Burgos, Gomes, Zamora - Secular Martyrs of of Filipinism by Sol H. Gwekoh

.
_■
■
.'
■
'•' ; ■
:-
i
; ? BURGOS‘ GOMESy* -t•; -?->•<vlt
ZAMORA ■'?;• : ;
■
V2.4
SECULAR MARTYRS OF FILIPINISM
• ’ . ' I Id 11 fllTH11-111!
H [OPP
.. . ,f..... ...r „ ..i-,...b'f^'W

•'
8 '
A First Centennial Biography
r By ...;j.
3?
.mV /JU*
BURGOS • GOMES
ZAMORA
SECULAR MARTYRS OF FILIPINISM
A First Centennial Biography
By
SOL H. GWEKOH
Biographer — Journalist — Author-
Writer — University Professor-
Knight Commander of Rizal
Founder & Chief Executive
Philippine National Hall of Fame
First Chairman
National Historical Commission
Executive Director-
National Pieroes Commission
( AuBuSulO AHO UClUSlVlLT OiSTRiSufID tT
_
BOOK SlOOt
WITH THREE STORES TO SERVE YOU
MAIN ITO1I
■nEMEBIJ I. kicro UANCN
co* SOU* |l»J'C “ tte’O*' uOtAVIkl
CUIAO fcOANCH
COI'Jlv- I
| >(l.«*-41-9* »O0» | 1(1 8’ to | OUtJOM fill* I
I
J
i
Copyright, 1974
by
SOL II. GWEKOH
First Published, 1974
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

I
MUWO ANO HCIUSIVIIY OiSTIUtUllO I’
^^^BOOKSTORtlllC
WITH THREE STORES TO SERVE YOU
t>O»l ' ■ ICIO UOKM
I 7»l Um *»l. CCX. tout I IWC M HC10H. noun»|
Ilv«-«3 O. IO* I III I
(
Printed by
I
Allied Printing & Binding Co.
91 Panay Avenue
I
Quezon City
J
TO THE LOVING MEMORY
OF
JESUS and LIBERTY

INTRODUCTION
THIS book on the Secular Martyrs of Filipinism

starts with the individual biographies of the three great
Filipino Priests: Jacinto Zamora y del Rosario, Mariano
Gomes de los Angeles, and Jose Apolonio Burgos y Garcia.
Since the extensive research conducted on their ex

emplary lives brought out more materials on Father Burgos,
the varied activities and accomplishments in the early days
of the Learned Champion of Secularization Movement were
each treated separately and fully in ten (10) different
parts.
In The Path To Martyrdom, the remaining years of

the heroes (Zamora, Gomes and Burgos) are written up
collectively inasmuch as from 1872, the time of the Cavite
mutiny, to their execution, they together underwent and
experienced the fateful life of the condemned martyrs.
BURGOS * GOMES * ZAMORA: SECULAR MAR

TYRS OF FILIPINISM is a humble contribution to the
first centennial of the execution of the-three Priest-Heroes.
In this book the Author has assembled together the
numerous facts unearthed during his researches in the
hope that they will help enlighten further the Filipino
in his quest for more light on the lives and deeds of these
Secular Martyrs of Filipinism.
SOL H. GWEKOH
December 30, 1973

CONTENTS
Page
I. JACINTO ZAMORA y DEL ROSARIO
Forthright Priest and Reformer 1
II. MARIANO GOMES DE LOS ANGELES

Beloved Priest and Ardent Patriot 8
III. JOSE APOLONIO BURGOS y GARCIA

Learned Champion of Secularization Movement
1. THE BOYHOOD DAYS 21
2. THE ORPHAN COLLEGIAN OF
LETRAN 25
3. EIGHT DEGREES EARNED 29
4. PRIESTHOOD FOR A CAREER 42
5. OFFICER IN THE
ACADEMIC COMMUNITY 52
6. THE NOTABLE NATIONALIST
WRITER 57
7. BURGOS: THE GREAT FILIPINO 66
8. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE
NATIVE (FILIPINO) CLERGY 72
9. THE TICKLISH PROBLEM OF
FILIPINIZING THE PARISHES 75
10. A SUSPECT OF THE SPANIARDS 85
IV. THE PATH TO MARTYRDOM
Burgos - Gomez - Zamora
1. THE CAVITE MUTINY OF 1872 89
2. FATE OF THE MUTINEERS 100
3. TRIAL BY MILITARY COURT 107
4. ECCLESIASTICAL DEGRADATION FOR
CONDEMNED PRIESTS?_______
117
5. THE EXECUTION BY GARROTE 122
6. SIGNIFICANCE OF THEIR GLORIOUS
MARTYRDOM _______________
133
7. REMEMBERING THEM —
NOW AND FOREVER 139
APPENDIX A — SENTENCE PROMULGATED

BY THE COURT-MARTIAL _ 143
I. JACINTO ZAMORA y DEL ROSARIO
Forthright Priest and Reformer
FATHER Jacinto Zamora y del Rosario spent prac

tically his entire priestly life to devoted parish work. A
forthright personality, he had the courage to speak his
mind openly, frankly, and vigorously, a trait which brought
him often into trouble with the Spanish friars. As a result
of his liberalmindedness, tragedy haunted his whole life.
In fact, of the trio of martyred priests, he presented the
most tragic figure.
A Tagalog bom on Fraternidad street (now San Luis)
in Pandacan, Manila, on August 14, 1835, Zamora was the
son of the well-to-do and affluent couple — Venancio Za
mora and Hilaria del Rosario. Preserved through the years
is the Zamora family lot in Pandacan. In his boyhood days
Zamora took his primary education in Pandacan.
Unlike Fr. Jose Apolonio Burgos, Zamora was not the
bookish type of student. Neither did he possess the jour
nalistic talent of Fr. Mariano Gomes. Zamora obtained the
degree of bachelor of arts from the Real Colegio de San
Juan de Letran. Determined to pursue the priestly career,
he transferred to the University of Santo Tomas.
In the pontifical university Zamora became involved
in student politics. On January 24, 1860, he led a student
demonstration which sought the immediate removal of the
newly-named mayor. As the school authorities reported
the matter to the vicar-general, prompt action was taken
against the ten student leaders who included Fr. Jose
Burgos and Juan Dulag. Zamora was meted out a punish
ment that kept him confined in his quarters for a period
of two months.
1
2 SOL H. GWEKOH
Zamora also turned out to be a scholar. He took his

studies seriously and, on March 6, 1858, obtained the de
grees of canon law and theology from the University of
Santo Tomas. These degrees would have been more than
sufficient to meet the minimum requirements of his eccle
siastical preparation and training, but instead Zamora de
cided there and then to pursue further his academic work.
As Zamora undertook the work leading to the doctor
ate in canon law, he became acquainted with Burgos.
Being classmates in the subjects of Logic and Physics,
they were seen constantly together talking and discussing
the burning issues of the times.
Two years after Zamora had received his tonsure, the
rite which denoted his admission to the clerical state, he
was ordained a priest. From the day that started his
career in the priesthood, he went seriously into parish
work.
For his first assignment Zamora was made the assist
ant parochial priest in Marikina, Rizal. With his subse
quent transfer to Pasig, Rizal, he became the parish priest.
Then he moved to Lipa in Batangas.
A man full of energy, Zamora noted the excesses com
mitted by the Spanish colonial government, the abuses
perpetrated by the Spanish friars, and the plight and
shabby treatment which the Filipino priests received from
their Spanish superiors. What he had observed made
Zamora, who was always preoccupied with various activi
ties, none too friendly to the authorities.
As Zamora had a strong determination, a trait which
made him stand firm and steadfast in his decisions, he
soon antagonized the friars whose wrath he had incurred.
They became dissatisfied with Zamora’s behavior and his
boldness of not giving allowance to Spanish threats made
the friars dislike him. So they had him transferred to
the parish of Pandacan on November 26, 1864. He lodged
with Fr. Burgos whom he found active in securing re
forms.
BURGOS GOMES ZAMORA 3
While Zamora was stationed in Pasig, he took the

competitive examination to enable him to qualify for an
. important post in the Manila Cathedral. In this rigid
examination which saw both Filipino and Spanish priests
take it, only a few passed. Since Zamora emerged second
to the highest, he was named to the Curacy No. 1 at the
Cathedral on December 3, 1864.
In this particular position Zamora came again in con

tact with Fr. Burgos, a dauntless crusader for the dignifi-
cation of their countrymen, especially the Filipino priests.
On the other hand, in Zamora, Burgos, who had assumed
the post of the interim canon of the Cathedral chapter,
found an intelligent and invaluable alternate in the posi
tion he occupied.
As both Zamora and Burgos had earned the high es

teem of the archbishop of Manila, they were much later
assigned as the examiners of the new Spanish and Filipino
priests after they had passed with high scholastic rating
the “examination by opposition” which was taken by hun
dreds of examinees. This position not only commanded
respect but was also considered “way above the friars.”
Afterwards Zamora joined Burgos and Father- Ma

riano Gomes as a member of the Comite Reformador which
worked for the secularization of the Filipino clergy and
fought for the rights of the native priests in particular.
By joining the Comite, they in effect became anti-Estab-
lishment, the very “unjust Establishment which made a
mockery of the principles of justice, love and concern for
human beings.’’ They protested the insults and vinifica
tions hurled by the Spanish friars, who were the- real
powers behind the throne in those days, that their Filipino
counterparts were “incompetent and mediocre in ability and
talent.” They were also against the practice of the church
in assigning key positions in the ecclesiastical organiza
tion to Spanish priests. The native priests found in Zamora
“a champion for their cause.”
4 SOL IL GWEKOH
At the time the Filipino priests, with 17 years of

academic preparation, could aspire only to the position of
a co-adjutor to the friar but never as the head of a
parochial district. What also incensed Zamora was the
malpractice of stationing young Spaniards who had just
arrived from Spain to serve as sacristanes to the friars,
and then to qualify them to take the examination for
parish priest after six months of service. Because of his
steel-willed character, Zamora never allowed these Spanish
candidates to take the examination despite the repeated
threats he received from the friars.
This firmness of Zamora was ably demonstrated on
another occasion. During his tenure in the Manila Cathe
dral, a Spanish lieutenant (or captain) wanted him to bless
a fellow Spanish officer who had committed suicide so
that he could be interred on sacred ground. Despite all
supplications and intimidations from the arrogant officer,
he refused steadfastly to be cowed as to do so would be
going against his own policy of treating both Filipinos
and Spaniards alike and the policy of the Roman Catholic
church.
In another instance, Zamora showed the members of
the Franciscan Order the kind of man that he was when
he, accompanied by two other Filipino priests, sang a High
Mass during the town fiesta of Pandacan although only
Spanish friars could say such kind of mass then. Zamora
was forced to do this because the three Franciscan priests
scheduled to celebrate the mass were still “at the patio
enjoying an operatic piece being played by the well-known
Pandacan brass band of Intong Palombarit.” While the
offended trio did not question his audacity, Zamora was
however severely criticized for his bold act.
The avowed mission of the Comite Reformador (Com
mittee on Reforms and Seculars) soon made the civil
authorities to be suspicious of it, while the many defiant
acts of Zamora aroused the enmity of the Spaniards.
When he was found to have been more outspoken in his
actions against the friars, his enemies in the Spanish ad-
ministration, both civil and religious, conceived of plots

to get rid of him. Before long, the much-awaited chance
came.
Zamora had the custom of joining the other priests
after their parochial duties in their common pastime of
playing card games, particularly manilla and panguingue,
from time to time. He had an innate love for gambling
which was his great passion. A fun-loving person he had
also a liking for the fiesta, the tertulia, and the cockpit.
He was in the habit of inviting friends and neighbors
whenever he met them to a card party in his house on
Fraternidad street.
One day Zamora received a written invitation from
his friend, Fr. Pedro Duran, of the parish of San Anton,
in the district of Sampaloc, Manila, to play a game of cards
with a big group of individuals in a Sampaloc convent.
The invitation was worded thus: “Grand reunion. Come
without fail. Our friends will be there and will be well
provided with bullets (bala) and powder (polvora).” The
affair was set for January 20, 1872, the day of the fiesta
of San Anton, Zamora accepted the invitation and pre-
pared to go.
By strange coincidence, however, on this same date
some 200 disgusted Filipino workers in the arsenal in
Cavite mutinied against their commander because tributes
to which they were previously exempted were deducted
from their salaries and their “companions were down
graded, neglected, and deported to the island of Balabac,
and their jobs given to inexperienced newcomers recom
mended by friars.” The revolt spread like wildfire and
reached Fort San Felipe in the same province where the
Filipino soldiers offered their sympathetic response.
Being a member of the Comite Reformador and a
violent critic of the Spanish friars, Zamora became a much
wanted man by the authorities. His enemies who were
themselves masters of intrigue found this occasion to be
6 SOL H. GWEKOH
their rare chjmce to implicate him and the other liberal-

minded Filipino leaders as instigators of the mutiny.
On the basis of a warrant of arrest made out for a
Fr. Jose Zamora, who was said to be a real activist and “an
energetic foe of authority,” Zamora was picked up, ar
rested, and accused of fomenting the abortive Cavite
uprising. When confronted with the warrant at his house
on Fratemidad street, Zamora protested vehemently, say
ing, “I am not Jose, I am Jacinto.”
Apparently, there was no intention to arrest Zamora
for there was no warrant for his arrest. However, with
out much ado, the officer substituted “Jacinto” for
“Jose”, and forthwith served the irregular warrant to
Zamora. Because of this mistaken arrest on him, he has
become known as an “accidental martyr.”
In the subsequent search of his house the civil
authorities seized his personal papers. They also found the
frivolous invitation on his desk. Because of its compro
mising date and language—it contained the words “pow
der" and “bullets” which they took literally when what that
meant was those who were “coming will be well provided
with money to gamble, even lasting into the night” and
that there “would be high stakes in the game of monte that
they would play” — the invitation was misunderstood. It
was later presented as a prosecution evidence to prove
conclusively Zamora's link to the Cavite revolt. The pros
ecution claimed that they were plotting to stage a rebel
lion.
Together with two other Filipino priests — Jose Bur
gos and Mariano Gomes — Zamora was accused of the
crime of conspiracy and mutiny, with the object of detach
ing the Archipelago from the sovereign country — Spain
— and “proclaiming it a Republic, thereby undermining
the integrity of the monarchy.”
The Spanish Council of War, or military court, com
posed of six officers, conducted a mock trial at the military
courtroom in Fort Santiago on February 15, 1872. During

the trial the facts were twisted so as to appear that the
three priests (Burgos Gomes, and Zamora) had a direct
connection with the workers’ mutiny in the Cavite arsenal.
The state presented evidence consisting of “fabricated tes
timonies and hearsay evidences obtained by duress and
cruel torture from false witnesses.” Zamora was not al
lowed any defense counsel nor to produce rebuttal witness
es to refute or deny the prosecutors’ allegations.
Insofar as Zamora was concerned, no single act of
him could be really called subversive in nature and scope.
One witness claimed that Zamora was the messenger of
Fr. Burgos in the delivery of manifestoes and that during
his tenure as the parish priest of Marikina, he encouraged
the publication of the Manifesto a la Noble Nacion Espano
la in June 1864.
Conducted in utmost secrecy, the trial ended that same
day.
II. MARIANO GOMES DE LOS ANGELES
Beloved Priest and Ardent Patriot
IN his youth, Mariano Gomes de los Angeles dreamed

of becoming a lawyer one day. He was bent on defending
his people who were subjected mercilessly to the different
acts of tyranny, indignity, and maladministration perpe
trated by the abusive and arrogant Spanish colonial offi
cials.
But his youthful dream soon faded away for Gomes,
being an obedient and respectful son, was finally persuad
ed by his parents to give up his ambition to be a lawyer.
He was told that he could serve his people much better
by becoming a clergyman.
A native of the district of Santa Cruz, Manila, Gomes
was bom to the middle-class Chinese-Filipino couple, Ale
jandro Francisco Gomes and Martina Custodio, on August
2, 1799. A relatively rich family, the Gomeses were the
owners of houses in the different districts of the city from
which they obtained rentals regularly.
As a young boy Gomes was taught the abakada by
his father. He was eight years old when he began his
studies at the Colegio de San Jose owned by the Jesuit
Order. After having completed his elementary education,
he enrolled at the Colegio de San Juan de Letran. From
this institution he received the degree of bachiller en filo-
sofia when he was only 15 years old.
Since Gomes’ first love was to be the defender of his
people’s rights, he moved to the University of Santo Tomas
where he took up law. During his college days he tried
his best to master the Spanish laws, particularly those
8
concerned with land, in his desire to be of help to the Fili

pino landowners who were abused by landgrabbers.
In the college Gomes was engaged repeatedly in spirit
ed debates with his equally talented classmates who ad
mired him for his eloquent discourse and peroration. Even
his Spanish professors joined in these lively discussions in
which he displayed an incisive mind. By and large, he was
regarded as one who had the makings of a future legal
luminary.
However, before long, Gomes acceded to his parents’
wishes, and abandoned the legal calling. Without much
ado, he turned his attention to the study of the noble pro
fession of priesthood. As he pursued his work diligently,
he finished his studies of the canon law in a short time.
In the seminary he also excelled in both philosophy and
theology. He received the degree of bachiller en sagrada
teologia with honors in June 1824. Within four years
(1820-1823) Gomes became successively a habitista, a
tonsurista, a menorista, a subdeacon, and a deacon.
Gomes said his first mass in the Santa Cruz parish
church in Manila on May 28, 1824. Shortly after his or
dination as a priest, he took the competitive examination
given to fill up the vacant position of curate in the parish
of Ermita in Manila. While he obtained the highest mark
among the candidates for this post, he failed to qualify be
cause of the age requirements.
When Gomes took up parochial work he became known
by the name Mariano Gomes de los Angeles. This he did
purposely in order to distinguish him from both a Spanish
friar in Cavite and a priest from Cabuyao, Laguna, who
were named Mariano Gomez. However, he signed his name
as Mar Gomes de los Angeles. He chose to use the letter s
in his family name instead of the Spanish letter z for be
ing a Tagalista (an individual proficient in the Tagalog
dialect).
Gomes held distinguished positions in the religious
hierarchy. Being a pious priest, he performed his duties
10 SOL H. GWEKOH
with dedication and thoroughness, so much so that he was

not only loved but also respected by his parishioners.
On June 2 (1824) Gomes was assigned as the parish
priest (cura propietario) of Bacoor, the affluent town
founded by a secular priest in Cavite. He succeeded Fray
Cecilio Bosta, a Spaniard. He had Saturnino Panganiban
for his co-adjutor. With him were his aging mother, a
younger brother, and three sisters.
In the 47 years of his service in Bacoor, a period which
ended with his execution, his parishioners found Gomes to
possess “a mind with exceptional intelligence and uncom
mon ability” and to be an ardent patriot who showed “a
deep interest in the cause of his parishioners and the work
ing class.”
Gomes was one priest who was always on the go. He
found time to involve himself in matters not confined to
the spiritual guidance of his flock. After he had said the
early morning mass and had finished attending to other
religious affairs, he was already in the move making the
rounds of the homes in his parish. He associated constant
ly with his parishioners and learned their temporal needs.
A militant person who was active during the liberal
days at the start of the 19th century, Gomes delved deep
into the problems of the times, both local and national in
scope. He fought incessantly for the native clergy in their
controversy against the Spanish friars, initiated projects
which resulted in permanent improvements in commerce,
industry, and agriculture, worked for agrarian reforms,
and launched a campaign to obtain amnesty for the ag
grieved peasant fanners of Cavite who were forced to go
to the hills and remained fugitives and dissidents through
no fault of their own.
When Gomes came to Bacoor he was astonished to
note the economic backwardness of the place. So he de
cided to lend a hand. As he was a wealthy Manileno, he
readily drew from his personal funds whenever his con
stituents were faced with financial problems.
Gomes was also appalled at the poor condition of the

roads in Bacoor. As he had made up his mind to do some
thing constructive he began preaching the value of educa
tion to the enthusiastic townspeople. In his sermons he
aroused their interest in the importance of good roads to
themselves and to their growing economy. To show them
that he meant business he himself went to work under
the sweltering sun. He joined the gob emad orcillo in
straightening out the old streets and laying out new ones.
Under his personal supervision, a circumferential road
which “passed through and linked nine barrios outside and
three others within the town (of Bacoor) was set up.”
This exemplary accomplishment of Gomes made Gov
ernor Juan Salcedo of Cavite proud indeed of the road
building prelate so much so that during a gathering of
the gobernadorcillos of the neighboring towns in Cavite
in 1871, the governor not only commended Gomes for his
inter-barrio chain of roads but he personally took them to
Bacoor to see for themselves the well-planned network.
At the same time Salcedo offerd a substantial cash award
for the local officials who could duplicate Gomes’ example.
In recognition of his exemplary leadership and dis
tinguished accomplishments, Gomes was made the acting
vicai- forane of the province of Cavite, a position which
carried extraordinary responsibilities in those days. He
succeeded Fray Lazaro Salustiano, parish priest of the port
of Cavite, shortly after his death. On May 12, 1884,
Gomes took his oath of allegiance to Queen Isabel H.
Gomes held the position of acting vicar forane for
only two years. Named the permanent vicar, he took his
oath before Fr. Domingo Dayrit, then the oldest living
priest in Cavite, in the parish of Cavite Viejo (now Kawit)
on September 23, 1846. As he feared that he was not
equal to the task, he repeatedly urged Fr. Pedro Pablo
Pelaez, the secretary of the Archdiocese, to relieve him
“at the first opportunity.” At one time he even cited the
incident he had in 1867 with the parish priest of Indang
1
12 SOL H. GWEKOH
who took up the matter of depositing parochial funds.

Notwithstanding his offer, his resignation was never act
ed upon favorably.
After road-building, Gomes went to banking. He or
ganized a bank which helped tremendously the town
residents for it “doled out money without requiring col
laterals and sans interests.” With his encouragement
and the funds loaned them by the bank, the saltmakers
of Bacoor were able to improve, develop, and expand the
industry. Coupled with his knowledge of agriculture and
industry which Gomes imparted to the farmers, salt
making and fanning soon became the major sources of
income of the townsfolk.
Uneasy at the poor prospects facing the farmhands
of Bacoor, Gomes, at his own initiative, met the individual
big landowners at his convent. After talking to them of
the futility of an expensive and prolonged litigation in
court, he succeeded in persuading them to share their
tenants with small parcels of land with which to live on
and cultivate. The proprietors could not refuse the good
priest because they owed him much, what with their
bounteous harvests and improved roads for which Gomes
was mainly the moving spirit behind?
When a large and influential religious corporation in
Imus, Cavite, decided to set up its own independent church
by separating four barrios from the town proper of Bacoor,
which happened to be a part of its vast tracts of land,
Gomes fought back and won a “status quo.” His victory
in this case was hailed by the Filipino tenants who would
have been charged higher annual land rentals had the ad
jacent friar hacienda succeeded, but it started the ani
mosity of the Spanish friars for Gomes whom he met again
in the celebrated Luis Parang affair.
As Gomes likewise concerned himself keenly with the
agrarian troubles that affected over 3,000 inquilines
(native lessees) and farmers in Cavite and the surround
ing provinces, and resulted in violent armed conflicts in
the Tagalog region for three years, he unhesitatingly as

sumed the role of a negotiator or intermediary in his
efforts to bring about a peaceful solution to the recurrent
problem and give back a normal, satisfactory life to the
peasants who tilled friar lands.
After conducting a one-man investigation on the mat
ter of the consistent and insistent demands and abuses
of the friars owning the haciendas in the towns of Imus
and San Francisco de Malabon (now General Trias), Gomes
found out that the notorious outlaw, Luis Parang, was a
victim of gross injustice. So Gomes went to see the
Spanish captain-general at Malacanang. After his audience,
he sent Parang a letter imploring him to lead a normal life
once more. Parang was a peaceful Cavite farmer turned
an agrarian leader until he got fed up with the Spanish
friars’ highhandedness. He turned a bandit and took to
the mountains.
Tire proud bandit that Parang was, he was reported to
have laughed loudly upon receipt of the letter. “In Cavite,
I am the law,” Parang exclaimed and added, “The very
mention of my name makes the entire province quake with
terror. How dare this priest presume that he can make
me embrace a peaceful life? This priest must be out of
his mind!”
But on second thought the haughty outlaw who ter
rorized the countryside saw wisdom in the priest’s mis
sive. When he met Gomes face to face in his hideout and
was assured that he and his band of a thousand would
be granted amnesty by the governor should they choose
to be law-abiding citizens again, he had no other recourse
but to agree to the offer.
True to his word, within the week, Parang led his
followers in the voluntary descent from the mountain and,
accompanied by Gomes, proceeded to Malacanang. The
astonished governor and Parang signed the then celebrated
Tratado de Malacanang (Treaty of Malacanang) with the
beaming Padre Gomes as an eyewitness. With the Tratado
14 SOL H. GWEKOH
peace was returned to Cavite again. Not only did the

Tratado pardon the lawbreakers but it also guaranteed
them the exercise of their lawful rights, including such
concessions as “(1) land rentals could not be raised by
religious corporations and (2) inability of fanners to pay
land rental would not be sufficient ground to oust them”
— while on their part Parang and his men “laid down their
arms and vowed to return to a peaceful life.”
In appreciation for the daring exploits and extra
ordinary deeds of Gomes who went out of his way to serve
not only God but also his flock, the Archbishop named
him the examinador sinodal (synodal examiner) of the
archdiocese of Manila, a position rarely extended to a
Filipino priest. Among his parishioners, Gomes became
known as the “Defender of his People” in recognition of
the role he played as the peacemaker in bringing about
the amicable settlement of the conflict.
Throughout his mission years in Bacoor, Gomes was
known everywhere as the pious and respected priest who
won the admiration, love, and esteem of the populace with
work well done! While he was hailed as a militant man
of action of the cloth, he nevertheless became the envy
of certain scheming elements and detractors who tried
their best to debase and downgrade him before the ad
ministration.
As Gomes lived and labored in the fulfillment of the
endless duties of a priestly life during those hateful and
fateful days and years of turmoil and uncertainty in the
Philippines, he too championed the cause of liberalization
and espoused the movement that called for the seculariza
tion of the parishes and for a “more dignified status for
the native clergy in the affairs of the church.”
In his time Gomes observed that the Spanish priests
enjoyed better opportunities for employment than their
Filipino counterparts. While the Spaniards could get
practically any ecclesiastical position of their choice, the
Filipinos could aspire only for the position of a co-adjutor,
or the assistant of the parish priest, regardless of their

preparation, training, and experience. What made the
situation worst was the assignment by a royal decree in
1849 of seven parishes in Cavite administered by the native
clergy for years to the Recollect and Dominican orders.
The parish of Bacoor was one of them, but Gomes never
gave it up. Instead, he led a movement aimed at the re
vocation of the decree. He called the movement a “just
and well-founded enterprise.”
Under these conditions, Gomes could not help but
fight back. He joined the first group of his countrymen
who dared to “hold aloft the torch of freedom aiming to
achieve truth and justice” in the first known concerted
action intended to defend the native priests. In this fight
he agitated and worked for the grant of better concessions
for his countrymen.
In 1851 Gomes circularized both the priests and the
co-adjutors in the secular clergy with a confidential letter
which reached Indang, Silang, Maragondon, Santa Cruz de
Malabon, San Francisco de Malabon, Rosario, Salinas, San
Roque, Naic, and Puerto de Cavite in Cavite province;
Santo Tomas, Calaca, Nasugbu, Liang, and Rosario in
Batangas province; Cabuyao, Calauan, Binan, and Tuna
san in Laguna; Boac in Marinduque; and the suburbs of
Intramuros, Quiapo, Ermita, and Santa Cruz in Manila.
Gomes wrote:
If we remain contented by merely expressing
in the newspapers the injustice of removing us
from the seven parishes in the Province of Cavite,
we would be like children who, when hurt, show
their grief in useless lamentation instead of ob
taining due redress. So as not to act childish, let
those of us who are interested in the group to
which we belong try to secure the revocation of
that prejudicial measure which was adopted,
hurriedly without doubt, by the Government that
16 SOL H. GWEKOH
has no aim but be just and benevolent to the

natives of these Islands.'
With their help Gomes collected contributions amount
ing to P2.209, the amount intended to pay the services of
an “influential personage in Madrid” who would work for
the revocation of the 1849 decree. The contributions
ranged in sums. The priest of Cabuyao gave P16; Fr.
Sabino de la Fuente, the military chaplain, P25; Gomes
himself, P100; and the priest of Santa Cruz, P200. How
ever, the plan failed, for in 1861 another decree compen
sated the Recollects with parishes assigned to the Fili
pinos in Cavite for their losses of parishes turned over to
the Jesuits in Mindanao.
Undaunted, Gomes moved forward, ever hopeful of
success in his mission. Because of his deep interest in
the welfare of his countrymen and to enable him to ex
press his thoughts and ideas freely as well as to dissem
inate information about the abuses committed by the
Spanish authorities in the country, he founded his own
newspaper which he called by the provocative name of
La Verclad (The Truth). In this newspaper, which soon
became influential and the “leading instrument for prop
aganda by the Filipino leaders,” like-minded members of
both the clergy and the laity wrote articles regularly. On
his part, Gomes urged the holding of competitive examina
tions as the basis for filling in vacant parishes. In this
way all priests, both secular and regular and Filipinos and
Spaniards alike, would be given a chance to participate
actively.
' The original text in Spanish follows:

