Same time & place as POSTS 0008 & 0009
ISANG PAGSIPAT SA KASAYSAYAN NG KAPULUAN MULA NAMAN SA ISANG MORO (A BANGSAMORO PERSPECTIVE OF THE ARCHIPELAGO'S HISTORY)
-------START OF COPIED MATERIAL-------
Overview of the Moro Struggle
by Prof.Datu Amilusin A. Jumaani
YEAR EVENTS
1280 Presence of Muslim traders in Southern Philippines brought about by the expansion of commercial contacts between China and Arab lands.
1380 Tombstone dating of a Muslim religious figure in Sulu.
1450 Sultanate in Sulu established.
1521 Advent of Christianity. Portugese Navigator, Ferdinand Magellan, lands and claims the Philippines for Spain. For more than 3 centuries, the Spanish rule prevailed over the archiepelago, particularly in Luzon and the Visayas. However, the colonialist failed to conquer Muslim areas in the South, which have been characterized as having their own system of government and practices their own politics and cultures.
1619 Sultanate in Maguindanao from the principalities of Maguindanao and Buwayan.
1835 Spanish attack on the Banuwa Bangingih in Sepak island (Jolo, Sulu). Full scale attack on the island, not even a single coconut tree left standing. There was fierce resistance.
1836 King of Spain & Sultan Sulu, "Treaty of Peace, Protection & Commerce"
1842 The Commander of American Naval Expedition concluded a "Trade & Navigation Treaty between US & Sultanate of Sulu"
1849 The Queen of United Kingdom & Ireland concluded a treaty of "peace, friendship and good understanding."
12 June 1898 Emilio Aguinaldo declared independence from Spain in Cavite
10 December 1898 Spain sells Philippines to USA for 20 million Mexican dollars after losing Spanish-American War under the terms of the Treaty of Paris. US troops begin to forcibly incorporate Muslim areas into the Philippine state. The Moros did not recognize the agreement, which clinched the American takeover. The BangsaMoro homeland over which Spain could not claim to have colonial authority was included as part of the territory transferred to the USA. The BangsaMoro people were never consulted. They waged a fierce resistance to defend their homeland.
20 August 1899 USA negotiated with the BangsaMoro people under the leadership of Sultan Jamalul II. This negotiation led to the Bates Treaty signed between the Sultan and John C. Bates. The treaty was in no certain terms a recognition of the US of the sovereign character of the BangsaMoro state and precisely distinct from the Aguinaldo Republic.
1902 Philippine bill of July 1 of 1902 - the American government recognized the distinctions between the Moro, the "Pagan" and the Christian Filipinos and adapted their methods of governance accordingly.
1903-1914 USA established the Moro Province.
1915 American governor, Frank Carpenter, tricked and virtually forced the Sulu Sultanate to renounce his temporal sovereignty at the time US halted military campaign and policy of attraction was launched.
1916 Battle of Bud Dahoh Jolo, Sulu, where 1000 Moros were massacred by the Americans.
1917 Bureau of non-Christian tribes was organized to established "mutual understanding and complete fusion" of the Muslims into the majority segment of Filipino Christians.
9 June 1921 57 Moro Datus and leaders of Sulu petitioned the American authorities in Manila and Washington, part of the petition, reads: "Whereas, it would be an act of great injustice to cast our people aside, turnover our country to the Filipinos in the north to be governed by them without our consent and thrust upon us a government not of our own people, nor by our people, nor for our own people.
1926 US congressman Robert Bacon introduces House Bill No. 12772 during 2 successive sessions. The bill proposed to separate Mindanao and Sulu from the rest of the Philippines and to have US permanently retain these islands under American sovereignty
18 March 1935 A historic assembly of more than 100 Maranao leaders passed a strong worded manifesto known as the Dansalan Declaration addressed to the US President which vehemently opposed the annexation of the BangsaMoro homeland in reaction to the conspiracy of the constitutional convention organized by America to write the Philippine constitution.
1946 US grants Philippine independence, but they continue to determine the economic and political direction of the fledging Republic
1960s The central government in Manila enforced a "homestead" policy, which propelled the escalation of Christian migration to Mindanao region. Settlers from Luzon and Visayas occupied the ancestral land of the Moros and other indigenous people in Southern Philippines. Local and foreign big business obtained titles over the Moro lands. Enraged by the "legal" land grabbing, the Moros responded with arms, which ignited a long drawn and bitter conflict between the BangsaMoro people and the Philippine government.
1961 Sulu congressman Datu Ombra Amilbangsa introduced house bill no. 5682 entitled "An Act Granting and Recognizing the Independence of the Province of Sulu".
March 1968 At least 28 Moro army recruits killed in the Jabidah Massacre on Corregidor Island, triggering widespread Muslim indignation. The incident releases pent-up anger from years of prejudice, ill treatment, and discrimination. Moro student in Manila holds a weeklong protest vigil over an empty cofin marked "Jabidah" in front of the presidential palace.
1968-1971 Moro student activism grows. Moro consciousness, based on Islamic revivalism and knowledge of a distinct history and identity, gathers steam. Political organizations emerge to culminate eventually in the establishment of the MNLF under Nur Misuari with the goal of carving an independent muslim nation in the Southern Philippines.
Land conflicts in Mindanao escalates. Para-military groups proliferate; some attached to Christian politicians, some to loggers, and some to Muslim politicians. Hundreds of young Moros are sent to Malaysia for military training. Sabah becomes a supply depot, communication center and sanctuary for Moro rebels.
Towards 1971, the constabulary takes control of many towns because of growing violence. Schools are closed, farms abandoned, commerce stagnates, refugees increased. The Christian led Ilagah para-military group enters the scene. One attack at a mosque in Cotabato, leaves 65 men, women and children, dead and mutilated. A BBC radio report of the massacre draws the attention of Libyan leader Muammar Khadafy.
21 July 1971 Leaders from all sectors of Moro society published a manifesto demanding that the government take action to stop the attacks. The government calls the manifesto a threat. In August, the residents of Buldon (Cotabato) fortified their town after killing some Christian loggers. The army responds with a week-long artillery bombardment.
Sept.- Oct. 1971 The cycle of reprisals is uncontrollable. Fighting between the Baracudas (paramilitary group led by Muslims) and government troops leaves hundreds dead on both sides.
Nov. 1971 40 Maranao Muslims are summarily executed at a military checkpoint in Tacub. Muslims accused the government of genocide.
Jan.1972 The government takes 8 Muslims ambassadors on a tour of Mindanao to show that the charges of genocide are exaggerated. The third Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM) in Jeddah, KSA requests the Philippine government to protect the lives and property of Muslims.
July 1972 A Libyan and Egyptian delegation tours the troubled areas and concludes that while no strong evidence exists of state supported genocide, there is clearly a war between Christians and Muslims.
21 Sep. 1972 President Ferdinand Marcos declares Martial Law. One month later the first organized Moro counter offensive is launched in Marawi. The MNLF comes out into the open and claims leadership of the Moro secessionist movement.
1973 Marcos attempts to improve socio-economic development in the South while maintaining military operations. Presidential decrees order relief and welfare projects and resettlement refugees, declare certain Morolands as inalienable. A Presidential task force for the reconstruction and development of Mindanao is constituted to rebuild areas devastated by violence. Marcos wins over key Muslim leaders outside the MNLF. The Philippine Amanah Bank is created to expand the class of Muslim enterpreneurs. The Southern Philippine Development Administration (SPDA) is created to bolster business activity.
The 4th ICFM (in Benghazi) maintains the pressure on Marcos, but recognizes that the problem is "internal to an independent sovereign state". Marcos responds by realigning his foreign policy and organizing diplomatic initiatives to win over the Muslim world.
1974 The MNLF gathers strength and broad support from Philippine Muslims. Fighting escalates into large-scale conventional warfare. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) creates two intigrated commands - the Central Mindanao Command (CEMCOM) for the Cotabato-Lanao Areas, and the Southern Command (SouthCom) for Zamboanga Peninsula and Sulu Archipelago.
Feb.1974 SouthCom unleashes full force on MNLF rebels, who have taken control of Jolo, in the biggest battle of the war. In mainland Mindanao CemCom attacks the MNLF forces in Cotabato. Abroad, the MNLF gains official recognition from Muslim countries as the representative of the Moror people. The 5th ICFM urges the Philippine government "to find a political and peaceful solution through negotiation" and officially recognized the MNLF. The war reaches stalemate.
March 1974 The Philippine government panel holds its first meeting with MNLF chairman Nur Misuari and his deputy Salamat Hashil in Jeddah. Marcos sends negotiating panels to MNLF commanders in the field. The MNLF undergoes fierce debates on how to respond to the Marcos initiatives. The issue is settled for the MNLF by the 5th ICFM, which supports autonomy as basis for negotiations between the MNLF and GRP. The definition of autonomy comes from the working paper of the committee of four (Senegal, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Somalia) which provides for self government within the framework of Philippine national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Marcos intensifies his diplomatic initiatives, sending delegations including special emissary Imelda Marcos to Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Algeria. The Philippine government opens embassies in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Islamic Republic of Iran, Algeria, Lebanon and Kuwait. Relations with 13 other South Asian, Middle-Eastern and African muslim nations are strengthened. The Philippine also lobbies the Non-aligned Foreign Ministers Meeting.
1976 With negotiations in full swing, Marcos builds his case. He meets the OIC Secretary General, the Senagalese Amadou Karim Gaye, in Kenya; sends a delegation to the 7th ICFM (Instanbul) and the Non-Aligned Summit (Colombo); invites the committee of four to Zamboanga City and Manila; and sends Imelda Marcos to personally confer with Khadafy. In the field, local ceasefires are forged, providing space to implement a "policy of attraction" Key rebel leaders are offered amnesty, livelihood projects and business oppurtunities as well as political positions that allow them to surrender with "dignity". Surrenderist include Amelil Malaguiok, of the Kutawato (Cotabato) revolutionary committee, and Abdulhamid Lukman, a former municipal judge who was Misuari's legal adviser in Jeddah.
23 Dec. 1976 Misuari and defense undersecretary Carmelo Barbero signs the Tripoli Agreement. It provides for autonomy in 13 provinces and 9 cities in the Southern Philippines. Marcos instructs Barbero to include one last point in the text; that "the Philippine government shall take all necessary constitutional processes for the implementation of the entire agreement.
Jan.-Apr. 1977 A general ceasefire is arranged. Marcos approves the code of Muslim personal laws, which establishes Shari'ah courts as part of the national system of courts. Talks resume in February to hammer out details of implementing the Tripoli Agreement. A deadlock arises when the MNLF insists that the 13 provinces be immediately declared a single autonomous unit. Marcos maintanis that certain constitutional procedures, including a plebiscite are needed because the majority of the people in the 13 provinces are not Muslims. Imelda Marcos hurries to Libya on 12 March to solicit Khadafy's help. He suggests forming a provisional government to supervise the plebiscite. Misuari refuses to head the provisional government. On
25 March, 1977 Marcos issues proclamation 1628 declaring autonomy in the 13 provinces. On 17 April, a plebiscite is called over objections from the MNLF. Only 10 of the 13 provinces vote for autonomy. Marcos implements his own version of autonomy by dividing the10 provinces into two autonomous regions, IX and XII. Negotiations broke down.
May-Dec. 1977 The 8th ICFM (in Tripoli) allows Misuari, for the first time, to address the conference. Ministers express disappointment over the outcome of negotiations. By this time, however, the improved image of the Philippines is working in its favor and the ICFM simply recommends that negotiations continue. This shakes the MNLF leadership, and the split emerges. In Jeddah on
26 Dec. 1977, Salamat Hashim announces an"instrument of takeover" of the MNLF leadership, a move supported by traditional leaders Rashid Lucman, Dumacao Alonto and Salipada Pendatun. Misuari counters by expelling Hashim Salamat and charging him with treason. Arabs supporters are equally divided: Egypt supports Salamat while Libya leans towards Misuari. Mediation by the OIC and Muslim World League fails. Not wishing to be used by the traditional politicians, Hashim transfers to Cairo and goes on to form the "new MNLF", eventually the Moro Islamic liberation Front (MILF). Lucman and Pendatun reinvigorate the BangsaMoro Liberation Organization to gain support, but Arab states ignore them.
1978 Negotiations between GRP and the MNLF resume but the Philippine panel chooses to meet Hashim Salamat rather than Misuari. Meanwhile the Marcos government presents a report to the OIC on the functioning of the new autonomous regional government.
17-29 April 1978 The 19th ICFM meets Dakkar, Senegal and Misuari is recognized as the chairman and spokesman for the MNLF. Hashim cannot be present because Egyptian authorities, not wishing to antagonize Libya further, prevent him from leaving Cairo. MNLF members in the field conduct kidnappings and ambushes. In Patikul, Sulu a local MNLF leader invites the AFP to a peace dialogue. When they arrived, Gen. Teodulfo Bautista and 33 soldiers are shot dead. Government policy turns increasingly violent.
1979 Misuari reverts to his former goal of seccession and renews efforts to convince Islamic States but to no avail. Meanwhile the Philippine panel continues negotiations with the Hashim faction in Cairo. Surrendered MNLF founder Abul Khayr Alonto joins the government panel. The 10th ICFM in Morocco affirms support for the Tripoli Agreement. Diplomatic iniatives focus on ensuing that the agreement is actually being implemented.
1980 Pocket wars and skirmishes continue. In March, Malaysia and Indonesia offer to serve as "honest brokers" arguing that the problem has regional implications that could be resolved by ASEAN. The Philippine government takes newly installed OIC secretary general Habib Chatti of Tunisia on a tour around Mindanao to meet Muslims and the new Regional Legislative Assemblies. The 11th ICFM in Islamabad request Philippine government to implement the Tripoli Agreement.
1981 Misuari fails to convince a summit conference of heads of states in Taif, Saudi Arabia to support seccession. He fails likewise to convince the 12th ICFM in Baghdad, which resolves to "make new contact with the GRP for the implementation of the Tripoli Agreement in text and spirit." Marcos "lifts" Martial Law but keeps his dictatorial powers in a bid to win further legitimacy for his regime. In May, opposition leader Benigno Aquino, released from prison and allowed to go into exile in the US, visits Misuari in Jeddah and promises to support the Tripoli Agreement. MNLF forces kill 120 government soldiers in Pata island, off Jolo. In retaliation, more than 15,000 troops are sent to the island in a massive operation that infuriates Muslim local government officials.
1982 Marcos consolidates the Philippine diplomatic position. He visits Saudi Arabia King Khaled and OIC's Habib Chatti. The 13th ICFM calls on government "to speed the implementation" of the agreement. It also appeals to the MNLF to prepare for new talks "as a united front". The newly established Moro Revolutionary Organization, a member of the communist-led National Democratic Front (NDF) calls for a "people's war as the main form of the Moro people's revolutionary struggle". Efforts to link communist and Moro insurgencies fail, but local forces cooperate on the ground.
1983 The 14th ICFM in Dhaka calls on Moros to unite prior to new negotiations that will put the Tripoli Agreement into effect. MNLF military activities begin to wane but the New People's Army (NPA, armed group of the NDF) offensives in Mindanao keep the AFP engaged. Benigno Aquino returns from exile and is assasinated on arrival at the Manila Airport. Popular challenge to Marcos regime intensifies throughout the country.
1984 Marcos wins new battles on the diplomatic front. He sends emissaries to the 4th Islamic Summit in Casablanca and to the World Muslim congress in Karachi. In February, he holds bilateral meetings with the Presidents of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Singapore. The 15th ICFM reaffirms its commitment to respect the territorial integrity of the Philippines and again calls on the MNLF to close ranks. In March, Hashim's "new MNLF" officially declares itsef a separate organization with the name Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), with a religious as well as nationalist agenda. The NPA gains in strength and starts to launch larger attacks. Mass demonstrations become spontaneous and the first nationally coordinated Welgang Bayan (People's Strike) shows the depth of popular opposition to Marcos.
1985 Armed attacks by the NPA intensify along with legal, popular opposition to the regime. Marcos schedules a snap presidential election to defuse widespread tension. The legal opposition unites behind Corazon Aquino, Benigno's widow, as the anti-Marcos candidate. The NDF boycotts the exercise calling the election a "sham".
1986 Snap elections are held, with Marcos proclaimed as winner. Days later, he is ousted after a failed coup sends millions of people to the main thoroughfare, known as "EDSA" to protect mutineers from counter attack. The Marcos family is flown to Hawaii by the US government. Corazon Aquino takes her oath as President and establishes a revolutionary government. She appoints a commission to draft a new constitution, which includes provisions for autonomy in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera Region of Luzon.
In March, the MILF sends a message of its readiness to discuss peace with Aquino. In August, OIC and Muslim World League mediation, the MILF and MNLF agree in principle to negotiate jointly in an expanded panel. But on Sept.5 Aquino visits the MNLF camp in Sulu, to talk peace with Misuari. Misuari seizes the initiative and gains recognition for the MNLF from the government as its negotiating partner. The MILF displays political strength through a militant consultative assembly in October, but fails to elicit government response.
1987 GRP and MNLF panels meet in January in Jeddah and agree to discuss autonomy, "subject to democratic processes" Aquino turns down MNLF requests to suspend autonomy provisions in draft constitution, which is ratified in February. The MILF launches a 5-day offensive to assert its presence. This prompts a meeting with GRP panel Chair Aquilino Pimentel, who requests a temporary cease-fire. Talks between GRP and MNLF breakdown as the government unilaterally implements the autonomy mandate in the newly approved constitution over MNLF objections. A Mindanao Regional Consultative Commission (RCC) is organized, and a new autonomy bill is submitted to congress. Both MNLF and MILF bitterly denounce the government's moves.
1988 Aquino meets with the RCC, and starts diplomatic initiatives by briefing Islamic diplomats in Manila about the government's peace program, emphasizing the Tripoli Agreement is being implemented within constitutional processes. Draft autonomy bills are submitted to both House of Congress.
1989 Congress passes Republic Act 6734, which creates the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and Aquino signs into law on 1 August. A plebisite is held on 19 November and the MNLF and MILF call for a boycott of exercise. Only 4 provinces-Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi opt for autonomy, because of opposition from MNLF and MILF and Christian residents.
1990 Regional election are held in ARMM. A regional governor and regional assembly assume positions. Aquino signs executive orders that define central government relations with ARMM, which is officially inaugurated on 6 November.
1991 The 20th ICFM in Instanbul calls for a resumption of negotiations between GRP and MNLF.
1991 Abu Sayyaf emerges as a group of young Moro radicals.
February 1992 Fidel Ramos candidate in the forthcoming Presidential elections, meets Khadaffy in Tripoli to discuss comprehensive and permanent solution to the war in Mindanao. In May, he is elected President and immediately issues a call for peace. He appoints a National Unification Commission (NUC) in July to formulate an amnesty program and a negotiation process, based on public consultations. The first round of exploratory talks with MNLF is held in October in Tripoli. The NUC starts a consultation process, including a meeting with the MILF.
1993 Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas hosts a second round of exploratory talks. The NUC submits its consolidated recommendations in July, prompting Ramos to issue Executive Order 125 defining the approach and administrative structure for government peace efforts. The Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) is created to continue the work begun by the NUC. Formal talks between GRP and the MNLF begin in October in Jakarta. An Interim Ceasefire is signed, along with a memorandum creating support committees to discuss substantive concerns. Alatas reports the progress of negotiations to the 21st ICFM in Karachi. The MILF poses no objections to the talks. The OIC visits Sulu in December.
1995 Support committees meet to discuss defense and regional and security forces, education; economic and financial systems, mines and minerals; the functioning of the Legislative Assembly, Executive Council and representation in the national government and administrative system; and Shari'ah courts. On 4 April, armed men believed to be members of a new Moro rebel group, Abu Sayyaf, raid the town of Ipil (Zamboanga del Sur) killing 50 people and causing millions of pesos worth of damage in looting and burning. Both GRP and MNLF issue separate statements calling for a greater commitment to peace. The government sponsors a series of Mindanao Peace and Development Summits in key cities from May to November. The GRP panel briefs Libya on the progress of the talks in October. At the end of the year, the third round of formal talks resumes in Jakarta. An Interim Agreement is signed, containing 81 points of consensus. Predominantly Christian opponents throughout Mindanao denounce this agreement. Political opposition increases. Vigilantes vow to attack if the agreement is finalized.
Jan.-June 1996 The government rushes to mollify politicians opposing the Interim Agreement. Consultations are held every month with local officials and members of the Congress, with Ramos himself participating in some consultations. The government organizes public meetings in Mindanao to promote the Interim Agreement. In June, Indonesia calls a consultation of the OIC committee of six. A meeting of the GRP-MNLF Mixed Committee results in Agreement to establish the Southern Philippines Zone of Peace and Development (SZOPAD).
