Module-3 HISTORY

Readings in the Philippine History
MODULE 3
LESSON 1: “One past but many histories” – Controversies and
conflicting views in Philippine History
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
Identify the different controversies and conflicting views in the Philippine

History
Determine the main idea of the given sources of controversies and
conflicting views of history.
Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments regarding the
different Philippine History Controversies.
_______________________________________________________________________________
DISCUSSION
History is about interpreting the past; it is a “spin” on the historical

facts. Through interpretation, historians indicate what they believe about
the past, their ideas, opinions and even their assumptions that able to
create another information to others. They attempt to explain why and how
things happened as they did and why particular elements in the past are
important.
Pre - Activity
In your own research and information about historical events, what

particular event in the Philippine History that makes your understanding
and thoughts unclear and falsifiable? And why?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
However, the Philippine history were divided into three periods the
pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial. During those colonial periods there
are many histories was made and conflicted different views. But despite of
Page 38
the existence of such conflicting views and controversies, the vital role in the
development of Filipino nationhood and nationalism should always be
recognized.
10 Mind-Blowing Controversies of Philippine History
10. We Already Had An Excellent Public School System Before The

Americans Came.
Although we cannot discount all the good things the Americans did to
improve the country’s system of education, the Spanish do deserve credit for
their own contributions. Contrary to popular belief that Filipinos lived like
uneducated medieval peons during the Spanish era, the inhabitants were
actually one of the most educated peoples in all of Asia, and its thanks
largely to the implementation of the public school system by the Spanish
government which started with the Educational Decree Act of 1863. The act
provided for the creation of separate public schools for Filipino boys and
girls and the teaching of free compulsory education, a first for any European
colony. Surprisingly, the girls were taught not only “domestic” lessons but
also subjects such as Spanish and French languages and the sciences.
Manuel Quezon, himself a product of the Spanish public school system,
attested to the existence and excellence of Spanish education long before the
Americans came. Unfortunately, American propaganda against the Spanish,
coupled with the fact that local friars tried to subvert the system, made for a
very negative impression of the Spanish educational system.
9. Jose Rizal Disliked The Chinese.
Oil painting portrait of Jose Rizal by Filipino painter Félix Resurrección

Hidalgo (1883). Via Wikimedia Commons. Other than campaigning against
Spanish oppression, Rizal would also end up fighting what he perceived to
be the Chinese exploitation of his countrymen. He viewed the Chinese
primarily as unscrupulous traders and businessmen who liked to take
advantage of Filipinos for profit even if it meant kowtowing to the Spanish.
Rizal’s dislike for the Chinese could be seen in his letter to his mother, in
which he complained of being embroiled in a lawsuit with a Chinese and
promised never to buy any products from him, and from his novel El
Filibusterismo, where he portrayed the character of Quiroga (who was
reportedly based on a real Chinese businessman) as a shrewd and cunning
individual. While Rizal’s anti-Chinese sentiment could be attributed to his
nationalist drive, some historians think he may have gone too far by putting
Page 39
all Chinese in the same category as those he had encountered. Not only
that, he ironically disowned his own Chinese ancestry by claiming he had no
Chinese blood and was pure Filipino. However, to some historians, Rizal
was merely expressing his wish to be viewed as a full-blooded Filipino no
matter his heritage. In addition, general sentiment at that time ran high
against foreigners regardless whether they were Chinese or Spanish.
8. Jose Burgos Was Framed For The Cavite Mutiny.

We all know that Gomburza—Fathers Mario Gomez, Jose Burgos, and
Jacinto Zamora—very much had nothing to do with the 1872 Cavite Mutiny
and that it was launched by some disgruntled soldiers after discovering they
were now forced to pay personal taxes as well as perform forced labor, both
of which they had been previously exempted from. However, according to the
accounts of two Spanish clergymen captured during the Revolution, the
failed mutiny was, in fact, a plot by the Spanish friars to eliminate Jose
Burgos who was then the foremost champion of secular priests. To that end,
they sent a Franciscan friar named Claudio del Arceo to Cavite and foment
unrest among the soldiers, promising them money and that a great fleet
from the United States in the name of Father Burgos would arrive to assist
them. After the mutiny unfolded, the friars then convinced Rafael de
Izquierdo that Burgos planned it all by giving him a banquet as well as a
huge bribe.
7. The Americans Used Pigs’ Blood And Body Parts On Moro

Insurgents.
Other than the infamous “water-cure” method the Americans used on
captured Filipino combatants during the Philippine-American War, they
would also reportedly employ the unconventional method of using pigs to
pacify the Moro fighters in the second half of the same war. Specifically, they
were said to have executed captured insurgents or “juramentados” (an
assassin gone amok) with bullets dipped in pig’s blood, or bury them along
with dead pigs. The Americans believed that the Moros—who detested pork
—would not be able to go to the afterlife if they had any contact with the
animals and so hoped to dissuade further attacks. The originator of this
method was supposedly none other than US General John “Black Jack”
Pershing, the first and only man to have ever been promoted to General of
the Armies during his lifetime (Washington was promoted posthumously).
Although the method is unsubstantiated, many books and websites
regularly quote it as one way to fight Islamic terrorists.
Page 40
6. The Jabidah Massacre Never Happened.

While we may all be familiar with the alleged massacre of disenchanted
Muslim recruits in Corregidor in 1968, many historians have disputed as to
whether the massacre really happened at all. Contrary to popular belief,
then-Senator Benigno Aquino did not believe Jibin Arula who claimed to be
the massacre’s sole survivor. For him, the massacre reeked of a hoax.
However, he did accuse President Ferdinand Marcos of plotting to build up a
personal elite force for his “garrison state,” as well as planning for the
takeover of Sabah. Rigoberto Tiglao even states that the Jabidah Massacre
was, in fact, a brilliant propaganda campaign pulled off by Malaysia, a belief
accepted again by Ninoy. Supposedly, a number of the recruits were, in fact,
Malaysian counter-agents tasked to foment dissent among the members,
thus ensuring that Marcos’ plan would never go off. In a way, the alleged
plan to sow chaos in Sabah boomeranged right back into the Philippines’
own backyard—Mindanao.
5. A Filipino Helped Found Los Angeles.

