1

Brgy. Milagrosa, Calamba, City, Laguna

JOSE RIZAL RETRACTION

A Historical Review
presented to Mr. Neilson A. Silva

____________________

In partial fulfillment
of the requirements in READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

____________________

By
AÑONUEVO, KENNETH

BACANI, JOYCE ANN

DEL ROSARIO, LOREN ROSE

July 2019
 2

II. Approval Sheet

 3

III. Table of Contents

I. Introduction 4
II. Problem of the Study 6
III. Sources of the Study
A. Primary Sources 6
B. Secondary Sources 8
IV. Content 11
V. Conclusion 12
VI. Historical Lesson 12
VII. References 13
 4

IV. Introduction

Jose Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonzo Reolonda also known as Jose Rizal, a great ophthalmologist,
well-known writer and one of the bravest heroes who sacrificed himself for the freedom of our
country. Rizal’s retraction became controversy and raised issues, skepticism, and heated debates
among those who seek to know the truth regarding this controversy. Because of his multifaceted
genius, Rizal as a subject of study is inexhaustible. In the hands of the competent scholars, Rizal
can be presented in refreshingly new light.

According to Jose Rizal University, the original retraction was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia,
C.M. on May 18, 1935. Jose Rizal wrote the retraction on Dec. 29, 1896 the day before his
execution. Atleast 4 texts of Rizal Retraction have surfaced. First text was published in La Voz
Española and Diaro de Manila on the day of Rizal execution, December 10, 1896. The second text
appeared in Barcelona, Spain on February 14, 1897, in the fortnight magazine in La Juventud; it
came from anonymous writer who revealed himself 14 years later which is Fr. Balaguer. The 4th
text appeared in El Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of retraction.

There were two official accounts as witnessed by the Jesuits who were instrumental in the alleged
retraction. While on the other hand, there were also two critical analyses by two Rizalist scholars
who doubted the story of Retraction.

The first witnessed account was the statement of Fr. Vicente Balaguer. He was one of the Jesuit
priests who visited Rizal during his last hours in Fort Santiago. Arguments with Rizal, with Father
Balaguer taking the leading part, continued until dusk, by which time, according to the Father’s
account, Rizal was already asking for the formula of retraction. That night Rizal wrote out a
retraction based on the formula of Father Pi and signed it about 11:30 p.m. The Retraction
contains two significant points: (1) the rejection of Masonry (“I abominate Masonry”) and (2) a
repudiation of “anything in my words, writings, publications, and conduct that has been contrary
to my character as a son of the Catholic Church,” together with the statement “I believe and
profess what it teaches and I submit to what it demands.” During the night there followed,
according to the Jesuit accounts, several Confessions (some say five), several hearings of Mass, a
number of devotional acts, the asking for and signing of devotional booklets intended for various
members of his family, and finally at 6:00 a.m. or thereabouts, some fifteen minutes before he
was marched out of Fort Santiago to his execution, a marriage ceremony performed by Father
 5

Balaguer for Rizal and Josephine Bracken. He claimed that he managed to persuade Rizal to
denounce masonry and return to the Catholic Fold. In 1910, he also revealed that the
reproductions of the lost original retraction had been made by a copyist who could imitate Rizal’s
handwriting. The second account was the statement of Fr. Pio Pi. He was the Jesuit superior during
the time when Rizal was executed. In 1917, he issued an affidavit recounting his involvement in
the alleged retraction. He was involved only in securing the retraction document from the
Archbishop of Manila, Bernardo Nozaleda. He wrote another shorter retraction document as well
which was the one Rizal allegedly copied.

