CAVITE MUTINY 1872

One of the remarkable events of the 19 th century in the Philippines happened on January
20, 1872 ― CAVITE MUTINY. It was said that the occurrence awakened the Filipino nationalism
and patriotism leading to the Philippine Revolution. But, was it really a mutiny or was it just an
attempt of the Indios to overthrow Spanish government?
On this paper, let’s examine and scrutinize the accounts and the credibility of the
different eyewitnesses and historians who have written their own versions of the incident.

1. JOSÉ ANTONIO JULIÁN MONTERO Y VIDAL 

Born on January 28, 1851 in the Andalusian

town of Gergal. He was a Spanish writer and
politician and held various positions in the Spanish
overseas provinces of the Philippines and Cuba, and
wrote extensively about them.
Montero was one of the most knowledgeable
of the Spanish historians on the Philippines. At the
time of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872, he was a
government official residing in Manila.
His account was an interpretation and views
of a government official toward the mutiny.
According to him, the event was
premeditated and the primary instigator were the
three priests ― GOMBURZA, and its caused was
not only just because of the uplifting of the tax
exemptions to the laborers of the Cavite Arsenal but
also a revolt to overthrow the Spanish rule from
assassination of the Governor-General to general
massacre of all Spaniards including the friars.
Montero without any doubt emphasized that all Filipinos accused, executed and exiled
were truly guilty and that all deserved their sentenced.
Here is a context from his article:
“The abolition of the privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of
exemption from the tribute was according to some, the cause of the insurrection. There were,
however, other causes. The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the
propaganda carried on by an unbridled press against monarchical principles, attentory of the
most sacred respects toward the dethroned majesty; the democratic and republican books and
pamphlets; the speeches and preaching of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the outbursts
of the American publicists and the criminal policy of the senseless Governor whom the
Revolutionary government sent to govern the Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas
were the determining circumstances which gave rise, among certain Filipinos, to the idea of
attaining their independence. It was towards this goal that they started to work, with the
powerful assistance of a certain section of the native clergy, who out of spite toward the friars,
made common cause with the enemies of the mother country.”
“The garrison of Manila, composed mostly of native soldiers, were involved in this
conspiracy, as well as a multitude of civilians. The plan was for the soldiers to assassinate their
officers, the servants, their masters, and the escort of the Captain-General at Malacaῆang, to
dispose of the governor himself. The friars and other Spaniards were later to have their turn”

The way the author construct his version seems to me as appealing and convincing. He
used phrases such as “were involved in this conspiracy” and “As a result” which makes him
objective and rational. He talked as if he was sure of the contents of his account and that his
description of the mutiny and the involvement of some Filipino were accurate and were the exact
things that happened that day.
An ordinary non-Filipino reader who would encounter and read his article on this matter
without any verifications and further research would immediately believe and accept his
thoughts.
In the context above, as I analyzed, these are all allegations from a government official
who was dissatisfied of the service of his co-official (De La Torre) and who was disgusted of the
Filipino aspirations for reforms.
Montero’s style of writing denoted that the Spanish have not committed a crime and that
the Filipinos planned the revolt and the ones whom started the chaos. He also justified the unjust
apprehensions and merciless executions of the Spanish authorities to the Filipino priests. In his
writing, he apparently empowers the Spaniards to not feel any guilt towards their actions.
According to Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino historian, commented on Montero y
Vidal. He said:

“In narrating the Cavite episode, does not speak as a historian; he speaks as a Spaniard
bent on perverting the facts at his pleasure; he is mischievously partial.”

Another American historian in the name of James LeRoy noticed Montero y Vidal’s bias.
He said:

“The usually sober and colorless Montero y Vidal becomes very rabid in his recital of the
Cavite episode in the Philippine History and is very positive not only in denouncing the priests
who were executed and deportees as guilty, but in proclaiming the movement as actually separist
in character.”
 In my conclusion, Jose Montero Y Vidal was biased and one-sided. He neither
considered nor empathized to the general public’s feelings. He was a Spaniard and thus he
perceives, represents and stands with the Spanish community. However, as Spanish historian, he
should have weighed the authenticity of all accounts, not merely those that contradict a favored
view.

