The-Different-Historical-Controversies.pptx

The Different
Historical
Controversies
CHAPTER 4

THE FIRST MASS
IN THE
PHILIPPINES

LIMASAWA OR BUTUAN? DEBATES CONTINUE ON WHERE FIRST MASS WAS HELD
One of the most controversial topics in the Philippine history is the site of the first
catholic mass which happened on march 31, 1521 (Easter Sunday) there was a
dispute about where the first mass in the Philippines truly took place. Originally, it
was believed to be in Limasawa, Leyte but some historians argue that the book of
Pigafetta was mistranslated. Three day after Magellan and his men arrived in the
Philippines, including Antonio Pigafetta, who is the author of the First Voyage
Around the World (1519-1522): an account of Magellan’s expedition. The first mass
in the Philippines was celebrated by Father Pedro de Valderrama and the birth of
Roman Catholics here in our country. Actually, this issue was already settled by
expert investigations, which determined that it was on Limasawa Island. However
the National Historical Commission of the Philippines received several requests in
2018 to reassess historians’ previous declarations.

The arrival of Magellan’s Expedition is an event of the first
documented and confirmed mass that happened in the country.
The First Mass marked as the beginning of Christianity in
the Philippines. The mass’ location is a controversial topic that
has been repeatedly contested for over three centuries. Filipinos,
including the professionals in education, historians, religion and
other fields, exchanged their thoughts on the specific place of the
‘First Mass’ on Easter Sunday. And two sites claim to be the place
of the meaningful religious ceremony; LIMASAWA and
BUTUAN CITY.

PIGAFETTA’S ACCOUNT OF
MAGELLAN’S FLEET
• Magellan’s fleet reached the Ladrones Island, also
known as the “Island of the Thieves”. The natives had
no arms but used sticks with fish bones at the end. They
were described as poor but ingenious and great thieves.
The island were name “Ladrones” due to the thieving
nature of the natives as observed by Pigafetta.

• March 18, 1521- nine men approached Magellan’s fleet with joy and
eagerness. The men were welcomed with foods, drinks and gifts. The
locals showed the explorers around different islands. They provided the
names of these islands.
• Ten days later, they reached the Isle of Zamal ( now Samar). On
March 25, they encountered two balanghai (long boats) full of people
in Mazzava/Mazaus. Magellan exchanged gifts with the local leader and
later introduced to the king’s brother, who ruled another island with gold
mines.

LIMASAWA/MAZAUA ISLAND
• According to Pigafetta, the first mass celebrated on Philippines soil was held on
March 31, 1521 on the island Mazaua, which its original name.
• It is island municipality in Southern Leyte, and was created into an independent
municipality on June 11, 1978 by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1549. But thus was
not implemented due to some problems. Officially became a municipality on August
27, 1989 after the conduct of plebiscite among the populace to ratify its
independence.
• Francisco Albo, one of the pilots in Magellan’s expedition, kept a logbook where he
wrote that they erected a cross on a mountain that overlooked the islands in the
west and the southwest. Jaime de Veyra stated that the first mass was held in
Limasawa and not in Butuan.

CONTROVERSY ABOUT LIMASAWA
In Antonio Pigafetta’s note, he wrote the “Mazaua” as the name of the
island. Some historians assert that this is the same “Masagua” mentioned in
Miguel de Legazpi’s expedition to Butuan.
After a thorough study and examination of old maps and documents, a
monography by Fr. Miguel Bernard in 1981 clarified that the Butuan
version is a mistake and that Limasawa is what Pigafetta referred to as
“Mazaua.”
This was confirmed by a study conducted by William Henry Scott in
1982 on the error of designating Butuan as the place where the First Mass
was held.

MASAO/BUTUAN
• 1872: A monument to commemorate the site of the first mass in the
Philippines was erected near the mouth of the Agusan River at a spot
within the municipal boundaries of Butuan. The monument is a
testimonial to the tradition that Magellan and his expedition landed at
Butuan and celebrated the First Mass in the Philippines.
• 1953: The people in Butuan asked the Philippines Historical Committee to
rehabilitate the monument and construct a place marker on the site .

