BACKGROUND OF CAVITE MUTINY

Cavite Mutiny, (Jan. 20, 1872),brief uprising of 200 Filipino troops and workers at
the Cavite arsenal, which became the excuse for Spanish repression of the embryonic
Philippine nationalist movement. Ironically, the harsh reaction of the Spanish authorities
served ultimately to promote the nationalist cause.
The Cavite mutiny of 1872 was an uprising of Filipino military personnel of Fort
San Felipe, the Spanish arsenal in Cavite, Philippine Islands (then also known as part of
the Spanish East Indies) on January 23, 1872. Around 200 locally recruited colonial
troops and laborers rose up in the belief that it would elevate to a national uprising. The
mutiny was unsuccessful, and government soldiers executed many of the participants
and began to crack down on a burgeoning Philippines nationalist movement. Many
scholars believe that the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was the beginning of Filipino nationalism
that would eventually lead to the Philippine Revolution of 1896

MEANING OF MUTINY
The mutiny was quickly crushed, but the Spanish regime under the reactionary governor
Rafael de Izquierdo magnified the incident and used it as an excuse to clamp down on
those Filipinos who had been calling for governmental reform. A number of
Filipino intellectuals were seized and accused of complicity with the mutineers. After a
brief trial, three priests—José Burgos, Jacinto Zamora, and Mariano Gómez—were
publicly executed. The three subsequently became martyrs to the cause of Philippine
independence.

MUNITY
Mutiny, any overt act of defiance or attack upon military (including naval) authority by two
or more persons subject to such authority. The term is occasionally used to describe
nonmilitary instances of defiance or attack—such as mutiny on board a merchant ship or
a rising of slaves in a state in which slavery is recognized by law or custom. Mutiny should
be distinguished from revolt or rebellion, which involve a more widespread defiance and
which generally have a political objective.
Mutiny was regarded as a most serious offense, especially aboard ships at sea. Because
the safety of the ship was thought to depend upon the submission of all persons on board
to the will of the captain, wide disciplinary powers were given to the commanding officer,
including the power to inflict the death penalty without a court-martial. With the
development of radio communications, however, such stringent penalties have become
less necessary, and, under many current military codes, sentences for mutiny can be
passed only by court-martial.

PHILIPPINE REVOLUTION
Numerous quasi-religious uprisings had punctuated the long era of
Spanish sovereignty over the Philippines, but none possessed sufficient coordination to
oust the Europeans. During the 19th century, however, an educated Filipino middle class
emerged and with it a desire for Philippine independence. Opposition before 1872 was
primarily confined to the Filipino clergy, who resented the Spanish monopoly of power
within the Roman Catholic church in the islands. In that year the abortive Cavite Mutiny,
a brief uprising against the Spanish, served as an excuse for renewed Spanish
repression. The martyrdom of three Filipino priests—José Burgos, Mariano Gómez, and
Jacinto Zamora—for allegedly conspiring with the rebels at Cavite sparked a wave of anti-
Spanish sentiment.
Reform-minded Filipinos took refuge in Europe, where they carried on a literary campaign
known as the Propaganda Movement. Dr. José Rizal quickly emerged as the leading
Propagandist. His novel Noli me tángere (1886; The Social Cancer, 1912) exposed the
corruption of Manila Spanish society and stimulated the movement for independence.

By 1892 it became obvious that Spain was unwilling to reform its colonial
government. Andres Bonifacio, a self-educated warehouse clerk, organized a secret
revolutionary society, the Katipunan, in Manila. Membership grew to an estimated
100,000 by August 1896, when the Spaniards discovered its existence. Bonifacio
immediately issued a call for armed rebellion. The Spanish then arrested Rizal, who had
advocated reform but never condoned the revolution. Rizal’s public execution, on Dec.
30, 1896, so enraged and united Filipinos as to make permanent retention of power by
Spain clearly impossible.

In March 1897 leadership of the revolution passed to a young general, Emilio Aguinaldo,
who had Bonifacio shot for alleged sedition. Aguinaldo proved incapable of militarily
defeating the Spanish troops, who were augmented by Filipino mercenaries. In the later
months of 1897, Aguinaldo’s revolutionary army was pushed into the mountains
southeast of Manila.

On Dec. 15, 1897, the pact of Biak-na-Bato was proclaimed. Though its precise terms
have been a matter of impassioned debate ever since, the pact brought a temporary end
to the Philippine Revolution. Aguinaldo and other revolutionary leaders accepted exile
in Hong Kong and 400,000 pesos, plus Spanish promises of substantial governmental
reforms, in return for laying down their arms. Neither side executed the terms of the pact
in good faith. Aguinaldo used the money to purchase arms in Hong Kong, and the
Spanish reneged on the promised reforms.
After the U.S. Navy commodore George Dewey annihilated the Spanish fleet in Manila
Bay on May 1, 1898, Aguinaldo immediately returned to the Philippines. He began the
revolution anew, this time against the United States, which had assumed title to the
Philippines as a result of the Spanish defeat. Aguinaldo was captured in 1901 and
subsequently appealed to Filipinos to cease fighting and accept U.S. sovereignty.
1872 CAVITE MUTINY
CAUSES
The primary cause of the mutiny is believed to be an order from Governor-General
Rafael de Izquierdo to subject the soldiers of the Engineering and Artillery Corps to
personal taxes, from which they were previously exempt. The taxes required them to pay
a monetary sum as well as to perform forced labor called, polo y servicio. The mutiny was
sparked on January 20, when the laborers received their pay and realized the taxes as
well as the falla, the fine one paid to be exempt from forced labor, had been deducted
from their salaries.

