UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

“ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES”

CHAPTER CONTROVERSIES AND CONFLICTING
3 VIEWS IN THE PHILIPPINES HISTORY

LEARNING OUTCOME:
At the end of the Chapter, you must be able to:
 State the different version of four of the controversial issues in the
Philippine history.
 Analyze the conflicting views presented on some historical events
that shaped the history of the Philippines; and ,
 Make critical evaluation of the issues in the Philippine history

A. THE SITE OF THE FIRST MASS IN THE PHILIPINES: MASAU OR

LIMASAWA
We are confused people, It is because our history as a people is laden with controversies and
conflicting views. We do not even know who we really are, what we want and how to and whom we
identify ourselves.

Four of the controversies that have continuously been subjects of discussions, conflicts,
and at times misunderstanding among friends who differ in their views about them are the
site of the first mass in the Philippines, the Cavite Mutiny , the Retraction of Rizal and the
Cry of Balintawak. Lately, The EDSA People Power, was it a revolution or not and whether
Marcos is a hero or not and he deserved to be buried at the Libingan ng Mga Bayani, Have
been added to the list of controversies in the Philippine history.
For decades, children have been taught that Limasawa was the site of the first mass in the
Philippines. As chronicled by Pigafetta, the historian of Magellan expedition, the first mass in
the Philippines archipelago was celebrated on March 31, 1521 along the shores of what was
referred to by him as Mazaua. Mazaua was believed to be Limasawa, an island located at the
tip of Southern Leyte. According to his accounts, Magellan ordered the planting of a large
wooden cross on top of a hill overlooking the sea.
Pigafetta wrote of the first mass: “After the cross was erected in position, each of us
repeated the Pater Noster and an Ave Maria and adored the cross; and the kings Colambu
and Siagu did the same.”
Pigafetta an Italian who was in the service of the king of Spain. He served as the
chronicler of the Magellan expedition and was one of the men of Magellan who was able to
return to Spain on board the Victoria, the only ship which survived the expedition, He gave a
copy of his diary to the king of Spain, Charles V. Two years after arriving in Spain , He wrote
a book, The Navigation and Discovery of Upper India, based on his diary. The book was first
published in French. In 1905 its Italian version was translated into English by James
Robertson which he entitled Magellan’s Voyage Round the World.

58 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

Reading No. 10
PIGAFETTA'S ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST MASS
***
“Early on the morning of Sunday, the last of March, and Easter-day, the captain-general
(Magellan) sent the priest (Fr. Pedro de Valderrama) with some men to prepare the place where Mass
was to be said; together with the interpreter (Enrique) to tell the king (Raha Kolambu) that we were
not going to land in order to dine with him, but to say mass. Therefore the king sent us two swine
that he had killed. When the hour for Mass arrived, we landed with about fifty men, without our body
armor, but carrying our other arms and dressed with our best clothes. Before we reached the shore
with our boats, six pieces were discharged as a sign of peace. We landed; the two kings (Kolambu
and Siagu) embraced the captain-general and placed him between them. We went in marching order
to the place consecrated, which was not far from the shore. Before the commencement of Mass, the
captain sprinkled the entire bodies of the two kings with musk water. The Mass was offered up. The
kings marched forward to kiss the cross as we did, but they did not offer the sacrifice. The body of
our Lord was elevated, they remained in our knees and worshipped Him with clasped hands. The
ships fired all their artillery at once when the body of Christ was elevated, the signal having been
given from the shore with muskets. After the conclusion of Mass, some of our men took
communion...."
J Mallat wrote of Magellan’s expedition: “The expedition went towards the
southwest, where it was not long before it discovered a tip of a land to which was given name
Cape of St. Augustine. This cape formed the southwest extremity of the island of Mindanao.
From there, the expedition went up towards North, coasting along a gold-rich province. It
entered the strait of Surigao and cast anchor near the little island of Limasagua.”38
Upon being informed that the gulf and river of Butuan which is in the Northern coast
of the island of Mindanao and the south of Limasagua, Magellan dispatched an armed craft
with an interpreter. He instructed his men to asked some food from the native of Butuan in
exchange for some objects which he told his men to bring with them. They were given
several goats, pigs and rice.
Writing on the first Mass in the Philippines, Mallat continued: “ On palm Sunday,
Magellan went in person to the village of Butuan erected an altar decorated with leaves and
flowers and had a crew of his three vessels go ashore to hear the first Mass ever celebrated in
those far away regions, In which he was anxious to have said in order to give thanks to God of
the seas for protection which he had given to the expedition. The natives attended the ceremony
peacefully, and Magellan treated them with the greatest kindness; he planted on top of a hillock
the sacred emblem of Christianity, and by a solemn act took possession of the island of Mindanao
for the crown of Castille, in the name of the Emperor and the King, Charles V.” 39
In commemoration of the birth of Christianity in the Philippines, RA no. 2733 was
enacted on June 19, 1960. Known as the Limasawa Law, it declared the site in Magallanes ,
Limasawa Island in Leyte as a national shrine, the top place having been the site of the first
Mass in the Philippines. However, it was not signed by the president.
The declaration of Limasawa as the site of the first Mass in the Philippines as
embodied in the unsigned law was contested by some historians , Sonia Zaide in particular.
She Identified Masao in Butuan as the location of the first Christian Mass. She based her
claim, on the diary of Pigafetta. In view of this claim of Zaide, Congresswoman Ching Plaza
of Agusan del Norte filed a bill in Congress in 1995 contesting Limasawa claim asserting that
Butuan was the site of the first Mass.

