Propagandista and Deportado: Return to the Motherland, ∗ ca.

Ferdinand C. Llanes
University of the Philippines

Returning as if searching Here for the joyful past Bathing in the waters alert Not to be caught by the seawater1 -P. Dore to Rizal, 1889 This article links the return of the propagandistas from Spain with the "Calamba Period," which the author proposes as a critical period in the shift in the aspirations and strategies of the Spain-based propagandistas, the principales and the Filipino people. The parallels in the lives of the propagandistas as exiles in a foreign land, and those of the deportados as exiles in their own land pointed to the need for a more radical agenda. The significance of the "Calamba Period" and the

Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, Vol. 8, Nos. 1-2, 1999, translated from the original Filipino, which first appeared under the title Propagandista at Deportado: Pagbabalik sa Bayan, ca. 1888-1892 in Maruja M.B. Asis, Editor, Mga Eksilo, Inang Bayan at Panlipunang Pagbabago, University of the Philippines, Center for Integrative and Development Studies in collaboration with Scalabrini Migration Center, Quezon City, 1999.

From a letter by P. Dore (Pedro Serrano Laktaw) to Rizal which he quoted from Francisco Baltazar's Florante at Laura, from the section Kay Celia. The notes about the letters and quotations are from Epistolario Rizalino, unless other sources are cited. The selected quotations (which have been translated by the author into Pilipino from Spanish) were later translated into English for this publication.

political as well as cultural dimensions of the return to the Motherland are elaborated in the article. The desire of the ilustrados in Spain--as students, propagandistas or voluntary exiles---to return to the Philippines in the 19th century was a critical and decisive chapter not only of their sojourn abroad but also of their entire lives. Following the definition of deportation,2 many ilustrados were not forcibly exiled to Europe. Except for a few who were driven by force of circumstances to a life of exile, many left on their own volition to study or to secure reforms for the colony. But while many ilustrados were not strictly exiles, their stay in Europe could be likened to conditions of exile. Primarily their departure and stay in Europe, like deportation, was also due to political oppression in the Philippines, compelling many of them to remain outside the country under conditions that were not far different from experiences of present-day Filipino migrants. The ilustrados were separated from their relatives and countrymen, lived a life mired in poverty in Madrid and Barcelona, and faced an uncertain future in a foreign land. Their decision to return to the Philippines without any meaningful gains in the desired reforms turned out to be a process of reckoning with their deep-seated frustrations. There were two dimensions in the return of the ilustrados. One dimension was the connection between the direction of the Propaganda Movement and events in the Philippines during the 19th century, like those of Calamba from 1888 until 1892. Another was the regular correspondence between the propagandistas and their countrymen about the situation of the colony, especially the conditions of internal political exiles (deportados). Both left a profound impact on the propagandistas' stay in Europe. While the ilustrados of the Propaganda Movement in Spain were pushing for reforms, the reality in the Philippines---violence and deportations from Abra to Jolo--militated against what the ilustrados had hoped for. The Propaganda Movement was rendered irrelevant and weakened not only by Spain's failure to respond to the cries of the Philippines but also by heightened political oppression in the last quarter of the 19th century through massive arrests, detentions and deportations. The thinking and the spirit to return home, as suggested by the letters exchanged between the propagandistas and their relatives and countrymen, was perhaps induced by the futility of fighting for reforms in Spain.


Deportation is the banishment and imprisonment of an individual to a different place, for political reasons or as punishment (Diccionario de la lengua española, 1992).

The letters of Jose Rizal to his relatives and fellow ilustrados are most revealing of the thoughts and sentiments of the propagandistas about the matter of returning to the Philippines. Between 1888 and 1892, the years that I refer to as the "Calamba Period (Llanes, 1998)," 3 there was a change in the content and tenor in the letters written by the propagandistas. What used to be a firm stance in the struggle for reforms in Spain, articulated in the first issue of La solidaridad, was replaced by dejection about the "Calamba Period," when the propagandistas began to realize the failure of the Propaganda Movement. The "Calamba incident,"4 the time when the Calamba townspeople were violently driven away from the Dominican hacienda and when many were deported to Bohol, Mindoro and Jolo, was an eyeopener. The entire legal framework, on which the reform campaign was anchored, crumbled (Llanes, 1997). The letters of the families of the deportados added to the literature of the Propaganda Movement, but the discourse had since lost the hope and optimism in reform. Instead, the letters have assumed a new direction ---the collective desire to return home.

