NAME: LINZO, ROMAR R.

COURSE AND SECTION: BSEE 1C

WHAT HAPPENED IN CAVITE MUNITY?

Sources:

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

Book Store, 1990), 269-273.

Rafael Izquierdo, “Official 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.

Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, “Filipino Version of Cavite Mutiny,” in Gregorio Zaide and Sonia

Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7 (Manila; National Book

Store, 1990), 274—280.

Edmund Plauchut, “The Cavite Mutiny of 1872 and the Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za,” in the

Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume

7(Manila: National Book Store, 1990), 251-268.

In my lengthy investigation, I discovered four accounts of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny. First,

the excerpt from “Montero’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny” specifically, the Spanish

perspective─ which is documented by Jose Montero y Vidal. In this document, the Spanish

historian emphasized the event as an attempt of the “Indios” to overpower the Spanish

government in the Philippines.

Another account from the excerpts from the official report of “Governor Izquierdo on the

Cavite Mutiny of 1872” 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 complemented 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 the Cavite arsenal such as non-

payment of tributes and exemption from forced labor were the main reasons for 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 the 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 propaganda 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. Also, according

to the accounts of the two, on the 20th of January, 1872, the district of Sampaloc

celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately, participants in the feast

celebrated the occasion with the usual fireworks displays. Allegedly, those in Cavite

mistook the fireworks as the sign of 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 sentenced to life imprisonment at Marianas Island.

Furthermore, Gov. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the

creation of an artillery force to be composed exclusively of the Peninsulares.

On the 17th day of January, the year 1872, in an attempt of the Spanish government and

“Frailocracia” to instill fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit such a

daring act again, the GOMBURZA were executed. This event was tragic but served as one

of the moving forces that shaped Filipino nationalism.

There are two other primary accounts 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. 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 the school of arts and trades for the Filipinos, which the

general believed was a cover-up for the organization of a political club.

On the 20th of January, the year 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, prompting the friars to do something drastic in their dire desire to

maintain power in the Philippines.

Meanwhile, with the intention of installing reforms, the Central Government of Spain

welcomed an educational decree authored by Segismundo Moret and promoted the

fusion of sectarian schools run by the friars into a school called the 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 to 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 the Philippine Revolution of 1896.

account and analyzed the motivations of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny. The Frenchman,

however, dwelt more on the execution of the three martyr priests that 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 blood 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

victory, our forefathers suffered enough. As we enjoy our freedom, 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.”