Historic Controversies

Lesson 1: The Site of the First Mass

The Controversy

One of the most debated questions in Philippine colonial history is: Where did the first Easter Mass on Philippine soil take place? The two main competing claims are Limasawa (Southern Leyte) and Butuan (Agusan del Norte).

The debate is based on Pigafetta's account of the Magellan expedition, specifically his identification of a location he called "Mazaua" or "Masao" — the place where Magellan's crew first heard Mass in the Philippines on March 31, 1521.

The Historical Backdrop

The journey followed Magellan's first contact with the Philippine archipelago on March 16, 1521 (Samar). The crew made contact with Rajah Colambu in Homonhon, then sailed to the location identified as Mazaua, arriving March 28–29 and departing April 4. It was at Mazaua that Fr. Pedro de Valderrama offered Mass on March 31.

The Competing Claims

The Limasawa Position: Proponents argue that Mazaua refers to Limasawa, a small island in Southern Leyte. This was the position of the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) for most of the 20th century. Its supporters cite navigational and geographical evidence from Pigafetta's account that aligns with Limasawa's location, currents, and visible landmarks.

The Butuan/Masao Position: Proponents argue that Mazaua refers to Masao in Butuan, Agusan del Norte. They point to the explicit mention of Butuan in Pigafetta's account and to the coordinates Pigafetta recorded (approximately 9 degrees 40 minutes North latitude), which they argue places the location more consistent with Butuan's latitude.

Key Investigations and Panels

The Gancayco Committee (1979): The Gancayco Report concluded in favor of Limasawa based on assessment of sailing routes, land forms, river deltas, and geographical location. This report was used as a basis by the NHCP for decades.

The Mojares Panel (2018–2019): In preparation for the 500th anniversary of the arrival of Christianity in the Philippines, the NHCP and the National Quincentennial Committee created a new panel chaired by Dr. Resil Mojares. Two respondents, Gabriel Atega and Dr. Potenciano Malvar, both argued in favor of Butuan but from different directions, noting that from heights near an 1872 monument in Magallanes, Agusan del Norte, Camiguin Island appears as three visible "mountains" to the west-southwest — aligning with accounts of three islands visible from the location of the cross-planting.

The controversy remains unresolved at the scholarly level and continues to be a subject of active historical debate.

---

Lesson 2: The Cavite Mutiny of 1872

Overview

The Cavite Mutiny (La Algarada Caviteña) was a brief uprising of Filipino soldiers and laborers serving the Spanish armed forces at Fort San Felipe in Cavite Province on January 20, 1872. The mutineers believed their action could spark a wider national uprising, but the Spanish military crushed it within hours.

The most consequential result was the arrest, trial, and public execution on February 17, 1872 of three priests prominent in the movement for secularization — the transfer of parishes from Spanish friars to Filipino secular clergy:

• Fr. Mariano Gómez (age 73)
• Fr. José Burgos (age 35)
• Fr. Jacinto Zamora (age 37)

Known collectively as GOMBURZA, the three were executed by garrote at Bagumbayan (now Luneta). Their executions directly inspired José Rizal, who dedicated his novel El Filibusterismo to their memory. GOMBURZA are remembered as martyrs of Filipino nationalism.

Three Versions of the Events

Three surviving accounts of the Cavite Mutiny, all translated and published by historian Gregorio Zaide (1990) in Documentary Sources of Philippine History, demonstrate sharply different perspectives:

1. The Spanish Version — José Montero y Vidal A Spanish government official in Manila. His account is heavily biased against Filipinos and the Jesuits, largely supporting the official position of Governor-General Izquierdo. American historian James LeRoy observed that Montero y Vidal became notably "rabid" in his treatment of the Cavite events — strongly condemning the executed priests.

2. The Filipino Version — T.H. Pardo de Tavera This account represents an effort to contextualize the mutiny from a reformist Filipino perspective.

3. The Official Report — Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo The colonial government's official account, reflecting the administration's decision to portray the mutiny as a widespread conspiracy to justify its repressive response.

Note: Students are directed to access the three accounts through Zaide's Documentary Sources of Philippine History (Vol. 7, National Bookstore, 1990) or through Philippine archives.

The Broader Historical Significance

The Cavite Mutiny and the execution of GOMBURZA illustrate a key theme in Philippine history: how colonial authorities used perceived threats as justification for suppression, and how that suppression could generate new forms of resistance. The memory of GOMBURZA directly inspired the Propaganda Movement and, ultimately, the Revolution of 1896.