The Retraction of

Rizal
One of the most intriguing of all was the issues of Jose Rizal was his alleged retraction which was all
about his reversion to the Catholic Faith and all other issues linked to it such as his marriage to
Josephine Bracken. That issue was claimed to be true by the Roman Catholic defenders but asserted
to be deceptive by anti-retractonists. They claim that the retraction document is a forgery, but
handwriting experts concluded a long time ago that it is genuine. Rafael Palma’s opus on Rizal, titled
“Biografia de Rizal” is so anti-Catholic that the Church successfully opposed its publication using
government funds. In an article authored by Romberto Poulo, Rizal’s affiliation in Masonry was
accounted to have caused drastic change to his religious ideas. It was in the moment Rizal set foot on
European soil when he was exposed to a great deal of distinctions between what was happening to his
country, the discriminations, abuses, partialities, injustices, and some other things made to cause
sufferings to his countrymen, and what was the actual scene of the European nations. He observed
that Europe was a lot more different compared to the Philippines in terms of way of life, attitudes
towards Roman Catholicism, and most importantly, the freedom all the citizens enjoy.

The exact copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding Rizal's
execution. Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the texts of the
retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi's copy of Rizal's retraction has the same text as that of Fr.
Balaguer's "exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal's retraction in the Manila
newspapers. In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to
be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend
Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the
retraction), inclosed with the priest's letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to
reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars
had been trying by all means to get from him.

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”
Analysis Rizal's Retraction

At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. The

fourth text appeared in El Imparcial on the day after
Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of the
retraction.

The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro

de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30,
1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on
February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine in La
Juventud; it came from an anonymous writer who
revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer. The
"original" text was discovered in the archdiocesan
archives on May 18, 1935, after it disappeared for thirty-
nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was
shot.

We know not that reproductions of the lost original had

been made by a copyist who could imitate Rizal’s
handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself
who, in his letter to his former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910,
said that he had received "an exact copy of the retraction
written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy
I don’t know nor do I remember whose it is. . ." He
proceeded: "I even suspect that it might that you may . .
. verify whether it might be of Rizal himself . . . ." Fr. Pi
was not able to verify it in his sworn statement have
been written by Rizal himself. I am sending it to you.

This "exact" copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in

the evening immediately preceding Rizal’s execution,
Rizal y su Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his
biography of Rizal, Vida y Escritos del Jose Rizal with the
addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the
texts of the retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi’s
copy of Rizal’s retraction has the same text as that of Fr.
Balaguer’s "exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of
the texts of Rizal’s retraction in the Manila newspapers.

Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have

seen it, except the publishers of La Voz Espanola. That
newspaper reported: "Still more; we have seen and read
his (Rizal’s) own hand-written retraction which he sent to
our dear and venerable Archbishop…" On the other hand,
Manila pharmacist F. Stahl wrote in a letter: "besides,
nobody has seen this written declaration, in spite of the
fact that quite a number of people would want to see it.
"For example, not only Rizal’s family but also the
correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in Madrid,
Don Manuel Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr. Santiago
Mataix of El Heraldo, were not able to see the hand-
written retraction.

Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace the Archbishop ascertained

whether Rizal himself was the one who wrote and signed
the retraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary
because it was possible for one who could imitate Rizal’s
handwriting aforesaid holograph; and keeping a copy of
the same for our archives, I myself delivered it personally
that the same morning to His Grace Archbishop… His
Grace testified: At once the undersigned entrusted this
holograph to Rev. Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of
the Chancery." After that, the documents could not be
seen by those who wanted to examine it and was finally
considered lost after efforts to look for it proved futile.

On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s

retraction was discovered by the archdeocean archivist
Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending
doubts about Rizal’s retraction, has in fact encouraged it
because the newly discovered text retraction differs
significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the
Archbishop’s copies. And, the fact that the texts of the
retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers
could be shown to be the exact copies of the "original"
but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who
controlled the press in Manila (for example, La Voz
Española) had the "original" while the Jesuits had only
the imitations.

We now proceed to show the significant differences

between the "original" and the Manila newspapers texts
of the retraction on the one hand and the text s of the
copies of Fr. Balaguer and F5r. Pio Pi on the other hand.

