CHAPTER VI went ashore with fifty men, not with their arms, but only with their swords,

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
"ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES": 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,
CONTROVERSIES AND CONFLICTING VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY 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
Site of the First Mass artillery at the elevation of the body of our Lord. 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."
The first recorded Christian mass was held on Easter Sunday, March 31, 1521 at a little
"Then he had a cross brought, with the nails and crown, to which the kings
island-port named Mazaua. Two identical accounts report this event, by eyewitness Antonio
made reverence, and the captain had them told that these things which he showed them
Pigafetta (1523) and Antonio de Herrera y Tordesillas (1601). "Masawa" is a word found only
were the sign of the emperor his lord and master, from whom he had charge and
in Butuanon and its scion, Tausog, out of 181 Philippine languages. It means brilliant light and
commandment to place it in all places where he might go or pass by. He told them that
crystal clear.
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
Some Filipino historians have long contested the idea that Limasawa was the site of the
had been there, and therefore they would not cause them any displeasure to their
first Catholic mass in the country. Historian Sonia Zaide identified Masao (also Mazaua) in
persons nor their goods; and if they took any of their people, on showing them this
Butuan as the location of the first Christian mass. The basis of Zaide's claim is the diary of
sign, they would at once let them go. Besides this, the captain told them that it was
Antonio Pigafetta, chronicler of Magellan's voyage. In 1995 then Congresswoman Ching Plaza
necessary that this cross should be placed on the summit of the highest mountain in
of Agusan del Norte- Butuan City filed a bill in Congress contesting the Limasawa hypothesis
their country, so that seeing it every day they might adore it, and that if they did thus,
and asserting the 'site of the first mass' was Butuan. The Philippine Congress referred the
neither thunder, lightning, nor the tempest could do them hurt."
matter to the National Historical Institute for it to study the issue and recommend a historical
finding. Then NHI chair Dr. Samuel K. Tan reaffirmed Limasawa as the site of the first mass. The kings thanked the captain, and said they would do it willingly. Then he asked
For the past centuries, innumerable numbers of Filipinos including the top experts in whether they were Moors or Gentiles, and in what they believed. They answered that they did
education, history, religion, politics and other subjects are still debating as to the exact location not perform any other adoration, but only joined their hands, looking up to heaven, and that
of the "First Mass on Easter," which according to the number 1 pro- Butuan author, the word they called their God, Aba. Hearing this, the captain was very joyful, on seeing that, the first
"first" was not recorded during the observance of Easter Sunday on March 31, 1521 (Salazar, king raised his hands to the sky and said that he wished it were possible for him to be able to
2015). Here are Pigafetta's paragraphs as translated by the foremost writer of the 'The First show the affection which he felt towards him. The interpreter asked him for what reason there
Voyage Round the World', Lord Stanley of Alderley: was so little to eat in that 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
"On Sunday, the last day of March, and feast of Easter, the captain sent the he had all his family. Then the captain asked him if he had any enemies who made war upon
chaplain ashore early to say mass, and the interpreter went with him to tell the king him, and that if he had any he would go and defeat them with his men and ships, to put them
that they were not coming on shore to dine with him, but only to hear the mass. The under his obedience. The king thanked him, and answered that there were two islands the
king hearing that sent two dead pigs. When it was time for saying mass the captain inhabitants of which were his enemies; however, that for the present it was not the time to
attack them. insight on this, which I'm sure puts an end to this endless debate and enrich our pre-
Spanish history. It turned out that the ill-fated Magellan expedition ended Spanish
exploration of these islands. But Portuguese navigators like João de Barros, Gaspar
Salazar (2015) refute that the First Mass on Easter was not a Biblical Festival not practiced in
Correia, Diogo do Couto, Francisco de Castro and Antonio Galvão have been exploring
the Book of Acts. The original New Testament Church which started on the Day of Pentecost
Mindanao from 1520 to 1565 until the Spaniards resumed its conquest of the
in 31 A.D. /C.E. as described in Acts did not observe the Mass.
Philippines through another expedition led by Miguel Lopez de Legazpi."

2. Masao or Mazaua in Butuan City, Agusan del Norte. The next popular one is Mazaua in
Four Sites of the First Mass Butuan City, the capital of Agusan del Norte in Northern Mindanao. The Butuanons and their
supporters advocate that Magellan and his men landed in Mazaua for the reason that it has the
1. Limasawa Island, Southern Leyte. The most famous is Limasawa Island, an island town anchorage, rice fields, gold, antique "balanghai" and other artifacts which they unearthed in
in Southern Leyte, which the Philippine Government recognized as the actual site of the First scattered areas in Butuan City.
Mass. The powerful Roman Catholic Church also recognized Limasawa Island as the site In the so-called 'Magellan's Harbor' in Butuan, the real harbor for the cargo and
where Magellan and his crew landed and held the First Mass. Furthermore, the Embassy of passenger ships traveling to and departing from Butuan City is actually in Nasipit, which is 25
Spain recognized Limasawa as the site of Magellan's landfall such that they also sent the kilometers west of Mazaua. Mazaua or Butuan City's offshore is too shallow for ship
Galleon Andalucia to visit Maasin City for 5 days and Limasawa for about 3 hours. The navigation!
Embassy of Portugal in Metro Manila recognized Limasawa as the 'Mazzaua' which Pigafetta
wrote about as the island where Magellan and his troops observed the First Mass on Easter or If Mazaua had the abundant rice fields, other food supplies, and water at the time when
introduced Christianity to the island's inhabitants. Magellan and his troops landed and held the 'First Mass' or observed Easter Sunday, how come
Magellan and his fellow sailors sought for a bigger island? Mazaua was and is attached to
"The Treaty of Tordesillas on June 7, 1494 virtually divided the unknown world Mindanao, the second largest island in the entire Philippines.
between Spain and Portugal with the approval of the Holy See. Did you know that
Magellan, in a previous expedition, had [landed] in the Moluccas, just south of Since the pro-Mazaua supporters strongly claimed that Magellan and his fellow sailors
Mindanao? In those days, Portugal had something that the Spanish didn't have: held the 'First Mass' or observed Easter Sunday in their 'island of plenty' what happened to the
cartographic maps of the so-called Spice Islands. Therefore, since he was a Portuguese, abundant foods, drinks and other supplies in Mazaua and their next neighbor, the 'Kingdom of
it is safe to assume that Magellan used Portuguese cartographic maps during his Butuan'? Why did the two rajahs of 'Mazzaua" and Butuan volunteered as pilots to Magellan to
historic expedition that brought him to Cebu on March 16, 1521 (this is a wrong date)." obtain provisions in Cebu, which is much smaller than Mindanao?
