Chapter 3
"One past but many histories." Controversies and conflicting views in Philippine History
a. Site of the First Mass, b. Cavite Mutiny
"Bukas, magiging mamamayan tayo ng Pilipinas, kung saan ang kapalaran niya'y magiging maganda sapagkat nasa
mapagkalinga siyang mga kamay."
- Jose Protacio Rizal
Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this chapter, the learners are expected to:
- Develop critical and critical skills through exposure to primary documents/sources;
- Demonstrate the ability to use primary sources to provide and formulate arguments for/or against a particular issue;
and
- Create a comprehensive analysis on the unresolved issues of the past and relating it to the present time.
Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies
In this lesson, we will apply what we have learned thus far in the work of a historian and the process of historical
inquiry. Two key concepts that need to be defined before proceeding to the historical analysis of problems in history
are interpretation and multi-perspectives.
Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation
Geoffrey Barraclough defines history as "the attempt to discover, on the basis of fragmentary evidence, the significant
things about the past." He also notes "the history we read, though based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all,
but a series of accepted judgments." Such judgments of historians on how the past should be seen make the foundation
of historical interpretation.
Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history and then draw their own reading so that their
intended audience may understand the historical event, a process that in essence, "makes sense of the past."
The premise is that not all primary sources are accessible to the general audience, and without the proper training and
background, a non-historian interpreting a primary source may do more harm than good- a primary source may even
cause misunderstandings sometimes, even resulting in more problems. Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary
according to who reads the primary source, when it was read, and how it was read.
As a student of history, we must be well equipped to recognize different types of interpretations, why these may differ
from each other and how to critically shift these interpretations through historical evaluation. Interpretations of
historical events change over time; thus, it is an important skill for a student of history to track these changes in an
attempt to understand the past. Many of the things we accept as "true" about the past might not be the case anymore;
just because these were taught to us as facts when we were younger does not mean that are set in stone- history is,
after all, a construct. And as a construct, it is open for interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing
accounts of the past that need one's attention, and they impact the way we know our country's history and identity.
It is important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary source but also the historical interpretation of
the same, to ensure that the current interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past.
Multi-perspective
With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept that we must note is multi-perspective.
Multi-perspective can be defined as a way of looking at historical events, personalities, developments, cultures, and
societies from different perspectives. This means that there is a multitude of ways by which we can view the world,
and each could be equally valid, and at the same time, equally partial as well.
Historical writing is, by definition, biased, partial, and contains preconceptions. The historian decides on what sources
to use, and what interpretations to make more apparent, depending on what his end is.
Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest that a certain event happened, and then ignore
the rest that goes against the evidence.
Historians may omit significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation unbalanced. Historians may
impose a certain ideology to their subject, which may not be appropriate to the period the subject was from.
Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without considering other possible causal explanations of said
events.
These are just many ways a historian may fall in his historical inference, description, and interpretation. With multi-
perspectivity as an approach to history, we must understand that historical interpretations can contain a lot of
interpretations. Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires incorporating source materials that reflect different
views of an event in history, because singular historical narratives do not provide for space to inquire and investigate.
Different kinds of sources also provide historical truths- an official document may note different aspects of the past
than, say, a memoir of an ordinary person on the same event.
Case Study 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place?
The popularity of knowing where the 'firsts' happened in history has been an easy way to trivialize history, but this
case study will not focus on the significance (or lack thereof) of the site of the First Catholic Mass in the Philippines,
rather, use it as a historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence and interpretation in reading historical
events.
A. The First Mass in the Philippines
The birth of Roman Catholicism in the country was signified by the celebration of the first Catholic mass in the
Philippines on March 31, 1521, after Ferdinand Magellan landed on the Philippines which he named then as the
Archipelago of St. Lazarus. However, the location of the mass is still shrouded with controversy. Originally, it was
believed that the mass celebrated in the island of Limasawa, in Leyte, but the discovery of the Golden Tara in Butuan
made some Philippine Historian question the veracity of the Limasawa location. As recounted by Pigafetta the first
Christian Mass celebrated was made in an island which he called 'Mazaua.'
Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first mass. In fact, this has been the case for three centuries,
culminating in the erection of a monument in 1872 near Agusan River, which commemorates the expedition's arrival
and celebration of Mass on April 8, 1521. The Butuan claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary
sources from the past.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century, together with the increasing
scholarship on the history of the Philippines, a more nuanced reading of the available evidence was made, which
brought to light more considerations in going against the more accepted interpretation of the first Mass in the
Philippines, made both by Spanish and Filipino Scholars. It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that
historians refer to in identifying the site of the first Mass.
