TOPIC 1

THE RIZAL LAW, LITERATURE AND SOCIETY

OVERVIEW
Dr. Jose Rizal lived and died over a century ago; thus, Filipino millennial students may wonder,
“How is this man relevant today?” and “Why do I need to study Rizal?”
The answers to these questions can be summed up in two points:
1. It is mandated by law.
2. The life and works of Dr. Jose Rizal comprise a lesson in nationa-building that can foster
the development of the Filipino youth in all aspects of citizenship.
In this topic, you will be introduced to the Rizal Law and its important provisions, as well as the
significance of Rizal’s novels – Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo.

OBJECTIVES
By the end of of this lesson, you should be able to:
1. Explain the history of the Rizal law and its important provisions;
2. Critically assess the provisions of this law, and
3. Discuss the relevance of studying the life and works of Dr. Jose Rizal.

HISTORY OF RIZAL LAW

Educational institution in the Philippines are mandated to include Rizal’s life and writings in their
curriculum. Such mandated action is in accordance with Republic Act No. 1425 or Rizal law. The Act
obliged all public and private schools, colleges and universities nationwide to educate students about
Rizal’s views which were greatly depicted in his famous writings like Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo. Rizal’s firmness toward the abuses of the Spaniards and the role played by the Catholic
church to promote such misconduct during those days were condemened by numerous Catholic Church.
Thus, Rizal Law was viewed as an act of degradation to the Catholic beliefs. The Roman Catholic Church
in the Philippine strongly opposed the printing and distribution of Rizal’s works because they would
corrupt the Catholic faith of the new generation.
The Catholic churches in the country continued to advance their strong opposition to Rizal Law.
This opposition persisted until the 1995 Senate election, making then Senator Claro M. Recto, the main
proponent of the Rizal Bill and the one who sought its sponsorship to accuse the oppositions as
communist action. Catholic churches argued that such Bill defied the freedom of religion, encouraging as
many supporters as they could get to stop the reproduction and reading of Rizal’s novels Noli Me
Tangere and El Filibusterismo. Believers of Catholic faith were advised to produce and send written
documentaries to their representatives and senators stating unfavorable views about the Rizal Bill.
Crusades took place, and tension between the supporters of Rizal and the Catholic Church emerged.
Symposiums promoting the eradication of the bill were organized. One symposium with Fr. Jesus
Cavanna as guest rendered a message that Rizal’s works in view of the past injustices would corrupt the
present setup of Catholic churches in the country. Nevertheless, Jesus Paredes, a radio commentator,
argued that Catholic were not deprived of their right to decline reading Rizal’s novels if they felt like they
could threaten their salvation (Abinales & Amoroso, 2005).
As a response, Archbishop Rufino Santos of Manila asserted that Catholic students would be
affected if the mandatory reading of uncensored writings of Rizal would prevail. In his pastoral letter, he
added that many versions of Rizal’s writings would be read. The reading of the circular containing the
clear opposition of the Archbishop led to Manila Mayor Arsenio Lacson’s to walking out of the mass. The
Mayor had always been a supporter of the Rizal Bill. During those days, support groups of the Catholic
churches, like Catholic Action of the Philippines, the Congregation of the Mission, The knights of
Columbus, and the Catholic Teachers Guild, collaborated to block such bill. However, a
countermovement was also organized by Veteranos de la Revolucion (Spirit of 1896), Alagad ni Rizal, the
Freemasons, and the Knights of the Senate Committee on Education, which was opposed by Francisco
Soc Rodrigo, Mariano Jesus Cuenco, and Decoroso Rosales (Araneta, 2010)
Furthermore, Cuenco argued that Rizal directly attacked the practices, beliefs, and creeds of the
Church. Rizal’s view were not limited to the abuses of the friars during his days but it was a total
disbelief of the Bible and the Catholic faith. Rizal did not believe in the existence of the purgatory, and
that Moses and Jesus Christ were not mentioned in the Bible. The argument that Rizal refrain from
doubting the dogmas of the Catholic Church was fallacious and misleading. His denial of a purgatory has
opposed the beliefs of the majority of the members of the Chamber of the Senate Committee, including
that of Domocao Alonto, senator of Sulu; thus, the senator bluntly exposed his opposition to Filipinos
who viewed Rizal as their national hero, and he despised his writings. He viewed Rizal as a saint
worshipped by many so that his writings became a Bible of Indonesian in quest of their independence.
However, such views of Alonto were countered by a supporter of the Rizal Bill, namely, Pedro Lopez, a
Cebuano like Cuenco, saying that the essence of the independence movement began in their province
when Lapu-Lapu fought Ferdinand Magellan (Pangalangan, 2010)
The tension brought by the Rizal bill, led to the threatening of various Catholic schools to close
down if the bill was passed. This threat created a counterattack from Recto, saying that if such dilemma
in the educational sector happened, schools would be nationalized. The words of Recto made an impact
that led Catholic schools to punish legislators who supported the Rizal bill by not supporting them in the
next election. Futhermore, Recto argued that the people who eliminated Rizal’s writings from schools
buried his memories as national hero. He added that this was not a fight against Recto but a fight against
Rizal (Abinales & Amoroso, 2005).
The Chairman of the Committee of Education catered to the views of the Catholic Church and
made adjustment to compromise the opposition and the approbation of the supporters of the Rizal Bill.
On May 12, 1956, the inserted compromise (contents) on the bill, which specified that only college
(university) students would have the option of reading unexpurgated version of clerically contested
reading materials, such as Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, was approved unanimously. The bill
was enacted on June 12, 1956 (Araneta, 2010).

HONORING FILIPINO NATIONAL HEROES

The Philippines recognized the significant contribution of certain personalities to the growth of
Filipino minds, the acquisition of independence, and their participation in the molding of Philippine
history. Nonetheless, there was no law nor, executive order nor proclamation issued officially to
proclaim a Filipino icon as a national hero. Even Jose Rizal, despite his enormous contribution to
Philippine history, was not clearly proclaim as National Hero. There were laws enacted honoring
significant historical persons and their heroic acts that molded history. Jose Rizal’s position in Philippine
History is a tribute to the continued respect or acclamation of the people in recognition of his
contribution to the significant social transformations that look place in our country.
Jose Rizal was not the only one who was recognized as a hero; Bonifacio also acquired a
spotlight in heroism. He remained an inspiring icon who did his best to acquire knowledge and fight
against the Spanish Colonizers. He received an indirect acknowledgment of his heroic deeds, by being
recognized as a national hero and his day of birth was made a national holiday. Rizal and Bonifacio were
great men who contributed to the acquisition of the Philippine independence from the Spanish regime
and abuses. Despite the absence of a formal declaration proclaiming them as national heroes, Philippine
history applauded these men and had kept their contributions passed on to generations. As historians
argues, that heroes must not be legislated, the acclamation for heroes would be recognition enough.
Also, their recognition is better executed in the academe, where the stories about their contributions to
our country’s history would be relived.
To recognize important personalities in our history, the Government promulgated programs and
committees that would keep an eye on remarkable icons from the past. Thus, on March 28, 1983, then
President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No. 75 titled “Creating the National Heroes Committee
under the Office of the President.” The said Committee was created to learn, assess, and suggest
national personalities in recognition of the impact that such people made on Philippine history. It was
the Committee’s duty to make sure that just recognition be given to hearoes for their authentic
character and extraordinary triumphs fro the country. In compliance, the National Heroes Committee
submitted criteria for national heroes. The Techinical committee of the National Heroes Committee held
a series of meetings on June 3, 1993, August 19, 1993, September 12, 1994, and November 15, 1995,
defining, discoursing, and delibirating upon the merits of the various definitions and criteria of a hero.
The committee adopted the following criteria as basis for historical researchers in determining who
among the great Filipinos would be officially proclaimed as national heroes: (a) heroes are those who
have a concept of nation and thereafter aspire and struggle for the nations’ freedom, heroes are those
who define and contribute to a system of life of freedom; (b) and order for a nation; and (c) heroes are
those who contribute to the quality of life and destiny of a nation (National Commission for Culture and
the Arts, 2015).

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL LITERATURE

Rizal’s written masterpieces, the Noli Me Tangere and its sequel El Felibusterismo, are
considered constant and inspiring sources of patriotism and nationalism for the youth during their
formative years. The Rizal Bill showed the existence of a corrective space, an ensemble of discourses and
practices creating the field of literary education in the Philippines. It is a written work, which shows the
life of Filipinos from the past and is a good source of learning the value of education. The novels
portrayed the Filipino people whose national character had been shaped by literary works and the
reading of these works; the Bill gave Rizal and his novels not only a central place in the state’s nationalist
project, but also a recognition of their vital role in enabling Filipinos to grasp the ideals of freedom and
nationalism (Hau, 2000, p.1).
Rizal was equipped with extraordinary literary skills. Such was seen in his masterpiece the Noli
Me Tangere (1887) and El Filibusterismo (1891). The Noli dealt with the country’s present, and the Fili
pointed to its future. Meanwhile Rizal’s remarks of Morga (Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas) traced the
lineaments of the country’s past. Writing had become his tools for reforms to awaken the Filipinos from
abuses that the colonizer’s had been doing for centuries in the country. Literature give importance to
nationalism; thus, Rizal viewed it as something essential. Literature has always been reliant on history,
bringing people back to the past where social, psychological, and linguistic resources portray old events
that impact the present time. Two presuppositions exist in the vitality on nationalism accorded to
literary works and vice versa: the ability of literature to honestly present history and to intervene in
history. Literature opens the door leading to significant events, which describe certain setups, behavior
and the current image of society today (Mojares, 2013).
Literature can be a good basis of history and taking a glance of the past attributes of Filipinos.
Nevertheless, literature has its intervening function, taking a look at Rizal’s novels; it was artefactual; a
mixture of reality best portrayed by fiction characters, which represent certain people back then. It’s a
result of all the observations and experiences of Jose Rizal in Philippine society. Literature was his way of
showcasing society’s creative hard work and ambitions. Hence, Filipinos back then were able to acquire,
preserve, and reshape their culture through literature, which was rooted in their ancestors’ days. This
shows the interwined realtionship of literature and Philippine nationalism, strengthened by the idea
that literature embodies and creates culture.
Furthermore, literature is a good driving tool to execute authority and command one’s country.
Rizal argues that Tagalog literature is living and vigorous. Through writing people can exercise authority;
hence, Filipinos ought to be participative in the literary field, especially in matters affecting the country
as a whole. Literature allows people to speak and change the future, it’s an execution of dominance in
one’s literary work.
Nevertheless, literature assumed an intervening function precisely because Rizal’s novels served
as artefactual, concrete examples of a “Filipino culture” that was conceived as the sum total of all the
products of a society creative labor and aaspirations. At the same time, these works were the means by
which any other Filipino could acquire, preserve, and reshape such a culture. In this manner, the
relationship between literature and Philippine nationalism was cemented through the paradoxical
notion that literary works both embodied culture and helped create that culture. Also, literature must
not only demonstrate that it has a past to show but also a future to touch. Thus, Rizal asserted that
Tagalog literature is living and dynamic. Likewise, he also recognized that writing is an exercise in
authority, and in the contest over authority Filipinos must not only be active participants, they msut –
particularly in matters pertaining to their country-exercise command (Hau, 2020).
Rizal has written Tagalog novel after the appearance of Fili. In 1891-1892, he wrote his third
novel, “Makamisa.” This novel was written for the Tagalog readers and not for the European readers. At
the time he had written such novel he was on his way back to the Philippines, and the propaganda
movement was starting to shift. At home when Rizal embarked on his third novel, he was also assisting
his brother Paciano in translating the Noli to Tagalog. Making tagalog novels was Rizal’s way of speaking
to his fellow Filipinos. Rizal was also motivated to write a novel with a modern sense of the world, an
artistic and literary novel. Rizal’s third motive was to write a novel that would deal exclusively with the
usages, virtues, and defects of the Tagalogs. To achieve his motives Rizal wrote Makamisa, whichhe
admitted to have given him a hard time in Tagalog. Though it was aborted, Rizal’s “turn to the native”
was not in vain, if taken as a sign of the desire for a literature more deeply anchored in the realities of
home (Mojares, 2013).