July-Aug 1996 Members of Congress express opposition to the Interim Agreement. The Senate organizes public hearings and calls on the executive to justify its actions and commitments. The Senate agrees to support the agreement, but only with 9 substantial amendments, which dilute the powers and autonomy of institutions to be set up under the agreement. Six senators continue their opposition, and lead a group of politicians who file a 54-page petition asking the Supreme court to nullify the agreement. Catholic Bishops express support for the agreement, subject to refinements in the text. Misuari announces his bill for the ARMM governorship. The 9th Mixed Committee meeting and 4th round of formal talks take place in Jakarta. Exploratory talks with the MILF begin.
Sept-Dec 1996 The Final Peace Agreement is signed on 2 September. The MILF distances itself from the agreement, but commits not to stand in the way of peace. In the ARMM elections, Misuari runs for governor and wins, and six MNLF leaders are elected to the Regional Legislative Assembly. Ramos issues Executive Order 371, which departs from the agreement on some significant points. The government forms a new negotiating panel for talks with the MILF in October. The MILF, in a display of strength, holds a huge assembly near Cotabato City from 3-5 December and reaffirms commitment to independence.
1997 GRP and MILF representatives meet and issue a joint press statement. Heavy fighting in Buldon (Cotabato) leaves more than a hundred dead and mars talks. Another meeting in early February is suspended because of renewed fighting. The committees meet again in March and agree to form an Interim Ceasefire Monitoring Committee, with Fr. Eliseo Mercado (NDU president in Cotabato) as chair. Meetings take place in April, May and June but are bogged down by continued fighting. The AFP launches its biggest offensive in June. By July, an agreement on cessation of hostilities is forged. Further meetings between the two sides follow.
August 1998 Organization of SADEM (Sulu Archipelago Decolonization Movement) for restoration of independence of Sulu Archipelago through the United Nations. Hadji Limpasan is chairman of SADEM central committee.
1998 A new President, Joseph Ejercito Estrada is elected, He has an electoral alliance with politicians who opposed the Peace Agreement. Anti-agreement politicians do well in the local elections. MNLF leaders, save for one, lose their bids for local positions. Ten congressional representatives draft a bill to amend the Organic Act on ARMM in accordance with the peace agreement's provisions. A new government negotiating panel is constituted to talk to the MILF. In December 1998, Abu Sayyaf founder Abdurajak Janjalani dies in clash with police.
1999 New outbreaks of fighting between MILF and AFP followed by re-establishment of ceasefire. Government recognizes two MILF camps. ARMM elections are due in September. Three bills have been filed in Congress to amend the Organic Act on the ARMM, expanding it in accordance with the 1996 Peace Agreement. A plebisite on the new autonomous region is due by the end of the year, but may be deferred.
20 March 2000 Abu Sayyaf snatches 50 people from schools in Basilan province including many school children, teachers and Catholic priests.
23 April Abu Sayyaf kidnaps 21 people, including 10 foreign tourists from a Malaysian resort and takes them to the Philippine Island of Jolo.
30 April MILF walks out of peace talks with the government after the Army attacks rebels holding a highway near their headquarters in Maguindanao province.
9 July The AFP declared it captured the MILF camp Abubakar in Matanog Maguindanao following at least one week of air and ground assaults.
16 September Military assaults on Abu Sayyaf in Jolo. Four thousand soldiers were deployed.
16 Oct. OIC mission team from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Somalia, Senegal and Brunei - to look into the implementation of the 1996 Peace Accord between GRP and MNLF.
About PESC-KSP
-------END OF COPIED MATERIAL-------
"Perhaps the Bangsamoro struggle for freedom and self-determination is the longest and bloodiest in the entire history of mankind. It started in 1521 when Spain invaded the Bangsamoro homeland 29 years after the fall of Andalusia. The Bangsamoro people fought against the Spanish invaders for 377 years and against American intruders for about 40 years and have been fighting Filipino barbarous colonial rule during the past 52 year." - Salamat Hashim, late chairman of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)
=================
Nosi Bayasi (NB):
=================
I did not select this from among several. It so happened that its format of date/event follows my own style so I am using it. I do not know or am not familiar with most of its highlights. I may insert the whole material or only some into my own sequence of events to expand it. I notice that the date 1935-1936 does not specifically mention or highlight how the whole BANGSAMORO changed in relation to the Philippine nation-state & the bigger Southeast Asian region with the official abolition of the Sultanate of Sulu. Nevertheless, this perspective can be useful if the reader will use it as initial tentative guide for her own research. I am also corrected by the 20 million Mexican dollars & NOT U.S. dollars paid by U.S.A to Spain for the Philippines...
"YOU WON'T SEE THE PICTURE WHEN YOU ARE INSIDE THE FRAME."
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
POST 0009
Same time & place
ISANG PAGBASA SA HIMAGSIKANG 1896 NG ISANG AKADEMIKONG HISTORYADOR
Found by GOOGLE search engine in the past, unknown URL
-------START OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
06/16/2003
Andres Bonifacio and the 1896 Revolution
Milagros C. Guerrero
On 24 August 1896, Andres Bonifacio convened tha Kataastaasang Kapulungan or National Assembly of the Katipunan in Melchora Aquino’s barn in barrio Banlat, then part of Kalookan. Assembled were the members of the Kataastaasang Kapulungan (Supreme Council), as well as the pangulo (heads) of the sangunian (supra-municipal) and balangay (chapter) units. There they made three major decisions. First, they declared a nationwide armed revolution to win freedom from Spain. Second, they established a national government. And third, they elected officials who would lead the nation and the army.
Katipunan Founding
The ilustrado-initiated propaganda movement had failed to persuade the Madrid government to effect urgent reforms distant Asian colony. The Filipino activists in Europe eventually realized the change had to come about from within the archipelago itself.
With this in mind, Jose Rizal came home to the Philippines on 26 June 1892. After meetings with local activists, Rizal established a civic society called the Liga Filipina. On 3 July, a week after he arrived in Manila, Rizal launched the organization in Doroteo Ongjunco’s house on Ilaya Street, Tondo. The aims of the society were national unity, mutual aid, common defense, the encouragement of education, agriculture and commerce, and the study and application of reforms.
The Liga Filipina was short-lived. On 6 July, Rizal was arrested and detained upon the orders of the Governor-General Eulogio Despujol. Two weeks later, he was sent to Dapitan, Mindanao, where he lived in exile for four years. One of the founding members of the league was Andres Bonifacio. On 6 and 7 July, when it had become apparent that an openly pro-Filipino organization like the Liga Filipina would be suppressed by the colonial government, Bonifacio and some friends formed a secret society. Among them were Deodato Arellano, Ladislao Diwa, Valentin Diaz, Jose Dizon, and Teodoro Plata. The organization was called the Kataastaasan Kagalang-galang na Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan. The aims of the Katipunan were to unite the country and to win independence from Spain by means of revolution. Bonifacio, however, continued to work with the Liga, which its other prominent members had resurrected in April 1893 because of his personality and communication skills, the Supreme Council of the Liga appointed him chief of propaganda. Bonifacio’s success in recruiting members unnerved the more conservative elements of the Liga, who did not agree with his revolutionary ideas. The Liga ceased to exist as October 1894.
Bonifacio did not become president of the Katipunan until 1895, although he had always been an officer. Under his guidance, the Katipunan prepared for revolution. Emilio Jacinto, Bonifacio’s trusted friend and adviser, wrote the Cartilla or primer, which embodied the teachings of the organization. The Katipunan operated a clandestine printing press and published a newspaper, Kalayaan. By 1896, on the eve of the revolution, the membership of the society had expanded dramatically. Estimates vary from 30,000 to 400,000.
The Spanish secreta or secret police knew of the existence of a dangerous clandestine organization by early 1896. The Governor-General believed the government was still on top of the situation, but there was no let-up in the surveillance of suspect personalities. By April 1896, the rebels were reported to have cut railroad lines in Kalookan and environs. By May, the general assembly of pangulo and representatives from all the balangay (chapters) of the Katipunan were locked in heated discussions on the timing of the revolution. To many, the time had come; but some, like Rizal, balked at the idea.
By April or May 1896, the existence of the Katipunan was already known to the Guardia Civil Veterana. In August, the confession ofTeodoro Patino’s sister to Fray Mariano Fil, the Augustinian curate of Tondo, merely confirmed what the government already knew. The priest persuaded the authorities of the grave danger the society posed to the Spanish community. Reacting to the ensuing hysteria and acting on information collated over a long period of time, the government had numerous prominent residents arrested and detained; houses were raided and searched. Governor-General Ramon Blanco was urged to apply the “juez de cuchillo” or total annihilation of the Filipino population in a prescribed zone within the areas of uprising.
There was no holding back the revolution.
A nation is born
The Spanish historian Manuel Sastron describes the revolution as a “rebellion of the Tagalogs against Spanish domination;” he also refers to the Tagalog rebels.” But it is clear that the 1896 revolution was a national endeavor.
Written and published in 1896, the Katipunan’s Cartilla defined its major objectives:
Ang kabagayan pinaguusig ng katipunang ito ay lubos at dakila at mahalaga; papagisahin ang loob at kapisan ang lahat ng tagalog. Sa pamamagitan ng isang mahigpit na panunumpa, upang sa pagkakaisang ito’y magkalakas na iwasak ang masinsing tabing na nakakabulag sa kaisipan at matuklasan ang tunay na landas ng Katuiran at Kaliwanagan.
Sa salitang tagalog katutura’y ang lahat nang tumubo sa Sangkapuluang ito; sa makatuid, bisaya man, iloko man, kapangpangan man, etc., ay tagalog din.
(The objective pursued by this association is noble and worthy; to unite the inner being and thoughts of the tagalogs through binding pledge, so that through this unity they may gain the strength to destroy the dense shroud that benights the mind and to discover the Path of the mind and to discover the Path of Reason and Enlightenment.
The word tagalog means all those born in this archipelago; therefore, though visayan, ilocano, pamapango, etc. they are all tagalogs.)
The term “Tagalog” defined all persons born in the archipelago, whether Bisayan, Ilocano, Pampango, etc. Therefore the Tagalog nation or Katagalugan consisted not only of Tagalog speakers but included all those who grew up (tumubo) in the Philippines, regardless of ethnolinguistic classification and ancestry. At the time, the term “Filipino” applied solely to Spaniards born in the archiepelago. Bonifacio and Jacinto made “Tagalog” a term applicable to all indios or natives.
In his unpublished memoir, “Paghihimagsik Nang 1896-1897” (The Revolution of 1896-1897), Caviteño revolutionary and Aguinaldo’s secretary Carlos V. Ronquillo explains the concept further:
Ito ang dapat unawain ng mga bumabasa: sa tawag naming tagalog na makikita sa bawat dahon halos ng kasaysayang ito, ay di ang ibig naming sabihi’y ang paris ng palagay ng iba, at inuukol lamang sa tubong Maynla, Kabite at Bulakan, at iba pa, hinde kundi ang ibig naming tukuyin ay Filipinas…
Sapagka’t sa palagay naming ay ganito ang talagang nararapat ikapit sa tanang anak ng kapilipinuhan. Ang tagalog o lalong malinaw, ang tawag na “tagalog” ay walang ibang kahulugan kundi ‘tagailog’ na sa tuwirang paghuhulo ay taong maibigang manira sa tabing ilog, bagay na di maikakaila na siyang talagang hilig ng tanang anak ng Pilipinas, saa’t saan mang pulo at bayan.
( This is what the readers must understand: by what we refer to as tagalog, a term which may be found on almost every page of this account, we do not mean, as some believe, those who were born in Manila, Cavite and Balacan, etc. no, we wish to refer to the Philippines…because, in our opinion, this term should apply to all the children of the Filipino nation. Tagalog, or stated more clearly, the name “tagalog” has no other meaning but “tagailog” (from the river) which, traced directly to its root, refers to those who prefer to settle along rivers, truly a trait, it cannot be denied, of all those born in the Philippines, in whatever island or town.)
In his patriotic writings, Bonifacio expressed his concept of nationhood. In K.K.K Katungkulang Gagawin ng mga Z.Li.B., Pagibig sa Tinubuang Bayan, Hibik ng Filipinas sa Ynang España and Ang Dapat Mabatid ng mga Tagalog, he referred to the Philippine islands as sangkapaluan or Katagalugan. In a revolutionary leaflet printed in Cavite during the first quarter of 1897, Bonifacio wrote: “Mabuhay ang Haring Bayang Katagalugan.”
It was clear to Bonifacio and the members of the Katipunan that theirs was a national struggle.
First Filipino government
From 24 August 1896, the Katipunan became an open de facto government. The society had been organized as a secret organization with its own laws, bureaucratic structure and an elective leadership. But a working government was imperative once the August 1896 revolution had begun.
Bonifacio, when questioned at Tejeros, Cavite, defined the letter “K” in the flag to mean “kalayaan” or freedom and explained:
…na mula sa Ktt. Pamunuan ng Katipunan, hanggan sa kababa-babaan, ay nagkakaisang gumagalang sa pagkakapatiran at pagkakapantay-pantay; namumuhunan ng dugo at buhay laban sa Hari, upang makapagtatag ng sarili at malayang Pamahalaan, na samakatwid, ay mamahala ang Bayan sa Bayan, at hindi ang isa o dalawang tao lamang.
(…that from the Highest Officials of the Katipunan to the lowest members, all are one in their respect for brotherhood and equality; they risk blood and life in the struggle against the King, in order to institute our own free Government, so that, in short, the People, and not only one or two people, shall govern the Country.)
Jacinto Lumberas stated:
Ang Kapuluan ay pinamamahalaan na ng K.K.K. ng mga anak Anak ng Bayan, na siyang nagbukas ng Paghihimagsik; may Batas at Alintuntuning pinaiiral; sinusunod at iginagalang ng lahat sa pagtatanggol ng Kalayaan, pag-ibig sa kapatid, pag-aayos at pamamalakas ng mga Pamunuan.
(The Archipelago is governed by the K.K.K. ng mga Anak ng Bayan, which initiated the Revolution: with Laws and Regulations which enforces; followed and respected by all for defending Freedom, fraternal love, constituting and consolidating the Leadership.)
Santiago Alvarez also said:
Kaming mga Katipunan…ay mga tunay na Manghihimagsik sa pagtatanggol ng Kalayaan sa Bayang tinubuan.
(We of the Katipunan…are true Revolutionaries in defending the Freedom of our Nation.)
While Bonifacio, Lumberas and Alvares defined the moral, democratic and nationalist bases of the government, some elements were more explicitly republican. One captured official seal, illustrated in the 30 March 1897 issue of La Illustracion Español y Americana, bore the term “Republika ng Katagalugan.”
John R.M. Taylor, the American military historian and custodian of the Philippine Insurgent Records, concluded that Bonifacio established the first Filipino national government. Taylor interpreted the documents he saw as follows:
The Katipunan came out from the cover of secret designs, threw off the cloak of any other purpose, and stood openly for the independence of the Philippines. Bonifacio turned his lodges into battalions, his grandmasters into captains, and the supreme council of the Katipunan into the insurgent of the Philippines.
Gregorio F. Zaide, who wrote a history of the Katipunan, acknowledged Bonifacio’s revolutionary government:
The Katipunan was more than a secret revolutionary society; it was, withal, a Government. It was the intention of Bonifacio to have the Katipunan govern the whole Philippines after the overthrow of Spanish rule.
Even Teodoro Agoncillo had to concede that:
Immediately before the outbreak of the revolution, therefore, Bonifacio organized the Katipunan into a government revolving around a ‘cabinet’ composed of men of his confidence.
First president
A far clearer idea of Bonifacio’s Katagalugan government emerged in the late 1980s when letters and other important document signed by Bonifacio-part of the collection of noted historian and former director of the prewar Philippine Library and Museum, Epifanio de los Santos-became accessible.
Three letters and one appointment paper, written by Bonifacio on printed letterheads dated from 8 March to 24 April 1897, and all addressed to Emilio Jacinto, prove that Bonifacio was the first president of a national government. These letters contained the following titles and designations:
Pangulo ng Kataastaasang Kapulungan
( President of the Supreme Council)
Ang Kataastaasang Pangulo
(The Supreme President)
Pangulo nang Haring Bayang Katagalugan
(President of the Sovereign Nation of Katagalugan)
Note: “Bayan” means both “people” and “country”
Ang Pangulo ng Haring Bayan
May tayo nang K.K. Katipunan nang mga Anak ng
Bayan,
Unang nag galaw nang Panghihimagsik
(The President Sovereign Nation Founder of the Katipunan,
Initiator of the Revolution)
Kataastaasang Panguluhan,
Pamahalaang Panghihimagsik
(Office of the Supreme President,
Government of the Revolution)
The prewar scholar Jose P. Bantug referred to Bonifacio as the “Kataastaasang Pangulo” and “General’ No. 1.” Jose P. Santos in 1933, and Zaide in 1939, came to the same conclusion and recognized the Bonifacio presidency.
However, both men misread the phrase Ang Haring Bayan-found in the Minutes of Tejeros Assembly (23 March 1897), the Jacinto Appointment Paper (15 April 1897), as well as the undated Bonifacio Manifesto entitled Katipunan Marahas ng mga Anak ng Bayan-as Ang Hari ng Bayan. The first phrase refers to Bonifacio’s adaptation of the Western concept of republic-from res publica, literally public thing or common wealth -to the Filipino concept of “sovereign people.”
Thus, the government headed by Bonifacio prior to 22 March 1897 was democratic in nature and national in scope, contrary to some postwar historians’ contention that Bonifacio attempted to establish a government separate from Aguinaldo’s only after the Tejeros Assembly, and was therefore guilty of treason.
An article on the Philippine revolution appeared in then 8 February 1897 issue of the La Ilusracion Español y Americana. It was accompanied by an engraved portrait of Bonifacio wearing a black suit and white tie, with the caption “Andres Bonifacio, Titulado “Presidente’ de la Republica Tagala” and described him as the head of the native government. The reporter, GA. Reparaz, referred to Aguinaldo only as a generalissimo. The key officers in the Bonifacio government, according to Reparaz, were as follows : Teodoro Plata, Secretary of war; Emilio Jacinto, Secretary of State; Aguedo del Rosario, Secretary of Interior; Briccio Pantas, Secretary of Justice; and Enrique Pacheco as Secretary of Finance.
In his 1897 work, "El Katipunan" or "El Filibusterismo en Filipinas," the Spanish historian Jose M.del Castillo reiterated the results of what was, in effect, the first Philippine national elections and listed the same names as La Ilustracion.
The August 1896 transformation of the Katipunan into a revolutionary government and Bonifacios election to the presidency were confirmed by Pio Valenzuela in his testimony before the Spanish authorities. Del Roasario, who was captured, was described as “one of those designated by the Katipunan to form the Revolutionary Government of the Philippines and to carry out the function of local government administration.”
Katipunan democracy
Bonifacio set in place mechanisms for popular participation from the national to the local levels. The government established by the Katipunan was run by consensus.
The Supreme Council was called the Kataastaasang Kapulungan as can be noted from the letterhead and seal used by Bonifacio. Baldomero Aguinaldo, Pangulo (President) of Sangunian Bayan Magdalo (Magdalo Council), in a letter dated 21 March 1897 and addressed to Felix Cuenca and Mariano Noriel refers to a memorandum from Bonifacio as “isang Kalatas ng G. Presidente “ (a message from Mr. President) and recognizes the national government led by Bonifacio as “Kgg na pulungan ng hihimacsic (Gobierno revolucionario)” (Honorable revolutionary council (Revolutionary government).
In each province, the Kataastaasang Sangunian coordinated the Sanguniang Bayan, which saw to public administration and military affairs on the supra-municipal or quasi-provincial level. In the province of Manila, there were many Sangunian Bayan, such as in Tondo, Kalookan, Mandaluyong, San Juan del Monte, Marikina, Pasig and Pateros, San Mateo, etc. There were Sangunian Bayan in the province of Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, Nueva Ecija and Tayabas, etc. There were at least three Sangunian Bayan under unified military commands to facilitate strategic planning and tactical moves.
At the founding assembly in Kalookan on 24 August 1896, the revolutionary government made the following decisions: 10 the revolution would begin with attack on Manila at midnight of Saturday, 29 August; 20 a revolutionary was established with the appointment of Aguelo del Rosario, Vicente Fernandez, Ramon Bernardo and Gregorio Coronel as brigadiers general; 3) the four generals were tasked with strategic planning for the occupation of Manila; 4) the military situation was to be constantly appraised so that an uprising could be started earlier than 29 August; 5) assigned routes for three commanders were laid out through Tondo, San Marcelino and the Sampaloc rotunda (now part of Sta. Mesa).
The revolutionary troops were more enthusiastic than effective, however, and the Katipunan was unable to wrest state power from the well-entrenched Spanish forces.
Later, Bonifacio and more than ten generals commanded a rebel army assembled by Sanggunian Bayan of various towns within and around present Metro Manila. They engaged mostly in attack-and-withdraw operations: they seized town halls, capture food, arms, and ammunition supplies, and neutralized enemy outposts.
