ADARLO MILLIE NINA L.

BS MLS 1-G

CASTILLO VON NICOLE

RICARDO P. GARCIA, THE GREAT DEBATE: THE RIZAL RETRACTION

The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly debated as to its authenticity.
It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There were many
witnesses, most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935. It was
found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the original document
was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it.
However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, the retraction of Rizal was
copied verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found the original
document, also copied it verbatim.
In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to this the date of the
signing was very clear in the original Spanish document which Rizal supposedly signed. The date was
“December 29, 1890.”
Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears the date “December 29, 189C”.
The number “0” was evidently altered to make it look like a letter C. Then still later, another supposedly
original version came up. It has the date “December 29, 1896”. This time, the “0” became a “6”.
So which is which?
Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document, reported that the
forger of Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano Lacuna,
which was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s signature
forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were approached by Spanish friars during the final day of the Filipino-
American war to forge Rizal’s signature.
This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale from Roman Roque himself,
them being neighbor’s.
To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the forest of the night.
Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal was invented by the friars to deflect
the heroism of Rizal which was centered on the friar abuses.
Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who copied verbatim Rizal’s retraction, also figured prominently during
the revolution. It was him, Andres Bonifacio reported, who had intimated to Aguinaldo the cessation of
agitation in exchange of pardon.
There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of Josephine Bracken,
written on February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged badly. The document supposedly written by
Josephine herself supported the fact that they were married under the Catholic rites. But upon closer
look, there is a glaring difference between the penmanship of the document, and other letters written
by Josephine to Rizal.
Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though Rizal is a hero, whether he
retracted or not, we must investigate if he really did a turn-around. If he did not, and the documents
were forgeries, then somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.