READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

LECTURE NOTES - PRELIM

OBJECTIVES:
After having gone through the chapter, the student will be able to:
1. Explain the Importance of studying history
2. List down specific examples of primary from secondary sources
3. Narrate the controversial historical event
4. Support a particular account or version of controversial historical event by
providing primary and secondary sources and
5. Compare and contrast different accounts or versions of controversial historical
event.

THE STUDY OF HISTORY

The relevance of studying the past was not spared from doubt and controversy.
As others maintained there is no reason to study the past, for the situation today is
totally different, the assumptions, conclusions and solutions may not be appropriate.
History, unlike other sciences, will not give exact details of a certain fact, it only deals
with past human activities and these activities that are recorded in various medium, the
manner on how it was relayed can NEVER BE THE EXACT.
Despite many questions about the benefits of studying history, nations still rely
on the lessons of their past as they have no other means to use as a link to the present.
History serves as a REMINDER AND A DIARY of country’s distant past; a MIRROR to
examine the present and a COMPASS to guide the future.

HISTORY means the search for knowledge and truth, a searching to find out. It is any
integrated narrative or description of pass events or facts written in a spirit of critical
inquiry for the whole truth.
Encyclopedia Brittanica defined history as “the discipline that studies the chronological
order of events (as affecting a nation or people), based on critical examination of source
materials and usually presenting an explanation of their causes.”

WHY STUDY HISTORY?

1. To learn about the lives of our ancestors, their struggles and achievements. What
we have today are the products of their innovation, hardwork and sacrifices.
2. To understand the present (traditions, system of government, cultural heritage
and many other things)
3. To appreciate our heritage in a broad perspective. Our belief system, patriarchal
tradition, common values including our material culture.
4. To acquire a background for critical thinking.

1
RELATIONSHIP OF HISTORY WITH OTHER SOCIAL SCIENCES

1. HISTORY AND POLITICAL SCIENCE

-One cannot understand the principles and system of government of a certain
country without knowing its history on the structure of government, rights and
duties of citizens, laws and regulations, and its relations to the other states.
2. HISTORY AND ECONOMICS
-The evolution of economic activities of humankind from hunting and gathering
societies to post-industrial society can be best understood by looking at the past.
3. HISTORY AND SOCIOLOGY
-Early societies and communities, evolution of culture, social change and other
developments in social behavior are chronologically explained by history.
4. HISTORY AND ETHICS
-History provides records of mistakes committed by people and nations. Mistakes
in the past have moral and ethical implication which serves as guide to arrive at
just, reasonable and acceptable actions in the future.
5. HISTORY AND PSYCHOLOGY
-Psychology provides understanding of motives and actions of human and
societies. History give us idea about the behavior of controversial leaders in the
past and their actions. Through analogy, it is possible to predict behavior and
actions of the present leaders. History, therefore, provides public consciousness
that enables the people to be vigilant to the possible wrongdoing of their leaders.
6. HISTORY AND GEIOGRAPHY
-According to NationalGeographic.com “when learning about historical topics, it
can be very helpful to simultaneously study a region’s geography”. Certain areas
of the Philippines provide clear explanation why significant events in the past
such as why Americans put up military facilities in Corregidor during World War II
or why Americans developed Baguio City during their early settlement and that is
due to its cold weather where Americans are used to it.

CLASSIFICATION OF HISTORICAL SOURCES

Historical sources may be classified as PRIMARY OR SECONDARY. A primary

source is regarded as the source of the “best evidence”. This is because the data come
from the testimony of able eye and eye witnesses to past events. They may also consist
of actual objects used in the past which you can directly examine.
Primary sources, the only solid bases of historical work, are the original
documents or remains, the first witnesses to a fact. These are facts gathered through
questionnaire and the interview, all data supplied by respondents and interviewees who
have actually experienced and observed the events upon which the data have been
based.
Secondary sources are information supplied by a person who was not a direct
observer or participant of the event, object or condition. These are all writings by people

2
who have never experienced nor observed personally the objects and have based their
writings upon information gathered from those who have knowledge of the events.

INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CRITICISM

External criticism refers to the genuineness of the documents a researcher used
in a historical study. Questions that illustrate external criticism include:
Who was the author?
What was the his/her qualifications, personality and position?
How soon after the events was the document written and how was the document
was written and
is it related to other ducument?
On the other hand, Internal criticism is textual criticism, it involves factor such as
competence, good faith, position and bias of the author. It looks at the content of the
document to determine its authenticity. It also involves determining the intention of the
source of the data while external criticism conducts document analysis using science. It
applies physical and technical tests to the document.

