READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

MODULE FOR PRELIMS

Chapter/ Module 1: Learning

History
LEARNING OBJECTIVES

To understand the meaning

of history as an academic
discipline
To understand the meaning
of history as an academic
discipline
 To understand the meaning of history as an academic discipline and to
be familiar with the underlying philosophy and methodology of the
discipline
 To examine and assess critically the value of historical evidences and
sources
 To appreciate the importance of history in the social and national life of
the Philippines.

Lesson 1: Meanings and Relevance of History

To make sense of history, it is necessary to first understand what it is
all about. Many people think that history is merely lists of names, dates,
places, and “important” events. However, History or the study of history is
more than just knowing and memorizing facts.
It is a historian’s duty to draw insights from the ideas and realities that
have shaped the lives of men and women and the society. And in
understanding these ideas, a historian (or, in fact, a student of history) can
comprehend how situations happened, identify their elements, and think of
how these situations can solve today’s predicaments, and help them plan for
the future.
The study of history, therefore, is the study of the beliefs and desires,
practices, and institutions of human beings.
practices, and institutions of human beings.

WHY STUDY HISTORY?

WHY STUDY HISTORY?

An examination of the past can tell us a great deal about how we came
to be who we are. It means looking at the roots of modern institutions, ideas,
values, and problems.
Looking at the past teaches us to see the world through different eyes-
appreciating the diversity of human perceptions, beliefs, and cultures.
Different and/or new perspectives will enable us to analyze critically
the present contexts of our society and beings

THE DEFINITION AND SUBJECT MATTER

History was derived from

the Greek word historia
which means
 History was derived from the Greek word historia which means
“Knowledge acquired through inquiry or investigation”. History as a
disciplined existed for around 2, 400 years and is as old as
mathematics and philosophy. This term was then adapted to classical
Latin where it acquired a new definition. Historia became known as
the account of the past of a person or a group of people
through written documents and historical evidences. That meaning
stuck until the early parts of the twentieth century.
 History became an important discipline. It became the historian’s duty
to write about the lives of important individuals like monarchs, heroes,
saints, and nobilities. History was also focused on writing wars,
revolutions, and other important breakthroughs. It is thus important to
ask: What counts as history? Traditional historians lived with the
mantra “no document, no history”. It means that unless a written
 document can prove a certain historical event, then it cannot be
considered as a historical fact.

 But as any other academic disciplines, history progressed and opened

up to the possibility of valid historical sources, which were not
limited to written documents, like government records, chroniclers’
accounts, or personal letters. Giving premium to written documents
essentially invalidates the history of other civilizations that do not keep
written records. Some were keener on passing their history by word of
mouth. Others got their historical documents burned or destroyed
in the events of war or colonization. Restricting historical evidence
as exclusively written is also discrimination against other social classes
who were not recorded in paper. Nobilities, monarchs, the elite, and
even the middle class would have their birth, education, marriage,
and death as matters of government and historical record. But
what of peasant families or indigenous groups who were not given
much thought about being registered to government records? Does the
absence of written documents about them mean they were people of
no history or past? Did they even exist?

 This loophole was recognized by historians who started using other

kinds of historical sources, which may not be in written form but were
just as valid. A few examples are oral traditions in forms of epics
and songs, artifacts, architecture, and memory. History thus became
more inclusive and started collaborating with other disciplines as its
auxiliary disciplines.

Other Definitions of History:

History is defined as a
documented record of
man and his society.
(Gray, 1956, pp.1-3).
 As a field of study,
history is a study of man
and his achievements
from the beginning of
written records to the
present.
 As a literary form of
history is an effective
presentation of the
unfolding events. But as a
type of literature history
falls under non-
fiction work.
 History comes from
social history which
defines it as a record of
events showing the
evolution of man and his
society from the earliest
and from the age of
barbarism to what he is
today.
 History is defined as a documented record of man and his
society.
 As a field of study, history is a study of man and his achievements from
the beginning of written records to the present.
 As a literary form of history is an effective presentation of the
unfolding events. But as a type of literature history falls under non-
fiction work.
 History comes from social history which defines it as a record of
events showing the evolution of man and his society from the earliest
and from the age of barbarism to what he is today.

Importance and Uses of History

Given are the uses of history as summarized by Foray and Salevouris (1988).
Some of these are interestingly explained by B.H. Lidedell Hart (1971).

