AN ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON 

THE DEATH OF RIZAL AND THE REVOLUTION OF 1896 

A Tertiary-Level Research Paper

Presented to

The Faculty of Ateneo de Manila University

Katipunan Avenue, Barangay Loyola Heights, Quezon City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Course ​Rizal and the Emergence of the Philippine Nation

By

ANTONIO, Ma. Sofia Isabelle D.

PE​ÑAFLOR, Jankris Tiffany V.

SIA, Tafline Grace B.

TOLENTINO, Amanda Mikaela Celestine D.

WONG, Clarisse H.

HISTO 11 - Q

MAY 2019
 Abstract

As the Philippines’ national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal is regarded with great respect, most notably for

his self-sacrifice for the greater good of the nation. Contrarily, little importance is granted to the logic

and purpose of his execution, thus subjecting this act of heroism to blind veneration. To account for

this shortcoming, several conspiracy theories exist pointing towards the Katipunan’s involvement in

Rizal’s conviction. Through comparative analysis of various articles written by acclaimed Filipino

historians, this paper sought to gain an alternate perspective on the role of Rizal as the catalyst of the

revolution by clarifying certain unusual historical accounts that link the Katipunan and Rizal during his

exile in Dapitan, as well as the events leading up to his trial and eventual execution. These include the

alleged neutralization efforts of the KKK, testimonies made by Dr. Pio Valenzuela on his meeting with

Rizal, and the accounts on how the KKK ultimately viewed Rizal’s refusal to support their armed

revolution.

Based primarily on secondary sources and secondarily on primary sources, it is possible that

the Katipunan, even before the revolution broke out, foresaw Rizal’s unwillingness to cooperate with

them with regards to their planned bloody uprising, and thought his death would both silence him and

fuel the revolution. Given that there were inconsistencies and discrepancies in the secondary

resources, to select a single narrative based solely on secondary information is beyond the

researchers’ credibility. Nonetheless, noteworthy facts and opinions were collected on this topic to be

used as a vantage point for future studies, ideally synthesized with primary sources.

Keywords​: Catalyst, comparative analysis, Jose Rizal, Katipunan, neutralization efforts, Pio

Valenzuela, revolution, testimonies.

Background of the Study 

1
 The Rizal Law requires every tertiary-level Filipino to be acquainted with the life and works of

Jose Rizal. It is customary for young students to pay tribute to his execution in Bagumbayan by

focusing on the connection between his noble sacrifice and the final line of the national anthem, “…Ang

mamatay nang dahil sayo.” Unfortunately, the events leading up to his death are not accorded an equal

amount of importance. To illustrate, there still exists a popular conspiracy theory implicating the

Katipunan in Rizal’s conviction, despite there being many events that seem to affirm this allegation.

There is a possibility that the Katipunan contrived to bring about Rizal’s death to neutralise a

noncooperative and fan the flames of the Revolution. Aside from his appointment as the society’s

leader, another point of controversy was his talk with Pio Valenzuela, who was sent by Andres

Bonifacio to ask for his support in the planned armed uprising against the Spaniards. However,

according to Valenzuela’s early account, Rizal was against it because he believed that the Philippines

was not yet prepared. Instead, Rizal suggested first obtaining support from the Ilustrados or, should

they choose to not join any side, ensure that they are neutralized. This topic was met with anger and

hostility from both Bonifacio and Rizal himself.

Statement of the Problem 

The main problem of this study is to determine whether or not the Katipunan foresaw and

intended Rizal’s death, based on historical facts and evidence surrounding his arrest. Specifically, this

paper will answer the following questions:

1. In light of the neutralization efforts of the Katipunan, were Rizal’s exile and eventual execution

possibly brought about by the Katipunan?

2. What is Rizal’s true stand on the Revolution as revealed through the testimonies of Pio

Valenzuela?

3. How did the Katipunan view Rizal’s refusal to support the Revolution?

2
Objectives of the Study 

Based on the historical facts and evidence surrounding his arrest, this paper aims to determine

whether or not the Katipunan foresaw and intended Rizal’s death. Specifically, the objectives of this

paper are:

1. Relate the significance of the neutralization efforts of the Katipunan to Rizal’s exile and

eventual execution.

2. Identify Rizal’s true stand on the Revolution by deconstructing the testimonies of Pio

Valenzuela.

3. Deduce how the Katipunan viewed Rizal’s refusal to support the Revolution.

Significance of the Study 

The question of whether or not Rizal was truly against the Revolution is one that continues to

puzzle many academics to this day. The answer to this inquiry would provide insight into the events that

occured before his death, as well as the events following it. In this premise, the Katipunan plays a

significant role. If it were true that the KKK was involved and even more so, intended Rizal’s death, then

it would provide an entirely new perspective on the role of Rizal as the “catalyst of the revolution.”

