Life and Works of Jose Rizal PDF

By John Leandro Reyes CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE : REPUBLIC ACT 1425 LESSON 1: ON HERO AND HEROISM What is a Hero? By definition, a hero is someone who is admired for his or her achievements and noble qualities and regarded as an ideal or model. A hero is the central figure in an event...

By John Leandro Reyes CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE : REPUBLIC ACT 1425 LESSON 1: ON HERO AND HEROISM What is a Hero? By definition, a hero is someone who is admired for his or her achievements and noble qualities and regarded as an ideal or model. A hero is the central figure in an event, period or movement, honored for outstanding qualities. It is someone who shows great courage and benevolence. But what makes an individual good? What makes an individual evil? Dehumanization, diffusion of responsibility, obedience to authority, unjust systems, group pressure, moral disengagement, anonymity, these are among the things that can foster evil to an individual.  Various reasons or factors could possibly offer an explanation why people become heroic. It could be that heroes are more compassionate or emphatetic; perhaps there’s a hero gene; or it could also possibly be their level of oxytocin- Paul Zak, american neuroeconomist, has shown tha this “love hormone” in the brain increases the likelihood that somone will demonstrate altriusm. Philip Zimbardo, while exploring the nature and roots of heroism, have come to define heroism as an activity with several parts. (1) It is performed in service to others in need; (2) it is engaged in voluntarily- an act that goes beyond what is asked; (3) a heroic act is one performed with recognition of the possible risks in which the actor is willing to accept sacrifices; finally, it is an act without external gain.  Another key insight from research on heroism so far is that the very same situations that inflame the hostile imagination in some people, making them villains, can also instill the heroic imagination in other people, prompting them to perform heroic deeds. Take the Holocaust. Christians who helped Jews were in the same situation as other civilians who helped imprison or kill Jews, or ignored their suffering. The situation provided the impetus to act heroically or malevolently. Why did some people choose one path or the other?  There’s no clear line between good and evil. Instead, the line is permeable; people can cross back and forth between it.  What Escher’s telling us is that the world is filled with angels and devils, goodness and badness, and these dark and light aspects of human nature are our basic yin and yang. That is, we all are born with the capacity to be anything. Because of our incredible brains, anything that is imaginable becomes possible, anything that becomes possible can get transformed into action, for better or for worse.  We are all born with this tremendous capacity to be anything, and we get shaped by our circumstances—by the family or the culture or the time period in which we happen to grow up, which are accidents of birth; whether we grow up in a war zone versus peace; if we grow up in poverty rather than prosperity. So each of us may possess the capacity to do terrible things. But we also posses an inner hero; if stirred to action, that inner hero is capable of performing tremendous goodness for others. Between the two extremes of goodness and evil, in the bell curve of humanity are the masses- the general population who do nothing - those who refuse the call to action and, by doing nothing, often implicitly support the perpetratos of evil. So on this bell curve of humanity, villains and heroes are the outliers. The reluctant heroes are the rest. What we need to discover is how to give a call to service to this general population. How do we make them aware of the evil that exists? How do we prevent them from getting seduced to the dark side? Who will set the criteria for the recognition of the national hero? No law, executive order or proclamation has been enacted or issued officially proclaiming any Filipino historical figure as a national hero. However, because of their significant roles in the process of nation building and contributions to history, there were laws enacted and proclamations issued honoring these heroes. But according to historians, heroes, should not be legislated. Their appreciation should be better left to academics. Acclamation for heroes, they felt, would be recognition enough Executive Order No.75 “National Heroes Committee” Issued by President Fidel V. Ramon on March 28, 1993 creating the National Heroes Committee under the Office of the President. The principal duty of the Committee is to study, evaluate and recommend Filipino national personages/heroes in due recognition of their sterling character and remarkable achievements for the country. 1. Heroes are those who have a concept of nation and thereafter aspire and struggle for the nation’s freedom. 2. Heroes are those who define and contribute to a system or life of freedom and order for a nation. 