Republic of the Philippines

NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY

Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021

College of Arts and Sciences

Bayombong Campus

DEGREE PROGRAM General COURSE NO. GE HIST

Education
SPECIALIZATION COURSE TITLE READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

YEAR LEVEL All levels TIME FRAME 6 hrs. WK NO. 10-11

IM 4
NO.

I. UNIT TITLE/CHAPTER TITLE

Chapter 4: Contrasting Perspectives in Philippine History

II. LESSON TITLE

A. Site of the First Mass
B. Cavite Mutiny
C. Retraction of Rizal
D. Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin

III. LESSON OVERVIEW

This chapter comprises events in Philippine History wherein there are controversies and conflicting views
coming from different authors. Students should learn to analyze texts from various perspectives considering
historical sources especially primary sources. The first lesson is a case study of the place of the first Catholic
mass in the country followed by the different accounts on the investigation of the Cavite Mutiny. The next
controversies are about the retraction letter of Dr. Jose P. Rizal and the place where the first cry of revolution was
held.

IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES

Given different classroom and other practical conditions, the students must be able to:

1. to interpret historical events using primary sources;

2. to recognize the multiplicity of interpretation that can be read from a historical context;
3. to identify the advantages and disadvantages in employing critical tools in interpreting historical events
through primary sources; and
4. to demonstrate the ability to argue for or against a particular issue using primary sources

V. LESSON CONTENT

REFRESH!: Use the letters of the word CRITICAL THINKER to describe a person who thinks critically.

C T
R H
I I
T N
I K
C E
A R
L

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 1 of

24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this
material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
 Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021

ACQUIRE NEW KNOWLEDGE:

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 it as a historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence and
interpretation in reading historical events.

Decades after the debate on where the Catholic mass in the Philippines took place has remained unsolved,
local Butuan historians asked the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to resolve the first
mass controversy in the city’s favor (Macarinas, 2012). Local historians in Butuan believed that the first site
of the Catholic mass took place in Mazawa, a place in Butuan now called Masao, not in Limasawa Island in
Leyte as stated in history books. Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. In fact, this has
been the case for three centuries, culminating in the erection of a monument in 1872 near Agusan River,
which commemorates the expedition’s arrival and celebration of Mass on April 8, 1521. The Butuan claim
has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event.

Local historians and president of the Butuan City Heritage Society (BCHS) Greg Hontiveros said that the
“honor” belongs to the City of Butuan and not in Leyte. He also requested the CBCP to investigate the first
mass controversy since the event is very symbolic and important to the church.

Here is the detailed historical presentation of the BCHS account of the ceremony:

On March 31, 1521, Easter Sunday, Friar Pedro Valderrama celebrated mass together with Portugese
explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his men. With the Spaniards were the ruler of Mazawa, Rajah Siaias and
his brother Rajah Colambu, the ruler of Butuan. Afterwards, they planted a cross in the highest hill and
stayed in the area for seven days together with more than a hundred of the Rajah’s men.

Father Joesilo Conalla, curator of Butuan Diocesan Liturgical Museum likewise believed that the site of the
first mass was in Butuan, not in Limasawa because the people who attended the mass harvested rice for
two days, meaning that the place was a huge agricultural area. Limasawa island was not an agricultural
area, therefore there is nothing to harvest there, Amalla further stated.

He also pointed out that one important evidence is the Yale Codex, which according to Magellan’s history
scholars, is more impressive than the Ambrosiana Codex used in the past to justify both claims. He further
stated that the document (referring to the Yale Codex) is now kept at Yale University while the other two
French manuscripts are in the French National Library. Another proof, according to Fr. Amalla are the
versions of Antonio Pigafetta, Magellan’s voyage chronicler, because there are subtle indicators that can be
used.

