A research Paper

Presented to the committee of NDC Tagum Foundation Inc.

In partial of the requirement for

Practical Research

The Cavity Mutiny

(GE-2 Philippine History)

Submitted by: (Group 2)

 Ayuban, Meyra Fe
 Polia, Emily
 Vidal, Archie
 Archua, Mishel
 Figueroa, Rhia Mae
 Victoriano, Cristina
 Magno, Kenneth
 Legada, Ma. Cecelia
 Flores, Chrisjan
 Baula, Jovelyn
 Delator, Vanessa April
 Satsuita, Melanie
 Neri, Stella Mariz
 Galindez, Jeagina
 Arsenio, Mae Genicka

Submitted to:

Ms. Ronafe M. Sabejon

Source: Rafael Izquierdo, “Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny.” In Gregorio Zaide and
Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7.
It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native
clergy, by the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos.
The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice of
the government in not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and against the
usury that some practice in documents that the Finance department gives crop
owners who have to sell them at a loss. They encouraged the rebellion by
protesting what they called the injustice of having obliged the workers in the Cavite
arsenal to pay tribute starting January 1 and to render personal service from which
they were formerly exempted.
Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to established a
monarchy or republic, because the Indios have no word in their language to
describe this different from of government, whose head in Filipino would be called
hari; but it turns out that they would place at the head of the government a priest
that the head selected would be D. Jose Burgos or D. Jacinto Zamora. Such is the
plan of the rebels those who guided them, and the means they counted upon for
its realization.
It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the “revolution” the abolition
of privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from
payment of tribute and being employed in seemingly made the issue a lot more serious,
which included the presence of the native clergy who, out of spite against the Spanish
friars, “ conspired and supported” the rebels. Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report,
highlighted that the attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines to
instll a new “hari” in the persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. According to him, native
clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight would
not fail because they had God’s support, aside from promises of lofty rewards such as
employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.
In the Spaniards accounts, the event of 1872 was premeditated and was part of a big
conspiracy among the educated leaders, mestizos, lawyers, and residents of Manila and
Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate high ranking Spanish officers, then kill the friars.
The signal they identified among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets
fired from Intramuros.
The accounts detail that on January 20, 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast
of the Virgin of Loreto and came with it were some fireworks display. The Cavitenos
allegedly mistook this as the signal to commence with the attack. The 200-men contingent
led by Sergeant Lamadrid attacked Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal.
Izquierdo, learning of the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite
to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed, when the Manilenos who were
expected to aid the Cavitenos did not arrive. Leaders of the plot were killed in the resulting
skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora were tried by a court-martial and
sentenced to be executed. Others who were implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera,
Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other Filipino lawyers were suspended from
the practice of law, arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment at the Marianas Island.
Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery
force composed exclusively by Peninsulares.
On 17th of February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos
never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again.
Differing Accounts of the events of 1872
Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny
Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, “Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny” in Gregorio ZAide
and Sonia Zaide, (Documentary sources of Philippine History, Volume 7.
This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by the
Spanish residents and by the friars, the Central Government in Madrid had
announced its intention to deprive the friars in these islands of powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and of the direction and management
of the university. It was due to these facts and promises that the Filipino had great
hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their country, while the friars, on the
other hand feared that their power in the colony would soon be complete a thing
of the past.
Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain, and the only
aspiration of the people was to secure the material and education advancement of
the country.
According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and
laborers of the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian policies of
Izquierdo, such as the abolition of privileges and the prohibition of the founding of the
school of Arts and Trades for Filipinos, which the General saw as smokescreen to creating
a political club.
Tavera is of the opinion that Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a way
to address other issues by blowing out of proportion the mutiny attempt. During this time,
the Central Government in Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of
intervention in matters of civil government and direction and management of educational
institutions. The friars needed something to justify their continuing dominance in the
country, and the mutiny provided such opportunity.
However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational decree fusing
secretarian schools run by the friars into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree
aimed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching
positions in these schools to be filled by competitive examinations, an improvement
welcomed by most Filipinos.
Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za
In 1870, a new government came to power in Spain and returned dictatorship to the
Philippines. The new governor general, Rafael De Izquierdo, as a tyrant. He stopped all the
reforms of the previous governor, took away the rights and liberty of the Filipinos, and
oppressed them. On the night of February 20, 1872, some Filipino soldiers and workers at
the Cavite arsenal mutinied. They killed the Spanish officers and captured the fort. But on
the following day, they lost in a bloody fight with government troops. Many mutineers
were killed. Other patriotic Filipinos were also arrested and tried in military courts. Three
of the most famous victims of the Cavity Mutiny trials were Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano
Gomez and Jacinto Zamora. Because of their surenames, they are called “Gom-Bur-Za”.
They were Filipino Priest who had fought for reforms. Now they were accused of treason
to Spain and tried in an unfair trial. Although they were priests, they were strangled to
death at the garrote in Luneta, Their execution was a big scandal in the Philippines at the
time. But their martyrdom inspired Filipinos to fight harder for reforms.
References:
John Lee P. Candelaria and Veronica C. Alporha, Readings in Philippine History,
(Rex Book Store, C.M Recto, Davao City, 2018), P56-62.

Gregorio F. Zaide and Sonia M. Zaide, Philippine History and Government, (Davao City
Library), All Nations Publishing Co. Inc., Quezon City Philippines, P109

https://filipiknow.net/historical-controversies-philippines/ (Kasaysayan, The Story of

Filipino People)