GEC002 NOTES

Readings in Philippine History by John Lee Candelaria

POINTERS:

primary and the secondary sources

the Magellan’s expedition

the Katipunan and the discovery of Katipunan

Proclamation of Independence

the Cavite Mutiny

the battle of alapan imus cavite

the Execution of GomBurZa

proclamation of independence

the first cry of the revolution

or the first cry of the Katipunan

the names of GomBurZa

the three accounts of the first cry

Distinction of Sources and Historical Data

Historical Sources

Sources – an object from the past or testimony concerning the past on which historians
depend in order to create their own depiction of that past.

Primary and secondary sources

✣ What are they?

✣ Advantages and disadvantages of using Primary or Secondary sources

✣ Categories
Primary sources

✣ Primary sources enable the researcher to get as close as possible to what actually
happened during an historical event or time period.

✣ Diaries and journals

⨳ Example: Anne Frank was a teenager during World War II. She kept a diary or
journal the years before she died in a concentration camp. Her diary was later
published as the “Diary of Anne Frank”. This is a primary source.

⨳ Example: Sarah Morgan was young woman during the Civil War. She wrote in her
diary or journal what happened to her and her family during the war. This is a
primary document because it was first hand. She wrote it at the time it happened.

⨳ Sarah Morgan Dawson: A Confederate Girl's Diary

✣ Autobiographies

⨳ An autobiography is when you write a story or book about yourself.

■ Example: Nelson Mandela wrote his autobiography about events in his life called
“Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiography of Nelson Mandela. This is a primary
document because he wrote his first hand experiences.

✣ Sound Recordings and interviews are considered primary resources.

⨳ Example 1: During the Great Depression and World War II, television had not
been invented yet. The people would often sit around the radio to listen to President
Roosevelt’s war messages. Those radio addresses are considered “primary sources.”
⨳ Example 2: During the 2008 election Barack Obama, had many interviews that
were televised. Those interviews are considered primary sources.

What is a secondary source?

A secondary source is something written about a primary source.

• Secondary sources are written "after the fact" - that is, at a later date.

• Usually the author of a secondary source will have studied the primary sources of an
historical period or event and will then interpret the "evidence" found in these sources.

• You can think of secondary sources as second-hand information.

Think about it like this….

• If I tell you something, I am the primary source. If you tell someone else what I told you,
you are the secondary source.

• Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers, magazines, books or articles

found that evaluate or criticize someone else's original research

Why Use Primary Sources?

Advantages

✣ Primary sources provide a window into the past—unfiltered access to the record of
artistic, social, scientific and political thought and achievement during the specific period
under study, produced by people who lived during that period

✣ these unique, often profoundly personal, documents and objects can give a very real
sense of what it was like to be alive during a long-past era.

Primary Source Disadvantages

✣ Primary sources are often incomplete and have little context. Students must use prior
knowledge and work with multiple primary sources to find patterns

✣ In analyzing primary sources, students move from concrete observations and facts to
questioning and making inferences about the materials.

Why Use Secondary Sources?

Advantages

✣ Secondary sources can provide analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the

original information.

✣ Secondary sources are best for uncovering background or historical information about a
topic and broadening your understanding of a topic by exposing you to others’
perspectives, interpretations, and conclusions

✣ Allows the reader to get expert views of events and often bring together multiple
primary sources relevant to the subject matter

Secondary Source Disadvantages

✣ Their reliability and validity are open to question, and often they do not provide exact
information
✣ They do not represent first hand knowledge of a subject or event

✣ There are countless books, journals, magazine articles and web pages that attempt to
interpret the past and finding good secondary sources can be an issue

Written Sources of History

• Narrative or Literary

• Diplomatic or Juridical

• Social Documents

Diplomatic Sources

✣ It is these kind of sources that professional historians once treated as purest, “best”
source. A legal document is usually sealed or authenticated to provide evidence that a legal
transaction has been completed and can be used as evidence in judicial proceedings in case
of dispute.

Social Documents

✣ These are information pertaining to economic, social, political or judicial significance.

They are records kept by bureaucracies. Examples such as government reports, municipal
accounts, property registers and records of census.

Historical criticism

What is Historical Criticism?

In order for a source to be used as evidence in history, basic matters about its form and
content must be settled

1. External Criticism

2. Internal Criticism

What is External Criticism?

  The problem of authenticity
 To spot fabricated, forged, faked documents
 To distinguish a hoax or misrepresentation

Tests of Authenticity

1. Determine the date of the document to see whether they are anachronistic (a
chronological misplacing of persons, events, or customs in regard to each other)

 e.g. pencils did not exist before the 16th Century

2. Determine the author

 e.g. handwriting, signature, seal

3. Anachronistic style

 e.g. idiom, ortography, punctuation

 Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History

4. Anachronistic reference to events

 e.g. too early, too late, too remote

5. Provenance or custody

 e.g. determines its genuineness

6. Semantics – determining the meaning of a text or word

7. Hermeneutics – (principles of interpretation of ambiguous words)

 Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History

What is Internal Criticism?

 The Problem of Credibility

 Relevant particulars in the document – is it credible?
 Verisimilar – as close as what really happened from a critical examination of best
available sources Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History

Tests of Credibility
1. Identification of the author e.g. to determine his reliability; mental processes, personal
attitudes

2. Determination of the approximate date e.g. handwriting, signature, seal

3. Ability to tell the truth e.g. nearness to the event, competence of witness, degree of
attention Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History

Tell us what you think

1. Write a question you want to ask you things you want to know as we go on with our
history subject.

2. Inside the bubble quotes, you write the reason why you want to know about it.

According to Renato Constantino, Filipino people have had misfortune of being “liberated”
four time during the entire history. First, came the Spaniards from the enslavement of the
Devil, came the Americans who liberated them from Spanish Occupation, then the Japanese
who liberated them

Theory – can be a conclusion by a scientist.

Archeologist – saw an artifacts

Anthropology - Anthropology is the study of humans, early hominids and primates, such as
chimpanzees. Anthropologists study human language, culture, societies, biological and
material remains, the biology and behavior of primates, and even our own buying habits

Apolinario Mabini

- ”utak ng himagsikan" or "brain of the revolution" and is also considered as a national hero
in the Philippines.

- Polio and eventual paralysis (Mabini was struck by polio in 1895, and the disease
gradually incapacitated him until January 1896, when he finally lost the use of both his
legs.) early in 1896, Apolinario Mabini contracted polio, which left his legs paralyzed.

- Ginawan ng kwento

Magellan
Jose E. Marco - is one of Philippine historiography's greatest mysteries. All we know is that
he was one of the most successful forgers, having created many fake documents in a career
that spanned half a century.

Ancestor of the Philippines (Datu puti etc…)

evidence

sources

bagong bayan (luneta) – binaril si rizal

Ferdinand Magellan was a Portuguese explorer

Magellan was born in the Portuguese town of Sabrosa on 4 February 1480. Lisbon Portugal

King Emmanuel of Portugal

Royal allowance

reject

Spain

King Charles of spain

Granted

five ships (Victoria, Conception, Trinidad, San Antonio, and Santiago)

270 men

Elcano and Antonio Pigafetta

Start of expedition August 20, 1519

Sanlucar de Barrameda

May 22, 1520 - Santiago was lost

San Antonio returned to Spain

Marianas island

Isla de ladrones

He called island of the thieves the people who steal

Moluccas or spice island March 17, 1521

Samar

Limasawa -Rajah Kolambo

March 31, 1521 - first mass, Masao Butuan

Cebu - Rajah Humabon and his wife

April 4, 1521 - first baptism

Rajah Humabon - Don Carlos

Wife - Juana

Death of Magellan

Rajah Zula's son told that Rajah Cilapulapu

60 men

April 27, 1521 - battle of Mactan

49 Spanish soldier

1,500

Magellan was hit on the right leg with poisoned arrow

KKK - Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan or Kataastaasan

Kagalang-galang na Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan

Kartilya ng Katipunan Book by Emilio Jacinto

Emilio Aguinaldo – first president of the Philippines

Adviser of Emilio Aguinaldo: Apolinario Mabini (Utak ng Katipunan)

Emilio Jacinto – age of 20 he dropped school and joined Katipunan

(SEARCH)
Emilio Jacinto Biography

This biography of Emilio Jacinto begins with his early life:

 Emilio Jacinto was born in 1875 on the 15th of December.

 He was the only son of a man named Mariano Jacinto and a woman named Josefa
Dizon.

 Shortly after he was born, his father passed away. This untimely death forced his
mother to send Emilio to live with his uncle, Don Jose’ Dizon. His mother believed
that his uncle could care for the young Emilio better then she could after the death
of Mariano.

College and Education

Very little is known about Emilio’s early childhood up until the point that he went to
college. However, it is known that by the time he went away to college, he could fluently
speak both Spanish and Tagalog, the language of the Philippine people. However, he
preferred to speak in Spanish a majority of the time.

Emilio attended the San Juan de Latran College when he first embarked on his college
career. However, he later attended the University of San Tomas in order to study law.
Emilio left college before completing his law degree.

Politics and Revolution

Perhaps the most interesting part of a biography of Emilio Jacinto are the details about his
political life and contributions:

 After dropping out of college at the age of 20, Emilio joined the Katipunan, a secret
revolutionary society. This was a group whose objective was to
gain Philippine independence from Spain in 1892.

 Jacinto became the secretary, directly reporting to the leader of the Katipunan. He
also became the chief advisor on fiscal matters concerning this secret society. In
addition to these duties, Emilio also wrote the society’s newspaper, the Kalayaan.

 Emilio was given a new name when he was part of this group. To the Katipunan, he
was often referred to as Utak ng Katipunan. However, he wrote under the
pseudonym Dimasailaw when writing for the newspaper and he was more
commonly referred to in the group as Pingkian. Jacinto was also placed in charge of
 writing the guidebook for new members and current members of the Katipunan,
which was called Kartilya ng Katipunan.

 When the leader of the Katipunan passed away, Emilio continued to carry out the
wishes of Bonifacio. The Katipunan at this time had many factions and not all of
them operated in the same way in their efforts to gain their independence from
Spain. As with his predecessor before him, Jacinto refused to join with these factions
who had different views. This included refusing to join the Magdalo faction of the
Katipunan under the leadership of Emilio Aguinaldo.

Emilio Jacinto died on April 16, 1899 at the age of 24. The cause of his death at such a
young age was malaria, which he had contracted while in Majayjay, Laguna. The remains of
his body were transferred from this location to Manila where he was laid to rest in Manila
North Cemetery.

(END)

Batis: he joined the Katipunan at the age of 18, - 1894

Batis: Jacinto died April 6, 1899 at the age of 23

Pingkian

Jacinto: Secretary, editor, fiscal, and General

at the age of 22, Bonifacio appointed Jacinto as General

Jacinto went into hiding in Manila

Teodoro Patiño

1896 - the discovery of the katipunan

bonifacio's 2nd wife - Gregoria de Jesus

cariñosa / curacha

Bonifacio : pen name - “May pag-asa” (One who has hope)

pseudonym of bonifacio was Agapito Bagumgbayan

jacinto's pen name: dimas-ilaw

symbolic name of jacinto - pingkian

August 1896 – Caloocan – nagpunta ang mga katipunero

Caloocan: Pugad Lawin, Balintawak, Pasong Tamo, Kangkong, and Bahay Toro

Bahay Toro now under Quezon City

Juan Ramos- the son of Melchora Aquino (Tandang Sora)

August 20, 22, 23, 24 ,26

Pio Valenzuela, Santiago Alvarez, Guillermo Masangkay – magkakaiba ang sinabi

5 BARANGAYS

Barangay Toro (

Barangay Pugad Lawin)

Barangay Balintawak

Barangay Kang Kong

Barangay Pasong Tamo

5 dates (August 22-26) Escalera

Cry of Pugad Lawin (August 23, 1896)

Cry of balintawak – General Guillermo Masangkay (August 26, 1896)

Cry of Bahay Toro – General Santiago Alvarez (August 23,1896)

September 9

Newspaper of the katipunan - Kalayaan

Honoria

august 1896

caloocan

the Spanish authority learned

Kangkong - Apolonio Samson

Pugad Lawin - Juan Ramos the son of Melchora Aquino

Balintawak - Bahay Toro - Melchora Aquino

Pasong Tamo

Cry of the Revolution

August 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

First statement of Pio Valenzuela’s account – august 26 (Cry of Balintawak)

Soledad Buehler

Proclamation of Independence day

June 12, 1898 – ancestral house

proclamation of Philippine independence was, promulgated on 1 August

April 16, 1899 - Marcella Agoncillo died

Binenta 20 million dollars

Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista - wrote and read the declaration in Spanish. Waved the
Philippine Flag
2nd unfurling of flag on June 12, 1898

Battle of Alapan, Imus Cavite - Aguinaldo won the battle of spain

it was the first unfurling of our Philippine flag

Philippine flag was made in Hongkong by Marcella Agoncillo, Lorenza Agoncillo and Delfina
Herbosa (pamagkin ni jose rizal)

may 19 – may 20

May 24
May 28 – real battle alapan

333 years colonization

Collaboration of American and Filipino soldiers against Spain

Lupang Hinirang (National Anthem) – composed by Julián Felipe (June 5, 1898) and played
by San Francisco de Malabon

ratification – confirmation, the action of signing or giving formal consent to a treaty,

contract, or agreement, making it officially valid.

Quorum - is the minimum number of people needed to hold meetings or make decisions
during certain company meetings

24 – 13

1872 – pag aklas o pagalsa, increases tax,

Arsenal cavite pagawaan ng armas ng espanyol;

Cavite Mutiny 1872 & Philippine Revolution 1896

Cavite mutiny – Gomburza was executed,

Maliit pa si Rizal, nagstart na namulat ang kanyang isip sa pagpapahirap ng espanyol.

- Hindi magkakaroon ng Philippine Revolution kung hindi sinulat ni Rizal at hindi

namulat si Rizal noong binatay ang Gomburza (Cavite Mutiny).

GOMBURZA

Gomburza, alternatively stylized as GOMBURZA or GomBurZa, refers to three Filipino

Catholic priests, Mariano Gomez (72), José Burgos (35), and Jacinto Zamora (36), who
were executed by garrote in 17 February 1872 in Bagumbayan, Philippines (Luneta, new
name: Rizal Park) by Spanish colonial authorities due to false accusations charged against
them on charges of subversion arising from the 1872 Cavite mutiny.

Josephine Bracken died of tuberculosis on March 15, 1902, in Hong Kong and was interred
at the Happy Valley Cemetery.

The time will rise of activism, nationalism

On August 30, 1896, prompted by the spread of rebellion led by Andres Bonifacio, Spanish
Governor-General Ramon Blanco declared a "state of war" in the provinces of Manila, Bulacan,
Cavite, Pampanga, Tarlac, Laguna, Batangas, and Nueva Ecija and place them under martial law. The
declaration also provided a 48-hour amnesty to rebels except for their leaders.

The hostilities that started the Philippine Revolution of 1896 begun on August 29, 1896,
when hundreds of rebels attacked the Civil Guard garrison in Pasig, just as hundreds of
others, personally led Bonifacio, were massing in San Juan del Monte, which they attacked
hours later on the next day.

Sources:

The Cry of Revolution August 1896

Pio Valenzuela’s account – August 23, Cry of Pugad Lawin

Guillermo Masangkay’s account – August 26, Cry of Balintawak

Santiago Alvarez – August 24, Cry of Bahay Toro

Owing to Teodoro Patiño’s disclosure of the Katipunan’s existence to the Spanish

authorities, we may never know if the Revolution would have turned out in favor of the
Filipinos since during that time, the revolutionaries were still busy gathering more men
and arms for the uprising.

Even more deplorable, the reason for Patiño’s revelation to the authorities was too petty: a
pay dispute.

There are different versions of the story, with one saying that he and a katipunero named
Apolonio de la Cruz fought over a two-peso wage increase in their printing shop. A physical
altercation between the two forced the shop to close down, and a subsequent search by
Spanish authorities yielded documents and materials belonging to the Katipunan.

What are the primary sources in history?

Primary sources are original materials, regardless of format. Letters, diaries, minutes,
photographs, artifacts, interviews, and sound or video recordings are examples of primary
sources created as a time or event is occurring.

What are the example of primary and secondary sources?

These are original documents. For example, diaries, artwork, poems, letters, journals,
treaties, and speeches are all primary sources. Secondary sources interpret primary
sources. 

For example, they can be articles, television documentaries, conferences, biographies,

essays, and critiques of a piece of art.

What are secondary sources history?

Secondary sources are works that analyze, assess or interpret an historical event, era, or
phenomenon, generally utilizing primary sources to do so. Secondary sources often offer a
review or a critique. Secondary sources can include books, journal articles, speeches,
reviews, research reports, and more.

What is the main difference between primary and secondary sources?

Primary sources can be described as those sources that are closest to the origin of the
information. They contain raw information and thus, must be interpreted by researchers.
Secondary sources are closely related to primary sources and often interpret them.

What is the similarities between primary and secondary sources in history?

Here are some of the similarities between primary and secondary sources: They are both
sources of information. They are both generally written by experts who know what they're
talking about, so you can trust the information you find in them. Both are works of art,
written works, or other creative works.

The Magellan expedition, often called Magellan–Elcano expedition, was a Spanish

expedition initially led by Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan to the Moluccas, which
departed from Spain in 1519, and culminated with the first circumnavigation of the world
in 1522 by the Spaniard Juan Sebastián Elcano.

The expedition accomplished its primary goal — to find a western route to the Moluccas
(Spice Islands). The fleet left Spain on 20 August 1519, sailed across the Atlantic and down
the eastern coast of South America, eventually discovering the Strait of Magellan, allowing
them to pass through to the Pacific Ocean (which Magellan named). The fleet completed the
first Pacific crossing, stopping in the Philippines, and eventually reached the Moluccas after
two years. A much-depleted crew led by Juan Sebastián Elcano finally returned to Spain on
6 September 1522, having sailed west, around the Cape of Good Hope, through waters
controlled by the Portuguese.
The fleet initially consisted of about 270 men and five ships. The expedition faced
numerous hardships including Portuguese sabotage attempts, mutinies, starvation, scurvy,
storms, and hostile encounters with indigenous people. Only 30 men and one ship (the
Victoria) completed the return trip to Spain. Magellan himself died in battle in the
Philippines, and was succeeded as captain-general by a series of officers, with Elcano
eventually leading the Victoria's return trip.

The expedition was funded mostly by King Charles I of Spain, with the hope that it would
discover a profitable western route to the Moluccas, as the eastern route was controlled by
Portugal under the Treaty of Tordesillas. Though the expedition did find a route, it was
much longer and more arduous than expected, and was therefore not commercially useful.
Nevertheless, the expedition is regarded as one of the greatest achievement in seamanship,
and had a significant impact on the European understanding of the world.

The Maluku Islands (Indonesian: Kepulauan Maluku) or the Moluccas) are an archipelago
in the east of Indonesia. Tectonically they are located on the Halmahera Plate within the
Molucca Sea Collision Zone. Geographically they are located east of Sulawesi, west of New
Guinea, and north and east of Timor. Lying within Wallacea (mostly east of the
biogeographical Weber Line), the Maluku Islands have been considered as a geographical
and cultural intersection of Asia and Oceania.

The islands were known as the Spice Islands because of the nutmeg, mace and cloves that
were exclusively found there, the presence of which sparked colonial interest from Europe
in the sixteenth century.

Ships of Magellan's expedition

Weight
Ship Captain Crew Fate
(tons)

62 then 61
Departed Seville with other four ships
Ferdinand after a stop-
Trinidad 110 10 August 1519. Broke down in
Magellan over in
Moluccas, December 1521
Tenerife

Deserted in the Strait of Magellan,

San Juan de
55 120 November 1520,] returned to Spain on
Antonio Cartagena
6 May 1521
 44 then 45
Gaspar de after a stop-
Concepción 90 Scuttled in the Philippines, May 1521
Quesada over in
Tenerife

31 then 33
after a stop- Wrecked in storm at Santa Cruz River,
Santiago João Serrão 75
over in on 22 May 1520
Tenerife

Successfully completed
45 then 46
circumnavigation, returning to Spain in
Luis after a stop-
Victoria 85 September 1522, captained by Juan
Mendoza over in
Sebastián Elcano. Mendoza was killed
Tenerife
during a mutiny attempt.

Antonio Pigafetta (Italian: c. 1491 – c. 1531) was a Venetian scholar and explorer. He joined
the expedition to the Spice Islands led by explorer Ferdinand Magellan under the flag of the
emperor Charles V and after Magellan's death in the Philippine Islands, the subsequent
voyage around the world. During the expedition, he served as Magellan's assistant and kept
an accurate journal, which later assisted him in translating the Cebuano language. It is the
first recorded document concerning the language.

Pigafetta was one of the 18 men who made the complete trip, returning to Spain in 1522,
under the command of Juan Sebastián Elcano, out of the approximately 240 who set out
three years earlier. These men completed the first circumnavigation of the world. Others
mutinied and returned in the first year. Pigafetta's surviving journal is the source for much
of what is known about Magellan and Elcano's voyage.

Juan Sebastián Elcano (sometimes misspelled del Cano; 1486/1487 – 4 August 1526) was a
Basque navigator from Getaria, Spain, ship-owner and explorer.

The Battle of Mactan (Cebuano: Gubat sa Mactan; Filipino: Labanan sa Mactan; Spanish:
Batalla de Mactán) was a fierce clash fought in the archipelago of the Philippines on 27
April 1521.

Rajah Humabon, later baptized as Don Carlos.

Rajah Kolambu was the chieftain of the Limasawa Island in Southern Leyte when the first
mass in the Philippines was held.
Datu Zula was one of the two chiefs of Mactan island besides Lapulapu when the
Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the archipelago. It was Zula who
suggested to Magellan to go to Mactan to force Lapulapu to submit to Spain, leading to the
Battle of Mactan.

Ferdinand Magellan ( Portuguese: Fernão de Magalhães, IPA:  Spanish: Fernando de

Magallanes, IPA:  4 February 1480 – 27 April 1521) was a Portuguese explorer and a
subject of the Hispanic Monarchy from 1518.

Lapulapu or Lapu-Lapu, whose name was first recorded as Çilapulapu, was a datu (chief) of
Mactan in the Visayas in the Philippines. He is best known for the Battle of Mactan that
happened at dawn on April 27, 1521, where he and his warriors defeated the Spanish
forces led by Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan.

Emilio Jacinto y Dizon (Spanish: [eˈmi.ljo xaˈsinto]; December 15, 1875 – April 16, 1899)
was a Filipino general during the Philippine Revolution. He was one of the highest-ranking
officers in the Philippine Revolution and was one of the highest-ranking officers of the
revolutionary society Kataas-taasan, Kagalang-galang na Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan,
or simply and more popularly called Katipunan, being a member of its Supreme Council. 

He was elected Secretary of State for the Haring Bayang Katagalugan, a revolutionary
government established during the outbreak of hostilities. He is popularly known in
Philippine history textbooks as the Brains of the Katipunan while some contend he should
be rightfully recognized as the "Brains of the Revolution" (Filipino: Utak ng Himagsikan, a
title that is usually given to Apolinario Mabini).
The Kartilya can be treated as the Katipunan’s code of conduct. It contains 14 rules that
instruct the way a Katipunero should behave, and which specific values should be uphold.

