RETRACTION CONTROVERSY

HISTORY 50: LIFE AND WORKS OF RIZAL 3 1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. There are
four points against the document itself.

 First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date, the only scientific study criticizing the
authenticity of the document was made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the Philippines
shortly after the document was found.

Having some of Rizal’s writings dating from the last half of December 1896 as his “standard”, he notes a
number of variations with the handwriting of the document, he further concluded that it was a “one-
man document” because of the similarities in several respects between the body of the Retraction and
the writing of all three signers: Rizal and the two witnesses.

o The only scholarly answer and criticism to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I. Del Rosario. Rosario’s main
criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not include enough of Rizal’s writings by way of comparison
and concluded that the hand-writing is genuine.

• A second argument directed against the authenticity of the document itself is based on the principles
of textual criticism. Several critics have noted differences between the text of the document found in
1935 and other versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father Balaguer.

To date, from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting numerous minor
variations, two distinct forms of the text with significant differences with regards to the use of certain
phrases within the document.

....*********The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi made
errors in preparing a copy of the original and these have been transmitted from this earliest copy to
others. Some have wondered if the Retraction Document was fabricated from the “wrong” version of a
retraction statement issued by the religious authorities.
•A third argument applies to the Retraction itself is that its content is in part strangely worded, e.g. in
the Catholic Religion “I wish to live and die,” yet there was little time to live, and also Rizal’s claim that his
retraction was “spontaneous.

•Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” Antonio K. Abad tells how on August 13, 1901 at a party
at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija a certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by the
Friars earlier that same year to make several copies of a retraction document.

2. The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other acts and facts do not
fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to by writers as follows:

• The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even members of the

family did not see it. It was said to be “lost".

•No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of the Retraction.

.*****The usual rebuttal is that Rizal’s death was due to political factors and with this

the religious authorities could not interfere.

•Rizal’s burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco

cemetery; and the record of his burial was not placed on the page for entries of Dec. 30th.

•There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with Josephine Bracken.

•Rizal’s behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and during the last 24 hours in particular
does not point to a conversion.

3. The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that it is out of character.
•Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the Philippines and a prominent Mason,
also argued that if Rizal retracted, it would have been a very drastic change of character in Rizal which is
very hard to believe knowing how mature and strong in his beliefs Rizal was. He called the retraction
story a "pious fraud.”

CONCLUSION

To conclude, whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers believe that the retraction document
was more of Rizal taking a moral courage to recognize his mistakes. Perhaps it may be true that he
retracted and reverted to his faith, but this does

not diminish Rizal’s stature as a great hero with

such greatness.

As mentioned the documentary entitled “Ang Bayaning Third World”, Joel Torre’s

impersonation of Rizal told the time travelers that whether he retracted or not, it does change what he
has already done and what his writings have already achieved. Furthermore, Senator Jose Diokno once
stated, "Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his
greatness as a Filipino... Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - 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.