CHAPTER 3

“ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”:

CONTROVERSIES AND CONFLICTING VIEWS
IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
Learning objectives:

At the end of the course, students should be able:

I. Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or against a particular issue using
primary sources.

A. Four Sites of the First Mass

On Easter Sunday, 31st of March 1521 a small island port named Mazaua hosted the first Christian
mass. The two eyewitnesses the first Pigafetta (1523) and Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas (1601) have
told two identical accounts of this event. “Massawa, “a word found in 181 of the Philippine languages, is
found only in Butuanon and its scion, Tausog. It means bright light and clear crystal.

Some Filipino historians have long challenged the notion that Limasawa was the location of the
country’s first Catholic mass. The historian Sonia Zaiyde identified the site of the first Christian mass in
Butuan as Masao (aslo Mazaua). Zaide’s claim was supported the dairy of Magellan’s chronicler, Antonio
Pigafetta. In 1995 Congresswoman Ching Plaza in Agusan Del Norte- Butuan, subsequently, submitted a
bill to the Congress contesting the Butuan was the site of the first mass.

To examine the issue and recommend the factual findings, the Philippine Congress referred the matter
to the national historical institutions. Then Dr, Sameul . Tan, chairman of HNI, asserted the first mass of
Limasawa. In the past several centuries, the exact place of the Firs Mass on Eastern Day which according
to the number one pro-Butuan author, was not recorded in observing Eastern Sunday on 31 st of March
1521, still under discussion, includes countless experts in education, history, religion, politics, or other
subjects (Salazar 2015). These are the paragraphs from Pigafetta, translated by Lord Stanley of Alderley,
the lead writer of the’ first travel around the world’:

‘On Sunday, the last day of March, and feast of Easter, the captain sent the chaplain ashore to
say mass, and the interpreter went with him to tell the king that they were not coming on shore
to dine with him, but only to hear the mass. The king hearing that sent two dead pigs. When it
was time for saying mass the captain went ashore with fifty men, not with their arms, but only
with their swords, and dressed as well as each other one was able to dress, and before the
boats reached the shore our ships fired six cannon shots as a sign of peace. At our landing, the
two kings were there, and received our captain in a friendly manner, and placed him between
them, and then we went to the place prepared for saying mass, which was not far from the
shore. Before the mass began the captain threw a quantity of musk rose water on those two
kings, and when on the offertory of the mass came, the two kings went to kiss the cross like us,
but they offered nothing, and at the elevation of the body of our Lord they were kneeling like
us, And adored our Lord with joined hands. The ships fired all their artillery at the elevation
of the body of our Lord. After the mass had been said, each ne did the duty of a Christian,
receiving our Lord. After that, the captain had some sword-play by his people, which give grate
pleasure to the king.”

“Then he had cross brought, with the nails and crown, to which the kings made reverence, and
the captain had them told that these things which he showed them were he sign of the emperor
his lord and master, from whom he had charge and commandment to place in all places where
 he might go or pass by. He told them that he wished to place it in their country for their profit,
because if their came any ship afterward from Spain to those islands, on seeing this cross, they
would know that we had been there, therefore they would not cause them any displeasure to
their persons nor their goods; and if they took any of their people, on showing them this sign,
they would at once let them go. Besides this, the captain told them that it was necessary that
this cross should be placed on the summit of the highest mountain in their country, so that
seeing it every day they might adore it, and that if they did thus, neither thunder, lightning, nor
the tempest could do them hurt.”

Source: Magellan’s First Voyage Round the World, Translated form

Pigafatte and others, and edited by Lord Stanley, of Alderley, 1874

The kings thanked the commander and said that they would do so voluntarily. Then he
asked if the Moors or the Gentiles, and what they thought they were. They replied that they
did not do any worship, but they joined their hands and looked up the sky, calling their God
Aba. When the captain heard this, he was pleased to see the first king reach iinto the air and
said that he wished that the affection he felt for him could be shown. He was asked by the
interpreter why there was not enough to be eaten in the place, and the king replied that he
did not live there unless he came to hunt and see his brother and that he lived on another
island where his whole family lived. So the captain inquired whether he had enemies who
went to war against him and that if he had any, he would go with his men and boats to
overcome them and placed them under his obedience. The King thanked him and replied
that there were two islands whose enemies were the inhabitants, by the time has not come
to attack them.

Salazar (2015) disprove that the First Mass on Eastern was on the Biblical Festival not
practiced in the Book of Acts since the original New Testament Church which started only
on the Day of Pentecost in 31 A.D./C.E. The Mass was not observed as described in Acts.

Four Sites of the First Mass

1. Limasawa Island, Southern Leyte. The most famous is Limasawa Island, an island
town in Southern Leyte, which the Philippine government recognized as the actual
site of the First Mass. Limasawa Island was also known by the powerful Roman
Catholic Church as the site of the first mass landed by Magellan with the crew. The
Spanish Embassy also acknowledged Limasawa as a landing site for Magellan and
that it also dispatched the Galleon of Andalusia for five days to Maasin City and
about three hours to Limasawa. Limasawas has been recognized by the Embassy of
Portugal in Metro Manila as the Mazzaua,’ written by Pigafetta on which Magellan
and his soldiers observed the first mass in Easter or introduced the people of the
island to Christianity.

“The Treaty of Tordesillas on June 7, 1494, virtually divided the unknown world
between Spain and Portugal with the approval of the Holy See. Did you know that
Magellan, in a previous expedition, had [landed] in the Moluccas, just south of
Mindanao? In those days, Portugal had something that the Spanish didn’t have:
cartographic maps during his historic expedition that brought him to Cebu on
March 16, 1521 (this is a wrong date).”
 “With the Treaty of Tordesillas, Prof. De Sousa said the Philippine archipelago fell
under the jurisdiction of Portugal control of Rio de la Plata. Again this is something
we’ve never read in our history books. History tells us that Spain sold the Philippines
to the United States for a measly sum of $20 million, but we never knew about this
exchange deal between Spain and Potugal for Brazil!”

“Taking about rewriting h istory, we all knows about the claim made by some
Butuanons that a place called Mazaua was allegedly the site of first Holy Mass
instead of Limasawa Island off Southern Leyte. Well, Prof. De Sousa has another
insight on this, which I’m sure puts an end to this endless debate and enrich our pre-
Spanish history. It turned out that the ill-fated Magellan expedition ended Spanish
exploration of these islands. But Portuguese navigators like Joãa de Barros, Gaspar
Correia, Digo de Couto, Francisco de Castro, and Antonio Galvão heva been
exploring Mindanao from 1520 1565 until the Spaniards resumed its conquest of the
Philippines through another expedition led by Miguel Lopez de Legazpi.”

Source: http://7th_millenium.tripod.com/7mc/Limasawa.html

2. Masao or Mazaua in Butuan City, Agusan del Norte. The next popular one is
Mazaua in Butuan City, the capital of Agusan del Norte in Northern Mindanao. The
Butuanons and their supporters advocate that Magellan and his men landed in
Mazaua for the reason that it has the anchorage, rice fields, golds, antique
“balanghai” and other artifacts which they unearthed in scattered areas in Butuan
City.

In the so-called ‘Magellan’s Harbor’ in Butuan, the real harbor for the cargo
and passenger ships traveling to and departing from Butuan City is actually in
Nasipit, which is 25 kilometers west of Mazaua. Mazaua of Butuan City’s offshore
is too shallow for ship navigation!

If Mazaua had the abundant rice fields, other food supplies, and water at the
time when Magellan and his troops landed and held the ‘First Mass’ or observed
Easter Sunday, how come Magellan nad his fellow sailors sought for more
significant island? Mazaua was and is attached to Mindanao, the second largest
island in the entire Philippines.

Since the pro-Mazaua supporters emphatically claimed that Magellan and

his fellow sailors held the ‘First Mass’ or observed Easter Sunday in their island of
plenty? But what happened to the abundant foods, drinks, and other supplies in
Mazaua and their next neighbor, the ‘Kingdom of Butuan’? why did the two rajas of
‘Mazaua” and Butuan volunteer as pilots to Magellan to obtain provisions in Cebu,
which is much smaller than Mindanao?