First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which

appear in the original and the newspaper texts, the
Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad" (with "u").

Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the

word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias" which are found
in the original and the newspaper texts.

Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the

third "Iglesias" the word "misma" which is not found in
the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.
Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately
strikes the eye of the critical reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text
does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth
sentences while the original and the newspaper copies
start the second paragraph immediately with the second
sentences.

Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original

and in the manila newspapers have only four commas,
the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.

Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did

not have the names of the witnesses from the texts of
the newspapers in Manila.

In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr.

Balaguer finally named the witnesses. He said "This . .
.retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor
Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of
the Plaza." However, the proceeding quotation only
proves itself to be an addition to the original. Moreover,
in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer said that he
had the "exact" copy of the retraction, which was signed
by Rizal, but her made no mention of the witnesses. In
his accounts too, no witnesses signed the retraction.

How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal’s retraction?

Fr. Balaguer never alluded to having himself made a copy
of the retraction although he claimed that the Archbishop
prepared a long formula of the retraction and Fr. Pi a
short formula. In Fr. Balaguer’s earliest account, it is not
yet clear whether Fr. Balaguer was using the long
formula of nor no formula in dictating to Rizal what to
write. According to Fr. Pi, in his own account of Rizal’s
conversion in 1909, Fr. Balaguer dictated from Fr. Pi’s
short formula previously approved by the Archbishop. In
his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer admitted that he
dictated to Rizal the short formula prepared by Fr. Pi;
however; he contradicts himself when he revealed that
the "exact" copy came from the Archbishop. The only
copy, which Fr. Balaguer wrote, is the one that appeared
ion his earliest account of Rizal’s retraction.

Where did Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy come from? We do

not need long arguments to answer this question,
because Fr. Balaguer himself has unwittingly answered
this question. He said in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:

"…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the

original texts of the two formulas of retraction, which
they (You) gave me; that from you and that of the
Archbishop, and the first with the changes which they
(that is, you) made; and the other the exact copy of the
retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of
this copy I don’t know nor do I remember whose it is,
and I even suspect that it might have been written by
Rizal himself."

In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he

received two original texts of the retraction. The first,
which came from Fr. Pi, contained "the changes which
You (Fr. Pi) made"; the other, which is "that of the
Archbishop" was "the exact copy of the retraction written
and signed by Rizal" (underscoring supplied). Fr.
Balaguer said that the "exact copy" was "written and
signed by Rizal" but he did not say "written and signed
by Rizal and himself" (the absence of the reflexive
pronoun "himself" could mean that another person-the
copyist-did not). He only "suspected" that "Rizal himself"
much as Fr. Balaguer did "not know nor ... remember"
whose handwriting it was.

Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the "exact copy" came

from the Archbishop! He called it "exact" because, not
having seen the original himself, he was made to believe
that it was the one that faithfully reproduced the original
in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in which "changes" (that
is, where deviated from the "exact" copy) had been
made. Actually, the difference between that of the
Archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with
"changes") is that the latter was "shorter" be cause it
omitted certain phrases found in the former so that, as
Fr. Pi had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it.

According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so

that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate from the short formula of
Fr. Pi. Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to
him but he insisted on adding the phrases "in which I was
born and educated" and "[Masonary]" as the enemy that
is of the Church" – the first of which Rizal would have
regarded as unnecessary and the second as downright
contrary to his spirit. However, what actually would have
happened, if we are to believe the fictitious account, was
that Rizal’s addition of the phrases was the retoration of
the phrases found in the original which had been omitted
in Fr. Pi’s short formula.

The "exact" copy was shown to the military men guarding

in Fort Santiago to convince them that Rizal had
retracted. Someone read it aloud in the hearing of Capt.
Dominguez, who claimed in his "Notes’ that Rizal read
aloud his retraction. However, his copy of the retraction
proved him wrong because its text (with "u") and omits
the word "Catolica" as in Fr. Balaguer’s copy but which
are not the case in the original. Capt. Dominguez never
claimed to have seen the retraction: he only "heard".

