RIZAL RETRACTION

MEDIATOR: Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to welcome you to our History Debate 2020 with
the theme The Greatest Debate: Rizal Retraction. On behalf of the House, I welcome our Adjudicator for
this debate Judge

JUDGE: You may now all be seated

MEDIATOR: So now, seating on my right side, the government. While on my left side, the Opposition

MEDIATOR: this house believes that the acts of Jose Rizal before the said execution have caused
renouncement in masonry and retraction against Catholic Church.

MEDIATOR: Starting off for the Prime Minister of the Government is Vianne Kylee Cajandab, you may
now defend the motion.

VIANNE: Good morning, Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. We the Government side, believe that Jose
Rizal abjured masonry and retracted his statement against the Catholic Church. The Document
presented to the public is strong evidence that Rizal had truly withdrawn in masonry and retracted. Let
us first address the documents. First, the letter of Rizal to his mother received on January 5, 1893. The
letter says that Rizal have been going to the church every Sunday in Dapitan. Doesn’t this show that
Rizal had truly returned to the Church? Next, the testimony of the eyewitness. Father Balaguer who was
with Rizal and presented the retraction format prepared by Father Pio Pi, the superior of Jesuit Society
of the Philippines before the execution. He stated that on December 29, 1896, day before the execution,
Rizal have accepted and signed the document. On May 13, 1935, Fr. Manuel A. Garcia found a document
of Rizal’s Retraction. Isn’t the account of the eyewitness not enough proof of retraction?

MEDIATOR: Thank you, Vianne. Now, for the leader of opposition, Raxinne Orongan, you may now rebut
the previous statement and provide the constructive for your side.

RAXINNE: We, the opposition believe that the said documents were forced. According to an Online
Source, joserizal.ph, maintained by Jose Rizal University. The fact of document forgery was revealed by
Father Balaguer, himself. Fr. Balaguer said that he couldn’t remember whose exact copy was the
document and even Fr. Pio Pi couldn’t verify it in his own statements. The copy of the retraction paper
that was said to be signed by Rizal was even kept secret and was only published in newspapers who
claimed to have seen and read it. When Rizal’s family requested for the original copy, it was said that it
was lost. 39 years later, the original copy was found in the archdiocesan archives. Instead of ending
doubts, it only caused more arguments and questions in many people because of significant differences.
In the texts of the retraction documents. According to Ricardo Pascual Ph. D, who was given permission
by the Archbishop Nozaleda, to examine the document later concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the
Grave” that the documents presented was a forgery. Moreover, Rizal didn’t expressly say that the
retracted masonry. So how is this strong evidence of withdrawal and retraction? And if you say that the
Rizal retracted how come he was still executed? Wasn’t the retraction enough for salvation of Rizal?

MEDIATOR: We would like to thank the leader of opposition. Now, let us call the Deputy Prime Minister,
Julieta Gwendolin Magallanes.

GWEN: In your argument of the forgery of documents, it is also reasoned out in that same site that what
the archbishop and Father Pi saw was not the original document of retraction. And the original
document, which was almost eaten by termites, was kept by friars for preservation. 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 his wife, Josephine, which in his dedication mentioned “to my dear
and unhappy wife, Josephine” aren’t these books proof of Catholicism? In addition, he said in his letter,
“I abominate Masonry as an enemy of the church and a society prohibited by the church.” He uses the
word “abominate” which means to detest in the highest degree: abhor. In this case, he used a stronger
language than “I retract masonry” Likewise, 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.

MEDIATOR: I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister. Now let us call the Deputy Leader of the
Opposition, Jiezelle Genova.