The pro-Butuan proponents claimed that Magellan and his troops landed in
Mazaua, Butuan City because Pigafetta wrote in his book about the small gift items
made of gold supposedly from Butuan which Rajah kalambu gave to Magellan.
 Well, then if gold was such a big deal in Butuan, Magellan and his sailors could have
sailed easily south to Surigao, Mindanao while they were still sailing off the eastern
coast of Panaoan Island. They had seen Surigao which was and is in northeast
Mindanao before nighttime because Mindanao is the second biggest island in the
entire Philippines. Surigao was known to have gold at that time and up to the present
day. Magellan and his men in 3 ships did not search for spices only. They searched
for anything or things of value to bring home and hand them over the King of Spain.

Furthermore, the pro-Butuan supporters calimed that the antique ‘balanghai’

that some of them under the ground in Masao or Mazaua is one proof that Magellan
was in Mazaua.

Salazar (2015) refers to the writings of de Jesus wrote a lengthy article

entitled, ‘Mazaua: Magellan’s Lost Harbor.’ The government of Butuan City,
Mindanao, commissioned him to extensive research on the Mazaua landfall issue.
He concluded that Magellan and his troops landed in Mazaua, Butuan City,
Philippines. He wrote:

“For most Philippines, two events define the meaning of Mazaua, Easteer mass
and plantation of a big cross on top of the highest hill. In huge sea lined with
mighty waves of Islam, Buddhism, Hindu, and other beliefs, the Philippines is the
isolated rock of Christianity. 83% of its people are catholics, 9% Protestants.
Therefore, Mazaua is an icon for a highly religious people, a major event. This
aspect of a signal event has unfortunately served to distortion the way the event is
seen in world geography and Renaissance navigations.”

Source: De Jesus, Vicente. Mazaua: Magellan’s Lost Harbor (A Lee Shore Stands
For 1521 Safe Haven Thanks To Errors of Translation, Copying. Bad Logic,
Superficial Research and An Atempt at Fraud by A Government Historical
Agency).

It may be an icon of great significance for professed “Christians” and Holy Bible
analphabets, but the first mass on Easter is meaningless and worthless for those who
practice Biblical Christianity. Most Philippines have read newspapers, tabloids,
publications for politics, sports and entertainment all around the world, but they can read
and study the Sacred Bible not just in minutes.

Before Magellan and his explorers crossed the Pacific Ocean from South America, the
so-called experts on Mazaua Butuan denied or ignored the unwritten history’ of the
Portuguese colonization of Mindanao. They ignored or pretended that they were not aware
that Portuguese sailors like Joo de Barros, Gaspar Correia, Diogo do Couto, Francisco de
Castro and Antonio Galvᾰo were exploring Mindanao from 1520 to 1565. The Portuguese
were at least one year ahead of the expedition of Magellan to the Philippines.
The Roman Portuguese sailors were more likely to have held the’ First Mass’ in the
South of the Philippines before Magellans’ explores landed in March 1521. Thus, the
proponents of the pro-Butuan were entitled to assume, but not historically documented,
the first mass in Mindanao before Portugal had exchanged the entire Philippines with
Spain for Brazils. Butuan was called Butan or Butuᾰo on a Portuguese map from about
1535 to 1538. Spain didn’t even know that there was Butuan.

Therefore, Magellan and his fellow explores did not sail south to Mazaua Butuan in
Mindanao while carrying the Spanish flag which was financed by Spanish King Charles
V. A year before Magellan and his troops arrived in Southern Leyte, the Portuguese
navigators who navigated east from Portugal to Mindanao via Indonesia occupied
Mindanao Island. The Mazauan, Butuan indigenous people have mistreated the
Portuguese from Portugal as the Portuguese explores of Magellan from Spain.

The Portuguese knew that the fleet of Magellan was bound even before it sailed; the
ships would undoubtedly be waiting for it to be stopped. While Magellan is looking for
the Moluccas, he loaded his ships with precious spices, but after he went away, most of
the port and trading stations on the way back to Spain would be Portuguese navigators and
their crew had explored and settled in Mindanao Islands to Central America to Panama as
planned, the Portuguese authorities arrested and imprisoned the entire 54 members of
Trinidad, Magellan’s flagship.

3. Homonhon Island, Eastern Samar. After they landed in Guam and called Las
Islas de los Ladrnes (the theft island), Magellan’s troops had a terrible experience
staying there. Some people in Homonhon Island and Samar claimed, shortly after
the arrival of Magellan and his companions on the island, they had a mass in the
Isle to thank God for their safe journey from Guam and vast Pacific Ocean.
According to the groups that were supporting the first mass’ in Homonhon:

“Pigafetta did not exactly say that it was their first mass, he only reported that a
mass was celebrated on Easter Sunday [in Mazzaua Island]. Atty. Mendiola
concludes that on the island of Homonhon on 19th of March 1521 the first mass
celebrated was held in the Philippines not one on the 31st of that month, Limasawa
or Mazaua. In the modern historiography, any passage or statement to the
contrary in our history books would be unsustainable.

“However the facts remains that Magellan first landed in Homonhon, despite these
discusiions, when the first mass took place. And today, we are commemorating and
celebrating that event. The histiorian Agoncillo writes that the Europeans learned
of the existence of the Philippines for the first time during this trip. It also proved
that the earth was round, that the Pacific ocean had been vast, that East India was
reachable by the Pacific and that America was one entirely separate land mass of
Asia. It showed that America was a land mass.”
“While Magellan discovered the existence of the Philippines, for me, the greater
significance of Magellans’ arrival in Homonhon, was it showed the world, that we
in Samar, already had a society, a culture of our own. Pigafetta wrote that their
seignior was an old man who was painted. He wore two gold earrings in his ears
and the others many gold armlets on their arms and handkerchiefs about their
haeds. They have balck hair that falls to the waist and uses daggers, knives, and
 spears ornamented with gold, large shields, fascines and fishing nets that resemble
rizali and their boats are like ours.”

“Later on, Jesuit missionaries who came and settled our island would document
this culturealso the manner of dressing from head to toe, from cradle to their
graves.”

Source: Cabardo, Charo (2004). Homonhon, 482 Years Later. Gugma Han Samar-
Cyberspace Movement.

4. Mahaba Island, Placer, Surigao del Norte. Finally, in the North-East of

Mindanao, another group, said that the expedition of Magellan was the first Mass
in Surigao del Norte, Mahaba Island.

“ It was recorded that when he was nearing the shores of Mindanao, Magellan
saw lights of a settlement which he avoided and sailed farther north (south) and
anchored near an island named Mazzava, now mark on maps as Mahaba Island,
located at latitude nine and two-thirds degress.”

“Magellan during that time was using an astolabe to determine his latitude
location which was why they read to one-third of a degre, which they could not
have done [so] on a moving ship. There was no way during that time to determine
[the] longitude as the chronometer, which could measure [the] longitude was only
invented by James Harrison, an Englisman, in 1740.”

“Mazzava Island appears on present detailed maps of the area to be Mahaba

Island in the Municapility of Placer, Surigao del Norte. Magellan could have
mistaken Mahaba Island, a small island to be part of masapilid Island beacuse it is
almost touching this bigger island, and at a low tide, it could easily mistaken to be
connected to teh bigger island at the northern tip. This could be the reason that the
island where they they landed was described as shape like a stringray, which
Masapilid is, and about 10 x 5 miles in area.”

“If present maps will be examined today, it will be noted that Mahaba Islandd is
very close to teh island of Masapilid and the flotilla of Magellant most propably
anchored betweeen these two isalands. It will also noted that Masapilid is shaped
like a stringray as described by Pigaffeta.”

Source:http://7th_millennium.tripod.com/7cm/Limasawa.html

While in Bulinao, Pangasinan, there is a smalll monument that marks the site of the
first Christian masss ever held in the Philippines. A Franciscan friar called Odoric from
Perdenone, Italy is said to have landed on the shore of Pangasinan, two centuries before
Magellan wandered through the Philippine archepelago seeking shelter from a stormy sea.
 Taking a black crucifix onto the beach, he met “hostile indigenous people who were
soon pacified by his courage and faith. After showing the l;ocal people a few photos of
Jesus, Joseph and Mary, the friar and his companions built a cross and plante a Christmas
tree. Teh first Christmas was held in the Philippines, and several Pangasinanians were
baptized later in the Philipines. It took place on December 25, 1324.

