Here is a little heralded scientific fact: the oldest known fossil remains of Homo sapiens in Southeast Asia — a portion of a human tibia — is from the Tabon Cave near Quezon, Palawan. It was radiocarbon dated to have an age of about 47,000 years. The most amazing discovery about Tabon Man so far is that he was a Tool Maker, with over half of the recovered specimens being Neolithic stone flake tool remnants. But apart from the existence of so-called Tabon Man, the Palawan cave complex is but an entrance to the complex history of ancient Philippines.
I hope more people will visit the ever-improving National Museum at the old Finance Building near Taft Avenue in Manila to see the world-famous Manunggul Burial Jar with its spirit boat handle in the Tabon Cave Gallery and dated to be around 2100 years old. (If you are too indolent the Filipino, you can see this also on the one thousand peso bill). Anthropologist Robert Fox, who excavated Tabon for the National Museum in 1962 writes:
The burial jar with a cover featuring a ship-of-the-dead is perhaps unrivalled in Southeast Asia; the work of an artist and master potter. This vessel provides a clear example of a cultural link between the archaeological past and the ethnographic present. The boatman is steering rather than paddling the ship. The mast of the boat was not recovered. Both figures appear to be wearing a band tied over the crown of the head and under the jaw; a pattern still encountered in burial practices among the indigenous peoples in Southern Philippines. The manner in which the hands of the front figure are folded across the chest is also a widespread practice in the Islands when arranging the corpse. The carved prow and eye motif of the spirit boad is still found on the traditional watercraft of the Sulu Archipelago, Borneo and Malaysia. Similarities in the execution of the ears, eyes, nose, and mouth of the figures may be seen today in the woodcarving of Taiwan, the Philippines, and elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
From the archaeological and physical evidence, there is thus no doubt that human beings have populated the Philippines for at least 50,000 years. Long before Christianity became the State Religion of the Roman Empire, and long before Muslim sultanates were founded in Sulu and Cotabato by Sharif Kabunsuan, –lumads, for lack of a better name — were making tools and burying their dead on Palawan, which, in those long-forgotten Ice Ages might have been highlands or even mountain tops! No doubt, what would become the islands of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao when the great glaciers retreated ten thousand years ago, were also high lands where innumerable generations of the true original Filipinos wandered, lived and died in the incessant enterprise of survival and multiplication.
I think this is the time period that ought to inform the much abused phrase “since time immemorial” whenever we speak of ancestors owning lands and domains that descendants now want as juridical homelands. If some would insist on “first nation” status, let us take literally the full and rigorous meaning of “first” — if such a mental feat is at all possible.
The true meaning of “since time immemorial” ought also to illuminate the reflection upon the possible meaning of another phrase: “at the time of conquest or colonization.”
Someone conquered and colonized the lumads and pygmies. It wasn’t the Neanderthals.
Popularity: 6% [?]
This definition of INDIO spans the 50,000 year period of human habitation and makes crystal clear why the current definition of “indigenous people” which excludes the Christian majorities, is wrong from a paleohistorical perspective.
You may quibble with my use of the term, but that is the real point: that the whole ideology behind ancestral domains and indigenous peoples ignores what is scientifically known to have occurred here.
There were people here before Islam and Christianity. If we must discriminate against those who were “conquered or colonized” and had the lands they inhabited “since time immemorial” taken from them, then the Islamic Sultanates and the Spanish Taliban, are equally culpable.
Islam and the Bangsamoro, in other words, cannot be considered indigenous to the PHilippines, unless the Tagalogs et al and Christianity also are!
Why can’t you admit that Tagalogs, et al are every bit as indigenous (or indio) as the Bangsamoro people?
They were ALL indios before Islam or Christianity arrived. Why now does IPRA make foreigners of the majority???
It’s the absurdity imposed by political correctness.
We have to distinguish between the part and the whole. While we can say that all Filipino linguistic-ethnic subgroupings are indigenous to the Philippine archipelago, we have to further qualify that they are indigenous to specific areas within the archipelago, and not the entire archipelago. The Tagalogs are indigenous to the Tagalog region, the Kapampangans are indigeneous to the Kapampangan region, the Ilocanos are indigeneous to the Ilocos region etc. etc.
As our history would have it, when the Spaniards arrived in 1571, they established a pax-Hispanica that allowed the members of the different linguistic-ethnic groups i mentioned above to circulate more freely. The Tagalogs, Kapampangans, Ilocanos, Cebuanos, Ilonggos etc. were free to leave their respective indigenous areas and spread across the rest of the territory under Spanish control. This process of mixing went on for three centuries and there has been little or no issues between the indigenous inhabitants and the settlers.
