Notes from the North

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. 

by Estanislao Albano, Jr.

To be frank about it, Kalingas particularly those coming from the warlike tribes are not exactly the darling of fellow Cordillerans and neighbors. Just like I said here when the Bontoc, Mt. Province folks contemplated to ban all Kalingas from boarding houses there as a reaction to the recalcitrance of the Basao people to surrender the killers of a Bontoc-Sagada mestizo in September of last year, if they did that, they would not be the first because boarding house owners in Baguio City and Tuguegarao City have been doing it already for sometime. 

            In my desire to find out more as to why Kalingas from the warlike tribes rub other people the wrong way, I sought out Bansen Bangibang who I featured in this column for his wit and his exploits in the field of cooperativism sometime back. I told myself that he could help because at one time, I heard an immigrant lady say “No koma no amin a Kalinga ket kasla ken Bansen, awan ti problema.” Considering that the lady who was then in danger of missing the bus had vowed she would rather remain single than marry a native Kalinga, I told myself that that indeed is high praise and he will know what the other Kalingas are doing which he is not.  

            So last Saturday afternoon at the Emilia’s Kitchenette in Bulanao, I listened to Bansen who is a member of the Taloktok tribe which is not exactly a one of those Kalinga tribes which I label civilized, talk about what he thinks is wrong with the Kalinga character. His first comment was as follows: “Because they are natives of the place, they are arrogant and treat immigrants as though they are below them. Although this might be a natural feeling for natives relative to immigrants in all places, it should not be applied to the disadvantage of the  other person.”   I did not as him to elaborate but I surmise that he must be referring to the tendency of some Kalingas to impose their will on immigrants and civilized fellow Kalingas.

            Bansen also hit Kalinga tribal leaders (papangats) for practicing double standard down to a man. He said that they are all justice and fairness when it is other people involved but when the issue touches their relatives, they change their tune. He continued that even if the young men of their tribes do evil things, they exert no effort to correct them because they would have no one to turn to in the event that the tribe gets into a violent conflict with other tribes. According to Bansen, their policy is to refrain from antagonizing tribe members with violent and criminal streak because they are useful in case of war.

            According to Bansen, one reason the practice of tribal war is not going away is that people who marry into the warlike tribes whom he refers to as “royal blood” and “kawitan” do not try to influence them to change for the better but instead feel proud and capitalize on the connection.

            I was not satisfied though with his answer when I asked if he ever tried to dissuade his tribe from going to war. He said it would be no use because his tribe would not listen as he comes from a poor family with no “ngadan” or name in Taloktok tribal society. He explained that it is the members of the old established families of the tribe who have a say in times of crisis in the tribe. My thinking is that he does not need to be heeded but only to speak up against the tendency of the tribe to resort to violence just in case other members would listen.

            He redeemed himself partly though when he said that his way of showing that he is against the practice of tribal war is that he is one of the few Kalingas who never bought a gun. According to him, he has been despised  as a “bakla”, “takrot” or “can’t afford” for refusing to arm himself. “I do not want to participate in the war efforts of the tribe. I do not want my movements to be curtailed during a war. I do not want to hide. I do have some wayward nephews and in Kalinga, avengers go for the prominent members of the family,  but I am still alive.” He will turn 60 this year. He attributes his salvation from violence to God and his marriage to a member of the Biga tribe so that when it’s the Bigas who are involved in a conflict, the enemy would not touch him because he is a Taloktok and when it’s the Bigas who are involved, the enemies would say he is married to the Biga tribe.

            Aside from not buying his own gun, he never contributes resources to the war efforts of the tribe. “But I help in the restoration of peace. They will curse you if you do not lift a finger. In fact, I pay more because I have work.” It’s hard to associate selfishness with a person imbued with altruism like Bansen but in contributing to the peace effort, he is also protecting his skin because among Kalingas, there is an order of battle determined by one’s prominence in the community.

