On January 20, 1872, two hundred Filipinos employed at the Cavite arsenal staged
a revolt against the Spanish government’s voiding of their exemption from the
payment of tributes. The Cavite Mutiny led to the persecution of prominent Filipinos;
secular priests Mariano Gómez, José Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora—who would then be
collectively named GomBurZa—were tagged as the masterminds of the uprising. The
priests were charged with treason and sedition by the Spanish military tribunal—a
ruling believed to be part of a conspiracy to stifle the growing popularity of Filipino secular
priests and the threat they posed to the Spanish clergy. The GomBurZa were publicly
executed, by garrote, on the early morning of February 17, 1872 at Bagumbayan.
The Archbishop of Manila refused to defrock them, and ordered the bells of every church
to toll in honor of their deaths; the Sword, in this instance, denied the moral justification
of the Cross. The martyrdom of the three secular priests would resonate among Filipinos;
grief and outrage over their execution would make way for the first stirrings of the Filipino
revolution, thus making the first secular martyrs of a nascent national identity. Jose Rizal
would dedicate his second novel, El Filibusterismo, to the memory of GomBurZa, to what
they stood for, and to the symbolic weight their deaths would henceforth hold:
The Government, by enshrouding your trial in mystery and pardoning your co-accused,
has suggested that some mistake was committed when your fate was decided; and the
whole of the Philippines, in paying homage to your memory and calling you martyrs, totally
rejects your guilt. The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has put in doubt the crime
charged against you.
THE REVOLUTIONARY GENERATION ON GOMBURZA
• JOSE RIZAL’S LETTER TO MARIANO PONCE, 18 APRIL 1889—
“Without 1872 there would not now be a Plaridel, a Jaena, a Sanciangco, nor would the
brave and generous Filipino colonies exist in Europe. Without 1872 Rizal would now be
a Jesuit and instead of writing the Noli Me Tangere, would have written the contrary. At
the sight of those injustices and cruelties, though still a child, my imagination awoke, and
I swore to dedicate myself to avenge one day so many victims. With this idea I have gone
on studying, and this can be read in all my works and writings. God will grant me one day
to fulfill my promise.” [via]
• JOSE RIZAL’S LETTER TO MARIANO PONCE, 18 APRIL 1889—
“If at his death Burgos had shown the courage of Gomez, the Filipinos of today would be
other than they are. However, nobody knows how he will behave at that culminating
moment, and perhaps, I myself, who preach and boast so much, may show more fear
and less resolution than Burgos in that crisis. Life is so pleasant, and it is so repugnant to
die on the scaffold, still young and with ideas in one’s head…” [via]
• “RITUAL FOR THE INITIATION OF A BAYANI,” 1894—
Document, via Jim Richardson, details the ritual to be followed when a Katipunan member
with the rank of Soldier (Kawal) is to be elevated to the rank of Patriot (Bayani): “Presiding
over the ritual, the Most Respected President (presumably Bonifacio himself) reflects on
the martyrdom of the priests Burgos, Gomez and Zamora—a great wrong, he says, that
tore aside the veil that had covered the eyes of the Tagalogs. Tracing the Katipunan’s
political lineage a little further back, he also alludes to the movement for reforms that
preceded the Cavite mutiny, mentioning specifically the newspaper El Eco Filipino, which
was founded by Manuel Regidor (the brother of Antonio Ma. Regidor), Federico de Lerena
(the brother-in-law of José Ma. Basa) and other liberal Filipinos in Madrid in 1871. Copies
were sent to Manila but soon began to be intercepted, and people found in possession of
the paper were liable to be arrested.” [via]
• EMILIO JACINTO, “GOMEZ, BURGOS AT ZAMORA!” APRIL 30, 1896—
Jim Richardson: “The day that Gomez, Burgos and Zamora were executed, writes
Jacinto, was a day of degradation and wretchedness. Twenty-four years had since
passed, but the excruciating wound inflicted that day on Tagalog hearts had never healed;
the bleeding had never been staunched. Though the lives of the three priests had been
extinguished that day, their legacy would endure forever. Their compatriots would honor
their memory, and would seek to emulate their pursuit of truth and justice. As yet, Jacinto
acknowledges, some were not fully ready to embrace those ideals, either because they
failed to appreciate the need for solidarity and unity or because their minds were still
clouded by the smoke of a mendacious Church. But those who could no longer tolerate
oppression were now looking forward to a different way of life, to a splendid new
dawn.” [via]
RECALLING THE GOMBURZA
• EDMOND PLAUCHUT, AS QUOTED BY JAIME VENERACION—
The Execution of GomBurZa [via]
Late in the night of the 15th of February 1872, a Spanish court martial found three secular
priests, Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez and Jacinto Zamora, guilty of treason as the
instigators of a mutiny in the Kabite navy-yard a month before, and sentenced them to
death. The judgement of the court martial was read to the priests in Fort Santiago early
in the next morning and they were told it would be executed the following day… Upon
hearing the sentence, Burgos broke into sobs, Zamora lost his mind and never recovered
it, and only Gomez listened impassively, an old man accustomed to the thought of death.
When dawn broke on the 17th of February there were almost forty thousand of Filipinos
(who came from as far as Bulakan, Pampanga, Kabite and Laguna) surrounding the four
platforms where the three priests and the man whose testimony had convicted them,
a former artilleryman called Saldua, would die.
