a revolt against the Spanish government’s voiding of their exemption from the
payment of tributes. The Cavite Mutiny led to the persecution of prominent Filipinos;
secular priests Mariano Gómez, José Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora—who would then be
collectively named GomBurZa—were tagged as the masterminds of the uprising. The
priests were charged with treason and sedition by the Spanish military tribunal—a
ruling believed to be part of a conspiracy to stifle the growing popularity of Filipino secular
priests and the threat they posed to the Spanish clergy. The GomBurZa were publicly
executed, by garrote, on the early morning of February 17, 1872 at Bagumbayan.
The Archbishop of Manila refused to defrock them, and ordered the bells of every church
to toll in honor of their deaths; the Sword, in this instance, denied the moral justification
of the Cross. The martyrdom of the three secular priests would resonate among Filipinos;
grief and outrage over their execution would make way for the first stirrings of the Filipino
revolution, thus making the first secular martyrs of a nascent national identity. Jose Rizal
would dedicate his second novel, El Filibusterismo, to the memory of GomBurZa, to what
they stood for, and to the symbolic weight their deaths would henceforth hold:
The Government, by enshrouding your trial in mystery and pardoning your co-accused,
has suggested that some mistake was committed when your fate was decided; and the
whole of the Philippines, in paying homage to your memory and calling you martyrs, totally
rejects your guilt. The Church, by refusing to degrade you, has put in doubt the crime
charged against you.
“Without 1872 there would not now be a Plaridel, a Jaena, a Sanciangco, nor would the
brave and generous Filipino colonies exist in Europe. Without 1872 Rizal would now be
a Jesuit and instead of writing the Noli Me Tangere, would have written the contrary. At
the sight of those injustices and cruelties, though still a child, my imagination awoke, and
I swore to dedicate myself to avenge one day so many victims. With this idea I have gone
on studying, and this can be read in all my works and writings. God will grant me one day
to fulfill my promise.” [via]
“If at his death Burgos had shown the courage of Gomez, the Filipinos of today would be
other than they are. However, nobody knows how he will behave at that culminating
moment, and perhaps, I myself, who preach and boast so much, may show more fear
and less resolution than Burgos in that crisis. Life is so pleasant, and it is so repugnant to
die on the scaffold, still young and with ideas in one’s head…” [via]
Jim Richardson: “The day that Gomez, Burgos and Zamora were executed, writes
Jacinto, was a day of degradation and wretchedness. Twenty-four years had since
passed, but the excruciating wound inflicted that day on Tagalog hearts had never healed;
the bleeding had never been staunched. Though the lives of the three priests had been
extinguished that day, their legacy would endure forever. Their compatriots would honor
their memory, and would seek to emulate their pursuit of truth and justice. As yet, Jacinto
acknowledges, some were not fully ready to embrace those ideals, either because they
failed to appreciate the need for solidarity and unity or because their minds were still
clouded by the smoke of a mendacious Church. But those who could no longer tolerate
oppression were now looking forward to a different way of life, to a splendid new
dawn.” [via]
Late in the night of the 15th of February 1872, a Spanish court martial found three secular
priests, Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez and Jacinto Zamora, guilty of treason as the
instigators of a mutiny in the Kabite navy-yard a month before, and sentenced them to
death. The judgement of the court martial was read to the priests in Fort Santiago early
in the next morning and they were told it would be executed the following day… Upon
hearing the sentence, Burgos broke into sobs, Zamora lost his mind and never recovered
it, and only Gomez listened impassively, an old man accustomed to the thought of death.
When dawn broke on the 17th of February there were almost forty thousand of Filipinos
(who came from as far as Bulakan, Pampanga, Kabite and Laguna) surrounding the four
platforms where the three priests and the man whose testimony had convicted them,
a former artilleryman called Saldua, would die.
The three priests followed Saldua: Burgos ‘weeping like a child’, Zamora with vacant
eyes, and Gomez head held high, blessing the Filipinos who knelt at his feet, heads bared
and praying. He was next to die. When his confessor, a Recollect friar , exhorted him
loudly to accept his fate, he replied: “Father, I know that not a leaf falls to the ground but
by the will of God. Since He wills that I should die here, His holy will be done.”
Zamora went up the scaffold without a word and delivered his body to the executioner;
his mind had already left it.
