Thursday, July 6, 2017

He Sheltered Bonifacio When The *KKK Faltered

(*KKK = Tagalog name for the society: "Kataastaasan Kagalang-galang Katipunan nang mga Anak nang Bayan" (English: "Highest and Most Respectable Society of the Children of the nation ")

Isabelo Donato y Aquilar sheltered Bonifacio, Supremo of the Katipunan, and performed espionage work for him during those perilous days of the secret society at the risk of his life. For his invaluable services to the cause of the Philippine Revolution, Bonifacio gave him the bolo which he wielded on the battlefield as a historic memento.

Although of the landed gentry, Donato identified himself early in youth with the working class with whose sad plight he commiserated. Following his association with Bonifacio, which started when he set up his house and an apartment for rent on Soler near the Tutuban railroad station, a few meters away from Bonifacio's old house on Azcarraga (now Claro M. Recto), he became a rabid sympathizer of the Katipunan.

After Bonifacio suffered reverses in the hands of the Spaniards at Pinaglabanan and the Langka River, he sought the help of Donato. Early in September, 1896 the supremo, together with his brother, Procopio, and Emilio Jacinto, left their hideout in Balara to set up headquarters in Manila.

Before settling down in the city, the trio took refuge in Donato's house at 168 Soler while he looked for a safer retreat in San Nicolas. Bonifacio finally chose the house at 116 Lavezares. Besides providing them with food and supplies for more than two months, Donato conducted intelligence work in nearby Intramuros for the revolutionary movement.

His tremendous success in this delicate espionage mission, which greatly helped Bonifacio in preparing his second plan to capture Manila, endeared him most to the Katipunan leader who rewarded him generously. 

With the significant role he played in the Katipunan, Donato lived in constant danger. The Spanish police blacklisted him and persistently went after him. As a precaution he left instruction to his wife to hang a red blanket on their front window should the authority look for him, so he could avoid them and give him ample time to flee to the nearby mountains.

After Bonifacio's departure early 1897 for San Francisco de Malabon in Cavite where he was eventually executed, Donato continued to suffer serious reverses. First, his father, who was a Freemason, was arrested, imprisoned at Fort Santiago, and mercilessly tortured. Then during the Philippine-American war his entire property in Aranque, Manila, consisting of a row of commercial and apartment houses was burned by the retreating Filipino forces to delay the advance of the more powerful American invaders.

The eldest of the three children of the couple Capitan Manuel Donato, a prosperous city businessman, and Gregoria Aquilar, a Dutch mestiza, he was born in Santa Cruz, Manila, on July 7, 1866. After taking up the land surveying course at the University of Santo Tomas, he left the comfort of his easy life as a promising businessman to heed the call of patriotic duty. He joined Freemasonry's Lodge Walana.

Left practically penniless after the two wars against Spain and America, Donato had to start all over again to support his growing family. He became a wine dealer, then an insurance underwriter of the Tambunting estate.

Through sheer determination, perseverance and industry, he was able to give his family the comfort and abundance of his pre-revolutionary life.

Donato married early and early became a widower with one child, Pilar. By his second wife, Hipolita San Juan of Manila, he had seven children, four of whom became professionals. He was 59 when he died in Manila on Sept. 6, 1925. 

# many thanks and much obliged Doc. Jim Richardson for sharing and sending me this old newspaper article about my grandfather.
- ka tony

Saturday, June 10, 2017

June 12, 1898 Philippine Independence Day? had been raining hard for a week and Kawit, Cavite was deep in mud but June 12, 1898 the sun was shining, the muddy patriots shouting “Viva la Independencia!” as the Philippine flag was waved outside the window of Aguinaldo’s mansion. Emilio Aguinaldo went ahead with his proclamation and decided to make it in Kawit, not in Bacoor where his headquarters was because he said “I had more fame and influence in Kawit.” Ambrosio Rianzares read the Acta de la Independencia “We proclaim and solemnly declare in the name and by the authority of the inhabitants of all these Philippine Islands, that they are and have a right to be free and independent. The nation this day commence to have a life of its own” and the band played Julian Felipe’s “Marcha Nacional Filipina." American Admiral George Dewey was invited to the ceremonies but because of the warnings from Washington, he instead sent a representative. After the proclamation there were no receptions nor a celebration. That afternoon the house of Aguinaldo was crowded and at about two o’clock Apolinario Mabini arrived in a hammock coming from Laguna de Bay that took ten days to carry him to Kawit. Aguinaldo ordered that Mabini to be taken up stairs where they can talk alone. Mabini shook his head, disapproving at the declaration of independence saying its “premature and brash.” 

