GROUP 3

RETRACTION OF Khent James Preciado

Christian M. Salvaña
RIZAL Charlesdarwin Pueblos
Apolo Neo Dal Romero
Crystal Cate Sandigan
John Rey Olano Pahis
Merasol Odchique Casas
Andrea Padova
 DR. JOSE RIZAL
José Protasio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda

He was a Filipino Nationalist and a polymath during the tail end of the
Spanish Colonial Period of the Philippines
An ophthalmologist by profession and also became a writer and a key
member of the Filipino Propaganda Movement which advocated political
reforms for the economy under Spain
 RETRAC TION
“ W I T H D R AWA L O F A S TAT E M E N T ”

 Rizal allegedly retracted his Masonic claims about

Catholicism
 His retraction letter was “discovered” and the date was
December 29, 1896,it was said to have been signed by
Rizal himself.
 R I Z A L’ S R E T R A C T I O N

 At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. The fourth text appeared in El Imparcial
on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of the retraction.
 The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of
Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30, 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February
14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine in La Juventud; it came from an anonymous writer who
revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer. The "original" text was discovered in the
archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the
afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.
 THE "ORIGINAL"
DISCOVERED BY
FR. MANUEL GARCIA,
O N M AY 1 8 , 1 9 3 5

 It stated: “I declare myself a

Catholic and in this religion in
which I was born and educated I
wish to live and die. I retract with
all my heart whatever in my words,
writings, publications and conduct
has been contrary to my character as
son of the Catholic Church.”
 THE "ORIGINAL" DISCOVERED BY
F R . M A N U E L G A R C I A , O N M AY 1 8 , 1 9 3 5
 Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La Voz
Espanola. That newspaper reported: "Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own
hand-written retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…" On the other
hand, Manila pharmacist F. Stahl wrote in a letter: "besides, nobody has seen this written
declaration, in spite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to see it. "For
example, not only Rizal’s family but also the correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in
Madrid, Don Manuel Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr. Santiago Mataix of El Heraldo, were not
able to see the hand-written retraction.
 THE LOST "ORIGINAL" DISCOVERED BY
F R . M A N U E L G A R C I A , O N M AY 1 8 , 1 9 3 5

 On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the
archdeocean archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts about
Rizal’s retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction
differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies. And, the
fact that the texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could be shown
to be the exact copies of the "original" but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who
controlled the press in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the "original" while the
Jesuits had only the imitations.
 THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE
" O R I G I N A L " A N D T H E M A N I L A N E W S PA P E R S

 First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have "mi
calidad" (with "u").

 Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias" which are found in the original and the
newspaper texts.

 Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word "misma" which is not found in the original and the
newspaper texts of the retraction.

 Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the
second paragraph until the fifth sentences while the original and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with the
second sentences.

 Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers have only four commas, the text of Fr.
Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.

 Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in
Manila.
 RETRACTION CONTROVERSY

There is controversy on whether Rizal actually wrote a document of retraction. That his burial
was not on holy ground led to doubts about his retraction. Then there is no certificate of Rizal's
marriage to Josephine Bracken.
There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of Josephine Bracken, written
on February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged badly. The document supposedly written by
Josephine herself supported the fact that they were married under the Catholic rites. But upon
closer look, there is a glaring difference between the penmanship of the document, and other
letters written by Josephine to Rizal.
Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though Rizal is a hero, whether he retracted
or not, we must investigate if he really did a turn-around. If he did not, and the documents were
forgeries, then somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.
 CONCLUSION
If you use a "weighing scale" to compare the evidence between
retraction vs. non-retraction, there is an abundance of solid
evidence in favor of retraction. That is why the most objective
historians have concluded in favor of it. Rizal really retracted.