with the native king and his

son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was Good Friday, they had to eat meat. The

following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his companion took leave of their hosts and returned

to the ships. On Sunday, March 31, early in the morning of Sunday, the last of Easter day.

Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the mass. Later in the morning,

Magellan landed fifty men and the mass was celebrated, after which a cross was venerated.

Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the noon-day meal, but in the afternoon

ashore to plant the cross on the summit of the highest hill. In attendance both at the Mass and

at the planting of the cross were the king of Mazaua and the king of Butuan. On that same

afternoon, while on the highest hill, Magellan asked the two kings which ports to choose from

Ceylon, Zubu and Calagan. Of the three, Zubu was the port with the most trade. Magellan then

said that he wished to go to Zubu to depart the following morning. He asked for someone to

guide him thither. The kings replied that the pilots would be available anytime. But later that

evening the king of Mazaua changed his mind and said that he would himself conduct Magellan

to Zubu but that he would first have to bring the harvest in. He asked Magellan to send his men

to help with the harvest. Pigafetta wrote: On Monday, April 1, Magellan sent me ashore to help

with the harvest but no work was done that day because the two kings were sleeping off their

drinking bout of the night before. On April 2 (Tuesday) and April 3 (Wednesday), work on the

harvest during the two days. On Thursday, April 4, They left Mazaua bound for Cebu "We

remained there seven days," says Pigafetta. Every day is counted for The Mass on Easter

Sunday celebrated on the island of Mazua and not in Butuan or elsewhere.

Fifth evidence is an argument from omission. If Mazaua were Butuan or in the vicinity of

Butuan, there is a curious omission in Pigafetta's account that would be difficult to explain.
Butuan is a riverine settlement. It is situated on the Agusan River. The beach called Masao is in

the delta of that ever. If the Magellan expedition were at that delta, and if the Mass were

celebrated there, why is there no mention of the river? Later on, after Magellan's death and after

the Cebu debacle, the survivors of his expedition went to Mindanao and it seems that they

actually went to Butuan. Pigafetta describes quite vividly a trip upriver to see the queen. But that

was after Magellan's death. Forty years later, members of Legaspi's expedition visited Butuan,

and the river anchorage forms a very important part of their account. The fact that there is no

mention of the river is a significant fact in Pigafetta's account of their seven-day stay at Mazaua.

We must therefore conclude that Mazaua was an island surrounded by sea, not a river delta. 

Taking the evidence of Albo's log-book together with that form Pigafetta's account, we

may take the following points as established: Magellan's expedition entered Philippine waters

south of the island of Samar and dropped anchor at Homonhon where they stayed a week.

Then they sailed westward towards Leyte and then southwards parallel to the eastern coast of

thal island and that of the adjoining island of Panaon. Rounding the southern tip of the latter,

they anchored off the eastern shore of a small island called Mazaua. There they stayed a week,

during which on Easter Sunday they celebrated Mass and planted the cross on the summit of

the highest hill. The island of Mazaua lies at a latitude of nine and two-thirds degrees north. Its 

position (south of Leyte) and its latitude correspond to the position of the island of Limasawa,

whose southern tip lies at 9 degrees and 54 minutes north. From Mazaua the expedition sailed

northwards through the Canigao channel between Bohol and Leyte, then northwards parallel to

the coast of this latter island, then they sailed westward to the Camotes Group and from there

southwestwards to Cebu. At no point in that itinerary did the Magellan expedition go to Butuan

or any other point on the Mindanao coast. The survivors of the expedition did en Mindanao later

but after Magellan's death.

Philippine waters in 1565, forty-four years after Magellan supports the claim that the first mass

in the Philippines was celebrated in Limasawa. One of the places that Legazpi and his pilots

quired about Mazaua from Camotuan and his companions, natives of the village of Cabalian at

the southeastern end of the island of Leyte. Guided by these natives, the Legazpi ships rounded

the island of "Punae" (Panaon), which was separated from Leyte by a narrow strait, and

anchored off Mazaua but they found the inhabitants to be hostile, apparently as a result of

Portuguese depredations that had occurred in the four-decade interval between the Legazpi and

the Magellan expeditions. From Mazaua they went to Camiguing (which was visible from

Mazaua), and from there they intended to go to Buruan on the island of "Vindanao" but were

driven instead by contrary winds to Bohol. It was only later that a small contingent of Spaniards,

in a small vessel, managed to go to Butuan. The point seems clear: as pilots of the Legazpi

expedition understood it, Mazaua was an island near Leyte and Panaon; Butuan was on the

island of Mindanao. The two were entirely different places and in no wise identical. 

When examining the geography of Mazaua, the wind was blowing westward in March

and April in this part of the Philippines, the cast wind is strong. It is what the people of Limasawa

call the "Dumagsa", the east wind. Sailing with the wind, Magellan's vessels would find

themselves going west or southwest, toward the island of Limasawa. Having seen a light on the

island one day to anchor off it. A visit to Limasawa will convince the traveler that here indeed is

the place circumstantially described by Pigafetta. The island is shaped like a tadpole, running

north to south. The northern portion is almost all hills, with the slopes dropping steeply

to the sea, leaving only narrow coastal strip. The southern portion of the island was all level and

with a few hills. It has a good harbor, protected on the west by Panaon Island and on the east

by Limasawa. The fields in this portion of the island are fertile. It is easy to understand why an

expedition should wish to stay a week anchored off this fertile island where the natives were
friendly and there was enough food, water wood. Here the Mass could be said with solemnity.

Here, on one of the hills, the cross could be planted which everyone could see from the plain.

