MIDTERM COVERAGE

Section 5: Speech of President Corazon Aquino before the Joint Session

of the United States Congress

This section focused about the speech of Cory Aquino in the U.S.
Congress that transpired on September 18, 1986. The members of the
Congress gave her due recognition of the peaceful EDSA revolution that
ousted President Ferdinand Marcos and paved the way for Corazon Aquino to
become the president.

Background of the Author

Maria Corazon “Cory” Cojuangco Aquino became the president of the

Philippines because of the 1986 EDSA revolution – the non – violent revolution
that ousted President Ferdinand E. Marcos. She was the wife of the
assassinated opposition leader during Martial Law period, Benigno “Ninoy”
Aquino Jr. In 1986, The Time Magazine afforded her the title as the “Women of
the Year”. She was also chosen by the same magazine as one of the twenty
(20) most influential Asians of the 20th century. Before becoming the president,
she was never been an elected government official.

Historical Context

Since 1969, President Ferdinand Marcos occupied the highest position

of the government being the president, although the constitution clearly limits
his term of office for only six years. In the case of Marcos, he was able to stay
in power for twenty one (21) long years. This became possible due to the
following reasons; first, when on Sept. 21, 1973 he proclaimed martial law and
secondly when the 1973 constitution was promulgated which established a
modified parliamentary system. Marcos acted as the Prime Minister – as the
head of the government and at the same time the president as a ceremonial
head of State. Both were to be elected by the unicameral National Assembly
or Batasang Pambansa.
 Several opposition groups including the church hierarchy wanted to
end up martial law. Rebels in the cities carried out series of bombings in
defiance of military rule.

On January 17, 1981, Proclamation No. 2045 was issued which ended
the martial law period in the country. Changes in 1981 like the lifting of
Martial Law eventually gave birth to the new Republic e.g. the Fourth Republic.
Then, there was a scheduled presidential election on June 16, 1981, and as
expected Marcos won for another six – years term in office

On August 21,1983, Ninoy Aquino, Cory Aquino’s husband returned

back to Manila after his 3 years exile in the U.S. but was assassinated at
Tarmac’s Airport (the old name of Ninoy Aquino International Airport or
NAIA). The number one suspect in his killing were the family members of
Marcos and his cronies. Thousands of Filipinos sympathized the bereaved
family and it was manifested during Aquino’s burial since many joined the
funeral march. The death of Ninoy instigated the Filipinos to fight the evils of
the dictatorship:

In 1985, the Philippine political and economic condition worsened.

Foreign investors were afraid to expand their business due to political
instability. Rallies and demonstrations made by anti – Marcos groups greatly
affects the tourism industry.

The U.S. government advised Marcos to call for a Snap Presidential

Election for him to prove his mandate over the Filipino people. In connection
with this idea, Marcos announced on American and local television that he
would hold a snap election of February 7, 1986.

Several opposition leaders wanted to run for presidency and one of

them was Salvador Laurel. But majority of the opposition leaders proposed
that the best candidate against Marcos was Cory Aquino. Cory Aquino
promised the oppositions that she will run provided that one million Filipinos
will sign a petition urging her to run.

In the official tallies of the COMELEC which was certified by the

Batasang Pambansa, the Marcos – Tolentino ticket won. But based on the
(NAMFREL) or (National Movement for Free Election), with their QUICK
COUNT operation, Aquino and Laurel had a margin of around 800,000 votes
against Marcos.

Report of fraud, massive vote buying and ballot switching were

happening during the snap election. There were thirty tabulators who walked
out protesting that the results were being manipulated.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) issued a

pastoral letter on Feb. 15, 1986 to be read in all catholic churches stating that
the government lost its moral basis due to electoral fraud.

On February 22, 1986, the two highest military officials, Juan Ponce
Enrile and Fidel Ramos in the press conference announced their withdrawal of
support for Marcos. Enrile admitted that it was Cory Aquino who won against
Marcos.

The following day, the Marcos loyalist troops under General Ver
prepared to attack thousands of people who went to EDSA. The soldiers were
not able to carry their plan because of the people blocking the way. Guns and
tanks were met with rosaries, flowers, sandwiches and a glass of hot coffee
from the demonstrators.