The three priests followed Saldua: Burgos ‘weeping like a child’, Zamora with vacant
eyes, and Gomez head held high, blessing the Filipinos who knelt at his feet, heads bared
and praying. He was next to die. When his confessor, a Recollect friar , exhorted him
loudly to accept his fate, he replied: “Father, I know that not a leaf falls to the ground but
by the will of God. Since He wills that I should die here, His holy will be done.”
Zamora went up the scaffold without a word and delivered his body to the executioner;
his mind had already left it.
Burgos was the last, a refinement of cruelty that compelled him to watch the death of his
companions. He seated himself on the iron rest and then sprang up crying: “But what
crime have I committed? Is it possible that I should die like this. My God, is there no justice
on earth?”
A dozen friars surrounded him and pressed him down again upon the seat of the garrote,
pleading with him to die a Christian death. He obeyed but, feeling his arms tied round the
fatal post, protested once again: “But I am innocent!”
“So was Jesus Christ,’ said one of the friars.” At this Burgos resigned himself. The
executioner knelt at his feet and asked his forgiveness. “I forgive you, my son. Do your
duty.” And it was done.
(Veneracion quotes Leon Ma. Guerrero’s The First Filipino: “We are told that the crowd,
seeing the executioner fall to his knees, suddenly did the same, saying the prayers to the
dying. Many Spaniards thought it was the beginning of an attack and fled panic-stricken
to the Walled City.”)
• LEON MA. GUERRERO, IN THE FIRST FILIPINO, ASIDE FROM CITING EDMOND
PLAUCHUT, REVYE DES DEUX MONDES, MAY 15, 1877, WROTE:
“Montero deserves a hearing because he had access to the official records. His account,
in brief, is that the condemned men, in civilian clothes, were taken to the headquarters of
the corps of engineers outside the city walls, where a death-cell had been improvised.
Members of their families were allowed to visit them. The night before the execution,
Gómez went to confession with an Augustinian Recollect (leaving a fortune of 200,000 to
a natural son whom he had had before taking orders); Burgos to a Jesuit; Zamora, to a
Vicentian. At the execution itself, Burgos is described as “intensamente pálido;” Zamora,
as “afligidísmo;” and Gómez as “revelando en su faz sombría la ira y la desesperacíon.”
The judgment was once more read to them, on their knees. Burgos and Zamora “lloraban
amargamanete,” while Gòmez listened “con tranquilidad imperturbable. Ni un solo
músculo de su cara se contrajó.” The order of execution, according to Montero, was
Gómez, Zamora, Burgos and Saldúa last of all. He explains the panice saying it was the
natives when a horse bolted: Burgos, thinking rescue was on the way, rose to his feet
and had to be held down by the executioner. Montero denies both the anecdotes
concerning Gómez and Burgos. It is fair to add that Montero seems to lose his composure
in refuting Plauchut.” [The First Filipino. Guerrero, Leon Maria]
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and GomBurZa Execution
Written by HAROLD HISONA
Friday, 31 August 2012 06:06
On the night of January 20, 1872, about 200 Filipino soldiers and workers in the Cavite
arsenal rose in mutiny under the leadership of a certain Lamadrid, a Filipino sergeant.
The mutineers had a secret understand with the Filipino soldiers in Manila for a
concerted uprising, the signal being the firing of rockets for the walls of Intramuros.
Unfortunately, the suburb of Sampaloc, in Manila, celebrated its fiesta that night with a
brilliant display of fireworks. Thinking that the fireworks had been set off by the Manila
troops, the Cavite plotters rose in arms. They killed their Spanish officers and took
control of the arsenal.
Government troops under Felipe Ginoves rushed to Cavite the following morning. A
bloddy battle ensued. Many of the mutineers, including Lamadrid, were killed in the
fighting. The survivors were subdued and take to Manila as prisoners.
The Mutiny was magnified by the Spaniards into a "revolt" so as to implicate the Filipino
priest-patriots. It was in reality just a mutiny of the Cavite soldiers and workers who had
resented the government action in abolishing their old-time privileges, notable their
exemption from the tribute and from forced labor. But Spanish writers alleged that it was
a seditious revolt directed against Spanish rule and fomented by Fathers Burgos,
Gomez and Zamora and by other Filipino leaders. This allegation was false, but it was
accepted by the government authorities because it gave them a pretext to get rid of the
Filipino leaders they did not like.
Conviction and Execution of GomBurZa
Immediately after the Cavite mutiny was suppressed, many Filipino patriots were
arrested and thrown in prison. Among these were the three priests—Fathers Gomez,
Burgos, and Zamora, the three men who championed the cause of the Filipino priests
who had not been receiving their due from the Spanish authorities. Talented and
patriotic, they carried on the nationalist movement of Father Pedro Pelaez, who had
perished in the Manila earthquake in 1863.
Their movement was popularly called the Filipinization or secularization of the clergy
because it advocated the equality of right between the native secular priests—priests
who lived among the people—and the Spanish friars, who lived in religious communities
separated from the towns and cities. At that time the Filipino priests were not allowed to
hold high and profitable positions in the church because of their brown skin and Asian
ancestry.
After a farcical trial by a military court, Fathers Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora were
sentenced to die by the garrote, a strangulation machine. The court verdict was
approved by the harsh General Izquierdo, who then immediately asked Archbishop
Gergorio Meliton Martinez of Manila to deprive them of their priestly robes before their
execution. The archbishop denied this request, for he believed the three condemned
priests were innocent.
