Module 1

Week No: 1

Title of Module: Introduction to the Study of History

This module consists of one lesson.

Lesson 1: History - Its Meaning, Significance, and Sources

Overview

History is the study of life in society in the past, in all its aspect, in relation to present developments
and future hopes. It is the story of man in time, an inquiry into the past based on evidence. Indeed,
evidence is the raw material of history teaching and learning. In this module, you as a student will
be able to learn the different perspectives about the meaning of history along with its significance
in human’s life. In addition to that, the discussion pertaining to the sources of history is included
for you to grasp the dissimilitude between primary and secondary sources of historical
information.

Expected Output: Quiz and Written Works

Module Time Allotment (weeks or hours): 1 Week / 3 Hours

LESSON 1: History - Its Meaning, Significance, and Sources

ABOUT THE LESSON:

This lesson centers on the discussion about the meaning of history from various discipline
including its significance and its sources. One of the reasons why student like you need to study
history and how it is written is because primarily - this field of knowledge allows man to better
understand his present situation. History is not just about the history of a country or a community.
Among the earth's creatures, only man is capable of writing history. Writing and learning from
history is the only skill practiced and reserved for humans.

At the end of the lesson, you will be able to:

LO1. Define history

LO2. Distinguish the importance of history
LO3. Explain the difference between primary and secondary source of history
LO4. Provide examples of primary and secondary sources
LEARNING OUTPUTS/REQUIREMENTS: Quiz and Written Work

LESSON TIME ALLOTMENT: 1.5 Hours

LEARNING ACTIVITIES: Quiz, Essay, and Analysis Paper

Video Analysis:Watch
the video below by browsing the link on
you tube. Afterwards answer
the guide questions below that follows.

LINK: Meaning and Relevance of History +

Repositories of Historical Sources [Video clip]:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3ao_FgXrWA

Guide Questions:

1. What is history based on your understanding?

2. What is the relevance of history in your chosen course?

3. Can you enumerate some of the repositories of historical sources?

4. What are the things that you must take into consideration when analyzing sources of history?

What is history - its meaning, significance, and sources?

What is History?

It is a continues process and written in a chronological order of events and it is important to our
society. It's from the Greek word "HISTORIA" which means to search or look into. As the time
past by there are some changes into its meaning. History is a brief summary or result based on
a factual research and it also deals with the sequence of important events. It deals with science
that describe and examine past event in the specific group of people.
 " History is who we are and why we are the way we are "(David McCullough)

Why study History?

If you are intrigued by our past and want to learn how it will shape our future, you should consider
studying history. History is a multifaceted discipline that will increase your cultural awareness and
moral understanding of the world we live in. By studying history you’ll gain a range of transferable
skills, from informed citizenship and critical thinking, to research and general awareness. What’s
more, the knowledge acquired through the study of history is relevant in a wide range of disciplines
and can lead to diverse employment opportunities. History as a discipline allows us to see beyond
textbooks and see the past through new lenses. The study of history allows us to see beyond the
standard textbook and to the primary source itself, interpreted into new and alternative viewpoints.

Philippine history is in and of itself very interesting. Philippine history is a unique narrative of
colonialism, reaction, and revolution. It is also a culturally diverse country from precolonial times.
There’s an emerging trend to study the social history of the country (i.e. more on the day-to-day
experience of the Filipinos during certain periods) and uncover more stories beyond the usual
stories taught in schools across the country. The country’s experience of colonialism, the rise of
nationalistic feelings, and the people’s subsequent reaction may allow us to gain more
perspectives on nationalism and revolutions.

Studying history is really important especially in the Philippine setting. These are the reasons why
we need to study it:

We could determine and understand We could understand the task in the History can be used to examine and
the contribution of our ancestor in present and future if we study the forecast the things in the
the foundation of our humanity, history. The events in the past has environment and society. We've
origin, and inherent culture. History relation to our present and future. learned to appreciate culture, love,
gives picture to our humanity It gives meaning in different things and respect other people in the
and to our society. and events in our society. world.

History can give us deeper

understanding of different problems History is an eye opener to
and offer solutions in our present understand our culture, language History develops our knowledge
and future. In the study of the past and society. History may arouse about different race of people,
events, we discover new ways in patriotic, humanitarian nature in culture, place, and time.
studying in solving problems in the people.
present and future.

In studying history we've learned

The stories of past about people different ways of studying and It is important to study history in
and things in the world we live researching in the social sciences. order to understand how our
provide valuable lessons to us. It helps us to learn different ways society and its people have
of discovering new knowledge. developed into what they are today
 and how they have had an impact in
the country.

Important Sources of History (Primary and Secondary Sources)

Primary sources are usually defined as first-hand information or data that is generated by
witnesses or participants in past events. Those sources produced at same time as the event, period,
or subject being studied. These materials are often located in the Special Collections of a library,
rather than in the general collection. Are characterized not by their format but rather by the
information they convey and their relationship to the research question. They include letters, diaries,
journals, newspapers, photographs, and other immediate accounts. The interpretation and evaluation
of these sources becomes the basis for research.

Primary Sources: They can be classified into the following categories:

Contemporary Records: Confidential Reports: Public Reports:

These types of primary The confidential reports are not The public reports are meant for the
sources are in the form of the intended for a general audience general public and less reliable.
instruction documents, and are less reliable than the There are three types of public
stenographic and contemporary sources. These reports and each possesses a
phonographic records. The types of reports are generally in different degree of reliability,
instruction documents may be the forms of military and such as— Newspaper reports and
in the form of an appointment diplomatic dispatches, Journals, dispatches; Memoirs and
notification, and direction from diaries or memoirs, and personal autobiographies; and the official
a foreign office to the letters. histories of the activities of
ambassador. government or business house

Government Documents: Public Opinion: Folklore and Proverbs:

Numerous government The public opinion as expressed The folklore which reveal the
documents are compiled which in editorials, speeches, stories of legendary heroes are
are also a source of vita! pamphlets, letter to the editor is also an important source of
importance to historians such as another important source history. They tell us about the
statistics about the fiscal, census available to the historian, But aspirations, superstitions, and
and vital matters which can be the authenticity of this must be customs of the people among
made use of by the historians. All corroborated by other evidence whom- the stories developed.
these reports have first-hand because public opinion may not
be always reliable.
 importance but require proper
evaluation before the use.

Secondary sources are those sources, which were produced by an author who used primary sources
to produce the material. In other words, secondary sources are historical sources, which studied a certain
historical subject. The secondary source is the evidence of someone who was not present at the time of
occurrence of the event e.g., books written by historians. The secondary source is also of great historical
importance to historians. Although the secondary source is itself dependent on primary sources.

Example:
The subject of Philippine Revolution of 1896, students can read Teodoro Agoncillo’s Revolt of
Masses: The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan published originally in 1956.

What is external and internal Criticism?

Internal Criticism, sometimes called as

External Criticisms, sometimes called as “higher criticism”, examines the honesty of the
“lower criticism”, is the practice of verifying the proof, it takes a gander at the substance of the
authenticity of evidence by examining its source and analyzes the condition of its
physical characteristics; consistency with the generation. It takes a gander at the honesty
historical characteristics of the time when it and factuality of the confirmation by taking a
was produced; and materials used for gander at the creator of the source, its unique
evidence. situation, the motivation behind its creation, the
information which educated it, and its planned
reason among others.
 Writing to Remember:In no more than ten (10) minutes, write down the three
most important concepts that you distinctly remember from the discussion of
the introduction to the study of history. Afterwards be able to write a one
paragraph explanation using the three concepts that you have enumerated
above.

Concept One Concept Two Concept Three

Explanation and Synthesis:

Worksheet : Primary vs Secondary Sources

Tejeros Convention (1897)
Read the two accounts on the Tejeros Convention by Santiago Alvarez and by Teodoro Agoncillo.
Using the worksheet below, compare the two accounts.

“Memoirs of a General” by “Revolt of the Masses” by

Santiago Alvarez Teodoro Agoncillo
Author’s background

When was the account

written
Mention of date(s)

Mention of place

Key personal ties

Sequencing of events

Differences between the

two accounts

Tejeros Convention
Source: Santiago V. Alvarez, general for the Katipunan

The assembly at Tejeros was finally convened on 25 March 1897. The invitations to the meeting
were signed by Secretary Jacinto Lumbreras of the Magdiwang Council, and he presided over
the assembly. Seated with Lumbreras at the long presidential table were the Supremo Andres
Bonifacio, Messrs. Mariano M. Alvarez, Pascual Alvarez, Ariston Villanueva, Mariano C. Trias,
Diego Mojica, Emiliano R. de Dios, Santiago V. Alvarez, Artemio Ricarte, Santos Nocon, Luciano
San Miguel, Pablo Mojica, Severino de las Alas, and Santiago Rillo, all of them of the Magdiwang.
Among the Magdalo seated at the head table were Messrs. Baldomero Aguinaldo, Daniel Tirona,
and Cayetano Topacio.

It must be mentioned that, before the assembly was convened, Secretary of War Ariston
Villanueva of the Magdiwang Council received the confidential information that Mr. Daniel Tirona
of the Magdalo faction was set to undermine the proceedings of the assembly and that he had
already succeeded in enjoining many among the Magdiwang leaders to ally with him. Secretary
Villanueva kept silent, but nevertheless alerted Captain General Apoy, who had troops in
readiness for any sudden eventuality.
The leaders were seated at the presidential table, as previously described, and all the others were
standing in groups on both sides of those seated. After Chairman Jacinto Lumbreras had declared
the assembly open, he announced the main topic of discussion, which was how to bolster the
defenses in the areas still under Magdiwang control. Presently, Mr. Severino de las Alas rose to
speak, and when he was recognized he said, "Before we discuss minor details, let us first tackle
the major issue such as what kind of government we should have and how we should go about
establishing it. Once we make a decision about these questions, the problem of organization and
strengthening of defenses will be resolved."

"As initiator of the Revolution," Chairman Lumbreras replied, "the Katipunan now holds authority
over the islands. It has a government of law and a definite program. It is obeyed and respected
by all because it stands for freedom, brotherly love, and a well-organized and well-run
government. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the best measures to take to strengthen
the Magdiwang government vis-a-vis the enemy. We should avoid surrendering the headquarters
of the Katipunan army should the Magdalo eventually lose out."

The chair next recognized the Supremo. He concurred with what Chairman Lumbreras had just
said and explained that the "K" in the middle of the sun in the Katipunan flag used in the Revolution
stood for Kalayaan (Freedom).

Mr. Severino de las Alas spoke again. He countered that the letter "K" and the sun on the flag did
not indicate whether the revolutionary government was democratic or not.

The Supremo replied that from the rank and file to the highest levels, the Katipunan was united
in its respect for universal brotherhood and equality of men. It was risking bloodshed and life itself
for the presidency, he should be proclaimed vice-president of the government of the Philippine
Republic. When nobody signified approval or disapproval of the proposal, the presiding officer,
the Supremo Bonifacio, ruled that the election be continued. For vice-president, Mr. Mariano Trias
won over Mr. Mariano Alvarez and the Supreme Bonifacio. General Vibora was elected captain
over General Apoy. General Vibora demurred, saying that he had neither the ability nor the right
to assume the new position. But General Apoy cut short his objections by saying that he
personally vouched for General Vibora's competence and right to occupy the position to which he
was elected. General Apoy's endorsement was greeted with shouts of "Long live the newly elected
captain general!"

Mr. Baldomero Aguinaldo wanted the elections to be finished before it got too dark. To facilitate
the counting of votes, he suggested that for all other positions to be voted upon, voters should
stand on one side of the hall if in favor and on the other side if against. The suggestion was
adopted for the rest of the election. For the position of secretary of war, Mr. Emiliano R. de Dios
was elected overwhelmingly over Messrs. Santiago V. Alvarez, Ariston Villanueva, and Daniel
Tirona. After the voters had given the proper honors to the new secretary of war, they proceeded
to elect the secretary of the interior. Mr. Andres Bonifacio, the Supremo, won over Mr. Mariano
Alvarez. The crowd broke into shouts of "Mabuhayl" Mr. Daniel Tirona requested for a restoration
of order and then spoke aloud:

"My brethren, the office of secretary of the interior is of so great a scope and of such sensitivity
that we should not entrust it to one who is not a lawyer. One among us here is a lawyer. He is Mr.
Jose del Rosario. Let us reconsider the choice for the last position, for he has no credentials to
show attesting to any educational attainment.”
Then in as loud a voice as he could muster, Tirona shouted, "Let us elect Mr. Jose del Rosario,
the lawyer!"

Greatly embarrassed, the Supremo Bonifacio quickly stood up and said, "We agreed to abide by
the majority vote and accept its choice no matter what the station in life of the person elected.
And because of this, I demand from you, Mr. Daniel Tirona, an apology. You must restore to the
voters and the one they elected the honor you have only now besmirched."

Then he pulled out his revolver and took aim.

Instead of replying, Mr. Tirona ignored the Supremo's remarks and, perhaps because of fear, he
slid away and got lost in the crowd. Disorder ensued as the convention secretary tried to disarm
the Supremo, who was intent on shooting Mr. Tirona. The people began to disperse and the
Supremo adjourned the meeting with these words:

“In my capacity as chairman of this convention and as President Supremo of the Most Venerable
Katipunan acknowledged of the Sons of the People which association is known and in by all, I
hereby declare null and void all and matters approved in this meeting.”

Then he left quickly and was followed by his aides and some others present.

Mr. Baldomero Aguinaldo, the Magdalo president, did not leave San Francisco de Malabon that
night, in order to convince the Magdiwang leaders to reconvene the disrupted meeting the
following day. They agreed to his proposal. That same night, rumor had it that Messrs. Mariano
Trias, Daniel Tirona, Emiliano R. de Dios, Santiago Rillo, and others were in the parish house of
the Catholic church at Tanza (Santa Cruz de Malabon), and that they were conferring with the
priest, Fr. Cenon Villafranca. Many attested to seeing them, but no one knew what they talked
about.

On the request of Magdalo Pres. Baldomero Aguinaldo, a meeting was called at the same friar
estate house in Tejeros. Called on the day after the tumultuous convention, its purpose was to
continue and revalidate the proceedings of the election meeting, to revive their former alliances,
and to restore cordiality and fraternal love in their relations. Aside from the Supremo Andres
Bonifacio, among the Magdiwang leaders who attended were Messrs. Mariano Alvarez, Diego
Mojica, Ariston Villanueva, Pascual Alvarez, Jacinto Lumbreras, Santiago Alvarez, Artemio
Ricarte, Nicolas Portilla. Santos Nocon, and Fr. Manuel Trias, the parish priest of San Francisco
de Malabon. They waited until five that afternoon, but none of the Magdalo members came, not
even their president who had initiated what would have been a reconciliation meeting.

That same night it was rumored that the Magdalo leaders were currently holding their own meeting
at the parish house in Tanza. Though it had reason to be apprehensive because the Magdalo
were meeting in territory under its jurisdiction, the Magdiwang leadership looked the other way
because the Magdalo were hard-pressed for meeting places since its territories had all been taken
by the Spanish enemy.

The next morning, 27 March 1897, eyewitnesses who had spied on the proceedings revealed
that, indeed, a meeting had taken place at the Tanza parish house and that the Supremo's
decisions regarding the election at the friar estate house were not respected. These revelations
surfaced despite denials from many sectors.
At the gathering in the Tanza parish house, those elected at the Tejeros convention knelt before
a crucifix and in the name of the Holy Father, the highest pontiff of the Roman Catholic church,
invoked the martyred saints and solemnly took their office. Fr. Cenon Villafranca officiated. With
Messrs. Severino de las Alas and Daniel Tirona as witnesses, the following took their oaths of
office: Messrs. Emilio Aguinaldo, Mariano C. Trias, and Artemio Ricarte. Conspicuously absent
was the Supremo Andres Bonifacio, who was not invited although he was one of those elected to
office. It will be recalled that as chairman of the Tejeros convention, he declared null and void all
matters approved by the assembly because of a grave violation of a principle agreed upon before
the election.

It should be noted here that, unknown to the Magdiwang Council, the Magdalo posted troops to
guard the Tanza parish house for their oath-taking ceremonies. The troops were under strict
orders not to admit any of the unwanted Magdiwang partisans. If the news about the secret
ceremony had leaked out earlier, and the underdogs in the power struggle had attempted to break
into it, they would have been annihilated then and there.

Seeds of Discontent
Source: Teodoro A. Agoncillo, Filipino historian

In the first flush of rebel victory climaxing the simultaneous attacks upon the Spanish garrisons
and convents, followed by the dismal failure of Governor-General Blanco to smash the insurgent
power, the Katipunan of Cavite, divided into two factions, the Magdiwang and the Magdalo,
immediately proceeded to reorganize the province along partisan lines. Each faction exercised
sovereign power over a number of towns, including those in Batangas bordering Cavite. Thus,
Talisay, a town in Batangas, was under the Magdalo government, while Nasugbu, Tuwi and, Look,
in the same province, belonged to the Magdiwang. As independent entities, the leaders of the two
provincial councils never got together to elect one supreme council that would hold sway over the
entire province. The Magdiwang, proceeding with its election independently of the Magdalo,
chose the following men to administer its government: Mariano Alvarez, President; Pascual
Alvarez, Executive Secretary; Emiliano Riego de Dios, Minister of the Interior (Pagpapaunlad);
Mariano Trias, Minister of Grace and Justice; Ariston Villanueva, Minister of War; Santiago
Alvarez, Commander-in-Chief; Diego Moxica, Minister of Finance; Artemio Ricarte and Mariano
Riego de Dios, Military Commanders with the rank of Brigadier General. On the other hand, the
Magdalo elected the following to take the reins of its government: Baldomero Aguinaldo,
President; Candido Tirona; Minister of War; Cayetano Topacio; Minister of Finance; Emilio
Aguinaldo, Commander-in-Chief; Edilberto Evangelista, Lieutenant General; Vito Belarmino and
Crispulo Aguinaldo, Military Commanders with the rank of Brigadier General. Since the
organization of the Magdiwang, its capital had been Noveleta, but in the early part of November,
when General Blanco began his offensive, the capital was moved to San Francisco de Malabon
and later to Naik. The Magdalo, for its part, had its capital in Kawit and when it fell, Imus, San
Francisco de Malabon, Naik and Maragondon successively became its seat.

An attempt was made by both factions to make their respective armies wear the same uniform. It
was agreed to adopt the following insignia: for the President's cap, a sun with golden rays on a
white background, a K (Katipunan), and the letters A.N.B. (Anak ng Bayan) in the middle. The
same insignia was used for the sleeves. The Minister had the same insignia as the President's
except that the letters A.N.B. were not included. The bands on the sleeves of a Minister, including
the K, were of different colors according to the Ministry to which each belonged. The Minister of
War had a red K on a white background, a sun on the cap, a sun on the left breast but none on
the sleeves. The plan, however, did not go beyond the paper stage, as the rebels did not have
the means to buy the uniform.

When Cavite, led by its rival factions, successfully rose in revolt, the leaders fell into disputes
arising from the desire of one group to lord it over the other. Since both groups were responsible
for the rebel victories, neither would bow to the other. or allow itself to be placed under its rival's
command. There was no serious open breach, but the silent conflict, more ominous than it
appeared on the surface, threatened to wreck the unity that in the beginning had done much to.
prevent the foe from overrunning the whole province and annihilating the revolution at its very
inception, it was this conflict, more than anything else, that led to the rebel's defeat at the hands
of Polavieja. The Magdiwang faction, believing that as the initiator of the revolution in Cavite it
had the priority right to rule over the insurgents of the province, looked with disdain a.t the way
the Magdalo men refused to cooperate with it. The Magdalo followers, believing that most of the
victories in the whole territory were won by their leaders wanted to appear the stronger and,
therefore, the better fitted to rule.

The situation, though not so serious on the surface, led the Magdiwang men to invite Andres
Bonifacio to visit Cavite and see for himself all that had been accomplished by the revolutionists
in that area and to intervene, in the conflict. A delegate was sent to look for the Supremo in the
mountains of Montalban and Mariquina to apprise him of the urgent necessity of mediating on the
widening rift between the two popular councils. Bonifacio, informed of the situation, refused to
heed the request of the Magdiwang leaders on the ground that in order to succeed in the
revolution against Spain the leaders must not be concentrated in a single place. This preliminary
contact with the Supremo resulted in the periodic exchanges of communications between him
and the Magdiwang chieftains. On the third invitation, written by Artemio Ricarte upon the
instruction of Mariano Alvarez, Bonifacio acceded to the request. With his wife and two brothers,
Ciriaco and Procopio Bonifacio left for Cavite about the middle of December 1896. Emilio
Aguinaldo, Candido Tirona and Edilberto Evangelista were on hand to meet the Supremo and his
entourage at Zapote. It was at this preliminary meeting that a misunderstanding arose between
the Magdalo leaders and Bonifacio, for the former, rightly or wrongly, saw from Bonifacio’s
gestures and behavior that he regarded himself superior and “acted as if he were a king”. Even
so, the hard feelings that Bonifacio’s unconscious and unintentional actions engendered remained
submerged and flared up only in the Imus Assembly.

