Readings in Philippine History: Module 3 Contents/ Lessons

`
READINGS IN PHILIPPINE
HISTORY
Module 3: Content and Contextual Analysis
of Selected Primary Sources in Philippine History pt. 2
IT1/HRS1
Teacher: Mrs. Emelia J. Romano
Module 3 Contents/ Lessons
1. Reading the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence”

a. Analysis of the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence”
2. A Glance at Selected Philippine Political Caricature of the American Era
(1900 – 1941)
a. Analysis of the Political Caricatures during the American Period
3. Revisiting Corazon Aquino’s Speech Before the U.S. Congress
a. Analysis of Cory Aquino’s Speech
Learning Objectives:
• To familiarize oneself with the primary documents in different historical
periods of the Philippines.
• To learn history through primary sources.
• To properly interpret primary sources through examining the content and
context of the document.
• To understand the context behind each selected document.
READING THE "PROCLAMATION OF THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE”
Every year, the country commemorates the anniversary of the Philippine

Independence proclaimed on 12 June 1898, in the province of Cavite. Indeed,
such event is a significant turning point in the history of the country because it
signaled the end of the 333 years of Spanish colonization. There have been
numerous studies done on the events leading to the independence of the
country but very few students had the chance to read the actual document of
the declaration. This is in spite of the historical importance of the document and
the details that the document reveals on the rationale and circumstances of that
historical day in Cavite. Interestingly, reading the details of the said document in
hindsight is telling of the kind of government that was created under Aguinaldo,
READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

and the forthcoming hand of the United States of America in the next few years
of the newly created republic. The declaration was a short 2,000-word document,
which summarized the reason behind the revolution against Spain, the war for
independence, and the future of the new republic under Emilio Aguinaldo.
The proclamation commenced with a characterization of the conditions in

the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period. The document specifically
mentioned abuses and inequalities in the colony. The declaration says:
“...taking into consideration, that their inhabitants being already weary of

bearing the ominous yoke of Spanish domination, on account of the
arbitrary arrests and harsh treatment practiced by the Civil Guard to the
extent of causing death with the connivance and even with the express
orders of their commanders, who sometimes went to the extreme of
ordering the shooting of prisoners under the pretext that they were
attempting to escape, in violation of the provisions of the Regulations of
their Corps, which abuses were unpunished and on account of the unjust
deportations, especially those decreed by General Blanco, of eminent
personages and of high social position, at the instigation of the Archbishop
and friars interested in keeping them out of the way for their own selfish and
avaricious purpose, deportations which are quickly brought about by a
method of procedure more execrable than that of the Inquisition and
which every civilized nation rejects on account of a decision being
rendered without a hearing of the persons accused."
The above passage demonstrates the justifications behind the revolution

against Spain. Specifically cited are the abuse by the Civil Guards and the
unlawful shooting of prisoners whom they alleged as attempting to escape. The
passage also condemns the unequal protection of the law between the Filipino
people and the "eminent personages." Moreover, the line mentions the avarice
and greed of the clergy like the friars and the Archbishop himself. Lastly, the
passage also condemns what they saw as the unjust deportation and rendering
of other decision without proper hearing, expected of any civilized nation.
From here, the proclamation proceeded with a brief historical overview of

the Spanish occupation since Magellan's arrival in Visayas until the Philippine
Revolution, with specific details about the latter, especially after the Pact of Biak-
na-Bato had collapsed. The document narrates the spread of the movement "like
an electric spark" through different towns and provinces like Bataan, Pampanga,
Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, and Morong, and the quick decline of Spanish forces
in the same provinces. The revolt also reached Visayas; thus, the independence
of the country was ensured. The document also mentions Rizal's execution, calling
it unjust. The execution, as written in the document, was done to "please the
greedy body of friars in their insatiable desire to seek revenge upon and
exterminate all those who are opposed to their Machiavellian purposes, which
tramples upon the penal code prescribed for these islands." The document also
narrates the Cavite Mutiny of January 1872 that caused the infamous execution
of the martyred native priests Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora,

"whose innocent blood was shed through the intrigues of those so-called religious
orders" that incited the three secular priests in the said mutiny.
The proclamation of independence also invokes that the established

republic would be led under the dictatorship of Emilio Aguinaldo. The first mention
was at the very beginning of the proclamation. It stated:
"In the town of Cavite Viejo, in this province of Cavite, on the twelfth day of
June eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, before me, Don Ambrosio
Rianzares Bautista, Auditor of War and Special Commissioner appointed to
proclaim and solemnize this act by the Dictatorial Government of these
Philippine Islands, for the purposes and by virtue of the circular addressed
by the Eminent Dictator of the same Don Emilio Aguinaldo y Famy."
The same was repeated toward the last part of the proclamation. It states:
"We acknowledge, approve and confirm together with the orders that
have been issued therefrom, the Dictatorship established by Don Emilio
Aguinaldo, whom we honor as the Supreme Chief of this Nation, which this
day commences to have a life of its own, in the belief that he is the
instrument selected by God, in spite of his humble origin, to effect the
redemption of this unfortunate people, as foretold by Doctor Jose Rizal in
the magnificent verses which he composed when he was preparing to be
shot, liberating them from the yoke of Spanish domination in punishment of
the impunity with which their Government allowed the commission of
abuses by its subordinates."
Another detail in the proclamation that is worth looking at is its explanation

on the Philippine flag that was first waved on the same day. The document
explained:
"And finally, it was unanimously resolved that this Nation, independent from
this day, must use the same flag used heretofore, whose design and colors
and described in the accompanying drawing, with design representing in
natural colors the three arms referred to. The white triangle represents the
distinctive emblem of the famous Katipunan Society, which by means of its
compact of blood urged on the masses of the people to insurrection; the
three stars represent the three principal Islands of this Archipelago, Luzon,
Mindanao and Panay, in which this insurrectionary movement broke out;
the sun represents the gigantic strides that have been made by the sons of
this land on the road of progress and civilization, its eight rays symbolizing
the eight provinces of Manila, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija,
Bataan, Laguna and Batangas, which were declared in a state of war
almost as soon as the first insurrectionary movement was initiated; and the
colors blue, red and white, commemorate those of the flag of the United
States of North America, in manifestation of our profound gratitude towards
that Great Nation for the disinterested protection she is extending to us and
will continue to extend to us."