And from the top of will could be seen the islands to the south, to the west and to the east. 

It is unfortunate that in the controversy that has arisen between the supporters of

Limasawa and Masao, this question of geography has been given little notice. If the island of

Limasawa is the "Mazaua" of Pigafetta and the "Masava" of Albo, why then is it now called

Limasawa? Were Pigafetta and Albo wrong? Or were the historians and map-makers wrong

from the 17th century onward? 

In the history textbooks we use as references in elementary, Limasawa has always been

the decided location where the first mass in the Philippines was celebrated. Scholars have been

summoned over the years to resolve the problem of location since recriminations have not

abated. Philippine History textbooks still refer to March 31, 1521, in Limasawa as the site of “the

first mass,” but many years after, some historians began to refer to the event as “the first

recorded mass,” apparently without updating the textbooks. 

R.A. 2733 is An Act to Declare the Site in Magallanes, Limasawa Island in the Province

of Leyte, Where the First Mass in the Philippines was Held as a National Shrine, to Provide for

the Preservation of Historical Monuments and Landmarks Thereat, and for Other Purpose. On

June 19, 1960, Republic Act 2733 lapsed into law, “without Executive approval.” President

Macapagal did not sign it that the legislation declared Limasawa a National Shrine because it

was there that “the First Mass in the Philippines was held.” Moreover, the National Historical

Institute’s (NHI) conclusion stated that “the first-ever Christian mass on Philippine soil on March

31, 1521, was celebrated in the island of Limasawa.” It is a conclusion the NHI reached after a

“rigorous evaluative analysis and appraisal of primary sources” -- none other than “the most

complete and reliable account of the Magellan expedition” the chronicles of Antonio Pigafetta. 
The Mojares Committee recommended that “Limasawa Island, Leyte, be sustained as the site of

the First Easter Sunday Mass of 1521” but very smartly, the Mojares panel has labeled it “the

First Easter Sunday Mass of 1521,” admittedly no longer “the First Mass.” This is unerring and

seemingly unequivocal, but does not settle the irrefutable “First Mass” that could not have been

celebrated in Limasawa. Now, about Palm Sunday 1520, and we know this from the journal

entries of a young Venetian who chronicled the voyage of Magellan, Antonio de Pigafetta. It was

Pigafetta, by the way, who recorded that a Mass was celebrated in Limasawa on March 31,

1521, an Easter Sunday. He never said it was the “first.” 

More evidence that proves that the place where the first mass in the Philippines was

celebrated in Butuan: In 1872, a monument to commemorate the site of the first mass on the

Philippines was erected in Butuan; In 1953, the people in Butuan ask the Philippine Historical

Committee to rehabilitate the monument or place a marker on the site; Gregorio Zaide a Filipino

historian, author and politician from the town of Pagsanjan, Laguna in the Philippines, claims the

location of the first mass is in Masao base on Pigafetta’s account; American historian Emma

Helen Blair and John Alexander Robertson claimed in 1909 that the island of Mazaua is the

present island of Limawasa but did not give an explanation.

Dr. Potenciano R. Malvar firmly believes that the first mass celebrated in the Philippines

was in Masao. Preposterous as it may seem, Dr. Malvar filed “criminal charges for falsification

and libel”, seeking Ph20 Million Pesos from each member of the Majores panel, because his

position paper on behalf of Butuan was adjudged as “mere conjectures and fictional account.”

Dr. Potenciano Malvar, chair of the Butuan Calagan Historical Cultural Foundation asserts that

the first Mass was held at another site in Mindanao and is planning to publish a book titled “Site

of the 1521 Easter Mass, Butuan Not Limasawa.” “It is my desire that this manuscript shall

initiate the National Historical Commission of the Philippines to unlock and expose the

concocted and fabricated published versions of the existing, disputable site of where the Easter
Mass continued to be celebrated,” he said in the introduction to the 144-page draft. According to

him, those determining the actual site should first have in mind that the goal of the voyage of the

Magellan-led Armada de Moluccas was to reach the Spice Islands using the westward route

and trade. To support his claim, he cited that the concealment was practiced for centuries by

Arab and Chinese traders, Malvar said. An order, dated May 8, 1519, by the Casa Contratacion,

also owned by the king, gave Magellan instructions on how to treat and trade with the natives. 

Malvar said these negotiations were not known to the chronicler Antonio Pigafetta, who was

taught by Magellan to keep secrets after warning that “unauthorized people caught with a chart

from his cabinet in the ship faced death.”The site where Magellan erected a cross with crown

was documented by Francisco Albo, who kept an official logbook of the voyage. It was “upon a

mountain,” locating Butuan Island at 9 ⅓ degree North latitude. Later, King Charles referred to

this as the proof of his conquest of the Spice Islands and above all, he claims that there’s no

‘Limasawa’. Malvar said Mazaua, an island near Butuan, was replaced with the word Limasawa

in the preface of the “First Voyage Around the World” by James Alexander Robertson and

Emma Helen Blair that was published in December 1907. The authentic Pigafetta manuscript

has no word Limasawa, Malvar said, attributing the change to a third editor, Edward Gaylord

Bourne. “Limasawa at 9 degree 55’ latitude was very far north of the 9 ⅓ degree North latitude,”

he noted to eliminate Limasawa.Congressional archives of Republic Act No. 2733, the 1959 law

that declared Limasawa as official site of the first Mass, showed “many irregularities,” Malvar

said. Of the 39 lawmakers, only 11 were present when the bill was approved.  Proponents, even

Church leaders, were not invited to committee hearings. No ocular visits were done. The law did

not bear the signature of then President Carlos Garcia. Malvar also said the evidence that

Mazaua Island existed was a 1683 map by Augustinian Recolletos. 

