THE CONTROVERSY BEHIND THE CAVITE MUTINY
their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with
The Cavite mutiny of 1872 was an uprising of Filipino military personnel of Fort
San Felipe, the Spanish arsenal in Cavite, Philippine Islands on January 20,
1872. Around 200 locally recruited colonial troops and laborers rose up in the
belief that it would elevate to a national uprising. The mutiny was quickly
crushed, but the Spanish regime under the reactionary governor Rafael de
Izquierdo magnified the incident and used it as an excuse to clamp down on
those Filipinos who had been calling for governmental reform. A number of
Filipino intellectuals were seized and accused of complicity with the mutineers.
After a brief trial, three priests—José Burgos, Jacinto Zamora, and Mariano
Gómez—were publicly executed. The three subsequently became martyrs to
the cause of Philippine independence.
TERMS TO REMEMBER
1. MUTINY - a criminal conspiracy among a group of people to openly
oppose, change, or overthrow a lawful authority to which they are
subject
2. ARSENAL - a place where weapons and military equipment are
stored or made
3. GARROTE - a wire, cord, or apparatus used to strangle someone
4. MASON (FREEMASON) - a member of a large organization of men
who have secret rituals and who give help to other members
5. PANGUINGUI - a card game which resembles rummy, which is
played with several packs of cards shuffled together, and in which a
player tries to meld his whole hand in groups or sequences and
bonuses are paid for particular melds.
THESIS (ESTABLISHED FACTS)
1. The primary cause of the mutiny is believed to be an order from
Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo to subject the soldiers of the
Engineering and Artillery Corps to personal taxes, from which they
were previously exempt. The taxes required them to pay a monetary
sum as well as to perform forced labor called, polo y servicio.
Discontent grew among the people especially among the soldiers
and workers at the Cavite arsenal whose pay was reduced because
of increased taxation.
2. On January 20, 1872 some 200 soldiers under Sergeant La Madrid
mutinied. They were joined by some workers of the arsenal. The
soldiers were expected to be joined by troops from Manila whose
own uprising would be signaled by the firing of rockets. At that night,
the residents of Sampaloc, Manila had a fiesta of their patron, Our
Lady of Loreto with a lively display of fireworks. Thinking that their
comrades in Manila had started the rebellion, the Cavite troops took
control of Fort San Felipe, killed their Spanish officers and seized
the arsenal.
3. The news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen.
Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish troops
in Cavite. Loyal Spanish troops under Felipe Ginoves retook the fort
and arsenal killing La Madrid and other mutineers. Among those
arrested were Filipinos seeking reforms and the Filipino clergy,
Fathers Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, Jacinto Zamora and the
other priests.
4. Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora were implicated as the leaders
of a grand conspiracy to overthrow the Spaniards. The materials
used to implicate them included pieces of paper with messages
from Fr. Zamora with the words “prepare shot and bullets”. Their
lawyers made no effort to defend their clients and Burgos’ counsel
Jose Arrieta declared his client already confessed his guilt.
5. On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government to
instill fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such
daring act again, the GOMBURZA were executed by the use of
garrote at Bagumbayan.  This event was tragic but served as one of
the moving forces that shaped Filipino nationalism. A total of 41
persons were executed and the others weredeported to Marianas
ANTI-THESIS (ARGUMENT)
1. What many of us do not know, is that there were different accounts
in reference to the said event. What was written in the historical
books were based from the Spanish perspective wherein they
based it in a document made by Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific
Spanish historian and appeared to be living in Manila at that time of
event and a report made by Gov. General Rafael Izquierdo
addressed to the King of Spain. It was even stated in Izquierdo’s
report to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the
Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers
Burgos and Zamora.  The general even added that the native clergy
enticed other participants by giving them charismatic assurance that
handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and
ranks in the army.  Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios as
gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing.
2. But based on the Filipino perspective as told by Dr. Trinidad
Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a 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.
3. It was 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. 
according to the accounts of two Spanish clergymen captured
during the Revolution, the failed mutiny was, in fact, a plot by the
Spanish friars to eliminate Jose Burgos who was then the foremost
champion of secular priests .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 management of educational
institutions.  This turnout of events was believed by Tavera,
prompted the friars to do something drastic in their desire to
maintain power in the Philippines.
