Module 3
ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES : Controversies and Conflicts in
Philippine History
Objectives: At the end of this Module, you must able to



State the different version of controversial issues in the Philippine History;
Analyze the conflicting views presented on some historical events that shaped
the history of the Philippines; and,
Make a critical evaluation of the issues in the Philippine History
A. THE SITE OF THE FIRST MASS IN THE PHILIPPINES: MASAU OR
LIMASAWA?
We are a confused people. It is
because our history as a people is
laden
with
controversies
and
conflicting views. We do not even
know who we really are, what we
want and how to and with whom we
identify ourselves.
Four of the controversies that have
continuously been subjects of discussions, conflicts, and at times
misunderstanding among friends who differ in their views about them
are the site of the first mass in the Philippines, the Cavite Mutiny, the
Retraction of Rizal and the Cry of Balintawak. Lately, the EDSA
People Power, was it a revolution or not and whether Marcos is a hero
or not and if he deserved to be buried at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani,
have been added to the list of controversies in Philippine history.
For decades, children have been taught that Limasawa was the site
of the first mass in the Philippines. As chronicled by Pigafetta, the
historian of the Magellan expedition, the first mass in the Philippines
archipelago was celebrated on March 31, 1521 along the shores of what
was referred to by him as Mazaua. Mazaua was believed to be
Limasawa, an island located at the tip of Southern Leyte. According to
his accounts, Magellan ordered the planting of a large wooden cross on
the top of a hill overlooking the sea.
Pigafetta wrote of this first mass: "After the cross was erected in
position, each of us repeated the Pater Noster and an Ave Maria and
adored the cross; and the kings Colambu and Siagu did the same”.
Pigafetta was an Italian who was in the service of the king of Spain.
He served as the chronicler of the Magellan expedition and was one of
the men of Magellan who was able to return to Spain on board the
Victoria, the only ship which survived the expedition, He gave a copy of
his diary to the king of Spain, Charles V. Two years after arriving in
Spain, he wrote a book, The Navigation and Discovery of Upper India,
based on his diary. The book was first published in French. In 1905, its
Italian version was translated into English by James Robertson which he
titled Magellan's Voyage Round the World.
J. Mallat wrote of Magellan's expedition: "The expedition went
towards the southwest, where it was not long before it discovered a tip
of land to which was given the name Cape of St. Augustine. This cape
formed the southwest extremity of the island of Mindanao. From there,
the expedition went up towards the North, coasting along a gold-rich
province. It entered the strait of Surigao and cast anchor near the little
island of Limasagua”.
Upon being informed that the gulf and river of Butuan which is in the
northern coast of the island of Mindanao and south of Limasagua,
Magellan dispatched an armed craft with an interpreter. He instructed
his men to ask some food from the natives of Butuan in exchange for
some objects which he told his men to bring with them. They were given
several goats and pigs and rice.
Writing on the first Mass in the Philippines, Mallat continued: "On
Palm Sunday, Magellan went in person to the village of Butuan, erected
an altar decorated with leaves and flowers and had the crew of his three
vessels go ashore to hear the first Mass ever celebrated in those far
away regions, in which he was so anxious to have said in order to give
thanks to the God of the seas for the protection which He had given to
the expedition. The natives attended the ceremony peacefully, and
Magellan treated them with the greatest kindness; he planted on top of a
hillock the sacred emblem of Christianity, and by a solemn act, took
possession of the island of Mindanao for the crown of Castille, in the
name of the Emperor and king, Charles V.
In commemoration of the birth of Christianity in the Philippines, RA
No. 2733 was enacted on June 19, 1960. Known as the Limasawa
Law, it declared the site in Magallanes, Limasawa Island in Leyte as a
national shrine, the place having been the site of the first Mass in the
Philippines. However, it was not signed by the President.
The declaration of Limasawa as the site of the first Mass in the
Philippines as embodied in the unsigned law was contested by some
historians, Sonia Zaide in particular. She identified Masao in Butuan as
the location of the first Christian Mass. She based her claim on the
diary of Pigafetta. In view of this claim of Zaide, Congresswoman Ching
Plaza of Agusan del Norte filed a bill in Congress in 1995 contesting the
Limasawa claim, asserting that Butuan was the site of the first Mass.
The controversy was referred to the National Historical Institute (now
National Historical Commission of the Philippines) for further study and
recommendation. After a thorough study, Dr. Samuel K. Tan, then
Chairman of the NHI, reaffirmed Limasawa as the site.
