QUIBUYEN’S – A NATION ABORTED  What was it in Rizal’s life and works that struck a

chord in popular imagination?

(SUMMARY-NOTES)  What was Rizal’s nationalist agenda? How was it
received by the revolutionaries?
 CHAPTER 1 TOWARD A RADICAL RIZAL  Did the people of the 19th century perceive Liga and
 Floro Quibuyen the Katipunan as ideologically and strategically
 Nationalist view opposed political organizations?
 Teodoro Agoncillo  Did the revolutionaries perceive Rizal as an
 1st Nationalist view assimilationist and therefore opposed revolution?
 Reform movement did not cause the  Did they, for that matter, perceive Reform and
Revolution Revolution as opposed political agendas?
 DICHOTOMY:  IKEHATA
 REFORM  Ileto’s : “history from below”
 REVOLUTION  Two opposite and irreconcilable meanings
 Renato Constantino  Modernist discourse
 Echoed Agoncillo  Traditional discourse
 Accepts: Essentialist characterization of  Reproduces the Agoncillo-Constantino binary
Agoncillo opposites
 DICHOTOMY  Answers the first 2 questions
 RIZAL
 BONIFACIO
 Reform movement did not cause the  MODERNIST VS TRADITIONAL
Revolution MODERNIST
 NOT based on historical FACTS  Elite/official
 FACTS: (REFORMIST)  Liberal reformist
 Province of Spain  Elite
 NOT for INDEPENDENCE TRADITIONAL
 Anti-Friar  Folk/ vernacular
 NOT anti-SPANIARD  Tagalog christ
 Not for Armed Revolution  Masses
 RIZAL: El Fili and  “realm of the familiar”
Manifesto to the Filipino  GRAMSCIAN: IDEOLOGICAL CONFLICTS
People RIZAL
 Denounced the Revolution  Prim and proper
 Antonio Luna: x  Sensitive
Katipunan  Anti-SPAIN
 Accepts: Essentialist characterization of DEL PILAR
Agoncillo  Ambitious
 MIDDLE CLASS  Politically shrewd
 Illustrados  Anti-FRIAR
 Economic interest  Correspondence and Memoirs as Source for a Critical
 Cautious and conservative Hermeneutics
 MASSES  Other scholars:
 Revolutionary consciousness born of praxis  Cesar Majul
 REFORM VS REVOLUTION  John Schumacher
REFORMIST  Sesuho Ikehata
 Middle class  Austin Coates
 Illustrados  Leon Guerrero
 Rizal  Rizal’s works and political acts
 La Liga Filipina  1861-1882: Formative years
 “hatred of the masses”  Calamba,
REVOLUTIONARIES  Binan
 Masses  Ateneo and the Jesuits
 Bonifacio  Gomburza Martyrdom
 Katipunan  Imprisonment of Teodora Alonzo
 RIZAL VS BONIFACIO  Literary ventures
RIZAL  Encounter with the guardia civil
 Assimilationist  Rizal’s works and political acts
 Self-serving  1882-1887: European Sojourn
 Counter-revolutionary  Enlightenment education
BONIFACIO  Medical studies
 Fighting for the country’s liberty  Patriotism
 CRITICAL ISSUES:  Noli me tangere
 What are the “historical FACTS”  1887-1888: The turning point
 How did the people of the 19th century perceive  Calamba Hacienda case
events?  Rizal’s works and political acts
 CRUCIAL QESTIONS  1888-1892 : Second Sojourn
 Why, of all heroes, was Rizal the most venerated in  Radicalization of Rizal
the 19th century nationalist movement?  Historical, ethnological, and linguistic studies
  Los Indios bravos
 Break with the del Pilar and La Solaridad
 El Filibusterismo
 Rizal’s works and political acts
 1892-1896: The Moment of Truth
 Rizal and the Revolution
 La Liga Filipina and the Katipunan
 Exile to Dapitan
 Arrest
 Martyrdom
 CRITICAL ISSUES
1) Strategy and tactics – Reform or Revolution
2) Calamba Hacienda Case
3) Rizal’s break with del Pilar’s La Solidaridad
 Reform or Revolution
 Independence
 Peaceful struggle
 DREAM
 Assimilation
 MISTAKE
 Reform or Revolution
 Letters to Blumentrit
 The Filipinos had long wished for
HISPANIZATION and they were wrong in
aspiring for it. It is Spain and not the
Philippines who ought to wish for the
assimilation of the country. (Feb 21 1887)
 Reform or Revolution
 A peaceful struggle shall always be a
dream, for Spain will never learn the lesson
of her South American colonies. Spain
cannot learn what England and the United
States have learned. But, under the present
circumstances, we do not want
separation from Spain. All that we ask is
great attention, better education, better
government, one or two representatives, and
grater security for persons and our
properties. Spain could always win the
appreciation of Filipinos if she were only
reasonable. But, quos vult perdere Jupiter,
prius dementat! (Jan 26, 1887)
 Constantino and Ruth Roland
 A peaceful struggle shall always be a
dream, for Spain will never learn the lesson
of her South American colonies. Spain
cannot learn what England and the United
States have learned. But, under the present
circumstances, we do not want
separation from Spain. All that we ask is
great attention, better education, better
government, one or two representatives, and
grater security for persons and our
properties. Spain could always win the
appreciation of Filipinos is she were only
reasonable. But, quos vult perdere Jupiter,
prius dementat! (Jan 26, 1887)
 Austin Coates
 Rizal’s pseudonym : Laong-la’an (Ever Prepared)
 Almost Fatalistic attitude
 Spain would never accede to the demand of reforms,
and so, if the revolution was going to happen, it was
going to happen; one must, therefore, be prepared
for any eventuality. (June 19, 1887)
 I can assure you that 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, that is
to say, when there remains to us no other
hope than to seek our ruin in war, when the
Filipinos shall prefer to die rather than to
endure their miseries any longer, than I
too shall advocate violent means. It is
Spain who must choose between peace and
ruin… I cannot believe that you, as a free
man, as a citizen of Europe, would like to
advise your good friend to endure all and to
act like a cowardly man, without courage.
(Guerrero trans. 1963, 286)
 Austin Coates
 Reform = Political TACTIC
 Distinguished from: Longer strategy of SEPARATISM
 NOT mutually exclusive (Reform vs Revolution)
 Rizal: did NOT have ILLUSION of the reform
movement
 Appreciated: tactical value
 Letter to del Pilar
 I am assiduously studying the events in our
country. I believe that only intelligence can
redeem us, in the material and in the
spiritual. I still persist in this belief.
Parliamentary representation will be a
burden on the Philippines for a long time. If
our countrymen felt otherwise than they do,
we should reject any offer of such
representation but, the way we are, with our
countrymen indifferent, representation is
good. It is better to be tied by the ankles
than elbow to elbow. What can we do!
(Guerrero)
 Antonio Luna: Support for RIZAL
 The propaganda for assimilation is necessary but
separatist propaganda should be even more active
for the practical thing is to seek adherents in shaking
off the yoke since we should not obtain and even if we
did we would work for independence, banding
together, making ourselves into apostles to gain men
and money. For all this much study, a great deal of
fact and prudence and no boasting of our strength will
be required…
 Antonio Luna: Support for RIZAL
 …I think you understand me well enough… I shall go,
then, to Manila and in all my acts keep ever in mind
my duty as a separatist… You already have then a
follower around here who will work with constancy
(Guerrero)
 Views of the Filipinos
Agoncillo-Constantion
 Dichotomy
 Reform VS Revolution
19th Century
 Reform = tactic
 Long-term: SEPARATISM
 Revolution
 Enlightenment of the Filipinos
 Develop national consciousness: Propaganda
(REFORM)
 Attain nationhood
 Obtain the knowledge that was not available to the
Philippines but come home and work among your
people.
 CHAPTER 2 RIZAL AND THE REVOLUTION
When we open the pages of history books in the
Philippines, it is not surprising to see texts about the
martyrdom of our most celebrated hero-- Dr. Jose Rizal. In
fact, it seems that his name already occupied a permanent
and prominent place in every publication that has
something to say about the Philippines. Truthfully, there
is nothing wrong about immortalizing Rizal and his
heroism in books and literatures read by several
generations of Filipinos and non-Filipinos. Probably, most
writers deemed that doing such is a fitting way of paying
respect and gratitude to his contributions and sacrifices for
the benefit of the Filipino people and of our nation. It’s just
unfortunate that in trying to present him as an icon of
heroism, he was placed in a pedestal that became too
tough for Juan dela Cruz to reach. The national revolution
that we had in our country from 1896 to 1901 is one period
when the Filipino people were most united, most involved
and most spirited to fight for a common cause—freedom.
While all aspects of Jose Rizal’s short but meaningful life
were already explored and exhausted by history writers
and biographers, his direct involvement in the Philippine
Revolution that broke out in 1896 remains to be a
sensitive and unfamiliar topic.
Historians cannot deny that Rizal played a major part
in the country’s struggle for reforms and independence.
His writings, particularly the Noli me Tangere and El
Filibusterismo were viewed as the guiding force for other
patriots to rally for the country’s cause. While most of us
believed that Rizal dedicated his life and labor for the
cause of the revolution and venerated him to a certain
extent, a brave historian rose up and went against the tide
by making known to the public his stand that Rizal was
NOT an actual leader of the Philippine Revolution. While
most of his biographers avoided this topic, it is important
to note that this greatest contradiction in Rizal made him
more significant than ever. In his Rizal Day lecture in
1969 entitled “Veneration without Understanding,” Prof.
Renato Constantino tried to disclose the real Rizal and the
truth of his heroism stripping off the superficial knick-
knacks adorned on him by hagiographers and hero-
worshippers. The very striking fact that Constantino
forwarded was the notion that Rizal was not a leader of
the Philippine Revolution, but a leading opponent of it.
Accordingly, in the manifesto of 15 December 1896 written