Aguinaldo never explain why he chose June 12 for the Kawit proclamation but as early as June his plans which were carried out the view of Manila, his army were advancing on the capital, seemed to fall into his hands and he wanted to enter Intramuros (Manila) declare victory as the dictator of an independent government. He recall that as early as June 5th, 1898, he had notified the Americans that he would be proclaiming the independence of the Philippines. Aguinaldo later claim that Admiral Dewey advised him not to take Intramuros (Manila) yet and wait for the arrival of the American land troops, so the two “allied” armies could enter Intramuros together. On the other hand the Americans were already denying any “alliance” with the Filipinos when the gullible Aguinaldo proclaimed freedom with the idea that the Americans would support it. Though Aguinaldo’s armies, not the Americans that conquered Manila, its arrabales and moreover controlled the whole country. Only this piece of peninsulares' land Walled City Intramuros, the capital of the colonial Philippines and the only Spanish province outside Spain, held out but after three months of siege to which Aguinaldo had subjected it, Intramuros as well in the 13th of August was about to fall to the Filipinos. Only the secret pact between Spanish Governor-General Fermin Jaudenes with Admiral Dewey and General Merritt enable the Americans to take what they have not won:

1) Governor-General Jaudenes want the Americans to swear not to allow the advancing troops of Filipinos enter Intramuros. 
2) Jaudenes, the remaining armed Spanish troops and peninsulares will formally and only will surrender to the Americans and not to the Filipinos.

Not only was Aguinaldo ordered not to enter the fallen city of Intramuros by the Americans, he was ordered to leave Manila's surrounding arrabales (Malate, San Miguel, Sta. Mesa, Sampaloc, Tondo) that were already occupied by victorious Filipino troops, the lack of common sense Aguinaldo pursed the gringos' order. In any principles and regulations of war, Americans had no right to occupy what they had not won or conquered, they only won from Admirante Patricio Montojo’s Spanish squadron was Manila Bay and to use that victory to claim the entire Philippines.

Every month of March during the birthday of Aguinaldo with his few remaining loyal friends, the easily duped general redundantly wishing that he might see before he died the Independence Day of the Philippines celebrated not on July 4th that was given by the Americans but on June 12th, the day on which he proclaimed in 1898, in Kawit the independence of the Philippines. 

In 1961 Filipino nationalist, Founder/Chairman of the National Heroes Commission and Secretary of Education Alejandro “Anding” Roces passed a resolution requesting to adopt and declare June 12 as Independence Day for the Republic of the Philippines, not until 1962 was there a celebration of June 12 as a presidential decree by then President Diosdado Macapagal. 

President Macapagal wrote Secretary Roces, the rest of his cabinet and close friends:

The opportunity came when the US House of Representatives rejected the $73 million additional war payment bill on May 9, 1962. There was indignation among the Filipinos. There was a loss of American good will in the Philippines, although this was restored later by the reconsideration of the action of the US lower chamber. At this time, a state visit in the United States had been scheduled for Mrs. Macapagal and me on the initiative and invitation of President John F. Kennedy. Unable to resist the pressure of public opinion, I was constrained to obtain the agreement of Kennedy to defer the state visit for another time.
To postpone the state visit, I wrote a letter on May 14, 1962, to Kennedy, which read in part as follows:
The feeling of resentment among our people and the attitude of the US Congress negate the atmosphere of good will upon which my state visit to your country was predicated. Our people would never understand how, in the circumstances now obtaining, I could go to the United States and in all honesty affirm that I bear their message of good will. It is with deep regret therefore that I am constrained to ask you to agree to the postponement of my visit to a more auspicious time.

On May 28, 1962, Kennedy wrote me explaining the situation on the war damage bill. His letter stated:

"In the meantime, I must respect your decision that your visit to the United States should be postponed. We do not want your visit to be less than first class, when it comes. But I do hope that we will be able to find another convenient time."

I decided to effect the change of independence day at that time not as an act of resentment but as a judicious choice of timing for the taking of an action which had previously been decided upon.

In my address on the first June 12 as independence day celebration, I said:

"In the discharge of my responsibility as President of the Republic, I moved the observance of the anniversary of our independence to this day because a nation is born into freedom on the day when such a people, moulded into a nation by the process of cultural evolution and a sense of oneness born of common struggle and suffering, announces to the world that it asserts its natural right to liberty and is ready to defend it with blood, life, and honor."

While we were seated at the grandstand during the ceremonies, General Aguinaldo thanked me again for the rectification of an erroneous historical practice and then asked:
 "When will there be an Aguinaldo monument at the Luneta like that of Rizal?” 
I could not answer the question: 
"The next generation might have the answer."

"...Ang tunay na kalayaan ay hindi ibinibigay o hinahandog, ang kalayaan ay pinagbubuwisan ng buhay, pinagdadanakan ng dugo, pawis at luha upang ito'y matamo!” 
- ka tony
the 12th of June, 2017 

Monday, May 29, 2017

Dekalogo ng Katipunan ng Supremo Andres Bonifacio

...ang Supremo Bonifacio ang unang nakaisip na sumulat ng dekalogong pang etika na susundin at gagawing basehang kautusan ng Masang Katipunan. Sinulat niya ang sampung kautusan base rin sa bilang ng sampung kautusan ng Diyos, bago niya ito ipalimbag at ibahagi sa mga Katipunero'y kaniya na munang ipinabasa sa kaniyang kabiyak na si Aling Oryang. Kaniya rin sana ito ipababasa sa kaniyang kanang kamay na si Emilio Jacinto, subalit naunahan siyang ipinabasa sa kaniya ang sinulat ni Jacinto na "Kartilya ng Katipunan."