"With the Treaty of Tordesillas, Prof. De Sousa said the Philippine archipelago fell The pro-Butuan proponents claimed that Magellan and his troops landed in Mazaua,
under the jurisdiction of Portugal... but Magellan made his claim for the King of Spain Butuan City because Pigafetta wrote in his logbook about the small gift items made of gold
who paid for his expedition. Thus in 1750, Spain and Portugal signed the Treaty of supposedly from Butuan which Rajah Kalambu gave to Magellan. Well then, if gold was such
Madrid whereby the Portuguese exchanged the Philippines for the South Frontier of a big deal in Butuan, Magellan and his sailors could have sailed easily south to Surigao,
Brazil, which gave Portugal control of Rio de la Plata. Again this is something we've Mindanao while they were still sailing off the eastern coast of Panaon Island. They had seen
never read in our history books. History tells us that Spain sold the Philippines to the Surigao which was and is in northeast Mindanao before nighttime because Mindanao is the
United States for a measly sum of $20 million, but we never knew about this exchange second biggest island in the entire Philippines. Surigao was known to have gold at that time
deal between Spain and Portugal for Brazil!" and up to the present day. Magellan and his men in 3 ships did not search for spices only. They
"Talking about rewriting history, we all know about the claim made by some searched for anything or things of value to bring home and hand them over to the King of
Butuanons that a place called Mazaua was allegedly the site of the first Holy Mass Spain!
instead of Limasawa Island off Southern Leyte. Well, Prof. De Sousa has another
 Furthermore, the pro-Butuan supporters claimed that the antique 'balanghai' that some Before Magellan's explorers landed in March 1521, the Roman Catholic Portuguese
of them found under the ground in Masao or Mazaua, Butuan is one proof that Magellan was sailors more likely had conducted the 'First Mass' in Southern Philippines. Therefore, the pro-
in Mazaua. Butuan proponents had the right to assume and claim the 'First Mass' in Mindanao, but not
recorded in history, before Portugal exchanged the entire Philippines for Brazil with Spain. In
Salazar (2015) refers to the writings of de Jesus wrote a lengthy article entitled, a Portuguese map made around 1535 to 1538, Butuan's name was Butan or Butuão. Spain did
'Mazaua: Magellan's Lost Harbor. The government of Butuan City, Mindanao, commissioned not even know that Butuan existed!
him to do extensive research on the Mazaua landfall issue. He concluded that Magellan and his
troops landed in Mazaua, Butuan City, Philippines. He wrote: Thus, carrying the flag of Spain and being financed by the Spanish King Charles V,
Magellan and his fellow explorers did not sail south to Mazaua, Butuan in Mindanao. The
"Two events define the meaning of Mazaua for most Filipinos, the Easter mass and the Portuguese navigators who sailed eastward from Portugal to Mindanao via Indonesia had
planting of a large cross atop the tallest hill. The Philippines is an isolated rock of occupied the big Mindanao Island one year before Magellan and his troops landed in
Christianity in a huge ocean lashed by the powerful waves of Islam, Buddhism, Hindu Limasawa Island, Southern Leyte. The natives of Mazaua, Butuan mistook the Portuguese
and other beliefs. Of its 76 million people 83% are Catholics, 9% Protestants. Mazaua, explorers from Portugal as that of Magellan's explorers from Spain.
therefore, is an icon to a deeply religious people, an event of overarching importance. The Portuguese had known where Magellan's fleet was bound before it even sailed;
This aspect of a signal event in world geography and Renaissance navigation has warships would surely be waiting to stop it from reaching the Moluccas. Even if Magellan
unfortunately served to distort the way the event is viewed." found the Moluccas, loaded his ships with precious spices and then got away, most ports and
trading stations on the route back to Spain would be Portuguese outposts and closed to him."
It may be an icon and very important event to the professed 'Christians' and Holy Bible
Since some Portuguese captains and navigators and their crew had explored and colonized
illiterates, but to those who practice Biblical Christianity, the First Mass on Easter is
Mindanao Island, they would have arrested Magellan and his men if they landed in Mazaua,
meaningless and worthless! Most Filipinos have all the time in the world to read the
Butuan which was a Portuguese outpost and trading station in Mindanao. The Portuguese
newspapers, tabloids, the political, sports and entertainment publications, and the comics but
authorities arrested and jailed the entire 54 crew members of Trinidad, Magellan's flagship,
not few minutes to read and study the Holy Bible.
after the ship was repaired and loaded with spices on its eastward voyage from the Spice
The world's greatest minds in America, for example, are not going to help with the Islands to the planned Panama in Central America, where they could transship the spices to
'First Mass' argument in the Philippines. They do not even care to help the 549,928 homeless another ship bound for Spain!
people in America. For example: "One in five homeless Americans live in California, where
the problem is especially acute. In the Golden State and three other western states - Hawaii,
3. Homonhon Island, Eastern Samar. Some people in Homonhon Island and Samar also
Nevada, and Oregon - more than 50% of homeless people are categorized as unsheltered,
claimed that Magellan and his fellow sailors must have some kind of religious festivity shortly
meaning they are living in the streets, vehicles or parks, in places not fit for humans to stay. In
after they landed on the island. Magellan's troops had a terrible experience after they landed in
New York, by comparison, the number is less than 5%. City services are overwhelmed. After
Guam, which they called Las Islas de los Ladrones (the island of thieves). So, according to the
torrential rains in San Francisco last week, the shelter wait list for single adults reached a
groups supporting the 'First Mass' in Homonhon, Magellan and his sailors had a mass in the
record 1,126 people, according to Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on
island to thank God for their safe trip from Guam and the vast Pacific Ocean:
Homelessness in San Francisco."
The so-called experts on Mazaua, Butuan denied or ignored the 'unwritten history' of "Pigafetta did not exactly say that it was their first mass, he only reported that a mass
the Portuguese' colonization of Mindanao before Magellan and his explorers sailed across the was celebrated on Easter Sunday (in Mazzaua Island]. Atty. Mendiola concludes in his
Pacific Ocean from South America. They ignored or pretended not to know the fact that the paper, 'that the mass on Homonhon island on the 19th day of March 1521, was the first
Portuguese navigators, such as João de Barros, Gaspar Correia, Diogo do Couto, Francisco de one celebrated in the Philippines, not one at Limasawa or Mazaua on the 31st of that
Castro and Antonio Galvão had explored Mindanao from 1520 to 1565. The Portuguese were month. Any passage or statement to the contrary in our history books would be
ahead of Magellan's expedition in the Philippines by at least one year. unsustainable under present historiography."
 "Notwithstanding these debates when the first mass was celebrated, the fact remains Island, a small island to be part of Masepilid Island because it is almost touching this
that it was in Homonhon that Magellan first landed. And today, we commemorate that bigger island, and at low tide it could easily be mistaken to be connected to the bigger
event and celebrate its greater significance. The historian Agoncillo writes that it was island at the northern tip. This could be the reason that the island where they landed
through this trip that the Europeans first learned of the existence of the Philippines. It was described as shaped like a stingray, which Masepilid is, and about 10 x 5 miles in
also proved that the earth was round; it established the vastness of the Pacific Ocean; it area."
proved that the East Indies could be reached by crossing the Pacific and finally, it
showed that the Americas was really a land mass entirely separate from Asia." "If present maps will be examined today, it will be noted that Mahaba Island is very
close to the island of Masepilid and the flotilla of Magellan most probably anchored
"While Magellan discovered the existence of the Philippines, for me, the greater between these two islands. It will be noted also that Masepilid is shaped like a stingray
significance of Magellan's arrival in Homonhon, was it showed the world, that we in as described by Pigafetta."
Samar, already had a society, a culture of our own. Pigafetta wrote that 'their seignior
was an old man who was painted. He wore two gold earrings in his ears and the others
many gold armlets on their arms and kerchiefs about their heads... They have very
black hair that falls to the waist and use daggers, knives, and spears ornamented with The location of the mass was contentious. Originally it was thought to be in the island
gold, large shields, fascines, javelins and fishing nets that resemble rizali and their of Limasawa, in Leyte, but other historians argue that a mistranslation resulted to that error,
boats are like ours." and that the place should be Butuan (the place where the Golden Tara was also discovered).