Marcos was advised by U.S. Senator Paul Laxalt to step down and leave
Malacañang. The U.S. military planes brought Marcos and his family to
Honolulu, Hawaii. That was the end of despotic administration of Marcos.

On Feb. 25, 1986, Cory Aquino took her oath of office at Club Filipino
and worked for the reorganization of government. It was clear that Cory
Aquino’s government was classified as revolutionary government since she
was placed in her position not in accordance with the Constitution but
because of the People’s Power or EDSA Revolution. Generally, a revolutionary
government is classified as de facto (illegal) but the government of Cory
Aquino gained a de jure (legal) status due to; 1) general support of the Filipino
people and 2) support of the members of the family of nations.
 Filipinos became so famous after the EDSA Revolution for being a
peace – loving people in the world since there was no bloodshed whatsoever.
The People Power Revolution caught the imagination of the world but for
Cory Aquino there was a hard task to do. It was not easy to lead the country
that had been badly damaged economically and politically, on September
1986, Cory went to the United States for state visit where she delivered her
speech asking the U.S. Congress for financial support to the Philippines and
conferred with then President Ronald Reagan. It was a nine day visit by which
Cory was able to convince American businessmen to invest in the Philippines.

Seven months after Cory Aquino assumed office, she was invited to
speak before the joints session of the U.S. Congress. He asked her executive
Secretary Teodoro “Teddy Boy” Locsin Jr, to prepare her speech but only half
was done so it was Cory Aquino who finished the draft of her speech which
she delivered for half an hour and was even interrupted with several applauses
and it ended with a standing ovation by the senators and congressmen.

Cory began her speech with the story of her stay with her family in the
United States for three years before the death of Ninoy Aquino. She
mentioned the character and strong conviction of Ninoy to free the people
from the dictatorial regime of Marcos. She attributed the peaceful EDSA
revolution to the martyrdom of Ninoy. His death sparked the revolution and
the responsibility of offering the democratic alternatives.

In her speech, Cory mentioned her miraculous victory against the

powerful dictator through people’s help and sacrifices. Cory stressed, the
importance of EDSA revolution w/c she called as “limited revolution” – that
give so much respect to the life and freedom of the Filipinos. She wanted to
restore the constitutional government that will give utmost respect to the Bill
of Rights. In her peace agenda, Cory wants to persuade the rebels to leave the
countryside and return to the mainstream society for them to participate in
the restoration of democracy.

She then mentioned about the controversial topic of the Philippines

foreign debt of $26 billion. She recognized it although the Filipinos did not
benefit from it. She even remarked that of all the revolution that happens
throughout the world the EDSA revolution have been the cheapest revolution
every by which the Filipino people fulfilled the most difficult condition of the
debt negotiation e.g. the restoration of democracy and responsible
government.

She finished her speech by thanking America for being the home of
her family for three years. She invited the Americans in rebuilding the
Philippines as a new home for democracy.

Relevance

Cory Aquino’s speech was a significant event because it cemented the

legitimacy of the People’s Power government in the international venue. In her
speech Cory Aquino always mentioned her husband Ninoy Aquino, her
relationship to him, the influence and the suffering instilled by him to fight
against the dictatorship. She pointed out, the legacies and lessons of the life
of her husband. Cory Aquino’s speech proved that change was possible
through peaceful means. Another relevance of her speech was the unanimous
approval of the members of the House of Representative of extending $200
million dollars as an emergency aid for the Philippines.

Guide Questions

1. Identify (3) points highlighted by Cory Aquino in her speech before the
U.S. Congress. Explain their significance

2. Interview at least two individuals who can be considered as primary

sources on the positive contributions of Cory Aquino to the Philippines.
Provide the given testimonials and the names of the account witnesses.

3. Watch the speech of Cory Aquino. How did the audience react to her half
– hour long address?

4. What was in her speech that convinced the members of the House of
Congress to grant $200 million dollars as an emergency aid to the Philippines?

5. What are the points in her speech that you agree and disagree with?
Why?
Lesson 6: Artworks

The Philippines was in a better condition under the Americans

compared to the Spaniards but freedom was not absolutely and immediately
afforded to the Filipinos. To illustrate the changes under the American rule
some Americans and Filipinos used political cartoons which was a subtle way
of expressing their discontent with the new colonizers.