2. EDMUND PLAUCHUT

Born on January 7, 1824 and died on January 30,

1909, a French adventurer and a journalist, vice
president of the board of directors of  Association
Internationale des Philippinistes in Paris who was
then residing in Manila and a witnessed of
GOMBURZA execution, wrote an account in the
Parisian periodical Revue des deux mondes (Review
of the Two Worlds) about the event.
Here are some of the important contexts of the
account he wrote:

“Without preliminaries of any kind, a decree by the

Governor withdrew from such old employees their
retirement priveleges and declassified them into the
ranks of those who work on the public roads.
“The sentences which were decreed wholesale to
one group after another – the Spanish-born
(creoles), the mestizos and the native alike – can be considered a great mistake.”
“After this account, I beg leave to say to the Spanish Ministers that Spain cannot arouse
the affections of the people of the Philippines through such terrorizing tactics.”

Take a look at the underlined phrases; here it shows that the author signified
disagreement to the Spanish authorities in handling the situation and affairs of the Filipino. The
way he wrote it was as if he empathized the resentment and anger of the Filipinos toward the
Spaniards. He also implied the innocence of the three priests of the mutiny and it was a mistake
to condemn them without any probable caused.
When I read his version of the Cavite Mutiny, it was as if I transported in time of the
occurrence. It seems that I was there and I can see what happened. The author successfully
dragged and played not only my imagination but also my emotions. He used words that are
overly melodramatic which makes the reader hooked in his story. It was as if I was reading a
tragic novel.
However, as I scrutinized his style of writing, there are many instances when the author
narrated a certain part that made me question his credibility. One of it was when he quoted the
reasons in the letter of protest from Archbishop of Manila ― Msgr. Gregorio Meliton Martinez
to the government in Madrid. How could he have known of this? How can a Frenchman just a
mere resident of Manila accessed this information? Could it be possible that he just made it up?
Or he has somebody supplying this knowledge to him? I don’t know. Was this document known
to the public? I don’t think so.
After the said protest, Plauchut continued to relay that the Archbishop of Manila sent an
invitation to P. Jose Burgos and his friends to sign a pledge of fidelity and loyalty to Spain.
Again, how could he have known of these things? But there is more intriguing than that, it was
when he added, “After a moment of vacillation, P. Burgos acceded to the request of the
archbishop and took the trouble to gather the signatures of others”. Notice the word vacillation
or vacillate which in Merriam Webster means hesitate in choice of opinions. He could not
possibly know that P. Jose Burgos vacillated on the request except if he was there when the
invitation arrived which is impossible because the invitation was exclusive only, for the latter.
The three bishops were already put into trial but it was not yet made known to them of
what the sentence would be. So, Plauchut narrated, “The accused were herded inside the
fortress, and the following day, at 5:00 am, the dreadful messages of the death sentence was
delivered to them by a government representative. Burgos and Zamora, both 30 years of age,
were deeply saddened upon hearing the sentence. The former was convulsed in tears, while the
latter lost his mind and never recovered it. As for Padre Gomez, he listened calmly to the
terrifying message as was his wont.” For me, this was an overdramatic scene made up by
Plauchut. Although, it could be possible that the three priests were normally saddened of the
news but the above description by Plauchut, he could have not witnessed that because he said
that the three priests were inside the fortress and only a government representative delivered the
message that means there were only four of them there. The underlined phrases could be just
hearsay.
The author’s illustration of the moment when the priests were taken to the chapel of
Bagumbayan with a closed carriage was exaggerated. He said, “It did not turn out to be a
sorrowful parade of criminals; instead it became a triumphal celebration. The elegant carriage
which was pulled by the handsomest horses in their silver-studded harnesses glittered in the
sunlight. The magnificent livery of the cocheros and of the lackeys, the clanking and the glitter of
their arms, the large turnout of the population waving their handkerchiefs and greeting the three
who had been condemned of the crime of dreaming the people’s freedom constituted the total
picture which made it like a vision.”
Another questionable moment of Plauchut’s account was when the priests were already
delivered inside the chapel. How could he have written the conversations of Boscasa and Padre
Gomez in detailed format, when in fact there was none allowed inside the chapel aside from the
Filipino priests and a few recollect friars.
 The way the author related the time of execution of the GOMBURZA was
comprehensive. He even accounted the conversation between the executioner and Father Burgos
which for me was impossible for him to know considering the crowd and the level of tone both
were using.
With all the flowery words he used to liven up his article, no doubt that Plauchut’s
purpose in writing this account was solely for the delectation of the French readers. It was full of
drama. It was a history in a novel form. Every reader would surely enjoy this piece, I for one
liked it ― interesting and informative. However, the credibility of Plauchut in this publication as
a historian, for me, is still controversial. Most of what he had written were facts and concurred
by other historians. However, some of it was contentious.

