by

GEC-RPH Module 5 – One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippine History

PREPARATION

To put into use what so far has been learned about the historian’s work as well as the historical inquiry, this module deals with the analyses of Philippine history’s four historiographical issues. 

The two vital concepts: interpretation and multiperspectivity shall be defined prior to the historical analysis of the issues in the history of the Philippines.

Being able to interpret historical events using primary sources, to recognize the multiplicity of interpretation, and to demonstrate the ability to argue for or against a particular issue using primary sources are therefore expected of you, history students.

PRESENTATION

A more contemporary definition than history being “the study of the past” focused on its aftereffects’ impact at present; whereas Geoffrey Barraclough defines it as “the attempt to discover, on the basis of fragmentary evidence, the significant things about the past.” Additionally, he said, despite being based on facts, the historical accounts we read are not at all factual “but a series of accepted judgments.” It is these historians’ judgments on how history should be perceived that laid the groundwork for historical interpretation.

Prior to its revelation as a hoax, the Code of Kalantiaw which is a fabled, legal code in the epic, Maragtas, was the pride of the people of Aklan as evidenced by the historical marker set up in 1956 in the town of Batan, Aklan which states:

“CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third Chief of Panay, born in Aklan Sakup. Considered the First Filipino Lawgiver, he promulgated in about 1433 a penal code now known as Code of Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain obtained the original manuscript from an old chief of Panay which was later translated into Spanish by Rafael Murviedo Yzamaney.”

William Henry Scott, however, proved, in 1968, that this code was a fraud when he defended his study on pre-Hispanic sources in Philippine history at the University of Santo Tomas. The code’s attribution went to the 1913 historical fiction called, Las Antiguas Leyendas de la Isla de Negros by Jose E. Marco who attributed the code itself to Jose Maria Pavon, a priest.

Although there were still some who believe in the legitimacy of the document that bears the code, prominent Filipino historians did not go against Scott’s findings.

Since not all primary sources are accessible to the general audience, historians found it imperative to utilize facts collected from such sources of history to draw their own reading with the intention of making their intended audience understand the historical event. Such is a process of historians’ making sense of the past instead of non-historians without proper training and background making their own interpretations of a primary source which may instigate misinterpretations or worse, problems.

History students, therefore, must recognize that interpretations of the past differ in relation to, who read the primary source, when it was read, and how it was read. Moreover, students must have the faculty to distinguish a variety of interpretations, what set off these differences, and how to critically filter these interpretations via the historical evaluation. In view of the fact that historical event interpretations change over time, being able to trace these changes in an effort to fathom the past is a valuable skill that every history student should have.

Although there was no proof that the poem, Sa Aking Mga Kababata with its immortalized lines: Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang salita, mahigit sa hayop at malansang isda, was supposedly written by an eight-year old Rizal, the substantiation against his authorship is irrefutable as a handwritten manuscript to corroborate the claim is non-existent.

The said poem was initially published in 1906 in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz who obtained it from Gabriel Beato Francisco that claimed to have gotten hold of it in 1884 from Saturnino Raselis, allegedly Rizal’s close friend. Rizal, however, never once mentioned having penned this poem in any of his writings nor did he mention having a close friend with such a name.

Its attribution to Rizal as the author was all the more revealed to be inaccurate as the poem was written in Tagalog and referred to the expression kalayaan which Rizal only encountered, based on his letters, through Marcelo H. del Pilar’s translation of the former’s essay, El Amor Patrio.

Despite the fact that Tagalog was Rizal’s native tongue, he was educated [which started with his mother] in Spanish and later on conveyed his frustration with his struggle in expressing himself in the native tongue.

The poem’s orthography is likewise suspicious. The use of the letter k and w to substitute c and u respectively was Rizal’s recommendation as an adult so the poem could not have been penned by him when he was eight for if he did, it should have used the original Spanish orthography which was predominant during this time.

A lot of the stuff acknowledged to be true about the country’s past may no longer be the case for despite being taught as facts in basic education, they are not set in stone. In spite of everything, history is a construct and as such it could be subjected to a variety of interpretations resulting into conflicting or competing narratives that can influence not only our view of our country’s history but also its identity. To ensure, thus, that the current interpretation is reliable to justify its acceptance, it is imperative to subject into historical evaluation not only the primary source but also its interpretation.

