CHAPTER 6

ANNOTATION OF ANTONIO MORGA’S

SUCESOS DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS

Learning Outcome:
At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:
1. analyze Rizal’s ideas on how to rewrite Philippine history
2. compare and contrast Rizal and Morga’s different views about Filipinos and Philippine
culture
.

Background

Among Rizal’s works that typically shown his nationalistic sentiments, his annotations of
Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas by Antonio Morga was not as popular as his two novels, Noli Me
Tangere and El Filibusterismo. We can actually say that his annotations of Sucesos is as equally-
important as all his works. As Ocampo in his article published in Philippines Studies would say,
it shows that there is history of the Philippines before the time of colonization.

Rizal’s Propositions

Rizal agued in three main propositions in his annotations: 1) The inhabitants of the
Philippines has a culture even before Spanish colonization; 2) Filipinos then, were depressed,
oppressed and marginalized by mechanism of colonization and; 3) Philippines at present was not
necessarily more ahead than to its past.

In these arguments, we can see how much in favor is Rizal in the history of his motherland.
He insisted on the importance of knowing the cultural identity Filipinos have even before
colonization. Basing his arguments on the notes of a Spanish conquistator himself (Morga), he has
supported in full conviction the state of the Philippines and its people under the rule of the
colonizers. That, even if the Philippines was largely Hispanized because of more than 300 years
of colonization, Filipinos and the Philippines itself can equally be proud of the pre-conquest past
with its culture and existence.

Rizal’s annotation of the Morga shows his social scientist side, most especially his side of
being a historian. Even if it is a question whether his work (being a mere annotation of somebody
else’s work) can be a contribution in Philippine historiography, we cannot argue for the fact that
he was a nationalist in his arguments. Although in the streams of historical writing, what he had
written was somewhat invaluable because of it being as secondary source. As what Ocampo has
written in his journal article:

Rizal’s annotation are largely disregarded today stems basically from the
recent advances in historical, archeological and ethnographic research.
Although many of Rizal’s assertions have been validated by recent research,
the fact is that his work is now dated. Moreover Rizal’s annotations are
secondary, and today’s scholars concentrate more on the primary source,
Morga, than on Rizal’s notes. Few Filipinos today, even the most patriotic,
would find the time and energy to read the small text of Rizal’s footnotes,
even if penned by the national hero. (Ocampo, 1998)

Rizal’s views on pre-conquest past were valid if and only if we have to look into his
nationalistic ideals. However, there are some notes on Morga which were validated by today’s
scholars which are exaggerations on the part of Rizal so as not to deviate in his major argument.
Some examples were actually mentioned in Ocampo’s article. For the matter, it was however
obvious why he made those inconsistencies. Morga, being a Spanish who actually, according to
Rizal made one of the most accurate accounts of history before and during Spanish colonization,
had still his own biases in writing. Other writers would even immortalize almost everything
because it is their way of pacifying the Filipino natives. How religious groups (religious
missionaries, the first three before the Jesuits) have made stories just to get convert everyone is
something Rizal, himself recent. His choice of annotating the work of Morga has somehow show
his anti-clergy sentiments and that would also show, ironically his own bias in how history is
portrayed during Spanish colonization. As Ocampo would say: Rizal maintained mixed feelings
for the Morga, depending on its usefulness for his thesis, that, ‘Spanish colonization retarded,
rather than brought civilization to, the Philippines and its inhabitants.’ (Ocampo, 1998)

Conclusion

In conclusion, Rizal’s annotation of Sucesos delas Islas Filipinas is gem in the stream in
Philippine historiography. He did well in his ambitions of giving justice in the pre-colonial life of
the Filipinos. His patriotism was very evident in this piece and he did not get away in his
personality in doing this work. He also has set a good example in doing making researches (thus
having his social scientist side). Among many Spanish writers who had so much interests in writing
about the Philippines and his people, he chose Morga because he believe he was less biased than
those from the religious orders. Morga had connections to the Spanish government being a
lieutenant but he was not a part of the church. He also chose Morga because of his wide experience
in the different places and cultures in the Philippines. And as what Rizal has said in his annotations,
it is very much evident in the accounts made by Morga that our country can stand in terms of the
richness of culture even without the influence of the Spaniards. Rizal has his own biases in writing
his annotations, but he was never unaware of his arguments and he never get away in his love for
his country and countrymen. And more importantly, Rizal began the task of writing the first
Philippine history from the viewpoint of a Filipino. (Ocampo, 1998).