Controversies and Conflicting

Views in Philippine History

 Learning Objectives:
At the end of lesson, the students should be able
to:

01 02
REACT AND REFRLECT ON DEMONSTRATE THE
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES ABILITY TO FORMULATE IN
AND CONFLICTING VIEWS FAVOR OF OR AGAINST A
CONCERNING HISTORICAL PARTICULAR HISTORICAL
EVENTS; AND, ISSUE USING PRIMARY
SOURCE.
 The need for Studying Controversies and
Conflicting Views
Many years ago, an NFO Trends Survey showed that only 37 percent of the 1,420
respondents aged 7 to 21 years old, were able to sing the Philippine National Anthem
and only 28 percent could recite the old version of "Panatang Makabayan." Of the
many Filipino heroes, they could only name up to 2 heroes-and other matters. The
conclusion is that the Filipino youth, in general, had a "very shallow knowledge and
appreciation" of the country's history and cultural heritage.
Every student in Philippine history should therefore be able to know, understand and
critically analyze various controversies and conflicting views because these may
affect their lives as Filipinos and citizens of contemporary society.
 Controversies and Conflicting Views
It has been said that the Philippines had "one past but many histories" is true in this
case. Different authors and writers of Philippine history books vary in their
description of the Philippine's physical features, its location, number of islands, land
area, river systems, mountains, site of the first mass, cry of Balintawak among others.
With these conflicting views in certain events and situations, they are subject for
debate.
The following are the Controversial Issues:
 The Philippine Physical Features
Pepito M Capito prepared a list of controversial issues in Philippine history. He got the information from
the book of Pedro H. Gagelonia - who happened to be the author's history professor in FEU in 1963.
These controversies are:

1. Number of Island and Islets in the Philippines

Different authors of history books had different views on the number of islands and islets.
Here are the conflicting views on the number of islands and islets.
a. Molina – 7,083 islands
b. Agoncillio and Alfonso – 7,000
c. Alip - 7,100
d. Zaide - 7,083
e. Ariola – 7,100
2. Number of Named Island and Unnamed Islands
a. Agoncillo and Alfonso -3,000 named islands and 4,000 unnamed islands

b. Alip-2,773 named islands, the rest are still unnamed islands

c. Zaide-different data in his own books

(1) Philippine History for Catholic Schools and the Republic of the Philippines, 1963-2,773
(named islands?)

(2) Philippine Political and Cultural History, 1957-2,782 (named islands?)

d. Gagelonia, The Filipino Historian - 2,000 islands have been named

e. Google, Wikipedia - 5,000 islands are yet to be named.

3. Location of the Philippines
a. Zafra - Philippines is located about 700 miles or 1126.54 kms. from the
mainland of China

b. Molina - Philippines is located southeast of the Asiatic Mainland

c. Alip - Philippines lies about 700 miles or 1126.54 km to the southeast of the
Asia Mainland

d. Zaide - Philippines is a sprawling archipelago fringing the southeastern rim

of the Asian continent
4. Location of the Philippine Deep or sometimes called

Philippine Trench, Mindanao Trench or Mindanao Deep. This is the third deepest in
the world which is located on the east of the Philippines. Its length is 1,320 km (820
miles) and a width of about 30 km (19 miles). This is located in Luzon trending
southeast to the northern Maluku Island of Haimahera, Indonesia. Galathea Depth, its
deepest point has a depth of 10,540 meters (5,760 fathoms; 34,580 feet)

a. Molina - Philippine Deep or Philippine Trench which is found east of Mindanao is

the second lowest region of the earth

b. Zaide-It is the lowest region in the world, an ocean depth east of Mindanao (cited in
his book, Philippine History for Catholic High Schools)
c. Zaide - It is the lowest part of the Earth situated about 15 miles (24,1420 kms)
Northeast of Mindanao. It is 34,218 feet (10,429646 kms) below sea level. (cited in his
book Philippine Political and Cultural History)

d. Zaide - It is the second lowest place in the world and is located 72.4205 kms (45
miles) east of Northern Mindanao. It is 35,400 feet or 10,78992 kms deep (cited in his
book Philippine History)

e. Agoncillo - It is the second deepest sea in the world which is located east of
Mindanao and with a depth of 35,440 feet (10.802.112 kms)

f. Google-The Philippine Deep Sea has a depth of 34,580 feet or 10.539984 kilometers
5. Longest River in the World - Fact: The largest, longest, and widest river in the
Philippines is the Cagayan River or Rio Grande de Cagayan. It is located in the
Northeastern part of Luzon that traverses the provinces of Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino,
Isabela and Cagayan. Small streams that originates from Balete Pass, Cordillera,
Caraballo and Sierra Mountains meet other streams and rivers and flow to the
Cagayan River.