While not directly concerning the country, this little historical controversy is
somewhat of a heated issue especially within the Fil-Am community of Los
Angeles. Although there is no doubt given to the eleven founding settlers
who helped to found Los Angeles in 1781, the same cannot be said for
Antonio Miranda Rodriguez. Supposedly, he was a skilled gunsmith from
Manila who journeyed there with his daughter via the galleon trade but
arrived much later after suffering from smallpox. Later, he came to be feted
as the 12th settler of Los Angeles. However, some historians have disputed
that recognition on the argument that Rodriguez never actually reached the
settlement. Upon arriving in California, he was reportedly sent to Sta.
Barbara instead as an armorer due to his skills as a gunsmith and was said
to have died in that place after only eight months. Also, his name cannot be
found in any of the plaques and markers honoring the founders of LA.
4. Gregorio del Pilar Was Aguinaldo’s Assassin.
Admittedly, most of del Pilar’s fame comes from his death defending Tirad
Pass from advancing American forces during the Philippine-American War.
Yet for all his bravery (or foolhardiness, depending on one’s view), del Pilar
also has his own plethora of controversies. Aside from the controversy of
reportedly indulging in a drinking spree and an orgy the night before his big
battle, it is alleged that del Pilar was also Emilio Aguinaldo’s
“hatchetman.” As someone who reportedly exhibited sadistic tendencies on
Page 41
captured friars (he made one clean the toilet with his bare hands according
to one story) and with his unwavering loyalty to the president, del Pilar was
the ideal “berdugo” for Aguinaldo. Accordingly, it is believed that del Pilar
and his men were behind the killing of Antonio Luna after being ordered by
Aguinaldo to eliminate him. By extension, del Pilar was also said to have
personally conducted the arrests, torture, and execution of many of Luna’s
officers.
3. Bonifacio ‘Acted Like A King’ In Cavite.

Although many would undoubtedly choose Bonifacio over Aguinaldo as their
hero, the former does deserve his fair share of criticism, mainly because he
was said to have “acted like a king” upon his arrival in Cavite after being
invited to mend the growing rift between the Magdiwang and Magdalo
factions. According to Nick Joaquin, Bonifacio turned off the Caviteños
when he showed up and began barking orders and behaved like “Caesar
without the crown.” He adds that instead of capitalizing on the golden
opportunity to stop the infighting among the revolutionaries who were at the
time facing a Spanish offensive, Bonifacio just added more fuel to the fire by
openly taking sides. After the Tejeros Convention, he nullified all
appointments and had Artemio Ricarte intercept Magdalo reinforcements to
Pasong Santol, resulting in the death of Aguinaldo’s brother Crispulo who
was defending that area. At that point, Aguinaldo and the rest of Cavite
must have decided Bonifacio was too dangerous to leave alone.
2. Miguel Malvar, Not Manuel Quezon, Should Be The Second
Philippine President.
On par with the perennial argument of whether Andres Bonifacio should be
recognized as the country’s first president is the question of whether Miguel
Malvar, and not Manuel Quezon, rightfully deserves the title as the
country’s second president. According to his supporters (Jejomar Binay is
one of them), Malvar deserves to be recognized as such in line with the
natural order of succession. With the capture of Aguinaldo and the
surrender of Mariano Trias, his designated successor and Malvar’s direct
superior, it fell upon the general from Batangas to lead the remnants of the
revolutionary forces. His presidency was also recognized as legitimate by
members of the “Hong Kong Junta,” the overseas council which procured
arms and campaigned for foreign recognition of Philippine independence.
During his period of resistance up until his surrender, Malvar ran the
fledgling republic as a chief executive and as head of the armed of forces—
just as a real president would.
Page 42
1. An Ancient Family Owns The Entire Philippines.

Did an ancient family rule the Philippines before the coming of the
Spaniards? According to the modern-day descendants of the Tagean-Tallano
clans, their ancestors used to rule over a land called “Maharlika,” an empire
which consisted of the Philippines, the rest of Southeast Asia, the Marianas
Islands and even Hawaii.
The clan counts Lapu-lapu, Soliman, Lakandula, and other prominent

Filipino rulers as their descendants. Under the rule of Luisong Tagean
Tallano, Maharlika was said to have been one of the most prosperous
countries in Asia. The clan also claims that their sovereignty over the
Philippines was recognized by the different colonial powers (Spain, Britain,
and the US) through the issuance of three documents, all of which were
unfortunately thrown out by the Court of Appeals in 2002 for being
“spurious.” However, that hasn’t stopped some members of the family from
showing up in the news from time to time. In 2012, Salam Lacan Luisong
Tagean—who claims to be from the clan—made headlines when he filed his
candidacy for senator while proclaiming he was the rightful ruler of the
country.
____________________________________________________________________________
SELF CHECK
Direction: Among with the given controversies of the Philippine history,

determine the main ideas of the controversies, based from the given sources.
Following the format below.
Philippine Hisotry Main Ideas

Controversies
We Already Had An
Excellent Public School
System Before The
Americans Came.
Jose Burgos Was Framed