Our Life in the Motherland
In 1891, Rizal wrote in a letter, perhaps to fellow propagandistas, his thinking on the condition of the propagandistas in Europe and its

I propose the "Calamba period" as a new categorization of a chapter during the revolutionary period of the 19th century. For Schumacher (1997) and other historians, the years between 1880 and 1895 are the years of the Propaganda Movement, divided into different stages. Based on my analysis of documents, the years 1888 and 1892 should be treated as a distinct period. This was the time of transistion in the political consciousness of the principales and the ilutrados towards a more revolutionary route as dictated by the conditions in the Philippines at the time. It was during the "Calamba period" when the principales started to protest against the colonial rule. The Calamba incident represented and symbolized the condition in the whole archipelago -and the principales found themselves up against a parliamentary or legal impasse with the colonial government. It became apparent that legal institutions were severely limited in obtaining equal relations between Filipinos and Spaniards. Schumacher and others failed to take into account the events taking place inside the archipelago as a decisive factor in the direction of Filipino society from 1880 to 1890. In particular, the events in the Philippines between 1887 and 1888 were critical in redirecting the framework of the Propaganda Movement, in molding the consciousness of the principales and ilustrados, and the growing realization among the people towards a revolutionary agenda in 1892. The "Calamba period" (which was characterized by conflict over land in Calamba and elsewhere, numerous arrests and deportations, and others) is the real eve of the revolution.

The famous incident in Calamba pertained to the failure of the inquilino or lessee (to which Rizal's clan belonged) and the kasama (tenant farmer) in the hacienda to pay rent to the Dominicans in the years 18871888, which led to their expulsion from tl1e hacienda. They filed a case against the Dominicans which eventually reached the Tribunal Supremo in Madrid. They lost the case and many Calambeños were deported to Bohol, Mindoro and Jolo. The propagandistas took up the issue in their reform campaign in Madrid (Llanes, 1996).

relevance to the country (Fragmentos de una carta de Rizal en tagalo, October 1891). For the first time, he expressed the futility of staying in Europe and the importance of returning to the country. Also a significant shift, an indicator of his going back to his cultural roots, he expressed his sentiments in Tagalog. He said:
If our countrymen are relying on us here in Europe, they are truly mistaken. I don't want to deceive anyone. If we do not have funds, we cannot do much. The support we can extend to them is the life we give to the motherland. The belief of everyone, that we can help from afar, is very mistaken indeed. The cure must be brought closer to the sick. Had I not wanted to shorten my parents' life, I would not have left the Philippines no matter what. The five months that I spent there is a living example, an even better book than the Noli me tangere.5 The Philippines is where the struggle is: we should be there. I hope that God will not allow my parents to die soon so that you may see me back in our country. Let us work together there, let us suffer or succeed together there. Most of our countrymen in Europe are afraid, too far from the fire, brave only in the safe cradle of a peaceful foreign country! The Philippines should not count on us; they should rely on their own strength.

In this statement, offering one's "life to the Motherland" can be construed as having taken root in the consciousness of the propagandistas, deriving perhaps from the limits of reforms in the face of even greater oppression in the Philippines, such as the eviction and deportation of the Calamba townspeople. The Calamba incident had a significant role in changing the direction of the Propaganda Movement. It destroyed the assimilationist infrastructure on which the Propaganda Movement was founded. The propagandistas in Madrid and Barcelona were drawn together in working on the Calamba issue. They lamented the deportation of Rizal's family and townmates such as Francisco Mercado Rizal, Paciano Rizal, Narcisa Rizal, Manuel Timoteo Hidalgo (husband of Saturnina Rizal), Antonino Lopez (husband of Narcisa Rizal) and other people of Calamba, who constantly wrote about their experiences to Rizal. In January 1889, Antonio Luna came to a bleak assessment of the Propaganda Movement's chances for success. He said, "In my opinion, I cannot believe that the Spaniards will grant us the same rights and freedom that they enjoy. Rights are for them; obligations are for us (Antonio Luna to Rizal, 15 January 1889). In 1892, in another letter to

Rizal first returned to the Philippines in 1887, the same year that Noli me tangere was published.

Rizal (8 January 1892), Luna expressed what is possibly the most unequivocal position of the propagandistas on the Calamba incident, which summed up the impact of the episode on their attitude toward reformist work in Spain:
We learned about the Calamba issue and all of the events that happened there and this is what I think. We now need to organize the Filipinos in a different way to prepare them to defend their rights in case they will be subjected to another attack of violence while the campaign for reforms in Madrid continues... Because Spanish politics in the past, now, and in the future, is to rule by force, and to accomplish this, their first step is not to trust the colony. They are very sure about this and that is why Novales6 was forced to rebel and why an uprising broke out in Cavite7 ...We need an assimilationist propaganda but it is even more important that the separatists should be active because if the former cannot be attained or if we can attain it (which is almost impossible), we will be in a worse situation; the practical way is to look for followers who will ease the burden on our shoulders. Thus, I am expounding my idea that we should work together for independence, to become apostles to rouse the people and to raise funds... I will now return to Manila and I will always bear in mind my responsibility as a separatist in all my actions.

