Rizal 73g2d

We now live in a postmodern world dominated by electronic gadgets, cyber technology, robotics, scientific and genetic breakthroughs. The Philippines, in spite of its status as an industrializing country, also manages to get by with the current trend of development and industrialization. It is a fact that education plays a vital role in the growth of a country, for an educated and functional population maneuvers the fate of its country and its fate as a people. At present, many tertiary students, particularly those taking up technical, engineering and nursing courses, ask about the relevance of Rizal Course to their courses and planned career paths. Some of them wonder if the subject will just be a mere repetition of what they had during their high-school days, while some insist that the subject, whatever its code, may be just a waste of time and money. Thus, most students tend to be antagonistic not only to the subject but to the teacher and, worst, to Jose Rizal himself. Rizal Course is mandated by law under Republic Act 1425, authored and fought for by Claro M. Recto. R.A. 1425 is also known as the Rizal Law. The law has three major provisions: First, it directs educational agencies such as the Department of Education and the Commission of Higher Education to include in the curricula of all schools, colleges and universities, public or private, the study of the life of our national hero, with emphasis on the original or unexpurgated versions of the Noli and El Fili. Second, it obliges all the libraries of all schools, colleges and universities to maintain an adequate number of copies of Noli and El Fili in their collections as well as other materials related to the life of Rizal. Third, it directs the Board of National Education to take charge of the translation, reproduction and distribution of printed copies of Rizal’s novels to interested parties through purok organizations and barangay councils, free of charge. The antagonistic attitude of students toward the Rizal Course can be generally traced to our historical unawareness and indifference. Some of us already stopped caring about our significant past, thus making us ignorant of the good lessons we should have learned for our own good. Some of us were jus so preoccupied that we had no time to be conscious and look back to learn from the deeds and principles of the people who started shaping the destiny of our nation. Another factor that’s also fanned negative impressions about the Rizal Course was the way teachers and professors handle and deliver the subject. While strictly following the provisions of R.A. 1425, teachers are free to be creative and apply appealing teaching techniques that would cater to the interests of the students. Teaching the course should not only involve memorizing and reading the novel, instead a presentation of Rizal as an ordinary boy or student who exerted his utmost efforts to be a great and

functional person will be highly appreciated by students, while also taking note of his flaws as a person and how he surmounted them through his strengths. Teachers can direct their students to read the novels of Rizal and allow them to analyze if the plots of the novels still apply to our present situation. Provocative questions must be asked among learners in order to allow them to think critically. Professors can assign them tasks that require researches in order for them to visit the school libraries and use the library’s Rizaliana Collection. Meanwhile, schools, colleges and universities must act in accordance with R.A. 1425 and equip their libraries with materials about Rizal. There are lots of works about Rizal nowadays, written by both Filipino and foreign authors. In this way, the schools, colleges and universities not only complied with the law but helped form historically aware and concerned young citizens. Some would argue that the Rizal Law is obsolete and needs to be abolished or amended. But the law is very simple, yet it caters to the Filipinos not to hero-worship but to a hero who chose death for the sake of his convictions and of his country. To pay tribute to an exemplary Filipino who even in his lifetime was already revered by his compatriots with the likes of Andres Bonifacio and Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo, by world-renowned personalities like Dr. Rudolf Virchow and Ferdinand Blumentritt. Most of all, this law indirectly guides us to live according to Rizal’s examples by knowing him and by reading him.

https://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060927015325AAfITYX

http://thelifeandworksofrizal.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-study-rizal.html

Why Study Rizal? It is of great importance that students understand the rationale behind having to take up a Rizal course in college. For high school students, the Noli Me Tangere and the El Filibusterismo are injected into the Filipino subject as part of the overall curriculum. In tertiary education, however, Rizal is a subject required of any course, in any college or university in the Philippines. Usually, during the first day of the course, the professor asks the well-overused questions: Why study Rizal?

What is the importance of studying Rizal? Why is Rizal one of the minor subjects taken up in college? Why is Rizal included in the course outline? What relevance does Rizal have in college education? The answer to such questions can be summed up in two points: 1. 2.

First and foremost, because it is mandated by law. Secondly, because of the lessons contained within the course itself.

Let us discuss those reasons one by one: WHY STUDY RIZAL: BECAUSE IT IS MANDATED BY LAW The teaching of Jose Rizal’s life, works, and writings is mandated by Republic Act 1425, otherwise known as the Rizal Law. Senator Jose P. Laurel, the person who sponsored the said law, said that since Rizal was the founder of Philippine nationalism and has contributed much to the current standing of this nation, it is only right that the youth as well as all the people in the country know about and learn to imbibe the great ideals for which he died. The Rizal Law, enacted in 1956, seeks to accomplish the following goals: 1. To rededicate the lives of youth to the ideals of freedom and nationalism, for which our heroes lived and died 2. To pay tribute to our national hero for devoting his life and works in shaping the Filipino character 3. To gain an inspiring source of patriotism through the study of Rizal’s life, works, and writings. WHY STUDY RIZAL: BECAUSE OF THE LESSONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE COURSE Aside from those mentioned above, there are other reasons for teaching the Rizal course in Philippine schools: 1. To recognize the importance of Rizal’s ideals and teachings in relation to present conditions and situations in the society. 2. To encourage the application of such ideals in current social and personal problems and issues. 3. To develop an appreciation and deeper understanding of all that Rizal fought and died for. 4. To foster the development of the Filipino youth in all aspects of citizenship.

Transcript of RIZAL’S LIFE, WORKS AND WRITINGS What do you think are the importance of studying Rizal’s Life, Works and Writings in all College degrees/courses? Based on the course objectives, we can get the importance of studying the Life, works and writings of Dr. P. Rizal which are to explore the political and socio-

economic situations during the lifetime of Rizal, to appreciate his works and writings, to learn significant lessons from his life, to develop a sense of nationalism and patriotism, the essence of consciousness with regards gender and development, climate change adaptation, peace and good governance. 2. The person must be dead 3. The person must have a solid sense of patriotism 2. What do you think are the reasons why the students most of the time take this subject for granted? Course Objectives: Pursuant to Republic Act 1425 ed by the Philippine Congress on June 12,1995, and with the Commission on Higher Education memorandum Order No. 59 series of 1996, the study of Life, works and writings of Dr. Jose P Rizal will enable the students to: 1. Explore briefly the country’s Socio-political and economic situations from 1861 to 1896 2. Appreciate the works, writings and life lived by Rizal 3. Learn significant lessons from the life lived by Rizal making them agents of transformation of a much improved Filipino nation 4. Develop a sense of nationalism and patriotism 5. Develop the essence of consciousness with regards gender and development, climate change adaptation, peace and good governance RIZAL’S LIFE, WORKS AND WRITINGS What do you think are the reasons why Dr. Jose Rizal was chosen as the national Hero? The criteria in choosing a national hero set by the Americans in 1901 is the following: 1. The person must be a Filipino Course Description: Rizal’s Life Works and Writings is now a mandated subject pursuant to Commission on Higher Education Memorandum Order No. 59 series of 1996. This course aims to develop nationalism among students, to make them become conscious of the importance of the contributions of Rizal to our history through exploring his life and eventually instill in the minds of the students the significance of his life, works and writings. We are all aware that we are now living in a world of modernization---in the world of electronic gadgets and cyber technology and studying life and works of our heroes

may often lead to a boring class and a boring subject. And there are students especially from science related courses and other courses with no direct relevance to history who may become antagonistic on Rizal as a mandatory subject. But I am assuring you that this class that I am going to handle in Imus Institute will be an interesting and exciting one. We will be more creative and we will apply appealing techniques. By doing these things I am likely to expect full participation by everybody especially in class discussions and activities. 4. The person must be a calm thinking person https://prezi.com/0aefurddka_l/rizals-life-works-and-writings/

(2)

