PHILIPPINE HISTORY:
SPACES FOR
CONFLICT AND CONTROVERSIES
Chapter 3
• To interpret events using primary sources.
• To
recognize
the
multiplicity
of
interpretation that can be read from a
historical texts.
• To
identify
the
advantages
and
disadvantages of employing critical tools in
interpreting historical
events through
primary sources.
• To demonstrate ability to argue for against
a particular issue using primary sources.
Learning
Objectives
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 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.
Making Sense of the Past:
Historical Interpretation
“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
series of accepted judgements.”
Geoffrey
Barraclough
Making Sense of the Past:
Historical Interpretation
“CODE OF KALANTIAW.
Datu Bendehera Kalantiaw, third Chief of
Panay, born in Aklan, established his own
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 Raphael Murviedo Yzamaney”
Making Sense of the Past:
Historical Interpretation
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,
defend his research on pre-Hispanic sources in
Philippine History. He attributed the code to
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
William
Henry Scott
Historians utilized 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, “make
sense of the past.” The premise is that not all primary sources are
accessible to a general audience, and without the proper training
and background, a non-historian interpreting a primary source may do
more harm than good— a primary source may even cause
misunderstandings; sometimes, even resulting in more problems.
Interpretation of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads
the primary source, when it was read, and how it was read. As
students of history, we must be well equipped to recognize different
types of interpretations, why these may be differ from each other, and
how to critically sift these interpretation through historical evaluation.
Interpretation 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.
Making Sense of the Past:
Historical Interpretation
“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 his poem,
with the now immortalized line “Ang
hindi magmahal sa kanyang salita ay
mahigit sa hayop at malansang
isda” was written by rizal and worse,
the evidence against Rizal’ authorship
of the poem seems all unassailable.
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
A
L
H
O
A
X
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
This can be defined as a way of looking at historical events,
personalities, development, 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 perceptions. The
historians decides on what sources to use, what interpretation to
make more apparent, depending on what his end is. Historians
may misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest that
a certain event happened, and then ignore the rest that goes
against the evidence. Historians may omit significant facts about
their subject, which make the interpretation unbalanced.
Historians may impose certain ideology to their subject, which
may not be inappropriate to the period the subject was from.
Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without
considering other possible causal explanation of said event.
These are just many of the ways a historian may fail in his historical
inference, description, and interpretation. With multi-perspectivity
as an approach in history, we must understand that historical
interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities,
and are often the focus of dissent.
Taking this in close regard in the reading of the historical
interpretations, it provides for the audience a more complex, but
also a more complete and richer understanding of the past.
MULTIPERSPECTIVITY
Exploring multiple perspectives in history require
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 source 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 kinds 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 ( or lack thereof ) of the site of the First Catholic
Mass in the Philippines, but rather, use is as a historiographical exercises
in the utilization of evidence and interpretation in reading historical
events.
Case Study 1:
Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the
Philippines?
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
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 events.
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 consideration in
going against the more accepted interpretation of the first Mass in the
Philippines, made both by Spanish and Filipino scholars.
It must be noted that there are only 2
primary sources that historians refer to 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 of the ship Victoria
after they circumnavigated the world . The other,
and one more complete, was 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.
Francisco Albo
Antonio Pigafetta
First Voyage Around the World
Ship Victoria
Primary Source:
Albo's Log
Source: "Diario ó derotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo se S. Agustín en el
Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albo," Document
no. xxii in Colleción de viages y descubrimientos que por mar los Españoles drsde fines del
siglo XV, Ed. Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (reprented Buenus Aires 1945, 5 Vols.) IV, 191225. 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 Southern
Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
1. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly
course from Landrones, 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 name Suluan, and there the anchored. There they
saw some canoes but these fled at the Spaniards' approach.
This island was at 9 and two-third degrees North latitude.
Francisco Albo
Primary Source:
Albo's Log
3. Departing from those two islands, they sailed westward to
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 the latitude of 9 and two-thirds
degree North.
