• Walang Nahanap Na Mga Resulta

Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures


Academic year: 2022

Share "Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures "


Buong text


Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures

Modules for Higher Education Institutions

Hazel T. Biana, Ph.D.

Melvin A. Jabar, Ph.D.

Homer J. Yabut, Ph.D.

Crisanto Q. Regadio, Jr., Ph.D. Cand.


Philippine Copyright © 2016 by DLSU Social Development Research Center ISBN 978-971-528-023-5

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without written permission from the copyright owner.

Printed with the support of the


Social Development Research Center De La Salle University Manila

3/F William Hall Building

2401 Taft Ave. Manila, 1004 Philippines Tel. +632 524-5349/ 524-5351

www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/centers/sdrc www.sdrc.org.ph

Edited by: Connie Jan Maraan Cover design by: Claude Rodrigo

Layout by: Maria Catherine D. Domingo

Views and opinions expressed in this work are those of the project team members and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia, De La Salle University or the Social Development Research Center administrators, faculty, and staff.


Table of Contents

Acknowledgements i

Dedication iii

Foreword v

Background and Rationale vii

The Modules

Module 1: The Peopling of the Philippines 1

Module 2: Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines 4

Module 3: Who are the Indigenous People? 12

Module 4: Filipino Indigenous Philosophy and Worldviews 25

Module 5: Indigenous Filipino Spirituality 28

Module 6: Indigenous Languages and Literatures 34

Module 7: Philippine Indigenous Arts and Crafts 53

Module 8: Philippine Indigenous Customary Laws, Livelihood and Technology 57 Module 9: Indigenous Filipino Psychology : Kapwa at Pakikipagkapwa 66 Appendices

Appendix 1. IPRA and Dep. Ed. Order no. 51 series 2014 72

Appendix 2. Rules of Engagement with an IP Community 74




The team would like to thank the following people and organizations for their contributions:

The United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia (UBCHEA) for their generous grant, without which this project would not have been made possible;

The director and staff of the Social Development Research Center (SDRC) of De La Salle University;

The faculty, staff and students of De La Salle University-Manila;

Dr. Dennis Pulido for playing an important part in this project's inception;

The Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LNRC);

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP);

The Indigenous Peoples Education Office (IPsEO), Department of Education (DepEd);

The teachers and educators from all over the Philippines who participated in the focus group discussions, workshops and forums;

And the readers, advisors and editors who tirelessly helped in perfecting this work.






To the Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines






This set of modules for teaching indigenous cultures in Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) could not have come at a better time. With Philippine education transitioning to the K-12 system, and some basic courses being devolved to grades 11 and 12, there is now an opportunity to enrich tertiary level curricula by including traditional knowledge and expressions of the country’s Indigenous Peoples (IPs.) By making this knowledge accessible to Filipino students, learning becomes more contextual, founded on one’s roots, and therefore, more authentic. The variety of cultures expressed by the many IPs in the Philippines cannot but promote the value of diversity and pluralism, while teaching students to be open to and appreciate different worldviews. On the other hand, the more people know about the cultures of our Indigenous Peoples, the better protected their knowledge system and cultural expressions will be.

I was working on another United Board project when the team of Dr. Biana, Dr. Jabar, Dr. Yabut and Mr. Regadio was granted the fund for Reclaiming Filipino Indigenous Cultures through Teaching and Learning. I was a little disappointed that I could not be part of this work since I have always had a love for tribal cultures. They are rich and creative sources of alternative ways of thinking and living that provide needed insights when mainstream methods do not seem to work out that well with certain problems.

When our curriculum still allowed more units for electives, I taught Tribal Philosophy, and Dr. Biana, then still a graduate student, took my class. She was kind enough to keep me posted on her team’s progress in their project on IPs.

When finally the team invited me to give a presentation during the forum on “Teaching Philippine Indigenous Cultures” held at De La Salle University (the forum was a component of this UBCHEA project), I was only too eager to participate. Having been initiated into the world of intellectual property issues by the DLSU Intellectual Property Office (DITO), I thought it best to focus on the protection of traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs). Although protection and promotion of TK and TCEs are not simple issues, the debates can only begin and proceed meaningfully if people are aware of them, their status, identity, and significance. Again, the conference was an excellent venue for getting this awareness started. Scientists, researchers, teachers, and students exchanged ideas and experiences that contributed to the drafting of the present modules.