III. Analysis 
From my standpoint, given the pieces of evidence presented to start a controversy in

choosing one of these locations, I think that the first mass in the Philippines was held in

Limasawa. I watched a youtube video by Atty. Robert John Denosa, a professor teaching

Philippine History, strongly suspects that such a momentous celebration took place in Masao,

Butuan. His main argument was that the island Mazaua is the closest to the word Masao and

the geographical features mentioned by Pigafetta matched that of Masao, Butuan’s. The

presence of a bonfire, the remnants of a balanghai, an abundance of gold, and having a

developed settlement. He also considered Dr. Potenciano Malvar’s perspective. In March 2021,

Malvar filed criminal complaints against the members of the Mojares Panel, a group designated

by the government last year to finally put to rest the issue surrounding the first Catholic mass.

The panel, led by Dr. Resil B. Mojares, recommended that the National Historical Commission

of the Philippines (NHCP) sustain previous conclusions indicating that the first Catholic mass in

the country was celebrated in Limasawa Island in Southern Leyte in 1521.

The Diocese of Butuan has been commemorating the first Mass in the Philippines in

Butuan City over the years. It became a three-century tradition in favor of Butuan. However, I

think that the claims of Atty. Denosa and Dr. Malvar are strongly based on tradition with little

reliance to the primary sources we’ve identified: The First Voyage Around the World by

Magellan written by Antonio Pigafetta and Francisco Albo’s log book.  I stand by my belief that

the first mass in the Philippines was held in Limasawa. Tradition is founded on hearsay. One

author repeats (and frequently distorts) what preceding authors have written, and succeeding

authors copy (and distort) it. In such a chain, a single author making a mistake may easily

establish a three-century tradition. According to Pastells, at Masaua, Magellan and his crew met

the rajah of Butuan. That rajah was simply visiting Masaua, according to Pigafetta. However, it

is easy to see how later historians misinterpreted Magellan's knowledge of the rajah of Butuan

as implying that he knew him in Butuan. It must be remembered that the Butuan tradition, while

erroneous as to the site of the first Mass, is not entirely without validity.After Magellan's death,
Magellan's voyage visited various areas in Mindanao, including Butuan. (It's possible that the

riverine community described by Pigafetta in a later section of his account was Butuan.)

Members of Legazpi's by bearded white-skinhead men from Europe in their big ships forty years

later, and a tradition could have grown among the people that the first Spaniards arrived in this

area. The Spanish missionaries who arrived in Butuan would catch up on this narrative and

conclude that Magellan's expedition had passed through the island. On the other hand, the

Butuan tradition may not have started in Butuan but in Europe. To illustrate how easily a

secondhand source could be in a matter like the site of the first Mass, all we have to do is to

examine the evidence of the earliest and most important of the second-hand sources, namely

Maximillian of Transylvania. His letter, De Moluccis Insulis was the first published account of

Magellan expedition. It was first printed at Cologne January 1523, only two years after

Magellan's discovery of the Philippine Islands Maximilian got his data from the survivors who

had returned on the "Victoria" His account is therefore important, but it is a second-hand

account. Here is what he says:

Our men having taken in water in Acaca, sailed towards Selani; here a storm took them,

so that they could not bring the ships to that island, but were driven to another island called

Massaua, where lives a king of three islands, after that they arrived at Subuth. This is an

excellent and large island, and having made a treaty with its chieftain, they landed immediately

to perform divine service, according to the manner of the Christians, for it was the feast of the

resurrection of Him who was our salvation

Maximilian locates the first Mass on Easter Sunday, 1521, at Cebu, which he spells

Subuth. He is clearly wrong: but if he could make a mistake who had eyewitnesses of the event

for his source, how much easier was it for later writers to err, who had to depend on second-or

third-or fourth-hand testimony for their data? One thing is clear: whoever started the tradition

that the first Mass was celebrated at Butuan, it was certainly neither Pigafetta nor Albo, nor

Maximilian of Transylvania.
To substantiate my claim, let’s examine Father Francisco Colin’s Labor Evangelista and

Father Franciso Combes’ Historia de Mindanao Y Jolo, both priests are historians who studied

Pigafetta’s account: 

Collin had obviously read some authentic accounts of Magellan’s voyage, for his

narration is accurate up to the landing in Homonhon (he spells Humumu, as does Pigafetta.)

After that, Colin’s account becomes vague. He abruptly brings Magellan to Butuan without

explaining how he got there. Then he brings him to Limasawa (which he tells Dimasaua), and

from there the account becomes again accurate and detailed. The important thing in Colin's

account as far as our present purpose is concerned, is the Cart that he represents the first

Mass, as well as the solemn planting of the cross and the Gormal taking possession of the

Islands in the name of the Crown of Castile, as having taken place at Butuan on Easter Sunday

of 1521

For our present purpose, the main point in that account is that Magellan landed at

planted the cross in a solemn ceremony. Combes does not mention what he mentions are the

other two events which, from Pigafetta's account had occurred on the same day as the first

Mass, namely the planting of the mal claiming of the Archipelago on behalf of the Castilian

Crown.   Colin and Combes Compared. -- It is to be noted that both Colin and picture Magellan

as visiting both Butuan and Limasawa. In Colin's account, Ma went first to Butuan, then to

Limasawa and from thence to Cebu. Combes, on the hand, mentions two visits to Limasawa: in

his version, Magellan visits Limasawa from there he goes to Butuan; then he returns to

Limasawa anf thence to Cebu.

