Before 1872 there were revolts

against Spanish colonialism,

like Gabriela Silang,

Palaris Revolt, Tamblot revolt.

They were all revolts but they were not united,

separate,

so that’s probably why they were always

defeated by the colonizers.

On the other hand, I also would like to say that

our long tradition of struggle

our long tradition of struggle to obtain independence,

goes back to the first Filipinos

whose revolts had religious orientation.

Let’s mention for example, Bancao in Leyte,

Sumuroy in Samar,

Tapar in Panay, all in the 17th century.

Many of them were babaylans or their children

who wanted to go back to their original religion.

And one of the significant ones who continued that tradition was Hermano Pule.

We all know how in 1841

the Spanish colonial government crushed

their organization, Cofradia de San Jose, in Tayabas.

Their members were already spread throughout all of the Tagalog regions.

Some of the friars saw

that they were competitors,

so they moved to persecute

this Cofradia de San Jose.

They resisted and even won one of the battles,

but they were massacred, obliterated.

And the story was that Hermano Pule was beheaded

and his body was dismembered.

The government’s way of suppression was horrible.

After about two years,

the Tayabas regiment revolted,

because Hermano Pule was from Tayabas. Apolinario de la Cruz.

The Tayabas regiment knew

that what happened to Hermano Pule was horrible.

They attacked Fort Santiago.

This was January 19 to 20 of 1843.

These people were shouting "independence."

We can see here that there was an aspiration to cut

the relationship with Spain,

but of course, they failed.

Historians believe

that one of Hermano Pule’s dealings,

based on discovered documents,

was with a priest named Pedro Pelaez.

And we know from Philippine history

that Fr. Pedro Sebastian Pelaez

was one of the pioneers

of what we call secularization.

So this fight for self-empowerment

was connected to the secularization of the parishes,

which was supposed to be handled by the secular priests.

So it's all connected. We can connect the fight for religious freedom

to Bancao,

Sumuroy,

Tapar,

Hermano Pule,
all the way to the Gomburza.

but not ending with the Gomburza.

It was in 1868 when what they call Glorious Revolution happened in Spain.

The Monarchy fell.

and was replaced by a republican government.

So to the colonies, like the Philippines,

a liberal governor-general was sent -

Carlos Maria de la Torre.

Within two years, 1869 to 1871,

changes were implemented.

De la Torre did everything he could to win the hearts

of liberal and progressive people in the Philippines,

including priests, lawyers, and some businessmen.

But after about two years,

the republican government in Spain fell

and the Monarchy was restored.

Our concept

of what was liberal and what was conservative

was based on the kind of governor-general

that would be sent from Spain.

It so happened that

Rafael de Izquierdo was sent to us.

Rafael de Izquierdo was very strict.

He didn’t like the liberals much.

There was a problem because Carlos Maria de la Torre

was a governor-general that showed

open mindedness.

When we look at his advice to Izquierdo, his successor,

he also mentioned the balance between the seculars,

the local priests, and the friars

who were doing mission work here from Spain.

During his administration, he foresaw

those issues prevailing

in the next administration.

In the 19th century there was widespread liberalism in Europe.

There was a change of government,

which affected policies in the Philippines.

One was the abolition of the Galleon Trade.

It used to be the monopoly of Spain.

We were ruled by Spain through Mexico.

Legazpi started it in 1565, and it persisted until 1815,

when Mexico was about to become independent.

We had a long relationship with Mexico.

When Mexico became independent,

the Galleon Trade ended.

What will replace it?

We were opened to world trade in 1834.

Various foreign traders entered the country.

In 1869, first, there were already steamships,

which made travel faster.

Then, the route through Egypt was opened.

From the Mediterranean Sea

to the Indian Ocean up to the Philippines,

going through Suez Canal, in 1869.

So the opening of the Suez Canal facilitated

the quick entry of ideas -

the liberal thinking or philosophies

in Europe,

like Voltaire's,
the ideas of the French Revolution,

the ideas of the American Revolution,

the liberal ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau,

and John Locke

about good government.

And of course education was also slowly being liberalized.

So many liberal ideas came in,

which the friars did not like,

because there was now the insinuation that

“we have the right to be free,

we have the right to be treated as equals

by the Spaniards.”