Below is the translated version of the rules in Kartilya.

1. The life that is not consecrated to a lofty and reasonable purpose is a tree without a
shade, if not a poisonous weed.

2. To do good for personal gain and not for its own sake is not virtue.

3. It is rational to be charitable and love one’s fellow creature, and to adjust one’s
conduct, acts and words to what is in itself reasonable.

4. Whether our skin be black or white, we are all born equal: superiority in knowledge,
wealth and beauty are to be understood, but not superiority in nature.

5. The honorable man prefers honor to personal gain; the scoundrel, gain to honor.

6. To the honorable man, his word is sacred.

7. Do not waste thy time: wealth can be recovered but not time lost.

8. Defend the oppressed and fight the oppressor before the law or in the field.

9. The prudent man is sparing in words and faithful in keeping secrets.

10. On thorny path of life, man is the guide of woman and the children, and if the guide
leads to the precipice, those whom he guides will also go there.

11. Thou must not look upon woman as a mere plaything, but as a faithful companion
who will share thee the penalties of life; her (physical) weakness will increase thy
interest in her and she will remind thee of the mother who bore thee and reared
thee.

12. What thou does not desire done unto thy wife, children, brothers and sisters, that do
not unto the wife, children, brothers and sisters of thy neighbor.

13. Man is not worth more because he is a king, because his nose is aquiline, and his
color white, not because he is a priest a servant of God, nor because of the high
prerogative that he enjoys upon earth, but he is worth most who is a man of proven
and real value, he who does good, keeps his words, is worthy and honest and honest,
he who does not oppressed, he who love and cherishes his fatherland though he be
born in the wilderness and know not tongue but his own.
 14. When these rules of conduct shall be known to all, the longed for sun of Liberty shall
rise brilliant over his most unhappy portion of the globe and its rays shall diffuse
everlasting joy among the confederated brethren of the same rays, the lives of those
who have gone before, the fatigues and the well paid sufferings will remain. If he
who desires to enter has informed himself of all this and believes he will be able to
perform what will be his duties, he may fill out the application for admission.

KATIPUNAN

The Katipunan, officially known as the Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga

Anak ng Bayan or Kataastaasan Kagalang-galang na Katipunan ng mga Anak ng
Bayan (KKK; English: Supreme and Honorable Association of the Children of the
Nation; Spanish: Suprema y Honorable Asociación de los Hijos del Pueblo ), was a Philippine
revolutionary society founded by anti-Spanish colonialist Filipinos in Manila in 1892; its
primary goal was to gain independence from Spain through a revolution.

Revolutionary documents from Archivo General Militar de Madrid rediscovered in the 21st
century suggest that the society had been organized as early as January 1892 but may not
have become active until July 7 of the same year; that was the date that Filipino writer  José
Rizal was to be banished to Dapitan.

Founded by Filipino patriots Deodato Arellano, Andrés Bonifacio, Valentin Diaz, Ladislao

Diwa, José Dizon, and Teodoro Plata, the Katipunan was a secret organization until it was
discovered in 1896. This discovery led to the outbreak of the Philippine Revolution.

The Katipunan being a secret organization, had its members subjected to the utmost
secrecy and abidance to the rules established by the society. Aspiring applicants were given
standard initiation rites in order to become members of the society. At first, membership in
the Katipunan was only open to male Filipinos; later, women were accepted into the
society. The Katipunan had its own publication, Kalayaan (Freedom) which issued its first
and last printing in March 1896. Revolutionary ideals and works flourished within the
society, and Filipino literature was expanded by some of its prominent members.

In planning the revolution, Bonifacio contacted Rizal for his full-fledged support for the
Katipunan in exchange for a promise to rescue Rizal from his detention. In May 1896, the
leadership of the Katipunan met with the Captain of a visiting Japanese warship in an
attempt to secure a source of arms for the revolution, but without success. The Katipunan's
existence was revealed to the Spanish authorities. Days after the Spanish authorities
learned of the existence of the secret society, in August 1896, Bonifacio and his men tore up
their cédulas during the Cry of Pugad Lawin that started the Philippine Revolution.
The Proclamation on 12 June

Independence was proclaimed on 12 June 1898 between four and five in the afternoon in
Cavite at the ancestral home of General Emilio Aguinaldo some 30 kilometres (19 mi) south
of Manila. The event saw the unfurling of the Flag of the Philippines, made in Hong Kong by
Marcela Agoncillo, Lorenza Agoncillo, and Delfina Herboza, and the performance of
the Marcha Filipina Magdalo, as the national anthem, now known as Lupang Hinirang,
which was composed by Julián Felipe and played by the San Francisco de
Malabon marching band.

The Act of the Declaration of Independence was prepared, written, and read by Ambrosio
Rianzares Bautista in Spanish. The Declaration was signed by 98 people, among them
a United States Army officer who witnessed the proclamation. The final paragraph states
that there was a "stranger" (stranger in English translation—extranjero in the original
Spanish, meaning foreigner) who attended the proceedings, Mr. L. M. Johnson, described as
"a citizen of the U.S.A., a Colonel of Artillery". Despite his prior military experience, Johnson
had no official role in the Philippines.

Ratification

The proclamation of Philippine independence was, however, promulgated on 1 August,

when many towns had already been organized under the rules laid down by the Dictatorial
Government of General Aguinaldo. 190 municipal presidents of different towns from 16
provinces—Manila, Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Bulacan, Bataan, Infanta, Morong, Tayabas, Pa
mpanga, Pangasinan, Mindoro, Nueva Ecija, Tarlac, La Union and Zambales—ratified the
Proclamation of Independence in Bacoor, Cavite.

Later at Malolos, Bulacan, the Malolos Congress modified the declaration upon the

insistence of Apolinario Mabini who objected to that the original proclamation essentially
placed the Philippines under the protection of the United States.

1872 Cavite mutiny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Cavite mutiny

Part of the Philippine revolts against Spain

"Ang Pag-aaklas sa Kabite ng 1872" historical marker for the Cavite mutiny at Fort San
Felipe in Cavite City, 1872

Date January 20, 1872

Locatio Fort San Felipe, Cavite, Spanish East Indies (Philippine Islands)

n

Result Spanish victory

 Execution of Gomburza

 Forced exile of many Philippine liberals to Hong Kong, Japan,

the Marianas and other places.

 Beginning of Filipino nationalism leading to the Philippine Revolution of

1896 and later the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).

Belligerents

 Spanish Empire  Filipino mutineers

   Captaincy General of the Philippines

Commanders and leaders

 Felipe Ginovés  Fernando La Madrid

Strength

One regiment, four cannons Around 200 soldiers and laborers

The Cavite mutiny (Spanish: El Motín de Cavite) of 1872 was an uprising of Filipino

military personnel of Fort San Felipe, the Spanish arsenal in Cavite, Philippine Islands (then
also known as part of the Spanish East Indies) on 20 January 1872. Around 200 locally
recruited colonial troops and laborers rose up in the belief that it would elevate to a
national uprising. The mutiny was unsuccessful, and government soldiers executed many of
the participants and began to crack down on a burgeoning Philippines nationalist
movement. 

Many scholars believed that the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was the beginning of Filipino
nationalism that would eventually lead to the Philippine Revolution of 1896.

Causes of the Cavite mutiny

The causes of the Cavite Mutiny can be identified through examining the different accounts
in this historic event.

Spanish Accounts of the Mutiny

Jose Montero y Vidal is a Spanish Historian, who interpreted that the Mutiny was an
attempt to remove and overthrow the Spanish Colonizers in the Philippines. His account,
corroborated with the account of Governor - General Rafael Izquidero y Gutierrez, the
governor-general of the Philippine Islands during the Mutiny. They mentioned that the
mutiny was powered by a group of native clergy.

Account of Jose Montero y Vidal

The Cavite Mutiny is an aim of natives to get rid of the Spanish government in the
Philippines, due to the removal of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal
such as exemption from the tribute and forced labor. The democratic and republican books
and pamphlets, the speeches and preaching of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain and
the outburst of the American publicists and the cruel policies of the insensitive governor
whom the reigning government sent to govern the country. Filipinos put into action these
ideas where the occurring conditions which gave rise to the idea of achieving their
independence.

Account of Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo y Gutiérrez

He insisted that the mutiny is stimulated and prepared by the native clergy, mestizos and
lawyers as a signal of objection against the injustices of the government such as not paying
provinces for tobacco crops, pay tribute and rendering of forced labor. It is not clearly
identified if Indios planned to inaugurate a monarchy or a republic because they don't have
a word in their own language to describe this different form of government, whose leader
in Filipino would be called "hari". However, it turned out that they would set at the
supreme of the government a priest, that the leader selected would be Jose Burgos or
Jacinto Zamora which is the plan of the rebels who guided them, and the means they
counted upon its realization.

Other Accounts of the Mutiny

Account of Trinidad Pardo de Tavera

The event is just a simple mutiny since up to that time the Filipinos have no intention of
separation from Spain but only secure materials and education advancements in the
country. However, the mutiny was used at a powerful level. Also, in this time, the central
government deprived friars of the powers of involvement in civil government and in
governing and handling universities. This resulted in the friars afraid that their leverage in
the Philippines would be a thing in the past, took advantage of the mutiny and reported it
to the Spanish government as a broad conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago
with the object of abolishing Spanish sovereignty. The Madrid government without any
attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged revolution reported by
Izquierdo and the friars believed the scheme was true.

Account of Edmund Plauchut

He traced the immediate cause to a peremptory order from the governor, Izquierdo,
exacting personal taxes from the Filipino laborers in the engineering and artillery corps in
the Cavite arsenal, and requiring them to perform forced labor like ordinary subjects. Until
then, these workers in the arsenal had been enjoying exemptions from both taxes and
forced labor. January 20, the day of the revolt, was payday and the laborers found the
amount of taxes as well as the corresponding fee in lieu of the forced labor deducted from
their pay envelopes. It was the last straw. That night they mutinied. Forty infantry soldiers
and twenty men from the artillery took over command of the Fort of San Felipe and fired
cannonades to announce to the world their moment of triumph. It was a short-lived victory.
Apparently, the mutineers had expected to be joined by their comrades in the 7th infantry
company assigned to patrol the Cavite plaza. They became terror-stricken, however, when
they beckoned to the 7th infantry men from the ramparts of the fort and their comrades did
not make any move to join them. Instead, the company started attacking them. The rebels
decided to bolt the gates and wait for morning when support from Manila was expected to
come. He gave a dispassionate account of it and its causes in an article published in the
Revue des Deux Mondes in 1877. He traced that the primary cause of the mutiny is believed
to "be an order from Governor-General Carlos to subject the soldiers of the Engineering
and Artillery Corps to personal taxes, from which they were previously exempt. The taxes
required them to pay a monetary sum as well as to perform forced labor called, polo y
servicio. The mutiny was sparked on January 20, 1872 when the laborers received their
pay and realized the taxes as well as the falla, the fine one paid to be exempt from forced
labor, had been deducted from their salaries.

Different accounts in the Cavite mutiny also highlighted other probable causes of the
"revolution" which includes Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty
propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books
and pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native
clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, "conspired and supported" the
rebels and enemies of Spain.

In addition, accounts of the mutiny suggest that the Spanish Revolution in Spain during that
time added more determination to the natives to overthrow the current colonial Spanish
government.

The Execution of Gomburza

On February 15, 1872, the Spanish colonial authorities sentenced three martyr Fathers Jose
Burgos, Mariano Gomez and Jacinto Zamora to death by garrote at Bagumbayan,
Philippines and charged with treason and sedition, and subversion. Two days after their
verdict, they were executed. The charges against Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora was
their alleged complicity in the uprising of workers at the Cavite Naval Yard. It was believed
by Governor Rafael Izquierdo that the Filipinos will create its own government and
allegedly, the three priests were nominated as the leader of the planned government in
order to break free of the Spanish government.

The death of Gomburza awakened strong spirits of anger and resentment among the
Filipinos. They grilled Spanish authorities and demanded reforms due to the prejudicial
governance of the Spanish Authorities. The martyrdom of the three priests, ironically,
assisted in the creation of the Propaganda Movement which aimed to seek reforms and
inform the Spanish people on the abuses of its colonial authorities in the Philippine Islands.

Besides from Gomburza execution, on January 28, 1872 the military court sentenced 41
mutineers to death. However, on the next day Governor Rafael Izquierdo pardoned 28
mutineers and the rest were confirmed to sentence. On February 6, 1872, 11 mutineers
were sentenced to death but Governor Izquierdo commuted their death sentences to life
imprisonment. Together with execution of garrotte to the three martyrs was Enrique
Paraiso, Maximo Innocencio and Crisanto Delos Reyes were imposed to ten years
imprisonment.

Furthermore, there were people being sentenced by the military court of Spain to exile
them to the Marianas (now Guam): Fr. Pedro Dandan, Fr. Mariano Sevilla, Toribio H. del
Pilar (brother of Marcelo H. del Pilar), Agustin Mendoza, Jose Guevara, Miguel Lasa, Justo
Guazon, Fr. Aniceto Desiderio, Fr. Vicente del Rosario, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio
Ma. Regidor, Jose Basa y Enriquez, Mauricio de Leon, Pedro Carillo, Gervasio Sanchez, Jose
Ma. Basa, Pio Basa, Balvino Mauricio, Maximo Paterno (father of Pedro Paterno), and
Valentin Tosca.

Treaty of Paris, (1898), treaty concluding the Spanish-American War. It was signed by

representatives of Spain and the United States in Paris on Dec. 10, 1898.

Armistice negotiations conducted in Washington, D.C., ended with the signing of

a protocol on Aug. 12, 1898, which, besides ending hostilities, provided that a peace
conference be held in Paris by October, that Spain relinquish Cuba and cede Puerto
Rico and one of the Mariana Islands to the United States, and that the United States
hold Manila until the disposition of the Philippines had been determined.

By the time that the conference opened on October 1, U.S. President William McKinley had
finally decided that the United States must take possession of the Philippines. The demand
was ultimately accepted with great reluctance by Spain, with the stipulation that the United
States should pay Spain $20 million nominally for public buildings and public works in the
Philippines. 

A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy

A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy’s Philippine Cartoons:

Political

Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941)Political cartoons and caricature are a rather
recent art form, which veered away from the classical art by exaggerating human features
and poking fun at its subjects. Such art genre and technique became a part of the
print media as a form of social and political commentary, which usually targets persons
of power and authority. Cartoons became an effective tool of publicizing opinions through
heavy use of symbolism, which is different from a verbose written editorial and opinion
pieces. The unique way that a caricature

represents opinion and captures the audience’s imagination is a reason enough for
historians to examine

these political cartoons. Commentaries in mass media inevitably shape public opinion and
such kind of opinion is worthy of historical examination. In his book Philippine Cartoons:
Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941), Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo
Roces, compiled political cartoons published in newspaper dailies and periodicals in the
aforementioned time period. For this part, we are going to look at selected cartoons and
explain the context of each one.

The first example was published in The Independent on May 20, 1916. The cartoon shows a
politician from a Tondo, named Dr. Santos, passing his crown to his brother-in-law, Dr.
Barcelona. A Filipino guy (as depicted wearing salakot and barong tagalog) was trying to
stop Santos, telling the latter to stop giving Barcelona the crown because it is not his to
begin with. The second example was also published by The Independent on 16 June 1917.
This was drawn by Fernando Amorsolo and was aimed as a commentary to the workings of
Manila Police at that period. Here, we see a Filipino child who stole a skinny chicken
because he had nothing to eat. The police officer was relentlessly pursuing the said child. A
man wearing a salakot, labeled Juan de la Cruz was grabbing the officer, telling him to leave
the small-time pickpockets and thieves and to turn at the great thieves instead. He was
pointing to huge warehouse containing bulks of rice, milk, and grocery products. The third
cartoon was a commentary on the unprecedented cases of colorum automobiles in the city
of streets. The Philippine Free Press published this commentary when fatal accidents
involving colorum vehicles and taxis occurred too often already.

Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies Making Sense of the past:
Historical Interpretation History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary
definition is centered on how it impacts the present through its consequences. Geoffrey
Barraclough defines history as the attempt to discover, on the basis of fragmentary
evidence, the significant things about the past. He also notes the history we read, though
based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgment. Such
judgement 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 a 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 the following text:
" CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third chief of Panay, born in Aklan,
established his government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered the first
Filipino Lawgiver, the promulgated in about 1433 about penal code now known as a Code
of Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained the
original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which was later translated into Spanish by
Rafael Murviedo Yzamaney. It was only in my 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when
William Henry Scott, then a doctoral candidate at the university of Santo Tomas, defended
his research on pre-Hispanic sources in Philippines history. He attributed the Code to a
historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de lang Isla
de Negros. Marco attributed the Code itself to a priest named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent
Filipino historians did not dissent to Scotts findings but there are still some who would like
to believe that the Code is 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, ah 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, and non historian interpreting and
primary sources 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 primary sources, when it was read, and how it
was read. As student of history we must be well equipped to recognize

different types of interpretation why these may differ from each other, and how to critically
sift the interpretations through historical evaluation. 

Interpretations of history event 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 8 yrs. old and is probably
one of Rizals most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that this
poem, with that now immortalized lines "Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang sariling wika
mahigit pa sa malansang isda" was written by Rizal, and worse the evidence against Rizals
authorship of the poem seems all unassailable. There exist no manuscript of the poem
handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first published in a 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 Rizals 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 Rizals letters that he first
encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilars translation of Rizals essay "El Almor
Patrio", where it was spelled as "kalayahan ". While Rizals native tounge was Tagalog, the
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 tounge. The
poems 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 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 taught to us as facts when we were younger does not mean that it is open for
interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing account of the past that need ones
attention, important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary sources, but
also the historical interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past.
Multiperspectivity 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, development, culture and societies from different
perspective. This means that there is multitude of ways by which we can view the world,
and each could be equally partial as well. Historical writing is, by definition, biased, partial,
and contain preconception. This historical decides on what sources to use, what
interpretation to make more apparent, depending on what his end is. Historians may
misinterpret evidence, attending to 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 makes the interpretation unbalanced. Historians may impose a
certain ideology to their subject, which may not be appropriate to the period the subject
was from. Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without considering
other possible causal explanations of said event. These are just many of the way a historian
may fail in his historical inference, description, and interpretation. With multiperspectivity
as an approach in history, welcome must understand that historical interpretations contain
discrepancies, contradiction, ambiguities and are often the focus of dissent. Exploring
multiple perspective in history requires incorporating source material that reflect different
views of an event in history, because singular historical narrative do not provide for space
to inquire and investigate. Different source that counter each other may create space for
more investigation and research, while providing more evidence, truths that there sources
agree on. Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truth-an official
document may note different aspect of the past than, say, ah memoir of an ordinary person
on the same event. Different historical agent 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 in close regard in the reading of historical
interpretation, it provides for the audience a more complete and richer understanding of
the past. 

Case Study 1: Where Did the first Catholic Mass take place in the Philippines? The
popularity of knowing where the first happened in history has been an easy way to
trivialize history, but this case study will not focus on the significance 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 event. 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
commemorate the expedition arrival and celebration of Mass on April 8, 1521. The Butuan
claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event.
Toward the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century, together with the
increasing scholarship on the history of the Philippines, ah more nuanced reading of the
available evidence was made, which brought to light more consideration 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 2 primary sources that historians
refer to an identifying the site of the Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, ah pilot of
one of Magellans ship, Trinidad. There was one of the 18 survivors who returned with
Sebastian Elcano in 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,
(The Voyage Around the world ). Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the Magellan
expedition and an eyewitness of the event, particularly, of the Mass. Primary Source:
Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson,
The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, "Butuan or Limasawa?
The site of the first Mass in the Philippines: Reexamination of evidence" 1981, Kinaadman:
And Journal of Southwest Philippines, Vols. III, 1-35. Thursday, March 28-In the morning
they anchored near in island where they had seen a light the night before a small boat
(boloto) came with 8 natives, to whom Magellan threw some trinkets as presents. The
natives paddled away, but 2 hrs. later 2 larger boats (balanghai) came, in one of which the
native king sat under an awning of mats. At Magellans invitation some of the natives went
up the Spanish ships, but the native king remained seated in his boat. An exchange of gifts
was affected. In the afternoon that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and came closer
to shore, anchoring near the native king’s village. This Thursday, March 28, was Thursday
in Holy Week, i. e. Holy Thursday. 2. Friday, March 29-Next day. Holy Friday, Magellan sent
his slave interpreter ashore in a small boat to ask the king if he could provide the
expedition with food supplies, and to say that they had come as friends and not as enemies.
In reply the king himself came in a boat with six or 8 men, and this time went up Magellan’s
ship and the 2 men embraced. Another exchange of gifts was made. The native king and his
companions returned ashore, bringing with them 2 members of Magellan’s expedition as
guest for the night. One of the 2 was Pigafetta. 3. Saturday, March 30-Pigafetta and his
companions had spent the previous evening feasting and drinking with the native king and
his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was Good Friday, they had to eat meat.
The following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his companions took to leave of their hosts
and returned to the ships.
4. Sunday, March 31- "Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day",
Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the
morning Magellan landed with some fifty men and Mass was celebrated, after which a cross
was venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the noon day meal, but
in the afternoon they returned ashore to plant the cross on the summit of the highest hill. In
attendance both at the Mass and at the planting of the cross we're the king of Mazaua and
the king of Butuan. 5. Sunday, March 31-Om that same afternoon, while on the summit of
the highest hill, Magellan asked the two kings which ports he should go to in order to
obtain more abundant supplies of food than we're able in that island. They replied that
there were ports to choose from: Ceylon, Zubu, and Calagan. Of the Zubu was the port with
the most trade. Magellan then said, the wished to go to Zubu and to depart the following
morning. He asked for someone to guide him thither. The king replied that pilots would be
available any time. But later that evening, king of Mazaua changed his mind and said that he
would conduct Magellan to Zubu but he would first have to bring harvest in. He asked
Magellan to send him men to help with harvest. 6. Monday, April 1-Magellan sent men
ashore to help with harvest, but no work was done that day because the 2 king we're
sleeping off their drinking bout the night before. 7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday April
3-Work on the hand during the "next to days, i. e. then and 3rd of April. 8. Thursday, April
4-They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu. Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest
Miguel A. Bernard his work Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the
Philippines:And Reexamination of Evidence (1981) lays down the argument that in the
Pigafettas account, and crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned- the river of Butuan is a
riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach 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
characteristics 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 domain. Initially, the goal was to find alternative
routes by sea to get to Asian the main source of spices and other commodities. Existing
routes to Asian we're mainly by land and cost very expensive. And sea route to Asia means
that Europeans could access the spice trade directly, greatly 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 Americans, which was
then cut off from the rest of the known world.

