42633541

The Hidden Light: The First Filipino Priests
Author(s): LUCIANO P.R. SANTIAGO

Source: Philippine Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Second Quarter 1983), pp. 129-188
Published by: Ateneo de Manila University
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42633541
Accessed: 05-02-2020 23:56 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Ateneo de Manila University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Philippine Studies
This content downloaded from 122.3.252.178 on Wed, 05 Feb 2020 23:56:26 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Philippine Studies 31 (1983): 129-88
The Hidden Light: The First Filipino Priests

LUCIANO P.R. SANTIAGO
One of the soul-stirring questions in Philippine Church

has always been: who were the first Filipino priests? A
communities in the world presumably venerate the me
their pioneer priests. But one of the ironies of the Phil
the only Christian nation in Asia for more than four hund
is that she has never known the names of her first native sons who
became priests of the universal church. This emanates from a more
basic irony: while the Spanish evangelization of the Philippines
was probably one of the most impressive in the records of
Christianity, Spanish efforts at developing the Filipino clergy was
remarkably tardy and erratic.
To be sure, the illustrious Filipino historian, Fr. Horacio de la
Costa, S.J., has laid the groundwork for an answer to the question
in his article, "The Development of the Native Clergy in the
Philippines" (1947).1 Had he lived longer or had he not been in-
volved in other pressing tasks, he would have "fleshed out" the
answer by this time.
The present researcher, on the other hand, chanced upon the
names of the early Filipino priests while gathering data on the
history of a town. In the course of writing, the author realized
that he had stumbled upon a virtual terra incognita in Philippine
Church history in which he had to find his own way. For this
reason, and from the fact that the author is not a professional
historian, let alone a church historian, the present article is at
best a preliminary study, for it raises as many tantalizing questions
[See list of abbrevatìons at the end of article. ]

1. Horacio de la Costa, S. J., "The Development of the Native Clergy in the Philip-
pines," Theological Studies 8 (1947): 219-50; reprinted in Gerald H. Anderson, ed.,
Studies in Phüippine Church History (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969), pp.
65-104.
1 3 0 PHILIPPINE STUDIES
as the answers it provide

facts and data to justify
further research on suc
Church.
THE SOURCES
The research for this study was done mainly at th

of the Archdiocese of Manila (AAM) located at the
Seminary in Guadalupe, Makati, and partly at the Un
Santo Tomas Archives (AUST) in Manila. It was ha
the fact that most of the Libros de Ordenes of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries (as referred to in the text of surviving
documents) have been lost.
From the seventeenth century, there are still ordination lists
for the following years: 1620-23, 1625-27, 1630, 1653-67,
1672-74, 1685-89. 2 These lists, however, may not be always com-
plete for each year - some pages or parts seem to be missing in a
particular year.
From the eighteenth century, the Libro de Gobierno Ecclesias-
tico of Archbishop Diego Camacho y Avila (1697-1706) was miss-
ing during the course of this research. However, by an exciting
coincidence, while this article was being revised for publication,
it turned up under a totally different classification where it had
apparently been misplaced for years.3 Moreover the documentary
biography of Camacho, researched from Spanish and Mexican
archives by Pedro Rubio Merino provides a lucid background of
this period against which we can place our Philippine data.4 Quite
unexpectedly this combination of sources greatly expanded the
scope of this work.
The official records5 including the miscellaneous correspond-
ence of the next Archbishop, Francisco de la Cuesta, Order of San
2. AAM, LGE (1620-27), (1653-73); OG (1685-89).

i. Its state of preservation is quite poor because a well-meaning hand had tried to
patch up its overworked pages with transparent paper and glue. This caused the pages
to stick together and attracted tiny ants to nestle in them. Nevertheless, it can still be
read adequately with careful handling, except the upper eighth of the paces.
4. AAM, LGE (1697-1706) and Pedro Rubio Merino, Don Diego Camacho y Avila,
Arzobispo de Manila y de Guadalajara de Mexico (1695-1 712) (Sevilla: Escuela de Estu-
dios Hispano-Americanos, 1958), pp. 401-41.
5. AAM, LGE (1707-23); CFC and CPM.
FIRST FILIPINO PRIESTS 131
Jerónimo (1707-23) are almo

Camacho's and Cuesta's crucial Libros de Ordenes are nowhere to
be found. Fortunately, they can be inferred to a great extent from
the official book where the Licencia para decir la primera y demás
missas are entered for most - but for unknown reasons, not all -
newly ordained priests. Likewise, the missing elements in Cama-
cho's book can be inferred from Cuesta's initial documents.
After Archbishop Cuesta's term and about a year of sede
vacante, there is another long gap of documents from 1725 to
1736 except for stray records of synodal examinations of
1729-34.6 After 1736, the records are more or less complete.
The time range of this research, therefore, as determined by the
availability of records, is from 1620 to 1724. The manuscripts
from 1737 onwards were consulted mainly to follow the careers
of the subjects as far as possible. Their academic records at the
UST Archives were also examined for additional data.7 Remark-
ably, the University has accumulated two hundred well-preserved
volumes of Diligencias de Grados of every candidate for gradua-
tion from 1663 to 1898.
To this researcher's knowledge, this is the first study of an
early aspect of Philippine church history which is almost entirely
drawn from local religious archives. Most if not all previously pub-
lished works in this category had been based on foreign collec-
tions. Hopefully, this article will show how rich and varied our
local repositories are and encourage more researchers to use them.
Unfortunately, the old diocesan archives of Cebú, Naga and Vigan
have perished in past catastrophes.8
CATEGORIES
The Indio priests in the seventeenth and early eigh

turies were not usually specified as such in the reco
because there were too few of them and it was common know-
ledge then who they were. Fortunately, for those who were not
6. AAM, LGE (1 723-24) :£PC.

7. AUST,y4G (1663-1713) and (1714-22);DG (1712, 1714, 1715 and 1716).
8. Most probably, the documents missing at the Manila Archdiocesan Archives
have duplicates in foreign collections like the Vatican Archives, the Archivo General
de Indias in Seville, and the Mexican National Archives, which can help to complete
this study in the future.
132 PHILIPPINE STUDIES
so classified, there is st
can be used to identify t
Half-Filipinos or mesti
included in this initial
identify them since th
ception we made is th
appears to be the first
fication was made clear
Three categories of Ind
based on the type of ev
as Indios - as Malay Fili
To the first category'
who were definitely id
are unequivocably of M
tute seventeen out of tw
The second category (m
who were not identified as Indios but whose surnames are most
likely of Malay derivation. By coincidence, however, their sur-
names are also of Spanish or Mexican origin - Tabuyo and
Moxica. Therefore, other supportive evidence has to be cited in
their cases.
In the third category (marked with three asterisks) are nine
who are neither identified as Indios nor bear Malay surnames but
about whom exist important indications that they must have been
Indios. Six were indicated as Indios in important documents cited
in this study (Jeronimo, Garzia, de Leon, Muñoz, Mercado and
Sta. Rossa); the other three had surnames which though usually
used as first or second names by Spaniards, were also popularly
used as family names by early Filipinos (Chrisostomo, Pasqual and
Gervacio). Other corroborative evidence is also presented in their
cases - further research may be able to determine that they were
at least Chinese or Spanish mestizos.
In this article, the first group of Filipino priests refers to those
ordained by Archbishop Camacho or one of his suffragan bishops,
and the second, those ordained by Archbishop Cuesta or one of
his suffragan bishops.
Most of these indio priests were ordained in Manila. However,
eight of them moved later to the suffragan dioceses of Cebu,
Nueva Segovia and Nueva Caceres (Tabuyo, Jeronimo, Pasqual,
♦See Table, pp. 182-88.
Guinto, Sta. Cruz, Sta. Ros

of the four Baluyots in our
nila but assigned to Cebu; A
a missionary in Nueva Sego
and lastly Agustin was in N
Manila. Another two, (Sagu
ordained in Manila, belonge
res but also made the transition to Manila.
We cannot discount the possibility that the very first Filipino
priest was ordained not in Manila but in one of the other three
original dioceses which were all founded in 1595. This is one of
the limitations of this work, for it focuses mainly on Manila, the
only archdiocese in the Philippines during the whole Spanish
period.
In terms of their regional background, of these early Filipino
priests one was probably a Cagayense (Tabuyo) another was an
Ilocano (Gervacio); ten were Pampangos (Jeronimo, the four Balu-
yots, Maflago, Guinto, Sta. Cruz, Mercado and Sta. Rossa) and the
rest (sixteen) were Tagalogs.
Judging from their family names, academic background and
other records, all came from the native nobility or the Lakans,
like their counterparts in New Spain. The faithful must have re-
ferred to them as mga Paring-Lakan (noble priests) which describes
not only their lineage but also their character. Being priests of the
universal church, they were the first group of Filipinos to leave be-
hind documentary biographies.
Officially, they were called Bachiller (Br.) or Bachiller Don
(B.D.) apparently referring to their bachelor's degree in arts or
philosophy. A few who had earned a licentiate's degree were called
Licenciado Don. In contrast, the friars of the religious orders were
elaborately addressed as Muy Reverendo Padre Fray (M.R.P.F.).
Lastly, it is edifying to note that the ordination of the first two
groups of Filipino priests in the eighteenth century (1699-1723)
coincided approximately with the foundation of religious congre-
gations for native women ( 1 684 for the Beaterío de la Compania;
and 1 725 for the Beaterío de San Sebastian ) as well as the publica-
tion of the first religious book by a Filipino, Gaspar Aquino de
Belen's Mahal na Pasión (1704). It was a Golden Age of Faith.
The women were more than a decade ahead, most probably be-
cause their spiritual undertaking did not carry with it canonical
status. Hence they wer

ecclesiastical colonialist
priesthood of the univer
PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS
PREJUDICE
Most, if not all of the first two groups of F

lectively and individually, bore the brunt of
from the most subtle to the most blatant, at
of their lives. This can be gleaned quite clearl
general discussion as well as their separate b
sense, the first Filipino priests had to be men
those who suffer for justice' sake. Under the
only choice left for the first native priests w
in the Lord's vineyard, their inner light almos
from view during their lifetime and for ages
deeds speak louder than the harsh words of their
De la Costa has demonstrated that various factors coalesced to
delay the development of the native clergy. But of these, the most
lamentable to the Filipino is that of racial discrimination. In fact,
even the other factors cited by de la Costa and Schumacher such
as the Patronato concessions to the Religious Orders, the previous
experience with Mexican Indios and the inertia of Church and
state officials, were at least partly due to or aggravated by racial
bias. Nor can "prudence" be constantly invoked to explain the
tardy development of the native clergy.
To begin with, racial bias was inherent in the colonial system
which was based on the assumption that the Indios were a weak
race and hence, they had to be elevated spiritually and politically
for their own sake. If this idea was not officially declared as such,
it was passionately articulated in the famous letters of Archbishop
Felipe Pardo (1680), Archbishop Francisco de la Cuesta, O.S.H.
(1708), and Fray Gaspar de San Agustin, O.S.A. (1720). Their
uncharitable epistles were penned at strategic stages and consti-
tuted a real obstacle in the evolution of the native clergy. They
presumed the Indios incompetent and unworthy unless proven
otherwise. Thus their perceptions and conclusions were so distort-
ed by racial contempt as to
totally unacceptable. Nor sur
tencies appear between wha
pened (as recorded in their
their writings about the sam
hitherto unknown, were fou
and are presented here.
Furthermore, no Spanish
filed against their fellow S
and Cuesta's terms. This pa
unconscious, gave the false
only Indio priests could fall
The names of the first Fili
see print - the archives wer
early Filipino clergymen ha
entries of bare cold facts re
official books, on the one hand; or quite passionate opinions
about them expressed in letters, on the other. Hence, mere silence
about them must signify that they were doing well in their minis-
tries.
Hence, if we tend to bring up the weaknesses of the colonial
system as they affected the Church more than the shortcomings
of the Filipinos, it is because the latter have been assumed too
quickly, and harped upon so obsessively for so long that they need
no repetition here. Nevertheless, we will not cover up the latter's
faults as they are unearthed anew in this research. In the same
vein, we will not overlook the internal strength of the Church as
she struggled to serve "both Majesties."
COM PETEN CE
In terms of capabilities and accomplishments, we

the following five clusters among the trailblazers
clergy.
Pre-eminent. Those who ascended to very high positions in
the church hierarchy. If they had belonged to the favored race,
they would probably have become prelates. They included B.D.
Eugenio de Sta. Cruz, a Pampango, and B.D. Bartholome Saguin-
sin, a Tagalog. The former became provisor and vicar general of
Cebú and commissary o

ments. The latter, besid
synodal examiner of th
cathedral chapter and au
They deserved to be cal
The Jesuit historian, Ju
them out in his book Historia General written in 1751-54 but
belatedly published in 1892.9
Outstanding. Those who worked their way up, to midway
positions above the level of parish priests. Such were Licenciado
Don Martin Baluyot Panlasigui, who was appointed diocesan
secretary of Nueva Caceres and B.D. Juan Guinto who became
the first Filipino vicar forane in Paracale, Nueva Caceres.
Notable or Above-Average. Those who became parish
priests or missionaries instead of being relegated to coadjutor-
ships or sacristanships for life. In this group could be classified
the following twelve: B.D. Augustin Tabuyo, B.D. Miguel Jero-
nimo, Mro. D. Joseph de Ocampo, B.D. Sebastian Polintan, B.D.
Santiago Garzia, B.D. Augustin Baluyot, B.D. Sebastian Fabian
de Moxica, B.D. Tomas Manalo, B.D. Gregorio de Sta. Rossa and
B.D. Juan Chrisostomo; and B.D. Alfonso Baluyot and Licenciado
Don Diego Gervacio, the first two Filipino missionaries to Abra.
Competent or Average. Those who appeared to have re-
mained coadjutors or priest-sacristans during all or most of their
lives. Nine fit this category: B.D. Pedro Domingo de Leon, B.D.
Pedro Pasqual, B.D. Juan Maflago, B.D. Thomas Valdez Solit, B.D.
Pedro Diaz Mañosea, B.D. Juan Evangelista Muñoz, B.D. Juan de
Mercado and the two B.D. Francisco de Sta. Ana.
Unknown. We do not have enough data to be able to defi-
nitely classify these four: B.D. Francisco Baluyot, B.D. Ignacio
Gregorio Manesay, B.D. Nicholas Manalo and B.D. Simeon Ma-
thias.
In summary, of the twenty-nine Filipino presbyters identified
in this study, two were pre-eminent, another two were outstand-
ing, twelve were notable or above average, another nine were com-
petent or average and four were of unknown caliber.
9. Juan Jose Delgado, S. J., Historia General . . . de Filipinas 1751-54 (Manfla: Juan
Atayde, 1892), p. 23. Translated by Horacio de la Costa, S. J., Readings in Philippine
History (Manila: Bookmark, 1965), p. 91.
FIRST FILIPINO PRIESTS 1 3 7
It seems too good to be true

