GEC 9: THE LIFE AND WORKS OF RIZAL

First Semester S.Y. 2022-2023

LEARNING MATERIALS

LESSON 6: Emerging Nationalism

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

a. Examine the causes and effects of the Cavite Mutiny; and

b. Explain the conflict between the Filipino secular priests and the Spanish regular
priests.

VOCABULARY:
episcopal visitation – an official pastoral visit conducted by the bishop on a diocese to
examine the conditions of a congregation; often done once every three years
garrote – an apparatus used for capital punishment in which an iron collar is tightened
around a condemned person’s neck
polo – system of forced labor that required Filipino males from 15 to 60 years old to
render service for a period of 40 days
regular clergy – priests who belong to religious orders
secular clergy – priests who do not belong to religious orders and are engaged in
pastoral work
tributo – system of taxation imposed by the Spanish colonial government on the
Filipinos in order to generate resources for the maintenance of the colony

LESSON INTRODUCTION:
When Rizal published El Filibusterismo in 1891, he dedicated the book to the
three martyred priests, Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora. In his
dedication, he wrote:
I have the right to dedicate my work to you as victims of the evil
which I undertake to combat. And while we await expectantly
upon Spain some day to restore your good name and cease to be
answerable for your death, let these pages serve as a tardy
Page 1 of 6
Revision: 0
 wreath of dried leaves over your unknown tombs, and let it be
understood that every one who without clear proofs attacks your
memory stains his hands in your blood!

Although Rizal was only 10 years old when the three priests were, executed, the
events of 1872 would play a decisive role in shaping Rizal’s ideas and decisions. This
chapter will focus on these events, particularly the Cavite Mutiny and the execution of
the three priests, Gomes, Burgos, and Zamora.

DISCUSSION:

Cavite Mutiny
On January 20, 1872, approximately 250 Filipino soldiers and workers rose in revolt at
an arsenal in Cavite. Eleven Spaniards were killed during mutiny, but an immediate assault led
by government forces put an end to the uprising after three days.
An oft-cited reason for the mutiny was a decree released by Governor-General Rafael de
Izquierdo. The decree ordered that the arsenal workers would no longer be exempt from the
tribute and polo, a privilege they had enjoyed in the past. Official accounts, however, argued that
the revolt was part of a larger movement with the aim of overthrowing the Spanish government
and asserting independence.
Official reports also claimed that the leaders of the mutiny had expected the support of
close 2, 000 men from regiments based both in Cavite and in Manila. The plan was to begin the
revolt after midnight in Manila with rebels setting fires in Tondo to distract the authorities. A
signal by way of fireworks would then be sent to the rebels in Cavite who would then lay siege
to the arsenal. In reality, however, the mutiny in Cavite began earlier in the evening and many of
those who pledged support defected and vowed loyalty to Spain. Ultimately, the mutiny failed
and the Spanish government used the incident as a means to suppress the increasing calls for a
more liberal administration.
Among those who clamoured for reforms were Filipino secular priests. To understand
how the Filipino secular priests became involved in the Cavite Mutiny of 1872, a brief historical
background on missionary efforts in the Philippines shall first be discussed.

Secularization Movement

Page 2 of 6
Revision: 0
 The introduction and the strengthening of the Catholic faith were largely through the
efforts of two types of clergy, the regular priests and the secular priests. The regular clergy,
whose jurisdiction fell on their elected prelates, were better prepared for missionary work
because of their standards of discipline and asceticism. Their job, then, was to introduce the
faith, convert the natives, and establish religious communities. In the Philippines, five religious
orders took on this task: the Augustinians who arrived in 1565, the Discalced Franciscans who
arrived in 1578, the Jesuits who arrived in 1581, the Dominicans who arrived in 1587, and the
Augustinian Recollects who arrived in 1606.
The secular clergy, on the other hand, were priests who “live in the world”. They were
under the authority of bishops and not members of a religious order. Their primary task was the
management of religious communities and ideally, the continuation of the work already laid
down by the regular clergy. In other words, while it was the task of the regular clergy to
introduce the faith and establish religious communities, the management of the parishes
themselves was left to the secular priests.
The missionary efforts in the Philippines, however, presented a unique case. In other
Spanish colonies, well-established parishes witnessed the replacement of regular clergy by
secular priests in the management of the religious communities. In the Philippines, the regular
clergy remained administrators of the parishes well into the 19 th century.
Two issues were particularly contentious among the clergy in the Philippines. The first
issue had to do with Episcopal visitations. An omnimoda bull passed by Pope Adrian VI in 1522
allowed the regulars to administer the sacraments and act as parish priests independent from
the authority of the local bishop. This bull, however, conflicted with reforms established in the
Council of Trent (1545-1563), which declared that no priest could care for the souls of laymen
unless they were subjected to Episcopal authority that often came in the form of visitations.
Although King Philip II was granted discretionary power to enforce the reforms in the
Philippines, the regular clergy often thwarted their implementation.
The regular clergy argued that if they allowed the visitations to occur, the congregation
would be subjected to two sources of authority, the bishop and the provincial superiors, who
may, at some point, issue conflicting orders. By refusing the Episcopal visitations, they hoped to
avoid the possibility of violating their vows of obedience to their own superiors. Serious
attempts to enforce the visitations, however, were often countered by the regular clergy who
abused their authority be resigning from their posts and leaving the parishes unattended. This
type of situation was especially disastrous in the early stages of Christianization when the
paucity of secular priests often forced the government to give in to the wishes of the regular
clergy.