The propagandistas vigorously pleaded to the government in Madrid for justice in the hacienda and an end to the deportation of the Calamba townspeople. The letters of Rizal, Teodora Alonso, the women of Calamba, and more importantly, the Asociacion Hispano-Filipina, advanced the legal battle (Llanes, 1997). But these efforts seemed like punches in the air. Succeeding events only resulted in legal failures, possibly the source of the weakening of the parliamentary foundations of the Propaganda Movement. The Calamba incident, being representative or symbolic of the archipelago's general situation, portrayed the disappointment and the pessimism of the propagandistas in how Spain regarded and responded to the lamentation of the Filipinos. From then on, the Propaganda Movement will recede and Antonio Luna's idea of a "new form of struggle" will gain strength.

Andres Novales was a creole who was captain of the Spanish regiment in Manila. In 1823, he was the first creole to protest against the Spanish authorities. He was captured and shot to death for treason against Spain.

This refers to the Cavite Revolt of 1872 by Filipino soldiers in the arsenal of Cavite. Led by Fermin de la Madrid, Filipino soldiers in the arsenal of Cavite rose up to protest the lowering of their wages and the requirement for them to pay tribute.

We need to look back to the Calamba incident to understand the logic of the crumbling of the Propaganda Movement and the return of the propagandistas to the Motherland with a view towards a radical course of action. The opinions of certain people in Calamba provide some assessment of the outcome of the events of 1888 to 1892. Although incomplete, they underscore the legal and parliamentary dimensions of the issues of the Calamba conflict. Paciano, Nicasio Eigasani (said to be a cabeza de barangay) and Felipe Buencamino (lawyer of the people of Calamba) carefully observed, monitored and participated in the twists and turns of the Calamba townspeople's legal struggle. It is true that the Calamba issue was local, but the issues that it brought out were national in scope such as the issue of rent in the haciendas and the deportations carried out from the Ilocos region to Moro territory. Thoughts on the legality of the Calamba issue came to the fore in the years 1890 and 1891. In one letter, Paciano related to his brother Jose the step-by-step legal process they went through in their case against the Dominicans. In 1889, they still nurtured hopes in Madrid. But Paciano had already lost faith in the lower court. At the outset, he said they were hoping for a favorable decision because the Leyes de Indias was on the side of the Calamba townspeople. He was probably referring to the law which stipulated that nobody has the right to collect rent in the absence of proof of land ownership, the basis of the legal struggle of the Calamba townspeople. He said the amount involved as basis for eviction was far less in comparison with what the friars were claiming in the case. This was so because the friars wanted to possess the entire Calamba and they claimed that they were the first to occupy it and therefore had the right to own it on account of the kasamas’ silence. But Paciano already anticipated that they would lose in the first and second levels of the court because the judges were afraid of the friars' intrigues. According to him, the Governor recommended that the hacienda be made to win in this case lest the friars sow conflict in the province (Paciano to Rizal, 27 May 1890). Buencamino provided Rizal a broader and more systematic account of the legal process. He said it would be difficult for the Calamba townspeople to appeal the case because of its profound implications. According to him:
The conclusion of this litigation will be legal chaos. The friars will not be able to prove their land ownership in Calamba but your townmates will also not be able to prove their right to it. The reality is that the historical fact of renting land and the narrow provisions of the law allow both parties to file a petition in court,

first, to enforce evictions, and second, to determine the ownership (Felipe Buencamino to Rizal, 7 February 1891).