For The Cavite Mutiny.
Page 43
An Ancient Family Owns

The Entire Philippines.
ENRICHMENT
ACTIVITIES
Activity 1:
From the given Controversies of the Philippine History, Chose
only one event. Make your own short Editorial documents or
data that shows your opinion, understanding and views about
the different issue of the Philippine History controversies.
Activity
2:
1. In your
own
justificatio
n, what is
the
essence of
understan
ding the
different
controvers
ies of the
Philippine
History?
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
__________
Page 44
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________
2. How do you understand the statement: “One past but many histories”
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
SUGGESTD READINGS AND REFERENCES:
https://filipiknow.net/historical-controversies-philippines/
Arguelles, M. (2012). Hundreds turn up in rally to back ‘Ako Bicol’ party-list
group. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/sVwmHW
Escobar, A. (2014). Groundbreaking Filipino American Art Exhibit “The Arrival of the
12th Poblador” at the El Pueblo De Los Angeles Historical Monument – Closes May
25th. FilAm Arts. Retrieved 16 March 2015, from http://goo.gl/U7gjFv
GMA News Online,. (2008). General Goyo: The Gregorio del Pilar story. Retrieved 16
March 2015, from http://goo.gl/7E4Oyj
Joaquin, N. (2005). A Question of Heroes (pp. 86-108). Pasig City: Anvil Publishing,
Inc.
National Historical Commission of the Philippines,. (2013). The Hong Kong Junta.
Retrieved 16 March 2015, from http://goo.gl/cHbDbh
Official Website of the Office of the Vice President of the Philippines,. (2015). VP
Binay To Historians: Help Rectify Oversight In Recognizing General Malvar As 2nd
President. Retrieved 16 March 2015, from http://goo.gl/q7mqIb
Paredes, J. (2013). Bonifacio Remembered: Divisive and a hero downgraded, what,
finally, is Supremo’s place in history?. InterAksyon.com. Retrieved 16 March 2015,
from http://goo.gl/de04a6
Pimentel, J. (2008). The Enclave of Our Roots. The Asian Journal MDWK Magazine,
2. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/2OATMf
Snopes.com,. Pershing the Thought. Retrieved 16 March 2015, from
http://goo.gl/7P8Xab
The ProPinoy Project,. (2011). Was Jose Rizal anti-Chinese?. Retrieved 16 March
2015, from http://goo.gl/Q85ylv
Tiglao, R. (2013). Malaysia’s masterstroke that buried our Sabah
claim. RigobertoTiglao.com. Retrieved 16 March 2015, from http://goo.gl/OcLR5U
Tiglao, R. (2013). Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr.’s Jabidah speech
1968. RigobertoTiglao.com. Retrieved 16 March 2015, from http://goo.gl/6SYiRp
For top 10: https://filipiknow.net/life-in-pre-colonial-philippines/
For top 9: https://filipiknow.net/jose-rizal-myths/ - https://filipiknow.net/the-
human-side-of-jose-rizal/
For top 8: https://filipiknow.net/philippine-history-facts/
For top 7: https://filipiknow.net/philippine-history-creepiest-photos/ -
https://filipiknow.net/philippine-american-history/ -
https://filipiknow.net/incredible-recordings-from-philippine-history/
For top 6: https://filipiknow.net/facts-about-ninoy-aquino/
For top 5: https://filipiknow.net/philippine-history-facts/
For top 4: https://filipiknow.net/famous-last-words-in-philippine-history/ -
https://filipiknow.net/facts-about-general-gregorio-del-pilar/ -
https://filipiknow.net/facts-about-antonio-luna/
For top 3: https://filipiknow.net/facts-about-andres-bonifacio/
For top 2: https://filipiknow.net/historical-filipino-villains/
Page 45
For top 1: https://filipiknow.net/facts-about-ferdinand-marcos/
MODULE 3
“One past but many histories” – Controversies and conflicting views in Philippine History
Lesson 2: SITE OF THE FIRST MASS
Determine the controversies and conflicting views in the Philippine

History with the Site of the First Mass
Internalize the ability to formulate arguments in favor or against a
particular issue using various sources.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
DISCUSSION
In the Philippine History, there are controversial and unresolved issue

regarding the introduction of Christianity to the Filipino People. One of these
issue are about the site of the first mass that was held in a particular
Page 46
province, that headed by Magellan during his expeditions. There are to

representations of views below about the site of the first mass.
VIEWS No. 1
Where did the first Mass in the Philippines take place?

By: FR. ROY CIMAGALA
https://www.panaynews.net/where-did-the-first-mass-in-the-philippines-take-place/
ONCE in a while, you get a jolt when you meet someone who would make
you consider something that you have ignored up to now, considering it as
trivial or with low priority, but which happens to have a solid claim for the
historical truth and is therefore asking not only for due attention but also
for real justice. It is a case of a historical distortion or error that is crying for
correction.
This happened to me recently when I visited Butuan for some pastoral work
and incidentally met Fr. Joesilo Amalla, a diocesan priest who has been
making many years of research about where the first Mass in the
Philippines took place. Some mutual friends arranged our meeting.
He handed me his 200-page manuscript of his work for me to review and

told me some relevant tidbits of information about his research, as well as
showed me some of the reference materials he used.
My personal impression of that meeting is that this priest is not motivated
by anything other than trying to establish the historical objectivity of the
issue. I did not sense any ulterior motive, much less the glorification of his
native Butuan nor of his own self which I tried to discern. Neither did I feel
any traces of personal bias or cultural, social or political partisanship in our
discussion. He had that certain detachment proper of an objective
researcher.
I hope and pray that this issue be given real justice and finally conclusively
resolved and laid to rest in the annals of our history as a people who were
evangelized by the Spanish colonizers in the early 1500s. It may not be a big
issue in the first place, a game-changer, but just the same it deserves to be
given justice.
The arguments for Masawa in Butuan and not Limasawa in Samar-Leyte as

the site of the first Mass celebrated in our country are strong. There are
incontrovertible eyewitness accounts of the people of that time: Antonio
Page 47
Pigafetta, the official chronicler of Magellan’s voyage; Gines de Mafra, one of

Magellan’s original crew who managed to return to Spain and reported
about what he found in Masawa; and other supporting testimonies.
Pigafetta in his account specifically wrote: “That Island was called Butuan
and Calagan. The name of the first king is Raia Colambu and the second
Raia Siaui…It is twenty-five leagues from Acquada, and is called Masaua.”
Also the differences with respect to the recorded latitudinal locations of

Masawa and Limasawa as reported by the different chroniclers of that time
favor the former more than the latter. It can be argued that the accuracy of
these estimations, given the facilities of that time, may not be that precise.
Besides, there can also be strong motives for making intentionally wrong
latitudinal locations to mislead enemies and competitors.
Another argument forwarded is that at that time Masawa in Butuan had

some primacy over Limasawa since Masawa had a safe and rich harbor
while Limasawa did not have one at that time.
But as time and events passed, the name Masawa became equated with
Limasawa. How this came about is an interesting piece of tortuous historical
study that certainly would require deep and comprehensive investigation
and analysis. Let us hope that our historians can come up with a credible
consensus as to which is which with respect to this issue.
Not to be neglected, of course, is the role of politics and public opinion in

