AnthroWatch.org

(Re)Claiming the Lands of their Ancestors

2008-11-21T14:30:00.003+08:00

by Diana San Jose

For the longest time, indigenous peoples have been deprived of legal recognition to their territories. Our laws on land ownership, rooted in doctrines formed during colonial times, followed the theory that only lands covered by official documents and certificates of title are considered valid. All other lands not covered by such are classified as owned by the State. The adoption and subsequent integration of this colonial framework into our national policies has made the situation very difficult for IPs who hold no titles to the land and waters they use and occupy. As a result, they have been denied ownership of the very lands that sustain their life.

Deprivation of Lands

Alienation from their lands seems to stem from the legal mindset that a title is the only recognized proof of ownership to lands. Indeed, there exists a deep chasm between the concept of State-owned lands, with titles and legal documents to prove ownership, and the idea of land as an ancestral domain, communally owned by a group of people who have, for many generations, tilled and managed the land and its resources up to present time.

From the point of view of IPs, we are but mere stewards of land, owned by it rather than owners of it. This brings to mind the words of the brave and inspiring Kalinga pangat Macli-ing Dulag when he opposed the Chico River Basin Dam project backed by then-president Ferdinand Marcos during the 70s:

"You ask us if we own the land. And mock us. 'Where is your title?' When we query the meaning of your words you answer with taunting arrogance. 'Where are the documents to prove that you own the land?' Title. Documents. Proofs of ownership. Such arrogance to speak of owning the land, when you shall be owned by it. How can you own that which will outlive you?"

For many IPs, the absence of a title does not nullify their rights to the land they and their ancestors have been born into. The relationship they have to their lands and the care they put into its management is reason enough to claim stewardship to the land which brings them life. And yet, powerful groups conveniently ignore this with vested interests in indigenous peoples' ancestral domains. The encroachment of big companies who want their land for mining, logging and other projects is a serious threat to IPs. In the absence of legal instruments to defend their territories, IPs find themselves in a vulnerable position, at risk of being deprived of their lands and consequently, their culture, by outside forces.

The IPRA

In 1997, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act or IPRA was passed to address the situation of the IPs. With the passage of the law, the government began to recognize indigenous peoples' communal and individual rights to land along with their rights to self-governance, empowerment, social justice and human rights. It also created the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as its implementing agency, whose mandate is to "promote the interest and well-being of IPs with due respect to their beliefs, customs and traditions."

After ten years of the IPRA, the situation has not changed much for the IPs. They remain among the poorest of the poor, still at the fringes of national priorities. The cultural communities who have managed to evade foreign rule are the ones suffering from marginalization, poverty and displacement from their territories today.

Ancestral Domains and CADTs

The IPRA defines ancestral domains (ADs) as "territories which cover not only the physical environment but the total environment including the spiritual and cultural bonds to the area which the ICCs/IPs possess, occupy and use and to which they have claims of ownership". Simply put, ADs are the traditional territories of IPs that have been passed on from generation to generation. This includes lands, and in some cases, waters (as in the case of Palawan) which they have tilled and navigated for centuries. It is their source of life, the center of their economic, spiritual and social activities.

The rights to land of indigenous peoples are concretized through the acquisition of a title for their ancestral domain, or their CADT. The Ancestral Domains Office (ADO) of the NCIP is the office in charge of the identification, delineation and recognition of ancestral domains and lands. It is the lead office tasked to process the applications for Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs). For IPs, a CADT is important because it provides security of tenure to their lands and resources. It also allays their fear of being driven out from their territories.

Claim books

The claim book is the set of documents containing the mandatory requirements needed for IPs to prove their claims to their land. In June 2008, I became privy to these books as a technical assistant to the WB-IDF project seeking to enhance the standard systems and procedures of the NCIP on titling ADs. My first few weeks in AnthroWatch were spent, ironically, in a government agency undertaking document reviews of the then 71 approved CADTs. (As of October 2008, NCIP reported that there are now a total of 84 CADTs). While going through these books, it occurred to me how the thickness of each book seems to be a metaphor for the long and arduous process of titling ancestral domains.

The claim book, prepared by the community, the NCIP and in some cases, their assisting partners, is crucial to the titling process because it becomes the basis for NCIP's commission en banc to grant a CADT to the applicant community. Since it is an official document, quality should be ensured. After all, the claim book is the final output before the finished certificate itself. In my review, I noticed a lot of typographical and grammatical errors in some claim books. Even worse, some narratives were not culturally sensitive and were even written in a condescending tone. Those in charge of preparing the claim books should be careful and respectful of the culture they are writing about. They owe it to the IPs whose culture and identity are being described. Thankfully, most of the claim books were generally well written and ethnographic.

