The document provides an overview of a learning packet about the 1872 Cavite Mutiny in the Philippines, which was a significant event that led Filipino patriots to commence the Philippine Revolution against 333 years of Spanish colonization. The packet aims to scrutinize accounts of the mutiny from primary sources to understand motives and extract truth. It presents objectives for students to analyze and compare eyewitness documents, apply analytical tools, and take a stand on issues. The introduction notes contradictory facts will be analyzed to debunk falsehoods. The packet also includes guidelines for discussion and activities analyzing accounts to understand context, content and consequences.

1. 20 March 2023—Monday
Learning Packet 01: The Cavite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxmArAaNtNQ
FOREWORD:
This learning packet shows the significant event known as the Cavite Mutiny which led the
Filipino patriots to finally commence the Philippine Revolution for freedom under the Spanish
colonization for 333 years. In this study, we will scrutinize every motive of all the people
involved that brought this tragedy using the available primary sources from the accounts of
Montero, Izquierdo, Pardo de Tavera, and Plauchut that may give some light and teach us
important lessons in life.
OBJECTIVES:
At the end of the lesson, students are expected to:
1. Compare and contrast the different documents of eye witnesses of the Cavite Mutiny;
2. Apply different tools in analyzing the content and context of the Cavite Mutiny;
3. Make a stand about a particular issue in the past.
READINGS:
 Readings in Philippine History by John Lee P. Candelaria and Veronica C. Alphora
 https://nhcp.gov.ph/remembering-the-gomburza-in-anticipation-of-the-150TH
 https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-t wo-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny
INTRODUCTION:
In this topic, contradictory facts will be presented from a number of primary sources about the
Cavite Mutiny which will be subject for scrutiny in the hope of debunking falsehood and
extracting truth in the various accounts written about a very important part of our history and to
give more weight to the sacrifices of those who stood for our freedom.
PRE-ASSESSMENT:
Agree or Disagree: Read the following statements and state whether you agree or disagree on
each suggestive reason for having mutiny.
1. To change a certain ruler.
2. To disobey superior officers.
3. To replace the incumbent.
4. To start a chaos.
5. To gain following.
6. To acquire power.
7. To seek justice.
8. To raise awareness.
9. To set as an example.
10. To fight against abuse of power.
LESSON PROPER:
As we go on with the lesson, here are some guide questions to have a complete understanding of
the significance of various primary sources as we treat this particular historical event.
1. What do the different accounts imply about the reason behind the Cavite Mutiny?
2. What do the documents provide regarding the involvement of the three priests in the
Cavite Mutiny?
3. How do the accounts differ from one another?
4. What are the intentions and motives behind each stated account?
5. Do all the given reasons justify the death of GOMBURZA?
The 1872 public execution of the three secular priests —Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomes de los
Angeles, and Jacinto Zamora, collectively known as “GOMBURZA”— was a pivotal moment in
Philippine history. It was a major catalyst that pushed the events forward leading to the failed
reformist agenda among Filipino liberals in Spain, pivoting to the Philippine Revolution against
Spain which broke out in 1896. (Pasion, 2021) To give us a gist of the preceding events that led
us to the Cavite Mutiny, here is a summary from the article written by Francis Kristoffer L.

2. Pasion “Remembering the GOMBURZA: In Anticipation of the 150th Anniversary of their
Martyrdom in 2022.
The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 made it easier and faster to travel from Spain to the
Philippines from approximately twenty months to thirty days. • The appointment of Lt. Gen.
Rafael de Izquierdo who replaced the liberal-leaning Carlos de la Torre as Spanish governor
general of the Philippines in 1871, pushed back the liberal reforms that were already being
implemented in the Philippines. For example, he suspended the opening of a new school of arts
and trade and laid off high-ranking officials in the civil force who were found to be half Spanish
or full-Filipinos. • In 1872, Izquierdo also abolished the exemption of tribute and forced labor
long enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite Navy Yard, among whom were artillery support and
corps of engineers, all of them entitled of the benefits, rose up in arms and mutinied against the
colonial government.
Primary Source:
Excerpts from Jose Montero y Vidal’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny
“The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of exemption from the
tribute was, according to some, the cause of the insurrection. There were, however, other causes.
The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda carried on by an
unbridled press against monarchical principles, attentatory [sic] of the most sacred respects
towards the dethroned majesty; the democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the
speeches and preachings of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the outburst of the
American publicists and the criminal policy of the senseless Governor whom the revolutionary
government sent to govern the Philippines, and who put into practices these ideas were the
determining circumstances which gave rise, among certain Filipinos, to the idea of attaining their
independence, It was towards this goal that they started to work, with the powerful assistance of
a certain section of the native clergy, who out of spite toward friars, made common cause with
the enemies of the mother country. At various times but especially in the beginning of year 1872,
the authorities received anonymous communications with the information that a great uprising
would break out against the Spaniards, the minute the fleet at Cavite left for the South, and that
all would be assassinated, including the friars. But nobody gave importance to these notices. The
conspiracy had been going on since the days of La Torre with utmost secrecy. At times, the
principal leaders met either in the house of Filipino Spaniard, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, or in
that of the native priest, Jacinto Zamora, and these meetings were usually attended by the curate
of Bacoor, the soul of the movement, whose energetic character and immense wealth enabled
him to exercise a strong influence.”
Primary Source:
Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
... it seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native clergy, by the
mestizos and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos… The instigators, to carry
out their criminal project, protested against the injustice of the government in not paying the
provinces for their tobacco crop, and against the usury that some practice in documents that the
Finance department gives crop owners who have to sell them at a loss. They encouraged the
rebellion by protesting what they called the injustice of having obliged the workers in the Cavite
arsenal to pay tribute starting January 1 and to render personal services, from which they were
formerly exempted… Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to establish a
monarchy or a republic, because the Indios have no word in their language to describe this
different form of government, whose head in Filipino would be called hari; but it turns out that

