SMN
INTER-CLERGY CONFLICTS AND THE
CAVITE MUTINY
Inter-clergy conflicts
 The execution of Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano
Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora in 1872 marks a
turning point in the history of Filipino Nationalism,
a catalyst which brought together the liberal
reformist elements in the Philippine society with
the growing selfawareness of a people into a
movement that before long would be directed at
independent nationhood.
 Without 1872 there would not now be a Plaridel, a
Jaena, a Sanciano, nor would the brave and
generous Filipino colonies exist in Europe. Rizal
would now be a Jesuit and instead of writing the
Noli me Tangere, would have written the contrary.
 The struggle for the rights of the Filipino clergy
suffered eclipse with the death of the 3 priests in
1872, and the efforts of the propaganda movement
of the 1880s and 1890s would be directed to a
much wider field of civil and political rights, the
concern of Burgos for the equality of Filipino with
Spaniard and for justice to all remained at the core
of the nationalist aspirations and representations.
 In the early days of the evangelization of the
Philippines, as in America, the religious had
worked without bishops, governing the infant
church by authority of the so called “omnimoda"
faculties given them by the bull Exponi nobis of
Pope Adrian VI in 1522. The long failure of the
bishops to enforce their rights to visitation was
closely linked up with the third factorat the root of
the secularization controversy- the failure of the
spanish missionaries encourage the development of
a native Filipino clergy. The available evidence
indicates that no native Filipino or Indio priest was
ordained before 1698.
 Though it is understandable that the first
generations of Filipino Christians were still too new
in the faith to be ordained to the priesthood, the
system by which the patronato real had divided The Burgos Manifesto
up the country into regions assigned to different
religious orders, the limitation of the existing
educational institutions for a long time to "hijos
de españoles, " the precedent of unfortunate
experiences due to hasty ordinations in Spanish
America, and simple prejudice all contributed to
the fact that the first serious efforts in the
direction of a Filipino clergy were taken only at
the end of the 17th century.
 The indio who seeks holy orders does so not
because of the great and infinite advantages
which accrue to him along with the new state of
life he chooses. A major reason for the failure of
the bishops to prevail over the resistance of the
religious orders to episcopal visitation was the
lack of a secular clergy to fill the parishes vacated
by the religious when attempts were made to
enforce visitation.
The resistance of the filipino clergy in 1849-1851
 Painful as these measures were to the Filipino
clergy, and indicative of the Spanish government'
s mistrust of them, they had at least a semblance
of justice, an as much as they were considered to
be the restoration to the religious of parishes
which had originally belonged to them in
accordance with the regime of the patronato real.
 In the first phases, the leadership was to be in the
hands of Fr. Pedro Pelaez, seconded by Fr.
Mariano Gomez. With the tragic death of the
former in 1863, the leadership passed on to Fr.
Jose Burgos until his execution in 1872 signaled
the failure of the Filipino priests to obtain their
rights.
 The ecclesiastical dispute was to become an
overtly nationalist question, as the Filipino clergy
replied to racial discrimination with a firm and
ringing assertion of their equality as priests in the
one catholic church.
 Burgos replaces peláez, 26 years old at the time of
peláez's death, burgos had already obtained the
degrees of bachelor and licentiate, both in
philosophy and in theology. Not yet a priest, he and
fr. Jacinto zamora would obtain in competitive ex-
animations in the following year the appointments
as the alternate sectors of the sagrario, or cathedral
parish of manila.
 Burgos has been regarded as the protégé and
disciple of Pelaez ' s work, both published and
unpublished.
 Through the Manifiesto is anonymous, there seems
to be considerable evidence to support, and no
reason to doubt, the authorship of Burgos. Though
it is not true the most, if not all, copies in existence
come from a new printing made in Hong Kong
(very likely by José Ma. Basa) in 1888, there is no
doubt that it was first published in 1864. The
archbishop himself mentions it in a letter to the
nuncio of that year, attributing it merely to the "
secular clergy " .
 The only other one known to have written in the
campaign besides Burgos is Fr. Manuel Peralta,
who published in that same year of 1864 his Jucio
sobre el folleto "Importantisima cuestion, " in
answer to father Mayordomo and Agudo. Brebes
apuntes - set of notes belonging to Peláez, now
found in the Vatican archives, makes clear the
dependence of Burgos ' s Manifiesto on his
predecessor ' s work.
 In 1869, events in Spain and the Philippines
brought their sentiments out into the open and
Burgos emerged as their leader. The September
Revolution of 1868 - drove Queen Isabel Il from
her throne. A period of uncertainty. The uncertainty
lasted until a new monarch could be found. The
uncertainty lasted until the end of 1870 when Duke
Amadeo of Savoy, an Italian prince, was finally
chosen king of Spain.
SMN
 Amadeo ruled for only two years as the situation in
Spain became more and more chaotic. The
revolution as a whole was both liberal and
anticlerical in character, and the constitution of
1869 provided for separation of church and state,
and liberty of press, speech, assembly, and worship.
 June 1869 - Carlos Maria de la Torre arrived in
Manila who was the new governor-general because
of the result of the revolution in the Philippines. It
was in this atmosphere that the Filipino clergy
under the leadership of Burgos united their cause to
that of others born in the country, lawyers and
businessmen, who hoped for the greater freedom. If
the revolution had brought about only a limited
liberalization in Manila, there where no such limits
in Spain.
 In the Madrid newspaper La Discusion Burgos
wrote the first articles known to have been
