Module 1

Introduction to the Course

Section 1: Concept of Hero, Martyr, Patriotism and Nationalism

Overview
Every society, communities and families have always someone to look up to.
These individuals are considered by some as a hero or a martyr. The road to
heroism is not easy, nor does becoming a martyr. The road to heroism, martyrdom
and demonstration of patriotism and nationalism is not easy, it requires more than
sacrifices but meaningful contribution to a community or societies. The good deeds
must be in the context of the communities or societies and for bigger good than the
individual. Only those who possess the strong commitment and relentless desire to
bring justice and peace can succeed in becoming as a hero or martyr.

Hero, Martyr, Patriotism and Nationalism: Meaning, characteristics and aims

Some definitions of a Hero:
- Etymology: The word hero comes from the Greek ἥρως (hērōs), "hero" (literally
"protector" or "defender")
- Generally, it refers to a person admired for achievements and noble qualities.

- A person who is admired for having done something very brave or having
achieved something great. (Cambridge dictionary, 2017)

- Sometimes, the word hero can have a highly subjective label. A hero considered
by the young may not be considered as a hero by adults. For this reason, it
becomes very essential to place qualifiers as to who really are heroes.

- Some of the outstanding and distinctive characteristics of a hero are : Brave /

Courageous, A good and strong leader, Altruistic (puts other first e.g., risks or
gives life for others), Clever, Visionary (has far reaching ideas), Good or Moral
(strong beliefs or principles), Had integrity (stands up for what they believe and act
accordingly), Tenacious (keeps going despite challenges), Decisive, Focused /
Single minded (has a purpose), Inspiring / Charismatic, Determined, Ambitious,
Wise, Honest, Kind / Compassionate, Just and fair minded.

- There are two factors that lead to people acting heroically: (1) The circumstances
they find themselves in, and (2) How they react to these circumstances (i.e., the
characteristics of the person involved)

- These reasons why heroes are needed in the society because they tap the basic
human needs for survival, nurturance, growth, education, safety, security, healing,
happiness, health, hope, wisdom, and justice.

Martyr
- Etymology: Old English martir, via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek martur
‘witness’ (in Christian use, ‘martyr’).
- A person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and
refusing to renounce a religion, or a person who sacrifices something of great value
and especially life itself for the sake of principle. (Merriam Webster Dictionary)
- Martyrdom was first recognized in Catholicism, where in the first and second
centuries, Romans would put Catholics to death because of their faith. This led to
the definition of a martyr as being someone who would die for their faith. Today, a
martyr complex is still seen in some religious groups. A martyr complex can also
be seen in families and relationships. Although this type of martyrdom is not
extreme and people aren't necessarily murdered, it still can lead to the destruction
or death of a relationship.
([Link]
[Link])
- Certain characteristics can help identify someone who has a martyr complex.
These people tend to exhibit different psychological traits that follow the pattern of
the disorder: Low self-esteem, an exaggerated sense of responsibility to others, fear
of being abandoned and difficulties adjusting to change.

Patriotism
- Etymology: The English term patriot is first attested in the Elizabethan era; it
came via Middle French from Late Latin (6th century) patriota, meaning
"countryman", ultimately from Greek πατριώτης (patriōtēs), meaning 'from the
same country', from πατρίς (patris), meaning 'fatherland'. "(Henry George et al, A
Greek–English Lexicon, πατρι–ώτης". [Link]. Retrieved 2013-11-03).
- Patriotism can be defined as love of one’s country, identification with it, and
special concern for its well-being and that of compatriots. (Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, 2017)
- One who is patriotic is always ready to make any sacrifice for his country. He
will never live selfishly for himself alone.
- Stephen Nathanson (1993, 34–35) defines patriotism as involving: (a) Special
affection for one’s own country, (b) A sense of personal identification with the
country, (c) Special concern for the well-being of the country, and (d) Willingness
to sacrifice to promote the country’s good.
- There are five types of patriotism: (1) Extreme Patriotism, (2) Robust Patriotism,
(3) Moderate Patriotism, (4) Deflated Patriotism, and (5) Ethical Patriotism

Nationalism
- Etymology: "devotion to one's country, national spirit or aspirations, desire for
national unity, independence, or prosperity (1844). Earlier it was used in a
theological sense of "the doctrine of divine election of nations" (1836). Later it was
used in a sense of "doctrine advocating nationalization of a country's industry"
(1892). An earlier word for "devotion or strong attachment to one's own country"
was nationality (1772).
- Nationalism gives more importance to unity by way of a cultural background,
including language and heritage. It implies to a person that his country is the most
superior among other countries and he will defend it no matter what.
- In this section, we are going to read and discuss Rizal Bill and its eventual
ratification into Republic Act 1425 also known as the Rizal Law meant to deal
with the demand for the Filipinos’ commitment to the “ideals of freedom and
nationalism for which our heroes lived and died.”
- Historically, nationalism has been used to define and explain everything from
radical political and militaristic movements like Nazism to strong protectionist
policies controlling modern foreign policy and economy. Nationalism centers on a
country's culture, language, and often race. It may also include shared literature,
sports, or the arts, but is primarily driven by cultural associations. And, it promotes
the nation at the expense of others. Nationalism has a positive view of conquering
other nations as it sees itself as the ultimate nation. Any ideologies that undercut or
contradict the nation are opposed. (Sraders, Ann.(2018). What is Nationalism? Its
History and What It Means in 2018. The Street. New York, USA.

