Table of Contents
Article I: (Bugis) Territory of the Bodong
Article II: Declaration of Policies
Article III: Bodong Holder
Article IV: Binodngan
Article V: Rights of the Binodngan
Article VI: Specific Crimes and Their Penalties
Article VII: Crimes committed in the violation of the Bugis
Article VIII: Crimes against Womanhood
Article IX: Crimes against Property
Article X: Criminal Negligence
Article XI: Other Crimes
Article XII: Civil Obligations under the Bodong
Article XIII: Final Provisions
Article XIV: General Provisions
Article XV: Amendments
Article XVI: Effectivity
Except for those which have been preserved in stone tablets like the Code of Hamurabi (about 2 B.C.), King of Babylon, the Abrahamic books and other Ante-Deluvian books of history which were all in cuneiform writing, all primitive laws of mankind have been handed down to the generations lex non scripta (unwritten laws). Even after the invention of the printing press, many laws of states were unwritten, the most notable of which is the English Constitution of Great Britain, although there are other British laws which have been written.
Closer to us here in the Philippines are primitive laws, which, too, have been written. Although some were written like the Code of Kalantiaw, it is known that this law is written in brief, commandment form. Studies likewise show that in the Philippines, the Kalinga Pagta is one of the primitive laws preserved and practiced for Kalinga Pagta is the only primitive constitution which has been preserved since time immemorial, alive and practiced by the ethnic Kalinga themselves.
For years, since the Kalinga Bodong (peace pact) system came into existence as a rule of law by ancient indigenous Kalingas, the Pagta was the code that governed their lives. It is not yet known whether or not the primitive Kalingas had their own form of writing. But present day studies on their culture does not seem to show any trace of writing form preserved, even in stone tables as in the Abrahamic and Babylonian ear of history
The Kalinga Pagta (or literally translate, Law of the Bodong) of the Kalingas has been among human laws in this world which had remained lex non scripta since time immemorial. Historians during the Spanish period, apparently, had no encounter with the Kalinga Pagta because in those available writing on Filipino cultural heritage, no mention has been made on the indigenous laws of the Kalingas. It was only before the outbreak of World War II that American sociologist had made studies on the Kalingas. Rot F. Barton had recorded in his book on the Kalingas the bodong practice and had also touched on the Pagta of the Bodong.
Although many writers had attempted to write about the Kalinga Bodong institution, efforts to codify the bodong laws was only started in 1974 during the administration of Governor Rolando T. Puzon. The last provincial governor of the Pre-Martial Law era called for a tribal convention to tackle, among other things, the standardization and writing of the Kalinga Pagta. The plan was aborted wit5h the sudden replacement by President Marcosw of Governor Puzon with Governor Tanding B. Odiem taking over the governorship.
The plan was pursued by Governor Amado T. Almazan when he took over the governorship from Odiem in 1981. Almazan first convened tribal leaders for consultation at the Tabuk National High School. Later in 1982, the first serious attempt at writing the Kalinga Pagta was made during the Kalinga Bodonfg Conference at the BIBAK National Agricultural School compound. A draft of the Pagta produces by the “Pagta Committee” headed by Board Member Castro B. Lammawin was the “work paper” of the conference during which it was discussed in open debates by prominent Kalinga tribal leaders (peace pact holders) and professionals. A style committee was also formed to put the Pagta in its codified form. Among the professionals who were in that style committee were Court of First Instance Judge Honorio Salvatiera and former Municipal Judge Pablo M. Gupa-al, Board Member Castro B. Lammawin, former Deputy Governor Jose Chaclag, among others.
Although the “working draft” of the Pagta was “approved in principle” by the Convention, work on the codification was hampered by prolonged debates on other provisions, notable of which was the provision of “instant retaliation”. The Kalinga Bodong Federation headed by ExGovernor Tanding B. Odiem tried to end all debates on the issue until the EDSA Revolution temporarily shelved the issues and conventions held for the purpose.
The administration of Governor Laurence B. Wacnang gave the Pagta issue a chance to be brought to the mainstream of the Provincial Government agenda on cultural policies. Board Member John B. Dongui-is, a former college instructor on history, spearheaded the move to resuscitate the project on the codification of the Kalinga Pagta. On Governor Wacnang’s instruction, Board Member Dongui-is headed a Committee which prepared the program for the convening of a “Kalinga Bodong Congress”. The congress would give emphasis to the codification of the Prototype Pagta.
On December 19, 1988, the Honorable Laurence B. Wacnang mandated Board Members John B. Dongui-is, David Banson, Gavino Mosing, and Elpidio B. Tubban, to call for a preparatory conference towards the conduct of a Bodong Congress. Among others, to prepare and formalized the plans and programs of the forthcoming 1989 Kalinga Bodong Congress.
On April 1989, the first Bodong Congress called by Governor Laurence B. Wacnang was held at the BIBAK National Agricultural School Conference Hall with Kalinga tribal elders/leaders and bodong holders in attendance. In that congress, the Kalinga Bodong Council was formed. Alongside with the Council was the organization of the Kalinga Bodong Congress, Inc.
The Prototype Pagta as an output of the Firsat Bodong Congress and amended on the Second Bodong Congress was compiled and put into style by Atty. Basilio A. Wandag as the Secretary General assisted by Atty. Arthur G. Kub-ao as Assistant Secretary General.
The Second and Third Bodong Congress were held in 1991 and 1993, respectively with further modifications of the Prototype Pagta. It was further amended as a result of the Third Kalinga Bodong Congress in 1993, which was the basis for the Committee on Codification on the codified Kalinga Pagta.
In 1995, a Committee was formed to Codify the Pagta with the Hon. John B. Dongui-is as the Over-all Coordinator, Judge Victor A. Dalanao as Chairman of the Committee, with the following members namely, Judge Josephine B. Gayagay, as Vice Chairman and Secretary, Arthur G. Kub-ao, Alfredo A. Tombali, Pablo D. Gabit, Placido T. Alsiyang, Jr. and Geronimo Donaal as researchers, Augustus U. Saboy as technical staffs.
The codification started in 1997 and was finished and presented during the Fourth Bodong Congress held on September 11-13, 1998 at the BIBAK-NAS conference hall. The said codified Pagta was unanimously approved.
It should be explained that new provisions were inserted on the Pagta, These new provisions were based on actual decisions of elders in various conflict resolutions, and also on new developments to keep the Pagta attuned and responsive to new situations.
Meantime, the Codification Committee was again tasked to annotate the Codified Pagta composed of the Kalinga Lawyers and Professional Leaders. Their work started right after the fourth Kalinga Bodong Congress and was finished last December 31, 1999. This is now the fruit of their labor.
It is hoped that with this annotation of the Pagta, the people will come to appreciate the merits of the Bodong.
- The Pagta Codification Committee -
We the Kalinga people of the Cordillera, Philippines, invoking the guidance of almighty Kabunyan, exercising our inalienable rights to preserve, promote and maintain the bodong system of governance which our people have practiced since time immemorial, to guarantee and ensure to each and every kalinga the protection of life, liberty, property, freedom, equality, justice, peace and the development and sustainability of our patrimony, for our general well being and that of our posterity do hereby adopt this pagta of the bodong.
Purpose and effect of the preamble:
The preamble is strictly not a part of this pagta. It sets down the origin, scope and purpose of the pagta, the mood, the aspirations of the people, hence it is useful as an aid in ascertaining the meanings of the ambiguous provisions.
The preamble bears witness to the aspiration of the binodngan to preserve, promote and maintain the indigenous system of governance, guarantees the protection of life, property, freedom, equality and justice and peace and sustainable development in one harmonious society under the guidance of Kabunyan.
The inclusion of sustainable development is to address the issue of conservation in the exploitation of our rich natural resources “for our own benefit and that of our posterity....”
ARTICLE I: BUGIS (Territory of the Bodong)
Section 1: The bugis of the bodong is the territorial jurisdiction of an ili as defined in their respective pagta which include all lands and natural resources owned, occupied and possessed since time immemorial by the members of the sub tribe, by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually in accordance with their customs and traditions. It encompasses ancestral lands, private properties, forests, pasturelands, agricultural lands, residential lands, hunting grounds, burial grounds, bodies of water, mineral deposits including the airspace and the subterranean resources
Section 1 contains the definition of Bugis. The definition is very encompassing. It is also known as kais or piglis.
This Pagta affirms the existing territorial boundaries of each ili as defined by the umili and recognized by other sub tribes.