If this were also true, the question of Rizal’s awareness of this interference would shed light on

the true ​fons et origo of the Revolution—particularly, if it was truly Rizal’s death that urged the

Katipuneros to revolt, or if Rizal’s death itself was used by the leaders of the Katipunan as an excuse to

spark the Revolution, of which Rizal was greatly opposed to. A better understanding of these events

would help the ordinary Filipino better understand the socio-political developments in the country at

present and address issues involved in the system, so as to prevent similar conflicts from resurfacing.

3
 Rizal’s name has been given much regard. For some, this is observed even to the point of blind

hero-worship. As argued by Renato Constantino in ​Veneration Without Understanding​, Filipinos turned

to following the example of Rizal after true de-colonization of the Philippines was not

achieved—following the revolution against the Spaniards—not really considering the historical context

of his actions. This led to a kind of ​identity crisis among the Filipinos, and to this day, the inability of the

Filipino people to distinguish his/her identity as a developing concept rather than a mere product of their

past adversaries has led them to developmental stagnation. A new take on the role of Rizal in

instigating the revolution of the Katipunan could potentially warrant a more critical approach to

examining Rizal’s life and works, not only as artifacts of the Spanish colonization period, but as a

vantage point for the development of the Filipino identity through the past centuries.

Scope and Limitations 

This study concerns the involvement of Rizal with the Katipunan and its consequent influence

on the Philippine revolution. The scope of this study consists of the events that transpired shortly prior

to the death of Rizal, when his affiliation with the Katipunan first became known. This was done through

the analysis of secondary sources composed by well-known Filipino historians including, but not limited

to, the following: Gregorio Zaide, Teodoro Agoncillo, Jose Arcilla, Leon Ma. Guerrero, Wenceslao E.

Retana, John Schumacher, Ambeth Ocampo, Miguel Bernad, Floro Quibuyen, and Renato

Constantino. Although there were some of the works had conflicting accounts of the events, the limited

amount of resources available on the topic and the inability of the researchers to conduct an interview

with a knowledgeable source prevented clarification on the topic.

4
Review of Related Literature 

Rizal: Reformist or Revolutionary?

Constantino wrote that the Propaganda Movement was composed of Ilustrados, including

Rizal, who campaigned for cultural assimilation and transformation of the Philippines as Spanish

province, along with the appropriate administrative reforms and the recognition of the Filipino’s right to

Spanish culture. The ilustrados, being members of the privileged elite, campaigned for reforms in the

colonial administration due to noble and selfish reasons. Their status came not from their Filipino blood,

but their Hispanic roots; their power and influence was less than that of the peninsulares but rather

more than the indios​. Their noble campaign for the curtailment of the abuses of the Filipino was

accompanied by a less noble desire to secure more political power and economic benefits for

themselves. Therefore Rizal was, according to Constantino, an assimilationist reformist to the end.

Contrary to this notion, John Schumacher (1991) wrote that Rizal was not, strictly speaking,

against the idea of a revolution. Although Rizal wrote the ​Noli Me Tangere with the intention of

impressing the need for ultimate separation from Spain, he did not support Bonifacio’s revolution

because he thought that the Filipino people were not yet ready for a revolution. Schumacher (1991)

further argued that Rizal was opposed to Bonifacio’s revolution and campaigned for emancipation from

Spanish rule through nonviolent means, wanting Filipinos to have an undiluted love for country. Rizal

rejected the ideals of the Propaganda Movement because he had by then realised the sterility of further

campaigns for reforms, yet he was vehemently opposed to the 1896 revolution because he predicted its

failure and the widespread suffering that would ensue in its aftermath.

Quibuyen (1997) contested the view of Rizal that Constantino explicated in his writing. In

tracing its origins, he noted that Rizal’s friend, Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, provided the Schumarch

Commission with an image of Rizal as an accomplished, liberal, assimilationist reformist and

intellectual. This, and the combined influence of Wenceslao E. Retana and Austin Craig’s

5
widely-circulated biographies of Rizal, helped the Americans paint a picture of Rizal as an

anti-revolutionary reformist whose loyalties had lain with Spain and not the Philippines. Both Retana

and Pardo de Tavera thought that Rizal did not approve of Bonifacio’s revolution because its principles

and methods did not fit with his ideas of peaceful assimilation and reform (Quibuyen, 1997).

Schumacher (2001) opined that Rizal was open to the idea of a revolution to achieve emancipation

from Spain, though he was against the use of violence.

Another Rizal scholar, Gregorio Zaide, posited that Rizal had supported the Revolution after

having read Valenzuela’s memoir and obtained a testimony from the Katipunero himself Quibuyen

(1997). In contrast, Agoncillo (1990) referenced Valenzuela’s 1917 testimony to support his conclusion

that Rizal opposed the Katipunan’s revolutionary plot not because he was against the idea of a

revolution, but because he ​predicted its failure.