That issue reached the Congress, which in 1996 directed the National Historical
"Later on, Jesuit missionaries who came and settled our island would document this
Institute to recommend a historical finding. The panel was composed of several historians,
culture. Our society then was structured according to social classes which dictated not
some of which became my professors in UP Diliman Department of History. The panel and the
only the behavior of men and women but also the manner of dressing from head to toe,
NHI reaffirmed in 1998 that the place is Limasawa, but the controversy is still alive until
from cradle to their graves."
today.

4. Mahaba Island, Placer, Surigao del Norte. Finally, another group of people in CAVITE MUTINY
northeastern Mindanao claimed that Magellan's expedition actually had the First Mass in
Mahaba Island in Surigao del Norte: Fr. Robert Reyes heads GomBurza, a cause orientated organization of priests, nuns, brothers
and laity who are committed to the struggle for justice, which they believe is an essential part
"It was recorded that when he was nearing the shores of Mindanao, Magellan saw of witnessing to the gospel. The group is named after three Catholic priests who crusaded for
lights of a settlement which he avoided and sailed farther north [actually south] and reform of the Spanish colonial government and were executed by garrotte in Bagumbayan,
anchored near an island named Mazzava, now mark on maps as Mahaba Island, located Manila on February 17, 1872, for allegedly instigating the Cavite mutiny. The three priests -
at latitude nine and two thirds degrees." Fathers Mariano Gomez, Jose Apolonio Burgos and Jacinto Zamora - all graduates of the
"Magellan during that time was using an astrolabe to determine his latitude location University of Sto. Tomas were brilliant men who used their education to fight for reforms to
and the accuracy of this instrument was plus or minus one degree. They must have break the 300 year old dominance of the Spanish government. They headed the secularization
landed and then check their latitude location which was why they read to one- third of a movement which alleviated the plight of Filipino priests by insisting on the prior right of the
degree, which they could not have done [so] on a moving ship. There was no way native secular clergy to assignment in parishes over that of the friars newly arrived from Spain.
during that time to determine [the] longitude as the chronometer which could measure Burgos, the youngest and most brilliant of the three, was especially vulnerable in this regard
[the] longitude was only invented by James Harrison, an Englishman, in 1740." since he was the synodal examiner of parish priests. He got into a tiff more than once with then
Archbishop of Manila Gregorio Martinez in this regard.
"Mazzava Island appears on present detailed maps of the area to be Mahaba Island in
the Municipality of Placer, Surigao del Norte. Magellan could have mistaken Mahaba Burgos was linked to many activities perceived as hostile towards the Spanish since he
was also one of the organizers of the Committee of Reformers which campaigned for more Spaniards. Published only in 1895, at the height of the Filipino nationalist
liberal laws. The Committee was composed of two sections: the laymen and the clergy. The campaign, Montero's account is strongly hostile to Filipino reformist aspirations, has no doubt
lay group was headed by Joaquin Pardo de Tavera while the cleric section, which included of the guilt of those executed or exiled, and places much of the blame for the revolt of 1872 on
Gomez and Zamora, was headed by Burgos. This reform committee staged demonstrations the alleged tolerance of Governor-General Carlos Maria de la Torre in the period 1869-1871.
both during the liberal administration of Gen. Carlos Ma. De La Torre and the reactionary In a lengthy appendix to his own account4 Montero reproduces selections from that
period under Gen. Rafael Izquierdo. given by Edmond Plauchut, a Frenchman resident in Manila for some years,
indignantly or sarcastically denying various allegations of the latter. The narrative of
Gomez, parish priest in Bacoor, Cavite was founder of the newspaper La Verdad (The Truth) Plauchut is actually only a part of a series of articles on the Philippines published in the
in which he described the deplorable conditions of the country and printed the liberal articles internationally known French journal, Revue des Dem Mondes, in Paris in 1877.5 His
of Burgos. account of the events of 1872 has often been called 'the Filipino version' of the events,
having been translated into Spanish and published in La Solic Earidad in 1892 and
afterwards republished more than once from this version.
The priests earned the ire of the Spanish and were called filibusteros.
The version of Plauchut presents several difficulties, even if we ignore the xenophobic
The 1872 revolt in Cavite generally see it as a mutiny of Filipino soldiers and arsenal attacks of Montero y Vidal. On the one hand, for example, he implies the innocence of
workers over local grievances, often portraying it as instigated by the friars with the intention the three priests as to any part in the mutiny. On the other, he asserts that "from several
of eliminating the priests and lawyers agitating for reforms. This article, basing itself accounts worthy of belief, the plot of the conspirators was known to many in the capital
principally on the extensive account sent by Governor Izquierdo to the Overseas Minister, as well as in the province." Similarly he refers to the three priests on their way to
accepts his characterization of the revolt as a frustrated separatist revolution, while rejecting execution as being cheered by the Filipinos as and those who were going to die for
his conclusions as to the instigators of the revolt. Rather, it points to the real authors who having dreamed of the independence of their country.
escaped execution because of their Masonic ties to Izquierdo.
The account of the execution itself, though apparently that of an eyewitness, agreeing
Schumacher (1972) reveal that "the fact remains, however, that we still possess no on substantial points with that of Montero y Vidal, likewise contains numerous
definitive account of the Cavite Mutiny, nor a satisfactory biography of any of the three melodramatic details which do not inspire great confidence in the historian. It is, for
priests. Not only are primary source materials still lacking however, but there is considerable example, difficult to believe that in the atmosphere of terror created by Izquierdo's
confusion as to the worth of the various published accounts of the events of 1872 both as to harsh repressive measures-an atmosphere emphasized by Plauchut thousands of people
primary and to secondary sources. It will therefore be the purpose of this essay to analyze and would have flocked in from the provinces to visit the condemned priests in their cell or
give some indication of the value of the published primary sources, all of them in Spanish. that this would have been permitted in any way, or that the crowds would have
This will provide a basis for a critique of modern secondary accounts based on them." ventured to cheer the priests on triumphantly as they made their way to the place of
execution. One need not accept totally the version of Montero to be able to agree in
part with his characterization of Plauchut's account as novelesco. No doubt the author
FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS wished to liven up his articles with some dramatic items of human interest for the
delectation of his French readers to whom the Philippines was a far-away, exotic
There were several men who appear to have been living in Manila at the time of the country.
