Module 3
Why Study Rizal?
RA 1425
Overview
The Rizal Law, also known as RA 1425 mandates the study of the life, works, and
writings of Dr. Jose Rizal. It requires the curricula of private and public schools, colleges,
and universities courses to include the life, works, and writings of Jose Rizal, particularly
his novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo to educate the students about the concept
of nationalism (NHCP, 2012). It is good to note that the bill was approved on June 12 or
Independence Day of the year 1956 when the pressing clamor for national identity and
nationalism was in dire need. Although the passage was coupled with controversies and
criticism, high regard must be given to the authors of the bill for ensuring that the ideals
of freedom, love of country, and patriotism were rededicated in the lives of the youth by
honoring the cause that Rizal lived and died for. Up until today, the Rizal Law is an
important reminder to all Filipinos of the role that Dr. Jose Rizal played in the attainment
of our nation’s freedom.
This chapter will focus on the history behind the issuance of the Rizal Law together
with its objectives, pertinent provisions, and overall mandate. It will also present the
underlying idea why the need to study the subject apart from the mandate created by law.
Objectives
At the end of this chapter, the students should be able to:
1. Explain the history of the Rizal Law and its important provisions; and
2. Critically assess the effectiveness of the Rizal Course
Motivational Activity
1. What is the background and context of RA 1425?
2. What are the issues and debates of RA 1425 in the context of the 1950s?
3. Why study the Rizal subject?
Summary of the Chapter
The introductory discussions of the course shall be presented in this chapter. The first
part of this paper contains the historical background and context of RA 1425 in the context
of the 1950s. The tensions brought about by the issues of communism in the world, East
Asia, and the Philippines contributed to the need of crafting a nationalistic policy that would
rekindle nationalism and patriotism among the Filipinos. Thus, it resulted in the passage of
RA 1425. The second part discusses in detail the opposing opinions for and against the bill
as interposed by Senator Claro M. Recto (proponent) and the Catholic Bishops of the
Philippines (opponent). The CBCP contended that novels contain passages that are clear
violations of the separation of the church and the state. They further argued that the Catholic
dogma and morals were repeated attacks are made against the Catholic religion in general.
On the other hand, Recto interposed the importance of the law to the Filipinos and how it
reflects not only the values but also the defects and flaws of history. By doing so, Filipinos
can prepare themselves for the sacrifices they have to make to achieve freedom. The
opposing opinions of each side were presented, discussed, and analyzed in this chapter. The
compromised version of Senator Jose P. Laurel on the version of the bill settled some
disputes regarding the old proposed bill to the new one. Lastly, Part 3 answers the question
on “Why the need to study the Rizal subject? This part explains two specific reasons. First,
because it is mandated by law. Second, because of the lessons contained in the course. By
applying the lessons behind the course in our daily lives, we are also playing an active role
in nation-building.
Part 1: Historical Background and Context of RA 1425
Why are you enrolled in the Rizal subject? Why are you reading this book right now? Why
study Rizal?
While you are reading this book, these questions are among those you might have
asked as soon as you noticed that the Rizal course is included in your curriculum. You might
seek justification on why this subject is included when you are taking accountancy,
management, or engineering courses. Then, why are you enrolled in this subject in the first
place? Let this chapter widen your understanding of why the need to study the Rizal subject.
Since the passage of the law in 1956, students enrolled in the higher education
programs were required to take the Rizal course as part and parcel of the subjects needed
before finishing a certain degree. Students are left with no choice but to enroll in the subject
based on the stipulations of Republic Act 1425. Simply put, the reason why you are enrolled
in this subject because it is mandated by law.
Before the passage of RA 1425, history would tell us that some historical backgrounds
and contexts led to the passage of the Rizal law. In the context of that time, the Rizal law was
made so that the Filipinos, especially the youth, will not forget him. But the question
remains, why should we not forget him? (Quizon, 2011). Let us unravel the historical
background and context of the 1950s for us to answer this question.
The varying social and political unrest that is happening in the world, in East Asia,
and the Philippines threatens the stability of the world and the Filipino nation. During the
1950s, the world was faced with several political issues between the rise of communist states
and how it weakened the democratic stability of other nations. In Korea for example, North
Korea invades South Korea. This led to a growing conflict between the communist and
capitalist forces against each other, set the stage for decades of tension among North Korea,
South Korea, and the United States (Stack, 2018). These tensions also predicated the rivalry
between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. In the year 1956, East
Asian countries felt an aggravated and prolonged period of political uncertainty and internal
unrest between the East and West, that is, between Soviet and US power and influence
(Sicat, 2015). These tensions brought the issues of communism as one of the factors
contributing to the political instability of the countries in the world and Asia.