• Evidence of Butuan as the First Mass is supported by the discovery of the Butuan
Boats, also known as Balanghai/Balangay, which are the oldest archaeological examples
of watercraft in the Philippines.
• 17th century: Fr. Francisco Colin was a Spanish missionary who spent many
years in the Philippines and wrote historical accounts around 1640. Colin’s
account represents the first mass and solemn planting of the cross and the formal
possession of the islands in the name of Crown of Castile taking place in
Butuan on Easter Sunday in 1521. The main point is that Magellan landed at Butuan
and planted the cross in a solemn ceremony.
• It was accepted without question in the 17th
century by two Jesuit historians who lived in
the Philippines as missionaries and were meticulous with their facts.

INTRODUCTION
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was a short-lived but significant
uprising of Filipino soldiers and workers at Fort San Felipe in Cavite.
Though it was quickly suppressed, the mutiny had long-lasting
consequences, marking a crucial moment in the struggle for Philippine
independence. More than just an armed revolt, it became the spark that led
to the execution of three Filipino priests— GomBurZa — and the
awakening of national consciousness among Filipinos.

During the Spanish colonial rule, Filipinos—especially those in the
military and labor force—faced unjust treatment. Spanish
authorities introduced new taxes and required Filipino soldiers to
pay tribute, a policy that angered many since they were previously
exempt.
EXEMPTION FROM THE TRIBUTE:
A. TRIBUTO- was a tax system imposed by the Spanish colonial
government in the Philippines. It was a form of tribute that Filipino
natives (indios) were required to pay as a sign of their loyalty to the
Spanish Crown. The tributo was usually paid in money, crops, livestock,
or other goods.

Who Were Required to Pay Tributo?
All Filipino males aged 16 to 60 were required to pay the tributo.
Some groups were exempted, including:
• Principalia (wealthy and noble Filipinos)
• Government officials
• Soldiers
• Church personnel
• Bandala system suppliers (those forced to sell goods to the government)
How Much Was the Tributo?
The standard rate was 8 reales (equivalent to 1.00) per year
₱ .

B. CEDULA- A residence tax certificate introduced by the Spanish colonial
government in the Philippines in 1884. It replaced the Tributo and became a
form of Identification and proof of tax payment for Filipinos.
Purpose of the Cédula
• Served as proof of identity for Filipinos.
• Was required for travel, business, and legal transactions.
• Ensured that all eligible Filipinos paid taxes to the Spanish
government

EXEMPTION FROM FORCE LABOR:
What is Polo y Servicios?
Polo y Servicios was a forced labor system imposed by the Spanish colonial government in the
Philippines from the 16th to 19th century. Under this system, Filipino male natives (called "polistas")
aged 16 to 60 were required to work for 40 days a year without pay.
They were assigned to various public works, such as:
• Building roads, bridges, and churches
• Constructing ships for the Spanish navy
• Working in government projects like forts and irrigation systems.
TO BE EXEMPTED :
PAY FALLA 1 ½ REALES - A tax that exempted them from service. However, only the wealthy could
afford this.
• In 1884 the number of days was lessened to 15 days per year.

A Brief Story of the Cavite Mutiny (1872)
On the night of January 20, 1872, around 200 Filipino soldiers and workers at Fort San Felipe in
Cavite staged a MUTINY against Spanish authorities. Led by Sergeant La Madrid, they rebelled due to unfair
treatment—Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo had recently revoked their tax exemptions and forced
them into hard labor.
*MUTINY* is a revolt among a group of people (typically of a military, of a crew, or of a crew of pirates) to oppose, change,
or remove superiors or their orders.
The mutineers hoped that their uprising would inspire a larger revolt in Manila, but their plan failed.
The Spanish government quickly sent reinforcements, and within a day, the rebellion was crushed. Many of the
rebels were killed, while others were arrested and later executed.
However, the mutiny’s biggest consequence was not just its failure—it was the brutal response by the
Spanish government. Using the event as an excuse, Izquierdo falsely accused three Filipino priests—
Gomburza (Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora)—of masterminding the revolt. On February 17, 1872, the
priests were executed by garrote, a move that shocked and angered Filipinos.
Though the Cavite Mutiny lasted only a day, it became a turning point in Philippine history,
awakening nationalist sentiments and inspiring future revolutionaries like José Rizal and Andres Bonifacio,
who later fought for the country’s independence.