On the morning of February 17, 1872, the three priests were garroted to death at the
Bagumbayan. This execution was a calamitous blunder of the Spanish authorities. The
Filipinos deeply resented it, for they regard the three priests as the public martyrs of
their fatherland. In their indignation, the Filipinos forgot their regional boundaries and
differences and rallied as a united nation to fight the Spanish injustice. The blood of the
martyrs of 1872 was thus the fertile seed of Filipino nationalism.
Birth of Jose Rizal's Patriotism
At the time of the three priests' martyrdom, Jose Rizal was an eleven-year-old boy in
Calamba, Laguna. Paciano, his older brother, who was a student and friend of Father
Burgos, told Jose the tragic story of the three priests' martyrdom. The young Jose was
deeply impressed and swore to carry on the unfinished work of the three martyrs. His
second novel, El Filibusterismo was dedicated to the memory of these three priests. His
dedication read as follows:
The Church, by refusing to degrade you (Archbishop refused to remove the
priesthood robes), has placed in doubt the crime that has been imputed to you;
the Government, by surrounding your trials with mystery and shadow, causes the
belief that there was some error committed in fatal moments; and all the
Philippines, by worshiping your memory and calling you martyrs, in no sense
recognizes your culpability. Insofar, therefore, as your complicity in the Cavite
mutiny is not clearly proved, as you may or may not have been patriots, and as
you may or may not have cherished sentiments for justice and for liberty, I have
the right to dedicate my work to you as victims of the evil which I undertake to
combat. And while we await expectantly upon Spain someday to restore your
good name and cease to be answerable for your death, let these pages serve as a
tardy wreath and dried leaves over your unknown tombs, and let it be understood
that everyone who, without clear proofs, attacks your memory stains his hands in
your blood!
Source:http://www.philippinealmanac.com/history/cavite-mutiny-1872-gomburzaexecution-18524.html
THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY
By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay
Two major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the other
was the martyrdom of the three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomes,
Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA). However, not all of us knew that there
were different accounts in reference to the said event. All Filipinos must know the
different sides of the story—since this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of
our history—the execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the awakening
of nationalism among the Filipinos.
1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective
Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and
highlighted it as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event
and made use of it to implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for
secularization. The two accounts complimented and corroborated with one other, only
that the general’s report was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored
out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as nonpayment of tributes and exemption from force labor were the main reasons of the
“revolution” as how they called it, however, other causes were enumerated by them
including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas
proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and
pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native
clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the
rebels and enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press
for “stockpiling” malicious propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King
of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish government to install a new
“hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The general even added that the native
clergy enticed other participants by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight will
not fail because God is with them coupled with handsome promises of rewards such as
employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios
as gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing.
The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was
thought of it as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native
lawyers, residents of Manila and Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the
conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be
followed by the massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-concerted signal among the
conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros.
According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc
celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast
celebrated the occasion with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite
mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the
200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish
officers at sight and seized the arsenal.
When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the
reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was
easily crushed when the expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major
instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the
GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and were sentenced to die by
strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio
Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the
practice of law, arrested and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas
Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and
ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.
On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to
instill fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the
GOMBURZA were executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving
forces that shaped Filipino nationalism.
A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident
Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher,
wrote the Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident
was a mere mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who
turned out to be dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed
Gov. Izquierdo’s cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges of the workers
and native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of school of
arts and trades for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the
organization of a political club.
Commented [ju1]: In corroboration with Izguerido and
Montero’s acct of how the mutiny begun
On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal,
and residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the
commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support
from the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny
reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement
of Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.
Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a
powerful lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native
army but also included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native
clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that
during the time, the Central Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the
friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and
management of educational institutions. This turnout of events was believed by Tavera,
prompted the friars to do something drastic in their dire sedire to maintain power in the
Philippines.
Commented [ju2]: The event existed to be a loop hole to
get what they wanted: for Filipinos to be under their
restraint or manipulation to avoid dethronement and
secularization of the government and church leaders
Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain
welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of
sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree
proposed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching
positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was
warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.
The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past,
took advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast
conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish
sovereignty. Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the
scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged
“revolution” reported by Izquierdo and the friars.
Commented [ju3]: The manipulation of the Spaniards
circled the country whereas they also manipulated the
central Spanish government that the filipinos are against
them. A form of corruption indeed.
Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life
imprisonment while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried
and executed by garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and
eventually to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund
Plauchut’s account complimented Tavera’s account by confirming that the event
happened due to discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The
Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he
actually witnessed.
Unraveling the Truth
Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that
remained to be unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the
arsenal as well as the members of the native army after their privileges were drawn back
by Gen. Izquierdo; Second, Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid and strict policies that made
the Filipinos move and turn away from Spanish government out of disgust; Third, the
Central Government failed to conduct an investigation on what truly transpired but relied
on reports of Izquierdo and the friars and the opinion of the public; Fourth, the happy days
of the friars were already numbered in 1872 when the Central Government in Spain
decided to deprive them of the power to intervene in government affairs as well as in the
direction and management of schools prompting them to commit frantic moves to extend
their stay and power; Fifth, the Filipino clergy members actively participated in the
secularization movement in order to allow Filipino priests to take hold of the parishes in
the country making them prey to the rage of the friars; Sixth, Filipinos during the time
were active participants, and responded to what they deemed as injustices; and Lastly,
the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of the Spanish government, for
the action severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired Filipino patriots
to call for reforms and eventually independence. There may be different versions of the
event, but one thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898.
The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and
unnamed shed their bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898
may be a glorious event for us, but we should not forget that before we came across to
victory, our forefathers suffered enough. As we enjoy our freeedom, may we be more
historically aware of our past to have a better future ahead of us. And just like what Elias
said in Noli me Tangere, may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”
http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
The incredible Father Burgos
By: Ambeth R. Ocampo - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 09:26 PM September 12, 2013
Fr. Dr. Jose A. Burgos (1837-1872) is a name always associated with Fathers Jacinto
Zamora and Mariano Gomez. In 1872 the three priests, together with the snitch who
testified falsely against them, were executed by garrote at the Luneta, in a spot close to
the Rizal monument. Thus has the term “Gomburza” been burned into the minds of
Filipino schoolchildren.
Towards Awakening the National Spirit
Jaime B. Veneracion
A Fine Morning
At about an hour ago today, February 17, exactly 8 a.m., 134 years ago, three priests
were executed at a place not more than 250 meters from where we are. Just like today,
it could have been a fine morning. There was no report of rain or storm in the
newspapers. Yet the ambience at the open fields of what was then called Bagumbayan
was nothing but stormy. A French writer-journalist by the name of Edmund Plauchut
gave us an account of the execution, its prologue and all.
“Late in the night of the 15th of February 1872, a Spanish court martial found three
secular priests, Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez and Jacinto Zamora, guilty of treason as
the instigators of a mutiny in the Kabite navy-yard a month before, and sentenced them
to death.”
“The judgement of the court martial was read to the priests in Fort Santiago early in the
next morning and they were told it would be executed the following day…Upon hearing
the sentence, Burgos broke into sobs, Zamora lost his mind and never recovered it, and
only Gomez listened impassively, an old man accustomed to the thought of death.”
“When dawn broke on the 17th of February there were almost forty thousand of
(Filipinos who came from as far as Bulakan, Pampanga, Kabite and Laguna)
surrounding the four platforms where the three priests and the man whose testimony
had convicted them, a former artilleryman called Saldua, would die. “
Saldua, who had claimed to handle Burgos correspondence with the mutineers, had
hopes of a reprieve to the last moment. He was the first to be called and, even as he
seated himself on the iron rest projecting from the post of the garrote and felt its iron
ring round his neck, his eyes searched desperately for the royal messenger. The
executioner quickly put an end to the informer’s hopes with the turn of the screw that
broke his neck.
“The three priests followed Saldua: Burgos ‘weeping like a child’, Zamora with vacant
eyes, and Gomez head held high, blessing the Filipinos who knelt at his feet, heads
bared and praying.”
“He was next to die. When his confessor, a Recollect friar , exhorted him loudly to
accept his fate, he replied: ‘Father, I know that not a leaf falls to the ground but by the
will of God. Since He wills that I should die here, His holy will be done.’”
Zamora went up the scaffold without a word and delivered his body to the executioner;
his mind had already left it.”
Burgos was the last, a refinement of cruelty that compelled him to watch the death of his
companions. He seated himself on the iron rest and then sprang up crying: ’But what
crime have I committed? Is it possible that I should die like this. My God, is there no
justice on earth?’”
“A dozen friars surrounded him and pressed him down again upon the seat of the
garrote, pleading with him to die a Christian death.
“He obeyed but, feeling his arms tied round the fatal post, protested once again: ‘But I
am innocent!’”
“’So was Jesus Christ,’ said one of the friars.””At this Burgos resigned himself. The
executioner knelt at his feet and asked his forgiveness.”
“’I forgive you, my son. Do your duty.’ And it was done.
Leon Ma Guerrero (The First Filipino) from whose book can be read this account then
continued where Plauchut left off:
“We are told that the crowd, seeing the executioner fall to his knees, suddenly did the
same, saying the prayers to the dying. Many Spaniards thought it was the beginning of
an attack and fled panic-stricken to the Walled City.”
If the Spaniards thought that by doing away with the three priests and the laypersons
that supported them would solve the problem of restlessness in the populace, they were
wrong. When a new generation of Filipinos gave importance to this event, its place in
the annals of history was assured. By being connected to a bigger event (The Philippine
Revolution of 1896), the Gomburza execution became historical.
It was said that Francisco Mercado, father of Rizal, forbade his household to talk about
Cavite and Gomburza. Yet it was possible that instead of modulating the impact of the
event on the family, it merely fed more on young Jose Rizal’s curiosity – why this
secrecy about the event? And the curiosity to know who these persons were could only
be satisfied by the stories told discreetly by his older brother Paciano. On this matter,
the evidence could be circumstantial -- Paciano at the time of the Cavite Mutiny was a
student boarder at the residence of Fr. Jose Burgos.
We have a sense of this when in recalling the event, Rizal had said:
“Without 1872 there would not now be a Plaridel, a Jaena, a Sanciangco, nor would the
brave and generous Filipino colonies exist in Europe. Without 1872 Rizal would now be
a Jesuit and instead of writing the Noli Me Tangere, would have written the contrary. At
the sight of those injustices and cruelties, though still a child, my imagination awoke,
and I swore to dedicate myself to avenge one day so many victims. With this idea I have
gone on studying, and this can be read in all my works and writings. God will grant me
one day to fulfill my promise.”
The critical phrase, as underscored in the above quotation, was “though still a child, my
imagination awoke.” Rizal knew as a child of eleven what happened. His imagination
was awakened... And aside from proposing to study (our past), he longed for the day to
“fulfill my (his) promise.” What was this promise? Looking at subsequent statements, an
ambivalent feeling he made on Jose Burgos, we can see this promise.
Writing to Ponce seventeen years later, Rizal said:
“‘If at his death Burgos had shown the courage of Gomez, the Filipinos of today would
be other than they are. However, nobody knows how he will behave at that culminating
moment, and perhaps, I myself, who preach and boast so much, may show more fear
and less resolution than Burgos in that crisis. Life is so pleasant, and it is so repugnant
to die on the scaffold, still young and with ideas in one’s head...’”
Rizal judged the previous generations rather harshly:
“The men who preceded us struggled for their own interests, and for this reason God
did not sustain them. Novales for a question of ranks, Cuesta for vengeance, Burgos for
his parishes. We on the other hand struggle that there may be more justice, for
freedom, for the sacred rights of man; we do not ask anything for ourselves, we sacrifice
Commented [ju4]: Seems like a conspiracy/ cover-up for
something. Solidifies previous points
all for the common good.”
There were three elements in these statements important to Rizal. The first had
something to do with bravery—the kind of calm acceptance of death as exhibited by the
warriors, whom our peoples called the bagani or bayani. The other was the capacity to
bear self-sacrifice, the kind exhibited by the Christian saints. In a way, these values
harked to the days of our forefathers as further re-enforced by the heroes of the
Christian faith. And then, sacrifice for what? Rizal’s vision of fighting for justice, for
freedom and for the sacred rights of man, in other words, for doing not for oneself but
for the whole, would transform an individual act into an act of sacrifice.
As Fr. John Schumacher would say: “Hence in the mind of Rizal, the task was not so
much to seek for reforms from the colonial regime as to build up a nation as a unified,
self-reliant people, ready to take its place among the nations of the world in due time.”
Yet even as Rizal condemned Burgos for his ambivalence in accepting the role of a
martyr to a cause, at the moment when he wrote El Filibusterismo, it would appear that
the execution had always been at the back of his mind. In his dedication of the book to
Gomburza, Rizal had said:
“As long then as your participation in the Cavite uprising is not clearly demonstrated, nor
has it been shown whether you have been patriots or not, whether you have cherished
longings for justice and for liberty, I have the right to dedicate to you my work as victims
of the evil which I endeavour to fight.
https://web.facebook.com/sampakabulacan/posts/506495399414762?_rdc=1&_rdr
According to the La Solidaridad and French newsman Edmund Plauchut, it took place
on February 16, 1872. Philippine history has it that the aftermath of the so-called Cavite
mutiny was a mass purging of people who have been suspected of having led or
supported it. On the day the news of the uprising reached the central government in
Manila, the Governor-General immediately caused the arrest of prominent priests and
civilians as conspirators of the mutiny, among them, the Gomburza.
In an article written by Philippine historian Ambeth Ocampo, he said that during the trial,
the principal witness was a certain Francisco Saldua who testified that the mutiny was
a conspiracy, and confessed that he was a part of it. He wished to be pardoned in
exchange for his testimony. He narrated on the trial that for three times he delivered
messages to Fr. Jacinto Zamora, who had then gone to Burgos’ abode. Saldua
said that the conspirators met at the home of certain Lorenzana.
Some military witnesses testified that they were told that should the uprising succeed,
the president of the republic would be Fr. Burgos, parish priest of the Manila
Cathedral but all were just hearsay. A fellow priest, Fray Norvel, testified that the
Creoles were inciting the people to rise up in arms against Spain, and that he saw
Burgos passing subversive pamphlets. Lies and unfounded information subdued the
trial.
Fr. Burgos’ landlady testified as a sort of character witness. She vouched that Fr.
Burgos was a peaceful man and with no liking for gossip. She said that Fr. Burgos
would even advise the insurgents to seek reforms without spilling of blood or the
recourse to violent means. He was the most distinguished among the three, having
earned two doctorates one in theology and another in canon law. He was a prolific
writer and was connected with the Manila Cathedral, a good swordsman and
boxer. Burgos got into a quarrel more than once with his superior, Archbishop of
Manila Gregorio Martinez, regarding the right of native secular clergy over those
newly-arrived priests from Spain.
After eight hours of trial, according to Ocampo, the Council of War condemned to die in
the garrote the three priests Don Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora.
Padre Burgos’ last words are as follows:"But I haven't committed any crime!" Reportedly
one of the friars holding him down hissed,"Even Christ was innocent!" It was only then,
it is said, when Padre Burgos freely accepted his death.
There are present-day idiots like Francisco Saldua who, in order to save their neck,
point at fellow human being with his far-fetched accusations.
There are also the likes of Fray Norvel who has the bad feeling and implicate and
accuse his brother priests.
And there are still Archbishop Martinezes among us who favor friars (priests) from other
places than the homegrown clergy.
They are, too, the Padre Dámasos of our time…
POSTED BY NORMAN
NOVIO HTTP://NANOVIO.BLOGSPOT.COM/2015/02/PRIESTS-ON-TRIALGOMBURZA.HTML
Famous Trials of the Philippines: The Gomburza Trial of 1872
Introduction
Any discussion on famous trials of the Philippines can only begin with the trial of Fr.
