JOHN N.

SCHUMACHER, SJ

The Rizal Bill of 1956 Horacio de la Costa and

the Bishops
Y

Several drafts of a pastoral letter, written by Horacio de la Costa for the

bishops in 1952, survive. De la Costa's Rizal emerges as an outstanding

moral figure whose devotion to the truth made his novels a source of moral as
well
as social and political wisdom for Filipinos. Although subsequent
drafts show he was forced by an unknown interlocutor to temper this view, he
retained an essentially positive reading of the novels. In the face of
Recto's 1956 bill imposing the novels, however, Abp. Rufino J. Santos
commissioned Fr. Jesus Cavanna to draft a new "Statement." Beginning
with a few positive paragraphs from De la Costa, the “Statement”
then absolutely condemned the novels and forbade their reading, a
prohibition that proved quite ineffective. The drafts of De la Costa show that there
was

within the Catholic Church a totally different attitude toward Rizal, whose
legacy the church could embrace.

KEYWORDS: CATHOLIC CHURCH · JOSÉ RIZAL · CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS •

PHILIPPINE NATIONALISM

PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011) 529-53

© Ateneo de Manila University
eynaldo lleto (2010), in a recent essay, has studied the efforts of the 1950s to create a new
vision for the nation in the wake of independence. Prominent was the
newspaperman Jose Lansang, who expressed some of his ideas as
speechwriter for
Pres. Elpidio Quirino, but, more importantly, was associated with a number of
professors from the University of the Philippines in envisioning a secular
nationalist program for building the nation. In Lansang's vision what was needed
was what Ileto calls a "new Propaganda Movement” of these latter-day
ilustrados. Parallel to Lansang's appeal to the nineteenth century was wartime
president Jose P. Laurel's Rizalian educational philosophy, it too envisioning a
secular nationalisni.
As a foil to Lansang Ileto (ibid., 233) singles out Fr. Horacio de la Costa,
SJ, returned in 1951 to the Ateneo de Manila with a PhD in history from
Harvard University, as representing "the Catholic position" toward building
the nation. Although Ileto makes brief mention of Senate Bill 438 in 1956,
introduced by Sen. Claro M. Recto and sponsored by Laurel, making Rizal's two novels
compulsory reading in all colleges and universities, he does not specifically attach Father
de la Costa to the conflict over that bill (which indeed falls outside the scope of
his article). But as a matter of fact, De la Costa would play a contested, but hidden, role
in that controversy. It seems worthwhile to examine how this Jesuit intellectual looked to
Rizal as the inspiration for another view of nation building, to see that there was more than
one view in the Catholic Church than appeared in the bishops' letter of 1956. As Ileto
(ibid.) says, “the descendants of [Rizal's) teachers were not about to surrender their
Rizal to the national visions of a Lansang, or even a Laurel.” Although in the end other
views prevailed, De la Costa's Rizal, based on accurate historical scholarship and a
contemporary nationalist vision, could have let the Catholic Church come to terms with Rizal
as builder of the nation.
It appears that, at the request of a committee of the bishops, De la Costa had drawn up
a draft pastoral letter on the novels of Rizal “some years" before 1956, when Recto
introduced a bill, sponsored by Sen. Jose P. Laurel, prescribing their reading in all public
and private schools (Kennally 1956a).' In fact, the initiative for De la Costa's work must
be dated late 1951, since on 5 January 1952 Dean Jose M. Hernandez of the
University of the East, who had published a book on Rizal in 1950, forwarded to De la
Costa through Sen. Francisco “Soc” Rodrigo nine pages of passages from Rizal's
Noli me tángere, supposedly containing attacks on, or praises of, the church
(Hernandez 1952). Several drafts of a proposed letter are to be found among De la
Costa's papers, as his original was modified in response to criticisms from another
source.
It has not been possible to identify this source for certain. At first sight, it does not
seem to have been Fr. Jesus Cavanna, CM, who was the principal author of the
1956 "Statement of the Philippine Hierarchy on the novels of Dr. Jose Rizal Noli me
tangere and El filibusterisino" (Kennally 1956a; Constantino 1971, 244). For the
“Statement" is drastically different in text and in tone from De la Costa's drafts, even
though it did make some use of his final draft in its opening paragraphs.
That being said, however, it is still possible that Cavanna was responsible for the
gradual changes that appear here, before breaking drastically from De la Costa's drafts.
For he published a book on Rizal's retraction of Masonry in 1952, which he had been
preparing since 1951 or earlier. Hence his own work on Rizal coincided in time with that of
De la Costa's. Moreover, it is likely that the bishops might solicit the aid of more than
one expert priest, and it is difficult to name others aside from these two. Nonetheless, it is
apparent from the extant drafts that De la Costa was the principal author and, if the bishops'
committee had also named Cavanna, it would be as interlocutor to De la Costa.
Presumably the two men were expected to come to a common text. Since there are
no letters from Father Cavanna among De la Costa's papers (Allayban 2010),
any such contribution to De la Costa's drafts must have been made in
meeting(s) of the two men, with De la Costa producing a new draft subsequently.
This could not have happened in 1956, since De la Costa had been finishing his tenn
as dean of the Ateneo de Manila College of Arts and Sciences in the early months
and was already abroad some weeks before the bill was introduced on 4 April 1956
(Acosta 1973,71). Moreover, the Jesuit vice-provincial was not aware of any activity of
De la Costa in this matter in 1956 and wrote to him as if the appearance of the pastoral
letter and Cavanna's principal authorship were entirely unknown to De la Costa
(Kennally 1956a). It is quite certain then that the modifications made by De la
Costa in his successive drafts were made in 1952, whoever may have been
his interlocutor.
If Cavanna were that interlocutor in 1952, he would only have made
suggestions to De la Costa and could not drastically alter the draft. In 1956 he was
principal author and was free to make little or no use of De la Costa's

530
PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011)
SCHUMACHER / THE RIZAL BILL OF 1956
531

own views most clearly. It shows a thorough knowledge of the two novels, from which
he quotes copiously to establish his insights into Rizal. The original of these and other
quotations in the text appear in two-and-a half pages of endnotes in Spanish,
French, and Latin. It is clearly the work of a scholar, and of one who has veneration for
Rizal, whom he sees as having a moral, social, and political message for Filipinos
of the twentieth century.
drafts. Moreover, in 1956 Abp. Rufino J. Santos, the future cardinal, was
administrative president of the Catholic Welfare Organization, and it would be over his
signature that the bishop's statement would appear, as will be seen below. Santos was
noted for his intransigence on matters of church doctrine or practice. In any case, the
identity of the interlocutor does not matter for the purpose of this article, which is to
display the differing attitudes toward Rizal and his novels within the church, most
especially the views of De la Costa as a Catholic protagonist of the “new
Propaganda Moveinent."
Among De la Costa's papers, there are five drafts, all containing many passages
of his original, but with significant differences at times. We may name the different
drafts A, B, C, D, and E. All of them are carbon copies, the originals presumably
having been sent to his critic and/or to the bishops' committee. A is the original
draft, twenty typewritten pages. B is another copy of A, but with a few handwritten
changes, perhaps made while meeting with his critic. These are all taken up into
C, which has a considerable number of further changes. In C the original texts of
the passages quoted in the draft disappear from the endnotes, replaced by
simple reference notes. C seems to be the definitive draft, which Father
Cavanna, as the principal author of the bishops' “Statement,” had at hand when he
did the composition of that letter. For the “Stateinent" had quotations that do not appear
in A, but do appear in C. D is a drastically shortened version of C, only five pages,
though it incorporates an additional paragraph not found elsewhere in the drafts or in
the "Statement.” Perhaps De la Costa was asked for a shortened version, since it oinits
all his numerous quotations from the novels, yet it is later than C. It was not lised, however,
by Cavanna, who rather made lise of C. E is a copy of C, with the phrases or
paragraphs underlined by De la Costa to indicate the omissions or changes
introduced by the “Statement" in the five pages of C used in part by Cavanna as
an introduction before launching into the outright condemnations of the
novels. Finally, we should note that Cavanna was only the principal author of
the bishops' final letter, no doubt supplying all the actual references to Rizal's
writings, but there are indications that the bishop(s) theniselves may have intervened
to strengthen the condemnatory conclusions of the letter and the strict prohibition to
read the novels under church law. For reasons which will be seen below, it is most likely that
this intervention came from Abp. Rufino J. Santos, as noted above.
It is important therefore to see A, the original draft, though it is too long to reproduce
except in summary, as presumably manifesting De la Costa's
Summary of A “Among the many illustrious Filipinos who have distinguished
themselves for service to their country, the first place of honor belongs, by
universal consent, to Dr. Jose Rizal.” For he “possessed to an eininent degree
those moral virtues which together make up true patriotisrn.”
He devoted himself to “dispelling the ignorance of his people, raising their moral
standards, and combating the injustices and inequality under which they
labored.” When condemned to death for this as a rebel, he preferred to suffer death
rather than abandon the principles on which “the welfare of his country depended."
But his love for his country was not “an unthinking love." It was not one that "attributed all
ills to the tyranny and greed of strangers." His “marvelous balance of judgment saved him”
from that. He “boldly proclaimed the fact that while the Filipino people suffered
greatly froin colonial rule, they were as much the victims of their own vices and defects.”
“While fearless in denouncing the evils of the Spanish colonial administration, he was
no less fearless in pointing out to his fellow countrymen" their defects. “That is why he
could say of the Noli Me Tangere that my book may have-does have-defects from the
artistic, the aesthetic point of view. I do not deny it. But what no one can dispute is
the objectivity of iny narrative.""
"For even greater than his utter devotion to his country was his unswerving
devotion to the truth." He embraced rationalisin because he thought it led to truth.
But at the hour of his death, "he permitted neither pride nor passion to hold him
back” but rectified his error and embraced the truth in his retraction, and "God who is
truth" gave him his reward.
Because of his devotion to truth, he had a clear insight and vision. “No Filipino before or
after him has understood so well or so memorably expressed the moral, political, and social
principles upon which the peace and prosperity of our beloved country must be based.”
“Would that our

