1: RIZAL’S PHILOSOPHY OF NONVIOLENCE 1

[A slightly revised version (2014) of Chapter I of my

book, Filipino philosophy: Traditional approach, Part
I, Section 1. Quezon City: C & E Publishing, Inc., 2009.]

RIZAL’S PHILOSOPHY OF NONVIOLENCE1

ROLANDO M. GRIPALDO

This chapter seeks to explain Jose Rizal’s negative

attitude towards a bloody revolution as a means of
obtaining Philippine independence from Spain. The
chapter traces the development of Rizal’s politics of
nonviolence, and discusses as well his philosophy of
nonviolence.

Development of Rizal’s Politics of Nonviolence

Jose Rizal was initially a Filipino Spaniard (español

filipino). In the “Memorandum” for his defense, Rizal
(Guerrero 1974, 424; Alzona 1972a, 345) said he merely
sought the good of his native land, the Philippines
(Filipinas), just as the Catalan sought the good of
Cataluña, the Basque the good of Vizcaya, the Galician
the good of Galicia, and the Andalucian the good of
Andalucia. For Rizal, the Philippines as a Spanish
province 2 should be treated as such and the reformists
should work for its cultural and political assimilation.
The Philippines was an acquired nation just as Cataluña,
Vizcaya, Galicia, and Andalucia were Castilian acquired
regions. The Philippines, in other words, was for Rizal a
patria chica, that is to say, a nation within a larger nation
(or Spain the patria grande), just as Cataluña, Vizcaya,
Galicia, and Andalucia were patrias chicas within the
Spanish nation.
Rizal wanted reforms for his country. He wanted the
Spaniards to treat the Filipinos as their equals. He
wanted the Philippines to have a representation in the
2 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

Spanish Cortes in order to expose the anomalies and

abuses in the country with the end in view of minimizing
or completely eradicating them. He was falsely accused
of betraying the Spanish nation, for he was
misunderstood to have placed more emphasis on
developing a Filipino national sentiment that ran counter
to the interests of Spain. Rizal defended himself superbly
albeit unsuccessfully. He sought only autonomy—
freedom and not independence, since he believed a
country could be independent without being free. He had
always desired democratic rights for the Philippines
coupled with the unity of the Filipino people through
education. If perchance independence should come, it
was because, according to Rizal, the people deserved it
and Mother Spain would willingly grant them
independence, especially when she was convinced that
her future lay in Morocco.
In the end, however, that is, after he was sentenced
to die, Rizal realized the absurdity of remaining a
Filipino Spaniard. In his last poem, “Mi ultimo adios,”
Rizal (Alzona 1972b, 161) showed his ultimate
disappointment with Spain and expressed his desire for
Philippine independence through a bloody revolution
which he did not originally desire but which was taking
place. He said to his Fatherland, 3 “I die as I see tints on
the sky b’gin to show / And at last announce the day,
after a gloomy night” and later “pray too that you
[Fatherland] may see your own redemption.” Rizal had
expressed his wish that the revolution succeed so that
his country in the end would be redeemed. 4 Apparently
Rizal in his last poem repudiated himself. He must have
realized that redemption (or the fulfillment of his dreams
while a “lad adolescent” or a “youth, full of vigor”),
which consisted in seeing his country’s “dark eyes dry,
smooth brow held to a high plane / Without frown,
without wrinkles and of shame without stain,” could be
attained through a violent revolution first and after which
an enlightened leadership could implement educational
reforms that meant the people’s ultimate good. In this
context, one may indeed say that Rizal was first a
(Filipino) Spaniard before becoming a (pure) Filipino.
 1: RIZAL’S PHILOSOPHY OF NONVIOLENCE 3