Or perhaps that was in 1200, or it was betweeen 1280 and 1320 on a particular
Christmas day. As some history buffs could say, the facts are”open for interpretation.”
Friar Odoric was a real person, but he probably did not ever visit the Philippines, held
baptisims and a mass in Pangasinan.

And the Christmas tree? Probably on his sea voyage the Italian frair don’t carry a pine
tree with him. Tree decoration was at the time also considered a pagan habit, and
Christians did not become fashionable until 1500s in Germany and the rest of Europe until
the mid- to late 1800s. Even today, trees decorating in the Odoric country of Italy, where
births are more popular, is not a significant part of a Christmas celebrations.

Who was Odoric?

Biographers of the church have reported the Odoric Mattuissi of Pordenone was born
in 1286 antered the Order of Franciscans in Udine around 1300. Odoric set sail to Asia in
1318. He spent three years in Turkey, Iran, India, Sri Lanka, Java, Sumatra, Vietnam,
Borneo and China (some historians like William H. Scott doubted that he was a priest).
Then he came back to Italy via an overland route through Mongolia and Tibet.

When Odoric arrived back home in 1330, he told a friar named William of Solagna in
Padua the story of his 12 years of adventure, but he did noting about a Christmas Mass
with a Christmas tree on all his travels.

The Pangasinan connection

So what fits this story in Pangasinan? Mytholog believers point to a place called
Thalamasin by Odoric. Probably its suppode link to Pangasinan is based on the
excessively hopeful interpretation of Henry Yule’s book, Cathay, and he way it is. In
examining the account of Odoric, Yule spoke about the possible meaning in Malaysian of
the name Thalamasin, nothing that tanah masin is a “land of salt.” This has been
sufficiently proved to some historinas that the name Pangasinan means “the place where
the sun is made.”

Odoric has visited he Philippines. Some also notice the connection to a legendary land
of the tawalis name, home to the warrior princess of Pangasinan, Urduja-but this is a
different myth.

The name Panten knew Thalamasin, in the account he said, Odoric had no say on salt.
The emn of this place used protective amulets and blowpipe weapons placed under their
skin. He said there were several trees in this l;and that could produce meal, wine and
poison. Yule however pointed out that these features can be described by many places in
the Malaysian archipelago.

Thalamasyn, Thalamasin, Talamasin, Thamalsi, Talamosa, Malamasin and

Malamasmi have been described in a wide variety of manuscripts covering the stody. For
Talaga Masin or Salt Lake, Thala Masin is Malay or Javanese. William H. Scott’s
geographical view of this matter:

“It is possible that these observations were made in the Philippines-but not likely. The
west coast of Borneo is on the direct route between Java and Champa, and it would
seem strange, moreover, that such long voyages as the direct Java-Philippines or
Philippines Champa passages should bypass the standard trading ports mentioned in
Chinese accounts of the epriod. Moreover, none of these details are mentioned in the
longer Philippine description by Friar Odoric’s younger contemporary, Wang
Tayuan. But if there is a possibility that Friar Odoric set foot on Philippine soil, there
is no reason to think that he baptized anybody or celebrate mass two centuries before
Magella’s arrival—there is no reason even to think that he was a priest.”

Source: Sir Henry Yule (ed.). Cathay and Way Thither: Being a Collection of
Medieval Notices of C hina, Issue 36.Pp.84-86.

Thalamasin, somewhere between Java nad Champa, now part of Vietnam, is in the
narrative places of Odoric, and h e said that he was near the “south sea”. Bolinao,
however, is a 16-degree point north of the equator and is a significant detour from the
direct route from both.

The best guest of Henry Yule was that Odoric probably referred to a place on the south
coast of Borneo known by now as Banjarmasin, which means “salt garden.” Yule also
referred to the site on the east coast of Borneo, which was known as Biru (now Berau),
which was listed in atlases called Talisian and Panteh.

Unforetunately , the pre-colonial Philippines have no written history; in fact, nearly no

written documents at all. Foreign accounts are outlined and almost never mention places
with recognizable names in the Philippines, for historians and Filipino nationalists, this
was frustrating and has brought some of them to cross the line between history and myth.
Whenever there is no information, some people always want information gaps to make
them feel important, regardless of how desperately far-reaching this information is.
Scientists and historians, however, are often depicted as villains, who dom legitimate
research that can b e debunk these myths. The location of the mass untill now has been
contentious as many, undeniable and compelling reasons exist for believing that the first
mass was highly possible in a single area in many location.

A. Cavite Mutiny
At the time the Panish Liberals took over the reins of power in Spain following the
overthrow of Queen Isabel II, a heated controversy was raging in the Philippines over the
question of the status and ownership of certain curacies in the archbishopric of Manila.
The fundamental issue in the controversy was whether Filipino priests should be allowed
greater participation in the management of the relious and ecclesiastical affairs of their
country or not. Tis was a question which concerned the interests and welfare, not only of
the native clergy but of the Catholic Church herself.

The beginnings of this question may be traced to the times of Archbishop Sta. Justa
and Governor Anda in the last quarter of the 18th century (1769-1776). To fill the
vacancies which were created at that time in many parishes of his diocese, Archbishop
Sta. Justa availed himself of the services of newly ordained Filipino secular priests. The
latter were placed in curacies which had been vacated as a result of differences and
misunderstanding between the Spanish friar cuartes who previouly administerd them and
the Archbishop over matters of ecclesiastical government.

The significance of the Archbishop’s actuation was quite clear to many people at th
etime. Archbishop Sta. Justa course was a radical departure from the long-established
policy followed in the administration of parishes. It meant that, ultimately, Filipino secular
priests would take over the duties and responsibilities connected with the administration of
parochial affairs. It can well be presumed that Archbishop Sta. Justa envisioning such an
eventuality felt keenly the need of building up a body of competent Filipino priests to
carry on the work of the Catholic Church in the Philippines.

Unfortunately for the cause of the Filipino clergy, the immediate results or Archbishop
Sta. Justa’s initial policy of secularization of the installed Filipino parish prieste lacked not
only the necessary training and preparation of parochial work but also the moral qualities
required of those who would go into the religious life. Their conduct as a parish priests
was far from edifying. It was clear that Archbishop Sta. Justa, in his eagerness and
enthusiasm to Filipinize the curacies, did not exercise due care in the granting of holy
orders that he appointed newly ordained seminarians to parishes without careful
examination of their fitness and character.

Because of the unfavorable results of his policy, i was felt advisable, in the interest of
religion, to havr it suspended and discontinued. Governor Anda, who was a strong
believer in the wisdom and desirability of that policy, and who had given wholehearted
support to Archbishop Sta. Justa’s efforts to Filipinize the curacies were constrained to
reverse his stand on the matter. He wrote to the King reporting the unfavorable effects
which Archbishop Sta. Justa’s actuations had produced and be recommended that the
Filipinization of the curasies be suspended and that the curasies which had been
seculasized be returned to the Spanish clergy. In compliance with Anda’s
recommendations, the King of Spain-in a decree promolgated on Decmber 11, 1776,
oredered the suspension of the secularization of the curacies and the restoration of those
parishes which had been given to Filipino priest to their former pastors.

The suspension of the Filipinization policy, however, was presumed to be only

temporary. One of the provisions of the decree of December 11, 1776, ordered that steps
should be taken to prepare and tain a competent body of clerics so that the filling of the
curacies with Filipino secular priests would eventually be affected in conformity with teh
plans and desires of Archbishop Sta. Justa. This was understood at the time to mean that
the secularization of the curacies would be resumed, when and if, duly qualified Filipino
secular priests were available for appoinmnet to the curasies.

