1 Speaker:: and Not To Overthrow The Spanish Rule

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 7

1st speaker: The 1872 Cavite Mutiny was an important event that has happened in Philippine

history. This mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898, the year the Philippines acquired its
Independence. The mutiny also awakens the nationalist and patriot hearts of Filipinos which
encouraged them to fight for their independence.
We the affirmative section believe that the Filipino version of Cavite Mutiny is more reliable and
as the first speaker I will tackle various reasons why Filipino version is more acceptable. The
first reason is based on the account of Edmund Plauchut a French adventurer and a journalist,
vice president of the board of directors of Association Internationale des Philippinistes in Paris
who was then residing in Manila and a witnessed of GOMBURZA execution, who wrote an
account in the Parisian periodical Revue des deux mondes (Review of the Two Worlds) about
the event which was then published in La Solidaridad in 1892. This makes his account a primary
source because he is present in the said event and thus reliable and has credibility. His version
of the mutiny stated that the uprising was because of the labor dispute and unfair decisions of
the Governor General regarding the tributes and forced labor and that the three martyr priests
were innocent and even included in his account of the then secret letter of Archbishop Meliton
Martinez to the Spanish Regent, written in 1870, which contains the reasons for the protest.
Additionally, he refers to the three priests on their way to execution as being cheered by the
Filipinos as “those who were going to die for having dreamed of the independence of their
country” as well as the conversation of Bosaca, the executioner of Gomez and Padre Gomez
and after the said protest, Plauchut continued to relay that the Archbishop of Manila sent an
invitation to P. Jose Burgos and his friends to sign a pledge of fidelity and loyalty to Spain. The
second reason is the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar
and researcher. His version corroborated with Plauchut’s version that the mutiny was because
of the dissatisfaction of Filipinos with the abolition of their privileges and that just reacted to
the harsh policy of the new governor-general, Rafael de Izquierdo, who whimsically terminated
the old-time privileges such as the exemption from paying annual tribute and from rendering
forced labor or Polo y Servicio and not to overthrow the Spanish rule. . They are too abusive of their
power because they knew that we do not have the power to fight. We Filipino are called Indios
and know nothing but when it comes to rights we fight for it. Spaniards are taking advantage of
us in our own land. We are forced to do labors and everything is not enough for them and that
was really injustice. Because of this, the will of the Filipinos to fight for their freedom got
stronger that they initiate an uprising. Maybe this uprising is not a good way on fighting for
what is right and just but Filipinos left with no choice but to fight and give a shot in fighting
their work. Filipinos spread out the wrongdoings of Spanish. But is it bad to fight for your rights
more especially to your own country whether you know from the start you have small chances
on winning it? If only the Spanish treat us fairly, there will be no mutiny but since they are
unfair it forces the Filipino to do what they think is right. I do not speak because I am a Filipino
but to the fact how Spanish see us as a laborer and not a human. Yes, we do not have the
power to rule our country, accept it or not we have nothing to do with it but manipulating us in
our own land, that was too much. They are greedy! We Filipinos do not deserve this, we are
humans. In conclusion, I stand and believe at the version of the Filipino.

