RIZAL Prelims Coverage Reviewer Compilation
RIZAL Prelims Coverage Reviewer Compilation
RIZAL Prelims Coverage Reviewer Compilation
1. Introduction
The subject Rizal has been taught in college in different styles and in different
approaches, depending upon the background of the teacher who handles it. In 1989, at
the national convention held in Baguio City, The Kapisanan Ng Mga Gurong
Nagmamahal Kay Rizal (KAGUNARI) stressed the need of upgrading and
professionalizing the teaching of Rizal. Delegates from different regions shared the
common observation that the teaching of Rizal has been trivialized with the mere teaching
of his biography. As a result, students were made to memorize names, dates, events and
places making the subject boring and dull at the expense of sacrificing the very
significance and value of the Rizal course.
According to Ambeth Ocampo in his book entitled “Rizal without the Overcoat”,
Rizal could have lived beyond December 30, 1896, if he had simply stayed out of the
Philippines and its politics. If he remained in Hong Kong, then he would just be another
forgotten expatriate Filipino doctor. Rizal, however, was different. Rizal was a quiet,
peaceful man who willfully and calmly walked to his death for his convictions. Before his
execution, his pulse rate was reputedly normal. How many people do you know who
would die for their convictions if they could avoid it?
In June 1892 Rizal wrote letter to a Portuguese friend in which he he wanted show
by example that Filipinos knew how to die for principles. More important, Rizal addressed
his countrymen, mostly “natives” or indios as “Filipinos” at a time when the terms was
reserved for Spaniards born in the Philippines. Guided by the belief from childhood that
he would not reach the age of 30, Rizal decided to return home against all odds. He
probably thought he would be executed in 1892; he miscalculated and died in 1896 at the
age of 35.
Life, works and writings of Dr. Jose Rizal is the only mandated-legislated three-unit
course in college but it has been treated as petty or filler course. Although Rizal is an
academic course but there are teachers dwell on trivia and memorization of events, dates,
names of persons, places and objects. This made Rizal course boring and
insignificant. As a result, the spirit of Rizal law are unconsciously neglected (Daquila,
2008)
Nations cherish heroes and learn from their deeds. Sadly, in the Philippines, we know
little of our national heroes, while there are activities honoring them, bland nationalism
has developed. Holidays and activities commemorating historic events are viewed by
students and the public in general as meaningless and mere rituals. Consequently, the
new generation fails to appreciate, internalize or assimilate the significance of these
celebrations
II. What makes Rizal a controversial national hero?
In the 1970s attempts were made to change Rizal with Bonifacio as the national
hero by student activists, militant groups and labor unions or movements. In their eyes,
Bonifacio deserves to be a hero because he was a revolutionist while Rizal was a
reformist
The Americans gave Rizal official recognition in order to win the sympathy of the
Filipinos, and to convince them that they were pro-Filipinos. This was also to make them
conform to the new government. Rizal acquired the official title of title of Philippine
National Hero in 1901 under the country’s first American civil governor, William Howard
Taft.
On the recommendation of Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, the Taft Commission
renamed the district of Morong into the Province of Rizal through Act 137 on June 11,
1901. This was one of the first official steps taken by the Taft Commission to honor Rizal.
Since then, Jose Rizal came to be known as the National Hero. Also during the American
period, Rizal’s death anniversary was made an official holiday. On February 1, 1902, the
Act. No. 345 set December 30 as Rizal Day. The Act No. 243 was enacted on September
28, 1901 granting the right to use public land upon the Luneta in the City of Manila upon
which to erect a statue of Jose Rizal ( Source: National Historical Commission of the
Philippines, 2012)
III. The Selection of the National Hero
In 1901, US President McKinley established a commission that sought to create
Philippine national hero; this commission was headed by William H. Taft. The purpose of
the commission was to unite the Philippines by showing a Filipino model. It must be noted
that in these times the Philippines was divided due to the fresh war that the Philippines
had with its new colonizers, the Americans.
Members of the Commission (1901) 1.Civil Governor William HowardTaft2. W. Morgan
Shuster3. Bernard Moses4. Dean Warcester5. Henry Clay Ide6. Trinidad Pardo de
Tavera7. Gregorio Araneta8. Jose Luzurriaga9.Cayetano Arellano10.Benito Legarda
B. Aspirants for the position of National Hero
1. Filipino
2. Dead
3. Ardent love for one’s country
4. A man honored after death by public worship/compassionate and peace lovingHero:·
Why Chose Rizal?
His exile to Dapitan prompted the creation of Katipunan by Andres Bonifacio, which
spread to 8 provinces: Cavite, Bulacan, Bataan, Tarlac, Morong, Batangas, Laguna,
and Nueva Ecija;
Rizal was peace loving. He wanted reforms but not through bloody revolutions
(Filipinos are peaceful and peace loving).
Filipinos are sentimental. Reading his real life story would touch the reader's heart.
Filipinos usually sympathize with the hero that is kind and the underdog. Rizal's death
was the perfect plot.
Some in formations about Rizal:
His book Noli Me Tangere (Berlin, 1887) contributed tremendously to the formation of
Filipino Nationality. It was praised and attacked by friends and enemies, by Filipinos
and foreigners. This book made him the most prominent in the Propaganda
movement.
