Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Lesson Number: 7
Learning Objectives:
At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
Analyze and synthesize facts from primary and secondary sources in
reconstructing and understanding significant events in Philippine history.
Interpret historical events using primary sources.
Demonstrate the ability to argue for or against a particular issue using primary
sources.
Realize the importance of understanding significant events in Philippine history.
Use current technology to assist and facilitate learning and research.
Pre-Assessment:
Instructions: True or False. Write true if the statement is true. Otherwise, write false.
______ 1. The Cavite Mutiny is an event that leads to the execution of the
GOMBURZA.
______ 2. Jose Rizal is the Father of Filipino Nationalism.
______ 3. There is no doubt that Rizal retracted his writings to be able to marry
Josephine
Bracken.
______ 4. Jose Rizal’s essays go against the Catholic faith.
______ 5. The significance of the martyrdom of the GOMBURZA is questioned by
historians.
LESSON PRESENTATION:
Another controversy in Philippine history is the real story behind the 1872
Cavite Mutiny. The mutiny was considered to be unsuccessful and ended with the
execution of the three Filipino martyrs – Fr. Mariano Gomez, Fr. Jose Burgos, and Fr.
Jacinto Zamora to which Dr. Jose P. Rizal dedicated El Filibusterismo. The execution of
the three priests is considered one of the catalysts of the 1896 Philippine Revolution.
Furthermore, Rizal’s retraction of his writings against the Catholic Church remains very
controversial since there is still no solid proof that he retracted his writings despite the
pressure of the alleged letter of his retraction.
Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the
Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Source: Rafael Izquierdo, “Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny,” in Gregorio Zaide and
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippines History, Volume 7 (Manila: National
Book Store, 1990), 281-286.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Trinidad Pardo de Tavera’s Account of the Cavite
Mutiny
Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, “Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny,” in Gregorio
Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippines History, Volume 7 (Manila:
National Book Store, 1990), 274-280.
The event is just a simple mutiny since up to that time the
Filipinos have no intention of separation from Spain but only secure
materials and education advancements in the country. However,
the mutiny was used at a powerful level. Also, in this time, the
central government deprived friars of the powers of involvement in
civil government and in governing and handling universities. This
resulted in the friars afraid that their leverage in the Philippines
would be a thing in the past, took advantage of the mutiny, and
reported it to the Spanish government as a broad conspiracy
organized throughout the archipelago with the object of abolishing
Spanish sovereignty. The Madrid government without any attempt
to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged revolution
reported by Izquierdo and the friars believed the scheme was true. Trinidad Pardo de
Tavera
Primary Source: Excerpts from Edmund Plauchut’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny
Source: Edmund Plauchut, “The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-
Za,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippines History,
Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 251-268.
In addition, accounts of the mutiny suggest that the Spanish Revolution in Spain during
that time added more determination to the natives to overthrow the current colonial
Spanish government.
There are four iterations if the texts of this retraction: the first was published in La Voz
Espanola and Diario de Manila on the day of the execution, 30 December 1896. The
second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, in the magazine La Juventud, a few months
after the execution, 14 February 1897, from an anonymous writer who was later on
revealed to be Fr. Vicente Balaguer. However, the “original” text was only found in the
archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935, after almost four decades of disappearance.
SUMMARY:
The Cavity Mutiny and the martyrdom of the three priests are very
important milestones in Philippine history and have caused ripples throughout time,
directly influencing the decisive events of the Philippine Revolution. While the
significance is unquestioned, what made that controversial are the different sides of the
story, a battle of perspectives supported by primary sources. Different accounts in the
Cavite mutiny highlighted probable causes of the revolution. The mutiny justified the
reactionary government to persecute the leaders of the secularization movement and
the liberal-oriented Filipino patriots. The simple mutiny at Cavite was magnified by the
Spaniards as a full-blown conspiracy directed against Spanish authority allegedly
instigated by Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora. The three
priests were implicated to the Cavite “conspiracy”.
Rizal’s retraction of his writings against the Catholic Church
remains to be very controversial since there is still no solid proof that he did retract his
writings despite the pressure of the alleged letter of his retraction. If in case concrete
findings can be made regarding this controversy, it will be considered very valuable in
understanding Rizal’s nationalism and patriotism. More than that, an analysis of the
retraction controversy can be used as a benchmark in measuring how present-day
society values martyrdom, courage, and bravery.
GRADING RUBRIC:
For a five-point essay:
5 – Used many details thoroughly and expertly; applied integrated concepts;
made connections between facts and ideas.
4 – Used many details to illustrate the topic; clearly understood the topic well.
3 – Used some details to illustrate the topic; understood topic
2 – Used one or two details, alluded to details vaguely; followed directions, had a basic
knowledge of the topic.
1 – Used no historical details, made factual errors; thinking not justified, no evidence
that
knowledge was acquired.
0 – No attempt to answer the question was made.
References
Candelaria, J., & Alporha V. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Manila: Rex Book
Store, Inc.
Asuncion, N. et al. ((2019). Readings in Philippine History. Quezon City: C & E
Publishing, Inc.