It was supposed to have been signed by Jose Rizal moments before his death.

There were many witnesses,

most of them Jesuits. The document only surfaced for public viewing on May 13, 1935. It was found by Fr.
Manuel A. Gracia at the Catholic hierarchy’s archive in Manila. But the original document was never
shown to the public, only reproductions of it.

However, Fr. Pio Pi, a Spanish Jesuit, reported that as early as 1907, the retraction of Rizal was copied
verbatim and published in Spain, and reprinted in Manila. Fr. Gracia, who found the original
document, also copied it verbatim.

In both reproductions, there were conflicting versions of the text. Add to this the date of the signing
was very clear in the original Spanish document which Rizal supposedly signed. The date was “December
29, 1890.”

Later, another supposedly original document surfaced, it bears the date “December 29, 189C”. The number
“0” was evidently altered to make it look like a letter C. Then still later, another supposedly original version
came up. It has the date “December 29, 1896”. This time, the “0” became a “6”.

Those who strongly believed the faking of the Rizal retraction document, reported that the forger of
Rizal’s signature was Roman Roque, the man who also forged the signature of Urbano Lacuna, which
was used to capture Aguinaldo. The mastermind, they say, in both Lacuna’s and Rizal’s signature
forging was Lazaro Segovia. They were approached by Spanish friars during the final day of the Filipino-
American war to forge Rizal’s signature.

This story was revealed by Antonio K. Abad, who heard the tale from Roman Roque himself, them being
neighbors.

Others would like to believe that the purported retraction of Rizal was invented by the friars to deflect the
heroism of Rizal which was centered on the friar abuses.

http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/

---

At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. The FOURTH TEXT appeared in El Imparcial
on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of the retraction.
The FIRST TEXT was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s
execution, Dec. 30, 1896.

The SECOND TEXT appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly
magazine in La Juventud; it came from an anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later
as Fr. Balaguer.

The "original" text was discovered in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it disappeared for
thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.

We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a copyist who could imitate Rizal’s
handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his letter to his former superior Fr. Pio
Pi in 1910, said that he had received "an exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The
handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember whose it is. . ." He proceeded: "I even suspect
that it might have been written by Rizal himself. I am sending it to you that you may . . . verify whether it
might be of Rizal himself . . . ." Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn statement.

This "exact" copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding Rizal’s
execution, Rizal y su Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his biography of Rizal, Vida y Escritos
del Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the texts of the retraction in the
Manila newspapers.

Fr. Pi’s copy of Rizal’s retraction has the same text as that of Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy but follows
the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal’s retraction in the Manila newspapers.

Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La Voz
Espanola. That newspaper reported: "Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own hand-written
retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…"

On the other hand, Manila pharmacist F. Stahl wrote in a letter: "besides, nobody has seen this written
declaration, in spite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to see it." For example, not
only Rizal’s family but also the correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in Madrid, Don Manuel
Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr. Santiago Mataix of El Heraldo, were not able to see the hand-written
retraction.

-
Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace the Archbishop ascertained whether Rizal himself was the one who
wrote and signed the retraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary because it was possible for
one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting aforesaid holograph; and keeping a copy of the same for our
archives, I myself delivered it personally that the same morning to His Grace Archbishop… His Grace
testified: At once the undersigned entrusted this holograph to Rev. Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of
the Chancery." After that, the documents could not be seen by those who wanted to examine it and was
finally considered lost after efforts to look for it proved futile.

On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the
archdeocean archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts about Rizal’s
retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction differs significantly
from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies. And, the fact that the texts of the
retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could be shown to be the exact copies of the "original"
but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who controlled the press in Manila (for example,
La Voz Española) had the "original" while the Jesuits had only the imitations.

We now proceed to show the significant differences between the "original" and the Manila newspapers
texts of the retraction on the one hand and the text s of the copies of Fr. Balaguer and F5r. Pio Pi on
the other hand.

First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the newspaper texts,
the Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad" (with "u").

Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias" which are
found in the original and the newspaper texts.

Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word "misma" which is not
found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.

Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical reader, Fr.
Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences while the original and the
newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with the second sentences.
Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers have only four
commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.

Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the witnesses from the texts
of the newspapers in Manila.

In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named the witnesses. He said
"This . . .retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor
Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza." However, the proceeding quotation only proves itself to be an addition to
the original.

Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer said that he had the "exact" copy of the retraction,
which was signed by Rizal, but he made no mention of the witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses
signed the retraction.

How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal’s retraction?

Fr. Balaguer never alluded to having himself made a copy of the retraction although he claimed that the
Archbishop prepared a long formula of the retraction and Fr. Pi a short formula. In Fr. Balaguer’s earliest
account, it is not yet clear whether Fr. Balaguer was using the long formula of nor no formula in dictating
to Rizal what to write.

According to Fr. Pi, in his own account of Rizal’s conversion in 1909, Fr. Balaguer dictated from Fr. Pi’s
short formula previously approved by the Archbishop. In his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer
admitted that he dictated to Rizal the short formula prepared by Fr. Pi; however; he contradicts
himself when he revealed that the "exact" copy came from the Archbishop. The only copy, which Fr.
Balaguer wrote, is the one that appeared on his earliest account of Rizal’s retraction.

Where did Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy come from? We do not need long arguments to answer this question,
because Fr. Balaguer himself has unwittingly answered this question. He said in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:

"…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of the two formulas of retraction,
which they (You) gave me; that from you and that of the Archbishop, and the first with the changes which
they (that is, you) made; and the other the exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The
handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember whose it is, and I even suspect that it might have
been written by Rizal himself."