Mariano Gomez, Fr. Jose Burgos and Fr. Jacinto Zamora, (GOMBURZA). The case
stemmed from the Cavite Mutiny, an event best described as an overnight disturbance,
but which event led to the trial and execution of the three secular priests in the last few
decades of the Spanish era in the Philippines. Historians marked the day of their
execution as the day when the term “Filipino” became ingrained in the minds of the
citizens of colonial Philippines leading to the advent of the Propaganda Movement in
Spain, and eventually the Philippine Revolution of 1896. Rizal himself admitted that
were it not for the three martyr priests, he would not been part of the Propaganda
Movement and would have been a Jesuit priest instead. In spite of its significance,
however, the proceedings of the trial have been kept hidden for many years. Fr. John
Shumacher, a Jesuit historian, claims that until the present an objective history of the
trial cannot be made until the trial records in Segovia, Spain are released to
researchers. In 1896, at the start of the Philippine Revolution and twenty-four years
after the trial and execution of the three martyr priests, members of the Katipunan
extracted testimonies from captured friars who testified that the whole thing was a set-
Commented [ju5]: In the line of rizal’s notes
up. Considering, however, that the testimonies were extracted under duress, historians
have argued on the credibility of the story.
Commented [ju6]: Supporting comment tagged as: GOLD
The Cavite Mutiny
It is the late 19th century, and one of the key issues of the day is the secularization of
parishes. Can the parishes be entrusted to the care of the local clergy? Fr. Burgos and
Fr. Gomez championed the rights of the Filipino secular clergy to become the parish
priests of local parishes over the claims of friars. Fr. Burgos was outspoken in his quest,
and even wrote to newspapers in Spain for this cause. His insistence of secularization
irritated the friars who belittled the abilities of the Filipino clergy to govern the parishes.
Fr. Burgos's outspoken disposition on this issue even merited a warning from the Jesuit
provincial, that should Fr. Burgos continue to speak and write about the secularization
issue in public, Fr. Burgos may not turn to the Jesuits for help.
The story begins with the arrival in Manila in 1871 of General Rafael Izquierdo y
Gutierrez. On the day he assumed control of the colonial government, he declared that “
I shall govern with a cross and the sword in hand.” Whatever he meant by that, it
seemed that the emphasis was on the sword.
At that time, the Spanish government subjected the natives to forced labor and the
payment of an annual tribute. The workers assigned to the navy yard and the artillery
engineers and the arsenal of Cavite, however, were exempt from these obligations.
These artisans were chosen from the infantrymen of the navy. They did not have any
rank while they render service to the army. But General Izquierdo changed all that when
he issued an edict removing these privileges, requiring them to pay tax and render
forced labor, and removing from them the rights acquired from retirement. This edict is
believed to have caused widespread dismay among those affected who staged the
mutiny.
Soon after the publication of the order, forty infantry solders of the navy and artillerymen
led by a certain Sergeant Lamadrid seized the Fort of San Felipe in Cavite. Sergeant
Lamadrid and his band of mutineers killed the officials who resisted. At ten o’clock in the
evening when the rebels entered the fort, the rebels fired a cannon to announce victory
to the city. But at dawn, the following morning, the rebels failed to get the support of the
soldiers who remained loyal to their regiment. From atop the walls, the rebels called
loyal soliders, induced them with promises to make them join the movement, but
nothing proved successful. Instead, the regiment hurried to prepare an attack on the
rebels, which caused the mutineers to hide in the fort, hoping that Manila would send
the rebels help, but none came.
Instead, a column composed of two regiments of infantrymen and one brigade of
artillerymen with four cannons came from Manila to quell the rebellion. After a few
preliminary assaults, which were not successful, the loyal forces decided to force the
surrender of the mutineers by starving them, as it turned out that Fort San Felipe did not
have any provisions. With the blockade in force, the mutineers realized their doom and
Commented [ju7]: Made him the logical mastermind or
identity of the mutiny for his cause or propaganda
flew the white flag over the walls of the fort.
In spite of the white flag being flung by the rebels, the loyal forces decided to divide into
two groups to prepare for the assault of the fort. While this was being done, the principal
gate of the fort was opened, and a small group of rebels carrying the flag of truce
stepped out. The loyal forces allowed the rebels to take fifteen steps. When the rebels
were near enough, the Spanish commander ordered his soldiers to fire. Nobody among
the small group that stepped out survived. Thereafter, the loyal forces assaulted the fort,
firing shots as they entered it. The rebels offered very little resistance, as the mutiny
was completely suppressed.
The aftermath of the mutiny was a mass purging of people who have been suspected of
having led or supported it. On the day the news of the uprising was received in Manila,
the Governor-General immediately caused the arrest of prominent priests and civilians
as conspirators of the mutiny. Among them were Fr. Jose Burgos, Fr. Zamora, (curate
and co-curate of the Manila Cathedral), Fr. Gomez (curate of Bacoor), D. Agustin
Mendoza (curate of Sta. Cruz), Don Feliciano Gomez, Don Antonio Regidor (eminent
lawyer and municipal councilor), Joaquin Pardo de Tavera (counsellor of the
administration), Don Enrique Paraiso, D. Pio Basa (old employees), Don Jose Basan,
Maximo Paterno, Crisanto Reyes, Ramon Maurente and many others.