            Regarding the troubles of Kalinga youth of looking for boarding houses in the cities, he believes that other people want to give Kalingas a dose of their own medicine of vindictiveness. He adds that the other people may not also want to have anything to do with the bad practices of Kalingas. 

by Estanislao Albano

In compliance with a previous agreement, one dusk I went to see an old acquaintance at the Tabuk Public Market to hear his story on certain encounters with some bodong-practicing people. Jay Cabuyadao who just like me resides in Casigayan, Tabuk, but tends to a store at the market had told me earlier that he wanted the story published for people to ponder upon.

Jay began by expressing his appreciation of the Kalinga system of redressing grievances and settling conflicts but that it should also treat immigrants who were born in Kalinga and have been living under the system all their lives in the same way it does the natives. “What is good for them should also be good for us. There should be no discrimination. They should also respect their provincemates regardless of their ethnic background. The traffic should be two-way There should be a provision in the bodong recognizing immigrants who were born here and are complying with it. We belong to the same place and therefore should walk hand in hand,” he said.

Jay then cited two instances when their family willingly complied with the bodong way of doing things. Some four years ago, the passenger jeep of an aunt which just stopped for a passenger to get off accidentally bumped a native Kalinga in downtown Tabuk who suddenly crossed the street. The victim who was drunk fell on the ground but sustained no injuries. The family of the victim asked chicken for the songa, a ritual intended to give an injured person swift recovery done at the expense of the person who caused the injury the performance of which means the party of the victim is ready to forgive the offender. Jay said that on top of the chicken, they also gave a regular-sized pig “tapno awan makunkunada.” (So that they will not say anything.)

Two years ago, the same jeep figured in a mishap where the passengers belonging to different Kalinga tribes suffered very slight injuries. They were all brought to the hospital. Hearing this, some friends of the owner suggested that to ease the feelings of the tribes of the victims against them, they should send each of the passengers a chicken for the tingiting,  ritual to make the victims of an accident regain his normal spiritual bearing.  The family complied. When the tribes of the victims asked for animals for the songa, the family likewise agreed. Jay related that just to make certain that the accident did not inflict any serious internal injury on the victims, the family also footed the bill for CT scan which was done sans the recommendation of the attending physicians. Finally, two of the victims, one a teacher and the other a police applicant, also demanded for amounts to compensate them for the days they lost due to the accident and to defray the fare of relatives who visited them at the hospital. Jay said that all in all, the family spent P160,000.00 on account of the accident.

Jay related that last December 9, the shoe was on the other foot. While his wife Nelda and his grandmother were walking home on the street, a motorcycle with two men on board accidentally hit the latter. The old woman fell on the street with her face hitting the pavement. She lost eight teeth. One of the men alighted and helped the old woman to her feet but when Nelda asked them to bring the victim to the hospital which was just in the other block, they said they are going some place. She then asked for their identities and the only told her they belong to a certain Kalinga tribe.

With the help of the plate number of the motorcycle, Jay was able to find out the identity of the owner. In an effort to get from the offenders what is due for the victim, the family of Jay sought the help of some members of the subject tribe with whom they are related by consanguinity and also known peace negotiators in the community. Those approached sent messengers to the two men who admitted their involvement in the mishap and promised to attend to the victim. But the family of the victim waited in vain until the fourth day when the offenders sent an emissary to ask what the family wants. Jay said that he told them reimbursement of the medical expense which amounted to P16,000.00 will do “because asking for fine is not our practice.” Despite their word to attend to the victim, however, the men have not done so to date.

Asked why they are not bringing the matter to court, Jay said: “We are busy with our business. Furthermore, we are not ready to go to war because when you seek justice here, you will be threatened. On the other hand, they are ready to go to war because that is their practice. We are not taking legal action because of fear and also in deference to relatives who are married into their tribe.”          

“What we want to see is for the traffic to become two-way. If we immigrants are the victims of accidents, they should willingly attend to us like we do when they are the victims. In the specific case of my grandmother, they should not hesitate to come to us because we are not warlike and the medical expense incurred is not so high,” Jay said.

