The Trials of the Rizal Bill PDF

THE TRIALS OF THE RIZAL BILL Jose B. Laurel, Jr.34 Few legisla ve measures have elicited as much interest or provoked as much discussion as Republic Act No. 1425, otherwise known as the Rizal Law. The heated disputes that raged around this legisla on, the bi erness and recrimina on that a e...

THE TRIALS OF THE RIZAL BILL Jose B. Laurel, Jr.34 Few legisla ve measures have elicited as much interest or provoked as much discussion as Republic Act No. 1425, otherwise known as the Rizal Law. The heated disputes that raged around this legisla on, the bi erness and recrimina on that a ended its enactment; are almost unparalleled in the annals of Congress. When it was filed by the Commi ee on Educa on on April 3, 1956, Senate Bill No. 438 was supported by all but 3 of the members of the Upper House and seemed, to all appearances, a non-controversial measure. But when on April 17, 1956, Senator Jose P. Laurel, as Chairman of the Commi ee on Educa on, began his sponsorship of the measure the rumbles of the gathering storm sounded an ominous warning. This was to mark the start of the long-drawn disputa ons, both enlightened and acrimonious, that would engross and divide the na on for three tense weeks. The original version of Senate Bill No. 438 reads as follows: AN ACT TO MAKE NOLI ME TANGERE AND EL FILIBUSTERISMO COMPULSORY READING MATTER IN ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representa ves of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. Jose Rizal's Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo are hereby declared compulsory reading ma er in all public and private schools, colleges and universi es in the Philippines. SECTION 2. The works men oned in Sec on 1 of this Act shall be in the original edi ons or in their unexpurgated English and Natural Language versions. SECTION 3. The Department of Educa on shall take steps to promulgate rules and regula ons for the immediate implementa on of the provisions of this Act. SECTION 4. No provision of this Act shall be constructed as prohibi ng or limi ng the study of the works of other Filipino heroes SECTION 5. Any public or private college or university found viola ng, failing to comply with, or circumven ng the provisions of this Act shall be punished accordingly: a. The Head of any public college or university charged with implemen ng the provisions of this Act, who shall have been found guilty of viola ng, failing to comply with, or circumven ng the provisions thereof, shall be dismissed immediately from the service and shall be disqualified from teaching in any public or government recognized private school, college or university. b. Government recogni on of any private college or university found viola ng or circumven ng the provisions of this Act shall be immediately withdrawn, and the responsible Head and professor or professors concerned shall be disqualified from teaching in any Government-recognized college or university.  SECTION 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval. According to Senator Laurel, the object of the measure was to disseminate the ideas and ideals of the great Filipino patriot through the reading of his works, par cularly "Noli Me Tangere" and "El Filibusterismo." In the course of his three-day sponsorship speech, he said: *Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo must be read by all Filipinos. They must be taken to heart, for in their pages we see ourselves as in a mirror; our defects as well as our strength, our virtues as well as our vices. Only then would we become conscious as a people, and so learn to prepare ourselves for painful sacrifices that ul mately lead to self-reliance, self-respect and freedom.' The Catholic elements in and outside Congress, however, were quick to assail the measure as an a empt to discredit their religion. Claiming that the two novels contained views inimical to the tenets of their faith, they par cularly challenged the compulsory nature of the bill as viola ve of religious freedom. Principal basis of their opposi on was an alleged Pastoral Le er which, while praising Rizal, prac cally branded his novels as here cal and impious. The authen city of this le er was much suspected and never definitely established, but there is no ques on that it added fuel to the fires of discord that had already inflamed the passions of the people. Debates on Senate Bill No. 438 began on April 23, 1956. Senator Laurel was supported by a pres gious colleague and ardent na onalist, the formidable Senator Claro M. Recto. In the other camp were Senators Mariano J. Cuenco, Francisco Rodrigo and Decoroso Rosales, all of them iden fied as rabid Catholics. Although the rest of the senators also par cipated at mes in the discussion, interest was focused on the principal protagonists of