17

2 | Readings in Philippine History

UNIT 2: CONTENT AND CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED
PRIMARY SOURCES IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

2.0 Intended Learning Outcomes

a. Analyze the context and perspective of different kinds of primary
sources.
b. Describe the contribution of different kinds of primary sources in
understanding Philippine history. And develop critical and analytical
skills with exposure to primary sources.
c. Develop a sense of value of critical analysis in the study of historical
facts.

2.1. Introduction

Hello, my dear student! Congratulations

for finishing your Module 1! Welcome to your
second module for GE 2 Readings in the
Philippine History Unit 2 introduces the learners
to basic concepts of History where learners could
differentiate the traditional from its modern
definition. The lessons in this unit emphasize the
importance of studying history and its use in the
daily lives of the people. Additionally, the
different schools of thought used in viewing
historical perspectives and the reasons why we
should study History from the Filipino Point of
View is highlighted on this part of the module.
Source: https:// www.pngegg.com/en/png-dxajx

The presentation of lessons in this module is generally a localized

and contextualized manner so that the learners will be able to appreciate
the basic information you need to know in the transmission of knowledge
when you become teachers, sooner or later.
The topics in this Unit talks about the Content and Contextual Analysis of
Selected Primary Sources in Philippine History. Specifically, this will talk about
the Brief Summary of the First Voyage Around the World by Magellan by
Antonio Pigafetta, The KKK and the “Kartilya ng Katipunan”, Reading the
“Proclamation of Philippine Independence”, A Glance at Selected Philippine
Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy’s Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature
of the American Era (19001941), and Revisiting Corazon Aquino’s Speech
Before the US Congress.
The activities incorporated in this learning material will help the
students develop their ability to evaluate credible primary sources for their

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 18
2 | Readings in Philippine History
authenticity and provenance and further understand the role of history in
the development of societies and nation-states.

2.2. Discussion & Assessment

Content and Contextual Analysis of Selected Primary Sources in

Philippine History

In the preceding Unit, 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
primary sources in order to weave the narrative. Primary sources, as discussed
in the preceding chapter, consist of documents, memoir, accounts, and other
materials that were produced at the period of the event or subject being
studied.
But before we proceed to our next lesson, I want you first to do an activity
as shown in the Exercise box below.

Activity 1 CRISS CROSS PUZZLE. All you need to do is use the clues fill in
the words below. Words are related to our lesson in the second module.
Words can GO ACROSS or DOWN. Letters are shared when the words
intersect.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 19
2 | Readings in Philippine History

ACROSS: DOWN:
3. 1.
6. 2.
8. 4. Good job! I appreciate
10. 5. were
you able to answer this
12. 7. completely. I believe you
task
13. 9. now ready for our
are
15. 11. Let’s
lesson.
14. AQUINO
start.

WORDS TO FIND:
Cory Honoria Kartilya
Aguinaldo Azcarraga Quincentennial
Bonifacio Victoria Trinidad
Pigafetta Independence Pugadlawin
Magellan Voyage Katipunan

Source: https://
www.pngegg.com/en/png
-dxajx

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 20
2 | Readings in Philippine History

Exercise # 1.1 – Unit 2

Direction: Write your answer in a short bond paper (or Yellow paper).
Write “Work Sheet for Exercise #1 Unit 2” on top of the paper. Indicate also your
name,Rubric
course, year level, and section. You may use extra paper if necessary.
Content 10
1.Write a popular folk tale in your community. You can interview your parents or
old folks in your barangay or town. Write in verbatim the narrative of the story
based on your research oral interview of old folks.
2.Make sure to document the source’s name, age, address, and date of
interview.
3.Scrutinize the narrative of the story: is the story good to be true? Is it
believable? What does it convey as moral lesson or message?
Organization & Structure 10
Mechanics of Writing 5

Total 25
What you did is actually related to our discussion in this chapter. The
comments that you made is some sort of criticism to the existing narratives in
your community, that according to our previous discussion, could be considered
a source of history.
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 unit, 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 are Antonio Pigafetta's First Voyage
Around the World, Emilio Jacinto's "Kartilya ng Katipunan", the 1898
Declaration of Philippine Independence, and Political Cartoon's Alfred McCoy's
Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941), and

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 21
2 | Readings in Philippine History
Corazon Aquino's speech before the U.S. Congress. These primary sources range
from chronicles, official documents, speeches, and cartoons to visual arts.
Needless to say, different types of sources necessitate different kinds of analysis
and contain different levels of importance. We are going to explore that in this
chapter.

A Brief Summary of the First Voyage Around the World by Magellan by

Antonio Pigafeffa
This book was taken from the chronicles of contemporary voyagers and
navigators of the sixteenth century. One of them was Italian nobleman Antonio
Pigafetta, who accompanied Ferdinand Magellan in his fateful circumnavigation
of the world. Pigafetta's work instantly became a classic that prominent literary
men in the West like William Shakespeare, Michel de Montaigne, and
Gianbattista Vico referred to the book in their interpretation of the New World.
Pigafetta's travelogue is one of the: most important primary sources in the study
of the precolonial Philippines. His account was also a major referent to the
events leading to Magellan's arrival in the Philippines, his encounter with local
leaders, his death in the hands of Lapulapu's forces in the Battle of Mactan, and
in the departure of what was left of Magellan's fleet from the islands.
Examining the document reveals several insights not just in the character
of the Philippines during the precolonial period, but also on how the fresh eyes
of the Europeans regard a deeply unfamiliar terrain, environment, people, and
culture. Locating Pigafetta's account in the context of its writing warrants a
familiarity on the dominant frame of mind in the age of exploration, which
pervaded Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth century.
Students of history need to realize that primary sources used in the subsequent
written histories depart from certain perspectives. Thus, Pigafetta's account was
also written from the perspective of Pigafetta himself and was a product of the
context of its production. The First Voyage Around the World by Magellan was
published after Pigafetta returned to Italy.

For this chapter, we

will focus on the chronicles
of
Antonio Pigafetta as he
wrote his firsthand
observation and general
impression of the Far East
including their experiences
in the Visayas. In
Pigafetta's account, their

Antonio Pigafetta

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 22
2 | Readings in Philippine History
fleet reached what he called the Ladrones islands or the "Islands of the
Thieves." He recounted:

These people have no arms, but use sticks, which

have ash bone at the end. They are poor, but
ingenious, and great thieves, and for the called these
three islands the Ladrones Islands (All direct text
herein and in the subsequent sections are taken from
Blair and Robertson, 1976).
The Ladrones Islands is presently known as the Marianas Islands. These
islands are located south-southeast of Japan, west-southwest of Hawaii, north of
New Guinea, and east of Philippines. Ten days after they reached Ladrones
Islands, Pigafetta reported that they reached what Pigafetta called the isle of
Zamal, now Samar, but Magellan decided to land in another uninhabited island
for greater security where they could rest for a few days.

Pigafetta recounted that after two days, March 18, nine men came to them
and showed joy and eagerness in seeing them. Magellan realized that the men
were reasonable and welcomed them with food, drinks, and gifts. In turn, the
natives gave them fish, palm wine (tuba), figs, and two cochos. The natives also
gave them rice (humay), cocos, and other food supplies. Pigafetta detailed in
amazement and fascination the palm tree which bore fruits called cocho, and
wine. He also described what seemed like a coconut. His description reads:

This palm produces a fruit named coco, which is as

large as the head, or thereabouts: its first husk is
green, and two fingers in thickness, in it they find
certain threads, with which they make the cords
for fastening their boats. Under this husk there is
another very hard, and thicker than that of a
walnut. They burn this second rind, and make with
it a powder which is useful to them. Under this rind
there is a white marrow of a finger's thickness.
which they eat fresh with meat and fish, as we do
bread, and it has the taste of an almond, and if
anyone dried it he might make bread of it (p. 72)."