The Revolutionists

The debate about Rizal’s stance regarding the idea of a revolution, whether or not under the

leadership of Bonifacio, notwithstanding, the Propaganda Movement, though unsuccessful in its

campaign for reforms, laid the backbone for the Revolution because the truth of the propagandists’

observations and condemnations influenced the direction of the revolutionaries’ thoughts. Influenced by

Rizal’s books and treatises, Bonifacio sent Valenzuela to Dapitan to seek Rizal’s advice and

endorsement for the planned armed uprising. But Valenzuela’s testimonies over time differ in both

content and intent. In some versions, Bonifacio is described as an ardent fan and follower of Rizal, and

this reverence was what got Rizal into trouble (Ocampo, 1990). In other versions, such as Valenzuela’s

Memoirs of the KKK and the Philippine Revolution, Bonifacio is described less favorably​—rather ​critical

of Rizal upon hearing that Rizal did not support the revolution (Ocampo, 1990).

6
Rizal’s Exile

After arriving in Manila following a sojourn in Hong Kong, the constabulary raided Rizal’s house

and seized anti-government, subversive leaflets​—​caricatures of the friars—​from Rizal’s luggage. The

enraged Governor-General then exiled Rizal to Dapitan. The source of the leaflets remains a popular

point of contention, as nobody can adequately prove the consensus that Rizal’s enemies planted false

evidence to implicate him (Arcilla, 1991).

Liberty, equality, fraternity: the founding of the Katipunan

Following Rizal’s departure for Dapitan in 1892, the Katipunan was founded (Arcilla, 1991),

mainly to unite the Filipinos by instilling in them a sense of nationalism and patriotism (Zaide, 1939).

The following were the goals of the Katipunan:

1. To unify the regions and peoples of the Philippines into one nation and one people.

2. To win Philippine independence from Spain by means of a revolution wherein a petition for

political representation in the Cortes and equality rights for Filipinos would be delivered to the

mother country.

3. To establish a communist republic under the protection of the Japanese Empire and collect

enough money with which an uprising for Philippine independence will be provoked, should

Spain deny independence to the Philippine, as stated by Dr. Valenzuela (Retana, 1862-1924).

Zaide (1939) also alleged that neither Bonifacio nor Jacinto mentioned anything in Katipunan

documents relating to a desire for separation from Spain through a revolution or a massacre of all

Spaniards. However, Zaide’s depiction of the Katipunan does not align with Arcilla’s, who described the

Katipunan as a society aiming to unite all Tagalogs and thereafter stage a violent uprising to overthrow

the colonial government (Arcilla, 1991).

7
The Katipuneros Consult Rizal

Commissioned by Bonifacio to seek Rizal’s advice and endorsement for the Revolution,

Katipunero Pio Valenzuela secretly informed Rizal about the group’s founding and its ideologies.

Valenzuela, however, wrote four conflicting accounts of his meeting with Rizal​: two in September and

October 1896 and two more in 1917 and 1935.

In his September 1896 testimony, Rizal was described as against the revolution, losing his

composure and angrily spewing profanity. Upon hearing this, Bonifacio allegedly “flew into a rage” and

called Rizal a coward, instructing Valenzuela not to spread word of the conference. To corroborate this

further, on October 6, 1896, when the Spanish military interrogated Valenzuela under duress for the

second time, he recounted the same things he had just a month earlier, but with few changes.

Apparently, at the mention of the revolution, Rizal reacted violently but without profanities, while

Bonifacio cursed Rizal profusely upon receiving the report (Ocampo,​ 1990​).

In contrast, Valenzuela’s 1917 testimony described Rizal as against Bonifacio’s revolution only

because he thought it premature and ill-timed, citing the first Cuban revolution against Spain where

their lack of arms resulted in their defeat. Rizal argued that for a successful revolution, wealthy Filipinos

must be sympathetic to the cause and offer their intellectual and financial resources (Agoncillo, 1990).

When Bonifacio heard this, he allegedly exclaimed in anger (Ocampo, 1990). His 1935 testimony,

published in ​Memoirs of the K.K.K. and the Philippine Revolution,​ only reaffirmed everything in the one

that preceded it (Ocampo, 1990, 2001).

