1.

MODERATOR: Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to today’s debate on The Retraction
Controversy of Rizal: Did Rizal Retract or not before his execution. I’m pleased to be your moderator for
this important discussion.

2. Since Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935, its content has
become a favorite subject of dispute among academicians and Catholics. The letter, dated December 29,
1896, was said to have been signed by the National Hero himself. It stated:

3. I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die.
I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to
my character as son of the Catholic Church. | believe and | confess whatever she teaches and | submit to
whatever she demands. | abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society
prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public
this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused
and so that God and people may pardon me.

4. For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizal’s retraction documents has raised issues, and skepticism,
among those who seek to know the truth regarding this controversy. To shed light on this matter, with me
on my right is a catholic Rizalist who will convince us that Rizal’s Letter of Retraction is a fact while on my
left is a Masonic Rizalist who firmly believed that Rizal did not retract before his execution. They will
discuss and prove to us whether Dr Jose Rizal retracted or not.

5. Without further ado, let us start the debate. Catholic Rizalist, you may now start your argument.

6. CATHOLIC: The document presented to the public is strong evidence that Rizal had truly withdrawn in
masonry and retracted. the letter of Rizal to his mother received on January 5, 1893. The letter says that
Rizal has been going to the church every Sunday in Dapitan. Next, the testimony of the eyewitness
Father Balaguer who was with Rizal and presented the retraction format prepared by Father Pio Pi, the
superior of the Jesuit society in the Philippines, before the execution. He stated that on December 29,
1896 day before the execution Rizal have accepted and signed the document. On May 13, 1935, Fr.
Manuel A.

7. Garcia found a document of Rizal's retraction. Some prominent Philippine historians uphold the
authenticity of Rizal’s retraction such as Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra, and Gregorio Zaide. As for them,
they consider the witnesses when Rizal wrote the retraction paper, signed the book of prayers of the
Catholic, and recited the prayers of the Catholic. Based on them, some people saw him when he kissed
the crucifix before the execution. Rizal was also said that he had his 4 confessions, beheld by different
qualified witnesses, newspapers, and historians including the leader of the Spanish Supreme Court. And
this affirmation was stated by Rizal’s great-nephew.

8. MASONIC: the Confession in August, 1901 of master forger Roman Roque that earlier in the year
proves that the retraction letter is forged. he was employed by the friars to make several copies of a
retraction letter. According to Roman Roque, he disclosed that he had been fetched by Lazaro Segovia in
San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, and later taken to Manila. He had stayed in the Hotel Quatro Naciones in
Intramuros and been employed by the friars for 10 days. He was given the equivalent of his salary for two
months in the government.

9. For several days he studied Rizal’s handwriting. According to him, he made about five copies of the
retraction letter based on a draft prepared by the friars. He thought of keeping one for himself, but when
he was searched upon departure, his copy was taken from him. Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual, one of the
persons who was given permission by the archbishop to examine the document, Pascual scrutinized the
document thoroughly and came up with a book that questioned its authenticity. Pascual identified
inconsistencies in the slants of the handwriting, Rizal’s signature, the inks used, the font of some words,
the margin, and the way individual letters were formed.
10. CATHOLIC: In your argument of the forgery of documents, it is reasoned out that what the archbishop
and Fr. Pi saw was not the original document of retraction. The original document, which was almost
eaten by termites was kept by friars for preservation. To add the validity of the said document, two
unknown handwriting experts thoroughly assessed the documents and they have agreed to the same
thing that the document is far from being forged document and is genuine.

11. Additionally, the retraction is a significant document because it established the act of marriage
between Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken. In Dapitan, the condition to them to be wedded was the
retraction " No Retraction No Marriage". In other words, Rizal could never marry Josephine unless he
retracted first. And the sworn statement of the eyewitness like Fr. Balaguer, agreed that there were a
retraction and marriage between the two.

12. MASONIC: there is no wedding happened between Josephine Bracken and Jose Rizal. The reason
for this is, when Father Balaguer came to terms that he married Jose and Josephine, after Jose had
signed the retraction paper, however, there were no marriage certificate or public record shown that could
prove Father Balaguer’s statements.

