The Cry of Balintawak

Cry of Balintawak or Cry of Pugad Lawin, where did Andres

Bonifacio “Cry”? The Cry of Balintawak is a contrived
controversy. For nearly a century, the Cry of Balintawak or
Cry of Pugadlawin has been the subject of many
controversies. It is considered as a turning point of
Philippine history. The main focus of controversy is the date
and place of Bonifacio Cry. There were five dates for the
Cry-August 20,23,24,25, and 26 and five different venues
for the first cry: Balintawak, Pugadlawin, Kangkong, Bahay-
Toro and Pasong Tamo.

The first issue: it has been widely accepted and believed

that the first cry of the revolution took place in Balintawak,
Caloocan in August 23, 1896.

The second issue: the first cry was in August 23, 1896 but the
exact place is not in Balintawak but Pugadlawin. Between
these two controversies, the Balintawak tradition continues
to thrive.

The third issue: the cry occurred towards the end of August
1896 and that all the places mentioned above are in
Caloocan (now a big City) which in those times was a
district of Balintawak.

But these controversies remain unresolved except in the

Philippine History books.
Rizal’s Retraction Controversy

THE DEBATE continues.

Since Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father

Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935, its content has become a
favorite subject of dispute among academicians and
Catholics. The letter, dated December 29, 1896, was said
to have been signed by the National Hero himself.

It stated: “I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in

which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I
retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings,
publications and conduct has been contrary to my
character as son of the Catholic Church.”

The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote

a retraction document only lies in the judgment of its
reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two
opposing groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe
that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who
were convinced Rizal retracted)— agree with each other.

Proofs, documents

History books tell most people that the first draft of the
retraction was sent by Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to
Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his execution in
Bagumbayan. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft
because it was lengthy.

According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a

Jesuit missionary who befriended the hero during his exile in
Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document
prepared by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the
Philippines, Father Pio Pi.

Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some

modifications in the document. In his retraction, he
disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that opposed
Catholic belief.

“Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some

documents that was purchased by the Philippine
government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de
Vigilancia de Manila,” showed some interesting points
about the retraction, said Jose Victor Torres, professor at
the History department of the De La Salle University.
Popularly known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the
Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila is a body of documents on
the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential
reports, transcripts, clippings, and photographs from
Spanish and Philippine newspapers.

Despite this, Torres said his perception of the Filipino martyr

would not change even if the controversies were true.

“Even though it would be easy to say he retracted all that

he wrote about the Church, it still did not change the fact
that his writings began the wheels of change in Philippine
colonial society during the Spanish period—a change that
led to our independence,” Torres said. “The retraction is just
one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Rizal.”

But then, Torres noted that the controversy is irrelevant today.

“The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means

nothing,” he said.

‘Unadorned fact’

Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra considered the controversy

as “a plain unadorned fact of history, having all the marks
and indications of historical certainty and reality” in his
book The Historicity of Rizal’s Retraction.

Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History,

also believes that Rizal retracted and said the National
Hero just renounced from the Free Masonry and not from
his famous nationalistic works.

“He (Rizal) retracted. He died as a Catholic, and a proof

that he died as a Catholic was he was buried inside the
sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said De Viana, who
compared the martyr with Apolinario Mabini, a
revolutionary and free mason who was buried in a
Chinese cemetery.

De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter

had been forged because witnesses were present while
Rizal was signing it.

He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves

on to the question on Rizal’s character as some argue that
the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature beliefs and
personality.

“Anti-retractionists ask, ‘What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?’

They say he was fickle- minded. Well, that may be true,
but that is human character. Rizal was not a perfect
person,” De Viana said.

He also mentioned that just like any person, Rizal was

prone to flip-flop. He believes that Rizal retracted because
the national hero wanted to be at peace when he dies.

But would Rizal’s works deem irrelevant and futile because of

his retraction?

De Viana answered, “Rizal awakened our knowledge

of nationalism. For me, that is enough. The issue will not
invalidate his works in any way.”