Into: Two major events happened in 1872, first was the Cavite Mutiny and the other was

the
martyrdom of the three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos
and Jacinto Zamora (or better known as GomBurZa). However, not all of us knew that there
were different accounts in reference to the said event. All Filipinos must know the different
sides of the story— since this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of our history—
the execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor that heightened nationalism among
the Filipinos.
Argument : We, the affirmative team, believes that the 1872 Cavite incident was a mere
mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers who aimed at changing or repealing the
policy implemented by Governor-General Izquierdo or in short rooted in ‘labor issue’ and not
with the aim of overthrowing Spanish sovereignty here in the Philippines.
ARGUMENTS:
1. First argument, the incident that took place in Cavite in 1872 was a revolt of soldiers,
and arsenal workers who were dissatisfied with the policy implemented by Governor-
General Rafael de Izquierdo.
2. Second, it is not true that the three martyred priests Padre Mariano Gomez, Padre Jose
Burgos, and Padre Jacinto Zamora, also known as Gomburza, were the masterminds of
the rebellion in Cavite in 1872.
3. Third argument, the bloody war that took place in Cavite in 1872 was not an attempt of
the Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines.
4. Fourth argument, Governor-General Izquierdo did not only banned the construction and
opening of art and trade schools for Filipinos but he also accused that there was a
political movement going on in the built school.
5. Fifth argument, the truth behind the masterminds of the 1872 "Cavite Mutiny" was
none other than Maximo Inocencio, Crisanto de los Reyes, and Enrique Paraiso.
Evidences and proofs to the corresponding numbers above:

1. According to Dr. Trinidad Tavera, on January 20, 1872, a group of about 200 soldiers,
arsenal laborers, and Cavite residents led by Sergeant Lamadrid rose up in arms and
assassinated the commanding officer and all Spanish officers in the area. The incident
occurred as a result of the imposition of taxes on workers and soldiers, as well as the
provision of polo y servicio, or forced labor, by which they were formerly exempted, or in
other words, it is a labor issue. Before Governor-General Izquerdo’s term (1871-1873) in
Cavite, Carlos Maria De La Tore governed there for two years from 1869 -1871 and under his
leadership he became close to the hearts of the residents, enlightened, and so on for the sake of
democratic reform and he has contributed well to Cavite.

Under his liberal leadership he reaped praise to fellow Spanish liberals as well as to the well-
educated, and the resident of Cavite. It is also clear that with the fall of the Republic of Spain
was the return of the Kingdom of Spain in 1870 with the new elected king, so De la Torre was
 also replaced as Governor-General in Cavite by Rafael de Izquierdo – the one who ruined De la
Torre’s works and returned the leadership of the friars. It was only in Izquerdo's ruling system
that people revolted to express their dissatisfaction with the policies mentioned.

2. According to Dr. Trinidad Tavera, the Spanish friars rebuke that the masterminds of the revolt
were the three martyred secular priests Padre Mariano Gomez, Padre Jose Burgos and Padre
Jacinto Zamora or better known as Gomburza. And the truth is they were not the mastermind of
the Cavite revolt in 1872 because what they intend or promote is the Secularization Movement.
Jacinto Zamora was one of the proponents of secularization involved in the revolt because when
his home was raided, he was caught by a letter stating “Grand reunion ... our friends are well
provided with powder and ammunition.” Zamora loves cards and the invitation is the code of
their bandits for gambling money because gambling is the reason why he is a victim of mistaken
identity. That card game is called “panguigui” and that is a code of panguigui players.

