Life, Works and Writings of Rizal
“remove the veil of ignorance and
Rizal was said to be a product of the mixture of the
races (a Chinese mestizo but still a Filipino) (He is not
an Indio)
Rizal was said to be a genius. He was said to have been
a physician (ophthalmic surgeon - eyes)- who took up
medicine at UST, poet, dramatist, essayist, novelist,
historian, architect, painter, sculptor, educator, linguist,
musician, naturalist, ethnologist, land surveyor,
engineer, farmer businessman, economist, geographer,
cartographer, bibliophile, philologist, grammarian,
folklorist, philosopher, translator, inventor, magician,
humorist, satirist, polemicist, sportsman, traveler and
prophet.
Rizal was the national hero chosen by US Civil Governor
William Howard Taft in 1901, but in consultation with
prominent, elite Filipinos who suggested Rizal because
Rizal was a martyr for Filipinos. Ultimately, Rizal was
selected by Filipinos. The Americans just consulted the
Filipinos.
Rizal was the “millennial” of his generation
• Why are we here?
To study Rizal’s life, works and writings. To be
acquainted with his works. To find his
relevance, the issues, the challenges, ideas
philosophies
• Why do we need to study Rizal’s Life, Works
and Writings?
Because it is relevant to the Filipino patriotism
and nationalism. They can be deeply
philosophical.
Origins of the Rizal Law
• December 20, 1898- decree issued by President
Emilio Aguinaldo celebrating Rizal Day on June
19
- affirmed by the Philippine Commission
(composed of Americans and Filipinos) on
February 1, 1902
- Every December 30 – death of Rizal;
June 19 – birthday of Rizal
• Despite the observance of Rizal Day since 1898,
no systematic effort has been made by the
government to include the writings of Dr. Rizal
in the curriculum of the schools.
- Rizal’s purpose in writing his novels was to
superstition that had kept his countrymen
subservient to the Church and the Spanish
government.”
• Therefore, Dr. Rizal was honored on Rizal Day,
but his writings were not disseminated
because of pressure from the Catholic Church
to prevent his novels, deemed as anti-friar,
from being widely read.
• Due to Church pressure, Rizal’s writings were
not disseminated widely until 1956. Rizal’s
novels during his time were banned even in
Spain.
• Church pressure continued long after the
Spaniards were expelled from the Philippines in
1898 and 60 years after the execution of Rizal.
Even the Vatican opposed because they thought
that Noli and El Fili contains so much irreligiosity
as they contain anti friar quotes and passages.
Removal of the Veil of Ignorance
• Only in 1956, with Senate Bill no. 438,
(proposal by a senator), with the intent to
promote love for country, was the veil of
ignorance said to be finally lifted from the
Filipinos.
• Philippine law tends to be fixed, settled. Only
charter change can actually change laws once
they become enacted or part of the
constitution.
Introducing the Rizal Bill
• Senate Bill 438 was introduced to inspire and
develop nationalism, inspire civic
consciousness, as well as to teach civic values
• To promote patriotism among Filipino youth
• That the Filipino youth would be incorruptible,
be confident, have courage, and determination
to move forward in their journey towards an
abundant life. (Jose Laurel – senator)
• Claro M. Recto wrote and created, while
Senator Jose P. Laurel sponsored Senate Bill
438 that “required the inclusion in the curricula
of all private and public schools the life, works
and writings of Dr. Rizal, “particularly his novels
Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo in their
unexpurgated form.”
• Recto was not a committee chairman, even
among the senators. Senators work under
committees, the more senior senators become
committee chairman like Senator Laurel.
