Topic: The Meaning and Relevance Of History Definition, Issues, Sources, &

Methodology

This chapter introduces history as a discipline and as a narrative. It presents the definition of
history, which transcends the conventional definition of history as the study of the past. This chapter
also discusses several issues in history that consequently open up for the theoretical aspects of the
discipline. The distinction between primary and secondary sources is also discussed concerning the
historical subject matter being studied and the historical methodology employed by the historian.
Since the beginning History has always been known as a study of the past. History was originally
derived from the Greek word historia, which means “knowledge acquired through inquiry or
investigation.” History, as a discipline, existed for 2,400 years and is as old as mathematics and
philosophy. This term was then adapted to classical Latin, where it acquired a new definition. Historia
became known as the account of a person's past or a group of people through written documents
and historical shreds of evidence.
History became a relevant academic discipline. It became the historian's duty to write about the
lives of significant individuals like monarchs, heroes, saints, and nobilities. History was also focused on
writing about wars, revolutions, and other significant breakthroughs. It is thus important to ask: What
counts as history? Traditional historians have always lived with the mantra of “no document, no
history.” This means that unless a written document can prove a particular historical event, then it
cannot be considered as a historical fact.
However, like any other academic discipline, history progressed and opened up to valid historical
sources, which were not limited to written documents, like government records, chronicler's accounts,
or personal letters.

Why study history? "A future with your past."

History will give you a combination of insights and skills that will help you to:
➢ prepare you for work
➢ Enable you to participate fully in society
➢ Develop you as a person. -John Redmond, 1893
➢ History is very relevant to modern life.
➢ Historical events inspire • Many books, films, and play
➢ A lot of people enjoy history as a hobby, as indicated in the popularity of history books,
documentaries, and films. -Michael Collins Arthur Griffith
➢ History also aids us in understanding many issues that presently affects the world
➢ By widening your knowledge of current affairs, you develop yourself personally, and prepare
yourself more fully for adult and working life.
➢ History is unique since it investigates how human life and its environment have changed with
time.
➢ History allows one to develop his understanding of change through the perspectives of political,
social, cultural, economic, religious, and scientific history. -Michael Collins, Apollo 11
Relevance to our life
➢ develops an appreciation of the society in which you live and other societies, past and present.
➢ develops a greater awareness of your own identity and traditions.
➢ learns more about the particular role of women in shaping the past. – Mary Robinson Hanna
Sheehy Skeffington
Questions and Issues in History
History as a discipline has already turned into a complex and dynamic inquiry. This dynamism
inevitably produced various perspectives on the discipline regarding different questions like: What is
history? Why study history? And history for whom. These questions can be answered by historiography.
In simple terms, historiography is the history of history. History and historiography should not be
confused with each other. The former's object of study in the past, the events that happened in the
past, and the causes of such events. The latter's object of study, on the other hand, is history itself
(i.e., How was a particular historical text was written? Who wrote it? What was the context of its
publication? What particular historical methods were employed? were the sources used?).
Thus, historiography lets the students have a better understanding of history. They not only get to learn
historical facts, but they are also provided with an understanding of the facts and the historian's
contexts.

Historical Schools of Thought

1. Positivism - is the school of thought that emerged between the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. This thought requires empirical and observable evidence before one can claim that
particular knowledge is right. It entails an objective means of concluding. The mantra “no
document, no history” and also expected to be objective and impartial.

2. Postcolonialism – is a school of thought that emerged in the early twentieth century.

Postcolonial history looks at two things in writing history: 1. to expose the history of their country
that will highlight their identity free from colonial knowledge and discourse, and 2. to criticize
the idea, effects, and methods of colonialism. It is a reaction and alternative to colonial history.

3. Annales School of History – is a school of history that originated in France that challenged
canons of history. This school of thought made its way with the usual historical subjects that
were at most always related to the ways of states and monarchs. They advocated that the
people and classes who were not grandly reflected in society's history be provided with
space in the records of humanity.
Historical Sources
In general, historical sources can be classified as either primary or secondary sources. The
classification of sources on these two categories depends on the historical subject being studied.
Primary sources of history are those sources produced at the same time as the event, period,
or subject being studied. For example, the Commonwealth Constitution Convention of 1935 - primary
sources can include the minutes of the convention, Philippine Commission reports of the U.S.
Commissioners, records of the convention, the draft of the Constitution, newspaper clippings, and even
photographs of the events. Eyewitness accounts of the convention delegates and their memoirs are
also be used as primary sources. Archival documents, artifacts, census, memorabilia, letters, and
government records are the most common examples of primary sources.
Examples: Diaries/Journals, Letters, Speeches, Newspapers, Art/Artifacts
Secondary sources are sources produced by an author who used primary sources to produce
the materials. Secondary sources history are historical sources, which studied a particular historical
subject. For example, in the Philippine Revolution of 1896 - students can read Teodoro Agoncillo's
Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan published initially been in 1956. The
Philippine Revolution happened in the last years of the nineteenth century. Agoncillo published his
work in 1956, which made the Revolt of the Masses a secondary source.
Examples: Textbooks, Articles, Websites, Movies, School reports/essays

Both primary and secondary sources are useful in writing and learning history. However, historians and
students of history need to thoroughly scrutinize these historical sources to avoid deception and to
come up with the historical truth.
Therefore, primary and secondary sources should be evaluated. Suppose the evaluation of an
available source shows any indication that it is an interpretative work rather than a factual firsthand
account. In that case, it is considered a secondary source. Thus, in conducting historical research, it is
essential first to identify whether the available sources are primary or secondary; this is to determine
how reliable and helpful they are.

Instructions: Write PS if the item is a primary source, SS if it is a secondary source, and N if it is

neither of the two sources.
1. Philippine History textbooks
2. Annual reports of the governor general
3. Memoirs
4. Paintings
5. Photo exhibit
6. Artifacts and relics
7. Editorial cartoons
8. Documentary reports
9. Newspaper clippings
10. Online journal articles

Topic: EVALUATION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES

This chapter explains how to evaluate primary and secondary source materials. This also
elaborates on the primacy of primary sources over secondary sources—the external and internal
criticism. Also, this presents the different points of consideration in analyzing both types of sources.
Ultimately, this chapter also tackles the historian's task as the arbiter of facts and shreds of evidence
in making his interpretation and forming a historical narrative.
It is already common knowledge in the academe that both primary and secondary sources are
essential in fleshing out the details of significant events in history. However, classifying a source as
primary or secondary has never been an easy task. Nevertheless, the primacy of primary over
secondary sources has always been recognized. This is because a primary source provides better and
more accurate historical details compared to a secondary source. However, the authenticity and
reliability of primary sources should be scrutinized before they are used.

