GOOD DAY

STUDENTS!
HISTORIC CONTROVERSIES

Retraction of
Rizal
OBJECTIVES:
By the end of this module, the students will be able to:
1.Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or
against a particular issue using primary sources;
2.Formulate arguments for and against a particular primary
source;
3. Identify conflicting views about the historical
controversies; and
4. Analyze critically each views and source.
HISTORIC CONTROVERSIES

Retraction of
Rizal
Essential Question:

Do you believe that Rizal's

retraction is genuine or fake,
in your perspective?
Have you ever apologized or asked someone
for forgiveness even if they were the ones
who harmed you?
Retraction of Rizal
Jose Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda
(June 19, 1861 – December 30, 1896).
Reason: Convicted of Sedition
-Rizal was arrest, tried, and sentenced by death by a Spanish
court-martial after being implicated as a leader of the Philippine
Revolution. The night before his death by firing squad at the Luneta
on December 30, 1986, accounts exist that Rizal allegedly retracted
his Masonic ideals and his writings and reconverted to Catholicism
following several hours of persuasion by Jesuit priest.
Retraction of Rizal
There were considerable doubts to this allegation by
Rizal’s family and friends until in 1935, the supposed
retraction document with Rizal’s signature was found.
Until today, the issue whether Rizal retracted or not and
whether the document is forged or real is a subject of
continuous debate between historians and Rizal scholars
alike.
Primary Sources:
the first two are the official accounts as
witnessed by the Jesuits who are instrumental
in the alleged retraction of Rizal.
The other two are critical analysis by two
Rizalist Scholars who doubted the story of
retraction.
Fr. Vicente Balaguer’s Statement
• Vicente Balaguer, S.J. – A Jesuit missionary, who became friends
with Rizal during his days in Dapitan.
• One of the Jesuit priests who visited Rizal during the last hours in
Fort Santiago and claimed that he managed to persuade Rizal to
denounce Masonry and return to the
Catholic fold.
• In an affidavit executed in 1917 when he had returned to Spain,
Balaguer also claimed that he was the one who solemnized the
marriage of Josephine Bracken and Rizal hours before the hero’s
execution.
Fr. Vicente Balaguer’s Statement

Brought out the shorter and more concise formula

(retraction) of Fr. Pio Pi.
He finished writing the retraction when it was half past
eleven and was dated December 29.
The retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal,
Señor Juan del Fresno (Chief of the Picket), and
Señor Eloy Moure (Adjutant of the Plaza)
Fr. Pio Pi’s Statement

