STI Global City

STI Academic Center, University Parkway Drive, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig, 1634
Metro Manila

Jose Rizal’s Retraction

Group 2:
Alabado, Jm
Albor, Liandro C.
Berdin, Xzyne V.
Carranza, Mark Leo C.
Juntila, Allia Faith J.
Lagmay, John mark V.
Quiran,Dianne Mezze G.
Tabios, Laden Joy A.
Tondag, Edric John C.
Udtog Lailah P.

Submitted To:
[Link] B. Baldamor

October 11,2024

1
[Link]

The "Retraction of Rizal" has been one of the most frequently contested and acclaimed cases
involving Jose Rizal. "José Protacio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda," more widely known
as Jose P. Rizal, is a renowned linguist, poet, painter, sculptor, athlete, scientist, and patriot
whose writings resulted in his execution and triggered the 1898 Philippine Revolution'. He is
the Philippines' national hero and a symbol of a peaceful revolution. He wrote two famous
novels that criticize the friar and the wrongdoings of the Roman Catholic Church; the Noli
Me Tangere and El [Link] document, said to have been signed just hours before
he was executed on December 30, 1896, reportedly declares his return to the Catholic faith
and renounces everything he wrote against the Church. According to the text, he allegedly
stated, “I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in which I was born and educated I
wish to live and die.” This declaration could damage Rizal's reputation as a revolutionary
leader (Ticmon, Jonathan B.).The controversy around Rizal's retraction involves different
accounts and several versions of the document.

The first version was published on the day he was executed, while later versions appeared in
the following years. One key witness, Fr. Vicente Balaguer, claimed he saw Rizal confess
and participate in religious ceremonies, suggesting Rizal had returned to the Church.
However, this account has been questioned, as it is the only eyewitness testimony supporting
the idea of a retraction (Guzman, Marciano).Additionally, another report from the Cuerpo de
Vigilancia details Rizal’s last hours in prison, suggesting he might have refused to sign a
retraction (Ticmon, Jonathan B.). This makes the story more complicated. Some scholars
argue that if Rizal had indeed retracted, he would not have been executed; he would have
been honored by the Church (Diokno, Jose).Dr. Jose Rizal is famed for his courageous
writings against the Spaniards during the Spanish colonization of the Philippines. Through
his literature, he fought for freedom in a subtle but effective way, using his published works
to educate Filipinos about the Spanish government's malevolent intentions toward our
[Link] controversy over whether Dr. Jose Rizal, our national hero, has actually reversed
everything he has written and published against the Catholic Church is still going on. This
has been and continues to be the most divisive topic in our country's [Link] case study
will look at the different views about Rizal's alleged retraction, exploring why some people
believe it is true while others do not. We will consider the motivations behind the retraction,
the eyewitness accounts, and what it all means for Rizal’s legacy. By doing this, we hope to
better understand Rizal's final actions and their importance in Philippine history.

2
[Link]

Evidences that Jose Rizal did retract

 One of the key pieces of evidence is the document supposedly signed by Rizal before
his execution, in which he declared his return to the Catholic faith and renounced
Freemasonry. This document first emerged in 1935 and has been supported by some
as authentic. Witnesses, including Jesuit priests, claimed to have seen Rizal sign it,
and it was later validated by prominent figures such as Fr. Manuel Garcia and
historian Teodoro Kalaw.

 José Rizal may have retracted to protect his family from further persecution is
supported by some scholars and historians. It is suggested that Rizal faced significant
pressure from the Catholic Church and the Spanish authorities, which may have led
him to sign the retraction to ensure that his relatives would not suffer continued
harassment or punishment after his death.

 Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, even the members of the
family have seen the"original" text except the newspapers- La Voz Espanola & Diaro
De Manila (Dec. 30, 1896); Barcelona, Spain (Feb. 14, 1897); La Juventud Magazine
by Father Balaguer.

 Even 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.

 The 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 wrote a letter to his
former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910.

 On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal's retraction was discovered
by the archdiocesan.

 Rizal’s earlier writings, particularly Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, contains

strong critiques of the Church, contradicting the content of the alleged retraction. This
inconsistency raises doubts about the legitimacy of the retraction.

 The argument between the original document and the released retraction documents
brought more controversy because this differs significantly from the text found in the
Jesuits. Which is really the "original" Some of the significant differences between the
copies of the Archbishop and the Jesuits are the following:

3
  The Jesuits' copies have"mi calidad" instead of "mi cualidad" from the Archbishop's
copies.

 The word "Catolica" was omitted after the first "Iglesias" in the Jesuits' copies.

 The word "misma" was added before the third "Iglesias" in the Jesuit's copies

 The second paragraph from the archbishop's copies started with the second sentence.

Evidences that rizal did not retract

 Newspapers carried the purportedly signed retraction document by José Rizal, but the
public never saw the actual copy. It was reported lost to Rizal's family when they
asked to see it. This begs the question of whether the Jesuits, who had a significant
role in Rizal's last days, could have handled such a significant document with such
care, or if it was purposefully concealed for unclear reasons.

