CARAMOAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Caramoan, Camarines Sur

Instructor: Ms. Aleli Ann S. Secretario – BEED I

Subject:

(Reading in Philippine History)

MODULES 6
One Past but Many Histories: “Controversies and Conflicting views in
Philippine History.”
CAVITE MUTINY

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of Unit 1, pre-service teachers should be able to:

1. Evaluate the historical situation from multiple perspectives.

2. Formulate arguments base on the available information.

3. Develop analytical skills in making stand on a certain issue.

 Pre-test

DIRECTIONS: Identify what is being referred to in the following statement.

_______________ 1. He is a prolific Spanish historian who documented the event and highlighted it
as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines.

_______________ 2. He is the Governor-General of the Philippines when Cavite Mutiny transpired.

_______________ 3. The native clergy were actively calling for this movement and transformation
which the idea was primarily originated in Spain.

_______________ 4. Izquierdo’s report was address to whom?

_______________ 5. This is Izquierdo’s description of the 1872 Cavite mutiny.

_______________ 6. He is a Filipino scholar and researcher who wrote the Filipino version of the
bloody incident in Cavite.

_______________ 7. This is Tavera’s description of the 1872 Cavite mutiny.

_______________ 8. The date when 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal and
residents of Cavite rose in arms.

_______________ 9. He is the leader of the 200 men conspired to assassinate the commanding
officer and Spanish officers in the Cavite arsenal.

_______________ 10. They were native clergies associated with the Cavite mutiny and were
sentenced to death through strangulation.
 Activity – Let’s Read These

A. Cavite Mutiny
(January 20, 1872), brief uprising of 200 Filipino troops and workers at the
Cavite arsenal, which became the excuse for Spanish repression of the
embryonic Philippine nationalist movement. Ironically, the harsh reaction of
the Spanish authorities served ultimately to promote the nationalist cause.

CAVITE MUTINY

Analysis – Let’s Analyze

Questions to Ponder:

 Have you heard the term “DDS” and “yellowtards” in social media?
 Are you wondering why netizens are intensely arguing on various issues today?
 Can you perfectly identify which side is telling the truth and which is telling lie?
 Abstraction – Let’s Conceptualize

Throughout Philippine history, Filipinos were confronted with various controversies and
issues. Some were already settled, many are yet to understand. History is subjective. It can
be affected by the availability of resources, interpretation of historians, and the evolution of
people’s thinking. However, the conflict that you are about to discover in this module is the
contradiction of perspective among the witnesses of the controversial Cavity mutiny in 1872.
This historical controversy has two opposing sides. On one hand was the Spanish
perspective highlighting the mutiny as well-orchestrated and extensive Filipino rebellion to
overthrow Spanish colonial rule in the islands. On the other hand, was the Filipino
perspective denying the proposition of the Spaniards and underscoring that it was just a mere
mutiny of selected workers of arsenal who were rudely affected by the abrupt and
preposterous policies of Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo during that time.

An excerpt from THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE

MUTINY
by Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay, retrieved from http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and
highlighted it as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and
made use of it to implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for
secularization. The two accounts complemented and corroborated with one other, only that
the general's report was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that
the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of
tributes and exemption from forced labor were the main reasons of the "revolution" as to how
they called it, however, other causes were enumerated by them including the Spanish
Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by
unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and pamphlets reaching the
Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native Aclergy who out of animosity
against the Spanish friars, "conspired and supported" the rebels and enemies of Spain. In
particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious propagandas
grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to
overthrow the Spanish government to install a new “hari" in the likes of Fathers Burgos and
Zamora. The general even added that the native clergy enticed other participants by giving
them a charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled
with handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.
Izquierdo, in his report, lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate propensity
for stealing.
The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was
thought of it as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native
lawyers, residents of Manila and Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the
conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be
followed by the massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-concerted signal among the
conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros.
According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc
celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately, participants to the feast celebrated
 the occasion with the usual fireworks
displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just
like what was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched
an attack targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.
When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the
reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily
crushed when the expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators
including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by
a court-martial and were sentenced to die by
strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio
Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the practice
of law, arrested and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas Island.
Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the
creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.
On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to
instill fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the
GOMBURZA were executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces
that shaped Filipino nationalism.

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the

Incident
Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote
the Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident was a
mere mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out
to be dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov.
Izquierdo’s cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges of the workers and native
army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of school of arts and trades
for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization of a political
club.
On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal,
and residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the
commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support
from the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny
reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of
Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.
Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a
powerful lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army
but also included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to
overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time, the
Central Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of all the powers
of intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and management of
educational institutions. This turnout of events was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to
do something drastic in their dire desire to maintain power in the Philippines.
Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain
welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of
sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree
proposed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching
positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was
warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.
 The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past,
took advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast
conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish
sovereignty. Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the
scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged
“revolution” reported by Izquierdo and the friars. Convicted educated men who participated in
the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment while members of the native clergy headed by
the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of
nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French
writer Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented Tavera’s account by confirming that the
event happened due to discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The
Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he
actually witnessed.
 Application – Let’s Apply

DIRECTIONS: Using the Venn Diagram below, dissect the two perspectives on the 1872
Cavite mutiny. Write on the left side the key claims of Spaniards, on the right side the key
claims of Filipinos, and on the middle the common claims of both sides.

Let’s Check for Understanding

1. What is your stand in this 1872 Cavite mutiny? Do you agree with the statement of
Jose Montero y Vidal or to the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera? Why
do you think they have these opposing and conflicting perspectives?

________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

2. Correlate the conflict of perspectives on 1872 Cavite mutiny to the conflict of views
on various issues in this period of a pandemic. Why do you think people often resulted in
these conflicts and what is your suggestion to mitigate if not eradicate these conflicts in
peoples' views and perspectives?
-
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Let’s Reflect
Double Entry Journal
Two things I learned from this My thought/s or reaction/s
Chapter
 Based from the ideas of the historians you learned in this lesson, write a reflection
paper on how these ideas help you or will help you as a student and as a future
professional.

(Title of your Paper)

REFLECTION PAPER NO. 6

 (Post-Test)
DIRECTIONS: Identify what is being referred to in the following statement.
_______________ 1. He is a prolific Spanish historian who documented the event and highlighted it
as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines.

_______________ 2. He is the Governor-General of the Philippines when Cavite Mutiny transpired.

_______________ 3. The native clergy were actively calling for this movement and transformation
which the idea was primarily originated in Spain.

_______________ 4. Izquierdo’s report was address to whom?

_______________ 5. This is Izquierdo’s description of the 1872 Cavite mutiny.

_______________ 6. He is a Filipino scholar and researcher who wrote the Filipino version of the
bloody incident in Cavite.

_______________ 7. This is Tavera’s description of the 1872 Cavite mutiny.

_______________ 8. The date when 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal and
residents of Cavite rose in arms.

_______________ 9. He is the leader of the 200 men conspired to assassinate the commanding
officer and Spanish officers in the Cavite arsenal.

_______________ 10. They were native clergies associated with the Cavite mutiny and were
sentenced to death through strangulation.

REFERENCES

Primary Reference

- www.DepedCommons.Com

- Pallavi Talekau, Dr, Jyotremayee Nayak, Dr. S Harichandan 2019.

Reading in the Philippine History