ONE PAST, YET VARIOUS HISTORIES: THE

CONTROVERSIES AND DIFFERENCES IN POINT OF

VIEW IN THE PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Jose Rizal’s Retraction

Name: Micah Escaran

II. Introduction
One of the most interesting of everything was the issues of Jose Rizal was his claimed
withdrawal which was about his inversion to the Catholic Faith and any remaining issues
connected to it like his union with Josephine Bracken. That issue was professed to be valid by
the Roman Catholic protectors however stated to be misleading by hostile to retractionists.
They guarantee that the withdrawal archive is a fraud, yet penmanship specialists
finished up quite some time in the past that it is real. Rafael Palma's creation on Rizal, named
"Biografia de Rizal" is entirely hostile to Catholic, to the point that the Church effectively went
against its distribution utilizing government reserves. In an article wrote by Romberto Poulo,
Rizal's association in Masonry was accounted to have made extreme change his strict thoughts.
It was at the time Rizal set foot on European soil when he was presented to a lot of
qualifications between what was befalling his nation, the separations, manhandles, prejudices,
shameful acts, and some different things made to make sufferings his comrades, and what was
the genuine scene of the European countries. He saw that Europe was significantly more unique
contrasted with the Philippines as far as lifestyle, perspectives towards Roman Catholicism, and
in particular, the opportunity every one of the residents appreciate.

III. Sides and/or Evidences of the Controversy

After the demise of Jose Rizal, numerous contentions emerged as a result of the
irregularity in the data with respect to his last goodbye and the socalled withdrawal. There
were bits of proof found 39 years after Jose Rizal's execution that numerous history specialists
trusted the withdrawal archive of Jose Rizal. In the present, numerous antiquarians felt that
Jose Rizal withdrawn and some didn't find in light of the fact that there's an irregularity with the
data.
The debate about Jose Rizal's Retraction is about him pulling out every one of the
negative things that he said to the Catholic Religion. The primary proof was begun when Fr.
Manuel Garcia saw as a supposed unique record that contains the withdrawal of Jose Rizal in
May 1935 that was 39 years after Rizal's Execution. It was all the while being discussed since
certain antiquarians accepted that it is simply proliferation and not the unique since it was not
displayed to general society before May 1935. Presently there were essential contentions that
help Rizal's withdrawal and those are: The withdrawal record found by a chronicler Fr. Manuel
Garcia was viewed as vital and the subsequent one is there were observers firmly connected
with the occasions.
As per Ricardo P. Garcia's distributed book entitled The Great Discussion: The Rizal's
Retraction, there were two (2) observers who's related with what befallen Rizal before his
execution. The two observers were Fr. Vicente Balaguer and Former Lieutenant of the infantry,
Mariano Martinez Gallegos. Fr. Vicente Balaguer delivered declarations about the
demonstrations of Jose Rizal before his execution some of those are his admission, fellowship,
praised mass and furthermore, he implored multiple times with the rosary. Another onlooker
was Mariano Martinez Gallegos who is a Former Lieutenant of the infantry he is the one who
affirmed that Jose Rizal marked an archive that contains his withdrawal with his onlooker Juan
del Fresno and Eloy Moure and to support the contentions new deciphered reports were
delivered, and those are "The Cuerpo de Vigilancia, which is the declaration of the gatekeeper
who's accountable for watching Jose Rizal, Jose Rizal's short writing in Josephine Bracken's Copy
of De la Imitation de Cristo and his last compositions which often specifies the word cross.
In Cuerpo de Vigilancia, the individual whose watching Jose Rizal at the time before his
Jose Rizal's execution he delivered an explanation that individuals accept it is the withdrawal
archive of Jose Rizal. Josephine
Bracken's Copy of De la Imitation de Cristo is likewise one of the supporting archives for
the withdrawal of Jose Rizal on the grounds that there are short compositions within the book
that says "to my dear and troubled spouse, Josephine. December 30, 1896. Jose Rizal."
Josephine Bracken composed a manually written life account that says "Before his execution,
he wedded me at 5 AM" 2 hours before his execution.
The bits of proof that upholds the side of hostile to Jose Rizal's withdrawal is an article
composed by Gabrielle Paul Pascual expressed that the minister had intentions in making Jose
Rizal withdraw, and a portion of the explanation is that if Jose Rizal withdrew before his
execution it very well may be a safeguard to change his decision and can save his life and the
archive found by Fr. Manuel was misrepresentation and fabrication in light of the fact that as
per the book named The Great Debate was composed by Ricardo Garcia there were correlation
between how letters were shaped and the withdrawal isn't with regards to the person and
confidence of Jose Rizal just as conflicting with his past affirmation of strict contemplations.

