See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358752110

Did Rizal Retract?: Uncovering the Controversies of the National Hero's Last
Moments

Article · November 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 1,635

5 authors, including:

John Christian Miranda

Tayabas Western Academy
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

THE LIFE OUTLOOK AND LITURGICAL ROLES OF SACRISTANS IN CANDELARIA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Christian Miranda on 21 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DID RIZAL RETRACT: UNCOVERING THE CONTROVERSIES OF THE
NATIONAL HERO’S LAST MOMENTS

I: STATEMENT OF THE Case study choices

PROBLEM 1. Where did the First Catholic Mass Take Place in the Philippines?
2. What happened in Cavite Mutiny?
What is the 3. Did Rizal Retract?
conflict/problem?

Did Rizal Retract?

II: OBJECTIVE/S OF
THE STUDY This study aims to answer the following questions:

Purpose why do you need to
conduct case study about the
given conflict or
controversy.
 To find out whether or not Jose P. Rizal retracted by analyzing and
interpreting both primary and secondary sources.
 To obtain primary, secondary, and tertiary sources about Rizal‟s
retraction.
 To identify the reasons behind Jose Rizal‟s retraction if he did so.
 To identify the importance of Rizal‟s retraction in the
contemporary world.

III: BACKGROUND OF
THE STUDY
As a social science student,
why is it important to study
the given
event/conflict/controversy?
Retractions have always been present throughout historical times,
especially in the field of academic writing. In most cases, retractions are
done due to the finding of new scientific evidence, while in literary writing,
it is often done as a part of correcting some minor or, in rare instances,
significant errors. At most points, retractions made controversies as they
often raised several questions about the long-been accepted objective truth.
From decades ago to the present, the "Retraction of Rizal" has been
one of the most frequently contested and acclaimed cases involving Jose
Rizal. "José Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda," more widely
known as Jose P. Rizal, is a renowned linguist, poet, painter, sculptor,
athlete, scientist, and patriot whose writings resulted in his execution and
triggered the 1898 Philippine Revolution1. He is the Philippines ' national
hero and a symbol of a peaceful revolution. He wrote two famous novels
that criticize the friar and the wrongdoings of the Roman Catholic Church;
the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. These two novels have been
long upheld and perceived as one of the fundamental reasons why we have
the freedom we knew today. Nevertheless, while we view it as an act of
martyrdom and patriotism, have we considered looking into the other side?
The revelation of a 1935 document reportedly containing Rizal's actual
retraction worsened the matter of retraction because it provided a new
perspective on the subject. Despite uncertainties over whether Rizal signed
a retraction during his stay at Fort Santiago a few hours before his death,
the author would want to point out that historians have not been sure to this

1
Jose Florencio Fabella Lapena Jr., Jose Protacio Rizal (1861-1896): Physician and Philippine National Hero (Singapore Medical
Journal, 2011)

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
 point. Of the Philippines, the document's veracity. This is because, despite
the existence of documentation verifying Rizal's retraction, it is believed
that the friars deceived the Filipino people in order to destroy Rizal's name.
Without a doubt, the paper containing the retraction contains elements that
are unwelcome and inappropriate for Rizal's nature. Some versions have
been added, and some words have been removed, according to experts.
Although the retrieval was signed and written in Rizal's manner, it was
polluted by forgery and skepticism.
According Anacoreta Purino, Rizal's retraction has grown
contentious, and the writers' perspectives differ.2 The Catholic Rizalists
claimed that Rizal had committed a Retraction, whereas the Rizal
Masonists insisted that Rizal did not recant his views about the Catholic
Church and the Spanish government. It poses the enticing question that has
occupied the minds and hearts of the country's multitude of Rizalistas,
historians, academicians, and students.3
Did Rizal retract? If he did so, what circumstances could have
made him do so? Let us all explore these questions as we read this paper.

IV: THE BODY

Include different
narratives/accounts about
the event.
Focus only on significant
details related to the study.
The body of this study contains the related literatures and studies that were
scrutinized by the researchers in studying Rizal‟s retraction. It contains both
primary and secondary sources that relates on the topic of the study.
Retraction, defined:
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (2018), retraction is
defined as “the action or event of revoking or renouncing a decision, order,
etc.” It may be thoroughly defined as “the action of withdrawing a
statement, allegation, etc., which is now acknowledged to be erroneous or
unjustified. It serves many purposes in the literary world, as stated by
Committee on Publication Ethics, retraction is a method for revising the
literature and informing readers about articles that include substantially
defective or erroneous data, making their findings and conclusions
untrustworthy. Uncertain data might be the consequence of honest
mistakes or scientific malpractice. Yet, they also specified certain
circumstances where retraction might be used, such as redundancy and
errors in publications, articles, simultaneous submission of the same journal
thus leading to a “double entry scenario”, and partial overlapping of
articles.
Retraction of Jose Rizal
The issue of Rizal's retraction has always been a subject of debate
due to questions on its authenticity. According to the National Historical
Commission (NHCP), Jose Rizal was reported to have signed the document
just before his death. There were numerous witnesses; most of them were
Jesuits. They went on to say that the paper was first made public on May
13, 1935. Fr. Manuel A. Gracia discovered it in the Catholic hierarchy's
archive in Manila. However, only replicas of the original document were
shown to the public. According to Purino, one of the reasons the said
retraction has been controversial is due to the different perspectives of
historians towards it.4 Furthermore, he also added that it could be attributed