The critical analysis of Rafael Palma, a lawyer, educator and politician, a writer including the
written work entitled “Biografia De Rizal” which won a literary contest in 1938. However, the
publication of the book was postponed because of WWII and only saw printed in 1949. In the
same year, the English translation was published in US by Roman Ozaeta with the title of “Pride
of the Malay Race”. The story of Rizal alleged retraction was found in chapter 32 and 33 with
Palma’s analysis in the latter chapter. This is the time when, in the light of the Retraction
Document discovery, major and minor works have been written on the subject of Rizal’s life and
thought as a whole and on the Retraction in particular. This leads us naturally to an assessment
of the chief arguments pro and con which have been raised over the years and systematically
dealt with in the last thirty years. However, another critical analysis by Austin Coates was
published. He was an Assistant Colonial Secretary and Magistrate in Hongkong when he began to
have an interest to Jose Rizal. When Jose Rizal was confirmed to be alive, this led him to write and
published his book. It was entitled “Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr” (Oxford University
Press, 1956).

Furthermore, the blog of Mr. Eugene A. Hessel was a Presbyterian minister, seminary professor,
and missionary in the Philippines (1947-1969), the story of the Retraction has been told and
retold. Various newspaper reports of the last hours of Rizal were published on Dec. 30, 1896 or
the days shortly thereafter. Cavanna seeks to answer the various arguments against the
Retraction, and in doing so makes reference to the chief works defending it. The first stage of the
Debate lasted for some twelve years after Rizal’s death, and at least overtly was wholly one-sided.
Cavanna aptly calls this period one of “Concealed Attacks.” The newspapers published the reports
given to them presumably by the Jesuits. Within the first year the Jesuits published a quite
complete story, for the time being anonymous in authorship. In successive years other books and
 6

booklets were devoted in whole or in part to repeating the same story, culminating in the famous
full-length biography in Spanish by Wenceslao Retana who incorporates the Jesuit account. Yet
even in the early years of this first period there were a few small voices raised in objection, quite
surprising since a totalitarian regime combining Church and State was in control. Cavanna himself
lists a leaflet dated Manila, December 31, 1896 and several letters questioning the retraction.
Their main point, stated or implied, is that the Retraction is not in keeping with the character of
Rizal. It is of interest that at the end of the period, just a year after the publication of his own
biography of Rizal, Retana has something similar to say in an article dated Dec. 29, 1908. Although
still not denying the retraction, he adds:

. . . The fact is that influenced by a series of phenomena, or what is the same, of abnormal
circumstances, Rizal subscribed that document, which has been so much talked about, and which
no one has seen . . . The conversion of Rizal . . . was a romantic concession of the poet, it was not
a meditated concession of the philosopher.

V. Problem of the Study

This study seeks to test this concept and aims to answer the following questions:

1.) Why did Rizal got executed if he retracted the day before his execution?
2.) What possible reasons could have pushed Jose Rizal to write his retraction document,
assuming that he truly wrote the said document?
3.) How come Josephine could never produce a certificate of marriage, in spite of being
required to do so in her two famous lawsuits for her legal and rightful share in Rizal’s
state?

VI. Sources of the Study

A. Primary Sources
 7

The original text of Rizal Retraction letter was Discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, CM in
the archdiocesan on 1935 after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day
when Rizal was shot, and it was said to have been signed by the National Hero the day before his
death. This letter of Jose Rizal retracts everything he has said on his novels against catholic church.
And the retraction stated that Rizal was declaring himself as a catholic and in this religion where
he was born and educated, he wishes to live and died. But the discovery, instead of ending doubt
about Rizal’s retraction, in fact allowed more reason to doubt because of significant difference
between the alleged original and the text of Fr. Balaguer.

There are four version of the alleged retraction of Jose Rizal: the first text was published in La Voz
Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s execution, December 30, 1896. While the
second text was appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in fortnightly magazine La
Juventud, it came from an anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr.
Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended Rizal during his exile in Dapitan and the very
first man who testified the retraction. The original text was discovered in the archdiocesan
archives on May 18, 1935, The third text that appear was the article, informing the discovery of
the lost original copy of the retraction, and the fourth and last text appeared in El Imparical on
the day after Rizal’s Execution, it is the short formula of the retraction.