Bonifacio was brought by the rebel leaders to the house of Juan Castañeda in Imus, where he
was visited by Baldomero Aguinaldo, Daniel Tirona, Vicente Fernandez, and others. The
Supremo, upon seeing Fernandez, ordered his arrest. For Bonifacio, remembering that
Fernandez was the same man who has promised, before the battle of San Juan, to attack the
Spaniards in laguna and Morong simultaneously with Bonifacio’s offensive in San Juan del Monte
but whose promise was never carried out, now saw his chance to punish the offender. Bonifacio
blamed him for the defeat in San Juan and was determined that he should not go unpunished. As
Supreme Head of the Katipunan, Bonifacio took it for granted that he would be obeyed by by all.
To his surprise and dismay, the Magdalo chieftains, to whom Fernandez had run for shelter,
refused to give up their man. The Supremo by then had realized that he had very little, if any,
influence in the Magdalo area. With doubts crisscrossing his mind and misgivings assailing his
heart, Bonifacio, on January 2, 1897, wrote from San Francisco de Malabon to his uncle-in-law,
Mariano Alvarez:

“President Mainam,
 Don't fail to come this very moment for I want to talk to you privately about what happened
to me in Magdalo and so that you might explain their organization to me.”

Meanwhile, Esteban San Juan invited Bonifacio to attend the demonstration of the Magdiwang
rebels in Noveleta. Accompanied by San Juan himself, Baldomero Aguinaldo and Tirona,
Bonifacio arrived at Noveleta amidst the enthusiastic acclamation of the people. At three in the
afternoon, a parade took place in which Bonifacio, riding in a carriage and flanked on both sides
by the Magdiwang soldiers in red uniform, was the object of the demonstration. As the parade
wound its way toward San Francisco de Malabon, the people shouted, "Long live the ruler of the
Philippines!" to which Bonifacio answered, "Long live Philippine liberty!"

Upon arriving at Malabon, he was quartered in the house of Santos Nocon and, later, in the the
house of Mrs. Estefania Potente, where he stayed ‘til the Spaniards captured the town in April
1897.

The misunderstanding that existed between the followers of the Magdiwang and the Magdalo, so
destructive of the Katipunan plans, deepened into mutual suspicion and jealousies that resulted
in military reverses in several sectors. Polavieja's counter-offensives led to the fall of several
towns hitherto held by the rebels, and the attitude of non-cooperation exhibited by one faction
when the other was harassed by the enemy led, as it must, to disaster in the field. The situation,
both camps believed, could only be remedied by coming together and threshing out differences
in opinion and solving, ultimately, the question of leadership in the province. For this purpose, the
leaders of of the Magdiwang and the Magdalo decided to call a convention or assembly at Imus.

In the assembly hall, the two factions met (on December 31, 1896) and exchanged the usual
greetings. Bonifacio entered, proceeded to the head of the table and unceremoniously occupied
the chair. He beckoned to the Magdiwang Ministers to sit at his right side. This obvious partiality
to the Magdiwang was resented by the Magdalo, for as Supreme Head between of the two
Katipunan factions, who was called upon to mediate, Bonifacio was expected to show impartiality.
But his actions in the case were motivated by his regard for his wife's uncle, Mariano Alvarez, the
President of the Magdiwang – a fact that aggravated the situation. Even so, the Magdalo men did
not show their resentment but kept silent in order to prevent further misunderstanding between
the followers of both camps.

Seeing that Bonifacio had called his Ministers, Baldomero Aguinaldo, President of the Magdalo,
without being invited, sat to the left of Bonifacio. General Emilio Aguinaldo, seeing his position as
a purely military one, was content to be a mere observer. He had, however, a plan of his own.
Since it was the intention of his faction to propose the establishment of a revolutionary
government, he had decided beforehand that in the coming election for the presidency he would
nominate and support Edilberto Evangelista, since· among them all, "Evangelista was the best
educated."

Bonifacio knew of Aguinaldo's active electioneering in favor of Evangelista and was deeply hurt,
for as founder and Supreme Head of the Katipunan he felt that the presidency should be given to
him as a reward.

The assembly opened with Bonifacio as Chairman. It was evident, when Baldomero Aguinaldo
made the proposal to establish a revolutionary government, that the two factions would never
come to an understanding. The Magdalo men contended that the continuance of the Katipunan
government was no longer necessary, for since the start of the Revolution the Society had ceased
to remain a secret society and must therefore be supplanted by one that would better fit the
situation. The Magdalo people further contended that being small, Cavite must not be divided
between the two factions. On the other hand, the Magdiwang followers argued that the Katipunan
already had a constitution and by-laws duly approved and enforced in the Islands and that, by
virtue of this, provincial and municipal governments in and around Manila had already been
established. There. was, therefore, no necessity of ·establishing a new government. Even so, the
Magdiwang Minister of War, Ariston Villanueva, stood up and said that if a new government was
to be established, Andres Bonifacio, who had organized and planned the entire revolutionary
movement, must of right occupy the presidency without any election. Further, he pointed out that
as Chairman and Supremo, Bonifacio should be given blanket authority to appoint the Ministers.
The Magdalo group strenuously objected and insisted on an election. The discussion became
heated and did not accomplish any tangible result. The assembly was adjourned and each faction
left without any definite understanding.

Suspicions and jealousies continued to plague the ranks of the rebels, and even among the
members of the same faction petty quarrels continued to come up. The Magdalo followers
suspected the Magdiwang of courting the favor of the Spaniards, while the same suspicion was
aroused in the Magdiwang as regards the Magdalo. In a situation where the Magdalo needed the
help of the Magdiwang, the latter, to which Bonifacio belonged, refused to come to the aid of the
former. Moreover, the. Magdiwang followers were themselves occupied, now and then with petty
jealousies and quarrels that tended to demoralize the soldiers. Thus, when the town fiesta of San
Francisco de Malabon was held in January 1897, the rebels, then enjoying the afternoon games,
were disturbed by a series of rifle shots that sent them scampering away to places of safety.
Thinking that the enemy was approaching, Ariston Villanueva and Santiago Alvarez gathered their
men and prepared to meet an attack. They later found out. that the rifle shots came from the men
of Captain Mariano San Gabriel, also a Magdiwang man, who, trigger-happy, had fired several
shots in the air. Alvarez's men tried to disarm the offending soldiers, but instead were themselves
disarmed. Alvarez was furious and demanded that San Gabriel disarm his men. The latter refused
and left for Noveleta. It was only through Ricarte's intervention that the two men, Alvarez and San
Gabriel, were brought together again as comrades.

The situation had not eased up a bit when the leaders of the Magdiwang planned to hold another
convention, this time in the estate-house of Tejeros, a Magdiwang territory situated about two
kilometers from San Francisco de Malabon and about half a kilometer from the town proper of
Sal'nas. The government under the Magdalo, comprising the towns of Kawit, Bakood and Imus,
was at the time seriously threatened by the Spanish army which occupied the estate-house of
Salitran and which had dug in as a preparatory step to the battle that was about to commence.
General Emilio Aguinaldo, leading the Magdalo soldiers, faced the Spaniards in Salitran, a barrio
between the towns of Imus and Dasmariñas. It was March 22, 1897, Aguinaldo's birthday, when
simultaneously the battle raged and the assembly convened at Tejeros.

The delegates, mostly belonging to the Magdiwang, lazily moped that sultry afternoon to the
spacious estate-house of Tejeros. Some of the men were barefoot; others woreburi hats or were
dressed in barong Tagalog. They came from all directions: from Kawit, Noveleta and Imus to the
north; from Tanza to the west; and from San Francisco de Malabon to the northeast. The estate-
house, surrounded by stone walls and built in the middle of the six-hectare farm owned by the
friars and now in rebel hands, had a 60- meter frontage. The entrance was through an arched
gate connected to the rear arched gate by a long and wide corridor. To the right, a few meters
from the front gate, were the stairs. Directly opposite the stairs was a storage room, and next to
it, to the rear, was the chapel. Directly opposite this and next to the stairs was another storage
room. Up the stairs was the big hall, with the doors of thirty-four rooms opening to it. In the rear
of a room to the right were the dining room and the azotea that commanded a beautiful view of
the fields around and the murky Ilog Kawayan on whose banks thick clumps of bamboo protected
the house from the glare of the sun. The estate-house stood alone in that wide expanse of
riceland. Directly opposite the house and across the road was more riceland (tubigan). The long
road that commenced from the town of Salinas led directly to San Francisco de Malabon, and half
a kilometer from the estate-house it branched off to the right, where a bridge connected the latter
town to the town of Tanza or Santa Cruz de Malabon.

It was this place, the former summer resort of the friars, that witnessed the first important election
held under the auspices of the Katipunan government. An invitation was sent by the Magdiwang
chieftains to the Magdalo followers to attend the meeting, but because of the battle then raging
around the locality not all the Magdalo leaders were able to attend. The Magdiwang was
represented by Andres Bonifacio, Mariano Alvarez, Pascual Alvarez, Santiago Alvarez, Luciano
San Miguel, Mariano Trias, Severino de las Alas, Santos Nocon and others, while the Magdalo
was represented by Baldomero Aguinaldo, Daniel Tirona, Cayetano Topacio, Antonio
Montenegro and others. The estate-house buzzed with life as more rebels, some of them
uninvited, came to the convention. It was past two in the afternoon when the meeting was formally
opened.

Jacinto Lumbreras, acting president of the Magdiwang, took the chair and opened the convention
19 with introductory remarks summing up the purpose of the meeting. To his right sat Teodoro
Gonzales, also a Magdiwang, who acted as secretary. Severino de las Alas, a Magdiwang,
immediately took the floor and explained that before discussing ways and means of defending
such a small area as Cavite, the convention assembled should first of all agree upon the kind of
government that should be set up to administer the whole country under the prevailing
circumstances.

"From this government," he said, "anything that is necessary in the defense of the country can
emanate."

The presiding officer, however, reminded the speaker that a government had already been
established upon the founding of the Katipunan, its Supreme Council, its Provincial Councils and
its Popular Councils, and that the meeting was called to adopt defensive measures. At this
juncture, Bonifacio spoke and supplemented Lumbreras' explanation, calling the attention of
those assembled to the Katipunan flag with a K in the middle, which embodied the ideals of the
revolutionists, namely liberty. De las Alas, not contented with the Supremo’s explanation,
countered that the K in the flag of the Katipunan did not in any way identify the kind of government
that they had, whether such government was monarchial or republican. Bonifacio remarked that
all Katipuneros, from the Supreme Head to the lowest member, recognized the principle of Unity,
Fraternity, and Equality.

“It can be seen,” he said, “that the Government of the Association of the Sons of the People is
republican in form.”

The discussion was going nowhere and tempers ran high as the men insisted on their own points
of view. So far, the discussion was between the men of the same faction. In an unfortunate
moment, a Magdalo man, Antonio Montenegro, stood up and, shouting at the top of his voice,
took issue with Bonifacio.
“If we do not act upon the suggestion of Mr. de las Alas,” he said, “we, the rebels, will be likened
unto a mere pack of highway robbers, or worse, like animals without reason.”

The words, uttered in good faith and in the belief that something must be done to have a new
government organized, touched off a sensitive spot in the hearts of the Magdiwang listeners.
Santiago Alvarez, a Magdiwang, pricked to anger, took the floor and, throwing a malicious side-
glance at Montenegro, retorted, “We, the rebels of Cavite, especially those under the Magdiwang,
recognize the Government organized by the Association of the Sons of the People. And if you
want to set up another form of government, you can go back to your own province and wrest the
authority from the Spaniards, as we have already done. As such, you can do whatever you want
to and nobody would interfere with you. We of Cavite,” he added with a meaning full of bitterness,
“we of Cavite do not need and will never need any adviser of your own standing only.”

Pandemonium reigned as the voice of Santiago Alvarez boomed inside the spacious sala. His
bodyguards, planted near the stairs, moved ominously – all to set fire at those inside the hall.
Lumbreras, sensing the explosive situation, tactfully called a recess to give sufficient time for the
angry men to cool off. At the end of an hour, the meeting was resumed. Jacinto Lumbreras, seeing
that it would be useless for him to continue to preside in such an atmosphere, refused to take the
chair, saying, "As the question under discussion is completely outside of what is mentioned in the
agenda of the meeting and is concerned instead with the establishment of an overall government
of the revolution, I should not continue to preside over this session."

Then he took his seat among the members, and Andres Bonifacio, who was acclaimed by all to
succeed him, took the chair as the presiding officer by virtue of his being the President of the
Supreme Council of the Katipunan. He then called the meeting to order and said, "As you desire
to set up a supreme government to direct the revolution, abolishing what was organized by the
Katipunan and repudiating the resolution approved in the Assembly of Imus, as President of the
Supreme Council of the Katipunan, I accede to your just petition, but first of all I want to ask you
to recognize a principle as a basis of agreement in this or in other meetings, which is: that we
respect and obey the will of the majority."

Those present saw the justice and wisdom of his proposition arid assented unanimously. The
Republic of the Philippines was then and there proclaimed amidst enthusiastic hurrahs. With a
new form of government determined to take the place of the Katipunan, the election of officers
was then prepared. Nine officers were to be elected by popular vote, namely, President, Vice-
President, Captain-General, Director of War, Director of Interior, Director of State, Director of
Finance, Director of Fomento and Director of Justice. Before proceeding with the election,
Bonifacio, probably assailed by doubts and aware of his limitations, called the attention of all the
electors representing the different regions of the Philippines to the principle that whoever would
be elected should be recognized and respected regardless of his social condition and education.
The proposal, made in the form of a mere statement and reminder, was approved, for in that
convention very few, if any, were men of high intellectual attainments. The ballots were prepared
and distributed. The balloting was made successively, that is, the office of the President was first
voted upon, after which the other offices were filled in singly. After an hour, the ballots were cast
for the presidency, and Emilio Aguinaldo won in absentia over Andres Bonifacio and Mariano
Trias. The President- elect was proclaimed with loud shouts and applause.

Before the ballots were cast for the Vice-Presidency, Severino de las Alas stood up and suggested
that in as much as Bonifacio had received the second largest number of votes he should
automatically be allowed to occupy the Vice-Presidency. The men assembled appeared lukewarm
to the suggestion, there being no one who approved or disapproved it. Consequently, Bonifacio
decided to continue with the election of the Vice-President. Mariano Trias was elected to the
position over Andres Bonifacio, Severino de las Alas and Mariano Alvarez. The election of the
Captain-General came next and Ricarte, the acting Secretary of the convention, came out over
Santiago Alvarez. With a modesty that sprang from the realization of the responsibility attached
to the position, Ricarte stood up and declared, "None better than I know my own limitations and
fitness: the position with which this assembly honors me is beyond my scant ability and strength;
to me it is a very honorable position but its horizon is too wide for me: so I request the assembly
not to resent my refusal to accept it."

Ricarte's modesty, genuine or assumed, proved effective. Cries of disapproval followed his
request to be relieved, and the disturbance created by the enthusiastic followers of the General
forced Bonifacio to call the meeting to order.

Then, "It is getting dark," he said, "so we have to proceed to the election to other positions."

Somebody suggested that in order to expedite the election to the remaining positions, the electors
should step to one side when their candidates were called, a proposal that was immediately
approved. In this manner, the following were elected: Director of War, Emiliano Riego de Dios,
who won over Ariston Villanueva, Daniel Tirona and Santiago Alvarez; Director of lnterior, Andres
Bonifacio, who won over Mariano Alvarez and Pascual Alvarez.

The election· of Bonifacio gave rise to an incident that nearly ended in a bloody affair. Amidst the
acclamations that followed the announcement of his election, Daniel Tirona, a Magdalo man,
stood up and said, "The position of Director of the Interior is an exalted one and it is not meet that
a person without a lawyer's diploma should occupy it. We have in our province a lawyer, Jose del
Rosario; therefore, we should protest against the elected and acclaimed."

And, shouting at the top of his voice, he added, "Let us vote for Jose del Rosario!"

No one, however, took up the suggestion which was shouted four times. Nevertheless, Bonifacio
felt insulted and he turned crimson with anger. Controlling himself, he demanded that Daniel
Tirona retract what he had said. "Did we not agree," he added, "that we have to abide by the
decision of the majority whatever may be the social standing of the elected?"

He insisted that Tirona give satisfaction to the assembly for his defamatory words. But Tirona
ignored Bonifacio and tried to lose himself in the crowd. In the flush of his anger, Bonifacio
whipped out his pistol to fire at Tirona but Ricarte grabbed his hand and thus prevented what
might have been a tragic affair. The people then began to leave the hall, and Bonifacio, frustrated
and deeply wounded in feeling, cried aloud: "I, as chairman of this assembly, and as President of
the Supreme Council of the Katipunan, as all of you do not deny, declare this assembly dissolved,
and I annul al1 that has been approved and resolved."

With this parting statement, he left the hall, followed by his men. The seed of discontent, resulting
from his failure to get the presidency, and which was watered by the unfortunate attitude of Daniel
Tirona, who, by another sad coincidence, belonged to the opposite faction, found fertile ground
in Bonifacio's heart and mind. Aside from the fact that as founder of the Katipunan and the initiator
of the Revolution he believed he should have been given the presidency, he contended that
irregularities were committed by the Magdalo men and that he would have been elected had it
not been for the premeditated frauds of the rival faction. Writing to his uncle-in-law, Mariano
Alvarez, he said:

“My dear General Mainam,

Our recently ended election at Mapagtiis [San Francisco de Malabon] has left a
large poisonous thorn in my heart. I reiterate to you my nullification of all that had been
agreed upon there. Ay, General, I never expected that my complacency and faithfulness
would be rewarded with avarice and insult upon my person by your fellow townsmen who
are false patriots. I shall make them realize when I set foot on Morong soil that it was not
I whom they insulted but the whole country.

Send me food at once and faithful soldiers of the Mother Country here at Limbon
as a fulfillment of your promised help when I left in disquietude.

Your Supremo,
And. Bonifacio, Maypagasa.”

Giving verit to his resentment over the procedure and results of the elections, Bonifacio, in a letter
to his friend, Emilio Jacinto, then in Laguna explained his side and gave the background of the
event:

“The majority of those in the convention determined to organize a government; but I gave them
to understand that this could not be done on account of the absence of the representatives of
other districts, aside from an agreement having already been made at the convention at Imus;
that all this annulled the majority, because in view of the present critical situation of these pueblos
there was no time to wait for the representatives from other places, and the Imus Convention
lacked validity on account of the alleged absence of the minutes. Nevertheless, I assured those
present that in the case the manifest will of the people governed in the election of officers, I would
respect it.

Moreover, before the election began, I discovered the underhand work of some of the Imus crowd
who had quietly spread the statement that it was not advisable that they be governed by men
from other pueblos, and that they should for this reason strive to elect Captain Emilio as President.
As soon as I heard of this, I said that this meeting was dirty work, because this was what they
were after and they were deceiving the people, adding that if they wished me to point out, one by
one, those who were conducting themselves in this matter, I would do so. The majority said that
this was no longer necessary. I also said that if a manifest will of the people was not complied
with, I would not recognize the chiefs elected, and if I did not recognize them, they would not be
recognized by our people there, either. Don Artemio Ricarte, the General-elect, also said at the
meeting that this election was due to bad practices.”
 Written Analysis: Look at the historical sources cited below. Analyze them
and determine if they are a primary source or secondary source. Then,
answer the stated questions by giving and writing the reasons supporting
your analysis of the presented historical documents.

Distinguishing the Types of Historical Sources

EXHIBIT ONE: Excerpt taken from Laon-Laan: A guide for the study and
understanding of the life and contributions of Jose Rizal to Philippine nationhood
and society by Augusto V. De Viana

In 1872, workers at the Cavite Arsenal were aghast to learn that their salaries were cut in half due to
tax deductions and that they were no longer exempted from forced labor. The workers found
sympathy among the soldiers of the fort led by a Sergeant Lamadrid. Thus, what was supposed to
be a protest over wages by workers turned into a mutiny. It was expected that Lamadrid's comrades
in Manila will join the uprising on January 17, 1872. The signal to start the uprising would be the firing
of rockets from Manila. On that night, the district of Sampaloc had a noisy celebration, which included
a grand fireworks display. This was mistaken as the signal by the Cavite mutineers who started killing
their Spanish officers. The next day, Lamadrid and his men found to their dismay that they were
alone and soon troops from Manila crushed the mutiny. Lamadrid was killed in the fighting.

QUESTIONS:
1. What historical period is being discussed?

2. Is the presented document a primary source or a secondary source of historical

information? Why?

3. Is the specified document an important source of historical knowledge about the

Philippines? Why do you think so?
EXHIBIT TWO: Excerpt from Proclamation of Martial Law in the Philippines

WHEREAS, the rebellion and armed action undertaken by these lawless elements of the communist
and other armed aggrupations organized to overthrow the Republic of the Philippines by armed
violence and force have assumed the magnitude of an actual state of war against our people and the
Republic of the Philippines;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the

powers vested upon me by Article VII, Section 10, Paragraph (2) of the Constitution, do hereby place
the entire Philippines as defined in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution under martial law and, in
my capacity as their commander-in-chief, do hereby command the armed forces of the Philippines,
to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless
violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and
decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction.

QUESTIONS:
1. What historical period is being discussed?

2. Is the presented document a primary source or a secondary source of historical

information? Why?

