Republic of the Philippines

Technical Education and Skills Development Authority

Regional Office VIII
BALICUATRO COLLEGE OF ARTS AND TRADES
Allen, Northern Samar

Philippine Indigenous Community

Module 2 Week 2

Module 3
Who are the Indigenous People?

Learning Outcomes

Students should be able to recognize the different indigenous peoples groups in the
Philippines and to articulate the reasons for their inclusion based on a well-founded
definition of indigenous people.

Objectives of the Module

At the end of this module students are expected to:

1. Recognize the need to have a well-founded definition of the concept “indigenous
people”;
2. Attain a well-founded definition of indigenous people and identify who are IPs;
3. Understand the historical development of the concept “indigenous people”;
4. Be familiar with the different approaches and definitions of “indigenous people”;
5. Determine the commonalities among the different approaches and definitions;
6. Provide an example of indigenous peoples groups in the Philippines and discuss
why this group should be included.

Learning Content

1. Why is there a need for definition?

The flexible definitional approaches to indigenous people can enhance the human rights
protection of IP groups and communities (Corntassel, 2003). Consequently, the United
Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples strongly suggests that even
with the absence of a formal definition, the rights of IPs need to be upheld and
protected.

The International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs outlined three primary rationales
for a clear and well-defined conceptualization of Indigenous Peoples.
First, is that self-identification is an essential component of the IPs’ sense of identity.
Thus, without a well-defined and universally acceptable definition and criterion, IPs self-
identification is indefinite and doubtful (Corntassel, 2003; Kingsbury, 1998).

Second, it will be easier for them to be accepted as belonging to the IP classification,

which is necessary to assert their collective rights as a group and advance the group’s
particular needs (Bowen, 2000; Barsh, 1986). Contrary to other ethnic minorities in a
country, IPs are considered to suffer a higher level of marginalization and
discrimination. Third, a clear definition of “indigenous peoples” will provide IPs the
opportunity to be heard and seen by the local and international government and enable
them to assert their right to self-determination. This right is substantial in their collective
effort to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral claim,
which is home to their ethnic identity (Kingsbury, 1998).

The underlying issues in the naming of indigenous peoples groups is that, most often,
the name associated with them is also employed as a derogatory term to address them.
In the case of the Aetas in Pampanga, they are referred to as “baluga” or black people,
similar to the case of the Sama people being called “siyamal” or dirty. The existence of
the derogatory remarks and other forms of discrimination necessitates the need for a
well-defined conceptualization of indigenous people.

2. Defining Indigenous People

The word “indigenous” comes from the Latin word “indigen” which means native or
original inhabitant—an idea that became popular in the 17th century. Thus, the most
common understanding of the concept suggests that they are people who are the
original inhabitants of the land.

According to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the term
“indigenous” has been used continuously, whether as a form of collective names for
categorization or as representation to the legal issues in the corresponding state that
governs them. They are most often mentioned as tribal people or ethnic groups or
communities. Still, there are different names associated with indigenous people in
different countries such as Canada, where they are referred to as first/people or nations;
in Australia where they are aboriginals; in India where they are adivasi; in Nepal as
janajati; and in Indonesia and Malaysia where they are referred to as orang asli which
means tribal people, or bumiputera which means son of soil.

a. Asian Development Bank Framework

The Asian Development Bank (2002) observed that there are two primary similarities in
the existing definitions of indigenous peoples groups. First is that they are descended
from population groups that lived in a particular geographic area before a modern state,
territories and borders were defined.

Second, they maintain unique cultural identities, or their social, economic, cultural and
political institutions are different and separate from the mainstream or dominant
societies. Consequently, the ADB defines IPs as “those with a social or cultural identity
distinct from the dominant or mainstream society”; hence, these characteristics put them
at a disadvantage in the process of development.

b. International Labor Organization Framework

The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples' Rights in Practice: A Guide to ILO Convention,
Number 169 provides the criteria to separate the concept “tribal people” from IPs. The
tribal people are regarded first as those with culture, social organizations, economic
conditions and way of life that are different from other segments of the national
population.

