Perception of Mapúa University students on the

retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal

by

Iana Maunic P. Cruz

Mark Angelo G. Malabanan
Karl Timothy Andrew M.
Christel F. Reyes

A Research Paper Submitted to the Mapúa University

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

Readings in Philippine History (GED 103)

Mapúa University
February 2021

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES iii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 6
Methodology 6
Survey Questionnaire 8
Results and Discussion 9
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION 11
CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATION 12
REFERENCES 13
APPENDICES 14

ii
 LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 3
TABLE 1: Percentage distribution of the responses to the interview questionnaire. 9

iii
 Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Jose Protasio Rizal Mercado y Alonso Realonda or commonly known as a Dr.

Jose Rizal is the National Hero of the Philippines. The National Hero is born on the
19th of June year 1861 at the Calamba, Philippines his parents are Francisco Mercado
II and Teodora Alonso Realonda. He is the second of his parents and is seventh among
his siblings. The Rizals is known to be one of the biggest families in their time. It was
revealed by the researchers that the Mercado-Rizal clan had traces of Spanish,
Japanese, Malay, and Negrito in their blood aside from the Chinese (“José Rizal Family
Tree; Ray).

His mother became his first teacher that taught him how to read and pray and
encouraged him to write poetry. He even had private tutors that taught him Latin and
Spanish before he attended a private school in Biñan. He earned his land surveyor’s and
assessor’s degree at the Ateneo Municipal de Manila while also taking up Letters and
Philosophy at the University of Santo Tomas. After discovering that his mother was
going visually impaired, he changed his program to Ophthalmology at UST Faculty of
Medicine and Surgery. However, he was not able to finish his studies as his attention
was diverted to political issues (“Rizal’s Education”; Ray).

As he travelled in Europe, he earned a Licentiate in Medicine at the University

Central de Madrid. At the same university, he also took courses in literature and
philosophy. One of his most famous works, Noli Me Tangere was also written in
Madrid. This novel exposes the wrongful doings of the Spaniards here in the
Philippines. A sequel of the novel, El Filibusterismo fixed his reptation as the leading
spokesman of the Philippine reform movement. The newspaper La Soladaridad also has
numerous articles that tackles about the propaganda movement (“Rizal’s Education”;
Ray).

1
 His works fueled the Filipino community to fight for their freedom against the
Spaniards. Because of this he was arrested and tried for the case of sedition by the
military and was found guilty. But the last few hours of Jose Rizal in the cell raises
suspicion to the public as it narrated that he signed a document that is believed to be the
retraction document (Chua).

1
There are several studies about the Retraction of Rizal from different perspective such as using
spy reports (Escalante), engagement resources used by the Filipino College Students
(Pangilinan), analyzing the said retraction document (Dimailig). The results of the studies vary
from believing that Jose Rizal really did sign the retraction document to him not signing it. There
are only few studies that analyze the perception of the students regarding the retraction of Jose
Rizal.

The study aims to find out the perception of the Mapúa University students on the
retraction of Jose Rizal. Also, the other factors that affect their knowledge about the subject
matter.

The results of this study will give contribution to the existing data that discusses the
retraction of Jose Rizal. That can help them to enhance their understanding about the said topic.

This study used Google Docs as the media of the questionnaire. The link for the
questionnaire was posted in the Facebook Group of the Mapúan students. A total of 26 students
from the different year levels will be the participants of this study. Using Google Docs as the
researchers’ media is the most efficient way of collecting the data as this study was carried out in
the middle of a pandemic.

2
 Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Days after Rizal was executed, some individuals expressed their doubts over the
veracity of the news that Rizal had retracted and repudiated Masonry. For instance,
Friedrich Stahl wrote to Ferdinand Blumentritt in January 1897, informing him that
people did not take the retraction account seriously because “nobody has ever seen this
written declaration in spite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to see
it” (Cavanna 1956, 145). In a letter that Jose Alejandrino sent to Filipino expatriates in
Hong Kong dated March 6, 1897, he expressed the same point. He wrote, “the
Spaniards want to persecute him even in the tomb, since they slander him by imputing
to him confessions and retractions which he himself could not have done” (Cavanna
1956, 147). Trinidad, Rizal’s sister, also attested that after her brother’s death the
Jesuits invited their family to attend a Mass offered for the eternal repose of his soul.
The Jesuits promised that after the Mass they would show them the original retraction.
Until they parted ways, the promise did not materialize (Pascual 1959, 50–51).

