RETRACTION

• Fr. Balaguer, a priest allegedly present at Rizal's cell when Rizal wrote and signed the retraction document in front of him, Fr. Villaclara and another Jesuit priest, didn't report the presence of the retraction document to his higher-ups immediately but waited until Rizal is dead
• The "retracted" Jose Rizal was buried in an unmarked grave inside what is now Paco cemetery, and not in a Catholic cemetery where he should belong. Rizal's remains were later transferred to the present Rizal Monument in Rizal Park (Luneta) in 1911
• There no records of marriage between Rizal and Josephine Bracken as a reward if Rizal did retract. The love birds earlier sought this while Rizal was exiled in Dapitan (FYI, there's also a version of an earlier Dapitan retraction that Rizal signed but withdrawn at the right time. some sort of retraction retracted)
• The "original" retraction document was never submitted to an independent testing body for authentication
• All these arguments and counter-arguments continue to fuel one of the greatest debates on history and possibly the greatest hoax in history
• The retraction of Jose Rizal, a pivotal figure in Philippine history, stands as a contentious and multifaceted event that continues to intrigue scholars and historians
• Amidst the fervent atmosphere of the Philippine Revolution against Spanish colonization, Rizal's purported recantation of his nationalist views and affiliation with Freemasonry has been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate
• Various documents and accounts suggest that Rizal, under pressure from religious authorities and seeking to protect his family, may have penned letters retracting his revolutionary stance. These retractions, dated on different occasions, raise questions about the authenticity and motives behind Rizal's actions
• Simultaneously, the cry of rebellion echoed across the Philippine archipelago, marking pivotal moments in the struggle for independence
• Cry of Pugad Lawin

  1. Led by Andres Bonifacio

  2. Symbolized the beginning of the Philippine Revolution

  3. Signaled a call to arms against Spanish rule
• Cry of Balintawak


  1. Filipino revolutionaries tore their cedulas

  2. In defiance of Spanish authority
• Several texts of Jose Rizal's retraction have emerged over time, each with its own complexities and controversies
• The first text appeared on the day of Rizal's execution, December 30, 1896, in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila
• Another text surfaced in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in La Juventud, attributed anonymously to Fr. Balaguer, who later confirmed his authorship
• The "original" text resurfaced in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after being missing for thirty-nine years
• Fr. Vicente Balaguer, in his 1910 letter to Fr. Pio Pi, disclosed receiving an "exact copy" of the retraction, but the handwriting was unknown to him. He speculated it might have been Rizal's own writing. However, he later contradicted this, suggesting the archbishop provided the "exact copy"
• Significant differences exist between the "original" and the newspaper texts of the retraction, and copies held by Fr. Balaguer and Fr. Pi. The alterations include changes in wording, omissions, and additional phrases
• Fr. Balaguer's copy lacked witness names, later provided in his notarized testimony
• Fr. Balaguer's source of the "exact copy" remains unclear. His conflicting accounts raise doubts about the authenticity of the documents and the circumstances of their retrieval
• The involvement of multiple parties in the creation and dissemination of these texts further complicates the matter
• It's evident that the process of obtaining and disseminating Rizal's retraction involved manipulation and ambiguity
• Fr. Balaguer's revelations suggest a complex web of interests and agendas surrounding the retraction, casting doubt on its authenticity and the intentions behind its publication
• The document of the retraction of Jose Rizal, too, 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
• 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
• 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"
• 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 neighbours
• 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