DID RIZAL CONSIDER RETRACTING WHILE IN DAPITAN?

by Bryan Anthony C. Paraiso

Akin to walking on a mine field, the issue of José Rizal’s alleged retraction of his religious errors stirs
up the emotions of historians, flaring up into fiery debates between the pros and cons, without any
resolution in sight.

The thought of a disavowal of his beliefs is almost sacrilegious and improbable to Rizal’s character and
vehemence against oppression, as evidenced by a letter to Mariano Ponce on April 18, 1889: “…At the
sight of those injustices and cruelties…I swore to devote myself to avenge one day so many victims, and
with this idea in mind I have been studying and this can be read in all my works and writings. God will
someday give me an opportunity to carry out my promise.”

Of the religious orders, he writes: “…the friars are not what they pretend to be nor are they ministers
to Christ, the protector of the people, nor the support of the Spanish government…Don’t they show
cruelty? Don’t they instigate the government against the people? Don’t they manifest terror? Where
are sanctity, protection, and force?”

Rizal knew that his crusade might end in death, but revealed that he was unsure of his reaction: “…no
one knows how one should behave at that supreme instant, and perhaps I myself who preach and brag so
much might manifest more fear and less energy than (Fr. Jose) Burgos at that critical moment.”

Arguments on the retraction revolve around the veracity of the confession Rizal purportedly signed
prior to his execution and testimonies of several witnesses who had seen the act carried out.

However, if Rizal did retract, when did he come to this decision? Was he weary of the struggle that he
decided to give in to the continuous urgings of the Jesuit fathers who were present at his death cell? Or is
it possible that Rizal had ruminated on retracting while still on exile in Dapitan?

Noted historian Fr. Jose Arcilla’s monumental multi-volume Jesuit Missionary Letters from Mindanao
contains several letters of the Jesuit Antonio Obach to his Mission Superior, which may shed light on this
matter. Obach wrote on July 28, 1895: “Rizal has just seen me and said (what has been jumping from
mouth to mouth of some who heard it from him), ‘Father Antonio, I no longer want further battles with
the friars, but live and work in peace.’

‘What you ought to do is retract all your errors and you will be at peace.’
‘I am ready to do what Your Reverence says, but under certain conditions.’
I gave him a pen and paper for him to write these conditions. In his own hand and style, he wrote:
‘Conditions I ask to retract references to the matter of the friars, and no longer meddle with them.’
—José Rizal

1. His freedom
2. Return to his family what has been confiscated or give its equivalent.
3. P50,000 to start a business to support himself

On fulfillment of these conditions, Rizal will write to the bishop.”

Does this letter provide irrefutable proof that Rizal had decided on retracting beforehand? What is
intriguing is that he had arrived at this decision, evidently, to spare his family from further suffering and
maltreatment.

Fr. Obach continues: “…Rizal says his family owned two houses of heavy materials, and he asks that
they be returned or their equivalent…I answered that the only thing I could do was to look into the
situation and if there is no difficulty, for I do not know how things are…As for the third, I said that I do
not think they would give him such a big amount. His plan…is to raise a huge cement plant which, on a
small scale…has been quite successful. But this third condition is not important, for without it, he is
ready to make a retraction provided his family is provided for. Besides, if they grant him this amount, it
would be on condition that he repays it.”

Obach’s letter also details Rizal’s initiative of opening a wholesale store in Dapitan to compete with the
Chinese traders, “who do nothing but cheat the Indios.” In fact, Rizal had prepared the statutes and
regulations of the Society of Dapitan Agriculturists, aiming to facilitate the easy buying, selling, and
storage of products for export, and curtailing the trade monopoly of the Chinese.

Obach believed that they had successfully persuaded Rizal to turn away from his errors: “I am
convinced that Rizal is now tired and wants to retract, but his pride strongly holds him back…I think he
will immediately break away from everything and he would be an excellent Christian.”

In a letter on the following day, Obach reports: “Regarding the letter I sent to Your Reverence which
contains Rizal’s retraction. I would ask you to send me a model retraction…In demanding that Rizal
indicate what has been taken from his family, perhaps it will be humiliating for the Dominican Fathers.
Rizal refuses, because in this way they will (have) him bound more tightly under obligation. On the
other hand, retracting is acknowledging his errors, and so it is his turn to humble himself…I await your
letter which I can read to Rizal to convince him what is better to do for God’s greater glory.”

