Chapter 3

Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies

Making Sense of the past:Historical Interpretation

The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic history Maragtas. Before it was
revealed as a hoax, it was a source of pride for the people of Aklan. In fact, a historical marker
was installed in the town of Batan, Aklan in 1956, with the following text:

" CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third chief of Panay, born in Aklan,
established his government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup. Considered the first
Filipino Lawgiver, the promulgated in about 1433 about penal code now known as a Code of
Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of Zaragoza, Spain, obtained the original
manuscript from an old chief of Panay which was later translated into Spanish by Rafael
Murviedo Yzamaney.

It was only in my 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when William Henry Scott, then a doctoral
candidate at the university of Santo Tomas, defended his research on pre-Hispanic sources in
Philippines history. He attributed the Code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E.
Marco titled Las Antiguas Leyendas de lang Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the Code itself to a
priest named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent to Scotts findings
but there are still some who would like to believe that the Code is a legitimate document.

Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history and then draw their own
reading so that their intended audience may understand the historical event, ah process that in
essence, makes sense of the past. The premise is that not all primary sources are accessible to a
general audience, and without the proper training and background, and non historian
interpreting and primary sources may do more harm than good- a primary source may even
cause misunderstanding; sometimes, even resulting in more problems.

Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads primary sources, when it
was read, and how it was read. As student of history we must be well equipped to recognize
different types of interpretation why these may differ from each other, and how to critically sift
the interpretations through historical evaluation. Interpretations of history event change over
time; thus, it is an important skill for a student of history to track these changes in an attempt
to understand the past.

"Sa Aking Mga Kabata " is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal when he was 8 yrs. old and
is probably one of Rizals most prominent works. There is no evidence to support the claim that
this poem, with that now immortalized lines "Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang sariling wika
mahigit pa sa malansang isda" was written by Rizal, and worse the evidence against Rizals
authorship of the poem seems all unassailable.

There exist no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first published in a
1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he received the poem from Gabriel Beato
Francisco, who claimed to have received it in 1884 from Rizals close friend, Saturnino Raselis
Rizal never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his writings and more importantly, he
never mentioned of having a close friend by the person of Raselis.

Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful attribution of the poem to Rizal.
The poem was written in Tagalog and referred to the word "Kalayaan". But it was documented
in Rizals letters that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilars translation of
Rizals essay "El Almor Patrio", where it was spelled as "kalayahan ".

While Rizals native tounge was Tagalog, the was educated in Spanish, starting from his mother,
Teodora Alonso. Later on, he would express disappointment in his difficulty in expressing
himself in his native tounge.

The poems spelling is also suspect-the use of letters "k" and "w" to replace "c"and " u ",
respectively was suggested by Rizal as an adult. If the poem was indeed written his time, it
should use the original Spanish orthography that was prevalent in his time.

Many of the things we accept as true about the past might not be the case anymore; just
because these were taught to us as facts when we were younger does not mean that it is open
for interpretation. There might be conflicting and competing account of the past that need ones
attention, important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the primary sources, but also
the historical interpretation is reliable to support our acceptance of events of the past.

Multiperspectivity

With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept that we must note
is multiperspectivity. This can be defined as a way of looking at historical events, personalities,
development, culture and societies from different perspective. This means that there is
multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each could be equally partial as well.
Historical writing is, by definition, biased, partial, and contain preconception. This historical
decides on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more apparent, depending on
what his end is. Historians may misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest that a
certain event happened, and then ignore the rest that goes against the evidence. Historians
may omit significant facts about their subject, which makes the interpretation unbalanced.
Historians may impose a certain ideology to their subject, which may not be appropriate to the
period the subject was from. Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without
considering other possible causal explanations of said event. These are just many of the way a
historian may fail in his historical inference, description, and interpretation. With
multiperspectivity as an approach in history, welcome must understand that historical
interpretations contain discrepancies, contradiction, ambiguities and are often the focus of
dissent.

Exploring multiple perspective in history requires incorporating source material that reflect
different views of an event in history, because singular historical narrative do not provide for
space to inquire and investigate. Different source that counter each other may create space for
more investigation and research, while providing more evidence, truths that there sources
agree on.

Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truth-an official document may note
different aspect of the past than, say, ah memoir of an ordinary person on the same event.
Different historical agent create different historical truths, and while this may be a burdensome
work for the historian, it also renders more validity to the historical scholarship. Taking these in
close regard in the reading of historical interpretation, it provides for the audience a more
complete and richer understanding of the past.