532

PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011)

SCHUMACHER / THE RIZAL BILL OF 1956
533

leaders of today and our people would put into practice the startlingly prophetic
teachings contained in (his) writings."
“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
niore effective means, after the formal teaching of religion, to develop in our youth a
sane and constructive nationalism, the inoral qualities of justice, responsibility and
integrity, and the civic virtue, so necessary in our times, of the subordination of individual
ambitions to the common good."
"The most valuable of Rizal's ideas are contained” in his two novels. But "since
there is a widespread impression that these novels are looked upon with disfavor by the
Catholic Church as attacking the Catholic faith,” we want to give our views. “The
Catholic Church in itself" is never “against the legitimate political and social
aspirations of any people." "Hence it follows that the clear and even forceful
expression of such aspirations can never be injurious to the Catholic Church.”
(Leo XIII is quoted to the effect that there cannot be such a conflict. He is also
quoted to the effect that the Catholic Church does not condemn)"the desire that
one's nation should be free from foreign rule.” This is suggested by Rizal in El
filibusterismo in the words of Padre Florentino to the dying Simoun. These “contain
the very essence of the Gospel.”
But some say that it was impossible for Rizal not to attack the church since it was so
closely bound up with colonial rule. In proof they cite numerous passages of the two
novels “in which Catholic beliefs are satirized and the most heinous crimes ascribed to
Catholic priests and religious." "This is a serious charge and we have to investigate
it with the utmost care,” since if the novels constitute a serious danger to the faith
and morals of our people we would have no choice but reluctantly to forbid them.
Is that true? First, "we must carefully distinguish between certain passages as quoted,
interpreted, and employed by the enemies of the Catholic Church, and these
same passages as they are in themselves and in proper context.” Even a Scripture
passage can be misused if taken from its context. For example, the passage on veneration
of saints by Capitan Tiago. “If we read the chapter in its entirety ... we find that what Rizal
is satirizing is not the invocation of saints as such but the abuse of this practice by
nominal Catholics like Capitan Tiago." Not only is this not
attacking Catholicism but Rizal is also following in the footsteps of the Fathers of the church.
(A similar judgment can be passed on the passage on Purgatory.)
We must not let enemies of the church make Rizal out to be an enemy of the church.
Rizal himself asserted that it was not the church itself but the abuses he was attacking
as niay be seen from his letter to a friend, Resurrección Hidalgo (quoted on p. 544).
"This claim is fully confirmed by a careful reading of the novels theinselves."
“Let us then heed the warning of Rizal and not confound the abuses of religion
with religion itself." There were scandals in the church in Rizal's time. “Why should
we deny it?” There were unfaithful priests, like the Apostles Peter and Judas. But that
fact does not make Catholic doctrine untrue. However, we must not exaggerate the evil.
As to the fact of these evils, “the Church awaits ... the sober judgment of history.” But
the history of that period is only imperfectly known and thus people take fictional
narratives like Rizal's novels as history. Especially with the young, we foresee in the
indiscriminate and undirected reading of the novels a danger, since the young
are “too apt to take as literally true whatever they see in print.” Moreover, they
“cannot be expected to make the necessary distinctions between what the persons in a
novel say in conformity with their characters and what the author of the novel
says on his own account, between what is said ironically and what is
seriously stated; between the condemnation of the individual and the
condemnation of the society or organization to which that individual belongs.”
(Examples of this are given.)
"Unless these distinctions which the mature and well instructed inake almost
autoniatically in the course of their reading are made for the young ... it is quite
likely that Rizal's works, if assigned as reading matter in our schools, may cause
more harın than good. This does not imply any radical defect in the novels”; the
same is true of certain books of the Old Testament and some plays of
Shakespeare, which “cannot be read by young people without the aid of a
competent teacher or editor."
Hence we judge that Rizal's novels “not only can but should by all means be
made familiar to our students; the editions of them which are assigned as reading
matter should be accurate translations of the Spanish text, should be properly
annotated by a competent scholar familiar with the ecclesiastical and civil history of Rizal's
period, and should, ordinarily, be commented on and explained by the teacher in
charge."

534
PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011)
SCHUMACHER / THE RIZAL BILL OF 1956
535

We call on our Catholic historians and literary critics to prepare such an

annotated text as a service to the church. We also need a solid and
readable history of the church in the Philippines in English, “written with scrupulous
regard for the truth and according to the most exacting standards of modern
scholarship." We are confident that this will show that the religious did not consist only
of Padres Dámaso and Salví, but of many like "the wise Padre Fernández and
the faithful Padre Florentino."
In conclusion we say, first, that “we find nothing in (these novels) that constitutes a
serious danger to the faith or morals of the mature well instructed Catholic,” but
“much in conformity with the teachings of the Gospel and right reason.” Secondly,
“prudence demands that they should not be given as reading inatter to the
young without proper direction and guidance in the form of annotations to the printed
text and explanations by the living teacher. If this prescription of prudence is complied
with ... the salutary political and social ideas of our national hero will strike deep
roots in the minds and hearts of our people.”

Propositions of the Draft Letter A 1. Rizal, by universal consent, is first among

Filipinos who have
distinguished themselves for service to their country. 2. For he possessed to an
envinent degree those moral virtues that make up
true patriotisin. 3. He devoted himself to dispelling the ignorance of his
people, raising
their moral standards, and combating the injustices and inequality
under which they labored. 4. His love for his country did not blame all ills on strangers,
but
proclaimed that the Filipino people were also victims of their own vices
and defects. 5. That is why he could say of the Noli that “no one can dispute the
objectivity of my narrative." His devotion to the truth gave him a clear vision. No
Filipino before or after hinı has understood so well or so memorably
expressed the moral, political, and social principles upon which the peace and
prosperity of
our country inust be based. 7. We must applaud in principle that the writings of
Rizal be more read
and even introduced into our schools.
8. Apart from the formal teaching of religion, there is no more effective
means to develop in our youth a sane and constructive nationalism; the moral
qualities of justice, responsibility, and integrity; and the civic
virtue of subordinating individual ambitions to the common good. 9. Rizal declared he
did not intend to attack the Catholic Church itself,
but the abuses in it. 10. We must not allow the enemies of the Catholic Church to tear
texts
from their context to imply the opposite. 11. Rizal's statement is borne out by a
critical examination of the novels,
according to their nature as fiction. 12. He wrote about fictional crimes of fictional
characters, which had a
basis in fact 13. In doing this, Rizal did not attack the Catholic Church itself; rather le
did it a service. 14. As to the facts, the church awaits the judgment of history. 15.
But since the history of the nineteenth century is imperfectly known,
this induces many to take a fictional narrative like Rizal's novels as a
substitute for the facts. 16. This is the main danger we foresee in their indiscriminate and
undirected
reading, especially by the young, who are apt to take as literally true
whatever they see in print. 17. Young people cannot be expected to inake the
distinctions between what
the persons in a novel say in accordance with their character, nor between what is said
ironically and seriously stated, between the condemnation of an individual and the
condemnation of the organization to which he
belongs. 18. "Therefore, it is our judgment that, while Rizal's novels should be
made
familiar to our students, the editions should be accurate translations from the Spanish
text, properly annotated by a scholar familiar with the ecclesiastical and civil
history of Rizal's period, and should ordinarily be
commented on and explained by the teacher in charge. 19. There is nothing in the
novels that constitutes a danger to the faith and
morals of a mature, well-instructed Catholic. 20. Rather, they contain much that is in
conformity with the Gospel and
right reason, and will serve to develop in our people a wise and generous love of
their native land.
CIS,