3. they would place at the head of the government a priest…that the head selected would be D. Jose
Burgos, or D. Jacinto Zamora…
https://www.slideshare.net/joeyvaldriz/philippine-heroes-117435542
Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872 Primary Source:
Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny—
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by the Spanish residents
and by the friars…the Central Government in Madrid had announced its intention to deprive the
friars in these islands of powers of intervention in matters of civil government and of the
direction and management of the university…it was due to these facts and promises that the
Filipinos had great hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their country, while the friars, on
the other hand, feared that their power in the colony would soon be complete a thing of the past.
...Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain, and the only aspiration of
the people was to secure the material and education advancement of the country…
Primary Source:
Excerpts from Plauchut’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny General La Torre
…created a junta composed of high officials…including some friars and six Spanish officials…
At the same time there was created by the government in Madrid a committee to investigate
submitted to the Manila committee. When the two finished work, it was found that they came to
the same conclusions. Here is the summary of the reforms they considered necessary to
introduced:
1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection.
2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
3. Reduction of export fees.
4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy freedom of
worship, and operate commercial transports flying the Spanish flag.
5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in
Madrid on the necessary reforms to be implemented.
6. Changes in primary and secondary education.
7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines, rendering
unnecessary the sending home of short-term civil official s every time there is a change
of ministry.
8. Study of direct-tax system.
9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly.
...The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo…put a sudden end to all dreams of reforms…the
prosecutions instituted by the new Governor General were probably expected as a result of the

4. bitter disputes between the Filipino clerics and the friars. Such a policy must really end in a
strong desire on the part of the other to repress cruelly. In regard to schools, it was previously
decreed that there should be in Manila a Society of Arts and Trades to be opened in March of
1871… to repress the growth of liberal teachings, General Izquierdo suspended the opening of
the school…the day previous to the scheduled inauguration… The Filipino had a duty to render
service on public roads construction and pay taxes every year. But those who were employed at
the maestranza of the artillery, in the engineering shops and arsenal of Cavite, were exempted
from this obligation from time immemorial…Without preliminaries of any kind, a decree by the
Governor withdrew from such old employees their retirement privileges and declassified them
into the ranks of those who worked on public roads. (Candelaria and Alphora, 2018)
Generalization
The 1872 Cavite Mutiny is viewed through the lens of differing accounts which makes it a very
good subject for contextual analysis in order to separate the truths from mere opinion in every
account.
Learning Packet Discussion Forum I. Open Camera Activity:
Show a thumbs up if your answer is YES,
thumb down if NO
Then defend your answer. Questions:
1. Do you believe that the priests were behind any idea of mutiny?
2. Are there inconsistencies in the given primary sources? Support your answer.
3. Would you have it any other way to avoid the death of the martyrs? Why or why not?
GROUP ACTIVITY
With your previously formed groups—conduct a contextual analysis of one of the accounts on the
Cavite Mutiny following these key questions.
1. What does the text reveal about itself as a text?
– Describe (or characterize) the language (the words, or vocabulary) and the rhetoric
(how the words are arranged in order to achieve some purpose). These are the primary
components of style.
2. What does the text tell us about its apparent intended audience(s)?
– What sort of reader does the author of the account seem to have envisioned, as demonstrated
by the text’s language and rhetoric?
– What sort of qualifications does the text appear to require of its intended reader(s)? How can
we tell?
– What sort of readers appear to be excluded from the text’s intended audiences? How can we
tell?
– Is there, perhaps, more than one intended audience?
3. What seems to have been the intention of the author’s account? Why did the author write this
text? And why did the author write this text in this particular way, as opposed to other ways in
which the text might have been written?
– Remember that any text is the result of deliberate decisions by the author. The author has
chosen to write (or paint, or whatever) with these particular words and has therefore chosen not
to use other words that she or he might have used. So, we need to consider:
– what the author said (the words that have been selected);
– what the author did not say (the words that were not selected); and
– how the author said it (as opposed to other ways it might or could have been said).
4. What is the occasion for this text? That is, is it written in response to:
– some particular, specific contemporary incident or event?
– some more “general” observation by the author about human affairs and/or experiences?
– some definable set of cultural circumstances?
5. Is the text intended as some sort of call to – or for – action?
– If so, by whom? And why?
– And also, if so, what action(s) does the author want the reader(s) to take?
6. Is the text intended rather as some sort of call to – or for – reflection or consideration rather
than direct action? – If so, what does the author seem to wish the reader to think about and to
conclude or decide? – Why does the author wish the readers to do this? What is to be gained,
and by whom?
7. Can we identify any non-textual circumstances that affected the creation and reception of the
text? – Such circumstances include historical or political events, economic factors, cultural
practices, and intellectual or aesthetic issues, as well as the particular circumstances of the