Despite the reaffirmation of the NHI that Limasawa was the site of the
first Christian Mass in the archipelago, this controversy and conflicting
view continue to haunt many scholars and students of Philippine history.
There is a need, therefore, for a more in-depth and continuing research
on this issue.
The controversy on the site of the first Mass did not stop there. It was
made more conflicting by the claim of many Pangasinense that the first
Mass was celebrated in Pangasinan in around 1334 by Odoric of
Perdenone, a late-medieval Franciscan friar-missionary explorer. In fact,
a marker was placed in front of the Bolinao Church in Pangasinan
stating that the first Mass on Philippine soil was celebrated in Bolinao
Bay in 1324 by a Franciscan missionary, Blessed Odorico.
However, this claim was considered as one of the hoaxes in
Philippine history. Zaide wrote that Fr. Odorio was never in the
archipelago.
WHERE WAS THE FIRST MASS HELD? Masao or Limasawa? WHERE WAS THE FIRST
KINGDOM? Masao or Limasawa?
The first kingdom visited by Magellan in 1521, and the site of the first recorded
Mass in the Philippines, have been the subject of controversy since the Spanish era. In
1872, a Spanish district governor erected a marble monument at Magallanes, then, the
center of Butuan, to celebrate Magellan’s first arrival and the commemoration of the first
Mass. On the other hand, in 1958, the National Historical Commission placed an historical
marker at Barrio Magallanes, Limasawa Island, commemorating the same events.
So where is the site of the first mass and the first kingdom that so impressed the
Western Explorers? Although Limasawa, Southern Leyte, has the official title at present,
and it would take new legislation to dislodge it, the evidence points to Masao, now a
Municipality of Butuan, Agusan del Norte, as the site of the first kingdom, and hence, the
first mass.
The evidence for Masao, rather than Limasawa, are as follows:
1. The name of the place. In all the primary sources, including the diary of Antonio
Pigaffeta, the chronicler of Magellan’s voyage, the name of the place was three syllables –
“Masao” or something close to it. Limasawa has four syllables and begins with another
letter.
2. The route from Homonhon. According to the primary records, again, the
expedition travelled 20 to 25 leagues from Homonhon, their first landing point, to the site
of the first mass, taking a west southwest course. If they had been at Limasawa Island, the
distance is only about 14.6 leagues, or one half of that length. Moreover, the island of
Limasawa is blocked from Homonhon by the tip of Southern Leyte.
3. The latitude position. Some of the primary sources locate the place at 90 North
latitude, and others at 9 2/3 degrees. The latitude position eliminates Limasawa, because it
is closer by ten degrees, and strengthens the claim of Masao, Butuan because it is exactly
at nine degrees.
4. The route to Cebu. The route to Cebu taken by the explorers is almost exactly similar to
the one now taken by motor vessels from Cebu to Butuan. The King of Masao (Kolambu)
even guided the explorers to Cebu and acted as their interpreter and intermediary when
they met the Cebu king. On the contrary, there is no sea traffic from Limasawa to Cebu,
then or now. And the distance to Cebu, according to Pigaffeta, was 35 leagues (140 miles).
If it were Limasawa that they came, the distance would only be 80 miles, or only half of the
alleged distance travelled.
5. The geographical features. The following physical features of the first kingdom point to
Butuan, rather than Limasawa, as follows:
a. The bonfire: the explorers where attracted to the light present the night before they
came to shore. Now, the name “Masao”, in Butuanon precisely means “bright”, which
could refer to the local custom of celebrating a harvest by cooking rice flakes in open fires.
By contrast, there are no ricefields in Limasawa.
b. The balanghai: which was a prominent feature of the story of their stay in the first
kingdom. It was said that the king came to their ship in a “balanghai”, and Pigaffeta and his
companion attended a party in a ritual “balanghai”, with the local king. Butuan is now the
site of at least nine excavated “balanghai” relics; by contrast, Limasawa has no significant
archaeological relics or “balanghai” tradition.
c. Abundance of gold: the Western explorers got excited at the abundance of gold in Masao
and Butuan, for that was the main currency at that time. Both archaeological relics (e.g. the
“Gold Image of Agusan”) and gold mines today attested to the abundance of gold in the
Agusan valley. However, there is no gold in Limasawa.
B. THE CAVITE MUTINY
There are four versions
related to the Cavite Mutiny - the
Jose Montero y Vidal, Spanish
historian version; the version of
Governor-General
Rafael
Izquierdo; the version of Trinidad
Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera;
and that of the French writer,
Edmund Plauchut.