Of the four authors, I have known Dr. Biana longest, since the time of her undergraduate years in the Philosophy program. But I worked with Dr. Jabar on some programs for the graduate students of our college when he was the Director of the Social Development Research Center (SDRC). He, Dr. Yabut and I also bonded during a research fellowship in Thailand. Our shared interest allowed me and Dr. Yabut to collaborate on a research paper afterwards. On the other hand, Mr. Regadio is one of our college’s doctoral apprentices and is about to finish his degree. His advocacy of IP cultures keeps our conversations lively as we plan for more events intended to promote them.

The team worked diligently and effectively to produce this particular set of modules on teaching IP cultures. Nine modules are compiled herein, beginning with the peopling of the Philippine Islands, proceeding through each aspect of the IPs’ social life, and then capped by an insight into the psychology of the indigenous Filipino. Using a transformative outcomes-based pedagogical framework, each module provides guide questions for students’ prior knowledge, interesting learning activities leading to specific outputs, procedures for processing what students learn, and suggested teaching resources in print and electronic form. It is a valuable resource that will hopefully be used by many Filipino educators who are convinced of the importance of integrating knowledge of the IP cultures into relevant program curricula. It is also hoped that this endeavor inspires other forms of promotion that will help preserve and sustain the development of indigenous cultures.

Dr. Leni dlR. Garcia

Full Professor, Philosophy Department Director, Research and Advanced Studies College of Liberal Arts

De La Salle University Taft Avenue, Manila



Background and Rationale

In 2014, the Social Development Research Center (SDRC) of De La Salle University was awarded a grant by the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia (UBCHEA).

This grant provided support for the project entitled Reclaiming Filipino Indigenous Cultures through Teaching and Learning. One of the matters raised by the UNESCO Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is that IP knowledge is not integrated into the curricula at all, and there has been a gradual disappearance of indigenous cultures.

There is a call to set up programs that will recover such cultures, which comprise a vital element of sustainable development.

Since the Philippines is at the crossroad of transitioning to a K to 12 educational system, higher education institutions are now redeveloping and redefining their courses and curriculums. Given these impending changes, the team hopes to reawaken interest in and reclaim Filipino indigenous cultures through teaching and learning. The main goal of the project is to integrate Filipino Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and culture into the upcoming revised Higher Education Institution (HEI) curriculum of Liberal Arts and Education courses in step-by-step phases. The set of modules was developed as a guide to help HEIs conceive of and imagine their own ways of integration.

Before coming up with the modules, the team sought to determine Philippine HEI educators’ understanding of indigenous cultures. Are there efforts to integrate? If there are, how do teachers do so? Furthermore, what are the issues and challenges faced by teachers? Through focus group discussions all over the country, visits to IP communities, forums and workshops, the project team came up with a recommended process of integration and a set of modules. It is important to note that exposure of the teachers to the IP experience will allow them to recognize and appreciate the differences between peoples. Integration can only be done if the lack of interest and capacity and skills of teachers are addressed.



Fig. 1 Recommended Process

for the Integration of Filipino Indigenous Cultures in the HEI Curriculum

The task of educators does not end with integration of IP cultures in the curriculum.

Training and capacity-building of teachers must go beyond curriculum development – they should also contribute to the social and structural development of justice. This objective makes teachers not only sources of information but nation-builders as well.

The cumulative effect of such integration must go beyond education.

Figure 2. Knowledge-Building of Educators Toward Curriculum Integration, Cultural Appreciation

and Social and Structural Justice Capacity-

Building of Teachers


& Exposure

Dialogue &

Experience Appreciation

Enhanced &

Awakened Interest

Knowledge and Capacity Building of Educators

Curriculum Integration

Appreciation of IP Culture

Toward Social and Structural Justice



Module 1

The Peopling of the Philippines

Learning Outcome

At the end of the module, the students should be able to familiarize themselves with the different theories of the peopling of the Philippines.

Learning Content

Archaeological finds in Palawan (e.g., Tabon Skull fragments) suggest that there were already prehistoric inhabitants in the Philippines as early as the Pleistocene period.

Through carbon dating, the fossil remains were believed to be about 22,000 years old. In the Philippine cultural landscape, the new Stone Age was the impetus of the development of Filipino modern societies. At this point, early Filipinos were starting to domesticate plants and animals, and food production was no longer limited to family consumption. At that time, people were dependent on agricultural as well as hunting and gathering activities.

