Module

Title: Works of Juan Luna and Fernando Amorsolo

Introduction:

This lesson is richly involved in the study of arts also incorporates fields like
social history, aesthetics, economics, politics, and anthropology. To these, it adds a
particular attention to critical looking, building core skills in analyzing how visual
representation of concrete scenario and events on the life of people in a specific
period in the past. Wherein this Historical paintings depicts the realistic situations and
scenario of the life’s of the people and are instrumental to the visualization of the
reality which stand equally with texts, photos, caricatures, and films.

Learning Outcomes:

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

1. familiarize oneself with works of Juan Luna and Fernando Amorsolo that has
great part in Philippine History; and
2. interpret properly the different works of Juan Luna and Fernando Amorsolo
through examining the content and context of the document/artifacts.

Learning Content:

Juan Luna (1857 – 1899) is regarded for work done in the manner of the
Spanish, Italian and French academies of his time, Luna painted literary and historical
scenes, some with an underscore of political commentary. His allegorical works were
inspired with classical balance, and often showed figures in theatrical poses. He is
best known for impressive rendition of classical subjects in his academic works.
These works include historical scenes and portraiture, however subsequently he
turned to realism depicting social inequalities. In this lesson, the “Spoliarium” and
“The Parisian Life” are Luna’s presented for the analysis of the students.
 https://www.nationalmuseum.gov.ph/nationalmuseumbeta/Collections/spoliari
um.jpg

SPOLIARIUM 19TH Century – Juan Luna

This image is the most valuable oil-on-canvass painting with a size of 4.22
meters x 7.675 meters, making it the largest painting in the Philippines. It won
First Gold Medal in 1884 as an entry to the prestigious Exposition de Bellas
Artses in Madrid.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/
The_Parisian_Life_by_Juan_Luna.jpg/800px-
The_Parisian_Life_by_Juan_Luna.jpg

The Parisian Life,1892. French: Interior d’ un Cafi (Inside a Café) --Juan Luna

Fernando Amorsolo (1892 –1972) was one of the most important artists in the
history of painting in the Philippines. Amorsolo was a portraitist and painter of rural
Philippine landscapes. He is popularly known for his craftsmanship and mastery in
the use of light. Delights people of his impressionistic technique depicting idyllic
country scene, beautiful maidens, and colorfully dressed peasants planting or
harvesting rice. The Paintings are significant in the development of the formation of
Filipino notions of self and identity. In this lesson, the “Antipolo Fiesta” and “Palay
Maiden” paintings are presented for analysis.

This oil painting on canvas depicts a rural scene where a group of people are
shown celebrating a fiesta in Antipolo.
(http://fernandocamorsolo.com/mfca_erratum/index.html)

Palay Maiden, 1920 (Dalagang Bukid) – Fernando Amorsolo

This painting portrayals a provincial Filipina beauty or dalagang bukid during a rice
harvest and dressed and in and enveloped by the colors of the Philippine flag.
Module

Title: Retraction of Rizal

Introduction:
Jose Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda also known as Jose Rizal, a
National Hero of the Philippines. He is well known on his patriotism, affirmation
against his enemies especially the Spaniards through his noble writings. He was
accused and alleged committed crimes such as rebellion, sedition and illegal
association.
After a hundred of years, many of Filipino still debates on Rizal’s retraction
letter. As of today many of us still unaware about this controversy, it was debated and
hotly discussed many times. Some teachers didn’t tackle this topic and don’t sure
what is the truth behind of this. Many of them give and think that this is the most
controversial timeline of his life. Some of us insist that it’s forged by Spaniard or
think that He is coward or even it is a real and views that Rizal only wanted to repent
and gave up his life to God before he died.
The said lesson help student’s understand and reflect every details of Rizal’s life
for them to realize the essence of walking in the highways even late at night without
any fear to be detained by Spanish colonials and/or the essence of putting their right
hands into their left chest while looking into the Philippine flag as well as singing its
national anthem.
Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this topic, you are expected to:
1. explain and discuss the effects of Rizal’s death and legacy; and
2. understand and dedicate oneself as a patriot for the sake of the motherland by
reflecting Rizal’s life.
Learning Content:
Presentation of Facts about Rizal’s Retraction
The retraction of Rizal is still one of the greatest historical issues of all time.
The story of the Retraction has been told and retold and has created tremendous
ambiguities in Philippine history on the credence of the national hero.

Did the national hero really retract his anti-Catholic ideas?

Will that retraction make him less of a hero?

Major arguments for the Retraction

1. Archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. discovered the “original" text containing
the so-called retraction formula in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935,
thirty-nine years after Rizal’s execution. This Retraction “Document” found
was considered imperative evidence to the Retraction, itself. The text appears
 to have been released to the press and published after the death of Rizal but
the original document was not produced until 1935 because it was believed
that the documents were handed by Fr. Balaguer to Fr. Pi and from Fr. Pi to
Fr. Nozaleda in order to kept safely by his secretary.