As maintained by the historians Carlos Quirino, P.A. Zapanta, and Teodoro Agoncillo,

Valenzuela made these testimonies under duress at Rizal’s trial in order to save him. When Agoncillo

asked Valenzuela about his statements at the court-martial, Valenzuela invalidated the testimonies he

had made in 1896 by positing that his statements, some of them having been extracted from him

forcibly while he was subjected to intimidation and torture, were untrue (Ocampo, 1990). Earlier,

8
however, Rizal had cited his earlier meeting with Valenzuela to disprove the allegation that he, privy to

the revolutionary plot of the Katipunan, had collaborated with the Katipuneros for its conception and

development (Bernad, 1998; Retana, 1961). To Rizal’s great disadvantage, however, he was kept

ignorant of all witness testimonies and denied the opportunity to cross-examine them (Zapanta, 1987;

Ocampo, 2001; Guerrero, 2010).

The Discovery of the Katipunan

Rumors about a secret revolutionary society whose members regularly met reached Spanish

authorities. Eventually, Teodoro Pati​ñ​o, a Katipunero working at ​Diario de Manila,​ unintentionally

disclosed the ideals and the goals of the Katipunan to a nun at his sister’s orphanage and Fr. Mariano

Gil, who, along with an officer of the Civil Guard, searched the premises of Pati​ñ​o’s workplace, where

they confirmed the existence of the group (Arcilla, 1991).

Before the discovery of the Katipunan, its members had tried to win the sympathy and support

of wealthy and prominent Filipinos, who refused to cooperate and threatened to tip the Spanish

authorities of their existence. Angered and convinced that they were not trustworthy, Bonifacio and the

rest of the Katipunan forged signatures of wealthy, influential Filipinos on the documents that would

later be discovered by Gil. In the aftermath of the discovery, the people who signed, both innocent and

guilty, were rounded up and convicted. Afterward, Bonifacio and the rest of the Katipuneros were left

with no choice but to proceed with the revolution (Agoncillo, 1990; Constantino, 1975; Ocampo, 1990).

The Soul of the Rebellion

Three weeks after Rizal’s confinement to Fort Santiago in 1896, Francisco Olivé, who officiated

a preliminary investigation of Rizal, forwarded the transcript of the investigation along with supporting

evidence to Governor-General Ramon Blanco (Bernad, 1998). To formally commence the judicial

9
process proper, Blanco had the case endorsed to Rafael Dominguez, a ​juez instructor​, who was

instructed to work quickly supposedly due to Blanco’s nearing retirement (Bernad, 1998). Nonetheless,

the case opened on December 3, with Dominguez submitting a rushed, incomplete report two days

later (Bernad, 1998).

Unbeknownst to Rizal, he had been made the honorary president of the Katipunan. According

to Retana’s transcribed statements of from the witnesses, Rizal was considered as the “honorary

president of the Katipunan” and was supposed to be the Supreme Head of the Katipunan upon the

success of the revolution (Retana, ​1961​). These statements were supported by the presence of Rizal’s

photos being carried around by some Katipuneros and hung in the Katipunan’s rendezvous place,

specifically in the session hall of the Supreme Court, as well as the fact that his name had been used

as a rallying cry and as one of the passwords of the Katipunan (Ocampo​, 1990​; Retana, ​1961​).

Moreover, documents belonging to Bonifacio, which were either letters about Rizal or from Rizal

himself, were found in a warehouse (Retana, ​1961​). Rizal did not agree with the depositions made by

the investigating officer as well as the summarization of most of the supposed documents of Bonifacio,

except his poem ​To Talisay​, the letter to the Masons, and the letter written to his family from Madrid

(Retana, ​1961​). Not wanting to be associated with the revolution, the imprisoned Rizal was given

permission by Blanco and his successor, Lieutenant Camilo ​García de ​Polavieja, to publicly release a

manifesto clearing his name, which, however, was later interpreted as a stimulant for future rebellion

and, consequently, not published (Retana, ​1961​). Despite Rizal’s repeated denials of his association

with the Katipunan, he was found guilty of treason against Spain (Retana, ​1961​).

Qualitative Methodology 

This study employed qualitative research, a process that seeks to understand social

phenomena within their natural context (Edith Cowan University) and measure the quality of something

10
rather than its quantity through the use of multiple systems to study how, when, or why a certain

phenomena occur. As such, this study utilised historical analysis, which requires investigating past

events and synthesizing them into a coherent whole, followed by comparative analysis. This was done

by gathering literary works about Rizal’s life, works, ideologies, and connections to the Katipunan

written by acclaimed Filipino historians. Through these analyses, the gathered data were evaluated to

either accept or reject the proposed hypothesis of the study along with a detailed analysis and

explanation in defense to the conclusions made.

