Rizal's Retraction

At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. The fourth text appeared in El Imparcial
on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of the retraction.

The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s
execution, Dec. 30, 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897,
in the fortnightly magazine in La Juventud; it came from an anonymous writer who revealed
himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer. The "original" text was discovered in the
archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the
afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.

We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a copyist who could
imitate Rizal’s handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his letter to his
former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said that he had received "an exact copy of the retraction
written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember
whose it is. . ." He proceeded: "I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself. I
am sending it to you that you may . . . verify whether it might be of Rizal himself . . . ." Fr. Pi
was not able to verify it in his sworn statement.

This "exact" copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding
Rizal’s execution, Rizal y su Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his biography of Rizal,
Vida y Escritos del Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the
texts of the retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi’s copy of Rizal’s retraction has the same
text as that of Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal’s
retraction in the Manila newspapers.

Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La Voz
Espanola. That newspaper reported: "Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own hand-
written retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…" On the other hand,
Manila pharmacist F. Stahl wrote in a letter: "besides, nobody has seen this written declaration,
in spite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to see it. "For example, not only
Rizal’s family but also the correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in Madrid, Don Manuel
Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr. Santiago Mataix of El Heraldo, were not able to see the hand-
written retraction.

Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace the Archbishop ascertained whether Rizal himself was the one who
wrote and signed the retraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary because it was
possible for one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting aforesaid holograph; and keeping a copy
of the same for our archives, I myself delivered it personally that the same morning to His Grace
Archbishop… His Grace testified: At once the undersigned entrusted this holograph to Rev.
Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of the Chancery." After that, the documents could not be
seen by those who wanted to examine it and was finally considered lost after efforts to look for it
proved futile.
On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the
archdeocean archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts about
Rizal’s retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction differs
significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies. And, the fact that
the texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could be shown to be the
exact copies of the "original" but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who controlled
the press in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the "original" while the Jesuits had only
the imitations.

We now proceed to show the significant differences between the "original" and the Manila
newspapers texts of the retraction on the one hand and the text s of the copies of Fr. Balaguer and
F5r. Pio Pi on the other hand.

First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the
newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad" (with "u").

Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias"
which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.

Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word "misma"
which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.

Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical reader, Fr.
Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences while the original
and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with the second sentences.

Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers have only
four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.

Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the witnesses
from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.

In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named the witnesses. He said
"This . . .retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and
Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza." However, the proceeding quotation only proves itself to be
an addition to the original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer said that he had
the "exact" copy of the retraction, which was signed by Rizal, but her made no mention of the
witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses signed the retraction.
How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal’s retraction? Fr. Balaguer never alluded to having
himself made a copy of the retraction although he claimed that the Archbishop prepared a long
formula of the retraction and Fr. Pi a short formula. In Fr. Balaguer’s earliest account, it is not
yet clear whether Fr. Balaguer was using the long formula of nor no formula in dictating to Rizal
what to write. According to Fr. Pi, in his own account of Rizal’s conversion in 1909, Fr.
Balaguer dictated from Fr. Pi’s short formula previously approved by the Archbishop. In his
letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer admitted that he dictated to Rizal the short formula prepared
by Fr. Pi; however; he contradicts himself when he revealed that the "exact" copy came from the
Archbishop. The only copy, which Fr. Balaguer wrote, is the one that appeared ion his earliest
account of Rizal’s retraction.

Where did Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy come from? We do not need long arguments to answer
this question, because Fr. Balaguer himself has unwittingly answered this question. He said in
his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:

"…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of the two formulas of
retraction, which they (You) gave me; that from you and that of the Archbishop, and the first
with the changes which they (that is, you) made; and the other the exact copy of the retraction
written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember
whose it is, and I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself."

In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he received two original texts of the
retraction. The first, which came from Fr. Pi, contained "the changes which You (Fr. Pi) made";
the other, which is "that of the Archbishop" was "the exact copy of the retraction written and
signed by Rizal" (underscoring supplied). Fr. Balaguer said that the "exact copy" was "written
and signed by Rizal" but he did not say "written and signed by Rizal and himself" (the absence of
the reflexive pronoun "himself" could mean that another person-the copyist-did not). He only
"suspected" that "Rizal himself" much as Fr. Balaguer did "not know nor ... remember" whose
handwriting it was.

Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the "exact copy" came from the Archbishop! He called it
"exact" because, not having seen the original himself, he was made to believe that it was the one
that faithfully reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in which "changes" (that is,
where deviated from the "exact" copy) had been made. Actually, the difference between that of
the Archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with "changes") is that the latter was
"shorter" be cause it omitted certain phrases found in the former so that, as Fr. Pi had fervently
hoped, Rizal would sign it.
According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate from the
short formula of Fr. Pi. Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but he insisted on
adding the phrases "in which I was born and educated" and "[Masonary]" as the enemy that is of
the Church" – the first of which Rizal would have regarded as unnecessary and the second as
downright contrary to his spirit. However, what actually would have happened, if we are to
believe the fictitious account, was that Rizal’s addition of the phrases was the retoration of the
phrases found in the original which had been omitted in Fr. Pi’s short formula.

The "exact" copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort Santiago to convince them that
Rizal had retracted. Someone read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who claimed in
his "Notes’ that Rizal read aloud his retraction. However, his copy of the retraction proved him
wrong because its text (with "u") and omits the word "Catolica" as in Fr. Balaguer’s copy but
which are not the case in the original. Capt. Dominguez never claimed to have seen the
retraction: he only "heard".

The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had written a retraction in Dapitan.
Very early in 1895, Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with her adopted father who wanted to
be cured of his blindness by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela Orlac, who was agent and a
mistress of a friar. Rizal fell in love with Josephine and wanted to marry her canonically but he
was required to sign a profession of faith and to write retraction, which had to be approved by
the Bishop of Cebu. "Spanish law had established civil marriage in the Philippines," Prof. Craig
wrote, but the local government had not provided any way for people to avail themselves of the
right..."

In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be
approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend
Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the
retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to
reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the
friars had been trying by all means to get from him.

Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction. What they was saw a
copy done by one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the original (almost eaten by
termites) was kept by some friars. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently because they
did not distinguish between the genuine and the imitation of Rizal’s handwriting.

Source: http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html
 Rizal’s retraction: Truth vs Myth

Since Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935, its content
has become a favorite subject of dispute among academicians and Catholics. The letter, dated
December 29, 1896, was said to have been signed by the National Hero himself.

It stated: “I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in which I was born and educated I
wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and
conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church.”

The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the
judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups—the
Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists
(who were convinced Rizal retracted)—agree with each other.

Proofs, documents

History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop
Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his execution in
Bagumbayan. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was lengthy.

According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended the
hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document prepared by the
superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi.

Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the document. In his
retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.

“Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was purchased by the
Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila,”
showed some interesting points about the retraction, said Jose Victor Torres, professor at the
History department of the De La Salle University.
Popularly known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila is a
body of documents on the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential reports, transcripts,
clippings, and photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers.

Despite this, Torres said his perception of the Filipino martyr would not change even if the
controversies were true.

“Even though it would be easy to say he retracted all that he wrote about the Church, it still did
not change the fact that his writings began the wheels of change in Philippine colonial society
during the Spanish period—a change that led to our independence,” Torres said. “The retraction
is just one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Rizal.”

But then, Torres noted that the controversy is irrelevant today.

“The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means nothing,” he said.

‘Unadorned fact’

Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra considered the controversy as “a plain unadorned fact of history,
having all the marks and indications of historical certainty and reality” in his book The
Historicity of Rizal’s Retraction.

Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History, also believes that Rizal retracted
and said the National Hero just renounced from the Free Masonry and not from his famous
nationalistic works.

“He (Rizal) retracted. He died as a Catholic, and a proof that he died as a Catholic was he was
buried inside the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said De Viana, who compared the martyr
with Apolinario Mabini, a revolutionary and free mason who was buried in a Chinese cemetery.

De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter had been forged because witnesses were
present while Rizal was signing it.
He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves on to the question on Rizal’s character as
some argue that the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature beliefs and personality.

