Module 3

Module 3
“ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”:
CONTROVERSIES & CONFLICTING VIEWS IN
PHILIPPINE HISTORY
MAKING SENSE OF THE PAST: HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

• Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources

of history and then draw their own reading so that
their intended audience may understand the historical
event, a process that in essence, “makes sense of the
past”. The premise is that not all primary sources are
accessible to a general audience, and without the
proper training and background, a non-historian
interpreting a primary source may do more harm than
good – a primary source may even cause
misunderstanding; sometimes, even resulting in more
problems.
• Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary
according to who reads the primary source,
when it was read, and how it was read.
Interpretations of historical events change
over time; thus, it is an important skill for a
student of history to track these changes in an
attempt to understand the past.
• 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
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 by 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

• 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, each could be equally valid, and at the
same time, equally partial as well.
• 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 perspective in history
requires incorporating source materials that
reflect different views of an event history,
because singular historical narratives do not
provide for space to inquire and investigate.
Different sources that counter each other may
create space for more investigation and
research, while providing more evidence for
those truths that these sources agree on.
• Different kind of sources also provide different
historical truths – an official document may
note different aspects of the past than, say, a
memoir of an ordinary person on the same
event. Different historical agents create
different historical truths, and while this may
be a burdensome work for the historian, it
also renders more validity to the historical
scholarship.
 CASE STUDY 1: WHERE DID THE FIRST CATHOLIC MASS TAKE
PLACE IN THE PHILIPPINES?

• The popularity of knowing where the “firsts”

happened in history has been an easy way to
trivialize history, but this case study will not
focus on the significance 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 two primary sources that
historians refer to in identifying the site of the first Mass.

• Log kept by Francisco Albo – a pilot of one’s

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 account by Antonio Pigafetta (Primo viaggio
intorno al mondo – First Voyage Around the
World) 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: “Diarrio o dorotero 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 Collecion de
viages y descumbrimientos que hicierion por mar
los Españoles desde fines del siglo XV, 191-225. As
cited in Miguel A. Bernard “Butuan or Limasawa?
The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A
Journal of Sothern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
• 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,
9o54’N. Also. Albo does not mention the first
Mass, but only the planting of the cross upon a
mountain-top from which could we seen three
islands of the west and the southwest, which
also fits the southern end of Limasawa.
•
 Primary Source: Pigafetta’s Testimony on the Route of Magellan’s Expedition

• Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander

Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and
34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, “Butuan or
Limasawa? The site of the First Mass in the
Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence”
1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern
Philippines, Vol. III. 1-35.
•
• Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A.
Bernad in his work “Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the
First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence
(1981) lays down the argument that in the Pigafetta
account, a crucial aspect of 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 characteristics of Butuan’s
geography that seemed to be too important to be missed.
•
 EVIDENCE FOR LIMASAWA

1. The evidence of Albo’s Logbook

2. The Evidence of Pigafetta
a. Pigafetta’s testimony regarding the route
b. The evidence of Pigafetta’s map
c. The two native kings
d. The seven days at “Mazaua”
e. An argument from omission
3. Summary of the evidence of Albo and Pigafetta.
4. Confirmatory evidence from the Legazpi expedition.
 EVIDENCE FOR MASAO

• 1. The name of the place

• 2. the route from Homonhon
• 3. the latitude position
• 4. The geographical features
a. the bonfire
b. the balanghai
c. house
d. abundance of gold
e. a developed settlement
CASE STUDY 2: WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CAVITE MUTINY?

The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the

Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of the three
priest: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos and Jacinto
Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA.
These events are very important milestones in
Philippine history and have caused ripples
throughout time,
• directly influencing the decisive 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.
 The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny
1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

• 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
• Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official
Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite
Mutiny of 1872
• Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian
documented the event and highlighted it as an
attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish
government in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov.
Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the
event and made use of it to implicate the native
clergy, which was then active in the call for
secularization. The two accounts complimented
and corroborated with one other, only that the
general’s report was more spiteful
• . Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that
the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of
Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and
exemption from force labor were the main reasons of
the “revolution” as how they called it, however, other
causes were enumerated by them including the
Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular
throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by
unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican
books and pamphlets reaching the Philippines,
• , and most importantly, the presence of the native
clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish
friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and
enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed
the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling”
malicious propagandas grasped by the Filipinos.
He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels”
wanted to overthrow the Spanish government to
install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos
and Zamora.
• The general even added that the native clergy
enticed other participants by giving them
charismatic assurance that their fight will not
fail because God is with them coupled with
handsome promises of rewards such as
employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.
Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios
as gullible and possessed an innate propensity
for stealing.
• According to the accounts of the two, on 20
January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated
the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately
participants to the feast celebrated the occasion
with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly,
those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign
for the attack, and just like what was agreed
upon, the 200-men contingent headed by
Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting
Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.
• When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov.
Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement
of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt.
The “revolution” was easily crushed when the
expected reinforcement from Manila did not
come ashore. Major instigators including
Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish,
while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-
martial and were sentenced to die by
strangulation.
• Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio
Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other
abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia
(High Court) from the practice of law, arrested
and were sentenced with life imprisonment at
the Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo
dissolved the native regiments of artillery and
ordered the creation of artillery force to be
composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.
• On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the
Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill
fear among the Filipinos so that they may
never commit such daring act again, the
GOMBURZA were executed. This event was
tragic but served as one of the moving forces
that shaped Filipino nationalism.
•
Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872