Contentamos con haber demostrado cn los periodicos la injusticia del
despojo que hemos sufrido de siete Curatos de la Provincia de Cavite seria
imitar a los ninos que cuando reciben un agravio desahogan su dolor en
inutiles lamentos sin pensar en obtener la debida reparacion. Para no in-
currir en tan pueril conducts esforccmenos los que sentimos algun interes
por el cuerpo a que pertenecemos, a conseguir que se revoque esa impolitica
■
medida que por sorpresa sin duda adopta el Gobiemo cuya intencion no
puede ser otra sino mostrar justo y benevolo con los naturales de estas Yslas.
Gomes likewise called the attention of the church

authorities to the provisions of the ecclesiastical law re
garding appointments to clergical positions which were not
being followed at the time. He feared that unless the
situation was remedied early and satisfactorily, the young
and gifted Filipino priests would lose their incentive to
aspire for higher positions in the parishes, thereby de
priving the towns and their population of their services.
Throughout its existence, the newspaper maintained
a liberal policy. Because of this policy, efforts were made
to silence it while its editor, a man of great talents, be
came the object of much suspicion. He was in fact
branded a filibustero, a “radical whose activities were mis
interpreted and misunderstood by defenders of the status
quo, both the laity and the religious, and, worse, by the
Spanish administration.” At the same time several stories
that tended to discredit Gomes and his publication were
soon circulated around.
Before long the campaign for ecclesiastical reforms
in Madrid became known in the Philippines. No longer a
top secret, even Father Pedro Pablo Pelaez, the acting
archbishop of Manila, volunteered his assistance in the
propaganda in defense of the rights of the Filipino clergy.
Besides him, two prominent Filipino lawyers who
sympathized with the struggle of the native priests — Jose
Tuason and Juan Lecaroz — joined readily the movement
and agreed with both Pelaez and Gomes that their group
should be responsible for raising the fund necessary for
keeping up the drive in Spain. Together they succeeded in
sending more than P20,000 to Madrid for the campaign.
The campaign remained in Spain until the younger
group of Filipino clergy headed by Father Jose Apolonio
Burgos agitated for the shift of the movement to Manila.
As the older group did not object, Gomes saw to the im
mediate transfer of the campaign and made Burgos the
head. Burgos remained in his post until his appointment
18 SOL II. GWEKOH
as the parish priest of the Cathedral of Manila when

Gomes had to take over the mantle of leadership.
The arrival of General Rafael de Izquierdo in April
1871 boosted the morale of the local reactionaries who
started compiling damaging evidence against the three
Filipino priests—Gomes, Burgos, and Zamora-—-as well
as implicating civilians—creoles, mestizos and indios —
who included Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Maria
Regidor, the Basa brothers (Jose and Pio), and the law
yers— Pedro Carino, Jose Mauricio de Leon, Enrique
Paraiso, Maximo Paterno, Crisanto Reyes, and Gervasio
Sanchez.
Gomes’ retirement days did not last long. For in the
Cavite mutiny of January 20, 1872, his scheming detrac
tors and vindictive enemies found a splendid opportunity
to implicate Gomes in the uprising, and to finally get him
prosecuted and persecuted as well as arrested, jailed, and
tortured. A doomed man from the beginning, he was one
of the first to be taken into custody by the Spanish
authorities, all because Casimiro Camerino, the leader of
the Guias de la Torre in Cavite who was allegedly impli
cated in the mutiny of the arsenal workers at Fort San
Felipe, happened to be stationed in Bacoor. Along with
Burgos and Zamora, he was charged of plotting against
the colonial government and the Spanish Crown. In the
case of Gomes, who dedicated his whole life to champion
ing the rights of his people, he was "not destined to see
the dawn of a new era” for them.
When Gomes, the oldest of the triumvirate of the
martyred priests, was arrested in Bacoor on January 21
(1872), the matter was immediately communicated to
Spain. In his report, Governor General Rafael de Izquierdo
said: “Loyalists who went to arrest the parish priest of
Bacoor found an abandoned vessel loaded with arms, in
cluding carbines and revolvers.”
Once the townsfolk of Bacoor learned of his arrest,
some 1,000 brave and strong from the town and even the
A
far-away barrios, converged on his convent and, upon spot

ting the unit of arresting Spanish soldiers, surrounded
them and stood steadfast with their bolos ready to either
defend or rescue Gomes from captivity or resist the arrest
ing authorities.
But, upon seeing them in a fighting mood, the saintly
Gomes rose from his seat in the carriage and, "in voice
charged with emotion,” pleaded with his restive parish
ioners to calm down and lay low, saying, “My sons, do not
lose your heads. Go back to your homes. I shall return
quickly.” Only after hearing his admonition and the as
surance that he was coming back did the faithful Bacoor
folks agree to withdraw and let the old, venerable man go.
However, the Matandang Pare, as Gomes was affec
tionately called, never showed up again after his arrest.
So, in later years, the grateful residents of Bacoor put up
the Gomes monument in front of their town hall and the
church which he served so faithfully and well for 47 years
as a fitting and lasting tribute to a great man! On the
occasion of his 173rd birth anniversary in 1972, a histor
ical marker, entitled “Padre Gomes”, was unveiled at the
parish church of Bacoor, Cavite, as a remembrance to the
beloved and respected parish priest who performed his re
ligious duties with dedication and fairness!
Among the illustrious Filipinos whose cultural life
was greatly influenced by Gomes, that of Dr. Jose P. Rizal
can be singled out. He remembered so well the great
priest that Rizal devoted passages on him in his novel,
the Noli Me Tangere (Social Cancer). The beautiful
thought, which was conveyed by Crisostomo Ibarra, the
hero of the novel, is a clear manifestation of Rizal’s high
regard for Gomes from whom he learned a lesson. Rizal
said:
But these musings were in turn banished in
his mind as he came in sight of the little mound
in Bagumbayan Field. This isolated knoll at the
side of the Luneta now caught his attention and
20 SOL H. GWEKOH
made him reminiscent. He thought of the man who

had awakened his intellect and made him under
stand goodness and justice. The ideas which the
man had impressed upon him were not so many,
to be sure, but they were not meaningless repeti
tions, they were convictions which had not paled
in the light of the most brilliant foci of progress.
That man was an old priest whose words of
farewell still resounded in his ears: “Do not for
get that if knowledge is the heritage of mankind,
it is only the courageous who inherit it,” he re
minded him. “I have tried to pass on to you what
I got from my teachers, the sum of which I have
endeavored to increase and transmit to the coming
generation as far as in me lay. You will now do
the same for those who come after you, and you
can treble it since you are going to rich countries.”
Then he added with a smile, “They come here seek
ing wealth, go you to their country to seek also
that other wealth which we lack! But remember
that all that glitters is not gold.” The old man
had died on that spot.
1. THE BOYHOOD DAYS
ON February 9, 1837, a son was born to a couple

living in a big old Spanish-type house in the progressive
town of Vigan, capital of the province of Ilocos Sur in
northern Luzon. This house, which is located southwest
of the provincial capitol, now bears a historical marker?
When he was four days old (February 12), he was
baptized by Fr. Estanislao Bumatay, juez provisor y vica-
rio general interino of the bishopric of Nueva Segovia
and parish priest of Vigan, in the old church of Vigan
and was given the name of Jose Apolonio Burgos. His
godfather was Don Jose Maria Calderon, the Spanish
governor of Ilocos Sur. His fe de bautismo (baptismal
certificate) is being kept in the archives of the St. Paul’s
Rectory.
2 Marker was placed by the National Committee on History headed by

Director Eulogio B. Rodriguez of the National Library. The Burgos house
was once owned by a local insurance company. When it agreed to sell it
to the
l government,
. . Congressman Floro Crisologo of Ilocos Sur sponsored
legislation which authorized the purchase from its owner.
The historical marker installed on the wall near the front door of the
Burgos house reads in full:
Birthplace of Father Burgos.
At this place, town of Vigan, capital of the province of Ilocos Sur,
Jose Apolonio Burgos, priest and martyr, was bom Feb. 9, 1837. His parents
were Jose Burgos, an army lieutenant, and Dona Florencia Garcia. Father
Burgos was graduated from the University of Santo Tomas and held very
high positions in the Cathedral of Manila. Throughout his ecclesiastical
career he was a staunch advocate of the uplift of the secular clergy. He
was executed in Bagumbayan Field Feb. 17, 1872, together with the Rev.
Mariano Gomez and the Rev. Jacinto Zamora, for supposed implication in
the military revolt of Cavite, Jan 20, 1872.
21
24 SOL H. GWEKOH
convent in Vigan. He took up his studies of the lower

grades in this institution where the school children were
happy and contented sitting on wooden benches. He had
the sons and daughters of poor families for his classmates.
While he used a pencil to write on paper, his companions
utilized pointed bamboo pieces for writing and banana
leaves for paper. Despite this handicap, they likewise
learned. On his part, Burgos learned to read and write
fast and easily. He was bright, you know!
2. THE ORPHAN COLLEGIAN OF LETRAN
WHEN Burgos was ready to take up higher studies

in Manila, his parents enrolled him at the Colegio de San
Juan de Letran for the study of philosophy on August 11,
1847. Only ten years old then, he was admitted as a
boarding student although the family had to undergo
sacrifices since it was not financially well-off.
His father chose this particular institution because of
his desire to have their only son become a brilliant lawyer
some day. At the time the age of the lawyer had already
dawned in the Philippines, and it became the dream of
every respectable family to have a lawyer in their midst
— both for pride and defense!
As the Letran College was located in the limited area
of the Walled City (Intramuros) of Manila, Burgos' move
ments were confined within the small enclosure on which
abound many historic churches with their respective con
vents and religious houses that certainly bewildered and
fascinated him. There were the University of Santo
Tomas on Calle de la Bomba (now Legazpi street), the
Colegio de San Jose and the Colegio de San Juan de Letran
near the Puerta de Parian; the Metropolitan Cathedral
facing Plaza Mayor (now Plaza Roma) and the churches
of San Agustin, Santo Domingo on Calle Cerrada (now
the San Juan de Letran street), San Francisco, and the
Recoletos; as well as the Cabildo House, the Santa Clara
Monastery, the Beaterio de la Compania, and the colleges
of Santa Catalina, Santa Isabel, and Santa Rosa.
25
26 SOL H. GWEKOH
In keeping with the wishes of Don Juan Alonso

Jeronimo Guerrero, founder of the Colegio de San Juan de
Letran, that it be a charitable educational institution
opened to oiphans of Spanish soldiers in the Philippines,
Burgos was later classified as an orphan and listed as
such up to 1858.
Not only did Burgos live in the same dormitory with
the pupilos indigenas, but he also shared the same dining
room and study hall with them. He also wore the pre
scribed uniform throughout his residence of 13 years dur
ing the daily attendance to classes, academic functions,
and community and public acts held outside the school.
The students dedicated their time to intensive study
and prayer. They heard an early morning Holy Mass,
recited the three parts of the Rosary at scheduled hours
of the day, and said the evening prayers in common be
fore retiring.
Burgos gave preference to the grammar course
which he completed in five years—from August 1847
to March 1852. In this course he tackled such subjects
as Christian Doctrine, Elements of Rhetoric, Latin Gram
mar (in which he became remarkably proficient), Poetry,
Religion, Spanish Grammar, and Urbanity.
Since the boarding students were known as the
colegiales of Letran, Burgos belonged to the Huerfanos,
one of the four groups (the others were Pupilos, Agracia-
dos, Capistas or Famulos) and was exempted from the
payment of matriculation fees.
The Letran College was headed by a Dominican priest
president. For his subordinate authority he had the
decano or dean who, chosen from the studentry, exercised
the functions of the vice-president. He saw to it that the
College was in order and that the erring students were
duly reprimanded or punished. In his last year at the
Letran College Burgos was named the dean.
Burgos was also chosen as a bachiller pasante by the
Father President on the basis of academic excellence,
good behavior, and remarkable command of Spanish. He

took charge of the review of the class lessons which the
students recited and discussed while the pasante elab
orated on the topics and clarified certain points.
Not only was the Letran College an educational cen
ter but also a seminary for the priesthood. About 1859
Burgos had fully embraced the clerical life much to his
parents’ indignation and disappointment. Instead of
taking up law, which was his father’s dream for his son,
Burgos opted for the cloth. He wanted to be a priest
among his people and to lead them from then on. As he
later revealed in his own book, Es Verdad los Milagros?,
the sudden change of heart was his desire to “obey the
wishes of his mother.” He told an Ilocos town priest that
he had no inclination whatsoever for law and that he was
“preparing for priesthood to please his mother.”
And a secular priest at that! This singular choice
— to be a secular — astonished almost everyone who
knew him. In spite of the fact that he was a Creole
(Spanish mestizo), he chose not to join anyone of the
friars’ orders. Why? Because Burgos, knowingly or un
knowingly, was following a modem trend in the Church,
then slowly showing up, which undoubted!}' led him even
tually to where he finally ended.
At the Letran College, Burgos preferred associating
with the Filipinos. He never joined the Spanish students
although they took him for one of them, he being a mes
tizo. Whenever Burgos was confronted for his aloofness
to them, he usually told his Spanish classmates, “I am
not a Spaniard,” and insisted in saying, “I am a Filipino.”
As his one burning ambition was to be a priest,
Burgos read assiduously and continuously. He devoured
everything that came to his attention and in which he
found interest. “I want to be a priest,” he repeatedly made
known. “To serve the people —my own people!” he add
ed emphatically.
28 SOL H. GWEKOH
Even as early as his school days, Burgos already dis

covered the gross injustice which the Spanish priests,
otherwise known as the frailes (friars), had committed
against their Filipino colleagues. They proved to be the
enemies of the native priests for, besides being “not too
good to them,” they also took away the churches and the
parishes from their Philippine counterparts.
\ J
3. EIGHT DEGREES EARNED
HAVING successfully completed the five-year course

in grammar at the Colegio de San Juan de Letran, Burgos
moved to the faculty of arts and philosophy of the Uni
versity of Santo Tomas and enrolled in the course in
philosophy for the 1852-1853 schoolyear which began on
July 2.
The Degree of Bachelor of Philosophy (1855)

During his residence at the University, Burgos en
joyed the same privileges given to the students since time
immemorial, particularly those granting exemptions from
the payment of tribute and from contributing to both the
donativo de Zamboanga and the Cajas de Comunidad.
He was also excused from further performing community
services.
In the three-year course in philosophy, which Burgos
pursued under a strict scholastic training, he took up
Logic in the first year (July 2, 1852, to March 6, 1853)
and received the final grade of Aprovechado (good) from
his professors — Fr. Jose Ramon Gonzalez and Fr. Ramon
Vila.
In the next schoolyear (July 2, 1853, to March 6,
1854) Burgos studied Physics under Fr. Ramon Vila and
Fr. Zeferino Gonzalez who gave him an Aprovechado
grade. In his last year (July 2, 1854, to February 11,
1855) he had Fr. Zeferino Gonzalez for a professor of
29
30 SOL H. GWEKOH
Metaphysics. At the end of the schoolyear Gonzalez

vouched for the proficiency and faithfulness of Burgos
and the board of examiners unanimously approved his
graduation as bachelor of philosophy with the grade of
nemine discrepante.
During his studies Burgos joined his classmates in
conducting conferencing and conferencillas, which were
academic acts held by the students on every other Satur
day. He took part in one conference on the Logic cur
riculum, and in two conferences each in both the Physics
and Metaphysics classes.
In the later part of January 1855, Burgos petitioned
formally the rector, Fr. Juan Bautista Reig, to allow him
to take the examination for the bachelor’s degree. Before
the application for the examination could be approved,
Burgos underwent two preliminary informative steps,
namely, the limpieza de sangre (purity of blood) and the
attendance to classes.
For the first test, Burgos presented three witnesses
— the infantry commander, Don Juan Antonio Aenlle; the
infantry captain, Don Jose Crame, and Don Vicente
Botino, a Manila resident —before the commissional
judges—Fr. Joaquin Fonseca, Licentiate Ramon Fernan
dez, and Fr. Francisco Gainza, the fiscal promotor of the
University — who found their answers in order.
In the second step, Burgos’ classmates —Quintin
Zalvidea and Severino San Luis in Logic; Felix Manguer-
ra and Ysmael Lazaro in Physics; and Pablo Feliciano
and Ramon Estrada in Metaphysics—testified favorably
for his faithful attendance in the three classes.
The examination, which was set for four o’clock on
the afternoon of February 11 (1855) had a panel of
examiners made up of three faculty members. They ques
tioned Burgos on matters of philosophy for half an hour.
Having been given the unanimous vote of nemine discre-
pante, Burgos was conferred an hour later (5 p. m.) with
the degree of bachelor of philosophy by Fr. Zeferino

Gonzalez, whom he chose for this particular act.
The Degree of Bachelor of Theology (1859)

As Burgos became automatically qualified to take up
the four-year course in theology, now that he was the
holder of the degree of bachelor of philosophy, he enrolled
in this course at the University of Santo Tomas on July 2,
1855.
Being a proficient student who attended faithfully all
his classes, Burgos earned high grades in this course.
In his first year, he received an Aprovechado grade, while
in the second and third years he was given the Sobresa-
liente (excellent) mark. He was taking up the last year
of the course when, on January 7, 1859, Burgos petitioned
the rector, Fr. Domingo Treserra, for admission to the
examination for the degree of bachelor of theology.
Since Burgos was an orphan collegian of the Colegio
de San Juan de Letran, he was exempted by the rector
from the payment of the fees in the examination and the
graduation of a bachelor which totalled P29.00.
After the investigation of the limpieza de sangre had
been bypassed by order of the rector and eight classmates
— Quintin Zalvidea and Pablo Feliciano de Lara for the
first year; Agaton Estrella and Felix Manguerra for the
second year; Mariano Sevilla and Mariano Hagan for the
third year; and Mamerto Natividad and Dionisio Masigan
for the fourth year — testified to his faithful attendance
at class, Burgos appeared before the rector at his office
at six o’clock on the morning of January 20, 1859, for the
choice of the topics for the examination. Having selected
the topic dealing on the nature of the Second Person of
the Trinity, Burgos advanced his own thesis, “The Son of
true God, consubstantial with the Father.”''
1 Father ]ose Burgos, University Student, by Fidel Villaroel, O. P., page 27.
32 SOL H. GWEKOH
After a 24-hour preparation, Burgos appeared before

the examiners at the General Mayor or big paranymph
at eight o’clock sharp on the morning of January 21
(1859). For half an hour Burgos defended his thesis be
fore the examiners consisting of three graduates who
questioned him at random.
When the results were made known, Burgos obtained
three AAAs, and was given the nemine discrepante grade
by unanimity. Fr. Ramon Vila, whom Burgos chose for
the auspicious occasion, conferred the degree of bachelor
of theology on him and presented the corresponding di
ploma at 9:30 o’clock that same night.
The Degree of Licentiate in Philosophy (1860)

Not contented with two bachelor’s degrees already
earned, Burgos decided to pursue a third one. On the
basis of the certification issued by Fr. Antonio Carillo,
former president of the Colegio de San Juan de Letran,
in his favor, Burgos formally petitioned the rector for
admission to the examination for the degree of licentiate
in philosophy.
Although a careful perusal of his records as a student
showed that Burgos had matriculated as pasante only in
the 1859-1860 schoolyear, yet he was allowed by the rec
tor, on recommendation of Jose Arrieta, fiscal promotor
of the University, to take the examination provided that
he paid the matriculation fees corresponding to all the
years of pasantia during which he failed to enroll.
With the payment of four reales for the two years
Burgos missed, the preliminary examination consisting of
the Releccion and the Noche Triste was set. After the
Releccion held on January 15, 1860, came the Noche
Triste which Burgos underwent three times. Immediately
after the six o’clock mass at the University chapel on
February 15, he selected two lecciones. For the first his
thesis proved that “the rational soul is immaterial and
immortal.” For the second, he discussed the nature of
the accident.
The examination was held at the University chapel

at seven o’clock on the night of February 16. Facing
Burgos were the rector; Fr. Francisco Gainza, dean of
the faculty of philosophy and the candidate’s sponsor;
and the four examiners — the masters: Fr. Benito Coro-
minas and Fr. Zeferino Gonzalez, and the licentiates:
Francisco Marcaida and Quintin Zalvidea. For one hour
Burgos delivered his first leccion. After taking their sup
per, the session was resumed at nine o’clock and Burgos
expounded his second leccion for as long as he wanted.
After three solid hours of lively debate, the votes
were cast. Burgos received five AAAAAs which gave him
a nemine diserepante unanimity. The investiture cere
mony took place ten days later on February 27 at five
o’clock in the afternoon, A solemn occasion, it started
with a procession from the rector’s office to the para
nymph. Burgos flanked the rector to his left, while Fr.
Gainza, dean of philosophy, was at the light, Following
the brief address of petition made by Burgos and an
equally brief allocation by the rector, the degree of licen
tiate in philosophy was conferred on Burgos by the rector,
Fr. Domingo Treserra. With the imposition of the cap
and gown on him, the University recognized his capability
to teach, an activity which he was to perform for the
first time since he was never a catedratico nor a member
of the teaching staff of the University.
As soon as the rector had embraced him, Burgos
went around the hall to embrace each one of the attend
ing graduates (doctors, masters and licentiates) as a sign
of the cordial reception being extended to him by the
Gentlemen of the University Claustro. Composed of the
alumni of the graduate studies of the University, the
Claustro usually met at the opening of the schoolyear for
the purpose of considering and judging important matters
pertaining to the academic life.
During the 1860-1872 membership period of Burgos,
the Claustro was convoked 19 times. Being a full-fledged
member, he was an active participant in the administra-
34 SOL H. GWEKOH
tion of the University, and missed only one meeting (that

held on November 25, 1866), thereby becoming the most
consistent attendant among the non-Dominican members.
The Degree of Licentiate in Sacred Theology (1862)

e► 1
As Burgos had enrolled as pasante of the faculty of
the sacred theology for three consecutive years (July
1859, 1860 and 1861), as certified by two of his profes
sors— Fr. Ramon Vila and Fr. Zeferino Gonzalez — he
requested the rector to permit him to take the examina
tion for licentiate in sacred theology.
The rector granted the petition and the academic act
was held starting at eight o’clock on the morning of Jan
uary 16, 1862. In preparation for this examination, Burgos
formulated his three conclusions based on a text of Book
II of the Sentences which deals with the propagation of
the original sin. He maintained that the “original sin is
translated from Adam to all men through generations,
even though the immediate parents have been regenerated
to grace by baptism.”
Held on a non-class day at the big paranymph of the
University, the act had Fr. Mariano Garcia, secular
priest-rector of San Jose and dean of the faculty of theol
ogy, as the presiding officer. For one hour Burgos ex
pounded his thesis while the examiners—one licentiate
and two bachelors of the faculty — argued against the
three theses.
Then followed the five days of examination which
Burgos successfully passed. After the preliminary re
quirements, the final test came on February 1. Burgos
formulated two conclusions for his thesis. The first read,
“God provides to all men sufficient means of salvation;
but to some He provides efficacious means,” and the sec
ond, “The Sacraments of the New Law actively bestow
grace ex opere operato on all those who do not hinder it.”
At seven o’clock in the evening, the examination
started with the rector, Fr. Domingo Treserra, the dean
of the faculty and the master of ceremonies, and the four

doctors of theology who were appointed examiners —
Ramon Vila, Fr. Zeferino Gonzalez, Ignacio Ponce de
Leon, and Faustino de Villafranca — in attendance. After
five hours of proceedings, Burgos received the unanimous
nemine discrepante approval. On February 21, 1862, the
degree of licentiate in sacred theology was solemnly con
ferred upon Burgos by the rector himself.
The Degree of Bachelor of Canon Law (1866)

In July 1862 Burgos enrolled in the three-year course
in canon law. In this course he acquired a broad knowl-
edge of the civil law under his professor, Dr. Jose de
Arrieta. His specialization was in the field of ecclesias
tical legislation. In the 19th century the teaching of the
ecclesiastical science was at its best and Burgos took ad
vantage of it.
Canon law was undoubtedly Burgos’ forte for he re
peatedly earned a sobresaliente (excellent) grade in all
the subjects he took. In fact, this extraordinary academic
feat made him top his class for three years.
Although Burgos finished this course on January 31,
1865, yet he delayed his graduation for one year because
of his installation as parish priest. On July 12 that year
he formally requested the rector, Fr. Francisco Rivas,
for his inclusion in the graduation exercises. Then, some
time in September, six of his classmates — Hugo Hagan
and Abdon Gonzalez in the first year; Arturo Tronqued
and Antonio Bernis in the second year; and Vicente Es
calante and Pablo Nepomuceno in the third year — ren
dered favorable reports on his exemplary conduct and
faithful attendance to all literary activities.
On the basis of their unanimous answers, the rector
set the selection of the topic for the final examination on
February 7 (1866) and named the examiners — Burgos’
professor, Fr. Corominas; the secular priest, Fr. Gregorio
Ballesteros; and the layman, Quintin Zalvidea. Burgos
36 SOL II. GWEKOH
then formulated the thesis, “In the provision of benefices,

competence must be taken into account,” and defended it
for half an hour the following day (February 8).
In the voting that ensued, Burgos was given a nemine
discrepante rating bv unanimity. By personal choice of
the candidate, Fr. Corominas conferred the degree of
bachelor of canon law on Burgos.
The Degree of Doctor of Sacred Theology (1868)

Being a licentiate in theology, Burgos applied for ad
mission to the doctoral degree in his faculty on February
21, 1868. At the time candidates for this degree were not
required to take up and earn academic units nor did they
write a thesis to defend. It was enough that he held a
licentiate degree in the same faculty and that he defended
orally his chosen thesis during the graduation exercises.
Eight days later on March 1, the rector, Fr. Domingo
Treserra, approved his candidacy and set the date of
graduation for April 14, a few days after the period of
Lent when no academic exercises were held. The recently
inaugurated new church of Santo Domingo in the Walled
City (Intramuros) was designated as the place for the
solemn investiture.
With the vice-rector, Fr. Joaquin Fonseca, presiding
over the act, Burgos expounded his thesis that “God
wishes to save all men in such a way that He grants to
all and everyone, in accordance with the circumstance of
time and place, means that are proximately or remotely
sufficient for salvation according to the condition and
need of each one.”5
After a brief exposition of his thesis in which he took
up both sides, the panel of discussants — Dr. Francisco
Villafranca, Candido Ureta y Manzanares, and Cayetano
Arellano—argued and raised their objections, but the
5 Villaroel, pages 75-76.

candidate did not give his answers as the rules prohibited

him.
Then the youngest doctor, Fr. Gregorio Echevarria,
delivered his 15-minute vejamen speech in which, “joking
ly and by way of jest, the lighter side of the candidate’s
personality and even his defects were revealed and com
mented upon, but nothing that would hurt the feelings
of the persons concerned.”
In the investiture proper, the master of ceremonies
brought Burgos before the rector. Then his padrino (spon
sor), Fr. Pedo Payo, Dominican provincial supei-ior, pre
sented him the insignia — a ring —and said, “Take this
gold ring as a sign of marriage and union between you
and wisdom as your beloved spouse”; and then gave Bur
gos a book, saying, “Take this book of wisdom, so that
you may freely and publicly teach others.”6
Having said the profession of faith and the pre
scribed oath, Burgos was invested with the doctoral cap
by the presiding vice-rector who also proclaimed him
Doctor. After a brief speech of response and thanks,
Burgos was embraced by the members of the entire
Claustro.
Five days later on April 19 (1868), Burgos, being
the youngest doctor, had his turn to deliver his vejamen
speech at the graduation exercises of two candidates
(Felipe Morales de Setien and Joaquin Pardo de Tavera).
The Degree of Licentiate in Canon Law (1868)

While the regular period of pasantia in canon law was
four years, yet Burgos took it in three years’ time only.
When the 1868-1869 schoolyear opened, he enrolled for the
fourth year. However, after some days, he wrote the rec
tor, Fr. Domingo Treserra, on July 23, 1868, asking for a
dispensation from the remaining period.
6VillaroeI, page 77.

