Chapter 3

Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies

Learning Objectives:
 To interpret historical events using primary sources.
 To recognize the multiplicity of interpretation than can be read from a historical text.
 To identify the advantages and disadvantages of employing critical tools in
interpreting historical events through primary sources.
 To demonstrate ability to argue for or against a particular issue using primary sources.

In this chapter, we will analyze four historiographical problems in Philippine history in an

attempt to apply what we have learned thus far in the work of a historian and the process of
historical inquiry. Earlier, we have been introduced to history as a discipline, the historical
method, and the content and context analysis of primary sources. Two key concepts that need to
be defined before proceeding to the historical analysis of problems in history are interpretation
and multiperspectivity.

Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation

History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary definition is centered on how it
impacts the present through its consequences. 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.
The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic history Maragtas. Before it was
revealed as a hoax, it was a source of pride for the people of Aklan. In fact, a historical marker
was installed in the town of Batan, Aklan in 1956, with the following text:
"CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third Chief of Panay, born in
Aklan, established his government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered
the First Filipino Lawgiver, he promulgated in about 1433 a penal code now known as
Code of Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain,
obtained the original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which was later translated
into Spanish by Rafael Murviedo Yzamaney."
It was only in 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when William Henry Scott, then a doctoral
candidate at the University of Santo Tomas, defended his research on pre-Hispanic sources in
Philippine history. He attributed the code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco
titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de la Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the code itself to a priest
named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent to Scott's findings, but
there are still some who would like to believe that the code is a legitimate document.
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 a
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 students of history, we must be well equipped to
recognize different types of interpretations, why these may differ from each other, and how to
critically sift 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.
"Sa Aking Mga Kabata” is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal when he was eight years
old and is probably one of Rizal's most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the
claim that this poem, with the now immortalized lines "Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang
salita/mahigit sa hayop at malansang isda” was written by Rizal, and worse, the evidence against
Rizal's authorship of the poem seems all unassailable.
There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first published in
1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato
Francisco, who claimed to have received it in 1884 from Rizal's close friend, Saturnino Raselis.
Rizal never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his writings, and more importantly, he
never mentioned of having a close friend by the person of Raselis.
Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful attribution of the poem to Rizal.
The poem was written in Tagalog and referred to the word "kalayaan.” But it was documented in
Rizal's letters that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilar's translation of
Rizal's essay "El Amor Patrio," where it was spelled as "kalayahan."
While Rizal's native tongue was Tagalog, he was educated in Spanish, starting from his mother,
Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would express disappointment in his difficulty in expressing
himself in his native tongue.
The poem's spelling is also suspect—the use of letters “l” and w” to replace “c” and “u,”
respectively was suggested by Rizal as an adult. If the poem was indeed written during his time,
it should use the original Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time.
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 it is 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 can impact
the way we view 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.

Multiperspectivity
With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept that we must
note is multiperspectivity. This 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, what interpretation 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 event. These are just
many of the ways a historian may fail in his historical inference, description, and interpretation.
With multiperspectivity as an approach in history, we must understand that historical
interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and are often the focus of
dissent.
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 sources that counter each other may create space
for more investigation and research, while providing more evidence for those truths that these
sources agree on.
Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths-an official document
may note different aspects of the past than, say, a memoir of an ordinary person on the same
event. Different historical agents create different historical truths, and while this may be a
burdensome work for the historian, it also renders more validity to the historical scholarship.
Taking these in close regard in the reading of historical interpretations, it provides for the
audience a more complex, but also a more complete and richer understanding of the past.