The work of Gaillard and Mallari (2004) summarized the different schools of thought to explain the peopling of the Philippines. The first hypothesis argues that there is an internal development happening within the so-called Austronesian region (citing the work of William Meacham).This means that there was an internal human evolution that transpired around that area. Another theory is the Multiple Homeland Hypothesis proposed by Bayer, which argues that there are multiple origins of the peopling of the Philippines. The first wave relates to the movement of people coming from Indonesia to the Philippines. The second movement also originated from Indonesia—when the people reached the country, they dispersed and proceeded to different islands. The third wave came from Indochina, while the last wave came from Mainland China to the Philippines.

The other theory is the Melanesian Homeland Hypothesis (cited in the work of Dren), which argues that the movement of people originated from Melanesia around 3,500 BC.

The Unique South China Sea Homeland Hypothesis proposed by Solheim, meanwhile, argues that the peopling of the Philippines was related to the thriving of trade relations happening around Borneo and the Celebes Sea (Gaillard and Mallari, 2004). The trade activities brought the Nusantao to the Philippines and even as far as Taiwan.



The last theory, which is the Unique Mainland Southeastern China Hypothesis, made use of linguistic evidence (lexicon and morphology) to demonstrate the origins of the movements of people to the Philippines, but to this day the movement routes are still in question (Gaillard and Mallari, 2004). Archaeologist Heine-Geldern believed that the movement started in South China, then proceeded to the Malay Peninsula moving toward Borneo and then finally through Palawan (Gaillard and Mallari, 2004). A slightly different hypothesis was proposed by Thomas and Healey and Llamzon (in Gaillard and Mallari, 2004). Their theory argues that the movement started from Southeastern China, to Indochina, Malay Peninsula, then to Borneo, finally entering the Philippines through different routes, one group going to Palawan and Mindoro and the other through the island of Mindanao. Lastly, the theory proposed by Suggs and Shutler and Marck maintains that the movement of people to the Philippines started in China, proceeding to Formosa, then to the Batanes Islands until the group scattered around the archipelago and reached as far as Borneo (Gaillard and Mallari, 2004).

Learning Resources/Reading Materials

Jocano, L. (1967). Beginnings of Filipino Society and Culture. Philippine Studies, 14 (1), 9-40.

Gaillard, J., and Mallari, J. (2004). The peopling of the Philippines: A cartographic synthesis. Hukay: Journal of the University of the Philippines Archaeological Studies Program, 6, pp.1-27.



Activity Sheets/Learning Activities

Based on our discussion, plot the movements of people to the Philippines on the following map.



Module 2

Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines

Learning Outcome

To familiarize students with the different ethnic or indigenous groups in the Philippines.

Objective of the Module

At the end of the session, the students should be able to identify the different geographical locations of the indigenous peoples of the Philippines.

Learning Content

Although not accurate, the population estimate of indigenous peoples in the Philippines is 12 million. Many of them reside in the uplands, while some are in coastal villages (De Vera, 2007). The indigenous population is about 14% of the country’s total population.

The report of De Vera (2007) notes that there are 110 indigenous groups in the Philippines, many of which reside on the islands of Mindanao (e.g., Manobo) and Northern (e.g., Ifugao) and Southern Luzon (e.g., Mangyan, Tagbanwa). The indigenous peoples are generally dependent on agriculture, although some indigenous groups like those in the island provinces are dependent on fishing.

In Region I and CAR, the northern mountain ranges of the Cordillera are home to the Tingguian, Isneg, northern Kalinga, Bontoc, Sagada, Ifugao, Southern Kalinga, Ibaloi and Kankanaey. These groups occupy the watershed areas near the Abulag, Tineg and Chico rivers, or interior of the hills, narrow strips of flat land along deep valleys, and plateaus.

In Region II, the Cagayan Valley and Carabbalo range are home to the Ibanag, Itawes, Yogad, Gaddang, Ilongot, Ikalahan, Isinai, and some Aeta groups.

In Region III, the Sierra Madre range of eastern Luzon is the home of the Dumagat, Pugot, and other Aeta groups. The Zambales range and the mountains of Pampanga and Tarlac are the home of the Aeta and the Sambal.

In Region IV, the Pacific coast of Quezon province, and the islands of Polillo and Alabat are the home of different Agta groups. The island of Mindoro is the home of seven Mangyan groups: Iraya, Alangan, Tadyawan, Tao-Buid, Buhid, Hanunoo, and Gubatnon.

The island of Palawan is the home of the Tagbanua, Batak, Palawanon and Cuyunon.



In Region V, the mountains of Bicol Peninsula are the home of different Agta groups:

Kabihug of Camarines Norte, Agta Tabangnon, Agta Cimarron, and Itom (Camarines Sur, Albay, and Sorsogon).