Also, since claim books contain data which are sacred to IPs such as names of ancestors, rituals and other indigenous knowledge systems and practices (IKSPs), care must be carried out to ensure that the information will not be used against their interests. It would be dangerous for the information to fall into the wrong hands.

Too many requirements

NCIP Resolution 119 series of 2004, which became effective on April 2005, provided an outline of the claim book. While Resolution 119 gave direction to the preparation of the claim book, it also lengthened the titling process. This resulted in a rather extensive set of documents, rich in data to the point of excess. What is startling is that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the IPRA did, in fact, set much simpler policies regarding the collection of evidences. Apart from the testimony of elders, it only required the submission of any one of the above listed proofs. If the Commission found the data insufficient, only then will they require the submission of additional proofs. But Resolution 119 reversed the procedures. It required the submission of all evidences, labeling them as mandatory requirements.

While the aim of the NCIP to make the claim books as comprehensive as possible is understandable, they seem to have forgotten that the main goal is to simplify the process so that IPs may be able to secure their lands. Burdening IPs with too many requirements poses doubts on the sincerity of the government in awarding land titles to indigenous peoples. If an agency is to truly serve the people, it must consider the technical capability of its constituents to comply with the requirements it sets. Agencies mandated to protect indigenous peoples rights must make its policies IP-friendly.

The struggle continues

In the face of powerful forces scouting their lands for profit and business, IPs must stand united in securing and protecting their ancestral domains. The path to claiming State recognition and ownership to the lands of their ancestors may prove to be a rather long journey, but I believe it is a worthwhile one.

Meanwhile, the struggle to defend land rights continues. With each awarded CADT, the hope that the State shall give to IPs what is due them becomes stronger. With each awarded CADT, a declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples to own and manage their lands and resources is made.

The CADT is as much of a challenge as it is a triumph. In fact, it may just be the start of an even bigger challenge: the sustainable management of IPs' ancestral domains and the strengthening of their community. Perhaps it would do us all good to remember that the end goal here is not the acquisition of the CADT per se, but the continued upliftment of rights and empowerment of indigenous peoples.

The Arakan Menuvu

2008-04-08T00:49:00.005+08:00

by Myna Pomarin

The ancestral domain of Arakan, North Cotabato is home to the Obu-Manuvu or Manuvu. According to Manuel, who wrote an entire book on Manuvu Social Organization (1975:1), they are found in the central Mindanao highlands inhabiting a contiguous area along southern Bukidnon, northeastern Cotabato, and northwestern Davao, between Upper Pulangi and Davao rivers. Manuel emphasized that Manuvu was the self-ascription of the people and they distinguishing themselves from their neighboring Matidsaug in the east and north of their territory, from the Tahavawa to the south and the Attaw and Jangan from the southeast. (1975:14)

Manuvu ethnography seem to be of less interest of any previous study, except for, of course, Manuel and the gathering of historical proofs by Kaliwat Theater Collective as required by CADC delineation process. At present, through the organized IPO in Arakan called Manobo Lumadnong Panaghiusa or MALUPA, they are imploring the help of very few good old informants’ to gather their narratives in order for them to build a baseline of their peoples history.

On Manuel’s account of the Manuvu people (1975:3), the folk genealogy traces the paternal ancestors of Tuwaang, the hero in their epic, to fifty generations back, an indication of the people’s ethnohistory. The claimants of the ancestral domain around Mt. Sinaka also have their share of recollection of their ancestors. They would evoke the names of Apo Suhat and Apo Inda as the legendary Datu of the Culamanon Manobo. Apo Inda ruled over Mt. Sinaka. One of Apo Suhat’s son, Apo Duyan led to become the most influential Datu of Central Mindanao. Apo Baos, Apo Lowas, Apo Tambag, Apo Sicutan, and Apo Magao who were the famous leaders of the Tinananon Manobo. Apo Uyanon, Apo Dañug and Apo Dalimba are also the ancestors of the Manobo in Marilog, Davao City.

These elders were united in protecting Mt. Sinaka, as their sacred place and to be preserved for the next generations. This is the area where they could hunt, get their medicines and be one with nature and spirits.

The Bahani

The political formation among the Manobo is based on patriarchy where different kindred are integrated. A chief is normally selected based on his personal qualification and his position in the kinship hierarchy. “The original chiefly title was timu’ay for which the Moros substituted datu” (Casino 2000; 263). The person aspiring to be a timu’ay or datu must belong to class of bahanis or warrior. He must have the ability and the wisdom to handle disputes, must be an eloquent speaker both for the community and outsider, be able to lead the productive endeavor, and organize a pangayaw or revenge raiding when needed. The datu and warrior or bahani have the privilege to be able to wear a red headgear, normally large handkerchief with embroidery called tangkulo or tuvew.