59 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

The controversy was referred to the (now National Historical Commission of the
Philippines) for further study and recommendation. After a thorough study, Dr. Samuel K. Tan,
the Chairman of the NHI, reaffirmed Limasawa as the site.
Despite the reaffirmation of the NHI that Limasawa was the site of the first Christian
Mass in the archipelago, this controversy and conflicting view continue to haunt many
scholars and students of Philippine history. There is a need, therefore, for a more in-depth and
continuing research on this issue.
The controversy on the site of the first Mass did not stop there. It was made more
conflicting by the claim of many Pangasinense that the first Mass was celebrated in
Pangasinan in around 1334 by Odoric of Perdenone, a late-medieval Franciscan friar-
missionary explorer. In fact, a marker was placed in front of the Bolinao Church in
Pangasinan stating that the first Mass on Philippine soil was celebrated in Bolinao Bay in
1324 by a Franciscan missionary, Blessed Odorico.40
However, this claim was considered as one of the hoaxes in Philippine history. Zaide
wrote that Fr. Odorio was never in the archipelago.41
Reading No.11
WHERE WAS THE FIRST KINGDOM? MASAO OR LIMASAWA?
By Sonia M.Zaide
The Philippines: A Unique Nation
All Nations Publishing Company, Inc.
Manila,1994

The first kingdom visited by Magellan in 1521, and the site of the first recorded Mass in
the Philippines, have been the subject of controversy since the Spanish era. In 1872, a Spanish
district governor erected a marble monument at Magallanes, then the center of Butuan, to
celebrate Magellan's arrival and the commemoration of the first Mass. On the other hand, in
1958, the National Historical Commission placed a historical marker in Barrio Magallanes,
Limasawa Island commemorating the same event.

So, where is the site of the first Mass and the first kingdom that so impressed the
Western explorers? Although Limasawa, Southern Leyte, has the official title at present and it
would take new legislation to dislodge it, the evidence points to Masao, now a municipality of
Butuan, Agusan del Norte, as the site of the first kingdom, and hence, the first Mass.

The evidence for Masao, rather than Limasawa, are as follows:

1. The name of the place. In all the primary sources, including the diary of Antonio Pigafetta,
the chronicler of Magellan's voyage, the name of the place was three syllables-"Masao" or
something close to it. Limasawa has four syllables and begins with another letter.

2. The route from Homonhon. According to the primary records, again, the expedition
travelled 20 to 25 leagues from Homonhon, their first landing point, to the site of the first
Mass taking a west south west course. If they had been at Limasawa Island, the distance is
about14.6 leagues, or one half that length. Moreover, the island of Limasawa is blocked
from Homonhon by the tip of Southern Leyte.
3. The latitude position. Some of the primary sources locate the place at 90 North latitude and
others at 9 2/3 degree. The latitude position eliminates Limasawa, because it is closer by ten
degrees, and strengthens the claim of Masao, Butuan because it is exactly at nine degrees.

60 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

4. The route to Cebu. The route to Cebu taken by the explorers is almost exactly similar to the one
now taken by motor vessels from Cebu to Butuan. The king of Masao, (Kolambu) even guided
the explorers to Cebu and acted as their interpreter and intermediary when they met the Cebu
king. On the contrary, there is no sea traffic from Limasawa to Cebu, then or now. And the
distance to Cebu, according to Pigafetta, was 35 leagues (140 miles). If it were from Limasawa
that they came, the distance would only be 80 miles, or only half the alleged distance travelled.
5. The geographical features. The following physical features of the first kingdom point to
Butuan, rather than Limasawa, as follows: (1) the bonfire: the explorers were attracted to the
light of a fire present the night before they came to shore. Now, the name “Masao” in Butuan on
precisely means “bright", which could refer to the local custom of celebrating a harvest by
cooking rice flakes in open fires. By contrast, there are no rice fields in Limasawa; (2) The
balanghai which was a prominent feature of the story of their stay in the first kingdom. It was
said that the king came to their ship in a balangahi, and Pigafetta and his companion attended a
party in a ritual balanghai with the local king. Butuan is now the site of at least nine excavated
balanghai relics; by contrast, Limasawa has no significant archeological relics or balangahi
tradition; (3) Houses: the natives of Masao built their houses on stilts but the natives of
Limasawa built low houses, due to frequent typhoons in the area; (4) Abundance of gold: The
Western explorers got excited at the abundance of gold in Masao and Butuan for that was the
main currency at the time. Both archeological relics (e.g. the “Gold Image of Agusan”) and gold
mines today attested to the richness of gold in the Agusan valley. . However, there is no gold in
Limasawa. (5) A developed settlement: Magellan saw a thriving community at Masao, where
people practiced honest market transactions. Instead of stealing the items they wanted, as in the
Ladrones, and the king of Masao showed diplomatic skill. The affluence and dignified bearing
of the brother kings (of Masao and Butuan) were due to the rich natural resources of the
kingdoms. The Masao king enjoyed high prestige among his peers in the Visayas and Mindanao
and exerted a great influence on them, like the king of Cebu to whom he introduced Magellan.
The social status of the Masao king must have been due to the archeologically-proven
importance of northeastern Mindanao as a trading and cultural center in ancient Philippines. It
was believed that Butuan City was a thriving port long before the Europeans came. Certainly,
linguistic studies indicate that the Manobos of the Agusan Valley were the earliest settlers of
Mindanao, whose descendants later spread out to Sulu and Jolo. Butuan was a major center of
trade and international commerce in Southeast Asia for such items as camphor from Borneo,
Moluccan spices and exotic birds, long before the Spaniards developed Manila as a port. By
contrast, the East Visayas, including Limasawa, never attained such importance. And the
Limasawans have always been a poor cousin of the Warays.