536
PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011)
SCHUMACHER / THE RIZAL BILL OF 1956
537

Changes In A Introduced m Draft C From these propositions it is obvious that for

De la Costa, as shown in A, Rizal is the national hero not just because he was executed
by the Spaniards, nor because he analyzed the problems of the nation with perspicacity,
nor because he enunciated political and social principles for the good of the nation. He
did all these, but he was also a moral teacher and even a moral example (nos. 2,3,6,8).
In draft C there is a conscious effort to deny to Rizal the moral role, so prominent in
draft A, and which played so important a part in his life. He is no longer said to have
devoted himself “to raising the moral standards” of his people. His novels are
said to develop in the youth “a sane and constructive nationalism” but not “the
moral qualities of justice, responsibility, and integrity.” The whole long passage on
Rizal's “unswerving devotion to the truth” is omitted. So too is the quotation from
Rizal that had been adduced in support of that characterization, where he insisted on "the
objectivity of my narrative" with regard to the Noli.
Indeed, a new paragraph is added “to suggest that the affectionate realism with
which Rizal regarded his country and his people should characterize our own attitude
towards Rizal hiniself." "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.” “Let us therefore by all means honor Rizal,
but for the right reasons: first of all, for his unselfish devotion to this country, and
secondly, for the depth of insight with which he examined and analyzed our national
problems." The moral dimension of A is completely omitted as a reason for honoring
Rizal, whether in his person or in the teaching he imparted.
Similarly, while repeating the assertion “that no Filipino before or after him
has understood so well or so memorably expressed the political and social principles
upon which the peace and prosperity of our beloved country must necessarily
be based," the original additional qualification of “moral” principles is
pointedly omitted. And so for the rest of the draft, Rizal is purely a political
and social reformer, not a moral one. Where A had spoken of "the most valuable of
Rizal's ideas (being] contained in his two novels," Chastens to limit those ideas to
being only “in the political and social order."
When analyzing the novels as such, A had warned against enemies of the church who
by passages “torn violently from the context” use them to “discredit the Church in the
Philippines.” As an example it takes the
passage on Capitan Tiago's veneration of the saints and shows that, rather than
attacking this doctrine, the passage seen as a whole is satirizing “not the invocation of
saints as such, but the abuse of this practice by nominal Catholics like Capitan
Tiago, who distort it into something indistinguishable from superstition.” This is
retained in C.
Similarly, A takes the passage in which Rizal is alleged to attack the Catholic doctrine of
Purgatory, in which “certain sayings of Tasio the Philosopher are quoted as proof.”
Analyzing the passage as a whole, it finds tliat Rizal <lid not intend to take all that is
said there seriously, but rather was “merely using a common enough literary device, that
of making a character reveal himself instead of describing him." Hence "we must seek
Rizal's true ineaning by a dispassionate examination of the works themselves."
C, while retaining the example from Capitan Tiago, omits the one from Tasio the
Philosopher, apparently unconvinced by the argument that Rizal is simply
using a literary device. There is a single page in the folder, entitled "Objections
against Rizal's novels,” apparently written by someone after reading A. It was
probably written informally by a fellow Jesuit whoin De la Costa had consulted at
home, since it is carelessly typed and without signature. Its few brief
paragraphs further support the need for annotations to the text, and suggest
that actually this would be a good teaching opportunity for the church. It objects,
however, that: “[the novels) portray the friars (with possibly two exceptions) as licentious
scanips. The impression given, even to adult readers, is that these friars are
representative of the Catholic priesthood.” Another paragraph has a question about Maria
Clara's entrance into the monastery. Those are all the brief comments except for the
following, and none of them lead to modifications to the text of A. Only the last of its few
paragraphs leads to change. It says: “the pages treating of Purgatory, altho (sic)
not necessarily Rizal's are extremely offensive to Catholics, even to adults."? It is
clear that De la Costa took the advice on Purgatory, and substituted a different
brief example, as appears in C.
Whoever was the author of this page, he was not the one responsible for the
other changes from A to C, since he does not treat anything but the brief points
noted, in which only the one on Purgatory has an effect on C.
Although the claim of A that the satire on Purgatory by Tasio was not meant
seriously is dropped, De la Costa rephrases the heart of the matter by a new insertion
where he observes that "several of Rizal's characters in the novels are 'liberal Catholics' of the
type only too common in the latter part

539
PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011)
SCHUMACHER/ THE RIZAL BILL OF 1956
539

of the nineteenth century, or Catholics who have lost their faith.” Thus Rizal has
them speak according to their fictional personality. “Hence, if Tasio the
Philosopher questions the existence of Purgatory, if Don Custodio refuses to believe in
the infallibility of the Pope ... it may reasonably be argued that Rizal is merely
making use of the novelist's right to portray people as they are." If the novelist were to
suggest that these errors were his own opinion, "he would be teaching and not merely
portraying error. And as a matter of fact, we are able to discover no clear example
of Rizal doing this in either of his two novels" (italics added).
Hence C repeats the assertion of A, though changing “it is evident" to “it seems to Us
that Rizal makes it sufficiently clear” that what he wished to attack was not the Catholic
Church itself but the abuses and distortions with which her unworthy children
adulterated the purity of her principles and practices.” In corroboration, De la Costa
repeats the quotation from Rizal's letter to Hidalgo in A to that effect, and concludes,
“This claim is fully confirmed by a careful reading of the novels themselves."
As in A, De la Costa observes that we must not exaggerate the evils. “Rizal wrote
fiction, not history; fiction, moreover, in the lurid style of the Romantic school. We must
not then take Paclre Dámaso or Padre Salví as representative of the Spanish clergy of
this period.” But where A added “Rizal did not intend we should,” this is onnitted
by C, and two sentences are added to the effect that such social novels
give the impression that the cvils they depict are typical. “Hence, while
admitting that the crimes which Rizal makes his characters commit may have had a
basis in fact, let us remember that they are, after all, fictional crimes by fictional
characters" (italics added). A had said that the crimes had a basis in fact.
The rest of C follows A except for two practical matters . To the role of the teacher in A is
added the need for a handbook to explain the text. Finally, a new paragraph
considers it not advisable that high school students be given the entire text of the
novels. Instead, they should be given “an abridged edition ... adapted to these age
levels, (which) contains the essence of Rizal's thought, and yet (willl not be a scandal to
young and tender consciences."
The question must arise: Were the changes from A to C actually the result (apart
froin the illustration concerning Purgatory) of a critic suspicious of De la Costa's
appreciative view of Rizal and his novels, or did De la Costa himself, in a change of
tactics, temper his enthusiasın in C? In the absence of any evidence positively
identifying the presumed critic, it is impossible to
be completely certain. The rewritten passages are surely from De la Costa's
hand, as they blend into the text too neatly to be simply a critic's suggestion inserted.
But the question about the substance of the changes remains.
It is true that some verbal and stylistic changes may have been De la Costa's own
original idea. Thus in the third paragraph of A, Rizal's love of country is said not to be
an “unthinking love,” which in C is changed to "unreflecting love." But it is hard to
believe that he could have written A, clearly done with careful study of the novels
as well as of other sources, and then removed so many key passages reflecting his
estimation of Rizal and his novels unless he were compelled to do so by an authorized
critic. It is thus extremely likely that the episcopal commission that asked De la Costa to
write a draft pastoral should have included Cavanna or soine other person to work with
him as his interlocutor.
This being said, C remains the draft De la Costa subunitted to the episcopal
commission in 1952. It does not contain all that he had wished to say about Rizal
and his novels, but, having apparently accepted that the bishops were not likely to
adopta pastoral letter which held up Rizal as a moral cxemplar and extolled his moral
teachings, De la Costa apparently contented himself with maintaining that the novels did
not attack Catholic teaching if properly understood as novels and commending-with the
proper caution of an annotated edition, their reading for those capable of understanding
them with the help of a teacher. He was, after all, not expressing his own
ideas on Rizal and his novels - he had done that in A-but offering to the bishops
who had commissioned him a statement with which he could still agree. It did not
say all that he thought of Rizal and his novels, since he had been compelled to omit much.
But it did not deny his essentially positive view. He himself would not be the one to sign
C, but he could propose it to them as a still positive appreciation of Rizal and his novels.
At this point in 1952 the draft was out of his hands, and apparently remained in the files
of the episcopal commission for the next four years. Since De la Costa was out of the
country for some weeks before Recto introduced his bill making the reading of the
novels obligatory in all schools, as noted above, he did not take any further part in
preparing the statement of the bishops which appeared on 21 April 1956. He was
evidently disinayed, however, when afterward he saw what had been done to his draft C
in the bishops' “Statement.” For he underlined in green ink in E the passages in C
which had been altered or suppressed, and in a printed copy of the

