MODULE 3 IN GEC 2

(READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY)

MODULE III – ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES CONTROVERSIES AND

CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

CHAPTER INTRODUCTION
There is more to just reading history. There is also the task of studying historical
accounts. Much of our history is written because there are accounts of eyewitnesses or
participants of specific events. And this where the problem come in: which account should
we believed?
As a saying in historical studies goes, “there is one past, but many histories.” Thus,
controversies on and conflicting views of events in the Philippine history exist. Thus, this
situation, does not detract from any form of Historical study, rather it contributes to the
scholarship or the study of historical sources by analyzing how perspectives are made on
historical events.
The following controversies will be discussed on this chapter:
1. Site of the first mass: is it in Limasawa or is it in Masao?
2. Cavite mutiny: which is true? The Spanish version or the Filipino version
3. Retraction of Rizal: Did Rizal retract or did he not?
4. Fist cry of Philippine revolution: is it in Pugadlawin or is it in Balintawak?

VALUE/THRUSTS INTEGRATION

Understanding controversies through analyzing historical facts; friendliness

LESSON 3 – RETRACTION OF RIZAL: DID RIZAL RETRACT OR DID HE NOT?

VALUE/THRUSTS INTEGRATION

Understanding controversies through analyzing historical facts; nationalism and

patriotism; Truthfulness

INTRODUCTION:
Jose Rizal is recognized as our national hero for his works and writings that ended
colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute in creating the Filipino nation. It is
understandable that any piece of writing from Rizal that recants everything he wrote
against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines could deal heavy damage to
his image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary. Such document supposedly exists,
allegedly signed by Rizal a few hours before his execution. This document referred to as,
“The Retraction,” declares Rizal’s belief in the Catholic faith, and retracts everything he
wrote against the church.

INTENDED OUTCOME/LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

At the end of the lesson the students will be able to:
1. Identify the conflicting views/ accounts about the Retraction of Rizal;
2. Analyze each views or source;
3. Make a position or stand on the controversy.
INCULCATING CONCEPTS (Input/Lesson Proper)

RETRACTION OF RIZAL: DID RIZAL RETRACT OR DID HE NOT

Narratives

Several historians report that Rizal retracted his anti-Catholic ideas through a
document which stated: "I retracted with all my heart whatever in my words, writings,
publications and conduct have been contrary to my character as a son of Catholic.”
However there are doubts of its authenticity given that there is no certificate of Rizal's
Catholic marriage to Josephine Bracken. Also, there is an allegation that the retraction
document was a forgery.

