MODULE 5

EXILE, TRIAL, AND EXECUTION

Introduction
It has been decades since our National Hero Jose Rizal was shot. There have been
curious minds that did a research on the true reason of Jose Rizal’s death. An interesting article
by Reynaldo C. Ileto (1998), shared his perspective about Rizal’s death. Quoted from different
authors like Coates. For example, on 30 December 1882, Rizal had a frightful nightmare, duly
entered into his diary, about his death. Thirteen years later, on exactly the date of his dream,
he was executed. The article is also trying to give a different view on Rizal’s death. This is all
about belief and faith. It is also said that there are group of people in Laguna that are
worshipping Rizal as a prophet like figure. This glimpse of the popular image of Rizal in central
Luzon leads us to believe that the situation in southern Tagalog was even more intense. Miracle
stories of the type that Santos, another writer, collected must have already been forming by
1892. January 1890(Coates): "Christ did the same with the religion of his country when the
Pharisees so exceedingly abused it."
Now let us look at another quote from another writer that seems to depict that something
supernatural is related to Rizal’s death. “This is true, at least, for Batangas, Laguna, and
Quezon provinces where practically all of my meager fieldwork was done. Love states that the
most common Latin word in books of curing, oraciones, and similar texts is egosum. The
protestations of the [Catholic] priests that they can make no sense of these words and phrases
is proof of the wiliness of priests and of the extreme secrecy and therefore efficacy of these
words" (Love)(Ileto, 1998).
Pardo de Tavera, however, fails to mention egosum in his list of Latin phrases that
constitute "a real array of magic invocations for avoiding evil, ridding of danger, securing more
good, and attaining some grace" (Ignorantism)(Ileto, 1998).
All of this quotes are cohesive as if it is saying that the reason behind Rizal’s death is
that he is the chosen one who could save the Filipinos just like what Christ did for us. These
writers are comparing Rizal to Christ. But the real deal here is, if it is enough to consider behind
the reason of Rizal’s death. As time pass by there are many information that has been
circulating about Rizal’s death. From publication to online articles we have been seeing and
knowing a lot that it could lead to information overload and thus the confusion seems to arise.
The main point of this information is not going for technicalities, but for this to serve as a medium
for readers to think outside the box and be open about the possibilities. Just like what this
authors have been depicting on all of their writings (Ileto, 1998).
Learning Objectives
1. Evaluate the factors that Rizal became known as a Filipino nationalist and martyr.
2. Assess the impacts of Rizal’s motives towards revolution and his trial.
3. Analyse the factors that led to Rizal’s execution.
4. Examine the effects of Rizal’s execution on the Spanish colonial rule and the
Philippine Revolution.
Lesson Proper
Topic 1: Rizal’s Last Year’s Covering His Exile, Trial, and Death
Reading 1: Rizal: Filipino Nationalist and Martyr by Austin Coates
A prolific author, Austin Coates an Assistant Colonial Secretary (1950) then in Hong
Kong, made a study of Rizal’s 1891- 1892 stay in the colony. He interviewed people who had
known Rizal or had memories of him. In his compilation of primary sources relative to the
journey of Rizal, this introductory words in his book will provide us a glimpse of reality when
Rizal was about to be executed. Reading the text alone could reminisce the actual atmosphere,
how people react on the actual drama and the actual circumstances at Bagumbayan where our
National Hero ended his vulnerable life. Let us take a look on the record that has figure-out by
the author, which reads:
There was to be a public execution, and consequently the streets and buildings
were hung with flags. A day of execution was a fiesta.
Since first light a crowd of many thousands had been gathering on the board
greensward facing the sea – gentlemen in boater hats and small drill suits, with their
ladies clad in their best, the hems of their long skirts dampened a little here and there by
the dew which still lay on the grass.
It was the tropics’ apology for winter, the start of another warm blue day, cloudless
and still, with at morning and evening a very slight chill in the air, such as there was now.
The sun had already risen on the landward side, and as the minutes drew towards 7 A.M.
the multitudinous voices of the crowd were hushed. The beat of an approaching drum
announced the arrival of the condemned man.
The Europeans had the best vantage places, and being in general taller than the
local people they tended to monopolize the view. Despite this disadvantage, however, a
fairly large number of local people had come as well - men and women, the well-to-do,
the fashionably europeanised, the prudent -- to join their European masters in uttering
patriotic cheers. For the death to be witnessed on this fine morning was the death of a
traitor, and not merely of a traitor but of the arch-traitor, described by the military judge
who had tried him as the ‘principal organizer and living soul of the insurrection’.
For four months the country had been gripped by revolution. It had not yet
succeeded in penetrating the capital, but in the countryside there were widespread
disturbances which the Europeans had hitherto been unable to suppress. With the rebel
ringleader out of the way things would surely take a turn for the better -- or so said well-
informed Europeans; -- and the condemned man being unquestionably the most
influential native in the country, his execution afforded a salutary opportunity of showing
the natives where they stood. Today might well prove to be a turning point. Thus the
exhilarated atmosphere. The date was 30 December 1896. The place was then at
Luneta, the extensive public park in the heart of Manila, capital of the Spanish
Philippines.
The crowd was so dense, and there was so much jockeying for position, that
police arrangements broke down and the prisoner’s military escort, which should have
been behind him, had to form a file on either side of him, forcing its way through to the
execution ground. Within the fairly wide corridor of space thus created, what remained of
the procession was able to move through the mass of people with reasonable dignity,
first came the drummer. After him, flanked by two tall Spanish Jesuits in black soutanes
and shove-hats, came the lesser figure of the traitor.
 Aged thirty-five, short and slender, pale after two months in prison, he was
impeccably dressed in European style, black suits spotlessly white shirt and tie, and
wearing a black derby hat much in vogue at that time in Europe. His appearance was
almost English in its formality and taste. But it was not this that drew people’s attention.
It was his features and expression, and the calm dignity of his bearing. As could be seen
at a glance, this was no ordinary traitor to be jeered and howled at. As he passed there
was silence, while people stared, some in surprise, others with concern, and all with the
uneasy sense of being confronted by something they did not fully understand.
Most people have a preconceived idea of what a traitor look-like. It is natural to
expect to detect features of malevolence or duplicity, or defiance, the wild stare of a
misplaced visionary or the grimace of a swashbuckler who has lost out. About this traitor
there was nothing that could be preconceived. To begin with, he was an arrestingly
interesting face. Apart from knowing that he was a man of the Far East, it would have
been difficult to define him racially. All that could have been said -- and they only by an
astute observer -- was that he was from one of the countries of South - East Asia, and
bore indications of a partly Malay, partly Chinese ancestry. Yet there was nothing about
him of the withdrawn Oriental, that character beloved of the European imagination. His
eyes, wide-spaced, thoughtful, and compelling in their truthfulness, came out to meet
whomever they looked at, as European eyes do. He had very little European blood, yet
in the broad forehead, the high, straight nose, the firm chin and perceptive lips, could be
sensed at once a mental affinity to Europe, expressed through an Asian physique. This
was a man who had passed far beyond differences of race and nation. Despite being a
member of a subject race, it was the face of a person the equal of any, expressive of
intellectual honesty and insight, both in unusual measure. As the Madrid newspaper
reports of the occasion show, there were few Spaniards present that day who, once they
had seen him, remained unaware of these qualities, disconcerting as they found them.
The impression the pale young man conveyed was inescapable.
The escort forced a way through to the cleared rectangle of grass, lined by troops,
which was to be the place of execution. When the traitor had been conducted to the
seaward end, in which direction the shot was to be fired, there was some discussion
inaudible to bystanders. Then those nearest to the traitor drew back , the preparatory
commands were barked out, and in the second of silence before the final order to fire,
while people excitedly craned over the shoulders of others for a glimpse of the scene,
the traitor, fully audible, said in a clear, steady voice, ‘Consummatum est!”.
The command. The shot. People being pushed forward upon others in the surge
to view the body. A curious silence. The organized cheer of the troops. The lead given to
the release of emotion. And following this, the public cheers, the cheers, the cheers …..
The living soul of the insurrection was dead.
As so often happens in the case of public cheering, they were cheers ill-timed.
The shot which that crowd had just heard was the shot which brought the Spanish empire
in the Philippines to an end.
The situation in the Philippines on 30 December 1896 was relatively simple. The
insurgents had few arms and no source of ammunition. The Spaniards had adequate
military and naval forces to deal with the insurrection provided the government continued
to enjoy a certain measure of Filipino public support.