540
PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011)
SCHUMACHER / THE RIZAL BILL OF 1956
541

“Statement" from the Boletin Eclesiastico ([Philippine Hierarchy) 1956) he

underlined the changed passages. It now remains to see what these changes were

Changes from Draft C to the Bishops' Statement" The six paragraphs (five
double-spaced pages) of draft C are taken up as the introduction to the public letter
(hereafter “Statement”), giving it an initially positive approach. There are,
however, phrases or sentences dropped and others inserted. Examining these
omissions and additions, we find a significant trend, although there are some minor
changes that are relatively insignificant, or are matters of style. We find, however, for
example, that the word "short sighted," said of the Spanish colonial government in C, is
omitted. Similarly, another reference to the “Spanish colonial administration” is changed
to the "colonial adıninistration of his tine” (ibid., 1 par. 1 and 2). Presumably this
was intended to avoid attracting attention to the Spanish religious orders.
More seriously, there appears a conscious effort not to praise Rizal too highly, even
where there is no question of religious matters. Where Chad attributed to Rizal “the
first place of honor ... by universal consent," he was now given the highest” but
dropping the “universal consent” (ibid., par. 1). His “excellent" qualities
become simply "great” (ibid., 2 par. 3). And the last remaining attribution of
“moral virtues” that comprise patriotisin is dropped (ibid., 1 par. 1). His "startlingly
prophetic” teachings become merely “patriotic” (ibid., 2 par. 3). Even a quotation from
Rizal's dedication of the Noli to his country omits (using an ellipse) his declaration that
he proposes “to describe your present state without fear or favor” (ibid., 1 par. 1).
Finally, the assertion that "no Filipino before or after him has understood so well or so
memorably expressed the political and social principles upon which the peace and
prosperity of our beloved country must necessarily be based” is pointedly
omitted, even though it is the topic sentence of the paragraph that follows
(ibid., 3 par. 3).
Turning from Rizal himself to the novels, there is evident a desire not to grant too much
importance to them even when not dealing with religious matters. Where C had spoken
of “the most valuable of Rizal's ideals in the political and social order [being]
undoubtedly contained in his two novels," the “Statement” spoke of "some of his most
cogent insights," and quickly dropped the statement of C regretting the impression that
the novels were "looked upon with disfavor by the Catholic Church” (ibid.). Similarly, C
had asserted that “in so far as these novels give expression to our people's
desire for political freedom and a social order based on justice, they have nothing to
fear from the Catholic Church" (ibid., 3 par. 4). This last clause is replaced by the
tortuous evasion “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" (ibid.). Even so
seemingly noncontroversial a statement about the individual's dignity as a "child of God”
is still more tortuously and unintelligibly paraphrased as “one who is adopted by our
heavenly Father as a filial participant in His own exalted nature” (ibid.).
After omitting completely the passage in C from El filihusterismo, in which Father
Florentino gives his program for the redemption of the country to the dying Simoun, said
by C to contain "the very essence of the Gospel,” paragraph 5 of the "Statement” ends
its appropriation of C with a drastic distortion of its original. Repeating C's first two
sentences to the effect that Rizal intended in the novels to “expose in terms of
fictional narrative the actual evils which then afflicted Philippine society," its change of
words entails a quite different view of the novels (ibid., 4 par. 5). For C that “social
cancer” was “in [Rizal's] opinion, largely due to the clecadent state of the
religious orders and the abuses which had crept into the practice of the Catholic
religion." With a total change of meaning, the abuses in the practice of religion Rizal
opposed becomes not abuses but “some practices of the Catholic religion,” thus laying
the foundation for the latter part of the letter in which wholesale condemnations of the
novels would be detailed (ibid.). Similarly the following sentence of C is distorted. It
had said: “Hence a considerable portion of these novels is devoted to castigating or
satirizing bad priests and superstitious observances.” This becomes: “Hence the
larger part of these novels is devoted to castigating disedifying priests and to satirizing
what he deemed to be superstitious observances and practices of the Church" (ibid.,
italics added in both sentences). In these two sentences we find the radical differences
between De la Costa and Cavanna. Where the former finds Rizal castigating
“superstitious observances” (though with vividness, as he will say later in the draft),
Cavanna, without even admitting the superstitious observances, finds Rizal rather
castigating the “practices of the Church” themselves. The “considerable portion" of the
novels is changed to "the larger part," and the priests are not said to be “bad” but
merely “disedifying."
After this paragraph in its mangled form, the remaining twelve pages of C are dropped
in favor of a wholesale condemnation of the novels. Within those pages De la
Costa had argued that the novels should be read according

542

PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011)

SCHUMACHER / THE RIZAL BILL OF 1956
543

to their character as novels. Hence, if the persons in the novel are liberal
Catholics or have lost their faith, it is only right that the opinions they express be taken
as what is fitting for such a character to say, and do not express the teaching of the
author of the novel. He had added that "we are able to discover no
clear example of Rizal
doing this," that is, “suggest that these are his own opinions which he
proposed to his readers as true" so as to be “teaching and not merely
portraying error.” Thus he concludes that no passage may be found in
which Rizal shows that he wishes to attack the church itself rather than the
abuses and distortions of her teaching. In support of that conclusion, Cquotes in
translation Rizal's letter to Resurrección Hidalgo:
original nor used the Spanish translation of the Epistolario Rizalino (Palma 1949a, 133;
Rizal 1938, 523–34, 527-28). Although the fifth volume in which this letter appears
was still in press when he completed the biography in 1938, (Palma 1949a, 369), he
must have had an advance copy of the Spanish translation (or of the German
original, if he knew that language, though the translation accurately reproduces
the original). However, in spite of his quotation marks, Palma in fact merely
paraphrases the key passage, and dishonestly inserts the words “rituals and
superstitions," which do not occur in either the Gerinan or the Spanish
translation. What it actually says in the German original is as follows:

I have unmasked the hypocrisy of those who under the cloak of religion have come amongst
us to impoverish and brutalize us. I have distinguished the true religion from the false,
from superstitious religion, from the religion that traffics with the Gospel to extract
money, to make us believe in nonsense at which the Catholic Church would blush, if it ever came to
her knowledge. (Retana 1907, 125-26)
I wanted to hit the friars, but since the friars use religion not only as a shield, but also
as a weapon, protection, citadel, fortress, armor, etc., I was therefore forced to
attack their false and superstitious religion in order to combat the enemy who hid
behind this religion. ... Why should I not attack this religion with all my strength, if it is the prime
cause of our sufferings and our tears? The responsibility lies on those who misuse its name. Christ did
the same with the religion of his country, which the Pharisees had so misused. (Rizal 1938, 523–24;
Schumacher 1973, 152-53)
This quotation is omitted by Cavanna, but to counteract its implication le quotes another
letter of Rizal's (this one to Blumentritt, though he does not say so). Cavanna relates that
when Trinidad Pardo de Tavera defended Rizal to Fr. Federico Faura from having
attacked the church, by saying that in attacking the friars the stone was thrown so
high and withı such force that it reached 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” ({Philippine
Hierarchy] 1956, 4 par. 6). Cavanna then concludes that Rizal "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" (ibid.). However, Cavanna here quoted (with some
minor inaccuracies), not from the original letter, which was in German, but froin
its translation in the Ozaeta version of Palma's biography of Rizal, Pride of the Malay
Race, thus from a translation of a translation (ibid., 11. 8; Palma 1949b, 115). Moreover,
although Ozaeta correctly translated Palma, the latter had neither translated from the
German
It is clear that the word “ritual” nowhere appears in the quotation, and hence
the argument of the “Statement” is simply false, although its falsification carne
from Palına rather than Cavanna. Nonetheless, the correct passage is indeed
capable of being interpreted to make the novels an attack on the church.
However, it deserves to be matched with the quotation contained in C above from
the letter to Hidalgo that what Rizal said he attacked were the abuses (Retana 1907,
125–26). The quote from the letter to Blumentritt is likewise capable of being
interpreted in the same way as De la Costa saw it, as an attack on the abuses and
superstitions of the time, not on the church as such.
Clearly Cavanna chose to interpret it as an attack on the church itself, even apart
from being deceived by the tendentious translation of Palma Ozaeta. For, in
an implicit rejection of the assertion of C, denying that there was any passage in
the novels where Rizal could be shown to speak in his own person attacking the church,
rather than having his characters speak as befitted them, the “Statement” continues
in contradiction:

544
PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011)
SCHUMACHER / THE RIZAL BILL OF 1956
545

Furthermore, there are passages in the two books where it is not anymore the novels' 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, ([Philippine Hierarchy] 1956, 4–5 par. 6)

