Betraying the Filipino language

By ANTONIO P. CONTRERASJune 17, 2014

3:35pm



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 clausethe 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 wasnt.
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
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/366
049/opinion/blogs/betraying-the-filipino-
language.



Professors of Filipino breaking
bad over CHED memo
By MARK ANGELESJune 14, 2014 12:32pm

(Updated 12:39 p.m., June 15,
2014) College professors who teach Filipino
and supporters of the Filipino language in
general are contesting a Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) memorandum that
will remove the teaching of Filipino from the
General Education Curriculum (GEC).

According to the CHED Memorandum (CMO)
No. 20, series of 2013, Filipino will no
longer be part of the GEC by 2016 and the
teaching of Filipino at the college level will
be limited to Filipino majors and Education
in Filipino majors.

The CHED justified its removal of college-
level Filipino by saying that the subject
would be covered in Grades 11 and 12
under the new K-12 curriculum. Hangga't
maari, pagdating mo sa college, mga major
subjects na lang, explained CHED Executive
Director Julito Vitriolo.

The National Commission for Culture and
the Arts' National Committee on Language
and Translation (NCCA-NCLT), however,
believes otherwise. Last May 23, its
members unanimously signed a resolution
asking the GEC be revised again, but this
time to include nine mandatory units of
Filipino for all courses at the tertiary level.

The Pambansang Samahan sa Linggwistika
at Literaturang Filipino, Ink. (PSLLF), an
organization that promotes the use of
Filipino, has thrown its support behind the
NCCA-NCLT resolution by promoting
a change.org petition which asks the CHED
and Congress to include the nine Filipino
units in the GEC. The online and written
petition letters were initiated by De La Salle
University Filipino professor David Michael
San Juan.

According to the petition, the CHED
memorandum violates Article XIV, Section 6
of the 1987 Constitution, which says 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 memo also contradicts the College
Readiness Standards, which includes Filipino,
that the CHED released in 2011 through
Resolution No. 298-2011.

Estimated loss of jobs

San Juan, the principal author of the
resolution, estimates that implementing the
CHED memo will cause over 10,000 full-time
and 20,000 part-time Filipino professors to
lose their jobs or get less income.

This estimation is based on the data given
by the National Statistical Coordination
Board, which stated that 3,317,530 students
enrolled in the higher education for school
year 2012-2013. According to San Juan,
10,290 full-time instructors were needed to
teach Filipino in the tertiary level for S.Y.
2012-2013.

The crusade of our professors in nurturing
our native language plays a vital role in
battling the miseducation of the Filipinos
under the colonial system which failed to
uplift the lives of the majority, San Juan
said in an interview.

San Juan also criticized the K-12 curriculum
as speeding up training in workers
manufacturing for foreign businesses and
their local subsidiaries. The K-12 program
was not designed for the needs of the
country, but for developed countries, he
added.

Need

Angelo Barra, a concerned netizen, said,
Sana paigtingin na lang and pagtuturo ng
wikang Filipino sa elementary at high school.
Hindi naman ito masyadong kailangan sa
college kasi basics lang din ang itinuturo
kaya parang inulit lang. Para na rin
makapag-focus na lang sa kinukuhang
kurso. May K-12 naman [na pinahaba pa]
para matutunan and wikang Filipino.

However, PSLLF president Aurora Batnag
pointed out that there was a need to retain
Filipino subjects at the tertiary level. Sa
mas mataas na level ng edukasyon
nagaganap ang intelektwalisasyon ng wika
na kailangan para lubusang magamit ang
wikang ito sa lahat ng antas at disiplina,
she argued.

Binura ng K-12 ang ipinaglaban noong
1970s para magkaroon ng 6-9 units ng
Filipino sa kolehiyo, Batnag added.

DLSU professor Dolores Taylan said that in
the context of the Initiative for ASEAN
Integration (IAI), which is working towards
narrowing the development gap among
ASEAN nations by the time the ASEAn single
market is implemented in 2015, there is a
growing need to reinforce the national
language to uphold the Filipino identity.

Hindi dapat mawala ang Departamento ng
Filipino sa mga kolehiyo. Ayon nga kay
[former DLSU president and former
Department of Education Secretary] Br.
Andrew Gonzales FSC, walang kolehiyo sa
Pilipinas na walang Departamento ng
Filipino, Taylan said.