In the case of the Philippines, former President Ramon Magsaysay on his term as
Defense Secretary in 1949 became the foremost architect and executor of the government’s
anti-communist insurgency program. When he rose to power in 1953, he was faced with the
growing number of the communist-led peasant uprising in central Luzon, also called Huk
Rebellion which stands for the acronym, “Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa Hapon. Due to this
numerous political and social unrest that Magsaysay thought of creating a wide-scale
propaganda program to organize and educate among the youth and student population from
elementary to college on the evils of communism (Reyno, 2012).
In response to the wide-scale propaganda program of the government, Senate bill 438
known as the Rizal Bill which was first-authored by Senator Claro M. Recto and was passed
to respond to the need of crafting a nationalistic policy that would rekindle nationalism and
patriotism of the Filipinos. Thus, the passage of RA 1425 or commonly known as the Rizal
Law (Official Gazette of the Philippines, 1956).
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1425
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
WHEREAS, today, more than any other period of our history, there is a need for a re-dedication to the ideals
of freedom and nationalism for which our heroes lived and died;
WHEREAS, it is meet that in honoring them, particularly the national hero and patriot, Jose Rizal, we
remember with special fondness and devotion their lives and works that have shaped the national character;
WHEREAS, the life, works, and writing of Jose Rizal, particularly his novels Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo, are a constant and inspiring source of patriotism with which the minds of the youth, especially
during their formative and decisive years in school, should be suffused;
WHEREAS, all educational institutions are under the supervision of, and subject to regulation by the State,
and all schools are enjoined to develop moral character, personal discipline, civic conscience and to teach the
duties of citizenship; Now, therefore,
SECTION 1. Courses on the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal, particularly his novel Noli Me Tangere and
El Filibusterismo, shall be included in the curricula of all schools, colleges and universities, public or private:
Provided, That in the collegiate courses, the original or unexpurgated editions of the Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo or their English translation shall be used as basic texts.
The Board of National Education is hereby authorized and directed to adopt forthwith measures to implement
and carry out the provisions of this Section, including the writing and printing of appropriate primers, readers
and textbooks. The Board shall, within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Act, promulgate rules and
regulations, including those of a disciplinary nature, to carry out and enforce the provisions of this Act. The
Board shall promulgate rules and regulations providing for the exemption of students for reasons of religious
belief stated in a sworn written statement, from the requirement of the provision contained in the second part
of the first paragraph of this section; but not from taking the course provided for in the first part of said
paragraph. Said rules and regulations shall take effect thirty (30) days after their publication in the Official
Gazette.
SECTION 2. It shall be obligatory on all schools, colleges and universities to keep in their libraries an
adequate number of copies of the original and unexpurgated editions of the Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo, as well as of Rizal’s other works and biography. The said unexpurgated editions of the Noli Me
Tangere and El Filibusterismo or their translations in English as well as other writings of Rizal shall be included
in the list of approved books for required reading in all public or private schools, colleges and universities.
The Board of National Education shall determine the adequacy of the number of books, depending upon the
enrollment of the school, college or university.
SECTION 3. The Board of National Education shall cause the translation of the Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo, as well as other writings of Jose Rizal into English, Tagalog and the principal Philippine
dialects; cause them to be printed in cheap, popular editions; and cause them to be distributed, free of charge,
to persons desiring to read them, through the Purok organizations and Barrio Councils throughout the country.
SECTION 4. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as amendment or repealing section nine hundred twentyseven of the Administrative Code, prohibiting the discussion of religious doctrines by public school teachers
and other person engaged in any public school.
SECTION 5. The sum of three hundred thousand pesos is hereby authorized to be appropriated out of any
fund not otherwise appropriated in the National Treasury to carry out the purposes of this Act.
SECTION 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Source: Official Gazette of the Philippines. 1956. “Republic Act No. 1425 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the
Philippines.” June 12, 1956. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1956/06/12/republic-act-no-1425/. Approved: June 12,
1956. Published in the Official Gazette, Vol. 52, No. 6, p. 2971 in June 1956.
The historical background and context of the 1950s relate to the intentions that the
law seeks to address. By reminding the youth of the ideals of nationalism and patriotism,
they are expected to help the government by applying the lessons of the course to solve the
present-day problems. In the 1950s where massive youth recruitment to join the left was
prevalent, the desire to bring back the ideals of patriotism and nationalism becomes the
government’s campaign to strengthen the democracy of the republic. Thus, the passage of
the bill was timely and relevant during that period in history. The bill, therefore, sets the
following objectives:
1. To re-dedicate the ideals of freedom and nationalism for which the heroes lived and
died;
2. To honor particularly the national hero and patriot, Jose Rizal, who devoted his life
and works that have shaped the national character; and
3. To be a constant and inspiring source of patriotism with which the minds of the youth,
especially during their formative and decisive years in school, should be suffused.