Readings

THE DOCUMENT

The document, Figure I, is written on a folded double sheet of Catalan paper (paper
catalan), measuring 32 centimeters long and 22 centimeters wide. The edge, except that
on which the double sheet is folded, shows irregularity slight tear, and slight soiling and
crumpling. In color the paper shows but slight tint of yellow. About the upper left corner of
the document and on the letter "C" of Creo" are holes bored by bookworms. About the
middle of the document there is a lengthwise folding made in such a way as to place the
writings within the fold. The paper bears the water-mark of "Hijo de J. Jover y Serra"
continuously marked across the two leaves. Above this water-make is a trade mark of
scale with three starts below, all enclosed in a loop that appears like a ribbon? Below this
trade mark is also a loop within which are number "2" and small type capital "A" forming
a sign "2”, perhaps to designate the class of paper.
WRITING- On the heavy lines in the document, the ink shows black color, while
the fine lines are faded and show yellow shade. There are some ink spreads on some
letters that the latter just look like solid ink marks, but are recognizable nevertheless, such
as, “d” of “de” in the first line of the second paragraph, “a” of “catholico” of the fourth line
in the same paragraph, “a” of “cuanto” and “enseňa” of the fifth line, same paragraph, “a”
of “manda” of the next line, “r” of “reparar” of the eleventh line in the same paragraph, and
“a” of “hayan” of the following line.
0n the uppermost part of the left side of the document are the following writings,
“29 Deciembre 96 or 97” with the “6” a little heavier than the “7” of the last figure, written
in red pencil, probably on =e of the “corrector’s red pencil” (see figure I). The writing
according to the Archbishop is one of my interviews with His Grace and which He later
reiterated 9, was found written on the document when the latter was discovered. The
number “31” on the upper right corner was added to mark the subsequent pages in their
series of occurrence as found. About the middle of the document on the left side is an ink
stain which I do not know whether it was on the document before or after its discovery.
However, it does not affect the document that is written closer to the right than the left.
The margins at the top and bottom are quite equal. The alignment of the writings
is quite straight, perhaps, the best that could be done under the conditions, since the
paper is unruled.
ANALYSIS OF THE DOCUMENT – If we would turn back to figure I, and make a
little more detailed information, anyone cannot fail to notice the following varieties of forms
of capital letters. Thus the capital “C” of “Creo” differs from that of “Catholica”, the former
being that of the graceful round-hand while the latter is that of the bold and shaded
modified “vertical system” of the later date which is not graceful as the former. The upper
part of “C” in “Creo” is made with a loop whose initial stroke is far to the left of the letter
and crossed by downward stroke. It ends in a round loop terminating at the point of
contact with its origin. There is, "however; no shading in any of its visible part. We must
remember that that the black spot on the letter is the damage done by bookworms as
previously observed. The “C” of “Catolina”, however, is made with the initial upward stroke
and then coming down to the shaded downward stroke to complete the letter, thus forming
an angular apex. The stroke ends without a loop.
The capital "D" in “Diocesano” and “Diciembre” are quite alike but both of them
differ from the “D” in “Dios”. While the former two “D’s” are made by swinging the pen to
the left and making small arc after the initial downward stroke in making its shaft and then
reversing the swing to the right, without however completing the circle, but describing
another arc in the same hemisphere, before describing a bigger arc upward to complete
the form of "D, the "D" of ‘Dios” made without that "arc tail” of the shaft, but neither
swinging to the left nor right, the pen is made to retrace an upward stroke and suddenly
making a downward stroke to make a "U" turn upward to complete the body of "D. They
differ in the stroke producing the lower loop of the shaft.
In the case of capital "A”, we shall note a similar parallelism of difference. The "As"
of "Abomino" and "Autoridad" differ in the termination of the downward stroke after
completing the right side of "A". In "Abomino" the pen retraces an upward stroke before
breaking into a connection with the following letter.
But in "Autoridad" the pen swings to the left, though not exactly describing an arc
which is suddenly reversed to the right almost retracing the former in an arc, but not
completing into a circle before making the connection with the following letter. Both of
them begin at an initial point. Also the top of “A” in "Abomino" is angular, while that of "A
in "Autoridad" is round.
The variation in form is noticeable not only in the case of capital letters but also in
that of the small letters. In Figure III, I have the noticeable variations in the forms of the
terminal "a”. On the left side are "a’s” distinctly formed, while on the right side are the "a’s"
indistinctly formed, having a close affinity with the formation of letter "e". Yet both kinds
have the appearance of continuous and unhesitating movement. Could we take them to
habitually form? Yet both seemed to be produced by the same muscular movements,
only in one case that of the distinct form, the movement is quite controlled as to have time
for the delicate swings in forming "a” quite distinctly, while in the other case, that of the
indistinct "a’s”, the movement gives the appearance of careless abandon and speed so
as to leave out as indistinct the delicate swings that completed the appearance of "a” and
yet in some instances of the same class, there are traces of a sight tendency to form
swings.
In Figure IV, we have a variety of initial "h". In the left are "h’s” formed with angular
top of the bar while the "h’s" in the right column have the tendency for the same top of
form a symmetrical loop save the shading on the left side of the loop. If we are to follow
the tendency of the movement producing the "h’s” on the left, we shall find it to be
clockwise, whole that of the "h’s" on the right is counter- clockwise. We must therefore
not neglect this variation of forms and strokes.
In Figure V, we have a variety of "o’s” as the last letter of the word. The first four
words at the left from the top of the list are examples of the terminal "o’s” with a sort of a
tail made by a horizontal side-stroke from the top of the letter "o". The last two words on
the same (left) side and all of those on the right are examples of the words ending in "o"
but which finished by a flying swing to the left. Sometimes, the “o” is open, sometimes it
is closed.
The tail of the first "o’s” is produced by a sudden the "o reversal into a horizontal
stroke towards the left from the bottom of "o”, thus making a small bulb.
In Figure VI, we have a variety of "p" as the initial letter of the words. On the left
side, we have the "ps" whose finishing strokes produces a knot by curving to the left in a
downward stroke from the top of the bar them reversing this direction by producing
another arc – counter clockwise – without completing into a circle. On the right side is the
other class of “p’s.”(Grey and Biong, 2017),

THE ACCOUNT OF FR. VICENTE BALAGUER

About ten o’clock in the morning (December 29), Father Villaclara and I went to
Fort Santiago, where the chapel cell of the convict was. He received us with great
affection and embraced us. I think it convenient to point out that when the Archbishop
sent bis commission to the Ateneo, he remarked that, in case of conversion, before
ministering Sacraments to him, Dr. Rizal should make a retraction of errors publicly
professed to him in words and writings and a profession of the Catholic faith. To this
effect, when the Father Superior of the Mission went to the Archbishop's Palace, he
brought by way of precaution a retraction and profession of faith, concise, but including
what he thought out to be extracted from Dr. Rizal. The Prelate read it, and would declared
it to be sufficient. He said, however, that he would prepare or order to prepare extensive
one.
Before going to the Fort, I went to the Palace in order to receive orders and
instructions from the Prelate. Archbishop gave me the formula of retraction and profession
of faith, composed by Reverend Father Pio Pi….
Therefore, when we, the two fathers, met him in the chapel, after exchanging
greetings with him talking various matters, I, who knew the history and errors contained
in his books, in order to fulfill our delicate mission asked Rizal to give an explanation on
his ideas of religion... He came to say more or less explicitly that his rule of faith was the
word of God contained in the sacred scripture. I tried to make him see how false and
indefensible such a criterion was, in as much as without authority to the Church he could
not be sure of the authenticity of the Holy Scripture or of the books truly revealed by God;
how absolutely impossible it is for individual reason to interpret at his will the word of God.
Then be declared himself openly a nationalist freethinker, unwell to admit any other
criterion of truth than individual reason.
I then pointed out to him that absurdity of rationalism for the lack of instruction of
the immense majority of humankind, and for the absurd monstrous errors professed by
the greatest sages of paganism… When I attacked him with the logic and evidence of
Catholic truth, I told him with the energy that if he did not yield his mind and his reason
for the sake of faith, he would soon appear for judgment before God and would surely be
damned. Upon bearing his threat, tears gushes in his eyes, and he said “No I will not
damn myself.”
“Yes”, I replied- you will go to hell, for, whether you like it or not. Yes; out of the
Catholic Church there is no salvation. Truth is and cannot be but one…..
At three o'clock or a little past three, I returned to the Royal Fort where Father
Vilaclara had remained, and I resumed the discussion with Dr. Rizal, that lasted until dusk,
Arriving at the point which I have already indicated. Then I went to the Ateneo and thence
I went with Father Viza to the palace. Then I reported on the condition of the convict, who
offered some hope for conversion, since he had asked for the formula of the retraction.
Hence, I requested the Prelate for the formula he had promised, and he told me that it
was not yet finished. Soon he would send it to me.
lt was already night when l arrived at the Fort. I found Dr. Rizal impatient. He asked
for the formula of the Prelate. This came at last, at about ten o'clock; upon knowing it, the
convict asked me for it insistently. Without letting me read it first, he called and asked me
to read it to him.
Both of us sat at a desk, where there was stationery and I began to read it. Upon
hearing the first paragraph, he told me: "Father, do not proceed. That style is different
from mine. I cannot sign that, because it should be understood that I am writing it myself."
I brought out then the shorter and more concise formula of Father Pi. I read the
first paragraph and he said to me: "That style is simple as mine. Don't bother, Father, to
read it all. Dictate what I ought to profess and express, and I shall write, making in any
case some remarks.
And thus it was done. As I suggested the idea, he proceeded to write with steady
hand and clear letters, making at times some observation or adding some phrase.
Certainly after the discussion, Dr. Rizal was yielding to the impulse of grace, since he had
retired into himself and prayed as he had promised. Thus he appeared to be while his
retraction….
He finished writing, and thus it remained. It was half past eleven; it was dated
December the twenty ninth…
This declaration or retraction was signed together a Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno,
Chief of the Picket, and Seňor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza….
After all these acts…he knelt down of his own accord before the altar of the virgin,
placed in the chapel cell. In the presence of the Fathers, of the Judge Advocate, of the
Chief of the Picket, of the Adjutant of the Plaza, of three artillery officers, Rizal asked me
for his retraction and profession of faith. He proceeded to read it with pause and
devotion…
Of all that has been narrated, l am positive by personal knowledge. I have
personally intervened and witnessed it myself; and I subscribe and confirm it with an oath.
And lest, perhaps, someone may think that I could not remember it with so many details,
after twenty years, I testify on the very day of Rizal's death I wrote a very detailed account
of everything. The original of this account I hate preserved, and from it I have taken all
the data of the present narration.
Before Rizal reached Bagumbayan, I went to the Ateneo and delivered the
aforementioned document to Father Pio P, who that very day brought it to the Palace and
handed it to Archbishop Nozaleda.

FR. PIO PI ACCOUNT

The Jesuit Superior in the Philippines during the time when Rizal was executed.

THE ACCOUNT

On the eve of the day when Dr. Rizal was put in the chapel, that is, on December
the twenty-eight, I received the mission, which Archbishop Nozaleda entrusted to the
Jesuit Fathers, for the spiritual care of the convict. We accept it most eagerly, not only
because it came from the venerable Prelate, but especially because of its object was to
reconcile with God and with the Church, and to save the soul of him who had our very
distinguished and dear pupil. Rizal had always preserved for us, the Jesuits, a special
esteem and affection even after his estrangement from the Church and had rendered us
good service...
Even though I myself, who had not been acquainted personally with Rizal, did not
visit him. All the Fathers who remained with him during his stay in the chapel or who
accompanied him to Bagumbayan, the place of the execution, went there at my request
or with my knowledge and they kept me informed of all the happenings...
In regard to conversion, at the beginning not a little difficulty was found in
convincing and persuading him. A long discussion, to which he maintained principally with
Father Balaguer, became necessary in order to revive in that soul of faith of and Christian
sentiments. At last he surrendered so willingly and so completely, and the proofs of
religious and piety were such and so many that, with much less, the most exacting person
would have been satisfied. He was right indeed when he said, wondering at the change
wrought in himself, that he was the Rizal of some time ago, but another entirely different…
When the retraction was to be subscribed to, he found certain objections in the
form of the composition by Father Balaguer, the one sent by the Archbishop. The one
which I had made was shorter although conclusive, and this pleased him. Nevertheless,
to make it appear more of his own and spontaneous, he wished to introduce some little
modifications. He wrote it entirely with his own hand and signed it with a steady hand...
Beneath Rizal’s signature, the Chief of the Picket, Juan del Fresno, and the Adjutant of
the Plaza, Eloy Moure, also signed as witnesses.
Not satisfied with signing so explicit an adjuration, Rizal himself, without pressure
from anyone, took into his hands his own document and knelt down before the altar of the
chapel. Aloud and slowly, and even with d certain solemnity be read his own retraction...

