Jose Rizal in the Social Sciences: A Local Historian Who Pushed for a “From

Us for Us” Perspective (“Pantayong Pananaw”)

Charisma Lorraine T. Chan
BA Social Sciences (History-Political Science) Class 2019
College of Social Sciences, University of the Philippines Baguio

This paper aims to: (1) determine if Jose Rizal really has a contribution in the Social
Sciences in the Philippines; (2) study some of the works of Rizal, as well as other works that tackle
Rizal and his contributions; and (3) prove that Rizal is a local historian who pushed for a “From
Us for Us” Perspective (“Pantayong Pananaw”) using his works and other scholarly works. As a
central thesis, the researcher of this paper argues that Jose Rizal has contributions in the Social
Sciences in the Philippines. Moreover, the researcher also argues that Rizal was a proponent of
local history and the “From Us for Us” Perspective (“Pantayong Pananaw”).
In the Philippines, the dominant trend in writing our history has been Manila-centric
(Florendo 2003, 16). This means that the standards set by the Manila-centric approach in terms of
periodization has hindered the actual roles of the peripheries or localities in contributing to
Philippine historiography. The result is that local histories have been largely ignored in favor of
the dominant Manila-centric approach (Florendo 2003, 16). Although, there are attempts to write
comprehensive local histories, such as John Larkin’s “The Pampangans: Colonial Society in a
Philippine Province” (1972) and Felix Keesing’s “The Ethnohistory of Northern Luzon” (1962),
gaps in the course of local history still beg to be filled. Hence, this research paper will contribute
to the Philippine society by redirecting the efforts in favoring the production of local histories,
which appears to be a key component to a more comprehensive and enriched Philippine history.
In addition, it hopes to fill the insufficiency of the available materials dealing with local histories
by delving into the past, thereby adding another lens of interpretation, methodology, and
conceptual innovations in the Philippine society. Aside from contributing to the Philippine society,
this research will also serve as a good start for the researcher to venture in writing local history,
which in the long run, will aid her in her future career as a historian. In addition, this paper will
help the researcher deepen her understanding on the life and works of Rizal.
Scholars, such as Gabriel Fabella and Gregorio Zaide, consider Rizal as a historian, since
he possesses qualities, like impartiality, honesty, objectivity, fairness, and integrity (Fabella 1957;
Zaide 1953). Fabella and Zaide analyzed the historical value of Rizal’s annotation of Morga’s
Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas. It is interesting to note that these scholars argue that Rizal’s method
was to corroborate written sources with actual observations (Alip 1961, 61). Additionally, Rizal
was great in interpreting his historical data to the extent of “predicting” what will happen in the
course of history (Alip 1961, 62). This study deviates from these scholars’ works, since the
researcher will focus on other works of Rizal and use these works as a proof that Rizal was a
mainstay of “From Us for Us Perspective”.

Page 1 of 10 Chan, C.L.T.