JIEZELLE: It is surprising that you speak of marriage when in fact, there was no document of marriage
between Josephine and Rizal. Consequently, a number of Rizal’s writings and letter does not mention
Josephine as his wife. Correspondingly, Rizal did not even call Josephine “wife” in his last letter of Mi
Ultimo Adios which was the last written text of him before his execution. In that letter, he said his
farewell to her as follow: “A dios, dulce estranjera, mi esposa, mi alegria” more so, If Rizal died as
Roman Catholic, as you have argued, then he should have been buried properly fitted to him. And as for
us, his burial was still concealed with mystery because it is said that he was buried in a lot of the Roman
Catholic cemetery in Paco and his name did not appear in the registry for Roman Catholics. In these
circumstances, did Rizal really die as a Roman Catholic?

MEDIATOR: Now for the Government Whip, Kyla Villa, you may now say your final words and conclude
your side’s argument.

KYLA: with regards to no documents of the marriage and having been not mentioned of Josephine in
Rizal’s writings, it is explained in Garcia’s account in his book, The Great Debate: Rizal Retraction, that Fr.
Manuel A. Garcia found or discovered the retraction letter including the marriage certificate of
Josephine and Rizal. It is also explained why Josephine was not mentioned in Rizal’s writings as his wife.
It is because they were married before the execution or earlier their, marriage. More so, Rizal’s Mi
Ultimo Adios, the last official writing of Rizal’s, was written a day or so before the execution, in other
words, before the marriage. In addition, it is possible that Rizal was not buried in a Roman Catholic
Church was because he was already accused as a traitor against the Spanish. Even though we, Filipinos,
that he is not. It is logical to think that the Spaniards didn’t want an enemy to be buried with decency
and Rizal was no exception to that. In Conclusion, 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 eyewitnesses.
MEDIATOR: I thank the Government Whip, For the Opposition Whip, Loregene Reduta, you may also
conclude your side’ s argument and preside your final words.

LOREGENE: About the related Catholic books that Rizal gave to Josephine and his sister this doesn’t
much weigh as evidence. As Josephine was still in the Catholic Faith, it was only fitting that Rizal gave her
catholic related materials but this doesn’t mean that Rizal’s have finally retracted his words against the
church. Moreover, about the forgery of the documents. There are three copies of the documents about
the retraction. The First one indicates a year 1890, The second one change its into 189C, and the final
one, the written year is 1896. Isn’t this enough proof that there was forgery of the Retraction? Even
Father Balaguer who was an eyewitness has some inconsistencies in his statements. We, therefore
conclude, that the absence of the marriage document of Rizal and Josephine, and his burial outside the
Catholic Church cemetery of Paco shows that Rizal did not retract back to the Church. The lack of
sufficient evidence proved that Rizal’s Retraction was just false accusation.

MEDIATOR: Thank you, Loregene

MEDIATOR: The Debate is now over, Thankyou all for your great arguments. May we now invite both
sides to cross the house

G AND O: (shakehands daw hahhaha)

Mediator: Let us now hear what the adjudicator thinks about the performances of our two teams. Judge
Aaron Tahanlangit, please give some comments on both teams’ performance and the result of today’s
debate.

AARON: Since both sides have already presented their arguments, let me please give my remarks for
each side. For the Government side, they have given the propositions and defend the motion while the
Opposition side, refuted and negated this motion. As for this session, the government side have
presented their preposition and testimonies from eyewitness that are directly involve in the said event.
You stood by Rizal’s retraction which is to marry Josephine. Though one thing I wanted to question is the
presence of Retraction Letter. While the Opposition side have mentioned about the forgery of
documents and presented more critiques, theories, and allegations about the motion although
presented sources, it seems that it has bias as it came from a school in favor of Rizal. Therefore, the
winner of this debate is the Government side.

G&O: (palakpak daw kayo ahhahahah)

AARON: yet despite this controversy, it does not make Rizal less of a hero, it has not devalued him for
what he made significant things that opened the eye of the Filipinos. Through him the nationalism and
patriotism of Filipinos was lit and now been forever burning. With that I would declare this house
adjourned.

G&O: (palakpak daw hhahhaha)