1. The Jose Montero y Vidal and Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo
Versions The versions of Jose Montero y Vidal and Governor-General
Izquierdo were almost the same except that the Izquierdo version was
more biting. In his documentation of this event Montero referred to it as a
"revolution," an attempt by the Indios to topple down the Spanish
government in the Philippines. Izquierdo on the other hand, used this event
as a vehicle to implicate the Filipino priests who were then active in their
secularization of Philippine parishes' campaign.
In the report submitted by these two Spaniards, they stated that the
primary reasons for the "revolution" were the removal of the privileges
which the workers in the arsenal were enjoying. These privileges included
the exemption from the payment of tribute and from rendering the polo.
They also pointed to the following reasons as aggravating factors in the
"revolution": the revolution in Spain which overthrew what they referred to
as "secular throne" the black propaganda resorted to by the unrestrained
press; books and pamphlets containing and democratic articles which
reached the Philippines: and most importantly, the native who because of
their dislike of the friars plotted with and helped the rebels and enemies of
Spain. Izquierdo blamed the "unruly Spanish press for stockpiling malicious
propagandas."
Izquierdo, in his report to the Spanish king pointed to the intention of
the rebels to topple down the Spanish government in order to put in power
a new "king" in the persons of Father Jose Burgos and Father Jacinto
Zamora. He stressed in his report that the Filipino priests urged the natives
to support the "revolution," which they were assured of victory since God
was on their side. He added that the Filipino priests promised the natives
that when they won the "revolution," those who joined in the "revolution"
would be rewarded with job, wealth and promotion in the army. Izquierdo
mentioned in his report that the Indios were possessed with the natural
tendency of stealing.
Both Montero and Izquierdo believed that the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
was planned earlier; that it was a conspiracy among the educated, the
mestizos, the native lawyers, citizens of Manila and Cavite and the Filipino
priests The insinuated in their reports that the conspirators of Manila and
Cavite planned to liquidate the top Spanish officials and to be followed by
the murder of the friars.
They stated that the signal of the "revolution" would be the explosion
which would come from Intramuros and that since that date January 20,
1872 coincided with the feast of the Our Lady of Loreto, which the district of
Sampaloc was observing, the rebels mistook the explosion coming from the
fireworks for the signal they were waiting for to start the "revolution". Thus,
the 200 contingent under the command of Sergeant Lamadrid started the
"revolution" by attacking the Spanish officials they saw and captured the
arsenal.
The reports of Montero and Izquierdo further stated that when
Izquierdo learned of the uprising, he immediately dispatched reinforcement
to Cavite which made possible the quelling of the uprising. They also added
that the reinforcement from Manila which the rebels were waiting failed to
come, thus those who instigated the "revolution were killed including
Sergeant Lamadrid; the Gomburza was subjected to investigation through
a court martial and were sentenced to death by garrote; Joaquin Pardo de
Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other lawyers were
suspended from practicing their profession, were arrested and sentenced
to life imprisonment in the Marianas Islands.
2. The Trinidad Pardo de Tavera Version
From the point of view of Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, the Cavite event
was just a mutiny of the natives, soldiers and workers in the Cavite arsenal
who were disheartened because of the removal of the privileges which they
used to enjoy earlier. He put the blame on Izquierdo for his policies such as
the removal of the privileges of the arsenal soldiers and workers and the
prohibition to put up a school of arts and trades for the Filipinos.
The report of Tavera stated that on 20 January 1872, about 200 men
comprised of soldiers, labourers of the arsenal, and residents of Cavite
headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the
commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were
expecting support from the bulk of the army but unfortunately, that didn't
happen. The news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen.
Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in
Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.
Tavera was convinced that Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as an
attempt of the Filipinos to topple down the Spanish government and
presented it as a blown-up conspiracy involving not only the local soldiers
but also the natives of Manila and Cavite, most specifically the Filipino
priests.
3. The Edmunde/Edmund Plauchut Version
In 1877, Edmunde Plauchut a Frenchman who was residing in Manila
at the time the event happened, published in the Revue des Deux Mondes,
his version of the Cavite Mutiny. His account was a dispassionate one
which reaffirmed the Tavera version. It stated that the Cavite Munity
happened because of discontent of the arsenal workers and soldiers in
Cavite fort which originated from the order of the governor (Izquierdo)
which exacted taxes from the Filipino laborers in the engineering and
artillery corps in the Cavite arsenal, and required them to perform forced
labor which they had been exempted from both. On January 20, 1872,
when they received their pay, the workers found the amount of the taxes
and the corresponding fee in lieu of the forced labor deducted from their
pay envelopes. That night they mutinied. Forty infantry soldiers and twenty
men from the artillery took over command of the Fort of San Felipe and
fired cannonades to announce their victory, which was a short-lived one.
