(> RECEIVED

EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS ) = pare: FEB. 12.2020

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
First Regular Session )

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez
6280

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
@ 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;’ 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;? and 5) that other Philippine languages would not be negatively
affected by the national language.

"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 leamers’ mother tongues, according to Save the Children and C1BT
(see publication, “Closer to home: how to help schools in low- and middle-income countries respond to
children’s language needs,” 2011),

* 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, lear, and receive government services (including
education) in any of their mother tongues would uphold social justice better than officially supporting only one

aN

©


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 leat
their mother tongues from their parents as consistently as before; 3) Millions of Fil
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, llongot, 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 enabies
People to learn, speak, and receive information in their native languages, provides
opportunities for people to leam 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 Intemational 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:

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”


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 leam 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).

* 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.° 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.*

‘* 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.

» 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.

“ 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 o use a
particular 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 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.°

‘* 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).° 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

5 The Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution does not rule out the use of regional languages for
official purposes, hence the CFLs inaction at promoting regional and local languages in local governance is,
more a reflection of their Iaissez-fare attitude towards such languages, rather than any real legal barrier.

© 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.


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
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 veraculars
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 intemational
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 llokano (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 goverment 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).

* 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.”

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.® 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

? The Constitution declares the CFL to be a research institution, with the function to “undertake, coordinate, and
promote researches”; it isnot authorized to require any other government agency, local government unit, oF
person for approval on language matters.

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).


are friendly, adaptable, and tolerant of differences, and leam 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:

* The name of the commission is singular, not plural, unequivocally emphasizing one
Filipino language instead of all Philippine languages.° 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 21“ 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

° 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
Janguage homogenization. The Philippines is even more diverse than France, with a completely different
history; it would be foolish to follow France's example.


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. (The provisions in Senate Bill 499 granting even more power to the CFL to
dictate language choice are therefore dangerous)."°

‘+ 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 eamestly sought.

RUI 4 EZ

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 concems. 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.


EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS,
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES }

First Regular Session
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez
House Bill No. 62 80
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 Govemment 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 Govemment 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 alll 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.
(©) 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
(a) 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.


() 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
Tespective 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 iin 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

u


shall be made publically known and duly forwarded to the President. The President shall
select 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, @ language indigenous to the region he/she shall represent;
must understand, speak, read, and write fluently at least one language indigenous to the
tegion 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
tules 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;

12


(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
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."”

(©) 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

(€) 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.

(9) 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

() Organize or facilitate celebrations and competitions for the promotion of
Philippine languages (including the observance of Intemational 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.)..

() 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;

(I) 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

" 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, Hokano, 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.

13


(n) Conduct at the national, regional and local levels, public hearings, conferences,
seminars and other group discussions to identify and help resolve problems and
issues involving the development, propagation and preservation of Philippine
languages;

(0) 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 lear 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;

() 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 goverment bureaucracy to embrace multilingualism, adopt
multilingual policies, provide support for multilingual services, and join and
implement intemational agreements to help secure and strengthen linguistic
rights for all Filipino citizens.

() Form intemational 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
Goverment 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;

(2) 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

4


indigenous languages and linguistic diversity, violation of linguistic rights, and discrimination
demonstrated by any personnel of the Commission is grounds for their removal.

The Commission shall create a multilingual mechanism, online and offline, for the
public to submit complaints and concems 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 concems, 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,

1s