Another look at Filipino heroes

By Renato Perdon
Sydney, Australia
November 21, 2015



On 30 November 2015 we will celebrate the 152nd birth anniversary of Andres Bonifacio, regarded as the ‘father of Philippine revolution’ and treated today by many Filipinos, both overseas and the Philippines, as the rightful ‘national hero’ of the country, but the dramatic death of Rizal eclipsed his contribution to Philippines history and somewhat relegated Bonifaico to the ‘second national hero’ of the Philippines, with an equally imposing Guillermo Tolentino monument at the busy intersection in Caloocan City.

Reading the history of the Philippines, one encounters many names of great Filipinos. These are the men and women who left an indelible mark in the development of the Philippines as an independent nation. Their names will remain associated with Filipinos, including expatriates like Filipino-Australians.

Dr. Jose Rizal, the foremost national hero of the Philippines, regarded these men and women as the ‘mystic bonds’ uniting the country in peace, in love, and in goodwill. Another writer considered them as the ‘light-fountain’ and their lives serve as a guide and inspiration to everyone.

Nations are known by the heroes they have produced. Although the adoring public has a tendency to worship heroes as though they were Gods, incapable of error, these men and women, no doubt, are symbols of our image and likeness, our identity. The late Filipino historian Gregorio F. Zaide classified these men and women as heroes of war and heroes of peace. To the first belong Lapu-Lapu of Mactan, Dagohoy of Bohol, Diego and Gabriela Silang of Ilocos, Trinidad Tecson of Bulacan, Teresa Magbanua of Iloilo, Andres Bonifacio and Gregoria de Jesus of Manila, Emilio Aguinaldo of Cavite, Gregorio del Pilar of Ilocos, and Miguel Malvar of Batangas. They are all remembered because of their martial exploits which fascinated and enchanted many Filipinos.

To the other group, the heroes of peace, Zaide referred to them as the men and women whose achievements in the arts, science, music, literature, education, religion, economics, and politics genuinely contributed to the advancement and progress of the Philippines. Like the heroes of war, they too deserve a nation’s salute and accolade.

Many years ago, the late ambassador, noted writer and biographer of Rizal, Leon Ma. Guerrero, said that heroes are born but they are also made. The late Nick Joaquin, another noted and popular Filipino writer and literary man added and said that some people become heroes by accident.

The eighty year old Fr. Mariano Gomes, also a Spanish mestizo, belonged to a prominent and rich Manila family. He was militant not only in fighting for the rights of the Filipino priests but also for agrarian reforms. But all his efforts were in vain and he decided to retired from public life. Ironically, when Fr. Gomes was still actively fighting the establishment for reforms, martyrdom was elusive but when he decided to retire it came easy, unexpected. He was implicated in the Cavite Mutiny and at the end died a patriot.

Fr. Jacinto Zamora, at thirty five, the youngest among the triumvirate, although sympathetic to the cause of the Filipino priests, was not committed to the issue. What is important to him was his past time – gambling, his great passion. He was a regular guy and liked fiesta, and cockfighting. It was his frivolous letter calling gambling money as ‘bullets’ and ‘gunpowder’ that brought him into the difficult situation.

Writer Joaquin considered the heroism of Zamora as the most accidental. He died because of a joke – bring your ‘bullets’ and ‘gunpowder’ he asked his gambling mates. Moreover, when the warrant of his arrest was issued, the name that appeared on the arrest warrant was that of Jose Zamora. When it was presented to him, the arresting officer crossed out the name Jose and wrote on top of the name Jacinto. The poor innocent fun-loving Fr. Jacinto Zamora, like the other two martyred priests, died by garrote.

The significance of the Gombursa tragedy, their martyrdom, is seen in the new meaning that was given to the word Filipinos – the native born islanders. Prior to 1872, the name Filipino referred only to the Spanish mestizo or the creole. The death of the three priests therefore gave way to the idea of Filipino, a symbol of identity and nationalist consciousness of the people.

