MODULE 7

‘One Past but Many Histories’

LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of this module, you should have:

1) Read secondary materials on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872;

2) Read and/or watched secondary sources to analyze this historical event :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GruhpddknXY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR-JujViKio

3) Read the conflicting accounts and make a stand on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872;

4) Write an essay defending your stand on the Cavite Mutiny.

PRESENTATION

F or this lesson, you will learn that some events in history have been told
through the generations in different versions. Through time, there have been
different versions—or variations of particular events or milestones in
Philippine history.

As a result, we as students of
history face a quandary or dilemma
whether which of them to believe.
Which of them is more accurate? Which
of them is truthful and matter-of-fact or
truthful? Which of them tells us the real
events? Fortunately, not all of them—
but only some of these milestones have
turned out to be

The study is now as relevant as

ever—with the advent of fake news
nowadays. Your job in this lesson is to
determine for yourself the fake news
and the real news with the use of the
sources provided here.

Read these conflicting versions

of a historical event in 1872. At the end
of the module, be able to take a side—
and stand for it.

1
 The Cavite Mutiny of 1872

T he Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was an uprising of Filipino

military personnel of Fort San Felipe, the Spanish
arsenal in Cavite on 20 January 1872. Around 200
locally recruited colonial troops and laborers rose up in the
belief that it would elevate to a national uprising. The mutiny
was unsuccessful, and government soldiers executed many of
the participants and began to crack down on a burgeoning
Philippines nationalist movement.

Many scholars believed that the Cavite Mutiny of 1872

was the beginning of Filipino nationalism that would
eventually lead to the Philippine Revolution of 1896.

CAUSES OF THE CAVITE MUTINY

The causes of the Cavite Mutiny can be identified through
examining the different accounts in this historic event.

SPANISH ACCOUNTS OF THE MUTINY

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. His account, corroborated with
the account of Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo y Gutierrez, the governor-general of the
Philippine Islands during the Mutiny. They mentioned that the mutiny was powered by a group
of native clergy.

JOSE MONTERO Y VIDAL:

The Cavite Mutiny is an aim of natives to get rid of the Spanish
government in the Philippines, due to the removal of privileges
enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption
from the tribute and forced labor. The democratic and republican
books and pamphlets, the speeches and preaching of the apostles
of these new ideas in Spain and the outburst of the American
publicists and the cruel policies of the insensitive governor whom
the reigning government sent to govern the country. Filipinos put
into action these ideas where the occurring conditions which gave
rise to the idea of achieving their independence.

GOVERNOR-GENERAL RAFAEL IZQUIERDO Y GUTIÉRREZ:

The mutiny was 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.

It is not clearly identified if Indios planned to inaugurate a

monarchy or a republic because they don’t have a word in their own
language to describe this different form of government, whose leader
in Filipino would be called “hari”. However, it turned out that they
would set at the supreme of the government a priest—that the leader
selected would be Jose Burgos or Jacinto Zamora which is the plan of
the rebels who guided them, and the means they counted upon its
realization.

2
3
 OTHER ACCOUNTS OF THE MUTINY

TRINIDAD PARDO DE TAVERA:

The event is just a simple mutiny since up to that time the
Filipinos have no intention of separation from Spain but only
secure materials and education advancements in the country.
However, the mutiny was used at a powerful level. Also, in this
time, the central government deprived friars of the powers of
involvement in civil government and in governing and handling
universities. Therefore, the friars—afraid that their leverage in the
Philippines would be a thing of the past—took advantage of the
mutiny and reported it to the Spanish government as a broad
conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago with the object
of abolishing Spanish sovereignty. The Madrid government
without any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the
alleged revolution reported by Izquierdo and the friars believed
the scheme was true.

EDMUND PLAUCHUT:
He traced the immediate cause to a peremptory order from the
governor, Izquierdo, exacting personal taxes from the Filipino
laborers in the engineering and artillery corps in the Cavite
arsenal, and requiring them to perform forced labor like ordinary
subjects. Until then, these workers in the arsenal had been
enjoying exemptions from both taxes and forced labor. January
20, the day of the revolt, was payday and the laborers found the
amount of taxes as well as the corresponding fee in lieu of the
forced labor deducted from their pay envelopes. It was the last
straw.

