RIZAL RETRACTED

CLAIMANT ARGUMENT EVIDENCE/PROOF

Father Pio Pi in his declaration said:

On his return to our house from
He said that he had received “an
Fort Santiago, and while Rizal was
exact copy of the retraction written
Fr. Pio Pi being led to the place of execution,
and signed by Rizal.
Father Balaguer handed over to me
said document, and after making a
copy thereof for our archives, that
same morning I brought it myself to
the Archbishop whom I visited in his
Palace.

In this statement, Father Balaguer

among other things said: On the
same day that Rizal was executed he
wrote a detailed account of
everything the original of which he
has drawn in the preparation of this
He claimed that he managed to narrative he finally declares and
persuade Rizal to denounce Masonry affirms that shortly before Rizal
Fr. Vicente Balaguer
and return to the Catholic fold. left his cell, he departed in company
with Josefina Bracken and a sister
of Rizal, from who he separated
later. He had with him the Rizal's
retraction. And he delivered the
said document to Reverend Father
Pio Pi, who that same day, brought it
to the palace and handed it over to
Archbishop Nozaleda, who, in turn,
delivered it to his secretary,
Gonzales Feijoo.

Gaspar Castano's testimony is also a

notarized declaration formally made
on April 25, 1917. Castano then was
a magistrate of the Supreme Court
in Madrid, holding the position and
honors of President of that
Tribunal. In his declaration, Justice
Castano, among other things, said: A
He claimed that he had held it in his
few days after the execution of
hands, read it, and can affirm that
Gaspar Castrano Rizal, just how many I cannot now
the document that he read contain
exactly tell, I saw in the
the retraction of Rizal.
Archbishop's Palace in Manila that
retraction, read it and had it in my
hands, and, although I do not
remember the terms in which it was
conceived, I can affirm that in that
(document) Rizal, declaring himself a
Catholic, retracted all that he had
said, written, or done against the
Church and that in a special and
express manner he abjured Masonry.
 Silvino Lopez Tunon's testimony is
also a public document, being a
notarized statement made on April
He says that this profession of faith 23, 1917. The portion of the
and retraction was shown to him at testimony that is pertinent for our
Silvino Lopez Tunon
that moment, that he had it for a purpose is the following: That on the
while in his hands and read it in its same day, December 30th, at about
entirety, returning it immediately ten o'clock in the morning,
thereafter to the Archbishop. Archbishop Nozaleda was with some
Jesuit Fathers whose names he (the
affiant) could not recall; that he
learned from one of the Jesuit
Fathers that Rizal had asked and
received the Sacraments of Penance
and Communion and contracted
canonical marriage with Josefina
Bracken, after having written and
signed a religious profession,
declaring himself a child of the
Catholic Church. That this
profession of faith and retraction
was shown to him at that moment,
that he had it for a while in his
hands and read it in its entirety,
returning it immediately thereafter
to the Archbishop.

Father Rosell's testimony is also a

notarized declaration formally made
He said that on the day that Rizal
on April 27, 1917. In his declaration,
was executed, he saw the retraction
Father Rosell Father Rosell among other things,
of Rizal in Ateneo.
said: I recall that on the same day
that Rizal was executed, I saw in
the Ateneo his retraction.

OBSERVATION:

We can observe that most of the claimants who believed that Rizal retracted are members of the
Catholic hierarchy and the documents presented are from the statements of people who have
eyewitness account, however, it cannot be deemed credible and it is not enough to prove that Rizal
did retract.

RIZAL DID NOT RETRACT

CLAIMANT ARGUMENT EVIDENCE/PROOF

Fernandez said: “I have documents He is a Spanish orphan who

stating that before he faced death, discovered the eyewitnesses
Rizal told his sister Narcisa to look accounts of the retraction from
inside his shoes because he had left a the repertories or collections of
Baron Fernandez letter.” According to Fernandez, the Spain’s dirty secrets. He found 34
letter could only be a denial of his documents including handwritten
retraction because Rizal knew the letters, telegrams, and military
friars were misleading the Filipinos documents alongside these
and he wanted to set the records documents are the thick
straight. manuscript that Rizal had written
before the day of his execution.
He subsequently brought from
 Morato said in his "expose" that the Fernandez the Intellectual
friars forged the retraction letter Property right to the valuable
Manuel Morato and published in the Clerico- Fascist manuscripts.
newspapers at that time. Morato
Also, he and Fernandez have
confirmed that Rizal never retracted
documents to prove that when
although that fake retraction was
Rizal was in Dapitan, he was allowed
published by friars and is still sadly
to go to Cebu with Josephine
peddled in most school
Bracken, and the Archbishop of
Cebu, at that time, tried to dangle
marriage and coaxed him to do the
retract.

He said that the retraction document He said in his that it does not
was “apocryphal.” appear in the trial nor can anyone
Manuel Artigas y give an account of it in the
Cuerva Archiepiscopal Palace of Manila.
Even in the Ateneo itself of the
Fathers of the Society of Jesus, it
could not be found, although it was
positively affirmed that it was
there.
OBSERVATION:
We can observe that the claimants based their arguments on the eyewitnesses account.
They look for the discrepancy on these accounts and analyze it to confirm whether the
claims of those who believed that Rizal retracted is credible.

Prepared by:

[FOXTROT]

Boholst, Levielyn O.

Santurias, Jinky