This was last important for mainly geographical reasons. The Philippines, a
complex archipelago of more than seven thousand islands, with in those days only very
limited inter-island communications, presented singular obstacles to an out rightly military
control. Each well-populated island, even today, is in a sense a small country on its own,
requiring a complete apparatus of government distinct from its neighbors. At that time
outright military control offered a commander the choice between a dispersal of his forces
so extensive and disconnected that in effect they ceased to be a unitary army, or
concentration of force in various population centres, lesser islands being left in the
balance of popular goodwill. In December 1896 the Spanish military administration was
in the process of regrouping from the former to the latter.
Nor was goodwill entirely lacking -- the goodwill, or possibly just the prudence, of
such as came to witness the execution and cheer. But within days of 30 December on
Luzon, the main northern and ‘capital’ island, and within weeks throughout the entire
Philippines, this situation changed. Dr. Jose Rizal, the young ophthalmic surgeon who
had been executed that day, was regarded by educated Filipinos as a genius, the
architect and embodiment of their country’s aspirations. By the uneducated he was
regarded more simply as a kind of demi-god. By all he was recognized as the greatest
Filipino who had ever lived. He was also, ironically, the most understanding, patient, and
influential friend Spain possessed in the Islands.
Day after day following 30 December other victims were brought forth from the
torture chambers of Fort Santiago to be executed in public. It was the dry season; stains
were not washed away by rain. From end to end the grass of the Luneta was brown with
dried human blood.
But all these deaths, terrible as they were, did not make the same impact as did
the execution of the young surgeon. For that Spain had killed him, of all people, showed
every Filipino from one end of the country to the other that Spain was blinded to their
needs, deaf to their pleas, and contemptuous of their claim to be treated as the equal of
other human beings. The death of Rizal inflicted upon Filipinos a sense of personal
shock, as though they themselves had been unforgivably insulted; and it produced
revulsion against the tormentor. It was a nationwide reaction which words could not
express, deeply and universally felt. The last vestiges of Filipino public support, vital to
the maintenance of the Spanish position, fell away. Even the prudent who had turned up
to cheer found there was prudence in not being pro-Spanish, to be so having become in
effect treasonable in a Filipino.
From that moment Spanish rule was doomed. The death agony took another
eighteen months, but in effect on 30 December 1896, by a single shot, Spain erected her
own sepulchre in advance of the demise.
A scant shaft of hope might remained, though it would probably have done no
more than prolong the death agony, could further substantial military reinforcements
have been obtained. But these were not forthcoming. Spain at this time was
simultaneously endeavouring to suppress two insurrections on different sides of the
globe, one in the Philippines, the other in Cuba. Because of greater Spanish public
interest in Cuba, because of the island’s closeness to the United States, and because of
the aggressive trend of American public opinion, strongly reflected in Congress, toward
the continued Spanish presence in the Caribbean, Spain, when torn between the equally
urgent demands of two of her overseas ‘provinces’, decided that suppression of the
Cuban revolt must be given priority. Besides which, the Spanish Government
underestimates the Filipinos in everything. This was basically what the Philippines revolt
was about.
When the Governor and Captain-General of the Philippines, General Camilo
Polavieja, found that his requests for reinforcements were virtually ignored, he resigned
his command in April 1897. Under his successor, General Primo de Rivera, the rebels
were at last forced into retreat. But here the Spanish successes were aptly due to
dissension among the Filipino leaders.
 The actual organizer and first leader of the rebellion was Andres Bonifacio, a
young, cool and determined idealist, capable of inspiring men to follow him, yet who, as
rebellion spread from town to town, found that not every town loyal to his cause accepted
his leadership. Furthermore, boldly attempting objectives which were beyond the
capacity of his forces, he suffered initial reverses, thereby incurring the criticism of being
inadequate as a military commander. In this capacity the outstanding man thrown into
prominence by the events of revolution was Emilio Aguinaldo, who, operating from bases
in Cavite province, obtained numerous military successes against the Spaniards. At a
meeting of the revolutionary leaders in March 1897 Aguinaldo was elected to direct the
struggle in succession to Bonifacio, without whom there would have been no revolt.
Bonifacio, bitterly disillusioned by the perfidy of those whom he had regarded as his
colleagues, cut loose with a number of men still loyal to him, refusing to acknowledge
Aguinaldo’s leadership.
The Spaniards were quick to take advantage of this favourable situation. As
factionalism spread among the Filipino people, some loyal to Bonifacio, others to
Aguinaldo, the rebel position became desperate. On 10 May 1897 Bonifacio, on
Aguinaldo’s orders, was tracked down and shot. But this scarcely improved matters; the
rebels continued to retreat. By this time they had little or no arms and ammunition; most
of them fought with knives and staves; but they proved themselves able guerrilla fighters
and had the great advantage of enjoying the support of the population. At the end of the
year it was recognized on both sides that it was a stalemate, the Filipinos unable to
prevail, the Spaniards unable to suppress them. Primo de Rivera and Aguinaldo signed
a truce, the latter going into voluntary exile in Hong Kong.
The truce settled nothing. Rebel outbreaks continued, sporadically and becoming
increasingly serious; and thus it would undoubtedly have continued for years had not
extraneous events lifted the struggle from being a remote colonial affair, suddenly placing
it on the stage of world history.
In February 1898 the United States battleship Maine blew up in Havana harbour.
The explosion was almost certainly accidental, but the American public, going through a
most unusual period of warmongering sentiment, inflamed by public indignation over
events in China, was in no mood to treat it as such. In stentorian terms the disaster was
condemned as an act of Spanish treachery. On 19 April resolutions were introduced into
Congress demanding the independence of Cuba and the despatch of American forces
to aid the Cuban rebels. Unwisely Spain, instead of temporizing, accepted the challenge,
and made a fatal declaration of war on the United States.
It was what Washington had been waiting for. With almost unseemly speed orders
were sent to American naval commanders to attack Spain at her two most sensitive
points, Cuba and the Philippines. On 1 May 1898 an American squadron under the
command of Commodore George Dewey entered Manila Bay, and without the loss of a
man destroyed the entire Spanish fleet off Cavite. A similar disaster overtook the Spanish
fleet in Cuba.
Dewey then had to await the arrival of land forces to complete the Spanish defeat.
With his agreement Aguinaldo returned to the Philippines, the Americans giving every
outward indication of their intention that the country should become independent. With
this encouragement, on 12 June 1898 the Filipinos declared their independence, Emilio
Aguinaldo becoming President of what is now known as the First Philippine Republic.
One of the first acts of the Republic was to declare 30 December a day of rest and
reflexion in memory of Rizal, a commemoration which despite every vicissitude has been
observed ever since.
 In the military field, mopping-up operations proceeded swiftly under Aguinaldo’s
direction. Within a matter of weeks the only Spanish forces left in Luzon were penned in
Manila and Cavite, the two towns being cut off from one another. A small reinforcement
of American troops, Aguinaldo hoped, and the county would be totally free.
It was a miscalculation. In July the land forces Dewey needed began to arrive,
and the Americans moved to the accomplishment of their real design, which had nothing
whatever to do with Philippine Independence. For the United States had caught the
prevailing great power disease, and had resolved to embark upon empire. Secret
negotiations were entered into between Dewey and the Spanish authorities, and on 13
August, an agreed date after a face-saving exchange of fire, American forces entered
Manila from the citadel of which the colours of Spain were lowered forever. The Filipino
forces, waiting for a signal to enter the city, were ordered by the Americans to remain
outside. Only then did Aguinaldo realize that he and his men had been dupes in a war
game and by no means would a simple one, since had the Americans not taken Manila,
the Germans, with the requisite forces poised and afloat in the China Sea, certainly have
done so instead.
At the time of the peace negotiations, held in Paris, Aguinaldo made despairing
efforts to obtain international recognition of Philippine independence; his representatives
were not admitted to the conference room. It is at this point that can be seen at its clearest
the significance of that execution two years earlier, and the importance of the complete
psychological estrangement of the Filipinos from Spain which is produced. Had Rizal
been alive in 1898 he would unquestionably have rallied Philippine sympathy for defeated
Spain, thus placing an exceedingly complex obstacle to the realization of America’s
imperial ambitions. The United States would doubtless in the mood of that time, have
acquired some form of favoured position or tutelage in the Philippines, but it could never
have been in the extreme form it actually took. As it was, the Filipinos friends of neither
the United States nor Spain, found themselves diplomatically isolated, their leader
reduced in international eyes to the status of a bandit chief.
