Rizal’s Life, Works, and Writings

Ronald B. Moreto
Instructor

07/29/2022
y
Understanding the Law of Rizal
 SENATE BILL NO. 438

AN ACT TO MAKE NOLI ME TANGERE AND

EL FILIBUSTERISMO COMPULSORY
READING MATERIAL IN ALL PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
SECTION 1. JOSE RIZAL’S NOLI ME TANGERE
AND EL FILIBUSTERISMO ARE HEREBY
DECLARED COMPULSORY READING MATTER
IN ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS,
COLLEGES, AND UNNIVERSITIES IN THE
PHILIPPINES.

SECTION 2. THE WORKS IN SECTION 1 OF

THIS ACT SHALL BE IN THE ORIGINAL
EDITIONS OR IN THEIR UNEXPURGATED
ENGLISH AND NATIONAL LANGUAGE
VERSIONS.
SECTION 3. THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION SHALL TAKE STEPS TO
PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS
FOR THE IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT.

SECTION 4. NO PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT

SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS PROHIBITING OR
LIMITING THE STUDY OF THE WORKS OF
OTHER FILIPINO HEROES.
SECTION 5. ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY FOUND
VIOLATING, FAILING TO COMPLY WITH, OR
CIRCUMVENTING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ACT SHALL BE PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY.
(A) THE HEAD OF ANY PUBLIC COLLEGE OR
UNIVERSITY CHARGED WITH IMPLEMENTING
PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, WHO SHALL HAVE BEEN
FOUND GUILTY OF VIOLATING, FAILING TO COMPLY
WITH, OR CIRCUMVENTING THE PROVISIONS
THEREOF, SHALL BE DISMISSED IMMEDIATELY
FROM PUBLIC SERVICE AND SHALL BE
DISQUALIFIED FROM TEACHING IN ANY PUBLIC OR
GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED PRIVATE SCHOOL,
COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY.
(B) GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION OF ANY PRIVATE
COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY FOUNND VIOLATING OR
CECUMVENTING THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT
SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAWN, AND THE
RESPONSIBLE HEAD AND PROFESSOR OR
PROFESSORS CONCERNED SHALL BE
DISQUALIFIED FROMM TEACHING IN ANY
GOVERNMENT-RECOGNIZED COLLEGE OR
UNIVERSITY.

SECTION 6. THIS ACT SHALL TAKE EFFECT UPON

ITS APPROVAL.
• Jose P. Laurel argued that the object of the measure was
to dessiminate the ideas and ideals of the great Filipino
patriot through the reading of his works, particularly
NOLI ME TANGERE and EL FILIBUSTERISMO
• “Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo must be in all
Filipinos. They must be taken to heart, for in their pages
we see ourselves as in a mirror; defects as well as our
strength, our virtues as well as our voices. 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.”

- Jose P. Laurel
OPPOSITION OF THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH

The hierarchy of the Philippine Church claimed that

the two novels contained errors which were against
thee teachings of Catholicism.

The ‘compulsory’ nature of the bill was also

challenged as a breach of religious freedom.
In general, the Philippine Church strongly opposed
due to the following reasons: (1) show open
criticism to the Catholic Church; (2) in the
“compulsory” teaching of the unexpurgated
versions of Rizal’s Noli and El Fili, a teacher would
have the tendency to discuss—or worse, to
criticize—certain Church doctrines; and, (3)
the inevitable criticism of Church doctrines
might lead to the jeopardy of the faith of
people.
EXERPT FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE
HIERARCHY OF THE NOVELS OG DR. JOSE RIZAL

“Among the many illustrious Filipinos who have distinguished

themselves in the service of their country, the highest place of honor belongs
to Dr. Jose Rizal. And justly so; for Rizal possessed to an eminent degree those
virtues which together make up patriotism. He loved his country not in word
alone but in deed. He devoted his time, his energies and the resources of his
brilliant mind to dispelling the ignorance and apathy of his people, and
combating the injustices and inequalities under which they labored.
When these salutary activities fell under the suspicion of the colonial
government and he was condemned to death as a rebel, the generously
offered his blood for the welfare of his country”
EXERPT FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE
HIERARCHY OF THE NOVELS OG DR. JOSE RIZAL