Case Study 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the Philippines?
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, but rather, use it as a historiographical exercise
in the utilization of evidence and interpretation in reading historical events.
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 8 April 1521. The Butuan
claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event.
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. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot of one of
Magellan's ship, Trinidad. He was one of the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano
on the ship Victoria after they circumnavigated the world. The other, and the 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: Albo's Log
Source: “Diario ó derotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo se S. Agustín en el Brazil hasta
el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albo," Document no. xxii in
Colleción de viages y descubrimientos que hicieron por mar los Españoles desde fines del siglo
XV, Ed. Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (reprinted Buenos Aires 1945, 5 Vols.) IV, 191–225. As
cited in Miguel A. Bernad "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.
1. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course from Ladrones, they saw
land towards the northwest; but owing to many shallow places they did not approach it.
They found later that its name was Yunagan.
2. They went instead that same day southwards to another small island named Suluan, and
there they anchored. There they saw some canoes but these fled at the Spaniards'
approach. This island was at 9 and two-thirds degrees North latitude.
3. 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 that 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.)
4. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island named Seilani that was
inhabited and was known to have gold. (Seilani – or, as Pigafetta calls it, "Ceylon” – was
the island of Leyte.)
5. 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 9 and two-thirds
degrees North.
6. The people of that island of Mazava were very good. There the Spaniards planted a cross
upon a mountain-top, and from there they were shown three islands to the west and
southwest, where they were told there was much gold. "They showed us how the gold
was gathered, which came in small pieces like peas and lentils."
7. 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.
8. 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. There they entered a channel between two
islands, one of which was called “Matan" and the other “Subu."
9. They sailed down that channel and then turned westward and anchored at the town (la
villa) of Subu where they stayed many days and obtained provisions and entered into a
peace-pact with the local king.
10. 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 has to go (as they did) in a round-about way.
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, 9°54'N. Also, 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, which also fits the southern end of Limasawa.

Primary Source: Pigafetta's Testimony on the Route of Magellan's Expedition

Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as
cited in Miguel A. Bernad, “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.
1. Saturday, 16 March 1521 – Magellan's expedition sighted a "high land” named "Zamal”
which was some 300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now the Marianas) Islands.
2. Sunday, March 17 – “The following day" after sighting Zamal Island, they landed on
"another island which was uninhabited” and which lay "to the right of the above-
mentioned island of “Zamal.” (To the "right" here would mean on 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 “Humunu” (Homonhon). This island
was located at 10 degrees North latitude.
3. On that same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the entire archipelago the
"Islands of Saint Lazarus," the reason being that it was 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.
4. Monday, March 18 - In the afternoon of their second day on that island, they saw a boat
coming towards them with nine men in it. An exchange of gifts was effected. Magellan
asked for food supplies, and the men went away, promising to bring rice and other
supplies in "four days."
5. There were two springs of water on that island of Homonhon. Also they saw there some
indications that there was gold in these islands. Consequently Magellan renamed the
island and called it the “Watering Place of Good Omen” (Acquada la di bouni segnialli).
6. Friday, March 22 – At noon the natives returned. This time they were in two boats, and
they brought food supplies.
7. Magellan's expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday, March 17, to the
Monday of the following week, March 25.
8. Monday, March 25 - In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor and left the island
of Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (March 25) was the feast-day of the
Incarnation, also called the feast of the Annunciation and therefore "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 grace
obtained through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary on her feast-day.
9. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon was "toward the west
southwest, between four islands: namely, Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson and Albarien.”
Very probably “Cenalo” is a misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what Pigafetta in
his map calls "Ceilon” and Albo calls "Seilani”: namely the island of Leyte.
"Hiunanghan” (a misspelling of Hinunangan) seemed to Pigafetta to be a separate island,
but is actually on the mainland of Leyte (i.e., "Ceylon"). On the other hand, Hibuson
(Pigafetta's Ibusson) is an island east of Leyte's southern tip. Thus, it is easy to see what
Pigafetta meant by sailing “toward the west southwest” past those islands. They left
 Homonhon sailing westward towards Leyte, then followed the Leyte coast southward,
passing between the island of Hibuson on their portside and Hiunangan Bay on their
starboard, and then continued southward, then turning westward to "Mazaua."
10. Thursday, March 28 - In the morning of Holy Thursday, March 28, they anchored off an
island where the previous night they had seen a light or a bonfire. That island "lies in a
latitude of nine and two-thirds towards the Arctic Pole (i.e., North) and in a longitude of
one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of demarcation. It is twenty-five leagues
from the Acquada, and is called Mazaua."
11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island.
12. Thursday, April 4 – They left Mazaua, bound for Cebu. They were guided thither by the
king of Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past five "islands”
namely: "Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan."
13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes Group, namely,
Poro, Pasihan and Ponson. Here the Spanish ships stopped to allow the king of Mazaua 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 of Mazaua.
14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards “Zubu,"
15. Sunday, April 7 - At noon they entered the harbor of "Zubu” (Cebu). It had taken them
three days to negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to the Camotes Islands and
then southwards to Cebu.
It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta's testimonies coincide and corroborate each
other. Pigafetta gave more details on what they did during their weeklong stay at Mazaua.

Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua

Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as
cited in Miguel A. Bernad, “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.
1. Thursday, March 28- In the morning 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
threw some trinkets as presents. The natives paddled away, but two hours later two larger
boats (balanghai) 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. An exchange of gifts was effected. In the afternoon that day,
the Spanish ships weighed anchor and came closer to shore, anchoring near the native
king's village. This Thursday, March 28, was Thursday in Holy Week, i.e., Holy
Thursday.
2. Friday, March 29 – "Next day. Holy Friday,” 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.
 3. 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.
4. Sunday, March 31 – "Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day,"
Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the
morning Magellan landed with some fifty men and 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 they returned 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.
5. Sunday, March 31 - On that same afternoon, while on the summit, of the highest hill,
Magellan asked the two kings which ports he should go to in order to obtain more
abundant supplies of food than were available in that island. They replied that there were
three 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 and to depart the
following morning. He asked for someone to guide him thither. The kings replied that the
pilots would be available “any time.” 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 him men to help with the harvest.
6. Monday, April 1 - Magellan sent men ashore to help with the harvest, but no work was
done that day because the two kings were sleeping off their drinking bout the night
before.
7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday, April 3 - Work on the harvest during the “next to
days," i.e., Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April.
8. Thursday, April 4 – They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.
Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad 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 said river. It is a curious 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.
The Age of Exploration is a period of competition among European rulers to conquer and
colonize lands outside their original domains Initially, the goal was to find alternative routes by
sea to get to Asia, the main source of spices and other commodities. Existing routes to Asia were
mainly by land and cost very expensive. A sea route to Asia means that Europeans could access
the spice trade directly, greatly reducing costs for traders. Spain's major foray into the
exploration was through Christopher Columbus, who proposed to sail westward to find a shortcut
to Asia. He was able to reach the Americas, which was then cut-off from the rest of the known
world. Spain colonized parts of North America, Mexico, and South America in the sixteenth
century. They were also able to reach the Philippines and claim it for the Spanish crown. Later
on, other European rulers would compete with the activities of exploring and conquering lands.
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 describes a
trip in a river. But note that this account already happened after Magellan's death.

Case Study 2: What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?

The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of
the three priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, later on immortalized as
GOMBURZA. These events are very important milestones in Philippine history and have caused
ripples throughout time, directly influencing the decisive events of the Philippine Revolution
toward the end of the century. While the significance is unquestioned, what made this year
controversial are the different sides to the story, a battle of perspectives supported by primary
sources. In this case study, we zoom in to the events of the Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the
awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos of that time.

Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny

The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal centered on how the event
was an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in the Philippines. Although regarded as
a historian, his account of the mutiny was criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a scholar.
Another account from the official report written by then Governor General Rafael Izquierdo
implicated the native clergy, who were then, active in the movement toward secularization of
parishes. These two accounts corroborated each other.

Primary Source: 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, 1990), 269– 273.
The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of exemption
from the tribute was, according to some, the cause of the insurrection. There were, however,
other causes.
The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda carried on by
an unbridled press against monarchical principles, attentatory [sic] of the most sacred respects
towards the dethroned majesty; the democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the
speeches and preachings of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the outbursts of the
American publicists and the criminal policy of the senseless Governor whom the Revolutionary
government sent to govern the Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas were the
determining circumstances which gave rise, among certain Filipinos, to the idea of attaining their
independence. It was towards this goal that they started to work, with the powerful assistance of
a certain section of the native clergy, who out of spite toward friars, made common cause with
the enemies of the mother country.

At various times but especially in the beginning of year 1872, the authorities received
anonymous communications with the information that a great uprising would break out against
the Spaniards, the minute the fleet at Cavite left for the South, and that all would be assassinated,
including the friars. But nobody gave importance 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: 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,
1990), 281–286.

...It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native
clergy, by the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos...

The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice
of the government in not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and against the
usury that some practice in documents that the Finance department gives crop owners
who have to sell them at a loss. They encouraged the rebellion by protesting what they
called the injustice of having obliged the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute
starting January 1 and to render personal service, from which they were formerly
exempted...

Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to establish a

monarchy or a republic, because the Indios have no word in their language to describe
this different form of government, whose head in Filipino would be called hari; but it
turns out that they would place at the head of the government a priest... that the head
selected would be 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.