These were the ideas that entered in 1869.

At this time, Spain had only four colonies left,

Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.

By 1872 the Spanish empire had fallen in Latin America.

This was the situation in the Philippines.

The progressive natives in the Philippines

were thinking, “the reforms are too long in coming,

so many perspectives in Europe have changed,

but here we still need to

kneel down before the friars.”

That was the atmosphere in the Philippines from 1869 to 1872.

In olden times we had what was called babaylans.

Later on, the friars came.

So the respect of the Filipinos

for the babaylans transferred to the friars.

If we look at the history of frailocracy in the Philippines,

and why Marcelo H. del Pilar said

there was monastic supremacy in the Philippines,

it’s just like this: The civil officials,

the provincial governors, the governors-general

were only here for a few years, three years.

But the friars stayed in a town

for about 40 years or more.

That means if people say their confessions to you,

you know their secrets,

you gain power.

And because they had power,

some, just a few, abused that power.

And one reason also was that there was a racial aspect;

at that time, they looked down on us.

We were Indios.

From their perspective, they were giving us culture,

and they were helping us.

But there was a bad side to that,

like the policies,

such as the polo y servicios, the bandala

the encomienda system, the hacienda system, which were imposed.

The friars had the power

to own haciendas.

The haciendas did not only mean land.

There was profit involved,

because if they were converted into a farm,

a ranch, or what we call an estancia,

then you’re no longer just a spiritual leader.

You gain financial power

and political power

Talagang dumami rin noong ika-19 na siglo

In the 19th century, bandits or outlaws multiplied

because the only way to have some justice

was to become a bandit

in order to get back at the friars who became...

a problem.

In Cavite there were so many tracts of land

and so many people were displaced

because of land grabbing.

Cavite came to be known as "La Madre de los Ladrones."

Or, "mother of the thieves," according to the time of the Spaniards,

because of so many lawless elements in Cavite.

But in the study of Dr. Isagani Medina,

in his book “Cavite Before the Revolution”, he proved

that there were many “lawless elements” in Cavite

because their lands were grabbed by the friars.

They had no choice but to fight the government system.

They think that they were just getting back what was theirs.

An example was the uprising in Silang in 1745.

Such things persisted up to the 19th century,

but of course there had to be peace...

Mariano Gomes was not originally from Cavite.

He was from Sta. Cruz, Manila

and was assigned to Bacoor, Cavite as parish priest.

He lasted for 48 years.

A truly long time.

That's why he became known here

as a community worker, not only in the church.

He was like a one-man non-governmental organization.

He was very close to the community.

He built roads,
he improved services to the people…

in fact even in the economy,

like planting salt farms

…since Bacoor is along the coast,

when people there asked for capital,

Fr. Gomes would give them

so they could start salt industries.

So there were such stories that he was open

to lending money for the betterment of the people’s lives

in Bacoor. He would help,

so he became well-loved in Bacoor.

So he became involved

not only in the spiritual care

of Filipinos during that time,

but also in their economic development.

He also became known as mediator

for people fighting against the law at that time.

The Luis Parang case

was an agrarian unrest,

A man went to the mountains because of land grabbing.

Fr. Gomes climbed the mountains

to convince him to go down.

And he succeeded.

There was a peace pact

between Luis Parang and the governor-general

signed in Malacañang Palace.

Fr. Mariano Gomes was invited.

During his time, Fr. Mariano Gomes

was instrumental
ang panunulisan sa Cavite in the weakening of banditry in Cavite.

The mother is really very influential in the lives of Filipinos.

So, it was always the dream of the mother, I think in this particular case,

for him to become a lawyer,

but Fr. Zamora preferred to become a priest.

If we look at Zamora's roots,

he was from Pandacan, Manila.

Fr. Gomes was from Sta. Cruz, Manila.

They were Manileños.

Manila was the center,

there was the Manila Cathedral,

there was Letran, there was UST (University of Santo Tomas).

so there was a great probability that your dream would revolve around those.

He and Burgos were classmates,

so in the exams for appointments in 1863/1864,

he was in the top three,

along with Burgos and another Zamora.

He was really good, brilliant.

If Fr. Gomes was an NGO worker,

Fr. Burgos really burned the midnight oil.