Subsistence System (Pëguyëhan)

Manobos subsistence is derived from farming (pengengawid), fishing (penginseda) and hunting (penubok). Farming is primarily sedentary with the use of beast of burden i.e. carabao to pull the traction. The cutigens that they plant are corn (sanlay), rice (parey), banana (sahing), coffee (kepi), fruit bearing trees and rootcrops.

Fishing is done from the streams and rivers. Fish traps (alat) are set up in the shallow portion of the river to catch the fish. Manobos are also excellent hunters. They could still hunt pigs, pythons, and birds.

Social Organization

The Manobo has a bilateral kinship system. A Manobo would recognize his/her lineage to both their mother or father’s family. The following are the terms used by Manobos in referring to their relatives:

Mother – iney

Father – amey

Sister – etevayen

Brother – meamaan

Aunt – aya

Uncle – anggam

Grandparents – apô

Cousin – suled

Mother-in-law/father-in-law – enuhang

Youngest child – ineriyan

Eldest child – kinekekayan

Ethnohistory of Mindanao

2008-04-03T01:17:00.011+08:00

Mindanao is home to 61% of the total indigenous peoples population of the Philippines according to a report commissioned by the Asian Development Bank (ADB 2002) citing figures from the NCIP.

The three volumes works of Fr. Pablo Pastell, SJ (1916-17) and the five volumes Jesuit Missionary Letters from Mindanao (2002) provides us some glimpses on the conditions of Mindanao a century ago.

Blair and Robertson (1973) have translated a number of works primarily reports of Christian missionaries from the 16^th – 19^th centuries. Rodil (1992, 1994) made a summary of these various historical accounts in his “Kasaysayan ng mga Pamayanan ng Mindanao at Arkipelago ng Sulu, 1596-1898”.

What is evident among the works cited above is the recognition that there were three types of people that dwell in the vast expanse of Mindanao: the Moro, the “Bisayan” settlers and the “aborigines.”

In recent years, collective identities of people began to emerge in areas where strong politicized IP organizations have been formed. In the 18,000 square kilometers of the Gran Cordillera mountain range in northern Luzon, the various ethnic groups that are found in the area are now known collectively as the Igorot or Cordillera peoples.

In Mindanao, Islamized groups are referred to as the Bangsamoro or Moro peoples, while the non-Islamized and non-settler upland dwellers groups have acknowledged as a collective identity the Bisayan term Lumad or native.

Recently, the indigenous communities both the Remonrados and Negritos of the Islands of Panay and Negros have been referred to as Tumandok.

The focuses of this paper are the non-Moro and non-migrant population of Mindanao. A number of works have used the term Lumad to describe these communities. Rodil (1992:233) mentioned that there are about “18 non-Muslim” ethnolinguistic groups such as the Ata, Bagobo, Banwaon, Blaan, Bukidnon, Dibabawon, Higaoonon, Mamanwa, Mandaya, Manguwangan, Manobo, Mansaka, Subanon, Tagakaolo, T’boli, Tiduray, Ubo and the controversial Tasaday.

An examination of the Summer Institute of Linguistics’ Ethnologue (2003) will reveal that there are 35 distinct languages spoken by Mindanao indigenous peoples including the Mamanua. The present Manobo linguistic family consists of 15 languages. Subanu of the Zamboanga Peninsula has 5 languages including Kolibugan. South Mindanao have five languages; Gianga (Klata), Blaan Koronadal, Blaan Saranggani, Tboli and Teduray. There are also nine Mansaka languages that include Kamayo and Isamal.

McFarland (1983) using the 1970 aand 1975 census grouped the Mindanao languages spoken by non-Islamized communities to: East Mindanao languages (Mamanua, Kamayo, Davaweno, Mandaya, Kalagan, and Tagakaulu); Subanon (Sindangan, Salug, Lapuyan, Malayal and Kalibugan); Manobo (Kagayanen, Kinamigin, Binukid, Agusan Manobo, Rajah Kabungsuan, Ata, Tagabawa, Tigwa, West Bukidnon, Ilianen, Obo, Manobo Sarangani, Manobo Cotabato); and South Mindanao languages (Bagobo Guianga, Blaan, Tboli and Tiruray).

In 1977, Elkins (1977:253) provided a sketch on the origins of linguistic diversity of Mindanao and and asserted that there are 18 different languages and dialects of the Manobo subfamily.

During the 1916 Census, the population of Mindanao was only 877,731 people. Beyer (1917:19) listed twelve “recognized ethnographic groups” in Mindanao but the Bukidnon were missed out in the table. However, they were included in succeeding tables and descriptions. The Lumad were only 22 per cent of the total population of Mindanao or 196, 983 out of 877,731 but they occupied the largest territory.