By August 28, 1895, Obach recounted that Rizal requested for a detailed account of his errors: “…Rizal
came and asked me if I could draw up a list of his errors. ‘You can tell Fr. Ricart, I am ready to write,
and tell him that I myself will retract all errors I may have committed against the Roman Catholic and
Apostolic Church in my writings, and that he can make this same retraction public in the manner he
wants.’ But with this he stands to lose everything…”

Obach wrote that Rizal insisted that he and his family should receive some form of compensation for
all the troubles they endured: “But on condition that they give me P50,000 since I have no means to
support myself in decency, and with that amount I could bring my parents with me anywhere.” He no
longer talks of machines and cement, and so on, and he thinks that this amount is owed him because of
the harm inflicted on him.”

Are Father Antonio Obach’s letters a reliable source about Rizal’s situation? Will these revelations
provide new clues to his frame of mind during the few hours before his death? The mystery of Rizal’s
retraction deepens.
everal historians report that Rizal retracted his anti-Catholic ideas through a document which stated: "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."[note 13] However, there are doubts of its authenticity given
that there is no certificate of Rizal's Catholic marriage to Josephine Bracken.[45] Also there is an
allegation that the retraction document was a forgery.[46]

After analyzing six major documents of Rizal, Ricardo Pascual concluded that the retraction document,
said to have been discovered in 1935, was not in Rizal's handwriting. Senator Rafael Palma, a former
President of the University of the Philippines and a prominent Mason, argued that a retraction is not in
keeping with Rizal's character and mature beliefs.[47] He called the retraction story a "pious fraud."[48]
Others who deny the retraction are Frank Laubach,[10] a Protestant minister; Austin Coates,[31] a British
writer; and Ricardo Manapat, director of the National Archives.[49]

Those who affirm the authenticity of Rizal's retraction are prominent Philippine historians such as Nick
Joaquin,[note 14] Nicolas Zafra of UP[50] León María Guerrero III,[note 15] Gregorio Zaide,[52]
Guillermo Gómez Rivera, Ambeth Ocampo,[49] John Schumacher,[53] Antonio Molina,[54] Paul
Dumol[55] and Austin Craig.[26] They take the retraction document as authentic, having been judged as
such by a foremost expert on the writings of Rizal, Teodoro Kalaw (a 33rd degree Mason) and
"handwriting experts...known and recognized in our courts of justice", H. Otley Beyer and Dr. José I. Del
Rosario, both of UP.[50]

Historians also refer to 11 eyewitnesses when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a Catholic prayer book,
and recited Catholic prayers, and the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix before his execution. A great
grand nephew of Rizal, Fr. Marciano Guzman, cites that Rizal's 4 confessions were certified by 5
eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan
bishops, Masons and anti-clericals.[56] One witness was the head of the Spanish Supreme Court at the
time of his notarized declaration and was highly esteemed by Rizal for his integrity.[57]

Because of what he sees as the strength these direct evidence have in the light of the historical method, in
contrast with merely circumstantial evidence, UP professor emeritus of history Nicolas Zafra called the
retraction "a plain unadorned fact of history."[50] Guzmán attributes the denial of retraction to "the
blatant disbelief and stubbornness" of some Masons.[56] To explain his retraction, Guzman said that the
factors were the following: (a) the long discussion and debate which appealed to reason and logic that he had with
Fr. Balaguer, (b) the visits of his mentors and friends from the Ateneo, and (c) the grace of God due the numerous
prayers of religious communities.

