Exposing the Half Truths Peddled About Mother Tongue Instruction

Blackshama's post on multilingualism started this topic off at FV, so my article today at Filipino Voices is on UNESCO and the "scientific research" it has conducted over the years on "mother tongue instruction" which is at the heart of a re-ignited controversy over "medium of instruction" in the public schools. In it I expose how ideologues posing as nationalists have presented a remarkably one-sided version of the Unesco findings, which are distinctively politicized to begin with, but which are still far more balanced about the use of mother tongues as media of instruction, noting huge practical, logistical and intellectual resource problems with mother tongue instruction on a large scale in a poor country. By ignoring or even covering up these well-documented problems and tall hurdles in establishing a givenmother tongue as fully functional medium of instruction, local advocates have thus manufactured a fake 'scientific controvery' against the use of English as a medium of instruction by citing "across the board studies" and "scientific evidence" for the singular benefits of using mother tongue instruction. They are careful never to cite the Unesco sources of their familiarity with these studies, because these studies also explicitly lay out the difficulties and pitfalls of using mother tongue instruction in public schools.

TOWER OF BABEL They are insisting on a multi-lingual education policy, similar to Senator Nene Pimentel's proposals for up to ten languages to be used as official media of instruction, thus requiring textbooks, teacher's guides and instruction materials in Reading, Writing and 'Rithmetic --to be rendered in Iloko, Pangalatok, Kapampangan, Tagalog, Bicolano, Waray, Binisaya, Tausug, Maranon, as well as English and the mythical Pfilipino national language. One might think, naively, that it would be just a matter of translating say an existing English textbook into these dialects. Even if it were, and publishers and authors will tell you that it ain't, there are further difficulties involving qualified instructors, linguistic experts and reviewers in obscure or little used dialects, which however cannot be treated as second class baggage and be ignored or neglected.


What has emerged is this: fifty years of research shows that mother tongue instruction has its pluses and minuses, that children do learn faster, at least initially, in a language used at home, compared to some strange foreign tongue. But there is huge conceptual and logical leap from this commonsensical and plausible notion to the insinuation that ANY mother tongue is a suitable and wise choice for use as medium of instruction for 25 million public school students studying 5 different subjects (Math, Science, Makabayan, English and Pilipino) at ten different levels (Grades 1-6 and High School I-IV) spread out over 40,000 barangays in an archipelago with 170 ethnologically recognized living languages spoken by what will soon be 100 million human beings.

The House is about to pass overwhelmingly HB 5619 -- An Act Strengthening and Enhancing the Use of English as Medium of Instruction -- authored by Cebu Rep. Ed Gullas. But the bill is being opposed by ideological heavyweights in media and academe. Lately it has become the mantra of a certain genre of propaganda that using English is a form of colonial mentality and that we ought to use our various "mother tongues" instead as medium of instruction. For example, in its editorial, King's English, PDI says

To be sure, the state should be in the business of looking for the best way to effectively transmit knowledge in its education system. But studies across the board show that the mother tongue is the best conveyor of instruction.

To some extent, the Gullas bill recognizes the above. It gives schools the option to use English, Filipino or the regional language as the teaching language from pre-school up to Grade 3. But from the intermediate grades up to high school, English will be the teaching language, except in Filipino as a course.

Just the same, the bill’s “English myopia” is hegemonic, and overlooks scientific evidence showing the mother tongue to be the best medium of instruction."

Now, it has always puzzled me that those who have been making these claims never cite the original sources of this "scientific evidence" or the "across the board studies" that established the Mother Tongue Hypothesis. Now I know why--because I believe I have discovered the Mother Lode of that "evidence" for the benefits of Mother Tongue instruction in this position paper (PDF) by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco). Published in 2003, it reprises fifty years of Unesco research into mother tongue instruction and related language issues in education worldwide.

And indeed, we find in the Unesco documents substantial confirmation of the claims being made by PDI and the supporters of mother tongue instruction here in the Philippines. And more...much more! Because in this very same paper, in the very same section that praises the benefits of mother tongue instruction we also find,-- lo and behold! -- substantial objections and caveats to mother tongue instruction that are not mentioned by the PDI editorial. Here is an extended excerpt from the Unesco PDF which gives a far more balanced view of the use of first language or mother tongue instruction:

UNESCO DEFINITION AND SUPPORT FOR MOTHER TONGUE INSTRUCTION:

Mother tongue instruction generally refers to the use of the learners’ mother tongue as the medium of instruction. Additionally, it can refer to the mother tongue as a subject of instruction. It is considered to be an important component of quality education, particularly in the early years. The expert view is that mother tongue instruction should cover both the teaching of and the teaching through this language.

The term ‘mother tongue’, though widely used, may refer to several different situations. Definitions often include the following elements: the language(s)that one has learnt first; the language(s) one identifies with or is identified as a native speaker of by others; the language(s) one knows best and the language(s) one uses most. ‘Mother tongue’ may also be referred to as ‘primary’ or ‘first language’. The term ‘mother tongue’ is commonly used in policy statements and in the general discourse on educational issues. It is retained in this document for that reason, although it is to be noted that the use of the term ‘mother tongue’ often fails to discriminate between all the variants of a language used by a native speaker, ranging from hinterland varieties to urban-based standard languages used as school mother tongue. A child’s earliest first-hand experiences in native speech do not necessarily correspond to the formal school version of the so-called mother tongue.

It is an obvious yet not generally recognized truism that learning in a language which is not one’s own provides a double set of challenges, not only is there the challenge of learning a new language but also that of learning new knowledge contained in that language. These challenges may be further exacerbated in the case of certain groups are already in situations of educational risk or stress such as illiterates, minorities and refugees. Gender considerations cross cut these situations of educational risk, for girls and women may be ina particularly disadvantaged position. In most traditional societies, it is the girls and women who tend to be monolingual, being less exposed either through schooling, salaried labour, or migration to the national language, than their sons, brothers or husbands. Studies have shown that, in many cases, instruction in the mother tongue is beneficial to language competencies in the first language, achievement in other subject areas, and second language learning.

UNESCO CAVEATS TO MOTHER TONGUE INSTRUCTION:

The application of the principle of mother tongue instruction nevertheless is far from being the rule. Some of the difficulties encountered by the use of mother tongues as languages of instruction may include the following:

_sometimes the mother tongue may be an unwritten language;
_sometimes the language may not even be generally recognized
as constituting a legitimate language;
_the appropriate terminology for education purposes may still have
to be developed;
_there may be a shortage of educational materials in the language;
_the multiplicity of languages may exacerbate the difficulty
of providing schooling in each mother tongue;
_there may be a lack of appropriately trained teachers;
_there may be resistance to schooling in the mother tongue by the students, parents and teachers.

ETHNOLOGUE claims that there are 1 71 living and 4 extinct languages in the Philippine Archipelago, and lists each one along with the estimated number of active speakers. These are the MOTHER TONGUES of the various tribes of the Filipinos, some with millions like Cebuano and Tagalog, others with just a few hundred, like Agta-Aeta, or a few hundred thousand like the Spanish-based pidgin, Chavacano. Please peruse the list...it's fascinating!

In the Comment Thread to our colleague Blackshama's post on this topic, I already mentioned my own independently conceived objections to the Mother Tongue Hypothesis, including that the medium of instruction ought to be a written language and that the Philippines lacks the resources, both material and human, to support a plethora of mother tongues being used as media of instruction.

So I am gratified to now be able to say, just like PDI, that there is scientific evidence to support my objections to their position. In fact that scientific evidence is the same source of their scientific evidence in support of the mother tongue instruction.

Except I am presenting ALL of Unesco's scientific evidence!

While the Door of Observation Swings Open...

Is there anything journalistically wrong with this headline on the front page of our favorite newspaper this morning?

English-only bill faces tough fight?

Nothing, unless of course it is NOT true!

The bill states that:

* English, Filipino or the regional/native language may be used as the teaching language in all subjects from pre-school to Grade 3;

* English shall be the teaching language in all academic subjects from Grades 4 to 6, and in all levels of high school;

* English and Filipino shall be taught as separate subjects in all levels of elementary and high school;

* The current language policy prescribed by the Commission on Higher Education shall be maintained in college; and

* English shall be promoted as the language of interaction in schools.

