THE TRIALS OF THE RIZAL BILL

Jose B. Laurel, Jr.34

Few legislative 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 legislation, the bitterness and
recrimination that attended its enactment; are almost unparalleled in the annals of
Congress.
When it was filed by the Committee on Education 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 Committee on Education, 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 disputations, both
enlightened and acrimonious, that would engross and divide the nation for three
tense weeks.
The original version of Senate Bill No. 438 reads as follows:
AN TO MAKE NOLI ME TANGERE AND EL FILIBUSTERISMO
COMPULSORY READING MATER IN ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the

Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Jose Rizal's Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo are
hereby declared compulsory reading matter in all public and private
schools, colleges and universities in the Philippines.

SECTION 2. The works mentioned in Section 1 of this Act shall be in the original
editions or in their unexpurgated English and Natural Language versions.

SECTION 3. The Department of Education shall take steps to

promulgate rules and regulations for the immediate implementation of
the provisions of this Act.
SECTION 4. No provision of this Act shall be constructed as prohibiting or
limiting the study of the works of other Filipino heroes.
 SECTION 5. Any public or private college or university found violating,
failing to comply with, or circumventing the provisions of this Act shall be
punished accordingly:

4
Fortner Speaker, House Of Representatives.

28
 a. The Head of any public college or university charged with
implementing the provisions of this Act, who shall have been found
guilty of violating, failing to comply with, or circumventing thx:
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 recognition of any private college or university found

violating or circumventing 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, particularly "Noli Me Tangere" and "El Filibusterismo.' [n the course of
his three-day sponsorship speech, he said:
*Noti 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 ultimately lead to self-reliance, self-respect and freedom.

The Catholic elements in and outside Congress, however, were quick to assail
the measure as an attempt to discredit their religion. Claiming that the two novels
contained views inimical to the tenets of their faith, they particularly challenged the
compulsory nature of the bill as violative of religious freedom. Principal basis of their
opposition was an alleged Pastoral Letter which, while praising Rizal, practically
branded his novels as heretical and impious. The authenticity of this letter was much
suspected and never definitely established, but there is no question 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 prestigious colleague and ardent nationalist, the formidable
Senator Claro M. Recto. In the other camp were Senators Mariano J. Cuenco,
Francisco Rodrigo and Decoroso Rosales, all of them identified as rabid
Catholics. Although the rest of the senators also participated at times in the
discussion, interest was focused on the principal protagonists of the controversy
whose masterly exchange of logic and law held the nation spellbound.
Senator Recto proved his usual brilliance as a parliamentarian and his vast
erudition in histoly a_nd 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 Constitution,
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 better

29
 .reciation of Rizal's times and of the role he played in combating Spanish tyranny in
country. Denying that the novels had any religious motivation, he declared:
"Rizal did not pretend to teach religion or theology when he wrote those
books. He aimed at inculcating civic consciousness in the Filipinos, national
dignity, personal pride, and patriotism, and if references were made by him in the
course of his narration to certain religious practices in the Philippines in those
days and to the conduct and behavior of ernng mirusters of the church, it was
because he portrayed faithfully the general situation in the Philippines as it then
existed. Nobody dispute that the situation described by Rizal in those days,
political, social and religious, was the one actually obtaining in the Philippines;
but while he criticized and ridiculed the unworthy behavior of certain ministers of
the Church, he made exceptions in favor of the worthy ones, like the Dominican
friar,
Padre Fernandez and the virtuous native pnest, Padre Florentino, and the
Jesuits 41 in general.
the
»rks, On the other hand, Senators Rodrigo, Rosales and Cuenco derived much sxpport from the
Catholic Church itself and from its hundreds of thousands of throughout the country. Their
principal argument was no less impressive, wit: that compulsion to read something against one's
religious convictions was no different from a requirement to salute the flag, which, according to
the latest decision the matter by the U.S. Supreme Court, was an impairment both of freedom of
speech and freedom of religion. In addition, they invoked the need for unity, which they said
would be imperiled if the bill were approved. Contending that they were no lovers of their
country because they were devout children of their church, Senator Rodrigo remarked:
*sail wels "A vast majority of our people are at the same time Catholics and Filipino the citizens. As such,
they have two great loves.' their country and their faith. These heir two loves are not conflicting loves.
They are harmonious affections, like the love -"ally for his father and for his mother.
.uch fuel "This is the basis of my stand Let us not create a conflict between nationalism and religion;
between the government and the church-

The conflict reached the House

was of Representatives on April 19, 1956, when
Congressman Jacobo Z Gonzales introduced House
ator Bill No. 5561, which was an identical copy Senate Bill NO. 438. Debates started on May
9, 1956, following the report of the Committee on Education,
the dated May 2, 1956, recommending approval without amendment. The discussions also
revolved on
sed the constitutionality and the propriety of the measure, but although proceedings
and were definitely livelier and more impassioned here than in the Upper Chamber (at one time there
was even an abortive fist fight on the floor), it was the mighty battle in the Senate drew more public
attention. Notable defenders of the bill in. the House, besides 'ast the author, were he Mario
Bengzon, Joaquin R. Roces, and W. Rancap
Congressmen Emilio Cortez,
Lagumbay. Among the outspoken opponents were Congressmen Ramon
1at, Durano, Jose
Nuguid, Marciano Lim,
the Manuel Zosa, Lucas Paredes, Godofredo Ramos, Miguel Cuenco, and Congresswomen Carmen
blic D. Consing and Tecla San Andres Ziga. tter
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

30
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 bitter. On May 9, 1956,
however, the controversy took a new though not quite unexpected turn that stirred new
hope for a final resolution of the issue; This came about when Senator Laurel, sensing
the futility of further strife on the matter, rose to propose in his own name an
amendment by substitution which read in full as follows:
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.