It is very important to know the boundary or extent of a territory on which this pagta finds application, especially so in resolution of conflicts between sub tribes. The determination of which peace pact (Bodong) is affected when a crime has been committed within a certain bugis is very necessary in conflict resolution.
As defined, the bugis has a horizontal reach consisting of land and waters; a vertical reach (upward) consisting of the air space and downward consisting of subteranean resources.
Land is life to binodngan of any subtribe, so that where another subtribe or any one for that matter usurps their possession and ownership over a portion or part of their bugis (territory), the binodngan is ready to lay down his life for it. Its importance cannot be over emphasized.
All sub tribes have delineated their respective territories, which they term bugis or piglis, and this is respected by other sub tribes; otherwise, there shall be lots of conflict arising out of boundaries.
Bugis has been and is a source of conflict between subtribes
The people of Dacalan considered as included in their bugis and as their hunting ground the mountain ranges called Lubu-ung. The people of Basao tried to lay claims over the said land but the people of Dacalan would not allow. Tribal war ensued between the two subtribes because of that boundary disputes.
Banagao, which is an area between Mangali and Lubo is another irritant between the two subtribes. The people of Lubu claimed is as part of their bugis, even as the people of Mangali laid claims on it.
As regards fishing rights, the people of Tinglayan and Bangad had a running dispute over a portion of the Chico River.
Section 2: The domicile and real properties of a binodngan located outside any bugis shall be deemed included within the bugis of said binodngan under the principle of kulligong.
Section 2 contains the principle of kulligong.
This provision simply means that the residence and real properties of a binodngan located outside the bugis of his own ili is deemed a part of the territory of the bugis of the owner or the sub tribe. Literally, it means to "encircle" the residential house and lands of a binodngan and make it in the eyes of the pagta as an integral part of the bugis. This fact must be explicitly informed and accepted by the other bodong.
The Principle of the kulligong is akin to the principle of international law
The concept of kulligong is akin to the provision of international law, which considers as the territory of each country the place where their respective embassies are established, i.e. the compund of the US embassy is owned by the US government. Any crime committed within the area of the kulligong is a crime against the bugis of the owner of the house or realty.
Section 3: When the bodong between two sub tribes is severed, all places outside the bugis shall be deemed the Matagoan area.
The old pagta of the bodong states: Any place outside any bugis is called "pupulligan"- killing field or no-mans land. This is so by expressed unwritten pagta for there is no bodong to enforce the bodong in the area.
Some areas of Tabuk, i.e. Dagupan, Appas, Magsaysay, San Juan and Bulanao, to mention a few, are areas not protected by any bodong. It is not covered by any bugis.
This made it easier for binodngan to take revenge here in Tabuk- with impunity- thus disturbing the peace and order situation of this progressive town- as the educational, economic and political center of Kalinga Province.
To remedy this sad turn of events, the leaders and bodong holders declared Tabuk as a "Matagoan" (Zone of Life) area during the bodong congress in 1989 under bodong congress Action No. 12-89. The third bodong congress in 1993 emphasized this and finally this provission was placed under Sec. 3, Art. I of this pagta.
There are some apparent misunderstanding of the "Matagoan Concept". Some construe this provision to mean that crimes will not be commited here in Tabuk and other matagoan areas. Far from it, this provision does not apply when the bodong is still subsisting and effective; for the existing bodong will apply "aabbaon ta din bodong" (literally- each is carrying the bodong (peace pact) on his back), wherever a binodngan lives.
The declaration of Tabuk and other places i.e. schools, boarding houses and places of work of binodngan as matagoan area, only comes into effect when the existing bodong is severed. There is no more bodong to protect the binodngan. There is fear, there is imminent danger of revenge upon students, workers and innocent children. To prevent this from happening, Tabuk and other areas outside the bugis is now declared as matagoan area.
ARTICLE II : DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES OF THE BODONG
Section 1: The bodong recognizes the rule of law
The bodong is a social institution recognized by the Constitution, Local Government code and IPRA Law. In the bodong is the pagta, which is the governing law. The bodong recognizes the rule of law, meaning, that the national laws prevail over the provisions of the pagta.
The Bodong recognizes the supremacy of the national Criminal Justice System.
During the American time up the late 60's, the has always been implemented despite the bodong. The offenders were place behind bars while the bodong system took care of the customary laws.
For instance, in 1939, the people of Lubo and Tulgao had fought it out face to face at Battit, Tinglayan (bank of the chico river). The Police got all these people involved in the fight both from Tulgao and Lubo and they were sentenced by the court. They served their prison terms in the National penitentiary. When war broke out, all of them left for Kalinga and they only parted ways in Tinglayan like brothers.
When the Bodong is restored, the two subtribes gave only the pakan/gusgus and other customary requirements for the restoration of the bodong to the relatives of the victims from both sides. There were no indemnities paid for the deaths and injuries sustained during the fights because the bodong was already severed.
Conflict resolutions under the bodong system is based on the following principles
It is purely mediation, conciliation and/or arbitration as the case maybe;
There is no "judge" who is tasked to decide and resolve issues submitted to him; No police to enforce it.
"Decisions" are based on well-meaning suggestions of the leaders and elders;
"Decisions" are based on what is reasonable under the circumstances;
It is purely a process of concessions from each party involved so that any decisions arrived at is the decission of the parties themselves;
The "decision" is immediately executory;
The procedure are simple;
What happens if the parties to a case who are binodngan cannot settle the case within the parameters of the bodong?
The parties are free to go to court
In one case, a student from Calagdao, Tabuk, Kalinga was killed by his co-student at DEMPHS. Conciliat6ions were conducted under the auspices of the bodong but the offended parties refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the bodong. It was decided that the case be brought to court The accused pleaded guilty and placed on probation. Because they could not collect the civil indemnities awarded by the court, the offended party came again to the bodong for the award of customary danages.
It was decided that in as much as the case was decided by the court, they were precluded from claiming under the bodong. However, the assailant gave pagikna to the offended bodong holder.
Suppose a case has been filed in court first?
When a case has been filed in court and the bodong comes in and the case was settled by the bodong, the case filed in court is usually dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of evidence based on the affidavit of desistance.
In our example above, when the case has been setled by the bodong but the prosecution has presented all their evidences in court, the criminal aspect may go on and the setlement will be as regards the civil aspect only. This was what happened in the Beda Addawe case. The accused was sentenced by the court but their is a pending petition for new trial.
When a case was filed in court, the offender must still pay the customary damages
Col. Manuel Banggawan was killed in Baguio city by a man from poswoy. The wife of the victim did not want the case settled under the bodong. The case was instead filed in court.
However in as much as there are remedies under the bodong system, which are not available in the court, the bodong still came in. The Banao sub tribe claimed 2 carabaos as papod, one carabao each to the bodong holders, gusgus was paid by the Poswoy sub tribe. Usuk was paid to the relatives of Col. Banggawan from the Guinaang sub tribe. These customary damages were given in order to maintain peace and harmonios relationship between the two sub tribes.
Section 2: The bodong promotes peace and order, guarantees the welfare, safety and interest of the binodngan and the non-binodngan where applicable.
What is noteworthy is that even non-binodngan are guaranteed the protection and benefits of the bodong "where applicable".
The bodong is a social institution where the members have rights, obligations and social concern. Much of the social benefits and protection of the bodong are extended to non-binodngan such that they will not go hungry in binodngan areas, thus they are protected by it.
But when it comes to conflict resolution between a binodngan and a non-binodngan, the provisions of this pagta is not applicable for the reason that the latter is not a member of the bodong. However, they are not expected to be bound by it, much less compelled to comply with the pagta, except where they voluntarily submit themselves to its jurisdiction.
A minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo was killed in Lubuagan by someone who was not allegedly in his right mind. No case was filed in court. However, the parents of the assailant were not at peace within themselves without having the case be settled and justice under the bodong system done. What they did was to voluntarily sit down with the INC and the case was settled to the satisfaction of both parties applying the pagta of the bodong.
There are other benefits derived from the bodong. A case in point is the transfer of sick people or the cadaver of the dead to the residence of the sick or dead person.
To illustrate, in 1982, a certain Amazona belonging to the Saclit tribe of Mt. Province was killed in an encounter with the PNP/Military in Taloctoc. The bodong of Taloctoc caused the cadaver to be brought to Mangali, the people of Mangali brought it to Lubo, the people of Lubo brought it to Ga-ang, the people of Ga-ang brought the cadaver to Dacalan, and from Dacalan it was brought to Betwagan, Mt. Province, until the cadaver finally reached Saclit.
