Neil Arvin E.

Ibarra
BSEE 1-2

Pre-Historic controversies

First sight of mass

FOUR hundred seventy-eight years and the celebration begins.

Now, Southern Leyteños and the rest of the Filipino people could heave a sigh of relief over the
controversy surrounding the site of the First Mass which ushered in the Christianization of the
Philippines. The issue is resolved.

The first ever Christian Mass in the country on March 31, 1521 was celebrated in the island of
Limasawa, south of Leyte and not in Butuan City, so declared the National Historical Institute.

The commission concluded that the First Mass was held in Limasawa after it found that:

 The most complete and reliable account of the Magellan expedition into Philippine
shores in 1521 is that of Antonio Pigafetta which is deemed as the only credible primary
source of reports on the celebration of the first Christian Mass on Philippine soil.
 James Robertson's English translation of the original Italian manuscript of Pigaffeta's
account is most reliable for being ''faithful'' to the original text as duly certified by the
University of the Philippines' Department of European Language.
 Pigafetta's Mazaua, the site of the first Christian Mass held on Philippine soil, is an island
lying off the southwestern tip of Leyte while Masao in Butuan is not an island but a
barangay of Butuan City located in a delta of the Agusan River along the coast of
Northern Mindanao. The position of Mazaua, as plotted by Pigafetta, matched that of
Limasawa.
 The measurement of distances between Homonhon and Limasawa between Limasawa
and Cebu, as computed by the pro-Limasawa group, matches or approximates the
delineations made by Pigafetta of the distances between Homonhon and Mazaua and
between Mazaua and Cebu.
 Magellan's fleet took a route from Homonhon to Mazaua and from Mazaua to Cebu that
did not at any time touch Butuan or any other part of Mindanao. The docking facilities
at Limasawa did not pose any problem for Magellan's fleet which anchored near or at
some safe distance from the island of the eastern shore.

Cavite Mutiny (1872)

The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for all the Filipinos. In this particular
day, the entire Filipino nation as well as Filipino communities all over the world gathers to celebrate the
Philippines’ Independence Day. 1898 came to be a very significant year for all of us— it is as equally
important as 1896—the year when the Philippine Revolution broke out owing to the Filipinos’ desire to
be free from the abuses of the Spanish colonial regime. But we should be reminded that another year is
as historic as the two—1872.
 Two major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the other was the
martyrdom of the three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos and
Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA). However, not all of us knew that there were different accounts in
reference to the said event. All Filipinos must know the different sides of the story—since this event led
to another tragic yet meaningful part of our history—the execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a
major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos.

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it as an
attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen.
Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate the native clergy,
which was then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts complimented and corroborated
with one other, only that the general’s report was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo
scored out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment
of tributes and exemption from force labor were the main reasons of the “revolution” as how they
called it, however, other causes were enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which
overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal
and republican books and pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of
the native clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels
and enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling”
malicious propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels”
wanted to overthrow the Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and
Zamora. The general even added that the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them
charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with handsome
promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report
lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing.

The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought of it as a big
conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers, residents of Manila and
Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to
liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be followed by the massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-
concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of
Intramuros.

According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the
feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated the occasion with the
usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and
just like what was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an
attack targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.

When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement of the
Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the expected
reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid were
killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and were sentenced to die by
strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other
abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the practice of law, arrested and were
sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the
native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the
Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill fear among
the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the GOMBURZA were executed. This
event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that shaped Filipino nationalism.

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident

Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the Filipino
version of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident was a mere mutiny by the
native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be dissatisfied with the
abolition of their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo’s cold-blooded policies such as the
abolition of privileges of the workers and native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the
founding of school of arts and trades for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the
organization of a political club.

On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and residents of
Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the commanding officer and Spanish
officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support from the bulk of the army unfortunately, that
didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo
immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was
officially declared subdued.

Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful lever by
magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also included residents of
Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central Government in Madrid announced its
intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and the
direction and management of educational institutions. This turnout of events was believed by Tavera,
prompted the friars to do something drastic in their dire sedire to maintain power in the Philippines.

Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain welcomed an
educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of sectarian schools run by the
friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree proposed to improve the standard of
education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such schools to be filled by competitive
examinations. This improvement was warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s
zest for secularization.

The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took advantage
of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy organized throughout
the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera sadly confirmed that the
Madrid government came to believe that the scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the
real facts or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by Izquierdo and the friars.
 Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment while
members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by garrote. This
episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution
of 1896. The French writer Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented Tavera’s account by confirming
that the event happened due to discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The
Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he actually
witnessed.

Unraveling the Truth

Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that remained to be
unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal as well as the members of
the native army after their privileges were drawn back by Gen. Izquierdo; Second, Gen. Izquierdo
introduced rigid and strict policies that made the Filipinos move and turn away from Spanish
government out of disgust; Third, the Central Government failed to conduct an investigation on what
truly transpired but relied on reports of Izquierdo and the friars and the opinion of the public; Fourth,
the happy days of the friars were already numbered in 1872 when the Central Government in Spain
decided to deprive them of the power to intervene in government affairs as well as in the direction and
management of schools prompting them to commit frantic moves to extend their stay and power; Fifth,
the Filipino clergy members actively participated in the secularization movement in order to allow
Filipino priests to take hold of the parishes in the country making them prey to the rage of the friars;
Sixth, Filipinos during the time were active participants, and responded to what they deemed as
injustices; and Lastly, the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of the Spanish
government, for the action severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired Filipino patriots
to call for reforms and eventually independence. There may be different versions of the event, but one
thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898.