2. There were eyewitnesses closely associated with the events - According to

Ricardo P. Garcia’s “The Great Debate: The Rizal’s Retraction” there were
two great testimonies of eyewitnesses who were privy to what happened in
Rizal’s cell from early morning of December 29 to 6:30 am of December 30.

 Fr. Vicente Balaguer – According to him, Rizal woke up several

times, confessed four times, attended a Mass, received communion,
and prayed the rosary, all of which seemed inconsistent of his
personality.
 Former Lieutenant of the Infantry- Mariano Martinez Gallegos – He
confirmed that Rizal did write a retraction piece and signed his
signature on it with Juan del Fresno and Eloy Moure as his witnesses.
These two witnesses also affixed their signatures on the said
retraction document.
Module
Topic: The Cavite Mutiny

Introduction:
Three of the most known Filipino martyrs during the Spanish Regime aside
from Rizal were Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora. Their death
ignited the development of the Philippine nationalism in a way that the most Filipinos
didn’t realize. In this topic, students will criticize the different perspectives
concerning the real story behind the Cavite Mutiny controversy. This discussion will
prove whether the issue involve is just a mere mutiny or a conspiracy that would lead
to a large scale revolution if ever.
Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this topic, you are expected to:
1. appreciate the essence of Cavite Mutiny and the Martyrdom of the GOM-
BUR-ZA in shaping Philippine Nationalism;
2. examine and analyse the different narratives of Trinidad Pardo De Tavera,
Rafael Izquierdo and Jose Montero Y Vidal;
3. discuss the role of Filipinos coming from different social status based on the
narratives of the different sources;and
4. explain the consequences of the failed Cavite Mutiny in the lives of the priest,
soldiers, attorneys, works, and people involved in the controversy.
Learning Content:
The constant change in the post of the governor- general in the Philippines
brought not only havoc in the Philippine politics but also a dismay especially on the
part of the natives who experience the direct effect of the changing of officials
holding offices. Carlos Maria dela Torre was known to be the most liberal minded
governor- general of the Philippines for allowing programs that benefited most of the
natives. Through this, he was loved by the people and in turn leads to the
establishments of different schools for arts and trades.
Rafael Izquierdo assumed the post of the governor- general replacing the
loved Carlos Maria Dela Torre. Alongside with the changes in the post of governor-
general are the changes in the policies of the outgoing officials together with the
removal of the privileges of the workers especially of the Cavite Arsenal. These harsh
rules of Izquierdo caused the natives to hate on him and tensions between the workers
and the officials of the government.
January 20, 1892, a chaos happened in Cavite. The workers assassinated the
head of the Cavite Arsenal and injured his wife. The mutiny was headed by Francisco
La Madrid with the purpose of voicing out their plight of returning their privileges on
not paying taxes and exemption in the polo y servicio be returned. The mutiny failed
because the expected reinforcement from Manila didn’t come. After almost two days
of insurrection, the mutiny was quelled and its leader, Francisco La Madrid was
killed. All the involve individuals were either killed or exiled. The most notable
people involved in this event were Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora. They were accused
of spearheading the conspiracy alongside with native lawyers and soldiers.
The Cavite Mutiny/ Conspiracy was a big debate among historians as to which
is right. Is it a mere mutiny or a concspiracy? Hence, there are different first hand
sources presented below to be evaluated and analysed in order to have a better picture
of the said event.
Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 by Jose Montero y Vidal as cited by
Antonio Tamayao 2018
The Spanish version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was written by the Spanish
historian, Jose Montero y Vidal, in his book entitled Historia General de Filipinas
(Madrid, 1895, Vol. III, pp 566-595. This narrative of Montero y Vidal,1 normally a
good historian, was so woefully biased that Dr. T.H. Pardo de Tavera commented that
he, “in narrating the Cavite episode, does not speak as a historian; he speaks as a
Spaniard bend on perverting the facts at his pleasure; he is mischievously partial”.2
Unsupported by positive documentary evidence, this Spanish historian exaggerated
the mutiny of a few disgruntled native soldiers and laborers into a revolt to overthrow
Spanish rule – a seditious movement – and involved the innocent Filipino patriotic
leaders including Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora, Jose Ma. Basa, Antonio Ma.
Regidor, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, and others. Montero y Vidal’s version of the
Cavite episode of 1872 in English translation follows:
With the establishment in Spain of a government less radical than the one that
appointed La Torre, the latter was relieved from his post. His successor D. Rafael de
Izquierdo, assumed control of the government of these islands April 4, 1871. The
most eventual episode in his rule was the Cavite Revolt of 1872.
The abolition of the privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of
exemption from the tribute was, according to some, the cause of the insurrection.
There were, however, other causes.
The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda
carried on by an unbridled press against monarchical principles, attentatory of the
most sacred respects towards the dethroned majesty; the democratic and republic
books and pamphlets; the speeches and preachings of the apostles of these new ideas
in Spain; the outbursts of the American publicists and the criminal policy of the
senseless Governor whom the Revolutionary government sent to govern the
Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas were the determining circumstances
which gave rise, among certain Filipinos, to the idea of attaining their independence.
It was towards this goal that they started to work, with the powerful assistance of a
certain section of the native clergy, who out of spite toward the friars, made common
cause with the enemies of the mother country.
At various times but especially in the beginning of the year 1872, the
authorities received anonymous communications with the information that a great
uprising would break out aganst the Spaniards, the minute the fleet at Cavite left for
the South, and that all would be assassinated, including the friars. But nobody gave
importance to these notices. The conspiracy had been going on since the days of La
