TITLE: THE CAVITE MUTINY
DESCRIPTION:
Three of the most known Filipino martyrs during the Spanish Regime aside from Rizal were Jose
Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora. Their death ignited the development of the
Philippine nationalism in a way that the most Filipinos didn’t realize. In this topic, students will
criticize the different perspectives concerning the real story behind the Cavite Mutiny controversy.
This discussion will prove whether the issue involve is just a mere mutiny or a conspiracy that
would lead to a large-scale revolution if ever.
CONTENT
The constant change in the post of the governor- general in the Philippines brought not only
havoc in the Philippine politics but also a dismay especially on the part of the natives who
experience the direct effect of the changing of officials holding offices. Carlos Maria dela Torre
was known to be the most liberal minded governor- general of the Philippines for allowing
programs that benefited most of the natives. Through this, he was loved by the people and in
turn leads to the establishments of different schools for arts and trades.
Rafael Izquierdo assumed the post of the governor- general replacing the loved Carlos Maria Dela
Torre. Alongside with the changes in the post of governor- general are the changes in the policies
of the outgoing officials together with the removal of the privileges of the workers especially of
the Cavite Arsenal. These harsh rules of Izquierdo caused the natives to hate on him and tensions
between the workers and the officials of the government.
January 20, 1892, a chaos happened in Cavite. The workers assassinated the head of the Cavite
Arsenal and injured his wife. The mutiny was headed by Francisco La Madrid with the purpose of
voicing out their plight of returning their privileges on not paying taxes and exemption in the polo
y servicio be returned. The mutiny failed because the expected reinforcement from Manila didn’t
come. After almost two days of insurrection, the mutiny was quelled and its leader, Francisco La
Madrid was killed. All the involve individuals were either killed or exiled. The most notable people
involved in this event were Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora. They were accused of spearheading the
conspiracy alongside with native lawyers and soldiers.
The Cavite Mutiny/ Conspiracy was a big debate among historians as to which is right. Is it a
mere mutiny or a conspiracy? Hence, there are different first hand sources presented below to
be evaluated and analyzed in order to have a better picture of the said event.
Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 by Jose Montero y Vidal as cited by Antonio
Tamayao 2018
The Spanish version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was written by the Spanish historian,
Jose Montero y Vidal, in his book entitled Historia General de Filipinas (Madrid, 1895, Vol.
III, pp 566-595. This narrative of Montero y Vidal,1 normally a good historian, was so
woefully biased that Dr. T.H. Pardo de Tavera commented that he, “in narrating the Cavite
episode, does not speak as a historian; he speaks as a Spaniard bend on perverting the
facts at his pleasure; he is mischievously partial”.2 Unsupported by positive documentary
evidence, this Spanish historian exaggerated the mutiny of a few disgruntled native
soldiers and laborers into a revolt to overthrow Spanish rule – a seditious movement –
and involved the innocent Filipino patriotic leaders including Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and
Zamora, Jose Ma. Basa, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, and others.
Montero y Vidal’s version of the Cavite episode of 1872 in English translation follows:
With the establishment in Spain of a government less radical than the one that appointed
La Torre, the latter was relieved from his post. His successor D. Rafael de Izquierdo,
assumed control of the government of these islands April 4, 1871. The most eventual
episode in his rule was the Cavite Revolt of 1872.
The abolition of the privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal of exemption
from the tribute was, according to some, the cause of the insurrection. There were,
however, other causes.
The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda carried on by
an unbridled press against monarchical principles, attentatory of the most sacred respects
towards the dethroned majesty; the democratic and republic books and pamphlets; the
speeches and preachings of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the outbursts of the
American publicists and the criminal policy of the senseless Governor whom the
Revolutionary government sent to govern the Philippines, and who put into practice these
ideas were the determining circumstances which gave rise, among certain Filipinos, to the
idea of attaining their independence. It was towards this goal that they started to work,
with the powerful assistance of a certain section of the native clergy, who out of spite
toward the friars, made common cause with the enemies of the mother country.
At various times but especially in the beginning of the year 1872, the authorities received
anonymous communications with the information that a great uprising would break out
aganst the Spaniards, the minute the fleet at Cavite left for the South, and that all would
be assassinated, including the friars. But nobody gave importance to these notices. The
conspiracy had been going on since the days of La Torre with utmost secrecy. At times,
the principal leaders met either in the house of the Filipino Spaniard, D. Joaquin Pardo de
Tavera, or in that of the native priest, Jacinto Zamora, and these meetings were usually
attended by the curate of Bacoor (Cavite), the soul of the movement, whose energetic
character and immense wealth enabled him to exercise a strong influence.
The garrison of Manila, composed mostly of native soldiers, were involved in this
conspiracy, as well as a multitude of civilians. The plan was for the soldiers to assassinate
their officers, the servants, their masters, and the escort of the Captain-General at
Malacaἧang, to dispose of the governor himself. The friars and other Spaniards were later
to have their turn. The pre-concerted signal among the conspirators of Cavite and Manila
was the firing of rockets from the walls of the city. The details having been arranged, it
was agreed that the uprising was to break out in the evening of the 20th of January, 1872.
Various circumstances, however, which might well be considered as providential, upset
the plans, and made the conspiracy a dismal failure.
In the district of Sampaloc, the fiesta of the patron saint, the Virgin of Loreto, was being
celebrated with pomp and splendor. On the night of the 20th, fireworks were displayed
and rockets fired into the air. Those in Cavite mistook these for the signal to revolt, and
at nine-thirty in the evening of that day two hundred native soldiers under the leadership
of Sergeant La Madrid rose up in arms, assassinated the commander of the fort and
wounded his wife.
The military governor of Cavite, D. Fernando Rojas, dispatched two Spaniards to inform
the Manila authorities of the uprising but they were met on the way be a group of natives,
belonging to the Guias established by La Torre, who put them instantly to death. At about
the same time, an employee of the arsenal, D. Domingo Mijares, left Cavite in a war vessel
for Manila, arriving there at midnight. He informed the commandant of Marine of what
had occured, and this official immediately relayed the news to Governor Izquierdo.
Early the next morning two regiments, under the command of D. Felipe Ginoves, segundo
cabo, left for Cavite on board the merchant vessels Filipino, Manila Isabela I and Isabela
II. Ginoves demanded rendition and waited the whole day of the 21st for the rebels to
surrender, without ordering the assault of their position in order to avoid unnecessary
shedding of blood. After waiting the whole day in vain for the rendition of the rebels,
Ginoves launched an assault against the latter’s position, early in the morning of the 22nd,
putting to the sword the majority of the rebels and making prisoners of the rest. On the
same day an official proclamation announced the suppression of the revolt.