The truth is that, almost two years before his execution,

Rizal had written a retraction in Dapitan. Very early in
1895, Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with her
adopted father who wanted to be cured of his blindness
by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela Orlac, who was
agent and a mistress of a friar. Rizal fell in love with
Josephine and wanted to marry her canonically but he
was required to sign a profession of faith and to write
retraction, which had to be approved by the Bishop of
Cebu. "Spanish law had established civil marriage in the
Philippines," Prof. Craig wrote, but the local government
had not provided any way for people to avail themselves
of the right..."

In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of

a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the Bishop
of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach
to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912
what the priest had told him; "The document (the
retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for
the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal
realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and
given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all
means to get from him.
Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original
document of retraction. What they was saw a copy done
by one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the
original (almost eaten by termites) was kept by some
friars. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently
because they did not distinguish between the genuine
and the imitation of Rizal’s handwriting.
Rizal’s retraction: Truth vs Myth
By

Tomas U. Santos

October 4, 2011

THE DEBATE continues.

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: “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.”

The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only
lies in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two
opposing groups—the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not
withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists (who were convinced Rizal retracted)—agree
with each other.

Proofs, documents

History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by
Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his
execution in Bagumbayan. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was
lengthy.
According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who
befriended the hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction
document prepared by the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio
Pi.

Rizal then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the document. In
his retraction, he disavowed Masonry and religious thoughts that opposed Catholic
belief.

“Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was purchased by
the Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de
Manila,” showed some interesting points about the retraction, said Jose Victor Torres,
professor at the History department of the De La Salle University.

Popularly known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de
Manila is a body of documents on the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential
reports, transcripts, clippings, and photographs from Spanish and Philippine
newspapers.

Despite this, Torres said his perception of the Filipino martyr would not change even
if the controversies were true.

“Even though it would be easy to say he retracted all that he wrote about the Church,
it still did not change the fact that his writings began the wheels of change in
Philippine colonial society during the Spanish period—a change that led to our
independence,” Torres said. “The retraction is just one aspect of the life, works, and
writings of Rizal.”

But then, Torres noted that the controversy is irrelevant today.

“The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means nothing,” he said.

‘Unadorned fact’
Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra considered the controversy as “a plain unadorned fact
of history, having all the marks and indications of historical certainty and reality” in
his book The Historicity of Rizal’s Retraction.

Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History , also believes that Rizal
retracted and said the National Hero just renounced from the Free Masonry and not
from his famous nationalistic works.

“He (Rizal) retracted. He died as a Catholic, and a proof that he died as a Catholic was
he was buried inside the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said De Viana, who
compared the martyr with Apolinario Mabini, a revolutionary and free mason who
was buried in a Chinese cemetery.

De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter had been forged because
witnesses were present while Rizal was signing it.

He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves on to the question on Rizal’s
character as some argue that the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature beliefs
and personality.

“Anti-retractionists ask, ‘What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?’ They say he was fickle-
minded. Well, that may be true, but that is human character. Rizal was not a perfect
person,” De Viana said.

He also mentioned that just like any person, Rizal was prone to flip-flop. He believes
that Rizal retracted because the national hero wanted to be at peace when he dies.

But would Rizal’s works deem irrelevant and futile because of his retraction?

De Viana answered, “Rizal awakened our knowledge of nationalism. For me, that is
enough. The issue will not invalidate his works in any way.”
The Rizal Retraction and other
cases
Posted on September 19, 2012

THE RIZAL RETRACTION AND OTHER CASES

by Peter Jaynul V. Uckung

The flow of history is as inexorable as the tidal flow of an angry

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

In the Philippines today, forgery is usually resorted to redirect

the flow of money from the rightful beneficiary to the unworthy
pockets of invisible people.

That money is usually the target of forgery is known and

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

In October 1600, the Muslim Ottoman Army and a Christian

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

The Hungarians revolted and the Christian army disintegrated

from within. Thus, did the Ottomans won the battle, by issuing
forged communication.

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

A series of seemingly genuine secret documents, with forged

signatures, were attached to a British corpse dressed in military
uniforms. It was left to float somewhere in a beach in Spain, where
plenty of German agents were sure to get hold of it.

