![]() |
| Rizal's execution at Bagumbayan |
Rebellion, based on the view of Spain in 1896, is committed if the following requisites are present: one, the person charged broke his allegiance with the present government by commiting actual rebellion against the State. Actual rebellion is defined as an overt act which aims to occupy a part of the territory through arms. The Spanish Penal Code of 1870 punishes the commission of the crime through overt acts, attempts, and conspiracies, even if it is still being planned.
Obviously, Rizal was not a combatant. When the revolution broke out, he was already in Dapitan, in exile. He was later transferred to Fort Santiago, three months before he was executed.
Aside from rebellion, Rizal was charged with sedition and illegal association. Sedition is punishable even in one's writings. Did Rizal wrote seditious entries in his two books, the Noli and Fili?
It depends. Rizal was careful not to indicate or call for a revolution against the Spaniards. If at all, Rizal even wrote and frustrated thoughts about it. Rizal was not like del Pilar who truly advocated for an overthrow of the existing power. If at all, Rizal was for assimilation, a widely accepted call by Propagandists at that era.
Spanish authorities accused him of inspiring Filipinos to revolt, a charge which Rizal vehemently denied. If you analyze closely, Rizal was guilty of command responsibility since, at that time, he was the highest Masonic official of the land. However, this is not an overt act that would justify the charge of rebellion or sedition.
This explains why we revere Rizal's death every December 30th because like all the other martyrs of the revolution, Rizal was killed by just believing in something which only exists in the mind--democracy.

No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you very much for reading my blog. You inspired me. But if you intend to put your name "anonymous", better not comment at all. Thanks!