Spain colonized parts of the North America, Mexico, and South America in the 16th century.
They were also able to reach the Philippines and claim it for the Spanish crown. Later on,
other European rulers would compete with the activities of exploring and conquering
lands. It must also be pointed out that later on, after Magellan’s death, the survivors of his
expedition went to Mindanao, and seemingly went to Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta
vividly describe a trip in a river. But note that this account already happened after
Magellan’s death.

GOMBURZA

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 would be D. Jose
Burgos, or D Jacinto Zamora... Such as... the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and
the means they counted upon for its realization. It is apparent that the account 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 in polos y
servicios, of force labor. They also identified other reasons which seemingly made the
issu'e a lot more serious which included the presence of the native clergy, who, out of spite
against the Spanish friars “conspired and  supported” the rebels. Izquierdo, in an obviously
biased report, highlighted  that attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines to install a new “hari” in the persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora.‘ According
to him, native clergy attracted supporters by giving them Charismatic   assurance that their
fight would not fail because they had God’s support, aside from promises Lofty rewards
such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. In the Spaniard’s accounts the event of
1872 was premeditated and ' was part of a big conspiracy among the educated leaders
mestizos, lawyers, , and residents of Manila and Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate
high ranking Spanish officers then kill the friars. The signal they identified among these
conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired  from Intramuros. The accounts
detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of
Loreto, and came with it were some  fireworks display. The Caviteños 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 attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the
revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed, when the Manileños who were expected to aid
the Caviteños 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 sentenced to be
executed. Others who were implicated such as Joaquin 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 Ian artillery force
composed exclusively by Peninsulares'. On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were
executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again.
Differing Accounts of  the Events of 1872 Two other primary accounts must 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 7.
Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines rendering
unnecessary the sending home of short térm 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 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 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 a 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 larger 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 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 is  believed that the Spanish clergy connected the priest to the
mutiny as part of a conspiracy to 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 witnessed by a young Jose Rizal. Their
martyrdom is widen 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. 
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 Rizals lifework was committed to this end
particularly the more influential ones; Noli Me ‘ Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays
verify 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 c0uld 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 is 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 believe 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 iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La
Voz Espanola 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 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
Sources: 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 29 December 2016. Most Illustrious Sin, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia
stationed in Fort Santigo to report on the events during the [illegible] day in prison of the
accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following:

At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel,
Senor 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 Assistant
of the Plaza, Senor 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. Senor
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 until 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, Senor del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza,
Senor Maure, were informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the
document that the accused had written. At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal
arrived at the prison... dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed
by a military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes 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 aticulo 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 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 eventually resulted in 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 Rizal founded, with
Andres Bonifacio as one of 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 days after Rizal's excile 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. Katipuneros 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 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. 

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 Rebellion" or "Cry of Rebellion" to mark the start of
these revolutionary events, identifying the places where it happened. In the Philippines,
this happened in August 1896, northeast of Manila, wher they declared rebellion against
the Spanish 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 Agoncilo emphasizes the event 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 an "Himno de Balintawak" to inspired 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 Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion road, and from then on until 1962, the Cry of
Balintawak was celebrated every 26th of August. The site of the monument was chosen for
an 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 Balintawak 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, put the
Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on 24 August 1896. Pio Valenzuela, known Katipunero
and privy to many events concerning the Katipunan stated that the Cry happened in Pugad
Lawin on 23 August 18. Historian Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to have happened in
Balintawak on 26 August 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo put it at Pugad Lawin on 23
August 1896,according to statements by Pio Valenzuel. Research by historians Milagros
Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas claimed that the event took place in
Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City, on 24 August 1896. Primary
Sourc: Accounts of the Cry Guillermo Masangkay Source: Guillermo Masangkay, "Cry of
Balintawak" in Gregorio Zaide and Zonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,
Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 307-309. On August 26th, a big meeting was
held in Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio Samson, then cabeza of that barrio of
Caloocan. Among those who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo
del Rosario, Tomas Remegio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique
Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the
board of directors of the organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite and
Morong were also present. At about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26,the meeting
was opened with Andres Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The
purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas,
and Pio Valenzuela were al opposed to starting the revolution too early... Andres Bonifacio,
sensing that he would lose in the discussion then, left the session hall and talked to the
people, who were waiting outside for the result of the meeting of the leaders. He told the
people that the leaders were arguing against starting the revolution early, and appealed to
them in a fiery speech in which he said: "You remember the fate of our countrymen who
were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only
shoot us. Our organization has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don't
start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you say?" "Revolt" the
people shouted as one. Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to
revolt. He told them that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax
charged each citizen. "If it is true that you are ready to revolt... I want to see you destroy
your cedulas. It will be a sign that all of us have declared our severance from the
Spaniards." Pio Valenzuela Source: Pio Valenzuela, "Cry of Pugad Lawin", in Gregorio Zaide
and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: Natinal
Book Store, 1990), 301-302. The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto,
Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the
first five arriving there on August 19, and I, on August 20, 1896. The first place where some
500 members of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was the house and yard of
Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who
were there was Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson,
and others. Here, views were only exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It
was at Pugad Lawin, the house, store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora
Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable
debate and discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the
revolution against the Spanish government should be started on August 29, 1896... After
the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted "
Long live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!. From the eyewitness accounts
presented, there is indeed marked disagreement among historical witnesses as to the place
and time of the occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources, 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 investigator 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 when dealing with primary sources. According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and
Villegas, 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
accounts of the Cry.

The Tejeros Convention, also known as the Tejeros Assembly and the Tejeros Congress,

was a meeting held on March 22, 1897, between Katipunan factions
of Magdiwang and Magdalo in San Francisco de Malabon, Cavite (now General Trias) that
resulted in the creation of a new revolutionary government that took charge of
the Philippine Revolution, replacing the Katipunan. It followed on a previous meeting now
known as the Imus Assembly. Filipino historians consider the first presidential and vice
presidential elections in Philippine history to have been held at this convention, although
only Katipuneros (members of the Katipunan) were able to take part, and not the general
populace.

Purpose

Tejeros Convention Mural, Municipality of Rosario, Cavite.

The revolutionary leaders called the convention in a friar estate residence in Tejeros,
ostensibly to discuss the defense of Cavite against the Spaniards during the Philippine
Revolution (the contemporary Governor General, Camilo de Polavieja, had regained much
of Cavite itself). Instead of focusing on the defense of the province, the convention became
an election to decide the leaders of the revolutionary movement, to settle once and for all
the issue of governance within the Katipunan and of the revolutionary effort - the cause of
the escalating tension between the Magdalo and Magdiwang forces of Cavite, and bypassing
the existing Supreme Council of the Katipunan, as represented by Andrés Bonifacio, its
"Supreme President" (Kataastaasang Pangulo, Presidente Supremo - often shortened by
others to just Supremo, but despite popular belief, generally not by Bonifacio himself; he
instead used Pangulo or the fuller terms) who had been invited to Cavite months earlier to
mediate and had taken the side of the Magdiwang. While Bonifacio and his allies within
Magdiwang maintained that the Katipunan was already sufficient as their government, the
Magdalo people and their own sympathizers within Magdiwang maintained the need to
establish a new government.

Amidst questioning on whether the Katipunan, which already operated as an alternative

revolutionary government, was more like a democracy or a monarchy, Bonifacio defended
that it was republican and democratic in nature. According to him, they were all united
against the King of Spain to have their own free and sovereign government, and that all
Katipunan members of any given rank were meant to serve under the principles of liberty,
equality, and fraternity, upon which republicanism was founded, and that their government
stood for the sovereignty of the people, not only of one or two persons Most of the day was
spent in debates, and a tumult broke out after the Magdalo side called the status quo of the
revolutionaries no better than that of bandits or wild animals, which the Magdiwang on
Bonifacio's side took offense to. After order was restored, some pushed for the convention
to be adjourned, but Bonifacio prevailed upon them to continue. Jacinto Lumbreras of
Magdiwang, who had served as chairman of the assembly and presided over the
proceedings to that point, then refused to continue as chairman, since if they were to
discuss replacing the Katipunan, then Bonifacio should preside as the "father of the
Katipunan and the Revolution". Bonifacio was thus made chairman. Despite his concern
about the lack of officials and representatives from other provinces and other Katipunan
councils, he bowed to the will of the majority and was obliged to proceed with the
elections.

Election results

Bonifacio presided over the election as chairman of the convention. He secured the
unanimous approval of the assembly that the decisions would not be questioned, and the
winners be respected regardless of their stations in life or educational attainment.

The results of the election:

Position Name Faction

President Emilio Aguinaldo Magdalo

Vice-president Mariano Trías Magdiwang

Captain-general Artemio Ricarte Magdiwang

Emiliano Riego de
Director of war Magdiwang
Dios
Director of the Katipunan Supreme Council, Magdiwang
Andrés Bonifacio
interior ally

After Aguinaldo was elected president, Severino de las Alas of Magdiwang proposed that
Bonifacio automatically be considered vice president since he had received the second
highest number of votes. Nobody seconded or contested the motion, so Bonifacio as
chairman ruled that the elections should continue. Mariano Trias of Magdiwang was then
elected vice president over Mariano Alvarez, the president of Magdiwang, and Bonifacio.
Artemio Ricarte of Magdiwang was then elected Captain-General over Santiago Alvarez
(son of Mariano), also of Magdiwang. Ricarte, aka "General Vibora", tried to demur and
concede to Alvarez aka "General Apoy", but Alvarez himself insisted that he accept it and
vouched for him. Then Baldomero Aguinaldo, cousin of Emilio and president of Magdalo,
suggested that people stand in groups to make the voting faster so they could finish before
it got too dark. This was followed, and Emiliano Riego de Dios of Magdiwang was elected
Director of War over Santiago Alvarez and Ariston Villanueva of Magdiwang and Daniel
Tirona of Magdalo. Finally, Bonifacio was elected Director of the Interior over Mariano
Alvarez.

However, after Bonifacio was elected, Daniel Tirona loudly objected that the post should
not be occupied by a person without a lawyer's diploma. He instead nominated a lawyer,
Jose del Rosario (of Magdiwang), as qualified for the suitable position. Bonifacio was
greatly embarrassed, and demanded that Tirona retract the remark and apologize to the
assembly. When Tirona made to leave instead, Bonifacio drew a pistol and was about to fire
at Tirona, but stopped when Ricarte tried to disarm him. Bonifacio then invoked his role as
the chairman of the assembly and the supreme president of the Katipunan and declared all
proceedings that day to be null and void, and left with his supporters.

Allegations of fraud

In addition to Bonifacio's statement voiding the outcome, the probity of the election held
was questioned, with allegations that many ballots distributed were already filled out and
that the voters had not done this themselves.

In their memoirs, Santiago Álvarez and Gregoria de Jesús both alleged that many ballots

were already filled out before being distributed, and Guillermo Masangkay contended there
were more ballots prepared than voters present. Álvarez writes that Bonifacio had been
warned by a Cavite leader Diego Mojica of the rigged ballots before the votes were
canvassed, but he had done nothing.

Post-convention events

Acta de Tejeros (1897)

Naic Military Agreement

Emilio Aguinaldo was not present at the convention, but was at a military front at Pasong
Santol, a barrio of Dasmariñas, Cavite. He was notified of his election to the Presidency the
following day, and his elder brother, Crispulo Aguinaldo, persuaded him to travel to take
the oath of office. Leaving Crispulo in command, Aguinaldo traveled to Santa Cruz de
Malabon (now Tanza, Cavite), where he and the others elected, with the exception of
Bonifacio, took their oath of office. Crispulo Aguinaldo was among those killed in the Battle
of Pasong Santol between March 7 and 24, 1897, which ended with a Spanish victory.
Aguinaldo surreptitiously took his oath of office as president in a chapel officiated by a
Catholic priest Cenon Villafranca who was under the authority of the Roman
pope. According to Gen. Santiago Alvarez, guards were posted outside with strict
instructions not to let in any unwanted partisan from the Magdiwang faction while the
oath-taking took place. Artemio Ricarte also took his office "with great reluctance" and
made a declaration that he found the Tejeros elections "dirty or shady" and "not been in
conformity with the true will of the people."

After leaving the convention, Bonifacio met on March 28 with 45 of his followers.
Convinced that the election at the convention had been invalid, they drew up a document
titled Acta de Tejeros giving their reasons for having rejected the convention results. They
then proceeded to Naik and drew up another document on April 19, sometimes referred to
as the Naic Military Agreement, repudiating the insurgent government established at
Tejeros.

Aguinaldo did not at first fully or openly assume the office of president, though he had
secretly taken the oath of office, and first managed to secure support among Magdalo and
Magdiwang alike. He sent a delegation to contact the increasingly isolated Bonifacio and
persuade him to cooperate. The delegation was able to contact Bonifacio, but was unable to
persuade him as he resolved to move out of the province. Some Magdiwang leaders, led
by Pio del Pilar and Mariano Alvarez, eventually recanted their previous insistence that the
result of the Tejeros convention was null and void, thereby recognizing the validity of the
elected leaders there, and some others later occupying the five vacant positions upon
appointment from Aguinaldo. The newly appointed officials took their oath of office on
April 24, 1897, when Aguinaldo fully and openly assumed the office of president. On the
same day, he convened the first session of the cabinet and issued an official circular
informing the town presidents of all municipalities that he was duly elected by the
convention and was assuming his position as president.

Several complaints against Bonifacio, notably from Severino de las Alas and Jose Coronel,
were then presented to Aguinaldo. He then ordered Bonifacio's arrest before he could leave
Cavite, and dispatched a force to Bonifacio's camp at Limbon, Indang. The unsuspecting
Bonifacio received them cordially on the 25th, but was arrested along with his
brother Procopio early the next day. In the resulting exchange of gunfire and scuffles,
despite Bonifacio ordering his men not to fight and not putting up resistance himself, he
was wounded and his other sibling, Ciriaco, was killed. Andres and Procopio Bonifacio were
tried on charges of treason by members of the war council of Aguinaldo's government. On
May 10, 1897, the brothers were executed.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

Republic of Biak-na-Bato is a designation referring to the second revolutionary republican

government led by Emilio Aguinaldo during the Philippine Revolution, That government
referred to itself as Republic of the Philippines (Spanish: República de Filipinas; in
modern Filipino: Republika ng Pilipinas) and was seated in what is now Biak-na-Bato
National Park. The current designation was adopted by historians to avoid confusion with
name of the current Philippine government, which also refers to itself the Republic of the
Philippines, and with other past Philippine governments using the same designation.

The Biak-na-Bato republic lasted just over a month. It was disestablished by a peace
treaty signed by Aguinaldo and the Spanish Governor-General, Fernando Primo de Rivera,
which included provision for exile of Aguinaldo and key associates to Hong Kong.

The Political Constitution of 1899 (Spanish: Constitución Política de 1899 ), informally

known as the Malolos Constitution, was the constitution of the First Philippine Republic. It
was written by Felipe Calderón y Roca and Felipe Buencamino as an alternative to a pair of
proposals to the Malolos Congress by Apolinario Mabini and Pedro Paterno. After a lengthy
debate in the latter part of 1898, it was promulgated on 21 January 1899.

The constitution placed limitations on unsupervised freedom of action by the chief

executive which would have hampered rapid decision making. As it was created during the
fight for Philippine independence from Spain, however, its Article 99 allowed unhampered
executive freedom of action during wartime. Unsupervised executive governance
continued throughout the Philippine–American War which erupted soon after
proclamation.

1935 Philippine constitutional plebiscite

23 March 1935: Seated, left to right: George H. Dern, Secretary of War; President Franklin
D. Roosevelt, signing the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines; Manuel L.
Quezon, President, Philippine Senate

Act No. 4200

A constitutional plebiscite held in the Philippines on 14 May 1935 ratified the 1935

Philippine Constitution which established the Philippine Commonwealth. The constitution
had been written in 1934 by the Constitutional Convention of 1934.

Gold In-Laid Chest (Repository of 1935 Philippine Constitution)  displayed at Quezon

Museum in Quezon Memorial Circle, Quezon City, Philippines

The Tydings–McDuffie Act of the United States Government detailed the steps required for

the Philippines to become independent of the United States. A previous act, the Hare–
Hawes–Cutting Act, had been rejected by the Philippine Congress.

The constitution was approved by 96% of voters, and was replaced by the 1973
Constitution of the Philippines.

1973 Philippine constitutional plebiscite

Background
In 1970, 320 delegates were elected to a constitutional convention which began to meet in
1971. On 23 September 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos issued the formal declaration of
martial law which led to the arrests of 11 conveners, alongside government critics and
journalists, by the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine Constabulary.[1] The
convention then re-convened and wrote a constitution in line with what
President Ferdinand Marcos wanted, at least, according to many critics and victims of
martial law.

Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 86 calling for the cancellation of the plebiscite and
instituted barangays' citizens' assemblies to ratify the new constitution by a referendum
from 10–15 January 1973. Alongside the utilization of citizens' assemblies, the voting age
was also reduced to 15. Voting in citizens' assemblies took place through viva voce voting,
similar to parliamentary procedure, rather than the standard secret ballot that had been
used up until that point.

During the course of voting, military men were stationed in prominent positions to
intimidate voters. And mayors were given quotas for "yes" votes, while "no" votes were
occasionally not recorded. Official figures state that 90% of voters voted in favor of
adopting the new constitution, although some communities did not partake in voting.

On 17 January 1973, Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1102 certifying and proclaiming that
the 1973 Constitution had been ratified by the Filipino people and thereby was in effect.

These results were challenged during the Ratification Cases heard by the Supreme Court of

the Philippine in 1973. The court upheld the results and the ratification of the 1973
Constitution.

The Constitution of the Philippines (Filipino: Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas or Konstitusyon ng

Pilipinas, Spanish: Constitución de la República de Filipinas ) is the constitution or supreme
law of the Republic of the Philippines. Its final draft was completed by the Constitutional
Commission on October 12, 1986, and was ratified by a nationwide plebiscite on February
2, 1987.

Three other constitutions have effectively governed the country in its history: the 1935
Commonwealth Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, and the 1986 Freedom Constitution.

Philippine Constitutional Commission of 1986

President Corazon Aquino was granted three options: restore the 1935 Constitution, retain
and make reforms to the 1973 Constitution, or pass a new constitution. She decided to draft
a new constitution and issued Proclamation No. 3 on March 25, 1986, abrogating many of
the provisions of the 1973 Constitution adopted during the Marcos regime, including
the unicameral legislature (the Batasang Pambansa), the office of Prime Minister, and
provisions which gave the President legislative powers. Often called the "Freedom
Constitution", this constitution was intended as a transitional constitution to ensure
democracy and the freedom of the people. The Freedom Constitution provided for an
orderly transfer of power while a Constitutional Commission was drafting a permanent
constitution.

The Constitutional Commission was composed of forty-eight members appointed by

Aquino from varied backgrounds, including several former members of the House of
Representatives, former justices of the Supreme Court, a Roman Catholic bishop, and
political activists against the Marcos regime. Aquino appointed Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, a
former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, as president of the commission. Several
issues were of particular contention during the commission's sessions, including the form
of government to adopt, the abolition of the death penalty, the retention of U.S. bases
in Clark and Subic, and the integration of economic policies into the constitution. Lino
Brocka, a film director and political activist who was a member of the commission, walked
out before the constitution's completion, and two other delegates dissented from the final
draft. The Commission finished the final draft on October 12, 1986, and presented it to
Aquino on October 15. The constitution was ratified by a nationwide plebiscite on February
2, 1987.

The constitution provided for three governmental branches, namely

the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The executive branch is headed by the
president and his appointed cabinet members. The executive, same with the other two co-
equal branches, has limited power. This is to ensure that the country will be "safeguarded"
if martial law is to be declared. The president can still declare martial law, but it expires
within 60 days and Congress can either reject or extend it.

The task of the Supreme Court is to review whether a declaration of martial law is just. The
legislative power consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are
twenty-four senators and the House is composed of district representatives. It also created
opportunities for under-represented sectors of community to select their representative
through party-list system. The judiciary branch comprises the Supreme Court and the
lower courts. The Supreme Court is granted the power to hear any cases that deals with the
constitutionality of law, about a treaty or decree of the government. It is also tasked to
administrate the function of the lower courts.

Pre-Spanish Period

“This land is Ours God gave this land to us”

Before the Spaniards came to the Philippines, Filipinos lived in villages or barangays ruled
by chiefs or datus. The datus comprised the nobility. Then came the maharlikas (freemen),
followed by the aliping mamamahay (serfs) and aliping saguiguilid (slaves).

However, despite the existence of different classes in the social structure, practically
everyone had access to the fruits of the soil. Money was unknown, and rice served as the
medium of exchange.

Spanish Period

“United we stand, divided we fall”

When the Spaniards came to the Philippines, the concept of encomienda (Royal Land
Grants) was introduced. This system grants that Encomienderos must defend his
encomienda from external attack, maintain peace and order within, and support the
missionaries. In turn, the encomiendero acquired the right to collect tribute from the indios
(native).

The system, however, degenerated into abuse of power by the encomienderos The tribute
soon became land rents to a few powerful landlords. And the natives who once cultivated
the lands in freedom were transformed into mere share tenants.

First Philippine Republic

“The yoke has finally broken”

When the First Philippine Republic was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo
declared in the Malolos Constitution his intention to confiscate large estates, especially the
so-called Friar lands.

However, as the Republic was short-lived, Aguinaldo’s plan was never implemented.

American Period

“Long live America”

Significant legislation enacted during the American Period:

 Philippine Bill of 1902 – Set the ceilings on the hectarage of private individuals and
corporations may acquire: 16 has. for private individuals and 1,024 has. for
corporations.

 Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) – Provided for a comprehensive
registration of land titles under the Torrens system.
  Public Land Act of 1903 – introduced the homestead system in the Philippines.

 Tenancy Act of 1933 (Act No. 4054 and 4113) – regulated relationships between
landowners and tenants of rice (50-50 sharing) and sugar cane lands.

The Torrens system, which the Americans instituted for the registration of lands, did not
solve the problem completely. Either they were not aware of the law or if they did, they
could not pay the survey cost and other fees required in applying for a Torrens title.

Commonwealth Period

“Government for the Filipinos”

President Manuel L. Quezon espoused the "Social Justice" program to arrest the increasing
social unrest in Central Luzon.

Significant legislation enacted during Commonwealth Period:

 1935 Constitution – "The promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and
economic security of all people should be the concern of the State"

 Commonwealth Act No. 178 (An Amendment to Rice Tenancy Act No. 4045), Nov.
13, 1936 – Provided for certain controls in the landlord-tenant relationships

 National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC), 1936 – Established the price of rice
and corn thereby help the poor tenants as well as consumers.

 Commonwealth Act. No. 461, 1937 – Specified reasons for the dismissal of tenants
and only with the approval of the Tenancy Division of the Department of Justice.

 Rural Program Administration, created March 2, 1939 – Provided the purchase and
lease of haciendas and their sale and lease to the tenants.
Commonwealth Act No. 441 enacted on June 3, 1939 – Created the National
Settlement Administration with a capital stock of P20,000,000.

Japanese Occupation

“The Era of Hukbalahap”

The Second World War II started in Europe in 1939 and in the Pacific in 1941.