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

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

In 1944, a Japanese sea plane crashed near Cebu. According to

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

On October 17, 1944 the invasion of Leyte went underway. Leyte

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

In recent memory, there was an incident in which the forging

of documents served to negate the existence of an independent
Philippines.

In 1901, the Americans managed to capture a Filipino

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

The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, is being hotly

debated as to its authenticity.

It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments

before his death. There were many witnesses, most of them Jesuits.
The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935. It
was found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s
archive in Manila. But the original document was never shown to
the public, only reproductions of it.

However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as

1907, the retraction of Rizal was copied verbatim and published in
Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found the original
document, also copied it verbatim.

In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the

text. Add to this the date of the signing was very clear in the original
Spanish document which Rizal supposedly signed. The date was
“December 29, 1890.”

Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears

the date “December 29, 189C”. The number “0” was evidently
altered to make it look like a letter C. Then still later, another
supposedly original version came up. It has the date “December 29,
1896”. This time, the “0” became a “6”.

So which is which?

Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction

document, reported that the forger of Rizal’s signature was Roman
Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano Lacuna,
which was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say,
in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s signature forging was Lazaro Segovia.
They were approached by Spanish friars during the final day of the
Filipino-American war to forge Rizal’s signature.

This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale
from Roman Roque himself, them being neighbours.

To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in
the forest of the night.

Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of

Rizal was invented by the friars to deflect the heroism of Rizal
which was centered on the friar abuses.

Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who copied verbatim Rizal’s retraction,

also figured prominently during the revolution. It was him, Andres
Bonifacio reported, who had intimated to Aguinaldo the cessation
of agitation in exchange of pardon.

There are also not a few people who believe that the
autobiography of Josephine Bracken, written on February 22, 1897
is also forged and forged badly. The document supposedly written
by Josephine herself supported the fact that they were married
under the Catholic rites. But upon closer look, there is a glaring
difference between the penmanship of the document, and other
letters written by Josephine to Rizal.

Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though

Rizal is a hero, whether he retracted or not, we must investigate if
he really did a turn-around. If he did not, and the documents were
forgeries, then somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a nation.

Retraction ni Jose Rizal: Mga

bagong dokumento at pananaw
Published December 29, 2016 7:05pm
By XIAO CHUA

There seems to be no end to the debate whether Rizal retracted his writings
against the Catholic Church on the very last day of his life. Will a new
independent testimony settle the debate finally?

Ayon sa ilan, si Jose Rizal, na pinaslang ng mga kolonyalistang Espanyol 120

years ago, December 30, 1896, ay naging bayani dahil sa kanyang mga
sinulat upang wasakin ang ideya ng kolonyalismo at palayain ang isip natin
upang mabuo ang bansa—ang Noli Me Tangere at El Filibusterismo at ang
kanyang mga sanaysay sa La Solidaridad, na kumuwestiyon sa mga
paniniwalang nakabubulag sa atin, lalo na ang pagsunod sa kagustuhan ng
mga prayle bilang sugo ng Diyos.

Ngunit, ilang oras bago siya barilin, pinirmahan daw ni Rizal ang isang
dokumento na nagsasabing siya raw ay isang Katoliko at binabawi niya lahat
ng kanyang mga sinulat laban sa simbahan. Nakilala ang dokumento bilang
ang retraktasyon, “The Retraction.” Dahil sa kanyang pagbabalik-loob sa
simbahan, ikinasal sila ni Josephine Bracken, ang kanyang huling pag-ibig.
Ang sinasabing retraktasyon ni Rizal. Courtesy Ambeth R. Ocampo
Salin ng dokumento ng retraktasyon

Ayon sa ilan, mas lalong naging dakila si Rizal sa pagkilala ng kanyang mga
kamalian laban sa pananampalataya. Ngunit para naman sa marami, hindi
kapanipaniwala na sa huling sandali ng kanyang buhay, babawiin niya ang
kanyang mga sinulat, ang dahilan ng kanya mismong pagkabayani. Para na
rin niyang itinapon ang kanyang kabayanihan.

