Module 3: Philippine History:

Spaces for Conflict

and Controversies

MODULE OVERVIEW

If you have noticed or have observed from history books, news, or even
from different mass media platforms nowadays, significant events in the
past always have different versions, like choices in a multiple-choice test, in
fact, there are sometimes two sides of the stories and this is when fakes
news

1
proliferation becomes rampant, but of course, you are given the freewill on
whose narration will you believe in. As eyewitnesses and even people who
actually took part in the significant have contradicting narrations, which
complicates the study of history. While many may agree that what counts is
the event and its contributions to what we are and what we have today,
history enthusiasts would continue to seek and demand the exact narration
of events to finally put to rest these controversies. The emergence of
modern technology has little contribution to shed light to these
controversies, it is a must for historians to put to rest on these while the
primary and secondary sources are still available.

2
 Readings in Philippine History Midterms
_ __________

LESSON 1: INTRODUCTION TO PHILIPPINE HISTORY: SPACES FOR CONFLICT AND

CONTROVERSIES

LESSON SUMMARY
You may be wondering as to how can we know which side
of the story is based on truth and accuracy or to whom will we
believe in? This is the very reason why you will be introduced
to some key concepts in historical research and methodology
which will eventually help you in the long run to re-assess
conflicts and controversies in history.

There are actually three (3) data analyses in doing

historical research namely: content, contextual, and
subtext analyses. However, we will have an in-depth
discussion only on contextual analysis which will mainly
help you on historical endeavor later on.

A contextual analysis is an analysis of a text (in

whatever medium, including multi-media) that helps us to
assess that text within the context of its historical and cultural
setting, and also in terms of its textuality – or the qualities that
characterize the text as a text.

In addition, based on the book of Solmerano et. al (2018),

a contextual analysis combines features of a formal analysis
with features of “cultural archeology,” or the systematic study
of social, political, economic, philosophical, religious, and
aesthetic conditions that were (or can be assumed to have
been) in place at the time and place when the text was
created. While this may sound complicated, it is in reality
deceptively simple: it means “situating” the text within the
milieu of its times and assessing the roles of author, readers
(intended and actual), and “commentators” (critics, both
professional and otherwise) in the reception of the text).

“History is a guide to navigation in perilous times. History

is who we are and why we are.” -David McCullough

3
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Midterms
Controversies __________
_

LESSON OBJECTIVES
a. Students will be able to interpret historical events using
primary sources.

b. Students will be able to recognize the multiplicity of

interpretation that can be read from a historical text.

c. Students will be able to identify the advantages and

disadvantages of employing critical tools in interpreting
historical events through primary sources.

d. Students will be able to demonstrate ability to argue for

or against a particular issue using primary sources.

You have learned from our previous module about the Content and
Contextual analysis of selected primary sources. Let us check how
far you have remembered. Choose your answer from the box below.

External Criticism Content Analysis Primary Sources

Internal Criticism Contextual Analysis Multiperspectivity

1. It examines the authenticity of the document or the evidence being used?

2. It examines the truthfulness of the content of the evidence?
3. It is an analysis of a text (in whatever medium, including multi- media)
that helps us to assess that text within the context of its historical and
cultural setting, and also in terms of its textuality – or the qualities that
characterize the text as a text?
4. It is a research method for studying documents and communication
artifacts, which can be texts or various formats, pictures, audio, or video.
5. It refers to multiple subjects’ views on one particular object; in the case of
history in education, it is typically concerns a historical event or figure.

4
5
 Module 1 Introduction to the Study of History
__________

Controversy Tradition Cedula

Conflict Site GomBurZa
Mutiny Retraction Revolt
Evidence Eyewitnesses Contextual

Motivation Question
How can you evaluate the authenticity and veracity of the document?

LET’S LEARN!

How to use contextual analysis

A contextual analysis can proceed along many lines, depending upon

how complex one wishes to make the analysis. But it generally includes
several key questions:
1. What does the text reveal about itself as a text?
 Describe (or characterize) the language (the words, or vocabulary) and
the rhetoric (how the words are arranged in order to achieve some
purpose). These are the primary components of style.
2. What does the text tell us about its apparent intended
audience(s)?
 What sort of reader does the author seem to have envisioned, as
demonstrated by the text language and rhetoric?
 What sort of qualifications does the text appear to require of its intended
reader(s)? How can we tell?
 What sort of readers appear to be excluded from the text’s intended
audiences? How can we tell?
 Is there, perhaps, more than one intended audience?
3. What seems to have been the author’s intention?
 Why did the author write this text? And why did the author write this text
in this particular way, as opposed to other ways in which this text might
have been written?
 Remember that any text is the result of deliberate decisions by the author.
1 The author has chosen to write (or paint, or whatever) with these
particular

6
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies
Midterms
_________
words and has therefore chosen not to use other words that she or he
might have used. So, we need to consider:
-what the author said (the words that have been selected).
-what the author did not say (the words that were not selected).
- how the author said it (as opposed to other ways it might or could have
been said).
4. Can we identify any non-textual circumstances that affected
the creation and reception of the text?

 Such circumstances include historical or political events, economic

factors, cultural practices, and intellectual or aesthetic issues, as well as
the particular circumstances of the author’s own life.
Generally, if we talk about interpretation it is defined as the act of
explaining, reframing, or otherwise showing your own understanding of
something. To be more specific, Historical interpretation is the process
by which we describe, analyze, evaluate, and create an explanation of
past events. We base our interpretation on primary [firsthand] and
secondary [scholarly] historical sources. We analyze the evidence,
contexts, points of view, and frames of reference. Yes, it is a complicated
process, but historical thinking improves with practice. Interpretation
might explore causality (what made something happen), processes
(revolutions, economic depressions), conflicts (social class, race, gender),
historical outcomes (effects of past events), or many more topics
(creative thinking) (“What is historical interpretation?”n.d).
Historical Interpretation requires synthesizing (combining) a variety of
evidence, primary and secondary (critical thinking). Historical thinking
involves the ability to arrive at meaningful and persuasive understandings
of the past by applying all the other historical thinking skills, by drawing
appropriately on ideas from different fields of inquiry or disciplines and by
creatively fusing disparate, relevant (and perhaps contradictory) evidence
from primary sources and secondary works. Additionally, synthesis may
involve applying insights about the past to other historical contexts or
circumstances, including the present. These insights (secondary sources)
may come from social science theories and perspectives and/or the
writings of other historians (historiography) (“What is historical
interpretation?” n.d).