Background of the Authors

During the American regime, political cartoons were popular in

expressing the people’s complaint and exposing the ills of the American
administration. Alfredo McCoy and Alfredo Reyes Roces compiled many
political cartoons by Filipino artists depicting the Philippines during American
rules.

Alfred McCoy, was born on June 8, 1945 in Massachussets, U.S.A. He

earned his BA in European Studies, finished MA in Asian Studies and his PhD
in Southeast Asian history at Yale University. He focused in studying the
Philippine political caricatures for him to understand the social and political
context of the Filipinos. He did not create his own political caricatures but was
interested to compile those from various sources and thereby being able to
produce a single collection known as Philippine Cartoons: Political Caricature
of the American Era.

Alfredo Reyes Roces, was a painter, an essayist and a versatile artist.

He was considered a prominent figure in Philippine art. He started with
figurative style in his painting but later improved it and began to adopt
another style and began to be an expressionist, fauvist and impressionist.

Historical Background of Political Cartoons

Cartoons became an effective tool of publicizing opinions by the use

of symbolism. There was a unique way that a caricature represents opinion
that captured the imagination of the people, the reason why historians had to
examine those cartoons. The following are the selected cartoons with an
explained context;
1) The Independent on May 20, 1916

- This cartoon shows a politician named Dr. Santos who passed his crown
to his brother – in – law Dr. Barcelona. A Filipino guy was trying to stop telling
the former not to give the crown.

2) A cartoon from the magazine Lipang – Kalabaw (July 27, 1907)

- This depicted the parade of Filipinos who celebrated the victory of their
popular candidate, Fernando Ma. Guerrero who was given the seat in the
Philippine Assembly (Lower House). This greatly bothered the Americans
seeing the massive support of the Filipino towards their fellowmen. The
Americans were affected by the Filipino act to display banners and flags. On
Aug. 23, 1907, the Philippine Commission (Upper House) promulgated Act No.
1696 w/c was known as the Flag Law – which prohibit the public display of the
Philippine flag and other patriotic banners.

3) Another cartoons appear in the booklet watch for the Saboteurs

sponsored by the League of Women Voters.

- This booklet was criticized by President Elpidio Quirino by saying that the
booklet was defective.

Relevance

The Spanish colonial period in the Philippines was marked by strict

censorship, the reason why Filipinos were not given the chance to express
themselves politically. Censorship was loosened when the American civil
government was established. Changes in culture, society and politics can be
seen in the illustrations and cartoons.

The transition of the American colonial period provided the Filipinos

the chance to publish an independent newspaper. The four decades of the
American colonial rule became a formative period in the Philippine History.

Whenever the Americans felt offended with the publications made by

the Filipinos they had laws promulgated to stop the developing hostilities
such as; 1) Sedition Law – w/c imposed death penalty or a long imprisonment
for the Filipinos who advocated separation from the U.S. even by peaceful
means. 2) Brigandage Act – w/c punished death penalty or 20 years
imprisonment for members of armed group and the 3) Flag Law – prohibits
the display of the Philippine flag.

The selected cartoons illustrates the Philippine society, it paints the

broad image of politics under the Americans. The other cartoon showed how
Americans controlled the Filipinos through harmless weapon e.g. controlling
their consciousness and mentality. The reason why Filipinos are now known as
a little brown Americans in Asia since they can act, think and speak like an
Americans.

Guide Questions

1) Make your own caricature depicting any present political and economic
situation in the Philippines. Make a short explanation for the symbolism that
you used.

2) Why political cartoons important to the grand narrative of Philippine

history?

3) Create your own comic strip with three scenes depicting any present
political, economic and social issue in the Philippines. Make it humorous. For
more examples. You may access to this
website https://deadbalagtas.wordpress.com

MODULE 3 – ANALYZING PRIMARY SOURCES

This module will focus on the different events of history such as; The
First Cry of Revolution, the Tejeros Convention and The Retraction of Jose
Rizal. Each event had two or more participants or eyewitnesses who gave their
own specific accounts. And this is where the problem comes in of w/c account
should we believe. Yes, there is one past but there could be many histories.
Conflicting views exists but this can be a challenged to take in the study of
historical sources by analyzing how different perspective being come up with
these eyewitnesses.
Section 1: The First Cry of the Revolution (August 1896)

The Philippine Revolution of 1896 was popularly known as the “First

Cry”. This was the first move of the Filipino to commence the revolution for
independence. It took place after the Spanish authorities discovered the
existence of a secret revolutionary government or Katipunan.