4. 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 tied and executed by
garrote. 
5. Fathers Mario Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora—very
much had nothing to do with the 1872 Cavite Mutiny but it was the
masons Máximo Inocencio, Crisanto de los Reyes, and Enrique
Paraíso who were the mastermind of the mutiny. Instead of
executing them, they were only among those who were excluded
and sent in Mariana Islands.
6. A Jesuit Historian, John Schumacher suspect that the masons
Máximo Inocencio, Crisanto de los Reyes, and Enrique Paraíso who
were the mastermind of the mutiny were excluded from the
execution because of their masonic connection between them and
Gov. General Rafael Izquierdo who was also a mason.
7. GomBurZa were only framed up by the Spanish friars. The pieces of
paper which has a message of “prepare for shots and bullets” and
used to implicate the three priests meant only money used as bets
since the priests were engaged in a game called panguingui. Their
lawyers made no effort to defend their clients and Burgos’ counsel
Jose Arrieta declared his client already confessed his guilt. Upon
hearing this, Fr. Burgos jumped to his feet and shouted “I have not
confessed any guilt because I am not guilty. That gentleman
(Arrieta) HAS changed it. I deny all the charges against me.”
8. The Filipinos believed that the three priests were innocent. In fact
on the day of the execution, the bells from the church were tolled
and the crowd spontaneously knelt as a salute to the three martyrs.
Cavite Mutiny 1872
Meaningful History
Remarkable event during 19th Century in the Philippines: Cavite Mutiny 1872
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was an uprising of military personnel of Fort San
Felipe, the Spanish arsenal in Cavite, Philippines on January 20, 1872. Around
200 soldiers and laborers rose up in the belief that it would elevate to a
national uprising. The mutiny was unsuccessful, and government soldiers
executed many of the participants and began to crack down on a burgeoning
nationalist movement. Many scholars believe that the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
was the beginning of Filipino nationalism that would eventually lead to the
Philippine Revolution of 1896. (Wikipedia)
This event has been unforgettable and reflected in the 12 events that changed
influenced the Philippine History in a major way.
This event is meaningful to the following Filipinos – Gomburza [an acronym
denoting the surnames of the priests Mariano Gómez, José Apolonio Burgos,
and Jacinto Zamora, three Filipino priests who were executed on 17 February
1872 at Bagumbayan in Manila, Philippines by Spanish colonial authorities on
charges of subversion arising from the 1872 Cavite mutiny. Their execution left
a profound effect on many Filipinos; José Rizal, the national hero, would
dedicate his novel El filibusterismo to their memory]
Mariano Gómez
José Apolonio Burgos
Jacinto Zamora
Mariano Gomez – born on August 2, 1799 at Santa Cruz Manila by Marina
Guard and Francisco Gomez, he was designated as head priest in Cavite in
1824 and was a member of GOMBURZA later on. He was executed during the
Cavite Mutiny in 1872.
Jose Apolonio Burgos – was a Filipino mestizo secular priest, accused of
mutiny by the Spanish colonial authorities in the Philippines in the 19th century
(wiki) he was born on February 9 1837 by Florencia Garcia and Don Jose
Burgos in Vigan Ilocos Sur. He was executed along with Mariano Gomez and
Jacinto Zamora.
Jacinto Zamora – born August 14, 1835 in Manila. He was placed in a mock
trial and summarily executed in Manila along with two other clergymen. He was
a Roman Catholic priest. The Gomburza execution was carried out on
February 17, 1872 at Bagumbayan Field in Manila during Cavite mutiny in the
19th century.
Source:
Wikipedia
Guerrero, León María. 1998. Something to Remember. The First Filipino.
Guerrero Publishing
The Cavite Mutiny – 12 Events That Have Influenced Filipino History by
stuartexchange.com
https://upouphilhistory.wordpress.com/remarkable-events-and-people-in-the-
philippine-history/cavite-mutiny-1872/
Mutiny
Posted on September 5, 2012
THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY
By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay
The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for all
the Filipinos. In this particular day, the entire Filipino nation as well as Filipino
communities all over the world gathers to celebrate the Philippines’
Independence Day. 1898 came to be a very significant year for all of us— it is
as equally important as 1896—the year when the Philippine Revolution broke
out owing to the Filipinos’ desire to be free from the abuses of the Spanish
colonial regime. But we should be reminded that another year is as historic as
the two—1872.