2
Anacoreta P. Purino. Rizal: The Greatest Filipino (Manila: Rex Books Store Inc., 2000)
3
Purino, Rizal
4
Purino, Rizal

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
 to the conflicting sides of the Rizalist Catholics who believed that Rizal
retracted and the Masonic Rizalists who denied the said retraction. 5 In an
article written by Bryan Anthony Paraiso for the National Historical
Commission of the Philippines, he cited the letter sent by Rizal to Mariano
Ponce dated April 18, 1889, where the hero questioned the actions of friars,
even accusing them of manifesting terror among people. 6 He also cites the
letters sent by the Jesuit Antonio Obach to his mission superiors on July 28,
1895, which contains the communication between Obach and Rizal before
the latter's execution, where he confirms and cites the reason for his
possible retraction. 7 Rizal considered retracting three years before he was
arrested. The primary source of Rizal's retraction is the Jesuit version,
where Fr. Vicente Balaguer writes that he witnessed Rizal's retraction in an
affidavit. In the work of Rene Escalante entitled "Did Rizal Die a
Catholic?" he cited the letter that Rizal allegedly sent to Archbishop
Bernardino Nozaleda containing his renunciation of Masonry and re-
embracement of the Catholic faith.8
However, several challenges were presented to counter the Jesuits'
claim. In his work, Escalante (2019) cites several contentions, such as the
letter of Friedrich Stahl to Ferdinand Blumentritt in January 1897, where he
said that no one had ever seen Rizal writing the actual retraction letter. This
question holds weight because, as Escalante (2019) cites, even though the
publication La Voz Española and other Jesuits claimed to have witnessed
Rizal's actual writing of the letter sent to Archbishop Nozaleda, no original
copy of the said letter has been reproduced until May 18, 1935. Another
contention cited by Escalante (2019) is the letter sent by Jose Alejandro to
Filipino expatriates in Hong Kong on March 6, 1897, where he accused the
Spaniards of using the retraction to slander Rizal's name even in the tomb
allegedly. Furthermore, on the accounts of Pascual (1959), he cited that
Trinidad, Rizal's sister, also recounted that following her brother's death,
the Jesuits requested their family to attend a Mass held in his honor. After
the Mass, the Jesuits promised to show them the original retraction. The
promise did not come true till they split ways.
Another objection cited by Escalante (2019) revolves around the
December 29, 1908 issue of El Renacimiento, where Manuel Artigas y
Cuerva laid down several arguments which support his claim that the
retraction document is "apocryphal."
While the Masons believe that the 1935 retraction document was a
fact, they asserted that whether it was written by Rizal or not is a big
question for them. Rafael Palma, a former president of the University of the
Philippines and a renowned Mason claimed that the document did not
reflect the character and beliefs of Rizal. Nevertheless, the most significant
turning point that gained the upper hand for anti-retraction is the contention
of Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual, who extensively examined the document and
produced a book that cast doubt on its legitimacy. Upon comparing Rizal's
handwriting on some of his works, Pascual found inconsistencies in the
slants of handwritings, signature, font of some words, margins, inks used,

5
Purino, Rizal
6
Bryan Anthony C. Paraiso, Did Rizal Consider Retracting while in Dapitan? (Manila: National Historical
Commission of the Philippines, 2012)
7
Paraiso, Did Rizal Consider
8
Rene Escalante, Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? Revisiting Rizal‘s Last 24 Hours Using Spy Reports (Southeast
Asian Studies)

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”

