Betraying the Filipino language

Published June 17, 2014 3:35pm

By ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS

I already anticipate that I will be criticized for writing this piece in English. Indeed, if I bleed
for the Filipino language, one can easily mock me that I should be writing this in Filipino,
and not in English.

The fact that I have to write this piece in English tells a lot about how we have become as a
people.

I write this in English since I have to speak to the other side of the debate. I do not need to
talk anymore to those who are fluent and adept in Filipino, since they are already believers in
the cause. I am addressing this to the crowd that is not comfortable with our own language, a
crowd that would not even spend time to read a blog article written in Filipino, perhaps due to
its being an unfamiliar language to them. Worse, it may even be due to being downright
hostile and dismissive of a language which is considered inferior.

I write this for those who would look down on the Filipino language as the language of the
uneducated, the jologs and the hoi polloi. It is not “sosyal.” To the “inglesirong” academics,
it is not academic enough.

I write this for those who take pride in our having a comparative advantage in English. These
people would look at Filipino as a lost cause, if not a baggage that needs to be discarded as
we face the era of globalization and ASEAN regional integration. These are the people who
would argue that to push for Filipino at this time and age would be a backward step,
considering that all the other countries in the region are now encouraging their citizens to
learn how to speak English. One has just to look at the horde of Korean students that descend
on us to believe this line of argument.

I also write this for those who assert that Filipino is simply Tagalog, and that insisting that
Filipino be spoken all over the country is an internal form of imperialism over other regional
identities that should be resisted.
It is this continuing resistance to the Filipino language, whether stemming from unfamiliarity
or from contempt, which provides context to why we have to still devote a month to remind
ourselves that there is a national language after all. We have to be reminded always, since we
constantly face the threat of forgetting it, even as many may continue to ignore it.

One of the tragedies of a colonized society like ours is the absence of a solidly-founded
national narrative that permeates our lives. This is aggravated by a lingering fetish at
everything that is Western, leading one to prefer the language and lifestyle of the colonizers.
Colonization is indeed a process of identity displacement, since it has effectively rendered
our former selves as our new “other,” even as our colonial “other” becomes now part of our
post-colonial selves.

In this context, English is no longer seen as the language of the colonial “other.” In fact, to
many, it is speaking Filipino that is now the unfamiliar “other.” I, for one, am horrified to
know that many of our younger generations do not know how to count in Filipino, and would
understand “one hundred” but not “isang daan.” I have always scolded my children, for
example, for not knowing their colors in Filipino.

While this may be the failure of how Filipino is taught in basic education, it does not negate
the fact that we do really have a big problem when the manner our national language is taught
is itself problematic. Indeed, the fault may also lie in many unimaginative and ill-prepared
Filipino teachers. But then again, this is symptomatic of the level of attention and support the
educational system gave the teaching of Filipino. After all, Filipino was just taught as a
course, and as a medium for instruction in some subject areas, but not as the medium upon
which all forms of knowledge will be engaged by the students. One just has to compare our
situation with the poor-in-English but richer countries such as Korea, Taiwan and Japan
where the medium of instruction is their national languages, to know how tragic the colonial
legacy of fetishizing English was for us.

The other tragedy of being colonized lies in the lingering shadows of disunity seen in a
country that is divided, and that cleaves along regional identities. This reveals the ironic
reality that despite its might, our colonization was not totalizing after all, as it left a deeply
fractured domain of identities, now finding a space in a post-colonial world expressed in the
form of regional movements for autonomy not only in politics, but even on the issue of
language.
Cebuanos are in fact very vocal about their assertions of their own language and culture, with
them even attempting to draw their own adaptations of national symbols and discourses such
as the National Anthem. The hurt felt by Cebuanos, and of other regions, of being forced to
speak a language not their own, and to further inflict on them a national language that for all
intents and purposes is an imposition from imperial Manila, is a highly charged discourse. It
is a highly emotional issue that even enlightened academics I know who are non-Tagalog
speakers and are based in their regions would gravitate towards a hostile attitude at the
Filipino language.

The ultimate tragedy left by a colonial experience that conquered by dividing us on the very
base of our indigenous selves is that it solidified Western templates of who we should be,
seen in Western modes of faith embodied in the dominance Catholicism, and in alien modes
of expressing ourselves seen in the dominance of English. It is terribly disconcerting that
those who oppose Filipino to become the language that can hope to unite us have no qualms
in elevating English as a better alternative for us to communicate with each other. The
ultimate curse of colonization that lives even up to now is when the language of the colonizer
is deemed as a more acceptable unifier of our multiple selves, rather than the Filipino that is
so resented for its being the language of the Tagalogs, who are in fact one of us.

Tagalog as language then becomes more “other” than English. Indeed, how tragic.

The 1987 Constitution has declared that Filipino is our national language. But in recognition
of the diversity of our languages, the Constitution has also declared its fluidity and evolving
nature, and sets these as the framework for its growth and intellectualization. Section 6 of
Article XIV states that: “The national language of the Philippines is Filipino. As it evolves, it
shall be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other
languages.”

