RIZAL LAW Republic Act No. 1425 Mandates all educational institutions in the Philippines to offer courses about Jose Rizal Full name of the law: 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 Strongly opposed by the Roman Catholic Church due to anticlerical themes in Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo History Sen. Claro M. Recto -> Noli-Fili Bill o Main proponent of the bill (House Bill No. 5561 -> April 19, 1956 and Senate Bill No. 438 -> filed April 3, 1956 by Committee on Education) o Sought to sponsor the bill at Congress o 1955 Senate election Charged by the church as a communist and antiCatholic Church continued to oppose the bill (even after Recto’s election) mandating the reading of Rizal’s novels CLAIM: it would violate freedom of conscience (freedom of the individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or though, independent of others’ view) and religion (freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance) Catholic Church urged its members to write their congressmen and senators showing their opposition to the bill o Later they organized symposiums In one of which, Fr. Jesus Cavanna argued that the novels belonged to the past and that teaching them would misrepresent current conditions o Jesus Paredes Radio commentator Said that Catholics had the right to refuse to read them as it would “endanger their salvation” Catholic Action of the Philippines, Congregation of the Mission, Knights of Columbus, Catholic Teachers Guild opposed the bill o Countered by Veteranos de la Revolucion (Spirit of 1896), Alagad ni Rizal, Freemasons, and the Knights of Rizal Senate Committee on Education sponsored a bill co-written by both Jose P. Laurel and Recto, with the only opposition coming from Francisco Soc Rodrigo, Mariano Jesus Cuenco, and Decoroso Rosales. o Cuenco: Rizal “attacked dogmas, beliefs, and practices of the Church. He also touched on Rizal’s denial of the existence of purgatory as it was not in the bible Archbishop of Manila, Rufino Santos o Protested in a pastoral letter that Catholic students would be affected if compulsory reading of the unexpurgated version were pushed through Manila City mayor, Arsenio Lacsion
o
-
-
-
-
Supporter of the bill, walked out of Mass when the priest read a circular from the archbishop denouncing the bill Senator from Sulu, Domocao Alonto o Attacked Filipinos who proclaimed Rizal as “their national hero but seemed to despise what he had written” o Indonesians used Rizal’s books as their Bible on their independence movement Catholic schools threatened to close down if the bill was passed o Recto countered that if that happened, the schools would be nationalized Did not believe the threat, stating that the schools were too profitable to be closed o The schools gave up the threat, bu threatened to “punish” legislators in favor of the law in future elections A compromise was suggested – use the expurgated version o Recto: ”The people who would eliminate the books of Rizal form the schools would blot out from our minds the memory of the national hero. This is not a fight against Recto but a fight against Rizal”, adding that since Rizal is dead, they are attempting to suppress his memory. May 12, 1956 o A compromise inserted by Committee on Education chairman Laurel that accommodated the objections of the Catholic Church was approved unanimously The bill specified that only college university) students would have the option of reading the unexpurgated versions of clerically-contested reading material, such as Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo. The bill was enacted on June 12, 1956.
Content Section 1 mandated that the students were to read the novels as they were written in Spanish o Although, a provision ordered that the Board of National Education create rules on how these should be applied The last two sections were focused on making Rizal’s works accessible to the general public o The second section mandated to have “an adequate number” of copies in libraries o Third: ordered the board to publish the works in major Philippine languages Aftermath No recorded instances of students applying for exemption from reading the novels, and there is no known procedure for such exemptions. Fidel V. Ramos o In 1994, ordered the Department of Education, Culture and Sports to fully implement the law as there had been reports that it has still not been fully implemented Kaka Bag-ao o Akbayan representative o Proponent of the RH bill o Said, quoting the Catholic hierarchy, that “More than 50 years ago, they said that the Rizal Law violates the Catholic’s right to conscience and religion, interestingly, the same line of reasoning they use to oppose the RH bill”
Other references: http://midorispark.designplusph.com/kaspil1mp/index.php/information/filipino-nationalism/rizal-law-and-itssignificance-today http://thelifeandworksofrizal.blogspot.com/2011/08/why-studyrizal.html http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/2007050463978/The_fight_over_the_Rizal_Law http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20101231311789/The-intense-debate-on-the-Rizal-Law http://bangkanixiao.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/rizal-lawreadings.pdf http://www.philippinestudies.net/files/journals/1/articles/3063/public /3063-3630-1-PB.pdf