After the Americans had assumed full control of the government, members of
Masonry and some of Rizal’s followers started to question openly the veracity of the
claim that Rizal had retracted. In the December 29, 1908 issue of El Renacimiento,
Manuel Artigas y Cuerva considered the retraction document as “apocryphal.” His
arguments against it are summarized in the following lines:
“It does not exist . . . It does not appear in the trial nor can anyone give an account of it in the
Archiepiscopal Palace of Manila. Even in the Ateneo itself of the Fathers of the Society of Jesus
it could not be found, although it was positively affirmed that it was there. And what is most
exceptional is that, while documents about Rizal during all the time he had been in the Ateneo,
are preserved, only the one of some twelve years ago cannot be found” (Cavanna 1956, 150).

2
 The Masons regarded the retraction document that came out in 1935 as a fact,
but whether it was indeed written and signed by Rizal was for them a big question. The
discourse during this time was no longer over whether Rizal had retracted or not. The
debate was whether the newly
found retraction document was genuine or not. Nonetheless, contrary to what the Jesuits
expected, the document did not eliminate doubts about Rizal’s retraction. Instead, it further put
the pro-retraction advocates in a bad light because of the numerous doubts and objections it
generated.

Rafael Palma, former president of the University of the Philippines and a

prominent Mason, disputed the veracity of the document because it did not reflect
Rizal’s true character and beliefs. He regarded the resurrected retraction story as a
“pious fraud” (Nidoy 2013). Dr. Ricardo R. Pascual, one of the persons who was given
permission by the archbishop to examine the document, wrote: “it is better that such
document should not have been discovered at all” (Pascual 1959, 4). Pascual
scrutinized the document thoroughly and came up with a book that questioned its
authenticity. First, he scrutinized its handwriting and compared it with other documents
that Rizal had written days before he was executed. These included the Mi Ultimo
Adios, the letter he wrote on December 15, 1896 titled “To My Countrymen,” the
Defensa that he wrote on December 12, 1896, and the dedicatory note found on the title
page of the book Imitacion de Cristo, which Rizal gave to Josephine Bracken. Pascual
identified inconsistencies in the slants of the handwriting, Rizal’s signature, the inks
used, the font of some words, the margin, and the way individual letters were formed
(Pascual 1959, 7–30). All these observations led him to conclude that the newly found
retraction document was a forgery.

Another objection raised against the authenticity of Rizal’s retraction was the
differences between the text of the 1935 document and the version of the retraction that
Fr. Balaguer had presented. In the 1935 document cualidad is spelled with a “u,” while
in Fr. Balaguer’s version the spelling is calidad (without the “u”). Second, Fr.
Balaguer’s version does not have the word Catolica after the word Iglesia. In the 1935

2
 and the newspaper versions, the word Catolica is present. Third, in the Jesuits’ copy the
third Iglesias is preceded by the word misma. This word cannot be found in the 1935
document. Fourth, with regard to paragraphing, Fr. Balaguer’s version does not begin
the second paragraph until the fifth sentence while the 1935 version starts the second
paragraph immediately after the second sentence. Finally, the text of the 1935 retraction
has 4 commas, while the text of Fr. Balaguer’s has 11 (Retana 1907, 426–427).

Pascual concluded that the 1935 retraction document was a forgery, but he was not able
to identify the forgers. It was Ildelfonso Runes who would do so in a book that he published in
1962. Runes wrote that on August 13, 1901, Antonio Abad celebrated his 15th birthday in San
Isidro, Nueva Ecija. Roman Roque, a close neighbor of the Abads, was among the celebrant’s
well-wishers. On this occasion, Roque disclosed that he had been fetched by Lazaro Segovia in
San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, and later taken to Manila. He had stayed in the Hotel Quatro Naciones
in Intramuros and been employed by the friars for 10 days. He was given the equivalent of his
salary for two months in the government. For several days he studied Rizal’s handwriting.
According to him, he made about five copies of the retraction letter based on a draft prepared by
the friars. He thought of keeping one for himself, but when he was searched upon departure, his
copy was taken from him (Runes and Buenafe 1962, 107–128).

