Republic of the Philippines

EASTERN VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY

CASE ANALYSIS

Submitted to:

DR. RODEL B. PONFERRADA

Submitted by:
DIANALYN M. DELGADO
BS Chemical Engineering – 2A
 RIZAL’S RETRACTION

Introduction

The retraction paper that Rizal signed or not was undying issue. Until

now, this issue is unsettle. They believe that the signature of Rizal has been

forged by someone. Even the family of Rizal was shocked that he made a

retraction signed it, particularly his sister Trinidad. In earlier studies of the

retraction paper. Most of the expert believe that, Rizal wrote it and signed

the retraction paper in order for him to marry Josephine Bracken and be

solemnized by a priest. Fr. Vicente Balaguer solemnized the marriage but it

was under question because Josephine Bracken can’t present a marriage

contract.
Conflict or Argument

The said retraction paper was made in order for Rizal to become a

Catholic and left the masonry. The Jesuits persuaded Rizal to sign the

retraction paper, in returned to solemnize their marriage with Josephine

Bracken. Ever since Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan together with her

blind father to obtain a surgical service from Rizal. They become a lovers.

And lived together with Rizal as a husband and wife. However, these two

lovers did not receive the sacrament of marriage because Rizal didn’t want

to renounce his writings and works that against the church. They can only

attain their marriage if Rizal retracted. But still it was absurd, signing a

retraction paper in order to marry Josephine Bracken. Rizal fought for his

country and now he will take it back just for a girl. It is so silly.

According to the movie Bayaning 3rd World, Fr. Vicente Balaguer

proclaim himself that he was also a witness that Rizal signed the retraction

paper and became a Catholic again. Fr. Vicente Balaguer said that he was

able to persuade Rizal to sign the retraction paper together with the Jesuits

priests.
 Many expert believe that Rizal made a retraction paper, it is believe

that the retraction was genuine but the signature was fake. It is also

questionable that he really made retraction or not. It is also been said that the

retraction was lost. Apparently three copies of retraction paper appeared.

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.

Fr. Vicente Balaguer said that he had the “exact” copy of the retraction

which Rizal made. He sent it to his superior Fr. Pio Pi to verify the

retraction. It also happen that Fr. Pio Pi has a copy of retraction paper which

is the same with Fr. Vicente Balaguer 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.

The significant differences between the "original" and the Manila

newspapers texts of the retraction on the one hand and the texts of the copies

of Fr. Balaguer and Fr. Pio Pi on the other hand. As follows:

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 he

made no mention of the witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses signed

the retraction.

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 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.

Conclusion or Reaction

I believe that the retraction paper was fake, Rizal did not make it. It is

only for welfare or the interest of the church. It is only a scene that Rizal
became a catholic again. We can’t change the fact that Rizal really oppose

the activities of the church. We can see this through his works. He bravely

told the wrong doings of the church throughout the world. Even though his

life might be endangered. And also, even Rizal made a retraction paper, I

believe that he did not signed it. The signature was been forged. I remember

that Rizal was ready to die at the age of thirty years old. It means that he

knew, that he might die of what his doing. He has this urge to fight his

country through the last breath of his life. It is an absurd idea that Rizal

signed or made the retraction paper just to marry Josephine Bracken. Before

he met Josephine Bracken. Rizal made a several relationships throughout the

world. But none of those girl, he seriously take in. Because he was so

determined to fought the injustice of the Spaniards to our country, and also

to attain our freedom from the Spaniards. I remember when Rizal propose to

Adelina Boustead, but he need to convert his religion to protestante in order

for him to marry Adelina Boustead. As expected, Rizal refuse it. Because he

stand for what he believe. So in the same manner, Rizal did not signed the

retraction paper for Josephine Bracken. If he signed it, his time, works and

what he have done to our country will be wasted just for this girl. We all

know that Rizal love our motherland all throughout his heart and we can’t

deny it.