The Philippines at the time was administered by a

ruling elite which consisted not only of the political elite,
but also the military and the religious elites. What is
interesting in this triumvirate is the fact that the friars
were more powerful than any of the other two groups.
In a sense they were the power behind the throne. The
political elite appeared to be their puppets, the military
elite their auxiliaries, and the natives or indios their
bondsmen.
In a theocratic rule, which is otherwise called
frailocracy, civil rights and liberties were suppressed,
education reduced to blind fanaticism, and Filipino
enlightenment feared. The friars enriched themselves
in spite of their vow of poverty, sired children despite
their vow of celibacy, treated the natives as belonging
to an inferior race, and determined the political fate of
government officials who refused to cooperate with
them. They had an awesome authority without
accountability.
As a consequence of this rule, Rizal observed that
the natives dedicated themselves blindly to the salvation
of their own individual souls, tolerated political
oppression and religious abuses, allowed themselves to
be exploited and humiliated, lacked sentiment of
nationhood, and pursued personal goals or interests.
As a Filipino Spaniard (Fernandez 1980, 2;
Constantino 1970, 114-18, 142), Rizal believed that the
salvation of the Filipinos lay in influencing public
opinion in Spain to adopt reforms in the Philippines. A
campaign must be waged in Spain by a group of
expatriates, i.e., full-blooded Filipinos, Filipino-Spanish
and Filipino-Chinese mestizos, and Spaniards born in
the Philippines, to make the peninsulares, or Spaniards
born in Spain, aware of the true state of affairs in the
Philippines. Rizal’s primary mission when he (Palma
1949, 40, 42, 49) went to Spain at the age of twenty-one
was essentially political. 5 Good education may be
obtained in Barcelona, a Catalan city, but it was in
Madrid, “the center of all the provinces,” that Rizal’s
brother, Paciano, wanted him to go even if good
education there may not be available. After all, one’s
4 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

own initiative and diligence in studying could supply

good education for oneself in a place where such
education was unavailable. To quote Paciano (Guerrero
1974, 82-83; Alzona 1964, 14):

Here [in Calamba, Rizal’s birthplace] it is said

that you will finish your medical course in
Barcelona, not in Madrid; to my way of thinking,
the main purpose of your going is not to improve
yourself in that profession but in other more
useful things, or what comes to the same thing,
that to which you have the greater inclination.
That is why I believe you should proceed to
Madrid, the center of all the provinces, for, while
in Barcelona there is more activity, more
business, and more careful attention to education,
you have not gone there to take part in that
activity and even less to do business, and as far
as good education is concerned, if it should not
be available in Madrid, the application of the
student can supply it. It should be more
convenient for you to be there together with our
countrymen who can show you around until you
can get the hang of things. . .

During the Propaganda Period, Rizal tried to unite

the Filipino expatriates. His success on this matter was
limited. He found the Filipinos in Madrid excessively
individualistic. Instead of uniting themselves to fight for
a worthy patriotic cause, they wasted their time in trifles.
Rafael Palma (1949, 51) remarked:

The young men slept to midday, spent the

afternoon playing cards, and amused
themselves with women in the evening. They
regarded going to class as out of fashion, and
the expression of any patriotic sentiment as
quixotic. With the exception of one or two, they
did not think of politics nor of provoking
discussion of the Philippine situation and of the
liberal reforms that the country needed.
 1: RIZAL’S PHILOSOPHY OF NONVIOLENCE 5

When Rizal finally succeeded on 26 June 1884 in

focusing the attention of the expatriates on the political
affairs of the country, he later found out it was just the
beginning of many disappointments. He had a quarrel
with Eduardo de Lete, the editor of España en Filipinas,
who found many faults with Rizal’s first novel, Noli me
tangere, which appeared in 1886. He had likewise a rift
with Marcelo H. del Pilar, the editor of La Solidaridad,
regarding the leadership of the Filipino colony in Madrid.
Through the machinations of Lete, the Pilarists and the
Rizalists could not obtain the two-thirds majority vote
needed for leadership. When the Pilarists finally gave
way, Rizal (Guerrero 1974, 264-66) in accepting the
leadership lambasted Lete and added that Del Pilar should
have withdrawn his candidacy immediately since he (Del
Pilar) had considered his victory inopportune and the news
of Rizal’s defeat in Manila could be received badly, for it
would appear irregular that as the leader in Manila, he
would not also be the leader in Madrid.
It must be pointed out, however, that Rizal’s political
strategy in attempting to peacefully effect social change
in his country consisted in writing articles and letters to
various magazines and newspapers. He answered the
attacks against the Filipinos and refuted the undue praise
given to the work of the friars of his country.
On the whole the Propaganda Movement failed in
its mission of influencing public opinion regarding the
necessity of effecting reforms in the Philippines because
of lack of funds, Spain’s preoccupation with its own
internal problems, the friars’ tentacles in Spain which
opposed the reforms, and the expatriates’ quarrels
(Agoncillo 1981, 153). Rizal had realized that the
salvation of the Filipinos did not lie in Spain but in the
Philippines itself. He had already resolved the issue of
revolution in his second novel El filibusterismo, which
came off the press in 1891. The revolution for patriotic
causes would be resorted to only as a last recourse but
in no way should it be used for personal revenge. In the
novel, Simoun’s revolution failed, for it was planned to
avenge the misfortunes which his family had suffered
in the hands of the friars and the government.
6 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

Earlier in 1887, Rizal did not desire a separation.

