THE GREAT DEBATE:

THE RIZAL RETRACTION

By:
 I. Introduction

Rizal grew up and nurtured by a closely knit Catholic Family, was educated in the
foremost Catholic schools of the period from elementary, and to his Catholic Religion during
college levels and logically, therefore, he should been a propagator of strictly catholic
traditions. However in his later life, he developed a philosophy of different nature, a
philosophy of a different catholic practices intermingled with the use of wit or reason.

It’s maybe because of these religious philosophies why Rizal retracted in own his my
words, his writings, publications and conduct that had been contrary to his character as son
of the Catholic Church.

It is common historical knowledge that Ms. Josephine Bracken lived with Dr. Jose
Rizal for three of the four years when he was exiled in Dapitan. He truly loved her. They had
desired a canonical marriage but were presented with a pre-condition of retraction of Rizal’s
anti-ecclesiastical writings and beliefs. As we may know, he was never anti-God or anti-
church.

Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History , also believes that
Rizal retracted and said the National Hero just renounced from the Free Masonry and not
from his famous nationalistic works.

“He (Rizal) retracted. He died as a Catholic, and a proof that he died as a Catholic
was he was buried inside the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said De Viana, who
compared the martyr with Apolinario Mabini, a revolutionary and free mason who was buried
in a Chinese cemetery.

De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter had been forged because
witnesses were present while Rizal was signing it.

He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves on to the question on Rizal’s
character as some argue that the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature beliefs and
personality.
 “Anti-retractionists ask, ‘What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?’ They say he was fickle-
minded. Well, that may be true, but that is human character. Rizal was not a perfect person,”
De Viana said.

He also mentioned that just like any person, Rizal was prone to flip-flop. He believes
that Rizal retracted because the national hero wanted to be at peace when he dies.

But would Rizal’s works deem irrelevant and futile because of his retraction?

De Viana answered, “Rizal awakened our knowledge of nationalism. For me, that is
enough. The issue will not invalidate his works in any way.”
 II. Position Paper
A. Retraction of Rizal: Eyewitnesses, Testimonies and Documents

The question “Did Rizal retract?” should have been settled by great historians before.
Since we cannot get the direct statement from Rizal himself, allow us to at least attempt to
settle this argument by presenting documents and evidences that will favor our side.

On December 26, 1896, Rizal was accused and tried before the military tribunal for
the alleged crimes of rebellion, sedition, and illegal association. The prosecutor and the
defense finished presenting their arguments that morning and the sentence of death was
pronounced that same morning. Two days after on December 28, the Governor General
affirmed the death sentence and set the execution of Rizal on December 30, at 7:00 o’clock in
the morning. The death sentence was read to Rizal early in the morning of December 29.

The last 24 hours of his stay at Fort Santiago was the most intriguing part of Rizal’s
life. What actually happened inside the fort from December 29 to 6:30 in the morning of the
December 30, 1896 is the main issue before us.

The arguments on the retraction of Rizal revolve around the validity of his confession
prior to his execution.

“I declare myself a Catholic and 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, publications,
and conduct has been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church.” This was
clearly written by Rizal in his Retraction paper dated December 29, 1896.

Did Rizal Retract? YES.

Our side will be proven by the following facts: first, the testimonies of the witnesses
present during the retraction, second, the authenticity of the Retraction letter and third by the
published newspaper during the period.

In the notarized testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, he stated that on December

29, 1896 he was actually there, had a conversation with Rizal and was able to convince him
to retract. As stated by Father Balaguer, after their conversation when Rizal asked of a
formula for retraction he went to Ateneo and asked the formula of the Prelate. When he
returned back at Fort Santiago he gave the formula of the Prelate to Rizal. However since
Rizal wanted to write his retraction in his own style, he rejected the formula given and Father
Balaguer gave him the shorter and more concise formula of Father Pi. With some
addition/changes to Father Pi’s formula, in his own style Rizal wrote his retraction.

In his statement, finally father Balaguer declared and affirmed that little before Rizal
came out of the chapel, he left Rizal in the company of Josephine Bracken and Rizal’s sister.
When he departed he was bringing with him Rizal’s own handwritten retraction signed by
Rizal himself and by witnesses. Before Rizal reached Bagumbayan, he went to Ateneo and
delivered the document to Father Pio Pi, who that very day brought it to the palace and
handed it to Archbishop Nozaleda. Father Nozaleda entrusted it to his Secretary and was kept
in Secretary’s office in the chest of reserved documents.