This fluidity, which ideally should assuage the resentment felt by adherents of other regional
languages, is however also a cause for vulnerability and uncertainty when paired with the
succeeding provision which states that: “Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress
may deem appropriate, the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of
Filipino as a medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the
educational system.” The vulnerability lies in the phraseology of this provision, where the
propagation of Filipino as an official language for communication and instruction is subjected
to that now familiar escape clause—the notorious “subject to the provisions of law and as
Congress may deem appropriate.” To date, while the 1987 Constitution specifies Filipino as
the national language, Congress has not passed a law where it “deemed appropriate” to make
Filipino the medium of official communication and as a mandatory medium of instruction in
all levels of the educational system.

It is in this context that we now see the unfolding of a very precarious situation for the
advancement of the Filipino language triggered ironically by a policy move in a domain
where its protection and intellectualization are supposed to be nurtured. I am referring to the
sector of education, particularly on the implementation of the K to12 curriculum, and the
corresponding formulation by CHED of the new General Education (GE) curriculum for
tertiary education. In this new educational policy regime, Filipino will no longer be taught at
the tertiary level, even as Higher Educations Institutions (HEIs) have the option of teaching
the GE courses, or some of them, using Filipino as a medium of instruction. One should
however take note that this is just an option, and not mandatory.

Such move will not only threaten the job security of many Filipino teachers at the tertiary
level. More fundamental is the serious implications it will have on the further
intellectualization of the national language. Teaching Filipino as a subject area and using it as
a medium of instruction at the basic education level may help in its intellectualization, but
these are not enough. Intellectualization requires research, and a faculty equipped with the
ability to conduct research. This can only happen at the tertiary level, where faculty members
advance in their career paths by conducting research and publishing their findings. Without a
course to teach, Filipino Departments in colleges and universities across the country, except
perhaps those that offer major programs in Filipino, face the specter of closure, with their
teachers forced to transfer to Grades 11 and 12. In this scenario, it is not only the salaries and
job securities of these teachers that may be jeopardized. Also put at risk will be the stable
base for the advancement of the Filipino language as a scholarly field of inquiry.

Indeed, no thanks to K to 12, and the new GE curriculum, the ground from where the Filipino
language stands on has now been destabilized. Our colonial experience has rendered the
process of strengthening and intellectualizing the Filipino language as a challenging and
difficult one. Among all the institutions in society, it is the educational institutions that are
supposed to be the home for such endeavors, and it is in the tertiary level that
intellectualization can be deepened. It is therefore ironic that in the pursuit of enhancing our
basic education to be at par with the rest of the world, and in adopting a revised GE
curriculum at the tertiary level in the context of what CHED has now elevated as an
outcomes-based approach to learning, that the educational system in fact betrayed the
Filipino language, by unwittingly throwing its advancement and intellectualization into a sea
of uncertainty.
Already, and in response to the moves by Filipino teachers to petition CHED to amend its
Memorandum Order to now require Filipino at the tertiary level, we now see the emergence
of counter-voices that deploy globalization and ASEAN integration, the same warrants that
were used to justify K to 12 and the new GE curriculum, as the same argument to support a
stay in the decision of abolishing Filipino at the tertiary level.

The abolition of Filipino at the tertiary level threatens not only the advances made in its
institutionalization as an academic discipline, but also the political openings for a policy
dialogue towards the strengthening of our national language. It will resurrect the fractious and
divisive debates. Instead of resolving the issues, which I consider as otherwise valid, from the
perspective of a language policy that would respect the process of a healthy dialogue among
all Filipino languages, what is rekindled is the contentious domain of debate that is about to
reopen wounds of division between the Tagalogs and the rest of the archipelago.

And here, any appeal to a remedy that would try to invoke the Constitution faces the risk of a
lethal blow from a court that may even lend judicial ammunition, in a possible favorable
ruling, to those who decided to transform the existence of Filipino in the tertiary level into
becoming a mere pedagogical device one can opt to use. The court can simply rule that the
Constitution is not violated since Congress has yet to pass a law confirming the
Constitutional intent of elevating Filipino as an official medium of communication and
instruction at all levels. And passing that law in Congress faces the risk of delay, if not
protracted debates where politicians representing non-Tagalog speaking regions can throw a
monkey-wrench at any move to install a national language. Hence, we will be back to square
one.

Those who oppose the move of retaining Filipino as a course always argue that Filipino will
remain an option in teaching of GE courses in college. But this is an unreliable proposition in
the context of the elevation of globalization and ASEAN integration as new mantras for
institution building and policy-making. As a mere option, this policy does not carry a lot of
weight. The global imperatives are just too compelling, and when combined with the reality
of colonially-minded school and university administrators, this can only but lead to the
preference of English over Filipino.

In this scenario, Filipino should have been protected. The sad fact is that it wasn’t. One can
but cry out loud at how can some educators of this land who were responsible for crafting
such policies, some of whom even take pride in self-labeling themselves as allies of the
Filipino language, could have in fact become Trojan horses for its possible demise.
Would it hurt so much had our educational planners simply included one course, just one
course on Filipino in the revised GE curriculum? Would we suffer as a people? Would we
face a major setback in our march towards globalization and ASEAN regional integration?

Indeed, the Filipino language is now under threat and on the defensive. We now find it
hanging in the balance courtesy of those who are supposed to be bearers of enlightenment but
who have unwittingly betrayed it.

For a country that is so sensitive to its culinary delights or its quirks being criticized, and
whose passion to rally around popular heroes and personalities is almost legendary, how we
will react to this betrayal would reveal a lot about us as a people.

The author is a former dean of De La Salle University. The views expressed in this article are
those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website.