case study 2: What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?

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. These events are very important milestones in Philippine history and have caused ripples
throughout time, directly influencing the decisive events of the Philippine Revolution toward the end of
the century. unquestioned, what made this year controversial are the different sides to the story, a battle
of perspectives supported by primary sources. In this case study, we zoom in to the events of the Cavite
Mutiny, a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos of that time.

Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny

The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal centered 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 woefully biased and rabid for a scholar. Another
account from the official report written by then Governor General Rafael Izquierdo implicated the
native clergy, who were then, active in the movement toward secularization of parishes. These two
accounts corroborated each other.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Montero's Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Jose Montero y Vidal, "Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872," in Gregorio Zaide and
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store,
1990), '269- 273.
work to make weapon
The abolition of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of exemption from the tribute
was, according to some, the cause of the insurrection. There were, however, other causes.
The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda carried on by an unbridled
press against monarchical principles, attentatory [sic] of the most sacred respects towards the
dethroned majesty; the democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the speeches and preachings
of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the outbursts of the American publicists and the criminal
policy of the senseless Governor whom the Revolutionary government sent to govern the Philippines,
and who put into practice these ideas were the determining circumstances which gave rise, among
certain Filipinos, to the idea of attaining their independence. It was towards this goal that they started
to work, with the powerful assistance of a certain section of the native clergy, who out of spite toward
friars, made common cause with the enemies of the mother country.
At various times but especially in the beginning of year 1872, the authorities received anonymous
communications with the information that a great uprising 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 since the days of
La Torre with utmost secrecy. At times, the principal leaders met either in the house of Filipino
Spaniard, D. 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.

Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny
of 1872

Source: Rafael Izquierdo, "Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny," in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide,
Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 281—
286.
it seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native clergy, by the
mestizos and native lawyers, and by those
known here as abogadillos...

The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice of the government in
not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and against the usury 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 workers in the Cavite arsenal
to pay tribute January 1 to render personal service, from which they were formerly exempted…

Up to now it not been Clearly determined if they planned to establish a monarchy or 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 at the head of the
government a priest... that the head selected would be D. Jose Burgos, or D. Jacinto Zamora...

Such is... the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and the means they counted upon for its
realization.

It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the "revolution": the abolition of
privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from payment of tribute and
being employed in polos y servicios, or force labor. They also identified other reasons which
seemingly made the issue a lot more serious, which included the presence of the native clergy, who,
out of spite against the Spanish friars, "conspired and supported" the rebels. Izquierdo, in an obviously
biased report, highlighted that 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 clergy attracted
supporters -by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight would not fail because they had God's
support, aside from promises of lofty rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.

In the Spaniard's 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 plan to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers, then kill the friars. The signal they identified
among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired from Intramuros.

The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of
the Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were some fireworks display. The Caviteños allegedly mistook
this as the signal to commence with the attack. The 200-men contingent led by Sergeant Lamadrid
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 revolt. The "revolution" was easily
crushed, when the Manileños who were expected to aid the Caviteños 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, 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. Izquierdo dissolved the
native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force composed exclusively by
Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos never
to attempt to fight the Spaniards again.

Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872

Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the accounts of Izquierdo and
Montero. First, 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.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera's Account of the Cavite Mutiny

Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, "Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny," in Gregorio Zaide and
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store,
1990), 274— 280.

This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by the Spanish residents and
by the friars... the Central Government in Madrid had announced its intention to deprive the friars in
these islands of powers of intervention in matters of civil government and of the direction and
management of the university... it was due to these facts and promises that the Filipinos had great
hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their country, while the friars, on the other hand, feared that
their power in the colony would soon be complete a thing of the past.

...Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain, and the only aspiration of the
people was to secure the material and education advancement of the country...

According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and laborers of the
Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian policies of Izquierdo, such as the
abolition of privileges and the prohibition of the founding of the school of arts and trades for Filipinos
which the 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 address other issues by blowing out of proportion 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 direction and management of educational institutions. The friars
needed something to justify their continuing dominance in the country, and the mutiny provided such
opportunity.

However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational decree fusing

sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree aimed to
improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these schools
to be filled by competitive examinations, an improvement welcomed by most Filipinos.

Another account, this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut, complemented Tavera's
account and analyzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.
Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut's Account of the Cavite Mutiny
Source: Edmund Plauchut, 'The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za," in
Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7
(Manila: National Book store, 1990), 251-268.

General La Torre... created a junta composed of high officials... including some friars and six
Spanish officials.... At the same time there was created by the government in Madrid a
committee to investigate the same problems submitted to the Manila committee. When the two
finished work, it was found that they came to the same conclusions. Here is the summary of
the reforms they considered necessary to introduce:
1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection.
2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.
3. Reduction of export fees.
4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy freedom of
worship, and operate commercial transports flying the Spanish flag.
5. Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas Affairs in Madrid on
the necessary reforms to be implemented.
6. Changes in primary and secondary education.
7. Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines, rendering
unnecessary the sending home of short-term civil officials every time there is a change of
ministry.
8. Study of direct-tax system.
9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly.

...The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo... put a sudden end to all dreams of reforms... the
prosecutions instituted by the new Governor General were probably expected as a result of the
bitter disputes between the Filipino clerics and the friars. Such a policy must really end in a
strong desire on the part of the other to repress cruelly.

In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should be in Manila a Society of Arts
and Trades to be opened in March of 1871... to repress the growth of liberal teachings, General
Izquierdo suspended the opening of the school... the day previous to the scheduled
inauguration...
 The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public roads construction and pay taxes every year.
But those who were employed at the maestranza of the artillery, in the engineering shops and
arsenal of Cavite, were exempted from this obligation from time immemorial... Without
preliminaries of any kind, a decree 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.

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. It is believed that the Spanish clergy connected the
priests to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to stifle the movement of secular priests who desired to
have their own parishes instead of being merely assistants to the regular friars. 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:

"The Government, by enshrouding your trial in mystery and pardoning your co-accused, has
suggested that some mistake was committed when your fate was decided; and the whole of the
Philippines, in paying homage to your memory and calling you martyrs, totally rejects your guilt.
The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has put in doubt the crime charged against you."
Case Study 3: Did Rizal Retract?

Jose Rizal is identified as a hero of the revolution for his writings that center 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 vilify 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 recants everything he
wrote against the friars and the Catholic Church in the Philippines could deal heavy damage to his
image as a prominent Filipino revolutionary. Such document purportedly exists. allegedly signed by
Rizal a few hours before his execution. This document. referred to as “The Retraction," declares
Razal's belief in the Catholic faith. and retracts everything he wrote against the Church.

Primary Source: Rizal’s Retraction

Source: Translated from the document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia C.M. on 18 May 1935

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 son of Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches
and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is 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 people may pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896
Jose Rizal

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

Doubts on the retraction document abound, especially because only one eyewitness account
of the writing of the document exists—that of the Jesuit friar Fr. Vicente Balaguer. 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. 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.

The Testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia

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 Inst hours
of Rizal, written by Federico Moreno. The report details the statement of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia to
Moreno.

Primary Source: Eyewitness Account of the Last Hours of Rizal

Source: Michael Charleston Chua, “Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga Bagong Dokumento at Pananaw,”
GMA News Online, published 28 December 2016.

Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilacia 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 Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and moments after entering,
he was served a light breakfast. At approximately9, 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 bv 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 writ 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, Senor del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Senor
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 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.

This account corroborates the existence of the retraction document' giving it credence. However,
nowhere in the account was Fr. Balaguer mentioned, which makes the friar a mere secondary source
to the writing of the document.
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.