REFLECTION PAPER

A Closer Look on the Removal of Filipino Subject in College Curriculum

NIKKOLO PAULO E. ATABELO

MAT-English
The Supreme Court’s ruling lifting the Temporary Restraining Order of CHED’s
Memorandum Order 20, series 2013, has caused significant controversy. It has
been interpreted as the removal of Filipino language from higher education,
leading to many vitriolic responses of nationalists of which the media has given
widen coverage. As an academician and layperson with a common interest in
protecting, promoting, and studying all Philippine languages, the following are
my reflections and random thoughts about this matter:

While teaching Filipino at the college level is considered vital for some,
especially those who currently teach the language and those with strong
nationalistic sentiments, let us keep in mind that there is a wide diversity of
opinion on this issue, and media coverage should reflect this diversity in a
balanced way. For some, the Supreme Court’s decision was a painful blow. For
others, it was a welcome relief. It is important to understand the factors behind
these various opinions and share them with the public.

The claim that the Supreme Court and CHED are removing Filipino is misleading
and hyperbolic. The Supreme Court merely ruled that CHED’s new general
education curriculum (CMO 20 s. 2013) is constitutional. The curriculum includes
36 units of general subjects. To require a specific language subject in this
curriculum, whether Filipino or English, would contravene the purpose of
general education. However, CMO 20 makes it clear that any of the required
gen ed subjects may be taught using Filipino or English, so there is nothing
stopping a university nor instructors from using the national language. They
could even teach all of the subjects using Filipino if they wanted to. Moreover,
in addition to the gen ed subjects, universities could add as many Filipino
subjects as they wanted to, whether elective or mandatory. Thus, it is simply a
scare tactic to claim that the Supreme Court’s decision constitutes the
abolition of Filipino.

Supporters of requiring Filipino in college have ignored the fact that Filipino is
not the only language in the country. The Philippines is multilingual—with more
than 100 native languages (KWF, 2014; Ethnologue, 2018). Our Philippine
languages are informally (yet incorrectly) called dialects. They are just as
important as the national language to our history, heritage, culture and
communities. If ever there would be a language requirement in college, we
support a fairer policy that would allow the teaching of any Philippine
language (e.g. Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilokano, Waray, Bikol, Hiligaynon,
Pangasinan, Maguindanaon, and other indigenous languages) towards the
fulfillment of such a requirement. This would promote equality, allow greater
understanding of our peoples’ origins, and empower our communities to
create music, literature, film, and educational materials in their respective
languages.
The Philippine Constitution states, “Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all
institutions of higher learning” (Article XIV, Section 5), which is also enshrined in
the Higher Education Act of 1994 (R.A. 7722). Colleges should therefore have
the choice about what languages to mandate or offer. It should be noted that
none of the world’s top 10 universities, never mind the countries they are
located in, require a specific language subject for all their students. If students
are required to take up a language, students have a choice about what
language they will learn. To mandate a specific language, regardless of its
political status, is contradictory to academic freedom and personal freedom.

We support greater flexibility with regard to the languages taught and used in
higher education so that colleges can meet the needs of their students and
communities. Languages are tools for communication, employment, and
many other aspects of our lives. The decision to use what language and how
should be based on context, such as the local economy, availability of
instructional materials, the capacities of instructors, the skills that students seek,
and the vision, mission, and research priorities of the institution.

Continuity of employment is a major concern. However, the claim that

thousands of instructors would lose their jobs is also inaccurate. First of all,
DepEd is very open to hiring Filipino instructors for their growing Senior High
School program. Secondly, higher education institutions are allowed to
continue offering Filipino subjects. Thirdly, the existing Filipino instructors can
apply internal pressure for the continuation of the Filipino subjects they handle.
Fourthly, there are still 36 general education units which they can teach,
whether some of these units are allocated for Filipino, other languages, or
electives.