events which culminated in the Cavite Mutiny who wrote accounts of the events. The account
of Josh Montero y Vidal, a Spanish official in Manila at the time, is the fullest account of the For the rest of Plauchut's account, however, there is a further problem-namely the
mutiny itself. It embodies the official interpretation of the mutiny in Cavite as part of a general source of his knowledge of the events prior to the execution, to which he could not have been
revolt directed by the three priests and their lay and clerical colleagues in Manila and Cavite, eyewitness. As remarked above, he is notably deficient in his knowledge of the more remote
having as its aim the assassination of the Governor-General and a general massacre of all background of events in the Philippines and has numerous glaring historical errors, with regard
to Sim6n de Anda and his career. On the other hand, he clearly had some knowledge of the With regard to the events of the execution itself, however, Regidor could not have been
then secret letter of Archbishop Meliton Martinez to the Spanish Regent, written in 1870. It is an eyewitness, since he himself was at the time a prisoner of the Spanish authorities. And yet
true that though he purports to quote from it, the quotation is badly garbled, and is rather a his account is far more detailed and circumstantial than that of either Montero or Plauchut. An
mere summary of the ideas of the Archbishop. On the other hand, it contains sufficient genuine obvious connection with the account of the latter is the words addressed to Comandante
and distinctive elements in it to have certainly come eventually from one who had at some Boscasa attributed to Gomez: "May God forgives you, as we forgive." In Plauchut's account,
time seen the original. This fact, together with other details which Plauchut could hardly have however, exactly the same words are put in the mouth of Burgos. However, the authenticity of
known by himself points to the fundamental accuracy of Montero's assertion that Plauchut's the statement is in any case suspect, since it is difficult to imagine how anyone except the
account had been inspired by the 'separatistas antiespafioles de Filipinas'. Prescinding from Spanish soldiers guarding the prisoners or the Spanish priests who accompanied them could
whether or not they were separatists, among those exiled as a result of the Cavite Mutiny, have approached close enough to hear the words. Indeed all the dialogue attributed to the
probably Joaquin Pardo de Tavera and almost certainly Antonio Regidor were in contact with prisoners, generally directed in Regidor's account toward showing the responsibility of the
Plauchut in Paris at the time he was writing, and either or both must have served as a source various friar orders for the execution is similarly suspect, precisely because of the detailed
for the events prior to the execution. For after their escape from the Marianas in 1874 both description he gives of the intense security measures which surrounded the prisoners, guarded
Pardo de Tavera and Regidor made their way from Hong Kong to Europe. The former settled by soldiers with fixed bayonets and drawn swords on every side.
permanently in Paris until his death in 1884, and Regidor lived there for some time before The second part of Regidor's narrative deals with the trial of the three priests. In as
moving to London. When Rizal was planning his Association Internationale des Philippinistes much as there exists no other account of the trial, there is no way to check its accuracy,
to meet in Paris in 1889, while he was still in London in almost daily contact with Regidor, it though some of its melodramatic details seem somewhat improbable. It may be noted
was Plauchut who was named vice- president of the association and Regidor one of the here also that there are various clear errors of fact throughout the entire article,
counselo. It must have been either Regidor or Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, nephew of the now- beginning from the date of the execution given in the title-- February 28 instead of
deceased Joaquin, who put Rizal in contact with Plauchut, most likely the former; given the February 17- other dates being correspondingly incorrect. However, this type of error,
evident contacts between Plauchut and Regidor in their writings. Hence Regidor and possibly like the errors in the ages assigned to the three priests, do not necessarily invalidate that
also Pardo de Tavera would have been what Plauchut refers to in speaking of his source having account as a whole, evidently written from memory, but warn against accepting
been "several accounts worthy of belief." otherwise unverified details, much less drawing any conclusions from them.
The third major account, and in many ways the most important of all in spite of its Something similar must be said about the rest of the article, which treats separately
discrepancies with known facts, is that which appeared in 1900 in the Madrid newspaper each of the three priests and their activities which led them to be accused at the time of
Filipinas ante Europa edited by Isabelo de los Reyes. Though the article appeared the Cavite Mutiny, and then explains the background and course of the mutiny itself.
anonymously, there can be no doubt that it was the work of Antonio Regidor. Manuel Artigas Here again Regidor is the only contemporary account apart from Montero y Vidal's,
y Cuerva, who was in close contact with De los Reyes at the time in the activities of the though he himself had given a somewhat different version in an earlier pseudonymous
Filipino Revolutionary Committee in Spain and was therefore in a position to know, explicitly work on Masonry. Hence there is little to corroborate or disprove his narrative, though
states that De los Reyes affirmed to him the authorship of Regidor. 'Obviously an account its general outline may be said to give a probable explanation of principal events. The
from one of those most involved in the reformist movement prior to 1872 is of the greatest tehor of it is to deny the official version propounded by Montero y Vidal of an
value from the point of view of the knowledge possessed by its author. It also, of course, has organized revolt aiming at the massacre of all Spaniards and the proclamation of an
the disadvantages of one-sidedness which are prominent in the bitter anti-friar position of independent republic. Regidor goes on, however, to attribute the mutiny to the
Regidor, who loses no opportunity to paint the friars in the worst possible colors. It must be instigation of friars. It was the result, he says, of a plan originating from a meeting of
remembered that the article was written at the height of the effort to procure the expulsion of leading friars of all the orders, at which it was decided to create such an occasion so as
all Spanish friars from the Philippines. Be that as it may, Regidor's account deserves the most to bring about the elimination of the anti-friar reformists, particularly the leaders of the
careful attention, particularly in the light of his having been at the very least a major source of Filipino secular clergy. The plot is attributed by Regidor to Fathers Castro and Treserra
Plauchut. of the Dominicans, Father Huertas of the Franciscans, Father Herrero of the
Augustinians, and Father Cuartero of the Recoletos. Such an assertion is demonstrably
 not based on facts. For Father Casimiro Herrero, the Augustinian procurator was in Herrero, is philosophical rather than historical in nature. Moreover, though its author was
Spain during this period of 1869- 1872 during which the plot was supposedly being perhaps present in the early days of the term of Governor-General Carlos de la Torre, he
hatched, while the others were in the Philippines. Father Domingo Treserra was indeed returned to Spain in 1869 as Procurator in Madrid of the Philippine Augustinians, as
Rector of the University of Santo Tomas at this time, but Father Rafael Castro, O.P., mentioned above, and hence was not an eyewitness. The small part of his pamphlet which is
had finished his term as Provincial of the Dominicans in 1863, shortly after which he devoted to the narrative of the revolt simply accepts the official version and condemns strongly
suffered a stroke which left him completely paralyzed, and some time before his death. the individuals involved, most particularly the three executed priests. It is therefore of no
The alleged representative of the Recoletos, Father Mariano Cuartero, is said by independent historical value.
Regidor to have subsequently been the bishop of Jaro. However, the bishop of Jaro The other contemporary writer is Felipe M. de Govantes in his Compendio Historico de
was, and had been for some years, Father Mariano Cuartero y Medina, O.P., while the Filipinas. Govantes was a longtime Peninsular Spaniard resident of the Philippines, where he
Recoleto Provincial, Father Mariano Cuartero del Pilar, was later to become bishop of held various positions in the bureaucracy. His account of the regime of Governor de la Torre,
Nueva Segovia. Finally, the assertion that the appointment of Izquierdo as Governor- though disapproving the latter's democratic methods, has nothing of the scorn and indignation
General was due to his being a foster-brother of the newly elected Dominican of Montero y Vidal, nor does he mention any names in connection with the manifestation held
Provincial is certainly incorrect. For whether or not it be true that he was a foster- at that time. With similar caution he narrates the revolt of Cavite, not making clear to whom he
brother of General Izquierdo, Father Pedro Vilanova, O.P., was elected Provincial of attributes the responsibility. Though he mentions that almost all those who took part in the
the Dominicans on April 29, 1871, while Izquierdo had all ready arrived in Manila on manifestation at the time of De la Torre were condemned by the military tribunals in 1872, he
April 4, 1871, having been appointed months before. hints that not all were actually guilty; noting that opinion in Manila was divided with respect to
Izquierdo's actuations during his term.