pursuing the historical truth of this matter. Establishing the historical truth
is never an easy affair, since a lot of interpretation and subjective reading of
recorded facts and events can vary widely.
Just the same it is a worthwhile effort to sort out all these varying and
conflicting claims so that we can celebrate the 500 years of Christianity in
our country come 2021 more meaningfully. May the truth about this issue
come out finally!
VIEWS No. 2
Butuan or Limasawa?
By: Jane
(mjag.bo.blogspot.com/2012/01/butuan-or-limasawa.html)
Page 48
The first mass in the Philippines took place in Limasawa, not in Butuan.
It is not just because of the lack of evidence but because of the inconsistency of
facts as well. Take for an instance the inconsistency of Magellan’s route, the
date, and also the spellings of places and persons involved as presented by the
various historians supporting the Butuan tradition.
According to Father Francisco Colin S.J., a historian, Magellan arrived at
Butuan first, then to Limasawa and then to Cebu. However, Father Francisco
Combes S.J., a Jesuit writer, has another contention. To him, Magellan visited
Limasawa twice. Magellan’s route, based on his statement, was from Limasawa
to Butuan, then back to Limasawa and then to Cebu on April 7, 1521. Another
claim by Giovanni Franceso Gemeili Careri, a Calabrian, strengthened the idea
that the first mass did not took place in Butuan because of its presentation of
the wrong date. He cited Whit Sunday instead of Easter Sunday (Bernad, 1983).
These were just few of the inconsistent information presented in the Butuan
tradition which made it so absurd. I mean, how come one believe this tradition
when you are fed with different versions of stories from different mouths?
Because of the lack of supporting evidences, historians found out that
the Butuan tradition is invalid thereby coming up with a better tradition: the
Limasawa tradition. Although the Limasawa tradition came after the Butuan, it
was proven with evidences that the first mass in the Philippines took place in
Limasawa Island in Visayas on March 31, 1521. It was also affirmed that in the
same date, Magellan with his troops planted a cross on the same site (Cebu
Living: The good life in the Beautiful Island, 2006). The tradition, unlike the
other, is supported with a number of solid proofs which includes the Albo’s log
book, evidences of Pigafetta, and the evidence from Legazpi’s expedition. In
Albo’s account, he did not mention the first mass and where it took place.
However, he mentioned that Magellan planted the cross “upon a mountain-top
from which could be seen three islands to the west and southwest.” This best
fits the description of the geographical area of Limasawa which is not applicable
to Butuan because there was no island found in those directions. These are
very strong proofs since these people have been part of the expedition (Bernad,
1983). Albo and Pigafetta both took part in Magellan’s expedition. The former
was one of the pilots in Magellan’s flagship “Trinidad” and the latter was a
member of the expedition itself. Therefore, it is based on eyewitness account. In
Page 49
addition to that, an article by Rolando O. Borrinaga (2007) in the Inquirer
website says that there is an aerial photograph of the prominent hills in
Pigafetta’s map. It is where Magellan and his troops placed the cross known
today as Magellan’s cross. The cross, which symbolizes the baptism of Rajah
Humabon, his wife, and his men into Roman Catholic, served today as a tourist
spot in Magallanes, Cebu.

_________________________________________________________________________________
SELF CHECK
Direction: Based from the given sources, answer the following questions.
For Views no. 1

1. Who is Fr. Joesilo Amalla
2. Who is Antonio Pigafita
3. Where did the first mass took places according to the author?
For Views no. 1

1. Where did the mass took place according to the author?
2. Who is Father Francisco Combes S.J?
3. Who is Giovanni Franceso Gemeili Careri?
ENRICHMENT
Activity 1: Direction: Answer the following questions base
ACTIVITIES
on the given views provided, following the format below.
Page 50
Questions View no. 1 View no. 2

What type of sources did
the author employ?
What particular
evidences did the author
used?
What is the main point of

view of the author?
What is the purpose of

the author?
Activity 2:
Make your own short Editorial documents or data that shows your
opinion, understanding and views about the issue on the Site of the
First Mass.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Cebu Living: The good life in the Beautiful
Island. http://living.cebunetwork.com/article/magellan-cross-cebu/. May
4, 2006.
Miguel A. Bernad S.J. Butuan or Limasawa? The site the First Mass in the
Philippines:
A Reexamination of the Evidence. National Book Store. 1983.
Rolando O. Borrinaga. The right place for disputed first Mass in
Limasawa. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/regions/view/
Page 51
20070414-60362/The_right_place_for_disputed_first_Mass_in_Limasawa.
April 14, 2007
MODULE 3
“One past but many histories” – Controversies and conflicting views in Philippine
History
Lesson 3: The 1872 Cavite Mutiny
Identify the 1872 Cavite mutiny as one of the controversies and

conflicting view in the history
Able to modify the given resources applying the content and contextual
analysis through summarizing the data
Understand the given views by integrating the author’s given data.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Page 52
DISCUSSION
Last January 20, 1872, Cavity Mutiny was bump off, that create
controversies and conflicts in the Philippine History. When we say Mutiny
according to the Britannica dictionary; refers to any act of defiance or attack
upon military authority by two or more persons subject to such authority.
The term was occasionally used to describe non-military instances of
defiance or attack. However, Mutiny was regarded as a most serious offense.
Wide commanding officer, including the power to inflict the death penalty
without court – martial. But with the development of radio communications,
however, such stringent penalties have become less necessary and under
many current military codes, sentences for mutiny can be passed only by
court-martial.
The Mutiny was quickly crushed, but the Spanish regime under the
reactionary governor Rafael de Izquierdo magnified the incident and used it
as an excuse to clamp down on those Filipino who had been calling for
governmental reform. A number of Filipino intellectuals were seized and
accused of complicity with the mutineers. After a brief trial, three priests -
Jose Burgos, Jacinto Zamora and Mariano Gomez- were publicly executed.
The three subsequently became martyrs to the cause of Philippine
independence.
The 1872 Cavite Mutiny

By: Dr. Eusebio Koh
(https://filipinojournal.com/the-1872-cavite-mutiny/)
One hundred and forty years ago, on January 20, 1872, about 200 Filipino
military personnel of Fort San Felipe Arsenal in Cavite, Philippines, staged a
mutiny which in a way led to the Philippine Revolution in 1896. The 1872
Cavite Mutiny was precipitated by the removal of long-standing personal
benefits to the workers such as tax (tribute) and forced labor exemptions on
order from the Governor General Rafael de Izquierdo.
Izquierdo replaced Governor General Carlos Maria de la Torre some months

before in 1871 and immediately rescinded Torre’s liberal measures and
imposed his iron-fist rule. He was opposed to any hint of reformist or
nationalistic movements in the Philippines. He was in office for less than
two years, but he will be remembered for his cruelty to the Filipinos and the
barbaric execution of the three martyr-priests blamed for the mutiny:
Fathers Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, later collectively
called “Gomburza.”
Page 53
The mutineers were led by Sgt. Fernando La Madrid; they seized the Fort
and killed the Spanish officers. Fearing a general uprising, the Spanish
government in Manila sent a regiment under General Felipe Ginoves to
recover the Fort. The besieged mutiny was quelled, and many mutineers
including Sgt. La Madrid were killed. Later, others were sentenced to death
or hard labor.
Izquierdo used the mutiny to implicate Gomburza and other notable

