DAVAO ORIENTAL STATE

UNIVERSITY
BANAYBANAY EXTENSION CAMPUS

INSTRUCTIONAL
MATERIAL
In
 Readings in Philippine
History
Prepared by:

JENNY LOU A. MILAGROSA

Education Department
[email protected]
0948-0263-696/09562113444

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Module 3: Philippine History- Spaces for Conflict and Controversies

Module Overview1

Lesson 1: Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation 2

Lesson 2: : Case Study 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the
Philippines?5

Lesson 3: Case Study 2: What Happen in the Cavite Mutiny?7

Lesson 4: Did Rizal Retract?11

Lesson 5: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen? 14

Module Summary15

References16
MODULE OVERVIEW

In this module, Philippine History: Spaces for

Conflict and Controversies attempts to dissect
the issues surrounding interpretation –how
single record of the past can be interpreted in
multiple ways and the challenges it poses to
the students of history.

At the end of this module, the students are expected:

⮚ To interpret historical events using primary sources.

⮚ To recognizes the multiplicity of interpretation than can be read from a
historical text.
⮚ To identify the advantages and disadvantages of employing critical tools
in interpreting historical events through primary resources.
⮚ To demonstrate ability to argue for or against a particular issue using
primary sources.

As the consumer of this module, you may take note also that this module is
divided into five (5) lessons in order to make each lesson comprehensible on your end.

Lesson 1: Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation

Lesson 2: Case Study 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in
the Philippines?
Lesson 3: Case Study 2: What Happen in the Cavite Mutiny?
Lesson 4: Did Rizal Retract?
 Lesson 5: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?

To make this learning experience meaningful for you, study all the lessons
included in this module with your co-learners at your own pace. You can freely ask for
help and support from your peers and tutor.

Are you ready? Then, start the lessons now! Be bless!

Lesson 1

MAKING SENSE OF THE PAST: HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

Introduction

Good day! Not all past should be forgotten except you exes, joke! Every past,
there’s a lesson or opportunity that you have to take with you. This lesson is all about
making sense of the past: Historical Interpretation and shall be ended for only two (2)
days.

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this lessons, you are expected to:

⮚ To interpret historical events using primary sources.

⮚ To recognizes the multiplicity of interpretation than can be read from a
historical text.

● ABSTRACTION

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

History us the study of the past, but a more contemporary but more
contemporary decision is centered on how it impacts the present through its
consequences. Geoffrey Barraclough defines history as the attempt to discover, on the
basis of fragment evidence, the significant things about the past.” He also notes “the
history we read, through based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a
series of accepted judgment.” Such judgments of historians on how the past should be
seen make the foundation of historical interpretation.

The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic history Maragtas.
Before it was revealed as hoax, it was a source of pride for the people of Aklan. In fact,
a historical marker was installed in the town of Batan, Aklan in 1956, with following
text:

“CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bandehara Kalantiaw, third Chief Panay, born

in Aklan, established his government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup.
Considered the First Filipino Lawgiver, he promulgated in about 1433 a penal code
now known as Code of Kalantiaw, Spain, obtained the original manuscript from an
old chief of Panay which was later translated into Spanin by Rafael Murviedo
Yzamaney.”

It was only in 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when William Henry Sott, then a
doctoral candidate at the University of Santo Tomas, defended his research on
pre-Hispanic sources in Philippine history. He attributed the code to a historical fiction
written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de la Isla Negros. Marco
attributed the code itself to a priest named Jose Marian Pavon. Prominent Filipino
historians did not dissent to Scott’s findings, but there are still some who would like to
believe that the code us a legitimate document.

Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history and then draw
their own reading so that their intended audience may understand the historical event, a
process that in essence, “makes sense of the past.” The premise is that not all primary
sources are accessible to a general audience, and without the proper training and
background, a non-historian interpreting a primary source may do more harm than
good- a primary source may even cause misunderstanding; sometimes, even resulting in
more problems.

Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the primary
source, when it was read, and how it was read. As students of history, we must be well
acquired to recognize different types of interpretations, why these may differ from each
other, and how to critically sift these interpretations through historical evaluation.
Interpretations of historical events change over time; thus, it is an important skill for a
student of history to track these changes in an attempt to understand the past.

