CHAPTER 3:

ONE PAST BUT MANY

HISTORIES: CONTROVERSIES
AND CONFLICTING VIEWS IN
THE PHILIPPINE HISTORY
Learning Outcomes
At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:

a. Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor

or against a particular issue using primary sources.

b. Develop critical thinking skills in analyzing the various

controversies and conflicting views in Philippine History.

c. Acquire an understanding of past events to better

understand the matters that affect its antiquity, the present,
and the future.
What’s there to talk about?
This chapter presents some of the controversial
events in the history of the Philippines. Each lesson will
present the primary sources of these disputed accounts
and discuss the main issues and arguments. The student’s
task is to decide which argument to side with by analyzing
the primary sources available.
1. SITE OF THE FIRST MASS
 SITE OF THE FIRST MASS
One of the most controversial topics in Philippine history is the site
of the first Catholic Mass, which happened on March 31, 1521
(Easter Sunday). Today, debates on the matter are being opened as
the Philippines celebrates the 500th year of Christianity, and this
time it is not just Masao, Butuan, and Limasawa Island in Leyte, but
including other places in Butuan such as Baug Island, Suatan, and
Bood Promontory.

In this lesson, we will continue reading the accounts of Antonio

Pigafetta which is considered as a complete record of the journey of
Magellan.
 SITE OF THE FIRST MASS
Primary Source:

The First Voyage Round the World, translated from the accounts
of Antonio Pigafetta accompanied by original documents, with
notes and an introduction by Lord Stanley of Alderley.
 SITE OF THE FIRST MASS
In the island belonging to the king who came to the ship there are
mines of gold, which they find in pieces as big as a walnut or an egg, by
seeking in the ground. All the vessels which he makes use of are made of
it, and also some parts of his house, which was well fitted up according to
the custom of the country, and he was the handsomest man that we saw
among these nations. He had very black hair coming down to his shoulders,
with a silk cloth on his head, and two large gold rings hanging from his ears,
he had a cloth of cotton worked with silk, which covered him from the waist
to the knees, at his side he wore a dagger, with a long handle which was all
of gold, its sheath was of carved wood. Besides he carried upon him scents
of storax and benzoin. He was tawny and painted all over. The island of this
king is named Zuluan and Calagan, and when these two kings wish to
visit one another they come to hunt in this island where we were. Of
these kings the painted king is called Raia Calambu, and the other Raia
Siani.
1
 SITE OF THE FIRST MASS