We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a copyist who could imitate
Rizal’s handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his letter to his former
superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said that he had received "an exact copy of the retraction written and
signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember whose it is. . ." He
proceeded: "I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself. I am sending it to you
that you may . . . verify whether it might be of Rizal himself ..." Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his
sworn statement. This "exact" duplicate had been gotten by Fr. Balaguer at night promptly going
before Rizal's execution, Rizal y su Obra, and was trailed by Sr. W. Retana in his biography of Rizal,
Vida y Escritos del Jose Rizal with the expansion of the names of the witnesses taken from the
writings of the retraction in the Manila papers with respect to "original" message, nobody claimed
to have seen it, aside from the publishers of La Voz Espanola. That paper revealed: "Still more; we
have seen and read his (Rizal's) own hand-written retraction which he sent to our dear and
venerable Archbishop…"
 8

B. Secondary Sources

Jose Rizal Retraction letter is about him returning to Catholic Faith, he disavowed Masonry and
religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief the day before his execution on December 29,
1896, it was believed to have been signed by Rizal himself. There are a lot of issues surrounding
the retraction of Rizal. The article “Controversial Issue: Retraction of Rizal” stated that Rizal wrote
in his letter that he declared himself as a catholic and in this religion, which he was born and
educated, he wishes to live and die. He also mentioned that he takes back all of the things he said,
wrote, and published against the Catholic Church. Therefore, many people were shocked to find
out about his retraction letter on the day of his execution that is why it received letters
questioning the retraction. One of the factors why it became controversial up until now is that,
ever since Rizal have been writing things that are against catholic church and because of his novels
many Filipinos became aware of the wrong doing of the church and it became a bridge for Filipinos
to be free. There are at least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. In an article authored
by Riva Sofia Dimailig, the first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the
same day of Rizal’s execution, December 30, 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain,
on February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine in La Juventud, it came from an anonymous
writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who
befriended Rizal during his exile in Dapitan and the very first man who testified the retraction.
The third text to appear was the article, informing the discovery of the lost original copy of the
retraction. The original text that was lost discovered in the archdiocesan archives on May 18,
1935, after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.
Lastly, the fourth article surfaced and it contains the short formula prepared by the superior of
the Jesuit Society in the Philippines Father Pio Pi that believed to be used by Rizal on his retraction
formula, it was only later by then they discovered that El Imparcial published the text on the day
after Rizal's execution, December 31, 1896. The document only surfaced for public viewing on
May 13, 1935 when it was found by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in
Manila, But the original document was never shown to the public, only the reproductions of it.

For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizal’s retraction documents has raised many issues and
debates among those who seek to know the truth. There are so many debates and articles about
the retraction of Rizal that is why instead of clarifying it complicated it more. According to National
 9

Historical Commission of the Philippines Fr. Pio Pi reported that as early as 1907, the retraction of
Rizal was copied verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Furthermore, Fr.
Garcia, who found the original document, also copied it verbatim. Those who strongly believed
the faking of the Rizal retraction document, reported that the forger of Rizal’s signature was
Roman Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano Lacuna, which was used to
capture Aguinaldo and the mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s signature forging
was Lazaro Segovia a former Guardia Civil. They were approached by Spanish friars during the
final day of the Filipino-American war to forge Rizal’s signature. This story was revealed by Don
Antonio Abad a prominent resident of San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, who heard the tale from Roman
Roque himself when he invited him on his birthday. Roman Roque said that he made 5 copies of
the forgery letter that was prepared by the priest. He also added that he work for 10 days to
finished the forging and was paid equivalent of his salary for two months in the government
service. San Isidro residence also revealed that Roque was nowhere to be seen in their town for
two weeks. In addition, Ricardo Pascual concluded after analyzing six major documents of Rizal,
that the retraction document, said to have been discovered in 1935, was not in Rizal's
handwriting. Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the Philippines and a
prominent Mason, argued that a retraction is not in keeping with Rizal's character and mature
beliefs. He called the retraction story a "pious fraud." Others who deny the retraction are Frank
Laubach, a Protestant minister; Austin Coates, a British writer; and Ricardo Manapat, director of
the National Archives. Also According to Jose Victor Torres, professor at the History department
of the De La Salle University said that he personally did not believe that Jose Rizal retracted, but
some documents that was purchased by the Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s,
“the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila” popularly referred to as the Katipunan and Rizal Documents,
showed some interesting points about the retraction. The Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila is a
body of documents on the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential reports, transcripts,
clippings, and photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers.