BATTLE
Their leader was Fernando La Madrid, a mestizo sergeant with his second in
command Jaerel Brent Senior, a moreno. They seized Fort San Felipe and killed eleven
Spanish officers. The mutineers thought that fellow Filipino indigenous soldiers
in Manila would join them in a concerted uprising, the signal being the firing of rockets
from the city walls on that night. Unfortunately, what they thought to be the signal was
actually a burst of fireworks in celebration of the feast of Our Lady of Loreto, the patron
of Sampaloc. The plan was to set fires in Tondo in order to distract the authorities while
the artillery regiment and infantry in Manila could take control of Fort Santiago and use
cannon shots as signals to Cavite. All Spaniards were to be killed, except for the
women. News of the mutiny reached Manila, supposedly through the lover of a Spanish
sergeant, who then informed his superiors, and the Spanish authorities feared for a
massive Filipino uprising. The next day, a regiment led by General Felipe Ginovés
besieged the fort until the mutineers surrendered. Ginovés then ordered his troops to fire
at those who surrendered, including La Madrid. The rebels were formed in a line, when
Colonel Sabas asked who would not cry out, "Viva España", and shot the one man who
stepped forward. The rest were imprisoned.

AFTERMATH
In the immediate aftermath of the mutiny, some Filipino soldiers were disarmed and later
sent into exile on the southern island of Mindanao. Those suspected of directly supporting
the mutineers were arrested and executed. The mutiny was used by the colonial
government and Spanish friars to implicate three secular priests, Mariano Gómez, José
Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, collectively known as Gomburza. They were executed
by garrote on the Luneta field, also known in the Tagalog language as Bagumbayan, on
17th February 1872. These executions, particularly those of the Gomburza, were to have
a significant effect on people because of the shadowy nature of the trials. José Rizal,
whose brother Paciano was a close friend of Burgos, dedicated his work, El
filibusterismo, to these three priests.
On January 27, 1872, Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo approved the death
sentences on forty-one of the mutineers. On February 6, eleven more were sentenced to
death, but these were later commuted to life imprisonment. Others were exiled to other
islands of the colonial Spanish East Indies such as Guam, Mariana Islands, including the
father of Pedro Paterno, Maximo Paterno, Antonio M. Regidor y Jurado, and José María
Basa.[1]:107–108 The most important group created a colony of Filipino expatriates
in Europe, particularly in the Spanish capital of Madrid and Barcelona, where they were
able to create small insurgent associations and print publications that were to advance
the claims of the seeding Philippine Revolution.
Finally, a decree was made, stating there were to be no further ordinations /appointments
of Filipinos as Roman Catholic parish priests.[1]:107 In spite of the mutiny, the Spanish
authorities continued to employ large numbers of native Filipino
troops, carabineros and civil guards in their colonial forces through the 1870s–1890s until
the Spanish–American War of 1898.[4]

BACK STORY
During the short trial, the captured mutineers testified against José Burgos. The state
witness, Francisco Saldua, declared that he had been told by one of the Basa brothers
that the government of Father Burgos would bring a navy fleet of the United States to
assist a revolution with which Ramón Maurente, the supposed field marshal, was
financing with 50,000 pesos. The heads of the friar orders held a conference and decided
to dispose Burgos by implicating him to a plot. One Franciscan friar disguised as Burgos
and suggested a mutiny to the mutineers. The senior friars used an una fuerte suma de
dinero or a banquet to convince Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo that Burgos was
the mastermind of the coup. Gómez and Zamora were close associates of Burgos, so
they too were included in the allegations.

THE TWO FACES OF THE 1872 CAVITE MUTINY

By Chris Antonette Piedad-Pugay

The 12th of June of every year since 1898 is a very important event for all the
Filipinos. In this particular day, the entire Filipino nation as well as Filipino communities
all over the world gathers to celebrate the Philippines’ Independence Day. 1898 came to
be a very significant year for all of us— it is as equally important as 1896—the year when
the Philippine Revolution broke out owing to the Filipinos’ desire to be free from the
abuses of the Spanish colonial regime. But we should be reminded that another year is
as historic as the two—1872.

Two major events happened in 1872, first was the 1872 Cavite Mutiny and the other
was the martyrdom of the three martyr priests in the persons of Fathers Mariano Gomes,
Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora (GOMBURZA). However, not all of us knew that there
were different accounts in reference to the said event. All Filipinos must know the
different sides of the story—since this event led to another tragic yet meaningful part of
our history—the execution of GOMBURZA which in effect a major factor in the awakening
of nationalism among the Filipinos.

