The Making
of the
Rizal Law
Lesson 1- The Life and Works
of Jose Rizal
Debates in the
Senate
“
The life and works of Jose Rizal is a mandated
subject. The offering of the course in all colleges
and universities both public and private is
grounded on a legislative act.
Directive is provided
for in Republic Act
1425 otherwise known
as the Rizal Law.
The enactment of the R.A 1425 or the Rizal Law is one of the
most controversial events that happened in the history of
Philippine Legislation. This stipulated debate among
members of the Senate. Initially there was no seemingly
dispute over Senate Bill 438 which was filed by the
Committee on Education on April 3, 1956. However, the
atmosphere changed on April 17, 1956 when Senator Jose
P. Laurel who was the chairman of the Committee on
Education took the sponsorship of the Rizal Bill.
The said legislative measure was intended to inspire
nationalism among the Filipino youth. Senator Jose P.
Laurel’s backing up of the proposed legislation sparked a
concerted clash among the members of the Upper House of
Congress. With the ensuing debates in the Senate, Jose P.
Laurel and Claro M. Recto intensely defended the bill. On
the other hand the group composed of Senator Mariano J.
Cuenco, Francisco Rodrigo and Decosoro Rosales struggled
to sustain their ardent opposition.
“
The controversial Senate Bill No. 438 in its original version
read 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.
CONFLICT WITH
THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH
The clash that spurred among the members of the Congress was
painted with religious color. In fact those who pitted the passage
of the bill were mostly Catholic bishops and their followers who
rigidly defended their religious faith. The Catholic church had
influenced some of the members of the Congress in the opposition
of the Rizal bill. Those who stood against the bill in the Upper
chamber were not just religious fanatics but had personal
connection with high ranking church officials. The Catholic
hierarchy incessantly resisted the passage of the proposed
measure. The bishops published a pastoral letter calling the
members of the Catholic Church to reject the bill.
Prior to the introduction of
the Rizal bill, the leader of the
Catholic Church
commissioned Fr. Horacio de
la Costa to prepare a pastoral
letter that will articulate their
standpoint on Rizal. Rizal appears to be a virtuous
person whose works and
writings must be cherished by
the Filipino people.
This view on Rizal was
contradictory to the statement
issued by the bishops during
the height of the Rizal Bill
controversy.
There are five drafts, all
containing many passages of
his original but with
significant differences at
times.
Senator Recto adeptly stoop up in
repudiating that the two novels had
any impious insinuation. The sole
object of the bill, he said was to foster
Recto was so keen in defending Rizal’s the better appreciation of Rizal’s time
novel. He pointed out that the and the role he played in combating
religious allusion mentioned in the Spanish tyranny in this country.
books speaks of the real condition that
was extent during Rizal’s time. The
violent passages in the novels were
intended for the friars and not the
Filipino clergy today.
In his stand against the claim of the detractors that the novels were inimical to the
Catholic faith, Senator Recto stated:
“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 can 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 (Laurel, 1960).”
“
From the start of the deliberation on April 23 until May 8, 1956, the situation
was just getting worse with no sign of falling off, Senator Laurel presented a
substitute bill which was an amendment to the original version. The full text
of the proposed amendment read as follows (Laurel, 1960):
AN ACT TO INCLUDE IN THE CURRICULA OF ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
SCHOOLS, COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES COURSES ON THE LIFE, WORKS
AND WRITINGS OF JOSE RIZAL, PARTICULARLY HIS NOVELS NOLI ME
TANGERE AND EL FILIBUSTERISMO, AUTHORIZING THE PRINTING AND
DISTRIBUTION THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
One significant change in the amended
version is the obliteration of the word
compulsory or compulsion. Although
the reading of the novels is not
anymore obligatory for tertiary
students, the schools are required to
make available the unedited version of
the Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo for those who would
wish to read the novels.
Despite the ambivalent temper of
Malacañang on the contentious bill,
remarkably on June 12, 1956, Republic
Act No. 1425, otherwise known as the
Rizal Law was signed by President
Ramon Magsaysay.