Apparently, the mutineers had expected to be joined by their comrades in
the 7th infantry company assigned to patrol the Cavite plaza. But when
they beckoned to them, their comrades did not join them and instead
started attacking them. Terror-stricken, the rebels bolted the gates and
decided to wait for morning expecting support from Manila.
Plauchut in his report also focused on the execution of the three
priests, Gomez, Burgos and Zamora which he personally witnessed.
C. THE RETRACTION OF JOSE RIZAL
One of the most controversial issues in
Philippine history is the retraction of Jose Rizal.
Until today, this retraction issue is a subject of
discussion among historians, researchers and
students of history.
What is really the truth behind this
controversy?
We can have a better understanding of the
issue if we will look back at some of the
developments in the life of Jose Rizal.
1. Rizal's Doubts on the Catholic Church
The publication of Rizal's two novels, the Noli Me Tangere and the El
Filibusterismo, made Rizal a target of the ire and persecution of the friars.
Clearly written on the pages of these two novels were Rizal's attacks on the
friars and practices of the Catholic Church. He was declared an
excommunicado, which means that he was expelled from the Catholic
Church and thus he could not receive its sacraments.
But Rizal was never cowed in his desire to expose what he believed
were abusive practices of the religion which he was brought up to. One of
his attacks on the Catholic Church was mirrored in a letter he sent to his
friend, Ferdinand Blumentritt who, like him, was also a liberal thinker. He
wrote him
What happens in the Philippines is horrible. The friars abuse the
name of religion to enrich their large landed estates, religion to seduce
innocent young women, religion to do away with an enemy, religion to
disturb the peace between husband and wife...if not to sully the wife's
honor
In his novel, Noli Me Tangere, Rizal expressed his doubts about the
teachings of the Catholic Church on the salvation of mankind through
Pilosopong Tasyo:
If the Catholics are the only ones that can be saved and of them
only five per cent, as many priests aver; and if the Catholics constitute
but a twelfth part of the world's population if statistics are to be believed,
the result would be that after thousands upon thousands of people had
been punished during the countless ages that passed before the coming
of the Redeemer, God's son who died for us, only five out of every twelve
hundred souls could now be saved. Surely, that cannot be true….. No, so
colossal a calamity is impossible. To believe it is blasphemy.
Expressing further the argument on man's salvation, Rizal speaking
through Pilosopong Tasyo, continued:
Man is not a necessary part of creation. but an accident of it. God
could not have created him, if to make one happy He had to condemn to
eternal misery hundreds of people in a moment and all for some
congenital faults….. If such a belief were not a blasphemy against that
God who must be the Highest God, then the Phoenician Moloch, that
bloody deity, that horrible divinity, who gorged himself on human victims
and innocent blood, and in whose entrails babes torn from their mothers'
breasts were burnt, would be beside Him a frail maiden, a sweetheart,
the mother of humanity.
Fr. Pablo Ramon, dean of Ateneo de Municipal and Fr.
Federico Faura, a teacher of Rizal, tried to bring Rizal back to what to
them was "the right path." Although Rizal was respectful of these two
priests, he bluntly told them that anv attempt to discuss with him
anything that had something to do with religion was futile since he no
longer believed in the teachings of the Catholic Church. To Rizal,
what the two priests believed to be the "right path" was not the right
path for him.
Thus, as a result, their supreme efforts to persuade and convert
the "unfortunate fellow" prove unavailing."
Fr. Faura was hurt and angry. However, he was also worried
about Rizal's safety if he stayed in the Philippines. He advised him to
leave the country for his own safety.
During his exile in Dapitan, Fr. Pablo Pastrells, head of the
Jesuits, requested Fr. Antonio Obach, parish priest of Dapitan, to
accommodate Rizal in his mission house, if Rizal would like to stay
with him. Fr. Obach agreed. Collas wrote in his book:
Several strings were attached to the offer for Rizal to stay in the
mission house. First, Rizal must retract publicly his "errors" on
religion; Second, he must observe the religious practices of the
Church and make a general avowal of his past: and, Third, he must
conduct himself in an exemplary manner when it comes to religion
and to Spain.
