Pagsalitain Natin si Rizal

Isang nahuling paggunita hindi sa pagkatao ni Jose Rizal kundi sa kung ano ang nais sabihin at iparating ni Jose Rizal

Buong buhay ko, wala kayong ginawa kundi husgahan ako, basahin ako. Kinuha niyo na ang lahat sa akin. Kung anu-anong hiningi ninyo, pero hindi niyo pa rin makita kung sino ako. Marami na akong ibinigay, bakit pati ang buhay ko? Patahimikin niyo na ako, para makita ko ang sarili ko!

- Jose Rizal, sa pagganap ni Cesar Montano

Sa pagkakataong ito, hindi ang aking mga opinyon o ang aking paniniwala, kundi kung ano ang paniniwala ng isang mamamayang itinuring nating propeta na magpasahanggan ngayon ay hindi binibigyang-halaga, ang bibigyan ko ng puwang.

Siguro isa sa mga unang matutuwa sa pagiging napakaligamgam (kundi mas malamig pa sa Snow World ng Star City) na pagtanggap ng ating mga mamamayan sa pag-alala natin sa araw ng kamatayan ni Rizal ay, kakatuwa, SI RIZAL MISMO. Marahil kung nangyari lamang na may sariling buhay ang mga namayapa na at uso ang internet doon, ganito rin ang iniisip ni "Lolo Pepe" ngayon (pasasalamat kay Bb. Pauline Oyco):

At oo nga naman, ano nga ba ang sinabi ni Rizal sa isa sa kanyang mga huling liham bago siya mamatay kahapon ng 7:03 ng umaga:

Ilibing niyo ako sa lupa. Lagyan ninyo ng panandang bato at krus. Ang aking pangalan, araw ng kapanganakan at ng kamatayan. Wala nang iba. Kung pagkatapos ay nais niyong bakuran ang aking puntod, maaari niyong gawin. WALA NANG ANIBERSARYO. Mas mabuti kung sa Paang Bundok. Kaawaan ninyo si Josephine.

- Jose Rizal, Sa aking pamilya, Isang liham na walang petsa.

Samakatuwid, bakit nga ba natin pa pinananatili ang pag-alala kay Rizal? Hindi na yata makatuwiran, kung tutuusin, ang tandisan pa nating suwayin ang habilin ng isang mamamatay kung tunay natin siyang pinahahalagahan. At marahil, siguro nga, iyon ang trahedya ng pagiging pambansang bayani ni Rizal. Sapagka't siya'y nakahabi sa pagbuo ng bansang-estadong Pilipinas, at sa kanyang kataliwas ding mukha bilang subersibo, filibustero sa halos lahat ng nibel, si Rizal ay hindi mangyayaring maging katulad nina Mahatma Gandhi at ni Jesucristo (kahit ito na ang paniniwala ng nauubos nang mga Rizalista). Si Rizal, hindi katulad nina Washington at kung sino pang mga kinikilalang bantayog ng kabayanihan ng ibang bansa, ay hindi tila isang dios, kundi isang taong katulad natin na maaari nating kilatisin, pulaan at, siyang tunay, di pakikinggan.


Unang Emo, Unang Pilipino

Si Rizal mismo ay umaaming marami siyang suliranin at paniniwalang tunay na humahadlang sa kanyang kakayanang kumilos bilang kabahagi ng isang pamayanang Pilipino. Makikita ito sa kanyang liham kay Ferdinand Blumentritt sa kung bakit pinili niyang kumalas na sa Kilusang Propaganda:

You would like me to write an article for Soli, but I must confess to you that my intention is not to work on any further article for that periodical. I could have told you this earlier, but I wanted to hid from you the disagreeable attacks against me. We have been through a lot together. You already write [for it], and I compeltely agree with what you can write. What Blumentritt and Rizal can do , Blumentritt can do on his own. I have suggested many projects, but they carried on a secret war against me; they call me "Idol," says I am a despot, etc., when I wished to get the Filipinos to work. They wrote about all this to Manila, twisting the facts, saying that I want this and that - which was hardly the truth. From various people I have learned that even before my Filibusterismo went to press, they were already saying that it was worthless and far inferior to the Noli. Many secret pettinesses are going on, as though they wished to destroy the little reputation that I have. I am withdrwing in order to forestall a schism: let others take the political lead. They said that Rizal is too difficult a personality; good then, Rizal goes his own way; obstacles ought not to come from me.

