UNIT 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE

http://malacanang.gov.ph

OVERVIEW
While you are still wondering why you are required to take Rizal
course, wondering if Rizal is still relevant today, and wondering if the
Philippines still really needs Rizal, you need to think, design, and
manage your answers in the context of history. Think and rethink of a
formula that will lead you to concrete answers to your wondering.

This unit will enlighten you on those questions you have in mind. There is the
need to understand the Rizal Law, locate Rizal in our Philippine history, his role in our
historical narrative, and reconstruct his time to better understand his being. We also
need to examine the changing concepts on hero and heroism.

OBJECTIVES
At the end of this unit, you are able to:

a. know the story of the Rizal Law and its relevance to the school curricula;
b. identify the role of Rizal in Philippine history;
c. discuss the different concepts of a hero;

d. discuss the conditions in Europe and in Spain in the 19 th century and its effects in
the Philippines;

e. identify and analyze the changes in the Philippine colony in the 19 th century.
THE STORY

TOPIC 1: Understanding the Course: Rizal Law and Rizal in

History

Making the House Bill No. 5561 or the Senate Bill 438 into Rizal Law was not
easy. It had undergone difficulties, posing narrative of debate and contestation,
dividing the whole country especially the legislators into pros and antis with different
issues and interests at stake. Thus we are also drawn to think of its parallel in the
present-time legislative process.

Before proceeding to its process, we have to look back at the time of its
conception. Go back to the 1950s or prior to it and see the realities of the time.
Witness the different forces at work. Remember, the period was still almost 10 years
since the country was granted “independence” by the Americans and the Third
Republic was inaugurated with Manuel A. Roxas as its president, followed by Elpidio
Quirino, and here we had Ramon Magsayasay who will later sign the bill into law.
Let us bear in mind that although independence was granted, the country was
experiencing social turmoil.

The Philippines was challenged by the Hukbalahap insurgency, strong

American influence (brought by their imperialist presence through the enforcement
of the bell trade Act in 1947, the Laurel-Langley agreement in 1956 ensuring the free
entry of American goods thus preference of Filipinos for American goods), and the
rampant corruption. Grappled with these challenges, there was the call and need
to instill nationalism and patriotism to the Filipinos, drawing inspiration from the
“ideals of freedom and nationalism for which our heroes lived and died,” the need
to re-dedicate ourselves to these ideals.

THE CONCEPTION. Time to make action. Claro M. Recto

submitted his bill, the Senate Bill No. 438 to the Senate
Committee on Education on April 3, 1956 and it was on April 17,
1956 that Senate Committee on Education chair Jose P. Laurel
sponsored the bill and began delivering speeches. Also in the
House of Representatives, an identical version was filed as
House Bill No. 5561 by Rep. Jacobo Z. Gonzales on April 19,
1956. However, debates started to ensue in both legislative
chambers. Other legislators and commentators also participated in the debates,
questioning the interests of its main author.
THE LABOR. The most and great critic and opposition to the said bill was the
Catholic Church which assailed the Rizal Bill as anti-Church as it forces students to
read Rizal’s works especially the two novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, It
also questioned if the reading of the texts was constitutional and continued to
challenge the reading of the unexpurgated versions of the novels. Among them
were Catholic organizations, one of which was formerly headed by Senator
Francisco “Soc” Rodrigo. Priests attended and actively participated in the hearings
of the Senate. Many of them were foreigners. The Church also called the Catholic
voters for rejection of lawmakers supporting the bill, read pastoral letters during
masses voicing opposition, and threatened to close Catholic schools if the bill be
approved. But Recto dared the Catholic Church to shut down their schools,
knowing that this was only an idle threat since the Catholic learning institutions were
its major source of income.

