WEEK 10

Excerpt from “Notes on the “Cry” of August 1896”

By: Jim Richardson

Pasya, Pagpupunit, at Unang Labanan

The debate has long been clouded by a lack of consensus on precisely what is
meant by the “Cry.” The term has been applied to three related but distinct events —

 the “pasya” – the decision to revolt;

 the “pagpupunit” – the tearing of cedulas; and
 the “unang labanan” – the first encounter with Spanish forces.
To state the obvious, these three events did not all happen at the same time and
place. When and where the “Cry” should be commemorated thus depends on how it is
defined.

Many of the older sources on the “Cry” do not precisely say which event they
mean, and often we can only guess. This problem is so embedded in the literature that
it is impossible to eradicate. Still, wherever practicable, these notes will avoid the fluid,
contested “Cry” word and seek instead to specify which particular event is being
discussed – the pasya, the pagpupunit or the unang labanan.

Among the historians who have studied the “Cry” in greatest detail, there is a
sharp divergence of opinion as to how the term should be defined.

 Teodoro A. Agoncillo equates the term with the pagpupunit, which he says
happened immediately after the pasya.
 Isagani R. Medina also takes the “Cry” to mean the pagpupunit, but says it
happened before the decision to revolt had been taken.
 Soledad Borromeo-Buehler takes the view – the traditional view that KKK
veterans took, she says - that the “Cry” should mean the unang labanan.
It was the unang labanan, as Borromeo-Buehler points out, that was
commemorated by the first monument of the events of August 1896. The main
inscription on the plinth read “Homenaje del Pueblo Filipino a los Heroes de ’96 /Ala-
alang sa Bayang Pilipino sa mga Bayani ng ‘96”, and a smaller plaque bore the date
“26 Agosto 1896”.
Unveiled before a huge cheering crowd in September 1911, the statue was
erected in Balintawak, the largest and best-known barrio in the general area where the
Katipuneros had congregated in August 1896. The name Balintawak was often used as
shorthand to denote that general area and the “Cry” had become popularly known as
the “Cry of Balintawak” even before the monument was erected.

Nobody professed in 1911, though, that the statue marked the “exact spot” where
the first battle had been fought. It was simply in Balintawak, on a plot donated by a local
landowner, Tomas Arguelles.

The documentary evidence on the unang labanan is reasonably clear. The first
battle, an encounter with a detachment of the Guardia Civil, was fought on the date
inscribed on the Balintawak monument - August 26 – at a place about five kilometers
north-east of Balintawak, between the settlements of Banlat and Pasong Tamo. A few
sources give the date as August 25 but, as both Borromeo-Buehler and Encarnacion
have shown, the most solid, contemporary sources confirm August 26 to be correct.

The Balintawak monument continued to be the focus of the yearly “Cry”

celebrations, held on August 26, for decades. In the 1960s, however, the official
definition of the “Cry” changed. Officially, the “Cry” ceased to mean the unang labanan
and was defined instead as “that part of the Revolution when the Katipunan decided to
launch a revolution against Spain. This event culminated with the tearing of the cedula”.
This definition, which is more or less in line with Agoncillo’s, thus embraces both the
pasya and pagpupunit, but excludes the unang labanan.

At first sight, the official definition looks clear and straightforward. A number of
sources, however, indicate that cedulas were torn on more than one occasion, in
different places, presumably because Katipuneros were arriving to join their embryonic
army over the course of a number of days, and many wanted to proclaim their rebellion,
their commitment to fight Spanish rule, in the same way. It is even possible (as Medina
believes) that the main pagpupunit preceded the pasya. But then it would have been
premature, because the revolt might have been deferred. It seems more likely, as the
official definition of the “Cry” assumes, that the largest, best remembered act of defiant
cedula-tearing happened soon after the pasya had been taken, and in the same vicinity.
Excerpt from “In Focus: Balintawak: The Cry for a Nationwide Revolution”

By: Milagros C. Guerrero, Emmanuel N. Encarnacion, and Ramon N. Villegas

Conflicting Accounts

Pio Valenzuela had several versions of the Cry. Only after they are compared and
reconciled with the other accounts will it be possible to determine what really happened.