Hukbalahap controlled whole areas of Central Luzon; landlords who supported the
Japanese lost their lands to peasants while those who supported the Huks earned fixed
rentals in favor of the tenants.

Unfortunately, the end of war also signaled the end of gains acquired by the peasants.
Upon the arrival of the Japanese in the Philippines in 1942, peasants and workers
organizations grew strength. Many peasants took up arms and identified themselves with
the anti-Japanese group, the HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon).

Philippine Republic

“The New Republic”

After the establishment of the Philippine Independence in 1946, the problems of land
tenure remained. These became worst in certain areas. Thus the Congress of the
Philippines revised the tenancy law.

President Manuel A. Roxas (1946-1948) enacted the following laws:

 Republic Act No. 34 -- Established the 70-30 sharing arrangements and regulating
share-tenancy contracts.

 Republic Act No. 55 -- Provided for a more effective safeguard against arbitrary
ejectment of tenants.

Elpidio R. Quirino (1948-1953) enacted the following law:

Executive Order No. 355 issued on October 23, 1950 -- Replaced the National Land
Settlement Administration with Land Settlement Development Corporation (LASEDECO)
which takes over the responsibilities of the Agricultural Machinery Equipment Corporation
and the Rice and Corn Production Administration.

Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957) enacted the following laws:

 Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 -- Abolished the LASEDECO and established the
National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) to resettle
dissidents and landless farmers. It was particularly aimed at rebel returnees
providing home lots and farmlands in Palawan and Mindanao.

 Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954) -- governed the
relationship between landowners and tenant farmers by organizing share-tenancy
and leasehold system. The law provided the security of tenure of tenants. It also
created the Court of Agrarian Relations.

 Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) -- Created the Land Tenure
Administration (LTA) which was responsible for the acquisition and distribution of
large tenanted rice and corn lands over 200 hectares for individuals and 600
hectares for corporations.
  Republic Act No. 821 (Creation of Agricultural Credit Cooperative Financing
Administration) -- Provided small farmers and share tenants loans with low interest
rates of six to eight percent.

President Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961)

Continued the program of President Ramon Magsaysay. No new legislation passed.

President Diosdado P. Macapagal (1961-1965) enacted the following law:

Republic Act No. 3844 of August 8, 1963 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) -- Abolished
share tenancy, institutionalized leasehold, set retention limit at 75 hectares, invested rights
of preemption and redemption for tenant farmers, provided for an administrative
machinery for implementation, institutionalized a judicial system of agrarian cases,
incorporated extension, marketing and supervised credit system of services of farmer
beneficiaries.

The RA was hailed as one that would emancipate Filipino farmers from the bondage of
tenancy.

President Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-1986)

Proclamation No. 1081 on September 21, 1972 ushered the Period of the New Society. Five
days after the proclamation of Martial Law, the entire country was proclaimed a land
reform area and simultaneously the Agrarian Reform Program was decreed.

President Marcos enacted the following laws:

 Republic Act No. 6389, (Code of Agrarian Reform) and RA No. 6390 of 1971 --
Created the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Agrarian Reform Special
Account Fund. It strengthen the position of farmers and expanded the scope of
agrarian reform.

 Presidential Decree No. 2, September 26, 1972 -- Declared the country under land
reform program. It enjoined all agencies and offices of the government to extend full
cooperation and assistance to the DAR. It also activated the Agrarian Reform
Coordinating Council.

 Presidential Decree No. 27, October 21, 1972 -- Restricted land reform scope to
tenanted rice and corn lands and set the retention limit at 7 hectares.

President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)

The Constitution ratified by the Filipino people during the administration of President
Corazon C. Aquino provides under Section 21 under Article II that “The State shall promote
comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.”

On June 10, 1988, former President Corazon C. Aquino signed into law Republic Act No.
6657 or otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The law
became effective on June 15, 1988.

Subsequently, four Presidential issuances were released in July 1987 after 48 nationwide
consultations before the actual law was enacted.

President Corazon C. Aquino enacted the following laws:

 Executive Order No. 228, July 16, 1987 – Declared full ownership to qualified
farmer-beneficiaries covered by PD 27. It also determined the value remaining
unvalued rice and corn lands subject of PD 27 and provided for the manner of
payment by the FBs and mode of compensation to landowners.

 Executive Order No. 229, July 22, 1987 – Provided mechanism for the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

 Proclamation No. 131, July 22, 1987 – Instituted the CARP as a major program of the
government. It provided for a special fund known as the Agrarian Reform Fund
(ARF), with an initial amount of Php50 billion to cover the estimated cost of the
program from 1987-1992.

 Executive Order No. 129-A, July 26, 1987 – streamlined and expanded the power
and operations of the DAR.

 Republic Act No. 6657, June 10, 1988 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) – An
act which became effective June 15, 1988 and instituted a comprehensive agrarian
reform program to promote social justice and industrialization providing the
mechanism for its implementation and for other purposes. This law is still the one
being implemented at present.

 Executive Order No. 405, June 14, 1990 – Vested in the Land Bank of the Philippines
the responsibility to determine land valuation and compensation for all lands
covered by CARP.

 Executive Order No. 407, June 14, 1990 – Accelerated the acquisition and
distribution of agricultural lands, pasture lands, fishponds, agro-forestry lands and
other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.

President Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998)

When President Fidel V. Ramos formally took over in 1992, his administration came face to
face with publics who have lost confidence in the agrarian reform program. His
administration committed to the vision “Fairer, faster and more meaningful
implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program.

President Fidel V. Ramos enacted the following laws:

 Republic Act No. 7881, 1995 – Amended certain provisions of RA 6657 and
exempted fishponds and prawns from the coverage of CARP.

 Republic Act No. 7905, 1995 – Strengthened the implementation of the CARP.

 Executive Order No. 363, 1997 – Limits the type of lands that may be converted by
setting conditions under which limits the type of lands that may be converted by
setting conditions under which specific categories of agricultural land are either
absolutely non-negotiable for conversion or highly restricted for conversion.

 Republic Act No. 8435, 1997 (Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act AFMA) –
Plugged the legal loopholes in land use conversion.

 Republic Act 8532, 1998 (Agrarian Reform Fund Bill) – Provided an additional
Php50 billion for CARP and extended its implementation for another 10 years.

President Joseph E. Estrada (1998-2000)

“ERAP PARA SA MAHIRAP’. This was the battle cry that endeared President Joseph Estrada
and made him very popular during the 1998 presidential election.

President Joseph E. Estrada initiated the enactment of the following law:

Executive Order N0. 151, September 1999 (Farmer’s Trust Fund) – Allowed the voluntary
consolidation of small farm operation into medium and large scale integrated enterprise
that can access long-term capital.

During his administration, President Estrada launched the Magkabalikat Para sa

Kaunlarang Agraryo or MAGKASAKA. The DAR forged into joint ventures with private
investors into agrarian sector to make FBs competitive.

However, the Estrada Administration was short lived. The masses who put him into office
demanded for his ouster.

President Gloria Macapacal-Arroyo (2000-2010)

The agrarian reform program under the Arroyo administration is anchored on the vision
“To make the countryside economically viable for the Filipino family by building
partnership and promoting social equity and new economic opportunities towards lasting
peace and sustainable rural development.”

Land Tenure Improvement - DAR will remain vigorous in implementing land acquisition
and distribution component of CARP. The DAR will improve land tenure system through
land distribution and leasehold.

Provision of Support Services - CARP not only involves the distribution of lands but also
included package of support services which includes: credit assistance, extension services,
irrigation facilities, roads and bridges, marketing facilities and training and technical
support programs.

Infrastrucre Projects - DAR will transform the agrarian reform communities (ARCs), an
area focused and integrated delivery of support services, into rural economic zones that
will help in the creation of job opportunities in the countryside.

KALAHI ARZone - The KALAHI Agrarian Reform (KAR) Zones were also launched. These
zones consists of one or more municipalities with concentration of ARC population to
achieve greater agro-productivity.

Agrarian Justice - To help clear the backlog of agrarian cases, DAR will hire more paralegal
officers to support undermanned adjudicatory boards and introduce quota system to
compel adjudicators to work faster on agrarian reform cases. DAR will respect the rights of
both farmers and landowners.

President Benigno Aquino III (2010-2016)

President Benigno Aquino III vowed during his 2012 State of the Nation Address that he
would complete before the end of his term the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP), the centerpiece program of the administration of his mother, President Corazon
Aquino.

The younger Aquino distributed their family-owned Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac. Apart from
the said farm lots, he also promised to complete the distribution of privately-owned lands
of productive agricultural estates in the country that have escaped the coverage of the
program.

Under his administration, the Agrarian Reform Community Connectivity and Economic
Support Services (ARCCESS) project was created to contribute to the overall goal of rural
poverty reduction especially in agrarian reform areas.

Agrarian Production Credit Program (APCP) provided credit support for crop production
to newly organized and existing agrarian reform beneficiaries’ organizations (ARBOs) and
farmers’ organizations not qualified to avail themselves of loans under the regular credit
windows of banks.

The legal case monitoring system (LCMS), a web-based legal system for recording and
monitoring various kinds of agrarian cases at the provincial, regional and central offices of
the DAR to ensure faster resolution and close monitoring of agrarian-related cases, was
also launched.

Aside from these initiatives, Aquino also enacted Executive Order No. 26, Series of 2011, to
mandate the Department of Agriculture-Department of Environment and Natural
Resources-Department of Agrarian Reform Convergence Initiative to develop a National
Greening Program in cooperation with other government agencies.

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (2016 – present) 

Under his leadership, the President wants to pursue an “aggressive” land reform program
that would help alleviate the life of poor Filipino farmers by prioritizing the provision of
support services alongside land distribution.

The President directed the DAR to launch the 2nd phase of agrarian reform where landless
farmers would be awarded with undistributed lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP).

Duterte plans to place almost all public lands, including military reserves, under agrarian
reform.

The President also placed 400 hectares of agricultural lands in Boracay under CARP.

Under his administration the DAR created an anti-corruption task force to investigate and
handle reports on alleged anomalous activities by officials and employees of the
department.

The Department also pursues an “Oplan Zero Backlog” in the resolution of cases in relation
to agrarian justice delivery of the agrarian reform program to fast-track the
implementation of CARP.

Evolution of Philippine Taxation

It all started from the Ancient Filipinos, where they pay their taxes to their Datu or the
Chiefs for the protection they gave to them, the tax was termed buwis. Everyone is required
to pay their taxes, except for the Datu/Chieftain's household. Punishment for not paying
taxes was also implemented on this period.
How was taxation in the Philippines done by Spaniards?

Other forms of taxes from the Spanish Era is the tributo, which was originally between 8 to
10 reales. Forced labor, or polo y servicio, was also a network for tax payment. Eventually,
with the cedula, Spain replaced tributo with cedula, which allowed them to keep track of
the people who could pay taxes.

Spanish era (TAXATION)

1. 1. SPANISH ERA (TAXATION)

2. 2. 2 Taxes - imposed by the Spanish Government in the Philippines. Taxes - during
the Spanish period was compulsory. All the Spanish Colonies in America and the
Philippines were required to pay taxes for two reasons: 1) As recognition of Spain's
Sovereignty over the Colonies. 2) To defray the expenses of pacification (The act of
forcibly suppressing hostility within the colonies) and governance, thereafter. 1

3. 3. 3 2 Tributo was a general tax paid by the Filipinos to Spain which amounted to
eight reales. Those who were required to pay the tributo the: ϖ 18 to 50 years old
males ϖ The Carpenters, bricklayers, blacksmiths, tailors and shoemakers ϖ Town
workers such as those in road construction, and those whose is public in nature.

4. 4. 4 3 SANCTORUM Sanctorum -was a tax in the amount of 3 reales. These were
required for the cost of Christianization, including the construction of the churches
and the purchase of materials for religious celebrations.

5. 5. 5 4 DONATIVO ⎫ Donativo was the tax in the amount of half real for the military
campaign of the government against the muslims. ⎫ In the later years, however, the
amount collected from donativo was almost exclusively used for the Spanish fort in
Zamboanga.

6. 6. 6 5 CAJA DE COMUNIDAD Caja de comunidad - was a tax collected in the amount
of 1 real for the incurred expenses of the town in the construction of roads, repair of
bridges, or the improvement of public buildings.

7. 7. 7 6 SERVICIO PERSONAL Polo y servicio -is the system of forced labor which
evolved within the framework of the encomienda system, introduced into the South
American colonies by the Conquistadores and Catholic priests who accompanied
them.

8. 8. 8 7 REVOLTS AGAINST THE TRIBUTE CAGAYAN AND DINGRAS REVOLTS (1589)
The Cagayan and Dingras Revolts Against the Tribute occurred on Luzon in the
 present-day provinces of Cagayan and Ilocos Norte in 1589. SUMUROY'S REVOLT In
the town of Palapag today in Northern Samar, Agustin Sumuroy, a Waray, and some
of his followers rose in arms on June 1, 1649 over the polo y servicio or forced labor
system being undertaken in Samar. MANIAGO'S REVOLT The Maniago Revolt was an
uprising in Pampanga during the 1660s named after its leader, Francisco Maniago.

9. 9. 9 8 TAX REFORM OF 1884 One of the good reforms which Spain introduced in the
19th century was the Tax Reform o 1884, as provided by the Royal Decree on March
6, 1884, this tax reform contained two important provisions. 1. Abolition of the
hated Tribute and its replacement of Cedula Tax and; 2. Reduction of the 40-day
annual forced labor (polo) to 15 days.

10. 10. 10 CEDULA PERSONALES Cedulas were first issued based on the Royal Decree
on March 6, 1884. All men and women residents of the island- Spaniards, foreigners,
and natives- who were over 18 years old were required to obtain a cedula.

THE DISCOVERY OF THE KATIPUNAN

      The quarrel between two employees of the printing shop publishing Diario de Manila
resulted in the discovery of Katipunan.  This happened after Apolonio dela Cruz was given a
P2 raise in salary and Teodoro Patiño was not given any.  A heated argument sparked
between them which led Patiño to confide the secrets of the Katipunan to his sister Honoria
at the convent where she was staying, her tearful reaction attracted the attention of one of
the nuns. The nun in turn, persuaded Patiño to tell everything he knew to Fr. Mariano Gil,
the parish priest of Tondo.  After hearing the revelations, Fr. Gil contacted the authorities
and urged them to raid the printing shop.  Documents, oaths signed in blood, receipts and
ledgers related to Katipunan were confiscated from the shop.

THE CRY OF PUGADLAWIN

      On 23 August 1896, the Supremo and his troops formally launched an armed revolution
against Spain. They tore their resident certificates or cedulas which symbolized their
defiance against from the colonizers. This became known in history as “ The Cry of
Pugadlawin.”

ANDRES BONIFACIO AND THE KATIPUNAN

Andres Bonifacio was born on November 30, 1863 in a small hut at Calle Azcarraga,
presently known as Claro M. Recto Avenue in Tondo, Manila.  His parents were Santiago
Bonifacio and Catalina de Castro.

    Andres was the eldest in a brood of five.  His other siblings were Ciriaco, Procopio,
Troadio, Esperidiona and Maxima.  He obtained his basic education through a certain
Guillermo Osmeña of Cebu.  The Bonifacio family was orphaned when Andres was barely
fourteen.  With this, Andres assumed the responsibility of raising his younger siblings.

     In order to support the needs of their family, he maximized his skills in making crafts
and sold paper fans and canes.  He also worked as messenger in Fleming & Company. 
Eventually, he moved to Fressel & Company, where he worked as warehouse man until
1896.  Poverty never hindered Andres’ thirst for knowledge.  He devoted most of his time
reading books while trying to improve his knowledge in the

Spanish and Tagalog language.  The warehouse of Fressel & Company served as his library
and study room.

     Andres was married to Gregoria de Jesus who happened to be his second wife.  His first
wife – Monica- died of leprosy a year after their marriage.  Gregoria was only sixteen years
old and Andres was twenty-nine when their romance sprung.  At first, Gregoria’s parents
were against their relationship, but in time, allowed the couple to be married in Catholic
rites. The two were married in 1892, both in Catholic and Katipunan rites.  Gregoria chose
“Lakambini” as her nom de guerre.

Guillermo Masangkay

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

At about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting was opened with Andres
Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The purpose was to discuss
when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela
were all opposed to starting the revolution too early...Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he
would lose the discussion then, left the session hall and talked to the people, who were
waiting outside for the result of the meeting of the leaders. He told the people that the
leaders were arguing against starting the revolution early, and appealed to them in a fiery
speech in which he said:"You remember the fate of our countrymen who were shot in
Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us. Our
organization has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don't start the uprising,
the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you say?"

"Revolt!" the people shouted as one.

Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told them that
the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax charged each citizen. "If it is
true that you are ready to revolt... I want to see you destroy your cedulas. It will be a sign
that all of us have declared our severance from the Spaniards. [6]

The Cry of Balintawak occurred on August 26, 1896. The Cry, defined as that turning point
when the Filipinos finally refused Spanish colonial dominion over the Philippine Islands.
With tears in their eyes, the people as one man, pulled out their cedulas and tore them into
pieces. It was the beginning of the formal declaration of the separation from Spanish
rule."Long Live the Philippine Republic!", the cry of the people. An article from The Sunday
Tribune Magazine on August 21, 1932 featured the statements of the eyewitness account
by Katipunan General Guillermo Masangkay, "A Katipunero Speaks". Masangkay recounts
the "Cry of Balintawak", stating that on August 26, 1896, a big meeting was held in
Balintawak at the house of Apolonio Samson, then the cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. At
about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting was opened with Andres
Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as Secretary. In August 1896, after the
Katipunan was discovered, Masangkay joined Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, and others in a
clandestine meeting held on the 26th of that month at Apolonio Samson’s house in
Caloocan.

Initially, the leaders of the movement quarreled over strategy and tactics, and many of its
members questioned the wisdom of an open rebellion due to the lack of arms and logistical
support. However, after Bonifacio’s intense and convincing speech, everyone destroyed
their cedulas to symbolize their defiance towards Spain and, together, raised the cry of
“Revolt".

Pio Valenzuela

In 1936, Pio Valenzuela, along with Briccio Pantas and Enrique Pacheco said (in English
translation) "The first Cry of the revolution did not happen in Balintawak where the
monument is, but in a place called Pugad Lawin." In 1940, a research team of a forerunner
of the National Historical Institute (NHI) which included Valenzuela, identified the location
as part of sitio Gulod, Banlat, Kalookan City. IN 1964, the NHI described this location as the
house of Tandang Sora. (translate: the first cry of revolution was not happened in
Balintawak where it taking place, but in the locality which is known as Pugad Lawin.

The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio, Bonifacio, Teodoro
Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the first five arriving there on
August 19, and I on August 20, 1896. The first place where some 500 members of the
Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson at
Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who were there were
Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others. Here,
views were only exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It was at Pugad
Lawin, the house, store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where
over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable debate and
discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the revolution
against the Spanish government should be started on August 29, 1896... After the
tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted
"Long live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!"

Santiago Alvarez

Santiago Alvarez regarding the Cry of Balintawak flaunted specific endeavors, as stated:

We started our trek to Kangkong at about eleven that night. We walked through the rain
over dark expanses of muddy meadows and fields. Our clothes drenched and our bodies
numbed by the cold wind, we plodded wordlessly. It was nearly two in the morning when
we reached the house of Brother Apolonio Samson in Kangkong. We crowded into the
house to rest and warm ourselves. We were so tired that, after hanging our clothes out to
dry, we soon feel asleep. The Supremo began assigning guards at five o'clock the following
morning, Saturday 22 August 1896. He placed a detachment at the Balintawak boundary
and another at the backyard to the north of the house where we were gathered. No less
than three hundred men assembled at the bidding of the Supremo Andres Bonifacio.
Altogether, they carried assorted weapons, bolos, spears, daggers, a dozen small revolvers
and a rifle used by its owner, one Lieutenant Manuel, for hunting birds. The Supremo
Bonifacio was restless because of fear of sudden attack by the enemy. He was worried over
the thought that any of the couriers carrying the letter sent by Emilio Jacinto could have
been intercepted; and in that eventuality, the enemy would surely know their whereabouts
and attack them on the sly. He decided that it was better to move to a site called Bahay
Toro. At ten o'clock that Sunday morning, 23 August 1896 we arrived at Bahay Toro. Our
member had grown to more than 500 and the house, yard, and warehouse of Cabesang
Melchora was getting crowded with us Katipuneros. The generous hospitality of Cabesang
Melchora was no less than that of Apolonio Samson. Like him, she also opened her granary
and had plenty of rice pounded and animals slaughtered to feed us. The following day,
Monday, 24 August, more Katipuneros came and increased our number to more than a
thousand. The Supremo called a meeting at ten o'clock that morning inside Cabesang
Melchora's barn. Flanking him on both sides at the head of the table were Dr. Pio
Valenzuela, Emilio Jacinto, Briccio Pantas, Enrique Pacheco, Ramon Bernardo, Pantelaon
Torres, Francisco Carreon, Vicente Fernandez, Teodoro Plata, and others. We were so
crowded that some stood outside the barn. The following matters were approved at the
meeting:

1. An uprising to defend the people's freedom was to be started at midnight of

Saturday, 29 August 1896;

2. To be on a state of alert so that the Katipunan forces could strike should the

situation arise where the enemy was at a disadvantage. Thus, the uprising could be
started earlier than the agreed time of midnight of 29 August 1896 should a
favorable opportunity arise at that date. Everyone should steel himself and be
resolute in the struggle that was imminent; and

3. The immediate objective was the capture of Manila.

After the adjournment of the meeting at twelve noon, there were tumultuous shouts of
"Long live the Sons of the People!

Asserted dates and venues of the Cry[12][13]

Person Place Date

August 25,
L.T. Olegario Diaz Balintawak
1896

Last week of
Teodoro Kalaw Kangkong, Balintawak
August

August 24,
Santiago Alvarez Bahay Toro
1896

Pio Valenzuela Pugad Lawin August 23,

 1896

August 26,
Gregorio Zaide Balintawak
1896

Teodoro Agoncillo (according to statements of August 23,

Pugad Lawin
Valenzuela) 1896

Research (Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Tandang Sora's barn in August 24,

Encarnacion, Ramon Villegas) Gulod, Banlat 1896

Cavite Mutiny

On January 20, 1872, about 200 Filipino military personnel of Fort San Felipe Arsenal in
Cavite, Philippines, staged a mutiny which in a way led to the Philippine Revolution in
1896. The 1872 Cavite Mutiny was precipitated by the removal of long-standing personal
benefits to the workers such as tax (tribute) and forced labor exemptions on order from
the Governor General Rafael de Izquierdo.

Izquierdo replaced Governor General Carlos Maria de la Torre some months before in 1871
and immediately rescinded Torre’s liberal measures and imposed his iron-fist rule. He was
opposed to any hint of reformist or nationalistic movements in the Philippines. He was in
office for less than two years, but he will be remembered for his cruelty to the Filipinos and
the barbaric execution of the three martyr-priests blamed for the mutiny: Fathers Mariano
Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, later collectively called “Gomburza.”

Izquierdo used the mutiny to implicate Gomburza and other notable Filipinos known for
their liberal leanings.