In short, unless some further proof is forthcoming, the entire story of a friar plot to
eliminate their enemies must be considered to be an invention, Regidor having simply selected One further apparently contemporary account remains, whose author cannot be
the names of prominent friars known to him as the supposed perpetrators of the plot. However, determined with certainty, and which has been published only indirectly. The published
this need not mean that the broader assertion of Regidor - that the Cavite mutiny was used by version is that contained in Father Pablo Pastels' history of the Jesuit Philippine mission in the
certain Spaniards, possibly including friars, to eliminate the liberal reformist Filipino group-is nineteenth century. Pastels arrived in Manila only in 1875, hence was not himself a
necessarily without basis. As I have pointed out elsewhere, other evidence points to the Cavite contemporary witness. But a comparison of the account to be found in his book with a
revolt as having been used as a pretext for such elimination, though the evidence rather points manuscript history of the Ateneo Municipal extant in Jesuit archives in Spain, entitled 'Historia
to Izquierdo than any group of friars as directly responsible for the execution of the three del Colegio de la Immaculada Concepcion que tiene la Mision de la Compaña de Jesus de las
priests. Islas Filipinas en Manila', shows that Pastels has copied it almost word for word from the
manuscript history. This latter account was written by a Jesuit resident in the Ateneo, and
To sum up, Regidor's account would seem to be the most informative of any we have,
completed by 1874 at the latest. The account of the revolt adds nothing to the facts established
particularly on the general background of events. It is certainly not, however, an eyewitness
from the general agreement of the other contemporary accounts, except to add some details on
account for all the events it relates, particularly the revolt itself or the execution of the three
the role of the Jesuits in assisting the condemned priests. The account of the 'Christian
priests. Moreover it seems clearly to have employed false data to make the friars appear as the
resignation' with which the three priests went to their execution, though couched in general
instigators of the revolt and of the punishments meted out to the Filipino reformists. Even apart
terms, would seem to support Montero y Vidal's rejection of the dramatic incidents related by
from this anti-friar construction of the data, however, Regidor is not to be depended on for
Plauchut. Unlike Montero, however, the narrator (and Father Pastels) expresses the general
accuracy of detail, and seems evidently to have been narrating from a rather faulty memory.
conviction of Manileños that many of those condemned were unjustly or at least excessively
The account is therefore indeed valuable, but needs to be checked continually against other
punished and did not receive a fair trial. Since the original account was apparently not written
sources for corroboration.
for publication and its eventual publication and its eventual publication took place only in
Two other contemporary residents of Manila who wrote on the subject of the Cavite 1916, long after the period in which any political considerations might have influenced the
Mutiny offer little in the way of factual information. Despite the title, Resefia que demuestra el narrator, the account possesses reliability-for the limited area covered superior to that of others
fundamento y causas de la insurreccion del 20 de Enero en Filipina, the book of Casimiro that have been treated here.
 torture. They were, however, to have considerable subsequent influence, as will be seen below.

SECOND-HAND ACCOUNTS Apart from these accounts allegedly based on information received from
contemporaries of the events, there are those which, though not explicitly stating that they
In this group may be included those who assert that they had received their information from were such, have a reasonable possibility of such an origin, since their authors are those by
contemporaries of the events or who, because of their relationship to such men, may be Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, nephew of Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, and brought up in his
legitimately supposed to have done so. household; and that of Pedro Paterno, son of Maximo Paterno, another of those exiled to the
Marianas in 1872.
In the first category fall two documents which, though they remain unpublished as a
whole, seem to have been circulated in copies to a considerable degree and thus to have The account of Pardo de Tavera was originally written for the official report of the
entered into later accounts. The two documents in question were written by Father Agapito census of 1903, as part of a general survey of Philippine history. Pardo denies that
Echegoyen, a Recoleto, and Father Antonio Piernavieja, an Augustinian, both of whom were there was any plot to overthrow Spanish rule, and sees the Cavite Mutiny simply as an
taken. prisoners by the revolutionary forces in Cavite in 1896. Both documents confess to and uprising due to the disaffection of the arsenal workers who had been deprived of their
condemn various crimes and abuses allegedly committed by the friars, beginning with the traditional exemption from tribute and the Filipino troops who sympathized with them.
period just prior to the Cavite Mutiny. Both accounts agree in attributing the execution of the This event the conservative elements in Manila, including the friars, took as proof that
three priests to friar intrigues. Allegedly the four friar Provincials met to decide on how to those who had expressed reformist or anti-friar sentiments under the governorship of
eliminate their opponents, and for this purpose, knowing that a revolt was in the offing in De la Torre were plotting to overthrow Spanish sovereignty. Hence they persuaded the
Cavite, sent a friar similar in appearance to Burgos, to stir up the prospective rebels under the government to inflict severe and exemplary punishments on all kinds of people without
name of the latter, and to distribute money among them. Likewise the Provincials are alleged inquiring carefully into their guilt. Though Pardo makes no direct mention of my friar
to have bribed Izquierdo heavily so as to bring him to execute the three priests when the revolt conspiracy, it bring about the Cavite affair after the fashion of Regidor, he sees the
did break out and they were implicated by the captured rebels. Piernavieja did not give the punishments meted out as the result of a false conviction on the part of the government
source of his knowledge, but Echegoyen, who came to the Philippines a few months after the that all opponents of the friars were enemies of Spanish rule, and attributes the
events, alleged that his account came from a fellow-friar, Father Cipriano Navarro. The disaffection of the Filipinos with Spain which led to the Revolution of 1896 to this
account of Echegoyen does not name the supposed Impersonator of Burgos, but declares him identification of Spanish interests with friar interests beginning from 1872.
to have been a Franciscan (though he later adds that others say he was a Recoleto). The In spite of the antecedent probability that Pardo might have had detailed knowledge of
account of Piernavieja, on the other hand, attributes the deed to a Father Claudio del Arcos the events of 1872 from his uncle, the account shows little evidence of this. Besides the
whom he does not further identify, but who was actually a Recoleto parish priest of Santa incorrect interpretation of the attitude of De la Torre, there are several errors of detail
Cruz, Zambales. as to the identity of the men who were executed or exiled as a result of the mutiny, and
one can only conclude that Pardo de Tavera either had no detailed knowledge of the
Though it is most probable that the documents were actually written by the individuals facts, or did not find place to publish them in this brief account. Hence he simply gave
whose names are appended to them, since their contain accurate data which only the persons a general picture of events in a sense perhaps unnecessarily unfavorable to the friars.
named could have known- the various parishes the writers had held and the dates in which they Though consequently too general to offer any reliable information beyond what was
had arrived in each of their assignments they can scarcely be accepted as reliable documents, contained in earlier accounts, his picture of the broad lines of events and his general
given the facts that both men were prisoners, and are known to have been tortured by the interpretation are coherent in a way which others are not.