A. History provides a source of personal and social identity.

B. History helps us understand the problems of the present.
C. History – good history – corrects misleading analogies and “lessons” of
the past.
D. History can help one develop tolerance and open-mindedness.
E. History helps us better understand all human behaviors and all aspects
of the human condition.
F. History provides the basic background for many disciplines.
G. History can be a source of entertainment.
H. History, when studied, can teach many critical skills.

Lesson 2: Historical Sources

 With the past as history’s subject matter, the historian’s most
important research tools are historical sources. In general, historical sources
can be classified between primary and secondary sources. The classification
of sources between these two categories depends on the historical subject
being studied. Primary sources are those sources produced at the same time
as the event, period, or subject being studied. For example, if a historian
wishes to study the Commonwealth Constitution Convention of 1935,
his primary sources can include the minutes of the convention,
newspaper clippings Philippine Commission reports of the U.S.
Commissioners, records of the convention, the draft of the Constitution, and
even photographs of the event. Eyewitness accounts of convention delegates
and their memoirs can also be used as primary sources. The same goes with
other subjects of historical study. Archival documents, artifacts, memorabilia,
letters, census, and government records, among others are the most
common examples of primary sources.

On the other hand, secondary sources are those sources, which were
produced by an author who used primary sources to produce the material. In
other words, secondary sources are historical sources, which studied a
certain historical subject. For example, on the subject of the Philippine
Revolution of 1896, students can read Teodoro Agoncillo's Revolt of
the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan published
originally in 1956. The Philippine Revolution happened in the last years of
the nineteenth century while Agoncillo published his work in 1956, which
makes the Revolt of the Masses a secondary source. More than this, in
writing the book, Agoncillo used primary sources with his research like
documents of the Katipunan, interview with the veterans of the
Revolution, and correspondence between and among Katipuneros.

However, a student should not be confused about what counts as a primary

or a secondary source. As mentioned above, the classification of sources
between primary and secondary depends not on the period when the source
was produced or the type of the source but on the subject of the historical
research. For example, a textbook is usually classified as a secondary
source, a tertiary source even. However, this classification is usual but not
automatic. If a historian chooses to write the history of education in
the 1980s, he can utilize textbooks used in that period as a primary
source. If a historian wishes to study the historiography of the Filipino-
American War for example, he can use works of different authors on
The topic as his primary source as well.

Both primary and secondary sources are useful in writing and learning
history. However, historians and students of history need to thoroughly
scrutinize these historical sources to avoid deception and to come up with
the historical truth. The historian should be able to conduct an external and
internal criticism of the source, especially primary sources which can age in
centuries. External criticism is the practice of verifying the authenticity of
evidence by examining its physical characteristics; consistency with the
historical characteristic of the time when it was produced; and the materials
used for the evidence. Examples of the things that will be examined when
conducting external criticism of a document include the quality of the paper,
the type of the ink, and the language and words used in the material, among
others.

Internal criticism, on the other hand, is the examination of the

truthfulness of the evidence. It looks at the content of the source and
examines the circumstance of its production. Internal criticism looks at the
truthfulness and factuality of the evidence by looking at the author of the
source, its context, the agenda behind its creation, the knowledge
which informed it, and its intended purpose, among others. For example,
Japanese reports and declarations during the period of the war should not be
taken as a historical fact hastily. Internal criticism entails that the historian
acknowledge and analyze how such reports can be manipulated to be used
war propaganda. Validating historical sources is important because the use
of unverified, falsified, and untruthful historical sources can lead to equally
false conclusions. Without thorough criticisms of historical evidences;
historical deceptions and lies will be highly probable.

One of the most scandalous cases of deception in Philippine history is the

hoax Code of Kalantiaw. The code was a set of rules contained in an epic,
Maragtas, which was allegedly written by a certain Datu Kalantiaw. The
document was sold to the National Library and was regarded as an important
precolonial document until 1968, when American historian William
Henry Scott debunked the authenticity of the code due to anachronism and
lack of evidence to prove that the code existed in the precolonial Philippine
society
Ferdinand Marcos also claimed that he was a decorated World War II soldier
who led a guerilla unit called Ang Maharlika. This was widely believed by
students of history and Marcos had war medals to show. This claim,
however, was disproven when historians counterchecked Marcos's
claims with the war records of the United States. These cases prove how
deceptions can propagate without rigorous historical research.

The task of the historian is to look at the available historical sources

and select the most relevant and meaningful for history and for the subject
matter that he is studying. History, like other academic discipline, has come
a long way but still has a lot of remaining tasks to do. It does not claim to
render absolute and exact judgment because as long as questions are
continuously asked, and as long as time unfolds, the study of history can
never be complete. The task of the historian is to organize the past that is
being created so that it can offer lessons for nations, societies, and
civilization.

