Rizal: ‘Amboy’ or home-

made hero?
By: Manuel F. Almario Contributor - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 01:31 AM December 31, 2011

One hundred and fifteen years after Jose Rizal was executed by the Spanish colonial
regime, controversy still rages as to whether he was a reformist or a revolutionary.
Rizal is immensely influential to generations of Filipinos. How he is viewed can help
define the course of our history.
In his Rizal Day Lecture on Dec. 30, 1969, titled “Veneration Without
Understanding,” the historian Renato Constantino noted it was American Governor
General William Howard Taft who in 1901 suggested to the Philippine Commission
the naming of a national hero for Filipinos.

Subsequently, the US-sponsored commission passed Act No. 346 which set the
anniversary of Rizal’s death as a “day of observance.”
Constantino cites Theodore Friend in his book, “Between Two Empires,” as saying
that Taft “with other American colonial officials and some conservative Filipinos
chose him (Rizal) a model hero over other contestants—Aguinaldo too militant,
Bonifacio too radical, Mabini unregenerate.”
Filipinos chose him
The rationale for naming Rizal as the Filipinos’ national hero by the American
administration was articulated by US Governor General W. Cameron Forbes in his
book, “The Philippine Islands,” also cited by Constantino. Forbes wrote:
“It is eminently proper that Rizal should have become the acknowledged national hero
of the Philippine people. Rizal never advocated independence, nor did he advocate
armed resistance to the government. He urged reform from within by publicity, by
public education, and appeal to the public conscience.”
But in truth it was the Filipinos and not the Americans who first chose Rizal as their
national hero. It was revolutionary President Emilio Aguinaldo of the First Philippine
Republic—not Taft and the Second Philippine Commission—who first designated
Rizal as a national hero.
First monument
On Dec. 20, 1898, while the First Philippine Republic was still in control of all of the
Philippine archipelago, except US-occupied Manila, Aguinaldo promulgated a decree
proclaiming Dec. 30 as a “national day of mourning in memory of Rizal and other
victims of Spanish tyranny.”