Magdiwang leader Mariano Alvarez before being finally executed at the orders of Andres
Bonifacio. The very profuseness with which they repeatedly insist that everything they say is The anti-friar bias which pervades much of Pardo de Tavera's summary of Philippine
said with perfect freedom from coercion, and out of pure love for the truth and to honor these history provoked an indignant and equally pugnacious refutation from Father Serapio
martyrs, make them worthless to a critical historian, as being evidently confessions extorted by Tamayo. Though Tamayo himself came to the Philippines only in 1891, it might be
 expected that since his was a quasi official defense of the friars against Pardo de is a printed pamphlet addressed to the American Consul-General in Hong Kong, signed by Jo
Tavera, he might have derived the information on which he based his own version & M. Basa, Doroteo Coros, and A. G. Medina and dated January 29, 1897. The pamphlet
from older colleagues who had been contemporary to the events in Manila. But an attacks Spanish abuses and misgovernment in the Philippines, and asks the Consul to request
examination of the section devoted to the events of 1869-1872 shows a narration-or American intervention to force Spanish withdrawal from the Philippines, promising any
rather an interpretation of events-which adds nothing to that of Montero y Vidal, on concessions which the Americans may desire in return. Among the Spanish crimes narrated are
which it principally, if not wholly, depends, even to lengthy quotations from that that of the executions and exiles of 1872, said to be due to friar intrigues and bribery of the
source. It therefore likewise has no independent value. government. Concretely, the alleged incident found in the Piernavieja account of the
impersonation of Burgos by a Recoleto friar (here not named but said to be from Zambales),
The last author who deserves attention by reason of the possibility of his possessing who distributed money to stir up the revolt, is repeated. Given the nature of the pamphlet and
information from an immediate contemporary of the events is Pedro Paterno, whose its purpose, whether to persuade the American consul or, as seems more likely, to serve as
father Maximo had been deported to the Marianas in 1872, though young Pedro propaganda, the name of Basa gives the historian little more reason to accept the story than the
himself at that time was a student in Spain. During the Spanish era Pedro Paterno extorted account of Piernavieja. Indeed, given the widespread use of untruths by Basa in his
published many works purporting to be historical, but the great majority of them dealt anti-friar propaganda, amply attested to by various Filipino this story, however, may be seen in
rather with the pre-Hispanic period of Philippine history. They are, moreover, mere its reappearance in an anti-friar pamphlet of 1900, where the alleged Recoleto impersonator is
compilations characterized by a great lack of critical historical sense, and were even now said to have been found some days after the executions 'hanged from a bar in his cell in
then generally considered rather as somewhat inept and historically valueless works of the provincial convent of the walled city, and apparently a suicide'. As a matter of fact, the
propaganda by his fellow-Filipinos in Spain as well as by Spaniards. In his later years supposed impersonator, identified in the Piernavieja account as Father Claudio del Arco, was
the various multivolume works which by their titles would appear to be comprehensive actually still very much alive then and for many years, and returned to Spain eventually as
histories of the Philippines turn out on examination to be chiefly compilations from his Commissary of his order.
earlier works. In the year of his death, however, he published a two- part Synopsis de la
Historia de Filipinas, in which he does give some brief mention to the events of 1872
while treating the revolts of the nineteenth century. The treatment, however, is limited
to a few scattered paragraphs in support of his assertion that all the revolts of the
nineteenth century were reformist, not separatist in nature, aiming at recovering for
Filipinos control of their own affairs within the wider framework of Spanish
sovereignty. With regard to the revolt of 1872 in particular, the friars conjured up an
insurrection in Cavite, when in reality it was nothing more than a military mutiny'.
Whatever may be the correctness of the assertion, it is not substantiated by any facts.
Indeed, the entire account of Paterno in the succeeding pages is a of himself and his
thinly veiled panegyric of accomplishments, in which he appears as the true inspiration
of Rizal and the soul of the late nineteenth-century nationalist movement. In addition,
there are numerous glaring factual errors which destroy any confidence one could have
in Paterno's reliability.
In brief, Paterno adds nothing to previous accounts, and if he possessed any personal
knowledge of the events, it does not appear in his writings, which therefore have no value as
independent sources.
One further document perhaps stemming in part from one of the participants or victims
of the Cavite revolt, Jose M. Basa, survives, though it is not precisely a historical document. It
 Every Filipino who loves his country, especially if he has had the satisfaction of
fighting for her and the cause of her independence in times past during the Revolution, cannot
but feel violated and experience a sense of indignation when certain individuals, bragging that
CRY OF PUGAD LAWIN OR BALINTAWAK the know like the palm of their hands the history of the country, either from having
participated in an event of transcendental significance in the nation's existence or simply
through mere hearsay, endeavor to distort, not merely to correct, certain historical events, This
Nineteenth-century journalists used the phrase 'el grito de rebelion" or 'the Cry of Rebellion' to is exactly what happened to me when I read an article written by Jose P. Santos, titled
describe the momentous events sweeping the Spanish colonies; in Mexico it was the 'Cry of "Rectificaciones historicas," published in the Spanish section of the Philippines Free Press on
Dolores (16 September 1810), Brazil the 'City of Ypiraga' (7 September 1822), and in Cuba 30 November of this current year [1929].
the 'Cry of Matanza' (24 February 1895). In August 1896, northeast of Manila, Filipinos
similarly declared their rebellion against the Spanish colonial government. It was Manuel
Sastron, the Spanish historian, who institutionalized the phrased for the Philippines in his 1897 I refer only to some parts of this article- which shall be explained further on- and not
book, La Insurreccion en Filipinas. All these 'Cries' were milestones in the several colonial-to- the entire article. And if I pick up my pen to correct these alleged 'rectifications,' it is not only
nationalist histories of the world. because I have personal knowledge of the historical events in question, as I was a member of
the revolutionary army of the Katipunan, but also because the article mentions my humble
person.
For nearly a century, the Cry of Balin-tawak major turning point in Philippine history
The first alleged 'correction' that I wish to refute is the false allegation that the first cry of the
-- has been the subject of controversy. Buehler (1999) help resolve this controversy by
Revolution was launched at a place called Pugad Lawin, and not in Balintawak, according to a
analyzing eyewitness accounts and contemporary documents heretofore un-quoted,
document signed by Briccio Pantas, Cipriano Pacheco, and Pio Valenzuela.
misquoted, or misrepresented. In her reconstruction of what transpired in Balin-tawak
-- when the katipuneros, led by Andres Bonifacio, assembled in Pook Kangkong in
Nothing is farther from the truth. What I can say is that, when the first Cry of
August 1896 -- she demonstrates that the Cry of Pugad Lawin was a hoax.
Balintawak took place, Pantas and Valenzuela had already fled in order to surrender to the
Spaniards, while Pacheco was never there.

The Masangkay Expose on the 'Cry' What actually happened was this:
At the invitation of Andres Bonifacio, the revolutionaries assembled in Balintawak.
There Bonifacio, seconded by Emilio Jacinto, courageously laid out the plan for a
Document D
general uprising against the Spanish government. It was there where Bonifacio and
other katipuneros tore up their cedulas as a sign of rebellion against Spanish
The public dispute between Guillermo Masangkay and Dr. Pio Valenzuela about the sovereignty. Pantas, Valenzuela, and Plata were those whom in vain, opposed the
'Cry' appeared in leading Philippines newspapers of the late 1920s and early 1930s. The uprising.
Masangkay side of the dispute is herein presented in two parts. Part 1 is based upon a
preliminary draft of an article found in the Masangkay papers that was published in the La While this assembly was being held, the alarm was raised that the civil guards were
Opinion issue of 6 December 1929. Part 2 is based on a draft of an article in response to a coming. The first to flee in order to save themselves were Pantas and Valenzuela. For
Valenzuela statement in the La Vanguardia that the Cry of Balintawak did not take place on 26 this reason, they could not have heard the Supreme Cry that launched the [fight] for the
August 1896. In the original, all pages of this section manuscript were signed by Guillermo independence of the Philippines at the moment; neither did they smell the gunpowder
Masangkay, Italics for emphasis are provided by the author. of the first shots. Shortly after submitting themselves to the Spaniards, they were
deported, What Pacheco ought to say is that it was his father, not he, who was at the
assembly as treasurer of the Katipunan.
