1
TWENTIETH CONGRESS   
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
First Regular Session  
 
) 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez and 
Representative Maximo B. Rodriguez, Jr. 
House Bill No.  _____ 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
The Philippines has between 120-180 native languages, incorrectly referred to by the 
general public as “dialects”. They represent the rich linguistic heritage of our country and are 
fundamental to Filipino society and culture. Unfortunately, only one native language has 
received significant attention and support from the Commission on the Filipino Language, for 
most of its history, while many of our other languages are in decline. The purpose of this act 
is to achieve more balanced and equitable support for Philippine languages, ensure their 
survival, democratize Filipino language development, benefit from our multilingual attributes, 
and help safeguard the linguistic rights of all Filipinos, in the spirit of the International Year of 
Indigenous Languages. 
The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines mandates Congress to “establish a 
national language commission composed of representatives of various regions and disciplines 
which shall undertake, coordinate, and promote researches for the development, propagation, 
and preservation of Filipino and other languages” [emphasis added]. As a result, Republic Act 
7104 was passed in 1991 to create the Commission on the Filipino Language (Komisyon sa 
Wikang Filipino), which has regulated Philippine languages since then.  
Almost thirty years later, it is clear that the CFL in its existing form is no longer 
advantageous to the Filipino people’s languages, nor the country as a whole. RA 7104 was 
crafted under very different conditions, characterized by: 1) a recent revolution; 2) widespread 
use of local languages; 3) a popular impression that having many languages was an obstacle 
to unity and development;1 4) the belief that a national language needed to be prioritized to 
combat colonialism, to enhance communication and social justice, and to strengthen Filipino 
identity;2 and 5) that other Philippine languages would not be negatively affected by the 
national language. 
1 The idea that language diversity is an obstacle to peace is conjectural, not scientific truth. While there are 
examples of language differences causing tension and even conflict between two populations elsewhere, there are 
also examples of harmonious populations that speak multiple languages. It depends highly on cultural 
characteristics, relative status between the language groups, education level, socioeconomic level, and whether 
governments foster appreciation, tolerance, and goodwill for diversity. The extent to which languages help or 
hinder development is also highly contextual, and open to debate. There are examples of developed countries with 
one-language policies, and examples of developed countries with multilingual frameworks. Likewise there are 
low-income countries with either kind of framework. With regards to education, low and medium-income 
countries are actually at risk of poor educational outcomes and social instability if they do not offer a multilingual 
education system that includes learners’ mother tongues, according to Save the Children and CfBT (see 
publication, “Closer to home: how to help schools in low- and middle-income countries respond to children’s 
language needs,” 2011).     
2 The supposed efficacy of replacing a dominant foreign language with a dominant native language to overcome 
colonial structures is based on speculative sociological theory, not fact. It can be argued that colonialism would 
be best fought with the upliftment of all Philippine languages, rather than just one. Or, language need not be 
politicized at all; nationalism and patriotism are possible without valorizing a particular language. Likewise, it 
can be argued that giving citizens the flexibility to use, learn, and receive government services (including 
July 21, 2025
2:51 pm
2165


2
Today, however, conditions are markedly different. We now know that: 1) Most 
Philippine languages, with the exception of Tagalog and a few others, are declining in terms 
of the percentage of speakers to the overall population; 2) Many Philippine languages are 
experiencing disruption in intergenerational transmission—that is, children are not learning 
their mother tongues from their parents as consistently as before; 3) Millions of Filipinos cannot 
speak their mother tongues with as much fluency and complexity as previous generations; 4) 
Millions of Filipinos are unaware of spelling and other writing conventions in their mother 
tongues,  and are unable to write them beyond elementary level; 5) Numerous formerly active 
media and arts industries (newspapers, literature, music production) in regional languages are 
now dormant; 6) Some people believe, or have been conditioned to believe, that their own 
mother tongues are irrelevant, unsophisticated, and backward; and 7) At least one third of all 
Philippine languages are endangered, while several have already gone extinct. Some 
example languages that are declining in use, especially among youth: most Negrito languages 
(e.g. Ayta, Agta, Arta, Dumagat, etc.), Gaddang, Sambal, Itawis, Bolinao, Yogad, Ilongot, 
Ibanag, Cuyonon, Tagbanwa, Agutaynen, Mangyan languages, Romblon languages, Monobo 
languages, Butuanon, and even Chavacano, Pangasinan, Kampampangan, and some Bikol 
languages. Most of the declining languages in Luzon are being dominated by Tagalog, while 
the declining languages in Visayas and Mindanao are being replaced mostly by Cebuano, 
Hiligaynon, or Tagalog, depending on the area. 
Coupled with the changing sociolinguistic environment has been a growing 
understanding of the value of all languages. Languages, no matter how small, are important 
to humanity. Each language offers a unique way to communicate, a unique medium for the 
creation and transmission of literature, song, and other forms of expressive art, a unique 
window into a society’s psychology, unique interpretations of the world around us, and 
encodes collective knowledge accrued by the language group over millennia.  In addition to 
recognizing the importance of each language, is a growing awareness of the rich potential of 
linguistic diversity and multilingualism in general. Countries and individuals that know many 
languages, can not only be economically competitive, but can also enjoy a range of social, 
cognitive, environmental, and even health benefits. The key prerequisite for a country’s 
languages to benefit its speakers, and the country as a whole, is a government that enables 
people to learn, speak, and receive information in their native languages, provides 
opportunities for people to learn other languages (local or foreign), encourages tolerance, 
respect, and appreciation for linguistic diversity, and creates mechanisms for people to 
advance their socio-economic status and general wellbeing through their own mother tongues. 
Hence the United Nations, through General Assembly declarations, committee reports, and 
UNESCO publications, recommends that countries safeguard their diversity, respect basic 
linguistic rights, protect all their citizens’ mother tongues, and integrate their mother tongues 
in important sectors such as education, the justice system, and other arenas. Inclusive and 
pro-multilingual policies go hand-in-hand with sustainable development. The United Nations 
has chosen to highlight the importance of native languages by declaring 2019 the International 
Year of Indigenous Languages.   
The Philippines is not alone in having native languages in decline. But as other countries 
take strong measures to protect their minority languages, the Commission on the Filipino 
Language has not only failed to stop the decline of Philippine languages, it is likely contributing 
to their eventual demise. While it has conducted some minor initiatives for local and regional 
Philippine languages, it has repeatedly exposed bias towards one language (de jure, Filipino; 
de facto, Tagalog), and a concomitant lack of interest, commitment, and even respect for 
Filipinos’ other languages. The evidence is as follows:  
education) in any of their mother tongues would uphold social justice better than officially supporting only one 
native language. See Koenig, M. (Ed., 2001) “The Human Rights of Linguistic Minorities and Language Policies”; 
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2004) “The right to mother tongue medium education – the hot potato in human rights 
instruments”; and UNESCO (2012) “Why Language Matters for the Millennium Development Goals”.  