3. DR. TRINIDAD HERMENIGILDO PARDO DE TAVERA

Trinidad Hermenegildo José María Juan

Francisco Pardo de Tavera y Gorricho (April 13,
1857 – March 26, 1925) was a
Filipino physician, historian and politician of Spanish
and Portuguese descent. Trinidad, also known by his
name T. H. Pardo de Tavera was known for his
writings about different aspects of Philippine culture.
He wrote the Filipino version of the terror in
Cavite.
For Tavera, the incident was nothing more
than a plain mutiny of the laborers in Cavite Arsenal
resulting to the dissatisfaction of the tribute that were
charged to their salaries by which they were formerly
exempted. He also allusively blamed Governor-
General Izquierdo’s methods of governance such as
the removal of the tax exemption and other privileges
for both new and old employees of the Arsenal..
Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a
powerful lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army
but also included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to
overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines.  It is noteworthy that during the time, the
Central Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and management of educational
institutions.  This turnout of events was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to do something
drastic to maintain power in the Philippines.
  The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took
advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy
organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera
sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the scheme was true without
any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by
Izquierdo and the friars.
Thus, The Cavite Mutiny paved way for the Spanish authorities to frame the priests as the
instigators mainly D. Jose Burgos.
Tavera did an amazing job on writing the Cavite Mutiny in a Filipino perspective. He
rebutted on the claims and allegations of Montero and Izquierdo into what the main cause of the
revolt. With that, he also explained the other side of the coin with transparency.
For me, the main purpose of the author in his article was to inform the readers of the
Spanish’s shortcomings that led to the incident and persuade the general people who were able to
read the Spanish historian’s version.
I believed it was a clever move from Tavera to defend and represent the Filipinos part
and perspective on the Cavite mutiny. In this, it helped the readers to gather other vital
informations rather than to focus on Montero’s version. It now depends on the readers to
measure the credibility and reliability of the authors.

There may be different versions of the event, but one thing is certain, the 1872
Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898. The Spanish colonizers have always been
taken advantage of the Philippines natural resources and the Filipinos innocent and gullible
minds that were ready to endure no matter the circumstances were. But as the famous saying
goes, by Martin Luther King Jr., “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever, the
yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself”. The road to independence was rough and tough
to toddle, many patriots named and unnamed shed their bloods to attain reforms and achieve
independence.  12 June 1898 may be a glorious event for us, but we should not forget that before
we came across to victory, our forefathers suffered enough.  As w eenjoy our freeedom, may we
be more historically aware of our past to have a better future ahead of us.  And just like what
Elias said in Noli me Tangere, may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”
 VERSIONS OF THE CAVITE MUTINY 1872

Two major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the other was
the martyrdom of the three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos
and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA).  However, not all of us knew that there were different
accounts in reference to the said event.  All Filipinos must know the different sides of the story—
since this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of our history—the execution of
GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the
Filipinos.

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

       Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it
as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. Meanwhile,
Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate
the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization.  The two accounts
complimented and corroborated with one other, only that the general’s report was more spiteful.
Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the
workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and exemption from force labor were
the main reasons of the “revolution” as how they called it, however, other causes were
enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty
propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and
pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who
out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and enemies of
Spain.  In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious
propagandas grasped by the Filipinos.  He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted
to overthrow the Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and
Zamora.  The general even added that the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them
charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with
handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.  Izquierdo,
in his report lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing.

       The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought of it
as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers, residents of
Manila and Cavite and the native clergy.  They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila and
Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be followed by the massacre of the
friars.  The alleged pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the
firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros.

     According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated
the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated the occasion
with the usual fireworks displays.  Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign
for the attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant
Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.
       When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement
of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt.  The “revolution” was easily crushed when the
expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore.  Major instigators including Sergeant
Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and
were sentenced to die by strangulation.  Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma.
Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High Court)
from the practice of law, arrested and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas
Island.  Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the
creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.

