Republic of the Philippines

Laguna State Polytechnic University

Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited

LSPU Self-Paced Learning Module (SLM)

Course Readings in Philippine History
Sem/AY Second Semester/2020-2021
Module No. 2.1
Lesson Title THE FIRST MASS SITE IN THE PHILIPPINES
Week
2
Duration
Date
The course analyses Philippine History from multiple perspectives through the lens of
Description selected primary sources coming from the various disciplines and of different genres.
of the Students are given opportunities to analyze the author’s background and main
Lesson arguments, compare other points of view, identify biases, and examine the evidence
presented in the document.

Learning Outcomes
Intended Students should be able to meet the following intended learning outcomes:
Learning  Understand the CONTROVERSIES AND CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE
Outcomes HISTORY
 Identify the Site of the First Mass
 Appreciate the historical Importance of the Site of the First Mass
Targets/ At the end of the lesson, students should be able to:
Objectives  Analyze the Site of the First Mass
 Determine the primary sources of the Masao and Limasawa.
 Develop critical and analytical skills with the Site of the First Mass.

Student Learning Strategies

Online A. Online Discussion via Google Meet
Activities You will be directed to attend a three-Hour class discussion, The First Mass
(Synchronous Site in the Philippines. To have access to the Online Discussion, refer to this
link:________________________________________________________
/
The online discussion will happen on ___________________________, from
Asynchronou ____________________.
s) (For further instructions, refer to your Google Classroom and see the schedule
of activities for this module)
B. Learning Guide Questions:
1. Do you agree that the site of the first Catholic Mass in the Philippines
was in Limasawa?
2. What does the Catholic Mass represent?

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
3. What is the essential part of the Catholic Mass?
Note: The insight that you will post on the online discussion forum using the
Learning Management System (LMS) will receive additional scores in-class
participation.

Lecture Guide

INTRODUCTION
“History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History is who we are and
why we are”- David McCullough
ANTONIO PIGAFETTA
Around 1491 when he was born at Vicenza, Republic of Venice or was
known now as Italy and died at the aged of 39-40 around 1531; he studied
astronomy; geography, and cartography, an Italian scholar and explorer from the
Republic of Venice, He travelled with the Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan
and his crew on their First Voyage around the world, He was one of the 18 men who
returned to Spain in 1522.
The first Catholic Mass in the Philippines was held on March 31, 1521
(Eastern Sunday) Father Pedro de Valderrama and located at the Southern Leyte,
popularly known as the birthplace of the Church in the Philippines. Holy First Mass
marked the birth of Roman Catholicism in the Philippines.
Offline CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN LIMASAWA AND MASAO/BUTUAN MASAO
1872: A monument to commemorate the site of the first Mass on the Philippines
Activities was erected in Butuan.
(e- 1953: The people in Butuan asked the Philippine Historical Committee to
Learning/Self rehabilitate the monument or place a marker on the site.
Based on this objection, the monument was re-erected, but the marble slab stating
-Paced) it was first Mass was removed. Zaide identified Masao in Butuan as the location of
the first Mass. The basis Zaide’s claim is the diary of Antonio Pigafetta, chronicle of
Magellan’s voyage.
LIMASAWA
Jaime de Veyra stated that the first Mass was celebrated in Limasawa, not in
Butuan. Historian Pablo Pastells said by the footnote to Francisco Colin’s Labor
Evangelica that Magellan did not go to Butuan but form Limasawa to Cebu.
Francisco Albo ( pilot of Magellan’s flagship, does not mention the first Mass,
but he writes that they erected a cross on a mountain that overlooked three islands,
the west, and the southwest). James Robertson agreed with Pastells in a footnote
that “Mazua” was Limasawa.
In the authentic account of Pigafetta, the port was not in Butuan. Still,
an island named Mazua (Masawa), Father Bernard, studied all the Pigafetta’s maps,
which place in Mazau off the southern tip of the more massive island of Leyte. A
check with the modern plans will show that this jibes with Limasawa and not
Masao or Butuan.
Limasawa, not Butuan, affirmed as a site of first Mass in PH
By: Ador Vincent Mayol, Joey Gabieta

CEBU CITY — Eight months before the 500th anniversary of the “first” Mass in the
country, the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) has

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
determined that Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his Spanish contingent
held the event in Limasawa town, Southern Leyte.
The NHCP adopted the recommendation of a panel of experts reaffirming earlier
findings that the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass was celebrated in Limasawa and not in
Butuan, as claimed by some historians.
“The panel unanimously agreed that the evidence and arguments presented by the
pro-Butuan advocates are not sufficient and convincing enough to warrant the repeal
or reversal of the ruling on the case by the NHI (National Historical Institute),”

Church support
The NHI earlier resolved the exact location of the historic Mass, the forerunner of the
NHCP, through two panels of experts: the first led by former Supreme Court Justice
Emilio Gancayco in 1995 and the second by historian Benito Legarda in 2008. Both
boards ruled that the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass was Limasawa Island.
The recommendation of the recent panel led by historian and National Artist for
Literature Resil Mojares was supported by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the
Philippines, which had sent its church historian as a panel member and several
members of the Church Historians Association of the Philippines, the NHCP said.
The panel reassessed the studies and literature on the matter, gathered the extant
copies of Antonio Pigafetta’s chronicles and other accounts abroad, surveyed the
presumed sites of the event in Butuan and Limasawa, consulted experts in geology
and cartography, and submitted its report for review by the history departments of
various Philippine universities.
Per Pigafetta, chronicler of the Magellan Expedition, the Easter Sunday Mass that
expedition chaplain Fr. Pedro Valderama celebrated on March 31, 1521, happened in
a place he identified Mazaua.
A gift to the people
Limasawa Mayor Melchor Petracorta said he and his constituents were pleased that
the NHCP stood by History and were hopeful that its decision would “settle longtime
disputes on the issue.”
The ruling was made about a week before Limasawa marks its 37th founding
anniversary on August 27, Petracorta told the Inquirer. “It’s a gift to the people of
Limasawa. It’s a victory not only of Limasawa but of the entire Eastern Visayas,” he
said.
The Diocese of Maasin, which has jurisdiction over Limasawa, was also overjoyed by
the NHCP’s decision.

