Controversies in Philippine History

The study of history often involves more than the narration of facts—it entails the interpretation of events,
the critical analysis of sources, and the construction of narratives. In the Philippine context, several pivotal
events in our national past are shrouded in debate and contention. This unit explores four major historical
controversies that question dominant narratives and challenge us to re-examine how history is written,
remembered, and taught.

1. The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines

Traditional Claim: Limasawa, Leyte | Alternative Claim: Butuan, Agusan del Norte
The issue of the site of the first Christian mass in the Philippines has long been a point of contention
among Filipino historians. The mass was celebrated on March 31, 1521, during the voyage of Ferdinand
Magellan.
Limasawa Claim (Traditional View)
According to Antonio Pigafetta, Magellan’s chronicler, the mass took place in "Mazaua", an island located
at approximately 9° North latitude. Historians have identified "Mazaua" with present-day Limasawa in
Southern Leyte. This identification has been officially recognized by the National Historical Commission
of the Philippines (NHCP) and taught in Philippine textbooks for decades.
 Pigafetta described a small island south of Leyte where Rajah Kolambu ruled.
 The mass was officiated by Father Pedro de Valderrama, the only priest in Magellan's expedition.
 The Limasawa claim was reinforced by historians such as Gregorio Zaide and Teodoro Agoncillo.
Butuan Claim (Alternative View)
However, some scholars, including the late Historian Vicente Calibo de Jesus and others, argue that the
mass actually took place in Butuan, in Agusan del Norte.
 Butuan was already a flourishing center of trade and early Christianity before the arrival of the
Spaniards.
 Spanish explorers earlier recorded that a mass was held there in 1521, although some suggest this
was a different, possibly earlier, event.
 Advocates of the Butuan theory believe that Pigafetta and later historians may have misinterpreted
or misidentified the location.
Current Status
In 2021, the NHCP reaffirmed its position that Limasawa was the site of the first mass, following an
extensive historical panel review. Still, the Butuan claim has its advocates, and the debate illustrates how
colonial narratives and limited documentation continue to affect historical interpretation.

2. The First Cry of the Philippine Revolution

Balintawak vs. Pugad Lawin
The “First Cry” symbolizes the moment when Filipinos openly defied Spanish colonial rule, marking the
formal beginning of the Philippine Revolution in 1896. However, both the location and date of the First
Cry remain hotly debated.
Balintawak Claim
Traditional history textbooks place the event in Balintawak, on August 26, 1896.
  This version is supported by historians like Teodoro Agoncillo, who drew from testimonies of
revolutionaries such as Pio Valenzuela.
 It was in Balintawak, they claim, that Andres Bonifacio and the Katipuneros tore their cedulas
(residence certificates), a symbolic act of rebellion.
 Balintawak was originally accepted during the American colonial era and endorsed by early
nationalist historians.
Pugad Lawin Claim
In 1963, the National Historical Institute (now NHCP) began to favor Pugad Lawin (present-day Quezon
City) as the actual site, with the event dated August 23, 1896.
 This revision was based on testimonies of Katipunan members such as Guillermo Masangkay,
who claimed the event took place in the house of Melchora Aquino (Tandang Sora).
 The tearing of cedulas in Pugad Lawin is portrayed as a more spontaneous and grassroots act of
defiance.
Why the Confusion?
 The Katipuneros were mobile, moving from Balintawak to nearby areas like Kangkong, Bahay
Toro, and Pugad Lawin, making it hard to pinpoint a single location.
 Records were inconsistent, and oral accounts often differed depending on the source’s memory or
political leanings.
This controversy underscores how national memory and commemorations can be influenced by shifting
political contexts, regional pride, and historical revisionism.

