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 17 th 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. Selfidentification 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 selfreliance 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
traditionbased cultures, which are evolving. And last, their political destiny is subjected to policy
from outside forces, which refers primarily to the State they belong to. Thus, their political
destiny and existence is beyond their control. In his definition of IPs in 1996, James Andaya
highlighted the issue of ancestral roots and the continued colonial domination of IPs’ homelands
by the modern state (Corntassel, 2003). To Andaya, Indigenous Peoples are those who are living
descendants of pre-invasion inhabitants and whose lands are now dominated by others. Second,
they are indigenous because their ancestral roots are fixed in the territory they occupy and will
continue to occupy or in areas in close proximity to this land in case of dislocation. Third, they
can be considered as a distinct community because their ancestors’ way of life is carried over
into the present generation. Ted Gurr provides the distinction between indigenous people and the
emerging ethno-nationalist phenomenon in some countries. Some ethnic groups have been
proclaiming that they belong to the category of indigenous people and their assertion of the right
to self-determination has escalated to efforts to separate and establish their own state. Based on
Gurr’s classification (2000), ethnonationalists are those communities that had stable and resilient
political organizations prior to conquest, colonization or establishment of a modern state, and
have had persistent support from modern movements that assert withdrawal from the State and
the establishment of their own state. Indigenous People, on the other hand, live mainly in
conformity with traditional social, economic, and cultural customs that differ acutely from the
dominant group without assertion of cessation. However, Fred Riggs challenges this claim and
emphasizes that the IP definition should include four variables: First to consider is the cultural
level of the community from primitive to more complex societies. The more primitive are
considered as IPs. Second to consider is the historical sequence of who came first and who
followed. Those who inhabited the land first are considered to be IPs. To consider the political
position, the IPs are those marginalized communities, and the dominant communities cannot be
considered as IPs. Last to consider is the geographical area, and the ancestral domain claim is
highly taken into account.

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

Summary

In summary, the existing definition of IPs based on the frameworks of the different international
organizations that aim to advance their rights and interests highlights the following elements:

a. Self-identification – an individual belongs to an IP group once he or she is accepted as

belonging to the group;

b. Ancestral Roots and Descent – they boast of a common ancestry and their lineage can
be traced back to the community or group of people that thrive within a particular territory prior
to colonization, or the establishment of modern state;

c. Historical Continuity of Way of Life – the community or the groups’ distinct way of
life (e.g. religion, tribal system of governance, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.). This
tradition-based culture is inherited from a group of people in a particular territory prior to
colonization or the establishment of a modern state;

d. Ancestral Language Sustained – the language identifiable to them and their ancestors
has persisted and endured either as the only language, as mother tongue or habitual means of
communication at home or in the family; or is considered as the main, preferred, habitual and
general language.
e. Ancestral Land Claim – continued occupation and claim to a particular portion of
land that IPs believed to be home to their ancestors, thus providing them with a right of
inheritance to this land;

f. Distinct Way of Life and Non-Dominance – the sustained beliefs, customs and
traditions IPs inherited from their ancestors makes them consider themselves as distinct from
other sectors of society, particularly the dominant groups prevailing in the territories or state they
are placed under;
 g. Aspirations for Self-Preservation and Self-Determination – as a non-dominant
sector of society, which has continuously been influenced and assimilated by 19 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.