RAFAEL PALMA'S CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Lawyer, writer, educators, and politician, Rafael Palma was the author of Biografia
de Rizal, a work on the life of the National Hero which won in a literary contest in 1938
sponsored by the Commonwealth Government. The publication of the book, however,
was postponed because of World War II and only saw print in 1949. That same year, an
English translation by Roman Ozaeta with the title “Pride of the Malay Race” was
published by Prentice-Hall, Inc. in the United States. The story of Rizal alleged retraction
is found in Chapters 32 and 33 with Palma analysis in the latter chapter.

THE ANALYSIS

For the first time in this work, those who should have spoken from the beginning
because of their direct intervention in the act of conversion and retraction of Rizal, speak
and confirm in all its parts of the narrative which appeared in 1897 in Rizal y su Obra.
That should be conclusive; but that is not. All the declarations therein cited those
ecclesiastics and their friends, and it is to be supposed that all of the latter would not
contradict the version given by the former. The only testimony that might be considered
impartial is that of Taviel de Andrade, the defense counsel of Rizal, but his testimony to
the conversion of Rizal is mere hearsay, that is to say, what he heard the priest say, and
that diminishes its value very much.
We must consider the weight and value of these testimonies which to be partial
and interested. We do not ignore the respect that is due to the sacred character of said
persons; but as Brutus said, “You are a friend, but truth is a greater friend.” Lastly, we
must consider coetaneous acts performed by the Ecclesiastical Authorities or by the
government are in accord with the belief that Rizal had been converted for if they are not,
they would not produce the moral evidence that is needed.
Well, then, these acts tend to demonstrate that Rizal was not reconciled with the
Catholic Church, judging from the way they treated him after his death. In the first place,
the document of retraction was kept secret so that no one except the authorities was able
to see it at that time. Only copies of it were furnished by the newspapers, but, with the
exception of one person, nobody saw the original. In fact, this original was kept in such a
way that it was not found until after thirty years had transpired. In the second place, when
the family of Rizal asked for the original of said document or a copy of it as well as a copy
of the certificate of canonical marriage with Josephine Bracken, both petitions were
denied. In the third place, Rizal’s burial was kept secret, the cadaver having been
delivered to the members of Catholic Association friendly to the friars instead of being
delivered to the family, who had claimed it. How is Christian charity applied to one who
dies within the church if not even the desire of his family to bury him in their own account
is respected? In the fourth place, in spite of what Rizal meant to the Filipinos and of what
his conversion meant, no masses were said for his soul or funeral held by the Catholics.
In the fifh place, notwithstanding (the claim) that Rizal was reconciled with the church, he
was not buried in a Catholic cemetery of Paco but in the ground without cross or stone to
mark his own grave. Only the diligence of the family was able to identify the spot where
he was buried. In the sixth place, the entry in the book of burials of the interment of Rizal’s
body is not made on the page with those buried on December 30, 1896, where there were
as many as six entries, but on a special page wherein appear those buried by special
orders of the authorities, Thus, Rizal figures on a page between a man who burned to
death and who could not be identified and another who died by suicide; in other words,
he was considered among persons who died impenitent and did not receive spiritual aid.
In the seventh and last place, there was no moral motive for the conversion. The
extraordinary or abnormal acts of a person are always to some reason or rational motive.
What was the motive that could have induced him to adjure masonry and reconcile himself
to the rites of the religion which he had fought? Did be not realize that to do so was to be
a renegade to his own history.
Rizal was a man of character and he had demonstrated it in his many
circumstances of his life. He was not likely to yield his ideas because his former
preceptors and teachers talked to him. They did it in Dapitan and did not obtain any result.
Why would he renounce his religious ideas for a few hours of life?

**********

In short, Rizal’s conversion was a pious fraud to make the people believe that an
extraordinary man broke than and succumbed before the church which he had fought.
The Archbishop was interested in his conversion for political motives, and the Jesuits lent
themselves as his instrument. The example of Rizal would have great resonance in the
whole country and it was necessary to bolster the drooping prestige of religion with his
abjuration. What if Rizal was a man of valor and convictions and his conversion would be
unbelievable? So much the better. The interest of religion was above him. His aureole of
glory had to be done away with if necessary. What it did matter? He was only an Indio.