among these first Filipino pr
missed their records, and th
The well-publicized letters of
Fray San Agustin (1680-1720)
petence of the early Filipino
tioned our minds to expect th
B.D. Juan Chrisostomo, who
who were "notable or above-a
of Luban Island in Mindoro, h
labeled as incompetent but h
weakness which after all was not one of character but due to in-
sufficient preparation for the priesthood. This problem was partly
the responsibility of his Spanish mentors, who, in turn, were just
starting at this stage to put together a seminary training program.
As de la Costa pointed out, even in the later stages it appears that
the ecclesiastical authorities did not really train the early Filipino
priests as well as they should have - though they criticized them
severely for any resulting deficiencies.10
The fact that they were the very first indigenous priests in the
land means that they were scrupulously selected, as Delgado in-
dicated in his work. Moreover when Delgado himself observed
that there were some unfit early native priests, he was writing
between 1751 and 1754. By that time, there were far more Fili-
pino priests than the first two groups who are the subjects of this
article.
HISTORICAL NEGLECT
A question related to both competence an

with the exception of de la Costa, nobody
out the names of the first native priests. Is
pine Church historians are not Filipinos an
not be expected to be as interested in this
pinos themselves? On the other hand, there
historians besides de la Costa who could have made this effort
earlier by design, - not by chance which initiated the present
work.
10. de la Costa, "Development of the Native Clergy," pp. 244-49.
Perhaps the main reason

nately, in the absence of
negative impression abou
Hitherto, the limited b
them appear so insignif
study. Half-consciously,
afraid or ashamed to fi
discussion, however, sh
justly imposed on our m
ROYAL PATRONAGE
Since almost all Indio priests worked in the pa

tant to review first the intricacies of the ro
level, both in theory and practice. The posit
and priest-sacristans were created by royal d
by royal funds. Their provisions, therefore,
nato system. A parish or sacristy became vac
promotion or death of the incumbent. (Ot
cluded resignation, incapacitation, retireme
moval.) Whereupon the prelate of the See
nouncing the vacancy and competitive exam
was posted on the doors of the cathedral an
as wide a circulation as possible. All eligible a
be not only priests but also clerics in minor
and deacons, were examined by a committee
The names of the top three placers (tema) w
by the prelate to the governor-general as vice r
the latter selected one for the position (pre
prelate issued him the title and canonically i
y canónica institución) as the proprietary par
mayor ( propietario o en propiedad). This me
be displaced from his post except by another
a serious or just cause. If the chosen cand
priest, he was, of course, ordained first before
To get around the system which could be c
of the scarcity of secular priests, the bishop no
vacant parishes ad interim which did not re
assent. The coadjutors or assistant parish prie
FIRST FILIPINO PRIESTS 1 39
ed directly by the bishop.

priests upon the promotion
until the latter's successor could be named and installed.
An alternative though infrequent way of acquiring a parish or
sacristy was by exchange (permuta ) with an equivalent benefice
subject to the bishop's approval. For instance, a sacristanship
could be exchanged with a chaplaincy or two, depending on its
size ( Capellanías de Misas); or a lesser parish, with the sacristy of
a major curacy.
Undoubtedly, the patronato sought to achieve the ideal colla-
boration between church and state. Unfortunately, it appears that
in practice, the system, being a human instrument, was quite
susceptible to the personal biases of the officials charged with its
responsibilities at different levels.
In the synodal examinations, for instance, it was not an in-
frequent occurrence for early Indio priests not to make the score,
or if they did, to get a lower grade than their Spanish colleagues
who took the same examinations. (See the Rosario parish docu-
ment of 1721.) 11 The "logical" conclusion, of course, was that the
Indios were at least by comparison incompetent. We submit, how-
ever, that this judgment is too rash and simplistic, for it fails to
analyze the other variables involved in this complicated process.
First, examiners who had developed the foregone conclusion
that Indios were inadequate, were surely prone to fulfill their own
predictions except, perhaps, when facing exceptional men like
Santa Cruz and Saguinsin. Studies show that the personal warmth
and race of the examiner have a great deal to do with the per-
formance of the student. If the examiner has a condescending,
perhaps even contemptuous attitude, this can conceivably increase
the anxiety level of the examinee which, in turn, can lower his
performance significantly, even though he is really competent.
Secondly, the ecclesiastical educators did not really train the
early Indio priests sufficiently well to ensure competent perform-
ance in the examinations or assignments given them. Furthermore,
the Spaniards would naturally be more likely to perform better
in the synodal examinations, all things being equal, because they
were more likely to have had a better education and because
11. AAM, LGE (1707-23) folios 135-37.
Spanish was their nativ

should have taken into account.
Other levels of the patronato system were also fraught with
twists and turns of partisanship. For example, even if an Indio
priest got the same grade as his Spanish counterpart, he would still
be listed below the latter according to the colonial concept of the
order of races. Thus, if he made the terna, he would most likely
take third place if the other two examinees were Spaniards. More-
over, even if he had the best qualifications for the position, the
governor-general might prefer the Spaniard over him for pre-
sentation (as for example in case of B.D. Francisco de Sta. Ana
y Taas for the Curacy of Natives and Morenos).12 Further, even
if the governor nominated him, the prelate might refuse to install
him canonically although it was the prelate himself who sub-
mitted his name to the governor in the first place, as in the case
of B.D. Martin Baluyot Panlasigui for the curacy of Abuyon in
Nueva Caceres.13
THE SPANISH ADVOCATES
Yet it would be absurd to claim that racial prejudice

work in every case and at all times. For every ruthles
critic of Indio priests, there always emerged a truthf
from the same race to defend them, although these w
less attention than the former. Their depth enabled t
niards to see beyond the pale horizons of their age; li
those of the first Filipino priests, their names form a
litany of enlightened men.
Archbishops Miguel Garcia Serrano, O.S. A. (1619
Miguel de Poblete (1653-67) might have been among th
advocates. There are important data to suggest that th
have ordained the very first Filipino priests in the se
century: Augustin Tabuyo and Miguel Jeronimo. If so
it is an isolated case, their bold accomplishment repre
unprecedented leap of the spirit transcending racial lines.
Don Diego Antonio Viga (1680), attorney general
Philippines eagerly supported the first royal decree or
12. AAM. EPC (1729-34).

13. AAM, CFC
establishment of native seminaries in the Philippines (1677).

Unfortunately, he was outnumbered by the solid front of Arch-
bishop Pardo and the superiors of religious orders who opposed
its implementation. Before long, he became deeply embroiled
in the catastrophic Pardo controversy and died a pitiful prisoner
and exile in Cagayan in 1681. Restored to his see, Pardo ordered
the removal of Viga's remains from the cathedral in Lal-loc. On
the other hand, Pardo himself just before he died appears to have
felt some qualms of conscience. In 1689, he set aside a large sum
of money for the eventual founding of a seminary for Filipinos.14
Pardo's successor, Archbishop Diego Camacho y Avila (1697-
1706) proved to be the most steadfast in laying the foundations
of the Filipino secular clergy. In fact, he was its founding father.
The details of his struggles and achievements therefore, form part
of the general discussion here of the development of the native
clergy.
Camacho's successor, Archbishop Francisco de la Cuesta
(1707-23) at the start of his term, did not share his predecessor's
enthusiasm for the Filipino clergy. Nevertheless, when he realized
his misjudgement, he did not hesitate to revive Camacho's policy,
and to champion the cause of the Indio priests. Bridging the gap
between Camacho and Cuesta, Bishop Diego Gorospe of Nueva
Segovia (1705-15) had continued to ordain Filipino priests.
Besides the disarming patience and perseverance of the Indio
priests themselves, a host of colleagues inspired Cuesta's conver-
sion to their side. Most if not all of them appeared to be criollos
who were bound to sympathize with and understand the Filipinos
more deeply, having been born and raised in the islands. Inde-
pendently, they evolved a benevolent policy towards the native
clergy as reflected in their official acts and correspondence with
the archbishop.
Mro. Don Juan Gonzalez de Guzman who was the provisor of
the archdiocese on the death of Pardo ( 1 689) was also the provisor
of Nueva Caceres on the death of Bishop Gonzalez (1709), Pardo's
last surviving contemporary. It was this dignitary who directed
Cuesta's attention to the plight of Licenciado Don Martin Baluyot
14. Pablo Fernandez, O.P., History of the Church in the Philippines, 1521-1898
(Manila: National Book Store, 1979), p. 47.
Panlasigui, the earliest

The latter had been presented as parish priest of Abuyon by
Governor Zabalburu in 1705 upon nomination by Bishop Gonza-
lez himself. For obscure reasons, however, the old prelate refused
to install him in his parish. Upon hearing his case, Cuesta promptly
restored Baluyot to his rightful place.
Another provisor of a vacant see (Nueva Segovia), Mro. Don
Julian de Molina, ardently pleaded the cause of B.D. Augustin
Baluyot (probably a younger brother or cousin of the other Balu-
yots) before both the Archbishop and the archdiocesan secretary
(17 16). 16 The young Pampango had been ordained by the late
Bishop Gorospe without clear titles to enable him to work as a
priest. Cuesta not only granted him the titles but kept him in Ma-
nila for work in the archdiocese.
The first rector of San Phelipe, Licenciado Don Gabriel de Istu-
ris, appears to be instrumental in gradually relaxing the exclusivist
policy of the seminary as early as 1712 or five years after its inau-
guration. To underscore his sympathy for the new Indio semina-
rians, he founded a chaplaincy for one of them, Francisco Fabian
de Sta. Ana, and another one for himself in 1715. He stipulated
that after his lifetime and that of Sta. Ana, his chaplaincies should
be given to colegiales and porcionistas of San Phelipe who do not
have any other ecclesiastical benefice. He nominated the arch-
bishop as their patron and requested forty masses a year for the
eternal repose of his soul and those of his relatives and others
in Purgatory. Isturis was probably a criollo who had a late
vocation, having served as alcalde-in-ordinary of Manila and al-
calde mayor of the Parian. Famed for his philanthropy, he also
formed an obra pia in 1724 for the support of the San Juan de
Dios Hospital.17
Two close subordinates of Camacho and Cuesta, Dr. Domingo
Valencia and Dr. Protazio Cavezas, both criollos, were later pro-
moted to the Bishoprics of Nueva Caceres and Cebú, respective-
15. Gonzalez de Guzman became a Licenciado and Maestro en Filosofìa at UST in

1679. USTAA, Graduate Listing, p. 1-A;AAM, CFC.
16. Molina graduated as Licenciado and Maestro en Artes at UST in 1692. USTAA,
Graduate Listing, p. 2-A. He might have been the brother of the archdiocesan secretary,
Phelipe de Molina y Figueroa, who was born in Arevalo (Iloilo) Panay. William C. Re-
petti, S.J., The College of San Jose of Manila (Manila, 1941), MS., p. 347; AAM, CFC
and CPM.
17. AAM, LGE (1707-23) f. 44v and 45; BR, 45: 173, and 47: 214.
ly.18 Without predecessor

to coveted positions in th
Baluyot became the first
Guinto, the first Filipino vicar forane and B.D. Bartholome
Saguinsin, the first Filipino priest-sacristan of the cathedral. In
Cebu, B.D. Eugenio de Sta. Cruz emerged as the first Filipino
provisor and vicar general and commisary of the Holy Office,
succeeding Cavezas in those positions.
Finally, the most reflective defender of the early Filipino priests
and their race against the disparagement of Fray San Agustin was
the Jesuit historian Juan Jose Delgado in his book Historia General
de Philippinas. Although written in 1750s, this masterpiece was
only published in Manila in 1892. In the meantime, San Agustin's
letter had gained wide circulation since it had been incorporated
in Sinibaldo de Mas' work (1843) and was quoted by Bowring in
his book (1859). Blair and Robertson even found "many manus-
cript copies of it ... in various collections, archives and libra-
ries."19 San Agustin was an excellent historian but he clearly
nursed some psychological blindspots as manifested by his ran-
corous disposition in old age, the brunt of which the Indios had
to bear. In comparison, Delgado was a rare wholesome soul.
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
Some historians have recently claimed that there w

a few Filipino priests ordained in the seventeenth ce
ever, Schumacher has clearly pointed out that their
are "based on erroneous data or interpretations."
hand, Schumacher has received verbal reports that lat
century baptismal books in some parishes in the llo
contain entries of priests with Ilocano surnames.20
The Mormon Church in cooperation with the Cath
Conference of the Philippines has microfilmed and
the canonical books (baptismal, matrimonial and burial) in
18. Valencia was born in Manila, and Cavezas in Vigan. Both graduated from the
College of San Jose. Repetti, The College , p. 347.
19. BR, 40: 183.
20. John N. Schumacher, S.J., "The Eighteenth Century Filipino Clergy: A Foot-
note to de la Costa," Philippine Studies 26 (1978): 157-73.
Luzon.21 According to
church books in llocos
sinan, there are at least
back to the mid-sevente
indeed provide a definit
The seventeenth centur
cesan Archives yielded
AUGUSTIN TABUYO. He was ordained deacon by Archbishop
Miguel Garcia Serrano, O.S. A. (1619-29) on 18 September 1621.
As though his ordination had to be justified by an unassailable
authority, this identifying line was added after his name este es
criado del dicho Arzobispo. He was the only one in this long list
to be so described. Exactly three months later, he was ordained
to the priesthood by the same archbishop on 18 December 1621.
This time, he was identified as criado del Obispo de Nueba Zego-
via con Reverendos del dicho Arzobispo.22
There were three more criados del Obispo de Nueba Zegovia
who were granted the first tonsure in Manila on 19 February
1622. 23 They were Francisco Báquio, Juan Flores and Marcos de
Figueroa. However, they do not seem to have pursued their
vocations for their names do not appear again in the subsequent
lists.
Some historical background is necessary to understand these
data. Archbishop Garcia Serrano was the bishop of Nueva Segovia
from 1616 to 1619 when he succeeded to the episcopal see of
Manila. He must have brought the young Augustin Tabuyo with
him to Manila, so that he could personally oversee Tabuyo's
training to the priesthood, hence, the title criado del Arzobispo.
Meanwhile, the new bishop of Nueva Segovia, Dr. Don Juan de
Renteria of the secular clergy, finally arrived after a long delay
in October or November 1621. 24 Thus when Tabuyo took Holy
21. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Microfilm Operator's Report ,
on Church Books in Luzon, arranged alphabetically according to Provinces. MSS, tem-
porarily located in the UST Main Library, according to directives of the CBCP.
22. AAM, LGE (1620-27), Doc. 272, f. 190, and Doc. 274, f. 191v. (He was or-
dained with Sebastian Ramos who was one of the three earliest known graduates of
UST, as Maestro en Artes, in ca. 1629).
23. Ibid., Doc. 274, f. 192. (Moreover, Archbishop Garcia Serrano created a multi-
racial clergy. He ordained a Japanese Jesuit, Miguel Magsunda (1622) and two Japanese
Dominicans, Jacobo de Sta. Maria and Thomas de San Jaántho (1625). The latter two
were martyred in Japan (1633 and 1634, respectively) and recently beatified with the
Filipino mestizo Lorenzo Ruiz. Ibid., Docs. 274 and 282.).
24. BR, 51: 301-2, and 20: 85.
Orders, he was called instead criado del Obispo de la Nueba

Zegovia. He must have returned to this diocese soon after his
ordination.
In 1624, we meet him again as Licenciado Augustin Tabuyo
Baldecañas during the expedition to the Igorot mines led by
sargento mayor Alonzo Martin Quirante (February to May). He
was appointed to this expedition by Bishop Renteria together
with the Dominican missionary in Pangasinan, Fray Raymundo
Beger, as "cura and vicar" of the group. Beger apparently worked
with the 855 Pangasinense-members of the party while Tabuyo
served the 893 Ilocano warriors. In the end, however, only Tabuyo
was left to become "cura and vicar of the camp and fort of San-
tiago of the Igolotes" and sign the official reports of the expedi-
tion as a principal witness.25
In Bugarin's Diccionario Ibanag-Español (1854), there is a word
Tabbuyut which is translated as "De tomar algo, aparandolo en la
saya, falda, o' pañuelo,"26 (Ibanag is the dialect of Cagayan Pro-
vince where the bishopric of Nueva Segovia was originally
located.) This might have been the rootword of Tabuyo; the Spa-
niards frequently dropped terminal consonants of indigenous
names.
According to the style of the period, "Baldecañas" (

bamboos") must have been Tabuyo's maternal surnam
mean that his mother was a Spanish lady and therefor
Spanish mestizo? Most probably not. Spanish mestizos
the offspring of a Spanish father and an India; the rev
nation was a social taboo.27
If Tabuyo was indeed an Indio-Filipino, then he must
the first Filipino priest. If not, he might have been
expatriate in northern Luzon, which however, was ra
usual and less likely. Needless to say, a great deal of re
be necessary to resolve this issue.
25. Ibid., 20: 262-303.

26. Jose Bugarin, Diccionario Ibanag-Español (Manila: Amigos del P
lemento, p. 57.
27. Is Tabuyo also a Spanish at Mexican surname? The Spanish histo
Villaroel, O.P., said he had never heard of it as a Spanish patronymic
must be very rare. A comparative survey of the telephone directories of
of the Philippines, Mexico and Spain reveals three subscribers with this
Manila, one in Mexico City, and none in Madrid.
In principle, a Filipino Indio could have been ordained at

that stage of the Philippine church although admittedly it would
have been quite a novel idea. The third Council of Mexico had
tried to relax, though only slightly, the ban on the ordination
of Indios, as along as "great care [is] exercised in their selection."
This was in 1585 or seven years after the creation of the diocese
of Manila suffragan to Mexico.
Moreover, Luzon had passed the critical test of "two gene-
rations" allowing for sufficient assimilation and maturation of the
people in the new Faith so that ordination of native sons could
be considered. Of all the religious orders, the Augustinians to
which Archbishop Garcia Serrano belonged seemed the most open-
minded with regards to this development. They began admitting
Indios of the native nobility as early as 1590 or thirty-one years
before Tabuyo's ordination. In that year, Martin Lakandula, son
of the king of Tondo, received the Augustinián habit as a lay
brother but he died soon afterwards. Another thirty-one years
after Tabuyo's ordination, another young Lakan, Marcelo de San
Agustin entered the same Order as a lay brother on 5 September
1652. 28 His spiritual brethren and namesake, Fray Gaspar de San
Agustin, O.S.A., paid homage to him as a musician, composer
"and above all, a great servant of God" in his Conquistas de las
Islas Filipinas. This book was published in Madrid in 1698, a year
after Bro. Marcelo's death. Fray Gaspar must have forgotten his
example altogether twenty-two years later ( 1 720) when he wrote
his vehement discourse against Indio priests and their so-called
worthless race.29
Besides Tabuyo, there appears to be at least one more Indio
priest in the seventeenth century. An extant list of alumni of the
Colegio de San Juan de Letran who became "priests and reli-
gious" {sacerdotes y religiosos ) includes the following:
Miguel Jerónimo (de Padres Nobles) entró por el afio 1632, Pampango,
clérigo presbítero.
28. Elviro Perez, Catalogo Bio-Bibliografico de los Religiosos Agustinos . . . (Ma-

nila: University of Sto. Tomas, 1901), pp. 67 and 200. The Augustinians were also the
only Order in the Philippines in the seventeenth century which included Filipino-Spa-
nish mestizo priests in their roster. Ibid., pp. 204 and 210.
29. Gaspar de San Agustin, Conquistas de las Islas Filipinas (Madrid, 1698), p. 490,
and Sinibaldo de Mas, Informe sobre el estado de las Islas Filipinas en 1842 (Madrid,
1843), 3:33.
Juán Lorenzo (desamparado),

salió para clérigo.30
Their names are quite typi

pinos who seemed to prefer
list was made in 1655, it in
been ordained by that time
found documentary corrob
diocese.
On 23 September 1653, Archbishop Poblete ordained a certain
Miguel Jeronimo de Morales (written in Latin as Michael Hyero-
nimus) to the first tonsure and minor orders. His name, however,
does not appear again in the subsequent catalogues. The reason
might well be that he had transferred to the diocese of Nueva
Caceres. On 17 November 1666, Archbishop Poblete, acting as
governor of the diocese, sede vacante, appointed Br. Miguel Jero-
nimo as interim parish priest of Pajo in Camarines (Catanduanes)
"with the assistance of and under Mro. Diego Baptista."31
The common denominator between Archbishop Garcia Ser-
rano who ordained Tabuyo and Archbishop Poblete who ordained
Jeronimo was their affirmation of the episcopal right of visitation
of Regulars who administered curacies. In fact, as we shall see, this
was the common denominator of all the Archbishops who cham-
pioned the ordination of Indio priests. Clearly, they realized the
need for a native clergy in order to overcome the perennial threat
of the Religious Orders to resign their curacies in protest of
visitation.
THE FIRST GROUP OF FILIPINO PRIESTS
ARCHBISHOP DIEGO CAMACHO Y AVILA, THE
FOUNDING FATHER (1697-1706)
If there were Indio priests ordained during the s

century, it seems quite clear that they were very
between. It was rather at the close of the seventeen
that the Filipino secular clergy was belatedly but en
30. Evergisto Bazaco, Historia Documentada del Real Colegio de S

ran (Manila: U.S.T. Press, 1933). p. 55.
31. AAM, LGE (1656-1673) Does. 710 and 760.
launched by Archbish
because in the face of
he still persisted almo
royal order to that eff
tions not just for an a
purpose, his name sho
of the Philippine churc
stood as the brown pri
Born in 1652 of a noble family in Badajoz, Camacho was
ordained a secular priest and eventually became canon of the
cathedral of his native city. He was elected archbishop of Manila
on 29 April 1694. To his disquiet, he learned that there was
no seminary yet in the Philippines, and as soon as he arrived in
Mexico in 1695, he formally petitioned the King to fill this need
in his archdiocese. He was consecrated at the Cathedral of Puebla
de los Angeles on 19 August 1696 soon after receiving the papal
bull of his appointment. Before he sailed from Acapulco on 30
March 1697, in the midst of a dreadful pestilence, he managed to
follow up his petition to the King regarding a seminary in
Manila.32
From the outset Camacho embarked upon the training of native
aspirants for the priesthood while confidently awaiting the formal
creation of a seminary. This he did even as he plunged coura-
geously into the controversy over the episcopal visitation of
parishes held by the religious orders. As in previous epochs,
the latter threatened to resign their curacies and Camacho
realized all the more the need for a Filipino clergy in order to
counteract this harsh contingency.
The ordination of the first group of Filipino priests by Ca-
macho and his suffragan bishops can be divided into three phases.
The first phase occurred between 1697 and 1704 before the
arrival of the Royal order of 1702 creating the first Philippine
seminary. The second was between 1704 and late 1705 before the
Seminary of San Clemente was set up temporarily in a private
house in Intramuros. At this point, Bishop Andres Gonzalez,
O.P., of Nueva Caceres (1681-1709) followed Camacho's lead
albeit ambivalently. The third phase occurred between late 1705
and the middle of 1706 when Camacho left Manila for Guadala-
32. Merino, Don Diego Camacho, p. 405; BR. 51: 308.
Hfl rulo del Dr. Cmnachu. (Foto (¿«Ieri« de Arie tlel Cvluldv de CtuduUjura
de Méjico),
Qí.
jara in Mexico. In the last two phases, Camacho found special

support in Abbot Gianbattista Sidoti (1704-8) to turn his dream
of a native seminary into reality. Therefore, Sidoti should be con-
sidered the co-founder of the Filipino secular clergy. The names,
categories and curriculum vitae of the first group of Filipino
priests are summarized together with those of the second group in
the accompanying table. They will be discussed together in the
general context of the development of the native clergy.
In the agonizingly slow bureaucratic communications between
Spain and the Philippines through Mexico, we have to follow alter-
nately the chain of events on three fronts: Camacho's pioneering
struggles in Manila, his languishing petition in Madrid and their
repercussions in the Vatican.
THE FIRST ORDINEES (1698-1703)
Br. Francisco Baluyot is the first definitely know

Camacho apparently ordained him in Advent (Dece
about a year and a half after his arrival. On 20 Feb
while Baluyot was in Guagua, Pampanga, his hometo
bishop sent him the license to preach and hear conf
men and women.33 By then, Camacho had designate
of the diocese of Cebu which was governed only b
crated Bishop Miguel Bayot, O.F.M. (1696-1700).34
The devout Baluyots turned out to be the first Fil
clan serving all four Philippine dioceses. Besides Fr
others of the same surname were among the first
Filipino priests, that is, two in the first group (Alfonzo and
Martin) and one in the second group (Augustin).
Camacho also ordained the first known Chinese mestizo priest,
Licenciado Joseph de Ocampo about six months after Francisco
Baluyot's ordination. A man of means, Ocampo founded his own
capellanía de misas on 23 March 1699 and was installed by the
archbishop as its first chaplain on 30 May. As was customary then,
he was most probably ordained soon after his installation when he
33. AAM, LG E (1697-1706) f. 112v.

34. Eusebio Gomez Platero, Catalogo Biografleo de los Religiosos Franciscanos de
la Provincia de San Gregorio-Magno de Filipinas . . . (Manila: U.S.T., ISSO); Hierarchia
Catholica Medii et Recentioris Aevi. (Patavii: OFM conv. 1952), vol. 5 (1667-1730)
p. 291.
had established his means o

occurred in June of 1699 in the Ember week after Pentecost. As
far as we know, he was both the first Chinese mestizo to found a
capellania as well as the first Chinese mestizo capellan. An erudite
man, he was also apparently the first Chinese mestizo to earn
licentiate and magistral degrees in Arts at the University of Sto.
Tomas.35
The second Indio priest to be ordained by Camacho was Br.
Ignacio Gregorio Manesay. He acted as a Tagalog translator during
the archbishop's pastoral visits of 1698-99. On 19 September
1699, Camacho paused to grant him the license to say his "first
and other masses" in the archdiocese for a duration at the will of
His Grace. Three months later, on 15 December 1699, Camacho
further gave him the title of general confessor for both men and
women in the archbishopric.36
After an interval of almost four years, Camacho found another
important opportunity to elevate the third Indio to the priest-
hood: Br. Alfonzo Baluyot y Garzia, probably a younger brother
or cousin of Francisco. In early 1703, a Regidor of the City of
Manila, Captain Thomas de Cruzalegui, in representation of the
pagan tribes of the mountains of Abra de Vigan, petitioned Cama-
cho as administrator of the vacant see of Nueva Segovia for a
missionary from the secular clergy. In direct response to this re-
quest, Camacho ordained Alfonzo sometime in the middle of
the same year. On 14 August, he gave him the privilege to cele-
brate his "first and other masses" for a period of time at the will
of the archbishop as well as the titles of "worker and linguist"
( operano y lengua). Then on 22 August, Camacho made him a
preacher and general confessor and nominated him as the mis-
sionary to Abra. Governor Zabalburu approved the nomination
the next month. Finally, on 7 September 1703, the archbishop
formally proclaimed him Ministro y Misionero Apostolico de
los Montes del Abra de Vigan. 37
Just before Alfonzo's ordination, Camacho endowed him with
a capellania de misas on 20 April 1703 to augment his priestly
income. Its patron, the governor-general himself, its founder Don
35. AAM, LGE (1697-1706) f. 122; AUST, AG (1663-1713); USTAA, Graduate

Listing, p. 2-A.
36. BR 51:42; AAM, LGE (1697-1706) ff. 148 v, 154 and Cartas.
37. AAM, LGE (1697-1706) ff. 275-76v.
Diego Arcarazo, as well a

This is probably the fir
native clergy by a prom
1706, another capellanía
and Indios by its founders, a Portuguese-Spanish couple Don
Domingo and Doña Martina Gomez. They asked Camacho to be
its patron.)38
Br. Alfonzo Baluyot was both the first Indio capellan as well as
the first known Indio missionary. His case shows that Camacho
independently envisioned a missionary thrust for the native
clergy well before his momentous meeting with Archbishop
Tournon and Abbot Sidoti sparked a far more elaborate mis-
sionary project for the whole of Asia.
FOUNDATION OF THE SEMINARY (1702);

CAMACHO'S TRANSFER TO MEXICO (1 703)
We have to move back in time and place at this po

Camacho's petition in the Spanish capital for a native
Manila. Apparently as a result of it, the Madrid gov
cided to follow up in 1697 the earlier Royal Decree o
had already ordered the erection of a Philippine semi
manded the incumbent Governor General Fausto Cr
1701) to report on what steps, if any, had been t
direction in the past two decades and if none, an est
costs involved in starting the project. Correctly assum
decree had been shelved, the Council of the Indies en
cho's entreaty to the King as early as November 16
the initial number of eight native seminarians. How
II, the last of the Spanish Hapsburgs died three years
Cruzat could fashion a response. Instead, the govern
of 13 June 1700 was received by the new Bourbon K
In it, he admitted that no seminary had ever been b
because in his opinion there was no need for one, pa
To refute the governor's claim, Camacho reiterated
tions to the King in a more urgent tone on 1 and 13
38. Ibid., f. 266v.-67v.; CM (1879-81) C.