Pigafetta characterized the people as "very familiar and friendly" and

willingly showed them different islands and the names of these islands. The fleet
went to Humunu Island (Homonhon) and there they found what Pigafetta
referred to as the "Watering Place of Good Signs." It is in this place where
Pigafetta wrote that they found the first signs of gold in the island. They named
the island with the nearby islands as the archipelago of St. Lazarus.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 23
2 | Readings in Philippine History
They left the island, then on March 25th, Pigafetta recounted that they
saw two balanghai (balangay), a long boat full of people in Mazava/ Mazaua. The
leader, who Pigafetta referred to as the king of the balanghai (balangay), sent
his men to the ship of Magellan. The Europeans entertained these men and gave
them gifts. When the king of the balangay offered to give Magellan a bar of gold
and a chest of ginger, Magellan declined. Magellan sent the interpreter to the
king and asked for money for the needs of his ships and expressed that he came
into the islands as a friend and not as an enemy. The king responded by giving
Magellan the needed provisions of food in chinaware. Magellan exchanged gifts
of robes in Turkish fashion, red cap, and gave the people knives and mirrors.
The two then expressed their desire to become brothers. Magellan also boasted
of his men in armor who could not be struck with swords and daggers. The king
was fascinated and remarked that men in such armor could be worth one
hundred of his men. Magellan further showed the king his other weapons,
helmets, and artilleries. Magellan also shared with the king his charts and maps
and shared how they found the islands.
After a few days, Magellan was introduced to the king's brother who was
also a king of another island. They went to this island and Pigafetta reported
that they saw mines of gold and the gold was abundant that parts of the ship
and of the house of the second king were made of gold. Pigafetta described this
king as the most handsome of all the men that he saw in this place. He was also
adorned with silk and gold accessories like a golden dagger, which he carried
with him in a wooden polished sheath. This king was named Raja Calambu, king
of Zuluan and Calagan (Butuan and Caragua), and the first king was Raja Siagu.
On March 31st, which happened to be Easter Sunday, Magellan ordered the
chaplain to preside a Mass by the shore. The king heard of this plan and sent
two dead pigs and attended the Mass with the other king. Pigafetta reported
that both kings participated in the mass. He wrote:
...when the offertory of the mass came, the two kings, went to kiss the cross
like us, but they offered nothing, and at the elevation of the body of our Lord
they were kneeling like us, and adored our Lord with joined hands."
After the Mass, Magellan ordered that the cross be brought with nails and
crown in place. Magellan explained that the cross, the nail, and the crown were
the signs of his emperor and that he was ordered to plant it in the places that he
would reach. Magellan further explained that the cross would be beneficial for
their people because once other Spaniards saw this cross, then they would know
that they had been in this land and would not cause them troubles, and any
person who might be held captives by them would be released. The king
concurred and allowed for the cross to be planted. This Mass would go down in
history as the first Mass in the Philippines, and the cross would be the famed
Magellan's Cross still preserved at present day.

After seven days, Magellan and his men decided to move and look for
islands where they could acquire more supplies and provisions. They learned of
the islands of Ceylon (Leyte), Bohol, and Sugbo (Cebu) and intended to go there.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 24
2 | Readings in Philippine History
Raja Calambu offered to plot them in going to Cebu, the largest and the richest
of the islands. By April 7th of the same year, Magellan and reached the port of
Cebu. The King of Cebu, through Magellan's men, demanded that they pay
tribute as it was customary, but Magellan refused. Magellan said that he was a
captain of a king himself and thus would not pay tribute to other kings.
Magellan's interpreter explained to the king of Cebu that Magellan's king was
the emperor of a great empire and that it would do them better to make friends
with them than to forge enmity. The king of Cebu consulted his council. By the
next day, Magellan's men and the king of Cebu, together with other principal
men of Cebu, met in an open space. There, the Frig bit of his blood and
demanded that Magellan do the same. Pigafetta recounts:
'Then the king said that he was content, and as a greater sign of affection he sent
him a little of his blood from his right arm, and wished he should do the like. Our
people answered that he would do it. Besides that, he said that all the captains
who came to his country had been accustomed to make a present to him, and he
to them, and therefore they should ask their captain if he would observe the
custom. Our people answered that he would; but as the king wished to keep up
the custom, let him begin and make a present. and then the captain would do his
duty.
The following day, Magellan spoke before the people of Cebu about peace
and God. Pigafetta reported that the people took pleasure in Magellan's speech.
Magellan then asked the people who would succeed the king after his reign and
the people responded that the eldest child of the king, who happened to be a
daughter, would be the next in line. Pigafetta also related how the people talked
about, how at old age, parents were no longer taken into account and had to
follow the orders of their children as the new leaders of the land. Magellan
responded to this by saying that his faith entailed children to render honor and
obedience to their parents. Magellan preached about their faith further and
people were reportedly convinced. Pigafetta wrote that their men were
overjoyed seeing that the people wished to become Christians through their free
will and not because they were forced or intimidated.
On the 14th of April, the people gathered with the king and other principal
men of the islands. Magellan spoke to the king and encouraged him to be a
good Christian by burning all oft e idols and worship the cross instead. The king
of Cebu was then baptized a Christian. Pigafetta wrote:
'To that the king and all his people answered that thy would obey the
commands of the captain and do all that he told them. The captain took the
king by the hand, and they walked about on the scaffolding, and when he was
baptized he said that he would name him Don Charles (Carlos), as the
emperor his sovereign was named; and he named the prince Don Fernand
(Fernando), after the brother of the emperor, and the King of Mazava, Jehan:
to the Moor he gave the name of Christopher and to the others each a name
of his fancy."

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 25
2 | Readings in Philippine History
After eight days, Pigafetta counted that all of the island's inhabitant were
already baptized. He admitted that they burned a village down for obeying
neither the king nor Magellan. The Mass was conducted by the shore every day.
When the queen came to the
Mass one day, Magellan gave her an image of the Infant Jesus made by Pigafetta
himself/ The king of Cebu swore that he would always be faithful to Magellan.
When Magellan reiterated that of the newly baptized Christians need to burn
their idols, but the natives gave excuses telling Magellan that they needed the
idols to heal a sick man who was a relative to the king. Magellan insisted that
they should instead put their faith in Jesus Christ. They went to the sick man and
baptized him. After the baptismal, Pigafetta recorded that the man was able to
speak again. He called this a miracle.
On the 26th of April, Zula, a principal man from the island of Matan
(Mactan) went to see Magellan and asked him for a boat full of men so that he
would be able to fight the chief named çilapulapu (Lapulapu). Such chief,
according to Zula, refused to obey the king and was also preventing him from
doing so. Magellan offered three boats instead and expressed his desire to go to
Mactan himself to fight the said chief. Magellan's forces arrived in Mactan in
daylight. They numbered 49 in total and the islanders of Mactan were estimated
to number 1,500. The battle began. Pigafetta recounted:
"When we reached land we found the islanders fifteen hundred in number,
drawn up in three squadrons; they came down upon us with terrible shouts,
two squadrons attacking us on the flanks, and the third in front. The captain
then divided his men in two bands. Our musketeers and crossbow-men fired
for half an hour from a distance, but did nothing, since the bullets and arrows,
though they passed through their shields made of thin wood, and perhaps
wounded their arms, yet did not stop them. The captain shouted not to fire,
but he was not listened to. The islanders seeing that the shots of our guns did
them little or no harm would not retire, but shouted more loudly, and
springing from one side to the other to avoid our shots, they at the same time
drew nearer to us, throwing arrows, javelins, spears hardened in fire, stones,
and even mud, so that we could hardly defend ourselves. Some of them cast
lances pointed with iron at the captain-general."
Magellan died in that battle. The natives, perceiving that e bodies of the
enemies were protected with armors, aimed for their legs instead. Magellan was
pierced with a poisoned arrow on his right leg. A few of their men charged at the
natives and tried to intimidate them by burning an entire village but this only
enraged the natives further. Magellan was specifically targeted because the
natives knew that he was the captain general. Magellan was hit with a lance in
the face. Magellan retaliated and pierced the same native with his lance in the
breast and tried to draw his sword but could not lift it because of his wounded
arm. Seeing that the captain has already deteriorated, more natives came to
attack him. One native with a great sword delivered a blow in Magellan's left leg,
brought him face down and the natives cease to attacked Magellan with lances,

