NAME: AMPUAN, JUHANA S.

DATE: AUGUST 30,

SUMMARY IN RESPONSE
The report on Chapter 5: Doing History – A Guide for Students explained different ways on how
students can engage in historical research. The discussion highlighted that the internet has
become a primary tool in research, but it requires caution because not all sources are reliable and
plagiarism must be avoided. Tools such as Google Scholar, Google Books, and even Wikipedia
were mentioned as useful starting points, but verification is important. Aside from online
research, the report also discussed the importance of libraries and archives, such as the National
Library of the Philippines, university collections, and private archives that hold valuable primary
and secondary sources. The presentation also covered life histories and biographical research,
emphasizing how studying individual lives, like Jose Rizal’s, connects personal stories to broader
history. Moreover, it explained the role of local and oral history in highlighting communities and
marginalized groups, and how museums and historical shrines help people connect with the past
in a more experiential way. Overall, the chapter stressed that “doing history” is not just about
gathering facts but analyzing, verifying, and connecting sources to form a more meaningful
understanding of the past.
In terms of delivery, the report was presented clearly and in an organized manner. The flow of
discussion was easy to follow, and the examples such as Rizal’s life and the use of online
resources made the topic more relatable. However, there were some parts that could have been
expanded further, like giving more detailed examples of oral history in the Philippine context or
explaining how OPAC searches can be done step by step. It would also have been nice if the
report included practical tips for students such as how to evaluate if a source is credible, or what
specific online databases (aside from the ones mentioned) are commonly used by history
students today. Still, the explanation was sufficient to understand the essence of the chapter.
For my evaluation, I would rate the report 95/100. It was informative and well-delivered, but
could be improved with more examples and additional practical guidance.
NAME: AMPUAN, JUHANA S. DATE: AUGUST 24, 2025

SUMMARY IN RESPONSE
The report on Chapter 4: Social, Political, Economic, and Cultural Issues in Philippine History provided a
broad yet clear explanation of three major areas: the evolution of the Philippine Constitution, Agrarian
Reform, and Taxation. From what I understood, the constitutions reflected the political situations of their
time. The Biak-na-Bato (1897) and Malolos (1899) constitutions showed the early struggles for
independence against Spain, while the 1935 Constitution prepared the country for self-government under
American rule. The 1973 Constitution revealed how power can be abused, since it was used by Marcos to
legalize authoritarianism. Finally, the 1987 Constitution under Corazon Aquino symbolized the
restoration of democracy and remains in force today. The second topic Agrarian Reform, highlighted that
land has always been at the center of inequality in our history. During the Spanish period, most lands were
controlled by friars and elites. The Americans tried to pass laws to redistribute lands, but these benefited
corporations and foreigners more than the poor. Post-war governments like Roxas tried reforms but failed
to support farmers. Marcos, through Presidential Decree 27, aimed to give lands to tenants, but
implementation was limited. After the 1986 revolution, Aquino’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) was introduced, but it also faced criticism because of Hacienda Luisita and the
influence of land-owning elites. This shows that agrarian reform remains an unfinished struggle until
today. The third part is Taxation, explained how the system changed depending on the rulers. During the
Spanish period, Filipinos paid tributes and rendered forced labor, which became a heavy burden. The
Americans introduced land and income taxes and tried to modernize the system. In the Commonwealth
period, taxation expanded with income and corporate taxes, though the cedula was removed and later
replaced by the residence tax. After independence, taxation continued to evolve but was often weakened
by corruption, inefficiency, and over-reliance on U.S. aid. This shows that while taxes are necessary to
run the government, problems in collection and misuse of funds remain big issues even today.
For the delivery of the report, I think the presenter did a very good job in organizing the discussion. The
flow was systematic starting with the constitution, then agrarian reform, and finally taxation so it was
easy to follow and understand. The use of examples like Biak-na-Bato, Malolos, CARP, and PD 27 helped
explain the changes across different time periods. However, I think the discussion could have been more
engaging if there were connections to present-day issues. For example, in taxation, it would have been
nice to mention current problems like the TRAIN Law, high VAT, or corruption in tax collection. For
agrarian reform, it could have been connected to recent struggles of farmers who are still fighting for land
rights. Adding these insights would make the report more relatable and thought-provoking. As a
suggestion, it would also be good if the report emphasized the lessons we can learn from history. For
example, the shift from authoritarianism (1973) to democracy (1987) teaches us to guard against abuse of
power. In agrarian reform, we can see that laws are not enough without strong implementation. And in
taxation, we are reminded that paying taxes is our duty, but the government must also ensure these funds
are properly used for the people’s welfare. These reflections make the topic more meaningful beyond just
memorizing historical facts.
Overall, the report was well-delivered, clear, and informative. It gave a good foundation for
understanding these three important issues. With a little more critical analysis and connection to the
present, it could be even stronger. If I were to rate the reporter, I would give 95/100 a very good
performance with just some room for improvement in connecting past issues to today’s realities.