Historical Sources
In this present day and age, the proliferation of fake news is evident in print and digital media
platforms. Thus, it becomes more apparent that sources of texts should be scrutinized for their
credibility. However, in a nation where there is minimal documentation of oral history, it is complicated
to trace the primary sources of many written historical records that can help understand the relevance
of historical events in addressing contemporary social issues.
 Although primacy is given to primary sources, there are instances when the credibility of these sources
is contestable. Garraghan (1950) identified six points of inquiries to evaluate the authenticity of a
primary source:

1. Date – When was it produced?

2. Localization – Where did it originate?
3. Authorship – Who wrote it?
4. Analysis – What pre-existing materials served as the basis for its production?
5. Integrity – What was its original form?
6. Credibility – What is the evidential value of its content?
The absence of primary documents that can attest to any historical claim's accuracy is a problem
in the extensive study of history. In that sense, the significance of secondary sources should not be
discredited. Secondary sources are readily available in print and digital repositories. Secondary
accounts of historical events are narratives commonly passed on from one generation to the next or
knowledge that is shared within the community. Nevertheless, similar to the usual problem with passing
information from one point to another, details can be altered. As information is relayed from person to
person, the accuracy of the source material is compromised. Nevertheless, secondary source materials
in the study of Philippines history without conjectures and refutations can fill in gaps caused by the lack
of primary sources.
Both primary and secondary sources of history are useful in writing and learning history. Through
these sources, the historian should be able to conduct an external and internal criticism of the source,
especially primary sources that can age in centuries.
External criticism is defined as the practice of verifying the authenticity of evidence by
investigating its physical characteristics, consistent with the historical characteristics of the time
produced, and the materials used for the evidence. Examples when conducting external criticism of a
document include the type of the paper, the kind of the ink, and the words and language and words
used in the material