7
Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies
Midterms
_________

Importance of Context in Analysis and Interpretation

By Grace Fleming, edited by Stacy Jagodowski
January 28, 2019

Historical context is an important part of life and literature and

without it, memories, stories, and characters have less meaning.
But what exactly is historical context? It’s essentially the details that
surround an occurrence. In more technical terms, historical context refers
to the social, religious, economic, and political conditions that existed
during a certain time and place.
Basically, it’s all the details of the time and place in which a situation
occurs, and those details are what enable us to interpret and analyze
works or events of the past, or even the future, rather than merely judge
them by contemporary standards.
A strong understanding of historical context behind a work’s
creation can give us a better understanding of and appreciation for the
narrative. In analyzing historical events, context can help us understand
what motivates people to behave as they did.
Put another way, context is what gives meaning to the details. It’s
important, however, that you don’t confuse context with cause. “Cause” is
the action that creates an outcome, “context” is the environment in which
action and outcome occurs (Fleming, 2010).
On the other hand, Fleming (2010) had deliberately discussed that
“whether dealing with fact or fiction, historical context is important when
interpreting behavior and speech. No work of literature can be fully
appreciated or understood without historical context. What may seem
nonsensical or even offensive to contemporary sensibilities, might actually
be interpreted in a completely different manner by considering the era it
is from. Moreover, scholars and educators rely on historical context to
analyze and interpret works of art, literature, music, dance, and poetry.
Architects and builders rely on it when designing new structures and
restoring existing buildings. Judges may use it to interpret the law,
historians to understand the past. Any critical analysis is required, you
may need to consider historical context as well. Nonetheless, without
historical context, we are only seeing a piece of the scene and not fully
understanding the influence of the time and place in which a situation
occurred.

8
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

Another view of historical interpretation

Historical context is an important part of life and literature and

without it, memories, stories, and characters have less meaning.
But what exactly is historical context? It’s essentially the details that
surround an occurrence. In more technical terms, historical context refers
to the social, religious, economic, and political conditions that existed
during a certain time and place.
Basically, it’s all the details of the time and place in which a situation
occurs, and those details are what enable us to interpret and analyze
works or events of the past, or even the future, rather than merely judge
them by contemporary standards.
A strong understanding of historical context behind a work’s creation can
give us a better understanding of and appreciation for the narrative. In
analyzing historical events, context can help us understand what
motivates people to behave as they did.
Put another way, context is what gives meaning to the details. It’s
important, however, that you don’t confuse context with cause. “Cause” is
the action that creates an outcome, “context” is the environment in which
action and outcome occurs (Fleming, 2010).
On the other hand, Fleming (2010) had deliberately discussed that
“whether dealing with fact or fiction, historical context is important when
interpreting behavior and speech. No work of literature can be fully
appreciated or understood without historical context. What may seem
nonsensical or even offensive to contemporary sensibilities, might actually
be interpreted in a completely different manner by considering the era it
is from. Moreover, scholars and educators rely on historical context to
analyze and interpret works of art, literature, music, dance, and poetry.
Architects and builders rely on it when designing new structures and
restoring existing buildings. Judges may use it to interpret the law,
historians to understand the past. Any critical analysis is required, you
may need to consider historical context as well. Nonetheless, without
historical context, we are only seeing a piece of the scene and not fully
understanding the influence of the time and place in which a situation
occurred.

Another view of historical interpretation

Interpretations are in essence thoughtful efforts to represent and explain

past events. Interpretations include 3 vital elements based on (“What is

9
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

historical interpretation?” adapted from Drew, R., n.d):

1. Purposeful, thoughtful efforts - Interpretations are conscious

reflections on the past, not simply irrational spur-of-the-moment opinions.
Take time to apply logic and organization to your explanation of the past-
not merely emote or react to the evidence.

2. Representations - Interpretations are efforts to give an audience an

image or description of the event/issue being focused on. We cannot
recreate the past perfectly, but we can try to represent faithfully how
events transpired by ground our version in the historical evidence.

3. Past events - Interpretations are the reflections of those of us studying

the past, not of the participants in those events. We refer to the collection
representations of the past done by historians as historiography. The
views of participants from the past constitute our primary sources or
historical evidence. Without the process of reflection removed from the
event by time the creator of the view is inevitably partially influenced by
the impact the person/event had on them.

Another key point in this module is the idea of perspective. The word
perspective has a Latin root, “perspectus,” meaning “look through” or
“perceive.” This original meaning suggests a perspective as inherently
relative to the vantage point of a particular viewer (i.e., subject). However,
according to Torres (2018), Perspective refers to the point of view of the
said writer who was a witness to the event. In a deeper sense, taking
historical perspective means understanding the social, cultural,
intellectual, and emotional settings that shaped people’s lives and actions
in the past.

Multiperspectivity – refers to multiple subjects’ views on one particular

object; in the case of history in education, multiperspectivity typically
concerns a historical event or figure.

Additionally, according to Stradling (2003) as cited by Wansink et. al.

(2018) defined the characteristics of multiperspectivity as “A way of
viewing, and a predisposition to view, historical event, personalities,
developments, cultures, and societies from different perspectives through
drawing on procedures and processes which are fundamental to history as
a discipline” (p.14)

10
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies
Midterms
_________
Based on Candelaria & Alporha (2018), Geoffrey Barraclough defines
history as “the attempt to discover, on the basis of fragmentary evidence,
the significant things about the past.” He also notes “the history we read,
though based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series
of accepted judgements.”

Further, as written by Torres (2018), historical sources are written by

various authors with different perspectives. More to the point, on the
account of Candelaria & Alporha (2018), this means that there is multitude
of ways by which we can view the world, and each could be equally valid,
and at the same time, equally partial as well. Historical writing is, by
definition, biased, partial, and contains preconceptions. The historian
decides on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more
apparent, depending on what his end is.

Though historical sources are important in the writing of history, the

historian is careful in using these sources as the writer may be biased or
prejudiced on the subject, he/she is discussing.

The judgments of historians on how the past should be seen make the
foundation of historical interpretation. Interpretations of the past,
therefore, vary according to who reads the primary source, when it was
read, and how it was read. Moreover, interpretations of historical events
change over time; thus, it is an important skill to track changes in an
attempt to understand the past.

“Sa Aking Mga Kabata” is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal

when he was eight years old and is probably one of Rizal’s most
prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that this
poem, with the now immortalized lines “Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang
salita/mahigit sa hayop at malansang isda” was written by Rizal, and
worse, the evidence against Rizal’s authorship of the poem seems all
unquestionable.

There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The

poem was first published in 1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz
said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato Francisco, who claimed to
have received it in 1881 from Rizal’s close friend, Saturnino Raselis. Rizal
never mentioned of having a close friend by the person of Raselis.

Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful

11
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

attribution of the poem Rizal. The poem was written in Tagalog and
referred to word “kalayaan”. But it was documented in Rizal’s letters that
he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilar’s translation
of Rizal’s essay “El Amor Patrio,” where it was spelled as “kalayahan”.

While Rizal’s native tongue was Tagalog, he was educated in Spanish,

starting from his mother, Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would express
disappointment in his difficulty in expressing himself in his native tongue.
The poem’s spelling is also suspect-the use of letters “k” and “w” to
replace “c” and “u,” respectively was suggested by Rizal as an adult. If
the poem was indeed written during his time, it should use the original
Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time.

Many of the things we accept as “true” about the past might not be
the case anymore; just because these were taught to us “facts” when we
were younger does not mean that it is set in stone-history is, after all, a
construct. And as a construct, it is open for interpretation. There might be
conflicting and competing accounts of the past that need one’s attention
and can impact the way we view our country’s history, and identity. It is
important, therefore, to subject evaluation not only in primary source, but
also the historical interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of
events of the past.

Where did the 1st Catholic Mass take place in the Philippines?