The number of languages however may not be the exact groupings of indigenous peoples in Mindanao. The term Bagobo for instance is a case in point. The meaning originally was meant to distinguish the newly christianized Manobo, which was the popular term used for the pagan population of Mindanao then. It is an ascription by others or exonym referring to three distinct communities with their own language; the Tagabawa, Klata and Ubo (Manuvu).

THE SEARCH FOR ABUNDANT LIFE

2008-04-01T11:55:00.007+08:00

The Historyof the Ikalahan of Nueva Vizcaya, Nueva Ecija and Pangasinan Philippines

by Delbert Rice

The Ikalahan were not literate until a few years ago so they have no written records from which a history could be researched. They were not conquered by the Spaniards who knew very little and wrote less about them.

In 1953, Emilio Tolentino, with the help of Dr. Gregorio Zaide, wrote a history of Aritao. Their data was gleaned from the records of the Spanish friars and short manuscripts composed by some of the old-time residents of Aritao. Castillo Tidang, then mayor of Kayapa, composed a brief history from the recollections of various tribal elders in 1956. It was published in the fiesta souvenir program of that year. Dr. Patricia Afable located a small amount of written material and summarized it in her doctoral dissertation for Yale University in 1990. Dr. Ronald Himes prepared a glotto-chronology of the Southern Cordillera languages, including the “Kallahan,” and in 1984 Dr. William Henry Scott published a revision of his earlier book on Pre-hispanic Source Materials. These contain a small amount of information about the Ikalahan. Fr. Juan Villaverde, O.P., may have contacted the Ikalahan in the late 1800s but there is no reference to them in his extant writings. There are no references to the Ikalahan, Kalanguya or Kadasan in the 54 volume collection of Philippine History prepared by Blair and Robertson in 1903. (B&R)

This report depends primarily on oral literature: Folk tales, rituals and music. Wherever possible they were checked against the available written records mentioned above and found to be accurate. Using everything possible I have reconstructed much of the tribal history and continue to update it from time-to-time as new information is obtained. Although some minor details in this presentation may not be final, the broad outlines are now clear.

We can only go back to the 14^th century when a small population of hunters, probably less than 300 people, lived in a high valley surrounded by pine and mossy forests. Many forms of wildlife refreshed themselves at the abundant springs and occasionally provided fresh meat for the people. They usually grew their staple food, taro, in small ponds, called “bineng.” (T142/2) They balanced their diet with wild and cultivated vegetables from the slopes and flora and fauna from the Agno River, which rushed through the center of the valley.

We don’t know what they called themselves but for lack of a better term, we now call them Proto-benguet. The five sitios they occupied are now beneath the waters behind the Ambuclao and Binga dams that are named for two of them. The other three were Banaw, Owak and Baloy (Afable).

Their life was comfortable but the valley was small and population pressures pushed them to search for other places to live. One portion decided very early to move downstream to the sources of salt. The “I” prefix in their language, as in the ancient Ilocano language, indicated “native of.” The present Tagalog and Ilocano languages use the prefix “taga-” for the same purpose. Those who moved downstream, therefore, were first known as Ipangasinan, “the people of the salt beds” (T067/13, T133/8, T184,T285). Later the “I” was dropped and they became known as Pangasinan.

Chinese and Japanese merchants frequented the Pangasinan coasts but they were not a threat, they merely opened up new economic opportunities that the Ipangasinan were happy to entertain (T285). There is even a Chinese record of a commercial delegation from Pangasinan to China as early as 1406 (Scott, 75).

When the Spaniards arrived, however, the Ipangasinan quickly recognized that they were not mere merchants. They intended to conquer so the Ipangasinan fought them for a time. One folk story indicates that they first took their wives and children back to their ancestral home beyond Binga before they fought (T285/6). Apparently, however, after several skirmishes, both sides settled down to a tenuous peace (T078/11).

Some of the Proto-benguet people who remained in the valley then moved further upstream into fairly level and open areas that were suitable for taro production. Such areas are known as “napawey” so those people became known as the “Ipawey.” (T067/15, T078/5)

Another migration went west from the sitio Baloy (named for a tree common to the area) so their descendents are still known as Ibaloy. One of the many communities that they established was in a mossy (bagiw) pine forest. Somehow the spelling was later changed to resemble the Ilocano term for a typhoon. That community is now known as Baguio City. Their language remained very similar to the language of the Ipaway and modern literature does not distinguish between them.

