 Rizal’s

Chinese
Ancestry
 Liberalizing
Hereditary
Influence
 The
Chinese
Mestizo
 A grarian
Relation
and Friar
Lands
 The Cavite
Mutiny and
the
GOMBURZA
 Rizal’s
RIZAL’S SOCIAL ORIGIN Chinese
Ancestry
 RIZAL’S CHINESE ANCESTRY

 Domingo Lam-co was a native of the Chinchew district, where

the Jesuits, and later the Dominicans, had a mission and he
perhaps knew something of Christianity before leaving China.
 One church account indicated his home definitely, for its
specified Siongque, an agricultural community near the great
city.
 He was baptized in the Parian church of San Gabriel on a
Sunday June of 1697
 Following the customs of the other convert on the same
occasion, Lamco took the name Domingo, the Spanish for
Sunday, in honor of the day.
 RIZAL’S CHINESE ANCESTRY

 Domingo Lam-co was influential in building Tubigan barrio,

one of the richest parts of the great estate
 In name and appearance, it recalled the fertile plains that
surrounded his native Chinchew, “the city of the springs.”
 His neighbors were mainly Chinchew men;
 His wife was also from Chinchew, who was Inez de la Rosa
 The couple suf fered a great loss in 1741 when their baby
daughter, Josepha Didnio, lived only for five days
 They had at that time one other child, a boy of ten, Francisco
Mercado, whose Christian name was given partly because he
had an uncle of the same name
 RIZAL’S CHINESE ANCESTRY

 Among the Chinese, the significance of a name count much,

and it is always safe to seek a reason for the choice of a
name.
 The Lam-co family was not given to the practice of taking the
names of their god- parents
 “Mercado” recalls an honest Spanish “encomendero” or
merchant
 Francisco, therefore, set out in life with a surname that would
free him from the prejudice that followed those with Chinese
names reminding of his Chinese ancestry (Wickberg, 2000)
 LIBERALIZING
HEREDITARY INFLUENCE
 LIBERALIZING HEREDITARY INFLUENCE

 Francisco Mercado lived near enough to hear the “cajas

abiertas” (exiles) and their ways
 He did not live in a Jesuit parish but in the neighboring
hacienda of St. John the Baptist of Calamba.
 He got married on May 26,1771 to Bernarda Monicha, a
Chinese mestiza of the neighboring hacienda of San Pedro
Tunasan (Craig, 2005)
 They had two children, Juan and Clemente (both were boys)
 In 1783, he was the alcalde or chief of ficer of the town, and
he lived til 1801
 LIBERALIZING HEREDITARY INFLUENCE

 His name appears so of ten as godfather in the registers of

baptisms and weddings that he must have been a good
nurtured, liberal, and popular man
 Mrs. Francisco survived with her husband by a number of
years
 She helped nursing the baby ailments of their grandson, who
also named Francisco, the father of Jose Rizal, and son the
Juan, the eldest of Francisco
 Juan built a fine house in the center of Binan
 At 22, he married a girl of Tubigan, who was 2 years his
senior, Cirila Alejandra
 Juan Mercado was three times chief of ficer of Binan in
1808,1813, & 1815
 LIBERALIZING HEREDITARY INFLUENCE

 Young Francisco was only 8y/o when his father died but his
mother and sister Potenciana looked af ter him very well
 He attended first a Binan Latin School and later seemed to
have studied Latin and Philosophy at the College of San Jose
in Manila
 Af ter their mother’s death, Potenciana and Francisco moved
to Calamba
 Francisco, in spite of his youth, became a tenant of the estate
 The landlords early recognized the agricultural skill of the
Mercados by further allotments, as they could bring more land
under cultivation
 LIBERALIZING HEREDITARY INFLUENCE

 A year af ter his sister Potenciana’s death, Francisco married

Teodora Alonzo, a native of Manila, who for several years had
been residing with her mother in Calamba
 Her father, Lorenzo Alberto, was said to have been very
Chinese in appearance; he had a brother who was a priest,
and a sister Isabel, who was quite wealthy
 Lorenzo was the municipal captain of Binan in 1824
 The grandfather, Captain Gregorio Alonzo, was a native of
Quiotan barrio, and he was municipal captain 2x, in 1763, and
1768
 Lorenzo was educated to be a surveyor
 He was wealthy and had invested a considerable sum of
money with the American Manila shipping firms of Peele,
Hubble and Co., and Russell Sturgis and Co.
 LIBERALIZING HEREDITARY INFLUENCE