Both Colin and Combes agree that it was from Limasawa and with help Limasawa's

chieftain that the Magellan expedition went to Cebu. Both Colin and Combes also agree that

Magellan arrived in Cebu on the 7th of April 1521: that is to say, on the Octave of Easter, or one

week after the first Mass which --- in this tradition --- was supposed to have been celebrated at

Butuan. Colin and Combes exercise a strong influence over subsequent writers. An example of
the quick and wide diffusion of Colin's influence is the following In 1689 (thirty-five years after

Colin's work had appeared in Madrid) there issued from the press in Naples a multi-volume work

(subsequently reprinted several times in several places) entitles Giro del Mondo (A Voyage

Around the World). It was written by Calabrian, Giovanni Francesco Gemelli Carreri, who had

visited many places, including Philippines. Of the first Mass on the Philippine soil he says:

On Whit Sunday the first Mass was said on the land of Butuan, a cross erected and

possession taken in the name of the most invincible Charles the 5th. The lord of Oimasaua (sic),

kinsman of the king of Butuan and to him of Cebu, was assisting to Magellan, for he brought the

ships into that port on the 7th of April. Before Mass was said on Whit Sunday, the lord and the

king of Cebu were baptized, and by their means, many men of note and others to the number of

500, and after dinner the queen with 300 more.

No one really knows what happened in the past but taking into account the navigation

route written in Albo’s log book and the evidences written in Pigafetta’s The Voyage Around the

World by Magellan where he stated the following clues:  Pigafetta’s testimony regarding the

route; The evidence of Pigafetta’s map; The two native kings; The seven days at “Mazaua”; and

An argument from omission and the confirmatory evidence from the Legazpi expedition, I think

the description matches more of Limasawa’s than in Masao’s. The ambiguity of the historians in

proving that the first mass was held in Masao proves it difficult to consider that the first mass

was held in Butuan because Masao is closest to Mazaua, latitude and geographical features. 

IV. References:

1. Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of

the Evidence by Miguel A. Bernad

2. That 'First Mass' in the Philippines in Proper Context by Buddy Gomez https://news.abs-

cbn.com/blogs/opinions/06/19/21/first-mass-limasawa-homonhon-butuan
GEC 12 READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Shaine Therese R. Aguado AB Political Science 1A 

CASE STUDY NO. 2

The Cavite Mutiny

A case study analysis

I. Introduction

Since 1898, the 12th of June has been a significant date for all Filipinos. On this

day, the entire Filipino country, as well as Filipino communities around the world,

assemble to commemorate the Philippines' Independence Day.1898 became a pivotal

year for all of us; it is as historic as 1896, the year when the Philippine Revolution

erupted in response to the Filipinos' desire to be free of the Spanish colonial regime's

atrocities; and 1872, the year when the Philippines gained independence from Spain.

In 1872, two big events occurred: the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of

the three martyr priests, Fathers Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora

(GOMBURZA). However, not everyone was aware that alternative reports of the same

event existed. Both Filipinos should be aware of all sides of the tale since it led to

another painful yet significant event in our history: the execution of GOMBURZA, which

was a vital role in the emergence of Filipino nationalism.

I. Discussion

A famous Spanish historian, Jose Montero y Vidal, described the incident and

characterized it as an attempt by the Indios to overthrow the Spanish rule in the

the incident and used it to blame the native clergy, which was at the time engaged in the

campaign for secularization. The general's report was more caustic, yet the two tales

complemented and confirmed each other. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo claimed

that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by Cavite arsenal workers, such as non-payment

of tributes and exemption from forced labor, were the primary causes of the "revolution,"

as they called it; however, other causes were enumerated by them, including the

Spanish Revolution, which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propaganda spread by an

unrestrained press, democratic, liberal, and republican books and pamphlets, Izquierdo,

in particular, condemned the disorderly Spanish press for "stockpiling" poisonous

propaganda that the Filipinos had picked up. He informed the King of Spain that the

"rebels" intended to destabilize the Spanish government in order to install a new "hari" in

the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The commander went on to say that the native

clergy attracted other participants by promising them charismatic assurance that their

fight would succeed because God was with them, as well as attractive offers of job,

wealth, and army levels. In his report, Izquierdo slammed the Indios for being naive and

having a natural proclivity for thieving. 

The two Spaniards believed that the 1872 incident had been organized in

advance and that it was the result of a large conspiracy including educated leaders,

mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers, inhabitants of Manila and Cavite, and native

clergy. They said that Manila and Cavite conspirators planned to execute high-ranking

Spanish officers, followed by a massacre of the friars. The purported pre-planned signal

among Manila and Cavite conspirators was the firing of rockets from the Intramuros

walls.
According to their testimonies, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the

Virgin of Loreto on January 20, 1872, but regrettably, the festivities were marred by the

typical fireworks displays. According to reports, residents in Cavite mistook the fireworks

for an invasion signal, and the 200-man force led by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an

attack on Spanish officials on sight, seizing the arsenal.

When the news reached Gov. Izquierdo, he quickly ordered the reinforcement of

Spanish forces in Cavite to put down the rebellion. When reinforcements from Manila

failed to arrive, the "revolution" was quickly subdued. Major instigators were slain in the

battle, notably Sergeant Lamadrid, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial

and sentenced to death by strangling. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma., and other

Patriots Regidor, Jose, and Pio Basa, as well as other abogadillos, were barred from

practicing law by the Audencia (High Court), arrested, and condemned to life in prison in

the Marianas Island. Furthermore, Governor Izquierdo dissolved the local artillery

regiments and ordered the formation of an artillery force made up entirely of

Peninsulares. 

