Reporter: Russel Ian Labrador
Course/Year: BSCE-1C
Descriptive Course Title: Readings In The Philippine History
Instructor: Dr. Jerrick T. Parian
Chapter & Topic: Chapter 3 – The Cavite Mutiny
1. The Jose Montero y Vidal and Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo Versions
The report by two Spaniards cites the removal of workers’ privileges in the
arsenal as a primary cause of the “revolution.”
Privileges included exemption from tribute payment and polo duty.
Aggravating factors included the revolution in Spain and anti-Spanish
propaganda from the press.
Native priests, discontented with friars, supported the rebels and fueled the
revolution.
Izquierdo blamed the Spanish press for spreading malicious propaganda.
The rebels aimed to replace the Spanish government with leaders like Father
Burgos and Father Zamora.
Filipino priests promised revolutionaries jobs, wealth, and military promotions
post-victory.
Izquierdo noted a tendency for theft among the Indios.
Both Montero and Izquierdo believed the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was a
premeditated conspiracy involving educated mestizos and Filipino priests.
They suggested plans to assassinate top Spanish officials and friars.
The “revolution” was signaled by an explosion in Intramuros on January 20,
1872.
The explosion, mistaken for a signal, prompted rebels to attack Spanish officials
and seize the arsenal.
Izquierdo dispatched reinforcements to quell the uprising, which ultimately
succeeded.
The expected reinforcements from Manila did not arrive, leading to the death of
key instigators, including Sergeant Lamadrid.
The Gomburza were court-martialed and executed; several lawyers faced
imprisonment and professional suspension.
2. The Trinidad Pardo de Tavera Version
Trinidad Pardo de Tavera viewed the Cavite event as a mutiny by disheartened
natives, soldiers, and workers due to lost privileges.
He blamed General Izquierdo for removing these privileges and prohibiting the
establishment of a Filipino school of arts and trades.
On January 20, 1872, about 200 men, led by Sergeant Lamadid, attacked and
killed Spanish officers at the arsenal.
The insurgents expected support from other army units, which ultimately did not
materialize.
Authorities in Manila quickly responded, with Gen. Izquierdo reinforcing troops,
leading to the mutiny’s suppression within two days.
Tavera believed Izquierdo exaggerated the mutiny as a conspiracy to portray it as
a larger threat to Spanish rule involving Filipino priests and locals.
3. The Edmunde/Edmund Plauchut Version
In 1877, Edmunde Plauchut, a Frenchman in Manila, published a dispassionate
account of the Cavite Mutiny in Revue des Deux Mondes.
His version supported Tavera’s view that discontent among arsenal workers and
soldiers stemmed from Governor Izquierdo’s tax orders and forced labor
requirements.
On January 20, 1872, workers discovered taxes and forced labor fees deducted
from their pay, prompting the mutiny that night.
Forty infantry soldiers and twenty artillery men seized control of Fort San Felipe,
briefly firing cannonades to celebrate their takeover.
The mutineers expected support from the 7 th infantry company but were instead
attacked by them.
Terrified, the rebels locked the gates, hoping for support from Manila by morning.
Plauchut also detailed the execution of priests Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora,
which he witnessed firsthand.