 Her mother, Maria Florentina was from the famous Florentina

family of Chinese mestizo originating from Baliwag, Bulacan,
 And her father was Captain Mariano Alejandro of Binan
 Mrs. Rizal was baptized in Santa Cruz, Manila on November
18,1827 as Teodora Morales Alonzo
 She was given an exceptionally good fundamental education
by her gif ted mother and completed her training at Santa
Rosa College, Manila, which was in charge of Filipino sisters.
 All the branches of Mrs Rizal’s family were much richer than
the relatives of her husband
 LIBERALIZING HEREDITARY INFLUENCE

 There were numerous lawyers and priests among them, old-time

proofs of social standing, and were influential in the country
 Relatives of Mrs. Rizal that would help us understand the
prominence of the family:
 Felix Florentino-uncle, first clerk of the Nueva Segovia (Vigan) court
 Jose Florentino-cousin-germane; was a Philippine deputy in the Spanish
cortes
 Manuel- a lawyer
 Fr. Leyva-the priest of Rosario,Vicar of Batangas Province; half-blood
relation
 Fr. Alonzo-another relative priest, Mrs’ Rizal’s paternal uncle
 The most obscure part of the Rizal’s family tree was the Ochoa
branch, the family of the maternal grandmother, for all the
archives (church, land, and court) disappeared during the late-
disturbed conditions of which Cavite was the center (Craig, p.70-
71)
CHINESE MESTIZOS
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 Early in the 15th century, Chinese mestizos were already

established in the region particularly in Luzon.
 The Chinese had been significantly involved in the economic
and social af fairs in the Philippines.
 Through the junk trade several points in the Philippines
enjoyed regular commercial and cultural contacts with the
Chinese
 The arrival of the Spanish conquerors in the Philippines in the
1560’s meant new opportunities for the Chinese.
 Chinese merchants carried on a rich trade between Manila
and the China coast and distributed the imports from China to
the area of Central Luzon, to the immediate north of Manila.
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 The Chinese established themselves at or near Spanish

settlements, serving them in various ways: as provisionary of
food, as retail traders, and as artisans (Wichkerberg, 1964)
 By 1603, barely 32 years af ter the founding of Manila as a
Spanish settlement, the Chinese population was estimated at
20,000 in contrast to perhaps 1 ,000 Spaniards.
 They were classified into 4 categories by the Spanish
Government in the Philippines:
 Those who did not pay any tribute (which include Spaniards and
Spanish mestizos)
 Indios (Malayan inhabitants of the archipelago who are now called
Filipino)
 Chinese
 Chinese Mestizos
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 The last three groups were considered tribute-paying classes

but the amount of their tribute payments and the services
demanded of them varied.
 Normally, the indios paid the lowest
 The Chinese mestizo paid double the tribute paid
 The maintenance of these categories in orderly fashion was
provided by the Spanish legislation
 Legal Status- as Chinese, mestizo, indio- by the terms of its
legislation, was not ordinarily a matter of personal choice or
orientation
 Rather, it was the status of the parents, particularly the
father, that was the most important
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 The son of a Chinese father and an indio or mestiza mother

was classified as a Chinese mestizo.
 Subsequently, male descendants were inalterably Chinese
mestizos
 The status of female descendant was determined by their
marriages
 A mestiza marrying a Chinese or mestizo remained in the
mestizo classification, the same also with her children
 But by marrying an indio, she and her children became in that
classification
 Thus, females of the mestizo group could change their status
but males could not
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 Binondo was founded as a Chinese town in 1594.