“Did Rizal attack only the abuses of certain priets but never
contradict Catholic doctrines? No. When in May 1889, Dr. Tavera told
Rizal in Paris “that he (Tavera) tried to defend him (Rizal) before Fr.
Faura explaining that, in ther attack upon the friars, the stone was
thrown so high and with such that it reach religion,” Rizal corrected him
saying: “This comparison is not quite exact; I wished to show the
missile against the friars; but as they used the ritual and superstitions of a
religion as a shield, I had to get rid of that shield in order to wound the
enemy that was hiding behind it.”
EXERPT FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE
HIERARCHY OF THE NOVELS OF DR. JOSE RIZAL

“In these two novels we find passages against Catholic dogma and
morals 11 where repeated attacks are made against the Catholic religion
inn general, against the responsibility of miracles, against the doctrine
of Purgatory, against the Sacrament of Baptism, against Confession,
Communion, Holy Mass, against the doctrine of Indulgences, Church
prayers, the Catechism of Christian Doctrine, sermons, sacramentals and
books of piety. These are even passages casting doubts on or hell, the
mystery of the Most Blessed Trinity, and the two natures of Christ.”
I. We, the Catholic Philippines Hierarchy, in Our name and in the name of
millions of faithful Filipinos Catholics, wish on this occasion to restate our
unshakable loyalty to our Fatherland, as well as to the lawfully constituted
authorities of the country.
II. Faithful Catholics wish to be second to none in love and veneration for our
national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, whose patriotism remains for us a noble
inspiration.

III. We assert that he is our greatest patriot and our greatest national hero, not
however for what one day he wrote against our religion and which at the end
he retracted “with all his heart”, but for what he did on behalf of the welfare of
our country.

IV. The novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo were doubtlessly written as
an expression of Rizal’s ardent and generous love for our dear Philippines, and
there are many beautiful passages in them showing this; and we are in favor of
propagating these passages and encouraging our young generation to read and
learn them.
 V. But unfortunately these novels were written when Dr. Jose Rizal, estranged for a
time from our faith and religion, did contradict many of our Christian beliefs.

VI. This in no way implies that we must reject him in order to remain loyal to our
faith. It only means that we have to imitate him precisely in what he did when he
was about to crown the whole work of his life by sealing it with his blood: we ought
to withdraw, as he courageously did in the hour of his supreme sacrifice, “whatever
in his works, writings, publications and conduct had been contrary to his status as a
son of the Catholic Church.” A dying person’s last will is sacred. Taking into
account Rizal’s last will, we must carry out for him what death prevented him from
doing, namely, the withdrawal of all his statements against the Catholic faith.

VII. It is our conviction that to disregard our national hero’s last will expressed in
his Retraction as well as his Last Farewell, is, far from revering his memory,
bringing it into contempt.
VIII. It is true, as the Explanatory Note to the proposed Bill No. 438 – 3rd C.R.P. says that
“to praise Rizal without taking the trouble to study that which elicits our praises is to be
hypocritical”. Hence we suggest that a Rizalian Anthology be prepared where all the
patriotic passages and the social political philosophy of Rizal not only from these two
novels but from all the rest of his writings, letters, poems and speeches be compiled. It is
not only in the two novels but also in his other writings are the patriotic teachings of Rizal
to be found. In order to compile an Anthology of the kind we suggest, we have already
organized a committee which is making the necessary studies.

IX. Our objection then to the Bill proposed is not an objection against our national hero
nor against the imparting of patriotic education to our Children.

X. Our Constitution (Art. 3, Section 1 (7) guarantees the free exercise of religion. The
Supreme Court of the United States has decided that the American school children
belonging to a certain sect cannot be compelled to salute the American flag because said
act is offensive to their religious belief. (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319,
U.S. 624). On this basis, We believe that to compel Catholic students to read a book which
contain passages contradicting their faith constitutes a violation of a Philippine
constitutional provision.
XI. We, the Catholic Philippine Hierarchy maintain that these novels do contain
teachings contrary to our faith and so, We are opposed to the proposed compulsory
reading in their entirety of such books in any school in the Philippines where
Catholic students may be affected. We cannot permit the eternal salvation of
immortal souls, souls for which We are answerable before the throne of Divine
Justice, to be compromised for the sake of any human good, no matter how great it
may appear to be. “For what does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but
suffer the loss of his own soul?”18

Given this 21st day of April in the year of Our Lord, 1956. Manila, Philippines

For the Philippine Hierarchy:

(Sgd.)+RUFINO J. SANTOS, D.D.
Archbishop of Manila
President, Administrative Council
Catholic Welfare Organization
OPPOSITION OF THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH

The Catholic Action of Manila (CAM) was one

of the principal organizations that initiated
campaigns against the bills. Its two attempts
were to release articles of resistance daily,
instead of weekly, through the Sentinel, its
office organ, and to convince the Catholics to
write the senators and the congressmen to junk
the bills.
OPPOSITION OF THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH

Fr. Jesus Cavanna, a speaker on the

symposium organized by the CAM, lambasted
Rizal’s novels by saying that the Noli and Fili
“…belong to the past and it would be harmful
to read them because they presented a false
picture of conditions in the country at that
time. Noli Me Tangere is an attack on the
clergy and its object was to put to ridicule the
Catholic faith. The novel was not really
patriotic because out of 333 pages, only 25
contained patriotic passages while 120 were
devoted to anti-Catholic attack” (quoted from
Rosales, Sinag Vol. 1)
 THE PROS AND ANTIS
• Debates on Senate Bill No. 438 started on
April 23, 1956

• PROS – Jose P. Laurel & Claro M. Recto

• ANTIS – Mariano J. Cuenco, Francisco

‘Soc’ Rodrigo , & Decoro
 THE PROS AND ANTIS
• Claro M. Recto argued that under the
police power and the Article 14 Section
5 of the (1935) Constitution, the State
could require the reading of Noli Me
Tangere and El Filibusterismo

• The proposed bill was envisioned to

foster understanding and appreciation of
Rizal’s times as well as his role in
exposing Spanish tyranny in the
Philippines.
• “Rizal did not pretend to teach religion or theology he wrote
those books. He aimed at inculcating civic consciousness in
the Filipinos, national dignity, personal pride, and patriotism,
and if references were made by him in the course of his
narration of certain religious practices in the Philippines in
the days and to the conduct and behavior or erring ministers
of the church, it was because he portrayed faithfully the
general situation in the Philippines as it then existed.”
• “… but while he criticized and ridiculed the unworthy
behavior of certain minister of the church, he made
exceptions in favor of the worthy ones, like the Dominican
friar, Padre Fernandez, and virtuous native priest, Padre
Florentino, and the Jesuits in general.”
- Claro M. Recto
“A vast majority of our people are at the same time Catholics and
Filipino citizens. As such, they have two great loves: their country
and their faith. These two loves are not conflicting loves. They are
harmonious affections like the love of a child for his father and
for his home.”

“This is the basis of my stand. Let us not create a conflict

between nationalism and religion; between the government and
the church.”

-Fransico ‘ Soc’ Rodrigo

HOUSE BILL 5561

THE PROS AND ANTIS

• PROS – Jacobo Gonzalez, Emilio

Cortez, Mario Bengzon, Joaquin R.
Robles, and W. Rancap Lagumbay.

• ANTIS – Ramon Durano, Jose

Nuquid, Marciano Lim, Manuel Zosa,
Lucas Paredes, Godofredo Ramos,
Miguel Cuenco, Carmen D. Consing,
and Tecla San Andres Ziga
ON MAY 9, 1956, A SUDDEN TURN OF EVENT
HAPPENED. IT BECAME APPARENT THAT JOSE
P. LAUREL WAS WILLING TO ENTER INTO A
COMPROMISE WITH THOSE WHO OPPOSITE
THE BILL
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.

Whereas, today, more than 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 writings 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; Now therefore,
AN ACT TO MAKE NOLI ME TANGERE AND EL
FILIBUSTERISMO COMPULSORY READING MATERIAL
IN ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES AND FOR OTHER PUPOSES

VS.

AN ACT TO INCLUDE IN CURRICULA OF ALL PUBLIC

AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS, COLLEGES AND
UNNIVERSITIES COURSES ON THE LIFE WORKS AND
WRITINGS OF JOSE RIZAL, PARTICULARLY HIS NOVELS
NOLI ME TANGERE AND EL FILIBUSTERISMO,
AUTHORIZING THE PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION
THEREFORE, AND FOR OTHER PURPSOSES.
• Senator Laurel explained that he eliminated the
‘compulsion idea’ after consulting his religious
conscience as a member of the church

• “If Rizal was a hero. And on that there could be no

debate, if Rizal is a national hero, these books that he
has written, whenever read, must be read in the
unexpurgated, original form.”
• Senator Primicias proposed the inclusion of this amendment to
the amendment:

“THE BOARD SHALL PROMULGATE RULES AND

REGULATIONS PROVIDING FOR THE EXEMPTION OF
STUDENTS FOR REASONS OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF STATED
IN A SWORM WRITTEN STATEMENT…”
THE PROPOSAL OF SENATOR PRIMICIAS WAS
IINCLUDED IN SECTION ONE(1) PARAGRAPH TWO(2)
OF THE BILL.

SENATOR LAUREL’S SUBSTITUTE BILL WAS

APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY ON SECOND READING ON
MAY 12, 1956.
 HOUSE BILL 5561
• The solution on the impassed by Senator Laurel was Deemed
acceptable by members of the House of Representatives.

• On May 14, 1956, Congressman Tolentino, the then House

Majority Floor Leader sponsored an amendment by substitution
like the one proposed by Senator Laurel.

• Although there were minor dissents, 51 congressmen approved

the bill on second reading on the same day.
ANTI CLIMAX
• Just as how the deliberations in the both chambers of
Congress were intense, it’s anti-climax was dramatic
as well.
• Representatives need to pass the bill as soon as
possible because the Congress was to adjourn
indefinitely (sine die)
• Since the President did not certify the bill as urgent, it
must under the rigors of the constitutional process.
First, printed copies of the bill must be distributed
among the members of the House at least three (3)
calender days before its final aproval.
ANTI CLIMAX

• Through the help of Congressman Gonzales, Speaker Laurel

managed to pull some strings at the Buureau of Printing. He
made an instruction not to destroy the printing molds of
Senator Laurel’s substitute bill. He ordered enough copies for
the members of the House altering the bill number and the
chamber of origin.
• While Senate was still deliberating SB 438 for its 3rd reading,
copies of HB 5561 were distributed among the members of the
House of Representatives.
ANTI CLIMAX
• While HB 5561 was being deliberated on its second
reading, Speaker Laurel made sure that no insertions
or amendments be made in order to avoid its
reprinting and reditribution.
• SB 438 WAS ACCEPTED AS IT IS.
• Speaker Laurel did not let the adjourn of the House
not until the bill could be approved.
• SB 438 was approved on its 3rd reading with 23
senators in favor (1 was absent) while HB 5561 was
approved on its 3rd reading with 71 representatives in
favor (6 objected, 2 abstained, while 17 were absent).
 PASSING OF THE LAW
• On June 12, 1956, President Ramon Magsaysay
signed the bill and henceforth became REPUBLIC
ACT 1425