7. In his letter, ""Mi Ultimo Adiós'' which Dr. Jose Rizal did not called Josephine as his wife, he only said
that Adios, dulce estanjera, mi amiga, mi alegria'' instead of ""Adiós, dulce estranjera, mi espoja, mi
alegria'' or ""Paalam mahal kong Dayuhan, Aking mahal, Aking pilak.

8. Pilak is closest to kasintahan. Second, Padre Balaguer who married Jose and Josephine cannot
provide evidence that they legally wed by church before his death. That sister Lucia went to Josephine in
the chapel and she said that she didn't see the ceremony of Josephine and Rizal supposed marriage.
There was no document of marriage between Josephine and Rizal. Consequently a number of Rizal's
writing and letters does not mention Josephine as his wife.

9. CATHOLIC: If Rizal truly retracted and reconciled with the Catholic Church, he should have been set
free but was rather executed which really means that Rizal did not retract at all. Also, most of Rizal's
relative believed that Rizal would never retract based on his personality and that he could not written it.
And if you say that Rizal really retracted, how come he was still executed? Wasn't the retraction enough
for salvation of Rizal? Believing in retraction of Rizal is also saying that Rizal is not a man of his words,
these are the evidences that Jose Rizal did not retract before he was shot in Bagumbayan.

7. MASONIC: Rizal was suspected of rebellion sedition and illegal association against the Spanish
government. The retraction document isn't related to what he was accused of and as a consequence, it
does not save him from execution. the Archbishop and Jesuits cannot do anything to mitigate his penalty
because the judicial process involved was purely a military tribunal where civilian or church interference
was uncommon and not allowed. Rizal was accused of participating in filibusterous propaganda where
the penalty as provided by the Spanish Code is death. The same of what happened to the three priests
who were garrotted years earlier, even though they were still a part of the church; they were still treated
as rebellious and were also not given a proper burial.

The character of Rizal is still a proof that he never retracted. It was but a few months before that he had
rejected Father Sanchez’ offer of a professorship, a hundred thousand pesos, and an estate if he would
retract; and he had declared that he could not be bought for half the Philippines that is why Rizal rejected
the offer. Rizal’s behaviour during his last hours in Fort Santiago does not point to a conversion- the Mi
Ultimo Adios and letters- of religious instability. In the evening where his sister and mother arrived, never
had he mentioned about the retraction, contrary to what Father Balaguer claimed that even in the
afternoon, Rizal was oblivious and was asking for the formula of the retraction. Rizal was fixated of the
thought that he would die for the love of his country, he, himself had coveted death a long time ago. His
character speaks so loud that even all of Rizal’s friends do not believe that he have written a retraction.

If Rizal retracted, he would not have been executed, but he was executed. Therefore Rizal did not retract.
He would have been an example for the cause of the priors , he would have been given a decent
Christian burial, not buried like a dead dog outside Paco Cemetery. And as for me, I believe that his burial
was concealed with mystery as it is said that he was buried in a lot out of the Roman Catholic Cemetery
in Paco and his name did not appear on the registry of Roman Catholic. In the circumstances, did Rizal
really died as a Roman Catholic?

8. CATHOLIC: He died as a Catholic, and a proof that he died as a Catholic as he was buried inside the
sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said De Viana, who compared the martyr with Apolinario Mabini, a
revolutionary and freemason who was buried in a Chinese cemetery. In 1896, Philippine national hero
Jose P. Rizal was executed by the Spanish for his presumed involvement in the Philippine Revolution. His
second book, El Filibusterismo, which addressed the theme of Spanish corruption and repression in the
islands, was dedicated to Gomburza. Like the three martyred priests, Rizal’s body was buried in an
unmarked grave between the two walls of Paco Park cemetery.

9. MODERATOR: As to the evidence presented by both parties, we were not convinced of the retraction
letter of Rizal. The said primary source, Balaguer was never allowed to enter the prison to meet Rizal. Out
of all the works and writings of Rizal he already knows the end point of it which is death, why Retracted?
Rizal is not against the Catholic Church, but he is only against the person who runs the church. Retraction
letter is in favor of the priest and friars, so why it takes 35 years to produce the said retracted letter of
Rizal? The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means nothing. Rizal awakened our
knowledge of nationalism. For us, that is enough. The issue will not invalidate his works in any way.

Thank you for being part of this important conversation on the retraction of José Rizal, and may our
shared exploration of history lead us to new insights and greater understanding. Once again, have a great
day everyone.