1161521 ( RPH) ABLAZO, MYLA

MODULE 7

ACTIVITY 6

Are you ready to test what you have learned? LET’S DO THIS! What are the differences and
similarities of the accounts of the Cavity Mutiny? How did the Cavity Mutiny lead the
execution of the GOMBURZA? In what way did the Cavity Mutiny affected the beliefs of the
Filipinos? Explain well your answer on each question.

Jose Montero y Vidal is a Spanish Historian, who interpreted that the Mutiny was an
attempt to remove and overthrow the Spanish Colonizers in the Philippines. He also stated
that Mutuny was burst of the American publicists and the cruel policies of the insensitive
governor whom the reigning government sent to govern the country. As a result, Filipinos
put into action these ideas where the occurring conditions which gave rise to the idea of
achieving their independence. Although regarded as a historian, his account of mutiny was
criticized as wiefully biased and rabid for a scholar. On the other hand, Governor-General
Rafael Izquierdo Gutiérrez insisted that the mutiny is stimulated and prepared by the native
clergy, mestizos and lawyers as a signal of objection against the injustices of the
government such as not paying provinces for tobacco crops, pay tribute and rendering of
forced labor. The two accounts complimented and corroborated with one other, only that
the general’s report was more spiteful. Initially, both 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, however, other causes were enumerated by them
including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas
proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and pamphlets
reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who out
of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and enemies
of Spain.

For Trinidad Pardo de Tavera there have been no intention of secession from Spain, and
the only aspiration of the Filipino was to secure the material and education advancement of
the country. He also added in his account that incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino
soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian
policies of Isqueirdo, such as the abolition of privileges and prohibition of the founding of
the school of arts and trades for Filipinos.
and prohibition of the founding of the school of arts and trades for Filipinos. Whereas the
account of Edmund Plauchut said that mutiny was sparked on January 20, 1872 when the
laborers received their pay and realized the taxes as well as the fine had been deducted
from their salaries. Forty infantry soldiers and twenty men from the artillery took over
command of the Fort of San Felipe.

The four accounts differs from each other but they all tells us the same thi ng–the caused of
Cavite Mutiny.

Cavity Mutiny was the major reason that lead the three priest into excution due to the false
accusations charged against them by Spanish authorities. Their alleged crimes included treason
and sedition for being the supposed masterminds of the insurrection of Indios (native Filipinos)
working in the Cavite arsenal. Furthermore, according to the Spanish military tribunal, they were
believed to have been a part of a clandestine movement aimed to overthrow the Spanish
government, making them a threat to the Spanish Clergy. They was later on sentenced to death by
garrote in a military court at Bagumbayan field, a scene purportedly witnessed by a young Jose
Rizal. Today marks the 133rd anniversary of three secular priests, Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jacinto
Zamora and Jose Burgos in what is now Luneta Park in Manila.

The death of Gomburza awakened strong spirits of anger and resentment among the
Filipinos. They grilled Spanish authorities and demanded reforms due to the prejudicial
governance of the Spanish Authorities. The martyrdom of the three priests, ironically,
assisted in the creation of the Propaganda Movement which aimed to seek reforms and
informs the Spanish people on the abuses of its colonial authorities in the Philippine
Islands.
 MODULE 8

ACTIVITY 7

Are you ready to test what you have learned? LET’S DO THIS! What are the differences and
similarities of the testimonies of the Rizal’s Retraction? On your opinion, did the national
hero retracted? If you were in the position of Jose Rizal, what would you? Explain well your
answer on each question.

As I read Fr. Vicente Balaguer's and Cuerpo de Vigilancia's testimonies, I noticed many
differences. Some of the things Balaguer mentioned in his testimony aren't on Vigilancia.
For example, Father Vicente Balaguer testified that 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 to the document. In his
retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.
Although Balaguer repeatedly mentioned his presence on the day of Rizal's retraction, he
does not appear in Vigilancia's testimony. Even though their testimony differs from each
other they both come up with the same end result that Rizal indeed retracted his belief
and principle which extremely differs from the analysis of the people who studied the case,
Palma and Coates made it clear that Rizal would not retract on the things he believes and
fought in.

I believe that Rizal was a believer in God, the Divine Providence, from the very start and up
to his last moments. He might have wavered on the Catholic teachings presented by the
friars at some point in his life, but he never once wavered on his faith with Cod. He had
always faith in Him but he strongly disagreed with the twisted ways of the friars who ran
the church and the government during the Spanish regime. If the "retraction letter" written
and signed by Rizal was real, I think that he was just merely forced to sign it. Perhaps he or
his family was being threatened for him to make that "retraction letter. After all, what
benefit would Rizal acquire if he were to convert to the church? And I think, for someone
like him, a man of his word and conviction, would not retract what he said and did against
the church because he knew it was crooked.
My opinion is that he was really pressured or threatened because this was exactly what the
archbishop of Manila wanted. Is it still important to have a discussion about this issue in
our social context today? Some would say it is, but I think that we just have to appreciate
what Rizal has done for our country. He opened the eyes of the Filipinos on the cruelty of
the Spaniards. He awakened our knowledge of nationalism and that is enough. His
accomplishments in the country will not change. As senator Jose Diokno stated, "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." Whatever further study that may emerge as
to the truth about Rizal's retraction controversy, ".it detracts nothing from his greatness as
a Filipino." Therefore, I believed that Dr. Jose Rizal did not retract as he remained as defiant
as he was to the oppression that crippled the lives of Filipino and proof of his convention
that he died loving his country.

If I were in the position of Dr. Jose Rizal I would do they same. It is better to die a hero than
to die like a coward.