- Jose Rizal, Letter to Ferdinand Blumentritt: 4 bis Rue Châteaudun, Paris, October 9, 1891

At marahil ganoon din ang inasahan ni Rizal, na siyang makatwirang paliwanag kung tatanggapin din nating si Rizal ang unang emo. At bakit nga ba hindi mo ito iisipin: tandaang siya mismo ang nagsulat sa mga katagang ito sa pagpapalagay niya kung papaanong hindi naman talaga siya magbubungang malaki nang pagbabago:

Kung ang libingan ko'y limot na ng lahat
at wala ng kurus at batang mabakas,
bayaang linangin ng taong masipag,
lupa'y asarolin at kauyang ikalat.

At mga buto ko ay bago matunaw
mauwi sa wala at kusang maparam,
alabok ng iyong latag ay bayaang
siya ang babalang doo'y makipisan.

Kung magka gayon na'y aalintanahin
na ako sa limot iyong ihabilin
pagka't himpapawid at ang panganorin
mga lansangan mo'y aking lilibutin.

- Jose Rizal, Mi Ultimo Adios, sa salin ni Andres Bonifacio

Ganoon katindi ang kaemohan ni Rizal, kung tutuusin, na maski si G. Rolando Tolentino sa kanyang aklat na Sipat Kultura ay hindi napigilang mapa-"Chinkee mae!" sa pagiging desperado nguni't narcisistiko ng mga linyang ito. Sabagay, may kasabihan nga naman pala na halos lahat nga naman pala ng mga pilosopo ay emo, kaya pwedeng given na yun. Pero hindi yun ang punto natin. Natatandaan natin kung papaanong si Jesucristo mismo ay nagsabing hindi kulang sa pagdangal ang isang propeta liban sa kanyang sinilangang bayan (Lucas 4:24) at paanong pwede rin nating sabihin ito ukol sa ating mga bayani.

Nguni't marahil, ang mas matindi dito, ay ang balikuin ang kanyang mga sinasabi. At hindi baga ganito rin ang ginawa sa mga propeta't bayani kahit ganoon sila dinarakila: pinipilipit at inaabuso ang mga salita para gawing palusot sa mga kawalang-katarungang kanila mismong ipinaglaban? Ito mismo ang sanhi kaya hindi na natin maintindihan si Rizal, kung bakit ang pananaw natin kay Rizal ay isang malayong bituing hindi maaabot sapagka't siya mismo ay ginawang imahen ng mapanupil na estadong hindi niya sasang-ayunan. Hindi nga sang-ayon si Rizal sa pagsasarili ng mga Pilipino sapagka't "bakit ang kalayaan kung ang mga alipin ng kasalukuyan ay magiging mang-aalipin kinabukasan?" At hindi nga siya nagkamali. Kung papaanong binaliko ng Rebolusyong Pranses ang kaisipan ni Rousseau (liban na lamang kung naniniwala kang baliko na mag-isip si Rousseau sa simula pa lamang) at kung papaano binaliko ng Partidong Nazi ang pananaw ni Nietzsche, ganoon din nating inabuso si Rizal. At huwag na nating pag-usapan ang pagbaliko ng mga simbahan sa lahat ng mga kautusan ni Jesucristo.