Torre with utmost secrecy. At times, the principal leaders met either in the house of
the Filipino Spaniard, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, or in that of the native priest,
Jacinto Zamora, and these meetings were usually attended by the curate of Bacoor
(Cavite), the soul of the movement, whose energetic character and immense wealth
enabled him to exercise a strong influence.
The garrison of Manila, composed mostly of native soldiers, were involved in
this conspiracy, as well as a multitude of civilians. The plan was for the soldiers to
assassinate their
officers, the servants, their masters, and the escort of the Captain-General at
Malacaἧang, to dispose of the governor himself. The friars and other Spaniards were
later to have their turn. The pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Cavite and
Manila was the firing of rockets from the walls of the city. The details having been
arranged, it was agreed that the uprising was to break out in the evening of the 20th of
January, 1872. Various circumstances, however, which might well be considered as
providential, upset the plans, and made the conspiracy a dismal failure.
In the district of Sampaloc, the fiesta of the patron saint, the Virgin of Loreto,
was being celebrated with pomp and splendor. On the night of the 20th, fireworks
were displayed and rockets fired into the air. Those in Cavite mistook these for the
signal to revolt, and at nine-thirty in the evening of that day two hundred native
soldiers under the leadership of Sergeant La Madrid rose up in arms, assassinated the
commander of the fort and wounded his wife.
The military governor of Cavite, D. Fernando Rojas, dispatched two Spaniards
to inform the Manila authorities of the uprising but they were met on the way be a
group of natives, belonging to the Guias established by La Torre, who put them
instantly to death. At about the same time, an employee of the arsenal, D. Domingo
Mijares, left Cavite in a war vessel for Manila, arriving there at midnight. He
informed the commandant of Marine of what had occured, and this official
immediately relayed the news to Governor Izquierdo.
Early the next morning two regiments, under the command of D. Felipe
Ginoves, segundo cabo, left for Cavite on board the merchant vessels Filipino, Manila
Isabela I and Isabela II. Ginoves demanded rendition and waited the whole day of the
21st for the rebels to surrender, without ordering the assault of their position in order
to avoid unnecessary shedding of blood. After waiting the whole day in vain for the
rendition of the rebels, Ginoves launched an assault against the latter’s position, early
in the morning of the 22nd, putting to the sword the majority of the rebels and making
prisoners of the rest. On the same day an official proclamation announced the
suppression of the revolt.
As a result of the declarations made by some of the prisoners in which several
individuals were pointed out as instigators, Don Jose Burgos and D. Jacinto Zamora,
curates of the Cathedral, D. Mariano Gomez, curate of Bacoor (Cavite), several other
Filipino priests, D. Antonio Maria Regidor, lawyer and Regidor of the Ayuntamiento,
D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Consejero de Administraciὀn, Pedro Carillo, Gervacio
Sanchez and Jose Mauricio de Leon, lawyers Enrique Paraiso and Jose and Pio Basa,
employees, and Crisanto Reyes, Maximo Paterno and several other Filipinos, were
arrested.
The council of war, which from the beginning look charge of the causes in
connection with the Cavite uprising, passed the sentence of death on forty-one of the
rebels. On the 27th of January the Captain-General fixed his “cumplase” on the
sentence. On the 6th of the following month, eleven more were sentenced to death,
but the Governor General, by decree of the day following, commuted this sentence to
life imprisonment. On the 8th, the sentence of death was pronounced on Camerino
and ten years imprisonment of eleven individuals of the famous “Guias de la Torre,”
for the assassination of the Spaniards who, on the night of January 20th, were sent to
Manila to carry news of the uprising.
The same council on the 15th of February, sentenced to die by strangulation
the Filipino priests, D. Jose Burgos, D. Jacinto Zamora, and D. Mariano Gomez, and
Francisco Saldua; and maximo Inocencio, Enrique Paraiso and Crisanto de los Reyes
to ten years imprisonment. Early in the morning of the seventeen of February, an
immense multitude appeared on the field of Bagumbayan to witness the execution of
the sentence. The attending force was composed of Filipino troops, and the batteries
of the fort were aimed at the place of execution, ready to fire upon the least sign of
uprising. Gomez was executed first, then Zamora, then Burgos, and lastly, Saldua.
On the 3rd of April, 1872, the Audience suspended from the practice of law
the following men: D. Jose Basa y Enriquez, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, D. Antonio
Ma. Regidor, D. Pedro Carillo, D. Gervacio Sanchez and D. Jose Mauricio de Leon.
Izquierdo had requested the sending to Manila of Spanish troops for the
defense of the fort as most of these found here were natives. In pursuance of
Izquierdo’s request, the government, by decree of April 4, 1872, dissolved the native
regiment of artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force to be composed
exclusively of Peninsulares. The latter arrived in Manila in July, 1872. On the
occasion of the arrival of the troops, the Sto. Domingo Church celebrated a special
mass at which high officials of the government, the religious corporations, and the
general public, attended, upon invitation by the Governor and Captain-General of the
Philippines.
Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 by Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo
de Tavera as cited by Antonio Tamayao, 2019.
The Filipino version of the bloody incident of Cavite in 1872 was written by
Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, Filipino scholar, scientist, and historical researcher. 1
According to him, this incident was merely a mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers
and laborers of the Cavite arsenal against the harsh policy of despotic Governor and
Captain-General Rafael de Izquierdo (1871-1873) which abolished their old-time
privileges of exemption from paying the annual tribute and from rendering the polo
(forced labor). The loss of these privileges was naturally resented by the soldiers and
laborers. Some of them, impelled by volcanic wrath, rose in arms on the night of
January 20, 1872, and killed the commanding officer of the Cavite Arsenal and other
Spanish officers. This was easily suppressed by the Spanish troops which were rushed
from Manila. This turbulent incident, which was magnified by the Spanish officials
and friars into a revolt for Philippine independence, is narrated by Pardo de Tavera, as
follows:

The arrival of General Izquierdo (1871-1873) was the signal for a complete
change in the aspect of affairs. The new governor soon made it clear that his views
were different from those of La Torre – that there would be no change in the
established form of government – and he at once announced that he intended to
govern the people “with crucifix in one hand and a sword in the other.”

His first official act was to prohibit the founding of a school of arts and trades,
which was being organized by the efforts and funds raised by natives of standing in
the community, but the founding of which did not tally with the views of the religious
orders. Governor Izquierdo believed that the establishment of the new school was
merely a pretext for the organization of a political club, and he not only did not allow
it to be opened but made a public statement accusing the Filipinos who had charge of
the movement. All of those who had offered their support to ex-Governor La Torre
were classed as personas sospechosas(suspects), a term that since that time has been
used in the Philippine Islands to designate any person who refused to servilely obey
the wishes and whims of the authorities. The conservative element in the islands now
directed the governmental policy, and the educated Filipinos fell more and more
under the displeasure and suspicion of the governor.

The peace of the colony was broken by a certain incident which, though
unimportant in itself, was probably the origin of the political agitation which,
constantly growing for thirty years, culminated in the overthrow of the Spanish
sovereignty in the Philippine Islands. From time immemorial the workmen in the
arsenal at Cavite and in the barracks of the artillery and engineer corps has been
exempt from the payment of the tribute tax and from obligation to work certain days
each year on public improvements. General Izquierdo believed the time opportune for
abolishing these privileges and ordered that in the future all such workmen should pay
tribute and labor on public improvements. This produced great dissatisfaction among
the workmen affected and the men employed in the arsenal at Cavite went on a strike,
but, yielding to pressure and threats made by the authorities, they subsequently
returned to their labors.

The workmen in the Cavite arsenal were all natives of that town and of the
neighboring town of San Roque. In a short while the dissatisfaction and discontent
with the government spread all over that section and even the entire troops became
disaffected. On the night of January 20, 1872, there was an uprising among the
soldiers in the San Felipe fort, in Cavite, and the commanding offer and other Spanish
officers in charge of the fort were assassinated. Forty marines attached to the arsenal
and 22 artillerymen under Sergeant La Madrid took part in this uprising, and it was
believed that the entire garrison in Cavite was disaffected and probably implicated.
But if the few soldiers who precipitated the attack believed they would be supported
by the bulk of the army and that a general rebellion against Spain would be declared
in the islands, they were deceived. When the news of the uprising was received in
Manila, General Izquierdo sent the commanding general to Cavite, who reinforced the
native troops, took possession of the fort, and put the rebels to the sword. Sergeant La
Madrid has been blinded and badly burned by the explosion of a sack of powder and,
being unable to escape, was also cut down. A few of the rebels were captured and
taken to Manila and there was no further disturbance of the peace or insubordination
of any kind.