Rizal did not agree with the conditions set forth by Fr. Obach. He
considered them as too heavy conditions in exchange for his short stay in
the place of Fr. Obach.
The desire of the Jesuits headed by Fr. Pastells to bring back Rizal to
the fold of the Catholic Church was too strong that he sent Fr. Francisco de
Paula Sanchez, a former teacher of Rizal in Ateneo to Dapitan. Collas
looked at this mission of Fr. Sanchez as a way of trying "to win the
conscience of the relapsed exile.
Why did they choose Fr. Sanchez to carry out this mission? Collas
said of this: "If there not only a formidable master of rhetoric, but also of
dialectics; and secondly, because Rizal was was anyone capable of
convincing Rizal, it was Father Sanchez. First, because Sanchez was quite
fond of him and would gladly give him the benefit of any doubt."
But Fr. Sanchez was also a failure in his mission. Retana wrote that
Rizal refused to believe the arguments of Fr. Sanchez by saying that he no
longer believe in the Eucharistic and ritual of the Catholic faith.
Captain General Ricardo Carnicero who had become a good friend of
Rizal also failed in his attempt to bring back the faith of Rizal to the Catholic
Church. Fr. Pastells, therefore, decided to do the convincing of Rizal
himself.
Fr. Pastells, according to Collas was "an erudite man, a finished
scholar. Surely, with his vast learning, Father Pastells should have no
difficulty whatever, in persuading Rizal to return to the fold and enjoy the
"inestimable treasure of faith."
Thus, started the exchanges of letters between Fr. Pastells and Rizal.
Such exchanges of letters between the two lasted for two years, both of
them presenting brilliant arguments on what they believe in, Collas wrote
these exchanges of communication between the two: "the two protagonists
debated brilliantly with all the eloquence of passion and the strength of
conviction. Often, the Jesuit drew heavily on his armory of faith and the
Calamban on his artillery of reason. "
Again Fr. Pastells proved himself a failure in convincing Rizal to
return to his faith. Collas described this intellectual encounter between the
two as "in a way like the physical duel between David and Goliath. As in the
biblical story, the Filipino David with his sling of reason and his stones of
logic bested the religious Goliath with his heavy, shining armor and spear
of faith adorned with Latin quotations. Critics outside the clergy, including a
number of foreigners, agree that Rizal had the better part of the argument."
Rizal was firmed in his belief that there were abuses committed by
the friars and that they did not preach the truth about Christianity and that
the Filipinos were abused through the use of religion.
The strength of Rizal's conviction was tested with the coming of
Josephine Bracken to Dapitan. They fell in love with each other. Rizal
wanted to marry her. But marriage was one of the sacraments which Rizal
had been stripped of when he was excommunicated.
He loved Josephine. He did not like to place her in a situation in
which she would be the subject of ridicule of people because she was living
in with a man without the blessing of the church. Rizal made an appeal to
Fr. Obach to marry them. However, Fr. Obach replied that they would only
be married if Rizal would retract everything he said against the Catholic
Church. Driven by his strong desire to marry Jospehine, Rizal prepared his
own retraction version and sent it to Fr. Obach, which the latter ignored.
Thus, Rizal decided to forget about his plan of marrying Josephine and
they just lived together as husband and wife. They lived together happily for
four years, unmindful of the unkind words of the people and the unceasing
attacks of Fr. Oback done in the pulpit.
Retana wrote of this episode in the life of Rizal: "Rizal remained an
impenitent free thinker despite the attacks and condemnation of society.
2. The Beginning of the Retraction Controversy
When and how did this controversy on the retraction of Rizal start?
The retraction issue started with the publication of Retana claiming
that he had the retraction document of Rizal. When this was published, Fr.
Pio Pi came out with his own retraction document which he claimed as the
original. He said that the document was given to Archbishop Nozaleda for
safekeeping. He had it published in an article entitled La Muerte Christiana
del Rizal, which he claimed he published to prove that Retana's document
was not original.
The issue became more confusing when Fr. Manuel Gracia revealed
that he accidentally found the original retraction document among the files
of the Archbishop. But his revelation came out after four decades of
silence. Another priest, Fr. Francisco A. Ortiz published an English
document which he claimed as the original retraction of Rizal. This brought
more confusion to the retraction issue.
3. Analyzing the Retraction Issue
Are the Jesuits telling the truth about the retraction document of
Rizal? If it is true that they have an original retraction document, why did it
take them so long before they revealed about it? Why did they not do it
immediately after the execution of Rizal or even before he was executed? If
Rizal really retracted, why did they allow his execution to push through?
