What Happened in the Cavite Mutiny?

The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavite Mutiny and the
martyrdom of the three priests: Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto
Zamora, later on immortalized as GOMBURZA. These events are very
important milestones in Philippine history and have caused ripples
throughout time, directly influencing the decisive events of the Philippine
Revolution toward the end of the century. While the significance is
unquestioned, what made this year controversial are the different sides to
the story, a battle of perspectives supported by primary sources. In this case
study, we zoom in to the events of the Cavite Mutiny, a major factor in the
awakening of nationalism among the Filipinos of that time.

Spanish Accounts of the Cavite Mutiny

The documentation of Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal centered on

how the event was an attempt in overthrowing the Spanish government in
the Philippines. Although regarded as a historian, his account of the mutiny
was criticized as woefully biased and rabid for a scholar. Another account
from the official report written by then Governor General Rafael Izquierdo
implicated the native clergy, who were then, active in the movement toward
secularization of parishes. These two accounts corroborated each other.

Secularization of parishes. These two accounts corroborated each other.

Mutiny Primary Source: Excerpts from Montero’s Account of the Cavite
Souree: Jose Monteroy Vidal, “Spanish Version of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872”
in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of 273. Philippine
History, Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 269- The abolition of
privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal insurrection. There
were, however, other causes, of exemption from the tribute was, according
to some, the cause of the insurrection there were,However, other causes.

The Spanish revolution which overthrew a secular throne; the propaganda

carried on by an unbridled press against monarchical the principles,
attentatory [sic] of the most sacred respects towards the 1an. Hat dethroned
majesty; the democratic and republican books and pamphlets; the speeches
and preaching’s of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain; the outbursts of
the American publicists and the criminal policy of the senseless Governor
whom the Revolutionary government sent to govern the Philippines, and who
put into practice these ideas were the nd determining circumstances which
gave rise, among certain Filipinos, to d the idea of attaining their
independence. It was towards this goal that they started to work, with the
powerful assistance of a certain section e of the native clergy, who out of
spite toward friars, made common cause with the enemies of the mother
country.

At various times but especially in the beginning of year 1872, the authorities
received anonymous communications with the information that a great
uprising would break out against the Spaniards, the minute the fleet at
Cavite left for the South, and that all would be assassinated, including the
friars. But nobody gave importance to these notices. The conspiracy had
been going on since the days of La Torre with utmost secrecy. At times, the
principal leaders met either in the house of Filipino Spaniard, D. Joaquin
Pardo de Tavera, or in that of the native priest, Jacinto Zamora, and these
meetings were usually attended by the curate of Bacoor, the soul of the
movement, whose energetic character and immense wealth enabled him to
exercise a strong influence.

Primary Source: Excerpts from the Official Report of Governor Izquierdo on

the Cavite Mutiny of 1872

Source: Rafael Izquierdo,”0ffcial Report on the Cavite Mutiny”in Gregorio

Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7
(Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 281-286. …It seems definite that the
insurrection was motivated and prepared known here as abogadillos.. by the
native clergy, by the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those The
instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice
of the government in not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and
against the usury that some practice in documents that the Finance
department gives crop owners who have to sell them at a loss. They
encouraged the rebellion by protesting what they called the injustice of
having obliged the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay.tribute starting
January 1 and to render personal service, from which they were formerly
exempted.

Op to now it has not been clearly determined ifthey planned to establish a

monarchy or a republic, because the Indios have no word in their language to
describe this different form of government, whose head in Filipino would be
called hari: but it turns out that they would place at the head of the
government a priest.. that the head selected would be D. Jose Burgos, or D.
Jacinto Zamora… Such is… the plan of the rebels, those who guided them,
and the means they counted upon for its realization.