On Sunday, the last day of March, and feast of Easter, the captain sent the chaplain ashore early
to say mass, and the interpreter went with him to tell the king that they were not coming on
shore to dine with him, but only to hear the mass. The king hearing that sent two dead pigs.
When it was time for saying mass the captain went ashore with fifty men, not with their arms,
but only with their swords, and dressed as well as each one was able to dress, and before the
boats reached the shore our ships fired six cannon shots as a sign of peace. At our landing the
two kings were there, and received our captain in a friendly manner, and placed him between
them, and then we went to the place prepared for saying mass, which was not far from the
shore. Before the mass began the captain threw a quantity of musk rose water on those two
kings, and when the offertory of the mass came, the two kings went to kiss the cross like us, but
they offered nothing, and at the elevation of the body of our Lord they were kneeling like us,
and adored our Lord with joined hands. The ships fired all their artillery at the elevation of the
body of our Lord.
2
 SITE OF THE FIRST MASS
After mass had been said each one did the duty of a Christian, receiving our Lord. After that
the captain had some sword-play by his people, which gave great pleasure to the kings. Then he
had a cross brought, with the nails and crown, to which the kings made reverence, and the
captain had them told that these things which he showed them were the sign of the emperor his
lord and master, from whom he had charge and commandment to place it in all places where he
might go or pass by. He told them that he wished to place it in their country for their profit,
because if there came afterwards any ships from Spain to those islands, on seeing this cross,
they would know that we had been there, and therefore they would not cause them any
displeasure to their persons nor their goods; and if they took any of their people, on showing
them this sign, they would at once let them go. Besides this, the captain told them that it was
necessary that this cross should be placed on the summit of the highest mountain in their
country, so that seeing it every day they might adore it, and that if they did thus, neither
thunder, lightning, nor the tempest could do them hurt. The kings thanked the captain, and
said they would do it willingly.
3
 SITE OF THE FIRST MASS
Then he asked whether they were Moors or Gentiles, and in what they
believed. They answered that they did not perform any other adoration, but
only joined their hands, looking up to heaven, and that they called their
God, Aba. Hearing this, the captain was very joyful, on seeing that, the first
king raised his hands to the sky and said that he wished it were possible for
him to be able to show the affection which he felt towards him. The
interpreter asked him for what reason there was so little to eat in th at place,
to which the king replied that he did not reside in that place except when he
came to hunt and to see his brother, but that he lived in another island where
he had all his family. Then the captain asked him if he had any enemies who
made war upon him, and that if he had any he would go and defeat them
with his men and ships, to put them under his obedience. The king thanked
him, and answered that there were two islands the inhabitants of which
were his enemies; however, that for the present it was not the time to attack
them. The captain therefore said to him that if God permitted him to return
another time to this country, he would bring so many men that he would put
them by force under his obedience. Then he bade the interpreter tell them
that he was going away to dine, and after that he would return to place the
cross on the summit of the mountain. The two kings said they were content,
and on that they embraced the captain, and he separated from them. 5
 SITE OF THE FIRST MASS
After dinner we all returned in our dress coats, and we went together
with the two kings to the middle of the highest mountain we could find, and
there the cross was planted. After that the two kings and the captain rested
themselves; and, while conversing, I asked where was the best port for
obtaining victuals. They replied that there were three, that is to say, Ceylon,
Zzubu, and Calaghan, but that Zzubu was the largest and of the most
traffic. Then the kings offered to give him pilots to go to those ports, for
which he thanked them, and deliberated to go there, for his ill-fortune would
have it so. After the cross had been planted on that mountain, each one said
the Paternoster and Ave Maria, and adored it, and the kings did the like.
Then we went down below to where their boats were. There the kings had
brought some of the fruit called cocos and other things to make a collation
and to refresh us. The captain, being desirous to depart the next day in the
morning, asked the king for the pilots to conduct us to the above-mentioned
ports, promising him to treat them like themselves, and that he would leave
one of his own men as a hostage. The first king said that he would go
himself and conduct him to this port, and be his pilots but that he should
wait two days, until he had had his rice gathered in and done other things
which he had to do, begging him to lend him some of his men so as to get
done sooner. This the captain agreed to. 6
 SITE OF THE FIRST MASS
This kind of people are gentle, and go naked, and are painted. They
wear a piece of cloth made from a tree, like a linen cloth, round their body to
cover their natural parts: they are great drinkers. The women are dressed in
tree cloth from their waists downwards; their hair is black, and reaches
down to the ground; they wear certain gold rings in their ears. These people
chew most of their time a fruit which they call areca, which is something of
the shape of a pear; they cut it in four quarters, and after they have chewed
it for a long time they spit it out, from which afterwards they have their
mouths very red. They find themselves the better from the use of this fruit
because it refreshes them much, for this country is very hot, so that they
could not live without it. In this island there is a great quantity of dogs, cats,
pigs, fowls, and goats, rice, ginger, cocos, figs, oranges, lemons, millet, wax,
and gold mines. This island is in nine degrees and two-thirds north latitude,
and one hundred and sixty-two longitude from the line of demarcation: it is
twenty-five leagues distant from the other island where we found the two
fountains of fresh water. This island is named Mazzava. 7
 SITE OF THE FIRST MASS
Main Issue: The questions about where the first mass happened in
the Philippines came from the dichotomy of understanding of
“Mazaua” based on the accounts of Pigafetta. This led to the
Limasawa and Masao, Butuan debate.

1. MASAO, BUTUAN – The claim is based on a tradition that was highly observed from the
17th to 19th century. Historians claim that there has been no mention of Limasawa Island
in the primary sources of this dispute history. Masaua according to them is now Masao.