Why did they not do something to prevent it?
They were claiming that Rizal returned to the fold of the Catholic faith.
If it was true, why was Rizal buried in the most despicable manner? He was
buried without a coffin!
Rizal's name was entered in the list of those who died without
repenting their sins. II he retracted, therefore, he repented for his sins, if he
had sin, from the point of view of the Catholic Church. Why was his name
included in the list?
And why are there three versions of the retractions of the national
hero? Which one is true, if he really retracted?
Let us take a look once again at the attempts to bring Rizal back to
the Catholic Church.
Padre Pablo Ramon, Federico Faura, Padre Paula de Sanchez and
Padre Pablo Pastells - these priests had soft spots in the heart of Rizal.
They all tried their best with their brilliant argument to convince him to go
back to "the right path." No one of them succeeded! How come an ordinary
priest in the person of Fr. Balaguer was able to convince Rizal to retract
everything he had said against the church in so short a time left before his
execution? And what did Fr. Balaguer use in convincing Rizal to retract?
The simple threat of condemnation to hell!
Collas wrote of that threat which according to Fr. Balaguer he used:
"that threat, the most infamous and outrageous libel on God, was coupled
with the absurd doctrine of exclusive salvation long exploded and rejected
by European thinkers."
How Rizal, who was possessed of a very strong character, could be
cowed by this threat of eternal damnation in hell when he argued and
stressed that he did not believe in hell because the God that he knew was
a loving and forgiving God? He would never punish his children. It should
be clear that Rizal turned his back on the Catholic Church but he never
turned away from God. Even in his Mi Ultimo Adios, he wrote, "For I go
where no slave before the oppressor bends. Where Faith can never kill,
and God reigns e'er on high "
Did Fr. Balaguer lie when whe claimed that Rizal retracted by the
virtue of the document.
Miguel de Unamuno, a Spaniard who was classmate of Rizal in the
Central University of Madrid, said that the authenticity of the retraction
document which Fr. Balaguer claimed was done by Rizal was doubtful. He
further said: "one must read between the lines the stupidities and
vulgarities with which Father Balaguer must have bludgeoned poor Rizal."
In order to prove that Spanish friars at that time could resort to lies,
Unamuno stressed:"friars are generally recruited in Spain from among the
coarsest, most uncouth and most unpolished classes."
Laubach wrote of the Rizal retraction: "Father Balaguer did what
Spanish friars did in his day, framed a story so as to discredit a Filipino,
and incidentally to give himself, a Spaniard, credit for a marvelous
conversion."
A perusal of the three retraction documents is necessary to give the
student of history a chance to make their own analysis of this controversial
issue.
D. THE CRY OF PUGAD LAWIN: WHEN AND WHERE?
Where and when? These are the
two questions asked of this significant
event in the history of the Philippines,
the Cry of Pugad Lawin/Balintawak.
How and when did this controversy
start?
Balintawak had always been the
site for the cry recognized by historians and students. This was in all the
books in Philippine history being used in all schools. Aside from this, every
August 26, this event was commemorated in this place. However, Teodoro
Agoncillo stirred the controversy when he said that the event actually
happened on August 23, 1896, not August 26, and the site was Pugad
Lawin and not Balintawak. This claim of Agoncillo started the confusion
among the teachers and students of history.
There are five dates and places which are cited as the actual place
where this event happened. These are August 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 and
the places are Balintawak, Pugad Lawin, Kangkong, Bahay Toro and
Pasong Tamo.
Where did Agoncillo base his claim that the cry happened on August
23 1896 and in Pugad Lawin? The historian, Ambeth Ocampo averred that
Agoncillo based his claim not on a primary source but a "tertiary or at least,
a second generation translation." He wrote:
In 1989, after a series of articles on the controversy over Balintawak
and Pugadlawin, I received a batch of photocopied manuscripts with an
invitation to peruse the originals of what appeared to be the papers of
Bonifacio. Knowing that these were transcribed and printed by Agoncillo in
two separate books, I did not bother to decipher Bonifacio's fine script.
Months later, on a lazy afternoon, I decided to compare the Agoncillo
transcriptions with the Bonifacio originals. I was surprised to find
discrepancies in the text. While Agoncillo reproduced the "orihinal sa
Tagalog," it proved to be slightly different from the manuscripts. I realized
immediately that Agoncillo did not have access to the original Bonifacio
papers. He merely translated an English translation of the Bonifacio
papers, which were themselves translated from Spanish by Epifanio de los
Santos who possessed the original Tagalog manuscripits.
