Readings Lesson 3A: Controversial and Conflicting Issues in Philippine History

One thing which makes Philippine history interesting are the controversies and
conflicting views on some historical accounts. There are four historical events identified as
controversial at the same time with conflicting views. These are as follows: 1) where is really the
site of the First Mass in the Philippines? Is it in Limasawa like what was believed for the longest
time or in Masau like some of the history enthusiasts are claiming in the contemporary
Philippine history; (2) another is the Cavite Mutiny which happened during the Spanish era.
There are 3 versions. The versions of Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, Rafael Izquierdo and Jose
Montero y Vidal; (3) the truth behind the alleged retraction of Dr. Jose P. Rizal before his
execution in Bagumbayan, (4) The fourth is the site of the first cry during the period of Philippine
Revolution. Is it Balintawak or Pugadlawin?

3.1 The Site of the First Mass:

Antonio Pigafetta’s First Voyage Around the World provides clarification on the site of the
first mass in the Philippines. In one of the entries in his book written as“... [From Humunu, we]
took the course between west and southwest, and passed amidst four small islands, i.e.,
Cenalo, Pluinanghar, Ibusson, and Abarien. “… [T]he 28th of March, having seen the night
before fire upon an island, we … anchor at this island …This island is in 9 ⅔ degrees north
latitude…. It is 25 leagues distant from … [Humunu and] is named Mazzava.”
Still in the same book another entry reads, “... On Sunday, the last day of March, and feast of
Easter, the captain sent the chaplain ashore early to say mass … When it was time for saying
mass the captain went ashore with fifty men, … dressed as well as each one was able to dress
… [W]hen the offertory of the mass came, the two kings went to kiss the cross like us….”

In a contemporary map try to consider the locations of the three important places which
two of them being contested on where is really the first mass officiated in the Philippines.
Examine the locations of Homonhon, Limasawa and Masao.

​ Limasawa as the site of the first mass is supported by the following arguments: (1)
Evidence of Francisco Albo’s log book, (2) the evidence of Pigaffeta, and the (3) the
confirmatory evidence from the Legazpi expedition. Francisco Albo is the pilot in one of
Ferdinand Magellan’s ship, the Trinidad- the flagship. Although he did not explicitly mention that
the first mass was officiated in Limasawa, yet, in his account he mentioned the erecting of the
cross on top of the mountain where three islands could be seen to the west and southwest. If
his description will be plotted using the contemporary map, the three islands he referred to could
be the islands of Camiguin, Bohol and Lapinig. Part of the entries in Albo’s logbook reads,
“From here we departed and sailed west, and fell in with a large island called Seilani, which is
inhabited, and contains gold; we coasted it, and went to west-southwest, to a small inhabited
island called Mazaba. The people are very good, and there we placed a cross upon a mountain
from there were shown three islands to the west and southwest.…
Meanwhile, Pigafetta mentioned in his account the route taken by the expedition from
the Pacific Ocean to Cebu, the presence of the two native kings, the events of the seven days at
the island of “Mazau”. The “Mazau” could be the Limasawa strengthened by the argument of
omission- omitting “Li”.
 ​ On the other hand, Miguel Lopez de Legazpi referred to the information provided by
Pigafetta following the routes described during his expedition to the east. Legazpi and his men
had searched for “Mazau”. Mazau was an island near Leyte and Panaon. Also, they intended to
go to Butuan instead the winds sailed them to Bohol.
In contrast, the arguments which favor Masao, Butuan to be site of the first mass are as
follows: (1) name of the place, in the accounts of Pigafetta, Albo, the Genoese pilot, and Ginés
de Mafra the name of the island starts with letter M (Mazaua). It can be noted there were some
errors in the translation of Blair and Robertson which could be similar to this. For example, the
translation of Pigafetta’s “caza” into “hunt” when it should be “hut” (Schreurs). (2) Stanley (1874)
merely asserts in a footnote, without any argument or proof: “It is doubtless the Limasaua of the
present day, off the south point of Samar”. (3) Blair and Robertson (1903), merely declares: “It is
now called the island of Limasaua, and has an area of about ten and one-half square miles.”
Most succeeding Philippine historians then accepted this as fact. (4) The navigator’s route from
Homonhon wherein from Homonhon to Mazau took the group three days. However, plotting on
the contemporary map, Limasawa is so near to Homonhon. (5) Another information which favors
Masao is the description which the group sailed along “Ceylon” (Leyte), Bohol and Baybay,
Catighan and Canighan on the way to Cebu. The distance between Mazau-Catighan is 20
leguas (80 nautical miles) according to Pigafetta. The actual distance between Limasawa and
Catighan is only one legua (4 nautical miles). (6) The artifacts and the ecofacts show a thriving
community possible for the existence of civilization.
Based on the merits of the arguments, according to Fr. Miguel Bernard, SJ, “One thing is
clear: whoever started the tradition that the first Mass was celebrated at Butuan, it was certainly
neither Pigafetta nor Albo nor Maximilian of Transylvania …… [And] to reject the Butuan claim is
in no way to downgrade the cultural or historical importance of Butuan.”

