GEC03 Readings in Philippine History PDF

GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 1 Readings in Philippine History For SLSU use only! 1 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History...

GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 1 Readings in Philippine History For SLSU use only! 1 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 2 COURSE DESCRIPTION Philippine History viewed from the lens of selected primary sources in different periods, analysis and interpretations. The course aims to expose students to different facets of Philippine history through the lens of eyewitnesses. Rather than rely on secondary materials such as textbooks, which is the usual approach in teaching Philippine history, different types of primary sources will be used – written (qualitative and quantitative), oral, visual, audio-visual, digital – covering various aspects of Philippine life (political, economic, social, cultural). Students are expected to analyze the selected readings contextually and in term of content (stated and implied). The end goal is to enable students to understand and appreciate our rich past by deriving insights from those who were actually present at the time of the event. Context analysis considers the following: 1) the historical context of the source (time and place it was written and the situation at the time). 2) the author’s background, intent (to the extent discernable), and authority on the subject and the source’s relevance and meaning today. Content analysis, on the other hand, applies appropriate techniques depending on the type of source (written, oral, visual). In the process students will be asked, for example, to identify the author’s main argument, compare point of view, identify biases, and evaluate the author’s claim based on the evidences presented or other available evidence at the time. The course will guide the students through their reading and analysis of the texts and require them to write reaction essays of varied length and present their ideas in other ways. The course analyzes Philippine history from multiple perspectives through the lens of selected primary sources coming from various disciplines and of genres. The end goal is to develop the historical and critical consciousness of the students so that they will become versatile, articulate, broad minded, morally upright and responsible citizens. This course includes mandatory topics on the Philippine Constitution, agrarian reform and, taxation. COURSE GUIDE This module emphasizes the relevance of studying Philippine History form multiple perspectives based on selected primary and secondary source. Each section consists of variety of traditional and non-traditional activities and tasks that will truly aid you in comprehensively understanding the topics. This module is designed for you to learn the lessons independently, diligently and intelligently. Make your learning process more exciting, work with your module page by page, and avoid peeking on the discussions. The following guides will help you in every step of the learning process. 1. Allocate and manage your time to read, understand every part of the module. You can read the discussion over and over until you absorb the point. There is no particular schedule in studying the course, but be mindful of the schedule dates of submission of outputs (refer to the schedule guide) 2. There are announcements, discussion and activities that will be posted, so check course site, and group chat or text messages. 3. Before you start doing the tasks, read and be mindful of the assessment tool and the instructions. Always aim for the highest standard. 2 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 3 4. Do not plagiarize. It is a crime you will be penalized. Do not copy and paste. Quote your sources. 5. Announcements will be used to post course updates including changes to due dates, reminders, and general course information. Be sure to check the announcement tool as soon as you log into the course. 6. Lastly, if you have problems, questions and feedback don’t be shy to tell it to your Instructor. You can send it through our course site, through:  Email Add: [email protected]  Cell number: 09088832527. (I will be responding every MWF 8:00-11:00 AM and TTH 1:00-4:00 PM) a. When using email contact Please follow using the Subject: PROGRAM – Course Code- Surname (e.g. ABHist-GEC03-DelaGracia- Activity1) b. Please use proper spelling when contacting through messenger and email. Please refrain from “text-talk” SCHEDULE GUIDE Module Topics N0. Of Weeks 1 Meaning of Relevance of History 1-3 1. Distinction of primary and secondary sources 2. External and Internal Criticism 3. Comparative Analysis of Primary Sources 3.1 Santiago Alvarez,Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General Teodoro Agoncillo, History of the Filipino People 2 Content and contextual analysis of selected primary sources; 4 -6 identification of the historical importance of the text; and examination of the author’s main argument and point of view 1. Customs of the Tagalogs, Juan de Plasencia Emilio Jacinto, “Kartilla ng Katipunan” 3 Content and contextual analysis of selected primary sources 7-9 1. Commission on Independence, 2. Filipino Grievances against General Wood. [Petition Letter 3. Corazon Aquino, President Corazon Aquino’s Speech before the U.S. Congress Sept. 18, 1986 [Speech] 4 “One past but may histories”: Controversies and Conflicting Views in 10-12 Philippine history 1. Site of the First Mass 2. Cavite Mutiny Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin 5 Agrarian Reform Policy and its Role to Philippine Development 13 -14 6 The Philippine Constitution and its Implications to Development 15 -16 7 Indigenous People’s (IP’s) status, issues and challenges 17 -18 MODULE AND EXAMINATION RETRIEVAL: Submit Accomplished Activities, Performance Outcome on the following schedule: Units 1 - 2 and Preliminary Exam ______________ Units 3 – 4 and Midterm Exam ________________ Units 5 – 7 and Final Exam _ _________________ 3 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 4 Module 1 The Meaning and Relevance of History Overview Lesson 1 introduces history as a discipline and as a narrative. It discusses the limitation of historical knowledge, history as the subjective process of re-construction, and historical method and historiography. Lesson 2 presents sources of historical date, the written and non-written sources of history, as well as the differentiation of primary and secondary sources of information or data. Lesson 2 discusses historical criticisms, the external and internal criticisms. It explains how to evaluate primary and secondary sources materials. These are important aspects in ascertaining the authenticity and credibility of primary sources upon which narratives are crafted. Intended Learning Outcomes At the end of this module, you should be able to: 1. Define the meaning of history as an academic discipline and to be familiar with the underlying philosophy and methodology of the discipline 2. Identify the criteria in evaluating primary and secondary sources materials; 3. Assess primary and secondary source materials, and 4. Evaluate materials in terms of authenticity, credibility, and provenance especially human affairs in A. The Meaning of History chronological order. There are theories constructed by historians in investigating history: The History is Factual history and the derived from speculative history. Factual the Greek history presents readers the plain word and basic information vis-à-vis Historia the events that took place (what), which means the time and date with which the Learning by inquiry. The Greek events happened (when), the philosopher, Aristotle, looked upon place with which the events took history as the systematic accounting place, and the people that were of a set of natural phenomena, that is, involved (who). Speculative taking into consideration the history, on the other hand, goes chronological arrangement of the beyond facts because it’s account. This explained that concerned about the reasons for knowledge of derived through which events happed (why), and conducting a process of scientific the way they happened (how) investigation of past events. (Ligan, et.al.2018). it tries to The word History is referred speculate on the cause and effect usually for account of phenomena, of an event (Cantal, et.al., 2014). 