lOMoARcPSD|11718309

DEBATE NG CAVITE MUTINY (SPANISH VS FILIPINO VER.)

1st speaker: The 1872 Cavite Mutiny was an important event that has happened in Philippine history.
This mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898, the year the Philippines acquired its Independence. The
mutiny also awakens the nationalist and patriot hearts of Filipinos which encouraged them to fight for
their independence.
We the affirmative section believe that the Filipino version of Cavite Mutiny is more reliable and as
the first speaker I will tackle various reasons why Filipino version is more acceptable. The first reason is
based on the account of Edmund Plauchut a French adventurer and a journalist, vice president of the board of
directors of Association Internationale des Philippinistes in Paris who was then residing in Manila and a
witnessed of GOMBURZA execution, who wrote an account in the Parisian periodical Revue des deux
mondes (Review of the Two Worlds) about the event which was then published in La Solidaridad in 1892. This
makes his account a primary source because he is present in the said event and thus reliable and has credibility.
His version of the mutiny stated that the uprising was because of the labor dispute and unfair decisions of
the Governor General regarding the tributes and forced labor and that the three martyr priests were
innocent and even included in his account of the then secret letter of Archbishop Meliton Martinez to the
Spanish Regent, written in 1870, which contains the reasons for the protest.

Additionally, he refers to the three priests on their way to execution as being cheered by the
Filipinos as “those who were going to die for having dreamed of the independence of their country” as
well as the conversation of Bosaca, the executioner of Gomez and Padre Gomez and after the said protest,
Plauchut continued to relay that the Archbishop of Manila sent an invitation to P. Jose Burgos and his
friends to sign a pledge of fidelity and loyalty to Spain. The second reason is the account of Dr. Trinidad
Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher. His version corroborated with Plauchut’s
version that the mutiny was because of the dissatisfaction of Filipinos with the abolition of their privileges
and that just reacted to the harsh policy of the new governor-general, Rafael de Izquierdo, who whimsically
terminated the old-time privileges such as the exemption from paying annual tribute and from rendering
forced labor or Polo y Servicio and not to overthrow the Spanish rule. They are too abusive of their power
because they knew that we do not have the power to fight. We Filipino are called Indios and know
nothing but when it comes to rights, we fight for it. Spaniards are taking advantage of us in our own land.
We are forced to do labors and everything is not enough for them and that was really injustice. Because of
this, the will of the Filipinos to fight for their freedom got stronger that they initiate an uprising. Maybe
this uprising is not a good way on fighting for what is right and just but Filipinos left with no choice but
to fight and give a shot in fighting their work. Filipinos spread out the wrongdoings of Spanish. But is it
bad to fight for your rights more especially to your own country whether you know from the start you
have small chances on winning it? If only the Spanish treat us fairly, there will be no mutiny but since
they are unfair it forces the Filipino to do what they think is right. I do not speak because I am a Filipino
but to the fact how Spanish see us as a laborer and not a human. Yes, we do not have the power to rule
our country, accept it or not we have nothing to do with it but manipulating us in our own land, that was
too much. They are greedy! We Filipinos do not deserve this, we are humans. In conclusion, I stand and
believe at the version of the Filipino.

Interpolation (1st Speaker Negative): she stated the account of Plauchut. Although his version was
considered as first-account, his version only focuses on the execution of the GomBurZa and not entirely
the reason of the mutiny. Secondly, his version shows that the author signified disagreement to the
 lOMoARcPSD|11718309

Spanish authorities in handling the situation and affairs of the Filipino. Furthermore, the first speaker also
mentioned about the secret letter. It is questionable on how could he have known of this given that he is a
Frenchman and just a mere resident of Manila Could it be possible that he just made it up? Or he has
somebody supplying this knowledge to him? I don’t know. Was this document known to the public?
Lastly, how could he have written the conversations of Boscasa and Padre Gomez in detailed format,
when in fact there was none allowed inside the chapel aside from the Filipino priests and a few recollect
friars and given the noise during the execution, it would be impossible to hear such conversation.

