Unit One

UNDERSTANDING THE RIZAL LAW

Overview

Filipino students may be wondering about why they are still required to study the life and
works of Jose Rizal as part of their college degree, despite having studied the life and writings of
our national hero in their high school years. Some of them may see it as the repetition of the
discussions they have had and doing it again would just be a waste of time and effort. It is
therefore a great surprise for them that, upon entering college, they will be mandated by a law to
study the life and works of Jose Rizal without any idea on the legislative processes this law
underwent so that a course on the heroes life and works would be incorporated into the
Philippine educational system.

On June 12, 1956, President Ramon Magsaysay signed the bills proposed by Senators
Claro M. Recto and Congressman Jacobo Gonzales. The act of President Magsaysay converted
the bills into a law known as Republic Act 1425 or the Rizal Law. It entrusted the teaching of the
life, works and writings of Jose P. Rizal, in particular his Noli me Tangere (Noli) and El
Filibusterismo (Fili) in the secondary and college levels. This law hoped that the teaching of
Rizal’s life would strengthen the students’ nationalism, patriotism and their sense of appreciation
to the role of national heroes in the historical development of the country. The process through
which this measure was tackled in both houses of Congress was not easy as the Catholic
Church and other groups opposed the bills. Thus, in order to fully appreciate and understand
this law, it is necessary to study the reasons why there was a necessity of it and the context
through which it was discussed in Congress.

5|Page
LESSON 1
Republic Act 1425

Learning Objectives
At the end of this lesson the student should be able to:

• Understand the compelling reasons why RA 1425 was enacted into law; • Examine the
differing points-of-view of the pros and the antis, including the Catholic Church in the passage
of RA 1425; and
• Evaluate whether RA 1425 was able to achieve the purposes of its enactment some at 60
years later.

Course Materials

The educated nationalists like Jose P. Laurel and Claro M. Recto wanted that nationalism and
patriotism would flourish among the youth. Thus, they envisioned to educate them about the
ideals of Jose Rizal so that the future generations would be able to independently stand and
govern the country, away from foreign impact. Thus, the idea to teach the unexpurgated
versions of Rizal’s novels—Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo—which were considered as
“constant and inspiring sources of nationalism”.

The two statesmen, including Congressmen Jesus Parades and Arturo Tolentino, believed in
rekindling the kind of life that Rizal led and the visions he had for his country among the youth.
This is because the youth shall serve as the leaders of the future generations. And as leaders
of the future generations, they shall lead the country to its destiny. The lawmakers firmly
believed that the aspirations of Rizal for his country are relevant across all epochs.

This discussion on this lesson was adopted from the PowerPoint presentation of Mc Donald
Domingo M. Pascual titled RA 1425. It is the humble hope of the discussion to present the
process through which the Rizal Law was debated before its enactment into law so that the
study of the course would be more meaningful to the students.

6|Page
7|Page
8|Page
 Fig. 1. The diagram of the legislative process from: “The Legislative Branch”. The Official
Gazette, https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/about/gov/the-legislative branch/.

The Controversies Created by the Rizal Bills

According to Sen. Claro M. Recto, the author of the original version of Senate Bill No.
438, the study of the great works of our foremost national hero is an inherent love for the
country. He said that the reading of Rizal’s novels would strengthen the Filipinism of the youth
and foster patriotism. With this purpose, he pushed for the compulsory study of the life, works
and writings of Jose Rizal among the students of schools, colleges and universities, public or
private.
On April 17, 1956, Senator Jose P. Laurel, the sponsor of the bill, tackled SB 438 with
the title An Act to Make Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo Compulsory Reading Matters in
All Public and Private Schools, Colleges and Universities and for Other Purposes. As the
chairman of the Senate Committee on Education, Senator Laurel expressed his reverence to
Rizal through the following words: “The hero’s [Rizal] greatness lies not only in his intense

9|Page
patriotism, exemplary conduct and behavior as a Filipino, the courage of his conviction and the
utter disregard of the dangers to his life during those hectic days when he was preaching the
gospel truth of justice, Filipinism, not only in his great acts but also in his great thoughts and
ideas which were expressed and spread over in practically all pages of his novels” (quoted from
Rosales, Sinag Vol. 1).

He firmly believed that the greatness of Rizal, as well as his intense love for his country and
people, could only be fully appreciated by the Filipinos if they would have adequate knowledge
about his sufferings and injustices. Rizal’s writings would open the minds of the Filipinos to the
ruthless effects of colonization. And, by exposing the Filipino youth to the ideas of Rizal, they
would be able to learn how to live the Rizal way that is characterized by strong love for country
and strong desire to build a great nation. The Filipino youth must consider it as a sacred duty to
study the great dreams and aspirations of Rizal for his country. The teaching and reading of the
novels of Rizal should be made into a law so that, through their knowledge and understanding
of the hero’s works, they would acquire a light that would guide them when the country would
experience another period of peril or darkness.