At the end of the interview the question that came to my mind was how would the subject Kalinga tribe which is known for its ferocity have reacted  had the victim belonged to their tribe and the culprits immigrants? Nearly every immigrant family in this province know the answer from their own experience and from observation.

My own family has had its own experience with the one-way traffic in Kalinga. In 1984, the jeep owned by my brother-in-law but driven by someone else accidentally sideswiped a boy from a Kalinga tribe. The victim suffered a sprain in his hand and was brought to the hospital by my late father. Jeeploads of people from the tribe came to our house to negotiate for settlement so we had to butcher a pig. Aside from the pig, the family footed the medical bill amounting to P3,000.00 and also paid a fine of P8,000.00. Then sometime in 1993, an aunt was one of the passengers of a jeep owned by a Kalinga which fell along the road to Tuguegarao. She was hospitalized for more than a week. Understanding that she was just one of  the many of the passengers who were wounded with one even dead, she did not complain when only a portion of her hospital bills were answered by the owner.  

by Estanislao Albano

Sometime in 2005 while attending a journalism training in Baguio City, I met this reporter of the Bombo Radyo in Cauayan City, Isabela who shared this joke or what he thought to be a joke about Kalingas. According to the joke, a Coca-cola delivery truck hit and killed a chicken in a road in Kalinga. Hearing that in Kalinga, drivers who kill chicken will be made to pay the chicken that are still to be hatched from the unlaid eggs of the chicken aside from the chicken itself, the driver did not stop. Sometime later, a Pepsi delivery truck was stopped in the barangay where the chicken was killed and the crew were asked to pay the dead chicken. The crew reminded the man who stopped them that the truck which hit the chicken is owned by Coca-cola while they are of Pepsi. The man allegedly declared that they should pay because Pepsi is the cousin of Coca-cola.

The first part of the story is not a joke among non-Kalingas and even non-warlike Kalinga tribes because indeed, as I have told you before, the word accident has yet to enter the vocabulary of most Kalinga tribes. Up to this day and age, to most Kalinga tribes, accidents are still a golden opportunity to get money you did not labor for from others. Just to tell you how pervasive the practice is, several years ago, a lawyer who was the victim in a minor traffic accident tried to collect a settlement grossly disproportionate to the damage incurred. Fortunately, the immigrant tribe targeted for extortion stood their ground.

Worse, accidents could also occasion a reversion to barbarism. At least three drivers who accidentally hit pedestrians in Nambaran and Lacnog, Tabuk City, have been lynched through the use of bolos and spears right then and there so much so that the policy now among drivers who figure in accidents in those two barangays is not to succor the victim but drive as fast a possible to the next police station.

So  it’s really a cause of amazement and celebration when a Kalinga who gets the receiving end in an accident only asks for what is reasonable just like this professional from the Taloktok tribe did. While driving to the office in a motorcycle the other  Monday, the professional accidentally collided with the tricycle owned by LGOO V Mayer Adong, a member of the immigrant Bago tribe. The Taloktok professional sustained cuts in the left hand and the sole of his left foot and his right  leg knee would later swell although the X-ray would show that there was no fracture. The driver of Adong admitted it was his fault because he entered the lane of the Taloktok professional without making sure that it was clear.

Upon hearing of the accident and the ethnic affiliation of  the victim, Adong prepared for the worse. He would tell me later that he expected a settlement or multa of at least P20,000.00  over and above the reimbursement of the medical expenses, cost of the repair of the motorcycle and the pig for the sunga (a Kalinga ritual to fend off a recurrence and also for early recovery of the victim). Adong made the estimate on the basis of a recent case where the owner of a vehicle which sideswiped a child causing an injury that did not require hospital confinement was made to pay a multa of P15,000.00.