4  5 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History is couched on his On the other hand, history from theoretical frame of the Filipino perspective term as pantayong pananaw, which is kasaysayan, Ambeth Ocampo’s monumental for adds to the simple definition has this to include: definition of history as a systematic account of past events. The concept Kasaysayan is rooted in two of saysay or meaning is a major words salaysay, which means a element for a narrative to qualify as narrative or a story and, more historical account. A narrative important, saysay or meaning. In without meaning to the group of my history classes, I always propose the working definition of people will never be history. kasaysayan or history as a To Agoncillo, History is the narrative (which can be written, study of the relevant past. It is the visual, oral or combination of all three) about past events that has struggle of the Filipino people for meaning to a certain group of freedom. While Constantino, define it people in a given time and place. as the history of the inarticulate. These two components are Salazar, elicited that: inseparable. Without both you … itinatakda ng mga elit, na siyang “nag- cannot have true history aarticulate” ng kung ano ang “relevant (Ocampo, 2013, p.xii). past,” batay sa kanilang pagka-akulturado sa wika-at-kulturang banyaga. Nakatuon sa nakaraang politikal (i.e., pagbaka o resistance sa kolonyalismo, imperyalismo) at hindi sa mga kultural at pagkalinangang katangiang Pilipino, dulot hindi lamang ng nabanggit na sa itaas kundi dahil na rin sa paggamit lamang ng mga nakasulat n abatis (i.e., written sources) na sulat ng mga banyaga. Hindi gumamit ng mga hindi nakasulat na batis. Gumagamit ng peryodisasyon umiinog sa mga “historical markers” ng banyaga; PreColonial, Colonial, post-colonial; prehistory, Spanish era, American era, Japanese period, etc. B. Sources of Historical Data What are Sources? The eminent historian Zeus Salazar from the University of the In conducting any Philippines has this definition “ang historical research, different sources of kasaysayan ay isang salaysay na may saysay information are required to gain sa mga taong nagsasaysay” o “ang extensive knowledge on a particular kasaysayan ayisang salaysay hinggil sa topic. Some researchers rely on written sources while others choose to make use nakaraan na may saysay para sa of oral sources. No matter what source is sinsalsayang pangkat ng tao o salinlahi” being utilized, it is important to know (Navarro, 2000, pp.11-12). Salazar’s which among the gathered sources can contribution to the definition of history provide accurate details and information 5  6 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History about the historical event or subject being 5. Photograph, drawing researched on. 6. Works of arts and literature The historian, however, has to use many 7. Speeches and oral histories materials that are not in books. Where these 8. Original documents (birth certificates, are archeological, epigraphical, or property deeds, trial transcripts) numismatical materials, he has to depend 9. Research data, such as census largely on museums. Where there are statistics official records, he may have to search for 10. Official and unofficial records of them in archives, courthouses, government organizations and government libraries, etc. where there are private papers agencies not available in official collections, he may 11. Artifacts of all kinds, such as tools, have to hunt among the papers of business coins, clothing, furniture, etc. houses, the muniment rooms of ancient 12. Government documents (reports, castles, the prized possessions of autograph bills, proclamations, hearings, etc.) collectors, the records of parish church, etc. 13. Patents having some subject in mind, which more or less definite delimitation of the persons, 2. Secondary sources offer an analysis or a areas, times, and functions (i.e., the restatement of primary sources. They economic, political, intellectual, diplomatic, often attempt to describe or explain or other occupational aspects) involved, be primary sources. looks for materials that may have some The following are examples of bearing upon those persons in that are at the secondary sources: time they function in that fashion. These 1. Bibliographies materials are his sources. The more precise 2. Biographical works his delimitation of persons, area, time, and 3. Reference books, including function, the more relevant his sources are dictionaries, encyclopedias, and likely to be (Gottschalk, 1969). atlases It is from historical sources that our 4. Articles from magazines, journals, history is studied and written. But in and newspapers after the event analyzing them, several methodologies and 5. Literature reviews and review articles theories were used by historians to properly (e.g., movie reviews, book reviews) study history and glean from the sources 6. History books and other popular or what is, for them, a proper way of writing scholarly books history to enhance and disseminate national 7. Works of criticism and identify. interpretation 8. Commentaries and treatises Primary versus Secondary Sources 1. Primary sources are the raw materials of Most scholars use the following historical research - they are the questions in evaluating the validity and documents or artifacts closest to the credibility of sources of historical accounts. topic of investigation. 1. How did the author know about the given details? Was author present at The following are examples of primary the event? How soon was the author sources: able to gather the details of the 1. Autobiographies and memoirs events? 2. Diaries, personal letters, and 2. Where did the information come correspondence from? Is it a personal experience, an 3. Interviews, surveys, and fieldwork eyewitness account, or a report made by another person’s? 4. Internet communications on email, blogs, listservs, and newsgroups 6  7 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 3. Did the author conclude based on a single in a courtroom and yet if the source, or o many sources of evidence? correspondent were a skilled and honorable reporter and if the If the evaluation of an available source presidential secretary were competent shows any indication that it is an interpretative and honest, the correspondent s account work rather than a factual firsthand account, it is might by a thoroughly accurate considered as a secondary source. Thus, in statement of what the president in fact conducting historical researcher, it is important had said. Even the most punctilious to identify first whether the available sources are historian might retain that kind of evidence primary or secondary sources. This is to for further corroboration. determine how reliable and helpful these sources are. Categories of Written Sources 1. Narrative - Chronicles or tracts Hearsay and Secondary Evidence presented in narrative form, written to When historian can find no primary impart a message whose motives for their witness, he uses the best secondary witness composition vary widely. available. Unlike the lawyer, he wishes to o A newspaper article might be intended discover a nearly as possible what happened to shaped opinion; to so-called ego rather than who was at fault. If he sometimes document or personal narrative such has to make judgments, he does not have to pass as diary or memoir. sentence and hence he does not have the same hesitation as a judge to permit evidence that 2. Diplomatic sources - Those which practice rules out of courtrooms. document/record an existing legal situation In cases where he uses secondary or create a new one, and it is these kinds of sources that professional historians treated witnesses, however, he does not rely upon them as the “best” source. fully. On the contrary, he asks: (1) On whose o A legal document is usually sealed or primary testimony does the secondary witness authenticated to provide evidence that base his statements? (2) Did the secondary a legal transaction has been completed witness accurately report the primary testimony and can be used as evidence in a as a whole? (3) if not, in what details did he judicial proceeding in case of dispute accurately report the primary testimony? 3. Social Document - Information Satisfactory answers to the second and third pertaining for economic, social, questions may prove the historian with the political, or judicial significance. whole or the substance of the primary testimony o They are records kept by upon which the secondary witness may be his bureaucracies. only means of knowledge. In such cases the o Example. Government reports, such as secondary source is the historian’s “original” municipal accounts, research findings, source, in the sense of being the “origin” of his and documents like civil registry knowledge. In so far as this “original” source is records, property register, and records of census. an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would that of the primary Non – written Sources of History testimony itself. 