Another group felt that the flat lands would be too boring so they continued up into the mossy oak forests known to them as “Kaadasan,” or “Kadasan”. They were thus known as the “Ikadasan,” but like the Ipangasinan, their speech soon changed enough to become a new language. (T067/17, T078/5) They eventually became known as Ikalahan or Kalahan. The anthropological and linguistic literature usually spells their name as “Kallahan.” (Afable)

Still another portion of the Proto-benguet tribe moved due east, stopping first in the area east of what is now Bobok and then moving further southeast into the broad Kapaya basin. There was nothing distinctive about their geography but most of them had come from the sitio known as Owak, named for a bird common to the area, so they became known as the I-owak or I-wak people. During the last decade of the 20^th century, however, they made many contacts with lowland peoples who could not pronounce the glottal stop in their tribal name. The name is now often written and pronounced Iwak, even by the I-wak people, themselves.

For many decades the Ialagot tribe, who were apparently related to the Aeta people, lived in what is now northeastern Pangasinan (Dominican Report, B&R, 32/201) southwest of Kayapa (T077/1). Another tribe, the Ibomangi, occupied Kayapa and some areas north of it (T026). Tolentino refers to them simply as ‘Igorot’ (Tolentino 3) and they may be the same as the Ipuyopoy. One of the Ibomangi leaders, a man named Mengal, was finally convinced to surrender to the Spanish Friars in 1767. When he did, he moved his people to Ahanas, a village on the present site of Aritao (Tolentino 1). This, of course, reduced the population in the highlands and in the Kayapa valley. It was probably some time later when the Ialogot and the remaining Ibomangi, had a confrontation. Folk stories indicate that one of these two tribes bought the Kayapa basin from the other. The stories conflict but apparently one of the tribes violated the agreement causing a tribal war (T095/1, T112/7). Many were killed on both sides leaving space for the I-wak who began arriving about that time (T095). Both the Ialagot and the mountain Ibomangi persistently fought the Spaniards who responded in kind. During the subsequent century most of them were killed. The survivors were too few to maintain their population, culture and identity so they joined the I-wak tribe. Nothing else is now known of their ancestry or history (T235). Their only memorial is the town of Natividad in Pangasinan which was so named because of the high population of “Natives,” probably Ialagot (T096/2).

Parenthetically, my friend, Dr. H. Otley Beyer, the father of Philippine anthropology, thought he found the oldest Philippine rice terraces in the Kayapa Valley. He was mistaken. He found terraces but they were bineng for growing taro and had probably been built by the Ibomangi before rice was cultivated in the area. Rice terraces, in their languages, are called “payaw.” The payaw in Kayapa are all relatively recent, but a payaw and a bineng look very similar (T108/6).

During the succeeding century, the Ipaway and many of the Ikalahan were introduced to rice and camote cultivation. (Ipomoea batatas). The rice fields near Kabayan and Adaway were developed at that time by the Ipaway and some rice fields were also developed by the Ikalahan in the Tinek area just north of the peak of Mount Poleg. The camote, of course, are produced on the slopes.

The Spaniards never conquered the Ipaway, I-wak or Ikalahan. The Ibaloy to the west, however, had begun exploiting several gold mines that the invaders coveted. They could not wrest control from the persistent Ibaloy, however, until the population had been reduced to less than 50% by wars and smallpox epidemics that the invaders intentionally introduced. Biological warfare is not a recent invention. It has been around for centuries.

In the middle of the 19^th century an unnamed European in Natobleng, Benguet, made a major impact on the history of Northern Luzon. The stories do not agree as to whether he was British or Spanish but he captured an Ikalahan girl from Palateng who had gone there to work in the gardens. He raped her, probably several times, before she finally escaped and returned home. She was pregnant, however, with his child whom she later named Hamiklay (T130/24, T248).

Understandably, Hamiklay grew up to be “an angry young man” but he apparently had leadership abilities. He organized the men of his own village, and a few from the nearby village of Ahin, to become bandits and they quickly began plundering neighboring villages (T229/4, T248).

Most of the existing reports and stories suggest that the Ikalahan of Palateng had inter-married with the Bontoc and had accepted some of the Bontoc customs which were more war-like than the Ikalahan farther south. (T214) The Bontocs often take heads to revenge crimes. Like the Ikalahan, they would occasionally take a human head for use in a healing ceremony. Hamiklay and his men, however, used their headhunting skills for kidnapping, cattle rustling and common banditry. They were often known as the “Bongkilaw” (T185) meaning “terrorists,” or simply “Bohol,” meaning “enemy” (T127/9, T280}. The Kankana-ey of Loo, which is at the bottom of the mountain below Palateng, apparently picked up a common Ikalahan expression and referred to them as “Kalangotan” which literally means “What is that?” and is often used to scold people (T269) or express surprised disgust. The Kanakana-ey used it as a tribal name for the Bongkilaw of Paleteng.