. It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the “revolution”:
the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such
as exemption from payment of tribute and being employed in polos y
servicios, or force labor. They also identified other reasons which seemingly
made the issue a lot more serious, which included the presence of the native
clergy, who, out of spite against the Spanish friars, “conspired and
supported” the rebels. Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report, highlighted
that attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines to
install a new “hari” in the persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. According
to him, native clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic
assurance that their fight would not fail because they had God's support,
aside from promises of lofty rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks
in the army. In the Spaniard’s accounts, the event of 1872 was premeditated,
and was part of a big conspiracy among the educated leaders, mestizos,
lawyers, and residents of Manila and Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate
high- ranking Spanish officers, then kill the friars. The signal they identified
among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired from
Intramuros. The accounts detail that on 20 January 1872, the district of
Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, and came with it were
some fireworks display. The Caviteños allegedly mistook this as the signal to
commence with the attack. The 200-men contingent led by Sergeant
Lamadrid attacked Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal. Izquierdo,
upon learning of the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces
in Cavite to quell the evolt. The “revolution”was easily crushed,when the
Manileños who were expected to aid the Caviteños did not arrive. Leaders of
the plot were killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos,
58 Readings in Philippine History.

And Zamora were tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be executed.

0thers who were implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma.
Regidor. Jose and Pio Basa, and other Filipino lawyers were suspended from
the practice of law, arrested, and sentenced to life imprisonment at the
Marianas Island. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and
ordered the creation of an artillery force composed exclusively by
Peninsulares.

On 17 February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to

Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again.

Differing Accounts of the Events of 1872

Two other primary accounts exist that seem to counter the accounts of
Izquierdo and Montero. First, the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo
de Tavera, a Filipino scholar and researcher, who wrote a Filipino version of
the bloody incident in Cavite.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera’s Account of the Cavite

Mutiny

Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera,“Tiipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny,”in

Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History,
Volume 7 (Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 274- 280.

This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by
the Spanish residents and by the friars… the Central Government in Madrid
had announced its intention to deprive the friars in these islands of powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and of the direction and
management of the university… it was due to these facts and promises that
the Filipinos had great hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their
country, while the friars, on the other hand, feared that their power in the
colony would soon be complete a thing of the past.

Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain, and the
only aspiration of the people was to secure the material and education
advancement of the country.. According to this account, the incident was
merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal to the
dissatisfaction arising from.
The draconian policies of Izquierdo, such as the abolition of privleges and the
prohibition of the founding of the school of arts and trades for 上 lnpunos
which the General saw as a smokesereen to creating a political elub. Tavera
is of the opinion that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny
as a way to address other issues by blowing out of proportion te 1solated
mutiny attempt. During this tìme, the Central Government in Madrid was
planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of
civil government and direction and management of educational institutions.
The friars needed something to justify their continuing dominance in the
country, and the mutiny provided such opportunity.

However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational decree

fusing sectarian schools run by the friars into a sehool called the Philippine
Institute.

The deeree aimed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by

requiring teaching positions in these schools to be filled by competitive
examinations, an improvement welcomed by most Filipinos, Another account,
this time by French writer Edmund Plauchut complemented Tavera’s account
and analyzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny.

Primary Source: Excerpts from Plauchut’s Account of the Cavite

Source: Edmund Plauchut,“The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of

Gom-Bur-Za,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Book Store, 1990), 251-
268. Documentary Sources of Philippine History.

General La Torre… created a junta composed of high officials… including

some friars and six Spanish officials…. At the same time there was created
by the government in Madrid a committee to investigate the same problems
submitted to the Manila committee. When the two finished work, it was
found that they came to the same conclusions. Here is the summary of the
reforms they considered necessary to introduce:

1. Changes in tariff rates at customs, and the methods of collection.

2. Removal of surcharges on foreign importations.

3. Reduction of export fees.

4. Permission for foreigners to reside in the Philippines, buy real estate, enjoy
freedom of worship, and operate commercial transports flying the Spanish
flag.
5 Establishment of an advisory council to inform the Minister of Overseas
Affairs in Madrid on the necessary reforms to be implemented.

6. Changes in primary and secondary education.

7 Establishment of an Institute of Civil Administration in the Philippines,

rendering unnecessary the sending home of short- term civil officials every
time there is a change of ministry.

8 Study of direct-tax system.

9. Abolition of the tobacco monopoly.

.The arrival in Manila of General Izquierdo… put a sudden end to all dreams
of reforms… the prosecutions instituted by the new Governor General were
probably expected as a result of the bitter disputes between the Filipino
clerics and the friars. Such a policy must really end in a strong desire on the
part of the other to repress cruelly.

