UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES DILIMAN

CONTINUING RESISTANCE:
CRITICISMS OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
LANGUAGE POLICY

SUBMITTED AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE COURSE

CONTEMPORARY HISTORY OF THE PHILIPPINES (KAS 112)

BY
RUFUS REY C. MONTECALVO

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
PROF. NEIL MARTIAL SANTILLAN

U.P. DILIMAN QUEZON CITY

MARCH 2011
I. Introduction

Criticisms of the national language policy of the Philippines began during the drafting of the
1935 Constitution of the Philippines and still opposition continues to this day. What makes the
arguments from the opposition interesting is that they question the assumptions of the policy makers,
leaders and the general population regarding issues of Filipino nationalism and identity. The question of
language and nationalism in the Philippines we find out is more than a cultural one, but as the early
criticisms and the ongoing criticisms would show, actually is a political one as well. The most well-
formed arguments against the national language come from two sides. The first we may label as the
non-essentialist/utilitarian side which says that the correspondence between language and national
identity is an exaggeration, that the essence of a person can be expressed in whatsoever language he or
she uses. The second is from the regionalistic perspective, a much-maligned point of view among
nationalist narratives. There is a continuing sense of marginalization that is felt by the various
ethnolinguistic groups across the Philippines due to the perception of the elevation of one language
among the numerous ones in the archipelago to the status of a national language. Though to a certain
extent still essentialist, in that the advocates of the regionalistic point of view stress the importance of
their ethnolinguistic identities, the feelings of marginalization still lingers and provides a major
inspiration for serious criticisms of the national language policy which was and is still being seen as an
imposition. To open new avenues regarding the issue, therefore, more than to rehash the old arguments,
a new political consciousness must be realized. This is manifested by calls for changes in the prevailing
Manila-centric political structure of the country, towards a more egalitarian orientation in the form of a
federal decentralized government.

II. Language and Filipino Essence

The issue of the national language is basically an issue of the search for a Filipino essence,
something that is uniquely Filipino that cannot be found somewhere else. Quezon was the main
political advocate of this, calling for the need for a national language in order for the Filipino people to
have a common tongue so that there would be greater unity. The nationalistic aspect of this policy, as
has been religiously noted by its proponents, is that it is a local language, one of the vernaculars in the
country. That this should be so is of utmost necessity because foreign languages, especially the
language of the colonizers, Spanish and then English, cannot express the sentiment, the subtlety of
emotions and feelings of the Filipinos. The 'spirit' of the Filipino people then, cannot be expressed in a
borrowed language. In linguistic terms, this concept is known as linguistic determinism.

Linguistic determinism is the idea that language determines consciousness, that language is the
middle-man, shall we say, between the individual's brain and the outside world. Language functions as
a sort of screen that helps makes sense of the world. Since language determines consciousness, and
there are numerous languages in the world, there are also numerous consciousness, numerous ways of
thinking. Structures of languages determine the structures of thought. The more modern form of this
idea originated sometime in the late eighteenth century to the early nineteenth century in Europe, most
particularly in Germany as expressed by Wilhelm von Humboldt, a statesman, educator and linguist
who is widely considered today as a most influential figure in the history of the field of linguistics.
Wilhelm von Humboldt was influenced by several thinkers who preceded him as well as by his
contemporaries, and in Germany during his time, the ascendant theme was that of Romanticism which
in the field of politics, called for the conception of a nation as composed of a unique essence. That there
was a strong linking between language and nationalism in Germany during this time can be partially

1
explained by the renewed interest in the culture of the rural people, for example, by the collection of
the Grimm brothers of the various folklore in Germany. 1 From von Humboldt, there is a direct line
towards the early twentieth century in the writings of the Americans Edward Sapir and his student
Benjamin Whorf. Their idea was known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and is basically the same ideas
as Humboldt's, though with a more anthropological bent, giving as support their various researches in
the languages of the Native Americans.