1. One was the log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot in one of Magellan's ships, Trinidad. He was one of the 18
survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on the ship Victoria. After they circumnavigated the world.
2. The other, and more complete, was the account by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno al mondo (First
Voyage Around the World). Pigafetta, like Albo was a member of the Magellan expedition and an eyewitness of the
events, particularly of the first Mass.
Primary Source #1: Albo’s Log
Source: Diario o derotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo see S. Agustin en el Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana
de la nao Victoria, escrito pro Frandcso Alno,' Document no. xxii in Collection de viages y descubrimientos que
hicieron por mar los Españoles desde fines del signo XV, Ed. Martin Fernandez de Navarette (reprinted Buenos Aires
1945, 5 Vols.)
Magellan’s Cross in Cebu
Magellan’s Cross is a Christian cross planted by Portuguese and Spanish explorers as ordered by Ferdinand Magellan
upon arriving in Cebu in the Philippines on April 14, 1521. A sign below the cross describes the original cross is
encased inside the wooden cross that is found in the center of the chapel. This is to protect the original cross from
people who chipped away parts of the cross for souvenir purposes or in the belief that the cross possesses miraculous
powers.
According to Albo, the island that he calls Gada seems to be the acquada of Pigafetta, namely the island of Homonhon
where they took supplies of wood and water. It was a large island of Seilani which they coasted in the island of Leyte.
It must be noted that in Albo’s account, the location of Mazava fits the location of the island of Limasawa, at the
southern tip of Leyte. Also, Albo did not mention the first Mass, but only the planting of the cross upon the mountain
top from which could be seen three islands to the west and southwest, which also fits the southern end of Limasawa.
Primary Source #2
Pigafetta’s Testimony on the Route of Magellan’s Expedition
Source: Emma Blair and James Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols.33 and 34 as cited in Miguel A. Bernard,
“Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence” 1981,
Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol III, 1-35
It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta’s testimonies coincided and corroborated each other. Pigafetta
gave more details on what they did during their weeklong stay at Mazaua.
Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernard in his work Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the
First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence (1981) lays down the argument that in the Pigafetta
account, a crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned - the river.
Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach of Masao is in the delta of the said river. It is
a crucial omission in the account of the river, which makes part of a distinct characteristic of Butuan’s geography that
seemed to be too important to be missed. It must also be pointed out that later on, after Magellan’s death, the survivors
of his expedition went to Mindanao and seemingly went to Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta vividly described a trip
to a river. But note that this account already happened after Magellan’s death.
Following is an excerpt coming from a primary source that tackles the issue:
1. The name of the location was Mazaua in all primary sources, including Antonio Pigafetta’s journal, which served as
the trip chronicler for Magellan. Limasawa is a four-syllable word that starts with a different letter.
2. From Homonhon, the first landing site, the expedition traveled 20 to 25 leagues, according to primary records. The
journey would have been 14.6 leagues, or half that amount, if they had traveled to Limasawa Island. The distance to
Cebu from Mazaua according to Pigafetta was 35 leagues (140 miles). The distance from Limasawa to Cebu is only
80 miles.
3. The king allegedly arrived at their ship in Balanghai, according to the report. At least nine Balanghai artifacts have
been discovered in Butuan, but Limasawa has neither a major archaeological legacy nor a Balanghai tradition.
4. Given that gold was the primary form of currency at the time, the abundance of gold in Mazaua thrilled the Western
explorers. The Agusan Valley was rich in gold, as evidenced by both ancient artifacts and active gold mining.
5. Zaide determined that the first mass took place in Masao, Butuan. The diary of Antonio Pigafetta, a chronicler of
Magellan’s Voyage, serves as the foundation for Zaide’s assertion.
6. Gold and gold mines are plentiful in Mazaua, as described by Pigafetta.
7. Balanghai Relics: Pigafetta noted that the people used the balanghai as a form of transportation frequently.
8. Stilt Homes: Pigafetta spoke of homes that were elevated much above the earth.
9. Pigafetta described Limasawa Island’s shape as round like a ray and elongated like a sliced worm.
10. Homonhon-Limasawa (14.6 leagues), Homonhon-Masao, Butuan (24.54 leagues), Mazaua-Zubu (35 leagues-140
miles), Limasawa-Cebu (80 miles), and Masao, Butuan-Cebu (150 miles) are the distances between them.
11. Pigafetta described prominent farms, animals, and even harvests. The soil in Limasawa is too sandy for growing
rice. Presence of Timbre – “It was built on great timbers high above the ground.” Butuan is now called the Timber
City of the South.
