Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Sta. Mesa Manila

College of Accountancy and Finance

A.Y 2020-2021

A SHORT ESSAY

"The Two Sides of the Peso Coin"

Collision of Views Towards Rizal

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Course

Life and Works of Rizal

Bachelor of Science in Accountancy

SALANGUSTE, Niña Rica S.

SOBREVILLA, Rod Stephen M.

TERCERO, Guianne Marie B.

TOLENTINO, Andrea Q.
September 12, 2021

The way Jose Rizal is honored as a national hero in the Philippines is unparalleled in the world.
Throughout the country are shrines and monuments glorifying him. His name is in well-known streets
and plazas in towns. Furthermore, this is just the tip of the iceberg. To top it all, a religious group in
Mount Banahaw worships Rizal as their god. This group is called the "Rizalistas." These people see Rizal
as a perfect being, often forgetting or covering up his mistakes. One hundred twenty-four years (124)
after his execution, Rizal is still present and prominent in the lives of the Filipino community. His physical
body might be dead, but he lives in the minds and hearts of the people. Responsible for this is the
undying efforts of the Rizalistas and the government. They continue to foster the culture and values of
Rizal. His works and biography are taught in the Philippines through the Republic Act 1425, simply the
Rizal law. Due to this, the world never forgets about Rizal.

On the other side of the coin, some individuals doubt Rizal's heroism because he advocated for the
Philippines' continuing dependency on Spain rather than its independence. Rizal desired a steady
maturation, not a harsh and hostile battle with Spain until it was right for Spain to relinquish its Pacific
territory. Through his works, Rizal paved the way for a peaceful revolution in the Philippines, instilling a
feeling of self-worth that Spain should value. Spain, on the other hand, was not of the same philosophy.
Any attempts to overthrow the government were considered treasonous and punishable by death.
Despite Rizal's attempts to satisfy the Spanish authorities by working as a physician in Cuba, another
Spanish province, the Spanish government refused and ordered his execution. Considering the views
mentioned above of Rizal, the question on hand now is, "Is Rizal a hero or not?"

Rizal's heroism is embodied prominently in his canonical written works, which are being read and
recognized at every level of education in the Philippines and the physical manifestations of his image on
monuments. Executed for his liberal works and ideologies, his legacy of being hailed as the Philippine
national hero was cemented by his 'great martyrdom.' Even though he was born from a well-off family
and was privileged enough to pursue his studies in places like Europe, where he started to propose
reforms through his ilustrado way, he is seen, up until now, even by ordinary Filipinos as an indisputable
hero. People highly regarded him as the "Father of Filipino Nationalism" who awakened the nationalist
consciousness, especially during the colonial period. Several historians argued that to understand better
why Rizal became such, it is crucial to study and recall the social conditions of the Philippines during his
lifetime. He was born when the Spanish regime dominated the country, and Filipinos were deprived of
fundamental human rights such as freedom of speech and the press, religion, and association. While still
young, Rizal became keenly aware of the deplorable conditions of his country under the oppressive rules
of the colonial government.

A turning point towards his burning desire to redeem the country from such an unfavorable state is the
unjust execution of the Filipino priests GomBurZa. From then on, he swore to dedicate his life to avenge
the victims of maladministration and fight for their rights one day. Upon studying medicine and
eventually becoming a doctor, he studied the manner of preventing, curing, and alleviating a man's
physical diseases. In the same way, he was convinced of his obligation to remedy the social cancer
present in the country. During his years of education in Spain, he managed to outshine his white and
mestizo contemporaries and started to write his works which unveiled the unfair system authorized by
the Spaniards in the Philippines. Rizal strongly advocated for ameliorating miserable conditions in the
Philippines, which is quite apparent through his writings. He worked hard to bring about the unity of the
Filipino expatriates residing in Europe by that time to demand the rights of his people effectively.
Together with his contemporaries like Graciano Lopez-Jaena and Marcelo Del Pilar, a Propaganda
Movement was established which aimed to propose political reforms to the liberals of the Madrid
government.

