Possible interpretations of the question:
* Their individual historical works: This would require a detailed analysis of their specific books, articles, and essays. For example, we could look at Agoncillo's "The Revolt of the Masses" and Constantino's "The Philippines: A Past Revisited" and compare their interpretations of events like the Philippine Revolution and the American colonial period.
* Their historical methodology: Agoncillo and Constantino both employed different methodologies. Agoncillo, a traditional historian, emphasized the factual accuracy of historical events. Constantino, on the other hand, adopted a more critical and social history perspective, analyzing the historical context and social forces that shaped events.
* Their views on Philippine history: They both had distinct views on the nature of Philippine history. Agoncillo focused on the heroism and sacrifices of Filipino revolutionaries, while Constantino emphasized the impact of colonialism and its lasting legacy.
* Their influence on Philippine historiography: Both Agoncillo and Constantino influenced the development of Philippine historical studies. They sparked debates about the interpretation of historical events and the role of national history in Philippine society.
To provide a more meaningful answer, please specify which aspect of their views on history you are interested in.