EXECUTION OF GOMBURZA: ANALYZATION OF

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

A Report Paper Presented to

Mr. Raphael Descartes M. Roldan

Submitted by:
Andujar, Franz Joan
Berol, Bjay Ann
Billones, Karen Joy
Mendoza, Christine Mae
Moises, Jacqueline Joy
Paniza, Thea Angeline
Pauchano, Cherie Belle
Raymundo, Jhona Mae
Santiago, Azy Joy
Tupas, Keziah

October 1, 2019
 INTRODUCTION

On February 17, 1872, three Filipino Catholic Priest were executed at Bagumbayan in
Manila. Their execution paved the way for Filipinos to fight for Independence against the Spanish
colonizers. The mystery behind the execution of the priests will be unraveled in this report from
the introduction of the GOMBURZA, the antecedent or the cause of the execution, the trial, the
execution itself, the aftermath, and finally the conclusion. This report consist of the analysis of
historical context taken from different sources to study the truth and facts behind the execution of
Father Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora.

GOMBURZA

Mariano Gomez has been known to stand for the truth concerning the current events of his
time. He was part of a publication of a newspaper called “La Verdad” in which he exposed a
number of abuses and corruption that happened within the Catholic Church in Cavite, exposing
the perverted and rich lifestyles of Spanish priests who went against their vows of poverty and
chastity, and even their illicit dealings with other prominent colonial officials and personalities.
He was well educated and was an active advocate of the agriculture and cottage industries and
often championing the laborer’s rights for fair wages. At the age of 72, he was the oldest among
the three executed priests.

Jacinto Zamora was known to favor secularism within the church. He believed that native
born Filipino clergymen should be allowed to lead the higher offices of the church as it would be
more fitting to have a native priest performing pastoral duties in service of the native people of the
land. This belief of course threatened the social status for the Spaniards. Unfortunately, his
statement in a card game with a friend, of which had nothing to do with what is being accused of
him, was used against him in court. This was taken out of context in court and Father Zamora was
portrayed to be the weapons provider of the January mutiny in Cavite.

José Burgos was a fervid nationalist. He engaged himself in lectures, debates, and other
forms of publications that favor the rights of the native Filipino clergymen. He viewed Filipino
priests as just as competent as the Spaniards, and sometimes even more, with regards to their
Christian duties. In line with these ideas, he pushed for both political and ecclesiastic reforms that
would give a chance for native Filipinos to serve their country and church without the racial biases
to hinder them. With his nationalistic works and closeness to students, he was accused off
recruiting rebels for the mutiny in Cavite and for other uprisings and rebellions. His death was a
deep blow and inspiration to Jose Rizal since he was a close friend of his brother, Paciano Rizal.

THE ANTECEDENT

Spanish Perspective of Cavite Mutiny. Jose Montero Y Vidal, a Spanish official in Manila
at the time, has the fullest account of the mutiny itself. He is a prolific Spanish historian who
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 magnify
the event and made use of it to implicate the native clergy, which was then active in the call for
secularization. The account of two Spaniards complimented and supported each other, only that
the general's report was more spiteful. According to Montero and Izquierdo, 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 so called “revolution". The general added that the
native clergy persuaded other participants to take part by giving promises of rewards such as
wealth and employment. The Spanish Perspective based from the accounts of Vidal and Izquierdo,
implies that the Cavite Mutiny and the Secularization movement of the GOMBURZA are two
related events.

Filipino Perspective of Cavite Mutiny. The Filipino perspective is based on Pardo de

Tavera and Antonio Regidor's account. According to Tavera's account, the 1872 mutiny is by the
native Filipino laborers who were not pleased with the stopping of their privileges. Rafael
Izquierdo was at that time the Governor General who ordered the abolishment of the privileges of
the workers. At the same time, the secularization movement of GOMBURZA was gaining
attention. The Spanish friars felt threatened by the impact of secularization and feared that they
will no longer be in power. The mutiny was deemed by the friars as an event that was plotted by
anti-friar reformists led by the secular priests to eliminate the Spanish government which the latter
also believed to be true. In his account, it was written that the Spanish friars and Izquierdo used
the Cavite Mutiny as a way to maintain power in the Philippines through the execution of the three
priests. The Filipino perspective strongly believes that the mutiny and the execution of the
GOMBURZA were two separate events, contrary to the account of Vidal and Izquierdo.

TRIAL

According to Plauchut’s account, during the trial Franco Saldua testified that the mutiny was
a conspiracy and confessed that he was part of it. He was told by Sergeant Lamadrid and one of
the Basa brothers that the “Government of Father Burgos” would bring the fleet of United States
of America to assist a revolution. He delivered messages to Father Zamora who had then gone to
Burgos’ abode. Furthermore, some military witnesses testified that they were told that should the
uprising succeed, the President of the Republic would be the parish priest of Saint Peter. At that
time, Burgos was the parish priest of the Manila Cathedral which was known as Saint Peter parish.
Moreover, Captain Fontivel, Burgos’ counsel, moved to dismiss the case for lack of evidences.
But, the Governor General rejected it and ordered court martial continued. At 11 o’clock in the
evening of February 15, 1872, the council of war dictated the sentence and asked the accused if
they had anything to say in their defenses. Burgos and Zamora expressed their innocence,
maintaining that they had no relation with the rebels of Cavite and that there had been no positive
evidences against them.