Without the bodong, the transfer of the cadaver to Saclit, Mt. Province, would have been a sheer impossibility, considering that it has to be carried along mountain ranges.
Section 3: The bodong recognizes the indispensable role of the women and the youth in the attainment of peace, security and development To hasten their leadership potentials, they are encouraged to become bodong holders and to actively participate in all bodong activities.
This provision was included to highlight the recognition by the bodong of the rights and the indispensable role of women and the youth in peace and nation building.
It used to be that women were relegated to the kitchen and the youth were only to provide the entertainment aspect of the bodong. The trend now is the empowerment of women and youth in decision- making. They ought to be involved and be available in all bodong matters and activities.
Under the bodong, youth and women have equal rights to be a bodong holder. There is no disqualification for them whatever the mode of acquisition of the bodong in their favor either by inheritance or they were chosen by the people. However, where a minor is the chosen bodong holder, his immediate relatives assist him in the discharge of his functions.
Section 4: The provisions of this pagta shall be enforced to all binodngan regardless of creed, status, rank, station in life and filial relationship.
Our forefathers have expressed this provision aptly when they said "maidpun/ maid sunud di bodong" (The bodong has no brother). It means the pagta must be equally enforced on all binodngan.
A teacher from Dao-angan was assigned to teach in Tanudan. He stayed in the house of the bodong holder. One of his student injured the said teacher. The peace-pact holder wants the case to be settled under the bodong but the offender refused.
What the bodong holder did in retribution of the wrong done was to inflict injury upon the person of his distant relative, who is at the same time an aunt of the assailant. For avenging such wrong, the assailant was personally obligated to pay Dusa.
Another case is that of Ludan. He was the bodong holder for Mangali. A carabao belonging to the people of Mangali was stolen and it was proven that the suspects were from Lubo. For their refusal to settle the case, Ludan was constrained to injure the relatives of the offender.
Note that the examples above were decided under the Old pagta where the only mode of complying with his obligation as a bodong holder, was through the infliction of injury to the offender. This is now discouraged!
Section 5 : Revenge is hereby prohibited except in cases where the bodong was severed as provided under Section 5 Article VI of this pagta, in which case, the retaliation of the aggrieved party shall solely rest on the person of the offender. Violation of this provision shall constitute "pot-ak/ patoy "
Our folks, like any people in the world are prone to retaliate. To the Jews, they say "a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye" It is also known as "Lex Taliones".
But what makes the kalingas stand out in this regard is the indiscriminate revenge that is happening. Many victims of subtribal conflicts are innocent. Their only fault is that they are from the same sub tribes as the offended/offender.
In the past, the people of each sub tribe are confined within the same bugis. This is the call of necessity for common security purposes. When the people were in conflict with their neighbors, everybody is called upon to make a decision, so much so that if they decide to go to war, the decision is a community decision. To revenge, therefore on any member of the sub tribe is justified in that he was part of the decision making. He is partly responsible. This argument does not hold water now. First, the usual victims of tribal wars are innocent students, workers who have no part in the decision-making, much less were they consulted. Second, we claim to be Christians, but are we believing and practicing Christianity?
To those who still insist on the need for revenge, This pagta has explicitly allowed that the said revenge "shall be solely on the person of the offender"
When revenge is allowed
Revenge is allowed as a last resort and after complying with Sec. 5, Art. VI- The procedures for Gopas- the intention was to give more cooling-off-time and discourage any would-be-retaliation.
Another hurdle is that the revenge shall be solely on the person of the offender to the exclusion of his family members, relatives and sub tribe mates.
Consequences of violation of this provision
The violator of this provision will be guilty of pot-ak/patoy- It will be treated as intentional killing.
Section 6: There shall be no immediate severance of the bodong. When the bodong was napot-akan, the procedures outlined in Sec. 5, Art. VI, shall be strictly followed.
This must be read in relation to procedures as outlined in Sec. 5 Art. VI..
“When the blood is spilled, the bodong is severed” seems to be the prevailing practice until the present time. This was never the intention of the farmers of the pagta. This is one of the developments which must be purged from the bodong. Precisely, they provided for the mechanisms wherein the busdung/bugsung di butu will be sent to the kasupang to give time for the latter to investigate, hear and settle the case and ultimately to notify his kasupang of the settlement by sending the pagikna.
This was placed here to revert to the old provision of the pagta and to highlight the fact that is not that easy to severe a bodong. Most of the bodong were inherited and the pain of just severing that ligament of brotherhood that lies the parties is too much to bear.
Moreover, the bodong is there as a bridge for the settlement of the Conflicts and if the bodong is severed, it is harder to settle the dispute. A new sipat has to be established.
What happens if the bodong is immediately severed?
The immediate severance of the bodong effectively removes the butu - the responsibility of the bodong holder to redress the wrong done. The offended party has emasculated him as a bodong holder.
“A” was accidentally hit when a shotgun went off which was in the possession of “B”. The gun went off when its butt was bumped by the revolving gate. “A” died on the spot.
The tribesmates of “A” immediately revenged, killing two of the companions of “B”.
It was held that the butu no longer applies inasmuch as there was immediate revenge. What should have been done by the party made of “A” was to send the butu first to give time to the other bodong holder to property attend to the case.
In another case, a man from Bangad and Dananao were both under the influence of liquor. The man from Dananao said something which the man from Bangad resented. He boxed the mouth of the man from Dananao who immediately drew out his bolo from its scabbard, but the man from Bangad wrestled with him and sustaining injuries in the process. Seeing what was going on, another man from Bangad went to help his tribesmate, but in the process he was wounded. The man from Dananao ran away but he was hit with a stone on his head by another man from Bangad.
The people of Bangad send the busdung di butu to Dananao and the bodong holder answered by saying “we will sit down and talk”.
The sending of the butu was misunderstood as the gopas by the people of Bangad.
The KBC met with the people of Bangad and it was decided that the bodong is actually not severed. The sending of the busdung di butu is not tantamount to gopas. What constitute the gopas is the porting.
Section 7. The following acts of a binodngan shall not constitute bug-uy:
i) When he acted to defend his person, honor, relative and companion;
ii) When the act of the binodngan was in fulfillment of a duty or lawful performance of his right or office;
iii) When the act of the binodngan was in obedience to a lawful order for some lawful purposes;
However, the binodngan may defray the expenses of the offended parties where it is deemed appropriate under the circumstances.
This provision deals with mitigating circumstances.
The opening sentence of this section announces that there is no bug-uy (violation of the pagta), under the circumstance enumerated above. It simply means that the act of binodngan is said to be in accordance with the pagta, so that the said binodngan is not deemed to have violated or transgresses the pagta.
However, under existing jurisprudence of the bodong, the offender may pay the appropriate consequential damages depending upon the circumstances of the case. Here is a way of appeasing the wrath of the person “up-high” born out of a belief in the justice of Kabunyan.
Concept of the bug-uy/pot-ak
In its general sense, bug-uy or pot-ak simply means the violation of any provision of the pagta. As a technical term, pot-ak strictly refers to a violation of the pagta concerning crimes against person. In short, there is pot-ak if there is patoy. (Intentional killing which includes physical injuries).
Import of the Criminal Justice System of the bodong
When there is bug-uy there are three parties involved. The offender has obligations to the offended party; he has distinct obligation to the bodong and he is accountable for his acts to Kabunyan.
To the offended party, he has to pay the dusa (the main specific indemnity for every crime); to the bodong holder, he has to pay the butu and the pagikna. These things he has to pay lest he be made to account before Kabunyan. It is believed that God will dispense retributive justice.
Under this section, there is no bug-uy if the killing or injuries were inflicted through any of the acts enumerated above. But the offender is still liable for the consequential damages.
A policeman who is in the performance of his duty may not be liable to the bodong. He is not required to pay the butu. The said act does not affect the bodong, meaning, the bodong is still effective and subsisting.
If he was, however, found out to be negligent in the performance of his job or if he violated human right of the victim, then he is made to pay for the consequences of his acts.
I. In defense of his person, honor, relative and companion:
I.a) Defense of person
“A” was stabbed while passing along a street. “A” drew his knife and stabbed his assailant who died instantaneously. The assailant turned out to be a binodngan. Is “A” liable?
YES. “A” is liable for the life of his victim. He however, is not deemed to have violated the bodong which is still effective.
How much does “A” have to pay?