The rebel forces were divided into north and south sectors by the Pasig River. To the north lay Bonifacio’s guerilla forces in Manila and suburbs, with fortified camps in Balara, San Mateo, Pantayanin and Montalban; the armed Katipunan groups in Bulacan and Mariano Llanera’s forces based in Nueva Ecija were constanly on the move through The Siera Madre the patron (landed gentry and rural elite) leaders. Governor Ramon Blanco reported to the Spanish Cortes the reinforcements were necessary to destroy both sectors and end the insurrection.
The Cavite rebel groups evolved into two supramunicipal governments with military commands. One was called Magdiwang, covering the territory from Noveleta and San Francisco de Malabon up to Batangas. The other was called Magdalo, which extended its sphere of influence from Kawit, Cavite, to the southern parts of the province of Manila, now Rizal. It soon became apparent that in order to hold on to captured territory, the rebels had to conform unified intra-provincial administrative units. The perimeter was then secured with forts and trenches.
The Katipunan army in Cavite was big, but it has been estimated that the army north of the Pasig River was much bigger. In other parts of the archipelago, the rebels were organized into squads and commands smaller than those in Central Luzon.
The original Katipunan sub-organizations of Sangunian Bayan on the supra-municipal level, and the Panguluhang Bayan (local council) on the district or barrio level constituted the civilian component of the Katagalugan government. As the government was a revolutionary one, many civilian leaders were concurrently military officials. At the same time, generals and key officers in the revolutionary army exercised power over government structures. Bonifacio, as president was effectively the commander-in-chief. Aguinaldo was one of his captains general.
The Spanish military writer Federico de Monteverde gives details of the military organization instituted by Bonifacio. Monteverde fully illustrates the different revolutionary insignas corresponding to each rank, such as colonel, brigadier general, major general, lieutenant general and captain general. Various military insignas are also discussed by Taylor, and described by Generals Alvarez and Artemio Ricarte in their memoirs.
As the revolution progressed, Bonifacio had to formalize the army. In an order dated 16 December 1896, the revolutionary president redefined the hierarchy of the Katipunan military organization. Each battalion unit-called Katipon-was to be composed of 203 men.
As commander-in-chief, Bonifacio supervised the planning of military strategies and the preparation of orders, manifests and decrees, adjudicated offenses against the nation, as well as mediated in political disputes. He directed generals and positioned troops in the fronts. On the basis of command responsibility, all victories and defeats all over the archipelago during his term of office should be attributed to Bonifacio.
The claim by some historians that “Bonifacio lost all his battles" is ridiculous.
Foreign Affairs
Prior to the outbreak of the revolution, some Filipinos based in Hong Kong acted on behalf of the nationalist movement in the Philippines. Led by Doroteo Cortes, they solicited funds from various sources, especially from wealthy businessmen and companies. They sent the donations to Jose Maria Basa, who was also based in Hong Kong and served as disbursing officer.
A large portion of the funds was used to send a commission to Japan to negotiate for political, military and financial aid for the anticipated uprising towards the end of 1896. With Cortes were Isabelo Artacho and Jose A. Ramos, who arranged with Japanese politicians to acquire 100,000 rifles and an unspecified amount of ammunition. The weapons were partly paid for in advance while the balance was to be amortized over a number of years. The commission also petitioned Japan to send a military squadron to aid the revolutionary forces and, after independence was won, to recognize the Filipino state. Investigations by the Spanish authorities revealed, "The plan was that while Andres Bonifacio was busy ecruiting people for the general uprising, Doroteo Cortes should carry on the necessary negotiations with Japan…"
Although Japan was not at war in 1896, she looked at her Asian neighbours with a keen expansionary eye. However, most Asian countries then were under European colonial dominion. Around the middle of May 1896, the Japanese cruiser Kongo visited Manila. Bonifacio and some Katipunan members immediately sought a meeting with Japanese Admiral Kanimura, while Jacinto drafted a message addressed to the Emperor of Japan. It read: "The Filipino people greet the Emperor of Japan and the entire Japanese nation, with the hope that the light of liberty in Japan will also shed its rays in the Philippines…" Japan was not disposed to go to war against Spain in 1896-1897 just to uphold the rights of Filipinos. Nevertheless, Bonifacio expected the arrival of arms and ammunition from Japan in August 1896.
Cortes continued to represent the revolutionaries before foreign entities. Together with Basa and A.G. Medina, Cortes sent a petition to the Consul of the United States of America in Hong Kong on 29 January 1897. The request implored the "Gefe Supremo desu Nacion" for protection of the Filipinos and recognition of their right to self-government. But the petition was ill-timed. Grover Cleveland lost the presidential elections; his successor, William McKinley, declared a national policy focused on "domestic business conditions and economic recovery from the continuing depression of 1893 and therefore (he tried) to avoid conflict with Spain."
In January 1897, The Philippine Commission in Hong Kong addressed a petition to Henry Hannoteaux, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, which enumerated 50 grievances of the Philippines against Spain and called for assistance. However, France remained strictly neutral because she feared that such anticolonialism would contaminate neighbouring French Indochina, and also because France had no means for practicable intervention.
Significance of 1896 Revolution
In July 1892, Bonifacio founded the Katipunan which launched the first anticolonial revolution in Asia in August 1896. He formed the first national governments established by Aguinaldo from 1897 to 1899.
The Katagalugan government carried over the symbols and teachings of the Katipunan, which the people accepted as the revolutionary authority. This government was democratic in principle, orientation and form. At its inception, it was formed by representatives from the provinces where the Katipunan had a mass-based membership. It adopted as its national standard the Katipunan’s red flag with a white sun with the Tagalog letter "Ka" in the center and commissioned Julio Nakpil to compose the national anthem, "Marangal na Dalit ng Katagalugan."
In defining "Tagalog" as the term for all Filipinos, and "Katagalugan" as the country’s name in lieu of "Filipinas" which had colonial origins, Bonifacio and the Katipunan sought to define a national identity.
The Katagalugan government commanded the loyalty of a significant portion of the population. It held territory, where it exercised the functions of a state. It had armed forces which fought for, and defended its existence. It had diplomatic component, which attempted to gain international recognition for the new nation.
The governments that succeeded Bonifacio’s essentially republican Katagalugan government could only proceed from it. The 24 August 1896` government certainly had a large mass-based following than the 24 August 1897 entity that deposed it. But as a result of the power struggle in Cavite, Emilio Aguinaldo, although only one of many revolutionary generals, usurped President Andres Bonifacio’s authority. Aguinaldo reorganized Bonifacio’s Republika ng Katagalugan and renamed it Republica Filipina.
The first Filipino national government was established on 24 August 1896. Filipinos should observe the date as National Day, if the 1896 Philippine Revolution and the Katipunan are to have any worth at all. And Filipinos should recognize Andres Bonifacio not only the founder of the Katipunan and leader of the revolution of 1896, but as the first Filipino president: the father of the nation and founder of our democracy.
Reference:
*From "Sulyap Kultura," a publication of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (1996).
About the author:
Milagros C. Guerrero
Copyright 2002 © National Commission for Culture and the Arts
All Rights Reserved.
-------END OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
================
NB (Nosi Bayasi):
================
Note the arguable/controversial/disputable etctec claim that the 1896 Philippine Revolution is really "Tagalog Revolution" & the counter-claim supported by Bonifacio's & the Katipunan's definition of what a Tagalog is. Also, the claim that the KKK was no mere cabal but a fully-organized government (though admittedly "underground") designed not simply to overthrow the then existing system via revolution but to govern afterwards; the information that the KKK had a foreign affairs section engaged in high-level negotiations with sovereign powers; the fact that Aguinaldo was a mere captain-general of the SUPREMO; and others. This is one historical INTERPRETATION of a historic event by an academician (which is apparently sanctioned by a Philippine national agency & with a recommendation regarding the date August 24). There are still others. Which or what is the TRUTH? Republica Filipina or Republica Tagala? First Philippine President: Bonifacio, Aguinaldo or Roxas?
Pahabol: "Unang nag GALAW nang Panghihimagsik (The President Sovereign Nation Founder of the Katipunan, INITIATOR of the Revolution)"
TANONG: Si NOSI BAYASI (Aku) ba ay unang nag-GALAW sa ika-21 siglo, o nagga-GALAW lamang? Ask those who can speak deeper TAGALOG language to understand this.
Si NOSI BAYASI ba ay TAGA-ILOG, TAGA-LOG, o TAGA-BLOG?
ISANG PAGBASA SA HIMAGSIKANG 1896 NG ISANG AKADEMIKONG HISTORYADOR
Found by GOOGLE search engine in the past, unknown URL
-------START OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
06/16/2003
Andres Bonifacio and the 1896 Revolution
Milagros C. Guerrero
On 24 August 1896, Andres Bonifacio convened tha Kataastaasang Kapulungan or National Assembly of the Katipunan in Melchora Aquino’s barn in barrio Banlat, then part of Kalookan. Assembled were the members of the Kataastaasang Kapulungan (Supreme Council), as well as the pangulo (heads) of the sangunian (supra-municipal) and balangay (chapter) units. There they made three major decisions. First, they declared a nationwide armed revolution to win freedom from Spain. Second, they established a national government. And third, they elected officials who would lead the nation and the army.
Katipunan Founding
The ilustrado-initiated propaganda movement had failed to persuade the Madrid government to effect urgent reforms distant Asian colony. The Filipino activists in Europe eventually realized the change had to come about from within the archipelago itself.
With this in mind, Jose Rizal came home to the Philippines on 26 June 1892. After meetings with local activists, Rizal established a civic society called the Liga Filipina. On 3 July, a week after he arrived in Manila, Rizal launched the organization in Doroteo Ongjunco’s house on Ilaya Street, Tondo. The aims of the society were national unity, mutual aid, common defense, the encouragement of education, agriculture and commerce, and the study and application of reforms.
The Liga Filipina was short-lived. On 6 July, Rizal was arrested and detained upon the orders of the Governor-General Eulogio Despujol. Two weeks later, he was sent to Dapitan, Mindanao, where he lived in exile for four years. One of the founding members of the league was Andres Bonifacio. On 6 and 7 July, when it had become apparent that an openly pro-Filipino organization like the Liga Filipina would be suppressed by the colonial government, Bonifacio and some friends formed a secret society. Among them were Deodato Arellano, Ladislao Diwa, Valentin Diaz, Jose Dizon, and Teodoro Plata. The organization was called the Kataastaasan Kagalang-galang na Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan. The aims of the Katipunan were to unite the country and to win independence from Spain by means of revolution. Bonifacio, however, continued to work with the Liga, which its other prominent members had resurrected in April 1893 because of his personality and communication skills, the Supreme Council of the Liga appointed him chief of propaganda. Bonifacio’s success in recruiting members unnerved the more conservative elements of the Liga, who did not agree with his revolutionary ideas. The Liga ceased to exist as October 1894.
Bonifacio did not become president of the Katipunan until 1895, although he had always been an officer. Under his guidance, the Katipunan prepared for revolution. Emilio Jacinto, Bonifacio’s trusted friend and adviser, wrote the Cartilla or primer, which embodied the teachings of the organization. The Katipunan operated a clandestine printing press and published a newspaper, Kalayaan. By 1896, on the eve of the revolution, the membership of the society had expanded dramatically. Estimates vary from 30,000 to 400,000.
The Spanish secreta or secret police knew of the existence of a dangerous clandestine organization by early 1896. The Governor-General believed the government was still on top of the situation, but there was no let-up in the surveillance of suspect personalities. By April 1896, the rebels were reported to have cut railroad lines in Kalookan and environs. By May, the general assembly of pangulo and representatives from all the balangay (chapters) of the Katipunan were locked in heated discussions on the timing of the revolution. To many, the time had come; but some, like Rizal, balked at the idea.
By April or May 1896, the existence of the Katipunan was already known to the Guardia Civil Veterana. In August, the confession ofTeodoro Patino’s sister to Fray Mariano Fil, the Augustinian curate of Tondo, merely confirmed what the government already knew. The priest persuaded the authorities of the grave danger the society posed to the Spanish community. Reacting to the ensuing hysteria and acting on information collated over a long period of time, the government had numerous prominent residents arrested and detained; houses were raided and searched. Governor-General Ramon Blanco was urged to apply the “juez de cuchillo” or total annihilation of the Filipino population in a prescribed zone within the areas of uprising.
There was no holding back the revolution.
A nation is born
The Spanish historian Manuel Sastron describes the revolution as a “rebellion of the Tagalogs against Spanish domination;” he also refers to the Tagalog rebels.” But it is clear that the 1896 revolution was a national endeavor.
Written and published in 1896, the Katipunan’s Cartilla defined its major objectives:
Ang kabagayan pinaguusig ng katipunang ito ay lubos at dakila at mahalaga; papagisahin ang loob at kapisan ang lahat ng tagalog. Sa pamamagitan ng isang mahigpit na panunumpa, upang sa pagkakaisang ito’y magkalakas na iwasak ang masinsing tabing na nakakabulag sa kaisipan at matuklasan ang tunay na landas ng Katuiran at Kaliwanagan.
Sa salitang tagalog katutura’y ang lahat nang tumubo sa Sangkapuluang ito; sa makatuid, bisaya man, iloko man, kapangpangan man, etc., ay tagalog din.
(The objective pursued by this association is noble and worthy; to unite the inner being and thoughts of the tagalogs through binding pledge, so that through this unity they may gain the strength to destroy the dense shroud that benights the mind and to discover the Path of the mind and to discover the Path of Reason and Enlightenment.
The word tagalog means all those born in this archipelago; therefore, though visayan, ilocano, pamapango, etc. they are all tagalogs.)
The term “Tagalog” defined all persons born in the archipelago, whether Bisayan, Ilocano, Pampango, etc. Therefore the Tagalog nation or Katagalugan consisted not only of Tagalog speakers but included all those who grew up (tumubo) in the Philippines, regardless of ethnolinguistic classification and ancestry. At the time, the term “Filipino” applied solely to Spaniards born in the archiepelago. Bonifacio and Jacinto made “Tagalog” a term applicable to all indios or natives.
In his unpublished memoir, “Paghihimagsik Nang 1896-1897” (The Revolution of 1896-1897), Caviteño revolutionary and Aguinaldo’s secretary Carlos V. Ronquillo explains the concept further:
Ito ang dapat unawain ng mga bumabasa: sa tawag naming tagalog na makikita sa bawat dahon halos ng kasaysayang ito, ay di ang ibig naming sabihi’y ang paris ng palagay ng iba, at inuukol lamang sa tubong Maynla, Kabite at Bulakan, at iba pa, hinde kundi ang ibig naming tukuyin ay Filipinas…
Sapagka’t sa palagay naming ay ganito ang talagang nararapat ikapit sa tanang anak ng kapilipinuhan. Ang tagalog o lalong malinaw, ang tawag na “tagalog” ay walang ibang kahulugan kundi ‘tagailog’ na sa tuwirang paghuhulo ay taong maibigang manira sa tabing ilog, bagay na di maikakaila na siyang talagang hilig ng tanang anak ng Pilipinas, saa’t saan mang pulo at bayan.
( This is what the readers must understand: by what we refer to as tagalog, a term which may be found on almost every page of this account, we do not mean, as some believe, those who were born in Manila, Cavite and Balacan, etc. no, we wish to refer to the Philippines…because, in our opinion, this term should apply to all the children of the Filipino nation. Tagalog, or stated more clearly, the name “tagalog” has no other meaning but “tagailog” (from the river) which, traced directly to its root, refers to those who prefer to settle along rivers, truly a trait, it cannot be denied, of all those born in the Philippines, in whatever island or town.)
In his patriotic writings, Bonifacio expressed his concept of nationhood. In K.K.K Katungkulang Gagawin ng mga Z.Li.B., Pagibig sa Tinubuang Bayan, Hibik ng Filipinas sa Ynang España and Ang Dapat Mabatid ng mga Tagalog, he referred to the Philippine islands as sangkapaluan or Katagalugan. In a revolutionary leaflet printed in Cavite during the first quarter of 1897, Bonifacio wrote: “Mabuhay ang Haring Bayang Katagalugan.”
It was clear to Bonifacio and the members of the Katipunan that theirs was a national struggle.
First Filipino government
From 24 August 1896, the Katipunan became an open de facto government. The society had been organized as a secret organization with its own laws, bureaucratic structure and an elective leadership. But a working government was imperative once the August 1896 revolution had begun.
Bonifacio, when questioned at Tejeros, Cavite, defined the letter “K” in the flag to mean “kalayaan” or freedom and explained:
…na mula sa Ktt. Pamunuan ng Katipunan, hanggan sa kababa-babaan, ay nagkakaisang gumagalang sa pagkakapatiran at pagkakapantay-pantay; namumuhunan ng dugo at buhay laban sa Hari, upang makapagtatag ng sarili at malayang Pamahalaan, na samakatwid, ay mamahala ang Bayan sa Bayan, at hindi ang isa o dalawang tao lamang.
(…that from the Highest Officials of the Katipunan to the lowest members, all are one in their respect for brotherhood and equality; they risk blood and life in the struggle against the King, in order to institute our own free Government, so that, in short, the People, and not only one or two people, shall govern the Country.)
Jacinto Lumberas stated:
Ang Kapuluan ay pinamamahalaan na ng K.K.K. ng mga anak Anak ng Bayan, na siyang nagbukas ng Paghihimagsik; may Batas at Alintuntuning pinaiiral; sinusunod at iginagalang ng lahat sa pagtatanggol ng Kalayaan, pag-ibig sa kapatid, pag-aayos at pamamalakas ng mga Pamunuan.
(The Archipelago is governed by the K.K.K. ng mga Anak ng Bayan, which initiated the Revolution: with Laws and Regulations which enforces; followed and respected by all for defending Freedom, fraternal love, constituting and consolidating the Leadership.)
Santiago Alvarez also said:
Kaming mga Katipunan…ay mga tunay na Manghihimagsik sa pagtatanggol ng Kalayaan sa Bayang tinubuan.
(We of the Katipunan…are true Revolutionaries in defending the Freedom of our Nation.)
While Bonifacio, Lumberas and Alvares defined the moral, democratic and nationalist bases of the government, some elements were more explicitly republican. One captured official seal, illustrated in the 30 March 1897 issue of La Illustracion Español y Americana, bore the term “Republika ng Katagalugan.”
John R.M. Taylor, the American military historian and custodian of the Philippine Insurgent Records, concluded that Bonifacio established the first Filipino national government. Taylor interpreted the documents he saw as follows:
The Katipunan came out from the cover of secret designs, threw off the cloak of any other purpose, and stood openly for the independence of the Philippines. Bonifacio turned his lodges into battalions, his grandmasters into captains, and the supreme council of the Katipunan into the insurgent of the Philippines.
Gregorio F. Zaide, who wrote a history of the Katipunan, acknowledged Bonifacio’s revolutionary government:
The Katipunan was more than a secret revolutionary society; it was, withal, a Government. It was the intention of Bonifacio to have the Katipunan govern the whole Philippines after the overthrow of Spanish rule.
Even Teodoro Agoncillo had to concede that:
Immediately before the outbreak of the revolution, therefore, Bonifacio organized the Katipunan into a government revolving around a ‘cabinet’ composed of men of his confidence.
First president
A far clearer idea of Bonifacio’s Katagalugan government emerged in the late 1980s when letters and other important document signed by Bonifacio-part of the collection of noted historian and former director of the prewar Philippine Library and Museum, Epifanio de los Santos-became accessible.
Three letters and one appointment paper, written by Bonifacio on printed letterheads dated from 8 March to 24 April 1897, and all addressed to Emilio Jacinto, prove that Bonifacio was the first president of a national government. These letters contained the following titles and designations:
Pangulo ng Kataastaasang Kapulungan
( President of the Supreme Council)
Ang Kataastaasang Pangulo
(The Supreme President)
Pangulo nang Haring Bayang Katagalugan
(President of the Sovereign Nation of Katagalugan)
Note: “Bayan” means both “people” and “country”
Ang Pangulo ng Haring Bayan
May tayo nang K.K. Katipunan nang mga Anak ng
Bayan,
Unang nag galaw nang Panghihimagsik
(The President Sovereign Nation Founder of the Katipunan,
Initiator of the Revolution)
Kataastaasang Panguluhan,
Pamahalaang Panghihimagsik
(Office of the Supreme President,
Government of the Revolution)
The prewar scholar Jose P. Bantug referred to Bonifacio as the “Kataastaasang Pangulo” and “General’ No. 1.” Jose P. Santos in 1933, and Zaide in 1939, came to the same conclusion and recognized the Bonifacio presidency.
However, both men misread the phrase Ang Haring Bayan-found in the Minutes of Tejeros Assembly (23 March 1897), the Jacinto Appointment Paper (15 April 1897), as well as the undated Bonifacio Manifesto entitled Katipunan Marahas ng mga Anak ng Bayan-as Ang Hari ng Bayan. The first phrase refers to Bonifacio’s adaptation of the Western concept of republic-from res publica, literally public thing or common wealth -to the Filipino concept of “sovereign people.”
Thus, the government headed by Bonifacio prior to 22 March 1897 was democratic in nature and national in scope, contrary to some postwar historians’ contention that Bonifacio attempted to establish a government separate from Aguinaldo’s only after the Tejeros Assembly, and was therefore guilty of treason.
