What Happened to Jose Burgos?

José Apolonio Burgos y García was a Filipino Catholic priest, accused of mutiny by the
Spanish colonial authorities in the Philippines in the 19th century. He was tried and executed in
Manila along with two other clergymen, Mariano Gomez and Jacinto Zamora, who are
collectively known as the Gomburza.
Jose Burgos was the son of an army lieutenant. He was born in Vigan, on February 9,
1837, and had for godfather at baptism no less than the provincial governor of Ilocos Sur, Don
José María Calderón. José was intended for the law; but at Letrán, to his parents' indignation, the
boy opted for the cloth. What's significant is that he chose none of the friar orders but the secular
priesthood. Burgos was ordained as a priest in the mid-1860s.

Burgos thus began as a "Filipino" in its narrowest sense: the Creole class.
When he became a priest, his efforts against the friars expanded the definition of
"Filipino" to include all native-born clergy, but it still primarily referred to a privileged minority,
namely the Creoles and the cleric class. However, as the term began to encompass the Indio
population as well, especially due to Burgos's involvement in politics and alliances with mixed
groups, the meaning of "Filipino" inevitably evolved further.
The fact that Burgos had non-Creoles like Felipe Buencamino and Rizal's brother
Paciano in his student group, who became fervent followers, illustrates that Burgos, and by
extension, the Creole class, transcended their self-interests in this struggle. Through this same
struggle, they transformed from being "Filipino" in a class-based sense into Filipinos in the
patriotic sense. While Burgos initially aimed to secure some rights for his class, he ultimately
achieved something more significant: a collective identity for his people, who were now
recognized as Filipinos.

Secularization Movement
The secularization movement in the Philippines during the 1780s was a significant
historical event with profound implications for the country. This movement was primarily
concerned with the secularization of the Filipino clergy, meaning the transfer of control over the
local church from the Spanish friars to the native-born secular priests.

The secularization movement was a response to the abuses and dominance of the Spanish
friars over the religious and social life of the Filipinos. The friars held extensive power and
influence not only in the religious sphere but also in local governance and social affairs. This
situation created tensions and conflicts between the friars and the secular clergy, who were often
of Filipino descent.
 The 1780s marked a period of increased advocacy for the secularization of the Philippine
church, with many local priests and intellectuals pushing for reforms. They argued that native-
born clergy could better understand and serve the spiritual needs of the Filipino population.
When the secularization movement began, right after the Jesuits were kicked out, it's possible
that the criticism about the local clergy's abilities was legit. That's because they rushed to ordain
native priests so quickly to take over the empty parishes, and it wasn't a very smooth process.

In the 19th century, any mocking comments were just mean and unfair, because native
priests had to pass tough exams to work in parishes. Back in the previous century, you could say
there were only "maybe six Spaniards or Spanish mestizos in the local clergy of the islands." But
in the 19th century, things were different.

Moreover, it was seen as a means to reduce the excessive control and abuses perpetrated
by the friars, who were often perceived as exploiting the local population. The secularization
movement gained momentum in the Philippines during this period, but it faced resistance from
the friars, who were supported by the Spanish colonial authorities. It would take several decades
before significant reforms were implemented, ultimately resulting in the secularization of the
Filipino clergy in the mid-19th century.
One of the native priests which led the movement in that period was Pedro Pelaez from
Laguna.
Pedro Pelaez was the son of Don Jose Pelaez Rubio a peninsular and
alcalde-mayor of the province, and Doña Josefa Sebastian Gomez Lozada, a
creole of Spanish parents. In 1833, Pelaez was ordained as a priest and was
subsequently assigned to the Manila Cathedral where he occupied such positions
as deacon, canonigo magistral, secretary of the archbishop, assistant racionario,
racionario, examinador synodal, canonigo penitenciario, sub-delegate of the holy
crusado, treasurer, and apostolic Judge of the archbishopric. Upon the death of the
archbishop Jose Aranguren on April 18, 1862, the ecclesiastical cabildo elected
him Vicario Capitular, a position almost equivalent to that of Ecclesiastical
Governor of the Philippines. Pelaez was to govern the archdiocese until the arrival
of the new archbishop, Gregorio Meliton Martinez.