Whereas, today, more than in any other period of our history, there is a need for a
re-dedication to the ideals of freedom and nationalism for which our Whereas, it is meet
that in honoring them, particularly the national hero and patriot, Jose Rizal, we remember
with special fondness and devotion their lives and works that have shaped the national
character;
Whereas, the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal, particularly his novels Noh
Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, are a constant and inspiring source of patriotism with
which the minds of the youth, especially during their formative and decisive years in
school, should be suffused;

Whereas, all educational institutions are under the supervision of, and subject to
regulatiop by the State, and all schools are enjoined to develop moral character,
personal discipline, civic conscience and to teach the duties of citizenship; Now
therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in

Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Courses on the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal, particularly
his novels Noh Me Tangcre and El Filibusterismo or their English translation
shall be used as basic texts.
The Board of National Education is hereby authorized and directed to
adopt forthwith measures to implement and carry out the provisions of this
Section, including the writing and printlng of appropriate primers, readers
and textbooks. The Board shall, within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of
this Act promulgate rules and regulations, including those of a disciplinary
nature, to carry out and enforce the provisions of this Act. Said rules and
regulations shall take effect thirty (30) days after their publication in the
official Gazette.
SECTION 2. It shall be obligatory on all schools, colleges and universities to keep
copies of the original and unexpurgated editions Of the Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo, as well as of Rizal's other works and biography. The said
unexpurgated editions of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo or their
translation in English as well as other writings of Rizal shall be included in the list
Of approved books for required reading in all public or private schools, colleges
and universities.

31
d
The Board of National Education shall determine the adequacy of the
number of books, depending upon the enrollment of the schbol,
college or university.
SECTION 3. The Board of National Education shall cause the
translation of the Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, as well as
other uTitings of Jose Rizal into English, Tagalog and the principal
dialects; cause them to be printed in cheap, popular editions; and
cause them to be distributed, free of charge, to. persons desiring to
read them, through the Purok organizations and Barrio Councils
throughout the country.
SECTION 4. Nothing on this Act shall be construed as amending or
repealing Section • 927 of the Administrative Code, prohibiting 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 National 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:
my substitute bill, I have included not only the Noli and the Fili but
all the works and writings of Riml and even those written by other people about
him I eliminated the compulsion idea, although deep in myself, considering my
own information, my own knowledge of the history of mankind, however poor
and however incomplete, notwithstanding my own personal conviction that the
state can properly require, in the case of Filipinos, the compulsory reading of the
Fili and the Not. After consulting my own religious conscience as one belonging
to my own church, removed the idea of compulsion. You tull no longer find the
word 'compulsory' or 'compulsion' in the substitute bill that have filed. But there
one thing on which there could be no compromise so far as I am concerned. I
have reached the saturation point. I have reached the dead end of a blind alley.
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 national hero, these books that he has written, 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
time, the discussion center-ing on the first paragraph of Section I and on the
powers of implementation of the Board of National Education. Several members
spoke on the substitute bill, among them Senators Locsin, Pelaez, Briones,
SabidO, Puyat and Cuenco. Still vigorously opposed, Senator Rodrigo suggested
the deletion of the proviso in Section l, but this change was rejected by the
sponsor. Senator Lim then proposed the exemption of students from the
 requirements of the bill, on certain conditions, and the Senate seemed headed
again for another lengthy disputation. Then, quite abruptly, the following
proceedings took place:

32

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, after the period (l) following the word "act," insert the
following:
THE BOARD SHALL PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS
PROVIDING FOR THE EXEMPI*ION OF STUDENTS FOR REASONS OF
RELIGIOUS BEEF 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 substitute bill was on the same day, May 12, 1956, unanimously
approved on second reading.

This development was quite propitious for, owing to the impasse among its
members on the original Gonzales Bill, the House of Representatives was also
casting about for some kind of compromise. The Senate solution seemed
acceptable enough, so, on May 14, 1956, Congressman Tolentino, the brilliant
House Majority Floor Leader, sponsored an amendment by substitution identical to
Senator Laurel's substitute 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 unconstitutional, and Congressman Bengzon, one Of the strongest supporters
of the original version, who claimed that the substitute bill represented a "complete
triumph of the Church hierarchy." Nevertheless, with no less than 51 Congressmen
appearing as its coauthors, including the majority and minority leadership in the
Chamber, the measure was approved on second reading the same day.
The anti-climax was dramatic. Congress was to adjourn sine die in a few
days and, since the President had declined to certify to the necessity Of the
Immediate enactment Of the measure, there was a need of complying with the
constitutional 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 time, the 'zith the help mainly of
Congressman Gonzales, requested the Bureau of printing which handled the
printing of the Laurel substitute bill. Not to destroy the printing 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 insertion of any amendment to avoid its reprinting and
redistribution. The Senate version was accepted in toto punctuation marks and
33

be approved
reading,with
also approved
and 17 were
bythe latter
numberof the

measure,and there
But that hope
by President
seem, were
Tasio in "Noli

generation
me asa

theirnativeland
dishonor.

" — J. Ri:a/