It is said that the 'External Criticism' is of a less intellectual type of criticism of the documents. It
includes the investigation of documents like books, inscriptions, manuscripts, pamphlets, maps, and
monuments. The problem of authenticity of documents is more in the case of manuscripts than the
printed documents. The editor has already authenticated the printed document.
Historians have to resort to several tests to determine the authenticity of a particular document
in his proposed research area, such as— 'Authorship’; the first question while examining the
authenticity of a document is its author. Even anonymous writings can provide us useful and essential
knowledge. However, the discovery of an author's or writer's name adds the authenticity of the
information because the behavior, connections, and trustworthiness of the historians determine the
authenticity of its work.
Secondly, "Date of Document," or the time and place of publication of the document, must be
inquired to determine the document's authenticity. In today's publications, the year and the place of
publication are written on the title page or backside (overleaf) of the book or document. However, in
the previous (old) manuscript where the data and place are missing, it can be found from the language
or the date of birth and death of the author.
Lastly, the historian confronts the textual errors, which may be either unintentional or
deliberately committed. This unintentional error can occur in the copies of the documents (originals are
not available). These common mistakes may be caused by the scribe, typist, or printer.
 Internal criticism is the examination of the truthfulness of
the evidence. It looks at the content of the source and examines
the circumstance of its production. Internal criticism looks at the
truthfulness and factuality of the evidence by looking at the author
of the source, its content, the agenda behind its creation, the
knowledge that informed it, and its intended purpose.
While gathering the material, one must remember that a
document is composed of the wide ideas of the writer. A historian
or writer must analyze the contents of the documents to
determine the actual meaning. He must try to avoid the lapses
such as avoid the reading into meaning, which the author does
not mean to convey, etc., and make an effort to discover the facts even if they are against his set
notions and theories.
He must understand the literal and real meaning of the document, which is termed as 'Positive
Criticism.' It tells us the author's conceptions and general notion, which he represents. However,
historian sometimes comes across documents which contradict each other. Hence the need for
eliminating statements and facts which are wrong and false arises.
What source of information was used, and how much time elapsed between the event and the
record? However, the dependable testimony depends on factors likeability and willingness to reveal the
truth, how accurate is the report, and whether corroboration is independent or not. However, take note
that there is a possibility that a skillful liar may deliberately create the condition, such as, capability and
willingness to tell the truth with accuracy to establish the credibility of his statements. Therefore, in
those cases, credibility must not be accepted without proper investigation. Moreover, suppose there is
an agreement between documents. In that case, we cannot conclude that the facts are definitive.
However, we must ensure that the facts are harmonious and prove that each other are interconnected.
One of the most controversial cases of deception in Philippine history is the hoax Code of
Kalantiaw. This code was a set of rules in an epic, Maragtas, which was allegedly written by a certain
Datu Kalantiaw. Many historians believed that this code has been a hoax and that it had been written
and published in 1913 by Jose E. Marco as a part of his historical fiction Las antiguas Leyenda de la
Isla de Negros (English: The Ancient Legends of the Island of Negros), which was attributed to a priest
named Jose Maria Pavon. The document was sold to the National Library. It was regarded as an
essential precolonial document until 1968 when American historian William Henry Scott debunked the
authenticity of the code because of anachronism and lack of evidence to prove that it existed in the pre-
colonial Philippine society.
Another, Ferdinand Marcos also claimed that he was a decorated World War 11 soldier who led
a guerrilla unit called Ang Maharlika. Students widely believed this of history, and Marcos had war
medals to show. However, this claim was disproven when historians counterchecked Marcos's claims
with the war records of the United States. These cases prove how deceptions can propagate without
rigorous historical research.
The historian's task is to look at the available historical sources and select the most relevant and
meaningful for history and the subject matter that he is studying. Also, to organize the past that is being
created so that it can offer lessons for nations, societies, and civilization. It is the historian's job to seek
the meaning of recovering the past from letting the people see the continuing relevance of provenance,
memory, remembering, and historical understanding for both the present and the future.
Topic: Content And Contextual Analysis Of Selected Primary Sources In
Philippine History
Direction. Write true if the statement is true. Otherwise, write false. Write your answer on the space
provided before the number.
1. The First Voyage Around the World by Ferdinand Magellan was published after Antonio
Pigafetta returned to Italy.
2. Pigafetta’s travelogue is one of the most important primary sources in the study of the pre-
colonial Philippines.
3. The chronicle of Pigafetta was the only documents cited by historians who wished to study
the pre-colonial Philippines
4. The Kartilya can be treated as the Katipunan's code of conduct. It has fourteen rules that
instruct the way a Katipunero should behave and values.
5. Kartilya ng Katipunan is considered one of the most important Katipunan documents.
In this chapter, we will look at several primary sources from different historical periods, evaluate
these documents' content in terms of historical value, and examine the context of their production.
These sources range from chronicles, official documents, speeches, and cartoons to visual arts. The
primary sources that we will scrutinize are Emilio Jacinto's "Kartilya ng Katipunan," and Antonio
Pigafetta’s First Voyage Around the World. Different types of sources necessitate different kinds of
analysis and contain different levels of importance.
"First Voyage Around the World" of Antonio Pigafetta and Emilio Jacinto's "Kartilya ng
Katipunan."
The historian's primary tool of understanding and interpreting the past is the historical sources.
Historical sources ascertain historical facts. Such facts are then analyzed and interpreted by the
historian to weave the historical narrative. Writers and historians who study certain historical subjects
and events need to use various primary sources to weave the narrative. Primary sources, as discussed
in the preceding chapter, consisting of documents, memoirs, accounts, and other materials produced
at the period of the event or subject being studied.
A Summary of the First Voyage Around the World by Ferdinand Magellan by Antonio Pigafetta
Antonio Pigafetta, an Italian nobleman, accompanied Ferdinand Magellan in his fateful
circumnavigation of the world. Pigafetta’s travelogue is one of the most important primary sources in
the study of the pre-colonial Philippines. His account was also a significant contribution to the events
leading to the arrival of Magellan in the Philippines, his encounter with local leaders, and his death in
the hands of Lapulapu’s forces in the Battle of Mactan. Pigafetta’s account was also written from the
perspective of Pigafetta himself. It was a product of the context of its production. After Pigafetta
returned to Italy, The First Voyage Around the World by Magellan was published.
Ferdinand Magellan
❖ According to Pigafetta’s account, their fleet reached what he called the Ladrones Islands or
the Ïslands of the Thieves.” The Ladrones Islands is presently known as the Marians Islands.
These islands are located south-southeast of Japan, west-southwest of Hawaii, north of New
Guinea, and east of the Philippines.
 ❖ Pigafetta reported that they reached the isle of Zamal, now Samar. However, Magellan decided
to land on another uninhabited island for greater security. On March 18, after resting for a few
days, nine men came to them. They showed joy and eagerness in seeing them.
❖ Magellan realized that the men were hospitable and welcomed them with food, drinks, and gifts.
In turn, the natives gave them fish, palm wine, figs, and two couches. With so much amazement
and fascination, Pigafetta detailed the palm tree, that bore fruits named cocho, and wine. He
also described the tree as a coconut.
❖ Pigafetta characterized the people as "very hospitable and amiable." The people willingly and
proudly showed them the place which was composed of so many islands.
❖ The fleet sailed to Humunu Island (Homonhon) and referred to this island as the "Watering
Place of Good Signs.” It was also in this place that Pigafetta discovered the first signs of gold
on the island. Before they leave, Pigafetta named the island "Archipelago of St. Lazarus.
❖ On March 25th, Pigafetta recounted that they say two balanghai (balangay), a longboat full of
people in Mazzava/Mazaua. Magellan declined when he was offered a bar of gold and a chest
of ginger by the king of the balangay. Through the interpreter, Magellan asked the king for
money for his ships' needs and explained that he came to the island as a friend and not as an
enemy.
Ferdinand Magellan (1519 -1521)
❖ Magellan offered gifts of robes in Turkish fashion, red caps, and gave the people knives and
mirrors. He boasted of his men in armor who could not be struck with swords and daggers. He
also showed the king his weapons, helmets, and artilleries.
❖ The king introduced his brother, who was also a king on another island, to Magellan. When they
went to the island, Pigafetta reported that they saw mines of gold. The gold was abundant
because parts of the ship and the second king's house were made of gold.
❖ The king was named Raia Calambu, king of Zuluan and Calagan (Butuan and Caragua), and
the first king was Raia Siaga.
❖ On March 31st, which happened to be Easter Sunday, Magellan ordered the chaplain to preside
a Mass by the shore. When the mass was over, Magellan ordered that the cross be brought with
nails and crown in place.
❖ The king agreed and allowed Magellan's men to plant the cross. This Mass is considered in
history as the first Mass in the Philippines, and the cross was named the Magellan's Cross still
preserved at the present day
First Mass in the Philippines
❖ After seven days, Magellan and his men decided to move and look for islands where they could
acquire more supplies and provisions. They learned of Ceylon's islands (Leyte), Bohol, and
Zzubu (Cebu) and intended to go there.
❖ On April 7th of the same year, Magellan and his men reached the port of Cebu. The king of
Cebu, through Magellan’s interpreter, demanded that they pay tribute as it was customary, but
Magellan refused.
❖ The following day, Magellan spoke before the people of Cebu about peace and God. Pigafetta
reported that the people took pleasure in Magellan's Speech. Magellan preached about their
faith further, and people were reportedly convinced.
❖ Pigafetta wrote that their men were overjoyed seeing that the people wanted to become
Christians willingly and that they did it out of their free will and were not forced or intimidated.
 ❖ On the 14th of April, Magellan convinced the king to be a good Christian by worshipping the