In December 1898, by the Treaty of Paris, the Philippines were declared to be
American territory. For two years Aguinaldo commanded a military struggle against
American forces in the Islands, but one by one his principal officers were captured, and
in March 1901 he himself was taken, bringing his Republic to an end. On 4 July that year,
with the inauguration of American Civil Government, the Philippine became, in effect if
not in name, a colony of the United States of America.
The Americans, quick to discover the political and literary works of Rizal, and to
appreciate the immense esteem in which he has held by his countrymen, recognized in
him an invaluable link between the Spanish period and their own that had succeeded it.
To many Americans it seemed that Rizal’s aims and their own were one. On 7 April 1903
President Theodore Roosevelt, speaking at Fargo, North Dakota, went so far as to say.
In the Philippine Islands the Americans government has tried, and is trying, to
carry out exactly what the greatest genius and most revered patriot ever known in the
Philippines, Jose Rizal, steadfastly advocated.
With the coming of the Americans twentieth-century air blew into the Islands, The
new rulers quickly rid the country of the Catholic ecclesiastical rule under which it had
suffered so long. Successive changes of President in Washington, coupled with the lack
of an equivalent to the British India Office or Colonial Office as means of ensuring
continuity of policy, rendered the complete fulfilment of Theodore Roosevelt’s aim less
impressive than its enunciation; but in leisurely way, and with increased momentum
between the world wars, the Americans introduced various measure of internal self-
government which would surely have led to complete independence. This leisurely trend
of affairs was brought to an abrupt end in December 1941, when Japan, as part of her
aim to establish a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, invaded the Philippines and
subjected the country to a rule of tyranny and barbarism arousing universal detestation.
In the last months of hostilities, in 1944--5, the Japanese mounted a desperate struggle
against the returning Americans, and Manila was fought street by street. As a result was
a war-ravaged country with much of its capital city in ruins which on 4 July 1946 was
accorded independence by the United States, an unsatisfactory independence, but one
on which both sides at that time were determined.
The ceremony took place on the Luneta; and as President Truman’s’ special
emissary read the deed of independence. He did so before the statue of Rizal, which that
day witnessed, on behalf of the man himself, the fulfilment of one of the main purposes
of his life’s work.
Outside his own country Rizal is chiefly known for the poem he wrote in the death
cell on the eve of his execution, and which was smuggled out of Fort Santiago hidden in
an alcohol burner. The poem was written on a small slip of paper and it was neither titled,
nor dated, nor signed. It has come to be known as the Ultimo Adios, and holds an assured
place in the Spanish literature of the period. It is to be found in numerous anthologies of
Spanish verse and -- in Spanish or in translation -- in every anthology of the poetry of
patriotism worthy of the name. The poem, even in translation, gave its author
international recognition.
As a poem of patriotism it is distinguished by a complete absence of jingoism, or
scorn of enemies, or the appeals to glory which too often make this kind of verse tedious;
and in that it tells the exact circumstances in which it was written, it has a powerful human
appeal. Here is a man condemned to die for the cause of his country, and in the final
hours before dawn, when he will be led forth to execution, writing his last farewell to his
country, family and friends. Like all poems, it suffers in translation. In Spanish the
compulsion of its message and the flow of the lines, some of which are of exceptional
felicity and sonority, combine to make it, in its genre, a poem of particular distinction. This
is to treat it in its Spanish context. In its Asian context -- and it is after all an Asian poem
-- it is unique in quality and in the nobleness of its expression. Among all the verses in
whatever language inspired by the Asian independence movements there is nothing that
can be compared with it.
In his own country Rizal is revered as a national hero, and is known for a mass
of other writings in particular for his two novels of contemporary Philippine life, Noli Me
Tangere and El Filibusterismo, which are taught in all colleges. His place in his country’s
history has also been fully assessed. He was the man who single-handed awakened the
Philippine people to national and political consciousness, an extraordinary achievement
which will be examined in what follows.
But in the Panorama of Asian history in the nineteenth century and twentieth
centuries his position is less clear, and in need of definition.
At the time of his birth, European power and influence in Asia had been growing
and spreading for more than three hundred years; but for the most part this was a slow,
haphazard process, its principal motivation being trade. The Indian Mutiny 0f 1857 marks
the end of this long epoch in Europe’s relations with Asia. From 1858 onwards a new
determinations and energy infused European activity in the East, and with this came a
new principle, the territorial acquisition of empire , still principally for purposes of trade,
but also with the aim of bringing Western forms of Government and education to people
whom the West considered to be either barbarous or decadent, or both. During this
period, from 1858 to 1900 -- almost the exact period of Rizal’s life -- Britain consolidated
her power throughout the Indian sub-continent, added Burma to her empire, and by
means of protectorates extended her influence to embrace Malaya, Sarawak and Sabah
(North Borneo). Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were absorbed by France, Japan was
drawn out of her long seclusion, and Thailand signed her first treaties with Western
nations. Ceylon was already ruled by Britain, Indonesia by the Netherlands, and the
Philippines by Spain. China, rent by internal rebellion and misruled by the tottering
Manchu dynasty, managed to maintain a semblance of independence; but by 1898 every
port of any usefulness on the China coast was under European control. The last decade
of the nineteenth century dawned on an Orient which became a suburb of Europe. The
real capitals of East Asia were London, Paris, Amsterdam, and Madrid. In the entire vast
area lying between Baluchistan and the Islands of the Pacific, only Japan and Thailand
precariously maintained a status independent of the direct or indirect European control
prevailing everywhere else.
It was precisely this same period which gave birth to the men who by their lives
and works were to render it impossible for colonialism and Western exploitation to take
a long lease on the Orient. Of these men four great individuals stand pre-eminent;
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore, Sun Yat-sen, and Jose Rizal. All
four were born within a few years of each other; Rizal and Tagore were born in the same
1861, Sun Yat-sen in 1866, and Gandhi in 1869. All four absorbed deeply the new
learning of the West, and brought Western-trained intellect to bear upon the problems of
Asia. All four challenged and questioned the West in the West’s own terms, a process
which invigorated a largely supine continent, and ultimately -- because the West could
understand what they said, and it hurt -- sapped the self-confidence for the colonial
powers, who till then had believed in the supreme rightness of their mission. Between
them these four men, aided and emulated by others, created a new climate of thought in
Asia tending to the inevitable attrition of colonialism, a movement to which the colonial
powers themselves inadvertently contributed by their lamentable military collapse before
the impact of the Japanese invasions of 1941. When the Japanese were finally thrust
back into their own Islands, the climate of thought the four men had created dominated
Asia completely, and the colonial powers, self-confidence, despite their victory, had
evaporated.
Of the four men Rizal though the least known, is in some ways the most
remarkable. Of an extreme sensibility, his political ideas matured at a usually early age.
Long before Tagore was anything other than a critical acceptant of British rule of India,
when Sun Yat-sen was a student and Gandhi just a schoolboy, Rizal was enunciating
clearly, in speechless published articles and letters, the concepts, entirely his own of a
new and completely different relationship between Europe and Asia -- the relationship of
today -- in which Asian people and nations must be regarded by Europe as equals, an
idea which to the European colonial powers of that time was in varying degrees
pretentious, preposterous, or abhorrent.
The Philippines Revolution of 1896, which Rizal’s works inspired but which he
was in fact opposed to, knowing it to be premature and inadequately organized, was the
first genuinely national revolt by an Asian people against a colonial power. That it was
genuinely national in character was due entirely to Rizal, the first exponent of Asian
nationalism.
His execution was reported in newspapers throughout the world. In most
countries the fact that Spain had felt obliged to execute, as leader of the rebellion, a 35-
year old doctor, a man of peace and evidently a person of some local distinction, showed
simply that there was nothing rotten in the state of the Spanish Philippines. But this came
as no surprise. It was most intelligent readers would have assumed.
In Asia the reaction was more acute. Since the establishment of European power,
the sentient minority in each country of the East had become absorbed in a phase of
critical self-examination, which as the years passed became increasingly widespread.
The power and efficiency of Europe had at this time induced a state of affairs in which
everything from the West was assumed to be superior. In the last two decades of the
nineteenth century contrary voices were heard, challenging this assumption. In India one