Actually, Agoncillo's claim that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on
August 23, 1896 was based on Pio Valenzuela's account. A photograph
showing the latter with the granddaughter of Melchora Aquino named
Monica Ramos, and other revolutionists stated that place, Pugad Lawin,
was the site of the general meeting of the Katipunan on August 23, 1896.
In that meeting, it was determined that the fighting against the Spaniards
would start and thus, the "Cry" marking the start of the Philippine revolution
against Spain. Pugad Lawin, in fact was within the Balintawak area and
should not be much of an issue except for the date which was from what
was known earlier was August 26, 1896 to August 23, 1896. But a stickler
to accuracy as he was known for, Agoncillo replaced Balintawak to Pugad
Lawin.
Valenzuela's grandson, Arturo Valenzuela, in his unpublished work
which was based largely on his grandfather's memoirs elaborated that the
First Cry of Balintawak was held on August 23 in the backyard of Tandang
Sora's house. They moved to Malanday on Augustv 26, 1896. Thus, when
the Spaniards arrived in Pasong Tamo, they found no katipuneros in the
place. They shot two farmers they saw in the place, and then reported a
"Cry of Balintawak." This was the reason, according to Valenzuela's
grandson why his grandfather, who was under Spanish interrogation in
1896, referred to the date of the "Cry" as August 26.
Had the memoirs of Valenzuela matched the signed testimony he
gave to the Spaniards. when he was interrogated, there could have been
no issue on this historical event. But his memoirs published by Wenceslao
Retana stated that the former mentioned that the "Cry" happened in
Balintawak on August 26. However, his memoirs which were published
after the war stated that the "Cry" happened in Pugad Lawin on August 23,
1896. Thus, the inaccuracy.
The late historian, Pedro Gagelonia wrote:
The controversy among the historians continues to the present day.
The 'Cry of Pugad Lawin' (August 23, 1896) cannot be accepted as
historically accurate. It lacks positive documentation and supporting
evidence from eyewitnesses. The testimony of only one eyewitness (Dr.
Pio Valenzuela) is not enough to authenticate and verify controversial
issue in history. Historians and their living participants, not politicians and
their sycophants, should settle this controversy.
Why was Valenzuela's account of the "Cry" doubted by historians like
Gagelonia despite the fact that the renown historian Teodoro Agoncillo
referred to him as the "most credible authority on the issue citing his being
educated and a close friend of Bonifacio as well as his possession of
retentive memory, the degree of his involvement in the event, and his
narrative ability, three factors which are important in historical recollection?
Simply because in many instances when Valenzuela was interviewed
he gave conflicting statements on this significant event of 1896. These
statements and the dates when Valenzuela gave them are shown in the
matrix below:
Year Statement Given
September 2 & 3, 1896
September 6, 1896
after his surrender in
Manila
August
31,
statements
1911
1930’s Statements
1935
statements
together with Briccio
Brigido Pantas and
Statement of Pio Valenzuela
“They remained in Balintawak Sunday, Monday and Tuesday”
“the fight between the Guardia Civil and the rebels in Banlat
and Balintawak took place Wednesday August 26…. During
the three days prior to that, he was in the company of Andres
Bonifacio…. in a house in Balintawak
“… at kung kinabukasan ika 23 ay muling nagkatipon sa
Kankong, sa bahay ni Apolonio Samson…. Pinagtalunan sa
pulong na ito kung ipagpapatuloy o hindi ang paghihimagsik
at nagkasalungatan ng mahaba si Andres Bonifacio at
Teodoro Plata. Nagpasiya ang karamihan na ipagpapatuloy
ang laban. Pinagtalunan din naman kung kalian gaganapin
ang paghihimagsik at pinag kasunduan na sa ika 29 ng gabi
ay lulusubin ang Maynila sa daang Sta. Mesa magdadan, at
pasisimulan sa ika 5 ng hapon ang pagtitipon sa San Juan del
Monte at mula doon papasukin ang Maynila sa gabi sa oras
na kinakailangang ipasok.
Kinabukasan, ika 24, ay kami lumipat sa Paso de Laha sa
bahay ni Felix Doopa at doo’y sinulat mula sa umaga
hanggang hamon ni Emilio Jacinto ang mga kalatas na yaon
ay sinasaysay ang mga pinagkasunduan sa pulong noong ika
23. Ng gabi ring yaon ika 24 kami ay lumipat sa nayon ng
Pasong-tamo sa bahay ni Aling Melchora.”