The three priests were stripped of their albs, and with chained hands and feet were
brought to their cells after their sentence. Gomburza became a rallying catchword for the
down-trodden Filipinos seeking justice and freedom from Spain.
It is well to remember that the seeds of nationalism that was sown in Cavite blossomed to
the Philippine Revolution and later to the Declaration of Independence by Emilio
Aguinaldo which took place also in Cavite. 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous
1898, it was a glorious event before we came across to victory.

Martyrdom of the Gomburza

The execution of the three Filipino priest, Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora,
who were linked by the Spanish friars as the masterminds of the Filipino insurgency
in Cavite. They were prominent Filipino priests charged with treason and sedition. The
Spanish clergy connected the priest 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
assistants to the regular friars.

Father Mariano Gomez, an old man in his mid-‘70, Chinese-Filipino, born in Cavite. He held
the most senior position of the three as Archbishop’s Vicar in Cavite. He was truly
nationalistic and accepted the death penalty calmly as though it were his penance for being
pro-Filipinos.

Father José Burgos is a Spanish descent, born in the Philippines. He was a parish priest of
the Manila Cathedral and had been known to be close to the liberal Governor General de la
Torre. He was 35 years old at that time and was active and outspoken in advocating the
Filipinization of the clergy.

Father Jacinto Zamora is a 37 years old, was also Spanish, born in the Philippines. He was
the parish priest of Marikina and was known to be unfriendly to and would not
countenance any arrogance or authoritative behavior from Spaniards coming from Spain.
February 17, 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government to instill fear among the
Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the Gomburza were
executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that shaped Filipino
nationalism.
PREAMBLE

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a
just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and
aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure
to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the
rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and
promulgate this Constitution.

ARTICLE I

NATIONAL TERRITORY

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial
sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The waters
around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth
and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

The Constitution is divided into 18 Articles: 

National Territory (I);

Declaration of Principles and State Policies Principles (II);

Bill of Rights (III); Citizenship (IV); 

Suffrage (V); Legislative Department (VI); 

Executive Department (VII); 

Judicial Department (VIII); 

Constitutional Commissions (IX); 

Local Government (X); 

Accountability of Public Officers (XI); 

National Economy and Patrimony (XII); 

Social Justice and Human Rights (XIII); 

Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports (XIV); 

The Family (XV); General Provisions (XVI); 

Amendments or Revisions (XVII); 

Transitory Provisions (XVIII).

BILL OF RIGHTS Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Constitution – is a body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the power of the
sovereignty is habitually exercised.

The Philippines is a republic with a presidential form of government wherein power is

equally divided among its three branches: executive, legislative, and judicial.

THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

The Executive branch is composed of the President and the Vice President who are elected
by direct popular vote and serve a term of six years. The Constitution grants the President
authority to appoint his Cabinet. These departments form a large portion of the country’s
bureaucracy.

The executive branch carries out and enforces laws. It includes the President, Vice
President, the Cabinet, executive departments, independent agencies, boards, commissions,
and committees.

The President leads the country. He or she is the head of state, leader of the national
government, and Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines. The President
serves a six-year term and cannot be re-elected.

The Vice President supports the President. If the President is unable to serve, the Vice
President becomes President. He or she also serves a six-year term.

Cabinet members serve as advisors to the President. They include the Vice President and
the heads of executive departments. Cabinet members are nominated by the President and
must be confirmed by the Commission of Appointments.
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Legislative branch is authorized to make laws, alter, and repeal them through the
power vested in the Philippine Congress. This institution is divided into the Senate and the
House of Representatives.

The Legislative Branch enacts legislation, confirms or rejects Presidential appointments,

and has the authority to declare war. This branch includes Congress (the Senate and House
of Representatives) and several agencies that provide support services to Congress.

The Senate is composed of 24 Senators who are elected at large by the qualified voters of
the Philippines.

The House of Representatives is composed of about 250 members elected from legislative

districts in the provinces, cities, and municipalities, and representatives elected through a
party-list system of registered national, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations.

The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per cent of the total number of
representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms after the
ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list representatives
shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the labor, peasant, urban
poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be
provided by law, except the religious sector.

THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

The Judicial branch holds the power to settle controversies involving rights that are legally
demandable and enforceable. This branch determines whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part and
instrumentality of the government. It is made up of a Supreme Court and lower courts.

The judicial branch interprets the meaning of laws, applies laws to individual cases, and
decides if laws violate the Constitution. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme
Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy

A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy’s Philippine Cartoons:

Political
Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941)Political cartoons and caricature are a rather
recent art form, which veered away from the classical art by exaggerating human features
and poking fun at its subjects. Such art genre and technique became a part of the
print media as a form of social and political commentary, which usually targets persons
of power and authority. Cartoons became an effective tool of publicizing opinions through
heavy use of symbolism, which is different from a verbose written editorial and opinion
pieces. The unique way that a caricature

represents opinion and captures the audience’s imagination is a reason enough for
historians to examine

these political cartoons. Commentaries in mass media inevitably shape public opinion and
such kind of opinion is worthy of historical examination. In his book Philippine Cartoons:
Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941), Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo
Roces, compiled political cartoons published in newspaper dailies and periodicals in the
aforementioned time period. For this part, we are going to look at selected cartoons and
explain the context of each one.

The first example was published in The Independent on May 20, 1916. The cartoon shows a
politician from a Tondo, named Dr. Santos, passing his crown to his brother-in-law, Dr.
Barcelona. A Filipino guy (as depicted wearing salakot and barong tagalog) was trying to
stop Santos, telling the latter to stop giving Barcelona the crown because it is not his to
begin with. The second example was also published by The Independent on 16 June 1917.
This was drawn by Fernando Amorsolo and was aimed as a commentary to the workings of
Manila Police at that period. Here, we see a Filipino child who stole a skinny chicken
because he had nothing to eat. The police officer was relentlessly pursuing the said child. A
man wearing a salakot, labeled Juan de la Cruz was grabbing the officer, telling him to leave
the small-time pickpockets and thieves and to turn at the great thieves instead. He was
pointing to huge warehouse containing bulks of rice, milk, and grocery products. The third
cartoon was a commentary on the unprecedented cases of colorum automobiles in the city
of streets. The Philippine Free Press published this commentary when fatal accidents
involving colorum vehicles and taxis occurred too often already.

Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies Making Sense of the past:
Historical Interpretation History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary
definition is centered on how it impacts the present through its consequences. Geoffrey
Barraclough defines history as the attempt to discover, on the basis of fragmentary
evidence, the significant things about the past. He also notes the history we read, though
based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgment. Such
judgement 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 a 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 the following text:
" CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third chief of Panay, born in Aklan,
established his government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered the first
Filipino Lawgiver, the promulgated in about 1433 about penal code now known as a Code
of Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained the
original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which was later translated into Spanish by
Rafael Murviedo Yzamaney. It was only in my 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when
William Henry Scott, then a doctoral candidate at the university of Santo Tomas, defended
his research on pre-Hispanic sources in Philippines history. He attributed the Code to a
historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de lang Isla
de Negros. Marco attributed the Code itself to a priest named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent
Filipino historians did not dissent to Scotts findings but there are still some who would like
to believe that the Code is 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, and non historian interpreting and primary
sources 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 primary sources, when it was read, and how it
was read. As student of history we must be well equipped to recognize

different types of interpretation why these may differ from each other, and how to critically
sift the interpretations through historical evaluation. 

Interpretations of history event 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 8 yrs. old and is probably
one of Rizals most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that this
poem, with that now immortalized lines "Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang sariling wika
mahigit pa sa malansang isda" was written by Rizal, and worse the evidence against Rizals
authorship of the poem seems all unassailable. There exist no manuscript of the poem
handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first published in a 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 Rizals 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 Rizals letters that he first
encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilars translation of Rizals essay "El Almor
Patrio", where it was spelled as "kalayahan ". While Rizals native tounge was Tagalog, the
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 tounge. The
poems 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 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 taught to us as facts when we were younger does not mean that it is open for
interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing account of the past that need ones
attention, important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary sources, but
also the historical interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past.
Multiperspectivity 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, development, culture and societies from different
perspective. This means that there is multitude of ways by which we can view the world,
and each could be equally partial as well. Historical writing is, by definition, biased, partial,
and contain preconception. This historical decides on what sources to use, what
interpretation to make more apparent, depending on what his end is. Historians may
misinterpret evidence, attending to 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 makes the interpretation unbalanced. Historians may impose a
certain ideology to their subject, which may not be appropriate to the period the subject
was from. Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without considering
other possible causal explanations of said event. These are just many of the way a historian
may fail in his historical inference, description, and interpretation. With multiperspectivity
as an approach in history, welcome must understand that historical interpretations contain
discrepancies, contradiction, ambiguities and are often the focus of dissent. Exploring
multiple perspective in history requires incorporating source material that reflect different
views of an event in history, because singular historical narrative do not provide for space
to inquire and investigate. Different source that counter each other may create space for
more investigation and research, while providing more evidence, truths that there sources
agree on. Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truth-an official
document may note different aspect of the past than, say, ah memoir of an ordinary person
on the same event. Different historical agent 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 in close regard in the reading of historical
interpretation, it provides for the audience a more complete and richer understanding of
the past. 
Case Study 1: Where Did the first Catholic Mass take place in the Philippines? The
popularity of knowing where the first happened in history has been an easy way to
trivialize history, but this case study will not focus on the significance 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 event. 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
commemorate the expedition arrival and celebration of Mass on April 8, 1521. The Butuan
claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event.
Toward the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century, together with the
increasing scholarship on the history of the Philippines, ah more nuanced reading of the
available evidence was made, which brought to light more consideration 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 2 primary sources that historians
refer to an identifying the site of the Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, ah pilot of
one of Magellans ship, Trinidad. There was one of the 18 survivors who returned with
Sebastian Elcano in 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,
(The Voyage Around the world ). Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the Magellan
expedition and an eyewitness of the event, particularly, of the Mass. Primary Source:
Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson,
The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, "Butuan or Limasawa?
The site of the first Mass in the Philippines: Reexamination of evidence" 1981, Kinaadman:
And Journal of Southwest Philippines, Vols. III, 1-35. Thursday, March 28-In the morning
they anchored near in island where they had seen a light the night before a small boat
(boloto) came with 8 natives, to whom Magellan threw some trinkets as presents. The
natives paddled away, but 2 hrs. later 2 larger boats (balanghai) came, in one of which the
native king sat under an awning of mats. At Magellans invitation some of the natives went
up the Spanish ships, but the native king remained seated in his boat. An exchange of gifts
was affected. In the afternoon that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and came closer
to shore, anchoring near the native king’s village. This Thursday, March 28, was Thursday
in Holy Week, i. e. Holy Thursday. 2. Friday, March 29-Next day. Holy Friday, Magellan sent
his slave interpreter ashore in a small boat to ask the king if he could provide the
expedition with food supplies, and to say that they had come as friends and not as enemies.
In reply the king himself came in a boat with six or 8 men, and this time went up Magellan’s
ship and the 2 men embraced. Another exchange of gifts was made. The native king and his
companions returned ashore, bringing with them 2 members of Magellan’s expedition as
guest for the night. One of the 2 was Pigafetta. 3. Saturday, March 30-Pigafetta and his
companions had spent the previous evening feasting and drinking with the native king and
his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was Good Friday, they had to eat meat.
The following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his companions took to leave of their hosts
and returned to the ships.

4. Sunday, March 31- "Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day",
Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the
morning Magellan landed with some fifty men and Mass was celebrated, after which a cross
was venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the noon day meal, but
in the afternoon they returned ashore to plant the cross on the summit of the highest hill. In
attendance both at the Mass and at the planting of the cross we're the king of Mazaua and
the king of Butuan. 5. Sunday, March 31-Om that same afternoon, while on the summit of
the highest hill, Magellan asked the two kings which ports he should go to in order to
obtain more abundant supplies of food than we're able in that island. They replied that
there were ports to choose from: Ceylon, Zubu, and Calagan. Of the Zubu was the port with
the most trade. Magellan then said, the wished to go to Zubu and to depart the following
morning. He asked for someone to guide him thither. The king replied that pilots would be
available any time. But later that evening, king of Mazaua changed his mind and said that he
would conduct Magellan to Zubu but he would first have to bring harvest in. He asked
Magellan to send him men to help with harvest. 6. Monday, April 1-Magellan sent men
ashore to help with harvest, but no work was done that day because the 2 king we're
sleeping off their drinking bout the night before. 7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday April
3-Work on the hand during the "next to days, i. e. then and 3rd of April. 8. Thursday, April
4-They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu. Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest
Miguel A. Bernard his work Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the
Philippines:And Reexamination of Evidence (1981) lays down the argument that in the
Pigafettas account, and crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned- the river of Butuan is a
riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach 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
characteristics 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 domain. Initially, the goal was to find alternative
routes by sea to get to Asian the main source of spices and other commodities. Existing
routes to Asian we're mainly by land and cost very expensive. And sea route to Asia means
that Europeans could access the spice trade directly, greatly 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 Americans, which was
then cut off from the rest of the known world.

Spain colonized parts of the North America, Mexico, and South America in the 16th century.
They were also able to reach the Philippines and claim it for the Spanish crown. Later on,
other European rulers would compete with the activities of exploring and conquering
lands. It must also be pointed out that later on, after Magellan’s death, the survivors of his
expedition went to Mindanao, and seemingly went to Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta
vividly describe a trip in a river. But note that this account already happened after
Magellan’s death.

GOMBURZA

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 would be D. Jose
Burgos, or D Jacinto Zamora... Such as... the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and
the means they counted upon for its realization. It is apparent that the account 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 in polos y
servicios, of force labor. They also identified other reasons which seemingly made the
issu'e a lot more serious which included the presence of the native clergy, who, out of spite
against the Spanish friars “conspired and  supported” the rebels. Izquierdo, in an obviously
biased report, highlighted  that attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines to install a new “hari” in the persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora.‘ According
to him, native clergy attracted supporters by giving them Charismatic   assurance that their
fight would not fail because they had God’s support, aside from promises Lofty rewards
such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. In the Spaniard’s accounts the event of
1872 was premeditated and ' was part of a big conspiracy among the educated leaders
mestizos, lawyers, , and residents of Manila and Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate
high ranking Spanish officers then kill the friars. The signal they identified among these
conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired  from Intramuros. The accounts
detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of
Loreto, and came with it were some  fireworks display. The Caviteños 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 attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the
revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed, when the Manileños who were expected to aid
the Caviteños 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 sentenced to be
executed. Others who were implicated such as Joaquin 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 Ian artillery force
composed exclusively by Peninsulares'. On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were
executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again.
Differing Accounts of  the Events of 1872 Two other primary accounts must 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 7.
Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines rendering
unnecessary the sending home of short térm 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 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 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 a 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 larger 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 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 is  believed that the Spanish clergy connected the priest to the
mutiny as part of a conspiracy to 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 witnessed by a young Jose Rizal. Their
martyrdom is widen 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. 

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 Rizals lifework was committed to this end
particularly the more influential ones; Noli Me ‘ Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays
verify 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 c0uld 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 is 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 believe 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 iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La
Voz Espanola 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 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
Sources: 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 29 December 2016. Most Illustrious Sin, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia
stationed in Fort Santigo to report on the events during the [illegible] day in prison of the
accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following:

At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel,
Senor 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 Assistant
of the Plaza, Senor 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. Senor
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 until 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, Senor del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza,
Senor Maure, were informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the
document that the accused had written. At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal
arrived at the prison... dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed
by a military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes 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 aticulo 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 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 eventually resulted in 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 Rizal founded, with
Andres Bonifacio as one of 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 days after Rizal's excile 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. Katipuneros 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 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. 

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 Rebellion" or "Cry of Rebellion" to mark the start of
these revolutionary events, identifying the places where it happened. In the Philippines,
this happened in August 1896, northeast of Manila, wher they declared rebellion against
the Spanish 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 Agoncilo emphasizes the event 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 an "Himno de Balintawak" to inspired 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 Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion road, and from then on until 1962, the Cry of
Balintawak was celebrated every 26th of August. The site of the monument was chosen for
an 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 Balintawak 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, put the
Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on 24 August 1896. Pio Valenzuela, known Katipunero
and privy to many events concerning the Katipunan stated that the Cry happened in Pugad
Lawin on 23 August 18. Historian Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to have happened in
Balintawak on 26 August 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo put it at Pugad Lawin on 23
August 1896,according to statements by Pio Valenzuel. Research by historians Milagros
Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas claimed that the event took place in
Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City, on 24 August 1896. Primary
Sourc: Accounts of the Cry Guillermo Masangkay Source: Guillermo Masangkay, "Cry of
Balintawak" in Gregorio Zaide and Zonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,
Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 307-309. On August 26th, a big meeting was
held in Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio Samson, then cabeza of that barrio of
Caloocan. Among those who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo
del Rosario, Tomas Remegio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique
Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the
board of directors of the organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite and
Morong were also present. At about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26,the meeting
was opened with Andres Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The
purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas,
and Pio Valenzuela were al opposed to starting the revolution too early... Andres Bonifacio,
sensing that he would lose in the discussion then, left the session hall and talked to the
people, who were waiting outside for the result of the meeting of the leaders. He told the
people that the leaders were arguing against starting the revolution early, and appealed to
them in a fiery speech in which he said: "You remember the fate of our countrymen who
were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only
shoot us. Our organization has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don't
start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you say?" "Revolt" the
people shouted as one. Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to
revolt. He told them that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax
charged each citizen. "If it is true that you are ready to revolt... I want to see you destroy
your cedulas. It will be a sign that all of us have declared our severance from the
Spaniards." Pio Valenzuela Source: Pio Valenzuela, "Cry of Pugad Lawin", in Gregorio Zaide
and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: Natinal
Book Store, 1990), 301-302. The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto,
Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the
first five arriving there on August 19, and I, on August 20, 1896. The first place where some
500 members of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was the house and yard of
Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who
were there was Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson,
and others. Here, views were only exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It
was at Pugad Lawin, the house, store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora
Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable
debate and discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the
revolution against the Spanish government should be started on August 29, 1896... After
the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted "
Long live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!. From the eyewitness accounts
presented, there is indeed marked disagreement among historical witnesses as to the place
and time of the occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources, 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 investigator 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 when dealing with primary sources. According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and
Villegas, 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
accounts of the Cry.

The Tejeros Convention, also known as the Tejeros Assembly and the Tejeros Congress,

was a meeting held on March 22, 1897, between Katipunan factions
of Magdiwang and Magdalo in San Francisco de Malabon, Cavite (now General Trias) that
resulted in the creation of a new revolutionary government that took charge of
the Philippine Revolution, replacing the Katipunan. It followed on a previous meeting now
known as the Imus Assembly. Filipino historians consider the first presidential and vice
presidential elections in Philippine history to have been held at this convention, although
only Katipuneros (members of the Katipunan) were able to take part, and not the general
populace.

Purpose

Tejeros Convention Mural, Municipality of Rosario, Cavite.

The revolutionary leaders called the convention in a friar estate residence in Tejeros,
ostensibly to discuss the defense of Cavite against the Spaniards during the Philippine
Revolution (the contemporary Governor General, Camilo de Polavieja, had regained much
of Cavite itself). Instead of focusing on the defense of the province, the convention became
an election to decide the leaders of the revolutionary movement, to settle once and for all
the issue of governance within the Katipunan and of the revolutionary effort - the cause of
the escalating tension between the Magdalo and Magdiwang forces of Cavite, and bypassing
the existing Supreme Council of the Katipunan, as represented by Andrés Bonifacio, its
"Supreme President" (Kataastaasang Pangulo, Presidente Supremo - often shortened by
others to just Supremo, but despite popular belief, generally not by Bonifacio himself; he
instead used Pangulo or the fuller terms) who had been invited to Cavite months earlier to
mediate and had taken the side of the Magdiwang. While Bonifacio and his allies within
Magdiwang maintained that the Katipunan was already sufficient as their government, the
Magdalo people and their own sympathizers within Magdiwang maintained the need to
establish a new government.

Amidst questioning on whether the Katipunan, which already operated as an alternative

revolutionary government, was more like a democracy or a monarchy, Bonifacio defended
that it was republican and democratic in nature. According to him, they were all united
against the King of Spain to have their own free and sovereign government, and that all
Katipunan members of any given rank were meant to serve under the principles of liberty,
equality, and fraternity, upon which republicanism was founded, and that their government
stood for the sovereignty of the people, not only of one or two persons Most of the day was
spent in debates, and a tumult broke out after the Magdalo side called the status quo of the
revolutionaries no better than that of bandits or wild animals, which the Magdiwang on
Bonifacio's side took offense to. After order was restored, some pushed for the convention
to be adjourned, but Bonifacio prevailed upon them to continue. Jacinto Lumbreras of
Magdiwang, who had served as chairman of the assembly and presided over the
proceedings to that point, then refused to continue as chairman, since if they were to
discuss replacing the Katipunan, then Bonifacio should preside as the "father of the
Katipunan and the Revolution". Bonifacio was thus made chairman. Despite his concern
about the lack of officials and representatives from other provinces and other Katipunan
councils, he bowed to the will of the majority and was obliged to proceed with the
elections.

Election results

Bonifacio presided over the election as chairman of the convention. He secured the
unanimous approval of the assembly that the decisions would not be questioned, and the
winners be respected regardless of their stations in life or educational attainment.

The results of the election:

Position Name Faction

President Emilio Aguinaldo Magdalo

Vice-president Mariano Trías Magdiwang

Captain-general Artemio Ricarte Magdiwang

Emiliano Riego de
Director of war Magdiwang
Dios

Director of the Katipunan Supreme Council, Magdiwang

Andrés Bonifacio
interior ally

After Aguinaldo was elected president, Severino de las Alas of Magdiwang proposed that
Bonifacio automatically be considered vice president since he had received the second
highest number of votes. Nobody seconded or contested the motion, so Bonifacio as
chairman ruled that the elections should continue. Mariano Trias of Magdiwang was then
elected vice president over Mariano Alvarez, the president of Magdiwang, and Bonifacio.
Artemio Ricarte of Magdiwang was then elected Captain-General over Santiago Alvarez
(son of Mariano), also of Magdiwang. Ricarte, aka "General Vibora", tried to demur and
concede to Alvarez aka "General Apoy", but Alvarez himself insisted that he accept it and
vouched for him. Then Baldomero Aguinaldo, cousin of Emilio and president of Magdalo,
suggested that people stand in groups to make the voting faster so they could finish before
it got too dark. This was followed, and Emiliano Riego de Dios of Magdiwang was elected
Director of War over Santiago Alvarez and Ariston Villanueva of Magdiwang and Daniel
Tirona of Magdalo. Finally, Bonifacio was elected Director of the Interior over Mariano
Alvarez.

However, after Bonifacio was elected, Daniel Tirona loudly objected that the post should
not be occupied by a person without a lawyer's diploma. He instead nominated a lawyer,
Jose del Rosario (of Magdiwang), as qualified for the suitable position. Bonifacio was
greatly embarrassed, and demanded that Tirona retract the remark and apologize to the
assembly. When Tirona made to leave instead, Bonifacio drew a pistol and was about to fire
at Tirona, but stopped when Ricarte tried to disarm him. Bonifacio then invoked his role as
the chairman of the assembly and the supreme president of the Katipunan and declared all
proceedings that day to be null and void, and left with his supporters.

