Philippine History: Spaces for

Conflict and Controversies

 Learning Objectives:
• To interpret historical events using primary sources.
• To recognize the multiplicity of interpretation than can be read from historical text.
• To identify the advantages and disadvantages of employing critical tools in interpreting
historical events through primary sources.
• To demonstrate ability to argue for or against a particular issue using primary sources.

In this chapter, we will analyze four historiographical problems in the Philippine history in an
attempt to apply what we have learned thus far in the work of a historian and the process of
historical inquiry. Earlier, we have been introduced to history as a discipline, the historical method,
and the content and context analysis of primary sources. Two key concepts that need to be defined
before proceeding to the historical analysis of problems in history are interpretation and
multiperspectivity.
 Making Sense of the Past: Historical
Interpretation
History is the study of the past, but a more contemporary
definition is centered on how it impacts the present through
its consequences.
• Geoffrey Barraclough defines history as “the attempt to
discover, on the basis of fragmentary evidence, the
significant things about the past.”
He also notes “the history we read, though based on facts,
is strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of
accepted judgements.” Such judgements of historians on
how the past should be seen make the foundation of
CODE OF KALANTIAW
The Code of Kalantiaw is a mythical legal code in the epic history Maragtas. Before it was revealed as
a hoax, it was source of pride for the people of Aklan. In fact, a historical marker was installed in the
town of Batan, Aklan in 1956, with the following text:

“CODE OF KALANTIAW. Datu Bendehara Kalantiaw, third Chief of Panay, born

in Aklan, established his government in the peninsula of Batang, Aklan Sakup.
Considered the First Filipino Lawgiver he promulgated in about 1433 a penal code
now known as Code of Kalantiaw containing 18 articles. Don Marcelino Orilla of
Zaragoza, Spain, obtained the original manuscript from an old chief of Panay
which was later translated in Spanish by Rafael Murviedo Yzamaney.”

It was only in 1968 that it was proved a hoax, when Willian Henry Scott, then a doctoral candidate at
the University of Santo Thomas, defended his research on pre-Hispanic sources in Philippines history.
He attributed the code to a historical fiction written in 1913 by Jose E. Marco titled Las Antiguas
Leyendas de la Isla de Negros. Marco attributed the code itself to a priest named Jose Maria Pavon.
Prominent Filipino historians did not dissent to Scott’s findings, but there is still some who would like
to believe that the code is legitimate document.
 The following is the translation of the code:

Article I
You shall not kill, neither shall you steal, neither shall you do harm to the aged, lest you incur the
danger of death. All those who infringe this order shall be condemned to death by being drowned in
the river, or in boiling water.

Article II
You shall obey. Let all your debts with the headman be met punctually. He who does not obey shall
receive for the first time one hundred lashes. If the debt is large, he shall be condemned to thrust his
hand in boiling water thrice. For the second time, he shall be beaten to death.

Article III
Obey you: let no one have women that are very young nor more than he can support; nor be given to
excessive lust. He who does not comply with, obey, and observe this order shall be condemned to swim
for three hours for the first time and for the second time, to be beaten to death with sharp thorns.
Article IV
Observe and obey; let no one disturb the quiet of the graves. When passing by the caves and trees
where they are, give respect to them. He who does not observe this shall be killed by ants, or beaten
to death with thorns.

Article V
You shall obey; he who exchanges for food, let it be always done in accordance with his word. He
who does not comply, shall be beaten for one hour, he who repeats the offense shall be exposed for
one day among ants.

Article VI
You shall be obliged to revere sights that are held in respect, such as those of trees of recognized
worth and other sights. He who fails to comply shall pay with one month's work in gold or in honey.
Article VII
These shall be put to death; he who kills trees of venerable appearance; who shoot arrows at night
at old men and women; he who enters the houses of the headmen without permission; he who kills a
shark or a streaked cayman.

Article VIII
Slavery for a doam (a certain period of time) shall be suffered by those who steal away the women of
the headmen; by him who keep ill-tempered dogs that bite the headmen; by him who burns the
fields of another.

Article IX
All these shall be beaten for two days: who sing while traveling by night; kill the Manaul; tear the
documents belonging to the headmen; are malicious liars; or who mock the dead.
Article X
It is decreed an obligation; that every mother teach secretly to her daughters matters pertaining to lust
and prepare them for womanhood; let not men be cruel nor punish their women when they catch them in
the act of adultery. Whoever shall disobey shall be killed by being cut to pieces and thrown to the
caymans.

Article XI
These shall be burned: who by their strength or cunning have mocked at and escaped punishment or who
have killed young boys; or try to steal away the women of the elders.

Article XII
These shall be drowned: all who interfere with their superiors, or their owners or masters; all those who
abuse themselves through their lust; those who destroy their anitos (religious icons) by breaking them or
throwing them down.
Article XVI
The fingers shall be cut-off: of all those who break anitos of wood and clay in their alangans and
temples; of those who destroy the daggers of the catalonans(priest/priestess), or break the drinking
jars of the latter.

