Case Study 3: THE RIZAL’S RETRACTION

• Jose Rizal’s retraction remains one of the most debated

aspects of his life and legacy. The controversy centers
on whether he renounced his writings and his stance
against the Spanish colonial government before his
execution on December 30, 1896.
• The alleged retraction document, which surfaced after
his death, claimed that Rizal returned to the Catholic
faith and disavowed his association with Masonry and
the reformist movement.

• The retraction issue continues to be a crucial topic in

Rizal studies, shaping perspectives on his martyrdom
and national hero status.
 • At least four texts of Rizal’s
retraction have surfaced:
1. The 1896 Newspaper Version (Published in La
Voz Española and Diario de Manila)

2. The "Official" Version (Discovered in 1935)

3. Fr. Balaguer’s Version (Reported in 1901)

4. The Retana Version (1907, by Wenceslao

Retana)
• The 1896 Newspaper Version
-This version was intended to inform the public
that Rizal had supposedly returned to the Catholic faith
and renounced his Masonic and anti-clerical beliefs
before his death.
• It was the first publicized claim of Rizal’s retraction,
appearing in print almost immediately after his
execution.
• Unlike later versions, it did not include Rizal’s signature,
raising doubts about its authenticity.
• It contained general statements about his supposed
return to the faith but did not match the wording of later
discovered versions (such as the 1935 text).
• It was used by Spanish authorities to convince the public
that Rizal had repented before his execution.
• The "Official" Version
-was discovered in 1935 in the archival records of
the Archdiocese of Manila, decades after his execution.
• Found in the Archdiocesan archives by Fr. Manuel García,
C.M., a Spanish priest.
• It explicitly states that Rizal renounced Masonry and his
past writings against the Catholic Church.
• It bore what was claimed to be Rizal’s signature, but its
authenticity remains disputed.
• This version became the primary evidence for those
arguing that Rizal returned to Catholicism before his
execution.
"I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, and conduct has been
contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church. I believe and profess what
she teaches, and I submit to her authority. I abhor Masonry as an enemy of the
Church."
• Fr. Balaguer’s Version
-He stated that Rizal willingly renounced his Masonic
beliefs and returned to the Catholic faith before his
• Reported in 1901, five years after Rizal’s execution.
execution.
• Claimed to have personally witnessed Rizal’s retraction and
religious confession.
• Stated that Rizal signed a retraction document prepared by
the Jesuits.
• Mentioned that Rizal married Josephine Bracken under
Catholic rites after retracting.
• Content was similar to the later 1935 “Official” Version, but
with minor wording differences.
"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, and conduct
have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church."
• The Retana Version
-Vida y Escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal (Life and Writings of
Dr. Jose Rizal).
• Published in 1907, more than a decade after Rizal’s
execution.
• Claims Rizal retracted before his death, aligning with the
Catholic Church’s narrative.
• Text differs from the 1896, 1901, and 1935 versions,
suggesting multiple versions existed.
• Did not present a signed document, making its authenticity
questionable.
"I retract everything I have said, written, and done against the
Catholic Church, and I ask for forgiveness for my offenses."
• Controversies of the four texts:
1. The 1896 Newspaper Version
• No physical proof of Rizal signing.
• Seen as Spanish propaganda.
2. The "Official" Version (Discovered in 1935)
• Discovered 39 years after execution.
• Signature authenticity debated.
• Some historians suspect forgery.
3. Fr. Balaguer’s Version (Reported in 1901)
• No original document shown.
• Contradicted by other witnesses.
• Reported 5 years after execution.
4. The Retana Version (1907, by Wenceslao Retana)
• No document or signature provided.
• Reported 11 years after execution.
• Different wording from other versions.
Case Study 4: THE CRY OF REBELLION
• “El Grito de Rebelion” or “Cry of Rebellion” marks
the start of revolution which happened in August
1896 in northeast of Manila.

• It is one of the most debated events in Philippine

history, mainly due to conflicting accounts
regarding its date, location, and details.

• The main act of defiance in the Cry of Rebellion

was the tearing of cedulas as a symbol of
rejecting Spanish rule.
• TEODORO AGONCILLO -The Revolt of the Masses: The Story of Bonifacio
and the Katipunan
• The Cry Happened in Pugad Lawin, Not
Balintawak
• He argued that Pugad Lawin (now in Quezon City)
was the true location based on witness accounts
and Katipunan movement patterns.
• The Cry Happened on August 23, 1896
• He based this claim on Guillermo Masangkay’s
testimony, who was a Katipunan member and an
eyewitness to the event.
• The Cry was a Mass Uprising, Not Just a
Symbolic Act
• He argued that the Cry was a large-scale
gathering where Bonifacio and the Katipuneros
made the decision to revolt.
• The Cry was Led by Bonifacio as a Collective
Decision
• PIO VALENZUELA
• The Cry Happened on August 23, 1896
• The Cry Took Place in Pugad Lawin, Not
Balintawak
• He asserted that Balintawak (now in Quezon
City) was the actual site of the Cry.
• The Cry was a Secret Meeting, Not Just a
Public Revolt
• Valenzuela described the event as a
clandestine gathering of Katipuneros, rather
than an outright rebellion.
• No Cedula-Tearing Happened
• He said that there was no mass tearing of
cedulas but rather a discussion about
• GUILLERMO MASANGKAY
• The Cry Happened on August 26, 1896
• It became the basis for the Philippine
government's official recognition of August
23 as the date of the Cry.
• The Cry Happened in Balintawak
• It was commonly accepted by early
historians.
• The Cedula-Tearing Happened as a
Symbolic Act
• He strongly affirmed that Bonifacio and the
Katipuneros tore their cedulas as an act of
defiance against Spain.
• Bonifacio Was the Clear Leader of the Cry
• He emphasized that Andres Bonifacio led
• GREGORIA DE JESUS
• The Cry Happened in Balintawak
• She stated that Bonifacio and the Katipuneros met in
Balintawak before the revolution began.
• Bonifacio Was the True Leader of the Revolution
• She firmly supported the idea that Andres Bonifacio
was the real father of the Philippine Revolution.
• The Revolution Was a Collective Decision, Not
Just Bonifacio’s
• She emphasized that the Katipuneros, not just
Bonifacio, decided to revolt after learning that the
Spanish authorities had discovered the Katipunan.
• Bonifacio’s Struggles Were Downplayed After His
Death
• She later spoke out against how Bonifacio’s role in
the revolution was minimized after his execution by
Aguinaldo’s faction in 1897.
 • JULIO NAKPIL
• The Cry Was a Response to Spanish
Betrayal
• He believed that the Cry of Rebellion was
not just a sudden decision but a direct
reaction to the Spanish crackdown on the
Katipunan after the society was discovered.
• Bonifacio Was the Supreme Leader of the
Revolution
• The Revolution Was • HeAlready
emphasized that Bonifacio,
in Motion not Cry
Before the
• The Katipunan was Aguinaldo, was the true
already mobilizing leader resistance
for armed of the even
revolution.
before the Cry happened.
• The Elite Undermined Bonifacio and the Katipunan’s Efforts
• He later wrote about how wealthy and elite Filipinos initially
hesitated to support Bonifacio’s revolution.