However, on March 31, 1998, the National Historical Institute chose to adopt the finding in the Gancayco
Panel which dismissed the Ginés de Mafra account as fake and forthwith unilaterally reverted the
discussion to pre-de Mafra context which was back to whether the site of the first mass was Limasawa, the
isle without anchorage, or Butuan, which is not an islet.

Another evidence to prove that the first Catholic site was held somewhere in Butuan and not in Limasawa
Island was the historical account of Joelito Monzon Ramirez Jr., a local historian and writer.

(1) There was no island named Limasawa in 1521. On that event, Pigafetta recorded today’s Limasawa as
Gatighan Island, between Bohol and Panaon south of Leyte. Magellan never landed in Gatighan. The name
Limasawa appeared only in 1667, Historia de Mindanao, by Combes. Pigafette saw these islands on their
way out from Mazaua after their departure on April 4, after the first mass was celebrated on March 31. (2)
They went to Mazaua from Suluan by sailing, as recorded, downwards – west. From Suluan, Limasawa can
be reached by sailing northwest – but that is not their course. They sailed downwards – west. (3) Upon their
departure, they sailed northwards for Cebu. Had they been in Limasawa, that direction would have landed
them in Ormoc of Leyte.

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 2 of

24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this
material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
 Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021

Toward the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20 th century, together with the increasing scholarship
on the history of the Philippines, a more nuanced reading of the available evidence was made, which
brought to light more considerations in going against the more accepted interpretation of the first Mass in
the Philippines, made both by Spanish and Filipino scholars.

It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that historians refer to in identifying the site of the
first Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot of one of Magellan’s ship, Trinidad. He was one of
the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano on the ship Victoria after they circumnavigated the
world. The other, and the more complete, was the account by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno al
mondo (First Voyage Around the World). Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the Magellan expedition and
an eyewitness of the events, particularly, of the first Mass.

Primary Source 1: Albo’s Log

Source: “Diario ó derotero del viage de Magallanes esde el cabo se S. Agustin en Brazil hasta el regreso a
Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por Frandsco Albo,” Document no. xxii in Colleción de viages y
descrubrimientos que hicieron por mar los Españoles desde fines del siglo XV, Ed. Martin Fernandez de
Navarrete (reprinted Buenos Aires 1945, 5 Vols.) IV, 191-225. As cited in Miguel A. Bernad “Butuan or
Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman:
A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.

1. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course from Ladrones, they saw land towards the
northwest; but owing to many shallow places they did not approach it. They found later that its name is
Yunagan.
2. They went instead that same day southwards to another small island named Suluan, and there they
anchored. There they saw some canoes but these fled at the Spaniards ’approach. This island was at 9
and two-thirds degrees North latitude.
3. Departing from those two islands, they sailed westward to an uninhabited island of “Gada” where they
took in a supply of wood and water. The sea around that island was free from shallows. (Albo does not
give the latitude of this island, but from Pigafetta’s testimony, this seems to be the “Acquada” or
Homonhom, at 10 degrees North latitude.)
4. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island named Seilani that was inhabited and was
known to have gold. (Seilani – or, as Pigafetta calls it, “ Ceylon” – was the island of Leyte.)
5. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest to a small island
called “Mazava”. That island is also at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North.
6. The people of that island Mazava were very good. There the Spaniards planted a cross upon a mountain-
top, and from there they were shown three islands to the west and southwest, where they were told there
was much gold. “They showed us how the gold was gathered, which came in small pieces like peas and
lentils.”
7. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seilani. They followed the coast of Seilani in a
northwesterly direction, ascending up to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw three small islands.
8. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, and there they saw three islets, where they dropped
anchor for the night. In the morning they sailed southwest some 12 leagues, down to a latitude of 10 and
one-third degree. There they entered a channel between two islands, one of which was called “Matan”
and the other “Subu.”
9. They sailed down that channel and then turned westward and anchored at the town (la villa) of Subu
where they stayed many days and obtained provisions and entered into a peace-pact with the local king.
10. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the islands of Suluan and Mazava. But between
Mazava and Subu, there were so many shallows that the boats could not go westward directly but has to
go (as they did) in a round-about way.