In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he received two original texts of the retraction.
The first, which came from Fr. Pi, contained "the changes which You (Fr. Pi) made"; the other, which is
"that of the Archbishop" was "the exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal" (underscoring
supplied).

Fr. Balaguer said that the "exact copy" was "written and signed by Rizal" but he did not say "written and
signed by Rizal and himself" (the absence of the reflexive pronoun "himself" could mean that another
person-the copyist-did not). He only "suspected" that "Rizal himself" much as Fr. Balaguer did "not know
nor ... remember" whose handwriting it was.

Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the "exact copy" came from the Archbishop! He called it "exact"
because, not having seen the original himself, he was made to believe that it was the one that faithfully
reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in which "changes" (that is, where deviated from the
"exact" copy) had been made.

Actually, the difference between that of the Archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with
"changes") is that the latter was "shorter" because it omitted certain phrases found in the former so that, as
Fr. Pi had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it.

According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate from the short
formula of Fr. Pi. Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but he insisted on adding the
phrases "in which I was born and educated" and "[Masonry]" as the enemy that is of the Church" – the
first of which Rizal would have regarded as unnecessary and the second as downright contrary to his spirit.

However, what actually would have happened, if we are to believe the fictitious account, was that Rizal’s
addition of the phrases was the retoration of the phrases found in the original which had been omitted in Fr.
Pi’s short formula.

The "exact" copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort Santiago to convince them that
Rizal had retracted. Someone read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who claimed in his "Notes’
that Rizal read aloud his retraction. However, his copy of the retraction proved him wrong because its text
(with "u") and omits the word "Catolica" as in Fr. Balaguer’s copy but which are not the case in the original.
Capt. Dominguez never claimed to have seen the retraction: he only "heard".

The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had written a retraction in Dapitan. Very
early in 1895, Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with her adopted father who wanted to be cured of his
blindness by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela Orlac, who was agent and a mistress of a friar. Rizal fell
in love with Josephine and wanted to marry her canonically but he was required to sign a profession
of faith and to write retraction, which had to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. "Spanish law had
established civil marriage in the Philippines," Prof. Craig wrote, but the local government had not provided
any way for people to avail themselves of the right..."

In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the
Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who
wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest’s
letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late)
that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.

Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction. What they was saw a copy
done by one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the original (almost eaten by termites) was
kept by some friars. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently because they did not distinguish
between the genuine and the imitation of Rizal’s handwriting.

http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

The retraction letter, dated December 29, 1896, was said to have been signed by the National Hero himself.

It stated: “I declare myself a Catholic and in this religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live
and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been
contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church.”

-
Popularly known as the Katipunan and Rizal documents, the Cuerpo de Vigilancia de Manila is a body of
documents on the Philippine revolutions that contains confidential reports, transcripts, clippings, and
photographs from Spanish and Philippine newspapers.

---

Another distortion was the lie that Rizal, the most noble of Filipinos retracted from Freemasonry.

Why is Rizal’s retraction important? If the noblest of all Filipinos can betray his own cause, it renders
useless all his writings and great deeds. It also cast doubt on the character and honor of the rest of us
Filipinos.

The Friars who saw Rizal in his prison cell at Intramuros claim to have obtained a signed retraction.
However, no document was presented to the public until 1935, 39 years after the execution of Dr. Jose
Rizal that a document was discovered in the archives of Archbishop of Manila.

Such paper was dated Manila, 29 de Diciembre 1890. Rizal was in Madrid writing the El Filibusterismo at
that time. He was shot in December 30, 1896.

In Dr. Jose Hernandez and Ricardo Bassig’s copyrighted books about Rizal, the photo copy of the
“retraction” were dated 1890. In the San Beda College pamphlet entitled, “I adjure Masonry”, the 0 was cut
into half to appear as 6. In Fr. Jesus Cavanna’s book, Rizal’s Unfading Glory, and Dr. Gregorio Zaide’s
Philippine History for High Schools, the dates were changed into 1896 but of different density.

Rafael Palma in his book Pride of the Malay Race argues that Rizal did not recant and the Jesuits and the
Spanish Regime knew that.

Why they asked, did Rizal fail to tell his fond and pious mother that he had returned to her faith? It would
have given her such great joy and consolation!

Why did not the Jesuits try to save his life, putting his conversion beyond doubt and showing off their prize?

Why was his body not handed over to his family, and instead secretly buried? Why it was not buried in
consecrated ground, the Catholic cemetery? Why was his death entered on a special page of the register
between an unidentified man and a suicide, both of whom must have been supposed to die impenitent and
unshriven?
Why was there no requiem Masses said for the repose of his soul? Why a copy of the retraction was not
furnished his family despite their request?

Why was the certificate of marriage between Rizal and Josephine Bracken similarly withheld, and why was
it not been produced to this date? How odd that the original of the retraction should be found only thirty
years after?

How curious that the working of the handwritten document should differ from the versions first published
by the press by Retana and by the Jesuits! Why did Retana fail to mention that the retraction had been
signed before two witnesses? Why the Jesuit pamphlet was left unsigned? The pamphlet is shot through
with demonstrable errors about Rizal’s life – why not about his last hours?

Fr. Cavanna comment on Rizal’s Holograph said, “---clearly, is doctored and the doctoring job is so crude
it is the work of a tyke. The whole text of the San Beda copy was badly traced to justify the thickening of
the figures in the dateline in which the “C” in the San Beda pamphlet reproduction has been made into a
‘6’ ---. So it is now understandable why the ‘0’ in Hernandez’s book was made into a ‘C’ and the ‘C’ easily
transformed into a ‘6’ of course, after the long and tedious process of retracing ---.”