LAONG LAAN BOOK
-The two novels of Rizal contains passages that are
harmful to the Catholic beliefs and teachings. The
Church had powerful allies in opposing the Rizal Bill
including Sen. Francsico Rodrigo and Congressman
Miguel Cuenco. There were catholic organizations
Aksyon Katoliko who were composed of
conservative catholics, the Knights of Columbus, the
Congregation of the Mission and the Catholic
Preachers Guild. Priests and nuns attended
hearings, their actions were clearly an interference
of the Church on the policy making powers of the
state. Since many of them are foreigners, their
activities were are blatant foreign interference on
the countries internal affair, yet they were
unmolested. Central to the argument to the Rizal
Bill, it forced students to read Rizal’s Works which
had religious overtones. It will be a violation of
constitutional freedom of religion and freedom of
conscience. Seminars led by supporters of the
catholic churches were held denouncing the Rizal
Bill in one event, Fr. Jesus Cavana , said that Rizal’s
novels painted a picture of the conditions of the
country in the 19th century. If the Rizal Bill intended
to promote patriotism and nationalism, Fr. Cavana
said that the novels for required readings contain
more church statements rather than nationalistic
statements. Archbishop Rufino Santos also
opposes. In the senate, Sen. Rodrigo who held the
president of the Aksyon Katolika denounced the
Rizal Bill because he would read rizal’s novel
because his faith in the Catholic Church is strong but
he would not allow his son to read the Noli and El
Fili because this would harm his son’s faith. Senator
Recto reminding the senator of the long period of
the domination of the Church with the history of
the Philippines which continues to this day. In the
house of Representatives, Congressman Miguel
Cuenco led the opposition the Rizal Bill, his privilege
made Rizal a Joan of Arc was a symbol of national
unity and his writings contain teachings on
patriotism and nationalism. The speech contain
views, opinions and theories attacking the dogmas
of the teachings of the Church. According to Rizal,
(Cuenco is anti-Rizal) Rizal wrote “God cannot
pardon a crime simply because we confess it to a
priest.” He does not believe in confession. Cuenco
also said that Rizal proclaimed that early Christians
believed that there was no purgatory. He said that
the Church only invented it and that its existence is
proclaimed in the Church Council of Florence in
1439. He further said that Rizal said that the idea
was taken from Zoroastrianism, purgatory was
adapted by the Christian by the Catholic Church
from a Persian (non-Christian) religion. The idea of
hell is against the concept of divine justice and
divine purity of goodness.
Many of the anti-Church passages were against the
sacrament of Baptism, Confession, Communnion,
Holy Mass, Doctrine indulgences, Church prayers,
sermons, sacramentals, books of pieties. Rizal did
not believe in those.
Jose Laurel- The Trials of the Rizal Bill
• There were heated disputes over the legislation
of the Rizal Bill. The passing of the law was full
of bitterness and recrimination that attended its
enactment (also see Laon Laan pp. 6-8 for Soc
Rodrigo’s and Miguel Cuenco’s stands on the
Rizal Bill)
• Senator Jose P. Laurel, Chairman of the Senate
Committee of Education, sponsored Senate Bill
no. 438
For and Against the Bill
• Pro-Rizal Bill
Senator Recto Manila Mayor Arsenio Lacson
Senator Laurel Fr. Horacio de la Costa, S.J.
Veteranos Revolucion Filipina (War Veterans, Alagad ni
Rizal, Knights of the Grand order of Rizal, free mason)
– Within the Catholic Church, the lone voice which
supported the Rizal Bill was a Jesuit scholar and a
historian, Fr. Horacio de la Costa, S.J. Fr. Dela Costa
did admitted that abuses did happen in the catholic
Church and there were historical mistakes that the
Church committed. Fr. Dela Costa supported pro
Rizal Bill debates. Therefore, the Church was not
united
• Anti-Rizal Bill
Archbishop Rufino Santos Catholic Church
rabid Catholics (die hard Catholics)
Catholic Schools Soc Rodrigo, Miguel Cuenco
Catholic organizations Fr. Jesus Cavanna
Congregation of the Vision and Catholic Preachers
Guild
The Trials of the Rizal Bill (contd.)
• The objective of the measure was to
disseminate the ideas and ideals of the great
Filipino patriot through the reading of his
works, particularly the “Noli Me Tangere,” and
the “El Filibusterismo”
• Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo must be
read by all Filipinos. They must be taken to
heart, for in their pages we see ourselves as in a
mirror; our defects as well as our strength and
virtues as well as our vices. Only then would we
become conscious as a people, and so learn to
prepare ourselves for painful sacrifices that
ultimately lead to self-reliance, self-respect and
freedom.
• The next generation would ultimately benefit
because their parents have studied Noli and El
Fili once it becomes required reading in schools,
they become part of the culture.
• Catholics inside and outside Congress took the
bill as an attempt to discredit the Catholic faith
– they thought that the bill was intended to
criticize the Catholic Belief
• They challenged the compulsory nature of the
bill as a violation of religious freedom
• There was allegedly a Pastoral Letter, which,
while it praised Rizal, branded his novels as
heretical and impious
• Rizal Bill was strongly opposed by three
legislators, namely Decoroso Rosales, Mariano
Cuenco and Francisco “Soc” (Soldier for Christ)
Rodrigo, known as stout defenders of the
Church.
• These parliamentarians were seen as rabid
Catholics who denounced Rizal as anti-
Catholic. They charged that his writings were
replete with errors of church dogma.
Superstition aided by literal interpretation of
religious doctrine:
He said logic and reasons will prevail. Some of them
were said to be silly and ridiculous. Many of the
agricultural lands were still held by the Church.
Some priests were known to keep mistresses and
had children. Those who were addicted to material
wealth manage their churches as if it is these was
there own properties. These were said to be church
practices that Rizal criticized but which they said
Rizal made exaggerated.
• For these senators, Filipino students were
immature and unprepared to understand
Rizal’s writings. They might take Rizal’s beliefs
literally.
• They (Rabid Catholics) believe that the
compulsion to read something against one’s
religious convictions was no different from a
requirement to salute the flag, said to be an
impairment of both the freedom of speech and
the freedom of religion, which will be imperiled
if the bill were approved.
• A possible conflict for Catholic Filipinos
between two “loves”- love for their country
and their church; that these were not
necessarily conflicting loves, but were
harmonious affections, like the love for his
father and for his mother. There need not be
conflict between nationalism and the church;
between the government and the church. –
both complement one another
Church Reaction
• April 22, 1956 - Sunday newspapers all carried a
statement from the Catholic bishops describing
Rizal’s works as violating Catholic canon law in
heresy and schism. Campaign of the Church
against Rizal.
• Opposition came from the Catholic Action of
the Philippines, the Holy Name Society of the
Philippines, the Legion of Mary, the Knights of
Columbus and the Daughters of Isabela
(oppose the Rizal Bill)
• Recto - the bill would foster the better
appreciation of Rizal’s times and of the role he
played in combating Spanish tyranny in this
country
Constantino’s Rizal Bill, could be found in Making
of the Filipino
• Recto’s belief that the reading of Rizal’s novels
would strengthen the Filipinism of the youth
and foster patriotism.
• Recto - the original author of the bill
• Laurel - sponsored the bill through a senate
committee
• Constantino’s article tackled the opposition and
discussed the existence of a pastoral letter
detailing Church objections to the bill and
enjoining Catholics to oppose it
• Catholic Action of Manila (Accion Catholico)-
there is a need to kill the Rizal Bill
• Fr. Jesus Cavanna- the novels belong to the past
and it would be harmful to read them because
they presented a false picture of conditions in
the country at the time. The Noli Me Tangere
was said to be an attack on the clergy and that
its objective was to put the ridicule to the
Catholic faith.
- If students read the novel, it was not really
patriotic because out of 333 pages, only 25
contained patriotic passages while 120 were
devoted to anti-Catholic attacks.
• Parts of the novels were considered
objectionable matter by the hierarchy.
According to the Church, Catholics had the right
to refuse to read the novels so as not to
endanger their salvation.
• Recto’s Bill was said to be Recto’s revenge
against the Catholic voters who, together with
President Magsaysay and the Americans, were
responsible for his poor showing in the 1955
senatorial elections.
• Claro M. Recto is known to be nationalist.