39. BR 28: 117, 118, and 190; 45:192, and 195; Merino, Don Di
p. 406.
Camacho won his battle in

Royal Decree creating the
didates on 28 April 1702. T
nila until two years later. B
General, Domingo Zabalbur
the idea as his predecessor and the Religious Orders had been.
On 9 November 1703, Camacho was nominated Bishop of Guada-
lajara in Mexico. In rapid succession, this was ratified by a Papal
Bull on 14 January 1704; a royal cédula followed five months
later and Camacho received his new appointment in Manila in June
of the following year. Sad news seemed to travel faster. In order to
be able to lay the cornerstone of the first Philippine seminary,
he decided to postpone his departure for a year.40
Although his transfer was a big blow to him, Camacho staunch-
ly refrained from commenting publicly on the possible reasons be-
hind it. But the foregoing chronology clearly shows that his trans-
fer was not caused by the way he later exceeded in his zeal the
Royal Order of 1702, which was received in Manila in 1704, i.e.,
only after Camacho had been nominated and confirmed to the see
of Guadalajara. It is interesting to note, though, that this precise
misinterpretation originated from chroniclers of the Religious
Orders such as his contemporary, the Recollect Juan de la Con-
cepción, and the Augustinián Martinez de Zuñiga, from whom it
was unwittingly picked up by modern church historians including
de la Costa.41
Abbot Gianbattista Sidoti, Co-founder (1704-8)
The two years between 1704 and 1706 were obviously quite
hectic for Camacho. There was so much to accomplish in so little
time. Providentially, at precisely this hour of stress and dire need,
two dynamic men of God appeared on the shores of Manila on
22 September 1704. They were the Papal Legate to Peking, Arch-
bishop Charles Thomas Maillard de Tournon, on his way to re-
solve the conflict over the Chinese rites; and a Sicilian secular
priest called Abbot Sidoti, a quixotic saint animated with the idea
of reintroducing Christianity to Japan. Considering their tasks at
40. Ibid, pp. 435-41 ; A AM, LGE (1697-1706) f. 395.

41. BR 45:192-207 (Juan de la Concepcion's account); Joaquin Martinez de Zu-
ñiga, Historia de ¡as Islas Philipinas (Sampaloc, 1803), pp. 415-17.
1 54 PHILIPPINE STUDIES
hand, it was not surprisi

clergies matched Cama
in Manila, they decided
panding his project to i
ippines but from all over
In Camacho's behalf, T
buru regarding the lon
parted for Macao on 2
up where he left off in
charismatic man, Sidoti succeeded in time in converting the
shrewd Zabalburu to their side. To complement government ex-
penses, Sidoti personally solicited private contributions in Manila
and suburbs from which he received an overwhelming response.
The roll of honorable patrons numbered ninety, spearheaded by
the archbishop, the governor-general, dignitaries of the cathedral
chapter, auditors of the Audiencia and more than fifteen generals.
All were Spanish supporters of the native clergy under the inspi-
ration of Camacho and Sidoti. Not lacking in business sense, Si-
doti deposited the majority of the funds (twelve thousand pesos)
as an obra pia with the Mesa de la Misericordia so that it could be
invested in the galleon trade. In this way, he calculated that the
capital would multiply to the point that the seminary could be-
come self-supporting.42
No less enthusiastically, the Tagalogs pledged to provide in their
own humble way all the necessary stone and limestone, and the
Pampangos, all the timber for the seminary building.
As Camacho magnanimously put it to the King, "(Sidoti) pre-
vailed where your Royal Orders and all my efforts failed." He also
called him "a true apostle and a selfless man who labored day and
night." Hence, although he came to the scene seven years late,
Sidoti could be considered the cofounder of the Filipino secular
clergy because of his indispensable role in the foundation of the
native seminary. This was his penultimate spiritual venture before
he suffered imprisonment and death in Japan (1708-15) for which
he is better known in ecclesiastical annals.
42. Merino, Don Diego Camacho, pp. 410-15; Enciclopedia Cattolica (Citta del
Vaticano, 1953), 11: 543, and 12: 383.
THE SECOND O R D IN E ES (170S)
After the Royal Order of 1702 was received in Manila

and before a temporary edifice could be secured for the se
Archbishop Camacho ordained two more Indio priests. Th
Br. Juan Chrisostomo and Br. Juan Mafiago. Camacho app
timed their ordination before the departure of the Papa
Tournon for Macao on 2 April 1705. A few months later
Andres Gonzalez of Nueva Caceres also ordained an Indio p
the Baluyot clan: Br. Martin Baluyot Panlasigui.
Br. Juan Chrisostomo must have been ordained in the Ember
week in Lent in February or March 1705. Camacho sent him to his
first assignment in San Pedro de Tunasan as assistant to its parish
priest, Mro. Protacio Cabezas, in the Holy Week of 1705. After a
year in this position, Camacho recalled him for failing in the sub-
ject of moral theology in the synodal examinations. On the other
hand, Cabezas who was to become Bishop of Cebu, seemed
pleased with his initial performance.43 Chrisostomo, who became
the most controversial of the first group of Filipino priests, per-
severed and acquitted himself quite well towards the middle part
of his career.
Br. Juan Mañago, on the other hand, was the first graduate of
the University of Sto. Tomas with a Malay surname. He earned the
degree of Bachelor of Arts there in March of 1700. Camacho
most probably ordained him at the same time as Chrisostomo. On
5 March 1705, he was nominated by Camacho assistant parish
priest (Theniente del Cura) of Santiago outside Intramuros and a
chaplain of the Chapel of the Royal Regiment {Real Tercio). How-
ever, it was only two months later, on 6 May 1705, that he was
granted the license to say his "first and other masses" in the arch-
diocese for a period of time at the will of His Grace.44
Not to be left behind, Bishop Gonzalez of Nueva Caceres
decided to ordain an Indio priest too, apparently for the first time.
He was Br. Martin Baluyot Panlasigui, probably a younger brother
or cousin of Francisco and Alfonso, two of the first ordinees. At
the latest, Martin received Holy Orders in the September Ember
Week of 1705. As though to make up for his lateness in elevating
43. AAM, CPM. (Letter of Cabezas, 20 April 1708).

44. AUST, AG (1663-1713); USTAA, Graduate Listing, p. 2-A; AAM, LUE ff. 376,
377v. and 46 lv.
native candidates, Gonza

foe in the visitation contr
first Indio parish priest
half-hearted gesture. Af
nomination on 2 Decemb
the last minute and refu
during the rest of the B
and by order of Archbi
latedly installed in 1711
Bondoc, Tayabas (now Quezon). Later, under Bishop-Elect Va-
lencia, he became the first Indio diocesan secretary in Nueva
Caceres (1716-18).
THE SEMINARY OF SAN CLEMENTE: THE THIRD OR-
DINEES AND THE FIRST SEMINARIANS (1705-6)
In October of 1705, while patiently negotiating for th

the construction of the seminary building, Camacho a
installed the first eight native seminarians temporarily
of the royal hacienda in Intramuros. The house had be
cated by the government from a certain Licenciado Do
Suarez de Oliveira and turned over to Camacho by Zab
The seminary was named San Clemente in honor of th
Pontiff.
The third group of Indio ordinees must also have be
in this house, although only for about six months. Ho
do not know if they were actually numbered among the fi
native seminarians. Most probably, they were all orda
gether by Camacho in May of 1706, at the latest, or tw
before he left for Mexico. They included Bres. Pedro D
Leon, Pedro Pasqual and Santiago Garzia.
De Leon was appointed assistant parish priest of San
Tunasan by Camacho on 6 June 1706 to replace Br. J
sostomo. He stayed there only until October when he
ferred to Balayan as its coadjutor, which was to be his p
the rest of his life.46
While still in minor orders, Br. Pedro Pasqual was nam
macho a Notario Receptor in the archdiocesan court on
45. Merino, Don Diego Camacho , p. 413.
46. A AM, LGE (1697-1706) f. 457v.; CPM (Letter of Cabezas, 20 April 1708).
^2
e
_v
w2
r ?
¿ 7.
. _t
J -I
Z «7
i. v
-3 ^
t .C
I -5
J j¿
. »
X .i
k.
t ".
"3 S
- <
'i* C.
S "T
C
•/.
1705. He was the first Fi

of. For lack of a specific
dained by Camacho toget
ed a priest on 10 October
Cuesta assumed his post
San Roque, Cavité under
Dr. Lucas Nayto. He also remained a coadjutor all his life, al-
though he died in the diocese of Nueva Caceres with the same
rank.47
Br. Santiago Garzia, on the other hand, was given the license
to wear the clerical habit for the first time by Camacho on 15
September 1704. We are also assuming that he was ordained
with de Leon and Pasqual. As early as 7 November 1707, less
than three months after Cuesta's arrival, he was already referred
to as Cura de las Estancias although this was probably in an
acting capacity.4 8
There was another seminarian named Br. Nicolas Silvestre who
was probably an Indio. He was allowed to wear the clerical garb
on 13 September 1704, two days before Garzia. However, he must
have left or died young because his name does not appear in any
later records.
Finally, to ensure the continuity of the native clergy Camacho
apparently raised at least five other Indios to minor orders before
his embarkation. Undoubtedly, they were among the first eight
native seminarians of San Clemente, among whom Br. Sebastian
Polintan stood out prominently. Camacho had ordained him to
the diaconate but he was apparently not ready yet for elevation
to the priesthood, perhaps because he had not reached the re-
quired age even for dispensation. Nevertheless, clearly impressed
by his ability, Camacho nominated Polintan as the first Indio
parish priest in the archdiocese, in the curacy of Sto. Tomas
de los Montes (Batangas). Governor Zabalburu confirmed his ap-
pointment on 6 June 1706 and Camacho conferred the formal
title upon him three days later. This rendered certain his ordi-
nation by Camacho' s successor.
Among the Indio seminarians to whom Camacho granted
minor orders, we can confidently identify the following, not from
47. AAM, LGE (1697-1706) f. 395; LGE (1707-23) f. 38v.; CFC (Letter of Nayto,
7 November 1707); CPM (Letter of Valencia, 31 October 1716).
48. Ibid.; LGE (1697-1706) f. 329v.; f. 450v-52.
Camacho's official book but

Bres. Thomas Valdez Solit, A
Guinto and Sebastian Fabia
are Br. Domingo Santiago and Br. Andres de Leon.) Solit was
apparently the most advanced in his seminary training whereas
the last three had just graduated as Bachelor of Arts from the Uni-
versity of Sto. Tomas in March 1706. Almost all of them were
called clérigos de menores ordenes shortly after Cuesta took over
the archbishopric.49
In summary, Archbishop Camacho ordained at the minimum,
nine native priests (eight Indios and one Chinese mestizo), one
Indio deacon and four Indios to minor orders.
The Constitution of San Clemente (1706)
On board the galleon Capitana Ntra. Sra. del Rosario, San Fran-
cisco and Sta. Rosa, on 7 July 1706, Camacho received and ap-
proved the carefully completed Constitution of the Colegio Semi-
nario of San Clemente from the hands of its saintly author, Abbot
Sidoti.50 The prologue sounds astonishingly modern for it repre-
sents the earliest stirrings of a nation well before its time vis-a-vis
the world.
Following the example of both majesties, the people of these Islands
have always manifested to the world their spirit of charity. On this oc-
casion, they fulfill this spirit once again by each contributing ample and
generous alms both to assist in the building of the College as well as to
increase the number of seminarians not only from these Islands but also
from all over the Orient.
The seminary constitution distinguished two general classes of
seminarians: the eight native students as specified by the royal
decrees, and the scholars of the residents and benefactors from
both the Philippines and other parts of Asia up to a maximum of
seventy-two in commemoration of the seventy-two disciples of
Christ. The latter provision turned out to be the most vulnerable
to criticism by the opposition. In addition, an unspecified num-
49. AUST, AG (1663-1713); AAM, LGE (1707-23) ff. 34v-35, 72, 38 (1715);
CFC (Letter of Gonzalez de Guzman, 26 May 1708).
50. AGI, 'Testimonio de las dispocisiones, estatutos y reglas concernientes a la
RL Cédula sobre la forma en que se ha de ejecutar la fundación del Seminario," (Ma-
nila 28 Junio 1707) Filipinas, leg. 308, cited in Merino, Don Diego Camacho, Appen-
dix 2, pp. 520-43.
ber of porcionistas or stu

tion was to be considered for admission.
The three main sections on the seminarians give a vivid idea of
how the first two groups of Filipino priests were probably select-
ed as well as their personal, social and regional origins.
The applicants should be between eight and twelve years of age
in "their prime innocence" before the onset of puberty. They
should also be of legitimate birth and preferably of the nobility
on both sides of the family {principales y cabezas). Nevertheless,
a plebeian of noble character, ability and promise should be pre-
ferred to a nobleman with lesser attributes.
By design, the selection process was democratic and decen-
tralized. "Notwithstanding the fact that the Lord Archbishops are
the sole judges of this College, it is the precise and indispensable
will of the benefactors that the selection of the students proceed
in the following manner." First the archbishop would issue an edict
certifying the available scholarships, and this was to be circulated
throughout the islands. Interested boys should not come to Manila
but present themselves first to their respective parish priests to-
gether with their baptismal certificates and other credentials. The
pastor would then choose one or two with the best qualities and
send them to Manila to the care of the dean of the cathedral
chapter if he was a secular priest, or to the provincial or vicar of
his Order if he was a regular. Finally the general board of exam-
iners ( Congregación General ) would meet at the appointed time
to examine each candidate and deliberate and choose the best
qualified among them.
For applicants from other countries, it would suffice initially
to present a letter of recommendation from the missionary priest
or other appropriate persons. Then the archbishop and the dean
would examine them personally and decide on their admission.
In terms of priorities for admission, Philippine natives were
to be always given first preference. They apparently included
Indios, mestizos and criollos but were to be chosen according
to their place of residence or birth in the following order: those
of Manila (in recognition of their munificent endowments); those
of Pampanga (for providing the timber for the building); those
of the Tagalog Provinces (for donating the stone and limestone);
those of the dioceses of Nueva Caceres, Nueva Segovia and Cebú,
and finally, the sons of the N