cross and burning the idols of Cebu to worship the cross instead. He was then baptized as a
Christian.
❖ On the 26th of April, Magellan was asked by Zula, a principal man from the island of Mactan,
for a boat full of men so that he could fight the chief of Mactan named Silapulapu (Lapulapu).
❖ Magellan offered three boats instead and expressed his desire to go to Mactan himself to fight
the said chief. It was daylight when the forces of Magellan arrived in Mactan. Magellan's men
were only 49 while those on the island of Mactan were estimated to be 1,500.
❖ The islanders, perceiving that the bodies of the enemies were protected with armors, aimed for
their legs instead. Magellan lost the battle and died from a poisoned arrow pierced in his right
leg.
The Battle of Mactan
❖ Pigafeta also said that the king of Cebu, who was baptized, could have sent. However, Magellan
instructed him not to join the battle and stay in the balangay and watch the battle. To retrieve
Magellan's body.
❖ The king offered the people of Mactan gifts of any value and amount in exchange but the Mactan
chief refused to claim that they wanted the body of Magellan to serve as a memento of their
victory. Duarte Barbosa was then elected by Magellan's men as the new captain.
Analysis of Pigafetta’s Chronicle
The chronicle of Pigafetta is considered one of the most cited documents by historians who
wished to study the pre-colonial Philippines. Being one of the earliest written accounts, Pigafetta was
seen as a credible source for a period before being unchronicled and undocumented. Being considered
as the earliest detailed documentation, it was believed that Pigafetta’s writings account for the "purest"
pre-colonial society. Pigafetta’s work is of great importance in the study and writing of Philippine history.
The reader needs to understand that, in the case of Pigafetta, he was a chronicle assigned by
the King of Spain to document and accompany a voyage intended to expand the Spanish empire.
Pigafetta was also of noble descent who came from a wealthy family in Italy. In reading Pigafetta’s
description of the people, one must keep in mind that he was coming from the sixteenth-century
European perspective. Therefore, the reader might observe how Pigafetta, whether explicitly or
implicitly, saw how inferior to that of Christianity and the Europeans the indigenous belief systems and
way of life is. He would always remark on the natives' nakedness and how he was amazed by the
native's exotic culture. He also noticeably emphasized the natives' amazement and illiteracy to the
European artillery, merchandise, and other goods.
Similarly, Pigafetta repeatedly mentioned the abundance of spices like ginger and precious
metals like gold. Pigafetta based his observations and assessments of the indigenous cultures on
European standards. Pigafetta’s perspective was too narrow. He didn't realize that such attire was only
appropriate to the tropical climate of the islands.
It should be understood that such observations were based on the context of Pigafetta and his
era. Other belief systems that differ from that of Christianity were perceived to be blasphemous and
barbaric, even demonic. Aside from this, the sixteenth-century European economy was mercantilist.
The obsession with spices might be odd for Filipinos because of its ordinariness in the Philippines, but
understanding the context would reveal that spices were scarce in Europe and were seen as prestige
goods. In that era, Spain and Portugal coveted the Spice Islands' control because it would have led to
a particular increase in wealth, influence, and power. These contexts should be used and understood
to have a more qualified reading of Pigafetta’s account.
The KKK and the “Kartilya ng Katipunan”
The organization Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalangan Katipunan ng Mga Anak ng Bayan (KKK), or
Katipunan is considered ostensibly the most imperative association that shaped the history of the
Philippines. While being hostile to associations, frontier developments, and endeavors had just been
built up hundreds of years before the creation of the Katipunan; it was just this association that imagined
the accompanying; 1. A united Filipino nation would revolt against the Spaniards for the country's total
independence from Spain. 2. Previous armed revolts had already occurred before the foundation of
the Katipunan. However, not one of them dreamed of a unified Filipino nation would revolt against
the colonizers.
Katipunan formed a complex structure and a defined value system that would guide the organization
as a collection aspiring for a single goal. The Kartilya ng Katipunan is one of the critical Katipunan
documents. Manga Aral Nang Katipunan" was the original title of the document. Emilio Jacinto wrote
the document in the year 1896. Jacinto joined the movement at the age of 18 years old. He was then
a law student at the Universidad de Santo Tomas. Despite his youth, Bonifacio recognized Jacinto's
value and intellect so much so that upon seeing that the Kartilya created by Jacinto was better than the
one he wrote, he immediately favored that the so-called Kartilya be dispensed to their co-Katipuneros.
Jacinto was assigned as the secretary of the organization and took charge of the short-lived printing
press of the Katipunan. Bonifacio created an underground secret society using secret passwords and
codes called the Katipunan in 1892. Kataas-taasang, Kagalang-galangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng
Bayan(Supreme and Venerable Society of the Children of the Nation) furnished the rallying point for
the people's agitation for freedom, independence, and equality.
Katipunan
The Kartilla can be treated as the Katipunan's code of conduct. It contains fourteen rules
that instruct how a Katipunero should behave, and which specific values he should uphold. Generally,
the rules stated in the Kartilya can be classified into two. The first group contains the rules that will
make the member an upright individual, and the second group contains the rules that will guide the way
he treats his fellow men.
MGA ARAL NG KARTILYA NG KATIPUNAN (The Katipunan Code of Conduct)
1. A life that is not hallowed to a lofty and reasonable purpose is a tree without a shade, if not a
poisonous weed.
2. To do good for one's gain and not for its own sake is not a virtue.
3. It is rational to be charitable and love one's fellow-creature and to adjust one's conduct, acts,
and words to what is in itself reasonable.
4. Whether our skin is white or black, we are all born equal: superiority in knowledge, wealth, and
beauty are to be understood, but not superiority by nature.
5. The honorable man prefers honor to personal gain, the scoundrel, gain to honor.
6. To the honorable man, his word is sacred.
7. Do not waste thy time: wealth can be regained but not time lost.
8. Defend the oppressed and fight the oppressor before the law or in the field.
9. The prudent man is sparing in words and faithful in keeping secrets.
10. On the thorny path of life, man is the guide of a woman ("parents") and the offsprings, and if the
guide leads to the precipice, those he guides will also go there.
3rd Grade: Bayani (Patriot) Red mask. Rizal 2nd Grade: Kawal (Soldier) Green mask. GOM-BUR-ZA
1st Grade: Katipunan (Associate) Black mask. Anak ng Bayan (Sons of the People)
 11. You should not look upon woman as a mere plaything, but as a faithful partner who will share
with you the sufferings of life; her (physical) weakness will increase your interest in her, and she
will remind you of the mother who bore you and reared you.
12. What you do not desire to do unto your wife, children, brothers, and sisters that do not come
unto the wife, children, brothers and sisters of thy neighbor.
13. Man is worth more not because he is a king, not because his nose is aquiline, and his color is
not white, because he is a priest, a servant of God, or because of the high status that he enjoys
in life, but he is worth most who is a human being of verified and true value, who makes good,
keeps his promises, is worthy and honest; he who is not oppressed nor consent to be
oppressed, he who loves and cherishes his fatherland, though he is born in the wilderness and
knows no tongue his own.
14. When the rules of conduct shall be known to everybody, the longed-for sun of Liberty shall rise
brilliantly over this most unhappy portion of the globe. The rays shall disperse everlasting joy on
the coalesced brethren of the same rays, the lives of those who are no longer here, the fatigues,
and the well-paid sufferings. If anyone who wishes to join (the Katipunan) has infused himself
of all this and believes he will be able to do what will be his duties, he may fill out the application
for admission.
As the primary governing document, which determines the rules of conduct in the Katipunan,
correctly understanding the Kartilya will help understand the values, ideals, aspirations, and even the
ideology of the organization.
Analysis of the “Kartilya ng Katipunan”
As a document is written for a fraternity whose primary objective is to overthrow a colonial
regime, the content and provisions of the Kartilya can be discussed as a reaction and response to a
particular value system that they found despicable in the present state of things that they struggled
against with. The fourth and the thirteenth rules in the Kartilya are an invocation of the inherent equality
among men regardless of occupation, race, or status. In the context of the Spanish colonial era where
the indios were treated as inferior to the white Europeans, the Katipunan saw to it that the alternative
order that they wished to promulgate through their revolution necessarily destroyed this kind of unjust
hierarchy.
Equality, tolerance, freedom, and liberty were values that emerged in the eighteenth century French
Revolution, which spread throughout Europe and reached the educated class of the colonies. Various
provisions in the Kartilya repeatedly emphasized the importance of honor in words and actions. The
teaching of the Katipunan on how women should be treated with honor and respect, while positive in
many respects and certainly a significant stride from the practice of raping and physically abusing
women, can still tell the Katipunan's secondary regard for women concerning men. It can be debated
that Katipunan's recognition of women as essential teammates in the struggle, as indicated not just in
Kartilya but also in the organizational structure of the fraternity where a women unit was established,
is an endeavor advanced for its time.
The Kartilya was instructive not just of the Katipunan's conduct toward other people, but also for the
members' development as individuals in their rights. The rules of the Kartilya can be classified as either
directed to how one should treat his neighbor or to how one should develop and conduct oneself. The
kartilya’s teaching on honoring one's word and not wasting time are teachings directed towards self-
development. At the same time, the rules on treating the neighbor's wife, children, and brother the way
you want yours to be treated are instructions on how Katipuneros should treat and regard their
neighbors.
Topic: Content and Contextual Analysis of Selected Primary Sources In Philippine
History
Historical sources, which ascertain historical facts are the primary tool of understanding and
interpreting the past. Those facts are then analyzed and interpreted by the historian to weave the
historical narrative. Historians who study certain historical subjects and events need to use various
primary sources to weave the narrative. Primary sources, as discussed in the preceding chapter,
consisting of documents, memoirs, accounts, and other materials produced at the period of the event
or subject being studied.