2. LIMASAWA ISLAND – The accounts of Pigafetta, jointly read with Francisco Albo’s diary
(in a form of a logbook), showed that Magellan’s expedition did not reach Mindanao when
they landed in Homonhon. Instead, they have settled on an island in a latitude like the
position of Limasawa today, south of Leyte. In addition, the disputed location in Masao is
near a river, but in there has been no mention of such a geographical feature in the story
of Pigafetta.
2. RETRACTION OF RIZAL
 RETRACTION OF RIZAL
One of the most controversial documents in Philippine history is the
retraction of Jose Rizal. Two texts have been published on this
matter – the first was on December 30, 1986, in Diaro de Manila and
La Voz Española; the second one was on February 14, 1897, in La
Juventud. Both were said to be written by Fr. Balaguer.

Primary source:
Here’s the alleged original copy found by Fr. Manuel Garcia, CM on
May 18, 1935. Following is the text from Fr. Balaguer in January 1987
and its English translation.
 RETRACTION OF RIZAL
Me declaro catolica y en esta Religion en que naci y me eduque quiero vi- vir y morir.

Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, inpresos y conducta ha habido
contrario a mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia Catolica. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me somento
a cuanto ella manda. Abomino de la Masonaria, como enigma que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad
prohibida por la Iglesia. Puede el Prelado Diocesano, como Autoridad Superior Eclesiastica hacer
publica esta manifastacion espon- tanea mia para reparar el escandalo que mis actos hayan podido
causar y para que Dios y los hombers me perdonen.

Manila 29 de Deciembre de 1896

Jose Rizal
 RETRACTION OF RIZAL
Me declaro catolica y en esta Religion en que naci y me eduque quiero vi- vir y morir. Me retracto de
todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escri- tos, inpresos y conducta ha habido contrario a mi
calidad de hijo de la Iglesia. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me somento a cuanto Ella manda.
Abomino de la Masonaria, como enigma que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la misma
Iglesia.

Puede el Prelado diocesano, como Autoridad superior eclesiastica hacer publica esta manifastacion
espontanea mia, para reparar el escandalo que mis actos hayan podido causar, y para que Dios y los
hombers me perdonen.

Manila, 29 de Diciembre de 1896

Jose Rizal
 RETRACTION OF RIZAL
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
 RETRACTION OF RIZAL
Main issue: Whether or not Jose Rizal retracted in favor of the Catholic
Church.
ARGUMENTS:

1) NO. RIZAL DID NOT RETRACT – A number of historians

question the authenticity of the retraction document citing sever-
al inconsistencies from Rizal’s writing and even ideals. The
following are some of the observed variances from the “original”
document and that of Fr. Balaguer:

Instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the
newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad" (without "u").

The Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias"
which is found in the original and the newspaper texts.
 RETRACTION OF RIZAL
The Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word "misma"
which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.

With regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical reader,
Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences while
the original and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with
the second sentences.

Whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and the manila newspapers have
only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.

The most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the witnesses
from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.
 RETRACTION OF RIZAL
Main issue: Whether or not Jose Rizal retracted in favor of the Catholic
Church.
ARGUMENTS:

1) YES. RIZAL RETRACTED – Rizal was Catholic when he died as a

consequence of his retraction. In fact he was buried in a Catholic
cemetery. The said document was alleged to be signed two years
before his execution. This was done along with his profession of
faith as a requirement to marry Josephine Bracken.

Today, several known historians would believe in the retraction after the presentation of
Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila, also known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents,
which consist of important primary sources of the Philippine revolutions purchased by
the government from Spain in the mid-1990s.
RETRACTION OF RIZAL
RETRACTION OF RIZAL
RETRACTION OF RIZAL
 KEY POINTS that STATED
THAT DOCTOR JOSE RIZAL DID
NOT IN ANY WAY RETRACT
Would Rizal just simply neglect all the writing he conceived with his hard work?
The same writings that brought him to the point of being executed.
NO
KEY POINTS THAT STATED THAT DOCTOR JOSE RIZAL DID NOT IN ANY WAY RETRACT