V: ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION
A. First temporal layer, in
the past, we refer to
perspectives of subjects who
are contemporaries of the
historical object.
B. Second temporal layer
that we distinguish is
“between past and present,”
referring to perspectives of
subjects that did not live
simultaneously with the
object but that succeeded the
object in time and have
somehow been concerned
with the historical object
and its interpretation.
C. Third temporal layer we
distinguish is “in the
present,” referring to those
subjects who live in the
present and take a
contemporary position
toward a historical object.
Based on the presented
accounts or chronicles what
are your findings and
interpretation.
and the way individual letters were formed, which led him to conclude that
the retraction document was a forgery.
This section of the study provides the analysis of both primary and
secondary sources that were related to Rizal‟s retraction. Most of the
sources cited in this study are the English translations of the original ones.
Analysis of the Jesuit Sources
The main source of the Jesuit pursuit is the alleged retraction letter
written by Rizal that surfaced on the 19th of May 1935. The letter is said to
have been sent by Rizal to Fr. Vicente Balaguer, who in turn submitted it to
Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda. In his work, Escalante (2019) cited the
letter as follows:
I declare myself a Catholic and in this Religion in which I was
born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart
whatever in my words, writings, publications, and conduct has been
contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I
confess whatever she teaches, and I submit to whatever she demands. I
abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a
Society prohibited by the Church.
The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical
Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to
repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and
people may pardon me.
The Chief of the Picket
Juan del Fresno
Adjutant of the Plaza
Eloy Moure (Guerrero 1971, 458–459)
Many Jesuits, and even the publication named La Voz Española,
claimed to have witnessed Rizal writing the letter first hand. On the letter,
Rizal allegedly re-embraced Catholicism by renouncing masonry, a secret
organization that has been long opposed by the Roman Catholic Church
(Britannica, 2021). In the letter, it can be gleaned that Rizal renounced
whatever he said in his infamous works: the Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo. This exactly goes against the principles he exhibited in most
of his works which directly criticized the Roman Catholic Church and its
act. According to Escalante (2019), it was discovered in 1935 by the
archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia as he was sorting through a
bundle of documents entitled Masoneria. It was verified by the Teodoro M.
Kalaw, a Mason and a director of the National Library at the time as
“authentic, definite, and final.” It was published in the Philippines Herald
under the headline “Rizal Retraction Found.” It was further verified by H.
Otley Beyer, a professor of anthropology at U.P Diliman who even
concluded that:
―… there is not the slightest doubt that every word on that sheet of paper
was written by Jose Rizal‖
The alleged retraction was further fortified by the sworn affidavit of
De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province
“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
Fr. Balaguer who claims to be one of the eyewitnesses of Rizal‟s retraction;
He even claimed that he “was the one who assisted Rizal most of that sad
day‟s hours. I argued with him and demolished his arguments” (Escalante,
2019). His statement goes as follows:

―Of all that has been narrated, I am positive by personal

knowledge. I have personally intervened and witnessed it myself; and I
subscribed and confirmed it with an oath. And lest, perhaps, someone
may think that I could not remember it with so many details, after
twenty years. I testify that on the very day of Rizal‘s death, I wrote a
very detailed account of everything. The original of this account I have
preserved, and from it I have taken all the data of the present narration.‖

However, the retraction letter goes exactly the opposite with the
letter sent by Rizal to Mariano Ponce on the 18 th of April 1889 where he
criticized the friars for allegedly oppressing the people by spreading terror.
In the letter cited by Paraiso (2012), he said the following:

―…At the sight of those injustices and cruelties…I swore to

devote myself to avenge one day so many victims, and with this idea in
mind I have been studying and this can be read in all my works and
writings. God will someday give me an opportunity to carry out my
promise.‖

Of the religious orders by the Catholic Church, Rizal writes:

―…the friars are not what they pretend to be nor are they
ministers to Christ, the protector of the people, nor the support of the
Spanish government…Don‘t they show cruelty? Don‘t they instigate
the government against the people? Don‘t they manifest terror?
Where are sanctity, protection, and force?‖

From the statements above, Rizal‟s strong disagreement with the

Roman Catholic church can be gleaned. Furthermore, these are the same as
the sentiments he had expressed in his earlier works Noli Me Tangere
(1887) and El Filibusterismo (1891). Hence, the alleged retraction of Rizal
on the 29th of December 1896 raises two big questions to us: did he really
retract? If he did, why?
Turns out, before the actual document was written, the Jesuit
Antonio Obach wrote several letters to his Mission Superiors that may shed
light on the matter. On his letter dated July 28, 1895, Obach writes:

―Rizal has just seen me and said (what has been jumping from
mouth to mouth of some who heard it from him), ‗Father Antonio, I no
longer want further battles with the friars, but live and work in peace.‘
‗What you ought to do is retract all your errors and you will be
at peace.‘
‗I am ready to do what Your Reverence says, but under
certain conditions.‘
I gave him a pen and paper for him to write these conditions. In
his own hand and style, he wrote: ‗Conditions I ask to retract references
to the matter of the friars, and no longer meddle with them.‘

—José Rizal

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

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

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

(Paraiso, 2012)

On the letter, it is said that Rizal retracted in exchange for some

conditions. This could have mean that the retraction was made under
several circumstances that forced him to do so, such as the dangers and
challenges his family may endure if he resists retraction. In the letter, Fr.
Obach further stated the following lines:

―…Rizal says his family owned two houses of heavy materials,

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

However, Obach recognizes that the retraction was not easy for
Rizal. He states it in his letter as follows:

―I am convinced that Rizal is now tired and wants to retract, but

his pride strongly holds him back…I think he will immediately break away
from everything and he would be an excellent Christian.‖

From the lines above, one can glean that Rizal indeed had difficulty
weighing out between retracting and remaining on his stand. This is
undoubtedly a moral dilemma for Rizal. As gleaned from Obach‟s letter,
Rizal has been placed under pressure to retract as it directly stated that
Rizal is “now tired and wants to retract.” We can glean that the only
possible reason for Rizal‟s retraction is his freedom so that he can marry his
spouse Josephine Bracken and for the safety of his family. He fears that
after his death, his family will be discriminated against and will suffer at the
hands of Spaniards. The Php 50,000 he is asking for is “compensation” to
be able to start a new life. This was allegedly stated by Rizal in his letter
asking for some conditions for his retraction:

―But on condition that they give me P50,000 since I have no

means to support myself in decency, and with that amount I could bring
my parents with me anywhere.‖

According to the accounts of Obach, which support the claims of

Balaguer, Rizal heavily considered retracting for the sake of the
abovementioned conditions which will materialize once he submitted his
retraction letter. On the accounts of Obach dated August 28, 1895, he
recalls that Rizal requested for a detailed account of his errors:

―…Rizal came and asked me if I could draw up a list of his

errors. ‗You can tell Fr. Ricart, I am ready to write, and tell him that I
myself will retract all errors I may have committed against the Roman

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
 Catholic and Apostolic Church in my writings, and that he can make this
same retraction public in the manner he wants.‘ But with this he stands to
lose everything…‖

Yet, despite the presence of both supporting pieces of evidence that

fortifies the claim of the Jesuit, there are still some things and questions we
have to consider if we will take the said retraction into account, such as
“why did they execute Rizal despite the retraction” and “why would Rizal
retract with the awareness of the certainty of his death?

Contentions against Jesuit claims

Despite of the presence of the actual retraction document, many

still came to question the authenticity of the document, as many did not
believe that Rizal repudiated Masonry and re-embraced Catholicism. One
of the contentions against it is contained in the letter sent by Friedrich Stahl
to Ferdinand Blumentritt dated January 1897 where he wrote:

"On the day of the execution, the Spaniards published an article

in all the local papers, according to which, Rizal, in a written declaration
made by him on the day of his death, retracted all his writings and deeds
and proclaims himself to be a repentant sinner and a loyal Spaniard. But
nobody here believes this, as the Spaniards publish the same thing about
everyone who is shot. Besides, nobody has ever seen his written
declaration ... It is in the hands of the archbishop."

The claim of Stahl holds weight, as the Roman Catholic Church

have been involved on many forced retractions in history such as in the case
of Galileo Galilei who was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church in
1633 for his heliocentric beliefs of the universe. The sentence, which
compelled the astronomer and physicist to retract his discoveries, resulted
in Galileo being placed under house arrest for eight years, until his death at
the age of 77 in 1642 (Cowell, 1992). Another example of the Church‟s act
that may fall under this category is the Inquisition, a powerful office within
the Catholic Church that aimed to eliminate “heresy” throughout Europe
and the Americas. In this light, Stahl‟s letter points out the possibility of the
church‟s interference or a direct forgery on the alleged retraction document.
Furthermore, despite the presence of some alleged eyewitnesses, no one had
been able to reproduce the original copy until May 1935 – 39 years after the
actual document has been written.
Another contention against the Jesuit claim is the letter sent by Jose
Alejandrino to Filipino expatriates in to Filipino expatriates to Hong Kong
dated March 6, 1897. In the letter cited by Escalante (2019), Alejandrino
writes:

―the Spaniards want to persecute him even in the tomb, since

they slander him by imputing to him confessions and retractions which he
himself could not have done‖

This contention also holds weight, as the manner of how Rizal was
buried also raises several questions on the authenticity of the said retraction
document. Rizal was buried in an unmarked grave in Paco cemetery. It was
found thanks to her sister Narcisa who toured all possible gravesites before

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
finding a freshly turned earth at the cemetery with civil guards posted at the
gate. According to the report of Carlos Amaldo (2013), Rizal‟s body was
purposively hidden by the Spanish administration to prevent Rizal‟s
veneration as a hero, thus preventing him to be declared as the national
hero. They wanted to make it appear that Rizal died as a traitor, so he must
be buried as a traitor. Combining it with Alejandrino‟s accusation of the
document‟s forgery, Alejandrino‟s contention, at some point, also holds
weight.
Escalante (2019) also cites another contention that holds much
weight, the testimony of Trinidad Rizal, Jose Rizal‟s sister. As stated by
Escalante (2019), Trinidad claims that after Jose Rizal‟s death, the Jesuits
requested them, to attend the mass in honor of him. She also claimed that
the Jesuits promised that they will hand them down the original retraction
document of Rizal. However, Trinidad also claims that the promise did not
materialize until they parted ways. While there are many accounts and
works citing Trinidad‟s statement, the researchers could not get the actual
statement of Trinidad.
Another contention laid down against the Jesuit claim is the
accounts of Manuel Artigas y Cuerva in the publication El
Renacimiento dated December 29, 1908 where he considered the retraction
document of Rizal as “apocryphal.” In the accounts cited by Escalante
(2019), Cuerva writes:

―It does not exist . . . It does not appear in the trial nor can
anyone give an account of it in the Archiepiscopal Palace of Manila. Even
in the Ateneo itself of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus it could not be
found, although it was positively affirmed that it was there. And what is
most exceptional is that, while documents about Rizal during all the time
he had been in the Ateneo, are preserved, only the one of some twelve
years ago cannot be found.‖

