Chapter V

INTER-CLERGY CONFLICTS AND THE CAVITE MUTINY

Objectives:

At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to

1. Describe the context of Filipino Nationalism;
2. Understand the struggles of Filipino Clergy and their fight for equality;
3. Know the history of the GOMBURZA and understand how they got involved in the cavite
mutiny that led to their executions;
4. Identify the role of each lawyers, business men, soldiers, priests and ordinary citizen in the
planning of cavite mutiny;
5. Understand why the mutiny failed and how this history affects the mindset of Rizal regarding
mutinies.
6. Relate the issues depicted in the history to the present times.

DISCUSSIONS:

INTER-CLERGY CONFLICTS

The execution of Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora in 1872 marks a turning
point in the history of Filipino Nationalism, a catalyst which brought together the liberal reformist
elements in the Philippine society with the growing self-awareness of a people into a movement that
before long would be directed at independent nationhood.

Without 1872 there would not now be a Plaridel, a Jaena, a Sanciano, nor would the brave and
generous Filipino colonies exist in Europe. Rizal would now be a Jesuit and instead of writing the Noli me
Tangere, would have written the contrary. The reader familiar with the writings of Rizal and Mercado del
Pilar will notice in some of the writings of Burgos reproduced in this volume the nationalist intellectual
heritage on which they drew.

The struggle for the rights of the Filipino clergy suffered eclipse with the death of the 3 priests
in1872, and the efforts of the propaganda movement of the 1880s and 1890s would be directed to a
much wider field of civil and political rights, the concern of Burgos for the equality of Filipino with
Spaniard and for justice to all remained at the core of the nationalist aspirations and representations.
These ideals and aspirations had taken root in the course of the dispute over the rights of the Filipino
secular priests to the parishes, an intra-church dispute which only gradually took on racial and later
nationalist, overtunes.

The roots of the controversy go far back in the history of the church in the Philippines, even to its
foundation and fundamental structure. They are to be found particularly in three elements in that
history- the structure of the patronato real, the visitation controversy, and the late and erratic
development of a clergy. In the early days of the evangelization of the Philippines, as in America, the
religious had worked without bishops, governing the infant church by authority of the so called
“omnimoda” faculties given them by the bull Exponi nobis of Pope Adrian VI in 1522. The long failure of
the bishops to enforce their rights to visitation was closely linked up with the third factorat the root of
the secularization controversy- the failure of the spanish missionaries encourage the development of a
native Filipino clergy. The available evidence indicates that no native Filipino or Indio priest was
ordained before 1698. Though it is understandable that the first generations of Filipno Christians were
still too new in the faith to be ordained to the priesthood, the system by which the patronato real had
divided up the country into regions assigned to different religious orders, the limitation of the existing
educational institutions for a long time to “hijos de españoles,” the precedent of unfortunate
experiences due to hasty ordinations in Spanish America, and simple prejudice all contributed to the fact
that the first serious efforts in the direction of a Filipino clergy were taken only at the end of the 17 th
century. The indio who seeks holy orders does so not because of the great and infinite advantages which
accrue to him along with the new state of life he chooses. A major reason for the failure of the bishops
to prevail over the resistance of the religious orders to episcopal visitation was the lack of a secular
clergy to fill the parishes vacated by the religious when attempts were made to enforce visitation.

The Resistance of the Filipino Clergy in 1849-1851 –

• Painful as these measures were to the Filipino clergy, and indicative of the Spanish
government’s mistrust of them, they had at least a semblance of justice, an as much as they
were considered to be the restoration to the religious of parishes which had originally belonged
to them in accordance with the regime of the patronato real.
• In the first phases, the leadership was to be in the hands of Fr. Pedro Pelaez, seconded by Fr.
Mariano Gomez. With the tragic death of the former in 1863, the leadership passed on to Fr.
Jose Burgos until his execution in 1872 signaled the failure of the Filipino priests to obtain their
rights.
• The ecclesiastical dispute was to become an overtly nationalist question, as the Filipino clergy
replied to racial discrimination with a firm and ringing assertion of their equality as priests in the
one catholic church.

The available evidence points to Pelaez having been of Spanish blood on the part of both father and
mother. Nonetheless,it seems clear that his sympathies were with the Filipino clergy and it would
appear from the list of contributors in our document here that he alone in the chapter had fully allied
himself with the cause of the Filipino clergy.

THE BURGOS MANIFESTO

Burgos Replaces Peláez, 26 years old at the time of Peláez’s death, Burgos had already obtained
the degrees of bachelor and licentiate , both in philosophy and in theology. Not yet a priest, he and Fr.
Jacinto Zamora would obtain in competitive ex-animations in the following year the appointments as the
alternate sectors of the sagrario, or cathedral parish of Manila.