38 SOL H. GWEKOH
Since the fiscal promotor of the University, Joaquin

Pardo de Tavera, to whom the petition was referred
for evaluation, recommended its approval, the rector act
ed favorably on the requested dispensation. In his report
Tavera praised Burgos for obtaining the grade of nemine
discrepante in his various studies, for performing the
functions of the master of ceremonies, and for taking care
of souls as parish priest of Manila.
Burgos filed formally his application for the degree
of licentiate in canon law on October 6. The rector sched
uled the Releccion on the morning of October 10 and the
Noche Triste at seven o’clock on the evening of October
28. He also named the examiners — Gregorio Ballesteros,
Quintin Zalvidea and Ambrosio Villafranca — and added
Dr. Faustino Villafranca for the Noche Triste act.
In the Releccion part, Burgos drew three conclusions
from a text of the Institutes and defended them for half
an hour. These were (1) “The Church is a perfect so
ciety by divine institution, and so it is governed by an
independent and supreme authority”; (2) “In order to
exercise that authority more securely, it was fitting that
in the course of time the Head of the Church had also
temporal power"; and (3) “For the well-being of the Church
and to avoid obstacles, for the sake of peace and union
between the spiritual and temporal societies, the Holy
See deemed convenient to establish special relations with
the civil governments, which are called concordata.”7
In the Noche Triste examination, Burgos drew two
conclusions from the book, Corpus Juris Canonici, namely,
(1) “Since no one can judge the Apostolic See it needs
be that the latter possesses the primacy of power and
jurisdiction over the Universal Church” and (2) “Only
competent persons must be promoted to ecclesiastical
benefices.”
7 Villaroel, page 79.
I
After Burgos had finished expounding his conclu

sions, the examiners, in the presence of the presiding
officer, Fr. Domingo Treserra, bombarded the candidate
with 16 scholastically-patterned arguments. When the
voting took place, Burgos was given a nemine discre-
pante verdict. The session, which lasted six hours, ended
at two o’clock on the morning of the following day.
The next year—1869—gave Burgos a chance to
show his mettle as a leader, Already the idol of his class-
mates because of his brilliant mind and his exceptional
interest in the study of Latin and the other languages,
he also proved to both his superiors and colleagues his
personal concern for the welfare of the studentry. When
ever he felt that an injustice was done them, he always
took up their cause and defended and supported it without
fear of the consequences.
When Burgos found out that the school authorities
had interferred in the election of their class president by
imposing “their own candidate after the students had
elected another,” he decided to make an issue out of it.
Together with his passionate followers who included
Paciano Rizal, a brother of the Filipino hero-martyr, and
Felipe Buencamino, he started a student riot in which
blood was shed.
In October that same year, many incidents caused
by the demand for reforms and changes in the University
of Santo Tomas took place. Anonymous leaflets were
circulated among the students in their classes in which
the professors were severely criticized and academic free
dom demanded. As Buencamino was suspected as the
author of these mysterious manifestoes, he was arrested
and confined in the Bilibid Prisons for four months and
eight days. However, with the successful intercession of
Burgos with Governor General Carlos Maria de la Torre,
Buencamino was released on February 26, 1870.
On March 3 (1870), Buencamino petitioned Fr. Do
mingo Treserra, the rector, to allow him to graduate since
r
40 SOL H. GWEKOH
he was interested in completing his studies and receiving

the degree of bachelor of canon law. As the royal vice
patron, the governor general acceded to his request on
March 30. Given the choice to look for his mentors, he
selected Burgos for his private class in canon law and
Manuel Grey y Ramos in civil law. Once accepted by the
university, he began his three-summer-month studies on
April 9.
In reporting to the rector on July 10 the results of
the daily lessons given in the make-up classes, Burgos
rated Buencamino high on the basis of his punctual at
tendance and much studiousness and proficiency. In the
examinations held on July 24, Burgos also served as one
of the three in the panel of examiners.
The Degree of Doctor of Canon Law (1871)

Come the 1870-1871 schoolyear and Burgos, who was
noted as the academe of the finest order, went after an
other degree in his short span of life. With this degree of
doctor of canon law, he held the distinction of being the
only alumnus of the University of Santo Tomas to have
obtained eight (8) degrees and one of the 13 holders of
this particular degree produced by the pontifical univer
sity that year.
Burgos submitted to the rector his fonnal petition
for admission to the doctorate in his faculty on March
24. Together with three others, Burgos graduated on
April 16, 1871. He was one of the three secular priests
of the archdiocese of Manila — the other two being Fr.
Mariano Sevilla and Fr. Ambrosio Villafranca — who
jointly dedicated their theses to their superior, Archbishop
Gregorio Meliton Martinez of Manila. For his thesis
Burgos formulated the conclusion that “Bishops have
their jurisdiction immediately from Christ, but subordi
nate to the Roman Pontiff.”5
»Viilaroel, page 108.

J
At the time Burgos was already a licentiate in both

canon law and philosophy and also a doctor of sacred
theology.
The examination was held at the Church of Santo
Domingo in the Walled City (Intramuros) on the morn
ing of April 16. Standing in front of Fr. Benito Coro-
minas, dean of canon law, Burgos made an exposition of
his thesis. Then he answered, one by one, the objections
raised by Fr. Simon Ramirez.
After undergoing through the usual ceremonies at
tendant to the petition for the degree and the imposition
of the insignia, Burgos was conferred the degree of doctor
of canon law in solemn doctoral investiture. Then he
was embraced by the members of the University Claustro.
With this doctoral conferment — the second to his cred
it — Burgos’ long and successful academic career came to
a happy end. He spent 25 years of his short life in school,
17 of them as a student living under the care of his men
tors, the Dominican fathers, at the Colegio de San Juan
de Letran and the University of Santo Tomas.
His period of study was a continuous search for
growth and maturity of the intellect and for expansion
and depth of human knowledge. For earning eight dif
ferent degrees, two of them doctoral, he established an
enviable record that is undoubtedly unsurpassed by any
student or scholar in either the public or private centers
of higher learning in the Philippines.
Thoroughly involved in his studies, Burgos improved
his educational attainments each academic year. He was
the student who exemplified a real zeal for learning which
brought him an immense wealth of ideas as well as an
awareness of his people’s ills and shortcomings and his
country’s destiny. At the height of his full intellectual
excellence, Burgos became so seriously involved and ded
icated to his primary concern: the ardent need for reforms
in the Philippines. Towards this end he devoted the remain
ing few years of his life on earth!
4. PRIESTHOOD FOR A CAREER
BURGOS was already the holder of the degree of

bachelor of philosophy (graduated in February 1855) and
was taking up the study of sacred theology (he enrolled
on July 2, 1855) when he received the tonsure and Minor
Orders on December 17, 1858. Exactly a year after
(December 17, 1859) he was made a subdeacon. When he
was ordained a deacon sometime between October 1860
and October 1861, he was already the recipient of the de
gree of bachelor of sacred theology (investiture was held
in January 1859).
After 13 years of residence (1847-1860) at the Cole
gio de San Juan de Letran, Burgos moved to the Colegio
de Santo Tomas where he became a boarding student. The
Colegio was housed in the same building occupied by the
University of Santo Tomas. It was established as an
educational foundation by the Dominican Order in the
Philippines for the sole purpose of providing the sons of
poor families with ample education.
Although the College was not a seminary for the
priesthood, it provided its students with adequate academic
training that prepared them for the priestly career. Among
Burgos’ colleagues who were either deacons, subdeacons,
minorists or tonsured clerics were Jacinto Zamora, Mariano
Sevilla, Jose Guevara, and Miguel de Lara who became in
timately associated with Burgos in later years.
Burgos was admitted to a scholarship of the Colegio
de Santo Tomas on August 11, 1860. Being the only licen-
42
tiate at the time he was distinguished from the students

of the various faculties. On his uniform he wore a gold
medal bearing the royal emblem. For the next five years
he lived up faithfully to the regulations governing student
behavior. His time was wisely apportioned among his
study, prayer and recreation.
In 1862 when Burgos was only 24 years old, he could
have been ordained a priest since he had taken up the course
in sacred theology. But he chose to delay his ordination
for three full years because of his desire to study the reg
ular course in canon law for which he enrolled in 1862.
Although the Church did not look with favor on the
idea of allowing the deacons to acquire the right to possess
a parish, Burgos succeeded in joining the general competi
tive examinations given by the archbishop of Mlanila on
September 28, 29 and 30 in 1864 for the selection of those
priests who would take over the vacant parishes in his
archdiocese.
An ordained deacon but still a collegian of Santo To
mas, Burgos won the much coveted post of the parish priest
of the Manila Cathedral in a field of 32 candidates.
When Burgos had completed the course in canon law
on January 31, 1865, he could have received the degree
of bachelor of canon law, but he postponed it for one year
in order to give way to his installation as a parish priest.
A memorable month to Burgos was January of 1865
when he marked two milestones in his priestly life. A
few days after his ordination as a priest by Archbishop
Gregorio Meliton Martinez, he took possession of the Par-
roquia del Sagrario (Sagrario parish) which was located
in the Cathedral of Manila from Fr. Ramon Fernandez and
was installed as the Cura Rector del Sagrario de esta Santa’
Iglesia Catedral. He had Fr. Jacinto Zamora as his co-rec-
tor of the parish which served the noble population of the
Walled City (Intramuros).
44 SOL H. GWEKOH
In the opinion of Fr. Gregorio Echevarria, vice rector

of the Colegio de Santo Tomas, Burgos offered “to his
classmates examples of studiousness and of virtue, and
to his professors and teachers true motives of satisfaction
for his diligence and modesty.”
A Spanish writer, Javier Gomez de la Serna, was great
ly impressed on the winning ways of Burgos. He related
"a very sad occasion” in which Burgos “gave the impres
sion of a saint.” Wrote De La Serna:
A Spanish family had just lost one of their
children whose dead body the mother, almost driven
to madness, held tight in her arms, when I saw
a young, placid and serene priest (Burgos) enter
ing the house. With mai-vellous eloquence, with a
human warmth that only noble souls know how to
express, he captured the souls of those parents;
with paternal tenderness, he took the cadaver in his
arms and laid it on the bed. And when at dawn he
departed, behind he left the scene of a resigned
Christian home. That man gave me the impression
of a saint.9
As the parochial priest, Burgos did not stay long for
soon he found himself in trouble not only with his imme
diate superiors but also with his fellow priests as a result
of his liberal ideas — an outlook which his newfound
enemies could not tolerate and allow to be encouraged and
let grow.
To avoid further troubles, Burgos decided to return to
his studies. After his studies, he took over his old post at
the Sagrario de Intramuros. Later, in recognition of his
superior talents, he was promoted to different high positions
in the Cathedral of Manila which, during the Spanish period,
was the parish church of the Spanish community in the
city (Manila).
’Prologue to Wenceslao Retana’s Vida y escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal

(Madrid, 1907), page XV.
Besides being the curate of the Cathedral for some

time, he later occupied such distinguished and responsible
posts as the canonical magistrate of the Cathedral and the
fiscal of the ecclesiastical court. He also served as the
master of the claustral ceremony in the University of Santo
Tomas.
As Burgos had filled up practically all the key posi
tions in the Cathedral, orders came from Madrid during
the time of Masonic influence in Europe for his elevation
to the rank of the bishop, but his “consecration never
occurred, for the reactionaries regained control”'0
When Burgos was the examinador sinodal (synodal
examiner), he acted as the adviser of the archbishop of
Manila. At times he found himself at odds with his supe
riors in matters pertaining to the “implementation of the
diocesan regulations, particularly with reference to parish
appointments” which were usually referred to him for com
ment.
During this period the anti-clerical government of Spain
closed all the religious houses, so that the Spanish religious
had to be sent to the different overseas colonies in order
to seek employment.
When a number of Spanish religious from Pamplona,
Spain, arrived on board the steamer, Alava, in Manila early
in 1871, Archbishop Gregorio Meliton Martinez of Manila
readily agreed to the plan to allow these new but inex
perienced priests to occupy some of the parishes of the
archdiocese of Manila which were then administered by
the Filipino priests.
Burgos objected vigorously to the archdiocesal pro
posal made on March 17 (1871) when it was referred to
him on the ground that such an act would “constitute a
great injustice to the native Filipino priests who had been
io Why? by Frederic H. Stevens, sovereign grand commander, Supreme

Council of the Philippines.
46 SOL II. GWEKOH
holding faithfully and efficiently their positions for many

years.”
He, therefore, made the sound suggestion that the
newcomers, being foreigners, first be assigned as the as
sistants of the more experienced Filipino incumbents and
to undergo extensive apprenticeship until these Spanish
religious had learned the native dialect and culture, and
“what the structure, needs and style of life of a Filipino
parish were.” At the same time under this arrangement
the ejected Filipino priests would have sufficient time to
look for some suitable positions elsewhere.
For this practical and seemingly harmless suggestion.
Burgos received a reprimand from the infuriated arch
bishop who was told by an insistent Burgos that the eccle
siastical rules had to be administered equally between the
white and the native (Filipino) priests. He received an
admonition which did not “square with the tradition of a
Church in which there is supposed to be ‘neither Jew nor
Greek, neither slave nor free,’ but servants of the same
Lord, a Lord of whom even his enemies acknowledged that
he was a respecter of persons.”
This unexpected action did not alarm Burgos for he
remained calm and firm. To make himself clearly under
stood, he said that “in expressing this opinion I did not
mean to suggest, much less to claim that Your Lordship
(the Archbishop) is in any way bound by it, for this would
be to fail in my duty as synodal examiner, as well as to be
lacking to Your Illustrious Lordship something which I
would not even dream of doing.”
As Burgos did not have the slightest intention of
offending the archbishop, he therefore asked for forgiveness
for a matter for which he could have been grossly misun
derstood. He however added, “But I must make clear,
Venerable Sir, that I have always held that since we are
all equal in God’s sight, the Filipinos deserve better treat
ment in the Church, though always in conformity with
their merits. Any injustice done to them touches me to
<
the quick, although I harbor no prejudices one way or the

other. The course I have always followed is to give to merit
its due, without much caring where this course may lead
me.”
Burgos’ second serious controversy with the same
archbishop was over the appointments of two Filipino priests
to vacant parishes, which were disapproved. Father Fran
cisco Allera was named the parish priest of Nagcarlan,
Laguna, and Father Segismundo Camuning was assigned
to Orion, Bataan.
Burgos upheld their right to the parishes because he
found them not only possessing the qualifications needed
for the occupants of these vacated positions but also having
passed the required examination for the doctorate of moral
theology. In defending them Burgos said that the friars
appointed by the archbishop were “incompetent as they
had not passed the required examinations.” He empha
sized the fact that since he could not tolerate any injustice
to be done to both Fathers Allera and Camuning, he was
“making of record his protest against said action’’ of the
archbishop.
On March 20, 1871, Burgos addressed a respectful but
energetic letter to the archbishop in which he asserted his
belief that “all of us being equal before God, the Filipinos
should be better treated regarding the appreciation of their
. merits in the Church, and that, of course, I consider all
affront made against them as an open wound in my heart
in which there are no differences of any kind and in which
I follow only one way, and that is to recognize merit where
merit is there.”
Of the threat made by the archbishop to dismiss him
as an examinador sinodal, Burgos wrote:
I want to make it of record that I have never
thought of withdrawing from an act which my
heart and my conscience have dictated to me as
just and equitable, even having into account that
48 SOL II. GWEKOH
such an attitude would, perhaps, cut my relations

in the Church of God, as Synodal Examiner, a posi
tion which Your Grace knows, had been conferred
upon me by the Church without my having begged
for it.
Since the archbishop became a bitter enemy of Burgos,
he made good his threat. On the ground of insubordina
tion for trying to question the assignment of certain friars
recently arrived from Spain, Burgos was replaced by a friar
as the synodal examiner.
As the new friar examiner began “firing at once the
native clergy from their parishes without cause or reason,”
prominent Filipino leaders dispatched a written protest
direct to Spain. Immediately Izquierdo was ordered to in
vestigate the drastic step taken by the friar.
During the time that Burgos was the ecclesiastical
fiscal (attorney) in the Manila archbishopric, he had the
occasion to go over and make the proper recommendation
on the petition made by a wealthy landowner for the es
tablishment of a parish chaplaincy in a barrio situated with
in his vast estate.
The petitioner, Jose Bonifacio Roxas, was the second
of the three children of Domingo Roxas ” who left two
estates in Batangas and other landed properties in Laguna.
Upon the death of Domingo Roxas in the dungeon of
Fort Santiago, where he was incarcerated by the Spanish
administration because of his alleged complicity in the
>< Carlos Quirino described Domingo Roxas as “an opulent creole who was
persecuted by the administration for his libertarian ideas, was suspected of
complicity in the abortive revolt of Andres Novales in 1823, in the uprising
of Apolinario de la Cruz in 1841, and in the subsequent mutiny of the
Tayabas regiment in Manila two years later. As a result he perished from
an illness while incarcerated in the dungeons of Fort Santiago. Don Domingo
had purchased the Calatagan and Nasugbu estates in Batangas, and the
former was ceded to his daughter, Margarita, who married Antonio de Ayala,
and the latter to Don Pepe, as Jose Bonifacio was called by his friends.
A third child, Mariano, inherited other properties located in Laguna.”
mutiny of the Tayabas regiment in Manila in 1843, his

estate in Nasugbu, Batangas, was given to his son, Jose
Bonifacio Roxas.
After Jose Bonifacio Roxas had greatly improved the
Hacienda Nasugbu, as it was later called, he found the
necessity of giving the residents their own church since
at the time their community located in Barrio Looc within
the jurisdiction of the town of Nasugbu could be reached
only by riding on horseback for four full hours over hazard
ous and difficult mountain trails or by banca around the
Punta de Fuego.
The exemplary Catholic that Jose Bonifacio Roxas was,
he lost no time in presenting his request, dated September
18, 1868, to the proper church authorities. In his petition,
not only did he promise to provide the inhabitants of the
barrio with a parish and the secular chaplain to be assigned
with a house where to live in, but also pledged to give him
an annual endowment of 240 pesos.
The petition was referred first to Father Melecio Zal-
videa, parish priest of Nasugbu, and later to Reverend Pedro
Leyba, the forane vicar. On his part, Zalvidea asked for a
cemetery and a stipend of 300 pesos for the chaplain. With
Leyba’s concurrence, the case was sent to Burgos for final
action.
After a careful study of the matter, Burgos recom
mended to the archbishop the designation of a curate chap
lain “with the necessary powers for the proper spiritual
administration” who was to be independent of the parish
priest of Nasugbu. And Burgos advanced this reason for
favoring a curate chaplain to be stationed in Looc: “ . . .
there are many barrios in the same situation as Looc which
for even more compelling reasons could ask for a pastor
to administer to their spiritual needs, and there would be no
alternative except to grant their request. Nevertheless, to
give in to their demands would be impossible, because the
insufficiency of priests would not permit to have one in each
of these barrios, nor is it possible for the coadjutors in
50 SOL II. GWEKOH
towns to reside in the barrios; practically all the towns

have six to seven times more inhabitants than the barrios,
towns which in a few cases are lucky enough to have three
assistants to each parish priest.” '2
Since Roxas imposed additional terms after he had
received the Burgos endorsement, Archbishop Gregorio Me-
liton Martinez objected vigorously and the petition was
finally withdrawn on October 6, 1869. As a result, the
people were deprived of having their own chapel and a priest
to minister to their spiritual needs.
Despite these enviable positions which Burgos held
from time to time, he was not contented and happy. An
eyewitness to the ill treatment accorded his countrymen
coupled with the apathy of the Spanish ecclesiastical au
thorities to place the intelligent Filipino priests in respect
able and responsible church positions hurt his pride. A
staunch and vigorous advocate of the uplift of the secular
clergy, he wrote an open letter in the La Verdad newspaper
on June 27, 1864.
Entitled Manifesto to the Noble Spanish People Which
The Loyal Filipinos Address in Defense of their Honor and
Loyalty that Have Been Grievously Offended by the News
paper La Verdad of Madrid,'3 in it he not only extolled the
ability of the Filipinos but also expounded on his liberal
views. Moreover, he regretted the inability of the adminis
tration to give opportunities to bright Filipinos to rise in
their chosen fields of endeavor. He asked:
Why, for instance, shall a young man strive to
rise in the profession of law or of theology, when
he can vision no future for himself save that of ob-
>2 Indorsement of Father Jose Burgos on the petition of Don Jose Bonifacio
Roxas for the establishment of a parish chaplaincy in Barrio Looc, Nasugbu,
Batangas, published in “More Documents on Burgos,” (Part I), by Carlos
Quirino, Philippine Studies, Vol. 18, No. 1, January 1970.
tl Manifesto que a la Noble Nacion Espanola dirigen los leales Filipinos
en defensa de su honra y fidelidad gravemente vulnerados por el periodica
La Verdad de Madrid (Manila 1864). See Los Sucesos de 1872, por Manuel
Artigas y Cuerva, pp. 85-86 and 123 for the authorship of this pamphlet.
scurity and jaunty unconcern? What Filipino will

aspire to the seats of the wise and will devote his
sleepless nights to such an ideal, when he clearly
sees that his noblest feelings are crushed down in
the unwholesome atmosphere of contumely and ob
livion, and when he knows that among the priv
ileged few only are dispensed the sinocures of honor
and profit?
His bright pen and his glib tongue made him undoubt
edly popular and great among his people who regarded Bur
gos as a patriot. But to the Spaniards, he was considered
a traitor to the Spanish Crown.
The much beloved, admired and respected parish priest,
he was given a carved “four poster” bed by an unknown
artisan-admirer who wanted to reward the venerable na
tionalist priest for his unusual display of “kindness as well
as his courageous defiance to the Spanish authorities.”
Burgos used this bed for approximately eight years —
from 1864 to the time of his martyrdom in 1872.
Made of narra hardwood and rattan mesh, the now
historical bed is unusually large for the use of a single in
dividual as it is 82 inches in length, 48 inches in width,
and 78 inches in height. Besides the four artistically carved
posts, its narra headboard is equally intricately carved.
Dominating the entire bed is an ornately cai-ved figure of
an eagle which is centrally located on the headboard, a
thing which, during the Spanish era, was not only a sym
bol of superiority and agility but also a kind of “charm”
that drove away the evil spirits “lurking in the dark, espe
cially when one is asleep.”
The bed, whose wooden material and finish are just
as good as new despite the ravages of time, was donated to
the Philippine government by Carlos Xeres Burgos, surviv
ing nephew of the martyr-priest.
III. JOSE APOLONIO BURGOS y. GARCIA
5. OFFICER IN THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY
AS a member of the University Claustro, which includ

ed in its composition the Dominican professors, Burgos be
came highly qualified for the various important offices
opened within the academic community. In fact, during
his period of affiliation, he occupied nine different positions
which demanded his time, efforts, study, and services.
Master of Ceremonies
When the position of the master of ceremonies became
vacant following the death of Fr. Ignacio Ponce de Leon,
prebendary of the Cathedral Chapter and one of the victims
of the disastrous earthquake of June 3, 1863, which de
stroyed the Manila Cathedral, the Claustro held a special
session on August 11 and elected Burgos by a unanimity
vote of the 17 members present. On his part, he cast the
lone vote in favor of Mariano Sevilla, a licentiate in philoso
phy. At the time of his election, Burgos was still a student
who lived “on the generosity of the Colegio de Santo
Tomas.”
Of the duties of the master of ceremonies were his
presence at all public literary acts, competitive examina
tions, relecciones, celebrations of the University, graduations
of licentiates, masters and doctors, and funeral services
for the doctors. During his tenure of office of over eight
years (August 1863 to January 1872), he attended 272
graduation exercises and was given a yearly salary of Pl 00
in addition to the fees which he collected from the exami-
52
nations and graduations held. On December 3, 1871, he

attended the investiture ceremonies of Fr. Miguel Narro,
O. P., licentiate in theology.
Supervisor of Latinity Schools

While Burgos was serving as the master of ceremonies,
he was also performing the duties of a latinity inspector.
When the teaching in the Latinity schools went down in
academic standards as a result of their opening to dropout
university students in and outside Manila, a Reglamento
was issued in 1858 in which the government entrusted
their supervision to three inspectors.
On March 20, 1866, Burgos, who had just been installed
as a parish priest, was named to the post of supervisor
of Latinity schools in the suburbs of Manila. It became his
duty to visit regularly the schools under his jurisdiction
and to attend to the examinations given to the candidates
for the title of professor of Latinity.
Commissional Judge
As one of the two commissional judges elected yearly
bj' the members of the Claustro at the opening of the school-
year, Burgos served three different times: the 1862-1863,
1869-1870, and 1870-1871 terms. It was his duty to look
into the personal circumstances of the candidate, such as
requiring him to show his baptismal certificate or calling
on three witnesses to vouch for the good conduct and stand
ing of the student and his family. During the entire period
he interrogated 81 applicants in addition to perusing over
graduation papers, which included those of Cayetano Arella
no, Felix Resurrection Hidalgo, Victorino Mapa and Marcelo
H. del Pilar.
Grantor of Degrees
In the investiture ceremonies of the candidate for a
bachelor’s degree, the candidate was given the right to
choose the doctor who was to confer the degree on him.
i
54 SOL II. GWEKOH
Three candidates honored Burgos with their selection of

him. He therefore conferred the degree to Pedro Lopez
de la Cruz at the baccalaureate exercises held on March
12, 1869, to Mariano Torres y Santos on March 8, 1870,
and to Felipe Neri Carlos on August 7, 1870.
Examiner
In recognition of his qualities and capacity as a scholar,
Burgos was repeatedly chosen an examiner by the rector of
the University. The examiner worked with more time and
greater effort in the field of his particular academic sub
ject.
Burgos started as an examiner in March 1863 soon after
his graduation as a licentiate in theology. He teamed 41
times with the examiners in the panels for the degree of
bachelor, examined six candidates for the degree of bachelor
in theology, and conducted the examination of 35 candidates
for the same degree in canon law—the subject which was
his forte. For the degrees of licentiate, he had two exami
nations in 1868 and one each in 1869, 1870, and 1871.
As an examiner Burgos was entitled to a fee of 12 pesos
for attending to a candidate for the degree of doctor. He
examined Pedro Fuentes Martinez for his bachelor’s degree
in canon law on July 16, 1871, and Fr. Pablo Feliciano de
Lara, a secular priest, for his Noche Triste test on Novem
ber 16.
Acting Dean of Theology