 “From Us for Us” perspective (Pantayong Pananaw) is usually distinguished from “From
Us for You” perspective (Pangkaming Pananaw). Zeus Salazar, a Filipino historian who is best
known for the Pantayong Pananaw, describes Pangkaming Pananaw as a perspective which: (1)
uses a foreign language that is usually not understood by most Filipinos; and (2) has a tendency to
view the Philippines as a subject of study from the outside (Salazar 2000, 1). Salazar argued that
this perspective is not for the Filipinos, since it merely benefits the elites and foreigners (Salazar
2000, 1). Meaning, Pangkaming Pananaw is not an accurate perspective to explain what is native
to the Filipinos. This is why, Salazar argued for the Pantayong Pananaw, because: (1) it is for us;
(2) it utilizes our own language, which many Filipinos can understand; (3) it uses our own values
as Filipinos; and (4) it is in line with our culture (Salazar 2000, 1). This perspective then offers
conditions and concepts that are oriented for the Filipinos. This way, the system is closed circuit
in the sense that Filipinos can understand their own conditions and concepts, since it is free from
foreign interventions and influences. The implication of this is that a society is utilizing a
Pantayong Pananaw if everyone in that society uses concepts and values that are familiar to all of
them (Salazar 2000, 2). This framework of Salazar is significant to this paper, since it will be used
in analyzing the works of Rizal and the works about him and his contributions.
The works of Rizal to be analyzed are as follows: (a) “Executives of the Town of Calamba”;
(b) “Petition of the Town of Calamba”; (c) “Our Mother Tongue”; (d) “Tawalisi of Ibn Batuta”;
and (e) “Message to the Young Women of Malolos (Sa Mga Kababaihang Taga-Malolos)”. On
the other hand, works to be discussed in this paper about Rizal and his contributions are: (a)
Eufronio Alip’s “Jose Rizal: His Place in World Affairs and Other Essays” (1961); (b) Nicolas
Zafra’s “Jose Rizal: Historical Studies” (1977); (c) National Historical Institute’s “Political and
Historical Writings: Jose Rizal” (2000); (d) Diosdado Capino, Ma. Minerva Gonzalez, and
Filipinas Pineda’s “Rizal’s Life, Works and Writings: Their Impact on our National Identity”
(2005); (e) Austin Coates’ “Rizal: Makabayan at Martir” (2007); and (f) Howard DeWitt’s “Jose
Rizal: Philippine Nationalist as Political Scientist” (1997).
In order to prove the central thesis of this paper and achieve its objectives, the main
discussion will be in two-fold: (1) the researcher will discuss works about Rizal and his
contributions; and (2) the researcher will dwell on the works of Rizal per se. This way, the
researcher can employ: (a) internal criticism, studying within the works of Rizal; and (b) external
criticism, corroborating the criticisms within the works of Rizal using external or outside sources
from scholars who comprehensively researched about him and his works.
On to the first part of the discussion, various scholars argue that Rizal was a historian. For
Eufronio Alip, a scholar affiliated with the Philippine Historical Society, Rizal was a historian
because one can find rich history in his works (1961, 60). Alip identified Rizal’s letter to Dr. A.
B. Meyer on January 7, 1889 as an example, as well as his letter to his parents when he was in
Paris, describing his visit to the French museums and other landmarks in France (1961, 60). One
can, thus, observe that Alip identified Rizal as a local historian. As a local historian, Alip believes
that Rizal combined historical documents and actual observations in writing history (1961, 61).
Despite the lack of materials and resources, Rizal was not hindered in sacrificing his time and

Page 2 of 10 Chan, C.L.T.

