Module 4:

ONE PAST BUT MANY HISTORIES:

CONTROVERSIES AND CONFLICTING
VIEWS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY

INTRODUCTION:
Primary sources play a crucial role in formulating arguments

in favor or against a particular issue in history. Considering the

existence of controversies and conflicting views pertaining to

some events in Philippine History, you will be guided in

understanding and appreciating the richness of our past through

inferring from the lens of eyewitnesses.

This session is designed to present to you particular events in

Philippine history through the accounts of eyewitnesses which

led to controversies and conflicting views. You will also be

guided on how to formulate arguments that are based on

objective and enlightened analysis.

2|Conflicting Views in Philippine History

“What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?”

A. Introduction
• “Mutiny” – a rebellion against the authorities,
especially by soldiers against their officers.
• The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the
Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of the three
priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto
Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA.
• While the significance is unquestioned, what made
this year controversial are the different sides to the
story, a battle of perspectives supported by primary
sources.
• In this lesson, we zoom in to the events of the
Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the awakening of
nationalism among the Filipinos of that time.

B. Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny

• The account of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal focused on how the
event was an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in the
Philippines. Although regarded as a historian, his account of the mutiny was
criticized as biased.
• Another account from the official report written by then Governor General
Rafael Izquierdo implicated the three native priests, who were then active in
the movement toward secularization of parishes (gusto nila na magkaroon sana
ng simbahan na mga Pilipinong pari ang namumuno, hindi mga Kastilang pari).
• These two accounts support each other.
3|Conflicting Views in Philippine History

B.1. Primary Source: Jose Montero’s Account

• The removal of privileges enjoyed by the Filipino
workers/soldiers of the Cavite arsenal (an
establishment for the manufacture or storage of
arms and military equipment) of exemption from
the tribute was the cause of the rebellion. There
were, however, other causes.
• The other causes include: the propaganda
carried on by an uncontrolled press against
monarchical principles, the democratic and
republican books and pamphlets; the speeches
of the supporters of these new ideas in Spain. It
was towards this goal that they started to work, with the powerful assistance
of a certain section of the native priests, who out of hatred toward friars,
made common cause with the enemies of the mother country (Spain).
• At various times but especially in the beginning of year 1872, the authorities
received anonymous communications with the information that a great
rebellion would break out against the Spaniards, the minute the fleet at
Cavite left for the South, and that all would be assassinated, including the
friars. But nobody gave importance to these notices.
• The conspiracy had been going on with utmost secrecy. At times, the
principal leaders met either in the house of Filipino Spaniard, Joaquin Pardo
de Tavera, or in that of the native priest, Jacinto Zamora, and these
meetings were usually attended by the curate of Bacoor, the soul of the
movement, whose energetic character and immense wealth enabled him to
exercise a strong influence.

B.2. Primary Source: Official Report of Rafael Izquierdo

• It seems clear that the rebellion was motivated
and prepared by the native priests, by the
mestizos and native lawyers, and by those
known here as abogadillos.
• The instigators (or motivators), to carry out their
criminal plan, protested against the injustice of
the government in not paying the provinces for
their tobacco crop, and against the usury (the
illegal practice of lending money at unreasonably
high interest) that some practice in documents
that the Finance department gives crop owners
who have to sell them at a loss. They encouraged the rebellion by protesting
what they called the injustice of having obliged the soldiers/workers in the
Cavite arsenal to pay tribute starting January 1 and to render personal
service, from which they were formerly exempted.
4|Conflicting Views in Philippine History

• Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to establish a

monarchy or a republic, because the Indios have no word in their language
to describe this different form of government, whose head in Filipino would
be called hari; but it turns out that they would place as the head of the
government a priest and that the head selected would be Jose Burgos or
Jacinto Zamora. Such is the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and
the means they counted upon for its realization.