The GOMBURZA were executed on February 17, 1872, in an attempt by the

Spanish government and Frailocracia to create dread in the Filipinos so that they would

never do such a daring deed again. This sad occurrence was one of the driving causes

in the formation of Filipino nationalism.

The Filipino account of the bloodbath in Cavite was written by Dr. Trinidad

Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino academic and researcher. According to him,

the episode was only a mutiny by the Cavite arsenal's native Filipino soldiers and

employees, who were upset with their privileges being taken away. Indirectly, Tavera

blamed Gov. Izquierdo's cold-blooded policies, such as the abolition of workers' and
native army members' arsenal privileges, and the prohibition of the establishment of

schools of arts and trades for Filipinos, which the general saw as a cover-up for the

formation of a political club.

On January 20, 1872, a group of roughly 200 soldiers, arsenal workers, and

Cavite locals led by Sergeant Lamadrid rose out in arms and assassinated the

commanding officer and all Spanish officers in sight. Unfortunately, the insurgents did

not receive assistance from the majority of the army. When word of the mutiny reached

Manila, Gen. Izquierdo ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite right away.

The insurrection was officially proclaimed over after two days.

Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as

a powerful lever to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines by magnifying it

as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also residents of Cavite

and Manila, and most importantly, the native clergy. It's worth noting that the Central

Administration in Madrid proclaimed at the time that the friars would be stripped of all

powers of intervention in matters of civil government and educational direction and

management. This turn of events, according to Tavera, spurred the friars to take harsh

measures in their desperate attempt to maintain authority in the Philippines.

Simultaneously, the Spanish Central Government supported an educational

regulation authored by Segismundo Moret that promoted the union of sectarian schools

managed by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute in order to implement

reforms. The order sought to raise the standard of education in the Philippines by

establishing competitive examinations for teaching positions in such schools. Despite the

native clergy's enthusiasm for secularization, most Filipinos welcomed this

advancement. Fearing that their power in the Philippines would dwindle, the friars
exploited the episode and presented it to the Spanish government as part of a broad plot

across the archipelago with the goal of overthrowing Spanish sovereignty. Sadly, Tavera

acknowledged that the Madrid government came to believe the program was accurate

without making any effort to explore the true facts or scope of the purported "revolution"

reported by Izquierdo and the friars.

Convicted educated males sentenced to life in jail for their roles in the revolt,

while members of the native clergy led by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by

garrote. This incident sparks the rise of nationalism, which eventually leads to the 1896

Philippine Revolution. The narrative of French writer Edmund Plauchut supported

Tavera's version by verifying that the event occurred as a result of anger among the

arsenal employees and troops in Cavite fort. The Frenchman, on the other hand,

focused on the execution of three martyr priests that he had personally witnessed.

I. Analysis

When comparing the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, some basic facts

remained consistent: first, there was dissatisfaction among the arsenal workers and

members of the native army after their privileges were revoked by Gen. Izquierdo;

second, Gen. Izquierdo implemented rigid and strict policies that caused the Filipinos to

flee the Spanish government in disgust; and third, the Central Government failed to

conduct an invest. Fourth, the friars' happy days were numbered in 1872 when the

Spanish Central Government decided to strip them of their power to intervene in

government affairs as well as the direction and management of schools, prompting them

to make frantic efforts to extend their stay and power; Fifth, Filipino clergy members

actively participated in the secularization movement in order to allow Filipino priests to

take control of parishes across the country, prompting them to make frantic efforts to
extend their stay and power. Sixth, Filipinos were active participants at the time, reacting

to what they saw as injustices; and finally, the execution of GOMBURZA was a failure on

the side of the Spanish government, as it ended Filipino resentment and emboldened

Filipino patriots to demand reforms and eventual independence. The 1872 Cavite Mutiny

may have had several variants, but one thing is certain: it laid the way for the historic

1898. 

The road to independence was long and winding, and many heroes, both known and

unknown, sacrificed their lives in order to gain reforms and independence. Although the

12th of June 1898 was a magnificent occasion for us, we must remember that our

forebears had already through enough hardships before we arrived at victory. May we

be more historically aware of our past while we enjoy our freedom so that we might have

a better future. May we "not forget those who fallen throughout the night," as Elias

remarked in Noli me Tangere.

1872 Cavite mutiny is one of the most important events in Philippine History. In the

Cavite mutiny’s case, Governor General Rafael Izquierdo y Gutierrez’s accusation that

Fr. Mariano Gomez, Fr. Jose Burgoz, and Fr. Jacinto Zamora, or known as

GOMBURZA, instigated the said mutiny, and afterward, ordered the execution of the

three secular priests. 

Montero, and Izquierdo abolished the exemption of privileges of Cavite workers from

forced labor, and non-payment of tributes that caused the revolution of which Sgt.

