ZAMBOANGA CITY (MindaNews / 13 August) – August is “Buwan ng Wikang Pambansa,” which, as the phrase suggests, is a month dedicated to Filipino, the national language, rather than any other languages spoken in the Philippines. It is certainly not meant for our mother tongue or our community lingua franca unless it is Filipino as spoken by many learners in Metro Manila. This is the first point.
The second point is that Filipino is different from Tagalog, although the two are often used interchangeably. There is a significant difference between them. For example, “seat” in Filipino is upuan, while “seat” in Tagalog is salumpuwit. Tagalog is the mother tongue of people from Central Luzon, whereas Filipino is the national language constructed from Tagalog.
We became independent in 1946. Tagalog was selected as the basis for the evolution of our national language in the 1930s. In the 1950s, we started using “Pilipino” to refer to our national language, and in 1987, it became “Filipino”. However, Filipino should continue to evolve in its lexicon, forms, and expressions to accommodate influences from over 180 indigenous languages spread across the country.
We should not forget that alongside Filipino, we also recognize English – a remnant of American imperialism – as an official language, while Spanish, another vestige of colonialism, was removed from its pedestal. This makes the Philippines the only former Spanish colony where Spanish is no longer an official language. Interestingly, our constructed national language is arguably richer in Spanish loanwords than in those from indigenous languages.
Interestingly, there is the question of Chavacano, a creole language, and its place in our linguistic landscape. What about Lannang-ue among the Filipino Chinese communities? And Malay speakers in some Southern Mindanao communities?
Starting in the early ’80s, we began observing August 9 as the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, a commemoration that resonates deeply with many of us from minority indigenous backgrounds. How can we express our minority indigeneity within a nation-state that stereotypically or prejudicially defines us as the “other”? How can a constructed nation-state like the Philippines provide space for its indigenous population without compromising their way of life, while still recognizing them as Filipino? As minority indigenous people, we face double jeopardy vis-à-vis the national language: striving to speak it in a way that reflects our indigeneity, with a tone and choice of words shaped by our Mindanaoan ecology, both of which are often “alien” to the “standard” Filipino spoken in Metro Manila.
In 2012, the mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) policy was introduced in schools, primarily focusing on cognitive development rather than serving as part of a cultural renaissance. While mother tongues and lingua francas were utilized, indigenous orthographies were not adopted; instead, all of these were developed using Roman scripts. This led to an unintended divide between “purists” and “pragmatists,” reflected in both the educational materials and the actual teaching-learning interactions in the classroom. Some local government units have even misused the policy to impose their preferred lingua franca over the diverse mother tongues spoken by learners.
Now, without the benefit of research and against the advice of language and education experts, there is a move in the House of Representatives to drop the MTB-MLE policy and revert to the bilingual policy. This move appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to the poor performance of Filipino students in the latest Program for International Student Assessment, which tests the reading, mathematics, and science literacy of 15-year-olds.
UNICEF and UNESCO have expressed their concerns, emphasizing that first language learning is a key pillar of quality and inclusive education. They regard MTB-MLE as an important tool to address the global learning crisis, highlighting that our program has been a model for the rest of the world. UNESCO draws our attention to the consensus in international research that the English-only “submersion” approach is not an effective method. They also warn that language-in-education policies driven by political expediency rather than research are harming children.
Therefore, suspending the MTB-MLE implementation could potentially worsen the educational situation for millions of Filipino children. It is important to understand, as UNICEF has pointed out, that the rapid expansion of MTB-MLE after 2013 led to some implementation challenges—common with any large-scale education reform. However, they believe that by providing additional support and resources, adapting the MTB-MLE to meet the specific needs of communities, and working collaboratively with all key stakeholders, the country can promote a more inclusive and effective education for all children.
The future will remain challenging for us if we persist in a homogenizing mindset that undermines our diverse indigenous languages. Bilingualism can silence our indigeneity, perpetuate coloniality, and ultimately lead to the loss of not just our words, but also their expressions in our shared histories and perspectives.
(MindaViews is the opinion section of MindaNews. Noor Saada is a Tausug of mixed ancestry—born in Jolo, Sulu, grew up in Tawi-Tawi, studied in Zamboanga and worked in Davao, Makati and Cotabato. He is a development worker and peace advocate, former Assistant Regional Secretary of the Department of Education in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, currently working as an independent consultant and is a member of an insider-mediation group that aims to promote intra-Moro dialogue.)