He had seven degrees,

two of which were doctorates.

And he was only 35 years old.

The three of them had almost the same education.

They studied in San Juan de Letran College,

then UST.

They had different courses:

theology, philosophy.

And then they also had to study

in the seminary in Manila to become a priest.

In the case of Fr. Gomes,

on one occasion when there was a vacancy

in the parish of Ermita,

he submitted his application

but since he was younger than another candidate,

he didn’t get it.

But he got Bacoor finally.

Mariano Gomes was the oldest of the three;

and he was the one who stayed the longest in one place.

He was the parish priest of Bacoor since 1824,

if we base it on his appointment papers.

And if we are to believe his nephew, Marcelino,

saying he was born in 1799.

And on his last will,

he was over 70.

Some sources would say he was of Chinese descent,

others, Japanese descent,

but we cannot really be sure for now,

since when he signed his last will,

he did not put any ethnicity.

One of the partners of Fr. Pelaez, it was believed,

was Fr. Mariano Gomes.

Jacinto Zamora was the second oldest,

although he was close in age to Burgos,

in his mid-thirties.

He served the most number of parishes (of the three).

He had been to Batangas,

Pasig,

Marikina.
At times he alternated with Burgos in Manila.

We do not know his descent either,

like Fr. Gomes,

we cannot ascertain for sure what he’s half of.

Jose Burgos was very famous

because he was teaching at that time,

which was a way to influence the youth.

Paciano Rizal was his student,

so the Rizals were linked to Fr. Jose Burgos.

Like Zamora, he was brilliant.

He was really serving in Manila.

He was so close to the highest church officials in the Philippines.

In fact, Fr. Jose Burgos, a known liberal,

was a friend of Carlos Maria de La Torre

and would even be present in his feasts.

His life was public.

He was very open to the people.

Unlike Zamora, about whom we know very little.

Burgos was more well-known,

even outside his home province.

He was a Criollo,

born in Vigan, Ilocos province.

His parents were Spanish

and it was said that he had two sisters

and was the only son.

When he was orphaned

he was sent to Manila from Vigan

to continue his studies.

There was a time at the beginning of the 19th century

when actually, there were already secular priests

For example, Fr. Mariano Gomes

was already the parish priest of Bacoor, Cavite.

Fr. Jacinto Zamora

was the parish priest of Marikina.

Fr. Jose Burgos

held the most important church

in Filipino Christendom:

the Manila Cathedral.

We can see there

that there were already secular priests.

The problem was that by the 1850’s, 1860’s,

there was a taking back.

There were secular parishes that would be taken over again by the order.

In the 1850’s,

secularization was already a hot issue.

Let us go back to Fr. Pedro Pelaez

who was really the forerunner of the movement

campaigned by the indio, mestizo, and insular

priests in the Philippines

that the friars or regular priests should abandon the parishes

because it was really the job of the secular priests

to handle the parishes.

But the friars did not want to turn them over

or let them go, because as we know,

the friars were enjoying privileges.

When the Spaniards came,

they referred to certain rules

issued by the Council of Trent.

According to the Council of Trent,

in new places that will be colonized,

there should be division of work.

The regulars

will only do mission work, conversion.

They will not handle parishes.

The parishes will be run by the seculars.

So the assignment of work was very clear

so that there won't be confusion.

But in the beginning, because there were only few Spanish seculars,

the parishes went to the regulars.

I’d like to clarify

the difference between the regular priest and the secular priest.

The word “friar”

means “brother.”

They are also called regular priests

from the word regla or reglas or reglamentos -

bound by the rules.

The friars obey vows.

The Dominicans,

Agustinians,

Recollects, and Franciscans

have three vows –

vow of poverty,

vow of celibacy,

and vow of obedience to the head of the religious order.

The Jesuits or Society of Jesus

have a fourth vow –

vow of obedience to the Pope.

So the Jesuits can claim

that they are not friars,

because they have a fourth vow.

The unifying factor was that

they were all Spanish, peninsulares,

full-blooded Spaniards born in the Iberian Peninsula.

On the other hand, the seculars

were composed of other social classes

who were not full-blooded Spaniards born in the Peninsula.

When you say “secular” these are priests

that are under the bishop or a diocese.

