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

reveal some often overlooked historical truths about this important event in Philippine history.
Aside from this, the document reflects the general revolutionary sentiment of the period. For
example, the abuses specifically mentioned in the proclamation like friar abuse, racial
discrimination, and inequality before the law reflect the most compelling sentiments represented
by the revolutionary leadership. However, no mention was made about the more serious
problem that affected the masses more profoundly.(i.e. the land and agrarian crisis felt by the
Filipino peasants in the nineteenth century). This is ironic especially when renowned Philippine
revolution historian, Teodora Agoncilio, stated that the Philippine revolution was agrarian
revolution. The common revolutionary soldiers fought in the revolution for the hope of owning
the lands that they tilling once the friar estates in different provinces like Batangas and Laguna
dissolve, if and when the revolution succeeded. Such aspects and realities of the revolutionary
struggle were either unfamiliar to the middle class revolutionary leaders like Emilio Aguinaldo,
Ambrosia Rianzares-Bautista, and Felipe Buencamino, or were intentionally left out because
they were landholders themselves.
The treaty of Paris was an agreement signed between Spain and the United States of America
regarding the ownership of the Philippine islands and other Spanish colonies in South America.
The agreement ended the short-lived Spanish-American war. The treaty was signed on 10
December 1898, six months after the revolutionary government declared the Philippine
independence. The Philippine was sold to the United States at 20 million dollar and effectively
undetermined the sovereignty of the Philippine immediately which resulted in the Philippine-
American war that lasted until the earliest year of the twentieth century.
The proclamation also gives us the impression on how the victorious revolutionary government
of Aguinaldo historicized the struggle for independence. There were mentions of the past events
that were seen as important turning points of the movement against Spain. The execution of the
GOMBURZA, for example, for example, and the failed Cavite mutiny of 1872 was narrated in
detail. This shows that they saw this event as significant awakening of the Filipinos in the real
conditions of the nation under spain. Jose Rizal’s legacy and martyrdom was also mentioned in
the document. However, the katipunan as the pioneer of the revolutionary movement was only
mentioned once toward the end of the document. There was no mention of the Katipunan’s
foundation. Bonifacio and his co-founders were also left out. It can be argued, thus, that the way
of historical narration found in the document also reflects the politics of the victors. The enmity
between Aguinaldo’s Magdalo and Bonifacio’s Magdiwang in the Katipunan is no secret in the
pages of our history. On the contrary, the war led by Aguinaldo’s men with the forces of the
United States were discussed in detail.
The point is, even official records and documents like the proclamation of independence, while
truthful most of the time, still exude the politics and biases of whoever is in power. This manifest
in the selectiveness of information that can be found in these records. It is the task of the
historian, thus, to analyze the content of these documents in relation to the dominant politics
and the contexts of people and institutions surrounding it. This tells us a lesson on taking
primary sources like official government records within the circumstances of this production.
Studying one historical subjects, thus, entails looking at multiple primary sources and pieces of
historical evidence in order to have a more nuanced and contextual analysis of our past.