3. Is the specified document an important source of historical knowledge about the

Philippines? Why do you think so?
 EXHIBIT THREE: Picture of the Manunggul Jar

QUESTIONS:

1. What historical period is being presented?

2. Is the presented archaeological artifact a primary source or a secondary source of

historical data? Why?

3. Is the specified artifact a valuable source of historical knowledge about the Philippines?
Why do you think so?

References:

Agoncillo, T.A. (1956). Seeds of discontent. In The revolts of the masses: The story of Bonifacio
and the Katipunan (pp. 201-217). Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press.

Alvarez, S.V., Malay, P.C.S. [translator], & Paredes, R.R. [Introduction] (1992). Entry 32. In The
Katipunan and the revolution: Memoirs of a general (with the original Tagalog text) (pp. 82 –
88). Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Barrows, D. P. (2011, December 11). Project Gutenberg’s A History of the Philippines.

Gutenberg.Org. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/38269/38269-h/38269-h.htm
De Viana, A. & Picadizo, Ma. V. (2018). "Pahiwatig. A Guide for Understanding Readings in
Philippine History." Books Atbp. Publishing Corp.

National Achives. (2016, August 15). History in the Raw. Archives.Gov.

https://www.archives.gov/education/history-in-the-raw.html
Ocampo, A. R. (2019, January 3). Philippine History from Primary Sources. Inquirer.Net.
https://opinion.inquirer.net/119205/philippine-history-from-primary-sources
University of South Australia. (2021, January 18). What are primary, secondary and tertiary
sources? Guides.Library.Unisa.Edu.Au.
https://guides.library.unisa.edu.au/historycultural/sourcetypes

Illinois Library. (2006, August 23). What are primary sources? Library.Illinois.Edu.
https://www.library.illinois.edu/village/primarysource/mod1/pg13.htm
Internet Archive. (n.d.). Full text of “Historical Criticism.” Archive.Org. Retrieved January 12,
2021, from https://archive.org/stream/jstor-25011528/25011528_djvu.txt
 Two direct taxes were added in 1878 and imposed
HISTORY OF TAXATION on urban incomes. Urbana is a tax on the annual
rental value of an urban real estate and industria is
IN THE PHILIPPINES a tax on salaries, dividends, and profits. The colonial
government also gained income from monopolies,
Learning Objectives: such as the sale of stamped paper, manufacture and
sale of liquor, cockpits, and opium, but the biggest of
LO1. Using various techniques and genres, practice the state monopolies was tobacco, which began in
communication skills in interpreting and analyzing 1781 and halted in 1882. Only certain areas were
social, political, economic and cultural issues. assigned to cultivate tobacco, which the government
purchased at a price dictated to the growers.
LO2. Propose recommendations or solutions to
present day problems based on their understandings This monopoly made it possible for the colony to
of root causes, and their anticipation of future create a surplus of income that made it self-sufficient
scenarios without the need for the situado real and
even contributed to the Treasury of Spain. Forced
Taxation in Spanish Philippines
labor was a character of Spanish colonial taxation in
The Philippines may have abundant natural the Philippines and was required from the
resources even before the encroachment of the Filipinos. This changed later on, as polos and
Spaniards, but our ancestors were mainly involved servicios became lighter, and was organized at the
in a subsistence economy, and while the payment municipal level. Labor provided was used in public
of tribute or taxes (buhis/ buwis/handug) or the works, such as the building of roads and bridges.
obligation to provide labor services to the datus Some were made to serve the municipal office or as
in some early Filipino communities in the Philippines night guards. Males were required to provide labor
may resemble taxation, it is essentially different from for 40 days a year (reduced to 15 days a year in
the contemporary meaning of the concept. 1884). They may opt out by paying the fallas of
three pesos per annum, which was usually lost to
The arrival of the Spaniards altered this subsistence corruption because it was collected at the municipal
system because they imposed the payment level and were known as caidas or droppings. The
of tributos (tributes) from the Filipinos, similar to polos would be called prestación
what had been practiced in all colonies in personal (personal services) by the second half of
America. The settlements were handled by the nineteenth century.
encomenderos who received rewards from the
Spanish crown for their services. Exempted NOTE: Primary Source: Mariano Herbosa Writes
from payment of tributos were the principales: to Rizal About Taxes Source: Mariano Herbosa
alcaldes, gobernadores, cabezas de barangay, to Jose Rizal, Calamba, 29 August 1886, Letters
Between Rizal and Family Members (Manila:
soldiers, members of the civil guard, government
National Heroes Commission, 1964), 239,241.
officials, and vagrants.

Toward the end of the sixteenth century, the Manila-

Acapulco trade was established through the
galleons, a way by which the Spaniards could make
sure that European presence would be sustained.
Once a year, the galleon would be loaded up with
merchandise from Asia and sent to New Spain
(Mexico), and back. Tax collection was still very poor
and subsidy from the Spain would be needed
through the situado real delivered from the Mexican Taxation under the Americans
treasury to the Philippines through the galleons.
From 1898 to 1903, the Americans followed the
Spanish system of taxation with some modifications,
In 1884, the payment of tribute was put to a stop and
noting that the system introduced by the Spaniards
was replaced by a poll tax collected through a
were outdated and regressive. The military
certificate of identification called
government suspended the contracts for the sale of
the cédula personal.
opium, lottery, and mint charges for coinage of
money. Later on, the urbana would be replaced by
tax on real estate, which became known as the land
tax. The land tax was levied on both urban and rural Income tax rates were increased in 1936, adding
real estates. a surtax rate on individual net incomes in excess of
10,000 pesos. Income tax rates of corporations were
The Internal Revenue Law of 1904 was passed as also increased.
a reaction to the problems of collecting land tax. It
prescribed ten major sources of revenue: (1) In 1937, the cédula tax was abolished, which
licensed taxes on firms dealing in alcoholic appeared to be a progressive move; but in 1940,
beverages and tobacco, (2) excise taxes on a residence tax was imposed on every citizen aged
alcoholic beverages and tobacco products, (3) taxes 18 years old and on every corporation. In 1939, the
on banks and bankers, (4) document stamp taxes, Commonwealth government drafted the National
(5) the cédula, (6) taxes on insurance and insurance Internal Revenue Code, introducing major changes
companies, (7) taxes on forest products, (8) in the new tax system, as follows:
mining concessions, (9) taxes on business and  The normal tax of three percent and the surtax on
manufacturing, and (10) occupational licenses. income was replaced by a single tax at a progressive
rate
The cédula went through changes in the new law as  Personal exemptions were reduced.
the rate was fixed per adult male, which resulted in
a great decline in revenues. In 1907,  Corporation income tax was slightly increased by
introducing taxes on inherited estates or gifts donated in
some provinces were authorized to double the fee the name of dead persons.
for the cédula to support the construction and
maintenance of roads. The industria tax was levied  The cumulative sales tax was replaced by a single
turnover tax of10% on luxuries.
on the business community and became a highly
complex system that assigned a certain tax to an  Taxes on liquors, cigarettes, forestry products, and
industrial or commercial activity according to mining were increased
their profitability. The new act also imposed a  Dividends were made taxable.
percentage tax on sales payable quarterly. The introduced tax structure was an improvement of
the earlier system introduced by the Americans, but
In 1913, the Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act was still remained inequitable.
passed, resulting in a reduction in the revenue of the
government as export taxes levied on As World War II reached the Philippine shores,
sugar, tobacco, hemp, and copra were lifted. To economic activity was put to a stop and the
make up for the loss, then Governor General Philippines bowed to a new set of administrators,
Francis Burton Harrison urged that tax receipts be the Japanese. The Japanese military
increased to make up for the loss. Minor changes administration in the Philippines during World War
were made to the 1904 Internal Revenue Act such II immediately continued the system of tax
as the imposition of taxes on mines, petroleum collection introduced during the
products, and dealers of petroleum products and Commonwealth, but exempted the articles
tobacco. New sources of taxes were introduced later belonging to the Japanese armed forces. Foreign
on. In 1914, an income tax was introduced; in 1919, trade fell and the main sources of taxation came
an inheritance tax was created; and in 1932, from amusements, manufactures, professions, and
a national lottery was established to create more business licenses.As the war raged, tax collection
revenue for the government. was a difficult task and additional incomes of the
government were derived from the sales of the
National Sweepstakes and sale of government
bonds.

Taxation during the Commonwealth

Period

Fiscal Policy from 1946 to 1981

The economic situation was so problematic that by Post-1986 Taxation Reform
1949, there was a severe lack of funds in many
aspects of governance, such as the military and As Corazon Aquino took the helm of the
education sectors. No efforts were made to improve government after the EDSA Revolution, she
tax collection and the United States advised the reformed the tax system through the 1986 Tax
adoption of direct taxation. The administration Reform Program. A major reform in the tax system
of President Manuel Roxas declined the proposal introduced under the term of Aquino was
because it did not want to alienate its allies in the introduction of the value-added tax (VAT),
Congress. with the following features:
1. uniform rate of 10% on sale of domestic and
The impetus for economic growth came during the imported goodsand services and zero percent on
time of President Elpidio Quirino through the exports and foreign-currencydenominated sales;
implementation of import and exchange controls that 2. ten (10) percent in lieu of varied rates applicable to
led to import substitution development. This policy fixed taxes (60nominal rates), advance sales tax, tax
allowed for the expansion of a viable manufacturing on original sale, subsequentsales tax, compensating
sector that reduced economic dependence on tax, miller's tax, contractor's tax, broker's tax, film
imports. New tax measures were also passed, which lessors and distributor's tax, excise tax on solvents
included higher corporate tax rates that increased and matches, and excise tax on processed
government revenues—tax revenue in 1953 videotapes;
increased twofold compared to 1948, the year when 3. two percent tax on entities with annual sales or
Quirino first assumed presidency. receipts of lessthan 5,200,000;
4. adoption of tax credit method of calculating tax by
While the succeeding presidencies of Magsaysay, subtracting taxon inputs from tax on gross sales;
Garcia, and Macapagal promised to study the tax 5. exemption of the sale of basic commodities such as
structure and policy of the country (through agricultureand marine food products in their original
the creation of a Tax Commission in 1959 by state, price-regulatedpetroleum products and
means of Republic Act No. 2211) to make way for fertilizers; and
a more robust and efficient tax collection scheme, 6. additional 20% tax on non-essential articles such
post-war fiscal policy remained regressive. jewelry, perfumes,toilet waters, yacht, and other
vessels for pleasure and sports.
Indirect taxation still contributed to three quarters The VAT law was signed in 1986 and put to effect in
of tax revenues and the Omnibus Tax Law of 1988. Along with tax reform came the administrative
1969 did not increase the ratio of income tax to reforms, such as the restructuring of the Department
general tax revenue. Collection of taxes of Finance and its attached agency Bureau of
remained poor; tax structure was still problematic; Internal Revenue (BIR) through the Executive
and much of public funds were lost to corruption, Order 127 collection and tax audits were
which left the government incapable of funding intensified. As a result of the tax reform both tax and
projects geared toward development. revenue effort rose, increasing from 10.7% in 1985
to 15.4% in 1992.
Under the Marcos authoritarian regime, the tax
system remained regressive. During the latter part Greater political stability during the administration
of the Marcos's years (1981-1985), the tax system of Fidel Ramos in 1992 allowed for continued
was still heavily dependent on indirect taxes, which economic growth. The Ramos
made up 70% of total tax collection. administration ventured into its own tax reform
program in 1997 through the Comprehensive Tax
Reform Program, which was implemented to (1)
make the tax system broad-based, simple, and with
reasonable tax rates; (2) minimize tax avoidance
allowed by existing flaws and loopholes in the
system; (3) encourage payments by increasing tax
exemptions levels, lowering the highest tax rates,
and simplifying procedure; and (4) rationalize the
grant of tax incentives, which was estimated to be
worth 531.7 billion pesos in 1994.
 The VAT base was also broadened in 1997 to The administration of the new President Rodrigo
include services, through Republic Act 7716. The Duterte promised tax reform, particularly in income
features of the improved VAT law were as follows: taxes as it vowed to lower income tax rates
1. Restored the VAT exemptions for all cooperatives shouldered by working Filipinos. The present income
(agricultural,electric, credit or multipurpose, and tax scheme of the country is the second highest in
others) provided that theshare capital of each Southeast Asia and the current laws on income
member does not exceed 515,000 pesos. taxes were outdated as they were drafted two
2. Expanded the coverage of the term “simple decades ago. The proposed tax reform also seeks
processes” by includingbroiling and roasting, to limit VAT exemptions and increase excise taxes
effectively narrowing the tax base for foodproducts. on petroleum products and automobiles. It is hoped
3. Expanded the coverage of the term “original state” that reforms in the country's tax policy will result in
by includingmolasses. the much-desired economic development that will
4. Exempted from the VAT are the following: be felt even by the lowest classes in
 Importation of meat society. The Tax Reform for Acceleration and
 Sale or importation of coal and natural gas in Inclusion Law (TRAIN Law), officially designated
whatever formor state as Republic Act No. 10963, is the initial package of
 Educational services rendered by private the Comprehensive Tax Reform Program (CTRP)
educationalinstitutions duly accredited by the signed into law by President Rodrigo Duterte on
Commission on Higher Education (CHED) December 19, 2017.
 House and lot and other residential dwellings
valued at 51million and below, subject to
adjustment using the ConsumerPrice Index
(CPI)
 Lease of residential units with monthly rental
per unit of notmore than 58,000, subject to
adjustment using CPI
 Sale, importation, printing, or publication of
books and anyNewspaper
The succeeding term of President Joseph Estrada in
1998 was too short to constitute any change in the
tax system. Then Vice President Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo was swept to power through another EDSA
Revolution. As president, she undertook increased
government spending without adjusting tax
collections.In 2005, the Expanded Value Added
Tax (E-VAT) was signed into law as Republic
Act 9337. This expanded the VAT base, subjecting
to VAT energy products such as coal and petroleum
products and electricity generation, transmission,
and distribution. Select professional services were
also taxed. In February 2006, the VAT tax rate was
also increased from 10% to 12%.

As President Benigno Aquino III succeeded

President Arroyo in 2010, he promised that no new
taxes would be imposed and additional revenue
would have to come from adjusting existing taxes.
The administration ventured into the adjustment of
excise tax on liquor and cigarettes or the Sin Tax
Reform, motivations for which was primarily fiscal,
public health, and social order. related
considerations. Republic Act 10351 was passed,
and government revenues from alcohol and tobacco
excise taxes increased.
 POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE
What is a state?

 State is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion
of territory, independent of external control and possessing an organized government to which the
great body of its inhabitants render habitual obedience.
 State, political organization of society, or the body politic, or, more narrowly, the institutions of
government. The state is a form of human association distinguished from other social groups by its
purpose, the establishment of order and security; its methods, the laws and their enforcement; its
territory, the area of jurisdiction or geographic boundaries; and finally by its sovereignty. The state
consists, most broadly, of the agreement of the individuals on the means whereby disputes are
settled in the form of laws.

What are the elements of a state?

A State stands identified with its four absolutely essential elements:

1. People: State is a community of persons. It is a human political institution. Without a population

there can be no State. Population can be more or less but it has to be there. The people living in the
State are the citizens of the State. They enjoy rights and freedom as citizens as well as perform
several duties towards the State. When citizens of another State are living in the territory of the State,
they are called aliens. All the persons, citizens as well as aliens, who are living in the territory of the
State are duty bound to obey the state laws and policies. The State exercises supreme authority
over them through its government.
2. Territory: Territory is the second essential element of the State. State is a territorial unit. Definite
territory is its essential component. A State cannot exist in the air or at sea. It is essentially a
territorial State. The size of the territory of a State can be big or small; nevertheless it has to be a
definite, well-marked portion of territory. Further, it must be noted that the territory of the state
includes not only the land but also, rivers, lakes, canals inland seas if any, a portion of coastal
sea—territorial waters or maritime belt, continental shelf, mountains, hills and all other land features
along with the air space above the territory.
3. Government: Government is the organization or machinery or agency or magistracy of the State
which makes, implements, enforces and adjudicates the laws of the state. Government is the third
essential element of the State. The state exercises its sovereign power through its government. The
Philippines has a Republican and Democratic government.
4. Sovereignty: Sovereignty is the most exclusive element of State. State alone posses sovereignty.
Without sovereignty no state can exit. Some institutions can have the first three elements
(Population Territory and Government) but not sovereignty. State has the exclusive title and
prerogative to exercise supreme power over all its people and territory. In fact, Sovereignty is the
basis on which the State regulates all aspects of the life of the people living in its territory. As the
supreme power of the State, Sovereignty has two dimensions: (1) Internal and (2) External
sovereignty.

What are the inherent powers of a state?

Inherent defined: As being inherent, it means that as long as the state exists, this power can never be
taken away.

1. Power of Taxation – An inherent power of the state exercised through legislature, to impose burdens
upon subjects and objects within its jurisdiction, for the purpose of raising revenues to carry out the
legitimate objects of the government.
Nature: An inherent power of the state exercised through the legislature.

Scope: To impose burdens upon subjects and objects within its jurisdiction.

Purpose: For raising revenue to carry out the legitimate objects of the government

2. Police Power – This is the power vested in the Legislature by the Constitution to make, ordain, and
establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or
without, not repugnant to the Constitution, for the good and welfare of the State and its subjects.

Basis: This power is based on the legal maxim “salus populi est suprema lex” (the voice of the people is the
supreme law).

Nature: Police power is an attribute of sovereignty and founded on the obligation of the State to provide
protection for its citizens and the safety and good order of society.

Scope: Police power is founded on which our social system rests and has for its object the improvement of
social and economic conditions affecting the community.

3. Power of Eminent Domain – This is the right of the State to acquire private property for public use upon
payment of just compensation and observance of due process.

Basis: It is based on genuine necessity and that necessity must be of public character.
Requisites: (1) There must be taking of public property; (2) It must be for public use; (3) There must be just
compensation; and (4) Due process of law must be observed in taking of the of property

What are the three (3) branches of the government?

1. Executive Department: It refers to the branch of the government who is responsible of enforcing
the laws of the State. It is headed by the President of the RP. The powers of the President is
delegated to his Cabinet members. Cabinet members are the alter- ego of the President. Cabinet
members are appointed based on trust and confidence of the President.
2. Legislative Department: It refers to the branch of the government responsible in the making,
amending, altering and repealing laws. It is represented by the two legislative houses, the Senate
and the House of Representatives. The Philippines has 24 Senators and 250 Members of the House
of Representatives.
3. Judiciary: This refers to the branch of the government which is responsible in the interpretation of
the laws. It is represented by the Supreme Court which acts as a collegial body in the performance
of its functions.

Features of the three branches: All are considered as co- equal. They operate under the principle of
separation of powers and checks-and-balances. These operative principles are necessary features in order
to avoid any abuse that may be committed by one branch over the other and to address any excess against
the people.
 THE CONSTITUTION
What is the concept of constitution?

A constitution is a body of basic laws and principles that describes the general organization and
operation of the state. A constitution most often contains fundamental principles and norms that underlie
and guide all government action. As a supreme or higher law, its provisions provide a framework under
which all regulations, legislation, institutions, and procedures operate. Additionally, a constitution usually
represents a vision of the state, expressing its basic values national identity. Importantly, it also articulates
the rights of citizens that institutions, procedures or legislation must not infringe, and which the state must
strive to ensure. Given the fundamental nature of a constitution and its role in laying a groundwork to shape
and support the state, a constitution is most often expected to be long-standing and somewhat difficult to
change or undo.

It refers to that body of rules and principles in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are
regularly exercised. The Constitution of the Philippines is that written instrument by which the fundamental
powers of the government are established, limited and defined and by which these powers are distributed
among several departments or branches for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the people.

What is the nature and purpose of constitution?

1. Serves as the Supreme or Fundamental Law

 The charter creating the government. It has the status of a supreme or fundamental law as it
speaks for the entire people form whom it derives its claim to obedience.
 Binding on all individual citizen and all organs of the government. Highest in the hierarchy of
laws.
 It is the law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private
rights must be determined and all public authority administered.
 It is the test of legality of all governmental actions, whether proceedings from highest official
or lowest functionary.

2. Establishes basic Framework and Underlying Principles of Government.

 Prescribe the permanent framework of the system of government and to assign to the
different departments or branches, their respective powers and duties, and to establish
certain basic principles on which the government is founded.
 It is designed to preserve and protect the rights of individuals against the arbitrary actions of
those in authority.
 Its function is not to legislate in detail but to set limits on the otherwise power of the
legislature.

What are the kinds of Constitution?

As to their origin and history:

 Conventional or enacted - The enacted constitution is the result of the deliberate effort of
man. It is consciously made. It may be made by a constituent assembly or by the command
of sovereign authority, king or parliament. The features of an enacted constitution are
embodied in a document or in a series of documents.
 Cumulative or evolved - An evolved constitution is the result of the growth of rules, which
have been developed with the time, added one by one as and when the need was felt. It is
 the product of accumulated material, which has molded and shaped the political institution of
the country. Such a constitution is not made, it grows with its roots in the past, it is nothing
but, a collection and continuation of customs, usages, traditions, principles and judicial
decisions.

As to their form:

 Written - A written constitution is a formal document defining the nature of the constitutional
settlement, the rules that govern the political system and the rights of citizens and
governments in a codified form.
 Unwritten - A constitution not embodied in a single document but based chiefly on custom
and precedent as expressed in statutes and judicial decisions.

