Readings in Philippine History

(Monday and Wednesday 10:30 A.M. to 12:00 N.N.)

The Controversies and Differences in Points of View in Philippine History

“Jose Rizal’s Retraction”

“First Cry of Revolution: Pugad Lawin or Balintawak”

“Cavite Mutiny of 1872 as Told in Two Ways”

Submitted By:

Esagunde, Diane Clare B.

Year and Section:

BSA-2B

Submitted To:

Mrs. Amor David Garalde

I. “Jose Rizal’s Retraction”

For many years, Filipinos revered Jose Rizal for his sacrifices and

significant contributions as a citizen of our country, as well as his beliefs as an

honest propagandist. However, his reputation as a steadfast "bayani" has been

called into question due to lingering issues that contradict the very reason why

we Filipinos appreciate his efforts, his presence in our history. One of the most

fascinating issues in our history was Jose Rizal's alleged retraction before his

execution on December 30, 1896, which was all about his reversion to the

Catholic Faith and all other issues related to it, such as his marriage to Josephine

Braken. Many historians’ debates whether Rizal retracted his statements about

the Catholic Church. According to Rizal's statement: "I retract with all my heart

whatever in my words, writings, publications, and conduct has been contrary to

my character as a son of the Catholic Church.", some claim that this document is

a forgery, while others claim that Rizal was the only one who wrote and signed

the retraction paper. There are arguments discovered that rely on both claims.

The public statement that withdraws, cancels, refutes, or reverses an

earlier statement is known as a retraction. In this case, he is retracting his

statements against the Catholic Church, the Philippines, and the friars. Rizal's

retraction was motivated by four well-known factors. First and foremost, he

desired to legally marry Josephine Bracken. Second, he desired to safeguard his

family. Third, he wished to see reforms implemented by the Spanish government.

Finally, He desired to heal the Catholic Church's illness. Rizal's retraction paper
provided the basis for all theories. Others believe Rizal did retract, while others

believe he did not. There are various evidences that appear to support each side.

According to some sources, Rizal's alleged retraction did not occur. And

according to the said sources, the friars who visited him within twenty-four hours

of his execution persuaded him to confess the sins they accused him of

committing. The main goal is for Rizal to admit and apologize for his errors

against religion. At least seven Jesuits paid Rizal several visits throughout the

day. If future friars could state with authority that Rizal's expressed views were

not what he truly believed, it would cast doubt on everything he wrote, making

people hesitant to believe it.

Furthermore, the story had two sides. According to Teodoro Kalaw, a

specialist in our hero's writings, and other handwriting experts, the retraction was

originally written by Rizal and was judged by them after extensive research.

There are also prominent Philippine historians who believe Rizal's retraction is

authentic, including Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra, Gregorio Zaide, and others.

They consider themselves to be witnesses when Rizal wrote the retraction paper,

signed the book of Catholic prayers, and recited the Catholic prayers. According

to them, there were also witnesses when he kissed the crucifix before his

execution. Rizal was also said to have four confessions, which were witnessed

by various qualified witnesses, newspapers, and historians, including the leader

of the Spanish Supreme Court. And this was confirmed by Rizal's great nephew.

While the other represents the contradictory, Rizal claims to have signed a

statement of retraction. According to some sources, there are proofs that Rizal
did not retract. His burial is an example of this. He was not buried in a Catholic

cemetery and was listed as a suicide case, a neglected body, and people who

died from unknown causes.

If he did retract and admonish Masonry, the Church would have had the

decency to give him a proper Catholic burial and declare his death under the list

of Catholics, to acknowledge the confession the friars claimed they witnessed

Rizal commit. The alleged retraction papers were also only discovered thirty

years after Rizal's death. Concerns were raised when two declaration statements

were recognized, both of which had significant differences. Some claim that one

of these was forged, while others claim that the original copy rotted in the hands

of the Spanish Catholic friars. They saw a copy created by someone who could

imitate Rizal's handwriting, while the original was kept by some friars. Ricardo

Pascual concluded after analyzing six major Rizal documents that the retraction

document, said to have been discovered in 1935, was not in Rizal's handwriting.

Senator Rafael Palma, a prominent Mason and former President of the University

of the Philippines, argued that retraction is inconsistent with Rizal's character and

mature beliefs. He referred to the retraction story as a "pious fraud." However,

prominent Philippine historians such as Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra of UP León

Mara Guerrero III, Gregorio Zaide, Guillermo Gómez Rivera, Ambeth Ocampo,

John Schumacher, Antonio Molina, Paul Dumol, and Austin Craig support the

authenticity of Rizal's retraction. They accept the retraction document as

authentic, having been certified as such by a leading expert on Rizal's writings,

Teodoro Kalaw, and "handwriting experts."

