See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/305002463

A ‘New’ Politics of Language in the Philippines: Bilingual Education and the

New Challenge of the Mother Tongues

Chapter · January 2014

DOI: 10.1057/9781137455536_9

CITATIONS READS

18 6,455

2 authors:

Ruanni Tupas Beatriz Lorente

National Institute of Education (NIE), Singapore Universität Bern
62 PUBLICATIONS   526 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   78 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Durable and changing views of English: A diachronic discourse analysis of Language Policies in Singapore View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Beatriz Lorente on 16 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

8
A ‘New’ Politics of Language
in the Philippines: Bilingual
Education and the New Challenge
of the Mother Tongues
Ruanni Tupas and Beatriz P. Lorente

The Bilingual Education Program of the Philippines (BEP), where

English is the medium of instruction in Science and Mathematics and
Pilipino or Filipino, the national language, in all other subjects, has
been recognized as one of the earliest comprehensive bilingual educa-
tion experiments in the world. The BEP was institutionalized in 1974
and since then, it has been the broad framework of the educational sys-
tem in the country. Prior to 1974, English had been practically the sole
medium of instruction in the Philippines since 1901 when the public
education system was put in place by the Americans.
Since 2009, the BEP has been supplanted by a new order from the
Department of Education (DepEd) supporting the implementation of
Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) at all levels
of education. This order is based on the assumption that mother
tongues are the most effective media for facilitating learning through-
out primary education. This institutionalization of MTB-MLE chal-
lenges the politically entrenched assumption of BEP: that only two
languages in Philippine education – English and Filipino, the national
language – can facilitate learning among Filipinos and articulate their
identity as a nation (Smolicz & Nical 1997).
This chapter discusses the politics of language in the Philippines
by examining the implications of the recent challenge of the mother
tongues as effective languages of formal learning based on the trajec-
tory of bilingual education in the country. More specifically, it seeks to
answer the following key questions:

1. How did bilingual education in the Philippines come about? What

were the political realities and ideological issues in the country that
brought it into being?
165
166 Ruanni Tupas and Beatriz P. Lorente

2. How has the recent call for the use of mother tongues as media
of instruction called into question the fundamental premises of
bilingual education? What possibilities has this call opened up for
education in the Philippines?

This chapter begins with a brief general background of the Philippines.

It then unpacks the politics of language in the country by examining
the issues that have shaped the development of bilingual education
in the country. This section answers the first set of questions above.
The issues highlighted illuminate the shifts in the politics of language
in the country as they have been played out against the backdrop of
anti-colonial struggle against the United States, nationalism and inter-
ethnolinguistic conflict. The third and last section, in response to
the second set of questions above, explores how the challenge of the
mother tongues has begun to alter the educational landscape and, in
the process, opened up the politics of language to the voices of those
who have been excluded from bilingual education.

Background of the Philippines

The Philippines is an archipelago of 7,107 islands which are cat-

egorized broadly into three geographical divisions: Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao. It is located south of China, east of Vietnam and northeast
of Indonesia. In 2010, the country was estimated to have a population
of 94 million people. There are over 170 distinct languages spoken in
the Philippines (Lewis 2009). According to McFarland (2009, p. 132):

The eight largest language groups – Tagalog, Cebuano, Ilokano,

Hiligaynon, Bikol, Samar-Leyte, Kapampangan, and Pangasinan –
account for about 85 per cent of the total population, occupy most of
the lowland areas in the country, and can be said to share a single cul-
ture (of course, with regional variation). The next two largest groups
are Maranao and Magindanao, spoken predominantly by Muslims
in Mindanao. The remaining one hundred plus languages are found
mostly in the more remote areas of the country such as the moun-
tainous parts of Luzon and the less developed areas in Mindanao.