In Region VI, the interior foothills and remote coastal areas of Panay and Negros Islands are the home of the Sulod and the Ati.

In Mindanao, the hinterlands and coastal lowlands of the Zamboanga peninsula, the plateaus of Bukidnon, the upper headwaters of the Davao, Tinanan, and Kulaman rivers, the coastal areas along the Davao Gulf and the interior hinterlands of southeastern Mindanao are the home of the Lumads. “Lumad” is the generic term used to refer to the indigenous peoples of Mindanao. They are considered to comprise the largest number of indigenous peoples in the country. The 18 groups that compose the Lumad include the following: Subanen, B’laan, T’boli, Mandaya, Mansaka, Tiruray, Higaonon, Manobo, Bagobo, Bukidnon, Tagakaolo, Ubo, Banwaon, Kalagan, Dibabawon, Talaandig, Mamanwa and Manguangan.


De Vera, D. (2007). Indigenous peoples in the Philippines: A Case Study. Retrieved from http://www.iapad.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/devera_ip_phl.pdf.



Map of Philippine Indigenous Population



Activity 1

Philippine Indigenous Peoples Crossword Puzzle

Familiarize yourself with the different indigenous peoples in the Philippines.



5. This group inhabits the province of Zambales.

7. They are the Suluk people.

8. One of the indigenous peoples groups of Bukidnon.

12. They inhabit the provinces of Cagayan, Isabela and Nueva Vizcaya.

13. They occupy the mountainous regions of Misamis Oriental, Bukidnon plateau, and the mountain borders of the provinces of Agusan and Lanao in the east and west.

14. They can be found in Central and Northern Palawan.

18. An indigenous group that can be found in Tigwa-Salug Valley in Bukidnon.

19. They are referred to as the "sea gypsies of Sulu and Tawi-Tawi."

22. They can be found in Mountain Province.

25. They inhabit the provinces of Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur.

26. An indigenous group that can also be found in Bulacan.


1. They are natives of the Zamboanga Peninsula.

2. They can be found in the Southern part of the Philippines.

3. They are the "first forest dwellers."

4. A generic name referring to the different indigenous groups of the island of Mindoro.

6. They are natives of Batanes.

9. This is a South-Central Cordillera indigenous peoples group.

10. They can be found in the Sulu Archipelago.

11. A traditional hill people of Southwestern Mindanao.

15. An indigenous group related to the Aetas.

16. This is a generic term that refers to people who are still in a subsistence level economy and are generally in the mountains of Bukidnon.

17. They can be found in Cuyo Islands in Palawan.

19. One of the largest indigenous groups in Southern Mindanao.

20. An indigenous group in Central Cordillera.

21. They are also known as the Ilongot.

23. One of the indigenous peoples groups in SOCCSKSARGEN.

24. They can be found in Davao Oriental and Davao del Norte.



ACROSS 5. Aeta 7. Tausug 8. Talaandig 12. Ibanag 13. Higaonon 14. Tagbanua 18. Matigsalug 19. Badjao 22. Bontoc 25. Maranao 26. Dumagat

DOWN 1. Subanen 2. Blaan 3. Mamanua 4. Mangyan 6. Ivatan 9. Kankanaey 10. Yakan 11. Tiruray 15. Agta 16. Manobo 17. Cuyunon 19. Bagobo 20. Ifugao 21. Bugkalot 23. Tboli 24. Mandaya



Activity 2

Map the Locations of 20 Philippines Indigenous Groups You Know.



Useful Youtube Resources on Indigenous Peoples (Film Showing)

Investigative Documentaries: Indigenous Communities https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1B1bFWHWbE Ifugao: Chanters of Ages

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZVEhYI3lU8 Talaandig: Dancing as Moved by the Spirits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtcN-9hPUY0 T’Boli: Tribal Sounds of the Philippines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0DU3zvo_JA Tribal Journeys: The Agtas




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.


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_i nstrument_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-peoples-


5. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs326/en/

6. https://documents-dds-

ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/512/07/PDF/N0651207.pdf?OpenElement 7. http://www.arcticcentre.org/EN/communications/arcticregion/Arctic-


8. http://www.katutuboproject.org/updates/

Prior Knowledge (Guide Questions)

1. What is the first thing that comes into your mind when you hear the word katutubo?

2. Can you enumerate the name/s of the groups of people in the Philippines that you consider to belong to the classification as katutubo? What are their characteristics?

