MODULE

Readings in Philippine History

GE 102

ACADEMIC YEAR 2024-2025

Prepared by:
Ms. Justine Mae R. Igonia
Instructor
 Lesson Title: “One Past but many histories”: Controversies and Conflicting views in
Philippine History

(Retraction of Rizal)

One of the most intriguing of all was the issues of Jose Rizal was his alleged retraction which
was all about his reversion to the Catholic Faith and all other issues linked to it such as his
marriage to Josephine Bracken. That issue was claimed to be true by the Roman Catholic
defenders but asserted to be deceptive by anti-retractonists. They claim that the retraction
document is a forgery, but handwriting experts concluded a long time ago that it is genuine.
Rafael Palma's opus on Rizal, titled "Biografia de Rizal" is so anti-Catholic that the Church
successfully opposed its publication using government funds. In an article authored by Romberto
Poulo, Rizal's affiliation in Masonry was accounted to have caused drastic change to his religious
ideas. It was in the moment Rizal set foot on European soil when he was exposed to a great deal
of distinctions between what was happening to his country, the discriminations, abuses,
partialities, injustices, and some other things made to cause sufferings to his countrymen, and
what was the actual scene of the European nations. He observed that Europe was a lot more
different compared to the Philippines in terms of way of life, attitudes towards Roman
Catholicism, and most importantly, the freedom all the citizens enjoy.
The exact copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding Rizal's
execution. Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the texts of the
retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pis copy of Rizal's retraction has the same text as that of
Fr. Balaguer's "exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal's retraction in the
Manila newspapers. In order to marry Josephine towards Roman Catholicism, and most
importantly, the freedom all the citizens enjoy.

The exact copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding Rizal's
execution. Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the texts of the
retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pis copy of Rizal's retraction has the same text as that of
Fr. Balaguer's "exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal's retraction in the
Manila newspapers. In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of
retraction to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio
Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him;
"The document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest's letter, was ready for the mail when
Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and
given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.
Jose Rizal's Retraction:

I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live
and die.
I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been
contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she
teaches and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of
the church, and as a society prohibited by the church. The diocesan may, as the Superior
Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair
the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.
Did Jose Rizal Retract?
(Manila 29 of December of 1896)
Did Jose Rizal Retract?
No, Rizal did not retract. Although there were many opinions and evidences presented by various
authors as to whether Rizal did or did not retract. Nonetheless, until now there is no proof or any
justification to end the debate.
The following assertions bring about the testimonies that Rizal did not retract before his
execution.
First was the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was even kept
secret and was only published in newspapers. When Rizal's family requested for the original
copy, it was said that it was lost. Could the Jesuits be this irresponsible to not know the value of
the paper? Or was it just hidden? Thirty-nine years later the original copy was found in the
archdiocesan archives. Ricardo Pascual Ph. D who was given permission by the Archbishop
Nozaleda to examine the document and later concluded in his book, "Rizal beyond the Grave"
that the documents presented was a forgery. The common rebuttal of this argument was either
Father Balaguer or Father Pi had made errors in reproducing another copy of the original.
Another evidence as to Rizal did not retract is that when Father Balaguer came to terms that he
married Jose and josephine, after jose had signed the retraction paper, however, there were no
marriage certificate or public record shown that could prove Father Balaguer's statements.
Why would Rizal retract when he knows for a fact that even if he signs the retraction paper he
would still be executed? Since the Archbishop and Jesults cannot do anything to mitigate his
penalty because the judicial process involved was purely a military tribunal where civilian or
church interference was uncommon and not allowed. Rizal was accused of participating in
filibusterous propaganda where the penalty as provided by the Spanish Code is death. The same
of what happened to the three priests who were garrotted years earlier, even though they were
still a part of the church; they were still treated as rebellious and were also not given a proper
burial.
Furthermore, way back when Rizal was still exiled in Dapitan, Father Sanchez- Rizal's favourite
teacher from Ateneo- was sent by the Jesuits superiors to try to convince his former student's
allegation towards the Catholic religion and Spanish religious in the Philippines. Father Sanchez
told him to retract in exchange of a professorship, a hundred thousand pesos and an estate
(Laubach, 1936) however Rizal rejected the offer. It was argued that Rizal retracted in order to
save his family from further persecution to, to give Josephine Bracken a legal status as his wife
and to assure reforms from the Spanish government. It is more likely to be of Rizal's mentality
however, come to think of it, would Rizal just simply neglect all the writing he conceived with
his hard work? The same writings that brought him to the point of being executed? No. Rizal's
behavior during his last hours in Fort Santiago does not point to a conversion- the Mi Ultimo
Adios and letters-or indicate even a religious instability. In the evening where his sister and
mother arrived, never had he mentioned about the retraction, contrary to what Father Balaguer
claimed that even in the afternoon, Rizal was oblivious and was asking for the formula of the
retraction.
Rizal was fixated of the thought that he would die for the love of his country, he, himself had
coveted death a long time ago. His character speaks so loud that even all of Rizal's friends do not
believe that he have written a retraction.
Let us look at Rizal's character as a man aged 33. He was mature enough to realize the
consequences of the choice he had made even before he opposed to the Jesuits; he had been
anticipating this to happen and would be unlikely if he had a behavior showing a threat from
death. Anyone who has been studying his biography and had been acquainted with him knows
this is so, even the priests had admitted that Rizal showed a behavior consistent of what he was
throughout his mature years. Whatever further study that may emerge as to the truth about
Rizal's retraction controversy, ".it detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino."