That night they mutinied. Forty infantry soldiers and

twenty men from the artillery took over command of the Fort of
San Felipe and fired cannonades to announce to the world their
moment of triumph. It was a short-lived victory. Apparently, the
mutineers had expected to be joined by their comrades in the 7th
infantry company assigned to patrol the Cavite plaza. They
became terror-stricken, however, when they beckoned to the 7th infantry men from the ramparts
of the fort and their comrades did not make any move to join them. Instead, the company started
attacking them. The rebels decided to bolt the gates and wait for morning when support from
Manila was expected to come. He gave a dispassionate account of it and its causes in an article
published in the Revue des Deux Mondes in 1877.

He traced that the primary cause of the mutiny is believed to “be an order from Governor-
General Carlos to subject the soldiers of the Engineering and Artillery Corps to personal taxes,
from which they were previously exempt. The taxes required them to pay a monetary sum as
well as to perform forced labor called, polo y servicio. The mutiny was sparked on January 20,
1872 when the laborers received their pay and realized the taxes as well as the falla, the fine one
paid to be exempt from forced labor, had been deducted from their salaries.

Different accounts in the Cavite mutiny also highlighted other probable causes of the
“revolution” which includes 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. In addition, accounts of the mutiny suggest that the Spanish Revolution in Spain during

4
that time added more determination to the natives to overthrow the current colonial Spanish
government.

5
 THE EXECUTION OF GOMBURZA

O n February 15, 1872, the Spanish colonial authorities sentenced three martyr Fathers
Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez and Jacinto Zamora to death by garrote at Bagumbayan,
Philippines and charged with treason and sedition, and subversion. Two days after their
verdict, they were executed.

The charges against Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora was their alleged complicity in
the uprising of workers at the Cavite Naval Yard. It was believed by Governor Rafael Izquierdo
that the Filipinos will create its own government and allegedly, the three priests were nominated
as the leader of the planned government in order to break free of the Spanish government.

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 inform the Spanish
people on the abuses of its colonial authorities in the Philippine Islands.

Besides from Gombu rza execution, on January 28, 1872 the military court sentenced 41
mutineers to death. However, on the next day Governor Rafael Izquierdo pardoned 28 mutineers
and the rest were confirmed to sentence. On February 6, 1872, 11 mutineers were sentenced to
death but Governor Izquierdo commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment. Together
with execution of garrotte to the three martyrs was Enrique Paraiso, Maximo Innocencio and
Crisanto Delos Reyes were imposed to ten years imprisonment.

Furthermore, there were people being sentenced by the military court of Spain to exile
them to the Marianas (now Guam): Fr. Pedro Dandan, Fr. Mariano Sevilla, Toribio H. del Pilar
(brother of Marcelo H. del Pilar), Agustin Mendoza, Jose Guevara, Miguel Lasa, Justo Guazon,
Fr. Aniceto Desiderio, Fr. Vicente del Rosario, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor,

6
Jose Basa y Enriquez, Mauricio de Leon, Pedro Carillo, Gervasio Sanchez, Jose Ma. Basa, Pio
Basa, Balvino Mauricio, Maximo Paterno (father of Pedro Paterno), and Valentin Tosca.

7
BATTLE
Their leader was Fernando La Madrid, a mestizo sergeant with his second in command Jaerel
Brent Senior, a moreno. They seized Fort San Felipe and killed eleven Spanish officers. The
mutineers thought that fellow Filipino indigenous soldiers in Manila would join them in a
concerted uprising, the signal being the firing of rockets from the city walls on that night.

Unfortunately, what they thought to be the signal was actually a burst of fireworks in
celebration of the feast of Our Lady of Loreto, the patron of Sampaloc. The plan was to set fires
in Tondo in order to distract the authorities while the artillery regiment and infantry in Manila
could take control of Fort Santiago and use cannon shots as signals to Cavite. All Spaniards were
to be killed, except for the women.