Matapos na mabasa ng Supremo ang sinulat ni Jacinto na Kartilya ng Katipunan, ay nagsabi na... "ito'y ating ipalimbag at ipamahagi sa ating mga Kapatid upang ito ang sundin na kautusan ng Katipunan." Nang umuwi ang Supremo at tanungin siya ni Aling Oryang kung pinabasa niya kay Jacinto ang sinulat na "Dekalogo" ang tugon ng Supremo ay... "napakaganda ng sinulat na "Kartilya" ng Kapatid na Jacinto, tulo'y hindi ko na ipinabasa."
- ka tony
ika-20 ng Agosto, 2015

"Dakalogo ng Katipunan" - mga katungkulang gagawin ng mga Anak ng Bayan.
1) ...Sumampalataya sa MayKapal ng taimtim sa puso.
2) ...Gunamgunamin sa sarili tuina, na ang matapat na pag sampalataya sa Kanya ay ang pag ibig sa lupang tinubuan, sa pagkat ito ang tunay na pag ibig sa kapwa.
3) ...Ykintal sa puso ang pag asa na malabis na kapurihan at kapalaran na kung ikamamatay ng tawoy mag bubuhat sa pagliligtas sa kaalipinan ng bayan.
4) ...Sa kalamigan ng loob, katiagaan, katuiran at pag asa sa ano mang gagawin nag bubuhat ang ikagaganap ng mabuting ninanais.
5) ...Paingat ingatang gaya ng puri ang mga bilin at balak ng K... K... K....
6) ...Sa isang na sa sapanganib sa pag tupad ng kanyang tungkol, idadamay ng lahat, ang buhay at yaman upang maligtas yaon.
7) ...Hangarin na ang kalagayan ng isatisa, maging huaran ng kanyang kapwa sa mabuting pagpapasunod at pag tupad ng kanyang tungkol.
8) ...Bahaginan ng makakaya ang alin mang nagdaralita.
9) ...Ang kasipagan sa pag hahanap-buhay ay siyang tunay na pag ibig at pag mamahal sa sarili sa asawa, anak at kapatid o kabayan.
10) ...Lubos na pag sampalataya sa parusang ilinalaang sa balang sowail at magtaksil, gayon din sa pala na kakamtan ukol sa mabuting gawa. Sampalatayanan din naman na ang mga layong tinutungo ng K... K... K... ay kaloob ng Maykapal, sa makatwid ang hangad ng bayan ay hangad din Nya.

Trece de Agosto

Many old streets in Manila were named "Trece de Agosto," this was the day when Manila fell to the hands of the Americans in 1898 and was declared a public holiday (Republic Act 214) during the American colonial years, celebrated the day in Manila by a long parade of American troops. The taking over of Manila later the whole Philippines by the Americans was invalid, it was Aguinaldo's rebel forces not the Americans who vanquished the Spaniards in the arrabales (suburbs of Intramuros [Manila]) and controlled the rest of the country. American war correspondent F.D. Miller wrote… "the Insurgents had accomplished wonders in forcing the enemy (Spanish) to retire to their inner line of defenses, though they were practically without artiller." The U.S. government used "Trece de Agosto" to confirm their takeover of the Philippines and made the whole archipelago their colony. 

A secret pact between the Spanish Governor-General Fermin Jaudenes, American Admiral George Dewey and General Wesley Merritt enable the Americans to claim and take what they have not won. Aguinaldo and his rebel troops were not allowed to enter Spanish Intramuros (Manila) were also ordered to leave and give up what they have already won and occupied areas like Malate, San Miguel, Sta. Mesa, Sampaloc and Tondo. Under the law of war, Americans had no right to occupy what they have not conquered they used their victory at Manila Bay to possess the whole country. The Americans broke the peace treaty when they took Spanish Intramuros (Manila) on August 13, 1898 because on August 12, the U.S. President McKinley had ordered a suspension of all military operations against the enemy because the U.S. and Spain agreed to a peace meet in Paris (Treaty of Paris). When the Americans occupied Manila on August 13, a cease of any act of hostilities had been proclaimed and all U.S. land and sea commanders had been ordered to avoid from actions inconsistent with that proclamation. So the occupation of the city is invalid, illegal and against the orders of the president who is the commander in chief. Admiral George Dewey knew this and gave part of the same order "Land soldiers are not allowed any positions, save several hundred yards from the Insurgents’ frontlines."

The illegal occupation of Manila didn't stop General Merritt not to leave or vacate Intramuros, scared that the Filipino rebels who were the real victors might take over the city, who were stopped from entering the city while the Americans raised their flag inside the wall city and claimed the victory. The U.S. won not only the peace meet in Paris but bought the last island colonies of Spain: Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines with Guam for $20 million and the treaty was signed on December 10, 1898 and ended the Spanish-American War but ensuing Philippine-American War that the U.S. claim of the Philippines colony they "maintained" for more than half century because of a mock-battle, pretended victory that was invalid and illegal. But this is not the end of it, after 47 years it happened again. During World War 2, General Douglas MacArthur escaped for a sure capture of the invading Japanese forces, left his duties, responsibilities and his troops that were taken prisoners. The Hubalahap and other Filipino guerrillas were already winning the war against the bankrupt Japanese imperialists. MacArthur returned and claimed the victory and the "liberation of Manila" was indeed the destruction of Manila which is unnecessary, the bombing that killed many Filipino civilians was an act to show Uncle Sam's power to the world and to rebuild MacArthur's ego that was damaged when Bataan and Corregidor were surrendered, when he abandoned his duties, responsibilities and his American soldiers taken prisoners by the Japanese. Manila was second to Warsaw as the most devastated cities after WW-2. The sad part about this destruction, Uncle Sam with MacArthur's recommendation right after WW-2, helped and aided Japan the enemy, abandoned his colony the Philippines, gave the country a fake independence to avoid expensive reparation which he himself destroyed.
- ka tony
the 13th of August, 2016