Case Study 1:Where Did the first Catholic Mass take place in the Philippines?

The popularity of knowing where the first happened in history has been an easy way to trivialize
history, but this case study will not focus on the significance of the site of the First Catholic
Mass in the Philippines, but rather, use it as as a historiographical exercise in the utilization of
evidence and interpretation in reading historical event.

Butuan has long been believed as the site of the first Mass. In fact, this has been the case for
three centuries, culminating in the erection of a monument in 1872 near Agusan River, which
commemorate the expedition arrival and celebration of Mass on April 8, 1521. The Butuan
claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary sources from the event.

Toward the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century, together with the
increasing scholarship on the history of the Philippines, ah more nuanced reading of the
available evidence was made, which brought to light more consideration in going against the
more accepted interpretation of the first Mass in the Philippines, made both by Spanish and
Filipino scholars.

It must be noted that there are only 2 primary sources that historians refer to an identifying the
site of the Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, ah pilot of one of Magellans ship,
Trinidad. The was one of the 18 survivors who returned with Sebastian Elcano in the ship
Victoria after they circumnavigated the world. The other, and the more complete, was the
account by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio intorno al mondo, (The Voyage Around the world ).
Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the Magellan expedition and an eyewitness of the event,
particularly, of the Mass.

Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua

Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands, Vols. 33 and 34, as
cited in Miguel A. Bernad, "Butuan or Limasawa? The site of the first Mass in the
Philippines:Reexamination of evidence" 1981, Kinaadman:And Journal of Southwest Philippines,
Vols. III, 1-35.

Thursday, March 28-In the morning they anchored near in island where they had seen a light
the night before a small boat (boloto) came with 8 natives, to whom Magellan threw some
trinkets as presents. The natives paddled away, but 2 hrs. later 2 larger boats (balanghai) came,
in one of which the native king sat under an awning of mats. At Magellans invitation some of
the natives went up the Spanish ships, but the native king remained seated in his boat. An
exchange of gifts was affected. In the afternoon that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and
came closer to shore, anchoring near the native kings village. This Thursday, March 28, was
Thursday in Holy Week, i. e. Holy Thursday.

2. Friday, March 29-Next day. Holy Friday, Magellan sent his slave interpreter ashore in a small
boat to ask the king if he could provide the expedition with food supplies, and to say that they
had come as friends and not as enemies. In reply the king himself came in a boat with six or 8
men, and this time went up Magellans ship and the 2 men embraced. Another exchange of gifts
was made. The native king and his companions returned ashore, bringing with them 2 members
of Magellans expedition as guest for the night. One of the 2 was Pigafetta.

3. Saturday, March 30-Pigafetta and his companions had spent the previous evening feasting
and drinking with the native king and his son. Pigafetta deplored the fact that, although it was
Good Friday, they had to eat meat. The following morning (Saturday) Pigafetta and his
companions took to leave of their hosts and returned to the ships.
4. Sunday, March 31- "Early in the morning of Sunday, the last of March and Easter day",
Magellan sent the priest ashore with some men to prepare for the Mass. Later in the morning
Magellan landed with some fifty men and Mass was celebrated, after which a cross was
venerated. Magellan and the Spaniards returned to the ship for the noon day meal, but in the
afternoon they returned ashore to plant the cross on the summit of the highest hill. In
attendance both at the Mass and at the planting of the cross we're the king of Mazaua and the
king of Butuan.

5. Sunday, March 31-Om that same afternoon, while on the summit of the highest hill, Magellan
asked the two kings which ports he should go to in order to obtain more abundant supplies of
food than we're able in that island. They replied that there were ports to choose from:Ceylon,
Zubu, and Calagan. Of the Zubu was the port with the most trade. Magellan then said, the
wished to go to Zubu and to depart the following morning. He asked for someone to guide him
thither. The king replied that pilots would be available any time. But later that evening, king of
Mazaua changed his mind and said that he would conduct Magellan to Zubu but he would first
have to bring harvest in. He asked Magellan to send him men to help with harvest.

6. Monday, April 1-Magellan sent men ashore to help with harvest, but no work was done that
day because the 2 king we're sleeping off their drinking bout the night before.

7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday April 3-Work on the hand during the "next to days, i. e. then
and 3rd of April.

