FAQ - On the Petition Against Republic Act No. 12027

 

1. What is Republic Act No. 12027?

RA 12027 is a law that discontinues the mandatory use of the mother tongue as the medium of instruction and as a subject from Kindergarten to Grade 3. It reverts the medium of instruction to Filipino and English, effectively dismantling the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) program mandated by RA 10533 (K to 12 Law).

---

2. What is this petition asking the Supreme Court to do?

The petition asks the Supreme Court to:

• Declare RA 12027 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) unconstitutional;

• Issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) or Writ of Preliminary Injunction to stop its implementation;

• Protect the constitutional and human rights of learners, teachers, parents, and minority communities affected by this law.

---

3. Who are the petitioners?

The petitioners include:

• Children from linguistic and Deaf communities;

• Parents, especially from Indigenous Peoples (IP) groups;

• Teachers, linguists, writers, and scholars;

• National leaders of the Filipino Deaf community;

• Cultural advocates and community educators.

They come from various regions across the Philippines, representing diverse languages and identities.

---

4. Why is RA 12027 considered unconstitutional?

It violates several provisions of the 1987 Constitution, including:

• Article III, Section 1 – right to due process and equal protection;

• Article III, Section 4 – freedom of expression;

• Article XIV, Section 7 – the right to education in regional languages as auxiliary media of instruction;
  It also contradicts the Supreme Court’s own ruling in Cotescup v. Secretary of Education, which upheld MTB-MLE as constitutional.

---

5. What’s wrong with using Filipino and English in schools?

There’s nothing wrong with learning Filipino and English. But forcing children to learn in unfamiliar languages too early, without scaffolding from their first language (L1), leads to:

• Poor comprehension,

• Low academic performance,

• High dropout rates,

• Cultural alienation, especially for non-Tagalog and Indigenous learners.

---

6. How does RA 12027 affect Indigenous learners and the Deaf community?

RA 12027:

• Marginalizes IP learners by removing their language from the classroom;

• Excludes Filipino Sign Language (FSL) despite being recognized by RA 11106 as the national and official sign language;

• Violates international human rights conventions such as the CRC, ICESCR, and CRPD, to which the Philippines is a signatory.

---

7. Isn’t MTB-MLE already failing? Why keep it?

The MTB-MLE program faced implementation gaps, but the solution is better implementation—not abolition.
DepEd’s own data and global research show that when learners are taught in a language they understand, learning outcomes improve significantly. RA 12027 ignores this evidence.

---

8. Why should we care about this issue?

Language is tied to learning, identity, equity, and justice. This issue:

• Affects millions of Filipino children, especially from rural, Indigenous, and marginalized communities;

• Determines the quality and accessibility of education;

• Impacts how future generations understand their culture and participate in society.

---

9. What can we do to help?

• Stay informed and share verified information;

• Speak out on social media using your regional language or sign language;

• Join advocacy groups defending linguistic rights and inclusive education;

• Write to your legislators or the DepEd to express concern;

• Encourage schools, LGUs, and communities to uphold MTB-MLE in practice.

PETITION TO DECLARE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 12027 UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The Petition was submitted to the Supreme Court today, June 30, 2025. 

The petitioners come from the Deaf community, pupils (represented by their parents or guardians), teachers, the Indigenous Cultural Community, linguists, and other academics.  

English Version 

SUMMARY OF THE PETITION TO DECLARE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 12027 UNCONSTITUTIONAL

This Petition asks the Supreme Court to declare Republic Act No. 12027 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) unconstitutional. Petitioners argue that the law violates multiple provisions of the 1987 Constitution, including the right to due process and equal protection (Art. III, Sec. 1), freedom of expression (Art. III, Sec. 4), and the right to be educated in one’s mother tongue (Art. XIV, Sec. 7). It also violates jurisprudence, particularly the Supreme Court ruling in Cotescup v. Secretary of Education, which upheld the use of the mother tongue as a primary medium of instruction.

RA 12027 removes the requirement to use the learner’s first language (L1) as a subject and medium of instruction from Kindergarten to Grade 3. This demotes the child’s home language to a marginal role, contradicting laws and evidence that affirm its importance in ensuring quality, inclusive, and equitable education.

“To remove the learner’s L1 as a subject is not a neutral act—it is a form of cultural erasure.”

Main Points:

1. It discriminates against the majority of Filipino learners. Over 60% of children in Grades K to 3 speak neither Tagalog nor English at home. The law forces them to learn in unfamiliar languages, undermining comprehension and deep learning.

