Content and Contextual Analysis of Selected Primary Sources in Philippine History

Topic 2: Case Study 2 - What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?

Overview:
In this chapter, we will analyze four historiographical problems in Philippine history in an attempt
to apply what we have learned thus far in the work of a historian and the process of historical inquiry.
Earlier we have been introduced to history as a discipline, the historical method, and the content and
context analysis of primary sources. Two key concepts that need to be defined before proceeding to the
historical analysis of problems in history are interpretation and multiperspectivity.

Learning Outcomes:
At the end of this lesson, students should be able to:
1. To interpret historical events using primary sources
2. To recognize multiplicity of interpretation that can be read from a historical text
3. To identify the different accounts written about the Cavite Mutiny of 1972.
4. To demonstrate ability to argue for or against a particular issue using primary sources.

Introduction
The year 1872 in a historic year of two events: The Cavite Mutiny and the Martyrdom of the 3
priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA.
These events are very important milestones in the Philippine history and have caused ripples throughout
time, directly influencing the decisive events of the Philippine Revolution toward the end of the century.
While the significance is unquestioned, what made this year controversial are the different sides to
the story, and battle of perspective supported by primary sources.
In this case study, it will zoom in to the events of the Cavite Mutiny, and major factor in the awakening of
nationalism among the Filipino of that time.
Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny
• The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal centered on how the event was
an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in the Philippines. Although regarded as
a historian, his account of the mutiny was criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a scholar.
• Another account from the official report written by then Governor General Rafael Izquierdo
implicated the native clergy, who were then, active in the movement toward secularization of
parishes. These two accounts corroborated each other.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Vidal’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, "Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872", in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia
Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7, (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 269-273.
The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal and of exemption from the
tribute was, according to some, the cause of the mutiny/revolt (pag-aalsa).
“There were, however, other causes. The Spanish Revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the
propaganda carried on by an unbridled press against monarchical principles, attenuators [sic] of the most
sacred respect towards the dethroned majesty; the democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the
speeches and preaching of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the outburst of the American publicist and

gcaubang2022
the criminal policy of the senseless Governor whom the revolutionary government sent to govern the
Philippines, and who put into practice these ideas were the determining circumstances which gave rise, among
certain Filipinos, to the idea of attaining their independence. It was towards this goal that they started to
work, with the powerful assistance of a certain section of the native clergy, who out of spite towards friars,
made common cause with the enemies of the mother country.
At various times but especially in the beginning of year 1872, the authorities received anonymous
communications with the information that a great uprising would break out against the Spaniards, the minute
the fleet at Cavite left for the South, and that all would be assassinated, including the friars. But nobody gave
importance to these notices. The conspiracy had been going on since the days of La Torre with utmost secrecy.
At times, the principal leaders met either in the house of Filipino Spaniard, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera or in
that of the native priest, Jacinto Zamora, and these meeting were usually attended by the curate of Bacoor,
the soul of the movement, those energetic character and immense wealth enabled him to exercise and strong
influence.”

Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny
of 1872

Source: Rafael Izquierdo, "Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny", in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of the Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila:National Book Store, 1990), 281-286.
It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native clergy, by the
mestizos and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos.
“The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice of the government in not
paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and against the usury that some practice in documents that the
Finance department gives crop owners who have to sell them at a loss. They encouraged the rebellion by
protesting what they called the injustice of having obliged the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute
starting January 1 and to render personal service, from which they were formerly exempted.
Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to establish a monarchy or a republic, because
the Indios have no word in their language to describe this different form of government, whose head in Filipino
would be called hari; but it turns out that they would place at the head of the government a priest... that the
head selected would be
D. Jose Burgos, or D Jacinto Zamora...
Such as... the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and the means they counted upon for its realization.”
It is apparent that the account underscores the reason for the revolution; the abolition of privileges
enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from payment of tribute and being
employed in polos y servicios, of force labor. They also identified other reasons which seemingly made
the issue a lot more serious which included the presence of the native clergy, who, out of spite against the
Spanish friars “conspired and supported the rebels.”
• Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report, highlighted that attempt to overthrow the Spanish
government in the Philippines to install a new “hari” in the persons of Fathers Burgos and
Zamora.

gcaubang2022
 • According to him, native clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic assurance
that their fight would not fail because they had God’s support, aside from promises Iofty
rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.