AUXILLIARY SCIENCES THAT HELP IN DETERMINING AUTHENTICITY AND

GENUINENESS OF A DOCUMENT

1. EPIGRAPHY
– the study of inscriptions and the art of deciphering them.
2. DIPLOMATICS
– the science of charters and diplomas and includes knowledge of the practices
and of the forms used in them.
3. PALEOGRAPHY
– the study of writing which has a history all of its own.
4. PHILOLOGY
– in all its branches is of the greatest use in determining date and authenticity.
5. ARCHEOLOGY
– the scientific study of life and culture of the past, especially ancient peoples, as
far as excavations of ancient cities, relics, artifacts, etc.
6. ANTHROPOLOGY
– the study of humans, especially of the variety, physical and cultural
characteristics, distribution, customs, social relationships, etc. of humanity.
7. PREHISTORY
– history before recorded history as learned from archeology.
8. CHEMISTRY AND THE PAPERMAKER’S ART
– may be able to say and have often said that a given document written on wood
pulp with a particular ink, for example, cannot be older than the definite date
when these materials were first manufactured. Coins and medals too are often of
great historical value.

3
 LESSON 2

CONTROVERSIES IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Significant event in the past always have different version, like choices in a
multiple choice test, it depends upon whose narration will you believe in. as
eyewitnesses and even people who actually took part in the significant have
contradicting narrations, this complicates the study of history. While many may agree
that what counts is the event and its contributions to what we are and what we have
today, history enthusiast would continue to seek and demand the exact narration of
events to finally put to rest these controversies. The emergence of modern technology
has little contribution to shed light to these controversies, it is a must for the historians to
put these while the primary and secondary sources are still available.

SITE OF THE FIRST MASS

Where was the first official Roman Catholic mass held? Accounts of the
historians differ as to where was the holy sacrament was celebrated by Father Pedro
Valderrama on Easer Morning of March 31, 1521, whether it was in Limasawa,
Southern Leyte or Masao, Butuan City. Comparing the narratives, it is clear that the
term used to describe the place are almost similar to one another as it is called either,
MAZAVA, MAZAGUA, MAZAUA, or MASAO but they were unanimous that the place
was abundant in gold and spices. While the enactment of law in 1960 has temporarily
put to rest the issue, there is a need of careful and thorough investigation for the people
Limasawa and the people of Butuan.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF LIMASAWA, SOUTHERN LEYTE

1. Francisco Albo’s Account
A journal or log of Magallanes voyage was written by Francisco Albo, covering
the voyage from Cape San Agustin in Brazil until the “Victoria” (the first ship to
circumnavigate to globe) returned to Spain. The log begins in November 29, 1519, and
ends September 4, 1522.
March 1516, they sight more islands, giving names to two, Suluan and Yunagan – The first island of the archipelago of
San Lazaro (the Philippines). They land successively at the islands of Gada, Seilani, and Mazava, and pass by or anchor at
Matan, Subu, Baibai. “We left Subu sailing southeast…. Between the Cape of Subu and an island name Bohol; and on the
western side of the Cape of Subu is another Island, by name, Panilongo, inhabited by blacks. This island and Subu have
gold and quantities of ginger”

Notice the word “Mazava” was the site where the expedition landed.

2. Miguel Lopez De Legaspi And/Or Hernando Riquel (Court Clerk Of The

Home Office) Account
Based on the May 1564 Report of the Occurences on the Voyage and Journey of
the Armada of His Majesty under the Command of General Miguel Lopez de Legazpi in
the Discovery of the Islands of the West. The expedition as we know, was led by Miguel

4
 Lopez de Legazpi, who was on board the San Pedro, together with head technician,
navigator Andres de Urdaneta and Hernando Riquel, court clerk of the Home Office.
“In the morning of February 13, 1564, they caught sight of the Philippines. The expedition entered the Philippines at the
island of sSamar called Tandaya. Based on the descriptions of the pilots and on a map drawn on their charts by Martinez
Fortun and Diego Martin, we can conclude without any doubt that the point of arrival was island of Tubabao on the coast
of Samar, situated on latitude 12˚07˚ and 125˚33˚ east. Magellan had reached the Philippines making landfall at this
time point. On March 9, after consultation with the officers, it was decided that the expedition go to the island of
Mazagua, now called LImasawa.