It must be noted that in Albo’s account, the location of Mazava fits the location of the island of Limasawa, at
the southern tip of Leyte, 9°54’N. Also, Albo does not mention the first Mass, but only the planting of the
cross upon a mountain-top from which could be seen three islands to the west and southwest, which also
fits the southern end of Limasawa.

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 3 of

24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this
material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
 Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021

Primary Source 2: Pigafetta’s Testimony on the Route of Magellan’s Expedition

Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited
in Miguel A. Bernad, “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.

1. Saturday, 16 March 1521 – Magellan’s expedition sighted a “high land” named “Zamal” which was some
300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now the Marianas) Islands.
2. Sunday, March 17 – “The following day” after sighting Zamal Island, they landed on “another island which
was uninhabited” and which lay “to the right” of the above-mentioned island of “Zamal.” (To the “right”
here would mean on their starboard going south or southwest.) There they set up two tents for the sick
members of the crew and had a sow killed for them. The name of this island was “Humunu” (Homonhon).
This island was located at 10 degrees North latitude.
3. On that same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the entire archipelago the “Islands of Saint
Lazarus,” the reason being that it was Sunday in the Lenten season when the Gospel assigned for the
Mass and the liturgical Office was the eleventh chapter of St. John, which tells of the raising of Lazarus
from the dead.
4. Monday, March 18 – In the afternoon of their second day on that island, they saw a boat coming towards
them with nine men in it. An exchange of gifts was effected. Magellan asked for food supplies, and the
men went away, promising to bring rice and other supplies in “four days.”
5. There were two springs of water on that island of Homonhon. Also they saw there some indications that
there was gold in these islands. Consequently, Magellan named the island and called it the “Watering
Place of Good Omen” (Acquada la di bouni segnialli).
6. Friday, March 22 – At noon, the natives returned. This time they were in two boats, and they brought food
supplies.
7. Magellan’s expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday, March 17, to the Monday of the
following week, March 25.
8. Monday, March 25 – In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor and left the island of Homonhon. In
the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (March 25) was the feast-day of the Incarnation, also called
the feast of the Annunciation and therefore “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.
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 Pigafetta in his map calls “Ceilon” and Albo calls “Seilani”: namely the
island of Leyte. “Hiunanghan” (a misspelling of Hinunangan) seemed to Pigafetta to be a separate island,
but is actually on the mainland of Leyte (i.e., “Ceylon”). On the other hand, Hibuson (Pigafetta’s Ibusson)
is an island east of Leyte’s southern tip. Thus, it is easy to see what Pigafetta meant by sailing “toward
the west southwest” past those islands. They left Homonhon sailing westward towards Leyte, then
followed the Leyte coast southward, passing between the island of Hibuson on their portside and
Hiunangan Bay on their starboard, and then continued southward, then turning westward to “Mazaua.”
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.
12. Thursday, April 4 – They left Mazaua, bound for Cebu. They were guided thither by the king of Mazaua
who sailed in his own boat. Their route took them past five “islands” namely: “Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan,
Baibai, and Gatighan.”
13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes Group, namely, Poro, Pasihan and
Ponson. Here the Spanish ships stopped to allow the king of Mazaua to catch up with them, since the
Spanish ships were much faster than the native balanghai – a thing that excited the admiration of the king
of Mazaua.
14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards “Zubu.”
15. Sunday, April 7 – At noon they entered the harbor of “Zubu” (Cebu). It had taken them three days to
negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards to the Camotes Islands and then southwards to Cebu.

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 4 of

24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this
material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
 Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021

It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta’s testimonies coincide and corroborate each other.
Pigafetta gave more details on what they did during their weeklong stay at Mazaua.