Two major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and
the other was the martyrdom of the three martyr priests in the persons of
Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA).
However, not all of us knew that there were different accounts in reference to
the said event. All Filipinos must know the different sides of the story—since
this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of our history—the
execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the awakening of
nationalism among the Filipinos.
1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective
Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event
and highlighted it as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish
government in the Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official
report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate the native clergy,
which was then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts
complimented and corroborated with one other, only that the general’s report
was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the
abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-
payment of tributes and exemption from force labor were the main reasons of
the “revolution” as how they called it, however, other causes were enumerated
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 native clergy 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. He reported to the King of
Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish government to install a
new “hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The general even added
that the native clergy enticed other participants by giving them charismatic
assurance that their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with
handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the
army. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed
an innate propensity for stealing.
The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and
was thought of it as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos,
abogadillos or native lawyers, residents of Manila and Cavite and the native
clergy. They insinuated that 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 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.
A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident
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 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 Segismundo Moret
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.
Unraveling the Truth
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.”
Source:http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
Jose Rizal dedicated his novel, "El Filibusterismo" to the three priests, Mariano
Gomez, 85 years, Jose Burgos, 30, and Jacinto Zamora, 35, executed at
Bagumbayan Field on February 17, 1872.
History books state that with this tragic event, Philippine nationalism was born.
The assumption is that, before this date, the people did not feel they were one
nation, and any sign of protest against the foreign presence that was Spain
was a localized act of rebellion to which the rest of the country did not relate.
The execution of three Filipino priests, one of them an octogenarian, for
something nobody believed they had anything to do with in the first place,
stirred a current of sympathy for the martyrs and of revulsion against the alien
rulers who could bring the ax down on the necks of the innocent. After three
and a half centuries of foreign domination characterized by unenlightened
government, outright exploitation of people and natural resources, now and
then half-hearted attempts at reform and, on the part of the governed, sporadic
and desultory shows of resistance, the common enemy now took shape and
the people felt as one in their fight for the right to rule themselves, shape their
own destinies, and take the consequences.
Father Gomez, Father Burgos and Father Zamora were summarily tried and
sentenced to death by the garrote for the Cavite arsenal revolt of January 20,
1872. The priests, who were active in the fight for the secularization (or, in
effect, nationalization) of the clergy were creating trouble for the despotic
Governor Rafael Izquierdo and the powerful regular religious orders in the
country. By linking them with the uprising in the Cavite arsenal, whether they
indeed had anything to do with it or not, the administration found a convenient
way of doing away with the troublesome trio.
Were the three really involved in the uprising? Establishing the truth of the
case will take painstaking investigation since the records of the trial have
disappeared and the star prosecution witness himself had been ordered
executed along with the three against whom he testified. The question will
probably remain one of the great unsolved mysteries in the Filipinos' fight for
freedom. Until he breathed his last, Father Burgos protested innocence of the
crime imputed to him and Rizal, in dedicating the Filibusterismo to the three
condemned men, underscored the doubt shared by the Filipinos over their
guilt.
Msgr. Meliton Martinez, Archbishop of Manila, was served a copy of the death
sentences with a request that the priests be defrocked. In reply, the archbishop
said he needed more convincing proof of their guilt and refused to be
instrumental in effecting the crowning touch to their humiliation.
The secrecy which shrouded the alleged trials, the mysterious way records and
papers of the court martial findings had disappeared, and the suspicious haste
with which the sentences were carried out, contributed to the widespread belief
that the three had been condemned on trumped-up charges. Sentenced to
death on February 15, they were led to the garrote two days later, on February
17.
But even if irrefutable evidence against Father Gomez, Burgos and Zamora
had been cited, the three one an octogenarian known for the charities, another
turned half-crazed at the prospect of a ghastly death, and the third widely
admired for his courageous espousal of the rights of the Filipinos, in particular
the clergy would just the same have been looked on as martyrs by their
compatriots. The time was ripe for revolt and the fact that the people believed
that the executions were a miscarriage of justice only hastened the march of
history. Public indignation rose to a peak. The job became easier for those who
had by now seen the necessity of uniting. The first seeds of nationalism were
sown and took root. The then constituted authorities, in deciding to set the
priests up as an example to the populace of what was in the store for them if
they continued being insolent, were fast sealing their doom. The groundwork
for the inevitable revolution that was to come a quarter of a century later was
laid.
