Final Term Module Readings

DISCLAIMER
This module is intended for STUDENTS OF TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY ONLY in

order to address the flexible learning scheme for A.Y. 2020-2021 as implemented by the
Commission on Higher Education brought by the COVID-19 pandemic. The textbooks, articles,
websites, and video links used in compiling this module are properly cited. No reproduction of any
part of this module may be used, sold, or distributed for commercial purposes or be changed or
included in any other business, work, or publication, whether in print or electronic unless prior
permission has been granted.
Republic of the Philippines
Tarlac State University
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Main Campus Tarlac City
Tel. No. (045) 493-0182; Fax. No. (045) 982-0110
Social Science 1C – Readings in Philippine History
TSU VMGO
VISION Tarlac State University is envisioned to be a premier university in

Asia and the Pacific.
MISSION Tarlac State University commits to promote and sustain the

offering of quality & relevant programs in higher and advanced
education ensuring equitable access to education for people
empowerment, professional development, and global
competitiveness.
Towards this end, TSU shall:

1. Provide high quality instruction trough qualified,
competent & adequately trained faculty members &
support staff.
2. Be a premier research institution by enhancing research
undertaking in the fields of technology & sciences &
strengthening collaborating with local and international
institution.
3. Be a champion in community development by
strengthening partnership with public and private
organization & individuals
CORE VALUES E – xcellence

Q - uality
U - nity
I - ntegrity
T - rust in God, Transparency & True Commitment
Y - earning for Global Competitiveness
PREPARED BY THE FOLLOWING FACULTY MEMBERS:
DR. LINO L. DIZON

Professor VI
 [email protected]
Dr. Lino L Dizon is presently a commissioner of the National

Historical Commission of the Philippines. He is also the Dr. Lee
Ye-lick Alex Professor in Social Sciences and Professor VI (Full
Professor) of Tarlac State University and heads its Center for
Tarlaqueño Studies. He holds a PhD (Philippine Studies) from
the University of the Philippines, Diliman.
He edits ALAYA, the Kapampangan Research Journal of the Center for Kapampangan Studies,
Holy Angel University where he used to be the history consultant and from 2012 until early 2017
had been the Writer –in –Residence of Cavite Studies Center, De La Salle University –
Dasmariñas.
He has already written more than a score of books on Philippine local history and culture,
including Mr. White: A ‘Thomasite’ History of Tarlac Province, 1901-1913, Nascent Philippine
Studies on the Life and Labor of José Felipe Del-Pan, 1821-1891 and Photographing
Revolutionary Cavite: The Colonial Representation, 1896-1899 and is the co-author of a number
of publications including Cruceiro: Spanish Galicia at Some Crossroads in Philippine History &
Culture (1521-1898) and Gloria: Roman Leoncio’s Kapampangan Translation of Huseng Batute’s
Verse Novel, Lost and Found, which won the 2004 Philippines’ National Book Awards for
Translation.
A University Scholar of the University of the Philippines, Diliman from 2005-2007, Prof. Dizon
was a Vice- President of KABANSA, Inc.- the Association of Local Studies Centers in the
Philippines and a current EXECON-Member of the National Commission for the Culture and the
Arts’ Committee for Historical Research (2020-2022, representing Luzon). Recipient of many
national and international scholarship and research grants as those from the Spanish Program
for Cultural Cooperation, American Association of the Philippines, Japan Foundation, Nihon
University - Mishima and the Research Forum on Philippine-Japan Relations, he was a Fulbright
Research Fellow for 2010-2011 at the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.
DR. AGNES S. MALLARI-MACARAEG
Professor V
Dr. Agnes M. Macaraeg was the Dean of the College of Arts and
Social Sciences of Tarlac State University, Tarlac City, from June
01, 2009 to August 04, 2019. Dr. Macaraeg was a graduate of
Baguio Colleges Foundation, now the known University of
Cordillera, Baguio City with a degree Bachelor of Arts in Political Science in 1985. She is also a
holder of Master’s Degree in Administration and Supervision and Doctor of Education major in
Educational Management. She is a Licensed Professional Teacher. She is currently under the
Social Sciences Department of the College of Arts and Social Sciences, teaching subjects such
as Readings in Philippine History, Philippine Constitution, General Sociology, Contemporary
World and Ethics. Dr. Macaraeg is also a faculty member of the Graduate Studies of this Institution
and at St. La Salle University of Bacolod, teaching masters’ and doctorate students under the
Eduardo Cojuangco Foundation Program and likewise, she is a volunteer Professor at Our Lady
of Peace College Seminary, Tarlac City. She is one of the authors of the Sociology book entitled
SOCIOLOGY (Exploring Society and Culture) published in 2010 by TCS Publishing House and
currently working for the publication of the book in Readings in Philippine History.
MR. CHARLES KEVIN T. SALONGA

Lecturer
Charles Kevin T Salonga is a graduate of Bachelor in Public

Administration at University of the Philippines,Diliman, Quezon
City in 2016. Currently, he is taking up Juris Doctor at Angeles
University Foundation. He is also a lecturer of General Education
Department (Social Science), College of Arts and Social
Sciences at Tarlac State University since 2016. He has been
teaching different social science subjects such as Readings in Philippine History, Philippine
Constitution, Economics and Taxation, Humanities, Sociology, Ethics, and Contemporary World.
READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
SOCIAL SCIENCE 1C (SS1C)
3 UNITS Credit
NO Pre-requisite Course
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
The course analyzes Philippine history from multiple perspectives through the lens of selected
primary sources coming from various disciplines and of different genres. Students are given
opportunities to analyze the author’s background and main arguments, compare different points
of view, identify biases and examine the evidences presented in the document. The discussions
will tackle traditional topics in history and other interdisciplinary themes that will deepen and
broaden their understanding of Philippine political, economic, cultural, social, scientific and
religious history. Priority is given to primary materials that could help students develop their
analytical and communication skills. The end goal is to develop the historical and critical
consciousness of the students so that they will become versatile, articulate, broadminded, morally
upright and responsible citizens.
COURSE OUTLINE:
FINAL TERM COVERAGE

CHAPTER III: One Past and many Histories: Controversies and Conflicting Views in
Philippine History
Cases:
Module 10: The First Mass in the Philippines
Module 11: The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Module 12: Jose Rizal’s Retraction
Module 13: Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin

CHAPTER IV: Political, Economic, and Socio- Cultural Issues in Philippine History
Mandated Topics:
Module 14 : Malolos Constitution, 1935 Constitution, 1973 Constitution
Module 15: The 1987 Constitution
Module 16: Agrarian Reform in the Philippines
Module 17: Taxation
Module 18: Special Topics:

A. IPRA Law and Government Peace Treaties with Muslim Filipinos
B. Local and Oral History, Cultural Performances and Indigenous practices
TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY
MODULE 10
HISTORICAL
COONTOVERSY:
The First Mass in the
Philippines
1
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE USER:
1. The user is to study this module at his own pace within the time frame set by the
instructor. Check the OBTL syllabus for guidance.
2. Video links for subtopics are also provided in this module.
3. References, Supplemental and Additional readings are also given for further
understanding and appreciation of the lesson.
4. Self-Check Test are also available for student’s self-assessment. Respective
instructors may ask the students to submit answers via agreed platforms
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or against a
particular issue
2. Reexamine the conflicting evidence of the First Mass in the Philippines.
3. Be able present a stand based on available facts, data and evidence.
2
The First Mass in the Philippines
The birth of Roman Catholicism in the country was signified by the celebration of the first Catholic
mass in the Philippines March 31, 1521, after Ferdinand Magellan landed on the Philippines which
he named then as the Archipelago of St. Lazarus. However, the location of the mass is still
shrouded with controversy. Originally it was believed that the mass was celebrated in the in the
island of Limasawa, in Leyte, but the discovery of the Golden Tara in Butuan made some
Philippine Historian question the veracity of the Limasawa location. As recounted by Pigafetta the
first Christian Mass celebrated was made in an island which he called ''Mazaua.''
In 1996, the Philippine Congress directed the National Historical Institute to recommend a
historical finding. The panel and the NHI reaffirmed in 1998 that the place is Limasawa, but the
controversy is still alive until today.
Following is an excerpt coming from a primary source that tackles the issue in question. This is
from Pigafetta’s Chronicles of the Voyage of Magellan. Source: Emma Blair and James
Alexander Robertson. The Philippine Islands Vol. 33.
1. On Saturday, March 16, 1521, we came upon a high land at a distance of three
hundred leguas from the islands of Latroni—an island named Zamal [i.e., Samar].
The following day, the captain-general desired to land on another island which
was uninhabited and lay to the right of the abovementioned island, in order to be
more secure, and to get water and have some rest. He had two tents set up on
the shore for the sick and had a sow killed for them.
2. On Monday afternoon, March 18, we saw a boat coming toward us with nine men
in it. Therefore, the captain-general ordered that no one should move or say a
word without his permission. When those men reached the shore, their chief went
immediately to the captain-general, giving signs of joy because of our arrival. Five
of the most ornately adorned of them remained with us, while the rest went to get
some others who were fishing, and so they all came. The captain-general seeing
that they were reasonable men, ordered food to be set before them, and gave
them red caps, mirrors, combs, bells, ivory, bocasine, and other things. When
they saw the captain’s courtesy, they presented fish, a jar of palm wine, which
they call uraca [i.e., arrack], figs more than one palmo long [i.e., bananas], and
others which were smaller and more delicate, and two cocoanuts. They had
nothing else then, but made us signs with their hands that they would bring umay
or rice, and cocoanuts and many other articles of food within four days.
3. There are many islands in that district, and therefore we called them the
archipelago of San Lazaro, as they were discovered on the Sabbath of St.
Lazurus. They lie in 10 degrees of latitude toward the Arctic Pole, and in a
longitude of 161 degrees from the line of demarcation.
3
4. At noon on Friday, March 22, those men came as they had promised us in two
boats with cocoanuts, sweet oranges, a jar of palm-wine, and a cock, in order to
show us that there were fowls in that district. They exhibited great signs of
pleasure at seeing us. We purchased all those articles from them. Their seignior
was an old man who was painted [i.e., tattooed]. He wore two gold earrings
[schione] in his ears, and the others many gold armlets on their arms and
kerchiefs about their heads. We stayed there one week, and during that time our
captain went ashore daily to visit the sick, and every morning gave them cocoanut
water from his own hand, which comforted them greatly.
5. On Thursday morning, March twenty-eight, as we had seen a fire on an island the
night before, we anchored near it. We saw a small boat which the natives call
boloto with eight men in it, approaching the flagship. A slave belonging to the
captain-general, who was a native of Zamatra [i.e., Sumatra], which was formerly
called Traprobana, spoke to them. They immediately understood him, came
alongside the ship, unwilling to enter but taking a position at some little distance.
The captain seeing that they would not trust us, threw them out a red cap and
other things tied to a bit of wood. They ]received them very gladly, and went away
quickly to advise their king. About two hours later we saw two balanghai coming.
6. Next day, holy Friday, the captain-general sent his slave, who acted as our
interpreter, ashore in a small boat to ask the king if he had any food to have it
carried to the ships; and to say that they would be well satisfied with us, for he
[and his men] had come to the island as friends and not as enemies. The king
came with six or eight men in the same boat and entered the ship. He embraced
the captain-general to whom he gave three porcelain jars covered with leaves and
full of raw rice, two very large orade, and other things. The captain-general gave
the king a garment of red and yellow cloth made in the Turkish fashion, and a fine
red cap; and to the others (the king’s men), to some knives and to others mirrors.
Then the captain-general had a collation spread for them, and had the king told
through the slave that he desired to be casi casi with him, that is to say, brother.
The king replied that he also wished to enter the same relations with the captain-
general. Then the captain showed him cloth of various colors, linen, coral
[ornaments], and many other articles of merchandise, and all the artillery, some
of which he had discharged for him, whereat the natives were greatly frightened.
Then the captain-general had a man armed as a soldier, and placed him in the
midst of three men armed with swords and daggers, who struck him on all parts
of the body. Thereby was the king rendered almost speechless. The captain-
general told him through the slave that one of those armed men was worth one
hundred of his own men. The king answered that that was a fact. The captain-
general said that he had two hundred men in each ship who were armed in that
manner. He showed the king cuirasses, swords, and bucklers, and had a review
made for him. Then he led the king to the deck of the ship, that is located above
at the stern; and had his sea-chart and compass brought. He told the king through
the interpreter how he had found the strait in order to voyage thither, and how
many moons he had been without seeing land, whereat the king was astonished.
Lastly, he told the king that he would like, if it were pleasing to him, to send two
4
of his men with him so that he might show them some of his things. The king
replied that he was agreeable, and I went in company with one of the other men.
7. Early on the morning of Sunday, the last of March, and Easter-day, the captain-
general sent the priest with some men to prepare the place where mass was to
be said; together with the interpreter to tell the king that we were not going to land
in order to dine with him, but to say mass. Therefore the king sent us two swine
that he had had killed. When the hour for mass arrived, we landed with about fifty
men, without our body armor, but carrying our other arms, and dressed in our best
clothes. Before we reached the shore with our boats, six pieces were discharged
as a sign of peace. We landed; the two kings embraced the captain-general, and
placed him between them. We went in marching order to the place consecrated,
which was not far from the shore. Before the commencement of mass, the captain
sprinkled the entire bodies of the two kings with musk water.”243 The mass was
offered up. The kings went forward to kiss the cross as we did, but they did not
offer the sacrifice. When the body of our Lord was elevated, they remained on
their knees and worshiped Him with clasped hands. The ships fired all their
artillery at once when the body of Christ was elevated, the signal having been
given from the shore with muskets. After the conclusion of mass, some of our men
took communion. The captain-general arranged a fencing tournament, at which
the kings were greatly pleased. Then he had a cross carried in and the nails and
a crown, to which immediate reverence was made. He told the kings through the
interpreter that they were the standards given to him by the emperor his
sovereign, so that wherever he might go he might set up those his tokens. [He
said] that he wished to set it up in that place for their benefit, for whenever any of
our ships came, they would know that we had been there by that cross, and would
do nothing to displease them or harm their property. If any of their men were
captured, they would be set free immediately on that sign being shown. It was
necessary to set that cross on the summit of the highest mountain, so that on
seeing it every morning, they might adore it; and if they did that, neither thunder,
lightning, nor storms would harm them in the least. They thanked him heartily and
that they would do everything willingly. The captain-general also had them asked
whether they were Moros or heathen, or what was their belief. They replied that
they worshiped nothing, but that they raised their clasped hands and their face to
the sky; and that they called their god “Abba.” Thereat the captain was very glad,
and seeing that, the first king raised his hands to the sky, and said that he wished
that it were possible for him to make the captain see his love for him. The
interpreter asked the king why there was so little to eat there. The latter replied
that he did not live in that place except when he went hunting and to see his
brother, but that he lived in another island where all his family were. The captain-
general had him asked to declare whether he had any enemies, so that he might
go with his ships to destroy them and to render them obedient to him. The king
thanked him and said that he did indeed have two islands hostile to him, but that
it was not then the season to go there. The captain told him that if God would
again allow him to return to those districts, he would bring so many men that he
would make the king’s enemies subject to him by force. He said that he was about
to go to dinner, and that he would return afterward to have the cross set up on the
5
summit of the mountain. They replied that they were satisfied, and then forming
in battalion and firing the muskets, and the captain having embraced the two
kings, we took our leave.
8. After dinner we all returned clad in our doublets, and that afternoon went together
with the two kings to the summit of the highest mountain there. When we reached
the summit, the captain-general told them that he esteemed highly having
sweated for them, for since the cross was there, it could not but be of great use
to them. On asking them which port was the best to get food, they replied that
there were three, namely, Ceylon, Zubu, and Calaghann, but that Zubu was the
largest and the one with most trade. They offered of their own accord to give us
pilots to show us the way. The captain-general thanked them, and determined to
go there, for so did his unhappy fate will. After the cross was erected in position,
each of us repeated a Pater Noster and an Ave Maria, and adored the cross; and
the kings did the same. The kings had some cocoanuts brought in so that we
might refresh ourselves. The captain asked the kings for the pilots for he intended
to depart the following morning, and [said] that he would treat them as if they were
the kings themselves, and would leave one of us as hostage. The kings replied
that every hour he wished the pilots were at his command, but that night the first
king changed his mind, and in the morning when we were about to depart, sent
word to the captain-general, asking him for love of him to wait two days until he
should have his rice harvested, and other trifles attended to. He asked the
captain-general to send him some men to help him, so that it might be done
sooner; and said that he intended to act as our pilot himself. The captain sent him
some men, but the kings ate and drank so much then they slept all the day. Some
said to excuse them that they were slightly sick. Our men did nothing on that day,
but they worked the next two days.
9. It lies in a latitude of nine and two-thirds degrees toward the Arctic Pole, and in a
longitude of one hundred and sixty-two degrees from the line of demarcation. It is
twenty-five from the Acquada, and is called Mazaua.
10. We remained there seven days, after which we laid our course toward the
northwest, passing among five islands, namely, Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baybai,
and Gatighan.
Supplemental Reading: Bernad, Miguel ,“Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the
Philippines: A Reexaminationof the Evidence” at
https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579
The Board of Commissioners of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP)
signed on 15 July 2020 Resolution No. 2, adopting the report submitted by the panel that reviewed
the issue surrounding the site of the 1521 Easter Sunday Mass in the Philippines. In the report
(see below), the panel recommended Limasawa, in today’s Southern Leyte, as the site of the said
event.
6
The panel was convened in response to the requests from various institutions, including the
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), even as the anticipation of the Filipino
Catholic faithful had just begun for the 500th anniversary of the introduction of Christianity in the
Philippines (see attached brief background about the process).
Republic Act No. 10086 or Strengthening People’s Nationalism Act of 2009 mandates the NHCP
to “actively engage in the settlement or resolution of controversies or issues relative to historical
personages, places, dates and events.”
(Click the following for the full text)
Official Statement of NHCP