Concluding Statement on Rizal’s Controversial Retraction

Whether Rizal signed a retraction or not, Rizal is still Rizal. It did not diminish his stature
as a great patriot, the hero who courted death “to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we
know how to die for our duty and our beliefs.” (Jose Diokno’s statement).
Rizal's retraction or did not change the fact that his works and writings began the “wheels
of change” in the Philippine colonial society – a change that led to the Philippine independence.
The retraction is just one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Rizal (Jose Victor Torres).
Torres noted that the controversy in Rizal’s retraction is irrelevant today. The way Rizal
is taught today, the retraction means nothing at all, Torres added
 Lesson Title: “One Past but many histories”: Controversies and Conflicting views in
Philippine History

The Cry of Balintawak

Cry of Balintawak or Pugad Lawin, where did Andres Bonifacio “Cry ”?. The Cry
of Balintawak is a contrived controversy. For nearly a century, the Cry of Balintawak or Cry of
Pugadlawin has been the subject of many controversies. It is considered as a turning point of
Philippine history. The main focus of controversy is the date and place of Bonifacio Cry. There
were five dates for the Cry - August 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 and the five different venues for the
first cry: Balintawak, Pugadlawin, Kangkong, Bahay Toro, and Pasong Tamo.

The first issue: It has been widely accepted and believed that the first cry of the revolution
took place in Balintawak, Caloocan in August 23, 1896.
The second issue: The first cry was in August 23, 1896 but the exact place is not in
Balintawak but in Pugadlawin. Between these two controversies, the Balintawak tradition
continues to thrive.
The third issue: The cry occurred towards the end of August 1896 and that all the places
mentioned above are in Caloocan which in those times was a district of Balintawak.
But these controversies remain unresolved except in the Philippine History books.

Pio Valenzuela’s Cry of Pugad Lawin

( August 23, 1896)
The controversial “ Cry of Pugad Lawin” which has been confirmed by the other witnesses
of the event that Dr. Pio Valenzuela is the second and later version of the first rally of the
Katipunan by Dr.Valenzuela himself. The first version, which he gave, told of the “ Cry of
Balintawak” as the staging point of the Philippine revolution. He related the first version, when
events were still fresh from his memory and he abandoned the revolutionary cause after its
outbreak and fled to Binan, Laguna for safety. Taking advantage of Governor General Ramon
Blanco’s proclamation of amnesty of the revolutionists. Valenzuela returned to Manila on
September 3, 1896, and surrendered to Blanco. He was imprisoned in Fort Santiago, where upon
investigation, he told Francisco Olive, the Spanish investigator that the “Cry” was staged at
Balintawak on Wednesday, august 26, 1896.
The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio, Teodoro
Plata, Aguedo del Rosario and myself, was Balintawak, the first five arriving there on 19 August
and I on 20 August 1896. The first place where some 500 members of the katipunan met was the
house and yard of Apolinario Samson at Kangkong on 22 August. Aside from the person
mentioned above, among those were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santos, Ramon Bernardo,
Apolonio Samson and others. Here, views were only exchanged, and no resolution was debated
or adopted. It was at Pugad Lawin, in the house, storehouse and yard of Juan Ramos, son of
Melchora Aquino, where over 1000 members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable
debate and discussion on 23 August 1896. The discussion was on whether or not the revolution
against the Spanish government should be started on 29 August 1896. Only one man protested
and fought against war, and that was Teodoro Plata ( Bonifacio’s brother in law). Besides the
persons named above, among those present at this meeting were Enrique Cipriano, Alfonso
Pacheco, Tomas Remigio, and Sinfroso San Pedro. After the tumultuous meeting, many of those
present tore their cedula certificates and shouted “ Long Live Philippine!”.

Gregoria de Jesus’ Version of the First Cry

(August 25, 1896)
One of the participants in the drama of the Philippine Revolution of 1896 was Gregoria de
Jesus, the wife of Supremo Andres Bonifacio, and the “ Lakambini of the Katipunan”. She was
the custodian of the secret documents, seal and some weapons of the Katipunan, and constantly
risked her life in safeguarding them. After the outbreak of the revolution , while bonifacio and
his men gathered in the hills of Balintawak for the war of liberation. When warned that the
Spanish authorities were coming to arrest her, she fled to manila and later joined her husband in
the mountains and shared the hardships and sacrifices of a patriot’s life with him. According to
her version of the First “Cry”. It occurred near Caloocan on August 25, 1896, as follows.
The activities of the Katipunan had reached nearly all corners of the Philippine Archepelago,
so that when its existence was discovered and some of the members arrested, we immediately
returned to Caloocan. However, as we were closely watched by the agents of the Spanish
authorities, Andres Bonifacio and other katipuneros left the town some days. It was then the
uprising began, with the first cry for freedom on August 25, 1896. Meanwhile, I was with my
parents. Through my friends, I learned that the Spanish were coming to arrest me. Immediately, I
fled town at eleven o’clock at night, secretly going through the rice fields to La Loma, with the
intention of returning to Manila. I was driven away as if the people therein were frightened for
their own lives. Later, I found out that the occupants of the houses which I had visited were
seizes and serevely punished and some even exiled. One of them was an uncle of mine whom I
had on that night to kiss his hand, and he died in exile.