Cavanna then proceeds to give over 120 references to passages that either "are
against Catholic dogma and morals” or “disparage divine worship” or “make light
of ecclesiastical discipline." Evidently he has cast his net wide, since one finds even
such items as education in Catholic schools, processions, stole fees, bells, and other
matters on which even a devout Catholic might have negative opinions (ibid., 5 par.
7–9). Thus, in effect, he does not allow that in any case the offending statements
were intended to portray characters as they were. Basically he is using a
different principle than De la Costa, and thus comes to a conclusion totally
contradictory to De la Costa's. Rather than there being no conclusive passage in which
Rizal attacks the church, there are more than a hundred of varying importance. Two
men, both familiar with the novels of Rizal, come to opposite conclusions. It is hard to
believe, however, that the conclusion reached in the "Statement” comes from a “serene
and impartial reading of the two novels” (ibid., 6 par. 10). On arriving at this point, there
was no longer any place for De la Costa's suggestion that annotated editions of the
novels be prepared by a scholar familiar with the times. The “Statement"
proceeded rather to quote canon law forbidding certain types of books, under whose
categories it declared the two novels fell. Only with permission of ecclesiastical
authority, "readily granted for justifiable reason” to those with sufficient
knowledge of Catholic doctrine, could they be read (ibid.). This part of the
"Statement,” as well as some of the minor alterations referred to above, may well not
have come from Father Cavanna but from ecclesiastical authority, in this
case Abp. Rufino J. Santos, president of the administrative council of the Catholic
Welfare Organization over whose signature the “Statement” would eventually be
published (Acosta 1973, 74; Cavanna 1983, pt. 3:229). Cavanna's analysis of the
novels, however, had laid the foundation for the prohibition.
The rest of the “Statement" dealt with the unreasonableness and injustice of the
Senate bill, making it obligatory for Catholic students to read attacks on their
faith. Such a law would, under the guise of nationalism, violate “one of the fundamental
freedoms of our country, viz., their freedom of conscience" ({Philippine Hierarchy)
1956, 6–8 par. 11-13). It then proceeded to offer to all Filipinos, especially to the
law-giving bodies, eleven brief statements
for their guidance. After expressing their veneration for Rizal, the bishops insisted that,
although he wrote the novels at a time when he was alienated from the Catholic
Church, before his death he retracted whatever he had written against her. That
last will of his should be inviolable. "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” (ibid., 9 par. 14, vi).
In answer to the charge that to praise Rizal without taking the trouble to read him
was hypocritical, the “Statement” suggested "that a Rizalian Anthology be prepared
where all the patriotic passages and the social and political philosophy of Rizal
... be compiled," not only from the novels but from all the writings of Rizal, and
amounced that for this purpose "we have already organized a committee
which is making the necessary studies” (ibid., par. 14, viii). The idea of
selecting “patriotic passages” froni the novels without the students reading them
within their historical context or within the genre of a novel indicates how different a
perspective from that of De la Costa was behind the “Statement." The isolating of
“patriotic passages” probably came from Cavanna, who is alleged to have said at a
symposium on the novels that the Noli “was not really patriotic because out of 333
pages only 25 contained patriotic passages while 120 were devoted to anti-Catholic attacks”
(Constantino 1971, 245).
In fairness to Cavanna, however, it should be pointed out that De la Costa wrote
his drafts in 1951–1952 at a time when no controversy raged and the bill of Recto
and Laurel had not yet been introduced with its political subtext. The precise occasion for
De la Costa's work is unknown, apart from the fact that it was done at the request of a
committee of the bishops (Kennally 1956b). It is likely that it was not requested for
a particular occasion, but was a cautionary measure, motivated by the controversy a
little over a year earlier concerning the proposal to publish at government expense for
compulsory reading in public high schools the Palma-Ozaeta book, Pride of the Malay
Race, in which, among other tendentiously anti Catholic passages, Rizal's retraction of
Masonry and return to Catholicisin was denied, and the Jesuit priests who testified to it
were termed frauds. On this occasion the hierarchy published a pastoral letter, dated 6
January 1950, protesting the anti-Catholic measure, and perhaps foresaw that similar attempts
to use Rizal as a weapon against the church might be made in the future. This explanation of
the occasion for De la Costa's drafts is supported by the fact that, in one of the same folders
containing his drafts of the Rizal

540
PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011)
SCHUMACHER / THE RIZAL BILL OF 1956
547

letter, there is another typescript entitled, “Some Observations on ‘Pride of the Malay
Race,” dated New York, July 1949. Here, while conceding that the fact of Rizal's
retraction might not be proved apodictically, he deftly showed the lack of basis in
Palına's arguments against it. De la Costa filed his tvo efforts at studying Rizal
and his writings in the same folders. 11
Nonetheless, the two approaches to a statement as a whole are dramatically
different. Not only is there a different concept of how to read a novel, there is also a
different attitude toward Rizal as national hero. There are, moreover, clifferent
concepts of the monopoly of the Catholic Church as the only guardian of
morality:
Although Cavanna (making some minor use of De la Costa C) surely wrote the
larger part of the “Statement," it is probable that the strict prohibition of the novel, as
well as perhaps other minor elements, came from Archbishop Santos. As president of
the administrative council of the Catholic Welfare Organization, it was he who issued
the “Statement,” even though it bore no signature. Santos's role is indicated in a
letter of Sen. "Soc" Rodrigo to the archbishop, dated the day preceding the issuance
of the "Statement.” Rodrigo had been, and would be after the “Statement," the principal
defender of the church's position in the Senate, bearing the brunt of Recto's relentless
and often vicious onslaughts (Acosta 1973, 72-73; Locsin 1956, 2–4; Constantino 1971,
244–46).'? In his letter Rodrigo (1956) made “this last appcal regarding my suggestion ...
that if the Philippine hierarchy will issue a Pastoral prohibiting the reading of these two
books, an exception be made as to editions which contain annotations approved by the
Church."
This apparent reference to De la Costa's drafts becomes clear when among the
twelve reasons Rodrigo gave in support of his suggestion was no. 12: “Catholic
theologians are not unanimous on the outright condemnation of thiese books.
Fr. De la Costa's opinioni, several years ago, is fully compatible with
allowing footnoted editions” (ibid.). Although Rodrigo's appeal was probably too
late to alter the “Statement” in any case, it is clear that, given the latter's tone
already discussed, it had little chance of getting a hearing.
Moreover, Santos's communications on the novels had not yet ended.
Unlike the pastoral letter of the bishops in 1949 against the imposition of the
Palma-Ozaeta book, which was signed by each of the Philippine bishops
([Catholic Hierarchy) 1950), the “Statement" originally contained no signatory;
merely its title attributing it to the Philippine hierarchy. This led to considerable confusion
when the “Statement” appeared. Recto, among
others, questioned whether the "Statement" really caine from the whole Philippine
hierarchy, while simultaneously denouncing it as a repudiation of Rizal (Acosta 1973,
73–74; Constantino 1971, 245-46). "3 No doubt in an effort to establish its authenticity,
Rodrigo apparently approached Archbishop Santos for a clarification (Acosta 1973, 74).
He received it, but perhaps had not anticipated all that it would contain. The
archbishop declared that the “Statement” on the novels “is fully authorized and
approved by all members of said hierarchy." (This declaration is still ainbiguous. It
could be true even if the “Statement" had been drawn up in Manila under the sole
direction of Archbishop Santos as president of the administrative council, who then
asked the bishops in the provincial dioceses for their authorization and approval by
telegrain, even without their all having seen the “Statement." In fact, it is improbable
that, in the days preceding fax, the “Statement" could have been drawn up with all its
details of condemnable passages, approved by the archbishop, and sent to the
provinces for a retum approval in the time between the introduction of the Recto
bill on 4 April and the appearance of the “Statement" on 21 April. One must
believe that the “approval of the bishops was simply a generic prior authorization of a
statement to be approved by Archbishop Santos as president. It could then be said in
some sense to have been approved by the entire hierarchy, even though it was
approved specifically only by Santos. Thus in the subsequent editions of his book,
Rizal's Unfading Glory, Cavanna, who was in a position to know, simply put down
Santos's name as signatory (Acosta 1973, 74; Cavanna 1983, pt. 3:229].)
However, the archbishop went on to say, in a statement directed to those of his
archdiocese, not merely that the novels were forbidden by the church. Rather, he
emphasized, “without due permission, it is a sin for any Catholic to read these
novels in their entirety, or to keep, publish, sell, translate, or communicate the same to
others in any forin” ([Santos) 1956, 350). This may have caused apprehension
among booksellers and librarians especially, but it was too extreme to be effective for
most people.'4 In fact, Rodrigo would later say in a private communication to the
bishops that, as a result, the novels “sold like hotcakes" (Rodrigo 1957, 6)."
The senators soon after worked out a compromise, by which a student who would
“serve written notice under oath, to the head of the college or university that
the reading and study of the ... unexpurgated edition is contrary to his religion or
religious beliefs, said student shall be exempt from using the said edition" (Acosta
1973,77). Although Acosta considered that this was “a victory for the local Catholic Church,"
it was in fact a

549
PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011)
SCHUMACHER / THE RIZAL BILL OF 1956
549

3
The book was Rizal's Unfading Glory: A Documentary History of the Conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal
(Cavanna 1952/1983). I met Father Cavanna in early 1951 after a symposium on Rizal in
which I took part, and he had been working on his book for some time prior to that
Kennally's letter (1956a) speaks of having received De la Costa's letter of 3 April 1956, in
which he had sent Kennally a progress report on his work in the United States. He must
have been there at least from early March to have thought It necessary to send a progress report at this
time.

At the Second Vatican Council, 1962–1965, Santos was a member of the irreducible negative minority in the
face of the progressive direction of the Council, and only with well-known reluctance
allowed its practical decrees to be implemented in his archdiocese after he returned from Rome.
See Schumacher 1973. 75 n. 2.
6