News of the mutiny reached Manila, supposedly through the lover of a Spanish sergeant,
who then informed his superiors, and the Spanish authorities feared for a massive Filipino
uprising. The next day, a regiment led by General Felipe Ginovés besieged the fort until the
mutineers surrendered. Ginovés then ordered his troops to fire at those who surrendered,
including La Madrid. The rebels were formed in a line, when Colonel Sabas asked who would
not cry out, “Viva España”, and shot the one man who stepped forward. The rest were
imprisoned.

AFTERMATH

I n the immediate aftermath of the mutiny, some Filipino soldiers were disarmed
and later sent into exile on the southern island of Mindanao. Those suspected
of directly supporting the mutineers were arrested and executed. The mutiny
was used by the colonial government and Spanish friars to implicate three
secular priests, Mariano Gomez, José Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, collectively
known as Gomburza. They were executed by garrote in Luneta, also known in
Tagalog as Bagumbayan, on February 17, 1872. These executions, particularly
those of the Gomburza, were to have a significant effect on people because of the
shadowy nature of the trials. José Rizal, whose brother Paciano was a close
friend of Burgos, dedicated his work, El filibusterismo, to these three priests.

On January 27, 1872, Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo approved the

death sentences on forty-one of the mutineers. On February 6, eleven more were
sentenced to death, but these were later commuted to life imprisonment. Others
were exiled to other islands of the colonial Spanish East Indies such as Guam,
Mariana Islands, including the father of Pedro Paterno, Maximo Paterno, Antonio
M. Regidor y Jurado, and José María Basa.

The most important group created a colony of Filipino expatriates in

Europe, particularly in the Spanish capital of Madrid and Barcelona, where they
were able to create small insurgent associations and print publications that were
to advance the claims of the seeding Philippine Revolution.

Finally, a decree was made, stating there were to be no further ordinations

and appointments of Filipinos as Roman Catholic parish priests. In spite of the
mutiny, the Spanish authorities continued to employ large numbers of native
Filipino troops, carabineros and civil guards in their colonial forces through the
1870s–1890s until the Spanish–American War of 1898.

8
BEHIND THE STORY OF CAVITE MUTINY

D uring the short trial, the captured mutineers testified against José Burgos.
The state witness, Francisco Zaldua, declared that he had been told by one
of the Basa brothers that the government of Father Burgos would bring a
navy fleet of the United States to assist a revolution with which Ramón Maurente,
the supposed field marshal, was financing with 50,000 pesos.

The heads of the friar orders held a conference and decided to get rid of
Burgos by implicating him to a plot. One Franciscan friar disguised as Burgos and
suggested a mutiny to the mutineers. The senior friars used an una fuerte suma de
dinero or a banquet to convince Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo that Burgos
was the mastermind of the coup. Gómez and Zamora were close associates of
Burgos, so they too were included in the allegations.

Also, Francisco Zaldua had been the principal informer against the three
priests. His statement had been the main basis for the convictions and he had been
promised pardon in exchange for his testimony, however, he was condemned along
with the three. He was the first to be executed among them on February 17, 1872.

The Central Government of Madrid proclaimed that they want to deprive the
friars of all the power of intervention in matters of civil government and direction
and management of educational institutions. The friars feared that their dominance
in the country would become a thing of the past, and that they needed something to
justify their perpetuation, with the mutiny providing such an opportunity.
However, the Philippine Institute was introduced by the Spanish government as an
educational decree fusing sectarian schools once ran by the friars. This decree
aimed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring
teaching positions in these schools to be filled by competitive examinations, an
important step welcomed by most Filipinos.

SEATWORK ASSIGNMENT
On your notebook, answer the following questions:

1. What happened on January 20, 1872?

2. What is the version of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal?
3. What is the version of the Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo?
4. What is the version of Pardo de Tavera? How about Edmund Plauchut?
5. Why did the mutiny lead to the execution of the priests Gomez, Burgos and Zamora?
6. How did the mutiny ignite Filipino nationalism? Discuss.