        On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill

fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the GOMBURZA
were executed.  This event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that shaped Filipino
nationalism.

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident

        Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the
Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite.  In his point of view, the incident was a mere
mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be
dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges.  Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo’s
cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges of the workers and native army members
of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of school of arts and trades for the Filipinos,
which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization of a political club.

       On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and
residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the commanding
officer and Spanish officers in sight.  The insurgents were expecting support from the bulk of the
army unfortunately, that didn’t happen.  The news about the mutiny reached authorities in
Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite. 
After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.

      Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful
lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also
included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the
Spanish government in the Philippines.  It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central
Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and management of educational
institutions.  This turnout of events was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to do something
drastic in their dire sedire to maintain power in the Philippines.

       Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain

welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of
sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute.  The decree proposed
to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such
schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was warmly received by
most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.

       The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took
advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy
organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera
sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the scheme was true without
any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by
Izquierdo and the friars.

       Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment
while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by
garrote.  This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of
Philippine Revolution of 1896.  The French writer Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented
Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened due to discontentment of the arsenal
workers and soldiers in Cavite fort.  The Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of
the three martyr priests which he actually witnessed       

  

I. MAIN CHARACTERS OF THE CAVITE MUTINY

A. Governor-General Rafael Gerónimo Cayetano Izquierdo y Gutiérrez

Born on September 30, 1820 and died on November 9, 1883 was a Spanish Military
Officer, politician, and statesman. He served as Governor-General of the Philippines from April
4, 1871 to January 8, 1873. He was famous for his use of "Iron Fist" type of government,
contradicting the liberal government of his predecessor, Carlos María de la Torre y Navacerrada.
He was the Governor-General during the 1872.
He was responsible for the abolition of
the privileges of the workers in Arsenal Cavite:
employees were pulled out of the ranks of the
marine infantry with no chance of promotion,
no retirement privileges for old employees and
declassified them into the ranks of those who
work on the public roads.
He wrote an official report to the Spanish Minister
of war stating that the Filipinos are conspiring a
revolution to overthrow the Spanish government and
general massacre of the Spanish authorities including
the friar which result to massive Filipino apprehension
and execution including the GOMBURZA.
 He also requested to Archbishop Gregorio Meliton Martinez to defrock the three priests
from their respective curates for them to die as a criminal. However, the Archbishop denied it.

B. Military personnel employed at the maestranza of the artillery, in the engineering shops
and Arsenal of Cavite.

On January 20, 1872, military personnel employed at the maestranza of the artillery,
in the engineering shops and Arsenal of Cavite received their pay and realized that there
were taxes and falla - fine one paid to be exempt from forced labor deducted on their
salaries from which they were formerly exempted. Other than that, these employees were
pulled out of the ranks of the marine infantry with no chance of promotion, no retirement
privileges for old employees and declassified them into the ranks of those who work on the
public roads. Two hundred of them, led by Fernando La Madrid, a mestizo sergeant had
enough, uprised and killed eleven Spanish officers in Fort Santiago Felipe.
It was an unfortunate event, an outcome of false hope, the mutineers were
unsuccessful. Most of them died including La Madrid and others were kept captives. With a
court martial, the remaining captives were executed.
C. GOMBURZA

Father Gomez (left) was an old man in his mid-’70, Chinese-Filipino, born in Cavite. He
held the most senior position of the three as Archbishop’s Vicar in Cavite. He was truly
nationalistic and accepted the death penalty calmly as though it were his penance for being pro-
Filipinos.

Father Burgos (middle) was of Spanish descent, born in the Philippines. He was a parish
priest of the Manila Cathedral and had been known to be close to the liberal Governor General
de la Torre. He was 35 years old at the time and was active and outspoken in advocating the
Filipinization of the clergy. Before his execution, he wrote his last will. It was stipulated that her
sister Doῆa Antonia Burgos will be the only heir of his property. He was quoted as saying,
“Why shall a young man strive to rise in the profession of law or theology when he can vision no
future for himself but obscurity?”

Father Zamora (right), 37, was also Spanish, born in the Philippines. He was the parish
priest of Marikina and was known to be unfriendly to and would not countenance any arrogance
or authoritative behavior from Spaniards coming from Spain. He once snubbed a Spanish
governor who came to visit Marikina. He lost his sanity and submissively sat and received his
death without a last word.

