LESSON 2 The Cavity Mutiny

Learning outcomes:

At the end of the session, you are expected to:

1. Determine the advantage and disadvantages of the historical event.

2. Identify the primary source of the historical event.

Introduction

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 Gomez, 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. Today, I
want you all to appreciate the bravery of each people and apply critical thinking in
examining the significance of these historical events.

Activity

Nationalism is the love towards your own country and this is very much
important to the progress of a country. With our situation today, how can you
show your love towards our country especially that a lot of Filipino front liners
got infected with the disease? List at least 5 examples of Nationalism.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5
 Analysis

Guide Questions:

1. What prior knowledge you create about nationalism?

______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Abstraction

Controversy 2: The Cavite Mutiny

The Cavite Mutiny and the martyrdom of Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto
Zamora rendered 1872 a historic year for the country. These events which turned out
to be critical milestones in Philippine history set off ripples through time, influencing
the events that led to the Philippine Revolution.

While the Cavite Mutiny’s significance as a major factor in the awakening of

Philippine nationalism during the 19th century is irrefutable, the different sides to its
story resulting from four individuals’ varying perspectives rendered it controversial.

Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny

Despite being regarded as a historian, Jose Montero y Vidal’s Cavite Mutiny’s
account which focused on its attempt to overthrow the Spanish Government in the
Philippines was criticized as transparently biased and blatantly prejudiced for a
scholar.

The other Spanish account was an official report penned by then Governor-General
Rafael Izquierdo who implicated the native clergy that were then active in the
secularization movement meant to replace the friars in the country’s Catholic Church
with Filipino secular priests as the former were perceived as impediments to Filipino
education, progress, and freedom.

These Spanish accounts corroborated each other.

Excerpts from Montero’s Account
Although according to some, the abolition of the Cavite arsenal laborers’ exemption
from the tribute was the cause of insurrection, there were other justifications for it:
the propaganda carried out by the uninhibited press in opposition to the principles of
the monarchy, the democratic and republican books and pamphlets, the apostles’
rhetoric on new ideas in Spain, and the surge of the American publicists
compounded by  the criminal policy of the foolish Governor sent by the Revolutionary
government to oversee the Philippines [among others] were decisive episodes that
bred, among some Filipinos, the idea of attaining independence – the objective that
afforded these Filipinos the support “of the native clergy, who out of spite towards
the friars, made common cause with the enemies of the mother country.”

The authorities obtained “anonymous communications” of a rebellion and of an

assassination of Spaniards including friars numerous times at beginning of 1872.
This information, however, was afforded no importance. This plot went on
clandestinely since the days of La Torre. Principal leaders, on occasions, met at Dr.
Pardo de Tavera’s residence and at times at the native priest’s, Jacinto Zamora’s
house. The curate of Bacoor whose vigorous character and affluence afforded him
great influence, usually attended such meetings.

 Jose Montero y Vidal, “Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,” in Gregorio Zaide and
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,  Volume 7 (Manila: National
Bookstore, 1990), 269-271.

Excerpts from Governor Izquierdo’s Account

It appears certain that the native clergy, the mestizos, the native lawyers, and the
abogadillos were the ones that motivated and organized the insurrection.

To execute unlawful scheme, the instigators objected to the government’s injustice of

1) failure to pay the provinces for the tobacco crop and the 2) “usury that some
practice in documents that the Finance department gives crop owners who have to
sell them at a loss;” 3) having required the Cavite arsenal workers to pay tribute and
to render personal service from which they were initially exempted.

It has not been evidently established if the Indios intended to set up a monarchy or a
republic as they did not have the word for it in their language to call this form of
government whose head is called hari in Filipino. It, however, turned out that a priest,
either Jose Burgos or Jacinto Zamora would be placed in such position. Such is the
plot of the rebels.
  Rafael Izquierdo, “Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,” in Gregorio Zaide
and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila:
National Bookstore, 1990), 281-286.

In these Spanish accounts, Cavite Mutiny was deliberate and was a component of a
conspiracy among the educated Filipinos, mestizos, lawyers and residents of Manila
and Cavite.

It is evident that such accounts underscore the abolition of the Cavite arsenal

workers’ exemption from the payment of tribute and forced labor as the reason
for the revolution along with numerous other reasons they outlined which included
the native clergy who were depicted as conspirators and supporters of the rebels
that magnified the severity of the mutiny which allegedly included a scheme to
assassinate high-raking Spaniards and to execute friars.

These Spanish accounts specify that on the 20 th of January 1872 was a day of
reveling in Sampaloc for the Virgin of Loreto’s feast that came with the fireworks
which the Caviteños mistook as a signal to launch the attack. Sergeant Lamadrid led
200 men in the attack against Spaniards and in taking over of the arsenal. Izquierdo
promptly ordered reinforcements for the Spanish force in Cavite which easily quelled
the mutiny as the Manileños expected to help the Caviteños failed to do so.

The mutiny resulted into 1) the death of its leaders, 2) the court-martial and
execution of Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora, on the 17 th of February 1872, 3)
the arrest of Filipino lawyers and their suspension from the practice of law, 4) the
arrest of Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa [among
others] and their exile to the Marianas Island.

This compelled Izquierdo to dissolve the native regiments of artillery and replaced
them with an artillery force exclusively made up of Peninsularies – pure-blooded
Spaniards born in Spain.

Filipino and French Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny

Two other primary accounts that appear to dispute the Spanish accounts were
penned by a Filipino scholar and researcher, Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de
Tavera and that of the French writer, Edmund Plauchut who complemented Tavera’s
account.

Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera’s Account

The Central Government in Madrid declared its intention to withdraw the friars’ power
of intervention in civil government matters and university management… This had
given the Filipinos high hopes for improvement in the country’s affairs; … up to this
period, “there had been no intention of secession from Spain,” as the Filipinos only
aspired for “education advancement in the country…” however, the friars dreaded
that their authority would soon come to an end hence these friars along with the
other Spanish residents in the country resorted to an overblown version of what was
an uprising among the soldiers in Cavite.

 Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, “Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872,” in Gregorio Zaide
and Sonia Zaide,  Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila: National
Bookstore, 1990), 274-280.

Based on this account, the episode was a mere mutiny by Filipino soldiers and
workers of the Cavite arsenal instigated by their dissatisfaction with Izquierdo’s
abolition of privileges and prohibition of the establishment of the school of arts and
trades for Filipinos which Izquierdo believed a cover up to the creation of a political
organization.

Tavera suggested that, seeking to address other issues, Izquierdo and the Spanish
friars who were about to lose their influence in the affairs of civil government and
university management, exploited the Cavite Mutiny by blowing it out of proportion
than what it truly was – an isolated attempt at mutiny by some soldiers and workers
in Cavite. The mutiny afforded these friars a justification to carry on with their affairs
in the country.

Nevertheless, the Central Spanish Government issued an educational decree

merging sectarian schools overseen by friars with the Philippine Institute. This was
aimed at improving the Philippine education standard by demanding to fill these
schools’ teaching positions with competitive examinations.

Excerpts from Plauchut’s Account

The junta of six Spanish officials and some friars created by General La Torre and
the committee created by the government in Madrid reached the same conclusions
for necessary reforms:

1. Amendments in both tariff rates and its method of collection at

customs;
2. Eradication of foreign importation surcharges;
3. Export fees cutback;
4. Approval for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, purchase real
estate, take pleasure in the freedom of worship, and run “commercial
transports flying the Spanish flag;”
5. Formationn of an advisory council to notify the Minister of Overseas
Affairs in Madrid on the implementation of necessary reforms;
6. Primary and secondary education modification: and
7. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly [among others].
…these visions for reforms, however, were abruptly extinguished with the arrival of
General Izquierdo in Manila. Bitter disputes between the native clergy and the friars
resulted into the series of prosecutions carried out by the newly installed Governor-
General.

Additionally, despite the decree of the Society of Arts and Trades opening in March
of 1871 in Manila, General Izquierdo opted for its suspension to inhibit the progress
of liberal teachings.

Moreover, although Filipinos were obliged to pay taxes annually and to render
services on public road constructions, workers at the Cavite arsenal and in the
engineering shops and artillery were exempted from such obligations. In spite of this,
General Izquierdo decreed, without admonition, the abolition of such privileges
thereby declassifying old employees into ranks of public road workers.

Intending to cement their dominance which started to show some cracks manifested
in the Filipinos’ discontent, the friars used and showcased the mutiny as part of a
larger conspiracy by Filipinos to overthrow the Spanish government in the country.
Inadvertently, the 1872 Cavite Mutiny led to the martyrdom of GOMBURZA and
paved the way for the Philippine Revolution.

 Edmund Plauchut, “The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za,” in
Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,  Volume 7
(Manila: National Bookstore, 1990), 274-280.

Immortalizing their martyrdom, GOMBURZA is the collective name of Mariano

Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora who were identified as the instigators of
the Cavite Mutiny. They were renowned Filipino priests accused of treason and
sedition for they were believed to have been connected by the friars to the mutiny
with the intention of stifling the secularization movement by native priests who
aspired for their own parishes instead of being mere assistants to the friars. The
GOMBURZA’s public execution by garrotte was professedly witnessed by a ten-year
old Jose Rizal who eventually dedicated his second novel, El Filibusterismo to the
memory of the priests whose martyrdom led to the emergence of Philippine
nationalism in 19th century:

            “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 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.”
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. Taveraavera 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 desire 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.

Application: Let's apply

Did you have fun learning today? What did you feel towards the brave
Filipinos? What about the Spaniards? Write down the role, importance or the
contributions of the people/event listed below..

1. GomBurZa
(Mariano Gomez, Jose
Burgos, Jacinto Zamora)
2. Dr. Trinidad Pardo de
Tavera

3. Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo

4. Sergeant Lamadrid
5. Cavite Mutiny