“Sa Aking Mga Kabata” is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal when he
was eight years old and is probably one of Rizal’s most prominent works. These is no
evidence to support the claim that this poem, with the now immortalized lines “Ang
hindi magmahal sa kanyang salita/mahigit sa hayop at malansang isda” was written by
Rizal, and worse, the evidence against Rizal’s authorship of the poem seems all
unassailable.

There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was
first published in 1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he received the
poem from Gabriel Beato Francisco, who claimed to have received it in 1884 from
Rizal’s close friend, Saturnino Raselis. Rizal never mentioned writing this poem
anywhere in his writings, and more importantly, he never mentioned of having a close
friend by the person of Raselis.

Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful attribution of the
poem to Rizal. The poem was written in Tagalog and referred to the word “kalayaan”
But it was documented in Rizal’s letters that he first encountered the word through a
Marcelo H. del Pilar’s translation of Rizal’s essay “El Amor Patrio.” Where it was
spelled as “kalayaan.”

While Rizal’s native tongue was Tagalog, he was educated in Spanish, starting
from his mother, Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would express disappointment in his
difficulty in expressing himself in his native tongue. The Poem’s spelling is also
suspect- the use of letters “k” and “w” to replace “c” and “u”, respectively was
suggested by Rizal as an adult. If the poem was indeed written during his time, it should
use the original Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time.

Many of the things we accept as “true” about the past might not be the case
anymore; just because these were thought to us as “facts” when we were younger does
not mean that it is set in stone- history is, after all, a construct. And as a construct, it is
set in stone- history is, after all, a construct. And as a construct, it is open for
interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing accounts of the past that need
one’s attention, and can impact the way we view our country’s history and identity. It is
important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary source, but also the
historical interpretation of the same, to ensure that the current interpretation is reliable
to support our acceptance of events of the past.

Multi-perspectivity. With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another

important concept that we must note is multiperspectivity. This can be defined as a way
of looking at historical events, personalities, developments, cultures, and societies from
different perspectives. This means that there is a multitude of ways by which we can
view the world, and each could be equally valid, and at the same time, equally partial as
well. Historical writing is, by definition biased, partial, and contains preconceptions.
The historian decides on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more
apparent, depending on what his end is. Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending
those that suggest that a certain event happened, and then ignore the rest that goes
against the evidence. Historians may omit significant facts about their subject, which
make the interpretation unbalanced. Historians may impose a certain ideology to their
subject, which may not be appropriate to the period that subject was from. Historian
may fail in his historical inference, description, and interpretation. With
multiperspectivity as an approach in history. We must understand that historical
interpretations contains discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities and more often the
focus of dissent.
Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires incorporating source
materials that reflect different views of an even in history, because singular historical
narratives do not provide for space to inquire and investigate. Different sources that
counter each other may create space for more investigation and research, while
providing more evidence for those truths that these sources agree on. Different kinds of
sources also provide different historical truths-an official document may note different
aspects of the past than, say, a memoir of an ordinary person on the same event.
Different historical agents create different historical truths, and while this may be a
burdensome work for the historian, it also renders more validity to the historical
scholarship.
Taking these is close regard in the reading of historical interpretations, it
provides for the audience a more complex, but also a more complete and richer
understanding of the past.

(The entire content of this lesson was adopted from: Reading in Philippine History of
Candelaria, JL & Veronica, 2018)

● CLOSURE

Please do your own research which is relevant to your this lesson.

Lesson 2

CASE STUDY 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the Philippines?

Introduction

Good day! Please read it carefully. This lesson should take it seriously, and do
not ignore the link, which is very important. This lesson shall be ended for only two (2)
days.

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this lessons, you are expected to:

⮚ To identify the advantages and disadvantages of employing critical tools

in interpreting historical events through primary resources.
⮚ To demonstrate ability to argue for or against a particular issue using
primary sources.
⮚
● ABSTRACTION

CASE STUDY1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the Philippines?

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 Philippine, but rather, use it as
a historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence and interpretation in regarding
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 historical 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 Pigaffita. Primo viaggio intorno al
mondo (First Voyage around the World). Pigaffita, like Albo was a member of the
Magellan expedition and a eyewitness of the events, particularly, of the first Mass.