He (Alzona 1961, 44) wrote his friend Ferdinand
Blumentritt:

A peaceful struggle shall always be a dream,

for Spain will never learn the lesson of her
former South American colonies. . . But, under
the present circumstances, we do not want
separation from Spain. All that we ask is greater
attention, better education, better government
employees, one or two representatives, and
greater security for persons and property.

In June 1887, however, Rizal appeared a separatist.

In writing Blumentritt, he (Guerrero 1974, 286) said:

. . . 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, then I too shall advocate violent means.
It is Spain who must choose between peace and
ruin, because it is an evident fact, well known
to all, that we are patient, much too resigned,
and peace loving . . . But everything comes to
an end in this life; there is nothing eternal in
this world, and this applies also to our patience.
[Italics supplied.]

When his parents, relatives, and friends were

persecuted by Spanish authorities in the Philippines
after the publication of the Noli, Rizal all the more
entertained seditious ideas. In June 1888, he
(Guerrero 1974, 287; Alzona 1961, 172) wrote
Blumentritt:

I believe it is too late; the Filipinos have

already lost the hopes they place in Spain! Now
 1: RIZAL’S PHILOSOPHY OF NONVIOLENCE 7

we await our fate from God and ourselves but

never again from any government.

In October of that year, he (Guerrero 1974, 287)

wrote Blumentritt again:

Those who deport or imprison any individual

without a right to do so can only expect our
hatred, and, if we cannot avenge ourselves, our
sons and, if not, our grandsons will do so!On
further reflection, however, Rizal (Guerrero
1974, 425) admitted those seditious thoughts
were absurd that as a reasonable man, he would
not be “so stupid or so foolish as to desire
something impossible or mad.”

In 1889 Rizal appeared to have thoroughly

mellowed down. He spoke of obtaining the happiness
of the Philippines by “noble and just means.” He
(Guerrero 1974, 287; Alzona 1961, 233) said in a Kantian
fashion:

If to make my country happy I had to act

vilely, I would refuse to do so because I am sure
that what is built on sand will collapse sooner
or later. . . . If it were impossible to overcome
our enemies now, another day will dawn,
another day will come, for there must be a God
of justice, otherwise we would be atheists.

One year before the publication of the Fili, Rizal

had already discovered the foundation of freedom and
independence. He believed it was intelligence (or
reason). In April 1890 he (Guerrero 1974, 287; Alzona
1963a, 446) wrote Marcelo H. 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.”
Representation in the Spanish Cortes, Rizal went on, was
not necessary had the Filipinos been enlightened, but
because they were indifferent, representation was good.
8 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

The Filipinos must therefore be educated and

enlightened. They must be taught civic virtues.
Enlightenment, in a nutshell, constituted one great theme
of the Fili. When he was tried of rebellion, Rizal
incorporated these views in his defense. Although he was
a Filipino Spaniard prior to his death sentence or the man
who would accept independence only if Spain should
grant it, he died a changed man, one whose patience had
run out and was ready to “advocate violent means,” since
he had seen that there was no hope but to seek war and
the Filipinos preferred to die than to endure their miseries.

Rizal’s Philosophy of Nonviolence

Rizal’s politics of nonviolence was conceived in the

Philippines, hatched in Spain, and nurtured back in the
Philippines. His philosophy of nonviolence likewise
followed that pattern, except that it was hatched not so
much in peninsular Spain but in France, Belgium, and
Germany where Rizal completed and published his two
novels.
Man, in Rizal’s view (Majul 1967, 24; Alzona
1963b, 188), was a creation perfect within his conditions.
Man must be free to realize his natural tendency toward
the full development of his intellectual and moral
potentialities. The attempt to repress these potentialities
would disfigure him. This is one sense of freedom,
which means full self-realization, that Rizal talked about.
In this sense, man can be held responsible for his actions.
Since the government and the friars tried to stifle the
development of his mental and moral faculties, he must
not therefore be entirely blamed for his miserable
condition. He must, however, be partly blamed for
tolerating and allowing such a condition to continue.
To Rizal, the disfigured man is corrupt, lacks the
sentiment of national unity, and works only for his own
good. His consciousness is limited; he does not have a
consciousness of nationhood. He must transcend
religious fanaticism, cultivate his intellect, love his
fellow Filipinos, have racial pride, and possess that
dignity and self-esteem worthy of a man. This is the
 1: RIZAL’S PHILOSOPHY OF NONVIOLENCE 9

second sense of freedom which Rizal (Majul 1967, 25)

elaborated on. The truly free man is the one deserving
of independence. He is a “new man,” and “for new men,
a new social order” (Pascual 1962, 211, 253; Alzona
1972a, 155; Fores-Ganzon 1967, 1: 669).
There exists a striking relationship between the
people and the government. Rizal (Pascual 1962, 223;
Fores-Ganzon 1967, 2: 601) contended that

People and governments are correlated and

complementary: a callous government would be
an anomaly among righteous people, just as a
corrupt people cannot exist under just rulers and
wise laws. Like people, like government . . .