This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful lever by the
Spanish residents and by the friars. During the time that General La Torre was chief
executive in the Philippine Islands the influential Filipinos did not hesitate to
announce their hostility to the religious orders, and the Central Government in Madrid
has announced its intention to deprive the friars in these islands of all powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and of the direction and management of
the university. Moret, the colonial minister, had drawn up a scheme of reforms by
which he proposed to make a radical change in the colonial system of government
which was to harmonize with the principles for which the revolution 3 in Spain had
been fought. It was due to these facts and promises that the Filipinos had great hopes
of an improvement in the affairs of their country, while the friars, on the other hand,
feared that their power in the colony would soon be completely a thing of the past.

The mutiny in Cavite gave the conservative element – that is, those who
favored a continuation of the colonial modus vivendi – an opportunity to represent to
the Spanish Government that a vast conspiracy was afoot and organized throughout
the archipelago with the object of destroying the Spanish sovereignty. They stated that
the Spanish Government in Madrid was to blame for the propagation of pernicious
doctrines and for the hopes that had been held out from Madrid to the Filipino people,
and also because of the leanings of ex-Governor La Torre and of other public
functionaries who had been sent to the Philippine Islands by the Government that
succeeded Queen Isabella. The fall of the new rulers in Spain within a few days, as
well as other occurrences, seemed to accentuate the claims made by the conservative
element in the Philippine Islands regarding the peril which threatened Spanish
sovereignty in the islands; it appeared as though the prophecies were about to be
fulfilled. The Madrid authorities were not able to combat public opinion in that
country; no opportunity was given nor time taken to make a thorough investigation of
the real facts or extent of the alleged revolution; the conservative element in the
Philippine Islands painted the local condition of affairs in somber tints; and the
Madrid Government came to believe, or at least to suspect, that a scheme was being
concocted throughout the islands to shake off Spanish sovereignty. Consistent with
the precedents of their colonial rule, the repressive measures adopted to quell the
supposed insurrection were strict and sudden. No attempt appears to have been made
to ascertain whether or not the innocent suffered with the guilty, and the only end
sought appeared to be to inspire terror in the minds of all by making examples of a
certain number, so that none in the future should attempt, nor even dream of any
attempt at secession.

Many of the best known Filipinos were denounced to the military authorities,
and they, the sons of Spaniards born in the islands and men of mixed blood (Spanish
and Chinese), as well as the Indians of pure blood, as the Philippine Malays were
called, were persecuted and punished without distinction by the military authorities.
Those who dared to oppose themselves to the friars were punished with special
severity; among others may be mentioned the priests Burgos, a half-blood Spaniard,
Zamora, a half-blood Chinaman, and Gomez, a pure-blood Tagalog, who had
vigorously opposed the friars in the litigation over the curacies in the various
provinces. The three priests mentioned were condemned to death by a military court-
martial; and Antonio M. Regidor, a lawyer and councilman of Manila, Joaquin Pardo
de Tavera, lawyer and members of the administrative council, P. Mendoza, curate of
Santa Cruz, Guevarra, curate of Quiapo, the priests Mariano Sevilla, Feliciano
Gomez, Ballesteros, Jose Basa, the lawyers Carillo, Basa, Enriquez, Crisanto, Reyes,
Maximo, Paterno, and many others were sentenced to life imprisonment on the
Marianas Islands. The Government thus secured its object of terrorizing the Filipino
people, but the punishments meted out were not only unjust but were from every point
of view unnecessary, as there had not been the remote intention on the part of anyone
to overthrow the Spanish sovereignty. On the contrary, the attitude of Moret, Labra,
Becerra, and other high officials in the Madrid Government had awakened in the
breasts of the Filipinos a lively friendship for the home government, and never has the
ties which bound the colony to Spain been as close as they were during the short
interval between the arrival of General La Torre and the time when General Izquierdo,
in the name of the home government, was guilty of the atrocities mentioned above, of
which innocent men were made victims.

A careful study of the history and documents of that time brings to light the
part which the religious orders played in that sad drama. One of the results of the so-
called revolution of Cavite was to strengthen the power of the friars in the Philippine
Islands in such manner that the Madrid Government, which up to that time had
contemplated reducing the power of the religious orders in these islands, was obliged
not only to abandon its intention, but to place a yet greater measure of official
influences at the service of the friars, and from that time they were considered as an
important factor in the preservation of the Spanish sovereignty in the colony.

This influence was felt throughout the islands, and not only were the friars
taken into the confidence of the Government, but the Filipino people looked upon the
religious orders as their real masters and as the representatives, powerful and
unsparing, of the Spanish Kingdom.