 A royal order was passed for the expulsion of all Chinese from
the Philippines; however, Governor Dasmarinas realized that
the city of Manila, the largest Spanish settlement, needed to
retain at least a small group of Chinese for its economic
services
 Therefore, he purchased a tract of land across the river from
the walled city and gave it to a group of prominent Chinese
merchants and artisans as the basis for a new Chinese
settlement.
 In the beginning, religious and cultural questions were not
involved,
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 But the missionary enterprise of Spanish Dominicians fathers

soon made Binondo a kind of acculturation laboratory, where
the Dominicans made it a community of married Catholic
Chinese
 On the other hand, non Catholics in areas within Binondo were
proselytized, baptasized, married and added to the community
of married Catholics, reaching 500 or more in 1600.
 The Chinese had founded Binondo on the basis of Dasmarinas’
land grant to be tax free and inalienable to non-Chinese and
non-mestizos
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 The grant was accompanied by limited self-governing

privileges.
 Thus, during the 17 th century, Binondo was intended to be a
settlement for Catholic Chinese and their mestizo
descendants
 However, Indios began to settle in Binondo that eventually
resulted to formation of the separate communities, mestizos,
and indios within Binondo
 Later, when the mestizo population grew and became the
leading element in Binondo, they broke away from the
Chinese forming their own Gremio de Mestizo de Binondo in
1741
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 They were recognized as a distinct element in Philippine

society, suf ficiently numerous to be organized and classified
separately
 They were bulked in the three central Luzon provinces of
Tondo, Bulacan, and Pampanga, comprising 60% of the
mestizos in the Philippines
 The Province of Tondo alone accounted for almost 30% of the
mestizo population
 But only 10% mestizos were spread in few spots on the other
islandnotably in the provinces of Cebu, Iloilo, Samar, and
Capiz; 90% of them were in Luzon
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 By the middle of 19th century the position of the Chinese

mestizo in the Philippine economy and society was firmly
established, 1750-1850, which brought some interesting
changes in their geographic distribution
 Though they were still numerous in Central Luzon, but they
began to be noticed in farther Luzon –Abra and esp. in nueva
Ecija
 In the Visayas, the largest group of mestizo before was in
Cebu, but af terward there were a number of them in Antique
 In Mindanao, they were already noticed in the eastern part of
the island (Caraga province) and in Misamis (Wickerberg,
1964)
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 In terms of economic position, it became stronger than ever.

 Not only did they have substantial land interests, but they
were well on the way to monopolizing internal trading with
only the provincial governors as their competitors
 Manila’s retail commerce was handled exclusively by the
Chinese mestizo and the Chinese also had the majority of
artisan’s shops and were active in urban wholesaling.
 They were even described by Bowring, a noted historian, upon
his visit in the Philippines, as being the most industrious,
preserving, and economical element in the Philippines
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 It was mestizos who made Cebu wealthy

 From Cebu, the mestizos sent their purchasing agents
eastward to Leyte and Samar, southward to Caraga and
Misamis, and westward to Negros and Panay to buy up local
products for sale to foreign merchants in Manila
 They bought up tobacco, sea slugs and mother-of-pearls,
cacao, coconut oil, cof fee, and wax, among some other
precious native products
 Mestizos in the other parts in the Visayas had their own ships
and had invested in the trade
 It was even noted that the mestizo’s strength in these
engaging economic activities made the Philippines known to
some other parts of the world
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 Products were exported to overseas markets

 Philippine products, like the hem and sugar, had already been
exported in quantity
 While the products of European factory industry, particularly
the EnglishTextiles began to find markets in the Philippines
 The rise of the mestizo to economic importance was
paralleled by the rise in social prominence
 Indeed, the mestizo’s wealth and the way they spent it made
them, in a sense, the arbiters of fashion in Manila and in
others settlements.
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 Although they built up their savings, sometimes into real

fortunes, the Chinese mestizos were fond of gambling and
ostentation, especially in dress
 Besides entertaining friends and other with sumptuous feasts,
mestizo families of ten expended great sums of money on
feast days
 Hence, a great prestige came to be attached to the name
mestizo
 Indeed, there were some places in Central Luzon where
everyone in the region claimed to be mestizo
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 The best illustration of this kind of mestizo-craze attitude

might be found in the character of CapitanTiago in Rizal’s
novel
 Capitan Tiago is an excellent example of an indio cacique
which means who wished to be regarded as a Chinese mestizo
and was able to purchase for himself a place in the wealthy
and famous Cremio de Mestizos de Binondo
(Wickerberg,1964)
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 With the rise of the mestizos to a position of af fluence and