 Butuan or Limasawa? (The site of the first mass in the Philippines: A Re-
examination of Evidence)

There is a controversy regarding the site of the first mass ever

celebrated on Philippine soil. Pigafetta tells us that it was held on Easter
Sunday, the 31’ of March 1521, on island called “Mazaua.” Two native
chieftains were in attendance, the rajah of Mazaua and the rajah of
Butuan. After the Mass the party went up a little hill and planted a wooden
cross upon its summit. The subject of controversy is the identity of this
place which Pigafetta calls “Mazaua.” There are two conflicting claims as
to its identity: one school of thought points to the little island south of
Leyte which in the maps is called Limasawa; the other school rejects that
claim and points instead to the beach called Masao at the mouth of
Agusan River

12
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

in northern Mindanao, near what was then the village (now the city of
Butuan).

In this paper we shall try to reexamine and reassess the evidence

for these two claims.
Based on Candelaria & Alporha (2018), it must be noted that there are
only two primary sources that historians refer to an identifying the site of
the first Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot of one-off
Magellan’s ship, Trinidad. He was one of the 18 survivors who returned
with Sebastian Elcano on the ship Victoria after they circumnavigated the
world. The other, and the more complete, was the account of Antonio
Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno al mondo (First Voyage around the World).
Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the Magellan expedition and an
eyewitness of the events, particularly, of the first Mass.

Source: Google. A portrait of the

First Easter Sunday Mass in the
Philippines

According to Pigafetta, the first Mass was celebrated on March 31,

1521, an Easter Sunday. Pigafetta referred to the venue as “Mazaua.”
Some say that the venue is the island of Limasawa in Leyte. Others,
however, claim that Pigafetta was referring to Masao the community at
the mouth of Agusan River adjacent to what is now the city of Butuan.
Nearing 500 years since the first Mass, debates continue whether it was
held on Limasawa Island, in Agusan or somewhere else. In this module we
shall try to re-examine and reassess the evidence for these two claims.
And we shall begin with Butuan tradition.

Further, based on the re-examination of evidence by Bernard (2002),

13
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

there is a controversy regarding the site of the first Mass ever celebrated
on Philippine soil. Pigafetta tells us that it was held on Easter Sunday, the
31st of March 1521, on an island called “Masaua.” Two native chieftains
were in attendance: the rajah of Mazaua and the Rajah of Butuan. After
the Mass the party went up a little hill and planted a wooden cross upon
its summit. The subject of controversy is the identity of this place which
Pigafetta calls “Mazaua.” There are two conflicting claims as to its
identity: one school of thought points to the little island south of Leyte
which in the maps is called Limasawa; the other school rejects that claim
and points instead to the beach called Masao at the mouth of Agusan
River in Northern Mindanao, near what was then the village (now the city)
of Butuan.

I. The Butuan Tradition

This account is also based on the comprehensive examination of

evidence made by the Jesuit Priest Bernard, M. (2002), Butuan claim rests
upon a tradition that was almost unanimous and unbroken for three
centuries, namely 17th, the 18th, and the 19th. On the strength of that
tradition and embodying it, a monument was erected in 1872 near the
mouth of the Agusan River at a spot that was then within the municipal
boundaries of Butuan, but which today belongs to the separate
municipality of Magallanes named after Ferdinand Magellan. The
monument was a brick pillar on which a marble slab that contained an
inscription which might be translated as follows:

To the Immortal Magellan: The People of Butuan with their Parish Priest
and the Spaniards resident therein, to commemorate his arrival and the
celebration of the First Mass on this site on the 8th of April 1521. Erected
in 1872, under the District Governor Jose Ma. Carvallo.

Supporting evidence based on Arevalo et al. (2019):

 It was mentioned that the king came to their ship in a balanghai.
Butuan is now the site of at least nine excavated balanghai (boat)
relics; by contrast, Limasawa has no significant archeological relics or
balanghai tradition.
 The distance to Cebu from Mazaua according to Pigafetta was 35
leagues [140 miles]. The distance from Limasawa to Cebu is only 80
miles.
 Abundance of gold in the Agusan Valley.

14
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

 Butuan to pursue claim it was site of First Mass in RP 485 years ago.
Local executives and church officials as well as historians refilling of
petition to National Historical Institute (NHI) asserting that Butuan City,
particularly Mazzaua island (Barangay Pinamangculan) was the official
site of the first mass on Easter Sunday in 1521.
 Historian Gregorio Zaide, who originally supported the Limasawa claim,
also claimed that “It is high time for contemporary historians and the
Philippine government to correct their mistake and accept that the first
Christian mass was celebrated in Masao, Butuan, Agusan del Norte and
not in Limasawa, Leyte, on Easter Sunday, March 31, 1521.”

The 17th Century

The Butuan tradition was already in possession by the middle of the

th
17 century: so much so that it was accepted without question by two
Jesuit historians who otherwise were quite careful of their facts. Here is
Father Francisco Collin’s account of Magellan’s arrival and of the first
Mass:

At the end of three months and twelve days during which they
traversed 4, 000 leagues, having crossed the Equator a second times,
they climbed up to 15 degrees North latitude where they came upon two
islands which they named Las Velas (the Sails). At 12 degrees North they
came upon the Ladrones Islands. A few days later they saw the island of
Ibabao (Samar) in this Archipelago. But the first island they touched at
was Humunu, a small uninhabited Island near Guiuan Point…. To that and
other islets they gave the name of Buenas Senas [Good Omens] but to the
entire Archipelago they gave the name San Lazaro, being the Saturday of
Saint Lazarus’ Sunday in Lent of the year 1521.
On Easter Day, in the territory of Butuan, the first Mass ever offered in
these parts was celebrated and a cross planted. Magellan then took
formal possession of the islands in the name of the emperor and of the
Crown of Castille.
The man who gave the most signal service to our men was the chief of
Dimasaua, relative of the chief of Butuan and of that of Zebu, whither he
led the armada, which entered the harbour at noon on the 7 th of April, the
Octave of Easter.
Collin had obviously read some authentic accounts of Magellan’s

15
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

voyage, for his narration is accurate up to the landing in Homonhon. (He

spells it Humunu, as does Pigafetta.) After that, Collin’s account becomes
vague, he abruptly brings Magellan to Butuan without explaining how he
got there. Then he brings him to Limasawa (which he misspells
Dimasaua), and from there the account becomes again accurate and
detailed. The important thing in Collin’s account as far as our present
purpose is concerned, is the fact that he represents the first Mass, as well
as the solemn planting of the cross and the formal taking possession of
the Islands in the name of the Crown of Castile, as having taken place at
Butuan on Easter Sunday of 1521.

The other Jesuit writer of the mid-17th century was Father Francisco
Combes S.J. (1620-1665) who, like Colin, had lived and worked as a
missionary in the Philippines, and whose Historia de Mindanao y Jolo was
also reissued 230 years afterwards in a handsome edition edited by
Wenceslao Retana assisted by Father Pastells. In his account of Magellan’s
Voyage, Combes gives a somewhat different version of the route taken by
the Discover. Here is the account:

The first time that the royal standards of the Faith were seen to fly in
this island (of Mindanao) was when the archipelago was first discovered
by the Admiral Alonso (sic) de Magallanes. He followed a new and difficult
route (across the Pacific), entering by the Strait of Siargao, formed by the
island and that of Leyte, and landing at the Island of Limasaua which is at
the entrance of that strait. Amazed by the novelty and strangeness of the
(Spanish) nation and the ships, the barbarians of that island welcomed
them and gave them good refreshments.