1872 Cavite Mutiny: Spanish Perspective

Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian documented the event and
highlighted it as an attempt of the Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines. Meanwhile, Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the event
and made use of it to implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for
secularization. The two accounts complimented and corroborated with one other, only
that the general’s report was more spiteful. Initially, both Montero and Izquierdo scored
out that the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-
payment of tributes and exemption from force labor were the main reasons of the
“revolution” as how they called it, however, other causes were enumerated by them
including the Spanish Revolution which overthrew the secular throne, dirty propagandas
proliferated by unrestrained press, democratic, liberal and republican books and
pamphlets reaching the Philippines, and most importantly, the presence of the native
clergy who out of animosity against the Spanish friars, “conspired and supported” the
rebels and enemies of Spain. In particular, Izquierdo blamed the unruly Spanish Press
for “stockpiling” malicious propagandas grasped by the Filipinos. He reported to the King
of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to overthrow the Spanish government to install a new
“hari” in the likes of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. The general even added that the native
clergy enticed other participants by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight will
not fail because God is with them coupled with handsome promises of rewards such as
employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. Izquierdo, in his report lambasted the Indios
as gullible and possessed an innate propensity for stealing.

The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier and was
thought of it as a big conspiracy among educated leaders, mestizos, abogadillos or native
lawyers, residents of Manila and Cavite and the native clergy. They insinuated that the
conspirators of Manila and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be
followed by the massacre of the friars. The alleged pre-concerted signal among the
conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the firing of rockets from the walls of Intramuros.

According to the accounts of the two, on 20 January 1872, the district of Sampaloc
celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants to the feast
celebrated the occasion with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite
mistook the fireworks as the sign for the attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the
200-men contingent headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish
officers at sight and seized the arsenal.

When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily ordered the
reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was
easily crushed when the expected reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major
instigators including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the
GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and were sentenced to die by
strangulation. Patriots like Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio
Basa and other abogadillos were suspended by the Audencia (High Court) from the
practice of law, arrested and were sentenced with life imprisonment at the Marianas
Island. Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and
ordered the creation of artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872 in an attempt of the Spanish government and Frailocracia to

instill fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such daring act again, the
GOMBURZA were executed. This event was tragic but served as one of the moving
forces that shaped Filipino nationalism.

A Response to Injustice: The Filipino Version of the Incident

Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, wrote
the Filipino version of the bloody incident in Cavite. In his point of view, the incident was
a mere mutiny by the native Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal who turned
out to be dissatisfied with the abolition of their privileges. Indirectly, Tavera blamed Gov.
Izquierdo’s cold-blooded policies such as the abolition of privileges of the workers and
native army members of the arsenal and the prohibition of the founding of school of arts
and trades for the Filipinos, which the general believed as a cover-up for the organization
of a political club.

On 20 January 1872, about 200 men comprised of soldiers, laborers of the arsenal,
and residents of Cavite headed by Sergeant Lamadrid rose in arms and assassinated the
commanding officer and Spanish officers in sight. The insurgents were expecting support
from the bulk of the army unfortunately, that didn’t happen. The news about the mutiny
reached authorities in Manila and Gen. Izquierdo immediately ordered the reinforcement
of Spanish troops in Cavite. After two days, the mutiny was officially declared subdued.

Tavera believed that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a
powerful lever by magnifying it as a full-blown conspiracy involving not only the native
army but also included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native
clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that
during the time, the Central Government in Madrid announced its intention to deprive the
friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and the direction and
management of educational institutions. This turnout of events was believed by Tavera,
prompted the friars to do something drastic in their dire sedire to maintain power in the
Philippines.

Meanwhile, in the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain

welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret promoted the fusion of
sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called Philippine Institute. The decree
proposed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching
positions in such schools to be filled by competitive examinations. This improvement was
warmly received by most Filipinos in spite of the native clergy’s zest for secularization.
 The friars, fearing that their influence in the Philippines would be a thing of the past,
took advantage of the incident and presented it to the Spanish Government as a vast
conspiracy organized throughout the archipelago with the object of destroying Spanish
sovereignty. Tavera sadly confirmed that the Madrid government came to believe that the
scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged
“revolution” reported by Izquierdo and the friars.

Convicted educated men who participated in the mutiny were sentenced life
imprisonment while members of the native clergy headed by the GOMBURZA were tried
and executed by garrote. This episode leads to the awakening of nationalism and
eventually to the outbreak of Philippine Revolution of 1896. The French writer Edmund
Plauchut’s account complimented Tavera’s account by confirming that the event
happened due to discontentment of the arsenal workers and soldiers in Cavite fort. The
Frenchman, however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests which he
actually witnessed.

Unraveling the Truth

Considering the four accounts of the 1872 Mutiny, there were some basic facts that
remained to be unvarying: First, there was dissatisfaction among the workers of the
arsenal as well as the members of the native army after their privileges were drawn back
by Gen. Izquierdo; Second, Gen. Izquierdo introduced rigid and strict policies that made
the Filipinos move and turn away from Spanish government out of disgust; Third, the
Central Government failed to conduct an investigation on what truly transpired but relied
on reports of Izquierdo and the friars and the opinion of the public; Fourth, the happy days
of the friars were already numbered in 1872 when the Central Government in Spain
decided to deprive them of the power to intervene in government affairs as well as in the
direction and management of schools prompting them to commit frantic moves to extend
their stay and power; Fifth, the Filipino clergy members actively participated in the
secularization movement in order to allow Filipino priests to take hold of the parishes in
the country making them prey to the rage of the friars; Sixth, Filipinos during the time
were active participants, and responded to what they deemed as injustices; and Lastly,
the execution of GOMBURZA was a blunder on the part of the Spanish government, for
the action severed the ill-feelings of the Filipinos and the event inspired Filipino patriots
to call for reforms and eventually independence. There may be different versions of the
event, but one thing is certain, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny paved way for a momentous 1898.