3. What do these groups have in common?



Learning Activities

1. Film Viewing:

a. Investigative Documentaries: Indigenous Communities, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1B1bFWHWbE

b. Philippines' Indigenous People Struggle Between Modernization and Heritage available in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1d2ygQzqPA c. A Glimpse into Three Indigenous Cultures of the Philippines, available in


Activity Sheets

1. My Prior Understanding of IP groups in the Philippines

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

Teacher Reader

Erni, C. (Ed.) (2008). The Concept of Indigenous Peoples in Asia: A Resource Book.

International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA): Copenhagen, Denmark.

Available at:

http://iilj.org/aboutus/documents/IndigenousPeoplesinInternationalLawAConstructivist ApproachtotheAsianControversy.Kingsbury.pdf


Alfred, G. & Wilmer, F. (1997). Indigenous Peoples, States and Conflict, in Carment, D. &

James, P. (Eds). Wars in the Midst of Peace. University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh.

Anaya, S.J. (1996). Indigenous Peoples in International Law. Oxford University Press: NY.

Arquiza, M. (2016). Philippine Ethnic and Muslim Minorities: Educating Children the Traditional Way. Mountain Research and Development 26(1). P. 24-27.

Barsh, R. (1986). Indigenous Peoples: An Emerging Object of International Law. The American Journal of International Law, 80(2), 369-385. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2201975

Bowen, J. (2000). Should We Have a Universal Concept of “Indigenous Peoples' Rights”?:

Ethnicity and Essentialism in the Twenty-First Century. Anthropology Today 16(4). Pp.




Corntassel, J. (2003). Who is Indigenous: ‘Peoplehood’ and Ethnonationalist Approaches to Rearticulating Indigenous Identity. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 9(1). P. 75-100.

Gurr, T.R. (2000). Peoples versus States: Minorities at Risk in the New Century. United States Institute of Peace Press: Washington, D.C.

Indigenous. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved May 13, 2016 from Dictionary.com website http://www.dictionary.com/browse/indigenous

International Labor Office (2009). Indigenous and Tribal Peoples' Rights in Practice: A Guide to ILO Convention, Number 169. Washington, D.C.: International Labor Office, 2009. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 29 May 2016.

Kingsbury, B. (1998). "Indigenous Peoples" in International Law: A Constructivist Approach to the Asian Controversy. The American Journal of International Law, 92(3), 414-457. doi:1. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2997916 doi:1

Riggs, F. (1997). Who’s Indigenous? A Conceptual Inquiry. Proceeds from a panel discussion on ethnic nationalism at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Toronto, March 18-21, 1997 cited in Corntassel, J. (2003). Who is Indigenous: ‘Peoplehood’ and Ethnonationalist Approaches to Rearticulating Indigenous Identity. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 9(1). P. 75-100.

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2013). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions. Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights August 2013.

Wilmer, F. (1993). The Indigenous Voice in the World Politics. Sage: Newbury Park, Ca.



My Prior Understanding of IP groups in the Philippines

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? Please provide a description of each.

# Name of the Group Description

1 2 3

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.



Provide an explanation why this group can be categorized under Indigenous Cultural Communities or Indigenous People.




What do you want to learn about them?






Module 4

Filipino Indigenous Philosophy and Worldviews

Learning Outcome

The students are expected to contribute to the intellectualization of Filipino indigenous thought.

Learning Objectives

At the end of the module, students should be able to:

1. Identify the approaches to Filipino Philosophy;

2. Examine various native riddles, rituals, legends, epics, etc. and determine particular perceptions, experiences and worldviews that they exhibit;

3. Appreciate Philippine indigenous philosophy and worldviews; and 4. Develop a scholarly article or paper on Filipino indigenous philosophy

Learning Content

Filipino Philosophy can be divided into three approaches with 16 different meanings.

According to Gripaldo (2014), the following approaches can be observed: the traditional/ philosophical approach, the cultural approach and the nationality/constitutional approach. The traditional approach is based on the Greek model, wherein individual Filipino philosophers’ ideas are discussed. The nationality/constitutional approach deals with writings of Filipinos in general, whether it be on a Western or Eastern topic. The cultural approach, on the other hand, addresses the people’s philosophical perspectives and views on socio-linguistic, cultural and folk concepts. Philippine indigenous philosophy and worldviews are classified under the cultural approach; accordingly, they can be divided into the following categories:

Filipino grassroots or folk philosophies

Folk philosophy appropriation

Interpretation of Filipino identity and worldview

Local cultural values and ethics research and

Implications and presuppositions of Filipino worldviews (Gripaldo, 2014)