Primary Source 3: 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 Re-examination 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, bu 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 weighed anchor and came closer to shore, anchoring near the
native king’s village. This Thursday, March 28, was Thursday in Holy Week, i.e., Holy Thursday.
2. Friday, March 29 – “Next day. Holy Friday.” Magellan sent his slave interpreter ashore in a small boat to
ask the king if he could provide the expedition with food supplies, and to say that they had come as
friends and not as enemies. In reply the king himself came in a boat with six or eight men, and this time
went up Magellan’s ship and the two men embraced. Another exchange of gifts was made. The native
king and his companions returned ashore, bringing with them two members of Magellan’s expedition as
guests for the night. One of the two was Pigafetta.
3. Saturday, March 30 – Pigafetta and his companion had spent the previous evening feasting and drinking
with the native king and his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was Good Friday, they had to
eat meat. The following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his companion took leave of their hosts and
returned to the ships.
4. Sunday, March 31 – “Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day,” Magellan sent
the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the morning Magellan landed with
some fifty men and Mass was celebrated, after which a cross was venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards
returned to the ship for the noon-day meal, but in the afternoon, they returned ashore to plant the cross
on the summit of the highest hill. In attendance both at the4 Mass and at the planting of the cross were
the king of Mazaua and the king of Butuan.
5. Sunday, March 31 – On that same afternoon, while on the summit of the highest hill, Magellan asked the
two kings which ports he should go to in order to obtain more abundant supplies of food than were
available in that island. They replied that there were three ports to choose from: Ceylon, Zubu and
Calagan. Of the three, Zubu was the port with the most trade. Magellan then said that he wished to go to
Zubu and to depart the following morning. He asked for someone to guide him thither. The kings replied
that the pilots would be available “any time.” But later that evening the king of Mazaua changed his mind
and said that he would himself conduct Magellan to Zubu but that he would first have to bring the harvest
in. He asked Magellan to send him men to help with the harvest.
6. Monday, April 1 – Magellan sent men ashore to help with the harvest, but no work was dfone that day
because the two kings were sleeping off their drinking bout the night before.
7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday, April 3 – Work on the harvest during the “next to days,” i.e., Tuesday
and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April.
8. Thursday, April 4 – They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.

Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad in his work Butuan or Limasawa: The
Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Re-examination of Evidence (1891) lays down the argument that
in the Pigafetta account, a crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned – the river. Butuan is a riverine
settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach of Masao is in the delta of said river. It is a curious
omission in the account of the river, which makes part of a distinct characteristics of Butuan’s geography
that seemed to be too important to be missed.

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.

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 5 of

24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this
material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
 Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021
CASE STUDY 2:
WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CAVITE MUTINY?

Cavite Mutiny happened on the night of January 20, 1872 which is a brief uprising or revolt of 200 Filipino
troops and workers led by Sgt. La Madrid in Cavite. Almost a month after investigations was conducted,
three priests was said to be the mastermind of the said event. They were executed through a garrote at
Bagumbayan Field (now Rizal Park) on February 30, 1872. They are known as the three martyr or
GOMBURZA namely Mariano Gomez, 85 years old, Jose Burgos, 30 years old and Jacinto Zamora, 35
years old. Jose P. Rizal dedicated his novel, El Filibusterismo, in memory of the three martyred priests, a
scene Rizal purportedly witness when he was young. Those two are major events in Philippine history that
is an important factor to awaken nationalism among the Filipinos.

There are different sides of the story wherein investigations coming from different sources. The Spanish
version by Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian and the Filipino version by Dr. Trinidad Pardo
de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher. Sources are both based form Chris Antonette Piedad- Pugay,
a history writer. Included here is another version. a primary source, which is an excerpt by Edmund
Plauchut, a French writer.