Aside from this, notarized statements by other eyewitnesses testifying that Rizal did
actually retract. Here are the excerpts taken from their sworn testimonies.

Captain Rafael Dominguez Y Garcia, Colonel of Manila Garrison and Judge Advocate
in Rizal’s trial, on duty to watch over the convict all the time he was in the chapel.

“He sits down to write. The fathers accompany him. At about twelve o’clock, he
makes his confession to Fr. Vilaclara. Once finished, accompanied by Fathers, the officers of
the Picket, two others officers and myself, he kneels down the altar and those who are present
kneels too. He reads in a clear and serene voice the declaration which was signed by him.”

Lieutenant Mariano Martinez Gallegos, on military duty at Fort Santiago on December

29 and 30, 1896.
“I on the other hand, could see and hear the greater part of the facts that happened
within the last twenty-four hours of Doctor Rizal, and I resolutely state that I witnessed his
conversation to the Catholic faith and the clear testimony he gave of it.”

Reverend Luis Viza Y Marti, S.J. the priest who brought to Rizal the statuette of the
sacred heart of Jesus which became a providential instrument of God’s grace in the
conversion of Rizal.
“Afterwards he stood up, and on his knees, he read aloud and in a clear voice, his
retraction…As I have said, I witnessed the act of writing the retraction.”
Very Reverend Pio Pi Y Vidal, S.J., Superior of the Jesuits in the Philippines, who
composed the formula of Rizal’s retraction and profession of faith.

“Not satisfied with signing so explicit an abjuration, Rizal himself, without pressure
from everyone, took into his own hands his own document and knelt down before the altar
chapel. Aloud, and slowly, and even with a certain solemnity, he read his own retraction.”

Other qualified witnesses are Lieutenant Juan del Fresno del Amo, Chief of the
Picket, and Lieutenant Eloy Moure Y Gomez, Adjutant of the Plaza, the official witnesses
of the handwritten retraction and profession of faith of Dr. Jose Rizal.

Another evidence to prove Rizal’s retraction is the testimony of the press. On

December 30, 1896 the same day Rizal was executed are seven newspapers that published
news about the conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal and his own handwritten retraction of errors and
profession of catholic. The Diario De Manila, La Voz Espaola, El Espaǹol, El Comercio, La
Oceana Espaǹola, El Imparcial and Heraldo De Madrid all these newspaper published a copy
of the text of Rizal’s retraction, some claiming to have actually seen and read Rizal’s own
handwritten retraction. With this, it is truly reasonable to give credit to the voice of Press.

Since Rizal’s Retraction Paper was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia in 1935, its
content has become a favourite subject of argument. The letter dated December 29, 1896, was
said to have been signed by the national hero himself. This argument directed against the
authenticity of the document itself.
Father Manuel Garcia was appointed archdiocesan archivist in April 1935. In his
statement, he said that on May 18, 1935 he discovered Rizal’s Retraction letter in a fire-proof
vault at the Archbishop’s House and Office.

As described by Prof. Ricardo Pascual, the the document is written in a double sheet
catalan paper, measuring 32 centimeters long and 22 centimeters wide. The edge except that
on which the double sheet is folded, shows irregularity, slight tear, and slight soiling and
crumping. In color the paper shows but slight tint of yellow. About the upper left document
and on the letter “C” of the “Creo” are wholes bored by bookworms the middle of the
document there is a lengthwise folding made in such a way as to place the writing within the
fold. The paper bears watermark of “Hijo deJover y Serra” continuously marked across the
two leaves. Above this watermark is a trademark of a scale with three stars below all inclosed
with a loop that appears like ribbon. Below this trademark is also a loop within which are
number “2” and small type capital ”A” forming the sign of 2”A”, perhaps to designate the
type of paper. Later on, Prof. Pascual makes this acknowledgement, “Certainly, these
physical conditions are genuine marks of “authenticity as to the age” of the paper.

As to the authenticity of the content, Prof. H. Otley Beyer, Professor of Anthropology,

in the University of the Philippines and curator of the UP museum of archaeology also a
recognized handwriting expert was requested to examine the Rizal retraction document
whether or not it was genuine.