 In my opinion, retraction was being fabricated or fudged in order to make

Rizal appear defeated by the church. The ecclesiastical authorities of the time did

not want to be "poisoned" by Rizal's writings. If they can persuade the public that

Jose Rizal retracted, all of his writings will be rendered null and void. When it

comes to history, we may never know for certain whether an event occurred or

not. People have the ability to conceal or deny the occurrence of an event and

thus deceive others. We also know that Rizal stood firm in his beliefs and was

not deterred by the threat of eternal damnation from anyone. Furthermore, he,

like many masons in the Philippines, could be both a mason and a Catholic.

Knowing his character, he knows not to give the Spaniards the upper hand.

There are numerous documents and loopholes that refute the idea of the

retraction. If he repented before his execution, he must be properly buried. He

was buried in the section reserved for those who oppose the Catholic Church. He

wasn't even given a proper burial. Also, if the retraction was made so that Rizal

could marry the love of his life, Josephine Bracken, why was no marriage

certificate presented? And, as we know from history, an offense against the

Roman Catholic is an offense against both Spain and Rome. Remember that the

Catholic Church was granted power in Spain by the Vatican. Whether or not

Rizal retracted his work, it did not change the fact that his works inspired the

Filipino people to fight for their rights. His works sparked nationalism and

patriotism in Filipino hearts, securing future generations. So, whether Rizal

retracted or not is irrelevant. One fact remains: both Rome and Spain were

involved in Rizal's death.

 References:

Uckung, P. J. V. U. (2012, September 19). The Rizal Retraction and other cases.

https://nhcp.gov.ph/. https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/

Josephine Rizal’s ‘life’ disputed ONE MAN’S MEAT. (2011, February 27).

PressReader. https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/manila-times/

20110227/282187942513495

Jose Rizal [The Retraction]. (n.d.). http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

II. “First Cry of Revolution: Pugad Lawin or Balintawak”

History is difficult to investigate because we are not descendants of past

events. Historians have unique and differing interpretations of the past, despite

the clues that the past leaves behind. Furthermore, these interpretations lead to

debates or conflicts, leaving truths unresolved. The first revolutionary cry is the

most significant event in Philippine history. This historic event represents the fight

for Philippine freedom and independence, as well as the rejection of Spanish rule

within Philippine territory. The cry signaled the beginning of the Philippine

revolution. Despite this, different accounts have given different dates and

locations for when and where the first cry occurred. The most heated debate is

over whether the first cry came from Pugad Lawin or Balintawak. In my opinion,

the first cry of revolution was heard in Balintawak, not in Pugad Lawin.
 On August 26, 1896, Dr. Pio Valenzuela's first version of the Philippines'

first rally identified Balintawak as the first staging point of the Philippine

Revolution. He changed the location and date from "Balintawak on August 26,

1896" to "Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896" in the later version. According to the

footnotes in his book "Memoirs of the Revolution," prestigious historians have

refuted his second recollection of the event, despite his affiliation with the

Katipunan and Andres Bonifacio. Al Raposas, a young Filipino historian,

observed that his statements were lacking and uncertain. Pio Valenzuela

changed the locations and dates of the first cry in several statements.

Valenzuela's second recollection has been compromised by his fading memory

and his failure to consult the written documents of the Philippine revolution.

Several accounts, including Captain Olegario Diaz, a Spanish

commander, and Guillermo Masangkay, a close friend of Bonifacio and a

member of the Katipunan, backed up the cry at Balintawak. According to the

commander, Bonifacio and 200 men from Caloocan moved to the barrio of

Balintawak until they were attacked by the Guardia Civil and forced to retreat to

their hiding places. And, as a Katipunan member recounted, Andres Bonifacio

persuaded Filipinos to join the revolution. And the people yelled as one, "Revolt!"

And, to demonstrate their devotion to the country, Bonifacio encouraged them to

tear out their cedulas. And people began tearing their cedulas because it is a

symbol of Filipino slavery. In addition, President Diosdado Macapagal expresses

his support for the incident in Balintawak. On August 26, 1962, President

Diosdado Macapagal delivered a speech commemorating the Cry of Balintawak,

 proclaiming that "the sixty-fourth anniversary of this momentous climax of the Cry

of Balintawak was observed by our people for the first time last June 12 as a

token of the nation's profound gratitude to the countless valiant Filipinos who

sacrificed their lives that we the living might enjoy the blessings of justice and

independence."

With the limitations of one of the primary witnesses, Pio Valenzuela's

statements, it sheds light on the testimonies of other witnesses, including Captain

Olegario Diaz and Guillermo Tolentino. The "Cry of Balintawak" was also

supported by President Diosdado Macapagal, and the monument dedicated to

the first "Cry of Balintawak" provides additional evidence that Balintawak was the

staging point for the first cry. We must recognize how significant this event is to

us, whether it occurred in Balintawak or Pugad Lawin. We would not have made

any further progress toward Philippine independence if this had not occurred.