Isang Pagtataksil

Mas masaklap dito marahil na ang gumagawa nito sa kanya ay ang mga mismong institusyong kanyang pinagtiwalaang magdadala sa kanyang paniniwala. Matatandaan sa isang talumpati ni Padre Bienvenido Nebres, S.J., Pangulo ng Pamantasang Ateneo de Manila, nang siya'y gawaran ng Orden ng mga Kawal ni Rizal ng Knight Grand Cross of Rizal noong Disyembre 30, 2006 ay kanyang sambitin kung papaanong:

Sometimes you might think that Dr. Rizal would have been like many of our political leaders today, maraming salita, kaunting gawa. Because he wrote and spoke so well. But in his four years in Dapitan, he was puro gawa, kaunting salita. He provided health care. He provided education. He built water systems. He taught technology in agriculture and fishing. He did many things -- with his own hands -- to create a better life for people...

Dr. Rizal understood that in Dapitan. In Spain and Manila, he wrote and preached against injustices. In Dapitan, he simply worked to create the foundations for a better life for the people. He may well have launched Gawad Kalinga a century ago.

Marahil may katwiran naman sa mga winikang ito, nguni't ang nagiging mensahe ay hindi ang pagbubuo ng komunidad, kundi ang pagtatayo ng isang pamumuhay na walang politika, walang pag-uusap. Sa pagnanais nating kalasan ang pangangailangan sa kultura ng aktibismo at pagiging mapanuri, itinanghal natin ang pangangailangang panlipunan higit sa lahat, na taliwas sa ating pagkilos sa demokratikong pamamaraan. Hindi ito ang sinasabi ni Rizal kahit kailan, at ito ang tinindigan ni G. Lisandro Elias "Leloy" Claudio, balediktoryan ng Ateneo de Manila noong taong 2007 at ngayo'y guro sa Kagawaran ng Pamamahayag sa sulating "Eagles without talons?":

This Rizal may well be the solution to our country’s problems for, as Nebres argues, today “there is so much talk and so little done.” Indeed, although a lot of Gawad Kalinga’s development approaches have been questioned, it is undeniable that it has contributed to the reduction of slums. Ateneo’s education programs in depressed areas likewise contribute to long-term national development.

But what are the implications of de-emphasizing political criticism in favor of immediate concrete action? Historian Floro Quibuyen argues that the image of an apolitical Rizal was used by the American colonial government to encourage Filipinos to cooperate with them even as they subjugated the country. Reminding Filipinos of the anti-colonial and revolutionary Rizal would have been unwise given their mission of pacification.

Similarly, in the context of the Ateneo, this Rizal and the framework of nation-building that it’s associated with has been used to question and erase the university’s long history of social and political activism. ...

This anti-politics atmosphere has made it difficult to forward issues of national concern in the university. I was witness to the lethargy of many students and teachers during the time when mobilizations were being made to protest the NBN-ZTE scandal. I saw how this withdrawal from issues of national concern influenced the moderate stance taken by the Ateneo regarding the issue of whether Arroyo deserved to stay in power. While basketball nemesis La Salle called for resignation, Ateneo called for reflection. An administrator personally rebuked me when I said the university should join the lobby for the Freedom of Information Act since it would allow the public to scrutinize shady deals like the NBN-ZTE. Won’t work, I was told; let’s just lobby for another disaster relief bill. It doesn’t surprise me, then, that in her final State of the Nation Address this country’s most despised president claimed the university and its president as partners in her goal of building a strong republic.

There is one major flaw in the university’s anti-politics framework: the claim that activism with its attendant criticism of national politics does not work. It does. In the 1970s, the “talk” of student activists (many of them Ateneans like Edgard Jopson) conscienticized an entire generation, exposing them to the ills of authoritarianism. It was a slow process - educating and opening people’s eyes takes time – but it worked. When the crowd in EDSA overthrew the dictator, it was a victory for those who fomented dissent. It was the legacy of the makibaka activism that is currently derided in the Ateneo. And lest we think that nothing was gained from EDSA, one should consider that we currently have a free press, participate in regular elections, and have a growing civil society. Political scientist Nathan Quimpo, for instance, claims that grassroots NGOs who engage in legal activities like aiding farmers in land reform cases were few and far between before EDSA. It was the revolution that opened this democratic space. Our system isn’t perfect, but it’s significantly better.