 Ang testimonya ni Padre Vicente Balaguer

Kahit natagpuan ang sinasabing dokumento ng retraktasyon noong 1935,

patuloy ang pagdududa. Lalo na sa itinuturing na natatanging eyewitness
account ng pangyayari—ang isinulat ng Heswitang si Padre Vicente Balaguer.
Paano naman kasi, ang resonableng si Rizal ay bigla na lamang nagising ng
makailang beses, apat na beses na nangumpisal, nagpamisa, nangomunyon
at nagrosaryo pa. Kakatwa para sa ilan, kabilang na ako.

Isa ako sa mga historyador na hindi naniniwala sa retraktasyon. At para sa

akin, hindi na matatapos ang “Retraction Controversy.”
Isa lamang ang maaaring magresolba nito, sabi ko—kung magkakaroon ng
isa pang eyewitness account ng gabi at umagang iyon na maaaring
magpatunay o magpasinungaling sa retraktasyon o sa testimonya ni Padre
Balaguer.

 Ang testimonya ng Cuerpo de Vigilancia

Nitong 4 August 2016, binasa ni Commissioner Rene R. Escalante, ang OIC

ng National Historical Commission of the Philippines, ang isang “Professorial
Chair Lecture sa Rizal Studies” na pinamagatang “Re-examining the Last 24
Hours of Rizal Using Spy Reports” sa De La Salle University.

Sa mga dokumento ng mga espiyang Espanyol na tinatawag na Cuerpo de

Vigilancia, matatagpuan ang ulat na isinulat sa araw ng kamatayan ni Rizal ni
Federico Moreno, na nagkukuwento ng pahayag sa kanya ng isang ahente
ng Cuerpo de Vigilancia, isang bantay sa selda ng Rizal, samakatuwid, isang
“additional independent eyewitness account.”
Ang unang pahina ng ulat ni Federico Moreno (Cuerpo de
Vigilancia). Courtesy National Commission for Culture and the Arts

Ayon sa pahayag, sumulat si Rizal ng isang papel na narinig niyang ang

retraktasyon. Binanggit rin ang dalawang paring Heswita na pumasok sa
piitan ni Rizal—si Padre Jose Vilaclara at Padre Estanislao March, at dalawa
pang tao, sina Juan del Fresno at Eloy Moure. Narito ang ilang bahagi ng
sanaysay na isinalin na sa Ingles mula sa wikang Espanyol:
“Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in Fort
Santiago to report on the events during the [illegible] day in prison of the
accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following:

“At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by his
counsel, Señor Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest Vilaclara. At the
urgings of the former and moments after entering, he was served a light
breakfast. At approximately 9, the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, asked
Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at the moment he only wanted a
prayer book which was brought to him shortly by Father March.

“Señor Andrade left death row at 10 and Rizal spoke for a long while with the
Jesuit fathers, March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It
appears that these two presented him with a prepared retraction on his life
and deeds that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter until 12:30
when Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken. Afterwards he asked to
leave to write and wrote for a long time by himself.

“At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed him
what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Señor del
Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, were informed. They
entered death row and together with Rizal signed the document that the
accused had written. It seems this was the retraction.”

Makikita na ang dalawang binanggit na opisyal, sina Juan del Fresno at Eloy
Moure, ay ang mga nakapirma mismo sa dokumento ng retraktasyon na
tumayong mga saksi. Gayundin binanggit ng guwardiya na bago dalhin sa
Luneta si Rizal, ikinasal siya kay Josephine Bracken:

“At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison
…dressed in mourning. Only the former entered the chapel, followed by a
military chaplain whose name I cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes
and aided by a soldier of the artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who
had been his lover were performed at the point of death (in articulo mortis).
After embracing him she left, flooded with tears.”

At ang nakagugulat, itinala ni Moreno, ang lahat ng taong pumasok sa selda

noong gabing iyon, ni minsan, walang binanggit na may pumasok na Padre
Balaguer. Ibig sabihin wala si Padre Balaguer doon, maaaring secondary
source na lamang siya at kinapanayam lamang sina Padre Vilaclara at Padre
March upang buuin ang kanyang testimonya.

