PHILIPPINE HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY

For the longest time, history has been heavily based on the tradition of positivism – a very rigid
methodology in writing historical accounts. Positivism is that approach wherein “historical
knowledge and interpretation” should be based on verifiable information obtained after careful
criticism and scrutiny of documents. However, through time, the discipline acquired several
developments. And one of these which is worthy of note is the adoption of new historical
approaches which later became known as New Historicism. While it seeks interpretation of facts
from all perspectives, it acknowledged the use of other historical sources apart from which were
hitherto unrecognized.

Fact is, the Philippine history literature is dominated by foreign perspectives. In the words of
Teodoro Agoncillo, it has been a history largely narrated “through foreign eyes”. Hardly can
Filipinos find historical works which are reflective of the Filipino people’s point of view. This
phenomenon has been evident until Filipino historians attempted to deviate from the tradition.

In the 1950s Philippines, Filipino historians challenged the traditional way of doing history and in
return introduced “new and fresh” interpretations to the study of the field. In Leslie Bauzon’s
article entitled Perspective on Contemporary Philippine Historiography, an emphasis was given
on the need to develop a methodology for historical analysis within the context of the Philippine
society. From this work he furthered that the Western model that social scientists use in
historical interpretations is incompatible with the Philippine setting. Thus, a Filipino version of
historical interpretation is sought for.

As the discussion unfolds, it is important to not confuse history with historiography. The former
is interested in the study of past events, their causes and the impacts they have made to the
lives of people. In other words, it concerns the details of the past. The latter, however, is
concerned with history itself. It is considered as the “art of writing history”, “the history of
history”, or “the history of historical writings”. Furay and Salevouris defines it as the study as to
how history has been written or is written. Simply, historiography is engrossed to the
methodologies through which historical accounts are arrived at.

PHILIPPINE HISTORY IN THE COLONIAL ERA

An article by Raul Roland R. Sebastian entitled Philippine Historiography: Issues and Trends
tackles how history has evolved through time since the colonial era. During the Spanish
colonization, the historians were Spanish friars and there is no way we can expect their works to
favor the Philippines. They focused on writing regarding the Spanish history the Philippines. The
colonizer’s missionaries in the country were central to the historical accounts from the
Augustinian friars, to the coming of the Dominican priests, Order of St. Francis, Jesuit Fathers,
and finally, the Recollect Fathers. Their writings were depictions of both pre-colonial and
colonial periods. Although the narratives were heavily biased, the Filipino historians can take
reference from them in correcting the errors committed by the early historians. Contemporary
writers may now take the post-colonial approach in doing history, telling the history of the
Philippines against the colonial backdrop.

Alongside the friars were the non-secular scholars who were also interested in the study of
history during the Spanish period. These include Spanish officials, foreign residents and writers,
and those who are members of Filipino Ilustrado. Accounts of the Spanish Philippines include:
Dr. Antonio Morga’s “Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas” which speaks about the 16th century
Philippines; Captain Miguel de Loarca in his work “Relacion de las Islas Filipinas” which
described the material culture of early Filipinos as very advanced; Thomas de Comyn whose
work was entitled “Estado de las Islas Filipinas” which tackles the colonial economy of the
Philippines after the opening of Manila to international trade; Paul de la Goromiere, a surgeon
mayor of the Spanish army, wrote about his impressions of the Philippines; and Jose Montero y
Vidal’s “Historia General de Filipinas Desde Descubriemento Hastra Nuestros Diaz” which
offers a good narrative on the Spanish Philippines. Morga, Loarca, de Comyn, Goromiere and
Montero y Vidal are all Spanish officials.

Foreign residents and writers include Antonio Pigafetta, Henry Piddington, Dr. Jean Mallat, Sir
John Browning, Dr. Feodor Jagor and John Foreman. Pigafetta’s work entitled “The First
Voyage Around the World” documented the voyage of Magellan and had some descriptions
regarding the culture of the early Filipinos. Henry Piddington’s “Remarks on the Philippine
Islands and their Capital Manila, 1818-1822” discussed the discontent and rage of the Filipino
natives brought about by the Spanish abuses. Mallat wrote about the education and cultural
conditions of the Philippines in the mid-10th century. Browning’s “A Visit to the Philippine
Islands” provides a description of the country’s social customs. Jagor conducted ethnological
studies of the regions. Foreman critically assessed the Spanish administration. The accounts
were to an extent limited but they helped the Filipino historians understand the country’s past
via these views.