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 26
2 | Readings in Philippine History
sword and even with their bare hands. Pigafetta recounted the last moments of
Magellan:
"Whilst the Indians were thus overpowering him, several times he turned round
towards us to see if we were all in safety, as though his obstinate fight had no
other object that would give an opportunity for the retreat of his men."
Pigafetta also said that the king of Cebu who was baptized could have sent
help but Magellan instructed him not to join the battle and stay in the balangay
so that he would see how they fought. The king offered the people of Mactan
gifts of any value and amount in exchange of Magellan's body but the chief
refused. They wanted to keep Magellan's body as a memento of their victory
Magellan's men elected Duarte Barbosa as the new captain. Pigafetta also
told how Magellan's slave and interpreter named Henry betrayed them and told
the king of Cebu that they intended to leave as quickly as possible. Pigafetta
alleged that the slave told the king that if he followed the slave's advice, then
the king could acquire the ships and the goods of Magellan's fleet. The two
conspired and betrayed what was left of Magellan's men. The king invited these
men to a gathering where he said he would present the jewels that he would
send for the King of Spain. Pigafetta was not able to join the twenty-four men
who attended because he was nursing his battle wounds. It was only a short
time when they heard cries and lamentations. The natives had slain all of the
men except the interpreter and Juan Serrano who was already wounded.
Serrano was presented and shouted at the men in the ship asking them to pay
ransom so he would be spared. However, they refused and would not allow
anyone to go to the shore. The fleet departed and abandoned Serrano. They left
Cebu and continued their journey around the world.

Analysis of Pigafetta's Chronicle

The chronicle of Pigafetta was one of the most cited documents by
historians who wished to study the precolonial Philippines. As one of the earliest
written accounts, Pigafetta was seen as a credible source for a period, which
was prior unchronicled and undocumented. Moreover, being the earliest detailed
documentation, it was believed that Pigafetta's writings account for the "purest"
precolonial society. Indeed, Pigafetta's work is of great importance in the study
and writing of Philippine history. Nevertheless, there needs to have a more
nuanced reading of the source within a contextual backdrop. A student of
history should recognize certain biases accompanying the author and his
identity, loyalties, and the circumstances that he was in; and how it affected the
text that he produced. In the case of Pigafetta, the reader needs to understand
that he was a chronicler commissioned by the King of Spain to accompany and
document a voyage intended to expand the Spanish empire. He was also of
noble descent who carne from a rich family in Italy. These attributes influenced
his narrative, his selection of details to be included in the text, his
characterization of the people and of the species that he encountered, and his

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 27
2 | Readings in Philippine History
interpretation and retelling of the events. Being a scholar of cartography and
geography, Pigafetta was able to give details on geography and climate of the
places that their voyage had reached.
In reading Pigafetta's description of the people, one has to keep in mind
that he was coming from a sixteenth century European perspective. Hence, the
reader might notice how Pigafetta, whether implicitly or explicitly, regarded the
indigenous belief systems and way of life as inferior to that of Christianity and of
the Europeans. He would always remark on the nakedness of the natives or how
he was fascinated by their exotic culture. Pigafetta also noticeably emphasized
the natives' amazement and illiteracy to the European artillery, merchandise,
and other goods, in the same way that Pigafetta repeatedly mentioned the
abundance of spices like ginger, and of precious metals like gold. His
observations and assessments of the indigenous cultures employed the
European standards. Hence, when they saw the indigenous attires of the
natives, Pigafetta saw them as being naked because from the European
standpoint, they were wearing fewer clothes indeed. Pigafetta's perspective was
too narrow to realize that such attire was only appropriate to the tropical climate
of the islands. The same was true for materials that the natives used for their
houses like palm and bamboo. These materials would let more air come through
the house and compensate for the hot climate in the islands.
It should be understood that such observations were rooted from the
context of Pigafetta and of his era. Europe, for example, was dominated by the
Holy Roman Empire, whose loyalty and purpose was the domination of the
Catholic Church all over the world. Hence, other belief systems different from
that of Christianity were perceived to be blasphemous and barbaric, even
demonic. Aside from this sixteenth-century European economy was
mercantilist. Such system measures the wealth of kingdoms based on their
accumulation of bullions or precious metals like gold and silver. It was not
surprising therefore that Pigafetta would always mention the abundance of gold
in the islands as shown in his description of leaders wearing gold rings and
golden daggers, and of the rich gold mines. An empire like that of the Spain
would indeed search for new lands where they could acquire more gold and
wealth to be on top of all the European nations. The obsession with spices might
be odd for Filipinos because of its ordinariness in the Philippines, but
understanding the context reveal that spices, were scarce in Europe and hence
were seen ng prestige goods. In that era, Spain and Portugal the control of Spice
Islands because it would have led to a certain increase in wealth, influence, and
power. These contexts should be used and understood in order to have a more
qualified rending of Pigafetta's account.
The KKK and the "Kartilya ng Katipunan"

The Kataastaasan, Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan

(KKK) or Katipunan is arguably the most important organization formed in the
Philippine history. While anti-colonial movements, efforts, and organizations had
already been established centuries prior to the foundation of the Katipunan, it

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 28
2 | Readings in Philippine History
was only this organization that envisioned a united Filipino nation that would
revolt against the Spaniards for armed revolts had already occurred before the
foundation of the Katipunan, but none of them envisioned a unified Filipino
nation revolting against the colonizers.

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 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 1897, Bonifacio appointed Jacinto as
commander of Katipunan n Northern Luzon who was at that time only 22 years
old. He died of malaria at a young age of 24 in the town of 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
guide the way he treats his fellow men.

Below is the translated version of the rules in Kartilya:

1.The life that is not consecrated to a lofty and reasonable purpose is a

tree without a shade, if not a poisonous weed.
2.To do good for personal gain and not for its own sake is not virtue.
3.It is rational to be charitable and love one's fellow creature, and to
adjust one's conduct, acts and words to what is in itself reasonable.
4.Whether our skin be black or white, we are all born equal: superiority in
knowledge, wealth and beauty ace to be understood, but not superiority
by nature.
5.The honorable man prefers honor to personal gain: the scoundrel, gain
to honor.
6.To the honorable man, his word is sacred.
7.Do not waste thy time: wealth can be recovered but not time lost.
8.Defend the oppressed and fight the oppressor before the law or in the
field.
9.The prudent man is sparing in words and faithful in keeping secrets.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 29
2 | Readings in Philippine History
10. On the thorny path of life, man is the guide of woman and children,
and if the guide leads to the precipice, those whom he guides will also
so there.
11. Thou must not look upon woman as a mere plaything. But a faithful
companion who %ili 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.
12. What thou does not desire done unto thy wife, children, brothers and
sisters, that do not unto the wife, children, brothers and sisters of thy
neighbor.
13. Man is not worth more because he is a king, because his nose is
aquiline, and his color white, not because he is a priest, a servant of
God, nor because of the high prerogative that he enjoys upon earth, but
he is worth most who is a man of proven and real value, 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.
14. 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.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 30
2 | Readings in Philippine History