Discussion 

I. Was Rizal a fence sitter?

The Spaniards, along with Zaide, painted Rizal as a revolutionist. In contrast, the Americans,

along with Pardo de Tavera and his biographer Austin Craig, characterized him as a pacifist. When

Valenzuela was interrogated by the Spanish military in September and October 1896, he testified under

duress that Rizal was impassionately against the Katipunan’s planned revolution. However, on

September 18, 1917, Valenzuela became a prosecution witness in a libel suit, where he testified that

although ​Rizal was to opposed the revolution, he had advised the Katipunan to wait for a better

opportunity, seek the support of the educated and wealthy, and neutralise them should they refuse to

cooperate ​(Crisostomo, 2001), in accordance with Schumacher’s evaluation of Rizal’s stand on

revolution (1991). Ocampo (1990) wrote that Rizal’s ambivalence towards the revolution made him

subject to different interpretations, and that it is difficult to ascertain his attitude and complicity in

Bonifacio’s revolution from existing primary and secondary sources. He surmised that Rizal was a fence

sitter, meaning he was for and against revolution because he did not want to openly favor reform or

revolution. This corroborated the existing point made by Guerrero, who characterised Rizal as a

11
“reluctant revolutionary” (2010) who was unsure of the correct course to take or was wise enough to not

openly throw his support for revolution (Guerrero, 2010).

However, Schumacher (1991) criticised Guerrero’s description of Rizal’s stance, citing Rizal’s

1897 letter to Blumentritt as evidence that Rizal wished to avoid arousing the people to revolution

because he felt that the conditions for a successful revolution to occur had not yet been satisfied.

Before Schumacher, Agoncillo (1990) had referenced Valenzuela’s 1917 testimony to support his

conclusion that Rizal opposed the Katipunan’s revolutionary plot only because he ​predicted its failure.

Though he made no mention of Agoncillo’s Rizal, the Rizal that he elucidated seems to resemble

Agoncillo’s on the following points:

1. Rizal was not against revolution ​per se

2. Rizal was against Bonifacio’s revolution because he deemed it premature

Schumacher’s Rizal is not, however, a mirror image of Agoncillo’s. In the introductory

paragraph of his essay, he explained the wording of the title. Furthermore, he maintained that Rizal

wrote the ​Noli intending to start the process that would lead to the emancipation of the Philippines. He

reconciled the two opposing interpretations of Rizal’s ambivalence toward the revolution by explaining

that Rizal had withheld support for Bonifacio’s revolution not because he had seen it as an exercise in

futility, nor because he had foreseen its failure, but because his revolutionary goal was to instill in

Filipinos a sense of national dignity, love for country, and pride in their ancestral past in place of the

colonial mentality that had beleaguered the development of a Filipino national consciousness

(Schumacher, 1991). Of all the scholars who have weighed in on Rizal’s attitude towards revolution, it

seems that Schumacher’s Rizal is the most plausible. Writing after Agoncillo, Constantino, Zaide, Pardo

de Tavera, Craig, and Guerrero, Schumacher naturally had the advantage of being able to evaluate

their life stories in connection to their works and examine their inherent biases, so as to be able to draw

supports for his own conclusions. A fellow Jesuit historian, Jose Arcilla, also laid out a Rizal which

12
seems to closely resemble that of Schumacher. Floro Quibuyen’s critique of the viewpoints of the

aforementioned historians also adds to the veracity of Schumacher’s interpretation. Finally, in his

​ izal himself repudiated Bonifacio’s Revolution, but he did not outright declare
unpublished ​Manifesto R

his loyalty to Spain, nor did he stamp on the possibility of staging another revolution at a better time,

with the necessary preparations. Rizal even boldly asserted the inevitability of Philippine independence

from Spain, both in his ​Manifesto and in his essay ​The Philippines: A Century Hence. The Spaniards,

deeply unsatisfied, had him executed on grounds of treason against Spain. Together these work to

support Schumacher’s scholarly opinion on the bones of contention surrounding Rizal and revolution.

II. What were the intentions of the Katipunan?

Shortly after Rizal’s exile to Dapitan was made public on July 7, 1892, radical Filipino patriots

met and founded the Katipunan. However, there are different versions of what the true intention of its

founding was at the time. In Zaide’s account, the Katipunan aimed to unite the Filipinos, to win

Philippine independence by peaceful political negotiations, and if and only if cornered will the Filipinos

have an armed uprising, suggesting that the original intention of the Katipunan was not immediately to

stage a violent uprising against the Spaniards (1939). An armed revolution would only serve as a last

resort once all other means have been exhausted in the quest for Philippine independence. By contrast,

Arcilla described the Katipunan as a society that aimed to unite all Tagalogs and thereafter stage a

violent uprising to overthrow the colonial government (1991). Notwithstanding the conflicting

descriptions of the Katipunan’s goals, the idea that it was founded in order to unite all Tagalogs and

work for the eventual separation of the Philippines from Spain, be it whether through a peaceful or a

bloodbath revolution, still holds true for both Zaide and Arcilla’s depiction.

