Did Rizal Really Deserve to be Our National Hero?
A Question of Jose Rizal's Impact in Philippine History
"Unglücklich das Land, das Helden nötig hat." (Unhappy is the land that needs a hero.) - Bertolt Brecht (Life of Galileo)
I really enjoyed watching Bayaning 3rd World. Among all of the Rizal movies and shows that I used to watch, that film is by far the most creative, and the most thought-provoking. I even watch it twice, the first time was last year, December 30 (as my way to commemorate the anniversary of Rizal's execution). The flow of the plot is cool and all, but the lasting impact that it leaved to me is that it made me question Rizal's historical significance. Almost all of the Philippine media, film industry, and history textbooks depict him as a glorified figure that must be revered, but not this movie. If anything, this is a slander. To an ardent Filipino nationalist, the creators of Bayaning 3rd World may seem like they are committing heresy for daring to question Rizal's heroism. But the thing is, the movie actually has a point. Today is the 160th birthday of Jose Rizal, and what could be more exciting to celebrate his birth by examining if he really deserved to be called as our "National Hero"?
"Bayaning 3rd World" in a Nutshell
"Kung kasalanan ang pagdudahan ang pagkabayani ni Rizal, mukhang magkakasala kami sa pelikulang ito." That's one of the first lines that Ricky Davao's character said in the Mike De Leon's 1999 film Bayaning 3rd World. It is not like the other usual movies, it's a mockumentary, like a movie inside a movie. The movie is centered on the story of two unnamed filmmakers (portrayed by Ricky Davao and Cris Villanueva), where their characters are planning to make a film about Jose Rizal, and ended up deciding to make it a documentary style, centering on Rizal's controversial retraction letter.
There are plenty of scenes where the two filmmakers had imaginary interviews on Rizal's mother Teodora Alonso; his siblings Paciano, Narcisa, and Trinidad; his Irish wife Josephine Bracken; Jesuit friar Padre Vicente Balaguer; and near in the end of the movie, Rizal himself. Aside from the retraction controversy, the two fictional filmmakers in the movie also brought up Rizal's influence on Pinoy pop culture, his thoughts on the revolution, and skepticism regarding Josephine's intentions and character. I am not going to spoil the whole movie here, but instead I encourage you all to watch it for yourself, 100% recommended. Nevertheless, we will still tackle the main controversies that the movie talks about.
Is Rizal Really Our National Hero?
We were all taught in elementary school during our Araling Panlipunan classes (back in my day, we used to call it "Sibika at Kultura" or "HeKaSi") about the national symbols of the Philippines. Mango is our National Fruit, Narra is our National Tree, Philippine Eagle is our National Bird, Carabao is our National Animal, "Lupang Hinirang" is our National Anthem, Filipino is our National Language, and Jose Rizal is our National Hero, right? Well, not exactly. You see, various laws and proclamations were ratified to make the symbols above official, but not National Hero.
Rizal isn't recognized by the state as our official National Hero, but why our elementary schools still teach that he is? Even until now, people in Congress are still struggling to actually make this thing happen, like Rep. Rene Relampagos' attempt to pass House Bill No. 3926 in 2014 (1). There is still an ongoing debate on which between Jose Rizal or Andres Bonifacio is deserved to be bestowed the title. Pro-Bonifacios argue that Rizal was coward for not participating in the revolution, while Pro-Rizals argue that Bonifacio was violent, vain, and planned the revolution even if they were still not ready. Now to be fair, both sides have a point in some degree. After all, they are still humans.
But let's focus on our birthday boy, Rizal, here. Even if no existing law officially recognizes him as our National Hero, we already kinda, sorta, collectively agree that he is. Back on December 20, 1898, President Emilio Aguinaldo declared December 30 as Rizal Day to commemorate his execution. That's the first step. It was during the US occupation when campaigns to make Rizal the National Hero kicked in. He developed a posthumous cult-like status. Americans favored him to become Philippines' patriotic figure, since he is supposedly represented as a peaceful political advocate, in contrast of Andres Bonifacio who was "too radical" and Apolinario Mabini who was "too regenerate" (2). Historian Renato Constantino argued in his essay Veneration Without Understanding that Rizal was not worthy of his high status in our history books, calling him a "United States-sponsored hero" (3).