Fernando La Madrid and his co-soldiers belonged. On the one hand, a district in

Sampaloc, Maynila celebrated a feast of the Virgin of Loreto, the feast celebrated with

the usual fireworks display. Two People in Cavite mistook the fireworks as a sign for the

attack, and Sgt. Fernando La Madrid led the mutiny, and other mutineers. They seized
the Fort, and killed the Spanish officers. The Spanish government in Manila

accumulated, and sent troops under General Felipe Ginoves to recover the Fort. The

regiment quelled the besieged mutiny, killed many mutineers including Sgt. Fernando La

Madrid, and sentenced others to death, or forced labor. Consequently, Governor

General Rafael Izquierdo y Gutierrez used the mutiny to implicate the GOMBURZA, and

other notable Filipino intellectuals for their liberal learnings. People, then, knew that

General Rafael Izquierdo y Gutierrez as an iron-fisted leader that led to incarceration,

banishment, execution of Filipino professionals, intellectuals, businessmen, and priests

such as GOMBURZA to garrote at Bagumbayan. Historical accounts that corroborated

the 1872 Cavite mutiny show supporting evidences, and no chances of falsifiability.

Amassing, and/or discerning information before jumping to conclusion shows that we

have the skills of weighing evidences to find the veracity of an event such as 1872

Cavite mutiny. Besides, corroboration teaches us to find, and confirm supporting

evidences, and theory.

What corroborated this position is the quality of being cognizant. Cognizance’s

synonymity to critical thinking is awareness, and what awareness does is to lower the

chances of our gullibility, or credulity to circumvent misleading information even in the

case of 1872 Cavite mutiny on what transpired the certain event, due to misconstruing

the usual fireworks as an instigation for attacking

IV. Reference

1. Cavite Mutiny by Erickson Samson:1872 Cavite Mutiny Could Have Been Avoided if

Reports Were More Truthful, and Factual 

 
GEC 12 READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Shaine Therese R. Aguado AB Political Science 1A 

CASE STUDY NO. 3

The Retraction of Rizal

A case study analysis

I.Introduction

Jose Rizal as the national hero of the Philippines, presumably died a Catholic according to

several testimonies and documents that say he did. Although this is still being debated until

today. Rizal, being a Freemason and had written works that are against the Catholic faith, these

works including his two most prominent novels that moved the revolution into action; Noli mi

Tangere and El Filibusterismo. He stood before a firing squad in Bagumbayan on the year 1896,

saying his last words before them. These words “Consummatum est!” these words if translated

are “it is finished” the same words that Jesus Christ said as He was crucified. On the eve of his

death, Rizal allegedly signed a retraction letter that said he denounced his masonic beliefs and

embraced the Catholic faith once more.

The retraction letter was said to contain statements which devalued the very works that

ignited the freedom of his country. An excerpt of the letter is as follows:

 
“I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in which I was born and educated

I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings,

publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the

Catholic Church…”

II.            Body

There were several foreign publications that were monitoring the events of Rizal’s death on

December 30, 1896, those that did reported that Rizal did re-profess his Catholic faith. And they

even included the content of the retraction letter, but the actual document never really

resurfaced until 1935.A day before his execution, the Jesuits attended to Rizal’s spiritual needs

as tasked by Manila Archbishop Bernandino Nozaleda. According to Fr. Pio Pi, who was the

superior of the Jesuits, they accepted the order because Rizal was a “very distinguished and

dear pupil”, he stated this in an affidavit issued in 1917.

There were allegedly six (6) Jesuits that were sent to fulfill the task these were Frs. Vicente

Balaguer, Jose Vilaclara, Estanislao March, Luis Visa, Federico Faura, and Miguel Saderra.

Out of the 6, it was Fr. Vicente Balaguer who wrote about the encounter the most. His accounts

were written in two documents; a letter he wrote to Fr. Pi dated in 1908 and an affidavit he had

written in Murcia, Spain on August 8, 1917. In both documents which he had written in first

person point he was able to frame himself as an important figure saying he “was the one who

assisted Rizal most of that sad day’s hours. I argued with him and demolished his arguments”

(Cavanna 1956, 115). He stated an oath his affidavit in an attempt to convince everyone to

make these documents a primary source of Rizal’s retraction:

 
Of all that has been narrated, I am positive by personal knowledge. I have personally

intervened and witnessed it myself; and I subscribed and confirmed it with an oath. And

lest, perhaps, someone may think that I could not remember it with so many details, after

twenty years. I testify that on the very day of Rizal’s death, I wrote a very detailed

account of everything. The original of this account I have preserved, and from it I have

taken all the data of the present narration. (Cavanna 1956, 10)

The events that happened according to Fr. Balaguer before Rizal’s execution was

detailed even as it was written twenty (20) years after the event. As stated by Father Balaguer,

he and Fr. Vilaclara arrived at Rizal’s prison cell at Fort Santiago by 10:00 in the morning. And

that Rizal started their discussion on articles of the Catholic faith, they debated on these, the

Jesuits were able to convince Rizal to stop arguing about faith, and having little time left. Fr.

Balaguer even said that Rizal softened when he was told that his would go to hell if did not re-

profess his Catholic faith. It was the typical 19 century warning that was reminded to Rizal
th

“Extra Ecclesiam Catholicam nulla datur salus” meaning there was no salvation outside the

Catholic church. Noting that in the 21 century there have been more cohesive studies on the
st

Roman Catholic theology since then, given the circumstances though it was easy to assume

that Rizal did accept to sign and write down the retraction letter.

And according to Fr. Balaguer he did by midnight. The “original retraction letter” was

found on 1935 by an Archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. along with the bundle titled

Masonaria. However, after careful scrutinizing by different scholars, the document was

considered a forgery. Rafael Palma, who was the former president of the University of the

Philippines, although also a mason, disputed the authenticity of the document. He compared it

to several documents that were confirmed that was written by Rizal days before his death.

Palma concluded that the retraction story was a “pious fraud.”