of the earliest signs of change occurred in art, when Abanindranath Tagore broke
company with the Indian artists who for more than fifty years had been uninspired
imitating European styles, and launched out into a distinctive style of his own, inspired
by Indian sources. In China the first modern scholars had the temerity to declare that the
philosophy and arts of China were every whit as valuable as those of Europe,
inaugurating the era later to be personified in philosophy by Hu Shih and in painting by
Ch’i Pai-shih, both of whom invested old forms with a new vitality.
But in the political field there was hesitancy. The East which the Europeans had
overpowered had been a world of kings whose subjects had been their feudal property,
to be elevated, chastened, or conscribed for war at whim. With the West came new ideas
of nationhood and individual rights, but with caste, clan and regional differences to be
reckoned with it was difficult to see what application these new ideas could have in Asia.
The word nation had entered many vocabularies; there was a desire amongst the
sentient that their countries should become nations in the Western sense. But few were
certain that such desires were not academic dreams, so remote from achievement did
they seem in the social context of the East. This hesitancy is exemplified in India in the
degree to which the country’s earliest political institutions owed their origin to British
initiative and their membership to British support.
Alone among Asian countries, Japan after the Meiji Restoration of 1868 had
transformed herself into a nation on European lines, above all armed with Europeans
weapons, which the year before Rizal’s death had been used with effect in the Sino-
Japanese War. But an aggressive nationhood such as Japan had for many centuries
been a country unified under one government; the transposition from the feudal to the
modern was to this extent less complex than in countries such as India, unified by a
colonizing power but traditionally divided.
The Philippines on the other hand, prior to the Spanish occupation, had a
background more related to that of India and South-East Asia. Historical research
suggested that the Islands had once been part of Further India, with Rajas, Hindu-style
courts, and Sanskrit writing. It was thus presumed to be a country with problems of
national adaptation similar to those of India, the largest and most significant of the Asian
national subject to European rule.
In India, which was awakening politically in advance of her neighbours, it was the
national aspect of the Philippine rebellion, an aspect which Rizal as Western -trained
doctor seemed so aptly to typify, which attracted attention. The events of the rebellion
were remote, the Philippines being separated from the rest of Asia by the twin barriers of
distance and the Spanish language. But Rizal’s death gave the revolt dramatic publicity
and the message it conveyed was clear. Those few in each subject country who had
dreamt of a future day when European power would be overthrown saw that they were
not alone. There were others. They might speak other languages, and inhabit countries
little known; but in their reactions to colonial rule they were kin. For the radical it became
possible cautiously to believe, for the first time, that to entertain the idea of putting an
end to European supremacy was to be in tune with one of those movements that
inexplicably swept across continents.
Above all, the national character of the Philippine revolt, a character which the
unsuccessful struggle for independence against the Americans between 1898 and 1901
served to confirm, signalized what till then had been regarded by many Asian intellectuals
with doubt: that the East’s feudal kingdoms and principalities, expunged or emasculated
by the colonial powers, were capable of reshaping themselves as modern nations under
their own national leaders.
The revolt failed. The colonial epoch moved unconcernedly on. But it was not
forgotten, and among the discerning, neither was Rizal or what he stood for. To Asia's
growing number of nationalist the events of 1896 in the Philippines became a landmark
, a conclusion held increasingly as, under the Americans, the Philippines switched from
Spanish to English, and more information became available concerning the rebellion and
its nature. Gandhi spoke of Rizal as a forerunner and as a martyr in the cause of freedom,
and Nehru, in his prison letters to his daughter Indira, recognized the significance of the
growth of Philippine nationalism and, if inaccurately, Rizal’s part in it. Through the revolt
failed, the idea of modern nationhood as a practical possibility in Asia had been born.
This was due to Rizal, and constitutes his place in history.
Rizal’s is the most highly documented life of any Asian of the nineteenth century,
perhaps of any Asian ever. His biographer can scarcely be accused of exaggeration in
saying that there are times when it seems as if everything his subject ever said, did, wrote
or though in his short life has been recorded somewhere.
Rizal was himself responsible for this, such being the singular attraction of his
personality and the aura of destiny which surrounded him, and of which his European
friends were as conscious as were his own countrymen. People kept his letters however
unimportant their subject matter, in the belief that they would one day be of interest and
significance. People in fact had a tendency to keep anything he gave them, no matter
how trivial. Even letters describing him or referring to him were equally carefully treasured
by Filipinos, and much of this material has survived. As a result he can be seen at almost
any point in his life from many angles and with unusual clarity. He himself was a prolific
letter-writer and a fairly regular diarist, and he early formed the habit of keeping people’s
letters that interested him, adding still further to knowledge of the recipient.
All of this is or course of assistance to a biographer, but it also presents problems.
Quite apart from the fact that Rizal conducted his daily correspondence in six languages
and that to write about him accurately requires being familiar with prevalent conditions in
at least ten different countries on three continents there is the engaging difficulty that
much of his writings that are strictly speaking irrelevant in an account of his political life
are highly attractive and of great intrinsic interest -- in particular the gravel diaries, with
their fascinating account of the reaction of a young Filipino seeing for the first time the
great cities of the modern world as they were in those days. Some of his Filipino
biographers have in fact so succumbed to the enchantment of these lesser writings that
the true outlines of their hero’s life have almost submerged him. In a biography of his
length, space does not permit more than a few fleeting extracts from these subsidiary
writings, but it is hoped that what little is quoted will serve to give an impression of the
whole. Like Rabindranath Tagore, whom in the multifariousness of his self-expression he
closely resembled, Rizal was a consummate artist, able to create things of beauty out of
almost anything, little statue made of a piece of wood someone else had thrown away, a
pencil sketch in the margin of a letter or two lines in a diary completely evoking a situation
and an atmosphere. Although the first truly notable political figure of modern Asia, he
dealt in politics only out of necessity; at heart he was a scholar and artist.
To readers unfamiliar with the Philippines two explanations are due. In what
follows quite a number of references will be found to Filipinos whose names are virtually
unknown outside of their own country, and who in these pages will be found living
obscurely -- as Rizal himself did -- in various European capitals, a situation which initially
suggests that they were persons of no importance. Actually, as Filipinos today freely
admit, this particular generation of men was perhaps the most gifted their country has
ever produced, and nearly every one of those who will be mentioned here holds an
 honourable place in his country’s history. The extraordinary fact is that during this period
any Filipino of merit or distinction was virtually obliged to live abroad. In the Philippines
under Spanish rule he was not wanted and could achieve nothing. It was even worse
than this. A Filipino of merit was an object of fear to many Spaniards.
The second point is that, particularly in the early chapters, the reader may feel
disconcerted to find so little to suggest an Oriental atmosphere. It will seem almost as if
the scene is set somewhere in Europe. Here it must be remembered that the Philippines,
at this time, had been a Christian and considerable Europeanized Country --
Hispanicised is a more accurate word -- for the best part of three hundred years; and
nowhere was this more noticeable than in the upper classed of Filipino society to which
the Rizal family belonged. Their reactions and thoughts, their manners and way of life,
were far more European than Oriental. Their clothes, the long skirts for women and
trousers for men, were basically European, with various minor adaptations deriving
largely from China, Their houses and furniture were very European indeed and often very
comfortable with mother- of-pearl instead of glass window panes. Their cuisines owed a
great deal to the Chinese cuisine of Fukien province, and, Chinese style, all dishes
except sweets were served simultaneously; but in upper-class family spoons, knives and
forks were used and etiquette was European.
Perhaps the simplest way to visualize the scene is to think of a tropical Europe,
its people golden-skinned and with slightly Oriental features, living in houses in which the
most important thing is to keep cool, a land of flowers and music, where people are hot
tempered and romantic, where manual labour is a tremendous strain and life simply must
move rather slowly, where every window looks out upon lush vegetation, and where it is
nearly always extremely humid and extremely hot.
But beyond the vivid green of huge bananas leaves the church bells ring; when
all the Oriental faces of the family are gathered at table, Father says a Latin grace; later
at night when it is still hot, all good children go to bed when they are told.