The Gates to Heroism: Defining a Filipino Hero

by Diana A. Galang [Link]
hero/

It is common for Filipinos to look for someone to idolize – saints, politicians,

artists, models, etc., somebody they will glorify and imitate. Since the time of the
declaration of Philippine independence, 109 years ago, many were acknowledged
as Filipino heroes, more so today, that every individual who become so popular or
the main character in any particular event is given the title “hero”. The essence of
the word “hero” is past declining, today one need not to die or do such gallant act
to be given the noble title or that some just won a boxing match. Time has really
evolved and so does our standard in defining a Filipino hero. Will our forefathers
who gave their lives for freedom feel insulted for this? Are these the Filipinos
we’ll look up to for guidance through the times, aren’t our children losing the true
meaning of heroism by our doings? All these things we should ask ourselves
before giving the title “hero” to anyone.
But what does being a hero mean? Dr. Esteban de Ocampo, a known historian,
stated in his book about Rizal that a hero means a prominent or central personage
taking an admirable part in any remarkable action or event; a person of
distinguished valor or enterprise in danger, or fortitude in suffering; and a man
honored after death by public worship because of exceptional service to mankind.
The true heroes of Philippine history deserve to be called so for they didn’t have
any idea that one day they will be measured up, they just acted upon their
principles. The concept of honoring heroes came only to the Philippines in 1900,
when the Philippine Commission (Pardo de Tavera, Legarda, Luzurriaga (Filipino
members) and headed by William Howard Taft) approved Act No. 137 combining
the districts of Morong and Manila to be named as “Province of Rizal,” in honor of
the most illustrious Filipino. Actually, this Act was disputed by many but the basis
of the Commission was so strong that it has surpassed the public’s questions.

Since then, heroes were celebrated here and there, citing their names in every
politician’s speech, declaring holidays, naming streets, constructing monuments,
etc. in their honor. Until one day, realizing that so many names were
acknowledged as heroes, need to evaluate the situation was proposed. During
Marcos’ presidency, he tasked the National Heroes Commission to come up with
the criteria for national hero. On March 28, 1993, thru the President’s Executive
Order No. 75, the National Heroes Committee was created, commissioned to study,
evaluate and recommend historical figures to be declared as national heroes. The
Committee composed of worthy members, with a series of discussions came up
with the new criteria.
The criteria are composed of 10 standards:
- First is the extent of a person’s sacrifices for the welfare of the country.
- Second, the motive and methods employed in the attainment of the ideal (was his
ideal purely for the welfare of the country and without any taint of self-interested
motives, most of all the method of attainment should be morally valid).
- The third is the moral character of the person concerned (the person should not
have any immorality issue that affected his ideal).
- The fourth is the influence of the person concerned on his age and or the
succeeding age.
- Fifth is that heroes are those who have a concept of nation and thereafter aspire
and struggle for the nation’s freedom (they must have desired the country’s
freedom in any situation especially when there’s a threat of invasion in any form).
- Sixth is that heroes are those who define and contribute to a system of life of
freedom and order for a nation (one who helps in the orderliness and betterment of
the country).
- Seventh is, heroes are those who contribute to the quality of life and destiny of a
nation.
- Eight, a hero is part of the people’s expression (the citizen must have recognized
and acknowledged the person as a hero).
- Ninth, a hero thinks of the future, especially the future generations, his concern
for the future generations must be seen in his decisions and ideals).
- Lastly, the choice of a hero involves not only the recounting of an episode or
events in history, but of the entire process that made this particular person a hero.

Filipino’s expectations of public figures are different now than it was more than a
hundred years ago, maybe because of the realization that no one is perfect. This is
the reason why today so many were acknowledged as heroes and many were voted
in important governing positions with flaws and questionable characters. Lucky are
those who aspire one day to be called a hero that the criteria was already set to
pattern their decisions with. I hope that the criteria for national heroes will not only
be checked against the historical figures but also with the politicians to whom we
will entrust the power to govern our country.