NHCP Board Resolution No. 2, s. 2020
The Final Report of the Mojares Panel on the Butuan-Limasawa Controversy on the
Location of the 1521 First Easter Sunday Mass in the Philippines
ATTENTION!!!
Before you go to the next module, PLEASE SEE ACTIVITY 10 on page 47
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
Pigafetta, Antonio. “First Voyage Around the World.” Blair, Emma and Robertson, James
Alexander. The Philippine Islands. Ohio: Arthur Clarke and Company, Vol. XXXIII, 1519–1522
Bernad, Miguel ,“Butuan or Limasawa: The Site of the First Mass in the Philippines: A
Reexaminationof the Evidence” at
https://journals.ateneo.edu/ojs/index.php/budhi/article/view/582/579nhcp.gov
7
MODULE 11
HISTORICAL
CONTROVERSY:
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
8
1. The user is to study this module at his own pace within the time frame set by the
instructor. Check the OBTL syllabus for guidance.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or against a

particular issue
2. Reexamine the conflicting evidence of the Cavite Mutiny..
9
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Many believe that the Cavite Mutiny of January 20, 1872 was the beginning of Filipino nationalism
that would eventually lead to the Philippine Revolution of 1896. This phenomenon was an uprising
of military personnel of Fort San Felipe, the Spanish arsenal in Cavite, Philippines on January 20,
1872. It was believed that around 200 soldiers and laborers rose up in in arms against the Spanish
colonizers. Participants were executed and there was a crackdown on the beginnings of the
sentiments of nationalism.
The crackdown led to the execution of the – Gomburza - or the three priests Mariano Gómez,
José Apolonio Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, three Filipino priests who were executed on 17
February 1872 at Bagumbayan (present-day Luneta) in Manila by Spanish colonial authorities on
charges of subversion arising from the 1872 Cavite mutiny. Eventually considered as martyrs,
their execution left a profound effect on many Filipinos including José Rizal, who would dedicated
his 2nd novel El Filibusterismo, done in 1891, to their memory.
The issue on the Cavite Mutiny lies on the interpretation of the real cause of the Mutiny. For the
Spanish perspective, Jose Montero y Vidal, a Spanish historian documented the event and
highlighted it as an attempt of indios or natives to overthrow the Spanish Government in the
Philippines. On the other hand, Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo made use of this to implicate
the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization, thus the arrest and execution
of the Gomburza.
Spanish sources would emphasize that the main reason of the revolution are the abolition of
privileges of the workers in the arsenal of Cavite. Izquierdo reported to the King of Spain that the
'rebels' wanted to overthrow the Spanish government. The three martyrs were executed to instill
fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again.
John N. Schumacher in his article, “The Cavite Mutiny: An Essay On The Published Sources”
(1972) stated the following:
1. The account of Jose Montero y Vidal, a Spanish official in Manila at the time, is the
fullest account of the mutiny itself. It embodies the official interpretation of the mutiny
in Cavite as part of a general revolt directed by the three priests and their lay and
clerical colleagues in Manila and Cavite, having as its aim the assassination of the
Governor-General and a general massacre of all Spaniards. Published only in 1895,
at the height of the Filipino nationalist campaign, Montero's account is strongly hostile
to Filipino reformist aspirations, has no doubt of the guilt of those executed or exiled,
and places much of the blame for the revolt of 1872 on the alleged tolerance of
Governor- General Carlos Maria de la Torre in the period 1869-1871.”
2. “The account of Pardo de Tavera was originally written for the official report of the
census of 1903, as part of a general survey of Philippine history.:" Pardo denies that
there was any plot to overthrow Spanish rule, and sees the Cavite Mutiny simply as
an uprising due to the disaffection of the arsenal workers who had been deprived of
10
their traditional exemption from tribute and the Filipino troops who sympathized with
them. This event the conservative elements in Manila, including the friars, took as
proof that those who had expressed reformist or anti-friar sentiments under the
governorship of De la Torre were plotting to overthrow Spanish sovereignty. Hence
they persuaded the government to inflict severe and exemplary punishments on all
kinds of people without inquir- ing carefully into their guilt. Though Pardo makes no
direct mention of my friar conspiracy" 2 bring about the Cavite affair after the fashion
of Regidor, he sees the punishments meted out as the result of a false conviction on
the part of the government that all opponents of the friars were enemies of Spanish
rule, and attributes the disaffection of the Filipinos with Spain which led to the
Revolution of 1896 to this identification of Spanish interests with friar interests
beginning from 1872.”
SUPPLEMENTAL READING: Piedad-Pugay, Chris , “The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny”
at http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY

By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay
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. But
we should be reminded that another year 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 Gomes, Jose Burgos
and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA). However, not all of us knew that there were different
accounts in reference to the said event. All Filipinos 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 prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it as
an attempt of 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 the 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 the 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
11
Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious
propagandas 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 at 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 the 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 his 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 for the Filipinos, which
the general believed as a cover-up for the organization of 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 expecting support from
the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny reached
12
authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops
in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.
Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful
lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also
included residents of 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 and the direction and management of educational institutions. This
turnout of events was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to do something drastic in their dire
sedire to maintain power in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, 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
standard 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 for 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 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 and 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 of the power to intervene in government
affairs as well as in the direction and management of schools prompting them to commit frantic
moves to extend their stay and power; Fifth, 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-
13
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 weenjoy our freeedom, may we be more historically aware of
our past to have a better future ahead of us. And just like what Elias said in Noli me Tangere,
may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”
ATTENTION!!!
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 (Zaide 1990, vol 7, pp
274-280)
Jose Montero y Vidal, Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 (Zaide 1990, vol 7, pp269-
273)
Rafael Izquirdo, Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny (Zaide 1990, vol 7, pp 281-286)
14
MODULE 12
HISTORICAL
CONTROVERSY:
Jose Rizal’s Retraction
15
1. The user is to study this module at his own pace within the time frame set
by the instructor. Check the OBTL syllabus for guidance.
4. Self-Check Test are also available for student’s self-assessment.
Respective instructors may ask the students to submit answers via agreed
platforms
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or against

a particular issue
2. Reexamine the conflicting evidence of Jose Rizal’s Retraction.
16
JOSE RIZAL’S RETRACTION
One of the issues that hounds Philippine History is whether or not Jose Rizal, in his final days,
retracted all of his previous works and statements that were contrary to the dogma and teachings of
the Roman Catholic Church. It was also a renunciation of his membership to the Masonic
Brotherhood. .
"I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct
have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church.",
This was the statement in the document which made the historians believed that Rizal had
retracted. However, there have been claims that the document, as compared to the original file
which was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia, an archdiocesan archivist in 1935, was a forgery.
Regardless of these claims, there are several people who believe that the retraction documents
are authentic.
If and when Rizal wrote the retraction, what are the possible reasons for this?
The following four reasons are oftentimes cited by historians:
1. Rizal love his family so much that if he signs the retraction he could save them from
persecution including other Filipinos.
2. To give Josephine a legal status as his wife
3. To secure reforms from the Spanish government.
4. To help the church cut away from the disease which harmed its organization.
Below is an analysis of Rizal”s Retraction (from the website www. joserizal.ph)
17
At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. The fourth text appeared in El
Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of the retraction.
The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of
Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30, 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on
February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine in La Juventud; it came from an anonymous
writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer. The "original" text was
discovered in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it disappeared for thirty-
nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.
We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a copyist who could
imitate Rizal’s handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his letter to
his former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said that he had received "an exact copy of the
retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I
remember whose it is. . ." He proceeded: "I even suspect that it might have been written by
Rizal himself. I am sending it to you that you may . . . verify whether it might be of Rizal
himself . . . ." Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn statement.
This "exact" copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding
Rizal’s execution, Rizal y su Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his biography of
Rizal, Vida y Escritos del Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken
from the texts of the retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi’s copy of Rizal’s retraction
has the same text as that of Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of the
texts of Rizal’s retraction in the Manila newspapers.
Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La
Voz Espanola. That newspaper reported: "Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s)
own hand-written retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…" On the
other hand, Manila pharmacist F. Stahl wrote in a letter: "besides, nobody has seen this
written declaration, in spite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to see it.
"For example, not only Rizal’s family but also the correspondents in Manila of the
newspapers in Madrid, Don Manuel Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr. Santiago Mataix of El
Heraldo, were not able to see the hand-written retraction.
Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace the Archbishop ascertained whether Rizal himself was the one
who wrote and signed the retraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary because
it was possible for one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting aforesaid holograph; and
keeping a copy of the same for our archives, I myself delivered it personally that the same
morning to His Grace Archbishop… His Grace testified: At once the undersigned entrusted
this holograph to Rev. Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of the Chancery." After that, the
documents could not be seen by those who wanted to examine it and was finally considered
lost after efforts to look for it proved futile.
On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the
archdeocean archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts
about Rizal’s retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text
retraction differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies.
18
And, the fact that the texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could
be shown to be the exact copies of the "original" but only imitations of it. This means that
the friars who controlled the press in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the
"original" while the Jesuits had only the imitations.
We now proceed to show the significant differences between the "original" and the Manila
newspapers texts of the retraction on the one hand and the text s of the copies of Fr.
Balaguer and F5r. Pio Pi on the other hand.
First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the
newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad" (with "u").
Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias"
which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.
Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word "misma"
which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.
Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical reader,
Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences while the
original and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with the second
sentences.
Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers have
only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.
Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the witnesses
from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.
In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named the witnesses. He
said "This . . .retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of the
Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza." However, the proceeding quotation only
proves itself to be an addition to the original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr.
Balaguer said that he had the "exact" copy of the retraction, which was signed by Rizal, but
her made no mention of the witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses signed the
retraction.
How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal’s retraction? Fr. Balaguer never alluded to
having himself made a copy of the retraction although he claimed that the Archbishop
prepared a long formula of the retraction and Fr. Pi a short formula. In Fr. Balaguer’s earliest
account, it is not yet clear whether Fr. Balaguer was using the long formula of nor no formula
in dictating to Rizal what to write. According to Fr. Pi, in his own account of Rizal’s
conversion in 1909, Fr. Balaguer dictated from Fr. Pi’s short formula previously approved
by the Archbishop. In his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer admitted that he dictated to
Rizal the short formula prepared by Fr. Pi; however; he contradicts himself when he
revealed that the "exact" copy came from the Archbishop. The only copy, which Fr.
Balaguer wrote, is the one that appeared ion his earliest account of Rizal’s retraction.
19
Where did Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy come from? We do not need long arguments to
answer this question, because Fr. Balaguer himself has unwittingly answered this question.
He said in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:
"…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of the two formulas
of retraction, which they (You) gave me; that from you and that of the Archbishop, and the
first with the changes which they (that is, you) made; and the other the exact copy of the
retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I
remember whose it is, and I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself."
In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he received two original texts of the
retraction. The first, which came from Fr. Pi, contained "the changes which You (Fr. Pi)
made"; the other, which is "that of the Archbishop" was "the exact copy of the retraction
written and signed by Rizal" (underscoring supplied). Fr. Balaguer said that the "exact copy"
was "written and signed by Rizal" but he did not say "written and signed by Rizal and
himself" (the absence of the reflexive pronoun "himself" could mean that another person-
the copyist-did not). He only "suspected" that "Rizal himself" much as Fr. Balaguer did "not
know nor ... remember" whose handwriting it was.
Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the "exact copy" came from the Archbishop! He called it
"exact" because, not having seen the original himself, he was made to believe that it was
the one that faithfully reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in which
"changes" (that is, where deviated from the "exact" copy) had been made. Actually, the
difference between that of the Archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with
"changes") is that the latter was "shorter" be cause it omitted certain phrases found in the
former so that, as Fr. Pi had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it.
According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate from
the short formula of Fr. Pi. Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but he
insisted on adding the phrases "in which I was born and educated" and "[Masonary]" as the
enemy that is of the Church" – the first of which Rizal would have regarded as unnecessary
and the second as downright contrary to his spirit. However, what actually would have
happened, if we are to believe the fictitious account, was that Rizal’s addition of the phrases
was the retoration of the phrases found in the original which had been omitted in Fr. Pi’s
short formula.
The "exact" copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort Santiago to convince them
that Rizal had retracted. Someone read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who
claimed in his "Notes’ that Rizal read aloud his retraction. However, his copy of the
retraction proved him wrong because its text (with "u") and omits the word "Catolica" as in
Fr. Balaguer’s copy but which are not the case in the original. Capt. Dominguez never
claimed to have seen the retraction: he only "heard".
The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had written a retraction in
Dapitan. Very early in 1895, Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with her adopted father
who wanted to be cured of his blindness by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela Orlac, who
20
was agent and a mistress of a friar. Rizal fell in love with Josephine and wanted to marry
her canonically but he was required to sign a profession of faith and to write retraction,
which had to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. "Spanish law had established civil
marriage in the Philippines," Prof. Craig wrote, but the local government had not provided
any way for people to avail themselves of the right..."
In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be
approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his
friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The
document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal
came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and
given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.
Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction. What they saw a
copy done by one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the original (almost eaten by
termites) was kept by some friars. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently because
they did not distinguish between the genuine and the imitation of Rizal’s handwriting.
ONLINE VIDEO LINK: XiaoChua, “Xiao Time: Retraction ni Jose Rizal, totoo kaya? “at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYzG6tbcYxk
ATTENTION!!!
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
Ricardo P. Garcia, The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction (pp 9-19;31-43)
Jesus Ma. Cavanna , Rizal’s Unfading Glory, (pp. 7-36)
21
MODULE 13
HISTORICAL
CONTROVERSY:
Cry of Balintawak or Cry of
Pugadlawin?
22
1. The user is to study this module at his own pace within the time frame set by the instructor.
Check the OBTL syllabus for guidance.
4. Self-Check Test are also available for student’s self-assessment. Respective instructors
may ask the students to submit answers via agreed platforms
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or

