Module OLSS01 - Reading in Philippine History PDF

## MODULE: OLSS01 – READING IN THE PHILIPPINE HISTORY ### CHAPTER 4 - CONTROVERSIES IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY **OBJECTIVES** * Criticize conflicting views concerning certain historical issues * Compare and contrast views of prominent people on particular issues, * Debate on controversial historical i...

## MODULE: OLSS01 – READING IN THE PHILIPPINE HISTORY ### CHAPTER 4 - CONTROVERSIES IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY **OBJECTIVES** * Criticize conflicting views concerning certain historical issues * Compare and contrast views of prominent people on particular issues, * Debate on controversial historical issues. ### MAKING SENSE OF THE PAST: HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION History, in a more contemporary definition, is centered on how it impacts the present through its consequences. According to Geoffrey Barraclough, history is as the "attempt to discover on the basis of fragmentary evidence, the significant things about the past". He also notes that history which is based on facts is a series of accepted judgments. Historians utilized facts collected from primary sources to draw their own reading which intended for the audience to understand the historical event, a process that in essence, “makes sense of the past". To concretize it further, The Code of Kalantiaw, a mythical legal code in the epic history Maragtas, was revealed as a hoax in 1986 but still, some would like to believe that the code is a legitimate document. Also, the “Sa Aking Mga Kababata” which purportedly written by Jose Rizal, when he was 8 years of age. As a matter of fact, there exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. Also, he never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his writings. Furthermore, criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful attribution of the poem to Rizal such as the poem was written in Tagalog and referred the word “kalayaan” which he referred as well in “El Amor Patrio” where it was spelled as 'kalayahan". The poem's spelling is also suspects the use of letters “k” and “w” to replace “c” and “u” respectively. Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the primary source, when it was read and how it was read Interpretations of historical event change overtime; thus, it is an important skill to track changes in an attempt to understand the past. This entails that the things we accept as "true" about the past might not be the case anymore. And so, historians must ensure the relevance of the events happened in the past. ### MULTIPERSPECTIVITY Another important concept of history is multiperpectivity. Multiperspectivity is a way of looking at historical events, personalities, developments, cultures, and societies from different perspectives. This means that there is a multitude ways which we can view the world that is equally valid and equally partial as well. Historical writing is biased, partial, and contains preconceptions. So, historians decide on what sources to use, what interpretation to make more apparent, depending on what his end is. With multiperspectivity as an approach in history, historical interpretations contain discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities and are often the focus of dissent. Exploring multiperspectives in history requires incorporating varied source materials that may create space for more investigation and research, while providing more evidence for those truths that these sources agree on. Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths which renders more validity to the historical scholarship and also a more complete and richer understanding of the past. ### CASE 1: BUTUAN OR LIMASAWA? THE SITE OF THE FIRST MASS IN THE PHILIPPINES The first ever Easter Mass in the Philippines a landmark in the history of Philippine Christianity was held in 1521 on the island of Mazaua, known today as Limasawa Island, Leyte. This was the conclusion drawn by Dr. Antonio Sanchez de Mora, an expert on Spanish medieval history and head of the reference service at the Archivo General de Indias in Seville, Spain, after combing over sources in the archive pertinent to the initial encounter and first mass celebrated in an island called Mazaua and comparing them with other archival sources. Mora presented his findings as the centerpiece of "500th Anniversary of the Mass at Limasawa: The Confusion and Contention over Mazaua," the second installment of the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy Department of History's "Talastasan sa Kasaysayan" online lecture series held on Mar. 16, 4 p.m. over Zoom and broadcast over the National Quincentennial Commission of the Philippines (NQC) portal. Mora grouped his sources into four: documents written during Ferdinand Magellan's historicexpedition around the world; reports and testimonies of the survivors who managed to make it back to Europe; chronicles and other primary sources by authors who interviewed the survivors and who consulted their documents as well as maps and nautical charts; and secondary sources that years later interpreted the information provided by the primary sources and the testimonies transmitted over time. Mora said the documents, primary sources and maps from the 16th century confirm that the island of Mazaua was the site of an Easter Sunday Mass on March 31, 1521 and that on a hill on this island a cross was raised to be seen from afar. "The geographical description, the analysis of the directions, the revision of the maps and the references to the island of Mazaua between 1521 and 1565 must identify it with [modern-day] Limasawa,” he said. Up until 1921, it was believed that the event was held somewhere near the mouth of the Agusan River in what is today the municipality of Magallanes, Agusan del Norte. The shift to the Limasawa tradition happened following the publication of a transcription of a logbook from a pilot of the ship Victoria (one of the vessels in the Magellan expedition), stating that the crew placed a cross on an island called “Mazaua" whose location is closer to Cebu. Was it really Limasawa or Butuan? Debates continue on where first Mass was held