It should be made clear, at this point, that ritual headhunting was a common practice for most, probably all, of the Philippine tribes, both upland and lowland. Most headhunting, however, was limited to ritual purposes. Hamiklay and his men were unique in that they used headhunting for banditry.

The Ipaway, by that time, were primarily sedentary farmers and lived close together. They quickly learned to cooperate and successfully repulsed the Bongkilaw raids (T067/2). On one occasion a group of women captured several of them and drown them, probably in the river near Kabayan (T130/23). On another occasion the Ipawey captured several Bongkilaw and turned them over to the Spanish garrison in San Fernando, La Union (T280/4). This will be mentioned later.

The Bongkilaw apparently decided not to raid the Bontok people to the north, possibly because of kinship. In fact, the Bontoks did their share of headhunting in the Loo Valley and other areas west of the Kalahan area (T228/5). They made a pact with another group of raiders headed by a man known as Palking (the club). The latter raided the eastern edge of Ifugao and the areas south of it leaving Tinek and the other nearby areas to Hamiklay and his gang.

Meanwhile, the Ikalahan in the Tinek area had cleared camote (sweet potato) fields and built both payaw and bineng. They had also made irrigation systems and strong houses for themselves. The women were responsible for the agriculture. The men cared for their children and hunted for wild meat. If the dogs were hot on the trail of a deer, a wild boar or some other animal during a hunting trip, every nerve in an Ikalahan man’s body told him to follow the barking dogs and spear the prey. Fields and family were temporarily ignored. (T042/1)

The Ikalahan of Tinek occasionally took heads also, of course, but only for ritual purposes and the rituals, known collectively as the Hagawhaw, were very elaborate (T234). They did not take heads for fun or for commercial purposes, however, like the Bongkilaw (T067/11, T127/11).

The Ikalahan rituals and customs make it clear that their primary desire was, and is, for “Li-teng” (H205, T065, T070, T071). There is no good English, Greek, Latin or Ilocano equivalent for the Ikalahan word. The ancient Hebrews, however, had a word for it, “shalom.” It is best translated into English as “Abundant Life” although the Greeks usually translated it inadequately as “peace.”

The Ikalahan people preferred the remoteness and abundant food supplies of the forests to ensure their li-teng. They lived in small, scattered communities of only 3 to 5 houses so they were not able to develop an effective system for protecting their families from the Bongkilaw. Because of that, the Bongkilaw seriously threatened their Li-teng in Tinek. The Ikalahan finally took action --- they left (T066/3, T116/2, T229). Their irrigation systems, bineng, payaw, houses and everything else that could not be carried were simply abandoned so they could escape the ever-present danger of Bongkilaw raids (T091/11, T133/4, T229/4).

The Bongkilaw had attacked them from the north so the Ikalahan moved south. Some of them, led by Layo, Matong and Bagilat (T109/6) moved only as far as Binalian but others moved farther south. Here another very interesting folk story explains an important part of their history.

Even though the I-wak were distant relatives of the Ikalahan, they did not want Ikalahan living in their territory. Ikalahan hunters would occasionally follow their dogs into I-wak territory but were expected to leave as soon as they captured their prey. When two Ikalahan hunters, Gomangan and Adpoyoh, followed their dogs into the Kayapa valley, however, they found a grieving woman. Her daughter had just been kidnapped by a group of Ialagot and was likely to be sacrificed. The woman could not follow them personally but the brothers followed the trail of the kidnappers. They rescued the girl, whose name was Kaliih, and, in gratitude, the I-wak invited the Ikalahan to come to live near them. (T077/2, T078/2, T091/20, T096/2, T170/2, T301)

The Bongkilaw problem was apparently at its peak when Gomangan and Adpoyoh returned to Tinek. When they told the story of their adventure, nearly all of the families in Tinek decided to accept the invitation. (T067/3,11) Most of them, however, moved past the Kayapa valley and, led by Kalhi (T091/2) and Maayno (T091/12), established Alang in the kalahan forests on the northern slopes of Mount Akbob where they planted camote and raised pigs.

As the Ikalahan population beside Mount Akbob increased, some of them moved further south onto the western slopes, now known as Malico and Salacsac. At least one family, Kambilad, probably Ibomangi, was already living there and they were joined later by at least one Kankana-ey family that left Loo to escape the Bontok headhunters (T228). Some of them finally moved southeast into the yangyangan (depression)(T095) which now includes the Barangays of Pacalbo, Imugan, Baracbac and Onib. As they cultivated their small fields they frequently discovered remnants of old taro fields (bineng) and other signs of the previous inhabitants, the Ialagot (T091/23). The extensive areas to the east were their new hunting grounds. They had left the Bongkilaw behind and found the Li-teng that they were longing for. (T066/3, T091/2, T127/9, T185/2, T228/3)

A few of the Ikalahan settled down in Pampang (now Kayapa Central) before they reached the Kayapa valley. Their descendents, however, later sold their lands in Pampang to Ipawey settlers who followed them (T067/15) and followed the other Ikalahan further south.