against a particular issue
2. Reexamine the conflicting evidence of the Cry of Balintawak vs
Pugadlawin..
23
On the Unang Sigaw ng Himagsikan (The First Cry of the Revolution): Was it Balintawak
or Pugadlawin or in three other places?
The “Bonifacio Mural”, painted in 1964 by Carlos “Botong” V. Francisco (Philippine National
Artist for Visual Arts since 1973). The work depicts the so-called First Cry of the Philippine
Revolution against Spain in 1896, led by Andres Bonifacio. The question, however, concerns
the exact location of the event: was it at Balintawak (in present day Caloocan City) or
Pugadlawin (in present day Quezon City), or in three other places..
24
Preliminary Events
During the closing days of August,1896, katipuneros (or members of the secret society known as
Katipunan, from its acronym K.K.K.) led by Andres Bonifacio rose up in revolt. However, the actual
site is still in contention. From 1908 until 1963, the official stance of the Philippines was that it
occurred on August 26 in Balintawak, a suburb in the present-day Caloocan City. This was
popularized by the historian Gregorio F. Zaide in his textbook that initially appeared in 1954.
In 1956, another textbook, History of the Filipino People by Teodoro A. Agoncillo that came out
in 1956 debunked both the place and the date. The author got hold of the memoirs of Dr. Pio
Valenzuela, a close associate of Andres Bonifacio who, declared in 1948 that it happened in
Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896. Here was the Agoncillo account of the First Cry:
The news of the discovery of the Katipunan spread throughout Manila and the suburbs.
Bonifacio, informed of the discovery, secretly instructed his runners to summon all the leaders
of the society to a general assembly to be held on August 24. They were to meet at Balintawak
to discuss the steps to be taken to meet the crisis. That same night of August 19, Bonifacio,
accompanied by his brother Procopio, Emilio Jacinto, Teodoro Plata, and Aguedo del Rosario,
slipped through the cordon of Spanish sentries and reached Balintawak before midnight. Pio
Valenzuela followed them the next day. On the 21st, Bonifacio changed the Katipunan code
because the Spanish authorities had already deciphered it. In the afternoon of the same day,
the rebels, numbering about 500, left Balintawak for Kangkong, where Apolonio Samson,
a Katipunero, gave them food and shelter. In the afternoon of August 22, they proceeded to
Pugadlawin. The following day, in the yard of Juan A. Ramos, the son of Melchora Aquino
who was later called the "Mother of the Katipunan", Bonifacio asked his men whether they
were prepared to fight to the bitter end. Despite the objection of his brother-in-law, Teodoro
Plata, all assembled agreed to fight to the last. "That being the case, " Bonifacio said, "bring
out your cedulas and tear them to pieces to symbolize our determination to take up
arms!" The men obediently tore up their cedulas, shouting "Long live the Philippines!" This
event marked the so-called "Cry of Balintawak," which actually happened in Pugadlawin.
In the midst of this dramatic scene, some Katipuneros who had just arrived from Manila and
Kalookan shouted "Dong Andres! The civil guards are almost behind us, and will reconnoiter
the mountains." Bonifacio at once ordered his men to get ready for the expected attack of the
Spaniards. Since they had inferior arms the rebels decided, instead, to retreat. Under cover
of darkness, the rebels marched towards Pasong Tamo, and the next day, August 24, they
arrived at the yard of Melchora Aquino, known as Tandang Sora. It was decided that all the
rebels in the surrounding towns be notified of the general attack on Manila on the night of
August 29, 1896.
In 1963 the Philippine government declared a shift to August 23 in Pugad Lawin as the site
and date of the First Cry of the Philiippine Revolution.
The controversy lingered. “Despite these becoming textbook facts,” contends the popular
historian Ambeth R. Ocampo in 1995, “the Balintawak tradition continues to thrive. Nick Joaquin
still writes in support of Balintawak, and I myself did not think about this very much until I was
invited to deliver a paper for the first Annual Bonifacio Lectures in 1989. Reviewing sources on
25
the revolution, I found out that the Balintawak tradition was more popular than that of the
Pugadlawin.”
“In 1989, after a series of articles on the controversy over Balintawak and
Pugadlawin,” adds Ocampo, “ I received a batch of photocopied manuscripts with an invitation to
peruse the originals of what appeared to be the papers of Bonifacio. Knowing that these were
transcribed and printed by Agoncillo in two separate books, I did not bother to decipher Bonifacio’s
fine script. Months later, on a lazy afternoon, I decided to compare the Agoncillo transcriptions
with the Bonifacio
originals. I was surprised to find discrepancies in the text. While Agoncillo reproduced the “orihinal
sa Tagalog,” it proved to be slightly different.”
A recent work on the subject that appeared in 1998 and published by Ateneo de Manila Pressr
was done by Soledad Borromeo-Buehler, entitled Cry of Balintawak: A Contrived Controversy.
Through a rigorous analysis of eyewitness and contemporary sources, the book concludes that
the “Cry of Pugad Lawin” is an invented story. It reconstructs the events in Balintawak when
Andres Bonifacio’s Katipuneros assembled in Pook Kangkong from 22 to 26 August 1896,
resolves the questions of where and when cedulas were torn, and when and where the initial
engagement between the Katipuneros and the Spanish troops took place.
Adding to the complexity was the actual date of the First Cry. As mentioned, the previously
recognized date of August 26, being the Cry of Balintawak, was popularized by Gregorio Zaide ,
in 1954.
An officer of the Spanish guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, stated that the Cry took place in
Balintawak on August 25, 1896.
Teodoro M. Kalaw in his classic work, The Filipino Revolution (prepared in 1925) wrote that the
event took place during the last week of August 1896 at Kangkong, Balintawak.
Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, the leader of the Magdiwang faction
in Cavite, stated in 1927 that the Cry took place in Bahay Toro (now in Quezon City) on August
24, 1896.
Accounts by historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion and Ramon Villegas claim the
event to have taken place in Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City.
Other historians, on the other hand, stipulated the meaning of “First Cry.” Originally the term "cry",
says Borromeo-Buehler, it referred to the first clash between the Katipuneros and the Guardia-
Civil (Civil Guards); but “cry” could also refer to the tearing up of cédulas personales) (community
tax certificates) in defiance of their allegiance to Spain. This was literally accompanied by patriotic
shouts.
Still others reflected on the toponyms or place-names in question. Some of the apparent confusion
is in part due to the double meanings of the terms "Balintawak" and "Caloocan" at the turn of the
century. Balintawak referred both to a specific place in modern Caloocan City and a wider area
which included parts of modern Quezon City. Similarly, Caloocan referred to modern Caloocan
City and also a wider area which included modern Quezon City and part of modern Pasig. Pugad
26
Lawin, Pasong Tamo, Kangkong and other specific places were all in "greater Balintawak", which
was in turn part of "greater Caloocan”
SUPPLEMENTAL READING: Katipunan Documents and Studies. “Notes on the "Cry" of August
1896” at https://sites.google.com/site/katipunandocumentsandstudies/studies/notes-on-the-cry-
of-august-1896
ATTENTION!!!
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
Pio Valenzuela, Cry of Balintawak (Zaide 1990, vol 8, pp 301-302)
Santiago Alvarez, Cry of Bahay Toro (Zaide 1990, vol 8, pp 303-304)
Gregoria de Jesus, Version of the First Cry (Zaide 1990, vol 8, pp 305-306)
Guillermo Masangkay, Cry of Balintawak (Zaide 1990, vol 8, pp 307-309)
Katipunan Documents and Studies. “Notes on the "Cry" of August 1896” at
https://sites.google.com/site/katipunandocumentsandstudies/studies/notes-on-the-cry-of-august-
1896
27
MODULE 14
Malolos Constitution, 1935

Constitution, and 1973
Constitution
28
1. The user is to study this module at his own pace within the time frame
set by the instructor. Check the OBTL syllabus for guidance.
3. References, Supplemental and Additional readings are also given for
further understanding and appreciation of the lesson.
Respective instructors may ask the students to submit answers via
agreed platforms
MODULE 14 OUTLINE
I. Nature and Concept of the Constitution

a. Meaning
b. Nature and Purpose
II. Constitution of the Philippines

a. Malolos Constitution
b. 1935 Constitution
c. 1973 Constitution
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Comprehend the definition, nature, and concept of the constitution

2. Appreciate the importance of the constitution
3. Distinguish between Malolos, 1935 and 1973 constitution
1
NATURE AND CONCEPT OF THE CONSTITUTION
MEANING:
In its broad sense, it refers to that body of rules and principles in accordance with which the
powers of sovereignty are regularly exercised.
It is also defined as written instrument by which the fundamental powers of the government are
established, limited and defined and by which these powers are distributed among the several
departments or branches for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the people. (2011,
Hector S. De Leon)
Micro meaning – a document having a special legal status which sets out the framework and
principal functions of the organs of government within the state and declare the principles or rules
by which those organs must operate.
Macro meaning – the whole system of government of a country, the collections of rules which
establish and regulate the government. (https://www.oxbridgenates/law-constitutional-law) It is
the fundamental law of the state which contains the principles on which government is founded,
and regulates the division and exercise of sovereign powers.
The Constitution is a social contract because people have surrendered their sovereign powers to
the state for the common good. Likewise, constitution is both a conferment of powers and a
limitation on the exercise of such powers, like the provisions of the Bill of Rights. (Judge Ed
Vincent S. Albano)
Kinds of Constitution:
1.As to their Origin and History
a. Conventional or enacted – one which is enacted by a constitutional assembly or granted by a
monarch to his subjects.
b. Cumulative or evolved – one which is a product of growth or a lonf period of development
originating in customs, traditions or judicial decisions rather than from a deliberate and formal
enactment.
2. As to their Form
a. Written – one which has been given defenite written form at a particular time, usually by a
special constituted authority.
b. Unwritten – one which is entirely the product of political evolution, consisting largely of a mass
of customs, usages and judicial decisions together with a smaller body of tatutory enacments of
a fundamental character, usually bearing different dates.
3. As to the manner of Amending
2
a. Rigid or inelastic – one regarded as a document of special sanctity which cannot be amended
or altered except by some special machinery more cumbrous than the ordinary legislative
process.
b. Flexible or elastic – one which possesses no higher legal authority than ordinary laws and
which may be altered in the same way as other laws.
NATURE AND PURPOSE:
1. Serves as the supreme or fundamental law of the land – it is the charter creating the
government. It is binding on all individual citizens and all organs of the government. It is
the law to which all other laws must conform.
2. Establishes basic framework and underlying principles of government – the purpose of a
constitution is to prescribe the permanent framework of the system of government and to
assign to the different departments their respective powers and duties and to establish
certain basic principles on which the government is founded. It is primarily designed to
preserve and protect the rights of individuals against arbitrary actions of those in authority.
Likewise, it limits the actions of every individual citizen.
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