“Anti-retractionists ask, ‘What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?’ They say he was fickle-minded. Well,
that may be true, but that is human character. Rizal was not a perfect person,” De Viana said.

He also mentioned that just like any person, Rizal was prone to flip-flop. He believes that Rizal
retracted because the national hero wanted to be at peace when he dies.

But would Rizal’s works deem irrelevant and futile because of his retraction?

De Viana answered, “Rizal awakened our knowledge of nationalism. For me, that is enough. The
issue will not invalidate his works in any way.”

Source: https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_retraction_truth_vs_myth
 Rizal remains a living and burning issue among us

IT was hoped by the ecclesiastical and civil authorities that Rizal’s life would end with his death
in Bagumbayan. But from the day of his execution to this day, Rizal has been in this country a
living issue and often a burning one – the soul of contention between Catholics and freethinkers,
a bone for the tug of war between church and state in the control of education, and the subject of
bitter debate over the authenticity or fraudulence of his supposed retraction of his words and
deeds.

It is sickening that so selfless and splendid a death as Rizal’s was followed by so much falsehood
and controversy. But this has been Rizal’s peculiar fate, and perhaps finally his triumph. He was
so formidable opponents had to lie about him, even when he was already dead and buried.

An ecclesiastical fraud
The morning after the execution of Jose Rizal, the newspapers of Manila and Madrid recorded
the event, and announced that on the eve of his death Rizal retracted his religious errors, abjured
freemasonry, and in the last hours of his life had married Josephine Bracken.

In most newspapers the text of a letter of retraction supposedly written by Rizal was printed in
full. The government sent the announcement to Spanish consulates abroad with the request to
obtain for it the widest possible publicity.

Those who had read Rizal’s books or who knew him closely and admired him, both in the
country and abroad, took one look at the announcement and declared it “an ecclesiastical fraud.”

In a letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt shortly after the execution, Fredrich Stahl, a Manila
pharmacist, wrote: “On the day of the execution, the Spaniards published an article in all the
local papers, according to which, Rizal, in a written declaration made by him on the day of his
death, retracted all his writings and deeds and proclaims himself to be a repentant sinner and a
loyal Spaniard. But nobody here believes this, as the Spaniards publish the same thing about
everyone who is shot. Besides, nobody has ever seen his written declaration…It is in the hands
of the archbishop.”

Was there a plot among the higher ecclesiastical authorities to perpetrate a fraud?

There was certainly no signed letter of retraction, a contradiction in itself for a man so strong in
conviction as Rizal. There was also no marriage with Josephine Bracken, although they did live
together during his exile in Dapitan.
Rizal himself believed that there was a strong likelihood of fraud after his death, and that the
prime mover in this would be the friar archbishop. It was the friars who were zealously seeking
his retraction. They even came up with several retraction formulas for him to sign.

Rizal’s intuition of fraud was not misplaced; what played him false was the involvement of his
mentors, the Jesuits, who took part in the effort to make him retract and return to the Catholic
faith.

Jesuit vouches for Rizal’s retraction

It was solely one Jesuit priest, Vicente Balaguer,S.J, who laid the basis for the story that Rizal
retracted his words and deeds. It was also he who made the claim that he married Jose Rizal and
Josephine Bracken at 6.15 a.m. on December 30, just minutes before Rizal was executed.

In the final chapters of his biography of Rizal, Austin Coates totally demolishes the veracity of
Balaguer’s claims, which were made the basis of the archbishop’s announcement of a retraction,
and which were also contained in a letter from Balaguer to his Jesuit superior, Fr. Pio Pi.

Balaguer’s retraction claim was not corroborated by the two Jesuits who were present at Rizal’s
execution. If Rizal had indeed retracted, they would surely have given Rizal a Catholic burial.
How would he have been deprived of even a coffin, as in fact happened.

Balaguer himself was not present at the execution. Josephine Bracken was also absent during
Rizal’s final moments.

Killing Rizal’s influence on the future

The lie in Rizal’s retraction is soundly thrashed by Austin Coates. He wrote:

“A man of whom there is no record that he ever told a lie can scarcely be considered as having
chosen a solemn moment to tell his first one….