Constructive Speech (1st Speaker Negative): Because of these, we, the opposition side stand that the
Spanish version is more reliable. This house believes that the Cavite mutiny was an uprising by the
Filipinos against the Spanish government. The Filipinos so clearly revolted out of their own free will.
Although it may seem like it was because of the abolition of benefits, written evidence by Jose Montero y
Vidal, a Spanish official in Manila at the time, an expert Spanish historian who highlighted the Filipinos’
attempt to overthrow the Spanish government is the fullest account of the mutiny itself. The writings
show that a Spanish sergeant reported the plot of the Filipinos. He discovered this through his lover and
immediately reported it to Izquierdo. Izquierdo also received other anonymous reports that put him on
high alert even before the mutiny. According to him, the event was premeditated and the primary
instigator were the three priests ― GOMBURZA, and its caused was not only just because of the
uplifting of the tax exemptions to the laborers of the Cavite Arsenal but also a revolt to overthrow the
Spanish rule from assassination of the Governor-General to general massacre of all Spaniards including
the friars. Additionally, from the records of Schumacher, the populating reason behind the Cavite Mutiny
is just clothing. The idea that the arsenals and workers have initiated the uprising because of labor issues
is not the true reason. In fact, the event was planned with the goal of pulling off power the Spanish
officials and the secularization. It has been told the Filipino force has connived with the other troops in
Manila for greater force. However, the expected additional force from Manila did not happen. All
Spaniards were to be killed, including the friars, except the women, and they would proclaim the
independence of the country. Now isn’t this an act of revolution? Involving innocents in such mutiny is
clearly a revolt to overthrow the Spanish regime. Meanwhile, the interesting part of this event is that the
troops involved in the mutiny were not all Filipinos. In fact, Spaniards in the identity of Montesinos and
Morquecho have participated in this activity. The first speaker of the affirmative side mentioned the
account of Pardo de Tavera stating that Pardo denies that there was any plot to overthrow Spanish rule,
and sees the Cavite Mutiny simply as an uprising due to the disaffection of the arsenal workers who had
been deprived of their traditional exemption from tribute and the Filipino troops who sympathized with
them. This is wrong because the conspiracy had been going with utmost secrecy since the days of Liguria
who served as governor-general of the Philippines from 1869 to 1871 and is considered to be the most
beloved of the Spanish governor's general ever assigned in the Philippines. Take also as proof that those
who had expressed reformist or anti-friar sentiments under the governorship of De la Torre were plotting
to overthrow Spanish sovereignty. Hence they persuaded the government to inflict severe and exemplary
punishments on all kinds of people without inquiring carefully into their guilt. We should not believe
everything we read just because it was taken by our own race. In conclusion as your first speaker of the
opposition team believe that the side of Spanish is more reliable than what the Filipino version has been
saying thank you.

Interpolation (1st Speaker- Positive): the account of Montero that the speaker of the opposition
 lOMoARcPSD|11718309

mentioned, although considered as first account or primary source is a biased one. Given that he is one of
those Spaniards who have position in the government. The data of his account could be one-sided and
bias. He neither considered nor empathized to the general public’s feelings. He was a Spaniard and thus
he perceives, represents and stands with the Spanish community. Just because it is a primary source
doesn’t mean that it’s credible. Second, the uprising is not an act of revolt but merely an answer to the
unfair government of the Spaniards. In order to be free from this kind of government, of course you have
to take care of the hindrances. Besides, it is the duty of a true patriot to protect his country from its cruel
government. Lastly, she stated is that the rebels are already planning the uprising even before general
Rafael Izquierdo became the successor of general La Torre. That is wrong because Filipinos did not plan
any uprising even before just like what I said earlier they initiated uprising because it was unfair for them
to work in the amount that will be given to them is not enough for the time that they invest.

2nd speaker constructive Speech (Positive): In line with this we stand that the Filipino version is more
reliable because of the work of Antonio Regidor which appeared in 1900 in the Madrid newspaper
Filipinas ante Europa. Obviously, an account from one of those most involved in the reformist movement
prior to 1872 is of the greatest value from the point of view of the knowledge possessed by its author. He
stated that the mutiny was the result of a plan originating from a meeting of leading friars of all the
orders, at which it was decided to create such an occasion so as to bring about the elimination of the anti-
friar reformists, particularly the leaders of the Filipino secular clergy. The plot is attributed by Regidor to
Fathers Castro and Treserra of the Dominicans, Father Huertas of the Franciscans, Father Herrero of the
Augustinians, and Father Cuartero of the Recoletos. We stand that the Filipino version of Cavite munity
is more reliable and it tells about all the facts and issues that happened in that era, it includes injustices act
that happen when Spaniard killed more than 200 local soldiers including civilians that is not part of the
mutiny just like the GomBurZa. The Spaniards executed the soldiers that has a lower ranking local
soldiers which is Filipino soldiers and the other soldiers that participated in the mutiny that have a high
rank which is the Spaniards because only Spaniards are allowed to sit, led, and to have a higher position
in that time and that is also one of the injustices. The Spaniards don't have a fair treatment to Filipinos.
The higher-ranking Spaniards or officers are thrown away to different countries instead of executing
them, they just thrown away in different countries as a punishment. It shows here the unfair practices and
injustice acts. Filipinos don’t deserve to be treated as a slave, Filipinos are not a tool, if only the
Spaniards gave the all the rights and needs of Filipinos there would not be mutiny or revolution. If only
the Spaniards treated Filipinos fairly and just. As a second speaker i stand and believe at the version of
the Filipino.