here in the Philippines. There is a controversy regarding the site of the first Mass ever celebrated on Philippine soil. Pigafetta, the Italian chronicler of the Magellan expedition, tells us that it was held at Easter Sunday, the 31st of March 1521, on an island called “Mazaua”. Two native chieftains were in attendance; the rajah of Mazaua and the rajah of Butuan. After the Mass, party went up a little hill and planted a wooden cross upon its summit. In this case, the subject of the controversy is the identity of Mazaua. There are two conflicting claims regarding this: one school of thought points to the small island south of Leyte whereas, the other school rejects that claim and points instead the beach called “masao”, at the mouth of the Agusan River in northern Mindanao, near the village (now the city) of Butuan. Judging from the facts presented and basing from the information and evidences which I have researched, I affirm that the first mass in the Philippines was held in Limasawa. The first evidence to support my argument in accordance to the accounts of Pigafetta and Francisco Albo who are eye-witnesses of the Magellan's voyage both stated that the first mass in the Philippines took place on an island called Mazava in Albo's account and Mazaua in Pigafetta's account. They both asserted that from the island of Homonhon they went westward towards the island of Leyte and turned to a south west direction to reach this island. Based on these geographic locations provided by Albo and Pigafetta, the island of Limasawa in Southern Leyte is the counterpart. On the contrary, the statement of Father Fernando Colins, a historian, in his work Labor Evangelica, he asserted that Magellan went to Butuan and there he celebrated the first mass and erected a cross. And to support this, Antonio Pigafetta testified that he gave a gift of certain things to the queen Mother of France Louise of Savory and mother of Francis I. Gian Battista Ramusio mentioned that a copy of Pigafetta's account was given to Louise of Savory. Whereas, these manuscripts were translated to French by Jacques Fabre and imprinted by Simon de Colins. And also, there was a monument erected during 1872 to commemorate the First Mass in Butuan on April 8,1521. In myopinion, Ramusio's version of Pigafetta's manuscripts are not reliable. ### CASE 2: THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for all the Filipinos. In this particular day, the entire Filipino nation as well as Filipino communities all over the world gathers to celebrate the Philippines' Independence Day. 1898 came to be a very significant year for all of us it is as equally important as 1896 - the year when the Philippine Revolution broke out owing to the Filipinos' desire to be free from the abuses of the Spanish colonial regime is as historic as the two - 1872. Two major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the other was the martyrdom of the three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA). However, not all of us knew that there were different accounts in reference to the said event. All Filipino must know the different sides of the story since this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of our history the execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos. ### 1872 CAVITE MUTINY: SPANISH PERSPECTIVE Jose Montero y Vidal, a profile Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it is an attempt 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 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 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. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish press for "stockpiling" malicious propaganda grasped by the Filipinos. He 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. Izquierdo, in his report, lambasted the indios as gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing. 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 a 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. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares. On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill fear among 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. ### 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 the 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 of the Filipinos, which general believed as a cover-up for the organization of the a political club. On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were from the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn't happen. The news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued. Powerful lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as an army but also included residents Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government in the direction and management of educational institutions. This turnout of events, as believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to do something drastic in their desire to maintain power in the Philippines. Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reform, the Central Government of Spain welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree proposed to improve the standards of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy's zest of secularization. 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. Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced to life imprisonment while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund Plauchut's account complimented Tavera's account by confirming that the event happened due to discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he actually witnessed. ### 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 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 the power to intervene in government affairs as well as in the direction of schools prompting them to commit frantic moves to extend their stay and management. 