IV. The Stands

Positive Stand
It was exclusively one Jesuit minister, Vicente Balaguer,S.J, who laid the premise for the
story that Rizal withdrew his words and deeds. It was likewise he who made the case that he
wedded Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken at 6.15 a.m. on December 30, only minutes before
Rizal was executed.

Negative Stand
By exhaustive assessment and contemplating of the bits of proof given by the
antiquarians who is an enemy of withdrawal, there were still blemishes that can't support that
Jose Rizal's withdrawn. The duplicate of the withdrawal paper that was supposedly endorsed by
Rizal that was kept mystery and was just distributed in papers. At the point when Rizal's family
mentioned for the first duplicate, it was said that it was lost. Could the Jesuits be this reckless
to not have the foggiest idea about the worth of the paper? Or then again was it recently
covered up?
After 39 years the first duplicate was found in the archdiocesan documents. Ricardo
Pascual Ph. D who was given authorization by the Ecclesiastical overseer Nozaleda to analyze
the archive and later deduced in his book, "Rizal past the Grave" that the archives introduced
was a fraud. The normal rejoinder of this contention was either Father Balaguer or Father Pi
had made mistakes in imitating one more duplicate of the first.
One more proof as to Rizal didn't withdraw is that when Father Balaguer settled that he
wedded Jose and Josephine, after Jose had marked the withdrawal paper, notwithstanding,
there were no marriage authentication or public record shown that could demonstrate Father
Balaguer's assertions.

V. Final Stand (Generalization)

In my comprehension in this debate, Jose Rizal didn't withdraw. Despite the fact that
there were numerous feelings and confirmations introduced by different creators with respect
to whether Rizal did or didn't withdraw. Regardless, up to this point there is no verification or
any support to end the discussion.
For what reason would Rizal withdraw when he knows beyond all doubt that regardless
of whether he signs the withdrawal paper he would in any case be executed? Since the
Archbishop and Jesuits can't effectively moderate his punishment in light of the fact that the
legal process included was simply a tactical court where regular citizen or church impedance
was unprecedented and not permitted. Rizal was blamed for partaking in filibusterous
promulgation where the punishment as given by the Spanish Code is demise. The equivalent of
what befell the three clerics who were garrotted years sooner, despite the fact that they were
as yet a piece of the church; they were as yet treated as defiant and were likewise not given a
legitimate entombment.
Besides, some time ago when Rizal was as yet banished in Dapitan, Father Sanchez-
Rizal's beloved educator from Ateneo-was sent by the Jesuits bosses to attempt to persuade his
previous understudy's charge towards the Catholic religion and Spanish strict in the Philippines.
Father Sanchez advised him to withdraw in return of a residency, a hundred thousand pesos
and a home (Laubach, 1936) but Rizal dismissed the deal.
VI. References
Santos, T. U. (2011, October 9). Rizal’s retraction: Truth vs Myth. The
Varsitarian.https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_retraction_truth_vs_myth

Uckung, P. J. V. (2012, September 19). The Rizal Retraction and other cases.
National Historical Commission of the Philippines.https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-
other-cases/

Jose Rizal [The Retraction]. (n.d.). Jose Rizal University.

http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

Pascual, Ricardo Roque. (1935). Dr. Jose Rizal beyond the grave : a
vindication of the martyr of Bagumbayan. Manila : Manlapit Press

Laubach, F. C. (1936). Rizal: man and martyr. Manila, Philippines:

Community Publishers, Inc.

Garcia, Ricardo P. (1964). The great debate : the Rizal retraction. Quezon
City [Philippines] : R.P. Garcia Pub. Co

Rizal’s Retraction: Thoughts and Ideas - Readings in Philippine History. (2020, May 28).
[Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyD760wSw_M