3
•
The Commission on the Filipino Language (CFL) has never drafted or initiated a law
to protect and promote our 120-180 native Philippine languages.
•
The CFL has never drafted or initiated a law for the revitalization of vulnerable,
threatened, or endangered Philippine languages.
•
The CFL has never drafted or initiated a law to guarantee, recognize, or even promote
linguistic rights for Filipino citizens, such as the right to use and learn one’s first
language, the right to information in one’s first language, the right to learn other
languages, and ethnolinguistic groups’ right to preserve, protect, and develop their
own languages.
•
For most ancient Philippine writing systems (e.g. Kulitan, Buhid, Badlit, Haninuo, Jawi,
Kirim, and others), with the exception of Baybayin, the CFL has not implemented
programs towards their research, preservation, or promotion.
•
For the vast majority of Philippine languages, the CFL has not conducted any
grammatical studies (e.g. phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics,
pragmatics, discourse, stylistics, and semiotics), nor has it conducted historical or
sociolinguistics studies of such languages.
•
For the vast majority of Philippine languages, the CFL has not done a systematic
collection of corpus.
•
For the vast majority of Philippine languages, the CFL has not published any
dictionaries, thesauri, or encyclopedia.
•
While the Constitution declares that the national language, Filipino, “shall be further
developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages,” and
gives no special status to Tagalog, the CFL continues to enforce a language based
heavily on Tagalog, and has redefined the national language through its own internal
policies to justify this bias. A simple review of the CFL’s website and any of their official
communications reveals a language nearly indistinguishable from the Tagalog
language. From basic principles of linguistics, the two are objectively the same
language because they are mutually intelligible, despite whatever loan words have
been inserted or allegedly adopted therein. By contrast, the framers of the Constitution
intended Filipino to be completely different from Tagalog, as evidenced by the
proceedings of the Constitutional Commission hearings. Commissioner William
Villacorta, who drafted the constitution’s language provision, gave examples of what
the Filipino language should look like: “Sain kayo maglakad dini?”, “Mas guapo guid
ang bana ko sa bana mo”, and other imaginations which are obviously not Tagalog
sentences. However, if we were to inspect “Filipino” textbooks in schools, or “Filipino”
transcripts from the media, or “Filipino” as used in CFL’s communications, their text is
understandable to a native Tagalog speaker, and recognizable as his/her own
language. The “Filipino” being institutionalized by our government, with the CFL as the
lead language agency, certainly does not look like Commissioner Villacorta’s mixture.
In other words, in its nearly 30 years of existence, the CFL has failed to develop a
national language that is truly a representative amalgam of multiple Philippine
languages, as envisioned by the Constitutional Commission. Instead, the CFL is
pushing a modified, less purist version of the Tagalog language and simply renaming
it “Filipino”. The CFL is trying to retroactively legitimize this deceit through Senate Bill
499, which cunningly mentions “Tagalog as the base language of Filipino,” in a section
that is supposed to be about the composition of the CFL (Section 5 therein).


 
4
 
• 
Throughout most administrations, the CFL exerted no effort to include Philippine 
languages in the education system, except one (Tagalog, or “Filipino”). Mother 
tongues were finally included by the Department of Education and confirmed by 
congressional act, but not through any lobbying or support from the CFL. In fact, close 
associates of the CFL management, members of the NCCA (the CFL’s sister agency), 
past awardees of CFL, and candidates for CFL commissioner positions filed petitions 
against Republic Act 10533 that institutionalized the Mother Tongue-Based 
Multilingual Education policy, arguing it to be unconstitutional. Their argument was 
rejected by the Supreme Court in 2018.  
 
• 
Congress has also enacted RA 8371 (the IPRA Law) and RA 11106 (the FSL Act) 
containing landmark provisions on linguistic and educational rights of indigenous 
peoples and the deaf, yet the CFL has provided little meaningful support for their 
enforcement. In fact, CFL’s demand that Tagalog-based Filipino be the medium of 
instruction throughout all levels of education (as stated in SB 499) is in blatant 
contravention of these laws and the rights they confer. 
 