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 Noli Me Tangere, may we "not forget those who fell during the night." ### CASE 3: DR. JOSE P. RIZAL'S RE TRACTION Fr. Vicente Balaguer was born in Alicante, Spain, on January 19, 1851. He joined the Society of Jesus on July 30, 1890 and went to the Philippines in 1894. Moreover, he was one of the Jesuit priests who visited Rizal's last hours in Fort Santiago and claimed that he managed to persuade Rizal to denounce masonry and return to the Catholic fold. In 1917 when he had returned to Spain, an affidavit executed that proves he was who solemnized the marriage of Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken. Rafael Palma was born on October 24, 1874. He was a Filipino politician, lawyer, writer, educator and a famous freemason. Additionally, he became the fourth President of the University of the Philippines. He was later elected as senator under the Nacionalista Party, consistently representing the 4th District, in both the 1916 and 1919 senatorial polls. Furthermore, he was the author of Biografia de Rizal, a work on the life of the national hero which won a literary contest in 1938 sponsored by the Commonwealth Government. The story of Rizal's alleged retraction is found in chapter 32 and 33 with his analysis in the latter chapter. Dr. Jose Rizal was arrested, tried, and sentenced to death by a Spanish court martial after being implicated as a leader of the Philippine Revolution. On December 30, 1896, accounts exist that Rizal allegedly retracted his masonic ideals and his writings reconverted to Catholicism following several hours of persuasion by the Jesuit priests. A few hours before he was shot, Rizal signed a document stating that he was a Catholic and retracted all his writings against the church and the document were as “The Retraction". Moreover, Rizal's retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935 at the Catholic hierarchy's archive in Manila. The letter dated December 29, 1896. According to Fr. Balaguer, he and Fr. Vilaclara arrived in Rizal's prison cell around 100'clock in the morning on December 29, 1896. He mentioned in his letter and affidavit that their encounter with Rizal started with a discussion of some articles of Catholic faith. They debated on issues such as the supremacy of faith over reason and the dogmatic differences that divided Catholics and Protestants. They explained to him that they could not administer the sacraments he needed without him signing a retraction letter and making a profession of faith. The two Jesuits left Rizal's prison around lunchtime, with Rizal still undecided over whether to sign the retraction letter or not. The Jesuits went straight to the archbishop's palace and informed their superiors of what had transpired during their first meeting with Rizal. Frs. Balaguer and Vilaclarare turned to Rizal around 3 o'clock in the afternoon and tried until sunset to persuade him torecant. They were still not able to convince him to sign the retraction document. Their third meeting with Rizal took place at 10 o'clock that night, and it was during this meeting that they showed Rizal the two retraction templates Fr. Pi had given them. According to Fr. Balaguer, Rizal found the first template unacceptable because it was too long and its language and style were not reflective of his personality. So, Fr. Balaguer withdrew it and offered the shorter one Rizal did not sign it right away because he was uncomfortable with the statement "I abominate. Masonry as a society reprobated by the Church.” Rizal wanted to emphasize that Philippine Masonry was not hostile to Catholicism and that Masonry in London did not require its members to renounce their faith. The Jesuits allowed Rizal to revise the retraction template, and his final version read, “I abominate Masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated by the same Church” (Cavanna 1956, 9). After making other minor changes to the draft, Rizal together with Señor Fresno, chief of the picket, and Señor Moure, adjutant of the plaza signed the retraction letter before midnight. After which, Fr. Balaguer handed it over to Fr. Pi, who in turn submitted it to Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda. On the other hand, Rafael Palma, a prominent Mason, disputed the veracity of the document of the alleged retraction because it did not reflect Rizal's true character and beliefs. He regarded the resurrected retraction story as a “pious fraud". Where, according to his analysis, there traction of Rizal was hearsay with the following reasons: First, the documents of retraction were kept secret so that no one except the authorities was able to see it that time. Secondly, when the family of Rizal ask for the original copy of the document as well as the certificate of canonical marriage with Josephine Bracken, bot petitions were denied. Third, Rizal's burial was kept secret, in spite of what Rizal meant to the Filipinos and of what his conversion meant, no masses were said for his soul or funeral held by Catholics. Notwithstanding that Rizal was reconciled with the church, he was not buried in the Catholic cemetery of Paco but in the ground without any cross or stone to mark his grave. And, in the entry of the entry in the book of burials of the interment of Rizal's body is not made on the page those buried on December 30, 1896, instead he was considered among persons died impenitent with no spiritual aid. Lastly, there was no moral motive for the conversion. To conclude, whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers believe that the retraction document was more of Rizal taking a moral courage to recognize his mistakes. Perhaps it may be true that he retracted and reverted to his faith, but this does not diminish Rizal's stature as a great hero with such greatness. As mentioned, the documentary entitled “Ang Bayaning Third World”, Joel Torre's impersonation of Rizal told the time travellers that whether he retracted or not, it does change what he has already done and what his writings have already achieved. Furthermore, former Senator Jose Diokno once stated, "Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino. Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero who courted death." ### REFERENCES * Garcia, A. M. (2022). Unraveling Controversies in Philippine History: A Critical Examination. Philippine Historical Review, 35(1), 55-70. * Lopez, R. P. (2020). Debating Perspectives: Historiographical Controversies in the Philippines. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 18(2), 123-140.