Instructor Subject Code Schedule
Irene B. Lapura RPH
Subject Title: READINGS IN PHILIPPINE HISTORY
Module 6
INTRODUCTION
The year 1872 is a historic year of two events: the Cavity Mutiny and the martyrdom of the
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 is the different
sides to the story, a battle of perspectives supported by primary sources. In this module, we zoom in
to the events of the Cavity Mutiny, a major factor in the awakening of nationalism among the
Filipino that time.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this lesson, the student will be able to:
Demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor of or against a particular issue using
primary sources.
TOPIC DISCUSSION
CAVITY MUTINY
One hundred and forty years ago, on January 20,
1872, about 200 Filipino military personnel of Fort San Felipe
Arsenal in Cavite, Philippines, staged a mutiny which in a way
led to the Philippine Revolution in 1896. The 1872 Cavite
Mutiny was precipitated by the removal of long-standing
personal benefits to the workers such as tax (tribute) and
forced labor exemptions on order from the Governor General
Rafael de Izquierdo.
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.
Page 1 of 7
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
Page 2 of 7
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
Page 3 of 7
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 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.”
LEARNING RESOURCES
[Link]
module-9-cavite-mutiny/8837063
John Lee Candelaria & Veronica C. Alporha, Readings in Philippine History, p. 50-56
STUDY QUESTIONS/ SELF-CHECK
Page 4 of 7
DIRECTIONS: Using the
Venn Diagram below, dissect
the two perspectives on the
1872 Cavite mutiny. Write on
the left side the key claims of
Spaniards, on the right side
the key claims of Filipinos,
and on the middle the
common claims of both sides
DIRECTIONS: Using the
Venn Diagram below, dissect
the two perspectives on the
1872 Cavite mutiny. Write on
the left side the key claims of
Spaniards, on the right side
Page 5 of 7
the key claims of Filipinos,
and on the middle the
common claims of both sides
DIRECTIONS: Using the
Venn Diagram below, dissect
the two perspectives on the
1872 Cavite mutiny. Write on
the left side the key claims of
Spaniards, on the right side
the key claims of Filipinos,
and on the middle the
common claims of both sides
Using the Venn diagram below, dissect the two perspectives on the1872 Cavite mutiny.
Write on the left side the key claims of Spaniards, on the right side the key claims of Filipinos, and
on the middle the common claims of both sides
SPANISH VERSION FILIPINO VERSION
Page 6 of 7
LEARNING ACTIVITY/IES
Respond to the following questions precisely. You may cite references but make sure to properly
mention your source.
1. What is your stand in this 1872 Cavite mutiny? Do you agree with the statement of Jose
Montero y Vidal or to the account of Dr. Trinidad Hermenigildo Pardo de Tavera? Why
do you think they have these opposing and conflicting perspectives?
2. Correlate the conflict of perspectives on 1872 Cavite mutiny to the conflict of views on
various issues in this period of a pandemic. Why do you think people often resulted in
these conflicts and what is your suggestion to mitigate if not eradicate these conflicts in
peoples' views and perspectives?
SUMMARY
Throughout Philippine history, Filipinos were confronted with various controversies
and issues. Some were already settled, many are yet to understand. History is subjective. It
can be affected by the availability of resources, interpretation of historians, and the evolution of
people’s thinking. However, the conflict that you discover in this module is the contradiction of
perspective among the witnesses of the controversial Cavity mutiny in 1872. This historical
controversy has two opposing sides. On one hand was the Spanish perspective highlighting
the mutiny as well-orchestrated and extensive Filipino rebellion to overthrow Spanish colonial
rule in the islands. On the other hand, was the Filipino perspective denying the proposition of the
Spaniards and underscoring that it was just a mere mutiny of selected workers of
arsenal who were rudely affected by the abrupt and preposterous policies of Gov. [Link]
Izquierdo during that time.
REFERENCES
Candelaria, J & Alporha, V. (2018). Readings in Philippine History. Manila: Rex Book Store, Inc.
[Link]
[Link]
Page 7 of 7