“A vast majority of our people

“Rizal did not pretend to teach are, at the same time, Catholic
religion when he wrote those and Filipino citizens. As such,
books. He aimed at inculcating they have two great loves:
civic consciousness in the their country and their faith
Filipinos, national dignity, these 2 are not conflicting
personal pride, and loves……le us not create a
patriotism…..it was because he conflict between nationalism
portrayed faithfully the and religion, between the
general situation in the government and the church.”
Philippines as it then existed.
-RODRIGO-
-RECTO-

“Rizal’s novels belonged to the past and it would

be harmful to read because they presented a
false picture of the conditions of the country at
that time….out of the 333 pages of the Noli Me
Tangere, there were only 25 patriotic statements
compared to 120 anti-Catholic statements…”

-Fr. Cavanna-
THE BIRTH. After weeks of debate and contestation, a
compromise was needed. Sen. Jose P. Laurel proposed
amendments to the bill on May 9, 1956 like the removal
of the compulsory reading of the novels and added the
reading of other works of Rizal. And on May 14, 1956,
similar amendments were adopted to the House version.
And it was on May 17, 1956 that the Senate and House
versions were approved which were then transmitted to
Malacañang and June 12, 1956, Pres. Ramon
Magsaysay signed the bill into law as Republic Act No.
1425, better known as Rizal Law.

THE NOURISHMENT. Although, it has been more than 50 years since its birth and
implementation, we need to constantly remind ourselves of its relevance. Are we
getting and living the values the law wants us to develop? Did and does it
contribute to nation-building?
While we are so occupied in preventing and combatting this COVID-19
pandemic, it calls to develop a character that will best help us survive this crisis,
nourishment to boost our morale. It calls for unity, cooperation, and fair and just
law-making and implementation.

Just like how Rizal envisioned for his country. In most of his works, he expressed
the need for unity, love of country, and freedom from oppression. As we read
between the lines and topics in our history, we are always reminded on what our
country really needs---what has it become after Rizal’s execution? Or what have
we become as Filipinos? The centrality of this is the character of Filipinos that the
Philippines needs. We need to feed and nourish ourselves with values just like how
Recto envisioned when he conceived the idea of passing a bill that will retool the
Filipinos’ ideals.

Jose Rizal turned to the study of his national history with 2 principal objectives
in mind. The first was to reveal the evils of the colonial rule that enveloped Philippine
society of the period and to find a solution for that evil in the future. The second was
to reveal to the inhabitants of the Philippines, gasping under oppression of the
colonialists, the history of their pre-conquest past of which the colonialists had kept
them in darkness, and to summon in them pride in their traditional culture and a
sense of solidarity as a nation. He fundamentally rejected the history of the
Philippine islands as portrayed by the colonialists. Instead, he provided a new view
of Philippine history. Through research, he was bale both to foresee the inevitability
of national independence as well as to foster among them the development of the
idea of solidarity as a nation, that is to say, national consciousness. His career was
dedicated to confronting the colonial ideology and developing a system of
thought that aimed at the liberation of the nation. The creation of the historical
view of Filipino people and of national consciousness were among the central
activities in his career.

Heroism does not end with Rizal’s time- with Rizal and his contemporaries and
few others after him. One can be examined through the motives and methods
employed in the attainment of the ideal; the moral character of the person; and
the influence of the person of his age or epoch and the succeeding eras. Heroes
and heroism do not exist only in the colonial era where oppression was so evident.
We have to examine the conditions of today, and there you discover oppression still
exist, maybe in different form and heroism is not always manifested against
oppression. It is a character, an act. We need to be vigilant in our surroundings, be
the eyes of Rizal in today’s society, that see its faults and needs and that vision
needs to be translated into action. Look around you and you will see different faces
of a hero and of heroism- from ordinary to extraordinary individuals and deeds-
living in different contours of life.

TOPIC 2: Rizal’s Century: Assessing 19th Century Philippines in

the Context of 19th Century European Developments

“We are products of our time.” Rizal was a product of

19th century Philippines. This century was a century of
change as repercussions on profound changes that took
place in Spain and in Europe in general.

19th Century Europe

Throughout the 19th century many peoples revolted against their rulers. In the
struggles for nationalism, the liberals and the conservatives disagreed on the rights
and the way governments should be run. The liberals believed that a country
should be free from domination by another and the people should enjoy liberty,
equality and opportunity. The conservatives believed in the “good old days” when
monarchs and kings ruled over their subjects. There was struggle for fundamental
freedoms and nationalism and democracy were the political ideals of the 19th
century.
 The 19th century witnessed the progress of the Industrial Revolution. This led to
a series of changes in industry, two of which were the shift from handwork to
machine work. The Industrial revolution encouraged migration, increased
population, stimulated nationalism, fostered liberalism, developed
industrial capitalism, and brought the victory of the middle class.
However, with the new economic condition, it still brought labor problems.