Burgos was also given the privilege of serving as the
dean of theology in an acting capacity during the doctoral
investiture ceremonies of Fr. Manuel Clemente y Lopez del
Campo, a secular priest, on May 29, 1871. He took the place
of Dean Mariano Garcia who was absent.
Acting Secretary General

On one occasion Burgos was allowed to substitute in
the absence of D. Antonio Estrada as secretary general.
The occasion was the graduation exercises of Ponciano San

Buenaventura held on March 11, 1868. The complete pro
ceedings and minutes of the event were noted down and
written and signed by him.
Canonigo Magistral Interino (Magistral Canonry)

In the parish church of Intramuros, a Cathedral Chap
ter consisting of a college of clerics known as Canons con
ducted services in the Pro-Cathedral. Its primary function
was “to give God solemn worship by the choral recitation
of the divine office, to assist the archbishop as his counsel
and eventually to govern the archdiocese in case of vacancy.”
When the key post of the doctoral canonry became
vacant, a convocation was called to order on January 27,
1869. Three licentiates in canon law vied for the position.
They were the secular priests Gregorio Ballesteros, Jose
Burgos and Simeon Ramirez. To decide solely on the merits
of the contest, the governor general selected Fr. Benito
Corominas, catedratico of the faculty of canon law of the
University, as the judge.
In his detailed report called Oposiciones which he sub
mitted on February 3, Corominas gave Burgos the first place
in two scoring fields, and the second and third places in each
of the remaining two.
Having been adjudged the best of the three contest
ants in the competitive examinations, Burgos was accepted
for the position as canonigo magistral interino, pending the
confirmation of the appointment by the King of Spain.
Again, in 1871, Burgos was nominated for the position
of magistral canonry in the chapter of the Cathedral of Ma
nila. When no direct evidence had been found to associate
him for any disloyal act or illegal activity against the church
and the government as late as the third quarter of that
year (1871), he was recommended by Archbishop Martinez
of Manila for temporary appointment by the governor gen
eral, who happened to be R. de Izquierdo at the time, in his
capacity as the vice-royal patron.
56 SOL H. GWEKOH
The position of the canonigo magistral (magistral ca-

nonry) carried a certain income paid by the Spanish
government through the Real Patronato system. The occu
pant took care of both preaching and lecturing in theology.
As the post was vacated by Dr. Candido Ureta y Man
zanares, the archbishop submitted the name of Burgos,
then the proprietary rector of the Cathedral parish, as one
of the three candidates for the ecclesiastical office, the
other two being Dr. Manuel Clemente and Dr. Mariano Se
villa, both professors of the Real Colegio de San Jose. Bur
gos had the advantage over his rivals as he had twice been
the acting prebendary.
When Izquierdo received the terno (list of candidates)
on August 28, he immediately approved the temporary de
signation of Burgos who took possession of the office on
September 4, 1871.
Chaplain of Two Foundations

At one time Burgos served as the chaplain of two
pious foundations which Doha Maria Garcia Monroy or
ganized and endowed with 1,200 pesos. He got this clerical
position by a nomination made by the superior of the Do
minican Order. For his services he was paid regularly the
sum of 120 pesos.
Dean of the Cathedral of Manila

When the uprising in Cavite took place on January
20, 1872, Burgos had just been named the dean of the Ca
thedral of Manila. However, he had no chance of taking
possession of this exalted office as the authorities took
fancy on him and involved him with the mutiny.
6. THE NOTABLE NATIONALIST WRITER
OF the three patriot-priests, Burgos was the youngest

and yet the most brilliant and the most accomplished. He
was also a notable nationalist writer whose love of country
“was a transcendental sentiment which sought expression
in all his thoughts, words and deeds.” In the many books
he had written is found this tender expression in addressing
his beloved Philippines: Mi querida patria, amor de mis
amores, adorada Filipinas.
The rabid nationalist that Burgos was, he always spoke
of his country as a whole, never as sections, and of his
compatriots as the Filipino people, never as segments of
society. He was the exponent of virtues, particularly in
dustry, perseverance, willingness to sacrifice, and the use
of reason and the pen by the individual. While he con
demned violence, he was nevertheless quick to duel ■with
any Spaniard who would dare cast aspersions on the Phil
ippines and/or his countrymen. For the positive role which
he played in the awakening and development of Filipino
nationalism in the second half of the 19th century, Burgos
was regarded as the precursor of Dr. Jose Rizal, foremost
patriot-martyr of the Philippines.
Because Burgos was a hero, martyr, and patriot all
rolled in one, Rizal personally wrote his comments on the
various books written by Burgos. His books on politics
and religion showed him to be a modem revolutionary in
cast. His ease and fluency of expression moved men to
tears. As the most eloquent spokesman of the Propaganda
57
58 SOL II. GWEKOH
Movement, his themes were on the abuses of the Spanish

friars, and the imperative need for reforms, equal rights,
education, and racial discrimination. Although undoubtedly
an exemplary priest who was loyal to the Church, he was
nevertheless critical at the wrong way the Church author
ities were handling the distribution of the parishes.
As a writer, Burgos was an idealist and a dreamer
who was always in a hurry. Because he had a mind with
a scientific leaning, he never tired in his search for the
truth. His dream was to see a Philippines that was political
ly free — independent — and with a national church of its
own run by intelligent Filipinos.
Aware of both the limited time at his disposal and the
circumstances obtaining in those days, Burgos wrote on
practically every conceivable subject related to the country
without minding whatever consequences of any magnitude
which his writings might bring to him. As if he had a
premonition of the cruel fate awaiting him, he expressed
the hope and wish that his works, especially those on politics
and religion, find a “pious heart” or a “merciful hand” as
their publisher in some future time, thereby enabling his
countrymen to share with him his thoughts and ideas.
Of his 43 writings of different sizes on various subjects,
the most voluminous consisted of 366 pages. Still most of
them in manuscript form, they deal on Philippine arche
ology, conchology, ethnology, fishing, history, public calam
ities, and stoiies; on crimes in ancient Manila, and on re
ligious and anti-religious treatises. His works are found
either in the possession of Mr. Luis Ma. Araneta or at the
library of the Ateneo de Manila University.
Most popular of his manuscripts and unpublished books,
because of its controversial authorship insofar as certain
historians are concerned, is Mi Obrita Novela Historica La
Loba Negra (The Black She-Wolf) or Itim-Asu as translated
into Tagalog.
Eleven of his works treat on Philippine conditions.
These are the following:
Estelas de Sangre — envisioned the establishment of

an independent church in the Philippines in the near future;
finished on August 2, 1869, and dedicated to the “future
Filipino nation and to the brave and determined leaders of
her own church, which will arise in our beloved country
in the future so that there may be established a religion
free from deceit and cruelty, one which is immaculately
pure where they worship God in spirit and in truth, and
which will diffuse in our own land forever — the light of
truth and peace among all.” It recounted the atrocities
committed by the friars of the Roman Catholic Church dur
ing their sojourns in the Philippines and in the other re
gions of the world.
Que es el Fraile? — exposed the various defects and
abuses perpetrated by the Spanish friars assigned to the
different religious orders in Manila. In the introduction
of this book, dated June 22, 1869, Burgos disclosed of his
father’s knowledge of this work and his subsequent ap
proval of his plan. He was then only 32 years old.
Mi Obrita Novela Historica La Loba Negra (The Black
She-Wolf) — a novel based on a historical fragment — the
bloody vendetta committed by the Aztec widow of Spanish
Governor General Fernando de Bustamante y Bustillo on
the Franciscan friars who assassinated her husband in his
palace in Intramuros (Walled City) in Manila in 1719. In
the guise of the leader of a notorious band of tulisanes
(bandits), she dressed in black and struck terror during
the rampage in the country as she killed various friars in
their confessional boxes. Following her death, the daughter,
known as “Sargenta Betay”, and her husband took over
and attacked the outlying suburbs of Ermita. In this novel
Burgos was a revolutionary because, like Marcelo H. del
Pilar, he foresaw the futility of reforms under the set-up
then obtaining.
Authorship of this narrative, which is but a rambling
chronicle to some critics and an apocryphal novel to others,
has become a controversy as certain historians claim that,
60 SOL H. GWEKOH
on the basis of the handwriting taken from the monograph

(published in Philippine Studies), it was a forgery and “was
indeed most probably written by someone else.” It is also
claimed that even Burgos’ signature in this particular work
was falsified, for he always signed simply “Jose Burgos” as
attested by the documents kept in the archives of both the
archdiocese of Manila and the Philippine National Archives.’''
However, Burgos himself disclosed that he gathered
his facts for this historical narrative from the records of
the case found in the Archives of the Real Audiencia dated
March 17, 1721. In his introduction to the English transla
tion of La Loba Negra, Professor E. San Juan, Jr., “accepts
apparently the novel as a genuine Burgos work.”'5 Filipino
scholars are agreed that in the history of the Philippine
struggle against oppression, this novel of Burgos “not only
stands on a par with Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo
(both by Rizal), but is admitted to be even more direct
and explicit in denouncing and naming the enemies of the
people.”
Manifesto Addressed to the Spanish People — published
anonymously in Manila on June 27, 1864, with the object of
refuting the charges published in the La Verdad, a Madrid
(Spain) newspaper, that the Filipino priests were incom
petent in discharging their religious functions. In ths mani
festo, written in defense of Father Pelaez, Burgos explained
that although the Filipinos had the intellect, yet they were
never given the incentive necessary for their advancement.
In delving on the Filipinization movement, Burgos said,
It is for these reasons that we regret our
inability to argue with the writer of the foregoing
statement because we patiently see that, far from
"In his two articles published in the Lungsuranon weekly of Cebu city on
June 25 and July 2, 1941, Monsignor Gabriel M. Reyes, archbishop of Cebu,
expressed doubts on the authorship of the writings attributed to Burgos. He
said that the poor Spanish used and the un-Catholic content of the works did
not speak highly of this exemplary priest whose religious spirit even won
the praise of those who disagreed with his secularization activities.
'5Translation by Hilario A. Lint (Malaya Books, Q. C., 1970).
owing to the friars its developments, its progress,

and its advancements, the country finds in them
the grains of sand in the cog-wheels of its civiliza
tion and its prosperity in that they endeavor to
keep the poor natives in a state of ignorance and
boorishness, qualities which, coupled with the re
ligious fanaticism which the friars do not overlook
in fomenting, ease their acquisition of prestige and
influence in the towns. For this reason they
strongly oppose the education and instruction in
Spanish of the natives, because the ignorance of
what is good and what is right will make them en
dure without a groan all excess and oppression,
in the same way that an indiscriminate sense of
right and wrong will make them sanctify even the
most heinous deeds, as is now the case in towns
which are distant from the provincial capitals.
In this manifesto written at the height of his impor
tant controversy with the friars, Burgos showed sufficient
courage to face his detractors. Said Burgos:
The continuance of the Religious Corporations
in possession of their estates and lordly mansions,
in this plain day of the nineteenth century, is an
anachronism of the age —an anomaly which will
find support and sanction only among persons who
dance on all political parties without distinction,
by reason of a weak disposition or of overpowering
ambition. There was, in sooth, a time when the
friars were countenanced in piling Pelion on Ossa
in order to scale the heights of the Olympian Coun
cil. On that towering eminence they floored to
their hearts’ content all doctrines to the contrary
because they themselves had been set up as sacred
idols by the natives and as the only power that
could support the rights of the people. But such
times have changed and gone, and things are as
they should be; for it is now generally known that
not only do the friars not serve as prop of the Na-
J
G2 SOL II. GWEKOH
tion, but they are themselves propped up by it

with all the power of its material resources. Were
it not for this material support, the friars would
disappear — as fast as feathers are blown away
by the sea breeze — for the minds of the natives
have been roused through constant provocation,
through excesses and disorders, through affronts
which are belched forth in honeyed words by the
same men who, instead of acting as spiritual coun i
sellors, have turned out to be persecutors and exe
cutioners. No longer should they be regarded as
anything but ordinary Spanish priests who are
subject, as are the other members of the eccle
siastical community, to the general laws of the
Church and the State without enjoying exemptions
and privileges that pave the way for the commis
sion of serious abuses and scandals which the
Church hierarchy cannot correct because of its im
potence, and which the Civil Authorities have to
put up with lest they lose the friendship and good
will of opulent and powerful citizens or else be the
victims of dangers arising from the disagreement
with them.
Historia de la Religion Rornana en las Islas Filipinas —
published in 1861 and dedicated to his “beloved countrymen
of the Philippines, youth of the future, so that, out of the
debris of the old Christian church they may build their own,
clean and immaculate, free from all kinds of egotism —
a native church independent of the foreign.”
I Humana Vitae, La Conchologia en Filipinas and La
Pesca en Filipinas — products of his intensive researches
on the beauty and richness of the country.
Los Cides de Filipinas, Los Reyes de Filipinas y Sus
Regulos, Estado de las Islas Filipinas Antes de la Colonisa
tion, Creencias y Costumbres — products of his extensive
studies based on the writings of ancient chroniclers showing
the civilized life of the Filipinos and their own culture prior
to the invasion of the Philippines made by the Spanish
conquerors.
El Cultivo de la Inteligencia en Este Pais — manifest
ed his belief in the capability of the Filipinos to rise and
“stand with the brow held high without stain and with
out shame”; in providing them with an adequate curricu
lum in the pursuit of their education and in which religion
is given secondary importance; and in sending highly
talented students to foreign countries for specialization.
Los Conflictos de la Religion — written in 1870, it re
counted the facts of the assassination of Spanish Gover
nor General Fernando Bustamante which he gathered
from the records found in the Archives of the Real Audien-
cia dated March 17, 1721.
La Arquieologia en las Islas Filipinas — related his
trip in 1855 with his father to Sarrat, Ilocos Norte, to
study some interesting archaeological findings about the
Philippines.
Manuscript on the Medicinal Plants of the Philippines
—- the original of this priceless work is in the possession
of Dr. Leoncio Lopez Rizal. Burgos was one of the three
outstanding Filipino authors whose works are now in de
mand because of the great botanical renaissance in the
field of medicine. The other two authors are Dr. Trini
dad H. Pardo de Tavera and Dr. Eduardo Quisumbing,
retired director of the National Museum.
Burgos’ other works include:
Estragos Banados en Sangre— gave a vivid and de
tailed description of the bloodshed that was caused by the
Roman Catholic religion throughout the world.
Es Verdad los Milagros?— disclosed the enormous and
profitable business made by the Roman Catholic Church
out of the propagation of the Faith among the unsuspect
ing populace.
I
64 SOL H. GWEKOII
Los Misterios de la Santa Inquisicion — “It is holy in

name but criminal in deeds” was Rizal’s comment.
La Lucha de la Religion Contra la Ciencia — made the
prediction that, since in science the truth is revealed,
science will eventually become the religion of the future.
In this work Burgos made known his concept of God. “God ■
is Spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth.”
He also recognized Jesus Christ “as the Redeemer of the
world because of His teachings.” Two things which he
did not however accept: confession and the use of candles,
incense and bells as they “widen the gap between the rich
and the poor.”
■
Maremagnum o sea Mis Ultimos Memorias — purport

edly an account of the years of Governor General De la
Torre in the Philippines (1869-1871), the typescript copy
is possessed by Pio Brun, editor of the review, Democracia.
Besides working on books, Burgos also wrote for El
Eco Filipino, the Filipino-sponsored newspaper published
in Madrid, Spain, for two years (1871 and 1872). Because
the Manila newspapers at the time were under strict cen
sorship, he aired his grievances in his articles published
in La Discusion, another newspaper of Madrid.
The writings of Burgos showed that his “feet were
firmly planted on solid ground,” so to speak. He was far
from being the remote ivory-tower intellectual despite
his bookish inclinations at times. With much gusto, he
upheld the rights of his countrymen in his works and
fought in defense of them with his facile pen. A liberal
to the core, Burgos wrote stirring articles expressing his
I opinions and voicing the equally liberal views of the times
in the newspapers.
However, the freedom with which Burgos expressed
his liberal ideas and opinions soon made the civil author
ities to suspect him and keep a vigilant eye on him, espe
cially his writings carried a strangely modem ring in them.
For example, he advised his countrymen to “be a Filipino
I
>
always, but be an educated Filipino.” He urged his con

temporaries to “go abroad, if necessary, to widen their in
tellectual horizons.”
As a writer of note, Burgos left his colleagues food
for thought in counselling them to “get educated.” Ad
dressed to the Filipino youth, this message was written
during his brief confinement in his death cell in Fort
Santiago, An English translation of the Spanish follows
in part:
Get educated. Use the schools of our coun
try for as much as they can give. Learn from our
older men what they know. Then go abroad.
If you can do no better, study in Spain, but
preferably study in the freer countries. Read
what foreigners have written about the Philip
pines for their writings have not been censored.
See in the museums of other lands what the an
cient Filipinos really were. Be a Filipino always,
but an educated Filipino.
Heretofore, we have had thinkers among us
but their thoughts have died with them. Such
progress as has been made has been individual
and not of the country. I have tried to pass on
to you what I received from my teachers. Do you
now do the same for those who come after you?
What if Burgos were ever given the opportunity to
study abroad — in freer countries? Only God knows what
this intelligent, patriotic, and very vocal young priest could
have done for the good of his people!
In a nutshell, Burgos, holder of eight academic de
grees, was not only an Oriental philosopher, theologian and
classical scholar, but also the author of pamphlets, jour
nalist, newspaper editor, novelist, university lecturer, and
writer.
*

7. BURGOS: THE GREAT FILIPINO
IN his lifetime Burgos proved to be a good, loyal, faith

ful, zealous, respectful, and dedicated priest who remained
serving his Church and performing his duties and obliga
tions as a minister even under extreme provocation.
Burgos was a patriot too in both his thoughts and
actions. He was even ahead of Rizal in asserting the prin
ciple of equality insofar as the right of the Filipinos to
a better treatment in the Church was concerned.
In the secularization movement, which was spear
headed by Father Pedro Pablo Pelaez, the first champion
of the cause, and later carried on by Burgos, the favorite
of the famous pulpit orator (Pelaez), the Spanish author
ities were irked to no end. Burgos openly castigated the
Spanish hierarchy for its stubborn resistance in promoting I
the Filipino priests to respectable clerical posts. The re
ligious orders, particularly the Augustinians, Dominicans,
and Jesuits, even went to the extent of assuming all kinds
of parochial duties if only to tighten the hold of the church
over the state. The Spanish friars used their sacerdotal
duties in order “to connive with the civil officials to op
press the downtrodden.”
The true Filipino liberal (in the 19th century Spanish
sense) that Burgos was, he loved truly his country and
people, and therefore fought to correct and eradicate the
evils of a theocracy in the Philippines. In the vigorous
campaign which he waged incessantly for more liberal con-
6
66
ditions in the country, Burgos followed the trend of liberal

ism which Spanish Governor General Carlos Maria de la
Torre y Navacerrada introduced in the Philippines.
Soon after the seeds of liberalism were implanted in
the Philippines, Burgos absorbed the idea and made good
use of it to the extent that he somehow exerted influence
on the emergence of the modern Filipino nationalism. To
gether with the two other priest-martyrs — Gomes and
Zamora — he formed the triumvirate of the Comite Refor-
mador which “unmasked the abuses of the Spanish civil
authorities and religious leaders.”
In this nationalistic struggle of the Filipinos, Burgos
gained the wholehearted support of other colleagues who
showed magnificent courage, particularly Father Toribio
H. del Pilar, older brother of Marcelo H. del Pilar; Father
Pedro Dandan, who later was named the military chap
lain of the troops of General Crispulo Aguinaldo; Father
Agustin Mendoza, parish priest of Santa Cruz, Manila;
Father Jose Guevara, parish priest of Quiapo, Manila;
Father Mariano Sevilla, chaplain of the Military Hospital;
and Father Justo Guason, co-adjutor of the Manila Cathe
dral in Intramuros (Walled City).
These activities of Burgos greatly alarmed De la
Torre that besides warning the archbishop of Manila about
his suspicion of Burgos’ disloyalty to Spain, he also put
him (Burgos) under surveillance. Before De la Torre
left the Philippines after his term as the governor general
which began with his arrival in Mianila on June 23, 1869,
he prepared a confidential Memoria for the benefit of his
successor. Dated March 24, 1871, the document16 warned
on the “political unreliability of the Filipino secular clergy
and the necessity of opposing any anti-friar movement as
being essentially anti-Spanish.”
>6 Deposited in the Archives of the Ministerio de Ultramar in Madrid.

68 SOL H. GWEKOH
Similar testimonies concerning the religious spirit of

Burgos were given by contemporary Jesuit friars.'7 One
such testimony contained in the letter of Father Pedro
Beltran, the Jesuit superior, to Governor General Rafael
de Izquierdo, disclosed that he “admonished Burgos
against carrying on the secularization campaign in the
public forum.”
Burgos was given this stem warning by the head of
the Philippine Jesuits:
1 reiterated to him (Burgos) that these ques
tions (over friar-held parishes) were purely
canonical and ecclesiastical and had their own
proper judges and courts. To hurl them into the
public arena, and especially by way of newspapers
of marked anti-religious tendencies, was to debase
them and to give them a deliberate political ac
cent and color. Desist, I said to him, because you
may otherwise be pushed into worse ways; and
even supposing you have enough strength to re
treat, you may not be able to prevent a doubly
criminal hand from writing your name on a ban
ner brandished by the deluded and the seditious.
If you do not desist, I beg you not to knock again
on our door.
When Burgos was ordained a priest, he found the
Philippines was already enjoying the modernity that was
introduced in many phases of Philippine life by the Basco
administration many years earlier. Of particular interest
to him was the modem trend adopted in the church which
saw the conversion of the old and declining fiiar orders
into an expanding system of secular parishes. In this
<
system the topnotchers in the competitive examinations
given to prove their ability for the positions were given
the rich parishes. Even the most juicy of them all—the
<
r
17 Now in the Archive de la Provincia de Tarragona de la Compania de I
Jesus in San Cugat del Vailes (Barcelona), Spain.
Antipolo shrine — was already in the hands of the secu

lars. So the young and talented seminarians became
ambitious and took up the challenge of the church.
As Burgos found seiwice and prestige in the priest
hood, he readily joined the movement as a leader in
fighting to free the Philippine church from the clutches
of his foreign counterparts. He was looking forward to
the further development of a national church that saw
its beginnings in the time of Anda almost a century earlier.
This church was to be under the control of a Filipino
clergy as it was already in the case of the premier arch
diocese, the See of Manila,,s and the parishes in the Taga
log and Pampango provinces.
This modem trend continued in progress until certain
historical events blocked it and forced such leaders as
Burgos to intervene in an attempt to save the situation
from further deterioration. At the time more Spanish
friars were shipped to the Philippines as a result of the
revolutions raging on the Peninsula. As these newcomers
had to be accommodated, the native priests were dispos
sessed of their parishes.
Because of this anomalous situation, the native clergy
lost the Antipolo shrine, the rich parish of San Rafael in
Bulacan, and the parishes held in Bataan, Pampanga and
Z^imbales provinces. Both the Antipolo and San Rafael
parishes were successfully reclaimed by the Recollects.
At this time Burgos was the examiner of the parish
priests for the See of Manila. Since he discovered that the
Spanish friars did not know Tagalog, he suggested sarcas
tically that “the friars should at least learn Tagalog first
before usurping Tagalog parishes from the native clergy.”
,sThe See of Manila was assigned to the Recollect Order by a royal

decree of 1861 in return for the parishes in Mindanao which Ute Recollects
gave back to the Jesuits. These parishes were originally held by the Jesuits
until their expulsion and were reclaimed bv them upon their return to the
Philippines in 1859.
70 SOL 11. GWEKOH
This campaign of Burgos reverberated everywhere. The

Madrid government came to know about it, and General
Carlos Maria de la Torre took cognizance of the movement.
When De la Torre arrived in Manila he looked for Burgos.
At their initial meeting he hailed him as “a great Filipino,
the greatest perhaps of his race.” He even invited Burgos
to ride along with him in his carriage to the Malacanang
Palace.
Being the most liberal Spanish governor ever to rule
the Philippines, De la Torre welcomed the Filipino leaders
openly. In return, a group of Filipino civic leaders, priests
and students held the historic serenade and a banquet in
honor of De la Torre at the palace on the evening of July 12,
1869. Being one of the masterminds of the affair, Burgos de
livered a stirring speech in which he demanded “not only
justice for the native priests, but also the cooperation of all
for the good of the Mother Country.”
On September 21 (1869) Burgos and the other Fili
pino lay and religious leaders made their way to the palace
again. This time they held a torch parade. During the
entertainment, toasts were made “to the new Spanish Con
stitution, to the Sovereign People, to Libei-ty, and to
General De la Torre” by both Filipinos and Spaniards.
Having become an intimate friend of De la Torre, Bur
gos was made the governor’s adviser and at the same time
the chairman of the committee on reforms. The other active
members of this reform body were Fathers Gomes, Zamora,
Mendoza, Vicente Garcia, and Mariano Sevilla; the lawyers
— Antonio Ma. Regidor and Joaquin Pardo de Tavera; the
physician, Maximo Paterno; and the businessmen— Jose
1
Ma. Basa, Angel Garchitorena, Manuel Genato, and Jacobo
Zobel.
Upon his suggestion, De la Torre saw to it that the
constitutional rights guaranteed by the Spanish Constitu
tion of 1812 were practiced in the Philippines. In a short
time Burgos also did his best to improve the political and
religious systems by instituting the necessary reforms and
BURGQS GOMES ZAMORA 71
exposing fearlessly the prevailing graft, con’uption and dis

honesty in the administration.
This attitude of Burgos and his leadership in advancing
the cause of the Filipinos made him the first of his country
men to attract the spotlight of history insofar as nation
building was concerned. For this unique role that
Burgos played, he is regarded as the Father of Filipino Na
tionalism.
During the administration of De la Torre, the Philip
pines began to undergo a period of reforms in the first
three years. However, the defeat of the liberals in Spain
returned the reactionaries in power again. The recall of
De la Torre to Spain sealed the fate of Burgos as in no time
the well-advanced Jesuits in the Philippines denounced his
activities as “debased, anti-religious, political, deluded, and
seditious.”
On their part, the Filipinos exerted more pressure in
their campaign for more reforms in the iniquitous Spanish
regime, so that the religious nature of the secularization
movement assumed a political color and involved more Fili
pino secular priests who championed their cause, other
than Burgos.
■ -
8. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE NATIVE (FILIPINO)

