LESSON PROPER:

RIZAL IN THE EYES OF THE FILIPINOS

We begin this book with a question: Who is the greatest hero of the Philippines? When asked this question, a
Filipino might answer: “Jose Rizal”.
Who was Jose Rizal and why was he well-known among Filipino? Why are there so many monuments in his honor
and why were many streets named after him? To many Filipinos, their answer might be varied. He was a martyr who died
for Filipinos. Some sectors even call him the “Tagalog Christ” or “Kristong Tagalog”. Many Filipinos admire him as a man of
many talents-a poet, doctor, anthropologist, sculptor, surveyor, farmer, novelist, essayist, historian, teacher, and a polyglot
with knowledge of, some authors say 22 languages. Historians consider him as the man who inspired a nation. To some
sector, he was revered as a saint or messiah who would one day free the Philippines from oppression.
Rizal also had his share of detractors. Some writers depict him as an agitator, wanderlust, a man hungry for power,
and an unpredictable person. Some write to denigrate him and question his motives. There can be no Emilio Aguinaldo
without Andres Bonifacio. It was Bonifacio who helped found the katipunan, the organization that launched the 1896
Philippine Revolution and recruited Aguinaldo into its rank. There will be no Bonifacio without Rizal- it was Rizal’s
achievements which helped inspire the foundation of the Katipunan. Even his name is one of the passwords of one of the
ranks of the organization. Going further, there will be no Rizal without the GOMBURZA priests. It was the unjust execution
of these Filipino secular priests, Fathers Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora, that inspired Rizal to embark
on his nationalist quest. The trio was his inspiration for his second novel, El Filibusterismo.
THE HUMANITY OF HEROES

In the study of the life of heroes, it is important to put in mind that a hero is a human being. Heroes are made.
Heroes, like ordinary human beings, are a product of their time. Heroes are the product of their environment, which include
their society, surroundings, and the conditions prevalent at that time. Heroes are made because they responded to the call
of the times and their response to this call had a decisive effect on the lives of their countrymen.
Heroes are ordinary human beings who faced challenges with an extraordinary response. In the end, their humanity
will be unveiled through scholarly study. In closely, studying the humanity of heroes, their frailties surface. There may be
some writers who may wish to denigrate their achievements by capitalizing on these frailties. They may even question their
motives by making malicious conclusion about their achievements. These frailties should not distract a serious student in
studying the life of a hero. On the other hand, the student should be guided on the contribution of heroes to be betterment of
their country rather than on their shortcomings. It is also important to consider how the hero’s achievement outweighed his
deficiencies in serving the nation.
THE CRITERIA FOR HEROES

Who declares if anyone is a hero? How did Rizal become a hero? There is no law or proclamation which directly
made Rizal a hero. Rizal’s hero status was made by the acclamation of the Filipino people. This becomes the object of
public worship and accolades are heaped upon him. This could be seen in singular tributes to his honor and it may even be
manifested physically through the erection of monuments and the naming of streets and buildings after him. The test of a
person’s heroism becomes stronger if the person is acclaimed long after his death and by people who are not of his
generation. This means the appreciation of his life and achievements spans beyond his life.
The National Historical Institute (NHI; presently the National Historical Commission of the Philippines), the country’s
agency in charge of historical matters, prescribes the passage of 50 years before a person is confirmed as a hero. If the
person is still being admired after that period and his ideas and ideals are still invoked and appreciated, the person has
passed the test of time and is considered a hero. The NHI also laid down the definition of a hero. In 1965, its predecessor
office, the National Heroes Commission, released criteria on the definition of a national hero. It was approved by a
committee headed by Director Carlos Quirino of the National Library. According to their definition, a hero is defined as “an
admirable leader towering over his peers, who is serving a noble cause, possessing exceptional talent, distinguished valour
and/or hold enterprise, exercising a determinative influence over the spiritual life of his people in a particular remarkable
event.” The criteria also mentioned that “the hero must, during extreme stress and difficulties, project himself by his own
fortitude, by his own sacrifices to be the inspiration of his countrymen in leading them to their rightful destiny. He must
exhibit self-denial and abandon his personal interests to place those of his country before any other, and whose deeds and
acts are proudly emulated by a grateful people that, after his death, render him singular tribute, honour him with public
worship, and acknowledge his meritorious services to mankind by spontaneous national recognition. Moreover criteria
specified, “a hero must exercise a determinative influence over the spiritual life of his people in an event of great
1|GE 102
significance.” It further says that in order to qualify for the distinction of a national hero, “one must project himself by his own
fortitude, effort, and sacrifices to be the beacon light of his oppressed countrymen to their rightful destiny.”
The historical committee of the National Heroes Commission came out with the characteristics of a person to be
examined before he could be considered a hero. These are the extent of the person’s sacrifices for the welfare of the
country.
a. Motives and methods employed in the attainment of the ideal (e.g., welfare of the country). In the attainment of the
ideal, did the person concerned sacrifice purely and exclusively for the welfare of the country or were there any
selfish or ulterior motives in the making of such sacrifices? Were the methods employed in the attainment of the
ideal morally valid?
b. The Moral Character of the person. Did he do anything immoral to taint his personal character? If there was any
immorality, did it affect his work, society or ideal?
c. The influence of the person to his age or epoch and the succeeding eras.
Judging from these criteria, the considerations for heroism are very stringent and would subject the person
concerned to intense scrutiny. It is aimed to confer the mantle of being considered a hero who truly deserve, as the word
“hero” is overused and abused nowadays.