This often overlooked detail reveals much about the historically accurate
meaning behind the most widely known national symbol in the Philippines. It is not
known by many for example, that the white triangle was derived from the symbol
of the Katipunan. The red and blue colors of the flag are often associated with
courage and peace, respectively. Our basic education omits the fact that those
colors were taken from the flag of the United States. While it can always be
argued that symbolic meaning can always change and be reinterpreted, the
original symbolic meaning of something presents us several historical truths that
can explain the subsequent events, which unfolded after the declaration of
independence on the 12th day of June 1898.
Analysis of the "Proclamation of the Philippine Independence"
As mentioned earlier, a re-examination of the document on the declaration

of independence can reveal some often overlooked historical truths about this
important event in Philippine history. Aside from this, the document reflects the
general revolutionary sentiment of that period. For example, the abuses
specifically mentioned in the proclamation like friar abuse, racial discrimination,
and inequality before the law reflect the most compelling sentiments represented
by the revolutionary leadership. However, no mention was made about the more
serious problem that affected the masses more profoundly (i.e., the land and
agrarian crisis felt by the numerous Filipino peasants in the nineteenth century).
This is ironic especially when renowned Philippine Revolution historian, Teodoro
Agoncillo, stated that the Philippine Revolution was an agrarian revolution. The
common revolutionary soldiers fought in the revolution for the hope of owning the
lands that they were tilling once the friar estates in different provinces like
Batangas and Laguna dissolve, if and when the revolution succeeded. Such
aspects and realities of the revolutionary struggle were either unfamiliar to the
middle class revolutionary leaders like Emilio Aguinaldo, Ambrosio Rianzares-
Bautista, and Felipe Buencamino, or were intentionally left out because they were
landholders themselves.
• The Treaty of Paris was an agreement signed between Spain and the United
States of America regarding the ownership of the Philippine Islands and
other Spanish colonies in South America. The agreement ended the short-
lived Spanish-American War. The Treaty was signed on 10 December 1898,
six months after the revolutionary government declared the Philippine
Independence. The Philippines was sold to the United States at $20 million
and effectively undermined the sovereignty of the Filipinos after their
revolutionary victory. The Americans occupied the Philippines immediately
which resulted in the Philippine-American War that lasted until the earliest
years of the twentieth century.
The proclamation also gives us the impression on how the victorious

revolutionary government of Aguinaldo historicized the struggle for
independence. There were mentions of past events that were seen as important

turning points of the movement against Spain. The execution of the GOMBURZA,
for example, and the failed Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was narrated in detail. This
shows that they saw this event as a significant awakening of the Filipinos in the
real conditions of the nation under Spain. Jose Rizal's legacy and martyrdom was
also mentioned in the document. However, the Katipunan as the pioneer of the
revolutionary movement was only mentioned once toward the end of the
document. There was no mention of the Katipunan's foundation. Bonifacio and
his co-founders were also left out. It can be argued, thus, that the way of historical
narration found in the document also reflects the politics of the victors. The enmity
between Aguinaldo's Magdalo and Bonifacio's Magdiwang in the Katipunan is
no secret in the pages of our history. On the contrary, the war led by Aguinaldo's
men with the forces of the United States were discussed in detail.
The point is, even official records and documents like the proclamation of
independence, while truthful most of the time, still exude the politics and biases
of whoever is in power. This manifests in the selectiveness of information that can
be found in these records. It is the task of the historian, thus, to analyze the content
of these documents in relation to the dominant politics and the contexts of
people and institutions surrounding it. This tells us a lesson on taking primary
sources like official government records within the circumstance of this
production. Studying one historical subject, thus, entails looking at multiple
primary sources and pieces of historical evidences in order to have a more
nuanced and contextual analysis of our past.
A GLANCE AT SELECTED PHILIPPINE POLITICAL CARICATURE IN ALFRED MCCOY'S

PHILIPPINE CARTOONS: POLITICAL CARICATURE OF THE AMERICAN ERA (1900-1941)
Political cartoons and caricature are a rather recent art form, which veered
away from classical art by exaggerating human features and poking fun at its
subjects. Such art genre and technique became a part of the print media as a
form of social and political commentary, which usually targets persons of power
and authority. Cartoons became an effective tool of publicizing opinions through
heavy use of symbolism, which is different from a verbose written editorial and
opinion pieces. The unique way that a caricature represents opinion and
captures the audience's imagination is reason enough for historians to examine
these political cartoons. Commentaries in mass media inevitably shape public
opinion and such kind of opinion is worthy of historical examination.
In his book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era

(1900-1941), Alfred McCoy, together with Alfredo Roces, compiled political
cartoons published in newspaper dailies and periodicals in the aforementioned
time period. For this part, we are going to look at selected cartoons and explain
the context of each one.

The first example shown above was published in The Independent on May
20, 1916. The cartoon shows a politician from Tondo, named Dr. Santos, passing
his crown to his brother-in-law, Dr. Barcelona. A Filipino guy (as depicted wearing
salakot and barong tagalog) was trying to stop Santos, telling the latter to stop
giving Barcelona the crown because it is not his to begin with.
The second cartoon was also published by The Independent on June 1917.
This was drawn by Fernando Amorsolo and was aimed as a commentary to the
workings of Manila Police at that period. Here, we a Filipino child who stole a
skinny chicken because he had nothing to eat. The police officer was relentlessly
pursuing the said child. A man wearing a salakot, labeled Juan de la Cruz was
grabbing the officer, telling him to leave the small-time pickpockets and thieves
and to turn at the great thieves instead. He was pointing to huge warehouses
containing bulks of rice, milk, and grocery products.
The third cartoon was a commentary on the unprecedented cases of

colorum automobiles in the city streets. The Philippine Free Press published this
commentary when fatal accidents involving colorum vehicles and taxis occurred
too often already.