• 
The CFL continues to fight for the mandatory inclusion of Filipino language courses in 
higher education, but has never lobbied for the inclusion of other Philippine languages 
alongside it. Senate Bill 499 drafted by the CFL administration and filed in 2019 
confirms this bias against our mother tongues. It is stated in the explanatory note that 
the purpose of the bill is to ensure the operationalization of Filipino “as official language 
and language of instruction in all levels of education,” without mention of including 
other Philippine languages in the education system. As the Constitution allows 
Congress to legislate on language matters, there is legally nothing stopping the CFL 
from lobbying Congress to formulate an act to include other Philippine languages in 
the education system, at all levels, in addition to Filipino.3 Unfortunately, the CFL has 
not adopted this inclusive approach, and judging by the contents of SB 499, shall 
continue to fight for only one language in the education system.4  
 
• 
While the Commission on Higher Education offered the CFL funding to contextualize 
general education course syllabi and instructional materials into several Philippine 
languages, the CFL has contextualized these materials into only one Filipino language.   
 
• 
For the vast majority of Philippine languages, the CFL has translated no significant 
works (e.g. laws, resolutions and other legislative enactments, historical documents, 
textbooks, canonical literature etc.) into them.  
  
• 
The CFL has not actively engaged local government units to protect and promote their 
local languages. The few local governments that have issued ordinances for this 
purpose, such as Zamboanga City, Angeles City, and La Union, have done so by their 
 
3 Alternatively, the CFL could advocate for a liberal interpretation of “Filipino language”, allowing any Philippine 
language to be taught in order to partially or fully comply with Filipino language requirements. This would be 
legally sound because the Constitution does not anchor Filipino to Tagalog, and states that it “shall be enriched 
on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages” (Article XIV, Section 6). The inclusion of various 
Philippine languages in the education system, at all levels, would facilitate this enrichment. 
4 Imposing one language on colleges and universities is against the Constitution, as it contravenes the academic 
freedom “enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning” (Article XIV, Sect. 5). Hence, Section 11(n) in SB 499—
“Ensure that all educational institutions in all levels of the education system, where applicable, shall maintain the 
use of Filipino as language of instruction as a requirement of accreditation from Department of Education, 
Commission on Higher Education, and Technical Education and Skills Authority”—is unconstitutional. In 
countries with robust academic freedom, such as the United Kingdom, Finland, Switzerland, Belgium, and Canada, 
no national agency or policy requires all universities across the country to teach or use a particular language.      


 
5
own initiative and without the encouragement or help of the CFL. The CFL has hosted 
a few activities about using Tagalog-based Filipino for communications in government, 
but not other Philippine languages.5   
 
• 
While the CFL has identified around 50 endangered languages of the Philippines, its 
response to language endangerment has been grossly inadequate. It has established 
a nursery for only one endangered language. Meanwhile, its “Bantayog Wika” project 
claims to honor native languages, but the monuments are not inscribed in the 
languages they are allegedly trying to promote. If the CFL does not even use our native 
languages for projects specifically targeting them, then the CFL is not effectively 
implementing its constitutional mandate to propagate our languages.   
 
• 
While the CFL leadership has bemoaned the dominance of English, and treated it as 
a threat to Filipino, they have not publicly recognized the reality that the national lingua 
franca is replacing many Philippine languages, both big (e.g. Kapampangan, 
Pangasinan) and small (e.g. Tagbanua, Mangyan Iraya). 6  From 1940-1980, the 
spread of Tagalog was largely a case of diglossia, in which people still retained their 
mother tongues in a multilingual equilibrium. From about 1980 onwards, however, with 
further increases of Tagalog in education and media, many non-Tagalog communities 
of Luzon, Palawan, Romblon, and Mindoro have been experiencing a one-way shift to 
Tagalog and the corresponding decline of their mother tongues. Even more alarming 
is that the CFL administration does not consider this language shift a problem, and 
have done nothing to address the systemic power imbalance between the national 
lingua franca and other languages. First, this reveals a lack of awareness of internal 
linguistic hierarchies in Filipino society, exacerbated by inequitable government 
policies. Second, the CFL’s seeming nonchalance, if not satisfaction, in the ongoing 
language shift reveals the undervaluing of our country’s linguistic heritage and 
multilingual assets. Third, it reveals a very narrow perspective on Filipino culture and 
identity, which the CFL has tied to the national language rather than all the unique and 
beautiful languages of our country.  
 
• 
Some CFL commissioners are not experts nor recognized champions of the 
languages that they supposedly represent, and most have no academic training in 
linguistics. Many have experience in writing, teaching, or promoting Tagalog-based 
Filipino, but have dubious credentials in other Philippine languages. In fact, some CFL 
commissioners have gained financially by selling Tagalog or Filipino books, or for 
winning writing awards in this language.  Hence it is in their personal interest to 
continue to promote one Filipino language and not others. Shockingly, CFL 
commissioners have also attacked defenders of various mother tongues, which is 
completely antithetical to their office.  
 
• 
For decades, the CFL has organized Buwan ng Wikang Pambansa, whose name 
makes it clear that it is intended for only one language. Buwan ng Wika activities are 
usually conducted in the national lingua franca, and other Philippine languages are 
 
5 The Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution does not rule out the use of regional languages for 
official purposes, hence the CFL’s inaction at promoting regional and local languages in local governance is 
more a reflection of their laissez-fare attitude towards such languages, rather than any real legal barrier.  
6 Despite its prevalence and global stature, English has statistically had only a minor effect on language shift in 
the Philippines. While it dominates certain domains, such as broadsheet newspapers, commercial signage, 
private schools, and some religious institutions, it has not replaced any native Philippine language as an ordinary 
community language. English is largely restricted to formal domains. A small minority of families use English 
as the exclusive language of the home (<1%). Changes in home language have mostly been between Philippine 
languages. 
 


 
6
rarely highlighted or used. When various groups lobbied for the renaming of the 
celebration into Buwan ng mga Wika sa Pilipinas, so that all Filipino vernaculars would 
be included, the CFL rejected the proposal. This again proves that the CFL is against 
language equality and linguistic justice.  
 
• 
For most of its history, the CFL has not fought to ensure the linguistic rights of children, 
indigenous people, and people with disabilities, enshrined in international agreements 
to which the Philippines is party, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 
the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the Convention on the Rights 
of Persons with Disabilities, which call for free use of these people’s languages, the 
provision of education and/or other services in their own languages, and non-
discrimination towards them and their languages; 
 
• 
For most of its history, the CFL, has not disseminated, issued endorsements for, or 
strove to implement the empowering language articles of the UNESCO Universal 
Declaration on Cultural Diversity, has not urged the government to become party to 
the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural 
Expressions, and has not organized nationwide programs for the celebration of 
International Mother Language Day (February 21).  
 
• 
The CFL has not pushed for the adoption of Philippine languages (except one) in the 
technology sector. For example, the CFL has not sent any requests to technology 
companies for the inclusion of local or regional languages in their products and 
services. It is embarrassing that languages as small as Corsican (100,000 speakers), 
Scots Gaelic (50,000), and Hawaiian (2000) are already offered by Google and 
Facebook, but much larger Philippine languages, such as Ilokano (10 million 
speakers), Hiligaynon (8 million), Waray (3 million), and Maranao (1 million) are not. 
The CFL is neglecting one of the most effective ways that our native languages could 
be developed and propagated.   
 
• 
Most CFL administrations have not pushed for the inclusion of Philippine languages 
(except one) in the media sector, such as asking the government for subsidies so that 
regional and local languages are better represented in film, television, print, and other 
forms of media.   
 
• 
The CFL has a tendency of making decisions or issuing orders about language without 
thorough public consultation. This problem came to the fore when the CFL 
overstepped its bounds by attempting to change the name of the country from Pilipinas 
to Filipinas. 
 
• 
Rather than empower ethnic groups to determine how to write their own languages, 
which is a basic tenet of responsible, sustainable, and democratic orthography 
development, the CFL has instead acted like language police, insisting that Philippine 
languages align to a single orthography, what they call the “Ortograpiyang Pambansa”. 
This move is insensitive to the preferences and conventions of each language 
community, and has indeed caused protests. Moreover, conformity is unnecessary 
and impractical. Every language has unique features in terms of vocabulary, sounds, 
and grammar. Spelling rules need to consider these features, as well as historical 
influences, in order to serve its users well. Even if languages may be related, it would 
not be automatically appropriate to adhere to identical spelling conventions, because 
the written form would no longer reflect how some of the languages are spoken. While 
a government agency could provide guidance to a community that is developing 
spelling rules for their language, it should not dictate the rules (especially when the 
agency lacks expertise in a particular language).  


 
7
 
• 
By insisting control and pre-approval of orthographies, the CFL has hampered DepEd 
from including many Philippine mother tongues in the education system. Hence, 
hundreds of thousands of Filipino children still do not have access to education 
through their first languages.7  
 
It was never the intention of the crafters of the constitution for any Filipino language to 
replace other native languages, and the Constitution is clear that the national language and 
other Philippine languages should be developed, propagated, and preserved, as stated in 
Article XIV, Section 9. Secondly, other Philippine languages—not only the national language—
can be used in official capacities, as upheld by the Supreme Court based on the their analysis 
of the constitution and constitutional commission proceedings.8 Furthermore, it is also explicit 
in the Constitution that the national language is Filipino, not Tagalog, and that Filipino “shall 
be further developed and enriched on the basis of existing Philippine and other languages” 
(Article XIV, Section XIV). It does not even state that the language is based on Tagalog, hence 
the CFL’s advancement of a national language based on Tagalog is merely a historical 
assumption and not actually supported by the current constitution.  
 
The importance of diversity, equality, and cultural autonomy is upheld in several other 
clauses in the constitution, such as the State’s commitment to preserve and enrich Filipino 
national culture based on the principle of “unity in diversity in a climate of free artistic and 
intellectual expression”, to “conserve, promote, and popularize the nation’s historical and 
cultural heritage and resources”, to protect the country’s historic wealth, to “recognize, respect, 
and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their 
cultures, traditions, and institutions”, and to “ensure equal access to cultural opportunities 
through the educational system”  (see Article XIV, Sections 14-18). These statements value 
pluralism and enjoin the government to sustain the Philippines’ diversity. They also enjoin the 
government to give Filipinos equal access to cultural opportunities (which should naturally 
include opportunities to use their languages, being an integral part of their cultures). An audit 
of CFL’s spending over the years, however, would reveal that the majority of its budget has 
been spent on national language projects and activities, with less spent towards all other 120+ 
languages combined.  
 
Despite the Constitution’s rather flexible, inclusive, and pluralistic provisions vis-a-vis the 
status and use of Philippine languages, the CFL has done little to elevate most of our 
languages (except one), and has potentially become a threat to them. The CFL seems to 
subscribe to the unproven belief that Filipinos are incapable of peace, cooperation and 
understanding unless they are bound by one language [note: there are living exceptions to 
this claim, such as the largely peaceful, multilingual Swiss people]. In truth, most Filipinos are 
friendly, adaptable, and tolerant of differences, and learn each other’s mother tongues with 
relative ease.  
 
The CFL has repeatedly betrayed itself as ideologically ambivalent, if not mostly against, 
the pluralism enshrined in our constitution and exhibited by Filipino society. This is in large 
part due to Republic Act 7104, which despite its good intentions, introduced the following 
systemic flaws in the institution it created: 
 
7 The Constitution declares the CFL to be a research institution, with the function to “undertake, coordinate, and 
promote researches”; it is not authorized to require any other government agency, local government unit, or 
person for approval on language matters.   
8 In its ruling of the legality of the K-12 law promulgated on October 9, 2018, the Supreme Court also upheld 
the legality of using mother tongues in the education system and as official languages in government, quoting 
Commissioner Bennagen of the Constitutional Commission of 1986, who explained that in addition to Filipino 
and English, the regional languages “can be accepted also as official languages, even in government and 
education.” (IV Record of the Constitutional Commission 160-161). 


 
8
 
• 
The name of the commission is singular, not plural, unequivocally emphasizing one 
Filipino language instead of all Philippine languages.9 This name is not reflective of the 
Philippines’ linguistic diversity and it institutionalizes bias towards one language. 
Linguistic favoritism is not ethical for a multilingual, culturally rich, and democratic state 
in the 21st century. The Constitution is also clear that Philippine languages—in the 
plural, not singular—shall be developed, propagated, and preserved.    
  
• 
The process for searching and selecting CFL commissioners is not transparent and 
not democratic. Often new commissioners are simply the recommended nominees of 
the outgoing CFL management, hence perpetuating whatever ideological bias they 
have, with very little opportunity for real change. 
   
• 
The provisions regarding the qualifications of the commissioners are weak, resulting 
in commissioners who are not recognized experts in the languages they have been 
chosen to represent, and a dearth of personnel who are trained in linguistics. An 
academic and professional background in linguistics is essential for conducting 
language research, which is one of the main functions of the commission. 
 
• 
There is no provision to ensure equal, equitable, or at least a rational distribution of 
resources towards the preservation, promotion, and development of the various 
Philippine languages.  
 
• 
The centralized structure of the CFL makes it difficult to serve the needs of the regions, 
all of which have different demographics, languages, and language statuses, attitudes, 
behaviors, and trends. Hence, many languages are under-researched, under-
protected, and under-promoted.  
 
• 
The majority of CFL staff live in Metro Manila and come from predominantly Tagalog-
speaking households. The staff, therefore, are not representative of the linguistic 
diversity of the Philippines as a whole, and unlikely to act in the best interests of our 
native languages. 
 
• 
Only the major languages have dedicated commissioners; most languages do not. 
 
• 
The Chairman’s term is excessively long (7 years), which is longer than the President’s. 
This means that the institution and Philippine languages themselves are at the whim 
of an individual’s competence, interest, objectivity, or lack thereof, for an undue period 
of time. 
 
• 
There are no checks and balances to prevent the CFL from exercising too much power 
on language use, which could erode people’s linguistic rights and academic freedom. 
 
9 The monolingual focus evident in the CFL’s name is reflective of an outdated ideology originating in France, 
which claimed a country can only be unified under one language. This ideology has subsequently been abandoned 
by many countries around the world that now embrace a multilingual identity. The government of France remains 
resistant to multilingualism and have blocked efforts to include regional languages in their education system and 
other government services. As a result, most native languages of France are now endangered. France’s hardline 
and exclusive approach has earned it criticism from the Council of Europe, UNESCO, and its own populace, while 
strong societal divisions persist despite the government’s program of language homogenization. The Philippines 
is even more diverse than France, with a completely different history; it would be foolish to follow France’s 
example.   


 
9
(The provisions in Senate Bill 499 granting even more power to the CFL to dictate 
language choice are therefore dangerous).10  
• 
The CFL is not required to collect data on the health of Philippine languages (e.g. 
number of speakers, intergenerational transmission rates, frequency of use, domains 
of use, etc.), nor publish a status report thereof. Hence, the nation is not well informed 
about the vitality of its own languages, and the CFL has no accountability for our 
declining linguistic heritage.      
 
Considering the systemic organizational deficiencies, we cannot rely on the CFL 
administration, current or future, to initiate meaningful change. Under the status quo, the sad 
reality is that more of our mother tongues are being lost than during the American or Spanish 
periods. In order to achieve linguistic justice for all Filipinos and ensure the survival of all 
Philippine languages, the CFL must be transformed by law. For the benefit of future 
generations, and building upon international human rights agreements to which the Philippines 
is party, the approval of this measure is earnestly sought.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 Section 4 of Senate Bill 499 states that the CFL (or KWF) shall be “The primary policy-making and coordinating 
body on language concerns” [emphasis added]. This is a case of overreach. Nowhere does the 1987 Constitution 
authorize the CFL to be the primary policy-making body on language concerns. Language policy is the prerogative 
of Congress through its law-making function. The function of the CFL, according to the constitution, is to 
“undertake, coordinate, and promote researches”. Therefore, it is primarily a research institution.  
  MAXIMO B. RODRIGUEZ, JR. 


10 
TWENTIETH CONGRESS   
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
First Regular Session  
 
) 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez and 
Representative Maximo B. Rodriguez, Jr. 
House Bill No.  _____ 
AN ACT 
TO REFORM THE KOMISYON SA WIKANG FILIPINO (COMMISSION ON THE FILIPINO 
LANGUAGE) INTO THE KOMISYON NG MGA WIKA SA PILIPINAS (COMMISSION ON 
PHILIPPINE LANGUAGES), REVISING ITS STRUCTURE, POWERS, DUTIES AND 
FUNCTIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative of the Philippines in Congress 
assembled: 
Section 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Commission on Philippine 
Languages Act” 
Section 2. Declaration of Policy. –In accordance with the Constitution enabling Congress to 
pass legislation to formulate and amend language policy, and the constitutional principle of 
“unity in diversity”, it is hereby declared to be a policy of the Government to protect, promote, 
and help develop all Philippine languages, including national, regional, and local languages, 
whether spoken or signed, and allocate resources equitably for the promotion and 
development of such languages. Furthermore, the Government shall respect, protect, and 
promote multilingualism and language diversity as a fundamental part of Filipino society, 
culture, and heritage, and shall uphold linguistic rights and freedoms of all citizens and 
ethnolinguistic communities.  
Section 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act, the following terms and defined as 
follows: 
(a) Commission – refers to the Commission on Philippine Languages.
(b) Chairperson – refers to the Chairperson of the Commission.
(c) Filipino – refers to the national language of the Philippines.
(d) Philippine languages – refers to the 120-180 indigenous languages of the
Philippines; can also be called “native languages”.
(e) Regional languages – refers to the lingua francae or the commonly spoken
languages of a region; “Languages indigenous to a region” refers to languages that
originated from that region, or have been traditionally spoken in the region for hundreds
of years.
(f) Local languages – refers to languages commonly spoken at the barangay,
municipal, or provincial level
(g) Auxiliary official language – refers to a particular language, spoken in certain areas,
which supports or helps communication, learning, and other societal functions in such
areas, and can be used in official capacities alongside other official languages.
(h) Ethnolinguistic communities – refers to certain groups of people who identify with
a particular language or ethnicity. Also can be called language communities.
(i) Medium of official communication – refers to a language used by Government for
its official transactions.
2165


 
11 
(j) Medium of instruction – refers to a language used by an educational institution for 
teaching. 
(k) Endangered or threatened language – refers to a language that is declining in use 
or population; there are different levels of endangerment according to specific criteria.   
 
Section 4. Reforming the Commission. – The Commission on the Filipino Language 
(Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino) is hereby renamed and restructured as the Komisyon ng Mga 
Wika sa Pilipinas (Commission on Philippine Languages), composed of representatives of 
various ethnolinguistic groups, regions, and disciplines, which shall formulate, coordinate and 
promote policies and activities for the development, propagation and preservation of Philippine 
languages, including national, regional, and local languages. It shall be directly under the 
Office of the President.  
 
Section 5. Organizational Structure. – The reformed Commission shall have a decentralized 
structure. It shall have regional semi-autonomous sub-commissions or centers composed of 
representatives and staff from the various languages and cultures of their respective regions, 
which will carry out most of the commission’s study, research, development, and publication 
functions with wide latitude. The regional sub-commissions or centers will protect, promote, 
research, and develop the indigenous languages of their respective regions, alongside the 
national language, and their activities will be contextualized to the needs and dynamics of the 
regions they serve. For activities or projects of national scope, complementarity and synergy 
shall be achieved through coordination of the Board of Commissioners. Each regional sub-
commission or center, in its management, staffing, programs must adequately represent the 
languages of the region it serves. The name, website, and important communications of each 
regional sub-commission must be translated into at least two Philippine languages. The 
majority of the Commission’s personnel shall be based in the regional sub-commissions, with 
at least one personnel with a degree in linguistics in each region, and focal persons assigned 
to the native languages found therein.   
 
The Commission shall respect the rights of Autonomous Regions to determine their language 
policy as provided by law. They may, however, voluntarily join the Commission and be granted 
seats on the Board of Commissioners. 
 
Section 6. Budget Structure. – Budget for the regional sub-commissions shall be based on 
objective criteria, taking into consideration population size, number of indigenous languages, 
number of endangered languages, linguistic diversity index, and other relevant factors. Being 
semi-autonomous, they shall have control over at least 50% of their budget.  
 
Section 7. Board of Commissioners. – Each regional sub-commission shall be headed by 
a Commissioner who is a member of the Board of Commissioners (or national board). The 
Chairperson shall rotate between the sub-commission heads annually. One representative 
each from the Department of Education, the Commission on Higher Education; and the 
Department of Interior and Local Government, of no less than undersecretary level, shall be 
ex officio members, as shall the respective chairpersons of the Senate Committee Chair on 
Education, Arts, and Culture, and the House of Representatives Committee on Basic 
Education and Culture.  
 
Section 8. Appointment and Qualifications of Commissioners. – Each regional sub-
commission shall initiate a public and transparent process to collect nominations for people to 
serve as Commissioner for their region, and shall ensure input from the ethnolinguistic 
communities therein. Individuals, language and literature groups, local government units, 
educational institutions, religious institutions, media companies, and others in a particular 
region may submit nominations for the Commissioner representing their region. All nominees 
shall be made publically known and duly forwarded to the President. The President shall select 


 
12 
the candidate who he/she believes is most qualified to serve as the region’s commissioner on 
languages.    
 
No one shall be appointed as commissioner unless he/she is a natural-born Filipino citizen, at 
least thirty (30) years old, morally upright, noted for his/her expertise in linguistics and 
languages, and lived at least one (1) year in the region he/she shall serve. A Commissioner 
must have a demonstrable record of researching or promoting a language or languages 
indigenous to the region he/she shall represent; must have published a research study about, 
or written literature in, a language indigenous to the region he/she shall represent; must 
understand, speak, read, and write fluently at least one language indigenous to the region 
he/she shall represent; and must be committed to upholding linguistic diversity and linguistic 
rights. 
 
Section 9. Term of Office. – The Commissioners, representing each region respectively, shall 
serve for a term of four (4) years. The commissioners may be reappointed for a maximum of 
one (1) term only. A Commissioner who has served two terms, regardless of region, shall no 
longer be qualified to serve as a Commissioner again.  
The Chairperson of the Board shall rotate between the regional Commissioners 
annually. In the absence of the Chairperson, the commissioners shall choose a temporary or 
acting chairperson. 
Commissioners shall serve and continue to hold office until their successors have been 
appointed. Should a Commissioner fail to complete his/her term, his/her successor shall be 
recommended by the Commission and appointed by the President for the unexpired portion 
of the term.  
 
Section 10. Compensation. – The Chairperson and Commissioners shall have the same 
rank, privileges, salary, allowances and other emoluments as the Chairperson and 
Commissioners, respectively, of other constitutional commissions. 
 
Section 11. Rules of Procedures and Meetings. – The Commission shall adopt its own rules 
and procedures and shall hold sessions en-banc at least once every quarter or as often as it 
deems necessary. A majority of the commissioners shall constitute a quorum for the 
transaction of business. The boards of the regional sub-commissions shall determine their 
own rules and procedures of meetings.  
 
Section 12. Executive Director. – There shall be an executive director who shall be 
appointed by the Commission for a term of five (5) years and who may be reappointed for a 
maximum of one (1) term. The executive director shall sit as a non-voting member of the 
board. The Commission shall determine the powers, functions, duties and compensation of 
the executive director. 
 
Section 13. The Secretariat. – There shall be a secretariat to be headed by the executive 
director. The functions, duties and compensation of its personnel shall be determined by the 
Commission, upon the recommendation of the executive director. 
 
Section 14. Powers, Functions and Duties of the Commission. – The Commission, 
pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the Constitution, shall have the following powers, 
functions and duties: 
 
(a) Recommend policies and formulate plans, programs, and activities to ensure the 
preservation, promotion, propagation and development of all Philippine languages, 
including national, regional, and local languages, both spoken and signed; 
(b) Establish mechanisms for the continuing enrichment of the national language with 
vocabulary from Philippine and other relevant languages, by advocating for 
increased representation and inclusion of such languages in Filipino language 


 
13 
courses, dictionaries, media, technology, and other sectors, by recognizing, 
researching, and taking inspiration from syncretic Filipino speech varieties that 
have organically developed (e.g. Davao, Zamboanga, Masbate), and promoting 
such variety.11 
(c) Undertake or contract research on Philippine languages, such as phonetics, 
phonology, 
morphology, 
syntax, 
semantics, 
pragmatics, 
stylistics, 
psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics studies, and historical linguistics studies.    
(d) Promote balance and equilibrium among Philippine languages, safeguard 
language diversity, and disseminate the benefits of multilingualism; likewise, 
defend the importance of Philippine languages, and inspire interest, joy and 
mastery in them. 
(e) Collect or ensure the collection of data on the number, distribution, and use of 
Philippine languages, monitor trends in such data, and formulate appropriate 
policies, plans, programs, and recommendations to address language 
endangerment, mitigate language shift, and prevent language loss.     
(f) Conduct language documentation activities, such as compiling words, phrases, 
idioms, quotations, proverbs, jokes, songs and other creations in various Philippine 
languages, through documentary analysis, interviews, recordings, etc.  
(g) Create dictionaries, thesauruses, and primers in Philippine languages, both 
monolingual and multilingual; 
(h) Conduct information campaigns, workshops, trainings, and other capacity building 
activities to increase knowledge about, proficiency in, and appreciation for 
Philippine languages  
(i) Organize or facilitate celebrations and competitions for the promotion of Philippine 
languages (including the observance of International Mother Language Day and 
other indigenous language activities promoted by the United Nations), and 
advocate for the inclusion of Philippine languages in existing celebrations and 
competitions (e.g. National Schools Press Conference, Festival of Talents, 
Literature Month, Buwan ng Wika, etc.).   
(j) Propose guidelines and standards for linguistic forms and expressions in official 
communications, publications, textbooks and other reading and teaching materials, 
without prejudice to the right of ethnolinguistic communities to determine how to 
use and write their languages.  
(k) Encourage and promote, through various incentives, the creation of original 
literature, music, film, reference materials, and other works in Philippine languages, 
across various disciplines; 
(l) Undertake and support translations of important literature, film, laws, historical 
documents, reference materials, educational materials and other works of various 
disciplines, into Philippine languages; 
(m) Engage businesses to promote the inclusion of Philippine languages in their 
products and services, especially media, telecommunications, and technology 
companies 
(n) Conduct at the national, regional and local levels, public hearings, conferences, 
seminars and other group discussions to identify and help resolve problems and 
 
11 For a concrete example, the Commission would work with companies like Google to include vocabulary from 
other Philippine languages in their Filipino language services. Currently, the Google Translate tool for Filipino 
only recognizes and translates Tagalog sentences. If Filipino language is to be inclusive, flexible, and further 
enriched, then Google will need to expand its database of Filipino vocabulary such that it could successfully 
translate a sentence even if it contains words from Cebuano, Ilokano, Hiligaynon, and other languages. Likewise, 
an enriched Filipino language map should show not only the Tagalog names of features but also the regional 
language names, depending on the area of the map, or give users the option to toggle between the two. Filipino 
will not be significantly enriched from other Philippine languages unless such mechanisms for inclusion and 
lexical cross-pollination are put in practice.  


 
14 
issues involving the development, propagation and preservation of Philippine 
languages; 
(o) Consult and involve the public on the formulation of major plans, policies, and 
programs pertaining to language, ensuring adequate participation and 
representation of different ethnolinguistic communities, including writers, 
educators, broadcasters, researchers, and advocates of various Philippine 
languages.   
(p) Spearhead and advise on policies with implications to languages and 
ethnolinguistic communities, ensuring respect for multilingualism and linguistic 
diversity; advocating for and safeguarding the inclusion of Philippine languages in 
education, governance, and other sectors, alongside existing national and official 
languages; and defending linguistic rights such as the right to use and learn one’s 
mother tongue, and the right to use and learn other languages.  
(q) Ensure equitable allocation of resources towards the preservation, promotion, 
propagation and development of Philippine languages; 
(r) Partner with relevant community groups in raising awareness and preservation of 
foreign languages of historical, religious or cultural significance to the Philippines 
(e.g. Hokkien, Spanish, Arabic). 
(s) Guide the government bureaucracy to embrace multilingualism, adopt multilingual 
policies, provide support for multilingual services, and join and implement 
international agreements to help secure and strengthen linguistic rights for all 
Filipino citizens.    
(t) Form international linkages to exchange knowledge, research, and best practices 
on language planning for diverse settings, language revitalization, multilingual 
education, and inclusive, sustainable development, with the aim of becoming a 
judicious model for other multilingual countries. 
(u) Call on any department, bureau, office, agency or any instrumentality of 
Government or on any private entity, institution or organization for cooperation and 
assistance in the performance of its functions, duties and responsibilities; 
(v) Monitor and provide oversight in the implementation of this Act, and ensure that no 
basic rights or freedoms are infringed in so doing; 
(w) Promulgate rules, regulations and guidelines to implement its policies, plans and 
programs; 
(x) Appoint, subject to the provisions of existing laws, its officials and employees and 
such other personnel as are necessary for the effective performance of its 
functions, duties and responsibilities; and dismiss them for cause;  
(y) Organize and reorganize the structure of the Commission, create or abolish 
positions, or change the designation of existing positions to meet the changing 
conditions or as the need therefore arises; provided that the majority of personnel 
are based in the regional sub-commissions; 
(z) Perform such other activities which are necessary for the effective exercise of the 
abovementioned powers, functions, duties and responsibilities. 
 
Section 15. Accountability. –  The Commission shall formulate and adopt guidelines, 
standards and systems for monitoring and reporting on its performance, and submit to the 
Office of the President and to Congress an annual progress report on the implementation of 
its policies, plans and programs in each region. It shall identify which Philippine languages it 
has supported, and provide approximate figures on how much money was allocated and spent 
for each. It shall also identify what steps have been taken to increase the representation of 
various Philippine and other relevant languages in Filipino language policies, programs, 
products, and services to foster enrichment.      
The Commission must strive to respect and uphold the linguistic rights of individuals 
and language communities in exercising its powers, duties, and functions. Contempt for 
indigenous languages and linguistic diversity, violation of linguistic rights, and discrimination 
demonstrated by any personnel of the Commission is grounds for their removal.  


 
15 
The Commission shall create a multilingual mechanism, online and offline, for the 
public to submit complaints and concerns about the Commission or language issues in 
general. The complaints and concerns shall be visible to the public, although individuals shall 
be given the option to remain anonymous. The public’s complaints and concerns, and steps 
the Commission took to address them, shall be included in the Commission’s annual report. 
At least once every four (4) years, and in cooperation with other bodies if necessary, 
the Commission must publish a comprehensive report on the status of Philippine languages, 
including estimated population sizes, geographic distribution, language practices and trends, 
level of endangerment according to various criteria (particularly intergenerational transmission 
rates), language attitudes, literacy rates in Philippine languages, and the population’s general 
knowledge about Philippine languages.   
 
Section 16. Reorganization Process. –  Reorganization shall be conducted in a gradual 
manner that will ensure the least disruption of ongoing programs of the CFL. The qualified and 
necessary personnel of the CFL shall be retained.  
 
Section 17. Appropriations. – The funding necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act 
is hereby authorized to be appropriated in the General Appropriations Act of the year following 
its enactment into law. 
 
Section 18. Promulgation. – This Act shall be promulgated in Filipino and in English and 
shall be translated into the major languages of the Philippines.  
 
Section 19. Separability Clause. – In the event any provision of this Act or the application of 
such provision is declared invalid, the remainder of this Act or the application of the said 
provision shall be affected thereby. 
 
Section 20. Repealing Clause. – All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders or parts 
thereof that are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or amended 
accordingly. 
 
Section 21. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following its 
complete publication in the Official Gazette or in one (1) newspaper of general circulation. 
 
Approved,