AUGUST is Buwan ng Wika. It’s a good time to reflect on how far the Filipino language has served us as a unifying tool. The numbers look good. Around 90 to 95 million (85 to 90 percent of the total population) speak Filipino, the national language based on Tagalog. But it’s not as rosy when measured against the norms of functional literacy. Speaking the language is different from understanding it (that is, when understanding is the basis for taking positive action, for hiding the truth, for wielding power and control, etc.).
An example is “bawal magtapon ng basura.” We understand what the words mean. But many of us act as if dumping litter anywhere is OK, anyway. Proof is the flooding in the neighborhood at the outset of a downpour due to clogged drainage infrastructure.
“Bawal magnakaw?” How that influences behavior would most likely depend on many things. Those who believe in the God that raised the hand of Moses would probably take heed. Otherwise, the law of Moses and the laws of the land mean nothing. Proof is the flooding made worse by politicians who pocketed the money meant to mitigate it.
Still another example is the word “agad.” The official Filipino translation (approved by the Komisyon sa Wikang Filipino) of Paragraph 4, Section 3, Article XI, of the 1987 Philippine Constitution reads:
“Kung ang pinanumpaang sakdal o resolusyon sa impeachment ay iniharap ng isang-katlo man lamang ng lahat ng mga Kagawad ng Kapulungan, iyon ay dapat bumuo sa mga Artikulo ng Impeachment, at dapat isunod agad ang paglilitis ng Senado.”
The text in English reads:
“In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.”
It took the Senate months to convene as an impeachment court after the House of Representatives filed the first impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte in February 2025. Various sectors, many of them familiar with legalese, protested the Senate’s slow-motion posture. And then the Supreme Court, whose say on disputes like these is final, ruled that “forthwith” has to be interpreted to mean “within a reasonable time, which may be longer or shorter, depending on the circumstances of each case.” That should end all debate.
Except that “agad” needs to be stretched to also mean “mamaya” or “saka na.” This is welcome news for kids everywhere who think doing house chores is better done “for later.”
At any rate, the Senate impeachment court did eventually hear the case not long after it was filed by the House the second time. Having gone through several impeachment proceedings, from President Erap Estrada in 2000 to Chief Justice Renato Corona in 2012, the Filipino-speaking public must have been fed generously with attempts to bring the proceedings to the level it understands. Whether the entire process helps uncover the truth or serves strategic or political purposes is a separate question.
Words, in any language, can control. Whether spoken or written in Tagalog, English or Greek, casualties of misunderstanding pile up. “Forthwith” has taught us that the world is evolving; fresh frontiers of control and manipulation of the weak and naïve by the strong and sophisticated are in the process of becoming.
The relations between China and the Philippines are uneven. One displays acts of aggression, the other of accommodation.
Early last month, on July 10, 2026, something happened between Philippine Navy and China Coast Guard personnel at Ayungin Shoal, a submerged reef located 105 nautical miles west of Palawan and well inside the country’s 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone. The parties figured in a hostile confrontation, resulting in the wounding of two Filipino servicemen.
This led to a debrief by the ambassadors of both countries on what transpired near the BRP Sierra Madre, a World War II-era seacraft deliberately grounded by the Philippine government in 1999 to serve as a military outpost and assert its sovereignty over the shoal following China’s occupation of nearby Mischief Reef. The Chinese charged that their Philippine counterparts had violated a provisional agreement. Incidents of bullying by the Chinese of Filipino servicemen, including even the fisherfolk, are not uncommon and are well-documented. But this is the first time the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has mentioned that an agreement of that sort exists, although it insists that the Philippines did not violate the agreement referred to by Beijing, and the accurate wording was “provisional understanding,” not provisional agreement.
A Senate resolution has been filed asking its foreign affairs committee to look at how this “provisional understanding” fits into the larger scheme of things. The DFA says it is “neither a treaty nor a binding executive agreement, but rather an informal, non-prejudicial, operational de-escalation protocol.” While sensitive foreign policy negotiations can be undermined by public legislative debates, informal agreements can be a tool for establishing one-sided foreign relations arrangements, which argues for formal legislative scrutiny.
In diplomatic speak, or “diplomatese,” provisional arrangements within frameworks like the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are so designed “to govern disputed maritime areas without setting a firm expiration date or prejudicing underlying territorial claims.”
In everyday language, a provisional agreement or understanding would mean a short-term, temporary or interim stopgap measure. This agreement has been in effect for the last two years, which sounds like a permanent failure to agree on a just, even if temporary, solution.
In the meantime, the world is not looking like it used to. Forthwith is “mamaya” or “saka na.” Provisional is forever. “Banyaga o sariling wika, mahirap intindihin ang buhay.”
email@aberia.ink