Understanding the original intention behind the establishment of the Katipunan is key in

unraveling the true attitude of Andres Bonifacio towards Rizal’s alleged opposition to the armed

13
revolution. It is a question of whether this attitude was fanaticism or criticism against Rizal’s views, and

how such an attitude may have influenced the succeeding actions of the revolutionaries. If Zaide’s

version were true, then it may be more apt to say that the consultation of Valenzuela with Rizal was a

genuine attempt at seeking advice for the next move of the Katipunan, and that Bonifacio trusted Rizal’s

judgement. On the other hand, if Arcilla’s version was more accurate, then the Katipunan would have

pushed through with an armed revolution regardless of Rizal’s input on the matter. In such a case, the

role of Rizal as the catalyst of the revolution would be put into question.

Needless to say, as the Katipunan’s appointed honorary president, Rizal’s opinion seems to

have been highly valued. In line with this, the Katipuneros sent Valenzuela to Dapitan to inform him

about the ideologies and the contemplated uprising of the Katipunan against the Spanish government

and ask for his verdict. However, Valenzuela left behind four conflicting accounts of his meeting with

Rizal in Dapitan. In his first two testimonies in September and October 1896, Rizal reportedly reacted

violently to the mention of the revolution while Bonifacio flew in impulsive anger (Ocampo, 1990). In his

third testimony in 1917, Valenzuela purported that Rizal was not against Bonifacio’s revolution ​per

​ rather, he was against its timing. Moreover, Valenzuela alleged that Rizal had wanted the uprising
se—

to be stalled until arms had arrived and the good will of the influential and wealthy people had been won

over—or at least neutralized. Should the Katipunan be discovered before the time was right, they were

to take to the field and not allow themselves to be killed (Katipunan, 1996). His last testimony in 1935

only reaffirmed everything in the one that preceded it (Ocampo, 1990).

Among the four accounts, historians Carlos Quirino, P. A. Zapanta, and Agoncillo opined that

the first two accounts made by Valenzuela should not be taken as the truth, as they were given under

duress, intimidation, and torture (Crisostomo, 2001). It is interesting to note that Valenzuela is said to

have taken an anti-revolutionary stance to save his skin (Ocampo, 2001). If this is so, does it proceed

that he did the same for Rizal?

14
III. The Trial of Rizal

When the Revolution broke out after the Katipunan was discovered, Spanish authorities

immediately launched a general inquiry to pinpoint those involved. Governor-General Blanco offered

amnesty as an inducement for people to provide information that might help in the investigation. Those

who had been caught, along those who came out as informers, issued statements that implicated Rizal.

Despite Blanco’s letters of recommendation that had previously absolved Rizal of all blame, the

testimonies were deemed too damning to be overlooked. Thus Rizal was arrested and ordered to return

to the Philippines (Guerrero, 2010; Ocampo​, 1990​).

Although Rizal was informed of the evidence that led to charges being filed against him, he was

not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who had testified nor issue a formal defense. The

allegations of the witnesses alone were deemed sufficient to prove that Rizal was guilty (Bernad, 1998).

However, the veracity and impartiality of the testimonies were, in the eyes of Rizal’s lawyer

questionable because they seemed as though they were from someone who was trying to incriminate

​ izal made no objection on

Rizal as if it would lightened their own responsibility (Guerrero, 2010)​. R

grounds of jurisdiction of the court-martial over him. The results of the inquiry, both oral testimonies and

written documents, specifically those of Bonifacio from the warehouse, were used to justify the case

(​Guerrero, 2010; Ocampo, 2001).

Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Trial Proceedings

According to some Katipuneros, Rizal was the society’s honorary president and the intended

Supreme Head of the group once the revolution was won (Retana, ​1961​). These statements were

supported by the presence of Rizal’s photos being carried around by some members and hung in the

group’s rendezvous place, as well as the fact that his name had been used as a rallying cry and as one

15
of the group’s passwords (Ocampo​, 1990​; Retana, ​1961​). Although the Katipunan and Rizal both had

the objective of obtaining national unity, this mutuality might have endangered Rizal’s life as these were

made to justify the claim that he was the mastermind of the Revolution.

Furthermore, the found documents belonging to Bonifacio—either letters about Rizal or from

Rizal himself—were originally in Tagalog but had been translated into Spanish for the trial (Retana,

1961​). Additionally, the mere possession of Bonifacio of these documents begs a few questions: Given

the personal nature of the letters, some of which having been ​private correspondences between Rizal

and his family, how did they come to Bonifacio’s possession? Moreover, who had translated the

documents from their original Spanish? ​In translating works, discrepancies can arise due to subjectivity

(Farahzad, 2003), which explains why Rizal did not agree with the summarization of the documents,

except a few (Retana, ​1961​). Since his letters and works had been translated several times, each might

have intentionally received mistranslations. After all, Bonifacio, a situationist and political agitator who

had adopted the revolutionary views of an Ilustrado, was known for having attempted to exploit religious

experience to spread his influence and optimizing his status as a plebian to understand the experiences

of other commoners (Gripaldo, 2009).