The "project retraction" of the Spanish friars started from the very first day of
Rizal's exile in Dapitan, which was entrusted particularly by the Jesuit order headed
by Fr. Pablo Pastells, chief of the Jesuits in the Philippines in the 1890s, to Father
Sanchez, head of the Jesuit mission house in Dapitan. The latter was specifically
assigned to convincing Rizal to retract in exchange for his stay in the Jesuit Mission
House and, much later a condition before his marriage to Josephine Bracken in a
formal religious ceremony. Moreover, Father Sanchez who was his favorite teacher
from Ateneo convinced his former student about the allegations about the Catholic
religion and Spanish religion in the Philippines. The priest told him to retract in
exchange for a professorship, a hundred thousand pesos, and an estate (Laubach,
1936) however Rizal rejected the offer and chose to stay with his military guard
during the Dapitan exile, Lt. Luis Taviel de Andrade. Much later, he and Josephine lived
as husband and wife, without the benefit of a church wedding.
KEY POINTS THAT STATED THAT DOCTOR JOSE RIZAL DID NOT IN ANY WAY RETRACT

Why would Rizal retract when he knows for a fact that even if he
signs the retraction paper he would still be executed? ---- (Rizal was
accused of participating in filibusterous propaganda where the
penalty as provided by the Spanish Code is death.) In the Spanish
regime, it was always proclaimed that Indios always retracted before
his execution. In the book of Austin Coates, he stated that “The
Spaniards publish the same thing about everyone who is shot…
Besides, nobody has ever seen this written declaration even though
several people would want to see it…. It is (always) in the hands of
the Archbishop.”
KEY POINTS THAT STATED THAT DOCTOR JOSE RIZAL DID NOT IN ANY WAY RETRACT

Before his execution, Father Balaguer stated that he performed the

canonical marriage between Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken with
the presence of one of Rizal’s sisters ---- 6:00 – 6:15 AM on
December 30, 1896. The three priests (Fr. Jose Vilaclara, Fr.
Estanislao March, and Fr. Vicente Balaguer) were said to be present
at that occurrence but only Father Balaguer was the only one who
could describe the said wedding. So, the question is: where were
the two priests, Father Villaclara and March that time to validate
the marriage happened, or was there even one at all?
Furthermore, it is said that there was no marriage certificate
presented to prove Father Balaguer’s statements.
KEY POINTS THAT STATED THAT DOCTOR JOSE RIZAL DID NOT IN ANY WAY RETRACT
The two priests who accompanied Rizal to the execution site were Father
Estanislao March, S.J., and Fr. Jose Vilaclara, S.J could have ordered a
Christian burial, but they did not hence they must have known that there
was no retraction. After a long search, Narcissa (Rizal’s sister) discovered
where her brother’s body was placed, it was secretly embedded in the old and
unused Paco Cemetery, the name of Jose Rizal was listed among those who
died impenitently. The entry of the book of burials of the interment of Rizal’s
body is not made on the page with those burials in which his dead body was
merely laid there without a coffin or even a sack. Narcissa asked the guards to
place a marble plaque designed by Doroteo Ongjungco containing Rizal’s initials
in reverse— “RPJ.”
KEY POINTS THAT STATED THAT DOCTOR JOSE RIZAL DID NOT IN ANY WAY RETRACT

The church informed Rizal’s family (nine to eleven days after

Jose Rizal’s execution) regarding the retraction letter which the
church would supposedly present to the family and a mass for
the deceased would happen subsequently. However, the mass
never happened and there was no letter of retraction
presented. The family was told that the retraction letter had
been directed to the Archbishop’s palace and they would not
be able to see it.
KEY POINTS THAT STATED THAT DOCTOR JOSE RIZAL DID NOT IN ANY WAY RETRACT

A year later, Josephine Bracken sailed back to her hometown, which

a year later (December 15, 1898), she (the widow of Jose re) married
a Filipino named Vicente Abad. The Roman Catholic Cathedral in
Hongkong dispensed the marriage certificate between Bracken and
Abad where there was no reference that Josephine was a “Rizal”
by marriage, or that she was the widow of Jose Rizal. The legal
register of Hong Kong stated that Josephine used the last name
“Bracken” instead of “Rizal” to be married to Vicente Abad.
KEY POINTS THAT STATED THAT DOCTOR JOSE RIZAL DID NOT IN ANY WAY RETRACT