To achieve these objectives, the bill also suggested ways on how the educational
institutions are expected to implement the law to foster moral character, personal discipline,
civic conscience, and duties of citizenship among the youth. The following are the specific
mandates of the law:
1. Courses on the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal, particularly his novel Noli Me
Tangere and El Filibusterismo, shall be included in the curricula of all schools,
colleges, and universities, public or private;
2. It shall be obligatory on all schools, colleges, and universities to keep in their libraries
an adequate number of copies of the original and unexpurgated editions of the Noli
Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, as well as of Rizal’s other works and biography;
and
3. The Board of National Education shall cause the translation of the Noli Me Tangere
and El Filibusterismo, as well as other writings of Jose Rizal into English, Tagalog
and the principal Philippine dialects; cause them to be printed in cheap, popular
editions; and cause them to be distributed, free of charge, to persons desiring to read
them, through the Purok organizations and Barrio Councils throughout the country.
With these objectives and specific mandates, the government intends that the life, works,
and writings of Rizal be our guide to combat not only the ill effects of communism but also
for the youth not to forget Dr. Jose Rizal. This course will be our constant reminder of
how our forefathers envisioned an independent state that is free from any colonial master,
free from oppression and enshrines the ideals of democracy and freedom. The youth,
therefore, is expected to help the government and partake in their role in nation-building.
The same passion and ideals that Rizal was able to share during his lifetime. His life was
made as an inspiration for the youth to look forward and make use of the events in history
as our guiding principle to create a positive impact in the present. Going back to our question
earlier, why should we not forget Rizal? Rizal is our constant reminder of the blessings of
independence and democracy.
Part 2: The Issues and Debates of RA 1425 in the Context of the 1950s
Apart from the political and social issues happening to the world and the Philippines
in the 1950s, the passage of the Rizal law was also marred with rejections and support on
both sides. The controversy we have today regarding the passage of the Anti-Terror Bill
resembles a similar raging issue when the Rizal Law was passed in the 1950s. These specific
mandates of the law became the source of numerous debates in Congress. As a general rule,
before a bill becomes a law, it has to pass three separate readings. However, upon its second
reading, the bill was further scrutinized, debated, and argued upon. The intense debate
between its proponents and opponents became a hot topic. The Rizal Law, therefore, became
one of the controversial bills in Philippine history.
The bill was first-authored by Senator Claro M. Recto who defended the novel until
its passage. However, the bill sparked numerous debates in the Senate that revolved around
the separation of church and state issues. This primarily focused on Section 2 of the law
stating that students should read the “unexpurgated editions” of the novels. Meaning, the
novel should be read on its unedited, complete, and uncensored version. Further, the Noli
Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo triggered the opposers especially the catholic church on
the clear separation between the church and the state. In the statement released by The
Catholic Bishops Conference in the Philippines (CBCP) last April 21, 1956, signed by Father
Rufina J. Santos, D., they cited several violations of the novels on the free exercise of religion
that in turn would seriously injure the Catholic faith and its believers (“Statement of the
Philippine Hierarchy on the Novels of Dr. Jose Rizal | CBCP Online” 1956). The following
contentions were raised by CBCP:
Statement of the Philippine Hierarchy on the Novels of Dr. Jose Rizal
Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo
Among the many illustrious Filipinos who have distinguished themselves in the service of their country, the
highest place of honor belongs to Dr. Jose Rizal. And justly so; for Rizal possessed to an eminent degree those
virtues which together make up true patriotism. He loved his country not in word alone but in deed. He
devoted his time, his energies and the resources of his brilliant mind to dispelling the ignorance and apathy of
his people, and combating the injustices and inequalities under which they labored. When these salutary
activities fell under the suspicion of the colonial government and he was condemned to death as a rebel, he
generously offered his blood for the welfare of his country.
But although his love for his country was great, it was not a blind, unreflecting love. It was not the inordinate
love which so often passes for patriotism, whereby one regards one’s native country as perfect beyond criticism,
and attributes all its ills to the tyranny and greed of strangers. Rizal’s balance of judgment saved him from this
pernicious error. He clearly saw and boldly proclaimed the fact that while the Filipino people suffered from
colonial rule, they were as much the victims of their own vices and defects. In dedicating his novel, Noli Me
Tangere, to his beloved country, he addressed her as follows: Desiring your health which is also ours, and
seeking the best means of restoring it, I shall do with you what the ancients did with their sick; they brought
them to the steps of the temple that all who came to invoke the god might stop to suggest a
remedy… I shall lift a portion of the bandage which hides the disease, sacrificing all to the truth, even my
personal pride, for us a son of yours I am not exempt from your defects and weaknesses.1 Thus, while Rizal
was fearless in denouncing the evils of the colonial administration of his time, he was no less fearless in
pointing out to his countrymen “our own mistakes, our own vices, our supine and culpable acquiescence to
these evils.”