effort in writing history (Alip 1961, 62). His works were valuable in terms of inspiring his fellow
countrymen to aspire and to fight for independence, as well as in terms of providing a plan whereby
his fellow countrymen can reap representation, a fair civil service system, freedom of speech, and
a fair judiciary system (Alip 1961, 64). Hence, one can infer that Alip describes Rizal as a historian
who does not merely list historical events, but also one who writes local histories based on both
documents and his actual experiences, noting in mind the benefits that his fellow countrymen can
reap through his writings or works. This passion of Rizal for historical studies can be corroborated
with the interpretation of Nicolas Zafra, a professor emeritus of the University of the Philippines,
where he stated that because of his Jesuit professors, like Father Jose Bech, Rizal acquired a strong
liking for history, which makes him an “ardent Votary of Clio” (1977, 164). By “ardent Votary of
Clio”, Zafra means that Rizal devoted himself to reading and writing historical works. Rizal badly
wanted to read the Historia Universal of Cesar Cantu, which provides a view of world history,
depicting the changes in the fortune of men and various nations (1977, 165). Like Alip, Zafra
believed that Rizal corroborated historical documents with observations of actual experiences
(1977, 167). Similarly, the National Historical Institute or the National Historical Commission of
the Philippines also states that Rizal was a “devoted student of the general history of the
Philippines” with an “interest in local history,” especially when he wrote the “Executives of the
Town of Calamba” (National Historical Institute 2000, xv). This was also verified by Diosdado
Capino, Ma. Minerva Gonzalez, and Filipinas Pineda, scholars who researched on the life and
works of Rizal and their impact on our national identity, when they stated that Rizal was committed
to learning (2005, 127). He loves to write works with “nationalistic significance” (Capino,
Gonzalez, and Pineda 2005, 142). Aside from them, Austin Coates, an English scholar noted for
his interest on the Asia-Pacific region, also believes that Rizal was a historian. For Coates, Rizal
was interested to writing history, so he read Antonio de Morga’s Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas,
including other related publications (2007, 202). But instead of writing his own, Coates noted that
Rizal wrote his own version of Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas using the documents he has read
about the Philippines (2007, 203). His rationale was to make an orthography and history for his
fellow countrymen, since he deemed it as a cornerstone for the writing of his fellow countrymen’s
own dictionary based on the various cultures they associate themselves with (Coates 2007, 2003).
Lastly, same characteristics of Rizal was also mentioned in the work of Howard DeWitt, a
professor emeritus at Ohlone College in California, where he stated that “Rizal wrote to a variety
of people” and “applied the lessons he learned on his journeys to his ideas” (1997, 7).
Consequently, all of these scholars point to the fact that Rizal was a historian who was committed
to learning and who combined his actual experiences and the information he had read. The
question, then, now shifts from “what type of historian was Rizal?” to “what perspective did Rizal
use in writing history?”
Since there are two opposing frameworks with which to describe Rizal’s way of writing
history, in order to break the deadlock, this paper will now proceed to discussing the works of
Rizal using the framework of Zeus Salazar, which is the Pantayong Pananaw. This will prove that
Rizal was a local historian who pushed for a “From Us for Us” perspective (Pantayong Pananaw),

Page 3 of 10 Chan, C.L.T.

rather than a “From Us for You” perspective (Pangkaming Pananaw). In line with this, it is
important to understand that Salazar’s model works on four premises to classify if a scholar is
using a Pantayong Pananaw, namely: (1) if it benefits us; (2) if it uses our own language; (3) if it
uses our own values; and (4) if it is connected with our culture (Salazar 2000, 1).
Firstly, when it comes to showing that his works will benefit us, Rizal wrote local histories
in order to expose to his fellow countrymen the happenings not just in the center during his time,
which is Manila, but also to the peripheries, such as Laguna. This benefits us not just in terms of
our exposure to what was happening during the Spanish colonial period, but also in terms of our
familiarity with our own country. In the sense, Rizal tried to switch our focus to local histories,
which are usually disregarded in favor of writing our national history. By switching the focus,
Rizal highlighted the importance of local histories in shaping our national history, because we can
use these local histories as a point of comparison to compare different events and values of one
another. This way, we can gain understanding of our diverse cultures and this understanding may
mold us to share an identity and a feeling of belongingness amidst our diversity. This aspect of
advantaging Rizal’s fellow countrymen can largely be seen in his “Executives of the Town of
Calamba” and “Petition of the Town of Calamba.” In his “Executives of the Town of Calamba,”
Rizal tried to use primary sources from Mrs. Vicenta Llamas, Mr. Mariano Alcasid, Mr. Gervasio
Alviar, and Mr. Apolinaro de Ribera in order to showcase the list of the executives in Calamba,
Laguna from its establishment in August 28, 1742 until 1891. In this work, Rizal noted the change
in the title given to the executives—from Teniente (Lieutenant) to Capitan (Captain) in 1780 (Rizal
1891 in National Historical Institute 2000, 303-308). It is significant to find out that in the military
ranks of Spain, Teniente is under Capitan (International Encyclopedia of Uniform Insignia around
the World 2014). Since Spain usually patterned the political, economic, and social system of the
Philippines to its own system (Agoncillo and Alfonso 1967, 86), it is more likely that when Spain
colonized the Philippines, it first used the term Teniente to refer to the natives of the Philippines
that acquired positions in the local governments (Agoncillo and Alfonso 1967, 86), but when the
Spanish colonial regime already appointed Spaniards in the localities, the researcher of this paper
believes that Teniente was replaced with Capitan in 1780 to imply that the Filipinos are lower than
the Spaniards. In fact, this is prevalent in Rizal’s “Executives of the Town of Calamba”, in which
before 1780, dominant Filipinos names are listed as Tenientes, such as Juan, Andres, Domingo,
and Pedro (Rizal 1891 in National Historical Institute 2000, 303-304), but when Teniente was
already changed to Capitan, dominant Spanish names can already be seen, such as Apolinario de
Ribera, Juan Aragon, Luis Elàsegui, and Luis Habaña (Rizal 1891 in National Historical Institute
2000, 304-308). It should also be noted that not only did Rizal listed the names of the executives,
but he also enumerated events that happened during these executives’ rule. For example, in 1874
under Lucas Quintero, Rizal stated that a typhoon devastated the area (Rizal 1891 in National
Historical Institute 2000, 307). In 1878 under Francisco Salgado, on the other hand, a riot in the
town plaza of Calamba took place (Rizal 1891 in National Historical Institute 2000, 307). Thus,
Rizal tried to uncover not just the names of the executives in Calamba from 1742 until the time he
wrote it in 1891, but he also tried to explore what happened under the executives. Most sources