B.3. ANALYSIS of the accounts of Montero and Izquierdo:

• It is obvious that these two accounts emphasized the reason for the
rebellion: the removal of privileges enjoyed by the soldiers/workers of the
Cavite arsenal such as exemption from payment of tribute and being
employed in polo y servicios or forced labor.
• The two accounts also identified other reasons which seemingly made the
issue a lot more serious, which included the presence of the native priests,
who, out of hatred against the Spanish friars, "conspired and supported" the
rebels.
• Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report, highlighted the attempt to
overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines to install a new "hari"
in the persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. According to him, native
priests attracted supporters by giving them charismatic assurance that their
fight would not fail because they had God's support, aside from promises of
magnificent rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.
• In these two accounts, the event of 1872 was premeditated, and was part
of a big conspiracy among the educated leaders, mestizos, lawyers, and
residents of Manila and Cavite. They allegedly planned to kill high ranking
Spanish officers and the friars.
• The accounts detail that on January 20, 1872, the district of Sampaloc
celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto and came with it were some
fireworks display. The Cavitenios allegedly mistook the fireworks as the
signal to commence with the attack. The 200-men contingent attacked
Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal. Izquierdo, upon learning of
the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell
the rebellion. The rebellion was easily crushed, when the Manilenios who
were expected to aid the Cavitenios did not arrive. Leaders of the plot were
killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora
were tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be executed. Others who
were implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor,
Jose and Pio Basa, and other Filipino lawyers were suspended from the
practice of law, arrested, and sentenced to life imprisonment at the Marianas
Island.
• On February 27, 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat
to Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again.
5|Conflicting Views in Philippine History

C. Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny Contrary to the Spanish Accounts

• Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the accounts of
Izquierdo and Montero.
• First is the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino
scholar and researcher, who wrote a Filipino version of the bloody incident in
Cavite.
• Second is the account by French writer Edmund Plauchut, which
complemented Tavera's account and analyzed the motivations of the mutiny.

C.1. Primary Source: Trinidad Tavera’s Account

• According to this account, the incident was only a
mutiny by Filipino soldiers/workers of the Cavite
arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the harsh
policies of Governor General Izquierdo, such as the
removal of privileges and the prohibition of the
founding of the school of arts and trades for
Filipinos, which the Governor General saw as a
smokescreen to creating a political club.
• Tavera is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and
Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a way to solve
other issues by exaggerating the isolated mutiny attempt. During this time,
the Central Government in Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all
the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and management
of educational institutions. The friars needed something to justify their
continuing dominance in the country, and the mutiny provided such
opportunity.

C.2. Primary Source: Edmund Plauchut’s Account

• The arrival in Manila of Governor General
Izquierdo put a sudden end to all dreams
of reforms.
• In regard to schools, it was previously
commanded by the Central Government in
Madrid that there should be in Manila a
Society of Arts and Trades to be opened in
March of 1871. But to stop the growth of
liberal teachings, General Izquierdo
suspended the opening of the school.
• The Filipinos had a duty to render service
(polo y servicios or forced labor) on public
roads construction and pay taxes every
year. But those who were employed at the
maestranza of the artillery, in the
6|Conflicting Views in Philippine History

engineering shops and arsenal of Cavite, were exempted from this

obligation from time immemorial. Without any warnings of any kind, a law
passed by the Governor withdrew from such old employees their retirement
privileges and declassified them into the ranks of those who worked on
public roads.
• The friars used the incident as a part of a larger conspiracy to cement their
dominance, which had started to show cracks because of the discontent of
the Filipinos. They showcased the mutiny as part of a greater conspiracy in
the Philippines by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish Government.
• Unintentionally, and more so, prophetically, the Cavite Mutiny of 1872
resulted in the martyrdom of GOMBURZA, and paved the way to the
revolution culminating in 1898.

C.3. ANALYSIS of the accounts of Tavera and Plauchut:

• Basically, these two accounts emphasize that the GOMBURZA have no
connection to the Cavite Mutiny at all and that the Cavite Mutiny was
exaggerated by the Spanish officials just to maintain their dominance within
the territories they were managing.
• The Spanish friars only connected the GOMBURZA to the mutiny as part of
a conspiracy to stop the movement of Filipino priests who desired to have
churches which they can manage instead of being mere assistants to the
regular Spanish friars.

D. Conclusion
• The GOMBURZA is the collective name of the three martyred priests Mariano
Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, who were tagged as the
masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They were prominent Filipino priests
charged with treason and sedition by the Spanish authorities.
• The GOMBURZA were executed by garrote in public, a scene purportedly
witnessed by a young Jose Rizal.
• Their martyrdom is widely accepted as the dawn of Philippine nationalism in the
nineteenth century, with Rizal dedicating his second novel, El Filibusterismo, to
their memory.
7|Conflicting Views in Philippine History

“Did Rizal Retract?”