One of the great points that the movie Bayaning 3rd World pointed out is that Rizal's life is not movie worthy. It's not really that exciting. All he did was to travel around the world, write novels and poems, attend meetings, and flirt with various women. And suddenly, he's now a hero? Five years after his death, there's already a freaking province named after him! His face was even on the brands of various products like cigarettes; directors were racing to make a biographical movie about him; you will never find any province in the Philippines that doesn't have any statue or bust of him; and let's face it, we all have experienced going on a street called J.P. Rizal Street. Aglipayans even venerated him as a saint, while Rizalista cult followers worship him as a literal deity (4). That's one of our faults as a Filipino. We like to paint our patriots as almost-divine figures that must be idolized without question, instead of viewing them as human beings who are not perfect.
Did Rizal Actually Condemned the Revolution?
Answering that question is a bit more complicated that anyone would think. But for the most part, yes, Rizal did condemn Bonifacio's revolution. This is one of the parts where Rizal's hero status becomes more dubious. Nationalist historian Teodoro Agoncillo noted in his book The History of the Filipino People that the National Hero of the Philippines was not "the leader of its liberation forces" unlike the heroes of other countries like Simón Bolívar (Venezuela and Colombia) and José de San Martín (Argentina, Chile, and Peru) (5). By that standard, Bonifacio should have been the real National Hero instead of Rizal, since the latter is interpreted as someone who demanded reform in Spanish colonial government but nevertheless still favored their rule, while the former is the one who actually demanded for independence from the colonizers. Despite of that, Agoncillo still recommended in his book that we must celebrate Bonifacio alongside Rizal as National Heroes.
During Rizal's exile in Dapitan, Dr. Pio Valunzuela, a member of the newly founded Katipunan movement, visited and consulted him about their planned uprising. Rizal strongly disapproved of it, since Filipinos are still unprepared when it comes to both weaponry and determination, also adding the fact that most of them were unskilled in the battlefield.
"What are we to conclude from this? In Rizal's mind the Filipinos of his generation were not yet ready for revolution because they were not yet ready for independence, and they were not ready for independence because they were still unworthy of it." - Leon Maria Guerrero (The First Filipino) (6)
But years later, Valenzuela told that Rizal was allegedly in favor of the revolution, only if they are well-prepared, well-armed, backed by wealthy and influential Filipinos, and if that's the last resort. But the thing is, before his execution, Rizal wrote a manifesto which states that he officially condemns the revolution. "What is the use of independence if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow?" Rizal wrote in his novel El Filibusterismo.
"The Hamlet split in Rizal between the will to act and the tendency to to scruple preceded the flagrant schizophrenia of El Filibusterismo. In 1887 he was saying that 'peaceful struggle will always turn out to be futile dream because Spain will never learn the lesson from her former colonies in South America.' That was the Bonifacio in Rizal speaking. But Rizal the man of property quickly added: 'In the present circumstances, we do not desire a separation from Spain; all that we ask is more attention, better education a higher quality of government officials, one or two representatives in parliament, and more security for ourselves and our fortunes.' Four months later, he turned 26, and both sides of him wrote: 'I have no desire to take part in conspiracies which seem to me premature and risky in the extreme. But if the government drives us to it, if there remains no hope than to seek our ruin in war, then I too shall advocate violent means.'" - Nick Joaquin (A Question of Heroes) (7)
Even though Rizal, for the most part, opposed a violent revolution regarding the Philippines' independence movement, he still died because of it. The Spaniards still arrested and tried him as the mastermind behind the Filipino uprising. How could you blame them? Bonifacio credited Rizal's novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo as the main inspiration for founding the Katipunan movement, and before founding it, he was a member of Rizal's La Liga Filipina. Hell, one of the secret passcodes of the Katipuneros during their meetings was "Rizal". If anything, he was the victim here, for dying in a cause that he didn't supported in the first place. Nationalist writer Leon Maria Guerrero said in his biographical book The First Filipino that Rizal's trial presents a dilemma regarding his heroism. "Was he innocent or guilty? If innocent, then why is he a hero? If guilty, how can he be a martyr?" he asked.