Multiperspectivity

Along with several potential interpretations of the past, multiperspectivity must also be taken into account in history. The term implies the manner in which historical events, personalities, developments, cultures, and societies are scrutinized from different perspectives suggesting thereby the plausibility of “a multitude of ways by which one can view the world.” This results into a variety of historical interpretations – each equally valid and subjective at the same time for as initially established, history embodies the historian’s preconceptions hence its subjectivity. Depending on his objective, the historian decides on what historical sources to use and what interpretation to underscore. Evidence misinterpretation may occur while this historian only pays attention to those that are indicative of a certain event’s occurrence while ignoring the rest that refutes the evidence. He may opt to overlook crucial facts rendering, in this manner, an interpretation devoid of balance. He may also impress upon his own ideology on the historical subject which may be inappropriate for the period; or he may present a single cause for an event that may have other viable explanations. These are just some of the many reasons a historian might fail in his attempt for a historical deduction, depiction, and explanation. [If you’re reading this module’s content right after I told you to do so, that’s manifesting courtesy and responsibility deserving of a reward. Let me do it in a fun way. The FIRST BEST TWO ANSWERS to the following question sent thru our GC would get exemptions from this module’s activity: How do you reckon can a historian be unsuccessful in his historical depiction? Refrain from reacting on your classmates’ answers for exemptions will be made apparent by a heart emoticon from me.] It should therefore be understood that with the approach of multiperspectivity in history, historical interpretations contain inconsistencies, contradictions, ambiguities, and frequently become the subject of disputes.

Consequently, when investigating multiple historical perspectives, different source materials reflecting various views on one historical event and providing varied historical truths like an official document bearing numerous aspects of the past than a person’s memoir for instance, should be incorporated because a single-perspective historical narrative may not offer any room for further investigation; whereas different historical sources do, apart from being able to make more evidences available for the truths that they collectively establish thereby ensuring validity to the historical scrutiny. Despite the complexity that all these entail, giving them importance in the reading of different historical interpretations, brings a more complete and profound understanding of the past.

Site of the First Mass in the Philippines

For three centuries, Butuan was believed to be the site of the First Mass in the Philippines as evidenced by the 1872 monument near Agusan River which commemorates the expedition’s arrival and celebration of the first Mass on April 8, 1521. Such a claim is based on a rudimentary reading of this event’s primary sources.

However, towards the end of the 19th century and the beginning of 20th century, mounting scholarship from more nuanced readings [by Filipino and Spanish scholars] of the existing evidences revealed findings that disproved this accepted interpretation.

Investigations on the identification of the Site of the First Mass in the Philippines is carried out by referring to only two primary sources. One is the record kept by Francisco Albo, navigator of one of Magellan’s ships, Trinidad and one of the 18 survivors that returned from the world circumnavigation aboard Victoria. The other, which is a more complete primary source is Antonio Pigafetta’s First Voyage Around the World. Like Albo, Pigafetta was part of Magellan’s expedition thus an eyewitness to the events documented in the account specifically, the site of the first Mass.

Albo’s Log

  1. While sailing westward from Ladrones [now the Marianas Islands] on the 16th of March 1521, land towards the northwest was spotted; however, due to shallow areas, the fleet did not approach the island which was later found out to be Yunagan.
  2. Sailing southwards that same day brought the fleet to a small island called Suluan where Magellan and his men anchored and where they saw canoes that sped away at their approach.
  3. The fleet then sailed westward to Gada, an uninhabited island where the Spaniards collected wood and water. The sea around this island, according to Albo was free from shallows. [Although this particular log does not include the island’s latitude, in Pigafetta’s account, the island appears to be Aquada or Homonhon.]
  4. Departing that island, the fleet sailed westwards towards Seilani, a huge, inhabited island known to have gold. [Pigafetta calls this island Ceylon – an island in Leyte.]
  5. Sailing southwards along the Seilani’s coast, the fleet turned southwest to Mazaua, a small island where the natives were good and where the Spaniards erected a cross upon its mountaintop. There, they were shown three islands to the west and southwest and told about the abundance of gold. The Spaniards were shown how gold, which came in pieces the size of peas and lentils, was gathered.
  6. From Mazaua, the fleet sailed northwards back to Seilani following its coast in a northwesterly course ascending to up to 10 degrees latitude where they spotted the three islands shown to them beforehand.
  7. Sailing some ten leagues westwards, the fleet spotted three islets where anchors were dropped for the night and in the morning, the fleet sailed some twelve leagues southwest down to a latitude where the fleet entered a channel between two islands, Matan and Subu.
  8. Sailing down the channel, the fleet turned westward and anchored at the town of Subu where the Spaniards stayed for many days, obtained provisions, and entered into a peace-pact with the local king.
  9. Subu was on the east-west direction of Suluan and Mazaua. Shallows between Mazaua and Subu forced the Spaniards to take the longer, alternate route.
  • “Diario o’ derotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo se S. Agustin en el Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albo,” Document no. xxii in Collecion de viages y descubrimientos que hicieron por los Espanoles desde fines del siglo XV,Ed. Martin Fernandez de Navarette (reprinted Buenos Aires 1945, 5 Vols.) IV, 191-225. As cited in Miguel A. Bernad “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Re-examination of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.

