The Philippine Revolution against over 300 years of Spanish rule began with Andrés Bonifacio, leader of

the Katipunan, a secret revolutionary society that sought independence for the Philippines from Spanish
colonial rule.In August 1896, in the sitio of Pugad Lawin in Balintawak, now part of Quezon City, the
Katipuneros led by Andrés Bonifacio rose up in revolt by tearing up their “cedulas” which became a sign
of enslavement of the Filipinos. This event called the “Cry of Pugad Lawin,” officially regarded as the
start of the Philippine Revolution against Spain with the use of violence and arms.

Pugad Lawin is not considered as the place of the 'cry'. People of Balintawak initiated the revolution
against the Spaniards that is why it is not appropriate to call it 'Cry of Pugad Lawin'. The place Pugad
Lawin only existed in 1935 after the rebellion happened in 1896.

He held this account when the happenings or eveThe Cry of Pugad Lawin (Tagalog: Sigaw ng Pugad
Lawin, Spanish: Grito de Pugad Lawin) was the beginning of the Philippine Revolution against the
Spanish Empire.In late August 1896, members of the Katipunan led by Andrés BonPío Valenzuela, a close
associate of Andrés Bonifacio, declared in 1948 that it happened in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896.
Historian Gregorio Zaide stated in his books in 1954 that the "Cry" happened in Balintawak on August
26, 1896.This controversial version of the “Cry of the Pugad Lawin” has been authorized by no other
than Dr. Pio Valenzuela, who happened to be the eyewitness himself of the event. In his first version, he
told that the prime staging point of the Cry was in Balintawak on Wednesday of August 26, 1896.ifacio
revolted somewhere around Caloocan, which included parts of the present-day Quezon City.Originally
the term cry referred to the first clash between the Katipuneros and the Civil Guards (Guardia Civil). The
cry could also refer to the tearing up of community tax certificates (cédulas personales) in defiance of
their allegiance to Spain. The inscriptions of "Viva la Independencia Filipina" can also be referred as term
for the cry. This was literally accompanied by patriotic shouts.Because accounts of the event vary, the
exact date and place of the event is unknown.From 1908 until 1963, the event was thought to have
occurred on August 26 in Balintawak. In 1963, the Philippine government declared August 23 to be the
date of the event in Quezon City.

nts are still vivid in his memory.On the other hand, later in his life and with a fading memory, he wrote
his Memoirs of the Revolution without consulting the written documents of the Philippine revolution
and claimed that the “Cry” took place at Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896

The controversy among historians continues to the present day. The “Cry ofPugad Lawin” on
August 23, 1896 cannot be accepted as historically accurate. It lackspositive documentation and
supporting evidence from the witness. The testimony ofonly one eyewitness - Dr. Pio Valenzuela, is
not enough to authenticate and verify acontroversial issue in history. Historians and their living
participants, not politiciansand their sycophants, should

On 26 August 1896, after the Katipunan was discovered, Masangkay joined Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto and
others in a big meeting held at Apolinario Samson’s house in Caloocan. The purpose was to discuss when
the uprising was to take place.

Those who have attended the meeting was Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas
Remigio, Enrique Pacheco, Francisco Carreon, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, and Pio Valenzuela. They
were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the organization. Pantas,
Plata, and Valenzuela were all opposed to starting the revolution too early.

The leaders questioned the wisdom of an open rebellion due to the lack of arms and logical support.
However, after Bonifacio’s intense and convincing speech, everyone destroyed their cedulas to
symbolize their defiance of Mother Spain and together, raised the cry of “revolt”.

Pio Valenzuela

Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, & Agueda del Rosario arrived first in
their place of refuge, Balintawak on August 19, 1896. Dr. Pio Valenzuela arrived in place the next day. On
August 22, 500 KKK members gathered in the house of Apolonio Samson. Here, views are 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. The discussion was whether or not start the revolution against the Spanish government
should be started on August 29. After the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula
and shouted “Long live Philippines! Long live Philippines!”

II. CONTROVERIES AND DISAGREEMENTS

Nineteenth-century journalists used the phrase “El Grito de Rebelion” or “Cry of Rebellion” to mark the
start of revolutionary events which happened in August 1896, northeast of Manila, where they declared
rebellion against the Spanish colonial government.

Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, identify the
Cry to have happened in Balintawak on August 25. Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino historian, marks the place to
be in Kangkong, Balintawak on the last week of August. Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son of
Mariano Alvarez, puts the cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on24 August. Pio Valenzuela, known
Katipunero, stated that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on August 23. Historian Gregorio Zaide
identified it to happen in Balintawak on August 26 to the statements of Pio Valenzuela, Teodoro
Agoncillo puts the Cry at Pugad Lawinon 23 August. 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 August 24. All these dates are of the same year, 1896.

The historian Teodoro Agoncillo chose to emphasize Bonifacio’s tearing of the cedula (tax receipt)
before a crowd of Katipuneros who then did the same. However, Guardia Civil Manuel Sityar never
mentioned in his memoirs the tearing or inspection of the cedula, but did note the pacto de sangre
(blood pact) mark on every single Filipino he met in August 1896.

On the other hand, some writers consider the first military engagement with the enemy as the defining
moment of the Cry, for which, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned a “Himno deBalintawak” to herald
renewed fighting after the failed peace of the pact of Biyak na Bato.

On 3 September 1911, a monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the intersection
of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive – North Diversion Road. From that time on
until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was officially celebrated every 26August. The site of the monument
was chosen for an unknown reason.

The controversy among historians continues to the present day. The “Cry of Pugad Lawin” on August 23,
1896 cannot be accepted as historically accurate. It lacks positive documentation and supporting
evidence from the witness. The testimony of only one eyewitness - Dr. Pio Valenzuela, is not enough to
authenticate and verify a controversial issue in history. Historians and their living participants, not
politicians and their sycophants, should settle this controversy.

Conclusion: There are a lot of interrogates/controversies about where does the “Cry of Pugad Lawin”
really happened but based on the different informations from different authors of readings, Balintawak
was mostly mentioned where the Cry of Pugad Lawin happened. The''Cry of Pugad Lawin'' was a cry for
freedom. Its historic significance to us consists of the realization that the Filipino people had finally
realized the lasting value of freedom and independence and the need to fight in order to prove
themselves worthy to be called a truly free people. The controversy among historians continues to the
present day.The “Cry of Pugad Lawin” (August 23, 1896) cannot be accepted as historically accurate or
precise of the location and date. It lacks positive documentation and supporting evidence from the
witness. The testimony of only one eyewitness (Dr. Pio Valenzuelais not enough to authenticate and
verify a controversial issue in history. Historians and their living participants, not politicians and their
sycophants, should settle this controversy