Jose Rizal’s Trial

(14TH SLIDE) In August 1896, Andres Bonifacio and his brave Katipuneros started a rebellion in Balintawak
and later attacked San Juan, but they faced heavy losses and failed. This led to the declaration of a state
of war in eight provinces by Governor General Blanco. Bonifacio was worried about the negative effects
of the uprising, including the potential for significant suffering and destruction, as well as the likelihood
of Spanish retaliation against all Filipino patriots.

(15TH SLIDE) During the uprising, Jose received two letters from Governor General Blanco that cleared
him of any involvement. Worried by the violence of the Katipuneros, Jose left for Spain on September 3,
1896, hoping to go to Cuba and work as a military physician. However, he was unexpectedly arrested
and held prisoner on a Spanish steamer before reaching Barcelona. He was then told he would be sent
back to Manila on the ship Colon. When he arrived in Manila on November 3, 1896, he was taken to Fort
Santiago under heavy guard.

(16TH SLIDE) In 1896, a five-day investigation began against Jose Rizal. He appeared before Colonel
Francisco Olive, who presented charges against him. The evidence against Rizal included both
documents and testimonies. Palma's book, Pride of Malay Race, provides the translated documentary
evidence, consisting of fifteen exhibits, as follows.

(17TH SLIDE TO 20TH SLIDE)

1. A letter of Antonio Luna to Mariano Ponce, dated Madrid, October 16, 1888, showing
Rizal's connection with the Filipino reform campaign in Spain.
2. A letter of Rizal to his family, dated Madrid, August 20, 1890, stating that the
deportations are good for they will encourage the people to hate tyranny.
3. A letter from Marcelo H. Del Pilar to Deodato Arellano, dated Madrid, January 7, I 889,
implicating Rizal in the Propaganda campaign in Spain.
4. A poem entitled Kundiman, allegedly written by Rizal in Manila on September 12,
1891.

This poem is as follows:

KUNDIMAN
In the Orient beautiful
Where the sun is born
In a land of beauty
Full of enchantments
But bound in chains.
Where the despot reigns,
The land clearest to me.
Ah! That is my country,
She is slave oppressed
Groaning in the tyrant's grips;
Lucky shall he be
Who can give her liberty!
 5. A letter of Carlos Oliver to an unidentified person, dated Barcelona, September 18,
1891, describe Rizal as the man to free the Philippines from Spanish oppression.
6. A Masonic document, dated Manila, February, 9, 1892, honoring Rizal for his patriotic
services.
7. A letter signed Dimasalang (Rizal's pseudonym) to Ter:.luz (Juan Zulueta's pseudonym),
dated Hong Kong, May 24, 1892, stating that he was preparing a safe refuge for Filipinos
who may be persecuted by the Spanish authorities.
8. A letter to Dimasalang to an unidentified committee, dated Hong Kong, June 1, 1892,
soliciting the aid of the committee in the, "patriotic work."
9. An anonymous and undated letter to the Editor of the Hong Kong Telegraph, censuring
the banishment of Rizal to Dapitan.
10. A letter of Ildefonso Laurel to Rizal, dated Manila, September 3, 1892, saying that the
Filipino people look up to him (Rizal) as their savior.
11. A letter of Ildefonso Laurel to Rizal, dated Manila 17, 1893, informing an unidentified
correspondent of the arrest and banishment of Doroteo Cortes and Ambrasio Salvador.
12. A letter of Marcelo Del Pilar to Don Juan A Tenluz (Juan Zulueta), dated Madrid, June l,
1893 recommending to establishment of a special organization, independent of
Masonry, to help the cause of the Filipino people.
13. Transcript of a speech of Pingkian (Emilio Jacinto), in a reunion of the Katipunan on July
23, 1893, in which the following cry was uttered "Long Live the Philippines! Long Live
Liberty! Long Live Doctor Rizal! Unity!"
14. Transcript of a speech of Tik-Tik (Jose Turiano Santiago) in the same Katipunan reunion,
where in the katipuneros shouted: "Long live the eminent Doctor Rizal! Death to the
oppressor nation!''
15. A poem by Laong Laan (Rizal), entitled A Talisay, in which the author makes the Dapitan
schoolboys sing that they know how to fight for their rights.