In addition, According to Chua (2013), “… they just used the name of Padre Burgos to persuade
people to the bloody Cavite Mutiny on January 20, 1872. Varied things that GOMBURZA
promoted in those times and they did not member or mastermind of the ‘Cavite Uprising (1872)'
instead.S

3. According to Dr. Trinidad Tavera, announced by the Central Government itself of Madrid that
they intended to remove the power of the friars intervene in civil government and management
of educational institutions which prompted the friars to resort to violent methods so that they
can maintain their power in the Philippines.
According to Calinggo, "Mexico declared independence in 1850 and one of another, Spanish
colonies in South-America were lost. The revolution and the new post constitution in Spain, open
it to liberal ideas of liberty and equality. In 1869, the Sues Canal was open to shorten travel time
from Europe to Manila from 3 months to 32 days, in rush of a new world of Germans, French,
British and East-coast American investors, merchants, teachers, scholars, sugar plantations,
factories and dangerous ideas, Filipino operates last become richer, better educated in Spanish
administrative and argued with the friars. "
Due to the fact that the Filipinos have become educated just like the Spanish friars, they were
also seeking positions in the parish. In order that the Spanish friars could not be expelled and
the position could not be given by the Filipino priests the Spanish friars used it to show off the
attacking of sovereignty of Spain in the archipelago to not give the will of GOMBURZA to allow
Filipino priests to position themselves in church in our country.

4. The construction of the said school did not proceed because according to Dr. Trinidad Tavera,
the Spanish friars and the Governor- General Izquierdo frightened, that Filipinos should have
wisdom and knowledge that they may also lose power so they take action to prevent it. They
used the revolt and informed the Madrid government that they revolt because they want to
conquer the management of the Spanish in the country and achieve independence from them
whom the Spanish kingdom immediately believed to do nothing investigation into the incident
took place in Cavite in 1872. Thus, The Cavite Mutiny paved way for the Spanish authorities to
frame the priests as the instigators
 5. According to Piedad-Pugay (2012), “there is no data to prove that the three martyred priests
were the masterminds of the uprising at Fort San Felipe and also according to a newly
discovered study published by a Jesuit historian John Schumacher. ” Based on a new discovery
document written by Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo himself that "… that the real
mastermind of the uprising was not the three martyred priests who were hanged but the
masons Maximo Inocencio, Crisanto de los Reyes and Enrique Paraiso who was just exiled. " As
stated here “… On the extensive account sent by Governor Izquierdo to the Overseas Minister,
accepts his characterization of the revolt as a frustrated separatist revolution, while rejecting his
conclusions as to the instigators of the revolt. Rather, it points to the real authors who escaped
execution because of their Masonic ties to Izquierdo… ”That's just one part of the document
gathered by Schumacher.
Conclusion:

So, We already presented you with evidence mainly in Tavera’s account proving that the incident in
Cavite was an insurgency aimed at reforming or repealing Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo's
policies against workers and soldiers in the arsenal. And it was not an attempt to overthrow the
Spanish government in the Philippines. Through gathering facts about the incident in Cavite, we
were able to get a better understanding of our own minds, as well as your viewpoint on how and why
this incident erupted into an insurgency in Cavite. This evidence further includes the fact that the attack
was an insurrection.

The Spanish friars and Governor-General Izquierdo accused the three priests Padre Gomez, Padre
Burgos, and Padre Zamora, also known as Gomburza, who were martyred and hanged (ginarrote) of
being the masterminds behind the revolt. Infact the masterminds behind the revolt are Maximo
Inocencio, Crisanto de los Reyes, and Enrique Paraiso.
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.

As Rizal stated,

“Without 1872 Rizal would now be Jesuit,

and instead of writing the Noli Me Tangere,
would have written the contrary…"
~A letter of Dr. Jose Rizal to Mariano Ponce~

For Tavera, the incident was nothing more than a plain mutiny of the laborers in Cavite Arsenal
resulting to the dissatisfaction of the tribute that were charged to their salaries by which they
were formerly exempted. He also allusively blamed GovernorGeneral Izquierdo’s methods of
governance such as the removal of the tax exemption and other privileges for both new and old
 employees of the Arsenal. 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 to maintain power in the Philippines. 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. Thus, The Cavite Mutiny
paved way for the Spanish authorities to frame the priests as the instigators mainly D. Jose
Burgos. Tavera written the Cavite Mutiny in a Filipino perspective. He rebutted on the claims and
allegations of Montero and Izquierdo into what the main cause of the revolt. With that, he also
explained the other side of the coin with transparency. We believed it was a clever move from
Tavera to defend and represent the Filipinos part and perspective on the Cavite mutiny. In this,
it helped the readers to gather other vital informations rather than to focus on Montero’s
version. It now depends on the readers to measure the credibility and reliability of the authors.