 Right away I ought to say that Dr. Valenzuela was. The revolutionaries were never in "That night we slept in Bagobantay. We were eight, Andres Bonifacio, his brother
Pugad Lawin. From Kangkong in Balintawak, they went towards Balara, where bloody Procopio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedodel Rosario, Enrique Pacheco, his sons, and myself.
encounters with the enemy took place. The following day, 25 August, we went to Balara. On 27 August we went to
As to the veracity [of the facts] of which I speak, proofs are the accounts contained in Maruquina and from there to Pateros on the twenty-eighth, then to Biñang, Laguna."
the issues of the El Comercio and the Diario de Manila of that time, which are in our
According to this story, on 28 August, he (the doctor) went with Andres Bonifacio and
public library. Moreover, one can look at the work of Retana, Vida y Escritosdel Dr.
his companions to Mariquina and from there, to other points like Pateros and Biñang,
Rizal.
Laguna.
What I cannot understand is his [presumambly Valenzuela's] purpose in stirring up the
facts relative to the history of the Cry of Balintawak, exactly now, when a This is a downright lie, because on 27 August 1896, Dr. Pio Valenzuela presented
commemorative monument been erected and, in Balintawak, the first stone of a himself at 8:00 in the morning before the Spanish second corporal, General Echaluce
monument to honor Andres Bonifacio [the Bonifacio monument] has just been lain. If and Don Francisco Olive, judge advocate during the early days of the Revolution of
he is in pursuit of something sane and constructive, why did he not make these '96. On this same day, the following were arrested by the Veterana because of the
corrections earlier, when the monuments in honor of the heroes of '96 and the obelisk denunciations of Dr. Valenzuela: the katipuneros Hermenegildo Reyes (alias
in Kangkong were erected? Talibong), Rafael Gutuerrez, Francisco Varela, Vicente Molina, and others. The
following day, the twenty-eighth, he also denounced Jose Trinidad. On 1 September, he
denounced in like manner Jose Turiano Santiago, Sr., who was imprisoned as a result,
Let us go to the second 'rectification' which I will discuss that in the Camara Secreta, and that same afternoon, Jose Turiano Santiago, Jr. and Restituto Javier were arrested,
there were only Andres Bonifacio, the Father of the Revolution, Emilio Jacinto, the On 16 September 1896 Dr. Valenzuela also denounced Jose Dizon, engraver at the
Brains [of the Revolution], and Pio Valenzuela, no more, much less Guillermo mint, Roman Ramos, Faustino Mañalak, Valentin Legasca, Ramon Basa, Marcelode
Masangkay who was a katipunero only during the last days, or perhaps, only when the los Santos, Eugenio de los Reyes, Masangkay, and Geronimo Cristobal, corporal of
idea of revolution had already spread in most of the country. Regiment. Roman Ramos was a laborer at the arsenal and Mariano Masangkay is
brother of the undersigned. All were incarcerated.
It is for me unbelievable that there are persons who, without scruples, distort known
facts, [about] nothing less than the history of their own country. My comrades- in-arms,
the veterans Francisco Carreon, Pio H. Santos, Isaac Del Carmen, and others still alive Dr. Pio Valenzuela was used as state witness by the said judge advocate Francisco
can state that I was a member of the Camara Secreta. And, if that is not proof enough, Olive and by other judges of that regime. Valenzuela presented the Spanish authorities
one may review the testament of Tomas Remigio, preserved in our public library. a detailed memorandum that revealed the secrets of the Katipunan, the plans for
There, one can see that Remigio mentions the fact, that I, as a member of the Camara revolution- revelations which jeopardized Dr. Jose Rizal and other activists and
Secreta of the Katipunan, was one of those named by Bonifacio to kill him. katipuneros. His revelations were used by the authorities and the friars in the
prosecution and execution of Dr. Rizal in Bagumbayan.
II
Very early on 27 August [1896], the undersigned entered Manila to comply with
Dr. Pio Valenzuela sent from Cabanatuan an exclusive message to the La Vanguardia,
certain instructions of Supremo Bonifacio which consisted of gathering documents in
denying that the 'First Cry of Balintawak' took place on 26 August, which is a fact and which
his offices at calle Nueva at the Casa Fressell, where Bonifacio worked as a bodegero
the nation has for years consecrated. On several occasions, Dr. Valenzuela took part in past
(warehouseman). I gathered those papers, some of which, following the orders of the
celebrations on this date of the glorious events of our revolution.
supremo, I abandoned at the España Bridge. Those papers with apocryphal documents
Among other things, Valenzuela says the following:
prepared by Bonifacio [were meant] to implicate some rich and educated persons as
participants in the uprising against the Spanish regime.
According to Bonicafio, Rizal asked him on one occasion if the rich and some Mrs. Mariana Dizon, virtuous wife of Jose Turiano Santiago, is still alive and can
intellectuals supported the Revolution to which he answered negatively. Rizal confirm what I have just manifested. Some of the persons cited who are still living can
insinuated it was imperative that such persons be supportive of the idea, or if they were also confirm what I have manifested above.
not, they should be prevented from hindering the katipuneros and obstructing the
movement. On such insinuations of Rizal, Bonifacio, with the help of Pantaleon Torres
and Tomas Remigio, who were the scribes of the Katipunan, falsified the signatures of So that Dr. Valenzuela does not go on changing dates, sadly confusing them for his
some of the rich and educated, which were then stamped on some apocryphal own benefit, we are following chronological notes.
documents containing statements that implicated [the latter]. I recall that besides the
Yangcos, the Javiers, the Lunas, the Zamoras, the Bautistas, the Roxases, the 7 July 1892: founding of the Katipunan.
Salvadors, the Adrianos, and others, [the rich] had no participation [in the uprising] and
21 March 1895: enrolment of Dr. Pio Valenzuela in the Katipunan.
in case they had, [it was] opposed to the plans of the Katipunan uprising.
1895 May: Dr. Pio Valenzuela assuming the name Procopio Bonifacio, Sent to Dapitan to
confer with Dr. Rizal, this trip paid for by Mr. Francisco Castillo of Capiz.
My father looked at me and weeping, told me that my brother Mariano Masangkay,
who was not a katipunero was in the Bilibid having been mistaken for myself. Tearful, 5 August 1895: Dr. Rizal arrived in Manila
my father begged me to save my brother. Without saying a word, I presented myself to 26 August 1896: the First Cry of Balintawak
the quarters of the Veterana in Tondo, declaring that I was Guillermo Masangkay and 27 August 1896: Dr. Pio Valenzuela presented himself before the Spanish colonel, Francisco
not the one they had picked up who was my brother. Therefore they freed him and Olive, denouncing the katipuneros.
incarcerated me in the Bilibid.
30 December 1896: Rizal was shot down because of Dr. Valenzuela's denunciations.
On 28 September 1896, Restituto Javier, Jose Turiano Santiago (ex-councilor), Roman 1897 June: Dr. Valenzuela was sent to Spain a cuerpo del rey in exchange for this valiant
Ramos, and I were brought face to face with Dr. Pio Valenzuela, Valenzuela pointed to services given to the judge advocates, the Veterana, the Civil Guard, and the friars.
us a true members of the Karipunan. He said that Jose Turiano Santiago was the 1899: Dr. Valenzuela returned to the Philippines, was arrested by the Americans, and then
secretary of the association; Restituto Javier, fiscal; in front of the authorities much later, set free.
investigating us, Restituto Javier hit Valenzuela, causing his lips to bleed.