Filipinos known for their liberal leanings. Prominent Filipinos such as
priests, professionals, and businessmen were arrested on flimsy and
trumped-up charges and sentenced to prison, death, or exile. These include
Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Jose Basa, and Antonio M. Regidor. It was said
that the Cavite mutineers got their cue from Manila when they saw and
heard fireworks across the Manila Bay which was really a celebration of the
feast of the Lady of Loreto in Sampaloc.
When the Archbishop of Manila, Rev. Meliton Martinez, refused to cooperate

and defrock the priests, the Spanish court-martial on February 15 went
ahead and maliciously found Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora guilty of
treason for instigating the Cavite mutiny. Two days later, the three priests
were put to death by garrotte in Bagumbayan, now known as Luneta.
(Garrote was a barbaric Spanish method of execution in which an iron collar
was tightened around the prisoner’s neck until death occurred.)
Father Burgos was of Spanish descent, born in the Philippines. He was a

parish priest of the Manila Cathedral and had been known to be close to the
liberal Governor General de la Torre. He was 35 years old at the time and
was active and outspoken in advocating the Filipinization of the clergy. He
was quoted as saying, “Why shall a young man strive to rise in the
profession of law or theology when he can vision no future for himself but
obscurity?”
Father Zamora, 37, was also Spanish, born in the Philippines. He was the
parish priest of Marikina and was known to be unfriendly to and would not
countenance any arrogance or authoritative behavior from Spaniards
coming from Spain. He once snubbed a Spanish governor who came to visit
Marikina.
Father Gomez was an old man in his mid-’70, Chinese-Filipino, born in

Cavite. He held the most senior position of the three as Archbishop’s Vicar
in Cavite. He was truly nationalistic and accepted the death penalty calmly
as though it were his penance for being pro-Filipinos.
Page 54
The three priests were stripped of their albs, and with chained hands and
feet were brought to their cells after their sentence. They received numerous
visits from folks coming from Cavite, Bulacan, and elsewhere. Forty
thousand Filipinos came to Luneta to witness and quietly condemn the
execution, and Gomburza became a rallying catchword for the down-trodden
Filipinos seeking justice and freedom from Spain.
In the dedication page of his second book, El Filibusterismo, published in

1891, Dr. Jose Rizal wrote, “I dedicate my work to you as victims of the evil
which I undertake to combat…”
It is well to remember that the seeds of nationalism that was sown in Cavite
blossomed to the Philippine Revolution and later to the Declaration of
Independence by Emilio Aguinaldo which took place also in Cavite. As for
me, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny bolstered the stereotypical belief that Caviteños
were the most courageous of my fellow Filipinos.
_________________________________________________________________________________
SELF CHECK
Direction: Based from the given sources, answer the following questions.
1. What is 1872 Cavity Mutiny?
2. Who is Izquierdo?
3. What is the meaning of Garotte?
4. Identify the profile of the three priest, known to be the GOMBURZA.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
ENRICHMENT
ACTIVITIES Activity 1: Direction: Answer the following questions base
on the given views provided, following the format below.
Page 55
Questions
What type of sources
did the author employ?
What particular
evidences did the
author used?
What is the main point

of view of the author?
What is the purpose of

the author?
Activity 2:
Summary the data of the given resources regarding The 1872 Cavite
Mutiny, through identifying content and context analysis.
________________________________________________________________________________
Emma Helen Blair, James Alexander Robertson: The Philippine Islands 1493-

1898. Duka 2010, p. 106
Ocampo, Ambeth R. "Not just Gomburza". opinion.inquirer.net. Retrieved 2019-
11-13.
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/1872_Cavite_mutiny
"Gomburza and the Propaganda Movement". www.philippine-history.org.
Retrieved 2019-11-13.
Schumacher, John (March 2011). "The Cavite Mutiny Toward a Definitive
History". Philippine Studies. 59: 58 – via JSTOR.
Field, Ron. Spanish–American War 1898. pp. 98–99. ISBN 1-85753-272-4.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Cavite-Mutiny
Page 56
https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
http://malacanang.gov.ph/7695-the-martyrdom-of-the-gomburza/
MODULE 3
Lesson 4: THE RIZAL RETRACTION
Determine various people who are involved in Rizal Retraction

Criticize the data on Rizal Retractions applying internal and external
criticism.
Evaluate the given data through identifying the author’s main point of
view and purpose.
___________________________________________________________________________________
DISCUSSION
Page 57
There are many historian people arguing on the Jose Rizal’s retraction
and other cases of the hero controversies. One of these is the statement
about the Catholic Church. As quoted in his statement he said that “I
retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications, and
conduct has been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic
Church.” Some historian argued that the document was forged and others
are asserting that its authentic that only Rizal wrote and signed the
retraction paper. Because of the conflicts and controversy about Rizal
among the historians and expert, Teodoro Kalaw, a professional on the
hero’s writing and other hand writing experts, explain that Rizal’s retraction
was originally written by himself, and it has been judged by them through
their deep study. However, many prominent historian analyst, authors and
researchers uphold the Hero’s authenticity.
THE RIZAL RETRACTION AND OTHER CASES

by Peter Jaynul V. Uckung
(https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/)
The flow of history is as inexorable as the tidal flow of an angry ocean.
But ever so often in our collective recollection, it is remembered that
sometimes the skilful use of forgery can redirect the flow of history itself.
In the Philippines today, forgery is usually resorted to redirect the flow
of money from the rightful beneficiary to the unworthy pockets of invisible
people.
That money is usually the target of forgery is known and practiced all
over the world, but forgery in the hands of the wily, has power to effect a
redirection of events and undoing of history. It has the power to obscure or
believe an occurrence or create an event that did not actually transpire. It
also has the power to enslave and destroy.
In October 1600, the Muslim Ottoman Army and a Christian army, led
by Austrians, with Hungarian, French, Maltese and German troops were
battling it out for territory called Kanizsa. The Ottoman army was
outgunned and outmanned, but the Ottoman commander, Tiryaki Hasan
Pasha was a clever man. He knew that the Hungarians were not too happy
to be allied with the Austrians. So he sent fake letters, designed them to be
captured by the Austrians. The letters contained Hungarian alliance with
Ottoman forces. The Austrian upon reading the fake letters signed by a
reliable source (obviously forged) decided to kill all Hungarian soldiers.
Page 58
The Hungarians revolted and the Christian army disintegrated from

within. Thus, did the Ottomans won the battle, by issuing forged
communication. During World War II, the British, to protect the secrecy of
the Allied plan to invade Sicily in 1943, launched operation Mincemeat. This
was a deception campaign to mislead German Intelligence about the real
target of the start of the Allied Invasion of Europe.
A series of seemingly genuine secret documents, with forged signatures,

were attached to a British corpse dressed in military uniforms. It was left to
float somewhere in a beach in Spain, where plenty of German agents were
sure to get hold of it.
The body with the fake documents was found eventually and its documents
seen by German agents. The documents identified Sardinia and Corsica as
the targets of the Allied invasion. The Germans believed it, and was caught
with their pants down when allied forces hit the beaches of the real target,
which was Sicily. This kind of deception was also used by the British
against the Germans in North Africa. They placed a map of British
minefields, then attached them to a corpse. The minefields were non-
existent but the Germans saw the map and considered it true. Thus, they
rerouted their tanks to areas with soft sand where they bogged down.
In 1944, a Japanese sea plane crashed near Cebu. According to