The road to independence was rough and tough to toddle, many patriots named and
unnamed shed their bloods to attain reforms and achieve independence. 12 June 1898
may be a glorious event for us, but we should not forget that before we came across to
victory, our forefathers suffered enough. As weenjoy our freeedom, may we be more
historically aware of our past to have a better future ahead of us. And just like what Elias
said in Noli me Tangere, may we “not forget those who fell during the night.”
Cavite Mutiny 1872
Meaningful History
Remarkable event during 19th Century in the Philippines: Cavite Mutiny 1872
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was an uprising of military personnel of Fort San Felipe, the
Spanish arsenal in Cavite, Philippines on January 20, 1872. Around 200 soldiers and
laborers rose up in the belief that it would elevate to a national uprising. The mutiny was
unsuccessful, and government soldiers executed many of the participants and began to
crack down on a burgeoning nationalist movement. Many scholars believe that the Cavite
Mutiny of 1872 was the beginning of Filipino nationalism that would eventually lead to the
Philippine Revolution of 1896).
This event has been unforgettable and reflected in the 12 events that changed influenced
the Philippine History in a major way.

This event is meaningful to the following Filipinos – Gomburza [an acronym denoting the
surnames of the priests Mariano Gómez, José Apolonio Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora,
three Filipino priests who were executed on 17 February 1872 at Bagumbayan in Manila,
Philippines by Spanish colonial authorities on charges of subversion arising from the 1872
Cavite mutiny. Their execution left a profound effect on many Filipinos; José Rizal, the
national hero, would dedicate his novel El filibusterismo to their memory]

Mariano Gómez
José Apolonio Burgos
Jacinto Zamora

Mariano Gomez – born on August 2, 1799 at Santa Cruz Manila by Marina Guard and
Francisco Gomez, he was designated as head priest in Cavite in 1824 and was a member
of GOMBURZA later on. He was executed during the Cavite Mutiny in 1872.

Jose Apolonio Burgos – was a Filipino mestizo secular priest, accused of mutiny by the
Spanish colonial authorities in the Philippines in the 19th century (wiki) he was born on
February 9 1837 by Florencia Garcia and Don Jose Burgos in Vigan Ilocos Sur. He was
executed along with Mariano Gomez and Jacinto Zamora.

Jacinto Zamora – born August 14, 1835 in Manila. He was placed in a mock trial and
summarily executed in Manila along with two other clergymen. He was a Roman Catholic
priest. The Gomburza execution was carried out on February 17, 1872 at Bagumbayan
Field in Manila during Cavite mutiny in the 19th century.

Gomburza, alternatively spelled GOMBURZA or GomBurZa, refers to

three Filipino Catholic priests (Mariano Gomez, José Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora), who
were executed on February 17, 1872 at Bagumbayan, Philippines by Spanish colonial
authorities on charges of subversion arising from the 1872 Cavite mutiny. The name is
a portmanteau of the priests' surnames.
Their execution had a profound effect on many late 19th-century Filipinos; José Rizal,
later to become the country's national hero, would dedicate his novel El Filibusterismo to
their memory.[1] Mutiny by workers in the Cavite Naval Yard was the pretext needed by
the authorities to redress a perceived humiliation from the principal objective, José
Burgos, who threatened the established order.
During the Spanish colonial period, four social class distinctions were observed in the
islands: Spaniards who were born in Spain, peninsulares; Spaniards born in the colonies
of Spain (Latin America or the Philippines), insulares or Creoles;
Spanish mestizos, Chinese or 'Indios' (natives) dwelling within or near the city (or town)
and the church; and Chinese or Sangley and rural Indios.[4]
Burgos was a Doctor of Philosophy[citation needed] whose prominence extended even to
Spain, such that when the new Governor and Captain-General Carlos María de la
Torre arrived from Spain to assume his duties, he invited Burgos to sit beside him in his
carriage during the inaugural procession, a place traditionally reserved for
the archbishop and who was a peninsular Spaniard. The arrival of the liberal de la Torre
was opposed by the ruling minority of friars, regular priests who belonged to an order
(Dominicans, Augustinians, Recollects, and Franciscans) and their aliens in civil
government but supported by the secular priests, most of whom
were mestizos and darnas assigned to parishes and farflung communities and believed
that the reforms and the equality that they wanted with peninsular Spaniards were finally
coming. In less than two years, de la Torre was replaced by Rafael de Izquierdo

Cavite MutinyEdit
Main article: 1872 Cavite mutiny
The so-called Cavite Mutiny of workers in the arsenal of the naval shipyard over a pay
reduction from increased circumduction produced a willing witness to implicate the three
priests, who were summarily tried and sentenced to death by garrote on 17 February
1872. The bodies of the three priests were buried in a common, unmarked grave in
the Paco Cemetery, in keeping with the practice of burying enemies of the state.
Significantly, in the archives of Spain, there is no record of how Izquierdo, a liberal, could
have been influenced to authorize these executions. [citation needed] Gregorio Meliton
Martinez, the Archbishop of Manila, refused to defrock the priests, as they did not break
any canon law. He ordered the bells of every church to be rung in honor of the executed
priests. The aftermath of the investigation produced scores of suspects, most of whom
were exiled to Guam in the Marianas.