The arguments of Cuerva hold water as well. It was issued in 1908,

27 years before the alleged original document was discovered in 1935.
During this period, the only original source for Rizal's retraction was the
affidavit of Fr. Balaguer, one of the Jesuits who allegedly witnessed Rizal's
retraction. Furthermore, it was supported by Ricardo P. Garcia in his book
The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction where he argued that (1) there is
no physical manuscript about the retraction, and (2) the eyewitnesses
account does not compel the fact the retraction was purely concured by
Rizal. The accounts of Cuerva, combined with the late discovery of the
actual retraction of Rizal despite the presence of alleged eyewitnesses, raise
another issue on light: why can't the Jesuits produce the actual document to
prove that Rizal retracted before relying upon the accounts of eyewitnesses?
Did they assume that the "truth" is subjective rather than objective in
nature?
Another contention against the Jesuit claims has been laid by Rafael
Palma, a former president of the University of the Philippines and a
prominent Mason. The document's veracity is questionable because it does
not reflect the authentic characters and beliefs (Escalante, 2019). He
referred to it as a "pious fraud." This was subjected to a study by Dr.
Ricardo P. Pascual, one of the persons given access to the original records.
He compared the handwritings allegedly used by Rizal in his retraction to
his other works: The Mi Ultimo Adios (December 12, 1896), To My

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
Countrymen (December 15, 1896), Defensa (December 12, 1896), and the
title page of the book Imitacion de Cristo which he gave to Josephine
Bracken. Upon analysis, Pascual noted anomalies in the handwriting's slant,
Rizal's signature, the inks used, the typeface used for some words, the
margin, and how individual letters were formed. These data convinced him
that the recently discovered retraction paper was a forgery (Escalante,
2019).
For the sake this research, the researchers personally looked at the
images of the primary sources utilized by Pascual. It is done for the sake of
comparison to see if the researchers can establish a prima facie upon
juxtaposing the aforementioned documents. The images and their respective
sources were shown as follows:

RETRACTION OF RIZAL MI ULTIMO ADIOS

[Source: Flickr]
[Source: Flickr]

Above is the juxtaposition of the original copy of Rizal‟s retraction

discovered in 1935 (left) and the original copy of Rizal‟s Mi Ultimo Adios
written days before his death exhibited in the National Museum (right).
Upon comparing at the physical looks of both documents, we can establish
prima facie that there are definite inconsistencies on the strokes written and
margins used. It can be seen that the strokes are different, and at first
glance, one would not assume that they were written by the same person at
the same timeline.

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
 RETRACTION OF RIZAL DE LA IMITACION DE
CRISTO

[Source: GMA News]

Above is the juxtaposition of Rizal‟s retraction letter and the copy of

Rizal‟s writing on the book Dela Imitacion De Cristo he gave to his spouse
Josephine Bracken. Upon looking, the similarities may be established prima
facie. However, the researchers saw several significant inconsistencies
between Rizal‟s signatures on both works upon further looking. A further
look is shown below:

By juxtaposing both signatures, we can see the significant

differences in the strokes used. However, according to the historian Ambeth
Ocampo in his Facebook post dated December 30, 2020, Rizal's signature
differs according to the period and location in which it was created. This
already weakens the odds that may be raised about the differences in
signatures, especially when one is going to consider that both signatures
served different purposes.
Due to the limitations of the available online resources, the
researchers cannot access the two other works of Rizal which Dr. Pascual
utilized in his study. However, the juxtaposition of the available sources
established a prima facie that may be pointed out when studying the
possible differences among the works.
However, while Pascual was able to conclude that the 1935
document was a forgery, he could not identify the forgers (Escalante, 2019).
Apart from the graphic differences between the handwritings used,
another contention against Balaguer's claims was raised by Wenceslao
Retana, a Spanish writer, who argued the following:

 Cualidad is spelled with a "u" in the 1935 paper, whereas calidad is

spelled without the "u" in Fr. Balaguer's version.
 Second, Fr. Balaguer's version omits the word Catolica

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
 immediately before the word Iglesia. The word Catolica appears in
both the 1935 and newspaper versions.
 Thirdly, the third Iglesias is preceded by the term misma in the
Jesuits' text. This term does not appear in the 1935 document.
 Fourthly, in terms of paragraphing, Fr. Balaguer's version does not
begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentence, but the 1935
version begins immediately after the second sentence.
 Finally, the wording of the 1935 retraction contains four commas,
whereas Fr. Balaguer's text contains eleven.