This fourth cartoon depicts a cinema. A blown-up police officer was at the
screen saying that couples are not allowed to neck and make love in the theater.
Two youngsters looked horrified while an older couple seemed amused.
The next cartoon was published by The Independent on 27 November 1915.

Here, we see the caricature of Uncle Sam riding a chariot pulled by Filipinos
wearing school uniforms. The Filipino boys were carrying American objects like
baseball bats, whiskey, and boxing gloves. McCoy, in his caption to the said
cartoon, says that this cartoon was based on an event in 1907 when William
Howard Taft was brought to the Manila pier riding a chariot pulled by students of
Liceo de Manila. Such was condemned by the nationalists at that time.

The last cartoon was published by Lipang Kalabaw on 24 August 1907. In
the picture, we can see Uncle Sam rationing porridge to the politicians and
members of the Progresista Party (sometimes known as the Federalista Party) while
members of the Nacionalista Party look on and wait for their turn. This cartoon
depicts the patronage of the United States being coveted by politicians from
either of the party.
Analysis of the Political Caricatures during the American Period
The transition from the Spanish Colonial period to the American

Occupation period demonstrated different strands of changes and shifts in
culture, society, and politics. The Americans drastically introduced democracy to
the nascent nation and the consequences were far from ideal. Aside from this, it
was also during the American period that Filipinos were introduced to different
manifestations of modernity like healthcare, modern transportation, and media.
This ushered in a more open and freer press. The post-independence and the
post-Filipino-American period in the Philippines were experienced differently by
Filipinos coming from different classes. The upper principalia class experienced
economic prosperity with the opening up of the Philippine economy to the United
States but the majority of the poor Filipino remained poor, desperate, and victims
of state repression.
The selected cartoons illustrate not only the opinion of certain media outfits
about the Philippine society during the American period but also paint a broad
image of society and politics under the United States. In the arena of politics, for
example, we see the price that Filipinos paid for the democracy modeled after
the Americans. First, it seemed that the Filipino politicians at that time did not
understand well enough the essence of democracy and the accompanying
democratic institutions and processes. This can be seen in the rising dynastic
politics in Tondo as depicted in the cartoon published by The Independent.
Patronage also became influential and powerful, not only between clients and
patrons but also between the newly formed political parties composed of the
elite and the United States. This was depicted in the cartoon where the United
States, represented by Uncle Sam, provided dole outs for members of the
Federalista while the Nacionalista politicians looked on and waited for their turn.
Thus, the essence of competing political parties to enforce choices among the

voters was cancelled out, The problem continues up to the present where
politicians transfer from one party to another depending on which party was
powerful in specific periods of time.
The transition from a Catholic-centered, Spanish-Filipino society to an

imperial American-assimilated one, and its complications, were also depicted in
the cartoons. One example is the unprecedented increase of motorized vehicles
in the city. Automobiles became a popular mode of transportation in the city and
led to the emergence of taxis. However, the laws and policy implementation was
mediocre. This resulted in the increasing colorum and unlicensed vehicles
transporting people around the city. The rules governing the issuance of driver's
license was loose and traffic police could not be bothered by rampant violations
of traffic rules. This is a direct consequence of the drastic urbanization of the
Philippine society. Another example is what McCoy called the "sexual revolution"
that occurred in the 1930s. Young people, as early as that period, disturbed the
conservative Filipino mindset by engaging in daring sexual activities in public
spaces like cinemas. Here, we can see how that period was the meeting point
between the conservative past and the liberated future of the Philippines.
Lastly, the cartoons also illustrated the conditions of poor Filipinos in the
Philippines now governed by the United States. From the looks of it, nothing much
has changed. For example, a cartoon depicted how police authorities oppress
petty Filipino criminals while turning a blind eye on hoarders who monopolize
goods in their huge warehouses (presumably Chinese merchants). The other
cartoon depicts how Americans controlled Filipinos through seemingly harmless
American objects. By controlling their consciousness and mentality, Americans
got to control and subjugate Filipinos.
REVISITING CORAZON AQUINO'S SPEECH BEFORE THE U.S. CONGRESS
Corazon "Cory" Cojuangco Aquino functioned as the symbol of the

restoration of democracy and the overthrow of the Marcos Dictatorship in 1986.
The EDSA People Power, which installed Cory Aquino in the presidency, put the
Philippines in the international spotlight for overthrowing a dictator through
peaceful means. Cory was easily a figure of the said revolution, as the widow of
the slain Marcos oppositionist and former Senator Benigno "Ninoy” Aquino Jr. Cory
was hoisted as the antithesis of the dictator. Her image as a mourning, widowed
housewife who hand always been in the shadow of her husband and relatives
and had no experience in politics was juxtaposed against Marcos's
statesmanship, eloquence, charisma, and cunning political skills. Nevertheless,
Cory was able to capture the imagination of the people whose rights and
freedom had long been compromised throughout the Marcos regime. This is
despite the fact that Cory came from a rich haciendero family in Tarlac and
owned vast estates of sugar plantation and whose relatives occupy local and
national government positions.