During the entire course of the case, Buencamino only managed to stress the matter of form or technicality rather than its essence. In one instance, he questioned the summons and the case against two particular women from Calamba who did not secure their husbands' consent (on the case) as required by law. In another instance, he sought to nullify the notice for eviction because the date of its publication was incorrect, a day after the hearing of the case had been suspended. In general, Buencamino succeeded in suspending all the cases and coming up with a compromise offer to resolve the conflict under the following conditions: 1) recognition of ownership of the home lots occupied by the townspeople; 2) verification of land titles; 3) allowing the return of the deportados to their homes while the negotiations were ongoing; 4) providing for just conditions of rent where the titles had been found to be legal; 5) payment of all debts up until the negotiation date. But this was in 1891. The banishment and deportation had already been implemented in 1890. Buencamino's narration to Rizal was tinged with sadness. He said, "My impressions are very sad. I wanted to spare you the bitterness of knowing about these things." He said that he no longer hoped for anything more. In his opinion, the eviction cases will go on; the Calamba townspeople only had some respite to harvest their crops and to muster strength for the next struggle. But he saw that his townmates were already getting weary (with the litigation and anxieties). He emphasized the difficulty of the case not only in the legal aspect but also because of "complications of particular significance arising from the ill intentions of the other party" (Buencamino to Rizal, 7 February 1891). An account of the complications "of particular significance" will flow in Tagalog from the pen of Eigasani. The fundamental issue was the management of the hacienda and the town. During the legal battle, the kasamas were not allowed to harvest their crop and were even accused of stealing palay. Meanwhile, the parish priests went around the inquillinos threatening to deport them if they will not pay rent. In their homilies, the friars sowed the intrigue that the inquilinos' refusal to pay rent was the cause of the town's economic hardship. They should pay rent "because your Don Jose (Rizal) had failed" and the Supreme Tribunal did not grant him a reconsideration. Aside from forcing them to pay rent, Eigasani related the appointment of a justice of peace not nominated by the people but was simply placed in position by the Dominicans to file eviction cases against the inquilinos; all the cases filed against the Dominicans lost (Nicasio Eigasani to Rizal and Marcelo H. Del Pilar, 14 January 1891). To summarize, the complication was evident in the inquilinos' non-payment of land rent

on the one hand, and the friars' insistence of their position in the hacienda and authority in the town, on the other. The foundations of the law, as Buencamino said, were inherently limited. In this regard, the legal basis of land ownership was ambiguous, and this held not only in Calamba but also throughout the entire archipelago. The legal complications were significant in the battle for the hacienda in Calamba. First and foremost, the friars grabbed these lands from farmers in the old days, who were not aware of the legalities of land ownership. Second, the exactions of rent and other taxes were arbitrary and excessive and were way beyond the capacity of the inquilinos and kasamas to pay apart from the fact that they were the ones who invested labor and money to develop the hacienda. Third, because of the ambiguous basis of land ownership, religious orders gained incomprehensible powers to evict the lessees and tenants with the help of the agencies of the colonial government. The significance of the legal complications in the Calamba issue probably started to sink in the propagandistas' consciousness amidst the principales' struggle for land rights not only in Calamba but also in the provinces of Cavite, Bulacan, Tondo and others. The legal struggle resulted in a great impasse which seemed to go beyond land issues to also encompass the political rights of the people. How could it be possible to question the legal basis of land ownership if the entire Philippines was acquired by conquista through force? How could one question the legal basis of deportation or the definition of filibusterismo when the real issue is the defense and maintenance of a state forcibly imposed on these islands? According to Rizal, the country should not be pushed to the wall. But it seemed that the legal complications of Calamba, and the issues of land ownership and deportations being carried out nationwide had finally pushed the people to the limits of the legal struggle. Resolution of issues simply end up, from time to time, as the goodwill of colonial institutions, as in the granting of anmesty to the deportados, which was sometimes necessary to maintain general peace, inclusive of a hypocritical pardon which the religious orders extend to deportados, as they did to the Calamba townspeople. Thus, if the attainment of political space is dependent upon the whims and caprices of those who enforce the law, how can the equal rights of the indios vis-a-vis the colonizers be enshrined in the Cortes? What reason was left to hope for refoms? When the time came, the granting of amnesties failed to stop the propagandistas from extricating themselves from the parliamentary impasse. Filbusterism further spread, which inflamed more deportations (in 1896 the number of political exiles in the entire archipelago reached a number of one thousand) (Gregorio Zaide as

cited in Bankoff, 1996). In 1891, the leading propagandistas expressed their desire to come home, and those who remained in Europe continued the propaganda struggle until 1895, while problems in one form or another beset the others. The condition of the country, summed up by the Calamba incident, became the wellspring of the spirit to return to the Motherland. Thus, some propagandistas expressed their desire to continue their propaganda work in the Philippines. The Propaganda Committee, established in Manila in connection with the activities of Solidaridad, was one example, although with a different perspective. Lopez Jaena suggested to Jose Ma. Basa to talk to the rich in Manila about running a newspaper under a revolutionary party. In his assessment, the Philippines will not achieve anything other than through a revolution (Graciano Lopez Jaena to Rizal, 26 August 1891). Edilberto Evangelista had a similar idea. He encouraged Rizal to initiate a collective effort to fight the government. He said, "What I mean is…a Revolutionary Club... Isn't it that the Separatists of Cuba have one? The Progressives of Spain also have one, right?" (Edilberto Evangelista to Rizal, 29 April 1892). Mariano Ponce, brimming with hope and gladness when Rizal was finally reunited with his family in Hong Kong8:
Now you are safe from the greed and ferocity of the beasts. It is truly painful that we cannot be in our Motherland. But the day of revenge will come! For now, we have to help one another, while the day for revenge has not come (Mariano