During the 19th century, science became the

concern of most. People became interested in science.
The most exciting work of the century was in medicine.The
19th century also brought modern imperialism,
primarily economic. It grew out of a desire to look for
markets where raw materials could be bought, finished
products at home could be sold, and surplus capital
invested. This resulted in the building of empires. South
America, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Ocean became
the centers for empire-building where England, France,
Germany, Italy, Belgium, Japan, Portugal, Russia, and the United States took a slice
of many regions of the world for varied reasons. Modern imperialism aroused the
spirit of nationalism among the native peoples.

Developments in the last few

decades of 18th century continued to
bring significant effects in the 19th
century. The French revolution in 1789
paved way for the zenith of the age of
enlightenment as it promoted ideas of
freedom, liberty and equality and the
belief in the sovereignty of the people in
determining government thundered all
across Europe, guided by the ideas of the
philosophies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
John Locke, Montesquieu, and the like. These ideas and beliefs had toppled several
monarchies and people started to seek more responsible governments. This
struggle, however, was not limited to the confine of Europe. It spread all over the
world as it had effects in America for example through its struggle for the
emancipation of the black slaves.
19th Century Spain
The first 3 quarters of the 19th century had been a period of almost
uninterrupted chaos and tumult for Spain. Under cover of the War of
Independence against the French invaders and the “intruder king,” Joseph
Bonaparte, Napoleon’s brother, the first steps towards constitutional government
had been taken when the Constitution of 1812 was proclaimed at Cadis by the
Liberal Cortes, purporting to act in the name of Fernando VII. The Constitution of
Cadiz had a novel feature of allowing colonies to be represented in the Spanish
parliament called Cortes. The Philippines therefore was given representation for the
very first time, and Ventura de los Reyes, a Spaniard born in the Philippines, was
selected to represent the colony. However, after Napoleon was defeated and
Fernando was restored in the throne in 1814, and quickly returned to absolute
government, abolished the Cortes saying that the body encroached on powers he
believed belonged solely to him. The decision was unpopular as Spain’s American
colonies began to revolt and sought independence. Under his government, Liberals
suffered more or less continuous repression until his death in 1833.

He was then succeeded by his infant daughter

Isabela later Queen Isabela II, who was at first under
the regency of her mother Maria Cristina from 1833-
1840. Her rule was characterized by revolts like the
Carlists, followers of Don Carlos, the King’s younger
brother believing that the latter had claim to the
throne; by decadence and mismanagement. She was
later overthrown from the throne.

The period 1833-1875 was an era ofpronunciamiento(the

the
proclamation of a new government) with new governments coming and going
with amazing rapidity. The ensuing struggle saw democratic parties emerging and
the progressives making 7 pronunciamientos. In 1868, Isabela was driven out of
Spain and a constitutional monarchy was approved. But it was difficult to find a
monarch. Amadeo of Savoy finally became king, but he soon abdicated and a
republic was proclaimed in 1873. This lasted only until 1874 when the strong arm of
General Pavia fatefully intervened and established a provisional dictatorship that
paved way for the restoration of the son of Isabella II, Alfonso XII. He began his
eventful rule in 1875, and it lasted for 10 years.

On the other hand, economically, 18th-19th centuries were for Spain a great
colonial century. It was marked by capital growth, large-scale import of raw
materials, and the rising population. Statesmen and administrators favored
legislation to increase production by eliminating internal customs barriers,
production levies, and the import of machinery. They encouraged enclosure in
agriculture and the disentailment of Church property. But the land problem
remained, with the aristocracy divided from the peasants.

The political, economic, and social disorder of 19th century Spain

could not help but have an effect on its overseas possessions. The
American colonies took advantage of the chaos to declare independence,
haunted the home government.