Patriotism vs Nationalism
The Theory of Nationalism
- is a set of systems – political, social, and economic – characterized by the
promotion of interests of one nation anchored on the aim to achieve and maintain
self-governance or total sovereignty. It holds that a particular nation should govern
itself and should be free from external interference. Another important facet of
nationalism is that it is oriented towards developing and maintaining a national
identity based on shared characteristics such as culture, language, race, and
religion. It seeks to preserve and reshape a nation’s culture. The concept of
nationalism is essentially modern. While people have historically been attached to
their families, community, and native land, the concept of nationalism only gained
recognition in the late 18th century. The conceptualization of nationalism in a
distinctively modern sense was tied to the political awakening of the lower classes.
Nationalist movements have been invariably populist in outlook and sought to
induct lower classes into political life. The five basic elements of nationalism
are culture, history, language, religion, and territory.
- Nationalism is best understood by first looking into the term nation. Benedict
Anderson, a prominent historian and political scientist who explored the origins of
nationalism, defined the nation as a fabrication, a bond between people who did
not actually exist prior to its own recognition. For him, the nation “is an imagined
community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign”
(2006). Anderson argues that the nation is imagined as a community because
regardless of the actual inequalities that prevail, the nation is always conceived as a
deep, horizontal comradeship. It is imagined because it exists in the figment of the
people’s collective imagination. According to Anderson, nation-ness is a cultural
artifact that is felt as having existed since time immemorial but is objectively
modern as it first emerged toward the end of the 18th century.
- Following this conceptualization by Anderson, the Philippine nation is an
imagined community because one who identifies himself or herself as a Filipino
will never meet all the other Filipinos around the world, yet he or she is convinced
that they exist and he or she is related to them. Anderson also presents the concept
of homogenous empty time, borrowed from the ideas of Walter Benjamin, which
replaced the idea of simultaneity-along-time which referred to the medieval
conception of time as situating events in the past, present, and future
simultaneously. Homogenous empty time suggests that a nation can be imagined as
a unit, moving through time.

Patriotism
- is a noun that means “devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country;
national loyalty.”
- The term often brings to mind people directly involved with the defense of a
nation, namely military service members as well as state and local government
representatives. For example: The soldiers showed exemplary patriotism defending
their country from attack.
- Patriotism, however, can take many other forms outside serving in the military
and public office. Diplomats, teachers, first responders, and so many more all
exemplify patriotism in the many forms of good they do in service of their
communities.
- There are millions of government employees, as well as millions who volunteer
their time in the interest of their country. Individual acts of pride, such as
displaying a Philippine flag at one’s home, are also examples of patriotism.

Nationalism
- In most contexts today, nationalism is “the policy or doctrine of asserting the
interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations
or the common interests of all nations.” In short, nationalism is a kind of excessive,
aggressive patriotism.

How to use Patriotism vs Nationalism?

When using these words, it’s important to keep context, and connotation, in mind:
Patriotism generally has a positive connotation. It’s used for various positive
sentiments, attitudes, and actions involving loving one’s country and serving the
great good of all its people.
Nationalism generally has a negative connotation. It’s used for political ideologies
and movements that a more extreme and exclusionary love of one’s country—at
the expense of foreigners, immigrants, and even people in a country who aren’t
believed to belong in some way, often racial and religious ground.

Feelings of patriotism are based on the positive values the country embraces—like
freedom, justice, and equality. The patriot believes that both the system of
government and the people of their country are inherently good and work together
for a better quality of life.
In contrast, feelings of nationalism are based on a belief that one’s country is
superior to all others. It also carries a connotation of distrust or disapproval of
other countries, leading to the assumption that other countries are rivals.