Ano talaga ang sinasabi ni Rizal sa atin? Ano siya talaga bilang ating pambansang bayani. Minsang sinabi ni Howie Severino sa kanyang dokumentaryo ukol sa buhay ni Rizal sa Europa na "Little Bad Boy": kung tunay ngang si Rizal ang ating pamantayan sa pagiging mamamayan, disin sana'y malaon nang maunlad ang Pilipinas. Magaling tayong mga Pilipino sa pagyayabang ukol sa ating mga bayani, nguni't ang isabuhay ang kanilang nais na layunin ay lagi tayong kapos. Hindi baga lalo tayong kahiya-hiya sa ating mga karatig bansang gaya ng Singapore, Malaysia (kung saan ang demokratikong dating diputadong punong ministrong si Anwar Ibrahim ay tagahanga ni Rizal at mag-aaral sa ilalim ng iskolar ukol kay Rizal na si Cesar Adib Majul) at Indonesia at maging ang Hapon at Alemanya, na ating tinutuya sa ating pangangayupapa sa Amerika, na kinilala si Rizal bilang mabuting halimbawa ng Ubermensch ni Nietzsche kahit hindi sila nagkita kahit kailan?

Hamon ng Pagbabalik-Tanaw

Muli't muli, nanatiling isang anino si Rizal sapagka't hindi tayo ipinapakilala sa kung sino talaga siya. Siguro, sa ating "nilinis" na paglalahad ng kasaysayan, hindi natin siya makikilalang kahit kailan liban na lamang kung tayo mismo ang kakalas sa ating mga muhon, at walang-sawang magkakalas sa mga karaniwan nang pinaniniwalaan. Minsang sinabi ni Michel Foucault na sa mga gawaang tagahubog (disciplinary structures) kumikilos ang tao at siyang nagbibigay sa kanya ng kakayanan, nguni't magiging tunay lamang siyang malaya kung kaya niya itong lusutan ang pasikut-sikot at siya mismo ang humawak sa kanyang pagsuong sa buhay, nguni't di nakakalimot sa gabay ng mga nauna sa kanya.

Si Rizal, bilang ating "Lolo Pepe" ay naglatag na ng daan sa ating harapan. Nasa atin ang hamon na balikan ang kanyang pinanggalingan, pag-aralan ang kanyang mga tagumpay at pagkakamali, at ituloy ang kanyang pagbubuo ng isang pamayanan. Nakakilos siya sa Dapitan sapagka't doo'y nagkakaisa at nagnanais ng pagbabago ang mamamayan. Sa isang panahong tayo'y pinipilit na isipin lamang ang sarili at ang pagpapanatili sa mga ito, walang magiging bunga kundi ang pagkawasak ng isang bansang ating ninanais buuin. Ang lahat ng ito'y ating pinagbabayaran sa katangahan ng ating mga magulang at ang atin ding kahinaan.

MARAPAT NATING SABIHIN, KUNG TUTUUSIN, BILANG SINUWAY NI RIZAL ANG KAUTUSAN NI DONYA TEODORA ALONZO BATAY SA KUWENTO NG GAMU-GAMO, NA TANGING ANG MGA BATANG PASAWAY LAMANG ANG MAAARING MAGDALA NG PAGBABAGO SA ATING BAYAN. ANG LUBOS NA PAGDAKILA SA PAMILYA ANG SANHI KUNG BAKIT TAYO HAWAK SA LEEG NG ESPANYA NOON. GANOON DIN NGAYON: SA SOBRANG PAGNANASANG PANATILIHIN ANG ATING MGA MAG-ANAK, NAWALA NA ANG ATING TUNGKULING PAGLINGKURAN ANG BAYAN. Hindi na nga bago, kung tutuusin, ang tula galing sa Ang Propeta ni Khalil Gibran na ginamit ni Lualhati Bautista para sa kanyang Dekada '70 (at siyang tula ng mga pasaway na batang aktibistang gaya ko):