3. The Cavite Mutiny of 1872

The Execution of Gomburza and the Role of Spanish Authorities
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 is one of the most significant events that stirred the consciousness of the
Filipino people toward nationalism. However, there is a divergence in the interpretation of the event itself.
Spanish Version (Mutiny as a Conspiracy)
 Spanish colonial authorities, led by Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo, described the event as a
large-scale uprising aimed at overthrowing Spanish rule.
 Around 200 Filipino soldiers and workers allegedly staged a revolt at the Cavite arsenal.
 The event led to the arrest, trial, and execution of GOMBURZA: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos,
and Jacinto Zamora, accused of masterminding the mutiny.
Filipino Version (Mutiny as a Labor Protest)
 Filipino scholars like Teodoro Agoncillo and Renato Constantino argue that the event was a
labor-related protest against the abolition of privileges (such as exemption from forced labor).
 The Spanish exaggerated the scale of the event to justify repression of liberal Filipino clergy and
discourage the rise of nationalism.
Impact of the Execution
 The execution of GOMBURZA on February 17, 1872 deeply affected many, including Jose Rizal,
who dedicated El Filibusterismo to their memory.
 It became a catalyst for future nationalist movements and highlighted the injustice and racial
discrimination within the colonial system.
Thus, this controversy is not merely about what happened in Cavite but about the way colonial narratives
were used to suppress dissent and consolidate power.

4. The Retraction of Jose Rizal

Fact or Forgery?
One of the most debated topics in Philippine history is whether Jose Rizal retracted his anti-Spanish, anti-
Catholic views before his execution on December 30, 1896.
Evidence of Retraction
 The Spanish friars claimed that Rizal signed a retraction document the night before his execution,
allegedly stating that he returned to the Catholic faith and renounced his writings against the
Church.
 A copy of the supposed document was published in newspapers, and witnesses, including priests
and government officials, attested to it.
 It is also claimed that Rizal married Josephine Bracken in articulo mortis (at the point of death),
suggesting reconciliation with the Church.
Arguments Against the Retraction
 Many nationalist historians and Rizal biographers, including Austin Coates and Ricardo Pascual,
argue that the document was forged to undermine Rizal's heroism and turn him into a submissive
figure.
 The original retraction document was mysteriously “lost” and only resurfaced in the 1930s, leading
to suspicions of tampering.
 Rizal's consistent principles, reflected in his correspondence and final poem (Mi Último Adiós), do
not show signs of spiritual or ideological retreat.
Symbolic Importance
 If Rizal did retract, it complicates his image as a steadfast reformist.
 If he didn’t, it further affirms his status as a martyr who chose death over compromise.
 The debate reflects broader questions about how Filipinos understand heroism, religion, and
resistance.

Conclusion: Why These Controversies Matter

These controversies challenge the idea that history is fixed or neutral. They reveal how historical narratives
are shaped by power, politics, and identity. More importantly, they highlight the importance of critical
thinking and evidence-based analysis in the study of history.
For students and scholars alike, engaging with these debates encourages a deeper appreciation of the
complexity of the past and the need to question dominant accounts. Rather than accepting textbook
versions of history at face value, we must learn to scrutinize sources, understand context, and recognize
the role of historical memory in shaping national identity.
SOURCES:

1. The Site of the First Mass

 Alip, E. D. (1964). Political and cultural history of the Philippines: Volume 1. Alip & Sons.
 Bernad, M. A. (2002). Butuan or Limasawa: The site of the first mass in the Philippines: A
reexamination of the evidence. Xavier University Press.
 National Historical Commission of the Philippines. (2021). Panel affirms Limasawa as site of the
1521 Easter Sunday Mass. https://nhcp.gov.ph/panel-affirms-limasawa-as-site-of-the-1521-easter-
sunday-mass/

2. The First Cry of the Philippine Revolution

 Agoncillo, T. A. (1990). History of the Filipino people (8th ed.). Garotech Publishing.
 Ocampo, A. R. (2011). Rizal without the overcoat (Expanded ed.). Anvil Publishing.
 National Historical Commission of the Philippines. (n.d.). Pugad Lawin: First Cry of the Revolution.
https://nhcp.gov.ph

3. The Cavite Mutiny of 1872

 Schumacher, J. N. (1991). The making of a nation: Essays on nineteenth-century Filipino
nationalism. Ateneo de Manila University Press.
 Constantino, R. (1975). The Philippines: A past revisited. Tala Publishing Services.
 Corpuz, O. D. (1989). The roots of the Filipino nation: Volume II. Aklahi Foundation.

4. The Retraction of Jose Rizal

 Guerrero, L. M. (1998). The first Filipino: A biography of José Rizal. Guerrero Publishing.
 Pascual, R. (1961). Rizal beyond the grave: A documented refutation of the retraction story.
Carmelo & Bauermann.
 National Historical Commission of the Philippines. (n.d.). On the question of Rizal’s retraction.
https://nhcp.gov.ph