1. Material evidence Thus, hearsay evidence would not be “archeological evidence discarded by the historian as it would be by a o One of the most important law court, merely because it is hearsay. It is unwritten evidences. unacceptable only in so far as it cannot be o Artistic creations such as pottery, established as accurate reporting of primary jewelry, dwellings, graves, testimony. A single example will perhaps churches, roads, and other that tell suffice to make that clear. A White House a story about the past correspondent stating what the president had 2. Oral evidence said at a press conference would be a primary o Source of information for source of information on the president’s words. historians, told by the tales or The same correspondent telling a presidential sagas of ancient people. Folksongs secretary’s version of what the president had or popular rituals said would be a secondary or hearsay witness, and probably would be successfully challenged 7  8 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History Activity 1: Identifying Primary and Secondary Sources Name:_________________________________________ Score:_______________________ Directions: Determine whether the following are primary or secondary sources. Circle the letter indicating whether the item is a "P" primary source or "S" secondary source. For each one, explain your reasoning in complete sentence. 1. The story of your grandfather tells you about his experience during the World War II. P S Why: ______ 2. A letter written by Alberto Dela Cruz to his mother about the latest developments in the Revolutionary War. P S Why: 3. The Diary of Anne Frank - the published diary of a teenage girl who experiences the Holocaust first hand. P S Why: 4. Your Sociology textbook or an encyclopedia. P S Why: ______ 5. Your high school diplomas. P S Why: ______ 6. A photograph of you and your friends at your 8th birthday party. P S Why: ______ 7. The information from the museum tour guide who shows you around the exhibit and shares facts with you. P S Why: _____________________________________________________________________ 8. A mummy from Cordillera. P S Why: 8  9 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 9. Give at least 5 more examples of a primary source. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 10. Give at least 5 more examples of a secondary source. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 11. list down five (5) example of sources which can either be primary or secondary depending on the context ad use. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Activity 2: Sources of Historical Data Name: ______________________________ Score: ___________ Course & Year: ____________________ Date: ____________ Instructions: Give a concise explanation/discussion on the following items. 1. What is the main distinction between primary and secondary? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________. 2. Why is primary source important in the study of history? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 9  1 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 0 3. What is the purpose of a secondary sources? _______________________________________________________________ _________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ___________ 4. Appreciating history. Try to remember the last national holiday that we have. Why do you think that the common perception of a holiday is “no classes” to the point that it has become its meaning? What were lost, that we have come to view national holidays like this? Why were they lost? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 10  1 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 1 Lesson 3: Historical Criticisms Historical Criticism difficult problem only on rare occasions, when the writer or witnesses to the writing Examines the origins of the earliest cannot be produced. But for historical text to appreciate the underlying documents these occasions are not rare. circumstances upon which the text came to They are in fact frequent for manuscript be (Soulen &Soulen, 2001). It has two sources; and if doubt as to authenticity arises important goals: 1) to discover the original less often from printed sources, it is because meaning of the text in its primitive or usually some skilled editor has already historical context and its literal sense or performed the task of authenticating them. sensus literalis historicus. 2) to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of Test of Authenticity the author and recipients of the text. Historical criticism has two types: external To distinguish a hoax or a criticism and internal criticism. misrepresentation from a genuine document, the historian has to use tests that There are two parts of historical are common also in police and legal criticism, the first part is to determine the detection. Making the best guess he can of authenticity of the material, also called the date of the document, he examines the provenance of a source. The critic should materials to see whether they are not determine the origin of the material, its anachronistic: paper was rare in Europe author, and the source of information used. before the Fifteenth century, and printing External criticism is used in determining was unknown; pencils did not exist there these facts. The second part is to weigh the before the sixteenth century; typewriting testimony to the truth. The critic must was not invented until nineteenth century; examine the trustworthiness of the and India paper came only at the end of that testimonies as well as determine the century. The historian also examines the ink probability of the statements to be true. This for signs of age or for anachronistic chemical process is called internal criticism or higher composition. criticism since it deals with more important matters than the external form. Making his best guess of the possible author of the document, he sees if he can Problem of Authenticity or identify the handwriting, signature, seal, External Criticism1 letterhead, or watermark. The problem of authenticity seldom Even when the handwriting is concerns the sociologist or psychologist or unfamiliar, it can be compared with an anthropologist, who generally has a authenticated specimens. One of the living subject under his eye, can see him as unfulfilled needs of the historian is more of he prepares his autobiography, and can what the French call “isographies” – cross-examine him about doubtful points. dictionaries of biography giving examples of Even in the law courts the question of handwriting. For some periods of history, authenticity of documents becomes a experts using techniques known as paleography and diplomatic, first 1 systematized by Mabillon in the seventeenth Lifted from his book Understanding History: a century, have long known that in certain primer of historical method, New York: Alfred A. regions at certain times handwriting and the Knopf pp. 118-138. (Source notes and footnotes were intentionally deleted from this reading.) style and form of official documents were 11  1 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 2 more or less conventionalized. Seals have Having established an been the subject of special study by authentic text and discovered sigillographers, and experts can detect faked what its author really intended to say, the ones. Anachronistic style (idiom, historian has only established what they orthography, or punctuation) can be wetness’s testimony is. He has yet to detected by specialists who are familiar with determine whether that testimony is at all contemporary writing. Often spelling, credible, and if so, to what extent. That is the particularly of proper names and signatures problem of internal criticism. (because too good or too bad or anachronistic), reveals a forgery as would also unhistoric grammar. The Problem of Credibility or Internal Criticism Anachronistic references to events The historian first aims in the (too early or too late or too remote) or the examination of testimony to obtain a set of dating of a document at a time when the particulars relevant to some topic or alleged writer could not possibly have been question that he has in mind. Isolated at the placed designated (the alibi) uncovers particulars have little meaning by fraud. Sometimes the skillful forger has all themselves, and unless they have a context too carefully followed the best historical or fit into a hypothesis they are of doubtful sources and his product becomes too value. But that is a problem of synthesis, obviously a copy in certain passages; or which will be discussed later. What we are where, by skillful paraphrase and invention, now concerned with is the analysis of he/she is given away by the absence of trivia documents of credible details to be fitted and otherwise unknown details from his/her into a hypothesis or context. manufactured account. Usually, however, if the document is where it ought to be – for The historian, however, is example in a family’s archives, or among a prosecutor, attorney for the defense, judge business