19th Century Philippines and the Emergence of National

Consciousness

Political Conditions

The political conditions in Spain adversely affected the Philippines. Changes

in the Madrid government were followed by constant changes in the political
administration in the colony. A change of government in Spain meant a change in
colonial governors. The common political dictum that “to the victors belong the
spoils of office” was shown in the frequent changes of governor generals.

From 1853 to 1898 there were 41 of them who held office in the Philippines,
each serving an average term of only 1 year and 3 months. The frequent changes
prevented the formulation and execution of sound policies on administration.

The choice of officials was just as weak. Under the policies of giving political
rewards, a Spanish writer commented that the continuous sending of political
undesirables to the Philippines was lamentable. Many of these men were not
prepared to govern the country. Many Spanish officials were jobseekers and tried
to enrich themselves and later retired to enjoy their wealth. Appointment of officials
not through merit, especially when monetary consideration dictated such
appointment, created maladministration, graft and corruption, and bribery.

The Strong Influence of the Church

The union of the church and the state was a cardinal policy in Spain. This was
carried out in the colonial administration of the Philippines. The governor general
was the head of the central government who exercised great powers and as vice-
patron, he assumed the King’s ecclesiastical authority over offices and missions. The
head of ecclesiastical administration was the archbishop of Manila, appointed by
the Pope upon the recommendation of the King. The union of the church and the
state was a cause of conflicts between the government and the church.it also
caused discontent among the Filipinos. They felt that the friars wielded too much
power in the government.

The Catholic Church, not so much the institution as its ministers, was one of
the principal targets of the reform movement in the 19th century Philippines. The
Spanish friars were described as sly, avaricious,, arrogant, and impure; men who
controlled both Church and the state and who preserved their power position by
deliberately hindering the development of a native clergy.

Several observations were made by foreign travelers. A liberal Spaniard

wrote: “Let us travel over the provinces, and we shall see there towns of 5, 10, and
20,000 Indians, peacefully governed by a weak old man, who, with his doors open
at all hours, sleeps quiet and secure in his dwelling, without any other magic or any
other guards, than the love and respect with which he has known how to inspire his
flock.”

One tangible source of criticism leveled against the religious orders in the 19 th
century was their extensive landholdings who held a number of haciendas where
income was also derived. The demand for export crops in the 19th century found
the religious orders in an excellent position to develop the land which had come to
them by way of royal grant, legacy, or outright purchase.

Economic Developments

The flowering of the nationalist movement in the late 19 th century could

scarcely be possible without the economic growth which took place in 19 th century
Philippines, particularly after 1830. The growth of an export economy in those years
brought increasing prosperity to the Filipinos middle and upper classes who were in
a position to profit by it, like those who controlled most of the large plantations of
rice, sugar, abaca, and others, Filipino hacienderos, and also the inquilinos of the
friar hacienda.

As the profits of the inquilinos rose, the hacienda owners periodically

increased the canon, arguing that the land value had increased. The inquilinos
protested that the increased value was due to their own energy and enterprise. But
on the friar haciendas, rising prosperity had also brought friction between inquilinos
(who were either Chinese mestizos or natives to where lands were leased) and
hacienda owners as lands grew in value and rents were increased. Antagonism
developed into an outright anti-clericalism, since most of the haciendas were
owned by the religious corporations. Eventually, this would lead to a questioning of
the friars’ rights to the haciendas. And their motive would be as much political as
economic- to weaken the friars’ influence in Philippine political life.
 Apparently a relatively small class of Spaniards, mestizos, and some of the old
native aristocracy helped themselves to the economic feast, leaving but a few
crumbs to the ordinary people.

The opportunities for trade in the Philippines brought about increased

contacts with foreigners and peninsular Spaniards. The relatively small but
significant number of families who prospered could send their sons to Europe for an
education, further rupturing the isolation that cut off the Philippines from the rest of
the world.