The argument of Retana may also hold water, as it was stated that
the only published retraction document by Rizal before its discovery is the
sworn affidavit by Fr. Balaguer and the copies produced by the Jesuits.
Both documents have big chances to render inconsistencies and differences
from the actual ones.
The biggest blow, perhaps, on the Jesuit claim is the book entitled
“Forgery of Rizal‟s Retraction and Josephine‟s Autobiography” written by
Idelfonso Runes and Mamerto Buenafe published in 1962. According to
Runes and Buenafe, Antonio Abad celebrated his fifteenth birthday at San
Isidro, Nueva Ecija, on August 13, 1901. Roman Roque, the Abads' next-
door neighbor, was one of the celebrant's well-wishers. On this occasion,
Roque disclosed that he had been retrieved from San Isidro, Nueva Ecija,
by Lazaro Segovia and afterwards transported to Manila. He had remained
at the Hotel Quatro Naciones in Intramuros for ten days and worked for the
friars. He was compensated with the equivalent of two months' pay from
the government.
He spent several days examining Rizal's penmanship. According to
him, he copied the retraction letter approximately five times from a draft
provided by the friars. He considered keeping one for himself, but his copy
was stolen from him during his departure search.
Roman Roque has a history of forgery which may lead us to the
possibility that the statements of Runes and Buenafe may also hold water.
According to Uckung (2012), those who felt the Rizal retraction paper was
fabricated said that the individual who faked Rizal's signature was Roman
Roque, the same man who forged Urbano Lacuna's signature, which was
used to capture Aguinaldo. Lazaro Segovia, they claim, was the brains
behind both Lacuna's and Rizal's signature forgeries. They were asked by
Spanish friars to fake Rizal's signature on the final day of the Filipino-
American conflict.

The Cuerpo de Vigilancia Version

Years before the centennial of Philippine independence was

commemorated in 1998, Señor Enrique Montero placed his Cuerpo de
Vigilancia collection for sale. These were archival records collected from a
descendent of a Spanish general stationed in the Philippines during the
Spanish period's final years (Escalante, 2019). The Cuerpo de Vigilancia
was founded in 1895, just prior to the commencement of the revolution
against Spain in 1896, as a Spanish government intelligence unit headed by
Federico Moreno (Hila, 2011). The report of Moreno made a big difference
on Rizal‟s retraction, as it claimed the existence of the retraction, but at the
same time opposed the claims of the Jesuits. Because Moreno was not a

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
member of the Catholic hierarchy or a known Mason, this account may be
deemed more objective than earlier ones. He was not in Fort Santiago to
represent a particular interest group, but rather to fulfill a function related to
his employment (Escalante, 2019).
On the report written by Moreno dated December 30, 1896 (same
day as Rizal‟s death), he reported the following:

―Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia

stationed in Fort Santiago to report on the events during the [illegible]
day in prison of the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the
following:
―At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row
accompanied by his counsel, Señor Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit
priest Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and moments after entering,
he was served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the Assistant of the
Plaza, Señor Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at
the moment he only wanted a prayer book which was brought to him
shortly by Father March.
―Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long
while with the Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious
matters, it seems. It appears that these two presented him with a prepared
retraction on his life and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about
the matter until 12:30 when Rizal ate some poached egg and a little
chicken. Afterwards he asked to leave to write and wrote for a long time
by himself.
―At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and
Rizal handed him what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing
squad, Señor del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure,
were informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the
document that the accused had written. It seems this was the retraction.‖

Contrary to the report sworn by Fr. Balaguer, it was Fr. Vilaclara

who was with Rizal handling a retraction document. The two witnesses that
were signed on the paper were Juan del Freson and Eloy Moure. This bares
extreme differences in the report, as the sworn affidavit made by Fr.
Balaguer did not report coercion on their part. It was reported as well that
before Rizal‟s execution, he was married to Josephine Bracken:

―At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the
prison …dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel,
followed by a military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning
his formal clothes and aided by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of
Rizal and the woman who had been his lover were performed at the point
of death (in articulo mortis). After embracing him she left, flooded with
tears.‖

The report of Moreno is detailed in nature. Furthermore, it recorded

the actual events that happened during the night of Rizal's execution.
According to the accounts of the historian Xiao Chua in his report for GMA
News dated December 29, 2016, Federico Moreno recorded all the persons
who entered Rizal's cell on the night before the execution, and surprisingly,
Fr. Balaguer was not among them. This means that the affidavit rendered by
Fr. Balaguer can only be considered as a secondary source rather than a
primary source. Chua further adds that there is no reason for Moreno or the
civil guards to lie regarding the report. This holds water as well, as the

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
retraction of Rizal benefits the Jesuits more than anyone else. On the
accounts of the British writer Austin Coates in his work entitled ―Rizal:
Philippine Nationalist and Martyr‖ published in 1968 the main agenda for
the “alleged” forgery of the retraction is to blunt everything Rizal have
written, as the dangers it posits against them will remain even after the
man‟s death. In his accounts he stated the following:

"A man of whom there is no record that he ever told a lie can
scarcely be considered as having chosen a solemn moment to tell his first
one ....
"The Jesuits who had visited him knew how unlikely it was that
Rizal would retract ... .
"While one might kill the man, his writings remained, and these
were a danger, needing to be sterilized, lest they poison the mind of future
generations with anti-clerical views. If he could be made to admit his
errors against religion and retract them, it would blunt the point of
everything that he had written ... .
"The Jesuits' two attempts to make Rizal retract had different
motives. The first was undertaken for what the Jesuits sincerely believed
to be his own good, and possibly their own as well. The second was
undertaken with the main purpose of sterilizing his influence on the
future."