shown personal concern), Samb
In the second place came the s
born in the islands or in China,
In the third place were the son
to the islands, or their half-b
fourth place were the sons of t
neo, Siam (Thailand), Tonkin an
and Cambodia) and the Caroline
to the natives of Mindanao, Te
lays); Ceylon, Bengal, Malabars and Mogores (the latter four
groups were called Morenos in Manila), and other Oriental Islands.
Thus, virtually the whole spectrum of races was welcome; the
only two groups excluded were Jews and heretics who were not
inclined to apply in any case.
On the same day that he approved the foregoing document, Ca-
macho, set out for Mexico from the port of Cavite - almost exact-
ly nine years after setting foot in the Philippines.
EPILOGUE
At the time of Camacho' s departure, the seminary c

had progressed very little due to the dilatory tactics o
The Augustinians, for example, had tried to block the
ply of lumber from Pampanga. Now only Sidoti was le
this seemingly interminable project. He became the m
of vicious personal attacks by the opposition both op
anonymously. But he carried on. Inevitably, the com
the native seminarians was again called into question
the smouldering ember in the controversy. Officiall
the burning issue was the increase in the number of
to accommodate foreigners as well as natives, contra
intentions.51
As early as January of 1707, the fiscal of the Audien
mended a major revision of the statutes of San Cleme
form with the laws of royal patronage. Zabalburu sub
problem to the cathedral chapter which administered
diocese sede vacante. After consulting with the ecclesia
51. Ibid., pp. 414-15 and 424-29.
the chapter came up w

petitioned the governo
Clemente with eight na
but without prejudice t
question. Thus assured,
ration on 18 June 1707.
While the inauguration was still being planned, the next arch-
bishop, Francisco de la Cuesta, arrived. Being of similar persuasion
as the opposition, he arbitrarily quashed Sidoti's constitutions
for San Clemente, banning not only foreigners but also Indios
and mestizos from admission.
In a manner of speaking, Sidoti died a thousand deaths in Ma-
nila before his ultimate death in Japan. Between 1707 and 1708,
with his mission in the Philippines almost accomplished but dis-
mantled before his eyes at the last minute, he thrice embarked
for the Land of the Rising Sun. On his first two attempts, his ship
was wrecked at sea. It was on his third try that he reached Japan
on the night of 10 October 1708. General Miguel de Elloriaga,
administrator of the recently concluded construction of the semi-
nary accompanied him in his last voyage up to the island of Ta-
nexoxima. He then returned to the Philippines to relay the poig-
nant news to Zabalburu and Cuesta.52 The Abbot was arrested
soon after landing and languished in prison till his death on 15
November 1715.
We now turn to the last years of the other founder, Arch-
bishop Camacho. He had reached Acapulco on 19 December 1706
and took possession of the See of Guadalajara on 25 March 1707.
Together with Governor Zabalburu and the Audiencia, he was
belatedly reprimanded by the King on 15 August 1708 for their
unlicensed expansion of the Manila seminary. His Majesty had
learned about these changes only indirectly from the Papal Nun-
cio in Madrid. Thus, all Camacho got for his blood, sweat and tears
in Manila was virulent opposition and now a royal censure.53 It
seemed such a thankless task save for the lasting memory of Fili-
pino gratitude which they showed him especially during his last
days in the islands.
52. AAM, CFC (Letters of Zabalburu and Elloriaga, 26 and 27 October 1708)
53. Merino, Don Diego Camacho , 429-33.
After serving Guadalajara

passed away on 19 October
died a just and saintly man,"
Velarde. Deep within him, C
not been informed, that ti
this point. For Cuesta, after
clergy, had by now realized his mistake and was starting to
pick up its pieces contritely.
In a sense, Camacho had left his heart in Manila. In his testa-
ment, he asked that a Requiem Mass be celebrated for his soul at
the Manila Cathedral which he had so unselfishly embellished. His
last wish was solemnly fulfilled on 26 October 1713 by the Bishop
of Nueva Segovia, Don Diego de Gorospe e Yrala.54
The Recollect historian, Fray Juan de la Concepcion whose own
Order was fiercely entangled with Camacho in the conflict on
visitation, paints a sympathetic portrait of this prescient prelate.
He was a zealous and charitable Archbishop. From the due salary of his
predecessor, Señor Poblete, from various alms given by the King, and from
those given by pious private persons, his zealous diligence got together
more than forty thousand pesos. He spent them in this holy church of
Manila in its decoration and ornament. He gilded the reredos, beautified
the choir, enriched the sacristy with chalices and ornaments, and as well
built the excellent steeple from its foundations, and other things. More
than twenty thousand pesos were pledged in these expenses and in
various alms. He was a vigilant shepherd, and if the violent controver-
sies above mentioned which he had with the regulars occurred, he can very
easily be excused in that he did not exceed the authority and dignity of
his office. He promoted the missions of Paynaan and San Isidro, where he
went in person to induce the Aetas or Negritos to become converted.55
Camacho' s resplendent cathedral was the setting for his solemn

ordinations of the first group of Filipino priests.
THE SECOND GROUP OF FILIPINO PRIESTS
ARCHBISHOP FRANCISCO DE LA CUESTA, O.S. J.,

AMBIVALENT REVISIONIST (1706-10)
A theologian and preacher to the King in Madrid, F

cisco de la Cuesta of the Order of San Jeronimo was named to the
54. BR 51:308.
55. Ibid., 45:199-200.
archbishopric of Manila
12 August 1707 he took
the midst of preparatio
College of San Clement
its canonical erection was issued on 15 October 1707, but this
would arrive in the Philippines a year later.56
If Camacho had been transferred because of his conflicts with
the Religious Orders, it was to be expected that his replacement
would be more sympathetic to them. Indeed, Cuesta fulfilled this
expectation right from the start of his term.
Being the "sole judge" of the Seminary, he decided to abrogate
Sidoti's controversial constitution of San Clemente. On 24 October
1707, he formally drew up his new rules and regulations to replace
it. He had found the Abbot's rules too ascetic ("They could serve
to maintain in perfection the most reformed religious") and im-
practical ("in the judgment of prudent and experienced men").57
In stark contrast to Camacho and Sidoti, he not only barred
foreigners from admission but also re-interpreted the royal provi-
sion for eight native seminarians to mean "sons of Spaniards or at
least sons of a Spanish father and mestiza mother who are com-
monly called quarterones and not descendants of Indios, Moros,
Negroes or slaves or those sentenced by the Holy Office." As he
explained in his consulta to Governor Zabalburu also on 24
October, he based his interpretation on the Recopilación de Indias
regarding Colleges and Seminaries (Third Law, title 23, book 1).
In effect, he displaced the Indio and mestizo seminarians from
San Clemente and banned them from ordination. This was in
effect going back to the Mexican prohibition of 1555. The gover-
nor as Vice Royal Patron conveniently forgetting his understand-
ing with Sidoti, approved the new regulations the following day.
Thus, except in name, a totally different seminary was solemnly
inaugurated on 8 December 1707. 58
Notwithstanding these impetuous development, Cuesta gave
a few but clear indications of the opposite stand. In the Septem-
ber Ember Days only a month after his arrival, he ordained Br.
56. BR 51:308. (Blair and Robertson state that Cuesta was consecrated in Mexico
on 12 August 1707, which is apparently an error.); AAM, LGE (1707-23) f. 2v.; Merino,
Don Diego Camacho, p. 429.
57. Merino, Do« Diego Camacho , p. 424.
58. AAM, LGE (1707-23) ff. 43-44v„ 44v.-47v. and 5S.
Sebastian Polintan to the p

to celebrate his "first and
Thus Polintan became the f
priests although he had a
macho. Perhaps, Cuesta did
- Camacho had seen to it t
successor by appointing h
before he left for Mexico.
Be that as it may, Cuesta soon made an exception of at least
another Indio cleric in minor orders. In the middle of 1708, he
raised Br. Thomas Valdez Solit to the subdiaconate. At Cuesta's
order, Solit had been examined and found competent to become a
subdeacon on 26 May 1708 by Mro. Juan Gonzalez de Guzman,
one of the synodal examiners who showed sympathy for Indio
clerics. Subsequently, Solit became the second Filipino to be
ordained (with the title of Capellan) by Cuesta most probably
in 1710 or at the latest in 1712. Like that of Alfonzo Baluyot's,
his two capellanías were endowed and administered by Spaniards,
which shows that the development of the Indio clergy had not
completely lost support from a loyal minority of the Spanish
laity. Still, Solit's case was an exception.60
On 20 June 1708 (a few weeks after Solit's elevation to the
subdiaconate) Cuesta wrote a letter to the King informing him of
his decision "not to ordain them /Indios/." In the same letter,
he resolved to admit henceforth none but sons of Spaniards or at
least quarterones - a decision which we know now to be accord-
ing to the revised Rules of the Seminary which he had already de-
termined eight months earlier. Finally in this letter, to justify the
changes he had made, he vehemently criticized Camacho for
ordaining native priests who were dragging down their own race
as well.
He ordained some in his time, and I found them so unfit that even the
one most capable of them could not be put on a list of those proposed
for the position of sacristan in a church (to my great sorrow) because of
his lack of capacity. For the synodal examiners excluded him as being un-
worthy. And though this is bad enough, it is not the principal reason on
which I have formed my conscience in determining not to ordain them.
59. Ibid., f. 49 (He was ordained with Br. Martin de Sta. Cruz who died as parish
priest of Livis, Tayabas, diocese of Nueva Caceres. Ibid., f. 61v.).
60. Ibid., f. 166 and CFC (letter of Gonzalez).
Rather, it is the fact that

little good upbringing and
even after they have been
capable of being dealt wit
nation they preserve amo
ing that they had when th
one another in such unbef
object of scorn and jokes a
In this
was grie Cuesta
Piecing contem together
the "unworthy" nativ
controversial ordinee o
could he be considered
nine priests ordained
only one whose compe
question. The other eig
either as coadjutors or
ober 1707, he made d
and preachers.)63 Furth
that he himself had by
Polintan (who was vi
Polintan was competen
pastor of the archdioc
bishop during this per
liest surviving letter
three days after the for
Neither did Cuesta cite
diaconate.
Cuesta seems to have been desperately trying to achieve some
semblance of consistency between what he wrote and the vivid
examples of Polintan and Solit by focusing critically on Indio
priests he did not ordain and the "majority" of their kind. His
action alone with regards to Polintan and Solit as well as the lat-
61. AGI, Abp. Cuesta to the King, (Manila 20 June 1708) Filipinas, leg. 308, cited
by Juan B. Olaechea, "Incidencias politicas en la cuestión del clero indigena en Fili-
pinas," Revista Internacional de Sociologia (1972): 167, and translated by Schumacher,
"Filipino Clergy," p. 160. Other parts of this letter are quoted by Merino, Don Diego
Camacho, p. 424.
62. AAM, CFC (Letters of Don Geronimo de Herrera, 27 June 1708 and Governor
Zabalburu, 12 June 1709 );LGE (1707-23) ff. 74, 82 and 99.
63. Ibid., f. 38v.
ter's conduct negated his o

such is the inconsistency of
THE TRIUMPH OF PATIENCE:
CUESTA'S TRANSFORMATION (1710-15)
In time, the patient examples of Polintan, Camach

and their advocates as well as Cuesta's own matur
as archbishop must have brought about his change of
cally, Cuesta was in the process of reviving his pred
just when the royal censure of Camacho and Zabalbu
Manila in about 1710. His Bourbon pride slighted, th
ordered the demolition of the building of San Clem
construction of a new seminary on a different site
San Phelipe after His Majesty's and not His Holi
saint.64
To be sure, Cuesta's metamorphosis was not proclaimed offi-
cially but nevertheless it showed clearly in various ways. For
example, in 1710 alone, he made three important decisions favor-
ing particular native priests. First, Cuesta summoned Br. Juan
Maflago, one of Camacho's ordinees, to be the only Indio priest
among the confessors at the Manila cathedral for the Lenten
season (March). Next, he ruled in favor of another Indio priest
of the first group, Licenciado Don Martin Baluyot Panlasigui,
restoring him to his proprietary parish (May). Thirdly, it is pro-
bable that in 1710 Br. Thomas Valdez Solit was ordained by
Cuesta.65
Another confirmation of Cuesta's change of heart was the
examination report of the seminary to the archbishop on 28 May
1714. We learn for the first time that there were two copistas
who, together with four colegiales were found competent to be-
come Bachelors of Arts and begin their theological studies. Since
the arts course then took two years to complete (after the prepa-
ratory course of gramatica ), the two capistas must have been in
the seminary since 1712 at the latest. If they had also taken the
gramatica there, which is most likely, then they must have en-
tered the seminary even earlier. Although the term capista was
64. de la Costa, Readings , p. 88.

65. AAM, EDM (Autos) (1700-40)C; CFC (Letter of Cuesta 30 May 1710).
not defined in this docu

same as in the Universit
Spaniard or at least one who has more Indio blood than a
quarteron. In the same report, there were eleven porcionistas who
had just passed the gramatica and were to begin the arts course.
Again, the term porcionista was not defined but we know for a
fact that at least one of them was an índio, Br. Simeon Mathias.
He applied for the degree of Bachelor of Arts at the University
of Sto. Tomas in 1716 identifying himself as a porcionista at
the Seminary of San Phelippe since 17 14.66
Still another significant development was the favored case of
a Filipino cleric in minor orders, Br. Francisco Fabian de Sta.
Ana. On 27 November 1715, Licenciado Don Gabriel de Isturis,
first Rector of San Clemente and then of San Phelippe, founded
two chaplaincies with a principal of about P2,000 each. He as-
signed the first chaplaincy to Sta. Ána and the second to himself,
as regular means of support. As a capista, Sta. Ana had graduated
from the University of Sto. Tomas in 1712 with the degree of
Bachelor of Arts.67 He must have then transfered to San Phelipe
as a capista or porcionista. Most likely, since this was the usual
custom then, Isturis offered this capellania to Sta. Ana in prepa-
ration for his ordination early the following year (1716). It is un-
common to find in Cuesta's book Filipino clerics receiving
chaplaincies let alone those founded by Spaniards of Isturis' sta-
tus. Hence this personal choice of Isturis probably reflected a
broader change of attitude towards Filipino ecclesiastics at this
point. Sta. Ana was the third known Indio capellan, after Alfonzo
Baluyot and Solit.
In sum, there are many signs that Cuesta began to evince a
change of policy towards Indio priests as early as 1710, and cer-
tainly not later than 1712. Nevertheless, it was to be a gradual
process.
BISHOP DIEGO DE GOROSPE E ' IRALA,

O.P. OF NUEVA SEGOVIA (1705-1 5)
TRANSITIONAL GUARDIAN
While Cuesta was still vacillating and shifti
66. AAM, LGE (1707-23) f. 200v.; AUST, DG (1716).