2
 Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

The researchers aim to evaluate the Mapúa University students’ perception about the
retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal and used a qualitative approach that is commonly applicable to
studies that seek to further understand the phenomena of a case through observations of gathered
data from targeted participants necessary to arrive at the appropriate description, concepts, and
conclusions. This allowed the researchers to collect information from the respondents to briefly
explain their perceptions towards Dr. Jose Rizal’s retraction. This paper does not require
numerical data but solely relies on the diverse viewpoints of the respondents.

The theory that will be used to better understand the respondents’ approach is an
interpretative ontology where both the researcher and the respondents are inseparable due to their
own nature. To support the study, interpretivism is used to interpret the respondents’ answers,
wherein the answers will be analyzed by the researchers to make a conclusion. The method
implemented in the research study will enable the researchers to conduct an in-depth analysis of
Rizal’s retraction and Rizal himself through a thorough study of collected data. As for the data to
be presented, the researchers assure that the responses collected for this study are relevant and
will remain confidential.

The researcher utilized 26 of Mapúa University students, either Senior High School or
College students. The main criterion of inclusion was that the respondents should be randomly
selected, accentuated that the peer/s should also be students of the university since the study
demands the respondents’ perception about the retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal. The researchers used

2
a survey questionnaire to gather different point of views from the students of Mapúa University
regarding their perspectives on Dr. Jose Rizal’s retraction. It has always been debated very
frequently and has multiple renditions which the researchers are connecting and analyzing in
order to construct a conclusion. The survey questionnaire was created with Google Forms and
was deployed through the use of a social media network, Messenger, specifically. The
researchers
provided an ample amount of time and conducted an in-depth study in order to achieve a relevant
and reliable analysis and conclusion.

The survey questionnaire consists of five (5) questions in identifying what the
students’ perception about Dr. Jose Rizal’s retraction towards the catholic church. A
profile sheet was also included in the questionnaire which was optional for the
respondents. The study was conducted during the second term of the Academic Year
2020-2021. Lastly, this is an open-ended approach that will be beneficial to people who
want to continue the research for further studies.

2
 Survey Questionnaire

Good day! We are the 1st year students of Mapúa University. As a requirement in the
course GED103, we are conducting a research regarding the different viewpoints of Mapúans on
Dr. Jose Rizal’s retraction. We humbly seek for a few minutes of your time to answer our
questionnaire. This study is strictly intended for research purposes only. We assure you that the
responses will be kept confidential.

Name (optional): ____________________

Program/Year: ______________________

1. Do you have a background on Dr. Jose Rizal’s retraction?

Yes
No

2. Do you believe that his retraction letter seems authentic?

Yes
No

3. Are you in agreement that Dr. Jose Rizal retracted?

Yes
No

2
4. Why do you think that Rizal retracted or not?
______________________________

5. Will Dr. Jose Rizal’s retraction have an impact on his nationalism and our history? How?
______________________________

Results and Discussion

This chapter shows the respondents’ perception towards Dr. Jose Rizal’s retraction. The
researchers interpret and analyze the data gathered from the respondents and discuss the results
withdrawn using the interpretivist ontology.

n(26) %

IQ 1.1 No. of Students who have a background on Rizal’s Retraction

Yes 16 61.5

No 10 38.5

IQ 2.1 No. of Students who Believe that the Retraction Letter seems Authentic

Believes 11 42.3

Does not believe 15 57.7

IQ 3.1 No. of students who are in agreement that Dr. Jose Rizal Retracted

Agrees 12 46.2

Disagrees 14 53.8

Table 1. Percentage distribution of the responses to the interview questionnaire per question.

As seen on table 1, 16 out of 26 respondents have a background on Dr. Jose Rizal’s

retraction. Then, 15 out of 26 respondents believe that the retraction letter is not authentic.
Moreover, 53.8% or 14 out of the 26 Mapúa University Students disagreed that Rizal retracted.

2
 The retraction letter of Jose Rizal is being hotly debated as to its authenticity. To this day,
the retraction issue is still raging like a wild fire in the forest of the night. Some of the
respondents would like to believe that Rizal only signed the retraction letter in order for him to
save his family from further persecution and to be able to marry Josephine Bracken. They also
stated that there’s a strong evidence that the letter was authentic because of the spy reports of his
last 24 hours and that there were witnesses present when Rizal was signing the retraction letter.

