CAVITE MUTINY

-GOMBURZA
At the time the Spanish liberals took over the reigns of power in Spain
following the overthrow of Queen ISABEL II. A heated controversy was
raging in the Philippines over the question of the status and ownership of
certain curacies in the archbishopric of manila. The fundamental issue in the
controversy was whether Filipino priests should be allowed greater
participation in the management of the religious and ecclesiastical affair of
their country or not. This was a question which concerned the interests and
welfare not only of the native clergy but of the Catholic church herself.
Archbishop Sta. Justa and Governor Anda in the last quarter of the 18th
Century (1767-1776). To fill the vacancies which were created at that time in
many parishes of his diocese, archbishop Sta. Justa availed himself of the
service's a of newly ordained Filipino secular priest’s. It can we'll be presumed
that archbishop Sta. Justa envisioning such an eventuality felt keenly the
need of building up a body of competent Filipino priests to carry on the work
of catholic Church in the Philippines. -Sonny
Many of the newly installed Filipino parish priests lacked not only the
necessary training and preparation for parochial work but also the moral
qualities require of those who would go into the Religious life. It was clear the
archbishop Sta. Justa eagerness and enthusiasm to filipinize the curacies, did
not exercise, care in the granting of holy orders and that he appointed newly
ordain seminarians to parishes without care examination of their fitness and
character. In compliance with andas recommendations, the king of Spain in
a decree promulgated on December 11, 1776, ordered the suspension of the
secularization of the curacies and the restoration of those parishes which had
been given to Filipino priests to their former pastor’s. One of the provisions of
the decree of December 11, 1776 ordered that step's should be taken to
prepare and train a competent body of clerics so that the filling of the
curacies with Filipino secular priest's would eventually be affected in
conformity with the plans and Desire of archbishop Sta. Justa.
-Sonny
Unfortunately, the Spanish Government did not comply with the directive
contained in the provision of the decree of December 11, 1776. Far from living
up the promise implied in that law, it adopted and put into effect a course of
action which tended to discourage the growth and development of the
Filipino clergy. Several laws promulgated by the Spanish Government in the
nineteenth century reflected this tendency of Spanish colonial policy. On July
S, 1826, a royal cedula was issued reiterating the previous decree which
commanded the return to the regular Spanish clergy of the curacies which
have been given to Filipino secular priests during the governorship of Anda
(1770-1776). "The royal decree of March 9, 1849, ordered the return of several
parishes in Cavite to the regular Spanish clergy. Finally, on September 10,
1861, a royal order gave to the Recollects parishes held by Filipino priests in
the Archbishopric of Manila. -Sonny
Which some time now has been followed of turning over curacies administered
by the secular clearly of the religious corporation.
To fix the origin of this enmity. I shall mention the real cedula of July 8, 1826.
Which returned to the religious corporations curacies administered by the secular
clearly since the period of the second governorship of Simeon de Anda Y. Salazar.
Considered them their own. felt grieved every time a curacy because of the death
or transfer of the incumbent was assigned to a regular priest . With the death of
the curate of San Simon which occurred this year . The purpose of the foregoing
Real Cedula has been fulfilled in every respect. As a circumstance tending to
aggravate this enmity the royal order of March 9, 1849, may be mentioned, by
virtue of which seven curacies of Cavite belonging to the secular clergy were
given to the regulars, as follows: Bacoor,, Cavite El Viejo and Silang to the
Augustinian Recollects and Santa Cruz ,San Francisco de Malabon , Naic and
Indang to the Dominicans.
-Rafael
But what brought the antagonism to a climax and filled the native clergy with
indignation was the Royal Order of September 10 ,1861. To this decree and its
consequences the undersigned especially desires to call the attention of your
excellency.
Which the approval in article 13 of the Royal Decree of July 30,1859, regarding
the establishment of the government of Mindanao and the arrangement of
the fathers of the society of Jesus, it should take charge of the administration
of the parishes, dontrinas, and active missions in that island. The time were
under the administration of the recollects of the province of San Nicolas de
Tolentino. Promulgate the rules which should govern ,properly, the carrying
out of the provisions of that article. For this purpose, the Royal Order of
September 10, 1861, was Promulgate which, among other things ,granted to
the recollects.