A. MALOLOS CONSTITUTION
The only constitution ever framed by Filipinos is what is known as the Malolos Constitution, taking
its name from the then capital of the Filipino Revolutionary government. This constitution, to be
understood, should be viewed in relation to its background.
The Political Constitution of 1899 (Spanish: Constitución Política de 1899), informally known as
the Malolos Constitution, was the basic law of the First Philippine Republic. ... After a lengthy
debate in the latter part of 1898, it was promulgated on 21 January 1899. It established the First
Philippine Republic.
The Malolos Constitution was the first important state document that the Filipino people, speaking
through their representatives, had ever produced. Rebublican in orientation, the Congress worked
hard to have a constitution for the people, which was democratic in its aspects. It is unique for
three reasons: 1) The Assembly or the legislative branch was more powerful than the executive
or the judicial branch; 2) It provided that when the Assembly was not in session, a Permanent
Commission, composed of members of the Assembly, would sit as a legislatuve body; and lastly
3) The Constitution established a unicameral legislature.
This Constitution has the following features: 1) It declared that sovereignty resides exclusively in
the people (Title I; Article 3); 2) It separated the powers of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial
branches of the government (Title II); 3) It separated the Church and the State (Title III); 4) It
enumerated basic civil rights (Title IV with all of its Articles); 5) It called for the creation of an
Assembly of Representatives to act as the legislative body (Title V); and 6) It called for a
Presidential form of government (Title VI & Title VIII).
3
PREAMBLE
We, the Representatives of the Filipino people, lawfully convened, in order to establish
justice, provide for common defense, promote the general welfare, and insure the
benefits of liberty, imploring the aid of the Sovereign Legislator of the Universe for the
attainment of these ends, have voted, decreed, and sanctioned the following
provisions of the Constitution.
Provisions of the Malolos Constitution

TITLE I - THE REPUBLIC
TITLE II - THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE III – RELIGION
TITLE IV - THE FILIPINOS AND THEIR NATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
TITLE V - THE LEGISLATIVE POWER
TITLE VI - THE PERMANENT COMMISSION
TITLE VII - THE EXECUTIVE POWER
TITLE VIII - THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC
TITLE IX - THE SECRETARIES OF GOVERNMENT
TITLE X - THE JUDICIAL POWER
TITLE XI - PROVINCIAL AND POPULAR ASSEMBLIES
TITLE XII - ADMINISTRATION OF THE STATE
TITLE XIII - AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
TITLE XIV - CONSTITUTIONAL OBSERVANCE, OATH, AND LANGUAGE
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
ADDITIONAL ARTICLE
(https://www.lawphil.net/consti/consmalo.html)
B. 1935 CONSTITUTION
This constitution was approved by President Franklin Roosevelt of the Tydings-McDuffie law on
March 24, 1934 and it was ratified by the Filipino electorate on May 14, 1935.
The 1935 Constitution was adopted by the Commonwealth Government of the Philippines from
1935 to 1946. This Constitution did not contain original ideas of government. While the dominating
influence was the Constitution of the United States, other sources were also consulted by the
framers, particularly the 1898 Malolos Constitution and the three organic laws that were enforced
in the Philippines before the passage of the Tydings-McDuffie law, namely; the Instruction of
President William McKinley to the Second Commission on April 7, 1900; the Philippine Bill of July
1, 1902; and the Jones Law of August 26, 1916 which, of the three mentioned, was the nearest
approach to a written constitution.
The constitution as approved by the 1935 Constitutional Convention was intended both for the
Commonwealth and the Republic. The government established by this constitution shall be known
as the Commonwealth of the Philippines. Upon the final and complete withdrawal of the
sovereignty of the United States and the Proclamation of the Philippine Independence, the
Commonwealth of the Philippines shall henceforth be known as the Republic of the Philippines.
In like manner, this Constitution was also used by the Third Republic of the Philippines after the
July 4, 1946 declaration of the Philippine Independence from the United States of America until
4
1972 after President Ferdinand E. Marcos declared Martial law in September 21, 1972 by virtue
of Proclamation Order No. 1081 and called for an Amendment of the 1935 Constitution.
This Constitution was Amended three times. These are among the Amendments:
1. Establishing a bicameral legislature;
2. Allowing the re-eligibility of the President and the Vice President for a second four year
term of office;
3. Creating for a separate Commission on Elections;
4. The inclusion of the Parity Amendment which gave way to American citizens equal
rights with the Filipinos in the exploitation of our natural resources and the operation
of the public utilities; and
5. Allowing the women the right to suffrage as per Plebiscite held on April 30, 1937.
(2011, Hector S. De Leon)
The 1935 Constitution has the following features:

1. Aiming to meet the approval of the American government;
2. Ensuring that United States of America would keep its promise to grant the Philippine
independence (Article XVII);
3. Providing a Unicameral National Assembly then later on it was amended into a
Bicameral legislature (Article VI);
4. Provides the Charter of Liberties (Article III);
5. Provides the Presidential form of government (Article VII);
6. Guaranteeing the separation of powers of the three branches of government
(Articles’VI, VII, & VIII)
Preamble
The Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish a
government that shall embody their ideals, conserve and develop the patrimony of
the nation, promote the general welfare, and secure to themselves and their
posterity the blessings of independence under a regime of justice, liberty, and
democracy, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
Provisions of the 1935 Constitution

Article I – National Territory
Article II – Declaration of Principles
Article III – Bill of Rights
Article IV – Citizenship
Article V – Suffrage
Article VI – Legislative Department
Article VII – Executive Department
Article VIII – Judicial Department
Article IX – Impeachment
Article X – Commission on Election
Article XI – General Auditing Office
Article XII – Civil Service
5
Article XIII – Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources
Article XIV – General Provisions
Article XV – Amendments
Article XVI – Transitory Provisions
Article XVII – Special Provisions Effective Upon the Proclamation of the Independence of the
Philippines
Article XVIII – The Commonwealth and the Republic
C. 1973 CONSTITUTION
Accordingly, the experience of more than three decades as a sovereign nation had revealed flaws
and inadequacies in the 1935 Constitution. Taking into account the “felt necessities of the times”,
particularly the new and grave problems arising from an ever increasing population, urgently
pressing for solution to call for an Amendment of the 1935 Constitution. It was in March 16, 1967,
when the Congress in joint session passed a Resolution No. 2 (as amended by Resolution No. 4,
passed on June 17, 1969), authorizing the holding of a Constitutional Convention in 1971.
The Constitutional Convention started its work of rewriting the Constitution on June 1, 1971. The
1935 Constitution, was made the basis for the drafting of Amendments to the new constitution.
The proposed Constitution was signed on November 30, 1972. But, earlier on September 21,
1972, The President of the Philippines then Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation Order no.
1081 placing the entire country under martial law.
On December 31, 1972 the government issued Presidential Decree No. 80 creating a Citizens
Assembly in each Barrio in municipalities and in each district in chartered cities throughout the
country. Subsequently, Presidential Decree No. 86-A issued on January 5, 1973 defining the role
of the barangays (formerly Citizens’ Assembly). Under the same Decree, the barangays were to
conduct a referendum on national issues between January 10 and 15. Pursuant to PD No. 86-A,
the following questions were asked:
1. Do you approve the New Constitution? and
2. Do you still want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the New Constitution?
All the members of the Barangays (Citizens’ Assembly) voted for its adoption with a vote of
14,976,561, as against 743,869 who voted for its rejection. On the question as to whether or not
the people would still like a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new constitution, 14,298,814
answered that there was no need for a plebiscite.
Thus, on the basis of the above results purportedly showing that more than 95% of the members
of the Barangays were in favor of the New Constitution and upon the allegedly “strong
recommendation” of the Katipunan ng mga Barangay, the President of the Philippines then
Ferdinand E. Marcos issued Proclamation Order No. 1102 on January 17, 1973, certified and
proclaimed that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention had been
ratified by the Filipino people and had thereby come into effect.
President Marcos, what he called “Constituional Authoritarianism”, extended his presidency that
lasted twenty years or two decades – the longest in Philippine history. With Martial rule, the 1971
Constitutional Convention ended with the promulgation of the 1973 Constituion that provided for
a transitory form of government. Under it, the term of office of all officials, starting with the
president, was extended. To effectively silence the opposition, the Congress was padlocked,
6
media was shut down, and Marcos’s critics and rivals were arrested and detained .Marcos
promise a NEW SOCIETY that will solved insurgency, criminality, and poverty.
This Constitution had been amended on four occasions. Among the important amendments and
features are:
1. Making the then incumbent President, the regular President and regular Prime Minister;
2. Granting concurrent law-making powers to the President which the latter exercised even
after the lifting of martial law in 1981;
3. Establishing a parliamentary form of government then, it was modified into a Semi-
Parliamentary form of government;
4. Permitting natural born citizens who have lost their citizenship to be transferees of private
land, for use by them as residence;
5. Allowing the grant of lands of the public domain to qualified citizens; and
6. Providing for urban land reform and social housing program. (2011, Hector S. De Leon)
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine Providence, in order to establish
a government that shall embody our ideals, promote the general welfare, conserve and
develop the patrimony of our Nation, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings
of democracy under a regime of justice, peace, liberty, and equality, do ordain and
promulgate this Constitution.

Article II – Declaration of Principles and State Policies
Article III – Citizens
Article IV - Bill of Rights
Article V – Duties and Obligations of Citizens
Article VI – Suffrage
Article VII – The President and the Vice President
Article VIII – National Assembly
Article IX – The Prime Minister and the Cabinet
Article X – Judiciary
Article XI – Local Government
Article XII – The Constitutional Commissions
Article XIII – Accountability of Public Officers
Article XIV – The National Economy and Patrimony of the Nation
Article XV – General Provisions
Article XVI - Amendments
Article XVII – Transitory Provisions
7
ATTENTION!!!
Before you go to the next module, PLEASE ANSWER the ACTIVITY 14 on page 48
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
1. https://www.lawphil.net/consti/consmalo.html
2. https://www.oxbridgenates/law-constitutional-law
3. Agoncillo, Teodoro A. and Mangahas, Fe B. PHILIPPINE HISTORY: Expanded and Updated
Edition. 2010
4. Albano, Ed Vincent S. POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER. 1998
5. De Leon, Hector S. TEXTBOOK ON THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION. 2011 Edition
6. Rodee, Carlton C. et.al. INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL SCIENCE. Fourth Edition

7. Zulueta, Francisco M. FOUNDATION AND DYNAMICS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE. 1996
8
MODULE 15
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
9
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
1. Compare the previous constitution to the present constitution which is the 1987 constitution.
2. Appreciate the need of having a constitution.
3. Analyze every provisions of the present constitution.
10
1987 CONSTITUTION
Pursuant to Proclamation Order No. 3, the then President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated on
April 23, 1986 Proclamation Order No. 9 , the “Law Governing the Constitutional Commission of
1986”, to organize the Constitutional Commission, to provide for the details of its operations and
establish the procedure for the ratification or rejection of the proposed new Constitution.
The Constitutional Commission, which marked the fourth exercise in the writing of a basic Charter
in the Philippine history since the Malolos Constitution at the turn of the Century, convened on
June 2, 1986. With the Malolos Constitution of 1898, the 1935 Constitution and the 1973
Constitution as “working drafts”, the Commission in addition to committee discussions, public
hearings, and plenary sessions, conducted public consultations in different parts of the Country.
The proposed new Constitution was approved by the Commission on October 12, 1986. The final
session was held on October 15, 1986 and it was ratified by the people in a plebiscite called for
on February 2, 1987. With its ratification the FIFTH Republic was born. It superseded the
provisional Constitution which had abrogated the 1973 Charter.
The 1987 Constitution preserved many of the 1935 Constitution. Among its important and new
provisions include the following: 1) a single fixed term of six years for the President; 2) the
President’s power to appoint cabinet members, ambassadors and consuls, the Armed Forces
(from the rank of colonel and up)subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments in
Congress; 3) the power of the President to declare martial law that needs the approval of
Congress and that the President reports on his/her action within fourty-eight (48) hours; 4) the
Senator’s term is limited to two (2) terms, the Representative to three (3) terms and; 5) members
of the judiciary, although to be appointed by the President, should be recommended by a Judicial
and Bar Council.
Moreover, the 1987 Constitution provides for people empowerment; the recall of elected officials;
the appointment of sectoral representatives from labor, peasants, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, the disabled; and the recognition of the role of the people’s
organizations. Also, the declaration of a nuclear-free Philippines would prohibit the storing of
nuclear arms in the country.
This Constitution has the following features/principles:

1. Recognition of the aid of Almighty God (Preamble);
2. Sovereignty of the people (Article II; Sec. 1);
3. Renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy (Article II; Sec. 2);
4. Supremacy of the civilian authority over the military (Article II; Sec. 3);
5. Separation of the Church and the state (Article II; Sec. 6);
6. Recognition of the importance of the family as a basic social institution and of the vital
role of youth in the nation building (Article II; Sec. 12 & Article XV);
7. Guarantee Human Rights (Article III);
8. Government through suffrage (Article V);
9. Separation of powers (Article VI, VII & VIII);
10. Independence of the Judiciary (Article VIII);
11. Guarantee of local autonomy (Article X);
12. High sense of Public service morality and accountability of public officers (Article XI)
11
13. Nationalization of natural resources and certain private enterprises affected with public
interest (Article XII)
14. Non-suability of the state ( Article XVI);
15. Rule of the majority (Article II); and
16. Government of laws and not of men (Article III) (2011, Hector S. De Leon)
PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just
and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and
aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to
ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of
law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and
promulgate this Constitution.