3. Heroes are those who contribute to the quality of life and destiny of a nation. In another round-table discussion held on November 15, 1995, the NHC Technical Committee further adopted the criteria submitted by Dr. Alfredo Lagmay, as follows: 1. A hero is part of the people's expression, but that process of a people's internalization of a hero's life and works takes time, with the youth forming part of that internalization 2. A hero thinks of the future, especially the future generations. 3. The choice of hero involves not only the recounting of an episode or events in history, but of the entire process that made this particular person a hero.  On November 15, 1995 , the Technical Committee after deliberation and careful study based on Dr. Onofre D. Corpuz’ and Dr. Alfredo Lagmay’s criteria selected the following nine Filipino historical figures to be recommended as National Heroes: 1. Jose Rizal 2. Andres Bonifacio 3. Emilio Aguinaldo 4. Apolinario Mabini 5. Melchora Aquino 6. Marcelo H. del Pilar 7. Sultan Dipatuan Kudarat 8. Juna Luna 9. Gabriela Silang LESSON 2: UNDERSTANDING THE RIZAL LAW The mandatory teaching of Jose Rizal’s life with the emphasis on his landmark novels is inscribed in legislation. Republic Act No. 1425, more popularyly known as the Rizal Law, was passed in 1956 leaving a colorful narrative of debate and contestation. As an introductory part to the life and works of Jose Rizal, this module will begin with the reading of the Rizal Law. In this module, you will study RA 1425 within its context, look into the major issues and debates surrounding the bill and its passage into law, and reflect on the impact and relevance of this legislation across history and the present time. What is the Rizal Law? The Rizal Law, officially designated as Republic Act No. 1425, is a Philippine law that mandates all educational institutions in the Philippines to include in their curricula courses on the LIFE, WORKS, AND WRITINGS of Jose Rizal. It was proposed by the statesman Senator Claro M. Recto in 1995. On April 17, 1956, then Senate Committee on Education Chair Jose P. Laurel sponsored the bill. The Law was heavily debated in its time The Rizal Law was passed in June 1956 The Context of the Rizal Bill “Whereas, today, more than other period of our history, there is a need for a re-dedication to the ideals of freedom and nationalism for which our heroes lived and died.” This document was written in the year 1956 during Magsasyay’s regime when the country was still recovering from the Japanese occupation and still very dependent on US governance. Ideals of freedom and nationalism were very essential during those times since the Philippines was still struggling for independence, and the country was still gradually developing its national identity and integrity. It was this time when the Philippines was heavily dependent on the American government for support and guidance. Reignite the lost patriotism and nationalism Patriotic Objectives of the Rizal Law 1. To recognize the relevance of Rizal’s ideals, thoughts, teachings, and life values to present conditions in the community and the country and apply them in the solution of day-to-day situations and problems of contemporary life; 2. To develop an understanding and appreciation of the qualities, behavior, and character of Rizal as well as his thoughts and ideas, and thus foster the development of moral character, personal discipline, citizenship and vocational efficiency; 3. To comply with the patriotic objectives of the Rizal Law given by the late Senator Jose P. Laurel. From Rizal Bill to Rizal Law On April 3, 1956, Senate Bill No. 438 was filed by the Senate Committee on Education. On April 17, 1956, then Senate Committee on Education. On April 17, 1956, then Senate Committee on Education Chair Jose P. Laurel sponsored the bill and began delivering speeches for the proposed legislation. The bill became controversial as the powerful Catholic Church began to express opposition against the bill. A major point of the debates was whether the compulsory reading of the texts. Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo appropriated in the bill was constitutional. The call to read the unexpurgated version was also challenged. As the country was soon engaged in the debate, it seemed that an impasse was reached. To move the procedure to the next step, Senator Jose P. Laurel proposed amendments to the bill on May 9, 1956. Why Did the Catholic Church Oppose the Rizal Law? When the Catholic Church in the Philippines found out about Recto’s bill, it mobilized its forces to prevent the bill from becoming law. Ironically, almost 70 years after the publication of Noli Me Tangere, the Church still viewed Rizal’s novels as blasphemous. The Catholic Church of 120 years ago used the same influence in preventing the novels to be read by Filipinos. No less than Manila Archbishop Rufino Santos penned an impassioned pastoral letter protesting the bill. It was read in all masses in the country, much to the ire of then Manila Mayor Arsenio Lacson, who allegedly walked out of the mass when he heard the pastoral letter being read. Those who opposed the Rizal Bill painted Recto as communist and anti-Catholic. According to Abinales and Amoroso (2005), the Church feared the bill would violate freedom of conscience and religion.