Filipino, the national language, is widely spoken. It is the mother

tongue of an estimated 25 million Filipinos (Lewis 2009). It is also the
inter-ethnic lingua franca of most Filipinos. According to the 2000
Census, almost all of the household population (96.4 per cent) who
 A ‘New’ Politics of Language in the Philippines 167

were able to attend school could speak Filipino (National Statistics Office
2005).1
The Philippines was colonized by Spain from 1565 until 1898. Despite
333 years of Spanish colonization, Spanish was never widely learned
by Filipinos because of a decision by the Spanish crown to encourage
Spanish friars to use the native languages, in the hope that this would
speed up religious conversion. Although the Spanish crown changed this
policy in the 16th century, the teaching of Spanish was hampered by
the lack of funds and teachers, the absence of an organized system of
primary education and scarce teaching materials (Hau & Tinio 2003,
pp. 338–339). By the end of Spanish colonial rule, the estimated num-
ber of Filipinos who could speak Spanish was only 2.46 per cent of an
adult population of 4.6 million (Gonzalez 1980).
The Filipinos had just waged a successful battle against Spain and
established a revolutionary independent government in 1898 when
they found themselves fighting again, this time against the Americans.
After the Philippine-American war from 1899–1902, the country was
occupied and colonized by the United States from 1902 to 1946. English
was introduced to the Philippines at the very beginning of the American
colonial period when it became the de facto medium of instruction in the
public school system. The Americans opened the first public school on
Corregidor Island, less than a month after Admiral Dewey destroyed the
Spanish Navy in the Philippines in the Battle of Manila Bay on 1 May
1898. This apparent prioritization of education literally came on the
heels of Spanish colonization which had not succeeded in providing a
good measure of public primary education (Churchill 2003), and which
had practically speaking put the Spanish language within reach only of
the mestizos and ilustrados, the very elite of Philippine society.
It was mainly because of the public school education system and
the use of English as the basis of all public instruction that English
followed a very different trajectory from Spanish: it was disseminated
more widely and entrenched far more effectively in the public imagi-
nation (Hau & Tinio 2003). This highlights a key difference between
the two colonizers. In contrast to the Spanish colonizers, the United
States engaged in the massification and secularization of basic educa-
tion which thus theoretically opened up the educational system to all
Filipino children regardless of social position and political connection
(Tupas 2002). Thus, ‘…at the tail-end of the American period (1898–
1935), after only thirty-seven years, the 1939 Census reported a total of
4,264,549 out of a total population of 16,000,303 (or 26 per cent) who
claimed the ability to speak English’ (Gonzalez 1980, p. 26).
168 Ruanni Tupas and Beatriz P. Lorente

Apart from the system of public instruction, Gonzalez (1980) cited

two other factors that contributed to the rapid spread of English and
its swift ascent to the apex of the country’s linguistic economy: ‘the
positive attitude of Filipinos towards Americans; and the incentives
given to Filipinos to learn English in terms of career opportunities, gov-
ernment service, and politics’ (pp. 27–28). English was also the official
language of the civil service. Along with education, it was considered by
the American colonizers to be the prerequisite for participating in the
legislation, administration and leadership of the country. In this way,
English came to be identified with the ‘progressive’ American ideals of
‘enlightenment’, ‘democracy’ and ‘self-governance’. In other words, the
pedagogical imperative of American colonialism in the country essen-
tially meant to ‘Americanize the Filipinos and cement their loyalty to
the United States’ (Karnow 1989, p. 196).

Bilingual education and language policy in the Philippines

In the postcolonial era, this ‘American legacy’ of English shaped the

landscape in which national language and bilingual education poli-
cies were debated on and carried out. Whatever the form and substance
of language debates at any given point, the politics of language in the
Philippines always featured the tension between English on the one
hand and the vernacular languages on the other. English represented
colonial oppression and ideological superiority, as well as democracy and
modernity. The vernacular languages represented barbarism, tribalism and
anti-Americanism, as well as freedom and social justice.
This linguistic-cum-ideological tension found early expression
in debates on medium of instruction during the decades of direct
American colonization (Board of Education Survey 1925), and in
the need for a national language in the 1930s as part of the Filipino
people’s quest for political independence from the United States
(Gonzalez 1980). It will be observed, however, that while the tension
between English and the vernacular languages served as ideological
impetus for the emergence of a national language, the politics of the
national language in postcolonial Philippines became more muddled
because of competing claims for legitimacy among warring vernacular
language groups in the country. It is important to understand key
junctures in the development of the national language in order to
get a clear picture of how bilingual education in the country came
about. The following short sections will highlight these key junctures
 A ‘New’ Politics of Language in the Philippines 169

(see Table 8.1 for a summary of milestones of Philippine language

policy-making through the development of the national language).