Even before his execution he was acclaimed by both Filipinos and foreigners as the
foremost leader of his people:
1889, Barcelona – unanimously elected as honorary president of La Solidaridad”
1891 – unanimously chosen as “RESPONSABLE” (chief) of the Spanish-Filipino
Association
July 3, 1892, Manila – founded Liga Filipina
Honorary President – Katipunan; used the name “Rizal” as password
December 29, 1897 – Emilio Aguinaldo along with other exiles in Hong Kong held a
commemorative program for Rizal
December 20, 1898, Malolos, Bulacan – President Aguinaldo declared Dec. 30 as
“Rizal Day. He made a directive that all national flags shall be hoisted at half-mast
from 12 noon on Dec. 29 and all offices of the government shall be closed the whole
day on December 30 as a sign of mourning
“La Independencia” and “EL Heraldo de la Revolucion”, edited by Antonio Luna
published articles to honor and commemorate the death of Rizal.
Rizal himself, his own people, and the foreigners contributed to make him the greatest
hero and martyr.
Rizal monument at Luneta is imported from Europe. It was created by a Swiss, Henry
Kissling, a runner up in an international sponsored nationalists in 1912.
Some Comments:
Fernando Acevedo – sees in him the model of the Filipinos
Dr. Tomas Arejola - “your moral influence over us is indisputable”.
Ferdinand Blumentritt - “Rizal was the greatest product of the Philippines and that his
coming to the world was like the appearance of a rare comet, whose rare brilliance
appears only every other century; the most prominent man of his own people but the
greatest man the Malayan race has produced”.
Vicente Barrantes - “the first among the Filipinos”
Other references to Rizal: “Pearl of a man” (Rost), “Symbol of that race, one of the
few representative men of humanity in general” (Unanimous), “Universal genius”,
“Intellectual giant”, “Builder of the nation” “Father of Philippine Nationalism” (Romero,
1978, p. 172)
It was bitterly opposed by some senators and by the Catholic Institution – pointing out
that requiring the teaching of Rizal in schools would be a violation of religious
freedom. The oppositionists were Senators Decoroso Rosales (brother of Archbishop,
then Cardinal Rosales), Sen. Mariano Cuenco (brother of Archbishop Cuenco), and
Fransisco “Soc” Rodrigo (President of Catholic Active Group. Jesus Cavanna, Paulist
Order wrote a pastoral letter against the bill. Clerics had a closed-door conference
with senators to dissuade them from passing the bill.
To solve the disunity created by the bill, Laurel sponsored a substitute measure - as
a compromise the word “compulsory” was removed and was stated as … “an act
to include in the curricula of all schools (public or private) courses on the life, works,
and writings of Rizal.” – which was unanimously approved on May 12, 1956.
President Ramon Magsaysay signed this into law as RA 1425 on June 12, 1956
The National Commission on Education on August 16, 1956 enacted this law.
In 1969, Secretary Carlos P. Romulo ordered the course of Rizal to be offered as a
three-unit course and as a prerequisite for graduation
V. The Rizal Law: Republic Act 1425
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
The Rizal law orders the inclusion in the curricula of all public and private schools,
studies on the life, works and writings of Rizal. It requires the reading of the
unexpurgated versions of Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo and Rizal’s other
works, which will be included in the list of approved books for required reading.
The law authorizes the National Board Of Education to direct the translation of Noli
Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo including Rizal’s other popular edition. Further, the
law also provides that while the teaching of Rizal as a subject is required, the doctrine
of the separation church and the state is upheld.
VI. The Implementation of the Rizal Law
1956, Education Secretary, Jose E. Romero, allowed schools much leeway in their
implementation of the provisions of the law. Some schools issued exceptions from the
reading of Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo.
1960, schools offered Rizal either as a three (3) unit course, one (1) unit or integrated
with other subjects in college;
1965, then Education Secretary Alejandro Roces ordered the integration of the Rizal
course with appropriate subjects other than Spanish as practiced; 1969, thirteen (13)
years after the passage of Rizal Law, the three (3) unit course was ordered to be
offered as a regular three unit course and a requisite for graduation as directed by
then Education Secretary Carlos P. Romulo
Presidential Memo/ Order 247 and CHED Issuances
o The 1995 memorandum/order of his Excellency Pres. Fidel v. Ramos mandates
the immediate and full implementation of the Rizal law with sanctions against
school for non-compliance’
o In 1996, Commission On Higher Education (CHED) chairman Angel c. Alcala
issued CHED order no. 6, providing that the Rizal course as legislated and
mandated course be offered as three-unit subject.
o On September 25, 1996 CHED Memorandum order (CMO) No. 59 among others,
reiterates and specifies CHED ORDER No. 6, making Philippine history and Rizal
as required three ( 3) unit courses.
So, if the poor farmers got hungry, they would buy back their products from the
government and the government could set the price of the products at a higher price
The imposition of taxes or the collection of tribute was replaced by the yearly
purchase of a cedula personal. The “cedula personal” was a mandatory identification
card used in assessing tribute paid by the natives and in determining those who were
subject to forced labor. It also served as a residence tax certificate and as a passport to
restrict the movement of people. Those who could not present their cedula could be
arrested and imprisoned by the Guardia Civil. The amount of cedula was based on the
race and position of the person. The aim of cedula was similar to tribute and to recognize
the authority of king of Spain. During the Cry of Pugadlawin in 1896, Bonifacio and the
katipuneros tore their cedulas while shouting for Philippine independence.
Other forms of exploitations that have caused the Filipinos to revolt were discontent
and humiliation brought about by racial discrimination, land grabbing, the arbitrary
increases in land rents, the unjust eviction of farmers from their lands and the desire for
religious.