This is one of the questions that comes into mind when Rizal’s name is mentioned. Was Rizal a reformist?

Or
revolutionary? Why did he condemn the revolution that was to be waged by the Bonifacio-led Katipunan?

Jose Rizal, our national hero, was one of the Filipinos who asked for reforms. These reforms will grant the
ultimate dream of the reformists; assimilation. Filipinos will be given the rights that they deserve. Rizal choose to
seek for reforms than to start a revolution because he knew that Philippines was not yet ready to stand on its own
(during his time). Rizal used his liberal ideas in asking for reforms.

Rizal denied the existence of the 1896 Revolution because he didn’t want his conscience to be marred by the blood
of his countrymen who will inevitably suffer because of their unpreparedness for a full-scale revolution. Moreover,
he believed that this will not make the Philippines a better country. The Philippine Revolution freed the Filipinos
from the hands of the Spaniards. Although Rizal had revolutionary ideas, he was not for armed revolution per se.
He was more for the gradual and peaceful one. One that is catalyzed by the education of the people.

He reasoned out that when subject people are educated, intelligent, and have become aware of their human
rights, they would have self-determination and they would strive to be free from their mother country. When this
revolution happens, drastic changes will occur in the political, economical, social, religious, and intelligence
sphere of a society paving the way for its independence someday.

Even though Rizal did not actually support the revolution, he we can say that he also contributed in this
revolution. His works and writings were the corner stone of the revolution and he was indeed an inspiration for the
Katipuneros during those times. Rizal’s life was devoted to his country (Philippines). His works and writings were
evidence for his noble act as a reformist.

The very striking fact that Constantino forwarded was the notion that Rizal was not a
leader of the Philippine Revolution, but a leading opponent of it. Accordingly, in the
manifesto of 15 December 1896 written by Rizal himself which he addressed to the
Filipino people, he declared that when the plan of revolution came into his knowledge,
he opposed its absolute impossibility and state his utmost willingness to offer anything
he could to stifle the rebellion. Rizal thought of it as absurd, and abhorred its alleged
criminal methods.

Rizal in his manifesto put into premise the necessity of education in the
achievement of liberties. Most importantly he believed that reforms to be fruitful must
come from above and that those that come from below are shaky, irregular, and
uncertain.

Rizal’s weakness for this matter was his failure to fully understand his people. He
was unsuccessful in empathizing with the true sentiments of the people from below in
launching the armed rebellion. He repudiated the revolution because he thought that
reforms to be successful should come from above. It could be understandable that the
hero thought of such because it was the belief of the prevailing class to which Rizal
belonged. It is also possible that Rizal disproved the revolution due to his belief that
violence should not prevail. In this case, Rizal unintentionally underestimated the
capacity of those from below to compel changes and reforms.
 This hesitation of Rizal against the revolution was supported by Dr. Pio Valenzuela’s
1896 account of the revolution after he was sent by Andres Bonifacio to Dapitan to seek
Rizal’s opinion and approval in launching an armed rebellion against the Spanish
administration. In September 1896, Valenzuela before a military court testified that
Rizal was resolutely opposed to the idea of a premature armed rebellion and used bad
language in reference to it, the same statement was extracted from him in October
1896, only that he overturned that it was Bonifacio, not Rizal, who made use of foul
words.

However, Valenzuela after two decades reversed his story by saying that Rizal was
not actually against the revolution but advised the Katipuneros to wait for the right
timing, secure the needed weapons and get the support of the rich and scholarly class.
Valenzuela recounted that his 1896 statements were embellished due to duress and
torture and it was made to appear that in his desire “not to implicate” or “save” Rizal,
testified that the latter was opposed to the rebellion. This turn of events put historians
into a great confusion, making Rizal’s stand over the Philippine Revolution,
controversial and debatable, making him both hero and anti-hero.

Constantino, in reality did not disrobe Rizal the merit he deserves, what he did was a
critical evaluation of Rizal as a product of his time. He pointed out that even without
Rizal, the nationalistic movement would still advance with another figure to take his
place because it was not Rizal who shaped the turn of events but otherwise. Historical
forces untied by social developments impelled and motivated Rizal to rose up and
articulate the people’s sentiments through his writings. In fact, the revolution ensued
even Rizal disagreed with it. Finally, Constantino argued that to better understand the
hero, we should also take note of his weaknesses and learn from them.

Almost a third of the seventeenth century, prior to the birth of Jose Rizal, constituted the history of the
French Revolution. The great ideas of the French Revolution like equality, liberty, and fraternity were
concepts that were antithetical to the worldview engendered by the feudal order predominant during the
Spanish rule. Under this rule, there were two major contending classes that shaped society: few feudal
lords that controlled the land and the vast numbers of serfs or peasants that tilled the land for a pittance.
The conflict between these two classes gave birth to the ideas of the French Revolution; and thereafter,
influenced the history and worldview during the time of Rizal. Even Andres Bonifacio himself read and
studied the French Revolution from which he got the clandestine conduct of the Katipunan. Bonifacio was
a follower of Rizal.

Who was Jose Rizal? Dr. Jose Rizal is the National Hero of the Philippines. Rizal wrote the two famous
novels titled Noli Me Tangere (‘Touch Me Not’) and El Filibusterismo (‘The Filibuster,’ or ‘the Subversive’).
If Rizal wrote a novel titled “Or Else” between his two novels, then I think the confusion regarding his
stance on the revolution would be clarified. Renato Constantino, in his 1968 essay “Veneration Without
Understanding,” pointed out that Rizal was just propped up by the U.S. colonial government as a tool to
pacify the revolutionary aspiration of the Filipino people by playing up his reformist calls. Ambeth Ocampo
wrote in his newspaper column “Reform and Revolution” (Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 19, 2012)
that, “Constantino argued that Rizal was an American sponsored hero, citing without any documentary
proof an alleged Philippine Commission meeting where the American colonial government chose Rizal as
the foremost national hero because he was nonviolent and reformist, unlike Bonifacio or [Emilio]
Aguinaldo.” Granting that there was no documentary proof, any colonial power would have not fostered a
known revolutionary like Bonifacio, but would have instead chosen a milder one who would serve the
colonial design. A colonial power could also foster a leader with conflicting attitude regarding the issue as
this would be a good tool for sowing confusion. My personal take on this is, given the conflicting ideas
about Rizal, what was decisive and more important was his practice. If his intention was to depart for
Cuba to serve Spanish colonial interest, this was proof enough of where he stood on the matter.

In the same column, Ambeth Ocampo argued that “what Constantino conveniently left out are that Rizal
was considered a hero in his lifetime; that he was an honorary president of the Katipunan; that his picture
was displayed during Katipunan meetings; and that his name was one of the passwords of the Katipunan.
Then of course, the annual commemoration of Rizal’s death each year in December 30 was started by
Aguinaldo’s shortlived First Philippine Republic in 1898 (before the American colonial period and
continues to our day).”

Jose Maria Sison, a known leader of the revolutionary movement in the Philippines from 1968 up to the
present, also expressed some crucial points regarding the matter. If I am not mistaken in my grasp of it,
we cannot judge the ideas of Jose Rizal out of the context since doing this will be unfair. The ideas of
Rizal exposed the ills of Spanish colonial rule. Rizal’s reformism prepared the condition and set the stage
for the revolution to grow.

In his book Struggle for National Democracy (1967), Sison wrote a piece titled “Rizal, The Subversive,” in
which he saw Rizal as a leading representative of the “left wing” of the middle class, developing his own
“nationalist sentiment and consciousness.” Elmer A. Ordonez, in “Rizal and the Literature of the Left,”
quoted Sison: “What made Rizal a progressive and a radical of his own time was his ultimate recognition
that the liberties of the individual could be realized only if the nation as a whole, particularly the masses,
would be uplifted and enjoy more freedom from an overwhelming system of clerical authoritarians and
anti-liberals who represented what was long considered backward in the northern parts of Europe.”
Ordonez added that Sison emphasized that Rizal’s novels demonstrated that revolution was an offshoot
of reform. The character of Ibarra showed his frustration in reformist efforts, but the other forces
represented by Elias, struggled to fight the oppressors. In Noli Me Tangere, Pilosopo Tasyo told Ibarra:
“Change will ultimately come with the coming of fresh ideas from abroad.”

Rizal as Revolutionary
When reading John Nery’s column on Rizal, reminded me that, for all that is known about Rizal, so
much remains obscured.

Part of the retelling of Philippine history from a certain framework has been the fallacy of Rizal as
only a reformist, not a revolutionary. Truth be told, he was a revolutionary. He just did not believe in
the Revolution of 1896.
Jose Rizal as a revolutionary is obvious when re-reading his personal letters to other Filipinos and to
Blumentritt. He states, fairly straight forward in fact, that the Propaganda was finished, and that
action in the Philippines was the next step. In this he broke away from other Propagandists.

If our countrymen hope in us here in Europe, they are certainly mistaken…The help we can give
them is our lives in our country. Had I not been unwilling to shorten the lives of my parents, I would
not have left the Philippines no matter what happened. Those five months I stayed were a life of
example, a book even better than the Noli me Tangere. The field of battle is the Philippines; there is
where we should be found…There we will help each other, there we will suffer united, and perhaps
even triumph.

- Jose Rizal to del Pilar, 1888/1889

So, from whence came this idea of Rizal not being a revolutionary? Obviously from a purposeful
misreading of the Manifesto from his trial. The point that is rarely nuanced is, being against
Bonifacio’s premature revolution (and premature it was) is not the same as being
against a revolution.

Even in the same trial comes this insight from the Spanish Advocate General:

…limits himself to condemning the present rebellious movement as premature and because he
considers its success impossible in this time…For Rizal it is a question of opportunity, not of
principles or objectives…

Guerrero, First Filipino, pg 422-426

As Father Schumacher would point out, this is a fairly simplistic view of Jose Rizal’s ideas, but
correct in spirit. For he truly never wavered from his conviction that the Filipinos must be free.
Though, he always maintained that it was the Filipinos would must work for it, and not only through
force of arms or feats of strength.

Father Schumacher summed it up succinctly:

But, consistent with his views from the Noli onward, he maintained to the end that the revolutionary
goal was to create a nation of Filipinos conscious of their human and national dignity and ready to
sacrifice themselves to defend it…He did not live to see that day. But he had pointed the way for his
countrymen to follow, not just with his books, but with his life and with his death.

The Making of a Nation, pg 101

I would hazard that, with only a few shining examples, we have not lived to see that vision either. Or
at least not on a daily, consistent basis.

We too often glorify the manner of his death, seeing his life has a series of events leading to that
seminal event, without ruminating on the meaning and manner in which he lived. There was an
insatiable quality to Jose Rizal. He pursued learning and education to its fullest extent. He delved
into what it meant and what it was to be “Filipino”. He pushed and prodded and agitated for reforms,
and when that failed, he returned home, ready for revolution at its proper place and time.

Rizal was not a man swept up in the tides and currents of events, like others were. He was a catalyst
for them. That was driven by his nationalism, his patriotism and his love for Filipinas.

A few days ago Anding Roces wrote that a birth is given meaning by the life that is lead. Rizal’s birth
is one of the most meaningful in our history, he made it so. It is his life, not his death, that we should
consider. It was the ethics and morals, the certitude and the passion, with which he lived that are
worthy of emulation. In this, we can make sure that his birth, over a century later, continues to be
meaningful.

On June 21, 1896. Dr. Pio Valenzuela, Bonifacio’s emissary, visited Rizal in Dapitan and
informed him of the plan of the Katipunan to launch a revolution. Rizal objected to
Bonifacio’s bold project stating that such would be a veritable suicide. Rizal stressed that
the Katipunan leaders should do everything possible to prevent premature flow of native
blood. Valenzuela, however, warned Rizal that the Revolution will inevitably break out if the
Katipunan would be discovered.

Sensing that the revolutionary leaders were dead set on launching their audacious project,
Rizal instructed Valenzuela that it would be for the best interests of the Katipunan to get
first the support of the rich and influential people of Manila to strengthen their cause. He
further suggested that Antonio Luna with his knowledge of military science and tactics, be
made to direct the military operations of the Revolution.

1. May I have your attention. The Presentation is about to begin. Honorable Mr ……,
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. Good morning, Assalamualaikum
wr.wbWelcoming First of all, I would like to welcome you all to thisthe audience presentation.
In this occassion we would like to have a presentation from ....Introducing Before the
presentation begins, allow us to introduce thethe speaker presenter. This is …., he is the
……. of ……..Welcoming Without further ado, I would like to welcome the presenterthe
speaker to deliver the presentation. All right, Mr ….. The floor is yours. ---------------
PRESENTATION TIME---------- 1
2. 2. Part 2: After the Presentation Thanking Thank you for the informative and interesting talk.
Inviting All right ladies and gentlemen. Now, we come to Questions Question and Answer
Session. There will be two sessions and each session is for three questions. Don’t forget to
mention your name. Any questions? .................. (Q and A Session) ..................................
Closing Ladies and gentlemen! Finally, We come to the end part of our presentation. We
would like to say thanks again to presenter for the informative and interesting talk and to
audience for active participation. Hopefully the presentation will be beneficial for everybody
Thank you for your attention.