Fr. Cavanna and Prof. Carlos Da Silva made a “bold claim in 1960 the NBI revealed that findings made on
Photostats of Dr. Jose Rizal’s retraction by Angel H. Gaffud, NBI document examiner, show that the
document is genuine---“

In August 12, 1961 NBI Director Jose Lukban, in the Philippines Free Press said that “---No such document
was ever submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory examination and study---“

-
What is Masonry?

Was there anything evil or unlawful about Masonry that Rizal must retract being a member? What is there
to retract?

Mauro Baradi in an article, Filipino Masons in the Struggle for Freedom said, “Freemasonry is a
nonsectarian institution erected to God which preaches and practices the Fatherhood of God and the
Brotherhood of Men. It is neither a religion nor has it a religion. The three great tenets are Brotherly
love, Relief, and Truth.
History records them not merely participants but leaders, pioneers, martyrs, heroes, liberators, and nation
builders. Its motto is: Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.” Freemasonry stands out as seekers of truth, the
foundation of every virtue.

The principles of Freemasonry do not run counter with that of the Christian religion which preaches
Faith, Hope and Charity. In fact Freemasonry welcomes all religions in its rank as long as they believe
that God is the supreme architect of the universe.

It is not a secret society as alleged by many. Only their rituals and passwords are secrets and anybody is
welcome to know it by being a member.

Some of the illustrious names in the Philippine Masonry are: Dr. Jose Rizal, Graciano Lopez Jaena, Gen.
Emilio Jacinto, Marcelo H. del Pilar, Mariano Ponce, Apolinario Mabini, Andres Bonifacio, Pres. Emilio
Aguinaldo, Gen. Antonio and Juan Luna, Pres. Manuel Quezon, Pres. Manuel Roxas, Justice Jose Abad
Santos, Senator Quintin Paredes, Senator Camilo Osias, Gen. Arthur MacArthur, Jacobo Zobel, Gov. Gen.
Francis Harrison, and many others. Without them, our history as a nation cannot be written and would not
be as colorful.

They worked for the reforms and independence of the Philippines from Spain, the separation of the Church
and State; organized the Katipunan which won our independence from Spain; most missions for the
Philippine Independence from the United States were headed by Masons with the collaboration of their
fellow American Masons. As early as 1916 Senator James Charke, a Mason introduced an amendment to
the Philippine Bill which would grant independence to the Philippines within a few years. It was approved
by the U.S. senate, but was defeated in the House of Representatives by a slim margin.

Several Catholic Priests such as Fr. Raymundo Rodriguez and Fr. Elpidio T. Quinto joined Freemasonry.

Rizal’s belief in Christ

Rizal said of Christ on Christmas day to Blumentritt: “--- A grand genius has been born who preached truth
and love, who suffered because of his mission, but on account of his sufferings, the world has become better
if not saved. Let us celebrate the anniversary of the birth of a Divine Man!”

He wrote to his mother Teodora Alonso that Jesus was the first one to proclaim and annunciate the equality
and dignity of man.

-
Motive of the Church

The Friars whose abuses were exposed in Rizal’s novels plotted the execution of Rizal. They worked for
the change of Governor General when Gov. Blanco who was himself a Mason refused to punish Rizal and
instead send him to serve as a doctor in the Cuban War. It was in Cuba where he was arrested after a change
of administration and returned for trial. Rizal showed his disdain of the Friars in his books which triggered
their desire for revenge.

---

It is the life and thought of Rizal during his mature years which are of primary interest to me, and not what
happened during the last day of his life.

I find that there are four common attitudes toward the “Retraction” and its bearing on the life and character
of Dr. Rizal:

1. There are those who insist that the Rizal to be remembered and honored is the “converted” Rizal. This is
the official Roman Catholic position. In the only “official” book dealing with all aspects of the Retraction
(“official” in the sense that it bears the Imprimatur of Archbishop Santos), Rizal’s Unfading Glory, Father
Cavanna says in the Preface:

Rizal’s glory as a scholar, as a poet, as a scientist, as a patriot, as a hero, may some day fade away, as all
worldly glories, earlier or later do. But his glory of having found at the hour of his death what
unfortunately he lost for a time, the Truth, the Way, and the Life, that will ever be his UNFADING
GLORY. (02)

This same sentiment is echoed in the statement issued by the Catholic Welfare Organization in 1956 and
signed by the Archbishop with regard to the Noli and the Fili:

. . . We have to imitate him [Rizal] precisely in what he did when he was about to crown the whole work
of his life by sealing it with his blood; we ought to withdraw, as he courageously did in the hour of his
supreme sacrifice, “whatever in his works, writings, publications, and conduct had been contrary to his
status as a son of the Catholic Church.

2. There are those who have argued that Rizal throughout his mature life was a “free thinker and
unbeliever”; thus the Retraction is of necessity a lie. This is the extreme opposite of the Roman Catholic
position. My previous writing has tried to demonstrate that the major premise on which this thesis is based
is not true.

3. A third implied view may be summarized as follows: the Rizal that matters is the pre-Retraction
Rizal; therefore one can ignore the Retraction. The fundamental assumption here is held by many
students and admirers of Rizal, including myself, but the conclusion does not necessarily follow. This brings
us to the fourth possible attitude towards the Retraction.

4. Scholarly investigation of all facets of Rizal’s life and thought is desirable. In the interest of truth, the
truth to which Rizal gave such passionate devotion, we have every right, and also an obligation, to
seek to know the facts with regard to the Retraction. If scholarly research continues, fancy may yet
become acknowledged fact.

Much research time has been spent in running down various versions of the Retraction Document appearing
in books, articles, newspapers, etc. in writing letters to clarify or verify certain points, and in conferring
with individuals. Unfortunately, many documents were destroyed during the war.