Fr. Johnrey Sibi, head of the Limasawa Commission, said everyone was now
“inspired to work hard” to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the first Mass in
March 2021.

Paper trail
Local historian Rolando Borrinaga, who had researched and represented Limasawa
before the panel of experts and the NHCP, considered the decision “sweet
vindication.”
In its report, the panel and the NHCP endorsed Borrinaga’s claim that the historic
Mass was held in Barangay Triana, not in Barangay Magallanes. They said Saub Point
in Triana should likewise be recognized as the site of the cross planted by Magellan

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
and his men.
The National Quincentennial Committee (NQC) appropriated funds and provided the
panel with pertinent documents.
Through official correspondences with various foreign institutions, the NQC obtained
a high-resolution digital copy of the Pigafetta manuscripts, including the French
version (Nancy Codex) currently kept in Yale University’s Beinecke Rare Book and
Manuscript Library; the Italian version in the Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana
(Ambrosiana Codex) in Milan, Italy; and the two French versions in the Bibliothèque
Nationale de France.
It also secured from the Edward Ayer Collection at Newberry Library in Chicago the
transcriptions and notes made by American scholar James Alexander Robertson, who
translated Pigafetta’s manuscripts into English in 1906. The panel likewise obtained
and consulted the accounts of other survivors of the Magellan expedition, like Gines
de Mafra, Francisco Albo, and the “Genoese Pilot.”
Pigafetta’s eyewitness account is the most detailed and only surviving account of the
first Mass in the Philippines. But there are different interpretations of his
performance on where it was held.
Historian Gabriel Atega said Butuan had long been considered the site of the Mass. He
argued that the shift from Butuan to Limasawa occurred after the publication of
Robertson’s notes.
Atega said Robertson’s translation of Pigafetta’s manuscripts into English was based
on the “garbled” Italian text of the Ambrosiana Codex that Carlo Amoretti, prefect and
conservator of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, transcribed and published in 1800.
He said the Ambrosiana Codex was “heavily edited and full of inaccuracies” and, vis-
à-vis Robertson’s translation, should not be used to determine the nautical
coordinates of the Magellan expedition.

Expedition
Instead, he encouraged the panel to use the Nancy Codex, of which a translation by
English scholar Raleigh Ashlin Skelton was published in 1969.
But according to proponents of the Mass in Limasawa, Robertson provided a footnote
that the present name of Mazaua, the site of the historic Mass, is Limasawa.
They said Skelton also identified Limasawa as the current name of Mazaua.
On the Mojares panel’s request, the NHCP secured a copy of each extant Pigafetta
manuscript abroad and had the section that narrated the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass
transcribed and translated.
The panel later noted Robertson’s observation that the Ambrosiana Codex was
“workmanlike rather than elegant.” It agreed with Skelton that it might have been
derived from the original Pigafetta journal. At the same time, Nancy Codex was a copy
where Pigafetta reworked some of his text to entice sponsors to publish his
manuscript for the use of future explorers.
“After noting that Robertson and Skelton agree that the codices above complement
each other and their translation had only minor differences, the panel dismissed Mr.
Atega’s claim that Skelton should be used as the standard text determining the site of
the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass. The panel also disagreed with Mr. Atega’s assertion
that historians who supported the Limasawa position relied only on the Ambrosiana
Codex and the Robertson translation,” the NHCP’s Escalante said.
Atega emphasized the determination of longitude to pinpoint the location of the first

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
Mass. Citing primary sources, he traced the route taken by the Magellan expedition
and concluded that 93⁄4 degrees latitude, combined with his reading of longitude
coordinates in other sources, led to Butuan as the site of the Mass.
Although it deemed Atega’s research commendable, the panel said longitudinal
measurements during the Age of Exploration were “imprecise and unreliable”
because these navigational coordinates were estimates and scientifically imprecise.
It pointed out the clock, the instrument invented by John Harrison to measure
longitude accurately, was only developed in the 1760s.

EVIDENCE OF LIMASAWA
1. The evidence of Albo’s Log-Book
2. The Evidence of Pigafetta
A. Pigafetta’s testimony regarding the route;
B. The evidence of Pigafetta’s map
C. The two native kings
D. The seven days at “Mazaua.”
E. An argument from an omission
3. Summary of the evidence of Albo and Pigafetta.
4. Confirmatory evidence from the Legazpi expedition

EVIDENCE FOR BUTUAN/MASAO

1. The name of the place
2. The route from Homonhon
3. The latitude position
4. The geographical features
A. The bonfire
B. The balanghai
C. House
D. Abundance of gold
E. A developed settlement

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
Table of Correspondence

Research,interpretation,writing,design,layoutbyVicenteC
.deJesús

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited

Performance Tasks

Learning Resources
a. Solmerano et al. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Zone 051, 1239 Instruccion St.,
Sampaloc Manila, 1008 Metro Manila: Fastbook Publishing Inc.
b. Torres J.V. (2018) Batis: Sources in Philippine History. Quezon City, Philippines: C & E
Publishing Inc.
c. Runes, Ildefonso T. & Buenafe, Mamerto M. (1962) The Forgery of Rizal’s Retraction
and Josephine’s Autobiography, Manila: Pro-Patria Publishers

LSPU Self-Paced ELearning Module (SLM)

Course Readings in Philippine History (GEC 102)
Sem/AY Second Semester/2020-2021
Module No. 2.2
Lesson Title PHILIPPINE HISTORY: THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY
Week
2
Duration
Date
The course analyses Philippine History from multiple perspectives through the lens of
Description selected primary sources coming from the various disciplines and of different genres.
of the Students are given opportunities to analyze the author’s background and main
Lesson arguments, compare other points of view, identify biases, and examine the evidence
presented in the document.

