Cavite Mutiny:

Which is True?

The Spanish version or Filipino

Version?

A Position Paper by:

MAPAS, Jane Florence L.
ARIOLA, Madelyn E.
CARBA, Rhea
BS - MATHEMATICS 1
I - INTRODUCTION

An Uprising occurred on the 20th day of January 1872 at Fort San Felipe, the Spanish
arsenal in Cavite, Philippines. It was then called the “Cavite Mutiny of 1872”. On the official
report of Governor Izquierdo in the Cavite Mutiny of 1872, it was said that “The movement
instigated was because of the injustice of the government in not paying for their tobacco crop,
they are also against usury, and encouraged the rebellion and protested for what they called
injustice of forcing the workers to pay tribute and give personal services in which they were
exempted at first” (“Readings in Philippine History”, 2017, p.187).

It was also believed that “This uprising was the beginning of Filipino Nationalism that would
eventually lead to the Philippine Revolution, this event was also meaningful for the Filipino
priests Gomburza, as the event led to their deaths and left an impact to the Filipinos”
(“Readings in Philippine History”, 2017, p.186).

Anyhow, there are two (2) versions of this incident which tells us what really happened in
the Cavite Mutiny of 1872. The Spanish and Filipino version. The former, focused on the point
of view of the Spaniards with little details about the on-going flow of the revolts of this incident.
The latter on the other hand, gave details to both sides of this occurrence which is why it is a
longer version than the former.

With this, we believe that the Filipino Version of Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, is a
version telling us the truth about what really happened without any bias but is simply writing as
a historian.
II - BODY

A. The Spanish Historian Jose Montero y Vidal was woefully biased in narrating the Cavite
episode.

1.) Other historians believed that Montero the Spanish Historian was one-sided in narrating the
Cavite incident.

“The Filipino Historian T.H. Pardo de Tavera commented that the Spanish Historian in
narrating the Cavite episode does not speak as a historian but as a Spaniard bent on perverting
the facts at his pleasure, unsupported by documentary evidences, and exaggerated the mutiny
of a few disgruntled soldiers into a revolt to overthrow Spanish rule and involved innocent
patriotic leaders.” (“Readings in Philippine History”, 2017, p.191). The Spanish Historian did not
carry out his duties and responsibilities as a historian to pass on the whole truth of what really
happened in this incident. He distorted the details and evidences, and spoke as a Spaniard in
order for this event to be on favor to the Spanish Government. Which he did not just fail on his
personal ethics but also failed as a historian who disseminates the truth. According to the
American Historian James A. LeRoy “The usually Montero who is transparent in his works
becomes very rabid in his recital of the Cavite mutiny. Not only he approves of the executed
priests being guilty, he also thinks that the movement was actually a form of separatism.” (as
cited in “Readings in Philippine History”, 2017, p. 191-192). Montero did not only pervert the
details but he also exaggerated the facts, that caused for the downfall of innocent lives and to
be suspected of an uprising which they did not intend.

2.) The Spanish Historian overstated the pieces of information in the intention to alter the facts.

“In his point of view, the incident was a mere mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and
laborers of the Cavite arsenal. They were dissatisfied with the abolition of the privileges and the
prohibition of the forming of school of arts and trades for Filipinos, in which the gov. believed
as a cover-up for the organization of the political club.” (Piedad-pugay C., 2012). The statement
is gotten from the Filipino version, wherein the cause for the mutiny to happen was because of
dissatisfaction of the decisions and orders of the gov. It was only to merely fight for their rights
and not for the allegedly revolution. However, this did not coincide with the Spanish version. “It
was deemed that the event was planned earlier and was thought of as a big conspiracy among
educated leaders to overthrow Spanish government and to install a new “Hari” as reported to
the king of Spain by gov. Izquierdo himself.” (Piedad-pugay C., 2012). For a bare mutiny to
result to a revolution that would be of a threat to a government is really an overstatement.
They magnified and took advantage of the mutiny to save their own face, and led to the deaths
of many patriotic leaders.

The Spanish version only comprise with one point of view which was really one-sided. It
failed to give us detailed information of the two accounts. Hence, this makes us believe that the
Filipino version is more reliable and true than the Spanish version.

