Jose Rizal’s Retraction

Controversy
The Cuerpo de Vigilancia Version
• Retraction—the act of taking back an offer or statement, or admitting that
the previous statement was false (dictionary.cambridge.org)
• The report of Moreno (NAP Manuscript A-6, Doc. 1) presents another eyewitness
account of what transpired in Rizal’s prison cell before he was executed. It contains
several details that could be used for and against the claim that Rizal returned to the
Catholic fold and renounced Masonry. The account may be considered more
objective than earlier ones because Moreno was neither a member of the Catholic
hierarchy nor a known Mason. He was in Fort Santiago not to serve a particular
interest group but simply to perform a function connected with his work. Moreover,
the fact that his report was written a day after the event lessened the possibility that it
was edited to please a particular group. Since the report is not very long, a translation
of it will be presented first before analyzing it
• Most Illustrious Sir, the agent of the Cuerpo de Vigilancia stationed in
Fort Santiago to report on the events during the [illegible] day in prison of
the accused Jose Rizal, informs me on this date of the following:
• At 7:50 yesterday morning, Jose Rizal entered death row accompanied by
his counsel, Señor Taviel de Andrade, and the Jesuit priest [Jose]
Vilaclara. At the urgings of the former and moments after entering, he was
served a light breakfast. At approximately 9, the Adjutant of the Garrison,
Señor [Eloy] Maure, asked Rizal if he wanted anything. He replied that at
the moment he only wanted a prayer book which was brought to him
shortly by Father [Estanislao] March. Señor Andrade left death row at 10
and Rizal spoke for a long while with the Jesuit fathers,
• March and Vilaclara, regarding religious matters, it seems. It appears that
these two presented him with a prepared retraction on his life and deeds
that he refused to sign. They argued about the matter until 12:30 when
Rizal ate some poached egg and a little chicken. Afterwards he asked to
leave to write and wrote for a long time by himself.
• At 3 in the afternoon, Father March entered the chapel and Rizal handed
him what he had written. Immediately the chief of the firing squad, Señor
[Juan] del Fresno and the Assistant of the Plaza, Señor Maure, were
informed. They entered death row and together with Rizal signed the
document that the accused had written. It seems this was the retraction.
From 3 to 5:30 in the afternoon, Rizal read his prayer book several times,
prayed kneeling before the altar and in the company of Fathers Vilaclara and
March, read the Acts of Faith, Hope and Charity repeatedly as well as the
Prayers for the Departing Soul.
• At 6 in the afternoon the following persons arrived and entered the chapel;
Teodora Alonzo, mother of Rizal, and his sisters, Lucia, Maria, Olimpia,
Josefa, Trinidad and Dolores. Embracing them, the accused bade them
farewell with great strength of character and without shedding a tear. The
mother of Rizal left the chapel weeping and carrying two bundles of
several utensils belonging to her son who had used them while in prison.
• A little after 8 in the evening, at the urgings of Señor Andrade, the accused
was served a plate of tinola, his last meal on earth. The Assistant of the
Plaza, Señor Maure and Fathers March and Vilaclara visited him at 9 in
the evening. He rested until 4 in the morning and again resumed praying
before the altar.
• At 5 this morning of the 30th, the lover of Rizal arrived at the prison
accompanied by his sister Pilar, both dressed in mourning. Only the
former entered the chapel, followed by a military chaplain whose name I
cannot ascertain. Donning his formal clothes and aided by a soldier of the
artillery, the nuptials of Rizal and the woman who had been his lover were
performed at the point of death (in articulo mortis). After embracing him
she left, flooded with tears.
• Rizal heard mass and confessed to Father March. Afterwards he heard another mass
where he received communion. At 7:30, a European artilleryman handcuffed him and
he left for the place of execution accompanied by various Jesuits, his counsel and the
Assistant of the Plaza. Father March gave him a holy picture of the Virgin that Rizal
kissed repeatedly. When the accused left, I noticed he was very pale but I am very
certain that all the time he was imprisoned he demonstrated great strength of character
and composure. God grant Your Excellency. Manila 30 December 1896. Chief
Inspector Federico Moreno (Harper 1997) Moreno’s report contains details that are
not consistent with Fr. Balaguer’s affidavit. The most serious and obvious discrepancy
is that Moreno never mentioned Fr.
• Balaguer in his report. All throughout the history of the retraction
controversy, Fr. Balaguer consistently claimed that he was present in
Rizal’s prison cell and actively involved in convincing him to retract. All
other pro-retraction advocates who came after Fr. Balaguer took his
account as historical fact and argued their case using him as their primary
source. The Masons attacked Fr. Balaguer’s narrative, but they never
questioned his claim that he was a witness to this event. However, in
Moreno’s account only two Jesuits are identified: Fr. Jose Villaclara and
Fr. Estanislao March
• In his affidavit, Fr. Balaguer declared that he talked to Rizal three times on December 29, 1896. The first time
was in the morning, from 10 to 12:30. It was during this meeting that he presented the retraction template to
Rizal but the latter did not sign. Moreno confirmed this meeting, including the presentation of the draft
retraction. But he reported that Rizal was talking not to Fr. Balaguer but to Frs. March and Vilaclara. Moreno
also confirmed that Frs. March and Vilaclara returned to Rizal around 3 o’clock in the afternoon. Fr. Balaguer
claimed in his affidavit that he was one of Rizal’s afternoon visitors. Fr. Balaguer continued that the third time
he talked to Rizal was around 10 in the evening. He had another lengthy and passionate discussion with him
for more than an hour. It was on this occasion that Rizal finally signed his retraction letter. Moreno confirmed
that Rizal had visitors after dinner, but the persons he identified were Señor Andrade, Señor Maure, and Frs.