Learning Outcomes
Intended Students should be able to meet the following intended learning outcomes:
Learning  Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favour or against a particular
Outcomes issue using primary sources.
Targets/ At the end of the lesson, students should be able to:
Objectives  Explain the Cavite Mutiny
 Identify what are the important provisions of Cavite Mutiny
 Developed critical thinking in assessing the history of Cavite Mutiny
 Enumerate the effectiveness Cavite Mutiny observed in the society

Student Learning Strategies

Online Activities A. Online Discussion via Google Meet
(Synchronous/ You will be directed to attend in a three-Hour class discussion on the 1872

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
Asynchronous) Cavite Mutiny. To have access to the Online Discussion, refer to this link:
_____________________________he online discussion will happen on
______________________________, from ____________________.
(For further instructions, refer to your Google Classroom and see the schedule
of activities for this module)
B. Learning Guide Questions:
1. Who is the leader of the Cavite Mutiny?
2. Explain how the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 affected the Spanish Colonial rule in
the Philippines?
3. What is the cause of Cavite Mutiny?
4. Enumerate the effectiveness of Cavite Mutiny observed in the society
Note: The insight that you will post on online discussion forum using GEC 102
Readings in Philippine History will receive additional scores in class participation.

Lecture Guide

The Cavite Mutiny 1872

The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for
all the Filipinos. In this particular day, the entire Filipino nation as well as
Filipino communities all over the world gathers to celebrate the Philippines’
Independence Day. 1898 came to be a very significant year for all of us— it is
as equally important as 1896—the year when the Philippine Revolution broke
out owing to the Filipinos’ desire to be free from the abuses of the Spanish
colonial regime. But we should be reminded that another year is as historic as
the two—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
Offline Activities in reference to the said event. All Filipinos must know the different sides of the
(e-Learning/Self- story—since this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of our
Paced) history—the execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the
awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos.
a. Spanish Version: Planned Conspiracy
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

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
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.
b. Filipino version: A Response to Injustice
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

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
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.
c. Unraveling the Truth
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

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
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.
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 we enjoy our freedom, 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.”

Learning Resources
a. Solmerano et al. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Zone 051, 1239 Instruccion St.,
Sampaloc Manila, 1008 Metro Manila: Fastbook Publishing Inc.
b. Torres J.V. (2018) Batis: Sources in Philippine History. Quezon City, Philippines: C & E
Publishing Inc.
c. Runes, Ildefonso T. & Buenafe, Mamerto M. (1962) The Forgery of Rizal’s Retraction
and Josephine’s Autobiography, Manila: Pro-Patria Publishers
LSPU Self-Paced ELearning Module (SLM)
Course Readings in Philippine History (GEC 102)
Sem/AY Second Semester/2020-2021
Module No. 2.3
Lesson Title THE RETRACTION CONTROVERSY OF RIZAL

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
Week
2
Duration
Date
This course analyses Philippine History from multiple perspectives through the lens of
Description selected primary sources coming from the various disciplines and of different genres.
of the Students are given opportunities to analyze the author’s background and main
Lesson arguments, compare other points of view, identify biases, and examine the evidence
presented in the document.

Learning Outcomes
Intended Students should be able to demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or
Learning against a particular issue using primary sources
Outcomes
Targets/ At the end of the lesson, students should be able to:
Objectives  Formulate arguments in favor or against to retraction of Rizal
 Identify the main arguments a particular issue
 Identify what values or lessons that are evident in the text.

Student Learning Strategies

Online Activities A. Online Discussion via Google Meet

(Synchronous/ The link will be available in our Google Classroom and will also
Asynchronous) be sent in our FB Messenger group chat.
Learning Guide Questions:
1. What is a retraction letter?
2. Did Rizal retract the primary source?
3. Did Rizal retract Balaguer testimony?
B. For those in asynchronous, find this module as attached to your Google
Classroom.
C. Students under remote learning or modular, ILO activity will be given
instead.
Note: The insight that you will post on the online discussion forum using GEC
102 Readings in Philippine History will receive additional scores in-class
participation.
Lecture Guide
The Retraction Controversy of Rizal
Offline Activities
(e-Learning/Self- "He who cannot draw on three thousand years is living from hand to mouth."
Paced) - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Several historians report that Rizal retracted his anti-Catholic ideas
through a document that stated: "I retract with all my heart whatever in my

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
words, writings, publications, and conduct has been contrary to my character as
a son of the Catholic Church." However, there are doubts about 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.
After analyzing Rizal's six important documents, Ricardo Pascual
concluded that the retraction document, said to have been discovered in 1935,
was not in Rizal's handwriting. Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the
University of the Philippines and a prominent Mason, argued that a retraction
is not in keeping with Rizal's character and mature beliefs. He called the
retraction story a "pious fraud." Others who deny the retraction are Frank
Laubach, a Protestant minister, Austin Coates, a British writer, and Ricardo
Manapat, director of the National Archives.
Those who affirm Rizal's retraction's authenticity are prominent
Philippine historians such as Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra of UP León María
Guerrero III, Gregorio Zaide, Guillermo Gómez Rivera, Ambeth Ocampo, John
Schumacher, Antonio Molina, Paul Dumol, and Austin Craig. They take the
retraction document as authentic, having been judged as such by a foremost
expert on the writings of Rizal, Teodoro Kalaw (a 33rd degree Mason) and
"handwriting experts...known and recognized in our courts of justice", H. Otley
Beyer and Dr. José I. Del Rosario, both of UP.
Historians also refer to 11 eyewitnesses when Rizal wrote his retraction,
signed a Catholic prayer book, and recited Catholic prayers, and the multitude
that saw him kiss the crucifix before his execution. A great grandnephew of
Rizal, Fr. Marciano Guzman, cites that Rizal's 4 confessions were certified by
five eyewitnesses, ten qualified witnesses, seven newspapers, and 12 historians
and writers, including Aglipayan bishops, Masons, and anti-clericals. One
witness was the head of the Spanish Supreme Court at the time of his notarized
declaration and was highly esteemed by Rizal for his integrity.
Because of what he sees as the strength these direct evidence have in the
light of the historical method, in contrast with merely circumstantial evidence,
UP professor emeritus of history Nicolas Zafra called the retraction "a plain,
unadorned fact of history." Guzmán attributes the denial of retraction to "the
blatant disbelief and stubbornness" of some Masons.
Supporters see in the retraction Rizal's "moral courage...to recognize his
mistakes," his reversion to the "true faith," and thus his "unfading glory," and a
return to the "ideals of his fathers" which "did not diminish his stature as a
great patriot; on the contrary, it increased that stature to greatness." On the
other hand, senator Jose Diokno stated, "Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic
or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino...
Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero who courted death 'to prove to
those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our
beliefs.'
Different Sources

There are at least four(4) sources of the alleged Rizal's retraction that have
surfaced:
1. December 30, 1896. The first text was published in La Voz Española and
Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal's execution, December 30,

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
1896.
2. December 31, 1896. The second text appeared in El Imparcial on the day
after Riza's execution. It is the short formula of the retraction.
3. February 14, 1897. The third text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on
February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine, La Juventud. It came
from an anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as
Fr. Balaguer.
4. May 18, 1935. Fr. Manuel Garcia discovered the alleged "original' text,
C.M., on May 18, 1935, in the archdiocesan archives after it disappeared
for thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.