While at Limasaua, enjoying rest and good treatment, they heard of

the River of Butuan, whose chieftain was more powerful. His reputation
attracted our men thither to see for themselves or be disillusioned, their
curiosity sharpened by the fact that the place was nearby. The barbarian
(chief) lived up to our men’s expectations, providing them with the food
they needed…. Magellan contented himself with having them do
reverence to the cross which is erected upon a hillock as a sign to future
generations of their alliance…the solemnity with which the cross was
erected and the deep piety shown by the Spaniards, and by the natives
following the example of the Spaniards, engendered great respect for the
cross.

16
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

Not finding in Butuan the facilities required by the ships, they returned
to Limasaua to seek further advice in planning their future route. The
Prince of Limasaua told them of the three most powerful nations among
the Pintados (Visayans), namely those of Caraga, Samar, and Zebu. The
nearness of Zebu, the facilities of its port and the more developed social
structure (being more monarchical) aroused everyone’s desire to go
thither. Thus, guided by the chief of Limasaua, passing between Bool and
Leyte and close to the Camotes Islands, they entered the harbour of Cebu
by the Mandawe entrance on the 7th of April 1521, having departed from
Limasaua on the first day of the month.

For our present purpose, the main point in that account is that
Magellan landed at Butuan and there planted the cross in a solemn
ceremony. Combes does not mention the first Mass. What he mentions
are the two other events which, from Pigafetta;s account, had occurred on
the same day as the first Mass, namely planting of the cross and the
formal claiming of the archipelago on behalf of the Castilian Crown. These
events, says Combes, took place at Butuan.

Comparison of Colin and Combes accounts:

It is to be noted that both Colin and Combes picture Magellan as

visiting both Butuan and Limasawa. In Colin’s account, Magellan went first
to Butuan, then to Limasawa and from thence to Cebu. Combes, on the
other had mentions two visits to Limasawa: in his version, Magellan visits
Limasawa first: from there he goes to Butuan; then he returns to
Limasawa and thence to Cebu.

Both Colin and Combes agree that it was from Limasawa and with the
help of Limasawa’s chieftain that the Magellan expedition went to Cebu.
Both Colin and Combes also agree that Magellan arrived in Cebu on the 7th
of April 1521: that is to say, on the Octave of Easter, or one week after the
first Mass which – in this tradition – was supposed to have been celebrated
at Butuan.
Both Colin and Combes agree were to exercise a strong influence over
subsequent writers. An example of the quick and wide diffusion of Colin’s
influence is the following. In 1698 (thirty-five years after Colin’s work had
appeared in Madrid) there issued from the press in Naples in a multi-
volume

17
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

work (subsequently reprinted several times in several places) entitled Giro

del Mondo (A Voyage Around the World). It was written by the Calabrian,
Giovanni Francesco Gemelli Careri, who had visited many places,
including the Philippines. Of the first Mass on the Philippines soil, he says:

On Whit Sunday the first Mass was said on the land of Butuan, a cross
erected and possession taken in the name of the most invincible Charles
5th. The lord of Oimasaua (sic) kinsman of the King of Butuan and to him
of Cebu, was assisting to Magellan, for he brought the ships into the port
on the 7th of April. Before Mass was said on Whit Sunday, the lord and the
king of Cebu were baptized, and by their means, many men note and
others to the number of 500, and after dinner the queen with 300 more.
Careri has obviously confused two distinct events: one event was
the first Mass (which he places at Butuan); the other event was the
baptism of the rajah of Cebu. Careri is also confused regarding dates.
Neither event took place on “Whitsunday”; the first Mass occurred on
Easter Sunday, the baptism in Cebu took place two weeks later. But the
important point at the moment is the fact Careri may have read (or
misread) Colin: note his misspelling of the word for Limasawa.
Alternatively, Careri and Colin were using the same source.

As for Combes, he too is constantly being quoted by subsequent

writers who either cite him by name or merely take over his material
without attribution. One of those who cite him by name is the 18th century
Augustinian scholar, fray Joaquin Martinez de Zuniga (1760-1818) who
wrote a history of the Philippines which was promptly translated into
English, and whose other work, the Estadismo, we shall quote below. One
of Combes statements which was repeated oftenest by subsequent writers
was his remark that the Strait of Siargao lie “between” that island and
Leyte, and the island of Limasawa is “at the mouth “or entrance” of that
strait. A glance at the map will show that the statement was not
altogether accurate.

The 18th Century

One passage in Colin which seems to have been misunderstood, and

which may have misled some later writers, occurs in an early section of
his book in which he describes the island of Mindanao:

18
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

After that of Manila, the island of Mindanao is the largest in size and
the best in qualities among the isands of this Philippine Archipelago. Upon
these two largest islands, the other islands depend for protection and
security. Mindanao takes its name from the Principal Province or Kingdom
in it, and this is so called from its many lakes: for danao in the language
most widely used in these islands means “lake”; whence, “Maguindanao”,
the place and the dwellers of lakes…
The first Province that faces the sea from across New Spain [Mexico]
is that of Caraga, which begins at the Cape of San Agustin and stretches
some fifty leagues to the point of Surigao in the northeast; and from there
the coastline stretches westward some fifteen leagues to the river of
Butuan, noteworthy in the history of these Islands, not so much for its
gold and other good qualities as for the fact that it was one of the first
places where the Discoverer, the Illustrious Hernando de Magallanes,
landed and was accorded good treatment…
Colin does not say that Magellan first sighted the Cape of San Agustin
and then sailed northwards along the Pacific coast of Mindanao, rounded
Surigao point, and then sailed westward to Butuan. Indeed, in another
place (as we have seen) he said explicitly that Magellan entered Philippine
waters farther north, namely, near Samar, landing first at Homonhon. But
careless readers, seeing Collin’s description of eastern Mindanao, coupled
with Combes’s statement that Magellan had “entered” Philippine waters
through Siargao Strait, jumped to the conclusion that Magellan must have
come by the southern route as later explorers did. This mistake became
quite widespread in the 18th and 19th centuries.

One of the major historians who made this error (and who in turn
influenced later writers) was the Augustinian fray Juan de la Concepcion
(1724-1787) whose 14-volume History of the Philippines was published in
Manila shortly after his death. Here is what fray Juan says about
Magellan’s coming and about the first Mass in the Islands:

The general left the islands which he called las Velas Latinas or the
Archipelago of San Lazaro – a name which they still retain, although they
have also added the name of Marianas Islands. It is said that this was the
Celebes of antiquity, although I do not think this opinion is solidly
founded. They sailed 300 leagues westward, discovered many islands with
abundant of resources.