AUSTIN COATES’ CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Austin Coates s interest in Jose Rizal began when he was Assistant Colonia
Secretary and Magistrate in Hong Kong in 1950. His first study on Rizal was on the latter's
year-long stay in Hong Kong (1891-1892). At that time, many of the personalities who
knew Rizal were still alive. This early awareness on Rizal eventually led to the writing and
publication of his book-Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr (Oxford University Press,
1956)-the first Rizal biography written by a European since Vida y Escritos del Dr. Jose
Rizal by Wenceslao Retana in 1907. The second edition of the book was published in the
Philippines by Solidaridad Publishing House in 1992.
Coates’ analyses of Rizal’s retraction and other events happened before his
execution are found in Part VII, Chapter 5 of the book.

COATES'S ANALYSIS

The morning after the execution the newspapers of Manila and Madrid recorded
the event, and announced that on the eve of his death, Rizal had retracted his religious
errors, adjured freemasonry, and in the last hours of his life had married Josephine
Bracken. In most newspapers the text of the letter of retraction supposedly written by
Rizal was printed in full. By the government the announcement was sent to Spanish
consulates abroad with the request to obtain for it the widest possible publicity.
Those who had read Rizal’s books or those who knew him closely, which at that
time meant the family and his wide circle of friends, most of whom are abroad, took one
look at the announcement and dubbed it …. An ecclesiastical fraud.
 While unquestionably a fraud, however, to suggest that the Archbishop’s
announcement was issued knowingly, or that there was a plot among the higher
ecclesiastical authorities to perpetrate a fraud is going too far. The nature of society within
the church, the society of priests, is such as to render it virtually impossible for such things
to happen. When frauds occur, they are not the planned work of the church as an
organization, though this may be what it looks like to outsiders; they are usually the work
of a small man with his own idea; and the Church, if unwittingly it accepts the fraud as
genuine, has to protect him. Rizal believed that there was a strong likelihood of fraud, and
that the prime mover in this would be the friar archbishop. It was the friars who wanted
his retraction. But while in the event Rizal's intuition did not play him false, there is no
evidence to implicate Nozaleda. Along came a small man with what the Archbishop
wanted.
Balaguer had the intelligence to perceive that everything depended on the speed
and audacity with which he declared his success. The Archbishop was waiting for a
retraction, hoping for it. When news of it came he would announce it immediately, after
which it would be too late for any of the Balaguer’s colleagues to gainsay it.
Certainly there was no signed letter of retraction. Rizal knew well the damage
such a letter would do to him, besides which he believed before God he had nothing to
retract….
Finally, there is the minor point that in view of public disbelief the Archbishop’s
statement provoked, had there been produced for inspection, particularly to the Rizal
family, who asked to see it, and to many of whom – to Teodora Alonso in particular – it
would have been source of consolation.
Once the execution was over, and Vilaclara and March returned to be faced with
Balaguer's claims, the fraud was apparent to the Jesuits, but it was already too late to
rectify matters.
What appears with complete certainty is that neither Pio Pi y Vidal nor any of the
Jesuits of probity believed that Rizal had retracted and died confessed. Had Vilaclara and
March, who were with Rizal at his execution, been satisfied that there had been a
retraction, it is inconceivable that they would not have given him Christian burial. The
Jesuits had been entrusted by the Archbishop with the spiritual care of the condemned
man; and it was their responsibility, if they were satisfied that he had died confessed, to
see he was decently buried. These the two Jesuits at the execution did not do….
The Rizal family found it difficult to accept either the retraction or the marriage.
They knew their brother; they knew that he have retracted he would certainly have so in
his 6 a.m. communication to his mother, knowing the consolation it would have given her.
Difficulties began as disbelief spread, and they were deepened by Balaguer’s urge
to elaborate and to see himself publicly praised. As he affirmed an oath in 1909, he settled
down that very night, 29 December, to write his account, in which, since he intended it to
be published anonymously, he included much praise of himself, an aspect which, since
he admitted the authorship, renders him a sorry and rather absurd figure…
Balaguer had in fact damaged the Church's case. Worse than this, he had
unwittingly revealed his own fraud. In his account, he made no mention of the Ultimo
Adios.
That Rizal on the night of the 29th wished to write verses Balaguer knew; he told
a journalist about it. But when the following morning only letters, books and an alcohol
burner remained to be disposed of by the authorities, he erroneously concluded that no
poem had been written and thus made no mention of it in his account, thereby revealing
he truth, which was that he was not within Fort Santiago during the middle of that last
night, and had no knowledge of what was then taking place..
Not only did Balaguer in his account not mention the poem; he made his account
so elaborate that Rizal is allowed no time in which to write; and only a glance at the Ulimo
Adios is needed to show that it would have taken several hours to write...

********

Reference:
1. Evelyn J. Grey, Ph.D. and Ryan D. Biong, M.A. Ed. “Readings in Philippine
History.” Malones Printing Press and Publishing House. Door 32, Zerrudo
Commercial Complez, E. Lopez St., Jaro , Iloilo, Philippines. Copyright 2017.
2. Jose Victor Torres. “BATIS: Sources in Philippine History.” C and E Publishing,
Inc. 839 EDSA, South Triangle, Quezon City, 2018.
LESSON 4 – FIRST CRY OF PHILIPPINE REVOLUTION: IS IT IN PUGADLAWIN OR
IS IT IN BALINTAWAK?