The connection with Europe here is relevant because of the argument used by the proponents of
the national language that Rizal himself saw the need for a national language for the Filipinos. Parale in
the 1960s for example, interpreted the statement uttered by the character Simoun in the novel El
Filibusterismo of Rizal:

Spanish will never be the general language of the country, the people will never talk it, because the
conceptions of their brains and the feelings of their hearts cannot be expressed in that language - each
people has its own tongue, as it has its own way of thinking! What are you going to do with Castilian,
the few of you who will speak it? Kill off your own originality, subordinate your thoughts to other
brains, and instead of freeing yourselves, make yourselves slaves indeed!2

as proof that Rizal wanted the Filipinos to express themselves in their own language. Parale then adds
that the imposition of the English language upon the Filipinos has been a disastrous event. That Rizal
was aware of the European conception of the linking between language and nation can be seen in this
statement by Simoun, though to say that it is Rizal that is advocating this idea himself would be
uncertain since it is the character that is speaking and not Rizal himself. Given that Rizal was most
eloquent in the Spanish language, as many of the Propagandistas in Europe were at the time, there
would be a deep sense of irony here. And this is what is pointed out by Panlasigui, one of the more
outspoken critic of the national language policy of the Philippines during the 1960s, when he interprets
another passage from Rizal, this time in the Noli me Tangere, saying that contrary to the interpretation
of the national language advocates, subscribing to this idea would be to agree with the statement of
Padre Damaso who admonished those who would teach the Castilian language in the Philippines. Padre
Damaso's contention is that the Filipinos do not have the intellectual capacity for the Castilian language
and that it would be best for them to leave the language alone.

Related to the concept of linguistic determinism among the national language advocates is the
idea of colonial mentality. This concept basically states that not only are there economic and political
forms of subjugation, there are cultural ones as well. Some even say that this type of subjugation is
more insidious because even after the colonizers have left, their influence still lingers in the form of
cultural remnants, such as for example, the use of a foreign language. 3 Colonial mentality is the
defilement of that which is inherent in the Filipino soul. Thus, colonial mentality is a great affront to a
true Filipino's sense of being.

The 1960s can be considered as the most colorful period so far in the debates regarding the
national language. Besides the opposition from those who advocated English, such as Ferrer,
Panlasigui, Yabes and others, there was the opposition to the national language in terms of its proper
character. There was the eruption of the so-called 'fusionist' versus 'non-fusionist' conception of the
1 Roger Langham Brown, Wilhelm von Humboldt's Conception of Linguistic Relativity (The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton
& Co., 1967), 76.
2 Isidoro Panlasigui, The Language Problems of the Philippines (Quezon City: Delco Publishers, 1962), 14.
3 Apolinar Parale, Facts and Issues on the Pilipino Language (Manila: Royal Publishing House, 1969), 91.

2
national language popularized by Atty. Geruncio Lacuesta who railed against the supposed triumph of
the 'fusionist' school in the Institute of National Language. This was an old debate regarding the issue
of using Tagalog as a 'base' against which the supposed additions from the other languages of the
country will be made. Otto Scheerer, in the first two decades of the twentieth century, who was the
founder of the department of linguistics of the University of the Philippines, cautioned against the
approach of adding and refining a language through artificial means, calling instead for the outright
adoption of one of the native languages as a national language. However, by the final stage of the
drafting of the national language provision in the 1935 Constitution, this clearly was not followed.
Related to the anti-fusionist idea of Lacuesta is the anti-purism movement which advocated the
provision in the 1935 Constitution which argued for the addition process. There were accusations
towards members of the Institute of National Language that they were Tagalistas, not advocates of the
national language, because they insisted on using 'salumpuwit' instead of 'silya' or 'upuan.' As can be
easily seen, the Tagalista is nothing more than a straw man, a caricature to be easily lambasted and
criticized, its popularity stemming mainly from the absurdity that sticking strictly to a particular line of
grammatical construction would create. Besides these issues, there was the emerging linking of Filipino
nationalism and the Filipino language as well through its use by the student activists and radical leaders
during this time against the imperialistic designs of the United States as manifested in the various
economic and other policies of the government. Various nationalistic literary works in the national
language appeared. The claim therefore by the national language advocates of the unity that is
engendered by the use of a national language seems to have been vindicated here. However, it is
important to point out that not only were there nationalists who expressed themselves in the English
language, contrary to the concept of linguistic determinism, but that these events were largely confined
to the greater Metro Manila area, with the participation of those from the Visayas and Mindanao
regions for example, remaining marginal at best. The accusation of being Manila-centric can be made
here as well.