It is the historian's job to seek for the meaning of recovering the past
to let the people see the continuing relevance of provenance, memory,
remembering, and historical understanding for both the present and the
future. Philippine historiography underwent several changes since the
precolonial period until the present. Ancient Filipinos narrated their history
through communal songs and epics that they passed orally from a
generation to another. When the Spaniards came, their chroniclers started
recording their observations through written accounts. The perspective of
historical writing and inquiry also shifted. The Spanish colonizers narrated
the. history of their colony in a bipartite view They saw the age
before colonization as a dark period in the history of the islands, until they
brought light through Western thought and Christianity. Early
nationalists refuted this perspective and argued the tripartite view.
They saw the precolonial
society as a luminous age that ended with darkness when the
colonizers captured their freedom. They believed that the light would come
agan once the colonizers were evicted from the Philippines. Filipino
historian Zeus Salazar introduced the new guiding philosophy for
writing and teaching
history: pantayong pananaw (for us-trom us perspective). This perspective
highlights the importance of facilitating an internal conversation and
discourse among Filipinos about our own history, using the language that is
understood by everyone.

CHAPTER/ MODULE 2:
CONTENT AND
CONTEXTUAL
ANALYSIS OF
SELECTED PRIMARY
SOURCES IN
PHILIPPINE HISTORY
CHAPTER/ MODULE 2:
CONTENT AND
CONTEXTUAL
ANALYSIS OF
SELECTED PRIMARY
SOURCES IN
PHILIPPINE HISTORY
CHAPTER/ MODULE 2:
CONTENT AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PRIMARY
SOURCES IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
  To familiarize oneself with the primary documents in different historical
periods of the Philippines.
 To learn history through primary sources.
 To properly interpret primary sources through examining the
content and context of the document
 To understand the context behind each selected document.
 To interpret historical events using primary sources.
 To recognize the multiplicity of interpretation than can be read from a
historical text.
 To identify the advantages and disadvantages of employing critical tools in interpreting
historical events through primary sources.
 To demonstrate ability to argue for or against a particular issue using primary sources.

In the preceding chapter, we have discussed the importance of familiarizing oneself about the
different kinds of historical sources. The historian's primary tool of understanding and interpreting the
past is the historical sources. Historical sources ascertain historical facts. Such facts are then
analyzed and interpreted by the historian to weave historical narrative. Specifically, historians who study
certain historical subjects and events need to make use of various prumary sources in order to weave
the narrative. Primary sources, as discussed in the preceding chapter, consist or documents,
memoir, accounts, and other materials that were produced at the period of the event or subject
being studied.

Using primary sources in historical research entails two kinds of criticism. The first one is the
external criticism, and the second one is the internal criticism. External criticism examines the
authenticity of the document or the evidence being used. This is important in ensuring that the
primary source is not fabricated. On the other hand, internal criticism examines the truthfulness of
the content of the evidence. However, this criticism requires not just the act establishing truthfulness
and/or accuracy but also the examination of the primary sources in terms of the context of its
production. For example, a historian would have to situate the document in the period of its
production, or in the background of its authors. In other words, it should be recognized that facts
are neither existing in a vacuum nor produced from a blank slate. These are products of the time and of
the people.

In this chapter, we are going to look at a number of primary sources from different historical
periods and evaluate these documents content in terms of historical value, and examine the
context of their production. The primary sources that we are going to examine is Emilio Jacinto's
"Kartilya ng Katipunan and afterwards you will be examining selected primary sources; these are:
Manunggul Jar, Dasalan at Tocsohan, and Ang Dapat Mabatid ng mga Pilipino.

Needless to say, different types of sources necessitate different kinds of analysis and contain
different levels of importance. You are going to explore that in this chapter.

