diced b Jos e S. Arc a, - non

to manipulate the election results had become apparent. The memorandum ofthe Conference of Philippine Bishops calling for "active resistance to evil bypeaceful means in the manner of Christ"' together with the later call of JaimeCardinal Sin, transmitted by Radio Veritas, to protect the dissenters Emileand Ramos at Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crame had, there can be littledoubt, an overwhelming effect.`But what about Rizal? Can the national hero of the Filipinos be includedamong the "sources" of the people's power-movement? His ideas—considerhis wish, vision, or "dream" quoted above—pointed at least to the samedirection. But was he as uncompromising an advocate of non-violence asJesus, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King, who like him finally had to suffer aviolent death for their teaching and preaching of non-violence? This questionis not easy to answer. Nobody who has studied Rizal's novels and his otherwritings can deny that he was a serious proponent of peaceful evolution. Butthere is considerable disagreement among the Rizalists with regard to hisopinion on revolution and violence.Because of the tremendous amount of available information on Rizal'slife and writings, it has become possible, as was once noted by Clam M.Recto, that "everyone makes his own Rizal."' In the many biographies of thePhilippine national hero one can easily detect a Rizal according to one's ownliking. Another possibility is "that his admirers note only that stage of hisintellectual development, which appeals to them, ignoring or rejectingothers," as is maintained by Ruth Ailene Roland in her dissertation on the"uses" of Rizal by scholars and politicians.6This can also be noted in the scholarly discussions of Rizal's opinions onrevolution and violence. Roland distinguishes three different points of view:'(a) Rizal is absolutely opposed to the idea of revolution: W. E. Retana,F. Blumentritt, A. Craig, F. Laubach, among others.(b) Rizal is conditionally in favor of revolution: N. de la Pefia (auditorgeneral of war during Rizal's trial), J. Alejandrino, M. Kalaw, R. Palma,C. Quirino, among others.(c) Rizal is ambivalent or uncertain toward revolution: T. A. Agoncillo,C. Leonard, M. Unamuno, among others.One could dispute the lists, argue about the categories, but they do provethe difficulty in giving a clear cut answer to the question: was Rizal anadvocate of violent revolution or not?This difficulty already existed in his own time. Who would accuseBonifacio of having misread the Noll me tangere and Rizal's other writingsalluding to force as a last resort, when he was founding the Katipunan after202