by Rizal himself which he addressed to the Filipino people,
he declared that when the plan of revolution came into his
knowledge, he opposed its absolute impossibility and state
his utmost willingness to offer anything he could to stifle
the rebellion. Rizal thought of it as absurd, and abhorred
its alleged criminal methods.
Rizal in his manifesto put into premise the necessity of
education in the achievement of liberties. Most
importantly he believed that reforms to be fruitful must
come from above and that those that come from below are
shaky, irregular, and uncertain.
Rizal’s weakness for this matter was his failure to fully
understand his people. He was unsuccessful in
empathizing with the true sentiments of the people from
below in launching the armed rebellion. He repudiated
the revolution because he thought that reforms to be
successful should come from above. It could be
understandable that the hero thought of such because it
was the belief of the prevailing class to which Rizal
belonged. It is also possible that Rizal disproved the
revolution due to his belief that violence should not prevail.
In this case, Rizal unintentionally underestimated the
capacity of those from below to compel changes and
reforms.
This hesitation of Rizal against the revolution was
supported by Dr. Pio Valenzuela’s 1896 account of the
revolution after he was sent by Andres Bonifacio to
Dapitan to seek Rizal’s opinion and approval in launching
an armed rebellion against the Spanish administration. In
September 1896, Valenzuela before a military court
testified that Rizal was resolutely opposed to the idea of a
premature armed rebellion and used bad language in
reference to it, the same statement was extracted from
him in October 1896, only that he overturned that it was
Bonifacio, not Rizal, who made use of foul words.
However, Valenzuela after two decades reversed his
story by saying that Rizal was not actually against the
revolution but advised the Katipuneros to wait for the right
timing, secure the needed weapons and get the support of
the rich and scholarly class. Valenzuela recounted that
his 1896 statements were embellished due to duress and
torture and it was made to appear that in his desire “not to
implicate” or “save” Rizal, testified that the latter was
opposed to the rebellion. This turn of events put historians
into a great confusion, making Rizal’s stand over the
Philippine Revolution, controversial and debatable, making
him both hero and anti-hero.
Constantino, in reality did not disrobe Rizal the merit
he deserves, what he did was a critical evaluation of Rizal
as a product of his time. He pointed out that even without
Rizal, the nationalistic movement would still advance with
another figure to take his place because it was not Rizal
who shaped the turn of events but otherwise. Historical
forces untied by social developments impelled and
motivated Rizal to rose up and articulate the people’s
sentiments through his writings. In fact, the revolution
ensued even Rizal disagreed with it. Finally, Constantino
argued that to better understand the hero, we should also
take note of his weaknesses and learn from them.
• Chapter 3 ANDERSON’S READING OF RIZAL
AND THE PHILIPPINE NATIONALISM
• 7 key elements of mistranslation and
emasculation in Guerrero’s English version of
Rizal’s novel:
• Demodernization
• Exclusion of the reader
• Getting rid of Tagalog
• Bowdlerization
• Delocalization
• De-Europeanization
• Anachronism
• ANDERSON’S MISREADING OF THE NOLI-FILI
Why Guerrero did unwittingly emasculated Rizal’s novel in
a systematic fashion?
• Immerse subterranean shift
• Fundamental reshaping of Filipino’s conception of
themselves
• Fundamental change in the imagining of the
Philippines and of the Philippine Society
Fundamental difference between two modes of
consciousness
 the patriotic and nationalist
• Rizal’s object of devotion is for the Filipino nation
to be loved in the imagining was a place, a heimat,
and not, as in the contemporary sense, an
“ethno-racial unity” of people called Filipinos.
• According to Anderson, this is manifested strikingly in
the fact that Rizal’s beautiful farewell poem was
addressed not to his fellow Filipinos and Filipinas, but
to his patria adorada and the only people mentioned
in it are his immediate family, and his dulce
extranjera. As time passed, as the suffrage expanded,
and as a second independence was achieved,
Filipinos’ increasingly took the place of ‘Las Filipinas’
as the objects of rhetorical and genuine attachment.
• For young Filipinos would at once see, in any straight
translation from the Spanish, that they do not exist
within the novel’s pages. “Filipinas,”of course appear
but they are exactly what Filipinos today are not: pure
 blood, Spanish creoles. This alongside with the
influence of Anglo-Saxon racism, may also help to
account for Guerrero’s strange translation of mestizo
by half-breed, despite the fact that both he and Rizal
were, by these terms, also half-breeds. But was a
half-breed first Filipino thinkable in the 1950’s?
• Nationalism in our times dreams of purities and finds
it hard to linger Caruñosamente over the Oxymoron
pure mix.
• Unlike nationalists today, Rizal was not preoccupied
with race or racial purity. For Rizal, it was never a
case of Filipinos versus Spaniards.
• The “nonexistent” Filipino
• All of us have to sacrifice something on the altar of
politics, though we might not wish to do so. That is
understood by our friends who published our
newspaper in Madrid. They are creole young men of
Spanish descent, Chinese mestizo and Malayans; but
we call ourselves only Filipinos.
• It is simply not true that the only people Rizal
mentions in his farewell poem are his family and
Josephine: the second stanza explicitly pays homage
to those who are giving their lives in the battlefront.
• The last and most memorable paragraph of Rizal’s
farewell letter to the Filipinos reads:
I have always loved my poor country and I
am sure I shall love her to the last moment if men should
prove unjust to me; my future, my life, my joys, I have
sacrificed all for love of her. Be my fate what it may, I shall
die blessing her and wishing for her the dawn of her
redemption.
• Anderson’s pronouncement that Filipinos and
Filipinas in the Noli and El Fili refer only to pure blood
Spanish creoles is flat wrong. Rizal resorts to four
interlink narrative devices which confront the reader
even before he starts reading the first chapter:
1. The novel’s title, El Filibusterismo
2. The dedication to Gomburza
3. A two paragraph preface to the Filipino people and their
government
4. A quotation from Blumentritt on the novel’s cover
• The word filibustero is little known in the Philippines.
The masses do not know it yet. I heard it for the first
time in 1872 when the tragic executions [of the three
priests Gomez, Burgos, Zamora] took place. Our
father forbade us to utter it, as well as the words
Cavite [site of insurrection], Burgos [the leading light
in the campaign for Filipinization of the parishes], etc.
The Manila newspapers and the Spaniards apply this
word to one whom they want to make a revolutionary
suspect. The Filipinos belonging to the educated
class fear the reach of the word. It does not have the
meaning of freebooters; it rather means a dangerous
patriot who will soon be hanged or well, a
presumptuous man I am sending you the enclosed
article, El Filibusterismo en Filipinas. I mock it n my
novel. Ispichoso (sospechoso, suspicious) is better
known, though less feared. The ispichoso of the poor
and lower class is banishes or temporarily jailed; but
the plibestiro, as my cousins say it, is not yet known;
but it will be! (Rizal-Blumentritt, 69).
• One is tempted to imagine that an agitator has
secretly bewitched the friar-lovers and the
reactionaries into favoring and promoting, all
unwitting, a policy which can have only one aim: to
spread subversive ideas throughout the country and
to convince each and every Filipino that there is no
solution except independence from the Mother
Country (El Fili’s original cover).
• The Meaning of Pueblo
 According to Anderson:
• The lineaments remain obscure, not least because he
used it very often for the local inhabitants of Calamba
or Manila. This is not only a gross misreading of Rizal,
it is downright obscurantist.
• The novels use of “people” in this very delimited
sense is to miss out on the crucial political themes of
Rizal was exploring on his novel.
• The word “People”
 IBARRA
Can one say that it refers only to the
inhabitants of Calamba or Manila when he mentions “the
people”?
• He speaks of the Philippines and not of Calamba.
• He is also adamant in his belief about the benign
relationship bet. The Philippines and Spain. This
colonial relationship between two countries is in fact
the underlying context in the discussion about
Government the need for reforms, and the people’s
apathy.
• PHILOSOPHE TASIO
How can the term “people” here denote only
the inhabitants of Calamba or Manila, and not of the whole
country?
• To delimit “people” in this localized sense is to
emasculate the political points.
• ELIAS
He speaks of “us when he mentions “the
people”.
• “No noble sentiment unites us… our hearts do not
beat to a single name.”
• Theme of Noli-Fili
• That an oppressed people may be disunited without a
voice, but through enlightened struggle, it can
become a nation.
• July 27 1888 letter to Mariano Ponce, Rizal spoke
of:
• “Our arduous mission which is the formation of the
Filipino nation.”
• Colonialism and the National Question
Guerrero
• Is aware of the problematic nature of colonialism and
nationalism and is thus sensitive to Rizal’s nuanced
rendering of these intractable political issues.
• The Fili is quite contemporary in its treatment of the
obsession with the “prestige of the ruling race and the
conflict of nationalism.”
The word “people”
RACIST PENINSULARS
• “indios”
• Peninsulars who recognize their dignity as human