The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and unnamed shed
their bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898 may be a glorious event for us,
but we should not forget that before we came across to victory, our forefathers suffered enough. As
weenjoy our freeedom, may we be more historically aware of our past to have a better future ahead of
us. And just like what Elias said in Noli me Tangere, may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”

Cry of Balintwak / Pugad Lawin

Nineteenth-century journalists used the phrase “el grito de rebelion” or “the Cry of Rebellion” to
describe the momentous events sweeping the Spanish colonies; in Mexico it was the “Cry of Dolores”
(16 September 1810), Brazil the “City of Ypiraga” (7 September 1822), and in Cuba the “Cry of Matanza”
(24 February 1895). In August 1896, northeast of Manila, Filipinos similarly declared their rebellion
against the Spanish colonial government. It was Manuel Sastron, the Spanish historian, who
institutionalized the phrased for the Philippines in his 1897 book, La Insurreccion en Filipinas. All these
“Cries” were milestones in the several colonial-to-nationalist histories of the world.

Raging controversy
If the expression is taken literally –the Cry as the shouting of nationalistic slogans in mass assemblies –
then there were scores of such Cries. Some writers refer to a Cry of Montalban on April 1895, in the
Pamitinan Caves where a group of Katipunan members wrote on the cave walls, “Viva la indepencia
Filipina!” long before the Katipunan decided to launch a nationwide revolution.

The historian Teodoro Agoncillo chose to emphasize Bonifacio’s tearing of the cedula (tax receipt)
before a crowd of Katipuneros who then broke out in cheers. However, Guardia Civil Manuel Sityar
never mentioned in his memoirs (1896-1898) the tearing or inspection of the cedula, but did note the
pacto de sangre (blood pact) mark on every single Filipino he met in August 1896 on his reconnaissance
missions around Balintawak.

Some writers consider the first military engagement with the enemy as the defining moment of the Cry.
To commemorate this martial event upon his return from exile in Hong Kong, Emilio Aguinaldo
commissioned a “Himno de Balintawak” to herald renewed fighting after the failed peace of the pact of
Biyak na Bato.

On 3 September 1911, a monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now the intersection
of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive –North Doversion Road. From that time on
until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was officially celebrated every 26 August.

It is not clear why the 1911 monument was erected there. It could not have been to mark the site of
Apolonio Samson’s house in barrio Kangkong; Katipuneros marked that site on Kaingin Road, between
Balintawak and San Francisco del Monte Avenue.

Neither could the 1911 monument have been erected to mark the site of the first armed encounter
which, incidentally, the Katipuneros fought and won. A contemporary map of 1896 shows that the
August battle between the Katipunan rebels and the Spanish forces led by Lt. Ros of the Civil Guards
took place at sitio Banlat, North of Pasong Tamo Road far from Balintawak. The site has its own marker.

It is quite clear that first, eyewitnesses cited Balintawak as the better-known reference point for a larger
area. Second, while Katipunan may have been massing in Kangkong, the revolution was formally
launched elsewhere. Moreover, eyewitnesses and therefore historians, disagreed on the site and date of
the Cry.

But the issue did not rest there. In 1970, the historian Pedro A. Gagelonia pointed out:

The controversy among historians continues to the present day. The “Cry of Pugad Lawin” (August 23,
1896) cannot be accepted as historically accurate. It lacks positive documentation and supporting
evidence from the witness. The testimony of only one eyewitness (Dr. Pio Valenzuela) is not enough to
authenticate and verify a controversial issue in history. Historians and their living participants, not
politicians and their sycophants, should settle this controversy.

Rizal’s retraction

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

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

According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended the hero
during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document prepared by the superior of the
Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi.

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

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

Popularly known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila is a body of
documents on the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential reports, transcripts, clippings, and
photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers.

Despite this, Torres said his perception of the Filipino martyr would not change even if the controversies
were true.

“Even though it would be easy to say he retracted all that he wrote about the Church, it still did not
change the fact that his writings began the wheels of change in Philippine colonial society during the
Spanish period—a change that led to our independence,” Torres said. “The retraction is just one aspect
of the life, works, and writings of Rizal.”

But then, Torres noted that the controversy is irrelevant today.

“The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means nothing,” he said.

‘Unadorned fact’

Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra considered the controversy as “a plain unadorned fact of history, having
all the marks and indications of historical certainty and reality” in his book The Historicity of Rizal’s
Retraction.

Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History , also believes that Rizal retracted and said
the National Hero just renounced from the Free Masonry and not from his famous nationalistic works.
“He (Rizal) retracted. He died as a Catholic, and a proof that he died as a Catholic was he was buried
inside the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said De Viana, who compared the martyr with Apolinario
Mabini, a revolutionary and free mason who was buried in a Chinese cemetery.

De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter had been forged because witnesses were
present while Rizal was signing it.

He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves on to the question on Rizal’s character as some
argue that the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature beliefs and personality.

“Anti-retractionists ask, ‘What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?’ They say he was fickle-minded. Well, that may
be true, but that is human character. Rizal was not a perfect person,” De Viana said.

He also mentioned that just like any person, Rizal was prone to flip-flop. He believes that Rizal retracted
because the national hero wanted to be at peace when he dies.

But would Rizal’s works deem irrelevant and futile because of his retraction?

De Viana answered, “Rizal awakened our knowledge of nationalism. For me, that is enough. The issue
will not invalidate his works in any way.”