Cultural Developments

A key factor in the emergence of nationalism in the late 19 th century was the
cultural development consequent on the rapid spread of education from about
1860. As in all Spanish colonies, attention had been given to education from the
earlier days. The University of Santo Tomas, run by the Dominicans, had been
founded in 1611. On the secondary level, there were the colegios of Santo Tomas
and San Juan de Letran in Manila, both under the Dominicans, and the Ateneo
Municipal, run by the Jesuits since their return in 1859, but partly supported by the
Ayuntamiento of Manila. There were also a number of “Latin schools” under private
auspices in various places, usually of very mediocre quality.

University of Santo Tomas Colegio de San Juan de Letran Ateneo de Manila

Up to the middle of the 19th century, little attention had been given to
primary education by the government, though in many places the missionaries had
organized elementary schools. The year 1863 saw the beginnings of a public school
system, and a normal school was founded to provide teachers, under the direction
of the Jesuits, the Escuela Normal de Maestros opened in 1865 to provide Spanish-
speaking teachers for the projected new primary school system. This represented
hope of progress in the minds of many Filipinos, just as it would be opposed by those
for whom modern education for Filipinos posed danger to the continuance of
Spanish rule.

One of the major influences on the educational developments of the 19 th

century was the return of the Jesuits in 1859 from their expulsion in 1768. Asked by
the Ayuntamiento to take over the municipal primary school in 1859, they renamed
it Ateneo Municipal and opened it to Filipino students as well as the Spaniards. By
1865, it had been transformed into a secondary school that offered a level of
instruction beyond the official requirements and more approximated today’s
college than high school.

More than in the primary schools,

however, it was in the secondary schools
that the ideas of nationalism were to awake,
even among those who had never gone to
Europe. It was not that the Ateneo taught
nationalism or the liberal principles of
progress. But in imparting to its students a
humanistic education in literature, science,
and philosophy, in inculcating principles of
human dignity and justice and the equality of all men. The eyes of these Filipinos
had been opened to a much wider perspective than their narrow Philippine
experience before they ever set foot in Europe, and they no longer would accept
the established order.

THE SEEDS OF NATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS

With the overwhelming turn of events in the 19th century, several
developments paved way or contributed to the awakening of the natives. Taking
those developments mentioned above, some contributory factors to these
developments can be summarized into:

Opening of the Philippines to International Trade

The 19th century brought a great transformation from the preceding centuries
of economic stagnation created by the monopolistic policies of Spain. Beginning
1834, several ports were opened for international trading, not only the Manila port.
A Royal Decree of September 6, 1834 officially opened Manila to world trade. This
was later followed by the opening of the ports of Sual, Iloilo, and Zamboanga in
1855, Cebu in 1860, and Legazpi and Tacloban in 1873. After the opening of Manila,
foreigners came to establish their business firms in the Philippines. Economic
progress followed the opening of the ports and the admission of foreign firms.
 As a result, many profited and benefited from this
opening also brought by the opening of Suez Canal in
1869 which shortened the distance between Europe
and Asia leading to more trading engagements. This
trade opportunities also resulted to more socio-
economic developments.
The sector that greatly benefited from the changing
economy were the Chinese and the Chinese mestizos,
though considered at first by the Spaniards as the
“necessary outsiders” in Philippine colonial economy and society. Eventually and
gradually, they became integrated into colonial society, giving rise to
intermarriages with indios that gave birth to Chinese mestizos. The Chinese mestizos
assumed an important role in the economy all throughout the Spanish colonial
period. They influenced the changing economy in the 19th century by purchasing
land, accumulating wealth and influence.

Rise of the Middle Class

The opening of the Philippines to international trading resulted to great
economic transformation in the life of the Filipinos. It resulted to the emergence of a
new class, the middle class, of Asian and Eurasian mestizos in the Philippine social
pyramid. As exports in agriculture increased, inquilinos or the tenants in the
haciendas and their families began to accumulate wealth. As members of the
middle class, they were able to send their children to colleges and universities in
Manila and even in Europe. Personal possessions, as it were in the 19th century, as
well as education, became indicators of social status in a community.