“the first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto,
Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and
myself was Balintawak, the first five of us arriving there on
August 19, and I on August 20, 1896. The first place where
some 500 members of the Katipunan was the house and yard
of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong, on August 22… here views
were only exchange and no resolution was debated or
adopted. It was in the house, the storehouse and yard of Juan
Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, in Pugad Lawin that over
1000 members of Katipunan met and debated lengthily on
August 23, 1986. The discussion was wether or not the
revolution against the Spanish Government should be started
on August 29 1896.
“Hindi sa Balintawak nangyari ang unang sigaw ng
paghihimagsik na kinalalaguian ngayon ng bantayog, kundi sa
pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugad Lawin.”
Cipriano Pacheco
Because of these conflicting statements of Valenzuela, another
historian, John N. Schumacher, S. J expressed doubt on his credibility. He
stated:
I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio
Valenzuela, and to the interpretations Agoncillo got from him verbally, since he gave so
many versions from the time he surrendered to the Spanish authorities and made
various statements not always compatible with one another up to the time when as an
old man he was interviewed by Agoncillo.
In the account of the Filipino revolution by Antonio Mendoza
Guevarra, referred to as Matatag, he wrote:
August 25, 1896. This day two companies of Guardias Civiles, one of
artillery and the other of infantry, scaled the hill, coming upon us in the area
called Pasong Tamo. The fight began at once. The brothers of the
Katipunan had among them only four ancient flintlocks, which a heavy
downpour rendered out of commission in no time. The Katipuneros
scattered, the enemy troops withdrawing. Thanks to God we suffered no
casualty despite the closely fought skirmish and our being poorly armed.
This was an account of the thick woods, rough terrain, and the timely and
providential rain that saved us from the Spaniards who outnumbered us
and had better arms.
Other accounts of the "Cry" included the following: General Guillermo
Masangkay stated that it was August 26, 1896; Lt. Olegario Diaz, recalled
the event as having happened on August 24, 1896; Gregoria de Jesus,
Bonifacio's widow in her memoirs stated that the "Cry" happened on August
25, 1896 in Pasong Tamo (Caloocan not Makati); Santiago Alvarez, a
katipunero from Cavite, referred to the event as having taken place on
August 25, 1896 in Bahay Toro which was also in Caloocan.
Zafra in 1960 made a review of the literature related to the 'cry' from
1896 to 1956 which revealed the following:
Year Published
Author
Place
Date of Cry
1896
1911
1925
Olegario Diaz
Manuel Artigas y Ceurva
Teodoro M. Kalaw
1926
1927
1932
1948
1954
1954
1956
Leandro Fernandez
Santiago Alvarez
Guillermo Masangkay
Pio Valenzuela
Conrado Benitez
Gregorio F. Zaide
Teodoro A. Agoncillo
Balintawak
Balintawak
Kangkong in
Balintawak
Balintawak
Bahay Toro
Balintawak
Pugad Lawin
Kangkong
Balintawak
Pugad Lawin
25 Aug 1896
20 Aug
Last week of
August
20 Aug
24 Aug
26 Aug
23 Aug
20 Aug
26 Aug
23 Aug
As can be gleaned from the above data, there were several dates
and places mentioned in the works of the above-mentioned authors related
to the "cry". Encarnacion wrote: "While the sole aim was to pinpoint the
start of the 1896 Philippine Revolution, Bonifacio's cry often led to different
interpretations. And as time went on, the event became more absurd.
Government issued policies that changed the date of the "Cry"
commemoration from "24 August 1896" to 26 1897, "26 August 1896" in
1911, and to "23 August 1896 in 1963. Likewise, the place identified kept
on changing as more frivolous surveys muddled the significance of that
event."
Still on this controversy, Adrian Cristobal wrote:
The official dating and placing of the revolutionary "cry"- 23 August
1896 in Pugad Lawin has been challenged by a new breed of historians,
Dr. Milagros C. Guerrero, Ramon N. Villegas and Emmanuel Encarnacion.
The "more accurate time and place" was 24 August 1896 at the barn of
Melchora Aquino, a.k.a Tandang Sora, in what is now barangay Banlat in
Quezon City. Of course like Agoncillo, the new breed of historians was not
there when it happened, but they based their contention on many other
sources and on the fact that Pugad Lawin could not be located in the
cartography of the period.