Expanding the use of the Filipino language in courtrooms could dismantle legal barriers, making the entire justice system far more approachable and comprehensible for everyday citizens.
Department of Justice Undersecretary Ian Norman Dato made the statement in response to the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association’s (PTLA) latest petition urging the Supreme Court to authorize the nationwide use of the vernacular in courtrooms. Supporting the move, Dato emphasized that the group’s appeal highlights “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.”
To back his stance, Dato highlighted specific mandates within the 1987 Constitution, which designates Filipino as the national tongue and instructs the government to employ it in official state exchanges. He also bridged the language issue to human rights, citing the Bill of Rights mandate that guarantees all accused individuals the right to be clearly informed about the accusations they face—a task made significantly easier when spoken in a language they understand.
“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.
Milestones toward localized court procedures are already underway within the Judiciary. Under its Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovation, the High Tribunal issued a 26-page decision in a statutory rape case in July 2026 drafted entirely in the vernacular by Justice Maria Filomena Singh. The historic child abuse ruling built upon the momentum of the May 2026 [Velarde v. Court of Tax Appeals] tax evasion resolution, which similarly discarded English to communicate the law in a language more accessible to ordinary citizens.
Dato also asserted that using Filipino improves evidentiary accuracy, stating that “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.” He reminded the public that this integration is already underway, as the Rules of Court allow Filipino documents to be submitted without an accompanying translation.
Nevertheless, DOJ Undersecretary Ian Norman Dato conceded that a widespread transition to the vernacular would present significant challenges. He noted that specialized legal terms, such as “preponderance of evidence” and the specific components of estafa, have exact legal definitions deeply rooted in English and Spanish jurisprudence. “Translating them requires more than finding simpler words,” Dato explained, emphasizing that the state must commit to systematically developing Filipino into a language that can precisely articulate complex legal concepts.
Given that the Philippines boasts more than 170 distinct languages, Dato raised an important regional caveat. He warned that a strictly Tagalog-focused rollout could inadvertently build a fresh linguistic barrier for residents in the Visayas and Mindanao, where people predominantly speak and feel more comfortable using Cebuano, Ilocano, or other local regional 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.