Saturday, April 8, 2017

The 9th of April, 1942 - Fall of Bataan

..the morning of the 3rd of April, 1942 was Good Friday, it was also the day the Japanese launched their offensive at the foot of Mount Samat in Bataan where the U.S. Armed Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) last stand. At three o'clock in the afternoon the Japanese began with massive artillery followed by their "red zero" planes dropped incendiary bombs and created flame and smoke, the Japanese troops started the attack. By nightfall the Japanese reached the USAFFE defense lines. 

The two US generals: Edward King and Henry Jones in Bataan, who by the 8th of April saw the futility of another counterattack ordered by General Jonathan Wainwright the commander MacArthur left in charge of the USAFFE before he escaped from a sure imprisonment by the advancing Japanese armed forces. On the afternoon of April 8, General King sent a messenger name General Arnold Funk to Wainwright in Corregidor, that Bataan might fall at any moment. Almost at the same time Wainwright received a telegram from MacArthur from Australia stating: "I am utterly opposed to capitulation. If food fails, you will execute an attack upon the enemy." other words MacArthur is expecting his generals to die fighting. Another telegram was received later by Wainwright was an order from US President Roosevelt forbidding surrender: "So long as there remains any possibility of resistance."

Wainwright told General Funk his message to King: "General, you go back and tell General King he will not surrender. Tell him he will attack. Those are my orders." ...tears springing to Funk's eyes and said: "General, you know of course what the situation there. You know what the outcome will be." Wainwright replied saying: "I do!"

With 70,000 troops on Bataan General Edward P. King grandson of a Confederate General of the Civil War, fell the grisly choice between annihilation and surrender, between obeying Wainwright and Roosevelt and saving the lives of his soldiers after months of fighting the invading Japanese Army where food and medicine exhausted. At six in the morning, General King chose to surrender his troops on the 9th of April, 1942, two Americans emissaries were sent to the Japanese lines under the white flag of truce to arrange a meet. 

Around 3:30 AM of April 9, Col. Everett Williams and Maj. Marshall Hurt volunteered to make contact with the Japanese, decided to leave before sunrise. King gave Williams a piece of paper requesting a meeting with the Japanese officer commanding the Bataan Army and gave Williams the authority to negotiate a surrender. They acquired a jeep, a driver and the three then proceeded north, towards the Japanese lines. Sometime after 5:30 AM, they were intercepted by Japanese troops. Williams showed the Sergeant in charge the letter from King with his instructions. After some tense moments, the Japanese Sergeant boarded the American Jeep and they drove north where they met Gen. Kameichiro Nagano who agreed to meet Gen. King near the frontline. 

The Japanese retained Col. Williams and sent Maj. Hurt back to Gen. King’s headquarters. Soon after Gen. King, Col. Collier, Maj. Wade Cothran, Capt. Tisdelle and Maj. Hurt boarded two jeeps and drove towards the experimental farm in Lamao. During their drive, they were strafed by Japanese planes. Japanese troops intercepted them at the Lamao River Bridge. King and his officers were escorted to the experimental farm station. Gen. Nagano told King that a representative of the Japanese 14th Army would soon arrive and at 11:00 AM a Col. Motoo Nakayama, senior operations officer for the 14th Army. Col. Nakayama thought Gen. King was Gen. Wainwright. When King explained that he was not Gen. Wainwright, Col. Nakayama told King to go get Wainwright, King explained he could not contact Wainwright and he only had authority to surrender the forces on Bataan, not the Filipino-American forces of the Philippines. Col. Nakayama replied that he could not accept a piecemeal surrender of just the Bataan forces. Again he told Gen. King that no surrender could be accepted or the cessation of hostilities would be granted without the presence of Gen. Wainwright surrendering the entire Filipino-American forces of the Philippines.

After more heated discussion and Nakayama refusing to accept the surrender of the Bataan forces, Nakayama later agreed to accept the individual, unconditional surrender of Gen. King as an individual. The distinction is that no force or entity was ever surrendered, since the surrender of only a part of the Filipino-American forces could not be accepted by Col. Nakayama. There were no terms of surrender to be discussed, Nakayama insisted on holding to his linguistic distinction between personal surrender and the surrender of a force. King asked if he surrendered, would his troops be treated well, Col. Nakayama only replied: "We are not Barbarians." Gen. King agreed to surrender and Nakayama asked for King’s sword. King apologized and said he did not have his sword because he left it in Manila, he did convinced them to take his pistol. No surrender document was prepared or signed nor was any effort made to formalize the surrender. The Japanese concluded that the surrender negotiations had failed, Nakayama wrote: "The surrender of the American Philippine Forces in the Bataan Peninsula was accomplished by the voluntary and unconditional surrender of each individual. The negotiations for the cessation of hostilities failed." From the Japanese perspective, no force was ever surrendered, only individuals surrendered and Nakayama left. Col. Collier and Maj. Hurt were allowed to return to the American lines with Gen. King’s order to surrender. 