CLERGY I
SHORTLY after the appearance of the first Spaniards
in the Philippines, the Spanish missionaries already made
the necessary moves for the formation of the native
clergy.
Since the implementation of Christianity — and the
spread of the Roman Catholic religion, in particular — was
the primordial aim of the Spanish conquistadores in coming
to the Philippines, the thought of sharing the Filipinos in
this countrywide mission was seriously considered. Tire
pioneer missionaries believed that since the Philippines had
become a colony of Spain they had to stay permanently,
and to christianize the native population they needed the
cooperation and assistance of the inhabitants themselves,
particularly the youth of the land who had the inclination
to be priests.
So as early as 1525 steps were taken toward this direc
tion. The move to establish the native clergy with the open
ing of a college for the training of the native priests in
Mexico was broached to the King of Spain. But it did not
materialize.
As both the colonial officials and the missionaries
persisted in their plan, the King made inquiries as to wheth
er or not a seminary for the native clergy existed in the
Philippines. In his letter dated June 13, 1700, Governor
General Cruzat y Gongora replied that “there was none,
72
there never had been, and he did not consider the forma
tion of such institution necessary.”
Notwithstanding this negative attitude of the Spanish
governor, the archbishop agreed to the proposal of Abbe
Sidotti in 1702 to raise the necessary funds to enable the
construction of a seminary building which was to house
the seminarians from the Philippines and the other mis
sions in the Far East.
When the King heard of the construction work, he
ordered the job stopped immediately. His action forced
the indefinite suspension of the training of a native clergy.
The King expressed his fear that “the admission of other
foreigners into the Philippines would be a threat to the
peace of the islands.”
Many years passed before the Filipino was given the
proper education in preparation for the priesthood. The
clerical training was left entirely to the educational insti
tutions which made progress in this particular work. By
1750, one-fourth of the existing 569 parishes in the Philip
pines or a total of 142 went to the native priests who replaced
the regular clergy. As the Filipino seculars were under
the complete control of the bishops, the natives not only
posed a threat to the religious but also created antagonism
which prevailed for years.
When Carlos III ascended the throne, he sent Arch
bishop Sancho de Santa Justa to Manila in 1767. As at the
time the Society of Jesus was expelled and the Augustinians
were removed from their parishes, the archbishop filled the
existing vacancies with Filipino priests as quickly as they
were ordained and “in such apparent disregard for quali
fications.”
This seemingly irregular practice gave credence to
the common joke that even the oarsmen in the city had
been ordained to the priesthood by the good archbishop in
order to cope with the situation.
74 SOL H. GWEKOH
The alarming situation was further aggravated by the

reports coming from the disgruntled members of the regular
clergy which the King received. They denounced the “un-
priestly behavior” of the native priests which, they claimed,
had brought “disastrous results.” To save the situation, the
King issued his royal decree of 1776 suspending the Filipi-
nization of the parishes until “such a time that a well-
trained and well-educated native clergy could take over.”
The Filipinization movement suffered further setback
with the issuance later of three other royal cedulas — in
1826, 1849, and 1861 — which returned permanently to the
Spanish regulars all the parishes taken away from them
and assigned to the Filipino seculars during the administra
tion of Governor Anda in the Philippines.
J
9. THE TICKLISH PROBLEM OF FILIPINIZING

THE PARISHES
DURING the lifetime of Fathers Burgos, Gomes and

Zamora, numerous notable events which affected the Phil
ippines took place in Spain. As a result of the turbulent
conditions of the times, Spain underwent several govern
mental changes. Within a period of 28 years (1834-1862)
it had four constitutions, 28 parliaments, 47 presidents of
the Council of Ministers, and 529 ministers with portfolios.
In 1868 Queen Isabel of Spain ended abruptly her 33
years of reign following her dethronement. With the sub
sequent overthrow of the Bourbon dynasty in the course
of the revolution waged successfully by the Spanish liberal
leaders — Serrano, Prim, and Sagasta — she fled from
Spain. Then the liberals set up their own provisional gov
ernment and adopted a new constitution. By 1871 they
had installed Amadeo, son of King Victor Emmanuel of
Italy, as the new Spanish monarch.
Since the Philippines was a colony of Spain, it too un
derwent an unbearable situation. Not only did it become
a “convenient dumping ground for partisan followers and
favorites,” but it also saw frequent changes in the adminis
tration. Brought to the Philippines were new sets of gov
ernment officials who, by exaggerating their notions of
racial superiority, were arrogant, insolent and contemptuous
in their dealings with the Filipinos.
75
/ *
76 SOL H. GWEKOH
The colonial government in the Philippines had its

problems also. The exalted post of the governor general was
not spared from the worsening situation. Between 1835
and 1869, the governorship was held by 25 persons, with
most of them occupying the post for as long as a year only.
Regarded, however, as the most outstanding problem,
because of its great historical importance as well as prom
inence, conspicuousness and interest to the populace, es
pecially to the native clergy who were intimately affected,
was the administration of the curacies in the country. At
stake was the fundamental issue of whether or not to give
the Filipino priests a greater share in the management of
the religious and ecclesiastical affairs of the Philippines.
This religious problem started during the incumbencies
of Archbishop Sancho de Santa Justa and Governor Simon
de Anda y Salazar in the third quarter of the 18th century
(1767-1776). As the archbishop undertook a vigorous sec
ularization program, the controversy saw a pronounced
division between the secular and the regular priests. The
regulars were the Spanish peninsular priests who, having
been bom, reared, educated, and ordained in Spain, were
members of the religious orders, while the seculars were
the Filipino diocesan clergymen.
Since secularization then meant the replacement of
the regular priests by the seculars in their parishes, Arch
bishop Santa Justa took in the newly ordained Filipino secu
lar priests as fast as the parishes in the archdiocese were
left vacant with the resignation of the Spanish friar priests
who had disagreements with him over matters of ecclesias
tical government.
This bold and unprecedented step taken by the arch
bishop made the people rejoice for it was considered a policy
of the Filipinization of the curacies. By availing of compe
tent native priests, he was confident that the mission and
activities of the Catholic Church in the Philippines could be
very well carried out. The new policy even carried the en
dorsement and wholehearted support of Governor Anda.
The Filipino families who cherished the fervent hope

of having a member become a priest some day saw in the
Santa Justa policjr an opportunity for their sons who were
secular priests to administer parochial affairs in the near
future.
In his eagerness and enthusiasm to see Filipino parish
priests installed in the curacies, Archbishop Santa Justa
appointed practically any newly ordained seminarians with
out first letting them undergo the proper examination of
their intellectual attainments and moral qualifications.
Because Archbishop Santa Justa named even Filipino
priests whose moral qualities and virtues tended to pull
down essentially their religious life, this initial policy of
Filipinizing the curacies was roundly criticized. Spanish
writers were loud in deploring the general situation. Typi
cal of the adverse comments given at the time was the
opinion of Patricio de Hscosura which was published in
his Memoria Sobre Filipinas y Jolo (1882). Wrote he:
The native ecclesiastics are, generally speak
ing, a disgrace to the clergy.... Among the
majority of them, education does not penetrate
deep enough to bring lasting effects. Their moral
ity is characterized by those tendencies natural
to Orientals. Chastity among them is rare, ex
tremely rare, and their unconquerable laziness,
which is the dominant vice in this country, makes
them unfit to discharge these pastoral functions
which require so much virtue, devotion and dili
gence.
As the archbishop’s actuations proved both discour
aging and disappointing, it was deemed proper and expedient
to have the policy suspended and discontinued in the in
terest of religion. On his part, Governor Anda lost no time
in reporting the matter to Spain.
After the King of Spain had heard of the disastrous
effect of the Santa Justa policy, he immediately ordered
78 SOL II. GWEKOH
in his royal decree of December 11, 1776, the temporary

suspension of the secularization of the curacies and the re
turn of the parishes which had been allotted to Filipino
pastors to their former administrators — the Spanish reg
ular clergy.
In this same decree the King manifested his conform
ity with the Filipinization ” policy of Archbishop Santa Jus-
ta, for he also ordered that the necessary steps be taken
to prepare and train a competent body of clerics who would I
eventually be qualified to fill up the curacies following their
secularization.
Unfortunately for the Filipino clergy, the Spanish gov
ernment ignored totally the provisions of the decree of De
cember 11, 1776, which would have been a boom to them.
Instead, it pursued an entirely different course of action
which, with the promulgation of several adverse laws in the
19th century, completely discouraged and hampered what
would have been the healthy growth and speedy develop
ment of the enthusiastic Filipino clergy of the time.
Reflecting the new tendency in the Spanish colonial
policy towards the Philippines were the royal decree of
July 26, 1826, which ordered all the curacies which had been
administered by Filipino secular priests during the time
of Governor Simon de Anda y Salazar returned to the reg
ular Spanish clergy; the royal decree of March 9, 1849,
which commanded the return of seven parishes in Cavite
province which belonged to the Filipino seculars to the
Spanish religious — Bacoor, Cavite el Viejo, and Silang to
the Augustinians, and Santa Cruz, San Francisco de Mala-
bon, Naic, and Indang to the Dominicans; and the royal
decree of September 10, 1861, which gave the parishes held
by the Filipino priests in the archbishopric of Manila to
I
the Recollects.
19 Filipinization is derived from Filipinas, the Spanish word which found

its origin in Philip II, the King of Spain after whom the Philippine archipel
ago was named by the conquistadores.
In his report to the Regent of Spain, the archbishop

(Martinez) spoke highly of the Filipino priests. He said
that “the services of the native priests deserve great es
teem, for in all adversities they have always conducted
themselves as loyal subjects of Spain, and as coadjutors in
the parochial ministry they always carry the heaviest part
of the burden Had this been taken into considera
tion, never would injury have been done to a class of men
so well deserving . . .
Of the growing antagonism between the religious and
the secular clergy which he considered as disastrous to
Spain and which may bring lamentable results, Archbishop
Martinez20 lost no time in reporting the matter to the
regent of Spain. The antagonism was the result of the
restoration to the religious orders of the parishes which
the secular clergy had occupied for years.
“Native priests had possessed these parishes for more
than half a century and considered them already their own,
they felt great pain every time that, because of the death
or transferral of one of them, a religious entered to replace
them,” he related.
Martinez therefore sought a remedy to the alarming
situation. He suggested the repeal of the royal order of
September 10, 1861, which had caused the exploitation of
the seculars, in the belief that “in this way, not only would
the unrest be calmed, but also, reinforced by the gratitude
and the well-known fidelity of the Filipino secular priests,
would the bonds which unite this fertile archipelago to our
beloved Spain be tightened more and more.”
Notwithstanding the unfavorable conditions of the
times and the absence of the proper incentives to encourage
Archbishop Martinez arrived in Manila on May 27, 1862, and took pos
session of the archbishopric at the end of May as the successor of Archbishop
Juan Aranguren who died on April 18 of the previous year. During the
interim period Father Pedro Pablo Pelaez, the vicar capitular, governed it
Before his appointment in Manila, Martinez was a canon of the archdiocese
of Valladolid in Spain.
I
80 SOL 11. GWEKOH
i
them to improve themselves, the young Filipinos still con
tinued to be attracted to the priesthood profession. Of the
748 Filipino priests,2’ many had attained the status of the
parish priest and distinguished themselves by both their
learning and devotion and loyalty to their religious duties.
Those Filipino priests who had no parishes served as as
sistants or coadjutors to the Spanish friar curates assigned
in the big towns and cities.
The Filipino coadjutors presented a problem in their
dealings with their Spanish friar superiors. They lived and
worked under very unfavorable conditions. They received
a treatment that “tended to degrade rather than enhance
■ the dignity of their profession.” They were generally “de
spised and looked down upon as belonging to an inferior
race.”
By treating their Filipino coadjutors as servants, the
Spanish friar curates forgot to practice and observe the
spirit of Christian love and charity which is essential in
the ideal type of a priest. The coadjutors did the parochial
work for their superiors: they baptized the young children,
they administered the sacraments of penance, they per
formed the rites for the dead, and they consoled the needy
ones at any time of the day and night.
On top of this taxing assignment, the deserving Fili
pino priests found themselves deprived of incentives be
cause most parishes were either reserved to the Spanish
regular priests or those previously occupied by them were
returned to their foreign counterparts. In addition, the
Filipino priests had to be contented with the insignificant
curacies which were located in far-away and remote places,
while the Spanish peninsulars were given the choice ones.
Such was the pitiful situation of the Filipino clergy
when Father Burgos was ordained a secular priest on
December 17, 1864. In spite of what he was actually wit
nessing, he did not lose hope. He courageously joined the
2' Figures in the report submitted by Jimeno Agius in 1876.

ranks of the Filipino clergy in the firm belief that in his

own humble way he could do something to remedy the
situation. At the time the question of whether or not the
Filipino priests were to be given certain parishes in the
archdiocese of Manila was raging. The issue could not be
settled once and for all because of the enforcement of the
royal decree of September 10, 1861.
This decree ordered the newly arrived Jesuits to take
over the missions of Mindanao from the Recollect fathers
on the ground that the island had been the missionary field
of the Jesuits centuries before. To the Recollects were
allocated the richest parishes in the country’s premier
archdiocese, the See of Manila, to compensate them for
their lost ones. This unprecedented step compelled Fr.
Pedro Pablo Pelaez, vice capitular (ecclesiastical governor
sede vacante) of the archdiocese of Manila since the death
of Archbishop Aranguren and the recognized leader of the
secularization movement, to warn the governor general in
his letter of December 18 of the grave consequences of
such a movement.
As the issue, which was one of the longest in Philip
pine ecclesiastical history, developed into an unpleasant re
ligious dispute so much so that certain nationalistic and
racial elements soon appeared on the surface all because
the religious were Spaniards and the seculars were native
priests, it finally involved not only the interests of the
Filipino clergy but also the welfare of the Catholic Church
in the Philippines.
Also involved in this bitter fight were the Antipolo
shrine and the rich parish of San Rafael in Bulacan. The
Recollects reclaimed both curacies as theirs by virtue of
the royal decree of 1861. Despite the vigorous protest of
the seculars, the parishes were adjudicated to them. Be
sides these parishes, the seculars lost those they held in
Bataan, Pampanga and Zambales in the same manner.
Of the Antipolo shrine, Archbishop Martinez wrote to
Marshal Francisco Serrano, regent of Spain since the de
thronement of Isabel II by the Revolution of 1868:
82 SOL H. GWEKOH
While the parish of Antipolo has a relatively

small number of parishioners, nonetheless devo
tion of the towns to the image of the Virgin which
is venerated there is so great, and the crowds
which come even from the remote provinces dur
ing the month of May to this celebrated sanc
tuary are so large, and the alms offered for
Masses are so many and so large, that the parish
is considered to be the pearl of the curacies as
being one of the richest in the archipelago. It is
not strange therefore that the secular clergy felt
very strongly its loss, nor are they without justi
fication in instituting that the Royal Order of May
19, 1864, is not very much in conformity with
that of September 10, 1861.
This anomalous state of the Philippine clergy at the
time forced Burgos, then the examiner of parish priests
for the See of Manila, to remark sarcastically that “the
friars should at least learn Tagalog before usurping Tagalog
parishes from the native clergy.”
Consequently, lively discussions over the question were
held in different places. In these gatherings Burgos was
a conspicuous figure. Coming all the way from Vigan,
Ilocos Sur, he stood easily as the most prominent and active
participant. Inasmuch as he displayed “intellectual powers
of a high order and unmistakable qualities of leadership,”
he was soon hailed as the foremost, ablest, and most vocal
leader of the Filipino clergy and was recognized as the
champion spokesman of a just, worthy and noble cause —
the cause of God and country!
Since Burgos was positive that the church could only
be strong, vigorous and solid if it had competent Filipino
priests attending to its affairs, he dreamed of developing
a Filipino priesthood whose members were worthy of the
profession and were “thoroughly imbued with a high sense
of responsibility and with hearts burning with apostolic
zeal.” With this distinct type of priests, Burgos was cer-
tain that not only would the spiritual needs of the Filipinos
living in the cities, towns, barrios and villages be served ■
well and adequately, but Catholicism in the Philippines

would have a lasting place of honor and reverence in the
hearts of his countrymen.
But Burgos was not only a dreamer. He was also a
realist. It was his great desire to attain successfully his
objectives and goals. To this end, he foresaw the impera
tive need of modifying the Spanish colonial policy in the
Philippines. To his mind, the conditions affecting the Fili
pino clergy needed radical changes, and these changes
called for the Filipinization of the parishes. While the
changes were considered as reasonable and just, they had
to be gradual if only to pave the way for a healthy and
fully developed Filipino priesthood.
Impelled by the best of motives, Burgos worked inde-
fatigably to achieve his coveted goal in the next ten years.
h
As he emerged with the first generation of Filipinization-
ists who figured conspicuously during the second half of
r
the 19th century, he became the first outspoken leader of
Filipinization, a movement which was started by Father
Pelaez, emphasized dramatically on the Bagumbayan Field
in 1872, and ended with the Spanish colonial administra
tion in the Philippines in 1898.
Working hand in hand with the other leaders, Burgos
— who was at the time the examinador sinodal of the Clero
Filipino de Manila — reminded the church authorities of
the decrees of the Council of Trent which prohibited the
Spanish friars from occupying the local parishes. Because
with this provision the friars stood to lose, they fought
hard to keep their offices. Not only did they vilify their
Filipino counterparts but they also accused them of being
unfit for the priesthood and of “having a mentality not
far above that of monkeys.” Further, they claimed that
their presence in the Philippines was still badly needed
because “the Indios (as the Filipinos were then called and
known) were hatching conspiracies to overthrow Spanish
sovereignty.”
84 SOL II. GWEKOH
But the Spanish contemporaries of Burgos in the

Philippines viewed his intensive campaign from an entirely
different perspective. Not only did they misunderstand
him for his work to Filipinize the parishes but they also
regarded his reform project as a totally anti-Spanish act
that was primarily aimed at separating the Philippines
from Mother Spain. Their insidious criticism of Burgos
reverberated everywhere and it finally reached Madrid.
Because his Spanish critics considered his actuations
as a man and a minister of God as a clear manifestation
of “disloyalty and high treason to the Spanish govern
ment,” they singled out Burgos as one of the prominent
leaders allegedly implicated with the mutiny of the soldiers
in the Cavite revolt of January 20, 1872.
III. JOSE APOLONIO BURGOS Y GARCIA
10. A SUSPECT OF THE SPANIARDS
TILE success of the armed revolutionary movement in

Spain in September 1868 was responsible for the emer
gence of new ideas embodying certain democratic prin
ciples in the Philippines. While they were a novelty, the
people readily welcomed them. Outstanding of these seem
ingly radical ideas at the time to a Spanish colony like the
Philippines were the right of universal suffrage, and the
freedom of association, of conscience, of the press, and of
public assembly.
The movement also saw the eventual downfall of
Queen Isabel II of Spain and the rise of the liberals to
power. With the establishment of the provisional govern
ment in Spain, a new governor general for the Philippines
was nominated in 1869 and was officially installed in office
in Manila on June 23 that year.
The new chief executive — Carlos Maria de la Torre —
was very much liked and appreciated by the liberals in
the Philippines who saw in him “a man whose services, in
tentions, energetic character and excellent education make
1
him highly respectable, giving us motive to expect that I
under his administration, individual rights will be respect
ed in the Philippines.” To the conservative group of his
time, however, he was described as “a dangerously mis
guided and imprudent innovator” and sc. frowned upon
him.
De la Torre proved to be the most liberal governor
that the country had. In his first message which exuded
85
4
86 SOL H. GWEKOH
both fairness and broadmindedness in spirit, he gave the

assurance that the individual rights of the people would
be respected and upheld at all costs.
As a result, the people, particularly the liberalminded
Spanish residents, the Spanish-Filipino mestizos, and the
Filipinos themselves hailed him with much enthusiasm and
hope for the much-needed reforms and innovations as em
bodied in his early public pronouncements.
Greatly appreciative of his enlightened policies, a group
of Filipino intellectuals and some Spanish liberals organized
the Committee of the Sons of the Country. On the night
of July 12 (1869) they held the first rally of its kind in
the Philippines to the official residence of the governor
general in the Malacanang Palace.
Since that date, politics became a common topic among
the residents, Filipinos and foreigners alike. Everywhere
— in the homes as well as in the public places — politics
was the subject of discussion by the educated class and
the common masses. Discussed were topics that dealt with
the current issues in Spain and its colonies as well as the
much-publicized benevolent policies of De la Torre which
were expected to usher in a period of reforms.
This historic rally had Burgos as one of the 11 out
standing leaders. A learned young man he instantly won
the admiration of De la Torre, especially when he heard
Burgos speak at the banquet given in his honor.
In this gathering of Filipino and Spanish leaders of
thought, cries of Viva Filipinas para los Filipinos were re
peatedly made. When Burgos’ turn came, he fearlessly
“demanded not only justice for the native priests but also
the cooperation of all for the good of the Mother Country.”
The speech of Burgos reverberated everywhere. It
became food for thought and the subject of much specula
tion, especially that particular reference to the Mother
Country which obviously did not mean Spain. Even De la
Torre who hailed him as “the great Filipino” began to en
tertain second thoughts of Burgos.
From then on, the supposedly friendly and liberal

Governor De la Torre and Burgos’ Spanish critics kept
watch of him. On December 22, 1869, the governor gen
eral gave orders to the postmaster general of the Philippines
to include Burgos among the various Filipinos whose
mails were subjected to censorship. “It is necessary in the
interest of the State that you hold all letters coming from
Europe and Hongkong that arrive in that office addressed
to ... Dr. Jose Burgos ....”, the order stated.
The next day (December 23), De la Torre again sent
a “confidential ” letter to the postmaster general on the in
terception of the correspondence of the suspect, Burgos.
He gave instructions to the civil governor of the province
of Manila to “make the necessary arrangement with you
(the postmaster) to examine the letters, after the pre
scribed formalities, and to report to me the results.”
After over two years of strict surveillance, the post
master general, Jose Maria Diaz, succeeded in discovering
letters addressed to Burgos. On January 29, 1872, he re
layed the information to the governor that “this office
already has letters for the priests Don Jose Burgos and
Don Jacinto Zamora ....”
With these sudden and unexpected turnabout actions
and activities of the governor general, the Spanish colonial
administration in the Philippines finally succeeded in seal
ing the fate of Burgos whom they had regarded as “the
great Filipino.”
OF the three beloved priests who shared each other’s

destiny in 1872 with their martyrdom, Burgos is the most
honored by the government and his countrymen.
His townmates in Vigan, capital of Ilocos Sur, raised
funds for his monument during the observance of his 31st
death anniversary in 1903. On the public plaza of Vigan
stands the imposing Burgos monument.
88 SOL H. GWEKOH
In the southwestern part of Quezon (formerly Taya-

bas) province is the small moutainuous town of Padre Bur
gos which is dubbed as the “jewel of southern Luzon.”
A 10-centavo Jose Burgos postage stamp was also is
sued by the Bureau of Posts on the occasion of the 29th
anniversary of the approval of the Tydings-McDuffie in
dependence law. Twentj7 million pieces were issued.
In 1919 the city government of Manila founded an ele
mentary school and named it after Burgos. With 32 class
rooms housed in seven buildings, the school is now one of
the biggest in the Philippines.
To enable the people of Ilocos Sur to commemorate
fittingly the 92nd anniversary of the martyrdom of Burgos,
President Diosdado Macapagal proclaimed February 17
(1964) as a special public holiday in that province.
Burgos’ birthday centennial was marked ■with the top
government officials extolling him. Vice-President Sergio
Osmena of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and con
currently secretary of public instruction, emphasized the
fact that Burgos deserves the eternal gratitude of his coun
trymen for he “achieved one of the purest and most cons
tructive acts of nationalism recorded in the history of a
people dominated by a foreign power.”
Mayor Juan Posadas of Manila considered Burgos as
one of the foremost educators of his time and asserted that
his execution “paved the way for a united stand against
injustice and abuse”; while Assemblyman Camilo Osias of
La Union described Burgos as “one of those few men who
gave all and took nothing in return for their country.”
i; |;
Burgos — Gomes — Zamora
1. THE CAVITE MUTINY OF 1872
WITH the downfall of the monarchy of the despotic

Queen Isabel II in 1868, the colonial administration in the
Philippines became liberal. The country enjoyed relative
freedom in many phases of life following the arrival of a
new, liberalminded, democratic Spanish governor general f jh
in Carlos Maria de la Torre y Navacerrada on June 23, 1869. i
Not only did De la Torre open the gates of Malacanang
Palace to the Indios, as the Filipinos were then called by
this Spanish derogatory term, but he also tolerated the
public talks for reforms, including the developing Filipiniza-
tion of the parishes. He likewise abolished the resplendent-
ly-attired palace halberdiers and the strict censorship of
the local press, an act which facilitated the easy and free
communication of ideas among the people. In civilian
clothes, De la Torre walked on the streets and mixed freely
with both the Filipinos and the Spaniards whom he treated
equally.
This brief era of liberal living however ended abruptly
after two years with the replacement of the provisional re
public by a constitutional monarchy. De la Torre was suc
ceeded by a new governor favored by the Spanish friars and
the reactionaries. He was Rafael de Izquierdo y Gutierrez.
The new governor, who was of sanguinary disposition, nar
row-minded, despotic, intolerant, autocrat, and ruthless, did
his best to govern the Philippines “with a cross in one hand
and a sword in the other”, to use his own words. Being a
genuine reactionary of the Duke of Alva type, Izquierdo
89
90 SOL II. GWEKOH
adopted and enforced “terroristic and ruthless measures to

insure his authority.” He prevented the Filipinos from visit
ing the palace; he muzzled the Philippine press; he banned
the liberal publications; he suppressed all talks of reforms;
and he suspended all demands for reforms.
Not only did Izquierdo abolish all the long-standing priv
ileges — particularly the exemption from the payment of
the annual tributes and the obligation to work on public
projects on certain days of the year — which De la Torre
granted to the skilled workers and the Filipino soldiers of
the artillery and the engineering corps at Cavite in recogni
tion of their many years of service in various wars and
campaigns, but he also imposed a toll tax on the Filipino
workers at the Cavite arsenal.
Besides these acts of injustice which resulted in great
dissatisfaction, the Filipino soldiers discovered at almost
the same time that much better food was given to the
Spanish soldiers in Cavite than that rationed to them. They
also found out that their Spanish counterparts received sal
aries much higher than those they had. So the disgruntled
Filipinos got angry. Their resentment flared up and as un
rest and terror reigned, they manifested openly their violent
protest by going on a strike.
As Filipino bitterness was evident everywhere, Fr. Jose
Apolonio Burgos published manifestoes “denouncing the
discriminations and inequalities against the Filipinos” and
wrote articles demanding justice and reforms for his coun
trymen. Once the message was picked up by the Cavite
arsenal workers, they in their resentment decided to revolt
at once.
This immediate chain of events which naturally led
to misunderstanding came to a head when Himeno Agius,
the intendente general de hacienda, decided to stop the
exemption enjoyed by the Filipino workers in Cavite and
their families in the cedula personal tax. Although this
ruling of the superior financial official of the colonial gov
ernment earned the previous approval of Izquierdo, never-
theless it was opposed by the Cavite authorities who, short

ly after receiving the papers, sent them back with the urgent
request for a reconsideration of the decision. The peti
tioners were Rear Admiral MacCrohon, superior officer of
the arsenal, and Colonel Butler, military governor of Cavite.
When Butler found out that the request for reconsider
ation had been turned down upon his receipt of the papers
on the morning of January 20 (1872), he made a hurried
trip to Manila where he apprised the Manila authorities of
the possible consequences of the new policy.
In his personal appeal, not only did Butler plead for the
retention of the tax exemption, the removal of which would
result in serious disturbances, but also begged for a rein
forcement of his men who were not sufficient to cope with
any eventuality.
With Izquierdo’s refusal to reconsider his action and
also to grant the request for an additional force, Butler
found himself helpless and, therefore, in disgust, tendered
his irrevocable resignation as the military governor of
Cavite. Another army officer, Colonel Roxas, was named
his successor and immediately dispatched to Cavite.
With this background, the restless and discontented
artillery men garrisoned at Fort San Felipe as well as the
marines and laborers in the naval arsenal, both in the town
of Cavite, decided to revolt, especially so after they had
received their pay on January 20 (1872) and found out that
deductions had already been made.
They were undoubtedly provoked to mutiny by Filipino
and Spanish agitators. At the head of these provocators
was Francisco Zaldua, a fonner Bicolano artillery man from
Camarines Norte, who, as a protege of Fr. Gomez, succeeded
somehow in influencing the soldiers to join the revolt.
Other suspected agitators were Antonio Rufian, a lay brother
of the Order of San Juan de Dios; Fr. Mariano Gomez (no r ■■
relation to the martyred priest, Mariano Gomes de los Ange <

les), Spanish prior of the Recollect convent; and Fr. Claudio
■
92 SOL II. GWEKOH
del Arceo, who doubled for Fr. Jose A. Burgos and in the
garb of a secular priest went throughout Cavite province
days prior to the January 20 mutiny inciting the people to
rise in arms.
As January 20 was pay day, the arsenal workers got
paid. Soon after receiving their salaries at about 5 p. m..
they discovered that the cost of their cedulas and those of
their families had been deducted. Immediately they became
tumultuous and in their anger even went after the pay
masters and the other civilian employees who had to run
for their lives.
As the marines and the artillery men sympathized with
their fellow workers, they immediately joined the revolt led
by Sergeant La Madrid. The revolt spread out to the fort
and became a challenge to the might of the Spanish adminis
trators.
At the trial held later, the 200 aggrieved men were
made to appear as having conspired with the Filipino troops
in Manila in staging the bloody overnight uprising which
in history is known as the Cavite Mutiny. It was alleged
that by mutual agreement the Manila troops were to begin
the hostilities with the firing of rockets from the city hall.
However, since no such agreement ever existed between the
Manila and the Cavite groups, the firing by the Cavite
mutineers of shots that actually started the revolt at the
same time that the display of fireworks of a fiesta in the
district of Sampaloc in Manila took place, and the fact that
both events occurred in the same night (January 20), were
mere coincidences.
With the fireworks’ display which studded the Manila
sky with bursting rockets, the mutineers stormed Fort San
Felipe and the arsenal. As the ranking Filipino officer in
the fort and the author and instigator of the revolt, La
Madrid put on a lieutenant’s insignia and took command of
the assault. When Lieutenant Rodriguez, commanding offi
cer of the fort, drew his sword as a sign of defiance to the
order for his surrender, La Madrid shot him instantly.
i
Then proceeding to the ward of the two Spanish army of

ficers — Lieutenants Montesinos and Morquecho — he
found them already held prisoners. Without much ado, they
willingly joined him and shared in the command. In this
assault on the fort, several were wounded while the others
were taken prisoners.
His success made La Madrid bold and ambitious. He
made an attempt to seize the town of Cavite. But in the
subsequent attack, he found the town already fully gar-
Hsoned by an infantry and the passage separating it from
the fort well guarded by the numerically superior regiment
deployed by Colonel Roxas and Lieutenant Colonel Sawa.
Having no other recourse open to him, he and his men re
treated in haste. After putting up a defensive position,
they contented themselves firing intermittently at the town.
To make the already sleeping residents of Cavite aware
of their triumph, the mutineers fired a cannon at 10 o’clock
that same night. However, the easy victoiy of the Filipino
rebels was short-lived, for the uprising was immediately
reported to the Spanish authorities in Manila who lost no
time in taking the necessary steps to quell the revolt.
Not only that but to their great dismay the rebels
found out at dawn of Sunday, January 21, that the Filipino
members of Infantry Regiment No. 7 betrayed them, for
despite their promise to join in the uprising they were
discovered to be preparing an attack directed against them.
At 8:05 o’clock that morning, the military governor of
Cavite sent the first of two dispatches overland to Manila.
After reporting the strength of the enemy to be 200 rebels
from the artillery battalion, marine detachment, and the
arsenal, he requested the immediate dispatch of reinforce
ments. Then he added, “They are surrounded; I am re
inforcing positions. Some officers are wounded and 11 are
dead.” During the assault on the enemy, he also kept the
governor general (Izquierdo) informed of its progress by
dispatches sent by water transportation.
94 SOL II. GWEKOH
That same morning, the relief troops consisting of two