• The People Power Revolution of 1986 was widely recognized around the
world for its peaceful character. When former senator Ninoy Aquino was
shot at the tarmac of the Manila International Airport on 21 August 1983,
the Marcos regime greatly suffered a crisis of legitimacy. Protests from
different sectors frequented different areas in the country. Marcos's
credibility in the international community also suffered. Paired with the
looming economic crisis, Marcos had to do something to prove to his allies
in the United States that he remained to be the democratically anointed
leader of the country. He called for a Snap Election in February 1986, where
Corazon Cojuangeo Aquino, the widow of the slain senator was convinced
to run against Marcos. The canvassing was rigged to Marcos's favor but the
people expressed their protests against the corrupt and authoritarian
government. Leading military officials of the regime and Martial Law
orchestrators themselves, Juan Ponce Enrile and Fidel V. Ramos, plotted to
take over the presidency, until civilians heeded the call of then Manila
Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin and other civilian leaders gathered in EDSA.
The overwhelming presence of civilians in EDSA successfully turned a coup
into a civilian demonstration. The thousands of people who gathered
overthrew Ferdinand Marcos from the presidency after 21 years.
On 18 September 1986, seven months since Cory became president, she

went to the United States and spoke before the joint session of the US. Congress.
Cory was welcomed with long applause as she took the podium and addressed
the United States about her presidency and the challenges faced by the new
republic. She began her speech with the story of her leaving the United States
three years prior as a newly widowed wife of Ninoy Aquino.
She then told of Ninoy's character, conviction, and resolve in opposing the
authoritarianism of Marcos. She talked of the three times that they lost Ninoy
including his demise on 23 August 1983. The first time was when the dictatorship
detained Ninoy with other dissenters. Cory related:
"The government sought to break him by indignities and terror. They locked
him up in a tiny, nearly airless cell in a military camp in the north. They
stripped him naked and held a threat of a sudden midnight execution over
his head. Ninoy held up manfully under all of it. I barely did as well. For forty-
three days, the authorities would not tell me what had happened to him.
This was the first time my children and I felt we had lost him."
Cory continued that when Ninoy survived that first detention, he was then
charged of subversion, murder, and other crimes. He was tried by a military court,
whose legitimacy Ninoy adamantly questioned. To solidify his protest, Ninoy
decided to do a hunger strike and fasted for 40 days. Cory treated this event as
the second time that their family lost Ninoy. She said:
"When that didn't work, they put him on trial for subversion, murder and a
host of other crimes before a military commission. Ninoy challenged its
authority and went on a fast. If he survived it, then he felt God intended him

for another fate. We had lost him again. For nothing would hold him back
from his determination to see his fast through to the end. He stopped only
when it dawned on him that the government would keep his body alive
after the fast had destroyed his brain. And so, with barely any life in his body,
he called off the fast on the 40th day."
Ninoy's death was the third and the last time that Cory and their children
lost Ninoy. She continued:
"And then, we lost him irrevocably and more painfully than in the past. The
news came to us in Boston. It had to be after the three happiest years of
our lives together. But his death was my country's resurrection and the
courage and faith by which alone they could be free again. The dictator
had called him a nobody. Yet, two million people threw aside their passivity
and fear and escorted him to his grave.”
Cory attributed the peaceful EDSA Revolution to the martyrdom of Ninoy.

She stated that the death of Ninoy sparked the revolution and the responsibility
of "offering the democratic alternative" had "fallen on (her) shoulders." Cory's
address introduced us to her democratic philosophy, which she claimed she also
acquired from Ninoy. She argued:
"I held fast to Ninoy's conviction that it must be by the ways of democracy.
I held out for participation in the 1984 election the dictatorship called, even
if I knew it would be rigged. I was warned by the lawyers of the opposition,
that I ran the grave risk of legitimizing the foregone results of elections that
were clearly going to be fraudulent. But I was not fighting for lawyers but for
the people in whose intelligence, I had implicit faith. By the exercise of
democracy even in a dictatorship, they would be prepared for democracy
when it came. And then also, it was the only way I knew by which we could
measure our power even in the terms dictated by the dictatorship. The
people vindicated me in an election shamefully marked by government
thuggery and fraud. The opposition swept the elections, garnering a clear
majority of the votes even if they ended up (thanks to a corrupt Commission
on Elections) with barely a third of the seats in Parliament. Now, I knew our
power."
Cory talked about her miraculous victory through the people's struggle and
continued talking about her earliest initiatives as the president of a restored
democracy. She stated that she intended to forge and draw reconciliation after
a bloody and polarizing dictatorship. Cory emphasized the importance of the
EDSA Revolution in terms of being a "limited revolution that respected the life and
freedom of every Filipino." She also boasted of the restoration of a fully
constitutional government whose constitution gave utmost respect to the Bill of
Rights. She reported to the U.S. Congress:
"Again as we restore democracy by the ways of democracy, so are we

completing the constitutional structures of our new democracy under a

constitution that already gives full respect to the Bill of Rights. A jealously
independent constitutional commission is completing its draft which will be
submitted later this year to a popular referendum. When it is approved,
there will be elections for both national and local positions. So, within about
a year from a peaceful but national upheaval that overturned a
dictatorship, we shall have returned to full constitutional government."
Cory then proceeded on her peace agenda with the existing communist
insurgency, aggravated by the dictatorial and authoritarian measure of
Ferdinand Marcos. She asserted:
"My predecessor set aside democracy to save it from a communist

insurgency that numbered less than five hundred. Unhampered by respect
for human rights he went at it with hammer and tongs. By the time he fled,
that insurgency had grown to more than sixteen thousand. I think there is a
lesson here to be learned about trying to stifle a thing with a means by
which it grows."
Cory's peace agenda involves political initiatives and re-integration

program to persuade insurgents to leave the countryside and return to the
mainstream society to participate in the restoration of democracy. She invoked
the path of peace because she believed that it was the moral path that a moral
government must take. Nevertheless, Cory took a step back when she said that
while peace is the priority of her presidency, she "will not waiver" when freedom
and democracy are threatened. She said that, similar to Abraham Lincoln, she
understands that "force may be necessary before mercy" and while she did not
relish the idea, she "will do whatever it takes to defend the integrity and freedom
of (her) country."
Cory then turned to the controversial topic of the Philippine foreign debt
amounting to $26 billion at the time of her speech. This debt had ballooned during
the Marcos regime. Cory expressed her intention to honor those debts despite
mentioning that the people did not benefit from such debts. Thus, she mentioned
her protestations about the way the Philippines was deprive of choices to pay
those debts within the capacity of the Filipino people. She lamented:
“Finally may I turn to that other slavery, our twenty-six billion dollar foreign
debt. I have said that we shall honor it. Yet, the means by which we shall
be able to do so are kept from us. Many of the conditions imposed on the
previous government that stole this debt, continue to be imposed on us
who never benefited from it."
She continued that while the country had experienced the calamities
brought about by the corrupt dictatorship of Marcos, no commensurate
assistance was yet to be extended to the Philippines. She even remarked that
given the peaceful character of EDSA People Power Revolution, "ours must have
been the cheapest revolution ever." She demonstrated that Filipino