Caught up in the spirit of the times, the activists used the language they were most comfortable
with, disregarding the legislations and other a priori justifications, focusing mostly on the utilitarian
aspect of their language use. The setting being Manila, and the target audience being those from the
middle to lower classes, they used the language which is most suitable for their goals, thus Filipino or
the Manila lingua franca. To say that they engaged themselves in the debates regarding the connection
between language and identity would be a non-issue since they were obviously caught up in things that
are much bigger. Besides this, nationalists during that time, for example, Renato Constantino, wrote
their attacks against the American imperialist policy using the English language, even at the same time
disparaging the colonial situation which gave rise to such events: 'For a smattering of English,'
Constantino said, 'we yielded our souls.' The situation is quite ironic then if we accept the words
unconditionally, and quite pessimistic, for how then can we liberate ourselves.

III. The Utilitarian and Internationalist Perspectives

Running counter to the determinist/essentialist position which has been the dominant ideology
in the national language debates, is an argument which states that there is no relation between language
and nationalism and, as expressed by Maximo Kalaw, that "the ownership of a language is determined
solely by its use."4 This we might label as the utilitarian or non-essentialist perspective. This, of course,
was not a popular point of view, with those advocating it easily vulnerable to accusations of being
4 Andrew B. Gonzales, Language and Nationalism The Philippine Experience Thus Far (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press, 1980), 43.

3
victims of colonial mentality, of lacking in nationalism or patriotism, of disloyalty to the historical past
of the Filipinos. Nonetheless there it existed, and we find this in the thoughts of Isidoro Panlasigui, an
educator at the University of the Philippines, more than forty years ago in his book 'The Language
Problems of the Philippines.' This remains a most interesting perspective with regards to the national
language issue because it glances a wary eye over the events that transpired in the drafting and
subsequent adoption of the national language provision in the 1935 Constitution of the Philippines.
Among others, he argues that Filipino is none other than Tagalog, that the process in the adoption of the
national language was unfair and undemocratic, and that the legislation resulted in the marginalization
of the other ethnolinguistic groups of the country. The main thrust of his argument however, is that of
internationalism which is much easier accomplished through the use of the English language.

The idea that the use of the English language by Filipinos is not a sign of colonial mentality
begins with a counter to the idea of linguistic determinism. Whereas linguistic determinism posits that
language determines consciousness, the position held by Panlasigui aligns more with the current ideas
on linguistics, specifically the work of linguists like Noam Chomsky which states that there are
underlying structures of communication in the human mind which does not solely depend on that of
language. Following strictly the idea of linguistic determinism, as discussed earlier, language between
different ethnolinguistic groups around the world would then be an impossibility. Since this is not the
case, given the various non-linguistic means by which human beings can communicate (facial
expressions, gestures), a more appropriate description of language therefore would be merely that of a
'label' attached to things that are perceived and thought. Ideas can be expressed in whatever language
and whether the expression is accurate or detailed enough depends on the 'language power.'5

The utilitarian aspect of the argument focuses on the importance of the language in question, in
fostering unity and cohesion. This is claimed by both the pro-national language camp as well as by
Panlasigui. Panlasigui says that English is the best medium by which to accomplish this particular goal.
If the importance of a language is to be determined by its ability to connect people, then the English
language is the best that the Filipinos can use, with it being the language of international business and
industry. Panlasigui uses the analogy of the careton versus the high-speed automobile, the former he
claims, being Tagalog and the latter English. Would it not be foolish, he asked, for the Filipinos to
choose the careton over the automobile simply because of some romantic connection with the careton?

Going deeper with the thoughts of Panlasigui on the issue, we encounter an analysis of the
nature of nationalism itself. The very first page of his monograph is a quote by Renan: "It is not
community of race, it is not community of languages, that constitutes a nation: It is the consciousness
of having done great things together in the past and the intention to repeat them in the future." We see
here that Panlasigui intends to focus on the actions, more than the intentions and plans, that made the
idea of nationalism so appealing in the first place. The problem then seemed to be that of the
appropriation by the lawmakers and political leaders of the idea of nationalism, so that it got linked to
that of a particular language - Tagalog. This is a grave error, argues Panlasigui, because, as he
expounds, using a quote from H.G. Wells which states of the problematic nature of the idea of nation,
that the history of the world showed and shows of the mingling and inter-mixing of various peoples and
cultures, so that to say that this particular element, be it language, religion or others is a cause for
nationalism, would be an oversimplification and is ultimately untrue or lacking. Among the more
interesting things that Panlasigui expounded in this work is that of the concept of 'national infantilism.'