Days later, Judge Advocate Lieutenant Enrique de Alcocer ruled that there was sufficient

evidence to establish the fact that Rizal was guilty of rebellion through illegal association, but Rizal

pleaded not guilty and admitted only that he had written the statutes of the Liga for the development of

commerce and industry, stating that he had not been politically active since his exile (Guerrero, 2010).

Aware of how his name was being used as the battle cry, Rizal, with permission from Blanco and

Governor General Polavieja, composed a public statement condemning the disturbances due to the

revolt, explaining how he never explicitly gave permission for them to use his name in such a manner,

and clarifying his stance on the Revolution (Retana, ​1961​). The finished manifesto, however, was only

interpreted as a stimulant for future rebellion and, consequently, left unpublished (Retana, ​1961​).

16
Despite Rizal’s denials of his association with the Katipunan, he was found guilty of treason and

sentenced to death (Guerrero, 2010). 

Hasty Trial

According to Bernad (1998), Blanco had instructed Captain Rafael Dominguez, the special

Judge Advocate, to commence the judicial process “with all possible speed,” causing Dominguez to

submit a hurried report lacking certain documents. Although it is suspected that Blanco’s request for

urgency can be attributed to his nearing retirement, the speedy proceeding of the trial was not affected

despite his replacement by de Polavieja (Bernad, 1998). With the trial taking place in December, where

many Catholic holidays take place, coupled with a replacement in the administration, something else

could have easily motivated the officials to rush the trial, such as preventing the revolution from

spreading across the country, particularly Cavite (Bernad, 1998). Perhaps this is why the Spaniards,

painfully aware of the revolutionary frenzy that had lately possessed the Filipinos and which threatened

to strip them of power, thought that the only recourse left was to attack the revolution at its purported

source: Rizal. But instead of dying down after Rizal’s execution, the flames of the insurrection grew to

engulf Spain until she was overcome. ​It is clear from Rizal’s ​Manifesto that he was not a co-conspirator

in the Katipunan’s revolutionary plans, nor did he sympathize with their brand of revolution, as evinced

by his withholding approval that which the Katipunan, through Valenzuela, had earlier sought to obtain.

With the Spaniards pursuing them, Bonifacio and other Katipuneros had no choice but to commence

their plans to revolt. The revolution broke out in Manila and quickly gained traction in the neighboring

provinces of Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Bulacan, Pampanga, Tarlac, and Nueva Ecija. This, along with

the statements obtained from the witnesses, was to the Spaniards a clear sign of the dangers of

keeping Rizal—with his wide sphere of influence and plethora of anti-clerical, patriotic writings—alive.

Although they executed him, believing that it would end the insurrection, they were sadly mistaken.

17
 With this in mind, is it possible that, as Ocampo (1990) hypothesized, the Katipunan,

foreseeing the consequences of Rizal’s execution​, made sure to attribute the conception of their plans

to Rizal? His staunch opposition to the Katipunan’s brand of revolution may have made him a

noncooperative in the eyes of the Katipunan, and so it is possible that, just as they had done to the

wealthy Francisco Roxas and others who had withheld support for the planned revolution, they set out

to implicate the man, seeing as he would be more useful to their cause dead than alive, and correctly

suspecting that his death would trigger a fresh wave of bitterness against the Spaniards and push more

Filipinos to join the resistance. If Rizal, an advocate for a peaceful revolution, were to remain alive, he

could potentially issue more pronouncements decrying their bloody and violent revolution, such that the

fervor of the revolutionaries would be dampened, and the insurrection would ultimately die down.

Synthesis and Conclusion 

Many scholars have weighed in on the subject of Rizal’s stance on revolution. However, their

interpretations of Rizal may have been skewed and limited due to their inherent biases, which may

have arisen due to, or exacerbated by, the prevailing mindset in the time period in which they lived. On

the leftist side, Constantino and other like-minded historians used Rizal’s ​Manifesto to support the

notion that Rizal was loyal to Spain, while others, like Guerrero and Ocampo, wrote that Rizal was

probably unsure of his stance on revolution. Schumacher, Arcilla, and Quibuyen disagreed with the

pacifist, reformist Rizal explicated in the writings of the anti-imperialist Constantino and the

pro-American Pardo de Tavera and Craig, and the ambivalent Rizal suggested by both Guerrero and

Ocampo. They proposed that, in the years leading to his death, Rizal had already realised the sterility of

the campaigns for reforms, and thus had sought to impress upon his countrymen the need for

emancipation from Spain. He had outlined his plan to secure independence from Spain in his books

and essays, but he had not been privy to the Katipunan’s plans and actions. All he had known about the

18
Katipunan was what Pio Valenzuela had confided to him during their conference in June 1896, barely

two months before Pati​ñ​o’s betrayal.