Burgos was the last, a refinement of cruelty that compelled him to watch the death of his
companions. He seated himself on the iron rest and then sprang up crying: “But what
crime have I committed? Is it possible that I should die like this. My God, is there no justice
on earth?”
A dozen friars surrounded him and pressed him down again upon the seat of the garrote,
pleading with him to die a Christian death. He obeyed but, feeling his arms tied round the
fatal post, protested once again: “But I am innocent!”
“So was Jesus Christ,’ said one of the friars.” At this Burgos resigned himself. The
executioner knelt at his feet and asked his forgiveness. “I forgive you, my son. Do your
duty.” And it was done.
(Veneracion quotes Leon Ma. Guerrero’s The First Filipino: “We are told that the crowd,
seeing the executioner fall to his knees, suddenly did the same, saying the prayers to the
dying. Many Spaniards thought it was the beginning of an attack and fled panic-stricken
to the Walled City.”)
• LEON MA. GUERRERO, IN THE FIRST FILIPINO, ASIDE FROM CITING EDMOND
PLAUCHUT, REVYE DES DEUX MONDES, MAY 15, 1877, WROTE:
“Montero deserves a hearing because he had access to the official records. His account,
in brief, is that the condemned men, in civilian clothes, were taken to the headquarters of
the corps of engineers outside the city walls, where a death-cell had been improvised.
Members of their families were allowed to visit them. The night before the execution,
Gómez went to confession with an Augustinian Recollect (leaving a fortune of 200,000 to
a natural son whom he had had before taking orders); Burgos to a Jesuit; Zamora, to a
Vicentian. At the execution itself, Burgos is described as “intensamente pálido;” Zamora,
as “afligidísmo;” and Gómez as “revelando en su faz sombría la ira y la desesperacíon.”
The judgment was once more read to them, on their knees. Burgos and Zamora “lloraban
amargamanete,” while Gòmez listened “con tranquilidad imperturbable. Ni un solo
músculo de su cara se contrajó.” The order of execution, according to Montero, was
Gómez, Zamora, Burgos and Saldúa last of all. He explains the panice saying it was the
natives when a horse bolted: Burgos, thinking rescue was on the way, rose to his feet
and had to be held down by the executioner. Montero denies both the anecdotes
concerning Gómez and Burgos. It is fair to add that Montero seems to lose his composure
in refuting Plauchut.” [The First Filipino. Guerrero, Leon Maria]
The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and GomBurZa Execution
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.
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.
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 Commented [ju2]: The event existed to be a loop hole to
army but also included residents of Cavite and Manila, and more importantly the native get what they wanted: for Filipinos to be under their
restraint or manipulation to avoid dethronement and
clergy to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines. It is noteworthy that
secularization of the government and church leaders
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.
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 Commented [ju3]: The manipulation of the Spaniards
scheme was true without any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged circled the country whereas they also manipulated the
central Spanish government that the filipinos are against
“revolution” reported by Izquierdo and the friars.
them. A form of corruption indeed.
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.
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 we enjoy 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.”
http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-two-faces-of-the-1872-cavite-mutiny/
According to the La Solidaridad and French newsman Edmund Plauchut, it took place
on February 16, 1872. Philippine history has it that the aftermath of the so-called Cavite
mutiny was a mass purging of people who have been suspected of having led or
supported it. On the day the news of the uprising reached the central government in
Manila, the Governor-General immediately caused the arrest of prominent priests and
civilians as conspirators of the mutiny, among them, the Gomburza.
In an article written by Philippine historian Ambeth Ocampo, he said that during the trial,
the principal witness was a certain Francisco Saldua who testified that the mutiny was
a conspiracy, and confessed that he was a part of it. He wished to be pardoned in
exchange for his testimony. He narrated on the trial that for three times he delivered
messages to Fr. Jacinto Zamora, who had then gone to Burgos’ abode. Saldua
said that the conspirators met at the home of certain Lorenzana.
Some military witnesses testified that they were told that should the uprising succeed,
the president of the republic would be Fr. Burgos, parish priest of the Manila
Cathedral but all were just hearsay. A fellow priest, Fray Norvel, testified that the
Creoles were inciting the people to rise up in arms against Spain, and that he saw
Burgos passing subversive pamphlets. Lies and unfounded information subdued the
trial.