The Trial
The sergeants and soldiers taken prisoners at the fort were court martialed and
immediately shot, some in Manila and others in Cavite. Soldiers of the marine infantry
had their sentences commuted to ten years of hard labor in Mindanao. Meanwhile, the
clerics, lawyers, businessmen accused were tried by a special military court. Appointed
fiscal of the government was a commandant of the infantry, a future governor of the
province, Manuel Boscaza. The defenders were some officers of the infantry who were
given only 24 hours to prepare their defenses.
The rebels were charged with the crime of proclaiming the advent of a republic in
agreement with the ideas of the leaders of the progressive parties of the Peninsula.
During the trial, the principal witness was a certain Francisco Saldua, who testified that
the mutiny was a conspiracy, and confessed that he was a part of if. He wished to be
pardoned in exchange for his testimony. He testified that for three times he delivered
messages to Fr. Jacinto Zamora, who had then gone to Burgos’s abode. Saldua said
that Sergeant Lamadrid and one of the Basa Brothers told Saldua that the “government
of Father Burgos” would bring the fleet of the United States to assist a revolution. He
also testified that Ramon Maurente was financing it with 50,000 pesos, and Maurente
would become the revolutions’ field marshal. Saldua also testified that the conspirators
met at the home of Lorenzana.
Some military witnesses testified that they were told that should the uprising succeed,
the president of the republic would be the parish priest of St. Peter. At that time, Burgos
Commented [ju8]: Red flag:
It may have been that the people may have misunderstood
burgos’ cause and saw his goal as the whole of overturning
the gov’t. Thus, they have implanted a different idea
regarding burgos’ actions.
Commented [ju9]: It was not a direct order from Burgos
was the parish priest of the Manila Cathedral, which was known as St. Peter as a
parish. Fr. Jacinto Zamora was his co-curate. Other military witnesses mentioned the
name of Fr. Burgos, or the native curate of St. Peter, as the one who would be
president, but likewise this knowledge was only heard by them from someone.
Enrique Genato testified that Fr. Burgos, Marcelo H. del Pilar, Regidor, Rafael Labra,
Antonio Rojas and others spoke of clerics, wars, insurrections and rebellions at secret
meetings. Marina Chua Kempo testified that she heard the conspirators speak of a
general massacre of Spaniards and that Lamadrid, the leader of the mutiny, would be
governor or captain general. Fray Norvel testified that the Creoles were inciting the
people to rise up in arms against Spai, and that he saw Burgos passing subversive
pamphlets.
Fr. Burgos’s landlady testified as a sort of character witness. She vouched that Fr.
Burgos was a peaceful man, devout to the virgin, and with no liking for gossip. She said
that others might talk of guns and cannons and cry “Fuera oficiales, canallas,
envidiosos, malvados! or Viva Fiipinas libre, independiente!”. But Fr. Burgos would
advise them to seek reforms without spilling of blood or the recourse of violence.
A curious piece of evidence was a note found in the belongings of Fr. Jacinto Zamora, a
gambling and card game afficionado. The note said, “Big gathering. Come without fail.
The comrades will come well provided with bullets and gunpowder.” (Nick Joaquin
claims that this is a joke for bullets and gunpowder were idioms among card players to
refer to gambling funds.)
Captain Fontivel, Fr. Burgos’s counsel, moved to dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
But the Governor General rejected it and ordered the court martial continued. The
defense then moved that Saldua be called to the stand. But the court claimed that
Saldua was too ill to be called to the witness stand.
After eight hours of discussion, the Council of War condemned to die in the garrote the
three priests Don Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora. Saldua was
likewise sentenced to die. The others were either sentenced to ten years of hard labor
or sent to the Marianas for a period ranging from two to eight years.
At 11 o’clock in the evening of February 15, 1872, the Council of War dictated the
sentence and asked the accused if they had anything to say in their defenses. Burgos
and Zamora expressed their innocence, maintaining that they had no relation with the
rebels of Cavite and that there had been no positive evidence against them. The curate
Gomez, an old man of seventy years, (Nick Joaquin claims he was 85) said that he was
sure his judges would consider him innocent, but seeing that he was denied
confrontation with his accusers, a lawyer for his defense chosen by himself, would be
useless, the trial over, in influencing those who already decided that he was guilty. The
accused were led to the military jail and on the following day, the sentence was
pronounced on them by the Commissary of the government himself. As part of the
sentence, the Governor General ordered the Archbishop to defrock the priests as has
Commented [ju10]: Connection of previous comment
been the custom, but the archbishop refused to defrock the three martyrs until evidence
of their guilt was presented to the archbishop. The evidence was never shown to the
Archbishop.
The Execution
On February 16, 1872, a big crowd gathered to witness the execution. Saldua, with a
smile on his lips for he thought that his pardon was forthcoming led the march. Saldua
was followed by Burgos, who cried like a boy, bowing to friends as he recognized them
from the crowd, and then Zamora -- who had gone mad and had a vague stare -followed. Last in line was Father Gomez who with eyes wide open, head held high,
blessed the natives who were kneeling along the road.
Saldua, expecting a pardon that never came, was the first to go to the scaffold. Then Fr.
Gomez was called. Replying to his confessor, a Recollect, Fr. Gomez said, “Dear
Father, I know very well that a leaf of a tree does not move without the Will of the
Creator; inasmuch as He asks that I die in this place, may His will be done.” Minutes
later, he was dead.