Ricarte, popularly known asVibora in the story of Filipino struggle for independence. He was a very heroic figure but he is not a national hero, and even Emilio Aguinado was almost forgotten for half a century after he surrendered to the Americans. Both gentlemen lived longer than other Filipino heroes and by staying fit and healthy, their contributions to the formation of a nation were glossed over and not given proper recognition, because heroes are supposed to be dead. The same requirement was adopted in the preparation of Who’s Who in the Philippine History by the exalted historian Carlos Quirino. The person considered for inclusion in group must have been dead at least ten years prior to the book’s publication.

Jose Rizal
When the Gombursa tragedy took place, Rizal was only eleven years old. The death of the three priests, no doubt, influenced his life. Writing to his friend Mariano Ponce many years later, Rizal admitted that with out the 1872 incident: ‘I would be a Jesuit now and instead of writing the Noli me Tangere, would be writing the opposite.’ In fact, El Filibusterismo, his second novel, was dedicated to the memory of the Gombursa, a confirmation of the strong influence of that event to him. It is therefore safe to say that Rizal continued and expanded the struggle started by Fr. Burgos. His concern was to liberate the masses through education and prove the capability of Filipinos. But like Fr. Burgos, he was executed for a crime he did not commit.

Many Filipinos, now more than a hundred years after the Philippine Revolution this month is being commemorated and giving focus to the heroic importance of Bonifacio, believe that Rizal was an American made hero. The truth of the matter is that as early as 20 December 1898, almost two years after Rizal’s death at the Luneta, General Aguinaldo, in capacity as President of the Philippine Revolutionary Government, issued a proclamation making December 30 of that year as Rizal Day and ordered the hoisting of the Filipino flag at half-mast from 12:00 noon of 29 December to 12:00 noon of the following day. He also ordered the closure of all government offices during the whole day of 30 December. It was the second year anniversary of Rizal’s death.

The claim that the American-controlled Philippine Commission headed by Governor and, later US President William Howard Taft, was responsible for making Rizal, among other Filipino candidates, as the national hero of the Philippines, is unsupported by proof. Discussion on the subject in the minutes of the meeting of the Philippine Commission could not be located up to now. What is closer to the truth is that in Rizal, being a man of peace, as opposed to Bonifacio and Aguinaldo, the American authorities found an appropriate model for the Filipinos that would suit their colonial strategy.  The Americans therefore just confirmed the Aguinaldo
declaration of Rizal as a national hero and they encouraged the accolade and homage given to Rizal, as the prominent her for the country and was credited for the construction of the Rizal Monument at the Luneta now.

In fact, other Filipino heroes compete with Rizal in popularity. Marcelo H. del Pilar, the man from Bulacan was not only considered superior to Rizal in intellect but also regarded the real soul of subversion. He was the political analyst of the Propaganda Movement. And there was the personal of Apolinario Mabini, prime minister of the war against the Americans and who was hated by the new colonial rulers because of his intransigence and anti-American sentiment. He was the brains of the Philippine revolution. Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Aguinaldo are the other two strong contenders for Rizal’s pre-eminence.

Emilio Aguinaldo
It was mentioned earlier that the heroism of Emilio Aguinaldo was not recognised for more than half a century after he surrendered to the Americans and thus ending the Filipino-American War. To the people who are enchanted and fascinated by the war exploits of our heroes, Aguinaldo would probably be considered their national hero and not Rizal. He was after all a natural soldier who commanded numerous victorious battles against the Spaniards and the Americans.

Aguinaldo is credited for the declaration of Philippine independence in 1898, proclamation of the First Philippine Republic in 1899, the design of the Filipino Flag, and the adoption of the national anthem. He was the president of the Philippines four times: the Revolutionary Government, the Biak-na-Bato Republic, the Second Revolutionary Government and the First Philippine Republic.