the controversy whose masterly exchange of logic and law held the na on spellbound. Senator Recto proved his usual brilliance as a parliamentarian and his vast erudi on in history and law, including Canon Law. There was no doubt also that he was an authority on the life and works of Rizal. The gist of his arguments was that, under the police power and Art. XIV (5) of the Cons tu on, it was competent for the State to require the reading of "Noli Me Tangere" and *El Filibusterismo" in our public and private schools. The sole object of the bill, he said, was to foster the be er apprecia on of Rizal's mes and of the role he played in comba ng Spanish tyranny in this country. Denying that the novels had any religious mo va on, he declared: *Rizal did not pretend to teach religion or theology when he wrote those books. He aimed at inculca nq civic consciousness in the Filipinos, na onal dignity, personal pride, and patrio sm, and if references were made by him in the course of his narra on to certain religious prac ces in the Philippines in those days and to the conduct and behavior of erring ministers of the church, it was because he portrayed faithfully the general situa on in the Philippines as it then existed. Nobody can dispate that the situa on described by Rizal in those days, poli cal, social and religious, was the one actually obtaining in the Philippines; but while he cri cized and ridiculed the unworthy behavior of certain ministers of the Church, he made excep ons in favor of the worthy ones, like the Dominican friar, Padre Fernandez, and the virtuous na ve priest, Padre Floren no, and the Jesuits in general."  On the other hand, Senators Rodrigo, Rosales and Cuenco derived much support from the Catholic Church itself and from its hundreds of thousands of adherents throughout the country. Their principal argument was no less impressive, to wit; that compulsion to read something against one's religious convic ons was no different from a requirement to salute the flag, which, according to the latest decision on the ma er by the U.S. Supreme Court, was an impairment both of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In addi on, they invoked the need for unity, which they said would be imperiled if the bill were approved. Contending that they were no less lovers of their country because they were devout children of their church, Senator Rodrigo remarked: "A vast majority of our people are at the same me Catholics and Filipino ci zens. As such, they have two great loves: their country and their faith. These two loves are not conflic ng loves. They are harmonious affec ons, like the love for his father and for his mother. “This is the basis of my stand. Let us not create a conflict between na onalism and religion; between the government and the church." The conflict reached the House of Representa ves on April 19, 1956, when Congressman Jacobo Z. Gonzales introduced House Bill No. 5561, which was an iden cal copy Senate Bill No. 438. Debates started on May 9, 1956, following the report of the Commi ee on Educa on, dated May 2, 1956, recommending approval without amendment. The discussions also revolved on the cons tu onality and the propriety of the measure, but although proceedings were definitely livelier and more impassioned here than in the Upper Chamber (at one me there was even an abor ve fist fight on the floor), it was the mighty ba le in the Senate that drew more public a en on. Notable defenders of the bill in the House, besides the author, were Congressmen Emilio Cortez, Mario Bengzon, Joaquin R. Roces, and W. Rancap Lagumbay. Among the outspoken opponents were Congressmen Ramon Durano, Jose Nuguid, Marciano Lim, Manuel Zosa, Lucas Paredes, Godofredo Ramos, Miguel Cuenco, and Congresswomen Carmen D. Consing and Tecla San Andres Ziga. As the daily debates wore on in Congress and throughout the country, it became more and more apparent that no agreement could be reached on the original version of the bill. Already, more than two weeks had elapsed since the measure was called on the floor, and the conflict was becoming increasingly bi er. On May 9, 1956, however, the controversy took a new though not quite unexpected turn that s rred new hope for a final resolu on of the issue. This came about when Senator Laurel, sensing the fu lity of further strife on the ma er, rose to propose in his own name an amendment by subs tu on which read in full as follows: An Act to include in the curricula of all public and private schools, colleges and universi es courses on the life, works and wri ngs of Jose Rizal, par cularly his novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, authorizing the prin ng and distribu on thereof, and for other purposes. Whereas, today, more than in any other period of our history, there is a need for a re-dedica