ANALYSIS RIZAL'S RETRACTION

At least four texts of Rizal's retraction have surfaced. The fourth text
appeared in El Imparcial on the day after Rizal's execution on December 31,
1896; it is the retraction's short formula.
The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on
the very day of Rizal's execution, December 30, 1896. The second text
appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly
magazine in La Juventud; it came from an anonymous writer who revealed
himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer. The "original" text was discovered
in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it disappeared for thirty-
nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.
We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a
copyist who could imitate Rizal's handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr.
Balaguer himself, who, in his letter to his former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910,
said that he had received "an exact copy of the retraction written and signed by
Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don't know nor do I remember whose it
is." He proceeded: "I even suspect that Rizal himself might have written it. I am
sending it to you that you may verify whether it might be of Rizal himself." Fr.
Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn statement.
This "exact" copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening
immediately preceding Rizal's execution, Rizal y Su Obra, and was followed by
Sr. W. Retana in his biography of Rizal, Vida y Escritos del Jose Rizal with the
addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the texts of the retraction in
the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi's copy of Rizal's retraction has the same text as
Fr. Balaguer's "exact" copy. Still, it follows the paragraphing of the books of
Rizal's retraction in the Manila newspapers.
Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the
publishers of La Voz Espanola. That newspaper reported: "Still more; we have
seen and read his (Rizal's) own handwritten retraction which he sent to our
dear and venerable Archbishop…" On the other hand, Manila pharmacist F.
Stahl wrote in a letter: "besides, nobody has seen this written declaration, even
though quite a several people would want to see it. "For example, not only
Rizal's family but also the correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in
Madrid, Don Manuel Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr. Santiago Mataix of El

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
Heraldo, were not able to see the handwritten retraction.
Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace, the Archbishop, ascertained whether Rizal
himself was the one who wrote and signed the retraction. (Ascertaining the
document was necessary because it was possible for one who could imitate
Rizal's handwriting holograph above; and keeping a copy of the same for our
archives, I delivered it personally that the same morning. His Grace Archbishop.
His Grace testified: At once, the undersigned entrusted this holograph to Rev.
Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of the Chancery." After that, the documents
could not be seen by those who wanted to examine it and finally considered
lost after efforts to look for it proved futile.
On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal's retraction was
discovered by the archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery,
instead of ending doubts about Rizal's retraction, has encouraged it because
the newly discovered text retraction differs significantly from the text found in
the Jesuits' and the Archbishop's copies. The fact that the books of the
retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could be shown to be the
exact copies of the "original" but only imitations of it. This means that the friars
who controlled the press in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the
"original" while the Jesuits had only the imitations.
We now proceed to show the significant differences between the
"original" and the Manila newspapers texts of the retraction on the one hand
and the text s of the copies of Fr. Balaguer and F5r. Pio Pi, on the other hand.
First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the
original and the newspaper texts, the Jesuits' copies have "mi calidad" (with
"u").
Second, the Jesuits' copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after
the first "Iglesias," found in the original and the newspaper texts.
Third, the Jesuits' copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias"
the word "miasma," which is not found in the retraction's original and the
newspaper texts.
Fourth, with regards to paragraphing, which immediately strikes the eye
of the critical reader, Fr. Balaguer's text does not begin the second paragraph
until the fifth sentence. Simultaneously, the original and the newspaper copies
start the second paragraph immediately with the second sentence.
Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and the manila
newspapers have only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer's copy has eleven
commas.
Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer's copy did not have the
witnesses' names from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.
In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named
the witnesses. He said, "This retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by
Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza."
However, the proceeding quotation only proves itself to be an addition to the
original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer said that he had
the "exact" copy of the retraction, which Rizal signed, but she made no mention
of the witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses signed the retraction.
How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal's retraction? Fr. Balaguer
never alluded to having himself made a copy of the retraction. However, he

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
claimed that the Archbishop prepared a long formula for the retraction and Fr.
Pi a short procedure. In Fr. Balaguer's earliest account is not yet clear whether
Fr. Balaguer was using the long formula of nor no formula in dictating to Rizal
what to write. According to Fr. Pi, in his account of Rizal's conversion in 1909,
Fr. Balaguer dictated Fr. Pi's short formula previously approved by the
Archbishop. In his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer admitted that he dictated
to Rizal the straightforward procedure prepared by Fr. Pi; however, he
contradicts himself when he revealed that the "exact" copy came from the
Archbishop. The only copy, which Fr. Balaguer wrote, is the one that appeared
in his earliest account of Rizal's retraction.
Text of Rizal's Alleged Retraction

Adopted by Solmerano et al. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Zone 051,

1239 Instruccion St., Sampaloc Manila, 1008 Metro Manila: Fastbook
Publishing Inc.

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited

Comparison of Documents

Adopted by Solmerano et al. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Zone 051,

1239 Instruccion St., Sampaloc Manila, 1008 Metro Manila: Fastbook
Publishing
Engaging Activities:
To learn more, watch this video:
Xiao Talks: The Retraction of Jose Rizal
By: Xiao Chua
https://youtu.be/NXJ2R4S87CM