Unfortunately, the Spanish Government did not comply with the directive contained in
the provision of the decree of December 11, 1776. Far from leaving up the promise
implied in that law, it adopted and put into effect a course of action which tended to
discourage the growth and development of the Filipino clergy. Several laws promulgated
by the Spanish colonial policy. On July S, 1826, a royal cedula was issued reiterting the
previous decree which commanded the return to the regular Spanish clergy of the curasies
which have been given to Filipino secular priests during the governorship of Anda (1770-
1776). “The royal decree of March 9, 1849, ordered the return of several parishes in
Cavite to the regular Spanish clergy. Finally, on September 10, 1861, a royal order gave
to the Recollects parishes held by the Filipino priest of Archbishopric of Manila.

Sir: the undersigned,Aarchbishop of Manila, respectfully addressing your

Execellency, impelled by his true love of country, and by a sense of duty to
maintain the tranquility of his Diocese, which has beenfrequently disturbed as a
result of the practice, which for some time now has been followed, of turning over
curasies administered by the secular clergy to the religous corporations. This
policy is the cause of an ever-growing enmity which is becoming more and more
manifest between seculars and regulars, and which, sooner or later, may bring
lamentable results to our beloved Spain.

To fix the origin of this enmity, I shall mention the Real Cedula of July 8, 1826,
which returned to the religous corporation’s curacies administred by the secular
clergy since the period of the second governorship of Simeon de Anda y Salazar.
However just this measure might apper, the native priests, because they had held
those curasies for more than half a century and, considered them their own, felt
grieved every time a curacy becuase of the death or transfer of the incumbent was
assigned to a regular priest. With the death of curate of San Simon which
accured this year, the purpose of the foregoing Real Cedula has been fulfilled in
every respect.
“As a circumstance tending to agrevate this enmity the Royal Order of March 9,
1849, may be mentioned, by virtue of which seven curasies of Cavity belonging to
the secular clergy were given to teh regulars, as follows: Bacoor, Cavite el Viejo
and Silang to theAugustinians Recollects; and Santa Cruz , San Francisco De
Malabon, Naic and Indang to the Dominicans, of these, five already been
occupied, being taken possesion of as fast as they become vacant. But what
brought the antagonism to a climax and filled the native clergy with indignation
was the Royal Order of September 10, 1861. To this decree and its consequences,
the undersigned especially desires to call the attention of your Excellency.

With the approval in article 13 of the Royal Decree of July 30, 1859, regarding
the establishment of the Government of Mindanao and the arrangement of that the
Father of Society of Jesus-it should take charge of the administration of the
 parishes, doctrinas, and active missions in that Island, which at the time were
under the administration of the Recollects of the Province of San Nicolas de
Tolentino. Became necessary to promulgate the rules which should govern,
properly, the carrying out of the provisions of that article. For this purpose, the
Royal Order of September 10, 1861, was promulgated which, among other things,
granted to the Recollects, in the form of an indemnity, the administration of the
curacies in the province of Cavite or elsewhere (in the Archbishopric of Manila,
as subsequently was ordered) which were being served by the native clergy.

Under thecircumtances, the Royal Order was issued. In the first place, the
Archbishopric was vacant, and , under the circumstances, the sacred cannons
prescribe, and prudence councels, that no innovations be introduced. In the
second place the opinion of the ordinary ecclesiastical authority (autoridad
ordinaria ecclesiastica) was not heard in this particular case, although here the
practice is to have voluminous reports even in case of much less importance. And,
in the third place, it was known that the ecclesiastic appointed to the Diocese of
Manila was not familiar with the anomalous condition of the ecclesiatical
administration of the Philippines, or with the customs and usages of the people
(circumstances which would impel him to renounce the post and which he had to
disregard only because of strong representations made to him), and that, therfore,
it must take him some time before he could remonstrate with full knowledge of the
facts. These circumstances are brought to the impartial judgement of Your
Excellency.
GREGORIO, ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA
Manila, December 31, 1870.
TO THE REGENT OF THE KINGDOM.

Source: Zafra, Nicolas. Readings in the Philippine History, University of the

Philippine, Quezon City, 1956

The Cavite Mutiny in January 1872 cannot yet be concluded completely since the
trials have not however been recorde. Although they were declared lost by the
Spanish government, and researchers did not locate copies in the Philippine National
Archives (PNA), there are still rumors of their lives in Spain from time to time, but
nothing has been discovered. It also appears that the investigations of the defendants
in what was supposed to be the PNA (Artigas y Cuerva 1911, 126-28) at least once
were recorded, although they may have died during the war. The treatments of
textbooks are based mainly on a few contradictory accounts; and, although they have
valuable documentary materials, they only deal in part with their subject and contain
spurious and contradictory material, without reaching a definitive end (Shumacher
1991, 83-85). (Los Sucesos de 1872). Its relatively recent English translation (Artigas
1996) will mostly probably perpetuate Artigas ‘weaknesses. The book can hardly
accept the prolific praise given to the translator (ibid, xii). In many of the textbooks,
the Filipino soldiers and workers are described as local ammunition, reacting to Gov.
Rafael de Izquierdo’s decree that suppressed Arsenal workers ‘privilege to exempt
from tribute and the the obligation of labor. Some consider it motherhood instigated
by the friars to involved the Filipino priests led by Fr. Jose Burgos, who asked the
Filipino secular clergy to restore the parishes that were occupied by the friars. The
mutiny was the pretext for executing or exiling activist priests and their partners
between lawyers and people in business who were agitating for liberal reforms. Some
of the textbook, which are based on a false Artigan document, even speak of a friar
similar to the Burgos who went to a revolt among the workers and soldiers of Cavite.
The source of this interpretations is usually found in the different accounts of Antonio
Regidor. One of Burgos’ liberal reformist was exiled to the Marianas and in various
publications, after escaping and going to Europe, sometimes gave contradictory
accounts of the mutinies.

Jose Rizal devoted his novel “El Filibusterismo” to the three priests, 85-year-old
Mariano Gomez, 30-year-old Jose Burgos, and 35-year-old Jacinto Zamora, executed
on February 17, 1872, at Bagumbayan Field. The first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny
and the second was the martyrdom of the three priests who were martyred in the
persons of Fathers Mariano, Gomes, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora
(GOMBURZA). Not all of us, however, knew that the said event had different
accounts. The different sides of the story must be known to all Filipino people
because this event has led to another sad yet significant part of our history-the
execution of GOMBURZA, which is indeed an essential factor to the development of
the Philippine nationalism.

History books state that Philippine nationalism has been born with this tragic
event. It is assumed that people felt they were no natio before that date, and any sign
of protest against the presence of Spain abroad was a rebellion that was located
elsewhere.

The execution of three Philippine priests-one of whom an ecclesiastical priest-

was a source of a sympathy for the martyrs and rejection of the alien leader, who
could put the sxis on the innocents‘ necks. The commen enemy soon take shape, and
people felt like one in their fight for a rights to govern themselves after a three and a
half hundred years of foreign domination charaterized by unexplained govenrments,
direct exploitationsm of persons and natural resources, and sometimes half-heard
reform efforts and governed, Sporadic and desultory demonstrations of resistance.

The garrote was summarily tried and sentenced to death Father Gomez, Father
Burgos, and Father Zamora on January 20, 1873, Cavite arsenal revolt. The preists
who were active in the clergy’s struggle for the secularization (or indeed
nationalization) created trouble for despotic Governor Rafael Izquiedero and the
country’s powerful regular religous orders. By linking them to the Cavite arsenal
uprising, whether or not they had anything to do with it, the administration found a
convinient way to get rid of the troublesome trio.

Was the three involved in the revolt? The fact that the proceedings have
disappeared and the star presecution witness himself and three of his testimonies
have been ordered to execute will take a painful investigation. The question is likely
to remain one of the great mysteries in the stuggle for freedom of the Filipinos. Until
he breathed his last, in dedicating the Filibusterismo tot he three condemned men,
Father Burgos protested the innocence of the crime attributed to him and rizal,
underlining the doubt shared by the Filipinos about their guilt.

Meliton Martinez, Archbishop of Manila, has received a copy of the penalties for
murder asking the deprivation of the clergy. The Archbishop responded by saying
that he required more copelling proof of his culpability and declined and contribute to
its humiliation. The privacy of the supposed proceedings, the mysterious
disappearance of Court-Martial results and documents, the suspect haste of the
judgment contributing to the generalized conviction that these three had been
trumped-up. Two days later, on February 17, they where sentenced to death and taken
to the garrote.