-Rafael
Under the circumstances the Royal order was issued in the first place the
Archbishopric was vacant, and, under the circumstances, the sacred cannons
prescribe and prudence counsels, that no innovation be introduced - It was
known that the ecclesiastic appointed to the Diocese of Manila was not
familiar with the anomalous condition of the ecclesiastical administration of
the Philippines. -With the customs and usages of the people (circumstances
which would impel him to renounce the post and which he had to disregard
only because of strong representations made to him), and that, therefore, it
must take him some time before he could remonstrate with full knowledge of
the facts.
-Jerry
TO THE REGENT OF THE KINGDOM
-The Cavite Mutiny in January 1872 cannot yet be concluded completely since
the trials have not however been recorded.
- Although they were declared lost by the Spanish government, and
researchers did not locate copies in the Philippine National Archives (PNA),
there are still rumors of their lives in Spain from time to time - It also appears
that the investigations of the defendants in what was supposed to be the
PNA (Artigas y Cuerva 1911, 126-28) at least once were recorded, although
they may have died during the war.

-Jerry
Gov. Rafael de Izquierdo's decree that suppressed Arsenal workers' privilege
to be exempt from tribute and the obligation of labor Some consider it
motherhood instigated by the friars to involve the Filipino priests led by Fr.
José Burgos, who asked the Filipino secular clergy to restore the parishes that
were occupied by the friars. The mutiny was the we text for executing or
exiling activist priests and their partners between lawyers and people in
business who were agitating for liberal reforms. Some of the textbooks,
which are based on a false Artigian document, even speak of a friar similar to
the Burgos went to a revolt among the workers and soldiers of Cavite. The
source for these interpretations is usually found in the different accounts of
Antonio Regidor. One of Burgos' liberal reformists was exiled to the Marianas
and in various publications, after escaping and going to Europe, sometimes
gave contradictory accounts of the mutinies.
Jose Rizal devoted his novel "El Filibusterismo" to
the three priests, 15-year-old Mariano Gomez, 30-
year-old Jose Burgos, and 35-year- old Jacinto
Zamora, executed on February 17, 1872, at
Bagumbayan Field. The first was the 1872 Cavite
Mutiny and the second was the martyrdom of the
three priests who were martyred in the persons of
Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos and Jacinto
Zamora (GOMBURZA). Not all of us, however, knew
that the sand event had different accounts. The
different sides of the story must be known to all
Filipino people because this event has led to
another sad yet significant part of our history the
execution of GOMBURZA, which is indeed an
essential factor to the development of the
Philippine nationalism.
The execution of three Philippine priests-one of whom an ecclesiastical priest
was a source of sympathy for the martyrs and rejection of the alien leaders,
who could put the axis on the innocents' necks. After a three and a half
hundred years of foreign domination characterized by unexplained
governments, direct exploitations, of persons and natural resources, and
sometimes half-head reform efforts and governed, Sporadic and desultory
demonstrations of resistance.
The garrote was summarily tried and sentenced to death Father Gomez,
Father Burgos, and Father Zamora on January 20, 1872, Cavite arsenal revolt.
The priests who were active in the clergy's struggle for secularization (or
indeed nationalization) created trouble for despotic Governor Rafael
Izquierdo and the country's powerful regular religious orders. By linking them
to the Cavite arsenal uprising, whether or not they had anything to do with it,
the administration found a convenient way to get rid of the troublesome trio.
Was the three involved in the revolt?
The fact that the proceedings have disappeared and the star prosecution
witness himself and three of his testimonies have been ordered to execute
will take a painful investigation. The question is likely to remain one of the
great mysteries in the struggle for freedom of the Filipinos.
Meliton Martinez, Archbishop of Manila, has received a copy of the penalties
for murder asking the deprivation of the clergy. The archbishop responded by
saying that he required more compelling proof of his culpability and declined
to contribute to its humiliation. The privacy of the supposed proceedings, the
mysterious disappearance of Court- Martial results and documents, and the
suspect haste of the judgment we’re contributing to the generalized
conviction that these three had been trumped-up. Two days later, on
February 17, they were sentenced to death and taken to the garrote.
1872 Cavite Mutiny: SPANISH PERSPECTIVE
The event was documented and highlighted by Jose Montero y Vidal, a
prolific Spanish historian, as an Indian attempt to overthrow the Spanish
government in the Philippines. Meanwhile, the official report of Gov. Gen.