It is important for certain people, you see, to deny that English is perhaps our most precious intellectual and cultural heritage. They cannot reconcile themselves with history as it has truly and really been lived by the Filipino people during the last one hundred years or more. They would deny that we are now part of the Western world and the Anglosphere, and irrevocably so. They would cast the nation down to the Babel of a language and ethnic apartheid composed of over 160 separate languages and barely limnable tribal affiliations. They believe in a silly set of ideas, falling under a mistaken appreciation of the "Mother Language hypothesis" that serves only one master: political correctness. At the practical level, they steadfastly refuse to see to the real needs of our global, mobile work force: the overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) whose singular edge of acceptability and assimilability has been the English language. Likewise, they would shut our doors, xenophobically, to the vast opportunities in call centers, back office operations, software development, technical support, medical and legal transcription services, etc. in order to maintain the current education system's strange arrangement, in which more than half the teaching time is done in the vernacular instead of the global lingua anglica.

CIA Chief Cites Exploding Population As Top Security Threat

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Director Gen. Michael V. Hayden cited "exploding populations in poor places" at the top of his list of three troublesome trends that threaten global security, along with a growing separation between Europe and America, and the emergence of China.

Many poor, already fragile states — where governance is difficult today — will grow rapidly. In Afghanistan, Liberia, Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the population is expected to triple by midcentury. The number of people in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Yemen will more than double. Furthermore, all of those countries will have large concentrations of young people. If their basic freedoms and basic needs — food, housing, education, employment and so on — are not met, they could be easily attracted to violence, civil unrest or extremism.

He did not name the Philippines as one of those trouble spots where "population cluster bombs" are exploding, but it's high time Filipinos woke up to this problem. When all is said and done the blame has to be laid squarely on the Roman Catholic Bishops that the poor have no access to pills, condoms, IUDs and other non-abortive forms of modern birth control. I think that this is so obvious that those who deny it have to contort themselves into all sorts of illogical positions (not found even in the Kama Sutra) just to defend a policy that is ONE major cause of poverty, hunger and deprivation, and if the CIA chief is right of coming "violence, civil unrest and extremism." Considering that it will take decades to fix the problem, we better pull our heads out of the sand and see what greater evil has been wrought by infallible dogma.

President George W. Bush calls for more food aid to poor countries abroad for the 2009 fiscal year, but I sure hope the Philippines won't have to rely on mendicancy and charity of other nations to feed itself. As it is the government is selling cheap US rice at P25/kilo as its NFA stocks dwindle. Have we no pride? The current situation probably suits the Men in Skirts just fine while they twirl away with Pagcor and Vatican Roulette but it's time to stop listening to them and their insane dogmas.

---

Hippocrates, Maimonides and MesiaMd have some interesting reflections on the Perfume Canister Incident. Primum non nocere.

Jessica Zafra has uhmm, an axe to grind against Filipino's penchant for the absurd.

Abe Margallo has long commentary on the rice crisis in Man Does Not Live by Rice Alone. I hope he will follow it up with further analysis on the impact of CARP (land reform) on the long term prospects.

Angela Stuart Santiago takes Manila Standard columnist Connie Veneracion to task for her opposition to the inclusion of Amado V. Hernandez's classic anti-imperialist work, Mga Ibong Mandaragit in the Philippine public school curriculum. Given that the Filipino language subject is 20% of the curriculum, it is certainly impossible to rely entirely on such mainstays as Florante at Laura and Ang Ibong Adarna to provide content for the subject. I welcome such an inclusion only so Filipinos can not only learn some masterful poetry in Tagalog, but also to see the now defensiveness of the work. "Ka Amado" is very rough going however and would be a challenge to read even at the College level. In fact, I doubt that very many teachers at the high school level could manage to read his work, much as few can handle Shakespeare or Milton. They have a hard enough time with the fairy tale Ibong Adarna. What will probably happen is they will substitute summaries done by the CPP NPA and its surrogates in the Republic of Diliman of what the works mean. Veneracion is right that the works would be a challenge for any modern Filipino to read or appreciate at the high school level.

Did Jose Rizal Ever Write or Publish in Tagalog?

I've been asking this question among knowledgeable friends and acquaintances, both here and abroad because I honestly do not know the answer and cannot myself point to any verifiable work of his that would qualify in the affirmative. Whenever the Language Wars flare up I often get thrown in my face the following quotation attributed to him:

Ang siyang hindî nagmamahal sa sariling wikà,

Ay mas mabantot pa sa bulok at malansang isdâ

But can anyone tell me when and where he is supposed to have written or said this and what might be the authoritative reference for the oft-repeated claim. We know of course that he wrote the most masterful Español and was quite literate in French, German and English, with a smattering of Japanese thanks to sometime paramours and girlfriends. (His common law wife Josephine Bracken, with whom he fathered a son, spoke English, though badly we are told.)

My good friend the antiquarian and goldsmith Ramon Villegas also points to Makamisa, alleged by Ambeth Ocampo to be an unfinished novel in Tagalog. But half a chapter hardly qualifies as "an unfinished novel" and I consider the report apocryphal, though I am largely ignorant of the details of the supporting research.

If you know of any other works by Rizal in Tagalog please let me know in the Comment Thread.

For those interested in how to raise money for NGOs and foundations, please visit the weblog of another good friend, John Silva. who is also associated with the National Museum.

Long on my blogroll and a favorite is this Bikolnon poet.

Sacre bleu! -- The French worry about Anglospheric hegemony.

UPDATE:
Many thanks to "Angela Stuart Santiago" in the Comment Thread for pointing out a poem by Jose Rizal that contains the line cited above about smelly fish and those who loathe their own native language. Given the valuable info I found Spanish and English translations of that poem (Sa Aking Kababata -- A Mis Companeros De Ninez -- To My Childhood Companions) in the 1961 book, The Complete Poems of Jose Rizal in Spanish and English, "Where Slaves There Are None". Lo and behold, the translation from Tagalog into Spanish is by Epifanio de los Santos (EDSA!) . The English Translations are by Alfredo S. Veloso. The book is illustrated by Alfredo R. Roces. and was published by Vasquez Bros. & Co. Inc. for the Rizal Centenary in 1961. There are only one or two things that bother me about this however. Angela's reference says the original in Tagalog was written in 1869, when Rizal was but eight years old. But then again all the rest of the poems and plays in the book are equally sophisticated. The second observation is this IS the only poem in the whole volume said to be originally in Tagalog. The others are all Spanish, as most of Rizal's written works are. Thanks again to everyone who contributed to this post, especially Angela Stuart Santiago. I think we shall see more of Rizal's poetry around here and read on my poetry site as well, Reading Poetry Out Loud.

A Rebuttal of Isabel Pefianco Martin's Fear-mongering and Mythmaking About Languages in the Philippines

First let me thank Rodel Rodis, President of the San Franciso City School Board, for helping to crystallize, during a recent email exchange, many of the ideas in this essay, which I offer as a comprehensive rebuttal of the points recently made by Isabel Pefianco Martin, president of the Linguistic Society of the Philippines in two articles published by the Philippine Daily Innuendo.

Fearing English in the Philippines

Martin: Sometime ago, at a teacher training session I conducted, I made the mistake of suggesting that Math and Science teachers consider code switching (using English and Tagalog) as a strategy for making lessons less difficult for their students. I did not know that the school had just implemented an English-only policy in the classrooms, corridors and faculty lounges. No wonder teachers and students rushed to the quadrangle during break time!

I've been asking around to find out which school this might actually be. Maybe the British or American School? I know that several model schools supported by the Books for the Barrios NGO insists on the students reading a book in English once a week and speaking English at every opportunity. But I am not aware of a school as Pefianco describes above. If anyone knows, I would like to know. There is no response to my emails to the Linguistic Society of the Philippines. I suspect it's a set up for the strawman argument about to follow. It is certainly not any school that follows the Basic Education Curriculum which nearly all private schools do even if they add religion and enrich the main subjects that public schools MUST teach: Math, Science, English, Pilipino and Makabayan. I come to the conclusion that this paragraph's claim of such a school's very existence is apocryphal at best and is probably fictional. But correct me please if anybody knows of such a school.