Spanish Perspective of 1872 Cavite Mutiny

Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it as an attempt of
the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael
Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate the native clergy, which was
then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts complimented and corroborated with one other,
only that the general’s report was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the
abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and
exemption from force labor were the main reasons of the “revolution” as how they called it, however, other
causes were enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne,
dirty propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and
pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who out of
animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and enemies of Spain. In
particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious propagandas grasped by
the Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish
government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The general even added that
the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail
because God is with them coupled with handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and
ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate
propensity for stealing.

The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought of it as a big
conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers, residents of Manila and
Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to
liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be followed by the massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-
concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of
Intramuros.

According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of
the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated the occasion with the usual fireworks
displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like what was
agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish
officers at sight and seized the arsenal.

When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish
forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the expected reinforcement
from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish,
while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and were sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 6

of 24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this
material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
 Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021
like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos were
suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the practice of law, arrested and were sentenced with life
imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of
artillery and ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill fear among the
Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the GOMBURZA were executed. This event
was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that shaped Filipino nationalism.

Filipino Perspective of the Incident

Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the Filipino version of
the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident was a mere mutiny by the native Filipino
soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be dissatisfied with the abolition of their
privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo’s cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of
privileges of the workers and native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of
school of arts and trades for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization of a
political club.

On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers 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 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 believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful lever by
magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also included residents of
Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central Government in Madrid announced its intention
to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and
management of educational institutions. This turnout of events was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars
to do something drastic in their dire sedire to maintain power in the Philippines.

Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain welcomed an educational
decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of sectarian schools run by the friars into a
school called Philippine Institute. The decree proposed to improve the standard of education in the
Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This
improvement was warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.

The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took advantage of the
incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy organized throughout the
archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid
government came to believe that the scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the real facts or
extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by Izquierdo and the friars.

Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment while members
of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by garrote. This episode leads to
the awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French
writer Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened
due to discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The Frenchman, however, dwelt
more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he actually witnessed.

Edmund Plauchut’s, “The Cavite Munity of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za”

General La Torre created a junta composed of high officials including some friars and six Spanish officials. At
the same time there was created by the government in Madrid a committee to investigate the same
problems submitted to the Manila committee. When the two finished work, it was found that they came to
the same conclusions.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 7
of 24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this
material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
 Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021
Here is the summary of the reforms they considered necessary to introduced:
1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection
2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
3. Reduction of export fees.
4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy freedom of worship, and
operate commercial transforms flying the Spanish flag.
5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in Madrid in 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 official’s every time there is a change of ministry.
8. Study of direct-tax system.
9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly

Unraveling the Truth

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

The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and unnamed shed their
bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898 may be a glorious event for us, but we
should not forget that before we came across to victory, our forefathers suffered enough. As we enjoy our
freeedom, may we be more historically aware of our past to have a better future ahead of us. And just like
what Elias said in Noli me Tangere, may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”

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 Philippine society.

It is understandable, therefore, that any piece of writing from Rizal that recants everything he wrote against
the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines could deal heavy damage to his image as a prominent
Filipino revolutionary. Such document purportedly exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a few hours before his
execution. This document, referred to as “The Retraction,” declares Rizal’s belief in the Catholic faith, and
retracts everything he wrote against the church.

Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935. From this time on, the
letter’s content has become a favorite subject of dispute among history writers, history professors, and
academicians. The retraction letter dated December 29, 1896 was said to have been signed by Rizal
himself.

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 8

of 24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this
material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
 Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021
Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction

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

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

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

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal

There are four iterations of the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La Voz Española and Diaro
de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain,
in the magazine La Juventad, a few months after the execution, 14 February 1897, from an anonymous
writer who was later on revealed to be Fr. Vicente Balaguer. However, the “original” text was only found in
the archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935, after almost four decades of disappearance.

Prelude to Rizal’s Signing of the Retraction Document

Some authors of history books dealing with Life, Works, and Writings of Jose Rizal stated that the first
draft of the retraction letter was sent by Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the
night before his execution. Fort Santiago was the place where Rizal was imprisoned and where Rizal wrote
his 14-stanza poem “Mi Ultimo Adios.” But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was lengthy
and did not like the wordings.