Ultimately, he gave the Americans a good fight that compelled the United States to step up its campaign against him. In the pursue of Aguinaldo and the conduct of the Filipino-American War, 126,500 American soldiers saw service in the Philippines, with casualties of 4,200 dead and 3,000 wounded, and at a cost of nearly $200 million, ten times more than the amount the United States paid Spain to acquire the Philippines. In other words, Aguinaldo had all the making of a number one hero of the country. The problem with Aguinaldo is that he did not die right away. Had he failed in the battlefield, he might have been the national hero of the country today.

A writer had this to say on the subject: ‘Aguinaldo lived so long in a changing world he could not understand, a world which no longer needs him’. Moreover, the controversy surrounding the deaths of Andres Bonifacio and Antonio Luna compounded the unpopularity of Aguinaldo among Filipinos who have little time to study the relevant issues in Philippine revolution.

Also to be considered is the fact that Filipinos love peace and we magnify the men of peace rather than the men of war. The same writer we cited earlier added that Filipinos love freedom and justice and they value virtue more than victory, and sacrifice above success. Rizal symbolises virtue, sacrifice, and love. This fondness for tragedy where the virtuous man suffers because of his virtue contributed much to the highest accolade given to Rizal, a man of peace and not a man of war, like Aguinaldo.

Writer Vicente Albano Pacis once stated that Aguinaldo is a misunderstood hero because he never had a good press throughout the American colonisation. This is mainly due to him, being the symbol of resistance to Americn authority. Moreover, Aguinaldo’s attitude or reaction to being ‘pilloried and maligned’ was silence in quiet dignity.

Andres Bonifacio
These are my thoughts about some Filipino heroes. I could go on discussing about other heroes but to discuss further will deviate from the purpose of this article of providing information for the readers to dwell on.  After all, this month is the 152^nd birth anniversary of Andres Bonifacio. Yearly the focus of the commemoration is his legacy. Bonfiacio’s role in history is currently enjoying unprecedented attention from historians, including filmmakers.

According to Leon Ma. Guerrero, if we follow the Marxist interpretation of the Philippine revolution that it was a peasant uprising, headed and supported by the proletariat, against a feudal system of land tenure. And that it pushed aside the reformists who sought to protect their economic interests, through fascist hirelings; and that ultimately it failed in its populist goal because of the eventual alliance between American imperialism and Philippine reaction, then Bonifacio would be the authentic hero.

However, we must remember that the evaluation of an individual’s heroism is based on the person’s moral character and his influence on his contemporaries and the succeeding generation. Added to this is the person’s real worth in relation to the services rendered to his country or his fellowmen that are free from prejudices or pressures.

Declared as the hero of Manila in 1962 by then City Mayor Antonio Villegas, Andres Bonifacio is better known in Philippine history as the ‘Father of the 1896 Philippine Revolution’ that led to the 1898 declaration of Filipino independence. Historian Epifanio de los Santos referred to Bonifacio as the ‘Father of Philippine Democracy’ while educator Onofre D Corpuz called him ‘The Great Plebeian.’

Bonifacio was born on 30 November 1863 to Santiago Bonifacio, a tailor, and Catalina de Castro, a Spanish mestiza from Zambales who worked in a cigarette factory. His birthplace, now part of the compound of the Tutuban Central Railway Station in Tondo, is marked with a monument and a historical marker. Orphaned at the age of 14 and as the eldest in the family he took care and supported his three brothers and two sisters. He made and sold walking canes and paper fans. He also worked as a messenger, salesman and warehouseman with a British firm engaged in brokerage for tar and other articles. He later transferred to a German firm and worked there as an agent.