The Rio Grande de Mindanao or Mindanao River is the second largest river located on
the southern part of Mindanao. It has a length of 373 kilometers (232 meters). Its
headwaters are in the mountains of Impasugong, Bukidnon, south of Gingoog City in
Misamis Oriental, what it is called the Pulangi River joining the Kabacan River where
it becomes the Mindanao River.
Disagreement Among the Authors of Philippine History

a. Alip - Cagayan River is the longest river in the Philippines

b. Molina - Rio Grande de Mindanao is the longest river in the Philippines

c. Benitez - Rio Grande de Mindanao is the longest river in our country

d. Zaide The longest river is the Rio de Mindanao (cited in his book Philippine History for Elementary
Schools)

e. Zaide The longest river is the Rio de Mindanao (cited in his book Philippine History for High Schools)

f. Google - Rio Grande de Cagayan is the longest and widest river in the Philippines whereas, Rio Grande
de Mindanao or Mindanao River is the country's second largest river system with a length of 373
kilometers 6.
6. Straits - It is a naturally formed, narrow but navigable waterway that connects two larger
bodies of water.

Disagreements among Authors in Philippine History as to the number of straits in the

Philippines

a. Molina - There are 8 landlock straits in the Philippines

b. Agoncillo - There are 20 landlock straits

c. Zaide-There are 8 landlock straits

d. Google-There are 22 straits

Coastline - It is also called seashore where land meets the sea or ocean, or a line that forms the
boundary between the land and the ocean, sea, or lake.

Disagreements among the Authors

a. Zaide - The Philippines coastline is thrice longer than the U.S. coastline with 10,850 statute
miles or 17, 461.382 statute kilometers

b. Molina - The Philippines coastline is 11,446 statute miles or 18,470,605 statute kilometers

c. Alip- The Philippines coastline is nearly 11,000 miles or 17,702.784 kilometers

d. Benitez - The Philippines coastline is 11,440 statute miles or 18,419,895 statute kilometers
8. Mountains - Mt. Apo is the highest mountain in the Philippines but historians
disagree or differ in their data on the height of Mt. Apo.

a. Agoncillo-Mount Apo is 9,600 feet or 2.92608 kilometers high

b. Alip - Mount Apo is 9,699 feet or 2.956 plus kilometers high

c. Zaide - Mount Apo is 9,690 feet or 2.9535 kilometers high

d. Google-Mount Apo is 2,954 kilometers high

9. Mount Pulag or sometimes called as Mount Pulog is the third highest mountain in the
Philippines and Luzon's highest peak at 2.922 meters above sea level. It borders between
the province of Benguet, Ifugao and Nueva Vizcaya:

a. Agoncillo - Mount Pulag is the second highest peak in Luzon with 8,481 feet (2.585009
kms) high

b. Alip-Mt. Pulag is 9,606 feet high (2.927 kms) high

c. Google-Mt. Pulag is 2.9222 kilometers high

The second highest mountain is Mt. Dulong-Dulong with a peak of 2,936 meters. The
fourth is Mt. Kitanglad Ranges (2899 meters) with Mt. Piapayungan Range (2,890 meters)
 Site of the First Mass
Decades after the debate on where the Catholic mass in the Philippines took place has remained
unsolved, local Butuan historians asked the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines
(CBCP) to resolve the first mass controversy in the city's favor (Macarinas, 2012). Local
historians in Butuan believed that the first site of the Catholic mass took place in Mazawa, a
place in Butuan now called Masao, not in Limasawa Island in Leyte as stated in history books.