Was there a meeting at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896, after the meeting at Apolonio
Samson’s residence in Hong Kong? Where were the cedulas torn, at Kangkong or
Pugad Lawin?

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

In 1911, Valenzuela averred that the Katipunan began meeting on 22 August

while the Cry took place on 23 August at Apolonio Samson’s house in Balintawak.

From 1928 to 1940, Valenzuela maintained that the Cry happened on 24 August
at the house of Tandang Sora (Melchora Aquino) in Pugad Lawin, which he now
situated near Pasong Tamo Road. A photograph of Bonifacio’s widow Gregoria de
Jesus and Katipunan members Valenzuela, Briccio Brigido Pantas, Alfonso and
Cipriano Pacheco, published in La Opinion in 1928 and 1930, was captioned both times
as having been taken at the site of the Cry on 24 August 1896 at the house of Tandang
Sora at Pasong Tamo Road.

In 1935 Valenzuela, Pantas and Pacheco proclaimed “hindi sa Balintawak

nangyari ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na kinalalagian ngayon ng bantayog, kung
di sa pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugad Lawin.” (The first Cry of the revolution did not
happen in Balintawak where the monument is, but in a place called Pugad Lawin.)

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

the National Historical Institute or NHI), which included Pio Valenzuela, identified the
precise spot of Pugad Lawin as part of Sitio Gulod, Banlat, Kalookan City. In 1964, the
NHI’s Minutes of the Katipunan referred to the place of the Cry as Tandang Sora’s and
not as Juan Ramos’ house, and the date as 23 August.

The NHI was obviously influenced by Valenzuela’s memoirs. In 1963, upon the
NHI endorsement, President Diosdado Macapagal ordered that the Cry be celebrated
on 23 August and that Pugad Lawin be recognized as its site.
Pio Valenzuela backtracked on yet another point. In 1896, he testified that when
the Katipunan consulted Jose Rizal on whether the time had come to revolt, Rizal was
vehemently against the revolution. Later, in Agoncillo’s Revolt of the masses, he then
retracted and claimed that Rizal was actually for the uprising, if certain prerequisites
were met. Agoncillo reasoned that Valenzuela had lied to save Rizal.

The Pugad Lawin Marker

The 1911 monument in Balintawak was later removed to a highway. Student

groups moved to save the discarded monument, and it was installed in front of Vinzons
Hall in the Diliman campus of the University of the Philippines on 29 November 1968.

In 1962, Teodoro Agoncillo, together with the UP Student Council, placed a

marker at the Pugad Lawin site. According to Agoncillo, the house of Juan Ramos
stood there in 1896, while the house of Tandang Sora was located at Pasong Tamo.

On 30 June 1983, Quezon City Mayor Adelina S. Rodriguez created the Pugad
Lawin Historical Committee to determine the location of Juan Ramos’s 1896 residence
at Pugad Lawin. The NHI files on the committee’s findings show the following:

 In August 1983, Pugad Lawin in barangay Bahay Toro was inhabited by squatter
colonies.
 The NHI believed that it was correct in looking for the house of Juan Ramos and
not of Tandang Sora. However, the former residence of Juan Ramos was clearly
defined.
 There was an old dap-dap tree at the site when the NHI conducted its survey in
1983. Teodoro Agoncillo, Gregorio Zaide and Pio Valenzuela do not mention a
dap-dap tree in their books.
 Pio Valenzuela, the main proponent of the “Pugad Lawin” version, was dead by
the time the committee conducted its research.
 Teodoro Agoncillo tried to locate the marker installed in August 1962 by the UP
Student Council. However, was no longer extant in 1983.
In spite of the above findings and in the absence of any clear evidence, the NHI
disregarded its own 1964 report that the Philippine Historical Committee had
determined in 1940 that the Pugad Lawin residence was Tandang Sora’s and not Juan
Ramos’s and that the specific site of Pugad Lawin was Gulod in Banlat.

The presence of the dap-dap tree in the Pugad Lawin site determined by
Agoncillo and the NHI is irrelevant, since none of the principals like Pio Valenzuela,
Santiago Alvarez, and others, nor historians like Zaide- and even Agoncillo himself
before that instance- mentioned such a tree.