But there were other results following upon the unfortunate policy adopted by
Governor Izquierdo. Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from
Spain, and the only aspiration of the people was to secure the material and educational
advancement of the country. The Filipino people had never blamed the Spanish nation
for the backward condition in which the islands existed, nor for the injustices
committed in the islands by the Spanish officials; but on the contrary it was the
custom to lay all the blame for these things on the individual officers guilty of
maladministration, and no attempt had been made to investigate whether or not the
evils under which the islands suffered were due to fundamental causes. The
persecutions which began under Governor Izquierdo were based on the false
assumption that the Filipino people were desirous of independence, and although this
was an unfounded accusation, there were many martyrs to the cause, among whom
were found many of the most intelligent and well-to-do people, without distinction of
color or race or nationality, who were sentenced to death, to imprisonment, or were
expatriated because they were believed to aspire to the independence of these islands.
The fear which the people felt of the friars and of the punishments meted out by the
Government was exceeded only by the admiration which the Filipino people has for
those who did not hesitate to stand up for the rights of the country. In this manner, the
persecutions to which the people were subjected served as a stimulus and an educative
force, and from that time the rebellion was nursed in secret and the passive resistance
to the abuses of the official power became greater day by day.

No attempt was made to allay the ill-feeling which existed between the
Filipinos and the Spaniards, especially the friars, caused by the mutiny in Cavite and
the cruel manner in which the punishment was meted out. Many years would have
been necessary to heal the wounds felt by the large number of families whose
members were made the victims of the unjust sentences of the military courts-martial.
Nothing was done by the Government to blot out the recollection of these actions; on
the contrary, it appeared to be its policy to continually bring up the memory of these
occurrences as a reminder to the mal-contents of what they had to expect; but the only
thing accomplished was to increase the popular discontent. It was from that time that
every disagreement between the Spaniards and Filipinos, however trivial, was given a
racial or political character; every time a friar was insulted or injured in any way, it
was claimed to be an act of hostility to the Spanish nation.
Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny by Rafael Izquierdo
as cited by Antonio Tamayao, 2019.

Governor General Rafael Izquierdo reported to the Spanish Minister of War,

dated Manila, January 23, 1872, blaming the Cavite Mutiny on the native clergy,
some local residents, intellectuals, and even El Eco Filipino, a Madrid-based reformist
newspaper. Significantly, he calls the military mutiny as “insurrection”, an “uprising”,
and a “revolution”. The text of the report is as follows:

From the summary of information received – that is, from the declaration
made before the fiscal – it seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and
prepared by the native clergy, by the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those
known here as abogadillos. Some are residents of Manila, others from Cavite, and
some from the nearby provinces.

The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the
injustice of the government in not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and
against the usury that some (officials) practice in (handling) documents that the
Finance department gives crop owners who have to sell them at a loss. They
encouraged the rebellion by protesting what they called the injustice of having obliged
the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute starting January 1 (1872) and to render
personal service, from which they were formerly exempted.

To seduce the native troops, they resorted to superstitions with which the
indios are so prone to believe; persuading them that the Chief of State (hari) would be
an ecclesiastic and the rest or the clergy who baked the uprising would celebrate daily
for its success. Thus the rebellion could not fail because God was with them; and
those who would not revolt they would kill immediately. Taking advantage of the
ignorance of those classes and the propensity of the Indio to steal, they offered (to
those who revolted) the wealth of the Spaniards and of the regular clergy,
employment and ranks in the army; and to this effect they said that fifteen native
battalions would be created, in which the soldiers who revolted would have jobs as
officers and chiefs. The lawyers and abogadillos would direct the affairs of
government of the administration and of justice.
 Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to establish a
monarchy or a republic, because the indios have no word in their language to describe
this different form of government, whose head in Tagalog would be called hari; but it
turns out that they would place at the head of the government a priest; and there were
great probabilities – nay, a certainty – that the head selected would be D. Jose Burgos,
or D. Zacinto Zamora, parish priests of S. San Pedro of Manila.

All the Spaniards, including the friars, would be executed except for the
women; and their belongings confiscated. Foreigners would be respected.

This uprising has roots, and with them were affiliated to a great extent the
regiments of infantry and artillery, many civilians and a large number of mestizos,
indios and some illustrados from the provinces.

To start the revolution, they planned to set fire to the district of Tondo. Once
the fire was set and while the authorities were busy putting it out, the regiment of
artillery with the help of the part of the infantry would seize Fort Santiago of this
Capital (they would then) fire cannons to inform the rebels of Cavite (of their
success). The rebels in Cavite counted on the artillery detachment that occupied the
fort and on the navy helped by 500 natives led by the pardoned leader Camerino. This
person and his men, located at the town of Bacoor and separated from the fort of San
Felipe by a small arm of the sea, would cross the water and reach the fort where they
would find arms and ammunition.

The rebels (in Cavite) made the signals agreed upon by means of lanterns, but
the native civilians (in Bacoor) although they tried it, failed because if the vigilance of
the (Spanish) navy that had placed there a gunboat and armed vessels.

