The (Not) Ultimo Adios: Rizal’s Retraction

Letter
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title of the Case Point

I. Introduction
II. Issues/Controversies of the Historical Event
III. Testimonies/Evidences About the Event
IV. Conclusion (Generalization)
V. References
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

“Dying people don't need medicine, the ones who remain do.”
― José Rizal, Noli Me Tangere (Touch Me Not)

On the faithful day of 30th of December of 1986, a dignified

man who have been a very vital to forging Filipinos’ acrimony into
fighting fists against the chokehold the Spaniards have had on our
country for over 300 years, was executed in Bagumbayan (now
called Luneta, Manila) to the most noble crime of all: dying for the
cause of his Motherland.
The Philippines is known in history as the country that
waged the first anti-colonial revolution in Asia, which it did from
1896 to 1898. Other Asian countries declared their independence
either before or after World War II. The Philippine Revolution
was a long process, and its success may be attributed not to one
person alone but to many individuals who fought heroically
against the Spaniards (Escalante, 2019). But as all worthy battle,
our independence is one fought tooth and nail by our valiant
ancestors. Jose Protacio Rizal y Alonso Realonda or also known as
Dr. Jose Rizal being one its major corroborator by spending his
life enlightening the minds and hearts alike of the will-be
battlefield heroes of the long-yearn independence from the
colonial government through his writings and other selfless
sacrifices throughout his life.
Seeing as how all great epics must come to an end, it should
be expected that we let the dead remain dead and put on to rest.
However, one Friar Manuel Garcia in 1935 found a “document”
ninety-nine years after the patriot’s death that allegedly proves
that he retracted his membership to the masonry—a known
common enemy of the Catholic church at the time before his
execution, among other statements from the men of law and
relatives he interacted with on the same day.
This paper endeavors to meticulously investigate the
authenticity and legitimacy of each claim of whether Dr. Jose P.
Rizal disassociated himself to the masonry to join the Catholic
church and if he truly did, expectantly find out what would be the
most probable causes of his drastic, last-minute actions which
most historians believe to be uncharacteristic of the fabled man.
And the most significant question above all else, “What does his
suspected retraction implies to him as our National Hero?”
 CHAPTER II
ISSUES/CONTROVERSIES ABOUT THE HISTORICAL EVENT

“Salaysay na may saysay para sa sinalaysayang grupo ng tao,”

– Zues A. Salazar (on his definition of history)

i. “The document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia”

“I have to believe much in God because I have lost my faith in
man.”
― José Rizal, Noli Me Tángere (Touch Me Not)
The most extensive research about the infamous document
was made by Ricardo Roque Pascual. Given that historians are
still in argument with its legitimacy, he devoted chapters per
chapters to investigate to compare it to Rizal’s former
handwritten works, physical condition of the document when it
was found, even the slanted handwriting of Rizal amongst other
aspects to be considered. However, he clarified from the very
beginning of his book that even the Director of the National
Library was deceived by hearsays.

ii. “Inconsistency of Jesuits Claim”

“The credibility of a historian then rests not in being neutral but
in his capacity to be fair despite taking a stand. Because it can
also be right that one has the tendency to be rabid about politics
and lose all credibility.”
-Xiao Chua, “Walking History: History, sense and
identity” (a column published on Manila Times,
October 11, 2021)

According to Father Balaguer’s “Act of Faith Hope and

Charity”, on the night before Rizal’s execution at ten in the
evening, Jesuits exerted much effort into bringing back Rizal to
the Catholic Church (Echalar, Bustillo, and Gange, 2020). It is
said that the man of faith gave him the formula to retract but
seeing that it’s far too late and the paper is too long, Rizal refused
to put his alleged retraction on ink. However, Rizal suggested that
Father Balaguer instead write for him and he will dictate the
contents of the said document. This sketchy circumstance led to
many doubts about the authenticity of the retraction paper.
In lieu to this, if the Jesuits claim is loophole-free, why did
that another document appeared out of nowhere 39 years later
that according to them is the legitimate retraction paper of Rizal
that matches with his handwriting. It directly disputes to the
clergyman’s earlier claim. Which brings us the another issue:

iii. “Biased Investigation”

“In the Philippines you are not considered to be honorable unless
you have been to jail.”
― José Rizal, Noli Me Tángere (Touch Me Not)

Another evidence that the Catholic church adopt is

eyewitness. When the controversy exploded that even some
international news agencies receive it, many eyewitnesses faced
by the church appeared and stake their claims.

iv. “Marriage with Josephine Bracken”