Lesson 1 The KKK and the Kartilya ng Katipunan

The Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan (KAK) or Katipunan
is arguably the most important organization formed n the Philippine history. While anti-
colonial movements, efforts, and organizations had already been established centuries prior to
the foundation of the katipunan, it was only this organization that envisioned
1) A united Filipino nation that would revolt against the Spaniards for
2) The total independence of the country from Spain. Previous armed revolts had alreaay
occurred before the foundation of the Katipunan, but none of them envisioned a unified
Filipino nation revolting against the colonizers. For example, Diego Silang was known as an
llocano who took up his arms and led one of the longest running revolts in the country. Silang.
however, was mainly concerned about his locality and referred to himself as El Rey de Ilocos
(The King of locos). The imagination of the nation was largely absent in the aspirations of
the local revolts before Katipunan. On the other hand, the propaganda movements led by the
ilustrados like Marcelo H. del Pilar, Graciano Lopez Jaena, and Jose Rizal did not envision a
total separation of the Philippines from Spain, but only demanded equal rights,
representation and protection from the abuses of the friars.
In the conduct of their struggle, Katipunan created a complex structure and a defined
value system that would guide the organization as a collective aspiring for a single goal. One
of the most important Katipunan documents was the Kartilya ng Katipunan. The original title
of the document was "Manga [sic] Aral Nang [sic] Katipunan ng mga A.N.B." or "Lessons of
the Organization of the Sons of Country" The document was written by Emilio Jacinto in the
1896. Jacinto was only 18 years old when he joined the movement. He was a law student at the
Universidad de Santo Tomas. Despite his youth, Bonifacio recognized the value and intellect of
Jacinto that upon seeing that Jacinto's Kartilya was much better than the Decalogue he wrote,
he willingly favored that the Kartilya be distributed to their fellow Katipuneros. Jacinto
became the secretary of the organization and took charge of the short-lived printing press of
the Katipunan On 15 April 189 Bonifacio appointed Jacinto as a commander of the
Katipunan in Northern Luzon. Jacinto was 22 years old. He died of Malaria at a young age
ot 24 in the town ot Magdalena, Laguna. The Kartilya can be treated as the Katipunan's code of
conduct. It contains fourteen rules that instruct the way a Katipunero should behave, and
which specific values should he uphold. Generally, the rules stated in the Kartilya can be
classified into two. The first group contains the rules that will make the member an upright
individual and the second group contains the rules that will gulde the way he treats his tellow
men.
Below is the translated version of the rules in Kartilya:
I. The life that is not consecrated to a lofty and reasonable purpose is a tree without a
shade, if not a poisonous weed.
II. To do good for personal gain and not for its own sake is not a virtue.
 III. 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.
IV. 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 by
nature.
V. The honorable man preters honor to personal gain; the scoundrel, gain to honor.
VI. VI. To the honorable man, his word is sacred. VII. Do not waste thy time: wealth can be
recovered but not time lost.

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

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

X. On the 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.

XI.Thou must not look upon woman as a mere plaything, but as faithful companion who will
share with 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.

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

XIII. 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, who does good, keeps his words, is
worthy and honest; he who does not oppress nor consent to being oppressed, he who loves and
cherishes his fatherland though he be born in the wilderness and know no tongue but his own.

XIV. When these rules of conduct shall be known to all, the longed- for sun of Liberty shall rise
brilliant over this 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.

As the primary governing document, which determines the rules of conduct in the Katipunan,
properly understanding the Kartilya will thus help in understanding the values, ideals, aspirations,
and even the ideology of the organization.

Analysis of the "Kartilya ng Katipunan

This primary source also needs to be analyzed in terms of content and context. As a written
document for a fraternity whose main purpose is to overthrow a colonial regime, we can explain the
content and provisions of the Kartilya as a reaction and response to certain value systems that they
found despicable in the present state of things that they struggled against with. For example, in the
fourth and the thirteen rules in the Kartilya are an invocation of the inherent equality between and
among men regardless of race, occupation or status. In the context of the Spanish colonial era
where the indios were treated as the inferior of the white Europeans, the Katipunan saw to it that
the alternative order that they wished to promulgate through their revolution necessarily destroyed
this kind of unjust hierarchy.

Moreover, one can analyze the values upheld in the document as consistent with the
burgeoning rational and liberal ideals in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Equality, tolerance,
freedom, and liberty were values that first emerged in the eighteenth century French Revolution, which
spread throughout Europe and reached the educated class of the colonies. Jacinto,an ilustrado
himself, certainly got an understanding of these values. Aside from the liberal values that can be
dissected in the document, we can also decipher certain Victorian and chivalrous values in the text.
For example, various provisions in the Kartilya repeatedly emphasized the importance of honor in
words and in action. The teaching of the Katipunan on how women should be treated with honor and
respect, while positive in many respects and certainly a significant stride from the practice of raping
and physically abusing women, can still be telling of the Katipunan's secondary regard for women
in relation to men. For example, in the tenth rule, tne document of specifically stated that men
should be the guide of women and children, and that he should set a good example, otherwise the
women and children would be guided guided in the path of evil. Nevertheless, the same documents
stated that women should be treated as companions of men not as playthings that can be exploited for
their pleasure.

