John Paul Q.

Follero
BSInfoTech 1-1

1. RIZAL’S LAST HOURS

On December 26, 1896, the military court tried Jose Rizal and later found him guilty of
rebellion, sedition, and conspiracy. The Spanish authorities believed that Rizal’s writings “fatally
and necessarily” incited the rebellion which, by 1896, had already become a revolution. On
December 29 at 6 a.m., Capt. Rafael Dominguez read before Rizal his death sentence. His
execution was scheduled the following day.

At around 7 a.m. of December 29, Rizal was transferred to his death cell in Fort Santiago. There
he received numerous visitors, including his counsel; some Spanish officials; and several priests,
his former professors, with whom he supposedly discussed reason and religion. The Archbishop
of Manila, Rev. Bernardino Nozaleda, recalled: “During that day, although Rizal did not reject
[the Jesuits], he persisted in his errors contrary to the Catholic faith.… However, at the last hour,
Rizal abjured, in writing, his religious errors.” In other words, Rizal, a Mason, was said to have
recanted his statements against the Church and to have returned to the Catholic faith.

The controversy over Rizal’s retraction has not been settled. The “original” document of Rizal’s
“retraction” was found in the archdiocesan archives in 1935, 39 years after having disappeared
the day Rizal was shot. There was no record of anybody seeing this “original” document in 1896,
except the publishers of La Voz Española, which published its contents on the day of Rizal’s
execution: “We have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own handwritten retraction which he sent to our
dear and venerable Archbishop….” Most experts think that the handwriting on the document is
authentic. However, scholars are baffled as to why Rizal, who courageously faced persecution
for most of his life, and who was finally sentenced to death for his beliefs, would suddenly balk
at the last, futile moment. (For more discussion on Rizal’s retraction, see Garcia, 1964; Guerrero,
1998; and Vaño, 1985).

In his last hours Rizal read the Bible and Thomas à Kempis’s Imitation of Christ, which he later
dedicated to Josephine Bracken. He also wrote the poem “Mi Ultimo Adiós,” which he
concealed in an alcohol burner. When his family came to see him, he asked pardon from his
mother and talked to his sisters as they entered his cell one by one. He also wrote letters. In his
last letter, addressed to Paciano Rizal, he asked his brother to ask their father for forgiveness for
all the pain he had caused him. To his friend Ferdinand Blumentritt, he wrote: “When you
receive this letter, I shall be dead by then…. Tomorrow at seven, I shall be shot; but I am
innocent of the crime of rebellion…. I am going to die with a tranquil conscience.”At 7 a.m. on
December 30, 1896 at Luneta, Manila, the 35-year-old patriot was shot in the back by a firing
squad. He hesitated, turned halfway around to face his executioners, and fell on his back to face
the Philippine sun.
2. The Rizal Retraction

Rizal retracted his anti-Catholic ideas through a document which stated: "I retract with all my
heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct have been contrary to my
character as a son of the Catholic Church." However, there are doubts of its authenticity given
that there is no certificate of Rizal's Catholic marriage to Josephine Bracken. Also there is an
allegation that the retraction document was a forgery.
After analyzing six major documents of Rizal, Ricardo Pascual concluded that the retraction
document, said to have been discovered in 1935, was not in Rizal's handwriting. Senator Rafael
Palma, a former President of the University of the Philippines and a prominent Mason, argued
that a retraction is not in keeping with Rizal's character and mature beliefs. He called the
retraction story a "pious fraud." Others who deny the retraction are Frank Laubach, a Protestant
minister; Austin Coates, a British writer; and Ricardo Manapat, director of the National
Archives.

Those who affirm the authenticity of Rizal's retraction are prominent Philippine historians such
as Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra of UP León María Guerrero III, Gregorio Zaide, Guillermo
Gómez Rivera, Ambeth Ocampo, John Schumacher, Antonio Molina, Paul Dumol and Austin
Craig. They take the retraction document as authentic, having been judged as such by a foremost
expert on the writings of Rizal, Teodoro Kalaw (a 33rd degree Mason) and "handwriting
experts...known and recognized in our courts of justice", H. Otley Beyer and Dr. José I. Del
Rosario, both of UP.

Historians also refer to 11 eyewitnesses when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a Catholic prayer
book, and recited Catholic prayers, and the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix before his
execution. A great grand nephew of Rizal, Fr. Marciano Guzman, cites that Rizal's 4 confessions
were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12 historians and
writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clericals. One witness was the head of the
Spanish Supreme Court at the time of his notarized declaration and was highly esteemed by
Rizal for his integrity.

Because of what he sees as the strength these direct evidence have in the light of the historical
method, in contrast with merely circumstantial evidence, UP professor emeritus of history
Nicolas Zafra called the retraction "a plain unadorned fact of history." Guzmán attributes the
denial of retraction to "the blatant disbelief and stubbornness" of some Masons. To explain his
retraction, Guzman said that the factors were the following: (a) the long discussion and debate
which appealed to reason and logic that he had with Fr. Balaguer, (b) the visits of his mentors
and friends from the Ateneo, and (c) the grace of God due the numerous prayers of religious
communities.
Supporters see in the retraction Rizal's "moral courage...to recognize his mistakes;" his reversion
to the "true faith", and thus his "unfading glory;" and a return to the "ideals of his fathers" which
"did not diminish his stature as a great patriot; on the contrary, it increased that stature to
greatness." On the other hand, senator Jose Diokno stated, "Surely whether Rizal died as a
Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino... Catholic or
Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero who courted death 'to prove to those who deny our
patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs'."

3. Martyrdom of Rizal

Martyrdom at Bagumbayan, During the last 24 hours of Rizal’s life, he was meeting visitors in
his cell in fort Santiago, Where he is secretly finishing his farewell poem. He is also destined to
die for his beloved country which he called “Pearl of the Orient Seas” in his poem and “Pearl of
the Orient” in an article “Unfortunate Philippines” in The Hongkong Telegraph on September
24, 1892.