1937: Tagalog established as the national language

The need for a national language for the Philippines emerged as a
political imperative in the 1930s when Philippine independence from
American colonial rule was the central rallying call among Filipinos,
especially Filipino politicians. It was a tumultuous decade leading
to the Philippines’ political independence in 1942 (Gonzalez 1991).
The National Language Institute was established in 1937 through
Commonwealth Act No. 184, better known as the Romualdez Law.
Among the competing Philippine languages, Tagalog became the basis
of the national language for many possible reasons, including the fact
that it was the language spoken by most of the national leaders includ-
ing then Philippine President Manuel Quezon. Also, the seat of political
government was (and still is) in Manila in Central Luzon, the region in
which the majority of people spoke Tagalog as a mother tongue.

1959: Tagalog renamed as ‘Pilipino’

Because of the choice of Tagalog as the national language, the politics
of language took on an ethnolinguistic dimension (Gonzalez 1991). At
the time, Bisaya, the language spoken in Central Visayas and in many
parts of Mindanao, was numerically greater than Tagalog (Smolicz &
Nical 1997), leading to accusations of Tagalog imperialism or internal
colonization.2 It was precisely because of the political sensitivity about
Tagalog as the national language that it was renamed Pilipino in 1959
through a memorandum from the Department of Education.

1973: Pilipino ceased to be the national language

During the debates in the national assembly for the purpose of rewrit-
ing the Philippine Constitution in 1973, ethnolinguistic rivalries flared
up again when the national language issue was deliberated (Gonzalez
1980). Because of different levels of compromise among political leaders
in the national assembly, Pilipino ceased to be the national language of
the country. Instead, Section 3.2 of Article XV of the 1973 Philippine
constitution stated that:

The National Assembly shall take steps towards the development

and formal adoption of a common national language to be known
as Filipino.
Table 8.1 Milestones in Philippine language policy-making5
170

Year(s) of Political context Change(s) Justification

implementation

1937 American colonial rule Tagalog designated as basis of the To use an indigenous language as a symbol of
but independence was national language Philippine independence
expected or sought

1949 Politically independent Tagalog renamed as Pilipino To de-ethnicize Tagalog as national language
Philippines

1947–1974 Postcolonial Philippines Vernaculars used as languages To improve quality of learning in the schools;
of instruction in Grades 1 and 2; vernaculars proven effective in improving aca-
English as sole medium of demic performance of Filipino school children
instruction thereafter; Pilipino,
the national language, taught
as a subject

1973 Pilipino ceased being the national To account for various ethnolinguistic stances
language; designated official lan- towards Tagalog-based Pilipino as national
guage alongside English; ‘Filipino’ language
was to develop as the future
Height of anti-colonial
national language
and anti-Marcos rheto-
1974 ric; beginning of Marcos Institutionalization of bilin- To follow the mandate of the constitution
dictatorship through gual education policy, with requiring the government to take steps towards
Martial Law Pilipino and English as media of the development of the national language
instruction (Filipino) which was yet to emerge, but to
be undertaken through the use of Pilipino as
medium of instruction
 To respond to calls for the development of a
national identity which was destroyed by colo-
nial rule

1987 Reaffirmation of bilingual educa- To continue to work towards the development

tion; the institutionalization of of a nationalist consciousness among Filipinos
Filipino as the national language To affirm the sociolinguistic legitimacy of
Filipino as evidenced by its widespread use
across the archipelago

2009 End of the Arroyo Institutionalization of multilin- To use mother tongues as media of instruction
administration; low gual education, technically the in elementary and high school in the light of
educational achieve- end of bilingual education local and international research results which
ment of Filipino showed that mother tongues are more effective
students as revealed by than non-local languages (including Filipino
various international in most communities in the Philippines) in
and national achieve- facilitating learning
ment tests
171
172 Ruanni Tupas and Beatriz P. Lorente

As this national language was being developed, English and Pilipino

would be the designated official languages of the country, or the
languages to be used by the government in official communica-
tion, for example the writing of the constitution, announcements of
policies or formal meetings.3 In other words, the Philippines ceased
to have a national language in 1973 but it was supposed to take steps
towards the development of a national language to be called ‘Filipino’
(Gonzalez 1980).