firm’s or lawyer’s papers, or in a and jury all in one. But as judge he rules out governmental bureau’s record (but not not evidence whatever if it is relevant. To merely because it is in a library or in an him any single detail of testimony is credible amateur’s autograph collection) – its – even if it is contained in a document provenance (or its custody, as the lawyers call obtained by force or fraud, or is otherwise it), creates a presumption of its genuineness impeachable, based on hearsay evidence, or (Gottschalk, 1969). from an interested witness – provided it can pass four tests: Identification of Author and of Date Some guess of the approximate date 1. Was the ultimate source of the detail of the document and some identification of (the primary witness) able to tell the its supposed author (or, at least, a surmise as truth? to his location in time and space as this 2. Was the primary witness will to tell habit, attitudes, character, learning, the truth? associates, etc.) obviously form an essential 3. Is the primary witness accurately part of external criticism. Otherwise, it reported with regard to the detail would be impossible to prove or disprove under examination? authenticity by anachronisms, handwriting, 4. Is there any independent style, alibi, or other tests that are associated corroboration of the detail under with the author’s milieu, personality, and examination? actions. But similar knowledge or guesses are also necessary for internal criticism. 12  1 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 3 Garraghan (1950) identified six points Martha Howell and Walter of inquiries to evaluate the authenticity of a Prevenier (2001) stated that before any source primary sources: can be considered as evidence in a historical 1. Date – when was it produced? argument, it must satisfy three preconditions. 2. Localization – where did it 1. It must be comprehensible at the most originate? basic level of vocabulary, language, and 3. Authorship – who wrote it? handwriting. It sets the ground for the contentions on the acceptability of the 4. Analysis – what pre-existing source and all the aspects of the debate. material served as the basis for its 2. The source must be carefully located in production? accordance with place and time. Its 5. Integrity – what was its original author, composer, or writer, and the form location where it was 6. Credibility – what is the evidential produced/published should be noted for value of its content? the checking of authenticity and accuracy. One example is a personal letter which The absence of primary sources usually indicates when (date) ad where documents that can be attest to the accuracy (Place) it was written. This information can assist in corroborating the details of of any historical claims, the secondary the source given the whereabouts of its sources should not be discredited. As author as stated in a letter. Gottschalk (1969), emphasized that it is 3. Through the first two preconditions, the impossible for historians to avoid using authenticity of the source must always be secondary sources due to difficulty in checked and counterchecked before being accessing primary sources. Most often, accepted as a credible source in any historians depend on secondary sources to historical findings. Subtle details such as improve their background knowledge of the quality of paper used, the ink or the contemporary documents and detect any watermark of the parchment used, the errors they may contain. Specifically, way it was encoded using a typeface or Gottschalk suggested that secondary sources the way the tape was electronically must only be used for 1) deriving the setting coded should be carefully scrutinized wherein the contemporary evidence will fit in the to check if it was forged or mislabeled grand narrative of history; 2) getting leads to by archivists. other bibliographic data; 3) acquiring quotations or citations from contemporary or other sources; Historians not only evaluate the 4) deriving interpretations with a view of testing sources in terms of external characteristics and improving them but not accepting them as that focus on the questions of where, when, outright truth. Historian should be prepared to and by whom. They also evaluate in terms of verify the information provided by secondary sources. internal criteria which include seven factors 13  1 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 4 identified by Howell and Prevenier (2001) as between the document’s cited by Asuncion and Cruz (2019): subject matter and its author; 1. The genealogy of the document – refers 6. The competence of the observer – refers to the development of the document. to the author’s capabilities and The document may be original, a copy, qualifications to critically comprehend or a copy of the copy; and report 2. The genesis of the document – includes information; and the situations and the authorities during 7. The trustworthiness of the observer – the document’s productions; refers to the author’s integrity – whether 3. The originality of the document – he or she fabricates or reports truthfully. includes the nature of the document whether it is an eye/earwitness account In general, the reliability of or merely passing of primary sources is assessed on how existing information; these sources are directly related and 4. The interpretation of the document – closely connected to the time of the pertains to deducing meaning from the events they pertain to. documents; 5. The authorship authority of the document – refers to the relationship Assessment #3 Analyzing Primary Sources Instructions: Read the full transcript of the undelivered Arrival Speech of Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. and answer the following questions below. The undelivered speech of Senator Benigno S. Aquino Jr. upon his return from the U.S., August 21, 1983 retrieved from https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1983/08/21/the-undelivered-speech-of-senator-benigno-s-aquino- jr-upon-his-return-from-the-u-s-august-21-1983/ I have returned on my free will to join the ranks of those struggling to restore our rights and freedoms through nonviolence. I seek no confrontation. I only pray and will strive for a genuine national reconciliation founded on justice. I am prepared for the worst, and have decided against the advice of my mother, my spiritual adviser, many of my tested friends and a few of my most valued political mentors. A death sentence awaits me. Two more subversion charges, both calling for death penalties, have been filed since I left three years ago and are now pending with the courts. I could have opted to seek political asylum in America, but I feel it is my duty, as it is the duty of every Filipino, to suffer with his people especially in time of crisis. I never sought nor have I been given assurances or promise of leniency by the regime. I return voluntarily armed only with a clear conscience and fortified in the faith that in the end justice will emerge triumphant. According to Gandhi, the willing sacrifice of the innocent is the most powerful answer to insolent tyranny that has yet been conceived by God and man. Three years ago, when I left for an emergency heart bypass operation, I hoped and prayed that the rights and freedoms of our people would soon be restored, that living conditions would improve and that blood- letting would stop. Rather than move forward, we have moved backward. The killings have increased, the economy has taken a 14  1 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 5 turn for the worse and the human rights situation has deteriorated. During the martial law period, the Supreme Court heard petitions for Habeas Corpus. It is most ironic, after martial law has allegedly been lifted, that the Supreme Court last April ruled it can no longer entertain petitions for Habeas Corpus for persons detained under a Presidential Commitment Order, which covers all so-called national security cases and which under present circumstances can cover almost anything. The country is far advanced in her times of trouble. Economic, social and political problems bedevil the Filipino. These problems may be surmounted if we are united. But we can be united only if all the rights and freedoms enjoyed before September 21, 1972 are fully restored. The Filipino asks for nothing more, but will surely accept nothing less, than all the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the 1935 Constitution—the most sacred legacies from the Founding Fathers. Yes, the Filipino is patient, but there is a limit to his patience. Must we wait until that patience snaps? The nation-wide rebellion is escalating and threatens to explode into a bloody revolution. There is a growing cadre of young Filipinos who have finally come to realize that freedom is never granted, it is taken. Must we relive the agonies and the blood-letting of the past that brought forth our Republic or can we sit down as brothers and sisters and discuss our differences with reason and goodwill? I have often wondered how many disputes could have been settled easily had the disputants only dared to define their terms. So as to leave no room for misunderstanding, I shall define my terms: 1. Six years ago, I was sentenced to die before a firing squad by a Military Tribunal whose jurisdiction I steadfastly refused to recognize. It is now time for the regime to decide. Order my IMMEDIATE EXECUTION OR SET ME FREE. I was sentenced to die for allegedly being the leading communist leader. I am not a communist, never was and never will be. 2. National reconciliation and unity can be achieved but only with justice, including justice for our Muslim and Ifugao brothers. There can be no deal with a Dictator. No compromise with Dictatorship. 