Exercise #
2 Direction: Write your answers in a short bond paper (or Yellow
paper
least of at but not more than 500 words. Write “Work Sheet for Exercise
250 words
#
of 2”
theon top Indicate also your name, course, You
paper. yearmay
level,
use
and section.
Papeif necessary and answer the following extra
r activity:

1. Translate the Kartilya ng Katipunan into Bisaya (Waray) and relate these values to
the present
context, particularly in political, or social
organizations. Rubri
Creativity cand 1
Content
Organization & 0
1
Structure
Mechanics of 05
Writing
Tota 2
l 5

Analysis of the "Kartilya ng Katipunan"

Similar to what we have done to the accounts of Pigafetta, this primary

source also needs to be analyzed in terms of content and context. As a
document written 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, the fourth and the
thirteenth 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 bur coning 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 qualities. Aside from
the liberal values that can be dissected in the document, we c n 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 me.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 31
2 | Readings in Philippine History
For example, in the tenth rule, the document specifically stated that men should
guide of women and children, and that he should set a good example,
otherwise. The women and the children would be guided in the path of evil.
Nevertheless, the same document stated that women should be treated as
companions by men and not as playthings that can be exploited for their
pleasure.

In the contemporary eyes, the Katipunan can be criticized because of its

provisions. However, one must not forget the context where the organization
was, 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 Special
Commissioner appointed to proclaim and solemnize this act by the Dictatorial
Government of these Philippine Islands for the purposes and by virtue of the
circular addressed by the Eminent Dictator of the same Don Emilio Aguinaldo y
Famy."

A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in Alfred McCoy's

Philippine Cartoons:
Political Caricature of the American Era (1900-1941)
Political cartoons and caricature are a rather recent art form, which veered
away from the classical art by exaggerating human features and poking fun at
its subjects. Such art genre and technique became a part of social and political
commentary, which usually targets persons of power and authority. Cartoons
became an effective tool of publicizing opinions through heavy use of
symbolism, which is different from a verbose written editorial and opinion
pieces. The unique way that a caricature represents opinion and captures the
audience's imagination is reason enough for historians to examine these
political cartoons. Commentaries in mass media inevitably shape public opinion
and such kind of opinion is worthy of historical examination.
In his book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era
(1900— 1941), Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo Roces (1985), compiled
political cartoons published in newspaper dailies and periodicals in the

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 32
2 | Readings in Philippine History
aforementioned time period. For this part, we are going to look at selected
cartoons and explain the context of each one.

The first cartoon

was also
published by The
Independent on
16June 1917. This
was drawn by
Fernando
Amorsolo and
was aimed as a
commentary to
the workings of
Manila Police at
that period. Here,
we see a Filipino
child who stole a skinny chicken because he had nothing to eat. The police
officer was relentlessly pursuing the said child. A man wearing a salakot, labeled
Juan de la Cruz was grabbing the officer, telling him to leave the small-time
pickpockets and thieves and to turn at the great thieves instead. He was
pointing to huge warehouses containing bulks of rice, milk, and grocery
products.

The secondcartoon
was a commentary
on the
unprecedented
cases of colorum
automobiles in the
city streets. The
Philippine Free
Press published this
commentary when
fatal accidents
involving colorum
vehicles and taxis
occurred too often
already.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 33
2 | Readings in Philippine History
The next cartoon was published by The Independent on 27 November
1915. Here, we see the caricature of Uncle Sam riding a chariot pulled by
Filipinos wearing school uniforms. The Filipino boys were carrying American
objects like baseball bats, whiskey, and boxing gloves. McCoy, in his caption to
the said cartoon, says that this cartoon was based on an event

in 1907 when William Howard Taft was brought to the Manila pier riding a
chariot pulled by students of Liceo de Manila. Such was condemned by the
nationalists at that time.

Analysis of the Political Caricatures during the American Period

The transition from the Spanish Colonial period to the American
Occupation period demonstrated different strands of changes and shifts in
culture, society, and politics. The Americans drastically introduced democracy to
the nascent nation and the consequences were far from ideal. Aside from this, it
was also during the American period that Filipinos were introduced to different
manifestations of modernity like healthcare, modern transportation, and media.
This ushered in a more open and freer press. The post independence and the
post-Filipino-American period in the Philippines were experienced differently by
Filipinos coming from different classes. The upper principalia class experienced
economic prosperity with the opening up of the Philippine economy to the
United States but the majority of the poor Filipino remained poor, desperate,
and victims of state repression.

The selected cartoons illustrate not only the opinion of certain media
outfits about the Philippine society during the American period but also paint a
broad image of society and politics under the United States. In the arena of
politics, for example, we see the price that Filipinos paid for the democracy

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 34
2 | Readings in Philippine History
modeled after the Americans. First, it seemed that the Filipino politicians at that
time did not understand well enough the essence of democracy and the
accompanying democratic institutions and processes. This can be seen in the
rising dynastic politics in Tondo as depicted in the cartoon published by The
Independent. Patronage also became influential and powerful, not only between
clients and patrons but also between the newly formed political parties
composed of the elite and the United States.
This was depicted in the cartoon where the United States, represented by
Uncle Sam. Provided dole outs for members of the Federalista while the
Nacionalista politicians looked on and waited for their turn. Thus, the essence of
competing political parties to enforce choices among the voters was cancelled
out. The problem continues up to the present where politicians, transfer from
one party to another depending on which party was powerful in specific periods
of time.
The transition from a Catholic-centered, Spanish-Filipino society to an
imperial American-assimilated one, and its complications, were also depicted in
the cartoons. One example is the unprecedented increase of motorized vehicles
in the city. Automobiles became a popular mode of transportation in the city and
led to the emergence of taxis. However, the laws and policy implementation
were mediocre. This resulted in the increasing colorum and unlicensed vehicles
transporting people around the city. The rules governing the issuance of driver's
license was loose and traffic police could not be bothered by rampant violations
of traffic rules. This is a direct consequence of the drastic urbanization of the
Philippine society. Another example is what McCoy called the "sexual revolution"
that occurred in the 1930s. Young people, as early as that period, disturbed the
conservative Filipino mind set by engaging in daring sexual activities in public
spaces like cinemas. Here, we can see how that period was the meeting point
between the conservative past and the liberated future of the Philippines.

Lastly, the cartoons

also illustrated the
conditions of poor
Filipinos in the Philippines
now governed by the
United States. From the
looks of it, nothing much
has changed. For
example, a cartoon
depicted how police
authorities oppress petty
Filipino criminals while
turning a blind eye on
hoarders who monopolize
goods in their huge

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 35
2 | Readings in Philippine History
warehouses (presumably Chinese merchants). The other cartoon depicts how
Americans controlled Filipinos through seemingly harmless American objects. By
controlling their consciousness and mentality, Americans got to control and
subjugate Filipinos.

Exercise # 3 | Direction: Look for a newspaper and cut out an

editorial cartoon (If you have newspaper, you can just download
one from the internet. Discuss the motive and purpose of the artist.
What issue is being addressed by the artwork? Discuss it
highlighting a contemporary issue of our times. Paste the cartoon
and your answer in a short bond paper. (Write “Work Sheet for
Exercise #3- Unit 3” on top of the paper. Indicate also your name,
course, year level, and section. You may use extra paper if
necessary. Rubric same with Exercise # 1.