on to the ideals of freedom and na onalism for which our Whereas, it is meet that in honoring them, par cularly the na onal hero and patriot, Jose Rizal, we remember with special fondness and devo on their lives and works that have shaped the na onal character;  Whereas, the life, works and wri ngs of Jose Rizal, par cularly his novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, are a constant and inspiring source of patrio sm with which the minds of the youth, especially during their forma ve and decisive years in school, should be suffused; Whereas, all educa onal ins tu ons are under the supervision of, and subject to regula on by the State, and all schools are enjoined to develop moral character, personal discipline, civic conscience and to teach the du es of ci zenship; Now therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa ves of the Philippines in Congress assembled: SECTION 1. Courses on the life, works and wri ngs of Jose Rizal, par cularly his novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo or their English transla on shall be used as basic texts. The Board of Na onal Educa on is hereby authorized and directed to adopt forthwith measures to implement and carry out the provisions of this Sec on, including the wri ng and prin ng of appropriate primers, readers and textbooks. The Board shall, within sixty (60) days from the effec vity of this Act promulgate rules and regula ons, including those of a disciplinary nature, to carry out and enforce the provisions of this Act. Said rules and regula ons shall take effect thirty (30) days a er their publica on in the official Gaze e. SECTION 2. It shall be obligatory on all schools, colleges and universi es to keep copies of the original and unexpurgated edi ons of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, as well as of Rizal's other works and biography. The said unexpurgated edi ons of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo or their transla on in English as well as other wri ngs of Rizal shall be included in the list of approved books for required reading in all public or private schools, colleges and universi es. The Board of Na onal Educa on shall determine the adequacy of the number of books, depending upon the enrollment of the school, college or university. SECTION 3. The Board of Na onal Educa on shall cause the transla on of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, as well as other wri ngs of Jose Rizal into English, Tagalog and the principal dialects; cause them to be printed in cheap, popular edi ons; and cause them to be distributed, free of charge, to, persons desiring to read them, through the Purok organiza ons and Barrio Councils throughout the country. SECTION 4. Nothing on this Act shall be construed as amending or repealing Sec on 927 of the Administra ve Code, prohibi ng the discussion of religious doctrines by public school teachers and other persons engaged in any public school. SECTION 5. The sum of three hundred thousand pesos is hereby authorized to be appropriated in the Na onal Treasury to carry out the purposes of this Act. SECTION 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.  Explaining this amendment, Senator Laurel said tersely: *In my subs tute bill, I have included not only the Nolt and the Fili but all the works and wri ngs of Rizal and even those wri en by other people about him. I eliminated the compulsion idea, although deep in myself, considering my own informa on, my own knowledge of the history of mankind, however poor and however incomplete, notwithstanding my own personal convic on that the state can properly require, in the case of Filipinos, the compulsory reading of the Fili and the Noli. A er consul ng my own religious conscience as one belonging to my own church, I removed the idea of compulsion. You will no longer find the word 'compulsory' or 'compulsion' in the subs tute bill that I have filed. But there is one thing on which there could be no compromise so far as I am concerned. I have reached the satura on point. I have reached the dead end of a blind alley. I can go no farther; and this I say: If Rizal was a hero, and on that there could be no debate, if Rizal is a na onal hero, these books that he has wri en, whenever read, must be read in the unexpurgated, original form. Otherwise, I would prefer to have this bill defeated, defeated ignominiously if you wish, but then I shall have fulfilled my duty.” The new measure was also debated in the Chamber, but with less heat this me, the discussion centering on the first paragraph of Sec on 1 and on the powers of implementa on of the Board of Na onal Educa on. Several members spoke on the subs tute bill, among them Senators Locsin, Pelaez, Briones, Sabido, Puyat and Cuenco. S ll vigorously opposed, Senator Rodrigo suggested the dele