Allegations of fraud

In addition to Bonifacio's statement voiding the outcome, the probity of the election held
was questioned, with allegations that many ballots distributed were already filled out and
that the voters had not done this themselves.

In their memoirs, Santiago Álvarez and Gregoria de Jesús both alleged that many ballots

were already filled out before being distributed, and Guillermo Masangkay contended there
were more ballots prepared than voters present. Álvarez writes that Bonifacio had been
warned by a Cavite leader Diego Mojica of the rigged ballots before the votes were
canvassed, but he had done nothing.

Post-convention events

Acta de Tejeros (1897)

Naic Military Agreement

Emilio Aguinaldo was not present at the convention, but was at a military front at Pasong
Santol, a barrio of Dasmariñas, Cavite. He was notified of his election to the Presidency the
following day, and his elder brother, Crispulo Aguinaldo, persuaded him to travel to take
the oath of office. Leaving Crispulo in command, Aguinaldo traveled to Santa Cruz de
Malabon (now Tanza, Cavite), where he and the others elected, with the exception of
Bonifacio, took their oath of office. Crispulo Aguinaldo was among those killed in the Battle
of Pasong Santol between March 7 and 24, 1897, which ended with a Spanish victory.
Aguinaldo surreptitiously took his oath of office as president in a chapel officiated by a
Catholic priest Cenon Villafranca who was under the authority of the Roman
pope. According to Gen. Santiago Alvarez, guards were posted outside with strict
instructions not to let in any unwanted partisan from the Magdiwang faction while the
oath-taking took place. Artemio Ricarte also took his office "with great reluctance" and
made a declaration that he found the Tejeros elections "dirty or shady" and "not been in
conformity with the true will of the people."

After leaving the convention, Bonifacio met on March 28 with 45 of his followers.
Convinced that the election at the convention had been invalid, they drew up a document
titled Acta de Tejeros giving their reasons for having rejected the convention results. They
then proceeded to Naik and drew up another document on April 19, sometimes referred to
as the Naic Military Agreement, repudiating the insurgent government established at
Tejeros.

Aguinaldo did not at first fully or openly assume the office of president, though he had
secretly taken the oath of office, and first managed to secure support among Magdalo and
Magdiwang alike. He sent a delegation to contact the increasingly isolated Bonifacio and
persuade him to cooperate. The delegation was able to contact Bonifacio, but was unable to
persuade him as he resolved to move out of the province. Some Magdiwang leaders, led
by Pio del Pilar and Mariano Alvarez, eventually recanted their previous insistence that the
result of the Tejeros convention was null and void, thereby recognizing the validity of the
elected leaders there, and some others later occupying the five vacant positions upon
appointment from Aguinaldo. The newly appointed officials took their oath of office on
April 24, 1897, when Aguinaldo fully and openly assumed the office of president. On the
same day, he convened the first session of the cabinet and issued an official circular
informing the town presidents of all municipalities that he was duly elected by the
convention and was assuming his position as president.

Several complaints against Bonifacio, notably from Severino de las Alas and Jose Coronel,
were then presented to Aguinaldo. He then ordered Bonifacio's arrest before he could leave
Cavite, and dispatched a force to Bonifacio's camp at Limbon, Indang. The unsuspecting
Bonifacio received them cordially on the 25th, but was arrested along with his
brother Procopio early the next day. In the resulting exchange of gunfire and scuffles,
despite Bonifacio ordering his men not to fight and not putting up resistance himself, he
was wounded and his other sibling, Ciriaco, was killed. Andres and Procopio Bonifacio were
tried on charges of treason by members of the war council of Aguinaldo's government. On
May 10, 1897, the brothers were executed.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

Republic of Biak-na-Bato is a designation referring to the second revolutionary republican

government led by Emilio Aguinaldo during the Philippine Revolution, That government
referred to itself as Republic of the Philippines (Spanish: República de Filipinas; in
modern Filipino: Republika ng Pilipinas) and was seated in what is now Biak-na-Bato
National Park. The current designation was adopted by historians to avoid confusion with
name of the current Philippine government, which also refers to itself the Republic of the
Philippines, and with other past Philippine governments using the same designation.

The Biak-na-Bato republic lasted just over a month. It was disestablished by a peace
treaty signed by Aguinaldo and the Spanish Governor-General, Fernando Primo de Rivera,
which included provision for exile of Aguinaldo and key associates to Hong Kong.

The Political Constitution of 1899 (Spanish: Constitución Política de 1899 ), informally

known as the Malolos Constitution, was the constitution of the First Philippine Republic. It
was written by Felipe Calderón y Roca and Felipe Buencamino as an alternative to a pair of
proposals to the Malolos Congress by Apolinario Mabini and Pedro Paterno. After a lengthy
debate in the latter part of 1898, it was promulgated on 21 January 1899.

The constitution placed limitations on unsupervised freedom of action by the chief

executive which would have hampered rapid decision making. As it was created during the
fight for Philippine independence from Spain, however, its Article 99 allowed unhampered
executive freedom of action during wartime. Unsupervised executive governance
continued throughout the Philippine–American War which erupted soon after
proclamation.

1935 Philippine constitutional plebiscite

23 March 1935: Seated, left to right: George H. Dern, Secretary of War; President Franklin

D. Roosevelt, signing the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines; Manuel L.
Quezon, President, Philippine Senate

Act No. 4200

A constitutional plebiscite held in the Philippines on 14 May 1935 ratified the 1935

Philippine Constitution which established the Philippine Commonwealth. The constitution
had been written in 1934 by the Constitutional Convention of 1934.

Gold In-Laid Chest (Repository of 1935 Philippine Constitution)  displayed at Quezon

Museum in Quezon Memorial Circle, Quezon City, Philippines

The Tydings–McDuffie Act of the United States Government detailed the steps required for

the Philippines to become independent of the United States. A previous act, the Hare–
Hawes–Cutting Act, had been rejected by the Philippine Congress.
The constitution was approved by 96% of voters, and was replaced by the 1973
Constitution of the Philippines.

1973 Philippine constitutional plebiscite

Background

In 1970, 320 delegates were elected to a constitutional convention which began to meet in

1971. On 23 September 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos issued the formal declaration of
martial law which led to the arrests of 11 conveners, alongside government critics and
journalists, by the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine Constabulary.[1] The
convention then re-convened and wrote a constitution in line with what
President Ferdinand Marcos wanted, at least, according to many critics and victims of
martial law.

Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 86 calling for the cancellation of the plebiscite and
instituted barangays' citizens' assemblies to ratify the new constitution by a referendum
from 10–15 January 1973. Alongside the utilization of citizens' assemblies, the voting age
was also reduced to 15. Voting in citizens' assemblies took place through viva voce voting,
similar to parliamentary procedure, rather than the standard secret ballot that had been
used up until that point.

During the course of voting, military men were stationed in prominent positions to
intimidate voters. And mayors were given quotas for "yes" votes, while "no" votes were
occasionally not recorded. Official figures state that 90% of voters voted in favor of
adopting the new constitution, although some communities did not partake in voting.

On 17 January 1973, Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1102 certifying and proclaiming that
the 1973 Constitution had been ratified by the Filipino people and thereby was in effect.

These results were challenged during the Ratification Cases heard by the Supreme Court of

the Philippine in 1973. The court upheld the results and the ratification of the 1973
Constitution.

The Constitution of the Philippines (Filipino: Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas or Konstitusyon ng

Pilipinas, Spanish: Constitución de la República de Filipinas ) is the constitution or supreme
law of the Republic of the Philippines. Its final draft was completed by the Constitutional
Commission on October 12, 1986, and was ratified by a nationwide plebiscite on February
2, 1987.

Three other constitutions have effectively governed the country in its history: the 1935
Commonwealth Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, and the 1986 Freedom Constitution.
Philippine Constitutional Commission of 1986

President Corazon Aquino was granted three options: restore the 1935 Constitution, retain
and make reforms to the 1973 Constitution, or pass a new constitution. She decided to draft
a new constitution and issued Proclamation No. 3 on March 25, 1986, abrogating many of
the provisions of the 1973 Constitution adopted during the Marcos regime, including
the unicameral legislature (the Batasang Pambansa), the office of Prime Minister, and
provisions which gave the President legislative powers. Often called the "Freedom
Constitution", this constitution was intended as a transitional constitution to ensure
democracy and the freedom of the people. The Freedom Constitution provided for an
orderly transfer of power while a Constitutional Commission was drafting a permanent
constitution.

The Constitutional Commission was composed of forty-eight members appointed by

Aquino from varied backgrounds, including several former members of the House of
Representatives, former justices of the Supreme Court, a Roman Catholic bishop, and
political activists against the Marcos regime. Aquino appointed Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, a
former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, as president of the commission. Several
issues were of particular contention during the commission's sessions, including the form
of government to adopt, the abolition of the death penalty, the retention of U.S. bases
in Clark and Subic, and the integration of economic policies into the constitution. Lino
Brocka, a film director and political activist who was a member of the commission, walked
out before the constitution's completion, and two other delegates dissented from the final
draft. The Commission finished the final draft on October 12, 1986, and presented it to
Aquino on October 15. The constitution was ratified by a nationwide plebiscite on February
2, 1987.

The constitution provided for three governmental branches, namely

the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The executive branch is headed by the
president and his appointed cabinet members. The executive, same with the other two co-
equal branches, has limited power. This is to ensure that the country will be "safeguarded"
if martial law is to be declared. The president can still declare martial law, but it expires
within 60 days and Congress can either reject or extend it.

The task of the Supreme Court is to review whether a declaration of martial law is just. The
legislative power consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are
twenty-four senators and the House is composed of district representatives. It also created
opportunities for under-represented sectors of community to select their representative
through party-list system. The judiciary branch comprises the Supreme Court and the
lower courts. The Supreme Court is granted the power to hear any cases that deals with the
constitutionality of law, about a treaty or decree of the government. It is also tasked to
administrate the function of the lower courts.

Pre-Spanish Period

“This land is Ours God gave this land to us”

Before the Spaniards came to the Philippines, Filipinos lived in villages or barangays ruled
by chiefs or datus. The datus comprised the nobility. Then came the maharlikas (freemen),
followed by the aliping mamamahay (serfs) and aliping saguiguilid (slaves).

However, despite the existence of different classes in the social structure, practically
everyone had access to the fruits of the soil. Money was unknown, and rice served as the
medium of exchange.

Spanish Period

“United we stand, divided we fall”

When the Spaniards came to the Philippines, the concept of encomienda (Royal Land
Grants) was introduced. This system grants that Encomienderos must defend his
encomienda from external attack, maintain peace and order within, and support the
missionaries. In turn, the encomiendero acquired the right to collect tribute from the indios
(native).

The system, however, degenerated into abuse of power by the encomienderos The tribute
soon became land rents to a few powerful landlords. And the natives who once cultivated
the lands in freedom were transformed into mere share tenants.

First Philippine Republic

“The yoke has finally broken”

When the First Philippine Republic was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo
declared in the Malolos Constitution his intention to confiscate large estates, especially the
so-called Friar lands.

However, as the Republic was short-lived, Aguinaldo’s plan was never implemented.

American Period

“Long live America”

Significant legislation enacted during the American Period:

  Philippine Bill of 1902 – Set the ceilings on the hectarage of private individuals and
corporations may acquire: 16 has. for private individuals and 1,024 has. for
corporations.

 Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) – Provided for a comprehensive
registration of land titles under the Torrens system.

 Public Land Act of 1903 – introduced the homestead system in the Philippines.

 Tenancy Act of 1933 (Act No. 4054 and 4113) – regulated relationships between
landowners and tenants of rice (50-50 sharing) and sugar cane lands.

The Torrens system, which the Americans instituted for the registration of lands, did not
solve the problem completely. Either they were not aware of the law or if they did, they
could not pay the survey cost and other fees required in applying for a Torrens title.

Commonwealth Period

“Government for the Filipinos”

President Manuel L. Quezon espoused the "Social Justice" program to arrest the increasing
social unrest in Central Luzon.

Significant legislation enacted during Commonwealth Period:

 1935 Constitution – "The promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and
economic security of all people should be the concern of the State"

 Commonwealth Act No. 178 (An Amendment to Rice Tenancy Act No. 4045), Nov.
13, 1936 – Provided for certain controls in the landlord-tenant relationships

 National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC), 1936 – Established the price of rice
and corn thereby help the poor tenants as well as consumers.

 Commonwealth Act. No. 461, 1937 – Specified reasons for the dismissal of tenants
and only with the approval of the Tenancy Division of the Department of Justice.

 Rural Program Administration, created March 2, 1939 – Provided the purchase and
lease of haciendas and their sale and lease to the tenants.
Commonwealth Act No. 441 enacted on June 3, 1939 – Created the National
Settlement Administration with a capital stock of P20,000,000.
Japanese Occupation

“The Era of Hukbalahap”

The Second World War II started in Europe in 1939 and in the Pacific in 1941.

Hukbalahap controlled whole areas of Central Luzon; landlords who supported the
Japanese lost their lands to peasants while those who supported the Huks earned fixed
rentals in favor of the tenants.

Unfortunately, the end of war also signaled the end of gains acquired by the peasants.

Upon the arrival of the Japanese in the Philippines in 1942, peasants and workers
organizations grew strength. Many peasants took up arms and identified themselves with
the anti-Japanese group, the HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon).

Philippine Republic

“The New Republic”

After the establishment of the Philippine Independence in 1946, the problems of land
tenure remained. These became worst in certain areas. Thus the Congress of the
Philippines revised the tenancy law.

President Manuel A. Roxas (1946-1948) enacted the following laws:

 Republic Act No. 34 -- Established the 70-30 sharing arrangements and regulating
share-tenancy contracts.

 Republic Act No. 55 -- Provided for a more effective safeguard against arbitrary
ejectment of tenants.

Elpidio R. Quirino (1948-1953) enacted the following law:

Executive Order No. 355 issued on October 23, 1950 -- Replaced the National Land
Settlement Administration with Land Settlement Development Corporation (LASEDECO)
which takes over the responsibilities of the Agricultural Machinery Equipment Corporation
and the Rice and Corn Production Administration.

Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957) enacted the following laws:

 Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 -- Abolished the LASEDECO and established the
National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) to resettle
dissidents and landless farmers. It was particularly aimed at rebel returnees
providing home lots and farmlands in Palawan and Mindanao.
  Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954) -- governed the
relationship between landowners and tenant farmers by organizing share-tenancy
and leasehold system. The law provided the security of tenure of tenants. It also
created the Court of Agrarian Relations.

 Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) -- Created the Land Tenure
Administration (LTA) which was responsible for the acquisition and distribution of
large tenanted rice and corn lands over 200 hectares for individuals and 600
hectares for corporations.

 Republic Act No. 821 (Creation of Agricultural Credit Cooperative Financing

Administration) -- Provided small farmers and share tenants loans with low interest
rates of six to eight percent.

President Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961)

Continued the program of President Ramon Magsaysay. No new legislation passed.

President Diosdado P. Macapagal (1961-1965) enacted the following law:

Republic Act No. 3844 of August 8, 1963 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) -- Abolished
share tenancy, institutionalized leasehold, set retention limit at 75 hectares, invested rights
of preemption and redemption for tenant farmers, provided for an administrative
machinery for implementation, institutionalized a judicial system of agrarian cases,
incorporated extension, marketing and supervised credit system of services of farmer
beneficiaries.

The RA was hailed as one that would emancipate Filipino farmers from the bondage of
tenancy.

President Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-1986)

Proclamation No. 1081 on September 21, 1972 ushered the Period of the New Society. Five
days after the proclamation of Martial Law, the entire country was proclaimed a land
reform area and simultaneously the Agrarian Reform Program was decreed.

President Marcos enacted the following laws:

 Republic Act No. 6389, (Code of Agrarian Reform) and RA No. 6390 of 1971 --
Created the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Agrarian Reform Special
Account Fund. It strengthen the position of farmers and expanded the scope of
agrarian reform.
  Presidential Decree No. 2, September 26, 1972 -- Declared the country under land
reform program. It enjoined all agencies and offices of the government to extend full
cooperation and assistance to the DAR. It also activated the Agrarian Reform
Coordinating Council.

 Presidential Decree No. 27, October 21, 1972 -- Restricted land reform scope to
tenanted rice and corn lands and set the retention limit at 7 hectares.

President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)

The Constitution ratified by the Filipino people during the administration of President
Corazon C. Aquino provides under Section 21 under Article II that “The State shall promote
comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.”

On June 10, 1988, former President Corazon C. Aquino signed into law Republic Act No.
6657 or otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The law
became effective on June 15, 1988.

Subsequently, four Presidential issuances were released in July 1987 after 48 nationwide
consultations before the actual law was enacted.

President Corazon C. Aquino enacted the following laws:

 Executive Order No. 228, July 16, 1987 – Declared full ownership to qualified
farmer-beneficiaries covered by PD 27. It also determined the value remaining
unvalued rice and corn lands subject of PD 27 and provided for the manner of
payment by the FBs and mode of compensation to landowners.

 Executive Order No. 229, July 22, 1987 – Provided mechanism for the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

 Proclamation No. 131, July 22, 1987 – Instituted the CARP as a major program of the
government. It provided for a special fund known as the Agrarian Reform Fund
(ARF), with an initial amount of Php50 billion to cover the estimated cost of the
program from 1987-1992.

 Executive Order No. 129-A, July 26, 1987 – streamlined and expanded the power
and operations of the DAR.

 Republic Act No. 6657, June 10, 1988 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) – An
act which became effective June 15, 1988 and instituted a comprehensive agrarian
reform program to promote social justice and industrialization providing the
mechanism for its implementation and for other purposes. This law is still the one
being implemented at present.
  Executive Order No. 405, June 14, 1990 – Vested in the Land Bank of the Philippines
the responsibility to determine land valuation and compensation for all lands
covered by CARP.

 Executive Order No. 407, June 14, 1990 – Accelerated the acquisition and
distribution of agricultural lands, pasture lands, fishponds, agro-forestry lands and
other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.

President Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998)

When President Fidel V. Ramos formally took over in 1992, his administration came face to
face with publics who have lost confidence in the agrarian reform program. His
administration committed to the vision “Fairer, faster and more meaningful
implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program.

President Fidel V. Ramos enacted the following laws:

 Republic Act No. 7881, 1995 – Amended certain provisions of RA 6657 and
exempted fishponds and prawns from the coverage of CARP.

 Republic Act No. 7905, 1995 – Strengthened the implementation of the CARP.

 Executive Order No. 363, 1997 – Limits the type of lands that may be converted by
setting conditions under which limits the type of lands that may be converted by
setting conditions under which specific categories of agricultural land are either
absolutely non-negotiable for conversion or highly restricted for conversion.

 Republic Act No. 8435, 1997 (Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act AFMA) –
Plugged the legal loopholes in land use conversion.

 Republic Act 8532, 1998 (Agrarian Reform Fund Bill) – Provided an additional
Php50 billion for CARP and extended its implementation for another 10 years.

President Joseph E. Estrada (1998-2000)

“ERAP PARA SA MAHIRAP’. This was the battle cry that endeared President Joseph Estrada
and made him very popular during the 1998 presidential election.

President Joseph E. Estrada initiated the enactment of the following law:

Executive Order N0. 151, September 1999 (Farmer’s Trust Fund) – Allowed the voluntary
consolidation of small farm operation into medium and large scale integrated enterprise
that can access long-term capital.
During his administration, President Estrada launched the Magkabalikat Para sa
Kaunlarang Agraryo or MAGKASAKA. The DAR forged into joint ventures with private
investors into agrarian sector to make FBs competitive.

However, the Estrada Administration was short lived. The masses who put him into office
demanded for his ouster.

President Gloria Macapacal-Arroyo (2000-2010)

The agrarian reform program under the Arroyo administration is anchored on the vision
“To make the countryside economically viable for the Filipino family by building
partnership and promoting social equity and new economic opportunities towards lasting
peace and sustainable rural development.”

Land Tenure Improvement - DAR will remain vigorous in implementing land acquisition
and distribution component of CARP. The DAR will improve land tenure system through
land distribution and leasehold.

Provision of Support Services - CARP not only involves the distribution of lands but also
included package of support services which includes: credit assistance, extension services,
irrigation facilities, roads and bridges, marketing facilities and training and technical
support programs.

Infrastrucre Projects - DAR will transform the agrarian reform communities (ARCs), an
area focused and integrated delivery of support services, into rural economic zones that
will help in the creation of job opportunities in the countryside.

KALAHI ARZone - The KALAHI Agrarian Reform (KAR) Zones were also launched. These
zones consists of one or more municipalities with concentration of ARC population to
achieve greater agro-productivity.

Agrarian Justice - To help clear the backlog of agrarian cases, DAR will hire more paralegal
officers to support undermanned adjudicatory boards and introduce quota system to
compel adjudicators to work faster on agrarian reform cases. DAR will respect the rights of
both farmers and landowners.

President Benigno Aquino III (2010-2016)

President Benigno Aquino III vowed during his 2012 State of the Nation Address that he
would complete before the end of his term the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP), the centerpiece program of the administration of his mother, President Corazon
Aquino.
The younger Aquino distributed their family-owned Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac. Apart from
the said farm lots, he also promised to complete the distribution of privately-owned lands
of productive agricultural estates in the country that have escaped the coverage of the
program.

Under his administration, the Agrarian Reform Community Connectivity and Economic
Support Services (ARCCESS) project was created to contribute to the overall goal of rural
poverty reduction especially in agrarian reform areas.

Agrarian Production Credit Program (APCP) provided credit support for crop production
to newly organized and existing agrarian reform beneficiaries’ organizations (ARBOs) and
farmers’ organizations not qualified to avail themselves of loans under the regular credit
windows of banks.

The legal case monitoring system (LCMS), a web-based legal system for recording and
monitoring various kinds of agrarian cases at the provincial, regional and central offices of
the DAR to ensure faster resolution and close monitoring of agrarian-related cases, was
also launched.

Aside from these initiatives, Aquino also enacted Executive Order No. 26, Series of 2011, to
mandate the Department of Agriculture-Department of Environment and Natural
Resources-Department of Agrarian Reform Convergence Initiative to develop a National
Greening Program in cooperation with other government agencies.

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (2016 – present) 

Under his leadership, the President wants to pursue an “aggressive” land reform program
that would help alleviate the life of poor Filipino farmers by prioritizing the provision of
support services alongside land distribution.

The President directed the DAR to launch the 2nd phase of agrarian reform where landless
farmers would be awarded with undistributed lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP).

Duterte plans to place almost all public lands, including military reserves, under agrarian
reform.

The President also placed 400 hectares of agricultural lands in Boracay under CARP.

Under his administration the DAR created an anti-corruption task force to investigate and
handle reports on alleged anomalous activities by officials and employees of the
department.
The Department also pursues an “Oplan Zero Backlog” in the resolution of cases in relation
to agrarian justice delivery of the agrarian reform program to fast-track the
implementation of CARP.