Article II – Declaration of Principles and State Policies
Article III – Bill of Rights
Article IV - Citizenship
Article V – Suffrage
Article VI – Legislative Department
Article VII – Executive Department
Article VIII – Judicial Department
Article IX – Constitutional Commissions
Article X – Local Government
Article XI – Accountability of Public Officers
Article XII – National Economy and Patrimony
Article XIII – Social Justice and Human Rights
Article XIV – Education, Science & Technology, Culture, Arts and Sports
Article XV – The Family
Article XVI – General Provisions
Article XVII – Amendments/Revisions
Article XVIII – Transitory Provisions
12
ATTENTION!!!
Before you go to the next module, PLEASE ANSWER the ACTIVITY 15 Page 49
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
1. Agoncillo, Teodoro A. and Mangahas, Fe B. PHILIPPINE HISTORY: Expanded and Updated

Edition. 2010
2. De Leon, Hector S. TEXTBOOK ON THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION. 2011 Edition
3. Nolledo, Jose N. STUDENT’S MANUAL ON THE NEW CONSTITUTION. 1996 Revised

Edition
13
MODULE 16
AGRARIAN REFORM
14
1.Analyze the context, content and perspective of agrarian reform.
2.Differentiate PD 27 to RA 6657.
3. Determine the contribution of agrarian reform in understanding the Philippine economy.
4. Develop critical and analytical skills in understanding the laws on agrarian reform.
5. Appreciate the importance of agrarian reform to the lives of the Filipinos.
15
AGRARIAN REFORM IN THE PHILIPPINES
Meaning
The term “agrarian” came from Classical Latin agrarius which is from the term ager, meaning a
field or acre (yourdictionary.com). This being the case therefore, when we say agrarian it refers
to anything that has something to do with agricultural production or agricultural economy and
when we say agrarian reform, this refers to restructuring of agricultural production. Another term
related to this is ‘land reform” which refers to the redistribution of land to benefit the landless
particularly the tenants. Land Reform is the physical redistribution of land such as the program
under Presidential Decree No. 27. Agrarian reform means the redistribution of lands including
the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries.
Thus, agrarian reform is broader than land reform.
• Agrarian Reform means the redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced,
to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement,
to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status
of the beneficiaries and all other arrangement alternative to the physical redistribution of
lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution of
stock, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they
work. [Section 3(a) of RA 6657]
HISTORICAL ROOTS OF AGRARIAN PROBLEMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Spanish Colonial Period (1521-1898)
Prior to the coming of the Spaniards, land ownership was communal, the community or barangay
own the lands. Agrarian problems in the Philippines can be traced back during the Spanish
Period. When the Spaniards colonized the Philippines, various economic controls were
implemented thus affecting the agrarian production of the native Filipinos and their economic life.
The Spanish colonial government started the idea of land holding and took control of large tracts
of land owned for centuries by the native Filipinos. These native Philippine people came to live
on lands that were owned by the Spanish or people with close ties to the Spanish and they
became tenants or paid laborers.
The native Filipino who was not used to having land ownership or on having land titles have been
devoid of his land tilled because of the initial policy of Spain declaring all lands in the Philippines
as owned by the Spanish government being it a colony, thus this gave right to the Spanish
government to control all lands. Because of this the Royal crown have now the right to give lands
to those who defended the crown against local insurrections. This gave birth to the “Encomienda
System”. The Encomiendas are tracts of land that were given by the Spanish government
through the governor general to persons or group of people as rewards, in effect the encomendero
as he was called gain control of the Encomienda hence this gave them the right to collect tributes
from the tenants.
16
Comparison between PD 27 and RA 6657
PD 27 RA 6657
1. Presidential Decree No. 27 – Republic Act No. 6657 – An Act instituting a

Tenant’s Emancipation Decree Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program to
(October 21, 1972) Promote Social Justice and Industrialization,
providing the Mechanism for its Implementation
2. Letter Instruction No. 474-PLACING and other purposes. (June 15, 1988)
UNDER OLT TENANTED
RICE/CORN LANDS SEVEN 1. The power of
HECTARES OR LESS IN AREA President Aquino to promulgate Proc. No.
UNDER CERTAIN CONDITION 131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 was
(OCTOBER 21, 1976) authorized under Section 6 of the
Transitory Provision of the 1987
1. Presidential Decree No. 27 was Constitution.
assumed to be constitutional and
upheld as part and parcel of the law of
the land COVERAGE OF CARL 1988
Scope – All PUBLIC and PRIVATE
The REQUISITES FOR Agricultural Lands regardless of tenurial
COVERAGE under OPERATION arrangement and commodity produced,
LAND TRANSFER (OLT) program including lands of the public domain suitable for
are the following: agriculture. (1st par. Sec. 4, RA 6657)
1. The land must be DEVOTED Specific lands covered by CARP.

to RICE or CORN crops; and
2. There must be a system of a. All alienable and disposable lands of
SHARE CROP or LEASE the public domain devoted to or
TENANCY obtaining therein. suitable for agriculture
b. All lands of the public domain in
RULES ON COVERAGE OF LANDS excess of the specific limits as
UNDER PD 27. determined by Congress in the
Rule 1 preceding paragraph;
Landed estates or landholdings larger c. All other lands owned by the
than 24 hectare - covered by OLT and Government devoted to or suitable
there is no retention to the landowner. for agriculture; and
d. All private lands devoted to or
Rule 2 suitable for agriculture regardless of
Landholding of 24 hectares or less (but the agricultural products raised or
above 7 hectares covered by OLT but that can be raised thereon.
landowner is entitled to retention
PRIORITIES – The DAR, in coordination
Rule 3 with the PARC shall plan and program the
Landholding of seven (7) hectares or acquisition and distribution of all agricultural
less is EXEMPTED from OLT except if lands through a period of ten (10) years from
LOI 474 is applicable under the the effectively of this Act. Land shall be
following circumstances: acquired and distributed as follows:
17
Landowner owns other agricultural
land of more than seven hectares Phase One:
in aggregate area, or he owns 1.Rice and corn land under PD 27;
COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, 2. Idle and abandoned lands
RESIDENTIAL or URBAN LAND 3. Private lands voluntarily offered
where he derive an adequate by the owners for agrarian reform;
income, Adequate income is at 4. Foreclosed land by government
least FIVE THOUSAND (P5000.00) financial institutions;
PESOS per annum. (Gross 5. Land acquired by the Presidential
Income). Commission on Good
Government; and
6. All other lands owned by the
Lands not covered by Presidential Government devoted to or
Decree No. 27. suitable for agriculture
These shall be acquired and
1. Private agricultural lands which are distributed immediately upon
NOT PRIMARILY DEVOTED TO effectivity of the Act, with the
RICE OR CORN, or implementation to be completed
2. There is NO SYSTEM OF SHARE within a period of not more than four
CROP OR LEASE TENANCY (4) years (Sec. 7, par. 2, RA 6657)
obtaining in the landholding.
Phase Two:
*The REQUISITES for the exercise by 1. All Disposable and alienable
the landowner of his RIGHT OF public agricultural lands;
RETENTION are the following: 2. All Arable public agricultural
lands under agro-forest, pasture
1. The land must be DEVOTED TO and agricultural leases already
RICE OR CORN CROPS; cultivated and planted for crops
in accordance with Sec. 6, Art.
2. There must be a system of share- XIII of the Constitution;
crop or lease tenancy obtaining 3. All public agricultural lands
there. which are opened for new
3. The size of the landholding MUST development and resettlement;
NOT EXCEED TWENTY FOUR and
(24) hectares provided that at least 4. All private agricultural lands in
seven (7) hectares thereof are excess of fifty (50) hectares
covered lands and more than seven These shall be distributed
(7) hectares of it consist of “other immediately upon the effectivity of
agricultural lands.” the Act, with the implementation to
be completed within a period of not
more than four (4) years.
Right of Retention by Landowners under
Presidential Decree No. 27. Supplemental Phase Three: All private AGRICULTURAL
Guideline A.O. No. 04, Series of 1991). LANDS commencing with LARGE
landholdings and proceeding to
The policy statements are as follows: MEDIUM and SMALL landholding
a. Landowners covered by PD 27 are under the following schedules:
entitled to retain SEVEN hectares, a) Landholdings ABOVE 24 hectares
except those whose entire tenanted up to 50 hectares to begin on the
rice and corn lands are subject to forth year from effectivity of this
18
acquisition and distribution under act and to be completed within
OLT. three years; and,
b) Landholdings from the
RETENTION LIMIT up to 24
AN OWNER MAY NOT hectares, to begin on the sixth
RETAIN UNDER THE year from effectivity of this Act and
FOLLOWING CASES: to be completed within four year.
a) If he as of October 21, 1972

owned more than 24 hectares
of tenanted rice or corn lands; LANDS NOT COVERED BY CARP
or
b) By virtue of LOI 474, if he as of 1. Those which are not suitable for agriculture
21 October 1972 owns less or those which are classified as mineral,
than 24 hectares of tenanted forest residential, commercial or
rice but additionally owned the industrial lands. (Sec. 3. ©, RA 6657);
follows =
• Other agricultural land of 2. Those which have been classified and
more than seven approved as NON-AGRICLTURAL prior
hectares, whether to June 15, 1988. (DOJ Opinion No. 44,
tenanted or not, whether S. 1990)
cultivated or not, and
regardless of the income 3. Those which are EXEMPT pursuant to
derived therefrom; or Sec. 10, RA 6657.
• Land use for
commercial, industrial, 4. Those which are devoted to poultry, swine
residential or other or livestock-raising as of June 15, 1988
urban purposes, from pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling on
which he derives Luz. Farms vs. The Hon. Secretary of
adequate income to Agrarian Reform (192 SCRA 51);
support himself and his
family 5. Fishponds and prawn farms exempted
b. Landowners who filed their pursuant to R.A. No. 7881, and its
application for retention implementing Administrative Order No.
BEFORE 27 August 1985, the 3, Series of 1995;
deadline set by Administrative
Order No. 1, Series of 1985, 6. Those which are retained by the
may retain not more than seven landowners;
hectares of their landholding
covered by PD 27 regardless of 7. Those lands or portions thereof under the
whether or not they complied coverage of EO 407 but found to be no
with LOI Nos. 41, 45, and 52. longer suitable for agriculture and
Landowners who filed their therefore, could not be given appropriate
application AFTER 27 August valuation by the LBP as determined by
1985 but complied with the DAR/LBP; and
requirement of LOI No. 41, 45
and 52 shall likewise be entitled 8. Those lands declared by Presidential
to such a seven hectares Proclamations for certain uses other than
retention area. agricultural.
However landowner who
filed their application for
19
retention AFTER the 27 August Rules and Procedures Governing the Exercise of
1985 deadline and DID NOT Retention Rights by Landowners and Award to
COMPLY with the requirements Children under Sec. 6 of RA 6657
of LOI Nos. 41, 45, and 52 shall A. Landowners whose landholding are
only be entitled to a maximum covered by CARP may retain an area of
of five (5) hectares as retention FIVE (5) hectares.
area. In addition, each of his children,
(legitimate, illegitimate or adopted may be
c. A landowner WHO HAS DIED AWARDED three (3) hectares as
must have manifested during PREFERRED BENEFICIARY provided-
his lifetime his intention to 1. That the child was at least 15
exercise his right of retention years of age on the June 15, 1988
prior to 23 AUGUST 1990 to (RA 6657-effectivity); and
allow his heirs to now exercise 2. The child was actually tilling the
such right under these land or directly managing the
Guidelines. Said heirs must farmland from June 15, 1988 to
show proof of the original the filing of the application for
landowners intention. retention and/or at the time of
The heirs may also acquisition of the land under
exercise the original CARP.
landowners' right of retention if
they can prove that the Retention of husband and wife:
decedent HAD NO
KNOWLEDGE of OLT 1. For marriages covered by the New
coverage over the subject Civil Code, the spouses who owns
property. only CONJUGAL PROPERTIES
may retain a total of five (5)
hectares unless there is an
The BENEFICIARIES of Presidential agreement for the JUDICIAL
Decree No. 27 are TENANT-FARMERS, SEPERATION OF PROPERTIES.
thus: However, if either or both of them
are landowners in their respective
“This shall apply to TENANT- rights (capital and/or paraphernal)
FARMERS of PRIVATE they may retain not more than five
AGRICULTURAL LANDS (5) hectares each from their
PRIMARILY DEVOTED TO RICE respective landholdings. In no
OR CORN under a SYSTEM OF case, however, shall the total
SHARE-CROP or LEASE- retention of such a couple exceed
TENANCY, whether classified as 10 hectares, and
landed estate or not. (Par. 5, 2. For marriage covered by the New
Presidential Decree No. 27). Family Code (August 3, 1988), a
husband owning capital property
“The tenant-farmers, whether in and/or a wife owning paraphernal
land classified as landed estate or property may retain not more than
not shall be DEEMED OWNER of a five (5) hectares each provided
portion constituting of family-size they execute a JUDICIAL
farm of FIVE (5) hectares if not SPERATION OF PROPERTIES
irrigated and THREE (3) prior to entering the marriage. In
HECTARES IF IRRIGATED. (Par. 6, the absence of such an agreement
Presidential Decree No. 27) all properties (capital, paraphernal
20
The tenant shall pay for THE COST and conjugal) shall be considered
OF THE LAND, including interest of held in absolute community.
six (6) percent per annum in
FIFTEEN (15) YEARS of fifteen (15) QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES.- The lands
equal annual amortizations. covered by the CARP shall be distributed as
NOTE: The period in extended to much a possible to landless residents of the
twenty (20) years equal annual same barangay, or in the absence thereof,
amortization under Sec. 6, E.O.. landless resident of the same municipality in
228 of July 17, 1987 by Pres. the following order of priority:
Corazon C. Aquino.
a) agricultural lessees and share
The TITLE to the land owned by tenants;
the tenant shall not be transferable b) regular farmworkers;
except BY HEREDITARY c) seasonal farmworkers;
SUCCESSION or TO THE d) other farmworkers;
GOVERNMENT in accordance with e) actual tillers or occupants of public
this Decree, the Code of Agrarian lands;
Reform and other existing laws and f) collectives or cooperatives of the
regulation. above beneficiaries; and
NOTE: Sec. 6, EO 228 provides, g) others directly working on the land.
“Ownership of lands acquired by (Par. 1, Sec. 22, RA 6657)
farmer-beneficiary may be
transferred after full payment of The children of landowners who are qualified
amortization. under Sec. 6 of this Act shall be given
preference in the distribution of the land of
The EMANCIPATION PATENT. their parents; And, further, that actual tenant-
Awarded to the TENANT- tillers in the landholding shall be ejected or
BENEFICIARY CREATES a VESTED removed therefrom. (Par. 2, Sec.22, RA
RIGHT OF ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP 6657).
in the landholding – “a right which has
become fixed and established and is no “Distribution Limit – No qualified beneficiary
longer open to doubt or controversy. “ may own more than Three (3) hectares of
agricultural land” (Sec. 23, RA 6657)
The Mode of Transfer of lands Tenant-
Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. “Award Ceiling for Beneficiaries. –
27 are the following: Beneficiaries shall be awarded an area NOT
EXCEEDING THREE (3) HECTARES which may
1. OPERATION LAND TRANSFER cover a CONTIGUOUS tract of land or SEVERAL
(OLT) under PD 27 and EO 228; and PARCELS of land cumulated up to the prescribed
award limits.” (Sec. 25, RA 6657).
Operation Land Transfer is the
ORDERLY and SYSTEMATIC Payment by Beneficiaries.- Lands awarded
TRANSFER of land from the pursuant to this Act shall be paid for the
landowner to the tenant-farmer beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual
under Presidential Decree No. 27. amortizations at six percent (6%) per annum. The
payments for the first three (3) years after the
2. DIRECT PAYMENT SCHEME award may be at reduced amounts as established
(DPS). – The landowner and the by the PARC: Provided, That the first five (5)
tenant-beneficiary can AGREE on annual payments may not be more than five
the DIRECT SALE terms and percent (5%) of the value of the annual gross
production as established by the DAR. Should the
21
conditions which is not onerous to scheduled annual payments after the fifth year
the tenant-beneficiary. exceed ten percent (10%) of the annual gross
production and the failure to produce accordingly
The value if the land shall is not due to the beneficiary’s fault, the LBP may
equivalent to two and one half (2- reduce the interest rate or reduce the principal
1/2) times the AVERAGE obligation to make the repayment affordable.
HARVEST OF THREE NORMAL
CROP YEARS IMMEDIATELY
PRECEDING THE The LBP shall have a lien by way of
PROMULGATION OF THIS mortgage on the land awarded to the beneficiary;
DEGREE. and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP
for non-payment of an aggregate of three (3)
annual amortizations. The LBP shall advise the
DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall
subsequently award the forfeited landholding to
other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose
land, as provided herein, has been foreclosed
shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from
becoming a beneficiary under this Act. (Sec.26,
RA 6657).
Transferability of Awarded Lands.- lands

acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not
be sold, transferred or conveyed except through
hereditary succession, or to the government, or to
the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a
period of ten (10) years; Provided, however, That
the children or the spouse of the transferor shall
have a right to repurchase the land from the
government or LBP within the period of two (2)
years. Due notice of the availability of the land
shall be given by the LBP to he Barangay Agrarian
Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where
the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian
Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM), as
herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice
thereof by the BARC.
If the land has not yet been fully paid by the

beneficiary, the rights to the land may be
transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of the
DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other
beneficiary who, as a condition for such transfer
or conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself.
Failing compliance herewith, the land shall be
transferred to the LBP which shall give due notice
of the availability of the land in the manner
specified in the immediately preceding
paragraph.
22
In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the
latter shall compensate the beneficiary in one
lump sum for the amounts the latter has already
paid, together with the value of improvements he
has made on the land.(Sec. 27, RA 6657).
The TITLES awarded to farmer-beneficiaries

CARP are the following:
1. Free Patent for Public Alienation and

Disposable lands;
2. CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP

AWARD (CLOA) for Resettlement sites:
3. STEWARDSHIP CONTRACT for Lands

covered by INTERGRATED SOCIAL
FORESTRY PROGRAM (ISFP); and
4. CLOA for Private of Agricultural Lands.
The MODES OF ACQUIRING LANDS for

distribution under CARP:
a. COMPULSORY ACQUISITION (CA)

(Sec. 16, RA 6657)
b. VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL (VOS)
(Sec. 19, RA 6657)
c. VOLUNTARY LAND
TRANFER/DIRECT PAYMENT
SCHEME (VLT/DPS) (Sec. 20, RA
6657).
Factors/Criteria considered in determining just

compensation:
1. Cost of Acquisition of the land;

2. Current Value of like properties;
3. Nature of the land;
4. Actual use;
5. Income;
6. Sworn valuation by the landowner;
7. Tax Declaration;
8. Assessment made by government
assessors;
9. The social and economic benefits
contributed by the farmers, and
10.Non-payment of taxes or loans secured
from any government financing
institution on the land.
23
ATTENTION!!!
Before you go to the next module, PLEASE ANSWER the ACTIVITY 16 on page 50-51
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
REFERENCES:
1.lawphil.net COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988

2.lawphil.net DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANANTS FROM THE SOIL PD 27
24
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SOCIAL
SCIENCES
MODULE 17
TAXATION
25
1. Analyze the general principles of taxation.
2. Determine the contribution of taxation to the country.
3. Develop critical and analytical skills in differentiating the different purposes of taxation.
4. Appreciate the role of taxation towards our country’s development.
26
TAXATION
General Principles of Taxation

The power of taxation is normally defined in at least three (3) ways – as a power itself, as a means,
or as a process – as follows:
As a power, it refers to the inherent power of the State to impose proportionate burden from
among the citizenry for the respective share in the cost of running the government and the delivery
of its constitutional mandate to serve and protect.
As a means, it refers to one of the few ways by which the State raises revenue to support its
existence and operations. Other ways to raise revenue could be by foreign financing (e.g. foreign
loans from World Bank, Asian Development Bank, etc.) or by domestic financing (e.g. issuing
bonds and other evidences of indebtedness to the public) and such other means.
As a process, it refers to the method of imposing a tax to raise revenue by the legislative act of
the Congress in passing a law or ordinance. Implementation and enforcement of such laws
belongs to the Executive Department, interpretation is for the Judiciary and compliance rests upon
the taxpayers involved, except upon the hammers of the law against erring taxpayers.
Taxation therefore, is the inherent power of the sovereign, exercised through the legislature, to
impose burdens upon subjects and objects within its jurisdiction for the purpose of raising
revenues to carry out the legitimate objects of government.
It is also defined as the act of levying a tax, i.e. the process or means by which the sovereign,
through its law-making body, raises income to defray the necessary expenses of government. It
is a method of apportioning the cost of government among those who, in some measure, are
privileged to enjoy its benefits and must therefore bear its burdens.
Taxes
Taxes are the enforced proportional contributions from persons and property levied by the law-
making body of the State by virtue of its sovereignty for the support of the government and all
public needs.
Essential elements of a tax
1. It is an enforced contribution.
2. It is generally payable in money.
3. It is proportionate in character.
4. It is levied on persons, property, or the exercise of a right or privilege.
5. It is levied by the State which has jurisdiction over the subject or object of taxation.
6. It is levied by the law-making body of the State.
7. It is levied for public purpose or purposes.
27
Purposes of taxation
1. Revenue or fiscal: The primary purpose of taxation on the part of the government is to
provide funds or property with which to promote the general welfare and the protection of its
citizens and to enable it to finance its multifarious activities.
2. Non-revenue or regulatory: Taxation may also be employed for purposes of regulation or
control.
a) Imposition of tariffs on imported goods to protect local industries.
b) The adoption of progressively higher tax rates to reduce inequalities in wealth and income.
c) The increase or decrease of taxes to prevent inflation or ward off depression.
Sumptuary purpose of taxation

· More popularly known as the non-revenue or regulatory purpose of taxation. While
the primary purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for the support of the government, taxation is
often employed as a devise for regulation by means of which certain effects or conditions
envisioned by the government may be achieved.
· For example, government may provide tax incentives to protect and promote new
and pioneer industries. The imposition of special duties, like dumping duty, marking duty,
retaliatory duty, and countervailing duty, promote the non-revenue or sumptuary purpose of
taxation.
Theory and basis of taxation
· The power of taxation proceeds upon the theory that the existence of government
is a necessity; that it cannot continue without means to pay its expenses; and that for these
means, it has a right to compel all its citizens and property within its limits to contribute.
· The basis of taxation is found in the reciprocal duties of protection and support
between the State and its inhabitants. In return for his contribution, the taxpayer received benefits
and protection from the government. This is the so-called “benefits received principle.”
Life blood or necessity theory

· The life blood theory constitutes the theory of taxation, which provides that the
existence of government is a necessity; that government cannot continue without means to pay
its expenses; and that for these means it has a right to compel its citizens and property within its
limits to contribute.
Illustrations of lifeblood theory
1. Collection of taxes cannot be enjoined by injunction.
2. Taxes could not be the subject of compensation or set off.
3. A valid tax may result in destruction of the taxpayer’s property.
4. Taxation is an unlimited and plenary power.
28
Benefit-received principle
· This principle serves as the basis of taxation and is founded on the reciprocal duties
of protection and support between the State and its inhabitants. Also called “symbiotic relation”
between the State and its citizens.
· In return for his contribution, the taxpayer receives the general advantages and
protection which the government affords the taxpayer and his property. One is compensation or
consideration for the other; protection for support and support for protection.
· However, it does not mean that only those who are able to and do pay taxes can
enjoy the privileges and protection given to a citizen by the government.
Nature or characteristics of the State’s power to tax
1. It is inherent in sovereignty; hence, it may be exercised although it is not expressly granted
by the Constitution.
2. It is legislative in character; hence, only the legislature can impose taxes (although the
power may be delegated).
3. It is subject to Constitutional and inherent limitations; hence, it is not an absolute power that
can be exercised by the legislature anyway it pleases.
Power to tax v. Police power v. Power of eminent domain
TAXATION POLICE POWER EMINENT DOMAIN
Power of the State to

Power of the State to
enact such laws in
take private property for
Power of the State to relation to persons and
public use upon paying
demand enforced property as may
DEFINITION to the owner a just
contributions for public promote public health,
compensation to be
purposes safety, morals, and the
ascertained according
general welfare of the
to law
public
May be granted to
Authority
Only the government or Only the government or public service
Exercising
its political subdivisions its political subdivisions companies of public
the Power
utilities
PURPOSE Enforced contribution is Use of property is Property is taken for

demanded for the regulated for the public use
29
support of the purpose of promoting
government the general welfare
Operates upon a Operates upon a Operates on an

Persons
community or class of community or class of individual as the owner
Affected
individuals individuals (usually) of a particular property
Money contributed in No transfer of title, at Transfer of the right to

the concept of taxes most, there is restraint property whether it be
EFFECT
becomes part of public on injurious use of the ownership or a lesser
funds property right
Assumed that the Person affected

individual receives the receives no direct and
Person affected
equivalent of the tax in immediate benefit but
BENEFITS receives the market
the form of protection, only such as may arise
RECEIVED value of the property
and benefits received from the maintenance
taken from him
from the government as of a healthy economic
such standard of society
Amount imposed
should not be more
No amount imposed but
Generally no limit on than that sufficient to
AMOUNT OF rather the owner is paid
the amount of tax that cover the cost of the
IMPOSITION the market value of the
may be imposed license and the
property taken
necessary expenses of
regulation
Relatively free from Subject to certain

Relationship Subject to certain Constitutional Constitutional
to the Constitutional limitations and is limitations (e.g. inferior
Constitution limitations superior to the to impairment of
impairment provisions contracts clause)
Tax differentiated from other terms

Tariff / Duties
· The term tariff and custom duties are used interchangeably in the Tariff and
Customs Code or PD No. 1464.
· Customs duties, or simply duties, are taxes imposed on goods exported from or
imported into a country. Custom duties are really taxes but the latter term is broader in scope.
· On the other hand, tariff may be used in one of three senses:
1. A book of rates drawn usually in alphabetical order containing the names of several kinds
of merchandise with the corresponding duties to be paid for the same; or
30
2. The duties payable on goods imported or exported; or
3. The system or principle of imposing duties on the importation or exportation of goods.
License or regulatory fee v. tax
1. License fee is legal compensation or reward of an officer for specific services while a tax is
an enforced contribution from persons or property by the law-making body by virtue of its
sovereignty and for the support of the government and all public needs.
2. License fee is imposed for regulation, while tax is levied for revenue.
3. License fee involves the exercise of police power, tax of the taxing power.
4. Amount of license fee should be limited to the necessary expenses of inspection and
regulation, while there is generally no limit on the amount of the tax to be imposed.
5. License fee is imposed only on the right to exercise a privilege, while tax is imposed also
on persons and property.
6. Failure to pay a license fee makes the act or business illegal, while failure to pay a tax does
not necessarily make the act or business illegal.
Regulatory tax
· Examples: motor vehicle registration fee, sugar levy, coconut levy, regulation of
non-useful occupations
Special assessment v. tax
1. A special assessment is an enforced proportional contribution from owners of lands
specially or peculiarly benefited by public improvements.
2. A special assessment is levied only on land.
3. A special assessment is not a personal liability of the person assessed; it is limited to the
land.
4. A special assessment is based wholly on benefits, not necessity.
5. A special assessment is exceptional both as to time and place; a tax has general
application.
Some rules:
· An exemption from taxation does not include exemption from a special assessment.
· The power to tax carries with it the power to levy a special assessment.
Toll v. tax
1. Toll is a sum of money for the use of something. It is the consideration which is paid for the
use of a road, bridge, or the like, of a public nature. Taxes, on the other hand, are
enforced proportional contributions from persons and property levied by the State by
virtue of its sovereignty for the support of the government and all public needs.
31
2. Toll is a demand of proprietorship; tax is a demand of sovereignty.
3. Toll is paid for the use of another’s property; tax is paid for the support of government.
4. The amount paid as toll depends upon the cost of construction or maintenance of the public
improvement used; while there is no limit on the amount collected as tax as long as it is
not excessive, unreasonable, or confiscatory.
5. Toll may be imposed by the government or by private individuals or entities; tax may be
imposed only by the government.
Tax v. penalty
1. Penalty is any sanction imposed as a punishment for violation of law or for acts deemed
injurious; taxes are enforced proportional contributions from persons and property levied
by the State by virtue of its sovereignty for the support of the government and all public
needs.
2. Penalty is designed to regulate conduct; taxes are generally intended to generate revenue.
3. Penalty may be imposed by the government or by private individuals or entities; taxes only
by the government.
Obligation to pay debt v. obligation to pay tax
1. A debt is generally based on contract, express or implied, while a tax is based on laws.
2. A debt is assignable, while a tax cannot generally be assigned.
3. A debt may be paid in kind, while a tax is generally paid in money.
4. A debt may be the subject of set off or compensation, a tax cannot.
5. A person cannot be imprisoned for non-payment of tax, except poll tax.
6. A debt is governed by the ordinary periods of prescription, while a tax is governed by the
special prescriptive periods provided for in the NIRC.
7. A debt draws interest when it is so stipulated or where there is default, while a tax does not
draw interest except only when delinquent.
Survey of Philippine Taxes