An article on the Philippine revolution appeared in then 8 February 1897 issue of the La Ilusracion Español y Americana. It was accompanied by an engraved portrait of Bonifacio wearing a black suit and white tie, with the caption “Andres Bonifacio, Titulado “Presidente’ de la Republica Tagala” and described him as the head of the native government. The reporter, GA. Reparaz, referred to Aguinaldo only as a generalissimo. The key officers in the Bonifacio government, according to Reparaz, were as follows : Teodoro Plata, Secretary of war; Emilio Jacinto, Secretary of State; Aguedo del Rosario, Secretary of Interior; Briccio Pantas, Secretary of Justice; and Enrique Pacheco as Secretary of Finance.
In his 1897 work, "El Katipunan" or "El Filibusterismo en Filipinas," the Spanish historian Jose M.del Castillo reiterated the results of what was, in effect, the first Philippine national elections and listed the same names as La Ilustracion.
The August 1896 transformation of the Katipunan into a revolutionary government and Bonifacios election to the presidency were confirmed by Pio Valenzuela in his testimony before the Spanish authorities. Del Roasario, who was captured, was described as “one of those designated by the Katipunan to form the Revolutionary Government of the Philippines and to carry out the function of local government administration.”
Katipunan democracy
Bonifacio set in place mechanisms for popular participation from the national to the local levels. The government established by the Katipunan was run by consensus.
The Supreme Council was called the Kataastaasang Kapulungan as can be noted from the letterhead and seal used by Bonifacio. Baldomero Aguinaldo, Pangulo (President) of Sangunian Bayan Magdalo (Magdalo Council), in a letter dated 21 March 1897 and addressed to Felix Cuenca and Mariano Noriel refers to a memorandum from Bonifacio as “isang Kalatas ng G. Presidente “ (a message from Mr. President) and recognizes the national government led by Bonifacio as “Kgg na pulungan ng hihimacsic (Gobierno revolucionario)” (Honorable revolutionary council (Revolutionary government).
In each province, the Kataastaasang Sangunian coordinated the Sanguniang Bayan, which saw to public administration and military affairs on the supra-municipal or quasi-provincial level. In the province of Manila, there were many Sangunian Bayan, such as in Tondo, Kalookan, Mandaluyong, San Juan del Monte, Marikina, Pasig and Pateros, San Mateo, etc. There were Sangunian Bayan in the province of Batangas, Bulacan, Laguna, Nueva Ecija and Tayabas, etc. There were at least three Sangunian Bayan under unified military commands to facilitate strategic planning and tactical moves.
At the founding assembly in Kalookan on 24 August 1896, the revolutionary government made the following decisions: 10 the revolution would begin with attack on Manila at midnight of Saturday, 29 August; 20 a revolutionary was established with the appointment of Aguelo del Rosario, Vicente Fernandez, Ramon Bernardo and Gregorio Coronel as brigadiers general; 3) the four generals were tasked with strategic planning for the occupation of Manila; 4) the military situation was to be constantly appraised so that an uprising could be started earlier than 29 August; 5) assigned routes for three commanders were laid out through Tondo, San Marcelino and the Sampaloc rotunda (now part of Sta. Mesa).
The revolutionary troops were more enthusiastic than effective, however, and the Katipunan was unable to wrest state power from the well-entrenched Spanish forces.
Later, Bonifacio and more than ten generals commanded a rebel army assembled by Sanggunian Bayan of various towns within and around present Metro Manila. They engaged mostly in attack-and-withdraw operations: they seized town halls, capture food, arms, and ammunition supplies, and neutralized enemy outposts.
The rebel forces were divided into north and south sectors by the Pasig River. To the north lay Bonifacio’s guerilla forces in Manila and suburbs, with fortified camps in Balara, San Mateo, Pantayanin and Montalban; the armed Katipunan groups in Bulacan and Mariano Llanera’s forces based in Nueva Ecija were constanly on the move through The Siera Madre the patron (landed gentry and rural elite) leaders. Governor Ramon Blanco reported to the Spanish Cortes the reinforcements were necessary to destroy both sectors and end the insurrection.
The Cavite rebel groups evolved into two supramunicipal governments with military commands. One was called Magdiwang, covering the territory from Noveleta and San Francisco de Malabon up to Batangas. The other was called Magdalo, which extended its sphere of influence from Kawit, Cavite, to the southern parts of the province of Manila, now Rizal. It soon became apparent that in order to hold on to captured territory, the rebels had to conform unified intra-provincial administrative units. The perimeter was then secured with forts and trenches.
The Katipunan army in Cavite was big, but it has been estimated that the army north of the Pasig River was much bigger. In other parts of the archipelago, the rebels were organized into squads and commands smaller than those in Central Luzon.
The original Katipunan sub-organizations of Sangunian Bayan on the supra-municipal level, and the Panguluhang Bayan (local council) on the district or barrio level constituted the civilian component of the Katagalugan government. As the government was a revolutionary one, many civilian leaders were concurrently military officials. At the same time, generals and key officers in the revolutionary army exercised power over government structures. Bonifacio, as president was effectively the commander-in-chief. Aguinaldo was one of his captains general.
The Spanish military writer Federico de Monteverde gives details of the military organization instituted by Bonifacio. Monteverde fully illustrates the different revolutionary insignas corresponding to each rank, such as colonel, brigadier general, major general, lieutenant general and captain general. Various military insignas are also discussed by Taylor, and described by Generals Alvarez and Artemio Ricarte in their memoirs.
As the revolution progressed, Bonifacio had to formalize the army. In an order dated 16 December 1896, the revolutionary president redefined the hierarchy of the Katipunan military organization. Each battalion unit-called Katipon-was to be composed of 203 men.
As commander-in-chief, Bonifacio supervised the planning of military strategies and the preparation of orders, manifests and decrees, adjudicated offenses against the nation, as well as mediated in political disputes. He directed generals and positioned troops in the fronts. On the basis of command responsibility, all victories and defeats all over the archipelago during his term of office should be attributed to Bonifacio.
The claim by some historians that “Bonifacio lost all his battles" is ridiculous.
Foreign Affairs
Prior to the outbreak of the revolution, some Filipinos based in Hong Kong acted on behalf of the nationalist movement in the Philippines. Led by Doroteo Cortes, they solicited funds from various sources, especially from wealthy businessmen and companies. They sent the donations to Jose Maria Basa, who was also based in Hong Kong and served as disbursing officer.
A large portion of the funds was used to send a commission to Japan to negotiate for political, military and financial aid for the anticipated uprising towards the end of 1896. With Cortes were Isabelo Artacho and Jose A. Ramos, who arranged with Japanese politicians to acquire 100,000 rifles and an unspecified amount of ammunition. The weapons were partly paid for in advance while the balance was to be amortized over a number of years. The commission also petitioned Japan to send a military squadron to aid the revolutionary forces and, after independence was won, to recognize the Filipino state. Investigations by the Spanish authorities revealed, "The plan was that while Andres Bonifacio was busy ecruiting people for the general uprising, Doroteo Cortes should carry on the necessary negotiations with Japan…"
Although Japan was not at war in 1896, she looked at her Asian neighbours with a keen expansionary eye. However, most Asian countries then were under European colonial dominion. Around the middle of May 1896, the Japanese cruiser Kongo visited Manila. Bonifacio and some Katipunan members immediately sought a meeting with Japanese Admiral Kanimura, while Jacinto drafted a message addressed to the Emperor of Japan. It read: "The Filipino people greet the Emperor of Japan and the entire Japanese nation, with the hope that the light of liberty in Japan will also shed its rays in the Philippines…" Japan was not disposed to go to war against Spain in 1896-1897 just to uphold the rights of Filipinos. Nevertheless, Bonifacio expected the arrival of arms and ammunition from Japan in August 1896.
Cortes continued to represent the revolutionaries before foreign entities. Together with Basa and A.G. Medina, Cortes sent a petition to the Consul of the United States of America in Hong Kong on 29 January 1897. The request implored the "Gefe Supremo desu Nacion" for protection of the Filipinos and recognition of their right to self-government. But the petition was ill-timed. Grover Cleveland lost the presidential elections; his successor, William McKinley, declared a national policy focused on "domestic business conditions and economic recovery from the continuing depression of 1893 and therefore (he tried) to avoid conflict with Spain."
In January 1897, The Philippine Commission in Hong Kong addressed a petition to Henry Hannoteaux, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, which enumerated 50 grievances of the Philippines against Spain and called for assistance. However, France remained strictly neutral because she feared that such anticolonialism would contaminate neighbouring French Indochina, and also because France had no means for practicable intervention.
Significance of 1896 Revolution
In July 1892, Bonifacio founded the Katipunan which launched the first anticolonial revolution in Asia in August 1896. He formed the first national governments established by Aguinaldo from 1897 to 1899.
The Katagalugan government carried over the symbols and teachings of the Katipunan, which the people accepted as the revolutionary authority. This government was democratic in principle, orientation and form. At its inception, it was formed by representatives from the provinces where the Katipunan had a mass-based membership. It adopted as its national standard the Katipunan’s red flag with a white sun with the Tagalog letter "Ka" in the center and commissioned Julio Nakpil to compose the national anthem, "Marangal na Dalit ng Katagalugan."
In defining "Tagalog" as the term for all Filipinos, and "Katagalugan" as the country’s name in lieu of "Filipinas" which had colonial origins, Bonifacio and the Katipunan sought to define a national identity.
The Katagalugan government commanded the loyalty of a significant portion of the population. It held territory, where it exercised the functions of a state. It had armed forces which fought for, and defended its existence. It had diplomatic component, which attempted to gain international recognition for the new nation.
The governments that succeeded Bonifacio’s essentially republican Katagalugan government could only proceed from it. The 24 August 1896` government certainly had a large mass-based following than the 24 August 1897 entity that deposed it. But as a result of the power struggle in Cavite, Emilio Aguinaldo, although only one of many revolutionary generals, usurped President Andres Bonifacio’s authority. Aguinaldo reorganized Bonifacio’s Republika ng Katagalugan and renamed it Republica Filipina.
The first Filipino national government was established on 24 August 1896. Filipinos should observe the date as National Day, if the 1896 Philippine Revolution and the Katipunan are to have any worth at all. And Filipinos should recognize Andres Bonifacio not only the founder of the Katipunan and leader of the revolution of 1896, but as the first Filipino president: the father of the nation and founder of our democracy.
Reference:
*From "Sulyap Kultura," a publication of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (1996).
About the author:
Milagros C. Guerrero
Copyright 2002 © National Commission for Culture and the Arts
All Rights Reserved.
-------END OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
================
NB (Nosi Bayasi):
================
Note the arguable/controversial/disputable etctec claim that the 1896 Philippine Revolution is really "Tagalog Revolution" & the counter-claim supported by Bonifacio's & the Katipunan's definition of what a Tagalog is. Also, the claim that the KKK was no mere cabal but a fully-organized government (though admittedly "underground") designed not simply to overthrow the then existing system via revolution but to govern afterwards; the information that the KKK had a foreign affairs section engaged in high-level negotiations with sovereign powers; the fact that Aguinaldo was a mere captain-general of the SUPREMO; and others. This is one historical INTERPRETATION of a historic event by an academician (which is apparently sanctioned by a Philippine national agency & with a recommendation regarding the date August 24). There are still others. Which or what is the TRUTH? Republica Filipina or Republica Tagala? First Philippine President: Bonifacio, Aguinaldo or Roxas?
Pahabol: "Unang nag GALAW nang Panghihimagsik (The President Sovereign Nation Founder of the Katipunan, INITIATOR of the Revolution)"
TANONG: Si NOSI BAYASI (Aku) ba ay unang nag-GALAW sa ika-21 siglo, o nagga-GALAW lamang? Ask those who can speak deeper TAGALOG language to understand this.
Si NOSI BAYASI ba ay TAGA-ILOG, TAGA-LOG, o TAGA-BLOG?
POST 0008
Huwebes, Hulyo 15, 2010
7:15am Manila Time
ISANG PAGBASA SA KASAYSAYAN NG SANIPILIP NG ISANG MANUNULAT NA HINDI ISANG AKADEMIKONG HISTORYADOR
-------START OF DOWNLOADED WEBPAGE MATERIAL-------
THE TAGALOG - KAPAMPANGAN ALLIANCE
BY NICK JOAQUIN
The following excerpts are lifted from The Wicked Accomplices, the first chapter of the best-selling book, The Aquinos Of Tarlac by national artist, Nick Joaquin, and first published in 1972 by Solar Publishing Corporation in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila in the Philippines. The webmaster is highly recommending the book to everyone.
The Americans quickly....had grasped a fact the Spaniards had long been aware of: that the Tagalog-Pampangan area, comprehended between Batangas in the south and Tarlac in the north, formed the vital core of the country; was HEARTLAND, was the metropolitan area; in relation to which the other centers of culture in the islands
(e.g. Vigan and Cebu) were outposts. The reason this heartland became the ground of history may be that, in the 16th century, it was the only region of some size where the native tribes had achieved a measure of unity. Older and richer might be the kingdoms of Cebu and Jolo, but these were small city-states isolated by hostility. The king of Cebu, for instance had for enemy the tiny isle of Mactan, which was just across his bay. In contrast, the neighboring kingdoms on the Pasig - Manila and Tondo - were allies, and evidently belonged to a confederacy loosely binding the realms all over the Tagalog-Pampangan region. Not divide and conquer, but unite and rule, was the policy made possible by this domain. The Spaniards were quick to see how smoother an avenue was afforded by the coherence of this region, and their conquest of it was to make official what unity they found there. Here they concentrated their colonizing efforts, with the result that the Tagalog and Pampango were to become the most "politicized" of Filipinos, accounting for the arrogance they have traditionally been accused of. In fact, one friar, Gaspar de San Agustin, has described the Pampangans as "the Castilians among these Indios". Nevertheless the idea of national unity was to begin as this unity of the Tagalog and Pampangan country, from which the Spaniards created a Seat of State (the city of Manila and the province of Pampanga were the basic foundations) and a Seat of the Church (the Archbishop of Manila, which embraces Pampango ground, is the primal See of the country) thus fusing into a unit the old Tagalog and Pampangan realms. From this unit came the necessary consent to government as well as its support forces, so that a counter capital to Manila always had to be within the Tagalog-Pampangan terrain - like Arayat, as proposed by Gov.-Gen. Basco; or Bacolor, to which Simon de Anda removed the government during the British Occupation; or Kawit, Malolos, San Fernando, San Isidro and Tarlac, the successive capitals of the Aguinaldo government. But when the Spaniards, after the fall of Manila in 1898, transferred the government to Iloilo - that is, outside the Tagalog-Pampangan ground - it automatically meant the end of Spanish rule.
Similarly, the Revolution, a Tagalog-Pampangan enterprise, chiefly happened on Tagalog-Pampangan ground, and the Americans foresaw that it could not survive beyond its frontier in Tarlac. The unity of faith and action was, at that moment of our history, still bound up with the particular ethnic and geographical unit that, for almost four centuries, had stood for "law", for "government", for "civilization". When that symbol of Victorian progress, the railroad, was brought to the Philippines, the first line was, of course, laid along, and further bound together, the Tagalog-Pampangan country, connecting it with the outposts in the north. And when the Revolution broke out, the Spaniards, though fighting was confined in Cavite, correctly declared a state of war in the entire Tagalog-Pampangan domain, knowing it only too well as a unit where fire in any part could set the whole ablaze. But the whole had now become something greater than this unit, for a nation had sprung from there. The role of this region can be read in our flag, where each ray of the sun stands for either a Tagalog or Pampangan province. But even the stars in the flag proclaim this role, being three in number because the Tagalog and Pampangan fought to keep them at least three. For good or evil, it was these two tribes, these wicked accomplices, that determined not only the shape of our history but even of our geography. The form now called the Philippines has maintained through almost four centuries of steady assault from within and without only because Spain (which, through those centuries, never had more than 5,000 Spanish troops in the islands) could rely on the Tagalog-Pampangan alliance to keep the form (now called the Philippines) from disintegrating.
The alliance even antedated the coming of Tagalogs and Pampangans to these shores. One scholar theorizes that the two tribes emigrated from neighboring regions in Java (or Sumatra?) and continued in the new country their association in the old - a theory backed by the tradition that the Prince Balagtas who founded a dynasty in Pampanga was, even before his coming to Luzon (sometime perhaps between 1335 and 1380), already a Tagalog-Pampangan mestizo, his mother being of the royal house of the Kingdom of Sapa (now Manila's Sta. Ana district) before she was given in marriage to a sovereign of the Madjapahit Empire in Java. The coming of Prince Balagtas and his entourage apparently capped a series of waves of Pampangan
emigration to Luzon and had a definite intent: to consolidate into a kingdom all these Pampangan colonies believed to be already occupying an area that extended from Manila Bay to the wilds of Cagayan. A true consolidation was never effected, nor did a kingdom arise, but from Prince Balagtas, according to tradition, descended the native principalia, or nobility, that included such families as the Soliman, the Lakandula, the Gatbonton, the Gatchalian, the Gatmaitan, the Gatdula, the Malang, the Puno, and the Kapulong -- families in veins ran a mixed Tagalog-Pampangan blood, and in the knots of whose marryings the two tribes became so intertwined as to form a single growth. Geography was to compound the knots, for the Rio Grande de Pampanga empties into Manila Bay, where also ends the Tagalog's Rio Pasig; and in the region between the two deltas was common ground for confederacy. After Manila (a city ruled by a Tagalog-Pampangan house) was seized by the Spaniards, the ousted heir, Soliman III (Tarik Soliman or Bambalito? - O.S.) presently reappeared, on Manila Bay, with a Tagalog-Pampangan fleet (from Macabebe and Hagonoy - O.S.) which the Spaniards routed in the Battle of Bangkusay. That was in 1571, the year Manila was established as the capital city, the seat of power, and Pampanga was organized into a province, the premier local government of the land, under Spain. Although the Tagalog and Pampangan were to unite later in several revolts, the Battle of Bangkusay can be said to have been their last joint engagement under the old alliance. Only three years later, in 1574, the Tagalogs and Pampangans are being inducted into the army they battled in Bangkusay, and a new alliance has begun. To this alliance they were to become so indispensable, not only as military but as economic arms, that from the start the empire of Spain in the Philippines could not have survived save with the consent of these two tribes. "The colony indeed survived," observes Father Horacio dela Costa, "but what was the price of survival? Obviously, the price which had to be paid for ships; for building them, keeping them afloat and sending them out to fight. This price was paid, most of it, by ... the forced-labor contingents drafted year after year from the provinces near Manila that felled the timber, built the ships, sailed them and manned the guns. It was....these same provinces that fed, clothed and armed the crews....What aggravated the burdens laid on the Tagalogs and Pampangans was the fact that the government was not in a financial position to pay a just wage to the laborers it drafted or a just price for the goods it bought."
And yet, after the period of the Conquista, this region on which the heaviest burdens were laid was nevertheless the least mutinous in the country, as though it regarded itself, however exploited, as not alien to the new government but allied to it. A continuity in fealty justified the view, for the old-time tribal chiefs, the datus, had been incorporated into the new government and in most places were the only visible form of government. "At the time of the conquest," says John Larkin (author of the book, The Pampangans - O.S.) "the Spaniards were severely undermanned and needed someone to maintain order and collect the needed supplies. They accepted the authority of willing local leaders rather than upset the existing system at a time when military concerns were paramount. Both parties were served by this arrangement; the Spaniards received the necessary goods, and the datus retained their position in the village." From these datus would develop the principalia that, from earliest Spanish times, were exempt from taxes, enjoyed the title of Don, and controlled local governments in "elective" positions that were actually hereditary. Because an organic relationship still existed between the principalia and the peasantry, services required by the Dons was not regarded as exploitation by their liegemen, who knew from experience that, whenever abuses grew rampant, the Dons hastened to be their spokesmen, not fearing to appeal to the king of Spain himself. Thus, in the 1670s, did the principalia of Pampanga complain to Carlos II about the quota of rice exacted from every farmer in Pampanga and the Spanish king could not but order "the total extirpation of the abuse and injustice" committed against a region of which he had heard it said that it "has made important contributions to the defense of the entire colony, having raised several companies of troops to serve in the wars against the Dutch who infest those waters, the Moros of Ternate and other hostile nations; that it provided and still provides whole units of regular infantry to garrison that royal capital, its fortress of Santiago, the forts of Cavite, Cebu, Oton, Cagayan, Caraga and the other strong points of these islands"; and that "the Pampango nation has on all occasions shown great fidelity in my service." Indeed a popular saying then was that one Spaniard and three Pampangans are the equal of four Spaniards," a boast that grew from the battlegrounds of the 16th century. Pampangans were with Dasmarinas in the taking of Nueva Vizcaya in 1591; were with Figueroa in the conquest of Mindanao in 1596; were with the "pacification" troops that brought under one flag the regions of Cagayan, Negros, Leyte, etc.; and were with the various expeditionary forces to the Moluccas in the days when our geography was still in the making and it seemed for a while that the Philippines might include the Spice Islands, Borneo, Formosa, the Malay Peninsula and the coasts of Indochina. When the Koxinga invasion impended (1662) and the Chinese in Manila rose in revolt, it was the Pampangan militia under Francisco Laxamana that defeated the rebels in pitched battle, killing a thousand of them and capturing the ringleaders. Because of this victory Laxamana, the Pampangan, was entrusted with the walls of Manila for 24 hours -- a startling symbolic gesture by which the empire confessed its dependence on the heartland.