Rafael Izquierdo magnified the event and used it to involve the native clergy,
who then became active in the call for secularization. The two accounts
complimented one another and corroborated only that the report of the
general was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo pointed out
that the abolition of the privileges enjoyed by the Cavite arsenal workers,
such as the non- payment of tributes and the exemption from forced labor,
were the main reasons for the "revolution" as they called it, but they
enumerated other causes, including the Spanish Revolution that overthrew
the secular throne and the dirty propaganda that proliferated through it.
- The event of 1872 was considered as a great conspiracy of educated leaders,
meztizos, lawyers or native lawyers, Manila and Cavite residents, and the
native clergy. It was also viewed that the conspiration was a plan to liquidate
high ranking officers, which later on will lead to fraternal massacre. The
rocket firing of Intramuros' walls were the alleged signal from Manila and
Cavite conspirators.
- The two accounts stated, Sampaloc District celebrated the Virgin of Loreto's
Feast on January 20, 1872. Though the festival was supposed to be celebrated
with fireworks as a display of festivity, the bells of Cavite was mistreated as a
symbol of assault. As arranged by Sergeant La Madrid, the 200-man unit
initiated an attack against Spain officials insight and confiscated in the
arsenals.
-Justine
- Gov. Izquierdo arrived and readily ordered the Spanish Army to reinforce Cavite to
put out the rebellion. The revolution was easily broken when the Manila
reinforcement did not arrive. Moreover, primary instigators, like Sergeant La
Madrid were murdered on the encounter while the GOMBURZA was held on a
court-martial trial and convicted to death by strangulation.
- The conviction of GOMBURZA resulted to the suspension, detention, and
conviction to life imprisonment of the Patriots such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera,
Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other lawyers on Marianas Islands
ordered by the Audencia (High Court). Gov. Izquierdo abolished the native artillery
regiments and ordered the creation of artillery force consisted exclusively of the
Peninsulars.
- The GOMBURZA were executed on February 17, 1872 due to an attempt of the
Spanish Government and the Frailocracia to establish fear among Filipinos as an
example of such act they should never commit. This event served as Filipino's
moving force to a more nationalistic approach.
Injustice Response: THE VERSION OF FILIPINOS TO THE INCIDENT
-Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera,
-Tavera blamed the cold-blooded policies of Gov. Izquierdo, such as
abolishing the privileges of the arsenal's workers and indigenous army
members and prohibiting the founding of the Filipino arts and trade school,
which the general believed to be a cover up for organizing a political club.
- Sergeant Lamadrid, is a head of 200 men, including soldiers, arsenal
workers and Cavite residents.
-rose in arms on 20 January 1872 and assassinated the commanding officer
and Spanish officers in sight.

-King
-In Taveras belief, Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite mutiny as a
powerful lever to magnify the Cavite magnified as a complete conspiracy
involving not only the indigenous army but also residents of Cavite and
Manila.
-the Central Government of Spain welcomed an educational decree written
by Segismundo Moret promoting the fusion of parochial schools run by the
friars into a school called the Philippine Institute, intending to implement
reforms.
-King
-The Friars took advantage of the event and presented it to the Spanish
government as a vast conspiracy organized in the entire archipelago to
destruct the Spanish sovereignty because they fear it would be forgotten in
the Philippines.
-Convicted educated men who took part in the mutiny were sentenced to life
imprisonment while garrote tried and executed members of the native clergy
headed by the GOMBURZA. This episode leads to nationalism awakening
and ultimately to the outbreak of the 18% Philippine Revolution.
-Considering the five accounts of the Mutiny of 1872, there were some basic
facts that remained unchanged.
-Mario
-first, there was dissatisfaction.
-second, Gen. Izquierdo has implemented strict and rigid policies.
-Third, in 1872 the central Spanish government had decided to take away the
power to interfere with the administration of government and the
management of schools.
-fourth, the members of the Filipino clergy were actively involved in the
movement for secularization.
-Finally, the Spanish government's execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder.
-Mario
“
The End
Group Member
”
Rafael R. Capindian J Vie A. Del Castillo
Sonny M. Cariaga Justine Louie M. Del Cruz
Jerry D. Castillo King Christian Paul L. Dizon
Levin A. Cruz Mario B. Dizon