Pelaez raised funds to send a representative to Madrid, wrote pamphlets, and petitioned
the Queen of Spain for support to advance his advocacy. Padre Peláez has taken control of the
Manila Cathedral and is using the Council of Trent against the friar parish squatters. Jose
Burgos, a protege of Pelaez became involved in the movement. Padre Burgos is leading a reform
committee and is rallying students against the university. What all this means is that, both in the
Church and in Philippine society as a whole, a group of native leaders has emerged, mainly led
by the Creoles.
However, the Jesuits viewed Burgos's movement as corrupt, anti-religious, political,
misguided, and rebellious, demonstrates just how extreme the opposition was to the changes
Burgos was advocating for in the Philippine Church. Even the Jesuits had become like the friars,
not in the heroic way they were in the 17th century, but in the less favorable 19th-century image
of being outdated. They were expelled from the Americas and banned in Spain, and so they were
trying to reestablish a secluded world in the Philippines, protected from the changes happening
elsewhere by strict censorship. When a Philippine Jesuit told Burgos "not to knock on our door
again," it was a clear sign that the modern world was challenging their traditional beliefs.
As the unruly friars flooded into the Philippines, they needed places to serve, and they
achieved this by taking away the parishes from the native clergy who occupied them. This was a
regressive move for the Philippine Church.
The situation worsened when the Jesuits returned to the Philippines in 1859 and
reclaimed the parishes in Mindanao that they had held before they were expelled. Even though
the native clergy still only had a portion of all the parishes in the country, they at least had the
most important one, the See of Manila. However, in 1861, a royal decree assigned the wealthiest
parishes of this See to the Recollects, as compensation for the Mindanao parishes they had given
up to the Jesuits. This is why the Jesuits joined the friar orders in their dispute over taking
control of parishes.
The most intense conflict revolved around the Antipolo shrine and the prosperous San
Rafael parish in Bulacan. Both had been under the control of the native clergy for a long time.
When the Antipolo parish needed a new leader, Father Peláez, who was temporarily overseeing
the See, appointed another Filipino priest to the shrine. The Recollects opposed this appointment,
arguing that Antipolo was rightfully theirs based on the 1861 decree. They won their protest, and
the native clergy lost the valuable Antipolo parish.
In 1868, the San Rafael parish became vacant, and it was supposed to be open for
competition. However, the Recollects once again claimed ownership of the parish, and the
exams, for which 17 Filipino priests had qualified, were canceled. This time, it was the native
clergy who raised objections. Unfortunately, they lost the case, and another significant parish
slipped from their control.
This pattern continued, and they lost the parishes they had in Zambales, Bataan, and
Pampanga. As a result, some among the native clergy began to murmur that they might receive
fairer treatment from the Americans or the English if these powers were to take over the
Philippines, rather than from the Spanish authorities.
When General Carlos Maria de la Torre arrived in the Philippines to become its most
liberal governor, he is said to have hailed Burgos, on their first meeting, as "the great Filipino."
This was on July 12, 1869, which ushered in a period of reform that, alas, did not quite last three
years.