Francisco Albo
Primary Source:
Albo's Log
6. The people of taht island of Mazava were very good. There
the Spaniards planted the 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 say three ialets, 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 islnds, one of which was
called "Matan" and the other "Subu".
Francisco Albo
Primary Source:
Albo's Log
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 if Subu was on an east-west direction with the
islands of Suluan and Mazava and Subu, there were so many
shallows that the boats could not go westward directly but has
to go (as they did) in a round-about way.
It must be noted that in Albo's account, the location of
Mazava fits the location of the island of Limasawa, at the
southern tip of Leyte, 9°54'N. Also, Albo does not mention the
first Mass, but only the planting of the cross upon a mountaintop form which could be seen three islands to the west and
southwest, which also fits the southern end of Limasawa.
Francisco Albo
Primary Source:
Pigafetta's Testimony on The Route of
Magellan's Expedition
Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vol. 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: Journal of Southern
Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
1. Sunday, 16 March 1521- Magellan's expedition sighted a
"high land" named "Zamal" which was some 300 leagues
westward of Landrones (now Marianas) Islands.
2. Sunday, March 17 - " The following day" after sighting Zamal
Island, they landed on "another island which was uninhabited"
and which they lay "to the right" of the above - mentioned
island of "Zamal." ( To the "right" herw 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
was located at 10 degrees North latitude.
Antonio Pigafetta
Primary Source:
Pigafetta's Testimony on The Route of
Magellan's Expedition
3. On the same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the
entire archipelago the "Island of Saint Lazarus," the readon
being that it was Sunday in the Lenten season when the
Gospel assigned for the Mass and the liturhical Office was the
eleventh chapter of St. John, which tells of the raising of
Lazarus from the dead.
5. There were two springs of water on that island and called it
the "Watering Place of Good Omen" (Acquada la di bouni
segnialli).
4. Monday, March 19 - 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.“
Antonio Pigafetta
Primary Source:
Pigafetta's Testimony on The Route of
Magellan's Expedition
6. Friday, March 22 - At noon the natives returned. This time
they were in two brought food supplies.
7. Magellan's expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from
Sunday, March 17, to the following week, March 25.
8. Monday, March 25 - In the afternoon, the expedition
weighed anchor and left the island of Homonhon. In the
ecclesiastical calendar, this day (March 25) was the feast day of the Incarnation, also called the feast of the
Annuciation and therefore " Our 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.
Antonio Pigafetta
Primary Source:
Pigafetta's Testimony on The Route of
Magellan's Expedition
9. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon
was "toward the west southwest, between four islands":
namely, Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson and Albarien." Very
probably "Cenalo" is a misspelling in the Italian manuscript for
what Pigafettainhis map calls "Ceilon" and Albo calls "Seilani":
namely the island of Leyte. " Hiununghan" ( a misspelling of
Hinunangan) seemed to Pigafetta to be a separate island, but
is actually on the mainland of Leyte ( e.g.,"Ceylon"). On thr
other hand, Hibuson (Pigafetta's Ibusson) is an island east
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 "Mazaua.“
Antonio Pigafetta
Primary Source:
Pigafetta's Testimony on The Route of
Magellan's Expedition
10. Thursday, March 28 - In the morning of 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.,
North) 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.
Antonio Pigafetta
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."
Primary Source:
Pigafetta's Testimony on The Route of
Magellan's Expedition
13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of
the Camotes Group, namely, Poro, Pasihan and Ponson. Jere
the Spanish ships stopped to allow the king of Mazaua to
catch up with them, since the Spanish ships were much faster
than tje native balanghai- a thing that excited the admiration
of the king of Mazaua.
14. From tbe Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards
"Zubu.“
15. Sunday, April 7 - at noon they entered the harbor of "Zubu"
(Cebu). It had taken them three days to negotiate the journey
from Mazaua northwards to the Camotes Islands and then
southwards to Cebu.
