Content

The testimony of Father Vicente Balaguer and Cuerpo de Vigilancia

The controversial "Retraction Document" has been a focal point in the historical
discourse surrounding Jose Rizal, a prominent Filipino nationalist and revolutionary.
This document, allegedly signed by Rizal on December 29, 1896, the day before his
execution, is said to represent a renunciation of his anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish
beliefs. The significance of this document has sparked extensive debate and scrutiny,
with scholars and historians delving into its authenticity and implications for Rizal's
legacy. Escalante (2019) brought new perspectives to the forefront by identifying
previously undiscovered sources that could shed light on the life story of Rizal and other
revolutionary heroes. Notably, Federico Moreno, a writer for Cuerpo de Vigilancia,
emerged as a crucial figure in this context. Moreno's account of Rizal's execution
differed from the widely accepted narrative presented by Father Vincente Balaguer.

According to Balaguer's sworn affidavit, he claimed to have witnessed firsthand

that Rizal retracted his anti-Catholic and anti-Spanish beliefs. This assertion has been a
cornerstone in the arguments supporting the authenticity of the Retraction Document.

“Of all that has been narrated, I am positive by personal knowledge. I have
personally intervened and witnessed it myself; and I subscribed and confirmed it with an
oath. And lest, perhaps, someone may think that I could not remember it with so many
details, after twenty years. I testify that on the very day of Rizal’s death, I wrote a very
detailed account of everything. The original of this account I have preserved, and from it
I have taken all the data of the present narration (Cavanna 1956, 10).”

Another eyewitness account of what happened in Rizal's prison cell prior to his
execution may be found in Federico Moreno's report. This clarifies a lot of information
on the supposed retraction that took place before to the day of our national hero's
death. In Moreno’s account he narrates it in detailed:

“Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort
Santiago to report on the events during the [illegible] 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 [Jose] Vilaclara. At the urgings
of the former and moments after entering, he was served a light breakfast. At
approximately 9, the Adjutant of the Garrison, Señor [Eloy] 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 [Estanislao] 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 [Juan] 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. It seems this
was the retraction.

From 3 to 5:30 in the afternoon, Rizal read his prayer book several times, prayed
kneeling before the altar and in the company of Fathers Vilaclara and March, read the
Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity repeatedly as well as the Prayers for the Departing
Soul.

At 6 in the afternoon the following persons arrived and entered the chapel;
Teodora Alonzo, mother of Rizal, and his sisters, Lucia, Maria, Olimpia, Josefa,
Trinidad and Dolores. Embracing them, the accused bade them farewell with great
strength of character and without shedding a tear. The mother of Rizal left the chapel
weeping and carrying two bundles of several utensils belonging to her son who had
used them while in prison.

A little after 8 in the evening, at the urgings of Señor Andrade, the accused was
served a plate of tinola, his last meal on earth. The Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure
and Fathers March and Vilaclara visited him at 9 in the evening. He rested until 4 in the
morning and again resumed praying before the altar.

At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison accompanied
by his sister Pilar, both 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 nuptials of Rizal and the woman who
had been his lover were performed at the point of death (in articulo mortis). After
embracing him she left, flooded with tears.

Rizal heard mass and confessed to Father March. Afterwards he heard another
mass where he received communion. At 7:30, a European artilleryman handcuffed him
and he left for the place of execution accompanied by various Jesuits, his counsel and
the Assistant of the Plaza. Father March gave him a holy picture of the Virgin that Rizal
kissed repeatedly.
 When the accused left, I noticed he was very pale but I am very certain that all
the time he was imprisoned he demonstrated great strength of character and
composure.”

God grant Your Excellency.

Manila 30 December 1896.

Chief Inspector Federico Moreno (Harper 1997).

However, Escalante's research unearthed Moreno's alternative version of events,

challenging the established narrative. Moreno's account provides a different perspective
on Rizal's final moments, creating a divergence from Balaguer's testimony and
prompting a re-evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the alleged retraction.
Indeed, the inconsistencies between Federico Moreno's account and Father Vincente
Balaguer's sworn affidavit add a layer of complexity to the historical narrative
surrounding Jose Rizal's final moments. One notable disparity is the absence of any
mention of Balaguer in Moreno's version of events leading up to Rizal's execution.
According to the testimony, Balaguer was not observed coming to Rizal's prison cell
before the eminent execution, raising questions about the accuracy and reliability of
Balaguer's sworn testimony.