Much more recently, when the Americans arrived in 1898, there was a similar pax-Americana that opened up the rest of Mindanao to similar circulation of population groups. It is on this where there is conflict between the indigenous inhabitants and the settlers and significant hostilities started in 1968.
cvj,
well we are making progress. I’ve gotten you to admit that the christianized indios are indigenous too. So far you concede that they are indigenous to some specific region of the islands.
then why does ipra discriminate against them and say they own no ancestral lands and domains as private property??
djb, i never disputed that the tagalogs, cebuanos, kapampangans and others once had their indigenous domains that they have since expanded out of. Where i disagree with you (at 1:53 pm) is on your indiscriminate categorization that pre-hispanic inhabitants are ‘indigenous’ to the Philippines without specifying the regions of these islands they were indigenous to.
As to the reason behind the special treatment accorded to the Muslims (and people of Cordillera), i think the intent has to do with the addressing the problem of inequality.
I agree that it is debatable whether the IPRA (or the MOA) is the best way to address such inequality. I can think of better alternatives, but we cannot ignore the need to address the disparities. In this context, to ask why the more fortunate provinces of the country don’t have their own ancestral domain rights is a little childish.
cvj, how would having their own “ancestral land” improve the lot of the “indigenous” people and address what you call “the problem of inequality”? from the inception of the philippines as a colony and throughout its existence as an independent state, all of its inhabitants are free to live wherever they choose within the territory. among the basic freedom heretofore enshrined in the constitution is the liberty of abode. the so-called “non-indigenous” people (for the most part, christians) acquire properties and domains the old-fashioned, generally accepted, ways, i.e., occupation of unoccupied lands, inheritance, purchase and other forms of conveyance, etc. the government has programs of giving land to the landless one of them being its homestead law which is open to all qualified filipinos – that’s right, including non-christian indigenous individuals. there could be instances of forcible “landgrabbing” but those are for the law to deal with as they are substantiated.
what can these indigenous people do that they cannot already do now under the existing order? how can they be treated “specially” without violating the universally recognized equality of all people under the law of a civilized society?
bencard, there are truly “indigenous” peoples whose culture and way of life are tied to the land. Some Lumads are animists who worship spirits said to inhabit particular mountains, rivers, rocks, etc. To dispossses them of this ancestral domain or forcibly locate them is tantamount to de-culturizing them.
But I must concede that the Moro people have been quite mobile in the Philippines reaching as far north in Baguio City.
cvj,
Precisely because it is prehistory, we cannot really be more specific about the original indigenous peoples or their domains (for even they could not tell us!) But we can be fairly certain that such a group of human beings did exist and insofar as we are most practically concerned with the Philippine Islands as whole today, I do not see that being more specific does anything but give in to the separatism and apartheid at the heart of the IPRA program.
It doesn’t really matter does it, if the ancient ilocanos and cordillerans ranged ten or twenty or fifty kilometers beyond some provincial or regional line we care to draw today, as long as we recognize they were in the Philippine Islands as we know them today.
AGain, I ask you, is there elementary fairness to the law that discriminates against people whose ancestors were clearly indigenous to these islands? And who are dispossessed of those ancestral domains by the fact that they were conquered by the Spaniards. Yet those conquered by the Islamic sultanates and colonized and enslaved by them, no, you say these are indigenous peoples?
Where is the logical consistency in that??
philman,
Who do you think is older: the Sulu or Cotabato sultanates or the builders of the Rice Terraces?
You might be right that the Tabon man were just passing by enroute to a warmer place and a wide hunting ground to settle and were not meant to stay here as they left nothing even a permanent structures(like Dolmens) to establish their presence except for some tools and potteries they left behind.Even after the post Neolithic era (10,000 years ago) I wonder if our ancestors or those who stayed and settled were capable of building structures comparable to the structures (temples,ancient cities like ankor wat etc.) built by the ancient in many part of Asia,although we have one that we are very proud of like the Banaue rice terraces other structures comparable in grandeur of other ancient structures in Asia are non existent,any explanation?
Edgar,
Structures? In the Stone Age? But homo sapiens lived in caves then. Who knows of course whether they were nomads, explorers or permanent settlers. But the archaeology on Tabon leaves the impression of a major tool making industry going on, because that material they found for tools was brought in from far away. So though we cannot say for sure what happened 2000 years ago, it does not sound like a temporary camp.
On the contrary, it matters. That you don’t think so is the reason why we have a fundamental conceptual disagreement. My point of view is that ‘Ancestral domain’ is s not delimited on the basis of present-day political entities.
