DOJ Undersecretary Ian Norman Dato says expanding the use of Filipino in courtrooms could help Filipinos better understand legal proceedings, while highlighting the need to accommodate the country's many languages.
Understanding what happens inside a courtroom can be difficult when the language used in legal proceedings is unfamiliar. For people facing criminal charges, that language barrier can affect how clearly they understand the accusations against them and the legal process that may shape their future.
Department of Justice Undersecretary Ian Norman Dato has backed calls to expand the use of Filipino in court proceedings nationwide, responding to a renewed appeal from the Philippine Trial Lawyers Association (PTLA) for the Supreme Court to allow broader use of the national language in courtrooms.
Dato said the appeal highlights a longstanding gap between the language of the law and the people it serves.
“For many Filipinos, the courtroom can feel like a place where justice is spoken in a foreign tongue,” Dato said. He added that when proceedings are difficult to understand, people may have to depend on their lawyers to explain decisions and developments affecting their lives, families, and freedom.
The proposal raises a wider question for the Philippine justice system: how can courts make legal proceedings more understandable without sacrificing the precision required by the law?
Language Access and the Right to Understand the Charges
The 1987 Philippine Constitution recognizes Filipino as the national language and directs the government to take steps toward its continued use as a medium of official communication. It also identifies Filipino and English as the country's official languages for communication and instruction, subject to the Constitution's provisions.
The Constitution's Bill of Rights provides another relevant foundation. Article III, Section 14 guarantees an accused person the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them, along with other protections in criminal proceedings.
The constitutional provisions do not, by themselves, establish that all court proceedings must be conducted in Filipino. However, Dato argues that making courtroom language more accessible could help people better understand how these protections apply to their cases.
“It is not enough for the words to be translated; they must be naiintindihan,” he said.
The distinction matters because legal comprehension involves more than translating individual words. People must be able to understand the meaning of the charges, the evidence presented, and the decisions that affect their rights.
The 1987 Constitution provides the legal context for the discussion.
Supreme Court Decisions Show Filipino Can Be Used in Legal Writing
The discussion comes as the Supreme Court has issued decisions written in Filipino.
In July 2026, the Court released a 26-page decision in a statutory rape case written entirely in Filipino by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh. The ruling affirmed the convictions in the case, according to a report by The Philippine Daily Inquirer.
The decision demonstrated that Filipino can be used to communicate complex legal reasoning in a formal court ruling. It also drew attention to the role language can play in making judicial decisions more accessible to the public.
The Supreme Court's broader reform agenda includes its Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022–2027, which identifies access, inclusion, transparency, and accountability among the goals of judicial modernization. The plan is not solely a language initiative, but its focus on more accessible justice provides relevant context for the discussion.
More information about the plan is available through the Supreme Court's official website.
Could Filipino Help Witnesses Give Clearer Testimony?
Dato also pointed to possible benefits during the presentation of evidence.
Witnesses may be better able to describe what they saw, heard, or experienced when speaking in a language they know well, he said. Requiring them to first translate their thoughts into English could make it harder to express details naturally.
Filipino-language documents are also accepted under the Rules of Court without a separate translation requirement, according to Dato.
However, expanding the use of Filipino would require careful attention to legal terminology. Concepts such as preponderance of evidence and the elements of estafa carry specific meanings developed through the country's legal history.
Translating these concepts involves more than substituting English terms with Filipino words. Legal professionals would need terminology that preserves the precise meaning of the law while making it understandable to court users.
That work would be important to ensure that language changes improve comprehension without introducing uncertainty into legal arguments, evidence, or judicial decisions.
A Nationwide Approach Must Consider Regional Languages
Filipino may be more familiar to many court users, but it is not the first language of every Filipino.
Dato cautioned against an approach that treats Tagalog-based Filipino as the only answer to language barriers in the justice system. People in the Visayas and Mindanao, for example, may be more comfortable speaking Cebuano or another regional language. Others may primarily use Ilocano or a different Philippine language.
This presents a practical challenge for any nationwide policy. Expanding the use of Filipino could improve access for some court users, but a system that does not account for regional language differences could leave others facing similar difficulties.
Implementation would therefore require consideration of language assistance, consistent legal terminology, and the needs of people who cannot comfortably follow proceedings in Filipino or English.
The issue is not simply which language courts should use. It is how courts can communicate legal rights, evidence, and decisions accurately to the people involved in a case.
Making Justice Understandable to the People It Serves
The PTLA's appeal and Dato's response place language access within the broader discussion of judicial accessibility. Greater use of Filipino could help some court users follow proceedings more directly, while the country's linguistic diversity and the precision of legal concepts present challenges that would need to be addressed.
Any nationwide change would depend on the Supreme Court's rules and implementation decisions. Dato's statement supports wider use of Filipino, but it does not mean that a nationwide shift has already been approved.
For the proposal to work, accessibility would need to go hand in hand with accuracy and safeguards for court users who speak other Philippine languages.
As Dato put it, the central issue is whether people can understand the laws that govern them, the charges brought against them, and the decisions that affect their freedom. The challenge for the justice system is to make that understanding possible without losing the precision and fairness that legal proceedings demand.