For this reason, numerous Filipinos regarded him as a reformist rather than a revolutionist. The widely
known quote "The pen is mightier than the sword" was given birth due to this idea. He, becoming the
Philippines' national hero, is highly attributed to American sponsorship because of the fact in 1901,
Governor William Howard Taft suggested to the Philippine Commission that the country must have a
national hero--- one who is not too militant like Aguinaldo, not too radical like Bonifacio, and not
unregenerate like Mabini. Hence, Rizal was chosen because his heroism was appraised for never
advocating independence and armed resistance to the government.

As a result of the great veneration of Rizal's valor, groups of people vehemently glorify his heroic
actions. As mentioned earlier, there is a Rizalista religious movement in the country called "Rizal Cult,"
whose members are enthusiastic believers of Rizal. This religious group greatly acknowledges the
divinity of Rizal, worshipping him as their God and identifying him as the Filipino Christ whom they claim
is still alive and will return to deliver his followers from poverty and oppression. Leaders of the sect
often declare that key people in the Philippine Revolution, including Rizal himself, were the
reincarnation of the Virgin Mary. They believe that it is only through joining their group that one will find
his way to salvation. Indeed, Rizal idolatry in the Philippines had come so far that certain people treated
him as a supreme being.

Jose Rizal is one of the most notable historical figures in the Philippines. He has become a symbol of
Philippine patriotism. As previously noted in this paper, some individuals considered themselves staunch
followers of Rizal and referred to themselves as Rizalistas. However, there are always opposite sides to
every narrative, just as a coin has two faces, and every story has two sides. Different scholars and
authors will inevitably have varying perspectives on the National Hero. When Rizal's status as a National
Hero is brought up, there is a barrage of criticism directed at him.

Among the famous authors who have published a book on their views towards Rizal is Renato
Constantino. He is a Filipino historian who is well-known for his contributions to Philippine history,
printed in many publications. Constantino wrote a book titled "Veneration Without Understanding" in
which he explored the flip side of the coin. He discussed the opposing points of view that are rarely
voiced since they are constantly overshadowed by enthusiasm for the hero mentioned above.
Constantino asserted that Filipinos are unduly devoted to Rizal, despite lacking sufficient information
and understanding of the historical events that occurred during his lifetime. Among the topics discussed
in the book was how the Revolution is not held in high respect as it should be for the simple fact that
Rizal was not a key participant in it. The Filipinos are so enamored with the notion of Rizal's significant
contribution to the country's attainment of independence that they have forgotten his vehement
opposition to the Revolution.

Considering the ongoing war against the Spanish colonial government, the remarks he spoke may even
be considered treasonous; nonetheless, the Filipinos just brushed it under the rug and continued with
their simple idea of Rizal. Constantino also regarded Rizal as an American-sponsored Hero that the
influence of the American colonial authority played a significant role in his elevation to national hero
status. A risky and contentious attempt. Constantino pointed out that Rizal was proclaimed National
Hero only because the other candidates were ruled out due to various circumstances. Another major
factor was that Rizal was the most convenient choice because his actions and critiques were
predominantly focused on the Spanish colonial administration rather than against the American
government. Constantino was not convinced that Rizal was a hero when it came to whether he was. The
fact that Rizal was able to understand the challenges that the people were experiencing and discern the
people's demands is something he recognizes as a hero. However, if we are talking about a hero who
could save the country and prevent the events from occurring, Rizal is most certainly not one of them.
Given how much he showed his condemnation of the Revolution, he could not be regarded as a hero in
this sense. Constantino believes that even if there were no Rizal, there would still be another hero who
would rise forward and accomplish the same feats as he has. Eventually, the country will be able to free
itself from the grip of the Spaniards at some point. Constantino was very keen in expressing his
criticisms towards Rizal, but in no way did he disparage Rizal's contributions to the country. He
commended Rizal's contribution to the development of the Filipino people's national consciousness.
Nonetheless, he argued that Filipinos should refrain from giving credit to Rizal solely because the
country's independence resulted from a collective effort and not an individual one.

A major topic of discussion among Filipino historians is what constitutes a hero by any definition.
Teodoro Agoncillo, for example, is one of the most well-known among them. Agoncillo, like Constantino,
asked the critical corollary questions of which class suffered the brunt of the Liberian national battle and
of whom we should honor as heroes of this struggle, both of which were raised by Agoncillo. In the
opinion of Agoncillo, the Reform Movement should not be given credit for bringing about the Revolution
in 1896. The Reform Movement is composed of several known persons in Philippine history, and one of
them is Jose Rizal. Agoncillo outlined three primary reasons for his staunch support for the previously
mentioned viewpoint. First and foremost, the reformists were united in their support for the Philippines'
conversion from a colony to a province. Their primary objective was not to achieve independence.

