ISSUES AND CONTROVERSIES ABOUT

THE HEROISM OF DR. JOSE RIZAL

Most Filipinos venerate Dr. Jose Rizal as the country’s
national hero. This is despite the fact that until this day,
there is no law or legislation that recognizes any
Filipino historical figure as a national hero. Being a
national hero, Rizal is elevated to a pedestal higher
than other Filipino heroes who have also sacrificed
their lives for the country.
Fame and popularity are not the only prize of such
recognition, for Jose Rizal is also the most ‘questioned’ hero
of the Philippines. Along with Dr. Jose Rizal’s stature as the
National Hero of the Philippines are issues and controversies
that question and to some extent negate his heroism. The
debate about this has not yet reached any resolution and still
continues. At present, many Filipinos have an ambivalent or
uncertain attitude towards Jose Rizal and his heroism.
 I. Jose Rizal and the Selection of Philippine National Hero

Of the countless great men and women in our country’s history, Jose
Rizal was considered and venerated as the national hero, thus becoming
more special and valuable than other heroes. To have an clear
understanding of this, it is helpful to read the executive summary of the
SELECTION AND PROCLAMATION OF NATIONAL HEROES AND LAWS
HONORING FILIPINO HISTORICAL FIGURES from the Reference and
Research Bureau Legislative Research Service, House of Congress which
could be accessed at
http://www.ncca.gov.ph/about-culture-and-arts/culture-profile/culture-
profile-nationalhero.php . This document is prepared by the National
Heroes committee which states the following:
No laws or any legislation has been issued or enacted which proclaims
any Filipino historical figure as the national hero but there are laws
enacted in order to honor the significant contributions of these heroes to
nation-building.
Jose Rizal was not explicitly proclaimed as national hero, but his position
as the national hero is a tribute to the continued veneration and
acclamation of the Filipinos.
Andres Bonifacio is also given an implied recognition as the national
hero aside from Jose Rizal.
Heroes need not be recognized through legislation, but are still revered,
appreciated and acclaimed for their contributions to Philippine history.
 CRITERIA FOR NATIONAL HEROES

1. Heroes are those who have a concept of nation and

thereafter aspire and struggle for the nation's freedom.
2. Heroes are those who define and contribute to a system or
life of freedom and order for the nation.
3. Heroes are those who contribute to the quality of life and
destiny of the nation.
 ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR HEROES