It depends on the circumstances of each case but not to exceed P50,000.00 as per provisions of this pagta.
1.b) In Defense of Honor
“A” was passing along the street. She was suddenly accosted and with the use of a gun at her nape, she was led to a grassy place to be raped. “A” wrestled with her assailant and taking the gun, shot her attacker who died.
“A” is not excused from paying for the life of her attacker. However, she is not liable to pay the butu and the bodong still subsists.
1.c) In Defense of a Relative
“A” heard a gun report from the direction of their house. He immediately rushed to their house and found his father “B” who was sprawled on the floor in a pool of his own blood. Beside him standing was “C” “A”
“A” heard a gun from the direction of their house. He immediately rushed to their house and found his father “B” who was sprawled on the floor in a pool of his own blood. Beside him standing was “C”. “A” hacked “C” who died of hack wounds. Held: There is no bug-uy
The term “companion” as used here, refers to anyone wether binodngan or not.
If he did not defend his companion, he is stigmatized as less than a man yet
He can still claim for putut.
II. In fulfillment of a duty or lawful performance of his right or office:
II.a) In fulfillment of a duty.
Since the 1980’s, the PNP, Military and other law enforcement agencies were afraid to perform their job because they were allegedly apprehensive of the sanctions of the bodong. This is sheer misconception of the true essence of and intent of the bodong.
The bodong has been in existence when the law reigns supreme during the Spanish, American and Japanese time. The bodong has never been interpreted to contravene the national laws. There was/is really no conflict. If not the instrument for the implementation of the national laws. The fact that during the American and Japanese occupation, it was found out that the bodong was used in their pacification drive.
A single policeman can arrest a criminal then, with the help of the umili through the bodong and bring him to justice. But now, it is not the case at times, sad to say, even a battalion or soldiers cannot arrest a binodngan.
This goes to show that something in the system went wrong.
Indde, there has been cases of abuse of the bodong system - where even the person doing his job is sanctioned by the bodong. Certainly, this malpractice and abuses must not be tolerated and must be put to a stop
“A” is a security Guard hired to guard the NFA, “B” and companions entered the NFA warehouse. “A” saw them but he was fired at by B and companion, “A” unslung his 12 gauge shotgun and fired back. “B” died on the spot. It was held that there is no bug-uy.
II.b) Lawful Performance of a Right or Office”
“A” is a tenant of “B”. “C” a squatter threatened to expel “A” from his possession thru force. “A” drew his bolo and in the process injured “C”. There is no bug-uy.
III. Obedience to a Lawful Order for some Lawful Purposes
Note that the Order must be Lawful and for Lawful Purposes.
“A” is an amazona. She ordered “B” to kill “C” without any justifiable reasons. Is “A” liable. YES. There is also bug-uy because the order was not lawful.
Elements of Self-defense:
i. unlawful aggression comes from the victim
ii. reasonable necessity of the means employed
iii. the person defending has not started the fight.
Section 8. There shall be no retaliation where injuries or killing results from an accident. Should there be any retaliation, it shall constitute pot-ak/patoy.
This section refers to injuries or homicide resulting from accidents. Inasmuch as the killing or injury arose out of an accident, with more reason should retaliation be disallowed. However, it happened that many relatives of victims of accidents have retaliated in the near past and it is precisely for this reason that this prohibition was included.
The case of Bishop Carlito J. Cenzon and his driver comes to mind. It happened on August 19, 1994. While they were passing through the Highway in Nambaran, their ride sideswept a child.
Instead of helping to bring the child to the hospital, a relative of the victim hacked the driver and was going to finish him but the good Bishop received the blow in his hand.
The assailant paid fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to the driver of the Bishop and butchered one (1) carabao when the Bishop said Mass in Nambaran. Being a man of God, the good Bishop only asked to say Mass. He did not asked for damages. He forgave his assailant.
Note that the incident happened in 1994. Under the pagta then in force, the penalty for pot-ak is One hundred Thousand pesos (P100,000.00), if death results therefrom.
The provision of the pagta was applied to non-binodngan.
In early part of March 1994, Samson Donggayao sideswept the son of Paquitos Mamecao at Magsaysay, Tabuk, Kalinga while he was driving a motor vehicle. The son was dead-on-arrival (DOA) at the Provincial Hospital.
Samson Donggayao provided the clothings (gaga-om/gangon), provided some cases of gin, rice and pig for the bagungun. This was objected to by the Mamecao’s yet the things were reluctantly received. The case was settled using the pagta of the bodong. The existing damages then was Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for death resulting from accident
When all expenses were totaled, Samson Donggayao paid a total of Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00), inclusive of the other expenses during the wake.
Section 9. The maintenance of peace and order is every citizen’s duty. The bodong holder, members of the Philippine National Police and the law enforcement agencies must support and coordinate with each other when the exigency for the protection of life, liberty and property and honor arises.
This section mandates that every citizen must help in the maintenance of peace - the word used is every citizen. The term therefore makes no distinction whether one is binodngan or not.
The bodong was the only justice system before the Spaniards arrived. The Spaniards have never subjugated Kalinga yet the Kalingas have lived with their neighbors peacefully because of the bodong system.
With the coming of the Americans, the bodong was extensively used in the pacification drive of the Americans. The bodong was still very effective and was made an instrument of the Pax Americana.
All the people who committed crimes were submitted by the bodong to the law. The bodong was and is never an impediment towards the full implementation of the law.
It was only during the 1970’s when the Philippine Constabulary (now PNP) started blaming the bodong for every crime committed. They alleged that the bodong coddles the criminals. This attitude still subsists which is very unfortunate.
But we cannot blame these people being critical of a system they know little of or nothing at all.
Instead of blaming the bodong, efforts should be exerted to learn more what are the merits of the bodong in order to appreciate it.
The bodong compliments the national Criminal Justice System.
We have to admit that the bodong is a part of the cultural heritage of the Kalingas. It is the bodong that serves as the binding force in the Kalinga community. It provides a mechanism and an avenue for the resolution of conflicts. This is very evident if you look into the court dockets of several courts where bodong is strong. MCTC Tinglayan-Tanudan has a zero docket as of this time. MTC Lubuagan has but a few cases. This is true with MCTC Balbalan-Pasil and MCTC Pinukpuk-Rizal.
Why is this so? The explanation is that the people thereat trust more the bodong justice system and despite criticism, it still works. This is not to say that it is perfect. It has its flaws and defects like any other legal system.
If instead of blaming the bodong system, it may be to the best interest of peace if the peace officers will coordinate their efforts with the bodong to stump out criminality. The law enforcers should touch base with the binodngan commuity and the people.
NANGDON SI BODONG
Section I. The binodngan must recognize and affirm the authority of the bodong holder of each ili as chosen by them.
The bodong holders are the visible symbol of the bodong. As such, they deserve to be respected. To them is the authority to execute every decision affecting their bodong.
How the bodong holder is selected
Oral historical accounts of the origin of the bodong points to the following circumstances that led to the establishment of the bodong:
1) One school of thought states that the bodong came from the necessity of protecting games.
Hunters could not follow their hunting dogs whenever they went beyond the village territory. Their games and their dogs are always in danger, not to mention their personal safety. This necessitated the establishment of the bodong thru the sipat. So a hunter gives a sipat to anyone in the village becoming thereby a bodong holder.
2) People have to trade with other villages. So what the traders did whenever they went to any village was to give their bolos and/or spears and take the bolos/spears of one from another village. Upon arrival in his ili, he would announce the establishment of the sipat. He becomes a bodong holder.
Formal establishment of the bodong by the sipat holder
Each bodong holder then invites his counterpart and formalizes the bodong through festivities. The surdip/singlip is celebrated followed by the inum. It is during this feast that the pagta is formally agreed upon.
Bodong holders hold the bodong for pure service
To be a bodong holder entails a lot of personal sacrifice. He has nothing to gain as he is not paid for his services. In fact he uses his personal money to procure animals to be butchered during celebrations. He receives visitors, he feeds them and provide their needs. He has a lot of social functions.
While it is true that he is the symbolic head of the tribe on bodong matters and as such is lavished with honor, more often to be a bodong holder carries with it much responsibilities.
When for any reason the bodong is severed, the new bodong holder is usually chosen from the clan of the victim and the clan of the offending party.
The reason is obvious. He is the last victim and it is assumed that he would not revenge for to do so would be for him to commit makmak/ngos-ngos. The irony is that the bitter enemies are now the best of friends when the bodong is established.
