Chapter 8

Cry of Pugadlawin or Balintawak - Irene

• 19th century journalists: ‘el grito de rebelion’ (the Cry of Rebellion)

- used to describe the events of Spanish colonization

- cry = rebellion

- in Mexico: ‘Cry of Dolores’ (September 16, 1810)

- in Brazil: ‘City of Ypiraga’ (September 7, 1822)

- in Cuba: ‘Cry of Matanza’ ( February 24, 1895)

• August 1896, in the northeast of Manila, Filipinos similarly declared their rebellion against the Spanish
colonial government.

• Manuel Sastron

- Spanish historian

- established the phrase ‘Cry of Pugadlawin’ in his 1897 book entitled La Insurrecion en Filipinas

• All these ‘Cries’ were milestones in several colonial to nationalist histories of the world

• Philippine setting: The Cry of Balintawak – first ‘milestone’ for change

- recap: momentous event where the katipuneros, led by Bonifacio, assembled in Pook
Kangkong in August 1896, tore up their cedulas as a sign of their loyalty to the Philippines and their
hatred towards the Spanish government.

- a major turning point in Philippine history

- for nearly a century, it has been a subject of controversy.

- Buehler (1999)

* help resolve this controversy by analyzing eyewitness accounts and contemporary

documents before now unquoted, misquoted or misrepresented.

* she claims that the Cry of Pugad Lawin was a hoax

The Masangkay Expose on the ‘Cry’

Document D

• A public dispute between Guillermo Masangkay and Dr. Pio Valenzuela about the Cry appeared in
leading Philippine newspapers of the late 1920’s and early 1930’s.
• Guillermo Masangkay

- One of the original members of the Katipunan

- Designated to build the KKK in Cavite
- His accounts contribute to our understanding of the Cry of Balintawak and the death of Andres
Bonifacio.

• Dr. Pio Valenzuela

- He was studying medicine in University of Sto. Tomas when he joined Bonifacio’s Katipunan.
- Also considered one of the original members of the Katipunan
- He also wrote memoirs about the Cry of Balintawak
- Valenzuela City (formerly known as Polo) was named after him

• The Masangkay part of the dispute is divided in 2 parts.

Part 1 – based on a preliminary draft of an article found in the Masangkay papers that was
published in the La Opinion issue of December 6 1929.

Part 2 – based on a draft of an article in response to a Valenzuela statement in the La

Vanguardia that the Cry of Balintawak did not take place on August 26, 1896

- In the original copy, each page of the manuscript was signed by Guillermo Masangkay (to
authorize and validate his statement about the issue)

Part 1 - Jazmyn

• He felt violated when he read Jose P. Santos’ article “Rectificaciones historicas” published in the
Spanish section of the Philippines Free Press on November 30, 1929

o He felt that Jose P. Santos was “bragging” about his knowledge of the events that took
place in the revolution when he (Jose P. Santos) himself did not fully participate from
the start; his facts were based on hearsay.
o Jose P. Santos article distorted the truth instead of relaying the truth.

• He felt the need to correct the wrong allegations about the Revolution and also because the article
mentions his name.

o He felt involved because aside from correcting historical events, his name and presence
was recognized by Jose P. Santos signifying he is part of the revolution.
o Masangkay has the right to assert his opinion

• First ‘rectification’ (alleged correction) that Masangkay wishes to refute: The first cry of the
revolution was launched at a place called Pugad Lawin and not in Balintawak according to a document
signed by Briccio Pantas, Cipriano Pacheco and Pio Valenzuela

• Insists that during the Cry of Balintawak, Pantas and Valenzuela fled in order to surrender to the
Spaniards, while Pacheco was never there.

-On page 97, he starts stating his side of the story; his first hand account-
 • At the invitation of Andres Bonifacio, the revolutionaries assembled in Balintawak

• Bonifacio, seconded by Emilio Jacinto, laid out the plan for an uprising against the Spanish
government.

• It was there, in Balintawak, where Bonifacio and the other katipuneros tore up their cedulas as a
sign of rebellion against the Spanish sovereignty.

o Pantas, Valenzuela and Plata opposed the uprising

• While the assembly was held, the alarm was raised signifying that the civil guards were coming.

o The first to flee in order to save themselves were Pantas and Valenzuela
o “For this reason, they could not have heard the Supreme Cry that launched the [fight]
for the independence of the Philippines at the moment; neither did they smell the
gunpowder of the first shots”
o After submitting themselves to the Spaniards, they were deported.
o Pacheco insisted that it was his father, and not him, who was at the assembly of as the
treasurer of the Katipunan.

• “The revolutionaries were never in Pugad Lawin”

o From Kangkong, Balintawak → Balara where bloody encounters with the enemy took
place

• 3 proofs to verify his statement

o Contained in the issues of the El Comercio and Diario de Manila which can be looked up
in the public library.
o The work of Retana, Vida y Escritosdel Dr. Rizal

• Masangkay does not understand Valenzuela’s purpose in “stirring up” facts relative to the history
of the “Cry of Balintawak”, exactly now, when a commemorative monument has already been erected
and in Balintawak, the first stone monument to honor Andres Bonifacio has just been lain.

o Masangkay to Valenzuela: “Why did he (Valenzuela) not make these corrections earlier,
when the monuments in honor of the heroes of ’96 and the obelisk in Kangkong were
erected?”
o Everybody already recognized the importance of the facts of before; For Masangkay, a
correction is unnecessary and will only confuse the public and dishonor history.

• Second ‘rectification’ (correction): In the Camara Secreta, there were only Andres Bonifacio (the
Father of the Revolution), Emilio Jacinto (the Brains) and Pio Valenzuela, no more, much less Guillermo
Masangkay who was a katipunero ONLY during the last days, or perhaps, only when the idea of
revolution has already spread in most of the country.

• Masangkay is in disbelief of this information and names his comrade-in-arms, the “veterans”
Fransisco Carreon, Pio H. Santos and Isaac Del Carmen and other katipuneros alive that can state that he
(Masangkay) was a member of the Camara Secreta.
 o If that is not proof enough, review the testament of Tomas Remigio, preserved in the
public library.
o In the testament, Remigio mentions the fact that I, as a member of the Camara Secreta
of the Katipunan, was one of those named by Bonifacio to kill him.