Interpolation (1st Speaker Negative): she stated the account of Plauchut. Although his version
was considered as first-account, his version only focuses on the execution of the GomBurZa and
not entirely the reason of the mutiny. Secondly, his version shows that the author signified
disagreement to the Spanish authorities in handling the situation and affairs of the Filipino.
Furthermore, the first speaker also mentioned about the secret letter. It is questionable on how
could he have known of this given that he is a Frenchman and just a mere resident of Manila
Could it be possible that he just made it up? Or he has somebody supplying this knowledge to
him? I don’t know. Was this document known to the public? Lastly, how could he have written
the conversations of Boscasa and Padre Gomez in detailed format, when in fact there was none
allowed inside the chapel aside from the Filipino priests and a few recollect friars and given the
noise during the execution, it would be impossible to hear such conversation.
Constructive Speech (1st Speaker Negative): Because of these, we, the opposition side stand
that the Spanish version is more reliable. This house believes that the Cavite mutiny was an
uprising by the Filipinos against the Spanish government. The Filipinos so clearly revolted out of
their own free will. Although it may seem like it was because of the abolition of benefits, written
evidence by Jose Montero y Vidal, a Spanish official in Manila at the time, an expert Spanish
historian who highlighted the Filipinos’ attempt to overthrow the Spanish government is the
fullest account of the mutiny itself. The writings show that a Spanish sergeant reported the plot
of the Filipinos. He discovered this through his lover and immediately reported it to Izquierdo.
Izquierdo also received other anonymous reports that put him on high alert even before the
mutiny. According to him, the event was premeditated and the primary instigator were the three
priests ― GOMBURZA, and its caused was not only just because of the uplifting of the tax
exemptions to the laborers of the Cavite Arsenal but also a revolt to overthrow the Spanish rule
from assassination of the Governor-General to general massacre of all Spaniards including the
friars. Additionally, from the records of Schumacher, the populating reason behind the Cavite
Mutiny is just clothing. The idea that the arsenals and workers have initiated the uprising because
of labor issues is not the true reason. In fact, the event was planned with the goal of pulling off
power the Spanish officials and the secularization. It has been told the Filipino force has
connived with the other troops in Manila for greater force. However, the expected additional
force from Manila did not happen. All Spaniards were to be killed, including the friars, except
the women, and they would proclaim the independence of the country. Now isn’t this an act of
revolution? Involving innocents in such mutiny is clearly a revolt to overthrow the Spanish
regime. Meanwhile, the interesting part of this event is that the troops involved in the mutiny
were not all Filipinos. In fact, Spaniards in the identity of Montesinos and Morquecho have
participated in this activity. The first speaker of the affirmative side mentioned the account of
Pardo de Tavera stating that Pardo denies that there was any plot to overthrow Spanish rule, and
sees the Cavite Mutiny simply as an uprising due to the disaffection of the arsenal workers who
had been deprived of their traditional exemption from tribute and the Filipino troops who
sympathized with them. This is wrong because the conspiracy had been going with utmost
secrecy since the days of Liguria who served as governor-general of the Philippines from 1869 to
1871 and is considered to be the most beloved of the Spanish governor's general ever assigned in
the Philippines. Take also as proof that those who had expressed reformist or anti-friar
sentiments under the governorship of De la Torre were plotting to overthrow Spanish
sovereignty. Hence they persuaded the government to inflict severe and exemplary punishments
on all kinds of people without inquiring carefully into their guilt. We should not believe
everything we read just because it was taken by our own race. In conclusion as your first speaker
of the opposition team believe that the side of Spanish is more reliable than what the Filipino
version has been saying thank you.
Interpolation (1st Speaker- Affirmative): the account of Montero that the speaker of the
opposition mentioned, although considered as first account or primary source is a biased one.
Given that he is one of those Spaniards who have position in the government. The data of his
account could be one-sided and bias. He neither considered nor empathized to the general
public’s feelings. He was a Spaniard and thus he perceives, represents and stands with the
Spanish community. Just because it is a primary source doesn’t mean that it’s credible. Second,
the uprising is not an act of revolt but merely an answer to the unfair government of the
Spaniards. In order to be free from this kind of government, of course you have to take care of
the hindrances. Besides, it is the duty of a true patriot to protect his country from its cruel
government. Lastly, she stated is that the rebels are already planning the uprising even before
general Rafael Izquierdo became the successor of general La Torre. That is wrong because
Filipinos did not plan any uprising even before just like what I said earlier they initiated uprising
because it was unfair for them to work in the amount that will be given to them is not enough for
the time that they invest.

2nd speaker constructive Speech (Affirmative): In line with this we stand that the Filipino
version is more reliable because of the work of Antonio Regidor which appeared in 1900 in the
Madrid newspaper Filipinas ante Europa. Obviously an account from one of those most involved
in the reformist movement prior to 1872 is of the greatest value from the point of view of the
knowledge possessed by its author. He stated that the mutiny was the result of a plan originating
from a meeting of leading friars of all the orders, at which it was decided to create such an
occasion so as to bring about the elimination of the anti-friar reformists, particularly the leaders
of the Filipino secular clergy. The plot is attributed by Regidor to Fathers Castro and Treserra of
the Dominicans, Father Huertas of the Franciscans, Father Herrero of the Augustinians, and
Father Cuartero of the Recoletos. We stand that the Filipino version of Cavite munity is more
reliable and it tells about all the facts and issues that happened in that era, it includes injustices
act that happen when Spaniard killed more than 200 local soldiers including civilians that is not
part of the mutiny just like the GomBurZa. The Spaniards executed the soldiers that has a lower
ranking local soldiers which is Filipino soldiers and the other soldiers that participated in the
mutiny that have a high rank which is the Spaniards because only Spaniards are allowed to sit,
led, and to have a higher position in that time and that is also one of the injustice. The Spaniards
don't have a fair treatment to Filipinos. The higher ranking Spaniards or officers are thrown away
to different countries instead of executing them, they just thrown away in different countries as a
punishment. It shows here the unfair practices and injustice acts. Filipinos don’t deserve to be
treated as a slave, Filipinos are not a tools, if only the Spaniards gave the all the rights and needs
of Filipinos there would not be mutiny or revolution. If only the Spaniards treated Filipinos fairly
and just. As a second speaker i stand and believe at the version of the Filipino.

