Page 1 of 6

INITAO COLLEGE Course Code: GE 2

Jampason, Initao, Misamis Oriental Course Title: READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
2nd Semester, S.Y. 2021 - 2022 Unit: 3
Instructor: ELMA T. VEDRA Mobile Number:09383280477 Instructor: Sara Lin A. Robenta
Facebook Page: READINGS IN PHIL.HISTORY (2021-2022 2ND SEM) Email Add:[email protected]
Groups Handled: BSBA I G1-G9 Group Handled: BSBA I -G10
MODULE 7
Topic: Site of the first Mass Desired Learning Outcomes:
A) Develop the ability of criticizing different sources regarding the site of the first mass;
Duration: 3 hrs B) Interpret historical events using primary sources; and
C) Recognize the diversity in interpreting historical text.
GENERAL INSTRUCTION
In your outputs, do not forget to write your NAME/COURSE/YEAR/GROUP/ PLACE OF LEARNING HUB/CONTACT
NUMBER/NAME OF INSTRUCTOR. Staple your output and do not mix it with the outputs of the other subjects.
JOIN our FACEBOOK PAGE even if you belong to the modular class
Do not forget to take photo of your output before submitting in your respective learning hub just in case your
instructor will not receive it.
PHOTOCOPY ANSWERS are considered INVALID.
ERASURE is not allowed (make your outputs always clean).
You will be given extra points if the instructions mentioned above are being followed accordingly and deduction of
points will be given to those who fail to follow.
The popularity of knowing where the “firsts” happened in history has been an easy way to trivialize history, but this case study
will not focus on the significance (or lack thereof) of the site of the First Catholic Mass in the Philippines, but rather, use it as a
historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence and interpretation in reading historical events.
Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. In fact, this has been the case for three centuries,
culminating in the erection of a monument in 1872 near Agusan River, which commemorates the expedition’s arrival and
celebration of Mass on 8 April 1521. The Butuan claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources
from the event.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century, together with the increasing scholarship
on the history of the Philippines, a more nuanced reading of the available evidence was made, which brought to light more
considerations in going against the more accepted interpretation of the first Mass in the Philippines, made both by Spanish and
Filipino scholars.
It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that historians refer to in identifying the site of the first Mass. One
is the log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot of one of Magellan’s ship, Trinidad. He was one of the 18 survivors who returned with
Sebastian Elcano on the ship Victoria after they circumnavigated the world. The other, and the more complete, was the
account by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno al mondo (First Voyage Around the World). Pigafetta, like Albo, was a
member of the Magellan expedition and an eyewitness of the events, particularly, of the first mass.
REFERENCE
1.Alporha, Veronica C. and Candelaria John Lee P. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.

ASSESSMENT FOR MODULE 7

Historical Debate. Make a position paper (60 points)

1. Research about the site of the first Mass either in internet or books available in your home.
2. Choose 1 stand, Butuan or Limasawa?
3. Defend your stand by citing sources or evidences.
4. Write your output in 1 whole sheet of paper (minimum of 500 words)
5. Follow the sample format given below

Sample Format

I. Discuss here a brief introduction about the Site of the first Mass (3-5 sentences)
II. Present here your evidences why you choose Butuan or Limasawa (Take note additional points will be given to
those who will use proper citation) (5-7 sentences)
III. Provide here your own conclusion and recommendation on how to solve the issue. (3-5 sentences)
 Page 2 of 6

MODULE 8

Topic: Cavite Mutiny Desired Learning Outcomes:

and Retraction of A) Evaluate the importance of the Cavity Mutiny to the Philippine Revolution and to the Filipino
Rizal consciousness.
Duration: 3 hrs B) Identify the issues and the arguments presented in Rizal’s retraction using primary documents.
Case study 2: What Happened in the Cavity Mutiny?
The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavity Mutiny and the martyrdom of the three priests: Mariano
Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are very important
milestones in Philippine history and have caused ripples throughout time, directly influencing the decisive events of the
Philippine Revolution toward the end of the century. While the significance is unquestioned what made this year controversial
are the different sides to the story, a battle of perspectives supported by primary sources. In this case study, we zoom in to
the Cavity Mutiny, a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipino of the time.
Spanish Accounts of the Cavity Mutiny
The documentation of Spanish Historian Jose Montero y Vidal centered on how the event was an attempt in
overthrowing the Spanish Government in the Philippines. Although regarded as a historian, his account of the mutiny was
criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a scholar. Another account from the official report written by then Governor General
Rafael Izquierdo implicated the native clergy, who were then, active in the movement towards secularization of parishes.
These two account corroborated each other.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Montero’s Account of the Cavity Mutiny
Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, “Spanish Version of the Cavity mutiny of 1872 in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary sources of Philippine history
Volume 7 (Manila Book Store, 1990),269-273.