Page 4 of 10 Chan, C.L.T.

state that most of Rizal’s works were written in Spanish since he was fluent in that language. It
was merely his work titled “Message to the Young Women of Malolos (Sa Mga Kababaihang
Taga-Malolos)” reported to be written in Tagalog (Morrow 2010). However, according to the
National Historical Institute, presently known as the National Historical Commission of the
Philippines, a government agency of the Philippines with a mission to promote Philippine history
and cultural heritage, Rizal wrote the “Executives of the Town of Calamba” originally in Tagalog
(National Historical Institute 2000, 303). This exemplifies Rizal’s aim to proliferate and raise
awareness and familiarity of local history to his fellow countrymen.
Another work of Rizal which satisfies Salazar’s first premise on the writings of Rizal as
beneficial to his countrymen is the “Petition of the Town of Calamba.” In this work, Rizal tried to
show the order of the Spanish royals to the gobernadorcillo (town ruler) and principales (elites)
that the latter must report to the former the increase in products or lands in the localities in
compliance with the Central Administration of Direct Taxes’ requirements (Rizal 1891 in National
Historical Institute 2000, 37). In turn, the gobernadorcillo and the principales submitted what the
Spanish royals required from them (Rizal 1888 in National Historical Institute 2000, 37). The
gobernadorcillo and principales reported the boundaries of their territorial jurisdiction and the
increase in the land produces, which is beneficial to the Spanish colonial regime, but detrimental
to the natives of the Philippines (Rizal 1888 in National Historical Institute 2000, 37-38). The
gobernadorcillo and principales stated four reasons for the increase of land produce for the
Spanish colonial regime: (1) because of their annual forced imposition; (2) because they usually
receive double payment of the native farmers for the land and hut that they occupy and utilize; (3)
the increase in the rent of houses and warehouses; and (4) the Spanish colonial regime’s
accumulation of resources without spending what it has accumulated (meaning, the Spanish
colonial regime always get money and resources from the natives, but it does not really use these
money and resources on the development of agriculture and improvement of public buildings)
(Rizal 1888 in National Historical Institute 2000, 38-39). The native farmers, on the other hand,
have been impoverished, since: (1) most of their cultivated produce and land were taken away
from them; (2) there was an excessive imposition of rental fees on the natives without giving them
proper measurements and their equivalent fees based on the measurements; (3) there was a price
drop on the native farmers’ produce, such as sugar, especially during calamities; (4) there were
exorbitant fees, including fees on water; and (5) there was an increasing shortage of capital (Rizal
1888 in National Historical Institute 2000, 39-40). These have caused the native farmers’ declining
enthusiasm to produce (Rizal 1888 in National Historical Institute 2000, 40). This work of Rizal
is then an implicit warning against the oppression of the Spanish colonial regime on the natives.
He recognized these atrocities committed by the Spanish colonial regime as an “imminent evil”
(Rizal 1888 in National Historical Institute 2000, 41). It is therefore obvious that this work tries to
lay out the direct oppression of the Spaniards against the natives by showcasing the case of
Calamba. One can infer from the text that Rizal wanted to express his dismay against the Spaniards
and to raise awareness towards the people regarding the conditions that the natives have been
experiencing in the hands of the colonizers. It can also be inferred from this work that Rizal tried

Page 5 of 10 Chan, C.L.T.

to use the town of Calamba as a case study in order to encourage people from other regions to be
critical of the conditions experienced not just by the farmers, but by all the natives in general.
Hence, these two works of Rizal are proof of his passion to write local history as he deemed it to
be significant to his fellow countrymen. His use of primary sources in these works is beneficial,
since it promotes a deeper understanding of history in its most raw form, encouraging scholars and
researchers to participate in history by inserting their own interpretive positionality to the facts
uncovered from primary sources.
Secondly, when it comes to the second premise of Salazar regarding the use of our own
language, Rizal expressed in his writing his interest to write in Tagalog to reach a specific type of
audience or reader, which is the Filipinos per se. One can see Salazar’s argument in Rizal’s
“Message to the Young Women of Malolos (Sa Mga Kababaihang Taga-Malolos)” that one needs
to write in Filipino in order for the Filipinos to fully grasp and understand what one is trying to
say since it is familiar to them (Salazar 2000, 1-2). In this work, Rizal pointed out that he have not
met women who are submissive and who think critically on whatever commands were given to
them (Rizal 1889 in National Historical Institute 2000, 56). This was why Rizal was joyed when
Marcelo del Pilar told him about the young women in Malolos who petitioned for the establishment
of a school that can teach them Spanish language (Rafiq n.d., 1). Here, Rizal pointed that that this
was a step towards enlightenment, since women, especially in Malolos, now realized that they
should not bow down their heads and merely follow what the Spaniards have told them (Rizal
1889 in National Historical Institute 2000, 56-57). Rizal recognized in this work the importance
of women in shaping up the future and lighting the path of knowledge for their children, since they
are the first ones who influences the morality of the future generations (Rizal 1889 in National
Historical Institute 2000, 57). This work is pertinent to this research study, since it legitimizes the
argument of the researcher by showcasing how Rizal used Tagalog, our own language, in trying
to empower the women (not just in Malolos, but women in the Philippines in general) by informing
them the roles and qualities that they need to possess (in other words, they need to set standards
for their children, so they need to be critical and they should not just follow other people’s
commands, since they have their own individualities) in shaping up the society (Rizal 1889 in
National Historical Institute 2000, 56-66).
Thirdly, when it comes to the third premise of Salazar regarding the utilization of our own
values, “Our Mother Tongue” very much showcases this. George Guthrie, a professor from Union
University in Tennessee, tried to explain the values of the Filipinos. He found out that Filipino
values are ingrained in Filipinos by their interaction with one another (Guthrie 1968, 60-64). This
entails that Filipino values are exemplified only when one is within his or her group. Essentially,
one’s values is tied to his or her culture, since culture is the “complex whole, which includes
knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man
as a member of society” (Tylor 1871, 1). “Our Mother Tongue” revolves around the idea of loving
one’s own language. In this work, the famous line: “Ang hindi magmahal sa sariling wika ay higit
pa sa hayop at malansang isda (Whoever knows not how to love his native tongue is worse than
any beast or evil smelling fish)” was first seen (Alip 1961, 34). This work highlights that Tagalog

Page 6 of 10 Chan, C.L.T.

is the same as any other language, such as Latin, English, and Castillian (Alip 1961, 35). Hence,
the author encourages Filipinos to speak Tagalog. However, although attributed to Jose Rizal, this
work was contested by Ambeth Ocampo, a Filipino historian who became the chair of the
Department of History at Ateneo de Manila University, saying that Rizal could not have written
it, since: (1) Rizal was not able to write a whole novel in his native tongue; (2) no original
manuscript can be found (Rizal had 35 years to publish it, but he did not); and (3) the poem was
published as an appendix to “Kun Sino ang Kumatha ng Florante: Kasaysayan ng Buhay ni
Francisco Baltazar at Pag-Uulat nang Kanyang Karununga’t Kadakilaan”, which is questionable
because the word kalayaan (freedom) was used twice in the poem and in 1869 where the poem
was claimed to be written by Rizal, he was merely eight (8) years old. This raised speculations that
Rizal did not write the poem because it was only in 1882, where he was 21 years old, when he first
encountered the term kalayaan (Ocampo 2018, 5-8). Although, there are proof that shows that the
work was not written by Rizal, this work still contributed in terms of ingraining the Filipino value
of loving our own language in Filipinos. In fact, this is prevalent when one looks at the influence
of the poem to a lot of students from different schools in the Philippines, like University of San
Carlos in Cebu and Capitol Univeristy in Cagayan de Oro (see Image 1 and Image 2 in the
appendices), especially during their Buwan ng Wika, an event celebrating language, to use and
love Tagalog. Even if others may argue against this, the attempt of Rizal to utilize our own values
is still prominent in his other works previously discussed in this paper, such as “Message to the
Young Women of Malolos (Sa Mga Kababaihang Taga-Malolos)” and “Executives of the Town
of Calamba,” by encouraging women to be brave, critical, and independent, at the same time, by
encouraging the love and utilization of our own language and own history. These are Filipino
values (bravery, criticality, independence, and the love for our own language and our own history),
since basing on Guthrie’s definition of “values,” they could not be done without our interaction
with one another and without our sense of belongingness and tie to a Filipino identity.
Lastly, when it comes to Salazar’s last premise regarding the connection of our own
culture, Rizal’s “Tawalisi of Ibn Batuta” best exemplifies this. In this work, Rizal, in response to
Dr. A. B. Meyer, tried to locate Tawalisi as found in the journals of Ibn Batuta (Rizal 1889 in
National Historical Institute 2000, 49). Rizal argued that Tawalisi can only be applicable to Luzon,
since Batuta’s description, which says that: “She is very vast and her ruler is equal to that of China
and possessed numerous junks,” may pertain to Luzon’s politics and extensive commerce (Rizal
1889 in National Historical Institute 2000, 51-52). Aside from that, the description of Batuta,
which states that: “The inhabitants of that country are heathens,” may also pertain to Luzon, since
Islamism was introduced into Luzon only among the chieftains in the fifteenth (15th) century (Rizal
1889 in National Historical Institute 2000, 52). Consequently, given that culture, based on Tylor’s
definition, encompasses myths of a specific group, as well as their beliefs and customs, it can be
then argued that Rizal’s “Tawalisi of Ibn Batuta” has a connection in our own culture, since in
debunking the idea that Tawalisi is located in Celebes, Tongkin, and Jolo, Rizal asserted that the
description of Ibn Batuta on Tawalisi can only be applicable to Luzon by showing its political (her
ruler is equal to China), economic (extensive economy), and social or cultural realms (Islamism

Page 7 of 10 Chan, C.L.T.

introduced to chieftains only in the fifteenth century). For all these reasons, all the works of Rizal
discussed in this paper satisfy all the premises of Salazar’s Pantayong Pananaw. Thus, the
argument of the researcher that Rizal is a proponent of Pantayong Pananaw stands.
This paper addressed three objectives, namely: (1) it determined if Jose Rizal has
contributions in the Social Sciences in the Philippines; (2) it studied some of the works of Rizal,
as well as other works that tackle Rizal and his contributions; and (3) it proved that Rizal was a
local historian who pushed for a “From Us for Us” Perspective (“Pantayong Pananaw”) using his
works and other scholarly works.
In the first and second objectives, the study found out that Rizal has a contribution in the
Social Sciences in the Philippines by looking at the works about Rizal and his contributions, such
as: (a) Eufronio Alip’s “Jose Rizal: His Place in World Affairs and Other Essays” (1961); (b)
Nicolas Zafra’s “Jose Rizal: Historical Studies” (1977); (c) National Historical Institute’s
“Political and Historical Writings: Jose Rizal” (2000); (d) Diosdado Capino, Ma. Minerva
Gonzalez, and Filipinas Pineda’s “Rizal’s Life, Works and Writings: Their Impact on our National
Identity” (2005); (e) Austin Coates’ “Rizal: Makabayan at Martir” (2007); and (f) Howard
DeWitt’s “Jose Rizal: Philippine Nationalist as Political Scientist” (1997). All these scholars in
their works point to the fact that Rizal was a historian who was committed to learning and
combining his actual experiences from the information that he read from documents; thus he
contributed in the Social Sciences by providing a technique in utilizing and analyzing sources.
In the last objective, the study identified two contending perspectives in explaining what
is native to the Filipinos: “From Us for You” Perspective (Pangkaming Pananaw) and “From Us
for Us” Perspective (Pantayong Pananaw). Historian Zeus Salazar argued for the Pantayong
Pananaw, since it: (1) is for the Filipinos; (2) uses Filipinos’ own language; (3) uses Filipinos’
values; and (4) has a connection with the Filipino culture. On the other hand, the Pangkaming
Pananaw, which Salazar denounces, was viewed as an inaccurate perspective to explain what is
native to the Filipinos, since it: (1) uses a foreign language that is usually not understood by the
Filipinos; and (2) looks at the Philippines from an outside perspective.
In order to determine which perspective did Rizal utilize, the study proceeded with an
analysis of his works, namely: (a) “Executives of the Town of Calamba”; (b) “Petition of the Town
of Calamba”; (c) “Message to the Young Women of Malolos (Sa Mga Kababaihang Taga-
Malolos)”; (d) “Our Mother Tongue”; and (e) “Tawalisi of Ibn Batuta”. The “Executives of the
Town of Calamba” and the “Petition of the Town of Calamba” of Rizal showcase his passion to
write local history using primary sources, as he viewed it to be beneficial to his fellow countrymen
because it deepens the Filipinos’ understanding of their history in its raw form, encouraging them
to be participant by inserting their own opinions to the information found from the primary sources;
thus, satisfying the first premise of the Pantayong Pananaw. In the “Message to the Young Women
of Malolos (Sa Mga Kababaihang Taga-Malolos)”, Rizal used Tagalog in trying to empower
women by informing them of the roles and qualities that they need to acquire in order for them to
successfully shape up the society; thus, satisfying the second premise of the Pantayong Pananaw.
In “Our Mother Tongue”, although it is contestable whether Rizal wrote it or not, its impact in

Page 8 of 10 Chan, C.L.T.

terms of ingraining the Filipino value of patriotism and love for their own language cannot be
denied. Moreover, Rizal’s “Message to the Young Women of Malolos (Sa Mga Kababaihang
Taga-Malolos)” and “Executives of the Town of Calamba” also encourage Filipino values of
bravery, criticality, independence, and the love for their own language and their own history; thus,
satisfying the third premise of Pantayong Pananaw. Lastly, in the “Tawalisi of Ibn Batuta”, Rizal
best showcased its connection to the Filipino culture since in debunking the idea that Tawalisi is
located in Celebes, Tongkin, and Jolo, Rizal asserted that the description of Ibn Batuta on Tawalisi
can only be applicable to Luzon by showing its political (her ruler is equal to China), economic
(extensive economy), and social or cultural realms (Islamism introduced to chieftains only in the
fifteenth century); thus, satisfying the last premise of the Pantayong Pananaw.
For these reasons, it can be noted that Rizal was a local historian who pushed for a “From
Us for Us” Perspective (“Pantayong Pananaw”). However, albeit the study justified the Pantayong
Pananaw, it does not completely dismiss the idea that the Pangkaming Pananaw can still be
suitable or applicable in other contexts. Other works demonstrating the use of foreign language
and outside stance in studying the Philippines may be used in accordance to the Pangkaming
Pananaw. This study does not dismiss the multitude of contributions provided by both the
Pantayong Pananaw and the Pangkaming Pananaw. Other works of Rizal and works about him
and his contributions provide a great avenue for people to argue different claims.

Reference List
Agoncillo, Teodoro, and Oscar Alfonso. History of the Filipino People. Quezon City:
Malaya Books, 1967.
Alip, Eufronio Melo. Jose Rizal: His Place in World Affairs and Other Essays. Manila: Alip, 1961.
Capino, Diosdado, Ma. Minerva Gonzalez, and Filipinas Pineda. Rizal’s Life, Works and
Writings: Their Impact on our National Identity. Quezon City: Bookman, Inc, 2005.
Coates, Austin. Rizal: Makabayan at Martir. Translated by Nilo Ocampo. Quezon City:
University of the Philippines Press, 2007.
DeWitt, Howard. Jose Rizal: Philippine Nationalist as Political Scientist. USA:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1997.
Guthrie, George. Six Perspectives on the Philippines. Manila: Bookmark, 1968.
International Encyclopedia of Uniform Insignia around the World. “Rank Insignia-Army
Land Forces of Spain.” Accessed April 8, 2019.
http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=3721.
Morrow, Paul. “Jose Rizal and the Filipino Language.” Accessed April 8, 2019.
https://www.pilipino-express.com/history-a-culture/in-other-words/852-rizal-and-the-
filipino-language.html.
National Historical Institute. Political and Historical Writings: Jose Rizal. Manila: National
Historical Institute, 2000.
Ocampo, Ambeth. Rizal Without the Overcoat. Mandaluyong: Anvil Publishing, Inc, 2018.
Rafiq, Sheena. “To the Young Women of Malolos: Summary and Analysis.” Accessed April 9,
Page 9 of 10 Chan, C.L.T.
 2019.
https://www.academia.edu/10625306/To_the_Young_Women_of_Malolos_Summary_an
d_Analysis.
Rizal, Jose. “Executives of the Town of Calamba.” In Political and Historical Writings: Jose
Rizal, compiled by the National Historical Institute, 303-308. Manila: National
Historical Institute, 2000.
Rizal, Jose. “Message to the Young Women of Malolos (Sa Mga Kababaihang Taga-
Malolos).” In Political and Historical Writings: Jose Rizal, compiled by the National
Historical Institute, 37-41. Manila: National Historical Institute, 2000.
Rizal, Jose. “Petition of the Town of Calamba.” In Political and Historical Writings: Jose
Rizal, compiled by the National Historical Institute, 2000, 37-41. Manila: National
Historical Institute, 2000.
Rizal, Jose. “Tawalisi of Ibn Batuta.” In Political and Historical Writings: Jose
Rizal, compiled by the National Historical Institute, 2000, 37-41. Manila: National
Historical Institute, 2000.
Salazar, Zeus. “Ang Pantayong Pananaw Bilang Diskursong Pangkabihasnan.” In Pantayong
Pananaw: Ugat at Kabuluhan, Pambungad sa Pag-aaral ng Bagong Kasaysayan, edited
by Atoy Navarro, Mary Jane Rodriguez, and Vicente Villan. Quezon City: Palimbagan ng
Lahi, 2000.
Tylor, Edward Burnett. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology,
Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom. London: John Murray, 1871.
Zafra, Nicolas. Jose Rizal: Historical Studies. Quezon City: University of the Philippines
Press, 1977.

Page 10 of 10 Chan, C.L.T.