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.”
Tag Archives: secularization movement
Cavite Mutiny: what was it all about?
The infamous 1872 mutiny in Cavite was the result of three events: the secularization movement within
the Catholic Church, a cold war between two groups of Spaniards, and Masonic meddling. But let us
begin with the Spaniard vs Spaniard rivalry.

Insular vs peninsular

For 256 years, Filipinas was ruled by the Spanish crown indirectly via a viceroyalty system called the
Virreinato de Nueva España or the Viceroyalty of New Spain. The capital of this viceroyalty was in
México. When México gained her independence in 1821, Spain began ruling our archipelago directly.

It is said that this direct rule was the start of real Spanish oppression, i.e., discrimination. But this
discrimination was more racial than racist, and it was directed not toward the indios or natives (Tagálog,
Cebuano, Ilocano, etc.) but toward fellow Spaniards. It was in fact the start of a conflict between two
groups of Spaniards in Filipinas: the español peninsular and the español insular. To wit, the peninsular
was a Spaniard born in Spain. On the other hand, an insular was a Spaniard born and bred in our
country. Another term for the insular was Filipino, a demonym popularized by Luis Rodríguez Varela
from Tondo, himself an insular (creole was another term used for the insular/Filipino, though rarely, as it
was also used to refer to a Spanish half breed — half Spaniard, half indigenous).

When Filipinas was still under the Viceroyalty of New Spain, the insulares/Filipinos, since they are still
technically Spaniards, enjoyed certain privileges such as exemption from tribute and the polo y
servicios. They are also given choice positions in Church, government, and the military. However, all
these privileges were taken away from them beginning in 1822, just a year after Mexican independence.
Case in point: on 30 October 1822, Juan Antonio Martínez arrived as our country’s 54th Governor-
General, and the first under direct Spanish rule (the king during that time was Ferdinand VII). Martínez
brought with him a slew of peninsular military officers to replace their insular counterparts. This, of
course, didn’t sit well with the latter who naturally protested. But instead of listening, the new governor-
general had all protesters (including Rodríguez) arrested and exiled.

A series of unfortunate occurrences since then have beset the español insular who had felt betrayed
and oppressed by the mother country. Many of them have lost key government positions (such as the
coveted alcalde mayor post, equivalent to today’s provincial governor) to peninsulares. Even Spanish
friars were not spared from the oppression.

Secularization movement

Secularization was a movement within the Church seeking for the transfer of parishes from the regulars
to the secular priests. It was a crisis brewing since the 1770s.

There are two types of priests: the regulars, commonly known as the friars, and the seculars. The friars
belonged to various orders (Augustinians, Dominicans, Recollects, etc.) while the seculars were under
the authority of a bishop. During the Spanish times, the friars were mostly peninsulares while the few
seculars were composes of natives and a few creoles.

The conflict between the regulars and the secular priests began when bishops insisted on visiting friar-
run parishes. The bishops thought that it was their duty to check how such parishes were being
handled. The friars refused their parishes to be visited by bishops, saying that they were not under the
latter’s jurisdiction. But to make matters worse for the regulars, King Ferdinand VI issued two royal
decrees —one in 1752 and another one in 1757— ordering the gradual takeover of the parishes by the
seculars. A similar decree was issued by his successor (and half-brother), King Charles III in 1774.

In the ensuing years, the friars, most especially the peninsular friars, held on to their resolve not to
budge from their parishes upon learning that various independence movements in Spanish-held South
América were led by insulares and creoles, most of whom were members of Freemasonry, the ancient
enemy of the Catholic Church. But two well-known pro-seculars in Manila would have none of this
observation. These two were Fr. Pedro Peláez and Fr. José Burgos, both of whom were creoles. Of the
two, Fr. Burgos was the most disdained for his adamant clamor for secularization.

El motín de ’72

1872 was the breaking point, when insular patience was filled to the brim and friar wariness could no
longer be reined in. The insulares felt that that not only were they being oppressed by the peninsulares;
they were also being driven away by them bit by bit. As for the friars, Burgos and the secularization
movement had to be stopped if only to preserve the integrity and security of the Church from the
onslaught of liberalism that was starting to plague both Europe and South América.

Exactly 150 years ago, during the chilly night of 20 January 1872, troops stationed at the Fortaleza de
San Felipe in Cavite Nuevo (now Cavite City) mutinied against their peninsular officers, killing eleven of
them. It was not a spontaneous mutiny — it had been a well-planned one. Well, almost…

The mutiny, as it turned out, was to start in Manila. Days before, the conspirators at the capital informed
their Caviteño accomplices to start the mutiny in San Felipe as soon they see cannon shots fired in the
air; the plan was to set the arrabal (district) of Tondo in fire to distract the authorities while the artillery
regiment and infantry in Manila could take control of Fuerte de Santiago in Intramuros and use cannon
shots as a signal for the San Felipe troops to start attacking their peninsular officers. But before this
could happen, the mutiny in Manila was discovered. Leaders were promptly arrested.

The arrests in Manila were not yet known to those in Cavite. They stood vigilant by the bay, waiting for
the signal. Finally, they saw what they thought was the signal — rockets firing through the air! That is
when they commenced the attack. But unbeknownst to them, those were not cannon shots from their
allies but fireworks coming from Plaza del Carmen in Quiapò, for it was the feast day of San Sebastián
de Milán, the titular patron of the famous steel church in front of plaza del Carmen which bears the
same saintly name.

That is why the mutineers in Cavite were caught in surprise when the soldiers who arrived there were
not their allies but government troops. They were easily overwhelmed. Several more were apprehended
the following day, and those included Fr. Burgos as well as two more priests: Fr. Mariano Gomes and
Fr. Jacinto Zamora. Following a hurried trial, the three priests, including a state witness who testified
against them, were sentenced to death garrote. Manila Archbishop Gregorio Melitón Martínez,
nevertheless, refused to unfrock the three for he believed in their innocence.
At the time of his death, Fr. Burgos was at the height of his career as a priest. He was, therefore, a
dangerous adversary among anti-secularists. This led to suspicions that Fr. Burgos was framed.
Another suspicion is that there could have been an “unholy alliance” between insular reactionaries and
Spanish friars to get rid of both peninsular infraction and the secularization of parishes. Be that as it
may, one might find it strange that others who were implicated in the mutiny —Máximo Inocencio,
Crisanto de los Reyes, and Enrique Paraíso— were not executed but merely exiled. Inocencio, de los
Reyes, and Paraíso were all Freemasons. This leads to another suspicion: were they spared because of
their affiliation to Freemasonry? It should be noted that the governor-general who signed the death
sentence of the three priests was Rafael de Izquierdo, a high-ranking Freemason.

Nevertheless, the execution of the three priests brought forth a new force — the culmination of the
process of the forging of our national identity, a process which began in 1565. On the day of their public
execution in Bagumbayan, on 17 February 1872, the masses gathered to show their sympathy. On that
day, the racial classifications that labeled them as indios, insulares, chinos cristianos, etc. no longer
mattered to them. Together, they have become Filipinos, a term that they appropriated from the
“oppressors”.