As a result of the declarations made by some of the prisoners in which several individuals
were pointed out as instigators, Don Jose Burgos and D. Jacinto Zamora, curates of the
Cathedral, D. Mariano Gomez, curate of Bacoor (Cavite), several other Filipino priests, D.
Antonio Maria Regidor, lawyer and Regidor of the Ayuntamiento, D. Joaquin Pardo de
Tavera, Consejero de Administraciὀn, Pedro Carillo, Gervacio Sanchez and Jose Mauricio
de Leon, lawyers Enrique Paraiso and Jose and Pio Basa, employees, and Crisanto Reyes,
Maximo Paterno and several other Filipinos, were arrested.
The council of war, which from the beginning look charge of the causes in connection with
the Cavite uprising, passed the sentence of death on forty-one of the rebels. On the 27th
of January the Captain-General fixed his “cumplase” on the sentence. On the 6th of the
following month, eleven more were sentenced to death, but the Governor General, by
decree of the day following, commuted this sentence to life imprisonment. On the 8th,
the sentence of death was pronounced on Camerino and ten years imprisonment of eleven
individuals of the famous “Guias de la Torre,” for the assassination of the Spaniards who,
on the night of January 20th, were sent to Manila to carry news of the uprising.
The same council on the 15th of February, sentenced to die by strangulation the Filipino
priests, D. Jose Burgos, D. Jacinto Zamora, and D. Mariano Gomez, and Francisco Saldua;
and maximo Inocencio, Enrique Paraiso and Crisanto de los Reyes to ten years
imprisonment. Early in the morning of the seventeen of February, an immense multitude
appeared on the field of Bagumbayan to witness the execution of the sentence. The
attending force was composed of Filipino troops, and the batteries of the fort were aimed
at the place of execution, ready to fire upon the least sign of uprising. Gomez was
executed first, then Zamora, then Burgos, and lastly, Saldua.
On the 3rd of April, 1872, the Audience suspended from the practice of law the following
men: D. Jose Basa y Enriquez, D. Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, D. Antonio Ma. Regidor, D.
Pedro Carillo, D. Gervacio Sanchez and D. Jose Mauricio de Leon.
Izquierdo had requested the sending to Manila of Spanish troops for the defense of the
fort as most of these found here were natives. In pursuance of Izquierdo’s request, the
government, by decree of April 4, 1872, dissolved the native regiment of artillery and
ordered the creation of an artillery force to be composed exclusively of Peninsulares. The
latter arrived in Manila in July, 1872. On the occasion of the arrival of the troops, the Sto.
Domingo Church celebrated a special mass at which high officials of the government, the
religious corporations, and the general public, attended, upon invitation by the Governor
and Captain-General of the Philippines.
Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 by Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera
as cited by Antonio Tamayao, 2019.
The Filipino version of the bloody incident of Cavite in 1872 was written by Dr. Trinidad
H. Pardo de Tavera, Filipino scholar, scientist, and historical researcher.1 According to him,
this incident was merely a mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite
arsenal against the harsh policy of despotic Governor and Captain-General Rafael de
Izquierdo (1871-1873) which abolished their old-time privileges of exemption from paying
the annual tribute and from rendering the polo (forced labor). The loss of these privileges
was naturally resented by the soldiers and laborers. Some of them, impelled by volcanic
wrath, rose in arms on the night of January 20, 1872, and killed the commanding officer
of the Cavite Arsenal and other Spanish officers. This was easily suppressed by the Spanish
troops which were rushed from Manila. This turbulent incident, which was magnified by
the Spanish officials and friars into a revolt for Philippine independence, is narrated by
Pardo de Tavera, as follows:
The arrival of General Izquierdo (1871-1873) was the signal for a complete change in the
aspect of affairs. The new governor soon made it clear that his views were different from
those of La Torre – that there would be no change in the established form of government
– and he at once announced that he intended to govern the people “with crucifix in one
hand and a sword in the other.”
His first official act was to prohibit the founding of a school of arts and trades, which was
being organized by the efforts and funds raised by natives of standing in the community,
but the founding of which did not tally with the views of the religious orders. Governor
Izquierdo believed that the establishment of the new school was merely a pretext for the
organization of a political club, and he not only did not allow it to be opened but made a
public statement accusing the Filipinos who had charge of the movement. All of those who
had offered their support to ex-Governor La Torre were classed as personas sospechosas
(suspects), a term that since that time has been used in the Philippine Islands to designate
any person who refused to servilely obey the wishes and whims of the authorities. The
conservative element in the islands now directed the governmental policy, and the
educated Filipinos fell more and more under the displeasure and suspicion of the governor.
The peace of the colony was broken by a certain incident which, though unimportant in
itself, was probably the origin of the political agitation which, constantly growing for thirty
years, culminated in the overthrow of the Spanish sovereignty in the Philippine Islands.
From time immemorial the workmen in the arsenal at Cavite and in the barracks of the
artillery and engineer corps has been exempt from the payment of the tribute tax and
from obligation to work certain days each year on public improvements. General Izquierdo
believed the time opportune for abolishing these privileges and ordered that in the future
all such workmen should pay tribute and labor on public improvements. This produced
great dissatisfaction among the workmen affected and the men employed in the arsenal
at Cavite went on a strike, but, yielding to pressure and threats made by the authorities,
they subsequently returned to their labors.
The workmen in the Cavite arsenal were all natives of that town and of the neighboring
town of San Roque. In a short while the dissatisfaction and discontent with the
government spread all over that section and even the entire troops became disaffected.
On the night of January 20, 1872, there was an uprising among the soldiers in the San
Felipe fort, in Cavite, and the commanding offer and other Spanish officers in charge of
the fort were assassinated. Forty marines attached to the arsenal and 22 artillerymen
under Sergeant La Madrid took part in this unprising, and it was believed that the entire
garrison in Cavite was disaffected and probably implicated. But if the few soldiers who
precipitated the attack believed they would be supported by the bulk of the army and that
a general rebellion against Spain would be declared in the islands, they were deceived.
When the news of the uprising was received in Manila, General Izquierdo sent the
commanding general to Cavite, who reinforced the native troops, took possession of the
fort, and put the rebels to the sword. Sergeant La Madrid has been blinded and badly
burned by the explosion of a sack of powder and, being unable to escape, was also cut
down. A few of the rebels were captured and taken to Manila and there was no further
disturbance of the peace or insubordination of any kind.