On the basis of the 1983 committee’s findings, the NHI placed a marker on 23
August 1984 on Seminary Road in barangay Bahay Toro behind Toro Hills High School,
the Quezon City General Hospital and the San Jose Seminary. It reads:
Ang Sigaw ng Pugad Lawin (1896)

Sa paligid ng pook na ito, si Andres Bonifacio at mga isang libong Katipunero at

nagpulong noong umaga ng ika-23 Agosto 1896, at ipinasyang maghimagsik laban sa
Kastila sa Pilipinas. Bilang patunay ay pinag-pupunit ang kanilang mga sedula na
nagging tandang pagkaalipin ng mga Pilpino. Ito ang kaunaunahang sigaw ng Bayang
Api laban sa bansang Espanya na pinatibayan sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng
sandata.

(On this site Andres Bonifacio and one thousand Katipuneros met in the morning
of 23 August 1896 and decided to revolt against the Spanish colonial government in the
Philippines. As an affirmation of their resolve, they tore up their tax receipts which were
symbols of oppression of the Filipinos. This was the very first Cry of the Oppressed
Nation against Spain which was enforced with the use of arms.)

The place and name “Pugad Lawin,“ however, is problematic. In History of the
Katipunan (1939), Zaide records Valenzuela’s mention of the site in a footnote and not
in the body of text, suggesting that the historian regarded the matter as unresolved.

Cartographic changes

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

A rough sketch or croquis de las operaciones practicadas in El Español showed

the movements of Lt. Ros against the Katipunan on 25, 26, and 27 August 1896. The
map defined each place name as sitio “Baclac” (sic: Banlat). In 1897, the Spanish
historian Sastron mentioned Kalookan, Balintawak, Banlat and Pasong Tamo. The
names mentioned in some revolutionary sources and interpretations- Daang Malalim,
Kangkong and Pugad Lawin- were not identified as barrios. Even detailed Spanish and
American maps mark only Kalookan and Balintawak.

In 1943 map of Manila marks Balintawak separately from Kalookan and Diliman.
The sites where revolutionary events took place are within the ambit of Balintawak.
Government maps issued in 1956, 1987, and 1990, confirm the existence of barangays
Bahay Toro, but do not define their boundaries. Pugad Lawin is not on any of these
maps.

According to the government, Balintawak is no longer of Quezon City but has

been replaced by several barangays. Barrio Banlat is now divided into barangays
Tandang Sora and Pasong Tamo. Only Bahay Toro remains intact.

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

What can we conclude from all this, then?

First, that “Pugad Lawin” was never officially recognized as a place name on any
Philippine map before Second World War. Second, “Pugad Lawin” appeared in
historiography only from 1928, or some 32 years after the events took place. And third,
the revolution was always traditionally held to have occurred in the area of Balintawak,
which was a distinct from Kalookan and Diliman.

Therefore, while the toponym “Pugad Lawin” is more romantic, it is more accurate
to stick to the original “Cry of Balintawak” (Guerrero, Encarnacion, & Villegas, 2003).

“Balintawak or Pugad Lawin?”

By: Ambeth Ocampo

Over two decades ago, the late National Artist Nick Joaquin, in his Inquirer
column “Small Beer,” argued repeatedly for a return to the traditional “Cry of
Balintawak.” All our textbooks, following a resolution from the National Historical
Commission, state that the spark of the Revolution started with a cry, followed by the
tearing of cedulas led by Andres Bonifacio in Pugad Lawin, Quezon City. The issue is
not just historiographical but political. If the National Historical Commission, upon
review of the facts, reverses its earlier resolution and moves the site of the “Cry” back to
Balintawak then history will be moved from Quezon City to Caloocan. Mayor Herbert
Bautista’s loss will be Mayor Recom Echiverri’s gain.

Re-opening the issue might look simple since people think it’s just like tossing a
coin to decide between Balintawak or Pugad Lawin. If you bring two to three historians
together, you would not get a consensus.

To the above options, you must add other contenders to the historical site:
Kangkong, Bahay Toro, Pasong Tamo, Banlat and God know where else, depending on
the primary source being cited.