If the Tagalog-Pampangan troops of those times now seem to us mercenaries, in their own eyes they were not, since they were fighting for a government they regarded as their own, especially as represented by their datus, now the powerful principalia. Theirs, too, was the army: "well-organized troops under the command of their own general officers (Laxamana was a master-of-camp), majors and captains, posts that they greatly esteem as a reward of merit, each of them striving for promotion so as to bequeath this honor to their descendants." Strictly speaking, therefore, theirs was a feudal rather than a mercenary army, since they were led by their own liege lords, to whom they owed fealty; and in fighting outside their tribal ground, in fighting for regions to which, then, they did not feel native (Cagayan, Leyte, Negros, Mindanao, etc.) they were already a national army in the making, creating a sense of country by their willingness to defend certain boundaries from invasion and the government within from usurpers. As long as that government had the consent of the Tagalog and Pampangan, it could stand firm, though the rest of the tribes revolt; but when that consent was withdrawn, the empire tottered. From Limahong in 1574 to William Draper in 1762, the fate of Spain in the Philippines rested on whether the Tagalog and Pampangan chose to side with the Spaniard or with the invader.
The Spanish were well aware that it was they who were dependent on the alliance with the Tagalog and Pampangan , and not vice-versa -- which would have been the case had the native troops been nothing more than mercenaries. So, a Tagalog-Pampangan revolt was feared most of all -- as in 1660 when one such revolt (led by Francisco Maniago - O.S.) was decried as "all the worse because these people had been trained in the military art in our own schools....their valor was well-known, and therefore it was said that one Spaniard and three Pampangos are equal to four Spaniards....(and the) people of the other provinces were on the watch for its outcome, in order to declare themselves rebels ....There is no worse enemy than an alienated friend!" (no hay peor cuna que de la misma madera) Here, from a Spanish mouth, is the admission that the Tagalog and Pampangan were not mercenaries but allies and friends who must not be alienated, being of the same timber as the Spaniard -- and there's "no worse wedge than that of the same wood." The Tagalog and Pampangan were likewise aware that it was on them that the empire rested and through them that destiny was at work, as they proclaimed in the classic feast of Philippine history, the feast in which the Tagalog and Pampangan celebrated the alliance that was to beget a nation. It has been said, quite incorrectly, that the Limahong invasion was the crucial moment in our history, the event that decided if there was to be such a nation as the Philippines or merely an outer province of China. But that moment, was not as decisive as the Dutch wars of the 17th century, which were, by far, the greater threat, the more crucial event. Limahong was not backed by his government (he was just a pirate - O.S.) and did not have the resources for a real invasion; his was purely a one-shot attempt. But the Dutch invaders had the official backing, the resources and the will to sustain what was clearly not just a feint, since their attempt at invasion was pressed for more than 50 years (the first half of the 17th century) with annual battles on a front that stretched from Aparri to Jolo. This was the Great War in our history, for it was the war that decided if we were to be the Philippines --or a part of the Dutch East Indies then, a province of Indonesia today (with Bahasa Indonesia as our national language -- O.S.). The war ended in victory for the idea of nation. That the Tagalog and Pampangan regarded it as their war and their victory can be gathered from the feast that is exclusively a Tagalog-Pampangan tradition: the feast known as La Naval de Manila, once the principal fiesta of Manila, the capital of the land of the Tagalogs, and also the great fiesta of Bacolor, the ancient capital of the Pampangans. When the Pampangans pushed their frontier beyond San Fernando, they thought this tradition important enough to carry with them in their movement northward -- to Angeles, the prime pioneer foundation and take-off point for the new frontier. And in Angeles to this day, the principal celebration is the fiesta called La Naval. The significance may be lost to us now, yet a feeling of pride still inheres to the cult, even with the celebrants not knowing what they feel so proud about, for the inherited emotion may have transcended
the occasion for the feast and perhaps, now refers not merely to the victory in the Dutch Wars, but to all the other feats of an ancient alliance. More than the moment's safety was involved in what we now dismiss as colonial wars not a part of our history.
But for the winning of those wars, we might have had no history. After the Dutch Wars, the next --and last major -- engagement of the alliance is the British Invasion; and here the staging is even more explicit: the capital is moved from Manila to Bacolor; Tagalog and Pampangan rally around the "legitimate" government; while beyond the Tagalog-Pampangan frontier, the Ilocanos seize the chance to break away from achieved form, under the leadership of Diego Silang. "He soon realized, however," says Fr. de la Costa, "that his untried and undisciplined forces, unprovided with firearms and artillery, would be no match to the seasoned and well-armed troops Anda was collecting in Pampanga to send against him. (These battles begot a fearless hero named Manalastas. - O.S.) We shall never know what
might have happened if the Ilocanos and the British had succeeded in combining forces. Whatever dreams Silang had conceived of an Ilocano nation under British protection were shattered forever by an assassin's bullet." This another ambiguous moment in our history; whom are we to cheer? The Ilocano rebels who would break away and set up their own nation; or the Tagalog-Pampangan troops who were for keeping the Ilocos as an integral part of the form? (I am for the latter, because with a British occupation in the Philippines, the U.S. would not have come to our shores in 1898. - O.S.) At any rate, the Tagalog and Pampangan then, as in other tribal attempts to secede that they prevented, were fighting, however unknowingly, for the integrity of a nation. Not so unconscious is their role in the next great struggle in our history: the revolt of the Creole - though this revolt was to confuse the old Tagalog-Pampangan loyalties, unfixing the line between law and outlaw. Did the Creole, even in rebellion, represent "legitimate" government, or was he an usurper? Did he stand for the integrity of the form so long defended, or had he become another disruptor to be stopped? The confusion was inevitable, the Creole having been for so long the Establishment he would now topple.
Stay tuned for the dramatic conclusion of this brilliant
episode on page 2, by clicking:
http://maxpages.com/tarlac/tarlac2
********************************************************
For the article, Lucio F. Turla - Revolucionario, click:
http://maxpages.com/revolucionario
Thanks and acknowledgement are hereby given to the author, NICK JOAQUIN, and the publisher, SOLAR PUBLISHING CORPORATION in Manila, Philippines.
Thanks to my friend, Ernie Turla for letting me build this webpage.
Oscar Soriano, webmaster
-------END OF COPIED WEBPAGE MATERIAL-------
=================
Nosi Bayasi (NB):
=================
Joaquin here presents the essential introduction to what he considers to be a "Creole" (meaning: mestizo or half-breed) revolt or rebellion. He is referring to the Katipunan initiated 1896 Philippine Revolution. This is an important, because different, interpretation of a historic(al) event. Potentially controversial.
7:15am Manila Time
ISANG PAGBASA SA KASAYSAYAN NG SANIPILIP NG ISANG MANUNULAT NA HINDI ISANG AKADEMIKONG HISTORYADOR
-------START OF DOWNLOADED WEBPAGE MATERIAL-------
THE TAGALOG - KAPAMPANGAN ALLIANCE
BY NICK JOAQUIN
The following excerpts are lifted from The Wicked Accomplices, the first chapter of the best-selling book, The Aquinos Of Tarlac by national artist, Nick Joaquin, and first published in 1972 by Solar Publishing Corporation in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila in the Philippines. The webmaster is highly recommending the book to everyone.
The Americans quickly....had grasped a fact the Spaniards had long been aware of: that the Tagalog-Pampangan area, comprehended between Batangas in the south and Tarlac in the north, formed the vital core of the country; was HEARTLAND, was the metropolitan area; in relation to which the other centers of culture in the islands
(e.g. Vigan and Cebu) were outposts. The reason this heartland became the ground of history may be that, in the 16th century, it was the only region of some size where the native tribes had achieved a measure of unity. Older and richer might be the kingdoms of Cebu and Jolo, but these were small city-states isolated by hostility. The king of Cebu, for instance had for enemy the tiny isle of Mactan, which was just across his bay. In contrast, the neighboring kingdoms on the Pasig - Manila and Tondo - were allies, and evidently belonged to a confederacy loosely binding the realms all over the Tagalog-Pampangan region. Not divide and conquer, but unite and rule, was the policy made possible by this domain. The Spaniards were quick to see how smoother an avenue was afforded by the coherence of this region, and their conquest of it was to make official what unity they found there. Here they concentrated their colonizing efforts, with the result that the Tagalog and Pampango were to become the most "politicized" of Filipinos, accounting for the arrogance they have traditionally been accused of. In fact, one friar, Gaspar de San Agustin, has described the Pampangans as "the Castilians among these Indios". Nevertheless the idea of national unity was to begin as this unity of the Tagalog and Pampangan country, from which the Spaniards created a Seat of State (the city of Manila and the province of Pampanga were the basic foundations) and a Seat of the Church (the Archbishop of Manila, which embraces Pampango ground, is the primal See of the country) thus fusing into a unit the old Tagalog and Pampangan realms. From this unit came the necessary consent to government as well as its support forces, so that a counter capital to Manila always had to be within the Tagalog-Pampangan terrain - like Arayat, as proposed by Gov.-Gen. Basco; or Bacolor, to which Simon de Anda removed the government during the British Occupation; or Kawit, Malolos, San Fernando, San Isidro and Tarlac, the successive capitals of the Aguinaldo government. But when the Spaniards, after the fall of Manila in 1898, transferred the government to Iloilo - that is, outside the Tagalog-Pampangan ground - it automatically meant the end of Spanish rule.
Similarly, the Revolution, a Tagalog-Pampangan enterprise, chiefly happened on Tagalog-Pampangan ground, and the Americans foresaw that it could not survive beyond its frontier in Tarlac. The unity of faith and action was, at that moment of our history, still bound up with the particular ethnic and geographical unit that, for almost four centuries, had stood for "law", for "government", for "civilization". When that symbol of Victorian progress, the railroad, was brought to the Philippines, the first line was, of course, laid along, and further bound together, the Tagalog-Pampangan country, connecting it with the outposts in the north. And when the Revolution broke out, the Spaniards, though fighting was confined in Cavite, correctly declared a state of war in the entire Tagalog-Pampangan domain, knowing it only too well as a unit where fire in any part could set the whole ablaze. But the whole had now become something greater than this unit, for a nation had sprung from there. The role of this region can be read in our flag, where each ray of the sun stands for either a Tagalog or Pampangan province. But even the stars in the flag proclaim this role, being three in number because the Tagalog and Pampangan fought to keep them at least three. For good or evil, it was these two tribes, these wicked accomplices, that determined not only the shape of our history but even of our geography. The form now called the Philippines has maintained through almost four centuries of steady assault from within and without only because Spain (which, through those centuries, never had more than 5,000 Spanish troops in the islands) could rely on the Tagalog-Pampangan alliance to keep the form (now called the Philippines) from disintegrating.
The alliance even antedated the coming of Tagalogs and Pampangans to these shores. One scholar theorizes that the two tribes emigrated from neighboring regions in Java (or Sumatra?) and continued in the new country their association in the old - a theory backed by the tradition that the Prince Balagtas who founded a dynasty in Pampanga was, even before his coming to Luzon (sometime perhaps between 1335 and 1380), already a Tagalog-Pampangan mestizo, his mother being of the royal house of the Kingdom of Sapa (now Manila's Sta. Ana district) before she was given in marriage to a sovereign of the Madjapahit Empire in Java. The coming of Prince Balagtas and his entourage apparently capped a series of waves of Pampangan
emigration to Luzon and had a definite intent: to consolidate into a kingdom all these Pampangan colonies believed to be already occupying an area that extended from Manila Bay to the wilds of Cagayan. A true consolidation was never effected, nor did a kingdom arise, but from Prince Balagtas, according to tradition, descended the native principalia, or nobility, that included such families as the Soliman, the Lakandula, the Gatbonton, the Gatchalian, the Gatmaitan, the Gatdula, the Malang, the Puno, and the Kapulong -- families in veins ran a mixed Tagalog-Pampangan blood, and in the knots of whose marryings the two tribes became so intertwined as to form a single growth. Geography was to compound the knots, for the Rio Grande de Pampanga empties into Manila Bay, where also ends the Tagalog's Rio Pasig; and in the region between the two deltas was common ground for confederacy. After Manila (a city ruled by a Tagalog-Pampangan house) was seized by the Spaniards, the ousted heir, Soliman III (Tarik Soliman or Bambalito? - O.S.) presently reappeared, on Manila Bay, with a Tagalog-Pampangan fleet (from Macabebe and Hagonoy - O.S.) which the Spaniards routed in the Battle of Bangkusay. That was in 1571, the year Manila was established as the capital city, the seat of power, and Pampanga was organized into a province, the premier local government of the land, under Spain. Although the Tagalog and Pampangan were to unite later in several revolts, the Battle of Bangkusay can be said to have been their last joint engagement under the old alliance. Only three years later, in 1574, the Tagalogs and Pampangans are being inducted into the army they battled in Bangkusay, and a new alliance has begun. To this alliance they were to become so indispensable, not only as military but as economic arms, that from the start the empire of Spain in the Philippines could not have survived save with the consent of these two tribes. "The colony indeed survived," observes Father Horacio dela Costa, "but what was the price of survival? Obviously, the price which had to be paid for ships; for building them, keeping them afloat and sending them out to fight. This price was paid, most of it, by ... the forced-labor contingents drafted year after year from the provinces near Manila that felled the timber, built the ships, sailed them and manned the guns. It was....these same provinces that fed, clothed and armed the crews....What aggravated the burdens laid on the Tagalogs and Pampangans was the fact that the government was not in a financial position to pay a just wage to the laborers it drafted or a just price for the goods it bought."
And yet, after the period of the Conquista, this region on which the heaviest burdens were laid was nevertheless the least mutinous in the country, as though it regarded itself, however exploited, as not alien to the new government but allied to it. A continuity in fealty justified the view, for the old-time tribal chiefs, the datus, had been incorporated into the new government and in most places were the only visible form of government. "At the time of the conquest," says John Larkin (author of the book, The Pampangans - O.S.) "the Spaniards were severely undermanned and needed someone to maintain order and collect the needed supplies. They accepted the authority of willing local leaders rather than upset the existing system at a time when military concerns were paramount. Both parties were served by this arrangement; the Spaniards received the necessary goods, and the datus retained their position in the village." From these datus would develop the principalia that, from earliest Spanish times, were exempt from taxes, enjoyed the title of Don, and controlled local governments in "elective" positions that were actually hereditary. Because an organic relationship still existed between the principalia and the peasantry, services required by the Dons was not regarded as exploitation by their liegemen, who knew from experience that, whenever abuses grew rampant, the Dons hastened to be their spokesmen, not fearing to appeal to the king of Spain himself. Thus, in the 1670s, did the principalia of Pampanga complain to Carlos II about the quota of rice exacted from every farmer in Pampanga and the Spanish king could not but order "the total extirpation of the abuse and injustice" committed against a region of which he had heard it said that it "has made important contributions to the defense of the entire colony, having raised several companies of troops to serve in the wars against the Dutch who infest those waters, the Moros of Ternate and other hostile nations; that it provided and still provides whole units of regular infantry to garrison that royal capital, its fortress of Santiago, the forts of Cavite, Cebu, Oton, Cagayan, Caraga and the other strong points of these islands"; and that "the Pampango nation has on all occasions shown great fidelity in my service." Indeed a popular saying then was that one Spaniard and three Pampangans are the equal of four Spaniards," a boast that grew from the battlegrounds of the 16th century. Pampangans were with Dasmarinas in the taking of Nueva Vizcaya in 1591; were with Figueroa in the conquest of Mindanao in 1596; were with the "pacification" troops that brought under one flag the regions of Cagayan, Negros, Leyte, etc.; and were with the various expeditionary forces to the Moluccas in the days when our geography was still in the making and it seemed for a while that the Philippines might include the Spice Islands, Borneo, Formosa, the Malay Peninsula and the coasts of Indochina. When the Koxinga invasion impended (1662) and the Chinese in Manila rose in revolt, it was the Pampangan militia under Francisco Laxamana that defeated the rebels in pitched battle, killing a thousand of them and capturing the ringleaders. Because of this victory Laxamana, the Pampangan, was entrusted with the walls of Manila for 24 hours -- a startling symbolic gesture by which the empire confessed its dependence on the heartland.
If the Tagalog-Pampangan troops of those times now seem to us mercenaries, in their own eyes they were not, since they were fighting for a government they regarded as their own, especially as represented by their datus, now the powerful principalia. Theirs, too, was the army: "well-organized troops under the command of their own general officers (Laxamana was a master-of-camp), majors and captains, posts that they greatly esteem as a reward of merit, each of them striving for promotion so as to bequeath this honor to their descendants." Strictly speaking, therefore, theirs was a feudal rather than a mercenary army, since they were led by their own liege lords, to whom they owed fealty; and in fighting outside their tribal ground, in fighting for regions to which, then, they did not feel native (Cagayan, Leyte, Negros, Mindanao, etc.) they were already a national army in the making, creating a sense of country by their willingness to defend certain boundaries from invasion and the government within from usurpers. As long as that government had the consent of the Tagalog and Pampangan, it could stand firm, though the rest of the tribes revolt; but when that consent was withdrawn, the empire tottered. From Limahong in 1574 to William Draper in 1762, the fate of Spain in the Philippines rested on whether the Tagalog and Pampangan chose to side with the Spaniard or with the invader.
The Spanish were well aware that it was they who were dependent on the alliance with the Tagalog and Pampangan , and not vice-versa -- which would have been the case had the native troops been nothing more than mercenaries. So, a Tagalog-Pampangan revolt was feared most of all -- as in 1660 when one such revolt (led by Francisco Maniago - O.S.) was decried as "all the worse because these people had been trained in the military art in our own schools....their valor was well-known, and therefore it was said that one Spaniard and three Pampangos are equal to four Spaniards....(and the) people of the other provinces were on the watch for its outcome, in order to declare themselves rebels ....There is no worse enemy than an alienated friend!" (no hay peor cuna que de la misma madera) Here, from a Spanish mouth, is the admission that the Tagalog and Pampangan were not mercenaries but allies and friends who must not be alienated, being of the same timber as the Spaniard -- and there's "no worse wedge than that of the same wood." The Tagalog and Pampangan were likewise aware that it was on them that the empire rested and through them that destiny was at work, as they proclaimed in the classic feast of Philippine history, the feast in which the Tagalog and Pampangan celebrated the alliance that was to beget a nation. It has been said, quite incorrectly, that the Limahong invasion was the crucial moment in our history, the event that decided if there was to be such a nation as the Philippines or merely an outer province of China. But that moment, was not as decisive as the Dutch wars of the 17th century, which were, by far, the greater threat, the more crucial event. Limahong was not backed by his government (he was just a pirate - O.S.) and did not have the resources for a real invasion; his was purely a one-shot attempt. But the Dutch invaders had the official backing, the resources and the will to sustain what was clearly not just a feint, since their attempt at invasion was pressed for more than 50 years (the first half of the 17th century) with annual battles on a front that stretched from Aparri to Jolo. This was the Great War in our history, for it was the war that decided if we were to be the Philippines --or a part of the Dutch East Indies then, a province of Indonesia today (with Bahasa Indonesia as our national language -- O.S.). The war ended in victory for the idea of nation. That the Tagalog and Pampangan regarded it as their war and their victory can be gathered from the feast that is exclusively a Tagalog-Pampangan tradition: the feast known as La Naval de Manila, once the principal fiesta of Manila, the capital of the land of the Tagalogs, and also the great fiesta of Bacolor, the ancient capital of the Pampangans. When the Pampangans pushed their frontier beyond San Fernando, they thought this tradition important enough to carry with them in their movement northward -- to Angeles, the prime pioneer foundation and take-off point for the new frontier. And in Angeles to this day, the principal celebration is the fiesta called La Naval. The significance may be lost to us now, yet a feeling of pride still inheres to the cult, even with the celebrants not knowing what they feel so proud about, for the inherited emotion may have transcended
the occasion for the feast and perhaps, now refers not merely to the victory in the Dutch Wars, but to all the other feats of an ancient alliance. More than the moment's safety was involved in what we now dismiss as colonial wars not a part of our history.