It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pegafetta's
testimonies coincide and corroborate each other. Pigafetta
give more details on what they did during their weeklong stay
at Mazaua.
Antonio Pigafetta
Primary Source:
Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua
Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and
34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, "Butuan or Limasawa? The site of the first mass in the
Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence" 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern
Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
1. Thursday, March 28- In the morning they anchored near an
island where they had seen a light the night before a small
boat (boloto) came with eight natives, to whom Magellan
threw some trinkets as presents. The natives paddled away,
but two hours later two larger boats (balanghai) came, in one
of which the native king sat under an awning of mats. At
Magellan's invitation some of the natives went up the Spanish
ship, but the native king remained seated in his boat. An
exchange of gifts was effected. In the afternoon that day, the
Spanish ships weighted 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.
Primary Source:
Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua
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 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 the two
members og Magellan's expedition as guests for the night.
One of th 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 host and returned to the ships.
Primary Source:
Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua
5. Sunday, March 31- On that same afternoon, while on the
summit of the highest hill, Magellan ask the to 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 ask for someone to guide him thither.
The kings replied that the pilots would be available "anytime".
But later that evening the king of Mazaua change his mind
and said that he would himself conduct Magellan to Zubu but
that he would first have to bring the harvest in. He asked
Magellan tl sent him men to help with the harvest.
Primary Source:
Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua
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 source 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 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.
Miguel A. Bernad
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 foray into the
exploration was through Christopher Columbus, who
proposed to sail westward to find a shortcut to Asia.
He was able to reach the Americas, which was then
cut-off from the rest of the known world.
Spain colonize parts of North America, Mexico, and
South America in the sixteenth century. They were also
able to reach the Philippines and claim it for the
Spanish crown. Later on, other European rules 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.
Case Study 2:
What happened in the Cavite Mutiny?
The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavite Mutiny and
martyrdom of the 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.
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.
Spanish
Accounts
of the
Cavite
Mutiny
Primary Sources: 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, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store,
1990), 269-273.
The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite
arsenal of exemption from the tribute was, according to some,
the cause of insurrection. There were, however, other causes.
The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the
propaganda carried on by an unbridled press against
monarchical principles, attentatory [sic] of the most sacred
respects towards the dethroned majesty; the democratic and
republican books and pamphlets; the speeches and
preachings of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the
outbursts of the American publicists and the 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 goals 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.
Jose Montero y Vidal
Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, “Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,” in Gregorio
Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store,
1990), 269-273.
The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite
arsenal of exemption from the tribute was, according to some,
the cause of insurrection. There were, however, other causes.
The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the
propaganda carried on by an unbridled press against
monarchical principles, attentatory [sic] of the most sacred
respects towards the dethroned majesty; the democratic and
republican books and pamphlets; the speeches and
preachings of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the
outbursts of the American publicists and the 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 goals 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.
Primary
Sources:
Excerpts
from
Montero’s
Account of
the Cavite
Mutiny
Jose Montero y Vidal
At the 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 Standard, 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.
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 define that the insurrection was
motivated and prepared by the native
clergy, by the mestizos and native lawyers,
and by those known here as abogadillos…
Primary
source:
Excerpts
from the
Official
Report of
Governor
Izquierdo on
the Cavite
Mutiny 1872
Governor General Rafael
The instigators, to carry out their criminal
project, protested against the injustice of the
government in not paying the provinces for their
tobacco crop, and against the usury that some
practice in documents that the Finance department
gives crop owners who have to sell them at a loss.
They encouraged the rebellion by protesting what
they called the injustice of having obliged the workers
in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute starting January 1
and to render personal service, from which they were
formerly
exempted…
Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they
planned to establish a monarchy or a republic,
because the Indios have no word in their language to
describe this different form of government, whose
head in Filipino would be called hari; but it turns out
that they would place at the head of the government
a priest…that the head selected would be
D.