(22ND SLIDE) Several individuals, including Martin Constantino, Aguedo de Rosario, Jose Reyes, Moises
Salvador, Jose Dizon, Domingo Franco, Deodato Arellano, Ambrosio Salvador, Pedro Serrano Laktaw, Dr.
Pio Valenzuela, Antonio Salazar, Francisco Quison, and Timoteo Paez, provided oral testimonies as
evidence against Jose.

(22ND SLIDE) On November 26, 1896, Colonel Francisco Olive, the Judge Advocate, sent the case records
to Governor General Ramon Blanco. Blanco then assigned Captain Rafael Dominguez as a special Judge
Advocate to initiate proceedings against Jose. Captain Dominguez submitted a summary of the action to
Blanco, who in turn forwarded it to Judge Advocate General Don Nicolas De la Pena.
(23RD SLIDE) With his counsel by his side, charges were read to Jose in his prison cell on December 1 L
1896. He was accused, Medina ( 1998) disclosed, of being "the principal organizer and the living soul of
the Filipino insurrection, the founder of societies, periodicals and books dedicated to fomenting and
propagating ideas of rebellion." Jose was not against the jurisdiction of the court, but asserted that he
was not guilty of revolution.

(24TH SLIDE) He acknowledged that he authored the Constitution of the Liga Filipina and empliasized that
it was simply a civic alliance. He reiterated that he had no political involvement si11 his exile to Dapitan.
Or: December 13, 1896, Captain Dominguez transmitted Jose's case to the new Governor General of the
Philippines, General Camilo G. de Polavieja who replaced General Ramon Blanco.

(25TH SLIDE) During the time Jose was in prison cell at Fort Santiago, he penned a manifesto seriously
asking the Filipino people to cease the needless anct tumultuous war. He encouraged them to attain
freedom through education and habit of working hard and steadily. Palma (1964) promulgated this
manifesto as follows:

During the time Jose was in prison cell at Fort Santiago, he penned a manifesto seriously asking
the Filipino people to cease the needless anct tumultuous war. He encouraged them to attain freedom
through education and habit of working hard and steadily. Palma (1964) promulgated this manifesto as
follows:

(26TH SLIDE)

My Countrymen:
On my return from Spain, I learned that my name had been used as a war cry
among some who were in arms. The news painfully surprised me, but believing it was all
over, r kept silent over what r considered irremediable. Now I hear rumors that the
disturbances continue, and lest any person should still go on using my name in bad or
good faith, to remedy this abuse and to undeceive the unwary, I hasten to address you
these lines so that the truth may be known.
From the beginning, when I had news of what was being planned, I opposed it, fought it,
and demonstrated its absolute impossibility. This is the truth, and witnesses to my word
are still living. I was convinced that the idea was highly absurd and, what was worse,
would bring great suffering. I did more. When later, in spite of my counsels, the
movement broke out, I spontai1eo11sly offered not only my services, but my life, and
even my name so that they might use them in the manner they saw fit to suppress the
rebellion, for, convinced of the evils that would befall them, I considered myself
fortunate if, at any sacrifice, I could prevent such useless misfortunes. This is equally of
record.

My countrymen: I have given proofs, more than. Anybody else, of desiring

liberties for our country and I still desire them. But I place as a premise the education of
the people so that by means of education and of labor they might have a personality of
their own and make themselves worthy of liberties. In my writings I have recommended
redemption. I have also written (and my words have been updated) that reforms, to be
fruitful, have to come from above, that those that come from below are irregular and
 unstable. Imbued with these ideals, I cannot but condemn and I do condemn this
absurd, savage uprising
Planned behind my back, which dishonors us, the Fiiipinos, and discredits those
who may advocate our cause. I abhor its criminal methods and disclaim all participation
therein, pitying from the bottom of my heart the unwary who have allowed themselves
to be deceived. Return then to your homes, and may God forgive those who have acted
in bad faith.