Supporters see in the retraction Rizal's "moral courage...to recognize his mistakes;"[52][note 16] his
reversion to the "true faith", and thus his "unfading glory;"[57] and a return to the "ideals of his fathers"
which "did not diminish his stature as a great patriot; on the contrary, it increased that stature to
greatness."[60] On the other hand, senator Jose Diokno stated, "Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic
or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino... Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still
Rizal - the hero who courted death 'to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for
our duty and our beliefs'."[61]

Notes 13 to 16
^ Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha habido
contrario á mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia Católica: Jesus Cavanna, Rizal's Unfading Glory: A
Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr. José Rizal (Manila: 1983) ^ Joaquin, Nick, Rizal in Saga,
Philippine National Centennial Commission, 1996:""It seems clear now that he did retract, that he went to
confession, heard mass, received communion, and was married to Josephine, on the eve of his death". ^
"That is a matter for handwriting experts, and the weight of expert opinion is in favor of authenticity. It is
nonsense to say that the retraction does not prove Rizal's conversion; the language of the document is
unmistakable."[51] ^ The retraction, Javier de Pedro contends, is the end of a process which started with a
personal crisis as Rizal finished the Fili.[58][59]
References:
^ Ildefonso T. Runes and Mameto R. Buenafe, The Forgery of the Rizal "Retraction" and Josephine's
"Autobiography" (Manila: BR Book Col, 1962) ^ "Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the Debate, Silliman
Journal (Vol. 12, No. 2, April, May, June 1965), pages 168–183". Life and Writings of José Rizal. Retrieved
September 9, 2009. ^ Rafael Palma, Pride of the Malay Race (New York: Prentice Hall, 1949) ^ a b
Ambeth Ocampo (2008). Rizal Without the Overcoat. Anvil Publishing. ^ a b c Nicolas Zafra (1961).
Historicity of Rizal's Retraction. Bookmark. ^ Guerrero, León Maria III (1963). "The First Filipino: A
Biography of José Rizal". National Historical Institute of The Philippines, Manila. ^ a b Gregorio Zaide
(2003). Jose Rizal: Life, Works and Writings of a Genius, Writer, Scientist and National Hero. National
Bookstore. ^ Schumacher, John. "The Making of a Nation: Essays on Nineteenth-Century Nationalism". ^
Molina, Antonio M. (1998). "Yo, José Rizal". Ediciones de Cultura Hispánica, Madrid. ^ "Uncovering
Controversial Facts about José Rizal" (mariaronabeltran.com) ^ a b Marciano Guzman (1988). The Hard
Facts About Rizal's Conversion. Sinagtala Publishers. ^ a b Jesus Cavanna (1983). Rizal's Unfading Glory:
A Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal. ^ Javier de Pedro (2005) Rizal Through a
Glass Darkly, University of Asia and the Pacific ^ "Evolution of Rizal's Religious Thought". ^ (1950-01-
06). "Joint Statement of the Catholic Hierarchy of the Philippines on the Book 'The Pride of the Malay
Race'". CBCP (Catholic Bishop's Conference of the Philippines) Documents. Retrieved on 2012-09-30. ^
Garcia, Ricardo P. (1964). "The Great Debate: The Rizal Retraction - Preface". R.P. Garcia Publishing Co.,
Quezon City.

THE RIZAL RETRACTION AND OTHER CASES

by Peter Jaynul V. Uckung

The flow of history is as inexorable as the tidal flow of an angry ocean. But ever so
often in our collective recollection, it is remembered that sometimes the skilful use of
forgery can redirect the flow of history itself.

In the Philippines today, forgery is usually resorted to redirect the flow of money from
the rightful beneficiary to the unworthy pockets of invisible people.

That money is usually the target of forgery is known and practiced all over the world,
but forgery in the hands of the wily, has power to effect a redirection of events and
undoing of history. It has the power to obscure or beliee an occurrence or create an event
that did not actually transpire. It also has the power to enslave and destroy.

In October 1600, the Muslim Ottoman Army and a Christian army, led by Austrians,
with Hungarian, French, Maltese and German troops were battling it out for territory
called Kanizsa. The Ottoman army was outgunned and outmanned, but the Ottoman
commander, Tiryaki Hasan Pasha was a clever man. He knew that the Hungarians were
not too happy to be allied with the Austrians. So he sent fake letters, designed them to be
captured by the Austrians. The letters contained Hungarian alliance with Ottoman forces.
The Austrian upon reading the fake letters signed by a reliable source (obviously forged)
decided to kill all Hungarian soldiers.