ln the contemporary eyes, the Katipunan can be criticized because of these provisions.
However, one must not forget the context where the organization was born. Not even in Europe or in
the whole of the West at that juncture recognized the problem of gender inequality. Indeed, it can
be argued that Katipunan's recognition of women as important partners in the struggle, as reflected not
just in Kartilya but also in the organizational structure of the fraternity where a women's unit was
established, is an endeavor advanced for its time. Aside from Rizal's known Letter to the Women of
Malolos, no same effort by the supposed cosmopolitan Propaganda Movement was achieved until
the movement's eventual disintegration in the latter part of the 1890s. Aside from this, the Kartilya
was instructive not just of the Katipunan's conduct toward other people, but also for the members'
development as individuals in their own rights. Generally speaking, the rules in the Kartilya can be
classified as either directed to how one should treat his neighbor or to how one should develop and
conduct one's self, Both are essential to the success and fulfillment of the Katipunan's ideals. For
example, the Kartilya's teachings on honoring one's word and not wasting time are teachings directed
toward self-development, while the rules on treating the neighbor's wife, children, and brothers the
way that you want yours to be treated is an instruction on how Katipuneros should treat and
regard their neighbors.

All in all, proper reading of the Kartilya will reveal a more thorough understanding of the
Katipunan and the significant role that it played in the revolution and in the unfolding of the Philippine
history, as we know it.

LESSON 2: Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interprefation

In this lesson, we will analyze three historiographical problems in Philippine history in an attempt to
apply what we have learned thus far in the work of a historian and the process of historical
inquiry. Earlier, we have been introduced to history as a discipline, the historical method, and the
content and context analysis of primary sources. Two key concepts that need to be defined before
proceeding to the historical analysis of problems in history are interpretation and multiperspectivity.
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 strictiy speaking, not factual at all, but a series of
accepted judgments. Such judgments of historians on how the past should be seen make the foundation
of historical interpretation.

The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic history Maragtas. Before it was revealed
as 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 Filpino Lawgiver, he
promulgated in about 1433 penal code now known as Code of Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don
Marcelino Orilla of Zarugoza, Spain, obtained the original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which
was later translated into Spanish by Rafael Murviedo Yzamaney.” lt was only in 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 Philippine history. He attributed the code to a
historical fiction writtern in 1913 by Jose E. Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de la lsla de Negros.
Marco attributed the code itself to a priest named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians
did not dissent to Scott s 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, a non-historian interpreting a primary source may
do more harm than good-a primary source may even cause misunderstandings; sometimes, even
resulting more problems. Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the
primary source, when it was read, and how it was read. As students of history, we must be well
equipped to recognize different types of interpretatons why these may differ from each other, and
how to criticaly sift these interpretations through historical evaluation. Interpretations of historical
events change over time; thus, it is an important skill for a student of history to track these changes in
an attempt to understand the past.

Sa “Aking Mga Kabata" is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal when he was eight years old and is
probably one of Rizal's most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that this poem,
with the now immortalized lines "Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang salita/mahigit sa hayop at malansang
isda was written by Rizal, and worse, the evidence against Rizals authorship of the poem seems all
unassailable. There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first
putblished in 1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz.

Cruz said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato Francisco, who claimed to have received it in
1884 tirom Rizal's close friend, Saturnino Raselis. Rizal never mentioned wrting this poem
anywhere in his writings, and more importanty, he never mentioned of having a close triend 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 reterred to the word "kalayaan. But it was
documented in Rizal's letters that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilar's
translation of Rizal's essay El Amor Patrio, where it was spelled as kalayahan. While Rizal's native
tongue was Tagalog. he was educated in panish, starting from his mother, Teodora Alonso. Later on,
he would express disappointment in his difficulty in expressing himself in his native tongue. The poem's
spelling is also suspect-the use of letters "k and "w" to replaced c and u, respectively was suggested by
Rizal as an adult. If the poem was indeed written during his time, it should use the original Spanish
orthography that was prevalent in his time.

Primary Source: Albo's Log Source:Diario o derotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo se S. Agustin
en el Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albo," Document no.
xxii in Colleción de viages descubrinmientos que hicieron por mar los Españoles desde fines del siglo XV,
Ed. Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (reprinted Buenos Aires 1945, 0 Vols) IV, 191-225. As cited in Miguel
A. Bernad "Butuan or Limasawa The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of
Evidence 1981, Künaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. 111, 1-35. 1. On the 16th of March
(1521) as they sailed in a westerly course from Ladrones, they saw land towards the northwest; but
owing to many shallow places they did not approach it. T'hey found later that its name was Yunagan.