In Albo’s account, Mazaua’s location fits that of Limazawa at the southern tip of Leyte. Additionally, although Albo mentioned the cross being erected upon a mountaintop where the three islands to the west and southwest which is an account consistent with the southern end of Limasawa, the first Mass was not brought up. 

Pigafetta’s Account on the Route of Magellan’s Expedition

  1. Saturday, 16 March 1521 – Some 300 leagues westward of Ladrones [Marianas Islands], Magellan’s fleet spotted a highland called Zamal.
  2. Sunday, March 17 – After spotting Zamal, the fleet landed on an uninhabited island called Humunu [Homonhon] which lay to the right of Zamal. Here, the Spaniards set up two tents for the sick crew members and slain a sow for them.
  3. That same day, Magellan christened the whole archipelago the Island of Saint Lazarus owing to the Gospel for that Lenten season Sunday Mass which was the 11th chapter of St. John which tells of Lazarus being raised from the dead.
  4. Monday, March 18 – In the afternoon of the Spaniards’ second day in Homonhon, they spotted an approaching boat of 9 men. This later brought about an exchange of gifts and a request from Magellan for food supplies. The men swore to bring rice and other provisions in four days.
  5. Homonhon had two springs of water and the Spaniards also noticed some indications of gold in the island; hence, Magellan renamed Homonhon, the Watering Place of Good Omen.
  6. Friday, March 22 – The natives, this time in two boats laden with food supplies, returned by noon.
  7. Magellan and his men stayed for eight days in Homonhon that is from March 17 to March 25.
  8. Monday, March 25 – The fleet weighed anchor to leave Homonhon when Pigafetta went overboard but rescued. He ascribed his escape from death as grace through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary as in the ecclesiastical calendar, March 25 was the feast of the Annunciation, thus “Our Lady’s Day.”
  9. In the direction of west, southwest between the islands of Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson, and Albarien was the route taken by Magellan’s fleet after departing Homonhon. Most likely, Cenalo is an orthographical error in the document for what Pigafetta, in his map, calls Ceilon and Albo calls Seilani both referring to the island of Leyte. Hiunanghan which is a misspelling of Hinunangan and which is on the mainland of Leyte [i.e. Ceylon] seemed to Pigafetta a separate island. Hibuson which is to Pigafetta, Ibusson, is an island east of the southern tip of Leyte. Along these lines, it was easy to decipher what Pigafetta meant by sailing in a west, southwest direction past the prior mentioned islands: that they left Homonhon navigating westward towards Leyte, following its coast southward, sailing between Hibuson on their portside and on their starboard, Hinunangan Bay. The fleet continued to sail southward subsequently turning westward to Mazaua.
  10. Thursday, March 28 – The fleet anchored in Mazaua where the Spaniards spotted either a light or a bonfire the previous night – it was in the morning of Holy Thursday. Pigafetta ensured the inclusion in his record of the island’s latitude and longitude and its being 25 leagues from Aquada or Homonhon. That same day, a small boat with eight natives aboard approached the Spanish fleet and obtained trinkets tossed by Magellan as presents. The natives rowed away but two balanghai turned up two hours later with the native king seated in one of them under a canopy of mats. Some of the natives went aboard one of the ships at Magellan’s invitation though the native king remained seated in his boat. Gifts were exchanged then the Spanish fleet weighed anchor and went closer to shore and moored near the native king’s village in the afternoon of that day.
  11. Friday, March 29 – Intending to ask the native king for the expedition’s food supplies and to inform him that they had come as friends, Magellan sent his slave interpreter ashore. As a response, the king himself accompanied by six or eight of his men came in a boat and this time climbed aboard Magellan’s ship. The two embraced and exchanged more gifts. Returning ashore, the native king and his men brought with them two members of the expedition as guests for the night – Pigafetta was one of these two.
  12. Saturday, March 30 – Pigafetta and his companion returned to their ship after spending the previous night dining with the native king and his son. He, however, regretted having eaten some meat as it was Good Friday.
  13. Sunday, March 31 – Early Easter Sunday, Magellan sent the priest and some of his men ashore to prepare for the Mass which was celebrated later in the morning with Magellan, fifty of his men, the king of Mazaua and the king of Butuan. Magellan and his men returned to their ships for lunch and went back ashore in the afternoon to have the venerated cross erected at the summit of the Mazaua’s highest hill. Both native kings were also in attendance. While on the summit, Magellan asked the native kings for a port to acquire more food supplies. He was told that there were three ports to choose from: Ceylon, Zubu, and Calagan. Of these three, according to the kings, Zubu’s port had the riches trading going on so Magellan informed the kings that he wished to sail there the following morning and requested for a guide. Although the native kings assured him that guides will be available any time, the king of Mazaua offered to escort the expedition himself after bringing his harvest in with the help of some of Magellan’s men that he requested.
  14. Monday, April 1- Despite having sent some of his men ashore to help, Magellan was informed that no harvest was carried out as the native kings were sleeping off their drinking stint the night before.
  15. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday, April 3 – Helped the natives with their harvest.
  16. Magellan and his men stayed in Mazaua for seven days.
  17. Thursday, April 4 – Escorted by the king of Mazaua who sailed in his own boat, the Spanish fleet departed the island sailing towards Subu past the islands of Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan.
  18. Upon reaching Gatighan, the fleet sailed westward towards the three island of Camotes: Poro, Pasihan, and Ponson where the Spaniards waited for the king of Mazaua on board his native balanghai that was much inferior to the Spanish fleet in speed.
  19. The Spanish fleet escorted by the king of Mazaua aboard his balanghai sailed southwards towards Subu from the Camotes Islands.
  20. Sunday, April 7 – It had taken the Spanish fleet three days to navigate from Mazaua to Camotes Islands and ultimately to Subu entering its harbor at midday.
  • 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 Re-examination of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.