(1) One of the remarkable events of the 19th century in the Philippines happened on January 20,
1872 ― CAVITE MUTINY. It was said that the occurrence hightened the Filipino nationalism and
patriotism leading to the Philippine Revolution.

The Cavite Mutiny in 1872 was an uprising reaching 200 Filipino soldiers and laborers (laborers
or workers) in the arsenal Cavite. The colonial government quickly suppressed the uprising but
became historically significant because it was used as an excuse to suppress the Filipinos
patriotic and demanding government reform.

The uprising was the basis used to prosecute and hang three Filipino priests, José Burgos, Jacinto
Zamora, and Mariano Gómez — or better known as Gomburza — and their martyrdom was even
greater inflamed Filipino nationalism and led, eventually, to the 1896 Revolution.

OR

About the author:

Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera y Gorricho (April 13, 1857 – March 26, 1925) was a
Filipino physician, historian and politician of Spanish and Portuguese descent. Trinidad, also
known by his name T. H. Pardo de Tavera was known for his writings about different aspects of
Philippine culture. He wrote the Filipino version of the terror in Cavite. He rebutted on the
claims and allegations of the two Spanish accounts - Montero and Izquierdo into what the main
cause of the revolt. With that, he also explained the other side of the coin with transparency.
 In this, it helped the readers to gather other vital information rather than to focus on Montero’s
version. It now depends on the readers to measure the credibility and reliability of the authors.

Terms:

Mutiny

Secularization

Polo y servicio

Two kinds of priests served the Catholic Church in the Philippines. These were the regulars and
the seculars.
Regular Priests - belonged to religious orders. Their main task was to spread Christianity.
Examples were the Franciscans, Recollects, Dominicans, and Augustinians. 
Secular priests - did not belong to any religious order. They were trained specifically to run the
parishes and were under the supervision of the bishops.

Sabel:
Opening Remarks sa Cavite Mutiny

Good day everyone, the topic of or debate is about whose more dependable onside
the Spanish version or the Filipino version in 1972 Cavite Mutiny. We, our team,
the affirmative side consider the Filipino version in Cavite Mutiny more believable
and acceptable rather than Spanish version.
 There are different sides of the story regarding the Cavite mutiny; there
are distinct versions and interpretations as well. But as a Filipino, we believe the
version of our own race, We may be biased in our opinion but we will present
and discuss things to elaborate it and to defend why we think Tavera’s version is
the most credible among them.

First, we want to introduce Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a

Filipino scholar and researcher, who wrote the Filipino version of the
bloody incident in Cavite. The other versions came from a Spanish
historian, Jose Montero y Vidal and the Gobernador General himself, Rafael
Izquierdo.

Both the Filipino and Spanish versions presented that the reason of the mutiny
was due to the unfair decision of the Gobernador General in the abolition of the
privileges in terms of taxes and force labor.

SUGGESTED DEBATE FORMAT

First Affirmative Speaker

INTRODUCTION
1. Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen.

2. The topic for our debate is “That…

DEFINITION:

2A. We define the topic as:

3. We the affirmative team believe that this statement is true.

TEAM SPLIT

3A. Today as first speaker I will be talking to you about:

3B. Our second speaker will be talking about
Our third speaker will talk about…. And rebut and sum up our team case.

ARGUMENTS

8. I am going to discuss .... points:

a)
b)
9. My first point is:

10. This is because/the reason for this is:

11. Now to my second point:

12. This is because:

ENDING

13. So Mr/Madam Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, in conclusion: