A Tribute to Andres Bonifacio

Andres Bonifacio

Historical Controversies

Trial and Execution. Historians have condemned the trial of the Bonifacio brothers as unjust. The jury was entirely composed of Aguinaldo's men; Bonifacio's defense lawyer acted more like a prosecutor as he himself declared Bonifacio's guilt and appealed for less punishment; and Bonifacio was not allowed to confront the state witness for the charge of conspiracy on the grounds that the latter had been killed in battle, but later the witness was seen with the prosecutors. Teodoro Agoncillo wrote that Bonifacio's declaration of authority in opposition to Aguinaldo posed a danger to the revolution, because a split in the rebel forces would result in almost certain defeat to their united and well-armed Spanish foe. In contrast, Renato Constantino wrote that Bonifacio was neither a danger to the revolution in general for he still planned to fight the Spanish, nor to the Revolution in Cavite since he was leaving; but Bonifacio was definitely a threat to the Cavite leaders who wanted control of the Revolution, so he was eliminated. Constantino contrasted Bonifacio, who had no record of compromise with the Spanish, with the Cavite leaders who did compromise, resulting in the Pact of Biak-na-Bato.

Historians have also discussed the motives of the Cavite government to replace Bonifacio, and whether it had the right to do so. The Magdalo provincial council which helped establish a republican government led by one of their own was only one of many such councils in the pre-existing Katipunan government. Therefore, Constantino and Alejo Villanueva wrote that Aguinaldo and his faction may be considered counter-revolutionary as well – as guilty of violating Bonifacio's constituted authority just as they considered Bonifacio to have violated theirs. Aguinaldo's own adviser and official, Apolinario Mabini, wrote that he was “primarily answerable for insubordination against the head of the Katipunan of which he was a member”. Aguinaldo's authority was not immediately recognized by all rebels. If Bonifacio had escaped Cavite, he would have had the right as the Katipunan leader to prosecute Aguinaldo for treason instead of the other way around. Constantino and Villanueva also interpreted the Tejeros Convention as the culmination of a movement by members of the upper class represented by Aguinaldo to wrest power from Bonifacio who represented the middle and lower classes. Regionalism among the Cavite rebels, dubbed “Cavitismo” by Constantino, had also been put forward as motivation for the replacement of Bonifacio. Mabini considered the execution as criminal and “assassination...the first victory of personal ambition over true patriotism.” He also noted that “All the electors [at the Tejeros Convention] were friends of Don Emilio Aguinaldo and Don Mariano Trías, who were united, while Bonifacio, although he had established his integrity, was looked upon with distrust only because he was not a native of the province: this explains his resentment.”

There were differing accounts of Bonifacio's manner of execution. The commanding officer of the execution party, Lazaro Macapagal, said in two separate accounts that the Bonifacio brothers were shot to death, which was the orthodox interpretation. Macapagal's second account had Bonifacio attempting to escape after his brother was shot, but he was also killed while running away. Macapagal wrote that they buried the brothers in shallow graves dug with bayonets and marked by twigs.

However, another account stated that after Bonifacio’s brother was shot, Bonifacio was stabbed and hacked to death. This was allegedly done while he laid prone in a hammock in which he was carried to the site, being too weak to walk. This version was maintained by Guillermo Masangkay, who claimed to have gotten this information from one of Macapagal's men. In addition, one account used to corroborate this version was the story of an alleged eyewitness, a farmer who claimed he saw five men hacking a man in a hammock. Historian Milagros Guerrero also said that Bonifacio was bayoneted and that the brothers were left unburied. After bones said to be Bonifacio's – including a fractured skull - were discovered in 1918, Masangkay claimed the forensic evidence supported his version of events. Writer Adrian Cristobal noted that accounts of Bonifacio's captivity and trial state he was very weak due to his wounds being left untreated; he thus doubted that Bonifacio was strong enough to make a last dash for freedom as Macapagal claimed. Historian Ambeth Ocampo, who doubted the authenticity of the Bonifacio bones, also doubted the possibility of Bonifacio's death by this manner.

Bonifacio as National Hero. José Rizal is generally considered the national hero, but Bonifacio has been suggested as a more worthy candidate on the grounds of having started the Philippine Revolution. Teodoro Agoncillo noted that the Philippine national hero, unlike those of other countries, is not “the leader of its liberation forces.” Renato Constantino wrote that Rizal was a “United States-sponsored hero” who was promoted as the greatest Filipino hero during the American colonial period of the Philippines – after Aguinaldo lost the Philippine-American War. The United States promoted Rizal, who was taken to represent peaceful political advocacy, instead of more radical figures whose ideas could inspire resistance against American rule. Specifically, Rizal was selected over Bonifacio who was viewed as "too radical" and Apolinario Mabini who was “unregenerate.”

Historian Ambeth Ocampo gave the opinion that arguing for Bonifacio as the “better” hero on the grounds that he, not Rizal, began the Philippine Revolution, was moot since Rizal inspired Bonifacio, the Katipunan and the Revolution. Even prior to Rizal's banishment to Dapitan, Rizal was already regarded by the Filipino people as a national hero, having been elected as honorary president by the Katipunan. Leon Ma. Guerrero noted that while Rizal did not give his blessing to Bonifacio because he believed the time was premature, he did not condemn the aim of independence per se. Teodoro Agoncillo offered the opinion that Bonifacio should not replace Rizal as national hero, but they should be honored “side by side.”

Despite popular recognition of Rizal as “the Philippine national hero,” the title itself has no explicit legal definition in present Philippine law. Rizal and Bonifacio, however, are given the implied recognition of being national heroes because they are commemorated annually nationwide – Rizal Day on 30 December and Bonifacio Day on 30 November. According to the website of the National Center for Culture and the Arts:

“Despite the lack of any official declaration explicitly proclaiming them as national heroes, [Rizal and Bonifacio] remain admired and revered for their roles in Philippine history. Heroes, according to historians, should not be legislated. Their appreciation should be better left to academics. Acclamation for heroes, they felt, would be recognition enough.”