Second, tribal people are those who have their own traditions and customs and/or legal
recognition.

The Indigenous People on the other hand are characterized first by their historical
continuity, and their societies thriving during pre-conquest and colonization. Second is
the territorial connection and their ancestors inhabiting the country or a region of the
country of which they have a claim.

Third, they have distinct social, economic, cultural and political institutions and retain
either some or all of their own institutions. Notice that the primary difference between
tribal people and IPs is their historical continuity and territorial connection. This criterion
has also been exemplified in the working definition of the United Nations, Asian
Development Bank and other relevant international organizations that cater to the rights
of the IPs. It is necessary to explore further our understanding of historical continuity.

c. United Nations Framework

The Martinez Cobo’s Report to the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of the

Discrimination of Minorities in 1986 provides what can be considered as the most
quoted working definition of Indigenous People. The Martinez Cobo Study also
highlights the importance of historical continuity in its definition of IPs. They are those:

1. Having historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that

developed in the territories;
2. That consider themselves distinct from other sectors of those societies that are now
prevailing on those territories or part of them;
3. That form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to
preserve, develop and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories and their
ethnic identity;
4. Whose preservation, development and transmission are the basis of their continued
existence as peoples who are in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social
institutions and legal system.

Chairperson-Rapporteur Madame Erica-Irene Daes of United Nations’ Working Group

on Indigenous Populations designates IPs as those:

1. Descendants of groups that were in the territory of the country at the time when other
groups of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived there;
2. Isolated or excluded from other segments of the country's population and so have
preserved almost intact the customs and traditions of their ancestors; and
3. Distant from or alien to the national, social and cultural characteristics of the State
structure that claims them.

According to the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, the historical
continuity discussed by the Martinez Cobo Study can be characterized by the following
factors:

1. Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them;

2. Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;
3. Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal
system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, instant
loans, lifestyle, etc.);
4. Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual
means of communication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual,
general or normal language);
5. Residence in certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the
world; and
6. Other relevant factors.

Furthermore, Article 1 Section 2 of ILO Convention Number 169 defines the magnitude
of the right to self-identification of tribal or IP groups. Self-identification is considered as
a fundamental criterion for whether a person considers himself or herself as tribal or
indigenous. In addition, Jeff Corntassel (2003) remarks that the question of “Who are
indigenous?” can be best answered by self-identification. The indigenous people
themselves can best answer the question. To date, according to the International Labor
Organization, there are approximately 370 million people categorized as belonging to at
least 5,000 indigenous groups living in 70 different countries.
The data changes from time to time when a new definition or categorizations appears,
because there is still no official definition to date approved by the United Nations and
other international bodies on IPs.

d. The World Health Organization Framework

The World Health Organization primarily aims to advance the health status of
indigenous people in the world. They acknowledge the fact that most IPs’ health status
is poorer than non-indigenous population groups in countries all over the world. In the
absence of an official definition from the United Nations, the WHO provides a modern
and inclusive understanding of IPs, which include those who:

1. Identify themselves and are recognized and accepted by their community as

indigenous;
2. Demonstrate historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies;
3. Have strong links to territories and surrounding natural resources;
4. Have distinct social, economic or political systems;
5. Maintain distinct languages, cultures and beliefs;
6. Form non-dominant groups of society; and
7. Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as
distinctive peoples and communities.

e. Scholarly Definitions of Indigenous People Corntassel (2003) provides a historical

development of the conceptualization of the term Indigenous People in the academe
and its implication to the status and condition of these groups. Franke Wilmer is
considered as the first social scientist to examine the condition of IPs in the world and
defines IPs
first as those with tradition-based culture; second as those who were politically
autonomous before colonization; and third as those who continued to struggle for the
preservation of their cultural integrity, economic self-reliance and political independence
against colonizers and the modern states.