beings call them “the people” and those who
sympathize with their political aspirations call them
FILIPINO.
• Shifts between Indian and People
FATHER FERNANDEZ
• When the rights of the natives are considered, he
refers to them as people.
FATHER CAMORRA
• He refers to them only as Indians.
• The Evolution of the term “Filipino”
• Renato Constantino and Clarita T. Nolasco were
probably the first to expound on the evolution of the
term Filipino. Benedict Anderson offered his basically
 similar account of the Emergence of the Filipino
Identity.
• Most people in our country called Filipinas or Las
Filipinas. Filipino is synonymous to “Criollo”, which
means pure-blooded Spanish born in the archipelago.
• Constantino and Anderson share 2 basic premises:
1. Filipino was originally a creole identity.
2. In Constantino’s words, “The growth of the concept of
nationhood was coterminus with the development of the
concept of Filipino.”
• The fundamental change in the meaning of “Filipino”
reflected the rapid transformation of the political
demands of an anticolonial movement that was
initiated by the illustrados but which eventually
involved the masses – from secularization to
assimilation to separation.
• Rizal never equated being Filipino with Hispanization.
Rizal had noted with chagrin the timidity of the
celebrated painter Juan Luna towards the Spaniards.
• CHAPTER 5 THE MORGA AND RECLAIMING
HISTORY
• Late 1880’s
• Period of Rizal’s intellectual labors.
• Secularization controvers.
• Assimilationist issue- beginning of 1890’s
• Second accusation:
• The ingratitude of Filipinos to mother spain, to
whom they owed so much.
• Burgos
• First to appeal to history in his defense of fellow
Filipino priest.
• Documenting the accomplishments of Filipinos
past generation.
• Rizal’s 3 countrymen had done doing historical and
ethnographical studies.
• Isabelo de los Reyes
• Pedro Paterno
• Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera
• Isabelo de los Reyes
• A prolific Filipino journalist
• Had written a whole series of newspaper articles
on Philippine history and indigenous culture
• Pedro Paterno
• A colorful figure, if notorious for his outlandish
and fantastic claims about Philippine precolonial
history and culture.
• Extrapolates a high level of Filipino culture at
Spanish contact.
• Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera
• Sanskrit scholar.
• Medical colleague of Rizal
• Referred to Paterno’s book – full of surprises for
history, for science and for reason.
• Rizal’s work differ from those of his compatriots in
another crucial way:
• Its rigorous scholarship based on German
historiography.
• Its clearly defined nationalist agenda.
• Its Asian-Pacific perspective.
• Its impact on the nationalist movement.
• Dr. Ferdinand Blumentritt
• Austrian professor
• 33 year old history
• Geography professor at the Leitmeritz Classical
Secondary School
• Most respected Philippine expert among
European orientalists
• Rizal’s 1890 Edition of Morga’s Sucesos
• Blumentritt declined to write a Philippine history.
• Morga’s sucesos de las Islas Filipinas (1609)
• Dr. Morga
• Liutenant governor of the Philippines
• Justice of the Audencia of Manila for 7 years
• Criminal judge
• Counselor of the Inquisition
• 2 phases:
• An assessment of the 300 years of spanish rule
on the basis of an “archeological excavation” of
the Philippines precolonial past.
• The construction of a national view of Philippine
history and culture
• Threefold agenda
• To awaken in Filipinos “a consciousness of our
past, now erased from memory”.
• To correct “what has been distorted and
falsified”.
• To better judge the present and assess our
movement in three centuries.
• Functions:
• They make crossreferences to other early
chroniclers to confirm, correct or highlight the
importance of certain ethno-historical
observations;
• They draw contrast between a flourishing pre-
Hispanic filipino society and culture
• They highlight the similarities in folkways, religion
and languages among various regions in the
archipelago to establish a common heritage
• They show the precolonial linguistic, cultural and
trade relations between Philippines and Malay
peninsula,Vietnam,Cambodia,China,Japan and
Pacific Islands to situate the Philippines in the
Asia Pacific region
• They expose the falsehood of “white
mythodologies and thereby deconstract spanish
orientalism
• The Footnotes
• Philippine precolonial culture and society.
• The immediate impact of conquest such as
depopulation, the decline in agriculture and native
industries, and the destruction of the native
culture.
• The long-term impact of colonial rule.
• Some examples of Rizal deconstructive moves
against Spanish colonial discourse.
• Rizal’s hypothesis about why Philippine society
succumbed so easily to Spanish conquest
• The Indio as Filipino
• A number of places he refers to the precolonial
natives.
• This is remarkable because Morga, like the friar
chroniclers, never reffered to those they called
“indios” or “naturales” as Filipinos, which was
the colonial label for Spanish creoles
• Immediate impact Spanish conquest
• Morga cites an interesting account of the voyage of
Adelantado Alvaro de Mendana de Neira to the
Solomon Islands, written by the senior pilot of the
expedition, Don Pedro Fernandez de Quiroz, who
tells of an incident involving Medanas crew and the
natives of an islands, which Rizal identified as
Fatuhiwa.
• The natives of Fatuhiwa are described by de Quiroz
as “very handsome “, “tall and strong, large –limbed,
and so well that they made by far surpassed us”.
• This footnotes sets the first theme of the Rizal-Morga:
the death and destruction, violence and oppression
 brought about colonialism and the consequent social
decline and depopulation.
• Long-term effects of colonial rule
• Aside from Morga, a number of Spanish chroniclers—
Chirino, San Antonio, Zuniga, Le Gentil, Ezgerra.
• “argue a considerable amount of culture among the
Filipinos prior to the Spanish conquest”.
• The said chroniclers has a major reason for this claim
is the well developed system of writing and
widespread literacy among the precolonial Filipinos.
• Rizal did not let Morga get away with this statement.
In his footnote, Rizal writes that “along before this
indios had schools where they learned to read and
write in tagalog, in which all of them were skilled”.
• Another issue was the encomienda system. The
encomienda was grant in which the holder, the
encomendero, controlled the wealth that the land
produced, i.e. he had priority to buy and sell the land’s
produce at a price he was to determine.
• On the question of slavery and exploitation of natives
by encomenderos, Morga constructs an image of an
autocratic precolonial society that practiced slavery.
• Rizal raises a number of points regarding Morga’s
observation. What Morga observed in the Philippines
was not slavery in the European sense, for according
to the chronicler Argensola, the so-called saves are
with their master at the same table and were allowed
to marry members of his family.
• Rizal also highlights the gross disparity in wages.
• In Morga’s time (1609)- captains: 420 pesos/year;
master-of-camp: 1400/year; general of galleys:800
pesos/year; captain of galley: 300pesos/year
• During Rizal’s time (1889)- First Sergeants,
European: 318-360 pesos/year, native:180
pesos/year
• Deconstructing colonial discourse.
• In Morga,, such words are “pacify”, “entrust”,
“treachery”, “piracy”. Rizal takes note of these and
does what could well be late nineteenth-century
version of deconstruction.-
• According to Morga, the raid by Datus Sali and
silonga of Mindanao, in 1599, with fifty sailing vessels
and 3,000 warriors, against the capital of Panay, is
the first act of “piracy” by the inhabitants of the South
which is recorded in Philippine history.
• CHAPTER 7     Interrogating the Empire
• Nagsisimula ang kabanatang ito sa pagsuri ni Rizal
sa pagiging kolonya ng Pilipinas sa Espanya.  Sa
pagsusuri ni Quibuyen sa mga sulat at mga artikulo ni
Rizal ay lumabas ang mga sumusunod na
obserbasyon:
• a.)    Makikita sa palitan ni Rizal at Blumentritt ng
opinyon ukol sa kolonyalismo, tutol si Rizal sa
pagiging kolonya ng Pilipinas samantalang naniniwala
si Blumentritt na ito’y nakabuti sa Pilipinas. Ang
palitang ito ay makikita sa nobelang Noli me Tangere,
sinasalamin ng kanilang mga opinyon ang nangyaring
usapan ni Crisostomo Ibarra at Elias noong sila’y
namamangka at naguusap tungkol sa dayuhang
mananakop at ang taongbayan.
• b.)    Ipinakita rin sa kabanatang ito ang isang “literary
war” sa pagitan ni Rizal at ni Vicente Barrantes.
Nagtagisan ang dalawa tungkol sa kasaysayan ng
Pilipinas bago ito sinakop ng mga kastila. “Racist” at
maraming mali ang mga artikulo na inilabas ni
Barrantes. Inilabas rin ni Rizal sa nobelang Noli ang
iba pang kapalpakan ng nasabing propesor na
KAstila.
• c.)    Matunog sa kabanatang ito ang salitang
“indolence” o katamaran at kabobohan. Para kay
Rizal, nagmula ang nasabing “indolence” sa maling
pamamalakad sa bansa. Dito pumapasok ang pang-
aabuso ng mga kastila  na  sinalamin din ni Rizal sa
Noli bilang Kwento ni Elias. Sinasabi rin niya na ang
kabobohan ay nagmumula sa maling sistema ng
edukasyon na pinapairal ng mga kastila at ang
pagpapalaganap nito ng sugal.
•             Sa pagpapakita ng mga nasabing argumento
at ang masusing pag-aaral ni Rizal sa nakaraan ng
Pilipinas, lumalabas na iginigiit ni Rizal na
masmaayos ang Pilipinas bago ito nasakop ng mga
kastila. Taliwas sa sinasabi ng karamihan sa mga
historyador noong panahong yaon. Hinimay sa
kabanatang ito ang “mananakop” at ang epekto niya
sa kanyang “nasasakupan”.
• CHAPTER 8       A GRAND NARRATIVE OF
REDEMPTION AND TRAGEDY
• Sa kabanatang ito ay sinuri naman ang mga gawa ni
Rizal. Lumalabas ang mga sumusunod na
obserbasyon:
• a.)                          Bakas sa mga sulatin ni Rizal ang
matinding impluwensiya ng “Pasyon”, ang