How does a binodngan recognizes and affirms the authority of the bodong holder?
a) Whenever a binodngan goes for trade to other binodngan areas, such transaction must be done in the presence of or through the bodong holder.
For every consummated business transaction, the bodong holder receives the su-ur (a token given in the form of cash, a piglet, a dog or other things of value).
b) Whenever a case is settled, he must be given pagikna.
c) Recognition ands affirmation of the authority would best be shown if each binodngan will respect the right of other binodngan.
Section 2. The bodong holder shall discharge the functions and duties which includes but not limited to:
a) He is the eyes, ears, and mouth of the bodong;
b) He shall faithfully enforce and execute the provisions of the pagta and all decisions in cases brought before it;
c) He shall prosecute with dispatch cases brought to his attention until the same shall have been settled to the satisfaction of both parties;
d) He shall not allow the severance of the bodong without complying with the provisions of Article VI, Section 5 of this pagta;
e) He must consult the Umili and the elders in making decisions;
f) He shall arrest or cause the arrest of the bummug-uy (violator).
The listed functions and duties of the bodong holder is not exclusive. The bodong holder has other function not included here.
He has social functions. He has to feed the visitors, he has to bring the dead of his kabodong or the latter’s subject to their place of origin.
“Eyes, Ears and Mouth”
In the set-up of the bodong, the bodong holder of each ili has as his wards the people from the opposite subtribe.
“A” is the bodong holder from Laya. “B” is he bodong holder from Bangad. “A” has to look after the welfare of the ili of Bangad while “B” will look after the welfare of the ili of Laya.
In conflict resolution, the working of the bodong is very much different from the courts where the truth will depend on the strength of the evidence. So much so that even if a person was killed but no evidence or witnesses are available, the accused will go scot-free.
The workings of the bodong do not have the complicated rules and procedures in court. The bodong holder as the eyes, ears and mouth of the bodong, his relative and the people investigate silently and nothing could be hidden from them.
We have customary beliefs, rituals and practices which a person who kills another has to perform. This always gives him away. Beside, as among one subtribe, there is really no secret. It is under this jurisdiction that hearsay evidence carries with it the truth.
The bodong holder has eyes that he may look after the welfare of his people, ears for him to listen to their problems and concerns and mouth to speak out for the Binodngan in search for what is true. He is the investigator, prosecutor and judge rolled into one.
A man from Dananao was declared missing. Nobody knows whether he was killed or not. The bodong holder from Basao was informed that a man from Dananao is missing.
Silently, he must have known from his people and it was not long before the information came out that the missing man from Dananao was killed and the suspects are from Basao.
The KBC/CCN came to the picture and it was not long before the place where he was buried was pointed to. It came out that the man from Dananao was invited by a Basao tribesman for a picnic at the river. The group took with them a dog to butcher but instead of killing the dog, it was their companion from Dananao that they killed. The reason for the killing was that they avenged the death of their kinsman who was shot at Conner, Apayao by one from Dananao. When the case was settled, the killing by revenge was treated as a separate offense “pot-ak”.
He shall faithfully enforce and execute the provisions of the pagta and all decisions in cases brought before it.
The bodong holder has a dual function:
1. He must see to it that the pag ta is enforced;
2. If there are violations, he must see to it that the culprit must be brought to justice;
3. He must hear and decide cases brought before him with the help of elders and other leaders;
4. He must execute the decision to the letter.
In extreme cases where decisions are not obeyed, the bodong holder may be forced to avenge the wrong done by himself.
He shall prosecute with dispatch cases brought to his attention until the same shall have been settled to the satisfaction of both parties.
The case under the bodong system is initiated when the busdung/bugsung di Butu is sent by the complaining bodong holder. Upon receipt of the busdung/bugsung, negotiation ensues until the case is settled. After which, a pagikna is given to the complaining bodong holder.
The sending of the busdung/bugsung di butu (wrap of the butu) does not mean the severance of the bodong. The bodong still subsists and effective while the negotiation is going on.
He shall not allow the severance of the bodong without complying with the provisions of Article Vi, Section 5 of this pagta;
This was included to correct the practice of bodong holders who just severe the bodong without consulting the umili.
The bodong holder is not allowed to act according to his whims. He is only the spokesman of the umili from whom he derives his power. It is the umili to decide whether to severe the bodong or not.
He must consult the umili and the elders in making decisions
As was already stated, elders and village leaders and members from neutral subtribes bring the parties (the complainant and respondent) together in one venue. If this is not feasible, then the elders will consult the parties separately beginning with the offended party and then to the party of the offender.
The elders would hear both parties, then make suggestions and there are concrete proposals and then they will go to the other party to present the proposed settlement.
This is the hardest part of the shuttle diplomacy. Much tact and convincing power has to be employed. The negotiators have to bear and be contented of being shock absorbers.
Under this system, the bodong holder will just listen and not to speak out and leave the negotiations to the elders, leaders and other people. His suggestions may be misunderstood as the decisions. It is only after the parties have come to an amicable settlement that he makes the formal announcement.
He shall arrest or cause the arrest of the bummug-uy (violator)
In the past, when a person commits pot-ak / patoy, the bodong holder and his relatives must kill or inflict injury to the perpetrator or to his nearest kin, tit for tat.
This old provision contravenes our national laws as it authorizes killing. The wrong cannot be rectified by the commission of another wrong. On top of that, it contravenes our basic tenets as Christians.
So as not to take the law in his own hand, this provision was inserted. In lieu of killing to remove the butu, the bodong holder is now empowered to cause the arrest of the perpetrator and submit him to the authorities.
Under Section 5, Article III, the bodong holder is considered a person in authority. He is therefore empowered to arrest the offender.
To illustrate how the bodong could supplement our criminal justice system, the case of Pangol and Bacari (Paracelis) comes to mind.
It happened that a man from Pangol has committed crimes against the people of Bacari. Gabriel Gassingga is the bodong holder and to comply with his obligation as such, he made an arrangement with the officers of the law whereby he would invite the criminal in a certain house for a drinking spree. At the pre-arranged signal, the PNP swooped down on the criminal and arrested him. The criminal is presently detained at the National Penitentiary.
Section 3. The bodong holder and his family shall have the respect, assistance, cooperation, support and loyalty of all bodong members in all bodong affairs.
Section 4. The bodong holder may seek assistance from the government for the conciliation and settlement of bodong cases where proper.
It has been said that the bodong holder is only the symbol of the pagta. He stands for the community in all bodong activities, the bodong holder shoulders all expenses, of course the community contributes by giving rice, gifts (atod) and others.
The bodong holder may seek assistance from the government sector, since this job is the promotion of peace and order which are governmental function.
Assistance here is used in its broad sense. It may include financial, material and other forms of assistance such as government vehicles and facilities.
Section 5. The bodong holder by virtue of his functions and responsibilities in the maintenance of peace and order shall be deemed a person in authority.
The purpose of this provision is to cloth the bodong holder with authority so that he could be effective in the advocacy for peace.
Section 6. The bodong holder in recognition of the importance of his functions in the discharge of his duties without remuneration should be given the appropriate civil service eligibility, and insurance when feasible.
This is to provide some sort of incentive in consideration of the importance of his functions.
Section 1. The following are the binodngan
a. Bonafide members of the subtribe;
b. Those born to bonafide members of the subtribe;
c. Non-tribe members married to members of the subtribes;
d. Non-tribe members who permanently resides in the ili and who elect to become members and accepted as such in a manner provided for by the bodong.
Bonafide members of the subtribe
The phrase “bonafide members of the subtribe” refers to children born to parents of the same subtribe.
“A” and “B” are from Guinaang, Pasil, Kalinga. They married each other and begot 3 children C, D, & E.
To what bodong C, D, & E belong? They belong to and are subjects of the bodong of Guinaang.
Non-tribe members married to members of the subtribe
“A” is from Salegseg. He married “B” who is from Gattaran, Cagayan. They established residence in Salegseg.
To what bodong does “B” belong? He belongs to the bodong of Salegseg by express provision of this section.
Suppose, in our example, “B” was injured in a scuffle by one from Dao-angan. Is the bodong between Dao-angan and Salegseg affected?
YES, the bodong is affected because upon his marriage to a woman from Salegseg, he is covered by the bodong of Salegseg by express provision of this section.
If “A” and “B” had children, the said children belong to the bodong of Salegseg. This is so by express provision of Section 3, Article III.