1974: bilingual education established as political compromise

However, in June 1974, the Bilingual Education Policy in the Philippines
(BEP) was institutionalized through Department Order No. 25 which
mandated the use of English in the teaching of Mathematics and
Science, and Pilipino in the teaching of all other subjects both in
elementary and secondary schools (Pascasio 1975). So while Pilipino
was no longer the national language, it re-asserted itself in perhaps
more dramatic terms as a language of instruction. This was, in fact, the
first time in the history of 20th century Philippine education that
the dominance of English in the schools was seriously challenged by
another language.4 Except for vernacular instruction in Grades 1 and 2,
between 1957 and 1974, English was the sole medium of instruction in
school from the time it was introduced in 1901 until the promulgation
of bilingual education in 1974. So until 1973 when a new Philippine
constitution was crafted, the politics of language was framed with
Tagalog-based Pilipino as the national language and English as the
medium of instruction at all levels of education. In theory at least, bilin-
gual education would put the national language on a par with English
in so far as medium of instruction was concerned. The use of Pilipino
as medium of instruction from 1973 resulted in its so-called intellectu-
alization and widespread use as the inter-ethnolinguistic lingua franca
of the country. As shown later, this led to its eventual transformation
into Filipino (Espiritu 1999).
Two key points, therefore, were instrumental to the emergence of
bilingual education in the Philippines. First was the question about the
sole dominance of English as a colonial language in Philippine schools.
A vernacular language, in the form of a national language, would
arguably have better chances than English of eliminating inequalities
in Philippine education perpetuated by and through the sole use of
English as medium of instruction. The second key point that led to
the emergence of bilingual education in the country was the question
about Pilipino as the national language itself. Because of ethnolinguistic
 A ‘New’ Politics of Language in the Philippines 173

rivalries, Pilipino ceased to be the national language in the Philippine

constitution but it resurfaced as a medium of instruction alongside
English. The debate shifted to medium of instruction, but only after a
politically ingenious compromise (Gonzalez 1980) was struck between
pro-English and pro-Pilipino groups.

1987: bilingual education reaffirmed; ‘Filipino’ emerged as the

national language
In 1987, the constitution was again rewritten during the administration
of President Corazon Aquino after the ousting of Ferdinand E. Marcos
during the 1986 People Power revolt. Section 6, Article 16 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution stipulated in definitive terms that ‘The national
language of the Philippines is Filipino’. Thus, while Filipino was still
a linguistic fiction in 1973 (Gonzalez 1980), it became a sociolinguis-
tic reality in 1987. Filipino, unlike Tagalog or Pilipino, signalled the
‘non-exclusivist and multilingual character’ of the national language
(Nolasco 2010, p. 171). This was followed by Department of Education
Order No. 52 which spelled out further the political framework of the
BEP. This time Filipino, not Pilipino, was to be a medium of instruction
alongside English, even if ‘Tagalog’, ‘Pilipino’ and ‘Filipino’ were essen-
tially the same linguistically (Nolasco 2010).

The contributions of bilingual education to Philippine society

Viewed through the lens of a decolonizing agenda, bilingual educa-
tion in the country undoubtedly ruptured the dominance of English in
Philippine education. Although it has not really displaced English as a
symbol of power and prestige (Tupas 2008), it has opened up resistance
to neocolonial dominance in Philippine education through the use of
a local language as a language of learning (Enriquez 1989). ‘Tagalog’
(in 1937), ‘Pilipino’ (in 1973) or ‘Filipino’ (in 1987) would serve as the
language of nationalism (or anti-colonialism) which would arrest the
mis-education of the Filipino people through English (Constantino
1970; see also Enriquez 1989; Almario 1999). In other words, bilingual
education would constitute part of what may be called ‘a pedagogy of
liberation’ (Alexander 2009, p. 199).
For example, the importance of a national language contributed
to what many scholars have called the indigenization of knowledge
construction in the country. The indigenous national language has
served as a vehicle for the recuperation of local knowledges and ways
of thinking and doing which have been marginalized by Western-
based research theories and methodologies, for example in the social
174 Ruanni Tupas and Beatriz P. Lorente

sciences. Through the national language, an intellectual tradition

called Pantayong Pananaw has emerged in the social sciences, roughly a
perspective of history and society that takes on a ‘from-us-for-us’ point
of view where research and other forms of intellectual scrutiny centred
on problems and solutions that are relevant to the lives of Filipinos
(Bautista & Pe-Pua 1991).
Sociolinguistically, Tagalog-based Filipino through bilingual educa-
tion increasingly became widespread across the archipelago, and took
root in the lives of many Filipinos especially through the media and
popular culture. The same national language has served as lingua franca
among Filipino workers scattered all over the world. Although still
resisted along ethnolinguistic lines, research has shown that majority
of Filipinos have come to accept the Filipino language as the country’s
national language (Nical, Smolicz & Secombe 2003).

The new challenge of the mother tongues

The recent challenge of the mother tongues, however, has also exposed
the other side of bilingual education in the country and, thus, to some
extent ‘liberated’ the politics of language from the English versus
Filipino entrapment. This third and last section of the chapter discusses
the rationale behind recent initiatives to use the mother tongues as the
languages of formal instruction and how these have (positively) recon-
figured the politics of language in the country.

The mother tongue argument

Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education or MTB-MLE was institu-
tionalized on 14 July 2009 through Order No. 74 of the Department
of Education (DepEd).6 It is based mainly on the simple argument that
pupils learn best through the primary or home languages that they
bring to school. Apart from being backed by international research
(UNESCO 1953) and by a history of vernacular education in the coun-
try, the DepEd order is also supported by past and recent local research
showing that learning among Filipino children in school is facilitated
best through the mother tongues (e.g. Dekker & Young 2005; Nolasco,
Datar & Azurin 2010).
The core argument of the order is not new (see UNESCO 1953;
Aguilar 1961; Bernardo 1999). In fact, the same argument has been
used to promote the use of Tagalog, Pilipino or Filipino as a medium of
instruction through the years (Almario 1999). In other words, the use
 A ‘New’ Politics of Language in the Philippines 175

of the national language as a medium of instruction had been previ-

ously promoted on the basis of it being a local language. It is for this
reason that despite empirical research on the superiority of mother
tongues as media of instruction, the debates in the country have been
framed within the ideological borders of bilingual education, that is
of English and Tagalog-based Filipino (Tupas 2007). The choice for
postcolonial Philippines, especially since 1974, has almost always been
between English and the national language (Smolicz & Nical 1997;
Pascasio 1975).
With the new MTB-MLE initiative, however, the mother tongues
other than Tagalog have gradually become the focal languages in the
debates on medium of instruction. Not only do they pose a challenge
to English as a medium of instruction, they also unravel the network of
assumptions which sustains the use of Filipino as a medium of instruc-
tion. In other words, the MTB-MLE exposes the weaknesses of bilingual
education, especially in terms of how it has marginalized particular
groups of people in academic and cultural terms.

Academic marginalization
It is true, for example, that the Philippine mother tongues are structur-
ally similar to one another so learning Filipino as a second or third
language is not as challenging as learning English for most Filipinos.
However, the learning of Filipino both as a subject in school and as a
medium of instruction in bilingual education begins at the start of for-
mal schooling for Filipino children. This means that they have not yet
mastered their mother tongues which they also need to learn the new
conceptual knowledge needed to succeed in school. In bilingual edu-
cation, therefore, there is a double disadvantage among pupils whose
mother tongue is not Tagalog/Filipino in bilingual education: they need
to master English and Filipino to perform well academically, while their
Tagalog-speaking counterparts only need to learn English to master the
conceptual knowledge available in school (Smolicz & Nical 1997).
Indeed, marginalization can be seen in the disparity in the academic
achievements between pupils who speak Tagalog as their mother
tongue and those who speak other home languages (Gonzalez 1990;
Gonzalez & Sibayan 1988). According to Dekker and Young (2005,
p. 196), the ‘high attrition rate, especially in non-Tagalog speaking parts
of the Philippines attests to the failure to meet the educational needs
of a significant percentage of the population.’ Based on surveys of local
Philippine communities, a report by Asia-South Pacific Education Watch
176 Ruanni Tupas and Beatriz P. Lorente

(2007, p. 16) gives a straightforward picture of the language problem

among marginalized people in particular:

The use of the national language as the medium of instruction makes

learning more difficult for indigenous children. Teachers usually do
not speak the local language and are unable to explain lessons to
most students who are used to thinking through concepts in their
own language. The language barrier thus prevents students from
communicating and performing confidently in schools.

