UP, national groups decry GMA’s ‘Return

of English’ directive
WE ARE DISCONCERTED by the statements of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
regarding the intensified use of English as the primary medium of instruction in Philippine
schools, and the serious implications these create on the education and lives of Filipinos.
We would like to present other views on this issue of national importance.

First, the statements are an apparent misreading of the constitutional provisions pertaining to the
use of English and Filipino as official languages of the Philippines. Article XIV, Section 6 of the the
Philippine Constitution provides: “Subject to provisions of law and as the Congress may deem
appropriate, the Government shall take steps to initiate and sustain the use of Filipino as a
medium of official communication and as language of instruction in the educational system.”
President Arroyo announced that “[the Constitution] specifies the use of Filipino as the language
of instruction, but it also specifies that this is subject to provisions of law and as Congress may
deem appropriate. Therefore, I am directing the Department of Education to return English as
primary medium of instruction.” This is a complete reversal of the aforestated provision. Instead of
sustaining the development of Filipino as a tool for education, she bends the constitutional
imperative to highlight the role of the English language in her “global competitiveness” program.
Also, President Arroyo’s statements distort the said provision. The aforementioned Section 6
already paves the way toward the status of Filipino as the only official language of the Philippines;
it is the abolition of English that needs enactment from Congress at a time when the Filipino
language has achieved total recognition and function as the national language.

Second, the statement, “the return of English” implies the primary status of Filipino as a medium
of instruction. Again, this is not true. Except for Manuel L. Quezon, the Philippines from the
American period to the present has not been lucky enough to have a President who supported
the use of our very own na-tional language in schools and in official communication. when she
said “Some subjects, of course, will still be taught in Filipino,” she betrays her ignorance of the
current status of Filipino and its limited use in Philippine schools as it is being used only in Filipino
and social science subjects. The other school subjects—English, Science, Mathematics,
Vocational and Physical Education—are all taught in English.

Third, President Arroyo’s statements place her in the same mold of Philippine presidents who
implemented language policies in complete disregard of scientific and modern learning principles.
One of these is that a child learns faster in his/her native tongue. Another is that a child easily
learns a second language if he/she is already literate in the native language. These learning
principles have been validated in experiments and studies even before the implementation of the
bilingual policy in Philippine education. The Iloilo experiment in the 1960s showed that Filipino
youths learn faster and better in their native language. The EDCOM Report (1998) said: “Test
results showed that the highest scores were obtained by those who studied science in their own
language…like the Japanese and Korean children.”

We question the Arroyo administration’s development program that hews to the labor needs of the
multinational market at the expense of the growth of local scientific and entrepreneurial
endeavors. Instead of looking after foreign interests, the Arroyo administration should consider
prioritizing Filipino needs and concerns.

We recommend that the Arroyo administration seriously consider the use of Filipino as the sole
medium of instruction in the primary level of education. English can be introduced at the
intermediate level. This is to effectively and democratically implement the true spirit of the
bilingual policy in Philippine education, as well as employ the optimum learning principle. Hong
Kong and mainland China are currently implementing this method as their educators realized its
educational efficacy. Such a system that emphasizes the role of the first lang-uage will pro-duce
students who are lite-rate in Filipino and very ready to learn English and in English. We suggest
that we invest in the training and the retraining of our teachers. Our normal schools should get a
bigger budget to invigorate the teaching profession. We should earnestly develop and produce
textbooks written in Filipino to support this proposed national language program. We laud the
admininistration’s commitment to build more schools but a parallel support should be infused into
the raising of the quality of education. And, just as important, we must also recognize the role of
teachers in sustaining the ideals of quality education and, thus, their salaries should be increased
to encourage them to stay in the country and not become domestic helpers or chambermaids
abroad.

• Departamento ng Filipino at Panitikan ng Pilipinas, Unibersidad ng Pilipinas

• UP Sentro ng Wikang Filipino
• SURIAN SA MALIKHAING PAGSULAT (UP Institute of Creative Writing)
• SANGFIL (Samahan ng mga Kolehiyo at Unibersidad sa Filipino)
• PASATAF (Pambansang Samahan at Tagapagtaguyod ng Filipino)
• PSW (Pambansang Samahan sa Wika)
• UMPIL (Unyon ng mga Manunulat sa Pilipinas)
• Department of Filipino, Philippine Normal University
• Department of Linguistics, University of the Philippines
• Department of Filipino, Ateneo de Manila University