The wider use of Filipino in court proceedings could help make the justice system more accessible and understandable to Filipinos.
This was the recent statement made by Department of Justice Undersecretary Ian Norman Dato in response to the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association’s (PTLA) renewed appeal for the Supreme Court to allow Filipino in court proceedings nationwide, saying the call draws attention to “a gap that has long existed between the language of our laws and the people they are meant to serve.”
“For many Filipinos, the courtroom can feel like a place where justice is spoken in a foreign tongue,” Dato said. “When court proceedings are difficult to understand, people are often left to rely on their lawyers to explain what is happening to their own lives, families, and freedoms.”
He also pointed to the 1987 Constitution, which recognizes Filipino as the national language and directs the government to develop and use it as a medium of official communication. He also cited the Bill of Rights, which guarantees every accused person the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them.
“That right is difficult to fully realize if the explanation is delivered in a language the accused does not truly understand. It is not enough for the words to be translated; they must be naiintindihan,” Dato noted.
The Judiciary has also taken steps toward greater use of Filipino. In July 2026, the Supreme Court released a 26-page decision in a statutory rape case written entirely in Filipino by Justice Maria Filomena Singh. It followed the May 2026 decision in Velarde v. Court of Tax Appeals, which was also written in Filipino, as part of the Judiciary’s continuing efforts under its Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovation.
He added that using Filipino could also improve the quality of evidence presented in court. “Witnesses can describe what they saw, heard, or experienced more naturally and accurately in a language they are comfortable speaking, without first translating their thoughts into English,” Dato said. Filipino documents are likewise already accepted under the Rules of Court without requiring a separate translation.
Still, Dato acknowledged that expanding Filipino use in courts would not be a simple transition. Legal concepts such as “preponderance of evidence” and the elements of estafa carry precise meanings shaped by English and Spanish legal history. “Translating them requires more than finding simpler words,” he said, stressing the need to continue developing Filipino as a language capable of expressing complex legal ideas accurately.
With more than 170 languages spoken in the Philippines, he also cautioned that an overly Tagalog-centric approach could create another barrier for people in the Visayas and Mindanao who are more comfortable with Cebuano, Ilocano, or other local languages.
“It is a question of whether people can understand the law that governs their lives, the charges brought against them, and the decisions that affect their freedom. If the law is for the people, then its language must reach them, too,” Dato concluded.