Article XVII
These shall be killed: who profane sites where anitos are kept, and sites where are buried the
sacred things of their diwatas and headmen. He who performs his necessities in those places shall
be burned.

Article XVIII
Those who do not cause these rules to be obeyed: if they are headmen, they shall be put to death by
being stoned and crushed; and if they are agorangs they shall be placed in rivers to be eaten by
sharks and caymans.
Article XIII
All these shall be exposed to ants for half a day: who kill black cats during a new moon; or steal
anything from the chiefs or agorangs, however small the object may be.

Article XIV
These shall be made slave for life: who have beautiful daughters and deny them to the sons of chiefs,
and with bad faith hide them away.

Article XV
Concerning beliefs and traditions; these shall be beaten: who eat the diseased flesh of beasts which they
hold in respect, or the herb which they consider good, who wound or kill the young of the Manaul, or
the white monkey.
 Historians utilize facts collected from primary sources of history and then draw
their own reading so that their intended audience may understand the historical event, a
process that in essence, “make sense of the past.” The premise is that not all primary
source are accessible to a general audience, and without the proper training and
background, a non-historian interpreting a primary source may do more harm than
good – a primary source may even cause misunderstandings; sometimes, even resulting
in more problems.

Interpretations of the past, therefore, vary according to who reads the primary
source, when it was read, and how it was read. As students of history, we must be well
equipped to recognize different types of interpretations, why these may differ from each
other, and how to critically sift these interpretations through historical evaluation.
Interpretations of historical events change over time; thus, it is an important skill for a
student of history to track these changes in an attempt to understanding the past.
 Historical perspectives are the different ideas, views and
experiences of those who lived through the revolution. Historical
interpretations are assumptions and conclusions about the
revolution, made after the fact. These interpretations are usually
formed by historians: academics and researchers who study and
write history. Most historical interpretations are explanations: they
tell us how and why things occurred, providing reasons, arguments
and evidence. Like historical perspectives, however, there are
often several interpretations of the same topic – and they may differ
significantly.
“Sa Aking Mga Kabata” is a poem purportedly written by Jose Rizal when he was eight
years old and is probably one of Rizal’s most prominent works. There is no evidence to
support the claim that this poem, with the now immortalized lines “Ang hindi magmahal sa
kanyang salita/mahigit sa hayop at malansang isda” was written by Rizal, and worse, the
evidence against Rizal’s authorship of the poem seems all unassailable.
There exists no manuscript of the poem handwritten by Rizal. The poem was first
published in 1906, in a book by Hermenegildo Cruz. Cruz said he received the poem from
Gabriel Beato Francisco, who claimed to have received it in 1884 from Rizal’s close friend,
Saturnino Raselis. Rizal never mentioned writing this poem anywhere in his writings, and
more importantly, he never mentioned of having a close friend by the person of Raselis.
Further criticism of the poem reveals more about the wrongful attribution of the poem to
Rizal. The poem was written in Tagalog and referred to the word “kalayan.” But it was
documented in Rizal’s letters that he first encountered the word through a Marcelo H. del
Pilar’s translation of Rizal’s essay “El Amor Patrio,” where it was spelled as “kalayahan”
 While Rizal’s native tongue was Tagalog, he was educated in Spanish,
starting from his mother, Teodoro Alonso. Later on, he would express
disappointment in his difficulty in expressing himself in his native tongue.
The poem’s spelling is also suspect – the use of letters “k” and “w” to
replace “c” and “u,” respectively was suggested by Rizal as an adult. If the
poem was indeed written during his time, it should use the original Spanish
orthography that was prevalent in his time.
 Many of the things we accept as “true” about the past might not be
the case anymore; just because these were taught to us as “facts” when
we were younger does not mean that it is set in stone – history is, after
all, a construct. And as a construct, it is open for interpretation. There
might be conflicting and competing accounts of the past that need one’s
attention, and can impact the way we view our country’s history and
identity. It is important, therefore, to subject to evaluation not only the
primary source, but also the historical interpretation of the same, to
ensure that the current interpretation is reliable to support our
acceptance of events of the past.
 Multiperspectivity
With several possibilities of interpreting the past, another important concept that we
must note is multiperspectivity. This can be defined as a way of looking at historical events,
personalities, developments, cultures and societies from different perspectives. This means
that there is multitude of ways by which we can view the world, and each could be equally
valid, and at the same time, equally partial as well. Historical writing is, by definition,
biased, partial, and contains preconceptions. The historian decides on what sources to use,
what interpretations to make more apparent, depending on what his end is. Historians may
misinterpret evidence, attending to those that suggest that a certain event happened, and
then ignore the rest that goes against the evidence. Historians may omit significant facts
about their subject, which may not be appropriate to the period the subject was from.
Historians may also provide a single cause for an event without considering other possible
causal explanations of said event. These are just many of the ways a historian may fail in his
historical inference, description and interpretations. With multiperspectivity as an
approach in history, we must understand that historical interpretations contain
discrepancies, contradictions, ambiguities, and are often the focus of dissent.
 Exploring multiple perspectives in history requires incorporating sure materials
that reflect different views of an event in history, because singular historical narratives
do not provide for space to inquire and investigate. Different sources that counter each
other may create space for more investigation and research, while providing more
evidence for those truths that these sources agree on.

