WHAT HAPPENED IN CAVITE MUTINY?

____________________

A Case Study (Historical Research)

Presented to

The Faculty of the College of Teacher Education (CTE)

University of Northern Philippines

Vigan City, Ilocos Sur

____________________

In Partial Fulfilment of the

Requirements for the Subject

Readings in the Philippine History

____________________

Submitted by:

Kathleen Alegre Rafanan

BSEd – SCIENCE I

Submitted to:

Dr. Alma Josefina Anicay Bobita

Instructor

2019
I. INTRODUCTION

On January 20, 1872, the Cavite Mutiny, an uprising of military personnel at the Spanish
arsenal in Cavite, took place. This event subsequently led to the execution of the Filipino priests
Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora, otherwise known as GOMBURZA.

The unsuccessful mutiny was participated in by around 200 soldiers and laborers of the
Engineering and Artillery Corps who rose up after their salaries were reduced upon the order of
Governor-General Rafael de Izquierdo by subjecting them to personal taxes, from which they
were previously exempt.

The taxes required them to pay a monetary sum as well as to perform forced labor or
what they called, "polo y servicio."

The uprising was used by the Spanish colonial government to implicate and sentence to
death by garrote the GOMBURZA, were to have a significant effect on people because of the
shadowy nature of the trials. Dr. Jose Rizal dedicated his work, El Filibusterismo, to the
executed priests. Many scholars believe that the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 was the beginning of
Filipino nationalism which eventually led to the 1896 Philippine Revolution.

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.

II. OBJECTIVES

To be able to demonstrate the ability to formulate arguments in favor or against a particular

issue using primary sources.

To be able to identify factual evidences and know the truth behind the happenings from
the past.

III. PRESENTATION OF THE CASE

On January 20, 1872, a hundred and forty years ago, 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 and forced labor exemptions on
order from the Governor General Rafael de Izquierdo.

Izquierdo replaced Governor General Carlos Maria de la Torre some months before in
1871 and immediately rescinded Torre’s liberal measures and imposed his iron-fist rule. He was
opposed to any hint of reformist or nationalistic movements in the Philippines. He was in office
for less than two years, but he will be remembered for his cruelty to the Filipinos and the
barbaric execution of the three martyr-priests blamed for the mutiny: Fathers Mariano Gomez,
Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, later collectively called “Gomburza.”

The mutineers were led by Sgt. Fernando La Madrid; they seized the Fort and killed the
Spanish officers. Fearing a general uprising, the Spanish government in Manila sent a regiment
under General Felipe Ginoves to recover the Fort. The besieged mutiny was quelled, and many
mutineers including Sgt. La Madrid were killed. Later, others were sentenced to death or hard
labor.

Izquierdo used the mutiny to implicate Gomburza and other notable Filipinos known for
their liberal leanings. Prominent Filipinos such as priests, professionals, and businessmen were
arrested on flimsy and trumped-up charges and sentenced to prison, death, or exile. These
include Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Jose Basa, and Antonio M. Regidor. It was said that the Cavite
mutineers got their cue from Manila when they saw and heard fireworks across the Manila Bay
which was really a celebration of the feast of the Lady of Loreto in Sampaloc.

When the Archbishop of Manila, Rev. Meliton Martinez, refused to cooperate and
defrock the priests, the Spanish court-martial on February 15 went ahead and maliciously found
Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora guilty of treason for instigating the Cavite mutiny. Two
days later, the three priests were put to death by garrotte in Bagumbayan, now known as Luneta.
(Garrote was a barbaric Spanish method of execution in which an iron collar was tightened
around the prisoner’s neck until death occurred.)

Father Burgos was of Spanish descent, born in the Philippines. He was a parish priest of
the Manila Cathedral and had been known to be close to the liberal Governor General de la
Torre. He was 35 years old at the time and was active and outspoken in advocating the
Filipinization of the clergy. He was quoted as saying, “Why shall a young man strive to rise in
the profession of law or theology when he can vision no future for himself but obscurity?”

Father Zamora, 37, was also Spanish, born in the Philippines. He was the parish priest of
Marikina and was known to be unfriendly to and would not countenance any arrogance or
authoritative behavior from Spaniards coming from Spain. He once snubbed a Spanish governor
who came to visit Marikina.

Father Gomez was an old man in his mid-’70, Chinese-Filipino, born in Cavite. He held
the most senior position of the three as Archbishop’s Vicar in Cavite. He was truly nationalistic
and accepted the death penalty calmly as though it were his penance for being pro-Filipinos.

The three priests were stripped of their albs, and with chained hands and feet were
brought to their cells after their sentence. They received numerous visits from folks coming from
Cavite, Bulacan, and elsewhere. Forty thousand Filipinos came to Luneta to witness and quietly
condemn the execution, and Gomburza became a rallying catchword for the down-trodden
Filipinos seeking justice and freedom from Spain.

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

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.

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

According to the findings of Jose Montero y Vidal’s Account it can be concluded that the
Cavite Mutiny is an aim of natives to abolish the Spanish government in the Philippines, due to
removal of privileges enjoyed by the laborers of the Cavite arsenal such exemption from the
tribute and force labor. The democratic and republican books and pamphlets, the speeches and
preachings of the apostles of these new ideas in Spain and the outburst of the American
publicists and the cruel policies of the insensitive governor whom the reigning government sent
to govern the country. Filipinos put into action these ideas where the occurring conditions which
gave rise to the idea of achieving their independence.

On the account of Governor-General Rafael Izquierdo y Gutiérrez, he insisted that the

mutiny is motivated and prepared by the native clergy, mestizos and lawyers as a sign of protests
against the injustices of the government such as not paying provinces for tobacco crops, pay
tribute and rendering of forced labor. It is not clearly determined if Indios planned to establish a
monarchy or a republic, because they don't have a word in their language to describe this
different form of government, whose head in Filipino would be called hari. However, it turned
out that they would place at the head of the government a priest , that the head selected would be
Jose Burgos or Jacinto Zamora which is the plan of the rebels whose who guided them, and the
means they counted upon its realization.

Lastly, from Trinidad Pardo de Tavera’s account, the event is a mere mutiny since up to that
time the Filipinos have no intention of secession from Spain but only secure materials and
education advancements in the country. However, the mutiny was used in powerful level. Also,
in this time, the central government deprived friars the powers of intervention in civil
government and in directing and managing universities. This resulted the friars fearing that their
influence in the Philippines would be a thing in 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. The Madrid government without
any attempt to investigate the real facts or extent of the alleged revolution reported by Izquierdo
and the friars believed the scheme was true.
Based on the conclusions drawn, it is recommended for future researchers must have an
in-depth analysis on either sides or parties, the Spanish and Filipino sides, to avoid bias. It is
recommended that other researchers should conduct the case study with a wider range of
evidences to generalize the results.