It will not be out of place in this connection to suggest that the affectionate realism with which Rizal regarded
his country and his people should characterize our own attitude towards Rizal himself. The fact that he is our
national hero by no means obliges us to approve of all that he said or did. As one of our most illustrious
senators said on the floor of the Senate a few days ago: “I do not say that Rizal did not make any mistake, did
not commit any error in judgment or in the appreciation or in the presentation of facts or in the criticism which
he had launched. You can always find passages in his works that are perhaps objectionable. And if I were to
be given time and opportunity, to discuss page by page these different passages I could say that I will also differ
from many statements which he made.” We believe that those who try to make Rizal out as a paragon of all
virtues with no human failings do him a great disservice; for by departing so obviously from the truth, they
only succeed in casting doubt on the very real and truly great qualities which he did possess. Let us therefore
by all means honor Rizal, but for the right reasons: first of all, for his unselfish devotion to his country, and
secondly, for the depth of insight with which he examined and analyzed our national problems. Rising above
petty passions and prejudices, he disengaged from the concrete complexities of his time ideas regarding the
function of government, the well being of society, the dignity of the individual, the necessity of popular
education, the native traits and possibilities of the Filipino character, and the special mission and destiny of
our nation under God; ideas which, because of their universal and timeless validity, are applicable even in our
own times. Would that our leaders of today and our people as a whole might put into practice more faithfully
the patriotic teachings contained in the writings of our national hero! But men cannot put into practice
teachings with which they have but slight acquaintance and which they do not thoroughly and rightly
understand. Hence We cannot but approve and applaud in principle the desire of many that the writings of
Rizal be more widely circulated and read, and even introduced as reading matter in the public and private
schools of the nation. We can think of no more effective means, after the formal teaching of religion, to develop
in our youth a sane and constructive nationalism and the civic virtue, so necessary in our times of subordinating
individual ambitions to the common good. Nevertheless, in this our respect and esteem for Rizal and his
work, we ought to follow the affectionate realism he taught us in the love he had for his country. We need not
be blind to his errors. To err is human. He had his human failings like the rest of us; and while he showed
great wisdom and courage in returning to the true Faith before his death, we cannot ignore the fact that he did
lapse from that faith. The historic fact of his retraction shows that he himself, in conscience, in the face of
death, did not approve of each and every one of his previous statements.
Some of Rizal’s most cogent insights into the political and social order are undoubtedly contained in his two
novesl, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo . Certainly our outstanding national hero wrote these books
inspired by a most ardent love for our country whose “dear image presented itself showing a social cancer,”4
which he dared to expose in the hope of finding a remedy for it. We wish to make it clear that insofar as these
novels give expression to our people’s desire for political freedom and a social order based on justice they are
not at variance with the practical applications of Catholic doctrine to the exigencies of the social milieu as it
existed at the time. The Catholic Church in itself, as distinguished from the human and fallible individuals
who compose it, is not, never has been, and never will be arrayed against the legitimate political and social
aspirations of any people. If it were, it should not be what it is called: Catholic, that is universal. Hence it
follows that the clear and even forceful expression of such aspirations can never be injurious to the Catholic
Church. The aims and objectives of that Church, being supernatural, are also supranational; between them
and national aims, provided these are in conformity with the principles of morality, no conflict is possible.
Moreover, the same God who created nature, restored it by grace; to Him both the supernatural and the
natural order owe their being; hence, as Pope Leo XIII says, “If we would judge rightly, the supernatural love
of the Church and the natural love of country are twin loves sprung from the same eternal source, since the
author and causes of both is God. Whence it follows that there can be no conflict between these two duties.”5
We may even go further and assert that history has repeatedly exemplified that the Gospel,. which is the
divine mission of the Church to preach and propagate, has for its proper effect to make the individual
conscious of his dignity as an image of God and as one who is adopted by our heavenly Father as a filial
participant in His own exalted nature. Furthermore, it renders the citizen conscious of his rights and
responsibilities within the society which gave him birth and of the freedom, both political and social which is
necessary for the exercise of these rights and responsibilities. Thus the Gospel of Christ contributes to the
foundation of a true and solid basis for the development of a balanced, dignified and really forceful
nationalism. Pope Leo XIII made this clear in no uncertain terms two years after the publication of the Noli
Me Tangere: The Church does not condemn the desire that one’s nation should be free from foreign or
absolute rule, provided this freedom can be won without injustice. Nor does she reprehend those who
wish to bring it about that states should be governed in accordance with their own laws, and the
citizens be granted the widest possible scope for increasing
their prosperity. The Church has always shown herself a most faithful supporter of legitimate civil
liberties.
