CHAPTER 3

Case Study 1: Where Did the first Catholic Mass take place in the Philippines?
Title: Revisiting the First Catholic Mass in the Philippines: Butuan or Limasawa?
Abstract: This concise review critically examines historical evidence surrounding the first
Catholic Mass in the Philippines, challenging the traditional belief that Butuan was the
location. Analyzing primary sources, particularly Francisco Albo's log and Antonio Pigafetta's
account, the paper highlights the historiographical shift and advocates for reconsidering
Limasawa as a plausible alternative based on the alignment of details in both sources.
Introduction: Debates over the location of the first Mass in the Philippines have centered on
Butuan, marked by a monument since 1872. This paper reviews primary sources and
explores the historiographical evolution, emphasizing the need to reconsider Limasawa.
Primary Sources and Interpretation: Examining Francisco Albo's log and Antonio Pigafetta's
account, the study questions Butuan's claim. Albo's log lacks explicit mention of the Mass,
while Pigafetta's detailed narrative, aligned with Albo's, strengthens the argument for
Limasawa.
Miguel A. Bernard's Contribution: Jesuit priest Miguel A. Bernard's work highlights a
significant omission in Pigafetta's account—the absence of Butuan's river. This prompts
doubts about Butuan's candidacy and supports the case for Limasawa.

Conclusion: This review advocates for a reevaluation of the first Mass site, suggesting
Limasawa as a plausible alternative to Butuan. The alignment of details in primary sources
and the omission of Butuan's river in Pigafetta's account warrant further research and
archaeological investigations.

Case Study 2: What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?

Introduction: In 1872, the Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of GOMBURZA marked crucial
moments in Philippine history, significantly influencing the path toward the Philippine
Revolution.

Spanish Accounts: Spanish historians Montero y Vidal and Governor Izquierdo portrayed the
mutiny as an attempt to overthrow Spanish rule, implicating native clergy and secularization
advocates.
Mutiny Events: Catalyzed by protests against injustices, including the abolition of privileges,
the mutiny on January 20, 1872, was triggered by misinterpreted signals during a
celebration. GOMBURZA's execution followed on February 17, 1872.
Differing Perspectives: Filipino scholar Tavera presented the mutiny as a response to
oppressive Spanish policies, while French writer Plauchut emphasized Filipinos' aspirations
for reforms halted by Izquierdo's policies.

GOMBURZA's Martyrdom: The execution of GOMBURZA became a catalyst for Philippine

nationalism, inspiring resistance against Spanish rule, notably in Jose Rizal's dedication in "El
Filibusterismo."
Conclusion: The Cavite Mutiny, whether seen as genuine revolt or manipulated incident,
undeniably shaped Philippine history, laying the foundation for future movements against
Spanish colonialism.

Case Study 3: Did Rizal Retract?

Introduction: Jose Rizal, a Filipino hero, is scrutinized for an alleged retraction document
expressing a return to Catholicism. The controversy surrounding this document questions
Rizal's revolutionary stance.
Rizal's Retraction Document: A document, supposedly signed by Rizal before his execution,
contradicts his anti-friar writings. However, doubts arise due to discrepancies in eyewitness
accounts, notably from Fr. Vicente Balaguer.
Cuerpo de Vigilancia Account: In 2016, a new account emerged from the Cuerpo de
Vigilancia, supporting the existence of the retraction document. This account, provided by
Federico Moreno, details Rizal's interactions with Jesuit fathers and the signing of the
retraction.
Connection to Katipunan: While Rizal was not officially part of the Katipunan, his influence
was evident. The precursor to the Katipunan, La Liga Filipina, founded by Rizal, played a
pivotal role. Former members, including Andres Bonifacio, later established the Katipunan,
expressing appreciation for Rizal's goals.
Rizal's Meeting with Valenzuela: In 1896, Pio Valenzuela visited Rizal in Dapitan to inform
him of the Katipunan's revolutionary plans. Rizal allegedly opposed immediate revolt,
emphasizing the need for wealthy Filipino support. His advice included recruiting Antonio
Luna for military leadership.
Conclusion: The controversy over Rizal's retraction persists, with conflicting accounts
shaping the narrative. Despite this, Rizal's impact on the Katipunan and his enduring
influence on Filipino nationalism remain undeniable.

Case Study 4: Where did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?

Introduction: The Cry of Rebellion in August 1896 marked a crucial moment in the Philippine
struggle for independence against Spanish colonial rule. However, controversies surround
the identification of the date and place of this historic event, creating discrepancies among
historical accounts.
Controversy Origin: The controversy stems from conflicting details regarding the moment
when the Cry occurred. Teodoro Agoncilo emphasizes Bonifacio tearing the cedula, while
others link it to the first military encounter with the Spaniards, leading to renewed struggles
after the failed Pact of Biak-na-Bato.
Celebration and Monument: Despite discrepancies, the Cry of Balintawak, northeast of
Manila, is commemorated annually on August 26. A monument to the Heroes of 1896
stands at the intersection of EDSA Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive-North Diversion road,
even though the reason for this specific site selection remains unknown.
Differing Dates and Places: Historical accounts present varied dates and locations for the
Cry, adding complexity to the narrative. Discrepancies include Lt. Olegario Diaz identifying
Balintawak on August 25, Teodoro Kalaw placing it in Kangkong on the last week of August,
and Santiago Alvarez situating it in Bahay Toro on August 24. Pio Valenzuela claims Pugad
Lawin on August 23, while Gregorio Zaide mentions Balintawak on August 26. Researchers
Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion, and Ramon Villegas suggest Tandang Sora's
barn in Gulod, Quezon City, on August 24.
Eyewitness Accounts: Eyewitness testimonies from Guillermo Masangkay and Pio
Valenzuela contribute to the conflicting narratives. Masangkay describes a meeting in
Balintawak on August 26, while Valenzuela provides contradictory statements about
Balintawak on August 26 and Pugad Lawin on August 23. Caution is advised when
interpreting these accounts due to inconsistencies.
Conclusion: The Cry of Rebellion remains shrouded in controversy, with conflicting
narratives regarding the date and location. Historical discrepancies emphasize the
challenges in pinpointing precise details, urging caution in interpreting primary sources.
Despite uncertainties, the significance of the Cry in Philippine history is undisputed,
symbolizing the nation's fight for independence against colonial rule.
CHAPTER 4