The Spanish bias on writing history gave rise to Filipino Ilustrados, first nationalist-historians as
they may be called, who were able to study in Europe and stood in defense of the Philippines
and the Filipinos, casting history away from the shadows of foreign perspectives. Propagandists
like Jose Rizal, Marcelo del Pilar, Graciano Lopez-Jaena, Pedro Paterno, Antonio Luna,
Mariano Ponce, and Isabelo de los Reyes are among those who forwarded liberal reforms for
the Philippines. “La Solidaridad”, an organization composed of Filipino liberals, wrote articles
exposing the conditions of the Filipinos under the Spanish rule. Rizal’s “The Philippines a
Century Hence”, Del Pilar’s “Dasalan at Tocsohan”, Jaena’s “Fray Botod”, and Paterno’s “Ninay”
also depict the sufferings of the Filipino people in the Spanish era.

Revolutionaries also had their articles written enticed in the aim to form the nationalist
consciousness of the Filipino people. Andres Bonifacio’s “Ang Dapat Mabatid ng mga Tagalog”
narrates the hardships faced by the Filipino natives in the hands of the Spaniards. He also wrote
his poem entitled “Pag-ibig sa Tinubuang Lupa” depictive of the worth of a life sacrificed for the
country. Bonifacio’s and Jacinto’s works are deemed as forerunners of the pantayong pananaw.
The likes of Mabini and Ricarte bravely expressed their anti-colonial and anti-clerical views.
The American period in the Philippines also exemplified the same state of historical literatures.
The works of American historians were extremely biased although there were some who sided
with the Filipinos. They made it appear that the Filipinos are nothing if not for the Americans.
They insisted that their tutelage is necessary pointing out that the Filipinos are inept for self-
government. Meanwhile, the likes of Pedro Paterno, Rafael Palma, Trinidad Pardo de Tavera,
Epifanio delos Santos, Teodoro M. Kalaw, and Isabelo delos Reyes initiated the preservation of
the country’s history, including the revolution and the life of the great men before which served
as bases for modern historians. Other writers however gave emphasis on the cultural
backwardness of Filipinos which demonstrates lack of progress or advancement to the groups
perceived cultural norms.

REVOLUTIONIZING PHILIPPINE HISTORY

The nominal independence given to the Philippines in 1946 left a difficult task for historians to
overcome the “mental slavery” that persisted in centuries. Agoncillo, Ileto, Guerrero, Diokno,
Salazar, and Constantino are among those names who contributed much in revolutionizing
Philippine history which has long-been dominated by colonial discourse and reinforced with the
advent of the colonial education introduced by the Americans. This education made English as
the medium of instruction and inculcated among Filipino natives the “colonial mentality”, also
called by Teodoro Agoncillo as “colonial hangover”. This, according to him, had conditioned the
“mind and body” of the Filipinos to “follow blindly the colonial master’s subtle and not-too-subtle
policies directed against the attainment of national and/or individual self-interests”. To do away
with this orientation, he claimed that there should be a strong sense of nationalism among the
locals. The reconstruction of the Philippine past has materialized with the help of other
disciplines like archaeology, anthropology, psychology, linguistics, etc. (multi-disciplinarity).
Thus, the dynamism of history as time unfolds becomes evident.