Jose
Burgos,
or
D.
Jacinto
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 from payment of
tribute and being employed in polos y servicios, or
force labor. They also identified other reasons
which seemingly made the issue a lot more
serious, which included the presence of the native
clergy, who, out of spite against the Spanish friars,
“conspired and supported” the rebels. Izquierdo,
in an obviously biased report, highlighted that
attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in
the Philippines to install a new “hari” in the persons
of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. According to him,
native clergy attracted supporters by giving them
charismatic assurance that their fight would not
fail because they have 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 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 Caviteῆos allegedly mistook tis as a signal
to commence of the attack. The 200-men contingent
lead 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 Manileῆos
who were expected to aid the Caviteῆos did not
arrive. Leaders of the plot were killed in the resulting
skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora
were tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be
executed. Others who were implicated such as
Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose
and Pio Basa, and other Filipino lawyers were
suspended from the practice of law, arrested, and
sentenced to life imprisonment at the Marianas Island.
Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery by
Peninsulares.
On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were
executed to serve as threat to Filipinos never to
attempt to fight the Spaniards again.
Ang Pag-aaklas sa
Kabite ng 1872
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.
Dr. Trinidad
Hermenegildo
Pardo de Tavera
Primary
Source:
Source: Trinidad Pardon de Tavera, "Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny", in Gregorio
Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of the Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila:
National Book Store, 1990), 274-280.
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was 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.
Excerpts
from Pardon
de Tavera's
Account of
the Cavite
Mutiny
Primary
Source:
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 prohibitions of the
founding of the school of arts and trades for Filipinos, which the
General saw as a smokescreen to creating a political club.
Excerpts
from Pardon
de Tavera's
Account of
the Cavite
Mutiny
Primary
Source:
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 countr, and the mutiny
provided such opportunity.
Excerpts
from Pardon
de Tavera's
Account of
the Cavite
Mutiny
Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872
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.
Other account, this time by French writer
Edmund Plauchut, complemented Tavera's
account and analyzed the motivations of the
1872 Cavite Mutiny.
Primary
Source:
Source : Edmund Plauchut," The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za",
in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of the 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 committe . 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:
Excerpts
from
Plauchut's
Account of
the Cavite
Mutiny
1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods
of allocation.
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 is a
change of ministry.
8. Study of direct-tax system.
9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly.
Primary
Source:
Excerpts
from
Plauchut's
Account of
the Cavite
Mutiny
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
Cavity, were exempted from this obligation from
time immemorial... Without preliminaries of any kind,
a decree by the Governor withdrew from such old
employees their retirement privileges in 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 Cavity Mutiny of 1872 resulted in
the martyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way
to the revolution culminating in 1898.
The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the
three martyred priests Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos,
and Jacinto Zamora, who were tagged as the
masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They were
prominent Filipino priests charged with treason and
sedition. It is believed that the spanish clergy
connected the priests to the mutiny as part 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 co-accused, has
suggested that some mistake was committed
when your fate was decided; and the whole of
the Philippines, in paying homage to your
memory and calling you martyrs, totally rejects
your guilt. The church, by refusing to degrade
you, has put in doubt the crime charged
against you."
Case Study 3:
Did Rizal Retract?
Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that center on
ending colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute to creating the
Filipino nation. The great volume of 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 Philippines 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 purpotedly 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 ageinst the church.
Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. on 18 May 1935
Primary
source:
I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was
born and educated I wish to live and die.
Rizal's
Retraction
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 29of December of 1896
Jose Rizal
Doubts on the retraction document abound,
especially because only one eye witness
account of the writing of the document existsthat 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 alledgedly a " primary"
account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction
document, it has been used to argue the
aunthenticity of the document.
The
Balaguer
Testimony
Source: Michael Charleston Chua " Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at
Pananaw," GMA News Online, published 29 December2016.
Most Illustrious sir, the agent of 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.
