Andres Bonifacio and other leaders of the Katipunan, together with ranks of the revolutionaries, belonged

to the “left-wing tendency” of those who adhered to the ideas that Jose Rizal espoused. Upon closer look
at the ideas, one will find that most of his thoughts on society were essentially heavily tainted with French
revolutionary ideas but were also calibrated in such a way that they fit into a reformist frame. We must
remember that the French Revolution never happened overnight. It also underwent the same process in
which people hoped that the regime could still be changed through peaceable means (Reformism) until
the Jacobins (or in our case, the Revolutionaries of 1896) decided to have enough of it when they realized
that bondage could no longer be tolerated. This was also exemplified during the struggle of Filipinos
against the dictatorship way back in the 1970s. Though it took a shorter time compared to Rizal’s time,
the contradictions intensified that culminated in the assassination of Benigno Aquino, in 1983. His death
momentarily unified the opposition forces and became the catalyst that led to the Edsa Uprising.

Rizal’s statement that he had no desire to take part in conspiracies, which to him seemed “premature and
risky,” was an expression of a disagreement over strategy and tactics of how to steer the revolution. Back
in my university days, I always heard this premature and risky advice from reformist activists in the
campus. Although they usually said that they agreed with the revolutionary calls; when it comes to
practice, however, they said it was not yet time. Perhaps, Rizal never liked the tactic used (as he
portrayed it) by his character Simoun in his novel El Filibusterismo, of inciting violence and the
insurrectionary/putschist’s persecution of the people to force them to revolt.

Elmer Ordonez, in his article “Rizal and the Literature of the Left,” commented that the essays of Epifanio
San Juan, one of the leading scholars in Rizal studies, “attempt to recuperate Rizal (appropriated by U.S.
colonialism and Ilustrado collaborators in search of a national hero for their Filipino wards) from his
perceived apostasy, the December 15 Manifesto, where he abjured the armed revolution. San Juan
recalled Recto’s ‘landmark synthesizing of both revolutionaries’ (Rizal and Bonifacio’s) parallel lives’ in
1958. For San Juan, Recto pointed to a ‘fatal and unbridgeable dualism’ which today, our wide-ranging
endeavors to integrate history and practice, are trying mightily to resolve.”

The question again arises as to who benefited from that dualism. What forces in Philippine society might
have consciously fanned this dualism to their advantage? My view is that this dualism would last until a
social movement that linked reform and revolution triumphed and became the dominant narrative.
The root of the problem was the persistent maneuver of the interest groups, such as U.S. colonialism to
create a disconnect between reform and revolution and make it appear that Rizal was a pacifist through
and through, thus turning him into a propaganda tool for social inertia in the face of colonial oppression.
The right-wing tendency was a clear result of this disconnect. It was the tendency to absolutize reformism
that, in turn, assured the continuation of the survival of the status quo.
Grasping the reality of the revolutionary situation could make one arrive at the proper analysis of
Philippine history and of what is happening now. All the ills of the Philippine society can be traced back to
the outcome of the dialectics of the time of Rizal. The way many of our community leaders think on how to
achieve social change for our country of origin is also characterized by this tendency. Up to now, many
people still pit Rizal against Bonifacio. They have missed the great lesson of the Revolution of 1896 that
the two pillars of Philippine history were representative of a single historical process of the Filipino
peoples’ aspiration for freedom. Hence, given all these lessons of history, only a social movement that is
able to grasp the dialectics between Rizal and Bonifacio, reform and revolution, will be able to lead the
Filipino out of its pre-industrial and agricultural state.

Philippine Revolution, (1896–98), Filipino independence struggle

that, after more than 300 years of Spanish colonial rule, exposed the
weakness of Spanish administration but failed to evict Spaniards from
the islands. The Spanish-American War brought Spain’s rule in
the Philippines to a close in 1898 but precipitated the Philippine-
American War, a bloody war between Filipino revolutionaries and the
U.S. Army.

Numerous quasi-religious uprisings had punctuated the long era of

Spanish sovereignty over the Philippines, but none possessed
sufficient coordination to oust the Europeans. During the 19th
century, however, an educated Filipino middle class emerged and with
it a desire for Philippine independence. Opposition before 1872 was
primarily confined to the Filipino clergy, who resented the Spanish
monopoly of power within the Roman Catholic Church in the islands.
In that year the abortive Cavite Mutiny, a brief uprising against the
Spanish, served as an excuse for renewed Spanish repression. The
martyrdom of three Filipino priests—José Burgos, Mariano Gómez,
and Jacinto Zamora—for allegedly conspiring with the rebels at Cavite
sparked a wave of anti-Spanish sentiment.

Reform-minded Filipinos took refuge in Europe, where they carried on

a literary campaign known as the Propaganda Movement. Dr. José
Rizal quickly emerged as the leading Propagandist. His novel Noli me
tángere (1886; The Social Cancer, 1912) exposed the corruption of
Manila Spanish society and stimulated the movement for
independence.

By 1892 it became obvious that Spain was unwilling to reform its

colonial government. Andres Bonifacio, a self-educated warehouse
clerk, organized a secret revolutionary society, the Katipunan, in
Manila. Membership grew to an estimated 100,000 by August 1896,
when the Spaniards discovered its existence. Bonifacio immediately
issued a call for armed rebellion. The Spanish then arrested Rizal, who
had advocated reform but never condoned the revolution. Rizal’s
public execution, on December 30, 1896, so enraged and united
Filipinos as to make permanent retention of power by Spain clearly
impossible.

In March 1897 leadership of the revolution passed to a young

general, Emilio Aguinaldo, who had Bonifacio shot
for alleged sedition. Aguinaldo proved incapable of militarily defeating
the Spanish troops, who were augmented by Filipino mercenaries. In
the later months of 1897, Aguinaldo’s revolutionary army was pushed
into the mountains southeast of Manila.
On December 15, 1897, the pact of Biak-na-Bato was proclaimed.
Though its precise terms have been a matter of impassioned debate
ever since, the pact brought a temporary end to the Philippine
Revolution. Aguinaldo and other revolutionary leaders accepted exile
in Hong Kong and 400,000 pesos, plus Spanish promises of
substantial governmental reforms, in return for laying down their
arms. Neither side executed the terms of the pact in good faith.
Aguinaldo used the money to purchase arms in Hong Kong, and the
Spanish reneged on the promised reforms.

After the U.S. Navy commodore George Dewey annihilated the

Spanish fleet in Manila Bay on May 1, 1898, Aguinaldo immediately
returned to the Philippines. He began the revolution anew, this time
against the United States, which had assumed title to the Philippines
as a result of the Spanish defeat. Aguinaldo was captured in 1901 and
subsequently appealed to Filipinos to cease fighting and accept U.S.
sovereignty.
Select a Topic for Your Paper
Your position paper centers around a topic that is supported by research. Your
topic and position have to hold up when challenged, so it's helpful to research a
few topics and pick the one you can best argue, even if it may not reflect your
personal beliefs. In many cases, the subject matter and your topic are not as
important as your ability to make a strong case. Your topic can be simple or
complex, but your argument must be sound and logical.

Conduct Preliminary Research

Preliminary research is necessary to determine whether sufficient evidence is
available to back up your stance. You don’t want to get too attached to a topic that
falls apart under a challenge.

Search a few reputable sites, like education (.edu) sites and government (.gov)
sites, to find professional studies and statistics. If you come up with nothing after
an hour of searching, or if you find that your position doesn’t stand up to the
findings on reputable sites, choose another topic. This could save you from a lot
of frustration later.

Challenge Your Own Topic

You must know the opposite view as well as you know your own stance when you
take a position. Take the time to determine all the possible challenges that you
might face as you support your view. Your position paper must address the
opposing view and chip away at it with counter-evidence. Consider having
friends, colleagues, or family debate the topic with you to get alternative points of
view that you might not have readily considered yourself. When you find
arguments for the other side of your position, you can address them in a fair
manner, and then state why they are not sound.

Another helpful exercise is to draw a line down the middle of a plain sheet of
paper and list your points on one side and list opposing points on the other side.
Which argument is really better? If it looks like your opposition might outnumber
you with valid points, you should reconsider your topic or your stance on the
topic.

Continue to Collect Supporting Evidence

Once you’ve determined that your position is supportable and the opposite
position is (in your opinion) weaker than your own, you are ready to branch out
with your research. Go to a library and conduct a search, or ask the reference
librarian to help you find more sources. You can, of course, conduct online
research as well, but it's important to know how to properly vet the validity of the
sources you use. Ensure that your articles are written by reputable sources, and
be wary of singular sources that differ from the norm, as these are often
subjective rather than factual in nature.

Try to collect a variety of sources, and include both an expert’s opinion (doctor,
lawyer, or professor, for example) and personal experience (from a friend or
family member) that can add an emotional appeal to your topic. These
statements should support your own position but should read differently than
your own words. The point of these is to add depth to your argument or provide
anecdotal support.