“The Jesuits who had visited him knew how unlikely it was that Rizal would retract….

“While one might kill the man, his writings remained, and these were a danger, needing to be
sterilized, lest they poison the mind of future generations with anti-clerical views. If he could be
made to admit his errors against religion and retract them, it would blunt the point of everything
that he had written….

“The Jesuits’ two attempts to make Rizal retract had different motives. The first was undertaken
for what the Jesuits sincerely believed to be his own good, and possibly their own as well. The
second was undertaken with the main purpose of sterilizing his influence on the future.”
Could Rizal have retracted in order to receive the sacraments of the faith. It is part of Balaguer’s
elaborate fraud to suggest that Rizal feared for his soul during his final hours.

He reported Rizal as saying to him: “Father, since faith is God’s grace, I promise that thetime of
life remaining to me1 shall spend asking God for the grace of faith.”

The Jesuit declared: “I can certify with an oath that, loving God, Rizal died a devout, holy,
Christian death blessed by God. With His grace I hope to see him in heaven.”

Balaguer was born in Alcoy, Alicante, Spain on January 19, 1851. He entered the Society of
Jesus on 30 July 1890, and came to the Philippines in 1894. In 1896, he was transferred to
Dapitan, where he met Rizal. Months later, he was attesting to have heard the most important
final words of Dr. Jose Rizal.

Holes in the Jesuit’s story

The Rizal family did not accept the retraction and the marriage. They knew that that if he had
retracted, he would certainly have said so in his 6a.m. communication to his mother on the
fateful day of his execution.

Balaguer’s account exposed itself through major discrepancies in his story. His claim of
marrying Rizal and Josephine was totally belied by the facts.

In his account, Balaguer was totally unaware that Rizal had written “Mi Último Adiós” on the
eve of his execution. Balaguer allowed no time for Rizal to write the poem. The poem in its third
stanza carries the exact date and time when it was written.

In his claim of having performed the canonical marriage of Rizal and Josephine, Balaguer said
he performed it in front of one of Rizal’s sisters between 6 and 6:25 a.m. on December 30. But
none of Rizal’s sisters went to the fort that morning.

For all these contradictions and falsehoods in Balaguer’s story, the church nevertheless adopted
the lie. And some Filipinos, including Rizal’s biographer Leon Maria Guerrero, believed that
Rizal had retracted.

I find the words of Rafael Palma, who witnessed the execution and saw Rizal turn away from the
Jesuit holding out a crucifix to him, most persuasive:

Palma wrote:
“Of the version circulated by ecclesiastical authorities of that time, the part which refers to
Rizal’s abjuration of masonry and to his conversion to Catholicism at the last hour was not
considered satisfactory and truthful by Filipino public opinion.”
Source: https://www.manilatimes.net/2018/01/02/opinion/columnists/topanalysis/rizal-remains-
living-burning-issue-among-us/371727/
 THE RIZAL RETRACTION AND OTHER CASES

The flow of history is as inexorable as the tidal flow of an angry ocean. But ever so often in our
collective recollection, it is remembered that sometimes the skilful use of forgery can redirect the
flow of history itself.

In the Philippines today, forgery is usually resorted to redirect the flow of money from the
rightful beneficiary to the unworthy pockets of invisible people.

That money is usually the target of forgery is known and practiced all over the world, but
forgery in the hands of the wily, has power to effect a redirection of events and undoing of
history. It has the power to obscure or beliee an occurrence or create an event that did not
actually transpire. It also has the power to enslave and destroy.

In October 1600, the Muslim Ottoman Army and a Christian army, led by Austrians, with
Hungarian, French, Maltese and German troops were battling it out for territory called Kanizsa.
The Ottoman army was outgunned and outmanned, but the Ottoman commander, Tiryaki Hasan
Pasha was a clever man. He knew that the Hungarians were not too happy to be allied with the
Austrians. So he sent fake letters, designed them to be captured by the Austrians. The letters
contained Hungarian alliance with Ottoman forces. The Austrian upon reading the fake letters
signed by a reliable source (obviously forged) decided to kill all Hungarian soldiers.

The Hungarians revolted and the Christian army disintegrated from within. Thus, did the
Ottomans won the battle, by issuing forged communication.