A. Internal revenue taxes
1. Income tax
2. Transfer taxes
a. Estate Tax
b. Donor’s Tax
3. Percentage taxes
a. Value Added Tax
b. Other Percentage Taxes
32
4. Excise taxes
5. Documentary stamp tax
B. Local/Municipal Taxes
C. Tariff and Customs Duties
D. Taxes/Tax incentives under special laws
Classification of Taxes
As to subject matter or object
1. Personal, poll or capitation tax
Tax of a fixed amount imposed on persons residing within a specified territory, whether
citizens or not, without regard to their property or the occupation or business in which they may
be engaged, i.e. community tax.
2. Property tax
Tax imposed on property, real or personal, in proportion to its value or in accordance with
some other reasonable method of apportionment.
3. Excise tax
A charge imposed upon the performance of an act, the enjoyment of a privilege, or the
engaging in an occupation.
As to purpose
1. General/fiscal/revenue tax
A general/fiscal/revenue tax is that imposed for the purpose of raising public funds for the service
of the government.
2. Special/regulatory tax
A special or regulatory tax is imposed primarily for the regulation of useful or non-useful
occupation or enterprises and secondarily only for the purpose of raising public funds.
As to who bears the burden
1. Direct tax
A direct tax is demanded from the person who also shoulders the burden of the tax. It is a tax
which the taxpayer is directly or primarily liable and which he or she cannot shift to another.
2. Indirect tax
An indirect tax is demanded from a person in the expectation and intention that he or she shall
indemnify himself or herself at the expense of another, falling finally upon the ultimate purchaser
or consumer. A tax which the taxpayer can shift to another.
As to scope of the tax
1. National tax
33
A national tax is imposed by the national government.
2. Local tax
A local tax is imposed by municipal corporations or local government units (LGUs).
As to the determination of amount
1. Specific tax
A specific tax is a tax of a fixed amount imposed by the head or number or by some other standard
of weight or measurement. It requires no assessment other than the listing or classification of the
objects to be taxed.
2. Ad valorem tax
An ad valorem tax is a tax of a fixed proportion of the value of the property with respect to which
the tax is assessed. It requires the intervention of assessors or appraisers to estimate the value
of such property before the amount due from each taxpayer can be determined.
As to gradation or rate
1. Proportional tax
Tax based on a fixed percentage of the amount of the property receipts or other basis to
be taxed. Example: real estate tax.
2. Progressive or graduated tax
Tax the rate of which increases as the tax base or bracket increases. Example: income tax.
Digressive tax rate: progressive rate stops at a certain point. Progression halts at a
particular stage.
3. Regressive tax
Tax the rate of which decreases as the tax base or bracket increases. There is no such
tax in the Philippines.
Tax Systems
Constitutional mandate
· The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation. [Section 28(1), Article VI, Constitution]
Progressive system of taxation v. regressive system of taxation
· A progressive system of taxation means that tax laws shall place emphasis on direct
taxes rather than on indirect taxes, with ability to pay as the principal criterion.
· A regressive system of taxation exists when there are more indirect taxes imposed
than direct taxes.
Three basic principles of a sound tax system
1. Fiscal adequacy
34
It means that the sources of revenue should be sufficient to meet the demands of public
expenditures. [Chavez v. Ongpin, 186 SCRA 331]
2. Equality or theoretical justice
It means that the tax burden should be proportionate to the taxpayer’s ability to pay. This is the
so-called “ability to pay principle.”
3. Administrative feasibility
It means that tax laws should be capable of convenient, just and effective administration.
Power to tax is exclusively legislative in nature
· The power to tax is peculiarly and exclusively legislative and cannot be exercised
by the executive or judicial branches of the government. Hence, only Congress can impose taxes.
Matters within the competence of the legislature
1. The subject or object to be taxed.
2. The purpose of the tax so long as it is a public purpose.
3. The amount or rate of the tax.
4. The manner, means, and agencies of collection of the tax.
Inherent Limitations
1. Purpose must be public in nature
2. Prohibition against delegation of the taxing power
3. Exemption of government entities, agencies and instrumentalities
4. International comity
5. Limitation of territorial jurisdiction
Public purpose in taxation

· This is one of the inherent limitations of the power to tax and is synonymous to
“governmental purpose.” A tax must always be imposed for a public purpose, otherwise, it will be
declared as invalid.
· The term “public purpose” has no fixed connotation. The essential point is that the
purpose of the tax affects the inhabitants as a community and not merely as inhabitants.
· It has been said that the best test of rightful taxation is that the proceeds of the tax
must be used:
a) for the support of the government; or
b) some of the recognized objects of government; or
c) to promote the welfare of the community.
Reasons for exempting governmental entities

· Government will be taxing itself to raise money for itself.
35
· Immunity is necessary in order that governmental functions will not be impeded.
What government entities are exempt from income tax?
1. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
2. Social Security System (SSS)
3. Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC)
4. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO)
5. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR)
Prohibition against appropriation of proceeds of taxation for the use, benefit, or support
of any church
Section 29, Article VI, Constitution
1. No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made
by law.
2. No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any church, denomination, sectarian institution or
system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister or other religious teacher, or dignitary as
such except when such priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or
to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
3. All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special
fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has
been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the
government.
Prohibition against taxation of real property actually, directly and exclusively used for
religious, charitable and educational purposes
· Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto,
mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly,
and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from
taxation. [Section 28 (3) , Article VI, Constitution]
· This is an exemption from real property tax only.
· The exemption in favor of property used exclusively for charitable or educational
purposes is not limited to property actually indispensable therefore, but extends to facilities which
are incidental to and reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of said purposes. [Abra
Valley College v. Aquino, 162 SCRA 106]
Prohibition against taxation of the revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit
educational institutions
· All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used
actually, directly, and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties.
Upon the dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such institutions, their assets shall
be disposed of in the manner provided by law. [Section 4, Article XIV, Constitution]
36
· This exemption from corporate income tax is embodied in Section 30 of the NIRC
which includes a non-stock, non-profit educational institution.
· Note however the last paragraph of Section 30 which states: “Notwithstanding the
provisions in the preceding paragraphs, the income of whatever kind and character of the
foregoing organizations from any of their property, real or personal, or from any of their activities
conducted for profit, regardless of the disposition made of such income, shall be subject to tax
imposed under this Code.”
Taxation of proprietary educational institutions

· Proprietary educational institutions, including those cooperatively owned, may
likewise be entitled to such exemptions subject to the limitations provided by law including
restrictions on dividends and provisions for investment. [Section 4 (3), Article XIV, Constitution]
· Under Section 27(B) of the NIRC, proprietary educational institutions and hospitals
which are non-profit shall pay a tax of ten percent (10%) on their taxable income except for
passive incomes which are subject to different tax rates.
Situs in Taxation
· Literally, situs of taxation means place of taxation. It is the State or political unit
which has jurisdiction to impose a particular tax.
· The determination of the situs of taxation depends on various factors including the:
1. Nature of the tax;
2. Subject matter thereof (i.e. person, property, act or activity;
3. Possible protection and benefit that may accrue both to the government and the taxpayer;
4. Residence or citizenship of the taxpayer; and
5. Source of the income.
ATTENTION!!!
Before you go to the next page, PLEASE ANSWER ACTIVITY 17 on page 52
GOOD LUCK!!! 😊
37
REFERENCES:
1.BIR.gov.ph TAX REFORM FOR ACCELERATION AND INCLUSION ACT RA 10963

2.De Leon, Hector S and De Leon, Hector M. FUNDAMENTALS OF TAXATION. 2016
38
MODULE 18
Special Topics: IPRA Law

and Government Peace
Treaties with Muslim
Filipinos
39
1. The user is to study this module at his own pace within the time frame
set by the instructor. Check the OBTL syllabus for guidance.
3. References, Supplemental and Additional readings are also given for
further understanding and appreciation of the lesson.
Respective instructors may ask the students to submit answers via
agreed platforms
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
1. Effectively communicate, using various techniques and genres, their

historical analysis of a particular event or issue that could help others
understand the chosen topic
2. Propose recommendation/solutions to present-day problems based on
their understanding of root causes and anticipation of future scenarios.
40
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ACT (Republic Act. No. 8371)
Full Text: https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8371_1997.html

Salient Features: https://www.sec.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/2018_RTD_NCIP-
PPT-PRESENTATION-SUSTAINABILITY-1.pdf
Understanding the indigenous people’s rights to their ancestral domain

By: Sara Mae D. Mawis - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 04:20 AM April 04, 2020
(Last of two parts)
Under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), self-delineation shall be the guiding
principle in identifying and delineating ancestral domains. As such, indigenous cultural
communities (ICC) and indigenous people (IP) shall have a decisive role in all activities pertinent
thereto.
The Sworn Statement of the Elders as to the scope of the territories and the agreements or pacts
made with neighboring ICCs/IPs, if any, will be essential in determining these traditional territories.
Meanwhile, the government shall take the necessary steps to identify lands which the ICCs/IPs
concerned traditionally occupy and guarantee effective protection of their rights of ownership and
possession thereto.
Thus, ancestral lands or domains, which may be owned by ICCs/IPs, shall refer to its total
environment—that is, its physical environment, including the spiritual and cultural bonds to the
areas which they possess, occupy, and use, and to which they have claims of ownership.
In this regard, the indigenous concept of ownership generally holds that ancestral domains are
the ICC’s/IP’s private but community property, which belongs to all generations and thus, cannot
be sold, disposed, or destroyed. It likewise covers sustainable traditional resource rights.
The ICC’s/IP’s rights to their ancestral domain shall include the: (a) right of ownership over lands,
bodies of water traditionally and actually occupied by them, sacred places, traditional hunting and
fishing grounds, and improvements introduced thereon; (b) right to develop lands and natural
resources, subject to preexisting property rights within the ancestral domains; (c) right to stay in
their territories, except when they have given their free and prior informed consent, and subject
to the Philippines’ power of eminent domain; (d) right to be resettled in suitable areas should they
be displaced through natural catastrophes; (e) right to regulate entry of migrants; (f) right to safe
and clean air and water; (g) right to claim parts of reservations; and (h) right to resolve land
conflicts in accordance with the customary laws of the area where the land is located.
Moreover, ICC’s/IP’s rights to their ancestral lands shall include the: (a) right to transfer land or
property rights among members of the same ICC or IP, subject to their customary laws and
41
traditions; and (b) should the land transfer to a non-member be tainted with vitiated consent, the
right of redemption within a period not exceeding 15 years therefrom.
ICCs and IPs occupying an ancestral domain covered by a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
(CADT) shall be responsible for: (a) maintaining ecological balance by protecting the flora and
fauna, watershed areas, and other reserves; (b) restoring denuded areas, subject to just and
reasonable remuneration; and (c) observing the IPRA.
Nevertheless, the ICC’s/IP’s rights to their ancestral domains by virtue of native title shall be
recognized and respected. Formal recognition, when solicited by the ICC/IP, shall be embodied
in a CADT, which shall recognize their title over the territories identified and delineated.
Meanwhile, individual members of the ICC who, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-
interest, have been in continuous possession and occupation of their ancestral lands in the
concept of an owner since time immemorial or for a period of at least 30 years from the approval
of the IPRA, and uncontested by the other members of the same ICC, shall have the option to
secure title to their ancestral lands pursuant to the Land Registration Act of 1946, within 20 years
from the approval of the IPRA.
Ancestral lands that may be covered by this title shall be agricultural in character and actually
used for agricultural, residential, pasture, and tree farming purposes, including those with a slope
of 18 percent or more.
Unauthorized and unlawful intrusion upon, or any use of any portion of the ancestral domain, or
any violation of the rights thereto, shall be punished pursuant to the concerned ICC/IP’s
customary laws. But, the impossable penalty shall neither be cruel, degrading, or inhuman
punishment nor death penalty or excessive fines.
Upon conviction, the offender may be imprisoned for less than nine months but not more than 12
months, or fined for not less than P100,000 nor more than P500,000, or penalized with both
imprisonment and fine, upon the court’s discretion. Moreover, he shall be obliged to pay the
aggrieved ICC/IP whatever damage it may have suffered because of his unauthorized and
unlawful intrusion upon the ancestral domain.
Read more: https://business.inquirer.net/294122/understanding-the-indigenous-peoples-rights-