UNIT ASSESSMENT

Assessment # 1.
Direction: Analyze the details of the provisions of the Kartilya ng
Katipunan as a primary historical source, emphasizing the background of
the author (Emilio Jacinto) and the looming situation at that time. Choose
five of the fourteen rules and discuss the context of the said rule in the
period it was written and relate it to the present context. Write your
answer in a short bond paper. Write “Work Sheet for Assessment #1- Unit
2” on top of the paper. Indicate also your name, course, year level, and
section. You may use extra paper if necessary.

Rubric
Content 10
Organization 10
Mechanics in Writing 5
Total 25 points

__________________________________♣♣♣ __________________________________
Assessment # 2.
Direction: Discuss the contribution of different kinds of primary sources in
understanding Philippine history. Choose two from A Brief Summary of the
First Voyage Around the World of Magellan by Antonio Pigafetta; The KKK
and the “Kartilya ng Katipunan”; Reading the “Proclamation of Philippine
Independence”; and, A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature in
Alfred McCoy’s Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American
Era (1900-1941). Explain the details of each of your choice in not more

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 36
2 | Readings in Philippine History
than 150 words. Write your answer in a short bond paper (or Yellow
paper). Write “Work Sheet for Assessment #2- Unit 2” on top of the paper.
Indicate also your name, course, year level, and section. You may use
extra paper if necessary. Rubric is same with Assessment # 1.

__________________________________♣♣♣ __________________________________
Assessment # 3.
Direction: Write your answer in a short bond paper (or Yellow paper).
Write “Work Sheet for Assessment # 3” on top of the paper. Indicate also
your name, course, year level, and section. You may use extra paper if
necessary, in answering the questions below. Rubric is same with
Assessment #1.

1. Why do you think critical analysis is important in looking at the

primary source of a significant event in our history?

2. How are pictorial presentations representative of the sentiments of

the people of a given space and given time?
3. In what way critical analysis and understanding the context of
historical source contributory to the development of historiography in the
country?

2.3 References

Agoncillo, Teodoro A. (1990) History of the Filipino People, 8th ed.

Garotech Publishing.

Alphora, Veronica & Candelaria, John Lee (2018). Readings in Philippine

History (1st Edition). Rex Bookstore,

Bautista, A (1898). Declaration of Philippine Independence, (Transl. Sulpicio

Guevara in the Laws of Philippine Republic 1972). National Historical
Commission.

Constantino, Renato & Letizia Constantino, (2008) A History of the

Philippines. Monthly Review Press.

Funtecha, Henry F. & Melanie Padilla. (2010) A Study Guide in Philippine

History. San Agustin Publishing.

Jacinto, E. (1896). Kartilya ng Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan.

(translated by Gregorio Nieva, 1918). Text from Philippine Center of
Masonic Studies.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 37
2 | Readings in Philippine History

McCoy, A. and Alejandro Roces. (1985). Philippine Cartoons: Political

Caricature of the American Era, 1900-1941. Quezon City- Vera Reyes.

Pigafetta, A. 1874). The First Voyage Around the World. (Translated by lord
Stanley of Alderley), London, Hakluyt Society.

2.4 Acknowledgement
This notice is to inform all readers that this learning module does not
claim as the originator of these content. The images, tables, figures and
information contained in this module were taken from the references cited
above. The sole goal of the distribution of this module is to increase students'
learning opportunities and flexibility.

UNIT 3: CONTROVERSIES AND CONFLICTING VIEWS IN

PHILIPPINE HISTORY

3.0 Intended Learning Outcomes

a. Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or against a
particular issue using primary sources;
2. Scrutinize the historical facts relative to conflict and issues on
significant historical events, using primary sources and as evidence; and
3. Develop a sense of appreciation of the importance opposing views in
the development of critical-thinking skills.

3.1. Introduction

Unit 3 introduces the learners to

Controversies and Conflicting Views in
Philippine History. Reconstruction of history,
as we have discussed in our previous lessons, is
highly required in this unit.

. The topics in this Unit talks about

Reconstruction of the Past through
Historical Interpretation and
Philippine Historiography Development as
well as Historical Debate and Controversies such as First Mass Controversy
(with the Butuan Claim, Limasawa Claim, and Homonhon Claim), and
Conflicting Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 38
2 | Readings in Philippine History
The activities incorporated in this learning material will help the students
develop their ability to evaluate credible primary sources for their authenticity
and provenance and further understand the role of history in the development
of societies and nation-states.
In this chapter, we will analyze four 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.

3.2. Discussion & Assessment

Reconstruction of the Past: Historical Interpretation

History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary definition is
centered on how it impacts the present through it consequences. History is also
defined as 'the attempt to discover. On the basis of fragmentary evidence, the
significant things about the past." He also notes "the history we read, though
based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted
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
Filipino Lawgiver, he promulgated in about 1433 a penal
code now known as Code of Kalantiaw containing 18
articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained
the original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which
was later translated into Spanish by Rafael Murviedo
Yzamaney."
It was only in 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 written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas
de la Isla 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.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 39
2 | Readings in Philippine History
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, s sense of the past." The premise is
that not all primary sources are access! 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 in more problems.
Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the
primary sources, when it was read and how it was read. As students of history,
we must be well equipped to recognize different types of interpretations, why
these may differ from each other, and how to critically sift these interpretations
through historical evaluation.
Interpretations of historical events change over time; thus, it is an important
skill for a student of history 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 isdn" was written by Rizal, and worse, the evidence against Rizal's
authorship of the poem seems all unassailable.
There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by RizaL. The poem
was first published in 1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he
received the poem from Gabriel Beato Francisco, who claimed to have received
it in 1884 from Rizal's close friend, Saturnino Raselis. Rizal never mentioned
writing this poem anywhere in his writings, and more importantly, he never
mentioned of having a close friend by the person of Raselis.
Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful attribution of the
poem to Rizal. The poem was written in Tagalog and referred to the word
"kalayaan." But it was documented in Rizal's 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 Spanish, starting
from his mother, Teodora Alonso. Later on he would express disappointment in
his difficulty in expressing himself in his native tongue.
The poem's spelling is also suspect—the use of letters "k" and "w" to replace "c"
and respectively was suggested by Rizal as an adult. If the poem was indeed
written during his time, it should use the original Spanish that was prevalent in
his time.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 40
2 | Readings in Philippine History
Many of the things we accept as "true" about the past might not be the
case anymore; just because these were taught to us as "facts" when we were
younger does not mean that it is set in stone—history is, after all, a construct.
And as a construct, it is open for interpretation. There might be conflicting and
competing accounts of the past that need one's attention, and can impact the
way we view our country's history and identity. It is important, therefore, to
subject to evaluation not only the primary source, but also the historical
interpretation of the same, to ensure that the current interpretation is reliable to
support our acceptance of events of the past.

Multiperspectivity
With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important
concept that we must note is multiperspectivity. This can be defined as a way of
looking at historical events, personalities, developments, cultures and societies
from different perspectives. This means that there is a multitude of ways by
which we can view the world, and each could be equally valid, and at the same
time, equally partial as well. Historical, writing is, by definition, biased, partial,
and contains preconceptions. The historian decides on what o use, what
interpretation to make more apparent, depending on what his end is. Historians
may misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest that a certain event
happened, and then ignore the rest that goes against the evidence. Historians
may omit significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation
unbalanced. Historians may impose a certain ideology to their subject, which
may not be appropriate to the period the subject vas from. Historians may also
provide a single cause for an event without considering other possible causal
explanations of said event. These are just many of the ways a historian may fail
in his historical inference, description, and interpretation. With
multiperspectivity as an approach in history, we must understand that historical
interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and are often
the focus of dissent.
Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires incorporating source
materials that reflect different views of an event in history, because singular
historical narratives do not provide for space to inquire and investigate.
Different sources that counter each other may create space or more
investigation and research, while providing more evidence for those truths that
these sources agree on.
Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths—an
official may note of the past than, gay, a memoir of an ordinary person on the
same event. Different historical agents create different historical truths, and
while this may be burdensome work for the historian, it also renders more
validity to the historical scholarship.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 41
2 | Readings in Philippine History
Taking these in close regard in the reading of historical interpretations, it
provides for the audience a more complex, but also a more complete and richer
understanding of the past.