On the other hand, those who affirm the authenticity of Rizal's retraction are prominent Philippine
historians such as Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra of UP León María Guerrero III, Gregorio Zaide,
Guillermo Gómez Rivera, Ambeth Ocampo, John Schumacher, Antonio Molina, Paul Dumol and
Austin Craig. They take the retraction document as authentic, having been judged as such by a
 10

foremost expert on the writings of Rizal, Teodoro Kalaw (a 33rd degree Mason) and "handwriting
experts...known and recognized in our courts of justice", H. Otley Beyer and Dr. José I. Del Rosario,
both of UP. Historians also refer to 11 eyewitnesses when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a
Catholic prayer book, and recited Catholic prayers, and the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix
before his execution. A great grandnephew of Rizal, Fr. Marciano Guzman, cites that Rizal's
4confessions were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12
historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clericals. One witness was
the head of the Spanish Supreme Court at the time of his notarized declaration and was highly
esteemed by Rizal for his integrity.

Despite of this the controversy whether Rizal actually wrote a retraction document only lies in the
judgment of its reader. According to the article “Rizal-Retraction Controversy”, the possible
reasons that might have pushed Jose Rizal to wrote the retraction is to save his family and town
from further persecution. Rizal may have been told that he faced the dilemma of signing the
retraction or of having his relatives pursued by further persecutions. Since he hoped his death
would stop the persecution of his relatives, the retraction may have seemed to him to be the only
way of achieving that purpose. Also, there are some articles that says it’s because of Josephine
Bracken. According to the cite of Jose Rizal University almost two years before his execution, Rizal
had written a retraction in Dapitan. Very early in 1895, Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with
her adopted father who wanted to be cured of his blindness by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela
Orlac, who was agent and a mistress of a friar. Rizal fell in love with Josephine and wanted to
marry her canonically but he was required to sign a profession of faith and to write retraction,
which had to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. "Spanish law had established civil marriage in
the Philippines," Prof. Craig wrote, but the local government had not provided any way for people
to avail themselves of the right..." In addition, in order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the
help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was
revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the
priest had told him; "The document (the retraction), enclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready
for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he
had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.
 11

Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction. What they saw was just
a copy done by one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the original (almost eaten by
termites) was kept by some friars. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently because they
did not distinguish between the genuine and the imitation of Rizal’s handwriting. As we, all know
Jose Rizal was a man that is patriot and nationalistic, he does things that he believed would save
his fellow citizen from exploitation. He fought silently for our freedom without asking for anything.
So, whether Rizal died as a Catholic, Mason or an apostate, it has nothing to do from his greatness
as a Filipino. 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”.

VII. Content

Rizal was suspected of rebellion, sedition and illegal association against Spanish Government. The
retraction document isn’t related to what he was accused of and as a consequence, it does not
save him from execution.

Aside from that, according to the article “Rizal-Retraction Controversy”, the possible reasons that
might have pushed Jose Rizal to wrote the retraction is to save his family and town from further
persecution. Rizal may have been told that he faced the dilemma of signing the retraction or of
having his relatives pursued by further persecutions. Since he hoped his death would stop the
persecution of his relatives, the retraction may have seemed to him to be the only way of
achieving that purpose. Also, there are some articles that says it’s because of Josephine Bracken.
According to the cite of Jose Rizal University almost two years before his execution, Rizal had
written a retraction in Dapitan.

