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.

the national hero of the Philippines and pride of the Malayan race, was born on
June 19, 1861, in the town of Calamba, Laguna. He was the seventh child in a
family of 11 children (2 boys and 9 girls). Both his parents were educated and
belonged to distinguished families.

His father, Francisco Mercado Rizal, an industrious farmer whom Rizal called "a
model of fathers," came from Biñan, Laguna; while his mother, Teodora Alonzo y
Quintos, a highly cultured and accomplished woman whom Rizal called "loving
and prudent mother," was born in Meisic, Sta. Cruz, Manila. At the age of 3, he
learned the alphabet from his mother; at 5, while learning to read and write, he
already showed inclinations to be an artist. He astounded his family and relatives
by his pencil drawings and sketches and by his moldings of clay. At the age 8, he
wrote a Tagalog poem, "Sa Aking Mga Kabata," the theme of which revolves on
the love of one’s language. In 1877, at the age of 16, he obtained his Bachelor of
Arts degree with an average of "excellent" from the Ateneo Municipal de Manila.
In the same year, he enrolled in Philosophy and Letters at the University of Santo
Tomas, while at the same time took courses leading to the degree of surveyor and
expert assessor at the Ateneo. He finished the latter course on March 21, 1877 and
passed the Surveyor’s examination on May 21, 1878; but because of his age, 17, he
was not granted license to practice the profession until December 30, 1881. In
1878, he enrolled in medicine at the University of Santo Tomas but had to stop in
his studies when he felt that the Filipino students were being discriminated upon by
their Dominican tutors. On May 3, 1882, he sailed for Spain where he continued
his studies at the Universidad Central de Madrid. On June 21, 1884, at the age of
23, he was conferred the degree of Licentiate in Medicine and on June 19,1885, at
the age of 24, he finished his course in Philosophy and Letters with a grade of
"excellent."

Having traveled extensively in Europe, America and Asia, he mastered 22

languages. These include Arabic, Catalan, Chinese, English, French, German,
Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Malayan, Portuguese, Russian, Sanskrit,
Spanish, Tagalog, and other native dialects. A versatile genius, he was an architect,
artists, businessman, cartoonist, educator, economist, ethnologist, scientific farmer,
historian, inventor, journalist, linguist, musician, mythologist, nationalist,
naturalist, novelist, opthalmic surgeon, poet, propagandist, psychologist, scientist,
sculptor, sociologist, and theologian.

He was an expert swordsman and a good shot. In the hope of securing political and
social reforms for his country and at the same time educate his countrymen, Rizal,
the greatest apostle of Filipino nationalism, published, while in Europe, several
works with highly nationalistic and revolutionary tendencies. In March 1887, his
daring book, NOLI ME TANGERE, a satirical novel exposing the arrogance and
despotism of the Spanish clergy, was published in Berlin; in 1890 he reprinted in
Paris, Morga’s SUCCESSOS DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS with his annotations to
prove that the Filipinos had a civilization worthy to be proud of even long before
the Spaniards set foot on Philippine soil; on September 18, 1891, EL
FILIBUSTERISMO, his second novel and a sequel to the NOLI and more
revolutionary and tragic than the latter, was printed in Ghent. Because of his
fearless exposures of the injustices committed by the civil and clerical officials,
Rizal provoked the animosity of those in power. This led himself, his relatives and
countrymen into trouble with the Spanish officials of the country. As a
consequence, he and those who had contacts with him, were shadowed; the
authorities were not only finding faults but even fabricating charges to pin him
down. Thus, he was imprisoned in Fort Santiago from July 6, 1892 to July 15,
1892 on a charge that anti-friar pamphlets were found in the luggage of his sister
Lucia who arrive with him from Hong Kong. While a political exile in Dapitan, he
engaged in agriculture, fishing and business; he maintained and operated a
hospital; he conducted classes- taught his pupils the English and Spanish
languages, the arts.

The sciences, vocational courses including agriculture, surveying, sculpturing, and

painting, as well as the art of self defense; he did some researches and collected
specimens; he entered into correspondence with renowned men of letters and
sciences abroad; and with the help of his pupils, he constructed water dam and a
relief map of Mindanao - both considered remarkable engineering feats. His
sincerity and friendliness won for him the trust and confidence of even those
assigned to guard him; his good manners and warm personality were found
irresistible by women of all races with whom he had personal contacts; his
intelligence and humility gained for him the respect and admiration of prominent
men of other nations; while his undaunted courage and determination to uplift the
welfare of his people were feared by his enemies.
When the Philippine Revolution started on August 26, 1896, his enemies lost no
time in pressing him down. They were able to enlist witnesses that linked him with
the revolt and these were never allowed to be confronted by him. Thus, from
November 3, 1986, to the date of his execution, he was again committed to Fort
Santiago. In his prison cell, he wrote an untitled poem, now known as "Ultimo
Adios" which is considered a masterpiece and a living document expressing not
only the hero’s great love of country but also that of all Filipinos. After a mock
trial, he was convicted of rebellion, sedition and of forming illegal association. In
the cold morning of December 30, 1896, Rizal, a man whose 35 years of life had
been packed with varied activities which proved that the Filipino has capacity to
equal if not excel even those who treat him as a slave, was shot at Bagumbayan
Field.