Belonging to the middle

class also meant changing
their former lifestyle, clothing,
houses, forms of amusement,
and cultural activities. The
size, construction materials,
and location of one’s house
in the town’s calle real (main
street), for example,
improved one’s status. The
rise of the middle class was highly visible in the residential
organization of Manila society.
 From this class also belonged those who initially initiated reforms in the society
through some publications like Francisco Baltazar and his Florante at Laura, and
through some revolts like the one led by Apolinario de la Cruz, and later the
Propagandists of the Propaganda Movement. Contacts with social and political
developments in Europe and the regular flow of liberal thoughts to the country was
inevitable after the opening of the Suez Canal. Literature on democratic and
nationalistic ideals found their way to the Philippines through traders, travelers,
scholars, and government officials from Spanish American colonies, and political
refugees from Spain.

European Liberalism and Carlos Maria De la Torre

Not only men but also ideas filtered to the Philippines after the opening of
Suez Canal where modern ideas of liberty began to penetrate to the minds of the
natives. Points-of-view had changed by the teaching of the French Revolution of
“Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” and the democratic influences which emanated
from the United States.

The political term “liberal” was first used in Spain and first referred to the
Spanish rebels of 1820. In the Philippines, the ideas of liberalism may be traced to
the secondary and tertiary education made available to the Filipinos in 1863. Two
philosophers of the Age of Reason left indelible marks on the Filipino intelligentsia of
the 19th century: John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Locke in his Two
Treaties on Government (1689) posited that social contract between the King,
who did not exercise absolute powers, and his subjects, means that if the king failed
to do his duty and did not respond to natural rights, his subjects had the right to
overthrow him. Rosseau re-echoed the same principle in The Social Contract
(1762), agreeing that if a government did not satisfy its subjects, they have all the
reason to alter the government to whatever they thought best.

In 1868, a revolution took place in Spain. The

revolutionists were against the autocratic reign of Queen
Isabela II. When the revolutionists won, the queen was
forced to flee to France. This triumph brought to
the country some liberal and progressive
Spaniards. The “Glorious September
Revolution” of 1868 in Spain meant a
new order with the arrival of the liberal
Governor Carlos Ma. De la Torre
in 1869, who put into practice the
liberal principles of the revolutionists in Spain. He showed his
democratic ways by living simply and avoiding luxury, by dismissing the halberdiers
of his palace (governor’s security guards), and by walking the streets of Manila in
civilian clothes unlike the previous governors who wore in military uniforms.
The educated indios, mestizos, and Spaniards born in the Philippines who
sympathized with liberalism and Governor De la Torre, serenaded him to show their
appreciation of the governors kind attention and democratic ways. However, De la
Torre proved to be very unpopular with the Manila Spaniards, and of course, with
the Spanish regular clergy who overtly demonstrated their aversion for him.
However, it was quite ironic that in spite of all these alleged overt liberal
reforms, De la Torre, like all previous Spanish governors, covertly gave confidential
instructions a few months after his arrival, to intercept suspect mail coming from
Europe and Hong Kong of prominent Filipino leaders and priests, including Fr. Jose
Burgos, and even went to the extent of ordering secret investigations to “procure
evidence against them.”

Racial Discrimination
There is an abundance of documentary proof on racism in the Philippines
during the Spanish period. The intensity of animosities between the Filipinos and
Spaniards, especially the friars, reached the highest point with the Reform
Movement, when anti-Filipino writers like Fr. Miguel Lucio y Bustamante, and
others wrote vitriolic literature denigrating the Filipinos. The Si Tandang Basio
Macunat (1885) of Fr. Bustamante opined that the Filipinos could never learn the
Spanish language or be civilized, went to differentiate the Spaniards from the
Filipinos by saying that: “The Spaniards will always be a Spaniard, and the indio will
always be an indio….The monkey will always be a monkey however you dress him
with shirt and trousers, and will always be a monkey and no human.” In fact, the
Filipino, he believed, must remain tied to his carabao. Pablo Feced and his
“Quioquiap” described the rural folks as “carabao herd” and quoted Fr. Gaspar
de San Agustin, an Augustinian, who said that “God created the indios together
with the rattan,” meaning that the Filipinos “need beatings and the rattan.”