Mayroon akong malaking paniniwala na walang dahilan para magsinungaling

ang guwardiya o si Moreno lalo na at ginawa nila ang tala sa mismong
panahon na iyon.

 Ang sinulat ni Rizal sa kopya ng “Imitations of Christ”

Kamakailan, isang kopya ng “De La Imitacion de Cristo” na isinulat ni Thomas

á Kempis ang ipinaubaya sa Direktor ng Pambansang Museo ng Pilipinas,
Jeremy Barns. Ito ang mismong kopya na ibinigay ni Rizal kay Josephine
Bracken sa kanyang huling pagbisita dito sa araw ng kanyang kamatayan.
Isinulat niya dito, “To my dear and unhappy wife, Josephine, December 30th,
1896, Jose Rizal.”
Kopya ng 'De La Imitacion de Cristo.' Courtesy Jeremy Barns
Kopya ng 'De La Imitacion de Cristo' na may sulat ni Rizal. Courtesy Jeremy
Barns

Liban sa tinawag niyang “wife” o asawa dito si Josephine, na maaaring

magpatungkol sa pagiging legal ng kanilang kasal, ang mismong aklat na
ibinigay niya sa huling babaeng kanyang minahal ay isang aklat ukol sa
paggaya sa landas ni Kristo. Namatay siyang Kristiyano.

 Ang paglalagay ng “krus” sa kanyang mga huling sulatin

Ang krus ang unibersal na simbolong Kristiyano. Pinaalala sa akin ni Prop.

Wensley Reyes ng Philippine Normal University na sa dalawang sulatin ni
Rizal bago mamatay binanggit niya ang simbolong ito.
Sa kanyang huling bilin sa pamilya na hindi na nila natanggap hanggang
noong 1953 (ang sulat ay naging bahagi ng donasyon ng Spanish Foreign
Minister Alberto Martinez Artajo y Alvarez sa pamahalaang Pilipinas):

“Ilibing niyo ako sa lupa. Lagyan ninyo ng panandang bato at KRUS. Ang
aking pangalan, araw ng kapanganakan at ng kamatayan. Wala nang iba.
Kung pagkatapos ay nais niyong bakuran ang aking puntod, maaari niyong
gawin. Wala nang anibersaryo. Mas mabuti kung sa Paang Bundok. Kaawaan
ninyo si Josephine.”

Sa kanyang huling tula, binaggit din ni Rizal ang panandang krus sa kanyang
libingan ng dalawang beses.

“Suffer the moon to keep watch, tranquil and suave, over me:
Suffer the dawn its flying lights to release:
Suffer the wind to lament in murmurous and grave manner:
And should a bird drift down and alight on my CROSS,
Suffer the bird to intone its canticle of peace.

“…And when my grave is wholly unremembered

And unlocated (no CROSS upon it, no stone there plain):
Let the site be wracked by the plow and cracked by the spade
And let my ashes, before they vanish to nothing,
As dust be formed a part of your carpet again.”

Kung titingnan ito, si Rizal ay nais na mabigyan ng isang Kristiyanong libing,

samatuwid, namatay na isang Kristiyanong Katoliko.

Kaya naman sa liwanag na dala ng mga bagong labas na mga dokumento at

mga bagong interpretasyon, maaari ngang si Jose Rizal ay nag-retract.
Maaari ngang totoo ang retraktasyon. May dahilan kung bakit niya isinulat ang
dokumento.

Ngunit mahalaga pa ba talaga kung totoo ito? Mababago ba ang paninindigan

at nagawa ng isang tao sa kanyang buong buhay ng pagtindig at katapangan
ng isang papel na pinirmahan niya sa araw ng kanyang kamatayan? Hindi.
Hindi. — BM, GMA News

Si Prop. Michael Charleston “Xiao” Briones Chua ay kasalukuyang assistant

professorial lecturer ng Pamantasang De La Salle Maynila. Isa siyang
historyador at naging consultant ng GMA News TV series na Katipunan at
Ilustrado. Ang sanaysay na ito ay batay sa kanyang news segment sa “Xiao
Time: Ako ay Pilipino” sa istasyong pantelebisyon ng pamahalaan