Historical Debate and Controversies

The First Catholic Mass Take Place in the Philippines

The popularity of knowing where the "firsts" happened in history has been
an easy way to trivialize history, but this case study will not focus on the
significance (or lack thereof) of the site of the First Catholic Mass in the
Philippines, but rather, use it as a historiographical exercise in the utilization of
evidence and interpretation in reading historical events.
Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. In fact, this has been
the case for three centuries, culminating in the erection of a monument in 1872
near Agusan River, which commemorates the expedition's arrival and
celebration of Mass on 8 April 1521. The Butuan claim has been based on a
rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth
century, together with the increasing scholarship on the history of the
Philippines, a more nuanced reading of the available evidence was made, which
brought to light more considerations in going against the more accepted
interpretation of the first Mass in the Philippines, made both by Spanish and
Filipino scholars.
It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that historians
refer to in identifying the site of-the first Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco
Albo, a pilot of one of Magellan's ship, Trinidad. He was one of the 18 survivors
who returned with Sebastian Elcano on the ship Victoria after they
circumnavigated the world. The other, and the more complete, was the account
by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno al mondo (First Voyage Around the
WorId). Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the Magellan expedition and an
eyewitness of the events, particularly, of the first Mass.

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 Colteciön de viages y descubrimientos que hicieron
por mar los Espanoleg degde fines del siglo XV, Ed. Martin Fernandez de
Navarrete (reprinted Buenos Aires 1945, 5 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, Kinaadman: A Journal of
Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 42
2 | Readings in Philippine History
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. They 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 Pigafetta'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 twothirds 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. They 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 10 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.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 43
2 | Readings in Philippine History
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 54'N. 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 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 "right" 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 game day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the entire
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 wag the eleventh chapter of St. John, which tells of the raising of Lazarus
from 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 segnialli).

6. Friday, March 22 - At noon the natives returned. This time they were in two
boats, and they brought food supplies.

7. Magellan's expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday, March

17, to the Monday of the following week, March 25.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 44
2 | Readings in Philippine History
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 Incarnation, also called the feast of the Annunciation
and therefore "Cur Lady's Day." On this day, as they were about to weigh
anchor, an accident happened to Pigafetta: 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, Jbusson
and Albarien." Very probably "Cenalo" is a misspelling in the Italia n 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 (i.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 Hiunangan Bay on their starboard, and then
continued southward, then turning westward to "Mazaun."

10. Thursday, March 28 in the morning ot• Holy Thursday, March 28, they
anchored off an island where the previous night they had seen a light or a
bonfire. That island "lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds towards the Arctic
Pole (i.e., and in a longitude of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line
of demarcation. It is twenty-five leagues from the Acquada and is called
Mazaua."

11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island.

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 balanghai—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.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 45
2 | Readings in Philippine History
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 Lhnasawa? The Site of
the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence" 1981,
Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, J--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 (balanghat) 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 king's village. This Thursday, March 28, was Thursday in Holy Week, i.e.,
Holy Thursday.

2. Friday, March 29 "Next day. Holy Friday," Magellan sent his slave
Interpreter ashore in a small boat to ask the king if he could provide the
expedition with food supplies, and to say that they had come as friends and not
as enemies. In reply the king himself came in a boat with six or 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 feasting and drinking with the native king and his son. Pigafetta
deplored the fact that, although it was Good Friday, they had to eat meat. The
following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his 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.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 46
2 | Readings in Philippine History
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 ports 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 Blagellan 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, April 3 Work on the harvest during the
"next to
days,"
i.e., Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April.
8. Thursday. April 4 — They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.

Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad (1981)
in his work Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
re-examination of
Evidence (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 of Masao is in the delta of said river. It
is a curious omission in the account of the river, which makes part of a distinct
characteristic of Butuan's geography that seemed to be too important to be
missed.

The Age of Exploration is a period of competition among European rulers to

conquer and colonize lands outside their original domains. Initially, the goal was
to find alternative routes by sea to get to Asia, the main source of spices and
other commodities. Existing routes to Asia were mainly by land and cost very
expensive. A sea route to Asia means that Europeans could access the spice
trade directly, greatly reducing costs for traders. Spain's major for ay into the
exploration was through Christopher Columbus, who proposed to sail westward
to find a shortcut 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

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 47
2 | Readings in Philippine History
the Spanish crown. Later on, other European rulers would compete with the
activities of exploring and conquering lands.
It must also be pointed out that later on, after Magellan's death, the
survivors of his expedition went to Mindanao, and seemingly went to Butuan. In
this instance, Pigafetta vividly describes a trip in a river. But note that this
account already happened after Magellan's death.

The Homonhon Claim

The National Historical Commission of the Philippines has recently concluded

that the First Easter Mass was held in the island of Limasawa in Southern, Leyte.
However, even this decision has emphasized that it is only the “first Easter
Sunday Mass” and not the first mass, hence the hounding and never-ending
issue.
There are many explanations available already available in the books and in the
internet, and I know these have been popular to you already, hence, I will be
focusing my discussion here on the third claim, which is the Homonhon claim.

One of the staunch proponents of the Homonhon claim is priest and historian,
Msgr. Lope Robredillo of the Diocese of Borongan, and was once the Parish
Priest of Guiuan, the municipality where the Homonhon Island is located. In his
Facebook account, Msgr. Robredillo posted:

WAS THE EASTER MASS IN “LIMASAWA” THE FIRST MASS IN

THE PHILIPPINES? Brief Answer: NO, IT WAS NOT
Although pro-Butuan and pro-Limasawa scholars have
been engaged in a seemingly endless debate for decades
whether the first Mass was held in Limasawa or Butuan,
what has never been asked is: How sure are they that the
Easter Mass on March 31, 1521 was the first Mass? The
truth of the matter is that IT WAS NOT.

The simple reason for this is that nowhere in the

account of Pigafetta or in other primary sources (Albo,
Genoese pilot, unnamed Portuguese, etc.) can we find this
assertion. All that Pigafetta says (see picture) is: “Early in
the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easterday,
the captain general sent the priest with some men to
prepare the place where mass was to be said” (Robinson’s
translation).

But if it was not the first Mass, why then history books
call it as such? As we saw earlier, the first to make the
assertion (which was followed by many historians without

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 48
2 | Readings in Philippine History
question) was Father Francisco Colin (1663) who, however,
was not a witness to it, nor a part of the expedition. But
we can understand his logic. If there is any reason why he
calls it the first Mass, it is apparently because it is the first
time that a Mass is mentioned in Pigafetta’s account, from
the moment Magellan saw the island of Samar on March
16, 1521.

His logic is fallacious, though.

If one were to follow his argument, it would be

legitimate to claim that the first dinner of Magellan’s
expedition in the Philippines was on Good Friday in Mazaua
island, where he and some of his crew ate with the “Rajah”
Colambu and :Rajah” Siaui”, since this is the first time that
Pigafetta mentions Magellan partaking of a meal. This
would imply that for more than one week, Magellan and his
men had eaten nothing, since hitherto Pigafetta says
nothing about meals in his account. But this is
unbelievable as it is ridiculous—we can be sure that
Magellan and his crew ate every day, even if nowhere this
is alleged in Pigafetta’s chronicle.