Non-tribe members who permanently resides in the ili and who elect to become members and accepted as such in a manner provided for by the bodong.
a. Husband and wife are non-binodngan;
b. They reside in any binodngan ili;
c. They elect to be members of the bodong of their residence;
d. They must have been accepted as members after giving lo-om.
“A” and “B” are from Manila who permanently reside at Naneng. They elected to join the bodong of Naneng by performing the lo-om in all occasions and were accepted ad included in all the bodong.
What bodong do they belong? They belong to the bodong of Naneng.
If one or both of them are injured by an Iguilayon, is the bodong between Naneng and Guilayon affected?
YES. The bodong holder from Naneng will ask his kasupang from Guilayon to settle the case with the assailant.
Suppose in our example above, it is “A” who violated any of the provision of the pagta, say he committed rape of a woman from Guilayon?
Is the bodong of Guilayon and Naneng affected? YES. As one who elected to be a Binodngan, he accepted to be bound by the bodong and he has the obligation to respect the bodong.
How about the children of “A” and “B” in our example above, to what bodong they belong?
They belong to the bodong of Naneng. There is no need for the children of “A” and “B” to elect the bodong they want to join. This is so because of Section 1, Subsection (b), Article III.
Section 2. Children of binodngan who resides in any of the ili of their parents shall be members therein, provided that in case where they reside in a non-binodngan area, they shall follow the bodong of their father.
Children of binodngan residing in either the ili of their parents, which bodong will cover them? The bodong of the parent of their place of residence.
The reason is that double citizenship is not allowed. Another reason is that they have lived in the place (naparatan) and its just right that they belong there.
Where the family lived outside the bugis of their parents, they are deemed covered by the bodong of the father.
“A” is from Lubuagan, Kalinga. He married a woman named “B” from Sumadel, Tinglayan, Kalinga, They choose to reside in Sumadel, Tinglayan. They had a son named “C”.
Whose bodong does “C” belong? “C” is now covered by the bodong of Sumadel.
If in our example, “C” committed acts of lasciviousness on the person of “D” who hails from Balbalasang, to which bodong shall the Balbalasang direct their complaint and which bodong is affected?
The bodong affected is the bodong of Sumadel with Balbalasang. It is that bodong which will settle the case.
What about the bodong of Lubuagan and Balbalasang. Is it affected?
NO. The reason is that the pagta say so and no one is allowed to collect twice for an offense. This would be unjust enrichment.
Suppose the relatives of “A” are all mingor and they do not accept the settlement? What remedy do they have?
The pagta allows that they could ask the bodong to exclude them temporarily from the coverage of the bodong of Lubuagan and Balbalasang for a short period of time. This is called lasin.
What is the implication of Lasin?
They are now allowed by the bodong to avenge the wrong done to “A” but the revenge shall be solely to the offender.
They are free to revenge but if they are killed or injured in the process, then they are not allowed to claim under the bodong.
If after the period given has lapsed without any untoward incident, then they are brought back to the coverage of the bodong, they are no longer at liberty to revenge, otherwise they will be liable under the bodong.
What is meant by the phrase “reside in a non-binodngan area”
Juan is from Pangol and Maria is from Lubuagan. They reside in Philex Mines, Padcal, Tuba, Benguet. They had a son called Danny.
While Danny and his companion were drinking in a Videoke bar in Baguio City, a misunderstanding arose between Danny’s group with another group and trouble ensued.
One of Danny’s companion is good in Karate and gave a blow to one of the members of the other group and the latter fell on the floor. Danny got a knife in their table and stab the person on the floor and the victim died. It turn out that the victim is from Tulgao.
What bodong is deemed violated?
The bodong of Pangol and Tulgao. This is so because this section provides that the children of Binodngan spouse where the parents live in a non-binodngan area shall follow the bodong of their father. The father of Danny is from Pangol, hence the bodong which has jurisdiction of the case will be the Pangol-Tulgao bodong.
Mr. Oman is from Lubo and he married Daruwa from Mabongtot and resided in Mabongtot. They had children. What bodong do their children belong?
It was decided that they are Imabungtot by residence, hence they are not ilubo.
Section 3. Where one of the spouses is a binodngan and the other spouse is a non-binodngan, the children shall be covered by the bodong of the binodngan spouse.
Elements that must concur for this provision to apply:
1. One of the spouses is a binodngan while the other is ibaliwon (non-binodngan);
2. They have children;
3. The spouses live in a binodngan or non-binodngan area.
What bodong do their children belong? They belong to the bodong of the binodngan spouse by express provision of the pagta.
Mike is from Mabaca, Balbalan, Kalinga. He married Susan from Pampanga. They had four (4) children and they are residents of Baguio City.
What bodong do their children belong? They belong to the bodong of Mabaca, Balbalan.
Suppose in our example, one of the spouse’s son Michael befriended and impregnated a woman from Balatoc, Pasil, Kalinga, who died of abortion upon the instigation of Michael. Whose bodong has jurisdiction?
The bodong of Balatoc and mabaca. This is so because the father of Michael is the Binodngan spouse.
RIGHTS OF THE BINODNGAN
Section 1. The binodngan shall have a right to his life, his property and his honor and shall do every reasonable means to defend it.
This section covers the basic right to defend his person, property and honor. Note that the provision uses the term “reasonable means”. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances of each case. Read this in connection with Art. II, Sec. 5.
Rights protected under this section:
1.a. This is self-defense
The Kalinga believe that life is a gift from Kabunyan. It is something very precious. No one except Kabunyan can get life from him.
If said life is threatened, he will use every means to protect it, to preserve it and even if he has to kill in the process. Based on this principle, the practice of revenge has find justification. Life taken has to be paid with another life.
1.b.Meaning of “reasonable means to defend it”
Under the pagta, if a binodngan uses his hand to injure another binodngan, the offender can only use his hand in defense of himself. If he is boxed, he can only defend himself by boxing the culprit. He is not allowed to use any deadly weapon (patadom).
“A” and “B” are both binodngan. In a heat of anger, “A” boxed “B” on his face wounding him in the process. “B” kicked “A” fell to the ground. Is “A” liable?
YES. “A” is liable. He was the one who started the fight. The penalty is multa.
How about “B”, is he liable? NO. He was only defending himself.
Suppose in our example above, instead of kicking “A”, “B” drew out his fan knife and stabbed “A” who was hit on his shoulder. Is “B” liable under the bodong inspite of the fact that he was only defending himself?
YES. “B” is clearly liable. Under the pagta, he is not allowed to use knife (patadom). The means used to defend himself is not reasonable - therefore, he is liable for the injury inflicted.
Suppose, in our example, instead of boxing “B”, “A” stabbed “B” with a knife. “B” retaliated by drawing his gun and he shot “A”, wounding the latter in the process. Is “B” liable? NO. The reason is that he was defending himself and the means he used in defending himself is reasonable.
Under bodong jurisprudence, it is “A” who violated the pagta (Bummug-uy). In a sense, each will be responsible for the injuries he inflicted but the penalty for “A” being the violator is higher. He is liable to pay the Butu.
2. Right to his property
2.a This contains the principle of defense of property.
Every Kalinga is entitled to a decent life in accordance with his means. In the Kalinga social order, a person is entitled to acquire properties and is entitled to their beneficial use, in a manner he sees it.
There are communal properties to which he has equally same right to use. But there are properties that properly belong to him and no one is allowed to get them from him without his consent or authority.
We have various concepts expressive of these values:
a) Paniyaw - to claim as your own something that property belongs to another is paniyaw (taboo). He who does will not have a long life.
b) Agum - this refers to one who would accumulate properties, by foul means.
It is paniyaw/kaniyaw to steal a chicken for it looks up high when it drinks water (the act of looking up while drinking water is equated to acknowledgment of Kabunyan).
It is paniyaw/kaniyaw to steal bananas for your stomach will become bloated and you will die with it.
We have a lot of examples whether the stories are myth or not, one thing is sure - be contended with what you have.
If others will steal/get properties from you, the pagta says you can defend your properties by any means reasonable under the circumstances. The question which may be asked: what would happen to one who defended himself and his property through any means reasonable? Does it constitute Bug-uy?
“A” has a grocery store, and a bakery. Every morning at about 4:00 A.M., children would withdraw pan de sal from said store and bakery for them to sell around the barangay. One morning, children went to get their usual stock of pan de sal. However, taking advantage of the presence of the children, “B” and “C” entered the store and announce a hold-up, pointing their guns and grenade to the bakery owner. There was a little pandemonium. “A”, the bakery owner took advantage of the situation and shot one of the hold-uppers. The other one ran away but he sustained mortal wounds at about 7:00 a.m. of the same day, people found the cadaver of the other hold-upper 50 meters away from the scene.