Teodoro Agoncillo is worthy of note in matters of recalibrating the focus of Philippine history. He
wrote several papers which dramatically refuted all the assertions of the colonizers. In particular,
he wanted a “Philippine History Through Filipino Eyes”. He wrote the history of the Philippines
from the Filipino standpoint, particularly highlighting the 1896 Revolution and considered the
period prior to 1872 as no history. This he did because he said that Filipinos were passive
followers of the Spaniards thus, they have insubstantial role in history. His most famous piece is
entitled “Revolt of the Masses, The Story of Bonifacio and the Katipunan” which is an attempt to
understand Bonifacio through the dynamics of Katipunan, the revolutionary society founded
himself. More importantly, this details how the masses stood up and decided to resist the
colonial authority of Spain. However popular his work may be, it still stirred several
controversies and heavily criticized by an American historian, Glen Anthony May, for the
following reasons: (1) he used unreliable sources like oral interview which for May is a failure to
follow the correct historical methodology; (2) his dependence on oral interview is a failure
because he did not prepare a transcript; (3) he cannot rely on oral interviews because the
incident happened many years back, and; (4) Agoncillo’s use of speculative words which are not
verifiable in documents is reflective of his lack of training to conduct historical research. Despite
all these, Agoncillo’s work still gained popularity and became one of the most influential works in
understanding Philippine history.

The legacy of Agoncillo provided a path for Renato Constantino to build his name in the field.
Constantino put the emphasis of his studies on the masses. He defined history as “the
achievement of man, not the individual but the collective”. In other words, he emphasized the
idea of collective effort. He further asserted that superman is nowhere to be found in history.
Heroes do not exist, only leaders who became great because of working with the people. If it
were not for them, there will be no great men in history. In contrast to Agoncillo’s claim that the
period prior to 1872 has no history, Constantino highlights the fact that there is a structure
developed in the pre-colonial Philippines, that which he termed as communal democracy.
Moreover, his work entitled “The Philippines: A Past Revisited” espoused the political activism
popularized by Karl Marx’s ideology. In particular, aside from the recognition of the revolts that
toppled colonizers in the country, the work also allocated space for discussion of the so-called
religion-political movements in the struggle for freedom. Like his precursor Agoncillo, he also
deviated from the traditional treatment of history. It also gained popularity and mass support but
once more, Glen Anthony May criticized the work saying it only produced a nationalist who does
not embody a critical thinking capacity.

Zeus Salazar in his works “Ang Pagtuturo ng Kasaysayan sa Pilipino” (1971) and “Ukol sa Wika
at Kulturang Pilipino” (1973) emphasized the relations between language and culture as the
basic thesis of Pantayong Pananaw. Such view uses Filipino as a medium in reconstruction
Philippine history. This gave a new direction to the study of the field which privileges oral
traditions, culture and local history in the discourse. William Henry Scott and Dr. Landa Jocano
are the leading historians highly specialized in the study of the pre-colonial Philippines. One of
their significant contributions in history is the inclusion of the different indigenous communities in
the country. Their works not only made people better understand Philippine history but also
provided the picture of how the least acculturated Filipinos stood their ground against
colonialism. This, accordingly, will let muted voices in history be heard. As Baktin puts it, “the
silences in history, not just the voices in history are important”. Such statement devolves the
focus of history from the powerful and dominant center to the powerless and beleaguered
periphery.

Reynaldo Ileto took the spotlight with his work entitled “Pasyon and Revolution” where people
used the pasyon to work on their favor. The pasyon which intends to make people submissive
turned them instead to become seditious relative to the colonizers’ rule. Ileto explained how
popular themes in the pasyon like “damayan, loob, liwanag, lakaran, and kalayaan” were
appropriated by the people to rebel against the people. Virtues in the pasyon like
submissiveness, simplicity, and humility which were attributed to Christ laid down the grounds
for the people to take part in their suffering by fighting the Spaniards.

Aside from the aforementioned prominent historians, there were others who contributed in the
continuity of a Philippine history through the Filipino eyes. Despite the hostility of colonial
historiography to the Filipinos, the colonizers’ accounts are useful for contemporary historians in
reinterpreting the Philippine past. The “tyranny of archives” by the colonial perspectives had
pushed the Filipino historians to revolutionize the art of writing history. The deviation from the
use of conventional sources of history which has later been acknowledged in the field marked
an important breakthrough in the study of Philippine history.