As to manner of amending them:

 Rigid or inelastic - a rigid constitution as one under which certain laws, called constitutional
laws or fundamental laws "cannot be changed in the same manner as ordinary laws. A rigid
constitution set forth "specific legal/constitutional obstacles to be overcome" before it may be
amended, such as special approval of the people by referendum, a supermajority or special
majority in the legislature, or both.
 Flexible or elastic - a flexible constitution is one in which the legislature may amend the
constitution's content and principles through use of the ordinary legislative process. For
example, the Constitution of Philippines is rigid, while the British Constitution and the Israeli
Constitution are flexible.

What are the requisites of a good written constitution?

As to form, a good written constitution must be:

1. Brief - a constitution is said to be brief if the major and most important points are marked and
minor ones deduced
2. Broad - a constitution has to endure, it must be comprehensive in scope and meaning in
order to meet the needs of the changing times
3. Definite - to avoid conflicting interpretations, a constitution must have clear and definite
statements; any vagueness can be disruptive to political stability, administrative, efficiency,
and national unity

As to contents, it must have at least three sets of provisions:

1. Dealing with the framework of the government

2. Setting forth the rights of its people
3. Procedure on mode or procedure of amending or revising the constitution

THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION (Fast Facts)

February 2 of each year is Constitution Day to commemorate the highest law of the land.
 Did you know that for every change in the constitution in the Philippines, the President released a
proclamation to commemorate the date when the new charter took effect? That day is called Constitution
Day. Of all the constitutional changes the country went through, it's only the 1943 Constitution which did not
have a corresponding proclamation. President Corazon C. Aquino, through Proclamation No. 211 of 1988,
assigned February 2 of each year as Constitution Day to mark the new 1987 Constitution.

How well do you know the supreme law of the land? The list below contains some vital information
concerning one of the country's most important legal documents.

The 5 constitutions started with the country's independence in 1898:

 The 1897 Biak na Bato Constitution - The Constitution of Biak-na-Bato was the provisionary Constitution of the
Philippine Republic during the Philippine Revolution, and was promulgated by the Philippine Revolutionary
Government on 1 November,1897. The constitution, borrowed from Cuba, was written by Isabelo Artacho and
Félix Ferrer in Spanish, and later on, translated into Tagalog. The organs of the government under the
Constitution were: (1) the Supreme Council, which was vested with the power of the Republic, headed by the
president and four department secretaries: the interior, foreign affairs, treasury, and war; (2) the Consejo
Supremo de Gracia Y Justicia (Supreme Council of Grace and Justice), which was given the authority to make
decisions and affirm or disprove the sentences rendered by other courts and to dictate rules for the administration
of justice; and (3) the Asamblea de Representantes (Assembly of Representatives), which was to be convened
after the revolution to create a new Constitution and to elect a new Council of Government and Representatives
of the people. The Constitution of Biak-na-Bato was never fully implemented, since a truce, the Pact of
Biak-na-Bato, was signed between the Spanish and the Philippine Revolutionary Army.

 The 1899 Malolos Constitution (1899-1901) - After the signing of the truce, the Filipino revolutionary leaders
accepted a payment from Spain and went to exile in Hong Kong. Upon the defeat of the Spanish to the Americans
in the Battle of Manila Bay on 1 May 1898, the United States Navy transported Aguinaldo back to the Philippines.
The newly reformed Philippine revolutionary forces reverted to the control of Aguinaldo, and the Philippine
Declaration of Independence was issued on 12 June 1898, together with several decrees that formed the First
Philippine Republic. The Malolos Congress was elected, which selected a commission to draw up a draft
constitution on 17 September 1898, which was composed of wealthy and educated men. The document they
came up with, approved by the Congress on 29 November 1898, and promulgated by Aguinaldo on 21 January
1899, was titled "The Political Constitution of 1899 and written in Spanish. The constitution has 39 articles divided
into 14 titles, with eight articles of transitory provisions, and a final additional article. The document was patterned
after the Spanish Constitution of 1812, with infuences from the charters of Belgium, Mexico, Brazil, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, and Guatemala, and the French Constitution of 1793. According to Felipe Calderon, main author of
the constitution, these countries were studied because they shared Similar social, political, ethnological, and
gOvernance conditions with the Philippines. Prior constitutional projects in the Philippines also influenced the
Malolos Constitution, namely, the Kartilya and the Sanggunian Hukuman, the charter of laws and morals of the
Katipunan written by Emilio Jacinto in 1896; the Biak-na-Bato Constitution of 1897 planned by Isabelo Artacho;
Mabini's Constitutional Program of the Philippine Republic of 1898; the provisional constitution ot Mariano Ponce
in 1898 that followed the Spanish constitutions; and the autonomy projects of Paterno in 1898.

 The 1935 Constitution (1935-1943, 1945-1973) - It is worth mentioning that after the Treaty of Paris, the
Philippines was subject to the power of the United States of America, effectively the new colonizers of the country.
From 1898 to 1901, the Phiippines would be placed under a military government until a civil government would be
put into place. Two acts of the United States Congress were passed that may be considered to have qualities of
constitutionality. First was the Philippine Organic Act of 1902, the first organic law for the Philippine Islands that
provided for the creation of a popularly elected Philippine Assembly. The act specified that legislative power
would be vested in a bicameral legislature composed of the Philippine Commission as the upper house and the
Philippine Assembly as lower house. Key provisions of the act included a bill of rights for Filipinos and the
appointment of two non-voting Filipino President Commissioners of the Philippines as representative to the
United States House of Representatives. The second act that functioned as a constitution was the Philippine
Autonomy Act of 1916, commonly referred to as "Jones Law," which modified the structure of the Philippine
government through the removal of the Philippine Commission, replacing it with a Senate that served as the
upper house and its members elected by the Filipino voters, the first truly elected national legislature. It was also
this Act that explicitly declared the purpose of the United States to end their sovereignty over the Philippines and
recognize Philippine independence as soon as a stable government can be established. In 1932, with the efforts
of the Filipino independence mission led by Sergio Osmeña and Manuel Roxas, the United States Congress
passed the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act with the promise of granting Filipinos independence. The bill was opposed by
 then Senate President Manuel L. Quezon and consequently, rejected by the Philippine Senate. By 1934, another
law, the Tydings-McDuffie Act, also known as the Philippine Independence Act, was passed by the United States
Congress that provided authority and defined mechanisms for the establishment of a formal constitution by a
constitutional convention. The members of the convention were elected and held their first meeting on 30 July
1934, with Claro M. Kecto unanimously elected as president. The constitution was drafted to meet the approval of
the United States government, and to ensure that the United States would live up to its promise to grant
independence to the Philippines.

 The 1973 Constitution (1973-1986) - In 1965, Ferdinand E. Marcos was elected president, and in 1967
Phillppine Congress passed a resolution calling for a constitutional convention to change the 1935 Constitution.
Marcos won the re-election " 1969, in a bid boosted by campaign overspending and use of government funds.
Elections of the delegates to the constitutional convention were held on 20 November 1970, and the convention
began formally on June 1971, with former President Carlos P. Garcia being elected as convention president.
Unfortunately, he died, and was succeeded by another former president, Diosdado Macapagal. Before the
convention finished its work, Martial Law was declared. Marcos cited a growing communist insurgency as reason
for the Martial Law, which was provided for in the 1935 Constitution. Some delegates of the ongoing constitutional
convention were placed behind bars and others went into hiding or were voluntary exiled. With Marcos as dictator,
the direction of the convention turned, with accounts that the president himself dictated some provisions of the
constitution, manipulating the document to be able to hold on to power for as long as he could. On 29 November
1972, the convention approved its proposed constitution. The constitution was supposed to introduce a
parliamentary style government, where legislative power was vested in a unicameral National Assembly, with
members being elected to a six-year term. The president was to be elected as the symbolic and ceremonial head
of state chosen from the members of the National Assembly. The president would serve a six-year term and could
be re-elected to an unlimited number of terms. Executive power was relegated to the Prime Minister, who was
also the head of government and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces who was also to be elected from the
National Assembly. President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 73 setting the date of the plebiscite to ratify
or reject the proposed constitution on 30 November 1973. This plebiscite was postponed later on since Marcos
feared that the public might vote to reject the constitution. Instead of a plebiscite, Citizen Assemblies were held,
from 10-15 January 1973, where the citizens coming together and voting by hand, decided on whether to ratify
the constitution, suspend the convening of the Interim National Assembly, continue Martial Law, or place a
moratorium on elections for a period of at least several years. The President, on 17 January 1973, issued a
proclamation announcing that the proposed constitution had been ratified by an overwhelming vote of the
members of the highly irregular Citizen Assemblies. The 1973 Constitution, according to former Aquino
spokesman Teodoro Locsin Jr, was never ratified as the process conducted by then president Ferdinand
Marcos Jr met strong opposition.

 The 1987 Constitution (1987-present) - In March 1986, President Aquino proclaimed a transitional constitution
to last for a year while a Constitutional Commission drafted a permanent constitution. This transitional constitution,
called the Freedom Constitution, maintained many provisions of the old one, including in rewritten form the
presidential right to rule by decree. In 1986, a constitutional convention was created, composed of 48 members
appointed by President Aquino from varied backgrounds and representations. The convention drew up a
permanent constitution, largely restoring the setup abolished by Marcos in 1972, but with new ways to keep the
president in check, a reaction to the experience of Marcos's rule. The new constitution was officially adopted on 2
February 1987. The Constitution begins with a preamble and eighteen selfcontained articles. It established the
Philippines as a "democratic republican State" where "sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them. It allocates governmental powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial
branches of the government.

The Aquino government had 3 options with regard to the fundamental law of the land:

 To revert to the 1935 Constitution. But because Marcos abolished the bicameral legislature they had to resort
to general elections.
 To retain the 1973 Constitution and be granted the power to make reforms. This was shot down by Aquino as
"she did not want to derive legitimacy and power from the very institutions that she fought."
 To start anew and break from the "vestiges of a disgraced dictatorship."

President Corazon Aquino in April 1986 created – through Proclamation No. 9 – the 1986 Constitutional
Commission (ConCom), which was responsible for drafting a replacement for the 1973 Constitution. The new
constitution, she said, should be “truly reflective of the aspirations and ideals of the Filipino people.” The 1986
ConCom was composed of 48 individuals who represented all sectors in the country, including, among others,
Bishop Teodoro Bacani, former Supreme Court chief justice Roberto Concepcion, former labor minister (and
eventually senator and foreign affairs secretary) Blas Ople, Ateneo De Manila University president Father
Joaquin Bernas SJ, and University of the Philippines Student Council Chairperson (now Commission on Human
Rights chair) Chito Gascon.

The first session of the commission was held on June 2, 1986 when Cecilia Muñoz-Palma, the first woman
appointed to the Supreme Court in 1973, was elected president of ConCom. The proceedings in relation to the
drafting of the 1987 Philippine Constitution – just like other important legal documents in the country – were in no
doubt not without conflict. According to accounts, members of the ConCom engaged in heated debates during
the various sessions on many issues, including the death penalty, economic policies, land reform, form of
government, and even the retention of American military bases in Clark and Subic, among others.

The ConCom was able to finish its work after more or less 111 days, according to Palma. On October 12,
1986, the draft constitution was passed – with 44 delegates voting for it and two against – and was presented
to Aquino 3 days after. On February 2, 1987, a National Plebiscite was held after a nationwide information
campaign on the draft constitution. The question voters had to answer was: "Do you vote for the ratification of
the proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines with the ordinance appended thereto?"

The results of the 1987 plebiscite (the direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public
question such as a change in the constitution) canvassed by the Commission on Elections based on returns from
83,288 precincts – or a total of 21,785,216 votes – across the Philippines are as follows:

Number of votes

Affirmative votes 16,622,111 (76.30%)

Negative votes 4,953,375 (22.74%)

Abstentions 209,730 (0.96%)

On February 11, 1987, through Proclamation No. 58, Aquino announced the results of the plebiscite and
proclaimed the 1987 Philippine Constitution ratified. It took effect the same day.
 Different Eras of Agrarian Reform in the Philippines
PRE-SPANISH Period: “This land is Ours God gave this land to us” - Before the Spaniards came to the
Philippines, Filipinos lived in villages or barangays ruled by chiefs or datus. The datus comprised the nobility.
Then came the maharlikas (freemen), followed by the aliping mamamahay (serfs) and aliping saguiguilid
(slaves). However, despite the existence of different classes in the social structure, practically everyone had
access to the fruits of the soil. Money was unknown, and rice served as the medium of exchange.

SPANISH Period: “United we stand, divided we fall” - When the Spaniards came to the Philippines, the
concept of encomienda (Royal Land Grants) was introduced. This system grants that Encomienderos must
defend his encomienda from external attack, maintain peace and order within, and support the missionaries. In
turn, the encomiendero acquired the right to collect tribute from the indios (native). The system, however,
degenerated into abuse of power by the encomienderos The tribute soon became land rents to a few powerful
landlords. And the natives who once cultivated the lands in freedom were transformed into mere share tenants.

FIRST PHILIPPINE Republic: “The yoke has finally broken” - When the First Philippine Republic
was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo declared in the Malolos Constitution his intention to confiscate
large estates, especially the so-called Friar lands. However, as the Republic was short-lived, Aguinaldo’s plan
was never implemented.

AMERICAN Period: “Long live America” - Significant legislation enacted during the American Period:

 Philippine Bill of 1902 – Set the ceilings on the hectarage of private individuals and corporations may acquire: 16 has. for
private individuals and 1,024 has. for corporations.
 Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) – Provided for a comprehensive registration of land titles under the Torrens
system.
 Public Land Act of 1903 – introduced the homestead system in the Philippines.
 Tenancy Act of 1933 (Act No. 4054 and 4113) – regulated relationships between landowners and tenants of rice (50-50
sharing) and sugar cane lands.

The Torrens system, which the Americans instituted for the registration of lands, did not solve the problem
completely. Either they were not aware of the law or if they did, they could not pay the survey cost and other
fees required in applying for a Torrens title.

COMMONWEALTH Period: “Government for the Filipinos” - President Manuel L. Quezon espoused
the "Social Justice" program to arrest the increasing social unrest in Central Luzon. Significant legislation
enacted during Commonwealth Period:

 1935 Constitution – "The promotion of social justice to ensure the well-being and economic security of all people should be
the concern of the State"
 Commonwealth Act No. 178 (An Amendment to Rice Tenancy Act No. 4045), Nov. 13, 1936 – Provided for certain controls
in the landlord-tenant relationships
 National Rice and Corn Corporation (NARIC), 1936 – Established the price of rice and corn thereby help the poor tenants as
well as consumers.
 Commonwealth Act. No. 461, 1937 – Specified reasons for the dismissal of tenants and only with the approval of the
Tenancy Division of the Department of Justice.
 Rural Program Administration, created March 2, 1939 – Provided the purchase and lease of haciendas and their sale and
lease to the tenants.
 Commonwealth Act No. 441 enacted on June 3, 1939 – Created the National Settlement Administration with a capital stock
of P20,000,000.

JAPANESE Occupation: “The Era of Hukbalahap” - The Second World War II started in Europe in
1939 and in the Pacific in 1941. Hukbalahap controlled whole areas of Central Luzon; landlords who supported
the Japanese lost their lands to peasants while those who supported the Huks earned fixed rentals in favor of the
tenants. Unfortunately, the end of war also signaled the end of gains acquired by the peasants. Upon the arrival
of the Japanese in the Philippines in 1942, peasants and workers organizations grew strength. Many peasants
took up arms and identified themselves with the anti-Japanese group, the HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan
Laban sa Hapon).

Philippine Republic: “The New Republic” - After the establishment of the Philippine Independence in
1946, the problems of land tenure remained. These became worst in certain areas. Thus the Congress of the
Philippines revised the tenancy law.

President Manuel A. Roxas (1946-1948) enacted the following laws:

 Republic Act No. 34 -- Established the 70-30 sharing arrangements and regulating share-tenancy contracts.
 Republic Act No. 55 -- Provided for a more effective safeguard against arbitrary ejectment of tenants.

Elpidio R. Quirino (1948-1953) enacted the following law:

Executive Order No. 355 issued on October 23, 1950 -- Replaced the National Land Settlement Administration
with Land Settlement Development Corporation (LASEDECO) which takes over the responsibilities of the
Agricultural Machinery Equipment Corporation and the Rice and Corn Production Administration.

Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957) enacted the following laws:

 Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 -- Abolished the LASEDECO and established the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Administration (NARRA) to resettle dissidents and landless farmers. It was particularly aimed at rebel returnees providing home
lots and farmlands in Palawan and Mindanao.
 Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954) -- governed the relationship between landowners and tenant farmers
by organizing share-tenancy and leasehold system. The law provided the security of tenure of tenants. It also created the Court
of Agrarian Relations.
 Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) -- Created the Land Tenure Administration (LTA) which was responsible for the
acquisition and distribution of large tenanted rice and corn lands over 200 hectares for individuals and 600 hectares for
corporations.
 Republic Act No. 821 (Creation of Agricultural Credit Cooperative Financing Administration) -- Provided small farmers and share
tenants loans with low interest rates of six to eight percent.

President Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961)

Continued the program of President Ramon Magsaysay. No new legislation passed.

President Diosdado P. Macapagal (1961-1965) enacted the following law:

Republic Act No. 3844 of August 8, 1963 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) -- Abolished share tenancy,
institutionalized leasehold, set retention limit at 75 hectares, invested rights of preemption and redemption for
tenant farmers, provided for an administrative machinery for implementation, institutionalized a judicial system
of agrarian cases, incorporated extension, marketing and supervised credit system of services of farmer
beneficiaries. The RA was hailed as one that would emancipate Filipino farmers from the bondage of tenancy.

President Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-1986)

Proclamation No. 1081 on September 21, 1972 ushered the Period of the New Society. Five days after the
proclamation of Martial Law, the entire country was proclaimed a land reform area and simultaneously the
Agrarian Reform Program was decreed. President Marcos enacted the following laws:

o Republic Act No. 6389, (Code of Agrarian Reform) and RA No. 6390 of 1971 -- Created the Department of Agrarian Reform and
the Agrarian Reform Special Account Fund. It strengthen the position of farmers and expanded the scope of agrarian reform.
o Presidential Decree No. 2, September 26, 1972 -- Declared the country under land reform program. It enjoined all agencies and
offices of the government to extend full cooperation and assistance to the DAR. It also activated the Agrarian Reform
Coordinating Council.
o Presidential Decree No. 27, October 21, 1972 -- Restricted land reform scope to tenanted rice and corn lands and set the
retention limit at 7 hectares.

President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)

The Constitution ratified by the Filipino people during the administration of President Corazon C. Aquino
provides under Section 21 under Article II that “The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and
agrarian reform.” On June 10, 1988, former President Corazon C. Aquino signed into law Republic Act No.
6657 or otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The law became effective on
June 15, 1988. Subsequently, four Presidential issuances were released in July 1987 after 48 nationwide
consultations before the actual law was enacted. President Corazon C. Aquino enacted the following laws:

o Executive Order No. 228, July 16, 1987 – Declared full ownership to qualified farmer-beneficiaries covered by PD 27. It also
determined the value remaining unvalued rice and corn lands subject of PD 27 and provided for the manner of payment by the
FBs and mode of compensation to landowners.
o Executive Order No. 229, July 22, 1987 – Provided mechanism for the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP).
Proclamation No. 131, July 22, 1987 – Instituted the CARP as a major program of the government. It provided for a special fund
known as the Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF), with an initial amount of Php50 billion to cover the estimated cost of the program
from 1987-1992.
o Executive Order No. 129-A, July 26, 1987 – streamlined and expanded the power and operations of the DAR.
o Republic Act No. 6657, June 10, 1988 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) – An act which became effective June 15, 1988 and
instituted a comprehensive agrarian reform program to promote social justice and industrialization providing the mechanism
for its implementation and for other purposes. This law is still the one being implemented at present.
o Executive Order No. 405, June 14, 1990 – Vested in the Land Bank of the Philippines the responsibility to determine land
valuation and compensation for all lands covered by CARP.
o Executive Order No. 407, June 14, 1990 – Accelerated the acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands, pasture lands,
fishponds, agro-forestry lands and other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.

President Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998)

When President Fidel V. Ramos formally took over in 1992, his administration came face to face with publics
who have lost confidence in the agrarian reform program. His administration committed to the vision “Fairer,
faster and more meaningful implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program. President Fidel V. Ramos enacted
the following laws:

o Republic Act No. 7881, 1995 – Amended certain provisions of RA 6657 and exempted fishponds and prawns from the coverage
of CARP.
o Republic Act No. 7905, 1995 – Strengthened the implementation of the CARP.
o Executive Order No. 363, 1997 – Limits the type of lands that may be converted by setting conditions under which limits the
type of lands that may be converted by setting conditions under which specific categories of agricultural land are either
absolutely non-negotiable for conversion or highly restricted for conversion.
o Republic Act No. 8435, 1997 (Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act AFMA) – Plugged the legal loopholes in land use
conversion.
Republic Act 8532, 1998 (Agrarian Reform Fund Bill) – Provided an additional Php50 billion for CARP and extended its
implementation for another 10 years.