The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the cavity arsenal of exemption from the tribute was
according to some, the cause of the insurrection, there were however, other causes.
The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda carried on by an unbridle press
against monarchical principle, attentatory (sic) of the most sacred respects towards the dethroned majesty; the
democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the speeches and preaching’s of the apostles of this new ideas
in Spain; the outbursts of the American publicists and the criminal policy of the senseless Governor whom the
Revolutionary government sent to govern the Philippines, and who put into practice this ideas were the
determining circumstances which give rise, among certain Filipinos to idea of attaining their Independence. It
was towards this goal that they started to work with the powerful assistance of a certain section of the native
clergy who out of spite toward friar made common cause with the enemies of the mother country.
At various times but especially in the beginning of your 1872, the Authorities received anonymous
communications with the information that great uprising would break out against the Spaniards, the minute of the
fleet at Cavity left for the South and that all would be assassinated, including the friars. But nobody gave
importance of this notices. the conspiracy had been going on since the days of La Torre with utmost secrecy. At
times the principal leaders met either in the house of Filipino Spaniard, D. Juaquin Pardo de Tavera, or in that
the native priest Jacinto Zamora and these meeting were usually attended by the curate of Bacoor, the soul of
the movement whose energetic character and immense wealth enabled him to exercise a strong influence.
Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report Of Governor Izquirdo on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Source: Refael Isquirdo official report on the Cavity Mutiny in Gregorio Zaide, and Sonia Zaide Documentary source of Philippine history vol. 7 (Manila
bookstore 1990) 281-286.

It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native clergy by the mestizos and native
lawyers and by those known her as abogadillos.
The instigators to carry out their criminal project protested against the injustice of the government in not paying
the provinces for their tobacco crop and against the usury that some practice in documents that the finance
department gives crop owners who have to sell them at a loss. They encourage the rebellion by protesting what
they called the injustice of having obliged the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute starting January 1 and to
render personal service from which they were formerly exempted.
Up to now it has not been clearly determine if they planned to establish a monarchy or a republic because the
indios have no words in their language to describe this different form of government whose head in Filipino would
be called Hari but it turns out that they would place at the head of the government a priest that the head selected
 Page 3 of 6

would be
D. Jose Burgos or Jacinto Zamora..
Such is the plan of the rebels those who guided them and the means they counted upon for its realization.
It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the revolution: the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the
workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from payment of tribute and being employed polos y servicios, or force
labor. They also identified other reasons which seemingly made the issue a lot more serious which included the presence of
the native clergy who out of spite against the Spaniard friars conspired and supported the rebels. Izquirdo, in an obviously
bias report highlighted that attempt to overthrow the Spanish Government in the Philippines to install a new hari in the person
of Burgos and Zamora. According to him native attracted supporters by giving them charismatic assurance their fight would
not fail because they had God’s support, aside from promises of lofty rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the
army.
In the Spaniard account the event of 1872 was premeditated and was part of a big conspiracy among the educated
elders, miztizos, lawyers, and residents of Manila and Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate high ranking Spanish officers
then kill the friars. The identified among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired from Intramuros.
The accounts details that on 20 January 1872, the district Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the virgin of Loreto and
came with it were some fireworks display. The Cavitenios allegedly mistook this as the signal to commence with the attack.
The 200 men contingent led by sergeant Lamadrid attacked Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal. Izquierdo upon
learning of the attacked, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The revolution was
easily crushed when the Manilenios who were expected to aid the Cavitenios did not arrive. Leaders of the plot were killed in
the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora were tried by a court-martial and sentence to be executed.
Others who were implicated such as Juaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other Filipino
lawyers were suspended from the practice of law, arrested, and sentenced to life imprisonment at the Marianas Island.
Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force composed exclusively by
Peninsulares.
On 17 February 1872, the COMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos never to fight the Spanish again.
Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872
Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdo and Montero. First the account of Dr.
Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, who wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident
in Cavite.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera’s Account of the Cavite mutiny
Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny in Gregorio Zaide, documentary sources of Philippine history, Volume 7 (Manila
Book store, 1990), 274- 280.