Interpolation (2nd Speaker- negative): The second speaker of the affirmative side stated the work of
Antonio Regidor. His assertion is demonstrably not based on facts. For Father Casimiro Herrero, the
Augustinian procurator, was in Spain during this period of 1869-1872 during which the plot was
supposedly being hatched, while the others were in the Philippines. Father Domingo Treserra was indeed
Rector of the University of Santo Tomas at this time, but Father Rafael Castro, O.P., had finished his term
as Provincial of the Dominicans in 1863, shortly after which he suffered a stroke which left him
completely paralyzed, and some time before his death, left him blind as well. Moreover, it seems clearly
to have employed false data to make the friars appear as the instigators of the revolt and of the
punishments meted out to the Filipino reformists. Additionally, you also stated that the Spaniards killed
 lOMoARcPSD|11718309

200 local soldiers. Well clearly that’s because it’s invetable during a revolution. Lastly, you debated that
Spaniards officers are not executed but rather only thrown to different country. That’s wrong because
some of those exiled to other countries are of Filipino blood like Pedro Paterno, and Maximo Paterno and
On February 6, those who were sentenced to death, were later commuted to life imprisonment.

2nd Speaker Constructive Speech (negative): The version of the mutiny from Governor General Raphael
Izquierdo himself makes the Spanish version more reliable. The two accounts complimented and
corroborated with account of Montero. The military events of the mutiny, together with an account of the
nature of the plot behind it, and with his suspicions as to its instigators, are contained in a sixty-page letter
of Izquierdo to the Overseas Minister. Izquierdo's comprehensive account- accompanied by a report to
him of the acting commander of the Navy, detailing its part is of great importance, inasmuch as it is a
confidential letter to a superior, and possesses great credibility for what in fact had happened, on which he
was by this time well informed. There was no reason for him to distort these facts to the Overseas
Minister. According to Izquierdo, the revolt was to begin in the early hours after midnight in Manila, with
the signal to the rebels in Cavite being given by skyrockets. It has been said that the rebels in Cavite
mistook the fireworks from the Sampaloc fiesta for the agreed upon signal. Meanwhile, the interesting
part of this event is that the troops involved in the mutiny were not all Filipinos. In fact, Spaniards in the
identity of Montesinos and Morquecho have participated in this activity most likely out of resentment at
their own imprisonment, especially Montesinos, who had been imprisoned for gambling debts several
times and rearrested after escaping. Their participation in the revolt is a strong argument to support
Izquierdo’s contention that the revolt was not a mere mutiny over grievances, but a revolt intending to
throw off Spanish rule. I also want to emphasize that the two accounts of Montero and the Rafael
Izquierdo suggested that the conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish
officers to be followed by the massacre of the friars. In conclusion, based on the evidence presented, we
stand that the Spanish version is more reliable.

Interpolation (2nd speaker- Positive side): The written account that you mentioned from Izquierdo is
none other than a biased, one-sided version of a story, which of course they would easily consider as an
official statement given that the Spaniards are the ones who rule the government, while the Filipinos are
being oppressed. Also, Izquierdo’s report is unreliable because there are errors on said document just like
how he addresses that the rebels "barely reached 200 men." In his later account, nevertheless, he specified
less: 38 artillerymen and 54 marines. (Mag – add na lang kayo ditto kung gusto nyo )