Both Albo and Pigafetta’s accounts corroborate each other. Pigafetta, however, afforded historians a more detailed record of the Spanish fleet’s weeklong sojourn in Mazaua.

With the information afforded by these primary sources, the Jesuit priest, Miguel A. Bernad argued that Pigafetta’s account does not mention Butuan’s distinct geographic and crucial aspect that is its river. Situated on the Agusan River, Butuan is a riverine settlement; hence the curious omission of the river itself which makes part of Butuan’s geographic characteristic that seemed too vital for an oversight, does make a valid contention.

Pigafetta’s account seemed to have documented the survivors sailing towards Butuan and vividly depicted a trip along a river. It must be underscored, however, that such account was only penned after Magellan’s death.

The Cavite Mutiny

The Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora rendered 1872 a historic year for the country. These events which turned out to be critical milestones in Philippine history set off ripples through time, influencing the events that led to the Philippine Revolution.

While the Cavite Mutiny’s significance as a major factor in the awakening of Philippine nationalism during the 19th century is irrefutable, the different sides to its story resulting from four individuals’ varying perspectives rendered it controversial.

Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny

Despite being regarded as a historian, Jose Montero y Vidal’s Cavite Mutiny’s account which focused on its attempt to overthrow the Spanish Government in the Philippines was criticised as transparently biased and blatantly prejudiced for a scholar.

The other Spanish account was an official report penned by then Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo who implicated the native clergy that were then active in the secularization movement meant to replace the friars in the country’s Catholic Church with Filipino secular priests as the former were perceived as impediments to Filipino education, progress, and freedom.

These Spanish accounts corroborated each other.