The “ Cry of Bahay Toro”

(August 24, 1896)
By Santiago Alvarez
Another version of the “Cry” which launched the Philippine Revolution is that written by
Santiago Alvarez, a prominent Katipunan warlord of Cavite son of Mariano Alvarez, and relative
of Gregoria de Jesus(wife of bonifacio). Unlike Masangkay, Samson and Valenzuela, Alvarez
was not an eyewitness of the historic event. Hence, his version cannot be accepted as equal in
weight to that given by actual participants of the event. Although Alvarez was in Cavite at that
time, this is his version of the first “Cry”, as follows:
Sunday, August 23, 1896
As early as 10 o’clock in the morning, at the barn of Kabesang Melchora, katipuneros met
together. About 500 of these arrived, ready to join the “Supremo” Andres Bonifacio and his
men….
Monday, August 24, 1896
There were about 1000 katipuneros … the “Supremo” decided to hold a meeting inside the
big barn. Under his leadership, the meeting began at 9 o’clock in the morning…
It was 12 o’clock noon when the meeting adjourned amidst loud cries of “ Long Live the
Sons of the Country” ( Mabuhay ang mga Anak ng Bayan).

The “Cry of Balintawak”

(August 26, 1896)
By Guillermo Masangkay
The historic first rally of the Philippine Revolution of 1896 occurred at the rustic barrio of
Balintawak, a few kilometers north of the city Manila. On August 26, 1896, according to this
eyewitness account by Katipunan General Guillermo Masangkay, Bonifacio’s childhood friend.
Similarly, this date and site were American regime, after having consulted the surviving
katipuneros and prestigious historians at the time. A monument depicting the event was erected
near the site, financed by funds donated by the people, and was inaugurated on September 11,
1911. In his memories, General Masangkay recounts the “Cry of Balintawak” as follows.
On August 26, 1896, a big meeting was held in Balintawak at the house of Apolinario
Samson, then the cabeza of the barrio of Caloocan. Among those who attended, I remember,
were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas Remigio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro
Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco and Francisco Carreon. They were all leaders of the
Katipunan and composed the board of directors of the organization. Delegates from Bulacan,
Cabanstuan, Cavite and Morong (now Rizal), was also present.
At about nine o’clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting was opened with Andres
Bonifacio Presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as Bonifacio’s secretary. The purpose was to
discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata ( Bonifacio’s brother in law),
Briccio Pantas and Pio Valenzuela were all opposed to starting the revolution too early. They
reasoned that the people would be in distress if the revolution were started without adequate
preparation. Plata was very forceful in his argument stating that the uprising could not very well
be started without arms and food for the soldiers. Valenzuela used Rizal’s argument about the
rich not siding with the Katipunan organization.
Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he would lose in the discussion then, left the session hall and
talked to the people, who were waiting outside for the result of the meeting of the leaders. He
told that the leaders were arguing against starting the revolution early, and appealed to them in
a fiery speech in which he said: “You remember the fate of our countrymen who were shot in
Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only shoot us. Our
organization has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don’t start uprising, the
Spaniards will get us anyway. What then do you say?”
“Revolt!” the people shouted as one.
Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told them that
the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were the cedula tax charged on each citizen.
“ If it is true that you are ready to revolt.” Bonifacio said, “ I want to see you destroy your
cedulas. It will be the sign that all of us declared our severance from the Spaniards.” With tears
in their eyes, the people as one man, pulled out their cedulas and tore them to pieces. It was the
beginning of the formal declaration of the separation from Spanish rule. With their cedulas
destroyed, they could no longer go back to their homes because the Spaniards would persecute
them, if not for being katipuneros, for having no cedulas. And people who had no cedulas during
thise days were severely punished. When the people’s pledge was obtained by Bonifacio, he
returned to the session hall and informed the leaders of what took place outside. “ The people
want to revolt , and they have destroyed thiercedulas,” Bonifacio said,”. “ So now we have to
start the uprising ; otherwise the people by hundreds will be shot.” “ There was no alternative.
The board of directors, inspite of the protest of Plata , Pantas and Valenzuela, voted for the
revolution. And when this was decided, the people outside shouted: “ Long Live the Philippine
Republic!”.
At about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, while the gathering at Balintawak was celebrating the
decision of the Katipunan leaders to start the uprising, the guards who were up in trees to watch
for any possible intruders or the approach of the enemy gave the waring that the Spaniards were
coming.
Led by Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto and other leaders of the Katipunan, the men were
distributed in strategic positions and were prepared for the attack of the civil guards. I was with
a group stationed on the bank of a small creek, guarding the places where the Spaniards were to
pass in order to reach the meeting place of the katipuneros. Shots were then fired by the civil
guards, and that was the beginning of the fire which later became such a huge conflagration.
 Lesson Title: Social, political, economic and cultural issues in Philippine history:

HISTORY OF AGRARIAN REFORMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Pre-Colonial Times (before 16th century)

The Philippines, even before being colonized by different countries, has already
developed an organization for their communities. The land owned by these communities is
known as barangay which consists of 30-100 families which is administered by different chiefs.
In these barangays, everyone regardless of status had access on the land and mutually
shares resources, to the community. They believed in and practiced the concept of ‘stewardship’
where relationship between man and nature is important.
Land cultivation was done commonly by kaingin system or slash and burn method
wherein land was cleared by burning the bushes before planting the crops or either land was
plowed and harrowed before planting. On the other hand, food production was intended for
family consumption only at first but later on neighboring communities which were engaged in a
barter trade, exchanging their goods with others. Some even traded their agricultural products
with luxury items of some foreign traders like the Chinese, Arabs and Europeans.
The only recorded transaction of land sale during that time was the Maragtas Code. This
is the selling of the Panay Island to ten Bornean datus in exchange for a golden salakot and a
long gold necklace. Although the Code of Luwaran was one of the oldest written laws of the
Muslim society which contains provision on the lease of cultivated lands, there was no record
how lease arrangement was practiced.

Spanish Era ( 1521-1896)

When the Spanish came to the country in 1521, they introduced “pueblo”, an agricultural
system wherein the native rural communities were organized into0 pueblo and each
Christianized native family is given out four to five hectares of land to cultivate, thus there is no
landless class.
Nonetheless, these native families are merely landholders and not legitimate landowners.
By laws, the land assigned to them was the property of the Spanish king where they pay their
colonial tributes to the Spanish authorities in the form of agricultural products that they produce.
At the beginning of the 19th century, the Philippines as a colony of Spain implemented
policies that would mainstream the country into the world capitalism. The economy was opened
to the world market as exporter o f raw materials and importer of finished goods.
The agricultural exports were mandated and hacienda system was developed as a new form of
ownership. More people lost their lands and were forced to become tillers.
Agricultural tenancy during that time originated when the Spanish crown implemented the
Laws o f the Indies. The laws awarded vast tracts of land to the religious orders in the country.
Some of them were awarded to the Spanish military as reward to their (also known as
repartiamentos), and to the other Spaniards known as encomienderos to manage and have the
right to0 receive tributes from the natives tilling the lands also known as encomiendas. Because
of this, the natives within these areas became mere tillers working for a share of crops. They did
not have any rights to the land.
 Ideally the purpose of the encomienda system is for the encomienderos to protect the
natives and further introduce them into Catholic faith in exchange for tribute from the natives.
But abusive encomienderos collected more tributes that became the land rentals from the natives
living in the area.
A compras y vandalas system was practiced wherein tillers were made to compulsory sell
at a very low price or surrender their agricultural harvests to Spanish authorities where to render
personal sevices on public and religious work and as a household help to the encomienderos.
In 1865, there was a law made by the Spanish crown ordering landholders to register their
landholdings but only a few were aware of this decree so they were the only ones who were able
to register their lands. Ancestral lands were claimed and registered in other people’s names
(Spanish officials, inquilinos and caciques or local chieftains).As a results, many peasant
families were driven out from the lands they have been cultivating for centuries or were forced to
become tillers.
In 1893, the Ley Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Laws was introduced that provides the
systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as ownership claims. This law was mainly a
law on registration of properties rather than a mortgage law.
In 1894, the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines was the Maura Law or
Royal decree of 1894. This law states that farmers and landholders were given one year to
register their agricultural lands to avoid declaration of it as a state property.
With the encomienda system still being used despite the different laws passed by the
Spanish crown more and more tillers were abused, exploited and deprived of their rights. The
revolution of peasants and farmers in 1896 articulated their aspirations for agrarian reform and
for a just society. Women also fought for freedom and played an important role in the planning
and implementing the activities of the revolutionary movements.
The results of this revolution has made the government confiscate the large landed
estates, especially the friar lands and declared these lands as properties of the government
(Malolos Constitution, 1896, Article XVII).

American Era (1898-1935)