Section 2: The Rizal Law

What is the Rizal Law?
The Rizal Law, also known as RA 1425, mandates the study of Rizal’s life and
works, as shown in section 1. This Republic Act calls for an increased sense of
nationalism from the Filipinos during a time of a dwindling Filipino identity.
According to the judicial system, a Republic Act is a law that has already been
passed and implemented. In contrast to this, a bill is merely a proposed law, in
other words it may or may not be passed by the Congress.
The Republic Act was signed by the President on June 12, 1956. From the notes
preceding the body of the document, one may infer that the bill was originally
proposed in the Legislative arm of the Philippine Republic, in the Senate and
House of Representatives. According to the Official Gazette, the law was made
effective thirty days after its implementation. The mere fact that the Act was
passed on the date of our independence seeks to stir up a greater sense of fervor in
the Filipino, to believe in their own country and national identity—who we are as a
nation. It was this time when the Philippines was heavily dependent on the
American government for support and guidance. Also, based on the fact that Jose
Rizal is honored by the Philippines as the Philippine national hero, it is but
appropriate that the document written to commemorate his accomplishments is
written here, in the land of his birth.
It is Senator Claro M. Recto who authored the Rizal Bill. While Senator Jose P.
Laurel, Sr., who was then the Chairman of the Committee on Education,
sponsored the bill in the Senate. Both of them were known for their great sense of
nationalism. This nationalism served as the foundation to come up with this
republic act, to set our country free from the hands of others and stand up on our
own—exactly the ideals and values that Rizal strove to fight for. It was written for
the Filipino people, specifically the Filipino youth, who may have lost their sense
of nationalism. The writers endeavored to rekindle a lost spark in each Filipino’s
belief in their country. A republic act as drastic as the Rizal Law, which requires
the study of Rizal’s life and works—something that does not need to be required in
the first place—can only be born out of the fact that Rizal and his works were not
given a high priority in the educational system of the country prior to the release of
this act. It is clear that the government had to make drastic changes to resolve the
issue. This is evident in section 3 of the act, legalizing all forms of translations for
Rizal’s works, as well as section 2, obligating all schools, colleges and universities
to keep an adequate number of copies of Rizal’s works. This makes them more
accessible to a greater audience.
It is hard to make out any form of emotion from any legal document; however, the
choice of words is still able to convey a fiery passion. To highlight this, they also
use words or concepts that can easily relate to the common Filipino man. Such
passion is vital, as the audience is presumably of dwindling nationalism. In this
regard, the writer attempts to show the audience the identity they have slowly been
losing, and show them how they can undo this.
There are important points that the author cited in this republic act that is worth
noticing. First, “Whereas, today, more than other period of our history, there is a
need for a re-dedication to the ideals of freedom and nationalism for which
our heroes lived and died.” This document was written in the year 1956 during
Magsaysay’s regime when the country was still recovering from the Japanese
occupation and still very dependent on US governance. Ideals of freedom and
nationalism were very essential during those times since the Philippines was still
struggling for independence, and the country was still gradually developing its
national identity and integrity. During those times havoc also existed within the
Filipinos since there were numerous uprisings against the Philippine government.
Moreover, even though this document was written decades ago, it is still striking
because this clause is very timely for this present generation when our culture is
being overpowered by foreign influence and Filipino diaspora is widespread.
Another important point from RA 1425 is “Whereas, all educational institutions
are under the supervision of, and subject to regulation by the State, and all schools
are enjoined to develop moral character, personal discipline, civic conscience,
and to teach the duties of citizenship.” It is very important to use our educational
institutions to instill these values to the children who are at their prime years of
growing and learning. During one’s educational years especially the college level
is when individuals formulate their priorities and career tracks in life, and it is
essential that institutions make students realize that the country should be a part of
their priorities and serving one’s country is an innate and inborn duty for all. Also,
embedding a profound and authentic moral character and a strong sense of
personal discipline in the youth would yield proficient, genuine, and selfless
Filipinos of the future who would turn the Philippines from an impoverished
country to a globally competitive nation.
Lastly, “The Board of National education shall cause the translation of the Noli
Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, as well as other writings of Jose Rizal into
English, Tagalog and the principal Philippine 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 the Barrio
Councils throughout the country.” To provide a specific way to carry out this act is
very helpful. It makes the goal very SMART – specific, measurable, attainable,
realistic and time-bound. It is also important that the effects of this act would be
experienced by all students even those who are financially troubled. It is
commendable that in the context of this act, the poor is well represented and that it
is attainable regardless of ethnicity, social stature, and language barriers.
This document was obviously written during a time when patriotism and
nationalism was lost and needed, and a time when people were inspired by the
initiative of the authors of this act. It was during this time when the Philippines and
its’ citizens relied on the United States for guidance, support and welfare. It was
written in order to seek aide from the same brilliant mind that drove the Filipinos
of the past to fight for freedom from colonists entails another need for another
meaningful revolution in spite of the absence of invaders; the country may have
needed a slow-paced revolution driven by patriotism against dormancy, apathy and
futility.

History of Rizal Law

Senate bill 438 known as Rizal Bill which was first authored by Senator Claro M.
Recto – requiring the inclusion in the curricula of all private and public schools,
colleges and universities the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal particularly his
novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo – is considered as one of the most
controversial bills in the Philippines. Normally, before the bill was approved and
implemented in all schools and was signed into a law known as Republic Act 1425,
it had been brought to the Upper and Lower House of the Congress for
deliberations. But what made it controversial is that the bill was not just fiercely
opposed by people from Legislative Arm but also by the Catholic Church due to
the inclusion of compulsory reading of Rizal’s novels in which according to them,
catholic dogmas are humiliated.