Now, according to Rizal himself, the object of his novels was to expose in terms of fictional narrative the actual
evils which then afflicted Philippine society.7 This “social cancer” was, in his opinion, largely due to the
decadent state of the religious order and to some practices of the Catholic religion. Hence the larger part of
these novels is devoted to castigating dissedifying priests and to satirizing what he deemed to be supertitious
observances and practices of the Church.
Did Rizal attack only the abuses of certain priets but never contradict Catholic doctrines? No. When in May
1889, Dr. Tavera told Rizal in Paris “that he (Tavera) tried to defend him (Rizal) before Fr. Faura explaining
that, in the attack upon the friars, the stone was thrown so high and with such force that it reach religion,” Rizal
corrected him saying: “This comparison is not quite exact; I wished to throw the missile against the friars; but
as they used the ritual and superstitions of a religion as a shield, I had to get rid of that shield in order to wound
the enemy that was hiding behind it.” The interpretation, then, of Dr. Tavera was not exact, according to Rizal
himself. He did attack the shield, that is, not only the superstitions which sometimes, due to ignorance, creep
into religious practices, but the ritual itself of the Church, which are sacred acts of Catholic worship. And he
acknowledged this at the end when he wrote: “I retract with all my heart whatever in my works, writings,
publications and conduct has been contrary to my status as a son of the Catholic Church.”9 Furthermore, there
are passages in the two books where it is not anymore the novel’s characters but the author himself who
speaks. And among these passages, there are many which are derogatory to Catholic beliefs and practices as
such, aside from the criticisms leveled upon unworthy priests.
In these two novels we find passages against Catholic dogma and morals 11 where repeated attacks are made
against the Catholic religion in general, against the possibility of miracles, against the doctrine of Purgatory,
against the Sacrament of Baptism, against Confession, Communion, Holy Mass, against the doctrine of
Indulgences, Church prayers, the Catechism of Christian Doctrine, sermons, sacramentals and books of
piety. There are even passages casting doubts on or covering with confusion God’s omnipotence, the existence
of hell, the mystery of the Most Blessed Trinity, and the two natures of Christ.
Similarly, we find passages which disparage divine worship ,12 especially the veneration of images and relics,
devotion to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, the use of scapulars, cords and habits, the praying of rosaries,
novenas, ejaculations and indulgenced prayers. Even vocal prayers are included, such as the Our Father, the
Hail Mary, the Doxology, the Act of Contrition, and the Angelus, Mass ceremonies, baptismal and exsequial
rites, worship of the Cross, the use of holy water and candles, processions, bells and even the Sacred Sunday
obligations do not escape scorn.
We also find passages that make light of ecclesiastical discipline ,13 especially in what concerns stole fees, alms
to the Church, alms in suffrages for the dead, authority of the Pope, excommunication, education in Catholic
schools, Pontifical privileges, Catholic burial, the organization of nunneries and monasteries, Confraternities,
Third Orders, etc.
These are the actual findings from a serene and impartial reading of the two novels. Much to Our regret then,
We feel it our sacred duty to come to the conclusion that these works, as any other of their kind, fall under
Canon Law 1399 of the code of Canon Law which establishes: By the law itself are forbidden. Books of any
writers defending heresy or schism, or tending in any way to undermine the very foundations of religion;
Books which attack or ridicule any of the Catholic dogmas, or which defend errors condemned by the Holy
See, or which disparage divine worship, or strive to overthrow ecclesiastical discipline, or which have the
avowed aim of defaming the ecclesiastical hierarchy or the clerical or religious states; Evidently, some , not all,
of the clauses of this law affect clearly the novels we are studying. This is indeed a matter of concern to all of
us, dear children, and We are the first to regret that the books that were written by our foremost national hero
inspired by the most genuine patriotism, have included such substantial defects in their religious aspect as to
render them objectionable reading in such sense that only with due permission obtained from ecclesiastical
authority may these books be read by Catholics. This permission, however, is readily granted for a justifiable
reason, whenever the person concerned has sufficient knowledge of the Catholic doctrine in question. This
does not mean, however, that each and every portion of the novels falls under this law. Those portions which
do not contradict the content and practices of the Catholic Faith are evidently not affected by the law
This being the fact, to make the two novels in question compulsory reading matter in our schools, as proposed
in the Senate Bill No. 438, is tantamount to forcing our Catholic youth to read doctrinal attacks against their
religion without making it equally obligatory for them to read the answer to such attacks. Is this being fair to
Catholics? It is true that our government allows the teaching of religion in schools. But this does not do away
with the unfairness of the proposed law, because while the government would impose the obligation to teach
the anti-Catholic side, as contained in the novels, it merely does not oppose the study of the Catholic side. Or
will the government in the same manner make compulsory the reading of the Catholic doctrines contradicted
in those novels? But in that event would not the principle of separation of Church and State be at once invoked
against such remedial reading? As in the case of a certain biography of Rizal, we see here the same tendency
to discriminate against Catholics in this Catholic country. When there is a point of attacking the Catholic
position, the government seems to have the right even to spend the people’s money in support of the attack, in
the name of patriotism, culture, history, or for any other noble purpose. Should Catholics wish to defend their
side in the same manner that it is attacked, the spectre of clericalism, bigotry, obscurantism, reaction or the
like is invoked, and the wall of “separation of Church and State” is hastily rigged to block our way.