Rizal believed a corrupt people could only produce

a corrupt government. For as long as man wallowed in
ignorance, fanaticism, and moral depravity, it was
necessary to enlighten him. Education was the only
course towards this goal. As Rizal (Craig 1912, 116;
Alzona 1972a, 348) said:

. . . I place as a prior condition [to liberty] the

education of the people, that by means of
instruction and industry our country may have
an individuality of its own and make itself
worthy of these liberties. I have recommended
in my writings the study of civic virtues,
without which there is no redemption.

Rizal believed that education need not be formal.

The home or an association could do the function of
enlightening the people. But he certainly would wish to
have formal education. In the Noli, he (Guerrero 1973,
205; Pascual 1962, 258) argued through the provincial
governor:

. . . the school is the foundation of society, the

book in which is written the future of nations.
Show us the schools of a nation and we shall
tell you what kind of a nation it is.
10 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

Since primary instruction that was free from friar

intervention could not be obtained and since the Reform
Movement in Spain failed, Rizal believed the
regeneration of the Filipino people, which was the basis
of the regeneration of society, could be done through an
association. The Filipinos must rely upon themselves
and in that context Rizal (Alzona 1972a, 309) in Manila
founded La Liga Filipina whose aims were:

• unification of the whole Archipelago into one compact,

vigorous, and homogeneous body;
• mutual protection in every case of trouble and need;
• defense against every violence and injustice;
• development of education, agriculture, and commerce; and
• study and implementation of reforms.

Unfortunately, Rizal was arrested and banished

to Dapitan. Another member of the Liga, Andres
Bonifacio, believed it was the end of the line and
s u b s e q u e n t l y, h e e s t a b l i s h e d t h e r e v o l u t i o n a r y
s o c i e t y, K a t i p u n a n , w h o s e m a i n p u r p o s e w a s t o
overthrow the Spanish colonial government. But
Rizal did not waver in his convictions. For as long
as the people were unenlightened, Rizal (Alzona
1972a, 349) thought that a revolution, if it
succeeded, would be a temporary triumph and very
dangerous in the hands of the ignorant masses, a
view which he may have learned in Paris from the
French Revolution. He preferred reforms that came
from above since he believed they were more fruitful
than reforms that came from below which he
considered shaky and unreliable. He (Guerrero 1975,
297) had once said, “What is the use of independence
if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of
tomorrow?” And he (Pascual 1962, 252) often
quoted Bismarck: “Blood is a very dear liquid; it is
not destined by God to be spilt for the realization of
political ideas.”
A revolution, according to Rizal, was not
t h e r e f o r e n e c e s s a r y. H e h a d h i g h h o p e s t h a t t h e
Filipinos sooner or later would be enlightened, that
 1: RIZAL’S PHILOSOPHY OF NONVIOLENCE 11

i s t o s a y, w o u l d h a v e “ p e r s o n a l d i s c i p l i n e ,
i n t e l l e c t u a l i n t e g r i t y, a n d m o r a l u p l i f t , ” c o u p l e d
“with a love of country and a refusal to submit to
tyranny” (Majul 1967, 25). He admitted that Filipino
enlightenment might lead to a revolution, but it need
not be the case. In fact, he was more inclined to
believe the latter. He said that we should not blame
anyone but ourselves since “our ills we owe to
ourselves alone.” If we “were less complaisant with
tyranny and more disposed to struggle and suffer for
our rights,” Rizal (Derbyshire 1912, 360) argued,
then “Spain would be the first to grant us liberty.”
When such liberty had been granted, Rizal
(Guerrero 1974, 425) was convinced that with unity
and intellectual enlightenment, the Filipino people
would not fall into other foreign hands.