Senator Recto brought the bill to the Senate and Senator Jose B. Laurel Sr. who
was then the Chairman of the Committee on Education sponsored the bill that
consequently led to exchange of arguments from the Congress. The bill was
headedly opposed by three senators namely Senator Francisco Rodrigo who was a
former Catholic Action President, Senator Mariano Cuenco and Senator Decoroso
Rosales who was the brother of Julio Rosales, an archbishop. Other oppositors
were from Lower House namely Congressmen Ramon Durano, Marciano Lim,
Jose Nuguid, Manuel Soza, Godofredo Ramos, Miguel Cuenco, Lucas Paredes,
Congressmen Carmen Consing and Tecia San Andres Ziga. The Catholic Church
was indirectly included in the debates and played a major role for the intervention
of signing of the bill into a law. Allied with the church in battle against Rizal Bill
were the Holy Name Society of the Philippines, Catholic Action of the Philippines,
Legion of Mary, Knights of Columbus and Daughters of Isabela.

Oppositions argued that the bill would go against freedom of conscience and
religion, The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) submitted a
pastoral letter to which according, Rizal violated Canon Law 1399 which forbids
or bans books that attack or ridicule the catholic doctrine and practices. Oppositors
argued that among the 333 pages of Noli Me Tangere, only 25 passages are
nationalistic while 120 passages are anti-Catholic. While upon scrutiny of the two
novels by some members of catholic hierarchical, 170 passages in Noli Me
Tangere and 50 in El Filibusterismo are against catholic faith. Furthermore,
oppositors pointed out that Rizal admitted that he did not only attack the friars who
acted deceptively on the Filipinos but also the catholic faith itself. They suggested
a reading material for students as to what they called Rizalian Anthology, a
collection of Rizal’s literary works that contain the patriotic philosophy excluding
the two novels.

Of course, Recto and Laurel defended the bill and argued that the only objective of
the bill is to keep the memory of the national hero alive in every Filipino’s mind, to
emanate Rizal as he peacefully fought for freedom, and not to go against religion.
Senators Lorenso Tanada, Quintin Paredes and Domocao Alonto of Mindanao also
defended Rizal Bill which was also favored by Representatives from the House
namely Congressmen Jacobo Gonzales, Emilio Cortez, Mario Bengson, Joaquin
Roxas, Lancap Lagumbay and Pedro Lopez. Other supporters of the bill were
Mayor Arsenio Lacson call anti-Rizal bill “bigoted and intolerant” and walked out
of a mass when the priest read a pastoral letter from the archbishop denouncing the
Rizal Bill and General Emilio Aguinaldo with groups like the Knights of Rizal,
Women Writers of the Vernacular, Philippine Veterans Legion, College Editors’
Guild and Philippine School Teachers’ Association.

Excitement and intense scenes were eventually arisen in settling the Rizal Bill. One
of which was the debate of Cebu Representative Ramon Durano and Pampanga
Representative Emilio Cortes that ended with a fistfight in Congress. Bacolod City
Bishop Manuel Yap threatened to campaign against pro-Rizal bill legislators and to
punish them in future elections. Catholic Schools Representatives threatened to
close down their schools if the Rizal Bill was passed. Recto told them that if they
did, the State could nationalize the catholic schools. When there was a proposal to
use the expurgated novels as textbooks and put the original copies under lock and
key in the school libraries, Recto rejected this amendment and expressed:

“The people who would eliminate the books of Rizal from the schools…would
bow out from our minds the memory of the national hero…this is not a fight
against Recto but a fight against Rizal…now that Rizal is dead and they can no
longer attempt at his life, they are attempting to blot out his memory.”

Due to apparently never-ending debate on the Rizal Bill, approved amendments

were formulated through ideas of three senators. Senator Laurel’ created an
amendment to the original bill in which, other that Noli Me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo, works written by Rizal and works written by others about Rizal
would be included and reading of the unexpurgated revision of the two novels
would no longer be compulsory to elementary and secondary levels but would be
strictly observed to college level. Senator Lim suggested the exemption to those
students who feel that reading Rizal’s novels would negatively affect his or her
faith. Senator Primicias created an additional amendment that promulgates the
rules and regulations in getting an exemption only from reading the two novels
through written statement or affidavit and not from taking the Rizal Course.
According to historian Ambeth Ocampo, no student has ever availed of this
exemption. After the revised amendments, the bill was finally passed on May 17,
1956 and was signed into law as Republic Act 1425 by President Ramon
Magsaysay on June 12 of the same year.

Republic Act No. 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

WHEREAS, today, more than any other period of our history, there is a need for a
re-dedication to the ideals of freedom and nationalism for which our heroes lived
and died;

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 writing of Jose Rizal, particularly his novels Noli
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 regulation 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,

SECTION 1. Courses on the life, works and writings of Jose Rizal, particularly his
novel Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, shall be included in the curricula of
all schools, colleges and universities, public or private: Provided, That in the
collegiate courses, the original or unexpurgated editions of the Noli Me Tangere
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 printing 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. The Board shall promulgate rules and
regulations providing for the exemption of students for reasons of religious belief
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 said paragraph. 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

in their libraries an adequate number of 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 translations 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.

The Board of National Education shall determine the adequacy of the number of
books, depending upon the enrollment of the school, 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 writings of Jose Rizal into
English, Tagalog and the principal Philippine 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 in this Act shall be construed as amendment or repealing

section nine hundred twenty-seven of the Administrative Code, prohibiting the
discussion of religious doctrines by public school teachers and other person
engaged in any public school.

SECTION 5. The sum of three hundred thousand pesos is hereby authorized to be

appropriated out of any fund not otherwise appropriated in the National Treasury
to carry out the purposes of this Act.

SECTION 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Section 3: Supplementary Laws and Directives to RA 1425

Historical Context and Legal Basis of Rizal Day and Other Memorials in
Honor of Jose Rizal
For over a century now, the nation has never failed to observe the anniversary of
the martyrdom our great national hero, Dr. Jose P. Rizal. This year, the President
will lead the simultaneous raising of Philippine flag at half-mast and wreath
offering at the monument of Jose Rizal at the Rizal Park in Manila, Calamba,
Laguna and in Dapitan, Zamboanga del Norte on December 30, 2010. The theme
of this year’s commemoration is “Rizal: Haligi ng Bayan”.
Although frequently at the center of controversies and criticism of the public, the
government must be given credits for its efforts in ensuring that the memory of
Rizal stays in our hearts through the issuance of legislative acts, decrees and other
proclamations honoring him.
Two years after the execution of Rizal in Bagumbayan, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo
issued on Dec. 20, 1898 a decree designating Dec. 30 as the anniversary of Jose
Rizal’s death and also as “a National Day of Mourning” for Rizal and other victims
of the Spanish government throughout its three centuries of oppressive rule. 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. On December 30, 1898, Filipinos celebrated
Rizal Day for the first time and chose Club Filipino in Manila to be the venue.
The Americans, to win the sympathy of the Filipinos, and to convince them that
they were pro Filipinos more than the Spaniards, gave Rizal official recognition.
This was 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
It was also during the American times that Rizal’s death anniversary was made an
official holiday. On February 1, 1902, the Philippine Commission enacted Act. No.
345 which set December 30 of each year as Rizal Day, and made it one of the ten
official holidays of the Philippines. As the nationalist spirit of the Filipinos was at
the highest point during that time, they were able to convince the government to
erect a monument for Rizal. Thus, 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.
So important was the observation of Rizal Day that President Quirino approved on
June 9, 1948 Republic Act No. 229 which prohibits cockfighting, horse racing and
jai-alai every 30th of December of each year, in order to have proper observance of
Rizal Day.
To give ample time to prepare for the birth centenary of Jose Rizal in 1961, the
Rizal National Centennial Commission was created by Executive Order No. 52,
issued by Pres. Ramon Magsaysay on August 10, 1954 to undertake the
construction of a National Cultural Shrine and other memorials to b

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 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 a criterion 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, distinguish valor 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 right 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, honor 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
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.
- Motives and methods employed in the attainment of the idea (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?
- 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?
- 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 to those who are truly deserving, as the word
“hero” is overused and abused nowadays.
More definitions on what a hero is were 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 achievements
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. Corpus, Carmen
Guerrero-Nakpil, Dr. Samuel K. Tan, Dr. Marcelino Foronda, Dr. Alfredo
Lagmay, Dr. Bernardita R. Churchill, Dr. Serafin D. Quiason, and Professors
Ambeth R. Ocampo and Minerva Gonzales. The body adapted the definition of a
hero drafted by Dr. Corpus. 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 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. Corpus cited that person 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 struggles 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 benefits. Examples of these persons are Jose Rizal,
Andres Bonifacio, Graciano Lopez-Jaena, and Marcelo H. del Pilar 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 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 stat 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. Serafin Quiason 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 imitate the practice if 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, person
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 heroism.
In Daet, Camarines Norte, Filipino masons erected a simple monument dedicated
to Rizal on December 30, 1898. The monument bears the words “A Jose Rizal;”
“Noli Me Tangere” and “El Filibustirismo,” 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 day dedicated to a single Filipino hero is Bonifacio Day which is
celebrated every November 30. It honors Andres Bonifacio, the founder of Kataas-
taasan, Kagalang-galang na Katipunan ng mga Anak ng 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 15, 1921.
The third day set aside for commemorating Filipino heroes is the National Heroes
Day, celebrated every 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 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 heroes include Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Jacinto,
Apolinario Mabini, Marcelo H. del Pilar, and all those who helped guide the
Philippines to being a nation-state.