Filipino infantry regiments (Nos. 1 and 2) and one artillery
brigade under the command of Segundo Cabo (Vice Captain
General) Felipe Genoves y Espinar boarded the steamboats
Filipino, Manila, Isabel I and Isabel II, and landed in Cavite
town. A naval force under General Manuel Carballo also ar
rived on time to extend aid. Aboard the three-master Bu-
lusan gunboat, the steam vessels Manila and Isabel I, and
the schooners Santa Filomena and Comandante, they start
ed firing with their four cannons at the fort where the
Filipino rebels were entrenched.
With the arrival of more loyalist troops in Cavite, the
fort was completely surrounded. At 11 o’clock, artillery
pieces from the auxiliary vessel Filipino which also came
from Manila were landed. More firing at the fort continued
and remained unabated up to the night. By nightfall, the
rebels in the fort diminished their rifle and cannon fire.
Nine rebels were caught escaping by the 20 loyalist guards,
known as panaderos, who surrounded the pier, while “be
tween seven and 12 were killed,” so reported the command
ing general to the governor in Manila.
The next day (Monday, January 22), the assault on
the fort by artillery fire was resumed at 5:45 on the morn
ing. Of the six cannons utilized, two made direct fire in
an attempt to demolish the thick wooden door of the fort.
Two infantry columns also moved towards the fort and
scaled the northwest portion of the walls with their movable
ladders.
As soon as the artillery attack had stopped, the com
manding general ordered two batteries to enter the fort
at seven o’clock to the tune of martial music. With shouts
of “Viva Espaiia!” the national flag of Spain was hoisted
to fly over the Royal Fort of San Felipe.
When the rebels found the futility of continuing with
their resistance because of lack of food in the fort, they
hoisted a white flag over a bastion. As the commanding
general allowed them to surrender, he ordered the main
'(
gate of the fort opened. An eight-man group came out

meekly bearing the flag of surrender. As soon as they were
15 paces in front of the loyalist troops, they were fired at
on orders of the commanding general. All fell dead.
Then the assaulting troops chased the remaining Fili
pinos with the paso a cuchillo punitive practice. Some 30
rebels who refused to surrender were bayoneted fatally, in
cluding their overall commander, Sergeant La Madrid, and
Lieutenant Montesinos; while 40 others were taken prison
ers. Of the loyalists three were killed and 18 sustained
wounds.
After taking possession of the fort, Ginoves directed
the assault of the arsenal. But before the laborers could
flee and save themselves, his men caught a big group as it
tried to escape to the hinterlands and captured another as
it attempted to swim to the sea.
A third group remained concealed in the various hidden
nooks of the arsenal until the place was later returned to
the Navy. These mutineers were taken prisoners and tried
by a separate naval court created by Admiral MacCrohon
soon after Spain had sustained the jurisdiction of the Navy
over them.
At 9:49 on the morning of that Monday (January 22),
the commanding general sent this confidential report to the
captain general in Manila: “Asegurese la persona del Padre
Burgos, cura de San Pedro, por convenir el servicio.” (Take
into custody Father Burgos, rector of San Pedro parish,
for the good of the service).
Before noon of the third day of assault (Tuesday,
January 23), the Cavite mutiny was completely and success
fully suppressed “in a quick and ruthless manner.” The
commanding general left Cavite for Manila together with
his two regiments (Nos. 1 and 2) and the captured rebels
aboard the commercial boats.22
22 Diary of operations of Lt. Col. Luis Roig de Lluiz, dated January’ 25

1872, now kept in folder 18(2-1-1-1-15 at the Archivo Servicio Historico
Militar.
96 SOL H. GWEKOH
Of the Cavite insurrection, Governor General Izquierdo

made a lengthy report to the Minister of Wai- on January
23 (1872). Of the possible causes of the mutiny, he said
that definitely the revolt was motivated and prepared by
the native clergy, a handful of mestizos and native lawyers,
and the so-called abogadillos.
Almost at this same time, a printed sheet “containing
a threat of an insurrection” was distributed surreptitiously
among the workers of the navy yard in Cavite. A subse
quent investigation brought out the fact that the piece came
from the printing press “belonging to a religious institution
under the direction of the Archbishop.” Upon getting the re
port on the matter, the governor general “charged the Arch
bishop as being responsible for it .... ” (but was prevailed
upon to withdraw his charge by the prelate’s angry
denial) .23
Izquierdo also disclosed the plans for an uprising which
were conceived as early as 1869 by a group of conspirators
said to be headed by Father Pedro Pablo Pelaez. This group
formed a junta or center for the purpose of enlisting mem
bers and “as a pretext established a society which under
took the teaching of arts and trades.” Later Izquierdo him
self suspended the society.
The mutiny was publicly revealed in the issue of the
Gaceta de Manila, the official government organ, of January
22. It said,
Inhabitants of the Philippines:
On the night of the 20th, a handful of deluded
(persons) from the artillery and navy who gar
risoned the Cavite arsenal and its fortress, seduced
and deceived by a gang of traitors, hapless ingrates
to noble Spain, lacking in their sacred oaths and
committing outrages and murders, raised the
23 The Crime of Padre Burgos by Eliseo Quirino.

standard of rebellion against the mother country in

the said fortress.
The banner of the rebels flew over the fortress
for a period no longer than necessary to organize
the (loyalist) forces of attack.
As disclosed by Izquierdo, the native priests had a hand
in the mutiny. The incident not only gave the Spaniards
an excuse for associating the Filipino priests who advocated
the Filipinization of the parishes but also for magnifying
the mutiny into a revolt against Spanish rule in the Phil
ippines.
The Spaniards likewise pinpointed to three Filipino
priests — Fathers Burgos, Gomes and Zamora — as the
persons directly responsible for this uprising. Their ene
mies saw in the Cavite mutiny a splendid opportunity to
get rid of them once and for all. At this moment their own
brethren of the cloth recalled that they were the chief op
ponents of the Recollect scheme to get back all the rich
parishes about Manila in return for giving up their missions
in Mindanao to the Jesuits. In the particular case of Burgos,
he made the startling expose in a Spanish newspaper of
the robbery of the rich jewels and funds of the famous
Antipolo shrine committed by the friar who had charged of
that rich parish. To get even with them, a Recollect friar
from Zambales “pretended to be Burgos and bribed the
Cavite garrison to mutiny through two Spanish sergeants
who wanted money for gambling.”2*
Detennined to put down Burgos by all means, his ene
mies saw to it that he got what was due to him. His enemies
even went to the extent of making “a mysterious secular
priest go around Cavite province and the arsenal presum
ably laying down the plans for the uprising.” Witnesses
claimed that the “mysterious secular priest” who made the
trips was no other than Burgos.
*F”ars’ Fr??nasons “d ,™Pin°s> by Austin Crais> in Far Ea^"i

■ mason., June 1918, quoted in Why?, by Frederic H. Stevens, supreme grand
commander, Supreme Council of the Philippine^.
J
98 SOL II. GWEKOH
On the other hand, a 53-year-old Jose Templo, a resident

of Lipa, Batangas, told the U.S.—Philippine Commission
on September 24, 1900, that the three priests were the
“victims of the hatred of the vengeful friars — Frs. Abaya,
Buendia, and others difficult to mention.”
No less than Izquierdo himself revealed to the Minister
of War the plan of the Indios to establish a monarchical or
a republican form of government with a priest placed at
the head. Then he added, “and there were great possibilities
— nay, a certainty — that the head selected would be D.
Jose Burgos or D. Jacinto Zamora, parish priests of S. Pedro
de Manila.” 25
In his cabled report, Izquierdo said, “I am personally
convinced that they alone are the authors of the suppressed
rebellion in Cavite.” Then he added, “It is indispensable
and urgent to extirpate from the root the focus (of treason)
of these dozen wretches, the only ones who do not see with
pleasure the Spanish domination. It is urgent and neces
sary to deport them, the only ones capable of seducing the
unwary and of producing conflicts like the recent sup
pressed uprising.”
One of the smallest revolts in Philippine history, the
Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was made to appear as “a widespread
armed movement against Spanish sovereignty.” Filipino
historians and scholars however are unanimous that the
Cavite mutiny was inspired and masterminded by some
Spanish friars who did not like the Filipino clergy to rise.
Although the Cavite revolt did not have any political signifi
cance being only a “brawl between the disgusted, desperate
native soldiers and their haughty, intolerant and despotic
superiors,” yet it was encouraged to grow into, first, a mu
tiny and, later, an insurrection if only to implicate the three
Filipino priests (Burgos, Gomes, and Zamora) and involve
25 In case of a monarchy, Father Burgos was accused of aspiring to be the

King, or in a republic, the president; while Father Zamora would be either
a minister or a cabinet member under the same set-up of government.
J
i
the other liberalminded Filipinos who were branded as

rebels before the King and the Church. The Spanish au
thorities also chose to magnify this little Cavite incident
in order to have ample justification for the executions and
banishments that took place. Whatever is said about it, this
:I
insignificant revolt greatly “stimulated the rising tide of
Filipino nationalism and encouraged the Filipino reform
propag-anda both at home and abroad.” , <-
2. FATE OF THE MUTINEERS
EVEN before the 36-hour Cavite mutiny had been

quelled, the Spanish authorities were already making mass
arrests of all the persons suspected of complicity in the re
volt. With the support of the soldiers, the civil guards
fanned out in Manila, in the suburbs of Binondo, Pandacan,
Quiapo, Sampaloc, Santa Ana, and Tondo, and in Cavite in
an attempt to round up all suspects in the suppressed up
rising. Trusted employees of the Superior Civil Govern
ment were also delegated to ransack minutely the confiden
tial files of the different government offices for the names
of the persons who could have had connection with the
mutiny.
The night after the revolt, the civil governor of Manila
had arrested Filipino leaders and known reformers. They in
cluded 11 priests, six lawyers, six businessmen, and a for
mer government official. Those arrested were Fathers
Mariano Gomes, Feliciano Gomez, Justo Guason, Jose Gue
vara, Miguel de Loza, Toribio H. del Pilar and Vicente del
Rosario; Lawyers Pedro Carillo, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Ger-
vasio Sanchez, and Bartolome Serra; Businessmen Jose Ma.
Basa, Pio Ma. Basa, Maximo Inocencio, Balbino Mauricio,
Crisanto de los Reyes, and Vicente Zabala.
Arrested were persons who received either letters from
Europe and Hongkong and which were ordered examined
by Governor General De la Torre or copies of the Correo de
Ultramar newspaper. They were Fathers Jose A. Burgos
and Jacinto Zamora, and Juan Adriano, Ambrosio Rianzares
100
Bautista, Jose Gabriel Esquivel, Manuel Fuentes, Tomas

Fuentes, Angel Garchitorena, Joaquin Loizala (son), Enri Ji
que de Leon, Agustin Mendoza, Enrique Paraiso, Maximo
Paterno, Ignacio Rjocha, and Joaquin Pardo de Tavera.
On January 22 (1872) Governor Izquierdo informed
the Minister of Ultramar (Overseas) of the imprisonment
of four priests and five civilians — all Filipinos — at Fort
Santiago where they were held incommunicado. These in
dividuals were the priests — Jose A. Burgos, second curate I •
of the Manila Cathedral; Feliciano Lopez, Mariano Gomes,
priest of Bacoor, Cavite; and Agustin Mendoza, priest of
Santa Cruz, Manila — and the civilians — Jose Maria Basa,
a businessman; Pio Basa and Enrique Paraiso, both old
government employees; Antonio Ma. Regidor, a prominent
lawyer and municipal adviser; and Joaquin Pardo de Tavera,
director of the administration. Burgos was in his bedroom
at the Manila Cathedral when he was arrested.
In his private letter (No. 374) dated January 22, 1872,
addressed to the Minister of Ultramar (Overseas) in Madrid,
Spain, Superior Civil Governor Rafael de Izquierdo, who
was also the captain general of the Spanish army in the Phil
! ■’
ippines, gave the assurance that these detained persons
would be “duly punished to the full extent of the law” if i :
found guilty or would be banished to the Marianas Islands
if found innocent.
Pertinent portions of Izquierdo’s letter, labelled “re-
servado” or confidential, follow:
I do not know what will happen to . . . those
who are being prosecuted in Cavite, but public opin
ion, impartial persons, clear evidence of moral char
acter, and confidential news which for long I have
of these persons, are all sufficient grounds to me
for intimate conviction, that they alone are the au
thors of the suppressed sublevation of Cavite. If
their guilt is proven, the verdict of the law shall be
inexorable against them; but if, as it may happen,
having into consideration the circumstances of
102 SOL II. GWEKOH
those deceived and seduced, said persons are ac

quitted, I am ready too to adopt with them an ener
getic measure, their banishment to Marianas. It
is indispensable and urgent to root out the focus
of this dozen of miserables, the only ones who do
not see with pleasure the domination of Spain in
these far-off regions. It is indispensable and ur
gent to expel from the country those persons, the
only ones capable of seducing the unaware and of
provoking conflicts as the last one recently sup
pressed, but not without the loss of precious Span
ish blood.
The following days saw the arrest of more persons.
Taken to prison were the priests — Jose Guevarra, Miguel
Laza, Mariano Sevilla, and Jacinto Zamora; the merchants
— Maximo Inocencio, Balbino Mauricio, and Maximo Pater-
no; Crisanto de los Reyes, a lawyer; Francisco Zaldua, a
former soldier; Ramon Maurente and Mauricio Dandan.
In its issue of January 28, the Gaceta de Manila, official
publication of the Spanish administration, disclosed that 28
of the 41 surrenderees who were originally meted the death
sentence by the court-martial two days earlier (January 26)
were pardoned by the Captain General in “interpreting
faithfully the natural and august sentiment of the magnan
imous heart of H. M., the King of Spain.” These 41 “un
fortunates,” claimed the Gaceta, forgot “their sacred oath
and, listening to the suggestions of the cowards, rose against
the glorious flag of Spain.”
The remaining 13 Filipino marines were executed. Nine
were shot on the Bagumbayan Field in Manila on January
27 at seven o’clock on the morning, while four faced the
firing squad in Cavite. A vivid description of the actual
execution in Manila, which was held in front of the intrench-
ment (espaldon) follows:
All the elements of the military garrison were
ordered to be present, except the European artillery
companies which sent only 80 of their men, for
they had to keep watch at Fort Santiago. Drawn

in battle formation, the soldiers formed a square
with the line of the Artillery Regiment facing the
Manila Bay. At the sides of the square the Moun
tain Battery and the Squadron of Lancers were
placed, also in battle formation. In the background
were the curious onlookers.
The order of the day provided that as soon
as the offenders, escorted by their guards, reach
the square, their sentence will be read to them,
after which they were to be executed by a firing
squad composed of native soldiers.26
The execution having been carried out, the
drums rolled and the troops paraded before the
00112565, after which the troops passed in review
before His Excellency at the Paseo de las Aguadas
near the Puerta Real.27
The court-martial continued with its work. On the eve
ning of February 6 (1872) a group of 11 Filipino soldiers
belonging to the artillery regiment were given the death
sentence. They were Rafael Calda, Eduardo Carpio, Sebas
tian Casaba, Gaspar Mariano, Margarito Non, Victor Obnilla,
Placido Pruedo, Juan de los Santos, Juan Talla, Isidro Vas-
quez, and Cleto Yances. Their agony was however cut short
for on the next day (February 7) the Superior Civil Gover
nor commuted their sentence to life imprisonment, giving
as reason the faithful interpretation of the “inexhaustible
sentiments of clemency and magnanimity of the August
Monarch who reigns over the destiny of Spain and its over
seas dominions.”
Even the members of the Compania de Guias De la
Torre de Cavite were not spared. This band of disgruntled
residents whom Governor De la Torre brought back to peace-
Burgos-Gomes-Zamora Centennial Commission Bulletin No. 7, 1971.

27In accordance with Article 6 of the Order of the Court-Martial.’ Same
Commission Bulletin No. 7, 1971.
104 SOL H. GWEKOH
ful living was involved by his enemies in the Cavite mutiny

and was severely dealt with.
Casimiro (Eduardo) Camerino, the leader of the Cavite
agrarian movement who was enjoying the pardon granted
by De la Torre, was sentenced on February 8 to die. At
seven o’clock on the morning of the next day (February 9),
he was led to the Bagumbayan Field and, in the presence
of a cavalry squadron and a composite company of soldiers
from the different garrisons in Manila, he was garroted.
His men were also pronounced guilty of complicity in
the mutiny. Eleven were given the 10-year prison stretch
with retention, while 16 got acquitted. Those imprisoned
were Juan Algar, Narciso Cabrera, Gervasio Camagio, Car
los de Guzman, Basilio Lucai, Guillermo Marquez, Nicolas
Paras, Cayetano Rufido, Juan Saico, Elias Sailon, and An
tonio Sotero.
Of the four civilians who were tried together with the
three condemned priests, three were sentenced to ten years’
imprisonment. They were Maximo Inocencio, Enrique Pa
raiso, and Crisanto de los Reyes.
While others were condemned to death, the following
were deported to the Marianas Islands: Agustin Mendoza,
parish priest of Santa Cruz, Manila; Jose Guevara, parish
priest of Quiapo, Manila; Miguel de Lasa, chaplain of the
Cathedral in Manila; Mariano Sevilla, chaplain of the mili
tary hospital; Justo Guason, co-adjutor at the Cathedral;
Fathers Pedro Dandan, Anacleto Desiderio, Toribio H. del
Pilar28, and Vicente del Rosario; the lawyers — Enrique
Basa, Pedro Carillo, Mauricio de Leon, Antonio Ma. Regidor,
Gervasio Sanchez, Jose Basa y Enriquez, and Joaquin Pardo
de Tavera; and the businessmen — Jose Ma. Basa, Pio Basa,
Balbino Mauricio, and Maximo Patemo.
28 Fr. Toribio H. del Pilar was the oldest brother of Marcelo H. del Pilar.
His banishment affected greatly the thinking of his brother. He therefore
pledged to be a lawyer so he could "combat the abuses of the Spaniards and
thus restore justice to his much-abused countrymen.”
In the case of the three alleged mutineers — Marines

Segundo Asuncion and Anselmo Vela Carillo, and Octavio ;)i
Velasquez of the Infantry Regiment No. 7 — the court gave
them nine days from February 20 within which to appear
and answer the charges. Failure on their part meant sent
ence by default.
I
For being a co-author of the rebellion, Marine Narciso
Gerzola was sentenced by the court on March 18 to be shot,
but Governor Rafael de Izquierdo y Gutierrez extended his
clemency by commuting the original sentence to life impris
onment.
Izquierdo proved equally benevolent in the case of
Marines Agustin Abiang, Jose Bernardo, and Rufino de los
Reyes who were sentenced to be shot on April 11 as well
as in that of Marines Eleno Andaya and Vicente Salpado
who were also to be shot on June 7 and August 3, respective
ly. He however commuted their sentences to life imprison
ment.
On December 28 the court ordered Second Sergeant Bo
nifacio Octavio of Regiment No. 7 to die by default, but the
verdict was later changed to life imprisonment. The last
recorded sentence handed down by the tribunal before it
finally adjourned was meted on Dalmacio Hintay on Decem
ber 19, but the prompt grant of pardon saved him from
death.
Many of the mutineers banished to the Marianas Islands
died in exile because of the negligence of Governor General
Juan de Alaminos y Vivar (January 14, 1873-March 18,
1874) to execute the orders of the Madrid government to
free the prisoners.
The year following their exile — 1873 — three pris
oners — Vicar Agustin Mendoza, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera,
and Maximo Patemo — submitted their individual appeals
to the Supreme Council, alleging that since they were civil
ians when arrested in their respective homes, they should
not have been judged in a military court.
106 SOL H. G WE KOH
When their cases were taken up, the Council decided

to pardon them, and D. Estanislao Figueras, president of
the Republic of Spain, signed the order of pardon.
But Captain General Alaminos in Manila did not only
carry out the order but also suspended the voyages of the
ships bound for Guam. As a result, many mutineer-prisoners
died in exile.
3. TRIAL BY MILITARY COURT
AFTER working day and night getting people to be

witnesses and making countless other sign confessions and
testimonies based mostly on hearsays and fabrications, the
administration finally succeeded in building up a case against
a group of seven men — three priests and four civilians.
The priests — Jose Apolonio Burgos, Mariano Gomes de los
Angeles, and Jacinto Zamora y del Rosario — together with
the civilians — Maximo Inocencio and Crisanto de los Reyes,
businessmen; Enrique Paraiso, a former government em
ployee; and Francisco Zaldua, a former soldier who became
a firewood supplier for the fort — were brought to court
to face charges presented against them and stand trial.
To accept the charges and deliberate on them, a seven
man military court, or a council of war (consejo de guerra),
was constituted. It was composed exclusively of officers
of the Spanish Army. A lieutenant colonel, a major, and five
captains formed the tribunal. Presiding it was Infantry
Lieutenant Colonel Francisco Moscoso y Lara.29 The mem
bers were known enemies of the priests.
The prosecuting fiscal, Major Manuel Boscasa y Perez,
charged them of the crime of conspiracy against the political
25 The six members of tire court were D. Juan Canizares, captain of the In
fantry Regiment Magallanes; D. Enrique Tobar, brevet commandant captain
of Reyna No. 2; D. Eustaquio Guijon, of Infanta No. 4; D. Federico Novellas
D. Francisco Solano, and D. Jose Montalvo, captains of Regiment No 1’
They were assisted by the military assessor, D. Jose Luciano Roca
107
108 SOL II. GWEKOH
constitution of the State, and that of being the prime movers

of the military mutiny that broke out among the troops
stationed at Cavite on January 20, 1872. In other words,
they were accused of the crime of conspiracy and mutiny,
with the object of detaching the Archipelago from the sov
ereign country — Spain—and “proclaiming it a Republic,
thereby undermining the integrity of the monarchy.”
For these alleged criminal offenses, Burgos and his co
accused priests were tried separately from the rest in ut
most secrecy by the court on February 15, 1872. Since trials
conducted by the military court were always held behind
closed doors, their proceedings were kept secret and never
divulged to the general public. As the Burgos group was
tried in this way, nobody was certain whether or not they
were readily found guilty of the charges imputed to them
and for which they were condemned to death. In fact, in
the trial that they underwent, they were “not given a fair
chance to defend themselves.” They were denied the due
process of law. They were not allowed to take the witness
stand on their behalf.
While it could not be denied that they were active par
ticipants in the agitation for reforms favorable to the Fili
pino secular clergy, yet it was not true that they were real
ly implicated in the Cavite uprising. Even in the mock trial
attended mostly by friars, all that came out from the testi
monies was that Burgos instigated the mutiny because he
“wanted to become a Rey Indio or a President of the
Republic.”
Convened at the Cuartel de Banderas (Hall of Flags)
in Fort Santiago in Manila, at four o’clock on the afternoon
of February 15 (1872), the court did not admit the accused
one by one into the chamber until five hours later (at about
nine o’clock) and for each one to hear the charges against
them and listen to their defense. As early as five o’clock
the accused left their confinement room for the small yard
(patio) leading to the trial hall.
During the patient waiting, Burgos, who was of san

guine temperament, appeared nervous and was greatly af
fected by the case. Since he was the first of the three priests
to ascend to the patio, he rushed forward to meet Father
Zamora as soon as he saw him being brought in. Seeing the
friends locked in a tight fraternal embrace, Father Gomes
“stood up and softly blessed his colleagues in misfortune,
who advanced towards him to respectfully kiss his hands.”50
When Burgos, who was seated in a white Paete wooden
armchair that afternoon, saw some 15 Filipino prisoners,
particularly Father Mendoza, Jose Maria Basa, and Antonio
Ma. Regidor, watching him, he “bowed his head and, covering
his face with his hands, concealed the tears that flowed from
his cheeks.”
When the judicial rites finally reached the point when
the prosecutor read his charges, he presented a voluminous
file of documents consisting of sworn statements of alleged
witnesses, fabricated testimonies and hearsay evidences “ob
tained by duress and cruel tortures from false witnesses.”
Then he ended by asking for the death penalty by garrote
vil for the three priests and Zaldua, and an imprisonment of
ten years for the remaining three.
The proceedings were “clearly rigged to lead to their
conviction.” In his failure to present sufficient proofs to
support the charges, the government prosecutor resorted
to bribing one of the co-accused — the Bicolano soldier,
Zaldua — in order to make false testimony implicating the
triumvirate priests. He was promised money and immunity
in return for his cooperation. While the court found no
conclusive proofs to pronounce them guilty, the biased
50 An account of the trial of Fathers Burgos, Gomes and Zamora, written