During his time, he is often seen as critic. Recto
served in the Japanese puppet government. His
main criticisms were directed towards to
institutions – Catholic Church and the US. He
used RA 1425 as a means to punish catholic
voters.
Catholic Church opposition to Rizal Bill (contd.)
• Noli and El Fili violated Catholic canon law on
heresy and schism
• Noli and El Fili painted a false picture of
Philippine society
• Noli and El Fili could sway the faith of young
people who would be naturally impressionable
• Noli and El Fili said to violate freedom of belief
Church Opposition
• While the Churches issued pastoral letters,
Catholic organizations and seminaries
campaigned against the Bill, arguing that it
forced young students to read Rizal’s works,
which had religious overtones, and that it
would be a violation of the constitutional
freedom of religion and the freedom of
conscience
• Foreign priests and foreign nuns also
participated in the campaign against the bill
Why RA 1425 got passed
• Representatives of Catholic schools threatened
to close down their schools If RA1425 will be
passed. In response, Claro Recto called their
bluff and threatened the nationalization of
Catholic schools if they shut down their
schools
• A substitute bill which was actually a
compromise bill was filed and approved which
allowed students to apply for an exemption for
religious reasons from reading the Noli/ El Fili
novels
The bill passed was passed by both the House and
the Senate (after two readings) on May 17, 1956.
On June 12, 1956, President Magsaysay signed the
bill into law as Republic Act 1425.
• At that time June 12 was not the independence
day, the independence day at that time was
celebrated at July 4. On the 1960’s, under
President Macapagal, the government changed
the celebration of the independence day to
commemorate Aguinaldo’s proclamation to
June 12. July 4 became Phil-American
Friendship day.
RA 1425
• To date, not one student was said to have
applied for an exemption from reading the Noli
and the El Fili
• According to Republic Act no. 1425- “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” (June 12, 1956)
• WHEREAS, today, more than any other period
of our history, there is a need for a re-
dedication to the ideals of freedom and
nationalism for which our heroes lived and
died;
• WHEREAS, it is meet that in honoring them,
particularly the national hero and patriot, Jose
Rizal, we remember with special fondness and
devotion their lives and works that have shaped
the national character;
• WHEREAS, the life, works and writing of Jose
Rizal, particularly his novels Noli Me Tangere
and El Filibusterismo, are a constant and
inspiring source of patriotism with which the
minds of the youth, especially during their
formative and decisive years in school, should
be suffused;
• WHEREAS, all educational institutions are under
the supervision of, and subject to regulation by
the State, and all schools are enjoined to
develop moral character, personal discipline,
civic conscience and to teach the duties of
citizenship
Important Sections
• SECTION 1. Courses on the life, works and
writings of Jose Rizal, particularly his novel Noli
Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, shall be
included in the curricula of all schools, colleges
and universities, public or private: Provided,
That in the collegiate courses, the original or
unexpurgated (unchanged/ unedited) editions
of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo or
their English translation shall be used as basic
texts.
• The Board of National Education is hereby
authorized and directed to adopt forthwith
measures to implement and carry out the
provisions of this Section, including the writing
and printing of appropriate primers, readers
and textbooks. The Board shall, within sixty (60)
days from the effectivity of this Act, promulgate
rules and regulations, including those of a
disciplinary nature, to carry out and enforce the
provisions of this Act. The Board shall
promulgate rules and regulations providing for
the exemption of students for reasons of
religious belief stated in a sworn written
statement, from the requirement of the
provision contained in the second part of the
first paragraph of this section; but not from
taking the course provided for in the first part of
said paragraph. Said rules and regulations shall
take effect thirty (30) days after their
publication in the Official Gazette.
• SECTION 2. It shall be obligatory on all schools,
colleges and universities to keep in their
libraries an adequate number of copies of the
original and unexpurgated editions of the Noli
Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, as well as of
Rizal’s other works and biography. The said
unexpurgated editions of the Noli Me Tangere
and El Filibusterismo or their translations in
English as well as other writings of Rizal shall
be included in the list of approved books for
required reading in all public or private schools,
colleges and universities.
• The Board of National Education shall
determine the adequacy of the number of
books, depending upon the enrollment of the
school, college or university.
• SECTION 3. The Board of National Education
shall cause the translation of the Noli Me
Tangere and El Filibusterismo, as well as other
writings of Jose Rizal into English, Tagalog and
the principal Philippine dialects; cause them to
be printed in cheap, popular editions; and cause
them to be distributed, free of charge, to
persons desiring to read them, through the
Purok organizations and Barrio Councils
throughout the country.
• SECTION 4. Nothing in this Act shall be
construed as amendment or repealing section
nine hundred twenty-seven of the
Administrative Code, prohibiting the discussion
of religious doctrines by public school teachers
and other persons engaged in any public school.
• SECTION 5. The sum of three hundred thousand
pesos is hereby authorized to be appropriated
out of any fund not otherwise appropriated in
 the National Treasury to carry out the purposes
of this Act.
• SECTION 6. This Act shall take place upon its
approval.
Approved: June 12, 1956
Fr. Schumacher - The Rizal Bill of 1956 - Horacio de
la Costa and the Bishops
• Several pastoral letter drafts
• Fr. Horacio de la Costa, S.J.- a Jesuit intellectual
who actually had drawn up a draft pastoral
letter on the novels of Rizal “some years”
before 1956 (five years early, 1951), when
Recto introduced a bill.”
• “we find nothing in [these novels] that
constitutes a serious danger to the faith or
morals of the mature well instructed Catholic,”
but “much in conformity with the teachings of
the Gospel and right reason.” Secondly,
“prudence demands that they should not be
given as reading matter to the young without
proper direction and guidance in the form of
annotations to the printed text and
explanations by the living teacher. If this
prescription of prudence is complied with . . .
the salutary political and social ideas of our
national hero will strike deep roots in the
minds and hearts of our people.”
• For Fr. Dela Costa
- Rizal is the national hero not just because he was
executed by the Spaniards, nor because he analyzed
the problems of the nation with perspicacity, nor
because he enunciated political and social principles
for the good of the nation. He did all these, but he
was also a moral teacher and even a moral
example
Draft C remains the draft De la Costa submitted to
the episcopal commission in 1952. It does not
contain all that he had wished to say about Rizal
and his novels, but, having apparently accepted that
the bishops were not likely to adopt a pastoral
letter which held up Rizal as a moral exemplar and
extolled his moral teachings, De la Costa apparently
contented himself with maintaining that the novels
did not attack Catholic teaching if properly
understood as novels and commending—with the
proper caution of an annotated edition—their
reading for those capable of understanding them
with the help of a teacher. He was, after all, not
expressing his own ideas on Rizal and his novels—
he had done that in A—but offering to the bishops
who had commissioned him a statement with which
he could still agree. It did not say all that he thought
of Rizal and his novels, since he had been compelled
to omit much.
But it did not deny his essentially positive view. He
himself would not be the one to sign C, but he could
propose it to them as a still positive appreciation of
Rizal and his novels. At this point in 1952 the draft
was out of his hands, and apparently remained in
the files of the episcopal commission for the next
four years. Since De la Costa was out of the country
for some weeks before Recto introduced his bill
making the reading of the novels obligatory in all
schools, as noted above, he did not take any further
part in preparing the statement of the bishops
which appeared on 21 April 1956. He was evidently
dismayed, however, when afterward he saw what
had been done to his draft C in the bishops’
“Statement.
• Lone figure in the Church who supported the
Rizal Bill. Therefore, Church was not united in
opposing the bill.
• Debates also tackled a proposal by anti-Bill
Catholic senator Soc Rodrigo, who suggested
that an exception be made as to editions which
contain annotations approved by the Church
• The senators soon after worked out a
compromise, by which a student who would
“serve written notice under oath, to the head of
the college or university that the reading and
study of the . . . unexpurgated edition is
contrary to his religion or religious beliefs, said
student shall be exempt from using the said
edition” (Acosta 1973, 77). Although Acosta
considered that this was “a victory for the local
Catholic Church,” it was in fact a face-saving
compromise, which enabled it to receive the
unanimous vote of the Senate, and the
signature of Pres. Ramon Magsaysay.