The Making of a Philippine National Hero

As the country spends this long weekend to mark National Heroes Day tomorrow,
August 31, The Sunday Times Magazine decided to look into the process of how a
Filipino—whose love, loyalty, and allegiance to country is both admirable and
immeasurable—is officially proclaimed a Philippine icon of the highest esteem.
Does a hero’s life story need to be presented to a particular body? Does thorough
research need be done to authenticate one’s valor for country? Does a Filipino need
to be martyred to become a national hero?
With all these questions, The Sunday Times Magazine excitedly began its own
research into the making of a Philippine national hero, only to be met, however, by
surprising and complicated revelations.
No such hero
“No law, executive order or proclamation has been enacted or issued officially
proclaiming any Filipino historical figure as a national hero.”
Jose Rizal has never been proclaimed a national hero
This is what the “Selection and Proclamation of National Heroes and Laws
Honoring Filipino Historical Figures” has stated in the 2002 executive summary
report done by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP).
According to Alvin Alcid, chief of research of Publication and Heralding Division
of NHCP, this was submitted to the Reference and Research Bureau and
Legislative Research Service of the House of Congress.
Based on this official document, even Dr. Jose Rizal who is taught in school as the
Philippine National Hero, has never actually been conferred this title. Nevertheless,
NHCP clarifies that the position Rizal now holds in the Philippine history is a
tribute and honor to a national hero.
“However,” the statement clarified, “because of their significant roles in the
process of nation building and contributions to history, there were laws enacted
and proclamations issued honoring these heroes.”

Implied heroes
Emilio Aguinaldo, the first Philippine president
As early as December 20, 1898, General Emilio Aguinaldo issued a decree
declaring December 30 of every year a day of national mourning in honor of Rizal
and other victims of the Philippine Revolution.
When William Howard Taft arrived in the Philippines in June 1900 and became
the chairman of the 2nd Philippine Commission, the American governor general
suggested to name Rizal a national hero.
On June 11, Act No. 137 was formulated which organized the “politico-military
district of Morong” into the “Province of Rizal,” in honor of Rizal, the great hero
and martyr.
Another hero given an implied recognition as a national hero is Andres Bonifacio.
His birth date of November 30 was declared a national holiday through Act No.
2946, enacted by the Philippine Legislature on February 16, 1921.
On February 23, 1918, Act No. 2760 confirmed and ratified all steps taken for the
creation, maintenance and improvement of national monuments, and particularly
for the erection of a monument in memory of Andres Bonifacio

Acclaimed heroes
Marcelo H. del Pilar is the leading propagandist for reforms in the country
Despite the lack of any official declaration explicitly proclaiming the country’s
most famous freedom fighters and martyrs as national heroes, they remain admired
and revered for their important roles in Philippine history. For according to
historians, heroes should not be legislated; rather, their appreciation is better left to
academics. Acclamation for heroes in their opinion is recognition enough.
Nevertheless, the Philippine government have made attempts in the past to identify
and officially recognize Filipino heroes.
On March 28, 1993, President Fidel Ramos issued Executive Order 75 creating the
National Heroes Committee under the Office of the President.
The committee was tasked to study, evaluate and recommend Filipino national
personages/heroes in due recognition of their sterling character and remarkable
achievements for the country.

Melchora Aquino, the Grand Woman of the Revolution

Dr. Onofre Corpuz and Dr. Alfredo Lagmay came up with six-item criteria for the
purpose, which was adopted by a Technical Committee comprised of Samuel Tan,
Marcelino Foronda, Bernardita Churchill, Serafin Quiason, Ambeth Ocampo (then
known as Dom Ignacio Maria), Prof. Minerva Gonzales, and Carmen Guerrero-
Nakpil. The criteria contained the following:
1) Heroes are those who have a concept of nation and thereafter aspire and struggle
for the nation’s freedom.
2.) Heroes are those who define and contribute to a system or life of freedom and
order for a nation.
3.) Heroes are those who contribute to the quality of life and destiny of a nation.
4.) A hero is part of the people’s expression.
5.) A hero thinks of the future, especially the future generations.
6.) The choice of a hero involves not only the recounting of an episode or events in
history, but of the entire process that made this particular person a hero.
After two years of deliberation, the National Historical Commission, comprised of
the country’s top historians, selected nine individuals and recommended their
declaration as “national heroes.” Shortlisted were Rizal, Bonifacio, Emilio
Aguinaldo, Apolinario Mabini, Marcelo H. del Pilar, Sultan Dipatuan Kudarat,
Juan Luna, Melchora Aquino, and Gabriela Silang.