67. Ibid. (1712); AAM, LGE (1707-23) ff. 44v. and 45.
prelate was carrying on Cam

priests as the need arose in
Angeles, Bishop Gorospe of
pathizer of the late Camacho
memorial mass at the Mani
macho's example, he did not
of visitation on his own Ord
of whom strongly resisted.68
He played an important rol
Camacho and Cuesta. Howeve
nology of his ordination of
these the earliest we know
a native of llocos. In about
Abra originally assigned by
1703. 69
Before he died on 20 May 1715, Gorospe had also raised to
the priesthood Br. Augustin Baluyot who had been granted minor
orders by Camacho in 1706, but was displaced by Cuesta from
the seminary of San Clemente in 1707. Hoping to follow the mis-
sionary footsteps of his elder brother or cousin, Alfonso Baluyot,
he had found refuge in Gorospe's bishopric. Unfortunately, how-
ever, Gorospe or his secretary was not diligent enough in recording
his canonical title of ordination. Subsequently, the provisor of
the vacant see, Mro. Julian de Molina sent him to Manila in June
of 1716 to obtain his congrua. The changed Cuesta now granted
him his first license to hear confessions on 24 December 1716 and
decided to retain him in Manila.70
THE RESUMPTION OF ORDINATIONS (1716-23)
When did Cuesta resume his interrupted ordination

priests? Most probably it was in 1716 judging from th
cases of Francisco Fabian de Sta. Ana, Augustin Baluyot, and
those of Juan Guinto and Sebastian Fabian de Moxica. The latter
three had been graduated as Bachelor of Arts by the University of
Sto. Tomas in 1706, given minor orders by Camacho in the same
year but dislodged from old San Clemente by Cuesta in 1707. Un-
68. BR 42: 236-37; 44: 147; and 51: 308.

69. A AM, CFC (Letter of Molina 15 June 1716).
70. Ibid.; LGE (1707-23) f. 64v.
wavering in their voca

languished in minor ord
past inequities Cuesta wo
pino pastors of their resp
By 1716, Cuesta was be
his archdiocese and the
mon lament: the acute s
he left in 1723, Cuesta w
lago who could ordain p
either vacant at first or l
the total responsibility f
who was partly accounta
stance against the admis
nary and their ordinatio
sought to remedy but w
up with the latter a deca
made up for his previous
In the beginning of Cu
Augustin Baluyot, had al
ticipating in the synoda
Santiago outside of Intr
lowed Don Domingo de Valencia, former dean of the Manila
Cathedral to Nueva Caceres when the latter transferred there as
bishop-elect in 1715. Valencia nominated Guinto as parish priest
of Indan in Camarines the following year, upon the death of its
old Spanish incumbent, and Cuesta approved this. But Guinto was
still stranded in minor orders. Thus Valencia asked Cuesta to or-
dain Guinto. The archbishop elevated the latter to the priesthood
together with four companions (who were also probably Indios)
from Nueva Caceres during the Ember Days ( Temporas ) of Decem-
ber 17 16.71
In the case of Moxica, although we cannot find any earlier
ecclesiastical data on him, he must have been also ordained in
1716 at the latest. The earliest entry about him is in January of
1717 when he was already a priest and he was appointed to the
newly created position of assistant curate of the parish of Natives
and Morenos in Manila.72
71. AAM, LGE (1707-23) f. 72; (Note: new pagination starts in 1715 in this LGE)
ff. 38 and 57; CFC (Letta of Cuesta 31 December 17161.
72. AAM, LGE (1707-23) ff. 64-65v.
Another Filipino priest wh

in 1716 was Br. Eugenio de
would become the first two
graduated from the Univer
with the degree of Bachelo
bishop Cuesta assigned him
ing parish priest of Ajui in
from the ranks to become s
In the September Ember D
Orders on the other pre-em
Saguinsin, with dispensation
following year, he raised t
dignity: Br. Pedro Diaz Mañ
Evangelista Muñoz of Nueva
There are four other Indio
must have occurred in 1720
Manalos, the younger Sta.
nata and the older Francisc
the University of Sto. Tom
finished there two years lat
Diaz Mañosea in the same in
where the younger Sta. An
the seminary of San Phelipe.
The last two Filipino prie
Br. Juan de Mercado and B
Mercado was a co-graduate
at the University of Sto. T
Philosophy in 1716. Sta. Ro
at the San Juan de Letran. B
altar with the title of chap
February 1723 which Cue
they were the fourth Indio
luyot, Thomas Valdez Solit,
their capellanías were the fi
priests by Indio principales.
73. AUST, AG (1714-22) and DG (1716); AAM, CFC (Letter of Alonzo Ruiz 24
July 1717).
74. AAM, LGE (1707-23) ff. 86v and 1 14v.
75. AUST, /4 G (1663-1713) and (1714-22);£>G (1712, 1714 and 1716).
76. AAM, CM (1700-1913) A; LGE (1707-23) ff. 177-78v.
By that time, Cuesta w

Valladolid de Mechoacan
experience, he left Mani
he died in his next post
all, he had ordained at le
during the last half of hi
THE ROSARIO PARISH DOCUMENT OF 1721:

INDIO PRIESTS AS PASTORS
From the official book of Archbishop Cuesta com

document dated 29 May 1721 which presents the r
to the vacant curacy of Rosario Batanga.78 It is cr
three reasons. First it is the earliest list of secula
ferentiate their racial background, which include
Second, it contains the names of many of the firs
Filipino priests ordained by Camacho and Cuesta
1720 as confirmed by other documents. And third
light into the bombastic vexation of Fray San Agu
these brown pioneers in his oft-quoted letter of
... if God because of our sins and theirs should desire to chastise the
flourishing Christian communities of these Islands by placing them in the
hands of natives ordained to the priesthood (which seems likely to happen
very soon), if, I say, God does not provide a remedy for this, what abomi-
nations will result from it! 79
Having no other records to go by, de la Costa and Schumacher

had interpreted San Agustin's warning as referring to the imminent
ordination of the first Filipino priests.80 As we have seen, how-
ever, Camacho had already ordained the first Filipino priests
from 1699 to 1706 and Cuesta had revived this policy by 1716.
Thus in the light of this study, a re-reading of San Agustin's letter
indicates that he was protesting not only the replacement of his
Order in a parish by a native priest, but also Archbishop Cuesta's
inauguration of a new and henceforth definitive and consistent
policy of appointing native priests as full-fledged pastors of
77. Ibid., f. 264; BR 51:309.

78. AAM, LGE (1707-23) ff. 135-37.
79. Mas, Informe sobre el estado de las Islas Filipinas en 1842, 3:33.
80. de la Costa, Readings, p. 89 and Schumacher, "Filipino Clergy," p. 161.
parishes in the archdiocese. T

choice of words of San Agus
offing. It is further denoted
every step of the Patronato
nating in this five-paged do
earlier, the promotion of C
Cuesta appeared to be a solit
applicant to the isolated islan
only briefly noted.
Not far from Manila, the f
tion was that of Lobo and G
in the Province of Balayan (now Batangas). Due to a shortage
of secular priests, it had been entrusted in the past thirty years
to the Augustinians among whom was San Agustin. The
archdiocese, however, must have been attempting to reclaim
it as early as the middle of 1720 which apparently agitated San
Agustin no end. Officially, however, it was only on 3 November
1720 that the Augustinián provincial wrote to both the ecclesias-
tical and civil authorities requesting them to either assign the
parish to the Augustinians in perpetuity or else release them
from the responsibility altogether.
The Church and State at this point were literally united in
the person of Archbishop Cuesta who had been acting governor-
general since the assassination of Bustamante in October of 1719.
Thus the fate of the parish of Rosario appeared to have been
pretty much decided in favor of the Filipino secular clergy of
which Cuesta had by now become a zealous patron.
The official procedure had still to be followed as prescribed by
the Patronato Real. First an edict was promptly issued on 8
November 1720 calling for interested secular priests to present
themselves for examinations to fill the vacant post.81 Without
precedence in number, fourteen avid candidates responded, nine
or two-thirds of whom were Indios. Thus the Filipino priests of
the archdiocese were acutely aware of the dawning of a new era.
Almost all of them - except the venerable Polintan, Solit and
Chrisostomo - converged on the city on this occasion.
On 29 May 1721, the Archdiocesan government headed by Dr.
Geronimo de Herrera (later to become Bishop of Nueva Segovia)
81. AAM, LGE (1707-23) f. 132.
"finding today many ca

language and competenc
warded the following rol
and Governor Cuesta was to choose the proprietary pastor of
Rosario:
1 . B.D. Simon Martinez de Osorio, Español
2. B.D. Martin Alvarez, Español
3. B.D. Phelippe Garcia, mestizo
4. B.D. Augustin Baluyot, Pampango
5. B.D. Francisco de Sta. Ana, Indio
6. B.D. Francisco de Sta. Ana y Taas, Indio
7. B.D. Mathias Simon, Indio
8. B.D. Pedro Diaz Mañosea, Indio
9. B.D. Miguel de Castro, Español, Coadjutor de Curato
de Binan
10. B.D. Miguel de Uruya, Español, Capellan Real del Terzio
de estas Islas
1 1 . B.D. Juan Mañago, Theniente del Capellan del Hospital
Real
1 2. B.D. Santiago Garzia, Cura de las Estancias de Malabon
13. B.D. Domingo de Leon, Coadjutor de Balayan
14. B.D. Sebastian de Moxica, Theniente del Curato de los
Morenos de esta Ciudad.
Archbishop Cuesta, as Vice Royal Patron immediately selected
B.D. Augustin Baluyot de San Miguel, the top Filipino on the list,
to become the parish priest of Rosario. Undoubtedly, Baluyot did
have the most outstanding credentials of all but his being a Pam-
pango must have also added to his advantage in the perception of
the colonialists.
We also learn from the same document that B.D. Sebastian Po-
lin tan, proprietary parish priest of Sto. Tomas del Monte had been
asked to serve concurrently as acting pastor of Rosario probably
from the time the Augustinians left until the installation of Balu-
yot on 28 June 1721.
The foregoing list of nominees is quite interesting to analyze.
It was ostensibly arranged according to the results of the synodal
examinations. On closer scrutiny, however, it appears to be a prag-
matic slate based on (1) whether the subjects were idle or work-
ing priests, and (2) the colonial concept of the order of races.
Thus, we can make out two

who had no definite appointm
and (2) those who were alread
tions (numbers 9 to 14). Furt
into two subgroups (A) those who were Spaniards or Spanish
mestizo (numbers 1 to 3 and 9 to 10) and (B) those who were
Pampangos and other Indios (numbers 4 to 8 and 1 1 to 14). Al-
though the racial background of numbers 11 to 14 were over-
looked, they were clearly implied to be Pampangos and other
Indios when compared with the hierarchichal order of the first
group. Also, Maflago (number 11) is a Pampango surname to
begin with. Moreover, the racial classification of a Spaniard
would most likely be specified rather than glossed over in a
mixed list like this. From the colonial standpoint the Pampangos
were raised a notch higher than other Indios (meaning Tagalogs
in this document). As the Jesuit historian Delgado noted, Fray
San Agustin, for one, "claims that the Pampangos are different
from the rest" and he seemed to reflect the bias of his times.82
In outline form, the list appears even more sharply this way:
I. Idle Priests II. Working Priests
A. Spaniards and Mestizo A. Spaniards
1. Spaniard 9. Spaniard
2. Spaniard 10. Spaniard
3. Spanish Mestizo
B. Pampango and B. Pampango and
other Indios other Indios
4. Pampango 1 1 . Pampango
5. Indio 12. Indio
6. Indio 13. Indio
7. Indio 14. Indio
8. Indio
The arrangement is too shipshape to be wholly credible to the

critical eye. In fact, about four months later, the next priest to
top the synodal examinations for the curacy of Natives and More-
nos was another índio, Br. Don Sebastian Fabian de Moxica, who
appears last in the Rosario parish list. This was indeed quite a big
leap 'in a brief span of time. A year later, the sixth placer, B.D.
82. Delgado, Historia General de Filipinas , p. 23.
Francisco de Sta. Ana y Taas, was made his assistant. Finally,

when Moxica died in 1730, he was succeeded by the second
placer, Alvarez.83 In sum, the fourteenth placer was awarded the
next curacy; that the sixth placer became his assistant and finally,
he was succeeded by the second placer.
Notwithstanding these subtle twists, a new era full of hope and
prayer had clearly begun for native priests, and the principalia to
which they belonged now joined hands to set up capellanías for
their financial support.
THE RISE OF NATIVE CAPELLANIAS (1721)
It is recorded that pious Indios started to form

misas to assist their pastors and parishes as early as 1
ly three decades after the commencement of evan
Luzon. Certainly, this must be one of the earliest s
acculturation to catholicism. However, the Capella
Juan de Mercado and Gregorio de Sta. Rossa, the
ordinees of Archbishop Cuesta, were the first to b
posely for Filipino seculars by Filipinos, specifica
principales. They were apparently inspired by the
ordinations by Archbishop Cuesta as well as his ina
definitive policy of appointing native priests as p
tors.
The two capellanías of Sta. Rossa were endowed b

family of Apalit on 12 December 1721 and the
sisters of Mexico on 4 January 1722. That of Mer
lished by the Mallaris of Macabebe on 28 Novembe
their ordinations as capellanes turned a new leaf i
Church history. It marked the third stage of collabor
the Indio clergy and laity as initially represented
palia. After the latter provided pioneers for the
the native community as a whole supplied the con
terials for their short-lived seminary, the principales
capellanías a temporal yet enduring means of coope
indigenous clergy for the attainment of their com
goals. Indeed, this was the local Church in action. Im
83. AAM, LGE (1707-23) ff. 148v and 172; EPC (1729-34).
84. AAM, CM (1605-1930) uncatalogued.
85. Ibid., (1700-1913)A;LGff (1707-23) ff. 177-78v.
spirit of charity, their found

poor relatives or in their ab
their capellanías. In this wa
priesthood to the less fortu
in 1730, he was succeeded in
Assumpcion, one of the first
Finally, it appears that th
Lakans in the sixteenth and
evolved into capellanías a cen
of the Filipino clergy.87
RESUME
Based on de la Costa's and his own studies, Schumacher

divided the first two centuries of the evolution of the
Clergy into three approximate stages: (1) Period of Accul
(1565-1670); (2) Inertia and Prejudice (1670-1720); and (3) Gra-
dual but Steady Development (1720-68). With the new materials
now at our disposal, however, we can sketch a more precise divi-
sion of this erratic process, including six stages in the first one
and a half centuries alone.
I. SPIRITUAL ASSIMILATION (1565-1 620)
During this time, at least three generations of Fil

actively adapting to and in turn being formed by,
gion. Christianity had introduced the virgin concep
celibacy in a previously polygamous society in whic
more, the analogous religious ministers had usually
(babaylan and catalonan).
II. PREJUDICE VERSUS ADVOCACY (1620-96)
It appears that as early as 1620, the idea of ord

to the priesthood was already beginning to take shape - and
86. AAM, CM (1722-1893)B.