While not only Rizal but “other victims of Spanish tyranny” were to be honored, the
fact that it was on his death anniversary that the celebration was to be held showed
that Rizal was the center of the celebration, just two years after his death.
The first official observance of Rizal Day was held on Dec. 30, 1898, in
Manila. Simultaneously in rites in Daet, Camarines Sur province, the first Rizal
monument was unveiled. The statue, which still exists today, was erected through the
voluntary contributions of revolutionary leaders and nationalistic townspeople.
Thereafter, practically all Filipino towns would bloom with Rizal monuments and
their main streets named after Rizal as a spontaneous expression of our people’s
recognition and reverence of Rizal as their primary national idol. He was, at that
point, generally acknowledged as the inspiration, if not instigator, of national
independence and unity.
Independence was proclaimed by Filipinos themselves in Kawit, Cavite province, six
months earlier on June 12, 1898, ending three and a half centuries of Spanish
rule. The US then still had to consolidate its occupation of the entire archipelago.
Started as reformist
True, like most revolutionaries in world history, Rizal started out as a
reformist. Together with Graciano Lopez Jaena, Marcelo H. del Pilar, Antonio Luna
and Mariano Ponce, he founded in 1899 the newspaper La Solidaridad, which became
in Madrid the Filipinos’ mouthpiece in demanding reforms in Spain’s governance of
the Philippines.
The “propagandists” at first advocated the elevation of Filipinos from the status of
subjects to citizens of Spain, with equal rights. They asked for representation of the
Philippines in the Spanish Cortes, or Parliament. This by itself was revolutionary
because when a slave demands to be equal to his master, it is a revolution. But it was
still short of the demand for national independence.
But in history, reformists ultimately morph into revolutionaries and separatists when
their demands for reform, justice and equality are rejected.
Thus, in their Declaration of Independence, the US founding fathers stressed that
before taking up arms, they had peaceably petitioned for reforms.
Parallel lives
Rizal was among the first of the Propagandists (as the Reformists were then called) to
realize that Solidaridad was not getting anywhere in its media campaign for
reforms. He took a leave from the newspaper to devote his time to writing a novel
(“El Filibusterismo”) that would more dramatically denounce the tyranny of the
Spanish regime, and thus arouse the fury and ignite the latent nationalism of the
Filipinos into the conflagration of revolution.
His first novel, “Noli Me Tangere,” which had caused a stir and made him the
“enemy” of Spanish colonialists, depicts the futility of seeking reforms through
education as such efforts would only be frustrated and sabotaged by the government
and its crafty mentors, the friars.
In “El Filibusterismo,” the hero/reformist Ibarra morphs into the
terrorist/revolutionary/separatist Simoun. A tight parallel could be drawn between the
real life of Rizal and the fictional life of Ibarra-turned-Simoun.
Mabini, an erudite lawyer and scholar, correctly read the real message of Rizal’s
novels. In his book, “The Philippine Revolution,” Mabini, a Manila correspondent of
the Madrid-based Solidaridad and dubbed as the “Brains of the Revolution,” wrote:
“… Rizal in particular gave two pieces of advice … the first, he served notice on the
Spaniards that if the Spanish government, in order to please the friars, remained deaf
to the demands of the Filipino people, the latter would have recourse in desperation to
violent means and seek independence as relief for their sorrows; and in the second, he
warned the Filipinos that, if they should take up their country’s course motivated by
personal hatred and ambition, they would, far from helping it, only make it suffer all
the more.”
Mabini cited Elias, the radical peasant of Rizal’s novels, who advocated independence
through revolutionary violence, as the model rebel leader.
Preaching revolution
In his prophetic essay, “The Philippines a Century Hence,” Rizal more explicitly
expressed his stand. He warned that “if equitable laws and sincere and liberal
reforms” were denied by the Spanish government, “the Philippines one day will
declare herself inevitably and unmistakably independent … after staining herself and
the Mother Country with her own blood.”
In a proclamation addressed to “Our Dear Mother Country, Spain,” Rizal was even
bolder. He thundered: “When a people is gagged; when its dignity, honor and all its
liberties are trampled; when it no longer has any recourse against the tyranny of its
oppressors; when its complaints, petitions and groans are not attended to … then …!
then …! it has left no other remedy but to take down with delirious hand from the
infernal altars the bloody and suicidal dagger of revolution!”
Declaration of independence
Another major revolutionary who believed Rizal was preaching revolution was
Bonifacio. He was one of those present at the founding of the La Liga Filipina
organized by Rizal on July 3, 1892, a week after his return from Hong Kong, in spite
of the warning that he might be killed or imprisoned by the Spaniards. The
constitution of the La Liga Filipina was in actuality a separatist document, a virtual
declaration of independence.
The purposes of the League of Filipinos were: “To unite the whole archipelago into
one compact; Mutual protection in every case of trouble and need; Defense against
every violence and injustice; Development of education, agriculture and commerce;
Study and implementation of reforms.” These purposes would be carried out by a
Filipino Supreme Council, provincial councils and popular councils.
In effect, Rizal was proposing a separate government. In the indictment of treason
against the Spanish regime, the formation of the Liga was one of the charges against
him.
Within three days after the founding of the Liga, Rizal was arrested and exiled to
Dapitan. The authorities correctly apprehended that Rizal had transgressed the
bounds of reformism, stepping into the dangerous grounds of revolution.
Peaceful means pointless
Indeed, his exile was the blow that convinced the followers of Rizal that seeking
reforms through peaceful means was pointless.
On the night of July 7, 1892, Bonifacio and other members of the Liga formed the
Katipunan society (Kataastaasang Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng
Bayan), with independence through armed revolution as its main objective. Rizal was
made honorary chair and his name was used as a password by members of the secret
society. He was, if not their actual leader, their spiritual leader.
Four years later, with the Katipunan membership having grown by leaps and bounds,
no doubt due in part to the general belief that Rizal was behind the movement,
Bonifacio sent Dr. Pio Valenzuela, a member of the supreme council, to Dapitan to
get Rizal’s “approval” for the start of the uprising.
The decision to consult Rizal was made collectively during a secret conclave in
bancas of 60 Katipuneros on May 6, 1896, in the then remote sitio of Ugong, north of
the Pasig River. Present were Bonifacio, the KKK supremo, and Aguinaldo, who led
the revolution successfully for a time after the assassination of Bonifacio.
‘So the seed grows’
Rizal and Valenzuela conversed conspiratorially in a shady nook away from Rizal’s