These things are not ‘elementary’. As i described above (at 9:31 pm), the Muslim Filipinos haven’t been exactly given a fair deal. As Ramon Magsaysay said, “those who have less in life should have more in law“.
That’s precisely the blurred distinctions that i have an issue with, the rice terraces are in Luzon. The Bangsamoro are not claiming that they are indigenous to that part of the archipelago.
Great exchange here! Very analytical and informative. But let me join the fray, belatedly though, if only to respond to the following and similar concerns by Dean.
“Why can’t you admit that Tagalogs, et al are every bit as indigenous (or indio) as the Bangsamoro people? They were ALL indios before Islam or Christianity arrived. Why now does IPRA make foreigners of the majority???It’s the absurdity imposed by political correctness.”
The “absurdity” I suppose has been imposed by the Constitution and the laws (basically the Organic Act for ARMM and IPRA) implementing the constitutional mandates. The Constitution may be politically or scientifically incorrect but it cannot be constitutionally unconstitutional.
What this means is that when the Constitution speaks of “indigenous people” it certainly does not contemplate of the Arroyos, the Ayalas, the Alcantaras, and the Aboitizes or the Sys, the Tans, the Tys or the Yaps, not even of our Dean, Bencard and Ding (I’m assuming their ancestry are not traceable to any of the 110 tribal groups) whose rights to their ancestral domains/lands shall be protected “to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.”
The non-indigenous Filipinos today have not been made foreigners by IPRA; they have been de-indigenized so to speak by the Constitution (as well as by UN General Assembly “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” and the ILO Convention No. 169).
And when the Organic Act has provided that the “Bangsa Moro people (are) regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations that inhabited the country or a distinct geographical area at the time of conquest or colonization and who, irrespective of their legal status, retain some or all of their own socio-economic, cultural and political institutions” it’s made even clearer that Muslims or the Moros are “indigenous people.”
Now, why a homeland for the Bangsa Moros and not for the others? But then why ARMM and not ARCB (Autonomous Region for Christian Bicol)?
Well, the framers of the Constitution were not bound by the philosophy of all or none. Or wholesale autonomy or piecemeal autonomy. Limiting regional autonomy to the Cordilleras or Muslim Mindanao was the framers’ prerogative in the same way that designating or regarding the Bangsa Moro people in the Organic Act as indigenous and not the Tagalogs, etc. was the legislature’s prerogative too – as long as there’s a distinction that makes real difference. One such distinction is that the Bangsa Moro people “retain some or all of their own socio-economic, cultural and political institutions.”
Abe,
You doth confound “autonomy” with “homeland” which was in fact the essential distinction that Justice Vicente Mendoza made in his Lecture at the UP Law School last week.
So, my question to you stands: what is the legal or constitutional basis for a Bangsamoro homeland? See with crystal clarity that we are not talking of the same thing that even IPRA speaks of, but a hugely aggrandized version that seems to come direct from the fertile imagination of Astrid Tuminez in the USIP.
And what of the moral basis that is rooted in our concern for elemental fairness: what’s good enough for the bangsamoro ought to be good enough for all other INDIOS, no?
abe, djb. just one brief point. in our scheme of things, the “constitutionality” of a constitutional or statutory provision is determined by the sc, the final arbiter. until the sc, in a proper case challenging IPRA, hands down its determination, abe’s theory remains that – a legal theory. maybe djb (assuming he has the legal capacity to do so) can challenged the constitutionality of IPRA under the equal protection or due process clause.
Dean,
As I have commented more than once in FV, if the political (as well as the judicial) will is there, Bangsamoro “homeland” could possibly be squeezed into Bangsamoro “ancestral domain” constitutionally. All it takes is creative jurisprudence.
For example, the SC has conveniently packed into “constructive resignation” the ousting of President Estrada (note both GMA and Trillanes rebelled against duly constituted authorities; but the former is free and in power while the latter is locked up because the SC said so). The Court also came up with an “aggrandized version” of “initiate” to save Chief Justice Davide from impeachment and based thereon GMA herself was practically insulated from the constitutional process. In the US, on the other hand, abortions running in millions continue to take place because the US Supreme Court has decided to construe the killing of the unborn as within a woman’s right to privacy. And more squarely, the “native title” by the Ibalois of Baguio was sustained in Cariño vs. Insular Government broadly on due process ground.
If the proposal in the MoA-AD of a Bangsamoro homeland is in fact not in harmony with the Constitution, it is also because it is what it is: a negotiation for an arrangement that amounts to a proposal for a charter change – just like Senate Joint Resolution 10 (the Pimentel proposal for federalism).