Edmund Plauchut, a Frenchman residing in Manila at the time of the revolt,
gives a dispassionate account of it and its causes in an article published in the
Revue des Deux Mondes in 1877. He traced the immediate cause to a
peremptory order from the governor, Izquierdo, exacting personal taxes from
the Filipino laborers in the engineering and artillery corps in the Cavite arsenal,
and requiring them to perform forced labor like ordinary subjects. Until then,
these workers in the arsenal had been enjoying exemptions from both taxes
and forced labor. January 20, the day of the revolt, was payday and the
laborers found the amount of taxes as well as the corresponding fee in lieu of
the forced labor deducted from their pay envelopes. It was the last straw. That
night they mutinied. Forty infantry soldiers and twenty men from the artillery
took over command of the Fort of San Felipe and fired cannonades to
announce to the world their moment of triumph. It was a short-lived victory.
Apparently, the mutineers had expected to be joined by their comrades in the
7th infantry company assigned to patrol the Cavite plaza. They became terror-
stricken, however, when they beckoned to the 7th infantry men from the
ramparts of the fort and their comrades did not make any move to join them.
Instead, the company started attacking them. The rebels decided to bolt the
gates and wait for morning when support from Manila was expected to come.
But Manila was quiet. What the Cavite rebels had mistaken for a pre-arranged
signal for the uprising coming from the general direction of the city, turned out
to be the burst of rockets in celebration of the feast of St. Loreto, patron of
Sampaloc. Augustinian Friar Casimiro Herrera, writing a thesis on the revolt
later, was to say this was an "act of Divine Providence", for the Sampaloc
fiesta, traditionally celebrated in December, had been postponed to January 20
that year.
Informed of the mutiny, Governor Izquierdo dispatched two infantry regiments
and an artillery brigade with four cannons, under the command of General
Felipe Ginoves Expinar. General Ginoves arrived in Cavite by sea on the boats
of Filipino, Manila, Isabel I and Isabel II, to find the 7th infantry company under
the command of Lt. Col. Sawa successfully keeping the rebels at bay in the
front. From then on, it was just a matter of hours before the mutineers, out-
numbered, out-armed and ill-prepared even in the matter of provisions to
enable them to weather a siege, began filing out of the fort waving the white
banner of surrender. But the first to march out were met by a volley of shots
from General Ginoves' men. They fell to a man and Gen. Ginoves then ordered
a charge into the fort. The rebels inside the fort did not offer any resistance.
Plauchut mentions a Spanish friar (Father Antonio Ruffian of San Jose de
Dios) whose presence inside the fort "has never been explained to date", as
well as the Filipinos and the suicide of one of them. This would tend to
corroborate reports from other sources that the Spanish officers in the fort as
well as the men under them had joined with the laborers in the revolt. These
reports mention Spanish Lts. Montesinos and Morquecho, who with a Sgt.
Lamadrid, took charge of the force of 200 marines and artillery men at the
arsenal. When General Ginoves and his soldiers arrived, it was Sgt. Lamadrid
who first tried to repel them. He died in the attempt. Other accounts, however,
conflict with these reports. They state that the rebels themselves put to death
the Spanish officers inside the fort, as well as the wife of one of them and her
maid.
That those who staged the revolt in the San Felipe fort were counting on help
from comrades in other military establishments in Cavite and Manila is highly
plausible. The native soldiers in these establishments had long been chafing
from discrimination in treatment. One of Governor's Izquierdo's first acts on
taking over the reins of the government was to order the fusion of the two
artillery battalions in Manila. One of these was composed of Spaniards
(peninsulars) and the other of mestizos and Filipinos. Before the fusion, the
two battalions were being maintained separately and independently of each
other to avoid clashes that would arise because of the differences in race.
Governor Izquierdo not only ordered the two merged, but decreed that the
peninsulars would form the first companies and the Filipinos, second. He also
filled all vacancies for the posts of corporals and sergeants with Spaniards.