Clearly, the scholars of Butuan and Limasawa are

wrong. No wonder, the best known Filipino historian,
Gregorio Zaide, in his book, “The Pageant of Philippine
History,” has to qualify his description of that Mass as “THE
FIRST RECORDED MASS” (p.187) obviously implying that
there were other Masses before that, albeit unrecorded.

Msgr. Lope Robredilllo added:

When you come to think about it, there is no other

alternative except to say that it was held on or near Homonhon
Island. Recent writings tend to support this claim. For our
purpose, I just cite one. In his book, “Ferdinand Magellan: The
Armada de Maluco and the European Discovery of the
Philippines”, published in 2016, Professor Danilo Madrid says:
“The skepticism on Limasawa was valid since, although the first
mention of a mass by Pigafetta was in Limasawa, an earlier
celebration could have been made elsewhere, including
Homonhon…. It was most likely that after surviving a long and
difficult trans-Pacific voyage, the expedition could have
celebrated a thanksgiving Mass in Guam or Homonhon where
they brought on shore a number of crew recuperating from

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 49
2 | Readings in Philippine History
lingering illness. But scholars suspect that Pigafetta considered
the place trivial and not worthy of mention” (p.254).

It is interesting to note that Conrado Benitez, one of

the first Filipino historians to write a history of the
Philippines (1940) for high schools and colleges, never
described the mass in Limasawa as the first mass. One
can only surmise that he correctly read Pigafetta who, as
we said earlier, did not call it the first mass in the
Philippines, either.

Msgr. Robredillo has a point to ponder. In fact, other scholars have also
made position papers, regarding the issue.

The Cavite Mutiny

The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavite Mutiny and the
martyrdom of the three priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto
Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are very important
milestones in Philippine history and have caused ripples throughout time,
directly influencing the decisive events of the Philippine Revolution toward the
end of the century. While the significance is unquestioned, what made this year
controversial are the different sides to the story, a battle of perspectives
supported by primary sources. In this case study, we zoom in to the events of
the Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the
Filipinos of that time.
Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny
The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal centered on
how the event was an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in the
Philippines. Although regarded as a historian, his account of the mutiny was
criticized as woefully biased and rabid for 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 Cavite Mutiny
Source: Jose Montero y 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), 269-27.3.

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.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 50
2 | Readings in Philippine History
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 preaching’s 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 friars, made common cause with the enemies of the mother
country.
At various times but especially 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 exercise 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 Joss. 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

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 51
2 | Readings in Philippine History
a priest... that the head selected would be D. Jose Burgos, or D. Jacinto
Zamora...
Such is... the plan of the rebels, those who guided them. and the means
they counted upon for its realization.
It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason .for the
"revolution": the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite
arsenal such as exemption of payment of tribute and being employed in labor.
They also identified other reasons which seemingly made the issue a lot more
serious, which included the presence of the native clergy, who, out of spite
against the Spanish friars, "conspired and supported" the rebels. Izquierdo, in an
obviously biased 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 Cavitenos 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 BlaniJe1ios
who were expected to aid the Cavitenos did not arrive. Leaders of the plot were
killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora were
tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be executed. Others who were
implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma.
Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa, and other Filipino lawyers were suspended from the
practice of law, 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 t
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

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 52
2 | Readings in Philippine History
Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, who wrote a Filipino version of the
bloody incident in Cavite.

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

Mutiny
Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, "Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny," in
Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,
Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 274— 280.
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level 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 arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the
draconian policies of Izquierdo, such as the abolition of privileges and the
prohibition of the founding of the school of arts and trades for Filipinos, which
the General saw as a smokescreen to creating a political club.
Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the
Cavite Mutiny as a way to address other issues by blowing out of proportion the
isolated mutiny attempt. During this time, the Central Government in Madrid
was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of
civil government and direction and management of educational institutions. The
friars needed something to justify their continuing dominance in the country,
and the mutiny provided such opportunity.
However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational
decree fusing sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called the
Philippine Institute. The decree aimed to improve the standard of education in
the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these schools to be filled by
competitive examinations, an improvement 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.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 53
2 | Readings in Philippine History
Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauch ut'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 Sources of
Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book store, 1990), 251-268.
General La Torre... created a junta composed of high officials... including
some friars and six Spanish officials.... At the same time there was created by
the government in Madrid a committee to investigate the same problems
submitted to the Manila committee. When the two 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 flying the Spanish flag.

5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas

Affairs in Madrid on the necessary reforms to be implemented.

6. Changes in primary and secondary education.

7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines,
rendering 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 of the
artillery, in the engineering shops and arsenal of Cavite, were exempted from
this obligation from time immemorial... Without preliminaries of any kind, a
decree by the Governor withdrew from such old employees their retirement

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 54
2 | Readings in Philippine History
privileges and declassified them into the ranks of those who worked on public
roads.
The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement
their dominance, which had started to show cracks because of the discontent of
the Filipinos. They showcased the mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the
Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish Government. Unintentionally,
and more so, prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1S72 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 of a conspiracy to stifle the movement of secular priests who
desired to have their own parishes instead of being merely assistants to the
regular friars. The GOMBURZA were executed by garrote in public, a scene
purportedly 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

coaccused, 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."

Did Rizal Retract?

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that
center on ending colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute to
creating the Filipino nation. The great volume of Rizal's lifework was committed
to this end, particularly the more influential ones, Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the Catholic religion, but the friars, the main
agents of injustice in the Philippine society.
It is understandable, therefore, that any piece of writing from Rizal that
recants everything he wrote against the friars and the Catholic Church in the
Philippines could deal heavy damage to his image as a prominent, Filipino
revolutionary. Such document purportedly exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a few
hours before his execution. This document, referred to as 'The Retraction,"
declares Rizal's belief in the Catholic faith, and retracts everything he wrote
against the Church.
Primary Source: Rizal's Retraction
Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. on 18
May 1935

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 55
2 | Readings in Philippine History
I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and
educated I wish to live and die.
I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and
conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I
believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she
demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a
Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior
Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in
order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and
people may pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896
Jose Rizal
There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was
published in La Voz Espanola and Diario de Manila on the day of the execution,
30 December 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, in the
magazine La Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14 February 1897,
from an anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be Fr. Vicente Balaguer.
However, the "original" text was only found in the archdiocesan archives on 18
May 1935, after almost four decades of disappearance.

The Balaguer Testimony

Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only one
eyewitness account of the writing of the document exists—that of the Jesuit friar
Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony, Rizal woke up several times,
confessed four times, attended a Mass, received communion, and prayed the
rosary, all of which seemed out of character. But since it is the only testimony of
allegedly a "primary" account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction document, it has
been used to argue the authenticity of the document.

The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the research of
Professor Rene R. Escalante. In his research, documents of the Cuerpo de
Vigilancia included a report on the last hours of Rizal, written by Federico
Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to Moreno.

Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal

Source: Michael Charleston Chua, "Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong
Dokumento at Pananaw," GMA News Online, published 29 December 2016.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 56
2 | Readings in Philippine History
Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort
Santiago to report on the events during the (illegible) day in prison of the
accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following:
At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by
his counsel, Señor Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara. At the
urgings of the former and moments after entering, he was served a light
breakfast. At approximately 9, the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, asked
Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at the moment he only wanted a
prayer book, which was brought to him shortly by Father March.
Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with
the Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It
appears that these two presented him with a prepared retraction on his life and
deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter until 12:30 when
Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken. Afterwards he asked to leave to
write and wrote for a long time by himself.
At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed
him what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Señor del
Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, were informed. They
entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that the
accused had written.
At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison ...
dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a military
chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes and aided
by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been
his lover were performed at the point of death (in articulo mortis). After
embracing him she left, flooded with tears.
This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving
it credence. However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned,
which makes the friar a mere secondary source to the writing of the document.

The retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many scholars,

however, agree that the document does not tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His
relevance remained solidified to Filipinos and pushed them to continue the
revolution, which eventually resulted in independence in 1898.
Rizal's Connection to the Katipunan is undeniable—in fact, the
precursor of the Katipunan as an organization is the La Liga Filipina, an
organization Rizal founded, with Andres Bonifacio as one of its members. But La
Liga Filipina was short-lived as the Spaniards exiled Rizal to Dapitan. Former
members decided to band together to establish the Katipunan a few days after
Rizal's exile on 7 July 1892.
Rizal may not have been officially part of the Katipunan, but the
Katipuneros showed great appreciation of his work toward the same goals. Out

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 57
2 | Readings in Philippine History
of the 28 members of the leadership of the Katipunan (known as the Kataas-
taasang Sanggunian ng Katipunan) from 1892 to 1896, 13 were former
members of La Liga Filipina. Katipuneros even used Rizal's name as a password.
In 1896, the Katipuneros decided to inform Rizal of their plans to launch
the revolution, and sent Pio Valenzuela to visit Rizal in Dapitan. Valenzuela's
accounts of his meeting with Rizal have been greatly doubted by many scholars,
but according to him, Rizal objected to the plans, saying that doing so would be
tantamount to suicide since it would be difficult to fight the Spaniards who had
the advantage of military resources. He added that the leaders of the Katipunan
must do everything they could to prevent the spilling of Filipino blood.
Valenzuela informed Rizal that the revolution could inevitably break out if the
Katipunan were to be discovered bv the Spaniards. Rizal advised Valenzuela
that the Katipunan should first secure the support of wealthy Filipinos to
strengthen their cause, and suggested that Antonio Luna be recruited to direct
the military movement of the revolution.

The Historical Cry: Pugadlawin or Balintawak?

Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late nineteenth

century, including the Philippines. Journalists of the time referred to the phrase
'El Grito de Rebelion" or "Cry of Rebellion" to mark the start of these
revolutionary events, identifying the places where it happened. In the
Philippines, this happened in August 1896, northeast of Manila, where they
declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial government. These events are
important markers in the history of colonies that struggled for their
independence against their colonizers.
The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of the
date and place where the Cry happened. Prominent Filipino historian Teodoro
Agoncillo emphasizes the event when Bonifacio tore the cedula or tax receipt
before the Katipuneros who also did the same. Some writers identified the first
military event with the Spaniards as the moment of the Cry, for which, Emilio
Aguinaldo commissioned a "Himno de Balintawak" to inspire the renewed
struggle after the Pact of the Biak-na-Bato failed. A monument to the Heroes of
1896 was erected in what is now the intersection of Epifanio de.los Santos
(EDSA) Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion road, and from then
on until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was celebrated every 26th of August. The
site of the monument was chosen for an unknown reason.

Different Dates and Places of the Cry

Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A guardia
civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, identified the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 25

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 58
2 | Readings in Philippine History
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 Law-in
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 (Maniia: 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 Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary.
The purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata,
Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were all opposed to starting the revolution
too early... Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he would lose 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 will only shoot us. Our organization has
mar e 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.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 59
2 | Readings in Philippine History
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. it is true that you are ready to revolt... I want to see you destroy your
dulas. 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 del
_Rosario, and myself was the first five arriving there on August 19, and on
August some 500 members of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896; was the
house and yard of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Aside from the persons
mentioned above, among those who were there were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro
Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others. Here, views were only
exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It was at Pugad Lawin,
the house, store-house, and yard of Juan of the Katipunan met and carried out
considerable debate and discussion on government should be started on August
29, 1896... After the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their
cedula certificates and shouted long live the Philippines! Long live the
Philippines!"
From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed marked
disagreement among historical witnesses as to the place and time of the
occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources, four places have
been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and Bahay Toro, while the
dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26 August 1896.
Valenzuela's account should be read with caution: He once told a Spanish
investigator that the "Cry' happened in Balintawak on Wednesday, 26 August
1896. Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the Revolution that it happened at
Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Such inconsistencies in accounts should always
be seen as a red flag when dealing with primary sources.

According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are

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.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 60
2 | Readings in Philippine History

Exercise # 2- Unit 3
Direction: Make a position paper, based on the evidence discussed in
the lesson presentation, as to where would be the best place for the
“first mass” in the Philippines. Cite your sources, properly. Write your
answer in a short bond paper Write “Work Sheet for Exercises # 2 – Unit
3” on top of the paper. Indicate also your name, course, year level, and
section. You may use an extra sheet if necessary.

Rubric
Creativity- 20; Meaning- 20; Mechanics- 10 Total- 50 points

UNIT ASSESSMENT

Assessment # 1
Directions:
Choose one of the case studies discussed in this unit and identify the
strengths and weaknesses of the arguments forwarded by the proponents
and make your own stance. Write “Work Sheet for Assessment # 1- Unit
3” on top of the paper. Indicate also your name, course, year level, and
section. You may use an extra sheet if necessary.
Rubric
Content 20
Organization 20
Mechanics of Writing 10
Total 50

_________________________________♣♣♣ __________________________________
Assessment # 2
Directions: Using a graphic organizer, show the relationship of two or
more opposing views or conflicting claims relative to historical events,
highlighting the use of primary sources and evidence. You may use actual
variables from the case studies we have discussed. Write your answer in a
short bond paper and indicate “Work Sheet for Assessment # 2 – Unit 3”
on top of the paper. Indicate also your name, course, year level, and
section. You may use an extra sheet if necessary. Rubric is same with
Exercise # 1.
Assessment # 3
Directions: Why do you think it is necessary to debate on issues with
conflicting matters in history? What is the purpose of conflicts and
debates in history relative to the development Philippine historiography
vis-à-vis our critical ability as students of history? Cite concrete examples.
Write your answer in a short bond paper and kindly indicate “Work Sheet

C. M. D. Hamo-ay
 61
2 | Readings in Philippine History
for Assessment # 3- Unit 3” on top of the paper. Indicate also your name,
course, year level, and section. You may use an extra sheet if necessary.
Rubric: Same with Assessment # 1

3.3 References

Alvarez, S. (1998). Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General. Quezon

Ciy: Ateneno de Manila University Press.

Bernad, M.A. (1981). Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the
Philippines: A reexamination of Evidence. Kinaadman : A Journal of
Southern Philippines. Vol. III, 1-
35.
Chua, M.C. (2016). Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at Pananaw.

Blair, E. H. & Alexander Robertson. (1973). The Philippine Islands (55 volumes).
Chacho Hermanos.

Phelan, P. & Reynolds, P. (1996). Argument and Evidence: A Critical Analysis for
the Social Sciences. London: Routledge.

Pigafetta, A. (1969). First Voyage Around the World. Manila. Filipiniana Book
Guild.

Robredillo, Lope. (2020). The Correct Date of Magellan’s Landing on Homonhon.

Posted on March 3, 2020. Accessed on Sept 13, 2020.

Robredillo, Lope. (2020). The First Mass in the Philippines was in Homonhon
Island. Facebook post on June 29, 2020. Accessed on September 13,
2020.

Zaide, G. & Zaide, S. (1990). Documentary Sources of the Philippine History. 12

volumes. Manila. National Bookstore.

3.4 Acknowledgement
The images, tables, figures and information contained in this module were
taken from the references cited above.

C. M. D. Hamo-ay