Local historian and president of the Butuan City Heritage Society (BCHS) Greg Hontiveros
said that the "honor" belongs to the City of Butuan and not in Leyte. He also requested the.
CBCP to investigate the first mass controversy since the event is very symbolic and important
to the church.
"On March 31, 1521, Easter Sunday, Friar Pedro Valderrama celebrated mass together
with Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and his men. With the Spaniards were
the ruler of Mazawa, Rajah Siaias and his brother Rajah Colambu, the ruler of Butuan.
Afterwards, they planted a cross in the highest hill and stayed in the area for seven
days and helped in the rice harvest for two days together with more than a hundred of
the Rajah's men.“

Father Joesilo Conalla, curator of Butuan Diocesan Liturgical Museum likewise

believed that the site of the first mass was in Butuan, not in Limasawa because the
people who attended the mass harvested rice for two days, meaning that the place was
a huge agricultural area. Limasawa island was not an agriculture area, therefore
there is nothing to harvest there, Amalla further stated.
He also pointed out that one important evidence is the Yale Codex, which according to
Magellan's history scholars, is more impressive than the Ambrosiana Codex used in the past
to justify both claims. He further stated that the document (referring to the Yale Codex) is
now kept at Yale University while the other two French manuscripts are in the French
National Library. Another proof, according to Fr. Amalla are the versions of Antonio
Pigafetta, Magellan's voyage chronicler, because there are subtle indicators that can be used.

However, on March 31, 1998, the National Historical Institute chose to adopt the finding in
the Gancayco Panel (see Appendix) which dismissed the Ginés de Mafra account as fake and
forthwith unilaterally reverted the discussion to pre-de Mafra context which was back to
whether the site of the first mass was LImasawa, the isle without anchorage, or Butuan,
which is not an isle.
Another evidence to prove that the first Catholic site was held somewhere in Butuan and
not in Limasawa Island was the historical account of Joelito Monzon Ramirez Jr., a local
historian and writer.

(1) There was no island named Limasawa in 1521. On that event, Pigafetta recorded
today's Limasawa as Gatighan Island, between Bohol and Panaon south of Leyte.
Magellan never landed in Gatighan. The name Limasawa appeared only in 1667, Historia
de Mindanao, by Combes. Pigafetta saw these islands ON THEIR WAY OUT FROM
MAZAUA after their departure on April 4, after the first mass was celebrated on March
31. (2) They went to Mazaua from Suluan by sailing, as recorded, downwards - west.
From Suluan, Limasawa can be reached by sailing northwest - but that is not their course.
They sailed downwards-west (3) Upon their departure, they sailed northwards for Cebu.
Had they been in Limasawa, that direction would have landed them in Ormoc of Leyte.
 The Cry of Balintawak
Cry of Balintawak or Cry of Pugad Lawin, where did Andres Bonifacio "Cry" The Cry of Balintawak of contrived
controversy. For nearly a century, the Cry of Balintawak or Cry of Pugadlawin has been the subject of many
considered as a turning point of Philippine history. The main focus of is the date and place of Bonifacio Cry. There
were five dates for the

20,23,24,25, and 26 and five different venues for the first cry: Balintawak, Kangkong, Bahay-Toro and Pasong
Tamo. Pugadlawin,

The first issue: It has been widely accepted and believed that the first cry of the revolution took place in Balintawak,
Caloocan in August 23, 1896.

The second issue: The first cry was in August 23, 1896 but the exact place is

not in Balintawak but Pugadlawin. Between these two controversies, the Balintawak tradition continues to thrive.

The third issue: The cry occurred towards the end of August 1896 and that all the places mentioned above are in
Caloocan (now a big City) which in those times was a district of Balintawak.

But these controversies remain unresolved except in the Philippine History books.
 The Cavite Mutiny Controversy
Jose Rizal dedicated his novel "El Filibusterismo" to the three priests, Mariano Gomez, 85
years old, Jose Burgos, 30 and Jacinto Zamora, 35 who were executed at Bagumbayan Field
in the morning of February 17,1872 (Ariola, 2012; Agoncillo, 2010 and Zaide, 2004). The
three priests were summarily tried and sentenced to death by the garrote for being linked as
instigators of the Cavite Arsenal Revolt of January 20,1872. The three priests were very
active in the secularization (or nationalization) of the clergy (Nuguid, 2012).