Realizing that being landless was the main cause of social unrest and revolt at that
time, the Americans sought to put an end to the miserable conditions of the tenant tillers and
small farmers by passing several land policies to widen the base of small landholdings and
distribute land ownership among the greater number of Filipino tenants and farmers.
The first of which, the Philippine Bill of 1902 was passed which provided regulations
on the disposal of public lands wherein a private individuals can own 16 hectares of land while
the corporate land holdings can avail of 1, 024 hectares. This also gave the rights to the
Americans to own agricultural lands.
The Torrens system of land registration was also introduced during the American
colonial period. This was made to replace the registration system that was implemented by the
Spaniards. The reason why they made a different system of registration was that some 400,000
native farmers were without titles at the start of the American era and this situation was also
aggravated by the absence of records of issues titles and accurate land surveys.
The Lands Registration Act of 1902 or Act No. 496 placed all private and public lands
under Torrens system. While the Cadastral Act or Act No. 2259 speeds up the issuance of
Torrens titles. This was done by surveying a municipality and presented the result to the land
registration court.
A program called the Homestead Program was introduced in 1903 that allowed an
enterprising tenant to acquire a farm of at least 16 hectares to cultivate. However, the program
was not implemented nationwide and was introduced only in some parts of Mindanao and
Northern Luzon, where there were available public alienable and disposable lands.
There are also other agrarian laws that were introduced during the American era like
the First Public Land Act or Act No. 926 which provided rules and regulations for selling and
leasing portions of the public domain, completing defective Spanish land titles, canceling and
confirming Spanish concessions. Another is the Second Public Land Act of 1919 or Act 2874
which limits the use of agricultural lands to Filipinos, Americans, and citizens of other countries.
On the other hand, the Act No. 141 amended the Second Public Act of 1919 or Act No. 2874.
The revision consists of a temporary provision of equality on the rights of American and Filipino
citizens and corporations. It also compiled all pre-existing laws relative to public lands into a
single instrument.
There is also the Friar Land Act or Act No. 1120 which provided the administrative and
temporary leasing and selling of friar lands to its tillers. The first legislation regulating the
relationship of landlord and tenants and the first law to legalize a 50-50 crop sharing
arrangement was also introduced in the American era and is known as the Rice Share Tenancy
Act of 1933 or Act No. 4054. There is also the Sugarcane Tenancy Contract Act of 1933 or Act
No. 4113 which regulated the relationship of landlord and tenants in the sugarcane fields and
required tenancy contracts on land planted to sugarcane.
However, despite the different land policies passed during that time, the farmers’
situation did not improve at all. In fact, it further worsened the land ownership situation, where
there was no limit on the size of landholdings one could possess. Landholdings were once again
concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals who can afford to buy, register, and acquire fixed
titles of their properties. Therefore, more lands were placed under tenancy.
As a result, there were widespread peasant uprisings, headed by the armed peasants’
groups known as Colorum and Sakdalista of Luzon and Northeastern Mindanao, respectively.
These uprisings resulted to social disorder in 1920’s and 1930’s. Hence, more militant peasants
and workers’ organizations bonded together for a more collective action against the abuses of
landlords and unjust land ownership situation. This gave birth to the Communist Party of the
Philippines.

Commonwealth Years (1935-1942)

During these years the situation of land ownership and tenancy were characterized by the
contrasting economic and political lifestyle between tenant and the landlord. Landlords became
richer and powerful while the tenants were deprived of their rights, became poorer and absentee
landowners increased. They preferred to go after new opportunities in the cities and left farms
idle to the management of ‘katiwalas’ . As a result, haciendas were poorly and unjustly managed.
A small plot of land cultivated by an average peasant farmer could not sustain a decent
living for his family. Tenants and farmers shouldered excessive fines, unfair taxation and usury.
Systems for credit and marketing of rice were lacking thus, farmers received a very low selling
price. Consequently, peasant uprising became widespread all over the country.
 As a response to these situations, the government under the stewardship of President
Manuel L. Quezon realized that land reform programs should be implemented immediately .
They saw the purchase of friar lands as a possible way to solve the problem of inequitable land
ownership. They also saw that the Homestead Program could be transformed into a massive
resettlement program if properly implemented.

Japanese Era (1942-1945)

During the Japanese occupation, peasants and workers organized the HUKBALAHAP
(Hukbong Bayan Laban sa mga Hapon) on March 29, 1942 as an anti-Japanese group. They took
over vast tracts of land and gave the land to the people. For them, the war was a golden
opportunity for people’s initiative to push pro-poor programs. Landlords were overpowered by
the peasants but unfortunately at the end of the war, through the help of the military police and
civilian guards, landlords were able to retrieve their lands from the HUKBALAHAP.

Evolution of Initiatives on Land Reform

Some of the agrarian reform laws were passed during the administration of President
Quezon.

1. RA 4054 or the Rice Tenancy Law was the first law on crop sharing which legalized the 50-
50 share between landlord and tenant with corresponding support to tenants protecting them
against abuses of landlords. However, this law was hardly implemented because most of the
municipal councils were composed of powerful hacienderos and big landlords. In fact, only
one municipality passed a resolution for its enforcement and majorities have petitioned its
application to the Governor General. The 1935 Constitution provided specific provisions
on social justice and expropriation of landed estates for distribution to tenants as a solution
to land ownership and tenancy problems.
2. Commonwealth Act No. 461 specified that dismissal of a tenant should first have
the approval of Tenancy Divicion of the Department of Justice.
3. Commonwealth Act No. 608 was enacted to establish security of tenure between landlord
and tenant. It prohibited the common practice among landowners of ejecting tenants without
clear legal grounds. President Quezon’s program on land reform includes making a laid down
social justice program that focused on the purchase of large haciendas which were divided
and sold to tenants. This administration was also responsible in establishing the National
Rice and Corn Corporation (NARICC) and assigning public defenders to assist peasant in
court battles for their rights to till the land.
4. During this period, the court of Industrial Relations (CIR) was up to exercise jurisdiction
over disagreement arising from agri-wo0rkers and landowner relationship. It was also during
this time that Rice Tenancy Act (Act No. 4054) was amended.
5. The Homestead Program continued through the creation of the National Land Settlement
Administration (CA No. 441) and tenancy were covered through CA Nos. 461 and 608.