B. THE CAVITE MUTINY

There are four versions related to the Cavite Mutiny - the Jose Montero y Vidal,
Spanish historian version; the version of Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo; the version of
Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera; and that of the French writer, Edmund Plauchut.
1. The Jose Montero y Vidal and Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo Versions
The versions of Jose Montero y Vidal and Governor-General Izquierdo were almost
the same except that the Izquierdo version was more biting. In his documentation of this
event Montero referred to it as a “revolution,” an attempt by the Indios to topple down the
Spanish government in the Philippines. Izquierdo on the other hand, used this event as a
vehicle to implicate the Filipino priests who were then active in their secularization of
Philippine parishes' campaign.

61 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

In the report submitted by these two Spaniards, they stated that the primary reasons for
the “revolution" were the removal of the privileges which the workers in the arsenal were
enjoying. These privileges included the exemption from the payment of tribute and from
rendering the polo. They also pointed to the following reasons as aggravating factors in the
"revolution": the revolution in Spain which overthrew what they referred to as “secular throne”;
the black propaganda resorted to by the unrestrained press; books and pamphlets containing
liberal and democratic articles which reached the Philippines; and most importantly, the native
priests who because of their dislike of the friars plotted with and helped the rebels and enemies of
Spain. Izquierdo blamed the “unruly Spanish press for stockpiling malicious propagandas.”
Izquierdo, in his report to the Spanish king pointed to the intention of the rebels to topple
down the Spanish government in order to put in power a new “king" in the persons of Father Jose
Burgos and Father Jacinto Zamora. He stressed in his report that the Filipino priests urged the
natives to support the “revolution,” which they were assured of victory since God was on their
side. He added that the Filipino priests promised the natives that when they won the “revolution,"
those who joined in the “revolution” would be rewarded with job, wealth and promotion in the
army. Izqierdo mentioned in his report that the Indios were possessed with the natural tendency
of stealing.
Both Montero and Izquierdo believed that the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was planned earlier;
that it was a conspiracy among the educated, the mestizos, the native lawyers, citizens of Manila
and Cavite and the Filipino priests. They insinuated in their reports that the conspirators of
Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate the top Spanish officials and to be followed by the murder
of the friars.
They stated that the signal of the “revolution” would be the explosion which would come
from Intramuros and that since that date, January 20, 1872 coincided with the feast of the Our
Lady of Loreto, which the district of Sampaloc was observing, the rebels mistook the explosion
coming from the fireworks for the signal they were waiting for to start the “revolution”. Thus, the
200 contingent under the command of Sergeant Lamadrid started the “revolution” by attacking
the Spanish officials they saw and captured the arsenal.
The reports of Montero and Izquierdo further stated that when Izquierdo learned of the
uprising, he immediately dispatched reinforcement to Cavite which made possible the quelling of
the uprising. They also added that the reinforcement from Manila which the rebels were waiting
failed to come, thus those who instigated the “revolution were killed including Sergeant
Lamadrid; the Gomburza was subjected to investigation through a court martial and were
sentenced to death by garrote; Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa
and other lawyers were suspended from practicing their profession, were arrested and sentenced
to life imprisonment in the Marianas Islands.
2. The Trinidad Pardo de Tavera Version
From the point of view of Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, the Cavite event was just a mutiny
of the natives, soldiers and workers in the Cavite arsenal who were disheartened because of the
removal of the privileges which they used to enjoy earlier. He put the blame on Izquierdo for his
policies such as the removal of the privileges of the arsenal soldiers and workers and the
prohibition to put up a school of arts and trades for the Filipinos.

62 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

The report of Tavera stated that on 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of
soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in
arms and
in arms and assassinated the commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The
insurgents were expecting support from the bulk of the army but unfortunately, that didn't
happen. The news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo
immediately ordered he reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny
was officially declared subdued.
Tavera was convinced that Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as an attempt of the
Filipinos to topple down the Spanish government and presented it as a blown-up conspiracy
involving not only the local soldiers but also the natives of Manila and Cavite, most specifically
the Filipino priests.
3. The Edmunde/Edmund Plauchut Version
In 1877, Edmunde Plauchut a Frenchman who was residing in Manila at the time the event
happened, published in the Revue des Deux Mondes, his version of the Cavite Mutiny. His
account was a dispassionate one which reaffirmed the Tavera version. It stated that the Cavite
Munity happened because of discontent of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort which
originated from the order of the governor (Izquierdo) which exacted taxes from the Filipino
laborers in the engineering and artillery corps in the Cavite arsenal, and required them to perform
forced labor which they had been exempted from both. On January 20, 1872, when they received
their pay, the workers found the amount of the taxes and the corresponding fee in lieu of the
forced labor deducted from their pay envelopes. That night they mutinied. Forty infantry soldiers
and twenty men from the artillery took over command of the Fort of San Felipe and fired
cannonades to announce their victory, which was a short-lived one. Apparently, the mutineers
had expected to be joined by their comrades in the 7th infantry company assigned to patrol the
Cavite plaza. But when they beckoned to them, their comrades did not join them and instead
started attacking them. Terror-stricken, the rebels bolted the gates and decided to wait for
morning expecting support from Manila.42
Plauchut in his report also focused on the execution of the three priests, Gomez, Burgos
and Zamora which he personally witnessed.
C. THE RETRACTION OF JOSE RIZAL
One of the most controversial issues in Philippine history is the retraction of Jose
Rizal. Until today, this retraction ,issue is a subject of discussion among historians,
researchers and students of history.
What is really the truth behind this controversy?
We can have a better understanding of the issue if we will look back at some of the
developments in the life of Jose Rizal.
1. Rizal's Doubts on the Catholic Church
The publication of Rizal's two novels, the Noli Me Tangere and the El Filibusterismo,
made Rizal a target of the ire and persecution of the friars. Clearly written on the pages of these
two novels were Rizal's attacks on the friars and practices of the Catholic Church. He was