The Two Faces of the Cavite Mutiny (1872)
The Spanish Perspective:
RAFAEL DE IZQUIERDO- He was a Spanish military officer and colonial governor
who served as the Governor-General of the Philippines from 1871 to 1873. He is best known
for his harsh rule and his brutal response to the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.
JOSÉ MONTERO Y VIDAL- He was a Spanish historian, writer, and colonial official
who lived during the 19th century. He is best known for his works on Philippine history,
particularly his writings on Spanish rule and Filipino uprisings.
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.
• Izquierdo 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.

• 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.
• On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and
Frailocracia to in still 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.

The Filipino Perspective:
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.

• 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.
• 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.

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
we enjoy our freedom, 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.”

PUGADLAWIN,
BALINTAWAK OR
BAHAY TORO

IN FOCUS: BALINTAWAK: THE CRY FOR A
NATIONWIDE REVOLUTION
• 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.

CONFLICTING ACCOUNTS
• Pio Valenzuela had several versions of the Cry. Only after they are
compared and reconciled with the other accounts will it be possible to
determined what really happened. Was there a meeting at Pugad Lawin on
23 August 1896, after the meeting at Apolonio Samson’s residence in Hong
Kong? Where were the cedulas torn, at Kangkong or Pugad Lawin? In
September 1896, Valenzuela stated before the Olive Court, which was
charged with investigating persons involved in the rebellion, only that
Katipunan meetings took place from Sunday to Tuesday or 23 to 25
August at Balintawak.

• In 1911, Valenzuela averred that the Katipunan began meeting on 22 August
while the Cry took place on 23 August at Apolonio Samson’s house in
Balintawak. From 1928 to 1940, Valenzuela maintained that the Cry happened
on 24 August at the house of Tandang Sora (Melchora Aquino) in Pugad Lawin,
which he now situated near Pasong Tamo Road. A photograph of Bonifacio’s
widow Gregoria de Jesus and Katipunan members Valenzuela, Briccio Brigido
Pantas, Alfonso and Cipriano Pacheco, published in La Opinion in 1928 and
1930, was captioned both times as having been taken at the site of the Cry on 24
August 1896 at the house of Tandang Sora at Pasong Tamo Road. In 1935
Valenzuela, Pantas and Pacheco proclaimed “na hindi sa Balintawak nangyari ang
unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na kinalalagian ngayon ng bantayog, kung di sa
pook na kilala sa tawag na Pugad Lawin.” (The first Cry of the revolution did
not happen in Balintawak where the monument is, but in a place called Pugad
Lawin.)

• In 1940, a research team of the Philippines Historical Committee (a forerunner
of the National Historical Institute or NHI), which included Pio Valenzuela,
identified the precise spot of Pugad Lawin as part of sitio Gulod, Banlat,
Kalookan City. In 1964, the NHI’s Minutes of the Katipunan referred to the
place of the Cry as Tandang Sora’s and not as Juan Ramos’ house, and the date as
23 August.
• Valenzuela memoirs (1964, 1978) averred that the Cry took place on 23 August at
the house of Juan Ramos at Pugad Lawin. The NHI was obviously influenced by
Valenzuela’s memoirs. In 1963, upon the NHI endorsement, President Diosdado
Macapagal ordered that the Cry be celebrated on 23 August and that Pugad Lawin
be recognized as its site. John N. Schrumacher, S.J, of the Ateneo de Manila
University was to comment on Pio Valenzuela’s credibility:

• I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio
Valenzuela, and to the interpretations Agoncillo got from him verbally, since
Valenzuela gave so many versions from the time he surrendered to the Spanish
authorities and made various statements not always compatible with one
another up to the time when as an old man he was interviewed by Agoncillo.
• Pio Valenzuela backtracked on yet another point. In 1896, Valenzuela testified
that when the Katipunan consulted Jose Rizal on whether the time had come to
revolt, Rizal was vehemently against the revolution. Later, in Agoncillo’s Revolt
of the masses, Valenzuela retracted and claimed that Rizal was actually for the
uprising, if certain prerequisites were met. Agoncillo reasoned that Valenzuela
had lied to save Rizal.