Learning Resources

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
a. Solmerano et al. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Zone 051, 1239 Instruccion St.,
Sampaloc Manila, 1008 Metro Manila: Fastbook Publishing Inc.
b. Torres J.V. (2018) Batis: Sources in Philippine History. Quezon City, Philippines: C & E
Publishing Inc.
c. Runes, Ildefonso T. & Buenafe, Mamerto M. (1962) The Forgery of Rizal’s Retraction
and Josephine’s Autobiography, Manila: Pro-Patria Publishers
LSPU Self-Paced Learning Module (SLM)
Course Readings in Philippine History
Sem/AY Second Semester/2020-2021
Module No. 2.4
Lesson Title THE CRY OF PUGADLAWIN, BALINTAWAK OR BAHAY TORO?
Week
2
Duration
Date
This course analyses Philippine History from multiple perspectives through the lens
Description of selected primary sources coming from the various disciplines and of different
of the genres. Students are given opportunities to analyze the author’s background and main
Lesson arguments, compare other points of view, identify biases, and examine the evidence
presented in the document.

Learning Outcomes
Intended Students should be able to meet the following intended learning outcomes:
Learning  Understand the CONTROVERSIES AND CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE
Outcomes HISTORY
 Identify the people involved in Cry of Pugadlawin
 Appreciate the historical Importance of the Cry of Pugadlawin
Targets/ At the end of the lesson, students should be able to:
Objectives  Analyze and identify the people involved in Cry of Pugadlawin.
 Determine the location in Cry of Pugadlawin Balintawak or Bahay Toro
 Develop critical and analytical skills with the Controversies in Cry of
Pugadlawin

Student Learning Strategies

Online A. Online Discussion via Google Meet
Activities The link will be available in our Google Classroom and will also be
(Synchronous sent in our FB Messenger group chat.
B. Learning Guide Questions:
/
1. What is the significance of the tearing of the cedulas?

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
Asynchronou 2. What is the purpose of cedula?
s) 3. Why is it called Pugad Lawin?
4. What did Cry of Balintawak signify?
5. What are the three primary objective of the Katipunan?
C. For those in asynchronous, find this module as attached to your Google
Classroom.
D. Students under remote learning or modular, ILO activity will be given instead.
Note: The insight that you will post on online discussion forum using Learning
Management System (LMS) will receive additional scores in class participation.

Lecture Guide

MILAGROS C. GUERRERO
EMMANUEL N. ENCARNACION
RAMON N. VILLEGAS
June 06, 2003
Nineteenth-century journalists used the phrase "el Grito de rebellion" or "the
Cry of Rebellion" to describe the momentous events sweeping the Spanish colonies;
in Mexico, it was the "Cry of Dolores" (September 16, 1810), Brazil the "City of
Ypiraga" (September 7, 1822), and in Cuba the "Cry of Matanza" (February 24, 1895).
In August 1896, northeast of Manila, Filipinos similarly declared their rebellion
against the Spanish colonial government. Manuel Sastron, the Spanish Historian,
institutionalized the phrased for the Philippines in his 1897 book, La Insurrection en
Filipinas. All these "Cries" were milestones in the several colonial-to-nationalist
histories of the world.
Offline A. Raging controversy
Activities If the expression is taken literally –the Cry as the shouting of nationalistic
(e- slogans in mass assemblies –then there were scores of such Cries. Some writers refer
to a Cry of Montalban in April 1895, in the Pamitinan Caves, where a group of
Learning/Self Katipunan members wrote on the cave walls, "Viva la Independencia Filipina!" long
-Paced) before the Katipunan decided to launch a nationwide revolution.
The Historian Teodoro Agoncillo chose to emphasize Bonifacio's tearing of the
cedula (tax receipt) before a crowd of Katipuneros, who then broke out in cheers.
However, Guardia Civil Manuel Sityar never mentioned in his memoirs (1896-1898)
the cedula's tearing or inspection. Still, he did note the pacto de Sangre (blood pact)
mark on every Filipino he met in August 1896 on Balintawak's reconnaissance
missions.
Some writers consider the first military engagement with the enemy as the
defining moment of the Cry. To commemorate this martial event upon his return
from exile in Hong Kong, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned an "Himno de Balintawak"
to herald renewed fighting after the failed peace of the pact of Biak na Bato.
On September 3, 1911, a monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in
Epifanio de Los Santos Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive –North Doversion Road.
From that time on until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was officially celebrated every
August 26.
It is not clear why the 1911 monument was erected there. It could not have
been to mark Apolonio Samson's house in barrio Kangkong; Katipuneros observed

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
that site on Kaingin Road, between Balintawak and San Francisco del Monte Avenue.
Neither could the 1911 monument have been erected to mark the first armed
encounter, which, incidentally, the Katipuneros fought and won. A contemporary
map of 1896 shows that the August battle between the Katipunan rebels and the
Spanish forces led by Lt. Ros of the Civil Guards took place at sitio Banlat, North of
Pasong Tamo Road, far from Balintawak. The site has its marker.
It is quite clear that first, eyewitnesses cited Balintawak as the better-known
reference point for a larger area. Second, while Katipunan may have been massing in
Kangkong, the revolution was formally launched elsewhere. Moreover, eyewitnesses
and, therefore, historians disagreed on the site and date of the Cry.
But the issue did not rest there. In 1970, the Historian Pedro A. Gagelonia pointed
out:
The controversy among historians continues to the present day. The "Cry of
Pugad Lawin" (August 23, 1896) cannot be accepted as historically accurate. It lacks
positive documentation and supporting evidence from the witness. The testimony of
only one eyewitness (Dr. Pio Valenzuela) is not enough to authenticate and verify a
controversial issue in history. Historians and their living participants, not politicians
and their sycophants, should settle this controversy.
B. Conflicting accounts
Pio Valenzuela had several versions of the Cry. Only after they are compared
and reconciled with the other accounts will it be possible to determine what
happened.
Was there a meeting at Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896, after the meeting at
Apolonio Samson's residence in Hong Kong? Where were the cedulas torn, at
Kangkong or Pugad Lawin?
In September 1896, Valenzuela stated before the Olive Court, which was
charged with investigating persons involved in the rebellion, only that Katipunan
meetings took place from Sunday to Tuesday or 23 to August 25 at Balintawak.
In 1911, Valenzuela averred that the Katipunan began meeting on August 22
while the Cry took place on August 23 at Apolonio Samson's house in Balintawak.
From 1928 to 1940, Valenzuela maintained that the Cry happened on August 24
at the house of Tandang Sora (Melchora Aquino) in Pugad Lawin, which he now
situated near Pasong Tamo Road. A photograph of Bonifacio's widow Gregoria de
Jesus and Katipunan members Valenzuela, Briccio Brigido Pantas, Alfonso, and
Cipriano Pacheco, published in La Opinion in 1928 and 1930, was captioned both
times as having been taken at the site of the Cry on August 24, 1896, at the house of
Tandang Sora at Pasong Tamo Road.
In 1935 Valenzuela, Pantas and Pacheco proclaimed, "na hindi sa Balintawak
nangyari ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na kinalalagian ngayon ng bantayog,
kung di sa pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugad Lawin." (The first Cry of the revolution
did not happen in Balintawak where the monument is but in a place called Pugad
Lawin.)
In 1940, a research team of the Philippines Historical Committee (a forerunner
of the National Historical Institute or NHI), which included Pio Valenzuela, identified
the precise spot of Pugad Lawin as part of sitio Gulod, Banlat, Kalookan City. In 1964,
the NHI's Minutes of the Katipunan referred to the place of the Cry as Tandang Sora's
and not as Juan Ramos' house, and the date as August 23.
Valenzuela memoirs (1964, 1978) averred that the Cry took place on August 23