If you think location is the only issue, look again. The date declared by the
National Historical Commission as the start of the Philippine Revolution—Aug. 23, 1896
—is but one date proposed, the others being Aug. 20, 24, 25 and 26, 1896. And, if I
remember from a historical forum in UP, one scholar even insisted on a wildcard date of
Sept. 5, 1896! All these debates on dates and places, which may seem trivial to the
general public, is the lifeblood of historians.
Teodoro A. Agoncillo said that Bonifacio scheduled a general assembly of the
Katipunan for Aug. 24, 1896, the Feast of San Bartolome, in Malabon. This date was
chosen to enable Katipuneros to pass security checkpoints carrying their bolos because
Malabon is famous for manufacturing a long-bladed weapon called “sangbartolome.”
Bonifacio and his men were in Balintawak on August 19. They left Balintawak for
Kangkong on August 21, and on the afternoon of August 22 they proceeded to Pugad
Lawin. The next day, August 23, in the yard of Juan Ramos — who apparently is the
son of Melchora Aquino, the Katipuneros listened to the rousing speech of Bonifacio,
tore their cedulas, and vowed to fight.

Teodoro Agoncillo convinced the National Historical Commission to move the

traditional Aug. 26 date to Aug. 23 and transfer the historical site from Balintawak to
Pugad Lawin. If Agoncillo’s personality wasn’t enough for the Commission, he cited as
his principal source Dr. Pio Valenzuela, a close associate of Bonifacio.

I wonder if other members of the commission bothered to remind Agoncillo that

Valenzuela may have been in Bonifacio’s inner circle, but may be unreliable as a
primary source. In Wenceslao Emilio’s five-volume compilation of historical documents,
Archivo del Bibliofilo Filipino, Valenzuela’s signed testimony before Spanish
interrogators dated September 1896, stated that the Cry of Balintawak was held in
Balintawak on Aug. 26, 1896. Years later, in his memoirs published in English after
World War II, Valenzuela stated that the Cry was actually held in Pugad Lawin on Aug.
23, 1896. Agoncillo explained that the September 1896 account was extracted from
Valenzuela under duress and couldn’t be trusted.

Balintawak was the place determined by tradition and many eyewitness accounts,
including Guillermo Masangkay who, in an interview in the Sunday Tribune in 1932,
declared the place as Balintawak and the date Aug. 26, 1896. Spanish Lt. Olegario Diaz
in 1896 pinpointed the place as Balintawak but placed the date on Aug. 24, 1896.

Depending on your source, the dates and places do not seem to match. In 1928,
Gregoria “Oryang” de Jesus Nakpil, widow of Andres Bonifacio, wrote a short
autobiography, entitled “Mga tala ng aking buhay,” where she stated that the Cry of
Balintawak took place on Aug. 25, 1896 in Pasong Tamo! This place isn’t in Makati but
in Caloocan. How more authoritative can you get than the Supremo’s widow? Oryang
was revered as the muse, the Lakambini of the Katipunan.

To complicate things further, another Bonifacio associate and composer of the

Katipunan, Julio Nakpil, second husband of Gregoria de Jesus, deposited his
handwritten notes on the Philippine Revolution in the National Library under Teodoro M.
Kalaw in 1925. Here he wrote, “Swearing before God and before history that everything
in these notes is the truth”: “The revolution started in Balintawak in the last days of
August 1896.” On another page he wrote, “Bonifacio uttered the first cry of war against
tyranny on Aug. 24, 1896.” Finally, he remembered that “the first cry of Balintawak was
in Aug. 26, 1896 in the place called Kangkong, adjacent to Pasong Tamo, within the
jurisdiction of Balintawak, Caloocan, then within the province of Manila.”
Now, which of these three declarations do we choose? Last but not least, we
have Santiago Alvarez whose memoirs identified the place as Bahay Toro and the date
as Aug. 25, 1896. There are more conflicting sources available, so to keep the peace,
and until more conclusive evidence can be presented, let’s just stick to Pugad Lawin
and Aug. 23, 1896 (Ocampo, 2010).