EXECUTION

Edmund Plauchut, a French writer journalist has an account regarding the execution of the
Gomburza. The three priest were sentenced to death on February 15, 1872 as they were found
guilty of treason. According to him, the GOMBURZA were executed on the 17th day of February
1872. On that day, they were brought into a platform wherein they would be executed surrounded
by almost 40000 Filipinos from different provinces. According to Plauchut, Saldua was the one
who was first executed. Before he was executed, he has high hopes that he would be pardoned
because he was the man who had a testimony that resulted into the conviction of the three priest.
However, he was still put to death and was garroted. The next person who was executed was Father
Gomez who seemed to accept his fate and the will of God. Zamora was the next and he seemed to
lose his mind and died without uttering a word. Last was Burgos who was weeping like a child,
still cannot accept the injustice and claiming his innocence. The friars pleaded him to die a
Christian death and soon he resigned himself. On Plachut’s account he was able to tell the last
words of Burgos and Gomez before they were executed. Plauchut’s account narrated the execution
of the GOMBURZA in a dramatic way. Contrary to the account of Plauchut, Montero stated on
his account that the order of execution was Gomez, Zamora, Burgos and Saldua as the last of all.
The anecdote regarding Gomez and Burgos were both denied by Montero on his account. The
account of Plauchut was the generally followed account of the Filipinos. The account of Montero
should be put into consideration because he has the access in the official records of the execution.

AFTERMATH

According to Apolinario Mabini, after the execution of the Gomburza the affair was then
forbidden to be spoken of as it was evidently carried out both mysteriously and hastily, which is
why for these same reasons, no Filipino then believes in the guilt of the priests. The patent injustice
aroused not fear but hatred of the friars and of the regime that supported them. It then made the
Filipinos realize their condition for the first time and made them question what kind of life they
lived; generating the birth of Filipino nationalism. It was then the curtain of ignorance woven
diligently for centuries was rent at last. On the other hand, Plauchut’s version along with those
derived from his account spoke of the trial and execution in the same manner as Mabini which he
did have some small variations with regards to the aftermath. First was that it was insinuated that
Rizal published ‘Noli Mi Tangere’ as his allusion to the fate of the three martyrs and that 20 years
after the event Rizal published his account of the mutiny with the narratives derived from those of
Plauchut’s. A few months before, he also dedicated his 2nd Novel ‘El Filibustirismo’ to the
Gomburza. These narratives’s including both the primary and secondary provides the basic
framework on which the reconstruction of events from the Cavite mutiny continues to take place.

CONCLUSION

The presumption of this report analysis is that it is impossible to formulate an exact account
of the Cavite Mutiny and the Execution without critical assessment of published primary and
secondary accounts for none of them alone offers a fully satisfactory narrative or explanation of
the event. Given the unlikelihood of locating the original records of court martials of those
condemned in 1872. These earlier accounts must provide the basic framework in which the
reconstruction of events can take place. For this reason, it has seemed important to attempt a
critique of them and to show relations among them, so as to make their evaluation more exact and
to make clear the extent to which they depend on one another.
 REFERENCES

Cruz, Hermenegildo. El P. Burgos, precursor de Rizal. Manila: Libreria “Manila

Filatelica,” 1941. 94 pp.
Daroy, Petronilo Bn. “Burgos and Rizal,” in Rizal: Contrary Essays, Petronilo Bn.
Daroy and Dolores S. Feria, eds. Quezon City: Guro Books, 1968. Pp. 51-56.
Foreman, John. The Philippine Islands. New York: Charles Scribner, 1899. Pp. 114-
15.
Lopez, Honorio. Ang tunay na buhay ni P. Dr. Jose Burgos at nang manga Nacasama
niya na sina P. Jacinto Zamora, P. Mariano Gomez at ang nadayang Miguel
Zaldua. Ikalawang Pagcahayag. Maynila: Imp. J. Martinez, 1912. 62 pp.
Mabini, Apolinario. “Cause and Effect of the Execution of Fathers Burgos, Gomez,
and Zamora.” In The Philippines Revolution. Last modified September 7, 2019.
https://.univie.ac.at/ksa/apsis/aufi/history/mabini03.html
Manuel, E. Arsenio. “Burgos, Jose A.,” Dictionary of Philippine Biography. Quezon
City: Filipiniana Publications, 1955-1970. Vol II, pp. 62-97.
Quijano de Manila [Nick Joaquin], “How Filipino Was Burgos?” Philippines Free
Press, 8 June 1968, pp. 2-3, 70.
Quirino, Carlos, “Father Gomes the Immortal,” Sunday Times Magazine, 30 July 1972,
pp. 26-27.
Santamaria, Alberto , O.P. “El P. Burgos y la Universidad de Santo Tomas,” Unitas
16 (1937-1938), 309-14.
Schumacher, John N. The Cavite Mutiny: An Essay on the Published Sources. June 30,
2008, http://www.philippinestudies.net
Villarroel, Fidel, O.P. Father Jose Burgos , University Student. Manila: University of
Santo Tomas Press, 1971. xvii, 121, (!27) pp.
Zafra, Nicolas. Philippine History through Selected Sources. Quezon City: Alemar-
Phoenix, 1967. Pp. 148-69.