However, there has been another account that further added to the idea that the

retraction letter was signed. This was the Cuerpo di Vigilancia originally El Movimiento de

Independencia de Filipinas, or “The Movement for Independence in the Philippines.”  which was

considered done from an objective point of view, because they were not in any of the prominent

sides that involved the debacle. Reports from agents that were under the command of Inspector

Jefe (chief inspector) Frederico Moreno who were tasked to give detailed accounts from the

perspective of rebels in the revolution. These were from mestizos and native Filipinos of that

time. Having only 30 documents on Rizal, some about Josephine Bracken and Rizal’s older

brother, Paciano, the National Cultural Center of the Philippines (NCCA) who bought the

collection from Señor Enrique Montero who offered it up for sale by 1988. The NCCA labeled it

as “Katipunan and Rizal Documents”, which was not as appropriate because out of the 1,000 or

so documents that were given by the Katipuneros, reports on Rizal did exceed at least 20

percent.

Eight of these documents were related to Rizal’s retraction, Moreno’s report presents

another account, presumably from gathered information. In the report of Moreno that follows this

paragraph, that he read Acts of Faith and the Prayer for the departed souls, that he confessed

and attended mass, it also states that Rizal was given a document and he signed it this was

assumed to be the retraction letter. There was also the repeated statement that there were only

two Jesuit priests were present before Rizal’s death, namely Fr. Jose Vilaclara and Fr.

Estanislao March, and attests to the issue that Josephine Bracken and Jose Rizal got married,

without any witnesses.

 
Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort Santiago to

report on the events during the [illegible] day in prison of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on

this date of the following:

At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his

counsel, Señor Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest [Jose] Vilaclara. At the

urgings of the former and moments after entering, he was served a light

breakfast. At approximately 9, the Adjutant of the Garrison, Señor [Eloy] Maure,

asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at the moment he only wanted

a prayer book which was brought to him shortly by Father [Estanislao] March.

Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the

Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It

appears that these two presented him with a prepared retraction on his life and

deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter until 12:30 when

Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken. Afterwards he asked to leave to

write and wrote for a long time by himself.

At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him

what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Señor [Juan] del

Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, were informed. They

entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that the accused

had written. It seems this was the retraction.

From 3 to 5:30 in the afternoon, Rizal read his prayer book several times, prayed

kneeling before the altar and in the company of Fathers Vilaclara and March,
read the Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity repeatedly as well as the Prayers for the

Departing Soul.

At 6 in the afternoon the following persons arrived and entered the chapel;

Teodora Alonzo, mother of Rizal, and his sisters, Lucia, Maria, Olimpia, Josefa,

Trinidad and Dolores. Embracing them, the accused bade them farewell with

great strength of character and without shedding a tear. The mother of Rizal left

the chapel weeping and carrying two bundles of several utensils belonging to her

son who had used them while in prison.

A little after 8 in the evening, at the urgings of Señor Andrade, the accused was

served a plate of tinola, his last meal on earth. The Assistant of the Plaza, Señor

Maure and Fathers March and Vilaclara visited him at 9 in the evening. He rested

until 4 in the morning and again resumed praying before the altar.

At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison accompanied

by his sister Pilar, both dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel,

followed by a military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his

formal clothes and aided by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the

woman who had been his lover were performed at the point of death (in articulo

mortis). After embracing him she left, flooded with tears.

Rizal heard mass and confessed to Father March. Afterwards he heard another

mass where he received communion. At 7:30, a European artilleryman

handcuffed him and he left for the place of execution accompanied by various
Jesuits, his counsel and the Assistant of the Plaza. Father March gave him a holy

picture of the Virgin that Rizal kissed repeatedly.

When the accused left, I noticed he was very pale but I am very certain that all

the time he was imprisoned he demonstrated great strength of character and

composure.

God grant Your Excellency.

Manila 30 December 1896.

Chief Inspector Federico Moreno (Harper 1997)

III.Analysis

Although Moreno’s report seemed to have made things clear that Rizal did make a

retraction, the actual letter was never found, no one was able to verify its content. It may be that

Rizal did practice Catholicism during his last days, but could it be ensued that Rizal didn’t retract

his works?

  The mere fact that Jesuit priests like Fr. Balaguer has not only lied, but documented

these for the sake of his cause or for whatever unknown reason, the fact that they were priests

and not even Archbishop Nozaleda nor Fr. Pio Pi debunked the statements of Fr. Balaguer,

though they were part of the narrative. Moreno was able to verify the priests and the family

members that came see Rizal off for the last time, and he never once mentioned Fr. Balaguer.

This disqualifies his statements.

embraced his Catholic beliefs once more. But though a military chaplain was present but no

witnesses, made a dent in the information the Jefe inspector Moreno gathered, not to mention

there was no document that issued they did indeed wed. Although one can argue that Moreno

did not mention this in his report, as said there were no other witnesses, were there any

evidences it should have come from the only available living personality at that time, that should

have been Josephine Bracken. However, no statements and not even hearsays that could

solidify the marriage as a fact.

To retract the very works that Rizal wrote to ignite the revolution and awaken his

compatriots, would be somewhat selfish, and Rizal being already ready to die for the country as

he was given a chance to escape while in Dapitan via the Katipuneros, this would not be the

Rizal the Filipinos know.

The possibility though that the church would allow Rizal to die a Catholic for the church’s

best interest is not unlikely, there has been evidence that this is possible due to the many

discrepancies in the statements of the same church as well as from the outsiders.

Something as important as the national hero of the Philippine’s letter, should have been

preserved by the Jesuits, not knowing its content though, no one can no for sure what the terms

were for Rizal.