There is a clash between the seculars

and the regulars because the friars

do not want to be under the bishop.

They say, we have a religious order, we have our head,

that’s where our loyalty is.

If there is an order from the bishop or archbishop,

we are not going to automatically obey that.

So there was an ecclesiastical clash

between the seculars and regulars.

We know that during the long Spanish period

there was royal patronage,

in which the government, the state, and the church are united.

The government should support the needs

and protect the friars from Spain and Mexico.

On the other hand, the friars should also support

the government.

But in 1768, the King of Spain

happened to have a conflict with Pope.

That rarely happened and the King of Spain was so angry

that he took it out on the Jesuits in the Philippines and in Latin America,
because they had a fourth vow,

vow of loyalty to the Pope of Rome.

What happened then?

In 1768, all Jesuits were expelled from the Philippines.

Their parishes were taken by the Recollects.

The parishes of the Recollects

were taken by the secular priests.

At that time the secular priests gained a great privilege

because they were able to handle parishes.

That was really their dream.

The Jesuits came back

after almost nine decades.

They came back in 1859.

They took their parishes back

especially their parishes in Mindanao

from the Recollects who were handling them.

The Recollects were forced

to take back the parishes that were handled by the secular priests.

So the secular priests took a loss.

It was like a domino effect.

So the call for wider secularization intensified.

And it was time for Filipino priests

to lead the church.

Of course the Spanish friars were not enthusiastic or comfortable about it,

because having a parish is power.

When you say secularization,

the regular priests should leave it

to the secular priests.

But why did the issue take long in moving forward.

It was because of racism.

It was rooted in “purity of blood” or racial purity.

To the Spaniards, they were the pure blood.

They were superior.

If you are a mestizo, you are low quality.

How much more if you do not even have a mestizo blood.

That’s even lower. Hierarchy depended on blood in the colonial society.

That was very unfair for the Filipinos.

Another reason why the friars

or the Spanish government did not allow secularization

was that they had a very strong suspicion

that the native secular priests

were perhaps planning a revolution

that would oust them.

Let us look at the context.

It happened in the case of Mexico in 1810

when Mexico wanted to be independent from Spain,

the revolution was led by a priest,

Fr. Miguel Hidalgo.

Fr. Hidalgo died but in 1821,

Mexico officially became independent.

Of course, the Spaniards learned from history,

and that in the Philippines,

the priests could also be feared.

They became suspicious

that the Filipino secular priests

might potentially launch a revolution.

If you look at the main players

in the secularization movement, there were many.

But the central one

was Fr. Pedro Sebastian Pelaez.

He was the mentor of many of them,

including Fr. Jose Burgos.

The problem was that Pedro Sebastian Pelaez

died in the 1863 earthquake.

He was crushed when Manila Cathedral fell. Very sad.

So the priests pursued their struggle.

Before 1872, they already had a movement.

It included Fr. Mariano Gomes,

and Fr. Jacinto Zamora - they were the priests

but with the are some businessmen, lawyers,

and journalists.

They were called the "Committee of Reformers",

This committee pushed for reforms

needed at the time

so that the Philippines would progress

and there would be changes among the people.

This Committee of Reformers

had followers,

students of the University of Santo Tomas.

If you look at the works of Fr. Jose Burgos,

he is considered by some anthropologists

as one of the pioneer anthropologists in the Philippines.

According to some records, he explored some aspects

of early Philippine culture.

That is what Rizal and Isabelo de los Reyes would also do

during the Propaganda Movement.

Look at history, go back to Lapu Lapu,

go back to the culture of the bagani

and the babaylans to show

that what the Spaniards were saying

is not true that the Filipinos are not good.

They were always saying that,

and that’s why they did not want

Filipinos to become parish priests.

Because their view of Filipino priests was not good.

Eventually, these students

in what we call “demonstration of 1869" in UST,

distributed leaflets in the classrooms,

basically saying that

the indios should not be receiving insults

from our professors

because if you will open the books of history

you will see that we are worthy of respect.

Imagine: the problem then in the Philippines

was not really poverty because many indios

became rich at the end of the Galleon Trade,

with the entry of other countries in trade,

and they were engaged as middle men.

So the indios were able to study. They studied in UST.