However, not all Filipinos, including college students knew that there were two accounts or
perspectives in reference to the death of the three Filipino Martyrs, according to Chris
Antonette Piedad -Pugay (a history writer)
 The Spanish Perspective of the 1872 Cavite
Mutiny (based on Pugay's historical account)
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. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo's official report magnified the
event and made use of it to implicate the native clergy, which was then active
propagandists proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican
books and pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of
the native clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, "conspired and
supported the rebels and enemies of Spain.
In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press for "stockpiling" malicious propagandas
grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King of Spain that the "rebels" wanted to overthrow the
Spanish government to install a new "hari" in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The general
even added that the native clergies enticed other participants by giving them charismatic assurance
that their fight will not fail because God is with them coupled with handsome promises of rewards
such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios as
gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing.

The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was thought of it as a big
conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers, residents of Manila and
Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to
liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be followed by the massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-
concerted signal among the conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls
of Intramuros.

On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to instill fear among
the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the GOMBURZA were executed.
This event was tragic but served as one of the moving forces that shaped Filipino nationalism.
 The Filipino Version of the Cavite Incident
(based from the historical account of Pugay)
Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote the Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. In
his point of view, the incident was a mere mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned out to be
dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov. Izquierdo's cold- blooded policies such as the abolition of
privileges of the workers and native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of school of arts and trades for the
Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization of a political club.

On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal, and residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose
in arms and assassinated the commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support from the bulk of the
army unfortunately, that didn't happen. The news about the mutiny reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the
reinforcement of Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.

Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite

Mutiny as a powerful lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving

not only the native army but also included residents of Cavite and Manila, and

more importantly the native clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in

the Philippines. It is noteworthy that during the time, the Central Government
in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil
government and the direction and management of educational institutions. This turnout of events was believed by
Tavera, prompted the friars to do something drastic in their dire sedire to power in the Philippines. maintain

Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain welcomed an educational decree
authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called
Philippine Institute. The decree proposed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring
teaching positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was warmly received
by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy's zest for secularization.

The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past, took advantage of the incident
and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago with the
object of destroying Spanish sovereignty. Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that
the scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged "revolution" reported by
Izquierdo and the friars.

Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced to life imprisonment while members of the
native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried and executed by garrote. This episode leads to the awakening
of nationalism and eventually to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund
Plauchuť's account complimented Tavera's account by confirming that the event happened due to discontentment of
the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of the three
martyr priests which he actually witnessed.
 The Philippine National Flag
Before the 1896 revolution, the Filipinos had no common flag. It was only on the
height of revolution that started to exist. The Katipunan generals designed different
flags to signify the unit or battalion where they belong. But, the flags that they created
cannot be called as a national flag.
 Philippine Flag was Banned!
Just like our country and its constitution, the Philippine flag also experienced different
controversies. When the Americans took over the Philippines in 1898, mutual distrust
among the Filipinos and Americans started. This prompted the Philippine Commission
to enact the Flag Law of 1907 that forbade the Filipinos to use or display the
Philippine flag anywhere, even inside Filipino homes. The Filipinos responded with
bitter protests as they saw the Flag Law as a violation of the fundamental principle of
free expression.
 Inclusion of a 9th Ray or Crescent in the
Flag
In the early part of 1970, appeals for the inclusion of an additional ray or a crescent in the
Philippine flag created another issue. House Bill No. 7725 sponsored by Rep. Sultan Omar
Dianalan of the 1st District of Lanao del Sur petitioned for the addition of 9th ray in the rays of
the sun in the Philippine flag to symbolize the Moslems and the cultural minorities who fought
the Spaniards and waged war against them. Other groups proposed that a crescent be placed
beside the sun as a form of tribute to the pre-colonial past. However, historians, headed by
Teodoro Agoncillo singled out that when Aguinaldo himself designed the flag, he had in his mind
the eight provinces which rise in arms against Spain during the Philippine Revolution namely:
Manila, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, Nueva Ecija, Tarlac, Laguna and Batangas. He also pointed
out that one of the three stars in the flag already represents the Moslem and the Moslem lands.
 The Blue Color of the Flag