19
Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

The 19th Century

These explanations and evidence of the excerpt are taken from the
article of Bernard, M. (2002). Towards the end of the 18 th century and at
the beginning of the 19 th, one of the important writers who accepted the
Butuan tradition was the Augustinian, fray Joaquin Martinez de Zuňiga
(1760-1818), whose Historia de Filipinas was published in Sampaloc in
1803. His other work, a description of his travels around the Islands,
remained in manuscript for nearly a century, until Retana brought it out in
a two-volume edition in 1893. In this latter work, fray Joaquin has this to
say:
On Easter Sunday of the year 1521 Magellan was in Butuan. He
ordered the sacrifice of the Mass to be celebrated ashore, and he planted
a cross on a hillock near the beach. The natives were present at these
ceremonies, and they also witnessed the taking of possession of the land
in the name of the Crown of Castile. These rites over, Magellan proceeded
to Cebu where they killed him.
By the 19th Century, the Butuan tradition was taken for granted, and
we find it mentioned in writer after writer, each copying from the previous,
and being in turn copied by those who came after. Among the many who
could be cited as mentioning the first Mass in Butuan is the English, John
Foreman:

On the 16th of March 1521 the Ladrones Islands were reached…. After a
bloody combat …. the fleet continued its course westward. Coasting along
the North of the Island of Mindanao they arrived at the mouth of Butuan
River, where they were supplied with provisions by the chief. It was Easter
Week on this shore the first Mass was celebrated in the Philippines.

Unfortunately, in copying what previous authors had written, some

subsequent writers copied not only the essence of the Butuan tradition
but also a good deal of the erroneous details that were peripheral to that
tradition. The accumulated errors of three centuries may be found
illustrated in the work of a Dominican friar, whose two-volume treatise on
the friars was published at Santo Tomas in Manila in 1901. Here is his
account of the coming of Magellan and the first mass:

After many days of good sailing, he caught sight of the Marianas

Islands which he named the Archipelago of San Lazaro, having discovered
them on the Saturday of Passion Sunday (7 March 1521). A little later he
came to

20
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

Philippine territory where the Spaniards were well received by the natives
at Punta Guiguan to the east of Samar; and passing later through the
Strait of Surigao, they dropped anchor at Limasagua, whose chieftain
came aboard and was entertained by Magellan. The latter, on Easter
Sunday, disembarked at Butuan, a town in the island of Mindanao, where
the first Mass in the Philippines was celebrated. He returned to
Limasagua; and learning of the importance of Cebu, he proceeded thither;
following the coast between Samar and Leyte and passing by the
Camotes, he arrived in Cebu on 7 April 1521.

The misstatements in that short passage are numerous, not the least
of which is the almost incredible notion that Magellan had sailed from
“Limasagua” (sic) to Cebu by coasting between Samar and Leyte! The
good friar had not only checked on original sources: he had not even
bothered to look at a map!

II. The Shift in Opinion

(Limasawa: The place of the 1st mass in the Philippines)

How then did the shift in opinion – from Butuan to Limasawa come
about? How was the Butuan tradition – so well entrenched for three
centuries – finally dislodged? Some recent defenders of Butuan tradition
have blamed the shift of opinion on two Americans, namely Emma Blair
and James Alexander Robertson, whose 55-volume collection of
documents on the Philippine Islands was published in Cleveland from 1903
to 1909. But the “blame” (if blame it is) does not rest alone upon Blair and
Robertson. They indeed contributed enormously to the shift in opinion but
the man initially responsible for the shift seems to have been a Spanish
Jesuit scholar - Father Pablo Pastells S.J.A.

The shift in opinion from Butuan to Limasawa was due to a rediscovery

and a more attentive study of two primary sources on the subject:
namely, Pigafetta’s account and Albo’s log. What the effect of the study
was may be seen in the change in Pastell’s thinking.

Pastells had collaborated with Retana in a new edition of Combes.

Retana (as we have seen) had accepted the Butuan tradition in his edition
of Martinez de Zuňiga in 1893. In their joint edition of Combes of 1897,
neither Retana nor Pastells showed any sign of change of opinion. They

21
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

accepted the Butuan tradition as if they were not aware of any contrary
opinion. Meanwhile, however, Pastells was preparing his own edition of
Francisco Colin’s Labor evangelica, which was eventually published in
three volumes in Madrid in 1903. While preparing that edition, Pastells
had occasion to restudy both Pigafetta and Albo, and it was then that he
realized that the three-century Butuan tradition had been erroneous.
Colin, of course (as we have seen earlier) had contributed materially to
the strengthening of that tradition by stating that the first Mass had been
celebrated at Butuan. To that statement Pastells appended a footnote:

Magellan did not go to Butuan. Rather, from the island of Limasawa he

proceeded directly to Cebu. In that island he had dealings with Rajah
Siagu, chieftain of Butuan; and this would explain the author’s [i.e.,
Colin’s] error. See the “Voyage” of Pigafetta and the diary of Albo, both of
whom were eyewitness.

We have spoken of the “rediscovery” of Pigafetta’s account and of

Albo’s log. The word “rediscovery” is not unwarranted. Although these
works had been published earlier and were available in the great libraries,
they were not well known to many people them with the attention that
they deserved. This may explain how such a well-read scholar and
bibliographer like Retana did not seem to take into consideration when
preparing his editions of Martinez de Zuňiga and of Combes.

How little known Pigafetta’s work may be illustrated from the

experience of Rizal. Rizal apparently had not known of Pigafetta’s work
until he came across the Italian text in the British Museum. To “Plaridel”
(Marcelo H. del Pilar) who was in Spain, Rizal wrote from London on 4
February 1889:

See to it that someone there should learn Italian, because have here
some manuscripts in Italian in Italian that deal with the first coming of the
Spaniards to the Philippines. They were written by one of Magellan’s
companions. As I have no time to translate them myself, being busy about
many things, it would be good if one of our countrymen should translate
the work into Tagalog or Spanish, so that the situation of our people in
1520 may become known. Italian is easy to learn. By the Ahn method it
can be in one month. I am now learning Dutch.

It seems dear from that passage that Rizal had not previously known of

22
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

Pigafetta’s work and that he took it for granted that the other Filipinos in
Spain knew nothing of it.

You’ve gone reading this far, isn’t it tiring? Now to get your reward. Write
“I can do this” (handwritten only), below your answers on your personal
reflection. This is equivalent to 5 points.

III. The Evidence for Limasawa

We now come to the evidence in favour of Limasawa. The evidence
may be outlined as follows:
1. The evidence of Albo’s Logbook
2. The evidence of Pigafetta
a) Pigafetta’s testimony regarding the route.
b) The evidence of Pigafetta’s map.
c) The two native kings.
d) The seven days at “Mazaua”.

Primary Source: Albo’s Log

Source: Diario o derotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo se S.