The controversy regarding this event existed in identifying the date

and place, when or where the cry happened. There are three eyewitnesses of
the event who cited different dates and place where the event took place.

1) Dr. Pio Valenzuela

He was one of the officials of Katipunan and a confidante of Andres Bonifacio

- the founder of the Katipunan. He was present during the event and
published his account as “Memoirs of Revolution”. According to Valenzuela,
the first cry of revolution took place at Pugadlawin, in the storehouse and yard
of Juan Ramos, the son of Melchora Aquino, who later became the mother of
Katipunan on August 23, 1896. Those present were tearing their cedulas and
shouted, “Long Live the Philippines”.

2) Santiago Alvarez – one of the leaders of the Cavite Revolution

The account of Santiago Alvarez was published in the weekly Tagalog

magazine Sampaguita. The series was later published as a book entitled “The
Katipunan and the Revolution”, which was translated to English by Paula
Carolina Malay. Based on this account, The First Cry happened in “Bahay Toro”
on August 24, 1896. There were tumultuous shouts for those who were there
“Long Live the Sons of the People”.

3) Guillermo Masangkay – he was a friend and fellow Katipunero of Andres

Bonifacio.

The Sunday Tribune magazine made an interview to Masangkay in which he

recounted that the First Cry of Revolution happened in Balintawak on August
26, 1896. He said that people who present in the said event pulled out their
cedulas and tore them to pieces. Accordingly, it was the beginning of the
formal declaration of war by the Filipinos against the Spaniards.

Guide Questions:

1. Explain the significance of cedulas during the Spanish period. What does it
signify when the Filipinos tore them out.

2. How does the National Historical Commission of the Philippines verify the
accounts given by these three eyewitnesses.

3. Why are these three witnesses cited different dates and place of the “First
Cry”?

Watch the video entitled “Xiao Time: Ang Unang SIgaw ng Himagsikan
sa Balintawak, Kalookan posted by PTV and answer these questions: Is there a
chance that all sources are valid? Why?

Section 2: The Tejeros Assembly

When Emilio Aguinaldo joined the Katipunan, he was able to show his
competent as a revolutionary leader particularly in Cavite. Most of the fight or
actual combat headed by him Filipino forces rose as victors against the
Spaniards. They were able to subdue the Spanish forces by surprise and
eventually been able to take control of the provinces. This victory gave fame
to Emilio Aguinaldo particularly in Cavite the reason why the Caviteños wanted
to change the Katipunan leadership from Andres Bonifacio to Emilio
Aguinaldo. It resulted to the division of the Katipunan into two factions.
Magdiwang – which was headed by Mariano Alvarez and they supported
Andres Bonifacio and Magdalo – which was led by Baldomero Aguinaldo.
Since this faction happened in Cavite so from Manila, Bonifacio went there to
pacify their conflict and some disagreements.

The Magdalo group wanted to change the Katipunan into another

name since it was already discovered by the Spanish authorities therefore, it
ceased to be a secret society and it is no longer responding to the demands of
the time. The Magdiwang group insisted that there is no need to create a new
revolutionary government for the reason that the Katipunan has already its
own Constitution and by – laws.

Unfortunately for Andres Bonifacio he returned back to Manila empty

handed because there was no tangible result of his visit in Cavite. But the two
groups agreed to meet again to discuss the same issues at Tejeros. Three
witnesses presented their own accounts of what transpired during the Tejeros
Convention. They are;

Artemio Ricarte

He was one of the officials of the Magdiwang group. He acted as the

secretary of the Tejeros Convention, when Andres Bonifacio took over Jacinto
Lambreras as the presiding officer. He was elected Captain – General of the
new gov’t. established at Tejeros Convention. Ricarte’s memoires entitled
“Himagsikan ng mga Pilipino Laban sa Kastila” was published in Yokohoma,
Japan in 1927..