Nevertheless, when the Katipunan was discovered, and those suspected of being sympathetic

to its revolutionary cause were rounded up and interrogated, Rizal was implicated in the statements

these suspects gave. He, a civilian, was summoned to a military court, where he was informed of the

charges that had been made against him​—that he was guilty of rebellion through illegal association with

the Katipunan​. Not only were the statements of the witnesses not fact-checked, but Rizal was deprived

of the liberty to cross-examine the witnesses who had testified against him. Rizal issued a manifesto

denouncing the insurrection, absolving himself of blame with regards to its conception and

development, and speaking of his hopes for the Philippines. But the Spaniards ignored his disavowals,

thinking that he was, despite his denials, the soul of the rebellion, and thus had him executed on the

grounds of rebellion through illegal association.

Thus, based primarily on secondary sources and secondarily on primary sources, it is possible

that the Katipunan, even before the revolution broke out, foresaw two things​—​one, that Rizal would

never cooperate willingly with them in regard to the bloody uprising they had planned, and two, that

Rizal’s death would both silence the man forever and fan the flames of the revolution. Thus even before

they were betrayed by Teodoro Pati​ño, they had already actualised their plans to render Rizal

incapable of opposing their revolution once it broke out by engineering his death, and use the fact of his

demise as a rallying point for the fire of the revolution to continue burning until the Spaniards were

overcome. This being said, as the bulk of the historical data presented in this research was obtained

from secondary sources, future researchers are highly encouraged to examine primary sources,

formulate their hypotheses from these sources, and consult reputable Rizal scholars to ask for help and

guidance in interpreting the primary sources and probing the veracity of the content, and to ask for

19
recommendations for other primary sources that may help in furthering the development of the research

topic.

References 

Agoncillo, T. A. (1990). ​A History of the Filipino People​ (8th ed.)​.​ Garotech Publishing.

Arcilla, J. S. (1991). ​Rizal and the Emergence of the Philippine nation.​ Ateneo de Manila University:

Office of Research and Publications.

Bernad, M. A. (1998). The Trial of Rizal. ​Philippine Studies,​ 46(1), 46-72.

Constantino, R. (1975). ​The Philippines: A Past Revisited​. Tala Publishing.

Coroza, M. (2018, October 16). ​Ang Dalawang Uri ng Kamalayan sa Panitikan.​ Lecture presented in

Ateneo de Manila University.

Crisostomo, I. T. (2001). ​Dr. Pio Valenzuela: Misunderstood Patriot.​ J. Kriz Publishing Enterprise.

De los Santos, E. (1973). ​The Revolutionists: Aguinaldo, Bonifacio, and Jacinto​. National Historical

Commission.

Farahzad, F. (2003). Manipulation in translation. ​Perspectives,​ 11(4), 269-281.

Gripaldo, R. M. (2009). Bonifacio the Translator: A Critique. ​Filipino Philosophy: Traditional Approach​.

Guerrero, L. M. (2010). ​The First Filipino : A Biography of Jose Rizal.​ Guerrero Publishing.

Katipunan. (1996).​ Minutes of the Katipunan.​ National Historical Institute.

Quibuyen, F. C. (1997). Rizal and the Revolution. ​Philippine Studies, 45(​ 2), 225-257.

Ocampo, A. R. (1990).​ Rizal Without the Overcoat.​ (2nd ed.). Anvil Publishing.

____________. (2001). The trial of Rizal: A century after. ​Meaning and History: The Rizal Lectures.​

Anvil Publishing.

Retana, W. E. (1862-1924). ​Archivo del Bibliofilo Filipino (Vol. 5). Imprenta de la Viuda de M. Minuesa

se los Rios.

20
___________. (​ 1961). ​The Trial of Rizal (​ H. De La Costa, Ed., Trans.). Ateneo De Manila University

Press.

Schumacher, J. (1991). ​The Making of a Nation: Essays on Nineteenth-Century Filipino Nationalism​.

Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Tan, J. J. (2015, April 21). Historical Research: A Qualitative Research Method.

What Is Qualitative Research? (2019, May 10). Retrieved from

https://nursing.utah.edu/research/qualitative-research/what-is-qualitative-research.php

Zaide, G. F. (1939). ​History of the Katipunan​. Loyal Press.

Zapanta, P. A. (1987). Pio Valenzuela: Rebel, Physician, Politician. ​Sunday Times Magazine​.

21