 Thirty-nine years later the original copy was found in the archdiocesan archives.
Ricardo Pascual Ph. D who was given permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda to
examine the document and later concluded in his book, "Rizal beyond the Grave" that
the documents presented was a forgery. The common rebuttal of this argument was
that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi had made errors in reproducing another copy
of the original.

 Father Balaguer's statement is another piece of evidence pointing to Rizal's non-

retraction. He claimed that after José Rizal supposedly signed the retraction letter, he
performed the marriage ceremony for Rizal and Josephine Bracken. However, Father
Balaguer's allegation has never been supported by the production of a marriage
certificate or any other official public record. Due to the dearth of supporting
evidence, some have questioned the validity of both the marriage and the retraction,
calling into question Balaguer's claims.

 In the theories, the reason for his retraction was to marry the woman she fell in love
with while he was in exile, Josephine Bracken. However, no real record of the
wedding between Bracken and Rizal has been found, especially a marriage certificate.
If the retraction was true, then there should at least be a document that shows that the
marriage happened and, considering where Rizal was buried, outside the inner wall of
Paco Cemetery, and the record of burial is not the same day as his death.

4
 When Fr. Balaguer was asked for the original copy of the document for the
handwriting to be authenticated, the said document was allegedly lost, only to
resurface 35 years later in history, discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia. At least 4 copies
said to be the retraction had surfaced. Although, the wording in the document found
by Fr. Garcia is different than those claimed by other, such as the copies of the
formula which appeared in Manila Newspapers.

 It appears irrational that José Rizal would change his mind, knowing that doing so
would not spare him from execution. The judicial process he faced was handled by a
military tribunal, and the Church had no influence or capacity to reduce his sentence.
Rizal was suspected of participation in revolutionary propaganda, which is punishable
by death under Spanish law. This was the same fate that befell the three slain priests
—GomBurZa—who, despite being members of the Church, were executed as rebels
and not given appropriate burial. Rizal would have been fully aware that signing the
retraction would not change his destiny, calling into question the retraction claim's
veracity.

 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 Spanish
religion in the Philippines. Father Sanchez told him to retract in exchange of a
professorship, a hundred thousand pesos and an estate (Laubach, 1936) however Rizal
rejected the offer.

 It was suggested that Rizal retreated to protect his family from further persecution, to
grant Josephine Bracken legal status as his wife, and to secure reforms from the
Spanish government. It is more plausible due to Rizal's attitude; nevertheless, would
Rizal simply ignore all of the writing he conceived via his hard work? The very
writings that led to his execution? No.

 Rizal's behavior during his last hours in Fort Santiago does not point to a conversion-
the Mi Ultimo Adios and letters- or indicate even a religious instability. In the
evening where his sister and mother arrived, never had he mentioned about the
retraction, contrary to what Father Balaguer claimed that even in the afternoon, Rizal
was oblivious and was asking for the formula of the retraction.

 The credibility of Jose Rizal's retraction document is also a significant topic of

controversy.
 Jose Rizal was reported to have signed it just before his [Link] were numerous
witnesses, the most of them were Jesuits. On May 13, 1935, the document was made
public for the first time. It was discovered by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia in the archives of
the Catholic hierarchy in Manila. However, only replicas of the original document
were shown to the public.

5
[Link] Stand

[Link] Retraction Document that is discovered in 1935 is considered the chief witness to the
reality of the retraction.

[Link] testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eye witnesses,” and other “qualified
witnesses,” those who were closely associated with the events such as the head of the Jesuit
order and the archbishop, etc.

3. Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his last hours as testified by the “witness.”

4. His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by the witnesses; there
could be no marriage without retraction.

IV. Negative Stand

1. Forgery Claims Some experts and critics argue that the retraction paper is a forgery,
created by conspirators who wanted to display Rizal as renouncing his faith before he was
executed. Such claims are based mainly on handwriting discrepancies as well as an absence
of solid evidence, let alone compelling proof, that would establish a paper with such
characteristics as being Rizal's own.
2. Contradictory Role Model: Rizal opposed the abuses of the Philippine Catholic Church
and was a member of the Masonic fraternity. That he would renounce the same at the end is
astounding in terms of the consistency in the ideological and moral principles that he had
during his lifetime, especially on how the Church was criticized through his writings and
actions.
3. Inconsistencies in S eyewitness Account: The accounts of the priests who testify that they
witnessed Rizal's alleged renunciation are always inconsistent. There are some details, which
are different from each other, hence leading to more doubts that whether the event really
occurred or was invented later with an intent to fit the Church's version.
4. Delayed Publication of the Retraction: The original retraction document was not published
immediately after Rizal was executed, and this is suspicious in the sense that it should have
been published long earlier if it were really for authenticity. Many think that had it been a
true retraction, it should have been published instead of its being hushed up over the years.
[Link] Official Copy: There existed various "versions" of the retraction letter which emerged
but none of them could be traced down definitely to Rizal. And it is the absence of an original
document, which feeds doubts still further.

6
V. Final Stand

First, the original document of retraction found by Fr. Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic
hierarchy’s archive in Manila was never shown to the public, only reproductions of it. Even
Jose Rizal’s family did not saw it because it was said to be lost. Could the Jesuits be this
irresponsible to not know the value of the paper? It was after thirty-nine years when the
original copy was found in the archdiocesan archives. Ricardo Pascual Ph. D who was given
permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda to examine the document and later concluded in his
book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the documents presented was a forgery. The common
rebuttal of this argument was either Father Balaguer or Father Pi had made errors in
reproducing another copy of the original. In 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”. It is so
obvious that the document was forged.
Actually, there is the confession of the forger. It was Roman Roque, the man who also forged
the signature of Urbano Lacuna, which was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, he
says, 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 neighbours and there is also a letter dated November 10,
1936 from Lorenzo Ador Dionisio, former provincial secretary of Nueva Ecija, who was also
present when Roque told his story and confirms it. Second assertion, Rizal’s behavior as a
whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and during the last 24 hours in particular is
consistent. Whether written during the last 24 hours or somewhat earlier, Rizal’s Ultimo
Adios does not suggest any change in Rizal’s thought. The letters which Rizal wrote during
his last hours do not indicate conversion or even religious turmoil. Furthermore, in the
deepest sense of the word Rizal was already a “believer.” He will not just simply neglect all
the writing he conceived with his hard work, the writings that brought him to the point of
being executed.
Third evidence as to Rizal did not retract is that when Father Balaguer came to terms that he
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.
Considering the time it would take for the three priests (Fr. Jose Vilaclara, Fr. Estanislao
March, and Fr. Vicente Balaguer) to negotiate the expanse of the walk to give spiritual care to
the condemned Dr. Jose Rizal, why is it that only Fr. Balaguer could describe a wedding? 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 remember 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. 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? Also according to his poem which
expresses “'Adiós', I go where there are no slaves, no hangmen or oppressors, where faith

7
does not kill” It is evident that his referring to the Catholic Church, it is clear that there is
bitterness behind those phrases. Furthermore, in Josephine Bracken’s matrimony to Vicente
Abad, the Church Register of Marriages kept at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Hong Kong
made no reference that Josephine was a “Rizal” by marriage, or that she was the widow of
Jose Rizal. In the legal register of Hong Kong, Josephine used the last name “Bracken”
instead of “Rizal” to be married to Vicente Abad.
Lastly, why would Rizal retract when he knows for a fact that even if he signs the retraction
paper he would still be executed? There is no effort was made to save Rizal from the death
penalty after his signing of the retraction. Additionally, if Rizal really died as a catholic, why
did they bury him outside of the Paco cemetery wherein Fr. Burgos had been positioned,
which is evidently the cemetery for anti-Catholic Church? Also, the record of his burial was
not placed on the page for entries of December 30 but on a special page where at least one
other admitted non-penitent is recorded. And the worst part is, he have been buried without
any coffin! Wouldn’t it be Ironic? If Jesuits wants to prove that Rizal himself had retracted
why did they buried him collectively where heretics are laid? They didn’t even offered a
mass in church for Rizal.
Rizal was fixated of the thought that he would die for the love of his country. Let us look at
the character of this man. Rizal was mature enough to make right decisions. Numerous of his
works was all about the cruelty of Spaniards. All of those include friars, all of those submit
directly to the Catholic Church. Just think about it, would Rizal just simply abandon all his
work of art that took most of his time and hard work in just an exchange of a great sum of
money and an estate if he retracts? The answer is NO. It would be like vomiting of what you
just had eaten and swallow it again. We can see right through his works that Rizal is a man of
one word, he had never distorted his thoughts and never will be. His character speaks so loud
that is why a lot of Filipino including us does not believe that he wrote and sign a retraction
paper. He is truly a great hero who courted death to prove to those who deny his patriotism
that he knows how to die for his duty and his beliefs. Until his last breath, he is still fights for
what he think is right, he fights for our freedom, he fights for his beloved countrymen.

8
References:

David,Darelene Dacanay(December 2021) The Retraction of Rizal

[Link]

Escalante,Rene (December 26, 2019) Did jose rizal die a catholic?, Department of history,
De la salle University.[Link]
Isabella Francesca Echalar Kc Lyn Bu Position Paper [Link]
[Link]
Gorilla,Constable (April 2022) The Retraction of Rizal
[Link]
Miranda Christian J, Onrubia Rojan, Grumal Jethro, Ortiz M. John (November, 2021) did
rizal retract
ResearchGate.[Link]
overing_the_Controversies_of_the_National_Hero's_Last_Moments
Ulam,Shanell (August 2023) case study of Rizal's Retraction
[Link]