Society of Jesus of the Philippines,

Superior
Made a shorter retraction statement of
Rizal.
Rafael Palma’s Critical Analysis
1. The document of Retraction was kept in secret so that no one except
the authorities was able to see it at the time. Only copies of it were
furnished the newspapers, but with the exception of one person, nobody
saw the original. In fact the original was kept in such a way that it was not
found until thirty years had transpired.
2. When the family of Rizal asked for the original of said document or a
copy of it as well as a copy of the certificate of canonical marriage with
Josephine Bracken, both petitions were denied.
3. Rizal’s burial was kept secret, the cadaver having been delivered to the
members of a Catholic association friendly to the friars instead of being
delivered to the family, who had claimed it.
Rafael Palma’s Critical Analysis
4. Rizal meant for the Filipinos and of what his conversion
meant, no masses were said for his soul or funeral held by
the Catholics.
5. The claim that Rizal was reconciled with the Church, he
was not buried in the cemetery of Paco but in the ground
without any cross or stone to mark his grave. Only the
diligence of the family (Narcisa) was able to identify the
spot where he was buried.
Rafael Palma’s Critical Analysis
6. The entry in the book burials of the interment of Rizal’s body
is not made on the page with those buried on December 30,
1896, where there were six entries, but on a special page
wherein those by special orders of the authorities appear. Thus,
Rizal figures on a page between a man who burned to death
and who could not be identified and another who dies by
suicide; in other words he was considered among person who
died impenitent and did not receive spiritual aid.
7. There was no normal motive for conversion.
Austin Coates’ Critical Analysis
1. Those who had read Rizal’s books or who knew him closely, which at
that time meant the family and his wide circle of personal friends, most
of whom were abroad, took one at the announcement and dubbed it…
an ecclesiastical fraud.
2. Rizal believed that there was a strong like hood of fraud, and that
the prime movers in this would be the friar archbishop. It was the friars
who wanted his retraction.
3. Certainly there was no signed letter of retraction. Rizal knew too
well the damage such a letter would do him, besides he believed
before God he had nothing to retract to.
Austin Coates’ Critical Analysis
4. The Jesuits had been entrusted by the Archbishop with the
spiritual care of the condemned man; and it was their
responsibility, if they were satisfied that he had died and
confessed, to see he was buried decently. This two Jesuits at
the execution did not do.
5. The Rizal Family found it difficult to accept either the
retraction or the marriage.
6. In Balaguer’s account he made no mention of the Mi Ultimo
Adios.
Austin Coates’ Critical Analysis
7. The following morning only letters, books, and an
alcohol burner remained to be disposed of by the
authorities, he erroneously concluded that no poem had
been written and thus made no mention of it in his
account, thereby revealing the truth, which was that he
was not within Fort Santiago during the middle of that
last night, and had no knowledge of what was then
taking place.
Other Believers or Defenders of Rizal’s Retraction:
1. Nick Juaquin, writer
9. Austin Craig, historian
2. Leon Maria Guerrero III
10. Teodoro Kalaw, 33rd
3. Gregorio Zaide, author of history
degree mason and handwriting
books
expert
4. Guillermo Gomez Rivera
11. H. Otley Beyer, UP Professor
5. Ambeth Ocampo, author of
12. Jose Del Rosario, UP
history books
Professor
6. John Schumaker
Fr. Marciano Guzman, great
7. Antonio Molina
grandnephew of Rizal
8. Paul Duval
Other Believers or Defenders of Rizal’s Retraction:
13 Fr. Vicente Balaguer, A Jesuit Missionary
14. Fr. Pio Pi, Society of Jesus of the Philippines, Superior
15. Dr. Ausgusto de Vierra, UST Dept of History, Head

Non-believers of Rizal Rectraction:

1. Ricardo Pascual, a historian
2. Sen. Rafael Palma, former UP President and prominent
mason
3. Frank Laubach, a Protestant minister
Non-believers of Rizal Rectraction:
4. Austin Coates, a British Writer
5. Ricardo Manapat, National Archives Director
6. Tomas U. Santos, a historian
7. Jose Victor Torres, history professor of De La
Salle University
Believers of Rizal’s retraction had the following arguments:
1. The retraction document (letter) is authentic having judged
by a foremost handwriting expert, Teodoro Kalaw and experts
are known and recognize in our courts of justice.
2. Eleven (11) witnesses saw Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a
Catholic prayer book and recited Catholic prayers and kissed
the crucifix before his execution.
3. Rizal’s 4 confessions were certified by 5 witnesses, 10
qualified witnesses, 7 newspapermen, an 12 historians and
writers.
Believers of Rizal’s retraction had the following arguments:

4. Aglipayan bishops, masons, and anti-clerics

witnessed Rizal’s signing of the retraction document.
5. The head of the Spanish Supreme Court
notarized his retraction letter.
6. Being a Catholic, he was buried inside the sacred
grounds of Pako (now Paco) Catholic Cemetery.
Believers of Rizal’s retraction had the following arguments:
7. The retraction letter was not forged because
witnesses were present while Rizal was signing it.
8. Rizal retracted his masonry because he wanted to
be at peace when he dies.
9. Direct evidence which have a greater weight need
to prove Rizal’s retraction than just circumstantial
evidence.
Non-believers of Rizal’s retraction had the following
arguments:
1. There is no certificate of Rizal’s catholic marriage to Josephine
Bracken
2. There is an allegation that the retraction document was a forgery.
There are two versions of the retraction letter with some words missing
in the second document. Which document is authentic? Were these
documents written in Spanish, English, or
Filipino? Since the signing of the document, if it is true, would have
been written in Spanish, not in English. There was no mention that the
original writing is Spanish and translated in English.
Non-believers of Rizal’s retraction had the following
arguments:

