Rationale

Philippine History viewed from the lens of selected primary sources in different periods,

analysis and interpretations. The course aims to expose students to different facets of Philippine

history through the lens of eyewitnesses. Students are expected to analyze the selected

readings contextually and in terms of content The end goal is to enable students to understand

and appreciate our rich past by deriving insights from those who were actually present at the

time of the event. The course analyzes Philippine history from multiple perspectives through the

lens of selected primary sources coming from various disciplines and of different genres.

Students are given opportunities to analyze the author's background and main

arguments, compare different points of view, identify biases and examine the evidences

presented in the document. History is unquestionably a valid way of viewing reality that is, the

present can be intelligible only with a knowledge of the past. Historical knowledge of the past

can illumine our understanding of the present. Conversely, knowledge of the present increases

our understanding of the past. The past can be understood only through an awareness of

present realities.

Traditionally, Filipino historians have concentrated on the writing of the general history of

the Filipino nation. Reputable practitioners of the craft of history in the Philippines have focused

their collective effort on Manila it being the colonial and national seat of the government, as well

as the commercial, cultural, and educational center of the colony and the nation. Related to this

bias for the metropolis has been the undue emphasis on the holders and wielders of power and

the writing of their respective biographies. Virtually no attention has been given to the day to day

affairs of ordinary men in history as they eked out a living in the provinces in their struggle for

survival. The explanation for the stress laid on national history, on national figures, and on
national cultural, social, political, and economic developments, may be attributed to our

deplorable ignorance of historical conditions in the Philippine countryside

In many countries in the world, the leader is almost chosen. Vladimir Putin of Russia, Xi

Jinping China, Nguyen Phu Trong of Vietnam and Donald Trump of the United States. In the

Philippines our national hero, Jose Rizal was not a man of war but a man of peace. The

Americans recommended Rizal because of the fact that he was executed by the Spaniards and

of his peaceful way to achieve liberty. But, there’s a retraction contoversy of 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.”

The other account stated that he 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. 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.

formula of retraction .Rizal still did not give up his reason. Balaguer himself admitted it, for,

when the formula of retraction from the Archbishop was supposed to arrive at 10:00 p.m., he

said that it "was not an opportune occasion, because even though the convict struggled with

himself inwardly, he was not yet defeated." 35' [With regards to the formula of the retraction. Fr.

Bataguer had only a copy of it, including forged signature, which was intended to be shown and

read to the military officers.) In his Letter to Fr. Pi in 1910. Fr. Balaguer said (after his religious

discussion with Rizal): ''Fie retired, and there was no further discussion. I saw clearly that he did

not profess the Catholic faith.” This shows clearly that he failed to convert Rizal to his medieval

type of Catholicism. Fr. Balaguer lied: he said Rizal took the medal of Mary but admitted that

Rizal did not profess the Catholic faith. (Vaño,1997)

(Fernandez, J.B) Whether or not Rizal retracted, he should still be held in highest

esteem by the Filipinos as their greatest patriot.

(Fiscal Castaño) Rizal did not sign the retraction copy. The copies of that retraction

were done by a forger and the Prayer Book came from the friars.

(Guerrero, Leon Ma., 1963).Rizal retracted, not because he surrendered his reason to

Fr. Balaguer one need not believe Fr. Balaguer's self-serving testimony, but because the

thought of death weakened the rationalist's resistance to the "Hounds of Heaven." After all, "the

way he died is not so important as the way he lived his life.

The matter of Rizal’s retraction is a very nebulous one. Many years have elapsed, and

the polemic on whether he did retract or was faithful to his convictions up to the last moment

remains unresolved.

There were not enough evidences to support the idea that he retracted. And his

retraction does not make any sense, at all. His death would mean nothing and he would be

considered as a coward if he did retract. He would not be our National Hero today. His works

will remain in the past.

The retraction document was said to be forgery. First of all there is the matter of the

handwriting. To date, the only scientific study criticizing the authenticity of the document was

made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University of the Philippines shortly after the document

was found. Having some of Rizal’s writings dating from the last half of December 1896 as his

“standard”, he notes a number of variations with the handwriting of the document, he further

concluded that it was a “one-man document” because of the similarities in several respects

between the body of the Retraction and the writing of all three signers: Rizal and the two

witnesses.

The authenticity of the document itself is based on the principles of textual criticism.

Several critics have noted differences between the text of the document found in 1935 and other

versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father Balaguer. To date, from the

morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting numerous minor variations, two

distinct forms of the text with significant differences with regards to the use of certain phrases

within the document. The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father Balaguer

or Father Pi made errors in preparing a copy of the original and these have been transmitted
from this earliest copy to others. Some have wondered if the Retraction Document was

fabricated from the “wrong” version of a retraction statement issued by the religious authorities.

The Retraction itself is that its content is in part strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic

Religion “I wish to live and die,” yet there was little time to live, and also Rizal’s claim that his

retraction was “spontaneous.” There is the “confession” of “the forger.” Antonio K. Abad tells

how on August 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija a certain

Roman Roque told how he was employed by the Friars earlier that same year to make several

copies of a retraction document.

The Retraction is the claim that other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of the

Retraction. Those most often referred to by writers as follows:

 The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even members of

the family did not see it. It was said to be “lost.”

 No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of the

Retraction.

 The usual rebuttal is that Rizal’s death was due to political factors and with this

the religious authorities could not interfere.

 Rizal’s burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco

cemetery; and the record of his burial was not placed on the page for entries of

Dec. 30th.

 There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with

Josephine Bracken.

 Rizal’s behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and during the

last 24 hours in particular does not point to a conversion.

Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the Philippines and a prominent Mason,

also argued that if Rizal retracted, it would have been a very drastic change of character in Rizal

which is very hard to believe knowing how mature and strong in his beliefs Rizal was. He called

the retraction story a "pious fraud.”

To conclude, whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers believe that the

retraction document was more of Rizal taking a moral courage to recognize his mistakes.

Perhaps it may be true that he retracted and reverted to his faith, but this does not diminish

Rizal’s stature as a great hero with such greatness. As mentioned the documentary entitled

“Ang Bayaning Third World”, Joel Torre’s impersonation of Rizal told the time travelers that

whether he retracted or not, it does change what he has already done and what his writings

have already achieved. Furthermore, Senator Jose Diokno once stated, "Surely whether Rizal

died as a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino...

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."
Reference List

Fernadez, J. B. (1995). Jose Rizal: filipino doctor and patriot.

Guerrero, L. M. (2010). The first Filipino: a biography of José Rizal. Manila: Guerrero

Publishing.

Ocampo, A. R. (2018). Rizal without the overcoat (1st ed.). Mandaluyong City,

Philippines: Anvil Publishing.

̃ Manolo O. (1997). The essential Rizal: patriot, thinker and believer: A college
Vano

textbook. Quezon City (Filipinas): Giraffe Books.

Did Rizal Retract?

http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Biography/man_and_martyr/chapter16.htm

Dr.Eugene A.Hessel. Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the Debate.

http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm

http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm

http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/

https://prezi.com/zmuk17h0joqq/chapter-1-introduction-to-the-study-of-rizals-life-works/

http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-rizals-retraction-controversy.html

https://www.biography.com/political-figure/jos%C3%A9-rizal

http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

https://www.scribd.com/doc/181351754/Rizal-Retraction-Controversy-docx

https://www.scribd.com/document/364528956/Rizal-s-Retraction