87. Nicholas P. Cushner and John A. Larkin, "Royal Land Grants in the Colonia
Philippines (1571-1626)," Philippine Studies 26 (1978): 102-11. However, it should
be pointed out that these estates must have been the communal lands of the natives
during pre-hispanic times. On this subject of the capellanías de Misas, a virtual moun-
tain of documents at the archives of the archdiocese (the single largest collection) still
awaits the interested researcher.
most probably even carr

for example, by Arch
(1621) and Miguel de P
that non-Spanish prela
Siam, Cochin-China an
retary of Propaganda F
fical authorities, respect
a Filipino clergy.
Finally in 1677, a royal
of native seminaries in t
was eloquently support
Antonio Viga, it was eff
the superiors of Religious
III. LAYING OF THE FOUNDATIONS (1697-1706)
The Filipino secular clergy was ushered in b

Camacho belatedly but ardently at the end of t
century. This stage can be divided into three phas
1704 before the royal order of 1702 (again co
erection of a Philippine seminary) was received i
bishop Camacho at his own initiative had already
and ordaining native priests (Francisco Baluy
Manesay and Alfonzo Baluyot).
From 1704 to 1705, Camacho was helped by
battista Sidoti in founding the Seminary of San C
this time, he continued to ordain Filipino priests
and Mañago). Bishop Andres Gonzalez, O.P., of
also ordained the first Indio priest in his diocese (
Finally, the provisional Seminary of San Cleme
in October 1705 admitting the first Indio semina
Polintan, Solit, Augustin Baluyot, Guinto and Mo
departure for Mexico in 1706, Camacho elevated
diaconate and the latter four to the Minor Orders. He also or-
dained at least three more Indios to the priesthood (de Leon,
Pasqual and Garzia).
In general, Camacho assigned the pioneer Filipino priests as
coadjutors or acting pastors of parishes. However, he also installed
Br. Alfonso Baluyot y Garzia as the first Indio Capellan as well as
the first Indio missionary (to Abra) in 1703. Further, he appoint-
ed Br. Sebastian Polintan who was then still a deacon as the first
Indio pastor of the archdiocese (in Sto. Tomas, Batangas) in
1706. This period also saw the emergence of the Baluyots of Gua-
gua, Pampanga (Francisco, Alfonzo, Martin and Augustin) as the
first Filipino priestly clan.
IV. INTERRUPTION AND AMBIVALENCE (1 707-1 0)
Unfortunately, with Camacho's transfer to the ar

of Guadalajara in Mexico (apparently as a result of h
with the Religious Orders over episcopal visitations)
accomplishments were interrupted by his successor,
Cuesta who was initially of the opposite persuasion.
judice which characterized the second state, regained
nance albeit in an ambivalent form. On the one hand, Cuesta
banned the Indios and mestizos from entering the seminary
and from ordination. He quashed Sidoti's Constitution of San
Clemente at the eleventh hour and inaugurated a totally different
seminary. On the other hand, he had made an exception of Polin-
tan whom he ordained to the priesthood soon after his arrival
(1707) and of Solit whom he raised to the subdiaconate (1708).
In the meantime, Bishop Diego de Gorospe, O.P., of Nueva
Segovia (1705-15) continued Camacho's policy of ordaining
native priests in his diocese (Gervasio and Augustin Baluyot).
V. RESOLUTION AND TRANSITION (1710-16)
Because of the patient examples of the first Filip

far ordained as well as the moderating influence o
nish advocates, Cuesta gradually relaxed his discrim
cies against admitting Indios and mestizos to the Ma
Most probably it was in 1710 that he ordained Br.
dez Solit with the title of Capellan. Solit's two cap
founded by Spaniards, a minority of whom had re
to the concept of an Indio clergy previously foster
and Sidoti.
VI. RESTORATION AND INVIGORATION (1716-23)
Impelled by the acute shortage of priests not onl