More definition on what a hero is added in the year 1993, as the country was preparing for the commemoration of
the centennial of the declaration of Philippine Independence. On March 28, 1993, then President Fidel V. Ramos issued
Executive Order No. 75, creating the National Heroes Committee whose aim is “ to study, evaluate, and explicitly
recommend Filipino national personages as national heroes in due recognition to their sterling character and remarkable
achievement for the country.” A round-table discussion for the criteria for national heroes was held on June 3, 1993, which
was attended by historians Onofre D. Corpuz, Carmen Guerrero-Nakpil, Dr. Samuel K. Tan, Dr. Marcelino Foronda, Dr.
Alfredo Lagmay, Dr. Bernardita R. Churchill, Dr. Serafin D. Quiason, and Professor Ambeth Ocampo and Minerva
Gonzales. The body adapted the definition of a hero drafted by Dr. Corpuz. He said “Heroes are those who have a concept
of nation and thereafter aspire and struggle for the nation’s freedom.” He explained that our own struggle for freedom was
begun by Bonifacio and finished by Aguinaldo, the latter formally declaring revolution a success. In reality, a revolution has
no end. Revolutions are only the beginning. One cannot aspire to be free only to sink back to bondage. He also added that
“Heroes are those who define and contribute to a system of life and freedom and order for a nation. Freedom without order
will only lead to anarchy”. Dr. Corpuz cited that persons who make the country’s Constitution and laws could be heroes, like
Apolinario Mabini and Claro M. Recto. An important element in considering heroism is the person’s nationalism. According
to the group, a person could be considered a hero if he has a concept of nation and thereafter aspires and struggle for the
nation’s freedom. The person to be considered a national hero must be guided by the conviction of national identity. This
means that the person must identify himself with the nation and would be willing to sacrifice for its benefit. Examples of
these persons are Jose Rizal, Andres Bonifacio, Graciano Lopez Jaena, and Marcelo H. delPilar, who sought to uplift the
social conditions of the Philippines and not just a particular region or ethnolinguistic group. The body also said that heroes
are those who contribute to the quality of life and destiny of a nation.
In another meeting of historians held on November 15, 1995, the National Heroes Committee decided to adapt a
criteria stating that “a hero is part of the people’s expression’. However, the process of the people’s internalization of a
hero’s life and works takes time, with the youth forming part of that internalization. This means that the appreciation of a
person’s contribution to history would require a period of analysis and younger generations who are not a part of the hero’s
era would play a part in the objective study of his role. Only by undergoing such process can a person’s achievements and
virtues be truly appreciated. The committee also said that “a hero thinks of the future, especially the future generations”. The
choice of a hero, it said, “involves not only the recounting of an episode or events in history but of the entire process that
made this person a hero”. This involves the understanding of the historical conditions in which the hero had lived.
Dr.SerafinQuiason gave a definition saying “a hero is an event-making man who helps create the fork in the historical time
that he faces. Heroes in a democracy should be great figures in the pantheon of thought, the men of ideas, and social vision
of scientific and artistic power”. There were some remarks that the process of evaluating and proclaiming heroes imitates
the practice of the canonization of saints. Politicians, too, might be tempted to legislate unilaterally on who should be
heroes. Heroes, according to historians, should not be legislated. The evaluation of their achievements should be better left
to academicians. Acclamation for heroes, they felt, would be recognition enough. Even with the absence of any official
declaration proclaiming them as national heroes, persons like Rizal, Bonifacio, and Aguinaldo remained admired and
revered for their roles in the Philippine history. Proclaiming them will only confirm the public veneration of their contribution
to the country’s history.
Presently, the Philippines has set aside four days to honor its heroes. Rizal Day is commemorated every December
30. The origin of this commemoration came from the decree issued by General Emilio Aguinaldo on December 20, 1898. It
declared the 30th day of December as a national mourning day in honor of Dr. Jose Rizal and other victims of the Philippine
Revolution. Though Aguinaldo’s decree did not specifically declare Rizal as a national hero, it was a tribute to his heroism.