5 Isidoro Panlasigui, The Language Problems of the Philippines (Quezon City: Delco Publishers, 1962), 49.

4
This national infantilism, he says, is a psychological disorder whose manifestation includes a romantic
notion of an alleged glorious Filipino past, of a desire to relive this past by doing things like wearing
the Barong Tagalog, or of the UP ROTC wearing the Katipunan costume during parades and exercises.
This interpretation of nationalism as a psychological aberration finds itself being used once more in
recent times. Helen Lopez, for example, warns us that "a people insecure in its cultural affinities lash
out in anger. Defensiveness can only undermine our effort to discover the possible bases for recovering
social coherence and solidarity. Serene and secure in our cultural moorings, we can afford to be
hospitable to 'cultural others' in determining our own."6

Panlasigui's message is simple: for the Filipinos to participate more in the world community and
to move forward in material and cultural progress, both much easier accomplished through the use of
the English language than that of Tagalog. With regards to the issue of colonial mentality, Panlasigui
argues that the conception that the Filipinos are helpless victims to it, that colonial mentality is a one-
sided affair is simply mistaken. History, he says, has shown that conquered peoples sometimes were
able to impose their culture to that of the more powerful oppressor or conqueror, such as what
happened between the Greeks and Romans. The interactions between conqueror and conquered is not a
one-way street. Echoing the ideas of Panlasigui on the conception of the English language not as a tool
of colonial oppression forty years later, Helen Lopez writes that we should be more accomodating and
accepting of the influence of American literary culture. 7 Of great relevance to the debate is the issue of
Filipino literature in English. By this we can see the idea of Panlasigui of Filipino contribution to world
culture. The works for example of Jose Garcia Villa, Carlos Bulosan and more recently, of Jessica
Hagedorn, all written in English, are acknowledged worldwide, particularly in the United States. This
fact therefore is a counter to the idea expressed by Jorge Bocobo, an advocate of the national language
who asked: "...in what language will the enduring Filipino Literature be written? Will it be English? No
because it is improbable that English will ever be the daily language of the Filipino home..."8

To accept Panlasigui's pronouncements wholeheartedly would be a mistake however given the

complexity of the international situation, especially on the economic question. To imagine that the
Filipinos, the whole masses of Filipinos, not just those privileged enough can contribute to the world
culture, we would have to assume as well of their economic power to be able to do this. As it were, it
appears more and more that regarding the issue of economic determination which is an important part
in the whole package of nationalism, the Filipinos are at a distinct disadvantage. As early as the late
1930s in the United States, Carlos Bulosan was already writing in English, of the experiences, the
shared oppression suffered not only by migrant Filipinos of the lower classes, but also of other
displaced peoples as well. What Bulosan basically described was the condition of the early Overseas
Filipino Workers, many of whom were never able to come back home.

To consider Bocobo's idea, shall the works of Bulosan and similar ex-patriate Filipino authors
be considered outside the scope of a 'national' literature? What is needed it seems is a more flexible
idea of the concept of what constitutes a nation. For if we go even deeper in history, we find that the
exile or semi-exiled Filipinos, those who moved between the political centers and margins of power in
the colonial setting, influenced greatly the birth of the Filipino nation.

6 Cristina Pantoja Hidalgo and Priscelina Patajo-Legasto eds., Philippine Postcolonial Studies Essays on Language and
Literature (Diliman, Quezon City: The University of the Philippines Press, 2004), 115.
7 ibid.
8 Isidoro Panlasigui, The Language Problems of the Philippines (Quezon City: Delco Publishers, 1962), 23.

5
 There is much weight on the contention of the national language advocates regarding the use
within the Philippines of the English language. English has traditionally been the language of the
government bureaucrats and administrators which served to put a distance between them and those
whom they govern or administer. This gave enough room for abuses to occur, of the perpetuation of an
arrangement of unearned privilege. Language therefore is linked to political power. However, it is by
the very means of the use of this language by a progressive segment of the population that this situation
can be countered, thus using the enemy's weapon, as it were, against himself. To say that only this
specific language deserves the title of a national language would be to put a limit on the definition of
nationalism, and in the context of the Philippines, this definition sadly excluded those exiled and semi-
exiled authors and writers, as well as those from the various ethnolinguistic groups.