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful lever by the Spanish
residents and by the friars. During the time that General La Torre was chief executive in
the Philippine Islands the influential Filipinos did not hesitate to announce their hostility
to the religious orders, and the Central Government in Madrid has announced its intention
to deprive the friars in these islands of all powers of intervention in matters of civil
government and of the direction and management of the university. Moret, the colonial
minister, had drawn up a scheme of reforms by which he proposed to make a radical
change in the colonial system of government which was to harmonize with the principles
for which the revolution 3 in Spain had been fought. It was due to these facts and promises
that the Filipinos had great hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their country, while
the friars, on the other hand, feared that their power in the colony would soon be
completely a thing of the past.
The mutiny in Cavite gave the conservative element – that is, those who favored a
continuation of the colonial modus vivendi – an opportunity to represent to the Spanish
Government that a vast conspiracy was afoot and organized throughout the archipelago
with the object of destroying the Spanish sovereignty. They stated that the Spanish
Government in Madrid was to blame for the propagation of pernicious doctrines and for
the hopes that had been held out from Madrid to the Filipino people, and also because of
the leanings of ex-Governor La Torre and of other public functionaries who had been sent
to the Philippine Islands by the Government that succeeded Queen Isabella. The fall of
the new rulers in Spain within a few days, as well as other occurrences, seemed to
accentuate the claims made by the conservative element in the Philippine Islands
regarding the peril which threatened Spanish sovereignty in the islands; it appeared as
though the prophecies were about to be fulfilled. The Madrid authorities were not able to
combat public opinion in that country; no opportunity was given nor time taken to make
a thorough investigation of the real facts or extent of the alleged revolution; the
conservative element in the Philippine Islands painted the local condition of affairs in
somber tints; and the Madrid Government came to believe, or at least to suspect, that a
scheme was being concocted throughout the islands to shake off Spanish sovereignty.
Consistent with the precedents of their colonial rule, the repressive measures adopted to
quell the supposed insurrection were strict and sudden. No attempt appears to have been
made to ascertain whether or not the innocent suffered with the guilty, and the only end
sought appeared to be to inspire terror in the minds of all by making examples of a certain
number, so that none in the future should attempt, nor even dream of any attempt at
secession.
Many of the best known Filipinos were denounced to the military authorities, and they,
the sons of Spaniards born in the islands and men of mixed blood (Spanish and Chinese),
as well as the Indians of pure blood, as the Philippine Malays were called, were persecuted
and punished without distinction by the military authorities. Those who dared to oppose
themselves to the friars were punished with special severity; among others may be
mentioned the priests Burgos, a half-blood Spaniard, Zamora, a half-blood Chinaman, and
Gomez, a pure-blood Tagalog, who had vigorously opposed the friars in the litigation over
the curacies in the various provinces. The three priests mentioned were condemned to
death by a military court-martial; and Antonio M. Regidor, a lawyer and councilman of
Manila, Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, lawyer and members of the administrative council, P.
Mendoza, curate of Santa Cruz, Guevarra, curate of Quiapo, the priests Mariano Sevilla,
Feliciano Gomez, Ballesteros, Jose Basa, the lawyers Carillo, Basa, Enriquez, Crisanto,
Reyes, Maximo, Paterno, and many others were sentenced to life imprisonment on the
Marianas Islands. The Government thus secured its object of terrorizing the Filipino
people, but the punishments meted out were not only unjust but were from every point
of view unnecessary, as there had not been the remote intention on the part of anyone
to overthrow the Spanish sovereignty. On the contrary, the attitude of Moret, Labra,
Becerra, and other high officials in the Madrid Government had awakened in the breasts
of the Filipinos a lively friendship for the home government, and never has the ties which
bound the colony to Spain been as close as they were during the short interval between
the arrival of General La Torre and the time when General Izquierdo, in the name of the
home government, was guilty of the atrocities mentioned above, of which innocent men
were made victims.
A careful study of the history and documents of that time brings to light the part which
the religious orders played in that sad drama. One of the results of the so-called revolution
of Cavite was to strengthen the power of the friars in the Philippine Islands in such manner
that the Madrid Government, which up to that time had contemplated reducing the power
of the religious orders in these islands, was obliged not only to abandon its intention, but
to place a yet greater measure of official influences at the service of the friars, and from
that time they were considered as an important factor in the preservation of the Spanish
sovereignty in the colony.
This influence was felt throughout the islands, and not only were the friars taken into the
confidence of the Government, but the Filipino people looked upon the religious orders as
their real masters and as the representatives, powerful and unsparing, of the Spanish
Kingdom.
But there were other results following upon the unfortunate policy adopted by Governor
Izquierdo. Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain, and the
only aspiration of the people was to secure the material and educational advancement of
the country. The Filipino people had never blamed the Spanish nation for the backward
condition in which the islands existed, nor for the injustices committed in the islands by
the Spanish officials; but on the contrary it was the custom to lay all the blame for these
things on the individual officers guilty of maladministration, and no attempt had been
made to investigate whether or not the evils under which the islands suffered were due
to fundamental causes. The persecutions which began under Governor Izquierdo were
based on the false assumption that the Filipino people were desirous of independence,
and although this was an unfounded accusation, there were many martyrs to the cause,
among whom were found many of the most intelligent and well-to-do people, without
distinction of color or race or nationality, who were sentenced to death, to imprisonment,
or were expatriated because they were believed to aspire to the independence of these
islands. The fear which the people felt of the friars and of the punishments meted out by
the Government was exceeded only by the admiration which the Filipino people has for
those who did not hesitate to stand up for the rights of the country. In this manner, the
persecutions to which the people were subjected served as a stimulus and an educative
force, and from that time the rebellion was nursed in secret and the passive resistance to
the abuses of the official power became greater day by day.
No attempt was made to allay the ill-feeling which existed between the Filipinos and the
Spaniards, especially the friars, caused by the mutiny in Cavite and the cruel manner in
which the punishment was meted out. Many years would have been necessary to heal the
wounds felt by the large number of families whose members were made the victims of
the unjust sentences of the military courts-martial. Nothing was done by the Government
to blot out the recollection of these actions; on the contrary, it appeared to be its policy
to continually bring up the memory of these occurrences as a reminder to the mal-contents
of what they had to expect; but the only thing accomplished was to increase the popular
discontent. It was from that time that every disagreement between the Spaniards and
Filipinos, however trivial, was given a racial or political character; every time a friar was
insulted or injured in any way, it was claimed to be an act of hostility to the Spanish
nation.
Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on the Cavite Mutiny by Rafael Izquierdo as cited
by Antonio Tamayao, 2019.
