THE TRIALS OF THE RIZAL BILL Jose B. Laurel, Jr.*+ Few legislative measures have elicited as much interest or provoked as much discussion as Republic Act No. 1425, ‘otherwise known as the Rizal Law. The heated disputes that raged around this legislation, the bitterness and recrimination that attended its enactment, are almost unparalleled in the annals of Congress. When it was filed by the Committee on Education on April 3, 1956, Senate Bill No. 438 was supported by all but 3 of the members of the Upper House and seemed, to all appearances, a non-controversial measure. But when on April 17, 1956, Senator Jose P. Laurel, as Chairman of the Committee on Education, began his sponsorship of the measure the rumbles of the gathering storm sounded an ominous warning. This was to mark the start of the long-drawn disputations, both enlightened and acrimonious, that would engross and divide the nation for three tense weeks. ‘The original version of Senate Bill No. 438 reads as follows: AN ACT TO MAKE NOLI ME TANGERE AND EL FILIBUSTERISMO COMPULSORY, READING MATTER IN ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. Jose Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo are hereby declared compulsory reading matter in all public and private schools, colleges and universities in the Philippines. SECTION 2. The works mentioned in Section 1 of this Act shall be in the original editions or in their unexpurgated English and Natural Language versions. SECTION 3. The Department of Education shall take steps to promulgate rules and regulations for the immediate implementation of the provisions of this Act. SECTION 4. No provision of this Act shall be constructed as prohibiting or limiting the study of the works of other Filipino heroes: SECTION 5. Any public or private college or university found violating, failing to comply with, or circumventing the provisions of this Act shall be punished accordingly: * Former Speaker, House of Representatives. 28a. The Head of any public college or university charged with implementing the provisions of this Act, who shall have been found guilty of violating, failing to comply with, or circumventing the provisions thereof, shall be dismissed immediately from the service and shall be disqualified from teaching in any public or government recognized private school, college or university. b. Government recognition of any private college or university found violating or circumventing the provisions of this Act shall be immediately withdrawn, and the responsible Head and professor or professors concerned shall be disqualified from teaching in any Government-recognized college or university. SECTION 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. According to Senator Laurel, the object of the measure was to disseminate the ideas and ideals of the great Filipino patriot through the reading of his works, particularly “Noli Me Tangere” and “El Filibusterismo.” In the course of his three-day sponsorship speech, he said: “Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo must be read by all Filipinos. They must be taken to heart, for in their pages we see ourselves as in a mirror; our defects as well as our strength, our virtues as well as our vices. Only then would we become conscious as a people, and so learn to prepare ourselves for painful sacrifices that ultimately lead to self-reliance, self-respect and freedom.” The Catholic elements in and outside Congress, however, were quick to assail the measure as an attempt to discredit their religion. Claiming that the two novels contained views inimical to the tenets of their faith, they particularly challenged the compulsory nature of the bill as violative of religious freedom. Principal basis of their opposition was an alleged Pastoral Letter which, while praising Rizal, practically _ branded his novels as heretical and impious. The authenticity of this letter was much suspected and never definitely established, but there is no question that it added fuel to the fires of discord that had already inflamed the passions of the people. Debates on Senate Bill No. 438 began on April 23, 1956. Senator Laurel was supported by a prestigious colleague and ardent nationalist, the formidable Senator Claro M. Recto. In the other camp were Senators Mariano J. Cuenco, Francisco Rodrigo and Decoroso Rosales, all of them identified as rabid Catholics. Although the rest of the senators also participated at times in the discussion, interest was focused on the principal protagonists of the controversy whose masterly exchange of logic and law held the nation spellbound. Senator Recto proved his usual brilliance as a parliamentarian and his vast erudition in history and law, including Canon Law. There was no doubt also that he was an authority on the life and works of Rizal. The gist of his arguments was that, | under the police power and Art. XIV (5) of the Constitution, it was competent for the State to require the reading of “Noli Me Tangere” and “El Filibusterismo” in our public. and private schools. The sole object of the bill, he said, was to foster the better. 29ssail ovels. the heir pally uch fuel vast he aat, the blic tter ciation of Rizal's times and of the role he played in combating Spanish tyranny in S country. Denying that the novels had any religious motivation, he declared: “Rizal did not pretend to teach religion or theology when he wrote those books. He aimed at inculcating civic consciousness in the Filipinos, national dignity, personal pride, and patriotism, and if references were made by him in the course of his narration to certain religious practices in the Philippines in those days and to the conduct and behavior of erring ministers of the church, it was because he portrayed faithfully the general situation in the Philippines as it then existed. Nobody ean dispute that the situation described by Rizal in those days, political, social and religious, was the one actually obtaining in the Philippines; but while he criticized and ridiculed the unworthy behavior of certain ministers of the Church, he made exceptions in favor of the worthy ones, like the Dominican friar, Padre Fernandez, and the virtuous native priest, Padre Florentino, and the Jesuits in general.” . On the other hand, Senators Rodrigo, Rosales and Cuenco derived much mpport from the Catholic Church itself and from its hundreds of thousands of rents throughout the country. Their principal argument was no less impressive, ip wit: that compulsion to read something against one’s religious convictions was no different from a requirement to salute the flag, which, according to the latest decision the matter by the U.S. Supreme Court, was an impairment both of freedom of ch and freedom of religion. In addition, they invoked the need for unity, which said would be imperiled if the bill were approved. Contending that they were no ess lovers of their country because they were devout children of their church, Senator igo remarked: “A vast majority of our people are at the same time Catholics and Filipino citizens. As such, they have two great loves: their country and their faith. These two loves are not conflicting loves. They are harmonious affections, like the love for his father and for his mother. “This is the basis of my stand. Let us not create a conflict between nationalism and religion; between the government and the church.” The conflict reached the House of Representatives on April 19, 1956, when | Congressman Jacobo Z. Gonzales introduced House Bill No. 5561, which was an identical copy Senate Bill No. 438. Debates started on May 9, 1956, following the | report of the Committee on Education, dated May 2, 1956, recommending approval without amendment. The discussions also revolved on the constitutionality and the propriety of the measure, but although proceedings were definitely livelier and more impassioned here than in the Upper Chamber (at one time there was even an abortive fist fight on the floor), it was the mighty battle in the Senate that drew more public » attention. Notable defenders of the bill in the House, besides the author, were Congressmen Emilio Cortez, Mario Bengzon, Joaquin R. Roces, and W. Rancap Lagumbay. Among the outspoken opponents were Congressmen Ramon Durano, Jose Nuguid, Marciano Lim, Manuel Zosa, Lucas Paredes, Godofredo Ramos, Miguel Cuenco, and Congresswomen Carmen D. Consing and Tecla San Andres Ziga. As the daily debates wore on in Congress and throughout the country, it became more and more apparent that no agreement could be reached on the original 30