TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

MODULE 11

HISTORICAL
CONTROVERSY:
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE USER:

1. The user is to study this module at his own pace within the time frame set by the
instructor. Check the OBTL syllabus for guidance.
2. Video links for subtopics are also provided in this module.
3. References, Supplemental and Additional readings are also given for further
understanding and appreciation of the lesson.
4. Self-Check Test are also available for student’s self-assessment. Respective
instructors may ask the students to submit answers via agreed platforms

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1. Demonstrate to the ability to use primary sources to argue in favor or against a

particular issue
2. Reexamine the conflicting evidence of the Cavite Mutiny..
3. Be able present a stand based on available facts, data and evidence.
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872
Many believe that the Cavite Mutiny of January 20, 1872 was the beginning of Filipino
nationalism that would eventually lead to the Philippine Revolution of 1896. This phenomenon
was an uprising of military personnel of Fort San Felipe, the Spanish arsenal in Cavite,
Philippines on January 20, 1872. It was believed that around 200 soldiers and laborers rose up
in in arms against the Spanish colonizers. Participants were executed and there was a
crackdown on the beginnings of the sentiments of nationalism.
The crackdown led to the execution of the – Gomburza - or the three priests Mariano Gómez,
José Apolonio Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, three Filipino priests who were executed on 17
February 1872 at Bagumbayan (present-day Luneta) in Manila by Spanish colonial authorities
on charges of subversion arising from the 1872 Cavite mutiny. Eventually considered as
martyrs, their execution left a profound effect on many Filipinos including José Rizal, who would
dedicated his 2nd novel El Filibusterismo, done in 1891, to their memory.

The issue on the Cavite Mutiny lies on the interpretation of the real cause of the Mutiny. For the
Spanish perspective, Jose Montero y Vidal, a Spanish historian documented the event and
highlighted it as an attempt of indios or natives to overthrow the Spanish Government in the
Philippines. On the other hand, Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo made use of this to
implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization, thus the arrest
and execution of the Gomburza.

Spanish sources would emphasize that the main reason of the revolution are the abolition of
privileges of the workers in the arsenal of Cavite. Izquierdo reported to the King of Spain that
the 'rebels' wanted to overthrow the Spanish government. The three martyrs were executed to
instill fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again.

John N. Schumacher in his article, “The Cavite Mutiny: An Essay On The Published Sources”
(1972) stated the following:

1. The account of Jose Montero y Vidal, a Spanish official in Manila at the time, is the
fullest account of the mutiny itself. It embodies the official interpretation of the mutiny
in Cavite as part of a general revolt directed by the three priests and their lay and
clerical colleagues in Manila and Cavite, having as its aim the assassination of the
Governor-General and a general massacre of all Spaniards. Published only in 1895,
at the height of the Filipino nationalist campaign, Montero's account is strongly
hostile to Filipino reformist aspirations, has no doubt of the guilt of those executed or
exiled, and places much of the blame for the revolt of 1872 on the alleged tolerance
of Governor- General Carlos Maria de la Torre in the period 1869-1871.”
2. “The account of Pardo de Tavera was originally written for the official report of the
census of 1903, as part of a general survey of Philippine history.:" 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 event the conservative elements in Manila, includ- ing the friars, took 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 inquir- ing carefully into their guilt. Though Pardo makes no
direct mention of my friar conspiracy" 2 bring about the Cavite affair after the fashion
of Regidor, he sees the punishments meted out as the result of a false conviction on
the part of the government that all opponents of the friars were enemies of Spanish
rule, and attributes the disaffection of the Filipinos with Spain which led to the
Revolution of 1896 to this identification of Spanish interests with friar interests
beginning from 1872.”

SUPPLEMENTAL READING: Piedad-Pugay, Chris , “The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite
Mutiny” at { HYPERLINK "http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/" }

THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY

By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay

The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for all the Filipinos. In
this particular day, the entire Filipino nation as well as Filipino communities all over the world
gathers to celebrate the Philippines’ Independence Day. 1898 came to be a very significant
year for all of us— it is as equally important as 1896—the year when the Philippine Revolution
broke out owing to the Filipinos’ desire to be free from the abuses of the Spanish colonial
regime. But we should be reminded that another year is as historic as the two—1872.