63 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

declared an excommunicado, which means that he was expelled from the Catholic Church and
thus he could not receive its sacraments.
But Rizal was never cowed in his desire to expose what he believed were abusive
practices of the religion which he was brought up to. One of his attacks on the Catholic Church
was mirrored in a letter to his friend, Ferdinand Blumentritt who like him, was also liberal
thinker. He wrote him:

What happens in the Philippines is horrible. The friars abuse the name of religion to
enrich their large landed estates, religion to seduce innocent young women, religion to do away
with an enemy, religion to disturb the peace between husband and wife...if not to sully the wife's
honor. 43
In his novel, Noli Me Tangere, Rizal expressed his doubts about the teachings of the
Catholic Church on the salvation of mankind through Pilosopong Tasyo:
If the Catholics are the only ones that can be saved and of them only five per cent, as
many priests aver; and if the Catholics constitute but a twelfth part of the world's population if
statistics are to be believed, the result would be that after thousands upon thousands of people
had been punished during the countless ages that passed before the coming of the Redeemer,
God's son who died for us, only five out of every twelve hundred souls could now be saved.
Surely, that cannot be true... No, so colossal a calamity is impossible. To believe it is
blasphemy.44
Expressing further the argument on man's salvation, Rizal speaking through Pilosopong
Tasyo, continued:
Man is not a necessary part of creation, but an accident of it. God could not have created
him, if to make one happy He had to condemn to eternal misery hundreds of people in a moment
and all for some congenital faults. . . If such a belief were not a blasphemy against that God who
must be the Highest God, then the Phoenician Moloch, that bloody deity, that horrible divinity,
who gorged himself on human victims and innocent blood, and in whose entrails babes torn from
their mothers' breasts were burnt, would be beside Him a frail maiden, a sweetheart, the mother
of humanity. 45
Fr. Pablo Ramon, dean of Ateneo de Municipal and Fr. Federico Faura, a teacher of Riza
tried to bring Rizal back to what to them was “the right path.” Although Rizal was respectful c
these two priests, he bluntly told them that any attempt to discuss with him anything that has
something to do with religion was futile since he no longer believed in the teachings of the
Catholic Church. To Rizal, what the two priests believed to be the “right path" was not the right
path for him.
Thus, as a result, their supreme efforts to persuade and convert the “unfortunate fellow
prove unavailing.” 46
Fr.Faura was hurt and angry. However, he was also worried about Rizal's safety if h
stayed in the Philippines. He advised him to leave the country for his own safety.
During his exile in Dapitan, Fr. Pablo Pastrells, head of the Jesuits, requested Fr. Antonio
Obach, parish priest of Dapitan, to accommodate Rizal in his mission house, if Rizal would like
to stay with him. Fr. Obach agreed. Collas wrote in his book:

64 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

Several strings were attached to the offer for Rizal to stay in the mission. house. First,
Rizal must retract publicly his “errors” on religion; Second, he must observe the religious
practices of the Church and make a general avowal of his past; and, Third, he must conduct
himself in an exemplary manner when it comes to religion and to Spain. 47
Rizal did not agree with the conditions set forth by Fr. Obach. He considered them as too
heavy conditions in exchange for his short stay in the place of Fr. Obach.

The desire of the Jesuits headed by Fr. Pastells to bring back Rizal to the fold of the
Catholic Church was too strong that he sent Fr. Francisco de Paula Sanchez, a former teacher of
Rizal in Ateneo to Dapitan. Collas looked at this mission of Fr. Sanchez as a way of trying “to
win the conscience of the relapsed exile.48
Why did they choose Fr. Sanchez to carry out this mission? Collas said of this: “If there
was anyone capable of convincing Rizal, it was Father Sanchez. First, because Sanchez was . not
only a formidable master of rhetoric, but also of dialectics; and secondly, because Rizal was quite
fond of him and would gladly give him the benefit of any doubt.”49
But Fr. Sanchez was also a failure in his mission. Retana wrote that Rizal refused to
believe the arguments of Fr. Sanchez by saying that he no longer believe in the Eucharistic and
ritual of the Catholic faith.
Captain General Ricardo Carnicero who had become a good friend of Rizal also failed in
his attempt to bring back the faith of Rizal to the Catholic Church. Fr. Pa stells, therefore, decided
to do the convincing of Rizal himself.
Fr. Pastells, according to Collas was “an erudite man, a finished scholar. Surely, with his
vast learning, Father Pastells should have no difficulty whatever, in persuading Rizal to return to
the fold and enjoy the “inestimable treasure of faith.”50
Thus, started the exchanges of letters between Fr. Pastells and Rizal. Such exchanges of
letters between the two lasted for two years, both of them presenting brilliant arguments on what
they believe in. Collas wrote these exchanges of communication between the two: "the two
protagonists debated brilliantly with all the eloquence of passion and the strength of conviction.
Often, the Jesuit drew heavily on his armory of faith and the Calamban on his artillery of
reason."51
Again Fr. Pastells proved himself a failure in convincing Rizal to return to his faith.
Collas described this intellectual encounter between the two as “in a way like the physical duel
between David and Goliath. As in the biblical story, the Filipino David with his sling of reason
and his stones of logic bested the religious Goliath with his heavy, shining armor and spear of
faith adorned with Latin quotations. Critics outside the clergy, including a number of foreigners,
agree that Rizal had the better part of the argument.”52
Rizal was firmed in his belief that there were abuses committed by the friars and that they
did not preach the truth about Christianity and that the Filipinos were abused through the use of
religion.
The strength of Rizal's conviction was tested with the coming of Josephine Bracken to
Dapitan. They fell in love with each other. Rizal wanted to marry her. But marriage was one of
the sacraments which Rizal had been stripped of when he was excommunicated.