There was litigation between Josephine Bracken and Jose

Maria Basa regarding the possession of Rizal’s literature
wherein a certification from the British Consulate from Manila
stated that she was Rizal’s widow (that would have provided
her claim) but she did not pursue it. In 1960, an inquiry at the
Cardinal-Bishopric of Manila for evidentiary proof of a Rizal-
Bracken marriage was not fruitful, or possibly, the issue was
simply ignored by the religious.
KEY POINTS THAT STATED THAT DOCTOR JOSE RIZAL DID NOT IN ANY WAY RETRACT

There was an autobiography of Josephine Bracken that was

discovered which claimed her marriage to Jose Rizal was presented
in a matter of falsification where Bracken’s handwriting in the
document was no resemblance to her original one. Also, it was
arranged with evident errors which revealed that the primary
language of the author who wrote the autobiography of Bracken
that was discovered was Spanish thus proving that it was not
Josephine’s, and the document was manufactured and
disingenuous.
KEY POINTS THAT STATED THAT DOCTOR JOSE RIZAL DID NOT IN ANY WAY RETRACT
The retraction letter has originally five copies (the missing one was originally owned by Roman Roque
who was known as the “master forger howbeit, his copy per se was taken from him by the priests.”
• Lo Voz Esanola subsequently Diario de Manila had disputed the letter on the very day of Rizal’s
execution however the first stated newspaper publisher is the only newspaper publishing who had
claimed that they had seen the original copy of the retraction letter The newspaper publishing
reported that “Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own hand-written retraction which
he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…”

• The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine La
Juventud; it came from an anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr.
Balaguer.

• The original copy of the retraction paper that was found 39 years later specifically on May 18, 1935,
was discovered to be in the archdiocesan archives by an archdiocesan archivist named Fr. Manuel
Garcia, C.M. The Archbishop Nozelada permitted Ricardo Pascual Ph.D. to examine the said
document and later concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the documents presented
was a forgery.
KEY POINTS THAT STATED THAT DOCTOR JOSE RIZAL DID NOT IN ANY WAY RETRACT
There are significant differences between the "original", the Manila newspapers texts of the
retraction (La Voz Esanola and Diario de Manila) on the one hand, and the texts of the copies of
Father Balaguer and Father Pio Pi.
1. First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the
newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad" (with "u").
2. Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias"
which is found in the original and the newspaper texts.
3. Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word "misma"
which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.
4. Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical reader,
Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences while the
original and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with the second
sentences.
5. Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the Manila newspapers have
only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.
6. Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the witnesses
from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.
3. CAVITE MUTINY
 CAVITE MUTINY
You have learned from the previous chapter that primary sources
are written from the perspectives of their respective authors. Hence,
accounts of a specific event may differ and later result in disputes.
This is exactly what happened in understanding the 1872 Cavite
Mutiny from the Spanish and Filipino reports.

Primary sources:
The major sources of this past event are the documents by the Spanish
historian, Jose Montero y Vidal; the official report of Gov. Gen. Rafael
Izquierdo; by Filipino researcher, Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de
Tavera; and French writer, Edmund Plauchut.
CAVITE
MUTINY
 PROFILE OF THE GOMBURZA
A. Mariano Gomez – born on August 2, 1799, at Santa Cruz Manila by Marina
Guard and Francisco Gomez, he was designated as head priest in Cavite in 1824
and was a member of GOMBURZA later. He was executed during the Cavite
Mutiny in 1872.
B. Jose Apolonio Burgos – was a Filipino mestizo secular priest, accused of mutiny
by the Spanish colonial authorities in the Philippines in the 19th century he was
born on February 9, 1837, by Florencia Garcia and Don Jose Burgos in Vigan
Ilocos Sur. He was executed along with Mariano Gomez and Jacinto Zamora.
C. Jacinto Zamora – born August 14, 1835, in Manila. He was placed in a mock trial
and summarily executed in Manila along with two other clergymen. He was a
Roman Catholic priest. The Gomburza execution was carried out on February
17, 1872, at Bagumbayan Field in Manila during the Cavite mutiny in the 19th
century.
 RECALLING THE GOMBURZA
Edmond Plauchut, as Quoted by Jaime Veneracion

