diced b Jos e S. Arc a, - non

Tbe anticlimax, in Guerrero's tenn, of Rizal's Dapitan opened anew chapter in his life. It occasioned new wishes and new fulfillments toRizal the man, but hardly new insights to Rizal the nationalist as far as theidea of the use of violence was concerned. In 1896, he rejected AndresBonifacio's Katipunan, because it adhered to methods Rizal had abhorred inhis writings. Furthermore, the movement was not led by men of the middleclass, the only ones who, in Rizal's opinion, could lead the Philippines to abetter future. Other attempts would be in vain. `Transformation has to beviolent and fatal, if it should originate from the masses," as he had written in"The Philippines A Century Hence'TM9 and this was Rizal's opinion also at thetime when his pasyon finally had come."His open condemnation of the Katipunan and of its use of violence,therefore, was not a last-minute attempt to save his own life. It was aconfirmation of principles, developed in the El Filibusterismo, for thefulfillment of which he had already embarked on his martyrdom four yearsearlier and for which he was now ready to die.If the readiness to suffer or to sacrifice one's life for the betterment ofone's country was reflected in the revolutionary events of February 1986referred to in the introduction, then, in response to our theoretical question,Rizal could very well have been a "source" of the people's power movement.But if many of those who assembled at Camp Aguinaldo of Camp Cramewere not aware of the teachings of their national hero, they woe, in heedingthe call of their bishops for "active resistance of evil by peaceful means in themanner of Christ," at least drawing from the same inspiration!216