Due to the inaccuracy of Baleguer’s affidavit, the Masons attacked him, but they
never questioned him as a witness. However, in the report of Moreno, only two Jesuits
are identified: Fr. Jose Vilaclara and Fr. Estanislao March. In his account, Fr. Baleguer
said that he visited the cell prison of Rizal three times on December 29, 1896, from
10:00 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. During this meeting, the presentation of the retraction template
was held for Rizal, but he did not sign. Moreno confirmed that the presentation of the
draft retraction and the meeting happened; however, he stated that it was between Rizal
and Frs. March and Vilaclara, not Fr. Baleguer. Moreno added that Frs. March and
Vilaclara returned to the cell of Rizal around 3 p.m. Still, Fr. Baleguer insisted that he
visit in the afternoon and continued; he went into Riza’s cell for the third time at 10 in the
evening and stated that he and Rizal had more than an hour of passionate discussion.
At this meeting, Rizal had already signed the retraction letter. Moreno confirmed that
Rizal had visitors after dinner and identified them as Señor Andrade, Señor Maure, and
Frs. March and Vilaclara. Again, Baleguer was not mentioned, and the meeting
happens around 9 o’clock and not shortly after midnight. Neither did Moreno mention
that the people involved discussed issues about faith and retraction. His narrative ended
with Rizal going to bed.

Above all the differences of the credibility between the accounts of Baleguer and
Moreno, it did not discredited the fact that Rizal retracted. Fr. March returned at 3
o’clock in the afternoon and this is when Rizal allegedly handled him document. Then it
says Rizal signed the document together with Juan del Fresno and Señor Maure. In the
retraction document that Fr. Gracia found in 1935, one sees that the three persons
Moreno identified were signatories of the document. Moreno did not state any
information about the document probably because he is in distance and without any
presupposing that the document he sees is Rizal’s retraction letter. He simply wrote, “It
seems this was the retraction [parece que el escrito era la retractación].”

Despite the disparities in credibility between the accounts of Baleguer and

Moreno, the core fact of Rizal's retraction remains supported by tangible evidence and
consistent details. As stated by Moreno, Fr. March's return at 3 o'clock in the afternoon
marked the pivotal moment when Rizal purportedly handled the retraction document.
Subsequently, Rizal, Juan del Fresno, and Señor Maure were reported to have signed
the document. This crucial detail gains additional weight when considering the discovery
made by Fr. Gracia in 1935. The retraction document found by Fr. Gracia listed the very
individuals—Juan del Fresno and Señor Maure—whom Moreno had identified as
signatories. The convergence of these details provides a compelling link between
historical accounts and tangible evidence, reinforcing the assertion that Rizal indeed
underwent the process of retraction. Notably, Moreno's account lacks explicit details
about the document itself, potentially due to his physical distance or an initial lack of
presupposition regarding the document's significance as Rizal's retraction letter. His
statement, "It seems this was the retraction [parece que el escrito era la retractación],"
reflects a cautious approach, leaving room for interpretation rather than definitively
asserting the nature of the document he observed.

Ambeth Ocampo Testimony

Ambeth Ocampo, a prominent public historian in the Philippines renowned for his
extensive writings on Jose Rizal, recently addressed the enduring debate surrounding
Rizal's retraction in a thought-provoking Facebook post. In this significant social media
declaration, Ocampo unequivocally affirmed the existence of the retraction document,
injecting his authoritative perspective into the ongoing discourse.

“Does the document exist? Yes, I have seen it in the Archives of the Arzobisapdo de
Manila. A certified true copy was made in my presence on the day I examined the
actual document on November 11, 1996. *certification was made on the back of the
photocopy. I wish I had a cellphone then and we could have high-resolution images to
argue about.
 While handwriting analysis is best left to experts, my familiarity with Rizal's writings
comes from over 30 years handling original Rizal manuscripts, and in my opinion the
document is authentic.

Rizal's signature varies depending on the time and place it was made (he used a dip
pen not a ballpen) and it can be forged, but forging 17 lines of text in Rizal's writing is
another matter. In addition the signatures of the witnesses: Juan del Fresno (El Jefe de
Piquete) and Eloy Maure (El Ayudante de la Plaza) have to be forged as well.
Signatures of these witnesses can be compared with those in the Rizal Trial documents
made available in high resolution scans to the National Historical Commission by the
Spanish Archives. I must add that del Fresno's signature is very complicated.” –
Ocampo (2020)

Ocampo's assertion, grounded in his intimate familiarity with Rizal's distinctive

penmanship acquired over the course of three decades, added a compelling layer to the
debate. His claim that the document was authentic, asserting that Rizal indeed
retracted, provided a nuanced viewpoint that blended historical expertise with hands-on
experience in dealing with primary source materials. He also added that depending on
what Rizal used as medium in signing the paper varies, he says it can be forged but
forging the 17 lines in in another matter.

References:

Escalante, R. (2019, December 26). Did Jose Rizal Die a Catholic? Revisiting Rizal’s Last 24 Hours

Using Spy Reports. Southeast Asian Studies, 8(3), 369-386. DOI: 10.20495/seas.8.3_369

Cavanna, Jose Ma. 1956. Rizal’s Unfading Glory: A Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr. Jose

Rizal. Manila.

Harper, Bambi L. 1997. The Last Hours of Rizal. Philippine Daily Inquirer, December 30, p. 9

Ocampo, A. (2020, December 30). The Rizal Retraction is a non-issue. https://www.facebook.com.

Retrieved November 13, 2023, from https://www.facebook.com/47261762634/posts/the-rizal-

retraction-is-a-non-issue-rizal-retracted-religious-errors-the-documen/10158157884577635/