Fr. Burgos’ landlady testified as a sort of character witness. She vouched that Fr.
Burgos was a peaceful man and with no liking for gossip. She said that Fr. Burgos
would even advise the insurgents to seek reforms without spilling of blood or the
recourse to violent means. He was the most distinguished among the three, having
earned two doctorates one in theology and another in canon law. He was a prolific
writer and was connected with the Manila Cathedral, a good swordsman and
boxer. Burgos got into a quarrel more than once with his superior, Archbishop of
Manila Gregorio Martinez, regarding the right of native secular clergy over those
newly-arrived priests from Spain.
After eight hours of trial, according to Ocampo, the Council of War condemned to die in
the garrote the three priests Don Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora.
Padre Burgos’ last words are as follows:"But I haven't committed any crime!" Reportedly
one of the friars holding him down hissed,"Even Christ was innocent!" It was only then,
it is said, when Padre Burgos freely accepted his death.
There are present-day idiots like Francisco Saldua who, in order to save their neck,
point at fellow human being with his far-fetched accusations.
There are also the likes of Fray Norvel who has the bad feeling and implicate and
accuse his brother priests. Commented [ju5]: In the line of rizal’s notes
And there are still Archbishop Martinezes among us who favor friars (priests) from other
places than the homegrown clergy.
Any discussion on famous trials of the Philippines can only begin with the trial of Fr.
Mariano Gomez, Fr. Jose Burgos and Fr. Jacinto Zamora, (GOMBURZA). The case
stemmed from the Cavite Mutiny, an event best described as an overnight disturbance,
but which event led to the trial and execution of the three secular priests in the last few
decades of the Spanish era in the Philippines. Historians marked the day of their
execution as the day when the term “Filipino” became ingrained in the minds of the
citizens of colonial Philippines leading to the advent of the Propaganda Movement in
Spain, and eventually the Philippine Revolution of 1896. Rizal himself admitted that
were it not for the three martyr priests, he would not been part of the Propaganda
Movement and would have been a Jesuit priest instead. In spite of its significance,
however, the proceedings of the trial have been kept hidden for many years. Fr. John
Shumacher, a Jesuit historian, claims that until the present an objective history of the
trial cannot be made until the trial records in Segovia, Spain are released to
researchers. In 1896, at the start of the Philippine Revolution and twenty-four years
after the trial and execution of the three martyr priests, members of the Katipunan
extracted testimonies from captured friars who testified that the whole thing was a set-
up. Considering, however, that the testimonies were extracted under duress, historians Commented [ju6]: Supporting comment tagged as: GOLD
have argued on the credibility of the story.
It is the late 19th century, and one of the key issues of the day is the secularization of
parishes. Can the parishes be entrusted to the care of the local clergy? Fr. Burgos and
Fr. Gomez championed the rights of the Filipino secular clergy to become the parish
priests of local parishes over the claims of friars. Fr. Burgos was outspoken in his quest, Commented [ju7]: Made him the logical mastermind or
and even wrote to newspapers in Spain for this cause. His insistence of secularization identity of the mutiny for his cause or propaganda
irritated the friars who belittled the abilities of the Filipino clergy to govern the parishes.
Fr. Burgos's outspoken disposition on this issue even merited a warning from the Jesuit
provincial, that should Fr. Burgos continue to speak and write about the secularization
issue in public, Fr. Burgos may not turn to the Jesuits for help.
The story begins with the arrival in Manila in 1871 of General Rafael Izquierdo y
Gutierrez. On the day he assumed control of the colonial government, he declared that “
I shall govern with a cross and the sword in hand.” Whatever he meant by that, it
seemed that the emphasis was on the sword.
At that time, the Spanish government subjected the natives to forced labor and the
payment of an annual tribute. The workers assigned to the navy yard and the artillery
engineers and the arsenal of Cavite, however, were exempt from these obligations.
These artisans were chosen from the infantrymen of the navy. They did not have any
rank while they render service to the army. But General Izquierdo changed all that when
he issued an edict removing these privileges, requiring them to pay tax and render
forced labor, and removing from them the rights acquired from retirement. This edict is
believed to have caused widespread dismay among those affected who staged the
mutiny.