In spite of this difficult existence, Bonifacio made up his lack of college education through self-study by reading good books, He read Rizal’sNoli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, La Solidaridad, the Lives of the Presidents of the United States, Ruins of Palmyra, Les Miserables, Wandering Jew, and the Bible. He is even credited for being the first one to translate in Tagalog Rizal’s Ultimo Adios and titled it Pahimakas. Through his own initiative and effort, Bonifaico studied the Tagalog language and acquired working knowledge of Spanish and knew a little English. However, he used Tagalog in reaching out to the masses. It was through this language that he awakened the Filipino spirit of nationalism that ultimately inspired the revolution.

His first wife died of leprosy. In 1893, he married Gregoria de Jesus, his second wife, who became the Lakambini of the Katipunan. Gregoria shared the same nationalistic sentiment as her husband. The couple had a son who died as a little boy. It was through his readings that his love for his country was developed. He first joined the Liga Filipina, an association organised by Jose Rizal in 1892. One of the aims of theLiga was to ‘unite the Filipino people into a compact, vigorous and homogenous body.’

On 7 July 1892, when Rizal was exiled to Dapitan, the day also marked the end of the reform movement, Bonifacio founded the Katipunan at 72 Calle Azcarraga, now Claro M. Recto Avenue, in Tondo, Manila. It was the only alternative for the masses. The Propaganda Movement had failed and Bonifacio believed that it was ‘useless’ to continue its goals. According to the late Filipino historian Teodoro A. Agoncillo, the political aim of the Katipunan was ‘to gain Philippine independence through armed struggle’ and its moral objective was to teach good manners, hygiene, and good morals to its members.

As its civic goal, the society attacked obscurantism, religious fanaticism, and weakness of Filipino character. To arouse the patriotic feeling of the Filipinos, Bonifacio wrote poems and essays on the topics of liberty, democracy, and human rights. In one of his nationalist works, What the Filipinos should know, Bonifacio urged his countrymen to wake up and strive for freedom against Spanish tyranny. His poem Love of Country reflected a stirring intensity and patriotic candour. ‘Is there any love that is nobler, purer and more sublime than the love of the native country?’, Bonifacio asked his followers.

The Katipunan grew very rapidly in membership from the time of its formation in 1892 for by 1896, there were 30,000 listed members, all conscious of their rights and duty to their country. For almost four years, the secret society was undetected until 18 August 1896 when Fr. Mariano Gil, the Parish Priest of Tondo, discovered the existence of the Katipunan. The priest reported his discovery to the Spanish authorities who immediately ordered the arrest of those implicated in the secret society. Bonifacio and his followers fled to the hills of Balintawak, part of Caloocan City now. On 23 August 1896, the Filipinos proclaimed their armed struggle open and this is known in Philippine history as the ‘Cry of Pugadlawin.’

The Philippine revolution spread like wildfire to the eight provinces of Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Bulacan, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Tarlac, Morong, now Rizal Province and Manila. However, like in any political group, the Katipunan did not escape from internal problem. Rivalry among its members who were devided into factions, the Magdiwang, under Bonifacio, and the Magdalo, under Aguinaldo, became a major problem. The struggle for leadership and the split in the movement resulted to Bonifacio’s death on 10 May 1897. He was executed by General Aguinaldo’s men in Maragondon, Cavite.

In his The Writings and Trial of Andres Bonifacio, Agoncillo stated that the military tribunal sentenced Bonifacio and his brother to death by firing squad but General Aguinaldo changed it to banishment. However, General Pio del Pilar and Mariano Noriel persuaded him to withdraw the commutation order. Filipino historian Zaide studied the development and said that the demise of Bonifacio was a tragic one ‘Like that of other revolutionary heroes in world history’, Zaide elaborated, ‘he died at the hands of his fellow countrymen.’

Bonifacio’s death is still a controversial issue in Philippine history, even today. Some historians blamed General Aguinaldo for his death while others rationalised that in the struggle for freedom, unity is paramount. In order to achieve its goals, only one leader should be recognised. In 1921, while his place in history was being debated by historians, the Philippine Legislature recognised him by designating 30 November, every year, as Bonifacio Day, and that is this year 30 November 2015.