• No one avail the exemption of Rizal Bill.
• Rizal’s Noli and El fili is analogous to
pornography according to Church during those
times.
• Professors who have taught the Rizal course can
testify that no student has ever come with such
an affidavit (Ocampo 2000, 9). (The following
 year an effort was made to introduce an
amendment removing the impractical
provision. It apparently was unsuccessful
[Rodrigo 1957, 3, 7], and the proviso continued
to be ignored.) Nor did people conceive it to be
a sin to read the novels. That is the experience
of this writer. Indeed, when I returned to the
Philippines to teach the Rizal course in 1965, I
just took it for granted that the two novels were
to be read as part of the course.
• The exact provision of the exemption was by
which a student who would “serve written
notice under oath, to the head of the college or
university that the reading and study of
the…unexpurgated edition is contrary to his
religion or his religious beliefs, said student shall
be exempt from using the said edition.”
Caroline Hau’s (Chinese-Filipina professor)
Necessary Fictions: Philippine Literature and the
Nation, 1946-1980
• Brought literature and nationalism together in
the state’s attempt to decolonize the culture of
the Philippines.
(Also, refer to Laon Laan, pp. 5-6 for further context
on the debates surrounding the Rizal Bill)
• State therefore enlisted and used literature to
foster national consciousness by the Filipino
people and make “good” citizens of the Filipino
youth.
Necessary Fictions (cont’d.)
• Literary works and the act of reading of these
works shape the national character of the
Filipino people and became part of the nation-
building project
• The Rizal Bill suggested that the heroes,
especially Rizal and his novels, originally
represented, if not embodied the nationalist
ideals of virtue, idealism and sacrifice-ideals
that formed the content of the heroes’ life and
works.
• Present and future generations of Filipinos
could remake the national character, which
earlier generations had “shaped” in the past.
• Filipino culture can be preserved or reshaped
through literature as introduced by the Rizal Bill
• The Rizal Bill was the legal handmaiden of a
Philippine state that sought to regulate
education to accomplish its declared task of
developing “moral character, personal
discipline, civic conscience and tThe sad fact
was that Rizal was visible everywhere, but
largely unread. The Bill was clearly aimed at
closing the last frontier. Also, literature has a
radical potential.
• The sad fact was that Rizal was visible
everywhere, but largely unread. The Bill was
clearly aimed at closing the last frontier. Also,
literature has a radical potential. literature has
a radical potential to transform lives and
societies.
• The evils that Rizal denounced existed up to
this day
• In the Noli, (prototype) you have the rise of a
Filipino “knowable” community that became
the conceptual basis of the Filipino nation
Legacies of the Rizal Law
• The Catholic Church lost the Rizal Bill battle in
1956, but it has won all other legislative
battles, a testament to its power and influence
over Filipino society.
• Memorandum Order no. 247, issued much later
as supplementary law, would direct the
Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports and
the Chairman of the Commission on Higher
Education to fully implement RA 1425.
• With the Rizal Law where the youth would
study Rizal’s life and analyze his teachings and
literary works, the Filipino youth would:
-gain inspiration and insight and involve
themselves in the community
-imbibe the virtues and values of Rizal and
other reputable leaders of the country
-acquire proper direction and become
better citizens
• Patriotism was therefore promoted through
the goals set by the former board of National
Education, which involved:
-to showcase the relevance of Rizal’s ideals,
thoughts, teachings and values to
community life
-application of Rizal’s ideas to the solution of
the day to day problems encountered in
contemporary life
-Promote the understanding and appreciation
of the qualities, conduct and character of Rizal
-To foster the development of the moral
character, personal discipline, citizenship skills
and vocational efficiency of the Filipino youth.