REVIEWER IN RIZAL

LESSON 1
- National Historical Institute presently called the National Historical Commission of the
Philippines.
- Prescribed the passage of 50 years before a person is confirmed as a hero

NATIONAL HEROES COMMITTEE

HERO RECOMMENDED

Jose Rizal, Andre Bonifacio, Melchora Aquino, Sultan Dipatuan Kudarat, Emilio Aguinaldo, Apolinario
Mabini, Marcelo H. del Pilar, Gabriela Silang, Juan Luna

JOSE RIZAL

Rizal Day was issued by Emilio Aguinaldo on Dec. 20,1898 and celebrated on Dec. 30,1898.

Governor William Howard Taft -recommended to the Philippine Commission, to declare Jose Rizal
as A National Hero for the Filipinos. In 1901, Rizal was declared as the greatest Filipino hero during
the American colonization after the Aguinaldo-led armed forces were subdued during the Philippine-
American War.

Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, member of the Taft Commission renamed the district of Morong into
the province of Rizal through act # 137 on June 11, 1901.

ACT NO.243 (September 28,1901)

an act granting the right to use public land upon the Luneta in the city of Manila upon which to erect
a statue of Jose Rizal, from a fund to be raised by public subscriptions, and prescribing as a condition
the method by which such subscription shall be collected and disbursed.

Republic Act No. 229 (June 9, 1948)

an act to prohibit cockfighting, horse racing, and jai-alai on the thirtieth day of December of each
year and to create a committee to take charge of the proper celebration of Rizal Day in every
municipality and chartered city, and for other purposes.

Lesson 2

How were laws made?

- Passing the bill

- First reading
- Second reading
- Third reading
- Transmittal of the approved bill to the Counterpart House
- Bicameral Conference Committee
- Transmittal of the Bill to the President of the Philippines

SENATE BILL NO. 438 (NOLI-FILI BILL)

- “ An Act to Make Noli Me Tangere an El Filibusterismo Compulsory Reading Matter in All Public and
Private Colleges and Universities and For other Purposes”

- On April 3, 1956, Senator and Chairmen of the Committee on Education, Jose P. Laurel filed
Senate Bill No. 438 or the Rizal Bill. Senator Claro M. Recto originally authored the bill. The bill aimed
to make Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo a compulsory reading in all universities and
colleges. On April 19, 1956, Congressman Jacobo Z. Gonzales introduced House Bill 5561.

- Congress passed the Rizal Bill and was signed into law by President Ramon Magsaysay on
June 12, 1956.

REPUBLIC ACT 1425 (RIZAL LAW)

- Long title- “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”.

OPPOSER OF THE BILL

 Senator Decoroso Rosales- Brother of Archbishop and later Cardinal Rosales

Senator Mariano J. Cuenco- brother of Archbishop Cuenco

Senator Francisco Rodrigo- former President of the Catholic Action

Fr. Jesus Cavana- a Catholic priest from the order of the Congregation of the Mission,
commonly known as the Vincentian Fathers. He wrote the revised pastoral letter.

REASONS
The novels were written when Dr. Jose Rizal, was estranged from Catholic faith and religion and
contradicted many Christian beliefs.

The novels do contain teachings contrary to the Catholic faith and so, the Church is opposed to the
proposed compulsory reading in their entirety of such books in any school in the Philippines where
Catholic students may be affected.

PROPONENT OF THE BILL

 Senator Claro M. Recto

 Senator Jose P. Laurel

Cortez, Marlo Bengzon, Joaquin R.

Roces, and W. Rancap Lagumbay-

Members of the Lower House

REASONS

 There is a need for rededication to the ideals of freedom and nationalism for which our heroes
lived and died.

There is a need to remember the lives and works of our heroes who shaped the national character.

There is a need to develop moral character, personal discipline, civic conscience and to teach the
duties of citizenship.

Debates in the Senate

- The bill was passes on the house of the representatives; in Lower House of Congress the situation
was less compulsive as compared with the circumstances in the Upper House

-Supporters believed the two novels served as required reading resources in both public and private
universities and colleges, the opposition claimed that it to be religiously scandalous.

- Senator Claro M. Recto said that the novels must not be misunderstood as an attack against the
religious hierarchy at that time.

- Francisco Rodrigo believed if young citizens read the novels, it will cause confusion and discord
among people.

- Jose P. Laurel drafted an amended version of the bill. In the version, the word “compulsory” or
compulsion was deleted, but all schools are required to have copies of the original version of the
novels available for those who wish to read it.

- The substitute bill was approved by both houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, on
its second reading, with a minor insertion to the provision in section 1 proposed by Senator Roseller
T. Lim.

Conflict with the Catholic Church

-The church was against on the passing of the bill, so they crafted a letter calling on all Catholics to
oppose the bill.
- Fr. Horacio de la Costa, made the original draft. In his analysis, he expressed no hatred on Rizal and
his works. He added that it only attacks the abuses of the church not the church itself.

- Fr. Jesus Cavanna, wrote the final version. He stated that it was an explicit attack against the
Catholic church.

Schumacher (2013) Analysis on the 5 drafts

Draft A- 20 typewritten pages. The original draft made by de la Costa.

Draft B- few handwritten changes done by de la Costa from draft A.

Draft C- changes in copy B, original texts of the passages were deleted. End notes were replaced by
simple reference notes. Used by Fr. Cavanna, adapting the five pages as an intro before his
opposition on the novels.

Draft D- shortened version of C with 5 pages containing new paragraph.

Draft E- identical copy of C wherein both copies contain the amendments highlighted by Fr. de la
Costa

-Fr. Cavanna’s letter was submitted to bishops. It was the basis by Fr. Rufino Santos’ pastoral letter
on behalf of the Catholic Hierarchy to oppose the bill