3rd speaker Constructive Speech (Positive): We, the affirmative side strongly stand the the Filipino
version is more reliable. Our last reason for this is the execution of three priest (GomBurZa). The
Spaniard used this mutiny as a cloth to execute those who are up for governmental reforms like
secularization in which was led by Padre Burgos. The three priests were innocent but were executed. We
are already aware of what all Filipino suffered under the hands of Spaniards rulings which Jose Rizal also
provides evidence about it, providing his books El Filibusterismo and Noli Me Tangere. The Spanish
government did not know and did not want to know anything about the friars in the Philippines. Anyone
who act with contradicting implication about Spain government, considered as personal enemies as
enemies of Spain, handling them over to the constabulary to be tortured. When Father Burgos as the
leader of Filipino secular clergy, appealed to the Spanish throne for the recovery of the parishes which the
Spanish government had taken from them and given to the friars, confining themselves to missionary
 lOMoARcPSD|11718309

work. Although Burgos and his companions, Gomez and Zamora, had worked for the rights, of a
particular class and not of the people as a whole, yet they asked for justice and died for having asked.
Those in authority who refused to do what the friars wished lost their jobs, and the most liberal minister
in Spain, when in powers did whatever, the friars wanted. The friars wanted to make an example of
Burgos and his companions so that the Filipinos should be afraid to go against them from then on. But
that patent injustice, that official crime, aroused not fear but hatred of the friars and of the regime that
supported them, and a profound sympathy and sorrow for the victims. GomBurZa are proud of being
executed disregards the reason that Filipino are with the control of Spaniards but instead they believe that
they are innocent and they believe that by means of their execution, Filipino’s will become free and this
colonization will end. They accept the death, as sentenced with them with their faith.

Interpolation 3rd Speaker Negative: If these priests are with the Spaniards, they should be the first to
report that there was an uprising before the war in Forte even started. Therefore, we can say that the
priests knew something as they were the only ones who had the advocacy to strengthen the power of the
Filipino priests in controlling the church. Aside from this, it seemed impossible that the priests had no
idea even though they were near close to the place where it started. The Governor-General was even the
first to know when there was a war at Forte which was headed by Sgt. Fernando La Madrid. Here, they
killed the Spaniard soldiers but stopped when Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo sent Felipe Ginoves
to suppress and make Forte under the Spaniards again. Because of this, Sgt. La Madrid and his
companions were killed, while some were given the death penalty. At this point, the Spaniards already
know that people will make a move against them.

Constructive Speech 3rd Speaker Negative: We, the opposition side will present our last evidence as to
why the Spanish version of the Cavite Mutiny is more reliable. Our evidence is based on the interrogation
of Sgt. Bonifacio Octavo which can be considered a primary source. From the interrogation of Sgt.
Bonifacio Octavo the following September, it became clear that the revolt had been planned at least as
early as November or December 1871, when Octavo says he was first approached by the marine corporal,
Pedro Manonson, who urged him to give his name to a list on a document urging the Filipino soldiers to
rebel against Spain. Manonson told him that the list had come from the Caviteño civilian, Francisco
Zaldua. Zaldua recruited the soldiers in Cavite, promising them various incentives, and assuring them that
the priests and lawyers were behind the revolt, perhaps even telling them, as claimed that the priests were
offering masses for the success of the revolt and thus it could not fail. From Zaldua they would learn that
the king was to be Burgos, probably including Zamora with him. Behind Zaldua, perhaps paying him for
his activity, were the two Caviteños, Maximo Inocencio and Crisanto de los Reyes, both wealthy men.
From this, we came to an analysis that cruel leaders are replaced only to have new leaders turn cruel. This
definitely happened in the Philippines. Although the revolution of the Filipinos became successful, in
today it is in no denial that we are still in the hands of cruel leaders. In conclusion, although the removal
of the exemption of arsenal workers from the tribute and compulsory labor was not the cause of the
revolt, even though it may have contributed to the unrest. The revolt in Cavite was not a mere mutiny, but
part of a planned conspiracy.

Interpolation 3rd speaker affirmative: The statement of Octavo is from the report of general Izquierdo
which again, cannot be said as reliable because it could be manipulated and one sided. Therefore, we
conclude that the Cavite Mutiny happened because of the unfair labor practices that the Governor General
 lOMoARcPSD|11718309

implemented which then resulted to the uprising of us, Filipinos to fight for our rights and to get our
independence. Thus, we would like to end our stand with a quote from Martin Luther King saying that,
“Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests
itself.”