Bicol Pueblo Officials in the 1780s

Filipino Initiative©

Bruce Cruikshank, 16 April 2016

In the 1780s, Franciscans in the Bicol region of the Philippine colony charged that the provinces in that area had an excessive number of Filipino officials. I will summarize the arguments, present the data, and suggest that the materials illustrate Filipino initiative and autonomous goals.

Table of Contents

The Accusations 2

Appendix A: Data from Franciscan Priests 5

Analysis 8

Appendix B: Data from the Spanish Governor 13

Analysis 17

Appendix C: Terminology—Bilangos and Mananguetes 23

Conclusions about Filipino Initiative 26

1

The Accusations

Spanish ecclesiastics charged in the late eighteenth century Bicol region that there were too many pueblo1 officials. The initiative for the charges seems to have come from the Franciscans in the region. We find all of this recounted in a single manuscript source,2 with no indications of how novel the changes in number were, whether the changes were recent, nor what changes might have occurred subsequently.

We also do not have information to allow us to determine whether this phenomenon was unique to this region or was one found throughout the colonial Philippines at this or other times. Unusual as the charges might have been, unique as the source is, the material is remarkably useful for an overview of pueblo government3 in the 1780s in the municipalities in the Camarines and Albay provinces. Ultimately it will lead to the suspicion of significant Filipino4 initiative within the demands and structures of the colonial experience.

On the 10th of December 1781, after an inspection trip to the Franciscan parishes in the Camarines, the Franciscan Provincial claimed that there was a “most severe disorder” there due to “the multitude of visitas in the pueblos of that province and the exorbitant number of officials” (ff. 23-24). The consequences were that these officials become “servants” to the “Captains” or gobernadorcillos, “at the cost in sweat in blood of the poor whose obligations are doubled” since (according to the Provincial) these excessive and useless officials were exempted from tribute payments, forced labor, and requisitioned goods, passing the burdens on those beneath them.

1 Pueblos were not towns but much more akin to municipal districts or counties. The center of a pueblo was called a población, and usually it contained the church, rectory, government house, and plaza, near which the houses of the prominent families were located. Dispersed settlements were common in the Philippines, and the poblaciones were usually surrounded by smaller hamlets called visitas, barrios, rancherias, and sitios. These ranged in size from the more settled and populated visitas, usually with a chapel for the priest to Mass in when he made a visit, to two or three houses loosely clustered and called a sitio. Each of these subsidiary units had officials under the government of the población officials. Except in major pueblos, if the priest were European he would be the only European resident there.

2 Philippine National Archives (PNA), Ereccion de Pueblos, Camarines Sur, 1781-1783: 1781-83, Espediente formado por mandado del Superior Gobierno para que los dos Alcaldes mayors de Camarines y Albay informen sobre lo representado por el M. R. P. Provincia de San Gregorio, sobre las visitas de los pueblos efectuado por D. Juan del Castillo Negrete Alcalde mayor de esta de Camarines quien lo remite al de Albay, 52ff.

3 The Filipino head of the pueblo was called a gobernadorcillo or capitán. He was elected by a subset of the male principales or principal citizens; those voting usually were former gobernadorcillos. The total group of male principal citizens was called the principalía. Under the gobernadorcillo were the men in charge of forty or fifty families (a barangay), who were called cabezas de barangay. As we will see, there were other officials as well serving under the gobernadorcillos. All pueblo officials were male; none were Spanish.

4 I use the term Filipinos to mean non-Europeans born in the Philippine Islands, including areas not ruled by Spain. This usage is anachronistic but convenient.

2

The same charge and consequences were detailed in a 28 April 1783 report (ff. 30-31v) by the Bishop of Nueva Cáceres, also a Franciscan:

The multitude of officials, it is obvious, are without any utility whatsoever …They spend the year maintaining their position and work by distributing among themselves those who must pay tribute. These then must work the lands of the pueblo officials so that those officials can spend the work with more decency and display. …this is a hidden government that, while tyrannical, all observe, some from fear and others hopeful that tomorrow they will do the same to others. … it is partly from this that [some run off], hoping to hide themselves or even to found visitas so that they themselves can be officials.

The Franciscan Provincial added another dimension, suggesting that the fiddle was executed with the connivance and to the benefit not only of Filipino officials but also for the pockets of the Spanish provincial governors. He spoke of a particular Spanish governor in Albay who allowed the re-establishment of older visitas as well as the creation of new ones in order to facilitate the collection of wax and other forest products. This maneuver was seconded by some principales (leading families in the pueblos) who also wanted to have far off visitas in order to have “servants and laborers” as well as to be effectively “little kings in such places” (f. 23v). The Franciscan parish priest of Calabagnan went further, saying that the dependent Filipinos were “like slaves” (ff. 3-4, 27 June 1781). On the same date, the Franciscan parish priest of Magarao observed that the pueblo officials were fully “occupied in serving the provincial governor and the” gobernadorcillo (f. 20).

On the 4th of June 1782, a Spanish provincial governor endeavored to defend the situation, primarily by stating that the many visitas were “indispensable and most useful for agricultural production, peacefulness of the Filipinos, and easy transit along the roads” from pueblo to pueblo (ff. 25v-26). Moreover, he added later that dispersion was inevitable since there were insufficient lands contiguous to the población to support the population, while also providing early warning and defensible sites to impede Moro attacks and keep the raiders away from the poblaciones (ff. 26v-27v, 15 July 1782).

The Bishop responded with a withering attack (ff. 30-31v, 28 April 1783), terming the provincial governor’s argument about a shortage of lands for cultivation a “ridiculous excuse,” that there was plenty of cultivable land near the poblaciones and less land than implied near the visitas. Moreover, the low production was due more to the “indolence” of the Filipino than shortage of land, with Filipinos choosing to be satisfied with self-sufficiency rather than abundance. As for visitas as bulwarks against Moro attack—on the contrary, they “are very exposed and at risk” and cannot successfully resist since they were not unified and lacked sufficient weapons.