In addition, the movement, as mentioned earlier, was not anti-Spain, but rather anti-friars and their
repatriation in the country. In a third instance, the reformists were opposed to the revolution. An
important point made by Agoncillo was that reformists were opposed to the idea of revolution and were
elitist in their approach to the struggles. He emphasized his categorical disagreement with the
traditional interpretation that the reformists were the ones who led the revolution and, if anything, that
they even served to delay the arrival of the Revolution. Constantino agreed with this viewpoint and even
asserted that the reformists were sabotaging the efforts of Bonifacio and the Katipunan. The reformists
were responsible for the revolution's failure because they betrayed the country by concentrating solely
on their economic interests. Another point raised by Agoncillo was that most reformists were ilustrados
and wealthy individuals who, as a result, we are unable to speak on behalf of the masses, who were the
actual agents of the revolution. They were preoccupied with the problems of the middle class, such as
securing their social places, rather than concentrating on the real struggles of the Filipino people. This is
the other side of the coin that is rarely brought up in conversation regarding Rizal being hailed as a
National Hero of the Philippines.

Perspectives of nationalist historians such as Agoncillo and Constantino show the antagonism between
the illustrados and the masses, hence their interpretation of Rizal. However, to encase Rizal's views as
those of a reformist merely from the context of vulgar Marxism would mean a presumption of a conflict
of perspectives between the two classes, as argued by Floro Quibuyen. In his book Towards a Radical
Rizal, he highlighted that the postcolonial Filipinos' understanding of the nationalist movement
development and the individuals' roles differs from those of the 19th century Filipinos. Quibuyen
reasoned that revolution and reform did not exist mutually exclusive at that time. Even though Rizal was
against the revolution and wished for reform with the means of seeking it from Spanish liberalists' help
at first, he is not a lesser radical than any of the other heroes of his time. He played a very significant
role in providing revolutionary consciousness through his nationalist ideologies and his martyrdom
amongst the Filipino people that had, one way or another, greatly influenced the 19th-century
Philippine revolution.

It is undeniable that as an illustrado, Rizal preferred seeking freedom for the Philippines through more
peaceful means. Rizal strongly believed that the people were not prepared for a revolution, and he did
not want useless bloodshed for his countrymen. From an economic standpoint, a revolution would cost
money, and the Philippines would have had to gain support from other countries to make its plans work.
Nevertheless, more importantly, as pointed out by John Schumacher, Rizal believed that "the
revolutionary goal was to create a nation of Filipinos conscious of their human and national dignity and
ready to sacrifice themselves to defend it." He thought that a revolution without establishing nationalist
consciousness would not remedy social cancer, that the Filipinos would only befall Spain's same
mistakes even without the Spaniards as the oppressor. As Rizal has coined, "What is the use of
independence if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow?"

Even so, reform, for Rizal, was but a tactic in a broader strategy of separatism from Spain itself. As early
as 1887, Rizal had been convinced that seeking assimilation to Spain was a mistake. In his letter to
Blumentritt on June 19, 1887, he revealed:

"I can assure you that I have no desire to take part in conspiracies that seem to be premature and risky
in the extreme. However, if the government drives us to it when there remains to us no other hope than
to seek our ruin in a war when the Filipinos shall prefer to die rather than to endure their miseries any
longer, then I too shall advocate violent means."
To only claim that Rizal is a reformist would be to disregard Rizal's reasons for his separation from La
Solidaridad. Furthermore, to dichotomize reform and revolution would also mean to dichotomize La Liga
Filipina and the Katipunan. This traditional blueprint of nationalist thought (influenced by the Agoncillo-
Constantino perspective) hinders accepting a more critical approach than John Schumacher, Zeus
Salazar, Setsuho Ikehata, Austin Coates, and Leon Ma. Guerrero, among others, had explored. It
instantly classifies two parties assumed not to have mingled means towards Philippine independence in
the 19th century. The Katipunan members were categorized as "pobres y ignorantes" while La
Solidaridad or even the Liga were "literate, middle class" Filipinos. This poor generalization born from
the gross abuse of Marxism bears no meaning at all. Instead, it only hinders us from discerning the
pivotal personal experiences of individuals that could have impacted their consciousness. Rizal's
experiences throughout his life could have catalyzed his liberal thoughts to form radical motivations.
Evidence is available through his private letters, his literary works, and his martyrdom. Unquestionably,
Rizal was a man of inspiration for the Filipinos during his time. Furthermore, is that not what he aimed
to awaken the Filipinos' national consciousness to fight for their motherland? Constantino's argument of
Rizal's misplaced veneration might have been the case, but is it not only proper to give credit when
credit is due?