pinakapopular na babasahin sa katagalugan. Hinati ni
Rizal ang kanyang mga nobela sa tatlong bahagi, ito’y
mayroong “Paradise”, “Tragedy” at “Redemption”.
Ang “pattern” na ito ay malinaw na makikita sa
Pasyon.
• b.)                          Samantala, ang Kilusang
Propaganda naman ay mayroong masprogresibong
bersyon nito, “Precolonial”, “Colonial” at
“Postcolonial”.
• c.)                          Sinasabi rin sa kabanatang ito na
hindi itinatabi ni Rizal ang posibilidad na kailangan ng
rebolusyon upang makalaya ang Pilipinas, ngunit
naniniwala rin syang kaya rin ito ng Reporma.
• d.)                          Sinabi rin nito ang mga tunay na
adhikain ng dalawang nobela. Ang Noli ay
naglalayong ipakita ang mga kasalanan at
pagkakamali ng nakakatandang henerasyon,
samantalang ang Fili ay isang apela sa kabataan na
huwag ng ulitin ang mga nasabing pagkakamali.
• CHAPTER 9     THE REVOLUTION THAT NEVER
WAS
• Ikinuwento sa kabanatang ito ang ebolusyon ng
Ebolusyong Pilipino mula sa pagbuo ng La Liga
Filipina sa pagbuo ni Bonifacio ng Katipunan at
Digmaang Pilipino- Amerikano. Lumalabas ang mga
sumusunod na punto:
• a.)    Bumalik si Rizal ng Pilipinas sapagkat siya’y
nawalan na ng ganang humingi ng reporma sa
Madrid. Ginalugad niya ang Luzon upang imbitahan
ang mga Ilustrado at mga mason sa kanyang
proyekto.
• b.)    Isa sa kanyang mga nakuhang miyembro ay si
Andres Bonifacio, ang syang bubuo ng Katipunan
pagkatapos mahuli ni Rizal at mabuwag ang Liga.
• c.)    Sa usaping pagsusulat ay parehong gumamit ng
“Pasyon Pattern” si Rizal at Bonifacio. Ito’y ginamit ni
Rizal sa kanyang mga nobela, samantalang ginamit
naman ito ni Bnifacio sa Kalayaan. Ang nasabing
“Pattern” ay lubhang nakatulong sa dalawa upang
makaimpluwensiya ng tao.
• d.)     Humingi ng payo si Bonifacio kay Rizal noong
ito’y nasa Dapitan ukol sa nalalapit na himagsikan,
ito’y sinunod naman ni Andres ngunit napilitan rin
magsagawa ng “Premature Revolution” dahil sa
pagkakadiskubre ng Katipunan.
 • e.)    Sinabi sa kabanatang ito na si Bonifacio ang
naging tulay sa masa ng mga adhikain ni Rizal.
• f.)      Ayon kay Nick Joaquin, si Rizal ay isang
“Antihero”. Isang taong ayaw maging bayani at
bagkus, iniiwasan pang magpakabayani.
• CHAPTER 10    REMAKING PHILIPPINE HISTORY
• Sa kabanatang ito inilathala ang simula ng
kolonisasyong Amerikano sa Pilipinas at kung paano
niligawan ng “mananakop” ang “nasasakupan”. Isang
matinding punto sa kabanatang ito ay nang malaman
ng mga Amerikano ang popularidad ni Rizal sa mga
pilipino ay ito ang isa sa kanilang ginamit na
kasangkapan upang makuha ang tiwala ng tao,
lalung-lalo na ang mga elite
HACIENDA DE CALAMBA CASE
Year 1889, the situation in Calamba worsened. The
past locust infestations, low price of sugar and other natural
calamities had taken their toll. The practice of the hacienda of
not issuing receipts to rents paid[1] aggravated the situation. If
ever receipts were released, these were useless as these
contained no signature and no indication of any amount paid.
The receipts only stated the taxpayers’ names and the fact that
the tax for that year had been paid.[2] Thus, year after year,
the unpaid rents increased enormously for payments may end
up unreported.
By August, after the tenants boycotted the May canon
collection, the hacienda formally asked the court for the
eviction of defaulting tenants.[3] Almost sixty (60) tenants were
sued by the administrator of the Hacienda before the Court of
the Justice of the Peace.[4] The list of receivables shown to the
governor general during his November visit at the hacienda
appeared that the tenants paid nothing. This alarmed the
governor general for it displayed civil disobedience. [5]
Three things worried the Calambeños about the case.
First, the Justice of the Peace confessed that he cannot go
against the interests of the Dominican Corporation, because he
was a servant of the former syndic. Second, majority of the
tenants have no money to defray the costs of litigation. And
third, word spread that if the tenants lose the case, they will be
expelled, and their warehouses, sugar mills and everything
built on the ground will be demolished.[6] The case of Don
Francisco Rizal y Mercado was a representative case.
The Rizal Case Before the Municipal Court of Calamba
On 21 August 1889, Friar Gabriel Fernandez,
administrator of the Hacienda de Calamba, for and in behalf of
the Corporacion de Padres Dominicos de Filipinas (hereinafter,
Corporacion) filed a formal petition to declare the estate rented
and held by one Don Francisco Rizal y Mercado and his family
vacant. The petition further prayed that the tenants be evicted
from said land and tenements. The petition was filed before the
Municipal Court of Calamba, Province of Laguna presided by
Don Procopio Pabalan, Justice of the Peace.
The petitioner was represented by Don Vicente Ilagan
who, upon request of the respondents, presented his power of
attorney to prosecute the case. The respondents, on the other
hand, were represented by Don Paciano Rizal y Mercado, [7] a
law undergrad but able solicitor. Preliminary hearings were
made on 26 November 1889 and 6 December 1889. The trial
was conducted on 7 January 1890 where both parties asserted
and proved their respective claims.[8]
Petitioners claimed that the contract of tenancy held by
the respondents had already expired and that respondents
failed to pay a part of the annual rent amounting to 472.21
pesos due on the year 1889.
Respondents insinuated that in 1888 despite prompt
payment, they were deprived of their tubigan. All other tenants
were left undisturbed despite their failure to pay rents for two or
three years. Consequently, respondents argued, there must be
different bases for ownership and legal possession of said
lands. And since the petition was founded on the ownership of
the leased lands by the corporation, respondents argued, said
ownership must be proven by presenting the land title.
Respondents sought that the boundaries of the hacienda be
defined so that all lands not included therein can be declared
free from rents, and rents unjustly collected be returned.[9]
Petitioner pointed out that from the very beginning, it
was of public knowledge that the lands in dispute, be it rice
lands or farm lands, had been the property of the Corporacion
de Santissimo Rosario[10]. All tenants recognized this
ownership and they conceded with the Corporacion as they
renewed their contracts. These proved the Corporacion’s
ownership.
Respondents replied that if in the past their fathers and
forefathers acknowledged the domination of the Corporacion, it
was because of their ignorance or of the fatherly dealings of
the past hacienda administrators. Further, respondents
claimed that ownership of the said lands cannot be established
by mere acquiescence of the tenants but by land titles.
Furthermore, respondents now repudiated the Corporacion’s
ownership of the subject lands as well as the Corporacion’s
legal standing to sue in the instant case.
On 20 March 1890, the Municipal Court dismissed the
petition of the Corporacion. The court reasoned that for the
Corporacion’s petition to prosper, it must first prove its
ownership over the subject lands by showing its titles. This
condition was set under section 1546 of the Law on Civil Trials.
The failure of the petitioner to show the said titles hampered
the proper administration of justice.
After carefully considering Sections 1546, 1561, 1563
and 1564 of the Law on Civil Procedure, the court ruled that
the petition was unjustified.
The Review of the Rizal Case Before the Court of First
Instance of Laguna
On 29 March 1890, the Corporacion appealed the
adverse decision of the Municipal Court of Calamba before the
Court of First Instance of Laguna, presided by Judge Celestino
Dimayuga. Don Santiago Esquerra and Atty. Manuel Navas
Diaz represented the Provincia del Santissimo Rosario de
Filipinas while Don Paciano R. Mercado represented the
respondent Don Francisco R. Mercado.
On 28 April 1890, after a couple of postponements, trial
ensued. Counsel for the appellant, Atty. Navas Diaz, prayed for
the annulment of the decision of the Justice of the Peace. He
argued that the core issue of the case was the eviction of the
respondents by reason of non-payment of rents. The Municipal
Court, he ratiocinated, allowed the proceedings to drift away
from the real issue. Instead of resolving the legitimacy of
eviction, it tried to determine ownership, which was beyond the
jurisdiction of the Municipal Court. Furthermore, the appellant
maintained that the ownership of the lands by the Corporacion
had been recognized by the appellee several times and that
the following facts remained unopposed: (1) a contract of
tenancy existed; and (2) there was default in payment of
rentals.
As a rejoinder, Don Paciano Rizal Mercado asked the
appellate court to affirm the judgment of the Court of First
Instance. He argued that under section 1546 of the Law on
Civil Procedure, actions for eviction must be based on the true
ownership of the land in question. Thus, it was inevitable that
land titles must be presented from the very start. Although the
core issue of the appealed case was the propriety of the
eviction of tenants, the land titles – the bases of ownership and
of the petitions for eviction – had not been shown. According to
the appellee, the failure of the plaintiff to present these titles as
promised showed that it was not trustworthy, thus, the
Municipal Court properly declared its petition for eviction,
unreasonable.
The Court of First Instance of Laguna resolved to nullify
the assailed decision of the Municipal Court of Calamba. The
appellate court found the eviction of the tenants proper. A
restatement of the court’s deliberation is presented as follows:
1. The issues raised by the appellant Corporacion (e.g.
the appellee’s failure to pay the agreed rents on time as
stipulated in the contract of tenancy) remained undisputed.
These issues were not addressed head-on by the appellee but