Who Made Rizal Our Foremost National Hero, and Why? BY: ESTEBAN A. DE OCAMPO Dr. Jose Rizal Mercado y Alonso, or simply Jose Rizal (1861-1896), is unquestionably the greatest hero & martyr of our nation. The day of his birth & the day of his execution are fittingly commemorated by all classes of our people throughout the length & breadth of this country & even by Filipinos & their friends abroad. His name is a byword in every Filipino home while his picture adorns the postage stamp & paper money of widest circulation. No other Filipino hero can sur Rizal in the number of towns, barrios, & streets named after him; in the number of educational institutions, societies, & trade names that bear his name; in the number of persons, both Filipinos & foreigners, who were named "Rizal" or "Rizalina" because of their parents’ iration for the Great Malayan; & in the number of laws, Executive Orders & Proclamations of the Chief Executive, & bulletins, memoranda, & circulars of both the bureaus of public & private schools. Who is the Filipino writer & thinker whose teachings & noble thoughts have been frequently invoked & quoted by authors & public speakers on almost all occasions? None but Rizal. And why is this so? Because as biographer Rafael Palma (1) said, "The doctrines of Rizal are not for one epoch but for all epochs. They are as valid today as they were yesterday. It cannot be said that because the political ideals of Rizal have been achieved, because of the change in the institutions, the wisdom of his counsels or the value of his doctrines have ceased to be opportune. They have not." Unfortunately, however, there are still some Filipinos who entertain the belief that Rizal is a "made-toorder" national hero, & that the maker or manufacturer in this case were the Americans, particularly Civil Governor William Howard Taft. This was done allegedly, in the following manner: "And now, gentlemen, you must have a national hero". These were supposed to be the words addressed by Gov. Taft to Mssrs. Pardo de Tavera, Legarda & Luzurriaga, Filipino of the Philippine Commission, of which Taft was the chairman. It was further reported that "in the subsequent discussion in

which the rival merits of the revolutionary heroes (M. H. del Pilar, Graciano Lopez Jaena, Gen. Antonio Luna, Emilio Jacinto, & Andres Bonifacio—O.) were considered, the final choice—now universally acclaimed a wise one—was Rizal. And so history was made."(2) This article will attempt to answer two questions: 1) Who made Rizal the foremost national hero & 2) Why is Rizal our greatest national hero? Before proceeding to answer these queries, it will be better if we first know the meaning of the term hero. According to Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English Language, a hero is "a prominent or central personage taking irable part in any remarkable action or event". Also, "a person of distinguished valor or enterprise in danger". And finally, he is a man "honored after death by public worship, because of exceptional service to mankind". Why is Rizal a hero, nay, our foremost national hero? He is our greatest hero because as a towering figure in the Propaganda Campaign, he took an "irable part" in that movement w/c roughly covered the period from 1882-1896. If we were asked to pick out a single work by a Filipino writer during this period, more than any writer writing, contributed tremendously to the formation of Filipino nationality, we shall have no hesitation tin choosing Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere (Berlin, 1887). It is true that Pedro Paterno published his novel, Ninay, in Madrid in 1885; M. H. del Pilar his La Soberania Monacal in Barcelona in 1889, Graciano Lopez Jaena, his Discursos y Articulos Varios, also in Barcelona in 1891; & Antonio Luna, hisImpresiones in Madrid in 1893, but none of these books had evoked such favorable & unfavorable comments from friends & foes alike as did Rizal’s Noli. Typical of the encomiums that the hero received for his novel were those received from Antonio Ma. Regidor & Prof. Ferdinand Blumentritt. Regidor, a Filipino exile of 1872 in London, said that "the book was superior" & that if "don Quixote has made its author immortal because he exposed to the world the sufferings of Spain, your Noli Me Tangere will bring you equal glory…" (3) Blumentritt, after reading Rizal’s Noli, wrote & congratulated its author, saying among other things: "Your work, as we Germans say, has been written w/ the blood of the heart... Your work has exceeded my hopes & I consider myself happy to have been honored by your friendship. Not only I, but also your country, may feel happy for having in you a patriotic & loyal son. If you continue so, you will be to your people one of those great men who will exercise a determinative influence over the progress of their spiritual life."(4) If Rizal’s friends & irers praised w/ justifiable pride the Noli & its author, his enemies were equally loud & bitter in attacking & condemning the same. Perhaps no other work has, up to this day, aroused as much acrimonious debate not only among our people but also among reactionary foreigners as the Noli of Rizal. In the Philippines the hero’s novel was attacked & condemned by a faculty committee of a Manila university (UST) & by the permanent censorship commission in 1887. the committee said that it found the book "heretical, impious, & scandalous to the religious order, & unpatriotic & subversive to the public order, libelous to the govt. of Spain & to its political policies in these islands", while the commission recommended that "the importation, reproduction, & circulation of this pernicious book in the islands be absolutely prohibited." (5) Coming down to our time, during the congressional discussions & hearings on the Rizal (Noili-Fili) in 1956, the proponents & opponents of the bill also engaged themselves in a bitter & long drawn-out debate the finally resulted in the enactment of a compromise measure, now known as RA 1425. The attacks on Rizal’s 1st novel were not only confined in the Philippines but were also staged in the Spanish capital. There, Sen. Vida, Deputy (& ex-general) Luis de Pando & Premier Praxedes Mateo Sagasta were among those who unjustly lambasted & criticized Rizal & his Noli in the 2 chambers of the Spanish Cortes in 1888 & 1889. (6) it is comforting to learn however, that about 13 years later, Cong. Henry Allen Cooper of Wisconsin delivered an eulogy of Rizal & even recited the martyr’s Ultimo Pensamiento on the floor of the U. S. House of Representatives in order to prove the capacity of the

Filipinos for self- government. He said in part: "It has been said that, if American institutions had done nothing else to furnish to the world the character of George Washington, that alone would entitle them to the respect of mankind. So Sir, I say to all those who denounces the Filipinos indiscriminately as barbarians & savages, w/o possibility of a civilized future, that this despised race proved itself entitled to their respect & to the respect of mankind when it furnished to the world the character of Jose Rizal."(7) The result of this appeal was the approval of what is popularly known as the Philippine Bill of 1902. The preceding paragraphs have shown that by the Noli alone Rizal, among his contemporaries, had become the most prominent/ the central figure of the Propaganda Movement. Again, we ask the question: why did Rizal, become the greatest Filipino hero? Because in this writer’s humble opinion, no Filipino has yet been born who could equal or sur Rizal as a "person of distinguished valor/enterprise in danger, fortitude in suffering." Of these traits of our hero, let us see what a Filipino & an American biographer said: "What is most irable in Rizal," wrote Rafael Palma, is his complete self-denial, his complete abandonment of his personal interests to think only of those of his country. He could have been whatever he wished to be, considering his natural endowmwnts; he could have earned considerable sums of money from his profession; he could have lived relatively rich, happy, prosperous, had he not dedicated himself to public matters. But in him, the voice of the species was stronger than the voice of personal progress or of private fortune, & he preferred to live far from his family & to sacrifice his personal affections for an ideal he had dreamed of. He heeded not his brother, not even his parents, beings whom he respected & venerated so much, in order to follow the road his conscience had traced for him. He did not have great means at his disposal to carry out his campaign, but that did not discouraged him; he contented himself w/ what he had. He suffered the rigors of the cold winter of Europe, he suffered hunger, privation, & misery; but when he raised his eyes to heaven & saw his ideal, his hope was reborn. He complained of his countrymen, he complained of some of those who had promosed him help & did not help him, until at times, profoundly disillusioned, he wanted to renounce his campaign forever, giving up everything. But such moments are evanescent, he soon felt comforted & resumed the task of bearing the cross of his suffering." (8) Dr. Frank C. Laubach, an American biographer of Rizal, spoke of the hero’s coueage in the following words: His consuming life purpose was the secret of his moral courage. Physical courage, it is true, was one of his inherited traits. But that high courage to die loving his murderers, w/c he at last achieved--that cannot be inherited. It must be forged out in the fires of suffering & temptation. As we read through his life, we can see how the moral sinew & fiber grew year by year as he faced new perils & was forced to make fearful decisions. It required courage to write his 2 great novels telling nothing that no otherman has ventured to say before, standing almost alone against the powerful interests in the country & in Spain, & knowing full well that despotism would strike back. He had reached another loftier plateau of heroism when he wrote those letters to Hong Kong, "To be opened after my death", & sailed to the "trap" in Manila w/o any illusions. Then in his Dapitan exile when he was tempted to escape, & said "No", not once but hundreds of times for 4 long years, & when, on the way to Cuba, Pedro Roxas pleaded w/ him to step off the boat of Singapore upon British territory & save his life, what an inner struggle it must have caused him to answer over & over again, "No, no, no!" When the sentence of death & the fateful morning of his execution brought the final test, 30 Dec 1896, he walked w/ perfect calm to the firing line as though by his own choice, the only heroic figure in that sordid scene." (9)