The story of the Retraction has been told and retold. Various newspaper reports of the last hours of Rizal
were published on Dec. 30, 1896 or the days shortly thereafter. However, the first detailed account came
out in a series of anonymous articles in the Barcelona magazine, “La Juventud,” issues of January 15
and 31 and Feb. 14, 1897, republished some months later in a booklet entitled La Masonización de Filipinas
--Rizal y su Obra.

Some thirteen years later, Father Vicente Balaguer, S.J., the Jesuit priest who claimed to have secured
Rizal’s Retraction, asserted that this account was his work which he originally wrote “that very same
night of December 29, 1896. (11) Subsequently, on August 8, 1917, Father Balaguer repeated his story
in a notarial act sworn to by him in Murcia, Spain.

The only detailed account is that by Father Pio Pi Y Vidal, S. J., Superior of the Jesuits in the Philippines
in 1896, who published in Manila in 1909 La Muerte Cristiana del Doctor Rizal and confirmed his account
in a Notarial Act signed in Barcelona, April 7, 1917.

In brief, the Jesuit account is this: On the 28th of December (the very day Governor General Polaviéja
ordered the death sentence) Archbishop Nozaleda commissioned the Jesuits to the spiritual care of Rizal,
indicating that it would probably be necessary to demand a retraction and suggesting that both he and Father
Pi would prepare “formulas.”

Thus, about 7:00 a.m. of the 29th, two of the Jesuits arrived at the temporary chapel where Rizal was to
spend his last 24 hours. During this day various Jesuits came in and out together with other visitors,
including members of his own family. Rizal also took time to write letters. Arguments with Rizal, with
Father Balaguer taking the leading part, continued until dusk, by which time, according to the Father’s
account, (12) Rizal was already asking for the formula of retraction. That night Rizal wrote out a
retraction based on the formula of Father Pi and signed it about 11:30 p.m.

The Retraction contains two significant points: (1) the rejection of Masonry (“I abominate Masonry”)
and (2) a repudiation of “anything in my words, writings, publications, and conduct that has been contrary
to my character as a son of the Catholic Church,” together with the statement “I believe and profess what it
teaches and I submit to what it demands.”

During the night there followed, according to the Jesuit accounts, several Confessions (some say five),
several hearings of Mass, a number of devotional acts, the asking for and signing of devotional booklets
intended for various members of his family, and finally at 6:00 a.m. or thereabouts, some fifteen minutes
before he was marched out of Fort Santiago to his execution, a marriage ceremony performed by Father
Balaguer for Rizal and Josephine Bracken.

A seemingly accurate description of the history of the struggle in convenient form is found in Part II of
Cavanna’s book which reports the various attacks down to the publication in 1949 of Ozaeta’s translation
of Palma’s biography of Rizal. Cavanna seeks to answer the various arguments against the Retraction,
and in doing so makes reference to the chief works defending it. The first stage of the Debate lasted for
some twelve years after Rizal’s death, and at least overtly was wholly one-sided. Cavanna aptly calls this
period one of “Concealed Attacks.”

The newspapers published the reports given to them presumably by the Jesuits. Within the first year the
Jesuits published a quite complete story, for the time being anonymous in authorship. In successive
years other books and booklets were devoted in whole or in part to repeating the same story, culminating
in the famous full length biography in Spanish by Wenceslao Retana who incorporates the Jesuit account.
Yet even in the early years of this first period there were a few small voices raised in objection, quite
surprising since a totalitarian regime combining Church and State was in control.
Cavanna himself lists a leaflet dated Manila, December 31, 1896 and several letters questioning the
retraction. (13) Their main point, stated or implied, is that the Retraction is not in keeping with the
character of Rizal. It is of interest that at the end of the period, just a year after the publication of his own
biography of Rizal, Retana has something similar to say in an article dated Dec. 29, 1908. Although still
not denying the retraction, he adds:

. . . The fact is that influenced by a series of phenomena, or what is the same, of abnormal circumstances,
Rizal subscribed that document, which has been so much talked about, and which no one has seen . . . The
conversion of Rizal . . . was a romantic concession of the poet, it was not a meditated concession of the
philosopher. (14)

We may accept Cavanna’s dating of the second period as covering from 1908-1935. This is the time of
vigorous open attacks, many of them by Masons. Ever since, somewhat unfortunately, an active battle has
been waged between Roman Catholic and Masonic protagonists. Early in the period, in 1909 to be exact,
Father Pi published his booklet La Muerte Cristiana del Doctor Rizal. This was answered three years
later in a long article by Hermenegildo Cruz in which several arguments often repeated subsequently were
presented, chief of them being: Where is the Retraction Document? The debate drew forth in 1920 the
most serious Roman Catholic answer until recent times, namely Father Gonzalo Ma. Piñana’s Murio
el Doctor Rizal Cristianamente? Which is chiefly significant because it reports a series of notarized
accounts made in the years 1917-1918 by the chief “witnesses.”

The period seemingly closes with victory for the defenders of the Retraction, for after many challenges to
show the actual Document of Retraction on May 18, 1935 it was “discovered” by Father Manuel A.
Garcia, C.M., while he was archdiocesan archivist [and] was busily sorting through a pile of documents
[so] that they might be arranged in orderly fashion in their new fireproof vault. On June 16th the news was
released by The Philippine Herald.

Father Cavanna (15) gives a well organized summary which is adopted by most subsequent defenders.
The points which follow are based on Cavanna with some minor modifications:

1. Since the discovery in 1935, the Retraction “Document” is considered the chief witness to the reality of
the Retraction, itself. In fact, since then, by words or implication, the defenders have said: “the burden of
proof now rests with those who question the Retraction.”
2. The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eye-witnesses,” and other “qualified witnesses,”
i.e. those closely associated with the events such as the head of the Jesuit order, the archbishop, etc.