65 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

He loved Josephine. He did not like to place her in a situation in which she would be the
subject of ridicule of people because she was living in with a man without the blessing of the
church. Rizal made an appeal to Fr. Obach to marry them. However, Fr. Obach replied that they
would only be married if Rizal would retract everything he said against the Catholic Church.
Driven by his strong desire to marry Jospehine, Rizal prepared his own retraction version and
sent it to Fr. Obach, which the latter ignored. Thus, Rizal decided to forget about his plan of
marrying Josephine and they just lived together as husband and wife. They lived together happily
for four years, unmindful of the unkind words of the people and the unceasing attacis of Fr.
Oback done in the pulpit.
Retana wrote of this episode in the life of Rizal: “Rizal remained an impenitent free
thinker despite the attacks and condemnation of society.” 53

2. The Beginning of the Retraction Controversy

When and how did this controversy on the retraction of Rizal start?
The retraction issue started with the publication of Retana claiming that he had the retraction
document of Rizal. When this was published, Fr. Pio Pi came out with his own retraction
document which he claimed as the original. He said that the document was given to Archbishop
Nozaleda for safekeeping. He had it published in an article entitled La Muerte Christiana del
Rizal, which he claimed he published to prove that Retana's document was not original.
The issue became more confusing when Fr. Manuel Gracia revealed that he accidentally
found the original retraction document among the files of the Archbishop. But his revelation
came out after four decades of silence. Another priest, Fr. Francisco A. Ortiz published an
English document which he claimed as the original retraction of Rizal. This brought more
confusion to the retraction issue.

3. Analyzing the Retraction Issue

Are the Jesuits telling the truth about the retraction document of Rizal? If it is true that they
have an original retraction document, why did it take them so long before they revealed about it?
Why did they not do it immediately after the execution of Rizal or even before he was executed?
If Rizal really retracted, why did they allow his execution to push through? Why did they not do
something to prevent it?
They were claiming that Rizal returned to the fold of the Catholic faith. If it was true, why
was Rizal buried in the most despicable manner? He was buried without a coffin!
Rizal's name was entered in the list of those who died without repenting their sins. If he retracted,
therefore, he repented for his sins, if he had sin, from the point of view of the Catholic Church.
Why was his name included in the list?
And why are there three versions of the retractions of the national hero? Which one is
true, if he really retracted?
Let us take a look once again at the attempts to bring Rizal back to the Catholic Church.
Padre Pablo Ramon, Federico Faura, Padre Paula de Sanchez and Padre Pablo Pastells - these
priests had soft spots in the heart of Rizal. They all tried their best with their brilliant argument to
convince him to go back to “the right path.” No one of them succeeded! How come an ordinary
priest in the person of Fr. Balaguer was able to convince Rizal to retract everything he had said
against the church in so short a time left before his execution? And what did Fr. Balaguer use in
convincing Rizal to retract? The simple threat of condemnation to hell!

66 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

Collas wrote of that threat which according to Fr. Balaguer he used: “that threat, the
most infamous and outrageous libel on God, was coupled with the absurd doctrine of exclusive
salvation long exploded and rejected by European thinkers." 54
How Rizal, who was possessed of a very strong character, could be cowed by this threat
of eternal damnation in hell when he argued and stressed that he did not believe in hell because
the God that he knew was a loving and forgiving God? He would never punish his children. It
should be clear that Rizal turned his back on the Catholic Church but he never turned away from
God. Even in his Mi Ultimo Adios, he wrote, “For I go where no slave before the oppressor
bends. Where Faith can never kill, and God reigns e'er on high.” 55
Did Fr. Balaguer lie when he claimed that Rizal retracted by virtue of the document?
Miguel de Unamuno, a Spaniard who was a classmate of Rizal in the Central University
of Madrid, of Madrid, said that the authenticity of the retraction document which Fr. Balaguer
claimed was done by Rizal was doubtful. He further said: “one must read between the lines the
stupidities and vulgarities with which Father Balaguer must have bludgeoned poor Rizal." 56
In order to prove that Spanish friars at that time could resort to lies, Unamuno stressed:
"friars are generally recruited in Spain from among the coarsest, most uncouth and most
unpolished classes.” 57
Laubach wrote of the Rizal retraction: “Father Balaguer did what Spanish friars did in
his day: framed a story so as to discredit a Filipino, and incidentally to give himself, a Spaniard,
credit for a marvelous conversion." 58
A perusal of the three retraction documents is necessary to give the student of history a
chance to make their own analysis of this controversial issue.

Reading No.12
THE THREE RETRACTION DOCUMENTS
THE FR.PIO PI RETRACTION DOCUMENT
Spanish English
Me declaro catolico y en esta religion, en qui I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion
naci y me eduque, quiero vivir y morir. in which l was born and bred, I wish to live
Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in
mis palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha my words, writings, publications, and
habido contratrio a mi calidad de hijo de la conduct, has been contrary to my character as
iglesia. Creo y profeso cuanto ella ensena, y a son of the Church. I profess and believe
me someto a cuanto ella manda. Abomino de everything she teaches and I submit to
la Masoneria, como sociedad reprobada por la whatever she commands. I abominate.
Iglesia, como enemiga que es de la Iglesia y Masonry as a society condemned by the
como sociedad prohibida por la misma Church, as an enemy that it is of the Church
Iglesia. and a society prohibited by the same church.
Puede el Prelado Diocesano, como The Diocesan prelate, as the superior
autoridad superior eclesiastica, hacer publica ecclesiastical authority, may make public this
esta manifestacion, espontanea mia para spontaneous avowal of mine in order to
reparar el escandalo que mis actos hayan repair the scandal that may acts might have
podido causar; y para que Dios y los hombres caused , and in order that God and men may
mi perdonen. forgive me.