Nag execute kay gomburza

Rafael Gerónimo Cayetano Izquierdo y Gutiérrez[5] (September 30, 1820[Note 1] –
November 9, 1883)[1][3] was a Spanish Military Officer, politician, and statesman. He
served as Governor-General of the Philippines from April 4, 1871 to January 8, 1873. He
was famous for his use of "Iron Fist" type of government, contradicting the liberal
government of his predecessor, Carlos María de la Torre y Navacerrada. He was the
Governor-General during the 1872 Cavite mutiny which led to execution of 41 of the
mutineers, including the Gomburza martyrs. Izquierdo also acted as Governor-General
of Puerto Rico[2] from March 1862 to April 1862.

Jose Burgos Was Framed For The Cavite Mutiny.

Source: Kasaysayan – The Story of the Filipino People.
We all know that Gomburza—Fathers Mario Gomez, Jose
Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora—very much had nothing to do with the
1872 Cavite Mutiny and that it was launched by some disgruntled
soldiers after discovering they were now forced to pay personal taxes
as well as perform forced labor, both of which they had been
previously exempted from.

Trivia: There were three other martyr priests aside from

“Gomburza.”

However, according to the accounts of two Spanish clergymen captured during the
Revolution, the failed mutiny was, in fact, a plot by the Spanish friars to eliminate Jose
Burgos who was then the foremost champion of secular priests. To that end, they sent a
Franciscan friar named Claudio del Arceo to Cavite and foment unrest among the
soldiers, promising them money and that a great fleet from the United States in the name
of Father Burgos would arrive to assist them.

Sources
https://prezi.com/p/1lwotcel1sqb/
Jose Rizal dedicated his novel, "El Filibusterismo" to the three priests, Mariano
Gomez, 85 years, Jose Burgos, 30, and Jacinto Zamora, 35, executed at
Bagumbayan Field on February 17, 1872.

History books state that with this tragic event, Philippine nationalism was born. The
assumption is that, before this date, the people did not feel they were one nation, and any
sign of protest against the foreign presence that was Spain was a localized act of rebellion
to which the rest of the country did not relate.

The execution of three Filipino priests, one of them an octogenarian, for something
nobody believed they had anything to do with in the first place, stirred a current of
sympathy for the martyrs and of revulsion against the alien rulers who could bring the ax
down on the necks of the innocent. After three and a half centuries of foreign domination
characterized by unenlightened government, outright exploitation of people and natural
resources, now and then half-hearted attempts at reform and, on the part of the governed,
sporadic and desultory shows of resistance, the common enemy now took shape and the
people felt as one in their fight for the right to rule themselves, shape their own destinies,
and take the consequences.

Father Gomez, Father Burgos and Father Zamora were summarily tried and sentenced
to death by the garrote for the Cavite arsenal revolt of January 20, 1872. The priests, who
were active in the fight for the secularization (or, in effect, nationalization) of the clergy
were creating trouble for the despotic Governor Rafael Izquierdo and the powerful regular
religious orders in the country. By linking them with the uprising in the Cavite arsenal,
whether they indeed had anything to do with it or not, the administration found a
convenient way of doing away with the troublesome trio.

Were the three really involved in the uprising? Establishing the truth of the case will take
painstaking investigation since the records of the trial have disappeared and the star
prosecution witness himself had been ordered executed along with the three against
whom he testified. The question will probably remain one of the great unsolved mysteries
in the Filipinos' fight for freedom. Until he breathed his last, Father Burgos protested
innocence of the crime imputed to him and Rizal, in dedicating the Filibusterismo to the
three condemned men, underscored the doubt shared by the Filipinos over their guilt.

Msgr. Meliton Martinez, Archbishop of Manila, was served a copy of the death sentences
with a request that the priests be defrocked. In reply, the archbishop said he needed more
convincing proof of their guilt and refused to be instrumental in effecting the crowning
touch to their humiliation.

The secrecy which shrouded the alleged trials, the mysterious way records and papers
of the court martial findings had disappeared, and the suspicious haste with which the
sentences were carried out, contributed to the widespread belief that the three had been
condemned on trumped-up charges. Sentenced to death on February 15, they were led
to the garrote two days later, on February 17.
But even if irrefutable evidence against Father Gomez, Burgos and Zamora had been
cited, the three one an octogenarian known for the charities, another turned half-crazed
at the prospect of a ghastly death, and the third widely admired for his courageous
espousal of the rights of the Filipinos, in particular the clergy would just the same have
been looked on as martyrs by their compatriots. The time was ripe for revolt and the fact
that the people believed that the executions were a miscarriage of justice only hastened
the march of history. Public indignation rose to a peak. The job became easier for those
who had by now seen the necessity of uniting. The first seeds of nationalism were sown
and took root. The then constituted authorities, in deciding to set the priests up as an
example to the populace of what was in the store for them if they continued being insolent,
were fast sealing their doom. The groundwork for the inevitable revolution that was to
come a quarter of a century later was laid.