Agustin en el Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito
por Frandsco Albo,” Document no. xxii in Collecion de viages y
descubrimientos que hicieron por mar los Espanoles desde fines del siglo
XV, Ed. Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (reprinted Buenos Aires 1945, 5
Vols.) IV, 191-
225. As cited in Miguel A. Bernard “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the
First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence” 1981,
Kinaadaman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35 as cited by
Candelaria & Alporha (2018).
1. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course from
Ladrones, they saw land towards the northwest; but owing to many
shallow places they did not approach it. They found later that its name
was Yunagan.
2. They went instead that same day southwards to another small island
named Suluan, and there they anchored. There they saw some canoes,
but these fled at the Spaniards’ approach. This island was at 9 and two-
thirds degrees North latitude.
3. Departing from those two islands, they sailed westward to an uninhabited
island of “Gada” where they took in a supply of wood and water. The sea
around that island was free from shallows. (Albo does not give the latitude

23
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

4. of this island, but from Pigafetta’s testimony, this seems to be “Acquada”

or Homonhon, at 10 degrees North latitude.)
5. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island names
Seilani that was inhabited and was known to have gold. (Seilani – or, as
Pigafetta calls it, “Ceylon” – was the island of Leyte.)
6. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they
turned southwest to a small island called “Mazaua.” That island is also at
a latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees north.
7. The people of that island of Mazaua were very good. There the Spaniards
planted a cross upon a mountain- top, and from there they were shown
three islands to the west and southwest, where they were told there was
much gold. “They showed us how the gold was gathered, which name in
small pieces like peas and lentils.”
8. From Mazaua they sailed northwards again towards Seilani. They followed
the coast of Seilani in a north-westerly direction, ascending up to 10
degrees of latitude where they saw three small islands.
9. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, and there they saw
three islets, where they dropped anchor for the night. In the morning they
sailed southwest some 12 leagues, down to a latitude of 10 and one-third
degree. There they entered a channel between two islands, one of which
was called “Matan” and other “Subu”.
10. They sailed down that channel and then turned westward and
anchored at the town (la villa) of Subu where they stayed many days and
obtained provisions and entered into a peace-pact with the local king.
11. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the islands of
Suluan and Mazaua. But between Mazaua and Subu, there were so many
shallows that the boats could not go westward directly but has to go (as
they did) in a round-about way.

It must be noted that in Albo’s account, the location of Mazaua fits

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

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

Expedition

24
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, the Philippine

Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, “Butuan or
Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination
of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadaman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III,
1-35 as cited by Candelaria & Alporha (2018).
1. Saturday, 16 March 1521 – Magellan’s expedition sighted a “high land”
named “Zamal” which was some 300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now
the Marianas) Islands.

2. Sunday, March 17 – “The following day” after sighting Zamal Island, they
landed on “another island which was uninhabited” and which lay “to the
right” here would mean on their starboard going south or southwest.)
There they set up two tents for the sick members of the crew and had a
sow killed for them. The name of this island was “Humunu” (Homonhon).
This island was located at 10 degrees North latitude.
3. On that same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the entire
archipelago the “Islands of Saint Lazarus,” the reason being that it was
Sunday in the Lenten season when the Gospel assigned for the Mass and
liturgical Office was the eleventh chapter of St. John, which tells of the
raising of Lazarus from the dead.
4. Monday, March 18 – In the afternoon of their second day on that island,
they saw a boat coming towards them with nine men in it. An exchange of
gifts was happened. Magellan asked for food supplies, and the men went
away, promising to bring rice and other supplies in “four days”.
5. There were two springs of water on that island of Homonhon, also they
saw there some indications that there was gold in these islands.
Consequently, Magellan renamed the island and called it the “Watering
Place of Good Omen” (Acquada la di bouni segnialli).
6. Friday, March 22 – At noon the natives returned. This time they were in
two boats, and they brought food supplies.
7. Magellan’s expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday, March
17, to the Monday of the following week, March 25.
8. Monday, March 25 – In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor and
left the island of Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day
(March 25) was the feast-day of the Incarnation, also called the feast of
the Annunciation and therefore “Our Lady’s Day.” On this day, as they
were about to weigh anchor, an accident happened his narrow escape
from death as grace obtained through the intercession of the Blessed
Virgin Mary on her feast-day.

25
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

9. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon was “toward
the west southwest, between four islands: namely, “Cenalo” is a
misspelling in the Italian manuscript for what Pigafetta in his map calls
“Ceilon” and Albo calls “Seilani”: namely the island of Leyte.
“Hiunanghan” (a misspelling of Hinunangan) seemed to Pigafetta to be a
separate island but is actually on the mainland of Leyte (i.e., “Ceylon”).
On the other hand, Hibuson (Pigafetta’s Ibusson) is an island east of
Leyte’s southern tip.

Thus, it is easy to see what Pigafetta meant by sailing “toward the

west southwest “past those islands. They left Homonhon sailing westward
towards Leyte, then followed the Leyte coast southward, passing between
the island of Hibuson on their portside and Hinunangan Bay on their
starboard, and then continued southward, then turning westward to
“Mazaua.”
10. Thursday, March 28 – In the morning of Holy Thurday, March 28, they
anchored off an island where the previous night they had seen a light or a
bonfire. That island “lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds towards the
Arctic Pole (i.e., North) and in a longitude of one hundred and sixty-two
degrees from the line of demarcation. It is twenty-five leagues from the
Acquada and is called Mazaua.”
11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island.
12. Thursday, April 4 – They left Mazaua, bound for Cebu. They were
guided thither by the king of Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their
route took them past five “islands” namely: Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan,
Baibai, and Gatighan.”
13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes
Group, namely Poro, Pasihan, and Ponson. Here the Spanish ships
stopped to allow the king of Mazaua to catch up with them, since the
Spanish ships were much faster than the native balanghai- a thing that
excited the admiration of the king of Mazaua.
14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards “Zubu.”
15. Sunday, April 7 – At noon they entered the harbour of “Zubu” (Cebu).
It had taken them three days to negotiate the journey from Mazaua
northwards to the Camotes Islands and then southwards to Cebu.

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

26
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua

Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, the Philippine

Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, “Butuan or
Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination
of Evidence” 1981, Kinaadaman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III,
1-35 as cited by Candelaria & Alporha (2018).

1. Thursday, March 28 – In the morning they anchored near an island

where they had seen a light the night before a small boat (boloto)
came with eight natives, to whom Magellan threw some trinkets as
presents. The natives paddled away, but two hours later two larger
boats (balanghai) came, in one of which the native king at under
an awning of mats. At Magellan’s invitation some of the natives
went up the Spanish ship, but the native King remained seated in
his boat. An exchange of gifts happened. In the afternoon that day,
the Spanish ships weighed anchor and came closer to shore,
anchoring near the native king’s village. This Thursday, March 28,
was Thursday in Holy Week, i.e., Holy Thursday.

2. Friday, March 29 – “Next day. Holy Friday,” Magellan sent his slave
interpreter ashore in a small boat to ask the king if he could
provide the expedition with food supplies, and to say that they had
come as friends and not enemies. In reply to the king himself came
in a boat with six or eight men, and this time went up Magellan’s
ship and the two men embraced. Another exchange of gifts was
made. The native king and his companions returned ashore,
bringing with them two members of Magellan’s expedition as
guests for the night. One of the two was Pigafetta.

3. Saturday, March 30 – Pigafetta and his companion had spent the

previous evening feasting and drinking with the native king and his
son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was Good Friday, they
had to eat meat. The following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his
companion took leave of their hosts and returned to the ships.
4. Sunday, March 31 – “Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March
and Easter day,” Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men to
prepare for the Mass. Later in the morning Magellan landed with some
fifty men and Mass was celebrated, after which a cross was venerated.
Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the noon-day meal,
but in the afternoon, they returned ashore to plant the cross on the

27
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________

5. summit of the highest hill. In attendance both at the Mass and at the
planting of the cross were the King of Mazaua and the King of Butuan.

