Republic Act 1425: Rizal Law

• Republic Act No. 1425, also known as the Rizal Law, mandates the study of Rizal's life, works, and writings, especially his novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, in all public and private schools in the Philippines.
• The law aims to instill ideals of freedom and nationalism in the youth, drawing inspiration from Rizal's patriotism.
• It requires colleges and universities to use the original or unexpurgated editions of Rizal's novels as basic texts and stipulates that all schools should keep an adequate number of copies of these works in their libraries.
• Republic Act No. 1425 was approved on June 12, 1956, and implemented on August 16, 1956, by the National Board of Education, with publication in the Official Gazette.
• Jacobo Gonzales and Senator Claro M. Recto led the House Bill No. 5561 and Senate Bill No. 438, respectively, with Senator Jose P. Laurel Sr. preparing the legislation.
• Batas Pambansa bilang 229, approved on June 9, 1948, prohibits jai-alai, cockfighting, and horse racing every December 30th, demonstrating recognition of Rizal's greatness before the implementation of the Rizal Law. Violators face imprisonment and fines.
• The implementation of the Rizal Law faced challenges, particularly opposition from the Church, which viewed Rizal's novels as containing subversive content that could damage the Catholic Church's image and incite resistance against its teachings.
• Senators Decoroso Rosales, Mariano J. Cuenco, and Francisco Rodrigo opposed the bill, arguing that it violated religious freedom.
• The Catholic Church issued a pastoral letter, urging believers to fight against the bill, and a closed-door conference was held with the Committee on Education and Church officials to seek a resolution.
• Senator Jose P. Laurel Sr. and supporters insisted on proceeding with the bill after public hearings had taken place.
• The Church employed various tactics to prevent articles against their position from appearing in the Sentinel, the Philippine Catholic Action's official newspaper, and encouraged Catholics to write to legislators to oppose the bill.
• Father Jesus Cavanna believed that Rizal's novels presented a distorted view of the Philippines during Spanish colonization and belonged to the past.
• President Ramon Magsaysay signed Republic Act No. 1425 into law on June 12, 1956, mandating the teaching of Jose Rizal's life, works, and writings in all schools and colleges.
• The law aims to re-dedicate Filipinos to the ideals of freedom and nationalism and to instill love for the country in the youth.
• The law mandates the use of unabridged versions of Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, which the Catholic Church opposed due to concerns that it could cause students to lose faith because of Rizal's criticisms.