Loyalists who went to arrest the parish priests of Bacoor found an abandoned
vessel loaded with arms, including carbines and revolvers.

The uprising should have started in Manila at midnight abetted by those in

Cavite, but the rebels of this city went ahead of time. The civil-military governor of
Cavite and the commanders of Regiment 7 took very timely precautions; they knew
how to keep the soldiers loyal (although these had been compromised) and behaved
with valor and gallantry, obliging the rebels to take refuge in the fort of San Felipe.

Such is your Excellency, the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and
the means they counted upon for its realization. For a long time now, through
confidential information and others of a vaguer character, I have been told that since
1869 – taking advantage of a group that had left behind plans for an uprising, but was
carried out because of the earthquake of 1862 – there existed in Manila a junta or
center that sought and found followers; and that as a pretext they had established a
society for the teaching of arts and trades. Months ago I suspended it indirectly,
giving an account to Your Excellency in my confidential report No. 113 dated August
1, (1871) to which Your Excellency has not yet replied.

It has also been said that this center or junta received inspiration from Madrid,
where newspapers of advanced ideas flourish; to sustain them subscriptions are
(locally) solicited; in effect, newspapers such as El Eco Filipino1 were sent here from
Madrid, which were distributed by persons now imprisoned, whose articles thundered
against everything that be found here.

As in the case of my worthy predecessor, I have continuously received

anonymous letters, but because I was confident that I could put down and punish any
uprising, I gave no credit (to these reports) in order not to cause alarm; and instead
continued a vigilant watch whenever possible within the limited means at my
command. I had everything ready (for any untoward possibility), taking into account
the limited peninsular force which composes the army.

Suggested Reading:
Candelaria, Lee P. Et al. Readings in Philippine History.pp.56-59
Module
Title: Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin
Introduction:
The “First Cry of Revolution” became the movement of the Filipinos to fight
back on the tyrannical rule of the Spanish regime; it is also called as the “First Cry”,
the revolution of independence. In this scenario the Filipinos tore their cedulas (tax
receipt) and proclaimed the start to fight for independence-the main goal. The news of
the existence of Katipunan spread throughout Manila and so, Andres Bonifacio, the
Supreme leader of the Katipunan organized a meeting outside the city particular in
Balintawak to talk about their next movement for the revolution against Spaniards.
According to him, the start of the revolution will begin at the end of month of August.
Thus, in this topic, it is surprising that, there are different versions of primary
sources where and when was the First Cry really happened. The eyewitnesses of the
first-hand information were Dr. Pio Valenzuela, Santiago Alvarez, Guillermo
Masangkay and Gregoria de Jesus.
Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this topic, you are expected to:
1. identify the different accounts about First Cry of the Revolution;
1. scrutinize each source in the account of the start of the Revolution;
2. establish a point of view against a particular primary source; and
3. compare and contrast the different views regarding the First Cry of
Revolution.
Learning Content:
Dr. Pio Valenzuela’s Account “Cry of Pugad Lawin’’
(August 23, 1896)

Dr. Pio Valenzuela has been authorized the ‘’Cry of Pugad Lawin, who
happened to eyewitness the event. He was also an official of the Katipunan and a
friend of Andres Bonifacio. There were two versions presented by him. In his first
version, he told that the prime staging point of the Cry was in Balintawak on
Wednesday of August 26, 1896. He held this account when the happenings or events
are still vivid in his memory. On the other hand, later in his life and with a fading
memory, he wrote his Memoirs of the Revolution without consulting the written
documents of the Philippine revolution and claimed that the ‘’Cry’’ took place at
Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896.
Source: Zaide, Gregorio and Sonia Zaide. (1990). Documentary Sources of
Philippine History. Vol. 5. Manila: National Book Store
Torres Jose Victor. (2018). Batis : Sources in the Philippine History. C & E
Publishing, Inc.
The Account

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 BriccioPantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo,
Apolonio Samson, and others. Here, views were only exchanged and no resolution
was debated or adopted. It was at PugadLawin, in 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 29, 1896. Only one
man protested and fought against a war and that was Teodoro Plata. Besides the
persons named above, among those present at this meeting were Enrique Cipriano,
Alfonso Pacheco, Tomas Remigio, Sinforoso San Pedro, and others. After the
tumultuous meeting many of those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted “
Long live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!’’
Santiago Alvarez’s Account “The Cry of Bahay Toro” (August 24, 1896)

This version of the “Cry’’ was written by Santiago Alvarez, a well-known

Katipunero from Cavite and a son of Mariano Alvarez. Santiago is a relative of
Gregoria de Jesus, who happened to be the wife of Andres Bonifacio. Unlike the
author of the first version mentioned (Valenzuela), Santiago Alvarez is not an
eyewitness of this event. As a result, this version of him is not given of equal value as
compared with the other versions for authors of other accounts are actually part of the
historic event.
Source: Zaide, Gregorio and Sonia Zaide. (1990). Documentary Sources of
Philippine History. Vol. 5. Manila: National Book Store