Evolution of Philippine Taxation

It all started from the Ancient Filipinos, where they pay their taxes to their Datu or the
Chiefs for the protection they gave to them, the tax was termed buwis. Everyone is required
to pay their taxes, except for the Datu/Chieftain's household. Punishment for not paying
taxes was also implemented on this period.

How was taxation in the Philippines done by Spaniards?

Other forms of taxes from the Spanish Era is the tributo, which was originally between 8 to
10 reales. Forced labor, or polo y servicio, was also a network for tax payment. Eventually,
with the cedula, Spain replaced tributo with cedula, which allowed them to keep track of
the people who could pay taxes.

Spanish era (TAXATION)

A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy

A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy’s Philippine Cartoons:

Political

Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941)Political cartoons and caricature are a rather
recent art form, which veered away from the classical art by exaggerating human features
and poking fun at its subjects. Such art genre and technique became a part of the print
media as a form of social and political commentary, which usually targets persons of power
and authority. Cartoons became an effective tool of publicizing opinions through heavy use
of symbolism, which is different from a verbose written editorial and opinion pieces. The
unique way that a caricature

represents opinion and captures the audience’s imagination is a reason enough for
historians to examine

these political cartoons. Commentaries in mass media inevitably shape public opinion and
such kind of opinion is worthy of historical examination. In his book Philippine Cartoons:
Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941), Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo
Roces, compiled political cartoons published in newspaper dailies and periodicals in the
aforementioned time period. For this part, we are going to look at selected cartoons and
explain the context of each one.

The first example was published in The Independent on May 20, 1916. The cartoon shows a
politician from a Tondo, named Dr. Santos, passing his crown to his brother-in-law, Dr.
Barcelona. A Filipino guy (as depicted wearing salakot and barong tagalog) was trying to
stop Santos, telling the latter to stop giving Barcelona the crown because it is not his to
begin with. The second example was also published by The Independent on 16 June 1917.
This was drawn by Fernando Amorsolo and was aimed as a commentary to the workings of
Manila Police at that period. Here, we see a Filipino child who stole a skinny chicken
because he had nothing to eat. The police officer was relentlessly pursuing the said child. A
man wearing a salakot, labeled Juan de la Cruz was grabbing the officer, telling him to leave
the small-time pickpockets and thieves and to turn at the great thieves instead. He was
pointing to huge warehouse containing bulks of rice, milk, and grocery products. The third
cartoon was a commentary on the unprecedented cases of colorum automobiles in the city
of streets. The Philippine Free Press published this commentary when fatal accidents
involving colorum vehicles and taxis occurred too often already.

Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies Making Sense of the past:
Historical Interpretation History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary
definition is centered on how it impacts the present through its consequences. Geoffrey
Barraclough defines history as the attempt to discover, on the basis of fragmentary
evidence, the significant things about the past. He also notes the history we read, though
based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgment. Such
judgement 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 a 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 the following text:
" CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third chief of Panay, born in Aklan,
established his government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered the first
Filipino Lawgiver, the promulgated in about 1433 about penal code now known as a Code
of Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained the
original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which was later translated into Spanish by
Rafael Murviedo Yzamaney. It was only in my 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when
William Henry Scott, then a doctoral candidate at the university of Santo Tomas, defended
his research on pre-Hispanic sources in Philippines history. He attributed the Code to a
historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de lang Isla
de Negros. Marco attributed the Code itself to a priest named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent
Filipino historians did not dissent to Scotts findings but there are still some who would like
to believe that the Code is 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, and non historian interpreting and primary
sources 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 primary sources, when it was read, and how it
was read. As student of history we must be well equipped to recognize

different types of interpretation why these may differ from each other, and how to critically
sift the interpretations through historical evaluation.

Interpretations of history event 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 8 yrs. old and is probably
one of Rizals most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that this
poem, with that now immortalized lines "Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang sariling wika
mahigit pa sa malansang isda" was written by Rizal, and worse the evidence against Rizals
authorship of the poem seems all unassailable. There exist no manuscript of the poem
handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first published in a 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 Rizals 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 Rizals letters that he first
encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilars translation of Rizals essay "El Almor
Patrio", where it was spelled as "kalayahan ". While Rizals native tounge was Tagalog, the
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 tounge. The
poems 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 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 taught to us as facts when we were younger does not mean that it is open for
interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing account of the past that need ones
attention, important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary sources, but
also the historical interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past.
Multiperspectivity 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, development, culture and societies from different
perspective. This means that there is multitude of ways by which we can view the world,
and each could be equally partial as well. Historical writing is, by definition, biased, partial,
and contain preconception. This historical decides on what sources to use, what
interpretation to make more apparent, depending on what his end is. Historians may
misinterpret evidence, attending to 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 makes the interpretation unbalanced. Historians may impose a
certain ideology to their subject, which may not be appropriate to the period the subject
was from. Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without considering
other possible causal explanations of said event. These are just many of the way a historian
may fail in his historical inference, description, and interpretation. With multiperspectivity
as an approach in history, welcome must understand that historical interpretations contain
discrepancies, contradiction, ambiguities and are often the focus of dissent. Exploring
multiple perspective in history requires incorporating source material that reflect different
views of an event in history, because singular historical narrative do not provide for space
to inquire and investigate. Different source that counter each other may create space for
more investigation and research, while providing more evidence, truths that there sources
agree on. Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truth-an official
document may note different aspect of the past than, say, ah memoir of an ordinary person
on the same event. Different historical agent 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 in close regard in the reading of historical
interpretation, it provides for the audience a more complete and richer understanding of
the past.

Case Study 1: Where Did the first Catholic Mass take place in the Philippines? The
popularity of knowing where the first happened in history has been an easy way to
trivialize history, but this case study will not focus on the significance 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 event. 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
commemorate the expedition arrival and celebration of Mass on April 8, 1521. The Butuan
claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event.
Toward the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century, together with the
increasing scholarship on the history of the Philippines, ah more nuanced reading of the
available evidence was made, which brought to light more consideration 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 2 primary sources that historians
refer to an identifying the site of the Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, ah pilot of
one of Magellans ship, Trinidad. There was one of the 18 survivors who returned with
Sebastian Elcano in 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,
(The Voyage Around the world ). Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the Magellan
expedition and an eyewitness of the event, particularly, of the Mass. Primary Source:
Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson,
The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, "Butuan or Limasawa?
The site of the first Mass in the Philippines: Reexamination of evidence" 1981, Kinaadman:
And Journal of Southwest Philippines, Vols. III, 1-35. Thursday, March 28-In the morning
they anchored near in island where they had seen a light the night before a small boat
(boloto) came with 8 natives, to whom Magellan threw some trinkets as presents. The
natives paddled away, but 2 hrs. later 2 larger boats (balanghai) came, in one of which the
native king sat under an awning of mats. At Magellans invitation some of the natives went
up the Spanish ships, but the native king remained seated in his boat. An exchange of gifts
was affected. In the afternoon that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and came closer
to shore, anchoring near the native king’s village. This Thursday, March 28, was Thursday
in Holy Week, i. e. Holy Thursday. 2. Friday, March 29-Next day. Holy Friday, Magellan sent
his slave interpreter ashore in a small boat to ask the king if he could provide the
expedition with food supplies, and to say that they had come as friends and not as enemies.
In reply the king himself came in a boat with six or 8 men, and this time went up Magellan’s
ship and the 2 men embraced. Another exchange of gifts was made. The native king and his
companions returned ashore, bringing with them 2 members of Magellan’s expedition as
guest for the night. One of the 2 was Pigafetta. 3. Saturday, March 30-Pigafetta and his
companions had spent the previous evening feasting and drinking with the native king and
his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was Good Friday, they had to eat meat.
The following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his companions took to leave of their hosts
and returned to the ships.
4. Sunday, March 31- "Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day",
Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the
morning Magellan landed with some fifty men and Mass was celebrated, after which a cross
was venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the noon day meal, but
in the afternoon they returned ashore to plant the cross on the summit of the highest hill. In
attendance both at the Mass and at the planting of the cross we're the king of Mazaua and
the king of Butuan. 5. Sunday, March 31-Om that same afternoon, while on the summit of
the highest hill, Magellan asked the two kings which ports he should go to in order to
obtain more abundant supplies of food than we're able in that island. They replied that
there were ports to choose from: Ceylon, Zubu, and Calagan. Of the Zubu was the port with
the most trade. Magellan then said, the wished to go to Zubu and to depart the following
morning. He asked for someone to guide him thither. The king replied that pilots would be
available any time. But later that evening, king of Mazaua changed his mind and said that he
would conduct Magellan to Zubu but he would first have to bring harvest in. He asked
Magellan to send him men to help with harvest. 6. Monday, April 1-Magellan sent men
ashore to help with harvest, but no work was done that day because the 2 king we're
sleeping off their drinking bout the night before. 7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday April
3-Work on the hand during the "next to days, i. e. then and 3rd of April. 8. Thursday, April
4-They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu. Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest
Miguel A. Bernard his work Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the
Philippines:And Reexamination of Evidence (1981) lays down the argument that in the
Pigafettas account, and crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned- the river of Butuan is a
riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach 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
characteristics 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 domain. Initially, the goal was to find alternative
routes by sea to get to Asian the main source of spices and other commodities. Existing
routes to Asian we're mainly by land and cost very expensive. And sea route to Asia means
that Europeans could access the spice trade directly, greatly 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 Americans, which was
then cut off from the rest of the known world.

Spain colonized parts of the North America, Mexico, and South America in the 16th century.
They were also able to reach the Philippines and claim it for the Spanish crown. Later on,
other European rulers would compete with the activities of exploring and conquering
lands. It must also be pointed out that later on, after Magellan’s death, the survivors of his
expedition went to Mindanao, and seemingly went to Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta
vividly describe a trip in a river. But note that this account already happened after
Magellan’s death.

GOMBURZA

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 would be D. Jose
Burgos, or D Jacinto Zamora... Such as... the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and
the means they counted upon for its realization. It is apparent that the account 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 in polos y
servicios, of force labor. They also identified other reasons which seemingly made the
issu'e a lot more serious which included the presence of the native clergy, who, out of spite
against the Spanish friars “conspired and supported” the rebels. Izquierdo, in an obviously
biased report, highlighted that attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines to install a new “hari” in the persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora.‘ According
to him, native clergy attracted supporters by giving them Charismatic assurance that their
fight would not fail because they had God’s support, aside from promises Lofty rewards
such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. In the Spaniard’s accounts the event of
1872 was premeditated and ' was part of a big conspiracy among the educated leaders
mestizos, lawyers, , and residents of Manila and Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate
high ranking Spanish officers then kill the friars. The signal they identified among these
conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired from Intramuros. The accounts
detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of
Loreto, and came with it were some fireworks display. The Caviteños 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 attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the
revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed, when the Manileños who were expected to aid
the Caviteños 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 sentenced to be
executed. Others who were implicated such as Joaquin 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 Ian artillery force
composed exclusively by Peninsulares'. On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were
executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again.
Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872 Two other primary accounts must 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 7.
Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines rendering
unnecessary the sending home of short térm 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 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 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 a 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 larger 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 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 is believed that the Spanish clergy connected the priest to the
mutiny as part of a conspiracy to 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 witnessed by a young Jose Rizal. Their
martyrdom is widen 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.

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 Rizals lifework was committed to this end
particularly the more influential ones; Noli Me ‘ Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays
verify 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 c0uld 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 is 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 believe 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 iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La
Voz Espanola 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 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
Sources: 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 29 December 2016. Most Illustrious Sin, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia
stationed in Fort Santigo to report on the events during the [illegible] day in prison of the
accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following:

At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel,
Senor 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 Assistant
of the Plaza, Senor 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. Senor
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 until 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, Senor del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza,
Senor Maure, were informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the
document that the accused had written. At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal
arrived at the prison... dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed
by a military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes 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 aticulo 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 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 eventually resulted in 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 Rizal founded, with
Andres Bonifacio as one of 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 days after Rizal's excile 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. Katipuneros 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 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.

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 Rebellion" or "Cry of Rebellion" to mark the start of
these revolutionary events, identifying the places where it happened. In the Philippines,
this happened in August 1896, northeast of Manila, wher they declared rebellion against
the Spanish 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 Agoncilo emphasizes the event 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 an "Himno de Balintawak" to inspired 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 Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion road, and from then on until 1962, the Cry of
Balintawak was celebrated every 26th of August. The site of the monument was chosen for
an 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 Balintawak 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, put the
Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on 24 August 1896. Pio Valenzuela, known Katipunero
and privy to many events concerning the Katipunan stated that the Cry happened in Pugad
Lawin on 23 August 18. Historian Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to have happened in
Balintawak on 26 August 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo put it at Pugad Lawin on 23
August 1896,according to statements by Pio Valenzuel. Research by historians Milagros
Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas claimed that the event took place in
Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City, on 24 August 1896. Primary
Sourc: Accounts of the Cry Guillermo Masangkay Source: Guillermo Masangkay, "Cry of
Balintawak" in Gregorio Zaide and Zonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,
Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 307-309. On August 26th, a big meeting was
held in Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio Samson, then cabeza of that barrio of
Caloocan. Among those who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo
del Rosario, Tomas Remegio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique
Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the
board of directors of the organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite and
Morong were also present. At about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26,the meeting
was opened with Andres Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The
purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas,
and Pio Valenzuela were al opposed to starting the revolution too early... Andres Bonifacio,
sensing that he would lose in the discussion then, left the session hall and talked to the
people, who were waiting outside for the result of the meeting of the leaders. He told the
people that the leaders were arguing against starting the revolution early, and appealed to
them in a fiery speech in which he said: "You remember the fate of our countrymen who
were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only
shoot us. Our organization has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don't
start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you say?" "Revolt" the
people shouted as one. Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to
revolt. He told them that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax
charged each citizen. "If it is true that you are ready to revolt... I want to see you destroy
your cedulas. It will be a sign that all of us have declared our severance from the
Spaniards." Pio Valenzuela Source: Pio Valenzuela, "Cry of Pugad Lawin", in Gregorio Zaide
and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: Natinal
Book Store, 1990), 301-302. The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto,
Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the
first five arriving there on August 19, and I, on August 20, 1896. The first place where some
500 members of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was the house and yard of
Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who
were there was Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson,
and others. Here, views were only exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It
was at Pugad Lawin, the house, store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora
Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable
debate and discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the
revolution against the Spanish government should be started on August 29, 1896... After
the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted "
Long live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!. From the eyewitness accounts
presented, there is indeed marked disagreement among historical witnesses as to the place
and time of the occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources, 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 investigator 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 when dealing with primary sources. According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and
Villegas, 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
accounts of the Cry.

The Tejeros Convention, also known as the Tejeros Assembly and the Tejeros Congress,
was a meeting held on March 22, 1897, between Katipunan factions of Magdiwang and
Magdalo in San Francisco de Malabon, Cavite (now General Trias) that resulted in the
creation of a new revolutionary government that took charge of the Philippine Revolution,
replacing the Katipunan. It followed on a previous meeting now known as the Imus
Assembly. Filipino historians consider the first presidential and vice presidential elections
in Philippine history to have been held at this convention, although only Katipuneros
(members of the Katipunan) were able to take part, and not the general populace.

Purpose

Tejeros Convention Mural, Municipality of Rosario, Cavite.

The revolutionary leaders called the convention in a friar estate residence in Tejeros,
ostensibly to discuss the defense of Cavite against the Spaniards during the Philippine
Revolution (the contemporary Governor General, Camilo de Polavieja, had regained much
of Cavite itself). Instead of focusing on the defense of the province, the convention became
an election to decide the leaders of the revolutionary movement, to settle once and for all
the issue of governance within the Katipunan and of the revolutionary effort - the cause of
the escalating tension between the Magdalo and Magdiwang forces of Cavite, and bypassing
the existing Supreme Council of the Katipunan, as represented by Andrés Bonifacio, its
"Supreme President" (Kataastaasang Pangulo, Presidente Supremo - often shortened by
others to just Supremo, but despite popular belief, generally not by Bonifacio himself; he
instead used Pangulo or the fuller terms) who had been invited to Cavite months earlier to
mediate and had taken the side of the Magdiwang. While Bonifacio and his allies within
Magdiwang maintained that the Katipunan was already sufficient as their government, the
Magdalo people and their own sympathizers within Magdiwang maintained the need to
establish a new government.

Amidst questioning on whether the Katipunan, which already operated as an alternative

revolutionary government, was more like a democracy or a monarchy, Bonifacio defended
that it was republican and democratic in nature. According to him, they were all united
against the King of Spain to have their own free and sovereign government, and that all
Katipunan members of any given rank were meant to serve under the principles of liberty,
equality, and fraternity, upon which republicanism was founded, and that their government
stood for the sovereignty of the people, not only of one or two persons Most of the day was
spent in debates, and a tumult broke out after the Magdalo side called the status quo of the
revolutionaries no better than that of bandits or wild animals, which the Magdiwang on
Bonifacio's side took offense to. After order was restored, some pushed for the convention
to be adjourned, but Bonifacio prevailed upon them to continue. Jacinto Lumbreras of
Magdiwang, who had served as chairman of the assembly and presided over the
proceedings to that point, then refused to continue as chairman, since if they were to
discuss replacing the Katipunan, then Bonifacio should preside as the "father of the
Katipunan and the Revolution". Bonifacio was thus made chairman. Despite his concern
about the lack of officials and representatives from other provinces and other Katipunan
councils, he bowed to the will of the majority and was obliged to proceed with the
elections.

Election results
Bonifacio presided over the election as chairman of the convention. He secured the
unanimous approval of the assembly that the decisions would not be questioned, and the
winners be respected regardless of their stations in life or educational attainment.

The results of the election:

Position Name Faction

President Emilio Aguinaldo

Magdalo

Vice-president Mariano Trías

Magdiwang

Captain-general Artemio Ricarte

Magdiwang

Director of war Emiliano Riego de Dios Magdiwang

Director of the interior Andrés Bonifacio

Katipunan Supreme Council, Magdiwang ally

After Aguinaldo was elected president, Severino de las Alas of Magdiwang proposed that
Bonifacio automatically be considered vice president since he had received the second
highest number of votes. Nobody seconded or contested the motion, so Bonifacio as
chairman ruled that the elections should continue. Mariano Trias of Magdiwang was then
elected vice president over Mariano Alvarez, the president of Magdiwang, and Bonifacio.
Artemio Ricarte of Magdiwang was then elected Captain-General over Santiago Alvarez
(son of Mariano), also of Magdiwang. Ricarte, aka "General Vibora", tried to demur and
concede to Alvarez aka "General Apoy", but Alvarez himself insisted that he accept it and
vouched for him. Then Baldomero Aguinaldo, cousin of Emilio and president of Magdalo,
suggested that people stand in groups to make the voting faster so they could finish before
it got too dark. This was followed, and Emiliano Riego de Dios of Magdiwang was elected
Director of War over Santiago Alvarez and Ariston Villanueva of Magdiwang and Daniel
Tirona of Magdalo. Finally, Bonifacio was elected Director of the Interior over Mariano
Alvarez.

However, after Bonifacio was elected, Daniel Tirona loudly objected that the post should
not be occupied by a person without a lawyer's diploma. He instead nominated a lawyer,
Jose del Rosario (of Magdiwang), as qualified for the suitable position. Bonifacio was
greatly embarrassed, and demanded that Tirona retract the remark and apologize to the
assembly. When Tirona made to leave instead, Bonifacio drew a pistol and was about to fire
at Tirona, but stopped when Ricarte tried to disarm him. Bonifacio then invoked his role as
the chairman of the assembly and the supreme president of the Katipunan and declared all
proceedings that day to be null and void, and left with his supporters.

Allegations of fraud

In addition to Bonifacio's statement voiding the outcome, the probity of the election held
was questioned, with allegations that many ballots distributed were already filled out and
that the voters had not done this themselves.

In their memoirs, Santiago Álvarez and Gregoria de Jesús both alleged that many ballots
were already filled out before being distributed, and Guillermo Masangkay contended there
were more ballots prepared than voters present. Álvarez writes that Bonifacio had been
warned by a Cavite leader Diego Mojica of the rigged ballots before the votes were
canvassed, but he had done nothing.

Post-convention events

Acta de Tejeros (1897)

Naic Military Agreement

Emilio Aguinaldo was not present at the convention, but was at a military front at Pasong
Santol, a barrio of Dasmariñas, Cavite. He was notified of his election to the Presidency the
following day, and his elder brother, Crispulo Aguinaldo, persuaded him to travel to take
the oath of office. Leaving Crispulo in command, Aguinaldo traveled to Santa Cruz de
Malabon (now Tanza, Cavite), where he and the others elected, with the exception of
Bonifacio, took their oath of office. Crispulo Aguinaldo was among those killed in the Battle
of Pasong Santol between March 7 and 24, 1897, which ended with a Spanish victory.
Aguinaldo surreptitiously took his oath of office as president in a chapel officiated by a
Catholic priest Cenon Villafranca who was under the authority of the Roman pope.
According to Gen. Santiago Alvarez, guards were posted outside with strict instructions not
to let in any unwanted partisan from the Magdiwang faction while the oath-taking took
place. Artemio Ricarte also took his office "with great reluctance" and made a declaration
that he found the Tejeros elections "dirty or shady" and "not been in conformity with the
true will of the people."

After leaving the convention, Bonifacio met on March 28 with 45 of his followers.
Convinced that the election at the convention had been invalid, they drew up a document
titled Acta de Tejeros giving their reasons for having rejected the convention results. They
then proceeded to Naik and drew up another document on April 19, sometimes referred to
as the Naic Military Agreement, repudiating the insurgent government established at
Tejeros.

Aguinaldo did not at first fully or openly assume the office of president, though he had
secretly taken the oath of office, and first managed to secure support among Magdalo and
Magdiwang alike. He sent a delegation to contact the increasingly isolated Bonifacio and
persuade him to cooperate. The delegation was able to contact Bonifacio, but was unable to
persuade him as he resolved to move out of the province. Some Magdiwang leaders, led by
Pio del Pilar and Mariano Alvarez, eventually recanted their previous insistence that the
result of the Tejeros convention was null and void, thereby recognizing the validity of the
elected leaders there, and some others later occupying the five vacant positions upon
appointment from Aguinaldo. The newly appointed officials took their oath of office on
April 24, 1897, when Aguinaldo fully and openly assumed the office of president. On the
same day, he convened the first session of the cabinet and issued an official circular
informing the town presidents of all municipalities that he was duly elected by the
convention and was assuming his position as president.