Did Rizal really wrote a retraction letter?
This is the part where the Rizal dispute becomes steamier, and the main controversial topic of the movie Bayaning 3rd World. It was said that one day before his execution, Rizal allegedly wrote a retraction letter, where he said that he was taking back everything that he said against the Catholic Church, and condemning the Freemasonry (which he was part of) as the enemy of the Church. What for? To marry Josephine Bracken. The document itself was found by Fr. Manuel Garcia in 1935, and since then, it already sparked intense debates among academics and Catholics since it seems that the letter was out of Rizal's character of being a champion of reason and anti-clericalism (8).
There are some academics, like Ricardo Pascual, who had doubts about the retraction letter since there is no existing marriage between Rizal and Bracken (9), and even said that upon his examinations of his manuscripts, the document discovered in 1935 was not his handwriting. Meanwhile, historian and senator Rafael Palma argued that the retraction story was not aligned with Rizal's character and mature belief (10), calling it a "pious fraud," a fabrication invented by the friars to remove Rizal's heroism (11).
"Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, inpresos y conducta ha habido contrario a mi cualidad de hijo de la Inglesia Catolica. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me somento a cuanto ella manda." (I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands.) - Jose Rizal (an excerpt in his retraction letter)
But most historians nowadays are now in consensus that the retraction letter is authentic. "That is a matter for handwriting experts, and the weight of expert opinion is in favor of authenticity. It is nonsense to say that the retraction does not prove Rizal's conversion; the language of the document is unmistakable," wrote Leon Maria Guerrero. Meanwhile, Nick Joaquin wrote in his book Rizal in Saga that "It seems clear now that he did retract, that he went to confession, heard mass, received communion, and was married to Josephine, on the eve of his death" (12). There are also witnesses when Rizal wrote that letter, and even signed a Catholic prayer book, recited Catholic prayers, asked for confessions 4 times, and even kissed a crucifix multiple times before his execution, according to Rizal's great-grand nephew Fr. Marciano Guzman (13).
In other words, the retraction controversy is already a historical dead end. Personally, if you ask me, there really is enough evidence to say that his retraction letter is authentic, but I don't think his conversion back to Catholicism is sincere. He probably only did that because his main goal is to marry Josephine before his execution, but he cannot do that if he will not make a statement that he was taking back every thing that he said against the Church. He could have just faked his convictions in the name of his love to the Irish girl. But I cannot say that for sure. Whatever reasons he had to wrote that, only him knew what it actually was.
The reason why this is a controversy in the first place is that some people believe that there is a very serious implication on Rizal's heroism if ever that letter is authentic. If he really retracted anything that he said against the Catholic Church, then he died for nothing. That everything that he stood for in his novels becomes worthless and insignificant. That the cause that he inspired to the Katipuneros will all going to be waste. But is it really the case? Does it really matter if he retracted or not?
Historian Ambeth Ocampo made a Facebook post way back December 30, 2020, regarding that issue, saying:
"THE RIZAL RETRACTION IS A NON-ISSUE. Rizal retracted religious errors, the document does not, in any way, erase the impact of his life, his novels, essays, and poetry on our history. Everyone now arguing for or against the authenticity of the document do so from a bias based on unreliable photostats from an unverified source. Does the document exist? Yes, I have seen it in the Archives of the Arzobisapdo de Manila. A certified true copy was made in my presence on the day I examined the actual document on November 11, 1996. *certification was made on the back of the photocopy. I wish I had a cellphone then and we could have high-resolution images to argue about. While handwriting analysis is best left to experts, my familiarity with Rizal's writings comes from over 30 years handling original Rizal manuscripts, and in my opinion the document is authentic. Rizal's signature varies depending on the time and place it was made (he used a dip pen not a ballpen) and it can be forged, but forging 17 lines of text in Rizal's writing is another matter. In addition the signatures of the witnesses: Juan del Fresno (El Jefe de Piquete) and Eloy Maure (El Ayudante de la Plaza) have to be forged as well. Signatures of these witnesses can be compared with those in the Rizal Trial documents made available in high resolution scans to the National Historical Commission by the Spanish Archives. I must add that del Fresno's signature is very complicated. Now that we know that the document exists and is authentic, our next question will be why did he write it? Only Rizal can answer that and he left no other clues except for the papers he left in his clothes and shoes all deteriorated when his corpse was exhumed years later. Even if the document were made available, it will not convince those who insist on the counterfactual and conspiracy theories."