So Adong and his wife Hilda were greatly relieved and elated when upon visiting the victim in the hospital, the latter would tell them not to worry because he was not going to demand for multa but only for the payment of his hospital expenses, the repair of his motorcycle and a replacement for his uniform which was torn during the accident. (He would later reconsider the replacement of the uniform saying that his office provides uniform allowances anyway.) He did not even require the customary tingiting (a ritual where a chicken is killed so that the wounds would not swell and cause so much pain and for swift recovery) and the sunga. But party because of their gladness due to the understanding heart of the victim and partly so that the cultural practices would be complied with, Adong volunteered to produce the animals for the tingiting and the sunga. 

During the sunga last Friday, Adong and the  Bago elders who were with him expressed their appreciation for the victim’s unusual decision and also their hope that other Kalingas will learn from it.

When already by themselves partaking of the portion of the sunga they were given to bring home “for those who were unable to attend,” the Bagos were thankful that the victim made the decision on his own because had the professional amicable settlement negotiators whom they termed “negosyantes” went into action, the results may have been different. They speculated that when the “negosyantes” will learn of the case, they will feel insulted and that now, the Taloktok tribe will be ridiculed for not upholding Kalinga practices. They also theorized that the wife of the victim being a Tagalog must also have been a positive factor in the case because had she came from other immigrant groups, she may have urged him to demand the multa “because some immigrants who marry Kalingas sometimes think they too are Kalingas.” They regretted that they have a tribesmate who is married into a notorious tribe who is proud  of and capitalizes on the connection and is also now resorting to squatting himself.   

In an interview last Tuesday after he already reported back to work, the victim told me that resorting to the Kalinga practice of demanding the multa never occurred to him. He said: “As a professional and a government worker, it’s not normal and proper to demand the multa. Para laeng kadagiti barbariotik dayta. Let’s follow the standard which is just the reimbursement of the reasonable expenses. Our thinking should develop. Actually, the multa does not benefit the victim but third parties.” He went on to inform that initially, he was ashamed and reluctant to accept the tingiting and the sunga but allowed the rituals in the end because Adong brought the animals and “there might be consequences if we do not do the rituals.”

Asked if he encountered resistance to his decision from his tribesmates, the Talotok professional said that the moment the elders heard his stance, they went along with him. Actually, he did not tell the accident to his relatives so that when an uncle learned of it, he felt sore that he was not informed. The victim would tell the uncle to be thankful that the accident was not worse. The uncle would later approve of his foregoing the multa  because “we have vehicles and in the event that we also figure in accidents, the victims might also demand the multa from us.” The victim claimed that it is not a practice among Talotoktoks to demand multa for accidents except when it results to death.

The victim said that during his student days at the Kalinga-Apayao State College, his friends were Ilocanos and that these days, he sometimes attends amicable settlement or areglo negotiations on the side of immigrants. He sadly noted that even immigrants demand compensation for their  sufferings on account of the accident.

If all Kalingas were as civilized as this Taloktok professional, there would be less disunity and distrust and  there would be better relations between Kalingas on one hand and immigrants on the other. But sadly, he is a  very rare exception. 

By Estanislao Albano, Jr.

The upas are the tribes in Kalinga who do not stand up for their rights through the force of arms. I have said that in the pecking order existent in Kalinga which is based on the relative fierceness or lack of fierceness of a tribe, they are at the bottom. The kawitans who are at the other end of the pecking order look down on them and routinely oppress them. When they are the victims of crimes or accidents with the kawitans as the ones victimizing them, they cannot collect even just one-fourth of the multa imposed on them if the shoe was on the other foot. The kawitans do not take them seriously and  derisively dismiss them with remarks such as I have heard one woman belonging to a kawitan tribe say sometime in the early 90s: “A dan ________? Adida tigammu din pumatoy.” (Oh the __________? They do not know how to kill.)

In short, the upas are the doormats of the kawitans in the twisted scheme of things in Kalinga. Woe unto them if one of their members happen to injure or kill a member of a kawitan tribe even without him meaning to! Woe unto them if they have a rice field which has attracted the fancy of a kawitan tribe! In the first case, if they do not want to lose the life of a member or members to the avengers of the victim tribe, they must give in to the unreasonable multa demand of the victim tribe pronto. In the second case, they might as well sell the land right away or kiss their land goodbye.