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
at the house of Juan Ramos at Pugad Lawin. Valenzuela's memoirs influenced the
NHI. In 1963, upon the NHI endorsement, President Diosdado Macapagal ordered
that the Cry be celebrated on August 23 and that Pugad Lawin be recognized as its
site.
John N. Schumacher, S.J, of the Ateneo de Manila University commented on Pio
Valenzuela's credibility:
I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio
Valenzuela, and to the interpretations Agoncillo got from him verbally, since
Valenzuela gave so many versions from the time he surrendered to the Spanish
authorities and made various statements not always compatible with one another up
to the time when as an older man he was interviewed by Agoncillo.
Pio Valenzuela backtracked on yet another point. In 1896, Valenzuela testified
that when the Katipunan consulted Jose Rizal on whether the time had come to
revolt, Rizal was vehemently against the revolution. Later, in Agoncillo's Revolt of the
masses, Valenzuela retracted and claimed that Rizal was actually for the uprising if
specific prerequisites were met. Agoncillo reasoned that Valenzuela had lied to save
Rizal.
C. The Pugad Lawin marker
The Cry's prevalent account is that of Teodoro Agoncillo in Revolt of the masses
(1956):
It was in Pugad Lawin, where they proceeded upon leaving Samson's place in
the afternoon of the 22nd, the more than 1,000 members of the Katipunan met in
Juan A. Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, in the morning of August 23. A considerable
discussion arose whether the revolt against the Spanish government should be
started on the 29th. Only one man protested… But he was overruled in his stand…
Bonifacio then announced the decision and shouted: "Brothers, it was agreed to
continue with the revolt plan. My brothers, do you swear to repudiate the
government that oppresses us?" And the rebels, shouting as one man, replied: "Yes,
sir!" "That being the case," Bonifacio added, "bring out your cedulas and tear them to
pieces to symbolize our determination to take arms!"... Amidst the ceremony, the
rebels, tear-stained eyes, shouted: "Long live the Philippines! Long live the
Katipunan!
Agoncillo used his considerable influence and campaigned for a change in the
recognized site to Pugad Lawin and August 23, 1896. In 1963, the National Heroes
Commission (a forerunner of the NHI), without formal consultations or
recommendations to President Macapagal.
Consequently, Macapagal ordered that the Cry of Balintawak is called the "Cry of
Pugad Lawin," and celebrated on August 23 instead of August 26. The 1911
monument in Balintawak was later removed to a highway. Student groups moved to
save the discarded monument, and it was installed in front of Vinzons Hall in the
Diliman campus of the University of the Philippines on November 29, 1968.
In 1962, Teodoro Agoncillo, together with the UP Student Council, placed a
marker at the Pugad Lawin site. According to Agoncillo, the house of Juan Ramos
stood there in 1896, while the home of Tandang Sora was located at Pasong Tamo.
On June 30, 1983, Quezon City Mayor Adelina S. Rodriguez created the Pugad
Lawin Historical Committee to determine Juan Ramos's 1896 residence at Pugad
Lawin.
The NHI files on the committee's findings show the following:

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
 In August 1983, Pugad Lawin in barangay Bahay Toro was inhabited by
squatter colonies. The NHI believed that it was correct in looking for the house
of Juan Ramos and not of Tandang Sora. However, the former residence of
Juan Ramos was clearly defined. There was an old dap-dap tree at the site
when the NHI conducted its survey I 1983. Teodoro Agoncillo, Gregorio Zaide,
and Pio Valenzuela do not mention a dap-dap tree in their books.
 Pio Valenzuela, the leading proponent of the "Pugad Lawin" version, was dead
by the committee's research.
 Teodoro Agoncillo tried to locate the marker installed in August 1962 by the
UP Student Council. However, it was no longer extant in 1983.
In spite of the above findings and in the absence of any clear evidence, the NHI
disregarded its own 1964 report that the Philippine Historical Committee had
determined in 1940 that the Pugad Lawin residence was Tandang Sora's and not Juan
Ramos's and that the specific site of Pugad Lawin was Gulod in Banlat.
The presence of the dap-dap tree in the Pugad Lawin site determined by
Agoncillo and the NHI is irrelevant since none of the principals like Pio Valenzuela,
Santiago Alvarez, and others, nor historians like Zaide- and even Agoncillo himself
before that instance- mentioned such a tree.
On the basis of the 1983 committee's findings, the NHI placed a marker on
August 23, 1984, on Seminary Road in barangay Bahay Toro behind Toro Hills High
School, the Quezon City General Hospital, and the San Jose Seminary. It reads:
D. Ang Sigaw ng Pugad Lawin (1896)
Sa paligid ng pook na ito, si Andres Bonifacio at mga isang libong Katipunero at
nagpulong noong umaga ng ika-23 Agosto 1896, at ipinasyang maghimagsik laban sa
Kastila sa Pilipinas. Bilang patunay ay pinag-pupunit ang kanilang mga sedula na
naging tanda ng pagkaalipin ng mga Pilpino. Ito ang kaunaunahang sigaw ng Bayang
Api laban sa bansang Espanya na pinatibayan sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng
sandata.
(On this site, Andres Bonifacio and one thousand Katipuneros met on August 23,
1896, and decided to revolt against the Philippines' Spanish colonial government. As
an affirmation of their resolve, they tore up their tax receipts, which were symbols of
the Filipinos' oppression. This was the first Cry of the Oppressed Nation against
Spain, which was enforced with arms.
The place-name "Pugad Lawin, "however, is problematic. In History of the
Katipunan (1939), Zaide records Valenzuela's mention of the site in a footnote and
not in the body of text, suggesting that the Historian regarded the matter unresolved.
E. Cartographic changes
Was there a Pugad Lawin in maps or literature of the period?
A rough sketch or croquis de las operaciones practicadas in El Español showed
Lt. Ros's movements against the Katipunan on 25, 26, and 27 August 1896. The map
defined each place name as sitio "Baclac" (sic: Banlat). In 1897, the Spanish Historian
Sastron mentioned Kalookan, Balintawak, Banlat, and Pasong Tamo. The names
mentioned in some revolutionary sources and interpretations- Daang Malalim,
Kangkong, and Pugad Lawin- were not identified as barrios. Even detailed Spanish
and American maps mark only Kalookan and Balintawak.
In 1943 map of Manila marks Balintawak separately from Kalookan and
Diliman. The sites where revolutionary events took place are within the ambit of
Balintawak.

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
Government maps issued in 1956, 1987, and 1990 confirm the existence of
barangays Bahay Toro but do not define their boundaries. Pugad Lawin is not on any
of these maps.
According to the government, Balintawak is no longer on Quezon City but has
been replaced by several barangays. Barrio Banlat is now divided into barangays
Tandang Sora and Pasong Tamo. Only bahay Toro remains intact.
Writer and linguist Sofronio Calderon, researching in the late 1920s on the
toponym "Pugad Lawin," went through the municipal records and the Census of 1903
and 1918, could not find the name, and concluded that "Isang…pagkakamali… ang
sabihing mayroong Pugad Lawin sa Kalookan." (It would be a mistake to say that
there is such as Pugad Lawin in Kalookan.)
What can we conclude from all this?
First, that "Pugad Lawin" was never officially recognized as a place name on any
Philippine map before World War II. Second, "Pugad Lawin "appeared in
historiography only from 1928, or some 32 years after the events. And third, the
revolution was always traditionally held to have occurred in Balintawak, which was
distinct from Kalookan and Diliman.
Therefore, while the toponym "Pugad Lawin" is more romantic, it is more
accurate to stick to the original "Cry of Balintawak."
F. Determining the date
The official stand of NHI is that the Cry took place on August 23, 1896. That date,
however, is debatable.
The later accounts of Pio Valenzuela and Guillermo Masangkay on the tearing of
cedulas on August 23 are basically in agreement, but conflict with each other on the
location. Valenzuela points to the house of Juan Ramos in Pugad Lawin, while
Masangkay refers to Apolonio Samson's in Kangkong. Masangkay's final statement
has more weight as it is was corroborated by many eyewitnesses who were
photographed in 1917, when the earliest August 23 marker was installed.
Valenzuela's date (August 23) in his memoirs conflict with 1928 and 1930
photographs of the surveys with several Katipunan officers, published in La Opinion,
which claim that the Cry took place on the 24th.
G. The turning point
What occurred during those last days of August 1896? Eyewitness accounts
mention captures escapes, recaptures, killings of Katipunan members; the
interrogation of Chinese spies; the arrival of arms in Meycauyan, Bulacan; the debate
with Teodoro Plata and others; the decision to go war; the shouting of slogan; tearing
of cedulas; the sending of letters presidents of Sanggunian and balangay councils; the
arrival of the civil guard; the loss of Katipunan funds during the skirmish. All these
events, and many others, constitute the beginning of a nationwide revolution.
The Cry must be defined as that turning point when the Filipinos finally rejected
Spanish colonial dominion over the Philippine Islands, by formally constituting their
national government and investing a set of leaders with authority to initiate and
guide the revolution towards the establishment of a sovereign nation.
Where did this take place?
The introduction to the original Tagalog text of the Biyak na Bato Constitution states:
Ang paghiwalay ng Filipinas sa kahariang España sa patatag ng isang bayang may
sariling pamamahala’t kapangyarihan na pangangalang “Republika ng Filipinas” ay
siyang layong inadhika niyaring Paghihimagsik na kasalukuyan, simula pa ng ika- 24