THE PUGAD LAWIN MARKER
The prevalent account of the Cry is that of Teodoro Agoncillo in Revolt of the masses
(1956): It was in Pugad Lawin, where they proceeded upon leaving Samson’s place in the
afternoon of the 22nd, that the more than 1,000 members of the Katipunan met in the
yard of Juan A. Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, in the morning of August 23rd.
Considerable discussion arose whether the revolt against the Spanish government
should be started on the 29th. Only one man protested… But he was overruled in his
stand… Bonifacio then announced the decision and shouted: “Brothers, it was agreed
to continue with the plan of revolt. My brothers, do you swear to repudiate the
government that oppresses us?” And the rebels, shouting as one man replied: “Yes, sir!”
“That being the case,” Bonifacio added, “bring out your cedulas and tear them to pieces
to symbolize our determination to take arms!” Amidst the ceremony, the rebels,
tearstained eyes, shouted: “Long live the Philippines! Long live the Katipunan!

• Agoncillo used his considerable influenced and campaigned for a change in the recognized site
to Pugad Lawin and the date 23 August 1896. In 1963, the National Heroes Commission (a
forerunner of the NHI), without formal consultations or recommendations to President
Macapagal.
• Consequently, Macapagal ordered that the Cry of Balintawak be called the “Cry of Pugad
Lawin,” and that it be celebrated on 23 August instead of 26 August. The 1911 monument in
Balintawak was later removed to a highway. Student groups moved to save the discarded
monument, and it was installed in front of Vinzons Hall in the Diliman campus of the
University of the Philippines on 29 November 1968.
• In 1962, Teodoro Agoncillo, together with the UP Student Council, placed a marker at the
Pugad Lawin site. According to Agoncillo, the house of Juan Ramos stood there in 1896, while
the house of Tandang Sora was located at Pasong Tamo.
• On 30 June 1983, Quezon City Mayor Adelina S. Rodriguez created the Pugad Lawin Historical
Committee to determine the location of Juan Ramos’s 1896 residence at Pugad Lawin.

THE NHI FILES ON THE COMMITTEE’S FINDINGS SHOW THE FOLLOWING:
• In August 1983, Pugad Lawin in barangay Bahay Toro was inhabited by squatter colonies• The
NHI believed that it was correct in looking for the house of Juan Ramos and not of Tandang
Sora. However, the former residence of Juan Ramos was clearly defined• There was an old dap-
dap tree at the site when the NHI conducted its survey I 1983. Teodoro Agoncillo, Gregorio Zaide
and Pio Valenzuela do not mention a dapdap tree in their books.
• Pio Valenzuela, the main proponent of the “Pugad Lawin” version, was dead by the time the
committee conducted its research. Teodoro Agoncillo tried to locate the marker installed in August
1962 by the UP Student Council. However, was no longer extant in 1983. In spite of the above
findings and in the absence of any clear evidence, the NHI disregarded its own 1964 report that
the Philippine Historical Committee had determined in 1940 that the Pugad Lawin residence was
Tandang Sora’s and not Juan Ramos’s and that the specific site of Pugad Lawin was Gulod in
Banlat.

• The presence of the dap-dap tree in the Pugad Lawin site determined by Agoncillo and the NHI is
irrelevant, since none of the principals like Pio Valenzuela, Santiago Alvarez, and others, nor historians like
Zaide- and even Agoncillo himself before that instance- mentioned such a tree. On the basis of the 1983
committee’s findings, the NHI placed a marker on 23 August 1984 on Seminary Road in barangay Bahay
Toro behind Toro Hills High School, the Quezon City General Hospital and the San Jose Seminary.
ANG SIGAW NG PUGAD LAWIN (1896)
(On this site Andres Bonifacio and one thousand Katipuneros met in the morning of 23 August 1896 and
decided to revolt against the Spanish colonial government in the Philippines. As an affirmation of their
resolve, they tore up their tax receipts which were symbols of oppression of the Filipinos. This was very first
Cry of the Oppressed Nation against Spain which was enforced with use of arms.)
The place name “Pugad Lawin “, however, is problematic. In History of the Katipunan (1939), Zaide records
Valenzuela’s mention of the site in a footnote and not in the body of text, suggesting that the Historian
regarded the matter as unresolved.