But for the winning of those wars, we might have had no history. After the Dutch Wars, the next --and last major -- engagement of the alliance is the British Invasion; and here the staging is even more explicit: the capital is moved from Manila to Bacolor; Tagalog and Pampangan rally around the "legitimate" government; while beyond the Tagalog-Pampangan frontier, the Ilocanos seize the chance to break away from achieved form, under the leadership of Diego Silang. "He soon realized, however," says Fr. de la Costa, "that his untried and undisciplined forces, unprovided with firearms and artillery, would be no match to the seasoned and well-armed troops Anda was collecting in Pampanga to send against him. (These battles begot a fearless hero named Manalastas. - O.S.) We shall never know what
might have happened if the Ilocanos and the British had succeeded in combining forces. Whatever dreams Silang had conceived of an Ilocano nation under British protection were shattered forever by an assassin's bullet." This another ambiguous moment in our history; whom are we to cheer? The Ilocano rebels who would break away and set up their own nation; or the Tagalog-Pampangan troops who were for keeping the Ilocos as an integral part of the form? (I am for the latter, because with a British occupation in the Philippines, the U.S. would not have come to our shores in 1898. - O.S.) At any rate, the Tagalog and Pampangan then, as in other tribal attempts to secede that they prevented, were fighting, however unknowingly, for the integrity of a nation. Not so unconscious is their role in the next great struggle in our history: the revolt of the Creole - though this revolt was to confuse the old Tagalog-Pampangan loyalties, unfixing the line between law and outlaw. Did the Creole, even in rebellion, represent "legitimate" government, or was he an usurper? Did he stand for the integrity of the form so long defended, or had he become another disruptor to be stopped? The confusion was inevitable, the Creole having been for so long the Establishment he would now topple.
Stay tuned for the dramatic conclusion of this brilliant
episode on page 2, by clicking:
http://maxpages.com/tarlac/tarlac2
********************************************************
For the article, Lucio F. Turla - Revolucionario, click:
http://maxpages.com/revolucionario
Thanks and acknowledgement are hereby given to the author, NICK JOAQUIN, and the publisher, SOLAR PUBLISHING CORPORATION in Manila, Philippines.
Thanks to my friend, Ernie Turla for letting me build this webpage.
Oscar Soriano, webmaster
-------END OF COPIED WEBPAGE MATERIAL-------
=================
Nosi Bayasi (NB):
=================
Joaquin here presents the essential introduction to what he considers to be a "Creole" (meaning: mestizo or half-breed) revolt or rebellion. He is referring to the Katipunan initiated 1896 Philippine Revolution. This is an important, because different, interpretation of a historic(al) event. Potentially controversial.
Friday, July 9, 2010
POST 0007
Halos parehong oras at lugar sa POST 0006
NOSI BAYASI'S HEBIGAT ISSUE#2: RIZAL'S RETRACTION
May isa pa akong kinopyang artikulo ni E. SAN JUAN JR. ("RETRAKSYON SA RETRAKSYON NI RIZAL") kaso lang eh parang inatake ng malware o virus ang file at damaged ang text. Kaya ito na lang maayos ni HESSEL ang ipo-post ko.
-------START OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
========================================
Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the Debate
by Dr. Eugene A. Hessel
========================================
Note: This was originally published in The Silliman Journal (Vol. 12, No. 2, April, May, June, 1965), pages 168-183.
Permission has been given by Silliman University and by the author, Dr. Hessel, to reproduce the document on this site.
Originally this was a lecture given at Silliman University, February 15, 1965. Dr. Eugene A Hessel was once a Professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary, Dasmariñas, Cavite.
RIZAL’S RETRACTION: A NOTE ON THE DEBATE
Eugene A. Hessel
This is a debate in which this lecturer hesitates to take part. For one thing, I believe there are aspects in the life and thought of Dr. José Rizal which are of far greater significance. I have already expressed this view in my book The Religious Thought of José Rizal, (01) and I shall have more to say about it in the concluding part of this lecture. It is most unfortunate that some people speak and write about the Retraction without really knowing what Rizal did or did not retract, i.e., not sufficient attention has been given to the mature, quite uniform and systematic religious thought of Dr. Rizal. Only when this has been done first can one evaluate the meaningfulness of the Retraction. For some people to retract would mean little, for they have so little to retract. This was not so of Rizal, and I have tried to make this clear in my previous lectures and writing. It is the life and thought of Rizal during his mature years which are of primary interest to me, and not what happened during the last day of his life.
Another reason I hesitate to enter the “debate” is that some of the protagonists have generated more heat than light. There has been a great deal of “argumentum ad hominem,” i.e., vitriolic attacks upon opponents in the debate. I do not wish to engage in such. I have respect for a number of Roman Catholic defenders of the Retraction. I treasure a letter received recently from one who has written four books defending it. He says, after reading my book, “I wish to congratulate you for your . . . impartial appraisal of the man [Dr. Rizal].” Father Manuel A. Garcia, the discoverer of the Retraction Document, has been most gracious in personally helping me with my research.
Recently, however, I have been looking into the question of the Retraction with some interest and I intend to continue my research. I find that there are four common attitudes toward the “Retraction” and its bearing on the life and character of Dr. Rizal:
1. There are those who insist that the Rizal to be remembered and honored is the “converted” Rizal. This is the official Roman Catholic position. In the only “official” book dealing with all aspects of the Retraction (“official” in the sense that it bears the Imprimatur of Archbishop Santos), Rizal’s Unfading Glory, Father Cavanna says in the Preface:
Rizal’s glory as a scholar, as a poet, as a scientist, as a patriot, as a hero, may some day fade away, as all worldly glories, earlier or later do. But his glory of having found at the hour of his death what unfortunately he lost for a time, the Truth, the Way, and the Life, that will ever be his UNFADING GLORY. (02)
This same sentiment is echoed in the statement issued by the Catholic Welfare Organization in 1956 and signed by the Archbishop with regard to the Noli and the Fili:
. . . We have to imitate him [Rizal] precisely in what he did when he was about to crown the whole work of his life by sealing it with his blood; we ought to withdraw, as he courageously did in the hour of his supreme sacrifice, “whatever in his works, writings, publications, and conduct had been contrary to his status as a son of the Catholic Church.
2. There are those who have argued that Rizal throughout his mature life was a “free thinker and unbeliever”; thus the Retraction is of necessity a lie. This is the extreme opposite of the Roman Catholic position. My previous writing has tried to demonstrate that the major premise on which this thesis is based is not true.
3. A third implied view may be summarized as follows: the Rizal that matters is the pre-Retraction Rizal; therefore one can ignore the Retraction. The fundamental assumption here is held by many students and admirers of Rizal, including myself, but the conclusion does not necessarily follow. This brings us to the fourth possible attitude towards the Retraction.
4. Scholarly investigation of all facets of Rizal’s life and thought is desirable. In the interest of truth, the truth to which Rizal gave such passionate devotion, we have every right, and also an obligation, to seek to know the facts with regard to the Retraction. If scholarly research continues, fancy may yet become acknowledged fact.
Before we proceed further it would be well to say something about bibliography and method. More than twenty books and pamphlets, in addition to numerous articles have been surveyed in the course of this study. A number of writings on the Retraction merely repeat the arguments of earlier ones and add nothing new. Others are more sarcastic and sentimental than enlightening. But something of value has been gained from almost all of them. The literature belongs to two general categories: biography, and works dealing specifically with the Retraction. Among the biographers, Guerrero, (03) Laubach, (04) and Palma (05) have given the most adequate treatment of the Retraction, the first accepting it and the other two rejecting it. Of works dealing specifically with the Retraction, the most objective, scholarly and complete are those by Pascual, (06) arguing against the Retraction, and Father Cavanna (07) in its favor. As an almost complete compendium of information and arguments pro and con there is no book to date which is the equal of that of Father Cavanna. The second edition has 353 pages of text, appendices, and bibliographical entries totaling some 123 items. (A new edition just off the press is enlarged further but could not be utilized. Incidentally, Father Cavanna draws heavily upon the documents and information supplied by Father Manuel A. Garcia.) Amongst other writers consulted, special indebtedness to Collas, (08) Ricardo Garcia, (09) and Runes and Buenafe (10) should be mentioned. Garcia is a prolific popular writer in defense of the Retraction; the other two oppose it. All tend to chiefly summarize what has previously argued although Runes introduces several new arguments which will be examined in due course. Much research time has been spent in running down various versions of the Retraction Document appearing in books, articles, newspapers, etc. in writing letters to clarify or verify certain points, and in conferring with individuals. Unfortunately, many documents were destroyed during the war.
The story of the Retraction has been told and retold. Various newspaper reports of the last hours of Rizal were published on Dec. 30, 1896 or the days shortly thereafter. However, the first detailed account came out in a series of anonymous articles in the Barcelona magazine, “La Juventud,” issues of January 15 and 31 and Feb. 14, 1897, republished some months later in a booklet entitled La Masonización de Filipinas -- Rizal y su Obra. Some thirteen years later, Father Vicente Balaguer, S.J., the Jesuit priest who claimed to have secured Rizal’s Retraction, asserted that this account was his work which he originally wrote “that very same night of December 29, 1896. (11) Subsequently, on August 8, 1917, Father Balaguer repeated his story in a notarial act sworn to by him in Murcia, Spain. The only detailed account is that by Father Pio Pi Y Vidal, S. J., Superior of the Jesuits in the Philippines in 1896, who published in Manila in 1909 La Muerte Cristiana del Doctor Rizal and confirmed his account in a Notarial Act signed in Barcelona, April 7, 1917. In brief, the Jesuit account is this: On the 28th of December (the very day Governor General Polaviéja ordered the death sentence) Archbishop Nozaleda commissioned the Jesuits to the spiritual care of Rizal, indicating that it would probably be necessary to demand a retraction and suggesting that both he and Father Pi would prepare “formulas.” Thus, about 7:00 a.m. of the 29th, two of the Jesuits arrived at the temporary chapel where Rizal was to spend his last 24 hours. During this day various Jesuits came in and out together with other visitors, including members of his own family. Rizal also took time to write letters. Arguments with Rizal, with Father Balaguer taking the leading part, continued until dusk, by which time, according to the Father’s account, (12) Rizal was already asking for the formula of retraction. That night Rizal wrote out a retraction based on the formula of Father Pi and signed it about 11:30 p.m. The Retraction contains two significant points: (1) the rejection of Masonry (“I abominate Masonry”) and (2) a repudiation of “anything in my words, writings, publications, and conduct that has been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church,” together with the statement “I believe and profess what it teaches and I submit to what it demands.” During the night there followed, according to the Jesuit accounts, several Confessions (some say five), several hearings of Mass, a number of devotional acts, the asking for and signing of devotional booklets intended for various members of his family, and finally at 6:00 a.m. or thereabouts, some fifteen minutes before he was marched out of Fort Santiago to his execution, a marriage ceremony performed by Father Balaguer for Rizal and Josephine Bracken. So much for the story in outline. Details, including the text of the Retraction, will be presented and discussed later.
Before assessing the validity of the account a brief word should be said about the history of the controversy concerning the Retraction. One way to arrive quickly at an overall view of the course of the debate is to read the titles and dates of pamphlets and books dealing with the subject such as are contained in any good bibliography of Rizal. A seemingly accurate description of the history of the struggle in convenient form is found in Part II of Cavanna’s book which reports the various attacks down to the publication in 1949 of Ozaeta’s translation of Palma’s biography of Rizal. Cavanna seeks to answer the various arguments against the Retraction, and in doing so makes reference to the chief works defending it. The first stage of the Debate lasted for some twelve years after Rizal’s death, and at least overtly was wholly one-sided. Cavanna aptly calls this period one of “Concealed Attacks.” The newspapers published the reports given to them presumably by the Jesuits. Within the first year the Jesuits published a quite complete story, for the time being anonymous in authorship. In successive years other books and booklets were devoted in whole or in part to repeating the same story, culminating in the famous full length biography in Spanish by Wenceslao Retana who incorporates the Jesuit account. Yet even in the early years of this first period there were a few small voices raised in objection, quite surprising since a totalitarian regime combining Church and State was in control. Cavanna himself lists a leaflet dated Manila, December 31, 1896 and several letters questioning the retraction. (13) Their main point, stated or implied, is that the Retraction is not in keeping with the character of Rizal. It is of interest that at the end of the period, just a year after the publication of his own biography of Rizal, Retana has something similar to say in an article dated Dec. 29, 1908. Although still not denying the retraction, he adds:
. . . The fact is that influenced by a series of phenomena, or what is the same, of abnormal circumstances, Rizal subscribed that document, which has been so much talked about, and which no one has seen . . . The conversion of Rizal . . . was a romantic concession of the poet, it was not a meditated concession of the philosopher. (14)
We may accept Cavanna’s dating of the second period as covering from 1908-1935. This is the time of vigorous open attacks, many of them by Masons. Ever since, somewhat unfortunately, an active battle has been waged between Roman Catholic and Masonic protagonists. Early in the period, in 1909 to be exact, Father Pi published his booklet La Muerte Cristiana del Doctor Rizal. This was answered three years later in a long article by Hermenegildo Cruz in which several arguments often repeated subsequently were presented, chief of them being: Where is the Retraction Document? The debate drew forth in 1920 the most serious Roman Catholic answer until recent times, namely Father Gonzalo Ma. Piñana’s Murio el Doctor Rizal Cristianamente? Which is chiefly significant because it reports a series of notarized accounts made in the years 1917-1918 by the chief “witnesses.” The period seemingly closes with victory for the defenders of the Retraction, for after many challenges to show the actual Document of Retraction on May 18, 1935 it was “discovered” by Father Manuel A. Garcia, C.M., while he was archdiocesan archivist [and] was busily sorting through a pile of documents [so] that they might be arranged in orderly fashion in their new fireproof vault. On June 16th the news was released by The Philippine Herald.
I would date the last period of the Debate from 1935 until the present. This is the time when, in the light of the Retraction Document discovery, major and minor works have been written on the subject of Rizal’s life and thought as a whole and on the Retraction in particular. This leads us naturally to an assessment of the chief arguments pro and con which have been raised over the years and systematically dealt with in the last thirty years.
As one examines the issues brought forth in the debate, a tabulation of the chief ones raised since 1935 (the year of the discovery of the alleged Retraction Document) indicates that a sort of impasse has been reached. Similar points are now made over and over again. In what follows I shall not devote myself to presenting detailed answers to detailed arguments. This has been done in book after book. Furthermore, as any college debater or trial lawyer knows, it is possible to present an objection to almost any statement, and the effect so far as the audience is concerned is often the result of a subtle turn of phrase or an appeal to a bit of loyalty or sentiment. Rather, we shall be concerned with the thrust of certain main positions which taken individually and in their accumulative significance serve to swing the weight of unbiased conviction from one side to the other. Finally, we shall offer some suggestions for escaping from the present stalemated debate.
What, then, are the major arguments for the Retraction? Although the arguments had been presented by others before him, Father Cavanna (15) gives a well organized summary which is adopted by most subsequent defenders. The points which follow are based on Cavanna with some minor modifications:
1. Since the discovery in 1935, the Retraction “Document” is considered the chief witness to the reality of the Retraction, itself. In fact, since then, by words or implication, the defenders have said: “the burden of proof now rests with those who question the Retraction.”
2. The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eye-witnesses,” and other “qualified witnesses,” i.e. those closely associated with the events such as the head of the Jesuit order, the archbishop, etc.
3. “Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity” reportedly recited and signed by Dr. Rizal as attested by “witnesses” and a signed Prayer Book. This is very strong testimony if true, for Rizal was giving assent to Roman Catholic teaching not in a general way as in the case of the Retraction statement but specifically to a number of beliefs which he had previously repudiated. According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, following the signing of the Retraction a prayer book was offered to Rizal. “He took the prayer book, read slowly those acts, accepted them, took the pen and saying ‘Credo’ (I believe) he signed the acts with his name in the book itself.” (16) What was it Rizal signed? It is worth quoting in detail the “Act of Faith.”
I believe in God the Father, I believe in God the Son, I believe in God the Holy Ghost, Three distinct Persons, and only One True God. I believe that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity became Man, taking flesh in the most pure womb of the Virgin Mary, suffered, died, arose again, ascended into Heaven, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead, to give glory to the just because they have kept his holy commandments, and eternal punishment to the wicked because they have not kept them. I believe that the true Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are really present in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I believe that the Blessed and ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, was in the first moment of her natural life conceived without the stain of original sin. I believe that the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ, visible Head of the Church, is the Pastor and Teacher of all Christians; that he is infallible when he teaches doctrines of faith and morals to be observed by the universal Church, and that his definitions are in themselves binding and immutable; and I believe all that the Holy, Roman Catholic, and Apostolic Church believes and teaches, since God who can neither deceive nor be deceived, has so revealed it; and in this faith I wish to live and die.
The signed Prayer Book was amongst the documents discovered by Father Garcia along with the Retraction.
4. Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his last hours as testified to by “witnesses.”
5. His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by “witnesses.” There could be no marriage without a retraction.
These arguments are impressive. Many think of them, as Cavanna does, as “irrefutable facts.” But to call them “facts” is to prejudge the case or to misuse the word. That a Retraction Document was discovered in 1935 is probably a fact but that is a document actually prepared and signed by Rizal is the question at issue. AS we shall soon see, many opponents of the Retraction use the Document as their chief argument. So also, there is a signed Prayer Book. But a number have asked, is this really Rizal’s signature? Granted, for sake of argument, that it is, what is the significance of a mere signature apart from the testimony of Father Balaguer as to why Rizal signed?
What about the testimony of the “witnesses?” We may dismiss the newspaper reports as being less significant though of corroborative value. Their news was secured from others. One reporter got into the chapel during part of the twenty-four hours. He states that “studies, frolics of infancy, and boys’ stories, were the subject of our chat.” (17) As for the actual eye witnesses, some eight testified to having seen one or more of the acts mentioned above. Only three testify to having seen the signing of the Retraction. The major witnesses are priests or government officials at a time when Church and State worked hand in hand. The bulk of the testimony comes from notarized statements in 1917 or later. Having made these remarks, it is none the less true that the testimony is impressive. It cannot be dismissed, as some have tried to do, with a few sarcastic comments. The argument from testimony as well as the arguments as a whole can be better judged only after weighing this evidence over against the arguments rejecting the Retraction.
What is the case against the Retraction?
1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. As we have noted, the Document plays a significant part on both sides of the debate. There are four prongs to the case against the document itself.
a. First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date the only detailed, scientific study leading to an attack upon the genuineness of the document is that made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the Philippines shortly after the document was found, a study which he incorporated in his book Rizal Beyond the Grave. Taking as his “standard” some half dozen unquestioned writings of Rizal dating from the last half of December 1896, he notes a number of variations with the handwriting of the Retraction Document, the following being the most significant ones according to the present lecturer: (1) the slant of the letters in the standard writings gives averages several points higher than the average yielded by the Retraction Document, and perhaps more significantly, the most slanted letters are to be found in the Document; (2) there are significant variations in the way individual letters are formed; (3) with reference to the signature, Pascual notes no less than seven differences, one of the most significant being indications of “stops” which, says the critic, are most naturally explained by the fact that a forger might stop at certain points to determine what form to make next; (4) there are marked similarities in several respects between the body of the Retraction and the writing of all three signers, i.e. Rizal and the two witnesses, thus serving to point to Pascual’s conclusion that this is a “one-man document.”
The only scholarly answer to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I. Del Rosario as part of the thesis which he prepared for his doctorate in chemistry at the University of Sto. Tomas, 1937, although most of the details are the result of a later study which Father Cavanna asked him to specifically prepare. (18) Dr. del Rosario’s main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not include enough of Rizal’s writings by way of comparison. On the basis of a larger selection of standards he is able to challenge a number of Pascual’s statements although this lecturer has noted mistakes in del Rosario’s own data. Dr. del Rosario’s conclusion is that the hand-writing is genuine.
-------
TEXT OF THE RETRACTION DOCUMENT DISCOVERED BY FATHER GARCIA IN 1935 IN THE ARCHIVES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE *
Me declare católico y en esta Religion en que nací y me eduqué quiero vivir y morir.
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. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me someto á cuarto ella manda. Abomino de la Masoneria, como enemiga que es de la Iglesia, y como sociedad prohibida por la Iglesia. Puede el Parelado Diocesano, como Autoridad Superior Eclesiástica hacer pública esta manifestación espontánea mia para reparar el escándalo que mis actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los hombres me perdonen.
José Rizal
El Jefe del Piquete El ayudante uplaze
Juan del Fresno Eloy Moure
*Based on a photostat of the Retraction in the files of Rev. Manuel A. Garcia, C.M. seen by this lecturer.
-------
TEXT OF THE RETRACTION AS REPORTED BY FATHER BALAGUER IN HIS NOTARIAL ACT OF AUGUST 8, 1917 *
Me declare católico y en esta religión en que nací y me eduqué quiero vivir y morir. Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha habido contrario a mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña; y me someto á cuarto ella manda. Abomino de la Masonería, como enemiga que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la misma Iglesia. Puede el Parelado diocesano, como Autoridad superior eclesiástica, hacer pública esta manifestación, espontánea mía para reparar el escándalo que mis actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los hombres me perdonen.
Manila, 29 de Deciembre de 1896.