Timbreza (2014), in his book Pilosopiyang Pilipino, discusses the issue of whether Filipino philosophy exists or not. Since philosophy starts and ends with people’s experience, it follows that there is Filipino philosophy, considering that the Filipino experience exists. Timbreza uses the cultural approach as classified by Gripaldo, as he analyzes unique life experiences to harness these worldviews. Furthermore, if these worldviews are based on literature, art, ethics, practices and attitudes, Filipinos can be said to have their own Weltanschauung. Consequently, Timbreza uses indigenous and native legends, poems, epics, songs, riddles (bugtong), proverbs (salawikain), rituals and dances as basis for the collective Filipino philosophy of life. (He attributes the general Filipino worldview to the experiences of these honorable groups –Ivatan, Ilokano, Tagalog, Pampanggo, Pangasinensi, Ibanag, Igorot, Bicolano, Cebuano, Boholano, Bisaya, Tiruray, Tausug, Maranao, Maguindanao, Aklano, Bukidnon, Sugnuanon, Zambaleno, Romblomanon, Kiniray-anom, Kalinga-Banao, Waray, and Ilonggo.)

Worldviews are “mental lenses that are entrenched ways of perceiving the world” (Hart, 2010). Significantly, all over the world, indigenous worldviews have a commonality, which is the relationship with nature or surroundings. Hart (2010) identifies seven principles of these worldviews:

1. Knowledge is holistic, cyclic, and dependent upon relationships and connections to living and non-living beings and entities;

2. There are many truths, and these truths are dependent upon individual experiences;

3. Everything is alive;

4. All things are equal;

5. The land is sacred;

6. The relationship between people and the spiritual world is important; and 7. Human beings are least important in the world.

For Timbreza, the Filipino philosophy of life can be divided into five fragments: “the law of reversion, balance of nature, cyclic concept of nature, centripetal morality, value of non-violence, and concept of life and death” (Garcia, 2013). Considering these ideas, Filipino thought is not a philosophy of being (as the Greek thinkers espoused) but rather the intellectualization of “indigenous perceptions of reality” (Garcia, 2013).



Learning Resources/Reading Materials/ References:

Garcia, L. dlR. (2013). Exploring the philosophical terrain. Manila: C&E Publishing, Inc.

Gripaldo, R. M. (2014). Filipino Philosophy: Past and Present. Kaisipan,1(1), pp.1-14.


Hart, M. A.(2010). Indigenous Worldviews, Knowledge, and Research: The Development of an Indigenous Research Paradigm. Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work, 1(1), pp. 1-16. http://ahrnets.ca/files/data/3/2011/08/Indigenous%20Worldviews,%20 Knowledge,%20and%20Research.PDF

Pavo, R. (2010). Filipino Philosophy and Post-Modernity. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 3(15). http://www.openaccesslibrary.org/images/HAR166_Raymundo_R._


The Department of Philosophy (1990). Readings in Filipino philosophy. Manila: De La Salle University Press.

Timbreza, F. T. (1982). Pilosopiyang Pilipino. Manila: Rex Bookstore.

Prior Knowledge (Guide Questions)

1. What is Filipino indigenous philosophy?

2. What are the characteristics of Filipino indigenous philosophy and worldviews or perspectives?

Activity Sheets/Learning Activities

Document indigenous legends, poems, epics, songs, riddles (bugtong), and proverbs (salawikain) and describe rituals and dances and discuss their themes in class. How do they reflect the Filipino philosophy of life?

Interview indigenous elders on their perceptions of reality and belief systems.

Create a reflection journal that describes the wisdom of the elders.

Articulate the Filipino philosophy of life through unique quotes and posters.

Craft a term paper or journal article on the Filipino worldview.



Module 5

Indigenous Filipino Spirituality

Learning Outcomes

1. Students should be able to gain understanding about Indigenous Filipino spirituality

by identifying and discussing different religious and spiritual beliefs and practices among indigenous groups in the Philippines;

2. Students should be able to compose a story about how indigenous people

experience or manifest their religious and spiritual experiences.

Objectives of the Module

At the end of this module, students are expected to:

1. Discuss Filipino spirituality as well as the different religious practices of Filipinos;

2. Identify an indigenous group in the Philippines like the Aetas and discuss their

spiritual beliefs and practices.

Learning Content Filipino Spirituality

Spirituality is related to the search for the sacred in a person, object, or ritual that is above the self (Hill et al., 2000). Filipinos are known to be religious and spiritual people.