Coates‟ claims may hold water as well. The researchers believe that
Rizal‟s writings will remain even after his execution as evident to fact that
both Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo are still studied under the
current DepEd curriculum. This is exactly what the Jesuits, or the Roman
Catholic Church in general, wants to avoid. As claimed by Coates (1968),
Rizal‟s retraction may blunt everything that he had written on his
significant works such as the Letters to the Women of Malolos, and the two
aforementioned works.

Hints from Rizal himself

While there are contrasting claims regarding Rizal‟s retraction

which came from various sources, many have disputed the possibility of
Rizal‟s retraction based on Rizal‟s words himself. According to the report
of the historian Xiao Chua, there were hints that were revealed by Rizal
which further subjects the retraction issue into much light.

Chua cites the last will of Rizal to his family that the latter did not
receive until 1953. It became a part of the donation of the Spanish Foreign
Minister Alberto Martinez Artajo y Alvarez to the Philippine Government.
The letter reads as follows:

―Ilibing niyo ako sa lupa. Lagyan ninyo ng panandang bato at

KRUS. Ang aking pangalan, araw ng kapanganakan at ng kamatayan.
Wala nang iba. Kung pagkatapos ay nais niyong bakuran ang aking
puntod, maaari niyong gawin. Wala nang anibersaryo. Mas mabuti kung
sa Paang Bundok. Kaawaan ninyo si Josephine.‖

[English Translation] Bury my body on earth. Put a CROSS

marker on it. My date of birth and death. Nothing more. If after such you
want to put fences around my grave, you can do so. There shall be no

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
 anniversaries. It will be better if you bury me on the foot of the a
mountain. Take care of Josephine

Chua also cites Rizal‟s accounts on his last poem ―Mi Ultimo Adios‖:

―Suffer the moon to keep watch, tranquil and suave, over me:
Suffer the dawn its flying lights to release:
Suffer the wind to lament in murmurous and grave manner:
And should a bird drift down and alight on my CROSS,
Suffer the bird to intone its canticle of peace.

―…And when my grave is wholly unremembered

And unlocated (no CROSS upon it, no stone there plain):
Let the site be wracked by the plow and cracked by the spade
And let my ashes, before they vanish to nothing,
As dust be formed a part of your carpet again.‖

On both accounts, Rizal mentioned the word “cross” several times.

According to Chua, the “cross” is a universal symbol of Christianity. It may
be gleaned on the accounts that Rizal wanted a Christian burial, which
means that he died a Catholic. Hence, according to him, this opens the
possibility that Rizal indeed retracted. Can this claim hold water as well?

VI: Conclusion
CONCLUSION
What did you find in your
case study? drew the following conclusions:
Focus on decisions and
recommendations. But don‘t
forget about brevity.
Based on the gathered data and analyzed sources, the researchers
 The current research lacks the ability to fully conclude if Rizal
indeed retracted or not, given the limitations posited on the
researchers. However, the shreds of evidence gathered mainly were
construed against the Jesuit claims. Furthermore, it finds more
sufficient pieces of evidence suggesting the possible “fraud”
committed by the Jesuit accounts as suggested by the extreme non-
deviance between the report of Moreno, arguments of Retana, and
the affidavit of Fr. Balaguer.
 The Jesuit claims were found to have many inconsistencies, which
raise several questions on their authenticity. This, however, does
not conclude that Rizal did not retract. It merely concludes that the
Jesuit version of the retraction is much questionable in terms of
agenda and accuracy compared to the report of Moreno.
 Upon analysis of sources, the researchers found a possible
occurrence of “perjury” on the part of Fr. Balaguer. This is due to
the inconsistencies found in other supporting pieces of evidence.
According to the affidavit of Fr. Balaguer, he witnessed Rizal‟s
retraction firsthand. However, as stated in the report of Federico
Moreno, Fr. Balaguer did not visit Rizal on the night before his
execution. If Rizal indeed retracted, the only possible witnesses
could have been Fr. Villaclara and Fr. March, as they were the only
ones recorded to have visited Rizal on the night of the execution.