But their main problem

was that even though they were able to study,

they were still looked down upon by the Spaniards.

Without honor.

The Spaniards became insecure

and they identified the leaders. And they said,

Fr. Burgos is involved there

because he is their idol.

Who were these young people?

Familiar names.

Some of them were Maximo Paterno, Paciano Rizal,

Felipe Buencamino,

and the one who read our Declaration of Independence,

Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista.

In the future they would be part

of the Propaganda Movement and the Revolution

The students and the Committee of Reformers.

That was one of the first student movements in the Philippines.

And they suspected the involvement of Burgos there.

Fr. Burgos led the issue of secularization.

He was together with Fr. Gomes,

who was parish priest of Bacoor,

in the call

to install secular priests.

Zamora was with Fr. Burgos

at the Manila Cathedral.

If you see the picture of Burgos,

he is Spanish, but he probably had charisma

because he could convince his fellow criollo,

Pilipino, Chinese mestizo,

to take action to correct the situation.

His main message was that

the Filipinos are capable,

that discrimination against them should end,

discrimination saying that they do not have abilities,

uneducated, etc.

He opened up. In a sense he was brave.

I think that during this time,

the Filipinos were becoming brave, slowly,

and that they could not be suppressed anymore.

They were already expressing themselves,

despite the lack of freedom

of expression and the press.

They were coming out with self-expression,

telling the truth, asking for reforms,

asking for change.

I think that at this time, the Filipinos

had reached the point where they could not take it anymore.

Forced labor and taxes

were very harsh and oppressive for the Filipinos.

De la Torre tried to win the hearts of the Filipinos

by initiating changes.

There were the exemption privileges.

But Izquierdo ruled with an iron hand.

He removed the privileges.

The indios were not the only ones disgusted with the situation.

There were big people who thought

that the colonial system would not work.

Because they could not oust this system,

action was needed.

Some powerful people made plans.

The Cavite Mutiny broke out on January 20, 1872,

at the Spanish arsenal in Fort San Felipe,

in Cavite City.

The Filipinos revolted.

According to some accounts of history,

the reason for this was

a reaction of Filipinos
who were soldiers working in the arsenal

who were stripped of their privileges by the government.

The effect was the provocation of the feelings

of the Filipinos who were there,

under the leadership of Sgt. La Madrid.

What we could read is that they were only soldiers.

It was not a revolt that included civilians.

They were able to control the place and killed the Spaniards.

The governor-general was informed

early in the morning; the incident happened the night before.

He sent reinforcements

and they were able to crush the mutiny.

The result of it was not only the death

of some of the mutineers,

but some were also arrested

who were not part of the mutiny.

So the mutineers were defeated.

They were surrounded.

They were about to surrender.

They were asked to come out.

When they were all outside,

they were all shot,

when they were already surrendering.

You see, no mercy.

First of all,

we thought that the Cavite mutiny

was only planned in Cavite.

They were the only ones who rose up at that time

so there were also Filipinos

like Pardo de Tavera

who were saying it was only a localized event.

Apparently, according to document studies

by Fr. John Schumacher, a Jesuit historian

who passed away recently,

there was a bigger conspiracy planned.

From the perspective of the Spanish government,

this revolt was actually

planned to topple the whole government

and it was funded by Filipino liberals.

So the Cavite mutiny was not only a Cavite mutiny.

A mutiny would also happen in Manila.

The problem was that

Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo received a letter

revealing this plot.

So the planned uprising was discovered.

It was revealed that

Maximo Inocencio, Crisanto de los Reyes

and Enrique Paraiso, masons,

were the masterminds, according to the documents.

But the worst they got

was that they were arrested

and exiled to Marianas in Guam.

The blame was shifted to the three priests.

The theory of Fr. Schumacher

was that Governor-General Izquierdo was a mason

He saw that the masterminds were fellow masons,

so he just exiled them.

Somebody testified that in the Cavite mutiny,

there was a priest who paid the mutineers.

And that the name of the priest was Jose Burgos.

The name of the person who implicated Jose Burgos

is Francisco Zaldua.

Francisco Zaldua was one of the mutineers,

but he recanted and made up stories

implicating Fr. Burgos.

That became the basis for arresting

the three priests connected to the secularization movement.