Martin: This practice of enforcing English-only zones in schools is symptomatic of the lack of awareness among school heads about the nature of languages, as well as the basics of learning a language. One important reality that many overlook is that students will not learn a language if they fear it.

In the Philippines, the language most feared is English. I see this in my students who joke that their noses bleed after they talk in English; in my friends who claim that they speak English only when they’re drunk; and in my doctor who suddenly switches to Tagalog after I tell him that I teach English. We see this fear of English in classes where students feel stupid because they mispronounced a word; in contact centers where applicants take accent neutralization sessions; and in English review centers that continue to mushroom throughout Metro Manila. Fear of English is also manifested in predictions that the country is approaching an English-deprived future; in House bills that seek to make English the sole medium of instruction in schools; and in courses or training programs that focus only on developing grammatical accuracy.

It is a fair enough premise that fear of a language might deter learning it. But is it fair to disparage half a million teachers by claiming they are ignorant of such an elementary fact? I think the linguist is actually borrowing from the perhaps better known phenomenon of a fear of Math. The examples presented surely don't prove such a fear exists, nor the alleged ignorance of the teaching corps. Lookit. Joking about nose bleeding after speaking in English reveals a rather great sense of humor on the part of the Linguist's friends, but the joke may be on her and she doesn't get their intention to make fun of high falutin' English professors. It may also be true that getting drunk is the prerequisite not to speaking English, but having to speak it with someone whose profession is its correction and criticism. The Doctor who switches to Tagalog upon learning of the same is likewise being jocular, not apprehensive, surely. As for those working at call centers taking accent remediation and English review courses, I would say they are afraid of losing a valuable job, not expressing a fear of English by doing so.

Martin: Many research studies prove that learning a language becomes more effective when emotional barriers are eliminated. Linguist and educational researcher Stephen Krashen refers to these emotional barriers as “affective filters.” The formula for success in learning a language is painfully simple: the lower the feelings of fear (low affective filter), the higher the chances of learning.

Maybe our teachers never heard of "affective filters" but I doubt they need Mr. Krashen or Ms. Pefianco to tell them that fear is not an effective tool in education. Granted there ARE teachers who are that deluded, but I think teachers have bigger problems, including a lack of English language competency themselves.

Martin: One famous Filipino who exemplifies the lack of fear of English is boxer Manny Pacquiao. I have observed with delight how Pacquiao, in his post-fight interviews, confidently and effortlessly churn out so-called “carabao” English to share his joy over his victories. Pacquiao does not fear Barrera or Morales. Why on earth should he fear English?

Just recently, 17-year-old Janina San Miguel was crowned Bb. Pilipinas World 2008 despite her “funny” English during the pageant’s Q&A. Janina’s experience proves that personal successes need not be dependent on proficiency in English. Why fear English then?

Here the argument has shifted subtly, as befits a sophisticated Linguist. I suppose after one has just won a world boxing title or a Beauty Contest, any self-confident person could care less what people think of their "carabao English." But surely that is not the same as "not fearing English".

Martin: From a linguistic standpoint, all languages are equally perfect and complete. This means that there really is no reason to fear English. Nothing in the sound system or writing system of English makes it superior to other languages. Conversely, nothing in the sound system or writing system of the national and local languages makes these languages inferior to English. It is the Filipinos’ attitude toward English that elevates the language to a prestige form. It is this same attitude that makes it difficult for most Filipinos to learn it.

The claim I've highlighted in red above is a dubious one, especially when applied to the problem of choosing a suitable Medium of Instruction, which after all is the primary subject of our discussion here. I've made the point often enough: the medium should fit the message, which in this case are those five subjects in the curriculum, Math, Science, English, Pilipino and Makabayan. I am sorry, but the claim that all languages are equally perfect and complete cannot possibly apply to the problems of teaching these subjects. For one thing I insist that the Medium of Instruction cannot avoid having to be a written language. It is utterly inconceivable how any school system could do without this aspect of languages. The needs of math and science for symbols and vocabulary are self-evident and indispensable, and likewise for all the subjects to conduct tests, write textbooks, assign readings, it is inconceivable that any old language will do because they are all equally perfect and complete. This is simply FALSE!

Martin: Another reason English should not be feared is that the language is not owned by one country or one race, as many Filipinos believe. The profile of English today reveals that ownership of the language is already shared across continents and cultures. In international English Language Teaching circles, academics do not talk about English in singular terms anymore. There is widespread recognition that several Englishes exist—American English, British English, Australian English, but also, Malaysian English, Singapore English, and yes, Philippine English. In addition, “non-native” speakers of English are beginning to outnumber “native” speakers in the world today.

I suppose our Linguist also thinks very little of other linguists by implying that they are ignorant of the existence of dialects which indeed accounts for the vast richness of the Anglosphere. Here also, the Linguist reveals a kind of reverse colonial mentality. One of the most generous acts any civilization can perform for another is to share its language. I daresay, the "native" speakers of English that we encountered in history, the Americans, certainly did that for the Philippines, which largely accounts for the very existence of the Linguist and her profession on these shores. Since when in other words has a fear of English in the Philippines existed because people were made to think it was "owned" by the Evil Colonizers when it was and still is their greatest gift to us, and perhaps the most valuable and interesting part of our cultural heritage?

Martin: To be sure, English occupies an important place in Philippine society. But, it is only one language among the 150 that exist today. It is believed that most Filipinos speak at least three different languages. For these Filipinos, English might not even be one of the languages they speak. So when English is first introduced to them, it should be introduced slowly and gently, with much respect for their first languages.

This is a truly irrelevant point because English happens to be one of the very few languages, perhaps the only one in the Philippines that is a written language with the qualifications to teach the key subjects of the curriculum. But her point stems entirely from the naive notion that all languages are created equal and useable as media of instruction. They are not. But such inequality should not be any occasion for an inferiority complex. We are merely choosing the best tool for the job. The idea that English cannot be owned by Filipinos is part of a subliminal elitism that the Linguist herself seems to reveal.

Martin: Teaching and learning English in the Philippines may be a difficult task, but it need not be a frightening experience. So much has already been spent on testing the proficiency of teachers and then training these teachers to become more proficient in the language. But simply focusing on testing and training, without recognizing the multilingual context of teaching and learning English in the Philippines, only reinforces fear of the language.

This year, the International Year of Languages, all language education stakeholders are invited to reflect on their policies and practices so that Filipinos will finally regard their languages, including English, not with fear, but with confidence and pride.

No one denies the multilingual context of education in the Philippines. The thesis that Filipinos "fear" English is nothing but a strawman argument however, which I think is more intended at self-aggrandizement when after setting it up, the Linguist insists that people should not be afraid of her subject or profession. It is when obscurantism slips into the stream of the argument that I suspect such motives.


Myths about languages in the Philippines

Martin: While the nation awaits the outcome of the hearings on the ZTE-NBN deal, a small, almost invisible battle continues to be waged among stakeholders of language and literacy in the country. Very few are aware of the persistent efforts of lawmakers to institutionalize English as the sole language of learning in basic education. Even fewer wonder if the Speak English Only Policy of some schools or the present Bilingual Education Policy of the Department of Education actually works.

I have been reflecting on these movements in language and literacy for some years now. I have come to realize that many arguments about the issue are hinged on buried premises, on myths about languages in the Philippines.

The first set of myths has to do with English in the Philippines. There is a prevailing belief that if you don’t know English, you simply don’t know! This myth is evident in Filipinos who laugh at those who do not speak English with native-like fluency and accuracy, in school heads who will not hire a teacher because he or she has a strong Ilocano accent, and in teachers who give low marks to students with subject-verb agreement or preposition errors in their compositions. These teachers overlook depth of insight or evidence of critical thinking in the students’ writings. The link between intelligence and English language proficiency is very flimsy. In this world, you will find intelligent people who cannot speak a word of English, as well as not-so-smart ones who are native speakers of the language.