Reading 2: Rizal and the Underside of Philippine History by Reynaldo C. Ileto

In 1890 Jose Rizal, the foremost Filipino intellectual and patriot which the 19 th
Century produced, provided in his annotations to a 17 th-Century Spanish text scholarly
legitimization for the view that, with Spanish rule the people “forgot their native alphabet,
their songs, their poetry, their laws, in order to parrot other doctrines that they did not
understand.” The result of their blind imitation of things foreign and incomprehensible
was that “they lost all confidence in their past, all faith in their present, and all hope for
the future.” Rizal labored for a year in the British Museum to document the image of a
flourishing pre-colonial civilization, the Lost Eden, which he, the offspring of an era of
rationality, awakened consciousness and self-assertion, felt burdened to put in writing.
The Filipino people had to move forward, and in order to do so had to be aware of their
origins, their history as colonized people, and the general progress of mankind to which
their future should be geared (Ileto, 1998).
Rizal’s construction of a “usable past,” to use a currently popular term, in effect
privileged the status of the ilustrados, the liberal-educated elite which viewed itself as,
among other things, released from the though-world of the history-less, superstitious,
manipulated masses, the pobres y ignorantes. In the very act of interpretation, then, Rizal
had to ignore or suppress – unconsciously, perhaps – phenomena which resisted his
ordering mind. These existed on the fringes of his life and work but have not been studied
seriously. Instead, we endlessly debate whether he was a realist or an idealist, whether
he was deserving of the veneration he receives. There is a probing of the intentions
behind his actions, speeches and writings, an attempt to clarify his contribution to the
process of action-building, and so forth. But there is no questioning of his evolutionist
premises, particularly the notion of emergence itself which belongs to the realm of the
familiar, and the “common sense.” As we shall see, this notion is problematized in the
meanings that Rizal’s gestures elicited among the pobres y ignorantes. Rizal became
implicated in the very world which the ilustrados sought to efface. What we shall seek to
uncover in particular is the play of meanings which his dramatic execution in 1896 set
into motion. If this event were simply a condemned man’s attempt to perpetuate his own
memory, or his martyrdom is against oppression and obscurantism, then why, among
many other acts of martyrdom and execution, was it singled out, remembered,
commemorated for decades after? What modes of thought apart from that of the
ilustrados informed the event? (Ileto, 1998).
The “Fall” in Ilustrado Consciousness
Given the apparent fact that the indios were converted to Christianity, we need to
move beyond established and familiar views of how their world was affected by the new
religion. On one hand, professedly Catholic writers and Hispanophiles claim that
Christianity brought civilized ways, salvation and unity to the islands. On the other hand,
nationalists argue passionately that Christianity was a weapon to facilitate the political
and economic subjugation of the natives. In either view, the indio is the passive recipient.
The Spanish friar, as representative of God on earth, is seen as exerting a powerful moral
hold over the indios. For better or for worse, he interprets the proper rules of Christian
behavior, rewarding the obedient and submissive, and punishing evil-doers.
Furthermore, there is an implicit assumption that Christianity’s impact can be understood
by reference to certain core characteristics, foremost among them being its otherworldly
orientation which encouraged resignation to the reality lived by the indios: resignation to
forced labor and the head tax, to the rule of the maguinoo or native chiefs and the later
principales who were mostly agents of colonial rule. Those who are unwilling to criticize
the religion itself view its particular expression in the Philippine context as one of
excessive pomp and pageantry, of countless festivals, processions and rituals that kept
the indios in such a state of fascination that they failed to grasp the reality of colonial
exploitation (Ileto, 1998).
To whatever pole the argument tend – Christianity as the indios’ salvation or
Christianity as the root of their alienation – there is always room for allowing for or
celebrating the triumph of liberal ideas in the late 19 th century. In the first place, the notion
that Christianity belongs to the realm of the otherworldly as distinct from the secular and
political allows the data on popular disturbances and revolts. If they occur during the “pre-
enlightenment” centuries, such phenomena are regarded as instinctive, largely localized
reactions to oppressive measures, “nativistic” attempts to return to a precolonial past, at
best primitive precursors to the revolution. His horizons narrowed by religion and the
divide-and-rule tactic of the Spaniards, the Indio is deemed unable to comprehend his
situation “rationally”: thus he reacts blindly, in the gut, to mounting irritants impinging
upon him. Only with the advent of Rizal and the ilustrados is there a clear understanding
of the causes of dissatisfaction. Only with the founding of Andres Bonifacio’s Katipunan
secret society is there an organization with clear strategies and goals. When the
Katipunan is superseded by Emilio Aguinaldo’s Republican government, the Filipino
people are finally released not only from the colonial mother country but from a dark past.
The history of “failure” ends with the birth of the secular, progressive, enlightened
Republic (Ileto, 1998).
With the dominant constructs securely established, it is impossible to regard as
anything but a curious sidelight the fact that President Aguinaldo, very much in the style
of the 18th rebel Diego Silang, was also seen as the Liberator sent by God. Or that Rizal,
like Apolinario de la Cruz in 1841, was hailed as a Tagalog Christ and King. In 1898 and
1899 the Republic, very much like the old colonial administration, was beset with unrest
led mostly by Popes, Christs, Pastors and Supremos. Such “sidelights” suggest that
personalities and events toward the end of the 19 th century were repetitions, with
variations of course, of the past. They draw our attention to the fact that limiting
frameworks have been applied to 19th Philippine history, that there are, these excluded,
“excess” data with which we can attempt to confront the dominant paradigms and elicit a
play of meanings in place of closed structures. If Rizal belonged to a series of Christs
and Tagalog Kings, we might well as what the conditions are for inclusion in the series
and the mode of historical awareness it suggests. Rizal becomes less the intellectual
achievement of the century than a complex figure who offered different, sometimes
conflicting, readings of his life and work (Ileto, 1998).
The reappearance, the persistence over time, of figures bearing the mark of
Christianity could be interpreted as a sign of the total Filipino subjugation by Spain. It
could signify the break, the loss and enslavement resulting from the Conquest. Rizal
lamented the fact that Philippine traditions were no longer authentic because their origins
were either forgotten or patently foreign. To him, the forgetting of origins marked the
onset of darkness: “These traditions (of links with Sumatra) were completely lost, just like
the mythology and genealogies of which the old historians speak, thanks to the zeal of
the religious in extirpating every remembrance of our nationality, of paganism, or of
idolatry.” Philippine literary histories speak of the lost literature of the lowlands being
replaced by religious poetry written at first by Spanish missionaries and then by select
indios who had served as translators for the Spaniards. The themes of such poetry seem
divorced from Philippine experience: “love for the Holy Family,” “God the light of the
world,” “Mary, star of the sea” guiding men in their voyage through the stormy darkness
of sin and ignorance. There are traces of a predominantly seafaring Malay society in the
last theme, but it is located in a sea of darkness, illumined only by the light of a foreign
ideology. In the 18th Century, metrical romances from Spain and Mexico were allowed to
be translated or to serve as models for a popular form of indigenous literature called awit.
This transplanted to Philippine soil the traditions of European medieval romance.
Tagalog poetry became dominated by themes ranging from the Passion of Christ to the
Crusades against the Moors. Ilustrados from Rizal to this day have lamented this
apparent distortion of the Filipino mind. “Born and brought up… in ignorance of our
yesterday… lacking an authoritative voice to speak of what we neither saw nor studied”
– Rizal could not have better expressed the anxiety of being left to one’s own wits,
unanchored in a stable past(Ileto, 1998).
The lack of a continuous, uninterrupted history of Filipino consciousness lay
behind the ilustrado nostalgia for lost origins. Rizal’s efforts to reconstruct the history of
a flourishing, pre-Spanish civilization that entered upon the decline can be viewed as an
attempt to reconstitute the unity of Philippine history, to bring under the sway of the
ilustrado mind the discontinuities and differences that characterized colonial society. The
ilustrados were very much in tune with 19 th century conceptions of history. Their activity
was geared to the late 19th century European search for a total history, in which all the
differences of a society might be reduced to a single form, to the organization of a world-
view, to the establishment of the system of values, to a coherent type of civilization.”
Ironically, the demand for order and coherence led to critique not only of the Spaniards
but of the ilustrados’ ancestors who, admitted Rizal, lost their heritage because they
“hastened to abandon what was theirs to take up what was new.” Ignorance and naiveté
are the familiar explanations for what appears to have been the absence of fixed
boundaries in the conceptual world of the early Filipinos (Ileto, 1998).
One fact that renders the notion of a “Fall” problematic, however, was the survival
of the indigenous languages. For example, the whole crop of foreign story lines in
 Tagalog literature, which on the one hand suggest a certain loss of authenticity, upon
closer examination turn out to be masks that conceal age-old preoccupations. We shall
see later on that the failure of such terms as “soul” and ‘self’ to encompass the meanings
of loob (lit., “inside”) releases the Tagalog Passion of Christ (Pasyon) from the control of
the Church. The translation of alien story-lines and concepts into Tagalog not only
resulted in their domestication, their assimilation into things already known, but gave rise
to various plays of meaning (Ileto, 1998).

Petition for the Pardon of Rizal

In the midst of Rizal’s agony of waiting for his impending execution, he afforded
to compose a masterpiece before meeting the firing squad and this was entitled by
Father Mariano Dacanay “Mi Ultimo Adios” (Last Farewell) because this work of Rizal is
untitled and unsigned. Composes of 70 verses in 14 stanzas. One of the lines from this
masterpiece is “And were it brighter, fresher, more florid, even then I’d give it to you, for
your sake alone”, it really speaks his love for our beloved country up to his last breath.
Together with this masterpiece he also wrote letters to his family.
Among the letters inked by the family of Rizal, it was the letter of his mother
Teodora Alonzo pleading for the life of his son towards rulers of Spain was considered
the most heart-warming, emotional and the most significant as well for it proved two
things: the love of a mother to a son knows no limits and boundaries; and a mother could
do the most extreme to save the life of her son.
It shows in the part of the petition letter to Camilo Polavieja, Spanish Governor
General of the Philippines: “that her son Jose Rizal y Mercado having been sentenced
to death by the Council of War for the crime attributed to him of rebellion against the
Mother Country, a crime, which in conscience and at most in justice has not been proven
in a conclusive manner."
She is too brave to send this to Spanish rulers, she might be punished as well
because of her presuming words but then instead of thinking for herself, Teodora Alonzo
heart’s desire to save his son by convincing Spanish Government to withdraw their
decision towards her son’s case. Dec. 28, 1896, Doña Teodora Alonso, the hero’s
mother, went to Malacañang to plead with Governor General Camilo de Polavieja. She
was refused admission.