rather vaguely.
2. On the issue of land titles, the presentation of the
same was deemed unnecessary. The appellee himself,
acknowledged the existence of tenancy when he claimed that
in 1888, the appellant dispossessed him of his rented irrigated
lands without due process. The katihan (higher lake
shorelines), the subject of the present dispute, was also
acknowledged to be a subject of a contract of tenancy. These
submissions, even in the absence of the land titles, were
enough incidents of ownership for purposes of commencing
petition for eviction from the said lands under Section 1546 of
the Law on Civil Procedure.
3. When the court conducted the trial based on
evidence, it did not necessarily entail the presentation of land
titles evidencing ownership. The parties may present other
proofs of their positions. They may prove, for instance, the
existence of contract of tenancy or that the contract was still
subsisting or that there was no default in the payment of rents.
4. The appellee admitted that his ascendants
recognized not only the ownership of the Corporacion of the
subject lands but also the contract of tenancy. The appellee, as
a substitute and heir, inherited not only the rights and actions
of his ascendants but also their obligations entrenched in the
terms and conditions of the contract of tenancy. The appellee
was thus estopped from denying the Corporacion’s ownership
to the lands in question.
5. The primary basis of the appellee’s opposition to the
prayer of eviction was the non-presentation of land titles
evidencing ownership. The presentation of land titles, however,
was not necessary in this case – which only looked at the
propriety of the prayed eviction. Land titles may be required in
litigations where the issue of ownership is in question.
6. The existence of the contract of tenancy
presupposed the acknowledgement of the right of the appellant
to pursue the case of eviction upon termination of the tenancy
and upon non-payment of rents which were due. As the
appellee failed to refute this allegation by presentation of
receipts evidencing payment in accordance with section 1561
of the Law on Civil Procedure, his eviction, as prayed for by the
appellant, must be granted.
7. The appellee’s insistence and adamant stand in
opposing the eviction manifested his boldness and being
unafraid to be held liable for damages under sections 355, 561,
1544 for the first case, and under sections 1546, 1547, 1561,
and 564 of the Law on Civil Procedure.
On 1 May 1890, Judge Celestino Dimayuga ordered
Don Francisco Rizal Mercado to vacate the lands in question
within twenty (20) days. Judge Dimayuga also ordered the
Justice of the Peace to impose upon the appellee a fine
amounting to one hundred twenty five (125) peseta.[11] On 16
May 1890, Don Francisco Rizal Mercado was furnished with a
copy of the said judgment.
The Appeals in Manila and in Madrid
Aggrieved, the evictees immediately appealed the
judgment before the Audiencia Real in Manila. Since the
appeal, Don Paciano Rizal traveled to and fro following up the
cases in Laguna and Manila.[12] By the end of 1889, Don
Telesforo Antonio Chuidian, a long-time Rizal family friend,
requested Atty. Felipe Buencamino, Sr. to defend the Rizal
family before the Audiencia, which functioned as the Supreme
Court. Atty. Buencamino accepted the case having in mind his
personal connections with the magistrates of the said court and
his friendship with the Marquis de Ahumada, the General
Segundo Cabo.[13]
By December of 1890, twelve (12) more of the evictees
were added to Buencamino’s safeguard. Atty. Buencamino’s
strategy was to question the flaws in the processes of the
court. He, for instance, questioned the summons to married
women respondents without marital permissions. This is so
because he intended to delay the proceedings so that his
clients, among others, can harvest their crops. Personally, he
doesn’t believe in the achievability of his client’s position. “The
Friars cannot justify their ownership of the lands of Calamba,”
he explained to Rizal, “but neither can your townsmen prove
their right to them.”[14]
He claimed that successfully negotiated a viable
agreement between parties which Rizal purportedly rejected,
because of which he withdrew his appearance from the case.
[15] On June 2, 1890, the Audiencia dismissed the appeals of
Don Francisco Rizal Mercado and Don Nicasio Eigasani
Alacala.[16] All of the sharecroppers of the Rizals and
Eigasanis, approximately 300 families, were ordered evicted
with them.
From the dismissal, the appellants appealed before the
Tribunal Supremo in Madrid. They executed Powers of
Attorney for Dr. Jose Rizal and Atty. Marcelo H. Del Pilar to
represent them before the said Tribunal and before the
Minister of Colonies.[17] From June 2, 1890, Atty. del Pilar
have sixty (60) days to appeal before the Supreme Court of
Spain.[18] The Calambeños, never really expected a favorable
judgment from the Audiencia. “I’m not hoping for any thing
good to come out of it,” wrote their counsel, “there (in Spain)
perhaps one can still hope for something.”[19]
Jose Rizal was in Brussels, Belgium when he was
informed that the Calamba case had been elevated to the
Supreme Court of Spain. He immediately informed Atty.
Marcelo H. del Pilar about it. Rizal was determined to defeat
the Hacienda to weaken it. He also told Atty. del Pilar of his
plans of going back to the Philippines if his presence is not
required before the Supreme Court. The appeal must be filed
before the end of July 1890.[20]
Through Rizal and Del Pilar, both being prominent
members of the Asociacion Hispano Filipina, the causes of the
Calambeños were espoused by the Asociacion. On 26 May
1890, a complaint was filed by the Asociacion before the
Minister of Colonies questioning the banishment without trial of
prominent Calambeños to Mindoro.[21] On 30 January 1892,
the Asociacion also filed a petition before the Minister of
Colonies questioning the acts of the colonial government in
Calamba and the punitive orders of the Governor-general
Valeriano Weyler executing the Audiencia decision pending
appeal and banishing prominent Calambeños to Jolo and to
other parts of the country. Public meetings were also held to
condemn those acts. [22] The pleadings, however, fell on deaf
ears.
Even before the Asociacion filed a petition before the
Minister of Colonies, thirty one (31) Calamba families, who
were dispossessed of their houses, presented the
dispossession issue for review before the Tribunal Supremo in
Madrid in the middle of December 1891. They were
represented by Don Gumersindo de Azcarate. The legal fees
and other incidental expenses, amounting to 56-12/100 pounds
sterling, were sent to Madrid through Dr. Jose Rizal.[23]
However, on 5 March 1892, the procurator of the Supreme
Court informed the counsel of the appellants in Manila, Atty.
Jose Maria Gutierrez, that the court had not received the legal
fees. The procurator urged that payments must be sent by
telegraph to beat 8 March 1892, the last day of payment. [24]
The Calamba tenants, led by Don Aniceto Camoseng
and Binay Elejorde, spent whole day looking for money,
offering diamonds, pearls and some jewels of the women of
Calamba as security. Socialite Doña Agustina Medel
accompanied them and succeeded in raising at least 500
pesos. Through Atty. Gutierrez, the sum was telegraphed to
Madrid on 6 March 1892. [25] Despite these efforts, however,
their cases were also dismissed for lack of merit.
A Proposed Compromise
In 1890, Fr. Bernardino Nozaleda, a professor of the
University of Santo Tomas, was in Spain waiting for his
ordination as the Archbishop of Manila. He proposed a win–win
formula to solve the Calamba crisis to Marcelo H. Del Pilar.
The latter was said to have rejected it. Upon hearing of the
said compromise, Don Paciano Rizal expressed that the
people of Calamba, tired of the unbearable situation, were
more than willing to give in. What did the people of Calamba
want? Don Paciano Rizal, in their behalf, expressed:
The people do not wish to own this Estate because it
was ceded to the Corporation (of the friars) about 18… by
Asanza (sic),[26] but they know also that the original property
did not have its present area that they claim now. The most
just and equitable settlement of this case is to define the
boundaries of the Estate, so that all the land not included in the
original sale or cession, can be declared free from the payment
of rent, and the amount of rent unjustly collected for it be
returned. This is what should be done for the sake of justice,
although it leaves much to be desired with respect to the
tranquility of both sides…The settlement should be based on
something more enduring, such as the separation of their land-
holdings through compensation…If the proposed settlement
will not hurt your cause there, you may suggest it in order to
put a respite to the unbearable situation of the people;
otherwise I think secondary interests should always be
postponed.[27]
For his part, Atty. Buencamino, through the mediation
of Don Francisco Iriarte, Don Vicente Reyes and some
government officials, was able to draw the following agreement
with the Corporacion:
1. The Dominican fathers as owners of the Calamba estate
ceded the ownership of all lands comprising the area of the
poblacion of Calamba which involved about 100 quiñones
valued at 1,000.00 pesos per quiñon;
2. Accounts for rentals in arrears were all remitted;
3. In exchange, the accused acknowledged the ownership by
the Dominicans of the rest of the quiñones of the estate, and
would pay only ten percent of the canon in succeeding years.
Atty. Buencamino claimed that the Rizal family, upon
consultation with Jose Rizal in Europe, rejected the above
concessions. This, however, seemed unlikely for Don Paciano
Rizal, the driving force behind the cases, was open to
compromise. At any rate, Buencamino withdrew his
appearance from the case. Buencamino believed that Jose
