Lesson 1: The Making of Rizal Law PDF

Lesson 1: The Making of Rizal Law 1.1 Debates in the Senate The enactment of R.A. 1425 was controversial in the history of Philippine legislation. Initially, there was no seeming dispute over Senate Bill No. 438 (Rizal Bill), a legislative measure that was intended to inspire nationalism am...

Lesson 1: The Making of Rizal Law 1.1 Debates in the Senate The enactment of R.A. 1425 was controversial in the history of Philippine legislation. Initially, there was no seeming dispute over Senate Bill No. 438 (Rizal Bill), a legislative measure that was intended to inspire nationalism among the Filipino youth. However, the sponsorship of Senator Jose P. Laurel for the said bill ignited an intense debate among the members of the Senate. The original version of Senate Bill No. 438 was 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. Both Claro M. Recto and Jose P. Laurel passionately defended the bill, while Senators Francisco Rodrigo, Mariano J. Cuenco, and Decoroso Rosales ardently contested the notion of compulsory reading among students. The Rizal Bill also made its way to the House of Representatives, but the situation in the Lower House of Congress was less compulsive and fiery as compared with the circumstances in the Upper House. The primary supporters of the bill in the Lower House were Representatives Jacobo Z. Gonzales, Mario Bengzon, Joaquin Roxas, Lancap Lagumbay, and Emilio Cortez. The opposition was composed of Representatives Carmen D. Consing, Ramon Durano, Miguel Cuenco, Manuel Zosa, Marciano Lim, Godofredo Ramos, Tecia San Andres Ziga, Jose Nuguid, and Lucas Paredes. The Rizal Bill was seemingly an attempt to bring out literature as a catalyst for moral regeneration. The debate basically centered on the two contentious novels by Rizal. While supporters believed that Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo served as required reading resources in both public and private universities and colleges, the opposition claimed the novels to be religiously scandalous. In his defense of Rizal's books, Senator Claro M. Recto argued that the novels must not be misunderstood as an attack against the religious hierarchy at the present time. However, Francisco Rodrigo believed that requiring the young citizens to read the novels would only result in confusion and discord among the people. To ease the increasing tension, Jose P. Laurel drafted an amended version of the Rizal Bill. In the substitute version of Senate Bill No. 438, the word "compulsory" or "compulsion" was deleted, but all schools were required to have copies of the original Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo available for those who wished to read these novels. Senator Laurel stressed that the books written by Rizal must be read in their original editions as a demonstration of respect and honor for our national hero. The amended version underscored the necessity to instill the sense of self-determination and the spirit of nationalism among the young Filipinos as compelling and that it calls for an immediate response. The passage of the Rizal Bill is an opportune act that could provide answers to the moral crisis confronting our society. As recognized by the proponents, Rizal plays a substantial role in the quest to rekindle Filipinos' aspirations for the idealism of freedom and nationalism. The works and the ideals expressed in the writings of our heroes, Rizal in particular, can help fuel the nationalistic sentiment of the people, especially young Filipinos. Therefore, the reading of his novels cannot be discounted. It is in this context that literature plays a vital part in building the Filipino nation and boosting our nationalistic pride and identity. The substitute bill was unanimously approved by both houses, the Senate and House of Representatives, on its second reading, with only a minor insertion to the provision in Section 1 as proposed by Senator Roseller T. Lim. On May 17, 1956, the approved House bill was transmitted to the Senate, which subsequently passed the bill without amendment. 1.2 Conflict with the Catholic Church The debate on the Rizal Bill was painted with religious color. The influence of the Catholic Church was apparent among those who disputed the proposed measure in Congress. As a manifestation of their antagonism, the Catholic hierarchy circulated a pastoral letter calling on all Catholics to oppose the bill. Several versions of the pastoral letter were drafted prior to its publication. In the original draft of the pastoral letter written by the Jesuit priest, Fr. Horacio de la Costa, he expressed a balanced, rational, and unbiased judgment on Rizal and his novels. The bishops further commissioned Fr. Jesus Cavanna to write a final version of the pastoral letter based on Fr. de la Costa's work. Fr. Cavanna, a priest from the order of the Congregation of the Mission, disposed Rizal to be a detestable person and that his novels were hostile to the Catholic Church. He was believed to have been influenced by Archbishop Rufino Santos. Both were commissioned by the Catholic hierarchy to draft the pastoral letter. Tracing back the year, Fr. de la Costa was requested by a committee of the bishops to write a pastoral letter on Rizal's novels, believed to be in 1951. This was before Senator Claro M. Recto introduced the bill with Laurel's sponsorship, prescribing the compulsory reading of the novels in all public and private schools. About five drafts came off. John N. Schumacher (2011) named the drafts as copies A, B, C, D, and E, reiterating Fr. de la Costa's copy A as the original draft, which was prepared in typescript and consisted of 20 pages. A second copy, which he captioned as draft B, came out with a few handwritten changes believed to have been done by Fr. de la Costa himself. Then, there was copy C that contained changes in copy B, with omissions of some passages and changes in the original terms used based on the original draft. The endnotes were replaced by simple reference notes. Copy D was a shortened version of copy C. It contained five pages, including a completely new paragraph. Drafts C and E are identical. Both copies contain the amendments highlighted by Fr. de la Costa. Fr. Cavanna made use of draft C, adapting the five pages of it as an introduction before making his attack on the novels in his final letter. It must be noted that Fr. Cavanna was the sole author of the bishop's final letter. And perhaps, the bishops themselves may have intervened to intensify the condemnatory conclusion for the prohibition of compulsory reading of the novels under church law. Fr. Cavanna's final letter was submitted to the bishops, which, in turn, was made the basis by Fr. Rufino Santos's pastoral letter on behalf of the Catholic Hierarchy to oppose Senate Bill No. 438, or Rizal Bill, for the compulsory reading of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo by students. Despite the ambivalent temper of Malacañang, President Ramon Magsaysay approved the Rizal Bill on June 12, 1956, which is now known as R.A. 1425. The passage into law with the amended title of R.A. 1425 relieved the contesting parties, for it reads: "An Act to Include in the Curricula of All Public and Private Schools, Colleges and Universities Courses on the Life, Works and Writings of Jose Rizal, Particularly His Novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, Authorizing the Printing and Distribution Thereof, and for Other Purposes." However, despite the cautionary statement of the Catholic Church and the restrictive provisions of the Rizal Law, people seemed unenthusiastic about invoking the exemption privilege. This gives the impression that the original version was the one adopted. Source: Ponferrada et al. (2023). “A Course Module for Jose Rizal: Life and Works”. First Edition (pgs. 5-8). REX Book Store.