This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by the Spanish residents and by the
friars.. the Central Government in Mandrid had announced its intention to deprive the friars in these islands of
powers of intervention in matters of civil government and of the direction and management of the university.. it
was due to these facts and promises that Filipinos had great hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their
country, while the friars, on the other hand feared that their power in the colony would soon be complete a thing of
the past.
.. Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain and the only aspiration of the people was to
secure the material and education advancement of the country…
According to this account, incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and labors of the Cavite arsenal to the
dissatisfaction arising from the draconian policies of Izquierdo, such as the abolition of privileges and the prohibition of the
founding of the school of arts and trades for Filipinos, which the General saw as a smokescreen to creating a political club.
Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a way to address other issues by
blowing out of proportion the isolated mutiny attempt. During this time the central government in madrid was planning to
deprive the friars of all the powers of educational institutions. The friars needed something to justify their continuing
dominance in the country, and the mutiny provided such opportunity.
However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational decree fusing sectarian schools run by the friars
into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree aimed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by
requiring teaching positions in these schools to be filled by competitive examinations an improvement welcome by the most
Filipinos.
Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut, complemented Tavera’s account and analyzed the
 Page 4 of 6

motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny
Source: Edmund Plauchut, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872and the martyrdom of Gom-Bur- Za in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide Documentary Sources of
Philippine history volume7 (Manila National Book store 1990),251-268.

General La Torre.. Created a junta compose of high officials including some friars and six Spanish officials… At
the same time there was created by the government in Madrid a committee to investigate.. the two finished work it
was found that they came to came to the same conclusions. Here is the summary of the reforms they considered
necessary to introduce:
1. Changes in tariff rates at customs and the methods of collection.
2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
3. Reduction of export fees.
4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines buy real state, enjoy freedom of worship, and operate
commercial transports flying the Spanish flag
5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the minister of Overseas Affair in Madrid on the necessary
reform to be implemented.
6. Changes in primary and secondary education.
7. Establishment of an institute of civil administration in the Philippines, rendering unnecessary the sending
home of short term civil official every time there is a changes of ministry.
8. Study of direct tax system.
9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly.
..The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo… put a sudden end at all dreams of reforms … the prosecutions
instituted by the new Governor General were peobably expected as a result of the better disputes between the
Filipino clerics and the friars. Such a policy must really end in a strong desire on the part of the other to repress
cruelly.
In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should be in Manila a society of arts and trade to be
opened in March of 1871… to repress the growth of liberal teachings, General Izquierdo suspended the opening
of the school … the day previous to the scheduled inauguration…
The Filipino had a duty to render service on public road construction and pay taxes every year. But those who
were employed at the maestranza of the artillery in the engineering shops and arsenal of Cavite, were exempted
from this obligation from the time immemorial.. without preliminaries of any kind, a decree by the governor
withdrew from such old employees their retirement privileges and declassified them into the ranks of those who
work on public roads.
The friars used the incidents as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement their dominance, which had started to show
cracks because of the discontentment of the Filipinos. They showcased the mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the
Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish Government. Unintentionally, and more so, prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny
of 1872 resulted in the martyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way to the revolution culminating in 1898.

The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora,
who were tagged as the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They were prominent Filipino priests charged with treason and sedition.
It has believed that the Spanish clergy connected the priests to the mutiny as a part of a conspiracy to stifle the movement of
secular priests who desired to have their own parishes instead of being merely assistants to the regular friars. The GOMBURZA
were executed by garrotte in public, a scene purportedly witnessed by a young Jose Rizal.

Their martyrdom is widely accepted as the dawn of Philippine nationalism in the nineteenth century, with Rizal dedicating his
second novel, El Filibusterismo, to their memory.
The Government, by enshrouding your trial in mystery and pardoning your co-accused, has suggested that some mistake was
committed when your fate was decided; and the whole of the Philippines, in paying homage to your memory and calling you
martyrs, totally reject your guilt the church, by refusing to degrade you has put in doubt the crime charged against you.

Case Study 3: Did Rizal Retract?

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that center on ending colonialism and liberating Filipino
minds to contribute to creating the Filipino nation. The great volume of Rizal’s lifework was committed to this end, particularly
the more influential ones, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the Catholic religion, but the friars, the
main agents of injustice in the Philippine society.
It is Understandable, therefore, that any piece of writing from Rizal that recants everything he wrote against the friars
and the Catholic church in the Philippines could deal heavy damage to his image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary. Such
 Page 5 of 6

document purportedly exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a few hours before his execution. This document, referred to as the
Retraction declares Rizal’s belief in the catholic faith and retracts everything he wrote against the church.
Primary source: Rizal’s Retraction
Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia C.M on 18 May 1935

I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and Die. I retract with
all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of
the Catholic church. I believed and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands. I
abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the church, and as a society prohibited by the church. The Diocesan
Prelate may as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to
repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896
Jose Rizal

There are four interactions of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La Vaz Espaniola and Diario de
Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, in the magazine La
Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14 February 1897, from an anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be Fr.
Vicente Balaguer. However the original text was only found in the archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935 after almost four
decades of disappearance.
The Balaguer Testimony
Doubts on the retraction document abound especially because only one eyewitness account of the writing of the
document exist-that of the Jesuit friars Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony, Rizal woke up several times, confess
four times, attended a Mass, received communion, and prayed the rosary, all of which seemed out of character. But since it is
the only testimony of allegedly a primary account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction document, it has been used to argue the
authenticity of the document.
The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia
Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016 through the research of Professor Rene R. Escalante. In his research
documents of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia included a report on the last hours of Rizal, written by Federico Moreno. The report
details the statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to Moreno.
Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal
Source: Michael Charleston Chua, Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong dokumento at Palawan GMA News Online, Publish 29 December 2016.