6. Sunday, March 31 – On that same afternoon, while on the summit of the

highest hill, Magellan asked the two kings which ports he should go to in
order to obtain more abundant supplies of food than were available in that
island. They replied that there were three ports to choose from: Ceylon,
Zubu, and Calagan. Of the three, Zubu was the port with the most trade.
Magellan then said that he wished to go to Zubu and to depart the
following morning. He asked for someone to guide him thither. The kings
replied that the pilots would be available “any time.” But later that
evening the king of Mazaua changed his mind and said that he would
himself conduct Magellan to Zubu but that he would first have to bring the
harvest in. He asked Magellan to send him men to help with the harvest.
7. Monday, April 1- Magellan sent men ashore to help with the harvest, but
no work was done that day because the two kings were sleeping off their
drinking bout the night before.
8. Tuesday, April and Wednesday, April 3 – Work on the harvest during the
“next two days,” i.e., Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April.
9. Thursday, April 4 – they leave, bound for Cebu.

Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernard in

his work in Butuan or Limasawa : The site of the first mass in the
Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence (1981) lays down the argument
that in the Pigafetta account , a crucial aspect of Butuan was not
mentioned-the river. Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on the
Agusan River.
The beach Masao is in the delta in the said river. It is a curious
omission in the account of the river, which makes part of a distinct
characteristic of the Butuan’s geography that seemed to be too important
to be missed.

It must also be pointed out that later on, after Magellan’s death, the
survivors of his expedition went to Mindanao, and seemingly went to
Butuan. In this instance, Pigafetta vividly describes a trip in a river. But
note that this account already happened after Magellan’s death.

The evidence of Pigafetta’s Maps taken from the article of Bernard,

M. (2002).
Pigafetta’s narrative are illustrated with maps, or more precisely,
diagrams, or sketches. Pigafetta ws no cartographer and his maps had
probably no value as navigational charts. But they are extremely useful in
helping to identify the islands which he mentions in the narrative, and
they help to establish the relative positions (and even the relative sizes)
of those islands.

28
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies
Midterms
_________

1. The first map shows the Irge island of Samar (in the map it is spelt
Zzamal), and the smaller islands of Suluan, Abarien, Hiunangan, and
“Humunu” (Homonhon), which is also described as “Aguada ly boni
segnaly.”
2. The second map is really a double map. One map shows the Island of
Mindanao or Maguindanao (the Map spells it Mamgdanao). It shows on the
northern shore a deep indentation which is recognizably Panguil Bay. To
the west of that is “Cippit” To the extreme east, bordering on the Pacific,
are Butuan, Calagan, and Benasan (spelt in the map Butuam, Calagam,
Benasam). The other map shows the southern tip of Zamboanga, the
island of Basilan, and the Sulu archipelago.
3. A third map is the one most pertinent to our present investigation,
because it shows the island of Mazaua (the map spells it Mazzana) in
relation to the “islands” of “Ceilon” and “Baibai”and to those of Bohol,
Gatighan, and the three islands of the Camotes Group (in the map called
Polon, Pozon, and Ticobon).

The Two Kings taken from the article of Bernard, M. (2002).

There is confirmatory evidence in the presence of two native “kings” or
rajahs at Mazaua during the Magellan visit. One was the “king” of Mazaua
– who later guided the Magellan expedition to Cebu. The other was a
relative (“one of his brothers” as Pigafetta says), namely the king of rajah
of Butuan.

Of this latter individual, Pigafetta says that he was “the finest looking
man” that he had seen in those parts. (We shall have more to say about
him later.) At the moment, the relevant fact is that he was a visitor to
Mazaua. His territory was Butuan, which was in another island:

That island of his was called Butuan and Calagan. When those kings
wished to see another, they both went to hunt in that island where we are.

The “island where we were” was Mazaua, where they stayed seven days.
Therefore, Mazaua could not have been Butuan.

Why then the Butuan Tradition?

How then did the strong three-century tradition in favour of Butuan

arise? Here we are in the realm of conjecture, but a number of reasons
could be adduced to account for the tradition.

First, it must be remembered that the tradition is based on second-

hand information. One author repeats (and often distorts) what previous
authors have written, and is in turn copied (and distorted) by subsequent
Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies
Midterms
_________

29
authors. In such a chain, one author making a mistake could easily
start a tradition that could last three centuries.

A second reason is suggested by Pastells. Magellan and his men

got to know the rajah of Butuan at Masaua. According to Pigafetta, that
rajah was at Masaua only on a visit. But is easy to see how the fact that
Magellan had known the rajah of Butuan could be misunderstand by
later historians as meaning that he had known him at Butuan.

There is a third reason. It must be remembered that the Butuan

tradition, while erroneous as to the site of the first Mass, is not entirely
without validity. Magellan’s expedition, after Magellan death, visited
several places in Mindanao, very probably including Butuan. (The
riverine community described by Pigafetta in a later section of his
account could have been Butuan.) Certainly, forty years later, members
of Legazpi’s expedition visited Butuan. The people of the district would
remember these visits by the bearded, white-skinned men from Europe
in their big ships, and a tradition could have grown among the people
that “the first Spaniards came here.” The Spanish missionaries coming
to Butuan would pick up this tradition and conclude that Magellan’s
expedition had visited Butuan.

One thing is dear: whoever started the tradition that the first
Mass was celebrated at Butuan, it was certainly neither Pigafetta nor
Albo, nor Maximilian of Transylvania.

The Importance of Butuan

It must be remembered that we are dealing here solely with a
question of fact: Was the first Mass on Philippine soil – namely the one
celebrated at Butuan or Limasawa? To reject the Butuan claim is in no
way to downgrade the cultural or historical importance of Butuan.
Indeed, it is about time that Philippine historians and students of
Philippine historians and students of Philippine culture should awaken
to the importance of Butuan in prehistoric days. Pigafetta himself is a
witness to that importance (Bernard, 2002).

30
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies
Midterms
_________

Case Study 2: Did Rizal Retract?

Source: Google. A
picture of Dr.
JoseRizal. (Image)

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings

that center on ending colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to
contribute to creating the Filipino nation. The great volume of Rizal’s
lifework was committed to this end, particularly the more influential ones,
Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays vilify not the Catholic
religion, but the friars, the main agents of injustice in the Philippine
society.

It is understandable, therefore, that any piece of writing from

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

31
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________
Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction

Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia,

C.M. on 18 May 1935.

I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born

and educated I wish to live and die.

I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings,

publications, and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of
the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches, and
I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the
enemy, which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the
Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical
Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order
to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God
and people may pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal

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

The Balaguer Testimony

Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because

only on eyewitness account of the writing of the document exists-that
of the Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. According to his testimony, Rizal
woke up several times, confessed four times, attended a Mass,
received communion, and prayed the rosary, all of which seemed out of
character. But since it is the only testimony of allegedly a “primary”
account that Rizal ever wrote a retraction document, it has been used
to argue the authenticity of the document.

The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the

research of Professor Rene R. Escalante. In his research, documents of
the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to Moreno.