King never informed Wainwright, a move which would cost him professionally. He wanted the responsibility all to himself saying: "You men remember this. You did not surrender ... you had no alternative but to obey my order." ...That night in Corregidor Wainwright received an odd message from Roosevelt, who said that he was leaving to Wainwright's best judgement "any decision affecting Netherlands future of Bataan garrison." Roosevelt thus revoked his order of no surrender on the very day of surrender, when it was too late and there was no need to revoke it. 

King spent three and half years as a captive of the Japanese and was often mistreated by them because of his rank. In a meeting with his troops prior to being sent to a POW Camp in Manchuria, he assured his men, in a tearful farewell, that he alone was responsible for the surrender. In General King’s own words: "We were asked to lay down a bunt. We did just that. You have nothing to be ashamed of." 

It is also important to point out that General King's decision to surrender on April 9, 1942, he surrendered the largest military force in American History. Then again his courageous act saved the lives of thousands of his troops, who would have been annihilated by the Japanese if he had not surrendered. General Masaharu Homma, commander of the Japanese 14th Army, refused to see General King and ordered Colonel Motoo Nakayama to face King & his officers. In the book "Ghost Soldiers" by Hampton Sides describes the surrender scene... "From the start Nakayama was greatly confused about the nature of King’s relationship to Wainwright and just what it was that King was offering to surrender." As far as the Japanese were concerned, Bataan and Corregidor were one and the same and insisted on the presence of Wainwright. When King brought up the Geneva Convention and expressed concern about the safety of his men, he was brusquely cut off with Nakayama saying... "The Imperial Japanese Army are not barbarians." ...General King had no way of knowing the horrors they would face in captivity, including the Bataan Death March. King spent three and half years as a captive of the Japanese. Both Wainwright & King expected court-martial for disobeying the no-surrender order. However, they were freed finally. After the war General King returned to the US where he retired to a home in Georgia, he died peacefully on August 31, 1958 at the aged of 74.
- ka tony
the 9th of April '16

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Ang Masang Katipunan at ang French Revolution

Ginugunita ang kahalagahan ng ika-14 ng Hulyo ng bansang Pransya bilang "Fall of the Bastille." Ang "Bastille Saint-Antoine" ay isang "medieval fortress" at bilanguan na dito kinukulong ang mga kriminal, may-sira ang ulo at ang mga burgesyang tulad nila: Voltaire, Marquis de Sade, atbp... na laban sa pamamalakad ng monarkya, dito'y na kulong din. Sinalakay ng magkasamang lakas ng masa at burgesya ang napakahirap pasukin at pasukuin na Bastille, subalit ito'y matagumpay na napasok at napasuko noong ika-14 ng Hulyo, 1789.

Umabot ng 107 taon pagkatapos ng French Revolution nasa distrito ng San Nicolas, arrabales ng Intramuros nagmamasid, pinagaaralan at nagpaplano sa binabalak din ng Supremo Andres Bonifacio na pasukin at pasukuin ang "medieval fortress" ng mga peninsulares sa Intramuros (Maynila). Inaalam kung kailan ipapadala sa Mindanao na kung saan ay may pagaalsa ang mga Muslim ang malakas na pwersa ng mga Kastila na nasa Intramuros, kung ano ang mabisang paraan upang pasukin at patayin ang kuryente na nagbibigay ng kuryente sa Intramuros ng La Electricista de Manila sa Quiapo na magbibigay din ng hudyat sa mga Caviteno na lumusob at paligiran ang Intramuros at kasabay din nito ang pagsalakay ng pangkat ng Supremo Bonifacio sa El Deposito sa San Juan del Monte upang makuha ang mga sandata ng mga Kastila na doon nakalagak.

Ang pinangalingang konsepto at idelohiya ng Masang Katipunan ng Supremo Bonifacio ay ang French Revolution na kaniyang pinagaralan at nagbigay diwa sa kaniya. Ang pinangalingan din ng konsepto, idelohiya at dyalektika ng Proletaryong Komonismo ni Karl Marx ay French Revolution at Industrial Revolution. Ang kabuoang layunin ng Masang Katipunan ay tulad din sa mithing layunin at sinigaw na "mantra" ng French Revolution "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" ("Kalayaan, Kapantayan, Kapatiran"). Ang orihinal na pinangalingan ng "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite" ay mula kay Antoine-François Momoro isang manlilimbag ng mga aklat at ginamit naman ito ni Olympe de Gouges na pinahalagahan ang "Fraternite" para sa buong kababaihan sa Pransya upang makapantay ang mga kalalakihan sa pakikibakang himagsikan. Ganito rin kahalaga sa Supremo Bonifacio ang "Kapatiran" upang makapagbigay diwang pagkakaisa sa pakikibaka, kaya't ipinairal na tawagan sa kapwa Katipunero, ang "Kapatid" o "Ka" bago bangitin ang pangalan.