3. “Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity” reportedly recited and signed by Dr. Rizal as attested by
“witnesses” and a signed Prayer Book. This is very strong testimony if true, for Rizal was giving assent
to Roman Catholic teaching not in a general way as in the case of the Retraction statement but specifically
to a number of beliefs which he had previously repudiated.

According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, following the signing of the Retraction a prayer book was
offered to Rizal. “He took the prayer book, read slowly those acts, accepted them, took the pen and saying
‘Credo’ (I believe) he signed the acts with his name in the book itself.” (16) What was it Rizal signed? It is
worth quoting in detail the “Act of Faith.”

I believe in God the Father, I believe in God the Son, I believe in God the Holy Ghost, Three distinct
Persons, and only One True God. I believe that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity became Man,
taking flesh in the most pure womb of the Virgin Mary, suffered, died, arose again, ascended into Heaven,
and that He will come to judge the living and the dead, to give glory to the just because they have kept his
holy commandments, and eternal punishment to the wicked because they have not kept them. I believe that
the true Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are really present in the Most Holy Sacrament of the
Altar. I believe that the Blessed and ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, was in the first moment of her
natural life conceived without the stain of original sin. I believe that the Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus
Christ, visible Head of the Church, is the Pastor and Teacher of all Christians; that he is infallible when he
teaches doctrines of faith and morals to be observed by the universal Church, and that his definitions are in
themselves binding and immutable; and I believe all that the Holy, Roman Catholic, and Apostolic Church
believes and teaches, since God who can neither deceive nor be deceived, has so revealed it; and in this
faith I wish to live and die.

The signed Prayer Book was amongst the documents discovered by Father Garcia along with the
Retraction.

4. Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his last hours as testified to by “witnesses.”

5. His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by “witnesses.” There could be no
marriage without a retraction.

What is the case against the Retraction?

1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. As we have noted, the Document plays a significant
part on both sides of the debate. There are four prongs to the case against the document itself.

a. First of all there is the matter of the handwriting. To date the only detailed, scientific study leading to
an attack upon the genuineness of the document is that made by Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual of the University
of the Philippines shortly after the document was found, a study which he incorporated in his book Rizal
Beyond the Grave. Taking as his “standard” some half dozen unquestioned writings of Rizal dating from
the last half of December 1896, he notes a number of variations with the handwriting of the Retraction
Document, the following being the most significant ones according to the present lecturer: (1) the slant of
the letters in the standard writings gives averages several points higher than the average yielded by the
Retraction Document, and perhaps more significantly, the most slanted letters are to be found in the
Document; (2) there are significant variations in the way individual letters are formed; (3) with reference
to the signature, Pascual notes no less than seven differences, one of the most significant being indications
of “stops” which, says the critic, are most naturally explained by the fact that a forger might stop at certain
points to determine what form to make next; (4) there are marked similarities in several respects between
the body of the Retraction and the writing of all three signers, i.e. Rizal and the two witnesses, thus serving
to point to Pascual’s conclusion that this is a “one-man document.”

The only scholarly answer to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I. Del Rosario as part of the thesis which he
prepared for his doctorate in chemistry at the University of Sto. Tomas, 1937, although most of the details
are the result of a later study which Father Cavanna asked him to specifically prepare. (18) Dr. del Rosario’s
main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not include enough of Rizal’s writings by way of
comparison. On the basis of a larger selection of standards he is able to challenge a number of Pascual’s
statements although this lecturer has noted mistakes in del Rosario’s own data. Dr. del Rosario’s conclusion
is that the hand-writing is genuine.

b. A second prong directed against the authenticity of the document itself is based on the principles of
textual criticism. Several critics, beginning so far as I know with Pascual, have noted differences between
the text of the document found in 1935 and other versions of the Retraction including the one issued by
Father Balaguer. (19) Since this kind of criticism is related to my work in Biblical studies I am now engaged
in a major textual study of my own which consists first of all in gathering together all available forms of
the text. To date, it is clear from my own studies that at least from the morning of December 30, 1896 there
have been, discounting numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the text with significant
differences. The one form is represented by the Document discovered in 1935 and certain other early
records of the Retraction. Two phrases in particular are to be noted: in line 6, “Iglesia Catolica,” and in line
10 “la Iglesia.” The other form of the text is much more common beginning with the text of Balaguer
published in 1897. In place of “Iglesia Catolica” in line 6 there is the single word “Iglesia”and in place of
“la Iglesia” there appears “la misma Iglesia.” There also tend to be consistent differences between the two
types of the text in the use of capital letters. The second form also claims to be a true representation of the
original.

The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father Balaguer or Father Pi made errors in
preparing a copy of the original and these have been transmitted from this earliest copy to others. Father
Cavanna makes the ingenious suggestion that Father Balaguer made corrections in the “formula” which he
supplied to Rizal according to the charges which he supplied to Rizal writing out his own, but he didn’t
accurately note them all. On the other hand, it would have seemed that the copy would have been carefully
compared at the very moment or at some other early date before the “original” disappeared. It is not
surprising that some have wondered if the Retraction Document was fabricated from the “wrong” version
of a retraction statement issued by the religious authorities.

c. A third argument against the genuineness of the Retraction Document which also applies to the Retraction
itself is that its content is in part strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic Religion “I wish to live and die,”
yet there was little time to live, and also Rizal’s claim that his retraction was “spontaneous.”

d. Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” Only Runes has this story. He and his co-author report
an interview with a certain Antonio K. Abad who tells how on August 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral
home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija (when Abad was fifteen) a certain Roman Roque told how he was
employed by the Friars earlier that same year to make several copies of a retraction document. This same
Roque had been previously employed by Colonel Funston to forge the signature of the revolutionary
General Lacuna on the document which led to the capture of Aguinaldo. Runes also includes a letter dated
November 10, 1936 from Lorenzo Ador Dionisio, former provincial secretary of Nueva Ecija, who was
also present when Roque told his story and confirms it. (20)

On the basis of the above arguments taken as a whole it would seem that there is reasonable ground to at
least question the Retraction Document.