President Joseph E. Estrada (1998-2000)

“ERAP PARA SA MAHIRAP’. This was the battle cry that endeared President Joseph Estrada and made him
very popular during the 1998 presidential election. President Joseph E. Estrada initiated the enactment of the
following law: Executive Order N0. 151, September 1999 (Farmer’s Trust Fund) – Allowed the voluntary
consolidation of small farm operation into medium and large scale integrated enterprise that can access long-
term capital. During his administration, President Estrada launched the Magkabalikat Para sa Kaunlarang
Agraryo or MAGKASAKA. The DAR forged into joint ventures with private investors into agrarian sector to
make FBs competitive. However, the Estrada Administration was short lived. The masses who put him into
office demanded for his ouster.
President Gloria Macapacal-Arroyo (2000-2010)

The agrarian reform program under the Arroyo administration is anchored on the vision “To make the
countryside economically viable for the Filipino family by building partnership and promoting social equity and
new economic opportunities towards lasting peace and sustainable rural development.”

o Land Tenure Improvement - DAR will remain vigorous in implementing land acquisition and distribution component of CARP.
The DAR will improve land tenure system through land distribution and leasehold.
o Provision of Support Services - CARP not only involves the distribution of lands but also included package of support services
which includes: credit assistance, extension services, irrigation facilities, roads and bridges, marketing facilities and training and
technical support programs.
Infrastrucre Projects - DAR will transform the agrarian reform communities (ARCs), an area focused and integrated delivery of
support services, into rural economic zones that will help in the creation of job opportunities in the countryside.
o KALAHI ARZone - The KALAHI Agrarian Reform (KAR) Zones were also launched. These zones consists of one or more
municipalities with concentration of ARC population to achieve greater agro-productivity.
o Agrarian Justice - To help clear the backlog of agrarian cases, DAR will hire more paralegal officers to support undermanned
adjudicatory boards and introduce quota system to compel adjudicators to work faster on agrarian reform cases. DAR will
respect the rights of both farmers and landowners.

President Benigno Aquino III (2010-2016)

President Benigno Aquino III vowed during his 2012 State of the Nation Address that he would complete
before the end of his term the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), the centerpiece program of
the administration of his mother, President Corazon Aquino. The younger Aquino distributed their family-
owned Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac. Apart from the said farm lots, he also promised to complete the distribution
of privately-owned lands of productive agricultural estates in the country that have escaped the coverage of the
program.

Under his administration, the Agrarian Reform Community Connectivity and Economic Support Services
(ARCCESS) project was created to contribute to the overall goal of rural poverty reduction especially in
agrarian reform areas. Agrarian Production Credit Program (APCP) provided credit support for crop production
to newly organized and existing agrarian reform beneficiaries’ organizations (ARBOs) and farmers’
organizations not qualified to avail themselves of loans under the regular credit windows of banks.

The legal case monitoring system (LCMS), a web-based legal system for recording and monitoring various
kinds of agrarian cases at the provincial, regional and central offices of the DAR to ensure faster resolution and
close monitoring of agrarian-related cases, was also launched. Aside from these initiatives, Aquino also enacted
Executive Order No. 26, Series of 2011, to mandate the Department of Agriculture-Department of Environment
and Natural Resources-Department of Agrarian Reform Convergence Initiative to develop a National Greening
Program in cooperation with other government agencies.

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte (2016 – present)

Under his leadership, the President wants to pursue an “aggressive” land reform program that would help
alleviate the life of poor Filipino farmers by prioritizing the provision of support services alongside land
distribution. The President directed the DAR to launch the 2nd phase of agrarian reform where landless farmers
would be awarded with undistributed lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Duterte plans to place almost all public lands, including military reserves, under agrarian reform. The President
also placed 400 hectares of agricultural lands in Boracay under CARP. Under his administration the DAR
created an anti-corruption task force to investigate and handle reports on alleged anomalous activities by
officials and employees of the department. The Department also pursues an “Oplan Zero Backlog” in the
resolution of cases in relation to agrarian justice delivery of the agrarian reform program to fast-track the
implementation of CARP.
 The Cavite
Mutiny of 1872
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Learning Objectives:

1. Compare the two versions of the Cavite Mutiny;

2. Examine the important historical information of the two

accounts; and

3. Cite the relevance of the historical readings of the Cavite

Mutiny.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
What is Mutiny?
• It is an open rebellion
against proper authorities,
especially by soldiers or
sailors against their officers.

• It is the refusal to obey the

orders of a person in
authority.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Overview of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872

• The Cavite mutiny of 1872 was an uprising of Filipino military personnel of

Fort San Felipe, the Spanish arsenal in Cavite, on 20 January 1872.

• Around 200 locally recruited colonial troops and laborers rose up in the
belief that it would elevate to a national uprising.

• The mutiny was unsuccessful.

• Executed many of the participants.

• The beginning of Filipino nationalism.

The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
THE CAVITE MUTINY

Account of Account of
Jose Montero y Vidal Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo
Pardo de Tavera

Account of
Jose Montero y Vidal
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Jose Montero y Vidal
 José Antonio Julián Montero y Vidal
 January 28, 1851
 Born in Andalusion town in Gergal, Almeria,
Spain.
 Married to Carolina Marín-Baldo Burgueros in
Murcia and had 4 children.
 He went to Madrid to study jurisprudence.
 Government official residing in Manila in 1872
 Civil Governor in Colonial provinces of the
Spanish Empire in 1875.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Dr. T.H. Pardo de Tavera
• Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera y Gorricho
• April 13, 1857 – March 25, 1925
• His parents are Félix Pardo de Tavera and Juliana
Gorricho from a wealthy, illustrious Filipino family.
• Lived in Cabildo St., Intramuros
• Filipino scholar, scientist and historical researcher
• He is also a journalist of La Democracia
• Member of Taft’s Philippine Commission
• Founded the Federal Party
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Rafael de Izquierdo
 Rafael Gerónimo Cayetano Izquierdo y Gutiérrez
 September 30, 1820 - November 9, 1883
 Born in Santander, Spain
 His parents are Antonio Izquierdo del Monte and
Antonia Gutiérrez de la Cámara
 Governor-General of the Philippines from April 4,
1871 - January 8, 1873
 He was famous for his use of "Iron Fist" type of
government
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 by Jose Montero y Vidal

• Before 1872: The Philippines was under the supervision of Governor General Carlos
María de la Torre y Navacerrada

• The abolition of the privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of exemption
from the tribute was, according to some, the cause of the insurrection.

• Conspiracy are prevailing regarding to an upcoming revolution.

• The mutiny was quickly crushed, but the Spanish regime under the reactionary Governor-
General Rafael de Izquierdo magnified the incident and used it as an excuse to clamp
down on those Filipinos who had been calling for governmental reform.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 by Jose Montero y Vidal

• A call for secularization.

• Izquierdo reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow
the Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos
and Zamora.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 by Jose Montero y Vidal

The Feast of the Virgin Loreto

• According to the accounts of the two, In the evening of January 20, 1872,
fireworks were displayed and rockets fired into the air to celebrate the
feast.

• The conspirators in Cavite mistook these for the signal to revolt. Hence, at
9:30 pm of that day 200 native soldiers under the leadership of Sergeant
La Madrid rose up in arms, assassinated the commander of the fort and
wounded his wife.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 by Jose Montero y Vidal

• When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the
reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt.

• The “revolution” was easily crushed when the expected reinforcement from
Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid
were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial
and were sentenced to die by strangulation.

• Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and

ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the
Peninsulares.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
The Martyrdom of the GomBurZa

On February 15, 1872, the Spanish

colonial authorities sentenced three
martyr Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano
Gomez and Jacinto Zamora to death by
garrote at Bagumbayan, Philippines
and charged with treason and sedition,
and subversion. Two days after their
verdict, they were executed.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
The Martyrdom of the GomBurZa

The charges against Fathers Gomez, Burgos and

Zamora were their alleged complicity in the
uprising of workers at the Cavite Naval Yard.

It was believed by Governor Rafael Izquierdo that

the Filipinos will create its own government and
allegedly, the three priests were nominated as the
leader of the planned government in order to
break free of the Spanish government.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 By Dr. T.H. Pardo de Tavera

• The new governor soon made it clear that his views were different from those
of La Torre - that there would be no change in the established form of
government - and he at once announced that he intended to govern the people
"with a crucifix in one hand and a sword in the other.”

• Prohibited the founding of a school of arts and trades, which was being
organized by the efforts and funds raised by the natives of good standing in the
community, but the founding of which did not tally with the views of the religious
orders.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 By Dr. T.H. Pardo de Tavera

• The workmen in the arsenal at Cavite and in the barracks of the artillery and
engineer corps should pay tribute and labor on public improvements.

• On the night of January 20,1872, there was an uprising among the soldiers in
the San Felipe fort, in Cavite, and the commanding officer and other Spanish
officers in charge of the fort were assassinated.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 By Dr. T.H. Pardo de Tavera

• Forty marines attaches to the arsenal and 22 artillerymen under Sergeant La

Madrid took part in this uprising, and it was believe that the entire garrison in
Cavite was disaffected and probably implicated.

• When the news of the uprising was received in Manila, General Izquierdo sent
the commanding general to Cavite, who reinforced the native troops, took
possession of the fort, and put the rebels to the sword.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Quick Comparison

Spanish Version Circumstances Filipino Version

20 January 1872 at 9:30 in the
Date happened In the night of 20 January 1872
evening
Harsh policy of the despotic
Governor General Rafael de
Revolt to overthrow the Spanish
Izquierdo abolishing their
rule to gain independence from
Reason/Cause privilege of exemption from
monarchial control.
paying annual tribute and
rendering forced labor or polo.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Quick Comparison

Spanish Version Circumstances Filipino Version

Native Clergy: Francisco Saldua
GomBurZa
Sergeant La Madrid
Antonio Maria Regidor, Joaquin GomBurZa
Pardo de Tavera, Pedro Carillo, Felicaino Gomez
Gervacio Sanchez, Jose Mauricio Jose basa
People involved
de Leon, Enrique Paraiso, Jose
Basa, Pio Basa, Crisanto Reyes, Lawyers: Crisanto Reyes
Maximo Paterno and several other Maximo Paterno
Filipinos
Antonio Rgidor
Joaquin Pardo de Tavera
Sergeant La Madrid
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Quick Comparison

Spanish Version Circumstances Filipino Version

Sentence by Execution:
• Sergeant La Madrid
Sentence by Execution: • GomBurZa
• 41 rebels (27 January 1872)
• Camerino (08 February 1872) Sentence to life imprisonment to the
• GOMBURZA and Francisco Marianas Islands:
Saldua (15 February 1872) Casualties • Antonio M. Regidor
• Joaquin Pardo de Tavera
• P. Mendoza
Sentence to life imprisonment
• Guevarra
• 11 rebels (06 February 1872
• Mariano Sevilla
• Feliciano Gomez
• Ballesteros
• Jose Basa
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Quick Comparison

Spanish Version Circumstances Filipino Version

Suspended from the practice of law:

• Jose Basa y Enriquez Sentence to life imprisonment to the
• Joaquin Pardo de Tavera Marianas Islands:
• Antonio M. Regidor Casualties • Enrique
• Pedro Carillo • Crisanto Reyes
• Gervasio Sanchez • Maximo Paterno
• Jose Mauricio de Leon
The Caite Mutiny of 1872
Relevance of the Document

• Helped in the progress and development of patriotism among the Filipinos.

• Triggered the nationalistic sentiments due to common aspiration of ending the

injustices in the colonial society.

• It inspired and propelled those liberal minded laymen to fight for what is right
and just.

• The 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898 declaration of
Philippine Independence.
The Retraction
of Rizal
ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

Historical Background
• When Rizal studied in Europe he become affiliated
to Freemasonry in London, a brotherhood of
equality.
– required to retract his religion, become rationalist
and believe that everything is in accorded to
science.

• On December 26, 1896, Rizal was accused and

tried before a military tribunal for the alleged crimes
of rebellion, sedition and illegal association.
ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

Historical Background

• Two days after, December 28, 1896, Governor

General affirmed his death and set the execution
date of Rizal on December 30, 1896 at 7:00 in the
morning in Bagumbayan.

• The death sentence was read early in the morning

of December 29.
ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

Historical Background
• The intriguing part of Rizal’s life was the last 24 hours
of his stay in Fort Santiago. What actually happened
inside that infamous fort from December 29, 6:30am
to December 30, 1896 is the main issue as:
1. That Rizal retracted his masonic affiliation.
2. That he himself wrote down and signed his
retraction
3. That he and Josephine Bracken through the help
of Rizal’s sibling were married.
ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

• The assumed retraction of our national hero continues to intrigue historians,

as well as students.

• Those who believe that the retraction is a lie considering that Rizal,
throughout his life was a free and rational thinker.

• The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935. It was found
by Fr. Manuel A. Garcia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the
original document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it.
ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish

Jesuit, reported that as early
as 1907, the retraction of Rizal
was copied verbatim and
published in Spain, and
reprinted in Manila.

Fr. Garcia, who found the

original document, also copied
it verbatim
ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION
ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

Of Proofs and Documents

• the first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to
Rizal’s cell;

• Rizal was said to have rejected the draft;

• Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document prepared by the superior of the

Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi.

• Rizal made some modifications

ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

Jesuit confirms the rétraction of Rizal

• Fr. Vicente Balaguer laid the basis for the story that Rizal retracted his words
and deeds.

• He claimed the marriage of Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken at 6.15 a.m. on
December 30, 1896.

• He detailed the story of the last moments of Rizal in Fort Santiago thru a
notarized statement dated August 8, 1917.
ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

The Roman Catholic Church view that Rizal died a Catholic and retracted his
Masonic views. As summed by Father Jesus Maria Cavanna:

1. The Retraction document is the chief witness to the reality of the retraction
itself,

2. According to Father Vicente Balague, Rizal recited and signed the prayer
book entitled Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity.

3. Rizal performed acts of piety during his last hours, as testified by witnesses.

4. The Church, through the Jesuits, solemnized Rizal’s marriage with Josephine
Bracken, as attested by witnesses.
ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

Jesuit confirms the rétraction of Rizal

I finally declare and affirm that shortly before Rizal left his cell, I
departed in the company with Josephine Bracken and the sister of
Jose Rizal whom I separated with. I had with Rizal’s retraction. And I
delivered said document to Rev Fr. Pio Pi, who that same day, brought
it to the palace and handed it over to Archbishop Nozaleda, who in
turn, delivered it to his secretary, Gonzales Feijoo.”
ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

Anti-retractionists
• The retraction document is a forgery.
• handwriting is questionable
• Roman Roque

• The document was not made public until 1935.

• No effort was made to save Rizal from death penalty after saying his retraction.

• Rizal’s burial was kept secret. He was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco
Cemetery.

• There is no marriage certificate.

ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

The Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila

• Purchased by the Philippine government from Spain,

• As presented in August 4, 2016 by Dr. Rene Escalante, OIC of the

National Historical Commission of the Philippines, it can be
summarized that;
1. People did visit Dr. Jose Rizal on December 29, 1896 from 6am.
2. There was no visitor of Rizal by the name Fr. Vicente Balaguer, S.J
3. Making Fr. Vicente Balaguer as only a secondary source.
 ON THE ISSUE OF JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

One of the controversial issues about Rizal was on the question whether he died a
Catholic or a Mason. The assumed retraction of our national hero continues to intrigue
historians, as well as students. Some are arguing that Rizal retracted his masonic views and
embraced his Catholic faith before he died. On the other hand, those who believe that the
retraction is a lie considering that Rizal, throughout his life was a free and rational thinker.

The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated as to its
authenticity.

It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were
many witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May
13, 1935. It was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But
the original document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it.

However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, the retraction of
Rizal was copied verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Fr. Garcia, who
found the original document, also copied it verbatim.

It stated:
 The Roman Catholic Church is, of course, the greatest exponent of the view that Rizal
died a Catholic and retracted hi Masonic views. Evidences used by the Church priove the
veracity of its claim, as well as those share the same belief, are summed by Father Jesus Maria
Cavanna:

1. The Retraction document is the chief witness to the reality of the retraction itself, since its
discovery in 1935. The burden of proof rests upon those who questions its validity.

2. Rizal recited and signed the prayer book entitled Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity. This book
was offered to Rizal after his signing of the retraction document according to Father Vicente
Balaguer.

3. The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of witnesses, attested that Rizal did
retract and sign a retraction document.

4. Rizal performed acts of piety during his last hours, as testified by witnesses.

5. The Church, through the Jesuits, solemnized Rizal’s marriage with Josephine Bracken, as
attested by witnesses. The Catholic Church will not officiate a marriage ceremony without
Rizal’s retraction of his religious errors.

While Cavanna and other pro- retraction scholars pointed to the foregoing evidences to
support their position, those who espouse the belief that Rizal did not retract substantiate their
claim based on the following arguments:
1. The retraction document is a forgery. The handwriting in the document is questionable, as
only one man prepared it, Roman Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano
Lacuna, which was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and
Rizal’s signature forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were approached by Spanish friars during
the final day of the Filipino-American war to forge Rizal’s signature, as confessed by Roque to
Fr. Antonio Abad on August 13, 1901.

2. Other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of retraction. Some of these are the
following:

a) The retraction document was not made public until 1935. Even members
of Rizal’s family did not see it.

b) No effort was made to save Rizal from death penalty after saying his
retraction.
c) Rizal’s burial was kept secret. He was buried outside the inner wall of the
Paco Cemetery.

d) There is no marriage certificate or public record of Rizal’s marriage with

Josephine Bracken.

e) Rizal’s behaviour did not point to a conversion during his last 24 hours.
His Mi Ultimo Adios and the letters he wrote during his remaining hours
do not indicate conversion.

3. The retraction is out of character. It is not in keeping with Rizal’s character and faith. It is
incongruent with his previous assertions and declarations of religious thought.

Of Proofs and Documents

History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop
Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his execution in
Bagumbayan. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was lengthy.

According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who

befriended the hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document
prepared by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi.

Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the document. In his
retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.

Jesuit vouches for Rizal’s Retraction

It was solely one Jesuit priest, Vicente Balaguer,S.J, who laid the basis for the story that Rizal
retracted his words and deeds. It was also he who made the claim that he married Jose Rizal
and Josephine Bracken at 6.15 a.m. on December 30, just minutes before Rizal was executed.
 Fr. Vicente Balaguer claims to be a primary witness of the last days of Rizal from
December 29 and 30, 1896. He detailed the story of the last moments of Rizal in Fort Santiago
thru a notarized statement dated August 8, 1917. He stated;

“On the same date Rizal was executed I wrote a detailed account of everything original
of which I have drawn in the preparation of this narrative. I finally declare and affirm that shortly
before Rizal left his cell, I departed in the company with Josephine Bracken and the sister of
Jose Rizal whom I separated with. I had with Rizal’s retraction. And I delivered said document to
Rev Fr. Pio Pi, who that same day, brought it to the palace and handed it over to Archbishop
Nozaleda, who in turn, delivered it to his secretary, Gonzales Feijoo.”

However, there have been critics as to the testimony and credence of Fr. Vicente
Balaguer.

“Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was purchased by
the Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila,”
showed some interesting points about the retraction, said Jose Victor Torres, professor at the
History department of the De La Salle University.

The Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila

Purchased by the Philippine government from Spain, the the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de
Manila is a body of documents on the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential reports,
transcripts, clippings, and photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers.

As a spy body, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia was set up in 1895, shortly before the outbreak of
the revolution against Spain in 1896, as an intelligence corps of the Spanish government. It
was headed by Federico Moreno. The intelligence reports were relayed to the Governor
General through Manuel Luengo, then gobernador civil de Manila.

Indios as well mestizos acted as agents. Cuerpo closely monitored the activities of
residents of Manila and of the nearby provinces; they were suspected of subversion. These
persons included not only natives but also Spaniards born in the country and Spaniards
born in the Peninsula. Chinese mestizos were also suspects.

From the reports in the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila, as presented in August 4,

2016 by Dr. Rene Escalante, OIC of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines, it
can be summarized that;

a. People did visit Dr. Jose Rizal on December 29, 1896 from 6am.

b. There was no visitor of Rizal by the name Fr. Vicente Balaguer

Thus, the same report disputes the personal knowledge that Balaguer claims over
the alleged Rizal retraction, making him only a secondary source.
 The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only
lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing
groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic
Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted)—agree with each other.

The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only
lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing
groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic
Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted)—agree with each other.

Sources:

Rizal and the Development of Filipino Nationalism, Carlito Garcia, et al., Revised Edition 2011.

The Rizal Retraction and Other Cases, Peter Jaymul V. Uckung, National Historical
Commission of the Philippines, September 19, 2012.

Rizal’s Retraction, Truth or Myth, Tomas U. Santos, The Varsitarian, October 4, 2011.
 Additional Readings on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872

Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872

By Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo

From the summary of information received – that is, from the declaration made before the fiscal
– it seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native clergy, by the
mestizos and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos. Some are residents of
Manila, others from Cavite, and some from the nearby provinces. The instigators, to carry out
their criminal project, protested against the injustice of the government in not paying the provinces
for their tobacco crop, and against the usury that some (officials) practice (handling) documents
that the Finance department gives crop owners who have to sell them at a loss. They encouraged
the rebellion by protesting what they called the injustice of having obliged the workers in the Cavite
arsenal to pay tribute starting January 1 (1872) and to render personal service, from which they
were formerly exempted. To seduce the native troops, they resorted to superstitions with which
the indios are so prone to believe; persuading them the Chief of State (hari) would be an
ecclesiastic and the rest orthe clergy who backed the uprising would celebrate daily for its
success. Thus the rebellion could not fail because God was with them; and those who would not
revolt they would kill immediately.