Burgos has been regarded as the protégé and disciple of Pelaez’s work, both published and
unpublished. Both had sat together as memebers of the claustro of the University of Santo Tomás, and
sharing as they did the passion for establishing the rights of the clergy to which they belonged. Be that
as it may, it was the defense of the memory of Father Peláez that seems first to have brought Burgos
into the arena of the struggle in 1864 with the anonymous publication of his work, the Manifiesto que a
la noble nacion Española dirigen los leales Filipinos. Through the Manifiesto is anonymous, there seems
to be considerable evidence to support, and no reason to doubt, the authorship of Burgos. Though it is
not true the most, if not all, copies in existence come from a new printing made in Hong Kong (very
likely by José Ma. Basa) in 1888, there is no doubt that it was first published in 1864. The archbishop
himself mentions it in a letter to the nuncio of that year, attributing it merely to the “secular clergy”. The
only other one known to have written in the campaign besides Burgos is Fr. Manuel Peralta, who
published in that same year of 1864 his Jucio sobre el folleto “Importantisima cuestion,” in answer to
father Mayordomo and Agudo. Brebes apuntes – set of notes belonging to Peláez, now found in the
Vatican archives, makes clear the dependence of Burgos’s Manifiesto on his predecessor’s work.

In 1869, events in Spain and the Philippines brought their sentiments out into the open and
Burgos emerged as their leader. The September Revolution of 1868 - drove Queen Isabel II from her
throne. A period of uncertainty. The uncertainty lasted until a new monarch could be found. The
uncertainty lasted until the end of 1870 when Duke Amadeo of Savoy, an Italian prince, was finally
chosen king of Spain.

Amadeo ruled for only two years as the situation in Spain became more and more chaotic. The
revolution as a whole was both liberal and anticlerical in character, and the constitution of 1869
provided for separation of church and state, and liberty of press, speech, assembly, and worship. June
1869 – Carlos Maria de la Torre arrived in Manila who was the new governor-general because of the
result of the revolution in the Philippines. It was in this atmosphere that the Filipino clergy under the
leadership of Burgos united their cause to that of others born in the country, lawyers and
businessmen, who hoped for the greater freedom. If the revolution had brought about only a limited
liberalization in Manila, there where no such limits in Spain. In the Madrid newspaper La Discusion
Burgos wrote the first articles known to have been published under his own name. When copies
attacks reached Manila, Burgos leaped to the defense of the Filipino clergy, as he done earlier. It seems
likely that this was the occasion which temporarily ruptured Burgos’s friendship with the Jesuits.

ASSESSMENT:

ESSAY:
1. Why there were conflicts between the secular and regular clergy?
2. Who led the secularization and what were the effects to the priests and followers?
3. What is the challenge of modern days to the priests of today?

CAVITE MUTINY

It is a local mutiny of Filipino soldiers and workers in the arsenal, reacting to a decree of Gov. Rafael
de Izquierdo suppressing the privilege of the arsenal workers to be exempt from the tribute and the
compulsory labor obligation.

There can as yet be no complete closure on the Cavite Mutiny that occurred in January 1872, since
the records of the trials have not yet been found. Although the Spanish government has declared them
lost, and researchers have not located any copy in the Philippine National Archives (PNA), rumors of
their existence in Spain continue to surface from time to time, but nothing has been found.

Rafael Gerónimo Cayetano Izquierdo y Gutiérrez (September 30, 1820– November 9, 1883) was a
Spanish Military Officer, politician, and statesman. He served as Governor-General of the Philippines
from April 4, 1871 to January 8, 1873. He was famous for his use of "Iron Fist" type of government,
contradicting the liberal government of his predecessor, Carlos María de la Torre y Navacerrada. He was
the Governor-General during the 1872 Cavite mutiny which led to execution of 41 of the mutineers,
including the Gomburza martyrs. Izquierdo also acted as Governor-General of Puerto Rico from March
1862 to April 1862. Izquierdo’s account is supplemented with much detail by the later interrogation of
Bonifacio Octavo, a sergeant pledged to the revolt, who repented his role and deserted before it
happened only being captured the following September.

Bonifacio S. Octavo, A Suspected Cavite Mutiny Leader. Bonifacio Octavo Y Samson was a Chinese
mestizo. He was implicated by the Spanish colonial authorities as one of the leaders of the Cavite Mutiny
in 1872. He was a second sergeant of the First Infantry Regiment in the fort of Cavite when he was tried
for complicity in the rebellion. The record of Octavo’s trial gives interesting details about the mutiny in
January 1872. His statement, although it sounds unbelievable, is important because he was a participant
observer of the event. It provides direct knowledge of the conspiracy angle of the revolt and how it was
hatched.