people fulfilled the "most difficult condition of the debt negotiation," which was
the "restoration of democracy and responsible government."
Cory related to the U.S. legislators that wherever she went, she met poor
and unemployed Filipinos willing to offer their lives for democracy. She stated:
"Wherever I went in the campaign, slum area or impoverished village. They

came to me with one cry, democracy. Not food although they clearly
needed it but democracy. Not work, although they surely wanted it but
democracy. Not money, for they gave what little they had to my
campaign. They didn't expect me to work a miracle that would instantly
put food into their mouths, clothes on their back, education in their children
and give them work that will put dignity in their lives. But I feel the pressing
obligation to respond quickly as the leader of the people so deserving of
all these things."
Cory proceeded in enumerating the challenges of the Filipino people as

they tried building the new democracy. These were the persisting communist
insurgency and the economic deterioration. Cory further lamented that these
problems worsened by the crippling debt because half of the country's export
earnings amounting to $2 billion would "go to pay just the interest on a debt whose
benefit the Filipino people never received." Cory then asked a rather compelling
question to the U.S. Congress:
"Has there been a greater test of national commitment to the ideals you
hold dear than that my people have gone through? You have spent many
lives and much treasure to bring freedom to many lands that were reluctant
to receive it. And here, you have a people who want it by themselves and
need only the help to preserve it."
Cory ended her speech by thanking America for serving as home to her
family for what she referred to as the "three happiest years of our lives together."
She enjoined America in building the Philippines as a new home for democracy
and in turning the country as a "shining testament of our two nations' commitment
to freedom."
Analysis of Cory Aquino's Speech
Cory Aquino's speech was an important event in the political and

diplomatic history of the country because it has arguably cemented the
legitimacy of the EDSA government in the international arena. The speech talks
of her family background, especially her relationship with her late husband, Ninoy
Aquino. It is well known that it was Ninoy who served as the real leading figure of
the opposition at that time. Indeed, Ninoy's eloquence and charisma could very
well compete with that of Marcos. In her speech, Cory talked at length about
Ninoy's toil and suffering at the hands of the dictatorship that he resisted. Even
when she proceeded talking about her new government, she still went back to
Ninoy's legacies and lessons. Moreover, her attribution of the revolution to Ninoy's

death demonstrates not only Cory's personal perception on the revolution, but
since she was the president, it also represents what the dominant discourse was
at that point in our history.
The ideology or the principles of the new democratic government can also
be seen in the same speech. Aquino was able to draw the sharp contrast
between her government and of her predecessor by expressing her commitment
to a democratic constitution drafted by an independent commission. She
claimed that such constitution upholds and adheres to the rights and liberty of
the Filipino people. Cory also hoisted herself as the reconciliatory agent after
more than two decades of a polarizing authoritarian politics. For example, Cory
saw the blown-up communist lnsurgency as a product of a repressive and corrupt
government. Her response to this insurgency rooted from her diametric opposition
of the dictator (i.e., initiating reintegration of communist rebels to the mainstream
Philippine society). Cory claimed that her main approach to this problem was
through peace and not through the sword of war.
Despite Cory's efforts to hoist herself as the exact opposite of Marcos, her
speech still revealed certain parallelisms between her and the Marcos's
government. This is seen in terms of continuing the alliance between the
Philippines and the United States despite the known affinity between the said
world super power and Marcos. The Aquino regime, as seen in Cory's acceptance
of the invitation to address the U.S. Congress and to the content of the speech,
decided to build and continue with the alliance between the Philippines and the
United States and effectively implemented an essentially similar foreign policy to
that of the dictatorship. For example, Cory recognized that the large sum of
foreign debts incurred by the Marcos regime never benefitted the Filipino people.
Nevertheless, Cory expressed her intention to pay off those debts. Unknown to
many Filipinos was the fact that there was a choice of waiving the said debt
because those were the debt of the dictator and not of the country. Cory's
decision is an indicator of her government's intention to carry on a debt-driven
economy.
Reading through Aquino's speech, we can already take cues, not just on
Cory's individual ideas and aspirations, but also the guiding principles and
framework of the government that she represented.
Activities:
A. Essay
1. Give your own analysis of the following documents: (in not less than 500
words)
a. Proclamation of the Philippine Independence
b. Caricatures during the American Period

`
READINGS IN PHILIPPINE
HISTORY
Module 4 & 5: Philippine History: Spaces for Conflict and Controversies
IT1/HRS1
Teacher: Mrs. Emelia J. Romano
Module 4 & 5 Contents/ Lessons
1. Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation

2. Multiperspectivity
3. Case 1: Where Did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the Philippines?
4. Case 2: What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?
a. Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny
b. Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872
5. Case 3: Did Rizal Retract?
a. The Balaguer Testimony
b. The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia
6. Case Study 4: Where did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?
a. Different Dates and Places of the Cry
Learning Objectives:
• To interpret historical events using primary sources.
• To recognize the multiplicity of interpretation that can be read from a
historical text.
• To identify the advantages and disadvantages of employing critical tools
in interpreting historical events through primary sources.
• To demonstrate ability to argue for or against a particular issue using
primary sources.
MAKING SENSE OF THE PAST: HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary definition is

centered on how it impacts the present through its consequences. Geoffrey
Barraclough defines history as "the attempt to discover, on the basis of
fragmentary evidence, the significant things about the past." He also notes "the
history we read, though based on facts, is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but

a series of accepted judgements." Such judgments of historians on how the past
should be seen make the foundation of 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, he promulgated in about 1433
a penal code now known as 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 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 Philippine history. He attributed the
code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco titled Las
Antiguas Leyendas de la Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the code itself to
a priest named Jose Maria Pavon. Prominent Filipino historians did not
dissent to Scott's 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, a 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, a non-historian interpreting a primary source
may do more harm than good—a primary source may even cause
misunderstandings; sometimes, even resulting in more problems.
Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the

primary source, when it was read, and how it was read. As students of history, we
must be well equipped to recognize different types of interpretations, why these
may differ from each other, and how to critically sift these interpretations through
historical evaluation. Interpretations of historical events 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 eight years old and is probably one of Rizal's most prominent works.
There is no evidence to support the claim that this poem, with the now
immortalized lines "Ang hindi magmahal sa kanyang salita/mahigit sa
hayop at malansang isda" was written by Rizal, and worse, the evidence
against Rizal's authorship of the poem seems all unassailable.