Page 3 of 6
Revision: 0
 The second issue had to do with the management of the parishes. Regular priests
maintained control over the parishes in the early stages of Christianization out of necessity
because of the scarcity of secular priests to whom the parishes would be passed on. However,
beginning in the late 17th century, efforts were intensified to produce and train Filipino secular
priests that by the 19th century, they constituted an increasingly significant number. Despite
this, the regular clergy usually contested, if not outright refused, the rights of the secular clergy
to the parishes.
One reason provided by the regulars was that the Philippines still remained an active
mission, en viva conquista spiritual, with some groups not yet Christianized. They would,
therefore, argue that the Filipinos were not ready to be turned over to the secular clergy.
Another reason was more economic in nature with the regulars refusing to give up the parishes
that generated large profits for them. However, an overwhelming reason why the regulars
refused to give up the parishes had to do with their view that the Filipino secular clergy were
unqualified and incompetent. Even worse, some viewed the seculars as potential leaders of any
future separatist movement.
The secular clergy would react strongly to these claims. In the mid-19 th century, Fr.
Mariano Gomez, parish priest of Bacoor, and Fr. Pedro Pelaez, secretary to the arch bishop,
drew up expositions to the government on behalf of the secular clergy, but their efforts proved
futile. The struggle eventually took on a different tone towards 1860s as the issue of
secularization was no longer limited to questions of merit and competence. By 1864, the nature
of the issue became one of racial equality as well. At the forefront of this struggle to gain
equality between Spanish and Filipino priests was Fr. Jose Burgos.

Execution of Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora

As a result of the revolt in Cavite, several priests and laymen were arrested on the
orders of Governor-General Izquierdo. Among the priests arrested in the succeeding days were
Fathers Jose Burgos, Jacinto Zamora, Jose Guevara, Mariano Gomez, Feliciano Gomez, Mariano
Sevilla, Bartolome Serra, Miguel de Laza, Justo Guazon, Vicente del Rosario, Pedro Dandan, and
Anacleto Desiderio. Among the laymen were lawyers and businessmen: Gervacio Sanchez,
Pedro Carillo, Maximo Inocencio, Balbino Mauricio, Ramon Maurente, Maximo Paterno, and Jose
Basa. These Filipinos were sentenced to varying terms of exile in Guam. The three priests,
Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora, on the other hand, were condemned to death by garrotte on
February 15, 1872.

A French writer-journalist named Edmund Plauchut gave an account of the execution:

Page 4 of 6
Revision: 0
 Late in the night of the 15th of February 1872, a Spanish court martial found three
secular priests, Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, guilty of treason
as the instigators of a mutiny in the Cavite navy-yard a month before, and
sentenced them to death. The judgment of the court martial was read to the priests
in Fort Santiago early the next morning and they were told it would be executed
the following day. . . Upon hearing the sentence, Burgos broke into sobs, Zamora
lost his mind and never recovered, and only Gomez listened impassively, an old
man accustomed to the thought of death.
When dawn broke on the 17th of February, there were almost forty thousand of
Filipinos surrounding the four platforms where the three priests and the man
whose testimony had convicted them, a former artilleryman called Saldua, would
die.
The three followed Saldua: Burgos “weeping like a child,” Zamora with vacant
eyes, and Gomez head held high, blessing the Filipinos who knelt at his feet, heads
bared and praying. He was next to die. When his confessor, a Recollect friar,
exhorted him loudly to accept his fate, he replied: “Father, I know that not a leaf
falls to the ground but by the will of God. He wills that I should die here, His holy
will be done.”
Zamora went up the scaffold without a word and delivered his body to the
executioner; his mind had already left it.
Burgos was the last, a refinement of cruelty that compelled his to watch the death
of his companions. He seated himself on the iron rest and then sprang up crying:
“But what crime have I committed? Is it possible that I should die like this. My God,
is there no justice on earth?”
A dozen friars surrounded him and pressed him down again upon the seat of the
garrotte, pleading him to die a Christian death. He obeyed but, feeling his arms
tied round the fatal post, protested once again: “But I am innocent!”
“So was Jesus Christ,” said one of the friars. At this Burgos resigned himself. The
executioner knelt at his feet and asked his forgiveness. “I forgive you, my son. Do
your duty.” And it was done.

Although the public execution of the three priests was meant to instill fear in the Filipinos, it had
the opposite effect. In his work, La Revolucion Filipina, Apolinario Mabini stated:
The friars wanted to make an example of Burgos and his companions so that the
Filipinos should be afraid to go against them from then on. But that patent
Page 5 of 6
Revision: 0
 injustice, that official crime, aroused not fear but hatred of the friars and of the
regime that supported them, and a profound sympathy and sorrow for the victims.
This sorrow worked a miracle: it made the Filipinos realize their condition for the
first time. Conscious of pain, and thus conscious of life, they asked themselves what
kind of a life they lived. The awakening was painful, and working to stay alive
more painful still, but one must live. How? They did not know, and the desire to
know, the anxiety to learn, overwhelmed and took possession of the youth of the
Philippines. The curtain of ignorance woven diligently for centuries was rent at
last: fiat lux, let there be light, would not be long in coming, the dawn of the new
day was nearing.

EVALUATION: (See the separate file for Learning Activity)

REFERENCES:
Rhodalyn Wani-Obias et. al., The Life and Works of Jose Rizal. C&E Publishing Inc. (2018)
Eugene Raymond P. Crudo et. al. The Life and Works of Jose Rizal. REX Book Store. (2019)

Prepared by:

John Rey R. Buan

Instructor

Page 6 of 6
Revision: 0