7
It is possible that this critic was Fr. Clarence Martin, a member of the Ateneo de Manila Jesuit
com munity. For after the blshops' letter was published in 1956. Kennally looked for a
copy of Dela Costa's final draft, to contrast it with the published letter, and located one with Martin
(Kennally 1956b).
face-saving compromise, which enabled it to receive the unanimous vote
of the Senate, and the signature of Pres. Ramon Magsaysay.
Professors who have taught the Rizal course can testify that no
student has ever come with such an affidavit (Ocampo 2000, 9).
(The following year an effort was made to introduce an
amendment removing the impractical provision. It apparently was
unsuccessful (Rodrigo 1957, 3, 7), and the proviso continued to be
ignored.) Nor did people conceive it to be a sin to read the novels. That is
the experience of this writer. Indeed, when I returned to the
Philippines to teach the Rizal course in 1965, I just took it for
granted that the two novels were to be read as part of the course.
By insisting on an outright condemnation, the bishops did not
prevent the novels from being read but inerely reinoved the possibility
that there would be an annotated edition explaining the possibly
offending passages. Even devout Catholics saw no possibility of
following the “Statement” and its “clarification" by Archbishop
Santos, when faced with a contrary civil law. Indeed, many no
doubt shared, in a less erudite way, De la Costa's evaluation of the
novels. Although in retrospect one inay perlaps question the
practicality of preparing an annotated edition of the novels, a
statement such as De la Costa had prepared would have
enlightened and satisfied those who cared. Under the term of
Archbishop Santos there was not much more tolerance for taking a
benign view of Rizal and his novels than under the Spanislı civil and
religious authorities of the late nineteenth century. Although De la
Costa's role in the “new Propaganda Movement” was not over by
any means, it would be in other fields that he would be active,
particularly in expounding the social justice teaching of the Catholic
Church, and in refuting the alternative Communist program (see, e.g.,
Ileto 2010, 233–35).
C's phrase "the decadent state of the religious orders" is changed to "the decadent state
of the religious order* ([Philippine Hierarchy] 1956, 4 par. 6). Although this change of spelling
entails a change in meaning, and could be seen as consonant with other changes mentioned here,
it probably is simply a misprint, since the document abounds in such,
9 This is probably the origin of Father Cavanna's book, published in 1957, Rizol and the
Philippines
of His Days, 10 This was not a draft pastoral letter, but an analysis of the two chapters
dealing with the retraction in the
Palma-Ozaeta book Neither does it appear in his bibliography of published works, so it was
probably meant for some members of the Knights of Columbus who were involved in the
controversy before the
bishops wrote thelrJoint Statement" 11 Likewise in one of those folders is a letter of 27
Feb. 1953, from Fr. Leo A. Cullum, SJ, editor of the
new journal, Philippine Studies, rejecting an article of De la Costa, embarrassedly, because De la
Costa was associate editor of the joumal. From the context, it appears that the
article presented unpublished letter(s) of Rizal to Fr, Pablo Pastells, SJ. The editor saw
them as "a suave and brilliant presentation of rationalism." Since there was no possibility of
refuting the arguments paragraph by paragraph, he judged it impossible to print them, De la
Costa had obtained the letters, missing from the Epistolario Rizalino, from the Jesuit archives
in Spain, As Cullum (1953) says, "you would not have sent the article If you agreed with me." The
letters would finally be published from De la Costa's microfilms after his death by Raul J.
Bonoan, SJ (1994) In his book, The Rizal-Pastelts Correspondence. It seems clear that De la Costa was
much occupied with Rizal in the years 1949-1952, although he was in doctoral studles at
Harvard University till 1951, and then in Europe for much of the following year,
microfilming Philippine documents. 12
The only other senators who opposed the bill were
Decoroso Rosales, brother of Abp. Julio Rosales
of Cebu, and Mariano Cuenco, brother of Abp. Jose Ma. Cuenco of Jaro. 13 The number of
passages condemning the novels alleged by Recto was a gross exaggeration. We
have given the correct, sufficiently large, number above. 14 However, Abp. Gabriel
Reyes, then archbishop of Manila and administrator of Cebu, had earlier
issued a similarly drastic prohibition of Palma's Biografía de Rizal for his jurisdictions
(Ocampo 2000, 9). This was different from the 1949 statement of the whole hierarchy,
which merely protested against the Ozaeta translation being printed at government
expense and imposed as reading in the schools.
Notes

1
This and the other personal documents used in this article, as well as the drafts of De la
Costa, are contained in two folders from De la Costa's papers in my possession, marked "Rizal,
Noli and Fili," which will be deposited with the rest of his papers in the Ateneo de Manila Unlversity
Archives. The Identity of "Joe" who signs the letter is established by the letterhead of the
College of Liberal Arts, University of the East, where Hernandez was dean. The numerous
quotations also show that the writer was thoroughly familiar with the Noli, as Hernandez
was from writing his book on Rizal Apparently De la Costa, who had just recently arrived
back in Manila from having been abroad in studies since 1945, was not personally
acquainted with Hernandez, while Rodrigo and Hernandez were well acquainted from their
active participation in the Catholic Action of the Philippines,

550
PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011)
SCHUMACHER / THE RIZAL BILL OF 1956
551

15 It has been impossible to find anything concerning the Rizal bill in the archdiocesan
archives.
The archivist, Fr. Albert Flores, searched for me any reference to the controversy,
but without success, He informed me that there is a large gap in the archives for
much of the term of Cardinal Santos (Flores 2011a, 2011b).

References
Retana, Wenceslao) E. 1907. Vida y escritos del Dr. José Rizal Madrid:
Victoriano Suárez. Rizal y Alonso, José. 1938. Epistolario Rizalino, vol. 5.
Manila: Bureau of Printing. Rodrigo, Francisco. 1956. Confidential letter to His
Excellency Most Rev. Rutino J. Santos, 20 Apr. In
the author's personal possession.
- 1957. Letter to the Administrative Council, Catholic Welfare Organization, 23 Apr.
In the author's personal possession. (Santos, Rufino J.] 1956. CWO statement on
Rizal novels OK'd by hierarchy. Boletin Eclesiastico de
Filipinas 30 (May): 348-51. Schumacher, John N. 1973. The Propaganda Movement:
1880-1895. The creators of a Filipino
consciousness, the makers of revolution. Manila: Solidaridad Publishing
House.
Acosta, Carmencita H. 1973. The life of Rufino J. Cardinal Santos. Quezon City: Kayumanggi
Press.

Allayban. Rodolfo C. 2010. E-mail to author, 12 Oct. Bonoan, Raul J. 1994. The
Rizal-Pastells correspondence, Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University

Press. (CatholicHierarchy]1950. Joint statementof the Catholic Hierarchy of

the Philippines on the book “The
Pride of the Malay Race," Online document,
http://www.cbcponline.net/documents/1950s/1950
malay_race.html, accessed 1 Jan. 2011. Cavanna y Manso, Jesus Ma, 1957, Rizal and the
Philippines of his days: An introduction to the study of
Dr. Rizal's life, works, and writings; Historical notes for a correct appreciation of our national
hero
and the times he lived. Manila: N.p. ------, 1983. Rizal's unfading glory: A
documentary history of the conversion of Dr. Jose Rizal. 4th
ed. Manila: N.p. Constantino,Renato. 1971. The making of a Filipino (A story
of Philippine colonial politics). 2d ed.
Quezon City: Malaya Books. Cullum, Leo A. 1953. Letter to Dear Horace (de la Costa), 27
Feb. In the author's personal possession. Flores, Albert C. A. 2011a. E-mail to author, 20
May,
John N. Schumacher, SJ, is professor emeritus of church history at Loyola
School of Theology, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City
1108, Philippines. Among his major publications are The Propaganda Movement
1880-1895 (1973, 1997). The Revolutionary Clergy: The Filipino Clergy and the
Nationalist Movement, 1850-1903 (1981), and Father José Burgos: A Documentary
History (1999). <jns@admu.edu.ph>

----. 2011b. E-mail to author, 15 June. Hernandez, Jose M. 1952. Letter of Joe
(Hernandez] to Dear Soc (Francisco Rodrigo), 5 Jan. In the
author's personal possession. Ileto,
Reynaldo C. 2010. Heroes, historians, and
the new Propaganda Movement, 1950–1953. Philippine
Studies 58:223-38. Kennally. Vincent I. 1956a. Letter to Dear Horace (de la Costa). 7
May. In the author's personal
possession.

-. 1956b. Letter to Dear Horace, 27 June. In the author's personal possession.

Locsin, Teodoro M. 1956. The church under attack, Philippines Free Press, 5 May.
Online, http://
philippinestreepress.wordpress.com2006/05/05/the-church-under-attack-nay-5-1956,
accessed 9
Oct 2010. Ocampo, Ambeth. 2000. Rizal without the overcoat. 3d ed. Pasig
City: Anvil.
Palma, Rafael 1949a. Biografia de Rizal, Manila: Bureau of Printing.
----, 1949b. The pride of the Malay race: A biography of José Rizal, trans. Roman
Ozaeta. New
York: Prentice-Hall. (Philippine
Hierarchy) 1956. Statement of the Philippine
hierarchy on the novels of Dr. Jose Rizal
Noli me tangere and El filibusterismo. Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas. Suplemento al
No. de Mayo, 1-10.

552
PHILIPPINE STUDIES 59, NO. 4 (2011)
SCHUMACHER / THE RIZAL BILL OF 1956
553

24
4
THE MAKING OF A
FILIPINO
24

Recto's everlasting credit that he saw these contradictions

earlier than his colleagues and that unlike the occasional
nationalism of most of his contemporaries, his nationalism
became a constant and
growing
ideal.