Additional Context from YT Vid

• According to Dekana Gloria Santos, history teachers have failed to instill nationalism effectively.
• Compromises were made in the Rizal Law, allowing Catholic students to be exempted from reading unabridged versions of Rizal's novels, but not from taking the course itself.
• Challenges remain in making Independence Day celebrations relevant and meaningful to Filipinos, especially the youth.
• Professor Xiao Chua notes that the youth are revisiting history through the internet, and Filipinos will always fight for their sovereignty and independence in times of crisis.
• President William McKinley appointed William Howard Taft to lead the Second Philippine Commission on March 16, 1900, to create a law selecting a hero to be a model for Filipinos.
• Dr. H. Otley Beyer, an expert in Anthropology and technical assistant of the commission, the criteria for choosing a hero were: being Filipino, deceased, possessing a deep love for the country, and having gentle feelings.
• The candidates considered for the position of national hero were Marcelo H. del Pilar, General Antonio Luna, Graciano Lopez Jaena, Emilio Jacinto, and Jose P. Rizal.
• The panel of judges consisted of American jurors W. Morgan Shuster, Bernard Moses, Dean Warcester, Henry Clay Ide, Commissioner William Howard Taft, and Filipino jurors Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, Gregorio Araneta, Cayetano Arellano, and Jose Luzuriaga.
• Although Marcelo H. del Pilar initially won the vote, the decision was changed, and Rizal was chosen as the national hero because of his dramatic death and its impact on Filipinos.
• Rizal was seen as the first Filipino to unite the country to revolt against the Spaniards, as an example of peace, and due to Filipinos being sentimental.
• Former President Fidel V. Ramos issued Memorandum Order 246 on December 26, 1994, to enforce Batas Pambansa 1425, directing the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports and the Commission on Higher Education to implement it.
• The Commission on Higher Education issued memorandum number 3 in 1995 for the heads of State Colleges and Universities, Private Schools, Colleges, and Universities to to enforce Memorandum Order#247, implemented by President Fidel V. Ramos.
• Alfredo C. Alcala, Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education, issued memorandum number 6 in 1996 mandating a separate three-unit course in the curriculum of all schools, colleges, and universities to study Rizal's life, works, and writings.
• Despite accusations that Americans chose Rizal as the National Hero, evidence suggests that Filipinos valued Rizal's contributions before the Taft Commission's selection.
• The KKK, led by Gat Andres Bonifacio, honored Rizal by using "Rizal" as a password for heroes or KKK officials and appointing Rizal as the Honorary President of the KKK, evidence of high degree of appreciation for Rizal.
• Former President Emilio Aguinaldo signed a decree on December 20, 1898, in Malolos, designating December 30 as a National Day of Mourning to commemorate Rizal's death.
• The decree ordered that all national flags be flown at half-mast from noon on December 29th, with all offices of the Revolutionary Government closed on December 30th.
• The first Rizal Day was celebrated in Manila on December 30, 1898, led by the Club Filipino, and in Daet, Camarines Norte, with the inauguration of the first monument dedicated to Rizal's heroism in the Philippines.
• Republic Act No. 1425 was passed to revive the spirit of nationalism and freedom embodied in Rizal's life and works, reminding Filipinos of Rizal's greatness and inspiring the youth.
• Rizal is honored for his contribution to the Filipino nation, which has influenced the political, social, and cultural mindset of Filipinos.

The Rizal Bill of 195

• Horacio de la Costa wrote several drafts of a pastoral letter for the bishops in 1952 with Rizal as a moral figure whose devotion to truth made his novels a source of moral, social, and political wisdom for Filipinos.
• Archbishop Rufino J. Santos commissioned Fr. Jesus Cavanna to draft a new "Statement" in 1956 condemning Rizal's novels and forbade their reading, a prohibition that proved ineffective.
• Reynaldo Ileto studied efforts in the 1950s to create a new vision for the nation in the wake of independence with Jose Lansang envisioning a secular nationalist program for building the nation.
• Ileto singles out Fr. Horacio de la Costa, SJ, as representing "the Catholic position" toward building the nation as foil to Lansang.
• De la Costa played a contested role in the controversy over 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.
• De la Costa's Rizal, based on historical scholarship and a contemporary nationalist vision, could have allowed the Catholic Church to come to terms with Rizal as a builder of the nation.
• 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.
• In January 1952 Dean Jose M. Hernandez forwarded to De la Costa through Sen. Francisco “Soc” Rodrigo nine pages of passages from Rizal’s Noli Me Tangere, supposedly containing attacks on, or praises of, the church.
• Several drafts of a proposed letter exist among De la Costa’s papers, with modifications in response to criticisms from another source.
• It is possible that Cavanna was responsible for the gradual changes that appear in initial drafts, before diverging drastically from De la Costa’s drafts and publishing a book on Rizal's retraction of Masonry in 1952.
• De la Costa primarily authored the drafts, and Cavanna, if involved, served as an interlocutor, with meetings occurring to refine the text, and with each man presenting drafts subsequently.
• 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. Santos was noted for his intransigence on matters of church doctrine or practice.
• Among De la Costa's papers are five drafts (A, B, C, D, and E), showing original passages with significant differences.
• Draft A is the original, twenty typewritten pages, B is a copy of A with handwritten changes, C incorporates changes from B with further modifications, D is a shortened version of C, and E is a copy of C with phrases underlined by De la Costa.
• 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) themselves may have intervened to strengthen the condemnatory conclusions of the letter and the strict prohibition to read the novels under church law.
• Draft A shows a thorough knowledge of the two novels, quoting to establish insights into Rizal, highlighting patriotism, and conveying a moral, social, and political message for Filipinos of the twentieth century.

