“Reflections on the Life of Jose Rizal”

The Rizal Law

During 1956, the Rizal Law, or R.A.1425, was passed by Don Claro M. Recto.

His aim in doing so was for the youth to learn and gain the virtue of nationalism. The

Rizal Law is “an act to include in the curricula of all public and private schools, colleges

and universities, courses on the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal, particularly his

novels, Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, authorizing the printing and distribution

thereof and for other purposes.” Recto wants us to have assertive nationalism in order

for us to gain independence.

In order for us to gain independence, we should be free from the control of the

foreign countries. In terms of politics, he wants us to assert our rights, and hopes that

we will be inspired by our historical heroes. In terms of economics, we should learn to

be independent of the colonial powers of other foreign countries, and strive to stand on

our own. Recto believes that with the right leadership, we just might be able to fulfill the

mission of Philippine Nationalism. Recto wants us to study about Rizal because

according to him, we can learn a lot from this, and thus help our country. The

nationalists during Rizal’s time knew the importance of our identity as a race, thus they

did their best to preserve the Filipino’s said “racial identity”. They also knew that in order

to fulfill our mission of achieving nationalism, we should cut off all ties with the foreign

countries. This is the reason why Claro Recto wanted to pass the Rizal Bill.

The Church, however, was not so happy about this. They believe that Rizal’s

works speak out against the Church. But this was not the case. Rizal never attacked the
Church as an institution. His targets were the priests. He criticizes their wrongdoings

through his writings and his works. Instead of opposing the passing of the Rizal Law,

the Church should accept it. That way, they can learn from their past mistakes, avoid

repeating them and improve from thereon.

Views on Nationalism

Claro M. Recto and Jose Rizal each have their own views on nationalism.

According to Recto, in order to achieve nationalism, you should have independence. On

the other hand, Rizal fought for freedom, which proves that he thinks nationalism is

equal to freedom. Freedom and independence are two different things. First of all,

freedom means becoming a part of something, or an equal of something. In Rizal’s

case, he joined the Reform Movement to fight for freedom. He wanted to be a part of

Spain; he wanted to be considered as equal with the Spaniards. On the other hand,

Recto’s view of nationalism is independence. His view opposes Rizal’s because Rizal

did not fight for the independence of our country. It was the masa, the poor Filipino

people, who started the Revolutionary Movement to fight for the Philippines’

independence. It was also clear that Rizal was not in favour of the Revolutionary

Approach, or the violent approach. He did not fight for independence; instead, he fought

for equality.

As we can see, Recto and Rizal both have different views on nationalism. So,

why did Recto pass the Rizal Law if that was the case? This is where Recto went

wrong. He should have passed a law not just to study about Rizal’s life, his works, his

contributions etc, but he should also have passed a law saying that we should study
about the other Filipino heroes that fought for our independence. These people also

risked their lives for our country, and they deserve to be recognized for it. Some of

these people made an ever bigger mark on our history than Rizal. Some of them are

more successful than Rizal in fighting for our country, seeing as his Reform Movement

was not a success. If we focus on Rizal alone, then we cannot fully grasp the concept of

nationalism. We should study our country’s history as a whole, not just focus on an

individual. Then, we can fully understand the concept of nationalism.

The Reform Movement and the Revolution

Dr. Jose Rizal and Andres Bonifacio obviously came from two different

environments. Rizal is an Ilustrado (with intelligence and money) was able to study

abroad and had a good background of his specializations in Spain with all the

necessities needed. He was able to experience a very good life-drinking wine, going to

places full of lights, and the like. On the contrary, Bonifacio, who came from the

masses, was not able to finish his education because of the apparent poverty in the

country during that time. He was able to feel the dilemma of the society because he was

one of the people being tortured by the brutality of the Spaniards to the masses.

Basically, they both have intelligence on the predicament in the Philippines, although

they just differ in terms of internalizing the situation. Rizal knows the problem, but he

was never given the chance to experience and undergo with it.

The reform and revolutionary movement differ in terms of its objectives on how

to eradicate the prevailing dilemma. Rizal was for the reform movement. Its objective

was to gain freedom. This will be done if you become equal to the Spaniards. Therefore,
he was after the assimilation, that the Philippines would just be a province of Spain. Its

goal was to be have equal rights and to be equal with the Spaniards which we is quite

impossible because if the colonial subject become equal to the colony, then there will be

no colonization. They wanted to be equal because they are educated and they do not

want to be treated like an Indio. Rizal wrote the Noli and El Fili to show to the good

Spaniards the foolishness of their co-Spaniards in the Philippines. Their approach was

pleading for freedom through the writings like the said two novels. The revolutionary

movement in which Bonifacio was for, wanted to have independence that they desire to

disintegrate from the Spaniards and to fully remove the Spaniards from our country

through armed struggle, spill of blood, and violence.

Rizal did not want independence because it means killing the Spaniards. As we

all know, he was able to study abroad, specifically Spain, and that country gave him

decent life and opportunities to succeed in life. He was not able to feel the hardship and

the cruelty that is why he only aspired for freedom because he does not fully understand

the need of his countrymen to achieve independence in any way. At the same time, he

was not able to endure the pain of the masses, so he was pointing out in one of his

novels that he could not accept the proposal of revolting because it would be very

ironical. Rizal is a humanist that everything he does is for everyone. Though he was not

totally against revolution, but he was just favoring the reform movement more. He just

wanted to have a peaceful victory because he does not want to see his countrymen

brutalized. On the contrary, it can be stated that it is one of his weaknesses because he

does not want to see the effect of brutality because it could be not his nature seeing

those kinds of things. He both have the sentiment and the logic or intellect, which made
him think critically on the situation, given that he uses these two aspects, unlike

Bonifacio, who used purely his feelings because he does not have enough intellect to

think. As a result, whatever his instincts are, that is what he is basing on.

When Rizal’s writings were rejected, Bonifacio did not think twice anymore but to

continue with the planned revolution. He was smart enough to think that another try to

convince the Spaniards of assimilating ourselves to them is a brainlessness act. Based

on this kind of thinking, it is practical to say that Bonifacio thought well than Rizal. In the

first place, Bonifacio knew that it was impossible to have it (freedom through

assimilation). He has the so-called “native intelligence” which led him to revolt.

Rizal was said to be more of a realist because he knew in the first place that if

there will be a revolt, they should be properly and readily equipped, which was

overlooked by the masses, including Bonifacio. He sees that the country is not yet ready

to stand on its own feet and decide on some matters that fate asks for. Bonifacio was

purely stemming it from confidence and strength of the masses. It can be described as

a strategy without enough philosophical reasons. Rizal sided on the fact that he does

not want any rebellion because he is not in favor of having a chaotic society. Bonifacio

thinks that the nation is ready to fight not because of lack of equipments, but because of

determination, confidence, and strength. Bonifacio’s ideas were very straight forward

that it was able to answer the problem. His perception was narrow and short that is why

the remedy was easily seen. Rizal’s concepts are very hard to achieve because his

mind is very wide that it is hard to find a definite answer.

Rizal’s Works

In Pepe’s life, he wrote two novels that allegedly “woke the hearts of the

Filipinos”; these are entitled “Noli Me Tangere” and the “El Filibusterismo.” Noli Me

Tangere is the first novel that is published in Berlin, Germany. It is this novel that serves

as the “prognosis” and the “diagnosis” of the country. Rizal included in the story a

number of flawed personalities or the “cancerous cells” that show that the stature of the

country is in dire need of a medication. Among these cancerous cells are: Kapitan

Tiyago, an individual whose fanaticism of saints knows no bounds; Dona Victorina, an

old hag who tries to project a Spanish image, even going to the extent of marrying a

Spaniard just to show that she is one; and Maria Clara, a beautiful young girl, who is

regarded as the “perfect Filipina.”

At one point in the story, which is arguably the most important event in the novel,

Crisostomo Ibarra, the son of Don Rafael Ibarra who went to Europe for 7 years to

study, meets Elias, one hailing from the masses, who plans to have a revolution with

Ibarra on his side. Elias says that the tulisanes want “radical reforms in the armed

forces, in the priesthood, and in the administration of justice…” because of the abuses

made by the government, but Ibarra replies that “they are necessary this time. They are

what is known as a necessary evil.” Elias, greatly surprised by Ibarra’s answer, asked,”

do you believe that in order to do good it is necessary to do good it is necessary to do

evil?” which Ibarra explains that this “necessary evil” is a “violent remedy” that can cure

a disease. Elias also points out the reforms “in the priesthood” which Ibarra replies,”
Has the Philippines forgotten what she owes to those orders? Has she forgotten the

immense debt of gratitude that is due from her to those who snatched her from her error

to give her true faith…?” But Elias responded to Ibarra’s words,” …do you call religion

this traffic in girdles and scapularies, truth these miracles and wonderful tales that we

hear daily?”… Superstition existed long before- it was only necessary to systematize it

and raise the price of its merchandise!” It can be shown here that Ibarra didn’t

experience the suffering and the agony that Elias felt; Ibarra is an Ilustrado, while Elias

belonged to the masa.

Then, something unexpected happened. Because Ibarra experienced losing

most of his possessions and the girl he loves, he had a sudden change of character; he

vowed to become a “filibuster” or subversive and takes on Elias’ personality. Elias, too,

had a sudden change; he takes on Ibarra’s personality. At the end of the novel, Rizal

ends the life of Elias, who had the ideals of revolution- turned- reform, then spares

Ibarra. Ibarra will return to Rizal’s next work, “El Filibusterismo”, to spread corruption in

the government of the country.

Rizal’s second novel, “El Filibusterismo”, tells what preferred cure Rizal wants to

happen; this cure is “perpendicular” to his ideals of becoming “free.” This novel stars

Simoun, who is Ibarra in reality, but he took on the guise of Elias, spreading corruption

and havoc to the country. One of the most important events in the story is when Basilio

meets this shadowy character and then the student of medicine recognizes the man’s

face; wonder of wonders, Crisostomo Ibarra is alive! But he realizes that the man

underwent a metamorphosis, a transformation. He became hell- bent on sowing discord

and greed for revenge against those who wronged him. But somewhere in the dialog of
Basilio and Simoun lies Rizal’s thoughts of having two different ideologies that would

astound the readers. Simoun says to the boy,” aspire to be a nation!” which deviates

from his true intentions, freeing Maria Clara and “exacting a pound of flesh” from the

people who wronged him.

Rizal’s true ideologies bloomed at “Chapter 39: Conclusion.” The poor subversive

was “bleeding, morose, and exhausted.” Padre Florentino was kind enough to give him

the best room in the house. He asked if Simoun was suffering; he replied that he will

cease to suffer, for he had taken in poison. Simoun requests that he tells his story, and

the priest agrees. He tells his “sorrowful story”, and how he came to be. The priest tells

him that he is not worthy of leading the revolution, for he only intends it for his personal

matters. Padre Florentino tells him that he “fostered social rottenness without sowing an

idea.” He says that the people must be worthy of this freedom; they must have a noble

heart. At first, Padre Florentino’s words show support of a revolution, but on the latter

part, he completely turns away from the idea. He says,” I do not mean to say that our

liberty will be secured at the sword’s point, for the sword plays but little part in modern

affairs, but that we must secure it by making ourselves worthy of it, by exalting the

intelligence and the dignity of the individual, by loving justice, right, and greatness, even

to the extent of dying for them…” This statement tells us that Rizal exalts education and

reform over the armed struggle and the “pointless spill of blood” of the revolution.

Controversies Regarding Rizal

A lot of controversies surrounded Rizal. One of these controversies was whether

he was the right person to be our national hero. The Philippines having a national hero
was proposed by the Americans because they wanted the Filipinos to have a model to

which they can be inspired with, hopefully follow his/her footsteps and have the same

way of life and thinking. The Americans voted and chose Rizal because they liked his

characteristic of being a pacifist. They chose him because they want a model who will

not promote any violence or resistance against the government. The issue is that why

Rizal is our national hero if we didn’t have the chance to choose who our national hero

was in the first place? Is Rizal the right choice to become our national hero? In many

countries their national heroes were those people who lead their country’s revolution.

These leaders became their national heroes because they are the ones who initiated an

action for change. Was Rizal for the revolution? The revolution aims for the total

independence of the Philippines from Spain but Rizal wanted assimilation with Spain.

The revolutionists aim for the Philippines to be totally disintegrated from Spain but the

reformists aim for freedom and equality with Spain by being a part of it by making the

Philippines a province of Mother Spain. Rizal is one of these reformists. Isn’t it

contradicting? In Rizal’s work “Noli Me Tangere” he made the characters Ibarra and

Elias who represented his ideas about the revolution. Ibarra was a man who wanted

reforms through education while Elias was a man who was involved in the revolution. In

the end of the novel Ibarra and Elia’s personality had a 180 o turn; Ibarra who was once

reformist became a revolutionist while Elias who was a revolutionist became a reformist

and died. Ibarra became Simoun in his novel “El Filibusterismo” and he started a

revolution to get Maria Clara from the convent but the said revolution failed because of

Maria Clara’s death and in the end Simoun died beside Padre Florentino who argued

that liberty won’t be obtained through a revolution. In his novels we can see that he
doesn’t see revolution as a way for us to gain the independence we want. During

August 25, 1896 Bonifacio sent Dr. Pio Valenzuela to ask for Rizal’s council if it was the

right time to pursue with the revolution. They even offered to help Rizal escape in

Dapitan but Rizal declined their offer and objected in the revolution the Katipuneros

were planning. He said that the the indios were not ready yet for the revolution because

they don’t have enough weapons for them to fight. This was one of the reasons Padre

Florentino told Simoun on why his revolution failed. Padre Florentino told Simoun in the

Conclusion of the “El Filibusterismo” that the reasons his revolution failed was because

there was a lack of preparation, there was no ideology and that there were no pure and

noble intentions with it. We can say that Rizal’s meeting with Dr. Pio Valenzuela is like a

reenactment of what Padre Florentino told Simoun in the said novel. In the document

“Pamahayag sa Ilang Pilipino” Rizal said that he condemns and objects the revolution.

He tried to clear out the misunderstanding by pointing out that all he wanted was

reforms and these can be seen through his works. Rizal asked the revolutionists to go

home. After hearing Rizal’s reply Bonifacio even called Rizal a coward and asked Dr.

Pio Valenzuela to keep quiet about it (Pagtatanggol sa Sarili December 12, 1896). Rizal

even said in the same document that he remained loyal to Spain despite him being

offered being an English and German citizen. We can compare Rizal as a dog of Spain

who remains loyal to it even though he was about to face death. The Spaniards

accused Rizal of being the mind behind the revolution and because of this the people

thought of him as a great man despite the fact that he wasn’t doing what he was

accused of. Thus a veneration without understanding occurred just as what Teodoro

Agoncillo explained in his document entitled “ Ang Suliranin ng Pambansang Bayani: Si

Rizal at Bonifacio”. Don Claro M. Recto passed the Rizal Law because he wanted the

youth to learn and acquire the value of nationalism and it is said that the highest form of

nationalism is revolution but as we can see Rizal’s aim was for the Philippines to gain

freedom and equality with Spain and not the Philippine’s total independence from Spain

so how can his works help us gain nationalism if his message in his works were not

independence just as what Recto said we needed for us to gain nationalism but

assimilation? This we can say contradicts what Recto’s point that to gain independence

we must be free from any external force that is holding us. Another contradiction that

Teodoro Agoncillo pointed out against Recto was about what Recto said that Rizal was

a realist while Bonifacio was an idealist. Our group agrees with Teodoro Agoncillo’s

point that it should be the other way around. How can Rizal be a realist if he didn’t

experience the hardships the masses had? Rizal grew up in a good environment. He

was able to get a good quality of education and even go to different countries to pursue

his education. Rizal was indebted to Spain because it was Spain who gave him his

whole being and this served as his weakness. On the other hand, it was the masses

that experienced the suffering and abuse of the Spaniards. They were the ones who

were stepped on, insulted and even put down. As a group we can say that the realists

should be the masses because they were the ones who experienced first-hand all the

hardships and abuses Spain gave them while Rizal should be the idealist because he

didn’t experience these unfortunate events. For the revolutionists there was a lot to gain

while nothing to lose but for the illustrados there was nothing to gain but a lot to lose.

We can say that both groups clash because they have different perspective about what
was happening in the country therefore they have different ideas on what should be

done for our country with regards to Spain.

In the “Ang Suliranin ng Pambasang Bayani: Si Rizal at Si Bonifacio”, it was

affirmed that Rizal was accused of treason because the Spaniards believed that he was

the one behind the revolution that is why he was sentenced to death. But why do you

think he was remembered by the people? According to Teodoro Agoncillo, a man is

remembered because of his dramatic death. This is often given to a person that has

done great works and this is the reason why Rizal was instilled in the minds of the

people. But this is what you call “blind prominence”, according to Renato Constantino.

