SOCSCI 1100: READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Reading 1:
THE RIZAL RETRACTION AND OTHER CASES
by Peter Jaynul V. Uckung

The flow of history is as inexorable as the tidal flow of an angry ocean. But ever so often
in our collective recollection, it is remembered that sometimes the skilful use of forgery can
redirect the flow of history itself.

In the Philippines today, forgery is usually resorted to redirect the flow of money from the
rightful beneficiary to the unworthy pockets of invisible people.

That money is usually the target of forgery is known and practiced all over the world, but
forgery in the hands of the wily, has power to effect a redirection of events and undoing of history.
It has the power to obscure or belie an occurrence or create an event that did not actually transpire.
It also has the power to enslave and destroy.

In October 1600, the Muslim Ottoman Army and a Christian army, led by Austrians, with
Hungarian, French, Maltese and German troops were battling it out for territory called Kanizsa.
The Ottoman army was outgunned and outmanned, but the Ottoman commander, Tiryaki Hasan
Pasha was a clever man. He knew that the Hungarians were not too happy to be allied with the
Austrians. So he sent fake letters, designed them to be captured by the Austrians. The letters
contained Hungarian alliance with Ottoman forces. The Austrian upon reading the fake letters
signed by a reliable source (obviously forged) decided to kill all Hungarian soldiers.

The Hungarians revolted and the Christian army disintegrated from within. Thus, did the
Ottomans won the battle, by issuing forged communication.

During World War II, the British, to protect the secrecy of the Allied plan to invade Sicily
in 1943, launched operation Mincemeat. This was a deception campaign to mislead German
Intelligence about the real target of the start of the Allied Invasion of Europe.
 SOCSCI 1100: READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

A series of seemingly genuine secret documents, with forged signatures, were attached to
a British corpse dressed in military uniforms. It was left to float somewhere in a beach in Spain,
where plenty of German agents were sure to get hold of it.

The body with the fake documents was found eventually and its documents seen by
German agents. The documents identified Sardinia and Corsica as the targets of the Allied
invasion. The Germans believed it, and was caught with their pants down when allied forces hit
the beaches of the real target, which was Sicily.

This kind of deception was also used by the British against the Germans in North Africa.
They placed a map of British minefields, then attached them to a corpse. The minefields were non-
existent but the Germans saw the map and considered it true. Thus, they rerouted their tanks to
areas with soft sand where they bogged down.

In 1944, a Japanese sea plane crashed near Cebu. According to Japanese military officials
who were captured, and later released, they were accompanying Gen. Koga, Commander in Chief
of the Japanese Combined Fleet. Gen. Koga died in the crash. A little later, Filipino fisherman
recovered some Japanese documents. They delivered the documents to US Intelligence. The
documents revealed that Leyte was lightly defended. As a result, the Americans shifted their
invasion target to Leyte instead of Cotabato Bay in Mindanao.

On October 17, 1944 the invasion of Leyte went underway. Leyte was lightly defended as
the Koga papers have indicated. But it was during the invasion of Leyte when the Japanese navy
launched their last offensive strike against the US fleet, with the objective of obliterating it once
and for all. They nearly succeeded. After this near-tragic event, the Koga papers were considered
by some military strategists as spurious and could have been manufactured by the Japanese to
mislead the American navy into thinking that Leyte was a defenceless island. That Leyte was a
trap. And the Americans nearly fell into it.

In recent memory, there was an incident in which the forging of documents served to
negate the existence of an independent Philippines.

In 1901, the Americans managed to capture a Filipino messenger, Cecilio Segismundo who
carried with him documents from Aguinaldo. The American then faked some documents complete
 SOCSCI 1100: READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

with forged signature, telling Aguinaldo that some Filipino officers were sending him guerrillas
with American prisoners. With the help of a Spanish traitor, Lazaro Segovia, the Americans
assembled a company of pro-American Filipino soldiers, the Macabebe scouts. These were the
soldiers who penetrated the camp of Aguinaldo, disguised as soldiers of the Philippine Republic.
They managed to capture Aguinaldo. With the president captured, his generals began to surrender,
and the Republic began to fall.

The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated as to its
authenticity.

It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were
many witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13,
1935. It was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the
original document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it.

However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, the retraction of
Rizal was copied verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found
the original document, also copied it verbatim.

In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to this the date of
the signing was very clear in the original Spanish document which Rizal supposedly signed. The
date was “December 29, 1890.”

Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears the date “December 29,
189C”. The number “0” was evidently altered to make it look like a letter C. Then still later,
another supposedly original version came up. It has the date “December 29, 1896”. This time, the
“0” became a “6”.

So which is which?

Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document, reported that the
forger of Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano
Lacuna, which was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and
 SOCSCI 1100: READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Rizal’s signature forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were approached by Spanish friars during the
final day of the Filipino-American war to forge Rizal’s signature.

This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale from Roman Roque
himself, them being neighbours.

To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the forest of the night.

Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal was invented by the friars
to deflect the heroism of Rizal which was centered on the friar abuses.

Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who copied verbatim Rizal’s retraction, also figured prominently
during the revolution. It was him, Andres Bonifacio reported, who had intimated to Aguinaldo the
cessation of agitation in exchange of pardon.

There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of Josephine Bracken,
written on February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged badly. The document supposedly written
by Josephine herself supported the fact that they were married under the Catholic rites. But upon
closer look, there is a glaring difference between the penmanship of the document, and other letters
written by Josephine to Rizal.

Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though Rizal is a hero, whether he
retracted or not, we must investigate if he really did a turn-around. If he did not, and the documents
were forgeries, then somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.
 SOCSCI 1100: READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

Reading 2:
DID RIZAL CONSIDER RETRACTING
WHILE IN DAPITAN?
by Bryan Anthony C. Paraiso

Akin to walking on a mine field, the issue of José Rizal’s alleged retraction of his religious
errors stirs up the emotions of historians, flaring up into fiery debates between the pros and cons,
without any resolution in sight.

The thought of a disavowal of his beliefs is almost sacrilegious and improbable to Rizal’s
character and vehemence against oppression, as evidenced by a letter to Mariano Ponce on April
18, 1889: “…At the sight of those injustices and cruelties…I swore to devote myself to avenge
one day so many victims, and with this idea in mind I have been studying and this can be read in
all my works and writings. God will someday give me an opportunity to carry out my promise.”

Of the religious orders, he writes: “…the friars are not what they pretend to be nor are they
ministers to Christ, the protector of the people, nor the support of the Spanish government…Don’t
they show cruelty? Don’t they instigate the government against the people? Don’t they manifest
terror? Where are sanctity, protection, and force?”

Rizal knew that his crusade might end in death, but revealed that he was unsure of his
reaction: “…no one knows how one should behave at that supreme instant, and perhaps I myself
who preach and brag so much might manifest more fear and less energy than (Fr. Jose) Burgos at
that critical moment.”

Arguments on the retraction revolve around the veracity of the confession Rizal
purportedly signed prior to his execution and testimonies of several witnesses who had seen the
act carried out.

However, if Rizal did retract, when did he come to this decision? Was he weary of the
struggle that he decided to give in to the continuous urgings of the Jesuit fathers who were present
 SOCSCI 1100: READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

at his death cell? Or is it possible that Rizal had ruminated on retracting while still on exile in
Dapitan?

Noted historian Fr. Jose Arcilla’s monumental multi-volume Jesuit Missionary Letters
from Mindanao contains several letters of the Jesuit Antonio Obach to his Mission Superior, which
may shed light on this matter. Obach wrote on July 28, 1895: “Rizal has just seen me and said
(what has been jumping from mouth to mouth of some who heard it from him), ‘Father Antonio,
I no longer want further battles with the friars, but live and work in peace.’

‘What you ought to do is retract all your errors and you will be at peace.’
‘I am ready to do what Your Reverence says, but under certain conditions.’
I gave him a pen and paper for him to write these conditions. In his own hand and style, he
wrote: ‘Conditions I ask to retract references to the matter of the friars, and no longer meddle
with them.’ —José Rizal

1. His freedom
2. Return to his family what has been confiscated or give its equivalent.
3. P50,000 to start a business to support himself

On fulfillment of these conditions, Rizal will write to the bishop.”

Does this letter provide irrefutable proof that Rizal had decided on retracting beforehand?
What is intriguing is that he had arrived at this decision, evidently, to spare his family from further
suffering and maltreatment.

Fr. Obach continues: “…Rizal says his family owned two houses of heavy materials, and
he asks that they be returned or their equivalent…I answered that the only thing I could do was to
look into the situation and if there is no difficulty, for I do not know how things are…As for the
third, I said that I do not think they would give him such a big amount. His plan…is to raise a huge
cement plant which, on a small scale…has been quite successful. But this third condition is not
important, for without it, he is ready to make a retraction provided his family is provided for.
Besides, if they grant him this amount, it would be on condition that he repays it.”

Obach’s letter also details Rizal’s initiative of opening a wholesale store in Dapitan to
compete with the Chinese traders, “who do nothing but cheat the Indios.” In fact, Rizal had
 SOCSCI 1100: READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

prepared the statutes and regulations of the Society of Dapitan Agriculturists, aiming to facilitate
the easy buying, selling, and storage of products for export, and curtailing the trade monopoly of
the Chinese.

Obach believed that they had successfully persuaded Rizal to turn away from his errors: “I
am convinced that Rizal is now tired and wants to retract, but his pride strongly holds him back…I
think he will immediately break away from everything and he would be an excellent Christian.”

In a letter on the following day, Obach reports: “Regarding the letter I sent to Your
Reverence which contains Rizal’s retraction. I would ask you to send me a model retraction…In
demanding that Rizal indicate what has been taken from his family, perhaps it will be humiliating
for the Dominican Fathers. Rizal refuses, because in this way they will (have) him bound more
tightly under obligation. On the other hand, retracting is acknowledging his errors, and so it is his
turn to humble himself…I await your letter which I can read to Rizal to convince him what is
better to do for God’s greater glory.”

By August 28, 1895, Obach recounted that Rizal requested for a detailed account of his
errors: “…Rizal came and asked me if I could draw up a list of his errors. ‘You can tell Fr. Ricart,
I am ready to write, and tell him that I myself will retract all errors I may have committed against
the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church in my writings, and that he can make this same
retraction public in the manner he wants.’ But with this he stands to lose everything…”

Obach wrote that Rizal insisted that he and his family should receive some form of
compensation for all the troubles they endured: “But on condition that they give me P50,000 since
I have no means to support myself in decency, and with that amount I could bring my parents with
me anywhere.” He no longer talks of machines and cement, and so on, and he thinks that this
amount is owed him because of the harm inflicted on him.”

Are Father Antonio Obach’s letters a reliable source about Rizal’s situation? Will these
revelations provide new clues to his frame of mind during the few hours before his death? The
mystery of Rizal’s retraction deepens.