Lesson 4: Controversies and Conflicting Views in Philippine History

Lesson 4.3: Retraction Controversy of Rizal

Lesson Outcome:
 Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or against a particular issue
using primary sources.

Introduction

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that center on
ending colonialism and liberating Filipino minds to create the Filipino nation. Among his
famous writing are Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. Both novels tackle on Spaniards’
colonialism. These novels enlightened the minds of the Filipinos on how Spaniards
maltreated the Filipinos. These novels aim to stop the abuse of the Spaniards. Rizal's
writings did not vilify the Catholic Religion but the friars, the main agents of injustice in the
Philippine society.
In this lesson, we will re-examine whether Rizal retracts or not? Retraction is the act
of retracting or to withdraw previous claims. According to some, Rizal withdraws all the
things he has written to his published works.

Abstraction

Did Rizal Retract?

 Therefore, it is understandable that any piece of writing from Rizal that recants
everything he wrote against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines
could deal heavy damage to his image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary.
 Such document purportedly exists allegedly signed by Rizal a few hours before his
execution. This document referred to as "The Retraction", declares Rizal's belief in
the Catholic faith and retracts everything he wrote against the Catholic church.
Here’s the primary source document on Rizal’s retraction found by Father
Manuel Garcia on May 18, 1835. A letter which allegedly signed by Rizal (English
Translation)

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 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.

Manila 29 of December of 1896

Jose Rizal

Jefe del Piquete

Juan del Fresno
Ayudante de Plaza
Eloy Moure

 There are four sources of the alleged Rizal’s retraction that have surfaced.
1. The first was published in La Voz Española and Diario de Manila on Rizal's
execution on December 30, 1896.
2. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, in the magazine La Juventud a
few months after the execution, February 14, 1897, from an anonymous writer
who was later on revealed to be Father Vicente Balaguer. However, the “original”
text was only found in the archdiocesan archives on 18 May 1935, after almost
four decades of disappearance.
3. The Balaguer Testimony
- Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only one
eyewitness account of the document's writing exists – that of the Jesuit Friar
Fr. Vicente Balaguer.
- According to his testimony, Rizal woke up several times, confessed four
times, attended a mass, received communion, prayed the rosary, all of which
seemed out of character. But since it is the only testimony of allegedly a
"primary" account that Rizal wrote a retraction document, it has been used to
argue this document's authenticity.
4. The testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia
- Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016 through the research of
Professor Rene R. Escalante. In his research, the Cuerpo de Viglancia
included a report on the last hours of Rizal, written by Frederico Moreno. The
report details the statement of the Cuerpo de Viglancia to Moreno.
 Father Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, Rizal's retraction was
copied verbatim and published in Spain and reprinted in Manila. Father Garcia, who
found the original document, also copied it verbatim.
 In both reproductions (retraction letter), there were conflicting versions of the text.
Add to this date of the signing was very clear in the original Spanish document which
Rizal supposedly signed. The date was “December 29, 1890”. (Conflicting because
Rizal was executed in the year 1896)
 Later another supposedly original document surfaced; it bears the date "December
29, 189C". The number "0" was altered to make it look like a letter C. then, still later,
another supposedly original version came up. It has the date "December 29, 1896".
This time the "0" becomes a 6.
 Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document reported that
the forger of Rizal's signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged the
signature of Urbano Lacuna, which was used to capture Aguinaldo.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz_u5H7Ta6E)

Up to this day, Rizal's retraction issue is still an argument and one of the
controversies our history is facing. Others would like to believe that the friars invented the
purported retraction of Rizal to deflect Rizal's heroism, which was centered on the friar's
abuses.
Whether Rizal retracted or not, we must investigate if he did a turnaround. If
he did not, and the documents were forgeries, somebody would have to pay for trying to
deceive a nation.

Reference: Galicia, Reynaldo and Palencia, Marjueve, Readings

in Philippine History, 2019, Golden Books Inc