Ponce to Rizal, 11 May 1892). For Rizal, there was no room for revenge to be fulfilled. Upon his return, he was exiled to Dapitan to crush his spirit, weaken his resolve, and tear apart the vision of statehood that he was weaving in his dreams. The propngandistas in Madrid, who only used to receive news from his deported relatives and countrymen also became a deportado in his own country. Thus, the fulfillment of revenge was taken out of Rizal's hands. In truth, the La liga filipina, the organization Rizal founded upon his return, had but a fleeting impression on the people. Indeed, "the beasts" (spoken of by Mariano Ponce) almost triumphed. But the vengeance snatched from Rizal's hands did not wane among the Anak ng Bayan (Sons of the Motherland). The country that Rizal returned to, after La liga, was living out various ways of coming together, of action and engagement, which hewed closely to the spirit of returning to the Motherland that Lopez Jaena, Evangelista, Antonio Luna and Mariano

In 1891, Francisco Mercado, Paciano Rizal and Silvestre Ubaldo escaped from Mindoro to Hong Kong. Teodora Alonso and Lucia Rizal followed. The quotation was translated from Pilipino.

Ponce described to Rizal in their letters, a spirit renewed and enriched by the letters of the deportados in the country.

Europe is Like a Place of Exile
Spring is a splendid time in Europe. But on May 1, 1891, the onset of spring in Spain, Rizal wrote of a strange feeling to Deodato Arellano (Rizal to Deodato Arellano, 1 May 1891). Contemplating on his retirement, Rizal said he needed to work and establish himself. And he wanted to do this in the Philippines, Hong Kong or Japan, not in Europe. Europe seemed like a place of exile, he said, but did not offer any explanation. At that time, the propagandistas were beginning to feel how far they were from the Philippines. News about relatives and countrymen, especially the conditions of deportados, were sad and disturbing, and they who were in Europe could not do anything about events in the Philippines. As Rizal said," every letter that arrives bring news of destruction that sustains an awareness of popular tenor." Stories about Calamba brought the propagandistas to their senses. Like Lucia Rizal's (Lucia to Rizal, 30 May 1890) letter to his brother Jose, originally written in Tagalog:
I will tell you something about our country; our countrymen's blindness will surely break your heart. Abuse, senselessness and despotism rule our land now. Just imagine how events would unfold. When laybrothers9 go around in carriages, the lieutenant of the Guardia Civil sits on the small bench and the second lieutenant goes to the friar. If the lay brother wants to give out orders for the hacienda, the Captain and Justice of Peace go to the hacienda. It is no wonder that our country is now in decay.

The impact of these letters when they reached propagandistas was summarized by Rizal in another letter:


It is frightening to describe the shocking events that my family witnessed in Calamba: the sick were driven out from their homes; whole families had to spend nights in the open fields; the Dominicans even prohibited other townspeople to continue caring for these unfortunate ones... (Rizal to Ferdinand Blumentritt, 23 February 1892) The letters also brought news about deportations. Hidalgo, for example, was quick to mention his situation to consult Rizal about the legality of his deportation. In two letters (Manuel Timoteo Hidalgo to Rizal, 15 October 1888 and 1 January 1889), he related to Rizal that he

Assistants to the friar in the convent or hacienda who professed in the order but had no clerical capacity.

was banished to Bohol allegedly for being a filibuster and being his representative. He mentioned the persons who caused his deportation, the incidents (regarding land and politics) used to entrap him, and the lack of a trial before he was deported. More importantly, Hidalgo told of the "calamity" his deportation had caused his family. In the second letter, for example, he related that it had been four months since I had been away from home, 300 leagues10 away from my family, and our livelihood has been paralyzed." In June 1890, Hidalgo's wife, Saturnina Rizal, relayed the news of his re-exile to Bohol, on Christmas Day itself, and also pleaded to Rizal to end these problems. In September of the same year, Saturnina had different news. Paciano, Antonino (Lopez), Dandoy (Leandro Lopez), Silvestre (Ubaldo), said to be a former telegraph employee, and Teong (Mateo Elejorde) were deported to Mindoro (Saturnina to Rizal, 6 September 1890). Saturnina related to Rizal that:
Sisa (Narcisa Rizal) and I saw them off at the port; we stayed there until the ship Brutus, which the poor ones boarded, left. The five seemed happy when they left. So were were we did not show sadness and did not feel bad about it unlike when Maneng (her husband, Manuel Hidalgo) was first deported. I have been inured to the pain of separation, especially when I consider that all this cruelty and misfortune will be for the good of all. My faith has become stronger because of everything you told me.