Is “A” liable for the life of the two hold-uppers?
Efforts were made for settlement of the case but the general consensus is that, the weight of opinion would tilt in favor of “A” - that is, he should not be liable for the death of the two victims. The reason is, he was only protecting himself and his property. “A” wanted to voluntarily help defray the expenses. However, there was no settlement.
In another case, the carabao of “A” was stolen. “A” together with his companion followed the hoofprints. Eventually, they caught up with the rustlers. A fair fight ensued. “ B”, one of the cattle rustlers was killed. Is “A” liable under the bodong? Is the bodong between the subtribes of “A” and “B” affected?
YES. Under the provision of the pagta and jurisprudence of the bodong, “A” is liable for the killing, the indemnity is established using the standards of accidental killing. “A” may refuse to pay actually said indemnity. However, at the back of his head, is the apprehension that the offended party may avenge the wrong done. He therefore opted to pay something to buy peace. This is the usual practice. However, the bodong is not affected.
3) Right to his honor.
“Dita pun/adita mansamkoy ta paniyaw”. Literally, this means “it is taboo to disparage the good name of a person.”
To have a good name is the dream of a Kalinga. In the Kalinga society, good reputation is a desired quality of a pangat, a leader.
Respected members of a community in a Kalinga society are:
a) Pangat - a self-made man, not necessarily rich, a leader.
b) Baknang - a person who is economically well-off.
c) Kadangyan - one who has everything in life, economically.
Section 2. All binodngan shall have the equal protection of the bodong and the free and speedy disposition of their cases.
Equal protection clause- from the viewpoint of the pagta, everybody is equal whether one is a pangat, baknang, kapus (poor), a woman, child, old and young. Even relatives found to be guilty must be imposed the appropriate penalty. “The bodong has no brother”.
There is no one above the pagta. Even the bodong holder is sanctioned if he is found to have violated a provision of the pagta. The violation of the pagta by the bodong holder or his relative is termed “makmak”.
“Free and speedy disposition of the case”
One of the virtues or merits of the indigenous system of setting cases is the speedy disposition of cases.
What is the reason why the bodong holder has to settle the case immediately?
Under the bodong system, all cases between the offender and the offended is as much a community problem, especially if the case involves patoy. The bodong holder is involved and if the case is allowed to drag, there is the possibility that the offended party may take the law into his own hand and if that is the case, the bodong may be severed and the two subtribes may be involved.
It is always to the best interest of the two subtribes to settle the case immediately if only to prevent the case developing into a tribal conflict, the community has a stake in the resolution of the case.
Settlements are open to the public
All settlements are open to the public. All those in attendance are free to give suggestions. They may help by citing jurisprudence of bodong cases. In this way, decisions are always based on reasons and not on whims.
Section 3. No binodngan shall be held to answer for an offense without due process under this pagta.
Due process under the bodong
To safeguard a person from being punished without hearing, the pagta has established a very simple procedure. These procedures are very much like the procedures outlined in Art VI, Sec. 5.
If there is a violation, the busdung di butu or notice is sent to the bodong holder where the offender belongs.
The investigation then begins with both bodong holders setting the case for settlement where the parties come together in a confrontation. The conference goes on from day to day until it is finished.
Where there are no witnesses but a person is suspected and there is sufficient ground to believe that he may have committed the act, the case will be settled. The suspect pays the apas for having been suspected, while the investigation goes on as regards the identity of the person who committed the act.
If the culprit is found out, the apas shall be refunded by the culprit. Under this setup, the suspect helps in the further investigation of the case.
Section 4. A binodngan shall have the right and obligation to testify for or against another binodngan in every case.
This is a new provision. It provides for the right of a binodngan to testify in favor or against any binodngan. In like manner, he is obligated to testify.
Right to testify
For as long as he is vital witness to a crime, no one is allowed to prevent him from testifying, on the flimsy ground that the person he is testifying against is a binodngan. In fact he is obligated to testify. He must be a material witness.
Reason for the inclusion of this provision
The bodong always seek for the truth. The system may be simple, but in almost, if not all cases, the truth always comes out and the culprit is punished. There is really justice as it is always based on the truth.
The bodong system has a unique way of finding the truth.
Section 5. Every binodngan has the right to adduce evidence in his favor, including the right to demand that a binodngan who witnessed the incident shall testify in his favor.
Right to adduce in his favor and to demand witnesses to testify in his favor.
The right given here may pertain to the offender or the offended. This is to be distinguished with the provision of Section 4 above. Section 4 deals with the right of a material witness to testify for or against the accused.
It has been observed that binodngan who witnessed the commission of a crime against or for a binodngan refuses to testify. The reason is that they might be sanctioned by the bodong. Not to testify is wrong. After all, any one who tells the truth is free to do so. Tell the truth and the truth will set you free
To testify for or against is a right as it is an obligation. The penalty for refusal to testify is one carabao.
In as much as a binodngan has a right and obligation to testify for or against another binodngan., this pagta also give the binodngan a right to adduce evidence in his favor and to demand that witnesses will testify in his favor.
Section 6. There shall be equal treatment in the imposition of fines and penalties and no excessive fines shall be imposed.
The provision complements the provision on equality of all binodngan before the eyes of the law. It speaks of equal protection in the imposition of fines and penalties.
There has been allegation of inequality among binodngan. People often pejoratively refer to the people from upper Kalinga subtribes as “Kawitan” and lower Kalinga subtribes as “Upa”.
The accusation is that for the same offense, the people from upper Kalinga would demand a higher amount of indemnities if they are the offended and would try to reduce the indemnities if they are the offenders.
This perception, whether correct or not is the evil this provision intends to correct.
The aim is to remove any form of distinction in the imposition of fines and penalties.
“No excessive fines”
This provision was inserted with the intention to forestall anyone from demanding more than what the pagta provides. The key word here is reasonableness of the demand and/or the ability of the accused to pay.
It would be useless to demand for a penalty very much higher than what the pagta provides especially so if he accused has no property to pay indemnities. This is so for if the accused cannot really pay, and if his relatives have also no money to lend to the accused, then the offended might be tempted to take the law into his own hands.
To a Kalinga, what is important is that the case has been settled.
Section 7. Every binodngan shall have the option to seek justice under the bodong or the regular courts of justice.
The first sentence gives the offended binodngan the option to go to court or to avail of the justice system of the bodong. This is highlighted by the double jeopardy clause.
If the offended chooses the court, the offender is still required to give, provide, and perform the customary rituals and practices.
Section 8. No binodngan shall be twice put in jeopardy for the punishment of the same offense. If a binodngan is punished by the bodong or the regular courts of justice, the conviction or acquittal under any shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same offense. However, the offender may still satisfy the customary rituals and practices of the bodong.
This provision was included as a new provision. This is a concession to the national criminal justice system to prevent one from being punished under the bodong and under national laws.
In view thereof, Section 7 expressly gives the offended party the option to go to the bodong or to the court. He is precluded from claiming again under the bodong. In like manner that one cannot go to court after the case shall have been settled in the bodong.
It is elementary principle that one cannot recover twice from the same offense. This would constitute unjust enrichment.
SPECIFIC CRIMES AND THEIR PENALTIES
Section 1. Patoy (killing) - Any binodngan who shall kill or inflict injury to another binodngan shall be guilty of patoy.
There is patoy when a binodngan with intent to kill. It includes physical injuries.
But there is distinction when blood is spilled through the use of a bare hand.
Under our penal code, there are qualifying aggravating circumstances. There are circumstances which elevate the killing to murder. Under the pagta, there are no such circumstances. For as long as a person is killed with intention without any justifiable cause, it is patoy. Was blood intentionally spilled? This is the essence of patoy.
“A” and “B” were drinking in a restaurant at the public market of Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga. “A” said something which “B” resented. “B” boxed “A” on his face hitting him in the mouth and “A’s” lips was injured and one tooth has to be removed as a result thereof.
“B” however is liable for less serious physical injuries and the maximum multa is for “B” to butcher a pig.
How about if instead of his bare hands, he used a piece of wood or a stone?
Still there is only physical injury. Only the multa is increased to one carabao.
“A” and “B” were drinking beer at one of the stalls in the market in Bulanao. “A” got a beer grande bottle with its contents and struck “B” on his head. “B” sustained injuries.