2. They went instead that same day southwards to another small island named Suluan, and there
they anchored. There they saw some canoes but these fled at the Spaniards' approach. This island was
at 9 and two-thirds degrees North latitude.

3. Departing from those two islands, they sailed westward to an uninhabited island of Gada"
where they took in a supply of wood and water. The sea around that island was free from shallows.
(Albo does not give the latitude of this island, but from Pigatetta's testimony, this seems to be the
"Acquada or Homonhon, at 10 degrees North latitude.)

4. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island names Seilani that was
inhabited and was known to have gold.(Seilani- or, as Pigafetta calls it, "Ceylon-was the island of
Leyte.)

5.Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest to a small
island called "Mazava." That island is also at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North.

6. The people of that island of Mazava were very good. There the Spaniards planted a cross upon
a mountain-top, and from there they were shown three islands to the west and southwest, where they
were told there was much gold. "They showed us how the gold was gathered, which came in small
pieces like peas and lentils.

7. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seilani. Tney followed the coast of Seilani in a
northwesterly direction, ascending up to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw three small islands.

8. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, and there they saw three islets, where they
dropped anchor for the night. In the morning they sailed southwest some 12 leagues, down to a
latitude of l0 and one-third degree. There they entered a channel between two islands, one of which
was called "Matan" and the other "Subu."
9.They sailed down that channel and then turned westward and anchored at the town (la villa) of
Subu where they stayed many days and obtained provisions and entered into a peace-pact with the
local king.

10. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the islands of Suluan and Mazava. But between
Mazava and Subu, there were so many shallows that the boats could not go westward directly but has to
go (as they did) in a round-about way.

It must be noted that in Albo's account, the location of Mazava fits the location of the island of
Limasawa, at the southern tip of Leyte, 9°54N. Also, Albo does not mention the first Mass, but only the
planting of the cross upon a mountain-top from which could be seen three islands to the west and
southwest, which also fits the southern end of Limasawa.

Primary Source: Pigafetta's Testimony on the Route of Magellan's Expedition 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: A
Reexamination of Evidence" 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.

1. Saturday, 16 March 1521- Magellan's expedition sighted a "high land" named "Zamal"
which was some 300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now the Marianas) Islands.
2. Sunday, March 17 "The following day" after sighting Zamal Island, they landed on "another
island which was uninhabited" and which lay "to the right" of the above-mentioned island of
"Zamal." (To the "righť here would mean on their starboard going south or southwest.) There
they set up two tents for the sick members of the crew and had a sow killed for them. The
name of this island was Humunu (Homonhon). This island was located at 10 degrees North
latitude.
3. On that same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the enure archipelago the "Islands of
Saint Lazarus," the reason being that it was Sunday in the Lenten season when the Gospel
assigned for the Mass and the liturgical Office was the eleventh chapter of St. John, which tells
of the raising of Lazarus trom the dead.
4. Monday, March 18- In the afternoon of their second day on that island, they saw a boat coming
towards them with nine men in it. An exchange of gifts was effected. Magellan asked for food
supplies, and the men went away, promising to bring rice and other supplies in "four days.
5. There were two springs of water on that island of Homonhon. Also they saw there some
indications that there was gold in these islands. Consequently Magellan renamed the island and
called it the "Watering Place of Good Omen" (Acquada la di bouni segniali).
6. Friday, March 22-At noon the natives returned. This time they were in two boats, and they
brought food suppies.

7. Magellan's expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday, March 17, to the
Monday of the following week, March 25.

8. Monday, March 25 In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor and left the island of
Homonhon.In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (March 25) was the feast-day of the lncarnation,
also called the feast of the Annunciation and therefore "Our Lady's Day. On this day, as they were
about to weigh anchor, an accident happened to Pigafëtta: he fell into the water but was rescued.
 He attributed his narrow escape from death as grace obtained through the intercession of the
Blessed Virgin Mary on her feast-day.

9. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon was "toward the west
southwest, between four islands: namely, Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson and Albarien." Very
probably "Cenalo is a misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what Pigafetta in his map calls
"Ceilon and Albo calls "Seilani: namely the island of Leyte. Hiunanghan" (a misspelling of
Hinunangan) seemed to Pigafetta to be a separate island, but is actually on the mainland of
Leyte G.e., "Ceylon'"). On the other hand, Hibuson (Pigafetta's Ibusson) is an island east of
Leyte's southern tip. Thus, it is easy to see what Pigafetta meant by sailing toward the west
southwest" past those islands. They left Homonhon sailing westward towards Leyte, then
followed the Leyte coast southward, passing between the island of Hibuson on their portside and
unangan Bay on their starboard, and then continued southward, then turning westward to "Mazaua.
10. Thursday, March 28 In the morning of Holy Thursday, March 6, they anchored off an island
where the previous night they hadseen a light or a bonfire. That island "lies in a latitude of nine and
two-thirds towards the Arctic Pole (i.e., North) and in a longitude of one hundred and sixty-two
degrees from the line of demarcation. lt is twenty-five leagues from the Acquada, and is called
Mazaua.

11. They remained seven days on Mazaua lsland.

12. Thursday, April 4-They left Mazaua, bound for Cebu. They were guided thither by the king of
Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past five "islands" namely: "Ceylon,
Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan."

13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes Group, namely,
Poro, Pasihan and Ponson. Here the Spanish ships stopped to allow the king of Mazaua to catch up
with them, since the Spanish ships were much faster than the native balangha-a thing that excited
the admiration of the king of Mazaua.

14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards "Zubu.

15. Sunday, April 7 - At noon they entered the harbor of "Zubu (Cebu). It had taken them three days
to negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to the Camotes Islands and then southwards to
Cebu.

It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta's testimonies coincide and corroborate each
other. Pigafetta gave more details on what they did during their weeklong stay at Mazaua.

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:
A Reexamination of Evidence" 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35

1. Thursday, March 28-In the morning they anchored near an island where they had seen a
light the night before a small boat (boloto) came with eight natives, to whom Magellan threw some
trinkets as presents. The natives paddled away, but two hours later two larger boats (balanghai) came,
in one of which the native king sat under an awning of mats. At Magellan's invitation some of the natives
went up the Spanish ship, but the native king remained seated in his boat. An exchange of gifts was
effected. In the afternoon that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and came closer to shore,
anchoring near the native kings 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 eight men, and this
time went up Magellan's ship and the two men embraced. Another exchange of gifts was made. The
native king and his companions returned ashore, bringing with them two members of Magellan's
expedition as guests for the night. One of the two was Pigafetta.

3. Saturday, March 30 Pigafetta and his companion had spent the previous evening
teasting 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 companion
took 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 were the king of Mazaua and the king of Butuan.

5. Sunday, March 31-On 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 were available in that island. They replied that there were three to choose from: Ceylon, Zubu,
and Calagan. Of the three, Zubu was the port with the most trade. Magellan then said that he wished
to go to Zubu and to depart the following morning. He asked for someone to guide him thither. The
kings replied that the pilots would be available "any time. But later that evening the King of Mazaua
changed his mind and said that he would himself conduct Magellan to Zubu but that he would first have
to bring the harvest in. He asked Magellan to send him men to help with the harvest.

6. Monday, April 1 - Magellan sent men ashore to help with the harvest, but no work was
done that day because the two kings were sleeping off their drinking bout the night before.

7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday, April3- Work on the harvest during the "next to days,
1.e., Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April.

8. Thursday, April 4-They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.

Using the primary sources avallable, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad in his work Butuan or
Limasauwa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Euidence (1981) lays down
the argument that in the Pigafetta account, a crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned-the river.
Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach off Masno is in the delta of said
river. It 18 a curious omission in the account of the river, which makes part of a distinct characteristic of
Butuan's geography that seemed to be too important to be missed.
 The Age of Exploration is a period of competition among European rulers to conquer and
colonize lands outside their original domaims. Initialy, the goal was to find alternative routes by sea
to get to Asia, the main source of spices and other commodities. Existing routes to Asia were
mainly by land and cost very expensive. A sea 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 shorteut to Asia. He was able to
reach the Americas, which was then cut-off from the rest of the known world.

Spain colonized parts of North America, Mexico, and South America in the sixteenth century.
They were also able to reach the Philippines and claim it for the 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 seemingiy went to Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta vividly describes a trip in a river. But
note that this account already happened after Magellan's death.

Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny

The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal centered on how the event
was an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in the Philippines. Although regarded as
a historian, his account of the mutiny was criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a scholar. Another
account from the official report written by then Governor General Rafael Izquierdo implicated the
native clergy, who were then, active in the movement toward secularization of parishes. These two
accounts corroborated each other.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Montero's Account of the Cavity Mutiny Source:

Jose Monteroy Vidal, "Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 269-
273.

The abolition of 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 [sic] of the most sacred respects towards the
dethroned majesty; the democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the speeches and
preachings of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the outbursts of the American publicists and the
eriminal policy ot 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 friars, made common cause with the enemies of the mother country.