To the bigoted Spaniards in Spain & in the Philippines, Rizal was the most intelligent, most courageous, & most dangerous enemy of the reactionaries & the tyrants; therefore he should be shot publicly to serve as an example & a warning to those of his kind. This was the reason why Rizal, after a brief mock trial, was sentenced to death & made to face the firing squad at Bagumbayan Field, now Luneta, in the early morning of 30 Dec 1896. And for the 3rd & the last time, we repeat the question: Why is Rizal the greatest Filipino hero that ever lived? Because "he is a man honored after death by public worship, because of exceptional service to mankind". We can say that even before his execution, Rizal was the already acclaimed by both Filipinos & foreigners as the foremost leader of his people". Writing from Barcelona to the Great Malayan on 10 Mar 1889, M. H. del Pilar said: "Rizal no tiene aun derecho a morir: su nombre constituye la mas pura e immaculada bandera de aspirationes y Plaridel los suyos no son otra causa ma que immaculada unos voluntarios que militan bajo esa bandera."(10) Fernando Acevedo, who called Rizal his distinguido amigo, compañero y paisano", wrote the letter from Zaragoza, Spain, on 25 Oct 1889: "I see in you the model Filipino; your application to study & you talents have placed on a height w/c I revere & ire." (11) The Bicolano Dr. Tomas Arejola wrote Rizal in Madrid, 9 Feb 1891, saying: "Your moral influence over us is indisputable." (12) And Guillermo Puatu of Bulacan wrote this tribute to Rizal, saying: "Vd. a quien se le puede (llamar) con razon, cabeza tutelary de los Filipinos, aunque la comparacion parezca algo ridicula, porque posee la virtud la atraer consigo enconadas voluntades, zanjar las discordias y enemistades renorosasnreuniren fiestas a hombres que no querian verse ni en la calle… (12a) Among the foreigners who recognized Rizal as the leading Filipino of his time were Blumentritt, Napoleon M. Kheil, Dr. Rheinhold Rost, & Vicente Barrantes. Prof. Blumentritt told Dr. Maximo Viola in May 1887 that "Rizal was the greatest product of the Philippines & that his coming to the world was like the appearance of a rare comet, whose rare brilliance appears only every other century." (13) napoleon Kheil of Prague, Austria, wrote to Rizal & said: "iro en Vd. a un noble representante de la España colonial." (13a) Dr. Rost, distinguished Malayologist & librarian of the India office of London, called Rizal "una perla hombre" (14) , while don Vicente Barrantes had to it that Rizal was ‘the first among the Filipinos" (14) Even before the outbreak of the revolution against Spain in 1896, many instances can be cited to prove that his country here & abroad recognized Rizal’s leadership. In the early part of 1899 he was unanimously elected by the Filipinos in Barcelona & Madrid as honorary pres. of la Solidaridad. (17) Some months later in Paris, he organized & became chief of theIndios Bravos. In Jan 1891, Rizal was again unanimously chosen Responsable (chief) of the Spanish-Filipino Association. (18) He was also the founder & moving spirit in the founding ofla Liga Filipina on Manila in 3 Jul 1892. History tells us tat the revolutionary society known as Katipunan likewise acknowledged Rizal’s leadership & greatness by making him its honorary President & by using his family name Rizal as the for the 3rd-degree . (19) A year after Rizal’s execution, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo & the other revolutionary chiefs exiled to Hong Kong held a commemorative program there on 29 Dec 1897 on the occasion of the 1 st anniversary of the hero’s execution & martyrdom. (20) Of utmost significance in the public’s appreciation for Rizal’s patriotic labors in behalf of his people were the tributes paid by the revolutionary government to his memory. In his opening address at the congress assembled at Malolos, Bulacan on 15 Sep 1898, Pres. Aguinaldo invoked the spirits of the departed heroes of the fatherland, thus:

Illustrious spirits of RIZAL, Lopez Jaena, of Marcelo del Pilar! August shades of Burgos, Pelaez & Panganiban! Warlike geniuses of Aguinaldo! (Crispulo---O.), & Tirona, of Natividad & Evangelista! Arise a moment from your unknown graves! (21) Then on 20 Dec 1898 at the revolutionary capital of Malolos, Pres. Aguinaldo issued the 1 stofficial proclamation making 30 Dec of that year as "Rizal Day". The same proclamation ordered the hoisting the Filipino flags at half-mast "from 12:00 noon on 30 Dec 1898" and the closing of "all offices of the government" during the whole day of 30 Dec. actually, the impressive Rizal Day program, sponsored by the Club Filipino, was held in Manila on 30 Dec 1898. (22a) It should be further noted that both the La Independencia, edited by Gen. Antonio Luna, & the El Heraldo de la Revolucion, official organ of the revolutionary government, issued a special supplement in honor of Rizal in one of their December issues in 1898. Two of the greatest of Filipino poets in the Spanish language paid glowing tributes to the martyr of Bagumbayan in acknowledgement of the hero’s labors & sacrifices for his people. Fernando Ma. Guerrero wrote on 25 Sep 1898, thus: "No has muerto, no. La Gloria es tu destino; tu corona los fuegos de la aurora, y tu inviolable altar nuestra conciencia." (23) And Cecilio Apostol, on 30 Dec of the same year, wrote these lines: "!Duerme en paz las sombras de la nada, Redentor de una Patria esclavizada! !No llores de la tumba en el misterio Del español el triunfo momentaneo: Que si Una bala destrozo tu craneo, Tambien tu idea destrozo un emperio! (24) The Filipinos were not alone in grieving the untimely death of their hero & idol, for the intellectual & scientific circles of the world felt keenly the loss of Rizal, who was their esteemed colleague & friend. Dr. Camilo Osias & Wenceslao E. Retaña both spoke of the universal homage accorded to Rizal immediately after his death. Dr. Osias wrote thus: Expressions of deep sympathy came from Blumentritt & many others such as Dr. Renward Braustetter of Lucerne, a scholar on things Malay; Dr. Feodor Jagor, a German author of Philippine Travels; Dr. Friedrich Ratzel, an emeinent German geographer & ethnographer; Señor Ricardo Palma, a distinguished man of letters from Peru; Prof. M Buchner, director of the Ethnographic Museum of Munich & a noted Malayologist; Monsieur Edmont Planchut, a French Orientalist, author of various works & writer on Philippine subjects; Dr. W. Joest, eminent German geographer & professor at the University of Berlin; Dr. H. Kern, professor of Sanskrit in the University of Leiden & celebrated authority on Malay affairs; Dr. J. Montano, a distinguished French linguist & anthropologist & author of a Memoria on the Philippines; Dr. F. Mueller, professor of the University of Vienna & a great philologist; a noted Dutch literary woman who signed H. D. Teenk Willink, author of a touching & conscientious biography of Rizal; Herr Manfred Wittich, writer of Leipzig; Dr. Betances, Cuban political leader; Dr. Boettger, a noted German naturalist & author of works on the fauna of the Philippines; Dr. A. B. Meyer, director of the Museum of Ethnography at Dresden

& eminent Filipinologist; M. Odekerchen of Leige, director of l’Express, a newspaper where Rizal wrote articles; Dr. Ed Seler, translator in German of Rizal’s My Last Farewell; Mr. H. W. Bray, a distinguished English writer; Mr. John Foreman, author of works on the Philippines & Rizal; Herr C. m. Heller, a German naturalist; Dr. H. Stolpe, a Swedish savant who spoke & published on the Philippines & Rizal; Mr. Armand Lelinsky, Austrian engineer & writer; Dr. J. M. Podhovsky, a notable Czech write, author of various works on the Philippines & Dr. Rizal. (25) Among the scientific necrological services held especially to honor Rizal, the one sponsored by the Anthropological Society of Berlin in 20 Nov 1897 at the initiative of Dr. Rudolph Virchow, its president, was the most important & significant. Dr. Ed Seler recited the German translation of Rizal’s "My Last Farewell" on that occasion. (26) The newspapers, magazines, & other periodicals throughout the civilized world – in , Austria, , Holland, London, the US, Japan, Hong Kong & Macao, Singapore, Switzerland, & in Latin American countries—published s of Rizal’s martyrdom in order to render homage to his greatness. (27) Did the Americans, especially Gov. W. H. Taft, really choose Rizal out of several Filipino patriots as the No. 1 hero of his people? Nothing could be farther from the truth. In the preceding pages, we have shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Great Malayan, by his own efforts & sacrifices for his oppressed countrymen, had projected himself as the foremost leader of the Philippines until the moment of his immolation, & this fact was spontaneously acknowledged not only by his own people but also the elite of other lands who intimately knew his patriotic labors. We have likewise shown that immediately after his execution, his own people had justly acclaimed him as their foremost hero & martyr. The intellectual & scientific world, as we have also demonstrated, was not slow in according him signal honors as a hero of humanity & as an apostle of freedom. Mr. Taft, as chairman of the 2nd Philippine Commission, arrived in the Philippines in June 1900. This commission began its legislative functions on 1st September of the same year. On June 11 of the ensuing year the Philippine commission approved Act no. 137, w/c organized the "politico-military district of Morong" into the "Province of Rizal". This was the 1st official step taken by the Taft commission to honor our greatest hero & martyr. It should be borne in mind that 6 days before the age of Act no. 137, the Taft commission held a meeting at the town of Pasig for the purpose of organizing the province. In that meeting attended by the leading citizens of both Manila & Morong, a plan was presented to combine the 2 districts into one, but this proposal met w/ determined & vigorous objections from the leaders of Morong. "At this point", reads the ‘Minutes of Proceedings’ of the Taft commission, "Dr. Tavera, of the Federal Party, who accompanied the commission, asked that he might make a suggestion w/ reference to the proposed union of Manila & Morong provinces. It was his opinion that in case of union neither the name of Morong nor Manila ought to be retained. He then stated the custom w/c prevailed in th US & other countries of naming important localities/districts in memory of some illustrious citizen of the country. In line w/ this he suggested that the united provinces be named ‘Rizal’ in memory & honor of the most illustrious Filipino & the most illustrious Tagalog the islands had ever known. The president (Taft—O.) stated that the commission, not less than the Filipinos, felt proud to do honor to the name of Rizal, & if, after consideration, it decided to unite the 2 provinces, it would have the pleasure, if such action met the desires of the people, in giving the new province the name of Rizal". (28) It is obvious then that the idea of naming the district of Morong after Rizal came from Dr. Pardo de Tavera, a Filipino, & not from Judge Taft, an American. It is interesting to know that 2 countrymen of Mr. Taft— Justice George A. Malcolm & Dr. Frank C. Laubach—who both resided in the Philippines for many years

& who were very familiar w/ the history & lives of great Filipinos—do not subscribe to the view that Jose Rizal is an American-made hero. Justice Malcolm has this to say: In those early days (of the American occupation—O.), it was bruited about that the Americans had ‘made’ Rizal a hero to serve their purposes. That was indeed a sinister interpretation of voluntary American action designed to pay tribute to a great man. (29) Dr. Laubach’s view about the question is as follows: The tradition that every American hears when he reaches the Philippine Islands is that W. H. Taft, feeling that the Filipinos needed a hero, made one out of Rizal. We trust this book (Rizal: Man & Martyr—O.) will serve to show how empty that statement is. it speaks well for Taft that he was sufficiently free from racial prejudice to appreciate in some measure the stature of a great Filipino. It was a Spaniard who did more than any other to save Rizal for posterity—Retaña whose work (Vida Escritos del Dr. Jose Rizal, Madrid, 1907), is by far the most complete & scholarly than we have(in1936—O.). like Rizal, he lost all his money in the cause of the Filipinos, & died a poor man. (30) Granting for the sake of argument that the Taft commission chose Rizal out of several great Filipinos as the No. 1 hero of his people, still we can say that what the commission did was merely to confirm a sort of fait accompli, & that was that Jose Rizal had already been acclaimed by his countrymen & the scientific world as the foremost hero & martyr of the land of his birth. Nay, we can go even farther & concur w/ Prof. Blumentritt, who said in 1897: Not only is Rizal THE MOST PROMINENT MAN OF HIS OWN PEOPLE but THE GREATEST MAN THE MALAYAN RACE HAS PRODUCED. His memor ywill never perish in his fatherland, & future generations of Spaniards will yet toutter his name w/ respect & reverence. (31) (capitalization supplied) Perhaps the following quotation from the late William Cameron Forbes, an ardent irer of Rizal & the governor-general of the Philippines during the construction of the Rizal Mausoleum on the Luneta, is appropriate at this point. He said: It is eminently proper that Rizal should have become the acknowledged national hero of the Philippine people. The American istration has lent every assistance to this recognition, setting aside the anniversary of his death to be a day of his observance, placing his picture on the postage stamp most commonly used in the Islands, & on the currency, cooperating w/ the Filipinos in making the site of his school in Dapitan a national park, & encouraging the erection by public subscription of a monument in his honor on the Luneta in Manila near the place where he met his death. One of the longest & most important street in Manila has been named in his memory—Rizal Avenue. The Filipinos in many cities & towns have erected monuments to his name, & throughout the Islands the public schools teach the young Filipinos to revere his memory as the greatest of Filipino patriots. (32) Now and then we come across some Filipinos who venture the opinion that Andres Bonifacio, & not Jose Rizal, deserves to be acknowledged & canonized as our first national hero. They maintain that Rizal never held a gun, a rifle, or a sword in fighting for the liberty & independence of our country in the battlefield. They further assert that while the foremost national heroes of other countries are soldiergenerals, like George Washington of US, Napoleon I & Joan of Arc of , simon Bolivar of Venezuela, Jose de San Martin of Argentina, Bernardo O’Higgins of Chile, Jimmu Tenno of Japan, etc., our greatest hero was a pacifist & a civilian whose weapon was his quill. However, our people in exercising their good sense, independent judgment, & unusual discernment, have not followed the examples of other nations in selecting & acknowledging a military leader for their greatest hero. Rafael Palma has very well stated the case of Rizal versus Bonifacio in these words:

It should be a source of pride & satisfaction to the Filipinos to have among their national heroes one of such excellent qualities & merits w/c may be equaled but not sured by any other man. Whereas generally the heroes of occidental nations are warriors & generals who serve their cause w/ the sword, distilling blood & tears, the hero of the Filipinos served his cause w/ the pen, demonstrating that the pen is as mighty as the sword to redeem a people from their political slavery. It is true that in our case the sword of Bonifacio was after all needed to shake off the yoke of a foreign power; but the revolution prepared by Bonifacio was only the effect, the consequence of the spiritual redemption wrought by the pen of Rizal. Hence not only in the chronological order but also in the point of importancethe previous works of Rizal seems to us superior to that of Bonicacio, because although that of Bonifacio was of immediate results, that of Rizal will have more durable & permanent effects.(33) And let us note further what other great men said about the pen being mightier & more powerful than the sword. Napoleon I himself, who was a great conqueror & ruler, said: "There are only two powers in the world; the sword & the pen; and in the end the former is always conquered by the latter". (34) The following statement of Sir Thomas Browne is more applicable to the role played by Rizal in our libertarian struggle: "Scholars are men of peace; they bear no arms; but their tongues are sharper than the sword; their pens carry further & give a louder report than thunder. I had rather stand in the shock of a basilisk than in the fury of a merciless pen". (35) And finally, let us quote from Bulwer: "take away the sword; states can be saved w/o it; bring the pen! For those who may still doubt & question the fact that Rizal is greater, far greater than Bonifacio, or any other Filipino hero, the following observation by Retaña will be sufficient: Todos los paises tienen su idolo mas ninguno tiene un mayor idolo; que Filipinas. Antes desaparecera de los Estados Unidos---!y ya decir!---la memoria de Washington, que de Filipinas la memoria de RIZAL. No fue rizal, como medico, un Mariani, ni como dibujante un Gustavo Dore, ni como antropologo un Virchow, ni como poeta un Goethe, ni como filipinista un Blumentritt, ni como historiador un Macaulay, ni como pensador un Hervas, ni como malayologo un Kern, ni como filiosofo un Descartes, ni como novelista un Zola, ni como literato un Menendez y Pelayon in como escultor un Querol, ni como geografo un Reclus, ni como tirador un Pini…Distinguiose en muchas disciplinas; pero en ninguna de ellas alcanzo ese grado supremo que asegura la inmortalidad. Fue patriota; fue martir del amor a su pais. Pero en caso de Rizal hay otros Filipinos; y ?en que consiste que rizal esta a miles de cudos sobre todos ellos? Sencillamente, en la finura exquisita de su espiritu, en la nobleza quijotesca de su corazon, en su psicologia toda, romantica, soñadora, buena, adorable, psicologia que sintelizo todos los sentimientos y aspiraciones de un pueblo que sufria viendose victima de un regimen oprobioso…El espiritu de la Revolucion tagala se juzga por este solo hecho; Fue, como es sabido, el brazo armado de aquel movimiento Andres Bonifacio; he ahi el hombre que dio el primer grito contra tirania el que acaudillo las primeras huestes el que murio en la brecha…Y a ese hombre apenas se le recuerda; no se la eregido ningun monumento; los vates populares no le han cantado…Mientras que a RIZAL, enemigo de le Revolucion, que califico de salvaje y deshonrosa, le glorifica el pueblo deificarle…?No se ve en esto un pueblo eminentamente espiritual, que tuvo en RIZAL un resumen viviente? Todo Filipino lleva dentro de si algo del demagogo Bonifacio. La inmortalidad de RIZAL esta asegurada de cien maneras. Pero como mas asegurada esta es poque los millones de Filipinos de hoy, de mañana y de siempre beben y beberan espiritu de RIZAL; no se nutren de otra cosa. (37) In the preceding pages we have tried to show that Rizal was not only a great hero, but the greatest among the Filipinos. As a matter of fact, the Austrian savant Prof. Blumentritt judged him as "the most prominent man of his own people" and "the greatest man the Malayan race has produced". We have also shown during his lifetime, Rizal was already acclaimed by both Filipinos & foreigners as the foremost

leader of his people & that this iration for him has increased w/ the ing of time since his dramatic death on the Luneta that fateful morning of 30 December 1896. Likewise, we attempted to disprove the claim made by some quarters that Rizal is an American-made hero, & we also tried to explain why Rizal is greater than any other Filipino hero, including Andres Bonifacio. Who made Rizal the foremost hero of the Philippines? The answer is: no single person or groups of persons were responsible for making the Greatest Malayan the No. 1 Hero of his people. Rizal himself, his own people, & the foreigners all together contributed to make him the greatest hero & martyr of his people. No amount of adulation & canonization by both Filipinos & foreigners could convert Rizal into a great hero if he did not possess in himself what Palma calls "excellent qualities & merits" or what Retaña calls "la finura exquisite de su espiritu,…la nobleza quijotesca de su corazon,… su psicologia toda, romantica, soñadora, buena, adorable, psicologia que sintetizo todos los entimientos y aspiraciones de un pueblo que sufria, viendose victima de su regimen oprobioso…."

Source: Gregorio F. Zaide; JOSE RIZAL: Life, Works & Writings of a Genius, Writer, Scientist & National Hero 1984 ed., pp. 271-286.

http://thelifeandworksofrizal.blogspot.com/2011/12/who-made-rizal-our-foremostnational.html

(3) Crisóstomo Ibarra Also known in his full name as Juan Crisóstomo Ibarra y Magsalin, a Filipino who studied in Europe for 7 years, the love interest of Maria Clara. Son of the deceased Don Rafael Ibarra; Crisostomo changed his surname from Eibarramendia to Ibarra, from his ancestor's surname. Elías Ibarra's mysterious friend, a master boater, also a fugitive. He was referred to at one point as the pilot. He wants to revolutionize his country. Ibarra's grandfather condemned his grandfather of burning a warehouse, making Elias the fugitive he is. María Clara María Clara de los Santos, Ibarra's sweetheart; the illegitimate daughter of Father Dámaso and Pía Alba. Father Dámaso

Also known in his full name as Dámaso Verdolagas, Franciscan friar and María Clara's biological father. Don Filipo A close relative of Ibarra, and a Filibuster. Linares A distant nephew of Don Tiburcio de Espadana, the would-be fiance of Maria Clara. Captain General (no specific name) The most powerful official in the Philippines, a hater of secular priests and corrupt officials, and a friend of Ibarra. Captain Pablo The Leader of the rebels, whose family was destroyed because of the Spanish. Tarcilo and Bruno Brothers, whose father was killed by the Spaniards. Sisa The mother of Basilio and Crispín, who went insane after losing her sons. Basilio The elder son of Sisa. Crispín The younger son of Sisa who died from the punishment from the soldiers from the false accusation of stealing an amount of money. Padre Sibyla Hernando de la Sibyla, a Filipino friar. He is described as short and has fair skin. Kaptain Tiago Also known in his fullname as Don Santiago de los Santos the known father of María Clara but not the real one; lives in Binondo. Padri Salví Also known in his full name as Bernardo Salví, a secret irer of María Clara. Pilosopo Tasyo

Also known as Don Anastasio, portrayed in the novel as a pessimist, cynic, and mad by his neighbors.

The Alférez Chief of the Guardia Civil ; mortal enemy of the priests for the power in San Diego. Don Tiburcio Spanish husband of Donya Victorina who is limp and submissive to his wife; he also pretends to be a doctor. Doña Victorina Victorina de los Reyes de De Espadaña, a woman who es herself off as a Peninsular. Doña Consolación Wife of the Alférez, another woman who es herself as a Peninsular; best ed for her abusive treatment of Sisa. Pedro Abusive husband of Sisa who loves cockfighting. Old Tasio An older man who Ibarra seeks advice from. The town thinks him mad, but in actuality he is quite wise.

(4) Simoun Crisóstomo Ibarra reincarnated as a wealthy jeweler, bent on starting a revolution Basilio Sisa's son, now an aspiring doctor Isagani poet and Basilio's best friend; portrayed as emotional and reactive; Paulita Gómez' boyfriend before being dumped for fellow student Juanito Peláez

Kabesang Tales Telesforo Juan de Dios, a former cabeza de barangay (barangay head) who resurfaced as the feared Luzón bandit Matanglawin (Tagalog for Hawkeye); his father, Old Man Selo, dies eventually after his own son Tano, who became a guardia civil, unknowingly shoots his grandfather in an encounter Don Custodio Custodio de Salazar y Sánchez de Monteredondo, a famous journalist who was asked by the students about his decision for the Academia de Castellano. In reality, he is quite an ordinary fellow who married a rich woman in order to be a member of Manila's high society Paulita Gómez the girlfriend of Isagani and the niece of Doña Victorina, the old India who es herself off as a Peninsular, who is the wife of the quack doctor Tiburcio de Espadaña. In the end, she and Juanito Peláez are wed, and she dumps Isagani, believing that she will have no future if she marries him Father Florentino Isagani's godfather, and a secular priest; was engaged to be married, but chose the priesthood instead, the story hinting at the ambivalence of his decision as he chooses an assignment to a remote place, living in solitude near the sea. Huli Juliana de Dios, the girlfriend of Basilio, and the youngest daughter of Kabesang Tales Ben Zayb Abraham Ibañez is his real name. He is a journalist who thinks he is the only one thinking in the Philippines Placido Penitente a student of the University of Santo Tomas who is always miserable, and therefore controls his temper Quiroga a Chinese businessman who dreamt of being a consul of a Consulate of China in the Philippines. He hid Simoun's weapons inside his house

Old Man Selo father of Kabesang Tales. He raised the sick and young Basilio after his mother Sisa had died Father Fernandez the priest-friend of Isagani. He promised to Isagani that he and the other priests will give in to the students' demands Attorney Pasta one of the great lawyers of mid-Hispanic Manila Captain-General (no specific name) the powerful highest official of the Philippines Padre Sibyla Hernando de la Sibyla, a Filipino friar and now vice-rector of the University of Santo Tomas (U.S.T.) (5)

Retraction A retraction is a public statement made about an earlier statement that withdraws, cancels, refutes, or reverses the original statement or ceases and desists from publishing the original statement. The retraction may be initiated by the editors of a journal, or by the author(s) of the papers (or their institution). Retractions may or may not be accompanied by the author's further explanation as to how the original statement came to be made and/or what subsequent events, discoveries, or experiences led to the subsequent retraction. They are also in some cases accompanied by apologies for previous error and/or expressions of gratitude to persons who disclosed the error to the author. Retractions always negate the author's previous public for the original statement. Like original statements, retractions are in some cases incorrect. Retractions share with original statements the attribute that they are in some cases made insincerely, in some cases for personal gain, and in others under duress. The term retraction carries stronger connotation than the term correction. An alteration that changes the main point of the original statement is generally referred to as aretraction while an alteration that

leaves the main point of a statement intact is usually referred to simply as a correction. Depending on the circumstances, either a retraction or correction is the appropriate remedy.

The Retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal

Jose Rizal’s Retraction: I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die. I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me. Manila 29 of December of 1896 Jose Rizal Source: Jesus Cavanna, Rizal’s Unfading Glory: A Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr. José Rizal (Manila: 1983)

Texts

of

Rizal’s

Retraction

The “original” discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. on May 18, 1935 Me declaro catolica y en esta Religion en que naci y me eduque quiero vivir y morir. Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, inpresos y conducta ha habido contrario a mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia Catolica. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me somento a cuanto ella manda. Abomino de la Masonaria, como enigma que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la Iglesia. Puede el Prelado Diocesano, como Autoridad Superior Eclesiastica hacer publica esta manifastacion espontanea mia para reparar el escandalo que mis actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los hombers me perdonen. Manila 29 de Deciembre de 1896 http://www.splendorofthechurch.com.ph/2013/12/31/the-retraction-of-dr-jose-rizalrenouncing-freemasonry-upholding-his-catholic-faith/

RETRACTION CONTROVERSY Retraction controversy Several historians report that Rizal retracted his anti-Catholic ideas through a document which stated: "I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church."However, there are doubts of its authenticity given that there is no certificate of Rizal's Catholic marriage to Josephine Bracken. Also there is an allegation that the retraction document was a forgery.

After analyzing six major documents of Rizal, Ricardo Pascual concluded that the retraction document, said to have been discovered in 1935, was not in Rizal's handwriting. Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the Philippines and a prominent Mason, argued that a retraction is not in keeping with Rizal's character and mature beliefs. He called the retraction story a "pious fraud." Others

who deny the retraction are Frank Laubach, a Protestant minister; Austin Coates, a British writer; and Ricardo Manapat, director of the National Archives.

Those who affirm the authenticity of Rizal's retraction are prominent Philippine historians such as Nick Joaquin, Nicolas Zafra of UP León María Guerrero III, Gregorio Zaide, Guillermo Gómez Rivera, Ambeth Ocampo, John Schumacher, Antonio Molina, Paul Dumol and Austin Craig. 24] They take the retraction [

document as authentic, having been judged as such by a foremost expert on the writings of Rizal, Teodoro Kalaw (a 33rd degree Mason) and "handwriting experts...known and recognized in our courts of justice", H. Otley Beyer and Dr. José I. Del Rosario, both of UP.

Historians also refer to 11 eyewitnesses when Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a Catholic prayer book, and recited Catholic prayers, and the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix before his execution. A great grand nephew of Rizal, Fr. Marciano Guzman, cites that Rizal's 4confessions were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7 newspapers, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops, Masons and anti-clericals. One witness was the head of the Spanish Supreme Court at the time of his notarized declaration and was highly esteemed by Rizal for his integrity.

Because of what he sees as the strength these direct evidence have in the light of the historical method, in contrast with merely circumstantial evidence, UP professor emeritus of history Nicolas Zafra called the retraction "a plain unadorned fact of history." Guzmán attributes the denial of retraction to "the blatant disbelief and stubbornness" of some Masons.

ers see in the retraction Rizal's "moral courage...to recognize his mistakes," his reversion to the "true faith", and thus his "unfading glory,"and a return to the "ideals of his fathers" which "did not diminish his stature as a great patriot; on the contrary, it increased that stature to greatness." On the other hand, senator Jose Diokno stated, "Surely whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from his greatness as a Filipino... Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero who courted death 'to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know how to die for our duty and our

beliefs'."

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Rizal#Retraction_controversy

http://joseprotasiorizal.blogspot.com/2013/09/retraction-controversy.html

Analysis Rizal's Retraction At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. The fourth text appeared in El Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of the retraction. The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30, 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine in La Juventud; it came from an anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer. The "original" text was discovered in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot. We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a copyist who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his letter to his former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said that he had received "an exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I whose it is. . ." He proceeded: "I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself. I am sending it to you that you may . . . whether it might be of Rizal himself . . . ." Fr. Pi was not able to it in his sworn statement. This "exact" copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding Rizal’s execution, Rizal y su Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his biography of Rizal, Vida y Escritos del Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the texts of the retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi’s copy of Rizal’s retraction has the same text as that of Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy but follows the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal’s retraction in the Manila newspapers. Regarding the "original" text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La Voz Espanola. That newspaper reported: "Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own hand-written retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…" On the other hand, Manila pharmacist F. Stahl wrote in a letter: "besides, nobody has seen this written declaration, in spite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to see it. "For example, not only Rizal’s family but also the correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in Madrid, Don Manuel Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr. Santiago Mataix of El Heraldo, were not able to see the hand-written retraction. Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace the Archbishop ascertained whether Rizal himself was the one who wrote and signed the retraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary because it was possible for one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting aforesaid holograph; and keeping a copy of the same for our archives, I myself delivered it personally that the same morning to His Grace Archbishop… His Grace testified: At once the undersigned entrusted this holograph to Rev. Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of the Chancery." After that, the documents could not be seen by those who wanted to examine it and was finally considered lost after efforts to look for it proved futile. On May 18, 1935, the lost "original" document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the archdeocean archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts about Rizal’s retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies. And, the fact that the texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could be shown to be the exact copies of the "original" but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who controlled the press in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the "original" while the Jesuits had only the imitations. We now proceed to show the significant differences between the "original" and the Manila newspapers texts of the retraction on the one hand and the text s of the copies of Fr. Balaguer and F5r. Pio Pi on the other hand. First, instead of the words "mi cualidad" (with "u") which appear in the original and the newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have "mi calidad" (with "u"). Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word "Catolica" after the first "Iglesias" which are found in the original and the newspaper texts. Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third "Iglesias" the word "misma" which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction. Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text does not

begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences while the original and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with the second sentences. Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers have only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas. Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila. In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named the witnesses. He said "This . . .retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza." However, the proceeding quotation only proves itself to be an addition to the original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer said that he had the "exact" copy of the retraction, which was signed by Rizal, but her made no mention of the witnesses. In his s too, no witnesses signed the retraction. How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal’s retraction? Fr. Balaguer never alluded to having himself made a copy of the retraction although he claimed that the Archbishop prepared a long formula of the retraction and Fr. Pi a short formula. In Fr. Balaguer’s earliest , it is not yet clear whether Fr. Balaguer was using the long formula of nor no formula in dictating to Rizal what to write. According to Fr. Pi, in his own of Rizal’s conversion in 1909, Fr. Balaguer dictated from Fr. Pi’s short formula previously approved by the Archbishop. In his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer itted that he dictated to Rizal the short formula prepared by Fr. Pi; however; he contradicts himself when he revealed that the "exact" copy came from the Archbishop. The only copy, which Fr. Balaguer wrote, is the one that appeared ion his earliest of Rizal’s retraction. Where did Fr. Balaguer’s "exact" copy come from? We do not need long arguments to answer this question, because Fr. Balaguer himself has unwittingly answered this question. He said in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910: "…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of the two formulas of retraction, which they (You) gave me; that from you and that of the Archbishop, and the first with the changes which they (that is, you) made; and the other the exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I whose it is, and I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself." In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he received two original texts of the retraction. The first, which came from Fr. Pi, contained "the changes which You (Fr. Pi) made"; the other, which is "that of the Archbishop" was "the exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal" (underscoring supplied). Fr. Balaguer said that the "exact copy" was "written and signed by Rizal" but he did not say "written and signed by Rizal and himself" (the absence of the reflexive pronoun "himself" could mean that another person-the copyist-did not). He only "suspected" that "Rizal himself" much as Fr. Balaguer did "not know nor ... " whose handwriting it was. Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the "exact copy" came from the Archbishop! He called it "exact" because, not having seen the original himself, he was made to believe that it was the one that faithfully reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in which "changes" (that is, where deviated from the "exact" copy) had been made. Actually, the difference between that of the Archbishop (the "exact" copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with "changes") is that the latter was "shorter" be cause it omitted certain phrases found in the former so that, as Fr. Pi had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it. According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate from the short formula of Fr. Pi. Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but he insisted on adding the phrases "in which I was born and educated" and "[Masonary]" as the enemy that is of the Church" – the first of which Rizal would have regarded as unnecessary and the second as downright contrary to his spirit. However, what actually would have happened, if we are to believe the fictitious , was that Rizal’s addition of the phrases was the retoration of the phrases found in the original which had been omitted in Fr. Pi’s short formula. The "exact" copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort Santiago to convince them that Rizal had retracted. Someone read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who claimed in his "Notes’ that Rizal read aloud his retraction. However, his copy of the retraction proved him wrong because its text (with "u") and omits the word "Catolica" as in Fr. Balaguer’s copy but which are not the case in the original. Capt. Dominguez never claimed to have seen the retraction: he only "heard". The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had written a retraction in Dapitan. Very early in 1895, Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with her adopted father who wanted to be cured of his blindness by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela Orlac, who was agent and a mistress of a friar. Rizal fell in love with Josephine and wanted to marry her canonically but he was required to sign a profession of faith and to write retraction, which had to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. "Spanish law had established civil marriage in the Philippines," Prof. Craig wrote, but the local government had not provided any way for people to avail themselves of the right..." In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; "The document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it." Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.

Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction. What they was saw a copy done by one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the original (almost eaten by termites) was kept by some friars. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently because they did not distinguish between the genuine and the imitation of Rizal’s handwriting.

http://www.joserizal.ph/rt03.html

(6)

Memorandum Order No. 247 MALACANANG MANILA MEMORANDUM ORDER NO. 247 DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION TO FULLY IMPLEMENT REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1425 ENTITLED "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, Republic Act No. 1425 approved on June 12, 1956, directs all schools, colleges and universities, public and private, to include in their curricula, courses on the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal, particularly his novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo which "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, according to Dr. Rizal, "the school is the book in which is written the future of the nation;" WHEREAS, in 1996, the Filipino people will commemorate the centennial of Rizal’s martyrdom and, two years thereafter, the centennial of the Declaration of Philippine Independence; and WHEREAS, as we prepare to celebrate these watershed events in our history, it is necessary to rekindle in the heart of every Filipino, especially the youth, the same patriotic fervor that once galvanized our forebears to outstanding achievements so we can move forward together toward a greater destiny as we enter the 21st century. NOW, THEREFORE, I FIDEL V. RAMOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, hereby direct the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports and the Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education to take steps to immediately and fully implement the letter, intent and spirit of Republic Act No. 1425 and to impose, should it be necessary, appropriate disciplinary action against the governing body and/or head of any public or private school, college or university found not complying with said law and the rules, regulations, orders and instructions issued pursuant thereto. Within thirty (30) days from issuance hereof, the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports and the Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education are hereby directed to tly submit to the President of the Philippines a report on the steps they have taken to implement this Memorandum Order, and one (1) year thereafter, another report on the extent of compliance by both public and private schools in all levels with the provisions of R.A. No. 1425. This Memorandum Order takes effect immediately after its issuance. DONE in the City of Manila, this 26th day of December in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Four. (SGD.) FIDEL V. RAMOS

President

http://www.joserizal.ph/lw04.html

CHED Memorandum No. 3, s. 1995 COMMISSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION Office of the President of the Philippines January 13, 1995 CHED MEMORANDUM No. 3, s. 1995 To: Head of State Colleges and Universities Head of Private Schools, Colleges and Universities Office of the President Memorandum Order No. 247 Re: Implementation of Republic Act No. 1425 1.

Enclosed is a copy of Memorandum Order No. 247 dated December 26, from the Office of the President of the Philippines entitled, "Directing Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports and the CHAIRMAN OF COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION to fully implement the Republic Act No. 1425 entitled "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" for guidance of all concerned.

2.

Strict compliance therewith is requested. (sgd) MONA D. VALISNO Commissioner Officer-in-Charge

http://www.joserizal.ph/lw05.html Republic Act No. 1425 June 12, 1956

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 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 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 ened to develop moral character, personal discipline, civic conscience and to teach the duties of citizenship; Now, therefore, 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 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 istrative Code, prohibiting the discussion of religious doctrines by public school teachers and other person 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 effect upon its approval. Approved: June 12, 1956 Published in the Official Gazette, Vol. 52, No. 6, p. 2971 in June 1956.

http://www.gov.ph/1956/06/12/republic-act-no-1425/

Rizal Law From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rizal Law

Citation

Republic Act No. 1425

Territorial extent

Philippines

Enacted by

Congress of the Philippines

Date enacted

June 12, 1956

Date signed

June 12, 1956

Keywords

Jose Rizal, education

Status: In force

Republic Act No. 1425, known as the Rizal Law, mandates all educational institutions in the Philippines to offer courses about José Rizal. The full name of the law is 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. The measure was strongly opposed by the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines due to the anti-clerical themes in Noli Me Tángere and El Filibusterismo. Contents [hide]



1History



2Content



3References



4External links

History[edit]

José Rizal

Senator Claro M. Recto was the main proponent of the Rizal Bill. He sought to sponsor the bill at Congress. However, this was met with stiff opposition from the Catholic Church. During the 1955 Senate election, the church charged Recto with being a communist and an anti-Catholic. After Recto's election, the Church continued to oppose the bill mandating the reading of Rizal's novels Noli Me Tángere and El Filibusterismo, claiming it would violatefreedom of conscience and religion.[1] In the campaign to oppose the Rizal bill, the Catholic Church urged its adherents to write to their congressmen and senators showing their opposition to the bill; later, it organized symposiums. In one of these symposiums, Fr. Jesus Cavanna argued that the novels belonged to the past and that teaching them would misrepresent current conditions. Radio commentator Jesus Paredes also said that Catholics had the right to refuse to read them as it would "endanger their salvation". [1] Groups such as Catholic Action of the Philippines, the Congregation of the Mission, the Knights of Columbus, and the Catholic Teachers Guild organized opposition to the bill; they were countered by Veteranos de la Revolucion (Spirit of 1896), Alagad in Rizal, the Freemasons, and the Knights of Rizal. The Senate Committee on Education sponsored a bill co-written by both José P. Laurel and Recto, with the only opposition coming from Francisco Soc Rodrigo, Mariano Jesús Cuenco, and Decoroso Rosales.[2][3]

The Archbishop of Manila, Rufino Santos, protested in a pastoral letter that Catholic students would be affected if compulsory reading of the unexpurgated version were pushed through. [4] Arsenio Lacson, Manila's mayor, who ed the bill, walked out of Mass when the priest read a circular from the archbishop denouncing the bill.[5] Rizal, according to Cuenco, "attack[ed] dogmas, beliefs and practices of the Church. The assertion that Rizal limited himself to castigating undeserving priests and refrained from criticizing, ridiculing or putting in doubt dogmas of the Catholic Church, is absolutely gratuitous and misleading." Cuenco touched on Rizal's denial of the existence of purgatory, as it was not found in the Bible, and that Moses and Jesus Christ did not mention its existence; Cuenco concluded that a "majority of the of this Chamber, if not all [including] our good friend, the gentleman from Sulu" believed in purgatory.[3] The senator from Sulu, Domocao Alonto, attacked Filipinos who proclaimed Rizal as "their national hero but seemed to despise what he had written", saying that the Indonesians used Rizal's books as their Bible on their independence movement; Pedro López, who hails from Cebu, Cuenco's province, in his for the bill, reasoned out that it was in their province the independence movement started, when Lapu-Lapu fought Ferdinand Magellan.[4] Outside the Senate, the Catholic schools threatened to close down if the bill was ed; Recto countered that if that happened, the schools would be nationalized. Recto did not believe the threat, stating that the schools were too profitable to be closed.[1] The schools gave up the threat, but threatened to "punish" legislators in favor of the law in future elections. A compromise was suggested, to use the expurgated version; Recto, who had ed the required reading of the unexpurgated version, declared: "The people who would eliminate the books of Rizal from the schools would blot out from our minds the memory of the national hero. This is not a fight against Recto but a fight against Rizal", adding that since Rizal is dead, they are attempting to suppress his memory.[6] On May 12, 1956, a compromise inserted by Committee on Education chairman Laurel that accommodated the objections of the Catholic Church was approved unanimously. The bill specified that only college (university) students would have the option of reading unexpurgated versions of clerically-contested reading material, such as Noli Me Tángereand El Filibusterismo.[1][4][6] The bill was enacted on June 12, 1956,[4] Flag Day.

Content[edit]

The Noli and Fili were required readings for college students.

Section 2 mandated that the students were to read the novels as they were written in Spanish, although a provision ordered that the Board of National Education create rules on how these should be applied.[3] The last two sections were focused on making Rizal's works accessible to the general public: the second section mandated the schools to have "an adequate number" of copies in their libraries, while the third ordered the board to publish the works in major Philippine languages.[3] After the bill was enacted into law, there were no recorded instances of students applying for exemption from reading the novels, and there is no known procedure for such exemptions. [6] In 1994, President Fidel V. Ramos ordered the Department of Education, Culture and Sports to fully implement the law as there had been reports that it has still not been fully implemented. [7] The debate during the enactment of the Rizal Law has been compared to the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012(RH Law) debate in 2011. [8] Akbayan representative Kaka Bag-ao, one of the proponents of the RH bill, said, quoting the Catholic hierarchy, that "More than 50 years ago, they said the Rizal Law violates the Catholic's right to conscience and religion, interestingly, the same line of reasoning they use to oppose the RH bill." [9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rizal_Law

Republic Act No. 1425 Republic Act No. 1425, popularly known as the Rizal Law, directs all public and private schools, colleges, and universities to include in their curricula courses or subjects on the life, works, and writings of Dr. Jose Rizal, particularly the novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. The Board of National Education is given the mandate to carry out and enforce the Rizal Law. It was approved on 12 June 1956.

History Senate bill 438 known as Rizal Bill which was first authored by Senator Claro M. Recto - requiring the inclusion in the curricula of all private and public schools, colleges and universities the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal particularly his novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo - is considered as one of the most controversial bills in the Philippines. Normally, before the bill was approved and implemented in all schools and was signed into a law known as Republic Act 1425, it had been brought to the Upper and Lower House of the Congress for deliberations. But what made it controversial is that the bill was not just fiercely opposed by people from Legislative Arm but also by the Catholic Church due to the inclusion of compulsory reading of Rizal's novels in which according to them, catholic dogmas are humiliated. Senator Recto brought the bill to the Senate and Senator Jose B. Laurel Sr. who was then the Chairman of the Committee on Education sponsored the bill that consequently led to exchange of arguments from the Congress. The bill was headedly opposed by three senators namely Senator Francisco Rodrigo who was a former Catholic Action President, Senator Mariano Cuenco and Senator Decoroso Rosales who was the brother of Julio Rosales, an archbishop. Other oppositors were from Lower House namely Congressmen Ramon Durano, Marciano Lim, Jose Nuguid, Manuel Soza, Godofredo Ramos, Miguel Cuenco, Lucas Paredes, Congressmen Carmen Consing and Tecia San Andres Ziga. The Catholic Church was indirectly included in the debates and played a major role for the intervention of g of the bill into a law. Allied with the church in battle against Rizal Bill were the Holy Name Society of the Philippines, Catholic Action of the Philippines, Legion of Mary,Knights of Columbus and Daughters of Isabela. Oppositions argued that the bill would go against freedom of conscience and religion, The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CB) submitted a pastoral letter to which according, Rizalviolated Canon Law 1399 which forbids or bans books that attack or ridicule the catholic doctrine and practices. Oppositors argued that among the 333 pages of Noli Me Tangere, only 25 ages are nationalistic while 120 ages are anticatholic. While upon scrutiny of thetwo novels by some of catholic hierarchial, 170 ages in Noli Me Tangere and 50 in El Filibusterismo are against catholic fatih. Furthermore, oppositors pointed out that Rizal itted that he did not only attack the friars who acted deceptively on the Filipinos but also the catholic faith itself. They suggested a reading material for students as to what they called Rizalian Anthology, a collection of Rizal's literary works that contain the patriotic philosophy excluding the two novels. Of course, Recto and Laurel defended the bill and argued that the only objective of the bill is to keep the memory of the national hero alive in every Filipino's mind, to emanate Rizal as he peacefully fought for freedom, and not to go against religion. Senators Lorenso Tanada, Quintin Paredes and Domocao

Alonto of Mindanao also defended Rizal Bill which was also favored by Representatives from the House namely Congressmen Jacobo Gonzales, Emilio Cortez, Mario Bengson, Joaquin Roxas, Lancap Lagumbay and Pedro Lopez. Other ers of the bill were Mayor Arsenio Lacson call anti-rizal bill "bigoted and intolerant" and walked out of a mass when the priest read a pastoral letter from the Archbishop denouncing the Rizal Bill aqnd General Emilio Aguinaldo with groups like theKnights of Rizal, Women Writers of the Verrnacular, Philippine Veterans Legion, Colleger Editors' Guild and Philippine School Teachers' Association. Excitement and intense scnenes were eventually arisen in settling the Rizal Bill. One of which was the debate of Cebu Representative Ramon Durano and Pampanga Representative Emilio Cortes that ended with a fistfight in Congress. Bacolod City Bishop Manuel Yap threatened to campaign against pro-rizal bill legislators nad to punish them in future elections. Catholic Schools Representatives threatened to close down their schools if the Rizal Bill was ed. Recto told them that if they did, the State could nationalize the catholic schools. When there was a proposal to use the expurgated novels as textbooks and put the original copies under lock and key in the school libraries, Recto rejected this amendment and expressed: "The people who would eliminate the books of Rizal from the schools...would bot out from our minds the memory of the national hero...this is not a fight against Recto but a fight against Rizal...now that Rizal is dead and they can no longer attempt at his life, they are attempting to blot out his memory." Due to apparently never-ending debate on the Rizal Bill, approved amendments were formulated through ideas of three senators. Senator Laurel' created an amendment to the original bill in which, other that Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, works written by Rizal and works wriiten by others about Rizal would be included and reading of the unexpurgated revision of the two novels would no longer be compulsory to elementary and secondary levels but would be strictly observed to college level. Senator Lim suggested the exemption to those students who feel that reading Rizal's novels would negatively affect his or her faith. Senator Primicias created an additional amendment that promulgates the rules and regulations in getting an exemption only from reading the two novels through written statement or affidavit and not from taking the Rizal Course. According to historian Ambeth Ocampo, no student has ever availed of this exemption. After the revised amendments, the bill was finally ed on May 17, 1956 and was signed into law as Republic Act 1425 by President Ramon Magsaysay on June 12 of the same year.

http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php/Republic_Act_No._1425

http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php/Republic_Act_No._1425 NOLI-FILI/RIZAL BILL: ONE OF THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL BILLS IN PHIL HISTORY

It is normal for bills to be debated in the upper and lower house of the Congress, but the trial that the Noli-Fili/Rizal Bill underwent was beyond normal. With the sponsors of the bill and the opposition not only coming from the people inside of the Legislative Arm but also the inclusion of the Catholic Church in the debates for this bill. When the bill was brought to the senate by Senator Recto, there were but three who opposed it. It was when Senator Laurel sponsored the bill as the head of committee education that the exchange of arguments from the two sides started. The Church played a big role in this fight because they are the ones who intervened with the approval and g of this bill into a law. On the side of Senator Rectos was of course Senator Laurel who defended the bill in the deliberations. Other representatives from the house also ed the bill namely Congressmen Jacobo Z. Gonzalez, Emilio Cortez, Mario Bengzon, Joaquin Roxas, Lancap Lagumbay, Quintin Paredes, and Senator Domocao Alonto of Mindanao. On the other hand, the original bill was opposed by Senator Francisco Rodrigo, Senator Mariano J. Cuenco and Senator Decoroso Rosales. Senator Rodrigo was a former Catholic Action president while Senator Cuenco was the brother of an Archbishop. From the lower house, it was also opposed by Congressmen Ramon Durano, Jose Nuguid, Marciano Lim, Manuel Zosa, Lucas Paredes, Godofredo Ramos, Miguel Cuenco, Congresswomen Carnen Consing and Tecia San Andres Ziga. The sponsors argued that in reading Rizal’s words, we are able to see ourselves. It is through the works of Rizal, the greatest Filipino patriot, which show not only the strengths and virtues of the Filipinos but the Filipino’s defects and vices as well. Making the Filipinos realize their flaws will prepare themselves for the sacrifices they have to make to attain freedom. The only objective of the bill is to foster the better appreciation of our national hero’s role in fighting for freedom under the colonialism of the Spaniards, not to go against any religion. However, the oppositors argued that the bill would violate freedom of conscience and religion. According to the letter submitted by the CB, Rizal violated the Church’s laws specifically Canon Law 1399, which forbids books that attack or ridicule any of the catholic dogmas or which defend errors condemned by the Holy See. Not only that, they argue that among the 333 pages of Noli Me Tangere, only 25 ages are patriotic while 120 ages are anti-catholic. Rizal itted before that in these ages he did not only attack the friars that acted falsely on the Filipinos but also attacked the Catholic Faith itself. Rizal himself included in his last will the retraction of his statements about the Church in his two novels. They also stated that it is not necessary to attack the Faith of the church to imbue nationalism on the Filipinos. They suggest a Rizalian Anthology, where a compilation of all his works which contains the nationalistic philosophy will be provided as reading material for the students instead of his two novels. Francisco Rodrigo even said in a statement that Filipinos can still venerate Rizal without having to read his works. Rizal would still be a hero even if he didn’t write these two novels. As the debate on whether the bill should be approved seemed like it will never end, Senator Laurel created an amendment to the original bill or the Noli-Fili Bill. In this bill Senator Laurel included other books, poems, and other works written by Rizal and works written by other authors about Rizal other than Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. In addition to that, the reading of the unexpurgated version of the novels would no longer be compulsory to elementary and secondary levels due to the issues it had with the Catholic Church. Finally, the bill also included that the works done by Rizal should be read strictly in the original and unexpurgated form in the college level. Senator Primicias, in accordance to the previous suggestion of student exemption by Senator Lim also presented an additional amendment on the substitute bill proposed by Senator Laurel that promulgates rules and regulation for the exemption of students in reading the two books, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, settled in a written statement but not from taking the course.

https://teamcrisostomo.wordpress.com/noli-filirizal-bill-one-of-the-mostcontroversial-bills-in-phil-history/

Prisoner's Dilemma = Rizal Law

The prisoner’s dilemma helped explain the outcome of one of the most controversial bills in history called the Rizal Law also known as Republic Act 1425. Way back in 1955, before the Law was ed, it was still known as the Nolil-Fili Bill. Those who were pro-Rizal Law included the nationalist of the Congress, the House of Representatives, Philippine Public School Teachers and even Emilio Aguinaldo. Those who were anti-Rizal Law included Catholic schools, of the Congress who are related to a clergy, clergies, priests and bishops. Basically, this was a huge issue between the government and the Catholic Church.

The Noli-Fili Bill proposed to make Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo a compulsory reading matter in all schools to reawaken the sense of nationalism of the Filipinos, to open their eyes and to make them feel proud of their nationality and history. Also, Jose Rizal serves as an inspiring source of patriotism and his works should develop the Filipinos’ moral character and teach the duties as a citizen of the Philippines. The Catholic Church was against this because Jose Rizal’s works attacked the Church during the Spanish rule wherein he violated the Catholic Canon Law on heresy and schism. When the prisoner’s dilemma is applied, we could find how behavior motivated by self-interest might lead to outcomes that are sub-optimal between the government and the Catholic Church.

Two possible actions that either side should do are to cooperate with each other or think of themselves to get their self-interest. The government could ignore the protests of the Catholic Church and just go on with the approval of the Noli-Fili Bill or they could just cooperate with the church and find a solution that both of them could agree on. The Catholic Church can threaten the government by closing down their Catholic schools or also, they could just cooperate with the government and find a solution that they could both agree on.

Both opposing sides would not want to be in a position where they will not benefit from a choice they have made. Either one wins or one loses but there is also a choice of stalemate, when both choose to cooperate and win at the same time. The two individuals have different preference rankings over their possible outcomes and this can be demonstrated with the use of the Prisoner’s Dilemma.

There are four options: Win-win, lose-win, win-lose, lose-lose.

The most preferred ranking of the government, being the one who controls and has the power of everything in the country, is to get the bill ed as soon as possible. Knowing the government, they would pay any amount to get what they want and would not care (usually) of what happens to their opponent especially since it’s the Catholic Church since they should not be interfering in this situation (Church vs. State). Their second preferred ranking would probably be to cooperate with the Catholic Church since they cannot get the bill ed with another high power that is protesting against them. There are even those who are part of the government who are protesting against them (government officials who are related to clergies). Their third preferred ranking would be not doing anything about it

anymore because I think they would rather not do anything than let the Catholic Church win since they want the Noli-Fili Bill to be ed. Losing is the last resort and probably not even an option.

On the side of the Catholic Church, they do not have the power to control the people but I think their first preference ranking is that both sides will win. Cooperation is the key so that the government and the Catholic Church will benefit from the possible outcome. They can add or take out something from the bill and make certain changes that can make it agreeable to both individuals. Not ing the bill would be their second preference because they are really against the Anti-Catholic Jose Rizal and his “errors of church dogma.” Their third preference would be not doing anything about it since nothing will happen and their least preferable action would be letting the government win and there is no way that they will make that happen.

In the end, the bill was finally ed and it ended as a win-win situation because the church finally accepted for it to be ed provided that, with the government’s cooperation, changes should be made in the Noli-Fili bill. The Noli-Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo shall be taught in schools in their unexpurgated version. The Noli-Fili Bill was approved, it became the Rizal Law and this showed that both individuals moved to the equilibrium of “Defect, Defect” to “Cooperate, Cooperate.”

In this situation, the government and the Catholic Church considered each others’ reasons on the bill so that the outcome moved towards a positive condition. For the Catholic Church, they had a pretty personal reason on why they did not want it to be ed. They did not want their reputation to be ruined because of Jose Rizal nor did they want the students to learn about how the Church took advantage and abused the early Filipinos. As for the government, they wanted to bill to be ed to bring about nationalism in the Philippines. They weighed each others’ reasons and gained each others’ trust in coming up with a solution. In cooperation, trust and restoring right relationships must be present in order to be able to pursue self-interest and at the same time reach a mutually-beneficial outcome.

http://addictedtomilktea.blogspot.com/2011/07/prisoners-dilemma-rizal-law.html

http://madilyncaresusa037.blogspot.com/2012/08/movie-reviewjose-rizal.html

https://kumakathangisip.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/reaction-on-the-movie-joserizal/