Rizal as a Reformist Arguments

José Rizal was born on June 19, 1861, in Calamba, Philippines. While living in Europe, Rizal wrote about
the discrimination that accompanied Spain's colonial rule of his country. He returned to the Philippines
in 1892 but was exiled due to his desire for reform. Although he supported peaceful change, Rizal was
convicted of sedition and executed on December 30, 1896, at age 35.

While in Europe, José Rizal became part of the Propaganda Movement, connecting with other Filipinos
who wanted reform. He also wrote his first novel, Noli Me Tangere (Touch Me Not/The Social Cancer), a
work that detailed the dark aspects of Spain's colonial rule in the Philippines, with particular focus on
the role of Catholic friars. The book was banned in the Philippines, though copies were smuggled in.
Because of this novel, Rizal's return to the Philippines in 1887 was cut short when he was targeted by
police.

Rizal returned to Europe and continued to write, releasing his follow-up novel, El Filibusterismo (The
Reign of Greed) in 1891. He also published articles in La Solidaridad, a paper aligned with the
Propaganda Movement. The reforms Rizal advocated for did not include independence—he called for
equal treatment of Filipinos, limiting the power of Spanish friars and representation for the Philippines in
the Spanish Cortes (Spain's parliament).

Rizal returned to the Philippines in 1892, feeling he needed to be in the country to effect change.
Although the reform society he founded, the Liga Filipino (Philippine League), supported non-violent
action, Rizal was still exiled to Dapitan, on the island of Mindanao.

One of the characters in Noli Me Tangere, specifically Elias, died in the said novel. Elias is the character
which symbolizes a revolutionary. The death of Elisa then in the novel signifies that Rizal was a reformist
back then. He believed that the Philippines still didn’t need a revolution but only a reform. He believed
so because of the following reasons: the Philippines was not ready to be a free and independent
country; the idea of assimilation was not permanent for the country, and; the reform or assimilation
must come from the leaders of the governing the country.

(Jose Rizal’s letter proving his innocence)

MANIFESTO TO CERTAIN FILIPINOS by José Rizal Fellow countrymen:

Upon my return from Spain I learned that my name was being used as a rallying cry by some who had
taken up arms. This information surprised and grieved me but thinking that the whole affair was
finished, I refrained from commenting on something that could no longer be remedied. Now, rumors
reach me that the disturbances have not ceased. It may be that persons continue to use my name in
good or in bad faith; if so, wishing to put a stop to this abuse and to undeceive the gullible, I hasten to
address these lines to you that the truth may be known. From the very beginning, when I first received
information of what was being planned, I opposed it, I fought against it, and I made clear that it was
absolutely impossible. This is the truth, and they are still alive who can bear witness to my words. I was
convinced that the very idea was wholly absurd -- worse than absurd -- it was disastrous. I did more than
this. When later on, in spite of my urgings, the uprising broke out, I came forward voluntarily to offer
not only my services but my life and even my good name in order that they may use me in any manner
they may think opportune to smother the rebellion. For I was convinced of the evils which that rebellion
would bring in its train, and so I considered

Basic Political Reforms of Jose Rizal

1. The restoration of Filipino representation to the Spanish Cortes and freedom of the press

2. Reorganization of the administrative machinery

3. Adoption of comprehensive examination and the publication of its results and allowing Filipinos to
have same opportunity with the Spaniards to hold government office.4. Justice is the foundation of
society and the government.

Renato Constantino’s side in Jose Rizal being a reformist

Renato Constantino, in his landmark 1968 essay “Veneration Without Understanding,” argued that Rizal
was against the revolution. Constantino based this view on a document Rizal issued in December 1896,
asking the Katipuneros to lay down their arms and condemning the violence that was planned without
his knowledge and consent.

Constantino also argued that Rizal was an American-sponsored hero, citing without any documentary
proof, an alleged Philippine Commission meeting when the American colonial government chose Rizal as
the foremost national hero because he was non-violent and reformist, unlike Bonifacio or Aguinaldo.

A letter that states Jose Rizal being a revolutionary

(It can be argued here that a revolution is only acceptable if there is no other choice. As long as there
is a chance for a peaceful reform then Jose Rizal will continue to fight for the freedom of the Filipinos
in a peaceful manner.)

Rizal is branded a mere “reformist” because they have not read his letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt from
Geneva on June 19, 1887, his 26th birthday, that reads:

“I assure you that I have no desire to take part in conspiracies which seem to me very premature and
risky. But if the government drives us to the brink, that is to say, when no other hope remains but seek
our destruction in war, when the Filipinos would prefer to die rather than endure their misery any
longer, then I will also become a partisan of violent means. The choice of peace or destruction is in the
hands of Spain, because it is a clear fact, known to all, that we are patient, excessively patient and
peaceful, mild, unfeeling, etc. But everything ends in this life, there is nothing eternal in the world and
that refers also to our patience.”

RIZAL’S DEFENSE TO PROVE HIS INNOCENCE

There were 12 points that Lt Taviel De Andrade raised in defense of Rizal at that fateful trial (Gregorio
F Zaide, Jose Rizal: Life, Works And Writings, pages 216-217)

1. He could not be guilty of rebellion, for he advised Dr. Pio Valenzuela in Dapitan not to rise in
revolution.
2. He did not correspond with the radical, revolutionary elements.
3. The revolutionists used his name without his knowledge. If he were guilty, he could have
escaped in Singapore.

4. If he had a hand in the revolution, he could have escaped in a Moro vinta and would not have
built a home, a hospital, and bought lands in Dapitan.

5. If he were the chief of the revolution, why was he not consulted by the revolutionists?

6. It was true he wrote the by-laws of the Liga-Filipina, but this is only a civic association – not a
revolutionary society.

7. The La Liga Filipina did not live long, for after the first meeting he was banished to Dapitan and it
died out.

8. If the Liga was reorganized nine months later, he did not know about it.

9. The Liga did not serve the purpose of the revolutionists, otherwise they would not have
supplanted it with the Katipunan.

10. If it were true that there were some bitter comments in Rizal’s letters, it was because they were
written in 1890 when his family was being persecuted, being dispossessed of houses, warehouses,
lands, etc… and his brother and brother-in-law were deported.

11. His life in Dapitan had been exemplary as the politico-military commanders and missionary
priests could attest.

12. It was not true that the revolution was inspired by his one speech at the house of Doroteo
Ongjunco, as alleged by witnesses whom he would like to confront. His friends knew his opposition
to armed rebellion. Why did the Katipunan send an emissary to Dapitan who was unknown to him?
Because those who knew him were aware that he would never sanction any violent movement.