Excerpts from Montero’s Account

Although according to some, the abolition of the Cavite arsenal laborers’ exemption from the tribute was the cause of insurrection, there were other justifications for it: the propaganda carried out by the uninhibited press in opposition to the principles of the monarchy, the democratic and republican books and pamphlets, the apostles’ rhetoric on new ideas in Spain, and the surge of the American publicists compounded by  the criminal policy of the foolish Governor sent by the Revolutionary government to oversee the Philippines [among others] were decisive episodes that bred, among some Filipinos, the idea of attaining independence – the objective that afforded these Filipinos the support “of the native clergy, who out of spite towards the friars, made common cause with the enemies of the mother country.”

The authorities obtained “anonymous communications” of a rebellion and of an assassination of Spaniards including friars numerous times at beginning of 1872. This information, however, was afforded no importance. This plot went on clandestinely since the days of La Torre. Principal leaders, on occasions, met at Dr. Pardo de Tavera’s residence and at times at the native priest’s, Jacinto Zamora’s house. The curate of Bacoor whose vigorous character and affluence afforded him great influence, usually attended such meetings.

  • Jose Montero y Vidal, “Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Bookstore, 1990), 269-271.

Excerpts from Governor Izquierdo’s Account

It appears certain that the native clergy, the mestizos, the native lawyers, and the abogadillos were the ones that motivated and organized the insurrection.

To execute unlawful scheme, the instigators objected to the government’s injustice of 1) failure to pay the provinces for the tobacco crop and the 2) “usury that some practice in documents that the Finance department gives crop owners who have to sell them at a loss;” 3) having required the Cavite arsenal workers to pay tribute and to render personal service from which they were initially exempted.

It has not been evidently established if the Indios intended to set up a monarchy or a republic as they did not have the word for it in their language to call this form of government whose head is called hari in Filipino. It, however, turned out that a priest, either Jose Burgos or Jacinto Zamora would be placed in such position. Such is the plot of the rebels.

  • Rafael Izquierdo, “Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Bookstore, 1990), 281-286.

In these Spanish accounts, Cavite Mutiny was deliberate and was a component of a conspiracy among the educated Filipinos, mestizos, lawyers and residents of Manila and Cavite.

It is evident that such accounts underscore the abolition of the Cavite arsenal workers’ exemption from the payment of tribute and forced labor as the reason for the revolution along with numerous other reasons they outlined which included the native clergy who were depicted as conspirators and supporters of the rebels that magnified the severity of the mutiny which allegedly included a scheme to assassinate high-raking Spaniards and to execute friars.

These Spanish accounts specify that on the 20th of January 1872 was a day of revelling in Sampaloc for the Virgin of Loreto’s feast that came with the fireworks which the Caviteños mistook as a signal to launch the attack. Sergeant Lamadrid led 200 men in the attack against Spaniards and in taking over of the arsenal. Izquierdo promptly ordered reinforcements for the Spanish force in Cavite which easily quelled the mutiny as the Manileños expected to help the Caviteños failed to do so.

The mutiny resulted into 1) the death of its leaders, 2) the court-martial and execution of Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora, on the 17th of February 1872, 3) the arrest of Filipino lawyers and their suspension from the practice of law, 4) the arrest of Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa [among others] and their exile to the Marianas Island.

This compelled Izquierdo to dissolve the native regiments of artillery and replaced them with an artillery force exclusively made up of Peninsularies – pure-blooded Spaniards born in Spain.

Filipino and French Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny

Two other primary accounts that appear to dispute the Spanish accounts were penned by a Filipino scholar and researcher, Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera and that of the French writer, Edmund Plauchut who complemented Tavera’s account.

Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera’s Account

The Central Government in Madrid declared its intention to withdraw the friars’ power of intervention in civil government matters and university management… This had given the Filipinos high hopes for improvement in the country’s affairs; … up to this period, “there had been no intention of secession from Spain,” as the Filipinos only aspired for “education advancement in the country…” however, the friars dreaded that their authority would soon come to an end hence these friars along with the other Spanish residents in the country resorted to an overblown version of what was an uprising among the soldiers in Cavite.

  • Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, “Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Bookstore, 1990), 274-280.

Based on this account, the episode was a mere mutiny by Filipino soldiers and workers of the Cavite arsenal instigated by their dissatisfaction with Izquierdo’s abolition of privileges and prohibition of the establishment of the school of arts and trades for Filipinos which Izquierdo believed a cover up to the creation of a political organization.

