Module III: “One Past but Many Histories:” Controversies and Conflicting Views in

Philippine History

“CAVITE MUTINY
Of 1872”

WHAT IS THE CAVITE MUTINY of 1872?

Cavite Mutiny started on January 20, 1872 during the oppression of the Spaniards which angered the

Filipinos especially those who are living in Cavite. It was formed by 200 troops consisting of workers from

Cavite that were allegedly victims of the cruelty of the Spaniards.

Cavite Mutiny was used by the Spanish friars and Izquierdo as a powerful lever by magnifying it as a

full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also included residents of Cavite and Manila, and

more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. The incident was a

vast conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty was

presented by the friars.

ACCOUNTS OF THE CAVITE MUTINY: SPANISH VERSION

Jose Montero y Vidal, a Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it as an attempt of the

Indios to defeat the Spanish government in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official

report intensified the event and made use of it to implicate the spirituality, which was then active in the call for

secularization. The two accounts complimented and authenticated with one other, only general’s report was

more vicious. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the removal of privileges enjoyed by the

workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and exemption from force labor were the main
1
reasons of the “revolution” as how they called it, however, other causes were recited by them including the

Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press,

democratic, liberal and republican books and pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the

presence of the spirituals who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels

and enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious

propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an

innate propensity for stealing.

The two Spaniards cited that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought of it as a big

conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillosor lawyers, residents of Manila and Cavite and the

native clergy. The conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be

followed by the massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and

Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros.

According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the

Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated the occasion with the usual fireworks

displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like what was

agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish

officers at sight and seized the arsenal.

When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish

forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the expected reinforcement from

Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while

the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and were sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots like

Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the

Audencia (High Court) from the practice of law, arrested and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the

2
Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the

creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill fear among the

Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the GOMBURZA were executed. This event

was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that shaped Filipino nationalism.

ACCOUNTS OF THE CAVITE MUTINY: FILIPINO VERSION

  Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the Filipino

version of the bloody incident in Cavite.  In his point of view, the incident was a mere mutiny by the native

Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be dissatisfied with the abolition of their

privileges.  Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo’s cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges

of the workers and native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of school of arts and

trades for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization of a political club.

       On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and residents of Cavite

headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the commanding officer and Spanish officers in

sight.  The insurgents were expecting support from the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn’t happen.  The

news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement

of Spanish troops in Cavite.  After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.

      Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful lever by

magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also included residents of

Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the

Philippines.  It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central Government in Madrid announced its intention to

deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and
3
management of educational institutions.  This turnout of events was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to

do something drastic in their dire sedire to maintain power in the Philippines.

       Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain welcomed an

educational decree authored by SegismundoMoret promoted the fusion of sectarian schools run by the friars

into a school called Philippine Institute.  The decree proposed to improve the standard of education in the

Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This

improvement was warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.

       The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took advantage of the

incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago

with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to

believe that the scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged

“revolution” reported by Izquierdo and the friars.

       Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment while members

of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by garrote.  This episode leads to the

awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of 1896.  The French writer

Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened due to

discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort.  The Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the

execution of the three martyr priests which he actually witnessed.

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES OF THE ACCOUNTS

The account of Jose Montero y Vidal is the fullest account of the mutiny itself. It embodies the official

representation of the mutiny in Cavite. Published only in 1895, at the height of the Filipino Nationalist

4
Campaign, Montero’s account is strongly hostile to Filipino reformist aspirations, has no doubt of the guilt of

those executed or exiled, and places much of the blame for the revolt of 1872 on the alleged tolerance of

Governor-General Carlos Maria de la Torre in the period 1879-1871.

Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that remained to be

unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal as well as the members of the

native army after their privileges were drawn back by Gen. Izquierdo; Second, Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid

and strict policies that made the Filipinos move and turn away from Spanish government out of disgust; Third,

the Central Government failed to conduct an investigation on what truly transpired but relied on reports of

Izquierdo and the friars and the opinion of the public; Fourth, the happy days of the friars were already

numbered in 1872 when the Central Government in Spain decided to deprive them of the power to intervene in

government affairs as well as in the direction and management of schools prompting them to commit frantic

moves to extend their stay and power; Fifth,  the Filipino clergy members actively participated in the

secularization movement in order to  allow Filipino priests to take hold of the parishes in the country making

them prey to the rage of the friars; Sixth, Filipinos during the time were active participants, and responded to

what they deemed as injustices; and Lastly, the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of the

Spanish government, for the action severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired Filipino

patriots to call for reforms and eventually independence.  There may be different versions of the event, but one

thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898.

        The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and unnamed shed their

bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence.  12 June 1898 may be a glorious event for us, but we should

not forget that before we came across to victory, our forefathers suffered enough.  As weenjoy our freeedom,

may we be more historically aware of our past to have a better future ahead of us.  And just like what Elias said

in Noli me Tangere, may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”

5
6
REFERENCES:

http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1872_Cavite_mutiny

https://www.britannica.com/event/Cavite-Mutiny

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42634842?read-now=1&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://prezi.com/p/r61dgzw7yf-g/cavite-mutiny/