The NCCA-NCLT's resolution was received
by the office of CHED chairman Patricia
Licuanan last May 2, though the chairman
has yet to respond to it.

Nevertheless, a dialogue did take place last
June 2 between CHED Commissioners Alex
Brillantes and Cynthia Bautista and
professors from DLSU-Manila, Ateneo de
Manila University (ADMU), University of
Santo Tomas, Miriam College, and
Marinduque State University. DLSU-Manila
Political Science professor Antonio
Contreras, had arranged the dialogue.

DLSU-Manila's Filipino Department,
meanwhile, is organizing a consultative
forum for June 21. VC/DVM/BM, GMA
News

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/365
618/lifestyle/artandculture/professors-of-
filipino-breaking-bad-over-ched-memo

Is Filipino being kicked out of college?
| ANC Tue, Jun 17, 2014

Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino (KWF) chairman
and National Artist for Literature Virgilio
Almario is opposing a Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) memorandum that
effectively removes Filipino as a form of
teaching in the general education
curriculum.

Almario explained that under CHED
Memorandum No. 20, which was issued as
early as last year, old general education
subjects taught in both English and Filipino
have been removed. The new subjects
introduced, however, make the syllabus
available only in English.

This is a result of the K-12 curriculum as,
according to CHED, the old college-level
general education subjects, which include
Filipino, will be transferred to the K-12
curriculum.

Meanwhile, Communications Secretary
Herminio Coloma Jr. assured Filipino
teachers, who may be affected by the
changes, that they will not go unemployed.
He indicated that they are "doing the
necessary steps" to prevent such a
scenario.

Almario, on the other hand, is awaiting
replies from CHED and Congress as to KWF
suggestions that other subjects in college
be taught in Filipino. The KWF sent the
letters detailing the said suggestions to the
two entities two weeks ago, but they have
not gotten a reply yet.

According to Almario, the KWF has already
created four Filipino syllabi out of the eight
subjects that will be taught in the new
general education curriculum.

https://anc.yahoo.com/news/is-the-filipino-
language-being-kicked-out-of-college-
103034066.html

No Filipino subjects in college?
'Tanggol Wika' opposes CHED
memo
The newly-created alliance says it will bring its
fight all the way to Malacaang
Jee Y. Geronimo
Published 10:11 PM, Jun 21, 2014
Updated 11:21 AM, Jun 22, 2014

FIGHT CONTINUES. About 400 of supporters
from 44 colleges and universities show their
support for retaining the Filipino subject in the
new general education curriculum. Photo by Jee
Geronimo/Rappler
MANILA, Philippines A group of college
professors introduced on Saturday, June
21, Tanggol Wika an alliance of educators
from more than 40 colleges and universities in
the country opposed to attacks against the
national language."
Tanggol Wika or Alyansa ng mga
Tagapagtanggol ng Wikang Filipino (Alliance
of Defenders of Filipino) is calling for the
following:
Panatilihin ang pagtuturo ng asignaturang
Filipino sa bagong General Education
Curriculum (GEC) sa kolehiyo (Retain the
teaching of Filipino subjects in the new GEC in
college)
Rebisahin ang Commission on Higher
Education (CHED) Memorandum Order 20
series of 2013 (Revise CHED Memorandum
Order 20 series of 2013)
Gamitin ang wikang Filipino sa pagtuturo ng
ibat ibang asignatura (Use Filipino as a
medium of instruction in different subjects)
Isulong ang makabayang edukasyon (Push
for nationalistic education)
The alliance was formally introduced during a
consultative assembly Saturday after weeks of
public clamor over a 2013 CHED memo
which introduced a new curriculumthat will
be implemented in school year 2018-2019.
Tanggol Wika spokesperson David Michael San
Juan said the Commission has been silent on
their concerns since they sent their first letter in
May 2013, calling for the revision of the CHED
memorandum.
The curriculum should include 3 to 9 units of
Filipino subjects, San Juan said, especially if
Filipino is to be widely-used as a medium of
instruction.
But today, National Artist for Literature
Bienvenido Lumbera lamented that more
students will choose English over Filipino as a
medium of instruction because of the
inferiority complex brought about by the
education system itself.
"Laging nakayuko ang ating mga ulo dahil
pinatanggap sa atin na mas mababang
klase ang mga Filipino. Kailangang kilalanin
na ang malaking dahilan bakit may
[ganitong] problema ay ang ating kolonyal
na pinanggalingan, he added.
(Our heads are always bowed down because we
were made to accept that Filipino is inferior. We
need to understand that the primary reason
why we have this problem is because of our
colonial history.)
Filipino in senior high school
During the assembly, San Juan presented his
paper which showed the memorandum
targets" the Filipino subject, and the senior
high school curriculum will not include many
topics previously taught in college.
(READ: CHED is not targeting Filipino
language instruction)
With the signing of the Enhanced Basic
Education Act of 2013, two years have been
added to the basic education system of the
Philippines. The Department of Education
(DepEd) recently completed the senior high
school curriculum which provides students
specializations for employment.
But San Juan pointed out the impracticality of
teaching collegiate Filipino subjects in senior
high school.
"Kami na 'yung nagtuturo ng mga ganyang
subjects or components. Ngayon, anong
gagawin nila [DepEd], gagastos sila ng
pagkalaki-laki pagproduce ng materials, pag-
mass training ng teachers, San Juan told
Rappler.
(We are already teaching these subjects or
components. Now, what they will do is spend a
lot to produce materials and mass-train
teachers.)
While CHED has yet to issue a statement on the
matter, Malacaang this week said
the Commission is working closely with
DepEd to rationalize Philippine education so
that the focus in higher education will be on
interdisciplinary courses. (READ: PH basic
education: 'Cramming' toward ASEAN 2015)
Employment woes
About 400 people were present during the
assembly, a bulk of them professors worried not
only for their national language but also for
their employment.
San Juan projected more than 10,000
professors will be affected by the
memorandum.