THE RIZAL LAW AND THE CATHOLIC

HIERARCHY
Recto's next big fight was over the Rizal bill. Though
this did not directly affect our colonial relations with
America, his championship of this measure was an
integral part of his nationalism. It was his belief that
the reading of Rizal's novels would strengthen the
Filipinism of the youth and foster pat riotism.
Recto was the original author of the bill which would make
Rizal's Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo compulsory
reading in all universities and colleges. Reported out by
the committee on education, it was sponsored by
Senator Laurel, committee chairman. The measure
immediately ran into determined opposi tion from the
Catholic hierarchy spearheaded in the Senate by
Senators Decoroso Rosales, brother of Archbishop, now
Cardinal Rosales, Mariano J. Cuenco, brother of Archbishop
Cuenco; and Francisco Rodrigo, former president of
Catholic Action. Their argument was that the bill would
violate freedom of conscience and religion. The Catholic
hierarchy even issued a pastoral letter detailing its
objections to the bill and enjoining Catholics to oppose it.
Despite the fact that public hearings had already been
conducted, Rodrigo proposed that the education committee
hold a closed-door conference with the Catholic hierarchy to
search for a solution to the dispute.
Laurel and the other supporters of the bill rejected the
proposal inasmuch as the public hearing had already
afforded the church the opportunity to be heard fully.
Recto said that Father Jesus Cavanna of the Paulist
Fathers, who had written the pastoral letter, had himself
testified against the bill during the public hearing. A
 closed-door conference was obviously one of the means
by which the hierarchy hoped to exert pressure against
the bill. Lobbies from various Catholic organizations as
well as the clerics themselves were very active in the
Senate throughout the discussion of the Rizal bill. These
clerics, many of them foreigners, were seeking
conferences with senators to convince them to oppose
the Rizal bill.

Scanned by
CamScanner
NEW INSIGHTS AND NEW
AWARENESS
24
5

A more organized campaign against the bill was

launched under the auspices of the Catholic Action
of Manila. Its first activity was a symposium and open
forum in which two announcements were made: first, that
the Sentinel, official organ of Philippine Catholic Action,
would henceforth be published daily instead of
weekly, and second, that Filipino Catholics would be
urged to write their congressmen and senators asking
them to "kill” the Rizal bill. Speakers at the symposium
offered a variety of objections to the measure. Fr.
Jesus Cavanna, introduced as an authority on Rizal,
 said that the novels "belong to the past” and it would be
“harmful” to read them because they presented a “false
picture” of conditions in the country at that time. He
described the Noli Me Tangere as “ an attack on the
clergy" and said its object was to "put to ridicule the
Catholic Faith.” He alleged that the novel was not really
patriotic because out of 333 pages only 25 contained
patriotic passages while 120 were devoted to
anti-Catholic attacks. Jesus Paredes, a radio
commentator, declared that since some parts of the novels
had been declared "objectionable matter" by the hierarchy,
Catholics had the right to refuse to read them so as not to
"endanger their salvation." Narciso Pimentel, Jr., another
radio commentator, offered the interesting speculation
that the bill was Recto's revenge against the Catholic
voters who, together with Magsaysay, were responsible for
his poor showing in the 1955 senatorial elections.

Against this background of bitter opposition, one can

more fully appreciate the integrity and courage of Recto in
championing the bill. He stubbornly persisted in his defense,
unmindful of the fact that he was antagonizing a vital
electoral element.

In a three-hour speech on the Senate floor, he attacked

the hierarchy of the Catholic church for its pastoral letter. He
declared that the pastoral letter had been "more
 severe" in its con demnation of the novels than a
committee of Spanish Dominican priests whose findings
had resulted in Rizal's execution. In support of his
contention, he brought up the fact that the pastoral letter
had cited 170 passages from the Noli and 50 from
the Fili which it regarded as attacks on the doctrines and
dogmas of the Catholic church, lle said he could understand
the foreign clergy taking such
position but he found it difficult to understand how Filipino

Scanned by
CamScanner
2
4
6
THE MAKING OF A
FILIPINO

bishops “who will not be bishops now were it not for

Rizal” could adopt such a stand when Rizal exalted the
Filipino clergy in his novels.
Rodrigo interpellated the speaker and in the process
found himself the butt of Recto's sallies, to the delight of
the gallery. Rodrigo said he had read the books at twenty
after special dispensation from church
securing
authorities. Having taken ad vanced scholastic
philosophy and religion, he declared his faith was then
firm enough. "But I cannot allow my son who is now 16 to
read the Noli Me Tangere and the El Filibusterismo
lest he lose his faith," Rodrigo said. He proposed instead
compulsory reading of footnoted editions of the novels.
Commenting on the opening paragraph of the
pastoral letter which praised Rizal as our greatest hero,
Recto charged that these laudatory phrases were
being used “to hide the real intentions of the pastoral
which is to separate the people from Rizal." When
Rodrigo agreed to his appeal to the people to scrutinize the
pastoral letter, Rodrigo said this would arouse the
people to oppose the measure. Recto retorted that on the
contrary the reading of the hierarchy's letter “should
open the eyes of the people to the real enemies of Rizal
and true nationalism.”?
While others were beginning to yield to pressure, no
threats could frighten Recto. In reply to a threat that
Catholic schools would close should the Rizal bill pass,
Recto went on record in favor of the nationalization of
all schools. He contended that nationalization might be
just the step needed to foster a more vibrant
nationalism among Filipinos.• He did not really
believe the threat. "They are making too much profit
which they can ill-afford to give up," he said.
Tempers flared during the continuous debates and
opponents attacked each other with greater virulence.
 Recto was in the thick of the fight, his tirades against
the church growing ever more bitter, On May 3, in a
privilege speech, he recalled that during the days of Rizal,
religious orders dominated the government. "Is this a
new attempt to deliver the State to the Church?” he
asked. Reacting to a Philippine News Service report that
Bishop Manuel Yap had warned that legislators who
voted for the Rizal bill would be punished" in the next
election, Recto took the floor for the seventh time to warn
against church interference in state affairs, He branded
Yap as "the modern-day Torquemada." 10

Scanned by
CamScanner
NEW INSIGHTS AND NEW
AWARENESS
2
4
7

Finally, on May 12, the month-old controversy ended with

unanimous approval of a substitute measure authored by
Senator Laurel and based on the proposals of Senators
Roseller T. Lim and Emmanuel Pelaez. The bill as
passed was clearly an accom -modation to the
objections of the Catholic hierarchy and Laurel said as
much. Though it still provided that the basic texts in the
 collegiate courses should be the unexpurgated editions of
the two novels, it was now possible for students to be
exempted from using the unexpurgated editions on
grounds of religious belief. Opponents of the original Recto
version jubilantly claimed a "complete victory."
Proponents felt they had at least gained something.

THE BASES
QUESTION
On July 4, 1956, Richard M. Nixon on a visit here issued a
joint statement with Magsaysay affirming Philippine title to
American base lands in the country. Recto immediately
sought a redefinition of the sovereignty pronouncement of
Nixon. He said:

I hope what Mr. Nixon said about sovereignty is not any different
from our concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty can
only be expressed through the operation of our
laws and courts,11

It will be recalled that Attorney-General Brownell had pro

pounded the dictum of American ownership of these
bases. Recto was the foremost opponent of this
thinking. The Supreme Court ended the controversy
with its decision in the case of Sun Life vs. Brownell.
The joint statement was an affirmation of the court
opinion.
Romulo, taking advantage of the situation, tried to
 claim credit for getting the American affirmation. At the
same time, he blamed nationalist agitators for having
delayed the American decision by their belligerence.
Recto could not let this pass. In an article entitled "The
Smallness of a Little Man," he expressed his belief that "it
was the belligerence of those to whom he (Romulo) refers
as 'outside the Administration' that really brought about the
recognition of our sovereignty over and our ownership
of American bases." That Romulo who was “fence-sitting”
in Washington all along should now play the hero was
too much for Recto to take. He put Romulo in his
place.

Scanned by
CamScanner
Thistrrical Bulletin 1960 4(2): 130-39.

THE TRIALS OF THE RIZAL BILL

By Dr. J. 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, Sen ator
José P. Laurel, as Chairman of the Committee on Education,
began his sponsorship of the measure, the rumbles of the gather
ing, storm sounded an ominous warning. This was to mark the 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 read as follows: AN ACT TO
MAKE NOLI ME TANGERE AND EL FILI BUS
TERISMO COMPULSORY READING MATTER IN ALL PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE COLLEGES AND UNIVER
SITIES 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 Fili busterismo are
hereby declared compulsory reading matter in all public and
private schools, colleges and universities in the Philippines.

* Fumer Speaker, House of

Representatives

13
0
Scanned by
CamScanner
Laurel--THE TRIALS OF THE RIZAL
BILL
13
1

SEC. 2. The works mentioned in Section 1 of this act

shall be in the original editions or in their unexpurgated Eng.
lish and National Language versions.
SEC. 2. The Department of Education shall take
steps to promulgate rules and regulations for the immediate
im plementation of the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 4. No provision of this Act shall be construed as
prohibiting or limiting the study of the works of other Fili pino
heroes.
SEC. 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:
(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 cir
cumventing the provisions thereof, shall be dismissed
imme diately from the service and shall be disqualified
from teach ing 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 respon sible Head and professor or professors
concerned shall be disqualified from teaching in any
Government-recognized college or university.
SEC. 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.”