2. It silences teachers and undermines inclusive school leadership. Section 4 imposes vague administrative sanctions on the use of the mother tongue, discouraging its use even where it is most effective—especially for Indigenous learners and Deaf students who use Filipino Sign Language (FSL).

3. It contradicts decades of educational research and Philippine experience. International studies and DepEd’s own assessments show that children learn best when instruction begins in the language they know best.

4. It violates both national laws (such as RA 10533, RA 11106, RA 8371) and international commitments (CRC, CRPD, ICESCR, CADE) which uphold the rights of linguistic minorities, including Indigenous Peoples and the Deaf, to accessible, meaningful education in their own languages.

5. It imposes an unfair burden on local languages. The law allows L1-based instruction only under narrow conditions such as encyclopedias approved and published only by KWF and teachers who are trained and language proficient, requirements not imposed on Filipino or English.

What Petitioners Request:

Petitioners respectfully ask the Supreme Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction to halt the implementation of RA 12027, which took effect in June 2025. Without intervention, millions of children—especially those from non-Tagalog backgrounds and the Deaf community—will be denied their right to learn in the language of their birth, home, and identity.

This petition stands for every learner’s right to quality education rooted in their own language, culture, and dignity.

...............................................................................

Filipino Version

BUOD NG PETISYON PARA IDEKLARANG LABAG SA KONSTITUSYON ANG REPUBLIC ACT NO. 12027

Ang petisyong ito ay inihain sa Korte Suprema upang ideklarang labag sa Konstitusyon ang Republic Act No. 12027 at ang Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) nito. Iginiit ng mga petisyoner—na kinabibilangan ng mga bata, magulang, guro, lider ng katutubo, mga lingguwista, at kinatawan ng komunidad ng Bingi—na nilalabag ng batas na ito ang mga pangunahing karapatan sa 1987 Konstitusyon, kabilang ang karapatan sa due process at pantay-pantay na pagtingin sa batas (Art. III, Sec. 1), kalayaan sa pagpapahayag (Art. III, Sec. 4), at ang karapatang matuto gamit ang sariling wika (Art. XIV, Sec. 7). Nilalabag din nito ang desisyong Cotescup v. Secretary of Education ng Korte Suprema, na kinilala ang legalidad ng paggamit ng unang wika bilang pangunahing midyum ng pagtuturo.

Tinatanggal ng RA 12027 ang rekisitong gamitin ang mother tongue bilang asignatura at pangunahing midyum ng pagtuturo mula Kindergarten hanggang Grade 3. Sa halip na palakasin, pinapababa nito ang halaga ng wikang ginagamit sa tahanan ng bata, at ginagawang opsyonal—sa kabila ng matibay na ebidensiyang ang paggamit ng unang wika ay nagpapabuti sa pagkatuto, pagkakapantay-pantay, at inklusyon.

“Ang pagtanggal sa unang wika ng bata bilang asignatura ay hindi inosenteng hakbang—ito ay isang anyo ng pagbura sa kultura.”

Pangunahing Punto:

1.      Mapanira at mapanlinlang sa nakararaming batang Pilipino. Mahigit 60% ng mga mag-aaral sa K hanggang Grade 3 ay hindi nagsasalita ng Tagalog o Ingles sa bahay. Pinipilit silang matuto gamit ang wikang banyaga sa kanila, na humahadlang sa kanilang pag-unawa at partisipasyon.

2.      Pinatatahimik ang mga guro at pinahihina ang pamumunong pang-edukasyon sa lokal. Ang Seksyon 4 ay nagpapataw ng di-malinaw at nakakatakot na parusa sa mga gurong gumagamit ng mother tongue, lalo na sa mga nagtuturo sa mga katutubo at sa mga batang Bingi na gumagamit ng Filipino Sign Language (FSL).

3.      Taliwas sa pananaliksik at pinakamahusay na praktika. Ipinapakita ng mga pag-aaral mula sa World Bank, UNESCO, at maging ng DepEd mismo, na mas epektibo ang pagkatuto kung sisimulan sa wikang nauunawaan ng bata.

4.      Nilalabag ang umiiral na batas at internasyonal na kasunduan. Sinasalungat ng RA 12027 ang mga naunang reporma gaya ng K to 12 Law (RA 10533), Filipino Sign Language Act (RA 11106), Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (RA 8371), at iba pang batas na nagtataguyod ng inklusibong edukasyon. Nilalabag din nito ang mga pandaigdigang kasunduan gaya ng CRC, ICESCR, CRPD, at CADE.