8. Thursday, April 4-They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.

Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernard his work Butuan or
Limasawa:The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines:And Reexamination of Evidence (1981)
lays down the argument that in the Pigafettas account, and crucial aspect of Butuan was not
mentioned- the river of Butuan is a riverine settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The
beach Masao is in the delta of said river. It is a curious omission in the account of the river,
which makes part of a distinct characteristics of Butuans geography that seemed to be too
important to be missed.

The Age of Exploration is a period of competition among European rulers to conquer and
colonize lands outside their original domain. Initially, the goal was to find alternative routes by
sea to get to Asian the main source of spices and other commodities. Existing routes to Asian
we're mainly by land and cost very expensive. And sea route to Asia means that Europeans
could access the spice trade directly, greatly reducing costs for traders. Spains major foray into
the exploration was through Christopher Columbus, who proposed to sail westward to find a
shortcut to Asia. He was able to reach the Americans, which was then cut off from the rest of
the known world.
Spain colonized parts of the North America, Mexico, and South America in the 16th century.
They were also able to reach the Philippines and claim it for the Spanish crown. Later on, other
European rulers would compete with the activities of exploring and conquering lands.

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

government, whose head in Filipino would be called hari; but it turns out that they would place
at the head of the government a priest... that the head selected would be

D. Jose Burgos, or D Jacinto Zamora...

Such as... the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and the means they counted upon for
its realization.

It is apparent that the account underscore the reason for the revolution; the abolition of
privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from payment of
tribute and being employed in polos y servicios, of force labor. They also identified other
reasons which seemingly made the issu'e a lot more serious which included the presence of the
native clergy, who, out of spite against the Spanish friars “conspired and  supported”the rebels.
Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report, highlighted  that attempt to overthrow the Spanish
government in the Philippines to install a new “hari” in the persons of Fathers Burgos and
Zamora.‘ AIccoIrding to him, native clergy attracted supporters by giving them Charismatic  
assurance that their fight would not fail because they had God’s support, aside from promises
Iotfy rewards such as employment,wealth, and ranks in the army.

In the Spaniard’s accounts the event of 1872 was premeditated and ' was part of a big
conspiracy among the educated leaders mestizIos, lawyers, , and residents of Manila and
Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate high ranking Spanish officers then kill the friars. The
signal they identified among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired  from
Intramuros.

The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of
the Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were some  fireworks display. The Caviteños allegedly
mistook this as the signal to commence with the attack. The 200-men contingent led by
Sergeant Lamadrid attacked Spanish officers at Sight and seized the arsenal. Izquierdo, upon
learning of the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the
revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed, when the Manilefios who were expected to aid the
Cavitends did not arrive. Leaders of the plot Were killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers
Gomez, Burgos and Zamora were tried by a court martial and sentenced to be executed. Others
who were implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera,Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa,
and other Filipino lawyers were suspended from the practice of law, arrested, andsentenced to
life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery
and ordered the creation of Ian artillery force composed exclusively by Peninsulares'.

On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos never to
attempt to fight the Spaniards again.

Differing Accounts of  the Events of 1872

Two other primary accounts must that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdo and Montero.
First, the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo PardO de Tavera a Filipino scholar and
researcher who Wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident in  Cavite.

Primary Source' Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera's Account of the Cavite Mutiny

7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines rendering unnecessary

8. Study of directtax system

9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly.

The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo... put a sudden end to all dreams of reforms the
prosecutions instituted by the new Governor General were probably expected as a result of the
bitter disputes  between the Filipino clerics and the friars. Such a policy must really end in a
strong desire on the part of the other to repress cruelly.

In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should be in Manilaa Society of Arts
and Trades to be opened in March of 1871 to repress the growth of liberal teachings General
Izquierdo suspended the opening of the school... the day previous to the scheduled
inauguration.

The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public roads construction and pay taxes every
year. But those who were employed at the maestranza of the artillery, in the engineering shops
and arsenal of Cavite were exempted from this obligation from time immemorial... Without
preliminaries of any kind a decree by the Governor withdrew from such old employees their
retirement privileges and declassified them into the ranks of those who  worked on public
roads.

The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement their deminance, which
had started to show cracks because of the discontent of the Filipinos. They showcased the
mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in the Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish
Government. Unintentionally, and more so, prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 : resulted
in the martyrdom of GOMBURZA and paved the way to the revolution culminating in 1898.