The trial of Rizal was an eloquent proof of Spanish injustice and misrule. More
than a farce, it was patently a mistrial. Rizal, a civilian, was tried by a military court
composed of alien military officers. His case was prejudged; he was considered guilty
before the actual trial. The military court met not to give him justice, but to accuse and
condemn him. lt accepted all charges and testimonies against him, and ignored all
arguments and proofs in his favor. Moreover, Rizal was not given the night (which any
accused is entitled to have in a real court of justice) to face the witnesses against him in
open court.

(27TH SLIDE) The trial of Jose commenced in the Cuartel de Espana, a military building, on December 26,
1896, at eight o'clock in the morning. Also in the military court were Lt. Don LuisTaviel de Andrade
(Jose's defense counsel) Capt. Present in the trial were seven members of the military court: Lt. Col. Jose
Togores Arjona (President), Capt.

(28TH SLIDE) Captain Rafael Dominguez, a judge advocate, began the trial against Jose and explained the
charges of rebellion, sedition, and illegal association. Lieutenant Enrique de Alconcer, the prosecuting
lawyer, passionately detailed the accusations against Jose and urged the military court to sentence him
to death. Lieutenant Don Luis Taviel de Andrade, Jose's defense counsel, made a strong effort to provide
a convincing defense, reminding the judges to be fair and avoid vindictiveness in their judgment. After
the defense, the court allowed Jose to speak, and he confidently read a supplement to his defense. This
supplement is outlined by De Viana et al (2011).

1. He could not be guilty of rebellion, for he advised Dr. Pio Valenzuela in Dapitan not to
rise in revolution.
2. He did not correspond with the radical, revolutionary elements.

3. The revolutionists used his name without his knowledge. If he were guilty he could have
escaped in Singapore.
4. If he had a hand in the revolution, he could have escaped in a Moro vinta and would not
have built a home, a hospital, and bought lands in Dapitan .
5. If he were the chief of the revolution. Why has not he consulted by the revolutionists?
6. It was true he wrote the by-laws of the Liga Filipina, on this a civic association --- not a
evolutionary society.
7. The Liga Filipina did not live long, for after the first meeting he was banished to Dapitan
and it died out.
8. If the Liga was reorganized nine months later, he did not know about it.
9. The Liga did not serve the purpose of the revolutionists, othenvise they would not have
supplanted it with the Katipunan.
 10. If it were true that there were some bitter comments in Rizal's letters, it was because
they were written in 1890 when his family was being persecuted, being dispossessed of houses,
warehouses, lands, etc. and his brother and all his brother-in-law were deported.
11. His life in Dapitan had been exemplary as the politico-military commanders and
missionary priests could arrest.
12. It was not true that the revolution was inspired by his one speech at the house of
Dorotea Ongjunco, as alleged by witnesses whom he would like to confront. His friends knew his
opposition to armed rebellion. Why did the Katipunan send an emissary to Dapitan who was
unknown to him? Because those who knew him were aware that he would never sanction any
violent movement.

(31ST SLIDE)

Jose's appeal was disregarded by the biased military court, and they quickly agreed to convict him and
sentence him to death. The decision was then given to Governor General Camilo G. de Polavieja, who
sought the confirmation of judge advocate General Nicolas de la Pena, who upheld the death sentence.
On December 28, 1896, Governor General Camilo G. de Polavieja signed the execution order for Jose
Rizal.

Manila, December 28, 1896:

Conformably to the foregoing opm10n. I approve the sentence dictated by the

Court Martial in the present case, by virtue of which the death penalty is imposed on
the accused Jose Rizal Mercado, which shall be executed by shooting him at 7:00 o'clock
in the morning of the 30th of this month in the field of Bagumbayan.
For compliance and the rest may correspond, let this be returned to the Judge
Advocate, Captain Don Rafael Dominguez.

Camilo G. de Polavieja