If I were a school head out to hire an English teacher for my school, should I be faulted for seeking someone who speaks fluently with a universally understandable accent, all other things being equal of course? As for students who cannot write sentences where verbs and subject agree and have error filled compositions, I think they should get low marks even if one takes proper account of "depth of insight" and evidence of "critical thinking." But of course there are intelligent people who DON'T speak English. Some of them are called French, Russians, Chinese, and Hindus. But I think it is rare in ANY language to be capable of deep insight and to think critically, but for some mysterious reason cannot get the basics of writing well down pat.

Martin: Another misconception about English is that the language cures all economic ailments. This is evident in House bills that seek to make English as the sole medium of instruction in the elementary and high school levels. The goal is to produce English-proficient graduates for contact centers, hospitals and medical transcription offices, never mind if these graduates are unthinking products of the schools. This belief that English brings in the money is also evident in most contact center training programs which overemphasize proficiency in the language, while sacrificing the agents’ ability to manage culture-diverse environments. Working in a contact center is very demanding. The ability to speak like an American will certainly not ensure excellent performance in the contact center jobs.

I don't know about all problems, but English proficiency has certainly proven to be our salvation for many of them, like family poverty and hunger when the OFWs are repatriating $12 billion a year and the Call Center and BPO industries are said to potentially bring in an equal amount. The ability "to speak like an American will certainly not ensure excellent performance in the contact center" but I guarantee you you that an INABILITY to get verbs and subjects to agree will surely get you fired!

That some Filipinos aspire for native-like proficiency in English is symptomatic of another misconception about the language. This aspiration points to the myth that there is only one kind of English language in this world, and that is, Standard American English. What many do not know is that World Englishes exist, and Philippine English is just one among these many Englishes.

The Linguist is apparently not aware of the sophistication of the Call Centers nowadays, who in fact train specialists in the various English dialects. There is Midwestern English, Southern English, Standard English, etc. And indeed they even do Spanish, French, German...

In 1969, Teodoro Llamzon, the first president of the Linguistic Society of the Philippines, already wrote about this in his trailblazing “Standard Filipino English.” In 1996, at De La Salle University-Manila, a conference on the theme “English is an Asian Language” reintroduced this idea of English as a Philippine language. It was at this conference that poet Gemino Abad proudly declared that the Filipinos have “colonized the English language!”

I am all for regarding the English Language as part of our cultural heritage. Filipinos have certainly excelled in its practice.

Martin: And then there is the myth that English and Filipino are languages in opposition to each other. This is evident in those who insist that English should be totally removed from basic education, as well as in some of the reasons cited for opposing House Bill 305 and Executive Order 210. Nationalism always seems to be associated with the Filipino language, as if one cannot express one’s love of country in English or in the local languages.

Finally, the most dangerous of all myths is the belief that there is no place for the local languages in basic education. This is evident in the existence of the Bilingual Education Policy, as well as in the persistent efforts of lawmakers to pass House Bill 305 (formerly known as HB 4701). In public schools across the nation, teachers have already been using the local languages (a.k.a. first language or mother tongue, which includes English and Tagalog in the cities) in teaching basic concepts to schoolchildren. No amount of legislation can remove the first languages from their natural settings, which to my mind include the schools.

Bilingualism is written into our Constitution, so the alleged efforts to go monolingual are bound to fail. But it is perverse to claim that ANYONE is trying to prevent teachers from using the Mother Tongue at the lowest rungs of the education system. It is unavoidable.

And I must say something about the so - called Mother Tongue Hypothesis. There appears to be a large body of academic research and experience to show that TOTAL IMMERSION is actually the fastest and most effective means of learning a "foreign language" (ie, a language one does not already know.) The ample commercial success of outfits like Berlitz also confirms this idea.

But we don't even have to look that far, because isn't TOTAL IMMERSION how we learn our first language at our Mother's Knee to begin with?

The Inglisero War on English--"Using English Conveys False Information to Filipinos"

2008 is the International Year of Languages. Fittingly therefore, the ever politically correct Philippine Daily Innuendo our biggest English language daily newspaper, has seen fit to feature the prolix writings of Isabel Pefianco Martin, president of the Linguistic Society of the Philippines (LSP). Together with some National Artists and English-writing pundits, it seems that PDI and LSP's Ms. Martin have launched a War on the English Language in the Philippines. Her latest offerings are two Commentaries published in the Op/Ed pages: first was Myths about languages in the Philippines which was brilliantly rebutted by a Letter to the Editor from Russ Sandlin. A second piece appears today, Fearing English in the Philippines which is full of straw-man arguments such as the unsubstantiated claim that Filipinos are actually afraid of English and that someone (who???) wants to make English the SOLE medium of instruction in the schools, despite the fact that the Constitution itself upholds bilingualism and NO ONE I know of is against the use of the Mother Tongue in the early years of public schooling. I've had my say on the Language Wars in numerous Philippine Commentaries over the years. But this being the I.Y.L. I would like to present a rather novel linguistic observation on the Ingliseros' whole strategy of war on English in the public schools.

I shall never tire of pointing out the supernal irony in the fact that these Inglisero pundits and commentators use as their exclusive weapon of choice, what else but the English Language itself [sic!] In so doing they present a kind of unconsciously paradoxical counter argument similar to the Liar's Paradox -- "This very statement is false." which I might restate as the Inglisero Liar Paradox:

"Using English conveys false information to Filipinos."

Since the sentence uses English, it must be conveying false information to Filipinos that using English conveys false information. Which means using English conveys true information to Filipinos. Which means using English must convey false information to Filipinos, and so on ad infinitum... {twiddles his lips making a funny befuddled sound.}

From the psychiatric point of view, there is also the point that what these people are really doing is exhibitionism of their English language skills in an effort to awe and impress others with their patriotic but self-loathing erudition.

Nota bene:(a lil Latin if you please) The term "Inglisero" is kanto-boy Tagalog slang which is a bit difficult to translate. But it might be enlightening to recall how Joseph "Erap" Estrada once used the female gender form of the term when he denied making a girl friend out a bit of Fil-Am fluff, a second runner up in a beauty contest whom Luis "Chavit" Singson did "do" and brought in to Manila two years ago to try to embarrass his old partner in crime. Erap said, "Hindi ko pinatulan ang babaeng iyan. Hindi ko nagustuhan kasi Inglisera siya!" --- meaning to say she was a fake and put on airs by artifically speaking in English all of the time.

Creation Myth of the Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines

In December 2000, the Supreme Court rendered a 7-7 tie decision on the Constitutionality of the Indigenous People's Rights Act (RA 8371) in the case of Isagani Cruz versus DENR & National Commission on Indigenous Peoples.

Today's BLOOPER, probably just an onomatopoeic-pronunciation typo, is from a Dissenting Opinion in that celebrated case:

"IPRA effectively withdraws from the public domain the so-called ancestral domains covering literally millions of hectares. The notion of community property would comprehend not only matters of proprietary interest but also some forms of self-governance over the curved-out territory."

Nota bene, above is not some 40 peso public school textbook, but from the written Ruling of a Supreme Court Justice which only proves that the occurrence of serendipitously funny mistakes in all kinds of printed matter is no one's exclusive domain. This example is from one of the ponencias on IPRA with which I agree.

Here is the En Banc Ruling on IPRA and the various dissenting and concurring Opinions:
Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza and Panganiban
(all from the Supreme Court Website).

The current Chief Justice Reynato Puno presents the case for the seven Justices voting to uphold the Constitutionality of IPRA.

Indigenous peoples share distinctive traits that set them apart from the Filipino mainstream. They are non-Christians. They live in less accessible, marginal, mostly upland areas. They have a system of self-government not dependent upon the laws of the central administration of the Republic of the Philippines. They follow ways of life and customs that are perceived as different from those of the rest of the population.[97] The kind of response the indigenous peoples chose to deal with colonial threat worked well to their advantage by making it difficult for Western concepts and religion to erode their customs and traditions. The "infieles societies" which had become peripheral to colonial administration, represented, from a cultural perspective, a much older base of archipelagic culture. The political systems were still structured on the patriarchal and kinship oriented arrangement of power and authority. The economic activities were governed by the concepts of an ancient communalism and mutual help. The social structure which emphasized division of labor and distinction of functions, not status, was maintained. The cultural styles and forms of life portraying the varieties of social courtesies and ecological adjustments were kept constantly vibrant.