Meanwhile, the Bongkilaw continued cattle rustling and kidnapping until the last decade of the 19^th century (T108/2). One of the girls they kidnapped was sold to someone in Bontok for a pistol. Over a decade later she was discovered by her relatives and returned (T127/10). It also seems that a younger half-brother of Hamiklay felt the need to escape from the family home to avoid the vengeance of Hamiklay. He may have become a resident of Karaw.

There is a report indicating that when the people of Kabayan captured some of the Bongkilaw and turned them over to the Spanish governor, the Spaniards decided to teach the Bongkilaw of Palateng a lesson by burning down their village. The survivors of that razing apparently ran to Ahin for safety (T280). Ahin became over-populated as a result.

The Ikalahan houses and fields in Tinek, of course, had been left vacant. It was not long before hunters from Ahin, including surviving Bongkilaw and their relatives, discovered the abandoned farms and moved in (T133/4, T214/3, T229/3). Some of them apparently moved beyond Tinek into the northern part of what is now Kayapa (T106/3). Their former nickname “kalangotan” changed to “kalangoya” meaning “What is this?” Although it was not as distinctive as the old name, Ikalahan, it was better than the other term, Bongkilaw, and is still used as a tribal name by the people of the northern area. The people of Kiangan, however, still refer to the Ikalahan as “Imakayew.” Which literally means “natives of the forest” (T269, T276),” as does the term “Ikalahan.”

Hamiklay was finally chased down and shot in Atok near the turn of the century. (T067, T127/11, T214/4, T280/1, Afable 134)

When I began my study of Ikalahan history and culture more than 35 years ago, the people of Yangyangan said that their ancestors left Tinek to escape problems. One even mentioned violence but he did not name the Bongkilaw or give any details. They consistently used the tribal name “Kalahan” (T235/2) or “Ikalahan” (T077/1). When I asked Amyaw, one of the most respected elders and ritual leaders about “Kalongaya” as a tribal name he rejected it vehemently (T136/6).

When we interviewed elders in Tinek they said that their ancestors had come from Ahin and that the spirits of heaven had built houses and fields for them in Tinek. They did not know very much about the people in Yangyangan although they knew that they spoke the same language. It was confusing, to say the least (T142). Others have had the same frustration (T230).

The situation finally cleared up when Ipaway Elders, whom we interviewed in Kabayan, told us about the Bongkilaw. An Ikalahan elder far to the east, in Dupax, and I-wak elders near Yangyangan, gave us more information. It seems that the people who were directly involved were concerned about their personal relations and felt that telling the whole truth to their descendents might damage those relationships. The I-wak and Ibaloy had no such qualms. (T067/2, T108/1)

Most of the modern day descendents of the Bongkilaw are completely unaware of the violent activities of their ancestors. Most of the modern day descendents of the Ikalahan who migrated south are also unaware of the reason for the migration. It is probably just as well. They are now friends and in order to enjoy Li-teng it is necessary for all of them to remain friends.

The search for Li-teng had not ended, however.

Occasionally the tribal elders around Mount Akbob --- Ikih, Gohmol, Botyog and the others --- dealt with problems inside their communities. Whenever a controversy threatened to erupt, they immediately worked to accomplish justice quickly and openly without leaving bad feelings (e.g., T143, T145, T302, T303) A look at the Ikalahan word madonong (meaning “righteous”) is instructive at this point. A person who is aware of a crime but does not report it is not madonong. Everyone must be involved in maintaining li-teng.

Relationships between the Ikalahan people and the people of Kiangan have usually been peaceful but tense except for one unfortunate and violent episode about the same time as the Bongkilaw (T076, T229/3). This may have provided additional motivation for them to move south, farther from Kiangan.

At least one community that frequently took I-wak and Ikalahan heads spoke the Kiangan, Ifugao, language (T108/2, T107/3). Intermarriage, however, (T004, T005, T223) reduced the tensions. Many Ikalahan rituals came from Kiangan, (e.g., T028, T030, T031, T036, T040, T042).

The Americans tried to establish schools for the Ikalahan and even recruited students by force (T116/10). A few children attended but many parents refused permission and even hid their children when the teacher came to visit. They knew that the schools intended to change culture and that would damage, or even destroy, the li-teng which they had struggled so hard to achieve (T228/9).

The next threat to their li-teng occurred in about 1948 when foresters of the newly independent Philippine Government informed Ikalahan leaders that they were squatters in government forests and should leave. They could not and would not leave, of course. There was no longer any place for them to go but the threat was like a festering sore that would not heal and there seemed to be no one who could treat it.