The repeal of the Flag Law of 1907 gave reason for the Filipinos to be jubilant,
however, it created a new controversy concerning the true color of the flag's blue
field. The issue was raised as early as mid 1970's until mid 1980's. Through studies it
appeared that the conflict in the shades of blue might have resulted from the alleged
hasty preparations of the flag that was used for the Flag Day of March 26, 1920
following the repeal of the Flag Law. The quartermaster was said to have run out of
light blue cloth and used dark blue instead similar to the one used for the American
flag.
 Where is the Original Flag?
In his letter to Captain Baja dated 11 June 1925, Aguinaldo mentioned that in their
Northward retreat during the Filipino-American War, the original flag was lost
somewhere in Tayug, Pangasinan. Some people believed that the original flag that was
hoisted during the proclamation of independence on 12 June 1898 was the one stored in
the Aguinaldo Museum at Baguio City. It cannot be denied that the said flag was
authentic and a contemporary of the original flag but experts found out that its materials
was made of combined silk and cotton fabric, not fine silk as stated by the flag-maker
herself in "Philippine Herald" published in October 1929. There were also reports that
the first original flag of the Philippines was returned in July 1957 by US Ambassador
Charles E. Bohlen.
 Antonio Luna's Assasination
Who really ordered Luna's murder? Is Aguinaldo a hero or a traitor? History books
blamed Aguinaldo as the mastermind in the death of General Antonio Luna. Luna
suffered over 30 wounds from bolos, bayonets, and bullets. Was the death of Luna under
the command and order of Aguinaldo?

1) General Antonio Luna, lieutenant commander of the Fillipino Army has been
assassinated by order of Aguinaldo. He was stabbed to death by a guard selected by
Aguinaldo to kill him. Investigation of the incident proved that Luna had been killed and
General Otis, the American Governor-General, had authentic information regarding the
death of the "insurgent general."
2) Another information says that Ney, a guard of Aguinaldo, by order of General Aguinaldo
purposely insulted Luna and forced a quarrel. One report says that Luna was shot before
Ney stabbed him.

3) Pedro Paterno, one of the Filipino leaders believed that Aguinaldo ordered the killing of
Luna. The assassination, he recalled, was similar to the fate of Bonifacio in Cavite province.
Both Luna and Bonifacio were rivals of Aguinaldo for the leadership of the Filipinos.

4) General Luna was exceedingly unpopular among the Filipino troops on account of his
stubborn and dictatorial manners, and very little regret was expressed at his death. Luna and
Aguinaldo were unable to agree as to the manner of conducting the campaign against the
Spanish authorities and it is said that Aguinaldo was afraid he would be assassinated by
Luna's orders.
On the other hand, those who believed that it was not Aguinaldo who ordered the death of Luna, but it was Luna's fault and
men who assassinated him expressed the following views:

1. Emilio "Jun" Abaya, former Transportation Secretary and great grandson of Aguinaldo had to defend his great
grandfather. He said that Luna was not assassinated on order of Aguinaldo.
You sent
. Professor Xiao Chua of De La Salle University noted that there is no valid evidence to support the claims that Aguinaldo
had Luna killed. According to Professor Chua, there are various accounts on Luna's death, including one by Pedro Janolino,
Aguinaldo's men from Kawit who was one of the people who killed Luna.

3. Antonio Abad who interviewed Pedro Janolino said that it was he who killed Luna by self-defense. This was the
statement of Janolino:

"When Antonio Luna was coming down the stairs, nakita nya na galit na galit si Antonio (referring to Luna). Sino ang
nagpaputok?" asked Luna.

According to the interview with Janolino, Janolino was so afraid that Luna might kill him and his men that they killed him
first.
 Is Aguinaldo still be considered a hero or a
traitor?
It is not easy to dismiss Aguinaldo's role in Philippine history given the controversies surrounding his
leadership. If one looked at it, he has roles in the making of the Philippine flag, the production of the
national anthem, and his role in the revolution against the Spaniards and Americans. But just like
other men, he had also some mistake, and the mistakes must be taught and analyzed by every
Filipino. Let us learn from the mistakes of Aguinaldo.

It is dangerous to make conclusions based only on the movies. Every young Filipinos must revisit the
primary source to say that Aguinaldo is a hero or a traitor after critically analyzing and evaluating the
primary source of primary document, instead of just basing the conclusions from the movies.

Professor Chua finally explained that he does not personally consider Aguinaldo a hero. "I consider
him a great Filipino, not a hero",
 Rizal's Retraction Controversy
Rizal's retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M in 1935. From
this time on, the letter's content has become a favorite subject of dispute among
history writers, history professors, and academicians. The retraction letter dated
December 29, 1896 was said to have been signed by Rizal himself.

