Plot And Passion
Th he mystery which, as Rizal noted, shrouds the trial of Burgos and his coaccused, leaves the crime with which they were charged itself a mystery. And not only their "crime" but also the historical event that was allegedly the body of the crime.
Was there a mutiny in the Cavite fort of San Felipe on the night of January 20, 1872?
As uprisings go, this Cavite Mutiny if it was a mutiny could not be more minor: a riot instantly suppressed, no more than an overnight disturbance. Yet its repercussions and the effect it had on our history are so great as to place it on the same level of importance with the uprising of '96. Both the Propaganda and the Revolution held '72 in great honor; and when friars fell prisoners to the Revolution in Cavite, the memory of '72 was still so vivid, 25 years after the event, that what Aguinaldo's men most wanted to learn from the captive friars was What Really Happened In Fort San Felipe.
The importance of '72 can be seen just in its effect on one person: Rizal, though he was only ten years old at the time. But because his brother, Paciano Mercado, was a disciple of Burgos, '72 meant for Rizal the childhood trauma of a change of name from Mercado to Ri- zal and the wound was obviously still festering when, years later, he defiantly dedicated his second novel to the martyred priests. Which prompts a question. If he was so obsessed with 72- and there are numerous references to the event in both his novels why was it his second, not his first, novel that he dedicated to its memory? Was it because associating the first with '72 might call attention to the fact that the Noli Me Tangere is a reading of the Burgos case? For the Noli can be read as a detective story, in which Rizal offers an explanation for the mystery of '72.
The hero of the Noli is a young Creole who antagonizes the friars with his liberal ideas.
The friars destroy him by paying a group to stage an uprising that uses his name as rallying cry.
Was the Cavite Mutiny a friar staged plot intended, through the use of Burgos's name, to destroy him?
And was this stratagem thought workable because there had been previous manifestations, insurgent in character, which Burgos was suspected of having masterminded probably did? and
A manifesto sent to Spain protesting the downgrading of the Philippine clergy bore the name of Antonio Regidor; but the friars smelled the hand of Burgos in it and loudly said so.
Likewise, the propaganda waged in Madrid newspapers in reply to the friars' vilification campaign against the native clergy was obviously another machination of Burgos.
The increasing restiveness of the students at Santo Tomás could also be laid at his door. As the university was where Peláez may have turned the young Burgos into his militant disciple, so there, too, was where Burgos in turn found disciples for a militancy already transcending the clerical dispute and becoming dangerously nationalist. A students' movement in November, 1870, was denounced as a motin, or riot, though all the students did was form a committee to demand the reorganization of the curricula and of the university itself. As though that were not shocking enough, this students' committee also identified itself with the cause of assimilation that is, autonomy for the Philippines as, no longer a colony, but a Spanish province. In the committee, which was headed by Felipe Buencamino, were Paciano Mercado and such names as Sanciangco, Mapa, Soriano, Tisón and Alejandrino. The demonstration of the students led to the arrest of Buencamino and the persecution of provincial families unlucky enough to have sons enrolled in the university.
The link with Burgos was obvious. Burgos was one of the organizers of the Committee of Reformers, which campaigned for more liberal laws and was composed of two sections: lay- men and clerics. In the lay group, headed by Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, such figures as the Regidor brothers, Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista (who was to write the Kawit Act of Independence), José Roxas, Manuel Genato, José Basa, Máximo Paterno, Angel Garchitorena and Mamerto Natividad represented not only all phases of Philippine life, from agriculture, business and industry to scholarship and the profes- sions, but also the growing solidarity among the native-born, whether Creole, Chinese mestizo or Indio.
The cleric section headed by Burgos included Gómez and Zamora and spoke of "restoring" the rights of the native clergy and the liberties of Filipinos in general.
This reform committee, "wishing to extend its doctrines to all the social classes, penetrated the University of Santo Tomás" (in the words of Manuel Artigas) with the result that a studentpower group, the Juventud Escolar Liberal (or Liberal Student Youth), was formed there, the group that manned the cam- pus "riot" of 1870.
In this, the students were following the example of their elders. Demonstrations had become the thing, both during the liberal administration of Carlos Maria de la Torre and the reactionary period that followed under Izquierdo. On the arrival of De la Torre in the Philippines, Burgos and Pardo de Tavera had led a manifestation at the Plaza de Santa Potenciana, on July 12, 1869 the manifest- ation in which the cry raised was Viva Filipinas para los Filipinos! Among the demonstrators were José Icaza of the Real Audiencia, Jacobo Zobel of the Ayuntamiento, Andrés Nieto of the landed gentry, and such businessmen as Ignacio Rocha, Manuel Genato and Máximo Paterno.
Another demonstration by the liberals, to commemorate the triumph of the revolution in Spain, had for stage no less than the Palace of Malacañang; and what most shocked the friars and conservatives, already so enraged that De la Torre should surround himself with filibuste- ros, was the sash worn by a colo- nel's wife, a sash that bore the inscription Long Live The Sovereign People!
But what really stunned the reactionaries was the demons- tration that occurred when the remains of Anda, which had rested for a century in the Cathedral of Manila, were transferred to the chapel of the Franciscan tertiaries, because the Cathedral had collapsed in the great earthquake of 1863, burying Father Peláez in its ruins. Anda was a hero to Filipinos because he was an enemy of the friars and had established what was practically an independent Philippine government during the British invasion; when he died, abandoned and execrated by the Spaniards, he had only natives, "who loved him," to keep watch round his deathbed and to close his eyes.
On the day of the transfer of his remains, a multitude, as if by secret agreement, assembled along the route of the procession, dressed in mourning, and showered the bier with perfumes, flowers and wreaths. During the ceremonies in the church of San Agustin (which was serving as provisional cathedral) a young Filipino priest emerged from his group and, to general astonishment, approached the catafalque and laid on the bier a laurel wreath on the ribbon of which were the words: The Secular Clergy of the Philippines to Don Simón de Anda y Salazar. He was followed to the catafalque by a young Filipino student who likewise offered a crown of flowers to the mortal remains of Don Simón. And after him came a crowd of gobernadorcillos, or town mayors, to pay homage to the bier. Since none of these salutations was on the program, they must have been part of a secretly prepared demonstration; and there was a search for its organizer. Nobody would blab,but rumor pointed to Burgos as the mastermind of this strange drama in which the native clergy, the native youth and the native officialdom acted as one.
From accounts of the incident, one gathers that it was provoked by two things: one, the ban on the entry of Spanish newspapers (where the native clergy was conducting a spirited defense of its worth and its rights) and, two, the written pledge of adherence and loyalty to Spain exacted from Burgos by the Archbishop of Manila, Gregorio Martinez, with whom Burgos was at odds.
One argument he had with Archbishop Martinez shows the trend of Burgos's thought.
The archbishop had accused him of maintaining that the host for the Eucharist could as validly be made of rice flour as of wheat.
"Your Grace will pardon me," replied Burgos, "but what I say is true. Thus we were taught in school and thus say the textbooks."
Irritated, the archbishop deplored the speed with which a little learning went to the heads of Filipino priests.
"I had never thought," retorted Burgos, "that learning was a crime." And when the archbishop offered him a glass of sherry, he declined with a sarcasm: "We Filipino priests would be contented with a sip of justice and tranquility."
The differences between the two arose from the reluctance of Burgos, as examiner of parish priests, to permit the assignment to parishes of friars newly arrived from Spain and his insistence on the prior right of the native secular clergy to such assignments.