(2) The second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that other acts and facts do not fit
well with the story of the Retraction. Those most often referred to by writers beginning with Hermengildo
Cruz in 1912 are as follows:

a. The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even members of the family did not see
it. It was said to be “lost.”
b. No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing of the Retraction.

The usual rebuttal is that Rizal’s death was due to political factors and with this the religious authorities
could not interfere.

c. Rizal’s burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of the Paco cemetery; and the record
of his burial was not placed on the page for entries of Dec. 30th but on a special page where at least one
other admitted non-penitent is recorded (perhaps others, the evidence is conflicting).

It is asked by the defenders of the Retraction, how else could an executed felon be treated? Perhaps the
ground outside the wall was sacred also or could have been specially consecrated. To top the rebuttal,
Rizal’s “Christian Burial Certificate” was discovered on May 18, 1935 in the very same file with the
Retraction Document! The penmanship is admitted by all to be by an amanuensis. Whether the signature
is genuine is open to question.

d. There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal with Josephine Bracken.
To say that these were not needed is not very convincing.

e. Finally, Rizal’s behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and during the last 24 hours in
particular does not point to a conversion. Whether written during the last 24 hours or somewhat earlier,
Rizal’s Ultima [Ultimo] Adios does not suggest any change in Rizal’s thought. The letters which Rizal
wrote during his last hours do not indicate conversion or even religious turmoil. In the evening Rizal’s
mother and sister Trinidad arrive and nothing is said to them about the Retraction although Father
Balaguer claims that even in the afternoon Rizal’s attitude was beginning to change and he was asking for
the formula of retraction. It is all well and good to point out that all the above happened prior to the
actual retraction. A question is still present in the minds of many.

(3) The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that it is out of character. This argument has
been more persistently and consistently presented than any other. Beginning with the anonymous leaflet of
Dec. 31, 1896 it has been asserted or implied in every significant statement against the Retraction since that
time. It has seemed to many, including the present lecturer, that the Retraction is not in keeping with the
character and faith of Rizal as well as inconsistent with his previous declarations of religious thought.

So much for the debate up to the present. I have tried to state fairly the arguments, and it is perhaps evident
on which side the lecturer stands. Nonetheless, I do not feel that the question is settled. What, then, remains
to be done? Is there a way out of the impasse? Are there areas for further investigation?
(1) Let a new effort be made to keep personalities and institutional loyalties out of future discussion. It is
time for honest investigators to stop speaking of the “Protestant,” the “Masonic,” or the “Roman Catholic”
view towards the Retraction. Let the facts speak for themselves.

(2) Let the Retraction Document be subject to neutral, scientific analysis. This suggestion is not new, but
in view of the present state of the debate and appropriate to the approaching 30th year since its discovery it
would be fitting to at last carry this out. Furthermore, it would be an act of good faith on the part of the
Roman Catholic Hierarchy. If the document is genuine, those who favor the Retraction have nothing to
lose; in either case the cause of Truth will gain. I would suggest for this analysis a government bureau of
investigation in some neutral country such as Switzerland or Sweden.

Should neutral experts claim that the Document discovered in 1935 is a forgery this of itself would
not prove that Rizal did not retract. But it would prompt further study.

(3) As a third step, then, to be undertaken onlyafter a new evaluation of the Retraction Document, the
Roman Catholic Hierarchy should feel bound to allow its other “documents” pertaining to Rizal’s case to
be investigated, i.e. “the burial certificate,” the signature of the Prayer Book, and perhaps also certain other
retraction documents found in the same bundle with that of Dr. Rizal’s.

(4) The story concerning the “forger” should be investigated further.

(5) If assurance can be given that the above steps are being undertaken then let there be a moratorium on
further debate and greater attention given to the rest of Rizal’s life and thought, in particular to his mature
religious faith and thought. Let me close with the words of Senator José Diokno:

Surely whether Rizal died a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino.
It is because of what he did and what he was that we revere Rizal. . . Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal:
the hero who courted death “to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for
our duty and our beliefs” . . . (22)

---

He is recognized for the novels he had written during the Spanish period. Because of these courageous acts
of rebellion against the said colonizers, he became our National Hero. But what if our national hero, at the
last moments of his life retracted everything he had ever said and written? In 1935, a letter was found by
Father Manuel Garcia. The said letter contains that Jose Rizal declared himself as a Catholic and that he
retracts everything he had said, written, published and did against the Catholic Church.
---

From Fr. Balaguer’s version, Rizal, on the 29th day of December 1896, wrote and signed the retraction
papers in front of him and with the other Jesuit priest present at the death cell. Rizal asked for a confession
twice and for a rosary from the priest between the two confessions.

In Balaguer’s memorandum-record, Rizal asked for a mass and a request for Holy Communion, this was
readily approved by the Jesuits and assigned Fr. Villaclara as the officiating priest of the mass inside the
cell. He also mentioned that Rizal asked for the image of the Sagrado Corazon de Jesus which he carved
when he was just 14.

Balaguer described the scene as heart-warming because Rizal kissed the image that he had requested from
the Jesuits. While kneeling and surrounded by the religious authorities in the death cell, Rizal read the
retraction document. Balaguer also claimed that there was a servant-messenger for Josephine Bracken
to prepare for the marriage at the San Ignacio Church where Fr. Simo will conduct the confession
and other things needed for the ceremonies, which will be materialized on the morning of the 30th.
Lastly, before the execution and in the presence of the Archbishop and the Jesuit superior Reverend Fr. Pio
Pi, Rizal kissed the image of the cross presented to him and has a rosary entwined in his hand.