UvumiCuvy vamovun

1
3
2
HISTORICAL
BULLETIN
VOL. IV,
NO. 2
 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 com pulsory 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 ques. tion 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. Pecto. In the other camp were Senators
Mariano J. Cuenco, Francisco Ro drigo and Decoroso
Rosales, all of them identified as rabid Ca tholics. 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 parliamenta
rian 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 appre
ciation of Rizal's times and of the role he played in
combatting Spanish tyranny in this couniry. 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 con
sciousness 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 be havior 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

Scanned by
CamScanner
Laurel-THE TRIALS OF THE RIZAL
BILL
13
3
described by Rizal in those days, political, social and reli gious,
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 Fer nandez,
and the virtuous native priest, Padre Florentino, and the
Jesuits in general."
 On the other hand, Senators Rodrigo, Rosales and
Cuenco derived much support from the Catholic Church itself
and from its hundreds of thousands of adherents
throughout the country. Their principal argument was no
less impressive, to wit: that compulsion to read
something against one's religious convic tions was no
different from a requirement to salute the flag, which,
according to the latest decision on the matter by the U.S.
Supreme Court, was an impairment both of freedom of
speech and freedom of religion. In addition, they
invoked the need for unity, which they said would be
imperilled if the bill were approved. Contending that they
were no less lovers of their country because they were
devout children of their church, Senator Rodrigo
rcmarked:
"A vast majority of our people are at the same time Ca
tholics 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 of a child for his father and for
his mother.
“This is the basis of my stand. Let us not create a con
flict between nationalism and religion; between the
govern ment 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 of
 Senate Bill No. 438. Debates started on May 9, 1956,
following the report of the Committee on Education,
dated May 2, 1956, recommend ing approval without
amendment. The discussions also re volved on the
constitutionality and the propriety of the measure, but
although proceedings were definitely livelier and more im
passioned here than in the Upper Chamber (at one time there was
even an abortive fist fight on the floor), it was the mighty

ज्यापpy ज्याच्या

13
4
HIBTORICAL
BULLETIN
Vol. IV, No.
2

battle in the Senate that drew more public attention. Notable de

fenders of the bill in the House, besides the author, were Con
gressmen 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 Con gresswomen 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 version of the bill. Already, more
than two weeks had elapsed since the measure was called on the
 floor, and the conflict was becoming increasingly bitter. On May
9, 1956, however, the controversy took a new though not
quite unexpected turn that stirred new hope for a final re solution of
the issue. This came about when Senator Laurel, sensing the
futility of further strife on the matter, rose to pro pose in his
own name an amendment by substitution which read in full
as follows:
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 in any other period of our his tory,
there is a need for a re-dedication to the ideals of free dom 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 writings of Jose Rizal, par ticularly 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 su pervision of,
and subject to regulation by the State, and all schools are
enjoined to develop moral character, personal

Scanned by
CamScanner
Laurel-THE TRIALS OF THE
RIZAL BILL
135

discipline, civic conscience and to teach the duties of citizen ship;

Now therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled :
SECTION 1. Courses on the life, works and writings of Jose
Rizal, particularly his novels Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo, shall be included in the curricula of all schools,
colleges and universities, public or private: Pro vided, that in
the collegiate courses, the original or unex purgated editions
of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibuste rismo 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 provi sions of this Act. Said rules and
regulations shall take effect thirty (30) days after their
publication in the Official Ga zette.
SEC. 2. It shall be obligatory on all schools, colleges and
universities to keep copies of the original and unexpur gated
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 Fili
 busterismo or their translation 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 en rollment of the school, college or university.
SEC. 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 dialects; cause them to be printed in
cheap, popular editions; and cause them to be distributed,

Quan cuvy vainuvammel

13
6
HISTORICAL
BULLETIN
Vol. IV, No.
2

free of charge, to persons desiring to read them,

through the Purok organizations and Barrio Councils
throughout the country.
SEC. 4 Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
amending or repealing Section 927 of the
Administrative Code, prohibiting the discussion of
religious doctrines by public school teachers and other
persons engaged in any public school.
SEC. 5. The surn of three hundred thousand pesos is hereby
authorized to be appropriated in the National Treas ury to
carry out the purposes of this Act.
SEC. 6. This Act shall take effect upon its
approval..

Explaining this amendment, Senator Laurel said

tersely:
“In my substitute bill, I have included not only the Noli
and the Fili but all the works and writings of Rizal and even
those written by other people about him. I climinated the
compulsion idea, although deep in myself, considering my
own information. my own knowledge of the history of
mankind, however poor and howerer incomplete, notwith
standing my own personal conviction that the state can pro perly

require, in the case of Filipinos, the compulsory read ing of the Fili and the
Noli. After consulting my own reli gious conscience as one
belonging to my own church, I re moved the idea of compulsion.
You will no longer find the word ‘compulsory' or 'compulsion' in
the substitute bill that I have filed. But there is one thing on
which there could be no compromise so far as I am concerned. I
have reached the saturation point. I have reached the dead
end of a blind alley. I can go no farther; and this I say: If
Riza! was a hero, and on that there could be no debate, if.
Rizal is a national hero, these books that he has written, when.
ever read, niust be read in the unexpurgated, original form.
Otherwise, I would prefer to have this bill defeated,
defeated ignominiously if you wish, but then I shall
have fulfilled my duty.”
 The new measure was also debated in the Chamber, but with less
heat this time, the discussion centering on the first
paragraph of Section 1 and on the powers of
implementation of
υιαιιισυ νy υαιΙυιαιιιτι
Laurel—THE TRIALS OF THE RIZAL
BILL
13
7
the Board of National Education. Several members spoke
on the substitute bill, among thein Senators Locsin, Pelaez,
Briones, Sabido, Puyat and Cuenco. Still vigorously
opposed, Senator Rodrigo suggested the deletion of the
proviso in Section 1, but this change was rejected by the
sponsor. Senator Lim then proposed the exemption of
students from the requirements of the bill, on certain
conditions, and the Senate seemed headed again for
another lengthy disputation. Then, quite abruptly, the fol
lowing proceedings took place:
ENMIENDA A L A ENMIENDA POR
SUSTITUCION
Senator Primicias. I now, Mr. President, in the
name of many members of this body, present this amendment
to theamendment: On page. 2, line 6, after the
period (1) following the word "act," insert the
 following:
“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 PARA GRAPH."
The President. Those who are in favor of the amend
ment to the umendment will please say aye. (Several
sen ators: Aye.) Those who are against will please say
nay. (Silence.) The amendment is unanimously
approved.

As thus amended the substitute bill was on the same day,

May 12, 1956, unanimously approved on second
reading.
This development was quite propitious for, owing to
the impasse among its members on the original Gonzales bill,
the House of Representatives was also casting about for
some kind of compromise. The Senate solution seemed
acceptable enough, so, on May 14, 1956, Congressman
Tolentino, the brilliant House Majority Floor Leader,
sponsored an amendnient by substitu tion identical to
Senator Laurel's substitute bill as amended and approved
on second reading in the Upper House. There was
 13
8
HIBTORICAL BULLETIN
Vol. IV,
110%

spirited resistance from several diehards, notably

Congressman Miguel Cuenco, who insisted in a scholarly
speech that the measure was unconstitutional, and Congressman
of the strongest supporters of the original
Bengzon, one
version, who claimed that the substitute bill represented a
"complete triumph of the Church hierarchy. Nevertheless, with
no less than 51 Cori gressmen appearing as its co-authors,
including the majority and minority leadership in the
Chamber, the measure was ap proved on second
reading the same day.
The anti-climax was dramatic. Congress was to
adjourn sine die in a few days and, since the President
had declined to certify to the necessity of the inmediate
enactment of the measure, there was need of complying
with the constitutional requirement that printed copies thereof
be distributed among the Congressmen at least three
calendar days prior to its final approval by the House. The
opponents of the measure sought to take advantage of
this technicality to defeat the measure. Pressed for time,
the Speaker, with the help mainly of Congress man
Gonzales, requested the Bureau of Printing which handled
the printing of the Laurel substitute bill not to destroy the print
 ing molds of said bill and ordered enough copies for the
mern bers of the House, changing only the number of the bill
and the Chamber of origin. Copies of the measure were
distributed in the House even before the Senate bill was
approved on third reading. While the House bill was being
discussed on second reading, the Speaker maneuvered to
prevent the insertion of any amendment to avoid its
reprinting and redistribution. The Senate version was
accepted in toto, punctuation marks and all. The Speaker
refused to adjourn the House until the bill could be finally
approved and, on the very same day Senate Bill No. 438 was
approved on third reading, with 23 votes in favor (Senator
Briones was absent.) House Bill No. 5561 was also
approved on third reading, with 71 votes in favor (6 were
against, 2 ab tained, and 17 were absent) and sent to
the Senate the same day. This bill was passed by the latter
Chamber without arend ment, also on May 17, 1956,
provided that the number of the Senate bill should also
appear in the enrolled copies.
Malacñang took some time in the consideration of the
meas 'ure, and there were some who clung to the flimsy
hope that it would not be approved. But that hope was to
be denied, for

Scanned by
CamScanner
Laurel—THE TRIALS OF THE
RIZAL BILL
 13
9
on June 12, 1956, the bill was signed into law by
President Ramon Magsaysay and became Republic Act No.
1425. Thus, it would seem, were partly fulfilled the words of
Rizal himself who, speaking through Filosofo Tasio in Noli
Me Tangere, said:
"I am writing for the generations of Filipinos yet
to come, a generation that will be enlightened and
educated, a generation that will read my books and
appreciate them without condemning me as a heretic."

#
#
#

“Every country has its morals like its climate and its
infirmities." --J. Rizal.

#
#
#
 Open your children's eyes so that they may jealously
guard their honor, love their fellowmen and their native
land, and do their duty. Always impress upon them that it is
better to die with honor than to live in dishonor.-J. Rizal

Scanned by
CamScanner