He was honored by the masses for the wrong reason. They see Rizal as a great man

because since they are for the revolution they believed the Spaniards in saying that he

is the leader of the revolution which we all know is not true. Rizal did not experience

what the masses experienced that is why he does not suit the name “Brain of the

Revolution”. Because he did not to experience pain and torture from the Spaniards, he

does not fully understand, even experience, the urgent need of the country for freedom

and independence in whatever way possible. Though Rizal was right that we need

weapons in order to win, we should also need courage and unity because without this

armors and weapons would not be enough. But why do you think the leader of the

revolution becomes the national hero again? Aside from initiating the action for change,

the leader is also the root of independence. He/she is the representative of the whole

group. He leads and guides them to achieve their goal. The leader also liberates and

redeems the masses from colonial slavery. By initiating the act, he is the one who frees
them and gives them back their sovereignty. But Rizal did not possess any of these;

that is why the label “Brain of the Revolution” did not fit him.

Courage is one of the things that separate Rizal from Bonifacio. This is one

sentiment that reigns the people who is willing to die for the country. Rizal did not grow

up in the Philippines that is why he was not able to cope with the masses. As described

in the novel “El Filibusterismo”, Ibarra, who symbolizes Rizal, did not grow up in his own

place thus is blinded and confused. Also in the novel “Noli Me Tangere”, Rizal killed

Ibarra and Elias and the idea of Bonifacio was excluded because he did not believe that

they could stand up and decide for them. Until the end, Rizal’s idealism of nonviolence

still prevails. He ignored the radical method because he does not want to see blood

and misery.

Even though Bonifacio was not able to study he has what you call “native

intelligence”. He would be an effective national hero since he possesses the

characteristics discussed a while ago. Jose Rizal and Andress Bonifacio are two

different people thus they have two diverse perspectives. Their being dictated their

perspectives; Rizal loved Spain and so is the Philippines that is why he opposes the

idea of violence. On the other hand, Bonifacio loved the Philippines only thus being

more practical than Pepe.

Revolution, the highest point of victory, asks for change but there should be a

revolutionary situation for the change to start. But how can the change start? The

change should start by everyone feeling this situation. If only a few people feel or

experience it, nothing will happen. A revolution will be more effective if everyone is
united. Everyone has to have one common interest, a national interest. In the said

document, the mentality of the Rizal is that they have to gather people first from the

masses, since the Philippines comprises mostly of masses, before they could fight the

government because he thinks that they only have a small probability to win. He wanted

to become a province of Spain first, and then fight for independence; thus, we can say

that nationalism’s highest form for a colonial country is revolution because through

revolution a province will become a nation.

Another controversy that surrounded Rizal was whether or not he retracted on

December 29, 1896. The said retraction document was found in 1935 by a Spanish

friar. In the document Padre Balaguer said that he was the eyewitness to this event. He

said that Rizal received them with much concern. He even got the image he made of

Christ when he was still studying. He said that Rizal was crying in front of his mother

asking for forgiveness. He also pointed out that Rizal confessed three times and even

asked them to celebrate a mass for him in the chapel for him to take communion. The

friar also said that Rizal married Josephine Bracken. He also said that Rizal stated that

he wants to live and die in this religion. His statements are not credible and believable

for our group because no one in the right mind would retract, sleep and then die the

next day. It was overkill because he did all these things which go against what he was

attacking in the first place and that is fanaticism. He was aiming for enlightenment and

he will be the one blinded in the end by this? We don’t think that is possible to happen.

These go against the testimony of his family. His family said that Rizal didn’t do these

things in fact before he died he asked his mother to get his body after he was killed and

he even talked to Trinidad in English saying that there was something in the lamp which
they later on found out was a letter for them. They also learned from the letter that he

hid something in his shoes. Unfortunately Rizal’s body was not given to them. Another

evidence that contradicts the friars claim of retraction was the place and way Rizal was

buried. He was buried in Paco Cemetery. Those who are buried inside the circle in the

said cemetery are those who died in a state of grace in other words those who had

communion and confession before they died. On the other hand, those who are buried

outside the circle are the criminals. It was learned by Rizal’s family that he was buried

outside the circle therefore he was buried as a criminal and he didn’t die in the state of

grace. If the retraction was true then shouldn’t Rizal be buried in the inner circle as

those people who died in the state of grace? Rizal believed in the liberation and the

enlightenment of the mind. Paciano even said that Rizal’s mind was already made up

and he doesn’t regret whatever he has done and if he were to live again he would do

the same so why would he panic and change his mind in the last minute?