March and Vilaclara. Again, Fr. Balaguer was not mentioned, and the time of the meeting was 9 o’clock and
not shortly before midnight. Neither did Moreno’s report mention that they discussed issues concerning faith
and the retraction. The narrative is short and ends with Rizal going to bed.
• Moreno’s report is a big blow to the credibility of Fr. Balaguer. The fact that Moreno never
mentioned him in his report casts a cloud of doubt on the veracity and accuracy of the affidavit
that he executed. If we are to believe Moreno, Fr. Balaguer did not have personal knowledge
of what happened to Rizal the day before he died. If his affidavit contains accurate historical
details, he might have gotten them from those who were with Rizal on December 29, 1896. If
Fr. Balaguer was the chief negotiator who convinced Rizal to recant, and if he talked to Rizal
three times that day, Moreno would surely have inquired who he was. There is a remote
possibility that Moreno did not know Fr. Balaguer because he was a priest and not an ordinary
visitor. Since Moreno was able to identify the names of Rizal’s relatives and the other visitors
who talked to him, there is no reason why Moreno would not mention Fr. Balaguer in his
report if indeed he talked to Rizal three times.
• Moreno’s report may have damaged the credibility of Fr. Balanguer, but it
did not refute the claim that Rizal retracted. It mentions that when Fr.
March returned at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, Rizal handed him a
document. Then it says that Rizal, together
• with Juan del Fresno and Señor Maure, signed the document. In the
retraction document that Fr. Gracia found in 1935, one sees that the three
persons Moreno identified were signatories of the document. Moreno did
not provide details on the contents of the document, probably because he
was witnessing the event from a distance. But that did not prevent him
from presupposing that the document was Rizal’s retraction letter. He
simply wrote, “It seems this was the retraction [parece que el escrito era la
retractación].”
• The latter part of Moreno’s report confirmed a few other controversial events that occurred before Rizal was
executed. Moreno reported that right after Rizal signed the alleged retraction letter, he read the Acts of Faith,
Hope and Charity as well as the Prayers for the Departing Soul. While kneeling in front of the altar, he also read
his prayer book in the company of Frs. Vilaclara and March. Moreno also reported that in the early morning of the
following day, Rizal and Josephine Bracken got married. The ceremony was done in articulo mortis (at the point
of death), and there were no sponsors or witnesses present. Moreover, Moreno did not mention that the couple
signed a marriage contract. This should explain why this document remains unaccounted for until today, and
therefore people should stop looking for it. All these details in Moreno’s report are indirect forms of proof that
Rizal retracted. Archbishop Nozaleda and Fr. Pio Pi’s instructions were clear that Rizal should not be given the
sacraments unless he retracted his anti-Catholic beliefs. The fact that the marriage took place is a confirmation
that Rizal re-embraced his Catholic faith. Lastly, Moreno also reported that minutes before Rizal was brought to
Luneta, he heard Mass, confessed to Fr. March, received Holy Communion, and kissed the image of the Blessed
Mother. All these acts suggest, and may be considered evidence supporting the claim, that Rizal died a Catholic.
• There is another thing Rizal did that is recorded in many history books and also
confirmed by Moreno. He handed his family members his personal belongings when
they visited him the day before he died. Unfortunately, Moreno did not specify the
person to whom Rizal gave his personal belongings. Specifically, he did not mention
to whom he gave the stove (others say lamp) where Rizal put his Mi Ultimo Adios. A
number of biographies state that Rizal gave it to his sister Trinidad with the message
“there is something inside” (Craig 1913, 240; Guerrero 1971, 480). Moreno simply
wrote that his weeping mother left the chapel carrying “two bundles of several
utensils belonging to her son.” One can easily assume that the stove was one of the
utensils that Teodora Alonzo brought home.
• Aside from Federico Moreno’s report, there are other documents in the
collection that can enrich further the narrative of Rizal’s final 24 hours.
For instance, the collection has several newspaper clippings of what
happened to him before and after his death. One is the account of La Voz
Española, dated December 26, 1896, which reports the
• meeting of the Consejo de Guerra on the trial of Jose Rizal (NAP Manuscript A-1, Doc. 25). El Diario
de Manila has a similar account of this topic and event (NAP Manuscript A-1, Doc. 26). On the day of
his execution, the newspaper La Voz Española reported what happened in Luneta, and it also printed the
text of the retraction letter that Rizal allegedly signed (NAP Manuscript A-1, Doc. 27). The Cuerpo
collection also has a photograph of Rizal and the members of the execution squad (NAP Manuscript A-1
[9], Doc. 307). Finally, the collection has a three-page letter written by Juan Ferrer to a person he simply
calls “Apolinario,” dated two weeks after Rizal died. The writer states that Rizal was very brave during
his execution. He also asks Apolinario to inform his friends in Imus that they will not stop fighting the
Spaniards until Manila is independent. The author claims that he was tasked to monitor Manila and buy
clothes and arms. Moreover, he offers his help to Apolinario in case he organizes meetings in Vigan. He
ends his letter warning Apolinario not to tell his parents about his involvement in the revolution and that
he accepts that he will be arrested one day (NAP A-12, Doc. 9).