Yet substantial errors in historical fact are pointed out about the above ponencia in Laughable Textbook Errors In Crucial Supreme Court Decisions which looks at how Justice Puno cites legends of Datu Sumakwel and the Code of Maragtas as real history, and weaves a politically correct anti colonialist Creation Myth for the Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines. In this conception, the ancient Filipinos, the original indigenous peoples, lived in harmony with Nature and with each other, even developing literature, culture and laws to govern what is pictured as an idyllic Garden of Eden in the Philippines. Into this pastoral scene intrudes the Spanish colonialists, who are like the Snake in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, who seduces, conquers and converts SOME of the indios they found here and turn them by religious conversion into the Catholic Majority population. The Fall from Ancient Grace by those who would become the present Christian Majority population of the Philippines results in the expulsion of those who would become the present day indigenous peoples from the Garden of Eden, their flight from the colonial subjugators. The Savior that will reconcile them all again, by offering the Indigenous Peoples a third of the present garden archipelago, is of course the Supreme Court itself and IPRA.

The long and short of the decision is not some fuzzy-wuzzy conclusion, but a definite result. There is an OFFICIAL LIST of 110 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES of the Philippines, representing some 12 million persons, who are entitled to about one third of the Philippine Territory in the form of ancestral lands and domains. However, by virtue of the fact that their ancestors succumbed to Spanish colonialism, the Tagalogs, Pampangos, Ilocanos, Cebuanos, Samarnon, and even the purported descendants of that fabled Datu Sumakwel on Panay Island, are NOT indigenous peoples of the Philippines.

No Catholic majority ethnic group or tribe is on the list of official Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines, even though the Definition itself is vague and even self-contradictory:

"Sec. 3 [h]. Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples-- refer to a group of people or homogeneous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized such territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and cultures, became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains."

SPECIAL CASE OF THE IGOROTS: There is a curious inconsistency in the prevailing Supreme Court view in the matter of the Igorots of the Cordillera. You see, the Igorots successfully resisted Spanish efforts to conquer and convert them to Roman Catholicism for centuries, and on that basis are considered to be "Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines." Yet, it is a fact that most Igorots now are Christians by the action of American missionaries in the 20th Century, as evidenced by the widespread and fluent use of the English language throughout the highlands. (Most of the residents of Mount Pulag are Lutherans!) Methinks that the Christianized Igorots do not fit the definition of Indigenous People or Indigenous Cultural Community that is found in Puno's ponencia! Igorots are NOT, from my reading of Puno, indigenous peoples at all, but are closer in legal status to the non-indigenous peoples, like the Ilocanos, Tagalogs and Cebuanos.

From the Boondocks (Bill Billig) is a blog on the indigenous Igorots of the Cordillera with whom I've exchanged some interesting comments. The Igorots have been central to some of the historical evolution of the concept of indigenous peoples in the Philippines. The celebrated early case of Mateo Carino is amply discussed in all the ponencias and was important to the concept of "native title." However, my take on that case, which was decided by the US Supreme Court is that "native title" can be claimed by individuals and individual families of descendants and ascendants but not by entire classes of individuals, tribes that are assembled by "self-ascription or ascription by others." However, this is a deep topic and goes to the heart of land ownership, titling, and other matters that are indeed a big part of the controversy.

Justice Artemio Panganiban presents the most succinct and cogent case for the Dissent (the seven Justices who voted against IPRA):

Section 5, Article XII of the Constitution, provides:


"SEC. 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well being.


"The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing property rights and relations in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain."


Clearly, there are two parameters that must be observed in the protection of the rights of ICCs/IPs: (1) the provisions of the 1987 Constitution and (2) national development policies and programs.


Indigenous peoples may have long been marginalized in Philippine politics and society. This does not, however, give Congress any license to accord them rights that the Constitution withholds from the rest of the Filipino people. I would concede giving them priority in the use, the enjoyment and the preservation of their ancestral lands and domains.[41] But to grant perpetual ownership and control of the nation's substantial wealth to them, to the exclusion of other Filipino citizens who have chosen to live and abide by our previous and present Constitutions, would be not only unjust but also subversive of the rule of law.


In giving ICCs/IPs rights in derogation of our fundamental law, Congress is effectively mandating “reverse discrimination.” In seeking to improve their lot, it would be doing so at the expense of the majority of the Filipino people. Such short-sighted and misplaced generosity will spread the roots of discontent and, in the long term, fan the fires of turmoil to a conflagration of national proportions.


Peace cannot be attained by brazenly and permanently depriving the many in order to coddle the few, however disadvantaged they may have been. Neither can a just society be approximated by maiming the healthy to place them at par with the injured. Nor can the nation survive by enclaving its wealth for the exclusive benefit of favored minorities.


Rather, the law must help the powerless by enabling them to take advantage of opportunities and privileges that are open to all and by preventing the powerful from exploiting and oppressing them. This is the essence of social justice – empowering and enabling the poor to be able to compete with the rich and, thus, equally enjoy the blessings of prosperity, freedom and dignity.
WHEREFORE, I vote to partially GRANT the Petition and to DECLARE as UNCONSTITUTIONAL Sections 3(a) and (b), 5, 6, 7(a) and (b), 8 and related provisions of RA 8371.

It is noteworthy that the AUTHOR of the Indigenous People's Rights Act is none other than Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. I have theorized that her "Peace Legacy" is going to involve the IPRA in a big and spectacular way in Mindanao, a prospect recently examined here under GMA's Gift to Bin Laden on September 11.

Laughable Textbook Errors in Crucial Supreme Court Decisions

Recently, a certain Mr. Antonio Calipjo Go associated with Marian School in Quezon City, has been hailed by the Media as a crusader against laughable errors in textbooks approved by the Dept of Education for distribution to some 20 million public and private school students, which he has exposed in a series of newspaper ads and television appearances.

Most of the errors Mr. Go points to are only accidentally funny typographical errors ("...cows are inseminated by seamen..."), and some of his alleged errors are not errors at all, but funny nonetheless to the equally uninformed. (See my earlier post on magnifying telescopes. where the observation is made that the Mass Media themselves (newspapers, broadcast) make numerous and similarly ludicrous errors of fact, grammar and spelling.

But Mr. Go he has also found many instances of erroneous historical or scientific information being presented in some textbooks, thereby miseducating perhaps millions of students. These are simply inexcusable and would not exist in a world, where more money could be spent on the authoring, editing, publishing and purchasing of better textbooks.

Recently however, I was really flummoxed to discover several of these kinds of ludicrous and disdainable errors not in lowly textbooks or the tabloidish broadsheets, but in no less than the written Opinions of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Reynato Puno!

In the Separate Opinion rendered by now Chief Justice Reynato Puno in the December, 2000 landmark case of Cruz and Europa vs. DENR and National Commission on Indigenous Peoples one finds some distinctively Callipjegoesque passages such as:

The ancient Filipinos settled beside bodies of water.

Hunting and food gathering became supplementary activities as reliance on them was reduced by fishing and the cultivation of the soil.

From the hinterland, coastal, and riverine communities, our ancestors evolved an essentially homogeneous culture, a basically common way of life where nature was a primary factor.

Community life throughout the archipelago was influenced by, and responded to, common ecology. The generally benign tropical climate and the largely uniform flora and fauna favored similarities, not differences.[47] Life was essentially subsistence but not harsh.[48]

This is what I call the "Garden of Eden" or "Paradise View" of ancient Philippines, although I was surprised to find it in an historic Supreme Court ponencia.

In this quaint conception of the way it was long ago in the Archipelago, the "indigenous peoples" have a common way of life in harmony with nature. Whether they lived in the mountainous aeries of the hinterlands (the Igorots) , or in the riverine gorges and valleys descending to the sea (the Tag-ilogs), or indeed the coastal and island peoples of Visayas and Mindanao, Chief Justice Puno paints an idyllic picture of a homogeneous human culture with a common response to the common ecology. Even the flora and fauna are uniform and therefore encourage similarities among the ancient Filipinos rather than differences!