During World War II, the British, to protect the secrecy of the Allied plan to invade Sicily in
1943, launched operation Mincemeat. This was a deception campaign to mislead German
Intelligence about the real target of the start of the Allied Invasion of Europe.

A series of seemingly genuine secret documents, with forged signatures, were attached to a
British corpse dressed in military uniforms. It was left to float somewhere in a beach in Spain,
where plenty of German agents were sure to get hold of it.

The body with the fake documents was found eventually and its documents seen by German
agents. The documents identified Sardinia and Corsica as the targets of the Allied invasion. The
Germans believed it, and was caught with their pants down when allied forces hit the beaches of
the real target, which was Sicily.
This kind of deception was also used by the British against the Germans in North Africa. They
placed a map of British minefields, then attached them to a corpse. The minefields were non-
existent but the Germans saw the map and considered it true. Thus, they rerouted their tanks to
areas with soft sand where they bogged down.

In 1944, a Japanese sea plane crashed near Cebu. According to Japanese military officials
who were captured, and later released, they were accompanying Gen. Koga, Commander in
Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet. Gen. Koga died in the crash. A little later, Filipino
fisherman recovered some Japanese documents. They delivered the documents to US
Intelligence. The documents revealed that Leyte was lightly defended. As a result, the Americans
shifted their invasion target to Leyte instead of Cotabato Bay in Mindanao.

On October 17, 1944 the invasion of Leyte went underway. Leyte was lightly defended as the
Koga papers have indicated. But it was during the invasion of Leyte when the Japanese navy
launched their last offensive strike against the US fleet, with the objective of obliterating it once
and for all. They nearly succeeded. After this near-tragic event, the Koga papers were considered
by some military strategists as spurious and could have been manufactured by the Japanese to
mislead the American navy into thinking that Leyte was a defenseless island. That Leyte was a
trap. And the Americans nearly fell into it.

In recent memory, there was an incident in which the forging of documents served to negate
the existence of an independent Philippines.

In 1901, the Americans managed to capture a Filipino messenger, Cecilio Segismundo who
carried with him documents from Aguinaldo. The American then faked some documents
complete with forged signature, telling Aguinaldo that some Filipino officers were sending him
guerrillas with American prisoners. With the help of a Spanish traitor, Lazaro Segovia, the
Americans assembled a company of pro-American Filipino soldiers, the Macabebe scouts. These
were the soldiers who penetrated the camp of Aguinaldo, disguised as soldiers of the Philippine
Republic. They managed to capture Aguinaldo. With the president captured, his generals began
to surrender, and the Republic began to fall.

The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated as to its authenticity.

It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were
many witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May
13, 1935. It was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila.
But the original document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it.

However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, the retraction of Rizal
was copied verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found the
original document, also copied it verbatim.
 In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to this the date of the
signing was very clear in the original Spanish document which Rizal supposedly signed. The
date was “December 29, 1890.”

Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears the date “December 29,
189C”. The number “0” was evidently altered to make it look like a letter C. Then still later,
another supposedly original version came up. It has the date “December 29, 1896”. This time,
the “0” became a “6”.

So which is which?

Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document, reported that the
forger of Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano
Lacuna, which was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and
Rizal’s signature forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were approached by Spanish friars during
the final day of the Filipino-American war to forge Rizal’s signature.

This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale from Roman Roque himself,
them being neighbours.

To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the forest of the night.

Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal was invented by the friars
to deflect the heroism of Rizal which was centered on the friar abuses.

Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who copied verbatim Rizal’s retraction, also figured prominently
during the revolution. It was him, Andres Bonifacio reported, who had intimated to Aguinaldo
the cessation of agitation in exchange of pardon.

There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of Josephine Bracken,
written on February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged badly. The document supposedly written
by Josephine herself supported the fact that they were married under the Catholic rites. But upon
closer look, there is a glaring difference between the penmanship of the document, and other
letters written by Josephine to Rizal.

Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though Rizal is a hero, whether he
retracted or not, we must investigate if he really did a turn-around. If he did not, and the
documents were forgeries, then somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.

Source: http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/