CARAMOAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Caramoan, Camarines Sur

Instructor: Ms. Aleli Ann S. Sceretario – BEED I

Subject:

(Reading in Philippine History)

MODULES 7
RETRACTION OF RIZAL

Learning Outcomes:

At the end of Unit 1, pre-service teachers should be able to:

1. Navigate the different stories surrounding the Retraction of Rizal

controversy.

2. Identify the possible implications in the study of Philippine history if

the controversy is solved.

3. Develop an educated insight about the controversy by citing

historical text and facts.
 Pre-test

1. What is retraction?

2-3. Who are the two powerful groups involved in the debate about the retraction of Rizal?

4. The group of priests who attended Rizal before his death were from what congregation?

5. What are the demands of the priests as conditions for the retraction of Rizal?

Activity – Let’s Read These

A. RETRACTION OF RIZAL

Retraction is defined as formally taking back something which was said

or done. When a newspaper prints something incorrect and later takes back
what they said and publishes an article saying they were wrong, this is an
example of a retraction.

RIZAL’S RETRACTION
 Analysis – Let’s Analyze

Research on the reasons of Rizal’s Retraction. Get a copy of any

proof of retraction. In your own point of view, do you believe that Rizal’s
Retraction is true? Defend your answer.
 Abstraction – Let’s Conceptualize

Introduction:
Fake news is news but it is not new. Even during the coming of the Spaniards, the time
of the Philippine revolution, and up to the present Philippine history is surrounded by
unsettled issues with different versions. One of the most sensitive of these is the Retraction of
Jose Rizal. Rizal embodies the figure of heroism and ideal statesman in the country, thus his
image and beliefs matter a lot to every Filipinos.
On the other hand, a retraction is an act of taking back one’s statement, oat, or
promise. Somebody who is retracting from his words means he disowns his previous
pronouncement or does not believe in what he previously said as truth. So to say that
somebody retracted from his words means a lot not only to the well known but also for
ordinary folks. In the Philippines where word of honor is very important to allege someone to
retracted is a very serious matter. Thus this topic will deal with the controversy regarding the
possibility of the Retraction of Jose Rizal.
 The Retraction is a document containing a message that Dr. Jose Protacio Rizal
Mercado Y Alonso Realonda retracted or renounces his Anti-Catholicism writings and ideals
included in his novels.

Origin:
The Retraction was signed by Dr. Jose Rizal.
Rizal’s execution on December 30, 1896 was a major political event, closely monitored
by local and international newspapers at the time. News reports that day covered not only his
execution but also what happened in his prison cell on the eve of his death. Fr. Pi instructed
the Jesuits (Frs. Vicente Balaguer, Jose Vilaclara, Estanislao March, Luis Visa, Federico
Faura, and Miguel Saderra ) to persuade Rizal to retract his anti-Catholic teachings as well as
his affiliation with the Masons. The Jesuits were supposed to demand these two things before
ministering the necessary sacraments.