Taking advantage of the ignorance of those classes and the propensity of the Indio to steal, they
offered (to those who revolted) the wealth of the Spaniards in the army; and to this effect they
said that fifteen native battalions would be created, in which the soldiers who revolted would have
jobs as officers and chiefs. The lawyers and abogadillos would direct the affairs of government,
of the administration and of justice. 3 Lifted from his report by Rafael Izquierdo, “Official Report
of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872” in Zaide, Gregorio and Zaide, Sonia, eds.
Documentary Sources of Philippine History Vol. 8, , 303, Manila: National Bookstore, 1990, pp
305-306. 285 Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to establish a monarchy
or a republic, because the Indios have no word in their language to describe this different form of
government, whose head in Tagalog would be called hari; but it turns out that they would place
at the head of the government a priest; and there were great probabilities – nay, a certainty – that
the head selected would be D. Jose Burgos, or D. Jacinto Zamora, parish priests of S. Pedro de
Manila. All the Spaniards, including the friars, would be executed except for the women; and their
belongings confiscated. Foreigners would be respected. This uprising has roots, and with them
were affiliated to a great extent the regiments of infantry and artillery, many civilians and a large
number of mestizos, indios and some ilustrados from the provinces. To start the revolution, they
planned to set fire to the district of Tondo.

Once the fire was set and while the authorities were busy putting it out, the regiment of artillery
with the help of the part of the infantry would seize Fort Santiago of this Capital (they would then)
fire cannons to inform the rebels of Cavite (of the success). The rebels in Cavite counted on the
artillery detachment that occupied the fort and on the navy helped by 500 natives led by the
pardoned leader Camerino. This person and his men, located at the town of Bacoor and separated
from the fort of San Felipe by a small arm of the sea, would cross the water and reach the fort
where they would find arms and ammunition. The rebels (in Cavite) made the signals agreed upon
by means of lanterns, but the native civilians (in Bacoor) although they tried it, failed because of
the vigilance of the (Spanish) navy that had placed there a gunboat and armed vessels. Loyalists
who went to arrest the parish priest of Bacoor found an abandoned vessel loaded with arms,
including carbines and revolvers. The uprising should have started in Manila at midnight abetted
by those in Cavite, but the rebels of this city went ahead of time. The civil-military governor of
Cavite and the commanders of Regiment 7 took very timely precautions; they knew how to keep
the soldiers loyal (although these had been compromised) and behaved with valor and gallantry,
obliging the rebels to take refuge in the fort of San Felipe. Such is your Excellency, the plan of
the rebels, those who guided them, and the means they counted upon for its realization. For a
long time now, through confidential information and others of a vaguer character, I have been told
that since 1869 – taking advantage of a group that had left behind plans of an uprising, but was
not carried out because of the earthquake of 1862 – there existed in Manila a junta or center that
sought and found followers; and that as a pretext they had established a society for the teaching
of arts and trades. Months ago I suspended it indirectly, giving an account to Your Excellency in
my confidential report No. 113 dated August 1 (1871) to which Your Excellency has not yet replied.

It has also been said that this center of junta received inspiration from Madrid, where newspapers
of advanced ideas flourish; to sustain them subscriptions are (locally) solicited; in effect,
newspapers such as El Eco Filipino were sent here from Madrid, which were distributed by
persons now imprisoned, whose articles thundered against everything that can be found here.
286 As in the case of my worthy predecessor, I have continuously received anonymous letters,
but because I was confident that I could put down and punish any uprising, I gave no credit (to
those reports) in order not to cause alarm; and instead continued a vigilant watch wherever
possible within the limited means at my command. I had everything ready (for any untoward
possibility), taking into account the limited peninsular force which composes the army.
 THE CAVITE MUTINY OF 1872

The mutiny at the navy arsenal in Cavite is as a watershed event in Philippine history. Filipino historians
considered it as the birth of Filipino nationalism. In this event the natives of the Philippines realized their
common oppression as colonial subjects and that they need to struggle as a nation. Heroes like Jose Rizal
considered it as a turning point in his life. In his writings he wrote that without the execution of the three
martyred priests, Fr. Mariano Gomez, Fr. Jose Burgos and Fr. Jacinto Zamora and the mutiny that preceded
it, he would not have written his second novel El Filibusterismo and would have written something else. The
memory of the Cavite Mutiny and the execution of Fathers Gomes, Burgos and Zamora were invoked in the
recruitment rites of the Katipunan in which the new member was made to swear that he would avenge their
cruel fate. The two events were also mentioned in the Declaration of Philippine Independence as the events
that spurred the Filipinos to fight for freedom and subsequent independence.

The roots of the birth of nationalism however goes even before the Cavite Mutiny and the execution of the
three priests. It begins with the formation of the middle class in the late 18th century and the 19th century as
the Philippines was opened to trade. Families who were mainly entrepreneurs became affluent as a result of
intensification of trade. They sent their children to colleges and universities in Manila and even abroad.
These educated people became priests, lawyers and educators and they began asking for a greater role in
Philippine society, a society which was still then closed to the advancement of natives and half-breeds called
mestizos. The conservative Spaniards especially the friars saw the growing middle class as a threat to their
dominance and monopoly of power and they suspected them of eventually aspiring for separatism.

The members of educated class began to see defects in Philippine society that needs to be changed. First
was the issue of secularization in which clergy of the missionary orders had to yield their parishes and go
back to the monasteries or to the missionary lands where their Orders originally intended them to be. There
was also a growing demand from intellectuals that the Church should not meddle in the affairs of state
including politics. Among the Filipino seculars especially Fr. Gomes who was the curate of Bacoor defended
the peasants of the Dominican-owned estate of Imus who were oppressed by the Dominican owners from
unjust eviction and very high fees. Many priests of the regular orders resisted the calls from the seculars to
allow them to serve as parish priests. The parishes they were holding were also the rich ones. After 1859
when the Jesuits were allowed to return to the Philippines, they took back parishes once held by Recollects
and the Recollects took back parishes held by Seculars. This caused an outcry among the secular clergy.
The laymen on the other hand were asking for a greater role in government and they wished that the
government be more receptive to changes.

During the liberal administration of Governor General Carlos Ma. De la Torre the Filipinos asking for change,
came out into the open and celebrated what they considered the coming of a new era. De la Torre while
showing he was a friend of the Filipinos used the occasion to identify them as possible trouble makers.

After a brief liberal interlude, Governor de la Torre was replaced by Governor General Rafael de Izquierdo
who sided with the conservative elements. He reversed all the policies of his predecessors including the
school of arts and trades fearing it might be used as a political club. He banned all discussion of political and
social reform and the secularization of churches.

The final spark was supplied by Izquierdo himself when he raised taxes and restored forced labor to the
employees of the naval arsenal in Cavite. The result was first a labor strike which became a mutiny when it
was joined by soldiers. The Cavite Munity happened on January 20, 1872 in which 200 soldiers believed that
they will be joined by soldiers from Manila. After taking over the arsenal the ringleaders led by Sergeant
Lamadrid found that they were alone and their mutiny was crushed the next day.

The Spaniards used the incident to get rid of the troublesome seculars and liberal laymen in one fell swoop.
They were accused of being a part of a conspiracy of separating the Philippines from Spain. Here the
leading figures of the secularization movement as well as laymen were arrested. Through a summary and
arbitrary legal proceeding led to the execution of four persons including the three priests and the deportation
of several others.

The following are two versions of the Cavite Mutiny , a Spaniard Montero y Vidal and a Filipino, Dr. Trinidad
Pardo de Tavera. Through these versions we can see their biases and inclinations on the event.

Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872

By Jose Montero y Vidal
The Spaniard Montero y Vidal wrote a version of the Cavite Mutiny which appeared in his book Historia
General de Filipinas (Madrid, 1895, Vol. III, pp. 566-595.). Understandably the narration of the event showed
a pro-Spanish bias that one of his critics Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera commented that he, "in narrating the
Cavite episode, does not speak as a historian; he speaks as a Spaniard bent on perverting the facts at his
pleasure; he is mischievously partial.” He further said that the narration was unsupported by documentary
evidence and Montero y Vidal exaggerated the mutiny of a few disgruntled native soldiers and laborers into a
revolt to overthrow Spanish rule - a seditious movement - and involved the innocent Filipino patriotic leaders
including Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora, Jose Ma. Basa, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Joaquin Pardo de
Tavera, and others. Montero y Vidal's version of the Cavite episode of 1872 in English translation follows:*

With the establishment in Spain of a government less radical than the one that appointed La Torre, the latter
was relieved from his post. His successor D. Rafael de Izquierdo, assumed control of the government of
these islands April 4, 1871. The most eventful episode in his rule was the Cavite revolt of 1872.

The abolition of the privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of exemption from the tribute
was, according to some, the cause of the insurrection. There were, however, other causes.

The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda carried on by an unbridled press
against monarchical principles, attentatory of the most sacred respects towards the dethroned majesty; the
democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the speeches and preachings of the apostles of these new
ideas in Spain; the outbursts of the American publicists and the criminal policy of the senseless Governor
whom the Revolutionary government sent to govern the Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas
were the determining circumstances which gave rise, among certain Filipinos, to the idea of attaining their
independence. It was towards this goal that they started to work, with the powerful assistance of a certain
section of the native clergy, who out of spite toward the friars, made common cause with the enemies of the
mother country.

At various times but especially in the beginning of the year 1872, the authorities received anonymous
communications with the information that a great uprising would break out against the Spaniards, the minute
the fleet at Cavite left for the South, and that all would be assassinated, including the friars. But nobody gave
importance to these notices. The conspiracy had been going on since the days of La Torre with utmost
secrecy. At times, the principal leaders met either in the house of the Filipino Spaniard, D. Joaquin Pardo de
Tavera, or in that of the native priest, Jacinto Zamora, and these meetings were usually attended by the
curate of Bacoor Cavite), the soul of the movement, whose energetic character and immense wealth enabled
him to exercise a strong influence.

The garrison of Manila, composed mostly of native soldiers, were involved in this conspiracy, as well as a
multitude of civilians. The plan was for the soldiers to assassinate their officers, the servants, their masters,
and the escort of the Captain-General at Malacañang, to dispose of the governor himself. The friars and
other Spaniards were later to have their turn. The pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Cavite and
Manila was the firing of rockets from the walls of the city. The details having been arranged, it was agreed
that the uprising was to break out in the evening of the 20th of January, 1872. Various circumstances,
however, which might well be considered as providential, upset the plans, and made the conspiracy a dismal
failure.

In the district of Sampaloc, the fiesta of the patron saint, the Virgin of Loreto, was being celebrated with
pomp and splendor. On the night of the 20th, fireworks were displayed and rockets fired into the air. Those in
Cavite mistook these for the signal to revolt, and at nine-thirty in the evening of that day two hundred native
soldiers under the leadership of Sergeant La Madrid rose up in arms, assassinated the commander of the
fort and wounded his wife. The military governor of Cavite, D. Fernando Rojas, despatched two Spaniards to
inform the Manila authorities of the uprising but they were met on the

way by a group of natives, belonging to the Guias established by LaTorre, who put them instantly to death.
At about the same time, an employee of the arsenal, D. Domingo Mijares, left Cavite in a war vessel for
Manila, arriving there at midnight. He informed the commandant of Marine of what had occurred, and this
official immediately relayed the news to Governor Izquierdo.

Early the next morning two regiments, under the command of D. Felipe Ginoves, segundo cabo, left for
Cavite on board the merchant vessels Filipino, Manila, Isabela I and Isabela II. Ginoves demanded rendition
and waited the whole day of the 21st for the rebels to surrender without ordering the assault of their
positionin order to avoid unnecessary shedding of blood. After waiting the whole day in vain for the rendition
of the rebels, Ginoves launched an assault against the latter's position, early in the morning of the 22nd,
putting to the sword the majority of the rebels and making prisoners of the rest. On the same day an official
proclamation announced the suppression of the revolt.

As a result of the declarations made by some of the prisoners in which several individuals were pointed out
as instigators, Don Jose Burgos and D. Jacinto Zamora, curates of the Cathedral, D. Mariano Gomez, curate
of Bacoor Cavite), several other Filipino priests, D. Antonio Maria Regidor, lawyer and Regidor of the
Ayuntamiento, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Consejero de Administracion, Pedro Carillo, Gervasio Sanchez
and Jose Mauricio de Leon, lawyer Enrique Paraiso and Jose and Pio Basa, employees, and Crisanto Reyes,
Maximo Paterno and several other Filipinos, were arrested.

The council of war, which from the beginning took charge of the causes in connection with the Cavite
uprising, passed the sentence of death on forty-one of the rebels. On the 27th of January the Captain
General fixed his "cumplase" on the sentence. On the 6th of the following month, eleven more were
sentenced to death, but the Governor General, by decree of the day following, commuted this sentence to
life imprisonment. On the 8th, the sentence of death was pronounced on Camerino and ten years
imprisonment of eleven individuals of the famous "Guias de la Torre," for the assassination of the Spaniards
who, on the night of January 20th, were sent to Manila to carry news of the uprising. The same council on
the 15th of February, sentenced to die by strangulation the Filipino priests, D. Jose Burgos, D. Jacinto
Zamora and D. Mariano Gomez, and Francisco Saldua; and Maximo Inocencio, Enrique Paraiso and
Crisanto de los Reyes to ten years imprisonment. Early in the morning of the seventeenth of February, an
immense multitude appeared on the field of Bagumbayan to witness the execution of the sentence. The
attending force was composed of Filipino troops, and the batteries of the fort were aimed at the place of
execution, ready to fire upon the least sign of uprising. Gomez was executed first, then Zamora, then Burgos,
and lastly, Saldua.

On the 3rd of April, 1872, the Audiencia suspended from the practice of law the following men: D. Jose Basa
y Enriquez, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, D. Antonio Ma. Regidor, D. Pedro Carillo, D. Gervasio Sanchez
and D. Jose Mauricio de Leon.

Izquierdo had requested the sending to Manila of Spanish troops for the defense of the fort as most of those
found here were natives. In pursuance of Izquierdo's request, the government by decree of April 4, 1872,
dissolved the native regiment of artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force to be composed
exclusively of Peninsulares. The latter arrived in Manila in July, 1872. On the occasion of the arrival of the
troops, the Sto. Domingo Church celebrated a special mass at which high officials of the Government, the
religious corporations, and the general public, attended, upon invitation by the Governor and Captain-
General of the Philippines.

Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872

By Dr. T.H. Pardo de Tavera
The Filipino version of the Cavite Mutiny was provided by Dr. Trinidad Hermnegildo Pardo de Tavera, a
contemporary of Jose Rizal. Pardo de Tavera was a scholar, scientist, and historical researcher. He had
written a work on the Mardicas of Cavite and like Rizal, he conducted a research on the past of the Filipinos
before the arrival of the Spanish colonizers. During the early years of the American rule he served as a
member of Taft's Philippine Commission and founded the Federal Party, He died in Manila on March 26,
1925, aged 68. According to him the Cavite Mutiny was merely a protest against the harsh polices of
Governor General Rafael de Izquierdo. This was used as a pretext by the conservative Spaniards to launch
an all-out elimination of the Filipino liberals and secular priests who were bent on replacing them from the
center of Filipino society. The following was his account of the Mutiny:

The arrival of General Izquierdo (1871-1873) was the signal for a complete change in the aspect of affairs.
The new governor soon made it clear that his views were different from those of La Torre - that there would
be no change in the established form of government - and he at once announced that he intended to govern
the people "with a crucifix in one hand and a sword in the other."

His first official act was to prohibit the founding of a school of arts and trades, which was being organized by
the efforts and funds raised by the natives of good standing in the community, but the founding of which did
not tally with the views of the religious orders. Governor Izquierdo believed that the establishment of the new
school was merely a pretext for the organization of a political club, and he not only did not allow it to be
opened but made a public statement accusing the Filipinos who had charge of the movement. All of those
who had offered their support to exGovernor La Torre were classed as personas sospechosas (suspects), a
term that since that time has been used in the Philippine Islands to designate any person who refused to
servilely obey the wishes and whims of the authorities. The conservative element in the islands now directed
the governmental policy, and the educated Filipinos fell more and more under the displeasure and suspicion
of the governor.

The peace of the colony was broken by a certain incident which, though unimportant in itself, was probably
the origin of the political agitation which, constantly growing for thirty years, culminated in the overthrow of
the Spanish sovereignty in the Philippine Islands. From time immemorial the workmen in the arsenal at
Cavite and in the barracks of the artillery and engineer corps had been exempt from the payment of the
tribute tax and from obligation to work certain days each year on public improvements. General Izquierdo
believed the time opportune for abolishing these privileges and ordered that in the future all such workmen
should pay tribute and labor on public improvements. This produced great dissatisfaction among the
workmen affected and the men employed in the arsenal at Cavite went on a strike, but, yielding to pressure
and threats made by the authorities, they subsequently returned to their labors.

The workmen in the Cavite arsenal were all natives of that town and of the neighboring town of San Roque.
In a short while the dissatisfaction and discontent with the government spread all over that section and even
the entire troops became disaffected. On the night of January 20,1872, there was an uprising among the
soldiers in the San Felipe fort, in Cavite, and the commanding officer and other Spanish officers in charge of
the fort were assassinated. Forty marines attaches to the arsenal and 22 artillerymen under Sergeant La
Madrid took part in this uprising, and it was believe that the entire garrison in Cavite was disaffected and
probably implicated. But if the few soldiers who precipitated the attack believed they would be supported by
the bulk of the army and that a general rebellion against Spain would be declared in the islands, they were
deceived. When the news of the uprising was received in Manila, General Izquierdo sent the commanding
general to Cavite, who reinforced the native troops, took possession of the fort, and put the rebels to the
sword. Sergeant La Madrid has been blinded and badly burned by the explosion of a sack of powder and,
being unable to escape, was also cut down. A few of the rebels were captured and taken to Manila and there
was no further disturbance of the peace or insubordination of any kind.

This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful lever by the Spanish residents and by the
friars. During the time that General La Torre was chief executive in the Philippine Islands the influential
Filipinos did not hesitate to announce their hostility to the religious orders, and the Central Government in
Madrid had announced its intention to deprive the friars in these islands of all powers of intervention in
matters of civil government and of the direction and management of the management of the university. Moret,
the colonial minister, had drawn up a scheme of reforms by which he proposed to make a radical change in
the colonial system of government which was to harmonize with the principles for which the revolution3 in
Spain had been fought. It was due to these facts and promises that the Filipinos had great hopes of an
improvement in the affairs of their country, while the friars, on the other hand, feared that their power in the
colony would soon be completely a thing of the past.

The mutiny in Cavite gave the conservative element - that is, those who favored a continuation of the
colonial modus vivendi - an opportunity to represent to the Spanish Government that a vast conspiracy was
afoot and organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying the Spanish sovereignty. They
stated that the Spanish Government in Madrid was to blame for the propagation of pernicious doctrines and
for the hopes that had been held out from Madrid to the Filipino people, and also because of the leanings of
ex-Governor La Tone and of other public functionaries who had been sent to the Philippine Islands by the
Government that succeeded Queen Isabella. The fall of the new rulers in Spain within a few days, as well as
other occurrences, seemed to accentuate the claims made by the conservative element in the Philippine
Islands regarding the peril which threatened Spanish sovereignty in the islands; it appeared as though the
prophecies were about to be fulfilled. The Madrid authorities were not able to combat public opinion in that
country; no opportunity was given nor time taken to make a thorough investigation of the real facts or extent
of the alleged revolution; the conservative element in the Philippine Islands painted the local condition of
affairs in somber tints; and the Madrid Government came to believe, or at least to suspect, that a scheme
was being concocted throughout the islands to shake off Spanish sovereignty. Consistent with the
precedents of their colonial rule, the repressive measures adopted to quell the supposed insurrection were
strict and sudden. No attempt appears to have been made to ascertain whether or not the innocent suffered
with the guilty, and the only end sought appeared to be to inspire terror in the minds of all by making
examples of a certain number, so that none in the future should attempt, nor even dream of any attempt at
secession.

Many of the best known Filipinos were denounced to the military authorities, and they, the sons of Spaniards
born in the islands and men of mixed blood (Spanish and Chinese), as well as the Indians of pure blood, as
the Philippine Malays were called, were persecuted and punished without distinction by the military
authorities.