There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was
first published in 1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz aid he
received the poem from Gabriel Beato Francisco, who claimed to have
received it in 1884 from Rizal's 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 Rizal's letters that he first
encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del Pilar's translation of Rizal's
essay "El Amor Patrio," where it was spelled as "Kalayahan."
While Rizal's native tongue was Tagalog, he 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 tongue.
The poem's 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 during 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 set in stone—history is, after all, a construct. And
as a construct, it is open for interpretation. There might be conflicting and
competing accounts of the past that need one's attention, and can impact the
way we view our country's history and identity. It is important, therefore, to subject
to evaluation not only the primary source, but also the historical interpretation of
the same, to ensure that the current 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, developments, cultures, and societies from
different perspectives. This means that there is a multitude of ways by which we
can view the world, and each could be equally valid, and at the same time,
equally partial as well. Historical writing is, by definition, biased, partial, and
contains preconceptions. The historian 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 ways a historian may fail in
his historical inference, description, and interpretation. With multiperspectivity as
an approach in history, we must understand that historical interpretations contain
discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and are often the focus of dissent.
Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires incorporating source

materials that reflect different views of an event in history, because singular
historical narratives do not provide for space to inquire and investigate. Different
sources that counter each other may create space for more investigation and
research, while providing more evidence for those truths that these sources agree
on.
Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths—an official

document may note different aspects of the past than, say, a memoir of an
ordinary person on the same event. Different historical agents 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 interpretations, it

provides for the audience a more complex, but also 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 "firsts" happened in history has been
an easy way to trivialize history, but this case study will not focus on the
significance (or lack thereof) of the site of the First Catholic Mass in the Philippines,
but rather, use it as a historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence and
interpretation in reading historical events.
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 commemorates the expedition's arrival and
celebration of Mass on 8 April 1521. The Butuan claim has been based on a rather
elementary reading of primary sources from the event.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth
century, together with the increasing scholarship on the history of the Philippines,
a more nuanced reading of the available evidence was made, which brought
to light more considerations 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 two primary sources that historians refer
to in identifying the site of the first Mass. One is the log kept by Francisco Albo, a
pilot of one of Magellan's ship, Trinidad. He was one of the 18 survivors who
returned with Sebastian Elcano on 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 (First Voyage Around the World).
Pigafetta, like Albo, was a member of the Magellan expedition and an eyewitness
of the events, particularly, of the first Mass.
Primary Source: Albo's Log
Source: "Diario ó derotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo se S.

Agustín en el Brazil hasta el regreso a Espana de la nao Victoria, escrito por
Frandsco Albo," Document no. xxii in Colleción de viages y descubrimientos
que hicieron por mar los Españoles desde fines del siglo XV, Ed. Martin
Fernandez de Navarrete (reprinted Buenos Aires 1945, 5 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, Kinaadman: A
Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
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. They 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 Pigafetta'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. (Seilan– 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. They 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 10 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 south west,
which also fits the southern end of Limasawa.
Primary Source: Pigafetta's Testimony on the Route of Magellan's Expedition
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: A Reexamination of Evidence" 1981,
Kinaadman.: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
1. Saturday, 16 March 1521 - Magellan's expedition sighted a "high land"

named "Zamal" which was some 300 leagues westward of Ladrones (now
the Marianas) Islands.
2. Sunday, March 17 - “The following day" after sighting Zamal lsland, they
landed on "another island which was uninhabited" and which lay "to the
right" of the above.mentioned island of Zamal." (To the "right" here would
mean on their starboard going south or southwest.) There they set up two
tents for the sick members of the crew and had a sow killed for them. The
name of this island was "Humunu" (Homonhon). This island was located at
10 degrees North latitude.
3. On that same day (Sunday, March 17), Magellan named the entire
archipelago the "Islands of Saint Lazarus," the reason being that it was
Sunday in the Lenten season when the Gospel assigned for the Mass and
the liturgical office was the eleventh chapter of St. John, which tells of the
raising of Lazarus from the dead.

4. Monday, March 18 – In the afternoon of their second day on that island,
they saw a boat coming towards them with nine men in it. An exchange of
gifts was effected. Magellan asked for food supplies, and the men went
away, promising to bring rice and other supplies in “four days."
5. There were two springs of water on that island of Homonhon. Also they saw
there some indications that there was gold in these islands. Consequently
Magellan renamed the island and called it the "Watering Place of Good
Omen" (Acquada la di bouni segnialli).
6. Friday, March 22 - At noon the natives returned. This time they were in two
boats, and they brought food supplies.
7. Magellan's expedition stayed eight days at Homonhon: from Sunday,