Japanese military officials who were captured, and later released, they were
accompanying Gen. Koga, Commander in Chief of the Japanese Combined
Fleet. Gen. Koga died in the crash. A little later, Filipino fisherman recovered
some Japanese documents. They delivered the documents to US
Intelligence. The documents revealed that Leyte was lightly defended. As a
result, the Americans shifted their invasion target to Leyte instead of
Cotabato Bay in Mindanao.
On October 17, 1944 the invasion of Leyte went underway. Leyte was
lightly defended as the Koga papers have indicated. But it was during the
invasion of Leyte when the Japanese navy launched their last offensive
strike against the US fleet, with the objective of obliterating it once and for
all. They nearly succeeded. After this near-tragic event, the Koga papers
were considered by some military strategists as spurious and could have
been manufactured by the Japanese to mislead the American navy into
thinking that Leyte was a defenseless island. That Leyte was a trap. And the
Page 59
Americans nearly fell into it.
In recent memory, there was an incident in which the forging of

documents served to negate the existence of an independent Philippines.
In 1901, the Americans managed to capture a Filipino messenger, Cecilio

Segismundo who carried with him documents from Aguinaldo. The
American then faked some documents complete with forged signature,
telling Aguinaldo that some Filipino officers were sending him guerrillas with
American prisoners. With the help of a Spanish traitor, Lazaro Segovia, the
Americans assembled a company of pro-American Filipino soldiers, the
Macabebe scouts. These were the soldiers who penetrated the camp of
Aguinaldo, disguised as soldiers of the Philippine Republic. They managed
to capture Aguinaldo. With the president captured, his generals began to
surrender, and the Republic began to fall.
The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated
as to its authenticity. It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal
moments before his death. There were many witnesses, most of them
Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935. It
was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in
Manila. But the original document was never shown to the public, only
reproductions of it.
However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907,
the retraction of Rizal was copied verbatim and published in Spain, and
reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found the original document, also
copied it verbatim. In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of
the text. Add to this the date of the signing was very clear in the original
Spanish document which Rizal supposedly signed. The date was “December
29, 1890.” Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears
the date “December 29, 189C”. The number “0” was evidently altered to
make it look like a letter C. Then still later, another supposedly original
version came up. It has the date “December 29, 1896”. This time, the “0”
became a “6”. So which is which?
Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document,
reported that the forger of Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the man who
also forged the signature of Urbano Lacuna, which was used to capture
Page 60
Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s

signature forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were approached by Spanish
friars during the final day of the Filipino-American war to forge Rizal’s
signature. This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale
from Roman Roque himself, them being neighbors.
To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the forest of
the night. Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal
was invented by the friars to deflect the heroism of Rizal which was centered
on the friar abuses.
Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who copied verbatim Rizal’s retraction, also
figured prominently during the revolution. It was him, Andres Bonifacio
reported, who had intimated to Aguinaldo the cessation of agitation in
exchange of pardon.
There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of
Josephine Bracken, written on February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged
badly. The document supposedly written by Josephine herself supported the
fact that they were married under the Catholic rites. But upon closer look,
there is a glaring difference between the penmanship of the document, and
other letters written by Josephine to Rizal.
Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though Rizal is a
hero, whether he retracted or not, we must investigate if he really did a
turn-around. If he did not, and the documents were forgeries, then
somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
SELF CHECK
Direction: Based from the given data, enumerate people who are
considered to be involved in Rizal’s Retractions.
Page 61
ENRICHMENT
ACTIVITIES Activity 1: Direction: Answer the following questions
base on the given views provided, following the
format below.
Questions
What is the main
point of view of the
author?
What is the
purpose of the
author?
Activity 2: After reading the given article, criticize the given sources,
following the format below.
The Rizal’s Retraction

Internal Criticism External Criticism
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Page 62
F. Zaide, Gregorio (1957). José Rizal: life, works, and writings. Villanueva. p. 5.
José Rizal; José Rizal National Centennial Commission (1961). El filibusterismo (sa
Kastila). Linkgua digital. pp. 9. ISBN 978-84-9953-093-2.
"Selection and Proclamation of National Heroes and Laws Honoring Filipino Historical
Figures" (PDF). Reference and Research Bureau Legislative Research Service, House of
Congress. Nakuha noong 8 Setyembre 2009.
Russell, Charles Edward; Rodriguez, Eulogio Balan (1923). The hero of the Filipinos:
the story of José Rizal, poet, patriot and martyr. The Century co. p. 308.
https://books.google.com.ph/books/about/The_Great_Debate.html?
id=h_QQAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.com.ph/books/about/Winds_of_Controversy.html?
id=Um5DNQAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
https://books.google.com.ph/books/about/
The_Fallacy_of_the_Forger_of_the_Rizal_R.html?id=xMg4AQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y
Zaide, Gregorio (1957). Rizal's Life, Works and Writings. Manila, Philippines:
Villanueva Book Store. pp. 43–44.
Rizal's rags-to-riches ancestor from South China. Nakuha 18 Pebrero 2007. Craig
1914, pg. 31.
Coates, Austin. "Leonor Rivera", Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr, Oxford
University Press (Hong Kong), pages 52–54, 60, 84, 124, 134–136, 143, 169, 185–188,
and 258.
MODULE 3
Lesson 5: The Cry of Pugad Lawin and the Birth of the Revolution
Understand the controversies of the Cry of Pugad Lawin and the birth
of Revolution
Synthesize the given data through gathering important details using
identifying the historical text.
_________________________________________________________________________________
DISCUSSION
The Cry of Pugad Lawin or Balintawak was the beginning of the

