Gary Pekas
by Estanislao Albano, Jr.
Another reason why the relevance of the bodong should not be discussed at all is that the institution’s legality and constitutionality are doubtful.
I have heard bodong advocates claiming that the institution is in tune with national laws but nothing could be farther from the truth. For one, the 1987 Constitution abolished the death penalty but there was no move on the part of bodong-practitioners then to delete the butu provision of the bodong. That provision which is considered the teeth of the bodong works this way: When a member of tribe A commits a crime against bodong counterpart tribe B, the bodong-holder or enforcer belonging to tribe A shall punish his offending tribesmate so that if the crime committed is a murder, the latter or in his absence, his nearest of kin will have to be killed by the enforcer. The butu has since been twisted beyond recognition but the provision is retained in the bodongs of fierce tribes. A couple of months ago, the death penalty which was re-imposed in 1994 was abolished for the second time but as of press time, I still have to hear of bodong-practitioners moving to bid the butu goodbye.
For another, the bodong violates the Bill of Rights. For sure, the law referred to in Section 1 of the Bill of Rights are government laws. Under the bodong, and as pointed out by the editorial of this paper in the last issue, all that needs to be done to sentence to death a whole tribe, the full grown males in particular, is to severe the bodong which by any stretch of the imagination does not constitute due process as contemplated by the Constitution.
Of more fundamental concern is the legal personality of the bodong. The Sha’ria law of the Muslims has been recognized by the government through an specific act and that is only a civil code. On the other hand, the bodong is a penal code which deals with the least to the most heinous crime. Bodong defenders would point to Section 22 of Article II and the Section 17 of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution as the basis for the continuing practice of the bodong but then those provisions, needless to say, refer to culture that are consistent with the fundamental law and other existing laws. The second part of Section 22 for one mentions “national unity and development” as conditions. How could the bodong be for unity when it’s very practice has a divisive effect on Kalingas themselves and between Kalingas on one hand and immigrants on the other with the latter charging double-standard justice and even oppression? How could the bodong be for development when their reputation of its practitioners is such that other people regard them with fear and distrust it is difficult for their students to find boarding houses in Bontoc, Tuguegarao City and Baguio City? How could the bodong be for development when its practitioners are plagued by tribal wars?
And come to think of it, could a country have two penal codes and remain one country? Would not the United States come apart if each state adopted laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States?
But let’s now get into specifics. In 1988, the Kalinga Bodong Congress composed of Kalinga tribal leaders and bodong-holders was convened and started deliberating on the codification of the bodong. They saw the need for that because at that time and up until now despite the nearly two-decade efforts of that body, the pagtas or laws of the pact are different from one bodong pairing to another. The intent is to come up with a standard pagta which is applicable to all and 10 years later during the Fourth Congress, the Pagta came into being. The same was subjected to amendments during the Fifth Kalinga Bodong Congress in 2002 and yet the following provisions from a bygone era which are, needless to say, repugnant to civilized laws were not dropped:
“Section 5, Article II. Revenge is hereby prohibited, except in cases where a Bodong is severed as provided under Section 5, Article VI of this Pagta, in which case, the retaliation by the aggrieved party shall solely rest on the person of the offender. Violation of this provision shall constitute patoy (killing).”
“Section 2, Article VI. If a patoy results to death, the penalty (dusa) is ten (10) carabaos, or its equivalent value in terms of land, antique jars (gusi), gold, beads or cash, inclusive of the patong-al, paata and imbaluwan/siglot. In addition thereto, he shall pay three (3) carabaos as payment of the butu to the offended Bodongholder, one to be given to his kasupang and the other one to be butchered during the amicable settlement plus reasonable customary damages.”
Section 5, Article VI, also provides the procedures to be undertaken in the event of a patoy which includes the severance of the bodong as an option.
The Pagta does not spell it out but the severance of the bodong is a formal declaration of war. An aggrieved Kalinga tribe will not severe the bodong if it does not have any intent of doing violence to its erstwhile bodong partner. Not all severed bodongs result in war but some of them do.
In fairness to the Kalinga Bodong Congress, the Pagta is an improvement on the existing laws of the bodong as practiced by the fierce tribes but the trouble is many tribes continue to act as though the congresses never took place. Since 2002, at least two tribal wars erupted and all of the victims were innocent including two who were not even members of the warring tribes. As things are, the Pagta is in limbo which is a different subject altogether.
Had it not been for its secretariat overruling a decision of the Fifth Kalinga Bodong Congress, the bodong would now be nearer its proper place in the national scheme of things – a customary law consistent with and subject to the laws of the country instead of one that presumes to usurp the jurisdiction of the same. I covered the event and saw how the congress approved an amendment of the Pagta to the effect that henceforth, the bodong will only take jurisdiction of the civil aspect of crimes while the criminal aspect will be handled by the courts. However, the amendment was not included in the revised Pagta released by the congress. When I asked where it went, one of the prime movers of the Kalinga Bodong Congress answered that it is not necessary because Section 1 of Article II of the Pagta states that the bodong recognizes the rule of law. As you yourself could see from the foregoing, nothing could be farther from the truth.