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
ng Agosto ng taong 1896.
The Spanish text also states:
La separacion de Filipinas de la Monarquia Española, constituyendose en Estado
Independiente y soberano con Gobierno propuio, con el nombre de Repulica de
Filipinas, es en su Guerra actual, iniciada en 24 de Agosto de 1896.
(The separation of the Philippines from the Spanish Monarchy, constituting an
independent state and with a proper sovereign government, named the Republic of
the Philippines, was the end pursued by the revolution through the present
hostilities, initiated on August 24, 1896…)
These lines- in a legal document at that – are persuasive proof that in so far as
the leaders of the revolution are concerned, the revolution began on August 24, 1896.
The document was written only one and a half years after the event and signed by
over 50 Katipunan members, Emilio Aguinaldo, Artemio Ricarte, and Valentin Diaz.
Emilio Aguinaldo’s memoirs, Mga Gunita ng Himagsikan (1964), refer to two
letters from Andres Bonifacio dated 22 and 24 August. They pinpoint the date and
place of the crucial Cry meeting when the decision to attack Manila was made:
Noong ika-22 ng Agosto, 1896, ang Sangguniang Magdalo ay tumanggap ng
isang lihim na sulat mula sa Supremo Andres Bonifacio, sa Balintawak, na nagsasaad
na isamang mahalagang pulong ang kanilang idinaos sa ika-24 ng nasabing buwan,
at lubhang kailangan na kame ay mapadala roon ng dalawang kinatawan o delegado
sa ngalan ng Sanggunian. Ang pulong aniya’y itataon sa kaarawan ng kapistahan ng
San Bartolome sa Malabon, Tambobong. Kapagkarakang matanggap ang nasabing
paanyaya, ang aming Pangulo na si G. Baldomero Aguinaldo, ay tumawag ng pulong
sa tribunal ng Cavite el Viejo… Nagkaroon kami ng pag-aalinlangan sa pagpapadala
roon ng aming kinatawan dahil sa kaselanang pagdararanang mga pook at totoong
mahigpit at abot-abot ang panghuli ng mag Guardia Civil at Veterana sa mga
naglalakad lalung-lalo na sa mag pinaghihinalaang mga mason at Katipunan. Gayon
pa man ay aming hinirang at pinagkaisahang ipadalang tanging Sugo ang matapang
na kapatid naming si G. Domingo Orcullo… Ang aming Sugo ay nakarating ng
maluwalhati sa kanyang paroonan at nagbalik din na wala naming sakuna, na taglay
ang sulat ng Supremo na may petsang 24 ng Agosto. Doon ay wala naming sinasabing
kautusan, maliban sa patalastas na kagugulat-gulat na kanilang lulusubin ang
Maynila, sa Sabado ng gabi, ika-29 ng Agosto, at ang hudyat ay ang pagpatay ng ilaw
sa Luneta. Saka idinugtong pa na marami diumano ang nahuli at napatay ng Guardia
Civil at Veterana sa kanyang mga kasamahan sa lugar ng Gulod …
(On August 22, 1896, the Magdalo Council received a secret letter from Supremo
Andres Bonifacio, in Balintawak, which stated that the Katipunan will hold an
important meeting on the 24th of the said month and that it was essential to send
two representatives or delegates in the name of the said Council. The session would
be timed to coincide with the feast day of Saint Bartolomew in Malabon, Tambobong.
Upon receiving the said invitation, our President, Mr. Baldomero Aguinaldo, called a
meeting at Tribunal of Cavite el Viejo…We were apprehensive about sending
representatives because the areas they would have passed through were dangerous,
and was a fact that the Civil Guard and Veterans were arresting travelers, especially
those suspected of being freemasons and members of Katipunan. Nevertheless, we
agreed and nominated to send a single representative in the person of our brave
brother, Mr. Domingo Orcullo… Our representative arrived safely at his destination
and also returned unharmed, bearing a letter from the Supremo dated August

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited
24. It contained no orders but the shocking announcement that the Katipunan would
attack Manila at night on Saturday, August 29, the signal for which would be the
putting out of the lamps in Luneta. He added that many of his comrades had been
captured and killed by the Civil Guard and Veterans in Gulod…)
The first monument to mark the Cry was erected in 1903 on Ylaya Street in
Tondo, where Liga Filipina was founded in front of the house. The tablet cites Andre
Bonifacio as a founding member, and as "Supreme Head of the Katipunan, which gave
the first battle Cry against tyranny on August 24, 1896."
The above facts render unacceptable the official stand that the turning point of
the revolution was the tearing of cedulas in the "Cry of Pugad Lawin" on August 23,
1896, in the Juan Ramos's house in "Pugad Lawin" Bahay Toro, Kalookan.
The events of 17-26 August 1896 occurred closer to Balintawak than to Kalookan.
Traditionally, people referred to the "Cry of Balintawak" since that barrio was a
better-known reference point than Banlat.
In any case, "Pugad Lawin" is not historiographically verifiable outside of the
statements of Pio Valenzuela in the 1930s and after. In Philippine Historical
Association round-table discussion in February this year, a great-granddaughter of
Tandang Sora protested using the toponym "Pugad Lawin," which, she said, referred
to a hawks nest on top of a tall Sampaloc tree at Gulod, the highest elevated area near
Balintawak. This indeed negates the NHI's premise that "Pugad Lawin" is on
Seminary Road in Project 8.
What we should celebrate is the establishment of a revolutionary or the facto
government that was republican in aspiration, the designation of Bonifacio as the
Kataastaasang Pangulo (Supreme President), the election of the members of his
cabinet ministers and Sanggunian and Balangay heads which authorized these moves
met in Tandang Sora's barn near Pasong Tamo Road, in sitio Gulod, barrio Banlat
then under the jurisdiction of the municipality of Kalookan. This took place at around
noon on Monday, August 24, 1896.
It is clear that so called Cry of Pugad Lawin of August 23 is an imposition and
erroneous interpretation, contrary to indisputable and numerous historical facts.
The centennial of the Cry of Balintawak should be celebrated on August 24,
1996, at the site of the barn and house of Tandang Sora in Gulod, now barangay
Banlat, Quezon City.That was when and where the Filipino nation state was born.
Engaging Activities:
To learn more, watch this video:
Cry of Pugad Lawin/Today in History
By: UNTV news and rescue
https://youtu.be/Uh7oowrwvJQ

Katipunan: Makasaysayang pagpunit sa cedula

By: GMA Public Affairs
https://youtu.be/JY38FAPsh14

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan
 Republic of the Philippines
Laguna State Polytechnic University
Province of Laguna
ISO 9001:2015 Certified
Level I Institutionally Accredited

Learning Resources
a. Solmerano et al. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Zone 051, 1239 Instruccion St.,
Sampaloc Manila, 1008 Metro Manila: Fastbook Publishing Inc.
b. Torres J.V. (2018) Batis: Sources in Philippine History. Quezon City, Philippines: C & E
Publishing Inc.
c. Runes, Ildefonso T. & Buenafe, Mamerto M. (1962) The Forgery of Rizal’s Retraction and
Josephine’s Autobiography, Manila: Pro-Patria Publishers

LSPU SELF-PACED LEARNING MODULE: 102 - READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Prepared by: Lucero, M., Lacao-cao, B. _ CAS Faculty _LSPU Siniloan