10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e
Fig. 2. A reproduced copy of RA 1425 from: “Republic Act No. 1425.” Official Gazette,
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/1956/06jun/19560612-RA-1425-RM.pdf
 12 | P a g e
Reactions to the Passage of the Rizal Bills

Soon, the bills became controversial. The Catholic Church began to express its vigorous
objection on the passage of a law that would make Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo as compulsory reading matters in all schools, colleges and universities in the
Philippines. The Church alleged, in a pastoral letter, that the novels of Rizal do not promote
nationalism but more of criticism against it. It further alleged in that letter the presence of 170
passages from the Noli and 50 passages from the Fili which intend to diminish its good image.

The Catholic Church strongly opposed due to the following reasons: (1) show open
criticism to the Catholic Church; (2) in the “compulsory” teaching of the unexpurgated versions
of Rizal’s Noli and El Fili, a teacher would have the tendency to discuss—or worse, to criticize—
certain Church doctrines; and, (3) the inevitable criticism of Church doctrines might lead to the
jeopardy of the faith of people.

The Catholic Action of Manila (CAM) was one of the principal organizations that initiated
campaigns against the bills. Its two attempts were to release articles of resistance daily, instead
of weekly, through the Sentinel, its official organ, and to convince the Catholics to write the
senators and the congressmen to junk the bills. Fr. Jesus Cavanna, a speaker on the
symposium organized by CAM, lambasted Rizal’s novels by saying that the Noli and Fili
“…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. Noli Me Tangere is an attack on the clergy and
its object was to put to ridicule the Catholic faith. The novel was not really patriotic because out
of 333 pages, only 25 contained patriotic passages while 120 were devoted to anti-Catholic
attack” (quoted from Rosales, Sinag Vol. 1).

On the other hand, the Catholic Church, though, honored Rizal with these words:
“Among the many illustrious Filipinos who have distinguished themselves in the service of their
country, the highest place of honor belongs to Rizal. And justly so, for Rizal possessed to an
eminent degree those virtues which together make up true patriotism.” In its pastoral letter
dated April 21, 1956, the Catholic Church paid homage to Rizal’s greatness by stating that
“Rizal loved his country not in words alone but in his deeds. He devoted his time, his energies
and the resources of his brilliant mind to dispelling the ignorance and apathy of his people and
combating the injustices and inequalities under which they labored. When his salutatory
activities fell under the suspicion of the colonial government and he was condemned to death as
a rebel, he generously offered his blood for the welfare of his country” (quoted from Rosales,
Sinag Vol. 1)

From the Rizal Bills to the Rizal Law

As the meddling of the Church was felt by the lawmakers, the members of the Senate
and the House of the Representatives started to engage in heated discussions. It became an
extremely controversial issue that it resulted to the misunderstanding and quarrel of those who
were overwhelmed by their emotions.

One of those who strongly opposed the SB 438 was Senator Francisco “Soc” Rodrigo
who claimed that the reading of the unexpurgated versions of Rizal’s novels as against the
conscience of the Catholics. He believed that nationalism and patriotism are important and must
be promoted, yet promoting them should not be done at the risk of endangering the harmony
between the Church and the state. Senator Rodrigo viewed the measures as unjust and unwise
because of the use of compulsion that might put the Church in an awkward situation since
religious issues have always been considered as “sophisticated matters”. In his vehement

13 | P a g e
opposition against S.B. No. 438, Senator Rodrigo told, “…I cannot allow my son who is now 16
to read the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo lest he lose his faith.”

Another senator who expressed his opposition to the passage of the bill was Senator
Decoroso Rosales. He believed that approval of the bills would lead to the closure of Catholic
schools all throughout the country, and a political party might be inevitably put up by the
Catholics to show their strong resentment to the law.

Defense for Senate Bill 438

Sen. Claro M. Recto, the author of the original version, averred that Catholic schools
would never close since they are the sources of the Church’s income, as well as its religious and
political powers. And if a political party would be set up, it would be divided into two—the
political party to be headed by either Sen. Rodrigo or Sen. Rosales and the party to be
composed of Filipino Catholics who do not only believe in God and serve Him but also possess
a strong love for their country and believe in serving her.

The debates on the Rizal bill also ensued in the House of the Representatives. House
Bill No. 5561, the identical version of SB No. 438, was filed by Representative Jacobo Gonzales
of the First District of Laguna. In his sponsorship speech, Congressman Gonzales said, “The bill
merely declares Jose Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, in their original edition or in
their unexpurgated English and national language versions as compulsory reading matters in all
public and private schools, colleges and universities. The bill selects the writings of Rizal
because he is the greatest of our national heroes, the staunchest apostle of nationalism, the
greatest man the Malayan race has ever produced and a universal genius and hero of humanity.
We have chosen the Noli and the Fili for in their pages we see our lives as before a mirror—our
defects as well as our strengths, our virtues as well as our vices. Knowing these, our
consciousness as a people is stirred and we learn to prepare ourselves for painful sacrifices that
ultimately lead to self-reliance, self-respect and freedom. The Noli and Fili mirror Philippine life,
true today as it was during the time of Rizal, only the dates and names have changed” (quoted
from Rosales, Sinag Vol. 1).