2|GE 102
In Daet, CamarinesNorte, Filipino masons erected a simple monument dedicated to Rizal on December 30, 1989.
The monument bears the words “ A Jose Rizal” “Noli Me Tangere” and “El Filibusterismo”, the titles of his two prominent
novels; and the word “Morga” which refers to the book Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas which Rizal annotated in 1890. The
monument in Daet antedated the Rizal Monument which was constructed at the Luneta Park in Manila in 1911. The
monument in Luneta was constructed through public subscription by Filipinos.
The other dedicated to a single Filipino hero is Bonifacio Day which is celebrated every November 30. It honors
Andres Bonifacio, the founder of the Kataas-taasan, Kagalang-galangnaKatipunanngmgaAnakng Bayan (KKK ANB) which
launched the Philippine Revolution of 1896. The celebration of Bonifacio Day was made possible by the issuance of Act No.
2946 by the Philippine legislature on February 16, 1921.
The third day set aside for commemorating Filipino heroes is the National Heroes Day, celebrated every last
Sunday of August. The celebration of this holiday became possible in accordance to Public Act No. 3827 passed by the
Philippine legislature on October 28, 1931. National Heroes Day honors all the heroes of the Philippines including those
who are unknown.
A fourth holiday was created by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on December 25, 2004, when she signed into
law the Republic Act No. 9256, which created Ninoy Aquino Day. This holiday is commemorated every August 21, the
anniversary of the assassination of then-Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, Jr. Ninoy was the leading symbol of the anti-
dictatorship struggle against then- President Ferdinand E. Marcos.
As for who should recognize heroes, this should be better left to the people through their popular acclamation. The
people are the final judge to the heroes’ achievements and they would subscribe to the heroes’ ideals as long as these are
relevant and classic. Popular acclamation should be sustained and should withstand the test of time. The role of the
government and other authorities is to continue to keep the memory of these heroes alive and to confirm their heroism after
a long period of study and reflection. In the case of Rizal, more than a hundred years have passed and we can now say that
Rizal has passed the test of time and is a true Filipino hero. Other national hero include Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto,
ApolinarioMabini, Marcelo H. Del Pilar, and all those who helped guide the Philippines to being a nation-state.

LESSON 1: THE CONDITION OF EUROPE, AMERICA AND SPAIN

RIZAL’S CENTURY: THE 19TH CENTURY

The 19th century was a century of change. During the last two decades of the previous century, the age of
enlightenment reached its zenith in France, culminating in the French Revolution of 1789. In this age, ideas of freedom,
liberty and equality, and the belief in the sovereignty of the people in determining government thundered all across Europe.
The French Revolution resulted in the toppling of the monarchy of King Louis XVI and the ushering in of the French
Republic. Though France was to slide back to monarchy following the establishment of Napoleon Bonaparte’s French
Empire and the restored Bourbon dynasty, the ideas of philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Montesquieu,
Francois-Marie Arouet (Voltaire), and Englishman John Locke spread around the world like a conflagration. The world was
never the same again.