In a tape recorded speech of Prof. Beyer during the Symposium at the University of
the Philippines in Diliman in 1950, he said that in his 30-40 years of examining handwriting
documents there is no slightest doubt that every word on the sheet was written by Dr.Jose
Rizal. Dr. Jose I. del Rosario, another handwriting expert, after examining Rizal’s Retraction
paper, comparing it with other documents, manuscripts and numerous letter written by Rizal
he had this statement,” In honesty, I do not find anything in Dr Rizal’s retraction which does
not proclaim that the retraction is in fact and in truth of the authentic and genuine handwriting
of Dr. Jose Rizal. Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of the UST’s Department of History said that
it is impossible that the retraction paper had been forged because witnesses were present
while Rizal was signing it.

And those who also affirm the authenticity of Rizal’s retraction are prominent
historians such as Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra, Leon Maria Guerero lll, Gregorio
Zaide,Guillermo Gomez Rivera, Ambeth Ocampo, John Schumacher, Antonio Molina, Paul
Dumol and Austin Craig. They take the retraction as authentic having been examined by the
handwriting expertsrecognized in our court of justice.

III. THE DEBATE continues.

Since Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935,
its content has become a favorite subject of dispute among academicians and Catholics. The
letter, dated December 29, 1896, was said to have been signed by the National Hero himself.
 It stated: “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,
publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church.”

The controversy whether the National Hero 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.

History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by
Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his
execution in Bagumbayan. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was
lengthy.

According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who

befriended the hero during his exile in Dapitan, 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.

“Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was purchased by
the Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de
Manila,” showed some interesting points about the retraction, said Jose Victor Torres,
professor at the History department of the De La Salle University.

Popularly known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de
Manila is a body of documents on the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential
reports, transcripts, clippings, and photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers.

Despite this, Torres said his perception of the Filipino martyr would not change even
if the controversies were true.

“Even though it would be easy to say he retracted all that he wrote about the Church,
it still did not change the fact that his writings began the wheels of change in Philippine
colonial society during the Spanish period—a change that led to our independence,” Torres
said. “The retraction is just one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Rizal.”

But then, Torres noted that the controversy is irrelevant today.

“The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means nothing,” he said.

Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra considered the controversy as “a plain unadorned fact
of history, having all the marks and indications of historical certainty and reality” in his book
The Historicity of Rizal’s Retraction.

IV. Conclusion:

Rizal’s retraction letter is one of the popular controversies about our national hero.
Two different groups expressed their opinions and views with regards to the issue and
many evidences were presented to support their claims. But as we read several books
and readings, we made our corrections that Rizal’s retraction is a fact based on the
following reasons.

A. Prominent Filipino historians like Nicolas Zafra , Nick Joaquin, Leon Guerero,
Ambeth Ocampo, etc. take the retraction letter as authentic since famous
handwriting experts like Teodoro Kalaw, Dr. Jose I. del Rosario, and Prof. Beyer
that recognized the letter as true.
B. Historians collected 14 eyewitnesses who could testify that Rizal wrote the
retraction letter and seven qualified eyewitnesses including his brothers, sisters
and wife’s testimonies that could give indirect proofs that Rizal made the
retraction letter.
C. Rizal submitted himself in a confession, signed a catholic prayer, recited. Catholic
prayers and many witnesses saw him kiss the crucifix before his execution. All of
these strengthened the fact that Rizal returned back to the arms of catholic Church.
D. He retracted and died as catholic and renounced from free masonry but nit from
the nationalistic books. Evidence presented could affect and question the character
of Rizal as hero but we could not deny the fact that because of Rizal’s works and
writings Filipinos awakened their nationalism and eventually we are enjoying the
freedom he dreamed for his country.
 In the end, whether Rizal retracted or not, it is our free will as free human being, and
free Filipino people who can actually conclude whether he retracted or not. It is our
conscience that can dictate which is the truth or a fabrication. But one question sticks to the
mind, since he was warned that there is no redemption outside the Roman Catholic church,
we might be thinking that out of his respect to the Catholic Church he did retract through
documents, witnesses and testimonies, but his heart is not a piece of paper. Only Rizal knows
the real truth. Indeed, the dead cannot tell tales anymore.