Retraction of Rizal

Retraction of Rizal
by Peter Jaynul V. Uckung

The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal is being hotly debated as to its authenticity.

It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death. There
were many witnesses, most of them Jesuits. 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”.

So which is which?

Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document, reported that the
forger of Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano
Lacuna, which was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and
Rizal’s signature forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were approached by Spanish friars during
the final day of the Filipino-American war to forge Rizal’s signature. This story was revealed by
Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale from Roman Roque himself, them being neighbors.

To this day, the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the forest of the night. Others
would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal was invented by the friars to deflect the
heroism of Rizal which was centered on the friar abuses. Incidentally, Fr. Pio Pi, who copied
verbatim Rizal’s retraction, also figured prominently during the revolution. It was him, Andres
Bonifacio reported, who had intimated to Aguinaldo the cessation of agitation in exchange of
pardon.

There are also not a few people who believe that the autobiography of Josephine Bracken,
written on February 22, 1897 is also forged and forged badly. The document supposedly written
by Josephine herself supported the fact that they were married under the Catholic rites. But upon
closer look, there is a glaring difference between the penmanship of the document, and other
letters written by Josephine to Rizal. Surely, we must put the question of retraction to rest, though
Rizal is a hero, whether he retracted or not, we must investigate if he really did a turn-around. If
he did not, and the documents were forgeries, then somebody has to pay for trying to deceive a
nation.

Readings in Philippine History 1

Retraction of Rizal

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.
This “exact” copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding
Rizal’s execution, Rizal y su Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his biography of Rizal,
Vida y Escritos del Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the texts
of the retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi’s copy of Rizal’s retraction has the same text as
that of Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal’s retraction in
the Manila newspapers.
Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La
Voz Espanola. That newspaper reported: "Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own
hand-written retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…" On the other hand,
Manila pharmacist F. Stahl wrote in a letter: "besides, nobody has seen this written declaration,
in spite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to see it. "For example, not only
Rizal’s family but also the correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in Madrid, Don Manuel
Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr. Santiago Mataix of El Heraldo, were not able to see the hand-
written retraction.
Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace the Archbishop ascertained whether Rizal himself was the
one who wrote and signed the retraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary because it
was possible for one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting aforesaid holograph; and keeping a
copy of the same for our archives, I myself delivered it personally that the same morning to His
Grace Archbishop… His Grace testified: At once the undersigned entrusted this holograph to Rev.
Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of the Chancery." After that, the documents could not be seen
by those who wanted to examine it and was finally considered lost after efforts to look for it proved
futile.
On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the
archdiocesan archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts about
Rizal’s retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction differs
significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies. And, the fact that the

Readings in Philippine History 2

texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could be shown to be the exact
copies of the "original" but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who controlled the press
in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the "original" while the Jesuits had only the
imitations.
We now proceed to show the significant 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.
How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal’s retraction? Fr. Balaguer never alluded to
having himself made a copy of the retraction although he claimed that the Archbishop prepared
a long formula of the retraction and Fr. Pi a short formula. In Fr. Balaguer’s earliest account, it is
not yet clear whether Fr. Balaguer was using the long formula of nor no formula in dictating to
Rizal what to write. According to Fr. Pi, in his own account of Rizal’s conversion in 1909, Fr.
Balaguer dictated from Fr. Pi’s short formula previously approved by the Archbishop. In his letter
to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer admitted that he dictated to Rizal the short formula prepared by Fr.
Pi; however; he contradicts himself when he revealed that the "exact" copy came from the
Archbishop. The only copy, which Fr. Balaguer wrote, is the one that appeared ion his earliest
account of Rizal’s retraction.
Where did Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy come from? We do not need long arguments to
answer this question, because Fr. Balaguer himself has unwittingly answered this question. He
said in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:

Readings in Philippine History 3

 "…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of the two formulas
of retraction, which they (You) gave me; that from you and that of the Archbishop, and the first
with the changes which they (that is, you) made; and the other the 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, and I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself."
In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he received two original texts of the
retraction. The first, which came from Fr. Pi, contained "the changes which You (Fr. Pi) made";
the other, which is "that of the Archbishop" was "the exact copy of the retraction written and signed
by Rizal" (underscoring supplied). Fr. Balaguer said that the "exact copy" was "written and signed
by Rizal" but he did not say "written and signed by Rizal and himself" (the absence of the reflexive
pronoun "himself" could mean that another person-the copyist-did not). He only "suspected" that
"Rizal himself" much as Fr. Balaguer did "not know nor ... remember" whose handwriting it was.
Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the "exact copy" came from the Archbishop! He called it
"exact" because, not having seen the original himself, he was made to believe that it was the one
that faithfully reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in which "changes" (that is,
where deviated from the "exact" copy) had been made. Actually, the difference between that of
the Archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with "changes") is that the latter was "shorter"
be cause it omitted certain phrases found in the former so that, as Fr. Pi had fervently hoped,
Rizal would sign it.
According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate from
the short formula of Fr. Pi. Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but he insisted
on adding the phrases "in which I was born and educated" and "[Masonary]" as the enemy that is
of the Church" – the first of which Rizal would have regarded as unnecessary and the second as
downright contrary to his spirit. However, what actually would have happened, if we are to believe
the fictitious account, was that Rizal’s addition of the phrases was the restoration of the phrases
found in the original which had been omitted in Fr. Pi’s short formula.
The "exact" copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort Santiago to convince
them that Rizal had retracted. Someone read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who
claimed in his "Notes’ that Rizal read aloud his retraction. However, his copy of the retraction
proved him wrong because its text (with "u") and omits the word "Catolica" as in Fr. Balaguer’s
copy but which are not the case in the original. Capt. Dominguez never claimed to have seen the
retraction: he only "heard".
The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had written a retraction in
Dapitan. Very early in 1895, Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with her adopted father who
wanted to be cured of his blindness by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela Orlac, who was agent
and a mistress of a friar. Rizal fell in love with Josephine and wanted to marry her canonically but
he was required to sign a profession of faith and to write retraction, which had to be approved by
the Bishop of Cebu. "Spanish law had established civil marriage in the Philippines," Prof. Craig
wrote, but the local government had not provided any way for people to avail themselves of the
right..."
In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be
approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend
Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the
retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to

Readings in Philippine History 4

reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the
friars had been trying by all means to get from him.
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.

Retraction of Rizal: Truth vs. Myth

by Tomas U. Santos

Since Rizal’s retraction letter was discovered by Father Manuel Garcia, C.M. in 1935, its
content has become a favorite subject of dispute among academicians and Catholics. The letter,
dated December 29, 1896, was said to have been signed by the National Hero himself.
It stated: “I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in which I was born and educated
I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and
conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church.”
The controversy whether the National Hero actually wrote a retraction document only lies
in the judgment of its reader, as no amount of proof can probably make the two opposing groups—
the Masonic Rizalists (who firmly believe that Rizal did not withdraw) and the Catholic Rizalists
(who were convinced Rizal retracted)—agree with each other.

Proofs, documents
History books tell most people that the first draft of the retraction was sent by Archbishop
Bernardino Nozaleda to Rizal’s cell in Fort Santiago the night before his execution in
Bagumbayan. But Rizal was said to have rejected the draft because it was lengthy.
According to a testimony by Father Vicente Balaguer, a Jesuit missionary who befriended
the hero during his exile in Dapitan, Rizal accepted a shorter retraction document prepared by
the superior of the Jesuit Society in the Philippines, Father Pio Pi. Rizal then wrote his retraction
after making some modifications in the document. In his retraction, he disavowed Masonry and
religious thoughts that opposed Catholic belief.
“Personally, I did not believe he retracted, but some documents that was purchased by
the Philippine government from Spain in the mid-1990s, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila,”
showed some interesting points about the retraction, said Jose Victor Torres, professor at the
History department of the De La Salle University.
Popularly known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de
Manila is a body of documents on the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential reports,
transcripts, clippings, and photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers. Despite this,

Readings in Philippine History 5

Torres said his perception of the Filipino martyr would not change even if the controversies were
true.
“Even though it would be easy to say he retracted all that he wrote about the Church, it
still did not change the fact that his writings began the wheels of change in Philippine colonial
society during the Spanish period—a change that led to our independence,” Torres said. “The
retraction is just one aspect of the life, works, and writings of Rizal.”
But then, Torres noted that the controversy is irrelevant today.
“The way Rizal is taught in schools today, the retraction means nothing,” he said.

‘Unadorned fact’
Filipino historian Nicolas Zafra considered the controversy as “a plain unadorned fact of
history, having all the marks and indications of historical certainty and reality” in his book The
Historicity of Rizal’s Retraction. Dr. Augusto De Viana, head of UST’s Department of History ,
also believes that Rizal retracted and said the National Hero just renounced from the Free
Masonry and not from his famous nationalistic works.
“He (Rizal) retracted. He died as a Catholic, and a proof that he died as a Catholic was he
was buried inside the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery,” said De Viana, who compared the
martyr with Apolinario Mabini, a revolutionary and free mason who was buried in a Chinese
cemetery. De Viana said it is not possible that the retraction letter had been forged because
witnesses were present while Rizal was signing it.
He added that the evidence speaks for itself and moves on to the question on Rizal’s
character as some argue that the retraction is not in line with Rizal’s mature beliefs and
personality. “Anti-retractionists ask, ‘What kind of hero is Jose Rizal?’ They say he was fickle-
minded. Well, that may be true, but that is human character. Rizal was not a perfect person,” De
Viana said. He also mentioned that just like any person, Rizal was prone to flip-flop. He believes
that Rizal retracted because the national hero wanted to be at peace when he dies. But would
Rizal’s works deem irrelevant and futile because of his retraction? De Viana answered, “Rizal
awakened our knowledge of nationalism. For me, that is enough. The issue will not invalidate his
works in any way.”

Reference:
https://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/

Readings in Philippine History 6