Two major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the other was
the martyrdom of the three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose
Burgos and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA). However, not all of us knew that there were
different accounts in reference to the said event. All Filipinos must know the different sides of
the story—since this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of our history—the
execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among
the Filipinos.

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and highlighted it
as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. Meanwhile,
Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event and made use of it to implicate
the native clergy, which was then active in the call for secularization. The two accounts
complimented and corroborated with one other, only that the general’s report was more spiteful.
Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the
workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-payment of tributes and exemption from force labor were
the main reasons of the “revolution” as how they called it, however, other causes were
enumerated by them including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty
propagandas proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and
pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native clergy who
out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the rebels and enemies
of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for “stockpiling” malicious
propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels”
wanted to overthrow the Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the likes of Fathers
Burgos and Zamora. The general even added that the native clergy enticed other participants
by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight will not fail because God is with them
coupled with handsome promises of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the
army. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios as gullible and possessed an innate
propensity for stealing.

The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought of
it as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers,
residents of Manila and Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators of
Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be followed by the
massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and
Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros.

According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc
celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast celebrated the
occasion with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as
the sign for the attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent headed by
Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish officers at sight and seized the
arsenal.

When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the reinforcement
of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the
expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators including Sergeant
Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and
were sentenced to die by strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma.
Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High
Court) from the practice of law, arrested and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the
Marianas Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and
ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill

fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the GOMBURZA
were executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that shaped
Filipino nationalism.

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident

Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the
Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident was a mere
mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be
dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo’s cold-
blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges of the workers and native army members of
the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of school of arts and trades for the Filipinos,
which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization of a political club.
 On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and
residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the
commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support from
the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny reached
authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement of Spanish
troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.

Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a powerful
lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native army but also
included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the
Spanish government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central
Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and management of educational
institutions. This turnout of events was believed by Tavera, prompted the friars to do something
drastic in their dire sedire to maintain power in the Philippines.

Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain

welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of
sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree proposed
to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in such
schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was warmly received by
most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.

The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took
advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy
organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera
sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the scheme was true without
any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged “revolution” reported by
Izquierdo and the friars.

Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life imprisonment
while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by
garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of
Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund Plauchut’s account complimented
Tavera’s account by confirming that the event happened due to discontentment of the arsenal
workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of
the three martyr priests which he actually witnessed.

Unraveling the Truth

Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that
remained to be unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the arsenal as
well as the members of the native army after their privileges were drawn back by Gen. Izquierdo;
Second, Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid and strict policies that made the Filipinos move and
turn away from Spanish government out of disgust; Third, the Central Government failed to
conduct an investigation on what truly transpired but relied on reports of Izquierdo and the friars
and the opinion of the public; Fourth, the happy days of the friars were already numbered in
1872 when the Central Government in Spain decided to deprive them of the power to intervene
in government affairs as well as in the direction and management of schools prompting them to
commit frantic moves to extend their stay and power; Fifth, the Filipino clergy members actively
participated in the secularization movement in order to allow Filipino priests to take hold of the
parishes in the country making them prey to the rage of the friars; Sixth, Filipinos during the time
were active participants, and responded to what they deemed as injustices; and Lastly, the
execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of the Spanish government, for the action
severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired Filipino patriots to call for reforms
and eventually independence. There may be different versions of the event, but one thing is
certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898.

The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and
unnamed shed their bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898 may be
a glorious event for us, but we should not forget that before we came across to victory, our
forefathers suffered enough. As weenjoy our freeedom, may we be more historically aware of
our past to have a better future ahead of us. And just like what Elias said in Noli me Tangere,
may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”

ATTENTION!!!
Before you go to the next module, PLEASE SEE ACTIVITY 11 on page 47

GOOD LUCK!!! �

REFERENCES:
Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 (Zaide 1990, vol 7, pp
274-280)
Jose Montero y Vidal, Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 (Zaide 1990, vol 7, pp269-
273)
Rafael Izquirdo, Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny (Zaide 1990, vol 7, pp 281-286)