Cultural marginalization
MLE or MLE-supported frameworks of learning have been in place in sev-
eral communities around the country, but these are largely non-formal
or literacy-based initiatives targeting Filipino cultural minorities suppos-
edly as part of the government’s drive to improve the lives of indigenous
communities which have been marginalized due to neglect from central
and local governments. Some of the most recent initiatives include the
literacy project for the Magbikin community in Bataan (Valles 2005;
Kosonen, Young & Malone 2006, pp. 40–42) and the culture-based
education system at Apu Palamguwan Cultural Education Center which
is also helping the seven minority groups of Bukidnon produce their
own culture-based curricula (The Asia Forest Network 2009, p. 41).
On 14 September 2010, the government-initiated Alternative Learning
System (ALS) Curriculum for Indigenous Peoples (IPs) Education was
institutionalized through DepEd Order No. 101. The curriculum sup-
posedly develops content which is responsive to the specific needs of
the target communities although the learning competencies are the
same across all ALS contexts of learning. The curriculum, which is thus
different from the formal, mainstream curriculum of bilingual educa-
tion, is uniquely MLE because the learning resources are written in the
pupils’ mother tongues by local teachers or experts and the unique
cultural content is supposed to invigorate the curriculum. The IP cur-
riculum includes, for example, local beliefs, knowledge and practices on
hygiene, health and food. It also focuses on IPs’ rights to their ancestral
domains and their development, as well as their particular ways of
earning a living and caring for their communal source of livelihood
(Hernando-Malipot 2010).
In other words, bilingual education and multilingual education
have been running simultaneously in the country, with infrastructures
serving two different groups of Filipino learner – bilingual education
 A ‘New’ Politics of Language in the Philippines 177

for ‘mainstream’ formal education with multilingual instruction for

non-formal education. If bilingual education was to serve as the state
machinery for the inculcation of national ideals, then the Filipino
cultural minorities (but which also include out-of-school youths and
illiterate adults in MLE-based literacy programs) have been marginalized
in the collective imagining of the nation.

Conclusion: a ‘new’ politics of language in the Philippines

Perhaps the most critical shift in the politics of language in the Philippines
that has been engendered by the new challenge of the mother tongues
is the move away from framing the issues within the English/Filipino
debate and questions concerning the national language. A ‘reconstitut-
ing’ politics of language in the country cracks open the many layers of
marginalization brought forth by bilingual education. For example, if the
mother tongues are the most effective media of instruction, specifically at
primary school levels, bilingual education through the use of English and
Filipino (except for those whose mother tongue is Filipino) has not been
the most effective means of educating Filipino children. Consequently,
Filipino as medium of instruction has been stripped of its basic premise
that it is – as a mother tongue – superior to English and therefore should
be a medium of instruction for Filipino children across all ethnolinguis-
tic groups. The emerging framing of the issues is now moving towards
English vis-à-vis or against the mother tongues, and not English vis-à-vis
or against the national language.
In the process, this ‘new’ politics of language in the country grounds
itself in a different, but perhaps more realistic, premise: the Philippines
is a multilingual and multicultural country. This may sound common-
sensical but this has not been so within the framework of bilingual
education. For a long time, the tension between English and the national
language obscured the role of the mother tongues in educational and
social development. A different vision of education puts the mother
tongues at the centre of the educational process with the hope that a
new educational landscape becomes more effective, inclusive and just.

Notes
1. In the 2000 Census, of an estimated 66.7 million Filipinos aged five years and
over, 89.4 per cent had attended at least elementary school.
2. Until today, some debates on the national language and medium of instruc-
tion would be couched in these terms (Agcaoili 2010, p. 157).
178 Ruanni Tupas and Beatriz P. Lorente