Underlying cause of Cavite Mutiny

 One argument he had with Archbishop Martinez shows one of the underlying causes of
this mutiny. 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. However,
Archbishop Martinez was a fair man. He did see the side of the Philippine clergy; in fact, he
espoused in a letter he sent to Madrid in 1870, when he warned the Court that the continuing
decrease in positions available to Filipino priests might drive them to insurgency. He wrote to the
Spanish Regent advocating secularization and mentioned that discrimination against Filipino
priests would encourage anti-Spanish sentiments.
Even though the archbishop had supported the Filipinos, he later believed that the
Filipinos, especially the controversial Father Burgos, should prove their loyalty to Spain. This
was because the archbishop was also facing criticism from the conservative faction, who accused
him of supporting the native clergy, who were accused of promoting betrayal and rebellion.
But Burgos initially had doubts. Later, he not only signed the loyalty pledge but also
actively worked to get 300 other people to sign it. However, when this document was later used
against him, it was interpreted not as an oath of allegiance but as evidence of a plot, seen as the
declaration of revolutionaries. As a result, the 300 individuals who had signed it were pursued
and accused of being traitors and troublemakers.
Archbishop Martinez couldn't openly support a Filipino like Burgos, who was under
suspicion, especially after the conservative faction regained power in Spain and De la Torre was
removed from his position. The new leader, General Rafael Izquierdo, declared he'd rule firmly,
using both religion and military might. He kept his word, aided by the conservatives who were
seeking payback for the challenges they faced during the short liberal rule. Naturally, Burgos
was a major target for their anger. They were determined to remove him from his influential role
as a synodal examiner.
Hence, the Creoles' lack of trust played a part in the decision to undo the secularization
movement by having friars take over the parishes previously run by the native clergy, as the
Creoles had a lot of influence over them. This mistrust of the Creoles also led to the removal of
certain privileges enjoyed by the military, which was considered a Creole institution. These
privileges included exemptions from taxes and mandatory labor for marines working at the navy
yard in Cavite. The sudden removal of this specific privilege by Izquierdo directly triggered the
Cavite Mutiny.

Cavite Mutiny
Burgos played a role in organizing the Committee of Reformers, which aimed for more
lenient laws. The committee had two parts: one with laypeople and the other with clerics. In the
lay group, led by Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, individuals like the Regidor brothers, Ambrosio
Rianzares Bautista (who drafted the Kawit Act of Independence), Jose Roxas, Manuel Genato,
José Basa, Máximo Paterno, Angel Garchitorena, and Mamerto Natividad represented various
aspects of Philippine life. They came from agriculture, business, industry, academia, and the
professions, showing the growing unity among native-born Filipinos, whether Creole, Chinese
mestizo, or Indio. The section led by Burgos, made up of clerics, featured Gómez and Zamora
and advocated for "bringing back" the privileges of the native clergy and the freedoms of all
Filipinos. This reform committee aimed to spread its ideas to different social groups and even
infiltrated the University of Santo Tomás.
On the night of January 20, 1872, a group of marines in Cavite, led by Sergeant
Lamadrid, thought that the fireworks from the "Sampaloc fiesta" were a signal for a widespread
uprising. They took control of Fort San Felipe, killed the officers who resisted, and held the fort
for a night. However, as dawn broke, their hopes dwindled. The troops in Cavite refused to join
the rebellion, and instead of expected reinforcements, four ships arrived from Manila, carrying
infantry under General Felipe Ginovés y Espinar. These troops surrounded the fort, ignored a
peace delegation sent out by the mutineers, and eventually attacked the fort, resulting in the
killing of the rebels. Sergeant Lamadrid was among the first to die. One peculiar aspect was the
presence of a Spanish friar inside the fort.
Once news of the uprising reached Manila, a state of fear and oppression began. On the
night of January 21, Burgos, along with Father Gómez (who was then serving as the priest in
Bacoor), Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Regidor, Enrique Paraiso, Pio and José Basa,
Máximo Paterno, Crisanto Reyes, Ramón Maurente, and the parish priest of Santa Cruz church,
were arrested. In the following days, more civilians and priests were taken to Fort Santiago.
As soon as the three Filipino Catholic priests were arrested, they declared their
innocence. Zamora claimed that when he went to Cavite, it was just to play cards. When it was
Zamora's turn for execution, he climbed up quietly, sat down, and didn't realize when he was
killed.
Gómez had gone before him, and Gómez, who had already experienced deep
disappointment even before all this, faced his fate without needing a priest's encouragement. But
Burgos, right up until the end, was an angry young man, crying out against the injustice. He
vehemently protested, saying, "I am innocent!" To this, he was told, "So was Jesus Christ,"
which silenced him. When the executioner knelt before him, asking for forgiveness, he
responded, "My son, I forgive you. Do your duty." At that moment, a large crowd at the Luneta
dropped to their knees and collectively recited the litany for the dying, a prayer that takes longer
than the minute it takes for the garrote to break a person's neck.