Different kinds of sources also provide different historical truths—an official

document may note different aspects of the past than, say, memoir of an ordinary
person on the same event. Different historical agents create different historical truths
and while this may be a burdensome work for the historian, it also renders more
validity to the historical scholarship.

Taking these in close regard in reading of historical interpretations, it provides r

the audience a more complex, but also a more complete and richer understanding of
the past.
Case Study 1: Where Did the first
Catholic Mass Take Place in the
Philippines?
 The popularity of knowing where the “firsts” happened in the history has been an
easy way to trivialize history, but this case study will not focus on the significance (or
lack thereof) of the site of the First Catholic Mass in the Philippines, but rather, use it as
a historiographical exercise in the utilization of evidence and interpretation in reading
historical events.

Butuan has long been relieved as the site of the first Mass. In fact, this has been the
case for three centuries, culminating in the erection of a monument in 1872 near Agusan
River, which commemorates the expedition’s arrival and celebration of Mass on 8 April
1521. The Butuan claim has been based on a rather elementary reading of primary
sources from the event.

Toward the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century,
together with the increasing scholarship on the history of the Philippines, a more
nuanced reading of the available evidence was made, which brought to light more
considerations in going against the more accepted interpretation of the first Mass in the
Philippines, made booth by Spanish and Filipino scholars.
 It must be noted that there are only two primary sources that historians refer to
in identifying the site of the first Mass. On is the log kept by Francisco Albo, a pilot
of one of Magellan’s ship, Trinidad. He was one of the 18 survivors who returned
with Sebastian Elcano on the ship Victoria after they circumnavigated the world. The
other, and the more complete, was the account by Antonio Pigafetta, Primo viaggio
intorno al mondo (First Voyage Around the World). Pigafetta, like Albo, was a
member of the Magellan expedition and an eyewitness of the events, particularly, of
the first Mass.
 Primary Source: Albo’s Log

1. On the 16th of March (1521) as they sailed in a westerly course from

Ladrones, thy saw land towards the northwest; but owing to many
shallow places they did no approach it. They found later that its name
was Yunagan.
2. They went instead that same day southwards to another small island
named Suluan, and there they anchored. There they saw some canoes
but these fled at the Spaniards’ approach. This island was at 9 and
two-thirds degrees North latitude.
3. Departing from those two islands, they sailed westward to an
uninhabited island of “Gada” where they took in a supply of wood and
water. The sea around that island was free from shallows. (Albo does
not give the latitude of this island, but from Pigafetta’s testimony, this
seems to be the “Acquada” or Homonhon, at 10 degrees North
latitude.)
4. From that island they sailed westwards towards a large island
names Seilani that was inhabited and was known to have gold.
(Seilani---or, as Pigafetta calls it. “Ceylon”—was the island of Leyte.)
5. Sailing southwards along the coast of that large island of Seilani, they
turned southwest to a small island called “Mazava.” That island is also
latitude of 9 and two-thirds degrees North.
6. The people of that island of Mazava were very good. There the
Spaniards planted a cross upon a mountain-top, and from there they
were shown three islands to the west and southwest, where they were
told there was much gold.. “They showed us how the gold was gathered,
which came in small pieces like peas and lentils.”
7. From Mazava they sailed northwards again towards Seliani. They
followed the coast of Seilani in a northwesterly direction, ascending up
to 10 degrees of latitude where they saw three small islands.
8. From there they sailed westwards some ten leagues, and there they
saw three islets, where they dropped anchor for the night. In the
morning, they sailed southwest some 12 leagues, down to a latitude of
10 and one-third degree. There they entered a channel between two
islands, one of which was called “Matan” and other “Subu.”
9. They sailed down that channel and then turned westward and
anchored at the town (la villa) of Subu where they stayed many days
and obtained provisions and entered into a peace-pact with local king.
 10. The town of Subu was on an east-west direction with the islands of
Suluan and Mazava. But between Mazava and Subu, there were so
many shallows that the boats could not go westward directly but has to
go (as they did) in a round- about way.

It must be noted that in Albo’s account, the location of Mazava fits the
location of the island of Limasawa, at the southern tip of Leyte, 9°54’N. Also,
Albo does not mention the first Mass, but only the planting of the cross upon
a mountain-top from which could be seen three islands to the west and
southwest, which also fits the southern end of Limasawa.