Edmund Plauchut, a Frenchman residing in Manila at the time of the revolt, gives a
dispassionate account of it and its causes in an article published in the Revue des Deux
Mondes in 1877. He traced the immediate cause to a peremptory order from the
governor, Izquierdo, exacting personal taxes from the Filipino laborers in the engineering
and artillery corps in the Cavite arsenal, and requiring them to perform forced labor like
ordinary subjects. Until then, these workers in the arsenal had been enjoying exemptions
from both taxes and forced labor. January 20, the day of the revolt, was payday and the
laborers found the amount of taxes as well as the corresponding fee in lieu of the forced
labor deducted from their pay envelopes. It was the last straw. That night they mutinied.
Forty infantry soldiers and twenty men from the artillery took over command of the Fort of
San Felipe and fired cannonades to announce to the world their moment of triumph. It
was a short-lived victory. Apparently, the mutineers had expected to be joined by their
comrades in the 7th infantry company assigned to patrol the Cavite plaza. They became
terror-stricken, however, when they beckoned to the 7th infantry men from the ramparts
of the fort and their comrades did not make any move to join them. Instead, the company
started attacking them. The rebels decided to bolt the gates and wait for morning when
support from Manila was expected to come.

But Manila was quiet. What the Cavite rebels had mistaken for a pre-arranged signal for
the uprising coming from the general direction of the city, turned out to be the burst of
rockets in celebration of the feast of St. Loreto, patron of Sampaloc. Augustinian Friar
Casimiro Herrera, writing a thesis on the revolt later, was to say this was an "act of Divine
Providence", for the Sampaloc fiesta, traditionally celebrated in December, had been
postponed to January 20 that year.

Informed of the mutiny, Governor Izquierdo dispatched two infantry regiments and an
artillery brigade with four cannons, under the command of General Felipe Ginoves
Expinar. General Ginoves arrived in Cavite by sea on the boats of Filipino, Manila, Isabel
I and Isabel II, to find the 7th infantry company under the command of Lt. Col. Sawa
successfully keeping the rebels at bay in the front. From then on, it was just a matter of
hours before the mutineers, out-numbered, out-armed and ill-prepared even in the matter
of provisions to enable them to weather a siege, began filing out of the fort waving the
white banner of surrender. But the first to march out were met by a volley of shots from
General Ginoves' men. They fell to a man and Gen. Ginoves then ordered a charge into
the fort. The rebels inside the fort did not offer any resistance. Plauchut mentions a
Spanish friar (Father Antonio Ruffian of San Jose de Dios) whose presence inside the
fort "has never been explained to date", as well as the Filipinos and the suicide of one of
them. This would tend to corroborate reports from other sources that the Spanish officers
in the fort as well as the men under them had joined with the laborers in the revolt. These
reports mention Spanish Lts. Montesinos and Morquecho, who with a Sgt. Lamadrid, took
charge of the force of 200 marines and artillery men at the arsenal. When General
Ginoves and his soldiers arrived, it was Sgt. Lamadrid who first tried to repel them. He
died in the attempt. Other accounts, however, conflict with these reports. They state that
the rebels themselves put to death the Spanish officers inside the fort, as well as the wife
of one of them and her maid.

That those who staged the revolt in the San Felipe fort were counting on help from
comrades in other military establishments in Cavite and Manila is highly plausible. The
native soldiers in these establishments had long been chafing from discrimination in
treatment. One of Governor's Izquierdo's first acts on taking over the reins of the
government was to order the fusion of the two artillery battalions in Manila. One of these
was composed of Spaniards (peninsulars) and the other of mestizos and Filipinos. Before
the fusion, the two battalions were being maintained separately and independently of
each other to avoid clashes that would arise because of the differences in race. Governor
Izquierdo not only ordered the two merged, but decreed that the peninsulars would form
the first companies and the Filipinos, second. He also filled all vacancies for the posts of
corporals and sergeants with Spaniards. When the two battalions were being maintained
separately, the natives were blissfully unaware of the fact that their Spanish comrades in
other battalions were getting better pay and better food. With the merger, the
discriminations became obvious. The feeling of discontent spread. The Cavite uprising
was one of the manifestations of this dissatisfaction over conditions in the army. It could
very well have been part of a concerted plan to revolt among the native elements in the
rest of the military establishments.

When he quickly quelled the revolt, Governor Izquierdo demonstrated the futility of
mutiny. He should have rested on his laurels, assured that the other discontented groups
contemplating similar acts of defiance would have learned their lesson and desisted from
resorting to violence. But Governor Izquierdo had to turn the incident into a terrible
example that the insolent filibusters (as anyone who showed any radical tendencies was
then called) should never forget. Apparently, Governor Izquierdo had a dossier on who
the filibusters were. He had them all rounded up, their homes searched thoroughly and
their letters intercepted. The Council of War set up a court martial under Manuel Boscasa.
Some seventy people were condemned to death. Later, several of the death sentences
were commuted to exile or imprisonment. Among those banished to far off and lonely
Marianas Islands were Antonio Maria Regidor, Maximo Paterno. Agustin Mendoza and
Joaquin Pardo de Tavera. Given jail terms were Maximo Inocencio, Enrique Paraiso and
Crisanto de los Reyes. Doomed to the garrote were the three priests, Burgos, Gomez,
and Zamora, as well as one Francisco Saldua. The latter had been the principal informer
against the three priests. His statement had been the main basis for the convictions and
he had been promised pardon in exchange for his testimony. To his consternation,
however, he was condemned along with the three. His was the first of the heads to roll
on February 17.