THE FR.GRACIA RETRACTION DOCUMENT

Me declara catolico y en esta Religion en qui I declare myself a Catholic and in this
naci y mi eduque quiero vivir y morir. Religion in which I was born and bred, I wish
Me retracto de todo Corazon de cuanto en to live and die. I retract with all my heart
mis palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha whatever in my words, writings, publications,

67 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

habido contrario a mi calidad de hijo de la and conduct, has been contrary to my

Yglesia Catolica. Creo y profeso cuanto ella character as a son of the Catholic Church. I
ensena y mi someto y cuanto ella manda. profess and believe everything she teaches
Abomino de la Masoneria como enemiga que and I submit to whatever she commands. I
es de la Yglesia Catolica,y como sociedad abominate Masonry as an enemy that it is of
prohibida por la. Yglesia. Puede el Prelado the Church, and as a society prohibited by the
Diocesano como Autoridad Superior same Church. The Diocesan prelate as the
Eclesiastica hacer publica esta, Superior Ecclesiastical Authority can make
manifestaciobn espontanea mia para reparar el public this spontaneous avowal of mine in
escandaló que mis actos hayàn podido causar, order to repair the scandal that my acts might
y para que Dios y los hombres me perdonen. have caused, and so that God and men may
forgive me.
THE FR.ORTIZ RETRACTION IN ENGLISH
I declare myself Catholic, and in that religion in which I was born and educated, I desire to
live and die. I retract with my whole heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and
conduct has been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church. I believe and
profess whatever she teaches and submit myself to whatever she demands. I abjure Masonry as
the enemy of the Church My legitimate ecclesiastical superior, the diocesan prelate, may make
public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my action
may have caused and in order that God and men may forgive me.

D. THE CRY OF PUGAD LAWIN:WHEN AND WHERE?

Where and when? These are the two questions asked of this significant event in the histor:of
the Philippines, the Cry of Pugad Lawin/Balintawak.
How and when did this controversy start?
Balintawak had always been the site for the cry recognized by historians and students. This
was in all the books in Philippine history being used in all schools. Aside from this, every August
26, this event was commemorated in this place. However, Teodoro Agoncillo stirred the
controversy when he said that the event actually happened on August 23, 1896, not August 26,
and the site was Pugad Lawin and not Balintawak. This claim of Agoncillo started the confusion
among the teachers and students of history.
There are five dates and places which are cited as the actual place where this event happened.
These are August 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 and the places are Balintawak, Pugad Lawin, Kangkong,
Bahay Toro and Pasong Tamo.
Where did Agoncillo base his claim that the cry happened on August 23 1896 and in Pugad
Lawin?
The historian, Ambeth Ocampo averred that Agoncillo based his claim not on a primary
source but a “tertiary or at least, a second generation translation." 59 He wrote:

In 1989, after a series of articles on the controversy over Balintawak and Pugad Lawin, I
received a batch of photocopied manuscripts with an invitation to peruse the originals 'of what
appeared to be the papers of Bonifacio. Knowing that these were transcribed and printed by
Agoncillo in two separate books,/ did not bother to decipher Bonifacio's fine script. Months later,
on a lazy afternoon, / decided to compare the Agoncillo transcriptions with the Bonifacio
originals./was surprised to find discrepancies in the text. While Agoncillo reproduced the
“orihinal sa Tagalog,"it proved to be slightly different from the manuscripts. I realized
immediately that Agoncillo did not have access to the original Bonifacio papers. He merely

68 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

translated an English translation of the Bonifacio papers, which were themselves translated from
Spanish by Epifanio de los Santos who possessed the original Tagalog manuscripits. 60

Actually, Agoncillo's claim that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896 was
based on Pio Valenzuela's account. A photograph showing the latter with the granddaughter of
Melchora Aquino named Monica Ramos, and other revolutionists stated that place, Pugad
Lawin, was the site of the general meeting of the Katipunan on August 23, 1896. In that meeting,
it was determined that the fighting against the Spaniards would start and thus, the “Cry”
marking the start of the Philippine revolution against Spain. Pugad Lawin, in fact was within the
Balintawak area and should not be much of an issue except for the date which was from what
was known earlier was August 26, 1896 to August 23, 1896. But a stickler to accuracy as he was
known for, Agoncillo replaced Balintawak to Pugad Lawin.

Valenzuela's grandson, Arturo Valenzuela, in his unpublished work which was based largely
on his grandfather's memoirs elaborated that the First Cry of Balintawak was held on August 23
in the backyard of Tandang Sora's house. They moved to Malanday on August 26, 896.Thus,
when the Spaniards arrived in Pasong Tamo, they found no katipuneros in the lace. They shot two
farmers they saw in the place, and then reported a “Cry of Balintawak.” This was the reason,
according to Valenzuela's grandson why his grandfather, who was under Spanish interrogation in
1896, referred to the date of the “Cry” as August 26.

Had the memoirs of Valenzuela matched the signed testimony he gave to the Spaniards when
he was interrogated, there could have been no issue on this historical event. But his memoirs
published by Wenceslao Retana stated that the former mentioned that the “Cry" happened in
Balintawak on August 26. However, his memoirs which were published after the war stated that
the “Cry" happened in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896. Thus, the inaccuracy.

The late historian, Pedro Gagelonia wrote:

The controversy among the historians continues to the present day. The 'Cry of Pugad
Lawin' (August 23, 1896) cannot be accepted as historically accurate. It lacks positive
documentation and supporting evidence from eyewitnesses. The testimony of only one eyewitness
(Dr. Pio Valenzuela)is not enough to authenticate and verify controversial issue in history.
Historians and their living participants, not politicians and their sycophants, should settle this
controversy.61
Why was Valenzuela's account of the “Cry” doubted by historians like Gagelonia despite
the fact that the renown historian Teodoro Agoncillo referred to him as the “most credible
authority on the issue citing his being educated and a close friend of Bonifacio as well as his
possession of retentive memory, the degree of his involvement in the event, and his narrative
ability, three factors which are important in historical recollection?