1. A hero is part of the people's expression.

2. A hero thinks of the future, especially the future
generations.
3. The choose of a heroe involves not only the recounting
of an episode or events in history, but of the entire
process that made this particular person a hero.
HISTORICAL FIGURES RECOMMENDED AS NATIONAL
HEROES:
A. Jose Rizal
B. Andres Bonifacio
C. Emilio Aguinaldo
D. Apolinario Mabini
E. Marcelo H. del Pilar
F. Sultan Dipatuan Kudarat
G. Juan Luna
H. Melchora Aquino
I. Gabriela Silang
 Since the submission of the report/recommendations by
the National Heroes Committee to the Secretary Ricardo T.
Gloria of the Department of Education Culture and Sports on
November 22, 1995, no action has been taken. This was
probably because this might trigger a flood of requests for
proclamation. Another possibility is that the proclamations
can trigger better debates involving historical controversies
about the heroes.
II. ISSUES AND CONTROVERSIES ON THE HEROISM OF
DR. JOSE RIZAL
1.Retraction Controversy: Did Rizal Retract His Works
and Words?
Four documents surface which contain the
retraction of Jose Rizal a day before he was executed.
The retraction states Jose Rizal's rejection of masonry
and repudiation of his word, writings, publication and
conduct that were against the Catholic Church. The
alleged retraction of Jose Rizal was a requirement for
him and Josephine Bracken to be married.
 Scholar who questioned the existence and
authenticity of the alleged retraction of Jose Rizal argued
that is a forgery based based on the analysis of the
handwriting, existence of different versions of the
document the alleged confession of the forger and
discrepancies in the contents of the different versions of
the document. The also doubted the existence of the
document pointing out that no member of Rizal's family
has seen it, it did not save Rizal from being executed and
there is no public record of the marriage of Rizal and
Bracken.
2. American sponsorship: Is Jose Rizal an American sponsored hero?
In his seminal work, Veneration Without Understanding, historian Renato
Constantino argued that Rizal's pre-eminence among our heroes was partly the
result of American sponsorship by citing laws enacted by the Americans that
'reduced' the law of other historical figure in our history in order to emphasized
the role of Jose Rizal. He argued that the Americans made Jose Rizal more
special than other heroes by encouraging a cult by enacting laws such as Act
No. 137 which created the Rizal province, Act No. 243 which gave way to the
erection of Rizal monument in Luneta and Act No. 346 which sets December 30
as day of observance of Rizal. He also argued that Rizal was selected because
his peace-loving and compromising image and the perception that he never
advocated independence will suit there (American) imperialistic interests in the
Philippines.
 On the other side of the debate, Professor Ambeth Ocampo, a
known Rizal expert refuted the claims of Constantino saying that Jose
Rizal was already venerated long before the American sponsored him
pointing to the December 20, 1898 proclamation of President Emilio
Aguinaldo which set every December 30 as national day of mourning in
honor of Jose Rizal. He argued that "The Americans just built on the
prevailing sentiment of the people" towards Rizal. They used Rizal: anti
Spain, assimilist, reformist and peace-loving stance to further their
colonial/imperialistic agenda.
3. Was Jose Rizal anti-revolution?
For historian Renato Constantino, Rizal was anti-revolution
and had betrayed the Philippines on two occasions- when he
volunteered to serve as a doctor for the Spanish armies in the
Cuban revolution and when he issued December 15, 1898
wherein he did not only deny his participation in the revolution
but also condemned and called it disastrous and waste of lives.
Other historians and scholars emphasize Rizal's assimilist
stance as proof of being anti-revolutionary.
 In his book, A Nation Aborted: Rizal, American hegemony and
Philippine nationalism, Professor Floro Quibuyen argued that rizal was
revolutionary. He cited several evidence such as the letters of Rizal
explaining his ideas regarding the revolution and the latest testimonies
of Dr. Pio Valenzuela. He also provided a different reading and
interpretation of the December manifesto of Jose Rizal noting that he did
not rejected the revolution but viewed it as premature and lacked proper
preparations. He argued that in Rizals last poem, he praised the
revolutionaries and this poem also became an inspiration for the
revolutionaries. He also argued that Jose Rizal could not be anti-
revolution for many of his family members joined and held important
position in the Katipunan.
4. Was Rizal an ambivalent hero or fence sitter?

The conception of Jose Rizal as an ambivalent hero

resulted from four contradicting testimonies of Pio Valenzuela (2
in 1896 while being a prisoner in Fort Santiago) and in 1914 and
1917. These testimonies are all about his conversation with Jose
Rizal in Dapitan. The first two testimonies state that Rizal totally
repudiated the revolution while in the other two ; he claimed that
Rizal did not repudiate the revolution and he had given
instructions for the Katipunan to ensure the success of the
rebellion.
 Some historians would say that Rizal was ambivalent,
pointing to some of his works in which he rejected armed
struggle as means for social transformation and his other
works which express of his support of the revolution. On the
other hand, some historians argued that in order to answer
whether or not Rizal ambivalent, Jose Rizal must be read in
proper context and perspective. They further argued that Jose
Rizal was a product of his time and society and thus Rizal
must be read according to the context of 19th century
Philippines and in the perspective of the Filipinos during that
time.
5. Is Jose Rizal still relevant?
Jose Rizal is still relevant because the social problems or ills that he
had exposed, criticized and tried to solve still exist. Corruption, injustices,
unqualified and/or incompetent government officials and poverty are among
the perennial problems that plague the Philippines.
The qualities of Jose Rizal are worth emulating. He serves as a role
model and inspiration for Filipino youth to love and serve the Philippines and
countrymen.
Studying Jose Rizal and country's history makes us aware of the ideals
on which our nation was built upon. Studying the sacrifices of our ancestors
for the country's freedom and sovereignty develops nationalism and pride of
our national identity.
 Jose Rizal will always be
part in the development of
Philippine Nationalism.
 Prepared by:
Azeneth Simeon
Alejandro Lumontad
Khay Fojas

THANK YOU FOR

LISTENING 😉