The Hungarians revolted and the Christian army disintegrated from within. Thus, did
the Ottomans won the battle, by issuing forged communication.

During World War II, the British, to protect the secrecy of the Allied plan to invade
Sicily in 1943, launched operation Mincemeat. This was a deception campaign to mislead
German Intelligence about the real target of the start of the Allied Invasion of Europe.

A series of seemingly genuine secret documents, with forged signatures, were attached
to a British corpse dressed in military uniforms. It was left to float somewhere in a beach
in Spain, where plenty of German agents were sure to get hold of it.

The body with the fake documents was found eventually and its documents seen by
German agents. The documents identified Sardinia and Corsica as the targets of the Allied
invasion. The Germans believed it, and was caught with their pants down when allied
forces hit the beaches of the real target, which was Sicily.

This kind of deception was also used by the British against the Germans in North
Africa. They placed a map of British minefields, then attached them to a corpse. The
minefields were non-existent but the Germans saw the map and considered it true. Thus,
they rerouted their tanks to areas with soft sand where they bogged down.

In 1944, a Japanese sea plane crashed near Cebu. According to Japanese military
officials who were captured, and later released, they were accompanying Gen. Koga,
Commander in Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet. Gen. Koga died in the crash. A little
later, Filipino fisherman recovered some Japanese documents. They delivered the
documents to US Intelligence. The documents revealed that Leyte was lightly defended.
As a result, the Americans shifted their invasion target to Leyte instead of Cotabato Bay
in Mindanao.

On October 17, 1944 the invasion of Leyte went underway. Leyte was lightly defended
as the Koga papers have indicated. But it was during the invasion of Leyte when the
Japanese navy launched their last offensive strike against the US fleet, with the objective
of obliterating it once and for all. They nearly succeeded. After this near-tragic event, the
Koga papers were considered by some military strategists as spurious and could have been
manufactured by the Japanese to mislead the American navy into thinking that Leyte was
a defenceless island. That Leyte was a trap. And the Americans nearly fell into it.

In recent memory, there was an incident in which the forging of documents served to
negate the existence of an independent Philippines.

In 1901, the Americans managed to capture a Filipino messenger, Cecilio Segismundo

who carried with him documents from Aguinaldo. The American then faked some
documents complete with forged signature, telling Aguinaldo that some Filipino officers
were sending him guerrillas with American prisoners. With the help of a Spanish traitor,
Lazaro Segovia, the Americans assembled a company of pro-American Filipino soldiers,
the Macabebe scouts. These were the soldiers who penetrated the camp of Aguinaldo,
disguised as soldiers of the Philippine Republic. They managed to capture Aguinaldo.
With the president captured, his generals began to surrender, and the Republic began to
fall.

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 neighbours.

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.

case Study 4: Where Did the Cry of Rebellion Happen?- Momentous events swept the Spanish colonies in
the late nineteenth century, including thePhilippines. - Journalists of the time referred to the phrase “El
Grito de Rebelion” or “Cry of Rebellion” tomark the start of these revolutionary events, identifying the places
where it happened.- In the Philippines, the Cry of Rebellion happened in August 1896, northeast of Manila,
wherethey declared rebellion against the Spanish colonial government.- T h e s e e v e n t s a r e i m p o r t a n t
m a r k e r s i n t h e h i s t o r y o f c o l o n i e s t h a t s t r u g g l e d f o r t h e i r independence against their colonizers.-
Prominent Filipino historian Teodoro Agoncillo emphasizes the event when Bonifacio tore thecedula or tax
receipt before the Katipuneros who also did the same.- Some writers identified the first military event with the
Spaniards as the moment of the Cry, forwhich, Emilio Aguinaldo co mmissio ned a “Hi mno de
Balinta wak” to inspire the renewedstruggle after the Pact of the Biak-na-Bato failed.Different Dates and
Places of the CryVarious accounts of the Cry give different dates and places.1.A guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz
identified the Cry to have happened in Balintawak onAugust 25, 1896.2.Teodoro Kalaw, a Filipino historian,
marks the place to be in Kangkong, Balintawak, onthe last week of August 1896.3.Santiago Alvarez, a
Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, leader of the Magdiwangfaction in Cavite, put the Cry in Bahay Toro
in Quezon City on August 24, 1896.4.Pio Valenzuela, known Katipunero and privy to many events concerning
the Katipunanstated that the Cry happened in Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896.