But Rev. Luis Aoas says that in one context, being an upa is not really that despicable. He says that there is a need to classify the so-called upas. According to him, there are some non-violent tribes in Kalinga who take the injustices inflicted on them in stride not because they are chicken but because they know that they will gain nothing by going down to the level of the kawitans. They very well understand that if they also arm themselves and fight back, they will lose more in terms of possible victims and lost economic opportunities during the war. They also could not live with the awareness that  having passed the stage of lawlessness, they will  go back there and  with the knowledge that having embraced Christianity, they will return to killing other people.

Earlier, Rev. Aoas mentioned the Sagadas as enjoying the fruits of their sacrifices and labors in times past in this once frontier town. I do believe that had he the chance to elaborate his remarks then, Rev. Aoas would have included in the meaning of the word “sacrifices” the countless times the Sagadas had to forbear injustices wrought on them by the kawitans. In my sketch of Miguel Omengan, one of the venerable men of Tabuk, I have told you the story how at one point during the 80s, the  leaders of the Igorots in Tabuk of which he is one allegedly came together to decide whether to start fighting  back or not. The agreement was that if ever the ethnic group will decide to take up arms and answer fire for fire, the decision should be unanimous. The unanimity was not achieved and the meeting broke up without reaching the decision which could have altered the history of Tabuk because Omengan allegedly told the group that it is contrary to Christian precepts to kill other people.

Rev. Aoas says that had the Sagadas adopted the way of the kawitans and fought every time they were provoked, then it is likely it would not now have the status of being the most economically progressive ethnic group in the locality. Perhaps they would not even be in the place anymore.

Rev. Aoas also lauds the Bagos, another immigrant ethnic group which contributed a lot to the opening and subsequent development of the Tabuk Valley, as one sample of the upas who shy away from violent confrontations not because they are afraid or are incapable but because they have a higher level of understanding and have “vision in life.” He relates that during a recent meeting of Bagos in which he was present, one Bago leader had commented that the tribe is not exactly a pushover. The reverend quotes the Bago leader as saying: “We have a lot of members in the uniformed services. Arms are not a problem. But is that what we came here for?”

Like I must have related to you earlier, in the mid-80s, the Bagos momentarily forgot that they came here to try to find a life better than in their mountainous and barely habitable homeland in the Ilocos and fought the Butbuts, a kawitan, giving them the distinction of being the first immigrant group in  Tabuk to lapse to barbarism.

Francisco Gabel,  chairman of the League of Integrated Bago Young Adults (LIBYA), says that the Bagos earned some sort of a trophy from that war explaining that the tribe used to be looked down on by fellow immigrants and Kalingas but after the war, they  were treated with more respect. He has these to say of that episode:  “What other immigrants do not know is that it was not a tribal decision. The Butbuts pushed us to the wall. We value life but even if we did not approve of war, we could not control all members of the tribe. But because of the developments, as though the majority tolerated it because the situation had reached a point when we simply could not condemn the acts of our tribesmates anymore... It was good for our generation because we are braver. If it happens now, our children could not take it. Had we continued on the path of violence, for sure not many of our youth would have earned education in the last two decades. Perhaps by now, we would be like the warlike Kalinga tribes who defer even to unlettered members just because these members are killers. We would have reverted to barbarism by this time… We do not prescribe tribal war as a solution. For one, instead of offering ourselves as good examples, going to war will make us no different.”

Let’s give Rev. Aoas the last word:  “Of foremost value to Sagadas and Bagos is progress while the kawitans remain slaves to their violent culture. The kawitan mindset is satisfy the urges and demands of culture and sacrifices everything to achieve that purpose. To the kawitan, the most important thing when one is violated is to retaliate and get even. Not so among the Sagadas and Bagos. They are in good company because the non-violent in this world usually triumph in the end. Just look at Mahatma Gandhi of India and Nelson Mandela of South Africa. Through non-violence, they ended the oppression of their people.” 