During that time the issue of secularization was also a hot topic.

There was an “investigation”

on the allegation that the three priests,

Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora were involved.

So even our history books say

they were just implicated.

There was not enough evidence accordingly.

It became very convenient

to arrest the supposed suspicious Filipinos.

What we can see is that all these were speculations.

No document has surfaced

directly proving

that they were the brains of the Cavite mutiny.

So Fr. Burgos was really just implicated.

And then the two other priests.

Fr. Gomes was already 72 years old;

he was really the one based in Bacoor, Cavite.

When he was arrested, the people

did not want to give him up to the Guardia Civil.

They were protecting him.

But he said, "Let them. I will come back."

He said, "don’t worry, I will come back."

That was how Fr. Gomes was loved by the people of Bacoor.

At that time Burgos and Zamora were quite young,

Burgos was 35, Zamora was 36.

They were at the Manila Cathedral.

It was said that a different Zamora was being sought

but in the house of Jacinto Zamora,

a letter was found,

saying, bring the "bullet and gunpowder."

“Bullet and gunpowder” was code for

money used in gambling.

That’s allegedly why he was arrested.

Even if it was true

that it was an invitation to gamble

using the code of “bullet and gunpowder”,

I think he was also implicated

because it was true that he was part of the secularization movement.

Jacinto Zamora is also a hero here.

We have already seen him with Jose Burgos

even before.

Therefore the three priests were arrested.

The connection was really very tenuous.

They were placed in Fort Santiago.

Before they were executed in Bagumbayan,

now Luneta,

they were imprisoned in Fort Santiago

also within Intramuros.

The three priests were subjected to trial

because they were identified as the brains of the Cavite mutiny.

Francisco Zaldua, who was the key witness then,

introduced himself as Burgos’ messenger.

He only did this to escape the verdict.

The problem was he was also convicted.

His sentence was the same as the Gomburza’s--

execution.

The mutiny was on January 20.

In less than a month, the trial was over.

The trial was very swift.

It was a military trial.

What is strange

is that the documents of the trial

have never been found up to this time,

when that should have been declassified.

They had many prisoners from the mutiny,

but their statements cannot be ascertained

because all we have

are sources beyond the trial.

We don’t have trial documents, for now.

All the more, it shows

it was a mockery of the trial.

They were sentenced to die.

The Archbishop of Manila, Meliton Martinez,

was approached by Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo,

saying they should not die wearing their habit

because they were heretics, traitors.

It was betrayal, rebellion

that they should be stripped of their priesthood.

But the Archbishop of Manila said

that they would be wearing their religious garb

when they would be executed.

And the Archbishop also said,

"I will toll the bells for them."

That meant he believed in the innocence of the three.

If he did not believe,

then he would follow the orders of the governor-general.

But he did not.

They day before the execution, they were transferred

to the cuartel of the Spaniards in Bagumbayan,

formerly standing at the present Japanese Garden

of Rizal Park Luneta.

When they were detained there, it appears

there were those who heard their last words.

One thing they heard, when Father Mariano Gomes was asked

to choose a priest who would hear

his last confession,

Mariano Gomes said, "you can get even the priest,

who hates us the most

so they would know how clean our conscience is."

If he really said this,

this shows what the historian Luis Camara Dery,

says that these priests came into conflict with friars,

especially Burgos, which marked them.

Allegedly, Fr. Burgos was able to impart some last words

It is believed that he mentioned these to his visitors.

He reportedly said, "go to the museums

and libraries in other countries, so you will know

who your ancestors are."

As if he said something like, "be a good Filipino,

but an educated Filipino."

We cannot verify this statement,

but I will not be surprised if it really came from him,

because his whole life was consistent

with that statement –

"Discover history

so you will know you are not stupid,

you are great, your race is great,

your ancestors are great.

And the importance of education.

He himself demonstrated that. It was him.

On the morning of February 17, 1872,

there were so many people in Bagumbayan.

The people were curious about the three priests to be executed.

Executions then were done by garrote

involved tightening of screw on an iron collar

gradually until the spinal column broke.

Usually the head was covered.

That was one form of death penalty during that time.

Zaldua was executed first.

Second was Fr. Gomes.

Based on available descriptions, he was ready.

He faced death calmly.