The first version: "I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in which I was born
and educated. I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words,
writings, publications, and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the
Catholic Church."
The second version: "I retract with all my heart whatsoever in my words, writings,
publications, and conduct have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic
church."

Upon analysis of the two (2) versions of Rizal's letter, it can be shown that there

are different words used and some words are missing in the second version. At any

rate, whether Rizal truly resigned his Catholic faith is still a controversy. However,

there are groups who believed or did not believe that Rizal retracted.
Believers or defenders of Rizal's retraction:
1. Nick Joaquin, writer

2. Leon Maria Guerrero III

3. Gregorio Zaide, author of history books

4. Guillermo Gomez Rivera

5. Ambeth Ocampo, author of history books

6. John Schumaker

7. Antonio Molina

8. Paul Duval

9. Austin Craig, historian

10. Teodoro Kalaw, 33rd degree mason and handwriting expert

11. H. Otley Beyer, UP Professor

12. Jose Del Rosario, UP Professor

13. Fr Marciano Guzman, great grandnephew of Rizal

14. Fr. Vicente Balaguer, A Jesuit Missionary

15. Fr. Pio Pi, Society of Jesuits of the Philippines, Superior

16. Dr. Augusto de Vierra, UST Dept of History, Head

 Non-believers of Rizal Retraction:
1. Ricardo Pascual, a historian

2. Sen. Rafael Palma, former UP President and prominent mason

3. Frank Laubach, a Protestant minister

4. Austin Coates, a British writer

5. Ricardo Manapat, National Archives director

6. Tomas U. Santos, a historian

7. Jose Victor Torres, history professor of De La Salle University

 Believers of Rizal's retraction had the
following arguments:
1. The retraction document (letter) is authentic having judged by a foremost handwriting expert,
Teodoro Kalaw and handwriting experts are known and recognized in our courts of justice.

2. Eleven (11) witnesses saw Rizal wrote his own retraction, signed a Catholic prayer book and
recited Catholic prayers and kissed the crucifix before his execution.

3. Rizal's 4 confessions were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified

witnesses, 7 newspapermen, and 12 historians and writers.

4. Aglipayan bishops, masons, and anti-clerics witnessed Rizal's signing of the retraction document
5 . The head of the Spanish Supreme Court notarized his retraction letter.

6. Being a Catholic, he was buried inside the sacred grounds of Pako (now Paco) Catholic Cemetery.

7. The retraction letter was not forged because witnesses were present while Rizal was signing it.

8. Rizal retracted his masonry because he wanted to be at peace when he dies.

9. Direct evidence which have a greater weight need to prove Rizal's retraction than just circumstantial evidence.

Non-believers of Rizal's retraction had the following arguments:

1. There is no certificate of Rizal's catholic marriage to Josephine Bracken

2. There is an allegation that the retraction document was a forgery. There are two versions of the retraction letter with some
words missing in the seconddocument. Which document is authentic? Were these documents written in Spanish, English, or
Filipino? Since the signing of the document, if it is true, would have been written in Spanish, not in English. There was

no mention that the original writing is Spanish and translated in English.

3. The document was not in Rizal's own handwriting according to Senator Palma.

4. The retraction letter is not in keeping with Rizal's character and maturebeliefs.
 Prelude to Rizal's Signing of the Retraction
Document
Some authors of history books dealing with Life, Works, and Writings of Jose Rizal stated that the
first draft of the retraction letter was sent by Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal's cell in Fort
Santiago the night before his execution. Fort Santiago was the place where Rizal was imprisoned
and where Rizal wrote his 14-stanza poem "Mi Ultimo Adios." But Rizal was said to have rejected
the draft because it was lengthy and did not like the wordings.

According to a testimony by Fr. Vicente Balaguer who became Rizal's friend in Dapitan, Rizal
accepted a short retraction document prepared by Fr. Pio Pi, the head of the Jesuit Society of the
Philippines. However, Rizal wrote his own retraction after making some modification in the shorter
retraction letter shown to him. In his own retraction letter, he disavowed masonry and religious
thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.
 Concluding Statement on Rizal's
Controversial Retraction
Whether Rizal signed a retraction or not, Rizal is still Rizal. It did not diminish his
stature as a great patriot, the hero who courted death "to prove to those who deny our
patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs." (Jose Diokno's
statement).