RETRACTION OF RIZAL
RETRACTION
- according to Oxford Languages, retraction
is a withdrawal of a statement, accusation,
or undertaking.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
SPEECH
 When Rizal allegedly signed the retraction
document, the contents of the document
were published in the newspapers. Upon
knowing what Rizal did, his family
requested to see the original document so
that they could verify whether it was his
handwriting or not, but the Jesuit priests
said that they lost the document. In 1935,
39 years after Rizal's execution, the
Catholic Church found in their archives
what they claim to be the "original"
document of Rizal's retraction.
 It was discovered by an archdiocesan
archivist named Father Manuel Garcia on
May 18, 1935. The letter dated December
29, 1896, was signed by the national hero
himself. He discovered Rizal's Retraction
letter in a fire-proof vault at the
Archbishop's House and Office.
 the document is written in a double sheet
catalan paper. The edge except that on
which the double sheet is folded, shows
irregularity, slight tear, and slight soiling
and crumpling. In color the paper shows a
slight tint of yellow. The paper bears a
watermark of "Hijo de Jover y Serra"
continuously marked across the two
leaves.
 Above it is a trademark of a scale with
three stars below all enclosed with a loop
that appears like ribbon. Below this
trademark is also a loop within which are
number "2" and small type capital "A"
forming the sign of 2"A", perhaps to
designate the type of paper.
FIRST NEGATIVE INTERPELLATION
OPPOSITION
 The original letter has never been found,
and the only existing copies are based on
accounts of eyewitnesses who saw the
letter but did not keep a copy. Some
historians also point out that the language
and style of the retraction letter are
different from Rizal's usual writing style
and may have been written by someone
else.
AFFIRMATIVE
 He said, "Certainly, these physical
conditions are genuine marks of
"authenticity as to the age" of the paper.”
The paper existed and is anachronistic with
the time of Rizal which then was shown to
professionals. It was examined and
claimed to be authentic in the words of the
experts.
OPPOSITION
 Prof. Ricardo Pascual also concluded that
the retraction document that was
discovered in 1935 was not in Rizal’s
handwriting. He concluded in his book
“Rizal beyond the Grave” that the
document presented was a forgery.
 Yes, when he externally criticized the
letter, it can be true that the paper used was
from that time of Rizal but that does not
mean that the content is immediately true.
 Forgery of the document is alleged. A
former President of the University of the
Philippines and a prominent Mason,
Senator Rafael Palma, argued that a
retraction is not in keeping with Rizal's
character and mature beliefs too.
 RETRACTION OF RIZAL
FIRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
SPEECH
 An objection raised regarding the
authenticity of Rizal's retraction centers on
the disparities between the 1935 document
and the version presented by Fr. Vicente
Balaguer, one of the Jesuit priests who
visited Rizal during his last hours in Fort
Santiago. In the 1935 document, the term
"cualidad" is spelled with a "u," while in
Fr. Balaguer's version, it appears as
"calidad" without the "u." Furthermore, Fr.
Balaguer's rendition lacks the word
"Catolica" after "Iglesia," a term present in
both the 1935 and newspaper versions.
 Additionally, in the Jesuits' copy, the third
occurrence of "Iglesias" is preceded by the
term "misma," which is absent in the 1935
document. In terms of paragraph structure,
Fr. Balaguer's version does not initiate the
second paragraph until the fifth sentence,
while the 1935 version immediately begins
the second paragraph following the second
sentence.
 Another noteworthy distinction is the
comma usage; the 1935 retraction contains
four commas, whereas Fr. Balaguer's copy
includes eleven commas. Most
importantly, Fr. Balaguer's copy lacks the
names of the witnesses found in the
Manila newspaper texts.
 This raises concerns about the authenticity
of Rizal's retraction, as the discrepancies
between these versions and the absence of
witness names in Fr. Balaguer's copy have
fueled doubts rather than providing clarity.
It suggests the possibility that the
"original" document discovered in 1935
may not be an exact representation, and the
texts published in Manila newspapers may
have been closer to the genuine article.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE INTERPELLATION
AFFIRMATIVE
 claims of the experts and eyewitnesses
we mentioned are not valid and are
only making things up?
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
SPEECH
 Another evidence to prove Rizal's
retraction is the testimony of the press.
