REPUBLIC ACT NO.

1425 also known as RIZAL LAW

The Rizal Law, officially designated as Republic Act No. 1425, is a Philippine law that mandates all
educational institutions in the Philippines to offer courses about José Rizal. The Rizal Law was
emphatically opposed by the Catholic Church in the Philippines, mostly due to the anti-clericalism in
Rizal's books Noli Me Tángere and El Filibusterismo.In 1956, the Philippine government passed the “Rizal
Law,” requiring that all universities provide mandatory courses on José Rizal and his works. This was
opposed by the Catholic Church, which continued to resent its portrayal in Rizal’s novels despite the
Filipino clergy’s early association with the nationalist movement. Church leaders accused the bill’s
proponent, Senator Recto of being a communist and anti-Catholic. The final bill included a provision
allowing Catholic students to refrain from reading Rizal’s works, citing conscientious objections. In the
campaign to oppose the Rizal bill, the Catholic Church urged its adherents to write to their congressmen
and senators showing their opposition to the bill; later, it organized symposiums. In one of these
symposiums, Fr. Jesus Cavanna argued that the novels belonged to the past and that teaching them
would misrepresent current conditions. Radio commentator Jesus Paredes also said that Catholics had
the right to refuse to read them as it would "endanger their salvation". Groups such as Catholic Action of
the Philippines, the Congregation of the Mission, the Knights of Columbus, and the Catholic Teachers
Guild organized opposition to the bill; they were countered by Veteranos de la Revolucion (Spirit of
1896), Alagad ni Rizal, the Freemasons, and the Knights of Rizal. The Senate Committee on Education
sponsored a bill co-written by both José P. Laurel and Recto, with the only opposition coming from
Francisco Soc Rodrigo, Mariano Jesús Cuenco, and Decoroso Rosales. The Archbishop of Manila, Rufino
Santos, protested in a pastoral letter that Catholic students would be affected if compulsory reading of
the unexpurgated version were pushed through.[4] Arsenio Lacson, Manila's mayor, who supported the
bill, walked out of Mass when the priest read a circular from the archbishop denouncing the bill. Rizal,
according to Cuenco, "attack[ed] dogmas, beliefs and practices of the Church. The assertion that Rizal
limited himself to castigating undeserving priests and refrained from criticizing, ridiculing or putting in
doubt dogmas of the Catholic Church, is absolutely gratuitous and misleading." Cuenco touched on
Rizal's denial of the existence of purgatory, as it was not found in the Bible, and that Moses and Jesus
Christ did not mention its existence; Cuenco concluded that a "majority of the Members of this
Chamber, if not all [including] our good friend, the gentleman from Sulu" believed in purgatory.[3] The
senator from Sulu, Domocao Alonto, attacked Filipinos who proclaimed Rizal as "their national hero but
seemed to despise what he had written", saying that the Indonesians used Rizal's books as their Bible on
their independence movement; Pedro López, who hails from Cebu, Cuenco's province, in his support for
the bill, reasoned out that it was in their province the independence movement started, when Lapu-
Lapu fought Ferdinand Magellan. Outside the Senate, the Catholic schools threatened to close down if
the bill was passed; Recto countered that if that happened, the schools would be nationalized. Recto did
not believe the threat, stating that the schools were too profitable to be closed.[1] The schools gave up
the threat, but threatened to "punish" legislators in favor of the law in future elections. A compromise
was suggested, to use the expurgated version; Recto, who had supported the required reading of the
unexpurgated version, declared: "The people who would eliminate the books of Rizal from the schools
would blot out from our minds the memory of the national hero. This is not a fight against Recto but a
fight against Rizal", adding that since Rizal is dead, they are attempting to suppress his memory.[6]On
May 12, 1956, a compromise inserted by Committee on Education chairman Laurel that accommodated
the objections of the Catholic Church was approved unanimously. The bill specified that only college
(university) students would have the option of reading unexpurgated versions of clerically-contested
reading material, such as Noli Me Tángere and El Filibusterismo.[1][4][6] The bill was enacted on June
12, 1956,[4] Flag Day.Section 2 mandated that the students were to read the novels as they were
written in Spanish, although a provision ordered that the Board of National Education create rules on
how these should be applied.[3] Republic Act No. 1425 or The Rizal Law is said to have the real intention
of instilling the true meaning of nationalism and patriotism in every Filipino, especially the younger
generation. It is also said to give learnings needed in facing current societal issues and preserve the
contribution of Rizal and other heroes to Philippine independence. The last two sections were focused
on making Rizal's works accessible to the general public: the second section mandated the schools to
have "an adequate number" of copies in their libraries, while the third ordered the board to publish the
works in major Philippine languages.[3] After the bill was enacted into law, there were no recorded
instances of students applying for exemption from reading the novels, and there is no known procedure
for such exemptions.[6] In 1994, President Fidel V. Ramos ordered the Department of Education, Culture
and Sports to fully implement the law as there had been reports that it has still not been fully
implemented. The debate during the enactment of the Rizal Law has been compared to the Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law) debate in 2011.[8] Akbayan representative
Kaka Bag-ao, one of the proponents of the RH bill, said, quoting the Catholic hierarchy, that "More than
50 years ago, they said the Rizal Law violates the Catholic's right to conscience and religion,
interestingly, the same line of reasoning they use to oppose the RH bill."