Summary of Draft A

• Rizal is recognized as the first among Filipinos for his service to the country, possessing moral virtues that constitute patriotism.
• He dedicated himself to dispelling ignorance, raising moral standards, and combating injustices, choosing death over abandoning his principles.
• Rizal's love for his country involved recognizing Filipinos' vices and defects, maintaining objectivity in his narrative.
• His devotion to truth gave him clear insight, expressing principles for the country's peace and prosperity.
• Approving the wider circulation of Rizal's writings, it promotes constructive nationalism and civic virtue.
• The most valuable ideas are in his novels, but concerns about attacks on the Catholic faith are addressed.
• The Catholic Church is not against legitimate political and social aspirations, quoting Leo XIII to support this and emphasizing freedom from foreign rule.
• Claims of Rizal attacking the Church are investigated, distinguishing between misused passages and their proper context, citing Capitan Tiago's veneration of saints as an example of satirizing abuse.
• It warns against enemies of the Church misinterpreting Rizal as an enemy.
• The existence of scandals in the Church during Rizal's time is acknowledged.
• The need for a handbook and annotations to explain the text for mature Catholics.
• Catholic historians and critics are called upon to prepare an annotated text.
• Rizal's novels should be read by students with accurate translations, annotations, and explanations to ensure a deep understanding of his ideals and promote love for the native land.

Changes from A Introduced in Draft C

• There is a conscious effort to deny Rizal the moral role prominent in draft A to focus on Rizal as a political and social reformer.
• A new paragraph suggests affectionate realism toward Rizal, acknowledging his human failings and lapse from faith, but honoring him for his devotion to the country and analysis of national problems.
• The analysis of the novels warns against enemies of the church who tear passages out of context to discredit it, using the example on Capitan Tiago's veneration of the saints.
• The example of Purgatory is omitted, there is a brief comment added about the need for annotations to the text, and suggestion that this would be a good teaching opportunity for the church.
• De la Costa defends Rizal, asserting he portrayed characters fitting their fictional personality but "we are able to discover no clear example of Rizal doing this in either of his two novels".
• C emphasizes that what Rizal wished to attack was not the Catholic Church itself, but the abuses and distortions with which unworthy children adulterated the purity of her principles and practices.
• C adds that novels give the impression that evils are typical, emphasizing they are fictional crimes with some basis in fact.
• The teacher should use a handbook to explain the text.
• There is a suggestion that a high schooler be given an abridged version of the text for young audiences.
• It is likely that the episcopal commission that asked De la Costa to write a draft pastoral should have included Cavanna or some other person to work with him as his interlocutor.

Changes from Draft C to the Bishops’ “Statement”

• The six paragraphs of draft C are used as the introduction to the public letter adding initally positive statements but inserting and ommitting certain phrases.
• There appears a conscious effort not to praise Rizal too highly, even where there is no question of religious matters.
• There is an evident desire not to grant too much importance to the novels even when not dealing with religious matters and not to grant Catholics too much importance.
• It uses an evasion that those who desire political freedom are "not at variance with the practical applications of Catholic doctrine to the exigencies of the social milieu as it existed at the time".
• Omitting the original’s gospel essence, it declares the cancerous social ill was now no longer because of the decadent "abuses in the practice of the Catholic religion," but instead simply because of "some practices of the Catholic religion”
• From there they detail the wholescale condemnations of the letters and drop the remaining 12 pages in favor of this argument.
• It states that "among these passages, there are many which are derogatory to Catholic beliefs and practices as such, aside from the criticisms leveled upon unworthy priests.”
• There were said to be over 120 references to passages that either “are against Catholic dogma and morals” or “disparage divine worship” or “make light of ecclesiastical discipline" and not from a serene or impartial reading of novels.
• De la Costa’s annotated editions preparation was cancelled given the new statements.
• They quoted canon law forbidding certain types of books, categorizing the two novels into this category and only with permission of ecclesiastical authority could the two novels be read.
• The rest of the “Statement” dealt with the unreasonableness and injustice of the Senate bill, who 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.