Rizal’s real convictions on Philippine independence

Manila Times | 19 Jun 2011

AN example of a new book that illuminates Jose Rizal’s life and thoughts better than those that have come out
before with their anti-Catholic biases and faulty research is Romance and Revolution by Luis Lisa and Javier de
Pedro.
The book is published by the University of Asia and the Pacific. It came out in late 2010 and got distributed only
recently (available at National Book Store) and is therefore like UA&P’s contribution to the 150th Rizal
Anniversary celebration.
The book’s title has the subhead “A look into the lives and times of Jose Rizal and Josephine Bracken.”
It sets aright the slanderous depiction of Mrs. Rizal by Austin Coates, who has become the standard authority
on Josephine Bracken solely by his having looked into the Hong Kong archives and government records about
her, which he then included in his book Rizal: Philippine Nationalist and Martyr.
Lisa and de Pedro’s book is the result of more solid scholarship and research that involved sources in Spain,
Hong Kong and the Philippines. Their analyses and comparison of documents, what was said in letters and
documents against what was available in letters and other references, yielded the picture of a loyal and virtuous
woman and not the wild, disturbed and prostitute-like female the Coates writings unjustly portray.
Coates’ portrayal has of course been taken by those who wish to discount Mrs. Rizal’s credibility. For in many
ways, what is known to have been written by Josephine Bracken about our national hero and his love for his
“dulce estranjera” casts an instructive and inspiring light on who Rizal really was.
And that who is contrary to the image of Rizal that some nationalists have painted of someone who would lie
to benefit himself or distort his principles supposedly to pursue his nationalist ideals. No, the Rizal that emerges
from Romance and Revolution is someone you can more totally trust to guide you on how to love and serve our
country to the point of martyrdom not just a political thinker who could have later in life turned into some of
our rottenest politicians who began admirably as young heroes.
The excerpt I am quoting here is not from the main part of the book by Lisa and de Pedro.
It is just an annex. It is Annex IV, which elaborates on the authors’ discussion of the books Chapter 8 “Rizal’s
Defense.” I have chosen this part of the book because it details, as the title of the annex states, “Rizal’s
Conviction on Independence.” This annex also contains the authors’ discussion of “Rizal’s Dreams” for our
country, which I am not quoting below.
ANNEX IV Rizal’s Convictions on Independence
Based on Rizal’s Data for My Defense, (1) written in Fort Santiago on December 12, 1896, this short study aims
to clarify his stand on independence from Spain. Although he wrote on this topic on several occasions, the
Defense was his last and definitive statement. Therefore, one who wants to acquire a complete understanding
of his political stand has to include this document as the final product in the evolution of his thought.
In his Defense, there were five statements that could give rise to speculations about his concept of Filipino
nationhood. [Note (1) 1. This Annex is an expanded elaboration on the ideas of Rizal quoted in “Rizal’s Defense”
in CHAPTER 8, where the reader will find the proper references to the bibliography.)
1. The basis of Rizal’s political views on independence is his belief that it should be attained gradually. He
denounced those who chose to equate his desire to have freedoms with an intent to have independence,
accusing them of either lying or misunderstanding him. He explicitly affirmed: I have believed that autonomy
was bound to come little by little, and independence after a lapse of years.
Simply put, he felt that independence can be attained only after Spain grants the Filipinos, first, their basic
political freedoms and second, autonomy. Although Rizal’s early ideas on nationhood remain open to
speculation, he later withdrew and refused to give any consideration to the alternative of assimilation with Spain
as favored by other Ilustrados. (2) One may agree or disagree with his views and approach, but there is no doubt
that he wanted independence; he never desired the Philippines to remain a province of Spain forever. It is to be
noted for many years, he avoided uttering any remark that could be taken as pro-Spanish. This was evident
during his last stay in Europe, his short residence in Hong Kong, and his last four years in Dapitan. The first and
last time that he broke his self-imposed silence was in his Defense, and only to affirm that he wanted
independence after a lapse of years. He saw self-rule at the end of an unalterable historical development, like
the natural process of growth in living organisms. Once this point is understood and accepted, it is easy to
explain pro-Spanish sounding statements in the document. [Note 2. 2 His position was totally right: Spaniards
and Filipinos are too different to comprise a single nation. They are not merely far from each other in distance
but, more significantly, in culture and mentality. On this point, perhaps it would be naive to think that
independence automatically solves the country’s problems. The Philippines, for more than a half-century now,
has enjoyed full liberties and independence, the very same dreams advocated by Rizal. However, the country
continues to be plagued with problems. Evidently, it takes more than freedom and independence to make the
country progressive. The liberal program that Rizal sought contained ideas that, although noble were too
utopian.]