3

Another Spanish provincial governor seems to have agreed that there were too many pueblo officials. He focused on the cost to other Filipinos, speaking of how petty officials oppressed their “vassals” with their orders, their swindles, and their robberies” with more affliction caused by the forced labor and personal services that were demanded from them (f. 49-49v, 19 April 1783, Francisco Hurtado de Mendoza, Alcalde mayor of Camarines). A Franciscan parish priest had already observed that “the multitude of officials, instead of remedying ” evil in effect “augment vice” (29 June 1781, Polangui).

We have another statement by the Bishop previously quoted, but from about a decade earlier: 5 those Filipinos working for pueblo officials were almost “slaves,” paying them a real every week in order to come up with the seven pesos demanded as tribute—when the King only in fact requires five reales” (f. 13v). This is a remarkable and beneficial extortion, not only through misrepresenting the size of the tribute cost but because there were eight reales to a peso. The consequence would have been, if the Bishop were correct, that instead of five weeks’ labor the tribute payer would have had to labor fifty-six weeks, more than one year, when the charges would have been imposed again.6

Details of the extortion and the culpability, if any, of Filipino officials and Spanish governors cannot be independently verified. Other data from other observers and places and times are remarkably scarce. What data we have in this manuscript are reports by Franciscan parish priests detailing the number of pueblo officials in and outside of the población; and a statement by a Spanish governor listing the Filipino pueblo officials whose elections or appointments he validated. These data are presented in the following two appendices.

5 Archivo Franciscano Ibero-Oriental (AFIO) 92/28, Informe del Obispo de Camarines, Fr. Antonio de Luna, sobre la Real Cédula que manda se predique y enseñe el castellano. Al final se refiere al estado de los pueblos. Mss., 17ff., 1772; here, f. 13v.

6 On the face of it, while payment in kind, labor, or cash in order to avoid tribute and labor drafts is probable, the figures seem suspect. How would a farmer away from the población earn one real in cash? Maybe the payment was in kind or in labor to the upper class Filipino. In either case, indebtedness and perpetual bondage would have been the result, which unfortunately are probable even if the cash figures are questionable. More feasible is the statement by a 17th-century Spaniard that various pueblo officials paid weekly sums to the gobernadorcillo for tribute and polo exemptions—presumably they then squeezed the sums in kind or in labor from poorer Filipinos that they exploited (James S. Cummins; and Nicholas P. Cushner, eds., “Labor in the Colonial Philippines: The Discurso Parenetico of Gomez de Espinosa,” Philippine Studies, 22 (1974), 117-203; here, 180-181. Reprinted in his Jesuit and Friar in the Spanish Expansion to the East (London: Variorum Reprints, 1986).

4

Appendix AData and from Franciscan Priests Regarding Pueblo Officials7

(Data have been arranged and Pueblo order alphabetized for ease of analysis)n/a = not available in the source Items in brackets supplied by Bruce

Pueblo Visitas, Barrios,

Sitios, etc.

Number of

Tributos

Head of Pueblo

Cabezas de

Barangay

Number of

Officials

Comments

Baao 133 [1] n/a n/aVisita one [sic] Five All live in

poblaciónBombon 365.5 [1] n/a n/a

Visita forty fourBuhi 460 [1] n/a n/a

Visita thirty-five fourVisita twenty-

fivefour

Bula 140 [1] n/a n/aVisita twenty five

Calabanga n/a [1] n/a n/aVisita eighty to

ninetytwo five includes 2

Bilangos8

Visita nine four dittoCamalig 1,200 [1] n/a n/a

Visita twenty-one

illegible hole in manuscript

Visita nineteen fiveVisita twenty five

Camaligan 397 “Governador” n/a 7Visita forty oneVisita twenty one

Canaman 312 “Gobernador” n/a 11, probably damaged and lost text

Visita forty one twoBarrio eight two oneSitio forty one twoSitio seventy-nine

and one-halftwo two

7 Taken again from PNA, Ereccion de Pueblos, Camarines Sur, 1781-1783: 1781-83, Espediente formado por mandado del Superior Gobierno para que los dos Alcaldes mayors de Camarines y Albay informen sobre lo representado por el M. R. P. Provincia de San Gregorio, sobre las visitas de los pueblos efectuado por D. Juan del Castillo Negrete Alcalde mayor de esta de Camarines quien lo remite al de Albay, 52ff.

8 See Appendix C for discussion of this category.

5

Pueblo Visitas, Barrios,

Sitios, etc.

Number of

Tributos

Head of Pueblo

Cabezas de

Barangay

Number of

Officials

Comments

Casiguran 317? (1st digit unclear)

[1] n/a n/aVisita ?one hundred

ninety-one (1st

digit unclear)

one nine includes three Bilangos

titulados and three Bilangos not titulados

Visita thirty-nine three and one Bilango

Guinobatan n/a [1] n/a n/aVisita 140 personas five personas,

not tributosVisita 226 personas five dittoVisita 140 personas five dittoVisita 135 personas five ditto

Iriga 580 “Capitán” n/a 6 & 10 Bilangos

Visita 40 casas 5 casas (houses), not tributos

Visita 7 casas five ditto

Libong 160 [1] n/a n/aVisita ten fiveVisita twenty-four five

Ligao 1,256.50 [1] n/a n/aVisita eighty five & one Bilango

Visita eighty five & one Bilango

Visita eighty five—all live in the población

& one Bilango

Visita forty five & one Bilango

Visita twenty-five five & one Bilango

Ligmanan 466 [1] n/a n/aVisita forty four & two Bilangos

Visita n/a n/aMagarao 500 “Gobernadorcillo” 12 5 no visitas

also has two escribanos, 12 Bilangos, and 1 Comissario

Milaor >1,000 “Gobernadorcillo,” & two escribanos

n/a 5 & 10 Bilangos (que llaman titulados)

Visita n/a fourVisita n/a fourVisita n/a threeSitio n/a oneSitio n/a two

Minalabag 320 [1] n/a n/aVisita twenty-two three & one

BilangoVisita sixteen and

one-halfthree & one

Bilango

6

Pueblo Visitas, Barrios,

Sitios, etc.

