Cebu historians split on Lav Diaz’s Lapulapu ‘myth’ claim

When audiences see Mexican actor Gael García Bernal portray the infamous Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan on the big screen, they will also meet Rajah Humabon (Ronnie Lazaro), Hara Humamay/Juana (Hazel Orencio), and Rajah Colambu (Bong Cabrera). But notably absent is the first Filipino hero, Lapulapu, whom director-writer Lav Diaz claims is a “myth” based on his seven-year research.

“Magellan,” a co-production with Portugal, Spain, France, and Taiwan, was recently chosen as the Philippines’ bid for Best International Feature Film at the 98th Academy Awards next year. It bested other contenders, including “Sunshine,” “Food Delivery: Fresh from the West Philippine Sea,” “Some Nights I Feel Like Walking,” and “Green Bones.”

Before flying to the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year, where the two-hour-and-40-minute film premiered, the auteur filmmaker explained in interviews why he considers Antonio Pigafetta’s accounts of the chieftain unreliable. The Venetian scholar was part of Magellan’s expedition and chronicled its journey, including its return to Spain after Magellan’s death.

“Nobody ever saw Lapulapu. He was actually created by Rajah Humabon, the King of Cebu, in an attempt to drive away Magellan, who at that time had already converted almost all of Cebu to Christianity. Humabon invented Lapulapu because he didn’t want his people to convert. It was all part of the plan,” Diaz said.

Local historian I.M., requesting anonymity, reacted strongly to Diaz’s claim. He told The FREEMAN: “How is he going to discredit Lapulapu’s existence? Why would Humabon do that? Several eyewitnesses can prove Lapulapu’s existence, including Enrique of Malacca. Even Chinese people wrote something about the people of Mactan. That alone is a telltale sign that he existed.”

Harvey, an independent researcher based in Lapu-Lapu City who likewise requested anonymity, argued that Pigafetta’s accounts are highly reliable since he witnessed the Battle of Mactan himself and documented the voyage across the Pacific.

“Pigafetta's is the most credible data you can use when researching the 15th and 16th centuries,” Harvey said. “There are also credible sources showing how people dressed at that time, what battle weapons they would use, and what customs they practiced.”

George Borrinaga, a history teacher at the University of San Carlos, said he understood why Diaz might view Lapulapu as a myth, citing the lack of primary sources outside Pigafetta. However, he cautioned that such a theory should be taken “with a grain of salt,” much like other speculations about Lapulapu’s origins.

“There are so many possibilities given the lack of materials on Lapulapu. Like Senator Bong Go claimed back in 2021 that Lapulapu was Tausug (an ethnic group in Mindanao), and now Diaz claims Humabon invented him. There is a lack of data to verify the exact details about his upbringing,” Borrinaga said.

He also pointed out that Rajah Humabon himself converted to Christianity along with his wife, Hara Humamay, who was baptized as “Juana.”

“If you look at Diaz’s claim, he said Humabon didn’t want his people to be converted. A good question to ask Diaz would be: What evidence does he have for this particular claim?” Borrinaga added.

While details of Lapulapu’s life remain debated, scholars generally agree that the Battle of Mactan ended when Magellan was killed by a poisoned arrow in the leg and a bamboo lance in the face by Lapulapu’s forces — an account documented by Pigafetta.

He also documented the rivalries between Humabon and Lapulapu, particularly their opposing views on Spanish colonization of the island and the introduction of Christianity.

“History is always written by victors. So how come Pigafetta mentioned Lapulapu in his works if it’s distorted data? Why would he include the dude responsible for killing their leader? If Humabon invented Lapulapu, then why did Pigafetta refer to him as Cilapulapu? What’s the point?” I.M. said.

“The Battle of Mactan happened 504 years ago, which is fairly recent in the age of exploration. If we follow Lav’s logic, we might as well consider the Aztec empire a myth — or even Martin Luther King Jr. and Nicolaus Copernicus a myth,” he added.

Harvey, however, did not find Diaz’s claim alarming, saying it only showed the difference between history based on facts and filmmaking based on artistic license.

“You have a story to tell as a filmmaker. Narrating a story is not dependent on whether it’s completely based on facts because you have literary or artistic boundaries. It just shows that cinema and history have their own limitations,” Harvey said.

Borrinaga noted that Diaz’s theory is not entirely out of bounds but should be seen for what it is, especially if the filmmaker acknowledges he would face accusations of historical revisionism.

“Historical research involves revising previous knowledge in light of new evidence. But if there’s no evidence to support the claim, it only remains a theory,” he said.

Rather than dismiss Diaz outright, Borrinaga suggested his statement could spark dialogue about Lapulapu’s significance and what his origins mean to Philippine history.

“We should be open to dialogue about it. Even though Lapulapu is important to us as Filipinos, we know very little about him. That’s why any claim or theory can help foster and promote discussion about who we are and where we come from,” he said.

When The FREEMAN reached out to Diaz for comment, Orencio, who is also one of the film’s producers, said the director is currently promoting the film on the global festival circuit as it kick-starts its Oscar campaign, making him unavailable for an interview.

“No problem about the mixed reactions, it’s bound to happen,” she said in an email. “Our cinema encourages discourse. It’s good to be open in discussing specifically after watching the film.”

She added, “I witnessed how Lav studied this matter for seven years — reading different books from libraries worldwide, including Spain, Portugal, and New York. Lav is quite precise with his references if you interview him. He has no reaction except that he encourages everyone, including historians, to watch first.”