Late in the night of the 15th of February 1872, a Spanish court

martial found three secular priests, Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez,
and Jacinto Zamora, guilty of treason as the instigators of a mutiny
in the Cavite navy yard a month before and sentenced them to
death. The judgment of the court martial was read to the priests in
Fort Santiago early the next morning and they were told it would be
executed the following day. Upon hearing the sentence, Burgos
broke into sobs, Zamora lost his mind and never recovered it, and
only Gomez listened impassively, an old man accustomed to the
thought of death
 RECALLING THE GOMBURZA
Edmond Plauchut, as Quoted by Jaime Veneracion

When dawn broke on the 17th of February there were

almost forty thousand Filipinos (who came from as far
as Bulacan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna)
surrounding the four platforms where the three priests
and the man whose testimony had convicted them, a
former artilleryman called Saldua, would die.
 RECALLING THE GOMBURZA
Edmond Plauchut, as Quoted by Jaime Veneracion

The three priests followed Saldua: Burgos ‘weeping like a

child’, Zamora with vacant eyes, and Gomez’s head held
high, blessing the Filipinos who knelt at his feet, heads
bared and praying. He was next to die. When his
confessor, a Recollect friar, exhorted him loudly to accept
his fate, he replied: “Father, I know that not a leaf falls to
the ground but by the will of God. Since He wills that I
should die here, His holy will be done.”
 RECALLING THE GOMBURZA
Edmond Plauchut, as Quoted by Jaime Veneracion

Zamora went up the scaffold without a word and delivered

his body to the executioner; his mind had already left it.

Burgos was the last, a refinement of cruelty that compelled

him to watch the death of his companions. He seated himself
on the iron rest and then sprang up crying: “But what crime
have I committed? Is it possible that I should die like this?
My God, is there no justice on earth?
 RECALLING THE GOMBURZA
Edmond Plauchut, as Quoted by Jaime Veneracion

A dozen friars surrounded him and pressed him down again

upon the seat of the garrote, pleading with him to die a
Christian death. He obeyed but, feeling his arms tied around
the fatal post, protested once again: “But I am innocent!”

“So was Jesus Christ,’ said one of the friars.” At this, Burgos
resigned himself. The executioner knelt at his feet and asked
his forgiveness. “I forgive you, my son. Do your duty.” And it
was done.
 THE
CONTROVERSY
THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY
By: Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay

The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event
for all Filipinos. On this particular day, the entire Filipino nation as
well as Filipino communities all over the world gathers to
celebrate the Philippines’ Independence Day. 1898 came to be a
very significant year for all of us— it is as equally important as
1896—the year when the Philippine Revolution broke out owing to
the Filipinos’ desire to be free from the abuses of the Spanish
colonial regime. But we should be reminded that another year is
as historic as the two—1872.
THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY
By: Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay

Two major events happened in 1872, the first was the 1872
Cavite Mutiny and the other was the martyrdom of the three
martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose
Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA). However, not all of us
knew that there were different accounts of the said event. All
Filipinos must know the different sides of the story—since this
event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of our history—the
execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the
awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos.
1872 CAVITE MUTINY SPANISH PERSPECTIVE
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 complemented 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 the Cavite arsenal such as
non-payment of tributes and exemption from forced labor were the main reasons for 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.
1872 CAVITE MUTINY SPANISH PERSPECTIVE
In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for
“stockpiling” malicious propaganda 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 would not fail because God was 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.
1872 CAVITE MUTINY SPANISH PERSPECTIVE
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.
1872 CAVITE MUTINY SPANISH PERSPECTIVE
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 in the feast celebrated the
occasion with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in
Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign of 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
1872 CAVITE MUTINY SPANISH PERSPECTIVE
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.
1872 CAVITE MUTINY SPANISH PERSPECTIVE
Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma.
Regidor, Jose Pio Basa, and other abogadillos were
suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the
practice of law, arrested, and sentenced to life
imprisonment on Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov.
Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and
ordered the creation of an artillery force to be composed
exclusively of the Peninsulares
1872 CAVITE MUTINY SPANISH PERSPECTIVE
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 acts again, the GOMBURZA were
executed. This event was tragic but served as one
of the moving forces that shaped Filipino
nationalism.
 A RESPONSE TO INJUSTICE: THE
FILIPINO VERSION 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 the school of arts and trades for the
Filipinos, which the general believed was a cover-up for the organization
of a political club.
 A RESPONSE TO INJUSTICE: THE
FILIPINO VERSION OF THE INCIDENT
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.
 A RESPONSE TO INJUSTICE: THE
FILIPINO VERSION OF THE INCIDENT
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 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, prompting the friars to do something
drastic in their dire desire to maintain power in the Philippines.
 A RESPONSE TO INJUSTICE: THE
FILIPINO VERSION OF THE INCIDENT
Meanwhile, with 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 the 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 despite the native clergy’s zest for
secularization.
 A RESPONSE TO INJUSTICE: THE
FILIPINO VERSION OF THE INCIDENT
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.
 A RESPONSE TO INJUSTICE: THE
FILIPINO VERSION OF THE INCIDENT
Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were
sentenced to 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 the 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 the Cavite fort. The Frenchman,
however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests that
he witnessed.
 UNRAVELLING THE TRUTH
Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, some basic facts
remained to be unvarying:
o 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;
o Second, Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid and strict policies that made
the Filipinos move and turn away from the Spanish government out of
disgust;
o Third, the Central Government failed to investigate what truly transpired
but relied on reports of Izquierdo and the friars and the opinion of the
public;
 UNRAVELLING THE TRUTH
o 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;

o Fifth, the Filipino clergy members actively participated in the

secularization movement to allow Filipino priests to take hold of the
parishes in the country making them prey to the rage of the friars;
 UNRAVELLING THE TRUTH
o Sixth, Filipinos during the time were active participants, and
responded to what they deemed as injustices;

o 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 the way for a
momentous 1898.
 UNRAVELLING THE TRUTH
o The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many
patriots named and unnamed shed their blood 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
victory, our forefathers suffered enough.

o As we enjoy our freedom, 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.”
4. CRY OF BALINTAWAK
 CRY OF BALINTAWAK
The exact date and location of a certain past event are very
important in the study of history. The event that happened in August
1896 is highly considered as a significant turning point in Philippine
history. In this lesson, the issues and arguments for the exact date and
location of the Cry will be examined.

The “cry” may be understood as decision to revolt, the tearing of

community tax certificates or cedulas, or the encounter with Spanish
forces. Several sources to this event presents several interpretation of
the word. But, what is worth dealing is its exact date and location.
 CRY OF BALINTAWAK
One of the often examined source to this is of Pio Valenzuela.
However, as years passed by, his accounts also changed. Ultimately, in
1935 with Pacheco and Pantas, Valenzuela proclaimed that, “hindi sa
Balintawak nangyari ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na kinalalagian
ngayon ng bantayog, kung di sa pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugad
Lawin.” (The first Cry of the revolution did not happen in Balintawak
where the monument is, but in a place called Pugad Lawin.)
This greatly influenced the research findings of National Historical
Institute (formerly Philippine Historical Committee) when it identified in
1940 that Pugad Lawin is actually located as part of sitio Gulod, Banlat,
Kalookan City. Subsequently, it was identified to be the place of
Tandang Sora and the cry happened on August 23.