2. His deep and sincere convictions on Filipino independence are reaffirmed by the fact that he never said he
loved Spain with patriotic love. One seemingly pro-Spanish passage—my education, eminently Spanish and as
such patriotic--if properly read, is not directed towards Spain but to the Philippines. When he wrote it, he only
wanted to acknowledge that the origin of his Filipino patriotic dreams was born and developed early formation
years under Spanish educators. He elaborated;
From childhood, I was educated by Spaniards nurtured in the great examples of the History of Spain,
Greece, and Rome. In later years, all my professors in Spain were great thinkers and great patriots.
Everything—books, periodicals, examples, and reason itself— prompted me to love the good of my
native land, as the Catalonian loves the good of Catalonia, and Basques, Galicians, Andsalusians,
respectively love Biscay, Galicia, Andalusia etc.
A cursory reading of this passage would give the impression that Rizal made these statements with deep
affection towards Spain. Notice, however, that he worded the sentences very carefully and never stated that he
loved Spain. Indeed, he could not do so, because he loved only his own country, which makes him a patriot in
the classical meaning of the term. From early youth he learned patriotism from his Spanish Jesuit teachers at
the Ateneo, then from the Spanish Dominicans at the University of Santo Tomas, and finally from his University
professors in Madrid. All of them taught him to be a good citizen—of Spain—but what was actually molded and
formed during those crucial years was his unmistakable Filipino identity. In the course of those years, he met
Spaniards who loved their native regions and provinces; he met Englishmen who loved the United Kingdom,
French who loved France, and Austrians who loved Austria. Was it not reasonable and virtuous then for a Filipino
to love his native land? He could not believe that these aspirations of mine could ever be criminal in the eyes of
the Government. He admitted learning patriotism from the examples of Spain, Rome and Greece, but he never
wished to become a Spanish, Roman, or Greek citizen. On the contrary, he always and unmistakably kept his
Filipino identity: all prompted me to love the good of my native land.
3. At the same time, he was afraid that his dream could be destroyed by nations with imperialistic ambitions.
This thinking is especially important to understand why Rizal wanted to remain under Spain for awhile. He lived
during trying times when powerful nations were guided by imperialistic motives, making him afraid that the
Philippines could not stand on her own without another country defending her. He was worried that empires
like England, Germany, and Japan could easily supplant the weakening power of Spain in the Philippines. Some
years earlier, he expressed his apprehension in his famous article “The Philippines a Century Hence,” that the
United States of America could also be one of these imperialistic nations. Because of this alarming possibility,
he preferred to remain under the influence of Spain. This is what he said to some Japanese who wanted mutual
collaboration between their two countries: Filipinos were well off with Spain, and did not like to be shifted from
one hand to another; that in spite of everything, for three centuries we had been united with Spain by one and
the same religion and by bonds of love and gratitude, factors not existing with any other nation.
In saying this, he did not mean that he wanted to be under Spain; rather, he did not want the Philippines to be
freed from Spain only to be dominated by another nation afterwards. In short, he preferred to remain under
Spain and wait for the right time to obtain independence, than to rise in arms, gain independence from Spain,
only to fall under the ruling power of Japan or another country. Rizal opted to have a smooth transition to
independence under Spanish rule.
The Spaniards should feel elated with his extemporaneous laudatory remark: Filipinos were well off with Spain
(...and) united by three centuries. These words partially compensated for his previous severe criticisms and
brought forth a more balanced judgment on the influence of Spain in the Philippines. (3) But notice also that
Rizal praised the ties uniting Spain and the Philippines for the past three centuries, although not in perpetuity.