Number of

Tributos

Head of Pueblo

Cabezas de

Barangay

Number of

Officials

Comments

Nabua 788 [1] n/a 22Visita n/a six & two Bilangos

Naga 189 “Governador” n/a 7Visita n/a oneVisita eight and

one-halftwo

Oas 1,149 [1] n/a n/aVisita thirty-five

and one-halffive

Visita fifty-six fiveVisita forty-five

and one-halffive

Visita seventy-two and one-half

five

Polangui 825 [1] n/a n/aVisita n/a 3 five & four Bilangos

Visita n/a five & five Bilangos

Visita n/a five & four Bilangos

Visita n/a four & four Bilangos

Visita n/a six & four Bilangos

Quipayo 289 [1] n/a n/aVisita thirty-five one three

Pueblo Visitas, Barrios,

Sitios, etc.

Number of

Tributos

Head of Pueblo

Cabezas de

Barangay

Number of

Officials

Comments

7

Analysis (Appendix A)

The first aspect of this set of data is how irregular the format and inclusiveness are. Almost all the data given are as tributos but two (Guinobatan and Iriga) give at least some of the data as personas or as casas. The fluidity of format seems to be at least partly due to the fact that individual Franciscans report on each of the parishes, with no format fully specified. Even the dates the reports were submitted seem to have varied widely, with most from 1781 but at least three from 1782 and one from 1783:

Summary manuscript source locations and dates of entriesBaao f. 8 22 June 1781 by parish priest of BulaBombon f. 18 30 June 1781 also did QuipayoBuhi f. 16 25 June 1782Bula f. 8 22 June 1781 also did BaaoCalabanga ff. 3v-4 27 June 1781Camalig f. 5 20 June 1781Camaligan f. 11-11v 7 August 1782 also did NagaCanaman f. 17-17v 24 ___ ____ parts of text lostCasiguran f. 22-22v 15 September 1781Guinobatan f. 6 16 September 1781 personas, not tributosIriga f. 12 30 June 1781Libong f. 14-14v 28 June 1781Ligao f. 7-7v 29 June 1781Ligmanan f. 21 18 June 1781Magarao f. 20 27 June 1783 [sic]Milaor f. 12 27 June 1781Minalabag f. 19 1 July 1781Nabua f. 9-9v 30 June 1781Naga f. 11-11v 7 August 1782 also did CamaliganOas f. 10-10v 20 June 1781Polangui f. 15 25 June 1782Quipayo f. 18 30 June 1781 also did Bombon

There are some other issues, which are inexplicable. The most apparent is the lack of recognition of the gobernadorcillo, the head of the pueblo. The data tend only to give information about visita and sitio officials, not the staff of the pueblo in general. The exceptions to this omission are Camaligan, Canaman, Iriga, Magarao, Milaor, Naga, or six out of the twenty-two. Only one mentions subsidiary staff, such as escribanos, when the full allotment of officials in the población would have included the gobernadorcillo, cabezas de barangay, and

8

others.9 The category of cabezas de barangay is also a puzzle, since they appear in the listings for the visitas and sitios but strictly speaking, they should have been listed only as población officials. The cabezas were in charge of roughly forty families, and the families generally were scattered throughout the municipality, not neatly resident in only one visita. Calbanga’s two visitas list cabezas de barangay as part of their officials, and we find the same anomaly for the barrio,10 two sitios, and visita of Canaman; one of the two visitas of Casiguran, and one each for Polangui and Quipayo. Magarao lists the cabezas correctly, but even that is suspect since the priest said there were no visitas in Magarao.

Strictly speaking, sitios should not have had formal officials, something usually restricted to visitas. Nonetheless, equating the two as this listing seems to do, we have a sense that a certain number of pueblo officials were more or less mandated, namely Theniente mayor, Juez de sementeras, Aguacil, Juez de Palmas, and Aguacil de Bagamundos. Five in all, a number that occurs regularly in the following: Baao, Bula, Calabanga (one of two visitas), Camalig, Guinobatan, Iriga, Libong, Ligao, Oas, and Polangui; ten of the twenty-two pueblos. Other pueblos had less than five visita or sitio officials listed, namely Bombon, Buhi, one of two visitas in Calabanga, Camaligan, Canaman, one of two visitas in Casiguran, Ligmanan, Milaor, Minalabag, Naga, one of five visitas in Polangui, and Quipayo—twelve of twenty-two.

The immediate conclusion would be that the Franciscans misrepresented their concern. That it was not the number of officials per se but rather the number of settlements outside of the población that was at issue. We know from many other manuscripts that the Franciscans and other Spaniards were quite concerned with Filipino preference to live away from the población. Population dispersion was a problem for Spanish governmental and ecclesiastical authorities. If we look again at the table we see only the following with visita and sitio officials numbering more than five:

Casiguran, with one of two visitas with nine officialsNabua with it one visita, six officialsPolangui, with one of its five visitas with six officials

The data seem to indicate that the problem of “excessive” numbers of officials was fundamentally an issue regarding Filipino preference for dispersion. However, there are 9 For the nineteenth century, Eliodoro G. Robles (The Philippines in the Nineteenth Century (Quezon City: Malaya Books, Inc., 1969), 62-67, identifies the escribano/clerk-secretary, the tenientes mayors, the Juez de Policia/Chief of Police, Juez de Sementeras/Superintendent of Fields and Harvests, Juez de Ganado/Superintendent of Livestock, and “alguacils for various police duties” (68). There were also testigos/witnesses, “whose signatures were necessary for the authentication of all public instruments, such as the election results” (68). He says that there were tenientes mayors, Jueces, and alguacils for each visita (68), a vacunador after 1805, an interpreter after 1845, and a Cuerpo de Cuadrilleros after 1855 (69). It is important to note that “every one of these functionaries was exempt from paying tribute and the polos y servicios...” (70). Moreover, the Cabeza de Barangay would get 1.5% of tribute collected and “he and his wife, plus his eldest son [viewed as his assistant], were exempt from the tribute and polos y servicios” (71). All officials were male.

10 The term barrio is used differently in the Philippines than in areas under Spain in the Americas.

9

additional indicators to suggest that more was going on here than simple dispersion and mathematical distribution of officials, though that was the prime reason for the number signaled by the Franciscans and the Bishop.