• Two other primary accounts exist that seem to

counter the accounts of Izquierdo and
Montero. First, the account of Dr. Trinidad
Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a 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
• – 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.
 Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut’s
Account of the Cavite Mutiny

• another account by French writer Edmund

Plauchut, complemented Tavera’s account and
analyzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite
Mutiny.
• Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there
were some basic facts that remained to be unvarying:
First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the
arsenal as well as the members of the native army after
their privileges were drawn back by Gen. Izquierdo;
Second, Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid and strict
policies that made the Filipinos move and turn away
from Spanish government out of disgust; Third, the
Central Government failed to conduct an investigation
on what truly transpired but relied on reports of
Izquierdo and the friars and the opinion of the public;
• ; Fourth, the happy days of the friars were already
numbered in 1872 when the Central Government in
Spain decided to deprive them of the power to
intervene in government affairs as well as in the
direction and management of schools prompting them
to commit frantic moves to extend their stay and
power; Fifth, the Filipino clergy members actively
participated in the secularization movement in order
to allow Filipino priests to take hold of the parishes in
the country making them prey to the rage of the friars;
• Sixth, Filipinos during the time were active participants,
and responded to what they deemed as injustices; and
Lastly, the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on
the part of the Spanish government, for the action
severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event
inspired Filipino patriots to call for reforms and
eventually independence. There may be different
versions of the event, but one thing is certain, the 1872
Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898.
•
 CASE STUDY 3: DID RIZAL RETRACT?

• Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution

for his writings that center on ending colonialism
and liberating Filipino minds to contribute to
creating the Filipino nation. The great volumes 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 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

• There are four interactions of the texts of this retraction:

1. Published in La Voz Española and Diario de Manila on

the day of the execution, 30 December 1896.
2. Appeared in Barcelona, Spain, in the magazine La
Juventud, a few months after the execution, 14 February
1897 from 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

Fr. Vicente Balaguer - was one of the

Jesuit priests who visited Rizal during his
last hours in Fort Santiago and claimed
that he managed to persuade Rizal to
denounce Masonry and return to the
Catholic fold. In affidavit executed in
1917 when he had returned to Spain,
Balaguer also claimed that he was the
one who solemnized the marriage of
Josephine Bracken and Rizal hours before
the hero’s execution.
• Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially
because only an 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 “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.
 Fr. Pio Pi’s Statement

• Jesuit Superior in the Philippines during the

time when Rizal was executed. In 1917, he
issued an affidavit recounting his involvement
in the alleged retraction of Rizal. Unlike Father
Balaguer, however, he was involved only in
securing the retraction document from the
Archbishop of Manila Bernardino Nozaleda, and
writing another shorter retraction document as
well which was the one Rizal allegedly copied
 Rafael Palma’s Critical Analysis

• Lawyer, writer, educator, and politician was

the author of Biografia de Rizal, a work on the
life of the National Hero which won a literary
contest in 1938 sponsored by the
Commonwealth Government. The publication
of the book, however, was postponed because
of World War II and only saw print in 1949.
• That same year, an English
translation by Roman Ozaeta with the title Pride
of the Malay Race was published by Prentice-
Hall, Inc. in the United States. The story of Rizal’s
alleged retraction is found in Chapters 32 and 33
with Palma’s analysis in the latter chapter.
•
 Austin Coates’s Critical Analysis

• His interest in Jose Rizal began when he was an Assistant

Colonial Secretary and Magistrate in Hong Kong in 1950. His
first study on Rizal was on the latter’s year-long stay in Hong
Kong (1891-1892). At that time, many of the personalities
who knew Rizal were still alive. This early awareness on
Rizal eventually led to the writing and publication of his
book – Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr (Oxford
University Press, 1956) – the first Rizal biography written by
a European since Vida y Escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal by
Wenceslao Retana in 1907. The second edition of the book
was published in the Philippines by Solidaridad Publishing
House in 1992.
• Coates’s analyses of Rizal’s retraction and other
events that happened before the execution are
found in Part VII, Chapter 5 of the book.
• 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.