Palacios, Excalibur Ray V.

Readings in Philippine History BSTM 2-2

Reaction Paper in Cry of Pugadlawin

Philippine History is too often composed of legendary moments based on poor scholarship, influenced,
and often in service of political ideology. One of the most famous controversies that remain inarguable in
Philippine History is the Cry of Pugadlawin. The event that guides the Philippine Revolution against
more than 300 years of Spanish occupation is as significant as it is controversial. The historical event
marked the beginning of the Philippine Revolution and their act of defiance against the Spanish Empire
wherein the Katipunero’s led by Andres Bonifacio, tore their cedulas as a sign of their resistance. Such
debate is due to the vague definitions of what the “cry” meant and the overlapping statements by KKK
veterans. When and where it happened has been the subject of much controversy. It has been called
the “Cry of Balintawak” and celebrated every 26th of August for the longest time. But the National
Historical Commission changed the date to August 23 and the location to Pugadlawin based mainly
on the accounts of Dr. Pio Valenzuela. There have been many claims, backed up by multiple and
contradictory sources, as to the dates and venue of the “Cry.” The date of the “Cry” has been placed
any time between August 23 and August 25 and the venue in Kangkong, Caloocan, or in Pasong
Tamo in Banlat, Caloocan, or in Bahay Toro, Caloocan. To specify the main points addressed in the
mentioned controversy are: whether the “cry” happened in Pugadlawin or Balintawak and if it happened
on August 23, 1896, or August 24, 1896. However, the case stands that the Cry of Pugadlawin happened
on August 23, 1896, at Pugadlawin due to the credibility of the source and its consistency with other
sources. 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. Pugadlawin, Pasong Tamo, Kangkong, and other specific places were all in "greater
Balintawak", which was in turn part of "greater Caloocan”. Nonetheless, other historians argue this
statement otherwise. Unproven by period documents and reports, only found in the memories of Pio
Valenzuela. A man whose infamously changeable memory is wholly unreliable for scholarly work. But
there is no controversy about the act of courage of Bonifacio and the Katipuneros and the
significance of their actions. They tore their cedulas as an expression of defiance against Spanish
rule. Reflecting on this act today, we see the bravery of Filipinos who fought against a foreign
enemy with superior arms.

Some people give differing dates and places for the Cry of Pugadlawin. An officer of the Spanish Guardia
civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, stated that the Cry took place in Balintawak on August 25, 1896. Historian
Teodoro Kalaw in his 1925 book The Filipino Revolution 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. Pío Valenzuela, a close associate of Andrés Bonifacio,
declared in 1948 that it happened in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896. Historian Gregorio Zaide stated in
his books in 1954 that the "Cry" happened in Balintawak on August 26, 1896. Fellow historian Teodoro
Agoncillo wrote in 1956 that it took place in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896, based on Pío Valenzuela's
statement. 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. The
reliance of Agoncillo on Valenzuela’s testimony is shoddy scholarship. Especially since
Valenzuela’s testimony is directly contradicted by revolutionaries, like Guillermo Masangkay,
who was in attendance at the time. The days of August 22-26 were comprised of meetings,
discussions, and decisions on how to move forward. Most curiously, Masangkay remembers
Valenzuela being one of the members of the Katipunan who voted against going to war with
Spain. A revelation that gives some insights into the later motivations of Valenzuela in
reconstructing the events of the Katipunan. Be that as it may, Masangkay, Vicente Samson, and
Francisco Carreon remember cedula’s being torn on August 26 in Kangkong, after a successful
vote to go to war. It was later that same day that the Katipunan troops were defeated in a brief
skirmish with Spanish troops. By distilling the entirety of the Katipunan to a simple tearing of
the cedula we inevitably forget the magnitude of their accomplishments and efforts. They
remained hidden from the Spanish authorities for almost four years, all the while they effectively
disseminated revolutionary thought and ideas. Our understanding of history, and those seminal
events in 1896, should not be based on some fictionalized account designed to give us a
Hollywood moment; that ignores the complexities of the era, and trials and tribulations, and
difficult decisions those men faced. In fact, by moving the tearing of the cedula back to its
historically accurate position (August 26th) we get a sequence of events far more realistic, and
even more resonant. The impassioned debate in the face of discovery, pleas for bravery and calls
for courage, a final decision to strike against the Spanish, a simple revolutionary speech, the
tearing up of the cedula, and a march to war.

Though the story behind what we know is fascinating; an assemblage of intrigues, recanted
stories, political survivals, betrayal, and history rewritten by those sworn to defend it. The story
as we know it is likely false. Yet, the events did occur, just not in the order nor in the context that
we believe. Most all revolutionaries who were there during the period remember it happening,
but none can agree really on the date or place. The reason is that, at the moment, the tearing of
the cedulas just wasn’t that important. They had bigger fish to fry; such as planning armed
engagements against the Spanish and set up a revolutionary government. Yet, you can easily
imagine that, upon reflection, that was a momentous event. The problem is, we are not taught
what happened. And frankly, that story is much more interesting, though less dramatic and
telegenic, than the Cry of Pugadlawin that has been imposed on us. There is a variety of other
methodological and historical points concerning why our current, accepted version of the Cry is
not accurate. But, in the end, the Cry of Pugadlawin, while again great cinema, is not accurate
history. What is apparent though is that those days were complex, more interesting than we even
know now. There was planning, there was foresight, there were speeches and there was bravery.
The katipuneros then knew that the Spanish were coming for them. They could, as others did,
run and hide. But they didn’t. They did tear up their cedulas, they did vote to go to war, they did
begin the process of setting up a revolutionary government. They did commence the fight for
Philippine independence.