One of those indicators would be the Bilangos. Note the listing below indicating the number of other officials, the Bilangos (discussed in Appendix C), showing that the “standard” five were in many cases supplemented by Bilangos, perhaps the very over-abundance of officials decried by the ecclesiastics:

Pueblo Visitas, Barrios,

Sitios, etc.

Number of Tributos

Head of Pueblo

Cabezas de

Barangay

Number of Officials

Comments

Calabanga n/a [1] n/a n/aVisita eighty to

ninetytwo five includes 2

BilangosVisita nine four ditto

Ligao 1,256.50 [1] n/a n/aVisita eighty five & one Bilango

Visita eighty five & one Bilango

Visita eighty five—all live in the población

& one Bilango

Visita forty five & one Bilango

Visita twenty-five five & one Bilango

Ligmanan 466 [1] n/a n/aVisita forty four & two Bilangos

Visita n/a n/aMinalabag 320 [1] n/a n/a

Visita twenty-two three & one Bilango

Visita sixteen and one-half

three & one Bilango

Nabua 788 [1] n/a 22Visita n/a six & two Bilangos

Polangui 825 [1] n/a n/aVisita n/a 3 five & four Bilangos

Visita n/a five & five Bilangos

Visita n/a five & four Bilangos

Visita n/a four & four Bilangos

Visita n/a six & four Bilangos

If we look at the pueblo of Baao we see that the visita has what I would term as the standard five officials—however, they all live in the población, not in the visita.

Baao 133 [1] n/a n/aVisita one [sic] Five All live in

10

población

Perhaps other officials in the subordinate settlements also lived in the poblaciones, as did officials in one of the Ligao visitas (see excerpted table above), suggesting that the argument advanced by the ecclesiastics that the visita officials were tools of the gobernadorcillo on the one hand and agents of extortion on the other may be reflected in preferred residence location.

Moreover, if we add in a sense of how many officials might have been supervising the adults in a visita or sitio, we see that more than simple dispersion is at play here:

Pueblo and Visitas etc. Tributos Number of Officials Officials / TributosBaao one [sic] five 5/1Bombon forty four 1/10Buhi 35 & 25 4 & 4 roughly 1/9 and 1/6Bula no data fiveCalabanga 80 to 90; and 9 5 & 4 roughly 1/16 & 1/2Camalig 21, 19, and 20 ?, 5, & 5 ?, roughly 1/4, 1/4Camaligan forty & twenty one & one 1/40 and 1/20Canaman 40, 8, 40, 79.5 2, 1, 2, 2 roughly 1/20, 1/8,

1/20, & 1/40Casiguran ?191 and 39 nine & three roughly 1/25 & 1/13Guinobatan—personas 140, 226, 140, 135

personas5, 5, 5, 5 roughly, officials to

personas, 1/18, 1/45, 1/18, 1/27

Iriga—casas 40 and 7 casas five and five roughly 1/8 casas and 1/1 casa

Libong 10 and 24 five and five roughly 1/2 & 1/5Ligao 80, 80, 80, 40, & 25 5, 5, 5, 5, & 5 1/16, 1/16, 1/16, 1/8,

and 1/5Ligmanan forty and n/a four and n/a 1/10 and n/aMagarao no visitas no visitas no visitasMilaor no data 4, 4, 3, 1, 2 lack dataMinalabag 22 and 16.5 three and three roughly 1/7 & 1/5Nabua no data six lack dataNaga no data & 8.5 one & two no data & roughly 1/4Oas 35.5, 56, 45.5, 72.5 5, 5, 5, & 5 roughly 1/7, 1/11, 1/9,

and 1/14Polangui lack data 5, 5, 5, 4, and 6 lack dataQuipayo 35 three roughly 1/13

The figures of officials to tributos vary widely, but when we group them (omitting Guinobatan and Iriga with the personas and casas entries), we see a range from relatively few officials per tribute to the improbable five to one of Baao:

11

Summary Distribution, Officials to Tributos

1 official to 40 tributos: two1 official to 25 tributos: one

1 to 20: three1 to 16: four1 to 14: one1 to 13: two1 to 11: one1 to 10: two1 to nine: two1 to eight: two1 to seven: two1 to six: one

1 to five: three 1 to four: three1 to two: twoFive to one: one

There is substantial variation, perhaps depending on a) the creativity and integrity of the Filipino officials; b) the dispersion and intractability of potential Filipino victims of extortion and “supervision;” and possibly too c) the level of active supervision by the parish priest (Baao’s priest was actually resident in Bula, for instance and wrote both reports11); d) the cupidity of the provincial governor; and e) the relative abundance of vendible produce in the pueblo.

About half of the distributions schematized above are grouped in the one official to two through ten tributos; and about a third are grouped in the one official to every eleven through twenty tributos. The most common grouping is for one official to every six through ten tributos, with one to every two through five right behind. If a tributo equaled four or five persons (husband, wife, two or three children), an official might commonly be supervising around twenty adults. That seems to be a lot of official, supervisory personnel per adult.

Appendix B12

11 Naga’s priest wrote the report for both Naga and Camaligan; Polangui’s priest did the reports for both Polangui and Libong; and Quipayo’s priest prepared both Quipayo and for Bombon’s reports.

12 Taken again from PNA, Ereccion de Pueblos, Camarines Sur, 1781-1783: 1781-83, Espediente formado por mandado del Superior Gobierno para que los dos Alcaldes mayors de Camarines y Albay informen sobre lo representado por el M. R. P. Provincia de San Gregorio, sobre las visitas de los pueblos efectuado por D. Juan del

12

Data from the Spanish Governor, ca. 1782(Data have been Arranged and Pueblo Order Alphabetized for Ease of Analysis)

(Missions also included in this report and noted at end of Pueblo list)

My intention in this appendix is to present a summary of the governor’s data, separate out the material comparable to the Franciscans’ data, then analyze and compare the two.

The first point to note is that the information includes many pueblos not listed by the Franciscans. The reason is straightforward—many parishes in Nueva Caceres were administered by the Secular clergy, not by the Franciscans; and of course the Franciscans were not privy to the details of those pueblos and attached parishes. The Spanish governor was in charge of all pueblos in that province, Franciscan or not. Here is a summary statement of the governor’s list, less names of visitas, etc., and without the names of the pueblo officials.