5. author's own life.
A primary source is something from the time and place you are studying. To analyze a primary source
historically, you need to understand all of the following:
 CONTEXT: the historical situation in which the primary source was produced.
 CONTENT: the major point or meaning of a primary source in its historical context. This can
differ significantly from what the primary source may appear to mean to the modern observer. •
 CONSEQUENCES: the effects or significance of a primary source in history. A Primary Source
Analysis should be a substantial paragraph in length (5-7 sentences). A bulleted list (such as
above) is acceptable, provided that the information in each bullet is complete. Levels correspond
roughly to letter grades (4 = A, 1 = F), although criteria will vary somewhat depending upon the
nature and level of the class.
RUBRIC FOR THIS ACTIVITY
LEVEL CRITERIA
4
CONTEXT: thorough knowledge of what the source is, who
produced it, where, when, and why it was produced.
• CONTENT: sensitive and sophisticated understanding of the
meaning of the source in its historical context; appreciation of the
complexity or subtlety of the source.
• CONSEQUENCES: clear grasp of the effect or importance of the
source in history.
3
• CONTEXT: good knowledge of what the source is, who produced
it, where, when, and why it was produced; no more than one of the
above elements incomplete.
• CONTENT: good understanding of the meaning of the source in
its historical context.
• CONSEQUENCES: clear grasp of the effect or importance of the
source in history.
2
• CONTEXT: good knowledge of what the source is, who produced
it, where, when, and why it was produced; no more than two of the
above elements incomplete or missing.
• CONTENT: adequate understanding of the meaning of the source
in its historical context; some important points missing.
• CONSEQUENCES: some grasp of the effect or importance of the
source in history
1
• CONTEXT: little or erroneous knowledge of what the source is,
who produced it, where, when, and why it was produced; more
than two of the above elements incomplete or missing.
• CONTENT: no understanding of the meaning of the source in its
historical context; major points missing or incorrect.
• CONSEQUENCES: no or erroneous understanding of the effect
or importance of the source in history.
KEY POINTS:
1. Jose Montero y Vidal—was a writer who interpreted the mutiny as an attempt to remove and
overthrow the Spanish colonizers in the Philippines.
2. GOMBURZA—all graduates of Sto. Tomas University, were brilliant men who used their
education to fight for reforms and freedom the Spanish colonization.
3. Sergeant Fernando La Madrid—was a mestizo who seized Fort San Felipe and killed eleven
Spanish officers
4. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera believed that the Cavite Mutiny was simply about the dissatisfaction
of the Filipino laborers and workers of the arsenal of the new policies of Izquierdo which was
magnified to appear like a move to overthrow Spanish officers.
5. The friars feared that their power would end when Spain found out of their anomalies
6. Edmund Plauchut—a French writer who resided in Manila during the time of revolt.

6. DEFINITION OF TERMS:
1. Abolition—An act of putting into an end a practice, a system or an institution.
2. Assassinate—A murder (of an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious
reasons.
3. Clergy—The body of all people ordained for religious duties, especially in the Christian Church.
4. Curate—A member of a clergy engaged as assistant to a vicar, rector, or a parish priest.
5. Uprising—An act of resistance or rebellion; a revolt.
6. Garrote—Kill (someone) by strangulation, typically with an iron collar or a length of wire or
cord.
7. Peninsulares—Spaniards born in Spain. In contrast, a Spaniard born in the Philippines was
referred to as insular if in the Philippines, or Filipino if in Spain.
8. Junta—A military or political group that rules a country after taking power by force.
9. Prosecution—The institution and conducting of legal proceedings against someone in respect of a
criminal charge.
10. Surcharges—A charge or payment.
11. Tariffs—A tax or duty to be paid on a particular class of imports and exports.
12. Maestranza—Group of armories; group of arm makers.