Nineteenth-century journalists used the phrase “el grito de rebelion” or “the Cry of

Rebellion” to describe the momentous events sweeping the Spanish colonies; in Mexico
it was the “Cry of Dolores” (16 September 1810), Brazil the “City of Ypiraga” (7 September
1822), and in Cuba the “Cry of Matanza” (24 February 1895). In August 1896, northeast
of Manila, Filipinos similarly declared their rebellion against the Spanish colonial
government. It was Manuel Sastron, the Spanish historian, who institutionalized the
phrased for the Philippines in his 1897 book, La Insurreccion en Filipinas. All these “Cries”
were milestones in the several colonial-to-nationalist histories of the world.

Raging controversy

If the expression is taken literally –the Cry as the shouting of nationalistic slogans in mass
assemblies –then there were scores of such Cries. Some writers refer to a Cry of
Montalban on April 1895, in the Pamitinan Caves where a group of Katipunan members
wrote on the cave walls, “Viva la indepencia Filipina!” long before the Katipunan decided
to launch a nationwide revolution.

The historian Teodoro Agoncillo chose to emphasize Bonifacio’s tearing of the cedula
(tax receipt) before a crowd of Katipuneros who then broke out in cheers. However,
Guardia Civil Manuel Sityar never mentioned in his memoirs (1896-1898) the tearing or
inspection of the cedula, but did note the pacto de sangre (blood pact) mark on every
single Filipino he met in August 1896 on his reconnaissance missions around Balintawak.

Some writers consider the first military engagement with the enemy as the defining
moment of the Cry. To commemorate this martial event upon his return from exile in Hong
Kong, Emilio Aguinaldo commissioned a “Himno de Balintawak” to herald renewed
fighting after the failed peace of the pact of Biyak na Bato.

On 3 September 1911, a monument to the Heroes of 1896 was erected in what is now
the intersection of Epifanio de los Santos Avenue and Andres Bonifacio Drive –North
Doversion Road. From that time on until 1962, the Cry of Balintawak was officially
celebrated every 26 August.

It is not clear why the 1911 monument was erected there. It could not have been to mark
the site of Apolonio Samson’s house in barrio Kangkong; Katipuneros marked that site
on Kaingin Road, between Balintawak and San Francisco del Monte Avenue.

Neither could the 1911 monument have been erected to mark the site of the first armed
encounter which, incidentally, the Katipuneros fought and won. A contemporary map of
1896 shows that the August battle between the Katipunan rebels and the Spanish forces
led by Lt. Ros of the Civil Guards took place at sitio Banlat, North of Pasong Tamo Road
far from Balintawak. The site has its own marker.
It is quite clear that first, eyewitnesses cited Balintawak as the better-known reference
point for a larger area. Second, while Katipunan may have been massing in Kangkong,
the revolution was formally launched elsewhere. Moreover, eyewitnesses and therefore
historians, disagreed on the site and date of the Cry.

But the issue did not rest there. In 1970, the historian Pedro A. Gagelonia pointed out:

The controversy among historians continues to the present day. The “Cry of Pugad Lawin”
(August 23, 1896) cannot be accepted as historically accurate. It lacks positive
documentation and supporting evidence from the witness. The testimony of only one
eyewitness (Dr. Pio Valenzuela) is not enough to authenticate and verify a controversial
issue in history. Historians and their living participants, not politicians and their
sycophants, should settle this controversy.

Conflicting accounts

Pio Valenzuela had several versions of the Cry. Only after they are compared and
reconciled with the other accounts will it be possible to determined what really happened.

Was there a meeting at Pugad Lawin on 23 August 1896, after the meeting at Apolonio
Samson’s residence in Hong Kong? Where were the cedulas torn, at Kangkong or Pugad
Lawin?

In 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 or 23 to 25 August at Balintawak.

In 1911, Valenzuela averred that the Katipunan began meeting on 22 August while the
Cry took place on 23 August at Apolonio Samson’s house in Balintawak.

From 1928 to 1940, Valenzuela maintained that the Cry happened on 24 August at the
house of Tandang Sora (Melchora Aquino) in Pugad Lawin, which he now situated near
Pasong Tamo Road. A photograph of Bonifacio’s widow Gregoria de Jesus and
Katipunan members Valenzuela, Briccio Brigido Pantas, Alfonso and Cipriano Pacheco,
published in La Opinion in 1928 and 1930, was captioned both times as having been
taken at the site of the Cry on 24 August 1896 at the house of Tandang Sora at Pasong
Tamo Road.

In 1935 Valenzuela, Pantas and Pacheco proclaimed “na hindi sa Balintawak nangyari
ang unang sigaw ng paghihimagsik na kinalalagian ngayon ng bantayog, kung di sa pook
na kilala sa tawag na Pugad Lawin.” (The first Cry of the revolution did not happen in
Balintawak where the monument is, but in a place called Pugad Lawin.)
In 1940, a research team of the Philippines Historical Committee (a forerunner of the
National Historical Institute or NHI), which included Pio Valenzuela, identified the precise
spot of Pugad Lawin as part of sitio Gulod, Banlat, Kalookan City. In 1964, the NHI’s
Minutes of the Katipunan referred to the place of the Cry as Tandang Sora’s and not as
Juan Ramos’ house, and the date as 23 August.

Valenzuela memoirs (1964, 1978) averred that the Cry took place on 23 August at the
house of Juan Ramos at Pugad Lawin. The NHI was obviously influenced by Valenzuela’s
memoirs. In 1963, upon the NHI endorsement, President Diosdado Macapagal ordered
that the Cry be celebrated on 23 August and that Pugad Lawin be recognized as its site.

John N. Schrumacher, S.J, of the Ateneo de Manila University was to comment on Pio
Valenzuela’s credibility:

I would certainly give much less credence to all accounts coming from Pio Valezuela, and
to the interpretations Agoncillo got from him verbally, 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 yet another point. In 1896, Valenzuela testified that when
the Katipunan consulted Jose Rizal on whether the time had come to revolt, Rizal was
vehemently against the revolution. Later, in Agoncillo’s Revolt of the masses, Valenzuela
retracted and claimed that Rizal was actually for the uprising, if certain prerequisites were
met. Agoncillo reasoned that Valenzuela had lied to save Rizal.

The Pugad Lawin marker

The prevalent account of the Cry is that of Teodoro Agoncillo in Revolt of the masses
(1956):

It was in Pugad Lawin, where they proceeded upon leaving Samson’s place in the
afternoon of the 22nd, that the more than 1,000 members of the Katipunan met in the
yard of Juan A. Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino,…in the morning of August 23rd.
Considerable discussion arose whether the revolt against the Spanish government should
be started on the 29th. Only one man protested… But he was overruled in his stand…
Bonifacio then announced the decision and shouted: “Brothers, it was agreed to continue
with the plan of revolt. My brothers, do you swear to repudiate the government that
oppresses us?” And the rebels, shouting as one man replied: “Yes, sir!” “That being the
case,” Bonifacio added, “bring out your cedulas and tear them to pieces to symbolize our
determination to take arms!” .. . Amidst the ceremony, the rebels, tear-stained eyes,
shouted: “Long live the Philippines! Long live the Katipunan!

Agoncillo used his considerable influenced and campaigned for a change in the
recognized site to Pugad Lawin and the date 23 August 1896. In 1963, the National
Heroes Commission (a forerunner of the NHI), without formal consultations or
recommendations to President Macapagal.
Consequently, Macapagal ordered that the Cry of Balintawak be called the “Cry of Pugad
Lawin,” and that it be celebrated on 23 August instead of 26 August. The 1911 monument
in Balintawak was later removed to a highway. Student groups moved to save the
discarded monument, and it was installed in front of Vinzons Hall in the Diliman campus
of the University of the Philippines on 29 November 1968.

In 1962, Teodoro Agoncillo, together with the UP Student Council, placed a marker at the
Pugad Lawin site. According to Agoncillo, the house of Juan Ramos stood there in 1896,
while the house of Tandang Sora was located at Pasong Tamo.

On 30 June 1983, Quezon City Mayor Adelina S. Rodriguez created the Pugad Lawin
Historical Committee to determine the location of Juan Ramos’s 1896 residence at Pugad
Lawin.

The NHI files on the committee’s findings show the following:

 In August 1983, Pugad Lawin in barangay Bahay Toro was inhabited by squatter
colonies.• The NHI believed that it was correct in looking for the house of Juan Ramos
and not of Tandang Sora. However, the former residence of Juan Ramos was clearly
defined.• There was an old dap-dap tree at the site when the NHI conducted its survey I
1983. Teodoro Agoncillo, Gregorio Zaide and Pio Valenzuela do not mention a dap-dap
tree in their books.

• Pio Valenzuela, the main proponent of the “Pugad Lawin” version, was dead by
the time the committee conducted its research.

• Teodoro Agoncillo tried to locate the marker installed in August 1962 by the UP
Student Council. However, was no longer extant in 1983.

In spite of the above findings and in the absence of any clear evidence, the NHI
disregarded its own 1964 report that the Philippine Historical Committee had determined
in 1940 that the Pugad Lawin residence was Tandang Sora’s and not Juan Ramos’s and
that the specific site of Pugad Lawin was Gulod in Banlat.

The presence of the dap-dap tree in the Pugad Lawin site determined by Agoncillo and
the NHI is irrelevant, since none of the principals like Pio Valenzuela, Santiago Alvarez,
and others, nor historians like Zaide- and even Agoncillo himself before that instance-
mentioned such a tree.

On the basis of the 1983 committee’s findings, the NHI placed a marker on 23 August
1984 on Seminary Road in barangay Bahay Toro behind Toro Hills High School, the
Quezon City General Hospital and the San Jose Seminary. It reads:

Ang Sigaw ng Pugad Lawin (1896)

Sa paligid ng pook na ito, si Andres Bonifacio at mga isang libong Katipunero at

nagpulong noong umaga ng ika-23 Agosto 1896, at ipinasyang maghimagsik laban sa
Kastila sa Pilipinas. Bilang patunay ay pinag-pupunit ang kanilang mga sedula na naging
tanda ng pagkaalipin ng mga Pilpino. Ito ang kaunaunahang sigaw ng Bayang Api laban
sa bansang Espanya na pinatibayan sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng sandata.

(On this site Andres Bonifacio and one thousand Katipuneros met in the morning of 23
August 1896 and decided to revolt against the Spanish colonial government in the
Philippines. As an affirmation of their resolve, they tore up their tax receipts which were
symbols of oppression of the Filipinos. This was very first Cry of the Oppressed Nation
against Spain which was enforced with use of arms.)

The place name “Pugad Lawin “, however, is problematic. In History of the Katipunan
(1939), Zaide records Valenzuela’s mention of the site in a footnote and not in the body
of text, suggesting that the Historian regarded the matter as unresolved.

Cartographic changes

Was there a Pugad Lawin in maps or literature of the period?

A rough sketch or croquis de las operaciones practicadas in El Español showed the

movements of Lt. Ros against the Katipunan on 25, 26, and 27 August 1896. The map
defined each place name as sitio “Baclac” (sic: Banlat). In 1897, the Spanish historian
Sastron mentioned Kalookan, Balintawak, Banlat and Pasong Tamo. The names
mentioned in some revolutionary sources and interpretations- Daang Malalim, Kangkong
and Pugad Lawin- were not identified as barrios. Even detailed Spanish and American
maps mark only Kalookan and Balintawak.

In 1943 map of Manila marks Balintawak separately from Kalookan and Diliman. The sites
where revolutionary events took place are within the ambit of Balintawak.

Government maps issued in 1956, 1987, and 1990, confirm the existence of barangays
Bahay Toro, but do not define their boundaries. Pugad Lawin is not on any of these maps.

According to the government, Balintawak is no longer on the of Quezon City but has been
replaced by several barangays. Barrio Banlat is now divided into barangays Tandang
Sora and Pasong Tamo. Only bahay Toro remains intact.

Writer and linguist Sofronio Calderon, conducting research in the late 1920s on the
toponym “Pugad Lawin,” went through the municipal records and the Census of 1903 and
1918, could not find the name, and concluded that “Isang…pagkakamali… ang sabihing
mayroong Pugad Lawin sa Kalookan.” (It would be a mistake to say that there is such as
Pugad Lawin in Kalookan.)

What can we conclude from all this?

First, that “Pugad Lawin” was never officially recognized as a place name on any
Philippine map before Second World War. Second, “Pugad Lawin “ appeared in
historiography only from 1928, or some 32 years after the events took place. And third,
the revolution was always traditionally held to have occurred in the area of Balintawak,
which was distinct from Kalookan and Diliman.

Therefore, while the toponym “Pugad Lawin” is more romantic, it is more accurate to stick
to the original “Cry of Balintawak.”

Determining the date

The official stand of NHI is that the Cry took place on 23 August 1896. That date, however,
is debatable.

The later accounts of Pio Valenzuela and Guillermo Masangkay on the tearing of cedulas
on 23 August are basically in agreement, but conflict with each other on the location.
Valenzuela points to the house of Juan Ramos in Pugad Lawin, while Masangkay refers
to Apolonio Samson’s in Kangkong. Masangkay’s final statement has more weight as it
is was corroborated by many eyewitnesses who were photographed in 1917, when the
earliest 23 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.

The turning point

What occurred during those last days of August 1896? Eyewitness accounts mention
captures, escapes, recaptures, killings of Katipunan members; the interrogation of
Chinese spies; the arrival of arms in Meycauyan, Bulacan; the debate with Teodoro Plata
and others; the decision to go war; the shouting of slogan; tearing of cedulas; the sending
of letters presidents of Sanggunian and balangay councils; the arrival of civil guard; the
loss of Katipunan funds during the skirmish. All these events, and many others, constitute
the beginning of nationwide revolution.

The Cry, however, must be defined as that turning point when the Filipinos finally rejected
Spanish colonial dominion over the Philippine Islands, by formally constituting their own
national government, and by investing a set of leaders with authority to initiate and guide
the revolution towards the establishment of sovereign nation.

Where did this take place?

The introduction to the original Tagalog text of the Biyak na Bato Constitution states:

Ang paghiwalay ng Filipinas sa kahariang España sa patatag ng isang bayang may

sariling pamamahala’t kapangyarihan na pangangalang “Republika ng Filipinas” ay
siyang layong inadhika niyaring Paghihimagsik na kasalukuyan, simula pa ng ika- 24 ng
Agosto ng taong 1896…

The Spanish text also states:

La separacion de Filipinas de la Monarquia Española, constituyendose en Estado
Independiente y soberano con Gobierno propuio, con el nombre de Repulica de Filipinas,
es en su Guerra actual, iniciada en 24 de Agosto de 1896…

(The separation of the Philippines from the Spanish Monarchu, constituting an

independent state and with a proper sovereign government, named the Republic of the
Philippines, was the end pursued by the revolution through the present hostilities, initiated
on 24 August 1896…)

These lines- in a legal document at that – are persuasive proof that in so far as the leaders
of the revolution are concerned, revolution began on 24 August 1896. The document was
written only one and a half years after the event and signed by over 50 Katipunan
members, among them Emilio Aguinaldo , Artemio Ricarte and Valentin Diaz.

Emilio Aguinaldo’s memoirs, Mga Gunita ng Himagsikan (1964), refer to two letters from
Andres Bonifacio dated 22 and 24 August. They pinpoint the date and place of the crucial
Cry meeting when the decision to attack Manila was made:

Noong ika-22 ng Agosto, 1896, ang Sangguniang Magdalo ay tumanggap ng isang lihim
na sulat mula sa Supremo Andres Bonifacio, sa Balintawak , na nagsasaad na isamng
mahalagang pulong ang kanilang idinaos sa ika-24 ng nasabing buwan, at lubhang
kailangan na kame ay mapadala roon ng dalawang kinatawan o delegado sa ngalan ng
Sanggunian. Ang pulong aniya’y itataon sa kaarawan ng kapistahan ng San Bartolome
sa Malabon, Tambobong. kapagkarakang matanggap ang nasabing paanyaya, an
gaming Pangulo na si G. Baldomero Aguinaldo, ay tumawag ng pulong sa tribunal ng
Cavite el Viejo… Nagkaroon kami ng pag-aalinlangan sa pagpapadala roon ng aming
kinatawan dahil sa kaselanang pagdararanang mga pook at totoong mahigpit at abot-
abot ang panghuli ng mag Guardia Civil at Veterana sa mga naglalakad lalung-lalo na sa
mag pinaghihinalaang mga mason at Katipunan. Gayon pa man ay aming hinirang at
pinagkaisahang ipadalang tanging Sugo ang matapang na kapatid naming si G. Domingo
Orcullo… Ang aming Sugo ay nakarating ng maluwalhati sa kanyang paroonan at
nagbalik din na wala naming sakuna, na taglay ang sulat ng Supremo na may petsang
24 ng Agosto. Doon ay wala naming sinasabing kautusan, maliban sa patalastas na
kagugulat-gulat na kanilang lulusubin ang Maynila, sa Sabado ng gabi, ika-29 ng Agosto,
at ang hudyat ay ang pagpatay ng ilaw sa Luneta. Saka idinugtong pa na marami diumano
ang nahuli at napatay ng Guardia Civil at Veterana sa kanyang mga kasamahan sa lugar
ng Gulod …

(On 22 August 1896, the Magdalo Council received a secret letter from Supremo Andres
Bonifacio, in Balintawak, which stated that the Katipunan will hold an important meeting
on the 24th of the said month, and that it was extremely necessary to send two
representatives or delegates in the name of the said Council. The meeting would be timed
to coincide with the feast day of Saint Bartolomew in Malabon, Tambobong. Upon
receiving the said invitation, our President, Mr. Baldomero Aguinaldo, called a meeting at
Tribunal of Cavite el Viejo…We were apprehensive about sending representatives
because the areas they would have pass through were dangerous and was a fact that the
Civil Guard and Veterans were arresting travelers, especially those suspected of being
freemasons and members of Katipunan. Nevertheless, we agreed and nominated to send
a single representative in the person of our brave brother, Mr. Domingo Orcullo… Our
representative arrived safely at his destination and also returned unharmed, bearing a
letter from the Supremo dated 24 August. It contained no orders but the shocking
announcement that the Katipunan would attack Manila at night on Saturday, 29 August,
the signal for which would be the putting out of the lamps in Luneta. He added that many
of his comrade had been captured and killed by the Civil Guard and Veterans in Gulod…)

The first monument to mark the Cry was erected in 1903 on Ylaya Street in Tondo, in
front of the house were Liga Filipina was founded. The tablet cites Andre Bonifacio as a
founding member, and as “ Supreme Head of the Katipunan, which gave the first battle
Cry against tyranny on August 24, 1896.”

The above facts render unacceptable the official stand that the turning point of the
revolution was the tearing of cedulas in the “Cry of Pugad Lawin” on 23 August 1896, in
the Juan Ramos’s house in “Pugad Lawin” Bahay Toro, Kalookan.

The events of 17-26 August 1896 occurred closer to Balintawak than to Kalookan.
Traditionally, people referred to the “Cry of Balintawak” since that barrio was a better
known reference point than Banlat.

In any case, “Pugad Lawin” is not historiographically verifiable outside of the statements
of Pio Valenzuela in the 1930s and after. In Philippine Historical Association round-table
discussion in February this year, a great granddaughter of Tandang Sora protested the
use of toponym “Pugad Lawin” which, she said, referred to a hawks nest on top of a tall
sampaloc tree at Gulod, the highest elevated area near Balintawak. This certainly negates
the NHI’s premise that “Pugad Lawin” is on Seminary Road in Project 8.

What we should celebrate is the establishment of a revolutionary or the facto government

that was republican in aspiration, the designation of Bonifacio as the Kataastaasang
Pangulo (Supreme Presiddent), the election of the members of his cabinet ministers and
Sanggunian and Balangay heads which authorized these moves met in Tandang Sora’s
barn near Pasong Tamo Road, in sitio Gulod, barrio Banlat then under the jurisdiction of
the municipality of Kalookan. This took place at around noon of Monday, 24 August 1896.

It is clear that the so-called Cry of Pugad Lawin of 23 August is an imposition and
erroneous interpretation, contrary to indisputable and numerous historical facts.

The centennial of the Cry of Balintawak should be celebrated on 24 August 1996 at the
site of the barn and house of Tandang Sora in Gulod, now barangay Banlat, Quezon City.

That was when and where the Filipino nation state was born.
WELL OVER two decades ago, the late National Artist Nick Joaquin, in his INQUIRER column
“Small Beer,” argued repeatedly for a return to the traditional “Cry of Balintawak.” All our textbooks,
following a resolution from the National Historical Commission, state that the spark of the Revolution
started with a cry, followed by the tearing of cedulas led by Andres Bonifacio in Pugad Lawin, Que-
zon City. The issue is not just historiographical but political. If the National Historical Commission,
upon review of the facts, reverses its earlier resolution and moves the site of the “Cry” back to Bal-
intawak then history will be moved from Quezon City to Caloocan. Mayor Herbert Bautista’s loss will
be Mayor Recom Echiverri’s gain.
WELL OVER two decades ago, the late National Artist Nick Joaquin, in his INQUIRER column
“Small Beer,” argued repeatedly for a return to the traditional “Cry of Balintawak.” All our textbooks,
following a resolution from the National Historical Commission, state that the spark of the Revolution
started with a cry, followed by the tearing of cedulas led by Andres Bonifacio in Pugad Lawin, Que-
zon City. The issue is not just historiographical but political. If the National Historical Commission,
upon review of the facts, reverses its earlier resolution and moves the site of the “Cry” back to Bal-
intawak then history will be moved from Quezon City to Caloocan. Mayor Herbert Bautista’s loss will
be Mayor Recom Echiverri’s gain.
Re-opening the issue looks simple because people think it’s just like tossing a coin to decide be-
tween Balintawak or Pugad Lawin. If you bring two to three historians together you would not get a
consensus.
To the above options, you must add other contenders to the historical site: Kangkong, Bahay Toro,
Pasong Tamo, Banlat and God knows where else, depending on the primary source being cited.
If you think location is the only issue, look again. The date declared by the National Historical Com-
mission as the start of the Philippine Revolution—Aug. 23, 1896—is but one date proposed, the oth-
ers being Aug. 20, 24, 25 and 26, 1896. And, if I remember from a historical forum in UP, one
scholar even insisted on a wildcard date of Sept. 5, 1896!
If you think location is the only issue, look again. The date declared by the National Historical Com-
mission as the start of the Philippine Revolution—Aug. 23, 1896—is but one date proposed, the oth-
ers being Aug. 20, 24, 25 and 26, 1896. And, if I remember from a historical forum in UP, one
scholar even insisted on a wildcard date of Sept. 5, 1896!
All these debates on dates and places, which may seem trivial to the general public, is the lifeblood
of historians.
Teodoro A. Agoncillo said that Bonifacio scheduled a general assembly of the Katipunan for Aug. 24,
1896, the Feast of San Bartolome, in Malabon. This date was chosen to enable Katipuneros to pass
security checkpoints carrying their bolos because Malabon is famous for manufacturing a long
bladed weapon called “ sangbartolome.” Bonifacio and his men were in Balintawak on August 19.
They left Balintawak for Kangkong on August 21, and on the afternoon of August 22 they proceeded
to Pugad Lawin. The next day, August 23, in the yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, bet-
ter known as “Tandang Sora,” the Katipuneros listened to the rousing speech of Bonifacio, tore their
cedulas, and vowed to fight.
Teodoro A. Agoncillo said that Bonifacio scheduled a general assembly of the Katipunan for Aug. 24,
1896, the Feast of San Bartolome, in Malabon. This date was chosen to enable Katipuneros to pass
security checkpoints carrying their bolos because Malabon is famous for manufacturing a long
bladed weapon called “ sangbartolome.” Bonifacio and his men were in Balintawak on August 19.
They left Balintawak for Kangkong on August 21, and on the afternoon of August 22 they proceeded