Pueblo Visitas, Barrios,

Sitios, etc.

Head of Pueblo

Number of Officials

Comments

Baao 1 6Visita five & six Bilangos (see

Appendix C)Bato 1 6

Visita three & three BilangosBombon 1 6

Visita fourSitio one & four Bilangos

Buhi 1 6Visita fiveVisita four & four BilangosVisita sixSitio one & four Bilangos

Bula 1 6Visita four & five Bilangos

Pueblo Visitas, Barrios,

Sitios, etc.

Head of Pueblo

Number of Officials

Comments

Cagsaua 1 6

Castillo Negrete Alcalde mayor de esta de Camarines quien lo remite al de Albay, 52ff.; here, ff. 37v-48v, by Don Juan del Castillo Negrete, Alcalde mayor of Nueva Caceres, 1782.

13

Visita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveSitio two & ten Bilangos

Calabanga 1 6Visita threeVisita two & six Bilangos

Camalig 1 6Visita fiveVisita fiveVisita five & 14 Bilangos

Camaligan 1 6Sitio one & two Bilangos

Canaman 1 6Visita threeVisita twoSitio twoSitio one & six Bilangos

Capalonga 1 6 & two BilangosNo visitas listed

Carivay 1 6 & two BilangosNo visitas listed

Casiguran No entry at allDaet 1 6

Visita threeVisita threeVisita three & six Bilangos

Guinobatan 1 6Visita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita five & twelve Bilangos

Indan 1 6 & four BilangosNo visitas listed

Iriga 1 6Visita fiveVisita five & ten Bilangos

Labo 1 6 & two BilangosNo visitas listed

Pueblo Visitas, Barrios,

Sitios, etc.

Head of Pueblo

Number of Officials

Comments

Libong 1 6

14

Visita fiveVisita five & four Bilangos

Ligao 1 6Visita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita five & fourteen Bilangos

Ligmangan 1Visita fourVisita two & six Bilangos

Magarao 1 6 & six BilangosNo visitas listed

Mambulao 1 6 & two BilangosNo visitas listed

Milaor 1 6Visita fiveVisita fiveVisita threeSitio oneSitio two & ten Bilangos

Minalabag 1 6Sitio threeVisita three & four Bilangos

Nabua 1 6Visita five & seven Bilangos

Naga 1 6Sitio 1 one & two Bilangos

Oas 1 sixVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita five & ten Bilangos

Paracale 1 6 & two BilangosNo visitas listed

Mission Visitas, Barrios,

Sitios, etc.

Head of Mission

Number of Officials

Comments

Polangui 1 6

15

Visita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveSitio twoVisita four & 12 Bilangos

Quipayo 1 6Sitio oneVisita four & three Bilangos

Santa Cruz 1 5Visita threeVisita twoSitio twoSitio two

Tabuco 1 5Visita twoSitio one & two Bilangos

Mission of Goa 1 6Sitio of Salog four

Sitio twoMission of Himoragat

1 6

Sitio fiveMission of Lupi none listed 6

Visita two & one BilangoMission of Manguirin

1 6

Sitio threeMission of Ragay none listed 6 & two Bilangos

No visitas listedMission of Sipocot none listed 5

Visita twoVisita two

Mission of Tiganon [sic]

1 6

Mission of Tinambac

1 6

16

Analysis (Appendix B)

The material is straightforward, presenting the gobernadorcillo and other pueblo officials; as well as the officials for the visitas and sitios within the municipality. (I omitted the names of the office holders and the names of the visitas and sitios) Since the governor’s list included mission stations, the format and data are sometimes different from that for the pueblos. Here is the same data, but just for the pueblos (and missions) not listed by the Franciscans:

Pueblo Visitas, Barrios,

Sitios, etc.

Head of Pueblo

Number of Officials

Comments

Bato 1 6Visita three & three Bilangos

Cagsaua 1 6Visita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveSitio two & ten Bilangos

Capalonga 1 6 & two BilangosNo visitas listed

Carivay 1 6 & two BilangosNo visitas listed

Daet 1 6Visita threeVisita threeVisita three & six Bilangos

Indan 1 6 & four BilangosNo visitas listed

Labo 1 6 & two BilangosNo visitas listed

Mambulao 1 6 & two BilangosNo visitas listed

Paracale 1 6 & two BilangosNo visitas listed

Santa Cruz 1 5Visita threeVisita twoSitio twoSitio two

17

Pueblo Visitas, Barrios,

Sitios, etc.

Head of Pueblo

Number of Officials

Comments

Tabuco 1 5Visita twoSitio one & two Bilangos

Mission of Goa 1 6Sitio of Salog four

Sitio twoMission of Himoragat

1 6

Sitio fiveMission of Lupi none listed 6

Visita two & one BilangoMission of Manguirin

1 6

Sitio threeMission of Ragay none listed 6 & two Bilangos

No visitas listedMission of Sipocot none listed 5

Visita twoVisita two

Mission of Tiganon [sic]

1 6

Mission of Tinambac

1 6

There are no surprises here except for the low number of pueblo officials in the visitas and sitios. Omitting the Missions, none of the settlements outside of the pueblos had more than five officials. Indeed, only about one-third had five, the number which I suggested in Appendix A was the standard number for visitas. Of the non-Franciscan pueblos, one visita had only one official; and the others each had five instances for those with either two, three, or five officials. These sixteen examples of visita pueblo officials, then, were divided into four groups, with one instance with one official and five instances each for those with 2, 3, and 5 officials. We are done with the non-Franciscan parishes except for some comments I will make about Bilangos in Appendix C.

Here is the same information but only for the pueblos listed by the Franciscans—Casiguran was apparently not listed by the provincial governor:

18

Pueblo Visitas, Barrios,

Sitios, etc.