on of the proviso in Sec on 1, but this change was rejected by the sponsor. Senator Lim then proposed the exemp on of students from the requirements of the bill, on certain condi ons, and the Senate seemed headed again for another lengthy disputa on. Then, quite abruptly, the following proceedings took place: ENMIENDA A LA ENMIENDA POR SUSTITUCION Senator Primicias. I now, Mr. President, in the name of many members of this body, present this amendment to the amendment: On page 2, line 6, a er the period (1) following the word "act," insert the following: "THE BOARD SHALL PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS PROVIDING FOR THE EXEMPTION OF STUDENTS FOR REASONS OF RELIGIOUS BEIEF STATED IN A SWORN WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN THE SECOND PART OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THIS SECTION; BUT NOT FROM TAKING THE COURSE PROVIDED FOR IN THE FIRST PART OF THE SAID PARAGRAPH." The President. Those who are in favor of the amendment will please say aye. (Several senators: Aye.) Those who are against the will say nay. (Silence.) The amendment is unanimously approved. As thus amended the subs tute bill was on the same day, May 12, 1956, unanimously approved on second reading. This development was quite propi ous for, owing to the impasse among its members on the original Gonzales Bill, the House of Representa ves was also cas ng about for some kind of compromise. The Senate solu on seemed acceptable enough, so, on May 14, 1956, Congressman Tolen no, the brilliant House Majority Floor Leader, sponsored an amendment by subs tu on iden cal to Senator Laurel's subs tute bill as amended and approved on second reading in the Upper House. There was spirited resistance from several diehards, notably Congressman Miguel Cuenco, who insisted in a scholarly speech that the measure was uncons tu onal, and Congressman Bengzon, one of the strongest supporters of the original version, who claimed that the subs tute bill represented a "complete triumph of the Church hierarchy." Nevertheless, with no less than 51 congressmen appearing as its co- authors, including the majority and minority leadership in the Chamber, the measure was approved on second reading the same day. The an -climax was drama c. Congress was to adjourn sine die in a few days and, since the President had declined to cer fy to the necessity of the immediate enactment of the measure, there was a need of complying with the cons tu onal requirement that printed copies thereof be distributed among the Congressmen at least three calendar days prior to its final approval by the House. The opponents of the measure sought to take advantage of this technicality to defeat the measure. Pressed for me, the Speaker, with the help mainly of Congressman Gonzales, requested the Bureau of Prin ng which handled the prin ng of the Laurel subs tute bill. Not to destroy the prin ng molds of said bill and ordered enough copies for the members of the House, changing only the number of the bill and the Chamber of origin. Copies of the measure were distributed in the House even before the Senate bill was approved on third reading. While the House bill was being discussed on second reading, the Speaker maneuvered to prevent the inser on of any amendment to avoid its reprin ng and redistribu on. The Senate version was accepted in toto punctua on marks and all. The Speaker refused to adjourn the House un l the bill could finally be approved and, on the very same day Senate Bill No. 438 was approved on the third reading, with 23 votes in favor (Senator Briones was absent.) house Bill No. 5561 was also approved on the third reading, with 71 votes in favor (6 were against, 2 abstained, and 17 were absent) and sent to the Senate the same day. This bill was passed by the la er Chamber without amendment, also on May 17, 1956, provided that the number of the Senate bill should also appear in the enrolled copies. Malacañang took some me in the considera on of the measure, and there were some who clung to the flimsy hope that it would not be approved. But that hope was to be denied, for on June 12, 1956, the bill was signed into law by President Ramon Magsaysay and became Republic Act No. 1425. Thus, it would seem, were partly fulfilled the words of Rizal himself who, speaking through Filosofo Tasio in "Noli Me Tangere,” said: "I am wri ng for the genera ons of Filipinos yet to come, a genera on that will be enlightened and educated, a genera on without condemning me as a here c. "Every country has its morals like its climate and its infirmi es." - J. Rizal *Open your children's eyes so that they may jealously guard their honor, love their fellowmen and their na ve land, and do their duty. Always impress upon them that it is be er to die with honor than to live in dishonor." - J. Rizal