According to the account of Fr. Balaguer, there are two templates of the retraction
prepared by the superior of the Jesuit society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi. Rizal found
the first template unacceptable because it was too long and its language and style were
not reflective of his personality (Arcilla 1994, 114). So Fr. Balaguer withdrew it and
offered the shorter one. Rizal did not sign it right away because he was uncomfortable
with the statement “I abominate Masonry as a society reprobated by the Church.” Rizal
then wrote his retraction after making some modifications in the document. “I abominate
Masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated by the same Church” After making
other minor changes to the draft, Rizal signed his retraction letter before midnight. Fr.
Balaguer handed it over to Fr. Pi, who in turn submitted it to Archbishop Bernardino
Nozaleda According naman po sa testimony of Cuerpo de Vigilancia (The Cuerpo de
Vigilancia de Manila (Security Corps of Manila) was the intelligence service that the Spanish
colonial government created in 1895. It was organized primarily to gather information on the
activities of Katipunan members and supporters. Cuerpo agents were tasked to monitor the
activities of suspected Katipunan members. They were supposed to report all sorts of rumors,
collect news reports, identify the financiers of the Katipunan, compile revolutionary papers,
gather photographs, and intercept mail. The agents were also instructed to monitor foreigners
who were sympathetic to the Katipuneros. In a span of three years, they were able to collect
almost 3,000 documents containing eyewitness accounts of the activities of individuals
fighting for Philippine independence.)
There is a partial unreleased documents from Cuerpo De Vigilancia that was
discovered and examined, from there, it stated that one of the spy group agents, Federico
Moreno, who happened to be the guard of the cell where Rizal was kept, documented what
was happening in the last 24 hours prior before the execution. , in other words po isa na
namang “additional independent eyewitness account.” According to the statement, Rizal
wrote a paper he heard of the retraction. Also mentioned were two Jesuit priests who entered
Rizal's prison — Father Jose Vilaclara and Father Estanislao March, and two others, Juan del
Fresno and Eloy Moure. It mentions that when Fr. March returned at 3 o’clock in the
afternoon, Rizal handed him a document. Then it says that Rizal, together with Juan del
Fresno and Se or Maure, signed the document. In the retraction document that Fr. Gracia
found in 1935, one sees that the three persons Moreno identified were signatories of the
document. Moreno did not provide details on the contents of the document, probably because
he was witnessing the event from a distance. But that did not prevent him from presupposing
that the document was Rizal’s retraction letter. He simply wrote, “It seems this was the
retraction [parece que el escrito era la retractacion].”
 Here is a part of the report that have been translated into English from Spanish: 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.
In his affidavit, Fr. Balaguer declared that he talked to Rizal three times on December
29, 1896. The first time was in the morning, from 10 to 12:30. It was during this meet- ing that
he presented the retraction template to Rizal but the latter did not sign. Moreno confirmed this
meeting, including the presentation of the draft retraction. But he reported that Rizal was
talking not to Fr. Balaguer but to Frs. March and Vilaclara. Moreno also confirmed that Frs.
March and Vilaclara returned to Rizal around 3 o’clock in the after- noon. Fr. Balaguer
claimed in his affidavit that he was one of Rizal’s afternoon visitors. Fr. Balaguer continued
that the third time he talked to Rizal was around 10 in the evening. He had another lengthy
and passionate discussion with him for more than an hour. It was on this occasion that Rizal
finally signed his retraction letter. Moreno confirmed that Rizal had visitors after dinner, but
the persons he identified were Sen or Andrade, Sen or Maure, and Frs. March and Vilaclara.
Again, Fr. Balaguer was not mentioned, and the time of the meeting was 9 o’clock and not
shortly before midnight. Neither did Moreno’s report mention that they discussed issues
concerning faith and the retraction. The narrative is short and ends with Rizal going to bed.
Rizal wanted to empha- size that Philippine Masonry was not hostile to Catholicism
and that Masonry in London did not require its members to renounce their faith. The Jesuits
allowed Rizal to revise the retraction template, and his final version read, “I abominate
Masonry as the enemy of the Church and reprobated by the same Church” (Cavanna 1956,
9). After making other minor changes to the draft, Rizal signed his retraction letter before
midnight. Fr. Balaguer handed it over to Fr. Pi, who in turn submitted it to Archbishop
Bernardino Nozaleda (Guerrero 1971, 459).
According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, 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
Perspective:
So for the perspective, Dr. Jose Rizal is a patriot and the one who wrote the Noli me
tangere and el filibusterimo and his essay towards La Solidaridad. His essays criticize not the
catholic religion, but the friars, the main agents of inequality in the Philippine society. Dr. Jose
P. Rizal became a hero because of his writings against the Spanish colonists ideas and that
he wanted to aspire the Filipinos to open their minds and build the country as one great
nation.

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 have been written by Rizal himself. I am sending it to you
that you may verify whether it might be of Rizal himself. " Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn
statement.

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 Archbisho." 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.
 Application – Let’s Apply

Direction: Give at least five (5) ideas of Rizal, together with the text which it can be found,
that are critical to the Catholic Church.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Let’s Check for Understanding

1. Give the opposing claims in the retraction of Rizal.

________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Let’s Reflect
Double Entry Journal
Two things I learned from this My thought/s or reaction/s
Chapter
 Based from the ideas of the historians you learned in this lesson, write a reflection
paper on how these ideas help you or will help you as a student and as a future
professional.

(Title of your Paper)

REFLECTION PAPER NO. 1

(Post-Test)

1. What is retraction?

2-3. Who are the two powerful groups involved in the debate about the retraction of Rizal?

4. The group of priests who attended Rizal before his death were from what congregation?

5. What are the demands of the priests as conditions for the retraction of Rizal?

REFERENCES

Primary Reference

- www.DepedCommons.Com

- Pallavi Talekau, Dr, Jyotremayee Nayak, Dr. S Harichandan 2019.

Reading in the Philippine History