Rizal felt Morga to be more "objective" than the religious writers whose accounts included many miracle stories
Morga, compared to religious chroniclers, was more sympathetic to the indios; and finally, Morga was not only an eyewitness but a major actor in the events he narrates
Rizal's second consideration for the choice of Morga was that it was the only civil, as opposed to religious or ecclesiastical, history of the Philippines written during the colonial period
The third consideration for the choice of Morga was Rizal's opinion that this secular account was more objective, more trustworthy, than those written by the religious missionaries which were liberally sprinkled with tales of miracles and apparitions
The fourth consideration in Rizal's choice of the Morga was that it appeared more sympathetic, at least in parts, to the indios, in contrast to the friar accounts, many of which were biased or downright racist in tone and interpretation
The fifth and last consideration was that Morga was an eyewitness, and therefore a primary source, on the Philippines and its people at the point of first contact with Spain