References:

GOVPH. (1962, August 26). Official Gazette of the Republic of the

Philippines. https://mirror.officialgazette.gov.ph/1962/08/26/address-of-president-

macapagal-at-theceremony-for-the-laying-of-cornerstone-of-new-balintawak-

monument/

Samonte, S. (2021, August 23). Relocation of “First Cry” monument from Balintawak

to UP recalled. www.pna.gov.ph. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1151275
 Raposas, A. (2017, August 25). Boys Who Cry? Pugad Lawin and the Start of the

Revolution. https://history-ph.blogspot.com/2017/08/pugad-lawin.html

III. “Cavite Mutiny of 1872 as Told in Two Ways”

Every story, as told and heard, has at least two perspectives to consider.

Each perspective or side of the story has its own set of arguments, merits, or

claims. Biases and prejudices may be obvious, but they are unavoidable due to

the limitations of the person telling the story. To limit distortion, exaggeration, or

perversion of facts, it is necessary to expose oneself to various versions of any

event in order to form an informed historical consciousness. All Filipinos must

understand the various sides of the story because this event led to another tragic

yet meaningful part of our history, the execution of GOMBURZA, which was a

major factor in the awakening of nationalism among Filipinos.

The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 is one historical issue worth exploring in

Philippine history. The growing interest in historical events has prompted a call to

unearth historical data, documents of great value due to their proximity to the

time and place the event occurred, as well as the credibility of the person telling

the story. It has enticed people in academia to change the way they learn history

from simply gathering or accumulating basic historical facts that commonly

answered the questions of "who," "when," and "where" and learning its historical

details that exclusively answered the "how" questions to historical analysis that

enables any learner or historian-to-be to answer the primordial question of "why."

The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 has two extant versions, one from each of two

opposing camps: The Spanish and Filipino.

Cavite Mutiny, a brief uprising of 200 Filipino troops and workers at the

Cavite arsenal that served as an excuse for Spanish repression of the fledgling

Philippine nationalist movement. Ironically, the harsh reaction of the Spanish

authorities ultimately served to advance the nationalist cause. The mutiny was

quickly crushed, but the Spanish regime, led by reactionary governor Rafael de

Izquierdo, exaggerated the incident and used it as an excuse to crack down on

Filipinos calling for governmental reform. A number of Filipino intellectuals were

apprehended and charged with collaborating with the mutineers. Three priests,

José Burgos, Jacinto Zamora, and Mariano Gómez, were publicly executed after

a brief trial. The three were later martyred for the cause of Philippine

independence.

Jose Montero y Vidal narrates the Spanish version of the Cavite Mutiny of

1872. His account as a Spanish historian is based on the thesis that the fateful

event of January 2, 1872 occurred as a result of a concerted effort by disgruntled

native soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who willfully revolted to

overthrow Spanish rule and were thus guilty of rebellion and sedition. By such

acts, the Spanish officials' execution of prominent critics of the Spaniards and

friars is justified, and the sentence of life imprisonment and deportation of some

natives critical of their incongruous rule is unquestionably legal, if morally

ambiguous. The account of Jose Montero y Vidal was even made credible by
none other than Rafael de Izquierdo, the governor-general at the time of the

1872 revolt.

Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera tells the Filipino version. According to him,

the so-called Cavite Mutiny was a mutiny orchestrated by native soldiers and

laborers in response to the harsh policy of the new governor-general, Rafael de

Izquierdo, who whimsically terminated old-time privileges such as exempting

them from paying annual tribute and from rendering forced labor or polos y

servicios. According to the accounts, the mutiny is blown up by Spanish officials

and friars into a revolt in order for Filipinos to gain independence from Spanish

monarchy.

Based on the evidence presented by the various sides, I will side with the

Spanish version of the Cavite Mutiny written by Jose Montero y Vidal, for he is a

historian and which I believe the event is a Grand Conspiracy.

Cavite Mutiny, I believe, is a Grand Conspiracy dealing with the Spanish

version or Spanish perspective. Even though I am aware that the abolition of the

privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite Arsenal of exemption from tribute

was the cause of the insurgency, if we analyze or review it carefully, we must

look to the bigger picture of contents and not focus on just one argument that the

Cavite mutiny is solely due to labor issues; this is a simple and weak argument

that leads to a widespread Filipino uprising.

Because of the gathered and shown evidences, as well as the satisfactory

impact of the evidences that was given in the argument, I was convinced that the

Cavite Mutiny was a Grand Conspiracy and not merely a labor issue.
References:

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. (1998, July 20).  Cavite Mutiny | Summary,

Importance, & Facts. Encyclopedia

Britannica.  https://www.britannica.com/event/Cavite-Mutiny

Piedad-Pugay, C. A. (2012, September 5).  The Two Faces of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.

https://nhcp.gov.ph/.  https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/

Koh, E. (2016, January 20).  The 1872 Cavite Mutiny. Filipino

Journal.  https://filipinojournal.com/the-1872-cavite-mutiny/