One of the issues that
hounds Philippine
History is whether or
not Jose Rizal, in his
final days, retracted all
of his previous works
and statements that
were contrary to the
dogma and teachings
of the Roman Catholic
Church.
It was also a renunciation
of his membership to the
Masonic Brotherhood.
"I retract with all my
heart whatever in my
words, writings,
publications and conduct
have been contrary to
my character as a son of
the Catholic Church.",
The following four
reasons are
oftentimes cited by
historians:
1. Rizal love his family
so much that if he
signs the retraction he
could save them from
persecution including
other Filipinos.
2. To give Josephine a
legal status as his wife
3. To secure reforms
from the Spanish
government.
4. To help the church
cut away from the
disease which harmed
its organization.
The 1st texts
was published at the
very day of Rizal's
execution: Dec. 30,
1896, in La Voz
Española and Diaro
de Manila.
The second text
appeared in Spain, it
came from an
anonymous writer. It
was revealed in La
Juventud a magazine on
Feb. 14, 1897, after 14
years the anonymous
writer revelead himself
as Fr. Balaguer.
• The "original" text,
Fr. Balaguer disclosed
missing for 39 years
this information in a
after Rizal's execution, 1910 letter to his
was found in
former superior; Fr. Pi,
archdiocesan archives stating that he had
on May 18, 1935.
received an exact copy
•The reproductions of of the retraction written
the lost original had
& signed by Rizal. Fr.
been made by a
Balaguer sent it to Fr.
copyist who could
Pi, but wasn't able to
verify it.
imitate Rizal’s
•Fr. Pi’s copy of Rizal’s
retraction has the
same text as that of
Fr. Balaguer’s "exact"
copy but follows the
paragraphing of the
texts
of
Rizal’s
retraction in the
Manila newspapers.
Regarding the "original"
text, no one claimed to
have seen it, except the
publishers of La Voz
Espanola. That newspaper
reported: "Still more; we
have seen and read his
(Rizal’s) own hand-written
retraction which he sent to
our dear and venerable
Archbishop…" On the other
hand, Manila pharmacist F.
Stahl wrote in a letter:
"besides, nobody has seen
this written declaration, in
spite of the fact that quite a
number of people would
want to see it. "For example,
not only Rizal’s family but
also the correspondents in
Manila of the newspapers in
Madrid, Don Manuel Alhama
of El Imparcial and Sr.
Santiago Mataix of El
Heraldo, were not able to see
the hand-written retraction.
Neither Fr. Pi nor His
Grace the Archbishop
ascertained whether Rizal
himself was the one who
wrote and signed the
retraction. After that, the
documents could not be
seen by those who
wanted to examine it and
was finally considered lost
after efforts to look for it
proved futile.
On May 18, 1935,
the lost "original"
document of Rizal’s
retraction was
discovered by the
archdeocean archivist
Fr. Manuel Garcia,
C.M.
The significant
differences between
the "Original" and
the
Manila
Newspapers texts of
the retraction and
the texts of the
copies
of
Fr.
Balaguer and Fr. Pio
Pi
First: The words "mi
cualidad"
(with
"u")
appear in the original
and the newspaper texts
while the Jesuits’ copies
have "mi calidad" (with
"u").
Second:
The
Jesuits’ copies of the
retraction omit the word
"Catolica" after the first
"Iglesias"
which
are
found in the original and
Third:
The
Jesuits’ copies of the
retraction add before
the third "Iglesias"
the word "misma"
which is not found in
the original and the
newspaper texts of
the retraction.
Fourth:
With
regards
to
paragraphing,
Fr.
Balaguer’s text does not
begin
the
second
paragraph until the fifth
sentences while the
original
and
the
newspaper copies start
the second paragraph
immediately with the
second sentences.
Fifth: The texts
of the retraction in
the original and in
the
manila
newspapers
have
only four commas,
the text of Fr.
Balaguer’s copy has
eleven commas.
Sixth: The most
important of all, Fr.
Balaguer’s copy did
not have the names
of the witnesses from
the texts of the
newspapers
in
Manila.
Where did Fr.
Balaguer’s "exact"
copy come from? "…I
preserved in my
keeping and am
sending to you the
original texts of the
two formulas of
retraction, which they
(You) gave me; that
from you and that of
the Archbishop, and
which they (that is,
you) made; and the
other the exact copy
of
the
retraction
written and signed by
Rizal. The handwriting
of this copy I don’t
know
nor
do
I
remember whose it is,
and I even suspect
that it might have
been written by Rizal
Thus, according to
Fr. Balaguer, the
"exact copy" came
from the
Archbishop! He
called it "exact"
because, not
having seen the
original himself,
he was made to
believe that it was
the one that
faithfully
reproduced the
original in
comparison to that
of Fr. Pi in which
"changes" had
been made.
In 1895, Dr. Jose
Rizal
wrote
a
retraction in Dapitan
to marry Josephine
Bracken, but was
required to sign a
profession of faith
and write a retraction
which had to be
approved by the
Bishop of Cebu.
Rizal realized
he had given a
priest the
retraction, which
the friars had
been trying to
get from him.
However, the
Archbishop and
Fr. Pi did not see
the original
document, which
was kept by
some friars.
They acted
innocently
because they did
not distinguish
between genuine
and imitation
Rizal's
handwriting.
MODULE 13
“BONIFACIO
MURAL”
Carlos “Botong”V.
Francisco
1964
THE SITE IS STILL
BALINTAW
AK
PUGADLAW
IN
CALOOCAN
CITY
--In 1908-1963
believes
happened August
26
QUEZON CITY
--Memoir of Dr.Pio
Valenzuela.
(1948)
--In 1948,
declared.
 In the midst of this dramatic scene,
some Katipuneros who had just
arrived from Manila and Kalookan
shouted "Dong Andres! The civil
guards are almost behind us and
will reconnoiter the mountains."
Upon hearing this, Bonifacio at
once ordered his men to get ready
for the expected attack of the
Spaniards. However, since they had
inferior arms, the rebels instead
decided, to retreat. Under cover of
darkness, the rebels marched
towards Pasong Tamo – (Now
named Chino Roces Avenue)
 August 24, 1896, they arrived at
the yard of Melchora Aquino, also
known as Tandang Sora. It was then
decided that all the rebels in the
surrounding towns be notified of
the general attack on Manila on the
night of August 29, 1896.
“Where and when did the cry of
balintawak happen”
 Agoncillo defined “The Cry”
as the tearing of cedulas,
departing from precedent
in his book “The revolt of
the Masses” published in
1956, he also wrote that it
took place in Pugad Lawin
on August 23, 1896 based
on Pio Valenzuela’s
statement.
 Pio Valenzuela’s statement :
In 1935, Pio Valenzuela,
along with Briccio Pantas
and Enrique Pacheco said:
“The first Cry of the
revolution did not happen
in Balintawak where the
monument is, but in a
place called Pugad Lawin.”
“Where and when did the cry of
balintawak happen”
 In 1963 the Philippine
government declared a
shift to August 23 in Pugad
Lawin, Quezon City. But An
officer of the Spanish
guardia civil, Lt. Olegario
Diaz, stated that the Cry
took place in Balintawak on
August 25, 1896.
 The controversy lingered. “Despite
these becoming textbook facts,”
contends the popular historian
Ambeth R. Ocampo in 1995, “the
Balintawak tradition continues to
thrive. Nick Joaquin still writes in
support of Balintawak, and I, myself
did not think about this very much
until I was invited to deliver a paper
for the first Annual Bonifacio
Lectures in 1989. Reviewing
sources on the revolution, I found
out that the Balintawak tradition
was more popular than that of the
Pugadlawin.”
“Where and when did the cry of
balintawak happen”
 “In 1989, after a series of
articles on the controversy
over Balintawak and
Pugadlawin,” adds Ocampo,
“ I received a batch of
photocopied manuscripts
with an invitation to
peruse the originals of
what appeared to be the
papers of Bonifacio.
Knowing that these were
transcribed and printed by
Agoncillo in two separate books, I
did not bother to decipher
Bonifacio’s fine script. Months
later, on a lazy afternoon, I
decided to compare the Agoncillo
transcriptions with the Bonifacio
originals. I was surprised to find
discrepancies in the text. While
Agoncillo reproduced the
“orihinal sa Tagalog,” it proved to
be slightly different.”
Soledad
Borromeo-Buehler's 1998
book, "Cry of Balintawak:
A Contrived Controversy,
"argues that the "Cry of
Pugad Lawin" is an
invented story.
The First Cry, originally
ascribed to August 26,
was popularized by
Gregorio Zaide in 1954.
Teodoro Agoncillo
persuaded the National
Historical Commission
to move the historical
site from Balintawak to
Pugad Lawin on August
23 instead of the regular
August 26 date.
If Agoncillo's personality.
wasn't enough, he named
Dr. Pio Valenzuela, a close
acquaintance of Bonifacio,
as his main source.
WHERE AND WHEN DID
THE "CRY" TOOK
PLACE?
Teodoro M. Kalaw in
his classic work, The
Filipino Revolution
An officer of the Spanish (prepared in 1925)
guardia civil, Lt.
wrote that the event
Olegario Diaz, stated
took place during the
that the Cry took place
last week of August
in Balintawak on August 1896 at Kangkong,
25, 1896.
Balintawak.
Santiago Alvarez, a
Katipunero and son of
Mariano Alvarez, the
leader of the
Magdiwang faction in
Cavite, stated in 1927
that the Cry took place
in Bahay Toro (now in
Quezon City) on August
24, 1896.
Accounts by historians
Milagros Guerrero,
Emmanuel Encarnacion
and Ramon Villegas
claim the event to have
taken place in Tandang
Sora's barn in Gulod,
Barangay Banlat,
Quezon City.
"CRY"
Originally the term "cry",
referred to the first clash
between the Katipuneros
and the Guardia-Civil
(Civil Guards) The "cry"
could also refer to the
tearing up of cédulas
personales) (community
tax certificates) in
defiance of their
allegiance to Spain.
BALINTAWAK
Balintawak referred both to a
specific place in modern
Caloocan City and a wider area
which included parts of modern
Quezon City. Similarly, Caloocan
referred to modern Caloocan City
and also a wider area which
included. modern Quezon City
and part of modern Pasig. Pugad
Lawin. Pasong Tamo, Kangkong
and other specific places were all
in "greater Balintawak", which
was in turn part of "greater
Caloocan"
Some of the confusion
in the area is partly
due to the double
meanings of the terms
"Balintawak" and
"Caloocan" at the turn
of the century, which
referred to specific
places in modern
Caloocan City and a
wider area.
This controversy
remains unresolved.
In 1963, upon the NHI
endorsement, President
Diosdado Macapagal
ordered that the cry be
celebrated on August 23
and that Pugad Lawin
be recognized as its
site.