The colonial law provided for deportation as punishment, the purpose of which was to separate those who have been sentenced from the community so they will not be a threat to public order. When Hidalgo was first deported, the propagandistas had already criticized the enforcement of deportation. In a letter by the Asociation HispanoFilipina to the Ministerio de Ultramar, the propagandistas called attention to the legal loopholes and anomalies in the enforcement of deportation, based on the stories of deported relatives and townmates. First, no case was filed against the deportados, nor were hearings or litigation conducted. In fact, in the case of the Calamba townspeople, the governor-general's order to banish them was not based on a court sentence. Articulo 99 of the Codigo penal reformado de 1870, provided that "no podra ejecutarse pena alguna sino en virtud de sentencia firme" (Viada y Vilaseca, 1890). Articulo 86 of Codigo penal de 1850 further stated that the sentence would only take effect if there was no appeal filed against it. Where there is an appeal in the Supreme Tribunal," the final sentence will be that which was

One league in Spain is equivalent to 5,572 meters. Based on this, 300 leagues would be about 1,670 kilometers.

decided by the Supreme Tribunal, in accordance with the rules of enforcement." In the case of the Calamba townspeople, the issue of non-payment of rent was presumed the basis of the deportation. But when Hidalgo, Rizal's brother-in-law, and the others were deported to Bohol and Mindoro, the Calamba townspeople had a pending appeal in the Supreme Tribunal. Furthermore, the non-payment of rent and the corresponding punishment of eviction (which still had to be presented and proven in court) was one issue, and the reason for the deportation (as provided by law) was another. The incorrect enforcement of the law on deportation can be likened to the indictment of the principales who joined the demonstration against the friars on March I, 1888. There was no strong basis for the indictment to a point that the charges varied from the different judges who heard the case (from "illicit assembly," "to assault against constitutional authority," and eventually, "falsification of public documents"). Pedro Serrano Laktaw told Rizal, "The famous petition for expulsion by the friars spurred many unusual events in the history of the Philippine justice system" (Laktaw to Rizal, 1888).11 This was not any different from the enforcement of deportation in the archipelago. Second, the propagandistas stressed that there was no prevailing disorder in the provinces to require the enforcement of deportation as provided by the Leyes de indias. The Codigo penal de 1870 itself specified acts that would warrant deportation, i.e., rebellion against authority. Calamba's townspeople seemed not to have committed any such act against the colonial authority which could qualify as rebellion against the state. What in fact happened was that the inquilinos brought the land issue to court, which the Dominicans appealed later on. If the inquilinos eventually lost, there was still no definite and clear cause that would require deportation, in accordance with colonial laws. Thus, the banishment of many citizens to various places in the archipelago because of land or other issues about rights and welfare was such a severe punishment for the entire country-there was no indictment, hearing, litigation nor sentence --sin juicio ni proceso alguno, as the propagandistas bewailed. The third issue raised by the propagandistas was the great distance of places of banishment. The deportados were banished to the farthest reaches of the archipelago--Abra, Isabela, Mindoro, Palawan, !ligan, Zamboanga, Jolo and many others. According to the Codigo penal, the sentenced person shall be exiled not less than 25

The demonstration of 1 March 1888 was initiated by the gobernadorcillos and former gobernadorcillos of Manila and neighboring towns. They presented a petition to the gobernador civil of Manila criticizing the wrongdoings of the friars. This was one of the many actions of the principales which I consider as critical in the shaping of the "Calamba period."

kilometers and not more than 250 kilometers away from the point where the sentence was promulgated, usually where the crime was committed. The sentenced person should not be banished beyond the radius from the reference point (Viada y Vilaseca, 1890:532-533). The distance of Jolo, Bohol, Iligan, Zamboanga and others, even Mindoro and Palawan, from a town in Luzon like Calamba were far beyond the stipulation of the law. This was a gross violation of the law considering that banishment is not a vacation a deportado wanted. Rizal, it may be recalled, even considered Europe like a place of exile. His exile to Dapitan in 1892 must have exacted a toll on Rizal's spirit. The propagandistas cited another issue: the governor general did not promptly inform the higher authorities in Madrid about the deportations in Calamba. This was an important step to establish the reason for the deportation. Was it legitimate and legal? Deportation is no joke, indeed. The deportado is banished to a place where he does not know anyone, where the way of life is different from what he was accustomed to, his activities are limited and monitored, his whole being is uprooted and separated from his relatives and friends. Worse, he is uncertain as to what might happen to him; what if he falls into illness or dies without his family knowing about it? And no one can tell when his banishment will end, although the law provides a maximum of six years.12 Thus, for the propagandistas, it is important that the Madrid government is duly informed about the deportations. It is a matter of life and death not only for the deportados but also for the families that they left behind. Indeed, official reports indicate that problems abounded in places of exile. A common problem is livelihood, which the local government cannot be expected to provide. One report stated "this town cannot respond to things needed by a deportado for his daily living, such as a permanent job.” Another serious problem concerns the health condition of the deportados. There were reports of serious and contagious diseases befalling the deportados which concerned local authorities. Diseases such as cholera, high fever (which could have been malaria in some provinces, based on a research), urinary infection, erysipelas (a bacterial skin disease) and many others because of the lack of medical facilities in places of exile (Ocampo, 1992) have caused deaths among deportados. Another report told of deportados drained of strength after years of deportation (National Archives, Deportados, n.d.):

