Name: Bantilan, Seth Cyrel C.
Course/Year/Section: BSCE-2
Subject Code: Soc Sci 211 Date: August 4, 2025
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ESSAY
“Three text Three Worlds”
Understanding Filipino identity and heritage requires acknowledging our
history that dates back to the earliest records of the archipelago, both from the
perspective of outsiders and the voices of Filipinos themselves. In this paper we will
analyze the 3 essential primary sources as presented by Filipino historians: Antonio
Pigafetta’s account of Magellan’s voyage by John Lee P. Candelaria, Plasencia’s
Customs of the Tagalog by Veronica C. Alporha, Jacinto’s Kartilya ng Katipunan,
and the 1898 Proclamation of Philippine Independence by Maria Christine N. Halili
(2nd edition). Through this paper, we will be able to highlight how these sources
shape and challenge our understanding of Philippine history.
Antonio Pigafetta was an Italian nobleman and chronicler aboard
Magellan’s1521 expedition. Tasked with documenting the expedition, Pigafetta
recorded local geography, leaders, rituals, and conflicts. His writings were intended
for a European audience and emphasized the heroism of the Spanish explorers and
the success of their religious mission. John Lee P. Candelaria, a Filipino historian
and educator, re-examines Pigafetta’s narrative through a decolonial lens. He
teaches readers to read such colonial sources critically not to reject them entirely,
but to question the lens through which Filipino ancestors were portrayed. Similarly,
Fray Juan de Plasencia, a 16th-century Spanish missionary, authored Customs of the
Tagalog to catalog native beliefs and customs to help the Spanish crown convert and
control local populations. His descriptions were not written out of admiration for
indigenous systems but to identify what needed to be replaced with Catholic
teachings. Filipino historian Veronica C. Alporha presents Plasencia’s text with
critical commentary, urging readers to understand both the value and limits of
colonial accounts. On the other hand, revolutionary texts like Emilio Jacinto’s Kartilya
ng Katipunan and the 1898 Proclamation of Philippine Independence emerged from
within the Filipino anti-colonial struggle. Jacinto, writing in the 1890s, sought to guide
Katipuneros with principles of justice, honor, and equality. His work revealed the
moral core of the Filipino revolution. Meanwhile, the Proclamation of Independence,
issued by Emilio Aguinaldo and fellow leaders, aimed to assert Filipino sovereignty
after centuries of Spanish colonization. Maria Christine N. Halili highlights how both
texts came from the perspective of Filipinos fighting for freedom not only from foreign
rule but also for a vision of a just society.
Each of these sources was written in a distinct historical context and carries
its own biases. Pigafetta’s 1521 account was created during the height of European
exploration, when nations competed for global power through conquest and religious
conversion. Although Pigafetta described native customs in detail, his judgments
were shaped by Christian ideology. He saw local rituals as exotic or misguided, and
he misunderstood resistance leaders like Lapulapu, viewing them through a colonial
lens. Candelaria notes that while the account is historically useful, it must be read as
a product of its time and purpose. Plasencia’s 1580s text was written when Spain
had begun to impose political and religious rule over much of the Philippines. His
framing of native practices as “errors” reveals a deep bias that undermines the
richness of the culture he was observing. Alporha helps readers understand that
while Plasencia captured aspects of precolonial life, his descriptions were shaped by
the mission to erase those very systems. In contrast, Jacinto’s Kartilya was written
during a time of growing unrest. It reflects the urgency of building a new moral
society free from colonial corruption. His bias leans toward equality, national pride,
and anti-colonial justice. The 1898 Proclamation came at the height of the Philippine
Revolution. While it declared independence and listed Spanish abuses, its authors
were concerned with legitimacy and diplomacy, especially toward the United States.
Halili explains that while the Kartilya emphasized grassroots ethics, the Proclamation
was focused on asserting political sovereignty on a national and international stage.
Despite their varying contexts and biases, all 3 documents are historically
significant. Pigafetta’s account is one of the earliest records of the archipelago. It
describes significant events such as Magellan’s arrival, the first mass in Limasawa,
and the Battle of Mactan. It also captures early Filipino customs, clothing, and
languages. While deeply colonial, it provides rare insights into precolonial life.
Candelaria emphasizes that Filipinos must mine such sources for valuable content
without inheriting their prejudices. Plasencia’s work is similarly valuable. Though his
purpose was to support colonization, his detailed record of Tagalog social structures,
spiritual beliefs, and local governance gives historians important information. Alporha
notes the contradiction: a colonial text meant to erase Filipino culture ends up
preserving it. Jacinto’s Kartilya is historically vital because it defines the ethical vision
of the Katipunan. It shows that the revolution was not simply a violent uprising, but a
disciplined movement grounded in respect, sacrifice, and dignity. The 1898
Proclamation is equally central. It marked the birth of the Filipino nation and
symbolized the collective will to break free from foreign domination. Though later
undermined by American occupation, the proclamation remains a landmark moment
in Philippine history. Halili shows that together, the Kartilya and the Proclamation
reflect both the heart and the political voice of the revolution.
These primary sources also hold deep relevance for Filipino identity and
heritage today. Pigafetta’s and Plasencia’s accounts, though foreign and colonial,
remind Filipinos of the richness of their ancestors’ societies before Western
domination. Candelaria and Alporha both emphasize that reclaiming history means
reading these documents critically asking what they left out and who was silenced.
They encourage readers to recover indigenous knowledge and perspectives that
were suppressed. Jacinto’s Kartilya remains powerful in its call for social
responsibility and respect for fellow Filipinos. It challenges modern citizens to uphold
the values of honesty, equality, and patriotism. The 1898 Proclamation stands as a
permanent reminder that Filipinos once declared their right to self-governance and
dignity on their own terms. Halili believes that these texts are not just relics but living
documents. They continue to inspire national pride and serve as a foundation for
understanding Filipino identity rooted in resistance, dignity, and unity.
In conclusion, these 3 primary sources reinterpreted by Filipino scholars show
that history must be read not only for facts but for purpose, bias, and deeper
meaning. They teach us that the Filipino story has long been shaped by both foreign
domination and indigenous resistance. Through the work of Candelaria, Alporha, and
Halili, these texts become more than academic materials, they become tools for
rediscovery and empowerment. Pigafetta and Plasencia reveal how outsiders viewed
the islands, while Jacinto and Aguinaldo show how Filipinos saw themselves and
their future. Together, they offer a fuller, more honest picture of who we are as a
people and remind us that the struggle to understand and reclaim our history is part
of the continuing journey of the Filipino nation.