But the implementation of land reform during Quezon’s administration was hindered
because of the budget allocation for the settlement program made it impossible for the program
to succeed. Also most landlords did not comply with the Rice Share Tenancy Act. Widespread
peasant uprisings against abusive landlords also continued. In addition, the outbreak of the
World War II put a stop to the land ownership and tenancy interventions during this period.

Under Manuel Roxas Administration (1946-1948)

The Republic Act No. 34 was passed during the administration of President Manuel
Roxas and it was enacted to established a 70-30 sharing arrangement between tenant and
landlord. The 70% of the harvest will go to the person who shouldered the expenses for
planting, harvesting and for the work animals. With this, it reduced the interest of lando0wners’
loans to tenant at not more than 6%.
President Roxas also negotiated for the purchase of 8,000 hectares of lands in
Batangas owned by the Ayala-Zobel family. These were sold to landless farmers.
However, due to lack of support facilities, the farmers were forced to sell their lands to
the landowning class. This failure gave basis to doubt the real meaning of land reform program.

Under Elpidio R. Quirino (1948-1953)

During Elpidio Quirino’s administration, the Executive Order No. 355, the Land
Settlement Development Corporation (LASEDECO) was established to accelerate and expand
the peasant resettlement program of the government. However due to limited postwar resources,
the program was not successful.

Under Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957)

When President Magsaysay was elected as t he president of the country, he realized the
importance of pursuing a more honest-to-goodness land reform. So he convinced the elite
controlled congress to pass several legislation to improve the land reform situation in the
country. Some of these are:
1. R.A. No. 1199 (1954) The Agricultural Tenancy Act basically governed the relationship
between landholders and tenant-farmers. This law helped protect the tenure rights of tenant
tillers and enforced fair tenancy practices.\
2. R.A. No. 1160 (1954) Free distribution of resettlement and rehabilitation of agricultural land
and an Act establishing the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration
(NARRA).
3. R.A. No. 1400 (1955) Land Reform Act or known as “Land to the Landless” Program which
sought improvement in land tenure and guaranteed the expropriation of all tenanted landed
estates.
4. R.A. No. 1266 (1955) Expropriation of Hacienda del Rosario, situated at Valdefuente,
Cabanatuan City.

Magsaysay implemented the Agricultural Tenancy Act by establishing the Court of

Agricultural Relations in 1955 to improve tenancy security, fix the land rentals on tenanted farms
and to resolve the many land disputes filed by the landowners and peasant organizations.
 He also created the Agricultural Tenancy Commission to administer problems arising
from tenancy. Through this Commission, about 28, 000 hectares were issued to settlers.
Under President Magsaysay, the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing
Administration (ACCFA) was created. This is a government agency formed to provide
warehouse facilities and assist farmers market their products and established the organization of
the Farmers Cooperative and Marketing Associations (FACOMAs).
With the passing of R. A. 1160 of 1954, President Magsaysay pursued the resettlement
program through the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA). This
law established the government’s resettlement program and accelerated the free distribution of
agricultural lands to landless tenants and farmers. It particularly aimed to convince the members
of the HUKBALAHAP movement to return to a peaceful life by giving them home lots
farmlands.
This administration also spearheaded the established of the Agricultural and Industrial
Bank to provide easier terms in applying for homestead and other farmlands.
With all programs and bills passed under his administration, out of the targeted 300
haciendas for distribution, only 41 were distributed after its 7 years of implementation. This was
due to lack of funds and inadequate support services provided for these programs.
As a results, landlords continued to be uncooperative and critical to the program and
lando0wnership and tenancy problems continued.

Under Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961)

There was no legislation passed in President Carlos Garcia’s term but he continued to
implement the land reform programs of President Magsaysay.

Under Diosdado Macapagal (1961-1965)

It was during President Diosdado Macapagal that the Agricultural Land Reform Code or
R.A. No. 3844 was enacted more especially on August 8, 1963. This was considered to be the
most comprehensive piece of agrarian reform legislation ever enacted in the country that time.
Because of this, President Macapagal was considered as the “ Father of Agrarian reform”.
The R.A. No. 3844 was considered the most comprehensive because this Act abolished
share tenancy in the Philippines. It prescribed a program converting the tenant farmers to lessees
and eventually into owner-cultivators. Moreover, it aimed to free tenants from the bondage of
tenancy and gave hope to poor Filipino farmers to own the land they are tilling. Finally, it
emphasized owner-cultivator relationship and farmer independence, equity, productivity
improvement, and the public distribution of land.
However, the landed Congress did not provide effort to come up with a separate bill to
provide funding for its implementation. The act was piloted on the provinces of Pangasinan,
Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pampanga, Tarlac, Occidental Mindoro, Camarines Sur, and Misamis
Oriental. It acquired a total of 18, 247.06 hectares or 99.29 % out of the total scope of 18, 377.05
hectares. The program benefited 7, 466 farmer beneficiaries.
Under Ferdinand E. Marcos (1965-1986)