IV. Criticism from the Regions

The concept of regionalism is something of an evil that is constantly portrayed in nationalist

narratives of the Philippines. This is seen as an anachronism, a regression towards a more 'tribal'
mindset that has kept the Filipinos apart, as if there has always been something uniquely Filipino even
during the ancient times that has only submerged itself, only waiting for that proper moment when it
would surface and see the light of day. The situation however, is that after the family, the next great
source of identity among the people is the shared experience of speaking the same language. And this
feeling mostly remains submerged unless ruffled for example by a careless remark or personal
observation by some tactless figure usually from the geographic political center. Regionalism therefore
must not be taken lightly, and a history of the Philippines which focuses first on the local histories of
the various regions would be a most ideal situation.

Throughout the whole period since the start of the language debates, that is from the 1930s up to
the present time, a feeling of marginalization among the other ethnolinguistic groups in the Philippines
has been felt and expressed, more often, quite emotionally. The polemics would involve the throwing
of words, the more infamous of course is the term 'Tagalog imperialism.' This concept of Tagalog
imperialism though somewhat only mentioned in academic settings, attains a reality among those who
experience it, which seems to be sadly lacking among those who do not understand the feeling of being
marginalized linguistically. The regionalistic perspective, similar to the national language perspective,
subscribes to the idea of linguistic determinism, to a certain extent. The language one speaks, whether it
is Cebuano, Ilonggo, Waray, Hiligaynon and others, becomes one's identity. And a denigration of the
language becomes a denigration of the people who speak it.

Someone who grew up in the Visayas and the non-Muslim and indigenous people parts of
Mindanao, is quite aware of the subtlety and meaning of the word 'Bisaya.' The word does not only
signify those who speak the Cebuano language on the island of Cebu, but means as well those who
speak the other Visayan languages. There is a feeling of camaraderie among the ethnolinguistic groups
who shelter under the umbrella term 'Bisaya,' even though most cannot understand each other without
the use of either Filipino or English. There are also cases when a language with a greater area coverage
becomes the mediating language between two ethnolinguistic groups who happen to live within the
area of coverage of that particular language - a regional lingua franca. The shared experience of having
to learn in school a language that is not a 'language of the home,' as Bocobo would say, resulted in the
realization that being Filipino means having to learn this particular language. This is besides the
content of the history that is taught in the primary and high school levels which shall we say, jumps,
directly towards the national level - that is, towards events in the Manila and surrounding area, thus

6
reinforcing the ideas of marginalization.

Though the national language is encountered now much more easily through the mass media,
especially the television, it still cannot be considered the language of the home since when the child or
the individual goes out in the village or in town the local language is what is used. The knowledge of
the national language which is identified not as Pilipino or Filipino, but simply as 'Tagalog,' unless the
individual goes out into areas which necessitate the use of the language, remains at the academic level
at best. And since most of the lower classes of population remain in the villages or towns where they
were brought up, the situation of not learning the national language remains. The international
economic reality however which gave rise to the fact of Overseas Filipino Workers can be seen as a
factor aiding not just the spreading of the knowledge of the national language, but of English as well.

The identity of this language, Filipino or Pilipino has also been the subject of a quite colorful
and interesting sub-debate in the national language debate. From Tagalog to Pilipino to Filipino, there
has always been a sense of artifice and arbitrariness in the act of renaming the national language, as if
saying that the idea of nation can just as easily be changed legislatively. This is a non-issue among the
majority of the population, however, since Filipino is called simply 'Tagalog.' After more than several
decades of debates and misunderstanding, it seems that the argument is finally closed, with the head of
the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino himself stating that due to the criteria of mutual intelligibility adhred
to by linguists, it seems that the identification of Filipino as Tagalog by non-Tagalog speakers has been
correct all along.9

One major point of contention by the ethnolinguistic groups is the alleged undemocratic method
by which the adoption of the national language came into place. At the time of the 1930s, in terms of
population, there were more Cebuano and Visayan language speakers than Tagalog speakers, spread out
in a farther geographic setting across the archipelago. The Manila Lingua Franca's distinct advantage
however, is that it is the language that is spoken in the geopolitical center of the country. Advocates of
the national language counter that the committee which sat on the national language issue was
composed itself of Visayans, so that criticisms of being biased towards Tagalog would be completely
unjustified. Not helping to the cause of the national language proponents however, are pronouncements
by its advocates, such as Parale who said in justification of the decision of the National Language
Institute almost three decades later that "nothing could be more urgent tran [sic] the preservation of the
nation's unity at all costs,' which hints at something approaching that of the position of fascism, which
is the sacrifice of everything, even basic human and civil rights under the will of the state or nation. 10
Small wonder then that the debate continued as it did in the sixties.