Nagsanhing inspirasyon naman sa French Revolution ay ang na unang himagsikang ginawa ng hilagang Amerika na dito napatunayan na ang makapangyarihan na sandatahang lakas ng kolonyalistang Britania ay maaaring pabagsakin ng kulang sa armas subalit nagkakaisang diwa sa layuning kalayaan ng mga taong bayan. Kaya't ng sabihin ni Rizal na kinakailangan ng maraming sandata at lubos na pagsasanay upang simulan ang himagsikan, ang sagot ng Supremo Bonifacio ay... "saan ito nabasa ni Rizal at anong himagsikan sa mundo na pumutok at ang mga nakikibaka'y handa na at marami nang sandata?"

...ang layunin sa paglunsad ng Masang Katipunan ng Supremo Bonifacio ay para sa:

a) ...kabuoang kalayaan ng Haring Bayang Katagalugan sa kolonyalistang Espania sa pamamagitan ng armadong himagsikan.
b) ...kunin, ibalik at ipaghati-hati ang mga lupa, kayamanan at ari-ariang kinamkam, inagaw, inilit at ninakaw ng mga prayle at Kastilang cortes mula sa mga mahihirap at mga magsasakang Katagalugan.
c) ...ibagsak ang eletistang lipunan na pinairal ng mga Kastila at itaguyod ang pantay na lipunan.

"...Andres Bonifacio, an employee of a foreign business house in Manila, was the leading spirit of the Katipunan; gathering his ideas of modern reform from reading Spanish treatises on the French revolution, he had imbibed also a notion that the methods of the mob in Paris where those best adapted to secure amelioration for the Filipinos. His ideas where those of a socialist and of a socialist of the French revolution type and he thought them applicable to an undeveloped tropical country, where the pressure of industrial competition is almost unknown and where with the slightest reasonable exertion, starvation may be dismissed from thought." 

- James LeRoy (adviser of Governor-General William Howard Taft)

"...The Katipunan came out from the cover of secret designs, threw off the cloak of any other purpose and stood openly for the independence of the Philippines. Bonifacio turned his lodges into battalions, his grandmasters into captains and the supreme council of the Katipunan into the insurgent government of the Philippines." 

- John R.M. Taylor (custodian of the Philippine Insurgent Records)

Napakalaking inspirasyon ang dinulot ng French Revolution sa Industrial Revolution. Dito'y napatunayan na ang makalumang paniniwala at kapangyarihan ng daynastiyang kapitalistang kamaganakan, simbahan, elit na lipunan at naghaharing uring monarkya ay maaaring masugpo at ihiwalay sa pamamagitan ng nagkakaisang kamay ng mangagawang industriyal sa ikabubuti ng sambayanan. Ito ang nagdulot ng diwa sa isipan ni Karl Marx sa kaniyang Communist Manifesto, para sa kapakanan ng "anak pawis" na proletaryong manggagawa, magsasaka at kahalagahan ng "surplus value" para sa kanila. Hinalintulad din sa French Revolution na sa pamamagitan lamang ng armadong proletaryong himagsikan laban sa pwedalismo, kapitalismo, kolonyalismo at imperyalismo, ang natatanging paraan upang makapagpundar ng pantay na lipunang Sosyalismo. Ang ginamit na paraan ng French Revolution ay walang hangang terorismo o "reign of terror" laban sa monarkya at aristokrat, maging ang paghatol ng malagim na kamatayang "guillotine" sa mga may sala na pinamalas ng mga naghimagsik sa publiko upang magsilbing aral, mapatunayan at maipatupad ang mithing layunin.

Ang Masang Katipunan ng Supremo Bonifacio ay kauna-unahang nasyonalismong himagsikan sa buong Asia, samantalang ang proletaryong manggagawa at magsasakang Komunistang himagsikan na nilunsad ni Lenin sa Rusya ay kauna-unahan sa sangkatauhan. Kaya't kung ipaguugnay ang dalawang himagsikan na nilunsad ng Supremo Bonifacio at ng bansang Rusya, ito ay binuo sa sinilang na nasyonalismo at proletaryong armadong himagsikan ng Communist Party of the Philippines na nagsimula nang magtipon ang mga magsasaka, masang manggagawa ng "Templo del Trabajo" at "Obrero Democratica de Filipinas" sa Plaza Morriones, Tondo noong ika-1 ng Mayo, 1903. Sila ay nagmartsa patungong Malacanan na kung saan nandoon ang American Governor-General William Howard Taft. Tila bandila ang taglay na mga larawan ng Supremo Andres Bonifacio ng mga nagsipagaklas na nagmamartsa. Ang pagaklas na ito'y nauwi sa kaguluhan tuloy ito ay pinaratangan na isang sidisyon, ginawang labag sa batas ang paggamit sa bandilang Pilipinas at pati larawan ng Supremo, na naging sagisag ng himaksikan, tuloy lalong nagpababa sa imahen ng Supremo bilang pangunahing pambansang bayani ng Pilipinas sa mata ng pamahalaang kolonyal.

Ang kataksilang pagpatay sa burgesyang Supremo Bonifacio, ay sa kamay din ng kapwa nilang burgesyang ambisyosong politiko ang kinawakasan ng buhay ng burgesyang Georges Danton at Maximilien Robespierre na nagpasimuno ng French Revolution. Ang French Revolution ay nagdulot ng magandang halimbawa sa buong mundo, sa idelohiya, pamahalaan, industriya at patakarang panglipunan at ang bansang Pransya ay nagkaroon ng matibay na diwang makabayan, inalis ang kapangyarihan ng monarkya, lipunang elit at simbahan, nagwakas ang pwedalismo at nakapagtatag ng hukbong lakas para sa sambayanan.

Sa isang banda, ang himagsikan ng Masang Katipunan ng Supremo Bonifacio ay inagaw ng mga taksil na ilustrado, ipinagbili sa kaaway sa Biak na Bato at sa bandang huli'y nakipagsabwatan sa bagong gringong kolonyalista upang mabigyan ang mga ito ng maliit na kapangyarihan sa kolonyal na pamahalaan. Ang gringong kolonyalista ay 'di tulad ng mga kolonyalistang Kastila na kung maaari'y huwag tangapin tayong mga indio sa kanilang itinaguyod na paaralan sa ating bansa na napakamahal ang twisyon, tuloy mga mayayamang ilustrado lamang ang may kayang makapagaral samantalang ang dukhang masa'y nanatiling mangmang. Ang kolonyalistang gringo'y sapilitan tayong pinagaral sa itinayo nilang "public school" o libreng paaralan at nilimbag na mga teksbuks, upang ituro at matutunan ang kanilang wika, kasaysayan at kultura na kasama sa kanilang "pacification program" na magsisilbing "brain washing program" upang ang ating puso at isipan manatili ang patuloy na proseso sa pagiral ng ating "colonial mentality." Siniraan at ginawang krimen ang idelohyang Sosyalismo at Komunismo upang madali nilang takutin ang lipunang may "amerkanong kaisipan" at maipagpatuloy ang kanilang imperyalistang militarismo at kapitalistang ekonomiya. Ginamit din ang paraang pananakot na ito sa mga mamamayan ng mga papet na pangulo lalo noong dekada 70 ng diktador marcos, hindi lamang upang takutin ang taong bayan, upang takutin din si Tiyo Samuel sa kunwa'y mabilis na paglaganap ng Komunismo at mga kaguluhang terorismo, ng sagayo'y ipagpatuloy ang pagsusuporta sa kaniyang diktadorya.

Subalit papaano nating mahihiwalay at maiiba ang diwa at kaluluwa sa iisang konsepto na pinangalingan ng masang pakikibaka ng Katipunan at Sosyalismo na ang pinagmulan ay ang French Revolution na ginawang basehan ng Supremo Bonifacio? Marami ng idineklarang kalayaan subalit wala pang naisagawa, naitatag, nakamit o natamong tunay na kabuoang kalayaan, sapagkat kinahihiya at natatakot ang sambayanan na matawag na Sosyalista o Komunista upang ipagpatuloy ang naputol na Sosyalistang Masang Himagsikan ng Katipunan, upang maipagpatuloy din ang naputol na uliran, banal at napakalinis na walang bahid ng korapsyon at kolonyalismo... Ang Pamahalaan ng Haring Bayang Katagalugan na tinatag ng Unang Pangulong Supremo Andres Bonifacio!

- ka tony
Bastille Day, ika-14 ng Hulyo, 2015

Monday, December 28, 2015

Manila 29 de Deciembre de 1896 - Jose P. Rizal's Retraction

Leon Maria Guerrero author of "The First Filipino" book about Rizal, asked... "Was he innocent or guilty? ...If innocent, why is he a hero? ...If guilty, how can he be a martyr?"

The same questions I asked myself and the answers I have on these questions, I'm leaning towards the retraction of Rizal:
# dissociate himself from the rebellion Rizal offered his services as a military doctor, after staying in Spain for about 8 hours on the way to Cuba October 6, 1896, Rizal was notified to board the boat "S.S. Colon." The boat packed with soldiers, departed at eight o'clock in the evening for the Philippines to face trial & his eventual execution.
# ...while imprisoned in Fort Santiago, he issued a manifesto disavowing the Katipunan revolution & declaring that the education of Filipinos & their achievement of a national identity were prerequisites to freedom; he was to be tried before a court-martial for rebellion, sedition & conspiracy. Governor-General Ramon Blanco who was sympathetic to Rizal had been forced out of office on December 13. The governor had been attacked by conservative forces (which included the so-called frailocracia -the Dominican friars exercising more power than the civilian government) for being too conciliatory towards the Filipinos who sought independence. Rizal was executed on December 30, an act to which Blanco objected. Blanco later was to present his sash and sword to the Rizal family as an apology.

# ...two Jesuit priests Fathers Padre Balaguer & Padre Luis Viza & Captain Rafael Dominguez were with Rizal during his last hours in the prison cell and were witnesses Rizal signed the retraction. Texts of Rizal’s Retraction the "original" discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. on May 18, 1935 which stated...