Rizal considered the case from a political viewpoint rather than
from a private point of view. In other words, “Rizal was pushing
the Filipino people to the brink of a revolution through the
simple act of the tenants’ refusing to pay the friars’ canon for
their supposed estate…”[28]
The Calambeños detested Buencamino as their lawyer.
He was janus-faced. Before them, he promised that he would
negotiate their case with the governor general and work in
Spain for the lifting up of the deportation orders. Yet, before the
Dominicans, he disclosed that the Mindoro deportees had
been communicating with their relatives in Calamba about the
bringing their deportation cases to court. He was also reported
to have amassed 2,000 pesos from the insolvent Calambeños.
Later, when prominent Calambeños were deported to Jolo, he
also obtained several smaller sums from the wives of the
deportees.[29] Buencamino was replaced by Atty. Jose Maria
Gutierrez, a famous Spanish lawyer and himself an anti-friar.
[30]
On 14 August 1890, on the occasion of the execution of
the eviction orders, Don Vicente Ilagan, the lawyer of the
hacienda, encouraged Don Francisco Rizal Mercado to beg for
a compromise with the Syndic. He replied that he would never
resort to shelling out any money. As ordered, Don Francisco
left his family home and lived with his daughter Narcisa.[31]
After the failed “attempts,” there seemed to be no serious effort
for compromise coming from both sides.
RIZAL VS. DEL PILAR
When the year 1890 was about to end, an unwanted
rivalry between Rizal and Del Pilar nonetheless arose. By the
time, Del Pilar had become the owner of La Solidardad and
had taken the place of Graciano Lopez Jaena as its editor. Del
Pilar’s management and editorial policy were occasionally
dissimilar to Rizal’s political vision.
The editorial policy of La Solidaridad under Del Pilar’s
management enhanced the cleavage between Rizal and Del
Pilar. Rizal and his close friends objected to the periodical’s
editorial policy which was occasionally contrary to Rizal’s
political views.
Ideally to fix differences and solidify the unity among them,
about 90 Filipinos in Madrid met on the New Year’s Day of
1891. It was agreed upon in the gathering that a leader called
Responsable, be elected to administer the campaigns for
reform of the Filipinos.
The voting happened during the first week of
February that year. It was decided that the ‘Responsible’ must
be elected by a two-thirds vote of the participants. The
supposedly healthy election for a leader produced divisive
unpleasant split among the Filipinos, the Rizalistas and the
Pilaristas, as both camps zealously campaigned for their
respective choice.
Rizal won the election but his votes fell short of the
required two-thirds vote to be declared Responsable. He won
again on the second day, but then again, the votes counted for
him did not reach the needed fraction. On the third day, since
Mariano Ponce appealed to some Pilaristas to surrender their
will to what the majority wanted, the election resulted in Rizal’s
becoming the ‘legal’ Responsable.
Rizal, however, courteously declined the position. He
knew that there were ‘Pilaristas’ who did not like either his
views or personality. Jose Rizal, a man of delicadeza, thus
decided to abdicate his leadership and leave Madrid, lest his
presence results in more serious faction among Filipinos in
Madrid.
Inactive in the Propaganda Movement, Rizal also
stopped contributing to La Solidaridad. Realizing that Rizal’s
involvement in the reform campaigns was necessary, the
humble Del Pilar wrote to Rizal on August 7, 1891, saying, “If
you have any resentment, I beg you to put it aside; if you
consider me at fault, and this fault is pardonable, forgive me…
We would much like that you resume writing for it; not only
would we strengthen La Solidaridad but we would defeat the
friar intrigue in the Philippines.”
In his reply, Rizal denied any resentment and
enumerated his reasons for stopping to write for La
Solidaridad:
“I am extremely surprised at your letter, telling me
about resentments, disagreements, and reconciliations, etc. I
believe it is useless to talk about what does not exist, and if it
has existed, it ought to have evaporated in the past. I think like
you do, that there being nothing, one ought not to waste time
talking about it.’
“If I stopped writing for La Solidaridad, it was because
of several reasons, 1st, I need time to work on my book; 2nd, I
wanted other Filipinos to work also; 3rd, I considered it very
important to the party that there be unity in the work; and you
are already at the top and I also have my own ideas, it is better
to leave you alone to direct the policy such as you understand
it and I do not meddle in it. This has two advantages: It leaves
both of us free, and it increases your prestige, which is very
necessary, inasmuch as men of prestige are needed in our
country. This does not mean to say that I need not work and
follow the course of your work. I am like an army corps who, at
a needed moment, you will see arrive to descend upon the
flanks of the enemy before you. Only I ask God to give me the
means to do it… I fight for the nation, the Philippines.” (as
quoted in Zaide, p. 188)
After Rizal’s El Filibusterismo came off the press, Del
Pilar frankly commented that it was inferior compared to Noli.
This remark was freely acknowledged and granted by the
author. Reading the La Solidaridad from Hong Kong, Rizal was
however disgusted with the articles’ allegations about him. On
May 23, 1892, Rizal sent a letter of protest to Mariano Ponce
against Eduardo Lete’s article which alleged, among other
things, that Rizal was a coward and had abandoned the
patriotic cause. Rizal wondered why Del Pilar allowed the
publication of such an article, fearing that it would lead the
readers to believe in the existence of division among them.
During Rizal’s exile in Dapitan, he nonetheless
received a letter dated July 20, 1892 from Del Pilar, stating his
grievance on Rizal’s case. In his last letter to Rizal, Del Pilar
explained Lete’s article, saying, “How could I allow him to
attack you when I am interested in your prestige? …I am sure
that when Lete wrote the article he did not intend to allude to
you and much less to molest you. He described an individual
whose methods are diametrically opposed to yours.” Ever
wishing to reconcile with Rizal, Del Pilar lovingly said, “I have
not stopped wishing for the renewal of our former ties, for I
believe that slight differences in procedure are not enough to
destroy our common principles, purposes, and feelings…”
THE ANTI-FRIAR MANIFESTO OF 1888
What For?
> It happened on March 1, 1888.
> The anti-friar demonstration of hundreds of Filipino. It was
led by Doroteo Cortes, Manila patriotic lawyer and assisted by
M.H Del Pilar and Jose A. Ramos.
> It requested the expulsion of the friars from the Philippines.
Result
The powerful friars avenged themselves by persecuting the
leaders and signers of the manifesto, having them arrested
and thrown in the prison.
> It denounced the Anti-Filipino Archbishop, Pedro Payo, and
the bad friars for:
Meddling in the movement
Enriching themselves contrary to their monastic vow
of poverty
Opposing the teaching of the spanish language to the
Filipinos
TALAMBUHAY NI TEODORA ALONZO
Sa mayamang bayan ng Santa Cruz, Maynila ay dito
nakakita ng unang liwanag, ang isang sanggol na babaing
tinawag na Teodora, anak ni Kapitang Lorenzo at ni Gg.
Brigada Quintos. Siya ang mapalad na babaing
nakapaghandog sa Inang Bayan ng Bayani ng mga Bayani, si
Gat José Rizal.
Siya’y buhat sa angkang gising ang munì, ang kanyang nuno
si G. Cipriano Alonzo ay isa sa mga maginoo sa bayan ng
Biñang, Laguna. naging manunukat ng lupa at sumusulat at
nagsasalita ng Kastila, Inglés at Pranses, naging Kapitan sa
bayan, isa sa matataas na katungkulang ipinagkakatiwala sa
mga pilipino ng mga panahong yaon.
Ang mga ninuno sa ina ni Teodora, ay buhat din sa
mabuting angkan. Si G. Manuel Quintos, ang ama ng kanyang
ina ay isang mabuting bata sa «Universidad de Sto. Tomas»,
at mabuting ama palibhasa ay nagsikap na ang kanyang anak
na si Brigida ay maging isang babaing may pinagaralan.
Kahit na ang kanilang angkan ay naninirahan sa
Kalamba, si aling Teodora ay ipinanganak sa Kamaynilaan,
gaya rin ng kanyang mga kapatid. Sa lahat ng ito ay matitiyak
na si Gng. Teodora ay buhat sa mabuting angkan, siya ay
sumilang sa isang anak na matalino at ang lahat ng kanyang
mga kasambahay ay pawang mulat sa dakilang gawi.
Ang una niyang mga pagaaral ay buhat sa sariling tahanan, at
kahit na lubhang mairugin ang kanyang mga magulang ay
hindi siya iminulat sa layaw, dahilang kanyang ikinagising sa
mabuting gawi at ipinagsumikap na maging isang babaing
tangì, may likas na bait at may talino namang karapatdapat.
Hindi siya namalagì sa pag-aaral siya’y ipinasok sa
Sta. Rosa sa lilim ng pamamahala ng mga «Madres de la
Caridad» at doon siya namulat sa pananampalatayang
binyagan at ng gawing magsimba at gumanap ng mga
katungkulan ng isang mabuting tao.
Niyaong 1848 ay nakìpagisang puso si Gg. Teodora
Alonzo kay G. Francisco Rizal y Mercado, at kapuwa
nagsumikap sa ikapananatili ng kapayapaan sa loob ng
tahanan, gaya ng isang tunay na ulirang magasawa; at ang
mga anak ay sunodsunod na nagsirating at lalong naging
maligaya ang kanilang buhay sa piling ng mga supling ng
dalisay nilang pagibig.
Sila’y nangagsiunlad sa pamumuhay at sanhi ito nang
pagdami ng kanilang panauhing banyaga at kababayan man
nguni’t napansin sa kanila ng labis ang pantaypantay na
kanilang pagtanggap sa sino mang panauhin, maging pantas
man at hangal, mayaman at mahirap, banyaga at kalahì man;
sa kanila’y di napansin ang pangtatangì kay ganito o kay
gayon, ng dahil sa si gayon o si ganito, ay lalong dakila,
mayaman o marunong kaya; ang likas na kaugaliang
mapagampon at mapagtangkilik ng lahing Tagalog ay
naghaharì sa kanilang tahanan.
Sa pagkaina ni Gg. Teodora, ay nanupad siya ng