Notice the word “Mazagua” was the site where the expedition landed. But based
on the accounts, the Legazpi-Urdaneta Expedition followed exactly the route of
Magellan’s voyage.

3. Pigafetta’Account
In Antonio Pigafetta’s account “Primo Viaggio Intorno Al Mondo” (Fist Voyage
Around the World) event of 1519-1522. He narrated the Magellan’s voyage while James
Alexander Robertson translated it into English Language. The trasnscipt is made from
the original documents, which exist in the Biblioteca Amrosiana, Milan, Italy. The
narration of Pigafetta’s account was taken from Blair & Robertson (1975).

“Early on the morning of Sunday, the last of March, and Easter day, the captain-general sent the priest with some men to
prepare the place where mass was to be said; together with the interpreter to tell the king that we were not going to land
in order to dine with him, but to say mass.…There are dogs, cats, swine, fowls, goats, rice, ginger, cocoa-nuts, figs (i.e.,
bananas), oranges, lemons, millet, panicum, sorgo, wax and a quantity of gold in THAT ISLAND. It lies in latitude of nine
and two thirds degrees toward the Arctic Pole, and in a longitude of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of
demarcation. It is twenty-five from the Acquada, and is called MAZAUA.”
4. Jose Arcilla, Historian
Jose Arcilla, author of “Introduction to Philippine History”, maintained that
Magellan never stepped on the grounds of Butuan where the alleged first mass took
place.
“On March 16, 1521, Magellan reached the Philippines. In Limasawa, the islanders and Europeans quickly became
friends. The islanders described to the newcomers other places, like Butuan and Calagan (Caraga), but Magellan did not
go there”

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF MASAO, BUTUAN CITY

1. Gregorio Zaide – provides narration of what transpired during the first mass in
the Philippines, below is his narration:

“Another important event took place at Butuan. The First mass was held on the shore of Masao, Butuan on Easter
morning, 2. Fred
March 31,Atkinson, author
1521. It was of “The
said that FatherPhilippine Islands” published
Pedro de Valderrama, the Spanishinchaplain
1905, provides in mass. The
officiated the
Filipino Kingshis
andbook:
their men attended the mass along with Magellan and his men. After the mass, the Filipinos were
treated to a fencing exhibition by the Spaniards. Then, at sunset of the same day, Magellan planted a huge wooden cross
on the top of the hill overlooking the sea. “ 5
 “But without lingering Magellan continued westward and in March reaches BUTUAN, on the northern shore of
Mindanao, where he landed and raising a cross on a small hill nearby and celebrating the FIRST MASS IN THE
PHILIPPINES, took possession of the island in the name of the King of Spain, and began to win over the people to Spanish
Authority (Atkinson, 1905).”

3. John Ford, author of “Additional Pages from an American Cruiser in the East”
which was published in 1898, provides in his book.
“On November 26, 1520. He (Magellan) found himself on the broad Pacific, and boldly stood to the northward, and on
March 16, 1521, he reached Ladrones Islands and sailed along the north coast of Mindanao. During Easter week of the
same year he arrived at the entrance to the BUTUANO River, where the FIRST MASS IN THE PHILIPPINES was celebrated. “

4. Written also in the Military Notes on the Philippines in September 1898 at the
United States Adjutant – General’s Office a recognition of Butuan as the site of
the first mass in the Philippines, the account states:
“Butuan town is situated on the right bank of the river BUTUAN, about 18 miles from the mouth, and contains some
2,000 inhabitants, chiefly engaged in working a gold mine in the vicinity. The anchorage is frequented by traders from
Port Misamis, and from Cebu and Mr. Looney remarks that he carried from 3 to 5 fathoms of water between the bar of
the river and the town. The water of the river at BUTUAN is fresh and used for drinking.

The town of BUTUAN is celebrated in history as being the place where Magellan landed after his anchorage near
Limasawa Island, and where he celebrated the FIRST MASS IN THE PHILIPPINES.“

LIMASAWA LAW

On June 19, 1960, Republic Act No. 2733, called the Limasawa Law was enacted
without the signature of the President of the Philippines. This law recognized Limasawa
as the site of the first mass in the Philippines. Obviously, some would question if an ac
of the congress is the proper measure to correct or change our history.
click link below for Republic Act No. 2733 contents and learn something about it:
https://www.chanrobles.com/republicacts/republicactno2733.html#.XwVA6rkRWDY

LESSON 3
JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACION

Retraction – the action of drawing something back or back in

“He did or he did not”, a question that was raised up following Jose Rizal’s execution on
December 30, 1896 at Bagumbayan. While it is clear that few hours before his death,
he accepted many visitors and wrote letters his loved ones, contradicting accounts
emerged from those who believed that he retracted and for those who do not believe
that he retracted.