In the Spaniard’s accounts the event of 1872 was premeditated and was part of a big conspiracy
among the educated leaders mestizos, lawyers and residents of Manila and Cavite. They allegedly
plan to liquidate high ranking Spanish officers then kill the friars. The signal they identified among these
conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired from Intramuros.
Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872
Two other primary accounts must that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdo and Montero.
• Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera a Filipino scholar and researcher who wrote a
Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite.
• French writer Edmund Plauchut, who complemented Tavera’s account and analyzed the
motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera's Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, “Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny,” in Gregorio Zaide and SOnia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila National Book: Store, 1990), 274.
“This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by the Spanish residents and by the
friars of the Central Government in Madrid. It had announced its intention to deprive the friars in these islands
of powers of intervention in matters of civil government and of the direction and management of the
university... it was due to these facts and promises that the Filipinos had great hopes of an improvement in the
friars of their country, while the friars on the other hand, feared that their power in the colony would soon be
complete a thing of the past.
.. Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain and the only aspiration of the people
was to secure the material and education advancement of the country... “
According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and laborers of the
Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian polices of Izquierdo, such as the
abolition of privileges and the prohibition of the founding of the school of arts and trades for
Filipinos, which the General saw smokescreen to creating a political club.
Tavera in his opinion, that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a way, to address
other issues by blowing out of proportion; the isolated mutiny attempt.
• During this time; the General Government in Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all the
powers of intervention in matters of civil government and direction and management of
educational institution. The friars needed something to justify their continuing dominance in the
country and the mutiny provided such opportunity.
• However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational decree fusing sectarian
schools run by the friars into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree aimed to improve
the standard of education the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these schools to be filled
by competitive examinations, an improvement welcomed by most Filipinos.

gcaubang2022
 Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Edmund Plauchut “The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom Burza in Gregorio Zaide
and Senia Zaide Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila:National Book Store, 1990),
251-268.
General La Torre created a junta composed of high officials including some friars and 6 Spanish
officials. At the same time, there was a created committee by the government of Madrid that
investigates the same problems submitted to the Manila committee. When the two finished work, it
was found that they came to the same conclusions. Here is the summary of the reforms they considered
necessary to introduce:

1. Changes in tariffs rates at customs and the methods of collection.

2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
3. Reduction of export fees.
4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy freedom of worship,
and operate commercial transports flying the Spanish flag.
5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in Madrid on the
necessary reforms to be implemented.
6. Changes in primary and secondary education.
7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines rendering unnecessary the
sending home of short term civil officials every time there is a change of ministry.
8. Study of direct tax system
9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly.
The arrival in Manila of the new Governor General Izquierdo put a sudden end to all dreams of reforms
the prosecutions instituted by the new Governor General were probably expected as a result of the
bitter disputes between the Filipino clerics and the friars. Such a policy must really end in a strong
desire on the part of the other to repress cruelly.

The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement their dominance, which had
started to show cracks because of the discontent of the Filipinos. They showcased the mutiny as
part of a greater conspiracy in the Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish Government.
Unintentionally, and more so, prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872, resulted in the martyrdom of
GOMBURZA and paved the way to the revolution culminating in 1898.
The reason why the planned mutiny failed
The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the
Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were some fireworks display. The Caviteños allegedly mistook this as
the signal to commence with the attack. The 200-men contingent led by Sergeant Lamadrid attacked
Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal. Izquierdo, upon learning of the attack, ordered the
reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed, when
the Manileños who were expected to aid the Caviteños did not arrive. Leaders of the plot were killed in the
resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora were tried by a court martial and sentenced
to be executed. Others who were implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose
and Pio Basa, and other Filipino lawyers were suspended from the practice of law, arrested and sentenced
to life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and
ordered the creation of an artillery force composed exclusively by peninsulares.

gcaubang2022
 The Martyrdom of GOMBURZA
The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests, Mariano Gomez, Jose
Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, who were tagged as the masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. On 17
February 1872, they were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards
again.
They were prominent Filipino priests charged with treason and sedition. It is believed that the Spanish
clergy connected the priest to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to the movement of secular priests who
desired to have their own parishes instead of being merely assistants to the regular friars.
• The GOMBURZA were executed by garrote in public, a scene purportedly witnessed by a young Jose
Rizal.
Their martyrdom is widely accepted as the dawn of Philippine nationalism in the nineteenth
century with Rizal dedicating his second novel, El Filibusterismo to their memory:

“The Government, by enshrouding your trial in mystery and pardoning your co-accused, has suggested that
some mistake was committed when your fate was decided; and the whole of the Philippines in paying homage
to your memory and calling you martyrs totally rejects your guilt. The Church by refusing to degrade you has
put in doubt the crime charged against you.”

gcaubang2022