According to a testimony of Fr. Vicente Balaguer who became Rizal’s friend in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a
short retraction document prepared by Fr. Pio Pi, the head of the Jesuit Society of the Philippines.
However, Rizal wrote his own retraction after making some modification in the shorter retraction letter
shown to him. In his own retraction letter, he disavowed masonry and religious thoughts that opposed
Catholic belief.

Concluding Statement on Rizal’s Controversial Retraction

Whether Rizal signed a retraction or not, Rizal is still Rizal. It did not diminish his stature as a great patriot,
the hero who courted death “to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty
and our beliefs.” (Jose Diokno’s statement).

Rizal’s retraction or not did not change the fact that his works and writings began the “wheels of change” in
the Philippine colonial society – a change that led to the Philippine independence. The retraction is just one
aspect of the life, works, and writings of Jose Rizal. (Jose Victor Torres).

Torres noted that the controversy in Rizal’s retraction is irrelevant today. The way Rizal is taught today, the
retraction means nothing at all, Torres added.

CASE STUDY 4:
WHERE DID THE FIRST CRY OF REVOLUTION HAPPEN?

Interpreting history requires incorporating source materials that reflect different views of an event in history.
This historical even happened during the struggle for Philippine independence. Andres Bonifacio and his
Katipunan comrades tore their cedulas which is said to be the starting signal of the revolution in our
country.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 9
of 24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this
material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
 Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021

Sample copy of cedula

The following accounts are derived from different witnesses when the first cry of revolution happened.
Take note that we have to correct history as we analyze what really transpired, in what place according
to different witnesses and author.

a) Lt. Olegario Diaz: officer of the Spanish Guardia

b) Civil, took place in Balintawak on August 25, 1896
c) Teodoro Kalaw (Filipino historian): in his 1925 book The Filipino Revolution, took place
during the last week of August 1896 at Kangkong, Balintawak.
d) Santiago Alvarez: son of Mariano Alvarez, the leader of the Magdiwang in Cavite stated in
1927 that it took place in Bahay Toro now in Quezon City on August 24, 1896.
e) Teodoro Agoncillo: historian, took place in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896, echoing Pio
Valenzuela's statement
f) Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion and Ramon Villegas (historians): taken place in
Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City
g) Dr. Pio Valenzuela

 At September 1896, stated that Katipunan meetings took place from Sunday to Tuesday
or August 23 to 25 at Balintawak

 At 1911, states that Katipunan began meeting on August 22 while the "Cry" took place on
August 23 at Apolonio Samson's house in Balintawak

 Stated that "hindi sa Balintawak nangyari ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na

kinalalagian ngayon ng bantayog, kung di sa pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugadlawin."

 Valenzuela memoirs (1964, 1978) states that the Cry took place on 23 August at the
house of Juan Ramos at Pugad Lawin. The NHI influenced by Valenzuela’s memoirs, in
1963, upon the NHI endorsement, President Diosdado Macapagal ordered that the Cry
be celebrated on 23 August and that Pugad Lawin be recognized as its site.

h) John N. Schumacher, S.J, of the Ateneo de Manila University

“I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio Valezuela, and to
the interpretations Agoncillo got from him verbally, since Valenzuela 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.”

The story is that on August 23, 1896, in Pugad Lawin, at the backyard house of Juan Ramos (son of
Melchora Aquino aka “Tandang Sora”), the Katipunans listened to the speech of Andres Bonifacio, tore
their cedula and vowed to fight against Spaniards.

A marker at present is found along the Seminary Road, in barangay Bahay Toro of Quezon City.
NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 10
of 24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this
material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
 Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021

VI. LEARNING ACTIVITIES

A. ANALYSIS

Member 1: ____________________________________________
Member 2: ____________________________________________
Member 3: ____________________________________________
Member 4: ____________________________________________
Member 5: ____________________________________________

Section: ______________________________________________ Score: _________

Date: ________________________________________________

Open the link [Link] and read the pamphlet of Fr. Jose
Rodriguez titled “Caingat Cayo” (Beware).