by Antonio Ma. Regidor and published in the Filipinos Ante Europa, Volume
If, No. 9, February 28, 1900, and republished in English in the Commission’s
Bulletin.
110 SOL II. GWEKOH
judges accepted testimony piejudicial to the accused during

the mock trial.3’
The evidence against Burgos rested on the testimony
of a friar who said he heard a third party assert that Burgos
“had been seen in the Cavite navy yard several times before
the mutiny.” However, the person alluded to by the friar
was never presented in court as the prosecution claimed that
he was “confined in a convent too ill to come out” and testi
ly personally. To make up for his absence, a written de
position was taken at the place of confinement of the wit
ness, and presented in court. And the court accepted it as
evidence against the personable and friendly Father Burgos.
The defense lawyers who were dutybound to protect
their clients did nothing to defend them nor to save their
lives. They merely sought the mercy of the tribunal to par
don them. Even Dr. Jose de Arrieta, a Spanish captain and
a professor of law at the University of Santo Tomas, who
claimed to have been chosen the counsel de oficio by the
judges to defend Burgos, exerted no efforts to argue his case
for the acquittal of Burgos. Since Arrieta was closely as
sociated with the friars and was a personal enemy of Burgos
as a result of past misunderstandings during the regime of
Governor De la Torre, not only did he ignore the data fur
nished by his client but also disregarded his instructions.
In addition, he made of record that the Burgos case was
hopeless inasmuch as Burgos had admitted his guilt to him.
As Arrieta made this damaging testimony, he begged the
mercy of the court, telling the jurors that “Burgos has con
fessed or at least tacitly admitted his guilt.” All he did was
to ask for grace and pardon for Burgos.
But Ameta’s unfounded testimony and his high-hand
ed conduct infuriated and outraged the priest’s keen sense
31 The records of the trial of the three Filipino priests have not been
made available. They were personally kept by Governor General Rafael de
Izquierdo y Gutierrez in Manila during his term and were taken to Spain on
his return. They are not also found in any military or foreign affairs archives
in Madrid.
1
of honesty and justice that Burgos jolted from his seat as

he flared up and shouted angrily in addressing the court,
“1 have not confessed anything for I am not guilty of the
crime imputed to me. Neither did I plead guilty nor stand
convicted. That is not my defense. That gentleman (point
ing to Arrieta) has changed it. I deny all the charges
launched against me. They have no basis both in fact and
in law.”
Burgos was then interrupted, “Will the defendant
keep quiet?” the presiding judge said, otherwise, he will
be expelled from the hall.”
“But I have to defend myself.”
“Talk when your turn comes, and if I deem it neces
sary,” the judge commanded, “and 1 warn you that right
now I have no time to discuss with you further. You must
keep quiet.”
Like the other accused persons, Burgos was silenced
forever. He was never given the chance to air his side and
defend himself while the members of the court-martial had
all the time for themselves. Besides, it was getting late and
the court had to expedite the proceedings.
At about nine o’clock, an aide of Izquierdo came to in
form the court that the general wanted to read the proceed
ings and the verdict and to act on the case before he re
tired that night. So Moscoso terminated the proceedings
abruptly as he ordered the accused returned to their res
pective places of confinement inasmuch as the court wanted
the hall by itself.
An hour later (10 o’clock), while the Cathedral bells
were tolling the queda (taps), the court members signed the
decision which, by unanimous vote, imposed the death penal
ty by garrote vil on the four accused and slapped a ten-year
imprisonment on the remaining three.
After the court members had rendered their verdict on
tor de guerra (military assessor), took a carriage bound for
the case, both Izquierdo’s aide and Manuel Asensi, the audi-
> &
112 SOL II. GWEKOH
the Malacanang Palace to see personally and confer with

the governor general.
Upon being informed of the court’s findings, Izquierdo
referred the sentence to Asensi, who was required to hold
office in the palace that night, for his comments. Immediate
ly, he made the following report: “I find it (the sentence)
in accord with the present legislation which the said court
has applied and with the merits of the case. I am therefore
of the opinion that Your Excellency can approve it and have
the said sentence executed in all its parts, but Your Excel
lency, as always, will decide on what is most just.”
Back to Izquierdo that same night of February 15, the
governor general concurred with the opinion and forth
with signed the decision and ordered its execution. “I ap
prove the aforesaid opinion of the military assessor,” he
wrote. “Return the record to the president of the permanent
court-martial of this fort for execution.”
For seven hours — from the time the court was con
vened to the hour the officials left — a big crowd remained
gathered on the Plaza de Armas, which was located in front
of the Cuartel de Banderas (Hall of Flags) in Fort Santia
go, eagerly and patiently awaiting the news of the verdict.
In the crowd was Maximo Paterno, a Filipino businessman,
who walked to and fro as if expecting for someone from
the fort. When Asensi left hastily for the palace, Patemo
jumped into his own waiting coach and followed him. But
unable to overtake him, Paterno went directly to Asensi’s
house on San Anton, Sampaloc, where he met him after mid
night.
When Paterno inquired of the court’s decision, Asensi
replied, “Death penalty; they will be placed immediately in
the chapel.” Upon hearing him, Patemo handed Asensi a
package and said quietly, “You have here 25,000 pesos. If
this is not sufficient, tell me how much more you need. It
is indispensable that you do not agree in your opinion with
the verdict of the court.”
“It is too late,” Asensi answered, “I have just signed li

my opinion in Malacaiiang and General Izquierdo had dictat
ed in continent! his approval of the verdict and the order
for its immediate execution. Had you talked to me before
I went to Malacaiiang we would have reached an under
standing. What a loss! Es una lastima!”
At six o’clock on the morning of the next day (Feb
ruary 16), the three accused priests were gathered in the
guardroom of Fort Santiago and there Major Boscasa read
the decision. They were sentenced to be executed by gar
rote vil, a penalty meted out in accordance with Article I
of the law dated April 17, 1821, for “their fully proven
participation in the said crimes.” An hour later (seven
o’clock), they boarded the closed but elegant coach with
four seats drawn by two lively horses for the ride to the
Engineers’ Barracks (later known as the Luneta Police
Headquarters) on Bagong-Bayan Road on the Luneta (now
the Rizal Park).
After hearing the verdict, Burgos cried loudly and
expressed the wish to see his sisters before leaving the
fort, but it was not granted. On his part Zamora requested
that his family in Pandacan be advised of his desire to
see them in the death house, while Gomes maintained a
stoic silence as he entered the waiting coach.
Of the short but eventful trip, Antonio Ma. Regidor,
who was also implicated in the Cavite mutiny, wrote:
Occupying the rear seat on the right was I
Gomes and on his left, Burgos. Facing the latter
was Zamora at whose side sat Major Boscasa. On
the driver’s seat with the coachmen was a penin
sular sergeant with bayonet in hand, while behind
the coach, marching along in the manner of foot
men, were two European corporals also with
bayonets in hand. Two other Spanish sergeants
were holding the bridle of the horses, while at
the sides of the coach a regiment formed an es
cort. Spread out in front of the coach, on both
■
114 SOL H. GWEKOH
sides and behind the regiment, was the cavalry.

In this set-up the three Filipino priests left Fort
Santiago, passing on the street between the Wall
and the rear of the ruined palace, leaving the city
by way of the Puerta de Postigo, and marched
along the beach of Santa Lucia up to the en
gineers’ quarters on Bagong-Bayan road. The
Filipinos, majority of them women, greeted their
beloved clergymen by waving handkerchiefs or
bowing their heads, unfazed by that show of
force. The trip from one quarters to another
was more than just a transfer of prisoners: it
was the triumphant march of the three victims of
the rale of the friars.
After the doomed men had heard the verdict, they
were accosted by the friars from the different orders who
had waited for hours to see them. The three priests were
then placed in solitary confinement in an improvised chap
el. Asked if they wanted something in the meantime,
Gomes sought the help of a lawyer in making his will. Of
his choice of a priest he answered, “Whomsoever you may
appoint, as long as he is a priest and the more hostile he
is the better, so they may know how clear my conscience
is.” On hearing of the verdict, Burgos broke into tears.
He and Zamora, who had lost his mind, refused to have a
friar to minister to their spiritual needs. Both preferred a
Jesuit.
That day (February 16) was passed differently by
each pi-iest. Burgos was “very much depressed. He woke
up now and then, his jagged nerves denying him a moment
of rest. He called for his sisters, his nephews, his class
mates and friends; he asked throughout the day for a
conference with the Archbishop and begged to see the
Captain General, constantly protesting against his com
plicity, the charges against him, and his sentence.” In his
last will, he bequeathed all his properties to his sister,
Antonia Burgos.
■
Gomes spent the day very quietly — in seclusion and II

prayer. In his last testament executed that day, he willed
his earthly belongings worth P200.000 to “a natural son
whom he had begotten before he became a priest and who
was also a presbyter.” He also made his last confession
before Recollect Fray Juan Gomez y Ortega, the secretary
of the provincial order.
For his part, Zamora was “extremely agitated, cry
ing and laughing at intervals.” In the afternoon he
manifested “signs of losing control of his mind, finally
becoming mentally paralyzed. He slept peacefully as
though he was in a stupor.”
When the night of February 16 came, a bold attempt
to rescue the three condemned priests was hatched by a
young woman resident of Manila known only as Clarita R.
de G. While Manilans spent the night in prayers and medi
tation, this woman, thinking that “it was the duty of the
natives to save by force” the imprisoned priests, got 60
bolo-armed men together.
She held them in the neighborhood of the death house
in readiness for any eventuality that might happen in the
daring attempt to help the priests escape. At ten o’clock
that night she appeared, “wearing a man’s attire with a
bolo at her belt,” and, together with three other young
women, was about to lead her resolute liberators but for
the timely intervention of friendly priests who stopped
her from further pursuing their noble but dangerous mis
sion.
Governor Izquierdo readily stamped his approval to
the death penalty and set the hour and date of execution
for eight o’clock on the morning of February 17 (1872).
The convicted priests in the meantime remained in their
solitary confinement at the Engineers’ Barracks on the
Luneta.
Notwithstanding Izquierdo’s action of ' '
c_" ordering ” ’
their
execution, the lives of the three condemned'priestl could
116 SOL II. GWEKOH
have been spared had the pardon granted by the King of

Spain been received in Manila on time. But it took a year
for the King’s grant of the petition of the priests for their
pardon to reach the Philippines. The King commuted their
sentence by execution to life imprisonment.
t
4. ECCLESIASTICAL DEGRADATION FOR

CONDEMNED PRIESTS?
DAYS before the three priests — Burgos, Gomes and

Zamora —were charged with the crimes of conspiracy
and sedition before the military court, attempts were male
by the church authorities and their families for the grant
of clemency to them by the governor general.
In his confidential letter dated January 24 (1872),
Archbishop Gregorio Meliton Martinez de Santa Cruz52
pleaded for clemency for the secular priests who were im
plicated in the Cavite mutiny. In this letter, the archbishop
said,
I beg you (the governor general) in the name
of religion to mitigate the penalties to the extent
that the laws and the maintenance of order and of
future tranquility permit, even avoiding, if possi
ble, the shedding of blood. This is what I hope
from the noble heart of Your Excellency, whose
generous sentiments I cannot but count on. Thus,
just as it has been strong and energetic in extin
guishing the flame of revolt, after the flame has
been put out, it will be kind and merciful with
5?Two years earlier the fair-minded Archbishop Gregorio Meliton Mar

tinez de Santa Cruz of Manila addressed his now historic letter to the
Regent of Spain. Dated December 31, 1870, he not only defended the Fili
pino clergy whom he found to have been much maligned but also recom
mended strongly to the proper authorities in Spain the "righting of the
injustices done to them. Archbtshop Martinez was in the Philippines
from looz to lo7o. r
117
I
118 SOL II. GWEKOH
the guilty, reconciling, in your well-known intelli

gence and prudence, mercy with the demands of
justice.
However, Izquierdo deemed it wise and proper to
ignore the request and so turned down the petition. On
February 15 (1872), Izquierdo advised the archbishop of
the verdict in the case of the three priests and requested
their ecclesiastical degradation. At the same time the pre
siding judge of the Permanent Court-Martial of Manila
submitted a copy of the sentence on the priests to Izquierdo
with the request that, if he thought it fitting, it be trans
mitted to the archbishop so that “he may proceed to the
degradation demanded.” Such canonical defrocking would
not only degrade and humiliate the condemned priests but
also complete their disgrace.
Inasmuch as the group of provincials, priors and vicars
forane in the archbishop’s palace was creating unnecessary
noise in their attempt to influence somehow the thinking
of the archbishop, he organized immediately a permanent
ecclesiastical tribunal for the sole purpose of conducting-
canonical proceedings. At four o’clock that afternoon,
standing courageously and energetically on his ground, he
announced fearlessly his stand: He was not acceding to
the petition of the governor general as he found no evi
dence against the priests and, therefore, no ground for
their canonical degradation.
Informed of the stand taken by the archbishop,
Izquierdo created immediately a committee of three high
ranking government officials for the purpose of giving the
archbishop an insight into the “serious, grave, delicate,
transcendental and unfavorable political consequences” of
his decision.
Late that afternoon the committee composed of the
segundo cabo, General Espinar, the acting judge advocate
(Manuel Asensi), and Secretary Jose Patricio Clemente of
the Superior Civil Government went to see the archbishop.
Despite their supplications, he was unmoved and unyield-
ing as he maintained stoically his conviction and firm

belief in the innocence of the accused priests. Bluntly, he
told the trio, “I would never directly or indirectly support
the execution of the sentence which I considered to be the
most serious political blunder known in the archipelago.”
Then he added, “Hidalgo won the independence of Mexico;
behind all these executions, they will end up by kicking
us out of here, and they will be right.”
Failing miserably in their mission, the three emissar
ies contacted Bishop Francisco Gainza of Nueva Caceres
and Bishop Gimeno of Cebu, who happened to be visiting
Manila at the time, and requested them to see the arch
bishop. After a meeting with Martinez and a thorough
study of the case against the three priests, the two princes
of the church who, like their archbishop, were Spaniards
of great erudition “refused to endorse the defrocking of
the condemned priests” for they found them innocent of
the crime imputed to them.
Dominican Friar Gainza even went further. Knowing
full well the condemned priests and the facts of their case
— he was the former professor of canon law of Burgos —
he addressed this message to the government and insisted
that the prisoners be liberated. Said he, in part:
Pardon the prisoners and let no priests be
carried to the scaffold, because our robes are the
same, and if some go up there, others will follow,
and the struggle that has started in the sacristies
will be extended to all orders, and here will be the
end of the Catholic clergy with the loss of its
prestige and the consequent struggle for country.33
33 The Spanish text of the above pleading follows:

Indultese a los reos y no se lleve al patibulo a sacerdotes, porque nuestros
habitos son iguales, y si suben los unos, subiran luego los otros, y la luchi
que ha empezado en las sacristias, se extendera a todos los ordenes y aqui
concluira el clero catohco con su desprestigio y la lucha por la Patria.-
Artigas y Cuerva, Historia de Filipinos, Manila, 1916, pagina 501.
120 SOL H. GWEKOH
His turn having come, Archbishop Martinez refused

to disrobe the three priests on the pretext that he had to
see, read and study thoroughly the records of their trial
before “the Church could take such a drastic step” that
tended to humiliate them. As Izquierdo refused to show
the records, which he kept to himself throughout his res
idence in Manila, his unholy request was repudiated.
So significant was this refusal of their spiritual chief to
disrobe the three clerical victims that Rizal, in the opening
sentence of his dedication to his novel, entitled El Filibus-
terismo (The Reign of Greed), said, “The Church, by re
fusing to degrade you, has cast doubt on the crime of
which you have been held guilty.”
In denying Izquierdo’s request, the archbishop made
patent the doubts entertained by the Church in the guilt
of the three priests. His reply3'* to Izquierdo’s letter ex
plained clearly his need for the records of the proceedings
of the council before he could take up the defrocking act.
“I deem it indispensable to have a complete knowledge of
the case,” he began and added, “I beg that a copy of the rec
ords of the proceedings of the Council of War be furnished
me, as its perusal would enable me to foi-m a correct opinion
essential to cases wherein the severest penalty provided for
by Canon Law is imposed.”
For the second time Archbishop Martinez begged the
governor to reconsider his decision to go ahead with the
execution of the three priests. “Will the devout Filipino peo
ple be given the terrifying spectacle of the execution of the
three priests?” he sincerely asked. In imploring Izquierdo to
mitigate the death verdict, he expressed the hope that
Izquierdo’s “generous heart be more attuned to the senti
ments of mercy than to the harshness of justice.”
... 34 Unpublished letter is kept in the archives of the Servicio Historico

Militar in Madrid — Negociado de Ultramar, Filipinas, Arm. 14, Tab. 1,
Leg. 4.
I
Unmoved by the appeal, Izquierdo denied the arch

bishop’s request and insisted that the sentence must be
executed in order “to serve as a salutary lesson in the
future to those who intend to rebel against the integrity
of the Spanish territory.”
As the archbishop was fully convinced of their inno
cence in the crime attributed to them, he made this affirma
tion of his belief more vocal, patent, and significant. He
ordered the bells of all the Roman Catholic churches in
Manila’s various districts to toll a mournful requiem during
the hour that the three Filipino priest-martyrs — Burgos,
Gomes, and Zamora — were being garroted by men of the
administration. By this unprecedented and benevolent ac
tion of the archbishop, the church exposed to posterity
another “political iniquity committed by Spain in the
Philippines.”
5. THE EXECUTION BY GARROTE
THE 17th of February in 1872 is one infamous date in

Philippine history, for on this particular date a triumvirate
of nationalistic Filipino priests who were pillars in the re
ligious upheaval in the country offered themselves at the
altar of freedom and were thus garroted on the field of
Bagong-Bayan (Bagumbayan) in Manila. The garrote was
the “most barbarous and ruthless instrument of torture” in
the history of the country.
The three innocent victims of Spanish colonial injustice
were the highly educated, brilliant and patriotic Fathers
Burgos, Gomes and Zamora whose liberal and courageous
actuations as outstanding seculars contributed in no small
measure to the Filipinization of the parishes.
Condemned two days earlier (February 15), the sen
tence was carried out hastily. While their execution was
witnessed by a large motley and sombre-dressed crowd
from Manila, Bulacan, Cavite, Laguna and Pampanga, still
“only a few were entirely aware of the drama, the pathos,
and the tragedy involved in the gruesome spectacle they
were witnessing” at the moment.
When these priest-patriots were garroted, they wore
the long black robe of their clerical calling (black coat and
trousers, ecclesiastical collar, and bonnet-shaped black cap)
while their legs and arms were manacled. They also re
ceived Holy Communion and were given the apostolic bless-
122
ing by the secretary of Archbishop Martinez who likewise

informed them of the archbishop’s firm stand on their case
•li
— a decision which gave him justification to deny the gov
ernment's request to defrock them, so that they died priests
in good standing in the Church. Each one held a crucifix
firmly. With their glorious death was sounded the death
!
knell of Spanish tyranny and oppression over the entire
archipelago of the Philippines.
February 17 was a cloudy day. Long before dawn,
the residents of Manila, “the capital of the Kingdom of
New Castle, commonly known as Islas Filipinas,” were al
ready in great commotion and excitement. As early as
four o’clock men and women of all ages as well as children
began to arrive in groups and formed an immense human
mass that eventually encircled the small engineers’ quarters
on Bagong-Bayan field. Dressed in full mourning, their
faces showed extreme sadness. The Europeans occupied
the sides of the quarters.
Then the military came and positioned themselves. The
troops from the various garrisons in Manila were deployed
at different strategic points, while the European soldiers,
showing “distrust and fear by their manner and behavior,”
took their place on the top of the bastion of the prison ever
ready for any emergency. The peninsular artillery, armed
to the teeth, was assigned the combat positions in Fort
Santiago, ever “ready to fire at the least sign of rebellion.”
From a gunboat that docked at Barrio Concepcion, Gov
ernor General Rafael de Izquierdo y Gutierrez disembarked.
Followed immediately by a mounted cavalry battalion and
the general staff of the army, he then proceeded to the
prison’s bastion where, shortly after his arrival, the Span
ish flag was hoisted over the fort.
At exactly seven o’clock that morning, “half a compa
ny of each battalion in gala uniform formed a square in
front of the Espaldon,” narrated Antonio Ma. Regidor, a
Filipino eyewitness to the fateful event. In the center—
on a small mound about 200 meters — was the gallows with
124 SOL II. GWEKOH
its four stout, truncated posts. This was the garrote vii,
the device used in strangulating the criminals condemned
to death. This particular gallows consisted of a wooden
platform some ten meters square and one and a half meters
high. It was built with a wide wooden stairway without
balustrade and was provided with a small seat in front and
iron collars that were tightened from a large screw behind.
In command of the soldiers surrounding the gallows
was a lieutenant, while the troops occupying the nearby
strategic points were under Don Felipe Ginoves y Espinar,
the general second in command of the Army of the Philip
pines.
After the roll of military drums and the flourish of
trumpets that rent the air from the Engineers’ Barracks
were clearly heard, the main gate of the building was opened
wide to give way to a squad of sappers in gala uniform
from the battalion of engineers, followed by the squad of
drummers and buglers playing marches continuously, a com
mission of brothers belonging to the Cofradia de la Miseri-
cordia (Confraternity of Mercy), a platoon of soldiers with
drawn bayonets, and the two friars — a Franciscan and a
Recollect — accompanying 23-year-old Francisco Zaldua, the
misguided infomier-soldier who was the first to be garroted
that day despite his having consented to be a state witness.
A native of Daet, Camarines Norte, Zaldua left his
hometown and joined the Filipino artillery battalion in Ma
nila. An efficient soldier, he was soon promoted to the
rank of a sergeant. When he became the assistant of Lieu
tenant Faustino Villabrille, he married Dorotea Santos, of
Cavite, and retired from the service.
Zaldua was engaged in the firewood business when
the Cavite mutiny occurred. When the rebels were rounded
up by the Spaniards, he was arrested because he admitted
having gone around telling soldiers and workers to resist
the government forces. While he was confined in the Carcel
de Bilibid, the friars promised him both freedom and money
I
in exchange for a testimony implicating the three accused

priests.
In the death march to the gallows, Zaldua was all smiles
for he “was anticipating his pardon and reward.” But when
he faced the scaffold, he “broke down and cried that he was
induced to implicate falsely the condemned priests.” His
protestations however were cut short by the garrote that
ended his earthly life.
Then appeared Father Jacinto Zamora who, support
ed by two Jesuits, was being dragged as he did not care
to walk and did move with a vacant stare, having lost his
reason hours after he had heard the sentence. Friars from
different orders rendered him assistance.
Next came the venerable 73-year-old Father Mariano
Gomes who, with the support of two friars — an Augus
tinian and a Recollect — walked with serene dignity, showing
“neither affectation nor uneasiness; his placid countenance
reflected on the exterior the tranquility of his conscience”
and greeted and blessed the thousands of Filipinos who
“took off their hats to salute him or fell on their knees as
he passed by.”
The last to show up was Father Jose Burgos who was
flanked by the Jesuits who, with heads bowed and eyes cast
to the ground, prayed as they walked with him. Of the
unfortunate Burgos, who died at the hands of the execu
tioner simply because he loved justice and hated iniquity,
Regidor wrote:
Burgos was not reconciled to his fate; he was
the life, the youth that protested against that act
of force which was to cut the thread of his existence
that had hardly begun; he was searching among
that compact crowd for the loving look of a friend;
he seemed to reproach some for their passivity
and others for their despotism; his prayer before
the crucifix in his hands did not ask for mercy,
for he was firm in his conviction that his good acts
126 SOI- II. GWEKOH
as priest and as citizen demanded justice that was

denied him on this earth.
The acts and movements of the priests were rigidly
scrutinized by an officer with sword in hand while four sol
diers and a corporal with drawn bayonets followed imme
diately after each of the condemned priests.
Behind the three condemned priests was the stout exe
cutioner who wore flesh-colored pants and woolen jacket
with a matching cap. He had cords hanging on one shoulder.
With him were Major Manuel Boscasa and the officials of
the court-martial that tried the three priests. A detach
ment of infantry and the governor’s cavalry escort were
at the tail of the procession.
At the execution site Zaldua was the first to ascend
the gallows. He was strangled to death using the garrote,
the machine which Spain used in meting out capital punish
ment to the victims. The persons were strangulated by
means of an iron collar which continued to be tightened by
a screw until they became insensible.
FATHER JACINTO ZAMORA
OF the three condemned Filipino priests, the 36-year-

old Father Jacinto Zamora ascended the scaffold first. He
was also the most tragic figure. Because of the terrible
ordeal that he had undergone, particularly the pressures
attending to his arrest and capture, he had gone to the
garrote with a blank stare.
Zamora’s execution was regarded as a travesty of jus
tice. Even the ecclesiastical authorities did not concur with
this condemnation by the Spanish council of war or military
court. Following his sentence to die by the garrote, he was
confined at the Cuartel de la Luneta for a day. On the eve
of his execution he was transferred from his detention quar
ters to Fort Santiago and then to the chapel-and-death cell
in the advanced Ravelin of Isabela II located in Bagong-
Bayan. In the chapel he made his last confession.
I
BURGOS GOMES ZAMORA 127 I
■
When Zamora was taken up to the gallows, he “did !

not resist at all; his lips remained closed; they placed him
on the bench and unmindful of what they were doing to
him, he was garroted.” As Zamora was already in a state
of non compos mentis (insane) when he met his death, he
“died blissfully unaware of his fate and unwary of human
injustice.”
Zamora’s martyrdom opened “the eyes of countless Fili
pinos to the shame and cruelty of colonial enslavement.”
This tragic event which occurred in 1872 became “the turn
ing point of Philippine colonial history. It triggered organ
ized opposition against the Spaniards and ultimately served
to crystallize the Filipino aspiration for self-government. ”?s
FATHER MARIANO GOMES ■■
BEING the patriarch of his group that was made to

pay with their own lives for the crime of alleged complicity
in the Cavite mutiny of 1872, Padre Mariano Gomes was
made to die next. He walked with a firm gait towards
the dreaded garrote that awaited him.
Already 73 years old, Gomes was never perturbed by
the merciless fate coming to him. His equanimity remained
unruffled. He was calm all the time with no trace of fear
nor nervousness visible whatsoever. His extraordinary calm
ness at the moment greatly impressed and caught the imagi
nation of the youthful Jose Rizal.
As Gomes was walking slowly but firmly towards the
garrote, his eyeglasses fell accidentally to the ground. With
considerable efforts he stooped down to pick them up as if
he needed his eyeglasses in death. After straightening up,
he cleaned them and calmly put his spectacles on. When
he was asked to go up, he was heard to murmur, “Let us
go. This is the will of God; nothing moves on earth, not
even the leaf of a tree, without His will.” Then he added,
35 Misplaced Sense of History, editorial of the Manila Chronicle.
4
128 SOL 11. GWEKOH
“Inasmuch as He demands that I die in such a place, let