gayon na lamang na kasikapan, upang ang kanyang mga
sanggol ay mapanuto; lubhang mairugin tuwi na at
mapangalaga; lahat ng walang malay na tanong o paguusisa
ng kanyang mga anak ay tinutugon niyang lahat ng boong
tamis at liwanag, upang masiyahan ang mga anak; nguni’t
kailan ma’y di naging mapagpalayaw. Ginampanan niya ang
tunay na tungkulin ng isang mabuting ina, na, mapangalaga sa
mga sanggol, mapagturo sa kabataan at tapat na kaulayaw at
kaibigan ng mangagsilaki na at tumuntong sa ganap na
gulang.
Iminulat niya sa mga anak ang pagsusumikap na
mag-isa, at niyaong si Gat. Rizal ay aapatin taon pa lamang at
nahihirapang bumasa ng kanyang Katon ay boong tamis
niyang sinabi ang gayari. «Paano ka kung di makapagsisikap
na mag-isa. Maaari kayang lagi kang nakasandal kangino
man? Sikapin mong mag-isa kang magaral at gumawang
tiwalag sa iba, sa gayon ay matataya mo ang sariling lakas at
masasanay kang mag-isa sa mga gawain». Naging
kasayahang loob ni Gg. Teodora ang manood sa kanyang mga
anak na bukod bukod ng paggawa, tila baga niya nakikikita sa
gayon ang malaking katamisan ng isang kasarinlan sa
paggawa man lamang.
Teodora Alonzo and husband, parents of Jose Rizal
Tuwi na’y sinalita niya sa kanyang mga anak kung gabi ang
mga buhay ng mga dakilang tao, o ang mga buhay kayang
may lulang mga dakilang aral, upang bago matulog ang mga
anak ay mabaon sa pagtulog ang mabubuting hinuha. Sinikap
niyang isatagalog ang mga maniningning na buhay ng
kanyang nalalaman, upang maliliit pa ang mga anak ay
makatahô na ng mga dakilang huwaran. Sinikap niyang ang
mga anak ay magharap sa kanya tuwi na ng nasusulat na
hinuha sa kanyang mga kasaysayang ibinubuhay kung gabi, at
kanyang isinasaanyô ang mga kamalian, at sa ganitong
paraan sa gulang na siyam na taon, ang anak niyang Pepe, ay
nagharap sa kanya ng isang Dulang Tagalog na kinagiliwang
labis ng Kapitan sa bayan ng panahong yaon.
Niyaong taong 1898, ay nabalo siya sa ginigiliw na
asawa, at naparagdag sa kanyang pagtangis na
magdadalawang taon na sa pagkakaputi ng buhay ng mahal
niyang anak na si Dr. Rizal, ang pagkamatay ni G. Francisco
Rizal at Mercado.
Niyaong 1907, sa pasimulang Pulong ng unang
Kapulungang Bayan, ay hinandugan si Gng. Teodora Alonzo
ng mga parangal at inalayan siya ng maraming salapi bilang
tulong sa kanyang katiisan, nguni’t hindi niya tinanggap at
pinatingkad niyang ang kanilang angkan ay hindi nagmamahal
sa Lupang Tinubuan ng dahil lamang sa salapi. At niyaong ika
16 ng Agosto ng taong 1911, ang banal na Ina ng dakilang
Bayani, ay pumisan sa kanyang mga kapilas ng buhay at
sumapayapa sa kaharian ni Bathala.
Ang paglilibing sa kanya ay ginanap niyaong ika 19
ng Agosto, at ang mga matataas na kagawad ng Pamahalaan
ay nakipaglibing na pawa, tanda ng isang pakikidalamhating
lubusan sa kanyang pagpanaw sa bayang ito ng mga
dalamhatì.
Bilang alaala sa kanyang pangalan, ang dating daang
«Aranque» ay pinalitan ng «Teodora Alonzo».
KASAYSAYAN AT TAUHAN NG EL FILIBUSTERISMO
Kaligirang Pangkasaysayan ng El Filibusterismo
Bago pa man bumalik sa sariling bayan si Jose Rizal
noong Oktubre 1887, marami ng kasawiang dinanas ang
kanyang mga kamag-anakan at kaibigan dahil sa pagkakasulat
niya ng Noli Me Tangere. Nang mga panahong yao’y
nagdaranas din ng suliranin sa lupa ang mga magsasaka ng
Calamba. Ito ay kanilang inilapit kay Rizal na humingi naman
ng tulong ang pagdinig sa kasi ng problema sa lupa,
napasabay pa sa pagdinig ng kaso ni Rizal ukol sa
pagpapalathala ng tinaguriang “makamandag” na babasahing
Noli Me Tangere. Maraming mga tuligsa at pagbabanta ang
tinanggap ni Rizal. Ang kanyang pamily ay giniyagis din ng
maraming mga panggigipit.
 Sinimulan ni Rizal and nobelang El Filibusterismo sa
harap ng karanasang ito. Magkakabisa sa kanya kaipala ang
mga sakit sa loob na dinanas niya at ng kanyng pamilya.
Bagaman may mga pagpapalagay na mayplanosi Rizal para
sa ikalwang nobela, naiba ito ng mga pangyayaring
kinasangkutan niya sa pagbabalik sa sariling bayan. Tuwiran
at di-tuwiran, naapektuhan ito ng wala pang anim na buwang
pagkamalas niya ng mga kasamaang ginagawa ng mga pari,
katulad ng “pagpapayaman sa kanilang mga asyenda, pang-
aakit sa mga babae, panggugulo, pagliligpiy sa mga kaaway
atbp.”
Nilisan ni Rizal ang Pilipinas noong Pebrero 3, 1888
dahil sa pangamba niyang manganib ang buhay ng mga mahal
sa buhay. Katakut-takot na liham ng mga pagbabanta na
karamihan ay walang lagda ang dumarating at ipinayo ng
gobernador na bumalik siya sa ibang bansa. Ani Rizal sa isang
sulat na ipinadala niya kay Blumetritt habang naglalakbay.
“Lahat ng mga punong panlalawigan at mga
arsobispo ay naparoroon sa Gobernador Heneral araw-araw
upang ako’y ipagsumbong. Ang buong ahente ng Dominiko ay
sumulat ng sumbong sa mga alkalde na nakita nila akong lihim
na nakikipagpulong sa mga babae at lalaki sa itaas ng bundok.
Totoong ako’y naglalakad sa bundok kung bukangliwayway na
kasama ng mga lalaki, babae at bata upang damhin ang
kalamigan ng umaga ngunit laging may kasamang tenyente ng
guwardiya sibil na marunong managalog…
Inalok ako ng salapi ng akong mga kababayan para
lisanin ang pulo. Hiniling nila ang mga bagay na ito hindi
lamang sa aking kapakanan kundi sa kanila na rin sapagkat
marami akong kaibigan at kasalamuha na maaaring ipatapon
kasama ko sa Balabag o Marianas. Dahil dito kahit may
kaunting karamdaman, ako’y dali-daling nagpaalam sa aking
pamilya.”
Hindi nagwakas sa paglisan ni Rizal ang suliranin.
Ang kanyang pamilya ay inusig. Umakyat ang kaso sa lupa ng
mga Mercado-Rizal hanggang Kataastaasang Hukuman ng
Espanya. Maraming kamag-anakan niya ang namatay at
pinag-usig. May isa pang tinanggihang mapalibinng sa
libingang Katoliko. Sa gitna ng mga pag-aalalang ito,
ginigiyagis si Rizal ng mga personal at pulitikal na suliranin;
nangungulila siya kay Leonor Rivera at waring walang
kasiglahan ang insipirasyong dulot ng paniningalang-pugad
kay Nellie Boustead; sinasagot niya ang kabi-kabilang
tuligsang tinatamo ng Noli Me Tangere; namatayan siya ng
dalawang kaibigan at mababa ang pagkikilalang iginagawad sa
kanya ng mga kasama sa Kilusang Propaganda. Bukod dito’y
dumanas si Rizal ng suliranin sa pananalapi. Naisiwalat ni
Rizal ang kanyang paghihirap sa isang liham na naipadala kay
Jose Maria Basa:
“Ako’y nanghihinawa na sa paniniwala sa ating mga
kababayan. Parang sila’y nagkakaisa upang maging mapait
ang aking buhay; pinipigilan nila ang aking pagbabalik,
nangangakong bibigyan ako ng tustos, at pagkatapos na
gawin sa loob ng isang buwan ay kalilimutan nang muli ako…
Naisanla ko na ang aking mga alahas, nakatira ako sa isang
mumurahing silid, kumakain ako sa mga pangkaraniwang
restawran upang makatipid at mailathala ko ang aking aklat.
Hindi naglao iyon, ititigil ko kung walang darating sa aking
salapi. A, sasabihin ko sa iyong kung hindi lamang sa iyo,
kung hindi lamang ako naniniwalang may mga mabubuti pang
Pilipino, nais kong dalhin ang aking mga kababayan at ang
lahat sa demonyo…”
Sa kabutihang palad, nang lahat ang pag-asa ni
Rizal, dumating ang hindi niya inaasahang tulong ni Valentin
Ventura mula sa Paris. Ipinadala niya ang kabuuang gugol sa
pagpapalimbag ng aklat matapos mabalitaan ang
pangangailangan ni Rizal sa salapi.
Natapos limbagin ang aklat noong Setyembre 18,
1891 saGhent,Belgium. Inihandog ni Rizal ang nobela sa
alaala ng mga paring sina Gomez, Burgos at Zamora.
Ang pagkahandog na ito sa tatlong paring martir ng
ikalawang nobela ni Rizal ang panunahing dahilan kung bakit
ito ay itinuturing na isang nobelang political. Naglalahad dito sa
isang malatalaarawang pagsasalaysay ang mga suliranin ng
sistema ng pamahalaan at ang mga kaakibat na problema:
problema sa lupa, pamamahala, pamamalakad ng relihiyon at
edukasyon, katiwalian atbp. Tuwiran at di-tuwiran,
masasalamin din ang mapapait na karanasang gumiyagis kay
Rizal sa ilang mga eksena at yugto ng nobela.
Masagisag at malarawan ang ebolusyon ni Simoun
mula kay Crisostomo Ibarra, bagaman hindi maiiwasang
makilala ang mga kapaitan at kabiguan sa paraang hindi
maipagkakamali – kasama na pati ang pangungulila at pag-
aasam sa pag-ibig.
Sa El Filibusterismo, ipinakilala ni Rizal ang isang
pagbabanyuhay niya bilang nobelista.
Karagdagang Impormasyon:
Ang nobelang El Filibusterismo (literal na “Ang
Pilibusterismo“) o Ang Paghahari ng Kasakiman ay ang
pangalawang nobelang isinulat ng pambansang bayani ng
Pilipinas na si José Rizal, na kaniyang buong pusong inialay
sa tatlong paring martir na lalong kilala sa bansag na
Gomburza o Gomez, Burgos, at Zamora. Ito ang karugtong o
sequel sa Noli Me Tangere at tulad sa Noli, nagdanas si Rizal
ng hirap habang sinusulat ito at, tulad din nito, nakasulat ito sa
Kastila. Sinimulan niya ang akda noong Oktubre ng 1887
habang nagpapraktis ng medisina sa Calamba.
Sa London, noong 1888, gumawa siya ng maraming
pagbabago sa plot at pinagbuti niya ang ilang mga kabanata.
Ipinagpatuloy ni Rizal ang pagtatrabaho sa kaniyang
manuskrito habang naninirahan sa Paris, Madrid, at Brussel, at
nakumpleto niya ito noong Marso 29, 1891, sa Biarritz.
Inilathala ito sa taon ring iyon sa Gent. Isang nagngangalang
Valentin Ventura na isa niyang kaibigan ang nagpahiram ng
pera sa kanya upang maipalimbag at mailathala ng maayos
ang aklat noong Setyembre 22, 1891.
Ang nasabing nobela ay pampulitika na
nagpapadama, nagpapahiwatig at nagpapagising pang lalo sa
maalab na hangaring makapagtamo ng tunay na kalayaan at
karapatan ng bayan.
Mga Tauhan:
 Simoun – Mayamang mag-aalahas, pinagkakamalang
Indiyong Ingles, Amerikano, Mulato, Portuges at Cardenal
Moreno
 Isagani – Isang binatang may matayog na isipan, makata at
katipan ni Paulita Gomez
 Paulita Gomez – Katipan ni Isagani, mayaman, maganda,
pamangkin ni Donya Victorina
 Basilio – Isang binatang nakapag-aral ng medisina dahil sa
sariling sikap  Pecson – Isang mag-aaral na palaisip subalit pesimistiko o
laging may kabiguang laging natatanaw sa hinaharap
 Juli – Katpian ni Basilio, anak ni Kabesang Tales, nagpaalila
upang matubos ang ama