CONCLUSION

The initial difference between Rizal and Bonifacio was

therefore the difference between a Filipino-Spanish
patriotism and a purely Filipino patriotism. In the final
analysis, however, in his last poem, Rizal had no recourse
but to repudiate himself and to agree with Bonifacio on a
bloody revolution which certainly was an indication of the
people’s enlightenment or an indication of a people who
preferred to die rather than to endure their miseries. As
Rizal (Alzona 1972b, 161) finally said, “I see tints on the
sky b’gin to show / And at last announce the day.” He knew
that independence or the redemption of the Fatherland was
beginning to glow and he was willing to offer his blood to
dye its “matutinal glow.” He further knew that sooner or
later the revolution would succeed and he wished that
Fatherland would spread his blood when “the right
moment” came. All these indicated that Rizal deeply
believed his martyrdom would help much in politically
enlightening the people in the same way that the martyrdom
of three Filipino secular priests (Mariano Gomez, Jose
Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora) had helped much in politically
enlightening him.
12 FILIPINO PHILOSOPHY

NOTES

1. Revised version of the paper originally published

in 1986 in PAGE 12 Journal 1. Another version of this
paper was published in 1996-97 in the Philippines Free
Press.
2. The Philippines was a province of New Spain
(Mexico), but after Mexico’s independence in the 1920s,
Spain directly administered it through Madrid (see
“Spanish East Indies,” Wikipedia (n.d.).
3. Rizal used Patria (Fatherland) to refer to his native
land. The translation is by Alzona (1972b, 160-62).
4. Rizal must have known the success of the Cavite
revolutionaists from his sister Trinidad and from Josephine
Bracken, who visited him at Fort Santiago. After Rizal’s
death, Trinidad, together with her brother Paciano and with
Josephine, brought with her Rizal’s last poem to Cavite
where bonifacio translated it from Spanish into Tagalog.
5. I agree with Rafael Palma (1949) rather than with
Leon Ma. Guerrero (1974, 79-80, 119-20) on this matter.
See also Fernandez (1980, 52-53), where Jose Ma. Cecilio
is quoted to have written Rizal to study law “because this
will be of great benefit to the objective that has been
proposed.” John Shchumacher (1973, 1997, 36-37)
mentions “fulfilling a patriotic mission,” although this need
not be joining political parties in Spain.

REFERENCES

Agoncillo, Teodoro. 1981. Pilipinas kong mahal. Isang

kasaysayan. Quezon City: R.P.Garcia Publishing co. Inc.
Alzona, Encarnacion, trans. 1961. The Rizal-Blumentritt
correspondence. Part 1. Manila: Jose Rizal Centennial
Commission.
________, trans. 1963a. Rizal’s correspndence with fellow
reformists. Manila: National Heroes Commission.
________, trans. 1963b. [Rizal’s] Miscellaneous
correspondence. Manila: National Heroes Commission.
________, trans. 1964. Letters between Rizal and the
family members. Manila: National Historical
Commission.
 1: RIZAL’S PHILOSOPHY OF NONVIOLENCE 13

________, trans. 1972a. [Rizal’s] Political and historical

writings. Manila: National Historical Commission.
________, trans. 1972b. Rizal’s poems. Manila: National
Historical Commission.
Constantino, Renato. 1979. Dissent and counter-
consciousness. Manila: Erehwon.
Craig, Austin, ed. 1912. The Philippines acentury hence
and other writings. Manila: Philippine Education Co.
Derbyshire, Charles, tans. 1912. Reign of greed. Manila:
Philippine Education Co.
Fernandez, Jose Baron. 1980. Jose Rizal. Translated by
Lilia Hidalgo-Laurel and edited by Teodoro M. Locsin.
Metro Manila: Manuel L. Morato.
Fores-Ganzon, Guadalupe, trans. 1967. La soidaridad. 2
vols. Quezon city: University of the Philippines Press.
A cmplete 1996 edition in 7 voles is available. Edited b
Guadalupe Foreza-Ganzon and Luis Mañero. Pasig City:
Fundacion Santiago.
Gripaldo, Rolando. 1986. Rizal’s politics of revolution.
PAGE 12 Journal 1.
_______. 1996-97. Rizal’s revolution. Philipines Free
Press (28 December-4 January).
Guerrero, Leon Ma. 1973. Noli me tangere. Hong Kong:
Group (Far East) Limited.
________. 1974. The first Filipino. Manila: National
Historical Commission.
________. 1975. El filibusterismo. Hong Kong: Group (Far
East) Limited.
Majul, Cesar Adib. 1967. The political and constitutional
ideas f the Philippine revolution. Quezon City:
Universityof the Philippine Press.
Palma, Rafael. 1949. The pride of the Malay race.
Translated by Roman Ozaeta. New York: Prentice-Hall,
Inc.; reprint ed. 1966. Quezon City: KEN Incorporated.
Pascual, Ricardo A. 1962. The philosophy of Rizal. Manila:
Pedro B. Ayuda and Company.
Schumacher, John. 1997. The Propaganda movement,
1880-1895: The creator of a Filipino consciousness, the
makers of revolution. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press.
Spanish East Indies.N.d. Wikipedia. Available at http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_East_Indies. Accessed:
6 November 2006.