But how did Father Balaguer convinced Rizal to be converted into Cathloic before his execution?

This is one of the big unanswered questions of today. In addition to this, Rizal wrote a poem entitled “My
Last Farewell” which was written on the eve of his execution, there was a line there saying, “I’ll go where
there are no slaves, tyrants or hangmen where faith does not kill and where God alone does reign (Rizal,
1896).”

With this, he mentioned God in this poem. Before he was executed, he wrote an undated letter to his
family when he was in Fort Santiago: “Bury me in the ground, place a stone and a cross over it. My
name, the date of my birth and of my death. Nothing more. If you later wish to surround my grave with a
fence, you may do so. No anniversaries. I prefer Paang Bundok.“ Now, what do he mean by this? He wanted
a cross over it. He died as a Catholic and was buried inside the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery.

Unfortunately, his instructions were not granted. It was also argued that Rizal retracted in order to save
his family from further persecution, to give Josephine Bracken a legal status as his wife and to assure
reforms from the Spanish government. Speaking of Josephine as his wife, there was an article from Jose
Rizal University that one day of early March 1896; Rizal played a practical joke on Josephine, which
frightened her terribly. As a result, she prematurely gave birth to an eight-month baby boy. The baby was
very weak and can hardly breathe. With this, Rizal immediately baptized him Francisco in honor of his
father. He tried to save the life of his son but all his knowledge and skill as a physician could not save little
Francisco.

Sorrowfully, Rizal saw his child die three hours after birth then he drew a sketch of his dead son and he
buried him under a shady tree near his home. He prayed: “Oh, God, I give you another tiny angel. Please
bless his soul.” Again, this is one proof that even before the exile in Dapitan, he practiced being a
Catholic.

On the other hand, the copy of the retraction paper that was allegedly signed by Rizal that was even kept
secret and was only published in newspapers. It was said that the paper was lost when Rizal’s family
requested for the original copy. Are the Jesuits too irresponsible for not knowing the importance of the
document? Or was it just hidden? But 39 years later, the original copy was found in the archdiocesan
archives.

Ricardo Pascual Ph. D, who was given permission by the Archbishop Nozaleda to test the document
and later concluded in his book, “Rizal beyond the Grave” that the papers shown was a falsification.
The common contradiction of this argument was either Father Balaguer or Father Pi had made errors
in reproducing another copy of the original. The manuscript was also allegedly misplaced from 1922 –
1935.

Trinidad challenged the Jesuits to show to her the manuscripts so that she could validate that it was Rizal’s
handwriting and signature. With this, finding out that there were several copies of it, some may imitate
Rizal’s handwriting and signature. Another proof that Rizal did not retract is that when Father Balaguer
claimed that Jose and Josephine, however, there were no marriage certificate or public record shown
that could prove Father Balaguer’s accounts.

In addition, he performed the ceremony between 6:00 – 6:15 AM of December 30, 1896 with the
presence of one of the Rizal’s sisters but Rizal family denied that none of them were there and Dr.
Jose Rizal was martyred at 7:03 AM. Also, nobody had reported that Bracken was in the area of Fort
Santiago in the morning of the execution.

Consider also the three priests (Fr. Jose Villaclara, Fr. Estanislao March, and Fr. Vicente Balaguer) to
negotiate the expanse of the walk to give spiritual care to the condemned Dr. Jose Rizal, why is it that, only
Fr. Balaguer stated that there was a wedding? Furthermore, where were Fr. Villaclara and Fr. March to
verify the manifestation of a marriage ceremony? Or was there really even one at all?
-

Showing the two sides, where do you stand? Do you believe that Rizal really abjured or not? It’s up to you
but this controversy should not eradicate Rizal’s works for our country. He awakened our knowledge of
nationalism and patriotism. Jose Rizal’s writings helped in motivating the Filipinos to fight for our
freedom against the Spanish colonizers and inspired a lot of Filipino revolutionaries to stand up for
a cost. In my opinion, I still believe that his contributions to our country are far greater than the issue
brought by this letter. I stick to his advocacy that war is not the solution for independence.

If you’re going to ask me if he really retract, I would say yes, because he really wanted to have peace and
to stop the chaos during that time, he abjured everything due to the pressure to his family and became
a Catholic.

I stated earlier that he has some requests to his family for his burial that there should be a cross over his
grave, with this, he died as a Catholic and his family, on the 11th day after his death, was informed
that early of the next day, a mass was to be celebrated for the eternal rest of his soul. Adding to this,
he experienced hardships in writing his third novel entitled “Makamisa” because he is not fluent in Filipino
language. How could he state: “A man who doesn’t love his native language, is worse than all animals and
a smelly fish.”, if he, himself, can’t apply it.

And let’s understand that he retracted for the sake of his family’s persecution and wanted a reform for
our country against the Spanish government. I’m sure all of us really love our family and will do such
extraordinary things just to save them and would love to have peace on earth. But all this and more will
retract nothing from his greatness as a Filipino.

REASONS FOR RETRACTION

Rizal really wanted to have peace and to stop the chaos during that time. For that, he retracted in order to
save his family from further persecution, to assure reforms for our country against the Spanish
government and to give Josephine Bracken a legal status as his wife.