Let us be sincere and straightforward. In order to imbue our youth with patriotism, is it necessary to make
them read that confessionals are made so that we may sin”?14 In order to teach our youth love of country is it
necessary to expose them to jeers at Catholic worship, or to say of stole fees that “divine justice is not nearly so
exacting as human”, to say “novenas, responsories, versicles and prayers have been composed for those who
lack original ideas and feelings” and that “the Church does not gratuitously save the beloved souls for you nor
does it distribute indulgences without payment?”15 In order to teach our youth high political and social ideals,
is it necessary to make them read that the idea of Purgatory “does not exist in the Old Testament nor in the
Gospels; that neither Moses nor Christ made the slightest mention of it; and that the early Christians did not
believe in a purgatory?”16 In order to teach our youth civic virtues is it necessary to tell our girls that “there is
a mystery (of corruption) that is hidden behind the walls of a nunnery; that it is a thousand times better for
them to be unhappy in the world than in the cloister; that girls who are beautiful were not born to be brides of
Christ?”17 Does patriotism and nationalism consist in these assertions and many others like these repeated
again and again in multifarious ways throughout many of the chapters of these novels? If not, then it is evident
that the political and social principles of Rizal are not inseparable from those passages which we consider
objectionable from the point of view of our Church. Therefore, statements against the Church contained in the
novels should never be considered indispensable parts of the ideals we want to teach our youth. We view with
alarm any obligatory reading of these objectionable passages for they can be easily exploited by those who hate
the Church as an opportunity, under the guise of patriotism, under the cloak of the spirit of nationalism, to
imbue, with legal sanction (that is, by law, to be enacted by Catholic legislators) the minds of our youth with
ideas which are inimical to their religion.
Religious conscience is formed by one’s belief in and adherence to the teachings and the laws of one’s own
faith. Catholic conscience, then is guided by Catholic teachings and the laws of the Catholic Church. We are
aware that in our country, there are many baptized Catholics for whom Catholic teachings and laws have little
meaning. But on the other hand, there are millions of Filipinos, from all levels of life, from the farmhand to
the learned professional and academic professor who take the Church as the guide of their conscience. Once
they become aware that there are portions of the books which are against the teachings and laws of their
Church, they will consider contrary to their conscience compulsory reading of the novels in their entirety. It
will not be sufficient to say that prominent and learned Filipinos consider these portions of the two books as
attacks only on some disedifying priests and not as attacks on doctrines of the Church. While these millions of
faithful Catholics respect their political leaders and follow their political and social leadership, they (the faithful
Catholics) still consider the official pronouncements of their Church as the guide of their faith. It is in their
name that We want to appeal to our legislators not to legislate against the conscience of these millions of their
countrymen who have a right to their freedom of conscience as much as anybody else. If we want to teach our
youth to love, as Rizal did, the freedom of their country, let us not disregard one of the fundamental freedoms
of our people, viz., their freedom of conscience.
There is a serious danger here of confusing the issues: patriotism and faith. The two issues are so intimately
mixed up in Rizal’s novels that all our efforts to separate them in this delicate question might be
misinterpreted. Were it not because of Our Pastoral duty bids Us forcefully at this moment to speak, We would
rather prefer to keep a prudent silence on the matter, as Our predecessors did. But since We ought to speak,
allow Us to sum up Our mind in the following brief, precise statements, that We offer to you, dear children, for
your guidance. And We present these to all Filipinos, especially to the law-giving bodies of our Government,
for calm study and fair consideration. They are Our expression of the Catholic stand concerning the novels of
Dr. Jose Rizal, NOLI ME TANGERE and EL FILIBUSTERISMO:
I.
We, the Catholic Philippine Hierarchy, in Our name and in the name of millions of faithful Filipino
Catholics, wish on this occasion to restate our unshakable loyalty to our fatherland, as well as to
the lawfully constituted authorities of the country.
II.