Tavera suggested that, seeking to address other issues, Izquierdo and the Spanish friars who were about to lose their influence in the affairs of civil government and university management, exploited the Cavite Mutiny by blowing it out of proportion than what it truly was – an isolated attempt at mutiny by some soldiers and workers in Cavite. The mutiny afforded these friars a justification to carry on with their affairs in the country.

Nevertheless, the Central Spanish Government issued an educational decree merging sectarian schools overseen by friars with the Philippine Institute. This was aimed at improving the Philippine education standard by demanding to fill these schools’ teaching positions with competitive examinations.

Excerpts from Plauchut’s Account

The junta of six Spanish officials and some friars created by General La Torre and the committee created by the government in Madrid reached the same conclusions for necessary reforms:

  1. Amendments in both tariff rates and its method of collection at customs;
  2. Eradication of foreign importation surcharges;
  3. Export fees cutback;
  4. Approval for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, purchase real estate, take pleasure in the freedom of worship, and run “commercial transports flying the Spanish flag;”
  5. Formation of an advisory council to notify the Minister of Overseas Affairs in Madrid on the implementation of necessary reforms;
  6. Primary and secondary education modification: and
  7. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly [among others].

…these visions for reforms, however, were abruptly extinguished with the arrival of General Izquierdo in Manila. Bitter disputes between the native clergy and the friars resulted into the series of prosecutions carried out by the newly installed Governor-General.

Additionally, despite the decree of the Society of Arts and Trades opening in March of 1871 in Manila, General Izquierdo opted for its suspension to inhibit the progress of liberal teachings.

Moreover, although Filipinos were obliged to pay taxes annually and to render services on public road constructions, workers at the Cavite arsenal and in the engineering shops and artillery were exempted from such obligations. In spite of this, General Izquierdo decreed, without admonition, the abolition of such privileges thereby declassifying old employees into ranks of public road workers.

Intending to cement their dominance which started to show some cracks manifested in the Filipinos’ discontent, the friars used and showcased the mutiny as part of a larger conspiracy by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish government in the country. Inadvertently, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny led to the martyrdom of GOMBURZA and paved the way for the Philippine Revolution.

  • Edmund Plauchut, “The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Bookstore, 1990), 274-280.

Immortalizing their martyrdom, GOMBURZA is the collective name of Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora who were identified as the instigators of the Cavite Mutiny. They were renowned Filipino priests accused of treason and sedition for they were believed to have been connected by the friars to the mutiny with the intention of stifling the secularization movement by native priests who aspired for their own parishes instead of being mere assistants to the friars. The GOMBURZA’s public execution by garrotte was professedly witnessed by a ten-year old Jose Rizal who eventually dedicated his second novel, El Filibusterismo to the memory of the priests whose martyrdom led to the emergence of Philippine nationalism in 19th century:

            “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 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.”

Was There a Retraction?

The bulk of Rizal’s lifework, principally his two influential novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo were meant to end the injustices that the friars perpetrated and to liberate the minds of the Filipinos thereby contributing in the creation of a Filipino nation.

It is therefore reasonable that any piece of writing from Rizal himself, recanting what he penned, may as several claim, damage his image as a renowned Filipino revolutionary. Such document, referred to as The Retraction, supposedly exists and allegedly signed by Rizal only hours before his execution, proclaims Rizal’s conviction in the Catholic faith and recants what he wrote against the Church

Rizal’s Retraction

I declare myself a catholic and in this religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die.

I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications, and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal

  • Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia C.M. on 18 May 1935

The Balaguer Testimony

Jesuit priest, Fr. Vicente Balaguer testified that Rizal woke numerous times, confessed four times, attended a Mass, received communion, and prayed the rosary – all of which, some argue, were out of character. Nevertheless, despite its being deemed as the only eyewitness account to the writing of the retraction thus instigating scepticisms about such document, Balaguer’s testimony has been utilized to contend with the authenticity of the retraction document.

The Cuerpo de Vigilancia Testimony

Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Foort Santiago to report on the events during the [eligible] 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, Señior 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, Señior 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.

Señior Andrade left the death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, reharding 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, Señior del Fresno and thizal and the woman who had been his lover were performed at the point of death. After embracing him, she left, flooded with tears.