Based on Ricarte’s account, the Tejeros Convention was conducted on

March 22, 1897 at Tejeros estate house. When the session was opened it was
presided by Jacinto Lumbreras from Magdiwang faction. The floor was first
given to Severino delas Alas, also from Magdiwang. He raise the motion that
before discussing the defense of the small piece of territory in Cavite, it is
necessary to consider the kind of government of the revolutionary forces. This
motion resulted to the hated arguments among the ranks of the Katipuneros.
Jacinto Lumbreras sensed the seriousness of the matter calls for a recess.

After an hour, Bonifacio was requested by Lumbreras to continue the

convention in as much as it is called to resolve the issue of whether or not a
new government will be established. The opening statement of Andres
Bonifacio was; as you wish to establish a new government and I being the
President of the Supreme Council of the Katipunan will agree to your petition
but may I remind you of the two most important principle 1) respect whatever
be the decision of the majority and 2) Whoever be elected to any position
should be respected. Those who were present unanimously conform the
principles laid down by Andres Bonifacio. Eventually, the Philippine Republic
was agreed upon which was immediately followed by an election: Emilio
Aguinaldo was chosen as the president though he was not present in
assembly since he was commanding the Filipino forces in attacking the
Spanish forces.

Severino delas Alas suggested that Andres Bonifacio be automatically

the Vice – President since he garnered the second largest number of votes in
the election for president but nobody supported him. Therefore, Andres
Bonifacio ordered the continuation of election. Mariano Trias was elected Vice
– President; Captain General Artemio Ricarte, Director of War – Emiliano Riego
de Dios and the Director of the Interior was Andres Bonifacio.

Daniel Tirona from Magdalo, objected the election of Andres Bonifacio

by saying that the position given to him was so important and this should be
afforded to those who have a lawyer’s degree. Tirona even pointed out that it
shoud be Atty. Jose del Rosario that must occupy the position.

Bonifacio was humiliated and said, have we not agreed that we shall
respect the will of the majority. He even demanded Daniel Tirona to apologize
but instead Tirona walked out and due to Bonifacio’s anger he almost fire a
shot to Tirona. When almost everybody were leaving the room, Bonifacio
shouted at the top of his voice saying: I, as the president of this assembly and I
as the president of the Supreme Council for the Katipunan as you all know,
declare this assembly closed, and annul everything that has been done here.

Andres Bonifacio

His account was from the letter he wrote to Emilio Jacinto on April 24,
1897. It was first published in Jose P. Santos, Si Andres Bonifacio at Ang
Himagsikan.

According to Bonifacio, majority of those who were present at Tejeros

Convention wanted to establish a new government of the revolutionary forces,
but I told them that it is not possible since representatives from other towns
are absent – a condition that was already agreed during the first assembly in
Imus, Cavite but they just ignored the previous agreement. So, Bonifacio just
abide the will of the majority. They promised that whatever decisions that
come up by many, it will always prevail and be respected by all.

Republic of the Philippines was the new government. The elected

President was Emilio Aguinaldo, Vice President, Mariano Trias, Auditor,
General, Artemio Ricarte; Director of War, Emiliano Riego de Dios. The
elections were held through the expressions of those who were present or
“viva voche”. I was elected Director of the Interior but Daniel Tirona made an
objection and said that Jose Del Rosario be chosen because the position
should be given to those who have a lawyers’ degree. I answered back that
good and educated men are needed for all the positions and asked Tirona of
who among the elected are already competent in their positions, but he began
to shout; Let us agree to choose Atty. Jose del Rosario as the Director of the
Interior. He did it for four times. Because of the tumult, I made an
announcement that this assembly was the idea of those with evil intentions. I
even added that if they wished I will point out one by one the evil plans these
people had to penned me down. Then the assembly answered, it is no longer
necessary. Then, I told them that what was approved in the assembly should
not be followed. Those elected are no longer be recognized. I was seconded
by General Artemio Ricarte stating that their assembly was the result of bad
intentions.

Santiago Alvarez

Like Artemio RIcarte, Alvarez was also a direct participant and witness
of the election during the Tejeros Convention. His account is found in Chapter
32 of General Santiago Alvarez’s memoirs.

Alvarez recounted that the conventions was convened on March 25,

1897. It was Jacinto Lumbreras, the presiding officer who declared the opening
of the assembly and announced the main topic of the discussion on how to
improve the defense in the areas under Magdiwang Control. It was Severino
delas Alas from Magdiwang who first given the chance to talk. He said that
before the discussion of minor details, let us decide of whether or not a new
government be establish. After which the minor problems will be discussed
and be resolved.
 Lumbreras replied, the Katipunan now holds authority and it has
already a government of law and definite programs. It is recognized and
respected by all because it stands for freedom, brotherly love and well
organized government. There was a hatred arguments among the Katipuneros
the reason why Jacinto Lumbreras called for a recess.

