GENUINE

OR
FORGED???
“If Rizal retracted, he
would not have been
executed. But he was
executed, therefore,
Rizal did not retract.”
Lesson Objectives
At the end of the discussion, the students should be able to:
• Appraise the knowledge of the students with regards to the
controversial and conflicting views on the different historical
accounts.
• Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or
against a particular issue using primary sources
• Recognize the multiplicity of interpretation that can be read
from a histroicla text
ENGAGE: Read in advance the attached PDF in our GCR about our
topic ONE PAST, MANY HISTORIES, and share your thoughts in the
comment section.
 Did I
retract or
not?
A CONTROVERSIAL DOCUMENT THAT
RETRACTS:

• WORDS
• WRITINGS
• PUBLICATIONS
• CONDUCT

THAT HAS BEEN CONTRARY TO

RIZAL’S CHARACTER AS A CHILD OF
GOD.
ABOMINATES MASONRY AS AN
ENEMY OF THE CHURCH

• MASONS: FORGED
RETRACTION
• CATHOLICS: GENUINE
RETRACTION
 The first text was
published in La Voz
Española and Diaro de
FOUR VERSIONS Manila on the very day of
OF THE ALLEGED Rizal’s execution,
December 30, 1986
RETRACTION
LETTER OF JOSE
RIZAL
The second text appeared in
Barcelona, Spain, on February
14, 1897, in the fortnightly
magazine La Juventud
 Third, The original text
FOUR VERSIONS was discovered in the
OF THE ALLEGED archdiocesan archives on
RETRACTION May 18, 1935.
LETTER OF JOSE
RIZAL
The fourth text appeared in
EL Imparcial on the day
after Rizal’s execution. It is
the short formula of the
retraction.
1. December 30, 1896. The first text was published in La Voz
Española and diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s execution,
Dec. 30, 1896.
2. December 31, 1896. The second text appeared in El
Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution. It is the short formula
of the Retraction.
3. February 14, 1897. The third text appeared in Barcelona,
Spain, on February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine La
Juventud. It came from an anonymous writer who revealed
himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer.
4. May 18, 1935. The alleged “original” text was discovered by Fr.
Manuel Garcia, C.M. o May 18, 1935 in the archdiocesan archives
after in disappeared for thirty-nine years from the afternoon of
the day when Rizal was shot.
People who
proved that
Rizal did not
retract
 IF RIZAL
RETRACTED,
WOULD THAT
MAKE HIM LESS
OF A HERO?

Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest,

through Rizal is a hero, whether he retracted or not, we
must investigate if he really did a turn-around. If he did
not, and the documents were forgeries, then somebody
has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.