Interpolation (2nd Speaker- negative): The second speaker of the affirmative side stated the
work of Antonio Regidor. His assertion is demonstrably not based on facts. For Father Casimiro
Herrero, the Augustinian procurator, was in Spain during this period of 1869-1872 during which
the plot was supposedly being hatched, while the others were in the Philippines. Father Domingo
Treserra was indeed Rector of the University of Santo Tomas at this time, but Father Rafael
Castro, O.P., had finished his term as Provincial of the Dominicans in 1863, shortly after which
he suffered a stroke which left him completely paralyzed, and some time before his death, left
him blind as well. Moreover it seems clearly to have employed false data to make the friars
appear as the instigators of the revolt and of the punishments meted out to the Filipino
reformists. Additionally, you also stated that the Spaniards killed 200 local soldiers. Well clearly
that’s because it’s invetable during a revolution. Lastly, you debated that Spaniards officers are
not executed but rather only thrown to different country. That’s wrong because some of those
exiled to other countries are of Filipino blood like Pedro Paterno, and Maximo Paterno and On
February 6, those who were sentenced to death, were later commuted to life imprisonment.

2nd Speaker Constructive Speech (negative): The version of the mutiny from Governor General
Raphael Izquierdo himself makes the Spanish version more reliable. The two accounts
complimented and corroborated with account of Montero. The military events of the mutiny,
together with an account of the nature of the plot behind it, and with his suspicions as to its
instigators, are contained in a sixty-page letter of Izquierdo to the Overseas Minister. Izquierdo's
comprehensive account- accompanied by a report to him of the acting commander of the Navy,
detailing its part is of great importance, inasmuch as it is a confidential letter to a superior, and
possesses great credibility for what in fact had happened, on which he was by this time well
informed. There was no reason for him to distort these facts to the Overseas Minister. According
to Izquierdo, the revolt was to begin in the early hours after midnight in Manila, with the signal
to the rebels in Cavite being given by skyrockets. It has been said that the rebels in Cavite
mistook the fireworks from the Sampaloc fiesta for the agreed upon signal. Meanwhile, the
interesting part of this event is that the troops involved in the mutiny were not all Filipinos. In
fact, Spaniards in the identity of Montesinos and Morquecho have participated in this activity
most likely out of resentment at their own imprisonment, especially Montesinos, who had been
imprisoned for gambling debts several times and rearrested after escaping. Their participation in
the revolt is a strong argument to support Izquierdo’s contention that the revolt was not a mere
mutiny over grievances, but a revolt intending to throw off Spanish rule. I also want to
emphasize that the two accounts of Montero and the Rafael Izquierdo suggested that the
conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be
followed by the massacre of the friars. In conclusion, based on the evidence presented, we stand
that the Spanish version is more reliable.

Interpolation (2nd speaker- Affirmative side): The written account that you mentioned from
Izquierdo is none other than a biased, one-sided version of a story, which of course they would
easily consider as an official statement given that the Spaniards are the ones who rule the
government, while the Filipinos are being oppressed. Also, Izquierdo’s report is unreliable
because there are errors on said document just like how he address that the rebels "barely
reached 200 men." In his later account, nevertheless, he specified less: 38 artillerymen and 54
marines. (Mag – add na lang kayo ditto kung gusto nyo )