The Filipino culture is rich in religious traditions, which include various rituals, devotions and beliefs. Long before the Spaniards came, Filipinos already believed in a God and they already had different religious rituals that demonstrated their spirituality (Enriquez, 1994). When it comes to Filipino spirituality, early Filipinos had many animistic practices across different places in the Philippines. For Salazar (1993 as cited in Aquino, 2000), Filipinos’ belief in an “anito” is an important factor in their faith. He considers the

“anito” as a pure soul, pure spirit, or god. He asserts that this “anito” religion still thrives today and can be seen in different Catholic folk practices. Aetas consider Apu Namalyari as their supreme God and they have other gods that abound in the environment. Mangyans consider Mahal-Umako as their god because he is the one who created all things that can be seen and unseen. The relationship of Filipinos with



“anitos” can be considered as something deep and can be viewed as a form of pakikipagkapwa (Hernandez, 2014).

The deep relationship of Filipinos and “anitos” can still be seen in their religious traditions. For us to understand the spirituality of Filipinos, it is important to look at the different religious practices, especially those in Folk Catholicism (Yabut, 2013b).

Demetrio (1991) has documented various rituals and prayers Filipinos have across the Philippines. These different practices can be seen not only in different devotions among Filipinos but also in indigenous practices such as the ones in Mt. Banahaw. On this sacred mountain, devotees consider rocks, caves, trees and bodies of water as sacred.

Filipino devotees from different places in the Philippines go to Mt. Banahaw to worship and express their spirituality. According to Covar (1998) the puwestos in Banahaw are sacred spaces, which Filipinos for generations have acknowledged as holy places. In addition to this, he claims that pamumuwesto is symbolic of a prayerful journey through this life into a future life (Covar, 1998).

In the contemporary setting, some devotions like that to the Sto. Entierro in Calabanga in Bicol can be traced to the rich tradition of Filipinos in venerating the dead (Cannell, 1999). This dead Christ is bathed and perfume is applied to it as it is treated as a very sacred object. In this devotion, Catholics try their best to reach out to the dead Christ in order to feel better or ask for supplication. This devotion can also be found among Kapampangans with their devotion to the Sto. Entierro, whom they call Apung Mamacalulu. Yabut (2013b) found that most devotees feel the presence of God when they touch the image and it is their way of connecting with the sacred. Among indigenous groups, this Catholic folk practice of venerating the dead Christ is related to their practice of treating their departed loved ones as Gods. Postma (2005) states that Mangyans consider their departed loved ones as their Gods. These practices in Catholicism, commonly called “popular piety,” can be traced to the long tradition of Filipinos in a religion that has animistic qualities.

Aetas of Pampanga, Bataan and Zambales

The Aeta groups in the Zambales range and the mountains of Pampanga have preserved some of their traditional or indigenous spiritual ideas despite the introduction of Christianism (Seitz, 1998). The belief in the “anito” (good spirits) and the kamana (bad spirits) is central to these beliefs (Gaillard, 2006). Carunungan (2005) discusses explicitly the religious practice of the Aetas, mentioning that Aetas believe in the god Gutugutumakkan. Aetas call their supreme being, which lives in Mt. Pinatubo, located in



Zambales, “Apo Namalyari.” This is a Kapampangan term that means “the God who makes things happen.” Aetas believe this supreme deity has power over other lesser deities. Carunungan (2005) identified the other gods of Aetas. These include Tigbalog, who is considered as the “great creator” and is considered as the source of life and action; Lueve, who is the god of production and the growth of goods; Amas, who moves people to pity, love, unity and peace of heart; and Binangewan, who is responsible for change, sickness and death.

Relationship with Anitos

The relationship of aetas with “anitos” is very profound in spirituality. Consistent with what historians have been saying—that Filipinos were predominantly animists—it is believed that Aetas are also animists who believe that spirits abound in the environment—in rivers, seas, plants, trees and animals. Apo Namalyari is the Aetas’ god of creation, their counterpart of our God who created the world and all that is in it, including man himself. However, they believe that their creator god can only take care of trees that are useful to the Aeta, making this god limited in power, according to our standards. Because of these beliefs, they cut down trees that are not useful for them or trees planted by those from the lowlands. The belief in the “anito” (good spirits) and the kamana (bad spirits) is central to these beliefs (Gaillard, 2006). If offended or disturbed, the anito can cause illnesses or death, while Apo Namalyari can cause natural disasters like the recent eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The spirits must be appeased and a spiritual medium is called to perform ritual and sacrifice (Shimizu, 1992). The link between the Aetas and the spirits are referred to as the “manganito.”