 Pari Camorra – Paring mukhang artilyero

 Pari Salvi – Tinatawag na moscamuerta o patay na langaw

 Pari Sibyla – Vice Rector ng Unibersidad

 Pari Irene – Kaibigan at tagapayo ni Kapitan Tiyago,

namamahala sa pagpapatayo ng Akademya ng Wikang
Kastilang

 Pari Fernandez – May kaibigang pangangatwiran, kaiba sa

kapwa pari

 Pari Florentino – Amain ni Isagani

 Kabesang Tales – Naging Cabeza de Barangay, dati’y isang

tahimik na tao, ngunit nang angkinin ng korporasyon ng mga
prayle ang lupang sinasaka ay sumama sa mga tulisan

 Don Custodio – Pinakamasipag sa lahat ng nagpapalagay,

kilala rin sa tawag na Buena Tinta

 Ginoong Pasta – Isang abogadong sanggunian ng mga

prayle kung may suliranin, pinagsanggunian din ng mga
estudyante tungkol sa pagpapatayo ng Akademya

 Ben Zayb – Manunulat at mamamahayag

 Donya Victorina – Pilipinang kumikilos at umaasal na tulad

ng isang tunay na Espanyola at itinuturing na mapait na
dalandan ng kaniyang asawa

 Quiroga – Kaibigan ng mga prayle, naghahangad na

magkaroon ng konsulado ng mga Intsik

 Don Timoteo Pelaez – Isang negosyante, masuwerteng

nakabili ng bahay ni Kapitan Tiyago, ama ni Juanito

 Mataas na Kawani – Ang nagmamalasakit sa mga Pilipino

na kawani ng pamahalaang Kastila, katunggali ng Kapitang
Heneral sa pagpapalaya kay Basilio

 Kapitan Heneral – Ang pinakamataas na pinuno ng bayab,

sugo ng Espanya, malapit na kaibigan ni Simoun

 Hermana Penchang –Ang manang na umampon kay Juli na

ginawang katulong ang dalaga, mahilig sa pagpaparami ng
indulgencia

 Placido Penitente – Nag-aaral ng pagkamanananggol,

magaling sa Latin, pinakamatlino sa bayan ng Batangas, hindi
naagiliwan ng mga propesor kaya binalak nang huminto sa
pag-aaral

 Makaraig – Mayaman at isa sa pinakamasigasig na isang

magkaroon ng Akademya ng Wikang Kastila

 Juanito Pelaez – Mapaglangis at kinagigiliwan ng mga

propesor, mapanukso, kuba at umaasa sa katalinuhan ng iba

 Sandoval – Isang Kastilang kawani na salungat sa mga

ginagawa ng kanyang mga kababayan, nagpatuloy ng pag-
aaral sa Pilipinas