3rd speaker Constructive Speech(Affirmative): We, the affirmative side strongly stand the the
Filipino version is more reliable. Our last reason for this is the execution of three priest
(GomBurZa). The Spaniard used this mutiny as a cloth to execute those who are up for
governmental reforms like secularization in which was led by Padre Burgos. The three priests
were innocent but were executed. We are already aware of what all Filipino suffered under the
hands of Spaniards rulings which Jose Rizal also provides an evidence about it, providing his
books El Filibusterismo and Noli Me Tangere. The Spanish government did not know and did
not want to know anything about the friars in the Philippines. Anyone who act with contradicting
implication about Spain government, considered as personal enemies as enemies of Spain,
handling them over to the constabulary to be tortured. When Father Burgos as the leader of
Filipino secular clergy, appealed to the Spanish throne for the recovery of the parishes which the
Spanish government had taken from them and given to the friars, confining themselves to
missionary work. Although Burgos and his companions, Gomez and Zamora, had worked for the
rights, of a particular class and not of the people as a whole, yet they asked for justice and died
for having asked. Those in authority who refused to do what the friars wished lost their jobs, and
the most liberal minister in Spain, when in powers did whatever the friars wanted. The friars
wanted to make an example of Burgos and his companions so that the Filipinos should be afraid
to go against them from then on. But that patent injustice, that official crime, aroused not fear but
hatred of the friars and of the regime that supported them, and a profound sympathy and sorrow
for the victims. GomBurZa are proud of being executed disregards the reason that Filipino are
with the control of Spaniards but instead they believe that they are innocent and they believe that
by means of their execution, Filipino’s will become free and this colonization will end. They
accept the death, as sentenced with them with their faith.
Interpolation 3rd Speaker Negative: If these priests are with the Spaniards, they should be the
first to report that there was an uprising before the war in Forte even started. Therefore, we can
say that the priests knew something as they were the only ones who had the advocacy to
strengthen the power of the Filipino priests in controlling the church. Aside from this, it seemed
impossible that the priests had no idea even though they were near close to the place where it
started. The Governor-General was even the first to know when there was a war at Forte which
was headed by Sgt. Fernando La Madrid. Here, they killed the Spaniard soldiers but stopped
when Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo sent Felipe Ginoves to suppress and make Forte
under the Spaniards again. Because of this, Sgt. La Madrid and his companions were killed,
while some were given the death penalty. At this point, the Spaniards already know that people
will make a move against them.

Constructive Speech 3rd Speaker Negative: We, the opposition side will present our last
evidence as to why the Spanish version of the Cavite Mutiny is more reliable. Our evidence is
based on the interrogation of Sgt. Bonifacio Octavo which can be considered a primary source.
From the interrogation of Sgt. Bonifacio Octavo the following September, it became clear that
the revolt had been planned at least as early as November or December 1871, when Octavo says
he was first approached by the marine corporal, Pedro Manonson, who urged him to give his
name to a list on a document urging the Filipino soldiers to rebel against Spain. Manonson told
him that the list had come from the Caviteño civilian, Francisco Zaldua. Zaldua recruited the
soldiers in Cavite, promising them various incentives, and assuring them that the priests and
lawyers were behind the revolt, perhaps even telling them, as claimed that the priests were
offering masses for the success of the revolt and thus it could not fail. From Zaldua they would
learn that the king was to be Burgos, probably including Zamora with him. Behind Zaldua,
perhaps paying him for his activity, were the two Caviteños, Maximo Inocencio and Crisanto de
los Reyes, both wealthy men. From this, we came to an analysis that cruel leaders are replaced
only to have new leaders turn cruel. This definitely happened in the Philippines. Although the
revolution of the Filipinos became successful, in today it is in no denial that we are still in the
hands of cruel leaders. In conclusion, although the removal of the exemption of arsenal workers
from the tribute and compulsory labor was not the cause of the revolt, even though it may have
contributed to the unrest. The revolt in Cavite was not a mere mutiny, but part of a planned
conspiracy.

Interpolation 3rd speaker affirmative: The statement of Octavo is from the report of general
Izquierdo which again, cannot be said as reliable because it could be manipulated and one sided.
Therefore, we conclude that the Cavite Mutiny happened because of the unfair labor practices that the
Governor General implemented which then resulted to the uprising of us, Filipinos to fight for our rights
and to get our independence. Thus, we would like to end our stand with a quote from Martin Luther
King saying that, “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom
eventually manifests itself.” 

You might also like