Topic 2: Rizal’s life in pursuit of nationhood and pivotal events that led to his trial,
execution, and martyrdom
Reading 1: Rizal and the Revolution – (Chapter 4. Biography and History. In A Nation Aborted:
Rizal, American Hegemony and Philippine Nationalism)

Let us consider the mind of a notable writer, Dr. Floro C. Quibuyen, who greatly studied
on Rizal’s hegemony and nationalism. He wanted to recover the lost history and vision; to
reread how Rizal thinks; and to know how the Philippine nationalism emerged as the vital
inevitability for reform and progress. Dr. Quibuyen said: “…because of…postcolonial Filipinos
or anyone concerned with justice and social transformation, have missed out on Rizal’s vision
of the nation…it is time to remind ourselves that this moral vision was appreciated by kindred
spirits in the so-called Propaganda Movement as well as the Katipunan, and resonated deeply
with the revolutionary spirit of 1896.” Here below is the essay titled “Rizal and the Revolution”
will give how and what really happened during the crucial and cogent in Rizal’s lifework. Let us
read and give full attention on the vision and mission of this essay, which reads:
When we open the pages of history books in the Philippines, it is not surprising
to see texts about the martyrdom of our most celebrated hero-- Dr. Jose Rizal. In fact, it
seems that his name already occupied a permanent and prominent place in every
publication that has something to say about the Philippines. Truthfully, there is nothing
wrong about immortalizing Rizal and his heroism in books and literatures read by several
generations of Filipinos and non-Filipinos. Probably, most writers deemed that doing
such is a fitting way of paying respect and gratitude to his contributions and sacrifices for
the benefit of the Filipino people and of our nation. It’s just unfortunate that in trying to
present him as an icon of heroism, he was placed in a pedestal that became too tough
for Juan dela Cruz to reach. The national revolution that we had in our country from 1896
to 1901 is one period when the Filipino people were most united, most involved and most
spirited to fight for a common cause—freedom. While all aspects of Jose Rizal’s short
but meaningful life were already explored and exhausted by history writers and
biographers, his direct involvement in the Philippine Revolution that broke out in 1896
remains to be a sensitive and unfamiliar topic (Quibuyen,2008).
Historians cannot deny that Rizal played a major part in the country’s struggle for
reforms and independence. His writings, particularly the Noli me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo were viewed as the guiding force for other patriots to rally for the country’s
cause. While most of us believed that Rizal dedicated his life and labor for the cause of
the revolution and venerated him to a certain extent, a brave historian rose up and went
against the tide by making known to the public his stand that Rizal was NOT an actual
leader of the Philippine Revolution. While most of his biographers avoided this topic, it
is important to note that this greatest contradiction in Rizal made him more significant
than ever. In his Rizal Day lecture in 1969 entitled “Veneration without Understanding,”
Prof. Renato Constantino tried to disclose the real Rizal and the truth of his heroism
stripping off the superficial knick-knacks adorned on him by hagiographers and hero-
worshippers. The very striking fact that Constantino forwarded was the notion that
Rizal was not a leader of the Philippine Revolution, but a leading opponent of it.
Accordingly, in the manifesto of 15 December 1896 written by Rizal himself which he
addressed to the Filipino people, he declared that when the plan of revolution came into
his knowledge, he opposed its absolute impossibility and state his utmost willingness to
offer anything he could to stifle the rebellion. Rizal thought of it as absurd, and abhorred
its alleged criminal methods (Quibuyen, 2008).
Rizal in his manifesto put into premise the necessity of education in the
achievement of liberties. Most importantly he believed that reforms to be fruitful must
come from above and that those that come from below are shaky, irregular, and
uncertain(Quibuyen,2008).
Rizal’s weakness for this matter was his failure to fully understand his people. He
was unsuccessful in empathizing with the true sentiments of the people from below in
launching the armed rebellion. He repudiated the revolution because he thought that
reforms to be successful should come from above. It could be understandable that the
hero thought of such because it was the belief of the prevailing class to which Rizal
belonged. It is also possible that Rizal disproved the revolution due to his belief that
violence should not prevail. In this case, Rizal unintentionally underestimated the
capacity of those from below to compel changes and reforms (Quibuyen, 2008).
 This hesitation of Rizal against the revolution was supported by Dr. Pio
Valenzuela’s 1896 account of the revolution after he was sent by Andres Bonifacio to
Dapitan to seek Rizal’s opinion and approval in launching an armed rebellion against the
Spanish administration. In September 1896, Valenzuela before a military court testified
that Rizal was resolutely opposed to the idea of a premature armed rebellion and used
bad language in reference to it, the same statement was extracted from him in October
1896, only that he overturned that it was Bonifacio, not Rizal, who made use of foul words
(Quibuyen, 2008).
However, Valenzuela after two decades reversed his story by saying that Rizal was
not actually against the revolution but advised the Katipuneros to wait for the right timing,
secure the needed weapons and get the support of the rich and scholarly class.
Valenzuela recounted that his 1896 statements were embellished due to duress and
torture and it was made to appear that in his desire “not to implicate” or “save” Rizal,
testified that the latter was opposed to the rebellion. This turn of events put historians
into a great confusion, making Rizal’s stand over the Philippine Revolution, controversial
and debatable, making him both hero and anti-hero.
Constantino, in reality did not disrobe Rizal the merit he deserves, what he did was
a critical evaluation of Rizal as a product of his time. He pointed out that even without
Rizal, the nationalistic movement would still advance with another figure to take his place
because it was not Rizal who shaped the turn of events but otherwise. Historical forces
untied by social developments impelled and motivated Rizal to rose up and articulate the
people’s sentiments through his writings. In fact, the revolution ensued even Rizal
disagreed with it. Finally, Constantino argued that to better understand the hero, we
should also take note of his weaknesses and learn from them.

Activity
Individual Task: Newspaper Front Page Making
Create the front page of a made-up newspaper that places the reader inside the
setting of Jose Rizal’s death, trial, and execution. Consider different newspaper
sections/articles that might be included. You may create the newspaper either in
handwritten/physical form (drawn) or digitized form (photoshopped), based on your
convenience and availability of material. Take a clear picture/scan if your output is
handwritten, if digitized save it as a PDF file and submit it with the instructions of the
professor.

Rubric for Newspaper Front Page Making output:

4 3 2 1

Headline Headline captures reader's Headline accurately Headline does not describe Article may be missing
attention and accurately describes content. Byline content. Byline may or may headline. Byline may not
& Byline describes content. Byline under headline. not be used. be used.
under headline.

Lead Adequately addresses the 5
W's (who, what, when,
Sentence where, why), grabs reader's
attention, and focuses on
topic.
5 W's are evident. Most Missing one to two of the 5 Missing 3 of the 5 W's. No
important details are given. W's. Not clearly connected clear lead sentence.
to article.

Supporting Details are clear, Details clear but could be Most details are clear. May Details are not clear, may
sequenced, and supportive more developed to support be details out of sequence be out of sequence, or off
Details of the event. the topic. or off the topic. the topic.
 Spelling and No spelling, sentence, No more than a couple No more than three errors Several errors with spelling,
punctuation, or errors with spelling, with spelling, sentences, sentences, punctuation, or
Conventions capitalization errors. sentences, punctuation, or punctuation, or capitals. capitals.
capitals.

Front Page Front page includes a
creative banner
Format (newspaper name, date,
company), article with
headline and byline, photos
to go with article. "Extras"
to go with event (ads,
weather, etc...)
Front page includes a Front page includes a Front page may include a
banner (newspaper name, banner (newspaper name, banner (some info. may be
date, company), article date, company), article missing), article with
with headline and byline, with headline and byline, headline and byline,
photos to go with article. photos to go with article. photos. "Extras" may not
"Extras" to go with event. May be "extras" to go with be included.
event.

Assessment
Individual Thought Paper:
Write a paper based on the instructions below. The paper must not be less than 1,000
words and not be more than 1,500 words. Save your work and submit it with the
instructions of the professor.
Important Guide Questions:
1.) Why, of all heroes, was Rizal the most venerated in the 19th century nationalist
movement?
2.) What was it in Rizal’s life and works that struck a chord in popular imagination?
3.) What was Rizal’s nationalist agenda? How was it received by the revolutionaries?
4.) Did the people of the 19th century perceive Liga and the Katipunan as ideologically
and strategically opposed political organizations?
5.) Did the revolutionaries perceive Rizal as an assimilationist and therefore opposed
revolution?
6.) Did they, for that matter, perceive Reform and Revolution as opposed political
agendas?