Simply because in many instances when Valenzuela was interviewed he gave conflicting
statements on this significant event of 1896. These statements and the dates when Valenzuela
Jave them are shown in the matrix below:

YEAR STATEMENTS GIVEN STATEMENTS OF PIO VALENZUELA

September 2 &3,1896 They remained in Balintawak Sunday, Monday and
Tuesday."
September 6, 1896 after his The fight between the Guardia Civil and the rebels in
surrender in Manila Banlat and Balintwak took place Wednesday August
26. . . During the three days prior to that, he was in the

69 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

company of Andres Bonifacio. . . in a house in Balintawak

August 31,1911 “... at kinabukasang ika 23, ay muling nagkatipon sa
Kankong, sa bahay ni Apolonio Samson. . . .
Pinagtalunan sa pulong na ito kung ipagpapatuloy o hindi
ang paghihimagsik at nagkasalungatan ng mahaba si
Andres Bonifacio at Teodoro Plata. Nagpasiya ang
karamihan na ipagpatuloy ang laban. Pinagtalunan din
naman kung kailan gaganapin ang paghihimagsik, at
pinagkasunduan na sa ika 29 ng gabi ay lulusubin ang
Maynila, sa daang Sta. Mesa magdadaan, at pasisimulan sa
ika 5 ng hapon ang pagtitiponsa San Juan del Monte at
mula doon papasukin ang Maynila sa gabi sa oras na
kinakailangang ipasok.
Natapos ang pulong ng mag ika 6 ng hapon.
Kinabukasan, ika 24, ay kami lumipat sa Paso de Laha sa
bahay ni Felix Doopa (sic: Oropa) at doo'y sinulat mula sa
umaga hanggang hapon ni Emilio Jacinto ang mga kalatas
na yaon ay sinasaysay ang manga pinagkasunduan sa
pulong noong ika 23. Ng gabi ring yaon ika 24 kami ay
lumipat sa nayon ng Pasong-tamo sa bahay ni Aling
Melchora.”
1930’s statement “The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio
Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del
Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the first five of us
arriving there on August 19, and I on August 20, 1896. The
first place where some 500 members of the Katipunan was
the house and yard of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong, on
August 22. . . . Here views were only exchanged and no
resolution was debated or adopted. It was in the house,
storehouse, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora
Aquino, in Pugad Lawin that over 1,000 members of the
Katipunan met and debated lengthily on August 23, 1896.
The discussion was 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 cedulas and shouted, “Long live the
Philippines! Long live the Katipunan.”

1935 statements together with “Hindi sa Balintawak nangyari ang unang sigaw ng
Briccio Brigido Pantas and paghihimagsik na kinalalaguian ngayon ng bantayog,
Cipriano Pachero kundi sa pook na kilala sa taweg na Pugadlawin.”

Because of these conflicting statements of Valenzuela, another historian, John N.

Schumacher, S. J expressed doubt on his credibility. He stated:

I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio Valenzuela,
and to the interpretations Agoncillo got from him verbally, since he 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.
62

70 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

In the account of the Filipino revolution by Antonio Mendoza Guevarra, referred to as

Matatag, he wrote:

August 25,1896.

This day two companies of Guardias Civiles, one of artillery and the other of infantry,
scaled the hill, coming upon us in the area called Pasong Tamo. The fight began at once. The
brothers of the Katipunan had among them only four ancient flintlocks, which a heavy downpour
rendered out of commission in no time. The Katipuneros scattered, the enemy troops
withdrawing. Thanks to God we suffered no casualty despite the closely fought skirmish and our
being poorly armed. This was an account of the thick woods, rough terrain, and the timely and
providential rain that saved us from the Spaniards who outnumbered us and had better arms.63

Other accounts of the “Cry” included the following: General Guillermo Masangkay stated
that it was August 26, 1896; Lt. Olegario Diaz, recalled the event as having happened on August
24, 1896; Gregoria de Jesus, Bonifacio's widow in her memoirs stated that the “Cry" appened on
August 25, 1896 in Pasong Tamo (Caloocan not Makati); Santiago Alvarez, a atipunero from
Cavite, referred to the event as having taken place on August 25, 1896 in Bahay oro which was
also in Caloocan.

Zafra64 in 1960 made a review of the literature related to the 'cry' from 1896 to 1956
which revealed the following:

As can be gleaned from the above data, there were several dates and places mentioned in
the works of the above-mentioned authors related to the “cry". Encarnacion65 wrote: "While the
sole aim was to pinpoint the start of the 1896 Philippine Revolution, Bonifacio's cry often led to
different interpretations. And as time went on, the event became more absurd. Government issued
policies that changed the date of the “Cry" commemoration from “24 August 1896" to 26
1897,“26 August 1896" in 1911,and to"23 August 1896 in 1963. Likewise, the place identified
kept on changing as more frivolous surveys muddled the significance of that event.”

Still on this controversy, Adrian Cristobal wrote:66

71 One Past but Many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippie History
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

The official dating and placing of the revolutionary “cry"-23 August 1896 in Pugad
Lawin has been challenged by a new breed of historians, Dr. Milagros C. Guerrero, Ramon N.
Villegas and Emmanuel Encarnacion. The “more accurate time and place" was 24 August 1896
at the barn of Melchora Aquino, a.k.a Tandang Sora, in what is now barangay Banlat in Quezon
City. Of course like Agoncillo, the new breed of historians were not there when it happened, but
they based their contention on many other sources and on the fact that Pugad Lawin could not be
located in the cartography of the period.