Part 2 - ME

- Dr Pio Valenzuela sent an exclusive message to the La Vanguardia denying that the ‘First Cry of
Balintawak’ took place on August 26, which is a fact the nation has consecrated for years.
o Dr Pio Valenzuela even took part in past celebrations on this date.
- From Valenzuela: “That night we slept in Bagobantay. We were eight, Andres Bonifacio, his
brother Procopio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedodel Rosario, Enrique Pacheco, his sons and myself. The
following day, August 25, we went to Balara. On August 27 we went to Maruquina and from
there Pateros on the 28th, then to Biñang, Laguna.”
o Masangkay says it is a lie!
- Masangkay’s account (why Valenzuela’s statement was a lie)
- August 27, 1896
o Dr. Pio Valenzuela presented himself at 8:00 in the morning before the Spanish second
corporal, General Echaluce and Don Fransisco Olive, judge advocate during the early
days of the Revolution of ’96.
o On the same day, katipuneros Hermenegildo Reyes (alias Talibong), Rafael Gutuerrez,
Fransisco Varela, Vicente Molina, and others were arrested by the Veterana because of
Dr. Valenzuela’s denunciations.
- August 28, 1896
o Dr.Valenzuela denounced Jose Trinidad
- September 1,1896
o He denounced Jose Turiano Santiago, Sr. who was imprisoned as a result and that same
afternoon, Jose Turiano Santiago, Jr. and Restituto Javier was arrested.
- September 16, 1896
o Dr. Valenzuela also denounced Jose Dizon an engraver at the mint, Roman Ramos a
laborer at the arsenal, Faustino Mañalak, Valentin Legasca, Ramon Basa, Marcelode los
Santos (Marcelo delos Santos), Eugenio de los Reyes, Mariano Masangkay is the brother
of the undersigned and Geronimo Cristobal, corporal of the Regiment. All were
incarcerated. (imprisoned)
- Dr. Pio Valenzuela was used as a state witness by judge advocate Fransisco Olive and by other
judges of that regime.
o Presented a detailed memorandum that revealed the secrets of the Katipunan
specifically plans for revolution. His revelations were used by the authorities and the
friars in the prosecution and execution of Dr. Rizal in Bagumbayan.
- Very early on August 27, 1896, Guillermo Masangkay entered Manila to comply the instructions
of Bonifacio which consisted of gathering documents in his offices at calle Nueva at the Casa
Fressell, where Bonifacio worked as a bodegero (warehouseman). The papers collected are
documents prepared by Bonifacio that were meant to implicate (show someone to be involved
in a crime) some rich and educated persons as participants in the uprising against the Spanish
regime.
- According to Bonifacio, Rizal asked him on one occasion if the rich and some intellectuals
supported the Revolution to which he answered negatively. Rizal insinuated (suggested/hinted
something bad/reprehensible in an indirect and unpleasant way) it was crucial that such persons
were supportive of the idea. If they are not, then they should be prevented from hindering the
katipuneros and obstructing the movement.
o Bonifacio with the help of Pantaleon Torres and Tomas Remigio who were the scribes of
the Katipunan, forged the signatures of some of the rich and educated, which were then
stamped on apocryphal documents containing statements that implicated the latter.
- Besides the Yangcos, Javiers, Lunas, Zamoras, Bautistas, Roxases, Salvadors, Adrianos and
others, the rich had no participation in the uprising and in case they were aware, they would
have opposed to the plans of the Katipunan uprising
- Masangkay’s father came to him weeping and told him that Mariano Masangkay, his brother,
was accused of being a katipunero and is imprisoned in the Bilibid having been mistaken for
himself. His father begged Guillermo Masangkay to save his brother. Without resistance,
Guillermo Masangkay presented himself to the Veterana in Tondo and admitted his allegiance
with the Katipunan. His brother was therefore set free and he was incarcerated in his place.
- September 28, 1896
o Restituto Javier, Jose Turiano-Santiago (ex-councilor), Roman Ramos and Guillermo
Masangkay was brought face to face with Dr. Pio Valenzuela
o Valenzuela pointed to us as true members of the Katipunan, exposing their ranks as
well. He said that Jose Turiano Santiago was the secretary of the association, Restituto
Javier, fiscal; In front of the authorities investigating us Restituto Javier hit Valenzuela,
causing his lips to bleed
- Masangkay summarized the name of martyrs and patriots victimized by the denunciations of Dr.
Pio Valenzuela:
o Jose Rizal
o Fransisco Roxas
o Jose Dizon
o Teodoro Plata
o Jose Trinidad
o Hermenegildo Reyes
o Fransisco Varela
o Rafael Guitterez
o Faustino Mañalak
o Valentin Lagasca
o Roman Basa
o Marcelo De los Santos
o Eugenio delos Reyes
o Germino Cristobal
o All shot^
o Jose Turiano Santiago, Sr.
o Jose Turiano Santiago, Jr.
o Restituto Javier
o Roman Ramos
 o Mariano Masangkay
o All imprisoned and tortured^
- Mrs. Marina Dizon, daughter of the patriot Jose Dizon and who, with Rosario Villaruel, was one
of the first women to join freemasonry
o Upon visiting his father at the headquarters of the Veteran at calle Real, Intramuros, his
father (Jose Dizon) unable to contain himself, grabbed Valenzuela by the neck and tried
to strangle him.
o Stopped by guards who grabbed Jose Dizon’s hands and fractured them, the doctor was
saved
o Mrs. Marina Dizon, virtuous wife of Jose Turiano Santiago is still alive at that time and
can confirm Masangkay have just manifested.
- According to Masangkay, some of the katipuneros cited who are still alive can confirm what he
manifested above.
- Masangkay provided chronological notes of the event to avoid confusion with Dr. Valenzuela’s
false dates. “ So that Dr. Valenzuela does not go on changing dates, sadly confusing them for his
own benefit…”
o July 7, 1892 – founding of the Katipunan
o March 21, 1895 – enrolment of Dr. Pio Valenzuela in the Katipunan.
o May 1895 – Dr. Pio Valenzuela assuming the name Procopio Bonifacio, was sent to
Dapitan to confer with Dr. Rizal, this trip is paid for by Mr. Fransisco Castillo of Capiz
o August 5,1895 – Dr. Rizal arrived in Manila
o August 26, 1896 – The First Cry of Balintawak
o August 27, 1896 – Dr. Pio Valenzuela presented himself before the Spanish colonel,
Fransisco Olive, denouncing the katipuneros
o December 30, 1896 – Rizal was shot down because of Dr. Valenzuela’s denunciations
o June 1897 – Dr. Valenzuela was sent to Spain a cuerpo del rey in exchange for his valiant
services given to the judge advocates, the Veterana, the Civil Guard and the friars
o 1899 – Dr. Valenzuela returned to the Philippines, was arrested by the Americans, and
then much later, was set free
- Underneath, it was signed: GUILLERMO MASANGKAY