CARTOGRAPHIC CHANGES
Was there a Pugad Lawin in maps or literature of the period?
• A rough sketch or croquis de las operaciones practicadas in El Español
showed the movements of Lt. Ros against the Katipunan on 25, 26, and 27
August 1896. The map defined each place name as sitio “Baclac” (sic:
Banlat). In 1897, the Spanish historian Sastron mentioned Kalookan,
Balintawak, Banlat and Pasong Tamo. The names mentioned in some
revolutionary sources and interpretations- Daang Malalim, Kangkong and
Pugad Lawin- were not identified as barrios. Even detailed Spanish and
American maps mark only Kalookan and Balintawak.

• In 1943 map of Manila marks Balintawak separately from Kalookan and
Diliman. The sites where revolutionary events took place are within the ambit of
Balintawak. Government maps issued in 1956, 1987, and 1990, confirm the
existence of barangays Bahay Toro, but do not define their boundaries. Pugad
Lawin is not on any of these maps. According to the government, Balintawak is
no longer on the of Quezon City but has been replaced by several barangays.
Barrio Banlat is now divided into barangays Tandang Sora and Pasong Tamo.
Only bahay Toro remains intact. Writer and linguist Sofronio Calderon,
conducting research in the late 1920s on the toponym “Pugad Lawin,” went
through the municipal records and the Census of 1903 and 1918, could not find
the name, and concluded that “Isang… pagkakamali … ang sabihing mayroong
Pugad Lawin sa Kalookan.” (It would be a mistake to say that there is such as
Pugad Lawin in Kalookan.)

WHAT CAN WE CONCLUDE FROM ALL THIS?
• First, that “Pugad Lawin” was never officially recognized as a place name
on any Philippine map before Second World War.
• Second, “Pugad Lawin “appeared in historiography only from 1928, or
some 32 years after the events took place.
• And third, the revolution was always traditionally held to have occurred
in the area of Balintawak, which was distinct from Kalookan and
Diliman. Therefore, while the toponym “Pugad Lawin” is more
romantic, it is more accurate to stick to the original “Cry of Balintawak.”

DETERMINING THE DATE
The official stand of NHI is that the Cry took place on 23 August 1896.
That date, however, is debatable. The later accounts of Pio Valenzuela and
Guillermo Masangkay on the tearing of cedulas on 23 August are basically in
agreement, but conflict with each other on the location. Valenzuela points to
the house of Juan Ramos in Pugad Lawin, while Masangkay refers to
Apolonio Samson’s in Kangkong. Masangkay’s final statement has more
weight as it is being corroborated by many eyewitnesses who were
photographed in 1917, when the earliest 23 August marker was installed.
Valenzuela’s date (23 August) in his memoirs conflict with 1928 and 1930
photographs of the surveys with several Katipunan officers, published in La
Opinion, which claim that the Cry took place on the 24th.

THE TURNING POINT
• What occurred during those last days of August 1896? Eyewitness accounts mention captures, escapes,
recaptures, killings of Katipunan members; the interrogation of Chinese spies; the arrival of arms in
Meycauyan, Bulacan; the debate with Teodoro Plata and others; the decision to go war; the shouting of
slogan; tearing of cedulas; the sending of letters presidents of Sanggunian and balangay councils; the
arrival of civil guard; the loss of Katipunan funds during the skirmish. All these events, and many others,
constitute the beginning of nationwide revolution.
• The Cry, however, must be defined as that turning point when the Filipinos finally rejected Spanish
colonial dominion over the Philippine Islands, by formally constituting their own national government,
and by investing a set of leaders with authority to initiate and guide the revolution towards the
establishment of sovereign nation.
WHERE DID THIS TAKE PLACE?
The introduction to the original Tagalog text of the Biyak na Bato Constitution states: Ang paghiwalay ng
Filipinas sa kahariang España sa patatag ng isang bayang may sariling pamamahala’t kapangyarihan na
pangangalang “Republika ng Filipinas” ay siyang layong inadhika niyaring Paghihimagsik na kasalukuyan,
simula pa ng ika- 24 ng Agosto ng taong 1896.