The court martial proceedings appear to be highly anomalous. Evidence to support the
charges did not accompany the decision which merely stated that the court had found
them guilty of conspiring to overthrow the government and proclaim a Republic of the
Philippines, with Father Burgos as president. The defendants were given a counsel
chosen by the court. The counsel, a Dr. Jose Arrieta, on reading his brief, said it was not
possible to defend Father Burgos because he had already confessed. The priest was
surprised on hearing the "defense". He protested, "That is not my defense. The course
has changed it. I have not confessed and I deny every charge brought against me as
having no foundation in fact or in act."

That Governor Izquierdo committed a blunder when he had the priests executed and the
other suspects exiled or otherwise sentenced for scarcely proved complicity in the Cavite
revolt, is something that most historians admit. If Governor Izquierdo had desisted from
such punitive action, the revolt would not have attained the importance it was to take on
subsequently. One may not guarantee, however, that otherwise, the fire of nationalism
would not have caught on and spread. As it happened, with the execution of the three
priests, Governor Izquierdo was merely setting the pattern for his reign of terror, only too
well known in Philippine history. The fuse was ready, all that remained to be done was
set it off.

Abroad, events had in fact been working up to the Cavite revolt. Spain herself had just
undergone a revolution. Four years earlier, in 1868, the queen had been dethroned and
a Republican had been installed. The revolution in the mother country had repercussions
in the Islands. In 1869, the liberal Governor de la Torre was sent over. All progressive-
minded elements in the country were to enjoy a brief spell of liberalism under the new
governor. There was going to be freedom of speech and the Governor even encouraged
his subjects to visit with him at his Sta. Potenciana palace and exchange views on how
the government should be run. The loss of Spanish colonies in the Americas at about this
time resulted in the displacements of a great number of government officials and
employees. These were soon to find their way to the only colony left, the Philippine
Islands. The opening of the Suez Canal was to facilitate this influx of newcomers who
were to bring with them modern ideas of government and the spirit of reforms then
pervading in the mother country as well as throughout Europe and the new world.

One articulate historian writes of the period. Not until the nineteenth century would
the Filipino nation present a united, self-conscious front. The rarefied air from
Europe had found its way into the nipa hut. The red beret of the liberated
Frenchman had its counterpart in the red ribbon worn by the Señora Maria de
Sanchez, hostess of the Manila celebration of the new Spanish constitution.
Pouring in lieu of the invalid wife of the liberal Governor de la Torre, she presented
a strange, exciting sight to the heretofore repressed Filipino. On the ribbon wound
around her hair were printed the words "Long Live the Sovereign People" and
around her neck a red tie bore the message "Long Live Liberty" at one end, and
"Long live General la Torre" on the other. On a frivolous ribbon around a Castillian
señora's hair was the slogan that would send many a Filipino who was present at
the reception, among them Father Jose Burgos, to jail or to the garrote.

But liberalism was not going to last long in Spain, and certain circles in the Islands, who
looked on the radical ways of Governor de la Torre as a serious threat to their existence,
were going to conspire to have him removed. These circles were typified by the
Augustinian friar, Herrero, who, assuming an "I told you so" attitude in his thesis on the
Cavite revolt, was to say later, "The insurrection at Cavite has the same origin and result
as those in France, Spain, Italy, American and other European countries. They are all
fruits of the corruption of the intelligence and of the heart . . . The freedom to think and
the freedom of the press which brought bitter fruits in Spain were transported to these
islands and they were encouraged by ambition, passions and ignorance of men . . . "

On April 4,, 1871, De la Torre was replaced by Izquierdo. The moment the new governor
took over the reins of government, he made it clear that the regime he was going to
establish was one of total reaction to De la Torre's liberal policies. But the seeds of
liberalism and of desire for reform had been sown and these were to thrive, even more
so, under Izquierdo's oppressive rule. It is a lesson of history that revolutionary
movements feed on tyranny.

Father Burgos, then a coadjutor in the Manila Cathedral, had been very active in the fight
for the retention of Filipino curas in parishes. This dispute over parishes between the
seculars (the curas) and the regulars (members of religious order) is best explained in a
letter Archbishop Martinez of Manila sent the Regent of the King in Madrid at the height
of the dispute, shortly before the Cavite revolt. The archbishop, as head of the parishes,
naturally sided with the seculars and warned that the controversy had better be resolved
to their satisfaction if it was desired to stave off a deterioration of the situation with
unfortunate results. Because the seculars were native priests, mestizos or creoles, and
the regulars were peninsulars, the dispute over the parishes was eventually to take on
racial overtones.