Because of that threat, and also because of population pressures, individual families moved out into the hunting grounds to the east as far as Salazar in Nueva Ecija (e.g., T116/2) and even farther into the Sierra Madre.

Finally in 1969 they learned of another threat to their li-teng, this one potentially fatal. A court in San Nicolas, Pangasinan, gave two lowland politicians titles to nearly 200 hectares of Ikalahan ancestral lands in Malico and Salacsac. The President of the Philippines planned to turn those lands, and more than 6,000 hectares more, into a summer resort for his cronies. Ikalahan leaders such as Amyaw, Pacio, Bilyahih, Inway and Makoy learned of it and knew that the threat was serious. Rather than resort to violence, however, they sought legal help and fought the battle in the courts. The titles were finally cancelled because of fraud and perjury but the Ikalahan still did not have legal rights for themselves.

That began the long battle to legalize their own rights. It was finally accomplished through a negotiated contract, Memorandum of Agreement #1, (MOA #1) which was signed on May 14, 1974. It recognized their legal rights to nearly 15,000 hectares of their ancestral domain in exchange for protection of the watershed. That was a good start but they had to do more than that to restore the li-teng they desired.

They had allowed their forests to deteriorate during the previous two decades so they began to restore them. They brought the wild fires under control and new forests regenerated naturally. Some of the areas needed help so they planted trees. They propagated other plants to protect riverbanks and agricultural lands from eroding. They knew that a healthy environment was a part of li-teng.

Their efforts were not unnoticed, of course. Several other communities of Indigenous Peoples wanted similar contracts for themselves and the government was forced to admit that the Indigenous People could and would protect and develop the natural resources if they were given the legal right to do so. Memorandum of Agreement #1 became the precedent for the government’s huge social forestry program and the related program of recognizing the ancestral domains of Indigenous Peoples within the Philippines.

Hopefully the Li-teng of the Ikalahan can continue to improve and be shared with the rest of the nation. Other people, however, must learn from this small bit of history that li-teng does not come on a silver platter. Neither does it come to people who sit passively and wait for the government to produce it. Community members must work together to create it and protect it. This is the challenge for everyone.

*The author is a Pastor, Engineer and Anthropologist who, with his family, has been residing with the Ikalahan since 1965. He can be contacted in Imugan, Santa Fe, Nueva Vizcaya or at

This paper was originally presented to the ADHIKA ng Pilipinas Conference, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, 27-30 November 2002 but subsequently edited by the author.

Numbers in Parenthesis refer to testimonies, dialogues, folk stories and rituals in the author’s collection.

Anthrowatch and Ancestral Domain Delineation

2008-02-07T21:32:00.001+08:00

AnthroWatch, has been engaged in assistance to AD delineation since it was founded a decade ago. Since that time, too, it has been involved in IP community development planning through assistance in preparing or evaluating development projects for IP communities. It has a strong focus on capacity-building, especially with regard to cultural sensitivity as a key ingredient in development interventions for IPs.

Furthermore, AnthroWatch has been involved in a similar collaborative arrangement for a similar purpose. In 1999, AnthroWatch was contracted by the World Wide Fund for Nature to assist, in the AD delineation of the Sibuyan Mangyan Tagabukid in Romblon Province as well as in the formulation of its community development plan, which were completed in 2001. This partnership has been termed the “convergence approach”, wherein NGOs utilise their unique capacities to realise a common goal or to implement a joint project.

In 2000, AnthroWatch with the Inter-Peoples Exchange Program (IPEx), an NGO composed of IP staff, commenced the Ancestral Domain Support Program (the ADSP – with the support of the International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs or IWGIA). The goal of the ADSP was to provide support so that IP communities (10 in all) have their rights to their AD secured through the completion of the delineation processes, as well as self-determination upheld through community empowerment and capability-building programs.

In a smaller scale, such partnership has been entered into by AnthroWatch and the Non-Timber Forest Product-Task Force (NTFP-TF), within the ADSP. From 2001 to the present, we have been jointly assisting several IP communities also for AD delineation, ADSDPP formulation and advocacy of related IP issues.

Advocacy includes current active participation in the National Coordinating Committee on the Formation of the IP Consultative Body, Steering Committee of the Mindanao Scoping Conference, Coordinating Committee of the IP Land Rights Project, Steering Committee of the Philippine branch of the Global Call Against Poverty, National Council of the Rural Women’s Congress to head the IP cluster, and Inisyatribo which is a coalition of IP support groups.

These experiences have bolstered AnthroWatch’s work principle of active cooperation with multiple stakeholders whenever possible.