The “anito” are believed to inhabit certain places in the environment that could affect people’s health and livelihood if disturbed or offended (Shimizu, 1994). Thus, there are some springs, trees, rocks or forested areas where a certain “anito” is believed to reside that people avoid. The most essential among these places is Mt. Pinatubo, which is considered to be the center of their Universe, for it is the home of their Supreme Being or Creator, “Apo Namalyari” or Apo Mallari (Garvan, 1964 cited in Seitz, 1998). Mt.

Pinatubo is also believed to be the final resting place of the souls of their ancestors, and where their souls will find peace as well upon their death (Fondevilla, 1991). Thus, when Aetas pray or perform rituals and sacrifices, they face Mt. Pinatubo (Fondevilla, 1991;

Fox, 1952).

Sickness in an Aeta society is a social experience. A sick person is not alone and the community shares in an individual’s suffering, collectively seeking for a cure. The curing



ritual involves the “manganito,” the sick person, family friends, relatives, as well as the unseen spirit (Shimizu, 1989). Aetas who particularly live in Morong have rituals like Kagon, which involves song and dance that can remove these evil spirits from a person’s body. In Kagon, Aetas try to exorcise the demon from the sick person using sticks that are strung together.

Strong Faith and Religious Rituals of Aetas

Carunungan (2005) also highlights the faith and some religious practices of Aetas that exist to this day. Most Aetas have a strong faith in God. It is not unusual for them to explain or attribute their experiences in life to God. They usually use the phrase “kaloob ng Dios” or “tadhana ng Maykapal,” meaning “will of God.” Even at the time that they suffer problems, they remain faithful to God and say "Kung ano man ang ipagkaloob ng Diyos" ("Whatever God provides”).

Lastly, Carunungan (2005) identifies various Aeta religious practices that include certain rituals like as in the form of prayers and dancing. For example, she mentions that there are various ceremonies done in pig hunting. Aeta women perform some dances and collect shellfish the night before the hunting. The dance is meant to show gratitude and is also a form of apology for the killing. Aeta men also perform bee dances before and after collecting honey.

Learning Resources

Aeta, Kalinga and Ifugao: A Glimpse into Three Indigenous Cultures of the Philippines (In Tagalog):


Watch film “Mumbaki” – This is an Igorot film about their religious practices.

Activity Sheets

Prior Knowledge (Guide Questions)

Watch the video “A Glimpse of Three Indigenous Cultures of the Philippines”

Write a list of at least 10 common religious rituals or practicesthat you know are practiced by Filipinos.



Learning Activities

Group processes and sharing


Film viewing


Watch movie “Mumbaki.” After watching the film, identify religious activities of Igorots and the importance or relevance of these activities or rituals. Discuss the spirituality of Igorots.

Activity sheets

Religious Rituals among Filipinos











Teacher Reader

Hernandez, J.B. (2014). Manipulasyon o pakikipagkapwa: Ang ugnayang tao-anito sa sinaunang pananampalatayang Pilipino. Malay, 27(1), 84-95.


Aquino, C.C. (1999). Mula sa kinaroroonan: Kapwa, kapatiran, at bayan sa agham panlipunan. Nasa A.M. Navarro at F. Lagbao-Bolante (mga pat.), Mga babasahin sa agham panlipunang Pilipino: Sikolohiyang Pilipino, Pilipinohiya, at pantayong pananaw.

Quezon City: C&E Publishing, Inc., 2007: 201-240.

Cannell, Fenella. (1999). Power and Intimacy in the Christian Philippines. Quezon City:

Ateneo de Manila University Press.

Mga Sanggunian


As a result of dialogue, fifteen representatives from the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples Region IX, the ZAMBOECOZONE, the Labuan- Patalon-Limpapa Subanon

Small farmers in coffee producing countries are planting Arabica again, hoping to ride the wave of increasing domestic and export market demand for coffee, and in particular,

Prospects of Including Indigenous People in Urban Area Development TowardsF. Sustainable Regional Development in New Clark City, Philippines:

Keywords: musical instruments, memory, culture, Panay, indigenous,

Rubiaceae has the largest number of indigenous species and four endemic genera (Antherostele Bremek., Greeniopsis Merr., Sulitia Merr., and Villaria Rolfe) among the

Table 3 shows the botanical description, habitat and economic importance of the different indigenous fruits identified in the different sites in Benguet and Mountain

Importantly, in the Australian context, the abolition of ATSIC, the Northern Territory Emergency Response, income management (e.g. the cashless welfare card), the announced

In the process of identifying indigenous notions of peace from fisherfolks and farmers as well as the process of integrating such concepts in the teaching of