Inclusive education has been part of Philippine educational policy for decades, but there is a persistent gap between what the policy says and what actually happens inside classrooms. This study looks at that gap through the lens of language. Using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), specifically Fairclough's three-dimensional framework, it examines how teacher attitudes toward inclusion are constructed in two texts: DepEd Order No. 72, s. 2009, which is the country's main inclusive education policy, and Fajardo et al.'s (2025) phenomenological study of non-SPED teachers in Philippine inclusive classrooms. The analysis focuses on four areas: how the teacher's role is constructed in each text, how students with disabilities are described, how responsibility is distributed between teachers and institutions, and where the two texts contradict each other or leave important things unsaid. The findings show that both texts place the weight of inclusive practice on individual teachers but leave the institution widely unaccountable. The policy document assigns specific, detailed obligations to classroom teachers but fails to use clear language when it comes to what is expected of administrators and the system. The practitioner research confirms this pattern: teachers either struggle on their own or find ways to make inclusion work largely using their own efforts, which is mostly manifested through personal relationships with students instead of through institutional support. While it does appear to work, it has real consequences for students. When teacher commitment to inclusion depends on conditions that the system does not reliably provide, students with disabilities end up depending on teacher disposition, which is widely inconsistent, instead of on a consistent institutional guarantee. The study argues that changing teacher attitudes toward inclusion requires changing the language of inclusion itself, starting with the policy texts and institutional communications that shape how teachers understand their role.