When President Marcos assumed office, he immediately directed the massive

implementation of the leasehold phase of the land reform program by signing into law the Code
of Agrarian Reforms in the Philippines or
R.A. No. 6389 and its companion bill R.A. No. 6390. The Code of Agrarian Reforms or R. A.
No. 6389 governed the implementation of the agrarian reform in the Philippines. This law
instituted the Code of Agrarian Reforms and significantly amended several provisions of
Agricultural Land Reforms Code or R. A. 3844 of President Macapagal. It created the
Department of Agrarian Reform, a separate administrative agency for agrarian reform, replacing
the Land Authority.
R.A. No. 6390 was enacted to accelerate the implementation of the agrarian reform
program in the fields of land acquisition and agricultural credit. Through the Code, an AR
Special Account in the General Fund was created that exclusively finance the agrarian reform
program.
The core of the Agrarian Reform Program of President Marcos was Presidential Decree
No. 2, proclaiming the entire country as land reform area and Presidential Decree No. 27,
decreeing the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of soil, transferring to them the
ownership of the land they till and providing the needed instruments and mechanisms. This law
provided for tenanted lands devoted to rice and corn to pass ownership to the tenants. It also
lowered the ceilings for landholdings to 7 hectares. The law stipulated that share tenants who
worked from a landholding of over 7 hectares could purchase the land they tilled, while share
tenants on land less than 7 hectares would become leaseholders.
This agrarian reform program was designed to uplift the farmers from poverty and
ignorance and to make them useful, dignified, responsible and progressive partners in nation-
building. This AR program was a package of services extended to farmers in the form of credit
support, infrastructure, farm extension, legal assistance, electrification and development of rural
institutions.
President Marco’s Agrarian Reform Program is characterized by five major components
and these are Land Tenure Program, Institutional Development, Physical development,
Agricultural Development, and Human Resources.
The Agrarian Reform Program was also labeled as “revolutionary” by some sectors
because it was pursued under Martial Law and intended to make quick changes without going
through legislature or technical processes and another reason is that it was the only law in the
Philippines ever done in handwriting.
Nevertheless, the program also posed some limitations which includes limited scope of
the program since it was only directed for the tenanted, privately-owned rice and corn lands,
there was monopoly of businessmen in both coconut and sugar industries, foreign and local firms
were allowed to use large tracks of land for their business; and because of the declarations of
Martial Law, several farmer leaders were arrested without due process of law.
The Spanish colonial policy was virtually designed not only to keep Philippines under control
but also to exploit her rich natural resources. The onerous system of taxation, the arbitrary and
unjust forced labor, the monopolistic galleon trade and stringent trade and agricultural policies,
consequently brought about a distorted and unbalanced economy.
Taxation is the power of the state to impose and collect revenue for public purpose to promote
the welfare of the people of the particular society. One of the laws promulgated by the Indies
promulgated by the Spanish crown was to require conquered inhabitants to pay tribute in
recognition of the Spanish sovereignty. For so many years, the Filipinos paid tribute amounting
to eight reales or one peso. In 1589, it was increased to ten reales and to twelve in 1851, but
finally, abolished in 1884 and was replaced with a personal cedula tax.
Bandala- natives were coerced to sell their harvest to the government at very low price.

Force Labor
Polo- the dehumanizing labor; where the Spanish government required all male healthy
and physically able between ages 16- 60 to render service for forty days.
Polistas- the natives who rendered forces labor. They were not paid daily wages and food
ration during their working days.
Falla- is a fee given to Spaniards to become exempted in rendering labor force.

The Tobacco Monopoly of Basco

Established by Jose Basco Y Vargas in 1781the increase in revenues of
the government through the cultivation of tobacco became a profitable
venture that leads to Mexico to be independent. The cultivation of tobacco
was confined to Nueva Ecija, Cagayan Valley, Marinduque, and Ilocos
Provinces. The tobacco monopoly brought a considerable profit but the
situation of Philippines didn’t changed. Instead, it brought so much
problem and hardness in life of every Filipinos.

The Galleon Trade (Manila- Acapulco)