“A lie among the stars
Is a comfortable lie.”
― José Rizal, El Filibusterismo

One of the main evidence used by Jesuits to prove Rizal’s

retraction is his marriage to Josephine Bracken, one of his lovers
during his exile on Dapitan. In order for him to their holy
matrimony to be legitimate, Rizal have to give up his Protestant
label and swear allegiance to the Catholic faith. Father Balaguer,
the same man who ghostwritten his retraction paper married Jose
and Josephine, after Jose had signed the retraction paper,
however, there were no marriage certificate or public record
shown that could prove Father Balaguer’s statements. Fr. Vicente
Balaguer claimed that he performed the canonical marriage
between 6:00–6:15 AM of December 30, 1896 in the presence of
one of the Rizal sisters. The Rizal family denied that any of the
Rizal sisters were there that fateful morning. Dr. Jose Rizal was
martyred at 7:03 AM yet nobody had reported seeing Ms.
Josephine Bracken in the vicinity of Fort Santiago in the morning
of the execution. Also it is important to note that Dr. Jose Rizal
wrote a short and final note to his parents dated December 30,
1896 at 6:00 in the morning, with no mention of an occurred or
intended retraction and marriage (Echalar, Bustillo, and Gange
 v. “The retraction is ‘forced’ upon him”
“We must win when we deserve it, by elevating reason and
the dignity of the individual, loving justice and the good and the
great, even dying for it.”
― José Rizal, El Filibusterismo

The infamous document that is the imperative evidence of

Rizal’s retraction found by the archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia 39
years after his death is said to be forced upon him and therefore
discredits the whole notion.
It is also argued that Rizal retracted to save his family and
ensure Josephine Bracken’s safety from the Spanish government.
following his impending demise.

Position Paper 2: Retraction of

Rizal
The affirmative side of the
debate claims that there was a
retraction while the
negative side claims that there
was no retraction happened.
Retraction refers to the
withdrawals
of a statement or an accusation
regarding an individual or
group. In the debate, it talks
about
whether Jose Rizal retracted or
withdrew his statements or
accusations against the
oppressors.
The first speaker for the
affirmative side presented their
primary source which is the
testimony of
Father Vicente Balaguer. It
is stated in the testimony
that Father Vicente
Balaguer was
responsible in convincing Jose
Rizal in signing the retraction
paper wherein in the letter, it is
stated in there that he is
retracting most of his statements
regarding the oppressors. On
the other
hand, the first speaker for the
negative side based his claims
on the two novels of Jose Rizal
namely: Noli Me Tangere and
El Filibusterismo. Both novels
were against the oppressors.
The
speaker also stated that the
retraction could break the image
of Jose Rizal. The teachings and
lessons of Jose Rizal that he
wanted to show to the Filipino
people could also be ruined
however,
this argument is not that strong
to prove that there was no
retraction that happened during
that
time. The second speaker for
the affirmative side based his
arguments to the Jesuits
versions. The
speaker mentioned that
during the days of Jose
Rizal in prison and
execution day, it was
controversy that local and
foreign newspaper were
enthusiastic and updated with
the events.
Local newspapers like La
Voz Espanola, El Comercio
and El Espanol, as well as
foreign
ewspapers like El Siglo Futuro,
Heraldo de Madrid and El
Imparcial published the
retraction of
Jose Rizal. The argument was
also supported with the fact the
Jesuits priest that always visited
Jose Rizal in prison actually
witnessed the retraction. Two
illustrations were also presented
to
support the argument. The first
illustration is the original copy
of the retraction of Jose Rizal
and
the second is the translation
saying that Rizal was retracting
all his statement and
accusations he
has made with the oppressors
and also claimed that he is a
catholic. While the second
speaker for
the negative side claimed
that the retraction letter
was retrieved after 39
years of Rizal’s
execution. The speaker
mentioned that the original copy
was different among the other
copies
that was spread. In this case
there was a hidden agenda
which the speaker concluded
the Spanish
friars or the Catholic Church
were responsible for it because
Rizal has been targeting them
with
his works. Though these
accusations were not verified,
the speaker was not able to
justify his
point he wanted to argue that
after 39 years, the retraction
letter was retrieved. To sum up,
Jose
Rizal retracted his statements or
accusations to the oppressors.
The debate was not able to
finish
however, 2 arguments for the
affirmative side and 2
arguments for the negative side
as well were
presented. In my opinion, the
affirmative side has been able
to present their arguments and
claims clearly with factual
information and evidences. To
end this position paper, I
support the
affirmative side thus, there was
really a retraction for Jose Rizal
that happene
 CHAPTER IV
TESTIMONIES/EVIDENCES ABOUT THE EVENT

Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining

in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact
(1989 Revised Rules on Evidence). There are five general rules of
evidence that need to be followed in order for evidence to be
useful. Ignoring these rules makes evidence inadmissible, and
your case could be thrown out. These five rules are—admissible,
authentic, complete, reliable, and believable (Mahallik, Tamma,
and Bommisetty 2014).

i. “The document found by Fr. Manuel Garcia”