The Account

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 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 a 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 number had grown to more than 500 and the house, yard, and warehouse of
CabesangMelchora was crowded with us Katipuneros. The generous hospitality of
CabeasngMelchora was no less than that of Apolonio Samson. Like him, she also
opened her granary and he 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 CabesangMelchora’s barn. Flanking him on both sides at
the head of the table were Dr. Pio Valenzuela, Emilio Jacinto, BriccioPantas, Enrique
Pacheco, Ramon Bernardo, Pantaleon Torres, Francesco 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 29 August 1896 should a favorable
opportunity arise at that date. Everyone should steel himself and be resolute in the
struggle that was imminent….
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!’’

Guillermo Masangkay’s Account ‘’ The Cry of Balintawak’’ (August 26, 1896)

In 1932, Guillermo Masangkay, a friend and fellow Katipunero of Andres

Bonifacio, recounted his experiences as a member of the revolutionary movement. In
an interview with the Sunday Tribune magazine, Masangkay said that the First Cry
happened in Balintawak on August 26, 1896. In the first decade of American rule, it
was his account that was used by the government and civic officials to fix date and
place of the First Cry which was capped with the erection of the ‘’Monument to the
Heroes of 1896’’ in that place.
However, in an interview published in the newspaper Bagong Buhayon
August 26, 1957, Masangkay changed his narrative stating that the revolution began
on August 23, 1896, similar to the assertion of Dr. Pio Valenzuela. But Masangkay’s
date was later changed again when his granddaughter, Soledad Buehler- Borromeo,
cited sources, including the Masangkay papers, that the original date was August 26.
Source:Torres Jose Victor. (2018). Batis: Sources in the Philippine History. C
& E Publishing, Inc.
The Account
On August 26, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio
Samson, then the cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who attended, I
remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remigio,
BriccioPantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and Francesco
Carreon. They were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors
of the organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong (now
Rizal) 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. They
reasoned that the people would be in distress if the revolution were started without
adequate preparation. Plata was very forceful in his argument, stating that the uprising
could not very well be started without arms and food for the soldiers. Valenzuela used
Rizal’s argument about the rich not siding with the Katipunan organization.
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 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, ‘’ Bonifacio said, ‘’I want to see you
destroyed your cedulas. It will be the sign that all of us have declared our severance
from the Spaniards.’’
With tears in their eyes, the people, as one man, pulled out their cedulas and
tore them to pieces. It was the beginning of the formal declaration of the separation
from Spanish rule….
When the people’s pledge was obtained by Bonifacio, he returned to the
session hall and informed the leaders of what took place outside. ‘’ The people want
to revolt, and they destroyed their cedulas, ‘’ Bonifacio said, ‘’ So now we have to
start the uprising, otherwise the people by hundreds will be shot.” There was no
alternative. The board of directors, in spite of the protest of Plata, Pantas, Valenzuela,
voted for the revolution. And when this was decided, the people outside shouted,
“Long live the Philippine Republic.”
Gregoria de Jesus’ The First “ Cry” (August 25, 1896)

This version was written by no other than the “ Lakambini of the Katipunan”
and wife Andres Bonifacio, Gregoria de Jesus. She has been a participant of this event
and became the keeper of the secret documents of the Katipunan. After the revolution
in August 1896, she lived with her parents in Caloocan then fled to Manila when she
was told that the Spanish authorities wanted to arrest her. Eventually, she joined her
husband in the mountains and shared adversities with him. In her account, the First
“Cry” happened near Caloocan on August 25, 1896.
Source: Zaide, Gregorio and Sonia Zaide. (1990). Documentary Sources of
Philippine History. Vol. 5. Manila: National Book Store
The Account
“The activities of the Katipunan had reached nearly all corners of the
Philippine Archipelago, so that when its existence was discovered and some of the
members arrested, we immediately returned to Caloocan. However, as we were
closely watched by the agents of the Spanish authorities, Andres Bonifacio and other
Katipuneros left the town after some days. It was then that the uprising began, with
the first cry for freedom on August 25, 1896. Meanwhile, I was with my parents.
Through my friends, I learned that Spanish were coming to arrest me. Immediately, I
fled town at eleven o’ clock at night, secretly going through the rice fields to La
Lorna, with the intention of returning to Manila. I was treated like an apparition, for,
sad to say, in every house where I tried to get a little rest, I was driven away as if
people therein were frightened for their own lives. Later, I found out that the
occupants of the houses which I had visited were seized and severely punished – and
some even exiled. One of them was an uncle of mine whom I had visited on that night
to kiss his hands, and he died in exile.’’