March 17, to the Monday of the following week, March 25.
8. Monday, March 25 - In the afternoon, the expedition weighed anchor and

left the island of Homonhon. In the ecclesiastical calendar, this day (March
25) was the feast-day of the Incarnation, also called the feast of the
Annunciation and therefore "Our Lady's Day." On this day, as they were
about to weigh anchor, an accident happened to Pigafetta: he fell into
the water but was rescued. He attributed his narrow escape from death as
grace obtained through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary on her
feast-day.
9. The route taken by the expedition after leaving Homonhon was "toward the
west southwest, between four islands: namely, Cenalo, Hiunanghan,
Ibusson and Albarien." Very probably "Cenalo" is a misspelling in the Italian
manuscript for what Pigafetta in his map calls "Ceilon" and Albo calls
"Seilani": namely the island of Leyte. "Hiunanghan" (a misspelling of
Hinunangan) seemed to Pigafetta to be a separate island, but is actually
on the mainland of Leyte (i.e., "Ceylon"). On the other hand, Hibuson
(Pigafetta's Tbusson) is an island east of Leyte's southern tip.
Thus, it is easy to see what Pigafetta meant by sailing "toward the west
southwest" past those islands. They left Homonhon sailing westward towards
Leyte, then followed the Leyte coast southward. passing between the
island of Hibuson on their portside and Hiunangan Bay on their starboard,
and then continued southward, then turning westward to "Mazaua."
10. Thursday, March 28 - In the morning of Holy Thursday, March 28, they
anchored off an island where the previous night they had seen a light or a
bonfire. That island "lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds towards the
Arctic Pole (i.e., North) and in a longitude of one hundred and sixty-two
degrees from the line of demarcation. It is twenty-five leagues from the
Acquada, and is called Mazaua."

11. They remained seven days on Mazaua Island.
12. Thursday, April 4 - They left Mazaua, bound for Cebu. They were guided
thither by the king of Mazaua who sailed in his own boat. Their route took
them past five "islands" namely: "Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and
Gatighan."
13. At Gatighan, they sailed westward to the three islands of the Camotes
Group, namely, Poro, Pasihan and Ponson. Here the Spanish ships stopped
to allow the king of Mazaua to catch up with them, since the Spanish ships
were much faster than the native balanghai-a thing that excited the
admiration of the king of Mazaua.
14. From the Camotes Islands they sailed southwards towards "Zubu."
15. Sunday, April 7 - At noon they entered the harbor of "Zubu" (Cebu). It had
taken them three days to negotiate the journey from Mazaua northwards
to the Camotes Islands and then southwards to Cebu.
It must be pointed out that both Albo and Pigafetta's testimonies coincide
and corroborate each other. Pigafetta gave more details on what they did during
their weeklong stay at Mazaua.
Primary Source: Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua
Source: Emma Blair and James Alexander Robertson, The Philippine Islands,
Vols. 38 and 34, as cited in Miguel A. Bernad, "Butuan or Limasawa? The Site
of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination of Evidence" 1981,
Kinaadman: A Journal of Southern Philippines, Vol. III, 1-35.
1. Thursday, March 28 - In the morning they anchored near an island where

they had seen a light the night before a small boat (boloto) came with
eight natives, to whom Magellan threw some trinkets as presents. The
natives paddled away, but two hours later two larger boats (balanghai)
came, in one of which the native king sat under an awning of mats. At
Magellan's invitation some of the natives went up the Spanish ship, but the
native king remained seated in his boat. An exchange of gifts was effected.
In the afternoon that day, the Spanish ships weighed anchor and came
closer to shore, anchoring near the native king's 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 eight men, and
this time went up Magellan's ship and the two men embraced. Another
exchange of gifts was made. The native king and his companions returned

ashore, bringing with them two members of Magellan's expedition as guests
for the night. One of the two was Pigafetta.
3. Saturday, March 30 – Pigafetta and his companion 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 companion took 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
were the king of Mazaua and the king of Butuan.
5. Sunday, March 31-On 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 were available in that
island. They replied that there were three ports to choose from: Ceylon,
Zubu, and Calagan. Of the three, Zubu was the port with the most trade.
Magellan then said that he wished to go to Zubu and to depart the
following morning. He asked for someone to guide him thither. The kings
replied that the pilots would be available "any time." But later that evening
the king of Mazaua changed his mind and said that he would himself
conduct Magellan to Zubu but that he would first have to bring the harvest
in. He asked Magellan to send him men to help with the harvest.
6. Monday, April 1 - Magellan sent men ashore to help with the harvest, but
no work was done that day because the two kings were sleeping off their
drinking bout the night before.
7. Tuesday, April 2 and Wednesday, April 3 - Work on the harvest during the
"next to days," ie., Tuesday and Wednesday, the 2nd and 3rd of April.
8. Thursday, April 4- They leave Mazaua, bound for Cebu.
Using the primary sources available, Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernad in his work
Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A Reexamination
of Evidence (1981) lays down the argument that in the Pigafetta account, a
crucial aspect of Butuan was not mentioned—the river. Butuan is a riverine
settlement, situated on the Agusan River. The beach of 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 characteristic of Butuan's 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 domains. Initially, the goal
was to find alternative routes by sea to get to Asia, the main source of
spices and other commodities. Existing routes to Asia were mainly by land
and cost yery expensive. A sea route to Asia means that Europeans could
access the spice trade directly, greatly reducing costs for traders. Spain's
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 Americas, which was then cut-off from the rest of the known world.
Spain colonized parts of North America, Mexico, and South America in the
sixteenth 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 Magellan's death, the
survivors of his expedition went to Mindanao, and seemingly went to Butuan. In
this instance, Pigafetta vividly describes a trip in a river. But note that this account
already happened after Magellan's death.
CASE STUDY 2: WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CAVITE MUTINY?
The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavite Mutiny and the
martyrdom of the three priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto
Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are very important
milestones in Philippine history and have caused ripples throughout time, directly
influencing the decisive events of the Philippine Revolution toward the end of the
century. While the significance is unquestioned, what made this year controversial
are the different sides to the story, a battle of perspectives supported by primary
sources. In this case study, we zoom in to the events of the Cavite Mutiny, a major
factor in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos of that time.
Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny
The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal centered on

how the event was an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in the
Philippines. Although regarded as a historian, his account of the mutiny was
criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a scholar. Another account from the
oficial report written by then Governor General Rafael Izquierdo implicated the
native clergy, who were then, active in the movement toward secularization of
parishes. These two accounts corroborated each other.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Montero's Account of the Cavite Mutiny
Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, "Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,"
in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine
History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 269-273.

