THE CAVITE MUTINY - Position Paper

THE
CAVITE
MUTINY
GROUP 2
Members:
Facinabao, Marianne
Gumban, Ashley
Lagamo, Charles
Buhia, Aires
Bierneza, Junho
Kikay, Yshmia
Arnaiz, Prince
Demetillo, Rey
Introduction
In 1872, two pivotal events in Philippine history ignited a controversy that
continues to shape the nation's understanding of its colonial past: the Cavite Mutiny
and the martyrdom of the three Filipino priests, collectively known as GOMBURZA.
These incidents not only fueled Filipino nationalism but also left behind conflicting
narratives regarding their causes and significance. Filipino perspectives viewed it as
a reaction to oppressive policies under Spanish governance while Spanish accounts
often framed the mutiny as a large-scale rebellion threatening colonial rule. This
divergence of interpretations underscores the tension between colonial powers and
the local populace, raising important questions about historical accuracy and the
legacy of resistance against colonial rule. As such, the Cavite Mutiny remains a topic
of debate, with its portrayal varying based on the perspective of those recounting the
events.
Sides and/or Evidences
For a simple overview, according to Britannica, the Cavite Mutiny (January 20,
1872) was emphasized as a temporary rebellion of 200 Filipino soldiers and
employees at the Cavite Arsenal that served as a justification for Spanish
persecution of the fledgling Philippine nationalist movement. Ironically, the Spanish
government' violent retaliation ultimately aided the nationalist cause. Moreover, the
rebellion was promptly put down, but the Spanish authorities, led by reactionary
Governor Rafael de Izquierdo, exaggerated the episode and used it as a reason to
crackdown on Filipinos who were pushing for reform. Several Filipino intellectuals
were apprehended and charged with collaborating with the mutineers. However, in
the year 1872, two big events occurred which were the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the
martyrdom of the three martyr priests who were consists of Father Mariano Gomes,
Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA).Three priests, José Burgos,
Jacinto Zamora, and Mariano Gómez, were publicly executed after a brief trial.
Following that, the three became martyrs in the fight for Philippine independence.
SPANISH ACCOUNTS OF THE CAVITE MUNITY
The documentation of Spanish historian centred on Jose Montero y Vidal how
the event was event was an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in the
Philippines. Although regarded as a historian, his account of the mutiny was
criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a scholar. Another account from the official
report written by the Governor General Rafael Izquierdo implicated the native clergy,
who were then, active in the movement toward secularization of parishes. These two
accounts corroborated each other.
The primary source excerpts from Montero’s Account of the Cavity Mutiny,
Jose Montero Y Vidal, and “Spanish Version of the Cavity Mutiny of 1872,” in
Gregoria Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History.

Primary sources excerpts from the official repost of Governor Izquierdo on the
Cavite Mutiny of 1872, Rafael Izquierdo, “Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny,” in
Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,
Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 281-286.

FILIPINO ACCOUNTS OF THE CAVITE MUNITY
Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo De Tavera who wrote a Filipino version of
the bloody incident in Cavite. Primary source excerpt from Pardo De Tavera’s
account of the Cavite Mutiny in Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, “Filipino Version of Cavite
Mutiny,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine
History, Volume 7 (Manila; National Book Store, 1990),274—280.

Primary source excerpts from Plauchut’s account of the Cavite Mutiny,
Edmund Plauchut, “The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za,”
in the Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,

Different accounts in the Cavite mutiny also highlighted other probable causes
of the "revolution" which include the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular
throne, dirty propaganda proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and
republican books and pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the
presence of the native clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars,
"conspired and supported" the rebels and enemies of Spain. In addition, accounts of
the mutiny suggest that the Spanish Revolution in Spain during that time added more
determination to the natives to overthrow the current colonial Spanish government.
The Stand
Positive Stand
From the Spanish accounts, the Cavite Mutiny is portrayed as a large-scale,
organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing the colonial government, which justified
the execution of nationalist figures like Gomburza. These accounts suggest that the
mutiny was part of a broader plot for independence, giving the Spanish government
reason to suppress dissent.
Negative Stand
This stand opposes to the perspective of Dr. Trinidad H. Pardo e Tavera, the
Filipino side and treats the Cavite Mutiny as a Grand Conspiracy siding to Jose
Montero y Vidal's Spanish perspective. We must look into the bigger side of the
controversy and not solely focus on the argument of the Filipino side that the Mutiny
was just a labor issue and nothing more. The time of the colonization of Spain, or
rather the time of the past, was filled with outside factors and the truth is not
completely out in the open. The Spanish perspective responded in a rightful way in
its own because of how power is run back then, and any threat should be eliminated
immediately. The focus of labor issue as the main reason for the Cavite Mutiny,
which led to the execution of GOMBURZA lacks specific information and is a weak
argument.
Final Stand
After examining both perspectives, the flaws in the Spanish narrative become
apparent, particularly in their overemphasis on a broader nationalist conspiracy
without strong evidence. The Cavite Mutiny was more likely a localized, labor-driven
uprising, not an orchestrated rebellion, as the colonial authorities claimed.

References
Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,
Piedad-Pugay, C.A. (2012). The two faces of the 1872 Cavite mutiny. Retrieved
from http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (1998, July 20). Cavite Mutiny |
Summary, importance, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Cavite-Mutiny

THE CAVITE MUTINY - Position Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CAVITE MUTINY - Position Paper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE CAVITE MUTINY - Position Paper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE

In 1872, two pivotal events in Philippine history ignited a controversy that

narratives regarding their causes and significance. Filipino perspectives viewed it as

a reaction to oppressive policies under Spanish governance while Spanish accounts

divergence of interpretations underscores the tension between colonial powers and

Sides and/or Evidences

1872) was emphasized as a temporary rebellion of 200 Filipino soldiers and

employees at the Cavite Arsenal that served as a justification for Spanish

persecution of the fledgling Philippine nationalist movement. Ironically, the Spanish

Governor Rafael de Izquierdo, exaggerated the episode and used it as a reason to

Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA).Three priests, José Burgos,

SPANISH ACCOUNTS OF THE CAVITE MUNITY

The documentation of Spanish historian centred on Jose Montero y Vidal how

Philippines. Although regarded as a historian, his account of the mutiny was

accounts corroborated each other.

Gregoria Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History.

Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,

Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 281-286.

Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo De Tavera who wrote a Filipino version of

Mutiny,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine

History, Volume 7 (Manila; National Book Store, 1990),274—280.

Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 251-268.

throne, dirty propaganda proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and

determination to the natives to overthrow the current colonial Spanish government.

From the Spanish accounts, the Cavite Mutiny is portrayed as a large-scale,

organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing the colonial government, which justified

reason to suppress dissent.

apparent, particularly in their overemphasis on a broader nationalist conspiracy

uprising, not an orchestrated rebellion, as the colonial authorities claimed.

Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,

Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 251-268.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (1998, July 20). Cavite Mutiny |

Summary, importance, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica.

You might also like