Faithful Catholics wish to be second to none in love and veneration for our national hero, Dr. Jose
Rizal, whose patriotism remains for us a noble inspiration.
III.
We assert that he is our greatest patriot and our greatest national hero, not however for what one
day he wrote against our religion and which at the end he retracted “with all his heart”, but for
what he did on behalf of the welfare of our country.
IV.
The novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo were doubtlessly written as an expression of
Rizal’s ardent and generous love for our dear Philippines, and there are many beautiful passages
in them showing this; and we are in favor of propagating these passages and encouraging our
young generation to read and learn them.
V.
But unfortunately these novels were written when Dr. Jose Rizal, estranged for a time from our
faith and religion, did contradict many of our Christian beliefs.
VI.
This in no way implies that we must reject him in order to remain loyal to our faith. It only means
that we have to imitate him precisely in what he did when he was about to crown the whole work
of his life by sealing it with his blood: we ought to withdraw, as he courageously did in the hour of
his supreme sacrifice, “whatever in his works, writings, publications and conduct had been
contrary to his status as a son of the Catholic Church.” A dying person’s last will is sacred. Taking
into account Rizal’s last will, we must carry out for him what death prevented him from doing,
namely, the withdrawal of all his statements against the Catholic faith.
VII.
It is our conviction that to disregard our national hero’s last will expressed in his Retraction as
well as his Last Farewell, is, far from revering his memory, bringing it into contempt.
VIII.
It is true, as the Explanatory Note to the proposed Bill No. 438 – 3rd C.R.P. says that “to praise
Rizal without taking the trouble to study that which elicits our praises is to be hypocritical”. Hence
we suggest that a Rizalian Anthology be prepared where all the patriotic passages and the social
political philosophy of Rizal not only from these two novels but from all the rest of his writings,
letters, poems and speeches be compiled. It is not only in the two novels but also in his other
writings are the patriotic teachings of Rizal to be found. In order to compile an Anthology of the
kind we suggest, we have already organized a committee which is making the necessary studies.
IX.
Our objection then to the Bill proposed is not an objection against our national hero nor against
the imparting of patriotic education to our Children.
X.
Our Constitution (Art. 3, Section 1 (7) guarantees the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court
of the United States has decided that the American school children belonging to a certain sect
cannot be compelled to salute the American flag because said act is offensive to their religious
belief. (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319, U.S. 624). On this basis, We believe
that to compel Catholic students to read a book which contain passages contradicting their faith
constitutes a violation of a Philippine constitutional provision.
XI.
We, the Catholic Philippine Hierarchy maintain that these novels do contain teachings contrary to
our faith and so, We are opposed to the proposed compulsory reading in their entirety of such
books in any school in the Philippines where Catholic students may be affected. We cannot permit
the eternal salvation of immortal souls, souls for which We are answerable before the throne of
Divine Justice, to be compromised for the sake of any human good, no matter how great it may
appear to be. “For what does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but suffer the loss of his
own soul?”
Given this 21st day of April in the year of Our Lord, 1956. Manila, Philippines
For the Philippine Hierarchy:
(Sgd.)+RUFINO J. SANTOS, D.D.
Archbishop of Manila
President, Administrative Council
Source: “Statement of the Philippine Hierarchy on the Novels of Dr. Jose Rizal | CBCP Online.” 1956. CBCP
Online. April 21, 1956. https://cbcponline.net/statement-of-the-philippine-hierarchy-on-the-novels-of-drjose-rizal/.
In the preceding statement, the CBCP further argued that these are the actual findings
from their serene and impartial reading of the two novels. First, they argued that the novels
have passages that negate the teachings of the Catholic faith. Second, these passages violate
the freedom of the church and the state. Lastly, they feel that it is their sacred duty to come
to the conclusion that these works fall under Canon Law 1399 which establishes books that
are forbidden. That while the book was written by our foremost national hero inspired by
the most genuine patriotism, the novels have included such substantial defects in the
religious aspect and destroys the wall of “separation of Church and State”.
With these contentions, Senator Claro M. Recto and Jose P. Laurel stood firm on their
arguments on the need to study not only Rizal but to mandate for the reading of the two very
important novels that reflect the common history of the Filipino people. First, for Recto,
Rizal’s novels should be read in every generation for the Filipinos to know the sufferings and
sacrifices of the Filipino people that led us to where we are today and in the future. Next,
Rizal’s novels would allow us to see ourselves. It is through the work of Rizal, the greatest
patriot, which would show not only the strengths and virtues of the Filipinos but also our
defects and vices as well. By making them aware of these flaws, they can prepare themselves
for the sacrifices they have to make to achieve freedom. Lastly, the only objective of the bill
is to foster a better appreciation of our national hero’s role in fighting for freedom against
the Spaniards, not to go against any religion.