Soon after the publication of the order, forty infantry solders of the navy and artillerymen
led by a certain Sergeant Lamadrid seized the Fort of San Felipe in Cavite. Sergeant
Lamadrid and his band of mutineers killed the officials who resisted. At ten o’clock in the
evening when the rebels entered the fort, the rebels fired a cannon to announce victory
to the city. But at dawn, the following morning, the rebels failed to get the support of the
soldiers who remained loyal to their regiment. From atop the walls, the rebels called
loyal soliders, induced them with promises to make them join the movement, but
nothing proved successful. Instead, the regiment hurried to prepare an attack on the
rebels, which caused the mutineers to hide in the fort, hoping that Manila would send
the rebels help, but none came.
In spite of the white flag being flung by the rebels, the loyal forces decided to divide into
two groups to prepare for the assault of the fort. While this was being done, the principal
gate of the fort was opened, and a small group of rebels carrying the flag of truce
stepped out. The loyal forces allowed the rebels to take fifteen steps. When the rebels
were near enough, the Spanish commander ordered his soldiers to fire. Nobody among
the small group that stepped out survived. Thereafter, the loyal forces assaulted the fort,
firing shots as they entered it. The rebels offered very little resistance, as the mutiny
was completely suppressed.
The aftermath of the mutiny was a mass purging of people who have been suspected of
having led or supported it. On the day the news of the uprising was received in Manila,
the Governor-General immediately caused the arrest of prominent priests and civilians
as conspirators of the mutiny. Among them were Fr. Jose Burgos, Fr. Zamora, (curate
and co-curate of the Manila Cathedral), Fr. Gomez (curate of Bacoor), D. Agustin
Mendoza (curate of Sta. Cruz), Don Feliciano Gomez, Don Antonio Regidor (eminent
lawyer and municipal councilor), Joaquin Pardo de Tavera (counsellor of the
administration), Don Enrique Paraiso, D. Pio Basa (old employees), Don Jose Basan,
Maximo Paterno, Crisanto Reyes, Ramon Maurente and many others.
The Trial
The sergeants and soldiers taken prisoners at the fort were court martialed and
immediately shot, some in Manila and others in Cavite. Soldiers of the marine infantry
had their sentences commuted to ten years of hard labor in Mindanao. Meanwhile, the
clerics, lawyers, businessmen accused were tried by a special military court. Appointed
fiscal of the government was a commandant of the infantry, a future governor of the
province, Manuel Boscaza. The defenders were some officers of the infantry who were
given only 24 hours to prepare their defenses.
The rebels were charged with the crime of proclaiming the advent of a republic in
agreement with the ideas of the leaders of the progressive parties of the Peninsula.
During the trial, the principal witness was a certain Francisco Saldua, who testified that
the mutiny was a conspiracy, and confessed that he was a part of if. He wished to be
pardoned in exchange for his testimony. He testified that for three times he delivered
messages to Fr. Jacinto Zamora, who had then gone to Burgos’s abode. Saldua said Commented [ju8]: Red flag:
that Sergeant Lamadrid and one of the Basa Brothers told Saldua that the “government It may have been that the people may have misunderstood
burgos’ cause and saw his goal as the whole of overturning
of Father Burgos” would bring the fleet of the United States to assist a revolution. He
the gov’t. Thus, they have implanted a different idea
also testified that Ramon Maurente was financing it with 50,000 pesos, and Maurente regarding burgos’ actions.
would become the revolutions’ field marshal. Saldua also testified that the conspirators
met at the home of Lorenzana.
Some military witnesses testified that they were told that should the uprising succeed, Commented [ju9]: It was not a direct order from Burgos
the president of the republic would be the parish priest of St. Peter. At that time, Burgos
was the parish priest of the Manila Cathedral, which was known as St. Peter as a
parish. Fr. Jacinto Zamora was his co-curate. Other military witnesses mentioned the
name of Fr. Burgos, or the native curate of St. Peter, as the one who would be
president, but likewise this knowledge was only heard by them from someone. Commented [ju10]: Connection of previous comment
Enrique Genato testified that Fr. Burgos, Marcelo H. del Pilar, Regidor, Rafael Labra,
Antonio Rojas and others spoke of clerics, wars, insurrections and rebellions at secret
meetings. Marina Chua Kempo testified that she heard the conspirators speak of a
general massacre of Spaniards and that Lamadrid, the leader of the mutiny, would be
governor or captain general. Fray Norvel testified that the Creoles were inciting the
people to rise up in arms against Spai, and that he saw Burgos passing subversive
pamphlets.