Ang inyong anak ay hindi n'yo anak,
Sila'y mga anak na lalaki't babae ng buhay!
Nagdaan sila sa inyo ngunit hindi inyo,
At bagama't pinalaki n'yo, sila'y walang pananagutan sa inyo…

Tumigil na tayo sa pagsunod sa modernong panahon: winawasak lamang tayo nito. Panahon na upang balikan ang nakaraan, hanapin ang sagot sa mga katanungang nakalibing sa gitna ng mga alikabuki't nadudurog nang mga pahina, at muling kilalanin kung sino at ano si Jose Rizal: isang taong mahina, isang taong marunong magsalita't kumilos nguni't hindi marunong sa negosasyon, at ating sikaping higitan pa ito. May lakas ang Pilipino, may kakayanan at, katulad ni Andres Bonifacio na disipulo ni Rizal, MAYPAGASA.

At sa ganitong paraan lamang natin maiiwan ang isang ritwal ng pag-alalang hindi naman makatwiran at lalo lamang naglalayo sa atin sa kanyang diwa.

Anong gagawin mo kapag malaman mong sa lahat ng mga naisulat mo, kapag ika'y namatay na, ay wala ni isang makaalala?

Para mo na rin akong sinintensyahan ng kamatayan.

- Kathang-isip na pag-uusap ni Jose Rizal at ni Tenyente Luis Taviel de Andrade,
Jose Rizal, GMA Films

Pagsalitain Natin si Rizal by Hansley A. Juliano is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Philippines License.
Based on a work at kalisnglawin.blogspot.com.

A CRITICAL ANNOTATION OF Resolution No. 20091103 of the Sanggunian

by Hansley A. Juliano

A brief review of the resolution, its totalitarian (therefore anti-democratic) nature and why it is not a just mode of action to express citizenship

The Sanggunian ng mga Mag-Aaral ng Pamantasang Ateneo de Manila has recently released Resolution No. 20091103 which purportedly calls “ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS OF THE SANGGUNIAN NG MGA MAG-AARAL TO INTROSPECT ON INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENTS FOR THE 2010 NATIONAL ELECTIONS.” At face value it would appear as a manifesto to uphold democratic participation, but a closer look would show that it is a quite problematic, even immature, statement of the Atenean’s perception regarding political participation. We quote in length from the manifesto:

3. WHEREAS, the Sanggunian as an institution, in recognizing the rightful and vital role of the Filipino youth in national efforts to advance and preserve freedom, democracy, human rights, national dignity and interest, social justice, unity, peace, and development in Philippine society, has the responsibility to raise the Ateneo student body’s critical awareness of and proactive response to issues and their root causes affecting the life of the nation and the Filipino people,

4. WHEREAS, the Sanggunian, as an institution, has the purpose of helping foster the social, political, cultural, and spiritual life of students; develop a University spirit and work for effective student participation in its activities; and to serve as the official coordinating channel of the students to democratic institutions,

5. WHEREAS, the Sanggunian, as an institution, took on the role of being at the forefront of Ateneo Task Force 2010 (ATF 2010) and upholds as one of its foremost ideals integrity, must remain committed to such,

6. WHEREAS, the Sanggunian, as part of its commitment to ATF 2010, continues to participate in the successive segments of Voters’ Registration, Voters’ Education, Voters’ Mobilization and Accountability Efforts and Engaged Citizenship.

The train of the Resolution already shows a decidedly suffrage-centric train. It appears as if the Ateneans’ collective understanding of social participation is already in its pinnacle manifestation with a focus for electoral participation. Yet the informal and the minute historical, cultural and ethical perspectives of most Ateneans, one that is not written down but seen in the text of their bodies, minds and values, shows a persistent fetish for private satisfaction, shying away from public participation. It is situated as such that any movement for social involvement, even including the programs of the Office for Social Concern and Involvement, only appears as mere apologetic moves, palliatives harking back the image of Pontius Pilates.