Yet, just last year, the Philippine Archipelago was named the Center of the Center of Marine and Ecological Biodiversity in the world. Moreover, just a few paragraphs before, the Chief Justice had listed 110 rather heterogeneous "indigenous cultural communities" all over the archipelago. Their heterogeneity could be explained by the the fact that upland, riverine and coastal ecologies represent radically different physical, geological and meteorological biospheres, in stark contrast to Mr. Justice Puno's description of a warm, generally benign and tropical environment in which the ancient Filipinos live in harmony with nature and each other. Yet I seriously doubt that the weather and other natural conditions were any different then than now, unless Mr. Justice Puno wants to blame for example the average twenty typhoons that visit annually on those bad, bad Western colonialists. The arrivals of Spain and America are treated by Puno later in the ponencia as a kind of Fall from the Grace of Indigenous gods followed by the expulsion of the Indigenous Peoples from the Garden of Eden. I am getting ahead of the analysis though.

But it gets worse. Much worse. In the very next section, Chief Justice Puno addresses the legal systems allegedly common among the "ancient Filipinos":

The unit of government was the "barangay," a term that derived its meaning from the Malay word "balangay," meaning, a boat, which transported them to these shores. The barangay was basically a family-based community and consisted of thirty to one hundred families. Each barangay was different and ruled by a chieftain called a "dato." It was the chieftain's duty to rule and govern his subjects and promote their welfare and interests. A chieftain had wide powers for he exercised all the functions of government. He was the executive, legislator and judge and was the supreme commander in time of war.

Laws were either customary or written. Customary laws were handed down orally from generation to generation and constituted the bulk of the laws of the barangay. They were preserved in songs and chants and in the memory of the elder persons in the community.[54] The written laws were those that the chieftain and his elders promulgated from time to time as the necessity arose.[55] The oldest known written body of laws was the Maragtas Code by Datu Sumakwel at about 1250 A.D.

Well at this point I just tossed my cookies out the window! The Code of Maragtas by Datu Sumakwel?! But I thought that in the 1960s William Henry Scott decisively proved the true nature and provenance of "The Code of Maragtas of Datu Sumakwel" as originating in the 1907 book of Panay legends by Pedro Monteclaro???

The Verdict of Maragtas

Maragtas was finally placed in its proper perspective as a book of legends rather than historical fact in 1968 by William Henry Scott. For his doctoral dissertation at the University of Santo Tomas, Scott made a painstaking investigation into all the sources of information about the Philippines before the coming of the Spaniards.

Rather than merely plagiarizing past historians, Scott examined the original documents and searched archives and museums the world over for supporting documents and artefacts. He questioned the top historians of the day about their sources of information and consulted with many experts in other fields such as language, geology, archaeology and anthropology. He scoured the vast collection of prehispanic material amassed by his personal friend, Dr. H. Otley Beyer. He interviewed the friends, colleagues and relatives of the figures behind the stories such as Pedro Monteclaro and Jose E. Marco and he examined their correspondence.

William Henry Scott proved in his dissertation that Maragtas and the Confederation of Madya-as were not actual ancient documents from long ago but only legends that were collected and in some cases possibly concocted by Pedro Monteclaro and published in 1907 in his book entitled Maragtas. As for the Maragtas Code, Scott found that it was merely an invention of Guillermo Santiago-Cuino's mind which was probably based on Monteclaro's book and published in 1938.

Scott successfully defended his dissertation before a panel of eminent Filipino historians, some of whom had formerly endorsed and promoted the erroneous facts of Philippine history. The panel included Teodoro Agoncillo, Horacio de la Costa, Marcelino Forondo, Mercedes Grau Santamaria, Nicholas Zafra and Gregorio Zaide. Scott's meticulous research was published in 1968 in his book Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History and since then no historian has contested his conclusions. M12

The Result of Scott's Discoveries
By the 1960s the better scholars already had some doubts regarding Maragtas and they avoided mentioning it in their works. Scott's thesis confirmed their suspicions. However, it was many years before the writers of school textbooks noticed Scott's findings. Most continued to reprint their old texts while others wrote new books that still contained the old mistakes. Take for example this quote from Ang Pagsulong ng Pamayanan (1981):

Maragtas' Code is the premier example of written law and it has been considered the oldest because it was in effect from 1250. M13

Not only is this statement wrong but its authors seem to believe that Maragtas was a person and not a book.

Jose Villa Panganiban used Maragtas to trace the origin of the Tagalog language in the preface of the very popular English-Tagalog Dictionary by Fr. Leo James English in 1965. M14 To this day it remains unrevised in spite of many reprintings.

Even one member of Scott's dissertation panel did not appear to be eager to set the record straight. Gregorio Zaide continued to include information from Maragtas in works such as Pageant of Philippine History in 1979, History of the Republic of the Philippines in 1983 and Philippine History 1984 which he co-authored with his daughter, Sonia Zaide. M15

While making an effort to correct the errors of the past, some historians mistook Maragtas to be one of the many hoaxes of Philippine history rather than a mere legend. When Sonia Zaide revised History of the Republic of the Philippines in 1987, she mistakenly described Maragtas as a fraudulent document:

The legends surrounding the settling of the Philippines by Malay migrants are notably celebrated in the ati-atihan festival and perpetrated by hoaxers in the fraudulent documents containing the Maragtas chronicle and the Code of Kalantiaw. M16E

Zaide clarified her opinion on the following page:

Although previously accepted by some historians, including the present authors, it has become obvious that the Maragtas is only the imaginary creation of Pedro A. Monteclaro, a Visayan public official and poet, in Iloilo in 1907. He based it on folk customs and legends, largely transmitted by oral tradition. M17E

It would be unfair to brand Pedro Monteclaro a hoaxer or his book a fraudulent document because he never claimed that Maragtas was anything more than a collection of legends. Any frauds involving his book were perpetrated by other later writers who misrepresented it as an authentic ancient document.

1998 Paul Morrow
Latest revision: 22 April, 2007

To this day ignorance and misunderstanding of the true nature of Maragtas is still prevalent throughout Philippine society even among its highest institutions and organizations. Evidence of this can be seen in the following list of web sites:

• Supreme Court of the Philippines
  A Brief History. Management Information Systems Office of the Philippine Supreme Court. Copyright © 1998 SUPREME COURT. Author not identified.
• Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines
  Looking Back; Important Dates in Philippines History. Education News.
  Vol. 7, No.4. April 2001. Author not identified.
• Governor's Office, Province of Antique
  Antique Provincial Profile, League of Provinces of the Philippines.
  Copyright 2001 Author not identified.
• Mayor's Office, City of Iloilo
  The Exciting Blend of East and West. Author not identified.
• Madya-as Heritage Foundation Inc.
  Save Madya-as, Save Panay. Author not identified
• Akaenon.Com

By the way if you are wondering where Chief Justice Puno got this information:

The oldest known written body of laws was the Maragtas Code by Datu Sumakwel at about 1250 A.D.

it was public school text book published Rex Publishing House.

Leogardo, Felicitas T., Rosalina R. de Leon & Purification Jacob. Ang Pagsulong ng Pamayanan para sa Unang Taon ng Mataas na Paaralan, Published by Rex Book Store, Manila. First edition, 1981. p.177

I'm not done with the ponencia of Chief Justice Puno in the case because it was that decision which upheld the constitutionality of the Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997, which is in turn the basis of the Muslim Juridical Entity or Ancestral Domain that the Moro Islamic Liberation Front is negotiating with the government of Mrs. Arroyo in the Malaysian brokered peace talks.

The Opinion of Puno above represents the the seven Justices that voted to uphold the Constitutionality of IPRA, while the seven that opposed it, are represented by this Opinion of J. Artemio Panganiban.


One is forced to wonder how much more of the Opinion is based on comforting old legends or fanciful "history" tendentiously assembled to support an inexorable conclusion?

In my next post, I shall tackle some of the amazing pseudo scientific and historiographic claims of the Mr. Justice Puno and specious reasoning that led to a politically correct result that could have devastating historical consequences very soon.

Related recent posts are:

Ancestral Domain or Bangsamorostan?