In this chapter, we will look at one primary source from different historical periods, evaluate these
documents' content in terms of historical value, and examine the context of their production. These
primary sources range from official documents, chronicles, speeches, and cartoons to visual arts.
Different types of sources necessitate different kinds of analysis and contain different levels of
importance.
The primary source that we are going to examine is the Act of the Declaration of Philippine
Independence, authored by Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista. It also mentions the different aspects of the
actual declaration, such as the national anthem and the waving of the national flag.
Reading the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence”
On June 12, 1898, in Cavite II el Viejo (now Kawit, Cavite), Philippine, the Philippine Declaration of
Independence was proclaimed. Because of the public reading of the Act of the Declaration of
Independence, the Filipino revolutionary forces under the leadership of General Emilio Aguinaldo
proclaimed the sovereignty and independence of the Philippine Islands from the colonial rule of Spain.
On this day, June 12, 1898, Independence was declared at around four and five in the evening in
Cavite at the house of General Emilio Aguinaldo. This occasion saw the following: 1) the spreading out
of the National Flag of the Philippines, which was created in Hong Kong by Marcela Agoncillo, Lorenza
Agoncillo, & Delfina Herboza, and 2) the execution of the Marcha Filipina Magdalo, as the national song
of praise, now known as Lupang Hinirang. Julian Felipe was the one who created the Lupang Hinirang
while the San Francisco de Malabon marching band played the song.
It was Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista who organized, wrote, and read in Spanish the "Act of the
Declaration of Independence". The Declaration was then signed by 98 people, among them an
American army officer who witnessed the proclamation. The last passage expresses that there was a
"stranger" (stranger in English translation — strangers in the original Spanish, meaning foreigner) who
joined the proceedings, Mr. L. M. Johnson, described as "a citizen of the U.S.A, a Coronel of Artillery.
However, the proclamation of Philippine independence was propagated on 1 August, when a lot
of towns had already been organized under the rules laid down by the Dictatorial Government of
General Aguinaldo. Later at Malolos, Bulacan, the Malolos Congress modified the Declaration upon the
determination of Apolinario Mabini, who objected that the original proclamation fundamentally placed
the Philippines under the protection of the United States.
The statement was introduced with a portrayal of the conditions in the Philippines amid the
Spanish frontier time frame. The report particularly said misuse and disparities in the province. The
affirmation says:
“…taking into consideration, that their inhabitants being already weary of bearing the ominous yoke of
Spanish domination, on account of the arbitrary arrests and harsh treatment practiced by the Civil
Guard to the extent of causing death with the connivance and even with the express orders of their
commanders, who sometimes went to the extreme of ordering the shooting of prisoners under the
pretext that they were attempting to escape, in violation of the provisions of the Regulations of their
Corps, which abuses were unpunished and on account of the unjust deportations, especially those
decreed by General Blanco, of eminent personages and of high social position, at the instigation of the
of the Archbishop and friars interested in keeping them out of the way for their own selfish and
avaricious purpose, deportations which are quickly brought about by a method of procedure more
execrable than that of the Inquisition and which every civilized nation rejects on account of a decision
being rendered without a hearing of the personal accused .”
The above passage demonstrates the justifications behind the revolution against Spain. The statement
of autonomy likewise summons that the built-up republic would be driven under the oppression of Emilio
Aguinaldo. The primary specify was at the absolute starting point of the statement. It stated:
"In the town of Cavite Viejo, in this province of Cavite, on the twelfth day of June eighteen
hundred and ninety-eight, before me, Don Ambrosio Rainzares Bautista, Auditor of war and
Special Commissioner appointed to proclaim and solemnize this act by the Dictatorial Government of
these Philippine Islands, for the purpose and by the circular addressed by the Eminent Dictator of the
same Don Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy."
The same was reused toward the last piece of the Declaration. It stated: "We acknowledge,
approve and confirm together with the orders that have been issued from that place, the
Dictatorship established by Don Emilio Aguinaldo, whom we honor as the Supreme Chief of this Nation,
which this day commences to have a life of its own, in the belief that he is the instrument selected by
God, despite his humble origin, to effect the redemption of this unfortunate people, as foretold by Doctor
Jose Rizal in the magnificent verses which he composed when he was preparing to be shot, liberating
them from the yoke of Spanish domination in punishment of the impunity with which their Government
allowed the commission of abuses by its subordinates."
There are some other details in the proclamation that is worth looking at its explanation of the
Philippine flag that was first waved on the same day. The document explained:
"And finally, it was unanimously resolved that this Nation, independent from this day, must use the flag
used here fore, whose design and colors and described in the accompanying drawing, with a design
representing in natural colors the three arms referred to. The white triangle represents the distinctive
emblem of the famous Katipunan Society, which by means of its compact of blood urged on the masses
of the people to insurrection; the three stars represent the three principal Islands of this
Archipelago, Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao and Panay, in which this is insurrectionary movement broke
out; the sun represents gigantic strides that have been made by the sons of this land on the road of
progress and civilization, its eight rays symbolizing the eight provinces of Manila, Cavite, Bulacan,
Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Bataan, Laguna and Batangas, which were declared in a state of war almost
as soon as the first insurrectionary movement was initiated; and the colors blue, red and white,
commemorate those of the flag of the United States of North America, in manifestation of our
profound gratitude towards that great nation for the disinterested protection she is extending to
us and will continue to extend to us."
This regularly neglected detail uncovers much about the recorded exact importance behind the
most broadly known public image in the Philippines
Analysis of the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence”
A re-examination of the Declaration of Independence document can reveal some often-
overlooked historical truths about this important event in Philippine history. The document reflects the
general revolutionary sentiment of that period. The abuses mentioned in the proclamation like friar
abuse, racial discrimination, and inequality before the law reflect the most compelling sentiments
represented by the revolutionary leadership.
No mention was made about the more serious problem that affected the masses more
profoundly like, the land and agrarian crisis felt by the numerous Filipino peasants in the nineteenth
century. Renowned Philippine Revolutionary historian, Teodoro Agoncillo, stated that the Philippine
Revolution was an agrarian revolution. The ordinary revolutionary soldiers fought in the revolution for
the hope of owning the lands that they were tilling once the friar estates in different provinces like
Batangas and Laguna dissolve, if and when the revolution succeeded.
The proclamation also gives us an impression of how Aguinaldo's victorious revolutionary
government struggled for independence. There were mentions of past events that were seen as
significant turning points of the movement against Spain. The Katipunan's foundation was not
mentioned. Bonifacio and his co-founders were also left out. The enmity between Aguinaldo's Magdalo
and Bonifacio's Magdiwang in the Katipunan is no secret in the pages of our history.
Even official records and documents like the proclamation of independence, while truthful
most of the time, still exude the politics and biases of whoever is in power. This manifests in the
selectiveness of information that can be found in these records. Thus, it is the task of the historian to
analyze the content of these documents about the dominant politics and the contexts of people and
institutions surrounding it. Studying one historical subject entail looking at multiple primary sources and
pieces of historical evidence to have a more nuanced and contextual analysis of our past.
Topic: CONTENT AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PRIMARY
SOURCES IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricatures of the American Era and Corazon C. Aquino’s
Speech Before the United States Congress
The historian’s primary tool of understanding and interpreting the past is the historical sources.
Historical sources ascertain historical facts. Such facts are then analyzed and interpreted by the
historian to weave a historical narrative. Historians who study certain historical subjects and events
need to use various primary sources to weave the narrative. As discussed in the preceding chapter,
primary sources consist of documents, memoir, accounts, and other materials produced at the event
or subject being studied.
The primary sources that we will examine are Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricatures of the
American Era and Corazon C. Aquino’s Speech Before the United States Congress. Though the
Philippines was in a better condition under the Americans than the Spaniards, freedom was not
immediately accorded to the Filipinos. Some Americans and Filipinos used political cartoons to illustrate
the changing mores and times under American rule. The use of these cartoons was a subtle way of
expressing discontent with the American rule. President Corazon C. Aquino was invited to deliver a
speech before the United States Congress on September 18, 1986, in recognition of the peaceful EDSA
revolution, which ousted Marcos and paved the way for Aquino to become the President.
Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricatures of the American Era
(1900-1941)
The Spanish colonial period in the Philippines was characterized by strict censorship resulting
in a lack of political liberty and minimal avenues for expressing political views. Political cartoons and
caricature are a relatively recent art form that veered away from classical art by exaggerating human
features and poking fun at its subjects. Such art genre and technique became a part of the print media
as a form of social and political commentary, which usually targets power and authority. Cartoons
became a useful tool for publicizing opinions through heavy use of symbolism, which is different from
a verbose written editorial and opinion pieces. The unique way that a caricature represents the opinion
and captures the audience's imagination is reason enough for historians to examine these political
cartoons. Commentaries in mass media inevitably shape public opinion, and such kind of opinion is
worthy of historical examination.
In the book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900), Alfred McCoy,
together with Alfredo Roces, compiled political cartoons published in newspaper dailies and periodicals
above time.