prestige, their relations with the indios became a matter of
increasing concern to the Spaniards
 It was from this time- the middle of the 19th century - that we
began to find the “divide and rule” theme in Spanish writings
 The indios and the mestizo must be kept separated
 The brains and money of the mestizos must not be allowed to
become allied to the numerical strength of the indios
 The separate gremios should be maintained and their rivalries
encouraged wherever possible
 From this time onward, Spanish conservatives were haunted
by fears of an indio revolution led by the mestizos
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 The last half of the 19th century was so-called period of

occupational rearrangement and social Filipinization
 To a large extent, these two phenomena were the results of
changes in Spanish policy
 Free enterprise was given an opportunity to make the
Philippines a profitable colony for Spain
 As part of this general policy, in 1844, the Spanish
government revoked the indulto de comercio and henceforth
forbade Spanish of ficials to involve themselves in trading
 This measure eliminated the last obstacle of the mestizo in
their dominance in international trade
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 Spanish policy also pushed aside the barriers to Chinese

immigration and residence, thus Chinese could come to the
Philippines without any restriction
 By the 1880s, the Chinese population had soared to almost
100,000; Chinese were found in every corner of the
Philippines (Wickerberg, 1964)
 CHINESE MESTIZOS

 Purely in terms of his ancestry, Rizal might be considered a 5

th generation Chinese mestizo
 His paternal ancestor, a Catholic Chinese, married a Chinese
mestiza
 Their son and grandson both married Chinese mestizas
 This grandson, having achieved wealth and status in his
locality, was able to have his family transferred from the
mestizo pardon, or tax census register, to that of the indios
 Thus, Rizal’s father and Rizal himself were considered an
indio (Craig, 41)
 • Origin of
Estates

AGRARIAN RELATION • Early Period

Spanish

AND FRIAR LANDS Colonization

AGRARIAN RELATION AND FRIAR LANDS

 During 20 th Century, monastic haciendas were the dominant

form of land tenure in the region surrounding Manila.
 40% of the surface area in 4 Tagalog speaking provinces,
Bulacan, Tondo (now Rizal), Cavite and Laguna, are
ecclesiastical estates.
 Among the four religious orders, The Dominicans owned ten
estates, Augustinians with seven, the Order of St. John with
the large Hacienda Buenavista in Bulacan and the Recollects,
owners of two valuable and intensely cultivated estates in
Cavite. The archdiocese of Manila owned the remaining estate
– the Hacienda of Dinalupihan in Bataan Province.
AGRARIAN RELATION AND FRIAR LANDS

 Hacienda towns in the Philippines during the 19th century

were arranged in the following:
 The Municipal center (municipio) - a centrally located plaza where the
parish church, a government building, and perhaps a jail usually
would be found. It is home to the wealthier citizens of the town – the
traders, artisans, and tenants who leased but did not actually till the
land
 Casa de hacienda and granary - The residence of the friar
administrators
 Barrios – it is where the peasants lived near the fields they cultivated
as sharecroppers and agricultural laborers.
 ORIGIN OF ESTATES

Historical Origins:
 Land grants to Spanish conquistadores in late 16th and early
17th centuries
 Grants within a 100-kilometer radius of Manila
 Composition of land grants:
 Sitio de gagadomayor (1,742 hectares)
 Caballerias (42.5 hectares)
 Larger grants comprised two or three sitios, possibly including a sitio
de gagado menor (774 hectares)
 ORIGIN OF ESTATES

Evolution of Land Ownership:

 Consolidation of original grants into 34 estancias (ranches) by
1612
 Reluctance and inability of Spanish hacienderos to exploit
lands ef fectively
 Transfer of ownership: Spanish landowners selling to other
Spaniards who then mortgaged or donated estates to religious
orders
 ORIGIN OF ESTATES

Acquisition by Religious Orders:

 Donation of largest haciendas by Spaniards seeking spiritual
benefits
 Direct purchase from Spanish owners
 Contribution by Filipino donors and sellers, albeit to a lesser
extent
 Former Filipino chiefs and headmen selling or donating land
 Conversion of principales into village and town of ficials by
colonial government
 EARLY PERIOD SPANISH COLONIZATION

 Spanish influence on landownership:

 Importation of ideas from the New World
 Experimentation on estates in late 16th and early 17th centuries
 Dominant agricultural practices:
 Emphasis on cattle ranching overshadowing rice, sugar, and tropical
fruits
 Jesuits' focus on sugar production
 Transition of estates to religious orders:
 Relatively easy transfer from unsuccessful Spanish landowners
 Challenge of transforming estates into profitable enterprises
 Investment in estate improvement:
 Construction of dams and irrigation works
 Financial support for prospective tenants and laborers
 EARLY PERIOD SPANISH COLONIZATION

 Government involvement:
 Supplying labor needs through exempted labor institution
 Resulting prosperity of estates, especially for Dominicans
 Negative impact on Filipinos:
 Excessive exemptions leading to labor shortages in non-hacienda
villages
 Complaints and petitions against discriminatory labor obligations
 Agrarian revolt of 1745:
 Eruption of revolt in five provinces near Manila
 Grievances include land usurpation and closure of haciendas' land
 EARLY PERIOD SPANISH COLONIZATION

 Flashpoint of rebellion:
 Dispute between Hacienda of Biñan and neighboring town of Silang,
Cavite
 Fraudulent survey conducted by Dominicans leading to land takeover
 Turning point in socio-economic history:
 Filipinos' reaction against estates and exemption system
 Foreshadowing of new ideas of landownership and economic forces
THE CAVITE MUTINY AND
THE GOMBURZA
EXECUTION
 THE CAVITE MUTINY AND THE
GOMBURZA EXECUTION
 From the beginning, it had been its practice in the long and
uninspiring record of the Spanish occupation in the
Philippines: sore oppression leading to the inevitable revolt
and then savage vengeance
 With the rest of these victims of insensate rage, marched on
the morning of February 28,1872, three beloved priests and
servants of God, who were put to death by the Spanish
authorities (Schumacher, 1972)
 Their death marked a turning point in the history of Filipino
nationalism
 It brought together the liberal reformist elements in the
Philippines society with the growing self-awareness of a
people into a movement that before long would be directed at
independent nationhood
 THE CAVITE MUTINY AND THE
GOMBURZA EXECUTION
 Jose Rizal himself looked to that date, as decisive in his own
development as a nationalist, in a letter to his fellow Filipinos
in Barcelona in 1889:To quote:
“ Without 1872 there would not now be a Plaridel, a
Jaena, Sanciano, nor would the brave and generous Filipino
colonies exist in Europe. Without 1872, Rizal would now be a
Jesuit and instead of writing the Noli me Tangere, would have
written the contrary. At the sight of those injustices and
cruelties, though still a child, my imagination awoke, and I
swore to dedicate myself to avenge one day so many victims.
With this idea, I have gone on studying, and this can be read in
all my works and writings. God will grant me one day to fulfill
my promise.”
 THE CAVITE MUTINY AND THE
GOMBURZA EXECUTION
 The roots of controversy went far back in the history of the
church in the Philippines, even to its foundation and
fundamental structure
 They are to be found in 3 elements in the history:
 The structure of the patronato real
 The visitation controversy
 The late and erratic development of a native clergy
 With the grant of the patronato real, the Spanish crown
received most of the control over the church in the indies,
including the Philippines, in exchange for its commitment to
financially support the missionary enterprise
 Their influence increases at the passing of time, the clergy
came increasingly to be considered as employees of the state,
and the religion as a means of government
 THE CAVITE MUTINY AND THE
GOMBURZA EXECUTION
 With the dissolution of the religious orders in the Peninsula in
1836 and the confiscation of much of the church properties,
the continued existence of the religious orders in the
Philippines was totally dependent on their political usefulness
to a government that had little faith in their religious mission
 The age-old visitation controversy was the second element at
the root of the movement of the secularization of the parishes
 It was a struggle of the religious orders or regular clergy to
maintain the corporate freedom of action and unity against
the desire of the bishops to exercise the authority of their
of fice in the governance of their diocese
 With the establishment of a hierarchy, almost every new
bishop attempted to exercise the right and duty of his of fice
to conduct visitation of inspection in the parishes of his
diocese
 THE CAVITE MUTINY AND THE
GOMBURZA EXECUTION
 The religious, anxious to preserve their corporate structure