Please copy the link and watch the Primary resources: “Albo’s Log”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwptyZbkOWU

Please copy the link and watch also the primary resources: Pigafetta’s Testimony
on the Route of Magellan’s Expedition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baJX5uzn7YI

Please copy the link and watch the primary resource : Pigafetta and Seven Days
in Mazaua https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDPlQZ6jQ4A

Using the primary resource available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad in his work
Butuan or Limasawa: the Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of
Evidence (1981) lays down the argument that in the Pigafetta account, a crucial aspect
of the Butuan was not mentioned – the river. Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on
the Agusan River. The beach of Masao is in the delta of said river. It is a curious
omission in the account of the river, which makes part of a distinct characteristic of
Butuan’s geography that seemed to be too important to be missed.
 The Age of Exploration is a period of competition among European rulers to
conquer and colonize lands outside their original domains. Initially, the goal was to find
alternative routes by sea to get to Asia the main source of spices and other commodities.
Existing routes to Asia were mainly by land and cost very expensive. A sea rout to Asia
means that Europeans could access the spice trade directly reducing costs for traders.
Spain’s major foray into the exploration was through Christopher Columbus, who
proposed to sail westward to find a shortcut to Asia. He was able to reach the American,
which was then cut off the rest of the known world.
Spain colonized parts of North America, Mexico, and South America in the
sixteenth century. They were also able to reach the Philippines and claim it for the
crown. Later on, other European rulers would compete with the activities of exploring
and conquering lands.

(The entire content of this lesson was adopted from: Reading in Philippine History of
Candelaria, JL & Veronica, 2018)

● CLOSURE

Please do your own research which is relevant to your this lesson.

Lesson 3

CASE STUDY 3: What happen in the Cavity Mutiny?

Introduction

     Good day! Happy readings, this statement makes the audience or the reader
confused the real what really happened in the Cavity Mutiny. Please spend time to read
the whole content and watch the link provided. This lesson shall be ended for only two
(2) days.  

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this lessons, you are expected to:

⮚ To interpret historical events using primary sources.

 ⮚ To recognizes the multiplicity of interpretation than can be read from a
historical text.

● ABSTRACTION

CASE STUDY 2: What happen in the Cavity Mutiny?

The year 1872 is a historic of two events: the Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom
of the three priest: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, later on
immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are very important milestone 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 events of the Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the awakening of
nationalism among the Filipinos of that time.

Spanish Accounts of the Cavite 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
scholar. Another account from the official report written by then Governor General
Rafel Izquierdo implicated the native clergy, who were then, active in the movement
toward secularization of parishes. These two accounts corroborated each other.

Please copy the link and watch the Primary resources: Excerpts from Montero’s
Account of the Cavite Mutiny https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNShMDNI11g

Please copy and watch Primary resource: Excerps from the Official Report of
Governor Izquierdo on the Cavity Mutiny of 1972
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=excerpts+from+the+official+report+of
+governor+Izquierdo+on+the+Cavity+utiny

Differing Accounts of the Events Of 1872. Two other primary accounts exist
that seem to counter the accounts of Isquierdo 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 inceident 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 and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,
Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 274-280.
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level bby the
Spanish resident and by the friars… the Central Government in Madrid had
announced its intention to deprive the friars in these islands of powers and
intervention in matters of civil government and of the direction and management
 of the university…it was due to these facts and promises that the 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, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers
and laborers of the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconians
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 utiny
attempt. During this time, the Central Government in Madrid was planning to deprive
the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and direction
and management of educational institutions. The friars needed something to justify their
continuing dominance in the country, and the mutiny provided such opportunity.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Edmund Plauchut, “The Cavity Mutiny of 1872 and Martyrdom of
Gom-Bur-Za,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonis Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine
History, Volume 7 (manila: National Book Store, 1990), 251-268.
General La Torre. Created a junta composed 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 same problems submitted to the Manila
committee. When the two finish works, it was found that they came to the same
conclusions. Here is the summary of the reforms they considered necessary to
introduce:

1) Change in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection.

2) Removal of surcharges on foreign importation
3) Reduction of export fees.
4) Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy
freedom of worship, and operation commercial transports flying the Spanish
flag.
5) Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas
Affairs in Madrid on the necessary reforms to be implemented.
6) Changes in primary and secondary education.
7) Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines,
rendering the unnecessary the sending home of short term civil officials
every time there is a change 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 to all

dreams of reforms… the prosecutions instituted by the new Governor General
 were probably expected as a result of the bitter disputes between the Filipino
clerics and the friars. Such a policy must really end 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 Trades 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 Filipinos had duty to render service on public roads 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 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 worked on public
roads.