FILIPINO. Professors and supporters of the
national language show their support. Photo by
Jee Geronimo/Rappler
"It's safe to say more than 10,000 will either
lose their jobs, get less number of loads, be
transferred in another department or another
school," he said in a mix of English and Filipino.
In an informal survey conducted during the
assembly, representatives from 19 higher
education institutions (HEIs) said their schools
have no definite plans yet for the Filipino
subject under the new curriculum, while 24 HEIs
have yet to come up with a plan for their
Filipino teachers.
Palace Communications Secretary Herminio
Coloma Jr earlier said general education
teachers including those who teach Filipino
can teach in senior high school.
If they do, they can be at ease especially with
the Department of Labor and Employments
"non-diminution of compensation and
benefits, where an employee cannot be
stripped off benefits he/she has been receiving
for a definite amount of time.
General education teachers are also
projected to bear the brunt of the
nationwide implementation of senior high
school in 2016. Starting school year 2016-2017
up to school year 2021-2022, HEIs expect a drop
in enrollment because of the K to 12 program.
(READ: 5 leaps in 2013 that make PH
education promising)
Fight continues
Tanggol Wika will continue to lobby for the
inclusion of Filipino subjects in the new general
education curriculum, and San Juan said theyre
ready to bring it to Malacaang if necessary.
"'Pag uminit lalo yung issue, mapipilitan
yung gobyerno na mag-decide in our
favorkasi kung walang public pressure ay
tingin ko hindi kami magtatagumpay.
Pinakamahalaga, pag-sustain ng public
pressure, he said.
(If the issue heats up further, the government
will be forced to decide in our favor because
without public pressure, I think we will not
succeed. The most important thing is to sustain
public pressure.)
San Juan, an associate professor of the De La
Salle University-Manila, also started a
Change.org petition which has gained 1,444
supporters as of this posting.
Tanggol Wika also plans to work on a set of
syllabus they can present to CHED in future
dialogues.
San Juan said the fight is just beginning, and
Lumbera explained why their fight is necessary.
[Ito ay] pagpapahalaga na ang buhay natin
bilang isang bansa ay nakasanding sa
pagkakaroon ng isang wika na siyang
gagamitin upang hubugin ang isipan ng
kabataan, hubugin ang isipan ng matatanda,
lalo na 'yung mga matatanda ang may
kapangyarihan sa ating sistema ng
edukasyon, Lumbera said.
(This is giving importance to the fact that our
life as a country depends on having one
language which will be used to shape the minds
of people, young and old especially the old
ones who wield power in our education system.
http://www.rappler.com/nation/61234-
tanggol-wika-general-education-college