32
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________
Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal
Source: Michael Charleston Chua, “Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga
Bagong Dokumento at Pananaw,” GMA News Online, published 29
December 2016 as cited by Candelaria & Alporha (2018).

Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed

in Fort Santiago to report on the events during the [illegible] day in
prison of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the
following:

At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row

accompanied by his counsel. Senor Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit
priest Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and moments after
entering, he was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the
Assistant of the Plaza, Senor Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything.
He replied that at the moment he only wanted a prayer book, which
was brought to him shortly by Father March.

Senor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long
while with the Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious
matters, it seems. It appears that these two presented him with a
prepared retraction on his life and deeds that he refused to sign. They
argued about the matter until 12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg
and a little chicken. Afterwards he asked to leave to write and wrote for
a long time by himself.

At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal

handed him what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing
squad, Seňor del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Senor Maure
were informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed
the document that the accused had written.

At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the

prison… dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel,
followed by a military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain.
Donning his formal clothes and aided by a soldier of the artillery, the
nuptials of

Rizal and the woman had been his lover were performed_at the p o _i n t of
death (in articulo mortis). After embracing him she left, flooded with
tears.
This account corroborates the existence of the retraction
document, giving it credence. However, nowhere in the account was Fr.
Balaguer mentioned, which makes the friar a mere secondary source to
the writing of the document.

The retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many

scholars, however, agree that the document does not tarnish the
33
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________
heroism of Rizal. His relevance remained solidified to Filipinos and
pushed them to continue the revolution, which eventually resulted in
independence in 1898.

Case Study 3: Where did the Cry of Rebellion happen?

Momentous even swept the Spanish colonies in the late nineteenth

century, including the Philippines. Journalists of the time referred to the
phrase “El Grito de Rebelion” or “Cry of Rebelion” to mark the start of
these revolutionary events, identifying the places where it happened.

Source: Google. A image of BonifacionCry of Pugadlawin, 1896.

In the Philippines, this happened in August 1896, northeast of

Manila, where they declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial
government. These events are important markers in the history of
colonies that struggled for their independence against their colonizers.

The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification

of the date and place where the Cry happened. Prominent Filipino
historian Teodoro Agoncillo emphasizes the event when Bonifacio tore
the cedula or tax receipt before the Katipuneros who also did the same.
Some writers identified the first military event with the Spaniards as
the moment of the Cry, for which, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned an
“Himno de Balintawak” monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected
in what is now the intersection of Epifanio de los Santos (EDSA) Avenue
and Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion Road, and from then on
until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was celebrated every 26 th of August.
The site of the monument was chosen for an unknown reason.

Different Dates and Places of the Cry

Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A

guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, identified the Cry to have happened in
Balintawak on 25 August 1896. Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino historian,

34
Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and
Controversies Midterms
_________
marks the place to be in Kangkong, Balintawak, on the last week of
August 1896. On the contrary, Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son
of Mariano Alvarez, leader of the Magdiwang faction in Cavite, put the
Cry in Bahay Toro in Quezon City on 24 August 1896. Pio
Valenzuela, known Katipunero and privy to many events concerning
the Katipunan stated that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on 23
August 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide identified the Cry to have
happened in Balintawak on 26 August 1896, according to statements
by Pio Valenzuela. Research by historians Milagros Guerrero,
Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas claimed that the event
took place in Tandang Sora’s barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon
City, on 24 August 1896.

Primary Source: Accounts of the Cry

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

On August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the

house of Apolonio Samson, then cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan.
Among those who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto,
Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remigio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio
Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and Francisco Carreon. They were all
leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the
organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Morong
were also present.

At about nine o’clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting

was opened with Andres Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting
as secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to take
place. Teodora Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were all
opposed to starting the revolution too early…Andres Bonifacio, sensing
that he would lose in the discussion then, left the session hall and
talked to the people, who were waiting outside for the result of the
meeting of the leaders. He told the people that the leaders were
arguing against starting the revolution early and appealed to them in a
fiery speech in which he said: “You remember the fate of our
countrymen who were shot in Bagumbayan. Should we return now to
the towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us. Our organization has been
discovered and we are all

marked men. If we don’t start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us
anyway. What then, do you say?”

“Revolt!” the people shouted as one.

35
Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies
Midterms
_________
Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to
revolt. He told them that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos wer (sic)
the cedula tax charged each citizen. “If it is true that you are ready to
revolt… I want to see your cedulas. It will be a sign that all of us have
declared our severance from the Spaniards.”

Pio Valenzuela

Source: Pio Valenzuela, “Cry of Pugad Lawin,” in Gregorio Zaide and

Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 8
(Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 301-302.

The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto,

Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was
Balintawak, the first five arriving there on August 19, and I, on August
20, 1896, was the house and yard of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong.
Aside from the persons mentioned above, among those who were there
were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio
Samson, and others. Here, views were only exchanged, and no
resolution was debated or adopted. It was at Pugad Lawin, the house,
storehouse, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where
over 1, 000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out
considerable debate and discussion on August 23, 1896. The discussion
was on whether or not the revolution against the Spanish government
should be started on August 29, 1896…After the tumultuous meeting,
many of those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted “Long
live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!”

From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed marked

disagreement among historical witnesses as to the place and time of
the occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources, four
places have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and
Bahay Toro, while the dates vary: 23, 24, 25, or 26 August 1896.

Valenzuela’s account should be read with caution: He once told a

Spanish investigator that the “Cry” happened in Balintawak on
Wedneday, 26 August 1896. Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the
Revolution that it happened at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Such
inconsistencies in accounts should always be seen as a red flag when
dealing with primary sources.

According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places

are in Balintawak, then part of Caloocan, now, in Quezon City. As for
the dates, Bonifacio and his troops may have been moving from one
place

36
 Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies
Midterms
_________

to another to avoid being located by the Spanish government, which

could explain why there are several accounts of the Cry.

Module disclaimer:
The written discussions are based on the books and reliable
sources; however, these are shortcuts and summaries which were
solely utilized as an academic guide for the course. Maybe you are
wondering why there are a lot of readings (that eventually made you
bored) which is set for this module – please be reminded that the
course/subject you are enrolled in is READINGS in Philippine History.
Another thing, for you to be able to grasp the full and complete
primary source of every other case re-examination, refer to the books
we have at the library, do not solely rely on the information you can
get from the internet or google. If you are still reading this part here,
let me know, by putting a star at the top of your name on the front
page. This is equivalent to additional 5 points.

Here are the books I would like to recommend; they are available at
BCC library:
 Candelaria J.L. and Alporha, V. C. (2018). Readings in Philippines
History. Rex Bookstore Inc.
 Corpuz R. M. and Tabotabo C. V. (2018). Readings in Philippine history.
Mindshapers Co., Inc.
 Martinez, R. M., Bumidang, J. G., Tayaban, D. B., Fragata, R. D. L.,
Viloria, M. I. T., Dulay, M. J., Cristobal, J. M. (2018). The Readings in
Philippine History. Mindshapers Co., Inc.
 Solmerano, E.M., Palencia, M. M., and Galicia, R. M. (2018). Readings in
Philippine history. Fastbooks
 Torres, J. V. (2018). BATIS: Sources in Philippine History. C & E