Alfred McCoy Alfredo Rosces

Depicts the first of Manila's periodic police scandals during the American era

The cartoonist illustrates his usual racist edge, e.g., Chinese men
are usually caricatured, for they are described as corruptors or
opium smugglers.

The cartoon shows a politician from Tondo, named Dr.

Santos, passing his crown to his brother-in-law, Dr. Barcelona. A
Filipino guy (as depicted wearing salakot and barong Tagalog) was
trying to stop Santos, telling the latter to stop giving Barcelona the
crown because it is not his, to begin with.

A commentary on the exceptional cases of colored

automobiles in the city streets. The Philippine Free Press
published this commentary when fatal accidents involving
colorum vehicles and taxis occurred too often already.

Here, we see the caricature of Uncle Sam riding a chariot pulled by Filipinos wearing school
uniforms. The Filipino boys were carrying American objects like baseball bats and boxing gloves. In his
caption to the said cartoon, McCoy was based on an event in 1907 when William Howard Taft was
brought to the Manila pier riding a chariot pulled by Liceo de Manila students. The nationalists
condemned such at that time
Other examples of Caricatures
Analysis of Political Caricatures during the American Period
The Spanish Colonial period's transition to the American Occupation period demonstrated
different strands of changes and shifts in culture, society, and politics. The Americans drastically
introduced democracy to the nascent nation, and the consequences were far from ideal. During the
American period, Filipinos were introduced to modernity manifestations like healthcare, modern
transportation, and media. This ushered in a more open and freer press. The post-independence and
the post-Filipino-American period in the Philippines were experienced differently by Filipinos coming
from different classes. The Upper principalia class experienced economic prosperity with the opening
up of the Philippine economy to the U.S., but the majority of the poor Filipino remained needy,
desperate, and victims of state repression.
The cartoons illustrate the opinion of certain media outfits about Philippine society and
politics under the United States. The cartoons also illustrated the conditions of poor Filipinos in the
Philippines now governed by the United States. From this on looks of it, nothing much has changed.
The other cartoon depicts how Americans controlled Filipinos through seemingly harmless American
objects. By controlling their consciousness and mentality, Americans got to control and subjugate
Filipinos.
Revisiting Corazon Aquino's Speech Before the U.S. Congress
Maria Corazon “Cory” Sumulong Cojuangco-Aquino (January 25, 1933-August 1, 2009) became
President of the Philippines because of the 1986 EDSA Revolution-the nonviolent revolution that ousted
President Ferdinand Marcos. She was the Assassinated opposition figurehead's wife during the martial
law era, Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Jr.
She served and is considered the 11th President of the Philippines and proclaimed "Woman of the
Year" in 1986 by Time magazine. In 1999, she was chosen by Time magazine as one of the 20 Most
Influential Asians of the 20th century. Before becoming the President, she had not held any elective
office. She died on August 1, 2009, due to colorectal cancer.
Historical Background of the Document
Corazon C. Aquino delivered her historic speech before the U.S. Congress on September 18,
1986-barely seven months after being sworn into office under a revolutionary government brought
about by the EDSA Revolution. During that time, Cory's presidency was unstable, for she inherited an
economy in shambles. There was massive poverty and unemployment in the country. The loyalty of
the military to her administration was still in question. Her administration was already besieged by a
coup attempt backed by a multitude of offices. Despite releasing political detainees, the communist
insurgency was still gripping the countryside. She needed foreign allies to recognize her newly
established administration. The aforementioned historic speech targeted two goals at the same time. It
aimed to express gratitude towards the United States for helping the Filipinos regain their freedom and
seek more help from them in restoring the government, considering Aquino's decision to honor the
Philippines' foreign debts during the Marcos administration.
She began her speech with the story of her leaving the United States three years prior as a
newly widowed wife of Ninoy Aquino. She then told of Ninoy's character, convection, and resolve in
opposing the authoritarianism of Marcos. She talked of the three times that they lost Ninoy, including
his demise on 23 August 1983. The first time was when the dictatorship detained Ninoy with other
dissenters. Cory related:
The government sought to break Ninoy by indignities and terror. They locked him up in a tiny, nearly
airless cell in a military camp in the north. They stripped him naked and held the threat of sudden
midnight execution over his head. Ninoy held up manfully–all of it. I barely did as well. For 43 days, the
authorities would not tell me what had happened to him. This was the first time my children and I felt
we had lost him.”
Cory continued that when Ninoy survived that first detention, he was charged with subversion, murder,
and other crimes. Aquino was tried by a military court, whose legitimacy Ninoy adamantly questioned.
To solidify his protest, Ninoy decided to do a hunger strike and fasted for 40 days. Cory treated this
event as the second time that their family lost Ninoy. She said:
“When that did not work, they put him on trial for subversion, murder, and a host of other crimes before
a military commission. Ninoy challenged its authority and went on a fast. If he survived it, then, he felt,
God intended him for another fate. We had lost him again. For nothing would hold him back from his
determination to see his fast through to the end. He stopped only when it dawned on him that the
government would keep his body alive after the fast had destroyed his brain. Thus, with barely any life
in his body, he called off the fast on the fortieth day. “
Cory turned to the controversial topic of the Philippine foreign debt amounting to $26 billion at
the time of her speech. This debt had ballooned during the Marcos regime. Cory expressed her intention
to honor those debts despite mentioning that the people did not benefit from such debts. Thus, she
mentioned her protestations about how the Philippines was deprived of paying those debts within the
Filipino people's capacity. She lamented:
“Finally, may I turn to that other slavery: our $26 billion foreign debt. I have said that we shall honor it.
However, how shall we be able to do so be kept from us? Many conditions imposed on the previous
government that stole this debt continue to be imposed on us who never benefited from it.”
Cory proceeded to enumerate the challenges of the Filipino people as they tried building the new
democracy. These were the persisting communist insurgency and economic deterioration. Cory further
lamented that these problems worsened by the crippling debt because half of the country’s export
earnings amounting to $2 billion would “go to pay just the interest on a debt whose benefit the Filipino
people never received.” Cory then asked a rather compelling question to the U.S. Congress:
“Has there been a greater test of national commitment to the ideals you hold dear than that my people
have gone through? You have spent many lives and much treasure to bring freedom to many lands
that were reluctant to receive it. Moreover, here you have a people who won it by themselves and need
only the help to preserve it.”
Cory ended her speech by thanking America for serving as home to her family for what she referred to
as the "three happiest years of our lives together." She enjoined America in building the Philippines as
a new home for democracy and in turning the country into a "shining testament of our two nations'
commitment.”
Analysis of Cory Aquino’s Speech
Cory Aquino's speech was an actual event in its political and diplomatic history because it
has arguably cemented the EDSA government's legitimacy in the international arena. The speech talks
of her family background, especially her relationship with her late husband, Ninoy Aquino. In her
speech, Cory talked at length about Ninoy's toil and suffering at the dictatorship's hands that he
resisted. She still went back to Nonoy's legacies and lessons. Her attribution of the revolution to Ninoy's
death demonstrates not only Cory’s perception of the revolution, but since she was the President, it
also represents what the dominant discourse was at that point in our history.
The ideology or the principles of the new democratic government can also be seen in the
same speech. Aquino drew the sharp contrast between her government and her predecessor by
expressing her commitment to a democratic constitution drafted by an independent commission. She
claimed that such a constitution upholds and adheres to the rights and liberty of the Filipino people.
Cory also hoisted herself as the reconciliatory agent after more than two decades of a polarizing
authoritarian politics. Cory claimed that her primary approach to this problem was through peace and
not through the sword of war.
Despite Cory’s effort to hoist herself as the exact opposite of Marcos, her speech still
revealed certain parallelisms between her and Marcos's government. This is seen in continuing the
alliance between the Philippines and the United States, despite the known affinity between the said
world superpower and Marcos. As seen in Cory's acceptance of the invitation to address the U.S.
Congress and to the content of the speech, the Aquino regime decided to build and continue with the
alliance between our country, the Philippines, and the United States and effectively implemented an
essentially similar foreign policy to that of the dictatorship. Cory recognized that the Marcos regime's
large sum of foreign debts never benefitted the Filipino people. Cory expressed her intention to pay off
those debts. Cory’s decision is an indicator of her government’s intention to carry on a debt-driven
economy.