6
From the accounts of priests and Spanish newspapers, he retracted but for those who
opposed, there was a secret letter hidden inside Jose Rizal’s shoes denying the
retraction and a claim that friars published a fake copy of retraction.

ARGUMENTS FAVORING THE RETRACTION

1. LA VOZ ESPANOLA AND DIARIO DE MANILA’S NARRATION

Vaňo (1985) presented the four text in his book entitled “Light in Rizal’s Death
Cell”. The first was published in LaVoz Espaňola and Diario de Manila on the
very day of Rizal’s execution, December 30, 1896. The text of retraction is
provided below

2. FATHER BALGUER’S TEXT

It was from a text dated on January 1897, the text of retraction is provided
below.

7
3. FATHER MANUEL GARCIA’S TEXT
The third is alleged “original” text from Father Manuel Garcia dated May 18,1935.
The text is provided below

8
4. LETTERS OF JOSEPHINE BRACKEN
One letter was made by Josephine Bracken in 1897 which was a brief description
of her life:

If bracken, in her diary claimed that Rizal married her hours before Rizal’s
execution and the fact that she even used “Rizal” as surname. Then there could
be a retraction. It is a condition of the priest before solemnizing the marriage of
Rizal and Bracken that the former (Rizal) retracted first.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST RETRACTION

1. STATEMENT OF BARON FERNADEZ
Fernandez stated “I have documents stating before he faced death, Rizal told
Narcisa to look inside his shoes because he had a secret letter there.
Fernandez claimed that the letter contained the denial of his retraction
because Rizal knew that friars were misleading the Filipino people”

2. MANOLING MORATO “EXPOSE”

Morato said in his “EXPOSE” that the friars forged the retraction letter and
published in the CLERICO-FASCIST newspapers at that time. Morato
maintained that Rizal never retracted although friars managed to publish a
fake copy of his retraction

3. JOSEPHINE BRACKEN FAILED TO PRODUCE MARRIAGE CONTRACT

After Jose Rizal’s death, Josephine sued the Rizal Family in order to produce
“Jose’s Last Will and Testament” and even wrote Ferdinand Blumentritt
asking help to claime some properties entitled to her being the widow of Rizal.
When basa received the demand from Josephine and her lawyers, he only
asked Josephine’s proof of marriage with Jose Rizal, a marriage cerficate
issued by church authorities but Josephine was not able to produce the
document and failed to claim some properties of Rizal.

9
 CRY OF BALINTAWAK OR CRY OF PUGADLAWIN

The first accepted venue and date was “Balintawak” dated August 26; it was in
1963 that it was changed to “Pugad Lawin” on August 23 through the issuance of former
President Diosdado Macapagal of Proclamation No. 149 series of 1963. Ambeth
Ocampo even enumerated five different places like:
Balintawak , Pugad Lawin, Kangkong, Bahay Toro, and Pasong Tamo in five different
dates like 20, 23, 24,25 or 26 of August 1896.
The August 26 in Balintawak and August 23 in Pugal Lawin happened to be the
two (2) most famous versions because of the reputation of historians who wrote it
according to their sources. The Balintawak version written by Gregorio Zaide and Pugad
Lawin’s version by Teodoro Agoncillo, author of Revolt of the Masses. But there is
another account taken from the memoirs of Emilio Aguinaldo supporting Balintawak as
the place of the “cry” but the date was August 24.

BATTLE OF TIRAD PASS

Did Del Pilar die on Top of the mountain or was he at the hilltop when he was shot? Did
it happen while he was rallying his troops to fight the enemies? Did the bullet of the
Riffle penetrated to his heart or to his neck? Was he the last man standing defending
the pass? Was he riding the white horse? Was he 23or 24 years of age when he was
killed in the historic battle? There were many different versions of the young general’s
death, conflicting as they are, but his love of country can never be doubted.