to Pugad Lawin. The next day, August 23, in the yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, bet-
ter known as “Tandang Sora,” the Katipuneros listened to the rousing speech of Bonifacio, tore their
cedulas, and vowed to fight.
Teodoro Agoncillo convinced the National Historical Commission to move the traditional Aug. 26
date to Aug. 23 and transfer the historical site from Balintawak to Pugad Lawin. If Agoncillo’s person-
ality wasn’t enough for the Commission, he cited as his principal source Dr. Pio Valenzuela, a close
associate of Bonifacio.
I wonder if other members of the commission bothered to remind Agoncillo that Valenzuela may
have been in Bonifacio’s inner circle, but may be unreliable as a primary source. In Wenceslao
Emilio’s fivevolume compilation of historical documents, Archivo del Bibliofilo Filipino, Valenzuela’s
signed testimony before Spanish interrogators dated September 1896 stated that the Cry of Bal-
intawak was held in Balintawak on Aug. 26, 1896. Years later, in his memoirs published in English
after World War II, Valenzuela stated that the Cry was actually held in Pugad Lawin on Aug. 23,
1896. Agoncillo explained that the September 1896 account was extracted from Valenzuela under
duress and couldn’t be trusted.
I wonder if other members of the commission bothered to remind Agoncillo that Valenzuela may
have been in Bonifacio’s inner circle, but may be unreliable as a primary source. In Wenceslao
Emilio’s fivevolume compilation of historical documents, Archivo del Bibliofilo Filipino, Valenzuela’s
signed testimony before Spanish interrogators dated September 1896 stated that the Cry of Bal-
intawak was held in Balintawak on Aug. 26, 1896. Years later, in his memoirs published in English
after World War II, Valenzuela stated that the Cry was actually held in Pugad Lawin on Aug. 23,
1896. Agoncillo explained that the September 1896 account was extracted from Valenzuela under
duress and couldn’t be trusted.
Balintawak was the place determined by tradition and many eyewitness accounts, including
Guillermo Masangkay who, in an interview in the Sunday Tribune in 1932, declared the place as Bal-
intawak and the date Aug. 26, 1896. Spanish Lt. Olegario Diaz in 1896 pinpointed the place as Bal-
intawak but placed the date on Aug. 24, 1896.
Depending on your source, the dates and places do not seem to match.
In 1928 Gregoria de Jesus Nakpil, widow of Andres Bonifacio, wrote a short autobiography, entitled
“Mga tala ng aking buhay,” where she stated, among other things, that the Cry of Balintawak took
place on Aug. 25, 1896 in Pasong Tamo! This place isn’t in Makati but in Caloocan. How more au-
thoritative can you get than the Supremo’s widow? Oryang was revered as the muse, the Lakambini
of the Katipunan.
In 1928 Gregoria de Jesus Nakpil, widow of Andres Bonifacio, wrote a short autobiography, entitled
“Mga tala ng aking buhay,” where she stated, among other things, that the Cry of Balintawak took
place on Aug. 25, 1896 in Pasong Tamo! This place isn’t in Makati but in Caloocan. How more au-
thoritative can you get than the Supremo’s widow? Oryang was revered as the muse, the Lakambini
of the Katipunan.
To complicate things further, another Bonifacio associate, the composer of the Katipunan, Julio
Nakpil, second husband of Gregoria de Jesus, deposited his handwritten notes on the Philippine
Revolution in the National Library under Teodoro M. Kalaw in 1925. Here he wrote, “swearing before
God and before history that everything in these notes is the truth”: “The revolution started in Bal-
intawak in the last days of August 1896.” On another page he wrote, “Bonifacio uttered the first cry of
war against tyranny on Aug. 24, 1896.” Finally, he remembered that “the first cry of Balintawak was
in Aug. 26, 1896 in the place called Kangkong, adjacent to Pasong Tamo, within the jurisdiction of
Balintawak, Caloocan, then within the province of Manila.”
Now, which of these three declarations do we choose? Last but not least, we have Santiago Alvarez
whose memoirs identify the place as Bahay Toro and the date as Aug. 25, 1896. There are more
conflicting sources available, so to keep the peace, and until more conclusive evidence can be pre-
sented, let’s just stick to Pugad Lawin and Aug. 23, 1896