"Me declaro catolica y en esta Religion en que naci y me eduque quiero vivir y morir.
Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, inpresos y conducta ha habido contrario a mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia Catolica. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me somento a cuanto ella manda. Abomino de la Masonaria, como enigma que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la Iglesia. Puede el Prelado Diocesano, como Autoridad Superior Eclesiastica hacer publica esta manifastacion espontanea mia para reparar el escandalo que mis actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los hombers me perdonen.
Manila 29 de Deciembre de 1896
Jose Rizal"

(**English translation)...
"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. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.
Manila 29 of December of 1896
Jose Rizal"

# ..."La Voz Española" ..."The original document of Rizal’s "retraction" was found in the archdiocesan archives in 1935, 39 years after having disappeared the day Rizal was shot. There was no record of anybody seeing this original document in 1896, except the publishers of La Voz Española, which published its contents on the day of Rizal’s execution: "We have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own handwritten retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…
"Most experts think that the handwriting on the document is authentic. However, scholars are baffled as to why Rizal, who courageously faced persecution for most of his life and who was finally sentenced to death for his beliefs, would suddenly balk at the last, futile moment."

# Rizal and Josephine Bracken applied for a marriage license which was denied by the church authorities. The question is how Rizal actually married Josephine Bracken if he did not retract & be a Catholic again which Josephine claims that Rizal actually married her a day before his execution. The couple were married with Fr. Victor Balaguer, S.J. as the officiating priest. This was at 5:30 a.m. on December 30, 1896, about two hours before he was shot at Bagumbayan.
"Father Balaguer swears that he married José and Josephine about fifteen minutes before the time for the execution. But the marriage record could not be found in the Manila Cathedral nor in the Registry of Fort Santiago where it ought to have been place. This raised doubt. Rizal's sister Lucia, who went with Josephine to the chapel that morning, saw a priest in vestments, but said she did not see the ceremony. One fact supports the marriage statement. Rizal wrote in a copy of The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas a Kempis, these words: "To my dear and unhappy wife, Dec. 30, 1896."

The strongest circumstantial evidence for the wedding comes from Rizal's sister Maria. When she went to say farewell the last night, Jose said to her...
"Maria, I am going to marry Josephine. I know you all oppose it, especially you, yourself. But I want to give Josephine a name. Besides you know the verse in the Bible, 'The sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children to the third and forth generation.' I do not want them to persecute you or her for what I have done."

# ...11 eyewitnesses when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a Catholic prayer book and recited Catholic prayers and the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix before his execution. A great grand nephew of Rizal, Fr. Marciano Guzman, cites that Rizal's 4 confessions were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clerical. One witness was the head of the Spanish Supreme Court at the time of his notarized declaration and was highly esteemed by Rizal for his integrity.

# ...Rizal's poem is more aptly titled, "Adios, Patria Adorada" (literally "Farewell, Beloved Fatherland"), by virtue of logic and literary tradition, the words coming from the first line of the poem itself. Mariano Ponce in Hong Kong had the poem printed with the title "Mi Ultimo Pensamiento." This poem was unsigned, untitled and undated... why? Was Rizal anticipating total acquittal or pardon?

# ...after the execution of Rizal, Josephine, with Paciano and Trinidad Rizal (her brother and sister-in-law, the latter a Katipunera and a Mason), according to Santiago Alvarez's Memoirs, said that the Rizals came at past one o'clock in the afternoon of December 30, 1896 at San Francisco de Malabon (now General Trias). Andres Bonifacio, the Katipunan supremo, received the Rizals himself at the house of Mrs. Estefania Potente where he was staying. Was requested by the Rizals to translate Rizals poem to Tagalog. Bonifacio asked if he could keep for some time a copy of Rizal’s poem so that he could translate it into Tagalog with the assistance of Diego Mojica, President of the Popular Council Mapagtiis and local Cavite poet and writer in Tagalog... again why? After Rizal condemned the Supremo's Katipunan?

# ...why was Rizal's body after the execution, just placed in a sack, buried in Paco Catholic Cemetery. Masons, non Catholics are forbidden to be buried in Catholic Cemeteries. My grandfather Lolo Isabelo Donato a Grand-Master Mason who died much later than Rizal was cremated as other masons before him, for they have no place to be buried.

# ...its important to note that unlike Rizal, the three catholic priests; Gomez, Burgos and Zamora after their execution by garrote, the 13 Martyrs of Bagumbayan, their bodies were placed in a sack and bodies of the three priests were buried in a common, unmarked grave in Paco Cemetery. In 1998, while Manila City engineers were fixing one of the ladies room of Paco Cemetery, bones of the three priests were discovered. Note that GOMBURZA were catholic priests, only accused of a failed rebellion, their bodies where dumped in the cemetery, unmarked. Rizal's body after his execution at least have a tomb with a cross, in Catholic Paco Cemetery, with his initials R.P.J. reversed initials for "Rizal Protacio Jose" because Spanish authorities scared that his body might be exhumed. This is another sign, that he probably retracted.

Analysis on Rizal's retraction:
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, December 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. Wenceslao Retana (Spanish civil servant, colonial administrator, writer, publisher and bibliophile) 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 archdeocean 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 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.
# 1st - 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").

# 2nd - the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias" which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.

# 3rd - 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.

# 4th - 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.

# 5th - 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.

# 6th - 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:

"…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."
It is very important to note that 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 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.
- ka tony
the 17th of February '14
- many thanks to Ka Jim Richardson for the image of Rizal's retraction document.