3. In a revolution there can really be no victors, only victims. We do not have to destroy in order to build. 4. Subversion stems from economic, social and political causes and will not be solved by purely military solutions; it can be curbed not with ever increasing repression but with a more equitable distribution of wealth, more democracy and more freedom, and 5. For the economy to get going once again, the workingman must be given his just and rightful share of his labor, and to the owners and managers must be restored the hope where there is so much uncertainty if not despair. On one of the long corridors of Harvard University are carved in granite the words of Archibald Macleish: “How shall freedom be defended? By arms when it is attacked by arms; by truth when it is attacked by lies; by democratic faith when it is attacked by authoritarian dogma. Always, and in the final act, by determination and faith.” I return from exile and to an uncertain future with only determination and faith to offer—faith in our people and faith in God. 15  1 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 6 Assessment #3 Analyzing Primary Sources Name: _______________________________________________ Score: ___________ Course & Year: _____________________________________ Date: ___________ I. First Impressions 1. What are your first impressions about the undelivered speech? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________. 2. What kind of document is it?________________________________________ II. Looking More Closely A. Make a list of unusual or unfamiliar words or phrases you encountered while reading the speech. 1. 6. 11. 2. 7. 12. 3. 8. 13. 4. 9. 14. 5. 10. 15. B. Is there a specific date on the speech? If so, when is it? If there is none, are there clues that might indicate when it was written? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ C. Is there an indicated location? Where is it? _______________________________ D. Who authored the document? Why did you say so? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ E. To whom was the written document addressed? How did you know? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 16  1 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 7 F. What is the purpose of the document? What made you think so? _______________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ____________ III. Thinking Further A. What do you think is the most important information that the author of the document was conveying? Why? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ B. What is the point of view of the author? Is it objective? Why? ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ IV. Drawing Conclusions Integrate your background knowledge of the context of the speech with the content of the speech. What conclusions can you draw about the historical period when the speech was written? ________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Activity adopted from Asuncion and Cruz (2019), RPH 17  1 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 8 Analyzing Primary vs Secondary Sources The “Acta de Tejeros” Historical Context of the Documents Since its founding on July 7, 1892, the Katipunan (Kataas-taasang Kagalang-galangang Katipunan nang manga Anak nang Bayan) or KKK remained to be an underground organization and had remained a secret organization until its discovery on August 19, 1896, at a time when Spanish officials and friars were already hearing rumors and were suspicious about the existence of a rebellious group. The discovery, which was simply an accident for it happened only because of the petty quarrel between Apolonio dela Cruz and Teodoro Patiño who worked at the printing press of Diario de Manila and also members of the Katipunan. The bickering resulted in Patiño confiding to his sister who lived in an orphanage in Mandaluyong and whose grief made her mother superior to convince Patiño to confide about the secret organization to Fr. Mariano Gil. The friar-curate was already suspicious about the existence of the rebel group Patiño’s sister was not actually worried about her brother’s quarrel but about his participation and membership in an underground rebellious organization. His brother was then convinced to divulge the secret organization to the suspicious Fr. Gil who brought with him Spanish guards to raid the printing press and found evidences of the Katipunan in their lockers (Agoncillo and Guerrero, 1977, p. 195). The succeeding pages will present the two documents delineating the Katipunan and the Revolution based on primary and secondary source. Read the two documents, and evaluate the sources using external and internal criticism. About the Authors Santiago Alvarez (a.k.a. Gen. Apoy or Kidlat ng Apoy) was born on July 25, 1872 at Noveleta, Cavite. He was the only child of Gen. Mariano Alvarez (a.k.a. Gen. Maninam) leader of the Magdiwang faction and Nicolasa Virata. His parents’ ambition for him was to become a teacher thus he studied under the tutelage of Antonio Dacon at Imus, later under Ignacio Villocillo, and then transferred to Tondo under Macario Hernandez. He was 24 years old when his education was interrupted at the outbreak of the revolution. He led the revolutionaries in the Battle of Dalahican. He continued his education after the revolution where he entered UST, transferred to San Juan de Letran to finish his Bachelor in Arts degree and eventually earned his law degree at Liceo de Manila (Alvarez, 1977, p. 2). He was already having his law practice in the 1920s when a new air of vibrance was blowing in the hope that the Americans would grant the Philippines its independence come 1921. The hope was drawn from the promise of the Jones Law of 1916 which stated in the preamble that the US will grant independence upon proof of the Philippine’s capability to govern itself. The eager anticipation would usher in a new era that would place the heroic acts of the Revolution of 1896 and the living veterans of the revolution in oblivion. In the preface of his book, Memoirs of a General, he implied his aim, to make known to the youth the fading struggle of the revolutionaries and the story of the revolution. Working from his notes, he reconstructed the story of the revolution as a participant-eyewitness. His work was first serialized in Tagalog weekly magazine Sampaguita in 36 parts beginning July 1927. In June 1973, Carolina Malay translated the original Tagalog version into English which was completed sometime in 1977. Revolt of the Masses by Teodoro Agoncillo Born in Lemery, Batangas in 1934 He obtained his AB Philosophy and Master’s degree at UP. He worked as linguistic assistant at the Institute of National Language He taught at FEU and MLQU. After the publication of his seminal works, Revolt of the Masses, the Crisis of the Malolos Republic, he was invited to teach at the Department of History at UP where he later became chairman. He died on January 14, 1985. He became a national scientist, posthumously. 