When the two battalions were being maintained separately, the natives were
blissfully unaware of the fact that their Spanish comrades in other battalions
were getting better pay and better food. With the merger, the discriminations
became obvious. The feeling of discontent spread. The Cavite uprising was
one of the manifestations of this dissatisfaction over conditions in the army. It
could very well have been part of a concerted plan to revolt among the native
elements in the rest of the military establishments.
When he quickly quelled the revolt, Governor Izquierdo demonstrated the
futility of mutiny. He should have rested on his laurels, assured that the other
discontented groups contemplating similar acts of defiance would have learned
their lesson and desisted from resorting to violence. But Governor Izquierdo
had to turn the incident into a terrible example that the insolent filibusters (as
anyone who showed any radical tendencies was then called) should never
forget. Apparently, Governor Izquierdo had a dossier on who the filibusters
were. He had them all rounded up, their homes searched thoroughly and their
letters intercepted. The Council of War set up a court martial under Manuel
Boscasa. Some seventy people were condemned to death. Later, several of
the death sentences were commuted to exile or imprisonment. Among those
banished to far off and lonely Marianas Islands were Antonio Maria Regidor,
Maximo Paterno. Agustin Mendoza and Joaquin Pardo de Tavera. Given jail
terms were Maximo Inocencio, Enrique Paraiso and Crisanto de los Reyes.
Doomed to the garrote were the three priests, Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora, as
well as one Francisco Saldua. The latter had been the principal informer
against the three priests. His statement had been the main basis for the
convictions and he had been promised pardon in exchange for his testimony.
To his consternation, however, he was condemned along with the three. His
was the first of the heads to roll on February 17.
The court martial proceedings appear to be highly anomalous. Evidence to
support the charges did not accompany the decision which merely stated that
the court had found them guilty of conspiring to overthrow the government and
proclaim a Republic of the Philippines, with Father Burgos as president. The
defendants were given a counsel chosen by the court. The counsel, a Dr. Jose
Arrieta, on reading his brief, said it was not possible to defend Father Burgos
because he had already confessed. The priest was surprised on hearing the
"defense". He protested, "That is not my defense. The course has changed it. I
have not confessed and I deny every charge brought against me as having no
foundation in fact or in act."
That Governor Izquierdo committed a blunder when he had the priests
executed and the other suspects exiled or otherwise sentenced for scarcely
proved complicity in the Cavite revolt, is something that most historians admit.
If Governor Izquierdo had desisted from such punitive action, the revolt would
not have attained the importance it was to take on subsequently. One may not
guarantee, however, that otherwise, the fire of nationalism would not have
caught on and spread. As it happened, with the execution of the three priests,
Governor Izquierdo was merely setting the pattern for his reign of terror, only
too well known in Philippine history. The fuse was ready, all that remained to
be done was set it off.
Abroad, events had in fact been working up to the Cavite revolt. Spain herself
had just undergone a revolution. Four years earlier, in 1868, the queen had
been dethroned and a Republican had been installed. The revolution in the
mother country had repercussions in the Islands. In 1869, the liberal Governor
de la Torre was sent over. All progressive-minded elements in the country
were to enjoy a brief spell of liberalism under the new governor. There was
going to be freedom of speech and the Governor even encouraged his
subjects to visit with him at his Sta. Potenciana palace and exchange views on
how the government should be run. The loss of Spanish colonies in the
Americas at about this time resulted in the displacements of a great number of
government officials and employees. These were soon to find their way to the
only colony left, the Philippine Islands. The opening of the Suez Canal was to
facilitate this influx of newcomers who were to bring with them modern ideas of
government and the spirit of reforms then pervading in the mother country as
well as throughout Europe and the new world.
One articulate historian writes of the period. Not until the nineteenth century
would the Filipino nation present a united, self-conscious front. The rarefied air
from Europe had found its way into the nipa hut. The red beret of the liberated
Frenchman had its counterpart in the red ribbon worn by the Señora Maria de
Sanchez, hostess of the Manila celebration of the new Spanish constitution.
