It is not surprising to see texts regarding the martyrdom of our most celebrated hero, Dr.

Jose

Rizal, when we open the pages of history books in the Philippines. In fact, it appears that his

name has already taken a permanent and prominent place in every publication that mentions the

Philippines.

To be honest, there is nothing wrong with immortalizing Rizal and his heroics in books and

literature read by several generations of Filipinos and non-Filipinos alike. Most authors probably

felt that doing so was a proper way of honoring and thanking him for his accomplishments and

sacrifices for the sake of the Filipino people and our nation. It's just a shame that in attempting to

show him as a hero, he was placed on a pedestal that grew too high for Juan dela Cruz to climb.
The Philippine people were most united, involved, and energetic to fight for a single

cause—freedom—during our country's national revolution, which lasted from 1896 to 1901.

While history authors and biographers have previously investigated and exhausted many

elements of Jose Rizal's brief but noteworthy life, his direct role in the Philippine Revolution that

erupted in 1896 remains a sensitive and unfamiliar subject. Historians cannot doubt Rizal's

importance in the country's quest for reform and independence. His books, particularly Noli me

Tangere and El Filibusterismo, were regarded as a rallying point for other patriots to mobilize in

support of the country's cause. While most of us felt Rizal dedicated his life and energy to the

cause of the revolution and revered him to some extent, a courageous historian rose up and went

against the tide by making public his position that Rizal was NOT an actual leader of the

Philippine Revolution. While most of his biographers skirted the subject, it is crucial to recognize

that Rizal's greatest contradiction elevated him to new heights.

Rizal's flaw in this regard was his incapacity to truly comprehend his people. In starting the

armed insurrection, he was unable to empathize with the actual sentiments of the people from

below. He opposed the revolution because he believed that successful improvements should

originate from above.

This turn of events confounded historians, making Rizal's position on the Philippine Revolution

contentious and ambiguous, making him both hero and anti-hero. In actuality, Constantino did

not give Rizal the credit he deserved; instead, he provided a critical assessment of Rizal as a

product of his time. He stated that even if Rizal were to die, the patriotic movement would

continue with another figure to take his place because it was not Rizal who shaped the course of
events but others. Historical forces unconnected by social developments compelled and

motivated Rizal to rise up and express the sentiments of the people through his writings.In fact, a

revolution ensued, and even Rizal disagreed with it. Finally, Constantino argued that in order to

better understand the hero, we should also pay attention to his weaknesses and learn from them.