Meanwhile, Radio Commentator and Former Cong. Jesus Paredes (of Abra) expressed
opposition to the manner through which the objectives of the bills would be attained. He said
that “the bill [HB 5561] would violate of [sic] Section 927 of the Revised Administrative Code.” He
likewise stated “that [the] Catholics had the right to refuse to read them as it would ‘endanger
their salvation.”

Amendments of the Bills

To resolve the issues, amendments of the bills were respectively proposed in both
houses of Congress. Senator Jose P. Laurel penned the amended version of SB 438. His
version was thus entitled, An Act to Include in the Curricula of All Public and Private Schools,
Colleges and Universities Courses on the Life, Works and Writings of Rizal Particularly His
Novels No li Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, Authorizing the Printing and Distribution
Thereof, and for Other Purposes. In the House of Representatives, the amended version was
authored by Congressman Arturo Tolentino. He appealed to his colleagues with the following
statements: “I appeal to the members of this House, both those who spoke in favor of the
Gonzales bill as originally worded and those who spoke against the bill to agree to reason, to
give something of their original contention, so that we may meet in the middle ground, not for
our own sake, not for the pride of having won in the halls of this Congress but for the sake of our

14 | P a g e
people who must remain united, for the leaders of the people must not think of their own
personal victory or glory but of the unity of the people whom they represent. There can be no
true nationalism when the people are divided. It is incumbent upon the leaders of the people to
preserve unity among the people, for nationalism flowers… in the hearts of the people…. I
appeal to you. Let us vote unanimously… as an example to our people. I have every reason to
believe that the people listening to us all over the country will unite as we do when we vote as
one in this bill. Let us not think of which side will win; let us just think that with this bill, the
Filipino people will win because they will continue to remain whole and cohesive. Within these
walls, this substitute bill represents the victory of reason and wisdom; outside these halls, it
means the triumph of a united Filipino people” (quoted from Rosales, Sinag Vol. 1).

Provisions of the Amended Versions as Stipulated in the Official Gazette (pp. 1-3)
Deleted – Penalty to be imposed for any public or private school, college and university and the
head and teachers of the school found guilty of violating, failing to comply with or circumventing
the provision of the law.
Replaced with – Authorization for the appropriation of the amount of P300,000.00 for the
printing and distribution of the copies of the novels and other writings of Rizal in their English,
Tagalog and principal dialect translations.
Added –Nothing in the Act shall be “construed as amending or repealing section nine
hundred twenty-seven of the Administrative Code (Official Gazette,
Provided – The Board of National Education is hereby authorized and directed to adopt
measures to implement and carry out the provisions of Section 1 of the Act, including the writing
and printing of appropriate primers, readers and textbooks.

Many lawmakers still hoped that the amended versions would not pass but President
Ramon Magsaysay, one of the presidents oftentimes opposed by Recto due to the former’s
policies, signed them into law on June 12, 1956.

Assessment

Instruction: Discuss the item thoroughly. Write the question before each answer. Your
answer should contain at least three (3) paragraphs of not less than four (4)
sentences each. You may write your answers in Filipino. Do not forget to write
your full name in the upper left corner of the paper and your course, year and
section below it while the name of your professors should be indicated in the
upper right.

1. Do you think that the passage of the Rizal bills into a law warranted the
objectives that the sponsors conceived in 1956? Explain your answer.
2. Do you think that the objectives were attained thereafter and that their
attainment resonated until the present? Expound your answer.
 15 | P a g e
Note: This Instructional Material is a property of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Do
not write anything unnecessary. Use a clean sheet of bond paper when answering your activity/
assessment task either in a type-written or hand-written format (please see the appendices for
sample template). When doing a hand-written work, make sure that your penmanship is legible.

References

Araneta, Gemma Cruz. Legislating Rizal.

http://talkingpointsgca.blogspot.com/2011/01/ legislating-1.html.
Constantino, Renato and Leticia Constantino. The Philippines: A Continuing Past. Quezon
City: Foundation for Nationalist Studies, 1978
Ocampo. Ambeth. The Fight Over Rizal Law.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/ 20070504-63978/The-fight-over
the-Rizal-Law.
Pangalanan, Raul. Passion for Reason: The Intense Debate on the Rizal Law.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20101231-311789/The-intense
debate-on-the-Rizal-Law.
Rosales, Amalia C. Rizal: Walang Hanggang Landas. Manila: Quiapo. Mary Jo
Publishing, 1999.
Rosales, Amalia C. “RA 1425 Revisited.” Sinag Vol. I (SY1992-1993).
Office of the President, Republic of the Philippines. “RA 1425.” Official Gazette Vol. 52, No. 6.
Office of the President, 1956.
16 | P a g e