His will be done.”
Upon mounting the stairway, Gomes noticed Major
Manuel Boscasa, trial judge advocate who prosecuted the
three priests, hiding on one side under the stairs. He sud
denly stopped, turned to him, and said, “God pardon you, as
we are forgiving you.”
As Gomes ascended the stairs, he overheard someone
in the crowd shout, “Forgive them, Father, for they know
not what they are doing.” To which, turning to the group
of friars present, he declared with all sincerity in a calm
and peaceful voice, “If you had not done anything wrong
against us, what was there for us to forgive you?”
Then as Gomes, the picture of tranquility, solemnity
and dignity, sat down quietly on the small seat, he addressed
the executioner who was placing and fastening the collar of
steel around his neck, “My God, unto Thy hands I commend
my spirit.” These last words — and those which Gomes
uttered much earlier in which he said, “If I can only choose
mj' own death I would prefer execution. Then I would know
the exact moment when I shall meet my Creator and then
prepare myself for the occasion,” — simply gave an inkling
of how well prepared he was.
After Gomes had said these parting words, he placed
his neck inside the garrote and then gave the go-signal to
the executioner who made a quick turn of the screw. Of
Gomes, Regidor paid this tribute: “The assassin’s screw
ended a life of virility, virtue, charity and wisdom.
The Filipino clergy had lost in him one of its greatest fig
ures; the province of Cavite and its working classes, their
most ardent protector; and the natives of the Islands, a
notable patriot. That is why the people could not but burst
into bitter tears before the corpse of that noble old man.”36
36 Narration of the trial and execution of Fathers Burgos, Gomes and

Zamora, by Antonio Ma. Regidor, published in the Filipinos Ante Europa,
February 2S, 1900, and republished in English in the Commission’s Bulletin
Nos. 8 and 9.
FATHER JOSE APOLONIO BURGOS
ALTHOUGH Father Burgos was the youngest — he

was only 35 years old — of the three imprisoned priests,
yet he was regarded as the most brilliant and the leader of
the secularization movement in the Philippines. He was
the last to be led to the garroteJ7 because the Spanish au
thorities considered him as “the most guilty.”
As Archbishop Martinez, who was more Christian and
fair than the Spanish reactionaries, was not fully convinced
of Burgos’ guilt, he allowed him and the other two —
Gomes and Zamora — to die in their priestly attires.
When Burgos was asked to go up to the garrote, he
stood up and despairingly made a final protest. “But, for
what? I am innocent. This is an iniquity!” His protestation
of innocence was based on the records of the mock trial
which were “somewhat incoherent and insufficient enough
to wan-ant the act.”
In the attempt to drown his voice, both the friars and
the military closed on Burgos to “hide his posture of protest”
and shouted, “Come up now.”
Comforted by the friars who surrounded him, Burgos
finally began to ascend the staircase serenely and calmly.
But when a Spanish officer made an attempt to push him,
Burgos stopped him, and, in a dignified manner, told him,
“Noli me tangere.” (Touch me not). As he looked at the
sight of the multitude, he shouted again, “My God! My
Lord! I am innocent!”
Immediately after Burgos had manifested his protest,
Father Benito Corominas, the Dominican vice-rector of the
University of Santo Tomas and a professor and colleague
r of Burgos, was heard saying loudly, “So was Jesus Christ.”
37 A fiendishly effective instrument of torture that kills its victims by

means of strangulating him and fracturing his collar bone.
130 SOL H. GWEKOH
Before Burgos was seated in the strangulation machine,

his executioner approached him, knelt before him, and im
plored his forgiveness as he pleaded, “Father, forgive me
for what I am about to do. I am going to kill you.”
“I forgive you, my son,” Burgos looked at the unhappy
man and then without rancour replied in a low voice, “I
know that you are but complying with your duty. Proceed
then and do the work assigned to you.”
After giving his blessings with his extended hands to
the people kneeling down, Burgos was slowly strangled to
death. But before he met his death calmly and bravely, he
managed to murmur a prayer though incomplete, “My Lord,
Father of Mine, receive unto your bosom the soul of an
inn ....” Because Burgos “loved justice and hated iniquity, ”
he died at the hands of an executioner.
Soon aftei- the execution of Burgos, a sunbeam suddenly
appeared through the overcast sky and illumined brightly
the platform where lay the condemned priests. Immediately
a wild, headlong stampede took place while the spectators
fell on their knees and wept as they prayed loudly invoking
divine help for the eternal repose of the souls of the three
martyred priests. This clamor “frightened the filthy friars
upon seeing that their presence was not respected and they
were stampeded down the stairway.”
The sudden commotion produced such an alarming sit
uation which Regidor recounted thus:
Their haste, their look, their voices alarmed
the European element who in turn became frantic
and ran, seeking protection among the troops that
were deployed in the field of Bagong-Bayan.
The commanders of the troops that surround
ed the gallows gave the order: “Prepare and face
the enemy.” The friars sought shelter under the
platform, mingling with Major Boscasa and his
various prosecuting aides who drew their swords.
The commanders of the regiments shouted to

their men to prepare for battle; the gunboats ma
neuvered for combat; and there, atop the wall of
the prison’s bastion, General Izquierdo and his staff
firing through the artillery embrasures, ran pre
cipitately to seek shelter behind the parapets; the
artillerymen prepared their match-cords, making
ready to fire at the least command of their superior.
Only the Filipinos, especially the women with
heroic valour, remained where they were, looking
with disdain at that shameful stampede.
As a signal of general mourning, Archbishop Martinez
ordered the big bells of the Manila Cathedral58 and the
church bells in all the parishes of the city to toll a mourn
ful requiem at the precise time that the three priests
were being garroted by men of the administration. This
salutation could have been “the death-knell of Spanish dom
inance within the Filipino church, for the secularization
movement only increased in number and fervor” after this
tragic event. Even the doors and windows of the houses
were closed as the Filipinos gathered in devoted prayers.
Left on Bagong-Bayan field (later called Bagumbayan,
then Luneta, and now Rizal Park) after the execution were
the members of the Brotherhood of Mercy who gathered
the remains of the executed priests. After they were given
the customary Roman Catholic rites, they were placed in
the funeral coach furnished by the San Juan de Dios Hos
pital, and taken to the Paco cemetery for a Christian burial.
The cortege was followed by Filipinos and escorted by Major
Boscasa, a detachment of peninsular infantry, and a squad
ron of cavalry.
On reaching the cemetery, the Filipinos were not al
lowed to enter. “A guard was posted at the gate until the
38 It is said that religious funeral sen-ices were held secretly at the Manila
Cathedral in Intramuros.
132 SOL H. GWEKOH
following day to prevent anybody from entering and search

ing for the place in which the beloved remains were deposit
ed,” recalled Regidor. “At the gate of the necropolis, the
responsary was said by the chaplain of the brotherhood and
another by the local chaplain, after which the crowd dis
persed.” The remains of Burgos were buried in the same
spot where Rizal was buried 24 years later.39
Soon after the guards had left the cemetery on the
following day, the Filipinos entered in an attempt to locate
the burial lot of the martyred priests. However, as the
mound had been well levelled, the common grave could not
be located any more. Nevertheless, making up fully for
their lost graveyards are the “spiritual tombs in the hearts
and souls of all patriotic Filipinos.”
Unwilling victims of the gallows, the three priests died
for a noble cause and are now regarded as the true martyrs
of the Motherland. Their execution not only hastened the
growth of Philippine nationalism which finally saw the
downfall of Spain in the Philippines, but also “represented
the fusion and solidarity of all the Filipinos and the com
monwealth of their rights and future” with the mingling
of the blood of the martyrs — Zamora, a pure Tagalog, Bur
gos, an Ilocano creole, and Gomes, a Chinese mestizo.
"Wenceslao E. Retana, Vida y Escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal. Madrid, 1907,
page 454.
I
I
6. SIGNIFICANCE OF THEIR GLORIOUS MARTYRDOM
THE execution of Fathers Burgos, Gomes and Zamora

in 1872 was bitterly denounced by the Filipino people. The
generally accepted historical judgment on their case is that
these devoted seculars were innocent of the crime imputed
to them and for which they were condemned to pay for
their lives, and that their execution was the greatest blunder
that Spain committed in the Philippines during its centuries-
long colonial occupation of the country.
With their execution, the Filipino people lost its three
most eminent patriots of the time, the Filipino clergy its
three most illustrious figures, and, in the particular case
of the province of Cavite, its most ardent friend and ben
efactor of the laboring class in Father Gomes.
Because of their unjust and unpardonable execution
which was ordered by the Spanish authorities, the three
priest-martyrs won a permanent place in Philippine history
for they died for a worthy cause — that of God and coun
try! They exemplified that particular type of patriotism
which has reflected honor and glory to their people.
Since this illustrious triumvirate of Filipino priests
was the first to die for nationalism, the event marking their
heroic martyrdom now stands as the dividing line between
the past and the present Philippines. In fact, it marked the
dawn of nationalism in the land and started a new age in
Philippine history — the propaganda era which saw the
emergence of Graciano Lopez Jaena, Marcelo H. del Pilar,
133
134 SOL H. GWEKOH
and Jose P. Rizal among others. The tragedy rallied the

people for the general awakening of a national spirit that
eventually led and propelled the country to that inevitable
march towards the much-coveted political independence.
Before 1872 the struggle for freedom was made up of
sporadic uprisings against Spain which were waged by local
leaders wanting in ideological content. After the execu
tion of the three priests, the Filipinos discovered the mean
ing of freedom and as a result patriotic movements were
waged effectively for the achievement of freedom at all costs
became the people’s main obsession.
Indeed, from that fateful year of 1872 the feeling for
national independence swelled to national proportions and
aroused both the intelligentsia and the common masses to
seek, struggle, and fight for absolute, complete and imme
diate autonomy from the temporary mother country —
Spain. In a sense, their heroic martyrdom not only gave
birth to the rising tide of nationalism but also marked a
turning point in the history of the Philippines which ushered
in that new era that saw the birth of the secret Katipunan
society, the Propaganda period, the Revolution of 1896, and
the unification of the people which finally brought an end
to the generally oppressive and tyrannical Spanish colonial
rule in the islands.
Greatly inspired by the memory of the priests, Dr.
Jose P. Rizal, greatest Filipino hero-martyr, wrote Mariano
Ponce in 1889 of his reaction to the execution. “Without
1872, there would today be no Plaridel or Jaena or Sanciang-
co,” Rizal said, “and those brave and generous colonies of
Filipinos in Europe would not exist. Without 1872 Rizal
would today be a Jesuit and instead of writing the Noli Me
Tangere he would have written something quite different.
The sight of such injustice and cruelty aroused my imagina
tion even as a boy and I swore to dedicate myself to the
task of some day avenging the fate of these victims.”40
^Mariano Ponce, April 18, 1880. Epistolario Rizalino, edited by Teodoro

M. Kalaw, Manila, 1931, Volume II, page 166.
b Rizal was only 11 years old when the three priests were
executed in 1872.
The impact of their glorious martyrdom is best illus
trated by Rizal in dedicating his second incendiary novel,
entitled El Filibusterismo (The Reign of Greed), to the
three priests. Wrote he:
The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has
placed in doubt the crime that has been imputed
to you; the government, by surrounding your trials
with mystery and shadows, causes the belief that
there was some error committed in fatal moments;
and all the Philippines, by worshipping your mem
ory and calling you martyrs, in no sense recog
nizes your culpability.
X X X X
Let these pages serve as a tardy 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.
Of the martyrdom of 1872 and its significance to the
cause of the Filipinos, Apolinario Mabini, the sublime para
lytic who is generally regarded as the brains of the Phil
ippine Revolution, made these comments in his history, en
titled The Rise And Fall of the Philippine Republic:4’
Although Burgos and his companions, Gomez
and Zamora had worked for the rights of a class
and not for the people in general, still they were
seeking justice and died for having sought it. In
truth, when Burgos was actually on the scaffold,
he even then could not comprehend why he had
to die when he was innocent; which proves that
he had not before thought of the possibility of
•"Translation by Professor Austin Craig; privately printed at Nagasaki

in 1916.
136 SOL H. GWEKOH
having to sacrifice his life for the cause which he

was defending. But they were ministers of Christ
and died like Christ, calumniated by the Friar
Pharisees because they had tried to oust these
from the administration of their parishes, the
foundation of their power and influence over the
masses as well as the chief source of their wealth.
So the Filipinos cherished the memory of the
garroted priests, grateful and imperishable; so
the people venerated them as martyrs to the cause
of justice The regular clergy proposed to
make Burgos and his companions warnings so that
the Filipinos thereafter would be afraid to oppose
them. But that tremendous injustice, that offi
cial crime, did not cause fear but hatred of the
friars and of the government which upheld them,
and profound commiseration and grief for the vic
tims. Miraculous, too, was the operation of that
grief. It caused the Filipinos for the first time
to take into account their situation The veil
of ignorance, carefully woven through the centu
ries, was rent at last; the mandate “Let there be
light” came without delay; the dawn of the new
day was at hand.
With the execution of Fathers Burgos, Gomes and
Zamora a chain of reactions started. Both Filipinos and
foreigners had an active participation in this aftermath of
the tragic event. Two days after the garroting scene,
Archbishop Gregorio Meliton Martinez y Santa Cruz of
Manila released his pastoral dated February 19 in which
he described the sad moment as “a powerful event, an in
describable act, an offense without precedent in the annals
of the country owing to the special circumstances of those
who took part in so criminal a design .. ..”
To the youth of the land, the shameful event forced
them to abandon their collegiate work in Manila for fear
of being “picked up by the police as partisans of the three
priests.” If they did not seek peace and security in their
own hometowns, they left immediately for abroad, principal

ly Spain and Europe, to continue with their studies, prepare
for their chosen professions, and “to engage themselves
in informing the Spaniards of the discouraging conditions
of the homeland.”
On his part, Andres Bonifacio, supremo of the secret
organization known as the Katipunan ng Mga Anak ng
Bayan, gathered his members in a memorial service honor
ing the three priests on February 28, 1894. Meeting in a
nipa-and-wood house located in the interior of Oroquieta
street in the suburb of Santa Cruz, Manila, the society
agreed to adopt the acronym GOMBURZA as password of
the second-degree members.
The seed of the idealism for which the three priests
were executed bore fruit in August 1902 with the birth of
the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (Philippine Independent
Church). Establishment of the new church with Mons.
Gregorio Aglipay as the supreme bishop, was decided at
the meeting of a group of labor leaders held at the Centro
de Bellas Artes in Manila. To the members of this Filipino
church, the priests — Burgos, Gomes and Zamora — are
regarded as saints, “not in the sense that they have divine
power to intercede for sinners, but simply as plain, honest-
to-goodness gentlemen.”
When the 68th anniversary of the death of Burgos
was commemorated in Manila in 1940, Speaker Jose Yulo
of the National Assembly was the guest. During the pub
lic program held at the Manila Opera House he said:
“... it can never be doubted that these priests, whose lives
were mercilessly sacrificed on that fateful morning, did in
fact, by their convictions and their writings, demonstrate
clearly such love and concern for their people, that if the
purpose of their execution was to stifle the nationalistic
spirit that was then commencing to spread throughout the
length and breadth of the land, largely the result of the
abuses committed by the civil and religious authorities,
then the Spanish Government had in fact accomplished that
138 SOL II. GWEKOH
purpose, for it is unquestionable that at that time the trium

virate of Burgos, Gomes and Zamora constituted what we
may call the cream of the intellectual leadership that was
effectively advocating liberal reforms through the denun
ciation of abuses in the administration of the government
as well as in the affairs of the Church.”
The saintly and courageous priests who were publicly
garroted have been honored with streets, schools, and towns
named after them. The Knights of Columbus, which endeav
ored to locate the remains of Burgos, gave the name of the
martyr to one of its units. It is now known as the Padre
Burgos General Assembly. Not to be outdone, outstanding
Freemasons of the Philippines decided to have one of the
masonic bodies of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry bear
the honored name. This is the Burgos Chapter of Rose
Croix which has been known by that designation since 1916
when the Masonic Spanish and American bodies were fused
together.
7. REMEMBERING THEM — NOW AND FOREVER
ONE hundred years have passed since that fateful day

when the three Filipino priests — Jose Apolonio Burgos,
Mariano Gomes, and Jacinto Zamora — were unjustly exe
cuted by the men of the Spanish colonial administration.
Since then the Filipinos have been venerating them and
have regarded them as their heroes and martyrs.
In the course of time what have the government and
their countrymen done to repay them for the supreme sacri
fice that they offered for the Motherland ?
To commemorate the centenary of their martyrdom,
President Ferdinand E. Marcos created the Burgos-Gomes-
Zamora Centennial Commission of nine members headed by
Associate Justice Calixto 0. Zaldivar.
A presidential proclamation declared certain days of
1972 as special public holidays. These were January 20
which marked the first day of the Revolt of 1872, otherwise
known as the Cavite Mutiny; February 9, the 135th birth
anniversary of Father Jose Apolonio Burgos; February 17,
the 100th anniversary of the execution of the three priests;
August 2, the 173rd birth anniversary of Father Mariano
Gomes; and August 14, the 137th birth anniversary of
Father Jacinto Zamora.
A year-long memorial drive to raise the sum of P200.000,
which was the cost of a bronze monument to the three Fili
pino priest-martyrs was conducted by the Commission. A
16-ioot statue of the priests weighing nine tons was exe-
139
140 SOL H. GWEKOH
cuted by Professor Solomon Saprid, prominent Filipino

sculptor, and was unveiled at Plaza Roma in front of the
Metropolitan Cathedral on Aduana street in Intramuros,
Manila, during the celebration of the centennial of their
martyrdom. Done in a process called direct sculpture, the
Saprid monument is “a total departure from the classical
tradition.” It is in fact the first modem piece erected in
Manila. The monument is of welded brass sheets and depicts
the death and defiance of the martyrs.
A big crowd of 4,000 converged on the plaza to view
Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, the First Lady, cut the
ribbon unveiling the monument. Then followed a floral
offering led by President Marcos.
The centenary celebration was marked by the Bureau
of Posts with the issuance of the Gomburza postage stamps
on April 3. Done in heliogravure (5 colors) in Helsinki,
Finland, the stamps were issued in five- and 60-centavo
denominations.
For its contribution to the centennial year, the National
Historical Commission prepared a 12-minute documentary
film on the three priest-martyrs.
A special hymn, entitled Tatlong Martir, was composed
by Professor Felipe Padilla de Leon and interpreted by 14
choral groups during the centenary observance.
The University of Santo Tomas opened a cultural ex
hibit on the academic life of the three martyr-priests at the
main university library. Original academic records of Fa
thers Burgos and Zamora who were university students as
well as manuscripts and printed materials dealing with them
were displayed.
A large canvas-mural, entitled The Martyrs, and depict
ing the martyrdom of the three priests, was done by Jaime
de Guzman, a young artist from Liliw, Laguna, without
benefit of a commission. It was donated to the Cultural
Center of the Philippines where it can always be viewed
by the people.
r
As the proceedings of the trial of the three priests have

remained a mystery, the Philippine government asked Spain,
through its ambassador in Manila, to produce the docu
ments. In its request, the government said, “It is neither
the intention of the Philippine Government to reopen a
tragic chapter of history nor to reexamine the record of the
colonial government in the Philippines. These belong to
the past. The purpose of the Philippine Government is
merely to acquire authentic records to guide students of
Philippine history in their scholarly endeavors. Undoubt
edly, these documents will make a significant and distinct
contribution to the appreciation of history in this country.”
It was President Marcos who, in his speech on the
occasion of the centennial of their martyrdom, opened the
imperative need of getting hold of the documents. He
pledged to exert every effort to recover them. “The Span
ish colonial government shrouded the entire events of
1872 in mystery, and the proceedings of the trials have
remained unavailable,” Marcos said.
The President asserted that the government owed it to
the Filipinos to resolve the question of the innocence of
the three martyrs. “I would like the Filipino people to
consider whether or not it would be more a source of pride
for us if the three priests were not innocent of the crime
attributed to them,” he declared.
On August 22, 1972, the Spanish embassy in Manila
advised the government that “efforts to locate the docu
ments on the case of the Filipino priests had proved futile”
after months of intensive research.
Earlier, the exact spot on the Luneta in Manila where
Fathers Burgos, Gomes and Zamora were executed was
marked with an obelisk. The historical marker was erected
by the Padre Burgos General Assembly of the Knights of
Columbus.
As early of 1903, the Iglesia Filipina Independiente
took the necessary steps to canonize the three priests, to-
■
142 SOL II. GWEKOH
I
gether with Rizal, as saints. Of this solemn religious
action, Juan A. Rivera, one-time provincial governor of La I
Union, wrote: “The intense nationalistic character of the
Church influenced not only its organization but also its
theology. As soon as the Church was organized, it canon
ized Rizal, Burgos, Gomes and Zamora as saints. From
quarters which do not understand Aglipayan thought, this
act brought ridicule. To Aglipayan thinking, therefore, it
is but just that these four heroes should be placed on a
pedestal of honor for the faithful to emulate. In a solemn
conclave on September 24, 1903, the curia of the Church
with the unanimous approval of the members of the Su
preme Council proclaimed these four martyr-saints of the
Philippine Independent Church.”''2
i
I
« The Aglipayan Movement, a thesis for a master of arts degree at the

12
I
University of the Philippines, by Juan A. Rivera.
I
APPENDIX A
SENTENCE PROMULGATED
BY THE COURT-MARTIAL
HAVING seen and examined the case formulated by

D. Manuel Boscasa y Perez, second-in-command of the In
fantry Regiment Reyna No. 2, against D. Jose Burgos, act
ing canon of the Cathedral, D. Jacinto Zamora, parish priest
of the same, D. Mariano Gomez, parish priest of the town
of Bacoor, Cavite province, D. Enrique Paraiso, a former
employee of the government, and the following private per
sons — Maximo Inocencio, Crisanto de los Reyes, and Fran
$ cisco Zaldua — of the crime of conspiracy against the con
M
stituted authority of the country and of being authors of
the military rebellion that broke out in the Fort of Cavite
on the night of last January 20, all this with the sole pur
pose of separating this Archipelago from the mother coun
try, proclaiming in it a republic, and thus directly attacking
the integrity of the Monarchy; said gentlemen having re
ported all that had been done to the Court-Martial presided
over by Lieutenant Colonel D. Francisco Moscoso y Lara,
and having as members D. Jose Canizares, captain of the
Infantry Regiment Magallanes, D. Enrique Tobar, brevet
commandant, captain of Reyna No. 2, D. Eustacio Gijon,
of Infante No. 4, D. Federico Novellas, D. Francisco Salado,
and D. Jose Montalbo, captains of Regiment No. 1, and with
the assistance of the Military Assessor, D. Jose Luciano
Roca. Having carefully examined everything with the con
clusion of the fiscal and the defense offered by the lawyers
of the accused, the court has condemned and condemns by
«• unanimous vote the above-mentioned priests, D. Jose Burgos,
D. Jacinto Zamoia, and D. Mariano Gomez and the civilian,
143
144 SOL H. GWEKOH
Francisco Zaldua, to the penalty of death by the garrote,

in accordance with Article I of the law dated April 17, 1821,
for their fully proven participation in the said crimes. Maxi
mo Inocencio, Crisanto de los Reyes, and D. Enrique Paraiso
are condemned to ten years’ imprisonment with the clause
of retention for Inocencio and Paraiso; and ten years’ im
prisonment without the clause of retention for Crisanto de
los Reyes, in conformity with the spirit of the above Article
and with the general prescriptions of military legislation.
■ This sentence will be made known to His Excellency the
Most Reverend Archbishop of the diocese for the degrada
tion of the priests, D. Jose Burgos, D. Jacinto Zamora and
D. Mariano Gomes, advising him, that, if necessary, the
sentence will take effect in accordance with the provisions
of the Royal Order dated October 17, ISSS.43
Manila, February 15, 1872.
FRANCISCO MOSCOSO
JOSE CANIZARES ENRIQUE TOBAR
EUSTACIO GUON FEDERICO NOVELLAS
FRANCISCO SALADO JOSE MONTALBO
«An English translation of the original .sentence in Spanish appearing in

Documents Relating to Father Jose Burgos and the Cavite Mutiny of 1872”
by John N. Schumadier, S. J and Nicholas P. Cushner, S. J„ published in
Philippine Studies, Volume 17, Number 1, January 1969, pages 525 and 527.

Burgos, Gomes, Zamora - Secular Martyrs of of Filipinism by Sol H. Gwekoh

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Burgos, Gomes, Zamora - Secular Martyrs of of Filipinism by Sol H. Gwekoh

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

.

.. . ,f..... ...r „ ..i-,...b'f^'W

A First Centennial Biography

( AuBuSulO AHO UClUSlVlLT OiSTRiSufID tT

SOL II. GWEKOH

First Published, 1974

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

MUWO ANO HCIUSIVIIY OiSTIUtUllO I’

JESUS and LIBERTY

THIS book on the Secular Martyrs of Filipinism

Since the extensive research conducted on their ex­

In The Path To Martyrdom, the remaining years of

BURGOS * GOMES * ZAMORA: SECULAR MAR­

December 30, 1973

II. MARIANO GOMES DE LOS ANGELES

III. JOSE APOLONIO BURGOS y GARCIA

APPENDIX A — SENTENCE PROMULGATED

FATHER Jacinto Zamora y del Rosario spent prac­

Zamora also turned out to be a scholar. He took his

While Zamora was stationed in Pasig, he took the

In this particular position Zamora came again in con­

As both Zamora and Burgos had earned the high es­

Afterwards Zamora joined Burgos and Father- Ma­

At the time the Filipino priests, with 17 years of

ministration, both civil and religious, conceived of plots

their rare chjmce to implicate him and the other liberal-

courtroom in Fort Santiago on February 15, 1872. During

IN his youth, Mariano Gomes de los Angeles dreamed

concerned with land, in his desire to be of help to the Fili­

with dedication and thoroughness, so much so that he was

Gomes was also appalled at the poor condition of the

who took up the matter of depositing parochial funds.

the Tagalog region for three years, he unhesitatingly as­

peace was returned to Cavite again. Not only did the

or the assistant of the parish priest, regardless of their

has no aim but be just and benevolent to the

' The original text in Spanish follows:

Gomes likewise called the attention of the church

as the parish priest of the Cathedral of Manila when

far-away barrios, converged on his convent and, upon spot­

made him reminiscent. He thought of the man who

1. THE BOYHOOD DAYS

ON February 9, 1837, a son was born to a couple

2 Marker was placed by the National Committee on History headed by

convent in Vigan. He took up his studies of the lower

2. THE ORPHAN COLLEGIAN OF LETRAN

WHEN Burgos was ready to take up higher studies

In keeping with the wishes of Don Juan Alonso

good behavior, and remarkable command of Spanish. He

Even as early as his school days, Burgos already dis­

3. EIGHT DEGREES EARNED

HAVING successfully completed the five-year course

The Degree of Bachelor of Philosophy (1855)

Metaphysics. At the end of the schoolyear Gonzalez

the degree of bachelor of philosophy by Fr. Zeferino

The Degree of Bachelor of Theology (1859)

After a 24-hour preparation, Burgos appeared before

The Degree of Licentiate in Philosophy (1860)

The examination was held at the University chapel

tion of the University, and missed only one meeting (that

The Degree of Licentiate in Sacred Theology (1862)

of the faculty and the master of ceremonies, and the four

The Degree of Bachelor of Canon Law (1866)

Since the extensive research conducted on their ex

BURGOS * GOMES * ZAMORA: SECULAR MAR

FATHER Jacinto Zamora y del Rosario spent prac

In this particular position Zamora came again in con

As both Zamora and Burgos had earned the high es

Afterwards Zamora joined Burgos and Father- Ma

concerned with land, in his desire to be of help to the Fili

the Tagalog region for three years, he unhesitatingly as

far-away barrios, converged on his convent and, upon spot

Even as early as his school days, Burgos already dis

After Burgos had finished expounding his conclu

AS a member of the University Claustro, which includ

Maremagnum o sea Mis Ultimos Memorias — purport

always, but be an educated Filipino.” He urged his con

IN his lifetime Burgos proved to be a good, loyal, faith

ditions in the country, Burgos followed the trend of liberal

Antipolo shrine — was already in the hands of the secu

exposing fearlessly the prevailing graft, con’uption and dis