Fr. Burgos’s landlady testified as a sort of character witness. She vouched that Fr.
Burgos was a peaceful man, devout to the virgin, and with no liking for gossip. She said
that others might talk of guns and cannons and cry “Fuera oficiales, canallas,
envidiosos, malvados! or Viva Fiipinas libre, independiente!”. But Fr. Burgos would
advise them to seek reforms without spilling of blood or the recourse of violence.
A curious piece of evidence was a note found in the belongings of Fr. Jacinto Zamora, a
gambling and card game afficionado. The note said, “Big gathering. Come without fail.
The comrades will come well provided with bullets and gunpowder.” (Nick Joaquin
claims that this is a joke for bullets and gunpowder were idioms among card players to
refer to gambling funds.)
Captain Fontivel, Fr. Burgos’s counsel, moved to dismiss the case for lack of evidence.
But the Governor General rejected it and ordered the court martial continued. The
defense then moved that Saldua be called to the stand. But the court claimed that
Saldua was too ill to be called to the witness stand.
After eight hours of discussion, the Council of War condemned to die in the garrote the
three priests Don Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora. Saldua was
likewise sentenced to die. The others were either sentenced to ten years of hard labor
or sent to the Marianas for a period ranging from two to eight years.
At 11 o’clock in the evening of February 15, 1872, the Council of War dictated the
sentence and asked the accused if they had anything to say in their defenses. Burgos
and Zamora expressed their innocence, maintaining that they had no relation with the
rebels of Cavite and that there had been no positive evidence against them. The curate
Gomez, an old man of seventy years, (Nick Joaquin claims he was 85) said that he was
sure his judges would consider him innocent, but seeing that he was denied
confrontation with his accusers, a lawyer for his defense chosen by himself, would be
useless, the trial over, in influencing those who already decided that he was guilty. The
accused were led to the military jail and on the following day, the sentence was
pronounced on them by the Commissary of the government himself. As part of the
sentence, the Governor General ordered the Archbishop to defrock the priests as has
been the custom, but the archbishop refused to defrock the three martyrs until evidence
of their guilt was presented to the archbishop. The evidence was never shown to the
Archbishop.
The Execution
On February 16, 1872, a big crowd gathered to witness the execution. Saldua, with a
smile on his lips for he thought that his pardon was forthcoming led the march. Saldua
was followed by Burgos, who cried like a boy, bowing to friends as he recognized them
from the crowd, and then Zamora -- who had gone mad and had a vague stare --
followed. Last in line was Father Gomez who with eyes wide open, head held high,
blessed the natives who were kneeling along the road.
Saldua, expecting a pardon that never came, was the first to go to the scaffold. Then Fr.
Gomez was called. Replying to his confessor, a Recollect, Fr. Gomez said, “Dear
Father, I know very well that a leaf of a tree does not move without the Will of the
Creator; inasmuch as He asks that I die in this place, may His will be done.” Minutes
later, he was dead.
Fr. Zamora rose when his name was called. He had gone mad two days before and he
died without a final word.
Fr. Burgos was the last to be called. Upon mounting the scaffold, he cried to
Commissary Boscaza, “Gentlemen, I forgive you, and may God forgive you like I do.”
Then he sat to his death chair.
Suddenly, he stood up and cried, “But what crime have I committed? Is it possible that I
should die this way? My God, is there no more justice on earth?”
The friars went to him and obliged him to be seated again, begging him to die the
Christian way. Fr. Burgos obeyed, and as he was being tied he rose exclaiming: “But I
am innocent!”
Then Fr. Burgos stopped resisting. Then the executioner knelt before the condemned
man saying, “Father, forgive me if I have to kill you. I do not wish to do so.”
Fr. Burgos repleid, “My son, I forgive you, comply with your duty.”
Then the executioner did, and thereafter, Fr. Burgos was dead.
The natives who gathered to witness the event knelt and recited the prayer of the dying.
The Spaniards who saw the reaction of the natives panicked and ran to the city walls of
Intramuros.