Primary
source:
Eyewitness
Account of
the Last hours
of Rizal
Primary
source:
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.
Eyewitness
Account of
the Last hours
of Rizal
Primary
source:
At 5 in the 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.
Eyewitness
Account of
the Last hours
of Rizal
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 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 prevent
the spilling of Filipino blood. Valenzuela informed Rizal that the revolution
could inevitably break out if the Katipunan were to discovered by the
Spaniards. Rizal advised Valenzuela that the Katipunan should first secure
the support of wealthy Filipinos to strengthen their cause, and suggested
that Antonio Luna be recruited to direct the military movement of the
revolution.
Case Study 4:
Where Did the Cry Rebellion Happen?
Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late
nineteenth century, including the Philippines. Journalists of the time
referred to the phrase “El Grito de 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 the rebellion against the
Spanish colonial government. These events are important markets 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 tha 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, Emelio
Aginaldo commissioned an "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
Binifacio 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.
Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and
places. A guardia civil, Lt. Oligario Diaz, identified the
Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 25 August
1896. Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino historian, marks the place
to be in Kangkong, Balintawak, on the last week of
August 1896. Santiago Alvarez, a katipunero and son of
Mariano Alvarez, leader of the Magdiwang faction in
Cavite, put the Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on 24
August 1896. Pio Valenzuela, known katipunero and
privy to many events concerning the katipunan stated
that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on 23 August
1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to
have happened in Balintawak on 26 August 1896, while
Teodoro Agoncillo put it at Pugad Lawin on 23 August
1896, according to statements by Pio Valenzuela.
Research by historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel
Encarnanacion, and Ramon Villegas claimed that the
event took place in Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod
Baranggay Banlat, Quezon City, on 24 August 1896.
Different
Dates and
Places of the
Cry
Primary Source:
Guillermo Masangkay
Source: Guillermo Masangkay, "Cry of Balintawak" in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: National Book Store,1990),
307-309.
On August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the
house of Apolonio Samson, then cabeza of that barrio of
Calooca. Among those who attended, I remember, were
Bonifacio, Emelio 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.
Accounts of the
Cry
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
now to the towns, Spaniars will only shoot us. Our organization
has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don't
start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then,
do you say?“
“Revolt!” the people shouted as one.
Primary Source:
Accounts of the
Cry
Primary Source:
Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to
revolt. He told them that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were (sic)
the cedula tax charged each citizen. “If it is true that you are ready
to revolt… I want to see you destroy your cedulas. It will be a sign
that all of us have declared our severance from the Spaniards.
Pio Valenzuela
Source: Pio Valenzuela, “Cry of Pugad Lawin,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 ( Manila: National Bookstore, 1990 ),
301-302
Accounts of the
Cry
The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio
Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo Del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak,
the first five arriving there on August 19, and I, on August 20, 1896. The first
place where some 500 members of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896,
was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Aside from the
persons mentioned above, among those who were there were Briccio
Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others.
Here, views were only exchange, and no resolution was debated or
adopted. It was at Pugad Lawin, the house, store-house, and yard of Juan
Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where over 1,000 members of the
Katipunan met and carried out considerable debate and discussion on
August 23, 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the revolution against
the Spanish government should be started on August 29, 1896… After the
tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates and
shouted “Long Live the Philippines! Long Live the Philippines!”
From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed marked
disagreement among historical witnesses as to the place and time of the
occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources, four places
have been identified: Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and Bahay Toro, while the
dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26 August 1896.
Valenzuela’s account should be read with caution: He once told a
Spanish investigator that the “Cry” happened in Balintawak on Wednesday,
26 August 1896. Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the Revolution that it
happened at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Such inconsistencies in
accounts should always be seen as a red flag when dealing with primary
sources.
According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are
in Balintawak, then part of Caloocan, now, in Quezon City. As for the dates,
to avoid being located by the Spanish government, which could explain
why there are several accounts of the Cry.