As we conclude this debate, I urge you to consider the weight of the evidence presented by
our side.
We know and admire Rizal for his brave stand against Spanish colonizers and his insightful
critiques of Catholic Church practices. However, we are caught up in historical whispers that
suggest he recanted his beliefs before dying.
Today, I am adamant that, despite conflicting evidence, the most plausible interpretation of
existing primary sources suggests i.e Rizal stood resolute and did not retract his convictions
before his execution.
Let's now examine the purported retraction document in its entirety. Being a gifted and
prolific writer, Rizal's writings expressed his beliefs and vision. The aforementioned
document, however, stands in sharp contrast to his earlier creations. The positive will counter
with, "But Rizal is fully eloquent of the Jesuit Format, which is contained in the retraction." It
is easy to fake Rizal's eloquence in this approach.
Furthermore, if Rizal had truly changed his mind, the Catholic Church and the Spanish
government would have been screaming from their pulpits and trumpeting it from every
rooftop, using it as a powerful tool of propaganda to stifle the growing revolt. They had a
great chance to declare triumph against the reformists, but the retraction's news was not
widely reported, suggesting a potential cover-up or falsification.
And if Rizal indeed recanted his beliefs, wouldn’t it be proper for repayment of his retraction
that he would get a Christian, decent, and humane burial inside the sacred ground of Paco
Cemetery? Instead, all he got was a burial, comparable to that of a dead animal, an unnamed
grave, his body not even placed in a coffin, Hardly found and retrieved, his family
desperately needed the help of the cemetery gravedigger, just to exhume his body. Now, can
you say this is a proper repayment for a man who gives up everything he believes in?
But then again, consider some counterarguments advanced by the affirmative. Rizal was
fixated with the idea of dying for the sake of his country. Let us examine this man's
personality. Rizal was wise enough to make the right choices. Many of his works dealt with
the cruelty of Spaniards. All of them, including friars, are directly subject to the Catholic
Church. Consider this: if Rizal retracts, will he simply abandon everything he stood up for,
which took the majority of his lifetime and hard work, in exchange for a large sum of money
and an estate? The answer is NO.
The affirmative response will state, "Rizal retracted his beliefs in order to better serve his
family and free them from any guilt that might have persisted in their lineage, but wouldn't it
be a greater disgrace to his family and fellow citizens to even entertain the idea of doing so?
Still, the evidence we have in support of this is strong, rational, and well-founded in historical
context. Rizal's last writings, especially his poem "Mi Ultimo Adios," and his letters to
friends and family while he was imprisoned are powerful testaments to his steadfastness in
his convictions. His younger sister Trinidad refers to this document as "a sick joke to a man
that cannot do anything anymore" in her written testimony.
Now, everyone, if you think that Rizal retracted, then you most likely think that the truth is
still present in a contradictory document with little supporting evidence, that the oppressors
are motivated by political ambition and colonial endeavor, and that Rizal is a coward.
By siding with us, you are demonstrating your commitment to upholding the legacy that
Rizal left behind as a tireless champion of equality, social justice, and national identity.
In the end, our side views the purported retraction as a grave insult to Rizal's ongoing legacy
of social reform and justice, as well as a flagrant distortion of history. It undermines the sense
of patriotism he sparked in any case.
Because Rizal famously remarked, "There can be no tyrants where there are no slaves," we
Filipinos must never permit falsification and distortion to enslave our history.