published under his own name. When copies
attacks reached Manila, Burgos leaped to the
defense of the Filipino clergy, as he done earlier. It
seems likely that this was the occasion which
temporarily ruptured Burgos ' s friendship with the
Jesuits.
Cavite Mutiny
 Mutiny a rebellion against authority.
 Comes from an old verb, "Mutine" which means
"revolt"
Cavite Mutiny
A local mutiny of filipino soldiers and workers in the
arsenal, reacting to a decree of gov. Rafael de izquierdo
suppressing the privilege of the arsenal workers to be
exempt from the tribute and the compulsory labor
obligation.
2 versions of Cavite Mutiny:
1. Filipino Version - It is a simple mutiny by the
native Filipino Soldiers and Laborers of the Cavite
Arsenal (Fort San Felipe) who turned out to be
dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges.
2. Spanish Version - An attempt of the Indios to
overthrow the Spanish Government in the
Philippines
 Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera,
a Filipino scholar and researcher during that
period, wrote the Filipino Version of the bloody
incident Cavite Mutiny.
 The incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino
Soldiers and Laborers of the Cavite Arsenal (Fort
San Felipe) to the dissatisfaction arising from the
draconian policies of Izquierdo (abolition of
privileges and probition of the founding of the
school of arts and trades.)
 Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish
Historian documented the event and highlighted
it as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the
Spanish Government in the Philippines (The
Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny). It was
Pre-Meditated which means it was carefully
planned according to his account. To liquidate
high ranking spanish officers and kill the spanish
friars.
 There can as yet be no complete closure on the
Cavite Mutiny that occurred in January 1872,
since the records of the trials have not yet been
found. Although the Spanish government has
declared them lost, and researchers have not
located any copy in the Philippine National
Archives (PNA), rumors of their existence in
Spain continue to surface from time to time, but
nothing has been found.
 Rafael Gerónimo Cayetano Izquierdo y
Gutiérrez (September 30, 1820- November 9,
1883) was a Spanish Military Officer, politician,
and statesman. He served as Governor-General
of the Philippines from April 4, 1871 to January
8, 1873. He was famous for his use of "Iron Fist"
type of government, contradicting the liberal
government of his predecessor, Carlos María de la
Torre y Navacerrada.
 He was the Governor-General during the 1872
Cavite mutiny which led to execution of 41 of the
mutineers including the GomBurZa Martyrs.
 Izquierdo also acted as Governor-General of Puerto
Rico from March 1862 to April 1862. Izquierdo ' s
account is supplemented with much detail by the
later interrogation of Bonifacio Octavo, a sergeant
pledged to the revolt, who repented his role and
deserted before it happened only being captured the
following September.
 Priviledges that Izquierdo abolished in the events of
the Cavite Mutiny:
1. Excemption of All Filipino Workers and Soldiers
from paying their Tribute / Tax.
2. Excempted from Force Labor (Polo y Servicio).
 Bonifacio S. Octavio - He was a Suspected Cavite
Mutiny Leader and A Chinese mestizo. He was
implicated by the Spanish colonial authorities as
one of the leaders of the Cavite Mutiny in 1872.
 He was a second sergeant of the First Infantry
Regiment in the fort of Cavite when he was tried
for complicity in the rebellion. The record of
Octavo ' s trial gives interesting details about the
mutiny in January 1872. His statement, although it
sounds unbelievable, is important because he was a
participant observer of the event. It provides direct
knowledge of the conspiracy angle of the revolt and
how it was hatched.
 The end of mutiny and the assault began at 6am and
an hour later the fort was taken. They found the
commander of the fort dead, as well as the maid,
and his wife wounded. In the same room was a friar
of San Juan de Dios, who had been visiting the
commander and whom those evil men respected, no
SMN
doubt because of the consideration for the habit he
wore. The revolt has been planned at least as early
as November or December 1871, when Octavo says
he was first approached by the marine corporal,
Pedro Manonson, who urged him to give his name
to a list on a document urging the Filipino soldiers
to rebel against Spain.
Cavite mutiny
Revolt in cavite: Majority generally see it as: Often
instigated by the friars with the intention of eliminating
the priests and lawyers agitating for reforms.
7. Nor did the priests, lawyers, and businessmen
banished to the Marianas have anything to do with it.
8. The accounts stemming from Antonio Regidor,
although containing many factual names and events,
are not reliable narratives of the revolt and its causes.
9. The removal of the exemption of arsenal workers
from the tribute and compulsory labor was not the
cause of revolt even though it may contribute to it.
10. Neither arsenal workers nor any naval personnel
took part in the revolt.

Three parties in manila and cavite among those

attacked by izquierdo:
 Reformers (Lawyers and Businessmen) -
desirous of having their liberties of the Peninsula
extended to the Philippines. B. Filipino Clergy -
agitating for the restoration of the parishes back to
them.
 Federico Lerena in Madrid & Jose Ma. Basa in
Manila - agitating or liberal reforms but much
more aggressively thru newspapers (el correo de
ultramar and el eco filipino).
 Maximo Inocencio, Crisanto De Los Reyes &
Enrique Paraiso - Planners of the revolt, together
with those that they recruited to carry it out.

Cavite mutiny (Facts)

1. The revolt in Cavite was not a mere mutiny, but part
of a planned separatist revolution.
2. The revolution as a whole failed because of the
defection of the committed Filipino troops.
3. The planners of the revolution were Inocencio, de los
Reyes, and Paraiso.
4. Although sentenced to death, they were secretly
committed by Izquierdo for being fellow Masons.
5. The immediate instigators in Cavite were Zaldua and
Sergeant Lamadrid.
6. The three priests executed had nothing to do with the
revolt.