But even if irrefutable evidence had been cited against Father Gomez, Burgos and
Zamora, the three-one an octogenarain is known for the charities, the other, half-
crazed at the propect of a gruesome death, and the third primarily admired for his
courageous support for the rightss of the Filipinos, in particular, the clergy-would
been regarded by their compatriots as martyrs just as much. The time for the revolt
was ripe, and the fact that the people beleived the execution were a miscarriage of
justice only hurried history’s march. Public outrage has risen to a peak. For those who
had seen the need to unite by now, the job become more comfortable. Nationalism’s
first seeds have been sown and taken root. In deciding to set the priest as an example
to the people of what was in the store for them if they continued to be isolent, the
aothorities then constituted quickly sealed their doom. The groundwork was laid for
the enivetable revolution for a quarter of a century later.

1872 Cavite Mutiny: SPANISH PERSPECTIVE

The event was documented and highlighted by Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific
Spanish historian, as an Indian attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines. Meanwhile, the official report of Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo magnified
the event and used it to involve the native clergy, who then became active in the call
for secularization. The two accounts complimented one another and corroborated
only that the report for the general was more spitful. Initially, both Montero and
Izquierdo pointed out that the abolition of the privileges enjoyed by the Cavite arsenal
workers, such as the non-payment of tributes and the exemption from force labor,
were the main reasons for the “revolution” as they called it., but they enumerated
other couses, including the Spanish Revolution that overthrew the secular throne and
the dirty propaganda that proliferated through it. The report added also that the
indigenouse priests encouraging other attendees by offering them powerful
assurances that they will not hesitate to battle because they have the excellent
commitments of incentives, such as jobs, and the Spanish rebellion, which is the
revelation of the King of Spain, who told the king of Spain that the rebellios wished
the Spanish state to reverse and establish a fresh “hari”. I his report, Izquierdo
lambasted the Indians as gullible and had an innate propensity to steal.

The two Spaniards considered the event of 1872 to have been planned earlier and
considered it as great conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, lawyers or native
lawyers, Manila and Cavite residents, and the native clergy. They mentioned that
Manila and Cavite’s conspirators were planning to liquidate high-ranking Spanish
officers, followed by the fraternal massacre. The alleged pre-concerted signal among
Manila and Cavite’s conspirators was rocket firing from Intramuros ‘walls.

According to the two accounts, the Sampaloc district celebrated the Virgin of
Loreto’s feast on January 20, 1872. Unfortunately, the festival participants celebrated
the occasion with usual displays of fireworks. The bells in Cavite supposedly
mistreated as a symbol of the assault; as arranged, the 200-man unit of Sergeant La
Madrid initiated an attack against Spain officials insight and confiscated in the
arsenal.

When the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo arrived, he readily ordered the Spanish army
to reinforce Cavite to quench the rebellion. When the reinforcement from Manila did
not come ashore, “the revolution” was easily broken. Primary instigators including
Sergeant La Madrid were murdered on the encounter while a court-martial trial of the
GOMBURZA was held and convicted to death by strangulation. Patriots such as
Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. de Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other
lawyers were suspended, detained and convicted to life imprisonment on Marianas
Island by the Audencia (the High Court). Also, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native
artillery regiments and ordered artillery force creation to consist exclusively of the
Peninsulars.

On February 17, 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed in an attempt by the

Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill fear among the Filipinos in order never
again to commit such a daring act. This event was tragic, but it served as one Filipino
nationalism’s moving forces.

Injustice Response: THE VERSION OF FILIPINOS TO THE INCIDENT

Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Philippine scholar, and researcher

wrote the Philippine version of Cavite’s bloody incident. In his view the incident was
a mere mutiny by the Cavite arsenal’s native Filipino soldiers and workers who
turned to dissatisfied with their privileges being abolished. Indirectly, Tavera blame
the cold-blooded policies of Gov. Izquierdo, such as abolishing the privileges of
arsenal’s workers and indigenous army members and prohibiting the founding of the
Filipino arts and trade school, which the general believed to be a cover-up for
organizing a political club.

About 200 men including soldiers, arsenal workers and Cavite resident headed by
Sergean La Madrid , rose in arms in 20 January 1872 and assasinated the
commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents expected support
from the majority of the army. That didn’t happen, unfortunately. In Manila and Gov.
Izquierdo, the news of the mutiny reached authorities immediately ordered the
strengthening of Spanish troops in Cavite. The mutiny was officially declared
subdued after two days.

In Tavera’s belief, Spanish friars and Izquiredo issued the Cavite mutiny as a
powerful lever to magnify the Cavite magnified as a complete conspiracy involving
not only the indigenous army but also residents of Cavite and Manila. Note: the
central government of Madrid announced its intention during that period to deprive
the monkks of all powers of intervention in civil government affairs as well as in the
management and leadership of educational facilities. The turnout of events was
believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to do something drastic in their desire to
maintain power in the Philippines.

Meanwhile, the Central Government of Spain welcomed an educatio0nak decree

written by Segismundo Moret prompting the fusion of parochial schools run by the
friars into a scholl called the Philippine Institute, intending the implement reforms.
The decree proposed to improve the educational standard in the Philippines by
requiring competitive examinations to fill teaching positions in such schools. Most
Filipinod warmly receives this improvement despite the zest for the secularization of
the native clergy.

The friars took advantage of the event and presented it to the Spanish government
as a vast conspiracy organized in the entire archipelago to destruct the Spanish
sovereignity because they fear it would be forgatten in the Philippines. Tavera sadly
confirmed that the Madrid administration was satisfied that the scheme was true
without attempting the facts or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by
Izquierdo and the brothers.

Convicted educated men who took part in the mutiny were sentenced to life
inprisonment while garrot tried and executed members of the native clergy headed by
the GOMBURZA. The episode leads to nationalism awakening and ultimately to the
outbreak of 1896 Philippine Revolution. The account of the french writer Edmund
Plauchut compklimented the account of Tavera by confirming that the event occured
due to the discontent of the Cavite for arsenal workers and soldiers. However, the
Frenchman dwelt more on the execution of the three priests he witnessed as martyrs.

Considering the five accounts of Mutiny of 1872, there were some basic facts that
remained unchanged: first, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of arsenal as
well as among the mebers of the indegenous army that Gen. Izquierdo dragged their
privelege back; second, Gen. Izquierdo implemented strict and rigid policies that have
caused the Philippines to move away from the Spanish Governemnt. Third, in 1872
the central Spanish government decided to take away the power to interfer with the
administration of government and the management of schools, prompting them to
undertake frenzied movements to extend their stay and power, the happy days of the
brothers had already been nyumbered; fourth, the members of the Filipino clergy
were actively involved in the movement for secularization. Finally, the Spanish
governement’s execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder, for the action cut off the
Filipino’s ill-feelings and the evnt inspired Filipino patriots to call for the reforms and
eventually independence. Various versions of the event may exist, but one thing is
certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved the way for a momentous 1898.

B.Retraction of Rizal

Various historians report that through a document Rizal has retracted his anti-Catholic
ideas. The authenticity of the retraction papers of Jose Rizal has raised problems,
skepticism, and heated discussions betqween those trying to learn the truth about this
controversy for decades. The fact that significant individual involved lacked evidence and
statements only contributed and the uncertainty surroundings this fiery argument.

Reasons for Retraction

The introduction from Hessel (1965) illustrates how unfortunate it is that some people
talked about the retraction without actually knowing what Rizal did or didn’t retract. The
mature, quite uniform and systematic religiuos thinking of Dr. Rizal has been given
insufficient attention. Only once this is done first can the significance of the retraction b e
evaluated. Some people would mean nothing to withdraw because they have so little to
widraw. He explains the four common positions to “retreat” and its influence on Dr.
Rizal’s life and nature.

