Rojas, Graca Machel C.

December 16,2020
BSAE 3B RIZAL

Question: If you were the Defense Council/Lawyer of Jose Rizal, what will be your defense?
Enumerate it and justify it.

If only the prosecution of Rizal happened during the years wherein concrete
constitutional laws were established, Rizal’s defense would be the following:

1.)       Rizal’s emotional state was disturbed because as we all know; they had lived a wealthy
life. As young as 11 years old, he already had his traumatic experience, his mother was
imprisoned unjustifiably. From that point, Rizal narrated the inequalities done to his mother. The
Spanish authorities would say that most of his writings have an acrimonious theme, well it’s the
product of cruelty thrown at them, wherein they lose their properties and some of his family
members got banished. 
            
To ascertain Rizal’s emotional distress, during the trial, he could have had narrated all of
his bitter experiences caused by the unjust Spanish rulers starting from his younger years up
until he was arrested. Also, as the (acting) defense attorney of Rizal, I’d have him medically
checked to authenticate his state, which caused him to acted so.
The following are some of the evidences that Rizal could present as one of his evidence that
he suffered from an undeserved environment that resulted him to compose with bitter
atmosphere:
 Medical reports – have him medically assessed by a physician indicated to this situation
 Testimonies –if any other Rizal’s friends and family could attest their experiences
together that how the rulers impacted their lives.
 Time –he had been exposed to stressors for a long time.

2.) Rizal was accused of “Rebellion”

            No matter how good were Rizal’s contributions to his fellow countrymen, the Spaniards
are at all times greedy for power and just wanted him to vanish completely. His trial did not last
for a long time, verdict was offered quickly. With this matter, I would like to dig deeper, the
shreds of evidence held by the Spanish against Rizal if they were legitimate and lawful enough
to have him really executed. Also, their pieces of evidence against the “rebellion” founded by
Rizal were not weighty enough. 

 3.) All citizens have the right to speak for themselves, to express their sentiments as
stated in the Bill of Rights Article 3, Section 4, “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (as if this happened in the present) But in
Rizal’s case, Spaniards see it as a threat to their administration. It was not a bloody
presentation of opinion and sentiments, rather, they were facts, in a form of novels and poems.
Rizal himself was an eyewitness to the unjust system exercised by the Spanish rulers. 

Take note that on Rizal’s time of prosecution, there was no concrete justice system, but only
word of the mouth being passed from person to person. Unlike these days that technology takes
place in some of the testing of the evidence. Additionally, it wasn’t totally the Spanish
government that Rizal was having a fight with, but more technically the friars because church
was the powerful “organization”.