II. BASIC FACTS ON THE CAVITE MUTINY

Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that
remained to be unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal as
well as the members of the native army after their privileges were drawn back by Gen. Izquierdo;
Second, Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid and strict policies that made the Filipinos move and turn
away from Spanish government out of disgust; Third, the Central Government failed to conduct
an investigation on what truly transpired but relied on reports of Izquierdo and the friars and the
opinion of the public; Fourth, the happy days of the friars were already numbered in 1872 when
the Central Government in Spain decided to deprive them of the power to intervene in
government affairs as well as in the direction and management of schools prompting them to
commit frantic moves to extend their stay and power; Fifth,  the Filipino clergy members
actively participated in the secularization movement in order to  allow Filipino priests to take
hold of the parishes in the country making them prey to the rage of the friars; Sixth, Filipinos
during the time were active participants, and responded to what they deemed as injustices; and
Lastly, the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of the Spanish government, for
the action severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired Filipino patriots to call
for reforms and eventually independence.  There may be different versions of the event, but one
thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898.
SULTANATE OF SULU AND NORTH BORNEO

The First Sulu Protocol 1877

On the second largest island of the Philippines ― Mindanao, a battle or Moro Wars
between Spain and the Taosug Muslims was taking place in which even with repeated attacks
from Spain still remained unconquered because of the foreign gun-runners in Brunei, Singapore,
Hong Kong and Macao which secretly supplied the Muslims with arms and ammunitions. It was
not later till the Spanish knew about the smuggling. They then imposed a naval blockade of the
Sulu Archipelago to every vessel that sailed on Sulu waters, therefore, paralyzing the trading
business of Great Britain and Germany. The two countries appealed to their respective
government to lift the naval blockade and filed official diplomatic protests in Madrid. Thus, first
Sulu Protocol was signed on March 11, 1877 which stopped the blockade and permitted the said
countries to trade freely with Sulu.
The root of this document was “piracy”. The Spanish discovered that there were
smugglers who were trading in Sulu waters and were convinced that the Sultan tolerate this act.
However, according to Dr. Cesar Majul, a Filipino historian who was best known for his work on
the history of Islam in the Philippines said:
“The Spanish claim that the Moro Wars were launched primarily to curb piracy on the
part of the Muslims is also questionable. The sultans, as traders, were perhaps more interested
than the Spaniards in keeping the trade lanes safe for all. It is true that there were Sulu and
Iranun pirates, but these gave the sultans cause for concern too, in common with the Spaniards
who wanted them eliminated. If the sultans failed oi curb piracy, it was simply due to the same
technical difficulty that the Spaniards themselves faced. The Spaniards found it convenient to
blame piracy on the sultans, and they used this as an excuse for invading Muslim lands and
territories.”
The document was drafted in favor of the trading interests of Great Britain and Germany.
Its purpose was to address the concerns of the respective countries.

North Borneo Treaty 1878

It said that The Sultanate of Sulu was granted the

north-eastern part of the territory as a prize for helping
the Sultan of Brunei against his enemies in 1658 and on
January 22, 1878, Sultan Jamalul Alam I of Sulu signed
a treaty with the promoters of the British North Borneo
Company in the name of Baron Gustavus von Overbeck
and Alfred Dent for 5,300 Mexican dollars. Just
because of a misinterpreted word, Sulu lost the
sovereignty over North Borneo.
The original document was written in Malay-
Arabic form. The key word in both the agreements was
“padjak”, which has been translated
by American, Dutch and Spanish linguists to mean
“lease” or “arrendamiento”. The British nevertheless
Sultan Jamalul Alam I of Sulu takes the word “padjak” to mean “grant and cede”. It
can be argued however, that “padjak” means
“mortgage” or “pawn” or even “wholesale”, as per the
contemporary meaning of “padjak” in Sulu.
Every year, the Malaysian Embassy in the Philippines issues a check in the amount of
5,300 ringgit (US$1710 or about 77,000 Philippine pesos) to the legal counsel of the heirs of the
Sultan of Sulu. Malaysia considers the amount an annual “cession” payment for the disputed
state, while the sultan’s descendants consider it “rent”.
 For me, the Sultan’s purpose was really just to lease North Borneo but since one word in
the agreement was misinterpreted, everything changed.
The main reason probably why the Sultan led to leasing his territory in North Borneo to
the British, aside from the annual income, he get to have protection and alliance to the latter, in
which that time the Spanish were trying to invade the southern archipelago of the Philippines. He
would have thought that with the presence of the British company in the land, it will be difficult
for the Spaniards to conquer it.

