Case Study 2: What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?

The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavite Mutiny
and
the martyrdom of the three priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos,
and
Jacinto Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events
are very important milestones in 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, a battle
of perspectives supported by primary sources. In this case study,
we zoom in to the events of the Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in
the awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos 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 Montero'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 of exemption from the tribute was, according to some, the
cause of the insurrection. There were, however, other causes.

The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the

propaganda carried on by an unbridled press against monarchical
principles, attentatory of the most sacred respects towards the
dethroned majesty; the democratic and republican books and
pamphlets; the speeches and preachings of the apostles of these
new ideas in Spain; the outbursts Of the American publicists and
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 toward 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 meetings were usually attended by the
curate of Bacoor, the soul of the movement, whose energetic
character and immense wealth enabled him to exercise a 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
Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990),
281—286.

..lt 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 is... the plan of

the rebels, those who guided them, and the means they counted
upon for its realization.

It is apparent that the accounts underscore 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, or 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. 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 of lofty 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.

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 Cavitefios 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
Manilefios who were expected to aid the Cavitefios 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
On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a
threat to Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards
again.

Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872

Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the

accounts of Izquierdo and Montero. First, the account of Dr.
Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and
researcher, who wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident
in Cavite.

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— 280.

This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful

level by the Spanish residents and by the friars... the Central
Government in Madrid 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 affairs of
their country, while the friars, on the other handle 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 policies 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 as a smokescreen to creating a political club.

Tavera is of the 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 Central
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 institutions. 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
in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these
schools to be filled
by competitive examinations, an improvement welcomed by most
Filipinos. Another account, this time by French writer Edmund
Plauchut, complemented Tavera's account and analyzed the
motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut's Account of the Cavite

Mutiny
Source: Edmund Plauchut, "The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the
Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia 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 six Spanish officials.... At the same
time there was created by the government in Madrid a committee to
investigate 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 tariff 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 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.

In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should

be in Manila a Society of Arts and Trades to be opened in March
of 1871... to
repress the growth of liberal teachings, General Izquierdo
suspended the opening of the school... the day previous to the
scheduled inauguration...

The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public roads

construction and pay taxes every year. But those who were
employed at the maestranza of the artillery, in the engineering
shops and arsenal of Cavite, were exempted from this obligation
from time immemorial... Without preliminaries of any kind, a
decree by the Governor withdrew from such old employees their
retirement privileges and declassified them into the ranks of
those who worked on public roads.

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 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. They were prominent
Filipino priests charged with treason and sedition. It is
believed that the Spanish clergy connected the priests to the
mutiny as part of a conspiracy to stifle 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.