Governor General Rafael Izquierdo reported to the Spanish Minister of War, dated Manila,
January 23, 1872, blaming the Cavite Mutiny on the native clergy, some local residents,
intellectuals, and even El Eco Filipino, a Madrid-based reformist newspaper. Significantly,
he calls the military mutiny as “insurrection”, an “uprising”, and a “revolution”. The text
of the report is as follows:
From the summary of information received – that is, from the declaration made before
the fiscal – it seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the
native clergy, by the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos.
Some are residents of Manila, others from Cavite, and some from the nearby provinces.
The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice of the
government in not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and against the usury that
some (officials) practice in (handling) documents that the Finance department gives crop
owners who have to sell them at a loss. They encouraged the rebellion by protesting what
they called the injustice of having obliged the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute
starting January 1 (1872) and to render personal service, from which they were formerly
exempted.
To seduce the native troops, they resorted to superstitions with which the indios are so
prone to believe; persuading them that the Chief of State (hari) would be an ecclesiastic
and the rest or the clergy who baked the uprising would celebrate daily for its success.
Thus the rebellion could not fail because God was with them; and those who would not
revolt they would kill immediately. Taking advantage of the ignorance of those classes
and the propensity of the Indio to steal, they offered (to those who revolted) the wealth
of the Spaniards and of the regular clergy, employment and ranks in the army; and to this
effect they said that fifteen native battalions would be created, in which the soldiers who
revolted would have jobs as officers and chiefs. The lawyers and abogadillos would direct
the affairs of government of the administration and of justice.
Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to establish a monarchy or
a republic, because the indios have no word in their language to describe this different
form of government, whose head in Tagalog would be called hari; but it turns out that
they would place at the head of the government a priest; and there were great
probabilities – nay, a certainty – that the head selected would be D. Jose Burgos, or D.
Zacinto Zamora, parish priests of S. San Pedro of Manila.
All the Spaniards, including the friars, would be executed except for the women; and their
belongings confiscated. Foreigners would be respected.
This uprising has roots, and with them were affiliated to a great extent the regiments of
infantry and artillery, many civilians and a large number of mestizos, indios and some
illustrados from the provinces.
To start the revolution, they planned to set fire to the district of Tondo. Once the fire was
set and while the authorities were busy putting it out, the regiment of artillery with the
help of the part of the infantry would seize Fort Santiago of this Capital (they would then)
fire cannons to inform the rebels of Cavite (of their success). The rebels in Cavite counted
on the artillery detachment that occupied the fort and, on the navy, helped by 500 natives
led by the pardoned leader Camerino. This person and his men, located at the town of
Bacoor and separated from the fort of San Felipe by a small arm of the sea, would cross
the water and reach the fort where they would find arms and ammunition.
The rebels (in Cavite) made the signals agreed upon by means of lanterns, but the native
civilians (in Bacoor) although they tried it, failed because if the vigilance of the (Spanish)
navy that had placed there a gunboat and armed vessels.
Loyalists who went to arrest the parish priests of Bacoor found an abandoned vessel
loaded with arms, including carbines and revolvers.
The uprising should have started in Manila at midnight abetted by those in Cavite, but the
rebels of this city went ahead of time. The civil-military governor of Cavite and the
commanders of Regiment 7 took very timely precautions; they knew how to keep the
soldiers loyal (although these had been compromised) and behaved with valor and
gallantry, obliging the rebels to take refuge in the fort of San Felipe.
Such is your Excellency, the plan of the rebels, those who guided them, and the means
they counted upon for its realization. For a long time now, through confidential information
and others of a vaguer character, I have been told that since 1869 – taking advantage of
a group that had left behind plans for an uprising, but was carried out because of the
earthquake of 1862 – there existed in Manila a junta or center that sought and found
followers; and that as a pretext they had established a society for the teaching of arts and
trades. Months ago I suspended it indirectly, giving an account to Your Excellency in my
confidential report No. 113 dated August 1, (1871) to which Your Excellency has not yet
replied.
It has also been said that this center or junta received inspiration from Madrid, where
newspapers of advanced ideas flourish; to sustain them subscriptions are (locally)
solicited; in effect, newspapers such as El Eco Filipino 1 were sent here from Madrid, which
were distributed by persons now imprisoned, whose articles thundered against everything
that be found here.
As in the case of my worthy predecessor, I have continuously received anonymous letters,
but because I was confident that I could put down and punish any uprising, I gave no
credit (to these reports) in order not to cause alarm; and instead continued a vigilant
watch whenever possible within the limited means at my command. I had everything
ready (for any untoward possibility), taking into account the limited peninsular force which
composes the army.
Title: Retraction of Rizal
A leader of the reformist movement in Spain, Dr.
Jose Rizal was arrested, tried, and sentenced to
death by a Spanish court- martial after being
implicated as a leader of the Philippine Revolution.
The night before his death by firing squad at the
Luneta on December 30, 1896, accounts exist that
Rizal allegedly his Masonic ideals and his writings
and reconverted to Catholicism following several
hours of persuasion by Jesuit priests. There was
considerable doubt to this allegation by Rizal’s
family and friends until 1935, the supposed
retraction document with Rizal’s signature was
found. Until today, the issue whether Rizal
retracted or not and whether the document is forged or real is a subject of continuous debate
between historians and Rizal scholars.
Father Vicente Balaguer’s Statement
Source:
https://prezi.com/3psylzopmlhs/retraction
Father Vicente Balaguer was one of the Jesuit
-of-rizal/
priests who visited Rizal during his last hours in Fort
Santiago and claimed that he managed to persuade Rizal to denounce Masonry and return to the
Catholic fold. In affidavit executed in 1917 when he had returned to Spain, Balaguer also claimed
that he was the one who solemnized the marriage of Josephine Bracken and Rizal hours before
the hero’s execution.
At about ten o'clock in the morning (December 29), Father Vilaclara
and I went to Fort Santiago, where the chapel cell of the convict
was. He received us with great affection and embraced us. I think
it convenient to point out that when the Archbishop sent his
commission to the Ateneo, he remarked that, in case of conversion,
before ministering the Sacraments to him, Dr. Rizal should make a retraction of errors
publicly professed to him in words and writings and a profession of the Catholic faith. To
this effect, when the Father Superior of the Mission went to the Archbishop's Palace, be
brought by way of precaution a retraction and profession of faith, concise, but including
what he thought out to be extracted from Dr. Rizal. The Prelate read it, and declared it to
be sufficient. He said, however, that he would prepare or order to prepare another more
extensive one.
Before going to the Fort, I went to the Palace in order to receive orders and instructions
from the Prelate. The Archbishop gave me the formula of retraction and profession of
faith, composed by Reverend Father Pio Pi...