Rizal was a pivotal figure in the development of the Philippines, but he was just a moment. While Rizal's
heroism amounted to universal heroism for his time, we cannot claim that he will be universally
legitimate or that Rizal's ideals should be the standard for measuring everyone's ambitions. Rizal
exemplified a type of courage that resulted in martyrdom. Despite his shortcomings, he was a Filipino to
be proud of, a monument to the race. However, as his mindless admirers have attempted to do, we
cannot portray him as the infallible judge of the national objectives of the Filipinos. We must look at
Rizal's life from a historical perspective. It is ought that the Philippines' pantheon of outstanding Filipinos
must include Rizal. Rizal and the propagandists embodied an awareness that did not have a movement.
The Katipunan and Bonifacio symbolized the combination of revolutionary awareness and revolutionary
movement. Rizal, as a hero, will forever live in the hearts and minds of the Filipinos, but we must now
recognize that he does not have a monopoly on patriotism. He is not the pinnacle of the Philippines'
grandeur. Not all his ideas have global and current significance and applicability.

The individual hero in history gives way to new and extraordinary heroism, just as a particular
social order ultimately submits to new and better forms of social organization. It is important to
remember that each hero's contribution is not negated by the other. They take their rightful position at
a particular stage of people's growth in their unique way. Every country, whether in the past or today, is
always discovering heroes.

References:
Claudio, Lisandro E. "Jose Rizal: The Radical Liberal." In Jose Rizal: Liberalism and the Paradox of
Coloniality Ed. 1 (2018): 89-95. New York, NY: Springer.

Constantino, Renato. "Veneration without Understanding." In Journal of Contemporary Asia Vol. 1

De Ocampo, Estaban A. "Dr. Jose Rizal, Father of Filipino Nationalism." In Journal of Southeast Asian
History 3, Vol. 1 (1962): 44–55. Cambridge University Press.

Ileto, Reynaldo C. "Rizal and the Underside of Philippine History." In Moral order and the question of
change: Essays on Southeast Asian thought Vol. 1 (1982): 274-337.

Mojarro, Jorge. "Reading, understanding, and appreciating Rizal." Rappler Philippines. (June 2018).
Accessed September 6, 2021. https://www.rappler.com/voices/imho/reading-understanding-
appreciating-jose-rizal

Pugay, Chris Antonette P. and Uckung, Peter Jaynul E. "Jose Rizal: Discover The Human Side Of The
National Hero of the Philippines." Tatler Asia. (April 2020). Accessed September
6,2021.https://www.tatlerasia.com/culture/arts/a-closer-look-on-the-more-human-side-of-national-
hero

Quibuyen, Floro. "Towards a Radical Rizal." In Philippine Studies Vol. 46 No. 2 (1998): 151-183. Ateneo
De Manila University.

San Juan, E. Jr. "Introduction to Rizal: Toward a Re-Interpretation." In Rizal in our Time Vol. 1 (1998):
Anvil Publishing Inc., Pasig, Rizal, Philippines.

Sa-onoy, Modesto P. "Is Rizal really a hero?." DailyGuardian. (December 2019). Accessed September 6,
2021. https://dailyguardian.com.ph/is-rizal-really-a-hero/

Valenzuela, Maria Theresa. "Constructing National Heroes: Postcolonial Philippine and Cuban
Biographies of José Rizal and José Martí." In Biography Vol. 37 (2014): 745 - 761. University of Hawai'i
Press.