VALUE/THRUSTS INTEGRATION

Understanding controversies through analyzing historical facts; love of country; freedom

INTRODUCTION:
From trivial to the most significant “pain” people cry in order to be heard. History of Filipino
people was an array of cries and struggles- “Cry” word, in our history signifies – the pasya, the pagpupunit
or the unang labanan which eventually lead to the Outbreak of First Philippine Revolution.

After 333 years a “Pasya” to fight against Spanish colonialism… which

commenced to the Pagpupunit ng cedula – a piece of paper that symbolized Spanish
oppression …with raised that the “Cry” should mean the unang labanan
"That being the case, "Bonifacio said, "bring out your cedulas and tear them to
pieces to symbolize our determination to take up arms!" The men obediently tore up their
cedulas, shouting "Long live the Philippines!" This event marked the so-called "Cry of
Balintawak," which actually happened in Pugadlawin.

The First Cry of Philippine Revolution marked the start of the different revolutionary
events in the country. This happened in Manila in August 1896 where the members of
Katipunan declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial government by tearing their
cedulas. The event happened after the discovery of Katipunan revealed by Teodoro
Patiňo to Fr. Mariano Gil on August 19, 1896 and subsequently, Spaniards began
pursuing to arrest them.
The controversy, however, persist regarding this event stemming from the
identification of dates and places where the cry happened from the testimonies of different
eyewitnesses of the event.
Thus, as an historic controversy, this issue must be resolved. Is it happened in
Balintawak or Pugad Lawin?
INTENDED OUTCOME/LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
At the end of the lesson the students will be able to:
1. Identify the conflicting views and arguments about the “First Cry of the
Revolution;”
2. Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or against a particular
issue using primary sources;
3. Display the ability to work in a multi-disciplinary team and contribute to a group
endeavor.

INCULCATING CONCEPTS (Input/Lesson Proper)

FIRST CRY OF PHILIPPINE REVOLUTION: IS IT IN PUGADLAWIN OR IT IS IN

BALINTAWAK?

Narratives
News about the discovery of the Katipunan spread to Manila and the nearby
suburbs, and Andres Bonifacio immediately called for a general meeting. In Balintawak,
Bonifacio hurriedly changed the Code of the Katipunan, hoping that he could save the
society. Various wings of the Katipunan gathered at the house of Juan Ramos in
Pugadlawin on August 23, 1896. Ramos was the son of Melchora Aquino, known as
“Tandang Sora” who was later acknowledged as the Mother of the Katipunan.

In there, Bonifacio asked his men whether they were willing to fight to the bitter
end. Everyone shouted approval, except Teodoro Plata, who thought that it was too soon
for a revolution. Heartened by his men's response, Bonifacio then asked them to tear their
"cedulas" (residence certificates) to pieces, as a sign of defiance and determination to
rise against the Spaniards. The men immediately tore up their cedulas, shouting,
"Mabuhay ang Pilipinas (Long live the Philippines): This is known as the First Cry of the
Revolution. The following are the readings:
Readings

Document 372

PIO VALENZUELA'S CONTROVERSIAL

"Cry of Pugad Lawin"
(August 23, 1896)

The controversial "Cry of Pugad Lawin", which has been confirmed by no other
witnesses of the event than Dr. Pio Valenzuela, has the second and later version of the
first rally of the Katipunan by Dr. Valenzuela himself. The first version which he gave told
to the "Cry of Balintawak as the first staging point of the Philippine Revolution. He related
the first version, when events were still fresh in his memory and as he abandoned the
revolutionary cause after its outbreak and fled to Biňan, Laguna, for safety. Taking
advantage of Governor General Ramon Blanco’s proclamation of amnesty to the
revolutionists, Valenzuela returned to Manila on September 3, 1896, and surrendered to
Blanco. He was imprisoned in Santiago, where, upon investigation, he told Francisco
Olive, the Spanish investigator that, the cry was staged at "Balintawak on Wednesday,
August 26, 1896." However, much later, Dr. Valenzuela, with a fading memory and
without consulting the written documents of the Philippine Revolution, wrote his Memoirs
of the Revolution. In his memoirs, he claims that the "Cy was held at Pugad Lawin on
August 23, 1896, as follows."

The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio,
Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the first five arriving
there on August 19, and, on August 20, 1896. The first place where some 500 members
of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was in the house and yard of Apolinario
Samson at Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who were
there were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and
others. Here, views were only exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It
was at Pugad Lawin, in the house, store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora
Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable
debate and discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the
revolution against the Spanish government should be started on August 29, 1896. Only
one man protested and fought against a war, and that was Teodoro Plata (Bonifacio’s
brother-in-law). Besides the person name above, among those present at this meeting
were Enrique Cipriano, Alfonso Pacheco, Tomas Remigio, Sinforoso San Pedro, and
others. After the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates
and shouted "Long live in the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!