Philippine Revolution. In August 1896 Filipino people similarly declared
their rebellion and refuse the Spanish Colonial Government. The raging
controversy is taken literally the cry as shouting of nationalistic slogans in
Page 63
mass assemblies then there were scored of such cries. The event emphasize
the Andres Bonifacio’s tearing of the cedula or known as tax receipt before
the crowd of Katipuneros who then broke out in cheers.
The conflicts and controversy among historians continues to rise that
the Cry of Pugad lawin that occurred last August 1986 cannot be considered
and accepted as historically accurate. Because according to them it lacks
positive documentation and supporting evidence from the witness. Even the
testimony of the eyewitness Mr. Pio Valenzuela is not enough to
authenticate and verify the event’s controversy.
The Cry of Pugad Lawin and the Birth of the Revolution

Jul 17, 2018 Praise Ojo, Guest Author
(https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/pugad-lawin-birth-revolution.html)
The Philippine Revolution against over three centuries of Spanish

domination began with Andrés Bonifacio, leader of the Katipunan, a
liberalist movement that sought independence for the Philippines from
Spanish colonial rule.
The Katipunan was an offshoot from José Rizal’s La Liga Filipina, a

movement that sought to bring about political reform in the colonial
government of the Spanish. Rizal had been deported just after his
organization was formed with their first meeting.
A photo engraving of Andrés Bonifacio
(1863-1897), founder of the Katipunan,
Philippine revolutionary society from
February 8, 1897 issue of La
Ilustración Española y Americana, a
Spanish-American weekly publication
After a few years had passed with
virtually no changes in the constitution,
Bonifacio and others lost all hope of
any peaceful reform being brought
about by La Liga Filipina. Abandoning the organization altogether, they
concentrated their efforts into the Katipunan to bring about a revolution
with the use of violence and arms. The organization consisted of both male
and female supporters, including Bonifacio’s wife, who led the female
faction.
Bonifacio recognized the strategic importance of the city of Manila and

resolved to take control of it, convinced that once he did the residents, being
fed up with Spanish rule, would support his cause. However, this plan was
foiled before it got off the ground as a result of a conflict between two
Katipuneros, one of whom spilled the beans about the plot to the Spanish
friars.
Page 64
The traitor was one Mariano Gil who, along with other friars, had previously
been trying to get the Spanish Governor to take action regarding his
suspicions of a revolution.
A late 19th century photograph of armed Filipino revolutionaries, known as

the Katipuneros.1898
Without concrete proof, the Governor
merely saw their suggestions as
accusations and could do nothing about
it. The parish priest of Tondo reported
his findings to the owner of the Diary de
Manila, the printing press where the
two Katipuneros worked, and on
searching the place they found the
paraphernalia used in printing
Katipunan documents and other items
proving the existence of the Katipunan, it
was August 19, 1896.
A series of arrests of Katipuneros in

Manila followed and several Filipinos
were jailed or imprisoned. Amongst them
were some wealthy and prominent
Filipinos, some of whom were innocent.
Rizal’s execution in what was then Bagumbayan.1896

Jose Rizal was tried and executed later at the old Bagumbayan field on
December 30. With the hunt for Katipunan members still ongoing, Manila
had become a dangerous place for them. As many as five hundred arrests
had been made and many fled the city for fear of been captured, tortured or
killed.
José Rizal
Bonifacio was not amongst those captured, however. He and many others
had escaped to Pugadlawin, and in a meeting at the house of Juan Ramos
on 23 August 1896, Bonifacio urged his followers to tear into pieces their
Cédulas (residence certificates) as a sign of revolt against the Spanish
government.
The men, highly motivated by the killings

and arrest of their members in Manila,
tore up the documents and let out the cry
“Long live the Philippines,” which is
known as the Cry of Pugadlawin in
Philippine history.
Page 65
Bonifacio Monument Photo by Mello47 CC BY SA 3.0

It was decided that all their supporters in the surrounding towns be alerted
of the impending strike on Manila which would take place on 29 August. To
this effect, Bonifacio released a
manifesto on the 28th:
“This manifesto is for all of you. It

is absolutely necessary for us to
stop at the earliest possible time
the nameless oppressions being
perpetrated on the sons of the
people who are now suffering the
brutal punishment and tortures in jails, and because of this please let all
the brethren know that on Saturday, the revolution shall commence
according to our agreement.
Philippine Revolution: Flag of the Katipunan

featuring the society’s acronym KKK in white
in a line in the middle of a field of red.
For this purpose, it is necessary for all towns
to rise simultaneously and attack Manila at
the same time. Anybody who obstructs this
sacred ideal of the people will be considered a
traitor and an enemy, except if he is ill or is not physically fit, in which case
he shall be tried according to the regulation we have put in force.”
The first battle of the Philippine Revolution took place on 30 August 1896 at
San Juan del Monte with a thousand men behind Andrés Bonifacio. On the
eve of the 29th, they attacked civil guards present at San Felipe Neri, a city
located east of Manila, who on seeing the mob surrendered their weapons
and were taken captive.
El Depósito, taken in 1900.
The Katipuneros had little in the way of

ammunition; generally equipped with
bolo knives, they also had a few guns
with them. By the early hours of the
morning of the next day, Bonafacio’s
army had been joined with two fresh
groups of Katipuneros, about four
hundred in number.
After gathering the weapons obtained

from two successful encounters with civil guards, Bonifacio and his men
began their attack on El Polvorin, a Spanish depot located in San Juan del
Page 66
Monte where they were met by Spanish Infantry and gunmen armed with
German Mauser rifles.
However well-armed this Spanish

contingent was, they suffered the
loss of two of their soldiers, one of
whom was the commander in
charge. This and the intimidating
number of Katipuneros behind
Bonifacio, who it seemed was
always able to evade capture,
caused them to retreat to the Manila
Water Works Deposit office that was
situated nearby while they awaited reinforcements.
The Kaptipuneros advanced towards the building in hopes of eliminating

what was left of the Spanish resistance and claiming victory over San Juan
Del Monte. It wasn’t long before shots of the 73 rd Jolo regiment of Spanish
cavalry, led by General Bernado Echaluce y Jauregui, struck the bodies of
the Filipino comrades, leaving over a hundred dead and two hundred
captured.
Bonifacio and his army was no match for the Remington Rolling Block Rifle
wielders that swarmed the terrain. The bodies of Kaptipuneros littered the
streets, some in gutters and others on the road.
Emilio Aguinaldo as a Field marshal during the battle.1899