Pantas on the “Masangkay ‘Cry’ Expose”

Document E

Background – Ronie

- Before the discovery of the existence of the Katipunan

- Teodoro Patino, a dismissed collector of the horse-driven tram, dwelt in the same house with
Policarpio Tarlac
- Unable to support his needs regularly (maybe failing to pay rent?) Patino denounced Policarpio
Tarlac to Fr. Mariano Gil, a parish priest of Tondo
o Led to arrests, starting with Tarlac and his colleagues at the printing establishment of
Ramirez and Giraudier at Magallanes Street, Inramuros
 o Some persons in the Corps of Carabiniers who were also katipuneros were initiated in
the same house of Tarlac
- The principal chiefs were not arrested at the same time.
o Proof that the following captured katipuneros did not denounce the leaders of the
Revolution; supports Masangkay’s statement that Dr. Pio Valenzuela might have indeed
denounced Jose Rizal and other katipuneros

Departure of Balintawak – Aya

- News has spread rapidly regarding the start of these arrests

- Since in almost every alley in Manila there was one or more katipuneros, Andres Bonifacio and
his companions sought refuge in Balintawak
o Later, other katipuneros from neighboring villages went to Balintawak
- In Balintawak, all able bodied adult male residents were initiated into the Katipunan, forming a
considerable number

What was discussed?

- Many men imbued with a sense of patriotic ardour and highly belligerent stance were
determined to sacrifice themselves for the redemption of their country
- Unfortunately, most are poor and have few weapons to defend themselves, much less to attack.
o A swift solution was needed to adapt to the current circumstance of the katipuneros.
- It was planned to have a meeting in Cankong, not in Balintawak, presided by Andres Bonifacio
and the members of the revolutionary government instituted a month more or less previously in
Caloocan.
- Mr. Masangkay could not have had personal knowledge of the points of agreement during the
deliberations, since he was not present nor seen at all in those sites.
o He could have been in other places and have participated in other events that day
o Proof that Masangkay’s account is not trustworthy, unreliable

Order for an Uprising – Ronie

- While the meeting was in progress, no alarm was given when the civil guards were coming.
o The civil guards and other Spanish troops arrived two days after Bonifacio, who on
agreement with the members of the same revolutionary government had sent timely
circulars for a general uprising

What Happened?

- Teodoro Plata, Guillermo Masangkay and Dr. Pio Valenzuela did not oppose the idea of an
uprising nor did they have reason to flee
o Rather, Pantas, Valenzuela and Plata were sent by Andres Bonifacio from Pugad Lawin
on a particular errand.
o In fulfilling the errand, the three men were arrested, tortured and incarcerated.
- The same fate befell Valenzuela after having complied with his mission in Pasig and Pateros, he
and Guillermo Masangkay were deported to the barracks of Mellila and Chafarina, Africa
respectively
 o The Spaniards executed Plata in Bagumbayan, now known as Luneta.
- The newspapers El Comercio and Diario de Manila of those times as well as the work of Retana
are not good sources of information.