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
 Furthermore, Fr. Balaguer claimed that his accounts were based on
the original document. However, his affidavit was produced in
1908, whereas the original document was discovered only in 1935.
Why was it not produced with the 27-year duration? Furthermore,
as reported by Wenceslao Retana, there are several inconsistencies
in the copies produced by Fr. Balaguer and the original copies
discovered in 1935.
 Upon analysis, the researchers found reasonable doubt to believe
that Rizal indeed retracted and re-embraced Catholicism, although
it is done by force. The report of Federico Moreno has validated
this. The researchers found that the Roman Catholic Church
induced the forces and the possible circumstances, as stated in the
accounts of Fr. Obach and Federico Moreno. This is also based on
the accounts of Rizal in Mi Ultimo Adios and his last will, where
he asks for a Christian burial. However, this is still in thin air, as
the shreds of evidence found were not sufficient to dispute the
results concluded by Dr. Pascual and the possible involvement of
Roman Roque in the alleged “forgery” issue.
 Despite the possibility, the researchers do not disregard the possible
existence of fraud among pro-retractions. However, upon objective
analysis of the sources, the researchers found the report of Federico
Moreno “more convincing” than the accounts of the Jesuits.
Furthermore, the anti-retraction claims mainly were construed
against the Jesuit accounts and not against the report of Moreno,
which leads to the possibility that, although Rizal may have
retracted, the Jesuits committed perjury.
 Rizal‟s retraction is not an issue, to begin with. As stated by the
historian Ambeth Ocampo, Rizal repudiated religious inaccuracies.
The document in no way diminishes the significance of his life,
novels, essays, and poetry in our history. Furthermore, the historian
Xiao Chua questions the importance of Rizal‟s retraction on the
lessons we can learn from his work. Does this change everything he
had made to stand against the oppression of the Spanish authorities
and the friars? In an article written by Uckung (2012) for the
National Historical Commission of the Philippines, he recognizes
that Rizal‟s retraction does not change anything on the works he
already wrote. However, according to him, if there is indeed a
fraud, then someone would have to pay for deceiving an entire
nation.

VII: LIST OF
REFERENCES Anacoreta P. Purino. Rizal: The Greatest Filipino. Manila: Rex Books
Store Inc., 2000
(Use Chicago Style/Manual
of Citations) Arnaldo, Carlos A. “Paco Cemetery, the „killing fields‟,” ABS-CBN News,
December 29, 2013. https://bit.ly/3cfDiiW

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Freemasonry." Encyclopedia
Britannica, October 15, 2021.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Freemasonry.

Bryan Anthony C. Paraiso. “Did Rizal Consider Retracting While in

Dapitan.” Manila: National Historical Commission of the
Philippines, 2012. https://bit.ly/3CkddKm

Chua, Xiao. “Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at

Pananaw.,” GMA News, December 29, 2016. https://bit.ly/3qJvwGI

Cowell, Alan, “After 350 Years, Vatican Says Galileo Was Right: It
moves,” The New York Times, October 31, 1992,
https://nyti.ms/3qIgTDj

Florida Atlantic University Libraries [FAUL]. “What is a Retraction.”

Accessed November 11, 2021, https://bit.ly/3HojwQL

Jose Aims Ricarte Rocina. “Ang Retraksiyon ni Rizal: Mga Iba‟t-ibang

Pananaw.” Social Science Project (2021): https://bit.ly/3oQ3tmr

Jose Florencio Fabella Lapena Jr. “José Protacio Rizal (1861-1896):

Physician and Philippine National Hero.” Singapore Medical
Journal 52 (2011): 390-393. https://bit.ly/3HpG57E

Jose Rizal University. “Analysis Rizal‟s Retraction.” (2004).

http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

Oxford English Dictionary [OED]. “Retraction.” Accessed November 11,

2021, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/164384

Pascual, Ricardo R. “Rizal beyond the Grave.” Manila: Luzon Publishing

Corporation, 1959

Pascual, Ricardo R. Rizal beyond the Grave. Manila: Luzon Publishing

Corporation, 1959

Peter Jaynul V. Uckung. “Rizal Retraction and other cases.” Manila:

National Historical Commission of the Philippines, 2012.
https://bit.ly/3CeHgD6

Rene Escalante. “Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? Revisiting Rizal‟s Last 24
Hours Using Spy Reports.” Southeast Asian Studies 8 (2019):369-
386: https://doi.org/10.20495/seas.8.3_369

Retana, W. E. Vida y escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal [Life and writings of Dr.
Jose Rizal]. Madrid: Libreria General de Victoriano Suarez, 1907

Runes, Idelfonso, T. and Mamerto M. Buenafe. The Forgery of the Rizal

Retraction and Josephine‘s Autobiography. Manila: BR Book
Company, 1962.

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
 The Kahimyang Project. “Did Rizal really retracted all his words and deeds
about the Chruch moments before his execution?” Accessed
November 15, 2021. https://bit.ly/3qMhzaP

The Kahimyang Project. “Today in Philippine History, August 17, 1898,

the remains of Dr. Rizal were exhumed and taken to his house in
Binondo.” Accessed November 15, 2021. https://bit.ly/3wT4QUT

Wager, Elizabeth, Barbour, Virginia, Yentis, Steven, & Kleinhert, Sabine.

“Retraction Guidelines.” Committee on Publication Ethics (2009):
https://bit.ly/3FmlQWq

Prepared by:
1. Gonzales, Ace John
2. Grumal, Jethro J.
3. Miranda, John Christian
4. Onrubia, Rojan A.
5. Ortiz, Mark John

JETHRO JUSAY GRUMAL

Leader

ACE JOHN ROSWILLOS GONZALES

Data Gatherer

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”
 JOHN CHRISTIAN MIRANDA
Analyst| Reviewer

ROJAN ANDRINO ONRUBIA

Data Gatherer

MARK JOHN DE LEON ORTIZ

Graphic Designer

De Gala St, Candelaria, 4323 Quezon Province

“THE SCHOOL OF CHOICE”

View publication stats