Head of Pueblo

Number of Officials

Comments

Baao 1 6Visita five & six Bilangos (see

Appendix C)Bombon 1 6

Visita fourSitio one & four Bilangos

Buhi 1 6Visita fiveVisita four & four BilangosVisita sixSitio one & four Bilangos

Bula 1 6Visita four & five Bilangos

Calabanga 1 6Visita threeVisita two & six Bilangos

Camalig 1 6Visita fiveVisita fiveVisita five & 14 Bilangos

Camaligan 1 6Sitio one & two Bilangos

Canaman 1 6Visita threeVisita twoSitio twoSitio one & six Bilangos

Casiguran No entry at allGuinobatan 1 6

Visita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita five & twelve Bilangos

Iriga 1 6Visita fiveVisita five & ten Bilangos

Libong 1 6Visita fiveVisita five & four Bilangos

19

Ligao 1 6Visita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita five & fourteen Bilangos

Ligmangan 1Visita fourVisita two & six Bilangos

Magarao 1 6 & six BilangosNo visitas listed

Milaor 1 6Visita fiveVisita fiveVisita threeSitio oneSitio two & ten Bilangos

Minalabag 1 6Sitio threeVisita three & four Bilangos

Nabua 1 6Visita five & seven Bilangos

Naga 1 6Sitio 1 one & two Bilangos

Oas 1 6Visita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita five & ten Bilangos

Polangui 1 6Visita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveVisita fiveSitio twoVisita four & 12 Bilangos

Quipayo 1 6Sitio oneVisita four & three Bilangos

20

I have compared the governor’s data with the figures provided by the Franciscans (Appendix A). Of course the most notable difference is that the governor provided full information for the pueblo officials. Since we are looking at comparable data for the visita, barrio, and sitio officials that difference need not detain us. Unfortunately the governor did not provided tributo data. For convenience I provide the comparison below:

Pueblo Comparisons between Franciscan reports (OFM) and governor’s report (GOV)Baao Data for Visita = same except GOV adds Bilango numbers

Bombon Data for Visita = same; GOV adds a Sitio and Bilango numbers

Buhi Data for 2 visitas = same; GOV adds a visita, a sitio, and Bilango numbers

Bula GOV lists one less pueblo official; adds Bilango numbers

Calabanga GOV lists 3 officials not present in OFM statement; GOV adds Bilango #s

Camalig GOV lists 5 officials lost to hole in OFM statement; GOV adds Bilango #s

Camaligan GOV has one sitio with one official, omits the two visitas listed in the OFM account (and their two officials). GOV includes a figure for Bilangos.

Canaman GOV lists two visitas and two sitios, with three, two, two, and one pueblo officials; and six Bilangos. OFM lists one visita, one barrio, and two sitios, with two, one, two, and two officials. No Bilangos were listed by the OFM report.

Casiguran GOV does not list Casiguran and thus omits the two visitas etc. in OFM

Guinobatan OFM and GOV agree on visitas and officials; GOV adds Bilango numbers

Iriga OFM and GOV are in agreement except that GOV adds Bilango numbers

Libong ditto

Ligao OFM and GOV agree on visitas and officials but GOV has more Bilangos

Ligmanan GOV has two officials in 2nd visita—OFM had not provided that number.GOV has more Bilangos listed than did the OFM report.

Magarao GOV and OFM are in agreement except OFM has more Bilangos listed.

Milaor GOV has 5 not 4 officials in two visitas, otherwise the same, Bilangos too

Minalabag GOV has one visita listed as sitio, both agree on numbers of officials, but GOV has more Bilangos listed than does OFM.

Nabua OFM has fewer Bilangos but one more official than GOV.

Naga OFM has two visitas, with one and two officials, no Bilangos; GOV has only one sitio, one official, and two Bilangos

21

Oas GOV agrees with OFM on visitas and officials, has Bilangos OFM doesn’t

Polangui GOV has 5 visitas and a sitio, four with 5 officials, one with 2 officials, and 1 with 4 officials; and 12 Bilangos. OFM has five visitas, four with 5 officials, one with 6, and twenty-one Bilangos.

Quipayo OFM has one visita with 3 officials; GOV has a sitio and visita, one and four officials respectively; and three Bilangos

The differences are small beer. Even the total visita/sitio pueblo official numbers for the governor is barely greater than for the Franciscan total of 208, namely 209 (without Casiguran of course). Once again, the governor’s tally tends to stay at or below the five visita/sitio’s number for non-población officials— only 1 of the 54 visitas had six officials,

7 only had one official,

6 had two, 5 had three,

6 had four, and

over half (29) had five officials in visitas or sitios.

Without tribute data we cannot confidently calculate officials per tributos, though the figures should be quite similar to the calculations from the Franciscan priests’ reports.

22

Appendix CTerminology—Bilangos and Mananguetes

Both in the Franciscan reports as well as in the governor’s statement the term Bilango appears in the manuscript.13

Number and Distribution of Bilangos

Pueblo Franciscan Reports Governor’s ReportBaao 6 Bilangos

Bombon 4 BilangosBuhi 4 Bilangos in one visita and

4 Bilangos in a sitioBula 5 Bilangos

Calabanga 2 Bilangos in each of two visitas 6 BilangosCamalig 14 Bilangos

Camaligan 2 BilangosCanaman 6 BilangosCasiguran 3 Bilangos titulados and 3 Bilangos not titulados in

one visita; and one Bilango in another visita[no entry for Casiguran]

Guinobatan 12 BilangosIriga 10 Bilangos 10 Bilangos

Libong 4 BilangosLigao 1 Bilango in each of its five visitas 14 Bilangos

Ligmanan 2 Bilangos in one of its two visitas 6 BilangosMagarao 12 Bilangos 6 BilangosMilaor 10 Bilangos (que llaman titulados) 10 Bilangos

Minalabag 1 Bilango in each of its two visitas 4 BilangosNabua 2 Bilangos in its one visita 7 BilangosNaga 2 BilangosOas 10 Bilangos

Polangui 4 Bilangos in each of four visitas, and 5 Bilangos in another

12 Bilangos

Quipayo 3 BilangosPueblo Franciscan Reports Governor’s Report

This is very well, but what were Bilangos? And what significance do they have for our analysis of this document?13 Again from PNA, Ereccion de Pueblos, Camarines Sur, 1781-1783: 1781-83, Espediente formado por mandado del Superior Gobierno para que los dos Alcaldes mayors de Camarines y Albay informen sobre lo representado por el M. R. P. Provincia de San Gregorio, sobre las visitas de los pueblos efectuado por D. Juan del Castillo Negrete Alcalde mayor de esta de Camarines quien lo remite al de Albay, 52ff.