On the other hand, the other respondents believe that the retraction letter was forged. The
inconsistency of the text in the document supports half of the respondents’ claim. They strongly
believe that there was certainly no signed letter of retraction because it’s a contradiction in itself
for a man so strong in conviction as Rizal. Father Balaguer’s claim was not also corroborated by
the two Jesuits who were present at Rizal’s execution. The respondents also believe that the
witnesses were biased and the fact that he was buried outside the sacred grounds of Paco
Catholic Cemetery.
As for the last question in the survey which is “Will Dr. Jose Rizal’s retraction have an
impact on his nationalism and our history?”, most of the respondents answered that the issue on
his retraction has no impact on Rizal’s nationalism and our history. According to the
respondents, whether he died a Catholic or not, it adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a
Filipino as it is because of what he did for the country. They also believe that Rizal’s retraction is
not in line with his nationalism as he awakened the Filipino with the knowledge of nationalism
and the issue on his retraction will not invalidate everything he has done. On the contrary, some
of the respondents believe that the course of history may change because of his retraction. One
also stated that his retraction would let him take back all he said and written against the church
which questions moves on to the question Rizal’s character.

2
 Chapter 4

CONCLUSION

The perception of the Mapúa University students on the retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal was
analyzed using survey questionnaire. It showed that 16 out of 26 of the participants have a
background knowledge regarding the said retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal. This affects their
perception about the retraction as many of the participants thinks that the document was forged.
Other than the forgery of the document, the participants also stated that the eyewitnesses were
being biased and that they believe with Dr. Jose Rizal’s stand.

2
 Chapter 5

RECOMMENDATION

In conducting the study, the researchers should provide some data and studies
with regards to the retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal. The researchers also should assess the
perception and the stand of the participants regarding this matter before and after giving
the learning materials. The results of this study will greatly influence the nationalism of
Dr. Jose Rizal as well as the Philippine History.

2
 REFERENCES

Cavanna, Jose Ma. 1956. Rizal’s Unfading Glory: A Documentary History of the Conversion of
Dr. Jose Rizal. Manila
Chua, Michael ‘Xiao’. “The last days of Jose Rizal”. Life, ABS-CBN NEWS. 29 December
2016, https://philippinefolklifemuseum.org/collection/jose-rizal/attachment/rizal-family-
tree/. Accessed February 9, 2021

2
“José Rizal Family Tree”. Philippine Folklife Museum Foundation, 3 December 2014,
https://philippinefolklifemuseum.org/collection/jose-rizal/attachment/rizal-family-tree/.
Accessed date 9 February 2021
Nidoy, Raul. 2013. Reason: Jose Rizal’s Retraction: The Controversy (blog). June 18.
http//primacyofreason. blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-roza; s-retraction-controversy.html,
accessed January 11, 2017
Ray, Michael. "José Rizal". Encyclopedia Britannica, 7 January 2021,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jose-Rizal. Accessed 9 February 2021
Retana, W. E. 1907. Vida y escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal [Life and writings of Dr. Jose Rizal].
Madrid: Libreria General de Victoriano Suarez.
“Rizal’s Education”. On Philippine History and Culture, nd.
https://www.filipinaslibrary.org.ph/articles/rizals-education/. Accessed 9 February 2021
Runes, Ildefonso; and Buenafe, Mamerto. 1962. The Forgery of the Rizal “Retraction” and
Josephine’s “Autobiography.” Manila: Pro-Patria Publishers.

2
APPENDICES

2
 Survey Questionnaire

Good day! We are the 1st year students of Mapúa University. As a requirement in the
course GED103, we are conducting a research regarding the different viewpoints of Mapúans on
Dr. Jose Rizal’s retraction. We humbly seek for a few minutes of your time to answer our
questionnaire. This study is strictly intended for research purposes only. We assure you that the
responses will be kept confidential.

Name (optional): ____________________

Program/Year: ______________________

1. Do you have a background on Dr. Jose Rizal’s retraction?

Yes
No

2. Do you believe that his retraction letter seems authentic?

Yes
No

3. Are you in agreement that Dr. Jose Rizal retracted?

Yes
No

4. Why do you think that Rizal retracted or not?

______________________________

5. Will Dr. Jose Rizal’s retraction have an impact on his nationalism and our history? How?
______________________________

15