One of the things that may set Kalingas apart from other people  is the multa. It is the practice of exacting one’s pound of flesh from incidents where the blood of a Kalinga is drawn (or even if not drawn), a Kalinga is aggrieved. Never mind if the incident is  not intentional or accident for so long as blood has been drawn, the multa must be paid. Multa is also imposed in cases when a man impregnates a Kalinga woman but does not intend to marry her and things like that.

With the failure of the government to  regulate the practice, multa is a dreaded word among the immigrants and the mild Kalinga tribes. The practice drives a wedge between them and the tribes that exact multa on the other hand. It is a well known fact that most multa demands are unreasonable and the process in enforcing it attended by intimidation. 

Recently, I had a chance to hear the thoughts of Bansen Bangibang, one of the few Kalingas who does not mince words when it comes to the bad practices and excesses of his fellow  Kalingas, on the matter. According to Bansen, a member of the Taloktok tribe, among Kalingas, it does not matter who starts something. It has no bearing. You punch me and no blood is shed. I then retaliate and blood is drawn.  I must pay the multa.

He continues: The moment blood is shed, the Kalinga has reason to exact the multa. That’s because the wound must be masonga. In English, songa is the payment of the blood money so that the problem is prevented from getting any worse. Even just a little blood is reason to demand the multa. It all depends on the relative fierceness of the tribe or family of the victim in relation to the tribe or family of the one who caused the injury. If the tribe or family of the latter is easily intimidated, the victim tribe raises the demand sky high just in case the other party will give in. It’s like a bluff. Not all Kalingas kill but then there is no way of determining who is bluffing and who is not so the safe thing to do is to give in.  

The facts on who started the incident will only have a bearing when the person who drew blood belongs to a kawitan or warlike tribe in which case they could enforce their rights but if they belong to the upa or non-warlike tribes, they might as well come across so as not to make things worse.

When I asked what’s so significant about the drawing of blood that the multa must be imposed at all costs, Bansen could not explain. He only said the shedding of blood  is a serious matter among Kalingas.  “Blood is important because it is life but I do not know the actual reason,” Bansen admitted.

According to Bansen, the expression “maysa a tedted, maysa a nuang” is an exaggeration but that the principle is  “basta nagdara, mamulta.” And that’s even if the cause of the bleeding was unintended or accidental.

Going back to the songa, Bansen said that according to the belief of Kalingas, the killing and butchering of an animal the simplest of which is a chicken makes the wound heal easier and will not make it swell. As for the demand in cash, Bansen explained that it is to cover hospital expenses and related losses and also to appease the victim.

Bansen said that ever since he could remember, Kalingas already practiced the multa but that in  recent years, its hold on them has loosened a bit because of the advent of Christianity. When I asked him about church people who impose the multa, Bansen said that they are just pretending to be Christians but are not real Christians because Christians are supposed to be forgiving. He related that there are times during amicable settlement negotiations when he rebuked so-called Christian families for demanding the multa but that the latter would reason that if they do not demand the multa, their stature in the  community would suffer because among Kalingas, the demand is tied up with one’s prestige.  If you do not demand much, then you are apt to be ignored and look down on.

Bansen relates that one time when his second boy was in grade three at the Bulanao South Elementary School, he and an immigrant boy were throwing stones at the fruits of a mango tree. One of the stones thrown by the immigrant boy as it was coming down hit  Bansen’s son injuring him in the forehead. The bleeding was profuse. The knowledge that the injured boy was a Kalinga rattled the teacher of the two boys and even the principal because, according to Bansen, in incidents like this among Kalingas, teachers are dragged in. The teachers were only calmed when he went to the hospital where the boy was taken and informed the immigrant boy to get a chicken for him and the injured boy to butcher and eat together in a house in front of the school the following day. He did not even ask the family of the immigrant boy to pay the hospital bill. According to Bansen, he asked for the chicken  with the intent of  preventing his tribesmates from taking advantage of the situation.