Additionally, the retraction is a significant document because it established the act of marriage
between Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken. In Dapitan, the condition to them to be wedded was
the retraction, “No retraction, No Marriage”. In other words, Rizal could never marry Josephine
unless he retracted first. And the sworn statement of the eyewitnesses, like Fr. Balaguer, agreed
that there was a retraction and marriage between the two. Moreover, after his marriage, Rizal
dedicated a Catholic devotional book to his two sisters, Josefa and Trinidad, as well as his wife,
Josephine, which in his dedication mentioned “To my dear and unhappy wife, Josephine”. In
addition, he said in his letter, “I abominate Masonry as an enemy of the church and a society
 12

prohibited by the church”. He used the word abominate which means to detest in the highest
degree: abhor. In this case, he used a stronger language than “I retract Masonry…”

VIII. Conclusion

Under those circumstances, regardless of whether the majority of people believed that Rizal
retracted or they not, there are several explanations that could make most of the Filipinos believe
about the retraction from masonry. Given above, are the facts that support and in favor of the
said retraction process of Rizal.

Therefore, the researchers conclude that Rizal truly abjured masonry and retracted his affiliations
against the Catholic Church for the reason that Masonry is the enemy and prohibited by the
church and Rizal was starting to return to his church. In this case, Rizal did not fight the Catholic
Religion, rather he fought those who abused their religion and the manner that the friars practiced
during that time. All of these reasons are proved and evidenced by documents presented and
found by people as well as the statements testified by the eyewitnesses. Hence, whether or not
Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers also 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."

IX. Historical Lesson

People tend to doubt about what happened for real during those times. We tend to believe the
things that are said to be facts, but the truth is that we don't know if the fact itself was just
manifested by somebody. Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though 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.
Furthermore, it would be an act of good faith on the part of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. If the
 13

document is genuine, those who favor the Retraction have nothing to lose; in either case the
cause of Truth will gain.

X. References

Dr. Eugene A. Hessel. Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the Debate.

http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm

Did Rizal Retract? http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Biography/man_and_martyr/chapter16.htm

http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/

http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm

http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-rizals-retraction-controversy.htm

Controversial Issue: Retraction of Rizal. (2013, September 04). Retrieved July 18, 2019, from
https://hanbadilles.blogspot.com/2013/09/controversial-issue-retraction-of-
rizal.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR1_8XSTE3vi4GTdVEfgv3_l0YJ-ciDiT4oYF5eqYFGFo9nt9ZM4As5EtqY

Santos, T. U. (2011, October 09). Rizal's retraction: Truth vs Myth. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from
https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_retraction_truth_vs_myth

Unknown. (1970, January 01). RETRACTION CONTROVERSY. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from
https://joseprotasiorizal.blogspot.com/2013/09/retraction-
controversy.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR2F7DcLYIIX-
2lLgO5Tk9eYawaFS4mnzk4yZluR7m3AN9fKSQ3Xwcmkj2s

Alojado, R., Barena, N., Cinco, K., Dela Vega, J., Dapitanon, M., Du, D., . . . Valdueza, J. (n.d.). Rizal
- Retraction Controversy.docx. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from
https://www.scribd.com/doc/181351754/Rizal-Retraction-Controversy-docx

Analysis Rizal's Retraction. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2019, from http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

The Rizal Retraction and other cases. (2015, September 07). Retrieved July 18, 2019, from
http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/
 14

Dimailig, R. S., & Dimailig, R. S. (n.d.). RIZALS-RETRACTION. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from
https://www.academia.edu/25298819/RIZALS-RETRACTION

http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_retraction_truth_vs_myth

https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/lifestyle/artandculture/594027/retraction-ni-jose-rizal-
mga-bagong-dokumento-at-pananaw/story/