diocese but also in the three suffragan dioceses, C
resumed the regular o

the time of his departu
Valladolid de Mechoacan in Mexico.
An important sub-stage here was Cuesta's inauguration in 1721
of a definitive and consistent policy of appointing Filipino parish
priests to vacant curacies, a move bitterly opposed by Fray Gaspar
de San Agustin, O.S.A. At the same time, the native principalia
were inspired to found Capellanías to sustain the growth of the
Filipino clergy who, in this initial period, came exclusively from
their ranks.
ABBREVIATIONS USED:
ARCHIVES:
AAM - Archives of the Archdiocese of Manila
AGI - Archivo General de Indias
AUST - Archives of the University of Sto. Tomas
REFERENCES:
AG - Asientos de Grados. U.S. T. 1663-1713; 1714-22; 1720-77 (Catalogued)
See USTAA below.
BR - Blair, Emma H. and Robertson, James A. The Philippine Islands 1493-
1898. (Cleveland: Clark, 1903-9). 55 vols.
CCS - Catalogos del Gero Secular. "Razon Individual de la Clerecía del Arzo-
bispado de Manila. 1762." Folder A.
CFC - Cartas escripias al Dr. Dn. Francisco de la Cuesta , Arzobispo de Manila
1707-23 . (Uncatalogued but arranged chronologically and bound with
LGE below.)
CM - Capellanías de Misas 1605-1930 (Uncatalogued)
CPM - Cartas escripias at Mro. Dn. Phelipe de Molina, Secretario del Arzo-
bispado 1707-24. (Uncatalogued but arranged chronologically and
bound with LGE below.)
DG - Diligencias de Grados. U.S.T. 1663-1898 (Catalogued)
EDM - Expedientes sobre diferentes materias (Uncatalogued)
EE - Estipendios Ecclesiasticos 1722-24 and 1747-76. (Uncatalogued but
arranged chronologically.)
EPC - Examenes para provision de curatos 1 729-34. (Uncatalogued.) Those of
other years are included in LGE below.
LGE - Libro del Gobierno Ecclesiastico.
Catalogued: 1620-27; 1653-73; 1723-24; 173742; 1737-50;
1751-52; 1747-56; 1767-71.
Uncatalogued: 1697-1706; 1706-7; 1707-23; 1753-55;
1759-64; 1760-69; 1772-83.
OG - Ordenes Generales, 1685-89. (Uncatalogued) Those of other years are
incorporated in LGE above.
USTAA - UST Alumni Association. Graduate Listing 1611-1971. (Manila. UST.
1972). pp. la to 2b. This list is based on Asientos de Grados (AG).
3 O *0 ¿ ¿ §
•g •§
3 o <2 c¡ 3 O 8 «
- w « -
*£ w S
r- S.2P
r- ¿Z* *0 <+*
O ri cd o °
VH Š
2 S w .S5J5c/30<4m
* ûî 8 « -3 .ö " ¿ o
^ e .2 g g «S.°-.S ¿
§ î î '5 °. âõ g 11-: ! S
3 ts o a » S -2, -o o 13 < t3 -g
S -g ts ¿P o 5 a I » £ S £ -2, I 1 -o „ * o "
J o'ç
J! ° "S Q .3°a,o 'S«ggf Q .3
«8 S »5 J¡ S
' " H
'§ '§-I1 §S -R
1 § 186 ^• 3I SS **« -8
« ëfi * O
g a, <5 „I -s
s rf *
t> «S
fi -8 - s J O ■§ „ * S S *
°8^ §c.si S« -:|s.2Jc< ° - s * S
? ^â-g.2^1 ° gj .s I g 8 °
-US ë S 'S 1 1 S • 8" i g S » § ^
CO Uh
3
S -US
ÏÏ&uMilejší
(S o £ ë 'S53
1 ā£|aâ • |aSfl^>,|ö
ā feu Sc ^
W 0
1
co S t-H Tt M fi i/ì V£> ON ON O ÇN
g (N (N (N m in ^ vo Os <?' O O
ā C/5
3 vo
r-H
vû
i-H
vo
»- (
vo
,- | ,-
vû
| t-H
^
t-H
VO
T-H
vo
1-
r-
I ,-H^H
sCO3 u
< S GO
» a Ö
H ^Ü § a o 0
O S I -h « ¡c¡ <3
S -g S> '« Ì2 >
ÍŠ -g ° >. "S ïl S
S
° >. C*
Ö
S £■ O
Ç * * 5 EH
S * * S o t, g
W P O Bg ^ o
£
«
3'S.1*c
O °HBgc3
1 °oo ^
W r2 O CO PQ T3 o
^ Ö O PŽ O rC -Ü
B ļ = E s
« a a ? Si Is
« sSa X S Q g5 a I
2 « ûPQ
Q Hoo
Q J
m SB
SBg
i- H (N ' (N
g
5Ê«AO
U S S
O.S
Xî8 -&o>Ä
S è O
2 ģ
O O
Öpã G
ã Jì
H
« 5Ê U d Ö S •& O Xî õ o ¡S -
^ ° -5 •- <5 -a S -o c 2 g -o
°4)< S < S
Q^.0
^£ c3m
Č5 o°S/-s
rS o - "5 S
£?m4) Č5•■§© o Qo«a)o"5
c ^- ° /-s
•S2 2SS. SS -"S
» «S s»
t¡ » 's
?■«« {2
-a s»es * {2o es'S« °* .§ego
S°£ o 'S 3
° 32§ g
o -§ o
•S ee ^£•?>
•S £•?>o^c
o^c *M
*Mfe -a
.2sg
ga Ô .2 S Sa w
§ £. .fi•§ Sw 2S o2 §o Ip|s
S TI -S .
« g.
5•s« ,2o o "« 8 O
& 'S'So owcd. Cur%
„ o >> Ô cd <žg
o feco ex O o O,
o O o-P-P g
O O, « x C eda Jì
^ TI tì ed
<¡tíi-,
C - g a.
•s ĒÃÃ SCL,
g gg.SS
. I« go„ e.SSoo LT
o ¡u V3
e ^ o ^" LT
S ÒV3 0^ S23 *S o 00
c Ò ex ed ^ T) â n*2 *S^ <¡tíi-,
0 &HÇ2 ļ ^ o 00 So T) g â n* JD ļ ^ K
W^J g -Ss*«- g .SS e ~ o ā LT » -S C„ i 0 2 "S *S o S>5 00 T) £ .s ^ ļ ^ °
^ o S ¿"o ^ G 8|¡ G ā J2 » £ -S C„ Sá i .¿2 g «g d "S C .2*rt S>5 ^ £ 5 .s ^ & ed
^ e- ^ G G J2 £ Sá .¿2 d C .2*rt
222
1 o*^JS
e- O 2 .9
Cu
G G-m-mG
o* C s
<3 .S^TÍ c/3'- i o% ^ ^ ârt^wiSOgSflti^ tí ti -2&3
£
*X
C/3 cd 'i* °
O
2 Sí <3 ü S 2*2 j SS , S a 5 ö .S .SiSto^írcdčrá^S
irir^rrl^ri^rriiri 2 Sí ü S 2*2 j SS , a 5 ö .SiSto^írcdčrá^So
NO ON
vo ^ Cř' . vo
<Ñ v¿ 'o 6b on en m co rn . m ^ *A ^ ^ <n
o o *- • on on o o o o»-h<n o o o -
r^- t - r^- vo NO r- r-* f-» r*- r-- t - t^- r - c**-
i-H i-H »-H í- I iH i-H *-H i- I i-H i- H *-H f-H t-H í-H f- I
eď
O
ON îâ CO *3 ^ ítÜ
ONOn
*° On GG
-s
J O ^ļS
* ^ Stí
Stí £ S
S
- -a s
*l * *
& .a ï
s § g
S Ü I
s >> ts
•g
§ ^
« •§
b
S) 3 ^ ö
c5 « §
o
•2
S
s ^
3 2 Q
J¡> <¡ M
CO Tf
' O)
O X O) c-^^ -ri
C -ri d) +->
r- d) C« c c O
2 O r-!>v c/2
!>v rT* o {-{-
5
6 O w X « c- j C g « r- .g C« I 2 6 r- £ r
° ©'S
-O «o C.ts^
«o C.ts^ X - 5« <£
S û.
g e5<j>
g <£
° g e ž
g S
-Sã « £1§•"g
g „ &
-S „«I -g
3 č •!z„- ,■
„ g-S „ «
ř°1 Iļ5sšt SII »s»! .■§ i I
žil . rt cd
. rt cd Sílil r-5írtO S:
r-5írtO sílí rt
l*Slu
S: »ri
rt u r-1
è*s«s ^
»ri-r-1
2 ^ - 1 2
. " C3 ^ C3 ^ " ^ rt O £ 3 tfH 13 ^ ° ° - ^
C3 " E <g C3 l'ssofllis's ^ ° g " O £ O I £ g- 3 tfH o 13 I 1S •§ 's
«l^šílíll^^tSl á^l-sS «Sífll
il«-i!f¡S !=-2li f g .s g s- 1 2
S-3C2^;"l1,ž||2á 5 l-.lļs zëisà 1
3®
• ^ s I
s 3ill
<£ 3
s Is3 -s
Õ «SI .S
î *3
*38 ig ®
=5* ili*-5
.a 3 .s -g.a lsîfi£
^ T, g ë S
< e u o i> r- r- r- r-
i- t f-H r- I i-H t-H i-H *- I 1-H 1-H f-H r-H r-H r-H r- I rH i-H r-H r-H
d
o
2
O
s
"->,2mu *•£>•= 'o J2 vo ,2
O'S O« *•£>•= O'S 0-= O ^
~~
^ O«
S
^ ~~£ S
£ s S
£ 0-=
~
~2
g r-"S
O ä
Z
'I
a *
:
« C
S
(S S S
.2
s -S î
^ a : 3s
o
Sí oTS
TS " I?
1 I?T3
& c3 e
e
'S
*5¿i Th
Th áWWPh
«S ÔÛ
Ph o
o
>5 o o .22
S ^ -ë -o o e
5 O £ £ ¿5
q o q q q
PQ H-) QQ OQ PQ
SO t> 00 0' ö
<D
xi 2 o ir:
o ir: « ^ o
c £ -d
,2 o «
.
& £ « £ g C/Ì . ^
S <o°£ ° .2 ^ > S ^
c Sc«SS r3
i S> «Š 5s «Š
g •* < S g 1^1 •* ļļ ;.: -n
Ē nc-M
C3
n S
c«
c« cd vShn
cd vS ^ J-*
hn
CLi.t}^
J-* s-O
"-i_£ïcd
-O^ "-i_£ïcd "-i_£ïcd
ü a ü
<_
ü a ;.: T3
Ä S C 5 ^ r- 0/5
ü
* s s ř a ° I £ ° s s I a Ht
^ ^
^ «c"l"">
^ "S^'s
^ "l"">
S* 2^-s
P ÔãO
S* T3
2^ P
<DO TT*
O «I /5?
/5?
2 ^ "l""> § >, ^ £ ^ S S* CQ 2^ S
>»>»
on £ «
t-< o'§
G A£
'S F >>, S O.3a
O O <t> * cg^s^ť< =3 s ° St« I -S? s ¿il H| eis
.g. g » S.SC? c3 Ē"?M °<» I» a<Àp 5'S3^
•-r^ ei2«5a^
« ei2«5a^ 3 hhu 2
2 'Sftri?«u r.goH-Sa
o S "BJs 'Sftri?«u -n^ .3ž+
c2 é 3 & £ôu o "BJs £S£ -n^ s, X<ÜÖ£& »
ON 1- O h
m ^ IH m ff)
1-H 'o r- r~ on oo o co Tj- m <n oo vo v¿ on ^ r-
(N O O O CO O t-h H I^ H (N C<1 O O ČNI CO
c^. r- r^- c~~-~ c - t - t-- r- t - c^ c-~ r^-
^ ^ ¿ so °
°
.2 .$3
&Û
Î è
00
t^ ^ o co $ 2 &
^^S ^
^ *3
G
r-H
r-H
>o
<-<>
.o
ss s ž s ž
è
i PS PS .t5 a>
o #a Si 1
II u o i 2 e Cd I 13
u o 2 Cd 13
«Oh
CO Gjrt
^ ^« £
d CQ
2H
w -a a ° 'es
ss « s o £ 5p
h ss H
^ Š Q £ < S C ¿
B Q Q Q Q M
pá cá pá pá
1-H (N co
oí <-t- i rz2-ro> cc*4"1
§ oí <-t- ° i rz
S£
¿S Ï °g
° ®^ u."
° Ou."2 . s
-s g S g c! s u s,
«o * ° tS o $
5/5 S > ^ * «S "
> ~ r * Cf
Cf_ •«-» Öß C ^
^ 5/5 *B >
o h5S co o o ^ t: "So « ā ^
g
o cd ģ h5S X * co
<->js
CV 03 «m 13 >>cd 's
O) <L> g, **Čd
"O cfl X <D ¿o
S S CV S 03 S B «m « ? 13 «S ft'3 >> âu O)
-Sķ;
S ZZ= Oh
Oh « -slega
t ^ ^c3
« c3Si
Si «S
e ft'3
o ^s !■
E ôs EXa 'S« i 3
« 33<*h<*h
JTS ~«2
3 -g>.
gageg e
O ~ g_ O w yj rt ^ i+H 3 ^j- • O .^-» ^ O w cd Q
sgo -3 ~ g_ sl^ -s fiS yj 2 ^ i+H ° Q 3 > ^j- u
u. g. sgo
*2 -3
C ^Ô^Í ¿J ••!•« O
+¿Or¡4>O^Í e« .®j_»
c«o «*0
-2
■ *2 £ *~~l 2 L_h • £ ° C/5 _,_, e ® *« O w ^ c¡ O &1 *75 « . j_» e 2
00 ■ £ 5 ^ o 2 ^ • 5 £ "£ *c ° Š e 'S w £ o ^ . 'g »s ö c/ļ J3 &1 *75 « ô< S e *Ç
D£ ^ > o ^ S -s "£ ā ®; .& 'S 8 5«3ol2.g w £ o . 'g »s ö
JJiž ^H 2ižs -oîa®..aS r.».§ -g
®.3 I .§ « .&S ãUs
®; -a -o -i -o
ät>§§.a-S ät>§§
f •? [2 <2.a
I -o®. S a as
®. ¿í!üá'|(§
<utt.>o <u<o,(2 « qoqcucu a c H, a, H
vO CN (N 'D O <N
i- i ir> iņ »-i m m
VDvÒvO^^t '£) '¿ h H H O h OO rÓ (N (N «/"> i-i CN
OO»- O O ^ <N (N Ci 1-1 1-1 1-1 Tfr ITi r- 1 r-H (N (N
cd cd cd
o o o
^ ë *> s s
í^'íi ^
~ S ^ cd S i ¿9 cd "S cd »w4
cd
0 .*5
i cd
ü
cd
Ä o
»w4
*5
*
*
In
2
cd 5
.Sá <
§ «5
1 ^ «
Tí Ch 'O
«
.3
u
« -S
S
« o vjD
(0 W «•
S [fa <D Uh
•Sc 1,3 O
r?
° ° -2
tS So-2
-g* 2
2
§ 2 II §
►£? $ «S a*
tí tí tí S tí
PQ PQ PQ 0Q
en vo oo
'S
S¿> >
5 O
O 'S
Ss «
« e
°
O
*55 -o
w
* * °8^
Cd
I ^
^ êu
u Iy
^-ļ
y
Ö0 __ -2 o H Ö0 __ TU s; cd
ww <2 ,£ p I cd
cdCJ
x>í5
n Qc^Cd^
+J a> r«d*
<W> ^4^+J
^ ^4^+JC«d*
¿Gļ/ļ
ļ/ļ-
1
n CJ rļ r <W> ^ 05Cd
•3 I z « ^ s rļ j jä â 05Cd u-s S
°xts!āg
O &> ° &> E3 °J2
E3 5
J2 rvuso 5 ~^h
, t3 ^h cd
& cd g
Ô O 2 &>
^ ^ 5
^+-»cd
5 ^
^>-JgĒ g Š 'S 2^ Z
SÔ ÏÏ
O cd S
vm O ÏÏ
O C/3 O u_ •h'ï ^Ē
o, ,rH C/3
ÍTÍ
O 'S
^ :» 'Z*r5
.3 Ä 3
O
3 g.^ >,«««- +-» S O „ u_ O ř<H.S o o, a 3 .5 s -go :» u a Ä 'Z*
g Sr
g S S
^ ^- -U.-s.-s c C©O©oc
>,«««- -s ü
„ oCO O"« Ē a^ .5
« o -g o ja
^ -go
O £o ^
£^ T
^ u
'S Mj* U S 3 S fl 11-sSI
^Í|^«S8§i <«1S|2Š^«^§,5S£"Í-8
^t^M^SžSžāū fe.Sž o.SžSCE3 '£ 'o?)C:3«S 120 2ž
M (£ < £ £ 55 S » £ S £ o (2 £ (2 Oh¿S CQ
H 00 00 00 'D Os ÇN
(Ņ (Ņ (Ņ VO ^ t>
(N r-H (N uo m (N m m h CTn *-H cò oò ò AO 00 o M 'Û
0"' (N (N <rf- m Ô C"*- ON ^ h (S M (N M VO ôvOt>r-^^
'q r- ■ <rf- ^ ^ c - c - c - c - c - r- t> c*- r-- C"*- r-~
i- 4 1-H r-H ,__, i-H r-H i- I »- Ir- I *- it- I 1-H 1-H f-H i- I ,-H ,- | ,- | ,- | ,-H r-H
Ů Š
r- r- .2 ^ M
E1
si
21 =1
ss
M
^ *
ed C
3 1
3 S) o
« A 1
■Se «Š
■8 % I
i. IhIh
Ji,
IhMg1CQ
1 PT
H
M PT
o H q q
08 eo «
<*2 -
u-4 Ih « oo o ^ « •. «4 S?
u-4 o Ih oô « oo o oo ^ « •. 5ās «4 S?
. j~j v ^ P3 ^ v cd C3 c3
*3 . >* J3 v o Sá o ^ Ço v S <4m23
*3 -5 2^2 >* J3 o cj Sá §a o g
^ +-»
+-» w a®5g
> C/3 w
O cj
QJ > ,§a C/3 - O
.S^cd
a0
+-» ^
0 f.
! o>
wo>^ !ri.
> *2
*2 fi
<2C/3'S
O <2«'S
S 'S QJ
- £ , 2 |*Sc«
 .S^cd
^ ^4-H CO ry^ 22 Ç - G Cu c« çi ti
cd
: f. ° S ri. i ^ ^4-H ° » « CO .s e ry^ *3 i 22 s i Ç I -
° s S s 81 o! la s ö g- J3 « g 's
«gg.2
.2 §1
S §1oioS S'5 3 §>
o «s tí J
I 3 -g ¿g3 "!
"g J 3 s-S^
s f.ë
1 fâi- 1 8"°* i li'frl Kf
% .íg -s 'I»! gï ~.l-s« IS-il lll'l
• Vi • oí ^ O 0 -£ *-< fi ^ r/i d 2 i5/ O P* Ou ^->22
7) • 0U CO • +-> <D oí 5 "C 0 HPO.tíSO.^S'CO'i-tSS» *-< fi
cd V-» .&* oo <3 p cd O P G O 23 'S »75 QJ ®
r>co #s"+r?cdoO c/3 o ■£* ;rr> es G jrt o O ^ »75 2 w
« r>co '-s u « "g z 1 00 i ~ § Q -s s *. es M jrt S ¡ ^ ä .s "c

<< << ¿H H ÇJ U < Pi CQ CQ PL, Q U ►_!
^t
(N
rt<Ñ voo m r- oovo *- ■ vovoco o co co <n
r- ( ÇN »- ! (N (N ÇT) Tf *- i (N ON *- • <N fi (S M m
c-» r-. c-* r*» t-~- o- c^- r - ■ r*^* t-*
r-H i- I t-H i- * i- H i-H t-H r- ( i-H t-H i-H r-H t-H r- t r- I i-H
Cd
O
2 „ 2|
Is a „ f<» § t t**-
2 «i 2^ 8S I Hi
"S
cd
rts
*h
~
cd
s
ä
- s -S
Ü cd *h S o
*
«
*
N
2 S
*
cdcd 5
3 3*
* <£
O
» s ï * oí O
^ te +2 j2 *§
^ c3 .52 .2 cd ¿£ ^
13
tí sí sí ^ >3
^ <1> .52»-Hofli
^
SS á !QQ¿3s Ss-S
â IÏ
'Ss
"o S -ë c a Ē c 2 oo g c c
"o 2
S c <u c oo
Ss i£ 5 m 5 O ai
Q Q Q q Ci Q ^
PQ 03 PQ PQ PQ cá
fsi ro ^J" tri ^D

42633541

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

42633541

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

42633541

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Hidden Light: The First Filipino Priests

Author(s): LUCIANO P.R. SANTIAGO

The Hidden Light: The First Filipino Priests

One of the soul-stirring questions in Philippine Church

[See list of abbrevatìons at the end of article. ]

as the answers it provide

The research for this study was done mainly at th

2. AAM, LGE (1620-27), (1653-73); OG (1685-89).

Jerónimo (1707-23) are almo

The Indio priests in the seventeenth and early eigh

6. AAM, LGE (1 723-24) :£PC.

Guinto, Sta. Cruz, Sta. Ros

status. Hence they wer

Most, if not all of the first two groups of F

In terms of capabilities and accomplishments, we

Cebú and commissary o

It seems too good to be true

A question related to both competence an

10. de la Costa, "Development of the Native Clergy," pp. 244-49.

Perhaps the main reason

Since almost all Indio priests worked in the pa

ed directly by the bishop.

11. AAM, LGE (1707-23) folios 135-37.

Spanish was their nativ

THE SPANISH ADVOCATES

Yet it would be absurd to claim that racial prejudice

12. AAM. EPC (1729-34).

establishment of native seminaries in the Philippines (1677).

Panlasigui, the earliest

15. Gonzalez de Guzman became a Licenciado and Maestro en Filosofìa at UST in

ly.18 Without predecessor

THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

Some historians have recently claimed that there w

Orders, he was called instead criado del Obispo de la Nueba

According to the style of the period, "Baldecañas" (

25. Ibid., 20: 262-303.

In principle, a Filipino Indio could have been ordained at

28. Elviro Perez, Catalogo Bio-Bibliografico de los Religiosos Agustinos . . . (Ma-

Juán Lorenzo (desamparado),

Their names are quite typi

THE FIRST GROUP OF FILIPINO PRIESTS

ARCHBISHOP DIEGO CAMACHO Y AVILA, THE

FOUNDING FATHER (1697-1706)

If there were Indio priests ordained during the s

30. Evergisto Bazaco, Historia Documentada del Real Colegio de S

32. Merino, Don Diego Camacho, p. 405; BR. 51: 308.

jara in Mexico. In the last two phases, Camacho found special

THE FIRST ORDINEES (1698-1703)

Br. Francisco Baluyot is the first definitely know

33. AAM, LG E (1697-1706) f. 112v.

had established his means o

35. AAM, LGE (1697-1706) f. 122; AUST, AG (1663-1713); USTAA, Graduate

Diego Arcarazo, as well a

FOUNDATION OF THE SEMINARY (1702);

We have to move back in time and place at this po

38. Ibid., f. 266v.-67v.; CM (1879-81) C.

Camacho won his battle in

Abbot Gianbattista Sidoti, Co-founder (1704-8)

40. Ibid, pp. 435-41 ; A AM, LGE (1697-1706) f. 395.

hand, it was not surprisi

O vi O '-i m vo - i vo vo -H Tļ- m MD vo TJ- O