In more recent times, particularly in the mid-90s, a new line was treaded in the issue with the
growing importance given to the preservation of the mother tongues. An example of the events of this
period included a symposium in Cebu which discussed the idea of a 'national literature' which resulted
in the publication of a book composed of several articles regarding said issue in 1995 entitled 'Many
Voices: Towards a National Literature.' The discussion of literature naturally proceeds from the debate
on language in the Philippines, for what are the use of words if not for the creation of literature. What is
interesting in the articles written is of the numerous perspectives which somehow united to give a
common criticism of the idea of a 'canon,' of recognizing any particular one method or way as the only
9 Ricardo Ma. Nolasco, "Filipino and Tagalog not so simple," http://www.dalityapi.com/2007_08_01_archive.html
(accessed February 2011).
10 Apolinar Parale, Facts and Issues on the Pilipino Language (Manila: Royal Publishing House, 1969), 96.

7
proper one that should be valued for a national literature.

What emerges from the write-ups is a feeling, at least among those writers in the vernacular or
local languages, that there is a need for diversity, and that the government should help maintain this
diversity. Telling of this is the review of the current status of Bikol literature by Maria Lilia F. Realubit.
She says that it is as if the Bicolanos have acceded to the dominant ideology which made them
apathetic to the cause of their own cultural self-consciousness. Looking back to a 'golden age,' she says
that the flowering of Bicolano literature occurred during the 1920s and 30s, when there were numerous
plays, poems, short stories and even novels that were produced. Though there have been support
somewhat from the government regarding the other languages, she laments that this is not enough with
regards to Bicolano language and literature. The role of literature and language is important, she relates
because it is the way by which the generation can relay their moral fiber and identity to the next one,
and she specifically blames the national language planning policy as a cause for this problem of
marginalization.11 Of a similar vein are the sentiments of Victor N. Sugbo with regards to Waray
literature. Sugbo relates that by the 50s there was a start of dominance of English over Waray in local
publications. From the thirties until the seventies there was a demand for Waray poetry and literature
particularly in the production of plays during town fiestas. This continued until the seventies when the
popularity of cinema increased displacing the need for Waray literature. He says that since the thirties
and onwards, Waray literature suffered an "interregnum of silence." Like Realubit, he laments this
decline and states that the entrance of Tagalog scripts in radio plays and also of television programs
further worsened the conditions of Waray literature. Sugbo writes that "The old playwrights have long
been dead, and only a few have filled the void the former had left"12

The national language perspective on the other hand, is seen through the contribution of Efren
Abueg. Abueg wrote that writing in the Filipino language ("that language that developed in Metro
Manila with Tagalog as its base and with addition from other languages") would be more financially
viable to the writer. It is worthy to quote him at length here:

Ayon sa konstitusyon ng 1987, natuklasan ng mga linggwista na ang sinasalita sa

Kamaynilaan [pp.132-133] (Metro Manila) ay hindi na Tagalog kundi isa nang
lingua franca. At ang lingua francang ito na tinatawag nang Filipino ay sinasalita
hindi na ng mga Tagalog lamang kundi ng mga Ilokano, Cebuano, Ilonggo,
Bicolano, Waray at iba't ibang Muslim at marami pang etnikong grupong
naninirahan sa lumalawak na kalunsuran.

Abueg then continues to say that in places in the Philippines where non-Tagalogs converge, the
necessity for communication compels them to use another 'variety' of the Filipino language because
"hindi naman sila nagkakaintindihan doon." Abueg assumes that other ethnolinguistic peoples would
want to write in Filipino/Tagalog, asking "hindi ba't gusto rin dito sumulat ng isang Ilokano, ng isang
Cebuano, ng isang Ilonggo, ng isang Muslim?" He thus concludes that Filipino is not only for the
Tagalogs but for all ethnic groups in the country.