The Spanish text also states:
La separacion de Filipinas de la Monarquia Española, constituyendose en Estado
Independiente y soberano con Gobierno propuio, con el nombre de Republica
de Filipinas, es en su Guerra actual, iniciada en 24 de Agosto de 1896.
(The separation of the Philippines from the Spanish Monarchy, constituting an
independent state and with a proper sovereign government, named the Republic
of the Philippines, was the end pursued by the revolution through the present
hostilities, initiated on 24 August 1896) These lines- in a legal document at that –
are persuasive proof that in so far as the leaders of the revolution are concerned,
revolution began on 24 August 1896. The document was written only one and a
half years after the event and signed by over 50 Katipunan members, among
them Emilio Aguinaldo, Artemio Ricarte and Valentin Diaz.

Emilio Aguinaldo’s memoirs, Mga Gunita ng Himagsikan (1964), refer to two letters from Andres
Bonifacio dated 22 and 24 August. They pinpoint the date and place of the crucial Cry meeting
when the decision to attack Manila was made:
(On 22 August 1896, the Magdalo Council received a secret letter from Supremo Andres Bonifacio, in
Balintawak, which stated that the Katipunan will hold an important meeting on the 24th of the said
month, and that it was extremely necessary to send two representatives or delegates in the name of the said
Council. The meeting would be timed to coincide with the feast day of Saint Bartolomew in Malabon,
Tambobong. Upon receiving the said invitation, our President, Mr. Baldomero Aguinaldo, called a meeting
at Tribunal of Cavite el Viejo…We were apprehensive about sending representatives because the areas they
would have pass through were dangerous and was a fact that the Civil Guard and Veterans were arresting
travellers, especially those suspected of being freemasons and members of Katipunan. Nevertheless, we
agreed and nominated to send a single representative in the person of our brave brother, Mr. Domingo
Orcullo… Our representative arrived safely at his destination and also returned unharmed, bearing a letter
from the Supremo dated 24 August. It contained no orders but the shocking announcement that the
Katipunan would attack Manila at night on Saturday, 29 August, the signal for which would be the putting
out of the lamps in Luneta. He added that many of his comrade had been captured and killed by the Civil
Guard and Veterans in Gulod…)

• The first monument to mark the Cry was erected in 1903 on Ylaya Street in Tondo, in front
of the house were Liga Filipina was founded. The tablet cites Andre Bonifacio as a founding
member, and as “ Supreme Head of the Katipunan, which gave the first battle Cry against
tyranny on August 24, 1896.” The above facts render unacceptable the official stand that the
turning point of the revolution was the tearing of cedulas in the “Cry of Pugad Lawin” on
23 August 1896, in the Juan Ramos’s house in “Pugad Lawin” Bahay Toro, Kalookan.
• The events of 17-26 August 1896 occurred closer to Balintawak than to Kalookan.
Traditionally, people referred to the “Cry of Balintawak” since that barrio was a better
known reference point than Banlat. In any case, “Pugad Lawin” is not historiographically
verifiable outside of the statements of Pio Valenzuela in the 1930s and after. In Philippine
Historical Association round-table discussion in February this year, a great granddaughter of
Tandang Sora protested the use of toponym “Pugad Lawin” which, she said, referred to a
hawks nest on top of a tall sampaloc tree at Gulod, the highest elevated area near Balintawak.
This certainly negates the NHI’s premise that “Pugad Lawin” is on Seminary Road in Project
8.

• What we should celebrate is the establishment of a revolutionary or the facto
government that was republican in aspiration, the designation of Bonifacio as the
Kataastaasang Pangulo (Supreme President), the election of the members of his
cabinet ministers and Sanggunian and Balangay heads which authorized these moves
met in Tandang Sora’s barn near Pasong Tamo Road, in sitio Gulod, barrio Banlat then
under the jurisdiction of the municipality of Kalookan. This took place at around noon
of Monday, 24 August 1896.
• It is clear that the so-called Cry of Pugad Lawin of 23 August is an imposition and
erroneous interpretation, contrary to indisputable and numerous historical facts. The
centennial of the Cry of Balintawak should be celebrated on 24 August 1996 at the site
of the barn and house of Tandang Sora in Gulod, now barangay Banlat, Quezon City.
That was when and where the Filipino nation state was born.

The-Different-Historical-Controversies.pptx

More Related Content

Similar to The-Different-Historical-Controversies.pptx

Recently uploaded

The-Different-Historical-Controversies.pptx