To this day the question remains: was the Cavite happening indeed more a
"well-plotted conspiracy" than a mutiny? And if so, who plotted it?
The testimonies consistently claimed that Burgos encouraged the mutiny because he
aspired to become a "Filipino King" or "President of the Republic." While these statements were
likely lies, they wouldn't have been considered believable if they weren't somewhat convincing.
This notion of Burgos being associated with Creole figures who aspired to power positioned him
between Novales, who aimed to be the Emperor of the Philippines, and Antonio Luna, who had
the potential to lead the Revolution similarly to a Bonaparte. The trial of Burgos and his co-
accused, leaves the crime with which they were charged itself a mystery.
There was a manifesto sent to Spain, signed by Antonio Regidor, protesting the
mistreatment of the Philippine clergy. However, the friars believed that Burgos was behind it and
loudly accused him. Similarly, the counter-propaganda in Madrid newspapers, responding to the
friars' attacks on the native clergy, was clearly another scheme by Burgos.
There was another person who could have unraveled the mystery, and that was Francisco
Saldua, one of the mutineers who later turned against Burgos and accused him of being the
mastermind behind the plot. However, during the trial, it appears that Saldua was not even
allowed to testify in defense. His voice was silenced forever on February 17, 1872, when he was
executed alongside the three priests he had implicated.
During the trial, Saldua stated that he had been part of a conspiracy. He claimed to have
delivered messages three times to Father Jacinto Zamora, who then quickly went to Burgos's
place. According to Saldua, he was informed by Sergeant Lamadrid and one of the Basa brothers
that "the government of Father Burgos" intended to bring in the United States fleet to support a
revolution. This uprising, funded by Ramón Maurente with 50,000 pesos, was to be led by
Maurente himself. The conspirators, as Saldua recounted, gathered at the residence of a person
named Lorenzana.
Some of the mutineers who were captured and put on trial may have just been repeating
what they were told before the mutiny. One corporal said he was informed that if the uprising
succeeded, the president of the republic (Burgos) would become the parish priest of St. Peter,
although he didn't know the priest's name. Another corporal testified that he had heard from
others that the president would be "the native curate of St. Peter."
The mailman for the marines told a story about meeting a sergeant and two corporals
from Cavite in Manila, who informed him that many sergeants from both the marines and the
army had joined the plot. This plot involved Father Burgos and the curate of Bacoor, Gómez,
with the goal of establishing a republic and making Burgos the president.
Another witness claimed to have received two anonymous letters that announced the
outbreak of an insurrection in Cavite and Manila, and the presidency of Burgos. A member of the
troops sent to suppress the mutiny reported that a captured marine, when questioned, revealed
that the aim of the insurrection was to eliminate all Spaniards and "establish an Indio king," with
that king being Father Burgos.
Burgos's counsel, Captain Fontiviel, requested the case to be dropped due to insufficient
evidence. The request was sent to the governor-general, but he denied it and instructed the court-
martial to proceed. The defense then asked for Saldua to testify. However, the court asserted that
Saldua was too sick to testify, and it seemed he was under the influence of the Recollects.\
Was the "mutiny," then, a conspiracy a plot not by Burgos but against him?
Saldua mentioned that there were discussions about a friar who encouraged the marines
in Cavite not to pay the tribute and to challenge the government. The mutiny happened on the
night before the day when the tribute was supposed to be collected, despite objections from two
high-ranking marine officers, interestingly named McCrohon and Butler.
Artigas presents the testimonies of two friars who were captured by Aguinaldo's forces
in Cavite in 1897:
The first friar, Fr. Agapito Echegoyen, a Recollet, arrived in the Philippines four months
after the mutiny. He learned from another friar what had truly transpired. The leaders of the friar
orders had a meeting on how to eliminate Burgos and other native clergy leaders. They decided
to frame them in a seditious plot. To achieve this, a Franciscan friar, disguised as a secular priest,
was sent to Cavite with a significant sum of money. He posed as Father Burgos, incited a mutiny,
and then convinced Saldua to accuse Burgos of inciting the uprising. Following this, the friar
leaders used a substantial bribe, "una fuerte suma de dinero," to persuade the governor-general
that Burgos should be arrested, tried, and condemned.
The second captive friar, Antonio Piernavieja, an Augustinian, also mentioned a
meeting of the provincials of the Augustinian, Recollet, Dominican, and Franciscan orders
regarding a petition from the secular clergy to regain parishes controlled by the friars. Since
Burgos was suspected of orchestrating this petition, the heads of the friar orders conspired to
tarnish his image by portraying him as anti-Spanish. A certain Fray Claudio del Arceo, disguised
as Father Burgos, went to Cavite to spread the idea of a rebellion. After the mutiny was
suppressed, the friars applied pressure on the governor-general through his secretary and an
influential woman. They also provided a substantial sum of 40,000 pesos in metal as a bribe.
Some people in Manila even spoke of meetings held in Malacañang, where a chest of gold
doubloons was taken. However, upon learning of this plot, Archbishop Martinez was so furious
that he wrote to the governor-general, expressing his strong disapproval and condemnation of the
false and malicious accusations against the accused priests.

