The Intense Debate On the Rizal Law

History 10

ECEd 1

Sharee Diane J. Ruña

 February 16, 2024

The Rizal Law, which was enacted in June 1956, requires all schools, whether public or private,
to include courses on the life, works, and writings of Jose Rizal in their curriculum. Specifically,
in college courses, the law mandates the use of the original or unexpurgated editions of Rizal’s
novels, “Noli Me Tangere” and “El Filibusterismo,” or their English translations as basic texts.
The Introduction of the Rizal Law stirred up a lot of discussion and disagreement. Some people
argued passionately for its implementation, believing that it was essential for Filipino students to
learn about Rizal as a national hero, and his contributions to Philippine history and society. They
saw the law as a means to foster patriotism and a deeper understanding of Philippine culture and
identity among the youth until today too. On the other hand, there were those who opposed the
law, raising concerns about academic freedom and the imposition of specific texts in educational
institutions. They questioned whether it was appropriate for the government to mandate which
literary works should be studied and which version s should be taug in classrooms. Some critics
also argued that focusing too much on Rizal could overshadow other important aspects of
Philippine history and literature.

The language used In the Rizal Law itself reflects a controversial nature of the debate
surrounding its enactment. The provision specifying the use of original or unexpurgated editions
of Rizal’s novels in college courses underscores the importance placed on preserving the
integrity of Rizal’s writings and ensuring that students engage with them entirely, without having
to change. Despite the controversies surrounding it, the Rizal Law remains wffective to this day,
shaping the way Rizal’s life and works are taught and studied in Philippine schools. Its legacy
continues to spark discussions about the role of education in nation building, preservation of
cultural heritage, and the relationship between academic freedom and government intervention in
curriculum development. The language used In Section 2 of the Rizal Law introduces difficult
points that shows exploration and reflection. The requirement for schools, colleges, and
universities to have copies of the original and unexpurgated editions of Jose Rizal’s works,
specifically “Noli Me Tangere” and “El Filibusterismo,” or their English translations, raised
questions about the significance placed on authenticity.
Furthermore, the distinction between college and high school students regarding access to the
unexpurgated editions raises questions about the maturity and readiness of students to engage
with potentially challenging or provocative content. Why are college students granted access to
the unexpurgated versions while high school students are limited to “innocuous” versions. This
differentiation implies a belief that college students are better equipped to grasp with the
complexities presented in the original texts.

In his address on the Senate floor, Cuenco argued that Rizal’s writings posed a direct challenge
to the doctrines, beliefs, and practices of the Catholic. For instance, Rizal questioned the concept
of Purgatory, asserting that it lacked biblical foundation and historical precedent in early
Christian theology. Cuenco’s assertions shed light on the contentious nature of Rizal’s writings
and their perceived implications for religious orthodoxy and national identity. By challenging
established religious beliefs and practices.

Pangalangan finds it ironic that he first studied the works “Noli Me Tangere” and “El
Filibusterismo,” written by the national hero, in his high school Filipino class. However, he read
these works in English because he could read faster that way. It’s surprising because these
masterpieces were originally written in Spanish, but they were read in English and taught in
Filipino to promote Filipino nationalism. This situation highlights a contradiction in promoting
national identity through education. While the intention may be to instill a sense of nationalism,
the choice of language and medium of instruction create questions.. Despite efforts to promote
Filipino nationalism, the language barrier and the choice of language for instruction create a
disconnect between the intended message and its delivery.

Raul C. Pangalangan talks about the Rizal Law and its significance in promoting nationalism in
the Philippines. Despite practical suggestions to promote nationalism without Rizal’s anti-
clerical views, the law prevailed because of its principled stance. The Rizal Law stands as a
political victory for nationalism. Rizal, as a symbol of patriotism, remained unchallenged by
critics of the Rizal Law.
Pangalangan ends his reflection with a quote from Rizal, questioning the worth of freedom and
independence if people remain silent in the face of injustice and corruption. He highlights the
importance of being vigilant and active in upholding the principles of justice and freedom, lest
the oppressed become the oppressors in the future.