3.2 Cavite Mutiny

The versions of Tavera, Izquierdo and Vidal on the Cavite Mutiny is influenced by their
personal biases due to their affiliation and exposure to circumstances. However, historical
records show that it was a labor issue triggered by the withdrawal of privileges used to be
enjoyed by the workers in the Spanish arsenal specifically, the exemption from tributo and polo.

Jose Montero y Vidal, a Spanish writer assigned in the colonies of Spain such as
Philippines and Cuba claimed there was a grand conspiracy behind the Cavite Mutiny. He
claimed that the results of the Spanish Revolution which overthrew a secular throne gave the
Filipinos the idea of attaining their independence. According to him, this is an insurrection and
conspiracy influenced by the following: (1) Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne,
(2) propaganda against monarchial principles, (3) Democratic and Republican books and
pamphlets, (3) speeches and preachings of new ideas, and (4) American publicists and criminal
policy.

Further, Vidal claimed based on the anonymous communication, there would be an

outbreak of a great uprising. Like the assassination of all Spaniards/ friars. According to him the
conspiracy had been going on since the days of Gove, Jose Maria De La Torre with utmost
secrecy. One example he cited are the secret meetings held in the houses of of D. Joaquin
Pardo de Tavera, Jacinto Zamora and D. Mariano Gomez. It was according to him, a conspiracy
which involved native soldiers as well as multitude of civilians.
 In the same way, Gov, Rafael de Izquierdo supported the claim of Vidal of conspiracy
behind the Cavite Mutiny. He argued the Cavite Mutiny to be a criminal project as expressed by
the natives through the protests regarding the bandala, usury, polo and tribute, the recruitment
of the native troops to be part of an organized group in exchanged of wealth, employment and
rank. As quoted, “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.”
Izquierdo similarly claimed that the natives had the plan to establish a monarchy or
republic, “The Indios have no word in their language to describe this different form of
government…. but it turns out that they would place at the head of the government priests, and
there were great probabilities … D. Jose Burgos or D. Jacinto Zamora.”
Further, he was quoted, “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… I suspended it indirectly…”This is referring to the alleged uprising.
​ According to him, the instigators of Cavite Mutiny were inspired by the development of
events in Madrid, the articles published in El Eco Filipino, a newspaper of advanced ideas which
is supported by the growing number in subscription.
​ Conversely, Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera an ilustrado explained that the Cavite Mutiny
has no conspiracy instead a labor issue. This was triggered by the issuance of the first official
act of Gov. Gen Izquierdo to abolish the exemption privilege particularly from force labor and
tribute caused the dissatisfaction and discontent of the workmen in the arsenal.
​ Tavera similarly explained that the policy of the Spanish government anchored on cross
and sword worsened the issue. He specifically identified other aggravating issues namely the
prohibition of the founding of school of arts and trades, the punishment of the authorities among
“personas sospechosas”, for those who refused to servilely obey the whims of the authorities.
He highlighted the repressive measures implemented by the Spanish authorities, “No attempt
has been made to ascertain whether or not the innocent suffered with the guilty.” …The
punishments mete out were unjust and unnecessary.”
​ The persecution and punishment among the natives were without distinction. Examples
are condemning to death, life imprisonment and terrorizing the natives. He was quoted,
“Persecution served as a stimulus and an educational force which nursed the rebellion in secret
and the passive resistance to the abuses became greater day by day.”

3.3 Retraction of Rizal

Two sides regarding the suppose retraction of Jose Rizal are considered as another
controversy in Philippine history. Those arguments which favor the retraction are: (1) the alleged
retraction document found in 1935, (2) the testimonies of the press, (3) the alleged recited and
signed “Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity”, (4) acts of piety performed before the execution, and
(5) Rizal’s “Catholic marriage” to Josephine Bracken.

The retraction document with the contents, “I declare myself a catholic and in this
Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart
whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to character as son
of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever
she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society
prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority,
make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts
may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me”.