18  1 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 9 Reading 1: Primary Source The Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General Extract from The Katipunan and the Revolution: Memoirs of a General by Santiago Alvarez, Trans. By Paula Carolina S. Malay with introductions by Dr. Ruby Paredes, pp. 3-4,82-89, Copyright © 1992 by Ateneo University Press and the Center for Southeast Asian Studies. Preface As the country moves toward change, the youth become more discerning and discriminating regarding the competence of authors, especially those of historical writings. They begin to question the credentials of anyone who dares to write a history of the people or even of mere episodes. They look for motivations for such writings and inquire about their sources. Before we look into the period of Philippine history concerning the Katipunan and the Revolution that I discuss in the following pages, I wish to say a few things about my humble self. I shall be fifty-five years old on 25 July 1927; I was born in the year 1872 in Noveleta, Cavite. In my early years, I studied under Macario Her- nandez at his school located on Camba Street in Manila. Subsequently, I attended San Juan de Letran College and the University of Santo Tomas. After the tumultuous cry for national freedom (the Revolution), I resumed my studies in 1902, at the law school of the Liceo de Manila, and later worked at the law offices of Felipe Buencamino, Sr., and of R. del Rosario. While working in the latter’s law office, I earned my law degree. For five full years, from August 1896 to August 1901, I was one of those who guided the Revolution. But even before the outbreak of the Revolution, I was already active in the Katipunan as a member and as a delegate; as such, I was often in the company of the Supremo Andres Bonifacio, Dr. Pio Valenzuela, and Mr. Emilio Jacinto. We organized chapters and propagated the movement in general. In the process, I was able to keep some notes about our experiences. As these were written in pencil on ordinary paper, they are now faded with age and have become difficult to read, especially by people other than myself. The following narrative, therefore, is not only of an eyewitness but also of active participant. I am greatly indebted to my colleague and friend, Mr. Lope K. Santos, whose nationalist sentiments encouraged me to undertake this project. He prodded me into writing these memoirs by arguing that since I could shed more light on the different facets of the Revolution, I would be doing a service to the youth, whom he saw as the direct beneficiaries of this work. I myself would prefer that I reconstruct those events from my notes now instead of somebody else doing it after my death. My notes would appear disjointed and unclear to anyone else aside from myself, and any attempt to utilize them to write a historical account of the period would prove of little value. The events I have related in this account of the Katipunan and the Revolution reverberate with shouts of “Long live our patriots!” and “Death to the enemy!” These were in answer to the enemy’s assaults with mausers and cannon, the latter fired from both land and sea. The Magdiwang government honored me with an appointment as captain general, or head of its army. Gen. Artemio Ricarte was lieutenant general. I will now attempt to write down what I saw and what I know about the Katipunan and the Revolution. First I shall narrate the events relating to the revolution beginning from 14 March 1896; then I shall deal with the organization and activities of the Society of the Sons of the People (full name: Kamahalmahalan at Kataastaasang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan [The Most Venerable Supreme Society of the Sons of the People]). The Katipunan account is based on records which were entrusted to me by the original founders of the Katipunan. In the interest of honorable truth, I shall now attempt to write a history of the Katipunan and the Revolution which I hope will be acceptable to all. However, I realize that it is inevitable that, in the narration of actual happenings, I shall run the risk of hurting the feelings of contemporaries and comrades-in-arms. I would like to make it clear that I shall try to be as objective as possible and that it is far from my intention to depreciate anyone’s patriotism and greatness. I shall be honored if these memoirs become a worthy addition to what Gen. Artemio Ricarte has already published in this weekly… (Alvarez) The Revolution was facing a grave crisis. The Katipunan forces in Cavite were suffering defeat after defeat with great loss of life. Magdalo territories had passed to Spanish hands after the Battles of Salitran, Zapote, and Dalahikan. Imus, the rebel capital was in a state of imminent collapse. To strengthen defenses so that they could stop the Spanish advance into the rest of the province that was still held by the Magdiwang and to forestall the loss of more lives, the Supremo Bonifacio, with the approval of other revolutionary leaders, called a meeting of the Magdalo and Magdiwang leaders. This meeting, scheduled for 24 March 1897, 19  2 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 0 was postponed for the next day because of the death of Lt. Gen. Crispulo Aguinaldo, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo’s brother, on that day in the Battle of Salitran. The Magdiwang leaders were waiting for their Magdalo counterparts at the Tejeros friar estate house, the designated place, long after lunch on that day. They had designated place, long after lunch on that day. They had to start in the afternoon to allow the usual enemy raids, which came in the morning, to subside before they ventured out to Tejeros, a village in the municipality of San Francisco de Malabon. When the Magdalo group finally came at about five in the afternoon, they brought with the sad news of the death of General Magdalo’s own brother. Heading a small group, General Magdalo recounted the circumstances of the heroic death of his patriot brother. Then he begged to be excused to attend to arrangements for his beloved brother’s funeral. Thus, the meeting was put off for the next day at the same place. But before dispersing, Secretary of the Treasury Diego Mojica proposed a resolution of condolence and prayers for patriots who had died heroically like Lt. Gen. Crispulo Aguinaldo. The Supremo Bonifacio thought this was superfluous and objected to such a resolution. “True love of country,” the Supremo argued, “and service to the cause of freedom for the Motherland are the noblest attributes that would ensure one’s place in heaven. Lt. Gen. Crispulo Aguinaldo and the comrades who died before him are all truly blessed and are now in their respective places in the heavenly kingdom. Moreover, they will always occupy an honored place in the history of our country.” The assembly at Tejeros was finally convened on 25 March 1897. The invitations to the meeting were signed by Secretary Jacinto Lumbreras of the Magdiwang Council, and he presided over the assembly. Seated with Lumbreras at the long presidential table were the Supremo Andres Bonifacio, Messrs. Mariano Alvarez, Pascual Alvarez, Ariston Villanueva, Mariano C. Trias, Diego Mojica, Emiliano R. de Dios, Santiago V. Alvarez, Artemio Ricarte, Santos Nocon, Luciano San Miguel, Pablo Mojica, Severino de las Alas, and Santiago Rillo, all of them of the Magdiwang. Among the Magdalo seated at the head table were Messrs. Baldomero Aguinaldo, Daniel Tirona, and Cayetano Topacio. It must be mentioned that, before the assembly was convened, Secretary of War Ariston Villanueva of the Magdawang Council received the confidential information that Mr. Daniel Tirona of the Magdalo faction was set to undermine the proceedings of the assembly and that he had already succeeded in enjoining many among the Magdiwang leaders to ally with him. Secretary Villanueva kept silent, but nevertheless alerted Captain General Apoy, who had troops in readiness for any sudden eventuality. The leaders were seated at the presidential table, as previously described, and all the others were standing in groups on both sides of those seated. After Chairman Jacinto Lumbreras had declared the assembly open, he announced the main topic of discussion, which was how to bolster the defenses in the areas still under Magdiwang control. Presently, Mr. Severino de las Alas rose to speak, and when he was recognized he said, “Before we discuss minor details, let us first tackle the major issue such as what kind of government we should have and how we should go about establishing it. Once we make a decision about these questions, the problem of organization and strengthening of defenses will be resolved.” “As initiator of the Revolution,” Chairman Lumbreras replied, “the Katipunan now holds authority over the islands. It has a government of law and a definite program. It is obeyed and respected by all because it stands for freedom, brotherly love, and a well-organized and well-run government. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the best measures to take to strengthen the Magdiwang government vis-à-vis the enemy. We should avoid surrendering the headquarters of the Katipunan army should the Magdalo eventually lose out.” The chair next recognized the Supremo. He concurred with what Chairman Lumbreras had just said and explained that the “K” in the middle of the sun in the Katipunan flag used in the Revolution stood for Kalayaan (freedom). Mr. Severino de las Alas spoke again. He countered that the letter “K” and the sun on the flag did not indicate whether the revolutionary government was democratic or not. The Supremo replied that from the rank and file to the highest levels, the Katipunan was united in its respect for universal brotherhood and equality of men. It was risking bloodshed and life itself in its struggle against the king, in order to establish a sovereign and free government. In short, it stood for people’s sovereignty, not a government led by only one or two. Mr. Antonio Montenegro spoke in defense of Mr. Severino de las Alas’s stand. He argued that if they would not agree on the kind of revolutionary government they were to have and that if they were to let the status quo prevail, then they who were in the Revolution would be no better than a pack of bandits or of wild, mindless animals. General Apoy was hurt by these words of Mr. Montenegro. He quickly stood up and looked angrily at the previous speaker. “We of the Katipunan,” he began, “are under the jurisdiction of our respected Highest Council of the sons of the People. This Council is the defender of, and has authority over, the Magdiwang and Magdalo 20  2 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 1 governments of Cavite. We are true revolutionaries fighting for freedom of the native land. We are not bandits who rob others of their property and wealth. Nor should we be likened to beasts, for we know how to protect and defend others, especially the political refugees who seek asylum with us. We are rational and we do not expose those who talk big but do not accomplish anything. If you want to establish a different kind of government that is to your liking, you must do as we have done. Go back to your localities and snatch them from Spanish control! Then you can do what pleases you; but don’t you dare seek refuge among cowards who might call you bandits and beasts. And for everybody’s satisfaction, I am now ordering you arrested!” Captain General Apoy stopped speaking and looked intently at the person he was alluding to and ordered a detachment under Maj. Damaso Fojas to keep him under guard. After a short while, Dr. Jose Rizal’s sister, Trining, and his widow, Josephine, pleaded with General Apoy not to arrest Mr. Montenegro, but to let him stay at the estate house where they themselves were staying. They volunteered to be held personally responsible for Mr. Montenegro while in their custody. Captain General Apoy easily acceded to the request. The strong and excited denunciation by Captain General Apoy of Mr. Montenegro alerted the Magdiwang troops. The leaders eyed everyone suspiciously and were only awaiting a signal from General Apoy for them to begin shooting. Disorder ensued and disrupted the assembly. When order was restored, some wanted the convention adjourned, but the Supremo Bonifacio prevailed upon the others to continue. However, the presiding officer, Mr. Lumbreras, refused to resume his role of chairman. He wanted to yield the chair to the Supremo whom he thought to be the rightful chairman. The Katipunan, as you know,” Mr. Lumbreras explained, “was responsible from the beginning for the spread of the revolutionary movement throughout the Philippines. But because of the disaffection of some, this assembly was called to establish a new overall revolutionary council. If we are to pursue this ambitious and important undertaking, only the Supremo has the right to preside at this assembly, for he is the Father of the Katipunan and the Revolution.” Mr. Lumbreras’s speech was well received and his proposal was unanimously accepted. The Supremo Bonifacio assumed the chairmanship accordingly and said, “Your aim is to establish a new overall government of the Katipunan of the Sons of the People. This would repudiate the decisions made at the meeting held at the friar estate house in Imus. In my capacity as President-Supremo” of the Most Venerable Katipunan of the Sons of the People, I agree and we should respect all decisions properly discussed and approved in all our meetings. We should respect and abide by the wishes of the majority.” Because of a repeated clamor for the approval of the establishment of a government of the Philippine Republic, the chair proceeded to prepare for an election to the following positions: president, minister of finance, minister of welfare, minister of justice, and captain general. The Supremo spoke again before the election began. He said that the candidate who would get the most number of votes for each position should be the winner, no matter what his station in life or his educational attainment. What should matter was that the candidate had never been a traitor to the cause of the Motherland. Everyone agreed and there were shouts of approval such as, “That is how it should be – equality for everyone! Nobody should be higher nor lower than the other. May love of country prevail!” The Supremo Bonifacio appointed Gen. Artemio Ricarte as secretary. Then, with the help of Mr. Daniel Tirona, he distributed pieces of paper to serve as ballots. When the ballots had been collected and the votes were ready to be canvassed, Mr. Diego Mojica, the Magdiwang secretary of the treasury, warned the Supremo that many ballots distributed were already filled out and that the voters had not done this themselves. The Supremo ignored this remark. He proceeded with the business at hand as if nothing unusual had happened. When the votes for president were counted, Mr. Emilio Aguinaldo won over Mr. Andres Bonifacio, the Supremo. The winner was acclaimed by applause and shouts of “Mabuhay!” (Long live!). Mr. Severino de las Alas spoke again to say that since the Supremo Bonifacio had received the second highest number of votes for the presidency, he should be proclaimed vice-president of the government of the Philippine Republic. When nobody signified approval or disapproval of the proposal, the presiding officer, the Supremo Bonifacio ruled that the election be continued. For vice-president, Mr. Mariano Trias won over Mr. Mariano Alvarez and the Supremo Bonifacio. General Vibora was elected captain over General Apoy. General Vibora demurred, saying that he had neither the ability nor the right to assume the new position. But General Apoy cut short his objections by saying that he personally vouched for General Vibora’s competence and right to occupy the position to which he was elected. General Apoy’s endorsement was greeted with shouts of “Long live the newly elected captain general!” Mr. Baldomero Aguinaldo wanted the elections to be finished before it got too dark. To facilitate the counting of votes, he suggested that for all other positions to be voted upon, voters should stand on one side of the hall if in favor and on the other side if against. The suggestion was adopted for the rest of the election. For the position of secretary of war, Mr. Emiliano R. de Dios was elected overwhelmingly over Messrs. Santiago V. Alvarez, Ariston Villanueva, and Daniel Tirona. After the voters had given the proper honors to the 21  2 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 2 new secretary of war, they proceeded to elect the secretary of the interior. Mr. Andres Bonifacio, the Supremo, won over Mr. Mariano Alvarez. The crowd broke into shouts of “Mabuhay!” Mr. Daniel Tirona requested for a restoration of order and then spoke aloud. “My brethren, the office of secretary of the interior is of so great a scope and of such sensitivity that we should not entrust it to one who is not a lawyer. One among us is a lawyer. He is Mr. Jose del Rosario. Let us reconsider the choice for the last position, for, he has no credentials to show attesting to any educational attainment. Then in as loud a voice as he could muster, Tirona shouted, “Let us elect Mr. Jose del Rosario, the lawyer!” Greatly embarrassed, the Supremo Bonifacio quickly stood up and said, “We agreed to abide by the majority vote and accept its choice no matter what the station in life of the person elected. And because of this, I demand from you, Mr. Daniel Tirona, an apology. You must restore to the voters and the one they elected the honor you have only now besmirched.” Then he pulled out his revolver and took aim. Instead of replying, Mr. Tirona ignored the Supremo’s remarks and, perhaps because of fear, he slid away and got lost in the crowd. Disorder ensued as the convention secretary tried to disarm the Supremo, who was intent on shooting Mr. Tirona. The people began to disperse and the Supremo adjourned the meeting with these words: “In my capacity as chairman of this convention and as President-Supremo of the Most Venerable Katipunan of the Sons of the People which association is known and acknowledged by all, I hereby declare null and void all matters approved in this meeting.” Then he left quickly and was followed by his aides and some others present. Mr. Baldomero Aguinaldo, the Magdalo president, did not leave San Francisco de Malabon that night, in order to convince the Magdiwang leaders to reconvene the disrupted meeting the following day. They agreed to his proposal. That same night rumor had it that Messrs. Mariano Trias, Daniel