What is interesting here, more than the content itself, is the tone of the writing. Compared to the
gloomy pronouncements of marginalization by those from the other ethnolinguistic groups, there is an

11 Elmer A. Ordoñez, ed., Many Voices: Towards a National Literature (Philippine Writers Academy: MOED Press, 1995),
139.
12 ibid., 152.

8
exultation by Abueg that whoever writes in Filipino would be read all over the country. Abueg says,
"magiging bestseller siya." However, this strays from the point of the non-Tagalog advocates entirely,
which is that of the preservation of their linguistic uniqueness, which is felt to be marginalized by the
Manila-centric literary establishment of the country. "Siya'y pagkakalooban ng mga premyo't
karangalang pambansa at hindi pangrehiyon lamang.". The world 'lamang' here must be emphasized as
there is clearly a hierarchy involved, with the regional languages at the lower level and with the
national language, Filipino, at the higher level.

Somehow it is felt there is a misunderstanding involved here. Clearly what the other
ethnolinguistic groups want, at least those who are aware enough of the issues and the history of their
respective language group, is for self-consciousness. This is basically a nationalism, with its own
merits and possible criticisms. There is a call from those below towards those in the center and above,
for at the very least, a recognition of the situation which has lead to the present state of demise. Next is
for measures to counter this felt demise in order to preserve their already sorry states. There are efforts
from the cultural arm of the government regarding this, but there are still the lingering points of view
which believes in the need for a single common national language. If it is simply for the purpose of
communication, not towards the creation of an identity that is to be shared by all, then what is needed is
not a national language, but merely that of a national lingua franca. A lingua franca does not have the
connotation of being a source of identity, merely that of a tool to be used in communication, as opposed
to a mother tongue, which one speaks in one's childhood. Given that the case is that there is still the
recognition of a national language, as mandated by law, critics from the regions have increasingly
become more vocal and there is a shift occurring from focusing on issues of culture and literature
towards the interrelation between language and politics.

V. Continuing Resistance

The resistance among the various ethnolinguistic groups continues to the present time. In 2007
there was the issue of the movie 'Sakal, Sakali, Saklolo' an entry in the 33rd Metro Manila Festival
directed and the script written by Jose Javier Reyes, a prominent and prolific filmmaker in the country.
The movie starred Judy Ann Santos, Gloria Romero, among other well-known Tagalog actors. The
particular scene which drew the ire of the Visayans is of the grandmother complaining why their nanny
who is Visayan, is speaking to the child of the main character, in Visayan. "Bakit nyo pinapalaking
Bisaya ang apo ko?," she asks. Judy Ann talks to the nanny and says “Speak to the kid in Tagalog, para
Pinoy”13 Senator Aquilino Pimentel, a prominent Senator who is Cebuano called for the director to
apologize to the Visayan people saying that the remarks were offensive not just to Visayans but to the
other non-Visayan Filipino citizens as well since it gave the wrong idea to the audience that those who
speak Tagalog are the only ones worthy to be called Filipino. Pimentel also took issue with the
MTRCB, the censor body of the government on films and other related media, as to why they were not
able to spot the derogatory remarks in the preliminary screening. The director meanwhile simply
replied that the Senator should just mind his own business and maybe watch the movie of his fellow
Senators who were once actors. In the newspapers and periodicals which carried the story, there was no
mention of any apology given.

The character of the Bisaya nanny is a familiar trope in Philippine popular cinema, similar to
that of the bumbling probinsyano/a. This trope is employed to provide comedy, albeit of the low-brow
13 Cebu Daily News, "Solon slams ethnic slur in Juday movie" http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?
article_id=20071228-109180 (accessed February 2011).

9
variety every now and then. The humor comes from the nanny's struggle with expressing herself
through the Manila lingua franca and the English language. This has been an object of scorn among the
Visayans, as it portrays the Visayans and other ethnolinguistic groups as inferior to speakers of the
Manila lingua franca. The situation of the nanny, of the probinsyana then, is a portrayal of the wider
situation of ethnolinguistic relations in the Philippines.