On December 30, 1896, the same day
Rizal was executed, there were seven
newspapers that published news about
the conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal and
his own handwritten retraction of
errors and profession of catholic. The
Diario De Manila, La Voz Espaola, El
Español, El Comercio, La Occana
Española, El Imparcial and Heraldo De
Madrid, all these newspapers published
a copy of the text of Rizal's retraction,
some claiming to have actually seen
and read Rizal's own handwritten
retraction
 Fr. Vicente Balaguer, he stated that on
December 29, 1896 he was actually
there, had a conversation with Rizal
and was able to convince him to
retract.
SECOND NEGATIVE INTERPELLATION
OPPOSITION
 But no original document was also found
up to this date. Several historians report
that Rizal retracted his anti-Catholic ideas
through that document which was given a
public viewing in 1935. Contrary, the
original document was never shown to the
public, only reproductions or imitations
which make it an unofficial and not
credible evidence of Rizal's Retraction.
 RETRACTION OF RIZAL
SECOND NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
SPEECH
 1887 publication of Noli Me Tangere —
which strongly condemned the Spanish
Catholic friars — was banned in the
colonies. It was followed four years later
by the similarly incendiary sequel El
Filibusterismo. Both novels contributed to
the intellectual development of the
Philippine nationalist movement.
Retraction of his thoughts about the
Catholics can greatly affect the
information laid upon his novels.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE
INTERPELLATION
AFFIRMATIVE
 Rizal did get suspected of rebellion,
sedition, and illegal association against the
Spanish government. Rizal retracted and
just renounced from the freemasonry and
not from his nationalistic works. But the
retraction document is not related to what
he was accused of.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
SPEECH
 The marriage of Jose Rizal and Josephine
Bracken. You cannot get married when the
institution that officiates marriage is
against you. Hence the saying, “No
Retraction, No Marriage”. In Dapitan, the
condition for them to be wedded was the
retraction.
 Moreno reported that in the early morning
of the following day, Rizal and Josephine
Bracken got married. The ceremony was
done in articulo mortis meaning at the
point of death. Archbishop Nozaleda and
Fr. Pio Pi’s instructions were clear that
Rizal should not be given the sacraments
unless he retracted his anti-Catholic
beliefs.
 Rizal fell in love with Josephine and
wanted to marry her canonically but he
was required to sign a profession of faith
and to write retraction, which had to be
approved by the Bishop of Cebu. In order
to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form
of retraction.
THIRD NEGATIVE INTERPELLATION
OPPOSITION
 Rizal did not even call Josephine as his
wife in his last letter of Mi Ultimo
Adios which was the last written text
of him before his execution. In that
letter he said to his farewell as follow:
"Adiós, Dulce extranjera, mi amiga, mi
alegría", instead of "Adiós, Dulce
extranjera, mi esposo, mi alegría".
Nonetheless, the members of Rizal
family themselves seriously doubt the
claim as no records were found as
regards the wedding.
AFFIRMATIVE
 In the early morning of Rizal’s day of
execution, the couple was married in a
ceremony officiated by the priest
Vicente Balanguer. After his marriage,
Rizal dedicated a Catholic devotional
book to his two sisters, Josefa and
Trinidad, as well as his wife, which in
his dedication mentioned “To my dear
and unhappy wife, Josephine,”.
THIRD NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
SPEECH
 Rizal did not retract because he was
not buried in a catholic cemetery in
Paco but in the ground.
 Rizal’s burial was kept secret, in spite
of what Rizal meant to the Filipinos
and of what his conversion meant, no
masses were said for his soul or funeral
held by Catholics. And, entry in the
book of burials of the interment of
Rizal’s body is not made on the page
those buried on December 30, 1896,
instead he was considered among
persons who died impenitent with no
spiritual aid. Lastly, there was no moral
motive for the conversion.
 On August 17, 1898, they dug up the
remains of Rizal. It was kept in the
Rizal family house in Binondo until it
was brought to the final resting place
in Luneta. On December 30, 1912, this
was the time that a solemn ceremony
 RETRACTION OF RIZAL

was held to finally bury the remains at

the monument in Luneta dedicated in
memory of Rizal.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE INTERPELLATION
OPPOSITION
 there is a tradition of the Catholics prior to
burials would have the masses for the
dead. A proper burial on December 30,
1896 after the execution, Rizal’s body was
brought to San Juan de Dios Hospital and
on the same day, notwithstanding that
Rizal was reconciled with the church, he
was not buried in the Catholic cemetery of
Paco but in the ground, without any cross
or stone to mark his grave.
 Given the idea of how Catholics are strict
with their beliefs, Rizal did not have a
proper burial due to the fact that he
remained against them by not causing a
retraction.