Third to be executed was Fr. Zamora

who already lost his mind.

When he was placed on the platform,

according to some records, he was just quiet,

stunned, insane.

Because of what would happen to him,

he lost heart and he lost his mind.

Last was Fr. Jose Burgos.

Fr. Burgos was the one really crying.

According to Professor Ambeth Ocampo,

he wailed not because he was going to die,

but rather he was asking why he should die.

He was innocent.

It was a senseless death,

35 years old,

with seven degrees,

and this is what would happen to you.

A lot of people were thinking

that he felt his life was coming to waste.

We can see that

the unfolding of events climaxed

with the execution of Fr. Burgos.

The bells tolled mournfully

to give respect to the three priests.

It was said that after they were executed

their remains were brought to an unknown place.

Finally it was discovered

that they were brought to the Paco Cemetery,

and there you will now see a spot

where the three priests were supposed to have been buried.

If we consider their effect on the revolution

and our nationhood,

the three priests did have a great impact.

Because if we are going to read the writings

of Emilio Jacinto, who became a member of the

Most High, Most Respectable Society

of the Children of the Nation

founded by Andres Bonifacio,

he had an essay entitled

Gomes, Burgos, anf Zamora.

And it was said that the portmanteau “Gomburza”

was made a password in the movement.

And according to Emilio Jacinto in his essay,

we are avenging the death of the three priests.

That is why we are revolting.

The historian Teodoro Agoncillo,

said that the Philippines did not have a history before 1872.

You might be surprised.

What about our ancestors? What about Lapu Lapu?

But what he meant was

if 1872 did not happen,

Filipinos would not have nationalistic sentiments,

because before that time,

they looked at themselves as

Bicolano, Ilocano, Tagalog, Kapampangan, Bisaya

but not Filipino.

But because there came to be one manifestation

of fear due to what happened to the three priests,

eventually, this would be an inspiration

to promote nationalism

by the likes of Jose Rizal

and eventually Andres Bonifacio.

He has a point.

Although many historians also say

that we should not just focus on 1872,

but we should look at what happened before and after.

1872 was a very dramatic change.

With the execution of the three priests,

the Filipinos could not come to terms

with the fact that the Spaniards could kill priests.

Where can you see priests being killed?

As an ordinary citizen you would ask,

"why are the priests being killed?"

When they are close to being saints.

So, there must have been a problem with the system.

There was an account of a French, (Edmund) Plauchut,

who gave a narrative of the day of the execution.

When they were about to be executed by garrote,

the Filipinos knelt down,

especially when it was Burgos’ turn,

and they prayed.

So I think it was very traumatic for the Filipinos

to witness that.

Apparently since that time, 1872,

the Filipinos became quiet,

and the one who dared mention the three priests

was Jose Rizal,

when he dedicated El Filibusterismo

to the three priests.

Rizal and Paciano were very close.

Pepe and Paciano.

The relationship of the brothers was deep,

so Paciano might have influenced Pepe

about the death of the three priests

in Bagumbayan.

He said it was somewhat late

but still I have you in my memory.

The events were connected.

If there was no Gomburza, if they were not executed,

there would not be a new generation

called the Propaganda Movement

Rizal, del Pilar, Lopez Jaena, Ponce.

But the Propaganda Movement was only about reforms.

And then their cause was continued

by Rizal's La Liga Filipina.

But Rizal was caught and was exiled to Dapitan.

After that, Bonifacio's Katipunan was established.

And this Katipunan paved the way

for the Philippine Revolution.

This was not only a struggle of one class in society.

They all united against

the peninsulares at the top.

The significance of 1872 was the start

of the creation of the nation.

The concept of the nationalist campaign of the Filipinos

was deemed to have started here,

it was the reason why Filipinos

have a nationalist consciousness

That is the significant contribution

of the three priests’ martyrdom.

It was made the rallying cry

of those who gave birth to our nation,

our heroes.

These martyrs became the inspiration

of the Propaganda Movement, the Katipuneros,

up to the time of the revolutionary period

until Aguinaldo declared our independence in 1898.

They were remembered, and they became a battle cry

for the Filipinos.

Attack!

Long live the Republic of the Philippines!

Long live!

Long live the Republic of the Philippines!

Long live!