Esta… retractación la firmaron con el Dr. Rizal, el Sr. Fresno Jefe del Piquete y el señor Moure, Ayudantede la Plaza.
* Cf. Gonzalo Ma. Piñana, Murió el Doctor Rizal Cristianamente? (Barcelona: Editorial Barcelonesa, S.A., 1920), p. 155
-------
b. A second prong directed against the authenticity of the document itself is based on the principles of textual criticism. Several critics, beginning so far as I know with Pascual, have noted differences between the text of the document found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father Balaguer. (19) Since this kind of criticism is related to my work in Biblical studies I am now engaged in a major textual study of my own which consists first of all in gathering together all available forms of the text. To date, it is clear from my own studies that at least from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the text with significant differences. The one form is represented by the Document discovered in 1935 and certain other early records of the Retraction. Two phrases in particular are to be noted: in line 6, “Iglesia Catolica,” and in line 10 “la Iglesia.” The other form of the text is much more common beginning with the text of Balaguer published in 1897. In place of “Iglesia Catolica” in line 6 there is the single word “Iglesia” and in place of “la Iglesia” there appears “la misma Iglesia.” There also tend to be consistent differences between the two types of the text in the use of capital letters. The second form also claims to be a true representation of the original.
The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi made errors in preparing a copy of the original and these have been transmitted from this earliest copy to others. Father Cavanna makes the ingenious suggestion that Father Balaguer made corrections in the “formula” which he supplied to Rizal according to the charges which he supplied to Rizal writing out his own, but he didn’t accurately note them all. On the other hand, it would have seemed that the copy would have been carefully compared at the very moment or at some other early date before the “original” disappeared. It is not surprising that some have wondered if the Retraction Document was fabricated from the “wrong” version of a retraction statement issued by the religious authorities.
c. A third argument against the genuineness of the Retraction Document which also applies to the Retraction itself is that its content is in part strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic Religion “I wish to live and die,” yet there was little time to live, and also Rizal’s claim that his retraction was “spontaneous.”
d. Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” Only Runes has this story. He and his co-author report an interview with a certain Antonio K. Abad who tells how on August 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija (when Abad was fifteen) a certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by the Friars earlier that same year to make several copies of a retraction document. This same Roque had been previously employed by Colonel Funston to forge the signature of the revolutionary General Lacuna on the document which led to the capture of Aguinaldo. Runes also includes a letter dated November 10, 1936 from Lorenzo Ador Dionisio, former provincial secretary of Nueva Ecija, who was also present when Roque told his story and confirms it. (20)
On the basis of the above arguments taken as a whole it would seem that there is reasonable ground to at least question the Retraction Document.
(2) The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to by writers beginning with Hermengildo Cruz in 1912 are as follows:
a. The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even members of the family did not see it. It was said to be “lost.”
b. No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of the Retraction.
The usual rebuttal is that Rizal’s death was due to political factors and with this the religious authorities could not interfere.
c. Rizal’s burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco cemetery; and the record of his burial was not placed on the page for entries of Dec. 30th but on a special page where at least one other admitted non-penitent is recorded (perhaps others, the evidence is conflicting).
It is asked by the defenders of the Retraction, how else could an executed felon be treated? Perhaps the ground outside the wall was sacred also or could have been specially consecrated. To top the rebuttal, Rizal’s “Christian Burial Certificate” was discovered on May 18, 1935 in the very same file with the Retraction Document! The penmanship is admitted by all to be by an amanuensis. Whether the signature is genuine is open to question.
d. There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with Josephine Bracken. To say that these were not needed is not very convincing.
e. Finally, Rizal’s behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and during the last 24 hours in particular does not point to a conversion. Whether written during the last 24 hours or somewhat earlier, Rizal’s Ultima [Ultimo] Adios does not suggest any change in Rizal’s thought. The letters which Rizal wrote during his last hours do not indicate conversion or even religious turmoil. In the evening Rizal’s mother and sister Trinidad arrive and nothing is said to them about the Retraction although Father Balaguer claims that even in the afternoon Rizal’s attitude was beginning to change and he was asking for the formula of retraction. It is all well and good to point out that all the above happened prior to the actual retraction. A question is still present in the minds of many.
(3) The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that it is out of character. This argument has been more persistently and consistently presented than any other. Beginning with the anonymous leaflet of Dec. 31, 1896 it has been asserted or implied in every significant statement against the Retraction since that time. It has seemed to many, including the present lecturer, that the Retraction is not in keeping with the character and faith of Rizal as well as inconsistent with his previous declarations of religious thought.
First let us look at the character of the man. Rizal was mature. Anyone acquainted with the facts of his life knows this is so. Thirty-five is not exactly young and Rizal was far more mature than the average at this age. It is not likely, then, that he would have been shocked into abnormal behavior by the threat of death. He had anticipated for some time that the authorities would destroy him, and even the priests admit that during most of his last 24 hours Rizal manifested a type of behavior consistent with all that was previously exhibited during his mature years. I worked closely with prisoners for some ten years and accompanied two of them to the scaffold. Their behavior was restrained and consistent. I would have expected Rizal’s to be the same. Furthermore, in the deepest sense of the word Rizal was already a “believer.” In my book and elsewhere I have argued strongly that Rizal was not a “free-thinker” in the usual sense of the word. History is full of the unchallenged reports of real conversions, but the most significant meaning of true conversion is the change from unbelief to belief, not mere change of ideas.
Rizal’s conversion is also out of keeping with his mature religious thought. It is not as though Rizal had been bowled over by confrontation with the new thought of Europe (and by antagonism towards religious authorities who had injured his family and who worked hand-in-hand with a restrictive colonial regime) but had never fully thought through his religious convictions. As I have written elsewhere: “The fact that similar views are found from writing to writing of his mature years and that they made a quite consistent whole suggest that such theology as he had was fully his own . . . .” (21) Rizal had a consistent and meaningful system of Christian thought, and it is therefore harder to think of his suddenly exchanging it for another.
So much for the debate up to the present. I have tried to state fairly the arguments, and it is perhaps evident on which side the lecturer stands. Nonetheless, I do not feel that the question is settled. What, then, remains to be done? Is there a way out of the impasse? Are there areas for further investigation?
(1) Let a new effort be made to keep personalities and institutional loyalties out of future discussion. It is time for honest investigators to stop speaking of the “Protestant,” the “Masonic,” or the “Roman Catholic” view towards the Retraction. Let the facts speak for themselves.
(2) Let the Retraction Document be subject to neutral, scientific analysis. This suggestion is not new, but in view of the present state of the debate and appropriate to the approaching 30th year since its discovery it would be fitting to at last carry this out. Furthermore, it would be an act of good faith on the part of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. If the document is genuine, those who favor the Retraction have nothing to lose; in either case the cause of Truth will gain. I would suggest for this analysis a government bureau of investigation in some neutral country such as Switzerland or Sweden.
Should neutral experts claim that the Document discovered in 1935 is a forgery this of itself would not prove that Rizal did not retract. But it would prompt further study.
(3) As a third step, then, to be undertaken only after a new evaluation of the Retraction Document, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy should feel bound to allow its other “documents” pertaining to Rizal’s case to be investigated, i.e. “the burial certificate,” the signature of the Prayer Book, and perhaps also certain other retraction documents found in the same bundle with that of Dr. Rizal’s.
(4) The story concerning the “forger” should be investigated further.
(5) If assurance can be given that the above steps are being undertaken then let there be a moratorium on further debate and greater attention given to the rest of Rizal’s life and thought, in particular to his mature religious faith and thought. Let me close with the words of Senator José Diokno:
Surely whether Rizal died a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino. It is because of what he did and what he was that we revere Rizal. . . 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” . . . (22)
_______________
(01) Manila: Philippine Education Co., 1961.
(02) Jesus Ma. Cavanna y Manso, C. M. Rizal’s Unfading Glory, a Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr. José Rizal. 2nd. Ed. Rev. and improved (Manila: n. n. 1956), p. vi. Subsequently referred to as “Cavanna.”
(03) Leon Ma. Guerrero, The First Filipino (Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1963). Subsequently referred to as “Guerrero.”
(04) Frank C. Laubach, Rizal: Man and Martyr (Manila: Community Publishers, 1936). Subsequently referred to as “Laubach.”
(05) Rafael Palma, The Pride of the Malay Race. Translated Roman Ozaeta. (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1949). Subsequently referred to as “Palma.”
(06) Ricardo R. Pascual, Rizal Beyond the Grave, Revised Edition (Manila: Luzon Publishing Corp., 1950). Subsequently referred to as “Pascual.”
(07) Jesus Ma. Cavanna y Manso, op cit. in footnote “1”.
(08) Juan Collas, Rizal’s “Retractions” (Manila: n.n. 1960). Mr. Collas was of great help in preparation of my book on Rizal’s religious thought. He handles both Spanish and English with consummate skill and has opened up to many English readers much of Rizal’s thought by translating Rizal’s most important minor writings.
(09) Ricardo P. Garcia, The Great Debate, The Rizal Retraction (Quezon City: R. P. Garcia Publishing Col, 1964). Subsequently referred to as “Garcia.” Starting with a little booklet in 1960, this former school principal turned publisher has since published three enlargements of his original attempt to answer a number of works written against the Retraction, including those by Palma, Collas, Juan Nabong, Judge Garduño, and Runes using as his defense chiefly Cavanna.
(10) Ildefonso T. Runes and Mameto R. Buenafe, The Forgery of the Rizal “Retraction” and Josephine’s “Autobiography” (Manila: BR Book Col, 1962). Subsequently referred to as “Runes.”
(11) Cavanna, p. 24.
(12) Ibid, p. 8. Cavanna has conveniently included in his book most of the pertinent Jesuits accounts.
(13) Cavanna, pp. 144ff.
(14) Ibid, p. 153.
(15) Cavanna, pp. 1-108.
(16) Cavanna, p. 54. A Photostat of the Acts is found facing page 57 of Cavanna and the translated text on pp 57f.
(17) Don Santiago Mataix, correspondent of the Heraldo de Madrid, quoted by Palma, p. 325.
(18) Cavanna, pp. 176ff.
(19) See accompanying page [inserted columns above] for the two “texts.”
(20) Runes, pp. 107ff. As a first check of my own on his evidence I wrote to a professor friend of mine whom I have known intimately for eighteen years. Since he comes from the North I thought he might be able to make some comments on the persons involved. To my surprise I found that my friend is himself a native of San Isidro, knew personally all three men mentioned above, and vouched strongly for their respectability and truthfulness. All had been civic officials. My informant had not heard the above story nor read the book by Runes, but he knows the author personally and vouches for his “reliability and honesty.”
(21) Eugene A. Hessel, The Religious Thought of José Rizal (Manila: Philippine Education Co., 1961), p. 255.
(22) From the Preface to Garcia’s The Great Debate. It is surprising and heartening that the senator would write this in a book defending the Retraction.
Write the Webmaster:
The Life and Writings of Dr. José Rizal
Dr. Robert L. Yoder
DrRobertL_Yoder@excite.com
-------END OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
=================
NB (Nosi Bayasi):
=================
*Note Hessel's photo showing him with a non-malicious open smile showing teeth (or dentures?). His features are what I remember of Americans as a child. I do not know what "kind" or racial type this is.
*I intended to translate the Spanish text to get some practice but I'll just add this later. The ESSENCE of this written RETRACTION is that Rizal himself, in his own words, is denying or negating everything- his past words & deeds- that went against his religion at birth. Furthermore, he is abhoring MASONRY & returning to Catholicism, explicitly expressing his desire to live & die in the RELIGION of the CATHOLIC CHURCH & seeking forgiveness for his past mistakes or errors.
"THOSE WHO CANNOT REMEMBER THE PAST ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT."
-GEORGE SANTAYANA
NOSI BAYASI'S HEBIGAT ISSUE#2: RIZAL'S RETRACTION
May isa pa akong kinopyang artikulo ni E. SAN JUAN JR. ("RETRAKSYON SA RETRAKSYON NI RIZAL") kaso lang eh parang inatake ng malware o virus ang file at damaged ang text. Kaya ito na lang maayos ni HESSEL ang ipo-post ko.
-------START OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
========================================
Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the Debate
by Dr. Eugene A. Hessel
========================================
Note: This was originally published in The Silliman Journal (Vol. 12, No. 2, April, May, June, 1965), pages 168-183.
Permission has been given by Silliman University and by the author, Dr. Hessel, to reproduce the document on this site.
Originally this was a lecture given at Silliman University, February 15, 1965. Dr. Eugene A Hessel was once a Professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary, Dasmariñas, Cavite.
RIZAL’S RETRACTION: A NOTE ON THE DEBATE
Eugene A. Hessel
This is a debate in which this lecturer hesitates to take part. For one thing, I believe there are aspects in the life and thought of Dr. José Rizal which are of far greater significance. I have already expressed this view in my book The Religious Thought of José Rizal, (01) and I shall have more to say about it in the concluding part of this lecture. It is most unfortunate that some people speak and write about the Retraction without really knowing what Rizal did or did not retract, i.e., not sufficient attention has been given to the mature, quite uniform and systematic religious thought of Dr. Rizal. Only when this has been done first can one evaluate the meaningfulness of the Retraction. For some people to retract would mean little, for they have so little to retract. This was not so of Rizal, and I have tried to make this clear in my previous lectures and writing. It is the life and thought of Rizal during his mature years which are of primary interest to me, and not what happened during the last day of his life.
Another reason I hesitate to enter the “debate” is that some of the protagonists have generated more heat than light. There has been a great deal of “argumentum ad hominem,” i.e., vitriolic attacks upon opponents in the debate. I do not wish to engage in such. I have respect for a number of Roman Catholic defenders of the Retraction. I treasure a letter received recently from one who has written four books defending it. He says, after reading my book, “I wish to congratulate you for your . . . impartial appraisal of the man [Dr. Rizal].” Father Manuel A. Garcia, the discoverer of the Retraction Document, has been most gracious in personally helping me with my research.
Recently, however, I have been looking into the question of the Retraction with some interest and I intend to continue my research. I find that there are four common attitudes toward the “Retraction” and its bearing on the life and character of Dr. Rizal:
1. There are those who insist that the Rizal to be remembered and honored is the “converted” Rizal. This is the official Roman Catholic position. In the only “official” book dealing with all aspects of the Retraction (“official” in the sense that it bears the Imprimatur of Archbishop Santos), Rizal’s Unfading Glory, Father Cavanna says in the Preface:
Rizal’s glory as a scholar, as a poet, as a scientist, as a patriot, as a hero, may some day fade away, as all worldly glories, earlier or later do. But his glory of having found at the hour of his death what unfortunately he lost for a time, the Truth, the Way, and the Life, that will ever be his UNFADING GLORY. (02)
This same sentiment is echoed in the statement issued by the Catholic Welfare Organization in 1956 and signed by the Archbishop with regard to the Noli and the Fili:
. . . We have to imitate him [Rizal] precisely in what he did when he was about to crown the whole work of his life by sealing it with his blood; we ought to withdraw, as he courageously did in the hour of his supreme sacrifice, “whatever in his works, writings, publications, and conduct had been contrary to his status as a son of the Catholic Church.
2. There are those who have argued that Rizal throughout his mature life was a “free thinker and unbeliever”; thus the Retraction is of necessity a lie. This is the extreme opposite of the Roman Catholic position. My previous writing has tried to demonstrate that the major premise on which this thesis is based is not true.
3. A third implied view may be summarized as follows: the Rizal that matters is the pre-Retraction Rizal; therefore one can ignore the Retraction. The fundamental assumption here is held by many students and admirers of Rizal, including myself, but the conclusion does not necessarily follow. This brings us to the fourth possible attitude towards the Retraction.
4. Scholarly investigation of all facets of Rizal’s life and thought is desirable. In the interest of truth, the truth to which Rizal gave such passionate devotion, we have every right, and also an obligation, to seek to know the facts with regard to the Retraction. If scholarly research continues, fancy may yet become acknowledged fact.
Before we proceed further it would be well to say something about bibliography and method. More than twenty books and pamphlets, in addition to numerous articles have been surveyed in the course of this study. A number of writings on the Retraction merely repeat the arguments of earlier ones and add nothing new. Others are more sarcastic and sentimental than enlightening. But something of value has been gained from almost all of them. The literature belongs to two general categories: biography, and works dealing specifically with the Retraction. Among the biographers, Guerrero, (03) Laubach, (04) and Palma (05) have given the most adequate treatment of the Retraction, the first accepting it and the other two rejecting it. Of works dealing specifically with the Retraction, the most objective, scholarly and complete are those by Pascual, (06) arguing against the Retraction, and Father Cavanna (07) in its favor. As an almost complete compendium of information and arguments pro and con there is no book to date which is the equal of that of Father Cavanna. The second edition has 353 pages of text, appendices, and bibliographical entries totaling some 123 items. (A new edition just off the press is enlarged further but could not be utilized. Incidentally, Father Cavanna draws heavily upon the documents and information supplied by Father Manuel A. Garcia.) Amongst other writers consulted, special indebtedness to Collas, (08) Ricardo Garcia, (09) and Runes and Buenafe (10) should be mentioned. Garcia is a prolific popular writer in defense of the Retraction; the other two oppose it. All tend to chiefly summarize what has previously argued although Runes introduces several new arguments which will be examined in due course. Much research time has been spent in running down various versions of the Retraction Document appearing in books, articles, newspapers, etc. in writing letters to clarify or verify certain points, and in conferring with individuals. Unfortunately, many documents were destroyed during the war.
The story of the Retraction has been told and retold. Various newspaper reports of the last hours of Rizal were published on Dec. 30, 1896 or the days shortly thereafter. However, the first detailed account came out in a series of anonymous articles in the Barcelona magazine, “La Juventud,” issues of January 15 and 31 and Feb. 14, 1897, republished some months later in a booklet entitled La Masonización de Filipinas -- Rizal y su Obra. Some thirteen years later, Father Vicente Balaguer, S.J., the Jesuit priest who claimed to have secured Rizal’s Retraction, asserted that this account was his work which he originally wrote “that very same night of December 29, 1896. (11) Subsequently, on August 8, 1917, Father Balaguer repeated his story in a notarial act sworn to by him in Murcia, Spain. The only detailed account is that by Father Pio Pi Y Vidal, S. J., Superior of the Jesuits in the Philippines in 1896, who published in Manila in 1909 La Muerte Cristiana del Doctor Rizal and confirmed his account in a Notarial Act signed in Barcelona, April 7, 1917. In brief, the Jesuit account is this: On the 28th of December (the very day Governor General Polaviéja ordered the death sentence) Archbishop Nozaleda commissioned the Jesuits to the spiritual care of Rizal, indicating that it would probably be necessary to demand a retraction and suggesting that both he and Father Pi would prepare “formulas.” Thus, about 7:00 a.m. of the 29th, two of the Jesuits arrived at the temporary chapel where Rizal was to spend his last 24 hours. During this day various Jesuits came in and out together with other visitors, including members of his own family. Rizal also took time to write letters. Arguments with Rizal, with Father Balaguer taking the leading part, continued until dusk, by which time, according to the Father’s account, (12) Rizal was already asking for the formula of retraction. That night Rizal wrote out a retraction based on the formula of Father Pi and signed it about 11:30 p.m. The Retraction contains two significant points: (1) the rejection of Masonry (“I abominate Masonry”) and (2) a repudiation of “anything in my words, writings, publications, and conduct that has been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church,” together with the statement “I believe and profess what it teaches and I submit to what it demands.” During the night there followed, according to the Jesuit accounts, several Confessions (some say five), several hearings of Mass, a number of devotional acts, the asking for and signing of devotional booklets intended for various members of his family, and finally at 6:00 a.m. or thereabouts, some fifteen minutes before he was marched out of Fort Santiago to his execution, a marriage ceremony performed by Father Balaguer for Rizal and Josephine Bracken. So much for the story in outline. Details, including the text of the Retraction, will be presented and discussed later.