Reading No.13
CRY OF PUGAD LAWIN

(An excerpt from the book “Pio Valenzuela and the Katipunan by Arturo E. Valenzuela Jr.
published by the National Historical Institute in 1992.)

Arturo E. Valenzuela Jr. is the eldest son of Dr. Pio Valenzuela's son Arturo. He is a well-
travelled architect. His book, “Pio Valenzuela and the Katipunan," was based on the unpublished
memoirs of his grandfather which was handed to him by two of his aunts, magazine articles written
by historians, and researches he did at the National Library.

At dusk of August 20, 1896, Valenzuela riding in a calesa, slipped through a cordon of Spanish
guards. He joined Bonifacio and his brother Procopio and Circiaco, Jacinto, Teodoro Plata, Deodato
Arellano, and Aguedo del Rosario in a house owned by Apolonio Samson in Barrio Kangkong which
was within the jurisdiction of Balintawak in Caloocan, then a part of the province of Manila. The
first rally of the Katipunan was held at the yard of that house on August 22. About 500 members
were in attendance. Views were exchanged, but no resolution was debated upon or adopted during
the assembly. Aside from those persons already mentioned, the Katipuneros who were present in that
historical meeting included Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago and Ramon Bernardo.

On the same day, the group moved to Pugadlawin, to the house of Katipunero Juan Ramos, son
of Melchora Aquino. Some 1,000 Katipuneros followed him. The next day, August 23, many
Katipunan leaders like Enrique Pacheco and his sons Cipriano and Alfonso, Guillermo Masangkay,
Francisco Carreon, Nicodemus Carreon, Tomas Remegio, and Sinforoso San Pedro, arrived.

On that day, a general assembly was held to decide whether or not to start the uprising
immediately. It was a stormy gathering. Some Katipuneros including Teodoro Plata, provoked a
heated debate with Bonifacio when they argued that since they lacked arms, the Katipunan was not
prepared to go to war, hence, it was premature to start the uprising. The Katipunan had only 2,000
bolos made in Meycauyan and Binakayan, and a number of bamboo spears. Thus, the question
remained unsettled.

After the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedulas (resident certificates)
and shouted, “Mabuhay ang Pilipinas! Mabuhay ang Katipunan." (In 1963, this event was
memorialized as the “Cry of Pugadlawin”).

That same afternoon, the group left for the house in Pasong Tamo of Melchora Aquino, the
widow of Fulgencio Ramos. She was better known as “Tandang Sora", being 84 years old at that
time. Their number grew to about 5,000. Aquino had them quartered in the area. They subsisted
mainly on rice and other farm products grown there.

72 OneOn Past
August
but25th,
Manya Histories:
KatipuneroControversies
sentry observed theConflicting
and arrival of Spanish
Views inCivil GuardsHistory
Philippie in the area.
Bonifacio hastily organized 10 companies, assigning a hundred men to each company and dispersing
the rest. Only Bonifacio and Valenzuela had guns. The rest were armed with bolos and bamboo
UNDERSTANDING PHILIPPINE HISTORY Reading and Discourse

As native bolos were no match for rifles, the Katipuneros' only recourse was to bear
upon the ranks of the enemy and tear them apart by sheer weight and force of number.

Detecting the Katipunero's movement, however, the Civil Guards retreated in force.
Eager to deliver the coup de grace, the Katipuneros went after them in hot pursuit but were
stopped dead in their tracks by the arrival of the Spanish cavalry reinforcement. The Civil
Guards opened fire as the Katipuneros attacked and engaged them in hand-to-hand fighting that
resulted in the death of two Katipuneros and one Civil Guard.

After the short skirmish, the Katipuneros withdrew to Balara, then a part of Marikina.
There, on August 26, they held another meeting, during which it was decided that open
hostilities were to start on the 29th. Valenzuela was assigned to go to Pateros and Binan, Laguna
to relay the decision to the people. Also on the 26th, the military authorities in Manila sent a
contingent of artillery men to Pasong Tamo in the hope of finding the rebels. They were acting
on the report of the Spanish officer who had commanded the Civil Guards and infantrymen the
previous day.

The government soldiers found the place deserted when they arrived. Sighting, instead,
two farm bands on their way home, the bloodthirsty Spaniards shot them to dead.

At last, they had something to report to their superiors They let it be known that a severe
battle had taken place. This was the origin of the widely circulated story that the “Cry of
Balintawak” occurred on August 26.

The following day, August 27, the Katipuneros set forth for Malanday, also in Marikina,
while Valenzuela left on a mission that would bring him to Pateros by boat.

On August28, the Katipuneros proceeded to barrio Hagdang-Bato in Mandaluyong,

where Bonifacio issued his formal war manifesto calling on all towns to rise in arms and attack
the Walled City the next day, August 29. Obviously, owing to lack of arms and inadequate
coordination with other Katipunan leaders, the scheduled general attack on Manila on the
evening of the said day fell through. Instead, public repudiation of Spanish rule was made in a
symbolic act known as the “Cry of Balintawak." Also, on the same evening, the Katipuneors
who were still gathered in Mandaluyong decided to attack the Spanish armory in nearby San
Juan del Monte on the early morning of the following day.

In Pateros, meanwhile, Valenzuela went about informing the people of the planned
uprising and was told they were ready to fight. That same night, they engaged the Civil Guards
in an encounter where one Katipunero was killed.
73 One While
Past butin Many Histories:
Pateros, Controversies
Valenzuela and Conflicting
acquired another Views
gun, a rifle in Philippie
donated Historypriest
by a Filipino
from Pasig, Fr. Victor Ramos.