The supposed testimonies of the press at the time of the event shows government
controlled newspapers namely, Diario de Manila, La Voz Espanola, El Espanol, El Comercio, La
Ocenia, El Imparcial, Heraldo de Madrid, El Siglo Futuro, Madrid Dailies (La Epoca, El Nacinal,
El Resumen, El Correro Espanol, El Pais, La Correspondenciade Espana, El Liberal, La Iberia),
Magazines (Ano Politico, La Juventud, La Politica de Espana en Filipinas) plus one foreign
paper the O Extremo Oriente.

Aside from the press, other testimonies claimed to have witnessed the retration are
those closely associated with the events such as the head of the Jesuit order, archbishop, etc.
These are the same supposed witnesses to the acts of piety performed before the execution
including the “Catholic marriage” between Rizal and Bracken. While the “Acts of Faith, Hope
and Charity” reportedly recited and signed by Dr. Jose Rizal as attested by “witnesses” and a
signed prayer book which was amongst the documents discovered by Fr. Garcia along with the
retraction.

By way of contrast, the retraction document claimed as forged based on the following
points: (1) the handwriting, (2) a second prong directed against the authenticity of the
documents itself is based on the principles of textual criticism, (3) the content is strongly
worded, e.g. in the Catholic religion “I wish to live and die”, yet there was little time to live and
also Rizal’s claim that his retraction is spontaneous, and (4) the confession of the forger. The
acts and facts are inconsistent to the story of retraction.
“On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by
the archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts
about Rizal’s retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction
differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies. And, the fact
that the texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could be shown to be
the exact copies of the "original" but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who
controlled the press in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the "original" while the
Jesuits had only the imitations”.
In the article in Cavanna, Rizal’s Unfading Glory, (Manila, 1961), it reads
“Notwithstanding the conversations of the famous Jesuit Fathers Faura and Vilaclara with Rizal
in the chapel (of the prison), the convict continued to refuse to confess and remained obstinate
in his philosophical and political theories.” During their conversation, Dr. Jose Rizal said that
when he was in Madrid, the Republicans were telling me that liberties are sought with bullets,
and not by kneeling down. “Truly, these ideas aroused in my soul are the authors of my work.
My only sin is that of pride.”
Dr. Pascual opined that “the difference in the forms of letters, slants, habits of writings,
distinct characteristics in the signature between the genuine writings on one hand and the
retraction on the other, and the closed affinity between the writings supposed to be done by
different persons in the same document,” demonstrate that the retraction is a forgery”.
 Upon submission of the document to the graphologists, it was examined and discovered
that the body of the text bears the handwriting of Rizal but the signature was evaluated to be
forged.
3.4 Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin
The issue on the site of the “first cry” is due to the conflicting accounts of Pio Valenzuela
and Guillermo Masangkay.

From the Memoirs of Pio Valenzuela, he stated as follows: It was at Pugadlawin, in the
house, store-house, and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where over 1,000
members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable debate on August 23, 1896”.

Meanwhile, General Guillermo Masangkay a Katipunan General said in his memoirs

recounts the Cry of Balintawak to wit as follows: On August 26, 1898, a big meeting was held in
Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio Samson, then the cabesa of the barrio Caloocan. Among
those who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas
Remigio, Bricio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco and Francisco
Carreon. They were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of Directors of the
organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite, and Moron, were present.

The following points may be considered based on the accounts of Valenzuela: (1) The
assembly at Pugadlawin based on Valenzuela’s Memoirs was held in the yard of the house of
Juan Ramos, the son of Melchora Aquino. (2) The discussion was on whether or not the
revolution against the Spaniards should be started on August 29, 1896. (3) Only one man
protested and fought against the war, and that was Teodoro Plata (Bonifacio’s brother-in-law).
(4) Besides, those persons named above, among those present at this meeting were Enrique
Cipriano, Alfonso Pacheco, Tomas Remigio, Sinforoso San Pedro, and others. (5) After the
tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates and shouted “Long live
the Philippines! Long live the Philippines”

The eyewitness account of Dr. Pio Valenzuela who was a Katipunan leader himself and
the corroborative validation by his fellow Katipuneros and the recognition by Arturo Valenzuela
supports the claim that the Cry happened in PugadLawin.

The controversies surrounding the Site of the First Mass, Cavite Mutiny, Retraction of
Rizal and the Cry of Balintawak support the issue that in the teaching and learning of history
one must remember that “history is not set in stone” hence, one needs constant updating so as
to continue studying history with accuracy.