According to National Historical Commission of the
Philippines (NHCP), Fr. Pio Pi reported that the document itself
isn’t authentic because when it was reproduced verbatim and
published in Spain, also that the document that was being found
by Fr. Manuel Garcia is also a copied form.
The quotation made by many zealous writers to the effect
that the Director of the National Library pronounced the
docucment as "authentic, definite, and final"- an exaggeration,
two points over the fact, made by the over-enthusiasts-is beyond
logical tolerance, if it is designed to be offered as proof. This
practice is strictly unscientific, indefinite, and logically fallacious
and in all appearances without factual proofs (Pascual 1935). This
are the very words of the man himself to Pascual’s inquiry:
My Dear Mr. Pascual: Referring to your letter of July 25,
1935, please be informed that in my interview with Mr.
 Carlos P. Romulo, I told him, as a mere opinion, that it was
my belief that the document purporting to be Rizal's
retraction from Masonry was authentic, but I did not say
that it was definite and final for I am not an authority on
handwriting.

ii. Incosistency of the Jesuits Claim

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 (Hessel, 2011).
 iii. Biased Investigation
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. A
number of them reported that he had denounced his Masonic
beliefs and re-professed his Catholic faith. Some even reprinted
the retraction letter that he wrote, in order to prove that he did
indeed die a Catholic. They also mentioned the Jesuit priests and
other colonial officials who witnessed this controversial act by
Rizal. The local newspapers that reported the retraction were La
Voz Española, El Español, El Comercio, and La Oceania
Española. The news correspondents of La Voz Española even
claimed to “have seen and read his own handwritten retraction”
(Cavanna 1956, 2). The Spain-based newspapers and magazines
that covered the retraction were El Imparcial, Heraldo de
Madrid, and El Siglo Futuro. They based their narrative on the
testimonies of the Jesuits and other colonial officials who visited
and talked to Rizal the day before he was executed (Escalante,
2019).

iv. “Marriage with Josephine Bracken”

The Rizal family did not accept the retraction and the
marriage. They knew that that if he had retracted, he would
certainly have said so in his 6a.m. communication to his mother
on the fateful day of his execution.
 Balaguer’s account exposed itself through major
discrepancies in his story. His claim of marrying Rizal and
Josephine was totally belied by the facts.

In his account, Balaguer was totally unaware that Rizal had

written “Mi Último Adiós” on the eve of his execution. Balaguer
allowed no time for Rizal to write the poem. The poem in its third
stanza carries the exact date and time when it was written.

In his claim of having performed the canonical marriage of

Rizal and Josephine, Balaguer said he performed it in front of one
of Rizal’s sisters between 6 and 6:25 a.m. on December 30. But
none of Rizal’s sisters went to the fort that morning.

For all these contradictions and falsehoods in Balaguer’s

story, the church nevertheless adopted the lie. And some
Filipinos, including Rizal’s biographer Leon Maria Guerrero,
believed that Rizal had retracted (Makabenta, 2018).

Besides in his last poem “Mi Ultimo Adios” if Rizal really was
married to Josephine Bracken why he did only stated her as a
sweet stranger? And didn’t write as his sweet wife? (Echalar,
Bustillo, and Gange, 2020).
 v. “The retraction is ‘forced’ upon him”
On the very words of Wenceslao Retana, the one wrote the
first published biography of Rizal:
"Early in the morning of December 29, Judge
Dominguez went to Fort Santiago to communicate
officially to Rizal the sentence arrived at in the trial.
The secretary read the entire death sentence, the
instruction of the Auditor, Pefia, and the approval of
General Polavieja. Rizal, having understood and
'protesting against what has just been read to him,'
signed, as a previous requirement, at the bottom of the
judicial diligence."
Furthermore, way back when Rizal was still exiled in
Dapitan, Father Sanchez- Rizal’s favorite teacher from Ateneo-
was sent by the Jesuits superiors to try to convince his former
student’s allegation towards the Catholic religion and the Spanish
religious in the Philippines. Father Sanchez told him to retract in
exchange of a professorship, a hundred pesos and an estate
(Lebauch, 1936) however, Rizal rejected the offer.
 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION (GENERALIZATION)

“Would that I could die, reduce myself to nothing, leave a

glorious name to my country, die in the cause of defending it
against a foreign invasion and afterwards the sun will shine on
my body like a permanent sentinel in these ocean rocks!”
― José Rizal, El Filibusterismo

In conclusion, Rizal was fixated of the thought that he would

die for the love of his country.
The document itself is of great impact to the issue because it
is tangible compared to other evidences presented; and yes there
were allegation that it was being copied or reproduced but if it is
being reproduced it has a great possibility that there is actually a
document that exists about his retraction. In simpler words, the
document was being reproduced, and because of that
reproduction it created conflict about the authenticity of the
document.
If in the near future, the document is irrefutably proven to be
existing and is authentic, our next question will be why did he
write it? Only Rizal can answer that, and he left no other clues
except for the papers he left in his clothes and shoes all
deteriorated when his corpse was exhumed years later.
Rizal’s retraction is not parallel to how he lived his life.
Therefore, it is a non-issue that should be left to the experts and is
only good for historical accuracy and nothing else. Rizal retracted
religious errors, the document does not, in any way, erase the
impact of his life, his novels, essays, and poetry on our history
(Ocampo, 2020).
We can surmise from these realizations that actions speak
louder than words- whether Rizal died a martyr or not, one thing
remains uncontested; he lived as a hero.
 CHAPTER VI
REFERENCES