The Aftermath
After the execution, the Spanish colonial government prohibited people from talking
about the execution, and the records of the trial were kept from the public. Jose Rizal
soon published the novel, Noli Me Tangere", the plotline of which includes a creole
character, Crisostomo Ibarra, who was set up by the friars that led to his being charged
with sedition by the authorities. Nick Joaquin says this was Rizal's allusion to the fate of
the three martyrs.
On February 15, 1892, twenty years after the event, the La Solidaridad, the newspaper
founded by the members of the Propaganda Movement, which included Jose Rizal, in
Spain, published an account of the mutiny, trial, and the execution written by Edmund
Plauchut, a Frenchman supposedly living in Manila at the time of the trial and execution,
from whom most of the above narrative was derived.
A few months earlier Jose Rizal dedicated his second novel El Filibusterismo to the
three martyred priests. Appearing on the cover of the novel is a picture of the three
martyred priests.
Then in 1896, after achieving an early success as the Magdalo faction of the Revolution
in Cavite, members of the Katipunan extracted a testimony from Fr. Agapito Echegoyen,
a Recollect, who said that he learned from a fellow friar what really happened. He said
that the heads of the friar orders had held a conference on how to get rid of Burgos and
other leaders of the native clergy and had decided to implicate them in a seditious plot.
A Franciscan friar disguised as a secular priest was sent with a lot of money to Cavite to
foment mutiny, and negotiated with Saldua to denounce Burgos as the instigator of the
uprising. Afterwards, the heads of the friar orders used a large bribe—“una fuerte suma
de dinero” – to convince the Governor-General that Burgos should be arrested, tried,
and condemned. Commented [ju11]: GOLD. The key to winning. :D
Another friar, Fr. Antonio Piernavieja said that a certain Fray Claudio del Arceo
disguised himself as Father Burgos, went to Cavite to spread the idea of an uprising.
When the mutiny was suppressed, the friars exerted pressure on the Governor General
through his secretary and a lady with great influence on him, plus a gift of 40,000 pesos.
Commented [ju12]: Yesssssss
Conclusion
Fr. John N. Shumacher opines in his book, “The Making of A Nation: Essays on
Nineteenth Century-Filipino Nationalism” published in 1991, that the testimonies of Fr.
Agapito Echegoyen and Fr. Antonio Piernavieja on the alleged conspiracy against Fr.
Burgos are not credible, because they were extracted while they were captives of the
revolutionary army and made under duress. And perhaps, we can add that they were Commented [ju13]: Uh oh
also hearsay. Thus, until we have a firsthand account of this alleged conspiracy, this
question of whether the trial was a set up may not be put to rest. For if Burgos Gomez
and Zamora were indeed innocent of any crime, what motive could we attribute to
Governor General Izquierdo and his military trial court for having acted as such against
the prominent priests? Or is it possible that the three martyr priests were just
circumstantial victims of Spanish hysteria in the wake of the Cavite Mutiny?
Historians note that the significance of the trial of the three martyr priests lies in the fact
that it marked the day that nationalism was born in the minds of the Filipinos. By today’s
standards, the trial of the three martyr priests could hardly pass the basic tenets of due
process. Clearly, the evidence against the three priests is at best hearsay,
circumstantial, and by no means establishing any guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Thus,
it can be said that Filipino nationalism may have been borne out of the cry for justice for
the three martyr priests, but justice could not be obtained from the Spanish colonizers.
The foregoing accounts were taken from Edmund Plauchut’s article “The Philippine
Islands” in La Solidaridad, February 15, 1892, and Nick Joaquin’s “How Filipino was
Burgos?” in A Question of Heroes, published by the Filipinas Foundation in 1977 and
reprinted recently by Anvil. Nick Joaquin based his trial accounts from Manuel Artigas
who had copies of the trial records. Of course, Fr. Schumaker is saying that the
authentic records are still in Segovia, Spain and prohibited from being disclosed to
researchers. Finally, the date of execution has been officially marked on February 17,
1872 but according to the La Solidaridad and Edmund Plauchut, it took place on
February 16, 1872.
Posted by Marvin Aceron 2005 – 09 - 15
http://lavidalawyer.blogspot.com/2005/09/famous-trials-of-philippines-gomburza.html