At various times but especlally in the beginning of year 1872, the authorities received anonymous
communications with the information that a great uprising would break out against 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 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, the soul of the movement, whose energetic character
and immense wealth enabled him to exerc1se a strong influence.

Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Source: Rafael Izquierdo, "Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 281-286.

It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native clergy, by the mestizos
and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos..

The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice of the government
in not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and against the usury that some practice in
documents that the Finance department gives crop owners who have to sell them at a loss. They
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 and to render personal service, from
which they were formerly exempted..

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 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 ZamOrä. Such is...
the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and the means they counted upon for its realization.

It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the "revolution": the abolition of privileges
enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption trom payment of tribute and being
employed in polos y servicios, or force labor. They also identified other reasons which seemingly made
the issue a lot more serious, which included the presence of the native clergy, who, out of spite
aganst 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 of 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 wno 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 an 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 exist that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdo and Montero.
First, the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a Pilipino scholar and researcher, who
wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera's Account of the Cavite Mutiny Source:

Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, "Filipino Version of the Cavity Mutiny," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 274 280. This
uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as s powerful level by the Spanish residents and by
the friars. the Central Government in Madrid had announced its intention to deprive the friars in
these islands of powers of intervention in matters of civil government and of the direction and
management of the university .. it was due to these facts and promises that the Filipinos had great
hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their country, while the friars, on the other hand, feared
that their power in the colony would soon be complete a thing of the past. ...Up to that time there had
been no intention of secession from Spain, and the only aspiration of the people was. to secure the
material and education advancement of the country...

According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and laborers of the
Cavite rsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian policies of Izquierdo, such as the abolition
of privileges and the prohibition of the founding of the school of arts and trades tor Filpinos, which the
General saw as a smokescreen to creating a political club. Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish
friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a way to address other issues by blowing out oE
proportion the isolated mutiny attempt. During this time, the Central Government in Madrid was
planning to deprive the friars of all the powers ot lntervention in matters of civil government and
direction and management ot educational institutions. The friars needed something to justity their
continuing dominance in the country, and the mutiny provided such opportunity. However, the Central
Spanish Government introduced an educational decree fusing sectarian schools run by the friars
into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree aimed to improve the standard of education in
the Phiippines by requiring teaching positions in these schools to be filled by competitive
examinations, an improvement welcomed by most Filipinos. Another account, this time by French
writer Edmund Plauchut, complemented Tavera's account and analyzed the motivations of the 1872
Cavite Mutiny. Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut's Account of the Cavite Mutiny Source:
Edmund Plauchut, The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za," in Gregorio
Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Souroces of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National
Book Store, 1990), 251-268. General La Torre.. created a junta composed of high officials... including
some friars and six Spanish officials.... At the same time there was created by the government in
Madrid a committee to investigate the same problems submitted to the Manila committee. When
the two finished work, it was found that they came to the same conclusions. Here is the summary of
the reforms they considered necessary to introduce:
1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection.

2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.

3.Reduction of export fees

4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy freedom of worship,
and operate commercial transports fiying the Spanish fiag.

5.Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Mnister of Overseas Affairs in Madrid on

the necessary retorms to be implemented.

6. Changes in primary and secondary education.

7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines, rendering unnecessary

the sending home of short-term civil 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 ot 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 Fipinos to overthrow the Spanish Government.
Unintentionally, and more so, propheticaly, 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
priests to the mutiny as part or a conspiracy to stifle the movement of secular priests who desired to
have their own parishes instead of being merely assistants to the regular friars. The GOMBURZA
were executed by garrote in public, a scene purportedly witnessed by a young Jose Rizal. Their
martyrdom is widely accepted as the dawn of Philippine nationalism in the nineteenth century, with
Rizal dedicating his second novel, El Filibusterismo, to their memory: “The Government, by
enshrouding your trial in mystery and pardoning your co-accused, has suggested that some mistake
was committed when your fate was decided; and the whole of the Philippines, in paying homage
to your memory and calling you martyrs, totally rejects your guilt. The Church, by refusing to
degrade you, has put in doubt the crime charged against you.

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 1896.
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 Valenzuela.
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 Source: Accounts of the Cry

Guillermo Masangkay

Source: Guillermo Masangkay, "Cry of Balintawak" in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia 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 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 Bmilio 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 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 tate 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: National 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 were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Kamon 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, tour
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 fiag 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.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
 To understand the
meaning of history as an
academic discipline