Wilmer and Gerald Alfred and Franke Wilmer teamed up in 1997 to come up with three
criteria for a group to be considered as IP. This was intended to correct the ambiguities
provided in Wilmer’s 1993 definition (Corntassel, 2003). These criteria include the fact
that they are descended from the original inhabitants of the geographic areas they
continue to occupy, making them aboriginal. Second, they intend to live in conformity
with their tradition based cultures, which are evolving. And last, their political destiny is
subjected to policy from outside forces, which refers primarily to the State they belong
to. Thus, their political destiny and existence is beyond their control. In his definition of
IPs in 1996, James Andaya highlighted the issue of ancestral roots and the continued
colonial domination of IPs’ homelands by the modern state (Corntassel, 2003). To
Andaya, Indigenous Peoples are those who are living descendants of pre-invasion
inhabitants and whose lands are now dominated by others.

Second, they are indigenous because their ancestral roots are fixed in the territory they
occupy and will continue to occupy or in areas in close proximity to this land in case of
dislocation.

Third, they can be considered as a distinct community because their ancestors’ way of
life is carried over into the present generation. Ted Gurr provides the distinction
between indigenous people and the emerging ethno-nationalist phenomenon in some
countries. Some ethnic groups have been proclaiming that they belong to the category
of indigenous
people and their assertion of the right to self-determination has escalated to efforts to
separate and establish their own state. Based on Gurr’s classification (2000),
ethnonationalists are those communities that had stable and resilient political
organizations prior to conquest, colonization or establishment of a modern state, and
have had persistent support from modern movements that assert withdrawal from the
State and the establishment of their own state. Indigenous People, on the other hand,
live
mainly in conformity with traditional social, economic, and cultural customs that differ
acutely from the dominant group without assertion of cessation.

However, Fred Riggs challenges this claim and emphasizes that the IP definition should
include four variables: First to consider is the cultural level of the community from
primitive to more complex societies.

The more primitive are considered as IPs. Second to consider is the historical sequence
of who came first and who followed. Those who inhabited the land first are considered
to be IPs. To consider the political position, the IPs are those marginalized communities,
and the dominant communities cannot be considered as IPs. Last to consider is the
geographical area, and the ancestral domain claim is highly taken into account.

Benedict Kingsbury (1998) makes a case of the constructivist approach in defining IPs;
moreover, he contends the impossibility of universally applicable criteria in defining who
are IPs and who are not. Kingsbury promotes maximum tractability in categorizing IP
groups while maintaining four essential criteria: self-identification as a distinct ethnic
group; historical experience of, or contingent vulnerability to, severe disruption,
dislocation or exploitation; long historical connection with the region or territory; and the
aspiration to retain a distinct identity.

Summary
In summary, the existing definition of IPs based on the frameworks of the different
international organizations that aim to advance their rights and interests highlights the
following elements:
a. Self-identification – an individual belongs to an IP group once he or she is accepted
as belonging to the group;
b. Ancestral Roots and Descent – they boast of a common ancestry and their lineage
can be traced back to the community or group of people that thrive within a particular
territory prior to colonization, or the establishment of modern state;
c. Historical Continuity of Way of Life – the community or the groups’ distinct way of life
(e.g. religion, tribal system of governance, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.).
This tradition-based culture is inherited from a group of people in a particular territory
prior to colonization or the establishment of a modern state;
d. Ancestral Language Sustained – the language identifiable to them and their
ancestors has persisted and endured either as the only language, as mother tongue or
habitual means of communication at home or in the family; or is considered as the main,
preferred, habitual and general language.
e. Ancestral Land Claim – continued occupation and claim to a particular portion of land
that IPs believed to be home to their ancestors, thus providing them with a right of
inheritance to this land;
f. Distinct Way of Life and Non-Dominance – the sustained beliefs, customs and
traditions IPs inherited from their ancestors makes them consider themselves as distinct
from other sectors of society, particularly the dominant groups prevailing in the
territories or state they are placed under;
g. Aspirations for Self-Preservation and Self-Determination – as a non-dominant sector
of society, which has continuously been influenced and assimilated by dominant sectors
of society, IPs have a strong determination to preserve, develop and transmit to future
generations their ancestral territories and their ethnic identity.