Therefore, when we, the two Fathers, met him in the chapel, after exchanging greetings
with him and talking on various matters, I, who knew the history and errors contained in
his books, in order to fulfill our delicate mission asked Rizal to give an explanation of his
ideas on religion... He came to say more or less explicitly that his rule of faith was the
word of God contained in the Sacred Scripture. I tried to make him see how false and
indefensible Such a criterion was, inasmuch as without the authority to the Church he
could not be sure of the authenticity of the Holy Scripture or of the books truly revealed
by God; how absolutely impossible it is for the individual reason to interpret at his will the
word of God. Then he declared himself openly a rationalist freethinker, unwell to admit
any other criterion of truth than individual reason.
I then pointed out to him that absurdity of rationalism for the lack of instruction of the
immense majority of humankind, and for the absurd monstrous errors professed by the
greatest sages of paganism...... When I attacked him with the arguments of Catholic
doctrine, he began to expound the objections of the heretics and rationalists, a thousand
times refuted already... When I attacked him with the logic and evidence of Catholic truth,
I told him with energy that if he did not yield his mind and his reason 1o the sake of faith,
he would soon appear for judgment before God and would surely be damned. Upon
hearing this threat, tears gushed from bis eyes, and he said: "No I will not damn myself”
Yes,"-I replied-"You will go to hell, for, whether you like it or not. Yes; out of the Catholic
Church there is no salvation. Truth is and cannot be but one."....
At three o'clock or a little past three, I returned to the Royal Fort where Father Vilaclara
had remained, and I resumed the discussion with Dr. Rizal, that lasted until dusk, arriving
at the point which I have already indicated. Then I went to the Ateneo and thence I went
with Father Viza to the Palace. There I reported on the condition of the convict, who
offered some hope for conversion, since he had asked for the formula of retraction. Hence,
I requested the Prelate for the formula he had promised, and he told me that it was not
yet finished. Soon he would send it to me.
It was already night when I arrived at the Fort. I found Dr. Rizal impatient. He asked for
the formula of the Prelate. This came at last, at about ten o'clock; upon knowing it, the
convict asked me for it insistently. Without letting me read it first, he called and asked me
to read it to him.
Both of us sat at a desk, where there was stationery and I began to read it. Upon hearing
the first paragraph, he told me: "Father, do not proceed. That style is different from mine.
I cannot sign that, because it should be understood that I am writing it myself."
I brought out then the shorter and more concise formula of Father Pi. I read the first
paragraph and he said to me: "That style is simple as mine. Don't bother, Father, to read
it all. Dictate what I ought to profess and express, and I shall write, making in any case
some remarks.
And thus, it was done. As suggested the idea, he proceeded to write with steady hand
and dear letters idea, he making at times some observation or adding some phrase. Ts,
Certainly, after the discussion, Dr. Rizal was yielding to the impulse of grace, since he had
retired into himself and prayed as he had promised. Thus, he appeared to be while writing
his retraction....
He finished the writing, and thus it remained. It was half past eleven; it was dated
December the twenty-ninth...
This declaration or retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of
the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza..
After all these acts... he knelt down of his own accord before the altar of the Virgin, placed
in the chapel cell. In the presence of the Fathers, of the Judge Advocate, of the Chief of
the Picket, of the Adjutant of the Plaza, of three artillery officers, Rizal asked me for bis
retraction and profession of faith. He proceeded to read it with pause and devotion...
Of all that has been narrated, I am positive by personal knowledge. I have personally
intervened and witnessed it myself; and I subscribe and confirm it with an oath, And lest.
perhaps, someone may think that I could not remember it with so many details, after
twenty years, I testify that on the very day of Rizal's death I wrote a very detailed account
of everything. The original of this account, I have preserved. and from it I have taken all
the data of the present narration.
Before Rizal reached Bagumbayan, I went to the Ateneo and delivered the aforementioned
document to Fat ho that very day brought it to the Palace and handed it to Pi, Archbishop
Nozaleda.
Father Pio Pi’s Statement
Father Pio Pi was the Jesuit Superior in the Philippines during the time when Rizal was
executed. In 1917, he issued an affidavit recounting his involvement in the alleged
retraction of Rizal. Unlike Father Balaguer, however, he was involved only in securing the
retraction document from Archbishop of Manila Bernardino Nozaleda, and writing another
shorter retraction document as well which was one Rizal allegedly copied.
On the eve of the day when Dr. Rizal was put in the chapel, that is,
on December the twenty-eight, I received the commission, which
Archbishop Nozaleda entrusted to the Jesuit Fathers, for the spiritual
care of the convict. We accept it most eagerly, not only because it
came from the venerable Prelate, but especially because of its object
was to reconcile with God and with the Church, and to save the soul of him who had our
very distinguished and dear pupil. Rizal had always preserved for us, the Jesuits, a special
esteem and affection even after his estrangement from the Church and had rendered us
good service...
Even though I myself, who had not been acquainted personally with Rizal, did not visit
him. All the Fathers who remained with him during his stay in the chapel or who
accompanied him to Bagumbayan, the place of the execution, went there at my request
or with my knowledge, and they kept me informed of all the happenings...
In regard to conversion, at the beginning not a little difficulty was found in convincing and
persuading him. A long discussion, to which he maintained principally with Father
Balaguer, became necessary in order to revive in that soul the faith of old and his Christian
sentiments. At last, he surrendered so willingly and so completely, and the proofs that, of
religiousness and piety were such and so many that, with much less, the most exacting
person would have been satisfied. He was right indeed when he said, wondering at the
change wrought in himself, that he was the Rizal of some time ago, but another entirely
different.
When the retraction was to be subscribed to, he found certain objections in the form of
the composition presented by Father Balaguer, the one sent by the Archbishop. The one
which I had made was shorter although conclusive, and this pleased him. Nevertheless,
to make it appear more of his own and spontaneous, be wished to introduce some little
modifications. He wrote it entirely in his own hand and signed it with a steady hand...
Beneath Rizal's signature, the Chief of the Picket, Juan del Fresno, and the Adjutant of
the Plaza, Eloy Moure, also signed as witnesses.
Not satisfied with signing so explicit an adjuration, Rizal himself, without pressure from
anyone, took into his hands his own document and knelt down before the altar of the
chapel. Aloud and slowly, and even with a certain solemnity he read his own retraction...
Rafael Palma’s Critical Analysis
Lawyer, writer, educator and politician Rafael Palma was the author of Biography of Rizal, a work
on the life of the National Hero which won a literary contest in 1938 sponsored by the
Commonwealth Government. The publication of the book, however, was postponed because of
World War II and only saw print in 1949. That same year, an English translation by Ramon Ozatea
with the title Pride of the Malay Race was published by Prentice- Hall, Inc. in the United States.
For the first time in this work, those who should have spoken from the beginning because
of their direct intervention in the act of conversion and retraction of Rizal, speak and
confirm in all its parts the narrative which appeared in 1897 in Rizal y su Obra. That should
be conclusive; but that is not. All the declarations therein cited are those of ecclesiastics
and their friends, and it is to be supposed that all of the latter would not
contradict the version given by the former. The only testimony that might
be considered impartial is that of Taviel de Andrade, the defense counsel
of Rizal, but his testimony to the conversion of Rizal is mere hearsay, that
is to say, what he heard the priests say, and that diminishes its value very
much.
We must consider the weight and value of these testimonies which to be partial and
interested. We do not ignore the respect that is due to the sacred character of said
persons; but as Brutus said, "You are a friend, but truth is a greater friend." Lastly, we
must consider whether the coetaneous acts performed by the ecclesiastical authorities or
by the government are in accord with the belief that Rizal had been converted for if they
are not, they would not produce the moral evidence that is needed.
Well, then, these acts tend to demonstrate that Rizal was not reconciled with the Catholic
church, judging from the way they treated him after his death. In the first place, the
document of retraction was kept secret so that no one except the authorities was able to
see it at that time. Only copies of it were furnished the newspapers, but, with the
exception of one person, nobody saw the original. In fact, this original was kept in such a
way that it was not found until after thirty years had transpired. In the second place, when
the family of Rizal asked for the original of said document or a copy of it as well as a copy
of the certificate of canonical marriage with Josephine Bracken, both petitions were
denied. In the third place, Rizal's burial was kept secret, the cadaver having been delivered
to the members of a Catholic association friendly to the friars instead of being delivered
to the family, who had claimed it. How of Christian charity applied to one who dies within
the Church if not even the desire of this family to bury him on their own account is
respected? In the fourth place, in spite of what Rizal meant to the Filipinos and of what
his conversion meant, no masses were said for his soul or funeral held by the Catholics.
In the fifth place, notwithstanding (the claim) that Rizal was reconciled with the Church,
be was not buried in the Catholic cemetery of Paco but in the ground without any cross
or stone to mark his grave. Only the diligence of the family was able to identify the spot
where he was buried. In the sixth place, the entry in the book burials of the interment of
Rizal's body is not made on the page with those buried on December 30, 1896, where
there were as many as six entries, but on a special page wherein appear those buried by
special orders of the authorities. Thus, Rizal figures on a page between a man who burned
to death and who could not be identified and another who died by suicide in other words,
he was considered among persons who died impenitent and did not receive spiritual aid.
In the seventh and last place, there was no moral motive for the conversion. The
extraordinary or abnormal acts of a person are always to some reason or rational motive.
What was the motive that could have induced him to adjure masonry and reconcile himself
to the rites of the religion which he had fought? Did he not realize that to do so was to
be a renegade to history?
Rizal was a man of character and he had demonstrated it in his many circumstances of
his life. He was not likely yield his ideas because his former preceptors and teachers talked
to him. They did it in Dapitan and did not obtain any result. Why would he renounce his
religious ideas for a few hours more of life?
In short, Rizal's conversion was a pious fraud to make the people believe that that
extraordinary man broke down and succumbed before the Church which he had fought.
The Archbishop was interested in bis conversion for political motives, and the Jesuits lent
themselves as his instrument. The example of Rizal would have great resonance in the
whole country and it was necessary to bolster the drooping prestige of religion with bis
abjuration. What if Rizal was a man of valor and convictions and bis conversion would be
unbelievable? So much the better. The interest of religion was above him. His aureole of
glory had to be done away with if necessary. What did it matter? He was only an indio.
Austin Coates’ s Critical Analysis
Austin Coates’s interest in Jose Rizal began when he was Assistant Colonial Secretary and
Magistrate in Hongkong in 1950. His first study on Rizal was on the latter’s year- long stay 9iin
Hongkong (1891- 1892). At that time, many of the personalities who knew Rizal were still alive.
This early awareness on Rizal eventually led to the writing and publication of his book- Rizal:
Philippine Nationalist and Martyr (Oxford University Press, 1956) – the first Rizal biography written
by a European since Vida y Escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal by Wenceslao Retana in 1907. The second
edition of the book was published in the Philippines by Solidaridad Publishing House in 1992.
The morning after the execution the newspapers of Manila and Madrid
recorded the event, and announced that on the eve of his death, Rizal
had retracted his religious errors, adjured freemasonry, and in the last
hours of his life had married Josephine Bracken. In most newspapers the
text of a letter of retraction supposedly written by Rizal was printed in full. By the
government the announcement was sent to Spanish consulates abroad with the request
to obtain for it the widest possible publicity.
Those who had read Rizal's books or who knew him closely, which at that time meant the
family and his wide circle off personal friends, most of whom were abroad, took one look
at the announcement and dubbed it... an ecclesiastical fraud.
While unquestionably a fraud, however, to suggest that the Archbishop's announcement
was issued knowingly or that there was a plot among the higher ecclesiastical authorities
to perpetrate a fraud is going too far The nature of society within the church, the society
of priests, is such as to render it virtually impossible for such things to happen. When
frauds occur, they are not the planned work of the church as an organization, though this
may be what it looks like to outsiders; they are usually the work of a small man with his
own idea; and the Church, if unwittingly it accepts the fraud as genuine, has to protect
him. Rizal believed that there was a strong likelihood of fraud, and that the prime mover
in this would be the friar archb1shop. It was the friars who wanted his retraction. But
while in the event Rizal' intuition did not play him false, there is no evidence to implicate
Nozaleda. Along came a small man with what the Archbishop wanted.
Balaguer had the intelligence to perceive that everything depended on the speed and
audacity with which he declared his success. The Archbishop was waiting for a retraction,
hoping for it. When news of it came, he would announce it immediately, after which it
would be too late for any of Balaguer's colleagues to gainsay it.
Certainly, there was no signed letter of retraction. Rizal knew too well the damage such a
letter would do him, besides which he believed before God he had nothing to retract...
Finally, there is the minor point that in view of the public disbelief the Archbishop's
statement provoked, had there been a signed retraction letter it would certainly have been
produced for inspection, particularly to the Rizal family, who asked to see it, and to many
of whom--to Teodora Alonso in particular-it would have been a source of consolation.
Once the execution was over, and Vilaclara and March returned to be faced with Balaguer's
claims, the fraud was apparent to the Jesuits, but it was already too late to rectify matters.