Pouring in lieu of the invalid wife of the liberal Governor de la Torre, she
presented a strange, exciting sight to the heretofore repressed Filipino. On the
ribbon wound around her hair were printed the words "Long Live the Sovereign
People" and around her neck a red tie bore the message "Long Live Liberty" at
one end, and "Long live General la Torre" on the other. On a frivolous ribbon
around a Castillian señora's hair was the slogan that would send many a
Filipino who was present at the reception, among them Father Jose Burgos, to
jail or to the garrote.
But liberalism was not going to last long in Spain, and certain circles in the
Islands, who looked on the radical ways of Governor de la Torre as a serious
threat to their existence, were going to conspire to have him removed. These
circles were typified by the Augustinian friar, Herrero, who, assuming an "I told
you so" attitude in his thesis on the Cavite revolt, was to say later, "The
insurrection at Cavite has the same origin and result as those in France, Spain,
Italy, American and other European countries. They are all fruits of the
corruption of the intelligence and of the heart . . . The freedom to think and the
freedom of the press which brought bitter fruits in Spain were transported to
these islands and they were encouraged by ambition, passions and ignorance
of men . . . "
On April 4,, 1871, De la Torre was replaced by Izquierdo. The moment the new
governor took over the reins of government, he made it clear that the regime
he was going to establish was one of total reaction to De la Torre's liberal
policies. But the seeds of liberalism and of desire for reform had been sown
and these were to thrive, even more so, under Izquierdo's oppressive rule. It is
a lesson of history that revolutionary movements feed on tyranny.
Father Burgos, then a coadjutor in the Manila Cathedral, had been very active
in the fight for the retention of Filipino curas in parishes. This dispute over
parishes between the seculars (the curas) and the regulars (members of
religious order) is best explained in a letter Archbishop Martinez of Manila sent
the Regent of the King in Madrid at the height of the dispute, shortly before the
Cavite revolt. The archbishop, as head of the parishes, naturally sided with the
seculars and warned that the controversy had better be resolved to their
satisfaction if it was desired to stave off a deterioration of the situation with
unfortunate results. Because the seculars were native priests, mestizos or
creoles, and the regulars were peninsulars, the dispute over the parishes was
eventually to take on racial overtones.
Archbishop Martinez traced the beginnings of the religious question to the
issuance of the Cedula of July 8, 1826. This ecclesiastical order emanation
from Madrid authorized the transfer of administration of the parishes in the
Islands from the seculars to the regulars. The seculars had been occupying
these parishes since fifty years ago, when there was a shortage of priests from
Spain. Few of the Spanish priests like the idea of coming to the wilds of the
Philippines, and the local church authorities were forced to train natives to
become priests and administer the parishes. The 1826 cedula naturally
affected the seculars adversely, since then they were to be demoted to mere
auxiliaries and sacristanes while the friars were to take over as heads of the
parishes. In almost all instances, however, there was virtually no transfer of
work: the native priests still carried on the actual work of the curas, while the
friars, enjoying the privileges of curas, only took charge of the soft job of
receiving the moneys due the curates from the parishioners. A second Cedula
issued on March 9, 1849, authorized the transfer of seven specific parishes in
Cavite from the seculars to the regulars. The last straw was the Royal Order of
September 10, 1861 giving all curates in Cavite and Manila to the members of
the Recollect Order. The Royal Order was issued to recompense the
Recollects for loss of benefices in Mindanao which had been given to the
Jesuits, just returned from exile. The Jesuits, banned from Spain and the
Indies (the Philippines included) in 1767, were restored to favor in 1861. There
were limited to missionary work, however, and in the Islands were assigned to
Mindanao, then in the administration of the Recollects. To compensate the
Recollects, they were awarded the lucrative parishes in Manila and Cavite at
the expense of the native clergy which had hitherto been holding them.
There were other instances of what the historians of the time called
despoliation, which was the awarding of lush plums to favored parties to the
discrimination of underdogs. When the priest of San Rafael, Bulacan, a native,
died, his curate was given over to the Augustinians. Curates of Zambales,
Bataan and Pampanga, long held by native priests, were given over to
religious corporations. Father Burgos led the protests against what he charged
were intrusions on the part of the regulars into what properly and legally
belonged to the local clergy. He organized a clerical party to fight for
secularization. The party subsidized the newspaper El Eco Filipino, published
in Madrid, which became the organ of the champions for secularization of the
churches and later of civil reforms. Burgos and his followers argued that the
turning over of the parishes to the regulars contravened the provisions of the
Council of Trent agreement which expressly prohibited the friars from holding
curates. Under the Trent agreement, only secular priests were supposed to
hold parishes and administer the spiritual needs of the populace while regulars
were to live in their monasteries and devote their time to religious
contemplation and to missionary and educational work.