Fr. Zamora rose when his name was called. He had gone mad two days before and he
died without a final word.
Fr. Burgos was the last to be called. Upon mounting the scaffold, he cried to
Commissary Boscaza, “Gentlemen, I forgive you, and may God forgive you like I do.”
Then he sat to his death chair.
Suddenly, he stood up and cried, “But what crime have I committed? Is it possible that I
should die this way? My God, is there no more justice on earth?”
The friars went to him and obliged him to be seated again, begging him to die the
Christian way. Fr. Burgos obeyed, and as he was being tied he rose exclaiming: “But I
am innocent!”
“Jesus Christ was also innocent,” exclaimed one of the friars.
Then Fr. Burgos stopped resisting. Then the executioner knelt before the condemned
man saying, “Father, forgive me if I have to kill you. I do not wish to do so.”
Fr. Burgos repleid, “My son, I forgive you, comply with your duty.”
Then the executioner did, and thereafter, Fr. Burgos was dead.
The natives who gathered to witness the event knelt and recited the prayer of the dying.
The Spaniards who saw the reaction of the natives panicked and ran to the city walls of
Intramuros.
The Aftermath
After the execution, the Spanish colonial government prohibited people from talking
about the execution, and the records of the trial were kept from the public. Jose Rizal
soon published the novel, Noli Me Tangere", the plotline of which includes a creole
character, Crisostomo Ibarra, who was set up by the friars that led to his being charged
with sedition by the authorities. Nick Joaquin says this was Rizal's allusion to the fate of
the three martyrs.
On February 15, 1892, twenty years after the event, the La Solidaridad, the newspaper
founded by the members of the Propaganda Movement, which included Jose Rizal, in
Spain, published an account of the mutiny, trial, and the execution written by Edmund
Plauchut, a Frenchman supposedly living in Manila at the time of the trial and execution,
from whom most of the above narrative was derived.
A few months earlier Jose Rizal dedicated his second novel El Filibusterismo to the
three martyred priests. Appearing on the cover of the novel is a picture of the three
martyred priests.
Then in 1896, after achieving an early success as the Magdalo faction of the Revolution
in Cavite, members of the Katipunan extracted a testimony from Fr. Agapito Echegoyen,
a Recollect, who said that he learned from a fellow friar what really happened. He said
that the heads of the friar orders had held a conference on how to get rid of Burgos and
other leaders of the native clergy and had decided to implicate them in a seditious plot.
A Franciscan friar disguised as a secular priest was sent with a lot of money to Cavite to
foment mutiny, and negotiated with Saldua to denounce Burgos as the instigator of the
uprising. Afterwards, the heads of the friar orders used a large bribe—“una fuerte suma
de dinero” – to convince the Governor-General that Burgos should be arrested, tried,
and condemned.
Commented [ju11]: GOLD. The key to winning. :D
Another friar, Fr. Antonio Piernavieja said that a certain Fray Claudio del Arceo
disguised himself as Father Burgos, went to Cavite to spread the idea of an uprising.
When the mutiny was suppressed, the friars exerted pressure on the Governor General
through his secretary and a lady with great influence on him, plus a gift of 40,000 pesos.
Commented [ju12]: Yesssssss
Conclusion
Fr. John N. Shumacher opines in his book, “The Making of A Nation: Essays on
Nineteenth Century-Filipino Nationalism” published in 1991, that the testimonies of Fr.
Agapito Echegoyen and Fr. Antonio Piernavieja on the alleged conspiracy against Fr.
Burgos are not credible, because they were extracted while they were captives of the
revolutionary army and made under duress. And perhaps, we can add that they were
also hearsay. Thus, until we have a firsthand account of this alleged conspiracy, this
question of whether the trial was a set up may not be put to rest. For if Burgos Gomez
and Zamora were indeed innocent of any crime, what motive could we attribute to
Commented [ju13]: Uh oh
Governor General Izquierdo and his military trial court for having acted as such against
the prominent priests? Or is it possible that the three martyr priests were just
circumstantial victims of Spanish hysteria in the wake of the Cavite Mutiny?
Historians note that the significance of the trial of the three martyr priests lies in the fact
that it marked the day that nationalism was born in the minds of the Filipinos. By today’s
standards, the trial of the three martyr priests could hardly pass the basic tenets of due
process. Clearly, the evidence against the three priests is at best hearsay,
circumstantial, and by no means establishing any guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus,
it can be said that Filipino nationalism may have been borne out of the cry for justice for
the three martyr priests, but justice could not be obtained from the Spanish colonizers.
The foregoing accounts were taken from Edmund Plauchut’s article “The Philippine
Islands” in La Solidaridad, February 15, 1892, and Nick Joaquin’s “How Filipino was
Burgos?” in A Question of Heroes, published by the Filipinas Foundation in 1977 and
reprinted recently by Anvil. Nick Joaquin based his trial accounts from Manuel Artigas
who had copies of the trial records. Of course, Fr. Schumaker is saying that the
authentic records are still in Segovia, Spain and prohibited from being disclosed to
researchers. Finally, the date of execution has been officially marked on February 17,
1872 but according to the La Solidaridad and Edmund Plauchut, it took place on
February 16, 1872.
Posted by Marvin Aceron 2005 – 09 - 15
http://lavidalawyer.blogspot.com/2005/09/famous-trials-of-philippines-gomburza.html