Rizal Controversy Essay Example

establish Rizal's status as a hero for his country. However, believers find it difficult to refute the evidence presented by the other side. Nonbelievers aim to provide factual information about Rizal's heroism. In order to address the controversy, they dismiss many of the documented proofs.

Forgery was used during this time to safeguard Rizal's reputation, which had been associated with redirecting funds from deserving individuals to undeserving ones. Over time, it evolved into a method of tarnishing someone's reputation without public awareness. There was an incident involving the use of forged documents to undermine the independence of the Philippines. In 1901, Cecilio Segismundo, a Filipino Messenger, was apprehended by the Americans while carrying a document from Aguinaldo.

The signature on the document was counterfeited, and the entire message was altered to falsely inform Aguinaldo that some Filipino officers were sending him Guerrillas with American prisoners. With the assistance of Lazaro Segovia, a disloyal Spaniard, the Americans managed to gather a group of Filipino soldiers who supported them. These soldiers infiltrated Aguinaldo's camp by pretending to be soldiers of the Philippine Republic. As a result, they captured the president and his generals began surrendering, which led to the downfall of the Republic. Given Rizal's circumstances, it is plausible that a similar strategy was employed.

The authenticity of the retraction letter of Rizal is currently being debated. The Letter is said to have been signed by Rizal moments before his death. There were several witnesses, most of whom were Jesuits from Escuela Municipal (Ateneo de Manila University). However, the document has never been shown to the public; only an exact replica has been

made available. Nonetheless, a Spanish Jesuit reported that the retraction document was copied word for word and published in Spain. The original Spanish document, supposedly signed by Rizal, clearly indicates the dates of the reproduction signatures: December 29, 1890.

After the initial discovery of the document, a different alleged original version surfaced, which was dated December 29, 189C. It became evident that someone had manipulated the number zero to make it appear as the letter C. Several months later, another purported original version was presented to the public with a date of December 29, 1896. As a result, those who doubted the controversy strongly believed that the document had been falsified. Reports emerged stating that Roman Roque, who had forged Urbano Lacuna's signature in an attempt to capture Aguinaldo, was also responsible for forging Rizal's signature.

According to reports, Lazaro Segovia and the Friars were accused of forging Rizal's signature. It is alleged that during the final day of the Filipino-American war, Urbano Lacuna and Roman Roque were instructed by the Friars to carry out this forgery. Antonio K. Abad personally heard this account from Roman Roque, who lived near him, and provided evidence to support its veracity. However, due to a lack of substantial evidence supporting the existence of Roman Roque and the emergence of the original copy during the American Era, this controversy remains unresolved.

The topic of Rizal's heroism, as taught in the education curriculum, has sparked a debate among those who do not believe in it. The disagreement arises from different versions of the story that remain unresolved. Despite this, those who believe in his heroism persist in

searching for evidence from Philippine history to back up their assertions. When discussing this controversy, both sides have shared their opinions and presented visual evidence. As an unbiased observer, I find it challenging to be convinced by either side's arguments.

In other words, the proof of the document was deliberate or, in Tagalog, "parang pilit". It cannot be considered a solid proof because the original documentation was not made public when it was first discovered, and multiple versions of the document were released which caused confusion. Additionally, if the retraction letter did indeed exist, it would imply that Rizal wasted his life writing, defending, and protecting the Filipino people. I find it hard to believe that he would do this considering his anger towards the Spaniards throughout his years in this country.

Supporters claimed that Rizal's signature was faked, citing the unclear evidence and the report's exclusive inclusion of individuals who witnessed the incident. Additionally, they highlighted that crucial biographical details about these witnesses were neglected, raising doubts about their existence. Ultimately, Jose Protacio Mercado Rizal Alonzo Y' Realonda demonstrated outstanding dedication to his homeland by actively engaging in education instead of solely enjoying the advantages of his profession.

The growing nationalism among Filipinos has resulted in a stronger sense of maturity as fellow countrymen. Even though great individuals like Jose Rizal have passed away, their heroic legacies still live on for future generations. While some may wish to change history, it is uncertain if they intend to make positive contributions or if they simply lack the capability to do so. We should let these departed heroes rest peacefully, as they can

no longer hear any negative words spoken about them.

Why bother stirring up this controversy when the person involved is already gone? I wonder if Jose Rizal was aware of this controversy; perhaps he would be shocked as it would be impossible for him to do something so insane. However, only God knows. One day, the truth will come out and hopefully, none of Rizal's followers will be disappointed in him just in case. For now, he remains the Philippine National Hero and nothing can alter what is recorded in history.