23

On the question of meaning, I of course went to the Spanish-English dictionaries readily at hand. I found nothing. I then went to Google Scholar on the world wide web and found references to the term in reputable articles, albeit with a variation in spelling:

“… a petty magistrate or bilongo”14

“Officers of justice called bilongos were independent of the gobernadorcillos in certain provinces and were especially charged with overseeing the collection of tribute.”15

I am not sure how independent Bilangos could have been. Retana also has a definition, but it is partly off target for our purposes. In his citation, though, he quotes an 1833 source describing Bilangos as justice officials and low ranking officials (lower ranking than alguaciles), under the gobernadorcillos, which I think describes them quite well in rank and position.16 Another term appears in the PNA manuscript, mananguetes,17 which again thanks to Google I was able to find a reference to, suggesting that they were involved in the making and (more likely) taxing of tuba.18

It seems clear that these two officials were involved in collecting tribute payments, most probably forced collections of produce or taxes on such products. Since the Spanish governor’s

14 José S. Arcilla, “Slavery, flogging and other moral cases in 17th century Philippines.” Philippine Studies, 20:3 (1972), 399-416; here, 413.

15 Elliott C. Arensmeyer, “Foreign Accounts of the Chinese in the Philippines: 18th-19th Centuries,” Philippine Studies, 18: 1 (1970), 83-102; here, 98. Vilongos [sic] are also mentioned in James S. Cummins; and Nicholas P. Cushner, eds., “Labor in the Colonial Philippines: The Discurso Parenetico of Gomez de Espinosa,” Philippine Studies, 22 (1974), 117-203; 180-181 and 190. Reprinted in his Jesuit and Friar in the Spanish Expansion to the East (London: Variorum Reprints, 1986.

16 Wenceslao E. Retana y Gamboa, “Diccionario de Filipinismos con la Revisión de lo que al respect lleva publicado La Real Academia Española,” Revue Hispanique, 51: 120 (1921), 1-174. Also available as separate publication, Madrid, Imp. de la Casa Editorial Bailly-Baillière, 1921. Page 54, BILANGO, m. Chino Cristiano que entre los de su raza ejercia en la jurisdicción de Tondo (Manila) funciones de official de justicia. “El gremio de chinos está en posesión de poder elegir de entre sus individuos cristianos, y en junta que preside el Corregidor de Tondo, uno para gobernadorcillo, otro para teniente mayor y un tercero para alguacil mayor … Los oficiales de justicia en este gremio, que se llaman BILANGOS, los nombra el gobernadorcillo entrante.” --Almanaque Filipino y Guia de forasteros para el año 1834. Manila [1833].”

17 In regard to Polangui, f. 13v: con Thenientes, Juezes de sementeras, Juezes de Palmas, Alguaciles mayors, y dos Bilangos Titulados, ocho sin Titulos, ocho mananguetes cuios ultimos, y penultimos, vienen hazer otros tantos esclavos de los dhos oficiales ….

18 James S. Cummins; and Nicholas P. Cushner, eds., “Labor in the Colonial Philippines: The Discurso Parenetico of Gomez de Espinosa,” Philippine Studies, 22 (1974), 117-203; here, 163. Reprinted in his Jesuit and Friar in the Spanish Expansion to the East (London: Variorum Reprints, 1986. The text reads Y que tienen mananguetes,esto es indios, que se ocupan en beneficiar la tuba, para confeccionar della el vino de cocos, o de nipa; en que se tiene negociación considerable.

24

list is purportedly a roster of elected officials, it is reasonably certain that Bilangos and Mananguetes were part of the corpus of petty officials working under the gobernadorcillo.19 What is still unclear is why we have references to Bilangos who were titled and to those who were untitled, but this issue need not detain us.20 The Franciscan reports specify in which visitas or sitios the Bilangos were assigned or working, but except for Buhi the governor’s report seems merely to indicate pueblo linkages. It is also clear from the governor’s report that the existence of Bilangos is not exclusively to Franciscan parishes, since the pueblos with Secular clergy also have references to Bilangos.21

The existence of Bilangos is significant for the Franciscan argument that there was an over-abundance of pueblo officials assigned to the visitas and barrios of pueblos in which they had parishes. The Franciscan reports suggest a total of 77 Bilangos, while the governor’s report for the same pueblos has a much larger total, 151, almost doubling the Franciscan tally. Looking back at Appendix A, a rough total of the officials noted there assigned to the pueblo and visitas is 208. If Bilangos were added to the Franciscan summary (Appendix A), the total of visita and sitio officials would increase by more than a third. The tally of visita and sitio officials in the provincial governor’s list (from Appendix B) is about the same (209), and with Bilangos it would rise by about 70%.

Therefore we can conclude that indeed the figures substantiate the statements that there were lots of officials for the sitios and visitas of the pueblos with Franciscans as parish priests in this part of Bicol. Of course the statements included a larger argument and set of charges. We return now to a concluding look at them in order to advance an argument regarding Filipino initiative.

19 The PNA manuscript in reference to Magarao (f. 20) speaks of “… doce Bilangos, que sirven al dicho Governador[cillo] haziendola alternativa ….”

20 Casiguran, for instance, in the Franciscan reports speaks of 3 titled and 3 not titled; and Milaor’s Franciscan speaks of 10 Bilangos (que llaman titulados). Perhaps the titled were elected and the others were just appointed on an ad hoc basis, but I am just speculating.