5.      Nagpapataw ng imposibleng pasanin sa mga lokal na wika. Bagamat sinasabing maaaring gamitin ang MTB-MLE sa mga "monolinggwal na klase," naglalagay ito ng mahigpit at makitid na mga kundisyon tulad ng mga encyclopedia na inaprubahan at inilathala lamang ng KWF at mga gurong may sapat na kasanayan at bihasa sa wika, mga rekisitong hindi hinihingi sa paggamit ng Ingles o Filipino.

Hiling ng mga Petisyoner:

Hinihiling ng mga petisyoner sa Korte Suprema na maglabas ng Temporary Restraining Order o Writ of Preliminary Injunction upang pansamantalang ipatigil ang implementasyon ng RA 12027, na nagsimula noong Hunyo 2025. Kung walang agarang aksyon, milyon-milyong bata—lalo na mula sa mga hindi-Tagalog at komunidad ng Bingi—ang mawawalan ng patas, inklusibo, at dekalidad na edukasyon sa wikang kanilang alam at ginagamit.

Ang petisyong ito ay hindi lamang pagtatanggol sa kasalukuyang henerasyon, kundi sa lahat ng susunod pang henerasyon ng mga batang Pilipino. Paninindigan ito para sa karapatan ng bawat bata na matuto, magpahayag, at umunlad sa wika ng kanyang tahanan, puso, at pagkatao.

Translations in other languages will be posted soon.

𝐎𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝟏 𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐮𝐱𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐠𝐞

 RA 12027 refers to the regional languages as auxiliary mediums of instruction (MOI). Some define "auxiliary" in terms of the amount or percentage of time these languages are used, possibly in local media and public documents. As a teacher, I adhere to the definition of auxiliary language provided by RA 7104 Section 3: 

"𝘼𝙪𝙭𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙖𝙜𝙚 - 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙖 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙧 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙖𝙜𝙚, 𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙠𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙨, 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙨𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙝𝙚𝙡𝙥𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙/𝙤𝙧 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙪𝙣𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨"

This definition highlights that some learners may need more support from their first language (L1), while others may need less. Therefore, it is difficult to quantify its usage. Instead, the key question should be: how can we use the children's L1 to help them eventually learn entirely through Filipino or English? My point is that the definition of "auxiliary language" must be viewed from a teaching and learning perspective. 

For the proponents of MTB-MLE, the best interpretation of L1 as an auxiliary language is rooted in Cummins' theory, which states that when young children are immersed in their L1, they transfer literacy and language skills to their L2 as they progress in higher grades. Unfortunately, it seems our lawmakers either disregard or fail to consider this research-backed framework.  

The other framework on the use of L1 as complementary language comes from contrastive linguistics experts who work with dual language or sheltered instruction programs, such as Margo Gottlieb, Jana Echevarria, and translanguaging scholars like Ofelia Garcia and her colleagues from CUNY. In Thailand, Dr. Sangsok Son leads a translanguaging lab, advocating for a hybrid model where L1 is used from kindergarten to Grade 3 and continues as a support language from Grade 3 onward. 

And so given the restricted use of L1 as an auxiliary language, the IRR for RA 12027 should include the following provisions: 

𝟭. 𝗔 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝘅𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗟𝟭 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘂𝘅𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲. 

𝟮. 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘀, 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘀. 

𝟯. 𝗠𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴. 

Without a clear definition and framework for using L1 as an auxiliary language, teachers may default to "back translation." This happens when a teacher uses English as the MOI, and if students do not understand, the teacher translates into the local language. This unplanned and spontaneous use of L1 can be harmful, as students may simply wait for the translation. Planned use of L1 includes some strategies for the receptive and productive use of languages like using L1 to clarify background information of a particular lesson, preview-view-review, etc. 

In addition, as students learn Filipino as L2, both their L1 and Filipino can be used as complementary languages to support the learning of additional foreign languages. 

The IRR writers should seriously consider previous research, such as the Monroe report, which shows that a strict English-only policy is detrimental. It often leads to underachievement and hinders productive discourse, as students struggle to ask questions or engage in discussions in English. Unless, of course, lawmakers prefer classrooms to remain quiet and devoid of meaningful and critical exchanges. 

In a linguistically diverse and developing country like the Philippines, it is crucial to conduct more studies that explore how L1 can be maximized as a complementary language in various language contexts. These studies should focus on understanding the role of L1 in supporting not only the acquisition of national and official languages but also in enhancing multilingualism and overall learning outcomes.