LAST FILIPINO GENERAL TO SURRENDER TO THE AMERICANS

All those who contributed to defend the motherland deserve recognition. From sentry to
general, everyone should be honored for his sacrifices to freedom. But other than
individual recognition, there is a need to revisit and look into reliable sources in order to
correct the pages of our history. On the recognition as to who was the last Filipino
general to hoist the white flag there were three different individuals who were
recognized by historians as the last high-ranking military official tor resist foreign rule,
they are Miguel Malvar, Simeon Ola and Macario Sakay. Whoever is the last man
standing, it does not take away the bravery and brilliance to any of these Filipino
generals but more importantly, we have to know the truth for the sake of knowing the
truth.

ARGUMENTS FAVORING MIGUEL MALVAR

1. TEODORO AGONCILLO’S ACCOUNT
“On April 16, -Philippines’ prominent
1902, General Malvar historian
surrendered Teodoro
in order Agoncillo
to save recognizes
his people MiguelofMalvar
from the brutality the enemy as and from
thesurrender
hunger. With the last Filipino general
of General to surrender
Malvar, to the Americans.
systematic opposition to AmericanInsovereignty
his bookceased.
“Introduction
It is true that here
to Filipino History”, he states:
and there, as in the case of Macario Sakay, patriots refused to surrender, but their effect on the Americans was
negligibly”.
10
 *Note that Teodoro Agoncillo was from Batangas Province and historians are
insinuating that he favored Malvar even though he surrendered earlier two years
than Simeon Ola.

2. JOSE MALVAR ACCOUNT, MALVAR’S GRANDSON

Jose Malvar, grandson of Miguel Malvar, in his article to the Philippine Daily
Inquirer dated November 12, 2016, did not contest the claim that it was either
Simeon Ola or Macario Sakay and not his grandfather Miguel Malvar as the last
Filipino general to surrender to the Americans but rather he claimed that “there
was no surrender that took place but rather a peace agreement with the
Americans”.

ARGUMENTS FAVORING SIMEON OLA

1. PIO ARSENIO LABANAN, LOCAL HISTORIAN OF GUINOBATAN, ALBAY
In the article entitled “Ola, Not Malvar, Was the Last General to Surrender, Say
Sons, dated September 22, 2016, Pio Arsenio Labanan was a local historian and
the Chair of Guinoban Cultural Heritage and Arts claimed that:
“One of the country’s top historians,Teodoro Agoncillo, considers Malvar the last general of the First Philippine Republic
to give up to the Americans on April 13, 1902. “Agoncillo is from Batangas, so naturally, his drumbeating for Malvar was
excellent until such time that it was found out that Malvar surrendered earlier by two years”, Labanan said referring to
the claims of his professor in college. Ola surrendered on September 25, 1903, a year and five months afterMalvar to then
Governor Bette and Colonel Banholtz with 28 of his men and officers, on the condition that they be granted amnesty.”

2. THE MINNEAPOLIS JOURNAL REPORT

This report was the issue of September 26, 1903 entitled “Leader of Philippine
Insurrectionists Gives Himself Up to the American Troops” states

“Manila, September 26 – General Ola, leader of the band of the insurrectos who have been creating considerable trouble
in the provinces of Albay, Luzon, has surrendered to the American troops, with twenty-eight officers and men of his
command. He has surrendered a few of his guns, and has promised to turn over all arms belonging to his band without
delay.”

“Governor Betts, the provincial executive officer of Albay, says that this practically ends all armed resistance in that
portion of the island.”

*Some consider Simeon Ola as a bandit leader and not a military general

ARGUMENTS FAVORING MACARIO SAKAY

1. CARMEN GUERERO NAKPIL ACCOUNT
In her account that was published in the Philippine Star dated September 8,
2008, she stated that Sakay was invited to a town fiesta in Cavite by US Colonel
Van Shaick. At 11:30 that a.m. that day, US officers with pistols in hand walked in
and Sakay fought unarmed against the attacker. He and his officer were
disarmed.

11
2. THE LOST ANGELES HERALD
-stated on its issue of June 16, 1906 entitled “Filipino Battles to Cease: Macario
Sakay Gives Up the Unequal Struggle that Macario Sakay surrendered at the
constabulary headquarters in Manila. The surrender of this Landrone chieftain
was accomplished through the influence of Villafuerte, a former official of Sakay’s
government.

3. MACARIO SAKAY’S PICTURE AT THE MALACAÑANG PALACE

At the Presidential Museum and Library of the Malacaňang Palace, a picture of
Sakay with the title “General Macario Sakay” is displayed with his biography. If
at the office of the President, he was recognized as “General” and not a “bandit”
and it is clear that he surrendered on June 16,1906. Does he deserve to be
recognized now as the “last Filipino general to surrender to the Americans?”

12