Long before the Spaniards came into the Philippines, the Filipinos had been trading with
different countries, by virtue of the doctrine of mercantilism; the Spanish authority closed trade
relations with other countries and allowed only two countries, China and Mexico.
Obras Pias- a Foundation where money from trade was invested and appropriated to be given to
charitable institutions.
The Encomiendas
The encomienda was the right extended by the King upon a
Spaniard who had helped to facilitate the settlement of the territory.
By implication, it was a public office and the person was preferred to
as encomiendero, a holder of encomienda and empowered to collect
taxes from the people under his jurisdiction. In return, under the laws
of the Indies, he was obliged to protect and defend the people under
him against aggression and danger and helped to convert the natives to Catholicism.
The Encomienderos abused their right by way of forcing the natives to pay tribute
beyond what the law prescribed. The thunderous and public outcry against the behavior of
encomienderos led to some humane ecclesiastical officials to inform the king about this unlawful
practices. The clergy were Domingo Salazar, first bishop of Manila and Martin de Rada,
superior of the Augustinians in the Philippines. They condemned these encomienderos and held
them responsible for the various violence and atrocities committed against the natives.
The Abolition of Slavery
This was considered as one of the administrative accomplishments had done by Spain for
the people of the colony. This move was affected by Bishop Domingo Salazar and various
heads of religious orders to ask the King to abolish slavery. The Bishop and other religious
orders signed a document accusing the Spaniards in the Philippines about the maltreatment of the
Filipinos as slaves in the hands of the colonizers which was directly contrary to the law of God
and the laws of the Indies. King Philip II, after hearing and evaluating the document, issued the
Royal Decree of August 9, 1589, emancipating all slaves in the colony.

Cultural Development
Filipino Culture embraced language, art and religion. Only the wealthy and educated
middle class Filipinos learned to write and speak in Spanish. Philippine Literature was
predominantly religious in tone, character and moral quality. Among the Filipinos who
distinguished themselves in the fields of Philippine literature were Jose Dela Cruz (Husing Sisiw
1746- 1829) and Francisco Baltazar (1789-1862). The Florante at Laura’s “awit” allegorically
exposed the Spanish wrong doings in the archipelago.
The early Filipino printers were engravers and at the same time who were trained by
Spanish missionaries. Among them was Tomas Pinpin of Mabatang, Abucay, Bataan, Siete
Infantes and Bernardo Carpio. The first printing press was introduced by friars in Manila in
1593 and in the same year, printed the first book in the Philippines, the Doctrina Christiana.
On visual arts like painting and architecture interests also
focused on religion. Felix Resurrection Hidaldo, won a silver medal
for his Christian Virgins Exposed and Juan Luna received his first
gold medal for his Spolarium as their entries for Madrigal Exposition
of Fine Arts.
Religion
On Religion With the help of the soldiers, the missionaries
easily conquered territories of the colony and converted the natives to
Christianity. The various missionaries who used their religious
influence to facilitate the teaching of Gospel and propagation of Catholic Christian faith were
the Augustinians (1565), the Franciscans (1577), the Jesuits (1581), the Dominicans (1587),
and the Recollects (1606).
The following is an excerpt of the bull of Pope Gregory
XIII creating the diocese and Cathedral Church of Manila:
“... Moreover by the aforesaid authority and tenor, we
erect and establish forever the town of Manila into a city, and its
church into a cathedral, under the title of the “the Concepcion of
same Blessed Mary Virgin,” to be held by one bishop as its
head, who shall see the enlargement of its’ buildings and their
restoration in the style of a cathedral church.”

Social Results
The Filipino conversion to Christianity inevitably meant the adoption of fiesta as a socio-
religious event celebrating the feast day of the patron saint of the Catholic town as an occasion of
thanksgiving for a bountiful harvest and other blessings.
Education
Education in the Philippines during the Spanish era was not open to all Filipinos. The
Spanish government had absolutely no intention of training the natives for eventual
independence and self- government. During this period, some schools were exclusively
established for education of some Spanish nationals in the archipelago. They were open only for
the people belonged to the upper social and economics class of society
Schools in the Philippines that were established by the Spaniards:

⮚ Assumption Convent- 1892

 ⮚ College of La Concordia- 1869
⮚ Colegio De Sta. Isabel- 1632
⮚ Colegio De Sta. Potentiana- 1589
⮚ Colegio De San Juan De Letran- founded in 1601
⮚ University of Santo Tomas- oldest pontifical university in the Philippines founded by
Dominicans in 1611
In 1863, the Spanish government enacted and implemented an educational reform
primarily designed to improve the state of education throughout the archipelago. The decree
provided for the establishment of at least one school for boys and one for girls in every
town. The decree also provided for the establishment of a normal school for male teachers
under the supervision of the Jesuits and created a commission of eight members headed by
the Governor General. Instruction in the primary level for both boys and girls was free and
the teaching of Spanish is Compulsory. A few years later, the Spaniards developed the fear
that the natives will understand the value of education in relation to truth and fairness and
they may turn in foment rebellion. This move from the Spanish authority literally negated the
philosophy of education.
Excerpt from the Important Provisions of the Decree of 1863:
“In each of the villages, there shall be at least one school of primary instruction for
males, and another for females. Instruction herein shall be free to the poor and attendance
shall be compulsory. Art 3 and 4.”
Economy
The abolition of Galleon trade in 1815 and the separation of Mexico from Spain made it
necessary for the Spanish Government to engage in trading relations with other countries. The
government also allowed foreign investors to establish residence in the Philippines. Spain
opened its ports in Manila and other parts of the country. Foreign banking institutions and other
lending and credit facilities were open. Roads and bridges were built, shipping lines, inter islands
and overseas were improved and communication system were upgraded.
The opening of the Philippines to world trade and with the emergence of multifarious
forces, e.g., scientific and technological, industrial, economic, social, and political resulted in
economic changes and prosperity that improved the quality of life of the Filipinos.