Those who dared to oppose themselves to the friars were punished with special severity; among others may
be mentioned the priests Burgos, a half-blood Spaniard, Zamora, a half-blood Chinaman, and Gomez, a
pure-blood Tagalog, who had vigorously opposed the friars in the litigation over the curacies in the various
provinces. The three priests mentioned were condemned to death by a military court-martial; and Antonio M.
Regidor, a lawyer and councilman of Manila, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, l lawyer and member of the
administrative council, P. Mendoza, curate of Santa Cruz, Guevarra, curate of Quiapo, the priests Mariano
Sevilla, Feliciano Gomez, Ballesteros, Jose Basa, the lawyers Carillo, Basa, Enriquez, Crisanto Reyes,
Maximo Paterno, and many others were sentenced to life imprisonment on the Marianas Islands. The
Government thus secured its object of terrorizing the Filipino people, but the punishments meted out were
not only unjust but were from every point of view unnecessary, as there had not been the remote intention on
the part of anyone to overthrow the Spanish sovereignty. On the contrary, the attitude of Moret, Labra,
Becerra, and other high officials in the Madrid Government had awakened in bre of the Filipinos a lively
friendship for the home government, and never had the ties which bound the colony to Spain been as close
as they were during the short interval between the arrival of General La Torre and the time when General
Izquierdo, in the name of the home government, was guilty of the atrocities mentioned above, of which
innocent men were made victims.

A careful study of the history and documents of that time brings to light the part which the religious orders
played in that sad drama. One of the results of the so-called revolution of Cavite was to strengthen the power
of the friars in the Philippine Islands in such manner that the Madrid Government, which up to that time had
contemplated reducing the power of the religious orders in these islands, was obliged not only to abandon its
intention, but to place a yet greater measure of official influences at the service of the friars, and from that
time they were considered as an important factor in the preservation of the Spanish sovereignty in the colony.

This influnce was felt throughout the islands, and not only were the friars taken into the confidence of the
Government, but the Filipino people looked upon the religious orders as their real masters and as the
representatives, powerful and unsparing, of the Spanish Kingdom.

But there were other results following upon the unfortunate policy adopted by Governor Izquierdo, Up to that
time there had been no intention of secession from Spain, and the only aspiration of the people was to
secure the material and educational advancement of the country. The Filipino people had never blamed the
Spanish nation for the backward condition in which the islands existed, nor for the injustices committed in the
islands by the Spanish officials; but on the contrary it was the custom to lay all the blame for these things on
the individual officers guilty of maladministration, and no attempt had been made to investigate whether or
not the evils under which the islands suffered were due to fundamental causes. The persecutions which
began under Governor Izquierdo were based on the false assumption that the Filipino people were desirous
of independence, and although this was an unfounded accusation, there were many martyrs to the cause,
among whom were found many of the most intelligent and well-to-do people, without distinction of color or
race or nationality, who were sentenced to death, to imprisonment, or were expatriated because they were
believed to aspire to the independence of these islands. The fear which the people felt of the friars and of the
punishments meted out by the Government was exceeded only by the admiration which the Filipino people
had for those who did not hesitate to stand up for the rights of the country In this manner the persecutions to
which the people were subjected served as a stimulus and an educative force, and from that time the
rebellion was nursed in secret and the passive resistance to the abuses of the official power became greater
day by day.

No attempt was made to allay the ill-feeling which existed between the Filipinos and the Spaniards,
especially the friars, caused by the mutiny in Cavite and the cruel manner in which the punishment was
meted out. Many years would have been necessary to heal the wounds felt by the large number of families
whose members were made the victims of the unjust sentences of the military courts-martial. Nothing was
done by the Government to blot out the recollection of these actions; on the contrary, it appeared to be its
policy to continually bring up the memory of these occurrences as a reminder to the malcontents of what
they had to expect; but the only thing accomplished was to increase the popular discontent. It was from that
time that every disagreement between the Spaniards and Filipinos, however trivial, was given a racial or
political character; every time a friar was insulted or injured in any way, it was claimed to be an act of hostility
to the Spanish nation.
 Additional Readings on THE SITE OF THE FIRST MASS

Primary Source: Albo's Log

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.
T'hey 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 of this island, but from Pigatetta's testimony, this
seems to be the "Acquada or Homonhon, at 10 degrees North latitude.)
4. 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.)
5. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they turned southwest
to a small island called "Mazava." That island is also at a latitude of 9 and two-thirds
degrees North.
6. The people of that island of Mazava 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 came in small pieces like peas and lentils.
7. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seilani. Tney followed the coast of
Seilani in a northwesterly direction, ascending up to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw
three small islands.
8. 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 l0 and one-third degree. There they entered a channel
between two islands, one of which was called "Matan" and the other "Subu."
9. 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.
10. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the islands of Suluan and Mazava.
But between Mazava 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 Mazava fits the location of the island of Limasawa, at the
southern tip of Leyte, 9°54N. Also, 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.

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 Colleción
de viages descubrinmientos que hicieron por mar los Españoles desde fines del siglo XV, Ed.
Martin Fernandez de Navarrete (reprinted Buenos Aires 1945, 0 Vols) IV, 191-225. As cited in
Miguel A. Bernad "Butuan or Limasawa The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of Evidence 1981, Künaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. 111, 1-
35.
 NATIONAL HISTORICAL COMMISSION
OF THE PHILIPPINES

NHCP’s Latest Ruling on the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass Controversy

Rene R. Escalante, Ph.D.

Chairman, National Historical Commission of the Philippines and
Executive Director, National Quincentennial Committee

Note: This statement is based on the official report of the panel that NHCP created to settle the
said historical problem and by the NHCP Board Resolution adopting the conclusion of the
aforesaid panel report.

Introduction

As part of its mandate to resolve historical controversies, the National Historical

Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) revisited the controversy surrounding the site of the 1521
Easter Sunday Mass in the Philippines which, according to Antonio Pigafetta, the chronicler of the
Magellan-Elcano expedition, happened on 31 March 1521 in a place he identified as Mazaua. The
issue as to the exact location of the said mass was resolved by the forerunner of the NHCP, the
National Historical Institute (NHI), through two panels of experts: the first headed by former
Supreme Court Justice Emilio Gancayco (1995) and the second by historian Dr. Benito J. Legarda
(2008). Both panels ruled that the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass was in Limasawa Island,
now a municipality in Southern Leyte.

Reopening of the Historical Problem

In 2018, NHCP received a number of requests from various institutions, including the
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), to reexamine the earlier decisions of the
NHI. These requests were made in the light of some claims that there were new primary sources
and evidences that surfaced recently which were not taken into consideration by the previous
panels. NHCP also saw the necessity of reopening a new inquiry because of the forthcoming
commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the introduction of Christianity in the Philippines in
2021.

NHCP-CBCP Joint Panel

In November 2018, the NHCP created a new panel of experts that reexamined the historical
controversy and reviewed the findings of the previous panels. It was headed by historian and
National Artist for Literature Dr. Resil Mojares, and the members included national and
internationally-recognized historians, paleographers, and translators: Dr. Danilo M. Gerona
(Partido State University), Dr. Francis M. Navarro (Ateneo de Manila University), Dr. Carlos
Madrid Álvarez-Piñer (University of Guam), and Fr. Antonio Francisco B. de Castro, SJ (Loyola
School of Theology, representing CBCP). Historian Dr. Jose Victor Z. Torres (De La Salle
University) was the panel’s Secretary-General. Dr. Rene Escalante, NHCP Chairperson, made
sure that no member of the panel came from either Agusan del Norte or Southern Leyte so that
their decision would be based primarily on evidence and sound analysis, and not on regional or
territorial biases. Aside from Fr. de Castro, CBCP was also represented by other church historians
as observers of the panel’s proceedings. Those who regularly attended the meetings were Fr. Milan
Ted Torralba (CBCP Episcopal Commission for the Cultural Heritage of the Church); Fr. Emil
Quilatan, OAR (Archivist, Augustinian Recollect Archives); Fr. Amado Tumbali, SJ (Archivist,
Archives of the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus); Fr. Antolin Uy, SVD (historian), and
Fr. Albert Flores (Archivist, Manila Archdiocesan Archives and Museum).

1
Primary Sources Used

The National Quincentennial Committee (NQC) appropriated funds and provided the panel
with the documents it needed to come up with a well-researched output. Through official
correspondences with various foreign institutions, NQC obtained high-resolution digital copy of
the extant Pigafetta manuscripts. These included the French version (Nancy Codex) currently kept
in Yale University’s Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library; the Italian version in the
Veneranda Biblioteca Ambrosiana (Ambrosiana Codex) in Milan, Italy; and the two French
versions in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France. NQC also secured from the Edward Ayer
Collection at Newberry Library in Chicago, the transcriptions and notes made by American scholar
James Alexander Robertson, who translated Pigafetta’s manuscript into English in 1906. Aside
from Pigafetta, the panel also obtained and consulted the accounts of other survivors of the
Magellan Expedition like Gines de Mafra, Francisco Albo, and the “Genoese Pilot.” The Ateneo
de Manila University’s Rizal Library also shared with the panel the materials on the 400th
anniversary of the Magellan-Elcano expedition in 1921 from the Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera
Collection. At least twenty-eight (28) secondary sources, most of them in digital format, were also
obtained by NHCP for the examination by the panel.

Butuan Proponents

One particular task that the panel members agreed was to visit the actual contested sites
proposed by both parties. They also agreed that all contending parties would be given equal
opportunity and ample time to present their evidences and argue their respective positions.
Participants were asked to follow the basic rule of historiography, meaning that every assertion
made must be supported by credible, authentic, and verifiable primary sources. On 9 November
2018, the panel went to Butuan City to listen to the pro-Butuan proponents. Dr. Potenciano Malvar
and Mr. Gabriel Atega were given one whole day to discuss their respective position papers. The
following day, Dr. Torres, on behalf of the panel, went to Barangay Baug, Magallanes, Agusan
del Norte where the 1872 monument commemorating the 1521 Easte Sunday mass was located.
On 17 July 2019, Dr. Madrid and Dr. Malvar visited Mount Mina-asog in Tubay, Agusan del Norte
which, according to Dr. Malvar, was where the expedition allegedly erected a cross after the mass.

On January 19, 2019, Archbishop Antonio Ledesma of Cagayan de Oro, who was then the
acting Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Butuan, forwarded to NHCP several published
articles written by Mr. Gregorio Jose Hontiveros, one of which is entitled, “A Fire on the Island:
Reasserting the Pro-Masao Position.” As per recommendation of Dr. Escalante, the Panel
considered the article as part of the pro-Butuan position papers on 6 February 2019.

A Visit in Limasawa

The panel went to Tacloban City on 25 April 2019 to listen to the presentation of Dr.
Rolando Borrinaga, the representative of the pro-Limasawa side. Aside from presenting evidence
reasserting Limasawa as the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday mass, Dr. Borrinaga explained that the
mass took place in the western side of Limasawa and not in the eastern side (now named Barangay
Magallanes) where a shrine commemorating the event is located. The following day, the panel
went to Limasawa to conduct an ocular survey of the places mentioned by Dr. Borrinaga. They
went to the shrine at Barangay Magallanes and then proceeded to Barangay Triana to visit the site
proposed by Dr. Borrinaga. The members also climbed Totoy-Totoy Peak which according to Dr.
Borrinaga was the mountain where the cross was erected after the mass. While on the mountaintop,
the members noted a view of three islands that seems to be closely identified with the ones
Pigafetta mentioned is his chronicle.

Approval process of the terminal report

The members of the panel met thrice to discuss the position papers and to deliberate on the
final ruling on the controversy. The first meeting was held in Cebu, second in Tacloban, and third
in Manila. On 9 January 2020, Dr. Mojares officially submitted the terminal report of the panel

2
to the NHCP. Dr. Escalante routed the report to the History Departments of the University of the
Philippines Diliman, Ateneo de Manila University, University of Santo Tomas, and De La Salle
University. He also shared the report to the presidents of the Philippine National Historical Society
(PNHS), Philippine Historical Association (PHA), and Asosasyon ng mga Dalubhasa may Hilig
at Interes sa Kasaysayan (ADHIKA) ng Pilipinas. These institutions were enjoined to react and
comment on the ruling of the panel. Except for UST and ADHIKA that did not send an official
position on the report, all other institutions favorably agreed with the ruling of the panel. The
report was discussed by the NHCP Board of Commissioners in their June and July 2020 meetings.
Except for Commissioner Abraham Sakili, the eight other NHCP Commissioners signed
Resolution No. 2, s. 2020 on 15 July 2020, adopting the report of the Panel that the 1521 Easter
Sunday Mass took place on Limasawa.

Ramusio and the Centuries-old Butuan Tradition

Among pro-Butuan set of evidences that the panel examined were the numerous accounts
written by non-eyewitnesses decades after the 1521 Easter Sunday mass. These include the 1581
Edict of Bishop Domingo Salazar, the Anales ecclesiasticos de Filipinas 1574-1683, the 1886
Breve reseña de diocesis de Cebu, Fr. Francisco Colin’s Labor evangélica: Ministerios apostolicos
de los obreros de la Compaña de Jesus (1663), Fr. Francisco Combés’ Historia de Mindanao y
Jolo (1667), Fray Gaspar de San Agustin’s Conquistas de las Islas Filipinas (1698), the 1872
monument in Magallanes, Agusan del Norte, and a few other accounts written by American
authors in the early part of the 20th century. They all claimed that the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass
happened in Butuan. The panel acknowledged that for almost three centuries, majority of the
literature declared that the first mass took place somewhere in Butuan. It was only after the original
Pigafetta manuscripts were made available to scholars in the 19th century that the shift to Limasawa
started.

The historiography of the Butuan tradition was carefully analyzed by Miguel Bernad S.J.
in his article in Kinaadman entitled “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the
Philippines: A Reexamination of the Evidences” and by William Henry Scott in an article in the
same journal entitled “Why then the Butuan Tradition?” They wrote that the tradition was the
result of the reliance of early historians on Gian Battista Ramusio’s 3-volume Delle navigationi et
viaggi (1550) and Maximilianus Transylvanus’ De Moluccis Insulis. In their books, Ramusio and
Transylvanus recounted the voyage of the Magellan-Elcano expedition based on the accounts of
the survivors. It became the most dominant and authoritative source of information and were used
as basis of recounting some events connected to the first circumnavigation of the world like the
first mass in the Philippines. Scott agreed with historian Mauro Garcia that Ramusio’s work was
a garbled and mutilated summary of Pigafetta’s original account. It was Ramusio, according to
Scott, who mentioned “Buthuan” as the site of the first mass which was picked up by succeeding
authors and became a long-standing tradition. We cannot blame the early writers and
cartographers of Philippine history if they relied heavily on Ramusio because Pigafetta’s original
account was not available to them. The same principle should be applied also to pro-Butuan
advocates because they thought that the Spanish sources they quoted are anchored on reliable and
accurate eyewitness accounts.

Pigafetta and the Limasawa Tradition

Days after the Victoria (the only ship that survived the Magellan-Elcano expedition)
arrived in Seville, Pigafetta went to Valladolid where he presented to King Charles I his account
of the journey. Thereafter, he went to Portugal and did the same thing to King João III. Both
accounts did not survive in history. Then he went to France and gave a summary in Italian of his
chronicle to Louise de Savoy, mother of King Francis I of France. The queen ordered Jacques
Antoine Fabre to translate it to French and it came out in printed form in 1525 with the title Le
voyage et nauigation. This version was used by most scholars like Ramusio in narrating the story
of the first circumnavigation of the world. Pigafetta later composed a more comprehensive version
of the voyage but it remained unknown to many scholars until Carlo Amoretti published it in 1800.

3
 Trinidad Pardo de Tavera and Pablo Pastells, SJ were the first two scholars who revisited
the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass using the latest and more comprehensive account of Pigafetta that
became available only during their time. This was the Andrea Da Mosta transcription which was
published in 1894. In an article that Pardo de Tavera wrote in El Comercio on 31 March 1895, he
stated that the Butuan tradition was a mistake. Pastells on his part made a similar remark
questioning the veracity of the Butuan claim on the 1521 Easter Sunday mass. While working on
his edition of Colin’s Labor evangelica, he had the opportunity to study Pigafetta and Albo and on
his footnote on Colin’s account of the first mass, Pastells wrote: “Magellan did not go to Butuan.
Rather, from the island of Limasawa he proceeded to Cebu.”

Robertson published a translation of the Pigafetta manuscript in 1906 using the original
Ambrosiana Codex. He wrote that according to Pigafetta, the 1521 Easter Sunday mass was held
in an island called Mazaua. Robertson provided a footnote that the present name of the place is
Limasawa. In 1969, Skelton also came out with an English translation of the Nancy Codex and
noted that the mass took place in an island which Pigafetta called Mazzaua. He also identified
Limasawa as its current name. Pardo de Tavera’s correction from the Da Mosta transcription,
Pastells’ footnote on Colin, Robertson’s translation of the Ambrosiana Codex, and Skelton’s
translation of the Nancy Codex may be considered the main reasons for the shift in scholarly
opinion regarding the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass.

Intentionally Concealed?

The panel methodically analyzed the evidences and arguments presented by the two
protagonists. The paper presented by Dr. Malvar argued that Pigafetta’s recorded latitude
measurement (9°2/3’N) was part of a plan of Magellan and King Charles I to conceal the site of
the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass. This was supposedly to ensure that the newly-discovered route to
the Moluccas would remain hidden from other explorers. The panel argued that if indeed there
was such a plan, the part of the route that should remain secret should be the coordinates of the
passage from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean via the southern tip of South America. (the
present Strait of Magellan) and not that of the Philippines. Many explorers who sailed before
Magellan were in search of this passage and all of them failed. Hence, anyone who would discover
this would really keep it as a priceless secret. The panel also noted that Dr. Malvar’s argument
was derived from John Regan’s A Singular Captain: Magellan’s Astounding Voyage (2016), a
self-published book described by the author himself as a “fictional account” of the Magellan
voyage.

Ambrosiana vs. Nancy Codex

Majority of the pages of the panel report dealt with the position paper of Mr. Atega and
Mr. Hontiveros because the historiographical and scientific claims they presented appear to be
backed up by passages from Pigafetta’s account and Albo’s derrotero (logbook). Mr. Atega
argued that the shift from Butuan to Limasawa as the site of the mass happened after the
publication of the Robertson translation and claimed that Robertson’s translation was based on the
“garbled” Italian text of the Ambrosiana Codex that Carlo Amoretti, the prefect and conservator
of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, transcribed and published in 1800. Mr. Atega said that the
Ambrosiana Codex was “heavily-edited and full of inaccuracies.” Therefore, for Mr. Atega, the
Ambrosiana Codex vis-à-vis Robertson’s translation should not be used as the basis of determining
the nautical coordinates of the Magellan-Elcano expedition. Instead, he encouraged the panel to
use the Nancy Codex (from the Beinecke collection) of which a translation by English scholar
Raleigh Ashlin Skelton was published in 1969.

The panel took the translation issue seriously and found out that Mr. Atega’s claim was
baseless. In his introduction to his translation of Pigafetta’s account, Robertson accused Amoretti
of committing “the sin of editing the precious document, almost beyond recognition in places.”
Robertson also analyzed the Ambrosiana Codex and compared it with the transcription of the same
codex published by Andrea da Mosto in 1894. He concluded that the latter contained “few errors
and some serious blemishes from the standpoint of historical accuracy.” Moreover, the panel

4
examined the bibliographical section in the last part of Robertson’s translation where he mentioned
the sources he used and where he had a long discussion on the history of the Nancy Codex and
even described its physical appearance. The panel noted that to make these remarks, Robertson
must be familiar with the two Codices. The panel concluded that “Atega’s allegation that the
Robertson relied only on the Ambrosiana Codex is baseless.”

Upon the request of the panel, NHCP secured a copy of each extant Pigafetta manuscript
abroad and hired paleographers and translators who transcribed and translated the section that
narrated the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass. Dr. Navarro took care of the transcription of the two
codices. Ms. Jillian Loise Melchor (University of the Philippines Diliman) translated the Italian
text and Mr. Robert John Yu (Ateneo de Manila University) worked on the French version. The
translation of Melchor and Yu were then compared with the Robertson and Skelton translation.

The panel noted the observation of Robertson that the Ambrosiana Codex was
“workmanlike rather than elegant” and agreed with Skelton that it might have been derived from
the original Pigafetta journal, while the Nancy Codex was a presentation copy where Pigafetta
reworked some of his text to entice possible sponsors to publish his manuscript to be used by future
explorers. Two examples that the panel cited is the phrase “pieces of gold” in the Ambrosiana
Codex that was changed to “mines of gold” in the Nancy Codex creating an impression that the
island was rich in gold. The method of extracting this gold was also changed from “sifting” (which
means panning) to “digging,” giving the impression of a rich land. After noting that Robertson
and Skelton agree that the aforesaid codices complement each other and their translation had only
minor differences, the panel dismissed Mr. Atega’s claim that Skelton should be used as the
standard text in determining the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass. The panel also disagreed
with Mr. Atega’s assertion that historians who supported the Limasawa position relied only on the
Ambrosiana Codex and the Robertson translation.

Reading the Coordinates

While the panel acknowledged Mr. Atega’s painstaking analysis of the coordinates
provided by Pigafetta, Albo, and the Genoese pilot, the members exercised caution in using them
as the principal basis of their decision. Most experts agree that measurements of coordinates done
in the 16th century were done using instruments that yielded imprecise figures. This observation is
not new in the discourse because Mr. Pedro Picornell, a member of the Legarda panel, wrote
already in 2009 that “navigators in the early 16th Century had no accurate way of determining
longitude and this would have to wait until late in the 18th Century with the development of the
marine chronometer” (invented in 1761). Picornell was a historian and avid yachtsman with a lot
of experience sailing in Philippine waters.