21 Bato, 3 Bilangos; Cagsaua, 10 Bilangos; Capalonga, 2 Bilangos; Carivay, 2 Bilangos; Daet, 6 Bilangos; etc.

25

Conclusions about Filipino Initiative

In this late eighteenth-century document,22 Franciscan parish priests and the regional Bishop charged that there were too many pueblo officials in the settlements in the Bicol portion of the Spanish colony. We have established that there was in fact a remarkable number of officials supervising or conducting other activities in the visitas and sitios of these pueblos. The ecclesiastics’ additional argument that the officials served the gobernadorcillo and the Spanish provincial governors in order to extort produce and labor from poorer Filipinos was seconded in 1783 by the Spanish governor of the Camarines, Francisco Hurtado de Mendoza, as I showed at the start of this essay. We do not have the data to fully substantiate the charges nor add the nuances of variation and interaction one would desire. For argument’s sake, let us assume that everything the Franciscans, Bishop, and Governor Hurtado said about an oversupply of officials systematically exploiting other Filipinos was accurate.

What else can the manuscript show us about Filipino lives in the late eighteenth century colony? The documents gives us a sense of the fundamental engine driving the Filipinos to act the way the Spanish observers reported. That engine was a Filipino desire to minimize or avoid

a) the imperial impositions of the tribute tax; b) the forced requisition of produce from sea, field, and forest; and c) the forced draft of labor to be taken away from home and family for rigorous and

exploitative labor, most notoriously labor levies to cut and transport timber for construction of galleons and other ships.

One way to avoid tax and labor or produce levies was to work for the Spanish. All pueblo officials were exempt from such impositions. Even Filipinos working for the priest23 in

22 PNA, Ereccion de Pueblos, Camarines Sur, 1781-1783: 1781-83, Espediente formado por mandado del Superior Gobierno para que los dos Alcaldes mayors de Camarines y Albay informen sobre lo representado por el M. R. P. Provincia de San Gregorio, sobre las visitas de los pueblos efectuado por D. Juan del Castillo Negrete Alcalde mayor de esta de Camarines quien lo remite al de Albay, 52ff.

23 Even the Franciscans witnessed a rise in the number of Filipino assistants in the church and rectory. The example seems to be unique in the documentary record of the Franciscan archive. It is unspecific on where the augmentation occurred. It is dated some forty years before the PNA manuscript report we have been working with. Por que estoy informado, que en algunos Pueblos a demas del fiscal mayor, o Celador, que concede el Rey, tienen quarto fiscalillos mas, con el titulo de Ayudantes, y que estos estan reservados de Polos; y fuera de estos, tienen los quarto Tanores, que concede el Rey Nuestro Señor (que Dios Guarde) para el servicio de los conventos, sin attender al grave daño, que se hace a los Pueblos, teniendo reservados de Polos a quarto Yndios mas, y lo que puede resultar con los Alcaldes, y otros Jueces si lo llegan a saver. Mando expresamente, que se quiten dichos quarto fiscalillos, y solo sirvan los Tanores; y si por algun contingente o conveniencia de los Ministros, quisieren conserver dichos quarto fiscalillos, se quiten luego al punto los quarto Tanores y sirvan, y gocen las reservas de dichos Tanores, los quarto fiscalillos, y no de otra manera, y de todo esto haré averiguacion en la Visita, para ver si se observa. AFIO 79/15, Fr. Melchor de San Antonio, O.F.M., Provincial. Patente [Exhortando a los religiosos a que trabajan en la

26

the church and rectory were largely freed from these colonial burdens.24 Once one has become an official or a church assistant, there would be a necessity to please those ranking above you since they might otherwise deprive you of your position. There would also be the opportunity to work the system to your benefit by collecting bribes, labor, or other services from those under your shadow. Throughout one would have to keep an eye out for the Spanish governor and his demands for tribute, for goods, and his desire to squeeze his position of power to make a profit.

Filipino officials would need to satisfy the Spanish governor, to please Filipinos in higher positions in the pueblo, and perhaps try to take what they could from those dependent upon them. Non-official Filipinos would have been at risk of victimization. Their options would have been either

a) to find protectors amidst the officials or become an official themselves;

b) be subject to full imposition of taxes in kind, coin, and labor; or

c) to relocate.

I would add that the manuscript also suggests that imperial attempts to regulate and diminish the number of pueblo officials would be successful in the short term only. The Franciscan Provincial suggested in fact that with Spanish governors endeavoring to profit from extra accumulations of profitable forest goods and other products, and with richer pueblo families desiring to have servants and workers, an increase in the number of visitas and sitios (and consequent officials) was inevitable (f. 23v), regardless of Spanish attempts to regulate officials and the dispersed settlements of the colonized.

The colonial system made demands. The Bishop, as saw at the start of this essay, acknowledged that “this is a hidden government that, while tyrannical, all observe, some from fear and others hopeful that tomorrow they will do the same to others. … it is partly from this that [some run off], hoping to hide themselves or even to found visitas so that they themselves can be officials” (f. 31). Filipinos adjusted and demonstrated initiative in how they responded. Insofar as they successfully minimized imperial demands and associated extortions, they showed ability and flexibility.

salvacion de las almas, sin olvidarse de la propia]. Candelaria, Dilao, 12 Oct. 1741, 4ff.; here, f. 4.

24 Filipino initiative in striving for positions with exemption from draft labor and tribute is referred to in a variety of sources. Perhaps the best documented would be for the reservas, Filipinos freed from polo and tribute for essential work in the colonial economy, such as working on friar estates. See Nicholas P. Cushner, S.J., “Meysapan: The Formation and Social Effects of a Landed Estate in the Philippines.” Journal of Asian History, 7: 1 (1973), 30-53; here, 42-43. Also see his Spain in the Philippines: from Conquest to Revolution. Quezon City: Institute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Manila University (IPC Monographs, no. 1), 1971, 117-126.

27

The manuscript suggests that some sort of engine existed that powered this complex pattern of relationships. I posit that the attempts to avoid full imposition of colonial demands (legal and illegal) in taxes and levies of goods and labor made up the engine. These attempts to cope displayed initiative, flexibility, evasion, flight, and coercion.

It is true that direct conflict with Spaniards or documented evidences of violation of law could be costly to a Filipino subject. There seem, however, to have been quite a few ways successfully to avoid penalties, conflict, confrontation, and loss. Many Filipinos seem to have availed themselves of coping maneuvers and evasive tactics and to have done so by and large without punishment. One has the sense that while the Spanish ruled the Islands, many Filipinos managed to avoid conflict while governing on their own terms or otherwise attempting to evade impositions.

28