The regulars on the other hand countered that the seculars were not
competent to hold the parishes and that, moreover, they had been holding
these curates at the indulgence of the Crown in Madrid which had the right to
take away at its pleasure. What really made the curates such a big bone of
contention, besides of course the fact that they were good sources of
revenues, was the fact that those holding them became spheres of influence,
social and political, in the communities. The regulars, realizing that they would
be reduced to political impotence if they retired to their monasteries, refused to
give up the parishes that they had maneuvered to get from the native priests
through high-powered and obviously successful lobbying in Madrid. It was this
friar faction which believed to have insisted on laying the extreme penalty for
Father Burgos, his fellow cura del sagrario in the Cathedral, Jacinto Zamora,
and the octogenarian Gomez, for complicity in the Cavite Revolt. In one fell
swoop, they would do away with an annoying threat to the comfortable
positions they had been able to wangle from Madrid, as heads of the most
lucrative parishes in the Islands.

But the stories circulated that the evidence against the three priests had been
fabricated, and that in fact the revolt had been instigated by the friars (Friar
Ruffian's presence in the besieged fort San Felipe was never satisfactorily
explained) to frame up Burgos, Gomez and Zamora. One take (noted in Blair
and Robertson's The Philippine Islands Vol. 11) was that some friars had
brought from Zambales a native who looked like Father Gomez, rigged him up
in priest attire and thus managed to implicate the good man in the mutiny.

These stories were to serve as fodder to the steadily growing fire. Because
those put to the garrote for a crime never satisfactorily proved included a
creole (Burgos), a half-Chinese (Zamora) and a pure-blooded Tagalog
(Gomez), the various elements represented by these three races, saw in the
unjust execution a common cause which was not just creole, or mestizo, or
indio (as natives were then deprecatingly termed). Up to then, these various
groups had held each other in distrust, a result of the "divide and rule" policy
maintained by most despotic regimes and so successfully practiced by the
peninsulars in the Islands. With the executions, Burgos, Zamora and Gomez
emerged as martyrs. The various active groups became bound in anger over
the atrocity and on this union was laid the foundation for a Filipino nation.
Some of the liberal elements had been advocating mere assimilation with
Spain (the country to take on the status of a province). Now they were asking
themselves whether assimilation, and not complete independence to run their
lives and their country, was what they wanted.

Austin Craig in his Lineage, Life and Labors of Rizal recalls that Father Burgos'
ante mortem advice to the Filipinos was for them to seek education abroad
because only through education could they hope for progress. It was advice
that was well taken. Rizal, whose older brother, Paciano, was a close friend of
Burgos, was soon to leave his native shores for Madrid and other points
overseas, where he was to crystallize his ideas for reform.

Meantime, the laymen who had also been implicated in the revolt and punished
with exile to the Marianas, were to escape to places like London, Hongkong
and Tokyo, where the air was much more progressive. Here they were to start
Filipino communities where many a plot to liberate the "patria adorada" was
very likely hatched. Some of these exiles were to return to their country, and
their contact with liberally-run governments was to open their eyes wide to the
despotism in Manila. These were the men destined to take historic roles in
1898.

Source: http://www.stuartxchange.org/CaviteMutiny.html

Importance of cavite mutiny

It happened in 1872 and this event was an essential part in the Philippine
history because it sparked the start of the resistance against the authority for
Philippine Independence in 1898. During the Spanish colonization, tax reforms
were implemented that required the soldiers to serve the army and pay taxes.
Many things happened after to combat the unfair treatment. This was also the
time when the three priests were executed (Gomburza) by the Spaniards. The
1872 said event gave inspiration to fight for Philippine independence. The "El
Filibusterismo' of Jose Rizal was a related work pertaining to GOMBURZA.

Source: https://brainly.ph/question/1775825