Artemio Ricarte’s Account on the Tejeros

Assembly
~Jeffrey Gajes

The Tejeros Assembly was one of the preeminent events in the

Philippine History. This major event plays significant role in the
modern political and social integration of the Philippines.
Therefore, reviewing and analysing the different accounts provided by
different bodies who were primarily involved and witness in the event
is important for us to truly understand the reality behind it. One of
these accounts is the memoir of General Artemio Ricarte, who was the
secretary of the said assembly and elected as the Captain General in
the latter. Although, he was in the event which makes him a credible
source of the information, the account he made has conjectures,
doubtful statements and inaccuracy about it, which leads to the
unauthenticity and less credibility of the account itself.
Time Credibility.
Artemio Ricarte published his account, which includes the events
in the Tejeros assembly, was on the year 1904 during his imprisonment,
around seven years after the event. Therefore, the accuracy of the
event had become less inferior compare to the account of Bonifacio,
which he sends a letter to Emilio Jacinto on April 24, 1897, a month
after the events. Due to the date gap from the actual event to the
date of publication, Ricarte’s account on the Tejeros Assembly became
vague and there is high possibility of disintegration of the
information present in his account. Moreover, within that couple of
years pass by, there are a lot of chances where he might be influenced
by other bodies to make an alteration of the event happened in the
assembly.
Personal Letter vs. Article.
Comparing Ricarte, Alvarez and Bonifacio’s accounts have one clear
difference among them which leads to one’s upper hand, the type of
publication. Among the three, Bonifacio’s account is the only one
whose reference was a letter, a personal letter he sent to Emilio,
while the other two, was written in the form of article, which
includes the memoirs of Artemio Ricarte. These may not seem to be an
issue but if we are going to take a look deeper into the essence of
it, we can conclude the fact that a letter is more significant in a
way that it provides a personal message which is more realistic than
an article. Let’s put in a modern way, when we are posting something
in social media, we do not put everything that we know about a thing
and sometimes altering some of the information we include. On the
other hand, when we are conversing with someone, we tend to told them
everything and be true to them especially if they are so endeared to
us. Thus, there is a hunch if Artemio Ricarte put everything that he
knew on his memoirs and if they are all true.
The Betrayal.
During the Tejeros Assembly, there are numerous of bodies from
the factions of Magdalo and Magdiwang, who attended the event. The
Magdiwang faction was led by their supremo, Andres Bonifacio, was
expected to be nominated as president. However, during the election,
their faction did not fully support Bonifacio but rather also
nominated Mariano Trias, who is also a member of the Magdiwang
faction. Moreover, there are a lot more bodies of Magdiwang faction
who attended that event, thus, how does it come that the support and
votes didn’t yield to Bonifacio. However, the question is, how did it
affect the account of Artemio Ricarte? There is a high possibility
that he is one of those who betrayed and later on alter the events
into his account for his own sake. But how about Santiago Alvarez,
whose account is somehow similar to Ricarte? As it is indicated in the
historical basis, Alvarez’s account was written on 1972, a couple more
years after the account of Ricarte was published. Therefore, his time
credibility is much less than Ricarte and Bonifacio. Due to it, he
might have just adopted the account of Ricarte. One more possibility
is that he is also part of that betrayal. Hence, if that’s the case,
Ricarte’s account can be consider with less credible.
The Influence.
In the latter, after the convention and execution of Bonifacio,
Artemio Ricarte was under the authority of Emilio Aguinaldo, as they
elected him as the president in the Tejeros assembly. Therefore, as
Ricarte undergone the authority of Aguinaldo, we cannot deny the fact
that he might be influence not just by Aguinaldo but also whoever who
affiliates in their government and because of that matter, they
probably made a move to save their own sake and one of these is the
account made by Artemio Ricarte, which he exaggerated there a scenario
when Daniel Tirona and Andres Bonifacio had a conflict during the
assembly when Bonifacio drawn his pistol and attempted to shoot
Tirona, and there’s Ricarte who suppressed the tension. But then again
there’s a notion, the scenario also presented in the account of
Santiago Alvarez. Just like what is stated in the previous argument,
Alvarez’s account might just have based from the Ricarte’s account or
Alvarez was also part of the plan. This circumstance of self-gain had
the chance that it actually happened, and still happening until now
particularly when you are in supremacy to do it. In addition, they
knew that Bonifacio’s judgment was laydown and he was then lifeless.
Thus, this hunch could bring Ricarte’s account to unauthentic as this
was relayed through an influenced.
Fragmented.
The memoir of Artermio Ricarte on the Tejeros Assembly is really
convincing and almost all of its part is similar to other’s account;
however, it is fragmented as it was not comprehensively finished. He
ended his account when Bonifacio closes and nullify the election that
just had happened. Thus, conclusion of his account doesn’t the
complete happenings right after Bonifacio left, not just like the
account of Santiago Alvarez where he profound the events in the
assembly even after Bonifacio left. Then, the account of Ricarte
becomes fragmented and by that, it yields a less credible.
All and all, considering all of the accounts, they have their own
biases and conjectures; however, they still play a significant role in
our history. Thus, we should consider them all and learn to analyse
not just the beauty of them all but also the imperfection among them
all for us to better understand the reality behind it.