PROOFS OF RETRACTION are as follows:

Since the discovery in 1935 (after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the day when Rizal was shot)
by Father Manuel A. Garcia, C.M., the Retraction “Document” is considered the chief witness to the
reality of the Retraction itself and the burden of proof now rests with those who question the Retraction.
(1. The common contradiction of this argument was either Father Balaguer or Father Pi had made
errors in reproducing another copy of the original. 2. This means that the friars who controlled the
press in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the "original" while the Jesuits had only the
imitations.)

There was also testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eye-witnesses,” and other “qualified
witnesses”.

(1. Those closely associated with the events such as the head of the Jesuit order, the archbishop, etc. 20
years later, Father Gonzalo Ma. Piñana’s “Murio el Doctor Rizal Cristianamente?” reports a series
of notarized accounts made in the years 1917-1918 by the chief “witnesses.” 2. The retraction was
signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the
Plaza.)

Moreover, the “Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity” and Acts of Piety were reportedly recited and
signed by Dr. Rizal as attested by “witnesses” and a signed Prayer Book. The signed Prayer Book
was amongst the documents discovered by Father Garcia along with the Retraction.

(According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, “He took the prayer book, read slowly those acts, accepted
them, took the pen and saying ‘Credo’ (I believe) he signed the acts with his name in the book itself.”)

Another is his “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by “witnesses.” There could
be no marriage without a retraction.

(A few hours before his execution, they embraced for the last time and he gave her a souvenir—a religious
book with his dedication, “To my dear unhappy wife, Josephine”.)

The following also proves that Rizal practiced being a Catholic even before his execution:

Rizal said on a letter for his family that he wanted a cross over his tomb.

(1. “Bury me in the ground, place a stone and a cross over it.” Unfortunately, his instructions were not
granted. 2. He was buried inside the sacred grounds of Paco Cemetery and his family, on the 11th day
after his death, was informed that early of the next day, a mass was to be celebrated for the eternal
rest of his soul. 3. Rizal’s “Christian Burial Certificate” was discovered on May 18, 1935 in the very
same file with the Retraction Document. 4. It is more sacred than the Chinese cemetery where Apolinario
Mabini, a revolutionary and free mason was buried.)
In addition, Rizal baptized his son, Francisco, in honor of his father. But his child died three hours after
birth. He buried him under a shady tree near his home and prayed: “Oh, God, I give you another tiny angel.
Please bless his soul.”

Rizal also mentioned God in his last poem, “My Last Farewell”, “I’ll go where there are no slaves, tyrants
or hangmen where faith does not kill and where God alone does reign (Rizal, 1896).”

PRO-RETRACTION AND PRO-RIZAL PERSONAS

The only “official” book dealing with all aspects of the Retraction, Rizal’s Unfading Glory, Father
Cavanna says in the Preface: Rizal’s glory as a scholar, as a poet, as a scientist, as a patriot, as a hero, may
someday fade away, as all worldly glories, earlier or later do. But his glory of having found at the hour of
his death what unfortunately he lost for a time, the Truth, the Way, and the Life, that will ever be his
UNFADING GLORY.

The Catholic Welfare Organization in 1956 share this belief saying we have to imitate him [Rizal]
precisely in what he did, we ought to withdraw, as he courageously did in the hour of his supreme sacrifice.
Senator José Diokno has the same sentiment and described Rizal as the hero who courted death “to prove
to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our beliefs”.

It is a necessity especially for us, Filipinos, to know the truth behind the retraction, because admiring Rizal
without understanding him is a kind of empty nationalism and blind devotion (Jorge Mojarro, 2018 -
Rappler).

Good morning, ladies and gents. I am Lyka Abuan, the first speaker from the affirmative side of the
preposition, “Dr. Jose Rizal, retracted all of his previous statements”.

In the interest of truth, the truth to which Rizal gave such passionate devotion, we have every right, and
also an obligation, to seek to know the facts with regard to the Retraction.

REASONS FOR RETRACTION

Rizal really wanted to have peace and to stop the chaos during that time. For that, he retracted in order to
save his family from further persecution, to assure reforms for our country against the Spanish
government and to give Josephine Bracken a legal status as his wife.
PROOFS OF RETRACTION are as follows:

Since the discovery in 1935 (after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the day when Rizal was shot)
by Father Manuel A. Garcia, C.M., the Retraction “Document” is considered the chief witness to the
reality of the Retraction, itself.

There was also testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eye-witnesses,” and other “qualified
witnesses”.

Moreover, the “Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity” and Acts of Piety were reportedly recited and
signed by Dr. Rizal as attested by “witnesses” and a signed Prayer Book which was amongst the
documents discovered by Father Garcia along with the Retraction.

Another is his “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by “witnesses.” There could
be no marriage without a retraction.

The following also proves that Rizal practiced being a Catholic even before his execution:

Rizal said on a letter for his family that he wanted a cross over his tomb when he died.

In addition, Rizal baptized his son, Francisco, in honor of his father. But his child died three hours after
birth. He buried him under a tree near his home and prayed: “Oh, God, I give you another tiny angel. Please
bless his soul.”

Rizal also mentioned God in his last poem, “My Last Farewell”, “I’ll go where there are no slaves, tyrants
or hangmen where faith does not kill and where God alone does reign (Rizal, 1896).”

PRO-RETRACTION AND PRO-RIZAL PERSONAS

One of the many pro-retraction and pro-Rizal personas is Father Cavanna who says that, “Rizal’s glory
as a scholar, as a poet, as a scientist, as a patriot, as a hero, may someday fade away, as all worldly glories,
earlier or later do. But his glory of having found at the hour of his death what unfortunately he lost for a
time, the Truth, the Way, and the Life, that will ever be his UNFADING GLORY”.

It is a necessity especially for us, Filipinos, to know the truth behind the retraction, because admiring Rizal
without understanding him is a kind of empty nationalism and blind devotion (Jorge Mojarro, 2018 -
Rappler).