That Which Causes Indignation – Karla

o Indignation here refers to the negative response on Guillermo Masangkay’s statement

- Cause of indignation: When one [out of vanity] casts doubt upon the name of already deceased
people without cause or any reason, implicate them in events that undetermined their honour
and swore loyalty before the Katipunan.
- Teodoro Plata and Tomas Remigio were never rebels nor traitors to the Katipunan
o The Katipunan religiously practice/abide by its sacred and moral doctrines. It is practiced
between its members. ; strong moral resolve
 It could not have created the Camera Secreta with the function of eliminating by
assassination any of its members
 1st proof that Masangkay’s statement: “In the testament, Remigio mentions the
fact that I, as a member of the Camara Secreta of the Katipunan, was one of
those named by Bonifacio to kill him.” (part 1 of his dispute) is wrong
- During its existence, the Katipunan had a ‘board of judges’ (known of their honour) whose
members were chosen from among its officers
o These judges decide and sentence accused katipuneros, imposing in cases of [the need
for punishment] only admonitions or persuasive scolding and never severe
punishments, much less a death sentence or assassination.
o 2nd proof that Masangkay’s statement: “In the testament, Remigio mentions the fact
that I, as a member of the Camara Secreta of the Katipunan, was one of those named by
Bonifacio to kill him.” (part 1 of his dispute) is wrong

Pio Valenzuela’s part of the dispute

- He had several versions of the ‘Cry’

- Only after comparing and reconciling other accounts will it be possible to determine what really
happened.
- September 1896: Valenzuela stated before the Olive Court (which was charged with
investigating persons involved in the rebellion) only that Katipunan meetings took place from
Sunday to Tuesday, specifically on dates August 23 to 25 on Balintawak
- John N. Schmacher, S.J. of the Ateneo de Manila University questioned Pio Valenzuela’s
credibility:
o “… I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio
Valenzuela, and to the interpretations Agoncillo got from himverbally, since Valenzuela
gave so many versions from the time he surrendered to the Spanish authorities and
made various statements not always compatible with one another up to the time when
as an old man he was interviewed by Agoncillo.”
- Pio Valenzuela backtracked on another point
o In 1896, Valenzuela testified that when the Katipunan consulted Jose Rizal about their
plans for Revolution, Rizal was vehemently against it.
 o Later in Agoncillo’s Revolt of the masses, Valenzuela retracted and claimed that Rizal
was actually for the uprising, if certain prerequisites (requirements) were met.
 Agoncillo reasoned that Valenzuela had lied to save Rizal.
- The term Pugad Lawin was never officially recognized as a name of a place on any Philippine
mapbefore the Second World War
- ‘Pugad Lawin’ appeared in historiography only from 1928, or some 32 years after the event took
place.
- The revolution was traditionally held to have occurred in the area of Balintawak, which was
distinct from Kalookan and Diliman.
- While the toponym ‘Pugad Lawin’ is more romantic, it is more accurate to stick to the original
‘Cry of Balintawak’.
- The official stand of NHI (National Historical Commission of the Philippines) is that the Cry took
place on August 23, 1896.
o That date, however, is debatable (Guerrero, Encarnacion & Villegas, 2003)
- The later accounts of Pio Valenzuela and Guillermos Masangkay on the tearing of cedulas on
23rd of August are basically in agreement, but conflict with each other on the location.
o Valenzuela points to the house of Juan Ramos in Pugad Lawin
o Masangkay refers to Apolonio Samson’s in Kangkong.
- Masangkay’s final statement has more weight as it is corroborated by many eyewitnesses who
were photographed in 1917, when the earliest ‘23rd August’ marker was installed.
- Valenzuela’s date (23 August) in his memoirs conflict with 1928 and 1930 photographs of the
surveys with several Katipunan officers, published in La Opinion, which claim that the ‘Cry’ took
place on the 24th.
-