7. WHEREAS, the Sanggunian, as an institution, believes that to build the Filipino nation concretely includes engaging its democratic institutions by practicing the right to suffrage,

8. WHEREAS, the Sanggunian, as an institution, believes that commitments of the institution must be upheld by all units of this one body,

9. WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Sanggunian as an institution appeals to all its duly elected officials to reflect upon their commitment to the founding principles of the student council,

10. WHEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Sanggunian as an institution appeals to all its duly elected officials to recognize the greater cause enshrined in its constitution and to protect its integrity and commitment it adheres to,

These statements are pregnant with the exclusivist nature the Sanggu has been accused of possessing for a long time and what its past administration under Mr. Omar Castañar (AB DS 2009) has sought to do away with. It must remember that as per its name, and as mentioned above in paragraphs 3-4, its responsibility for formation is not only with regards to its officials but also to its constituents, the Ateneans themselves. There should be no presumptions of its leaders’ beliefs trickling down to the student body immediately, seeing how most of the Sanggunian’s movements are not at all reflective of the ideals of Ateneans themselves. In espousing a stance without exhorting Ateneans to hold them as well in a more intrusive and polarizing manner, we could not expect to make the student body affirm those they have supposedly elected to represent: a governing body who thinks making students eat canned goods is ideal to make them more receptive to public participation.

But what could be stated as, decidedly, anti-political, IS THIS:

11. WHEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Sanggunian as an institution does not in any way pass judgment on its duly elected members who have not registered in the national elections but seeks to be a co-formator to its constituents by providing an opportunity for personal discernment and personal action,

12. WHEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Sanggunian as an institution upon immersed reflection, with open, honest, transparent dialogue, calls all its duly elected officials who have not registered for the 2010 Philippine national elections to consider tending their resignation,

This statement is a fatal, totalizing statement unworthy of a call regarding a promotion of democratic participation and action. It appears as if elections are the sum total of political participation and thus it is only the salvific point of democratic responsibility. John Stuart Mill has stated it impeccably in his Representative Government: “The pure idea of democracy, according to its definition, is the government of the whole people by the whole people, equally represented. Democracy as commonly conceived and hitherto practised is the government of the whole people by a mere majority of the people, exclusively represented. The former is synonymous with the equality of all citizens; the latter, strangely confounded with it, is a government of privilege, in favour of the numerical majority, who alone possess practically any voice in the State. This is the inevitable consequence of the manner in which the votes are now taken, to the complete disfranchisement of minorities.” In thinking that elections alone would become the lifeboat which will keep the practice of citizenship afloat, we are actually disenfranchising the responsibility to citizenship altogether.

This idea is precisely what the great thinkers of antiquity have strove to prevent by stressing that the good life is the political life: one that encompasses ethics, virtues and manner of living. Democratic activity is not summed up in the ballot or in the ostrakon, but in manifesting their responsibilities and respecting the laws of the land that are in accordance with the Constitution.

In singling out electoral participation as the end-all and be-all of citizenship, one would be falling to the fatal mistake of actually believing that it is only the vote that makes public life worthy. It is as problematic as the Hobbesian perception that only the sovereign (or for that matter, the “tyranny of the majority”) is the one responsible for the endless structuring of the state, decidedly excluding the voices that have been for so long “sub-alterned” by the repressive remnant systems of the Philippine garrison state. We cannot, in democratic and good faith, support such a resolution forcing our representatives in the Sanggunian to renounce their responsibilities as guides of the student body, their problematic understanding of political participation nonetheless, for it would be more destabilizing to the Ateneans’ ability to reflect their aspirations and their desire for legitimate reform and revolutionary means of practicing and living out their responsibility as Catholics, as Filipinos, and as Ateneans.