1. Some insist that the “converted” Rizal is remebered and respected. Those insist.
That is the official position of the Roma Catholic. Father Cavanna says in the
Preface in his single “official” book dealing with every aspect of the Retraction
(the “official” because it bears Archbishop Santos ‘Imprimatur’):

“the glory of Rizal as a scholar, as a poet, as a scientist, as a patriot, as a hero,

may fade away someday, as all wordly glories do, sooner or later. But his glory,
that at the very hour of his death what he had lost for a time is his unfortunate
GLORY , the truth, the way and the life.”

Source: Jesusa, Ma. Cavanna y Manso, C.M. Rizal’s Unfading Glory, a

Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal. 2nd ed. Rev. And
improved (Manila: n. n. 1956), p. vi. Subsequently referred to as “Cavanna.”

The declaration issued in 1956 and signed by the Archbishop regarding the Noli and
Fili echoes this same sentiment:

“It precisely in that which we have to imitate [Rizal] when we were about to
coronate all of his life, by sealing with his blood, that we have to withdraw, as he
bravely did at the moment of his supreme sacrifice, whatever was against his
 status as a son of the Catholic Church in his writings, in his publications and his
conduct.”

Source: Jesusa, Ma. Cavanna y Manso, C.M. Rizal’s Unfading Glory, a

Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal. 2nd ed. Rev. And
improved (Manila: n. n. 1956), p. vi. Subsequently referred to as “Cavanna.”

2. Some argue that Rizal was a free thinker and a disbeliever’ throughout his adult
lilfe, so retracting is necessarily a lie. That is the far opposite to the position of the
Roman Catholic. The main premise on which this theis has been based is not true
in my previous writing.
3. A third implicit view can be summed up: the Rizal that matters is the Rizal of pre-
return so that the Rizal can be ignored. Many student and admirers of Rizal have
the basic assumption here, but the conclusion does not follows necessarily. This
brings us to the fourth possible retreat attitude.
4. It is desirable to study all aspects of life and to think of Rizal. We are entitled abnd
also obliged to look into the retreat facts in the best interest of the truth to which
Rizal has devoted himself.

Major Arguments of Retraction

Hessel (1965) argued that fancy could still be acknowledged if scholarly research
continues. It would be nice to speak about bibliography and method before we proceed
further. In the course of this study, more than 20 books and brochures were investigated in
addition to numerous articles. Many Retraction writings repeat previous arguments and do
not add anything new. Other are more sentimental and sarcatic than illuminating.
However, almost all of them gained some value. Two general categories include literature:

The biography and works that specifically deal in the Retraction are Guerrero,
and Laubach, they accepted the Retractio, and the other two rejected it as most
appropriate. Of the works dealing with the retraction in particular, Pascual and
Father Cavanna are the most objective because it is academic and complete. Until
now no book is the same as Father Cavanna as a compendium of almost complete
information and arguments for. A total of 123 articles of the text, annexes, and a
bibliography consist of 353 page(s). Personal debt to Collas, Ricardo Garcia,
Runes and Buenafe, should be mentioned among other authors consulted. In
defence of retraction, Gracia is a prolific popular writer; teht other two are
against him.

Source: Eugene A. Henssel, The Religious Thought of José Rizal (Manila:

Philippine Education Co., 1961), p. 225.

Hessel (1965) refers to Father Cavanna’s writings (1952) as it provides a well-oriented

summary that later defenders adopt. The following points are based on Cavanna with
several slight ammendments:
 1. The retraction documents, as a principal witness to the retraction reality, is
condsidered since the discovery in 1935. The defenders have said in words or with
implications, those who challenge the removal now lie in the burden of evidence.
2. The press testimony at the time of the event, eye testimonies and others, i.e., those
closely linked to the events, like the Jesuit head, teh archbishop.
3. According to the reports, Dr. Rizal has recited “Acts of Faith, Hope, Charity” and
signed it as attested by “Witnesses”and the Prayer Book. This is very strong
testimony, if indeed because Rizal did not agree with Catholic Romanesque
teaching in general as was the case with the Retracton Statement, but in particular
with several convictions that he had previously rejected. By Father Balaguer’s
testimony, Riza was offered a prayer book following the signing of the Rectration
“He tooke the prayer book, read the deeds slowly, accepted them, put the pen on it,
and said, ‘Cedo’ (i think) signed them on the book itself. What was signed by
Rizal? The “Act of Faith” shoul be cited in detail.

“I believe in God the Father, I believe in God the Son, and I believe in God the
Holy Ghost, Three distict Persons, and only One True God. I believe that the
Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity became Man, taking flesh in purest womb
of the virgin Mary, suffered, died, arose agin, ascended into Heaven, and that He
will come to judge the living and the dead, to give glory to the just becausethey
have kept his holy commandments, and eternal punishment to the wicked because
they have not kept them. I believe that the true Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus
Christ are present in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I believe that the
Blessed and ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, was in the first moment of her
natural life conceived without hte stain of the original sin. I believe that the Roman
Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ, visible Head of the Church, is the Pature and
Teacher of all Christians; that he is infallible when he teaches doctrines of faith
and morals to be observe by the universal Church, and that his definitions are in
themselves binding and immutable; and I believe all that the Holy, Roman
Catholic and Apostolic Church believes and teaches, since God can niether
deceived nor be deceived, has so revealedit; and in this faith i wish to live nad
die.”

Source: Eugene A. Henssel, The Religious Thought of José Rizal (Manila:

Philippine Education Co., 1961), p. 225.

One of the documents found by Fr. Garcia and the Retraction was the signed
prayer book.

4. The acts of priesty Rizal carried out in the last few hours as “witnesses” have
testified.
5. His ‘Roman Catholic Marriage’ by ‘witnesses’ to Josephine Bracken. Without a
retraction, there could be no marriages.
 These are tpowerful arguments. Many think of them as ‘irrefutable facts’ as Cavanna
does. However, to call them the fact is to prejudge the case or to misuse the words, a
retraction of document was found in 1935, is probably a matter of fact. As we will see
soon, many Retraction opponents signed. But a number asked, is this the signature apart
from Father Balaguer’s testimony as to why Rizal signed it?

Case Against the Retraction

With Hessel’s (1965) remarks above, it is no less true that the testimony is impressive.
It cannot be dismisssed with a few sarcastic comments, as some have tried to do. The
argument from the tetimony as well as the arguments as a whole can be better judge only
if this evidence is weighed against the argument that rejects the removal.
1. It is said that the Retracton Documents is falsification. As we have noted, on both sides of the
debate, the Document plays an important part. The case against the document itself is divided
into four prongs.

a) First of all, handwriting is an issue. Using a study he has incorporated into

his book “Rizal beyong the Grave ,” Dr. Ricardo R Pascual of the
University of the Philippiness has only to date produced a detailed
scientific study leading to an atteck on the authenticity of the document.
Taking some half a dozen unquestioned Rizal’s writings from the last half
of December 1986 as his “standard,” he noted a number of variations in the
handwriting of the Retraction Document, the following being the most
significant according to the current lecturer: (i) The slanting of the letters in
the standard writings indicates, on average, several points higher than the
Retraction Documents average and, perhaps more significantly, the slanting
letters in the Documents; (ii) there are significants variations in the way
individual letters are formed; (iii) With regard to the signature, Pascual
notes no less than seven differences, one of the most important being
indications of ‘stop’ which, according to the critic, are explained most
naturally by the fact that a forger may stop at certain points to determine
what form to take next; (iv) in several respects, there are marked
similarities, i.e., Rizal and the two witnesses, ponting out that this is a ‘one-
man document.’

The only scholarly response to Pascual is that given by Dr. Jose I.

