WHY FILIPINO IS “FILIPINO”

L et me begin with a few personal things. If you hadn’t had the chance to read, at the height of
the controversy on the use of “Filipinas” as the name for the country, I wrote a piece titled “The
Myth of the Filipino Language.” Why is “Filipino” in the title now enclosed in quotation marks?
Because I want to emphasize that there is no single meaning for “Filipino” as a language. Ask
the average teacher of Filipino as a subject what the difference between “Filipino” and “Pilipino”
is and you will inevitably get many different answers. Answers that are in truth based on their
own suppositions since there exists no textbook explaining what “Filipino” is, being the National
Language. The whole thing gets even more complicated when “Filipino” is used as the name for
the people and culture of the country which I wish to call again “Filipinas.” Ask the teachers
again and now they would probably be one in insisting that it should be “Pilipino” that must be
used when refering to our country’s citizens or culture. Pester them some more and ask, Why?
And they would also band together to answer that it is only the name of the National Language
that has been changed and called “Filipino.” The citizen and the culture remain “Pilipino.” You
continue badgering: Who ordered such continued use of “Pilipino”? And they will be unable to
point to anyone in particular. It had been broadcast like gossip or rumor, likely an opinion
coming from this or that professor of theirs at UP or PNU or DLSU, and which they treated as
the great and lawful truth. The said state of affairs provide the reason why I also called the story
of “Filipino” a myth. I want to point out that the proliferating narrative about “Filipino” is more a
product of personal opinion, or personal opinion that has prevailed or been made to prevail as if
it were a Supreme Court rendering, and often improbable when scrutinized according to how the
National Language has historically turned out. Which, as I intend it to mean, is that up to now
there is no written history of the National Language. Which, as I mean it further, is that up to
now there is no written history of “Filipino”—even if there actually is—despite what is being
taught as “linguistic history” in colleges and universities. The said state of affairs may likewise
be considered as the reason for the continued and unrully opposition to the propagation of the
“Filipino” language as the National Language, the inconsistent and differing ways of teaching
the form of the “Filipino” language, and the lack of energy and effort towards the higher
objectives of national language planning. Laughable but true, the primary problem of the
“Filipino” language is identity. I•den•ti•ty. That’s why it has to be enclosed in quotation marks.
It is like an abstract idea. It has a name but is without content; empty, no basic shape; merely
legislated but not sharing the name of its own citizen, culture, and country; not even known or
recognizable to its own propagator. And so “Filipino” needs a literal anchor and concretization.
The Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF) in 2013 attempted to give it one definition by way of
a resolution, which states: Filipino is the native language being used all over the Philippines as
the language of communication, orally as well as written, by native groups from all over the
islands. Because it is a living language, it is rapidly being enriched through daily use and through
other manners of usage in different places and situations and developed in different levels of
research and academic discourse but in an integrative process that gives importance to entries
bearing the creative qualities and necessary knowledge from the country’s native languages. The
Resolution No. 13-39 that I cited, after all, already bears the necessary modification of the
meaning of “Filipino” as language when it was evolved in 1987 in order to explain the new
recognition of the National Language through the 1987 Constitution. But how many have read
the said definition? And how many of those who have read it exerted any effort to reflect on the
significance of Resolution 13-39? Never have I glimpsed it in any document on language that
has been released for use by teachers of “Filipino.” Neither have I heard of any discussion
regarding the educational and linguistic objectives of the said definition. And even more so, I
have never heard it used in order to show the difference of “Filipino” from Pilipino or from
Tagalog, and why it must be regarded as the National Language. Up to now, the National
Language is called “Filipino” because it is the provision of the the 1987 Constitution. Even the
supposed exponents of language, especially the teachers, are unable to understand the qualities
and conditions outlined by Resolution No. 13-39 for “Filipino” to be considered the National
Language. Up to now, many call it “Pilipino” apart from the fact that many hope and believe that
it is “Pilipino” in form and content. That’s why up to now, the enemies of the National
Language, like the Defenders of Indigenous Languages of the Archipelago (DILA), insist on
principle that “Filipino” is Tagalog and only the spelling of “Pilipino” has been changed to
conceal its being Tagalog. How can teachers and exponents of language explain or elucidate
“Filipino” as the National Language if they have not comprehended the qualities and conditions
outlined under Resolution No. 13-39? How can they defend “Filipino” against the ignorance
being merchandised by the opponents of the National Language? And thus it is the teachers and
exponents of the National Language who should in all necessity peruse and examine the
following “myth.” Let us begin.