Most illustrious Sir the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort Santiago to report on the events during the
(illegible) day in person of the accused Jose Rizal, inform me on this date of the following:
At 7:50 yesterday morning Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel, Sr. Taviel de Andrade and the
Jesuit priest Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and moments after entering he was served a light breakfast. At
approximately 9, the Assistantof the plaza, Sr. Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at the
moment he only wanted a prayer book, which was brought to him shortly by Father March.
Sr. Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the Jesuit fathers, march and Vilaclara,
Regarding religious matters, it seems. It appears that these two presented him with a prepared retraction on his life
and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter 12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and a
little chicken. Afterwards he asked to leave to write and wrote for a long time by himself.
At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him what he had written. Immediately the
chief of the firing squad. Sr. del Fresno and the Assistant of the plaza, Sr. Maure, were informed. They entered death
row and together with Rizal signed the document that the accused had written.
At 5 in this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison. dressing in mourning, Only the former entered
the chapel, followed by the military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal cloth and aided by a
soldier of the artillery the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been his lover were performed at the point of
death (in articulo mortis). After embracing him she left, flooded with tears.
This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving it credence. However nowhere in the account
was Fr. Balaguer mention, which makes the friar are mere secondary source to the writing of the document.
The retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many scholars, however, agree that the document does not
tarrish the heroism of Rizal. His relevance remained solidified to Filipinos and pushed them to continue the revolution, which
 Page 6 of 6

eventually resulted independence in 1898.

Rizal’s Connection to the Katipunan is undeniable- in fact the precursor of the katipunan as an organization is the La Liga Filipina, an organization of
Rizal founded, with Andres Bonifacio as one of its members. But La Liga Filipina was short-lived as the Spanish exiled Rizal to Dapitan. Former members
decided to band together to stablish the katipunan a few days after Rizal’s exile on on 7 july 1892.

Rizal may not have been officially part of the katipunan but the katipuniros showed great appreciation of his work toward the same goals. Out of the 28
members of the leadership of the katipunan (known as the katas-taasang Sanggunian ng katipunan ) from 1892 to 1896, 13 were former members of La
Liga Filipina. Katipunoros even used Rizal’s name as a password.

In 1896, the katipuneros decide to inform Rizal of their plans to launch the revolution, and sent Pio Valenzuela to visit Rizal in Dapitan. Valenzuela’s
account of his meeting with Rizal have been greatly doubted by many scholars, but according to him Rizal objected to the plans, saying that doing so
would be tantamount to suicide since it would be difficult to fight the Spaniards who had the advantage of military resources. He added that the leaders of
the katipunan must do everything they could to prevent the spelling of Filipino blood. Valenzuela informed Rizal that the revolution could inevitably break
out if the katipunan were to be discovered by the Spaniard. Rizal advised Valenzuela that the katipunan should first secure the support of wealthy
Filipinos to strengthen their cause and suggested that Antonio Luna be recruited to direct the military movement of the revolution.

REFERENCE
1. Alporha Veeronica C. and Candelaria John Lee P. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Manila: Rex Book Store,
Inc.
ASSESSMENT FOR MODULE 8

Part 1. Identification. Write your answers in 1 whole sheet of paper. (2 points each)

1. The year when Cavity Mutiny and the martyrdom of the three priests happened.

2. The Cavite Mutiny influenced the ________ Revolution.

3. According to the Excerpts from the Official Report Of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 the insurrection was
motivated and prepared by the native clergy by the mestizos and native lawyers and by those known her as __________.
4. According to Pardo de Tavera’s Account of the Cavite mutiny the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and
labourers of the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian policies of ______, such as the abolition of
privileges and the prohibition of the founding of the school of arts and trades for Filipinos.
5. It is the collective name of the three martyred priests who were tagged as the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny.

6. It is the only testimony of allegedly a primary account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction document.

7. It was the precursor of the Katipunan as an organization.

8. He was the man whom Rizal advised that the Katipunan should first secure the support of wealthy Filipinos to strengthen
their cause and suggested that Antonio Luna be recruited to direct the military movement of the revolution.
9. This sentiment was developed when the GOMBURZA was executed.

10. In this novel, Rizal’s dedication was for the martyrdom of the three priests.

Part 2.Explain this in 1 sentence; Without Cavite Mutiny, there will be no Rizal.