In regard to schools, it was previously decreed that there should be in Manila

a Society of Arts and Trades to be opened in March of 1871… to repress the
growth of liberal teachings, General Izquierdo suspended the opening of the
school… the day previous to the scheduled inauguration…

The Filipinos had a duty to render service on public roads construction and
pay taxes every year. But those who were employed at the maestranza of
the artillery, in the engineering shops and arsenal of Cavite, were exempted
from this obligation from time immemorial… Without preliminaries of any
kind, a decree by the Governor withdrew from such old employees their
retirement privileges and declassified them into the ranks of those who
worked on public roads.

The GOMBURZA Is the collective name of the three martyred priests Mariano
Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, who were tagged as the
masterminds of the Cavite Mutiny. They were prominent Filipino priests
charged with treason and sedition. It is believed that the Spanish clergy
connected the priests to the mutiny as part of a conspiracy to stifle the
movement of secular priests who desired to have their own parishes instead
of being merely assistants to the regular friars. The GOMBURZA were
executed by garrote in public, a scene purportedly witnessed by a young Jose
Rizal.
Their martyrdom Is widely accepted as the dawn of Philippine nationalism in
the nineteenth century, with Rizal dedicating his second novel, El
Filibusterismo, to their memory

“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.”

Key Characters:

1. GOMBURZA (Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora):

Filipino priests implicated in the Cavite Mutiny.

Advocated for the secularization of parishes, meaning Filipino priests wanted

control over the churches rather than Spanish friars.

Executed on February 17, 1872, after being accused of treason and sedition.

Their execution is seen as the birth of Philippine nationalism and later

inspired the Philippine Revolution.

2. Sergeant Lamadrid:
Led the 200 men from the Cavite arsenal in the mutiny.

3. Jose Montero y Vidal:

A Spanish historian who documented the mutiny, describing it as an

attempted overthrow of the Spanish government. His account was criticized
for being biased.

4. Governor General Rafael Izquierdo:

Spanish Governor General at the time.

His report blamed the native clergy, mestizos, and lawyers for the mutiny.

His harsh policies, including the removal of workers’ privileges, are believed
to have sparked the mutiny.

5. Dr. Trinidad Hermenegildo Pardo de Tavera:

A Filipino scholar who countered Spanish accounts, suggesting that the

mutiny was an isolated incident exaggerated by Spanish authorities to justify
repression.
 6. Edmund Plauchut:

A French writer who supported Tavera’s account, noting the harsh conditions
under Governor Izquierdo and the manipulation of the mutiny for political
purposes.

Important Information:

Cavite Mutiny (January 20, 1872):

A brief uprising led by Filipino soldiers and workers at the Cavite arsenal.

Sparked by the removal of long-standing privileges, including exemption

from tribute and forced labor.

Mistakenly initiated due to a fireworks display during the Feast of the Virgin
of Loreto in Manila, which the mutineers took as the signal to start the
rebellion.

Secularization Movement:
The movement advocating for Filipino priests to take control of parishes from
Spanish friars.

GOMBURZA were key figures in this movement, and their involvement in the
mutiny was allegedly fabricated by Spanish authorities to discredit their
cause.

Consequences of the Mutiny:

The mutiny was quickly suppressed, and many of its leaders were executed
or exiled.

GOMBURZA were implicated as masterminds and executed to serve as an

example, discouraging future resistance against Spanish rule.

This event led to increased anti-Spanish sentiment and is seen as a catalyst

for the rise of Filipino nationalism.

Controversy and Differing Accounts:

Spanish accounts, like those of Montero and Izquierdo, framed the mutiny as
part of a larger conspiracy to overthrow Spanish rule.

Filipino and other foreign accounts, such as those by Pardo de Tavera and
Plauchut, argue that the mutiny was a local incident that was exaggerated
by Spanish authorities to suppress dissent.
Martyrdom of GOMBURZA:

Their public execution inspired future Filipino leaders, including José Rizal,
who dedicated his novel El Filibusterismo to their memory.

Seen as a turning point that awakened national consciousness among

Filipinos and laid the groundwork for the Philippine Revolution of 1896.