People continue to lambast CHED and the Supreme Court for not respecting
“ang ating sariling wika at kultura”. In fact, we have many “sariling wika at
kultura”. Our other languages have never had the privilege to be required
courses in college, even in their native regions. And experts in these languages
have not had the privilege of employment like the thousands of
Filipino/Tagalog instructors. Is this fair? Is it a “colonial mentality” to ask for more
representation and equality among our native languages? Request for
inclusion is not colonial nor regionalistic, it is judicious and equitable.

If any Philippine language could be used/taught in the new General Education

curriculum, then not only instructors who are proficient in English or
Filipino/Tagalog will be able to teach said subjects, but also those who are
proficient in other Philippine languages as well. This will create more dynamic,
diverse, and inclusive language departments. Writers, poets, linguists,
researchers and teachers of various languages could be tapped to share their
expertise.

The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (R.A. 8371) gives indigenous peoples
(IP) and indigenous cultural communities (IPPs) the right to “education in their
own language, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching
and learning” (Chp. VI, Sec. 30). The Act further states, “the State shall
endeavor to have the dignity and diversity of the cultures, traditions, histories
and aspirations of the ICCs/IPs appropriately reflected in all forms of
education” (Chp. VI, Sec. 31). If only one language is to be mandated in the
gen ed curriculum, and all students are mandated to take it, then this policy
could violate indigenous students’ rights. By contrast, if CHED will permit any
local language to be used in the mandated subjects, including IP languages,
then CHED will ensure that General Education is more appropriate to IP
communities and will safeguard their right to education in their own language.

For too long, Filipinos have been unnecessarily restricted in their language
options in higher education. Non-Tagalog people have had to learn the
national language (based primarily on Tagalog), but Tagalog people have not
had the chance to learn other Philippine tongues. Having a flexible language
policy in higher education will open up opportunities for Filipinos to learn each
other’s languages, provide more communication options, prepare them for
inter-island travel and work, build mutual respect and appreciation, and strive
for “unity in diversity” (Constitution, Article XIV, Section 14). Flexible language
policies will also open the door to learn foreign languages for economic and
social opportunities.

The Living Tongues Institute of Endangered Languages classifies the Philippines

as one of the Top 10 “language hotspots” of the world, which means that it has
a rich yet fragile linguistic heritage. The KWF meanwhile has reported that more
than 40 Philippine languages are endangered. These are minority languages
spoken in just a few places. While it is understandable that many people care
about the national language, it is not threatened to the same degree that our
truly endangered languages are. Therefore, it is important to give them a
chance to be taught and learned as well. Hence, if a language requirement is
retained in the higher education curriculum, we again support the eligibility of
all Philippine languages, whether national, regional, or local, to be taken up in
fulfillment of such a requirement. Nationalism is not the same as patriotism.
Homogeneity is not the same as equality. Imposing or prioritizing one language
is not the best way to combat colonialism. Let us promote Philippine languages
in an inclusive way, and allow any of them to be taught in higher education.
Inclusive, flexible, and pluralistic language policies contribute to sustainable
development and peace (UNESCO, 2012)
From a perspective of a Dabawenyo, I believe that having a Filipino language
taught is better than having no Filipino language being taught at all! There is a
sort of grievance. If there's no Filipino language in College, how are we to
expect students to contribute to the language? It is primarily through the stories
and research papers we write in Filipino that we contribute to the language,
much like how Shakespeare helped expanded the English vocabulary.

Language is inherently tied to our culture. By not allowing it to grow, we are

restricting the growth of our culture. Our own culture is under attack from
globalization, and yet, we chose to not fight back?

By saying that English is the only practical language we need, we're saying that
Filipinos are basically OFWs or call center agents. We're not. We're also saying
that Filipino is inferior. By suggesting that, we're also suggesting that all other
Filipino languages are inferior. Cebuano is seen as a funny language. Filipino is
seen as a pabibo and disgusting language.

College is when we develop our professional skills. It is also the most academic
among the three units (Grade School, High School, and College.) This is a
platform for developing the scientific terms of our language. Our scientific
terms comes primarily from indigenous languages but look, nobody knows
whats pantablay is supposed to mean.