12. Pigafetta said that there are plenty of sources for both fruits and livestock in Masao, Butuan.
In order to substantiate the claims of the first Mass, it was necessary to analyze the primary materials from Pigafetta
and Albo’s narrative as well as certain secondary sources. Because Antonio Pigafetta’s account is more thorough and
well-supported by evidence, such as the event’s date and location, it is more credible than Albo’s. Albo, unlike
Pigafetta, notes in his report that the first Mass was held in Butuan on Easter Sunday, March 31. Pigafetta, on the
other hand, simply remembers the planting of the cross on a mountain top.
Case Study 2: What made the Cavite Mutiny become a controversial and conflicting view in Philippine history?
Throughout the extensive period of time, they were under Spanish control, the Filipino people had been suffering in
silence and apathy. Although there were a few courageous individuals who dared to speak out against injustice, they
too required a strong push before they were able to take up the cause of the Filipinos who had been oppressed by
foreigners.
B. The Cavite Mutiny
Two important historical occurrences occurred in 1872: the Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of the three priests
Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, who became known as GOMBURZA. These significant
occurrences in Philippine history have had a lasting impact and had a direct impact on the pivotal moments of the
Philippine Revolution at the turn of the century. The significance is undeniable, but what made this year contentious
were the opposing viewpoints that were substantiated by primary sources.
Fathers Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora were all Filipino priests who were killed by garrote on
February 17, 1872, by the Spanish colonists, who had accused them of insurrection. Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and
Zamora were accused of participating in the workers’ insurrection at the Cavite Naval Yard. For spearheading the
movement against the abusive Spanish friars and promoting equality among priests, the three priests earned the enmity
of the Spanish government. The struggle between the church secularists and the religious regulars was a result of
unsolved issues about the Philippines’ secularization.
Their Crusade
The three priests, who are all graduates of the Sto. Tomas were brilliant men who used their education to fight for
reforms to end the Spanish government’s 300-year monopoly on power. They were the leaders of the secularization
movement, which improved the situation for Filipino priests by promoting the native secular clergy’s prior right to
parish assignments over that of the recently arriving Spanish friars. Burgos was particularly exposed in this sense
because he was the synodal examiner of parish priests, making him the youngest and brightest of the three. In this
regard, he frequently quarreled with the then-Archbishop of Manila, Gregorio Martinez.
Of the three priests, the first to be executed was Mariano Gomez, who was born in Santa Cruz, Manila on August 2,
1799. He was a parish priest in Bacoor, Cavite, where he was well-liked by his parishioners, and he attended the
University of Santo Tomas. He was composed and accepting of his fate as the oldest of the three victims. His
renowned dying words, "Let us go where the leaves never move apart from the will of God," are frequently recounted.
It is believed that as he approached the scaffold, his spectacles fell.
Jacinto Zamora, who was next in line to be executed, was born in Pandacan on August 14, 1835. He was pursuing a
canon law PhD at the University of Santo Tomas when he passed away. He led a tiny student uprising in 1860, which
led to a two-month exile in his dorm. His service at parishes in Marikina, Pasig, and Lipa was unaffected by that small
act of youth rebellion. Later on, he became active with the Manila Cathedral, where he worked as a priest newcomer
examiner.
Zamora’s fatal vice was panguigui, a popular card game. He was implicated in the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 due to an
invitation that read in part, "Grand reunion... our friends are well provided with powder and ammunition." This may
have sounded ominous to the military, but this was simply an innocent invitation to play cards; "powder and
ammunition" being panguigui players' code that meant that they were armed with enough money for an overnight card
game. There were no famous last words from Father Zamora. Those who were amazed at his serenity as he walked to
his death did not know he had lost his mind.
Jose Burgos was the last victim that morning. He was born on February 9, 1837 in Vigan, Ilocos Sur, and had only
turned 35 when he passed away. With two doctorates, one in theology and the other in canon law, he was the most
accomplished of the three. Although some of the compositions attributed to him, such as La Loba Negra on the 1719
murder of Governor-General Bustamante, are likely not his, he was a prolific writer and had ties to the Manila
Cathedral. He was a skilled boxer and swordsman but declined a position on the Commission on Censorship. His
passing was the most shocking. One arresting detail in the account of the Frenchman Plauchut has him suddenly
standing up from the garrote seat and shouting, "What crime have I committed to deserve such a death? Is there no
justice in the world?" Twelve friars of different orders restrained him and pushed him back into seat, advising him to
accept a Christian death. Burgos calmed down, but go up again shouting, "But I haven't committed any crime!" At
which point,
One of the friars holding him down hissed, "Even Christ was innocent!" Burgos finally gave in to the executioner who
broke his neck with one swift and sudden twist of the garrote handle.