It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the "revolution": the abolition of
privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from payment of
tribute and being employed in polos y servicios, or force labor. They also identified other reasons
which . seemingly made the issue a lot more serious, which included the presence of the native
clergy, who, out of spite against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels.
Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report, highlighted that attempt to overthrow the Spanish
government in the Philippines to install a new “hari” in the persons of Fathers Burgos and
Zamora. According to him, native clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic
assurance that their fight would not fail because they had God's support, aside from promises of
lofty rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.
In the Spaniard's accounts, the event of 1872 was premeditated, and was part of a big
conspiracy among the educated leaders, mestizos, lawyers, and residents of Manila and Cavite.
They allegedly plan to liquidate highranking Spanish officers, then kill the friars. The signal they
identified among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired from Intramuros.
The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast
of the Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were some fireworks display. The Caviteños allegedly
mistook this as the signal to commence with the attack. The 200-men contingent led by Sergeant
Lamadrid attacked Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal. Izquierdo, upon learning of
the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in - Cavite to quell the revolt. The
"revolution" was easily crushed, when the Manileños who were expected to aid the Caviteños did
not arrive. Leaders of the plot were killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez,
Burgos, and Zamora were tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be executed. Others who
were implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa, and
other Filipino lawyers were suspended from the practice of law, arrested, and sentenced to life
imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and
ordered the creation of an artillery force composed exclusively by Peninsulares.
On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos
never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again.

Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872

Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdo and
Montero. First, the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar
and researcher, who wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera's Account of the Cavite Mutiny
Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, "Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny," in Gregorio Zaide
and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book
Store, 1990), 274– 280.

This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by the Spanish
residents and by the friars... the Central Government in Madrid had announced its intention to
deprive the friars in these islands of powers of intervention in matters of civil government and of
the direction and management of the university... it was due to these facts and promises that the
Filipinos had great hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their country, while the friars, on
the other hand, feared that their power in the colony would soon be complete a thing of the past.
... Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain, and the only
aspiration of the people was to secure the material and education advancement of the country...
 According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and
laborers of the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian policies of
Izquierdo, such as the abolition of privileges and the prohibition of the founding of the school of
arts and trades for Filipinos, which the General saw as a smokescreen to creating a political club.
Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a
way to address other issues by blowing out of proportion the isolated mutiny attempt. During this
time, the Central Government in Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and direction and management of educational
institutions. The friars needed something to justify their continuing dominance in the country,
and the mutiny provided such opportunity.
However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational decree fusing
sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree aimed
to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these
schools to be filled by competitive examinations, an improvement welcomed by most Filipinos.
Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut. complemented Tavera's
account and analyzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut's 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, 1990), 251–268.
General La Torre... created a junta composed of high officials... including some friars and
six Spanish officials.... At the same time there was created by the government in Madrid a
committee to investigate the same problems submitted to the Manila committee. When the two
finished work, it was found that they came to the same conclusions. Here is the summary of the
reforms they considered necessary to introduce:
1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection.
2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
3. Reduction of export fees.
4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy freedom
of worship, and operate commercial transports flying the Spanish flag.
5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in
Madrid on the necessary reforms to be implemented.
6. Changes in primary and secondary education.
7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines, rendering
unnecessary the sending home of short term civil officials every time there is a
change of ministry.
8. Study of direct-tax system.
9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly.

...The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo... put a sudden end to all dreams of
reforms... the prosecutions instituted by the new Governor General were probably
 expected as a result of the bitter disputes between the Filipino clerics and the friars. Such
a policy must really end in a strong desire on the part of the other to repress cruelly.
In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should be in Manila a
Society of Arts and Trades to be opened in March of 1871... to repress the growth of
liberal teachings, General Izquierdo suspended the opening of the school... the day
previous to the scheduled inauguration...
The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public roads construction and pay taxes
every year. But those who were employed at the maestranza of the artillery, in the
engineering shops and arsenal of Cavite, were exempted from this obligation from time
immemorial... Without preliminaries of any kind, a decree by the Governor withdrew
from such old employees their retirement privileges and declassified them into the ranks
of those who worked on public roads.
The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement their dominance,
which had started to show cracks because of the discontent of the Filipinos. They showcased the
mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish
Government. Unintentionally, and more so, prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 resulted in
the martyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way to the revolution culminating in 1898.
The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests Mariano Gomez, Jose
Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, who were tagged as the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They
were prominent Filipino priests charged with treason and sedition. It is believed that the Spanish
clergy connected the priests to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to stifle the movement of
secular priests who desired to have their own parishes instead of being merely assistants to the
regular friars. The GOMBURZA were executed by garrote in public, a scene purportedly
witnessed by a young Jose Rizal. Their martyrdom is widely accepted as the dawn of Philippine
nationalism in the nineteenth century, with Rizal dedicating his second novel, El Filibusterismo,
to their memory:
“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."