Del Rosario as part of the thesis he prepared at the University of Sto.
Tomas for his Ph.D. in Chemistry in 1937. Although most of the deatails
are the result of a later study to prepared explicitly by Father Cavanna, the
main criticism of Dr. Del Rosario can be said to be that by comparison,
Pascual does not include enough of Rizal’s writings. He can challenge
several of Pascual’s statement based in a broader selection of standards,
although this lecturer has noted errors in del Rosario’s data. Dr. Del
Rosario concludes that handwriting is authentic.
b) A second prong directed against the document’s authenticity itsekf is based
on textual criticism principles. Several critics have noted differences,
starting as far as i know with Pascual, between the text of the document
found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction, including the one issued
by Father Balaguer. (19) Since this kind of criticism relates to my work in
Biblical studies, i am now engaged in an essential textual study of my own,
which consists primarily of collecting all available forms of the text. To
date, it is clear from my studies that there have been two distincts forms of
the text with significant differences, at least since the morning of December
30, 1896, discounting numerous minor variations. The one form is
represented by the 1935 discovered Document and some other early
Retraction records. In part6icular, two phrases should be noted: in line 6,
‘Catholic Church’, and in line 10, ‘Catholic Church’. The other text from
is much more common, starting with Balaguaer’s 1897 published text.
 Instead of ‘Iglesia Catolica’ in line 6, there is the single word ‘Iglesia’ and
the same Church’ apperas instead of ‘the Church.’ There also tend to be
consistent differences in the use of capital letters between the two types of
text. The second form also claims to be original accurate representation.

The usual explanation for these differences is that either Father

Balaguer or Father Pi made mistakes in the preparation of a copy of the
original, which were transmitted to others from this earliest copy of Fr.
Cavanna makes the genius suggestion that Father Balaguer made
corrections to the ‘formula’ which he gave Rizal for his writing, but not at
all of them. Instead, it seems that the copy had been carefully compared at
the same time or some other early date before the original had disappeard.
It is not surprising if a “false” version of a retraction statement issued by
the religious authorities made the Retraction Document.
c) A third argument against the authenticity of the Retraction Document,
which also applies to the Retraction itself, is that its content is somewhat
strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic religion ‘I want to live and die, ‘yet
there was little time to live,’ as well as Rizal’s claim that his retraction was
‘spontaneous.’
d) Finally, there is ‘the forgers’ confession.’ This story has only Runes. Hes
and his co-author reported an interview with a certain Antonio K. Abad
who told on August 13, 1901, a certain Roman Roques, at a party at his
ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija (when Abad was fifteen) how he
had been employed by the Friars earlier than year to make several copies of
retraction document. Colonel Funston had previously employed this same
Roque to forge the revolutionay General Lacuna’s signature on the
document that led to Aguinaldo’s capture. Runes also include a letter from
the former provincial secretary of Nueva Ecija, Lorenzo Ador Dionisio,
dated November 10, 1936, who was also present when Roque told and
confirmed his story.
Based on the above arguments taken as a whole, it would appear that at least the
Retraction Document has reasonable ground to be questioned.

2. The second main arguments against the withdrawal is that the withdrawal story
does not suit other events. The most frequently mentioned by writers starting with
Hermenigildo Cruz in 1912 are:
a) The retraction document was not published until 1935. Even family
members didn’t see it. It was said that it was ‘lost’.
b) After signing the Retrcation, no effort was made to save Rizal from the
death penalty. The usual rebuttal is that the death of Rizal was due to
political factors that could not be interfered with by the religious
authorities.
c) The funerary was kept a secret, buried outside the Paco cemetery interior
and his burial record was not placed on the entry page of 30 December, but
on a special page where one or more admitted non-penitentsare recorde
(perhaps others, the evidence is inconsistent). The funeral of Rizal was kept
 secret. The Retraction defenders are asking how else to trear an execute
felon? The gruond outside the wall was also sacred or could have benn
consecrated in particular. Rizal’s ‘Christian Burial Certificat’ was found in
the same file with the Retraction Document on May 8, 1935, to top the
rebuttal. All admit htat hte penmanship is an amanuensis. It is open to
question whether the signature is genuine.
d) Rizal’s marriage with Josephine Barcken does not have a marriage
certificate or public record. It’s not very convincing to say they weren;t
needed.
e) Finally, the behaviour of Rizal as a whole during his last days at Fort
Santiogo and eespecially the last 24 hours does not indicate a conversion.
Whether written over the past 24 hours or somewhat earlier, Rizal’s Ultima
[Ultimo] Adios suggests no change in Rizal’s thinking. There is no idicaton
of convertsion or even religious turmoil in the letters Rizal wrote during
his last hours. Rizal’s mothe and sister Trinidad arrive in the evening, and
they are told nothing about the Retraction although Father Balaguer claims
that the attitude of Rizal was beginning to change even in the afternoon and
he was asking for the retraction formula. It’s all good and right to point out
that before the actual retraction, all of the above happened. Many people
still have a question in their minds.
3. The third main argument line against the Retraction is that it’s out of character.
This argument has been presented more persistently and consistently than any
argument. Starting with the anonymous leaflet of Dec. 31, 1896, since that time it
has been claimed or implied in any significant statement against the Retraction.
Oo many have appeared, including the current lecturer, that the Retraction is not in
line with Rizal’s character and faith as well as inconsiting with his earlier religious
thought declarations.

Let’s look at the man’s character first. Anyone who know his life’s facts knows
this is so. Thirty-five are not exactly yound, and at this age, Rizal was much older than
the average. Therefore, it is unlikely that he would have been schocked by the threath
of death into abnormal behavior. For a while, he had expected that authorities would
destroy him and even priests admits that, during the most of his last 24 hours, Rizal
had demonstrated in his mature years. For some ten years, I worked closely with
prisoners, accompinying two of them to the scaffold. Their behavior was consistent
and restrained. I’d expect Rizal’s to be the same. Also, Rizal was already a ‘believer’
in the most profound sense of the word.

Hessel strongly argued tha tin the usual sense of the word, Rizal was not a ‘free-
thinker’. History is full of unchallenged reports of real conversions, but the essencial
meaning of true transformation is a shift from unbelief to belief, not just a shift in
ideas.

The conversion of Rizal is also out of line with his mature religious thinking. It is
not as if Rizal was bowled over by confrontation with Europe’s new thinking (and by
antagonism to religious authorities who had injured his family and worked hand-in-
 hand with a restrictive colonial regime)never thoroughly thought through his religious
convictions. It is apparent from writing to writing and making a very harmonious
whole that is similar view was found that heology, as he did, is compltely his own.
Theology was quite harmoniou. Rizal had a consistent and meaningful Christian
thought system, so it’s more challenging to think of his sudden exchange of it with
another.

A. Cry of Pugad Lawin or Balintawak?

Journalists of the nineteenth century used the phrase ‘el Grito de rebellion’ or ‘the cry
of rebillion’ to describe the momentous events that swept the Spanish colonies; in Mexico
it was the ‘Cry of Dolores’ (September 16, 1810), in Brazzil it was the ‘City of Ypiraga’
(September 7, 1822), and in Cuba at was the ‘Cry of Matanza’ (February 24, 1895).
Similarly, Filipinos declared their rebellion against the Spanish colonial government in
August 1896, northeast of Manila. The phrase was intitutionalized for the Philippines by
Manuel Satron., the Spanishhistorian, in his 1897 work, La Insurrecccion en Filipinas. All
these ‘Cries’ have been milestone in the world’s various colonial-to-nationalist historiea.

The issue of where and when the Katipunan uprising started had involved scores of
historians. Teh dates of the Revolution’s launch in August 1896 vary from source to
source. The phrase Cry of Balintawakremained unchallenged until it was replaced by Cry
of Pugad Lawin by Teodoro Agoncillo in his book Revolt of Masses. Agoncillo’s cources
were Pio Valenzuela and General Emilio Aguinaldo. To Andres Bonifacio, Valenzuela
claimed to be closed. But he contraticted other witnesses and himself in numerous
occasions. One finds him untrustworthy. The Cry was held on August 26, according to the
inscription on the monument-the year 1896. This date has beeen officially accepted as the
date of the event. Let us take a look from what other witnesses said:

A. Guillermo Masangkay – He wrote in the Sunday Tribune Magazine on Uagust 21,

1932, that on August 26, 1896, the Cry took place in Balintawak. During the
historic event, he said he was present.

B. Santiago Alvares – He wrote in his “ Ang Katipunan at Paghihimagsik” because of

his historic event. He presented the events from 23 august to 25 August 1896. “The
Katipuneros were immediately ready to encounter the foe, and at a point between
Kangkong Balintawak and Bahay Toro a short meeting was held.” He said on
“Tuesday, August 25, 1896, at 2:00 p.m., a Katipunero watch from a Sampaloc
tree.”