Who Are IPs in the Philippines?

In the Philippines, Indigenous People are commonly referred to as katutubo. In

Mindanao they are collectively called Lumad to separate them from the Islamized ethnic
groups in the region (Arquiza, 2016). The legal definition is provided by Republic Act
No. 8371 otherwise known as “An Act to Recognize, Protect and Promote the Rights of
Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples, Creating a National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples, Establishing Implementing Mechanisms, Appropriating Funds
Therefor, and for other Purpose.” Chapter 2 Section 3 (h) of R.A. 8371 refers to IPs as
synonymous with Indigenous Cultural Communities or ICC, and defines them as having
the following qualifications:

a. A group of people or homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription

by others, who have continuously lived as an organized community on communally-
bounded and defined territory;
b. Those who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied,
possessed and utilized such territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs,
traditions and other distinctive cultural traits;
c. Those who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of
colonization, non-indigenous religions and cultures, become historically differentiated
from the majority of Filipinos;
d. Peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the
populations that inhabited the country at the time of conquest or colonization, or of
inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state
boundaries;
e. People who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political
institutions; and
f. People who may have been displaced from their traditional domains or who may have
resettled outside their ancestral domains.

The definition of ICCs or IPs in the Philippines in R.A. 8371 constitutes the common
elements of the existing definition of IPs in the literature. The definition highlights the
need for self-identification, the qualifications of ancestral roots and descent, the
historical continuity of life, the sustained ancestral language and ancestral land claim,
the persistence of a distinct way of life and status as non-dominant group and their
aspirations to self-preservation and self-determination. In addition, the mandate of the
law states that it can also include people or groups who have been displaced from their
ancestral homeland and those are displaced as in the case of the Lumads and the
Moros in Mindanao. On the other hand, utilizing Tedd Gurr’s classification (2000), we
can consider the Islamized ethno-linguistics in Mindanao, which is generally called Moro
and the Igorots in the Cordillera region as ethnonationalist groups and not IP groups.

However, the National Commission on Indigenous People in the Philippines (NCIP), the
national government and other government agencies, and most academic literatures
consider the Igorot and the Islamized ethnic groups in the Philippines to belong to the IP
category.

Learning Resources

Internet Materials
1.http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?
p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::p12100_instrument_id:312314
2. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf
3. http://www.iwgia.org/culture-and-identity/identification-of-indigenous-peoples
4.http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/28027/indigenous-
peoplesregional.pdf
5. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs326/en/
6.https://documentsddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?
OpenElement
7.http://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/communications/arcticregion/ArcticIndigenous-
Peoples/Definitions
8. http://www.katutuboproject.org/updates/

Prepared by: Approved by:

RAYMUNDO F. BANDAL VERONICA S. BERGANTING

Instructor I Head, Diploma Program

ACTIVITY 2

Name: ______________________________________ Course and year: __________

1. What are the things that come to mind when you hear the word katutubo?

2. Can you enumerate the name/s of the group of people in the Philippines that you
consider as belonging to the classification as katutubo?

Name of the Group Description

1
2
3
4
5

3. What do the groups you identified have in common?

The Indigenous People in the Philippines: I Want to Learn More

1. Which among the definitions discussed in class do you think is the most appropriate
and acceptable? Why?
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

2. Identify one IP group in the Philippines you think matches the definition of IPs that
you think is most appropriate and acceptable. Find and paste a picture of this group in
the box below.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
Please submit activity 2
For MWF Class Submit on March 14, 2022
For TThF Class Submit on March 15, 2022