The struggle for equal rights has spread over the world, Europe went up in revolution from 1848, with the regimes of
the absolute monarchs in France and Austria being toppled by people seeking more responsible governments. In 1861, the
year of Rizal’s birth, Tsar Alexander II emancipated Russian serfs. That year, the Italians, under Giuseppe Garibaldi, threw
out the Austrians and took over the papal lands. Italian nationalism ended the domination of the Church and united the
various Italian states as one country. Germany, on the other hand, was in the process of unification which lasted until 1871.
In the United States, President Abraham Lincoln emancipated the black slaves but also triggered the American Civil War
which lasted from 1861 to 1865. At the south of the U.S border, Mexican troops dealt a humiliating defeat on the French-
supported regime of Archduke Maximilian. In France, the regime of Napoleon III was crumbling after debacle in Mexico.
Later, the French overthrew the monarchists and established a republic. At this time, however, most of Spain’s colonies
such as those in South and Central America, such as Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru,
Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, and others have won their independence from Spain through revolution. The Philippines
was one of Spain’s remaining colonies along with Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Spanish Sahara.

THE NEED FOR REFORMS: REPRESENTATION

During Napoleon’s time, Spain was part of France’s alliance against Great Britain in the Continental System. When
this alliance faltered, Napoleon invaded Spain in 1808 and installed his brother Joseph as king. The Spaniards resisted the
French, and Spanish patriots declared allegiance to their own prince Ferdinand and gathered in the city of Cadiz where they

3|GE 102
crafted a constitution. The Constitution of Cadiz had a novel feature of allowing colonies to be represented in the Spanish
parliament called the Cortes. The Philippines therefore was given representation for the very first time, and Ventura de los
Reyes, a Spaniard born in the Philippines, was selected to represent the colony. However, after Napoleon was defeated,
Ferdinand, who had become King Ferdinand VII, abolished the Cortes, saying that the body encroached on powers he
believed belonged solely to him. The decision was unpopular as Spain’s American colonies began to revolt and sought
independence.

In 1820, the Spanish people rose up and held the king hostage. They forced him to reconvene the Cortes and
restore the representation of the colonies. The restoration of the Cortes was short-lived as France, under the Bourbons,
sent an army which restored Ferdinand to absolute rule and caused the abolition of the Cortes. In 1833, Ferdinand VII died
and the Cortes was again restored. However, at this time, the body held a secret session in which it was decided that the
Philippines should not be accorded representation. From that time on, the Philippines had no representation in the Cortes.
Representation in this body was one of the reforms demanded by reformists like Rizal. It would be given the Filipinos the
right to be heard in the body and equal rights with the Spaniards. After Ferdinand VII died, the country was ruled by his
daughter, Queen Isabela II, whose rule was characterized by decadence and mismanagement. Other European powers
such as Great Britain and France became leading powers in the continent.

CONDITIONS IN ASIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY

In Asia, there were renewed efforts of European penetration with the weakening of Spain and Portugal and the rise
of Great Britain and France. The British gained its colony in Hongkong and forced China to open five ports to its traders
following China’s defeat in the Opium War of 1839-1842. China was humiliated with another defeat in the Arrow War of
1856-1858 when the British, now joined by the French, forced China to open the whole country to foreigners. Furthermore,
Great Britain enlarged its colony in Hongkong by taking over Kowloon.

Japan was forced open by the Americans under Commodore Mattew Perry in 1854. Unlike the Chinese, however,
the Japaneses were able to parry western requests to make Yukohama a treaty port. India became a crown colony of Great
Britain in 1858 following the suppression of the Sepoy Mutiny in 1857. Burma became a colony of Great Britain after three
Burmese Wars in 1824-1826, 1862-1863 and 1885-1886. Near the Philippines, Indo-China became a protectorate of France
following the suppression of the kingdoms of Annam and Cochin, China. Filipino troops from Manila played role in the
conquest of Indo-China for France. Malaysia became a protectorate and eventually a colony of Great Britain while Indonesia
was conquered by the Dutch of Netherlands.