As I said, the language reflects our culture. We see that Filipino lacks scientific
terms. The subordination of Filipino is related to the brain drain. Many Filipinos
leave the country to work for people that are not of their nationality. They
studied in the Philippines and yet, served in other countries. How is Filipino
supposed to be developing scientific terms when in fact, by removing the
necessity for Filipino, we are preparing students to what? To work for other
countries? To serve not their own? It seems we value globalization so much.

Some might say that it's not practical to teach Filipino. It would be ignorant to
think that when in fact, many of the developed nations are far more fluent in
their own language than English. This is because they value their language,
their culture, their country. They seek methods to develop themselves even
within the border. Their language is not just for personal communication but for
business relations.

They removed Filipino, citing that it is already taught in Senior High School.
What's wrong with going far more than the basics? Sure, you can remove
redundant subjects, but what's the difficulty in creating far more advanced
subjects in Filipino? Teach Higher-level Filipono. It's difficult to form new subjects,
but it's not like we've been through so much worse. We can develop
higher-level Filipino subjects that brings out the culture within us. We can help
develop the language. Tagalogs, Cebuanos, Chavacanos, everyone, can
have a hand in developing the language.

By having only English in the college level, we're suggesting that English is better
than Filipino. We suggest that working in other countries is better than working
here at all. We suggest that Western Culture is much better than ours.

Like some people say, English is the best tool in destroying another culture.
References:

Bawiin, C. (2012) Programming K to 12 inilunsad, The ECHO, June-March,

Volume 1.17

Fernandez, A. (2014) Youth groups slam CHED for dropping Filipino subjects
from college curriculum,gmanetwork.com [Internet] 26th June 2014.
Retrieved on January 20, 2015 at
www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/nation/youth-groups-slam-ched-for-
dropping-filipino-subject

ABS-CBNnews (2014) Congress to probe removal of Filipino subjects in

college, abs-cbnews.com [Internet] 24th June 2014. Retrieved on
January 20, 2015 at
www.abs-cbnnew.com/nation/06/24/14/congress-probe-removal-filipin
o-subjects-college

Cariga, C. (2014) A look into CHED memo No. 20-2013: The end of a
language? The LaSallian. August 15, 2014. Retrieved on January 20, 2015
at
http://thelasallian.com/2014/08/15/a-look-into-ched-memo-no-20-2013-t
he-end-of-a-language/
https://www.journal.com.ph/news/nation/removal-filipino-subject-colle
ge-unconstitutional-senators

https://www.reddit.com/

Licuanan, P. Ph.D. (2014) On the Removal of Filipino and Filipino Teachers from
the New General Education Curriculum. Retrieved on March 2015 at
http://www.ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/temp/CHED-State
ment-on-Filipino.pdf

Flores, H. (2014) Ched to discuss removal of Filipino in curriculum. Retrieved on

March 2015 at
http://www.philstar.com/campus/featured-articles/2014/06/19/1336433/
ched-discuss-removal-filipino-curriculum
Silverio, I. (2014) Removing Filipino as a subject in college: A betrayal in the
name of business?Retrieved on March 2015 at
http://bulatlat.com/main/2014/06/27/removing-filipino-as-a-subject-in-c
ollege-a-betrayal-in-the-name-of-business/

Geronimo, J. (2014) No Filipino subjects in college? ‘Tanggol Wika’ opposed

CHED memo. Retrieved on March 2015 at
http://www.rappler.com/nation/61234-tanggol-wika-general-education
-college

Get Real Philippines (2014) Kudos to the Commission on Higher Education for
finally junking Tagalog!Retrieved on March 2015 at
http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2014/06/kudos-to-the-commission-on
-higher-education-ched-for-finally-junking-tagalog/

League of Filipino Students (2014) Students storm CHED to protest removal of

Filipino subjects under K+12. Retrieved on March 2015 at
http://www.lfs.ph/2014/06/21/students-storm-ched-to-protest-removal-of
-filipino-subjects-under-k12/

Official Gazette (2014) The K to 12 Basic Education Program. Retrieved on

March 2015 at http://www.gov.ph/k-12/

Why Language Matters for the Millennium Development Goals. (2012).

UNESCO Bangkok