The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests , Mariano Gomez, Jose
Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, who were tagged as the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They
were prominent Filipino priests charged with treason and sedition. It is  believed that the
Spanish clergy connected the priest to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to the movement of
secular priests who desired to have their own parishes instead of being merely assistants to the
regular friars. The  GOMBURZA were executed by garrote in public, a scene purportedly
witnessed by a young Jose Rizal.

Their martyrdom is widen accepted as the dawn of Philippine nationalism in the nineteenth
century , with Rizal dedicating his second novel, El Filibusterismo to their memory:

“The Government, by enshrouding your trial in mystery and pardoning your co-accused, has
suggested that some mistake was committed when your fate was decided; and the whole of the
Philippines in paying homage to your memOry and calling you martyrs totally rejects your guilt.
The Church by refusing  to degrade you has put in doubt the crime charged against you.

Case Study 3:Did Rizal Retract?

Jose Rizal is identified as a  hero of the revolution for his writings that center on ending
colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to contribute to creating the Filipino nation. The great
Volume of Rizals lifework was committed to this end particularly the more influential ones; Noli
Me ‘ Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His essays verify not the Catholic religion, but the friars, the
main agents of injustice in the Philippine society.

It is understandable therefore that, any piece of writing from Rizal that recants everything he
wrote against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines c0uld deal heavy damage to
his image as a prominent  Filipino revolutionary. Such document purportedly exists, allegedly
signed by Rizal a few hours before his execution. This document, referred to as “The
Retraction ,” declares Rizal’s belief in the  Catholic faith, and retracts everything he wrote
against the Church. Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction.

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

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

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal

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

The Balaguer Testimony

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

The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016,through the research of Professor Rene R. Escalante. In his
research, documents of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia included a report on the last hours of Rizal, written by
Federico Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to Moreno.

Primary Sources: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal

Source: Michael Charleston Chua, "Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at Pananaw," GMA
News Online, published 29 December 2016.

Most Illustrious Sin, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort Santigo to report on the
events during the [illegible] day in prison of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the
following:
At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his counsel, Senor Taviel de
Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and moments after entering, he
was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the Assistant of the Plaza, Senor Maure, asked Rizal if
he wanted anything. He replied that at the moment he only wanted a prayer book, which was brought
to him shortly by Father March.

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

At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him what he had written.
Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Senor del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Senor Maure,
were informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that the accused
had written.

At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison... dressed in mourning. Only the
former entered the chapel, followed by a military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his
formal clothes and aided by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been
his lover were performed at the point of death (in aticulo mortis). After embracing him she left, flooded
with tears.

This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document, giving it credence. However,
nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which makes the friar a mere secondary source to
the writing of the document.

The Retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy; many scholars, however, agree that the
document does not tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His relevance remained solidified to Filipinos and
pushed them to continue the revolution, which eventually resulted in independence in 1898.

Rizal's Connection to the Katipunan is undeniable - in fact, the precursor of the Katipunan as an
organization is the La Liga Filipina, an organization Rizal founded, with Andres Bonifacio as one of its
members. But La Liga Filipina was short-lived as the Spaniards exiled Rizal to Dapitan. Former members
decided to band together to establish the Katipunan a few days after Rizal's excile on 7 July 1892.

Rizal may not have been officially part of the Katipunan, but the Katipuneros showed great appreciation
of his work toward the same goals. Out of the 28 members of the leadership of the Katipunan (known as
the Kataas-taasang Sanggunian ng Katipunan) from 1892 to 1896, 13 were former members of La Liga
Filipina. Katipuneros even used Rizal's name as a password.

In 1896, the Katipuneros decided to inform Rizal of their plans to launch the revolution, and sent Pio
Valenzuela to visit Rizal in Dapitan. Valenzuela's accounts of his meeting with Rizal have been greatly
doubted by many scholars, but according to him, Rizal objected to the plans, saying that doing so would
be tantamount to suicide since it would be difficult to fight the Spaniards who had the advantage of
military resources. He added that the leaders of the Katipunan must do everything they could to prevent
the spilling of Filipino blood. Valenzuela informed Rizal that the revolution could inevitably break out if
the Katipunan were to be discovered by the Spaniards. Rizal advised Valenzuela that the Katipunan
should first secure the support of wealthy Filipinos to strengthen their cause, and suggested that
Antonio Luna be recruited to direct the military movement of the revolution.

Case Study 4: Where did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?

Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in the late nineteenth century, including the Philippines.
Journalists of the time referred to the phrase "El Grito de Rebellion" or "Cry of Rebellion" to mark the
start of these revolutionary events, identifying the places where it happened. In the Philippines, this
happened in August 1896, northeast of Manila, wher they declared rebellion against the Spanish
colonial government. These events are important markers in the history of colonies that struggled for
their independence against their colonizers.

The controversy regarding this event stems from the identification of the date and place where the Cry
happened. Prominent Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncilo emphasizes the event when Bonifacio tore the
cedula or tax receipt before the Katipuneros who also did the same. Some writers identified the first
military event with the Spaniards as the moment of the Cry, for which, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned
an "Himno de Balintawak" to inspired the renewed struggle after the Pact of the Biak-na-Bato failed. A
monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the intersection of Epifanio de los Santos
(EDSA) Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion road, and from then on until 1962, the Cry of
Balintawak was celebrated every 26th of August. The site of the monument was chosen for an unknown
reason.

Different Dates and Places of the Cry

Various accounts of the Cry give different dates and places. A guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, identified
the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 25 August 1896.Teodoro Kalaw, Filipino historian, marks the
place to be in Kangkong, Balintawak, on the last week of August 1896. Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero
and son of Mariano Alvarez, leader of the Magdiwang faction in Cavite, put the Cry in Bahay Toro in
Quezon City on 24 August 1896. Pio Valenzuela, known Katipunero and privy to many events concerning
the Katipunan stated that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on 23 August 18. Historian Gregorio Zaide
identified the Cry to have happened in Balintawak on 26 August 1896, while Teodoro Agoncillo put it at
Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896,according to statements by Pio Valenzuel. Research by historians
Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas claimed that the event took place in
Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City, on 24 August 1896.

Primary Sourc: Accounts of the Cry

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

On August 26th, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the house of Apolonio Samson, then cabeza of
that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto,
Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remegio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco,
and Francisco Carreon. They were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the board of directors of
the organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan, Cavite and Morong were also present.

At about nine o'clock in the morning of August 26,the meeting was opened with Andres Bonifacio
presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The purpose was to discuss when the uprising was to
take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela were al opposed to starting the revolution
too early... Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he would lose in the discussion then, left the session hall and
talked to the people, who were waiting outside for the result of the meeting of the leaders. He told the
people that the leaders were arguing against starting the revolution early, and appealed to them in a
fiery speech in which he said: "You remember the fate of our countrymen who were shot in
Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us. Our organization has
been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don't start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us
anyway. What then, do you say?"

"Revolt" the people shouted as one.

Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told them that the sign of
slavery of the Filipinos were (sic) the cedula tax charged each citizen. "If it is true that you are ready to
revolt... I want to see you destroy your cedulas. It will be a sign that all of us have declared our
severance from the Spaniards."

Pio Valenzuela

Source: Pio Valenzuela, "Cry of Pugad Lawin", in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources
of Philippine History, Volume 8 (Manila: Natinal Book Store, 1990), 301-302.

The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro Plata, Aguedo
del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the first five arriving there on August 19, and I, on August 20,
1896. The first place where some 500 members of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896, was the
house and yard of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above, among
those who were there was Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and
others. Here, views were only exchanged, and no resolution was debated or adopted. It was at Pugad
Lawin, the house, 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 and discussion on August 23, 1896.
The discussion was on whether or not the revolution against the Spanish government should be started
on August 29, 1896... After the tumultuous meeting, many of those present tore their cedula certificates
and shouted " Long live the Philippines! Long live the Philippines!.
From the eyewitness accounts presented, there is indeed marked disagreement among historical
witnesses as to the place and time of the occurrence of the Cry. Using primary and secondary sources,
four places have been identified: Balintawak, Kangkong, Pugad Lawin, and Bahay Toro, while the dates
vary: 23,24,25, or 26 August 1896.

Valenzuela's account should be read with caution: He once told a Spanish investigator that the "Cry"
happened in Balintawak on Wednesday, 26 August 1896. Much later, he wrote in his Memoirs of the
Revolution that it happened at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896. Such inconsistencies in accounts should
always be seen as a red flag when dealing with primary sources.

According to Guerrero, Encarnacion, and Villegas, all these places are in Balintawak, then part of
Caloocan, now in Quezon City. As for the dates, Bonifacio and his troops may have been moving from
one place to another to avoid being located by the Spanish government, which could explain why there
are several accounts of the Cry.