On another primary source, Mga Gunita ng Himagsikan (1964) by

Emilio Aguinaldo has presented the following letter from Andres
Bonifacio:
 CRY OF BALINTAWAK
Noong ika-22 ng Agosto, 1896, ang Sangguniang Magdalo ay
tumanggap ng isang lihim na sulat mula sa Supremo Andres Bonifacio, sa
Balintawak, na nagsasaad na isang mahalagang pulong ang kanilang
idadaos sa ika-24 ng nasabing buwan, at lubhang kailangan na kami
ay magpadala roon ng dalawang kinatawan o delegado sa ngalan ng
Sanggunian. Ang pulong aniya’y itataon sa kaarawan ng kapistahan ng
San Bartolome sa Malabon, Tambobong. kapagkarakang matanggap ang
nasabing paanyaya, an gaming Pangulo na si G. Baldomero Aguinaldo,
ay tumawag ng pulong sa tribunal ng Cavite el Viejo… Nagkaroon kami
ng pag-aalinlangan sa pagpapadala roon ng aming kinatawan dahil sa
kaselanang pagdararanang mga pook at totoong mahigpit at abot-abot
ang panghuli ng mag Guardia Civil at Veterana sa mga naglalakad lalung
-lalo na sa mag pinaghihinalaang mga mason at Katipunan. Gayon pa
man ay aming hinirang at pinagkaisahang ipadalang tanging Sugo ang
matapang na kapatid naming si G. Domingo Orcullo… Ang aming Sugo ay
nakarating ng maluwalhati sa kanyang paroonan at nagbalik din na
wala naming sakuna, na taglay ang sulat ng Supremo na may
petsang 24 ng Agosto. Doon ay wala naming sinasabing kautusan,
maliban sa patalastas na kagugulat-gulat na kanilang lulusubin ang
Maynila, sa Sabado ng gabi, ika-29 ng Agosto, at ang hudyat ay ang
pagpatay ng ilaw sa Luneta. Saka idinugtong pa na marami diumano ang
nahuli at napatay ng Guardia Civil at Veterana sa kanyang mga
kasamahan sa lugar ng Gulod…
 CRY OF BALINTAWAK
ENGLISH TRANSLATION
On 22 August 1896, the Magdalo Council received a secret letter from Supremo Andres
Bonifacio, in Balintawak, which stated that the Katipunan will hold an important meeting on
the 24th of the said month, and that it was extremely necessary to send two representatives
or delegates in the name of the said Council. The meeting would be timed to coincide with
the feast day of Saint Bartolomew in Malabon, Tambobong. Upon receiving the said invitation,
our President, Mr. Baldomero Aguinaldo, called a meeting at Tribunal of Cavite el Viejo… We
were apprehensive about sending representatives because the areas they would have pass
through were dangerous and was a fact that the Civil Guard and Veterans were arresting
travelers, especially those suspected of being freemasons and members of Katipunan.
Nevertheless, we agreed and nominated to send a single representative in the person of our
brave brother, Mr. Domingo Orcullo… Our representative a r r i v e d safely at his destination
and also returned unharmed, bearing a letter from the Supremo dated 24 August. It
contained no orders but the shocking announcement that the Katipunan would attack Manila
at night on Saturday, 29 August, the signal for which would be the putting out of the lamps
in Luneta. He added that many of his comrade had been captured and killed by the Civil
Guard and Veterans in Gulod…
 CRY OF BALINTAWAK
This primary source clearly has overthrown the Cry of Pugad Lawin
on August 23, 1896 in the Bahay Toro, Kalookan. The letter cited in the
memoirs suggests that the event was closer to Balintawak.
Furthermore, in the discussions of the Philippine Historical Association
in February 2003, a descendant of Tandang Sora protested that “Pugad
Lawin” was literally pertaining to the hawk nests on top of a Sampaloc
tree at Gulod near Balintawak.
Contemporary studies may have concluded that it was the Cry of
Balintawak at around noon of Monday, August 24, 1896 at the site of
the barn and house of Tandang Sora in Gulod, now barangay Banlat,
Quezon City. Moreover, the studies reiterated that Filipinos, in light of
this event, must celebrate the following:

The establishment of a revolutionary or the facto government that was republican in

aspiration;

The designation of Bonifacio as the Kataastaasang Pangulo (Supreme President),

The election of the members of his cabinet ministers and Sanggunian and Balangay heads.
THANK YOU!
By: Ms. Lendyl A. Coronel
RPH Instructor