***

1 See W. E Retana, Archivo del bibliofilo Filipino (Madrid, 1897), voL. iu P

*A typescript copy or DE. Valenzuela's Memoirs, together with his auog P raph an personal photo, was
given to me by the author when I visited his hone in Polo (now Valenzuela), Bulacan, on july 4, 1931, whıle
researching 1or my irst po on the discovery of Katipunan.
2 According to General Masangkay, three prominent Katipuneros opposed the early start of the revolution,
namely Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Dr. Pio Valenzuela. See Documents 576 in this series.
3 Since this particular version or the “First Cry” was different from the onginal one wnich he gave Spanish
authorities soon after the event, Dr. Valenzuela’s second (and later) recollection has been repudiated by
most prestsgious histornans of the Philippines, with the singular exception of Teodoro Agoncillo in his book,
The Revolt of the Masses (Quezon City, 1956). Nicolas Zafra, Agoncillo's mentor reviewed and criticized
the book in Philippine Studies (1956). Vol: IV, No. 4, including the fallacy of the “Cry of Pugad Lawin.” See
G.F. Zaide, The Pageant of Philippine History (Manila, 1979), Vol. l1, Pp. 241-242.

Document 373

THE "CRY OF BAHAY-TORO

(AUGUST 24, 1896)

By Santiago Alvarez

Another version of the "Cry which launched the Philippine revolution is that written
by Santiago Alvarez, a prominent Katipunan warlord of Cavite, son of Mariano Alvarez,
and relative of Gregoria de Jesus (wife of Andres Bonifacio). Unlike Masangkay, Samson,
and Valenzuela, Alvarez was not an eye witnesses of the historic event. Hence, his
version cannot be accepted as equal in weight to that given by actual participants of the
event. Although Alvarez was in Cavite at the time, this his version of the first "Cry as
follows.

Sunday, August 23, 1896

As early as 10 o 'clock in the morning, at the barn of Kabesang Melchora (Melchora

Aquino--- Z), at a place called Samapalukan, barrio of Bahay Toro, Katipuneros met
together. About 500 of these arrived, ready and eager to join the "Supremo” Andres
Bonifacio and his men….

Monday, August 24, 1896

There were about 1,000 Katipuneros.... The Supremo decided to hold a meeting inside
the big barn. Under his leadership the meeting began at 10 o’clock in the morning. It was
12 o’clock noon the meeting adjourned amidst loud cries of “Long live the Sons of the
Country" (Mabuhay ang mga Anak ng Bayan).

Document 374

GREGORIA DE JESUS" VERSION OF THE FIRST "CRY"

(August 25, 1896)

One of the participants in the drama of the Philippine Revolution of 1896 was
Gregoria de Jesus, the wife of Supremo Andres Bonifacio and the "Lakambini of the
Katipunan". She was the custodian of the secret documents, seal, and some weapons of
the Katipunan, and constantly risked her life in safeguarding them. After the outbreak of
the revolution in August, 1896, she went to live with her parents in Caloocan, while
Bonifacio and his men gathered in the hills of Balintawak for the war of liberation. When
warned that the Spanish authorities were coming to arrest her, she fled to Manila and late
joined her husband in the mountains and shared the hardships and sacrifices of a patriot’s
life with him. According to her version of the first "Cry” it occurred near Caloocan on
August 25, 1896, as follows *

The activities of the Katipunan had reached nearly all corners the Philippine
archipelago, so that when its existence was discovered and some of the members were
arrested, we immediately returned to Caloocan. However, as we were closely watched
by the agents of the Spanish authorities, Andres Bonifacio and other katipuneros left the
town after some days. It was then that the uprising began, with the first cry for freedom
on August 25, 1896. Meanwhile, I was with my parents. Through my friends, I learned
that the Spanish were coming to arrest me.

Immediately, I fled from the town at eleven o 'clock at night, secretly going through
the rice fields to La Loma, with the intention of returning to Manila. I was treated like an
apparition, for, sad to say, in every house where I tried to get a little rest, I was driven
away as if the people therein were frightened for their own lives. Later, I found out that
the occupants of the house which I had visited were seized and severely punished ----
and some were exiled. One of them was an uncle of mine whom had visited that night to
kiss his hand, and he died exiled.

*****

CY OF BALINTAWAK: THE GUARDIA CIVIL'S REPORT ON THE CRY OF

BALINTAWAK"
(August 25, 1896)

It is interesting to note that Captain Olegario Diaz, Spanish commander of the

Guardia Civil Veterana of Manila, who investigated the discovery of the Katipunan (see
Document 371), also included in his Official report findings on the site and date of the first
rally of the Revolution. According to his report, the first "Cry” occurred at Balintawak on
August 25, 1896, as follows:*

The conspiracy having been discovered, Bonifacio and his followers hurriedly fled
to the nearby town of Caloocan....On the 23 rd [of August, 1896-Z] Bonifacio moved to the
barrio of Balintawak-Z.]. Followed by 200 men from Caloocan; on the 24th they were
attacked by the Guardia Civil in the outskirts of the said town and they retreated to their
hiding places.