After the break, some wanted to adjourn but Andres Bonifacio would
like to pursue it. However, the presiding officer, Jacinto Lumbreras refuse to
continue to preside the assembly. But he proposed that the right person to act
as the presiding officer should be Bonifacio. It was readily accepted by him but
remind the people that everybody must respect and abide the wishes of the
majority.

Because of the repeated request for the establishment of a new

government, Andres Bonifacio acceded to the will of majority. The Philippine
Republic was then established. It was immediately proceeded with an election.
Emilio Aguinaldo was elected president. Vice – President; Mariano Trias,
Captain General was Artemio Ricarte, Director of war was Emilio de Dios and
the Director of the Interior was Andres Bonifacio.

The election of Bonifacio was greatly protested by Daniel Tirona from

Magdalo faction by saying that the choice for the last position must be
reconsidered for he has no credentials to show his college degree and the
position should be given to those who has a lawyer’s diploma. Then in a loud
voice, Tirona shouted. Let us elect Jose del Rosario, a lawyer.

Greatly embarrassed, Bonifacio quickly stood up and said, we agreed

to follow the will of the majority and accept its choice whatever the status of
life of the person being elected. Then, Bonifacio demanded from Tirona to ask
him an apology. Instead of replying, Tirona just ignored Bonifacio and perhaps
because of fear, he immediately walked out.

Bonifacio adjourned the meeting with these words; In my capacity as a

chairman of this convention and as a President of the Supreme Council of the
Katipunan, I hereby declare null and void what has been approved and
transpired in this assembly.
Guide Questions:

1. What are the similarities and differences among the three accounts?

2. How can the three accounts contribute to the establishment of the First
Philippine Republic?

3. Why did Andres Bonifacio declare the election results as null and void?

4. Trace the emergence of the two Katipunan Factions.

Section 3: The Retraction of Jose Rizal

In the study of the life, works and writings of the national hero, we
have to consider the pressing issues as to the veracity of the acts performed
by Rizal a few moments before his execution, specifically, his reconciliation
with the Catholic Church and his abjuration of masonry which is otherwise
known as “retraction”. The following questions must be answered by analyzing
the account given by some witnesses. Did Rizal really retract and abjure
masonry? Did he really go back to the faith of his fathers? If he did, where is
the alleged retraction letter? Of the many versions of the retraction letter,
which version is authentic? Who said it is authentic?

Allegedly, there are four versions of Rizal’s retraction letter. The first
version was published in La Voz Española and Diario de Manila on December
30, 1896. The second appeared in the Magazine La Juventud on Feb. 14, 1897,
who came from an anonymous author who 14 yrs. Later revealed himself as Fr.
Vicente Balaguer. The third, was presumably the original text which was
discovered in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935. The fourth,
appeared in El Imparcial on December 31, 1896, the shortest version of the
Rizal’s retraction letter.

Until today, the issue whether there was Rizal’s retraction or non and
whether the retraction letter is real or not is still subject of continuous scrutiny
by the historians and some scholars. Primary accounts must be considered.
The first two are the official accounts as witnessed by the Jesuits. The other
two are the critical analyses by Rizalist scholars who doubted the story of
retraction given by the Jesuits.

Statement from Fr. Vicente Balaguer

Fr. Balaguer was a Jesuit priest who visited Rizal in his prison cell in
Fort Santiago before his execution. He said, he was able to convinced Rizal to
go back to the Catholic fold by denouncing his masonry ideals. He further
testified that he was the one who solemnized the catholic marriage of Jose
Rizal and Josephine Bracken hours before his execution and there was an
affidavit secured by Balaguer before returning back to Spain in order to prove
his statement on August 8, 1917.