3. The document was not in Rizal’s own handwriting

according to late Senator Palma.
The retraction letter is not in keeping with Rizal’s character
and mature beliefs.
Chronological Arrangement before Rizal’s At Malacañan Palace,
Execution It was decided that Rizal will be Rizal’s sisters pleaded to
executed by musketry, Governor-General
GovernorGeneral Camillo Polavieja Polavieja: stay Rizal’s
confirmed the sentence. execution.
December 28, 1896 December 28, 1896

December 26, 1896 December 28, 1896

A Spanish court martial Teodora Alonzo wrote the
found Jose Rizal guilty for Governor-General asking for
sedition and sentenced him clemency for her son.
to death
Chronological Arrangement before Rizal’s
Execution Teodora Alonzo paid her
Rizal was visited by several final visit to Rizal. She was
priests including Fr. Faura, accompanied by her
S.J. daughter, Trinidad Mercado.
December 29, 1896 December 29, 1896

Decemeber 29, 1896

December 29, 1896 Rizal wrote his last letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt which read:
My dear Brother, When you receive this letter, I shall be dead by
Rizal was read his death then. Tomorrow at seven, I shall be shot; but I am innocent of the
sentence. crime of rebellion. I am going to die with a tranquil conscience.
Adieu, my best, my dearest friend, and never think ill of me! Fort
Santiago, 29 December 1896 José Rizal Regards to the whole family,
to Sra. Rosa, Loleng, Conradito, and Federico. I leave a book for you
as my remembrance.
Chronological Arrangement before Rizal’s
Execution
Rizal was executed by
Rizal was brought to the musketry.
execution site from Fort Santiago
December 30, 1896,
December 30, 1896, 6:30am 7:03 a.m.

December 29, 1896

Rizal’s sisters were allowed to pay him visits. He gave them his worldly possessions:
Narcisa – Wicker Chair
Angelica, niece – Handkerchief
Mauricio, nephew – Belt, watch, and chain
Trinidad – Alcohol Burner with Mi Ultimo Adios
Chronological Arrangement before Rizal’s
Execution Rizal’s remains were buried in
Rizal’s remains were
exhumed and brought to
the Paco Cemetery in an the Rizal family house in
unmarked grave. Binondo.
December 30, 1896 August 17, 1898

Rizal’s sister, Narcisa, searched

December 30, 1896
suburban graveyards for where Jose
After the execution, Rizal’s body Rizal was buried. She eventually
was brought to San Juan de discovered that he was buried in
Dios Hospital. Paco Park. She marked the plot with
the letters R.P.J. (Rizal’s initials in
reverse)
Summary
Whether Rizal signed a retraction or not, Rizal is still Rizal. It did not
diminish stature as great patriot, 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.” (Jose Diokno’s statement)
Rizal’s retraction or not did not change the fact that his works and writing
began the “wheel of change” in the Philippine independence colonial
society – a change that led to the Philippine independence. The retraction
is just one aspect of the life, works and writings of Rizal. (Jose Victor
Torres)
Torres noted that the controversy in Rizal’s retraction is irrelevant today.
The way Rizal is taught today, the retraction means nothing at all, Torres
added.
Essential Question:

Do you believe that Rizal's

retraction is genuine or fake,
in your perspective?
HISTORIC CONTROVERSIES

Retraction of
Rizal
Thankyou for
Listening!