News about the discovery of the Katipunan spread to Manila and nearby suburbs,
and Andres Bonifacio immediately called for a general meeting. Various wings of the
Katipunan gathered at the house of Juan Ramos in Pugadlawin on August 23, 1896. Ramos
was the son of Melchora Aquino, also known as “Tandang Sora” and was later acknowledged
as the Mother of the Katipunan."

Bonifacio asked his men whether they were willing to fight to the bitter end. Everyone
shouted their approval, except for Teodoro Plata, who though that it was too soon for a
revolution. Heartened by his men’s response, Bonifacio then asked them to tear their
cedulas (residence certificates) to pieces, as a sign of their defiance and determination to
rise against the Spaniards. The men immediately tore up their cedulas, shouting, Mabuhay
ang Pilipinas (long live the Philippines) -known as the Cry of Pugadlawin.

The Katipunan in Cavite

Cavite soon became the center of the Revolution, and the Katipuneros there divided
themselves into the Magdalo and Magdiwang factions. Baldomero Aguinaldo, brother of
Emilio Aguinaldo, headed the Magdalo group, which was stationed in Kawit. General Mariano
Alvarez led the Magdiwang group, which was stationed in Noveleta.

The two groups fought in separate battles. Emilio Aguinaldo overran Kawit on August 31,
1896, while Alvarez attacked Noveleta. In Bacoor, Aguinaldo tried to intercept Spanish
reinforcements coming from Manila; but he was repulsed and forced to retreat to nearby
Imus. Here, on the morning of September 5, he defeated the Spanish troops under the
command of General Aguirre. A hundred Spaniards were killed and 60 weapons were
confiscated. Aguinaldo was hailed as a hero. The adoring Caviteños referred to him as
“General Miong” and no longer “Kapitan Miong.”
General Aguinaldo’s numerous victories in the battlefield made him the acknowledged
revolutionary leader in Cavite. He issued a proclamation on October 31, 1896 enjoining the
people to take courage and continue fighting for Philippine independence.

Owing to the defeat of the Spaniards in Cavite, Camilo de Polavieja replaced Ramon Blanco
as governor general on December 13, 1896. Polavieja was more successful than his
predecessor and slowly regained one-third of the province.

Andres Bonifacio's Execution

While Aguinaldo was recognized as leader by the Magdalo faction, Bonifacio was recognized
as the leader of the Katipunan by the Magdiwang faction. An assembly was held in Imus,
Cavite on December 31, 1897 to settle the leadership issue but was not successful. Then on
March 22, another assembly was held at Tejeros (known as the Tejeros Convention) to elect
officers of the revolutionary government. Aguinaldo won as president while Bonifacio was
relegated as the Director of the Interior. Bonifacio rejected the elections and declared it
void. Bonifacio later formed the Naic Military Agreement, essentially creating a government
contending Aguinaldo's. Soon after, Bonifacio was captured, stood trial, and was sentenced
to death by a War Council of Aguinaldo's government. Aguinaldo initially commuted the
sentence to deportation but later reversed the commutation upon pressure from Pio Del
Pilar and other officers. On orders from General Mariano Noriel, Andres Bonifacio was
executed at the foothills of Mt. Buntis by Major Lazaro Makapagal on May 10, 1897.

The Revolution Continues

Bonifacio’s death did not deter the Filipinos from fighting for their freedom. The Spanish
government, for its part, doubled its efforts in trying to control Cavite, which was
considered the seat of the Revolution. When Governor General Primo de Rivera replaced
Camilo Polavieja on April 27, 1897, he immediately marched to Naic, Cavite to persuade the
Filipinos to surrender. The rebels, however, stood their ground.

Aguinaldo realized that Cavite was no longer safe for his men. They moved to Batangas,
where they temporarily set up camp in the town of Talisay. However, Spanish soldiers were
able to pursue them there. Thus, they retreated to Morong on June 10, 1897 and proceeded
to Biak-na-Bato in Bulacan.