Fr. Balaguer recounted that he and Fr. Villaclara went to Fort Santiago
where Rizal was detained. He readily accept us and gave us hugs. With this
actuation of Rizal for me it was a high time to convince him to publicly
withdraw his statements either in words or writings that were against the
Catholic Church. I tried to make him see that outside the Catholic Church
there is no salvation. Jose Rizal was agitated by this remark and told me, see
here father if I will comply your request and sign the ready -made retraction
letter without any conviction then God will be offended for I am just a
hypocrite. He further said, what will I do to conquer my reason. I answered
him, offer everything to God, your whole self and self – esteem then ask God
the gift of faith which he offers in abundance if you will ask it with humility.

After the discussion, Jose Rizal yield to the impulse of grace. He made
confession, received communion and even prayed the rosary. When our
discussion was resumed he ask for the copy of the retraction letter. He asked
me to read it. When he heard the first paragraph, he told me to stop since the
way it was written is very much different from his own style and that he will
not sign it. Then I showed to him the shorter version of the retraction letter
which was prepared by Father Pio P; I read the first paragraph and he said,
that style is simple as mine. If there is something you would like me to profess
and express then just dictate it and I will write them down here. After writing,
Rizal signed it together with the Chief of the Picket Señor Fresno and the
adjutant of the Plaza, Señor Mourre. This document of retraction was delivered
to Father Pio Pi who brought it to the Archbishop of Manila, Father Bernardino
Nozaleda.

Fr. Pio Pi Statement

Fr. Pio Pi was the Superior of the Jesuit Congregation in the Philippines
during the execution of Rizal. There was an affidavit presented regarding his
involvement in the alleged retraction of Rizal. His involvement was limited in
securing the retraction document from Fr. Bernardino Nozaleda and writing a
shorter retraction letter w/c most of the terms were copied by Rizal.

Based on his account that he received an order from Fr. Nozaleda on

December 28, 1896 that he should extend some spiritual care to Jose Rizal. He
readily accept the order because he wanted to save the soul of Rizal by
reconciling him to God and the church. At the beginning there was little
difficulty in convincing him to go back to the Catholic fold. After a long
discussion, the old Christian sentiments in him were awaken and eventually
surrendered willingly and completely.

When the retraction document was presented to him, he made some

objections in the form as well as the composition by Fr. Balaguer w/c was
prepared by the Archbishop. Then, the one which I had made was shorter and
concise was chosen by Rizal and he wished to introduce some modifications
to make it appear that he was the one writing it. He wrote it entirely by his
own handwriting then affix his signature on it. The two affixed their signature
as witnesses: Juan del Fresno, Chief of the Picket and Eloy Mourre, the
Adjutant of the Plaza

Rizal may not be satisfied in signing it without, pressure from anyone,

he knelt down before the altar of the Chapel and read the abjuration
document slowly but in a loud voice.

Rafael Palma’s Analysis

Rafael Palma was a lawyer, writer, educator and politician. In 1938, he

won the literary contest w/c was sponsored by the American Commonwealth
Government with his winning piece entitled Biografia de Rizal, which was
translated to English by Roman Ozaeta with the title Pride of the Malay Race.
This book was published in the U.S. the alleged retraction of Rizal is in Chapter
32 and 33 with Palma’s analysis in the last chapter. The following are his
contentions that Rizal did not retract

1) The document of retraction were kept secret. Copies furnished to the

newspaper was not original.

2) When the family of Rizal asked for the original copy, their petition were
ignored.

3) Rizal burial was never known to the public, w/c means that there was no
Catholic mass celebrated in his honor and contrary to the claim of the friars
that Rizal already reconciled with Catholic Church before his death, yet he was
not buried in a Catholic cemetery in Paco.

Ricardo Pascual

He was authorized by the Archbishop of Manila to examine the alleged

retraction letter of Rizal. He wrote a book entitled, “Rizal beyond the Grave” in
w/c he said that the retraction diverged from the style of Rizal’s other writing
of that period. He points out that both signature of the witnesses were done
by the same person.

All the witnesses on ecclesiastical said notarized the papers and their oath; Fr.
Balaguer in 1917 that he took it to Ateneo before the execution of Rizal and
that Fr. Pio Pi brought it to Archbishop Nozaleda and entrusted it to his
secretary Tomas Feijo. When they traced this paper it was lost. This will caused
doubt. It had been missing for 39 long years and when Filipino people really
doubted for its existence; the same was found in the very files where it had
been previously sought. This fact caused another doubt.