and their subordination to their own superiors, resisted such
visitation, basing themselves on their papal privileges
 When pushed to the wall, they responded by threatening to
abandon all the parishes, a threat more than once temporarily
carried out (Schumacher, 1972)
 The long failure of the bishops to enforce their rights to
visitation was closely linked to the third factor, the failure of
the Spanish missionaries to encourage the development of a
native Filipino clergy
 Accounts were made that there were no native Filipino, or
indio, priests ordained before 1698
 THE CAVITE MUTINY AND THE
GOMBURZA EXECUTION
 The only first serious ef forts in the direction of the Filipino
clergy were taken at the end of the 17th century
 The resistance of the native Filipino priests was under the
leadership of Fr. Pedro Pelaez, seconded by Fr. Mariano
Gomez
 With the tragic death of the former, the latter was being
passed on the leadership until his execution in 1872 signaled
the failure of the Filipino priests to obtain their rights
 In the process of resistance, however the ecclesiastical
dispute was to become an overly nationalist question, as the
Filipino clergy replied to racial discrimination with a firm and
ringing assertion of their equality as priest in the one Catholic
Church (Schumacher, 1972)
 THE CAVITE MUTINY AND THE
GOMBURZA EXECUTION
 During the term of Gov -Gen Carlos Maria Dela Torre (1869-
1871), he showed that he was democratic in his sympathies
and quickly named a series of reform committees for every
aspect of government in the Philippines
 However, documents proved that he was suspicious of the
Filipino liberals, particularly of the Filipino accused of anti-
Spanish sentiments were placed under surveillance, and their
mails subjected to government inspection
 Though he remained intent on reforms within the government,
Dela Torre did not intend to allow any liberalization, which
might endanger Spanish rule in the Philippines
 THE CAVITE MUTINY AND THE
GOMBURZA EXECUTION
 Fr. Burgos challenged openly the religious sector by writing
articles in the Madrid newspaper La Discusion (a republican
and anti-clerical newspaper & appeared to have been the
vehicle for a series of attacks on the continued existence of
the friars in the Philippines)
 In retaliation, Fr. Joaquin de Coria, procurator in Madrid of the
Philippine Franciscans, published a series of articles in
defense of the Filipino clergy to extol the works of friars
 Because of opening his identity in criticizing the friars and
defending the clergy, Fr. Burgos temporarily ruptured his
friendship with the Jesuits
 THE CAVITE MUTINY AND THE
GOMBURZA EXECUTION
 Fr. Pedro Bertran, the Jesuit superior, upbraided him for
bringing ecclesiastical questions into the public press, above
all in anti-clerical publications, such as La Discusion
 The anti-clerical activities of the Filipino clergy were
supported by the Filipino liberals in Madrid
 They had their own press organ in Madrid to defend their
interests and promote their aspiration
 The chief contact, at least of the priests, was Manuel Regidor,
a colleague of the republican politician Rafael M. Labra, who
was publishing the newspaper El Correo
 About the same time, a newspaper devoted totally to the
Philippines, El Eco Filipino, begun to published in Madrid by
Fr. Federico Lerena, a peninsular who was brother-in-law of
Jose Ma. Basa
 THE CAVITE MUTINY AND THE
GOMBURZA EXECUTION
 It sur vived until the time of the Cavite Mutiny.
 While, the policy of vigilance and suspicion on the part of Dela
Torre was replaced by one of the active repressions
 With the change of government in Spain, a new Gov -Gen Rafael
de Izquerdo (1871-1873), had been sent to replace DelaTorre
 His ideas on the governance of a colony were in no way
influenced by liberalism
 Thus, the tentative liberalization was quickly abolished
 It was in this atmosphere that the outbreak of January 20,1872
took place in the arsenal of Cavite
 According to the of ficial version that survives, the revolt on the
part of the garrison which took place was only part of a much
larger revolt, carried out not only by the army but also but the
naval forces directed from Manila with accomplices in the
provinces as well
 THE CAVITE MUTINY AND THE
GOMBURZA EXECUTION
 The purpose was to put to death all Spaniards and to proclaim
a provisional government under Fr. Burgos, to prepare the way
for a more permanent government
 The principal organizers in Cavite itself were sergeant
Lamadrid and Francisco Zaldua (executed together with
GOMBURZA) who were in contact with the junta headed by
Burgos, Pardo de Tavera, Regidor, and some other lawyers and
priests (Schumacher,1972)

-fin-