Here is a quick summary of Sabah's historical narrative.

Sabah was a gift from another sultan Way back in 1704 (or 1658, depending on other
articles), The Sultan of Brunei ceded the area to the Sultan of Sulu, to thank him for his
assistance in suppressing a rebellion.  It was rented out to an Austrian in 1878 According to
Senator Jovito Salonga in his 1963 speech, an Austrian adventurer named Baron de Overbeck
knew that the Sultan of Sulu was facing a high-risk struggle with the Spanish forces in the Sulu
Archipelago. He proceeded to travel to Sulu, take advantage of the situation, and persuade the
Sultan of Sulu to lease the land to him for a yearly rental of Malayan $5,000.  It was given to a
British man Overbeck later sold his rights under the contract to Alfred Dent, an English
merchant. Dent later established a provisional association, which grew into the British North
Borneo Company. This company assumed all the rights and obligations, and became Sabah's
administrator. Things messed up in 1881 In this year, the Company was awarded a Royal Charter
- however, a protest against the grant of the charter was launched by the Spanish and Dutch
governments. The British government later clarified that 'sovereignty remains with the Sultan of
Sulu' and that the Company merely acted as an administering authority.  It was "lost"in 1946
According to Salonga, the British North Borneo Company transferred all its rights and
obligations to the British Crown. On July 10, 1946, - a mere six days after Philippine
independence - the Crown asserted it had full overeign rights over North Borneo, starting from
that date. Although, Malaysia have been paying the 5,300 ringgit with an official receipt till this
moment, still the claims of regaining the sovereignty back is still far from possible.
Today, Sabah or North Borneo is under the Federation of Malaysia and until now, the
heirs and successors of the Sultan are still trying to claim what was once was theirs.
THE CARILLO IN SPANISH PHILIPPINES (1879)

Though the life of the Filipinos during the Spanish-colonial era was tough, Filipinos
still find time to amuse themselves through recreational plays. Almost all of them were in
poetic form.
One of it was carillo or shadow
play appeared in 1879. This is a form of CARILLO
dramatic entertainment performed on a
moonless night during a town fiesta or
on dark nights after a harvest. This
shadow play is made by projecting
cardboard figures before a lamp against
a white sheet. The figures are moved like
marionettes whose dialogues are
produced by some experts. The
dialogues are drawn from a Corrido or
Awit or some religious play interspersed
with songs. These are called by various
names in different places: Carillo in Manila, Rizal and Batangas and Laguan; TITRES in
Ilocos Norte, Pangasinan, Bataa, Capiz and Negros; TITIRI in Zambales; GAGALO or
KIKIMUT in Pampanga and Tarlac; and ALIALA in La Union. 
 THE TERRIBLE PHILIPPINE EARTHQUAKE OF 1880