Rubric for individual thought paper:

60% Explanation and overall assessment on various views for 6 questions.

30% Strength of the overall argument
10% Quality of writing and composition
Summary
A week after the outbreak of the Philippine Revolution, on September 2, 1896, Jose
Rizal left Manila for Spain. Going back to Governor General Ramon Blanco's last letter to
Rizal, the former approved the latter's request that he be sent to Cuba as military doctor. As
such, Rizal was to go to Spain first before going to Cuba. But even before he reached his first
destination, he was arrested by the Spanish authorities on board. He was jailed in Barcelona
and shipped back to Manila where Fort Santiago became the witness to the last 3 months of
his life.
There were three attempted rescue happened to Rizal by the Katipuneros:
1) While Rizal was still in exile in Dapitan, the Katipunan emissary, Dr. Pio
Valenzuela, informed the former of the secret organization's attempt to
rescue him and to sneak him on a ship destined to Japan. However, Rizal
was not in favor of this plan as he had no plan of breaking his promises to
the Spanish authorities.

2) For the second time, in August 1896, during Rizal's stopover in Manila Bay,
Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto and other selected Katipuneros disguised
as sailors of the motor Caridad so that they can easily penetrate the cruiser
Castilla, then harbored at Manila Bay. Rizal was on deck at that time when
he was approached by Jacinto who whispered that they were Katipuneros
and were there to rescue him. However, despite the opportunity given to
him, Rizal refused to be rescued.

3) On board Castilla, Rizal heard of the outbreak of the revolution and was not
surprised. However, his worry was that Spanish authorities might think that
he incited the said struggle. Two recommendation letters from Governor
Blanco diverted Rizal's angst – one for the Minister of War, General Marcelo
de Azcarraga; and the second, for the Minister of Colonies.
Aboard the steamer, Isla de Panay, Rizal left Manila for Spain on September 2, 1896,
not knowing that this will be his last travel abroad. The night before his departure, he wrote a
letter to Doña Teodora Alonzo telling her that his task required strength and dedication, and
if he died, at least he had done something good for mankind.
By the eve of September 7, the steamer reached Singapore and on the 30th, while
Isla de Panay was on its voyage along the Mediterranean Sea, a telegraphic message was
received by Captain A. Alemany, the ship skipper, ordering him to arrest and confine Jose
Rizal in his cabin until they arrive in Barcelona on the 3rd of October. Early morning of
October 6, Rizal was transferred to Montjuich Castle where he was visited by Eulogio
Despujol who was then the military Commander of Cataluña. By 8 o'clock in the evening,
aboard the steamer Colon, Rizal left Barcelona for Manila.
Such occurrences had already been known among Rizal's friends in Europe and
Singapore. His friends from London, Dr. Antonio Ma. Regidor and Sixto Lopez had their
efforts to find a lawyer in Singapore who could aid their in-need friend. They send a telegraph
to a certain Atty. Hugh Fort whom they requested to do the task of rescuing Rizal – by issuing
writ of habeas corpus on the steamer Colon. Unfortunately, the judge in Singapore denied
Fort's request and contention that Rizal was illegally detained in the said steamer because
the voyage cannot be delayed since it was, according to the judge, a warship carrying
Spanish troops to Manila.
Thus, on November 3, Colon arrived in Manila – Jose Rizal, under heavy security, was
brought immediately to Fort Santiago. During his stay, Spanish authorities were searching
for evidences against him. In fact, Filipinos who had been recognized at his side were brutally
tortured to implicate him. Some of them were as follows: Deodato Arellano, Dr. Pio
Valenzuela, Moises Salvador, Jose Dizon, Domingo Franco, and Timoteo Paez. Even his
only brother, Paciano was arrested and inflicted with pains which the latter endured for his
younger brother's sake.
After fishing as much evidence as possible, on November 20, 1896, the preliminary
investigation on Rizal began. During the five-day investigation, Rizal was informed of the
charges against him before Judge Advocate Colonel Francisco Olive. He was put under
interrogation without the benefit of knowing who testified against him. Presented before him
were two kinds of evidences – documentary and testimonial. There were a total of fifteen
exhibits for the documentary evidence. Testimonial evidences, on the other hand, were
comprised of oral proofs provided by Martin Constantino, Aguedo del Rosario, Jose Reyes,
Moises Salvador, Jose Dizon, Domingo Franco, Deodato Arellano, Pio Valenzuela, Antonio
Salazar, Francisco Quison, and Timoteo Paez.
These evidences were endorsed by Colonel Olive to Governor Ramon Blanco who
designated Captain Rafael Dominguez as the Judge Advocate assigned with the task of
deciding what corresponding action should be done. Dominguez, after a brief review,
transmitted the records to Don Nicolas de la Peña, the Judge Advocate General, for an
opinion. Peña's recommendations were as follows:
1. Rizal must be immediately sent to trial
2. He must be held in prison under necessary security
3. His properties must be issued with order of attachment, and as indemnity, Rizal
had to pay one million pesos
4. Instead of a civilian lawyer, only an army officer is allowed to defend Rizal.

Although given with “privilege” to choose his own defense counsel, this was limited to
a list of 100 names – both first and second lieutenants - that the Spanish authorities provided
him. Of the list, one familiar name stood out – Lt. Luis Taviel de Andrade. Rizal discovered
that the said lieutenant was the brother of Lt. Jose Taviel de Andrade who worked as Rizal's
personal body guard in Calamba in 1887.
On the 11th of December 1896, in the presence of his Spanish counsel, charges
against Rizal were read. When asked regarding his sentiments or reaction on the charges,
Rizal replied that:
• He does not question the jurisdiction of the court;
• He has nothing to amend except that during his exile in Dapitan in 1892, he had
not dealt in political matters;
• He has nothing to admit on the charges against him;
 • He had nothing to admit on the declarations of the witnesses, he had not met
nor knew, against him.

Two days after, Rizal's case was endorsed to Blanco's successor, Governor Camilo
de Polavieja, who had the authority to command that the case be court-martialled. On
December 15, inside his cell at Fort Santiago, Rizal wrote the controversial Manifesto
addressed to his countrymen – a letter denouncing bloody struggle, and promoting education
and industry as the best means to acquire independence. However, Judge Advocate General
Nicolas de la Peña requested to Gov. Polavieja that the publication of the manifesto be
prohibited, and so, the governor did.
Accustomed to share the merry season with family, friends and relatives, the 1896
Christmas was indeed, Rizal's saddest. Confined in a dark, gloomy cell, Rizal was in despair
and had no idea of what his fate may be. Under this delusion, he wrote a letter to Lt. Taviel
de Andrade requesting the latter to visit him before his trial for there was a very important
matter they need to discuss. Likewise, Rizal greeted the lieutenant a joyous Christmas.
The next day, December 26, about 8 o'clock in the morning, the court-martial of Rizal
commenced. The hearing was actually a kind of moro-moro – a planned trial wherein Rizal,
before hearing his verdict, had already been prejudged. Unlike other accused, Rizal had not
been allowed to know the people who witnessed against him. The trial took place at Cuartel
de España, a military building, with a court composed of seven military officers headed by Lt.
Col. Jose Togores Arjona. Present at the courtroom were Jose Rizal, the six other officers in
uniform (Capt. Ricardo Muñoz Arias, Capt. Manuel Reguera, Capt. Santiago Izquierdo
Osorio, Capt. Braulio Rodriguez Nuñez, Capt. Manuel Diaz Escribano, and Capt. Fernando
Perez Rodriguez), Lt. Taviel de Andrade, Judge Advocate Capt. Rafael Dominguez, Lt.
Enrique de Alcocer (prosecuting attorney) and a number of spectators, including Josephine
Bracken.
After Judge Advocate Dominguez opened the trial, it was followed by Atty. Alcocer's
reiteration of the charges against Rizal, urging the court that the latter be punished with death.
Accordingly, the three crimes accused to him were rebellion, sedition and illegal association
– the penalty for the first two being life imprisonment to death, while the last, correctional
imprisonment and a charge of 325 to 3,250 pesetas.
Lt. Taviel de Andrade, on the other hand, later took the floor reading his speech in
defense of Rizal. To supplement this, Rizal read his own defense which he wrote in his cell
in Fort Santiago. According to Rizal, there are twelve points to prove his innocence:
1. As testified by Pio Valenzuela, Rizal was against rebellion.
2. He had not written a letter addressed to the Katipunan comprising revolutionary
elements.
3. Without his knowledge, his name was used by the Katipunan; if he really was guilty,
he could have escaped while he was in Singapore.
4. If he was guilty, he should have left the country while in exile; he shouldn't have built
a home, bought a parcel of land or established a hospital in Dapitan.
5. If he was really the leader of the revolution, the revolutionists should have consulted
him.
 6. He did not deny that he wrote the by-laws of the La Liga Filipina, but to make things
clear, the organization was a civic association, not a revolutionary society.
7. After the first meeting of La Liga, the association banished because of his exile in
Dapitan, thus, did not last long.
8. If the La Liga was reorganized nine months later, he had no idea about it.
9. If the La Liga had a revolutionary purpose, then Katipunan should not have been
organized.
10. If the Spanish authorities found his letters having bitter atmosphere, it was because
in 1890 his family was being persecuted resulting to their dispossession of properties
and deportation of all his brothers-in-law.
11. He lived an exemplary life in Dapitan – the politico-military commanders and
missionary priests in the province could attest to that.
12. If according to witnesses the speech he delivered at Doroteo Ongjunco's house had
inspired the revolution, then he want to confront these persons. If he really was for
the revolution, then why did the Katipunan sent an unfamiliar emissary to him in
Dapitan? It is so because all his friends were aware that he never advocated violence.