Case Study 3: Did Rizal Retract?

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that center on ending
colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute to creating the Filipino nation. The great
volume of Rizal's lifework was committed to this end, particularly the more influential ones,
Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the Catholic religion, but the friars,
the main agents of injustice in the Philippine society.
It is understandable, therefore, that any piece of writing from Rizal that recants
everything he wrote against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines could deal
heavy damage to his image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary. Such document purportedly
exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a few hours before his execution. This document, referred to as
“The Retraction,” declares Rizal's belief in the Catholic faith, and retracts everything he wrote
against the Church.

Primary Source: Rizal's Retraction

Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. on 18 May 1935
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. I believe and I
confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate
Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the
Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public
this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may
have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896
Jose Rizal

There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La Voz
Española and Diario de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896. The second text
appeared in Barcelona, Spain, in the magazine La Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14
February 1897, from an anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be Fr. Vicente Balaguer.
However, the "original” text was only found in the archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935, after
almost four decades of disappearance.

The Balaguer Testimony

Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only one eyewitness
account of the writing of the document exists—that of the Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer.
According to his testimony, Rizal woke up several times, confessed four times, attended a Mass,
received communion, and prayed the rosary, all of which seemed out of character. But since it is
the only testimony of allegedly a "primary" account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction document,
it has been used to argue the authenticity of the document.

The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the research of Professor Rene R.
Escalante. In his research, documents of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia included a report on the last
hours of Rizal, written by Federico Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de
Vigilancia to Moreno.
Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal
Source: Michael Charleston Chua, “Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at
Pananaw," GMA News Online, published 29 December 2016.
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 Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and
moments after entering, he was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the Assistant of the
Plaza, Señor 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 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 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.
At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison ... 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.
This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving it credence.
However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which makes the friar a mere
secondary source to the writing of the document.
The retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many scholars, however, agree
that the document does not tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His relevance remained solidified to
Filipinos and pushed them to continue the revolution, which eventually resulted in independence
in 1898.

Rizal's Connection to the Katipunan is undeniable in fact, the precursor of the Katipunan as an
organization is the La Liga Filipina, an organization Rizal founded, with Andres Bonifacio as
one of its members. But La Liga Filipina was short-lived as the Spaniards exiled Rizal to
Dapitan. Former members decided to band together to establish the Katipunan a few days after
Rizal's exile on 7 July 1892. Rizal may not have been officially part of the Katipunan, but the
Katipuneros showed great appreciation of his work toward the same goals. Out of the 28
members of the leadership of the Katipunan (known as the Kataas-taasang Sanggunian ng
Katipunan) from 1892 to 1896, 13 were former members of La Liga Filipina. Katipuneros even
used Rizal's name as a password. In 1896, the Katipuneros decided to inform Rizal of their plans
to launch the revolution, and sent Pio Valenzuela to visit Rizal in Dapitan. Valenzuela's accounts
of his meeting with Rizal have been greatly doubted by many scholars, but according to him,
Rizal objected to the plans, saying that doing so would be tantamount to suicide since it would be
difficult to fight the Spaniards who had the advantage of military resources. He added that the
leaders of the Katipunan must do everything they could to prevent the spilling of Filipino blood.
Valenzuela informed Rizal that the revolution could inevitably break out if the Katipunan were
to be discovered by the Spaniards. Rizal advised Valenzuela that the Katipunan should first
secure the support of wealthy Filipinos to strengthen their cause, and suggested that Antonio
Luna be recruited to direct the military movement of the revolution.

Case Study 4: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?

Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late nineteenth century, including
the Philippines. Journalists of the time referred to the phrase "El Grito de Rebelion" or "Cry of
Rebellion” to mark the start of these revolutionary events, identifying the places where it
happened. In the Philippines, this happened in August 1896, northeast of Manila, where they
declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial government. These events are important markers
in the history of colonies that struggled for their independence against their colonizers.
The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of the date and place
where the Cry happened. Prominent Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncillo emphasizes the event
when Bonifacio tore the cedula or tax receipt before the Katipuneros who also did the same.
Some writers identified the first military event with the Spaniards as the moment of the Cry, for
which, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned an “Himno de Balintawak” to inspire the renewed
struggle after the Pact of the Biak-na-Bato failed. A monument to the Heroes of 1896 was
erected in what is now the intersection of Epifanio de los Santos (EDSA) Avenue and Andres
Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion road, and from then on until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was
celebrated every 26th of August. The site of the monument was chosen for an unknown reason.
Different Dates and Places of the Cry
Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz,
identified the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 25 August 1896. Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino
historian, marks the place to be in Kangkong, Balintawak, on the last week of August 1896.
Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, leader of the Magdiwang faction in
Cavite, put the Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on 24 August 1896. Pio Valenzuela, known
Katipunero and privy to many events concerning the Katipunan stated that the Cry happened in
Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to have happened
in Balintawak on 26 August 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo put it at Pugad Lawin on 23 August
1896, according to statements by Pio Valenzuela. Research by historians Milagros Guerrero,
Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas claimed that the event took place in Tandang
Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City, on 24 August 1896.
Primary Source: Accounts of the Cry Guillermo Masangkay
Source: Guillermo Masangkay, “Cry of Balintawak” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990),
307–309.
On August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio
Samson, then cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who attended, I remember,
were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remigio, Briccio Pantas,
Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They were all
leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the organization.
Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong were also present.
At about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting was opened with
Andres Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The purpose was to
discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio
Valenzuela were all opposed to starting the revolution too early... Andres Bonifacio,
sensing that he would lose in the discussion then, left the session hall and talked to the
people, who were waiting outside for the result of the meeting of the leaders. He told the
people that the leaders were arguing against starting the revolution early, and appealed to
them in a fiery speech in which he said: “You remember the fate of our countrymen who
were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only
shoot us. Our organization has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don't
start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you say?"
"Revolt!" the people shouted as one.
Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told
them that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax charged each
citizen. "If it is true that you are ready to revolt... I want to see you destroy your cedulas.
It will be a sign that all of us have declared our severance from the Spaniards."

Pio Valenzuela
Source: Pio Valenzuela, “Cry of Pugad Lawin," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990),
301-302.
The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio,
Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the first five arriving
there on August 19, and I, on August 20, 1896. The first place where some 500 members
of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson at
Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who were there were
Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others.
Here, views were only exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It was at
Pugad Lawin, the house, store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino,
where over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable debate and
discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the revolution
against the Spanish government should be started on August 29, 1896... After the
 tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted
“Long live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!"

From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed marked disagreement among
historical witnesses as to the place and time of the occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and
secondary sources, four places have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and
Bahay Toro, while the dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26 August 1896.
Valenzuela's account should be read with caution: He once told a Spanish investigator
that the “Cry” happened in Balintawak on Wednesday, 26 August 1896. Much later, he wrote in
his Memoirs of the Revolution that it happened at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Such
inconsistencies in accounts should always be seen as a red flag when dealing with primary
sources.
According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are in Balintawak,
then part of Caloocan, now, in Quezon City. As for the dates, Bonifacio and his troops may have
been moving from one place to another to avoid being located by the Spanish government, which
could explain why there are several accounts of the Cry.

References
Alvarez, S. (1998). Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General. Quezon City: Ateneo
de Manila University Press. Bernad, M. A. (1981).
“Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of
Evidence.” Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35. Chua, M. C. (2016).
“Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at Pananaw." In GMA News Online.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/ lifestyle/artandculture/594027/retraction-ni-jose-rizal-mga-
bagong dokumento-at-pananaw/story/ Retrieved 18 October 2017.
Phelan, P., & Reynolds, P. (1996). Argument and Evidence: Critical Analysis for the Social
Sciences. London: Routledge.
Pigafetta, A. (1969). First Voyage Around the World. Manila: Filipiniana
Book Guild. Zaide, G., & Zaide, S. (1990). Documentary Sources of Philippine History.12
Vols. Manila: National Book Store.