INTERPRETATIONS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

According to Leticia Constantino, history is a potent weapon of a colonized nation to advance

emancipation from colonial rule. This manifests how history can be used as a tool in uniting a
nation and forwarding their cause. The experience of Filipinos under the inhumane and brutish
Spaniards urged them to carry out the Philippine Revolution which ended their more than three-
century rule in the country. While that is true, history can also be used in disseminating
information and inculcating attitudes which can transform individuals or groups of them to
become subservient and venerate imperial powers and/or colonizers. It can be utilized as a tool
to legitimize regimes and preserve the status quo. That said, it is therefore crucial that in the
study of history, the point of view taken by the historian in creating historical accounts is given
utmost consideration.

Teodoro Agoncillo presents two points of view by which historical facts are narrated: the view of
the colonizers and that of the colonized. Leticia Constantino however offers three stages of
historical writings that can be detected in the experience of the Philippines which were later
affirmed by the works of other historians: that which takes the view of the colonizers, the Filipino
elites, and the Filipino people. Take for instance, on matters of conquests. The colonial authority
imposes rules to the colonized land. If people refuse to obey their rules, the colonizers will tag
them as tulisanes, insurgents, and bandits, among others. However, from the Filipino people’s
point of view, they are regarded as heroes, as great men.

The point of view of colonizers largely highlights the benefits of the Spanish and American
colonization and deliberately mutes or disregards the suffering of the common people. More so,
it portrays the natives as seeking for help to legitimize colonialism. Americans, for example,
depicted the Filipino people as “uncivilized” in their publications. Thus, their insistence of the
good faith in subordinating countries like the Philippines. They wanted to present an image that
they are here in the country not for the intent of undermining the Philippine sovereignty but for a
mission to “civilize” the Filipinos in what they call as the “white man’s burden”.

The point of view of the Filipinos is divided into that of the Filipino elites and that of the Filipino
people. The former springs from the fact that most Filipino historians are coming from the elite
class especially because they are privileged enough to enjoy education. The latter, on the other
hand, is reflective of the Filipino people’s interest. Following that, anything that forwards these
interests is good. Otherwise, it should be criticized. To clearly illustrate, Leticia Constantino
provides an instance. She cited the Pact of Biak-na-Bato saying:

[For the Filipino elites’ point of view, the event is] “.....one of the most glorious events in
Philippine history. It was not a military victory; but it was a recognition of the fact that the
 leaders of the Revolution were men of honor, as honorable as the marquis of Estella."
(Achutegui and Bernad)

Why should an event be considered glorious just because the Spaniards deigned to
negotiate a pact with Filipinos, implying thereby that they recognized them as men of
honor, who, like the superior Spaniards, could be expected to keep their word?

From the point of view of the people's interest, the verdict on the pact is the exact
opposite.

"The Pact of Biak-na-Bato was a shameful repudiation of all that the revolution had stood
for....The pact was nothing more nor less than a business proposition. the negotiations
had not dragged on for five months because of any insistence by Aguinaldo's side that
the Spaniards comply with any of the people's revolutionary demands. The principal
bone of contention had been the amount to be paid to the leaders and the terms of
payment." (Constantino)

The pact provided that the Spanish government would pay them P800,000 provided
Aguinaldo and other leaders would leave the country (Aguinaldo had initially asked for
three million pesos). The historians who hailed the Pact allege that the money
Aguinaldo and others received was "not a bribe to the revolutionary leaders. It was to
indemnify them and their families for the losses incurred as a result of war."

But why should these leaders be reimbursed for their property losses? The people
suffered and died for the Revolution; they did not expect monetary rewards for their
patriotic acts.

A people’s history would rather carefully examine the colonizer’s policies. In particular, it would
attempt to assess as to how it served or undermined the political and economic interests of the
colonized. The Filipino leaders will also be evaluated whether they stood for the interest of the
colonial master or that of the Filipino people. Philippine history, should, above all, be able to
promote the national interest and form the genuine Filipino identity. It will greatly help in
eradicating the long-persistent colonial mentality of Filipinos by interpreting narratives against
the shadows of the colonial past. Leticia Constantino further asserted that a people history is
one that liberates and not furthers subordination.