Usually, the records of the deportados contain their letters or those written by their spouses or friends which counter the basis of accusations against them and are requests to the governor general for pardon since they have already served their sentence, despite their not being guilty. These letters are also records of sufferings and struggles, the same themes contained in the letters of the people of Calamba.

After weakening because of imprisonment, extreme weariness…, due to poor health conditions, he was transferred as a deportado… continuing in such utterly pitiful conditions to this day, without any more sustenance but his remaining strength exhausted by the years and lingering sickness, and continuing to suffer the constant thought that it is impossible to be allowed to work in the camp; on this matter, he grieves over each moment he thinks of the children left behind, orphaned and victims of want.

Records of the deportados also include letters of their wives pleading with the authorities that they and their children be allowed to accompany their spouses in the place of exile. The sorrows of the families left behind, such as those experienced by their relatives and townmates were described by Paciano to Jose. Paciano wrote, the friars did spare the widows and the orphans." Their sister Narcisa, for example temporarily lost her mind, which they blamed not only on the burden of separation from her husband Antonino but also by extreme fear that she herself might be exiled.13 It came to the point that Hidalgo even planned write a letter to Queen Victoria of England pleading for "protection for humanitarian reasons." The experience of deportation, which destroyed the lives of families and communities, can be considered the height of political oppression. Every cry of their relatives and townmates bore deep into the minds and hearts of the propagandistas such that it became a rallying point in their writings. Lopez Jaena once warned that "a newspaper editor and his editorial staff were in danger of being exiled to Balabac or Marianas if they exceeded the bounds of official opinion" (Ocampo, 1992). Marcelo H. Del Pilar talked about the need to offer money for "burial and funeral mass, lest they be sent to Jolo and Paragua" (Ocampo, 1992). It maybe recalled that when Rizal was thinking of retirement, he likened Europe to a place of exile, perhaps because of the distance and the separation from the Philippines. Such a depiction of Europe certainly derived from the deportados' narration of their experiences. It seems it was really the Motherland being referred to in the comparison. From the letters of the internal exiles, the propagandistas were able to draw a picture of the places of exile, the very conditions of which resonated in their situation in Europe. Most importantly, they saw deportation as the height of colonial oppression, ending the reform movement and signaling return to the Motherland to live out "another form of struggle." As early as 1889, Rizal already warned that:

A child of Narcisa’s died in September 1891.

Let them commit more abuses, send more people to prison, exile,execution, that would be good. A fulfilhnent of Destiny! The cruelty and greed of Louis XIV and XV resulted in a revolution... If the people will be banished, it would be good; because in the islands where they will be exiled, they can propagate their ideas and do Propaganda work (Rizal to Ponce, 18 April 1889).

The harsh situation in the hacienda and the places of exile of their relatives and countrymen turned out to be like hell in the minds and hearts of the propagandistas in Europe. Spring in Europe felt like drought in their hearts. How close were the propagandistas to the proponents of colonial conquest who could have had easily granted the reforms! And yet how remote was this goal (of reforms) from the solutions to the problems the country was mired in. They were far from the fire: they must bring the cure closer to the sick, as Rizal had said. They had to return to the Motherland where the battlefield was. The battlefield was being inflamed by evictions and deportations and other forms of suppression, as relayed in every letter and telegram reaching Spain. It was also in this field, not with the Royal Regent nor the Cortes nor the Ministerio de Ultramar that the answer to the cries of the Motherland can be found. Thus, like the deportados, the propagandistas' strength had been sapped by wasted efforts and waiting in vain in the streets of Madrid and Barcelona for the reforms that would never come. Their time in Europe had come to pass, caught by seawater in the coming of the high tide.