But the military court remained indifferent to the pleads of Rizal. After a short
deliberation, he was sentenced to be shot in musketry until death at 7 o'clock in the morning
of December 30, 1896 at Bagumbayan. The decision was submitted to Gov. Polavieja who
immediately sought the opinion of Nicolas de la Peña – the latter found the verdict just and
final. Two days later, the governor general signed the court's decision and ordered Rizal's
execution.
Upon hearing the court's decision, Rizal already knew that there's no way that his
destiny would be changed – Rizal knew it was his end, and had accepted his fate. Captain
Rafael Dominguez, at 6 o'clock in the morning of December 29, 1896, read before him the
official notice of his execution, scheduled the next day. Rizal was immediately transferred to
the prison chapel where he spent his last hours on earth.
Inside the chapel, Rizal busied himself by writing correspondences to friends and family,
bidding everyone farewell; and conversing with his Jesuit priests friends. He had a lot of
visitors, arriving one or two after the other:
• Fr. Miguel Saderra Mata – the Rector of the Ateneo Municipal; arrived in the prison
early in the morning.
• Fr. Luis Viza – came with Fr. Mata; the priest to whom Rizal asked for the image of
the Sacred Heart of Jesus which he made during his stay in Ateneo.
• Fr. Antonio Rosell – another friend of Rizal who gladly eaten a fine breakfast with him;
returned in the afternoon to resume his talk with Rizal.
• Lt. Taviel de Andrade – Rizal extended his appreciation for Andrade's services as his
defense counsel.
• Fr. Federico Faura – had prophesied earlier rather comically that Rizal would lose his
head for writing the Noli Me Tangere, and the latter “congratulated” the priest for being
right.
• Fr. Jose Villaclara – Rizal's former teacher in Ateneo; ate lunch with him.
• Fr. Vicente Balaguer – accompanied Fr. Villaclara; ate Luch with Rizal as well.
• Santiago Mataix – contributor in the El Heraldo de Madrid
 • Teodora Alonzo – Rizal knelt before his beloved mother, begging for forgiveness and
understanding; the mother and son were separated by the strong grip of the prison
guard.
• Trinidad – arrived when Teodora left the chapel; to her, Rizal handed down an alcohol
cooking stove and whispered that something was inside it (turned out to be his last
piece, the Mi Ultimo Adios, written in a small piece of paper).
• Gaspar Castaño – fiscal of the Royal Audiencia; had a good conversation with Rizal.

Late at night, around 10 o'clock, a retraction letter prepared by Archbishop Bernardino

Nozaleda was presented to Rizal, however, he rejected it for being too long. Fr. Balaguer, on
the other hand, showed another draft from Fr. Pio Pi, which Rizal liked but wanted some parts
of which be changed. By 11:30pm, Rizal wrote and signed the retraction letter in which he
renounced the mason movement – witnesses to this event were Juan del Fresno (Chief of
the Guard Detail) and Eloy Moure (Assistant of the Plaza). Rizal then confessed to Fr.
Villaclara, and after which, slept. Two hours later, he rose up and prayed and confessed
again. Inside the chapel, he knelt before the altar and prayed with the rosary. He, for the third
time, confessed to Fr. Villaclara and once finished, read Imitacíon de Cristo by Tomas á
Kempis.
At 3:30 in the morning of December 30, 1896, Fr. Balaguer led a mass – Rizal, once
again, made a confession and received Communion. At 5:00am, he ate his last breakfast and
autographed some memorabilia including religious pictures and books which will be passed
on to his mother, and her sister, Trinidad. Accompanied by his sister Narcisa, Josephine
Bracken arrived and as requested by Rizal, the couple was canonically blessed as husband
and wife by Fr. Balaguer. To Josephine, Rizal gave the Imitacíon de Cristo as wedding gift.
For the last time, he wrote a letter to his parents, Ferdinand Blumentritt and Paciano.
By 6:30am, Rizal's march to Bagumbayan commenced. He – in his black suit, black
necktie, black hat, black shoes and white vest – calmly walked from his prison cell in Fort
Santiago to the execution site, with Lt. Taviel de Andrade on one side, and Fathers Estanislao
March and Jose Villaclara, on the other side. They walked behind four advanced guards
armed with bayonets.
Jose Rizal was tied behind from elbow to elbow, although, still had the freedom to move
his arms. In his right arm was a rosary which he kept on holding until his final breath. Meters
before the execution place, a number of spectators awaited Rizal. During his long march,
Rizal saw familiar faces and places; he spent his time reminiscing his childhood, the fun he
had with his family and friends.
In the Bagumbayan Field, Rizal shook the hands of the two priests and his defender,
bidding them farewell. A priest blessed and offered him a crucifix which he gently kissed.
Rizal had one request, that is, that he be shot facing the firing squad, however, in vain since
the captain of the squad ordered a back shot. As such, Rizal had no choice but to turn his
back. A physician by the name of Dr. Felipe Ruiz Castillo, was amazed that Rizal's vital signs
were normal, particularly his pulse rate – was Rizal really unafraid to die?
The firing squad was commanded in unison with drumbeats. Upon the brisk command
“Fire!” the guns of the squad flared. Rizal, by his sheer effort and remaining energy, twisted
his body around to face the firing squad, and so, fell on the ground with his face toward the
blue sky, his head slightly inclined toward the rising sun in the east. What can be heard from
the crowd of Spaniards was their loud, audible voice, shouting “Long live Spain! Death to
traitors!” Jose Rizal died at exactly 7:03 in the morning of December 30.
Lastly, from his country and people he wanted no monument but only a simple
remembrance, a prayer for his repose. Once more Rizal recalled how he worked to arouse
among his people the desire to improve themselves, how he stirred them into action to unite
and to plan among themselves so that they could effectively work for reforms. He thought of
the ideas and principles he had written which he has now bequeathing to his people. Faith,
he remembered, inspired and impelled him to take on the self-imposed mission of working
for his country’s redemption, faith in his fellowmen, faith in his country, faith that someday
freedom, progress, and prosperity would be theirs to enjoy. He was bequeathing this sense
of faith to his people. He wanted them to have faith in themselves, faith in their country, faith
in the future. He wanted this message relayed from generation to generation (Glomar, et al.)

Sources

Coates, A. (1969). Rizal: Philippine nationalist and martyr. Hong Kong u.a.: Oxford Univ. Pr.

Glomar, S., Navela, G., & Sorilla, R. (2018). Analysis: Heroic Leadership and Farewell of
Rizal. Manila: University of Santo Tomas.

Ileto, R. C. (1998). Rizal and the Underside of Philippine History. In Filipinos and their
revolution: Event, discourse, and historiography (pp. 29-78). Quezon City: Ateneo de
Manila University Press.
https://www.academia.edu/19257992/Rizal_and_the_Underside_of_Philippine_History
_re_scan_

Quibuyen, F. C. (2008). Chapter 4. Biography and History. In A nation aborted: Rizal,

American hegenomy, and Philippine nationalism (pp. 103-134). Quezon City: Ateneo
de Manila University Press.

Sustrina, M. (2016). Petition-for-the-Pardon-of-Riza1.docx - Petition for the Pardon of Rizal

In the midst of Rizals agony of waiting for his impending execution he afforded: Course
Hero. Retrieved July 13, 2020, from
https://www.coursehero.com/file/31054338/Petition-for-the-Pardon-of-Riza1docx/