  • Michael Charleston Chua, “Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at Pananaw,” GMA News Online, 20 December 2016

This account, which surfaced in 2016, substantiates the existence of the retraction document thereby according it credence. Nonetheless, nowhere in this account was Fr. Vicente Balaguer cited suggesting thus that his testimony was anything but an eyewitness account.

Although Rizal’s retraction remains to this day, a controversy, numerous scholars concur that such document does not blemish Rizal’s heroism and that his significance continued and pushed Filipinos to carry on with the revolution resulting into the country’s 1898 independence.

The Cry of Rebellion

Journalists of the late 19th century referred to the phrase, “El Grito de Rebellion” or “Cry of Rebellion” to name the momentous events leading up to the revolutionary events in the Spanish colonies.

In the Philippines, various accounts of this Cry provide different dates and places. Lt. Olegario Diaz, a guardia civil, for instance, identified the Cry to have transpired on the 25th of August 1896 in Balintawak. The Filipino historian, Teodoro Kalaw indicates on the last week of August 1896 at Kangkong, Balintawak; whereas the katipunero, Santiago Alvarez, son of Mariano Alvarez, a Magdiwang Faction leader in Cavite, documented the cry on the 24th of August 1896 in Bahay Toro in Quezon City. The same event was stated to have occurred on the 23rd of August 1896 in Pugad Lawin  by Pio Valenzuela, a known katipunero and historian Teodoro Agoncillo, but for the historian Gregorio Zaide, the Cry took place on the 26th of August 1896 in Balintawak. Inquiries by historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramos Villegas argued that the event transpired in the barn of Tandang Sora in Gulod, Barangay Banlat in Quezon City on August 24, 1896.

Guillermo Masangkay’s Account of the Cry

“On August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio Samson, then cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remegio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong were also present.

At about nine o’clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting was opened with Andres Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Brissio 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, The Spaniards will only shoot us. Our organization has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don’t start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you say?”

“Revolt!” the people shouted as one.

Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told them the the sign f slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax charged each citizen. “If it is true that you are readyto 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.”

  • Guillermo Masangkay, “Cry of Balintawak,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: National Bookstore, 1990), 307-309.

Pio Valenzuela’s Account 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 exchanged and no resolution was debated or adopted. It was at Pugad Lawin, the house, store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino , where over 1000 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!”

  • 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.

Based on the eyewitness accounts, historical witnesses were indeed in disagreement about the place and time of the Cry’s occurrence. Four places: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lain, and Bahay Toro as well as four dates: 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 26th of August 1896 have been identified by both primary and secondary sources.

These discrepancies should be considered as caution when dealing with historical sources – even the primary ones. [The FIRST BEST TWO ANSWERS to the following question sent thru our GC would get exemptions from this module’s activity: What could’ve brought about these diverse historical interpretations which compel us to deal with these controversies? Refrain from reacting on your classmates’ answers for exemptions will be made apparent by a heart emoticon from me.] Pio Valenzuela’s account for instance should be read with care given the fact that he told a Spanish investigator that the Cry took place on the 26th of August 1896 in Balintawak, but later on, in his Memoirs of the Revolution, wrote that it happened in Pugad Lawin on the 23rd of August 1896.

PRACTICE

Click the following links to read articles that reveal the fifth controversy. With a partner, discuss what makes it controversial.

https://www.filipinoamericanwar.com/balangigamassacre1901.htm

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/184801/summary

https://news.abs-cbn.com/ancx/culture/spotlight/11/16/18/the-real-balangiga-massacre

References

Candelaria, J.L.P. & Alporha, V.C. (2018). Readings in Philippine history (First Edition). Quezon City: Rex Bookstore, Inc.

Bernad, M.A. (1981). “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Re-examination of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.

Chua, M.C. (2016). “Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at Pananaw,” in GMA News Online, Retrieved from https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/artandculture/594027/retraction-ni-jose-rizal-mga-bagong-dokumento-at-pananaw/story/.

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

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

Zaide, G. & Zaide, S. (1990). Documentary Sources of Philippine History, 12 Volumes, Manila: National Bookstore.

Photo Source: https://www.statepress.com/article/2019/03/spopinion-policies-and-controversies-are-at-the-forefront-of-this-weeks-must-read-columns

Leave a comment