house on June 21, 1896. According to an account by Arturo E. Valenzuela Jr., based
on the memoirs of his grandfather Pio, Rizal was elated by the news of the
Katipunan’s existence, and murmured, “So the seed grows,” ecstatic that the seed of
revolution he had sown was sprouting.
Historian Teodoro A. Agoncillo, in his book “History of the Filipino People,” noted
that Rizal, in his talk with Valenzuela, gave no objection to armed revolution, but only
cautioned that if an insurrection was to be staged, all efforts should be exerted to
gather sufficient arms in order to ensure success and avoid unnecessary casualties and
sufferings of civilians and insurrectionists.
He also suggested that Antonio Luna, a reformist who had studied military science in
Spain, be recruited as a military leader of the revolution.
“It is obvious,” observed Agoncillo, “that Rizal was not against revolution itself but
was only against it in the absence of preparation and arms on the part of the rebels.”
Premature launch
Indeed, Bonifacio and his council took pains to implement Rizal’s advice, contacting
Luna and informing him of Rizal’s wish. Unfortunately, Luna turned down the
invitation. He later joined the revolutionary army in the war against the United States.
Two months after Valenzuela’s meeting with Rizal, on Aug. 19, the Katipunan was
betrayed to Tondo parish priest Fr. Mariano Gil, prompting the authorities to round up
suspected members of the secret society. This forced Bonifacio to prematurely launch
the uprising on Aug. 22 in Pugadlawin through the unsheathing of bolos and the
tearing of cedulas (residence certificate).
This turn of events cut short Bonifacio’s efforts to implement Rizal’s advice to make
full preparations before launching a revolution. He had, as a matter of fact, written
several rich Filipinos to support the Katipunan, although many refused him and even
threatened to expose the plot.
If it were not for the betrayal of the KKK by the wife of one of two quarreling
members of the Katipunan to a priest who violated the sanctity of the confessional, the
revolution could have been launched at a more propitious time.
Rizal’s intention
Those who claim that Rizal was against revolution point out that he was on his way to
Cuba to work as a military doctor in the Cuban revolution when the Katipunan
revolution broke out. Rizal’s detractors claim he was trying to flee from involvement
in the revolution.
In his book, “Dr. Pio Valenzuela and the Katipunan,” Arturo Valenzuela Jr. narrates
that during the conversation between his grandfather Pio and Rizal, the latter had felt
impelled to disclose that a year earlier, in June 1895, he had written Governor General
Ramon Blanco, applying to serve as a doctor in the Cuban revolution.
“My intention,” Rizal whispered to Pio, “…is to study the war in a practical way, to
go through the Cuban soldiery and find something to remedy the bad situation in our
country. Then after a time, I would return to our native land when necessity
arises.” In short, he was preparing himself for the revolution.
Rizal received the permission of Blanco on July 30, two weeks after Valenzuela had
left. Austin Coates, in his excellent biography of Rizal, said he was at first reluctant
to leave. But because of the prodding of his family, Rizal departed Dapitan on the
steamer España on July 3. He had no knowledge that the revolution would break out
in two weeks.
On arrival in Manila, still on exile, he was kept under ship arrest in a Spanish cruiser
on Manila Bay for a month, until he sailed on the Isla de Panay for Cuba. Thus he
had no news of the revolution. On Sept. 28, a day off Port Said, he was arrested by the
ship’s captain, taken to Barcelona, Spain, where he was incarcerated and returned to
Manila on Dec. 3.
Questioned manifesto
Much is made by the detractors of Rizal of his “Manifesto” to the Filipino people
dated Dec. 15, 1896, while he was already imprisoned at Fort Santiago. In the
“Manifesto,” Rizal denied responsibility for the revolution, claiming he had opposed
it from the very beginning because he had believed in its “impossibility.”
This was a half-truth as we have seen. Valenzuela’s recollection showed that initially
Rizal was opposed to the revolution but when told that the movement could no longer
be stopped, he gave advice as to how it could have better chances of success. He
suggested that rich Filipinos be tapped to finance the purchase of more arms.
Besides, Rizal never betrayed his knowledge of the plot to the authorities, making him
at the very least an accomplice, while his positive advice to the revolutionaries to
gather more arms made him a co-conspirator.
For defense attorney
The “Manifesto,” intended for the use of his defense attorney in his trial, must also be
viewed from the circumstance of its writing. Not only did he face a death sentence,
Rizal must have also been thinking of trying to save his family from further
persecution.
His beloved brother Paciano had already been tortured almost to death in Fort
Santiago by the authorities in a vain attempt to make him implicate Rizal. More
important to him than his life was the safety and security of his family. This made him
return to the Philippines in July 1892 despite his foreboding that he would lose his life
in the process.
Any document signed under such circumstances must lack credibility or veracity. In
fact, the Spanish government never released it, not believing in its
truthfulness. Instead, the government convicted him of treason for advocating
independence and of sedition for inciting an armed revolution.
Haunting poem
Rizal’s real feelings about the revolution and its separatist aim can more truly be
gleaned from his haunting poem, “My Last Farewell,” which was written by him just
hours before his execution, and intended only for the eyes of his countrymen and not
for his judges.
In that final epic poem, he devoted a paean of praise for the revolutionaries.
After gladly offering his life to his country in the first stanza—“had it been a life more
brilliant, more fine, more fulfilled, even so it is to you, I would have given it, willingly
to you”—he wrote:
Others are giving you their lives on fields of battle,
Fighting joyfully without hesitation or thought for the
Consequence,
How it takes place is not important. Cypress, laurel or lily,
Scaffold or battlefield, in combat or cruel martyrdom,
It is the same when what is asked of you is for your country
And your home.
(Translation from Spanish by Austin Coates, author of “Rizal: Filipino Nationalist and
Martyr.”)
Icon of all
Rizal is an icon and a martyr for independence and freedom not just of Filipinos but of
all the oppressed peoples in history who have hungered, struggled and fought for
liberty, dignity, enlightenment, and social and economic justice. He richly deserves
the highest berth in our pantheon of heroes. All other nationalist Filipino heroes stand
proud beside him.
There is no need to pit our heroes against each other for they stand equally on the
hallowed ground of patriotism and nationalism.
(The author is a veteran journalist, former editor of the Philippine Graphic and of
the defunct Philippine News Service, which was closed by the Marcos dictatorship,
and a political detainee under martial law. He is also spokesperson of the
Movement for Truth in History, with e-mail address at [email protected].)

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/120015/rizal-