In addition to Bonifacio and several Katipuneros, Gomburza served as an influence for Rizal. Many brought what
were believed to be relics—black cloth ribbons made from the soutanes the three priests wore before they died.
In this case study, we focus specifically on the Cavite Mutiny events, which were a significant contributor to the
emergence of nationalism among Filipinos at the time.
Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny
Jose Montero y Vidal, a Spanish historian, focused his documentation on how the incident represented an attempt to
topple the Spanish rule in the Philippines. His narrative of the revolt received criticism for being embarrassingly
prejudiced and fanatical for a scholar despite his reputation as a historian.
The indigenous clergy, who were at the time involved in the push toward the secularization of parishes, were accused
in another passage from the official report prepared by Governor General Rafael Izquierdo.
Primary Source #1: Excerpts from Montero’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, “Spanish
Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine
History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990269273)
The events that led to the overthrow of a secular throne in Spain, the propaganda waged by an unrestrained press
against monarchical principles, the attenuation of the most revered homages to the deposed majesty, the outbursts of
American publicists, and the criminal policies of the senseless Governor that the Revolutionary government sent to
rule the Philippines and who put these ideas into practice, were responsible for certain Filipinos’ feeling of outrage.
They began to work toward this objective with the effective support of a particular segment of the local clergy who,
out of animosity for friars, joined forces with the enemies of the mother country.
The authorities received anonymous communications at various points, but particularly at the start of 1872, warning
that a massive uprising against the Spaniards would begin the moment the fleet at Cavite departed for the South and
that everyone, including the friars, would be assassinated. However, nobody paid much attention to these notices. The
conspiracy had been going on since the days of La Torre with utmost secrecy at times, the principal leaders met either
in the house of Filipino Spaniard. D. Joaquin Pardo De Tavera, or in that of the native priest, Jacinto Zamora, and
these meetings were usually attended by the curate of Bacoor, the soul of the movement, whose energetic character
and immense wealth enabled him to exercise a strong influence.
Primary Source #2: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Source: Rafael Izquierdo, “Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary
Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990281286)
To carry out their illegal enterprise, the instigators used documents that the Finance department provides to crop
owners who must sell their crops at a loss as protection against usury and against the government's injustice in not
paying the provinces for their tobacco crop. They supported the insurrection by denouncing what they saw as the
injustice of forcing the former exempt employees of the Cavite arsenal to begin paying tribute on January 1 and
performing personal duty.
It has not yet been determined with certainty whether they intended to establish a monarchy or a republic because the
Indios lack a word in their language to describe this alternative form of government, whose head would be known as
hari in Filipino; however, it turns out that they would put a priest at the head of the government.
D. JOSE BURGOS, OR D. JACINTO ZAMORA….
Such is the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and the means they counted upon for its realization.
Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny
The sources clearly emphasize the “revolution’s” motivation: the removal of benefits enjoyed by Cavite Arsenal
employees, such as being excused from paying tribute and performing polos y servicios, or forced labor. They also
noted additional factors that seemed to have intensified the situation, such as the presence of native clerics who, out of
animosity for the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels.
Izquierdo highlighted the attempt to topple the Spanish government in the Philippines in order to install a new "hair"
in the Fathers Burgos and Zamora in an obviously biased report.
Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny
According to the Spanish narratives, the 1872 events were planned and a result of a large conspiracy including the
educated elites, mestizos, lawyers, and citizens of Manila and Cavite. They apparently intended to execute senior
Spanish officers before killing the friars. According to the story, the Sampaloc neighborhood celebrated the feast of
the Virgin of Loreto on January 20, 1872, and some fireworks displays went along with it. This was apparently taken
as authorization for the attack by the Cavite residents.
The 200-man group, led by Sergeant Lamadrid, immediately attacked Spanish officers and took the arsenal. When
Izquierdo learned of the raid, he gave the order to increase the Spanish forces in Cavite to put an end to the uprising.
When the Manileños who were supposed to support the Caviteños failed to show up, the “revolution” was quickly put
to an end. In the ensuing battle, the plot’s leaders were slain, and Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora were tried by a
court-martial and given death sentences. Others who were charged include Antonio Ma and Joaquin Pardo De Tavera.
Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa, and other Filipino attorneys were detained, had their licenses suspended, and received life
sentences on Marianas Island. Izquierdo ordered the dissolution of the local artillery regiments and the formation of an
artillery force made up only of Peninsulares.
The GOMBURZA were executed on February 17, 1872, as a warning to Filipinos never to try to attack the Spaniards
again.
Primary Source #3: Excerpts from Pardo De Tavera's Account of the Cavite Mutiny
Source: Trinidad Pardo De Tavera, “Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia
Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990274280)
The Spanish locals and the friars took use of this mutiny among the Cavite soldiers as a powerful level. The central
government in Madrid had made clear that it intended to deny the friars on these islands the ability to intervene in
issues relating to civil administration as well as the management and direction of the institution. The Filipinos had
high hopes for a change in the state of their nation as a result of these facts and promises, while the friars feared that
their hold on the colony would soon be completely lost
The people’s primary goal was to ensure the country’s economic and educational growth up to that point, and there
had been no aim of seceding from Spain.
This account claims that the incident was simply a mutiny by Filipino workers and soldiers at the Cavite arsenal in
response to their displeasure with Izquierdo’s harsh policies, such as the elimination of privileges and the ban on the
establishment of schools for Filipinos to learn the arts and trades, which the General perceived as a front for the
establishment of a political club.
Tavera believes that by exaggerating the single mutiny attempt, the Spanish friars and Izquierdo utilized the Cavite
Mutiny to draw attention to other problems. The Central administration in Madrid was preparing to strip the friars of
all Authority to direct and manage educational institutions, as well as to intervene in matters of civil administration.
The revolt gave the friars the opportunity they needed to defend their continued rule over the nation. Nevertheless, the
Central Spanish Government issued an educational decree that combined friar-run sectarian schools into a single
institution known as the Philippine Institute.
The majority of Filipinos applauded the improvement in the caliber of education brought about by the decree's
requirement that teaching jobs in these institutions be filled through competitive examinations.
Tavera’s report was supplemented by another account, this one written by the French author Edmund Plauchut, who
also examined the causes of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.
Primary Source #4: Excerpts from Plauchut Account of the Cavite Mutiny
Source: Edmund Plauchut, “The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za,” in Gregorio Zaide and
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990251268)
General La Torre... constituted a junta of prominent officials... including six Spanish officials and a few friars... The
government in Madrid established a committee at the same time to look into the identical issues brought up by the
Manila committee. When the two had finished their work, it had been discovered that their conclusions were identical.
General Izquierdo’s arrival in Manila... put an abrupt halt to all reform aspirations... The new Governor General’s
prosecutions were undoubtedly anticipated as a result of the contentious disagreements between the friars and the
Filipino clerics. Such a strategy must in fact result in the opposing party having a strong desire to oppress them
harshly.
In terms of educational institutions, a Society of Arts and Trades was originally ordained to be established in Manila
and to open its doors in March 1871. General Izquierdo put the school’s opening on hold in order to suppress the
spread of liberal teachings. the day before the anticipated inauguration...
The development of public roads was a responsibility for the Filipino people, as was their annual tax payment.
However, those who worked at Cavite’s engineering shops, arsenal, and maestranza of the artillery were exempt from
this duty since the dawn of time. With no prior notice of any type, the Governor’s edict reclassified these elderly
employees into the ranks of those who worked on public roadways and revoked their retirement entitlements
The episode was utilized by the friars as part of a broader plot to maintain their power, which was waning due to the
Filipinos’ displeasure. They presented the rebellion as a component of a larger Filipino plot to topple the Spanish
government in the Philippines. The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 unintentionally, and more importantly, prophetically, led to
GOMBURZA’s sacrifice and opened the door for the revolution that culminated in 1898.
"The Government, by enshrouding your trial in mystery and pardoning your co-accused, has suggested that some
mistake was committed when your fate was decided; and the whole of the Philippines, in paying homage to your
memory and calling you martyrs, totally rejects your guilt. The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has put in doubt
the crime charged against you."
Aftermath
Rafael Izquierdo, the governor general, approved the execution of 41 of the mutineers on January 27, 1872. On
February 6, eleven more people received death sentences that were later reduced to life in prison. The father of Pedro
Paterno, Maximo Paterno, Dr. Antonio M. Regidor y Jurado, and Jose Maria Basa were among those banished to
Guam in the Mariana Islands. The most significant group established a colony of Filipino exiles in Europe, especially
in Madrid and Barcelona, where they were able to establish modest associations and publish materials that would
support the causes of the Philippine Revolution. An order was finally issued prohibiting the appointment of any more
Filipinos as parish pastors.
