Rizal Retract

- The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935.
It was found by
Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the
original document was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it.
However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, the
retraction of Rizal was copied verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in
Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found the original document, also copied it verbatim.
In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to this the
date of the signing was very clear in the original Spanish document which Rizal
supposedly signed. The date was “December 29, 1890.”
Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears the date

“December 29, 189C”. The number “0” was evidently altered to make it look like a
letter C. Then still later, another supposedly original version came up. It has the
date “December 29, 1896”. This time, the “0” became a “6”.
- “Nobody has ever seen this written declaration in spite of the fact that quite a
number of people would want to see it”
Trinidad, Rizal’s sister, also attested that after her brother’s death the Jesuits
invited their family to attend a Mass offered for the eternal repose of his soul. The
Jesuits promised that after the Mass they would show them the original
retraction. Until they parted ways, the promise did not materialize
- Filipino Masons conducted a sustained campaign against the claim that Rizal
had retracted.
Herminigildo Cruz wrote an article in La Vanguardia where he openly

attacked the Jesuits. He could not understand how the Jesuits and the
archbishop could have misplaced such a priceless document.
They could not understand why Rizal would retract knowing that it would
in no way affect the court’s verdict.
- Fr. Manuel Gracia, C.M. , found the “original” retraction document about Rizal in
a bundle titled
Masoneria (Garcia 1964, 31–43). Then, certain people/professionals examined it.
The Masons regarded the retraction document that came out in

1935 as a fact, but whether it was indeed written and signed by Rizal was
for them a big question.
(link sa taas) https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-
cases/
- Forgery. Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual, one of the persons who was given permission
by the archbishop to examine the document, wrote: “it is better that such
document should not have been discovered at all” (Pascual 1959, 4).
He analyzed the document thoroughly again and found some

inconsistencies while comparing to the other documents that Rizal wrote
days before his execution.
- Another objection raised against the authenticity of Rizal’s retraction was the
differences between the text of the 1935 document and the version of the
retraction that Fr. Balaguer had presented.
- Pascual concluded that the 1935 retraction document was a forgery, but he was
not able to identify the forgers. It was Ildelfonso Runes who would do so in a
book that he published in 1962. According to him, he made about five copies of
the retraction letter based on a draft prepared by the friars. He thought of keeping
one for himself, but when he was searched upon departure, his copy was taken
from him (Runes and Buenafe 1962, 107–128).
https://englishkyoto-seas.org/2019/12/vol-8-no-3-rene-escalante/
(check the site for the whole context)
- 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.
- Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the
publishers of La Voz Espanola.
- Differences between the "original" and the Manila newspapers texts of the
retraction on the one hand and the text s of the copies of Fr. Balaguer and F5r.
Pio Pi on the other hand.
First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the
original and the newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad"
(with "u").
Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after
the first "Iglesias" which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.
Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the
word "misma" which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of
the retraction.
Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of

the critical reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph
until the fifth sentences while the original and the newspaper copies start
the second paragraph immediately with the second sentences.
Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila
newspapers have only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has
eleven commas.
Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names
of the witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.
- In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named the
witnesses. He said "This . . .retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by
Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza."
However, the proceeding quotation only proves itself to be an addition to the
original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer said that he had the
"exact" copy of the retraction, which was signed by Rizal, but her made no
mention of the witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses signed the retraction.
- Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction. What
they was saw a copy done by one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the
original (almost eaten by termites) was kept by some friars. Both the Archbishop
and Fr. Pi acted innocently because they did not distinguish between the genuine
and the imitation of Rizal’s handwriting.
http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html (link sa taas)
SUMMARY:
 Diba nga during that time na naibalita sa newspaper ‘yong retraction ni

Rizal, walang document na maipakita. Even sa sister Rizal wala rin
maipakita noong nanghihingi sila ng kopya. Until 1935, Fr. Manuel Gracia,
C.M. found the original document of the retraction. Inexamine ito ng
different persons and it was said na true nga raw but, Dr. Ricardo R.
Pascual, isa sa mga inatasan na mag-examine, he analyzed the
document thoroughly again and found some inconsistencies while
comparing to the other documents that Rizal wrote days before his
execution. On 1935, he concluded that the retraction document was a
forgery, but he was not able to identify the forgers. Now, dito pumasok si
Ildelfonso Runes, siya dapat ang mag-iidentify ng mga forgers, gumawa
siya ng five copies ng retraction letter based sa draft by the friars but,
nung naisip niyang kumuha for himself, para maexamine pa nang mabuti,
nung departure niya na, hinalughog siya then kinuha yung copy. Next is
yung difference between the "original" and the Manila newspapers texts of
the retraction on the one hand and the text s of the copies of Fr. Balaguer
and F5r. Pio Pi on the other hand. (nasa link)
 Walang document ng marriage nila ni Josephine.
 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. Enough proof na rin na forgery nga ito dahil sa
iba ibang texts and dates.
In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to

this the date of the signing was very clear in the original Spanish
document which Rizal supposedly signed. The date was “December 29,
1890.”
Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears the date

“December 29, 189C”. The number “0” was evidently altered to make it
look like a letter C. Then still later, another supposedly original version
came up. It has the date “December 29, 1896”. This time, the “0”
became a “6”.
 Maraming inconsistency ‘yong document and statements ni Fr. Balaguer.

Rizal Retract

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rizal Retract

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Rizal Retract

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

- The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935.

Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears the date

Herminigildo Cruz wrote an article in La Vanguardia where he openly

The Masons regarded the retraction document that came out in

He analyzed the document thoroughly again and found some

Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of

 Diba nga during that time na naibalita sa newspaper ‘yong retraction ni

 Walang document ng marriage nila ni Josephine.

In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to

Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears the date

You might also like