Heroes in waiting
Unfortunately, the NHC recommendation submitted on November 22, 1995 to then
Secretary Ricardo Gloria of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS, now known simply as Department of Education) was never acted upon.
NHCP’s explanation regarding this pending approval states, “This was probably
because [the recommendation] might trigger a flood of requests for proclamations.
Another possibility is that the proclamations can trigger bitter debates involving
historical controversies about the heroes.”
The NHCP maintains, however, that the agency is certain of the laws and
proclamations made in honor of all Filipino heroes, collectively celebrated for the
first time in the 1931 National Heroes Day. Moreover, the year 1996, the
centennial of the Philippine Revolution, had also been declared the “Year of
Filipino Heroes,” with August 30 of every year dedicated as National Heroes Day.
The date of choice is the commemoration of the Cry of Pugad Lawin, which
signaled the start of Bonifacio’s Katipunan-led revolution in 1896.

In 2007, former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Republic Act 9492,

which mandated that if the date of any regular or nationwide special holiday falls
on a Wednesday, the holiday is to be observed on the Monday of that week. In
addition, if a holiday falls on a Sunday, then the holiday shall be observed on the
Monday of the following week. In effect, the celebration of National Heroes Day
since then has been assigned to the last or fourth Monday of August.
With all these facts uncovered, celebrating National Heroes Day is still observed
by government as a very important holiday in the Philippines. For whether
legislated or not, Filipino heroes deserve the veneration of generations of Filipinos
who enjoy the freedom they now have. More importantly, it is in remembering
them and their selfless love for country that will inspire future Filipino heroes to
rise up.

Section 4: Rizal as a Hero

Jose Rizal is, in the annals of heroism, an anomaly. He was a man of science, a
scholar and writer, and to many young Filipinos is idealized as a model son and
something of a ladies’ man.
Unlike other national heroes, he did not bear arms or lead an army. Indeed, he
preached against an armed rebellion, believing his country folk were yet
unprepared for battle and so concluded that a revolution was bound to fail. But
neither was he a milquetoast. While in Madrid, he challenged fellow propagandist
Antonio Luna to a duel after Luna disparaged Nellie Boustead while in a drunken
rage. Nellie apparently favored Rizal over Luna, and hearing the young lady
maligned, Rizal challenged Luna to a gun duel. The gunfight did not proceed,
fortunately, after Luna sobered up. Reports have it that, while a superior
swordsman, Luna was not as good with a pistol as Rizal was.
Rizal also challenged to a duel Wenceslao Retana, a minor official in the Spanish
colonial bureaucracy who became the foremost opponent of Filipino propagandists
in Spain. In an article in an anti-Filipino newspaper in Madrid, Retana claimed that
the reason Rizal’s family and friends were ejected from their Calamba properties
was that they failed to pay rent. It was an injustice that rankled Rizal deeply,
especially since stories reached him that his beloved mother was paraded before
the townsfolk with her hands in shackles. It is believed to have sparked Rizal’s
simmering anti-Spanish sentiment.
And so, an incensed Rizal challenged the Spaniard to a duel, a challenge left unmet
after Retana retracted his claims in a later article. The Spaniard would later become
an ardent devotee, and after the hero’s death wrote the first book-length biography
of Rizal.
Proud and quick to take offense, sensitive to slights and determined to prove by
personal example the superiority or at least the equality of Filipinos to any other
peoples on earth, Rizal was uniquely situated to take on the mantle of national
hero.
Some have claimed that Rizal was nothing more than a “creation” of the American
colonial powers who deemed the scholar-writer a safer and thus more palatable
model of heroism than the more volatile Andres Bonifacio, whose enduring image
is, despite contrary scholarship, the firebrand in peasant wear holding aloft a bolo
and the Katipunan flag.
But this flies against accounts of how Rizal—and later, his surviving family—was
beheld by his contemporaries. During his exile in Dapitan, Rizal was visited by an
emissary of the Katipunan who sought to convince him to lend his person and
reputation to the revolutionary cause. Rizal rebuffed him
Historian and Inquirer columnist Ambeth Ocampo, in an account of Rizal’s
execution, describes the scene as Rizal is led on foot from his cell in Fort Santiago
to Bagumbayan: “The streets were lined with people who wanted to see the
condemned man, since Rizal was many things to different people: ‘leader of the
revolution,’ physician, novelist, poet, sculptor, heretic, subversive. Rizal was a
person one could not be neutral about. Like him or hate him, he was a celebrity.”
In a time when it took at the very least some weeks for news to cross the ocean
from Spain to these islands, Rizal and his fellow propagandists were virtually the
sole voices of Filipino opposition to Spanish colonial policy. His novels articulated
the inchoate anger of the people against the symbols of Spanish oppression: the
military, the civil authorities, the clergy. At a time when armed conflict consisted
of bolos and spears and a few rifles employed against a well-armed military force
with long arms, cannons, swords and mounted troops, Rizal chose to fight with
words—scathing, bitter, pained and pointed—and aimed these at the heart of the
colonizer. He may have eschewed active, bloody battle, but he was no coward.
His words were missiles that covered a broad ground and outlasted his own brief
life. And their enduring influence explains why he is a hero.