With the heated debate regarding the bill, Senator Laurel came up with a compromise
version of the bill to settle the differences as to its mandate. In this version, Senator Laurel
included other books, poems, and other works written by Rizal to understand further the
context of the novel. To aid the student in understanding the issues discussed in the novel,
the reading of the unexpurgated version of the novels will only be compulsory to the college
students but not at the elementary and secondary levels.
The question you might have in mind is, “Whose argument won during the debate of
the passage of RA 1425?” Blatantly, none on either the proponent and opponent side. The
only person who stood out, in the end, is Rizal. While the church was able to express their
opposition through a valid set of contentions to equalize their position on the separation of
the church and the state, Senator Claro M. Recto’s defense was also inclusive of the need to
study the Rizal subject. Despite these opposing views, the ideals of patriotism and love for
country are among those that prevailed at that time. Rizal’s intentions for a better
Philippines were hailed upon the passage of the bill on June 12, 1956. It is good to note that
the writings of Rizal against the Catholic faith are only reflective of the issues prevalent
during the Spanish colonial era. Students in the tertiary level should be able to assess fairly
the conditions and context of that period to craft a better understanding of the context of
religion and faith in the early 19th century.
Just like how RA 1425 was molded in the context of the 1950s, Rizal was also a
product of his own time. In the same way, the Rizal Law, despite numerous debates,
surpassed the struggles of its passage in the context of the late 19th century Philippines.
Part 3: Why Study the Rizal Subject?
In the previous discussion, we were able to establish the historical context on the
passage of RA 1425 or also known as the Rizal Law. Almost sixty years after, students are
still mandated to study the subject. After several decades of continuous learning and
rededication of the youth to ideals of freedom and nationalism, why the need to study the
Rizal subject after all?
Most often than not, we equate the study on the life of Rizal with memorization of
dates, places, and even events. For some students, history lessons are boring and stale topics.
The fear of going to the classroom just to be asked about specific events and dates that we
refuse to remember. While it is true that the Rizal subject focuses more on historical facts,
students should learn to understand that the course was created not just to answer the whats
and the wheres but also the whys and hows of the subject. Simply saying, the course should
not only be equated with memorization but should be coupled with reasoning and historical
analysis of events in the past. Indeed, there are several reasons behind the need to study the
course. This part of the chapter is dedicated to answering all of that.
In the article of Esteban A. de Ocampo on “Who and What Made Rizal Our Foremost
National Hero, and Why?”, he described Rizal as the greatest hero & martyr of our nation
(De Ocampo, 1984). Being both a hero and a martyr, his life is proof of our identity as
Filipinos that for once, a man stood up to reclaim our independence from the Spanish
colonizers. Having said that, this section will explore two reasons why we should study the
Rizal subject.
First, because it is mandated by law. Applying what we learned in the previous
sections, we were able to establish the context and history of the 1950s that led to the passage
of the Rizal Law. The said mandate is the primary reason why you are enrolled in this subject
and reading this book. It is for the sole purpose of uncovering the life, works, and writings
of our national hero. The objectives and mandates mentioned in the preceding section are
among those that this subject would expect the students to explore and the end of this
course. The mandate simply invites the youth to take an active role in nation-building just
as how Rizal made use of his life for the Filipino people.
Second, because of the lessons contained in the course. It is with great
understanding that we acknowledge that the mandate to study the Rizal subject comes with
it specific reasons behind the course. The objectives of the law are among those we have to
take into consideration. The mandate carries with it specific guidelines that are geared
towards achieving its objectives. The following are the lessons behind the course that the
students should be able to appreciate.
1. To recognize the importance of Rizal’s life, works, and writings concerning present
conditions and situations in the society;
2. To encourage the application of such ideals in current social and personal problems
and issues;
3. To develop an appreciation and deeper understanding of all that Rizal fought and
died for; and
4. To foster the development of the Filipino youth participation in all aspects of good
governance and good citizenship.
Ideally, the students are expected to learn and appreciate the life, works, and writings
of Rizal for these reflect the kind of past we had during our colonial years. Even Rizal was
able to predict with amazing accuracy the kind of “present” we have nowadays. By learning
the past, we are expected not to repeat the greatest mistakes in history and foster good ideas
to predict a good future. The current social, political, end economic conditions of our country
today are also a reflection of our past. When we truly appreciate the history lessons, we can
also apply them to solve our current issues. After all, we owe our forefathers the kind of
freedom we have today. The best way to show our appreciation of the past is for us to apply
the learnings of the course to our political and social realities. As Rizal once said, “The Youth
is the hope of the Fatherland”. By applying the lessons behind the course in our daily lives,
we are also playing an active role in nation-building.