The spirit underlying the return to the homeland of Rizal and the other propagandistas was a significant chapter in their lives and in the history of revolutionary transformation in the Philippines. It is important to appreciate how the idea of returning to the Motherland was formed in the consciousness of the propagandistas which made them realize that the arena for transforming the country was in the Philippines, not from the outside. The widespread evictions and deportations, which reached their peak after centuries of sowing destruction on families and communities, awakened propagandistas to the futility of securing reforms. The spirit to return during "the Calamba Period" that flowed in the propagandistas' letters was but their collective decision to return to the Motherland and live out a “different form of struggle" to restore the "country's glorious past." In the historiography of the revolutionary transformation in the Philippines, the identification of period and spirit of the propagandistas' return to the Motherland presents a departure from

the traditional treatment of the Propaganda Movement. It broadens the understanding of the waning of the reform movement in the 19th century and the entry of the principalia, in unity with the people, into the revolutionary path of social change. Shown here is a very significant thread in the transition of the reform movement to a revolutionary movement, which was the goal of the propagandistas’ return. In fact, the spirit of return to the Motherland from 1888 to 1892 is just one part of the juncture I called the "Calamba Period,” the period that summarizes the events that led to the Philippine revolutionary agenda in 1892. One very important element of this transition is what I pinpointed as a legal or parliamentary impasse, that the Calamba incident symbolized (for the entire country) in the hacienda conflicts and deportations. The "Calamba Period," which I present as a new concept in the history of the Philippine revolution, is also the period of the propagandistas’ return to the Motherland. As a final note, I have presented here one of the many possible meanings of returning to the Motherland in Philippine history. This meaning is very important in our historical experience and consciousness because it is closely connected with the coming together of the Filipino nation. The experience of the ilustrados in the 191h century suggests the kind of migration induced by an oppressive political situation and needs in the country. Although the journey to Europe was voluntary for many, it was also true that they were influenced by the Filipinos’ abject situation vis-à-vis the Spaniards. A similar meaning underlying “going abroad” and “returning to the Motherland” will resurface in the “EDSA period,” which started with the exile and eventual return of Ninoy Aquino to the Philippines in 1983 (see Sta. Romana-Cruz, 1999, in this volume). Interestingly, this kind of leaving and returning to the Motherland, which aims for societal change in the face of tyranny or for the attainment of national freedom and prosperity,14 underlie the aspirations of kabayanihan at himagsikan (heroism and revolution).

Although returning to the Motherland was largely political, it also had a cultural dimension, which was particularly evident for individual propagandistas. For example, Rizal's return also signified a return to the roots of Filipino culture. In his letters to Blumentritt, Rizal often spoke of indigenous Filipino culture. It is also suggested by his use of Tagalog (rather than Spanish) in several letters, including his attempts to translate Noli mc tangcre and writing his third novel in the language of his people (Llanes, 1997a). However, the ilustrados who later became members of the Katipunan could not completely break away from their affinity with foreign culture; they later entered into an alliance with the colonizers. Only Andres Bonifacio and Emilio Jacinto, who launched the project towards pagkabansa (roughly, "nationhood" in English) rooted in the culture and experience of the Filipino people, resolutely stood for the Motherland to their death.

Ninoy Aquino sought cover under the name Bonifacio when he carne home. One hundred years ago, when Rizal returned to the Philippines, he met Bonifacio in La liga. Both moments of return to the Motherland paved the way for two great uprisings in Philippine history, resolutions that the bayan carried out within the bayan.

Bankoff, Greg 1996 Crime, Societal, and the State in the Nineteenth Century Plrilippines. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Llanes, Ferdinand C. 1998 "Ang Panahon ng Kalamba: Deportasyon at Filibusterismo." Paper read at Bulacan State University, Malolos, Bulacan, September 13-16. ___________ 1997a "Ilang Tala sa Radikalisasyon ni Jose Rizal: 1886-1892." Paper read at Luis Palad National High School, Tayabas, Quezon, December 29-30.

___________ 1997b "Deportasyon at Bayan: Mga Liham Mula/Ukol sa Kalamba.” Paper read at the University of the Philippines Los Baños, Los Baños, Laguna, November 28-30. ___________ 1996 "Ang Usapin ng Deportado sa Kilusang Propaganda." Paper read at Bulacan State University, Malolos, Bulacan, November 28-30. National Archives n.d. "Deportados" (selected reports and documents). 1933 National Library Epistolario Rizalino. Volumes 2-4. Manila: Bureau of Printing. Ocampo, Nilo S. 1992 "Mga Deportado sa Palawan." In Katipunan: Isang Pambansang Kilusan. Edited by Ferdinand C. Llanes. Quezon City: Trinitas Publishing. 1992 Real Academia Española Diccionario de la lengua española. Madrid. Schumacher, John N. 1997 The Propaganda Movement: 1880-1895. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Viada y Vilaseca, Salvador 1890 Codigo penal reformado de 1870. Madrid.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful