RIZAL REVIEWER

THE CONTEXT OF THE RIZAL BILL

The postwar period witnessed a Philippines beset by difficulties and problems. With a country
torn and tired by the stresses of World War II, the people and government placed an utmost
concern on getting back on their feet.

As the Philippines faced numerous challenges, most notably the call for nation-building,
prominent nationalists took action. They pursued government policies aimed at instilling
patriotism and love for country in the Filipino people's hearts and minds. These individuals drew
inspiration from the Philippine experience of the revolution for independence against Spain and
from the heroes of that formative era in the country's history.

One of the measures sought was the passage of Republic Act No. 1425, commonly
referred to as the Rizal Law, which was primarily intended to address “a need for re-dedication
to the ideals of freedom and nationalism for which our heroes lived and died”. The law was met
with fierce opposition in both the Senate and the House of Representatives during its passage.

The Rizal Law: Why Students are Required to Study the Life of Rizal and His Works?

The Rizal course was created as an act of Congress of the Republic of the Philippines through
Republic Act No. 1425 on June 12, 1956. This was approved during the time of President
Ramon Magsaysay. The actual title 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, writings of Jose
Rizal, particularly his Novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, Authorizing the Printing and
Distribution Thereof, and for Other Purposes."
The Story of Rizal Law

Every law in the republican system of government begin as a bill. In 1955, legislators
filed a bill upon seeing the need to promote nationalism and patriotism specially among the
youths. The original bill was filed by Sen. Claro M. Recto and it was sponsored by Sen. Jose P.
Laurel. The intent of the law was to promote patriotism and nationalism so the senators saw no
problem in legislating it.

However, upon its introduction in the legislature, the Rizal bill encountered formidable
opposition. The Catholic church and its allies in Congress and the media were the primary
source of opposition regarding the legislation of the said bill. The original bill that would
eventually become the Rizal Law (R.A. 1425) was filed by the Committee on Education in the
Philippine Senate (Sen. Jose P. Laurel being the chairman at that time) as Senate Bill 438 on
April 1956.

The original bill stipulated the mandatory study of Rizal's life and works especially his
two novels (Noli and El Fili) for all college and university students. After its introduction in the
Senate, the original Rizal Bill was called as "an attack on the church". The opponents said that
the novels painted a negative image of the Catholic Church and these contain messages that
are not suited to the present time.

The Supporters and Oppositions of Rizal Bill

Majority of those people who took a stand against the passage of the Rizal bill was from
the church and their powerful allies in the Senate and Congress (Sen. Francisco "Soc" Rodrigo
and Congressman Miguel Cuenco). There were also catholic organizations that joined the
opposition such as Accion Catolico (Catholic Action), who were composed of conservative
Catholics: the Knights of Columbus, the Congregation of the Mission and the Catholic Teacher's
Guild.

Central argument of the opponents of the Rizal Bill was it forced young students to read Rizal's
work which had religious overtones. According to those who were against the bill, it would be a
violation of constitutional freedom of religion and the freedom of conscience. In one event
denouncing the Rizal Bill, one speaker named Fr. Jesus Cavanna said that "Rizal's novel painted
a false picture of the conditions of the country in the 19th century". Fr. Cavanna added that the
novels required for reading as stipulated in the Rizal Bill contained more anti-Church statements
rather than nationalistic statements. Fr. Cavanna pointed out that in Noli Me Tangere displayed
120 anti-Catholic statements compared to only 25 nationalistic statements.

Another commentator Jesus Paredes said that the novels contained objectionable
material and the Catholics have a right not to read them in order not to endanger their faith.
Opposition to the Rizal Bill escalted as the priests and bishops preached againts the Rizal Bill
during masses. The Archbishop of Manila Rufino Santos came out with a pastoral letter warning
about the dissatisfaction of the youth on the church if the Rizal Bill was approved.

In the Senate, Senator Rodrigo who held the presidency of the Accion Catolico
denounced the Rizal Bill. He said that he would read Rizal's novels because his faith in the
Catholic Church is strong but he would not allow his teenaged son to read the Noli and El Fili
because they could harm his faith.

In the House of Representatives, Congressman Miguel Cuenco led the opposition to the Rizal
Bill. In his privilege speech, he said that many of the anti-Catholic passages found on Rizal's
novels were against the holy sacraments and disparages devotion to the Virgin Mary, the
Saints, the use of scapulars, saying of rosaries, novenas, and indulged prayers.

While there were opponents of the Rizal Bill, it also had its supporters. These include
groups such as the Veteranos de la Revolucion Filipina (composed of war veterans), the Alagad
ni Rizal, The Knights of the Grand Ordeal, and the Freemasons. Mayor of Manila at that time,
Arsenio Lacson, was another prominent supporter of the bill. While attending the mass, he
walked out of the church when the priest begun reading a circular from Archbishop Santos
denouncing the bill.

Within the Catholic Church, the lone voice which supported the Rizal Bill was a Jesuit
scholar and historian Fr. Horacio de la Costa S.J. He said that Rizal's works only exposed abuses
within the Church and added that the abuses were committed by individual clergy and should
not be treated as reflective of the entire clergy.

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 than Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, works written by Rizal
and works written 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 Roseller 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 passed on
May 17, 1956 and was signed into law as Republic Act 1425 by President Ramon Magsaysay on
June 12 of the same year.

Though it was passed more than 50 years ago, it had no implementing rules and regulations
until the National Historical Institute then, now National Historical Commission of the Philippines
provided them in 2001, Republic Act No. 1425.