Consummatum est.

IV. Reference

1. THE RIZAL RETRACTION AND OTHER CASES by Peter Jaynul V. Uckung

 
GEC 12 READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Shaine Therese R. Aguado AB Political Science 1A 

CASE STUDY NO. 4

Where did the CRY of Rebellion happen?

A case study analysis

I.                    Introduction

The Philippine revolution began when Andres Bonifacio and members of the Kataastaasan,

Kagalanggalangang Katipunan tore their cedulas (tax receipts) that lead to the end of Spanish

oppression that lasted 333 years (from 1565-1898).

This happened, and was sure it happened, on the year 1896, wherein Guardia Civil Manuel

Sityar noted a pacto de sangre or blood pact mark on every Filipino he met on that same year

on his reconnaissance mission in Balintawak.

was the Cry of Montalban which happened on April 1865, which was used by many writers had

taken up, where a group of Katipeneros wrote “Viva la indepencia Filipina!” on the Pamitinan

caves before the revolution was decided upon. But this was if the expression “Cry” would be

taken literally, but in this case, we compare the expression to all the other countries whose cries

were milestones of the revolutions that took place.

There was also the “Himno de Balintawak” (Hymn of Balintawak) which was commissioned

by Emilio Aguinaldo, after his return from exile in Hongkong, heralding the renewed fighting

following the peace pact of Biyak na Bato that failed. Many writers had considered this the mark

where the revolution began, but this happened on the year 1898 and it was never officially

recognized as so.

II.                  Discussion of different perspectives and different cries

There were several statements and arguments on when and where the start of the

revolution took place, and because of this even the name of the event or the holiday we

celebrate was changed as well to make it more in line with its origins. In a book by Spanish

historian Manuel Sastron “La Insuraccion de Filipinas” he first termed the gathering of the

Katipuneros as el grito de rebelion or the Cry of the Rebellion. 19 century journalists also used
th

this, referring to the clash of the katipuneros with the guardia civil. Which is different, almost

generalized, compared to todays debated Cry of Balintawak or Cry of Pugad Lawin, where date

it has been celebrated has been changed from August 23 in former President Diosdado

Macapagal’s time to August 26 in former President Ferdinand Marcos’ time, and moreover by

different historians. There were also accounts saying it was on August 24.

The historian Teodoro Agoncillo claims that the cry of rebellion was on August 23 in Pugad

Lawin, basing on Pio Valenzuela’s statements and manuscript entitled “Memoirs of the
Revolution” which changed constantly, which according to John N. Schrumacher, S.J, of the

Ateneo de Manila University was due to Valenzuela’s old age. Pio Valenzuela also stated that

the meetings of the Katipuneros happened on August 23-25 in Balintawak, this was his first

statement in front of the Olive court which was to investigate those involved in the rebellion, this

happened on September 1896.

Although there was also a time Valenzuela, who in his first statement was that when Jose

Rizal was consulted on the revolution was against it, but then retracted what he said, now

ensuing that Rizal was supportive of the revolt against the Spaniards. In the defense of Pio

Valenzuela, Schrumacher said he was only trying to protect Rizal. This inconsistency, further

pushes that he is an unreliable source, history though inconvenient should never be rewritten.

There were three historians saying that the Cry of Rebellion happened in Balintawak on

August 26, these were Milagros Guerrero, Manuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas. Their

stand was based on Guillermo Masangkay and Pio Valenzuela. Although they went with

Masangkay’s statement that the Cry of Rebellion happened on August 26 in Balintawak.

Guillermo Masangkay was Andres Bonifacio’s friend and adviser, being one of the first

members of the Katipunan. Among these men lead by Andres Bonifacio, were Emilio Jacinto,

Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Regio, Briddio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique

Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon.

He pinpointed the place where the big meeting happened; in Apolonio Samson, cabeza of

Balintawak. Where Bonifacio addressed the members of the Katipunan with a patriotic speech

which drove the revolution forward.

However, there were also (2) two letters from Andres Bonifacio that recalled the events

when the meeting took place, which was found in Emilio Aguinaldo’s memoirs. The letters are

as follows:

Andres Bonifacio himself has noted that the Cry of Rebellion happened on the 24 of August, of
th

the year 1896.

the period of time the Cry of Rebellion took place, in fact it was only in the map by the Second

World War. This is according writer and Linguist Sofronio Calderon. Where he conducted a

study on the toponym of “Pugad Lawin” in the 1920s.

III.                Analysis

I stand with what is obvious to me; that the Cry of Rebellion was on August 24, in Balintawak.

There were three options for the date; August 23, 24, and 26, Pio Valenzuela’s statement

saying it was on the 23 happened at a time when it was possible his memory was faltering due
rd

to old age.

The 24 was claimed to be the day of the rebellion by Masangkay during the time of
th

former President Ferdinand Marcos who made it official in his term.

From the earliest statement of Pio Valenzuela in the Olive court on September 1896, where he

described the meeting and testified it happened from August 23-25 on the same year, where the

Biyak na Bato issues the start of the revolution on the 24 , to the letters of Bonifacio in Emilio
th

Aguinaldo’s memoirs stating the same thing.

It happened in Balintawak, noting the fact the Pugad Lawin did not exist during the time

of the Katipuneros, it only appeared in the map after the Second world war. 

IV. References

1. The Cry of Balintawak of Guillermo Masangkay

2. The Cry of Pugad Lawin of Pio Valenzuela

3. The Social Sciences in the Philippines Reflections on Trends and Developments by

Maria Cyntia Rose Ranzon Bautista