Conclusion
So does it really matter if Rizal is not our official National Hero? That he did not support the revolution? That he wrote a letter retracting his anti-clerical beliefs? No. His writings still made a difference in our history, and no one, even himself, cannot take away that. If not because of his two novels, the first successful anti-Western revolution in Asia would have never carried out. Guerrero wrote in The First Filipino that, "It was Rizal, as we have seen, who taught his countrymen that they could be something else, Filipinos who were members of a Filipino nation. He was the first to sough to 'unite the whole archipelago' and envision a 'compact and homogenous' society of all the old tribal communities from Batanes to the Sulu Sea, based on common interests and 'mutual protection' rather than on the Spanish friar's theory of double allegiance to Spain as Catholic and the Church as Spanish, 'the unbreakable keystone of national unity' in Despujol's decree."
It is foolish to glorify or vilify any people of the past, to view the world as nothing but the clash between the pure good and pure evil. History is almost always about gray areas. They key to accurate and comprehensive understanding of history is to treat historical figures as what they really are: human beings. Instead of asking questions like "Did Rizal wrote a retraction letter?" or "Why was Rizal critical of the revolutionary cause?", how about we ask, "What makes someone a hero?" If Rizal is the main reason why we developed a united identity and solidarity as a nation, despite of our ethnic differences, isn't that a more than enough reason to declare him as our National Hero? Rizal is our National Hero because we say that he is, and he will remain forever as such until we stop saying that he is.
Sources:
(1) Relampagos, R. (2014). House Bill No. 3926: An Act Declaring the National Symbols of the Philippines. Philippines House of Representatives. Retrieved from https://congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_16/HB03926.pdf
(2) Friend, T. (1965). Between Two Empires: The Ordeal of the Philippines, 1929-1946. Yale University Press.
(3) Constantino, R. (1970). Veneration Without Understanding. Quezon City: Malaya Books, pp. 125–145.
(4) Tiburcio, N. (2018). Where Jose Rizal is Worshipped as a God. Esquire Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.esquiremag.ph/long-reads/features/where-jose-rizal-is-worshipped-as-a-god-a2190-20180614-lfrm2
(5) Agoncillo, T. (1960). The History of the Filipino People. Quezon City: Garotech Publishing Inc., p. 160
(6) Guerrero, L. M. (1961). The First Filipino: A Biography of Jose Rizal. Manila: National Historical Institute of The Philippines (1962); Guerrero Publishing.
(7) Joaquin, N. (1970). A Question of Heroes: Essays and Criticisms on Ten Key Figures of Philippine History. Manila: Ayala Museum.
(8) Santos, T. (2011). Rizal’s retraction: Truth vs Myth. The Varsitarian. Retrieved from https://varsitarian.net/news/20111004/rizals_retraction_truth_vs_myth
(9) Pascual, R. (1962). José Rizal Beyond the Grave. Manila: P. Ayuda & Co.
(10) Palma, R. (1965). Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the Debate. Life and Writings of José Rizal.
Silliman Journal (Vol. 12, No. 2, April, May, June 1965), pages 168–183.
(11) ibid. (1949). Pride of the Malayan Race. New York: Prentice Hall.
(12) Joaquin, N. (1996). Rizal in Saga. Philippine National Centennial Commission.
(13) Guzman, M. (1988). The Hard Facts About Rizal's Conversion. Sinagtala Publishers.
Published on June 19, 2021
Commentaires