The friars used the incident as a part of a large conspiracy to cement their
dominance, which had started to show cracks because of the discontent of the Filipinos.
They showcased the mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the Philippines by
Filipino to overthrow the Spanish Government. Unintentionally, and more so,
prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 reulted 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 masterminds of the
Cavity Mutiny. They were prominent Filipino priests charged with treason and
sedition. It is believed that the Spanish clergy connected the priests to the mutiny as
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 garrote in public, a scene purportedly witness by 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 rejects your guilt. The
Church, by refusing to degrade you, has put in doubt the crime charged
against you.”

(The entire content of this lesson was adopted from: Reading in Philippine History of
Candelaria, JL & Veronica, 2018)

● CLOSURE
 Please do your own research which is relevant to your this lesson.

Lesson 4

CASE STUDY 3: Did Rizal retract?

Introduction
 Good day! We have here the retraction happened in the Rizal period, so we will
know why it happened and is Rizal retract or not? This lesson shall be ended for only
two (2) days. I hope you can get it.

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this lessons, you are expected to:

⮚ To interpret historical events using primary sources.

⮚ To recognizes the multiplicity of interpretation than can be read from a
historical text.

● ABSTRACTION

CASE STUDY 3: Did Rizal retract?

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that center in
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
ore influential ones, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the
Catholic religion, bu the friars, the main agents of injustice in the Philippines 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 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 confess whatever she teaches and 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 iteration of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in
La Voz Ezpanola and Diario de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896.
The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain in the Magazine of 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
exists-that of the Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony, Rizal
woke up several times, confessed 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 Pananaw,” GMA News Online, published December 2016.

Please copy the link and watch the video before you proceed to the application:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyD760wSw_M

This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving it

credence. However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balanguer mentioned, which makes
the friar a 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 tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His relevance
remained solidified to Filipinos and pushed them to continue the revolution, which
resulted in independence in 1898

Riza’s Connection to the Katipunan is undeniable-in fact, the precursor of the

Katipunan as an organization is the La Liga Filipina, an organization Rizal founded,
with Andress Bonifacio as on its members. But La Liga Filipina was short-lived as the
Spaniards exiled Rizal to Dapitan. Former members decided to band together to
establish the Katipunan a few day afte Rizal’s exile on 7 July 1892.
Rizal may not have been officially part of the Katipunan, but the Katipuneros
showed great appreciation of his work toward the same goals. Out of the 28 members of
the leadership of the Katipunan (known as the Kataas-taasang Sanggunian ng
Katipunan) from 1892 to 1896, 13 were former members of La Liga Filipina,
Kaipuneros even used Rizal’s name as a password.
 In 1896, the Katipuneros decided to inform Rizal of their plans to launch the
revolution, and sent Pio Valenzuela to visit Rizal in Dapitan. Valenzuela’s accounts 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 spilling of Filipino blood. Valenzuela informed Rizal that the revolution
could inevitably break out if the Katipunan were to be discovered by the Spaniards.
Rizal advised Valenzuela that the Katipunan should 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.

(The entire content of this lesson was adopted from: Reading in Philippine History of
Candelaria, JL & Veronica, 2018)

● CLOSURE

Please do your own research which is relevant to your this lesson.

 Lesson 5

CASE STUDY 4: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?

Introduction

Good day! We have here the retraction happened in the Rizal period, so we will
know why it happened and is Rizal retract or not? This lesson shall be ended for only
two (2) days. I hope you really got it.

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this lessons, you are expected to:

⮚ To interpret historical events using primary sources.

⮚ To recognizes the multiplicity of interpretation than can be read from a
historical text.

● ABSTRACTION

CASE STUDY 4: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?

Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late nineteenth century,
including the Philippines. Journalists of the time referred to the phrase “El Grito de
Revelion.” Or “Cry of Rebellion” or mark the start of these revolutionary events,
identifying the places where it happened. In the Philippines, this happened in August
1896, northeast of Manila, where they declared rebellion against the colonial
government. These events are important markers in the history of colonies that
struggled for their independence against their colonizers.