The cause of the regions has found a new place of expression in cyberspace. And in the blogs
and comments from the Visayans, we find a most interesting perspective regarding this issue. Ranging
from short, fiery comments to full-blown analyses of the problem of marginalization, this shows that
debate and interest in the issue is well and alive. One of the more well-formed among these groups is
the organization 'Save Our Languages through Federalism' (SOLFED) which was started by an Ilonggo
Visayan doctor who studied in the University of the Philippines, Diliman during the 1980s. He says in
his organization's site14 that what motivated him in the creation of this organization was the perceived
limited Tagalog nationalism which is prevalent in the University during his time. This limited Tagalog
nationalism he says equates being a good Filipino with being a good Tagalog, that it has a great dislike
of the English language, and that it thrives through a centralized or unitarian form of political
organization. Instead of the 'Unity through Uniformity' advocated by this Tagalog nationalism, what Dr.
Dacudao promotes is a 'Unity through Diversity.' This is achieved through pushing for a federal form of
government which allocates the resources of the regions into their local needs first rather than going
straight through the center in Manila. The program of his organization calls for a recognition of the
identity of the various ethnolinguistic groups, of their freedom to promote and develop their own
culture. Based in Butuan City, one of the more important things this organization did was of the
compilation of a Butuanon dictionary and grammar to be used in teaching the dying Butuanon language
in elementary schools in the city.

VI. Conclusion

The national language issue in the Philippines was and is not a simple affair. Starting from its
inception in the 1930s during the Quezon administration up to the present time, it has been plagued
with various criticisms mostly from within. The desire to create one identity by the central government
through the creation of a national language has met with a strong and continuous resistance both from
various ethnolinguistic groups and those who come in defense of the English language, so that the goal
of unity instead was replaced with the reality of further disunity. The linking between a particular
language and nationalism in a country composed of various ethnolinguistic groups each with strong
emotional ties to its own language resulted in a confusing Babel. There was the conflict between the
essentialists and the utilitarians, of the counter to the idea that there is a link between language and
nationalism. There was as well the continuing resistance of those from the various ethnolinguistic
groups, particularly the Visayans. The calls for linguistic unity and respect which at first was a cultural
event turned into a political one, with the continuing marginalization felt by the non-Tagalogs, as only
being solved through a reform in the ways of government from the unitarian centralized state to that of
a multi-linguistic federation of regions and autonomous areas. There is a sense of an emerging
consciousness that would give rise to a new conception of what it means to be a Filipino.

14 http://solfedph.org/about (accessed February 2011).

10
 Bibliography

A. Books

Fishman, Joshua A. Language and Nationalism Two Integrative Essays. Massachusetts: Newbury
House Publishers, Inc., 1972.

Gonzalez, Andrew B. Language and Nationalism The Philippine Experience Thus Far. Quezon City:
Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1980.

Hidalgo, Cristina Pantoja and Priscelina Patajo-Legasto, eds. Philippine Postcolonial Studies Essays on
Language and Literature. Diliman, Quezon City: The University of the Philppines Press, 2004.

Ordoñez, Elmer A. Many Voices Towards a National Literature. Philippine Writers Academy: MOED
Press, 1995.

Panlasigui, Isidoro. The Language Problems of the Philippines. Quezon City: Delco Publishers, 1962.

Parale, Apolinar. Facts and Issues on the Pilipino Language. Manila: Royal Publishing House, 1969.

Spier, Leslie., A. Irving Hallowell and Stanley S. Newman, eds. Language, Culture, and Personality
Essays in Memory of Edward Sapir. (Reprinted 1960) Menasha, Wisconsin: Sapir Memorial
Publication Fund, 1941.

B. Online Sources

Ricardo Ma. Nolasco, "FILIPINO AND TAGALOG, NOT SO SIMPLE"

http://www.dalityapi.com/2007_08_01_archive.html (accessed February 2011).

Neil Parr Davis, "The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: A Critique"

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Students/njp0001.html (accessed February 2011).

"Goals and Objectives" http://solfedph.org/about (accessed February 2011).

"ILONGGO"NATION"MOVEMENT...The Dream... Begins!" http://www.ilonggo-nation.8k.com/

(accessed February 2011).

"Sakal, Sakali, Saklolo: Racism at the 2007 MMFF" http://simpliving.blogspot.com/2007/12/sakal-

sakali-saklolo-racism-at-2007.html (accessed February 2011).

"Solon slams ‘ethnic slur’ in Juday movie." Cebu Daily News.

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/visayas/view_article.php?article_id=109180
(accessed February 2011).