C. Oligarian Diaz reprot date October 28, 1896 – Diaz was the Guardia Civil
Veterana officer. His account was prepared based on official reports of the actions
of the Guardia Civil and on the information given by persons captured by the
Spaniards after the discovery of the Katipunan or surrendered, taking advantage of
the amnesty offer extended by Governor Blanco to the Filipino rebels. The report
says, ‘On the 23rd, Bonifacio moved to the barrio Balintawak followed by 200 men
from Caloocan, on the 24th the Guardia Civil attacked them in the outskirts of the
said town...“The Supreme Council called for an important meeting to be held in
 the neighborhood as mentioned above the following day. More than 500 members
attended it. The meeting started with discussion about what course to take...to put
it to a vote. An overwhelming majority approved Bonifacio’s proposal...” orders
for the Katipuneros to strike at dawn on Sunday, August 30 were sent to Manila,
Cavite, Nueva Ecija, and other provinces.’

How varied and numerous are the points of disagreement, both primary and secondary
sources, will be seen from the statements presented above. The events’ scene was no less
than four different places-Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and Bahay Tor. Also
mentioned are five different dates-20 August, 23 August, 24 August, 25 August, and 26
August.

In around table conference held on February 9, 1996, some mebers of the panel
stressed that ‘there is only one past but many histories.” Then Chairman Ambeth Ocampo
noted that in this controversy, discussions often lead to more confusion than
enlightenment. Dr. Guerrero, who acted as the moderator, suggested that all the individual
events from August 23 to August 26, 1896, for lack of consensus and resolution by the
National Historical Institute, be considered as integral aspects of a historical event that
signified the beginning of the 1896 revolution.

Different Dates and Places

Different accounts give Cry different dates and places. An officer of the Spanish Civil
Guard, Lt. Olegario Diaz, stated that on August 25, 1896, the Cry was held in Balintawak.
In his 1925 book The Filipino Revolution, historian Teodoro Kalw wrote that the event
took place in Kangkong Balintawak, during the last of August 1896. The Cry took place in
Bahay, Toro in the City, on 24th August 1896, Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and a son
of Cavite leader Magdiwang. Pio Valenzuela closely, associated with Andres Bonifacio,
declared this in Pugad Lawin in 1948 on 23 August 1896, the “Cry” took place in
Balintawak. Teodoro Agoncillo, a fellow historian, had written in 1956 that it took place
in Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896, based on Pio Valenzuela’s statement. The event was
held at Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City’s Tandang Sora grenade, according to
historians Milagro Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion and Ramon Villegas.

Some of the apparent confusion is due in part to the twin meanings at the turn of the
century of the terms “Balintawak” and “Kalookan.” Balintawak referred to specific
location in modern Caloocan and a wider area comprising parts of modern Quezon City.
Likewise, Kaloocan referred to modern Caloocan as well as wider area that included
modern Quezon City as well as part of modern Pasig. Pugad Lawin, Pasong Tamo,
Kangkong and other particular places were all in “Greater Balintawak,” which in turn was
part of “Greater Caloocan.” Ambeth Ocampo remarked that in Callocan, which at the time
was district of Balintawak, are all the vebues mentioned for the cry.

First Skirmish
 The cry had been generally identified with Balintawak until the late 1920s. On 26
August, the first encounter with the Guardian of thcivilian Guard was commemorated as
the anniversary of Katipuneros. In Banlat, Pasong Tamo was considered part of
Balintawak and now part of Quezon City. The first shot of the Revolution (el primer tiro)
was fired.

Tearing of Cedulas

Not all accounts related in the last days of August to the tearing of cedulas. Older
accounts identify the place the place where Kangkong happened in Balintwak/Kalookan.
The most frequent date is the cedule-tearing date of the first meeting on 26 August. On the
24th and 26th, Guillermo Masangkay, one Katipunero claimed that more than once
cedulas had been torn.

Teodoro Agoncillo described ‘the cry’ for his 1956 book “The Revolt of the Masses”
as tearing of cedulas and distancing himself from the case that defined it as the first
scarcity of the revolution. His version was based on Pio Valenzuela’s later testimonies and
other in Pugad Lawin instead of Balintawak claiming the cry took place. The version of
Valenzuela, through the influence of Agoncillo, became the basis of the Philippine
government’s current position. In 1963, on August 23, President Diosdado Macapagal
oredered the official commemorations to be transferred to Pugad Lawin, Quezon City.

Insurgent Government Formation

An alternative definition of the Cry as the “birth of the nation of the Philippines” is the
establishment of a national insurgent government through the Katipunan with Bonifacio as
president in Banlat, Pasong Tamo on August 24, 1896-after the tearing of cedulas. This
was called the Catagalugan Republic (Tagalog Republic) before the first skirmish.

Other Cries

In 1895, in the caves of Mt. Pamitinan in Montalban (now a part of the Rizal province)
Bonifacio, Masangkay, Emilio Jacinto and other Katipuneros spent Good Friday. They
wrote on the walls of the cave “long live Philippine independence,” and some Philippine
historians considered it “the first cry.”

On another point, Pio Valenzuela backtracked. In 1896, Valenzuela testified that Rizal
was vehemently opposed to the revolution when the Katipunan consulted Jose Rizal as to
whether the time had come to revolt. Later, in Agoncillo’s mass revolt, Valenzuela
retracted and claimed that if specific prerequisites were met, Rizal was actually for the
uprising. According to Agoncillo, Valenzuela lied to save Rizal.

The term ‘Puga Lawin’ was never officially recognized as a place name on any
Philippine map begfore the Second World War. Second, only from 1928, or some 32 years
after the events, ‘Pugad Lawin’ appeared in historiography. And third, in the area of
Balintawak, which was distict from Kalookan and Diliman, the revolution was always
traditionally held to have taken place. Although the name Pugad Lawin is “more
romantic”, it is more accurate to adhere to the original ‘Cry of Balintawak.’ Through it is
debatable, the NHI stand is that was held on 23 August 1896.
Pio Valenzuela and Guillermo Masangkay’s later accounts on the tearing of cedulas on
August 23 are mostly in agreement, but at the location, they conflict with each other.
Valenzuela points to Juan Ramos’ house in Pugad Lawin, whereas Masangkay refers to
the Kangkong house of Apolonio Samson. The final statement by Masangkay has more
weight as it is corrobarated by many eyewitnesses who were photographed when the
earliest 23rd August' mark’r was installed in 1917. The date of Valenzuela (23 August) in
his memoirs conflicts with the survey photographs of 1928 and 1930 with several
Katipunan officers, published in La Opinion, daiming that the ‘Cry’ took place on the
24th.

For nearly a century, the Cry of Balintawak – a significant turning point in Philippine
history – has been the subject of controversy. Bueheler (1999) helps to resolve this
controversy by analyzing previously unqouted, misqouted, or misrepresented eyewitness
accounts and contemporary documents. In her reconstruction of what happen in
Balintawak – when the katinpuneros, led by Andres Bonifacio, assembled in August 1896
in Pool Kankong – she shows that Pugad Lawins’ Cry was a hoax.

After the meeting at the residence of Apolonio Samson in Hong Kong, was ther a
meeting at Pugad Lawin on August23, 1896? Where in Kangkong or Pugad Lawin were
the cedulas torn?

There were several versions of ‘Cry’ by Pio Valenzuela. It will only be possible to
determine what heppened after they are compared and reconciled with the other accounts.
In September 1896, Valenzuela stated only that Katipunan meetings took place in
Balintawak from Sunday to Tuesday or 23 to 25 August before the Olive Court, which
was charged with investigating persons involved in the rebellion.

John N. Schumacher, S.J. of the University of Ateneo de Manila commented on the

credibility of Pio Valenzuela:

“......I would certainly give much less credebce to all accounts coming from Pio
Valenzuela, and into 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 old
man he was interviewed by Agoncillo.”

Source:Schumacher, John N. (1997). The Propaganda Movement

1880-1895. Quezon City: Ataneo de Manila University Press.