LESSON 2: CONDITIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES IN THE 19TH CENTURY

Liberal stirrings from Europe reached the Philippines. In the Ilocos, leading citizens there, called Kailanes, refused
to believe that the Cadiz Constitution was abolished by King Ferdinand and rose up in revolt. They were crushed by troops
from other provinces. In 1826, Mexican soldiers led by Lt. Andres Novales mutinied. They complained of discrimination and
unfair treatment from peninsular officials following the independence of Mexico from Spain. The mutineers tried to rally the
Filipinos to gain their support and promised to fight for the independence of the Philippines. The mutiny, however, was
crushed and the rebels were executed.

The last of the series of revolts took place in 1841-1842 when Apolinariodela Cruz refused to disband his religious
organization, the Cofradia de San Jose. Dela Cruz aspired to be priest but was refused by the Spaniards because of his
race. Instead, he founded the Cofradia which gained popularity among ordinary people and was seen as a threat by the
Catholic Church. After his execution and the suppression of the Cofradia, members of the Tayabas Regiment of the Spanish
Army, who turned out to be province-mates of dela Cruz, mutinied and almost took over Manila. The arrival of native
reinforcement saved the Spanish colonizers from certain defeat.

The defeats of native revolts demonstrated that the Philippines was disunited because of lack of national identity.
The Spaniards used this disunity to divide and rule the country. Demographically, the Spaniards were a minority in the
Philippines. The peninsulares, or Spaniards born in Spain but at that time were working in the Philippines, were very few,
consisting of the governor-general, some officials and priests, and the insulares, Spaniards born in the Philippines who were
also few in comparison to the native population. In large towns, the parish priest and the head of local police were the only
Spaniards. The colonial order was maintained largely by native officials. Local officials such as: the Gobernadorcillos, the
councilmen, and the Principalia. The policemen were also natives and even the composition of the local Spanish army and
civil guards was largely natives. Only the officials with the rank of sergeants were Spaniards. The Spaniards, despite their
inferior number, managed to retain the loyalty of the native officials by giving them certain privileges that kept them
separated from the rest of the population. The gobernadorcillos were afforded the titles of capitan municipal, teniente, and

4|GE 102
cabeza. Though their positions did not pay much, the titles gave them an exalted position in native society and were called
principales or leading citizens. There were also some material rewards in serving the Spaniards. A number of the
principales descended from the royal datus who pledged their loyalty to the colonizers. They were exempt from taxation and
community labor or prestacion personal. They were also entitled to receive a portion of their collection from the people. After
serving their terms of office, former officials were still eligible for re-election. It was possible for former officials to be
reinstated into their former offices several times. This explains why Spain controlled the Philippines for more than 300 years.
Spain controlled the natives through the native leaders.

Changes in the 19th century had profound effects to the Philippines. During the previous centuries, it was forbidden
for the Philippines to trade with other countries because of Spain’s monopolistic policy, but colonial officials ignored this
instruction and traded with other nations. By 1834, this mercantilist policy of not allowing the Philippines to trade with other
countries was scrapped with the opening of Manila to world trade. Other ports in the colony like Iloilo; Cebu; Sual,
Pangasinan; and Zamboanga followed. There was brisk demand for Philippine products such as sugar, coffee, abaca,
tobacco, dyestuff and rice. This created economic opportunities as many families began trading these products for the
international market. These families were mostly mestizos consisting of Spanish and Chinese families. They intermarried
with natives who were farmers that became traders. In the process, they became more affluent and formed the nucleus of
the middle class. The increase wealth allowed middle class families to have better houses and sent their children to colleges
and universities for tertiary education. They obtained higher education degrees which they thought made them equal with
the Spaniards. Eventually, they became concerned with issues of equality including secularization. By the time of Rizal’s
youth, the quest for equality was the cry of the times. It influenced Rizal throughout his life and it became his lifelong quest.

5|GE 102