3. It must be pointed out, however, that in cases of problems with interpreta-

tion, the English version of the Philippine Constitution would prevail.
4. This was, of course, not the first time that Tagalog/Pilipino was made a/the
medium of instruction. The first Philippine Constitution of 1897, immedi-
ately following the revolution against Spain, designated Tagalog as both the
national language and the language of instruction. During World War II,
Japan made Tagalog and English the languages of instruction, with Japanese
taught as a separate subject. In 1970, following anti-colonial and anti-Marcos
street protests of the 1960s, Tagalog was made the sole medium of instruc-
tion beginning in Grade 1 and supposedly progressing slowly until college
(Gonzalez 1980). Unlike the BEP of 1974, however, the impact of such earlier
initiatives was negligible because they were never implemented due to the
historical contingencies of their respective contexts.
5. The history of language policy-making in the country, of course, is much
more complex than what is provided in the table. There were a few important
edicts during the last few decades of the Spanish colonial rule, and certainly
there were many more at the start of the American colonial rule in the first
few decades of the 20th century (see Frei 1949, 1950; Fullante 1983; Gonzalez
1980). The table only captures those milestones which are relevant to the
concerns of this chapter.
6. As no mother tongues were specified, in theory, the MLE would accommodate
all mother tongues in the country.

References
Agcaoili, AS 2010, ‘Revaluating regionalism, revaluing languages’, in RMD
Nolasco, FA Datar, AM Azurin (eds), Starting where the children are: A collection
of essays on Mother tongue-based multilingual education and language issues in the
Philippines, 170+ Talaytayan MLE Inc., Quezon City, pp. 156–158.
Aguilar, J 1961, ‘The language situation in the Philippines: facts and prospects’,
Philippine Journal of Education, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 412–470.
Alexander, N 2009, ‘Mother tongue based bilingual education in Africa: a cultural
and intellectual imperative, in I Gogolin & U Neumann (eds), The bilingualism
controversy, VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenchaften, Wiesbaden, pp. 199–214.
Almario, V 1999, ‘Directions for English and Filipino in the ideology of develop-
ment’ (trans. SV Epistola), Journal of Asian English Studies (Approaches to English
Teaching Strategies Part II), vol. 2, no. 1 & 2, pp. 22–24.
Asia-South Pacific Education Watch 2007, Philippines: summary report. Mapping
out disadvantaged groups in education, Asian South Pacific Bureau of Adult
Education (ASPBAE).
Bautista, V & Pe-Pua, R (eds) 1991, Pilipinolohiya: kasaysayan, pilosopiya at panana-
liksik (eds), Kalikasan Press, Manila.
Bernardo, ABI 1999, ‘Overcoming obstacles to understanding and solving
word problems in Mathematics’, Educational Psychology, vol. 19, no. 2, pp.
149–163.
Board of Education Survey 1925, A survey of the educational system of the Philippine
Islands, Bureau of Printing, Manila.
 A ‘New’ Politics of Language in the Philippines 179

Churchill, BR 2003, ‘Education in the Philippines at the turn of the 20th cen-
tury: background for American policy’, in CD Villareal (ed.), Back to the future:
perspectives on the Thomasite legacy to Philippine education, American Studies
Association of the Philippines, Manila, pp. 21–52.
Constantino, R 1970, ‘The mis-education of the Filipino’, Journal of Contemporary
Asia, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 20–36.
Dekker, D & Young, C 2005, ‘Bridging the gap: the development of appropriate
educational strategies for minority language communities in the Philippines’,
Current Issues in Language Planning, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 182–199.
Enriquez, VG 1989, Indigenous psychology and national consciousness, Institute for
the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo.
Espiritu, C 1999, ‘The Cebuano response to the language controversy in the
Philippines: implications for the intellectualization of Filipino’, in MLS
Bautista & G Tan (eds), The Filipino bilingual: A multidisciplinary perspective, De
La Salle University Press, Manila, pp. 65–69.
Frei, E 1949, ‘The historical development of the Philippine national language’
(Chap 1), Philippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp.
367–400.
Frei, E 1950, ‘The historical development of the Philippine national language’
(Chap 1), Philippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 45–79.
Fullante, L 1983, The national language question in the Philippines, 1936 to the pres-
ent, PhD dissertation, UCLA.
Gonzalez, A 1980, Language and nationalism: the Philippine experience thus far,
Ateneo de Manila/University of the Philippines, Quezon City.
Gonzalez, A 1990, ‘Evaluating bilingual education in the Philippines: towards
a model of evaluation in language planning’, in R Baldauf Jr & A Luke (eds),
Language planning and education in Australasia and the South Pacific, Multilingual
Matters Ltd, Clevedon, Avon, pp. 319–334.
Gonzalez, A 1991, ‘Cebuano and Tagalog: Ethnic rivalry redivivus’, in J Dow
(ed.), Language and ethnicity – Focusschrift in honor of Joshua A. Fishman on the
occasion of his 65th birthday (vol. 2), John Benjamins Publishing Company,
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 111–129.
Gonzalez, A & Sibayan, B 1988, Evaluating bilingual education in the Philippines
(1974–1985), Linguistic Society of the Philippines, Manila.
Hau, CS & Tinio, VL 2003, ‘Language policy and ethnic relations in the
Philippines’, in ME Brown & S Ganguly (eds), Fighting words: language policy and
ethnic relations in Asia, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 319–349.
Hernando-Malipot, I 2010, ‘DepEd develops curriculum for indigenous peoples’,
Manila Bulletin, 15 September, viewed 10 March 2011, <http://www.mb.com.
ph/node/277223/deped–develop>.
Karnow, S 1989, In our image, Ballantine, New York.
Kosonen, K, Young, C & Malone, S 2006, Promoting literacy in multilingual settings,
UNESCO, Bangkok.
Lewis, MP (ed.) 2009, Ethnologue: languages of the world, 16th ed., SIL International,
Dallas, Texas.
McFarland, CD 2009, ‘Linguistic diversity and English in the Philippines’, in MLS
Bautista & K. Bolton (eds), Philippine English: linguistic and literary perspectives,
Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, pp. 131–156.
180 Ruanni Tupas and Beatriz P. Lorente