Are Ilocanos, Pampangos, Tagalogs and Cebuanos Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines?

Do You Think This Version of Ancient Philippine History Is Correct?

What Some People Don't Know About Magnifying Telescopes.

Chief Justice Puno on Terrorism--Sophomoric, Uninspiring, Self-Loathing"

President Quezon and King Canute's Lesson

The 1935 Constitution states: Art. XIV Section 3. The Congress shall take steps toward the development and adoption of a common national language based on one of the existing native languages. Until otherwise provided by law, English and Spanish shall continue as official languages. In 1937, Commonwealth President Manuel L. Quezon signed Executive Order No. 134, "Proclaiming the National Language of the Philippines Based on Tagalog".

More than just based upon it, Tagalog was renamed "Pilipino" -- in which thin disguise it became the "common national language." Or did it?

The 1973 Constitution and its language provisions are discussed at length by Marvin Aceron (La Vida Lawyer) in a June post

From 1973: "Section 3. (1) This Constitution shall be officially promulgated in English and Pilipino, and translated into each dialects spoken by over fifty thousand people, and into Spanish and Arabic, in case of conflict, the English text shall prevail.

(2) The National Assembly shall take steps towards the development and formal adoption of a common national language to be known as Filipino.

(3) Until otherwise provided by law, English and Pilipino shall be the official languages."

When the adoption of the 1973 Constitution was finally declared, the national language was supposed to be multi-language based, but the multi-lingualists did not appear to be the clear winner. The real outcome was contingent upon how the Batasang Pambansa was to evolve the multi-language based Filipino as the 1973 Constitution mandated.

1987 Founding Father Joaquin Bernas, S.J. weighs in on the National Language issue with Filipino or Pilipino or Tagalog? noting a recent heated debate over it in the House of Representatives. He explains the subtle distinction between "Filipino" and "Pilipino" as used in the 1987 charter which he helped to draft.

Bernas: "Under the 1987 Constitution, the basic policy on language is stated in Section 6 of Article XIV. It says:

“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. 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.”

As can be seen, Filipino, which was seen as a dream by the 1973 Constitution, is now categorically declared the “national language.” While the 1987 Constitution has retained the distinction between Filipino and Pilipino, it in effect has demoted Pilipino, the more developed language, in constitutional stature. In its stead, Filipino has been made the national and official language.

If I may summarize what has happened:

1935 A common national language is mandated by the Constitution.

1937 President Quezon proclaims Tagalog, renamed Pilipino, to be that common national language.

1973 A common national language is again mandated by the new Constitution, to be called Filipino, thus demoting Quezon's Pilipino, aka Tagalog, from "national language" to "official language, one of two along with English.

1987 The Filipino referred to in the 1973 Constitution was elevated to the status of that "common national language" even though in the short interval of 14 years Congress did not pass any law or do anything to "evolve" Filipino any further, for example by incorporating "Philippine and other languages" into the Pilipino of Commonwealth President Quezon as the 1973 charter mandated.

In a sense therefore, the "political deception" of the 1930s, in which Tagalog aka Pilipino became the national language, was continued in 1987, which proclaimed Filipino aka Pilipino unevolved, aka Tagalog as the common national language. The only real constant was the English language, the official language in which all the National Language making by successive governments and Constitutions was being conducted.

That, in my view is the SUBLIMINAL or SUBLINGUAL aspect of this whole thing. English is our official and real national language. Period.

But there is a deeper kind of deception, or common delusion that runs through all three Constitutional stabs at the common national language idea.

Perhaps it is IMPOSSIBLE to decree, legislate or even will into existence a common national language in an archipelago surrounded by oceans of language. Ethnologue lists 175 distinct languages in the Philippines, including the biggies like Cebuanao, Tagalog, Ilokano, Pampango, etc.

A national language is not like the national bird or the national flower, which you can just designate by law and that alone makes it so. NOT SO with such a mysterious and powerful thing as language.

From 1935 to 1973 to 1987 to 2007 the common thread in the thinking of our leaders and constitutionalists is the hopelessly vain and demonstrably nilpotent concept that a common national language can be politically and legislatively willed into existence.

Yet, even if between 1973 and 1987 some national language institute had indeed been busily "evolving" Pilipino and other Philippine languages into Filipino, they would only have produced a Frankenstein Monster composed of Tagalog, Ilokano, Pampango, Cebuano, Bicolano, Tausug, etc. that for sure NO ONE at all speaks in any such artifically defined configuration.

Language is the most powerful, most viral, most infectious of all the MEMES, for Language is the Meme that carries all other memes into our brains, and remains therein the actual "container" of those memes. Simply put, every idea that enters our head is immediately labelled in the language that it arrives in. Thus both payload and carrier occupy and suffuse into the newly entered brain.

Unfortunately for our common national language idea, it has been arriving in the brains of politicians, academics, and legislators in neither, Tagalog nor Pilipino nor Filipino, but in the very language in which you are reading this post!

For when you look at 1935, 1973 and 1987, it is very clear what the Lingua Anglica of the Filipinos truly is--the very language in which those pious incantations to conjure up the Genie of a Common National Language were themselves written and debated to this day.

Here is Manuel L. Quezon in that 1937 radio broadcast from Malacanan Palace: "It affords me an indescribable satisfaction to be able to announce to you that on this the 41st anniversary of the martyrdom of the founder and greatest exponent of Philippine nationalism, I had the privilege of issuing, in pursuance of the mandate of the Constitution and of existing law, an Executive Order designating one of the native languages as the basis for the national language of the Filipino people."

There must be some irony in the fact that Jose Rizal was a Spanish writer, even if he was the First Filipino, but President Quezon may have inadvertently smothered the common national language idea in its infant bed with such surpassingly beautiful English in birthing it. And the framers of every Constitution written since then have participated in the same infanticide while hoping Francisco Balagtas will be reincarnated in their best laid plans and progeny.

As it turns out, King Canute had better luck commanding the oceans to stop their ceaseless rolling, not knowing 'tis the Moon commands the tides.

In the 100 years since the Supreme Court and the Legislature have existed, what we have in the stream of official language are all the laws and decisions, debates and deliberations of these two branches of government whose entire output comes in the form of WORDS of a very powerful sort.

But this is now an objective and irreversible FACT: During the first Century of the Philippines as a democratically constituted republic English has been the medium of official communications of the government. It is the language in which every Constitution, save Malolos, has been originally written and promulgated. It is the language in which is written and promulgated, virtually every single law enacted by Congress and every decision rendered by the Courts.

The MEMORY of our Republic, the record of its existence during its first century, is ineradicably cast in the MEME of the English language. Thus even if by magic a national language is made tomorrow based on one or more or all of the 175 officially recognized languages in the Philippine Archipelago, it would have to contend with that First Century's worth of English grammar and composition.

Father Bernas ended yesterday's PDI column piece with a question: "So, when Congressman Lopez spoke at the Batasan in celebration of Linggo ng Wika, did he speak in Filipino, Pilipino or Tagalog?"

Hmmm...if I were to guess, and knowing the habits of these Lower House talakitoks as Miriam Defensor Santiago calls them, I'm willing to bet you Rep. Lopez was thinking in English and translating into Pinoy English, Pinglish, which is the largest single English dialect in the world, when you count its native speakers. Since he was quoting and addressing all of the above Constitutions and linguistic history, how could he possibly avoid it?

But there is something that English has in common with Tagalog that was truly new only in the 1987 Constitution and a year 2000 Supreme Court decision we've been discussing here recently. King Canute should be rolling around laughing in his grave about this...and Jose Rizal too:

Both English and Tagalog are NON-INDIGENOUS languages according to the Supreme Court.

Are Ilocanos, Pampangos, Tagalogs, Batanguenos, Naguenos, Cebuanos "Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines?"

NO, definitely NOT, according to the Supreme Court in a December, 2000 Decision (ISAGANI CRUZ and CESAR EUROPA versus CHAIRMAN and COMMISSIONERS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES et al, respondents ) upholding the Constitutionality of Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997 by a 7 to 7 vote that ended up dismissing the prayer for mandamus and prohibition against IPRA--because of the tie!