B. Filipino version is longer due to the Spanish lack of information. And the Filipino version was
entailed with information which makes it a truer version.

1.) The Central Government in Madrid deprived the friars in all powers and intervention in
matters of civil government.

Because of this, the friars feared that they can no longer dominate the Filipinos and saw
the Filipino priests and native clergy as a threat to them, this, they took advantage of this
incident to their own benefit “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.” (Piedad-pugay C., 2012). They took drastic measures to ensure that their
influence in this country will not be a thing in the past, which is a very despicable move. To add
further information, this part wasn't mentioned in the Spanish Version, Montero only
Highlighted that the reason for the instigators of this even to happen was because of they're
trying to start a revolution and overthrow Spanish rule. “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.” (Piedad-pugay C., 2012).

2.) Gov. Izquierdo and the friars used this incident to instill fear to the Filipinos.

In the Spanish account the Gov. said that the instigators planned the revolution because
they were against the Spanish friars, in that the native clergy inspired the indios to organize the
said revolution and promise them things such as the Spaniards wealth. “Taking advantage of
the ignorance of those classes and the propensity of the Indio to steal, they offered to those
who revolted the wealth of the Spaniards.” (“Readings in Philippine History”, 2017, p.187). But,
little did we know that Gov. Izquierdo and the friars are being alarmed about the Spanish
government in installing reforms for the native Filipinos, these reforms were meant to improve
the quality of education of the Filipinos and this became the reason why they altered the
details of this occurrence. “Gen. Izquierdo, along with the friars, exaggerated the event to alarm
the Spanish Government in order to delay installing reforms for the native Filipinos. Such
reforms included the establishment of a school of arts and trades, which aimed to improve the
education of Filipinos but would mean that the friars would lose their power in government.”
(Piedad-pugay C., 2012).

With this action of the friars and some Spaniards we can conclude that they were being
intimidated by the potential of the Filipinos that's why they were against installing reforms for
quality education for the Filipinos. Thus, once they saw a flaw on the action of the native
Filipinos they immediately seized it and used it to their own accord and bring the Filipinos
down. We believed that the Spanish Historian did not include this in his recital was because it
could bring them shame and criticisms which was really criticized after a few of other Historians
noticed that he was being one-sided, in which we think that he was trying to save the face of
the Spaniards because he was a Spaniard himself, Because of this we are positive that the
Filipino version is telling us the truth of what has happened in Cavite Mutiny.
III - CONCLUSION

The Filipino version is truth and the Spanish version. First the writer of the Spanish version
is a Spaniard himself and was being biased focusing only on the perspective of the Spanish
account and even change and exaggerated the facts of the evidences so that the incident is to
be of favor to them, the Spaniards. And second, the Spanish historian didn't include the
struggles of the Filipinos of this episode in his recital wherein the Filipino version included and
those talks about both accounts which makes the Filipino version longer and more believable.
The truth behind why the Governor General exaggerated his reports on the Cavite mutiny was
unfolded as well in the Filipino version.

With this we can conclude that the Filipino version comprises of the truth and an
unbiased narration was seen on this version.

After learning what happened in the Cavite mutiny and discovering why it happened and
there were questions popped out into our minds such as, the gomburza was just trying to
enlighten the Filipinos which are called before as “Indio” however there or some Spaniards
were against it. Why was it necessary for the gomburza to die as an example to instill fear to
the Filipinos? Was the action of the Spaniards inhumane?

If possible, the Spanish account was fair in their information and the priest weren't
executed, then the quality of education for Filipinos were grasped long ago, and since the
deaths of the gomburza was the start of Filipino revolution and if it didn't happen then it
wouldn't take so much blood in attaining Philippine independence. However, there would also
be a counterpart to the Spaniards, for sure they wouldn't allow Filipinos to be of threat to them
and thus they would take severe actions in order for Filipinos to get ahead of them. And it
might be bloody than how it's supposed to be.
References:

Biong, R. D., (MA.A. Ed), Grey, E. J., (Ph.D.). (2017). Readings of Philippine History

Piedad-pugay, C. A., (2012). The two faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny. Retrieved from

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