Sgd: GUILLERMO MASANGKAY
Allow me to summarize the name of martyrs and patriots victimized by the
denunciations of Dr. Pio Valenzuela, denunciations that carried much weight before the
authorities because they were those of a professional. Those victims were Jose Riza,
Francisco Roxas, Jose Dizon, Teodoro Plata, Jose Trinidad, Hermenegildo Reyes, Pantas on the "Masangkay 'Cry' Expose"
Francisco Varela, Rafael Gutierrez, Faustino Mañalak, Valentin Lagasca, Roman Basa,
Marcelo De los Santos, Eugenio de los Reyes, Germino Cristobal (who were all shot];
Jose Turiano Santiago, Sr.; Jose Turiano Santiago, Jr.; Restituto Javier; Roman Ramos; Document E
and Mariano Masangkay [who were all tortured]
Mrs. Marina Dizon, daughter of the patriot Jose Dizon and who, with Rosario
Villaruel, was one of the first women to join freemasonry, declared that when she Background
visited her father at the headquarters of the Veteran at calle Real, Intramuros, Dr.
Valenzuela was brought face to face with her father. The latter, unable to contain Before the discovery of the existence of the Katipunan, allegedly due to the parish
himself, grabbed Valenzuela by the neck to strangulate him. Thanks to the guards who priest of Tondo, Fr. Mariano Gil [because of] revelations made to him by one Teodoro Patino,
grabbed Jose Dizon's hands, fracturing them, we still have with us our dear doctor. a dismissed collector of the horse-driven tram, [who dwelt in the same house as] the typesetter
Policarpio Tarlac, who, failing to continue to support in his needs regularly, was denounced by What Happened?
Patino to the mentioned priest as katipunero, which led to arrests, starting with the said Tarlac
and his colleagues at the printing establishment of Ramirez and Giraudier at Magallanes Street, Teodoro Plata, the undersigned, and the Pio Valenzuela did not oppose [the idea of an
Intramuros, as well as some persons in the Corps of Carabiniers (who were] also katipuneros uprising] in vain, nor did they have reason to flee. Rather [then, Pantas, Valenzuela, and Plata]
and were initiated in the same house of Tarlac. On accounts of these earlier events, one can see were sent by Andres Bonifacio from Pugad Lawin on a particular errand, although in fulfilling
that despite that discovery, the principal chiefs were not arrested at the same time. their respective assignments they were arrested, tortured, and incarcerated. The same fate
befell Valenzuela [who], after having also complied with his mission in Pasig and Pateros, he
Departure of Balintawak and the undersigned were deported to the barracks of Melilla and Chafarina, Africa,
respectively, and [the Spaniards] executed Plata in Bagumabayan, now Luneta. The
With the electrifying spread of the news [regarding] the start of these arrest, because in newspapers El Comercio and Diario de Manila of those times as well as the work of Retana
(almost) every alley of Manila there was one or more katipuneros, Andres Bonifacio and his are not and cannot be good sources of information.
companions sought refuge in Balintawak, where later, other katipuneros came from
neighbouring towns and villages, and there, all bodied adult male residents were initiated into
Katipunan, forming considerable number. That Which Causes Indignation

What was discussed? Certainly, there is cause for indignation, when one out of vanity casts doubt upon the
name of some already dead, and without cause or any reason, implicate them in events that
After seeing that the multitude of men imbued with a [sense of] patriotic ardour and undetermined their honour and sworn loyalty before the Katipunan. Teodoro Plata and Tomas
highly belligerent stance…..determined to sacrifice themselves for the redemption of their Remigio were never rebels nor traitors to the Katipunan, This [the katipunan], because of its
country, but were unfortunately without adequate means to defend themselves, much less to sacred and moral doctrines religiously practiced by and between its members, could not have
attack, since very few had bolos among the peasants, some carried wooden stick [others] created the Camera Secreta with the function of eliminating by assassination any of its
bamboo lances, and knowing that they would get arrested, with counterproductive results for members. During its existence, the Katipunan had a 'board of judges' [known for their honour]
the cause of the country, it was clear that there was a need for a swift solution adapted to the whose members were chosen from among its officers, and these judges decided and sentenced
circumstances which, within sound reason and good sense, would not be condemnable and accused katipuneros, imposing in cases of [the need for punishment] only admonitions or
would not be harmful to the general uprising. It was planned to have a meeting in Cankong, persuasive scolding and never severe punishments, much less a death sentence or
not in Balintawak, presided by Andres Bonifacio and composed only of the members of the assassination.
revolutionary government instituted a month more or less previously in Caloocan. Mr.
Masangkay could not have had personal knowledge of the points of agreement during the Was there a meeting at Pugad Lawin on 23rd August 1896, after the meeting at
deliberations, since he was not present nor was he seen at all in those sites. He could have been Apolonio Samson's residence in Hong Kong? Where were the cedulas torn, at Kangkong or
in other places and have seen other events on different days. Pugad Lawin?
Pio Valenzuela had several versions of the 'Cry'. Only after they are compared and reconciled
Order for an Uprising with the other accounts will it be possible to determine what really happened. In September
1896, Valenzuela stated before the Olive Court, which was charged with investigating persons
While the meeting was in progress, no alarm was given when the civil guards were involved in the rebellion, only that Katipunan meetings took place from Sunday to Tuesday or
coming. Yes, they [the civil guards and other Spanish troops] arrived two days after Bonifacio, 23 to 25 August at Balintawak.
who on agreement with the members of the same revolutionary government had sent timely
circulars for a general uprising.
John N. Schumacher, S.J, of the Ateneo de Manila University was to comment on Pio
Valenzuela's credibility:
 "......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."

Pio Valenzuela backtracked on yet another point. In 1896, Valenzuela testified that when the
Katipunan consulted Jose Rizal on whether the time had come to revolt, Rizal was vehemently
against the revolution. Later, in Agoncillo's Revolt of the masses, Valenzuela retracted and
claimed that Rizal was actually for the uprising, if certain prerequisites were met. Agoncillo
reasoned that Valenzuela had lied to save Rizal.
The term 'Pugad Lawin' was never officially recognized as a place name on any
Philippine map before Second World War.
Second, 'Pugad Lawin' appeared in historiography only from 1928, or some 32 years after the
events took place. And third, the revolution was always traditionally held to have occurred in
the area of Balintawak, which was distinct from Kalookan and Diliman. Therefore, while the
toponym Pugad Lawin" is more romantic, it is more accurate to stick to the original 'Cry of
Balintawak'. The official stand of NHI is that the Cry took place on 23 August 1896. That date,
however, is debatable ( Guerrero, Encarnacion, & Villegas, 2003).

The later accounts of Pio Valenzuela and Guillermo Masangkay on the tearing of
cedulas on 23rd of August are basically in agreement, but conflict with each other on the
location. Valenzuela points to the house of Juan. Ramos in Pugad Lawin, while Masangkay
refers to Apolonio Samson's in Kangkong. Masangkay's final statement has more weight as it
is corroborated by many eyewitnesses who were photographed in 1917, when the earliest '23rd
August' marker was installed. Valenzuela's date (23 August) in his memoirs conflict with 1928
and 1930 photographs of the surveys with several Katipunan officers, published in La Opinion,
which claim that the 'Cry' took place on the 24th.