Marcelo H. del Pilar wrote a pamphlet to respond to Fr. Rodriguez’s work. It was titled as “Kaiigat Kayo.”

"Kaiigat Kayo" (Be slippery as an eel)

Marcelo H. Del Pilar
(summary)

Masdan ninyo ang kaawa-awang Tagalog na pinupuri ng marami sa inyo na parang walang
katumbas sa karunungan at lalong katampatang sabihin siya ay kauna-unahang Tagalog na kusang gumamit ng
kanyang kamay sa pagsulat ng katakot-takot na katampalasan sa Diyos

Mga katagang sinabi ni Padre Rodriguez, mabuting kilalanin din natin iyang ipinamamansag
hangal na si Dr. Jose Rizal. Labing-apat na taon nakasulat ng isang dula na labis ang tinanggap na papuri sa
mga manonood. Anak ng Calamba , probinsya ng silangan at buhat
ginoo’t mababait na magulang, banayad ang asal at magalang mangusap. Nakakuha ng maraming parangal sa
kanyang pagaaral ngunit may sari-saring dalamhati ang kanyang tinanggap sa pag-aaral sa Pilipinas, kaya
nagtungo sa Espanya at nagpakadalubhasa sa kanyang pag-aaral.

Sa isinulat niyang nobela na “Noli Me Tangere” ipinahayag niya ang kanser sa bansa, ang maling pamamalakad
ng mga prayle sa simbahan at labis na pagkaganid at pag-aalipusta sa mga Pilipino na taliwas sa utos ng Diyos.
Sa paghakot ng mga prayle sa ating pinaghirapan kaya nga’t isa si Hesus sa idinaraing niya sa kanyang kathang
“Noli Me Tangere”

Sumingaw ang baho ng mga prayle at hindi katakatakang sumabog ang poot ni Padre Rodriguez. Kaya mga
kapatid ko, ma isusukal ka man sa loob ng librito ni Padre Rodriguez ng alintanahahin mo na sana at tularan
nating yaong naglalakad sa kinasangangang may mahalagang tinutungo na kahit tahulan man ng mga aso ay
tuloy pa rin ang paglakad na di pinapansin ang ingay ng tahulan.

Answer the following questions:

1. What was the purpose of Fr. Rodriguez in writing the pamphlet?

__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
2. What was the purpose of Marcelo del Pilar in responding to Fr. Rodriguez?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 11

of 24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this
material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
 Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

3. List three factors that influenced the differing opinions of the two authors. Explain each factor.
a.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
____

b.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
____

c.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_____

4. Why is it important to consider different perspectives when studying a period of time in history? Explain in at
least 5 sentences.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________

B. DEBATE ESSAY

Name: ____________________________________________ Score: ______________

Section: _________________ Date: _______________

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 12

of 24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this
material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.
 Republic of the Philippines
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
INSTRUCTIONAL MODULE
IM No.: IM-GEHIST-2ndSEM-2020-2021
Write an essay of at least 500 words from the perspective of either Andres Bonifacio or Emilio Aguinaldo. The
letter should defend their actions regarding the following events:
1. Tejeros Convention
2. Arrest and Execution of Bonifacio

For example, if you were writing on behalf of Bonifacio, defend “your” decision to declare the entire Tejeros
Convention null and void. Also, defend “your” decisions and actions leading to “your” arrest and ultimately,
execution.

Perspective: _________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
______

NVSU-FR-ICD-05-00 (081220) Page 13

of 24
“In accordance with Section 185. Fair Use of a Copyrighted Work of Republic Act 8293, the copyrighted works included in this
material may be reproduced for educational purposes only and not for commercial distribution.