National Statistics Office 2005, Educational characteristics of the Filipinos, viewed

4 March 2011, <http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/sr05153tx.html>.
Nical, I, Smolicz, JJ & Secombe, MJ 2003, ‘Rural students and the Philippine
bilingual education program on the island of Leyte’, in J Tollefson & A Tsui
(eds), Medium of instruction policies – which agenda? whose agenda?, L. Erlbaum
Publishers, Mahwah, N.J., pp. 153–176.
Nolasco, R 2010, ‘Filipino, Pilipino and Tagalog’, in R Nolasco, F Datar, & A
Azurin (eds), Starting where the children are: a collection of essays on mother
tongue-based multilingual education and language issues in the Philippines, 170+
Talaytayan MLE Inc., Quezon City, pp. 170–172.
Nolasco, R, Datar, F & Azurin, A 2010, Starting where the children are: a collection
of essays on mother-tongue based multilingual education and language issues in the
Philippines, 170+ Talaytayan MLE Inc., Quezon City.
Pascasio, E 1975, ‘The role of the Filipino bilingual in the modern world’,
Philippine Studies, vol. 23, pp. 370–382.
Smolicz, J & Nical, I 1997, ‘Exporting the European idea of a national language:
some educational implications of the use of English and indigenous languages in
the Philippines’, International Review of Education, vol. 43, nos. (5–6), pp. 507–526.
The Asia Forest Network 2009, Where is the future for cultures and forests?
Indigenous peoples and forest management in 2020, Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector
Outlook Study II, Working Paper Series, Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
Tupas, TRF 2002, ‘A century of errors: English language teaching and a politi-
cal history of Philippine–American relations’, in CD Villareal, LR Tope, &
PM Jurilla (eds), Ruptures and departures: language and culture in Southeast Asia,
University of the Philippines Press, Diliman, pp. 137–175.
Tupas, TRF 2007, ‘Back to class: the ideological structure of the medium of
instruction debate in the Philippines’, in TRF Tupas (ed.), (Re)making society:
the politics of language, discourse and identity in the Philippines, University of the
Philippines Press, Diliman, Quezon City, pp. 61–84.
Tupas, TRF 2008, ‘Bourdieu, historical forgetting, and the problem of English in
the Philippines’, Philippine Studies, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 47–67.
UNESCO 1953, The use of vernacular languages in education, UNESCO, Paris.
Valles, MC 2005, ‘Action research on the development of an indigenous people’s
education for the Magbikin tribe in Morong, Bataan, the Philippines’, in First
language first: community–based literacy programmes for minority language contexts
in Asia, UNESCO, Bangkok, pp. 181–195.

View publication stats