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

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.  

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.

By Estanislao Albano, Jr.

While on a research mission in Bontoc for the Tabuk City LGU this week, our group stayed in with Manong Ben Feken in his farm at Maligcong. The first night, I finally had the chance to do what I have been meaning to for a long time – extract his opinion on how the Bontoc people were able to leave behind the headhunting or tribal war epoch. I had long wanted to hear him on the topic as it might give us further insights into the Kalinga poser.

Manong Ben started off with an experience he had in 1968 while working for an insurance firm in Benguet which showed that up to that time, the Bontocs were still regarded by their southern neighbors especially those living in the remote areas as sort of savages. While walking home from a village in the town of Tublay, he and his partner, an Iballoy, met some children on the trail. As the two parties were about to pass each other, his Iballoy companion announced to the children that he (Manong Ben) was a Bontoc man and he beheads people. Hearing that, the children dropped their loads, screamed in fear and run to hide on the mountainside. The Iballoy man would later shout to the children that it was just a joke but the children would not come out from their hiding places.

Manong Ben said that he learned from the experience that the reputation of the Bontoc people as ferocious headhunters still lingered among the Benguet people which was shocking because at that time the Bontocs had already abandoned the practice for more than a couple of decades. He related that his maternal grandfather who died in 1972 belonged to the last batch of headhunters of the Bontoc tribe. From his grandfather who was heavily tattooed, he heard gory headhunting tales.

“The turning point for the Bontoc people was the second world war. My speculation is that with the advent of firearms, headhunting lost its thrill. According to my grandfather, headhunting was done with primitive equipment and the challenge came from being able to approach the would-be victim with stealth, cut off his head and run away with it. The people saw no challenge and point in killing people from a distance which was already possible with the proliferation of firearms after the war. Headhunting also became dangerous because the enemy may just pick you up with their guns.  There were other factors which led to the overhauling the culture of tribal violence. One was mass education and another was religion.  Education taught them there are more important things than killing other humans. During the headhunting days in Bontoc, the killers were idolized and revered just like they are now in Kalinga. The priests and catechists were also very critical of old customs particularly violence. They lost the taste of the old ways and tribal wars because of the new things that were being introduced,” Manong Ben said.

Regarding the continuing practice of tribal wars in Kalinga, Manong Ben comments: “The practice will not die in Kalinga because people there still highly regard killers. The tomo (the feast in honor of a tribesman who just killed a man) is abetting the killer and the practice as a whole. The whole community it invited and everybody participates. It is an honor to be associated with the killer.”

Be that as it  may, Manong Ben sees hope for the Bontoc’s northern neighbors. He asserts: “This might be an oversimplification but in the long run, Kalingas will realize they cannot gain anything from the practice because it has something to do with killing others. Sooner or later, the warlike Kalinga tribes will be isolated. I do not think they could sustain it indefinitely. The practice will vanish under the sheer weight of modernity. It’s only a matter of time.”        

When I interjected my disagreement observing that modern things such as technology  which brought the Bontocs to the point of renouncing tribal wars have instead became tools in the hands of some Kalinga tribes in the pursuit of their barbaric obsessions,  Manong Ben said: “You are from Kalinga and I am an outsider but that’s the way I look at it. If you could live 500 years, you will see that it will not last that long. Even in just 100 years it will be eradicated.”

It is sad that 40 years after Manong Ben’s experience with the Tublay children which showed him that the Bontocs were still regarded as barbarians, fellow Cordillerans and many outsiders do not still feel comfortable with and are even terrified by warlike Kalingas for the same reason. Now Manong Ben is saying that the cause of the bad reputation will linger for another century or even five centuries! Actually, what is important is not how other Cordillerans regard us but how many more victims will lose their lives on account of this barbaric passion for blood and rejection of the ways of civilization.

In the meantime, the Bontocs continue to enjoy peace. Manong Ben who is now 61 claims that in his native Maligcong,  he could not recall when a killing took place. Cases of persons trying to terrorize their fellows is unknown. There are no parents there who coddle their wayward children because in doing so, they will risk being isolated. He admits that it is different when a member gets into trouble with a member of another tribe because the tribe will rally behind the member but the difference is rather than take the law in their own hands, the Bontocs will subject matter to government due process 

and respect the decision of the katarungang pambarangay or the court. He says: “We respect the government justice system.”

I know of some people in the Cordillera who only have contempt for the government law system and I believe that that is one of the secrets they are caught in a time warp when it comes to peaceful relations with others and among themselves and will continue to remain so perhaps in another millennium.