Cry of Balintawak or Pugad Lawin:

Which version should we believe, Guillermo or Pio?

It is astonishing how the historic starting point of the Philippine Revolution has its many versions. It is also
quite ironic that when Filipinos finally found unity in revolting against the Spanish dominion, eyewitnesses
and historians who lived to tell the tale did not agree with what had really transpired in the unified rebellion
against a colonizer. Numerous individuals namely Lt. Olegaria Diaz, Pio Valenzuela, Santiago Alvarez,
Gregoria de Jesus, and Guillermo Masangkay gave their versions of the event. Some historians also gave their
secondary accounts. But in this paper, we will focus on the versions of Pio Valenzuela and Guillermo
Masangkay; for the reason that their versions are the most controversial and widely known as authentic and
credible. However, one of them is deemed inconsistent in his words.

In the last days of August 1896, somewhere between the present-day Caloocan and Quezon City, the
Katipunan (organization founded to overthrow the Spanish colonization), with Andres Bonifacio on the lead,
engineered a revolt. This particular phenomenon is referred to as the “Cry of Balintawak”, the “Cry of Pugad
Lawin” or the “Cry of Rebellion” to use the terms of 19th century journalists [1]. The Cry of Balintawak is
celebrated as the National Heroes’ Day. In 1908, the initial commemoration is that it happened in Balintawak
on August 26, 1896. In 1911, a monument was erected. In 1963, the Philippine government under the
administration of President Diosdado Macapagal shifted the date and location to August 23, in Pugad Lawin
[3]. And in 1968, the monument was relocated from Balintawak to a hall in University of the
Philippines-Diliman [4].

There are varying opinions about which specific event pertains to the “Cry”. Is it the attack against the civil
guards? Or is it the tearing of cedulas with accompanying shouts of “Long live the Philippines!”? Guillermo
Masangkay is one of those who claimed that it was the first military encounter [2]. And Teodoro Agoncillo, a
historian who followed Pio Valenzuela’s accounts, chose to endorse the tearing of cedulas as the Cry [1].

Guillermo Masangkay is one of the first members of Katipunan and therefore an eyewitness of the event.
According to him, a meeting was held in Balintawak on August 26, 1896, at the house owned by a cabeza
(Apolonio Samson) at the barrio called Kangkong in Caloocan. Leaders of the Katipunan and board of
directors were present. At about nine o’clock in the morning, the meeting was led by Andres Bonifacio and its
agenda was to discuss when the uprising or the revolt will take place. Not everyone supported the revolt. One
of those who opposed were Teodoro Plata, Broccio Pantas, and Pio Valenzuela. The three reasoned that the
people would be impacted negatively if the revolution started without proper preparation and Valenzuela also
used Rizal’s argument that the bourgeoisie would not be siding with them.
Sensing that he couldn’t agree with the other Katipunan leaders any longer, Bonifacio left the meeting and
faced the people to deliver a speech, “ You remember the fate of our countrymen who were shot in
Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us. Our organization has
been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don’t [sic] start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us
anyway. What then, do you say?” To that the Filipinos shouted, “Revolt!” And then Bonifacio asked them to
destroy their cedulas as a pledge that they were ready for the revolution. To the dismay of Plata, Planta, and
Valenzuela, it was decided that the uprising would push through. The people wanted it, and so their voices
bursted into an uproar, “Long live the Philippine Republic!”

On the afternoon of August 26, the Katipunan was given a warning that the Spaniards were heading to their
quarter. Bonifacio and the other leaders prepared strategies in attacking the civil guards. Guillermo
Masangkay was stationed to guard the places where the Spaniards were expected to pass. Shots fired and this is
the Cry Guillermo was referring to. [5]

Another eyewitness gave his version of the event. Pio Valenzuela’s account that was called “Cry of Pugad
Lawin” is controversial, and, as a matter of fact, has several versions. In the version he held when the incidents
were still fresh from his memory, Pio claimed that the starting point of the Cry was in Balintawak on August
26, 1896. However, in his memoirs, Pio stated that it was in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896 [2]. Stated
below are the contradicting accounts of Pio Valenzuela: [1]

● In September 1896, he stated before the court that the meetings took place from Aug 23 to 25 in
Balintawak.
● In 1911, he stated that the meeting was on Aug 22 and the Cry took place on Aug 23 at Apolonio
Samson’s house in Balintawak.
● From 1928 to 1940, he maintained that the Cry happened in the residence of Melchora Aquino or
better known as Tandang Sora.

According to Soledad Borromeo-Buehler (the author of Cry of Balintawak: A Contrived Controversy), the
Cry of Pugad Lawin is nothing but an invented story. This version was held by three Katipuneros (Pio,
alongside Pachecho and Pantas who also claimed the Cry took place in Pugad Lawin) who left Balintawak
before the first encounter with the civil guards. No evidence can support their version. And the initial version
of Pio in 1896 can be verified with other sources but not the one stated in his memoirs. Buehler also said that
the statements of the three have many differences that “one can only dismiss them” [2].

Now, a question underlies here. If Pio’s side is that faulty and unreliable, why did the Philippine government
agree with it? The answer is Teodoro Agoncillo. Agoncillo was a historian of great refute. He wrote in his
book Revolt of the Masses that the Cry was in Pugad Lawin, 23rd of August 1896. He used his influence in
campaigning the transfer of the declared official site from Balintawak to Pugad Lawin and apparently, he
succeeded.

We, as a group, maintain that the rightful version is Guillermo Masangkay’s Cry of Balintawak; his was the
only consistent and reliable for he was actually there, in that time and place of the first encounter, fighting for
our country against the Spaniards. It is unfortunate that our government would choose a side with a lot of
holes. But looking at all of this from a different perspective, it doesn’t really matter the time and place and
whose version we should believe as long as we commemorate and never forget that once, a group of brave
Filipinos had the courage to revolt against a dominion that enslaved them for more than 300 years.

References
1. Guerrero (2003), In Focus: Balintawak: The Cry for a Nationwide Revolution:
https://ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/in-focus/balintawak-the-cry-for-a-nationwide-revolution
/
2. Borromeo-Buehler (1998), Cry of Balintawak: A Contrived Controversy:
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=RJnMSmXLvr4C&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=on
epage&q&f=false
3. Cruz (2020), Honoring Filipino Heroes:
https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2020/08/30/2038754/honoring-filipino-heroes/amp/
4. Samonte (2021), Relocation of ‘First Cry’ monument from Balintawak to UP recalled:
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1151275
5. Ligan, et al., “One Past but too Many Histories”, in Readings in the Philippine History., Malabon,
Philippines: Mutya Publishing House, pp 79-81, 2019

Group members
Bautista, Niko
De Guzman, Andrea
Ferrer, Jasmine
Padua, Ruth
Uson, Precious