Secularization Controversy
The first united move against racial discrimination was made by the native
clergy with their demand for the right to administer parishes (the question of
secularization). The problem started as a religious question involving the right of
either the regular (priests belonging to religious orders) or the secular priests to
administer parishes. The question became a racial controversy between the friars
and the Filipino secular clergy with the former claiming that they were the better
qualified to administer the parishes.
 In the Philippines, the friars or members of the religious orders not only made
converts to Christianity but they also occupied parishes. As such, they were called
friar-curates. They had to administer the parishes as friar-curates because there
were very few seculars during the first century of Spanish rule. When some natives
studied for the priesthood and became seculars, they were given subordinate
positions. The friar-curates refused to vacate the parishes. This refusal led to a
controversy between the seculars and the regulars.

Secularization of the parishes was nothing more than the transfer of ministries
established or run by the regular clergy to the seculars. By the midst of the 19 th
century, secularization was transmuted into political and separatist movement
which exploded in the Filipinization of the church, and culminated in the separation
of the church from Rome during the Philippine Revolution.

The first to champion the cause of the native

clergy was a Spanish mestizo, Fr. Pedro Pelaez, the
ecclesiastical governor of the Philippines in 1862, who
was influential in Madrid and in Manila. His abroad
idealism had convinced him that the fight for justice was
not a matter of blood and
position but of sound values
and principles, criticizing the
rampant racial discrimination
against the native clergy. He
was brilliant educator and was
member of the commission to
study and draft reforms and submit recommendations on
education in the Philippines later embodied in the Educational Reform Decree of
1863. Unfortunately, his fight for justice and racial equality ended abruptly with his
death at a disastrous earthquake that rocked the Philippines in 1863.

However, one of his brilliant students at the UST, Fr. Jose A. Burgos,
continued Fr. Pelaez’s unfinished mission. Fr. Burgos, a Spanish mestizo, openly and
eagerly worked for clerical equality and for the secularization of parishes. During
the heated controversy over the secularization of the parishes, consistent attacks
were levied against the late Fr. Pelaez, against the policies of Archbishop Gregorio
Meliton Martinez, and against the qualifications of the Filipino clergy.
When Fr. Burgos could no longer contain his peace, he published
anonymously a manifesto addressed to the noble Spanish nation on June 27,
1864. His brilliant but pointed arguments denied that the friars alone had been
responsible for the conquest and development of the archipelago. He believed that
the friars were responsible for the backwardness of the country and the fanaticism
of the indio. He accused the friars for having opposed the teaching of Spanish and
for having kept the indio ignorant so that they could be kept in perpetual
subjugation.

The unification of the Filipino clergy by the secularization question was

strengthened with the development of their sense of identity- that of being a native
Filipino clergy fighting for the right to administer the parishes in their own country.

Cavite Mutiny
The relations between the Filipino seculars and the Spanish friars grew from
bad to worse. The Spanish regulars who continued to occupy the parishes blamed
the Filipino priests by saying that the latter were not prepared to administer parishes.
This caused enmity between them. On the other hand, the Filipino seculars
continued their campaign relentlessly.

The Cavite Mutiny broke out during the tenure of Rafael de Izquierdo who
had dramatically said upon his arrival,

“I shall govern with a cross

on one hand and a sword in
the other”

He was appointed governor general in 1871 replacing the short-live

administration of Carlos Ma. De la Torre when monarchy was restored in Spain and
a new king assumed the Spanish throne. With this change, the monarchist officials in
Spain sent to the Philippines some like-minded Spaniards to take over the political
leadership of the country.
Galvanized by discontent against the Spaniards, some 200 Filipino soldiers,
joined in by some workers in the arsenal of the artillery corps led by Sgt. La Madrid,
guard at Fort San Felipe, mutinied in the night of January 1872. At the height of the
secularization controversy, the Cavite Mutiny occurred on January 20, 1872.
This mutiny was caused by the revocation of the privilege of shipyard workers to be
exempted from forced labor and from paying tribute by Governor-General
Izquierdo.
 Although the revolt was localized, the Spanish authorities viewed the event as
an overturning of the colonial rule in the Islands, even considering it as part of a
greater national movement to liberate the Philippines from Spain. Alarmed, the
governor-general sent an expedition to Cavite to put down the rebellion. The
leaders and participants were arrested and later shot to death. The government,
believing it to be a rebellion, ordered the arrest of Filipinos and mestizos who were
allegedly behind it. Among those arrested were Fathers Burgos, Gomez, Zamora,
Pedro Dandan, and some others. Some civilians were also arrested. They were
sentenced to be banished to Guam, while Gomez, Burgos, Zamora were
sentenced to death.