What appears with complete certainty is that neither Pio Pi y Vidal nor any of the Jesuits
of probity believed that Rizal had retracted and died confessed. Had Vilaclara and March,
who were with Rizal at his execution, been satisfied that there had been a retraction, it is
inconceivable that they would not have given him Christian burial. The Jesuits had been
entrusted by the Archbishop with the spiritual care of the condemned man; and it was
their responsibility, if they were satisfied that he had died confessed, to see he was
decently buried. This the two Jesuits at the execution did not do....
The Rizal family found it difficult to accept either the retraction or the marriage. They
knew their brother; they knew that if he had retracted, he would certainly have so in his
6 a.m. communication to his mother, knowing the consolation it would have given her.
Difficulties began as disbelief spread, and they were deepened by Balaguer's urge to
elaborate and to see himself publicly praised. As he affirmed on oath in 1909, he settled
down that very night, 29 December, to write his account, in which, since he intended it
to be published anonymously, be included much praise of himself, an aspect which, since
he admitted the authorship, renders him a sorry and rather absurd figure...
Balaguer had in fact damaged the Church's case. Worse than this, he had unwittingly
revealed his own fraud. In his account, he made no mention of the Ultimo Adios.
That Rizal on the night of the 29th wished to write verses Balaguer knew; he told a
journalist about it. But when the following morning only letters, books and an alcohol
burner remained to be disposed of by the authorities, he erroneously concluded that no
poem had been written and thus made no mention of it in his account, thereby revealing
the truth, which was that he was not within Fort Santiago during the middle of that last
night, and had no knowledge of what was then taking place...
Not only did Balaguer in his account not mention the poem; he made his account so
elaborate that Rizal is allowed no time in which to write; and only a glance at the Ultimo
Adios is needed to show that it would have taken several at the Ultimo hours to write...
Title: Cry of Balintawak/ Pugadlawin
Description
The “First Cry of Revolution” became the movement of the Filipinos to fight back on the
tyrannical rule of the Spanish regime; it is also called as the “First Cry”, the revolution of
independence. In this scenario the Filipinos tore their cedulas (tax receipt) and proclaimed
the start to fight for independence-the main goal. The news of the existence of Katipunan
spread throughout Manila and so, Andres Bonifacio, the Supreme leader of the Katipunan
organized a meeting outside the city particular in Balintawak to talk about their next
movement for the revolution against Spaniards. According to him, the start of the
revolution will begin at the end of month of August.
Thus, in this topic, it is surprising that, there are different versions of primary sources
where and when was the First Cry really happened. The eyewitnesses of the first-hand
information were Dr. Pio Valenzuela, Santiago Alvarez, Guillermo Masangkay and Gregoria
de Jesus.
Content
Dr. Pio Valenzuela’s Account “Cry of Pugad Lawin’’
(August 23, 1896)
Dr. Pio Valenzuela has been authorized the ‘’Cry of Pugad Lawin, who happened to
eyewitness the event. He was also an official of the Katipunan and a friend of Andres
Bonifacio. There were two versions presented by him. In his first version, he told that the
prime staging point of the Cry was in Balintawak on Wednesday of August 26, 1896. He
held this account when the happenings or events are still vivid in his memory. On the
other hand, later in his life and with a fading memory, he wrote his Memoirs of the
Revolution without consulting the written documents of the Philippine revolution and
claimed that the ‘’Cry’’ took place at Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896.
Source: Zaide, Gregorio and Sonia Zaide. (1990). Documentary Sources of Philippine
History. Vol. 5. Manila: National Book Store
Torres Jose Victor. (2018). Batis : Sources in the Philippine History. C & E Publishing, Inc.
The Account
The first place of refuge of Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Procopio Bonifacio,
Teodoro Plata, Aguedo del Rosario, and myself was Balintawak, the first five
arriving there on August 19, and I, on August 20, 1896. The first place where some
500 members of the Katipunan met on August 22, 1896 was the house and yard
of Apolonio Samson at Kangkong. Aside from the persons mentioned above,
among those who were there were Briccio Pantas, Alejandro Santiago, Ramon
Bernardo, Apolonio Samson, and others. Here, views were only exchanged and no
resolution was debated or adopted. It was at Pugad Lawin, in the house, storehouse and yard of Juan Ramos, son of Melchora Aquino, where over 1,000
members of the Katipunan met and carried out considerable debate and discussion
on August 29, 1896. Only one man protested and fought against a war and that
was Teodoro Plata. Besides the persons named above, among those present at
this meeting were Enrique Cipriano, Alfonso Pacheco, Tomas Remigio, Sinforoso
San Pedro, and others. After the tumultuous meeting many of those present tore
their cedula certificates and shouted “Long live the Philippines! Long live the
Philippines!’’
Santiago Alvarez’s Account “The Cry of Bahay Toro”
(August 24, 1896)
This version of the “Cry’’ was written by Santiago Alvarez, a well-known Katipunero from
Cavite and a son of Mariano Alvarez. Santiago is a relative of Gregoria de Jesus, who
happened to be the wife of Andres Bonifacio. Unlike the author of the first version
mentioned (Valenzuela), Santiago Alvarez is not an eyewitness of this event. As a result,
this version of him is not given of equal value as compared with the other versions for
authors of other accounts are actually part of the historic event.
Source: Zaide, Gregorio and Sonia Zaide. (1990). Documentary Sources of Philippine
History. Vol. 5. Manila: National Book Store
The Account
We started our trek to Kangkong at about eleven that night. We walked through
the rain over dark expanses of muddy meadows and fields. Our clothes drenched
and our bodies numbed by the cold wind, we plodded wordlessly. It was nearly
two in the morning when we reached the house of Brother Apolonio Samson in
Kangkong. We crowded into the house to rest and warm ourselves. We were so
tired that, after hanging our clothes out to dry, we soon asleep….
The Supremo began assigning guards at five o’ clock the following morning,
Saturday 22 August 1896. He placed a detachment at the Balintawak boundary
and another at the backyard to the north of the house where we were gathered….
No less than three hundred men assembled at the bidding of the Supremo
Andres Bonifacio. Altogether, they carried assorted weapons, bolos, spears,
daggers, a dozen small revolvers and a rifle used by its owner, one Lieutenant
Manuel, for hunting birds. The Supremo Bonifacio was restless because of fear of
a sudden attack by the enemy. He was worried over the thought that any of the
couriers carrying the letter sent by Emilio Jacinto could have been intercepted; and
in that eventuality, the enemy would surely know their whereabouts and attack
them on the sly. He decided that it was better to move to a site called Bahay Toro.
At ten o’ clock that Sunday morning, 23 August 1896, we arrived at Bahay Toro.