The importance of '72 can be seen just in its effect on one person: Rizal.
Even though he was just ten years old when it happened, '72 had a big impact on Rizal. His
brother, Paciano Mercado, was a follower of Burgos, and for young Rizal, it meant a traumatic
experience of having to change his last name from Mercado to Rizal. This was clearly still
bothering him when, years later, he boldly dedicated his second book to the priests who were
martyred.
This leads us to a question: Why did Rizal dedicate his second novel to '72,
not the first one, even though there are many mentions of that event in both
of his books?
 One possible reason could be that connecting the first novel to '72 might
make people notice that "Noli Me Tangere" is, in a way, an interpretation of
the Burgos case. In the Noli, Rizal presents it like a mystery story, where he
tries to explain what happened during '72.
Because the death of Burgos the Creole was not only his birth as hero but the full
emergence of the idea of the Filipino, his enemies defeated themselves in their very hour of
triumph. If there is a date in our history we can designate as the beginning of a nationalist
consciousness.
Referring to Burgos as "the Precursor of Rizal" is questionable because it appears to
position Burgos outside or before the mainstream of our history. In reality, he plays a central role
in our history, bridging the gap between Creole insurgency, which sparked nationalist awareness,
and the Revolution, which was the outcome of that awareness. Burgos is connected to the first
phase through figures like Gómez and Peláez, and to the second phase through his disciples like
Paciano Rizal, Ambrosio Rianzares, and Marcelo H. del Pilar.
Furthermore, It would be more accurate to describe Rizal as "the Successor of Burgos."
Rizal carried on Burgos's work by seeking reforms within the bounds of the law, eschewing
violent revolution, aiming to uplift the masses through education, and personally demonstrating
the capabilities of a Filipino. The two men share a common fate; both were implicated in the
kind of violence they disapproved of.
The Katipunan acknowledged this continuity by honoring Gom-Bur-Za and adopting the
Creoles' rallying cry, "Hijos del Pais," as its own militant call, "Anak ng Bayan."