The Supreme Council called for a big meeting to be held the following day [August
25-Z] in the above-mentioned barrio [Balintawak-Z.]. More than 5,000 members attended.
The meeting began with the discussion of what course should be taken in the face of the
new situation and in view of the arrests that were being made. There were some who
were disposed to go back and surrender to the Spanish authorities. Bonifacio was
strongly opposed to such course. He was for taking up arms at once. Put to a vote,
Bonifacio’s proposal was approved by an overwhelming majority. See how strong an
influence he wields.
Orders were immediately sent out to Manila, Cavite, Nueva Ecija, and other
provinces for the Katipuneros to strike at dawn on Sunday, August 30th.

THE "CRY OF BALINTAWAK"

(August 26, 1896)

By Guillermo Masangkay
Katipunan General

The Historic first rally of the Philippine Revolution of 1896, occurred at the rustic barrio of
Balintawak, a few kilometers north of the city of Manila, on August 26, 1896, according to
this eyewitness account by Katipunan General Guillermo Masangkay, Bonifacio’s
childhood friend. Similarly, this date and site were officially adopted by the government
during the early years of the American regime, after having consulted the surviving
katipuneros and prestigious historians at the time. A monument depicting the event was
erected near the site, financed by funds donated by the people, and was inaugurated on
September 3, 1911. In his memoirs, General Masangkay recounts the Cry of Balintawak,
"as follows:

On August 26th [1896-Z], a big meeting was held in Balintawak at the hose of
Apolonio Samson, the cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who attended, I
remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remigio, Briccio
Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They
were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the organization.
Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong (now Rizal), were also
present.

At about nine o clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting was opened with
Andres Bontacio as presiding and Emilio Jacinto as acting secretary. The purpose to
discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata [Bonifacios brothe-rin-law-Z],
Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were all opposed to starting the revolution too early.
They reasoned that the people would be in distress if the revolution were started without
adequate preparation. Plata was very forceful in his argument, stating that the uprising
could not be very well started without arms and food for the soldiers. Valenzuela urged
Rizal’s argument about the rich not siding with the Katipunan Organization.

Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he would lose in the discussion then, left the
session hall and talked to the people, who were waiting outside for the result of the
meeting of the leaders. He told the people that the leaders were arguing against starting
the revolution early, and appealed to them in a fiery speech in which he said: "You
remember the fate of our countrymen who were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return
now to the towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us. Our organization has been discovered
and we are all marked men. If we don’t start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us
anyway. What then do you say?
 "Revolt the people shouted as one.
Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told
them that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax charged each citizen.
“If it is true that you are ready to revolt,” Bonifacio saved, “I want to see you destroy your
cedulas. lt will be the sign that all of us have declared our severance from the Spaniards.”

With tears in their eyes, the people as one man, pulled out their cedulas and tore
them to pieces. It was the beginning of the formal declaration of the separation from the
Spanish rule. With their cedula destroyed, they could no longer go back to their homes
because the Spaniards would persecute them, if not for being katipuneros having no
cedulas. And people who had no cedulas during those days were severely punished.

When the people’s pledge was obtained by Bonifacio, he returned to the session
hall and informed the leaders of what took place outside. “The people want to revolt, and
they have destroyed their cedulas,” Bonifacio said. “So now we have to start the uprising:
otherwise the people by hundreds will be shot. There was no alternative. The board of
directors, in spite of the protests of Plata, Pantas, and Valenzuela voted for the revolution.
And when this was decided, the people outside shouted; “Long Live the Philippine
Republic!”

I still remember Bonifacio as he appeared that day. Although a mere bodeguero

(warehouseman) and earning P25 (Mex.) a month, he was a cultured man. He always
wore an open coat, with black neck tie and black hat. He always carried an umbrella. At
the meeting that morning of August 26, Bonifacio took off his coat and was wearing only
his shirt, with collar and tie. Bonifacio’s hobby was weaving bamboo hats. During his
spare time he wove dozens of them and sold them in Manila. Thus he made extra money.

At about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, while the gathering at Balintawak was

celebrating the decision of the Katipunan leaders to start the uprising, the guards who
were up in trees to watch for any possible intruders or the approach of the enemy, gave
the warning that the Spaniards were coming.

Led by Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto and other leaders of the Katipunan, the men were
distributed in strategic positions and were prepared for the attack of the civil guards. I was
with a group stationed on the bank of a small creek, guarding the places where the
Spaniards were to pass in order to reach the meeting place of the katipuneros Shots were
then fired by the civil guards, and that was the beginning of the fire which later became a
huge conflagration.

**********

Reference:
Evelyn J. Grey, Ph.D. and Ryan D. Biong, M.A.Ed. Malones Printing Press and
Publishing House. Door 32, Zerrudo Commercial Complex. E. Lopez St., Jaro,
Iloilo, Philippines, 2017.