Bansen said that among warlike Kalinga tribes, unfortunate incidents like what happened to his boy is an opportunity to “make their lives better.”  But he quickly adds that there are also Kalingas who have learned to forgive like he did.

The trouble is, they are very rare. 

By Estanislao Albano, Jr.

During a recent conversation with my favorite friend Rev. Luis Aoas, he elaborated on an earlier observation that the concept of forgiveness is missing in the Kalinga culture. Let’s listen to him:

“There are no equivalent in the Kalinga dialect for ‘I forgive you.’ or ‘Please forgive me.’ What we have are the words ‘bay-amon’ or ‘pasensiya’ which are grafted from the Ilocano dialect and culture. By it, we mean you just let the matter go. It is different from forgiveness because when one forgives, he does not record the wrong but when one merely says ‘bay-amon,’ he records although at this time, he does not ask the wrongdoer to make amends. A repetition may not receive the same treatment. In forgiveness, one does not point to the other person that his act is already a repetition. Forgiveness springs from love of fellowmen. I am talking from the viewpoint of Christianity whereby people are equipped with the power to forgive since they were first forgiven. Pasensiya does not come from goodwill.

Another reason I say there is no forgiveness in the Kalinga culture is because in all my three decades of negotiating amicable settlements, I have not seen the offenders and the victims appearing. This makes the act of forgiveness impossible because forgiveness is personal. The person wronged is the one who forgives and the person who did the wrong is the one who asks for forgiveness. The absence of the offender and the victim in amicable settlements is linked up with the principle of Kalinga culture of ‘the sin of one, is the sin of all.’”

At this point,  I interject that since that is the set-up, then why talk about forgiveness? It is out of place. He replies: “Even if the sin of one is the sin of all, there is still need to ask for forgiveness. If you have killed a man, you should feel sorry for what you have done and, in the event you are forgiven, shoulder the expense which will  not then be treated as indemnity. To me, a person controlled by God forgives even if the offender does not ask for forgiveness. The understanding is in Christianity, one who harbors hatred even if he does not act on it, is like a candle which is burning itself out.”

My question how could there be peace in Kalinga when the concept of forgiving is missing, triggers the following exchange:

Rev. Aoas: “Peace is still possible because there is the law to serve as a curb against the commission of evil which is part of human nature.”

Me: “But there is no law in Kalinga.”

Rev. Aoas: “Don’t say that. You are too sweeping. Try to go out on the street now and stone the houses you pass by and the police will apprehend you.”

Me: “I will be apprehended because I am a Bago. If I belonged to a kawitan tribe like yours, I will not be apprehended.”

Rev. Aoas: “There you go again. Kontrabida ka a talaga. There is still hope in Kalinga. Everybody is talking about peace and the effect is the understanding of people is slowly being raised to the level wherein they can be civilized. There are perceptible changes. Gone are the days when the mere shedding of blood will spark wars, wars that would last for years. Now, if there are wars, they are stopped quickly. This is in fairness to what’s happening. May be the changes are not as fast as they should be but there is still something going on which is good.”

When I asked him if it’s possible that a kawitan tribe confesses that its member killed a person and asks for forgiveness for the act, he said that when that happens, it will be a breakthrough whether or not it will be accepted adding that if it happens, the subject kawitan tribe should be willing to surrender the culprit and take the consequences because confession which is just words is nothing. He agreed with me though that habitual murderers are not likely to confess and ask for forgiveness but that it is usual for first time offenders to feel remorse although if they are Kalingas, they may not actually ask for forgiveness from those they harmed.

He concluded that the root of the unforgiving culture is as follows: “Among Kalingas, harm done to a relative is taken as an insult to the honor of the clan or of the tribe and the only way to restore the diminished honor is to revenge.”

I then said that in that case, the word forgiveness will continue to be missing in the Kalinga dialect and culture for three more generations to which he retorted that at least we have started talking about it. According to him, it is like a seed being planted and sprouting in due time.