Before assessing the validity of the account a brief word should be said about the history of the controversy concerning the Retraction. One way to arrive quickly at an overall view of the course of the debate is to read the titles and dates of pamphlets and books dealing with the subject such as are contained in any good bibliography of Rizal. A seemingly accurate description of the history of the struggle in convenient form is found in Part II of Cavanna’s book which reports the various attacks down to the publication in 1949 of Ozaeta’s translation of Palma’s biography of Rizal. Cavanna seeks to answer the various arguments against the Retraction, and in doing so makes reference to the chief works defending it. The first stage of the Debate lasted for some twelve years after Rizal’s death, and at least overtly was wholly one-sided. Cavanna aptly calls this period one of “Concealed Attacks.” The newspapers published the reports given to them presumably by the Jesuits. Within the first year the Jesuits published a quite complete story, for the time being anonymous in authorship. In successive years other books and booklets were devoted in whole or in part to repeating the same story, culminating in the famous full length biography in Spanish by Wenceslao Retana who incorporates the Jesuit account. Yet even in the early years of this first period there were a few small voices raised in objection, quite surprising since a totalitarian regime combining Church and State was in control. Cavanna himself lists a leaflet dated Manila, December 31, 1896 and several letters questioning the retraction. (13) Their main point, stated or implied, is that the Retraction is not in keeping with the character of Rizal. It is of interest that at the end of the period, just a year after the publication of his own biography of Rizal, Retana has something similar to say in an article dated Dec. 29, 1908. Although still not denying the retraction, he adds:
. . . The fact is that influenced by a series of phenomena, or what is the same, of abnormal circumstances, Rizal subscribed that document, which has been so much talked about, and which no one has seen . . . The conversion of Rizal . . . was a romantic concession of the poet, it was not a meditated concession of the philosopher. (14)
We may accept Cavanna’s dating of the second period as covering from 1908-1935. This is the time of vigorous open attacks, many of them by Masons. Ever since, somewhat unfortunately, an active battle has been waged between Roman Catholic and Masonic protagonists. Early in the period, in 1909 to be exact, Father Pi published his booklet La Muerte Cristiana del Doctor Rizal. This was answered three years later in a long article by Hermenegildo Cruz in which several arguments often repeated subsequently were presented, chief of them being: Where is the Retraction Document? The debate drew forth in 1920 the most serious Roman Catholic answer until recent times, namely Father Gonzalo Ma. Piñana’s Murio el Doctor Rizal Cristianamente? Which is chiefly significant because it reports a series of notarized accounts made in the years 1917-1918 by the chief “witnesses.” The period seemingly closes with victory for the defenders of the Retraction, for after many challenges to show the actual Document of Retraction on May 18, 1935 it was “discovered” by Father Manuel A. Garcia, C.M., while he was archdiocesan archivist [and] was busily sorting through a pile of documents [so] that they might be arranged in orderly fashion in their new fireproof vault. On June 16th the news was released by The Philippine Herald.
I would date the last period of the Debate from 1935 until the present. This is the time when, in the light of the Retraction Document discovery, major and minor works have been written on the subject of Rizal’s life and thought as a whole and on the Retraction in particular. This leads us naturally to an assessment of the chief arguments pro and con which have been raised over the years and systematically dealt with in the last thirty years.
As one examines the issues brought forth in the debate, a tabulation of the chief ones raised since 1935 (the year of the discovery of the alleged Retraction Document) indicates that a sort of impasse has been reached. Similar points are now made over and over again. In what follows I shall not devote myself to presenting detailed answers to detailed arguments. This has been done in book after book. Furthermore, as any college debater or trial lawyer knows, it is possible to present an objection to almost any statement, and the effect so far as the audience is concerned is often the result of a subtle turn of phrase or an appeal to a bit of loyalty or sentiment. Rather, we shall be concerned with the thrust of certain main positions which taken individually and in their accumulative significance serve to swing the weight of unbiased conviction from one side to the other. Finally, we shall offer some suggestions for escaping from the present stalemated debate.
What, then, are the major arguments for the Retraction? Although the arguments had been presented by others before him, Father Cavanna (15) gives a well organized summary which is adopted by most subsequent defenders. The points which follow are based on Cavanna with some minor modifications:
1. Since the discovery in 1935, the Retraction “Document” is considered the chief witness to the reality of the Retraction, itself. In fact, since then, by words or implication, the defenders have said: “the burden of proof now rests with those who question the Retraction.”
2. The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eye-witnesses,” and other “qualified witnesses,” i.e. those closely associated with the events such as the head of the Jesuit order, the archbishop, etc.
3. “Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity” reportedly recited and signed by Dr. Rizal as attested by “witnesses” and a signed Prayer Book. This is very strong testimony if true, for Rizal was giving assent to Roman Catholic teaching not in a general way as in the case of the Retraction statement but specifically to a number of beliefs which he had previously repudiated. According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, following the signing of the Retraction a prayer book was offered to Rizal. “He took the prayer book, read slowly those acts, accepted them, took the pen and saying ‘Credo’ (I believe) he signed the acts with his name in the book itself.” (16) What was it Rizal signed? It is worth quoting in detail the “Act of Faith.”
I believe in God the Father, I believe in God the Son, I believe in God the Holy Ghost, Three distinct Persons, and only One True God. I believe that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity became Man, taking flesh in the most pure womb of the Virgin Mary, suffered, died, arose again, ascended into Heaven, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead, to give glory to the just because they have kept his holy commandments, and eternal punishment to the wicked because they have not kept them. I believe that the true Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are really present in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I believe that the Blessed and ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, was in the first moment of her natural life conceived without the stain of original sin. I believe that the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ, visible Head of the Church, is the Pastor and Teacher of all Christians; that he is infallible when he teaches doctrines of faith and morals to be observed by the universal Church, and that his definitions are in themselves binding and immutable; and I believe all that the Holy, Roman Catholic, and Apostolic Church believes and teaches, since God who can neither deceive nor be deceived, has so revealed it; and in this faith I wish to live and die.
The signed Prayer Book was amongst the documents discovered by Father Garcia along with the Retraction.
4. Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his last hours as testified to by “witnesses.”
5. His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by “witnesses.” There could be no marriage without a retraction.
These arguments are impressive. Many think of them, as Cavanna does, as “irrefutable facts.” But to call them “facts” is to prejudge the case or to misuse the word. That a Retraction Document was discovered in 1935 is probably a fact but that is a document actually prepared and signed by Rizal is the question at issue. AS we shall soon see, many opponents of the Retraction use the Document as their chief argument. So also, there is a signed Prayer Book. But a number have asked, is this really Rizal’s signature? Granted, for sake of argument, that it is, what is the significance of a mere signature apart from the testimony of Father Balaguer as to why Rizal signed?
What about the testimony of the “witnesses?” We may dismiss the newspaper reports as being less significant though of corroborative value. Their news was secured from others. One reporter got into the chapel during part of the twenty-four hours. He states that “studies, frolics of infancy, and boys’ stories, were the subject of our chat.” (17) As for the actual eye witnesses, some eight testified to having seen one or more of the acts mentioned above. Only three testify to having seen the signing of the Retraction. The major witnesses are priests or government officials at a time when Church and State worked hand in hand. The bulk of the testimony comes from notarized statements in 1917 or later. Having made these remarks, it is none the less true that the testimony is impressive. It cannot be dismissed, as some have tried to do, with a few sarcastic comments. The argument from testimony as well as the arguments as a whole can be better judged only after weighing this evidence over against the arguments rejecting the Retraction.
What is the case against the Retraction?
1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. As we have noted, the Document plays a significant part on both sides of the debate. There are four prongs to the case against the document itself.
a. First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date the only detailed, scientific study leading to an attack upon the genuineness of the document is that made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the Philippines shortly after the document was found, a study which he incorporated in his book Rizal Beyond the Grave. Taking as his “standard” some half dozen unquestioned writings of Rizal dating from the last half of December 1896, he notes a number of variations with the handwriting of the Retraction Document, the following being the most significant ones according to the present lecturer: (1) the slant of the letters in the standard writings gives averages several points higher than the average yielded by the Retraction Document, and perhaps more significantly, the most slanted letters are to be found in the Document; (2) there are significant variations in the way individual letters are formed; (3) with reference to the signature, Pascual notes no less than seven differences, one of the most significant being indications of “stops” which, says the critic, are most naturally explained by the fact that a forger might stop at certain points to determine what form to make next; (4) there are marked similarities in several respects between the body of the Retraction and the writing of all three signers, i.e. Rizal and the two witnesses, thus serving to point to Pascual’s conclusion that this is a “one-man document.”
The only scholarly answer to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I. Del Rosario as part of the thesis which he prepared for his doctorate in chemistry at the University of Sto. Tomas, 1937, although most of the details are the result of a later study which Father Cavanna asked him to specifically prepare. (18) Dr. del Rosario’s main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not include enough of Rizal’s writings by way of comparison. On the basis of a larger selection of standards he is able to challenge a number of Pascual’s statements although this lecturer has noted mistakes in del Rosario’s own data. Dr. del Rosario’s conclusion is that the hand-writing is genuine.
-------
TEXT OF THE RETRACTION DOCUMENT DISCOVERED BY FATHER GARCIA IN 1935 IN THE ARCHIVES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE *
Me declare católico y en esta Religion en que nací y me eduqué quiero vivir y morir.
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. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me someto á cuarto ella manda. Abomino de la Masoneria, como enemiga que es de la Iglesia, y como sociedad prohibida por la Iglesia. Puede el Parelado Diocesano, como Autoridad Superior Eclesiástica hacer pública esta manifestación espontánea mia para reparar el escándalo que mis actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los hombres me perdonen.
José Rizal
El Jefe del Piquete El ayudante uplaze
Juan del Fresno Eloy Moure
*Based on a photostat of the Retraction in the files of Rev. Manuel A. Garcia, C.M. seen by this lecturer.
-------
TEXT OF THE RETRACTION AS REPORTED BY FATHER BALAGUER IN HIS NOTARIAL ACT OF AUGUST 8, 1917 *
Me declare católico y en esta religión en que nací y me eduqué quiero vivir y morir. Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, impresos y conducta ha habido contrario a mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña; y me someto á cuarto ella manda. Abomino de la Masonería, como enemiga que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la misma Iglesia. Puede el Parelado diocesano, como Autoridad superior eclesiástica, hacer pública esta manifestación, espontánea mía para reparar el escándalo que mis actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los hombres me perdonen.
Manila, 29 de Deciembre de 1896.
Esta… retractación la firmaron con el Dr. Rizal, el Sr. Fresno Jefe del Piquete y el señor Moure, Ayudantede la Plaza.
* Cf. Gonzalo Ma. Piñana, Murió el Doctor Rizal Cristianamente? (Barcelona: Editorial Barcelonesa, S.A., 1920), p. 155
-------
b. A second prong directed against the authenticity of the document itself is based on the principles of textual criticism. Several critics, beginning so far as I know with Pascual, have noted differences between the text of the document found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father Balaguer. (19) Since this kind of criticism is related to my work in Biblical studies I am now engaged in a major textual study of my own which consists first of all in gathering together all available forms of the text. To date, it is clear from my own studies that at least from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the text with significant differences. The one form is represented by the Document discovered in 1935 and certain other early records of the Retraction. Two phrases in particular are to be noted: in line 6, “Iglesia Catolica,” and in line 10 “la Iglesia.” The other form of the text is much more common beginning with the text of Balaguer published in 1897. In place of “Iglesia Catolica” in line 6 there is the single word “Iglesia” and in place of “la Iglesia” there appears “la misma Iglesia.” There also tend to be consistent differences between the two types of the text in the use of capital letters. The second form also claims to be a true representation of the original.
The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi made errors in preparing a copy of the original and these have been transmitted from this earliest copy to others. Father Cavanna makes the ingenious suggestion that Father Balaguer made corrections in the “formula” which he supplied to Rizal according to the charges which he supplied to Rizal writing out his own, but he didn’t accurately note them all. On the other hand, it would have seemed that the copy would have been carefully compared at the very moment or at some other early date before the “original” disappeared. It is not surprising that some have wondered if the Retraction Document was fabricated from the “wrong” version of a retraction statement issued by the religious authorities.
c. A third argument against the genuineness of the Retraction Document which also applies to the Retraction itself is that its content is in part strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic Religion “I wish to live and die,” yet there was little time to live, and also Rizal’s claim that his retraction was “spontaneous.”
d. Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” Only Runes has this story. He and his co-author report an interview with a certain Antonio K. Abad who tells how on August 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija (when Abad was fifteen) a certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by the Friars earlier that same year to make several copies of a retraction document. This same Roque had been previously employed by Colonel Funston to forge the signature of the revolutionary General Lacuna on the document which led to the capture of Aguinaldo. Runes also includes a letter dated November 10, 1936 from Lorenzo Ador Dionisio, former provincial secretary of Nueva Ecija, who was also present when Roque told his story and confirms it. (20)
On the basis of the above arguments taken as a whole it would seem that there is reasonable ground to at least question the Retraction Document.
(2) The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to by writers beginning with Hermengildo Cruz in 1912 are as follows:
a. The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even members of the family did not see it. It was said to be “lost.”
b. No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of the Retraction.
The usual rebuttal is that Rizal’s death was due to political factors and with this the religious authorities could not interfere.
c. Rizal’s burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco cemetery; and the record of his burial was not placed on the page for entries of Dec. 30th but on a special page where at least one other admitted non-penitent is recorded (perhaps others, the evidence is conflicting).
It is asked by the defenders of the Retraction, how else could an executed felon be treated? Perhaps the ground outside the wall was sacred also or could have been specially consecrated. To top the rebuttal, Rizal’s “Christian Burial Certificate” was discovered on May 18, 1935 in the very same file with the Retraction Document! The penmanship is admitted by all to be by an amanuensis. Whether the signature is genuine is open to question.
d. There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with Josephine Bracken. To say that these were not needed is not very convincing.
e. Finally, Rizal’s behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and during the last 24 hours in particular does not point to a conversion. Whether written during the last 24 hours or somewhat earlier, Rizal’s Ultima [Ultimo] Adios does not suggest any change in Rizal’s thought. The letters which Rizal wrote during his last hours do not indicate conversion or even religious turmoil. In the evening Rizal’s mother and sister Trinidad arrive and nothing is said to them about the Retraction although Father Balaguer claims that even in the afternoon Rizal’s attitude was beginning to change and he was asking for the formula of retraction. It is all well and good to point out that all the above happened prior to the actual retraction. A question is still present in the minds of many.
(3) The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that it is out of character. This argument has been more persistently and consistently presented than any other. Beginning with the anonymous leaflet of Dec. 31, 1896 it has been asserted or implied in every significant statement against the Retraction since that time. It has seemed to many, including the present lecturer, that the Retraction is not in keeping with the character and faith of Rizal as well as inconsistent with his previous declarations of religious thought.
First let us look at the character of the man. Rizal was mature. Anyone acquainted with the facts of his life knows this is so. Thirty-five is not exactly young and Rizal was far more mature than the average at this age. It is not likely, then, that he would have been shocked into abnormal behavior by the threat of death. He had anticipated for some time that the authorities would destroy him, and even the priests admit that during most of his last 24 hours Rizal manifested a type of behavior consistent with all that was previously exhibited during his mature years. I worked closely with prisoners for some ten years and accompanied two of them to the scaffold. Their behavior was restrained and consistent. I would have expected Rizal’s to be the same. Furthermore, in the deepest sense of the word Rizal was already a “believer.” In my book and elsewhere I have argued strongly that Rizal was not a “free-thinker” in the usual sense of the word. History is full of the unchallenged reports of real conversions, but the most significant meaning of true conversion is the change from unbelief to belief, not mere change of ideas.
Rizal’s conversion is also out of keeping with his mature religious thought. It is not as though Rizal had been bowled over by confrontation with the new thought of Europe (and by antagonism towards religious authorities who had injured his family and who worked hand-in-hand with a restrictive colonial regime) but had never fully thought through his religious convictions. As I have written elsewhere: “The fact that similar views are found from writing to writing of his mature years and that they made a quite consistent whole suggest that such theology as he had was fully his own . . . .” (21) Rizal had a consistent and meaningful system of Christian thought, and it is therefore harder to think of his suddenly exchanging it for another.
So much for the debate up to the present. I have tried to state fairly the arguments, and it is perhaps evident on which side the lecturer stands. Nonetheless, I do not feel that the question is settled. What, then, remains to be done? Is there a way out of the impasse? Are there areas for further investigation?
(1) Let a new effort be made to keep personalities and institutional loyalties out of future discussion. It is time for honest investigators to stop speaking of the “Protestant,” the “Masonic,” or the “Roman Catholic” view towards the Retraction. Let the facts speak for themselves.
(2) Let the Retraction Document be subject to neutral, scientific analysis. This suggestion is not new, but in view of the present state of the debate and appropriate to the approaching 30th year since its discovery it would be fitting to at last carry this out. Furthermore, it would be an act of good faith on the part of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. If the document is genuine, those who favor the Retraction have nothing to lose; in either case the cause of Truth will gain. I would suggest for this analysis a government bureau of investigation in some neutral country such as Switzerland or Sweden.
Should neutral experts claim that the Document discovered in 1935 is a forgery this of itself would not prove that Rizal did not retract. But it would prompt further study.
(3) As a third step, then, to be undertaken only after a new evaluation of the Retraction Document, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy should feel bound to allow its other “documents” pertaining to Rizal’s case to be investigated, i.e. “the burial certificate,” the signature of the Prayer Book, and perhaps also certain other retraction documents found in the same bundle with that of Dr. Rizal’s.
(4) The story concerning the “forger” should be investigated further.
(5) If assurance can be given that the above steps are being undertaken then let there be a moratorium on further debate and greater attention given to the rest of Rizal’s life and thought, in particular to his mature religious faith and thought. Let me close with the words of Senator José Diokno:
Surely whether Rizal died a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino. It is because of what he did and what he was that we revere Rizal. . . 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” . . . (22)
_______________
(01) Manila: Philippine Education Co., 1961.
(02) Jesus Ma. Cavanna y Manso, C. M. Rizal’s Unfading Glory, a Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr. José Rizal. 2nd. Ed. Rev. and improved (Manila: n. n. 1956), p. vi. Subsequently referred to as “Cavanna.”
(03) Leon Ma. Guerrero, The First Filipino (Manila: National Heroes Commission, 1963). Subsequently referred to as “Guerrero.”
(04) Frank C. Laubach, Rizal: Man and Martyr (Manila: Community Publishers, 1936). Subsequently referred to as “Laubach.”
(05) Rafael Palma, The Pride of the Malay Race. Translated Roman Ozaeta. (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1949). Subsequently referred to as “Palma.”
(06) Ricardo R. Pascual, Rizal Beyond the Grave, Revised Edition (Manila: Luzon Publishing Corp., 1950). Subsequently referred to as “Pascual.”
(07) Jesus Ma. Cavanna y Manso, op cit. in footnote “1”.
(08) Juan Collas, Rizal’s “Retractions” (Manila: n.n. 1960). Mr. Collas was of great help in preparation of my book on Rizal’s religious thought. He handles both Spanish and English with consummate skill and has opened up to many English readers much of Rizal’s thought by translating Rizal’s most important minor writings.
(09) Ricardo P. Garcia, The Great Debate, The Rizal Retraction (Quezon City: R. P. Garcia Publishing Col, 1964). Subsequently referred to as “Garcia.” Starting with a little booklet in 1960, this former school principal turned publisher has since published three enlargements of his original attempt to answer a number of works written against the Retraction, including those by Palma, Collas, Juan Nabong, Judge Garduño, and Runes using as his defense chiefly Cavanna.
(10) Ildefonso T. Runes and Mameto R. Buenafe, The Forgery of the Rizal “Retraction” and Josephine’s “Autobiography” (Manila: BR Book Col, 1962). Subsequently referred to as “Runes.”
(11) Cavanna, p. 24.
(12) Ibid, p. 8. Cavanna has conveniently included in his book most of the pertinent Jesuits accounts.
(13) Cavanna, pp. 144ff.
(14) Ibid, p. 153.
(15) Cavanna, pp. 1-108.
(16) Cavanna, p. 54. A Photostat of the Acts is found facing page 57 of Cavanna and the translated text on pp 57f.
(17) Don Santiago Mataix, correspondent of the Heraldo de Madrid, quoted by Palma, p. 325.
(18) Cavanna, pp. 176ff.
(19) See accompanying page [inserted columns above] for the two “texts.”
(20) Runes, pp. 107ff. As a first check of my own on his evidence I wrote to a professor friend of mine whom I have known intimately for eighteen years. Since he comes from the North I thought he might be able to make some comments on the persons involved. To my surprise I found that my friend is himself a native of San Isidro, knew personally all three men mentioned above, and vouched strongly for their respectability and truthfulness. All had been civic officials. My informant had not heard the above story nor read the book by Runes, but he knows the author personally and vouches for his “reliability and honesty.”
(21) Eugene A. Hessel, The Religious Thought of José Rizal (Manila: Philippine Education Co., 1961), p. 255.
(22) From the Preface to Garcia’s The Great Debate. It is surprising and heartening that the senator would write this in a book defending the Retraction.
Write the Webmaster:
The Life and Writings of Dr. José Rizal
Dr. Robert L. Yoder
DrRobertL_Yoder@excite.com
-------END OF COPIED ARTICLE-------
=================
NB (Nosi Bayasi):
=================
*Note Hessel's photo showing him with a non-malicious open smile showing teeth (or dentures?). His features are what I remember of Americans as a child. I do not know what "kind" or racial type this is.
*I intended to translate the Spanish text to get some practice but I'll just add this later. The ESSENCE of this written RETRACTION is that Rizal himself, in his own words, is denying or negating everything- his past words & deeds- that went against his religion at birth. Furthermore, he is abhoring MASONRY & returning to Catholicism, explicitly expressing his desire to live & die in the RELIGION of the CATHOLIC CHURCH & seeking forgiveness for his past mistakes or errors.
"THOSE WHO CANNOT REMEMBER THE PAST ARE CONDEMNED TO REPEAT IT."
-GEORGE SANTAYANA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)