Alfred Marche was born of a distinguished family in 1848

at Boulogne, a city north of Paris, France. In 1872, shortly
after finishing his studies in natural history, he was
commissioned to conduct a series of scientific exploration in
Africa. He successfully ended his scientific mission in 1876,
bringing numerous specimens in Africa of fauna and flora
for the Paris museum. In April 1878, he made a scientific
survey of Central Africa, especially the jungles and deserts
of Guinea.
The French government authorities were pleased by his
work, so that the next year 1879 he was commissioned to
conduct a scientific exploration of the Philippines which was
then a little known archipelago to French scientists. He
visited the Philippines twice, first in 1879-1881 and second
in 1883-1885. His last scientific exploration was done in
1886 at the Marianas Islands. After this he was appointed
archivist in the Department of Agriculture and Commerce in
Tunis, a French possession in North Africa. He died at Paris
in 1898. As a result of his two exploratory missions in the Philippines, he wrote a book titled
Luzon et Palaouan published in 1887 by Librairie Hachette et Cie, Paris).
He accounted the tremor happened on July 18,1880 which left many damages on
churches, houses, roads and casualties. A rumor was also circulating that Taal Volcano was
going to erupt. It was said that it’s the end of Manila. These rumors have been accepted
immediately without any verification. Only when the Governor spoke of encouragement the
spirits of Filipinos lifted up.
He added that, after the misfortune, the Archbishop rendered a sermon. He said that the
catastrophe was a just punishment for the sins and crimes of men. Every Spanish thought it was
great and beautiful but for the natives, they perceived that it was not the Indios who were
guiltier.
I believed the author wanted the readers to be informed that Filipinos, Spaniards and
other nationalities suffered and struggled on the tremendous catastrophe, on how they reacted
and responded to the phenomenon and in which educate us that most of the ruins that we see in
the present are results of natural disasters. When I read Marche’s article, I realized the
difficulties our ancestors went through when natural calamities strike the country. There were no
immediate rescue operations, no complete medical facilities, no telecommunications and no
earthquake preparedness plan. It was sad to imagine living in their time, when you still have the
chance to live but you will not since there were no government organizations like National
Disaster Risk Reduction & Management Council (NDRRMC), Philippines Disaster Resilience
Foundation (PDRF), and Philippine Red Cross to engage the public in increasing resilience and
undertaking preparedness activities. On the other hand, I am glad to know that there was a
seismograph to measure the movement of the ground, at least they were not completely blind of
what would happened next.
His work was a first person interaction since he was using “WE”, “I”, and “US” which
make him credible and reliable for he had experienced.
I believed that the author have achieved his goal and had been effective on elaborating in
details the happenings of the terror he had gone on the earthquake.
 TAX REFORM OF 1884

Alfonso XII (Alfonso Francisco de Asís

Fernando Pío Juan María de la Concepción Gregorio
Pelayo; 28 November 1857 – 25 November 1885)
was King of Spain, reigning from 1874 to 1885, after
a revolution deposed his mother Isabella II from the
throne in 1868, Alfonso studied in Austria and France.
His mother abdicated in his favour in 1870, and he
returned to Spain as king in 1874 following a military
coup against the First Republic. Alfonso died aged 27
in 1885, and was succeeded by his unborn son, who
became Alfonso XIII on his birth the following year.

The Filipino Tribute to the Colonial Government

On 1884, granted by the Spanish crown to the

Philippines - Royal Decree of March 6, promulgated
by King Alfonso XII abolished the tribute and other
personal taxes such as the tithe, the caja de comunidad
and the sanctorum and was replaced by the Cedula personal. Everyone over the age of 18 was
obliged to pay. The local gobernadorcillos had been responsible for collection of the tribute.
Under the cedula system, however, taxpayers were individually responsible to Spanish
authorities for payment of the tax, and were subject to summary arrest for failure to show a
cedula receipt. Only the Chinese residents(who paid another kind of poll-tax),the pagan tribes in
the hinterlands and the Muslim inhabitants and Christian settlers in Mindanao and Sulu were
exempted to this tax.
 All revenue must be through community tax. This reform was drafted in order to generate
more revenue rather than the tribute and the polo y servicio. The cedula comes in different types.
In order to get enough money to pay for the administration of the country and the
construction of churches, government buildings, roads and bridges, and improvements in
transportation and communication, the Filipinos were compelled to pay tribute called tributo, to
the colonial government. The tributo was imposed as a sign of the Filipinos' loyalty to the king
of Spain. Those who paid tribute were individuals above sixteen years old and below sixty. At
the start, a tribute amounting to eight reales was collected. The tribute increased in 1598 and a
small part of it, called sanctorum, went to the church. Because of the widespread opposition to
the tribute and to the abuses in its collection, the king abolished it in 1884. The cedula personal,
the equivalent of which is the present residence certificate, was introduced in its place.

Aside from the tribute, the Filipinos also paid other taxes. There were the diezmos prediales, the
donativo de Zamboanga, and the vinta. The diezmos prediales was a tax consisting of one-tenth
of the produce of one's land. The donativo de Zamboanga, introduced in 1635, was taxed
specifically used for the conquest of Jolo. The vinta was tax paid by people in the provinces
along the coast of Western Luzon to defend the area against Muslim pirates common at the time,
as can still be seen from the surviving towers of stone (where bells were rung to warn the locality
when Muslim pirates arrived).