Our number had grown to more than 500 and the house, yard, and warehouse of
Cabesang Melchora was crowded with us Katipuneros. The generous hospitality of
Cabeasng Melchora was no less than that of Apolonio Samson. Like him, she also
opened her granary and he had plenty of rice pounded and animals slaughtered
to feed us….
The following day, Monday, 24 August, more Katipuneros came and increased
our number to more than a thousand. The Supremo called a meeting at ten o
‘clock that morning inside Cabesang Melchora’s barn. Flanking him on both sides
at the head of the table were Dr. Pio Valenzuela, Emilio Jacinto, Briccio Pantas,
Enrique Pacheco, Ramon Bernardo, Pantaleon Torres, Francesco Carreon, Vicente
Fernandez, Teodoro Plata, and others. We were so crowded that some stood
outside the barn.
The following matters were approved at the meeting:
1. An uprising to defend the people’s freedom was to be started at midnight of
Saturday, 29 August 1896….
4. To be on a state of alert so that the Katipunan forces could strike should the
situation arise where the enemy was at a disadvantage. Thus, the uprising could
be started earlier than the agreed time of midnight 29 August 1896 should a
favorable opportunity arise at that date. Everyone should steel himself and be
resolute in the struggle that was imminent….
5. The immediate objective was the capture of Manila….
After the adjournment of the meeting at twelve noon, there were tumultuous
shouts of ‘’ Long live the Sons of the People!’’
Guillermo Masangkay’s Account ‘’ The Cry of Balintawak’’
(August 26, 1896)
I n 1932, Guillermo Masangkay, a friend and fellow Katipunero of Andres Bonifacio, recounted
his experiences as a member of the revolutionary movement. In an interview with the Sunday
Tribune magazine, Masangkay said that the First Cry happened in Balintawak on August 26, 1896.
In the first decade of American rule, it was his account that was used by the government and
civic officials to fix date and place of the First Cry which was capped with the erection of the
‘’Monument to the Heroes of 1896’’ in that place.
However, in an interview published in the newspaper Bagong Buhay on August 26, 1957,
Masangkay changed his narrative stating that the revolution began on August 23, 1896, similar
to the assertion of Dr. Pio Valenzuela. But Masangkay’s date was later changed again when his
granddaughter, Soledad Buehler- Borromeo, cited sources, including the Masangkay papers, that
the original date was August 26.
Source:Torres Jose Victor. (2018). Batis : Sources in the Philippine History. C & E Publishing,
Inc.
The Account
On August 26, a big meeting was held in Balintawak, at the house of
Apolonio Samson, then the cabeza of that barrio of Caloocan. Among those who
attended, I remember, were Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto, Aguedo del Rosario, Tomas
Remigio, Briccio Pantas, Teodoro Plata, Pio Valenzuela, Enrique Pacheco, and
Francesco Carreon. They were all leaders of the Katipunan and composed the
board of directors of the organization. Delegates from Bulacan, Cabanatuan,
Cavite, and Morong ( now Rizal) were also present.
At about nine o’ clock in the morning of August 26, the meeting was opened
with Andres Bonifacio presiding and Emilio Jacinto acting as secretary. The purpose
was to discuss when the uprising was to take place. Teodoro Plata, Briccio Pantas,
and Pio Valenzuela were all opposed to starting the revolution too early. They
reasoned that the people would be in distress if the revolution were started without
adequate prearation. Plata was very forceful in his argument, stating that the
uprising could not very well be started without arms and food for the soldiers.
Valenzuela used Rizal’s argument about the rich not siding with the Katipunan
organization.
Andres Bonifacio, sensing that he would lose in the discussion then left the
session hall and talked to the people who were waiting outside for the result of
the meeting of the leaders. He told the people that the leaders were arguing
against starting the revolution early, and appealed to them in a fiery speech in
which he said: ‘’ You remember the fate of our countrymen who were shot in
Bagumbayan. Should we return now to the towns, the Spaniards will only shoot
us. Our organization has been discovered and we are all marked men. If we don’t
start the uprising, the Spaniards will get us anyway. What then, do you say?’’
“Revolt,’’ the people shouted as one.
Bonifacio then asked the people to give a pledge that they were to revolt. He told
that the sign of slavery of the Filipinos were ( sic) the cedula tax charged each
citizen. ‘’ If it is true that you are ready to revolt, ‘’ Bonifacio said, ‘’I want to see
you destroyed your cedulas. It will be the sign that all of us have declared our
severance from the Spaniards.’’
With tears in their eyes, the people, as one man, pulled out their cedulas
and tore them to pieces. It was the beginning of the formal declaration of the
separation from Spanish rule….
When the people’s pledge was obtained by Bonifacio, he returned to the session
hall and informed the leaders of what took place outside. ‘’ The people want to
revolt, and they destroyed their cedulas, ‘’ Bonifacio said, ‘’ So now we have to
start the uprising, otherwise the people by hundreds will be shot.” There was no
alternative. The board of directors, in spite of the protest of Plata, Pantas,
Valenzuela, voted for the revolution. And when this was decided, the people
outside shouted, “ Long live the Philippine Republic.”
Gregoria de Jesus’ The First “ Cry”
(August 25, 1896)
This version was written by no other than the “ Lakambini of the Katipunan” and wife
Andres Bonifacio, Gregoria de Jesus. She has been a participant of this event and became
the keeper of the secret documents of the Katipunan. After the revolution in August 1896,
she lived with her parents in Caloocan then fled to Manila when she was told that the
Spanish authorities wanted to arrest her. Eventually, she joined her husband in the
mountains and shared adversities with him. In her account, the First “Cry” happened near
Caloocan on August 25, 1896.
Source: Zaide, Gregorio and Sonia Zaide. (1990). Documentary Sources of Philippine
History. Vol. 5. Manila: National Book Store
The Account
“The activities of the Katipunan had reached nearly all corners of the Philippine
Archipelago, so that when its existence was discovered and some of the members
arrested, we immediately returned to Caloocan. However, as we were closely
watched by the agents of the Spanish authorities, Andres Bonifacio and other
Katipuneros left the town after some days. It was then that the uprising began,
with the first cry for freedom on August 25, 1896. Meanwhile, I was with my
parents. Through my friends, I learned that Spanish were coming to arrest me.
Immediately, I fled town at eleven o’ clock at night, secretly going through the
rice fields to La Lorna, with the intention of returning to Manila. I was treated like
an apparition, for, sad to say, in every house where I tried to get a little rest, I
was driven away as if people therein were frightened for their own lives. Later, I
found out that the occupants of the houses which I had visited were seized and
severely punished – and some even exiled. One of them was an uncle of mine
whom I had visited on that night to kiss his hands, and he died in exile.’’