The aftermath of the Second World War left the Philippines struggling on its feet. The countless problems, challenges, and damages brought by the war called for recovery on a national scale. Prominent individuals who championed nationalism and patriotism were at the forefront of forwarding measures to instill such values in Philippine society. These people worked hard to find ways to aid the Filipino youth in the formation of their national consciousness. Among these individuals was Sen. Claro M. Recto, the main proponent of the Rizal Bill. He believed that studying the life and works of Jose Rizal would be instrumental in teaching the youth to stand up for their country, therefore embodying the values and ideals of Rizal. There were only three people who opposed the bill when it was brought to the Senate. However, it was met with stiff opposition from the Catholic Church when it was sponsored by Sen. Jose P. Laurel, the head of the senate committee on education. He helped Sen. Recto defend the viability and practicality of having the bill enacted into law. Like Sen. Recto, he firmly believed that the passing of the bill into law will be integral in achieving the noble intent of bringing to the Filipinos a sense of nationalism that would help them understand the importance of sovereignty. The Church accused Recto of being a communist and anti-Catholic. They believed that mandating students to read Rizal's novels Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo, would violate the freedom of conscience and religion. In an attempt to block the passing of the bill into law, the Church urged their supporters to write to their congressmen and senators to show their opposition to the bill. Fortifying their opposition, the Church organized symposiums and fora to denounce the approval of the said bill. Fr. Jesus Cavanna, a staunch oppositionist of the bill, argued that the novels belonged to the past and that teaching them would misrepresent the current conditions of the Philippines. Radio Veritas commentator, Jesus Paredes, also said that Catholics had the right to refuse to read the novels as it would endanger their salvation.

Aside from the opposition of the personalities mentioned, there was also strong resistance from various groups like the Catholic Action of the Philippines, the Congregation of the Mission, the Knights of Columbus, and the Catholic Teachers Guild. However, the Rizal bill also had supporters, namely, the Veteranos de la Revolucion (Spirit of 1896), Alagad ni Rizal, the Freemasons, and the Knights of Rizal

One notable action taken by the Catholic Church to oppose the passing of the bill into law was publishing a pastoral letter written by then Archbishop of Manila, Rufino Santos. It stated that Catholic students would be affected if compulsory reading of the unexpurgated version would push through. It was read in all the masses that were celebrated in the Diocese of Manila.

One oppositionist to the bill said that Rizal attacked dogmas, beliefs, and practices of the Church Cuenco, another staunch oppositionist, highlighted Rizal's denial of the existence of purgatory, as it was not found in the Bible, and that Moses and Jesus Christ did not mention its existence. These, among other reasons, were emphasized in debates inside the Senate.

Outside the Senate, a rumor had spread that Catholic schools threatened to close down if the bill was passed. Recto refused to believe the possibility of such threat because schools would lose profit if they closed.

Given these debates, whether to pass the bill or not, it was suggested that a compromise be made to appease those who opposed the bill. It was then agreed that the expurgated versions of Rizal's novel would be used.

Recto, who had supported the required reading of the unexpurgated versions, declared: "The people who would eliminate the books of Rizal from the schools would blot out from our minds the memory of the national hero. This is not a fight against Recto but a fight against Rizal," adding that since Rizal is dead, they are attempting to suppress his memory.

On May 12, 1956, the bill, with the compromise inserted by Laurel, was approved unanimously. The bill specified that only college students would have the option to read the unexpurgated versions of the clerically-contested reading materials. There was also an amendment made to the original bill that included the teaching of Rizal's other works, aside from the two novels. Despite all the controversies, arguments, and opposition against the Rizal Bill, it was finally enacted on June 12, 1956.