Tirona, Emiliano R. de Dios, Santiago Rillo, and others were in the parish house of the Catholic church at Tanza (Santa Cruz de Malabon), and that they were conferring with the priest, Fr. Cenon Villafranca. Many attested to seeing them, but no one knew what they talked about. On the request of Magdalo Pres. Baldomero Aguinaldo, a meeting was called at the same friar estate house in Tejeros. Called on the day after the tumultuous convention, its purpose was to continue and revalidate the proceedings of the election meeting, to revive their former alliances, and to restore cordiality and fraternal love in their relations. Aside from the Supremo Andres Bonifacio, among the Magdiwang who attended were Messrs. Mariano Alvarez, Diego Mojica, Ariston Villanueva, Pascual Alvarez, Jacinto Lumbreras, Santiago Alvarez, Artemio Ricarte, Nicolas Portilla, Santos Nocon, and Fr. Manuel Trias, the parish priest of San Francisco de Malabon. They waited until five that afternoon, but none of the Magdalo members came, not even their president who had initiated what would have been a reconciliation meeting. That same night it was rumored that the Magdalo leaders were currently holding their own meeting at the parish house in Tanza. Though it had reason to be apprehensive because the Magdalo were meeting in territory under its jurisdiction, the Magdiwang leadership looked the other way because the Magdalo were hard-pressed for meeting places since its territories had all been taken by the Spanish enemy. The next morning, 27 March 1897, eyewitnesses who had spied on the proceedings revealed that, indeed, a meeting had taken place at the Tanza parish house and that the Supremo’s decisions regarding the election at the friar estate house were not respected. These revelations surfaced despite denials from many sectors. At the gathering in the “Tanza parish house, those elected at the Tejeros convention knelt before a crucifix and in the name of the Holy Father, the highest pontiff of the Roman Catholic church, invoked the martyred saints and solemnly took their office. F. Cenon Villafranca officiated. With Messrs. Severino de las Alas and Daniel Tiona as witnesses, the following took their oaths of office: Messrs. Emilio Aguinaldo, Mariano C. Trias, and Artemio Ricarte. Conspicuously absent was the Supremo Andres Bonifacio, who was not invited although he was one of those elected to office. It will be recalled that as chairman of the Tejeros convention, he declared null and void all matters approved by the assembly because of a grave violation of a principle agreed upon before the election. It should be noted here that, unknown to the Magdiwang Council, the Magdalo posted troops to guard the Tanza parish house for their oath-taking ceremonies. The troops were under strict orders not to admit any of unwanted Magdiwang partisans. If the news about the secret ceremony had leaked out earlier, and the underdogs in the power struggle had attempted to break into it, they would have been annihilated then and there. The Spaniards captured and occupied the town of Imus in the afternoon of 25 March 1897. They left three days afterwards and marched into the San Francisco de Malabon territory up to the village of Bakaw. When they reached Bakaw, they were intercepted by Mardiwang troops led by Supremo Bonifacio and General 22  2 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 3 Apoy. A pitched battle ensued. But the Magdiwang initiative was foiled by the arrival of a great number of enemy reinforcements at the height of the encounter. In the face of such an unfavorable situation, the Supremo decided on a tactical retreat to their fortifications. General Apoy for his part, ordered Major Baluyot to rally all other armed units of the Magdiwang army and assign them to the Tarike fortifications in San Francisco de Malabon. After the battle, the Spaniards encamped and rested in Bakaw, but throughout the night they were harassed with potshots from small Katipunan bands. Anticipating that the enemy encamped at Bakaw would try to penetrate the strong Dalahikan fortifications in Noveleta from the rear, General Apoy ordered General San Miguel to pull out all troops from Dalahikan and transfer them to some other fort. On 3 April, the Supremo made a bid to recapture Noveleta. General Vibora and Gen. Santos Nocon accompanied him in the offensive, which lasted the whole day. But despite a fierce determination on their part and heavy enemy losses, they were unable to dislodge the Spaniards. A few days after the Supremo’s unsuccessful attempt to retake Noveleta, fresh Spanish reinforcements began arriving in great numbers in the open fields to the west of Bakaw and along the seashores of Noveleta and Salinas. At nine that morn ing, artillery fire from mountain cannons began battering the San Francisco de Malabon fortifications, extending from Tejeros to Tarike. A two-hour shelling was followed by ground attack by cavalry and infantry troops. After preliminary skirmishes, man-to-man combat broke out at the Tarike fort. It became a fierce battleground as the rebels made a valiant defense. Every head that emerged from either side was quickly bashed in or severed at the neck. All that could be heard was the rattle of gleaming blades, the burst of gunfire, and the thud of bodies as they fell against the earth. Wielding a variety of arms such as spears, machetes, daggers, revolvers, and rifles, the combatants locked in struggle and fell together. In one instance, the tip of a bayonet piercing somebody’s middle came out straight through the back of another who himself had a pointed machete sticking in his chest. In another instance, one who was mortally wounded by a sharp dagger inflicted killed by the other’s gun. Another pair who fell together each had bayonet thrusts, one through the navel and the other above the chest. Some had severed heads, others, severed hands or feet. General Apoy and the Supremo Bonifacio lost many gallant troops in this bloody and miserable battle. Among those who died were the valiant Maj. Pio Baluyot and head soldiers Francisco Arnaldo, Juan Brosas, Lucio Poblete, and Nicomedes Esguerra. The enemy rode roughshod over their bodies as they rushed into town to raise their flag of victory and to burn houses. Very early that morning before the battle, Captain General Apoy had visited the Tarike fort to boost the morale of the Magdiwang and Balara troops. Then at past seven o’clock, they saw the Spaniards massing a great number of their troops. The commanders of the Magdiwang and the Balara contingents thought it was the better part of discretion if the captain general was not with them inside the fort when the expected attack took place. Thus, Major Baluyot and Captain Olaes escorted him across the river to the west of the town of San Francisco de Malabon. Gen. Pio Del Pilar and his troops, along with a small detachment from Imus, came to help the defense of San Francisco de Malabon, but for some unknown reason he withdrew even before the enemy could attack. He made his withdrawal without notifying those inside the fort. Coming from Imus and Kawit, the enemy took Noveleta without resistance. They captured the fortifications and collected Katipunan arms and ammunition. Coming in and spreading out into the open fields around Imus, Kawit, Noveleta, and San Francisco de Malabon, they overwhelmed the People’s troops with their sheer number. 23  2 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 4 Reading 2: Secondary Source 24  2 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 5 25  2 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 6 26  2 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 7 27  2 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 8 28  2 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 9 29  3 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 0 30  3 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 1 31  3 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 2 Assessment 4 Comparative Analysis: Primary vs Secondary Sources Name: ___________________________________ Ratings: _______________ Categories Primary Sources Secondary Source Memoirs of a General by Santiago Revolt of the Masses by Alvarez a.k.a Gen. Apoy Teodoro Agoncillo Author’s Background Objective of the Author Date written or published Mention of dates Key Personalities 32  3 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 3 Thematic motivation of authors (why the Tejeros meeting failed?) Sequencing of events 33  3 GEC03 Readings in Philippine History 4 Synthesis: Compare primary and secondary sources of historical records using the two articles. Which do you think provides a more accurate and detailed information on the story? State and justify your claim. Use an extra sheet of paper if needed. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________