The abolition of 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 |sic] 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 friars, made common cause with the enemies of
the mother country.
At various times but especially in the beginning of 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 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, the soul of the
movement, whose energetic character and immense wealth enabled him
to exercise a strong influence.
Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on

the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Source: Rafael Izquierdo, "Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny," in Gregorio

Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume
7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 281-286.
...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…
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 practice in 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 and to render personal service, from which they were formerly
exempted…
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 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 is... the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and the means
they counted upon for its realization.
It is apparent that the accounts 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, or
force labor. They also identified other reasons which seemingly made the issue 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. According 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 of lofty 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, mestizos, 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 Manileños who were expected to aid
the Caviteños 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, and sentenced to life
imprisonment at the Marianas Island. lzquierdo dissolved the native regiments of
artillery and ordered the creation of an 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 exist 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
Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, "Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny," in

Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,
Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 274-280.
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by
the Spanish residents and by the friars... the Central Government in Madrid
had announced its intention to deprive the friars in these islands of powers
of intervention in matters of civil government and of the direction and
management of the university... 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 complete a thing of the past.
...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 education
advancement of the country…
According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino

soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the
draconian policies of Izquierdo, such as the abolition of privileges and the
prohibition of the founding of the school of arts and trades for Filipinos, which the
General saw as a smokescreen to creating a political club.
Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite
Mutiny as a way to address other issues by blowing out of proportion the isolated
mutiny attempt. During this time, the Central Government in Madrid was planning
to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government
and direction and management of educational institutions. The friars needed
somethíng to justify their continuing dominance in the country, and the mutiny
provided such opportunity.
However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational

decree fusing sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called the Philippine
Institute. The decree aimed to improve the standard of education in the

Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these schools to be filled by
competitive examinations, an improvement welcomed by most Filipinos.
Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut,

complemented Tavera's account and analyzed the motivations of the 1872
Cavite Mutiny.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut's Account of the Cavite Mutiny
Source: Edmund Plauchut, "The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom
of Gom-Bur-Za," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources
of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 251-268.
General La Torre... created a junta composed of high officials.. including

some friars and six Spanish officials.... At the same time there was created
by the government in Madrid a committee to investigate the same
problems submitted to the Manila committee. When the two finished work,
it was found that they came to the same conclusions. Here is the summary
of the reforms they considered necessary to introduce:
1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection.

2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
3. Reduction of export fees.
4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate,
enjoy freedom of worship, and operate commercial transports flying
the Spanish flag.
5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of
Overseas Affairs in Madrid on the necessary reforms to be
implemented.
6. Changes in primary and secondary education.
7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines,
rendering unnecessary the sending home of short-term civil officials
every time there is a change of ministry.
8. Study of direct-tax 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

Manila a 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
dominance, 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 priests to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to stifle 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 widely 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 triạl 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 Rizal's lifework was committed to this end,
particularly the more influential ones, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His
essays vilify 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 could 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,
C.M. on 18 May 1935
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 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 Española 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 Source: 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 Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort
Santiago to report on the events during the [illegible] day in prison of the
accused Jose Rizal, informs mne on this date of the following:
At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by

his counsel, Señor 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, Señor 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.
Señor 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, Sefñor
del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor 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 articulo 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 exile 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? (ALL CAPS)
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 Rebelion" 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, where 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
Agoncillo 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 inspire 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 1896. 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 Valenzuela. 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 Source: Accounts of the Cry
Guillermo Masangkay
Source: Guillermo Masangkay, "Cry of Balintawak" in Gregorio Zaide and

Sonia 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 Remigio, 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 all 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:
National 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 atcKangkong. Aside from the
persons mentioned above, among those who were there were 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.
Activities:
A. Essay
1. Interpret the historical events of the following primary sources:
a. Albo’s log
b. Excerpts from Montero’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny
c. Pigafetta and Seven Days in Mazaua

Readings in Philippine History: Module 3 Contents/ Lessons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Readings in Philippine History: Module 3 Contents/ Lessons

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Readings in Philippine History: Module 3 Contents/ Lessons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

`

Module 3 Contents/ Lessons

1. Reading the “Proclamation of the Philippine Independence”

READING THE "PROCLAMATION OF THE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE”

Every year, the country commemorates the anniversary of the Philippine

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

The proclamation commenced with a characterization of the conditions in

“...taking into consideration, that their inhabitants being already weary of

The above passage demonstrates the justifications behind the revolution

From here, the proclamation proceeded with a brief historical overview of

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

The proclamation of independence also invokes that the established

Another detail in the proclamation that is worth looking at is its explanation

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Analysis of the "Proclamation of the Philippine Independence"

As mentioned earlier, a re-examination of the document on the declaration

The proclamation also gives us the impression on how the victorious

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

A GLANCE AT SELECTED PHILIPPINE POLITICAL CARICATURE IN ALFRED MCCOY'S

In his book Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature of the American Era

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

The third cartoon was a commentary on the unprecedented cases of

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

The next cartoon was published by The Independent on 27 November 1915.

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Analysis of the Political Caricatures during the American Period

The transition from the Spanish Colonial period to the American

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

The transition from a Catholic-centered, Spanish-Filipino society to an

REVISITING CORAZON AQUINO'S SPEECH BEFORE THE U.S. CONGRESS

Corazon "Cory" Cojuangco Aquino functioned as the symbol of the

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

On 18 September 1986, seven months since Cory became president, she

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Cory attributed the peaceful EDSA Revolution to the martyrdom of Ninoy.

"Again as we restore democracy by the ways of democracy, so are we

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

"My predecessor set aside democracy to save it from a communist

Cory's peace agenda involves political initiatives and re-integration

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

"Wherever I went in the campaign, slum area or impoverished village. They

Cory proceeded in enumerating the challenges of the Filipino people as

Analysis of Cory Aquino's Speech

Cory Aquino's speech was an important event in the political and

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Module 4 & 5 Contents/ Lessons

1. Making Sense of the Past: Historical Interpretation

MAKING SENSE OF THE PAST: HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary definition is

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

"CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third Chief of Panay,

Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

While Rizal's native tongue was Tagalog, he was educated in Spanish,

With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept

READING IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires incorporating source

Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths—an official