to-their-ancestral-domain#ixzz6YxzQ4bGL
42
GOVERNMENT PEACE TREATIES FOR MUSLIM FILIPINOS
Excerpts from the case of The Province of North Cotabato vs The Government of the Republic of
the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP), Separate Concurring Opinion of CJ
Puno, Part I. Historical Roots
G.R. Nos. 183591, 183572, 183893 and 183951 - THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO,
duly represented by GOVERNOR JESUS SACDALAN and/or VICE-GOVERNOR
EMMANUEL PINOL, for and in his own behalf vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), represented by
SEC. RODOLFO GARCIA, ATTY. SEDFREY CANDELARIA, MARK RYAN SULLIVAN, and/or
GEN. HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., the latter in his capacity as the present and duly-
appointed Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) or the so-called Office of
the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process
Promulgated:
October 14, 2008
x--------------------------------------------x
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
PUNO, C.J.:
It is the duty of the government to seek a just, comprehensive and enduring peace with any rebel
group but the search for peace must always be in accord with the Constitution. Any search for
peace that undercuts the Constitution must be struck down. Peace in breach of the Constitution
is worse than worthless.
I. Historical Roots
A historical perspective of our Muslim problem is helpful.
From time immemorial, an enduring peace with our Muslim brothers and sisters in Mindanao has
eluded our grasp. Our Muslim problem exploded in March of 1968 when Muslim trainees were
massacred by army officers at Corregidor. About 180 Muslim trainees had been recruited in the
previous year as a part of a covert force named Jabidah,1 allegedly formed to wrest away Sabah
from Malaysia. The trainees were massacred when they reportedly protested their unbearable
training and demanded the return to their home.2 The Jabidah Massacre fomented the formation
of Muslim groups clamoring for a separate Islamic state. One of these groups was the Muslim
Independence Movement (MIM), founded by the then Governor of Cotabato, Datu Udtog
Matalam.3 Another was the Nurul Islam, led by Hashim Salamat.
On September 21, 1972 Martial Law was declared by President Ferdinand E. Marcos. Among the
reasons cited to justify martial law were the armed conflict between Muslims and Christians and
the Muslim secessionist movement in the Southern Philippines.4 The imposition of martial law
drove some of the Muslim secessionist movements to the underground. One of them was the
Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) headed by Nur Misuari. In 1974, the MNLF shot to
prominence, when the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) officially gave it recognition.
43
During the 5th ICFM, they strongly urged "the Philippines Government to find a political and
peaceful solution through negotiation with Muslim leaders, particularly with representatives of the
MNLF in order to arrive at a just solution to the plight of the Filipino Muslims within the framework
of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines"; and recognized "the problem as
an internal problem with the Philippine Government to ensure the safety of the Filipino Muslims
and the preservation of their liberties in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights."5
In December 1976, the Philippine government and the MNLF under the auspices of the OIC
started their peace negotiation in Tripoli, Libya. It bore its first fruit when on January 20, 1977, the
parties signed the Tripoli Agreement in Zamboanga City in the presence of the OIC
Representative.
President Marcos immediately implemented the Tripoli Agreement. He issued Presidential
Proclamation No. 1628, "Declaring Autonomy in Southern Philippines." A plebiscite was
conducted in the provinces covered under the Tripoli Agreement to determine the will of the
people thereat. Further, the legislature enacted Batasang Pambansa Blg. 20, "Providing for the
Organization of Sangguniang Pampook (Regional Legislative Assembly) in Each of Regions IX
and XII." President Marcos then ordered the creation of Autonomous Region IX and XII.
In the meanwhile, the MNLF continued enhancing its international status. It was accorded the
status of an observer in Tripoli, Libya during the 8th ICFM. In the 15th ICFM at Sana'a, Yemen, in
1984, the MNLF's status was further elevated from a mere 'legitimate representative' to 'sole
legitimate representative' of the Bangsamoro people.6
In April 1977, the peace talks between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP)
and MNLF Talks collapsed. Schism split the MNLF leadership. The irreconcilable differences
between Nur Misuari and Hashim Salamat led to the formation of the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF), headed by Hashim Salamat. Thus, the Maguindanao-led MILF, parted
ways with the Tausug-led MNLF.
In 1986, the People Power Revolution catapulted Corazon C. Aquino to the Presidency. Forthwith,
she ordered the peace talks with the MNLF to resume. The 1987 Constitution was ratified by the
people. It provided for the creation of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao through an
act of Congress. But again the talks with the MNLF floundered in May 1987.7 Be that as it may, it
was during President Aquino's governance that a culture of peace negotiations with the rebellious
MNLF and MILF was cultivated.8 Thus, the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
was created through Republic Act No. 6734. The law took effect on August 1, 1989.
Then came the presidency of President Fidel V. Ramos. He issued on September 15, 1993,
Executive Order No., 125 (E.O. 125) which provided for a comprehensive, integrated and holistic
peace process with the Muslim rebels. E.O. 125 created the Office of the Presidential Adviser on
the Peace Process to give momentum to the peace talks with the MNLF.
In 1996, as the GRP-MNLF peace negotiations were successfully winding down, the government
prepared to deal with the MILF problem. Formal peace talks started on January of 1997, towards
the end of the Ramos administration. The Buldon Ceasefire Agreement was signed in July
19979 but time ran out for the negotiations to be completed.
44
President Joseph Estrada continued the peace talks with the MILF. The talks, however, were
limited to cessation of hostilities and did not gain any headway. President Estrada gave both sides
until December 1999 to finish the peace process.10 They did not meet the deadline. The year 2000
saw the escalation of acts of violence and the threats to the lives and security of civilians in
Southern Mindanao. President Estrada then declared an "all-out war" against the MILF.11 He
bowed out of office with the "war" unfinished.
Thereafter, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo assumed office. Peace negotiations with the MILF
were immediately set for resumption. Executive Order No. 3, was issued "Defining Policy and
Administrative Structure: For Government's Comprehensive Peace Efforts." On March 24, 2001,
a General Framework for the Resumption of Peace Talks between the GRP and the MILF was
signed. Republic Act No. 905412 was also enacted on March 31, 2001 and took effect on August
14, 2001 to strengthen and expand the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao. Through the
Organic Act of 2001, six municipalities in Lanao del Norte voted for inclusion in the ARMM.
On June 22, 2001, the ancestral domain aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement was signed
in Libya. Several rounds of exploratory talks with the MILF followed. Unfortunately, on April 2,
2003, Davao was twice bombed. Again, the peace talks were cancelled and fighting with the MILF
resumed. On July 19, 2003 the GRP and the MILF agreed on "mutual cessation of hostilities" and
the parties returned to the bargaining table. The parties discussed the problem of ancestral
domain, divided into four strands: concept, territory, resources, and governance.
On February 7, 2006, the 10th round of Exploratory Talks between the GRP and the MILF ended.
The parties issued a joint statement of the consensus points of the Ancestral Domain aspect of
GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of June 22, 2001. The Joint Statement provides that:
"Among the consensus points reached were:
· Joint determination of the scope of the Bangsamoro homeland based on the technical maps and
data submitted by both sides;
· Measures to address the legitimate grievances of the Bangsamoro people arising from the unjust
dispossession and/or marginalization;
· Bangsamoro people's right to utilize and develop their ancestral domain and ancestral lands;
· Economic cooperation arrangements for the benefit of the entire Bangsamoro people."
On July 27, 2008, a Joint Statement on the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral
Domain (MOA-AD) was signed by Chairperson Rodolfo C. Garcia on behalf of the GRP Peace
Panel, and Mohagher Iqbal on behalf of the MILF Panel. In the Joint Statement, it was declared
that the final draft of the MOA-AD has already been initialed. It was announced that "both sides
reached a consensus to initial the final draft pending its official signing by the Chairmen of the
two peace panels in early August 2008, in Putrajaya, Malaysia."
45
REFERENCES:
IPRA Law, RA 9371 accessed at:

https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1997/ra_8371_1997.html
IPRA and NCIPSalient Features: https://www.sec.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2019/11/2018_RTD_NCIP-PPT-PRESENTATION-SUSTAINABILITY-1.pdf
Sarah Mawis, Understanding the indigenous people’s rights to their ancestral domain, accessed
at https://business.inquirer.net/294122/understanding-the-indigenous-peoples-rights-to-their-
ancestral-domain#ixzz6YxzQ4bGL
The Province of North Cotabato vs GRP, G.R. Nos. 183591, 183572, 183893 and
183951 (2008)
46
Activity 10-13
DEBATE ON HISTORICAL CONTROVERSIES. Divide the class into two groups. Each group
will be assigned with a particular historical controversy discussed in Modules 10-13 and a
corresponding stance. The groups should be able to use and present primary sources in
defending their side.
47
Activity 14
A.TRUE or FALSE
1.Cosntituion is a written instrument.

2.Statutory law is the same with the constitution.
3.A Constitution is written if it is cumulative.
4.The Malolos constitution was promulgated in January 17, 1899.
5.The Malolos constitution was the basic law of the second Republic.
6. The Malolos Constitution established a unicameral legislature.
7.The Hare-Hawes Cutting law was issued by the American government to allow the
Filipinos to draft their own constitution.
8.The 1935 Constituion guarantee the separation of powers of the three branches of
government
9. The 1935 constitution has 17 Articles only.
10. The 1935 constitution was amended by the Marcos Administration after 30 years.
11.It was immediately after the declaration of Martial law when Marcos called for an
amendment of the 1935 constitution.
12. Martial law was declared by virtue of Proclamation Order 1018.
13.Under the 1973 constitution the incumbent President will also be the regular
President and Prime Minister at the same time.
14.The “Constituional Authoritarianism” of Marcos extended his presidency that lasted
twenty years or two decades – the longest in Philippine history.
15. The Marcos administration under the 1973 constitution promise a NEW SOCIETY
that will solve insurgency, criminality, and poverty.
B. Explain the following:

1. What is Constitution? Is the constitution the origin of our rights?
2. Is the Constitution a conferement of powers or a limitation of the same?
3. What is Preamble? Is Preamble part of the content of the Constiution?
4. Do you believe that the constitution is important in your day to day living?
48
Activity 15
Case Study
1. At a particular time after President Cory Aquino was catapulted to power, former President
Marcos wanted to come back invoking his freedom of movement and to return to his
country. President Aquino stood fast on her decision not to allow him and his family to come
back in the meantime. The issue raised before the Supreme Court was whether or not in
the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution to the President, she may prohibit
the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines? Explain your answer.
2. Miss X, is a member of the Board of Motion Pictures wanted to know how other members
voted in a particular fil. The Chairperson of the Board refused to reveal the result. X
invoked her right to access on matters of public concern. Is X constitutionally correct?
Decide for your answer.
3. Mr Y was charged of an offense in court. He was arraigned in absentia; thereafter he was
tried and convicted in absentia. Was there compliance with the due process clause in the
Constitution? Why?
4. Group of university students were granted a permit to hold a rally at the basketball court.
Instead of limiting it to the area designated, they went outside of it and disturbed on going
classes. They were suspended for one (1) year. The act of the school was questioned by
the students as violative of their right to peaceably assemble. Was the act of the students
in questioning the university administration constitutionally correct? Decide for your
answer.
5. A was convicted of murder and sentenced to a penalty of death. He appelaed to the court.
Is he entitled to bail? Why?
6. X, was dismissed from employment accordingly because she was the president of the
Union who led the strike in the company, but the employer failed to furnish her with notice.
The employer contended that X was verbally judged of the charges against her, hence
there was a substantial compliance with the rule. Is the contention of the employer correct?
Why?
7. May a foreigner whi is deaf and mute be naturalized in our country? Why?
49
Activity 16
Make a SWOT analysis of PD 27 and RA 6657.
PD 27
Strengths Weaknesses
Opportunities Threats
50
RA 6657
51
Activity 17
Make a SWOT analysis of RA 10963
RA 10963
52
Activity 18
Make a SWOT analysis of RA 8713
RA 8713
53

Final Term Module Readings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Term Module Readings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Term Module Readings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DISCLAIMER

This module is intended for STUDENTS OF TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY ONLY in

Social Science 1C – Readings in Philippine History

VISION Tarlac State University is envisioned to be a premier university in

MISSION Tarlac State University commits to promote and sustain the

Towards this end, TSU shall:

CORE VALUES E – xcellence

DR. LINO L. DIZON

Dr. Lino L Dizon is presently a commissioner of the National

MR. CHARLES KEVIN T. SALONGA

Charles Kevin T Salonga is a graduate of Bachelor in Public

FINAL TERM COVERAGE

Module 11: The Cavite Mutiny of 1872

Module 12: Jose Rizal’s Retraction

Module 13: Cry of Balintawak or Pugadlawin

Module 15: The 1987 Constitution

Module 16: Agrarian Reform in the Philippines

Module 17: Taxation

Module 18: Special Topics:

(Click the following for the full text)

Official Statement of NHCP

1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or against a

THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident

Unraveling the Truth

1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or against

1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or

Malolos Constitution, 1935

I. Nature and Concept of the Constitution

II. Constitution of the Philippines

1. Comprehend the definition, nature, and concept of the constitution

CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Provisions of the Malolos Constitution

The 1935 Constitution has the following features:

Provisions of the 1935 Constitution

Provisions of the 1973 Constitution

6. Rodee, Carlton C. et.al. INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL SCIENCE. Fourth Edition

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

This Constitution has the following features/principles:

Provisions of the 1987 Constitution

1. Agoncillo, Teodoro A. and Mangahas, Fe B. PHILIPPINE HISTORY: Expanded and Updated

3. Nolledo, Jose N. STUDENT’S MANUAL ON THE NEW CONSTITUTION. 1996 Revised

HISTORICAL ROOTS OF AGRARIAN PROBLEMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

1. Presidential Decree No. 27 – Republic Act No. 6657 – An Act instituting a

1. The land must be DEVOTED Specific lands covered by CARP.

a) If he as of October 21, 1972

Transferability of Awarded Lands.- lands

If the land has not yet been fully paid by the

The TITLES awarded to farmer-beneficiaries

1. Free Patent for Public Alienation and

2. CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP

3. STEWARDSHIP CONTRACT for Lands

4. CLOA for Private of Agricultural Lands.

The MODES OF ACQUIRING LANDS for

a. COMPULSORY ACQUISITION (CA)

Factors/Criteria considered in determining just

1. Cost of Acquisition of the land;

1.lawphil.net COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988

General Principles of Taxation