Several complaints against Bonifacio, notably from Severino de las Alas and Jose Coronel,
were then presented to Aguinaldo. He then ordered Bonifacio's arrest before he could leave
Cavite, and dispatched a force to Bonifacio's camp at Limbon, Indang. The unsuspecting
Bonifacio received them cordially on the 25th, but was arrested along with his brother
Procopio early the next day. In the resulting exchange of gunfire and scuffles, despite
Bonifacio ordering his men not to fight and not putting up resistance himself, he was
wounded and his other sibling, Ciriaco, was killed. Andres and Procopio Bonifacio were
tried on charges of treason by members of the war council of Aguinaldo's government. On
May 10, 1897, the brothers were executed.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

Republic of Biak-na-Bato is a designation referring to the second revolutionary republican

government led by Emilio Aguinaldo during the Philippine Revolution, That government
referred to itself as Republic of the Philippines (Spanish: República de Filipinas; in modern
Filipino: Republika ng Pilipinas) and was seated in what is now Biak-na-Bato National Park.
The current designation was adopted by historians to avoid confusion with name of the
current Philippine government, which also refers to itself the Republic of the Philippines,
and with other past Philippine governments using the same designation.

The Biak-na-Bato republic lasted just over a month. It was disestablished by a peace treaty
signed by Aguinaldo and the Spanish Governor-General, Fernando Primo de Rivera, which
included provision for exile of Aguinaldo and key associates to Hong Kong.

The Political Constitution of 1899 (Spanish: Constitución Política de 1899), informally

known as the Malolos Constitution, was the constitution of the First Philippine Republic. It
was written by Felipe Calderón y Roca and Felipe Buencamino as an alternative to a pair of
proposals to the Malolos Congress by Apolinario Mabini and Pedro Paterno. After a lengthy
debate in the latter part of 1898, it was promulgated on 21 January 1899.

The constitution placed limitations on unsupervised freedom of action by the chief

executive which would have hampered rapid decision making. As it was created during the
fight for Philippine independence from Spain, however, its Article 99 allowed unhampered
executive freedom of action during wartime. Unsupervised executive governance
continued throughout the Philippine–American War which erupted soon after
proclamation.

1935 Philippine constitutional plebiscite

23 March 1935: Seated, left to right: George H. Dern, Secretary of War; President Franklin
D. Roosevelt, signing the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines; Manuel L.
Quezon, President, Philippine Senate

Act No. 4200

A constitutional plebiscite held in the Philippines on 14 May 1935 ratified the 1935
Philippine Constitution which established the Philippine Commonwealth. The constitution
had been written in 1934 by the Constitutional Convention of 1934.

Gold In-Laid Chest (Repository of 1935 Philippine Constitution) displayed at Quezon

Museum in Quezon Memorial Circle, Quezon City, Philippines

The Tydings–McDuffie Act of the United States Government detailed the steps required for
the Philippines to become independent of the United States. A previous act, the Hare–
Hawes–Cutting Act, had been rejected by the Philippine Congress.

The constitution was approved by 96% of voters, and was replaced by the 1973
Constitution of the Philippines.

1973 Philippine constitutional plebiscite

Background

In 1970, 320 delegates were elected to a constitutional convention which began to meet in
1971. On 23 September 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos issued the formal declaration of
martial law which led to the arrests of 11 conveners, alongside government critics and
journalists, by the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine Constabulary.[1] The
convention then re-convened and wrote a constitution in line with what President
Ferdinand Marcos wanted, at least, according to many critics and victims of martial law.

Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 86 calling for the cancellation of the plebiscite and
instituted barangays' citizens' assemblies to ratify the new constitution by a referendum
from 10–15 January 1973. Alongside the utilization of citizens' assemblies, the voting age
was also reduced to 15. Voting in citizens' assemblies took place through viva voce voting,
similar to parliamentary procedure, rather than the standard secret ballot that had been
used up until that point.

During the course of voting, military men were stationed in prominent positions to
intimidate voters. And mayors were given quotas for "yes" votes, while "no" votes were
occasionally not recorded. Official figures state that 90% of voters voted in favor of
adopting the new constitution, although some communities did not partake in voting.

On 17 January 1973, Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1102 certifying and proclaiming that
the 1973 Constitution had been ratified by the Filipino people and thereby was in effect.
These results were challenged during the Ratification Cases heard by the Supreme Court of
the Philippine in 1973. The court upheld the results and the ratification of the 1973
Constitution.

The Constitution of the Philippines (Filipino: Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas or Konstitusyon ng

Pilipinas, Spanish: Constitución de la República de Filipinas) is the constitution or supreme
law of the Republic of the Philippines. Its final draft was completed by the Constitutional
Commission on October 12, 1986, and was ratified by a nationwide plebiscite on February
2, 1987.

Three other constitutions have effectively governed the country in its history: the 1935
Commonwealth Constitution, the 1973 Constitution, and the 1986 Freedom Constitution.

Philippine Constitutional Commission of 1986

President Corazon Aquino was granted three options: restore the 1935 Constitution, retain
and make reforms to the 1973 Constitution, or pass a new constitution. She decided to draft
a new constitution and issued Proclamation No. 3 on March 25, 1986, abrogating many of
the provisions of the 1973 Constitution adopted during the Marcos regime, including the
unicameral legislature (the Batasang Pambansa), the office of Prime Minister, and
provisions which gave the President legislative powers. Often called the "Freedom
Constitution", this constitution was intended as a transitional constitution to ensure
democracy and the freedom of the people. The Freedom Constitution provided for an
orderly transfer of power while a Constitutional Commission was drafting a permanent
constitution.

The Constitutional Commission was composed of forty-eight members appointed by

Aquino from varied backgrounds, including several former members of the House of
Representatives, former justices of the Supreme Court, a Roman Catholic bishop, and
political activists against the Marcos regime. Aquino appointed Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, a
former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, as president of the commission. Several
issues were of particular contention during the commission's sessions, including the form
of government to adopt, the abolition of the death penalty, the retention of U.S. bases in
Clark and Subic, and the integration of economic policies into the constitution. Lino Brocka,
a film director and political activist who was a member of the commission, walked out
before the constitution's completion, and two other delegates dissented from the final
draft. The Commission finished the final draft on October 12, 1986, and presented it to
Aquino on October 15. The constitution was ratified by a nationwide plebiscite on February
2, 1987.
The constitution provided for three governmental branches, namely the executive,
legislative, and judicial branches. The executive branch is headed by the president and his
appointed cabinet members. The executive, same with the other two co-equal branches,
has limited power. This is to ensure that the country will be "safeguarded" if martial law is
to be declared. The president can still declare martial law, but it expires within 60 days and
Congress can either reject or extend it.

The task of the Supreme Court is to review whether a declaration of martial law is just. The
legislative power consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are
twenty-four senators and the House is composed of district representatives. It also created
opportunities for under-represented sectors of community to select their representative
through party-list system. The judiciary branch comprises the Supreme Court and the
lower courts. The Supreme Court is granted the power to hear any cases that deals with the
constitutionality of law, about a treaty or decree of the government. It is also tasked to
administrate the function of the lower courts.

Pre-Spanish Period

“This land is Ours God gave this land to us”

Before the Spaniards came to the Philippines, Filipinos lived in villages or barangays ruled
by chiefs or datus. The datus comprised the nobility. Then came the maharlikas (freemen),
followed by the aliping mamamahay (serfs) and aliping saguiguilid (slaves).
However, despite the existence of different classes in the social structure, practically
everyone had access to the fruits of the soil. Money was unknown, and rice served as the
medium of exchange.

Spanish Period

“United we stand, divided we fall”

When the Spaniards came to the Philippines, the concept of encomienda (Royal Land
Grants) was introduced. This system grants that Encomienderos must defend his
encomienda from external attack, maintain peace and order within, and support the
missionaries. In turn, the encomiendero acquired the right to collect tribute from the indios
(native).

The system, however, degenerated into abuse of power by the encomienderos The tribute
soon became land rents to a few powerful landlords. And the natives who once cultivated
the lands in freedom were transformed into mere share tenants.

First Philippine Republic

“The yoke has finally broken”

When the First Philippine Republic was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo
declared in the Malolos Constitution his intention to confiscate large estates, especially the
so-called Friar lands.

However, as the Republic was short-lived, Aguinaldo’s plan was never implemented.

American Period

“Long live America”

Significant legislation enacted during the American Period:

Philippine Bill of 1902 – Set the ceilings on the hectarage of private individuals and
corporations may acquire: 16 has. for private individuals and 1,024 has. for corporations.

Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) – Provided for a comprehensive registration of
land titles under the Torrens system.

Public Land Act of 1903 – introduced the homestead system in the Philippines.

Tenancy Act of 1933 (Act No. 4054 and 4113) – regulated relationships between
landowners and tenants of rice (50-50 sharing) and sugar cane lands.
The Torrens system, which the Americans instituted for the registration of lands, did not
solve the problem completely. Either they were not aware of the law or if they did, they
could not pay the survey cost and other fees required in applying for a Torrens title.

Commonwealth Period

“Government for the Filipinos”

President Manuel L. Quezon espoused the "Social Justice" program to arrest the increasing
social unrest in Central Luzon.

Significant legislation enacted during Commonwealth Period:

1935 Constitution – "The promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and economic
security of all people should be the concern of the State"

Commonwealth Act No. 178 (An Amendment to Rice Tenancy Act No. 4045), Nov. 13, 1936
– Provided for certain controls in the landlord-tenant relationships

National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC), 1936 – Established the price of rice and corn
thereby help the poor tenants as well as consumers.

Commonwealth Act. No. 461, 1937 – Specified reasons for the dismissal of tenants and only
with the approval of the Tenancy Division of the Department of Justice.

Rural Program Administration, created March 2, 1939 – Provided the purchase and lease of
haciendas and their sale and lease to the tenants.

Commonwealth Act No. 441 enacted on June 3, 1939 – Created the National Settlement
Administration with a capital stock of P20,000,000.

Japanese Occupation

“The Era of Hukbalahap”

The Second World War II started in Europe in 1939 and in the Pacific in 1941.

Hukbalahap controlled whole areas of Central Luzon; landlords who supported the
Japanese lost their lands to peasants while those who supported the Huks earned fixed
rentals in favor of the tenants.

Unfortunately, the end of war also signaled the end of gains acquired by the peasants.

Upon the arrival of the Japanese in the Philippines in 1942, peasants and workers
organizations grew strength. Many peasants took up arms and identified themselves with
the anti-Japanese group, the HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon).
Philippine Republic

“The New Republic”

After the establishment of the Philippine Independence in 1946, the problems of land
tenure remained. These became worst in certain areas. Thus the Congress of the
Philippines revised the tenancy law.

President Manuel A. Roxas (1946-1948) enacted the following laws:

Republic Act No. 34 -- Established the 70-30 sharing arrangements and regulating share-
tenancy contracts.

Republic Act No. 55 -- Provided for a more effective safeguard against arbitrary ejectment
of tenants.

Elpidio R. Quirino (1948-1953) enacted the following law:

Executive Order No. 355 issued on October 23, 1950 -- Replaced the National Land
Settlement Administration with Land Settlement Development Corporation (LASEDECO)
which takes over the responsibilities of the Agricultural Machinery Equipment Corporation
and the Rice and Corn Production Administration.

Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957) enacted the following laws:

Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 -- Abolished the LASEDECO and established the National
Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) to resettle dissidents and
landless farmers. It was particularly aimed at rebel returnees providing home lots and
farmlands in Palawan and Mindanao.

Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954) -- governed the relationship
between landowners and tenant farmers by organizing share-tenancy and leasehold
system. The law provided the security of tenure of tenants. It also created the Court of
Agrarian Relations.

Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) -- Created the Land Tenure
Administration (LTA) which was responsible for the acquisition and distribution of large
tenanted rice and corn lands over 200 hectares for individuals and 600 hectares for
corporations.

Republic Act No. 821 (Creation of Agricultural Credit Cooperative Financing

Administration) -- Provided small farmers and share tenants loans with low interest rates
of six to eight percent.

President Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961)

Continued the program of President Ramon Magsaysay. No new legislation passed.

President Diosdado P. Macapagal (1961-1965) enacted the following law:

Republic Act No. 3844 of August 8, 1963 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) -- Abolished
share tenancy, institutionalized leasehold, set retention limit at 75 hectares, invested rights
of preemption and redemption for tenant farmers, provided for an administrative
machinery for implementation, institutionalized a judicial system of agrarian cases,
incorporated extension, marketing and supervised credit system of services of farmer
beneficiaries.

The RA was hailed as one that would emancipate Filipino farmers from the bondage of
tenancy.

President Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-1986)

Proclamation No. 1081 on September 21, 1972 ushered the Period of the New Society. Five
days after the proclamation of Martial Law, the entire country was proclaimed a land
reform area and simultaneously the Agrarian Reform Program was decreed.

President Marcos enacted the following laws:

Republic Act No. 6389, (Code of Agrarian Reform) and RA No. 6390 of 1971 -- Created the
Department of Agrarian Reform and the Agrarian Reform Special Account Fund. It
strengthen the position of farmers and expanded the scope of agrarian reform.

Presidential Decree No. 2, September 26, 1972 -- Declared the country under land reform
program. It enjoined all agencies and offices of the government to extend full cooperation
and assistance to the DAR. It also activated the Agrarian Reform Coordinating Council.

Presidential Decree No. 27, October 21, 1972 -- Restricted land reform scope to tenanted
rice and corn lands and set the retention limit at 7 hectares.

President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)

The Constitution ratified by the Filipino people during the administration of President
Corazon C. Aquino provides under Section 21 under Article II that “The State shall promote
comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.”

On June 10, 1988, former President Corazon C. Aquino signed into law Republic Act No.
6657 or otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The law
became effective on June 15, 1988.

Subsequently, four Presidential issuances were released in July 1987 after 48 nationwide
consultations before the actual law was enacted.
President Corazon C. Aquino enacted the following laws:

Executive Order No. 228, July 16, 1987 – Declared full ownership to qualified farmer-
beneficiaries covered by PD 27. It also determined the value remaining unvalued rice and
corn lands subject of PD 27 and provided for the manner of payment by the FBs and mode
of compensation to landowners.

Executive Order No. 229, July 22, 1987 – Provided mechanism for the implementation of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

Proclamation No. 131, July 22, 1987 – Instituted the CARP as a major program of the
government. It provided for a special fund known as the Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF), with
an initial amount of Php50 billion to cover the estimated cost of the program from 1987-
1992.

Executive Order No. 129-A, July 26, 1987 – streamlined and expanded the power and
operations of the DAR.

Republic Act No. 6657, June 10, 1988 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) – An act
which became effective June 15, 1988 and instituted a comprehensive agrarian reform
program to promote social justice and industrialization providing the mechanism for its
implementation and for other purposes. This law is still the one being implemented at
present.

Executive Order No. 405, June 14, 1990 – Vested in the Land Bank of the Philippines the
responsibility to determine land valuation and compensation for all lands covered by CARP.

Executive Order No. 407, June 14, 1990 – Accelerated the acquisition and distribution of
agricultural lands, pasture lands, fishponds, agro-forestry lands and other lands of the
public domain suitable for agriculture.

President Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998)

When President Fidel V. Ramos formally took over in 1992, his administration came face to
face with publics who have lost confidence in the agrarian reform program. His
administration committed to the vision “Fairer, faster and more meaningful
implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program.

President Fidel V. Ramos enacted the following laws:

Republic Act No. 7881, 1995 – Amended certain provisions of RA 6657 and exempted
fishponds and prawns from the coverage of CARP.

Republic Act No. 7905, 1995 – Strengthened the implementation of the CARP.
Executive Order No. 363, 1997 – Limits the type of lands that may be converted by setting
conditions under which limits the type of lands that may be converted by setting conditions
under which specific categories of agricultural land are either absolutely non-negotiable for
conversion or highly restricted for conversion.

Republic Act No. 8435, 1997 (Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act AFMA) –
Plugged the legal loopholes in land use conversion.

Republic Act 8532, 1998 (Agrarian Reform Fund Bill) – Provided an additional Php50
billion for CARP and extended its implementation for another 10 years.

President Joseph E. Estrada (1998-2000)

“ERAP PARA SA MAHIRAP’. This was the battle cry that endeared President Joseph Estrada
and made him very popular during the 1998 presidential election.

President Joseph E. Estrada initiated the enactment of the following law:

Executive Order N0. 151, September 1999 (Farmer’s Trust Fund) – Allowed the voluntary
consolidation of small farm operation into medium and large scale integrated enterprise
that can access long-term capital.

During his administration, President Estrada launched the Magkabalikat Para sa

Kaunlarang Agraryo or MAGKASAKA. The DAR forged into joint ventures with private
investors into agrarian sector to make FBs competitive.

However, the Estrada Administration was short lived. The masses who put him into office
demanded for his ouster.

President Gloria Macapacal-Arroyo (2000-2010)

The agrarian reform program under the Arroyo administration is anchored on the vision
“To make the countryside economically viable for the Filipino family by building
partnership and promoting social equity and new economic opportunities towards lasting
peace and sustainable rural development.”

Land Tenure Improvement - DAR will remain vigorous in implementing land acquisition
and distribution component of CARP. The DAR will improve land tenure system through
land distribution and leasehold.

Provision of Support Services - CARP not only involves the distribution of lands but also
included package of support services which includes: credit assistance, extension services,
irrigation facilities, roads and bridges, marketing facilities and training and technical
support programs.
Infrastrucre Projects - DAR will transform the agrarian reform communities (ARCs), an
area focused and integrated delivery of support services, into rural economic zones that
will help in the creation of job opportunities in the countryside.

KALAHI ARZone - The KALAHI Agrarian Reform (KAR) Zones were also launched. These
zones consists of one or more municipalities with concentration of ARC population to
achieve greater agro-productivity.

Agrarian Justice - To help clear the backlog of agrarian cases, DAR will hire more paralegal
officers to support undermanned adjudicatory boards and introduce quota system to
compel adjudicators to work faster on agrarian reform cases. DAR will respect the rights of
both farmers and landowners.

President Benigno Aquino III (2010-2016)

President Benigno Aquino III vowed during his 2012 State of the Nation Address that he
would complete before the end of his term the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP), the centerpiece program of the administration of his mother, President Corazon
Aquino.

The younger Aquino distributed their family-owned Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac. Apart from
the said farm lots, he also promised to complete the distribution of privately-owned lands
of productive agricultural estates in the country that have escaped the coverage of the
program.

Under his administration, the Agrarian Reform Community Connectivity and Economic
Support Services (ARCCESS) project was created to contribute to the overall goal of rural
poverty reduction especially in agrarian reform areas.

Agrarian Production Credit Program (APCP) provided credit support for crop production
to newly organized and existing agrarian reform beneficiaries’ organizations (ARBOs) and
farmers’ organizations not qualified to avail themselves of loans under the regular credit
windows of banks.

The legal case monitoring system (LCMS), a web-based legal system for recording and
monitoring various kinds of agrarian cases at the provincial, regional and central offices of
the DAR to ensure faster resolution and close monitoring of agrarian-related cases, was
also launched.

Aside from these initiatives, Aquino also enacted Executive Order No. 26, Series of 2011, to
mandate the Department of Agriculture-Department of Environment and Natural
Resources-Department of Agrarian Reform Convergence Initiative to develop a National
Greening Program in cooperation with other government agencies.
President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (2016 – present)

Under his leadership, the President wants to pursue an “aggressive” land reform program
that would help alleviate the life of poor Filipino farmers by prioritizing the provision of
support services alongside land distribution.

The President directed the DAR to launch the 2nd phase of agrarian reform where landless
farmers would be awarded with undistributed lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP).

Duterte plans to place almost all public lands, including military reserves, under agrarian
reform.

The President also placed 400 hectares of agricultural lands in Boracay under CARP.

Under his administration the DAR created an anti-corruption task force to investigate and
handle reports on alleged anomalous activities by officials and employees of the
department.

The Department also pursues an “Oplan Zero Backlog” in the resolution of cases in relation
to agrarian justice delivery of the agrarian reform program to fast-track the
implementation of CARP.

Evolution of Philippine Taxation

It all started from the Ancient Filipinos, where they pay their taxes to their Datu or the
Chiefs for the protection they gave to them, the tax was termed buwis. Everyone is required
to pay their taxes, except for the Datu/Chieftain's household. Punishment for not paying
taxes was also implemented on this period.

How was taxation in the Philippines done by Spaniards?

Other forms of taxes from the Spanish Era is the tributo, which was originally between 8 to
10 reales. Forced labor, or polo y servicio, was also a network for tax payment. Eventually,
with the cedula, Spain replaced tributo with cedula, which allowed them to keep track of
the people who could pay taxes.

SPANISH ERA (TAXATION)

1. Taxes - imposed by the Spanish Government in the Philippines. Taxes - during the
Spanish period was compulsory. All the Spanish Colonies in America and the Philippines
were required to pay taxes for two reasons: 1) As recognition of Spain's Sovereignty over
the Colonies. 2) To defray the expenses of pacification (The act of forcibly suppressing
hostility within the colonies) and governance, thereafter. 1

2. Tributo was a general tax paid by the Filipinos to Spain which amounted to eight reales.
Those who were required to pay the tributo the: ϖ 18 to 50 years old males ϖ The
Carpenters, bricklayers, blacksmiths, tailors and shoemakers ϖ Town workers such as
those in road construction, and those whose is public in nature.

3. SANCTORUM Sanctorum -was a tax in the amount of 3 reales. These were required for
the cost of Christianization, including the construction of the churches and the purchase of
materials for religious celebrations.

4. DONATIVO ⎫ Donativo was the tax in the amount of half real for the military campaign of
the government against the muslims. ⎫ In the later years, however, the amount collected
from donativo was almost exclusively used for the Spanish fort in Zamboanga.

5. CAJA DE COMUNIDAD Caja de comunidad - was a tax collected in the amount of 1 real for
the incurred expenses of the town in the construction of roads, repair of bridges, or the
improvement of public buildings.

6. SERVICIO PERSONAL Polo y servicio -is the system of forced labor which evolved within
the framework of the encomienda system, introduced into the South American colonies by
the Conquistadores and Catholic priests who accompanied them.

7. REVOLTS AGAINST THE TRIBUTE CAGAYAN AND DINGRAS REVOLTS (1589) The
Cagayan and Dingras Revolts Against the Tribute occurred on Luzon in the present-day
provinces of Cagayan and Ilocos Norte in 1589. SUMUROY'S REVOLT In the town of Palapag
today in Northern Samar, Agustin Sumuroy, a Waray, and some of his followers rose in
arms on June 1, 1649 over the polo y servicio or forced labor system being undertaken in
Samar. MANIAGO'S REVOLT The Maniago Revolt was an uprising in Pampanga during the
1660s named after its leader, Francisco Maniago.

8. TAX REFORM OF 1884 One of the good reforms which Spain introduced in the 19th
century was the Tax Reform o 1884, as provided by the Royal Decree on March 6, 1884,
this tax reform contained two important provisions. 1. Abolition of the hated Tribute and
its replacement of Cedula Tax and; 2. Reduction of the 40-day annual forced labor (polo) to
15 days.

9. CEDULA PERSONALES Cedulas were first issued based on the Royal Decree on March 6,
1884. All men and women residents of the island- Spaniards, foreigners, and natives- who
were over 18 years old were required to obtain a cedula.
Notes:

Salus populi est suprema lex - the welfare of the people is the supreme law

habeas corpus –

due process of law

double jeopardy

ex post facto law - retroactive law

three inherent powers of the state

1. police power

2. power of eminent domain

3. power of taxation

Jus sanguinis - law of blood