The revolt was to begin in the early hours after midnight in Manila, with the signal to the rebels in
Cavite being given by skyrockets. It has been said that the rebels in Cavite mistook the fireworks from
the Sampaloc fiesta for they agreed upon signal but in any case, they went to arms between 8:00 and
9:00 in the evening, instead of waiting for the signal from Manila. The plan was to set fires in Tondo so
that, while the authorities were occupied with extinguishing them, the artillery regiment and part of the
infantry stationed in Manila would take possession of Fort Santiago and signal to those of Cavite by
means of cannon shots (contrary to what he said above about the signal being given by skyrockets). All
Spaniards were to be killed including the friars, except the women, and they would proclaim the
independence of the country. (Octavo would later announce the death of all Spaniards, but in a
clarification that this was “without failing to except to those who would be defenseless or would not
resist.) The artillery and marines in Cavite would rise, to be supported by 500 men under the pardoned
bandit chief, Casimiro Camerino, who were waiting in Bacoor.

The end of mutiny and the assault began at 6am and an hour later the fort was taken. They found
the commander of the fort dead, as well as the maid, and his wife wounded. In the same room was a
friar of San Juan de Dios, who had been visiting the commander and whom ‘those evil men respected,
no doubt because of the consideration for the habit he wore. The revolt has been planned at least as
early as November or December 1871, when Octavo says he was first approached by the marine
corporal, Pedro Manonson, who urged him to give his name to a list on a document urging the Filipino
soldiers to rebel against Spain. The first arrest had already taken place before the revolt was over, and
hence were not based on interrogations of captured rebels. The Jesuit diary of the Ateneo Municipal for
21 January reported that Father Burgos, Zamora and Guevarra as well as Pardo de Tavera Regidor “and
others” had already been arrested. Izquierdo himself, in his first letter to the Overseas Minister, a few
hours after the revolt was put down, added to these Frs. Agustin Mendoza and Mariano and Feliciano
Lopez and the brothers Jose and Pio Basa and Enrique Paraiso, but omitted Zamora. Fr. Mariano Gomez
had in fact been arrested on the night of 21January together with his nephew, Fr. Feliciano Gomez, and
was not included in the Jesuit report because the soldiers had still to get to Bacoor to arrest him. The
source and the value of denunciations from captured rebels may be seen in the later interrogation of
Bonifacio Octavo. Repeatedly he names Burgos (whom he had never met) as the principal figure in the
planned revolt and includes Gomez, Zamora, and Guevara, as well as Regidor, Pardo, and Serra. But
when his testimonies are examined more closely, it becomes clear that all this he had only heard from
Zaldua, sometimes in conjunction with Lamadrid.

Revolt in Cavite: majority generally see it as: Often instigated by the friars with the intention of
eliminating the priests and lawyers agitating for reforms.

Three Parties in Manila and Cavite among those attacked by Izquierdo:

 1. a. Reformers (Lawyers and Businessmen) – desirous of having their liberties of the Peninsula
extended to the Philippines.
b. Filipino Clergy - agitating for the restoration of the parishes back to them.
2. Federico Lerena in Madrid & Jose Ma. Basa in Manila – agitating or liberal reforms but much more
aggressively thru newspapers (El Correo de Ultramar and El Eco Filipino).
3. Maximo Inocencio, Crisanto de los Reyes and Enrique Paraiso –Planners of the revolt, together
with those that they recruited to carry it out.

Facts:
1. The revolt in Cavite was not a mere mutiny, but part of a planned separatist revolution.
2. The revolution as a whole failed because of the defection of the committed Filipino troops.
3. The planners of the revolution were Inocencio, de los Reyes, and Paraiso.
4. Although sentenced to death, they were secretly committed by Izquierdo for being fellow Masons.
5. The immediate instigators in Cavite were Zaldua and Sergeant Lamadrid.
6. The three priests executed had nothing to do with the revolt.
7. Nor did the priests, lawyers, and businessmen banished to the Marianas have anything to do with it.
8. The accounts stemming from Antonio Regidor, although containing many factual names and events,
are not reliable narratives of the revolt and its causes.
9. The removal of the exemption of arsenal workers from the tribute and compulsory labor was not the
cause of revolt even though it may contribute to it.
10. Neither arsenal workers nor any naval personnel took part in the revolt.

Factors that doomed the revolt:

a. The regiments were never really committed to the revolt.
b. The rallying of the regiments by Col. Sawa in Cavite, and by Izquierdo himself in Manila.
c. The fact that Izquierdo had been alerted to the coming revolt by very explicitly anonymous letters;
d. The alert action of Carballo by blocking by sea the men from Bacoor.
e. It is clear that there was a little support for a national revolution at that time.

ASSESSMENT:
Each student will make a graphic organizer in understanding the events occurred and key
persons that connects each story and relevance to the cavity mutiny.

REFERENCES:

Schumacher, John, The Cavite Mutiny: Toward a Definitive History, 2011

Blanco, Roberto, Pedro Pelaez, Leader of Filipino Clergy, 2010

Web-Books.Com