However, until the time they were executed by

the garrote vil on February 1872, a public
execution, Archbishop Meliton Martinez refused to
defrock GOMBURZA, as per Izquierdo’s original
instruction, even ordered the tolling of the bells of
Manila churches as a funeral dirge for the souls of the
departed priests. Their corpses were clandestinely
transported to the Paco cemetery in Manila and were
dumped into a common grave in an unmarked site.

The execution of Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora, witnessed by many Filipinos,

may have halted the secularization movement but not its advocacy for
“Filipinization” of the parishes. The Spanish government with its cruel measures,
continued to frighten the Filipinos into submission. Nevertheless, the seeds of Filipino
nationalism had been planted on fertile ground.

Ten peaceful years elapsed after the execution of GOMBURZA. It was a

peaceful period on the surface because the Filipino were cowed into silence by
the Spanish authorities. Underneath, there was discontent among the natives even
those in the middle class. They needed to work for the introduction of reforms. This
was the birth of the era of the REFORM MOVEMENT to which Jose Rizal actively
participated together with his contemporaries.
References:
Agoncillo, Teodoro A. (1990). History of the Filipino People. Quezon City: R. P. Garcia
Publishing Co.
__________ and Fe B. Mangahas. (2010). Philippine History: Expanded and Updated
Edition. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc.
Capino, Diosdado G., et.al. (2000). Rizal’s Life, Works, and Writings: Their Impact on
Our National Identity. Quezon City: JMC Press, Inc.

De Viana, Augusto V., et.al. (2018). Jose Rizal: Social Reformer and Patriot (A Study
of His Life and Times). Manila: Rex Book Store.
Ikehata, Setsuho. “Jose Rizal: The Development of the National View of History and
National Consciousness in the Philippines,” The Developing Economies
Vol. 6, No. 2, June 1968 (accessed through www.ide.go.jp)

www.officialgazette.gov.ph
Romero, Ma. Corona, et.al. (1978). Rizal and the Development of National
Consciousness. Goodwill Trading Co., Inc.

Schumacher, John N., S. J. (1991. The making of a Nation: Essays on Nineteenth-

Century Filipino Nationalism. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University
Press.
____________. (1997). The Propaganda Movement: 1880-1895. Quezon City: Ateneo
de Manila University Press.

Wani-Obias, Rhodalyn, et.al. (2018). The Life and Works of Jose Rizal. Quezon City: C
& E Publishing, Inc.

Photos
www.dimasalanglaonglaan.wordpress.com www.123rf.com

www.dreamstime.com www.malacanang.gov.ph
www.varsitarian.net www.lopez-museum.com
www.commons.wikimedia.org

www.slideshare.net
www.kahimyang.com

www.pinterest.com
www.ateneo.edu
www.4travellingacrosstime.com
ACTIVITY 1

Together with your group mates, work on your GRAPHIC

ORGANIZER as the UNIT output. Identify relationships or
connections of the developments in Europe and Spain to
that in the Philippines. Organize it into political, economic,
religious, or cultural. Be creative in your presentation.
Samples or templates of graphic organizer can be searched
online. Make sure that each member of the group
contributes to your group output. In the file to be submitted,
include the names of the members who contributed to the
output.

This is just a sample of a graphic organizer. You can have

your own design and be creative. If we are to base on this
sample, the biggest circles will be for the 19th century
European developments, the bigger ones for the
developments in Spain as results to the developments in
Europe in general, while the smaller circles for the 19th
century developments in the Philippines as effects/results to
that in Europe or Spain.

Submit your group work through email. 1 member is then

allowed to submit the group output.
SUBJECT: GEC109 (Your section) GRAPHIC ORGANIZER

FILE NAME: GROUP #

FILE TYPE: WORD or PDF

UNITY AND SOLIDARITY