Archbishop Martinez traced the beginnings of the religious question to the issuance of the
Cedula of July 8, 1826. This ecclesiastical order emanation from Madrid authorized the
transfer of administration of the parishes in the Islands from the seculars to the regulars.
The seculars had been occupying these parishes since fifty years ago, when there was a
shortage of priests from Spain. Few of the Spanish priests like the idea of coming to the
wilds of the Philippines, and the local church authorities were forced to train natives to
become priests and administer the parishes. The 1826 cedula naturally affected the
seculars adversely, since then they were to be demoted to mere auxiliaries
and sacristanes while the friars were to take over as heads of the parishes. In almost all
instances, however, there was virtually no transfer of work: the native priests still carried
on the actual work of the curas, while the friars, enjoying the privileges of curas, only
took charge of the soft job of receiving the moneys due the curates from the parishioners.
A second Cedula issued on March 9, 1849, authorized the transfer of seven specific
parishes in Cavite from the seculars to the regulars. The last straw was the Royal Order
of September 10, 1861 giving all curates in Cavite and Manila to the members of the
Recollect Order. The Royal Order was issued to recompense the Recollects for loss of
benefices in Mindanao which had been given to the Jesuits, just returned from exile. The
Jesuits, banned from Spain and the Indies (the Philippines included) in 1767, were
restored to favor in 1861. There were limited to missionary work, however, and in the
Islands were assigned to Mindanao, then in the administration of the Recollects. To
compensate the Recollects, they were awarded the lucrative parishes in Manila and
Cavite at the expense of the native clergy which had hitherto been holding them.

There were other instances of what the historians of the time called despoliation, which
was the awarding of lush plums to favored parties to the discrimination of underdogs.
When the priest of San Rafael, Bulacan, a native, died, his curate was given over to the
Augustinians. Curates of Zambales, Bataan and Pampanga, long held by native priests,
were given over to religious corporations. Father Burgos led the protests against what he
charged were intrusions on the part of the regulars into what properly and legally belonged
to the local clergy. He organized a clerical party to fight for secularization. The party
subsidized the newspaper El Eco Filipino, published in Madrid, which became the organ
of the champions for secularization of the churches and later of civil reforms. Burgos and
his followers argued that the turning over of the parishes to the regulars contravened the
provisions of the Council of Trent agreement which expressly prohibited the friars from
holding curates. Under the Trent agreement, only secular priests were supposed to hold
parishes and administer the spiritual needs of the populace while regulars were to live in
their monasteries and devote their time to religious contemplation and to missionary and
educational work.

The regulars on the other hand countered that the seculars were not competent to hold
the parishes and that, moreover, they had been holding these curates at the indulgence
of the Crown in Madrid which had the right to take away at its pleasure. What really made
the curates such a big bone of contention, besides of course the fact that they were good
sources of revenues, was the fact that those holding them became spheres of influence,
social and political, in the communities. The regulars, realizing that they would be reduced
to political impotence if they retired to their monasteries, refused to give up the parishes
that they had maneuvered to get from the native priests through high-powered and
obviously successful lobbying in Madrid. It was this friar faction which believed to have
insisted on laying the extreme penalty for Father Burgos, his fellow cura del sagrario in
the Cathedral, Jacinto Zamora, and the octogenarian Gomez, for complicity in the Cavite
Revolt. In one fell swoop, they would do away with an annoying threat to the comfortable
positions they had been able to wangle from Madrid, as heads of the most lucrative
parishes in the Islands.

But the stories circulated that the evidence against the three priests had been fabricated,
and that in fact the revolt had been instigated by the friars (Friar Ruffian's presence in the
besieged fort San Felipe was never satisfactorily explained) to frame up Burgos, Gomez
and Zamora. One take (noted in Blair and Robertson's The Philippine Islands Vol. 11)
was that some friars had brought from Zambales a native who looked like Father Gomez,
rigged him up in priest attire and thus managed to implicate the good man in the mutiny.

These stories were to serve as fodder to the steadily growing fire. Because those put to
the garrote for a crime never satisfactorily proved included a creole (Burgos), a half-
Chinese (Zamora) and a pure-blooded Tagalog (Gomez), the various elements
represented by these three races, saw in the unjust execution a common cause which
was not just creole, or mestizo, or indio (as natives were then deprecatingly termed). Up
to then, these various groups had held each other in distrust, a result of the "divide and
rule" policy maintained by most despotic regimes and so successfully practiced by the
peninsulars in the Islands. With the executions, Burgos, Zamora and Gomez emerged as
martyrs. The various active groups became bound in anger over the atrocity and on this
union was laid the foundation for a Filipino nation. Some of the liberal elements had been
advocating mere assimilation with Spain (the country to take on the status of a province).
Now they were asking themselves whether assimilation, and not complete independence
to run their lives and their country, was what they wanted.

Austin Craig in his Lineage, Life and Labors of Rizal recalls that Father Burgos' ante
mortem advice to the Filipinos was for them to seek education abroad because only
through education could they hope for progress. It was advice that was well taken. Rizal,
whose older brother, Paciano, was a close friend of Burgos, was soon to leave his native
shores for Madrid and other points overseas, where he was to crystallize his ideas for
reform.

Meantime, the laymen who had also been implicated in the revolt and punished
with exile to the Marianas, were to escape to places like London, Hongkong and
Tokyo, where the air was much more progressive. Here they were to start Filipino
communities where many a plot to liberate the "patria adorada" was very likely
hatched. Some of these exiles were to return to their country, and their contact with
liberally-run governments was to open their eyes wide to the despotism in Manila.
These were the men destined to take historic roles in 1898.