Group 7 - Cabatas, Iglesias, Nadela, Piczon, Torres | LWR | Tuesday-Thursday 9:00 AM - 10:30 AM
How was the Rizal Bill made into a Rizal Law (RA 1425) despite the strong opposition of
the Catholic Hierarchy?
The Rizal Bill was authored by Senator Recto. The Bill suggested that all private and
public universities and colleges must teach a course on the life and works of Jose Rizal,
including his two novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, to promote nationalism.
However, the Catholic Church strongly opposed the bill because of its anti-clericalism in the
novels. They believed that it violated the freedom of conscience and religion since Rizal’s novels
portrayed the Catholic religion in a different light. The Catholic Church even issued a pastoral
letter as an objection to the bill, as they organized symposiums and open forums to express their
resistance and argued that the novel was an attack on the clergy and contained false information
concerning the state of the country.
The Committee on Education filed Senate Bill No. 438 on April 3, 1956. The debate over
the bill lasted for a considerable time. On April 19, 1956, Congressman Jacobo Gonzales
introduced House Bill No. 5561, similar to Senate Bill No. 438. The debates started on May 2,
1956, recommending approval without alteration. Moreover, Senator Laurel saw the pointless
value of a further debate on the bill, so he proposed an amendment by substitution. The substitute
bill was approved in its second reading on May 12, 1956. Senate Bill No. 438 was approved on
the third reading with 23 votes. House Bill No. 5561 was also approved on the third reading with
71 votes (6 opposed, 2 abstained, and 17 absent) and submitted to the Senate the same day. The
senate took its time considering the legislation, while others held out hope that it would be
rejected. However, the court unanimously approved the revisions and amendment, and President
Ramon Magsaysay signed the bill into law, and became Republic Act No. 1425.
The Catholic Church does not consider R.A. 1425 a victory, instead they view it as
degradation to the catholic beliefs since it might just corrupt the Catholic faith of the new
generation. This resulted in a heated debate during that time. In response to these oppositions,
Senator Jose P. Laurel proposed an amendment to the bill that eliminated the compulsory reading
of the two novels, Noli me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, but these novels had to be read in their
unexpurgated and original form. Prior to being taught in schools, the morally objectionable
elements of Rizal's writings had to be toned down, as agreed to by the legislators, particularly
Recto. They referred to them as the expurgated versions. It was also decided that these materials
would only be taught to students in colleges and universities.
References:
Rizal Law, RA NO. 1425, (1956).
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1956/06/12/republic-act-no-1425/
Constantino R. (1969). The making of a filipino (a story of philippine colonial politics). Malaya
Books.
https://joserizallifeandworks.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/03-constantino_rizal-law-and-the-cath
olic-hierarchy-1.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0cU2M9fcuqnMEuuXaMVb5_0THJPHfUYqARLE5QO3Ifzq
1KrmrAWe-kSwc
Limos, M. A. (1970). Why did the Catholic Church staunchly opposed the rizal law? Retrieved
from
https://www.esquiremag.ph/long-reads/features/rizal-law-and-the-catholic-church-a00293-20200
929
Laurel, J. (n.d.). Trials of the Rizal Bill.