Bonifacio once again evaded capture and retreated with other survivors to
the Pasig River. Even though defeated, his actions triggered a series of
rebellious uprisings against Spanish rule around the country.
The seeds of a revolution that had been sown deep into the hearts of the
Filipinos brought about new leadership under the person of Emilio
Aguinaldo in the Cavite region, who led more successful campaigns against
the Spanish.
However untrained, the revolutionaries showed real bravery and courage in

their fight for freedom. Every last Sunday of the month of August is
celebrated every year in the Philippines to mark the Cry of Pugadlawin and
the birth of the Philippine Revolution.
___________________________________________________________________________________
SELF CHECK
Page 67
Direction: Based from the given data, read the given statement,write FACT
if the statement is correct and BLUFF if the statement is incorrect.
___________1. Bonifacio was amongst those captured, however. He and many

others had escaped to Pugadlawin, and in a meeting at the
house of Juan Ramos.
___________2. Jose Rizal was tried and executed later at the old Bagumbayan
field on December 30.
___________3. The Katipunan was an offshoot from José Rizal’s La Liga

Filipina, a movement that sought to bring about political
reform in the colonial government of the Spanish.
__________4. The bodies of Kaptipuneros littered the streets, some in gutters

and others on the road.
__________5. Philippine Revolution against over three centuries of Spanish

domination began with Emilio Aguinaldo, leader of the
Katipunan.
__________6. Bonifacio once again evaded capture and retreated with other
survivors to the balintawak.
__________7. “Long live the Philippines,” which is known as the Cry of

Pugadlawin in Philippine history.
__________8. The first battle of the Philippine Revolution took place on 30

August 1896 at San Juan del Monte with a thousand
men behind Andrés Bonifacio.
__________9. The seeds of a revolution that had been sown deep into the
hearts of the Filipinos with the leadership of Andres
Bonifacio
__________10. Every last Sunday of the month of August is celebrated every

year in thePhilippines to mark the Cry of Pugadlawin and
the birth of the Philippine Revolution.
______________________________________________________________________________
ENRICHMENT
ACTIVITIES
Activity 1: From the given sources about historical

controversies, entitled: The Cry of Pugad Lawin and the Birth
of the Revolution, synthesize the data through identifying as
many as you can the Page 68
important details, main point of view and
facts.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Guerrero, Milagros; Encarnacion, Emmanuel; Villegas, Ramon (1996),

"Balintawak: the Cry for a Nationwide Revolution", Sulyap Kultura, National
Commission for Culture and the Arts, 1 (2): 13–22.
Zaide, Gregorio (1990). "Cry of balintawak". Documentary sources of
Philippine history. 8: 307–309.
Duka, Cecilio D. (2008). Struggle for Freedom: A Textbook on Philippine
History. Rex Book Store, Inc. pp. 141–142. ISBN 978-971-23-5045-0.
http://www.philippine-history.org/cry-of-pugadlawin.htm
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/pugad-lawin-birth-
revolution.html
https://sites.google.com/site/katipunandocumentsandstudies/studies/
notes-on-the-cry-of-august-1896
Zaide, Gregorio (1990). "Cry of Pugad Lawin". Documentary sources of
Philippine History. 8: 301–302.
Page 69

Module-3 HISTORY

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Module-3 HISTORY

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Module-3 HISTORY

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Readings in the Philippine History

Identify the different controversies and conflicting views in the Philippine

History is about interpreting the past; it is a “spin” on the historical

In your own research and information about historical events, what

10 Mind-Blowing Controversies of Philippine History

10. We Already Had An Excellent Public School System Before The

9. Jose Rizal Disliked The Chinese.

Oil painting portrait of Jose Rizal by Filipino painter Félix Resurrección

8. Jose Burgos Was Framed For The Cavite Mutiny.

7. The Americans Used Pigs’ Blood And Body Parts On Moro

6. The Jabidah Massacre Never Happened.

5. A Filipino Helped Found Los Angeles.

4. Gregorio del Pilar Was Aguinaldo’s Assassin.

3. Bonifacio ‘Acted Like A King’ In Cavite.

1. An Ancient Family Owns The Entire Philippines.

The clan counts Lapu-lapu, Soliman, Lakandula, and other prominent

Direction: Among with the given controversies of the Philippine history,

Philippine Hisotry Main Ideas

Jose Burgos Was Framed

An Ancient Family Owns

SUGGESTD READINGS AND REFERENCES:

For top 1: https://filipiknow.net/facts-about-ferdinand-marcos/

Lesson 2: SITE OF THE FIRST MASS

Determine the controversies and conflicting views in the Philippine

In the Philippine History, there are controversial and unresolved issue

province, that headed by Magellan during his expeditions. There are to

Where did the first Mass in the Philippines take place?

He handed me his 200-page manuscript of his work for me to review and

The arguments for Masawa in Butuan and not Limasawa in Samar-Leyte as

Pigafetta, the official chronicler of Magellan’s voyage; Gines de Mafra, one of

Also the differences with respect to the recorded latitudinal locations of

Another argument forwarded is that at that time Masawa in Butuan had

Not to be neglected, of course, is the role of politics and public opinion in

various historians supporting the Butuan tradition.

According to Father Francisco Colin S.J., a historian, Magellan arrived at

claim by Giovanni Franceso Gemeili Careri, a Calabrian, strengthened the idea

Because of the lack of supporting evidences, historians found out that

book, evidences of Pigafetta, and the evidence from Legazpi’s expedition. In

However, he mentioned that Magellan planted the cross “upon a mountain-top

member of the expedition itself. Therefore, it is based on eyewitness account. In

addition to that, an article by Rolando O. Borrinaga (2007) in the Inquirer

website says that there is an aerial photograph of the prominent hills in

spot in Magallanes, Cebu.

For Views no. 1

2. Who is Antonio Pigafita

For Views no. 1

2. Who is Father Francisco Combes S.J?

3. Who is Giovanni Franceso Gemeili Careri?

Questions View no. 1 View no. 2

What is the main point of

What is the purpose of

SUGGESTD READINGS AND REFERENCES:

Cebu Living: The good life in the Beautiful

A Reexamination of the Evidence. National Book Store. 1983.

Rolando O. Borrinaga. The right place for disputed first Mass in

April 14, 2007

Identify the 1872 Cavite mutiny as one of the controversies and

The 1872 Cavite Mutiny

Izquierdo replaced Governor General Carlos Maria de la Torre some months

Izquierdo used the mutiny to implicate Gomburza and other notable