Topic: “One past but many histories”:

Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippine History
THE FIRST MASS IN THE PHILIPPINES
This chapter analyzes the different controversies and conflicting views in Philippine history
through primary and secondary sources. It synthesizes four historical events in Philippine history,
namely, (1) the first mass in the Philippines; (2) the Cavity Mutiny; (3) the retraction of Rizal; and (4).
the cry of Rebellion: Balintawak or Pugadlawin? These historical events need to be understood carefully
to contextualize better present-day Philippine society regarding culture, economy, and qualities.
One controversy is the actual site of the first Catholic mass held in the Philippines. Many
Philippine history books suggest that it was held at Limasawa, Leyte by Fray Pedro de Valderama after
the Spanish conquistador, Ferdinand Magellan, arrived on the island and established a cordial
relationship with the locals on March 31, 1521. However, in 1995, an Agusan del Norte-Butuan City
Representative filed a bill in Congress contesting the accepted fact that Limasawa was the first mass
site. The bill asserted that the first mass was held in Masao in Butuan, according to the historian Sonia
Zaide. However, a marker in front of the Saint James the Great Parish Church in Bolinao, Pangasinan
claims that in 1324, Fray Odorico Pordenone from Friuli, Italy officiated the first Catholic mass in the
Philippines
Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation
History is the past study, but a more contemporary definition is centered on how it impacts
the present through its consequences. Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history
and then draw their reading so that their intended audience may understand the historical event, a
process that, in essence, "makes sense of the past." Therefore, interpretations of the past vary
according to who reads the primary source, when it was read, and how it was read. We must be well
equipped to recognize different types of interpretations, why these may differ from each other, and
critically sift these interpretations through historical evaluation. Interpretations of historical events
change over time: thus, it is an important skill to track these changes to understand the past.
There are things we accept as "true" about the past that 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. Moreover, 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. Therefore, it is essential 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 the past events.
Multiperspectivity
Multiperspectivity can be defined as looking at historical events, personalities, developments,
cultures, and societies from different perspectives. This means that there are many 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
what sources to use and what interpretation to make more apparent, depending on his end. With
multiperspective 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 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 sources also provide different historical truths 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. Taking these in close regard in reading historical interpretations provides the audience
with a more complex and more complete and richer understanding of the past.
The First Mass in the Philippines
Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. 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.
Towards the beginning of the twentieth century, and the end of the nineteenth 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.
There are only two primary sources that historians refer to in identifying the site of the first Mass.
the first one is the log kept by a pilot of one of Magellan's ships, Trinidad, in the name of Francisco
Albo, . Francisco Abo 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, a
member of the Magellan expedition and an eyewitness of the events, particularly of the first Mass
Primary Sources: Albo’s Log
Source: “Diario o derotero del viage de Magallanes Desde el Cabo se
S. Agustin en el Brazil hasta el regreso an Espana de la nao Victoria,
Escrito por Frandsco Albo,” 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. 111, 1-35.
On March 16, 1521, as they sailed in a westerly course
from Ladrones or known as Mariana Island at present, they saw land
towards the northwest, but they did not land there due to shallow places
and later found its name as Dunagan. On that same day, they went to a small island called Suluan, a
part of Samar, and there they anchored. Leaving from those two islands, they sailed westward to Gada's
island, where they took in a supply of wood and water from that island; they sailed towards the west to
a large island called Seilani (now Leyte). Along the coast of Seilani, they sailed southwards and turned
southwest until they reached the island of Mazava. From there, they sailed northwards again towards
the Island of Seilani and followed the coast of Seilani towards the northwest, and saw three small
islands. They sailed westwards and saw three islets where they anchored for the night. In the morning,
they sailed southwest. They entered a canal between two islands called Subu (now called Cebu), and
the other was Matan (now called Mactan). They sailed towards the southwest on that canal, then turned
westward and anchored at the town of Subu, wherein they stayed there for many days.
According to Albo's account, the location of Mazava fits the
location of the island of Limasawa, at the southern tip of Leyte,
954'N. In addition, 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 Expedition

Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander 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. 111, 1-35.
On March 16, 1521, a "high land" named "Zamal" was
sighted by the Magellan's expedition, which was some 300 leagues
westward of the Ladrones Islands. On March 17, 1521, they landed
on an "uninhabited island" or known as "Humunu" (Homonhon), which
Pigafetta referred to as "Watering place of good signs" because the place is abundant in gold. Humunu
lays right of Zamal at 10 degrees north latitude. They stayed there eight days from March 17 to March
25, 1521. On March 25, 1521, they left the island of Homonhon and change the route towards west
southwest, between four islands: namely, Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson, and Albarien. They sail
westward towards Leyte, followed the Leyte coast southward, passing between the island of Ibusson
on their port side and Hiunangan bay on their starboard, and then continued southward, returning
westward to Mazaua. On March 28, 1521, an island lay on a latitude of 9 and 2/3 towards the arctic
pole and in a longitude 100 and 62 degrees from the line of demarcation. It is named Mazaua, which is
25 leagues from the Acquada. On April 4, 1521, they left Mazaua bound for Cebu and guided by their
King, who sailed on his boat. It took them past five islands throughout their route: Ceylon, Bohol,
Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan. They sailed from Mazaua west by northwest into the Canigao channel,
with Bohol island to port and Leyte and Canigao islands to starboard. Then they continue sailing
northwards along the Leyte coast, past Baibai to Gatighan (it was 20 leagues from Mazaua and 15
leagues from Subu or Cebu. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes
group, namely: Poro, Pasihan, and Ponson. From the Camotes Island, they sailed southwestward
towards "Zubu." On April 7, they entered the harbor of "Zubu" (Cebu). It takes them three days to
negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to the Camotes Islands and then southwards to Cebu.
That was the route of the Magellan expedition, as stated in the account of Pigafetta. The southernmost
point reached before getting to Cebu was Mazaua, located at nine and two-thirds degrees North
latitude.
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 in 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. 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. 111, 1-35.
1. March 28 (Thursday) – In the morning, they anchored near an
island where they had seen the light the night before a small
boat (boloto) came with eight natives, to whom Magellan threw
some trinkets as presents.
2. March 29 (Friday) – 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 say that they had come as
friends and not as enemies.
3. March 30 (Saturday) – Pigafetta and his companion had spent the previous evening feasting
and drinking with the native king and his son.
4. March 31 (Sunday) – Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the Mass
early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day,". Later in the morning,
Magellan landed with some fifty men, and Mass was celebrated, after which a cross was
venerated.
5. April 1 (Monday) - 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.
6. April 2 (Tuesday) and April 3 (Wednesday) – Work on the harvest during the “next to days,”
 7. April 4 (Thursday) – They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu
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 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.
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 to
a river. However, note that this account already happened after Magellan's death.