A. Introduction
• Retraction – it is the act of withdrawing
or taking back a statement or accusation
(in Filipino, “pagbawi ng iyong sinabi”).
• Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the
revolution for his writings that focus on
ending colonialism and liberating Filipino
minds to contribute to creating the Filipino
nation. The great volume of Rizal's
lifework was committed to this end,
particularly the more influential ones, Noli
Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. His
essays attacks not the Catholic religion,
but the friars, the main agents of injustice
in the Philippine society.
• It is understandable, therefore, that any piece of writing from Rizal that takes
back everything he wrote against the friars and the Catholic Church in the
Philippines could deal heavy damage to his image as an important Filipino
revolutionary. Such document purportedly exists, allegedly signed by Rizal a
few hours before his execution. This document, referred to as "The Retraction,"
declares Rizal's belief in the Catholic faith, and takes back everything he wrote
against the Church. The said document was found by Fr. Manuel Garcia.
• Below is the translated content of “The Retraction”:

I declare myself a Catholic, and in this Religion in which I was born and
educated I wish to live and die.
I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and
conduct has been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic
Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches, and I submit to
whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy of the
Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate
may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this
spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my
acts may have caused and so that God and the people may pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896
Jose Rizal
8|Conflicting Views in Philippine History

• There are other copies of this Retraction Document:

o The first was published in La Voz Espanola and Diario de Manila on the
day of Rizal’s execution, December 30, 1896.
o The second appeared in Barcelona, Spain, in the magazine La Juventud,
a few months after the execution, February 14, 1897, from an
anonymous writer who was later on revealed to be Fr. Vicente
Balaguer.
o However, the "original" copy was only found in the archdiocesan
archives on May 18,1935, after almost four decades of disappearance.

B. The Balaguer Testimony

• There are doubts about the retraction document, especially because only one
eyewitness account of the writing of the document exists — that of the Jesuit
friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer.
o According to his testimony, Rizal woke up several times, confessed four
times, attended a Mass, received communion, and prayed the rosary, all
of which seemed out of character.
o But since it is the only testimony of allegedly a "primary” account that
Rizal ever wrote a retraction document, it has been used to argue the
authenticity of the document.

C. The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

• Cuerpo de Vigilancia – it was the intelligence service unit that the Spanish
authorities created in 1895 primarily assigned to gather information on the
activities of certain groups of people suspected of planning a revolution against
the Spanish colonizers.
• Another eyewitness account surfaced in 2016, through the research of
Professor Rene R. Escalante.
• In his research, documents of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia included a report on the
last hours of Rizal, written by Federico Moreno. The report details the
statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to Moreno.
9|Conflicting Views in Philippine History

The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia:

Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort Santiago
to report on the events during the day in prison of the accused Jose Rizal, informs
me on this date of the following:
At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his
counsel, Señor Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara. At the urgings of
the former and moments after entering, he was served a light breakfast. At
approximately 9, the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted
anything. He replied that at the moment he only wanted a prayer book, which was
brought to him shortly by Father March.
Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the Jesuit
fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It appears that
these two presented him with a prepared retraction on his life and deeds that he
refused to sign. They argued about the matter until 12:30 when Rizal ate some
poached egg and a little chicken. Afterwards he asked to leave to write and wrote
for a long time by himself.
At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him what
he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Señor del Fresno and the
Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, were informed. They entered death row and
together with Rizal signed the document that the accused had written.
At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison dressed in
mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a military chaplain
whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes and aided by a soldier
of the artillery, the wedding of Rizal and the woman who had been his lover were
performed at the point of death. After embracing him she left, flooded with tears.

• This account of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia supports the existence of the

retraction document, giving it truthfulness.
• However, nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which makes
the friar a mere secondary source to the writing of the document.

D. Conclusion
• The retraction of Rizal remains to this day, a controversy.
• Many scholars, however, agree that the document does
not tarnish the heroism of Rizal. His relevance remained
solidified to Filipinos and pushed them to continue the
revolution, which eventually resulted in independence in
1898.