But whether the negotiation for the MoA-AD is constitutional or ultra-constitutional, I maintain that the SC cannot issue an injunction, temporary or permanent, against the exercise of a presidential prerogative (something that Justice Mendoza seems to affirm in effect, if the news reports are accurate) to enter into peace negotiation in the same way that it cannot issue an injunction against the Senate to consider the Pimentel proposal. Either way, the question involved is political, not judicial. As we have seen, the President has already exercised her prerogative of reneging on the MoA-AD irrespective of whether the SC holds the agreement constitutional or not. (And what happens if the SC, although remote, declares the MoA-AD constitutional?)
Here’s what I’ve been thinking: Ultimately, the will to create a homeland for Bangsamoro is not there because the matter boils down to whether we really meant it when we call the Moros our “brothers,” that is, embracing them really as brothers, not step-brothers.
Couldn’t the Moros be saying or asking: Imperial Manila can’t take care of us, or at least treat us like the rest, look how our conditions fare compared to the rest of the country, now, will you allow us to take care of our homeland ourselves, maybe things could get better for us?
Bencard,
All laws passed by congress are constitutional unless, on very rare occasions, it is successfully challenged in court to be otherwise. That is not a legal theory but the law and the legal reality.
abe, thanks for your affirmation of what i said.
bencard,
Regarding Constitutionality and the Supreme Court:
At any time, the Supreme Court can reverse any ruling or decision that it rendered in the past.
That is how supreme it is, and how “unfinal” any Supreme Court ruling or decision truly is.
I think it is inaccurate to say that the Supreme Court is the “final” arbiter of any case. Only that any decision it makes can really only be “appealed” to the Supreme Court itself.
But what this line of argument always misses is that the Court itself is a continuing entity. It can change its mind about anything at any time.
In that sense I am a “neo platonist” when it comes to the Law. There is some Truth and Justice about any given case that stands above even the Supreme Court, which however is what we all agree must forever search for and authorize to describe that Truth and Justice for us reasonable men.
In the scientific spirit, I see the Law itself as a series of successive approximations to that Truth and Justice in the Sky.
Abe,
If two wrongs don’t make a right, neither would three!
I happen to agree with you that the overthrow of Erap by Davide’s Supreme Court, and the salvation of Davide by that selfsame court which gave birth to the Mutant Monster of Initiation are all WRONG decisions waiting for a saner future court to reverse them in order to restore the debauched principles.
so you cannot justify yet a third major violation of the Constitution’s most basic principles on the basis of these first and second instances of juridical aberration.
bencard,
IPRA is hanging by the skin of its teeth in Cruz vs. DENR/NCIP (2000). 7-7 tie to deny the prayer that it be declared unconstitutional.
I won’t have to challenge its constitutionality myself because when the SC renders its decision on the MOA-AD, I think it will take the position of Justice Vicente Mendoza, who recently made it clear that HOMELAND is far, far cry from ANCESTRAL DOMAIN.
They will clarify the limits of IPRA’s applicability to the MOA-AD.
I think it will have a major impact on the NEXT time IPRA is challenged. At least the most radical interpretation given by Puno to IPRA in Cruz v. DENR/NCIP will be modulated, perhaps “corrected” to a more reasonable, even acceptable range for those who see the SC decision on IPRA as being even more radical (and insane) than IPRA.
Remember, IPRA was used to create the MOA-AD, but with the promotion of “ancestral domain” to “quasi independent homeland”.
I predict the words “ultra vires” will be of particular importance in the coming decision.
maybe i should clarify to you that when i say sc is the final arbiter, it is the final arbiter in a particular case that is properly brought before it. of course, the same sc may change its doctrine in a subsequent case but, as much as possible, it adheres to the principle of stare decisis. changing its mind is not as easy as you think.
bencard,
your point about stare decisis is well taken. never said it was easy. in most cases, one does not expect a change, either because the subject controversy is trivial, and the law is narrow in scope.
but look at ipra, man. It’s a big hairy law with lots of big principles overthrown with the flick of flavier’s wrist! like the Regalian Doctrine. hehe.
The UP Archaeological Studies Program has published papers that document that Tabon man’s contemporaries coexisted with tigers and ate them!
That’s one of the hypotheses on why the Palawan tigers got extinct!
So Tabon man predated the Chinese in their habit of eating endangered animals!
blackshama, do you know if any DNA was recovered from Tabon Man?
i always research tabon men beacause i want to what are theoriese