The panel scrutinized the coordinates of Mazaua given by the eyewitnesses and compared
them with contemporary measurements. Pigafetta recorded it at 9 2/3 or 9º40’N latitude, Albo
placed it at 9 1/3 or 9º20’N latitude, and the Genoese Pilot wrote 9 or 9º00’N latitude. The panel
cited a study presented in the 16th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Geoconference
(Bulgaria, 2016) by a group of experts who compared the coordinates given by Pigafetta with the
present coordinates using a computer-based system and the result was 9⁰56’ N latitude or only a
0⁰16’ difference against Pigafetta’s. Interestingly, the members of the panel noted that the
researchers who made the computation have no personal interest in the first mass controversy and
they identified the coordinates purely for the sake of scholarship. Even a layman can confirm the
coordinates of Limasawa by simply Googling it and the result will be a 9°54’ N latitude. Taking
all these evidences into account, the panel noted that, although the navigational coordinates during
this period were just estimates, Pigafetta’s 9º40’N latitude was still closer to Limasawa than to
Butuan which, using the modern coordinates, was located at 8°56’ N latitude.

The panel also examined the studies and projects that retraced the Magellan-Elcano
expedition route using modern navigational instruments. One project that they analyzed was the
1971 expedition of naval historian Samuel Eliot Morison and the Colombian historian Mauricio
Obregon. Guided by Albo’s log and other documents from the Archivo General de Indias in

5
Seville, they retraced the Magellan-Elcano expedition route in a two-month journey under sail.
When they reached the Philippines, Morison and Obregon were assisted by Picornell. In 2006, the
Spanish Society for International Exhibitions (SEEI) organized a similar project using a replica of
Victoria constructed by Fundacion Nao Victoria. It was equipped with 16th-century navigational
tools like an astrolabe and a quadrant as well as state-of-the- art navigational instruments. The
twenty-member crew was headed by naval engineer Ignacio Fernandez Vial, the leading Spanish
expert in reconstructing working replicas of historic ships. Merchant marine captain Jose Luis
Ugarte took charge of the navigation. He is considered Spain’s premier transoceanic yachtsman
and had twice sailed solo around the world. The Vial-Ugarte expedition stopped at Limasawa and
they logged its coordinates at between 9o58’N and 9o53’E. The Morrison-Obregon and Vial-Ugarte
expeditions found and identified Limasawa as the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass.

Geomorphic Changes

Pro-Butuan proponents argued that the topography of Agusan del Norte changed decades
after the Magellan-Elcano expedition. This was caused by strong earthquakes that resulted to the
alteration of the topography of the province and the disappearance of some islands in the northern
part of Butuan. Dr. Malvar presented a map drawn by the Augustinian Recollects in 1683
mentioning an island called Masao. He presented another map dated 1902 and the island is no
longer there. He explained that earthquake and siltation resulted to the fusion of Masao with the
mainland. This Masao, he claims, is probably the Mazaua that Pigafetta cited as the place where
the mass took place.

The panel did not take this argument seriously because it needs scientific proof and details
as to when the earthquakes took place and documentation of their effects on the topography of
Butuan. Assuming that there indeed geological changes that happened between 1521 to the
present, the location of Masao, Butuan City is too far from the coordinates given by Pigafetta and
Albo and the current reckoning of contemporary experts.

Limasawa Had No Provisions and Spices

Pro-Butuan proponents argued that ever since, Limasawa was a remote island and cannot
sustain the daily needs of the members of the expedition. Butuan, on the other hand, is a highly-
civilized settlement as proven by a lot of archeological discoveries in this part of Mindanao. They
wanted to point out that Limasawa did not have the necessary provisions that could sustain the
expedition for seven days. To answer this point, the Panel revisited the documents of the Villalobos
expedition particularly the saga of San Cristobal, one of the ships of Villalobos that was separated
from the fleet after experiencing turbulent weather. It stayed in Limasawa for two months and
there are no accounts that they had problems with provisions while waiting to be connected with
the fleet. This only suggests that 16th century Limasawa was prosperous enough to host foreign
visitors. The panel also asked “if Butuan was the place where the First Mass was celebrated and
it was highly civilized during the 16th century, how come it did not become the prime destination
of the expeditions that followed Magellan?”

Conclusion

The panel unanimously agreed that the evidences and arguments presented by the pro-
Butuan advocates are not sufficient and convincing enough to warrant the repeal or reversal of the
ruling on the case by the NHI. Hence, the panel recommended that Limasawa Island, Southern
Leyte, be sustained as the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass.

Recommendation

Before it ended its report, the panel recommended to the NHCP and to the Butuan-based
scholars to explore further the historical significance of Butuan as a precolonial trading center.
Butuan has a lot of archeological artifacts and cultural traditions that could be used to promote the
city as a one of the country’s premier historic sites.

6
 THE SITE OF THE FIRST MASS

Introduction

ONCE in a while, you get a jolt when you meet someone who would make you consider something that you
have ignored up to now, considering it as trivial or with low priority, but which happens to have a solid claim
for the historical truth and is therefore asking not only for due attention but also for real justice. It is a case of a
historical distortion or error that is crying for correction.

The arguments for Masawa in Butuan and not Limasawa in Samar-Leyte as the site of the first Mass celebrated
in our country are strong. There are incontrovertible eyewitness accounts of the people of that time: Antonio
Pigafetta, the official chronicler of Magellan’s voyage; Gines de Mafra, one of Magellan’s original crew who
managed to return to Spain and reported about what he found in Masawa; and other supporting testimonies.

Pigafetta in his account specifically wrote: “That island was called Butuan and Calagan. The name of the first
king is Raia Colambu and the second Raia Siaui…It is twenty-five leagues from Acquada, and is called
Masaua.”

Also the differences with respect to the recorded latitudinal locations of Masawa and Limasawa as reported by
the different chroniclers of that time favor the former more than the latter. It can be argued that the accuracy of
these estimations, given the facilities of that time, may not be that precise. Besides, there can also be strong
motives for making intentionally wrong latitudinal locations to mislead enemies and competitors.

Another argument forwarded is that at that time Masawa in Butuan had some primacy over Limasawa since
Masawa had a safe and rich harbor while Limasawa did not have one at that time.

But as time and events passed, the name Masawa became equated with Limasawa. How this came about is an
interesting piece of tortuous historical study that certainly would require deep and comprehensive investigation
and analysis. Let us hope that our historians can come up with a credible consensus as to which is which with
respect to this issue.

Not to be neglected, of course, is the role of politics and public opinion in pursuing the historical truth of this
matter. Establishing the historical truth is never an easy affair, since a lot of interpretation and subjective
reading of recorded facts and events can vary widely.

The National Historical Commission of the Philippines has made an official declaration as to the site of the first
Christian Mass in the Philippines but just the same it is a worthwhile effort to sort out all these varying and
conflicting claims so that we can celebrate the 500 years of Christianity in our country come 2021 more
meaningfully.

Source of Text: https://www.panaynews.net/where-did-the-first-mass-in-the-philippines-take-place/

Where was the first mass in the Philippines took place?
Butuan or Limasawa?

Site of the First Philippine Mass:

The first Catholic Mass in the Philippines was held on March 31, 1521. Father Pedro de Valderrama, the
Andalucian chaplain of the Magellan fleet, was the one who officiated the said mass, being the only priest
at the time. Limasawa at the tip of Southern Leyte was considered to be site of the first mass.

LIMASAWA, Leyte
Source of Historical Data
Backing Up Limasawa as the Limasawa, Leyte was the site of the First Catholic Mass in
Officially Pronounced Site of the Philippines in March 31, 1521.
the First Catholic Mass:
MEMOIRS of ANTONIO The memoirs of Antonio Pigafetta was used as basis by the
National Historical Institute being “the only credible
PIGAFETTA
primary source that yields the bset evidence of the
celebration of the first Christian Mass on Philippine soil.”
~ Born around 1491 in Vicenza,
Republic of Venice in Italy.
On the same day, Ferdinand Magellan ordered that a
wooden cross be erected on top of the hill overlooking the
~ Italian scholar, geographer and
sea, to which Pigafetta recorded the event and said:
cartographer.
“After the cross was erected in position, each of us
~ Travelled with Ferdinand Magellan in
repeated a Pater Noster and an Ave Maria, and adored the
the first voyage around the world.
cross; and the kings did the same.”
~ One of only 18 men who returned to
The “kings” Pigafetta mentioned here was Rajah Siaiu of
Spain in 1522.
Mazaua and his brother Rajah Kulambu of Butuan.
Controversy Surrounding the Site of 1521 Easter Sunday Mass (First Mass) in
the Philippines: THE PRO-BUTUAN CLAIMS

Among pro-Butuan set of evidences used to examine the claim were the numerous accounts written by
non-eyewitnesses decades after the 1521 Easter Sunday mass. These include the 1581 Edict of Bishop
Domingo Salazar, the Anales ecclesiasticos de Filipinas 1574-1683, the 1886 Breve reseña de diocesis de
Cebu, Fr. Francisco Colin’s Labor evangélica: Ministerios apostolicos de los obreros de la Compaña de
Jesus (1663), Fr. Francisco Combés’ Historia de Mindanao y Jolo (1667), Fray Gaspar de San Agustin’s
Conquistas de las Islas Filipinas (1698), the 1872 monument in Magallanes, Agusan del Norte, and a few
other accounts written by American authors in the early part of the 20th century. They all claimed that the
1521 Easter Sunday Mass happened in Butuan. For almost three centuries, majority of the literature
declared that the first mass took place somewhere in Butuan.

It was only after the original Pigafetta manuscripts were made available to scholars in the 19th
century that the shift to Limasawa started.

The Butuan Tradition

The historiography of the Butuan tradition was carefully analyzed by Miguel Bernad S.J. in his article in
Kinaadman entitled “Butuan or Limasawa? The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexamination of the Evidences” and by William Henry Scott in an article in the same journal entitled
“Why then the Butuan Tradition?” They wrote that the tradition was the result of the reliance of early
historians on Gian Battista Ramusio’s 3-volume Delle navigationi et viaggi (1550) and
Maximilianus Transylvanus’ De Moluccis Insulis.

It was Ramusio, according to Scott, who mentioned “Buthuan” as the site of the first mass which was
picked up by succeeding authors and became a long-standing tradition. We cannot blame the early writers
and cartographers of Philippine history if they relied heavily on Ramusio because Pigafetta’s original
account was not available to them. The same principle should be applied also to pro-Butuan advocates
because they thought that the Spanish sources they quoted are anchored on reliable and accurate
eyewitness accounts.

People of Butuan claim that the first mass was held in their place because by tradition, a monument to
commemorate the site of the first mass was established in 1872. The monument was a brick pillar which
was a marble slab that contained an inscription:

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.
Works used as bases on the claim that Butuan COLIN and COMBES'
is the site of the First Philippine Mass: Fr. ACCOUNT COMPARISON:
Francisco Colin's "LABOR EVANGELICA" & Fr. What did they agree on?
Francisco Combes' "Historia de Mindanao y
Jolo"  Both agree that Magellan and his
men visited Butuan and
 Fr. Francisco Colin and Fr. Francisco Combes and both Limasawa.
are Jewish priests who made publications pertaining to  Combes account – Magellan
Pre- Colonial Philippines. went first to Butuan, then
 Both of their works have been used as basis of declaring Limasawa, then Cebu.
Butuan as the site for the first Philippine mass.  Colin’s account – Magellan
 Fr. Colin worked on “Labor Evangelica” which was arrived in Limasawa, then
published in Madrid, Spain in 1663 which was three Butuan, then returned to
years after his death. His work was reissued 240 years Limasawa, then went to Cebu.
later thru the annotation of Fr. Pablo Pastells. His work  Both agree that Magellan went to
focused on the accounts of Magellan’s voyage. Cebu from Limasawa with the
 Fr. Combes was a 17th century historian (1620- 1665) assistance of the Chieftain of
and Jesuit missionary who lived in the Philippines. He Limasawa. Both agree that
wrote the account Historia de Mindanao y Jolo and it was Magellan arrived in Cebu on
printed in Madrid in 1667 two years after his death. April 7, 1521.

Why the Shift in Historical Opinion about Site of the First Philippine Mass
Happened?

Shift in historical opinion was “blamed” on Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson based on their
work The Philippine Islands. They based their work on the annotation done by Fr. Pablo Pastells, SJ, on
Labor Evangelica of Fr. Francisco Colin.

Who is Fr. Pablo Pastells, SJ?

Born in 1846 in Gerona, Spain. Ordained as a priest in the order of the Jesuits in 1871. Came to the
Philippines in 1876 and assigned as a missionary in Mindanao. He left the Philippines in 1893 and
returned to Barcelona, Spain. Pastells' works are the following:

 Three volume annotation of Francisco Colin’s work (Madrid, 1903)

 Three volume History of the Jesuits in the Philippines (Barcelona, 1916- 1917)
 History of the Jesuits in Paraguay (Madrid, 1912)
 He collaborated with Wenceslao Retana to annotate Francisco Combes’ work

How did the shift of opinion surface?

The shift in historical opinion came because of rediscovery and more attentive study of two primary
resources namely: Pigafetta’s account and Albo’s log.
 THE EVIDENCE FOR LIMASAWA

The Evidence from Pigafetta

Chronicler of Magellan Eyewitness of the principal events which he describes including the first mass. His account
coincides with Albo’s log.

 Pigafetta’s testimony of the route

 Evidence of Pigafetta’s map
 The seven days at “Mazaua”

Evidence of Albo’s Log-book

Francisco Albo is Magellan’s pilot in the flagship “Trinidad”. He was one of the eighteen survivors who returned to
Spain on the ship “Victoria” with Sebastian Elcano after having circumnavigated the world. He kept a logbook on
their voyage southward of the Atlantic Ocean. He does not mention the first mass but only the planting of the cross
upon the mountain-top.

Summary of the Evidence of Albo and Pigafetta

Taking the evidence of Albo's log-book together with that from Pigafetta's account, we may take the following
points as established:

1. Magellan's expedition entered Philippine waters south of the island of Samar and dropped anchor at
Homonhon where they stayed a week. Then they sailed westward towards Leyte and then southwards parallel to
the eastern coast of that island and that of the adjoining island of Panaon. Rounding the southern tip of the latter,
they anchored off the eastern shore of a small island called Mazaua. Therethey stayed a week, during which on
Easter Sunday they celebrated Mass and planted the cross on the summit of the highest hill.
2. The island of Mazaua lies at a latitude of nine and two-thirds degrees North. Its position (south of Leyte) and its
latitude correspond to the position and latitude of the island of Limasawa, whose southern tip lies at 9 degrees and
54 minutes North.
3. From Mazaua the expedition sailed northwestwards through the Canigao channel between Bohol and Leyte,
then northernwards parallel to the eastern coast of this latter island, then they sailed westward to the Camotes
Group and from there southwestwards to Cebu.
4. At no point in that itinerary did the Magellan expedition go to Butuan or any other point on the Mindanao
coast. The survivors of the expedition did go to Mindanao later, but after Magellan's death.

Confirmatory Evidence from Legazpi Expedition

There is confirmatory evidence from the documents of the Legazpi expedition, which sailed into Philippine waters
in 1565, forty-four years after Magellan. One of the places that Legazpi and his pilots were anxious to visit was
precisely Mazaua, and to this end they inquired about "Mazaua" from Camotuan and his companions, natives of the
village of Cabalian at the southeastern end of the island of Leyte. Guided by these natives, the Legazpi ships
rounded the island of "Panae" (Panaon), which was separated from Leyte by a narrow strait, and anchored off
"Mazaua" - but they found the inhabitants to be hostile, apparently as a result of Portuguese depredations that had
occurred in the four-decade interval between the Legazpi and the Magellan expeditions.

From Mazaua they went to Camiguing (which was "visible" from Mazaua), and from there they intended to go to
Butuan on the island of "Vindanao" but were driven instead by contrary winds to Bohol. It was only later that a
small contingent of Spaniards, in a small vessel, managed to go to Butuan.

The point seem clear: As pilots of the Legazpi expedition understood it, Mazaua was an island near Leyte
and Panaon; Butuan was on the island of Mindanao. The two were entirely different places and in no wise
identical.
LESSON 1: Content and Contextual Analysis of Primary Sources

Learning Outcomes: At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:

1. Identify credible and authentic primary sources that could be used in reconstructing
and analyzing the history of the Filipino people from pre-colonial times to the
present;
2. Analyze the context and content of different kinds of primary sources and determine
how they affected the history of the Filipino people;
3. Develop critical and analytical skills as they are exposed to primary sources.

CONTENT ANALYSIS

Content analysis is a tool of qualitative research used to determine the presence and meaning
of concepts, terms, or words in one or more pieces of recorded communication. This systematic
and replicable technique allows for compressing many words of text into fewer content
categories based on explicit rules of coding in order to allow researchers to make inferences
about the author (individuals, groups, organizations, or institutions), the audience, and their
culture and time.(Stan)

Content analysis is the study of documents and communication artifacts, which might be texts
of various formats, pictures, audio or video. Social scientists use content analysis to examine
patterns in communication in a replicable and systematic manner.

Practices and philosophies of content analysis vary between academic disciplines. They all
involve systematic reading or observation of texts or artifacts which are assigned labels
(sometimes called codes) to indicate the presence of interesting, meaningful pieces of content.
By systematically labeling the content of a set of texts, researchers can analyze patterns of
content quantitatively using statistical methods, or use qualitative methods to analyze
meanings of content within texts.

Historical researchers, whose subjects and contexts may no longer be directly accessible for
qualitative study, may still simulate such contact through content analysis, a means of obtaining
information by indirect methods. The methodology is useful in historical studies since it allows
the researcher to infer events from texts that are located in their appropriate historical contexts.

When working with content analysis, explicit and implicit content will play a role. Explicit data is
transparent and easy to identify, while implicit data is that which requires some form of
interpretation and is often of a subjective nature.

Types of Content Analysis

Conceptual analysis focuses on the number of times a concept occurs in a set of data and is
generally focused on explicit data.

Relational content analysis has a different focus than conceptual content analysis. Instead of
looking at the numbers, it assesses the relationships between different concepts, as well as how
they are connected, and the context in which they appear.
Use of Content Analysis

Content analysis is typically used in studies where the aim is to better understand factors such
as behaviors, attitudes, values, emotions, and opinions.

Content analysis is possible whenever there is a physical record of communication. This record
of communication can be

(a) created independently of the research process and internally by the individual or
organization under study (as, e.g., newspaper articles, or archived documents detailing
household consumption),
(b) internally generated and externally directed (e.g., the verbatim transcripts of
legislative hearings or committee debates generated by a number of parliaments around
the world, which may reflect or obscure the political decision-making process), or
(c) produced by the researchers themselves in view of the analysis that needs to be
conducted (as, e.g., videotapes of television news programs or commercials, or of
debates carried out in the legislature and/or town council).

Klaus Krippendorf listed six questions that need to be addressed in every content analysis.

These questions are:

(1) Which data are analyzed?

(2) How are they defined?
(3) What is the population from which they are drawn?
(4) What is the context relative to which the data are analyzed?
(5) What are the boundaries of the analysis?
(6) What is the target of the inferences?

To allow for replication, data examined through content analysis must be durable in nature.
Several problems can occur when written documents or other types of recorded communication
are assembled for content analysis. When a significant number of documents from the
population are missing or unavailable, the content analysis must be abandoned. When some
documents match the requirements for analysis but they cannot be coded because they are
incomplete or contain ambiguous content, these documents must be abandoned.

CONTEXT ANALYSIS

A contextual analysis helps us to assess text within the context of its historical and cultural
setting, and its textuality (the qualities that characterize the text as a text.) It combines features
of formal analysis with features of “cultural archaeology, ” ( the systematic study of social,
political, economic, philosophical, religious, and aesthetic conditions that were in place at the
time and place when the text was created.) This means “situating” the text within the milieu of
its times and assessing the roles of author, readers and “commentators” on the text.
Importance of Context in Analysis and Interpretation
By Grace Fleming, edited by Stacy Jagodowski
January 28, 2018

Historical context is an important part of life and literature, and without it, memories, stories, and
characters have less meaning.

Historical context deals with 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. 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 that action and outcome occur.

A strong understanding of the 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 that action and outcome occur.

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 time critical analysis is required, you may need to consider historical context as well.

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.

Using Contextual Analysis to evaluate texts

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’s 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?

1.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 the
text might have been written?

▪ Remember that any text is the result of deliberate decisions by the author. The author
has chosen to write (or paint, or whatever) with these particular 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); and
- how the author said it (as opposed to other ways it might or could have been said).

4. What is the occasion for this text? That is, is it written in response to:

▪ some particular, specific contemporary incident or event?

▪ some more “general” observation by the author about human affairs and/or
experiences?

▪ some definable set of cultural circumstances?

2.Is the text intended as some sort of call to – or for – action?

▪ If so, by whom? And why?

▪ And also if so, what action(s) does the author want the reader(s) to take?

3.Is the text intended rather as some sort of call to – or for – reflection or consideration
rather than direct action?

▪ If so, what does the author seem to wish the reader to think about and to conclude or
decide?

▪ Why does the author wish the readers to do this? What is to be gained, and by whom?

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.