The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of the date
and place where the Cry happened. Prominent Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncillo
emphasizes the events when Bonifacio tore the cedula or tax receipt before the
Katipuneros who also did the same. Some writers identified the first military event with
the Spaniards as the moment of the Cry, for which, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned as
“Himno de Balintawak” to inspire the renewed struggle after the Pact of the Biak na
Bato failed. A monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the
intersection of Epifanio de los Santos (EDSA) Avenue and Andress Bonifacio
Drive-North celebrated road, and from then on until 1962, the Cry of Balintaeak was
celebrated every 26th of August. The site of the monument was chosen for unknown
reason.

Different Dates and Places of the Cry. Various accounts of the Cry give
different dates and places. A guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, identified the Cry to have
happened in Balintawk on 25 August 1896. Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino historian, marks
the place to be in Kangkong, Balintawak, on the last week of August 1896. Santiago
Alvarez, a katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, leader of the Magdiwang faction in
Cavite, pu the Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on 24 Agusut 1896. Pio Valenzuella,
known Katipunero and privy to many events concerning the Katipunan stated that the
Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide identified
the Cry to have happened in Balintwak on 26 August 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo
put it at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896, according to statements by Pio Valenzuela.
Research by historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon
Villagas claimed that the event took place in Tandang Sora’s barn in Gulod, Barangay
Banlat, Quezon City, on 24 August 1896.

PRIMARY SOURCE: Acounts of Th Cry. Source: Guillermo Mosangkay,

“Cry of Balintawak” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentaey Sources of
Philippines History, Volume 8 (Manila: National/Book Store, 1990), 307-309

Please copy the link and watch the video before you proceed to the application:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb8YXwLNrLE

Source: Piol Valenzuela, “Cry of Pugad Lawin,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia
Zaide, Documntary Sources of Philippines History, Volume 8 (Manila: National/Book
Store, 1990), 301-202

Please copy the link and watch the video before you proceed to the application:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrBISGRhy3A

From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed marked disagreement

among historical witness as to the place and time of the occurrence of the Cry. Using
primary and secondary source, four places have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong,
Pugad Lawin, and Bahay Toro, while the dates vary: 23, 24, 25 or 26 August 1896.
Valenzuela’s account should be read with caution: He once told a Spanish
investigador that the “Cry” happened in Balintawak on Wednesday, 26 August 1896.
Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the Revolution that it happened at Pugad Lawin
on 23 August 1896. Such inconsistencies in accounts should always be seen as a red
flag dealing with primary sources.

According to Guerrero, Encarnacio, and Villages, all these places are in

Balintawak, then part of Caloocan, now, in Quezon City. As for the dates, Bonifacio and
his troops may have been moving from one place to another to avoid being located by
the Spanish government, which could explain why there are several account of the Cry.

(The entire content of this lesson was adopted from: Reading in Philippine History of
Candelaria, JL & Veronica, 2018)

● CLOSURE

Please do your own research which is relevant to your this lesson.

==============================================================

MODULE SUMMARY

In the preceding of this module, we analyzed the four historiographical

problems in Philippine history in an attempt to what we have learned thus far in the
worked of historian and the process of historical inquiry. In the previous modules we
introduced history as a discipline, the historical method and the content and context
proceeding to historical analysis of problems in history are interpretation and
multi-perspectivity.

REFERENCES

Antonio, D., Dallo, E., Imperial, C., Samson, C., & Soriano, C., ( 2011) Worktext in
Philippine History Turning Point 1. Second Edition. Rex Printing Company, Inc.,
Quezon City

Black, J., &MacRaild, D. (2012) Studying History. Basingstoke. New Hampshire:

Macmillan

Candelaria, J.L & Alporha V. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. First Edition,.
Rex Printing Company, Inc., Quezon City

Carr, E. (1991). What Is History. London, United Kingdom: Penguin.

Chua, M. C. (2016)”Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at Pananaw.
InGMA News Online.

Corpuz, O., (2016), The Roots of Filipino, University of the Philippines Press.,

Halili, M.C., (2004), Philippine History, Rex Bookstore Inc.,

Lemon, M. (1995). The Discipline of History and the History of Thought. New York,
United States of America: Routledge.

Tosh, J (2002). The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study
of Modern History (Revised 3rd Ed.). London, United Kingdom: Pearson
Education Ltd.

McCoy, A. & Roces, A. (1895) Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the

American Era, 1990-1941. Quezon City: Vera-Reyes.

Pigafetta, A. (1974). The First Voyage Around the World by Magellan. Trans. Lord
Stanley of Alderley. London: Hakluyt Society