In the Opinion rendered by now Chief Justice Reynato Puno for the seven prevailing justices (also the source of the Philippines Ancient History quoted in yesterday's post) , we find the exact definition and official list of the Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines:

Indigenous Cultural Communities/ Indigenous Peoples-- refer to a group of people or homogeneous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as organized community on communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized such territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and cultures, became historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains."

Indigenous Cultural Communities or Indigenous Peoples refer to a group of people or homogeneous societies who have continuously lived as an organized community on communally bounded and defined territory. These groups of people have actually occupied, possessed and utilized their territories under claim of ownership since time immemorial. They share common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or, they, by their resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous religions and cultures, became historically differentiated from the Filipino majority. ICCs/IPs also include descendants of ICCs/IPs who inhabited the country at the time of conquest or colonization, who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions but who may have been displaced from their traditional territories or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains.

1. Indigenous Peoples: Their History

Presently, Philippine indigenous peoples inhabit the interiors and mountains of Luzon, Mindanao, Mindoro, Negros, Samar, Leyte, and the Palawan and Sulu group of islands. They are composed of 110 tribes and are as follows:

1. In the Cordillera Autonomous Region-- Kankaney, Ibaloi, Bontoc, Tinggian or Itneg, Ifugao, Kalinga, Yapayao, Aeta or Agta or Pugot, and Bago of Ilocos Norte and Pangasinan; Ibanag of Isabela, Cagayan; Ilongot of Quirino and Nueva Vizcaya; Gaddang of Quirino, Nueva Vizcaya, Itawis of Cagayan; Ivatan of Batanes, Aeta of Cagayan, Quirino and Isabela.

2. In Region III-- Aetas.

3. In Region IV-- Dumagats of Aurora, Rizal; Remontado of Aurora, Rizal, Quezon; Alangan or Mangyan, Batangan, Buid or Buhid, Hanunuo and Iraya of Oriental and Occidental Mindoro; Tadyawan of Occidental Mindoro; Cuyonon, Palawanon, Tagbanua and Tao't bato of Palawan.

4. In Region V-- Aeta of Camarines Norte and Camarines Sur; Aeta-Abiyan, Isarog, and Kabihug of Camarines Norte; Agta, and Mayon of Camarines Sur; Itom of Albay, Cimaron of Sorsogon; and the Pullon of Masbate and Camarines Sur.

5. In Region VI-- Ati of Negros Occidental, Iloilo and Antique, Capiz; the Magahat of Negros Occidental; the Corolano and Sulod.

6. In Region VII-- Magahat of Negros Oriental and Eskaya of Bohol.

7. In Region IX-- the Badjao numbering about 192,000 in Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga del Sur; the Kalibugan of Basilan, the Samal, Subanon and Yakat.

8. Region X-- Numbering 1.6 million in Region X alone, the IPs are: the Banwaon, Bukidnon, Matigsalog, Talaanding of Bukidnon; the Camiguin of Camiguin Island; the Higa-unon of Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Bukidnon and Misamis Occidental; the Tigwahanon of Agusan del Sur, Misamis Oriental and and Misamis Occidental, the Manobo of the Agusan provinces, and the Umayamnon of Agusan and Bukidnon.

9. In Region XI-- There are about 1,774,065 IPs in Region XI. They are tribes of the Dibabaon, Mansaka of Davao del Norte; B'laan, Kalagan, Langilad, T'boli and Talaingod of Davao del Sur; Mamamanua of Surigao del Sur; Mandaya of the Surigao provinces and Davao Oriental; Manobo Blit of South Cotabato; the Mangguangon of Davao and South Cotabato; Matigsalog of Davao del Norte and Del Sur; Tagakaolo, Tasaday and Ubo of South Cotabato; and Bagobo of Davao del sur and South Cotabato.

10. In Region XII-- Ilianen, Tiruray, Maguindanao, Maranao, Tausug, Yakan/Samal, and Iranon.

Here is the amazing thing--The NON-INDIGENOUS peoples of the Philippines, according to this Supreme Court decision are all the CHRISTIAN Filipinos, those very Ilocanos, Pampangos, Tagalogs, Cebuanos, etc. in this post's title.

This decision is clearly in violation of the equal protection principles of the Constitution, and most especially Separation of Church and State and the Bill of Rights on guarantees of religious freedom and equality before the Law.

Let me say it as plainly as I can.

The Supreme Court decided in Cruz vs. NCIP that:

ALL 110 officially designated Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines are non-Christian minorities.

NONE of the 110 officially designated Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines come from its Catholic majority populations and ethnic groups.

The officially designated IPs are all deemed to own "by native title" ancestral lands and domains, which their descendants now own. But the NON-IPs have no such lands or rights.

The difference is whether the ancestors of any given living ethnic group succumbed to Western colonialism and became Catholics or not. Those that "resisted colonialism" and did not become Catholics are the "Indigenous Peoples". Those that did have none of the rights now given to the IPs.

But many of the IPs also succumbed to colonialism and forced religious conversion. When Islam came, it was no different from when Christianity came...by the Sword and the Cross, or the Kris and the Crescent...soldiers and missionaries. But as long as the invaders were NOT Western, that group could still be considered an Indigenous People. That is how the Supreme Court crumbles the cookie.

Basically, ALL the Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines are those that supposedly did not succumb to Western Imperialism (such as the slave-raiding slave-trading Maguindanao and Sulu Confederacies that regularly invaded and pillaged the Visayas for centuries of certain Golden Age.)

UPDATES:

Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, in a Separate Opinion on the Constitutionality of the IPRA Law, demolishes the ponencia of Chief Justice Reynato Puno:

SEPARATE OPINION

(Concurring and Dissenting)

PANGANIBAN, J.:

I concur with the draft ponencia of Mr. Justice Santiago M. Kapunan in its well-crafted handling of the procedural or preliminary issues. In particular, I agree that petitioners have shown an actual case or controversy involving at least two constitutional questions of transcendental importance,[1] which deserve judicious disposition on the merits directly by the highest court of the land.[2] Further, I am satisfied that the various aspects of this controversy have been fully presented and impressively argued by the parties. Moreover, prohibition and mandamus are proper legal remedies[3] to address the problems raised by petitioners. In any event, this Court has given due course to the Petition, heard oral arguments and required the submission of memoranda. Indeed, it would then be a galling copout for us to dismiss it on mere technical or procedural grounds.

^{Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Must Be Within the Constitutional Framework}

With due respect, however, I dissent from the ponencia’s resolution of the two main substantive issues, which constitute the core of this case. Specifically, I submit that Republic Act (RA) No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, violates and contravenes the Constitution of the Philippines insofar as --

1. It recognizes or, worse, grants rights of ownership over “lands of the public domain, waters, x x x and other natural resources” which, under Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution, “are owned by the State” and “shall not be alienated.” I respectfully reject the contention that “ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not public lands and have never been owned by the State.” Such sweeping statement places substantial portions of Philippine territory outside the scope of the Philippine Constitution and beyond the collective reach of the Filipino people. As will be discussed later, these real properties constitute a third of the entire Philippine territory; and the resources, 80 percent of the nation's natural wealth.

2. It defeats, dilutes or lessens the authority of the State to oversee the “exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources,” which the Constitution expressly requires to “be under the full control and supervision of the State.”

True, our fundamental law mandates the protection of the indigenous cultural communities’ right to their ancestral lands, but such mandate is "subject to the provisions of this Constitution."[4] I concede that indigenous cultural communities and indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) may be accorded preferential rights to the beneficial use of public domains, as well as priority in the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources. Such privileges, however, must be subject to the fundamental law.

Consistent with the social justice principle of giving more in law to those who have less in life, Congress in its wisdom may grant preferences and prerogatives to our marginalized brothers and sisters, subject to the irreducible caveat that the Constitution must be respected. I personally believe in according every benefit to the poor, the oppressed and the disadvantaged, in order to empower them to equally enjoy the blessings of nationhood. I cannot, however, agree to legitimize perpetual inequality of access to the nation's wealth or to stamp the Court's imprimatur on a law that offends and degrades the repository of the very authority of this Court -- the Constitution of the Philippines.