Fr. Balaguer swore that he officiated the Catholic wedding of Jose Rizal
and Josephine Bracken but no marriage record is found. Then, Lucia and
Josephine went together to visit Rizal said that she did not see any ceremony.
 Doubts have also been raised since the Archbishop and the Jesuit
priests never intervene in the decision against Rizal but it was only his family
who begged for mercy to reduce his sentence.

If Rizal retracted then, he would not have been executed and been
given a burial like that of a dead dog outside Paco cemetery.

Guide Questions:

1) Create a multimedia presentation on the retraction issue. Convince the

audience on your own stand, whether there was a retraction or non.

2) How important is the retraction of Rizal to the Catholic Church?

3) If it was true that Rizal retracted, would do you think would be its effect to
his fellow reformists?

4) Research on the proliferation of fake news nowadays and answer this. a)

What is fake news? How to determine it? What can you do to stop it? You may
access on this
website http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2017/06/26/1713616/fake-news

MODULE 4 – EXPLORING HISTORY

It is a must for the Filipinos to study and learn the culture of the
Philippines by not just reading books and some reading materials but it can be
done by visiting the sites where the event history happened or where the
historical figures lived and died to fully understand the historical context of
such event. In doing this we are learning history by being in history.

Section 1: Historic Sites and Landmarks Recognized by the National

Historical Commission of the Philippines

All over the Philippines, there are already hundreds of sites recognized
by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) as landmarks
of history. Republic Act no. 10086 provided for the responsibility given to
NHCP which is for the conservation and preservation of ‘Philippines’ historical
legacies. In line with this, the NHCP must undertake the commemoration of
significant dates in the Phil. History and the personages involved in the said
event. NHCP is also tasked for historical information and dissemination of
activities like the recognition of historical sites and landmarks thus, turning
them into museums and parks opening them to visitors particularly the
students to promote historical awareness to the young ones.

These landmarks are found on pp. 155 – 168 on “BATIS” by Jose Victor
Torres. Aside from these landmarks, museums are best to consider and be
visited to expound our knowledge of Phil. history and museum of Fine Arts, b)
National Museum of Anthropology, c) National museum of National History
and d) the National Planetarium

Private museums available are: a) UST Museum, b) Ayala Museum, c)

Lopez Museum and Library, d) The Museo Ilo – ilo (focuses on historical
artifacts in Panay Island), e) The Juan Nepomuceno Center (focuses on
Kapampangan language, history and culture, f) Cultural Center of the
Philippines (a performance venue but also served as an art galleries exhibit
and g) Kaisa Angelo King Heritage Center (highlighted the Filipino and
Chinese culture)

To further preserved the old building that contributed to our historical

heritage the Philippine Congress implemented R.A. 10066 otherwise known as
Cultural Heritage Act – w/c created the Philippine Registry of Cultural
Property, the rules and regulations to preserve historic buildings that are over
50 years. This was signed into law on March 25, 2009.

Attempts were made to preserve the artifacts of history and culture.

Intramuros District formerly known as Walled City, was declared the first
district being the National Heritage Site. Why? Followed by Vigan City (Ilocus
Sur) and Silay City (Negros Occidental). These areas are mandated to follow
(R.A. 10066) in w/c they have to preserve their historic buildings and local
traditions while blending it with the modern surroundings.

Historic buildings that survived from the Spanish until the American
regime must also be preserved such as: old churches that are found in towns
and cities, old school campuses, like UP and UST. Monuments that are found
in plazas and parks either in urban areas and provinces are also preserved for
the reason that monuments are important since they are the markers of our
past. Example of these monuments are the Carriedo Fountain, King Carlos
Monument, the Legaspi – Urdaneta Monument, the Queen Isabel II and the
Simon de Anda Monument.

Archaeological sites that are mostly found in the provinces are

significant places and are the pieces of evidence of our precolonial past. These
sites are already open to the public such as, Ifugao Rice Terraces, the Kabayan
Mummy Burial Caves, the Neolithic Shell Midden Sites, and the Paleolithic
Archeological Site in Cagayan Valley where the bones of what is believed to be
the oldest human being, the Callao Man was found.

Guide Questions:

1) What is NHCP? What are the functions of NHCP?

2) What historical sites have you been visited? Why is it important to visit
these sites?

3) How can you help in the preservation of our history and culture?