Topic: THE CAVITE MUTINY and THE RETRACTION OF RIZAL

This chapter analyzes the different controversies and conflicting views in Philippine history
through primary and secondary sources. Does it synthesize four historical events in Philippine history,
namely, (1) the first mass in the Philippines; (2) the Cavity Mutiny; (3) the retraction of Rizal; and (4)
the cry of Rebellion: Balintawak or Pugadlawin? These historical events need to be understood carefully
to contextualize better present-day Philippine society regarding culture, economy, and qualities.
Another controversy in Philippine history is the real story behind the 1872 Cavite Mutiny. The
mutiny was considered to be unsuccessful and ended with the execution of the three Filipino martyrs –
Fr. Mariano Gomez, Fr. Jose Burgos, and Fr. Jacinto Zamora to which Dr. Jose P. Rizal dedicated El
Filibusterismo. The execution of the three priests is considered one of the catalysts of the 1896
Philippine Revolution.
Furthermore, Rizal’s retraction of his writings against the Catholic Church remains very controversial
since there is still no solid proof that he retracted his writings despite the pressure of the alleged letter
of his retraction.
The Cavite Mutiny
The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the
Cavity Mutiny and the martyrdom of the three priests:
Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, later on,
immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are significant
milestones in Philippine history and have caused ripples
throughout time, directly influencing the Philippine
Revolution's decisive events 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. We zoom in to
the Cavite Mutiny events, a significant factor in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos of
that time.
Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny
Jose Montero y Vidal is a Spanish Historian who interpreted that the Mutiny attempted to remove
and overthrow the Spanish Colonizers in the Philippines. His account corroborated with Governor-
General Rafael Izquierdo y Gutierrez, the governor-general of the Philippine Islands during the Mutiny.
They mentioned that a group of native clergy powered the mutiny.
Primary Source: Excerpts from the Account of Jose Montero y Vidal
Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, “Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,” in Gregorio Zaide and
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippines History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store,
1990), 269-273.
The Cavite Mutiny is the aim of natives to get rid of the Spanish government
in the Philippines due to the removal of privileges enjoyed by the laborers
of the Cavite arsenal, such as exemption from the tribute and forced labor.
The democratic and republican books and pamphlets, the speeches and
preaching of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain, and the outburst of
the American publicists and the insensitive governor's cruel policies
reigning government sent to govern the country. Filipinos put into action
these ideas where the occurring conditions which gave rise to the idea of
achieving their independence.

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 Philippines History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 281-286.
He insisted that the mutiny is stimulated and prepared by the native clergy,
mestizos, and lawyers as a signal of objection against the injustices of the
government such as not paying tribute, and rendering of forced labor. It is not
clearly identified if Indios planned to inaugurate a monarchy or a republic
because they don't have a word in their own language to describe this different
form of government, whose leader in Filipino would be called "hari". However,
it turned out that they would set at the supreme of the government a priest,
that the leader selected would be Jose Burgos or Jacinto Zamora which is the
plan of the rebels whose who guided them, and the means they counted upon
its realization.
Other Accounts of the Mutiny
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. Another account, by French writer Edmund
Plauchut, complemented Tavera’s account and analyzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Trinidad 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 Philippines History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990),
274-280.
The event is just a simple mutiny since up to that time the Filipinos have no
intention of separation from Spain but only secure materials and education
advancements in the country. However, the mutiny was used at a powerful
level. Also, in this time, the central government deprived friars of the powers
of involvement in civil government and in governing and handling universities.
This resulted in the friars afraid that their leverage in the Philippines would
be a thing in the past, took advantage of the mutiny, and reported it to the
Spanish government as a broad conspiracy organized throughout the
archipelago with the object of abolishing Spanish sovereignty. The Madrid
government without any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the
alleged revolution reported by Izquierdo and the friars believed the scheme was true.
Trinidad Pardo de Tavera
Primary Source: Excerpts from Edmund 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 Philippines History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book
Store, 1990), 251-268.
He traced the immediate cause to a peremptory order from the governor,
Izquierdo, exacting personal taxes from the Filipino laborers in the engineering
and artillery corps in the Cavite arsenal, and requiring them to perform forced
labor like ordinary subjects. Until then, these workers in the arsenal had been
enjoying exemptions from both taxes and forced labor. January 20, the day of
the revolt, was payday and the laborers found the amount of taxes as well as
the corresponding fee in lieu of the forced labor deducted from their pay
envelopes. It was the last straw. That night they mutinied. Forty infantry
soldiers and twenty men from the artillery took over command of the Fort of
San Felipe and fired cannonades to announce to the world their moment of
triumph. It was a short-lived victory. Apparently, the mutineers had expected
to be joined by their comrades in the 7th infantry company assigned to patrol the Cavite plaza. They
became terror-stricken, however, when they beckoned to the 7th infantrymen from the ramparts of the
fort and their comrades did not make any move to join them. Instead, the company started attacking
them. The rebels decided to bolt the gates and wait for the morning when support from Manila was
expected to come. He gave a dispassionate account of it and its causes in an article published in the
Revue des Deux Mondes in 1877. He traced that the primary cause of the mutiny is believed to "be an
order from Governor-General Carlos to subject the soldiers of the Engineering and Artillery Corps to
personal taxes, from which they were previously exempt. The taxes required them to pay a monetary
sum as well as to perform forced labor called, polo y Servicio. The mutiny was sparked on January 20,
1872, when the laborers received their pay and realized the taxes as well as the falla, the fine one paid
to be exempt from forced labor, had been deducted from their salaries.
Different accounts in the Cavite mutiny also highlighted other probable causes of the "revolution" which
includes the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by
unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and pamphlets reaching the Philippines,
and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars,
"conspired and supported" the rebels and enemies of Spain.
In addition, accounts of the mutiny suggest that the Spanish Revolution in Spain during that time added
more determination to the natives to overthrow the current colonial Spanish government.
 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 was 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 garrotte 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.
THE RETRACTION OF RIZAL
Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that centered 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 the 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 if the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La Voz Espanola 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 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 a document, it has been used to argue the authenticity of the
document. Fr. Vicente Balaguer
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 the prison of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the
following:
• At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel, Señor
Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest [Jose] Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and moments
after entering, he was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the Adjutant of the Garrison, Señor
[Eloy] Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at the moment he only wanted a prayer
book which was brought to him shortly by Father [Estanislao] March.
• Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the Jesuit fathers,
March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It appears that these two presented him with
a prepared retraction on his life and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter until
12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken. Afterward, he asked to leave to write and
wrote for a long time by himself.
• At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him what he had
written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Señor [Juan] del Fresno, and the Assistant of the
Plaza, Señor Maure, were informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the
document that the accused had written. It seems this was the retraction.
• At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison accompanied by his sister
Pilar, both dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a military chaplain
whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes and aided by a soldier of the artillery, the
nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been his lover were performed at the point of death (in articulo
mortis). After embracing him she left, flooded with tears.
• Rizal heard mass and confessed to Father March. Afterward, he heard another mass where he
received communion. At 7:30, a European artilleryman handcuffed him and he left for the place of
execution accompanied by various Jesuits, his counsel, and the Assistant of the Plaza. Father March
gave him a holy picture of the Virgin that Rizal kissed repeatedly.
• When the accused left, I noticed he was very pale but I am very certain that all the time he was
imprisoned he demonstrated great strength of character and composure.
God grant Your Excellency.
Manila 30 December 1896.
This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving it credence.
However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which make 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
Jose Rizal never became involved in the organization and activities of the Katipunan, but
the Katipuneros still looked up to him as a leader. In fact, Rizal’s name was used as a password among
the society’s highest-ranking members, who were called Bayani. Andres Bonifacio had already known
Rizal during his La Liga Filipina days, although Rizal did not know Bonifacio personally Nevertheless,
Bonifacio so respected Rizal’s intelligence and talent that in June 1896, he sent Dr. Pio Valenzuela to
Dapitan to seek Rizal’s advice on the planned revolution.
Rizal told Valenzuela that the timing was not right for a revolution. The people were not
yet ready and they did not have enough weapons. He suggested that the Katipunan obtain the support
of wealthy and influential Filipinos first, in order to gain financial assistance. He also recommended
Antonio Luna as commander of its armed forces, since Luna had much knowledge and expertise in
military tactics.