It was held that the crime committed is not patoy but physical injuries. “B” was therefore made to pay one carabao as multa plus the customary expenses in connection with the settlement of the case.
Where a bladed weapon is used, the denomination of the offense is patoy
In one case, the facts are follows:
“A” was a bit drunk. He was inside a jeep. “B” and “C” made some jokes to “A” which he resented and drew his knife. “B” and “C” scampered outside and they were immediately followed “D” who was on the top load of the jeep, saw what was happening. He jumped down and immediately restrained “A” at his back. “A” stab “D” with said knife by swinging his hand to his back, hitting “D” who shouted for help from “B” and “C” who both responded immediately. They wrested the knife from “A” and stabbed the latter thrice at the vital parts of his body. “A” was rushed to the hospital and he survived.
In was held that “A” violated the pagta. His crime is patoy. But instead of sending the butu, the tribesmates of B,C and D agreed among themselves that the case should be settled among the parties. After confrontation, it was held that “A” should answer for the tingiting and songa of “D”. “D” and his companion likewise gave a pig as songa and a chicken as tingiting to “A”. in like manner, B, C and D were responsible for the hospital and medical expenses of “A” and “A” likewise pay the medical expenses of “D”.
But inasmuch as “A” violated the pagta, the bodong required him to pay a multa of two carabaos and “D” and companions were made to pay a multa of one big pig.
It was so decided this way for if the butu will be sent and the bodong holder will drastically act to avenge the wrong done, then trouble will erupt and eventually the bodong will be severed. (Lubo vs. Butbut).
Where both the parties were injured, each will be responsible for the consequences of his acts; set off
It was 9:00 o’clock p.m., “B” was walking along a dimly lit street at Purok 1, Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga. While walking, “A” drew out his knife and stabbed “B” inflicting injuries on “B”. “B” drew out his gun and shot “A” who died.
The case was settled. “A” was adjudged as the bummug-uy (violator of the pagta), but because he is dead and “B” was only defending himself, “B” was held liable to the death of “A”. he was to pay P 100,000.00. “A” was the violator and he was to answer for the injuries sustained by “B”, “A” and his tribesmates has to pay Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as mandated by the provision of the pagta. There was set off and the tribesmates of “B” paid Fifty Thousand pesos (P 50,000.00). With this settlement, the bodong was restored. (Mangali vs. Maducayan).
Case: Dananao vs. Bangad
“A” and some lady companions were on board a kuliglig from Agbannawag, Tabuk heading for Barangay Lacnog. “B” who was at the kiosk (waiting shed) whistled at the lady companions of “A”. “B” hearing the remarks of “A” went near the kuliglig which momentarily stopped in the middle of the road. Some remarks exchanged between them. “B” boxed “A” who was injured on the mouth. “A was about to draw his bolo but “B” wrestled with “A” with the possession of the bolo. “B” was injured by the bolo on his hand. The companion of “B” went to the succor of “B” and kicked “A” and his feet was injured with said bolo. While “A” was running away, he was stoned on the head.
The parties agreed for amicable settlement and after much debate, it was held that “A” has to pay “B” the sum of Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00).
It was found out that both “A” and “B” were at fault. “B” was adjudged as guilty for boxing “A”. Likewise, it was shown that “A” was also hit with a stone on the head and was injured.
For having started the fight and for inflicting injuries on “A”, “B” was required to pay the maximum penalty (multa) of one carabao.
For drawing out a bladed weapon (patadom) in retaliation, the act of “A” is not justified. The pagta says if you are boxed, you may box- but you are not allowed to use a bladed weapon (patadom) and because “B” and his companions were injured with the use of a bolo, “A” has to pay the maximum multa of 2 carabaos as provided by Sec. 2, Art. VI for the two (2) injuries. “A” has to pay four (4) carabaos but because he was also injured, one (1) carabao should be deducted.
The value of 3 carabaos is more or less roughly pegged at Fifty Thousand pesos (P50,000.00). However, because “A” did not give any amount for medical expenses, the songa and the customary expenses, the amount of P 10,000.00 would seem reasonable for said purpose. Hence, the settlement is Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00).
Note: The amount of damages could have been higher if “A” drew out the bolo and struck “B” and his companion with it. The intention to injure is not very clear as he drew his bolo.
Section 2. If 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 patong-al, paata , imbaluwan/siglot and pinadatong. In addition thereto, he shall pay three (3) carabaos as butu to the offended peace pact holder, one to be given to his kasupang and the other one to be butchered during the amicable settlement plus reasonable customary damages.
The penalty is pegged in carabaos. The reason for using carabao as exchange of value is its availability and abundance and inflation is avoided as it is determinable.
It could however be paid in cash, lands and heirlooms. The reason for allowing this mode of payment is to facilitate easy payment and the early resolution of the case.
Dusa are damages to be given to the offended, including patong-al, paata and inbaluwan/siglot (the amount given to the widow/er;
Pa-ata (rootword is ATA - eyes)
Casiw was killed by Rustom Iwangga et. Al. Aside from paying antique jars, Rustom has to pay three (3) carabaos to the offended bodong holder (from his own village), this is to appease his anger for the killing was a direct insult to his authority. This is called the butu (groin). Likewise, he is required to give one (1) carabao to his kasupang (counterpart peace-pact holder) as a token and a symbol that the case has been settled amicably.
Still, the offender has to produce one (1) more carabao to be butchered and served to the public who came to attend the settlement.
So, all in all, he has to produce Thirteen (13) carabaos. Because this is killing, some rituals have to be performed such as pakan/sikdug and dalan/pasulkod.
Rituals - any form of action performed according to a prescribed set of rules, usually with symbolic meaning.
The following are the examples of the rituals:
a) Kabkab - before serving meals, the host will give a pan, put water in it, put coins or iron instruments/tools and embers into the water together with leaves of reeds (apin) tied into a knot (purdos/puldos).
Each of those who partakes of the meal will dip their fingers into the water and tip their stomach. They then get a coin or any iron instrument.
This is done pursuant to the common belief that if the said ritual is not done, the stomach of those who ate submerged into a pan of water are believed to prevent the escalation of the conflict and it likewise symbolizes that the conflict ends.
b) Pakan/ gusgus - any amount or material thing to be given by the offender to the immediate relatives of the victim before they partake of the meals.
A shot B his issued armalite rifle. B died as a result thereof. For said killing, A gave one (1) hectare of irrigated Riceland valued at One Hundred Twenty Thousand pesos (P 120,000.00).
Section 3. If for any reason the victim survives, the penalty shall be as provided for under Section 8 of this Article.
Refer to annotation under 8,9 and 10 of this article.
Section 4. Patoy may be committed under any of the following circumstances, which includes but not limited to: ba-ug, ngosngos, sanob, lomong, liput, aladas, wakwak, kodot, anud makmak.
This section provides for the manner of and the circumstances under which the killings were committed.
Ba-ug - when a bodong holder or his relative kill a kabodong.
Makmak/ngosngos are the other terms in Northern Kalinga. This is the ugliest kind of killing. It entails lifetime stigma (uyaw). The penalty should be higher from that of the ordinary killing (patoy).
Sanob - ambushcade
Lomong/Liput - killing in secluded place
Kodot - killing by poisoning
Anud - killing by drowning
1. A, B and C went to a barangay in Tinglayan, Kalinga. While in that barangay, all of them were killed. The crime committed is ba-ug, because they killed their kabodong. This is the worst kind of killing to a Kalinga. It is taboo (paniyaw/kaniyaw) and it is believed that the life of the killer is shortened and his clan shall not prosper in life (makuras/maumas).
2. A is the son of a bodong holder. A stabbed B who is from the subtribe with whom his father is the bodong holder. It was held that the crimecommitted is makmak/ngosngos.
Section 5. Procedures when there is patoy (murder) - where a binodngan is killed or injured, the aggrieved party may avail of the remedies provided for by the regular courts of justice, or he may go to the bodong. If he chooses the bodong, the following procedures shall apply:
1. The offended party must report the patoy to the bodong holder;
2. The bodong holder of the aggrieved party shall first refer the case to his kabodong or kasupang (bodong holder of the other subtribe) by sending the bugsung/ busdung di butu with the accompanying letter narrating the facts of the case;
2.a Upon receipt of the bugsung/busdung, the bodong holder will investigate and work for the settlement of the case. Meantime, he will cause for the giving of the papod to the offended party to preempt possible vengeance.
Papod - this refers to cash or anything of value given by the offender or subtribe to the offended party. Once this is accepted, it signals the intention to settle the case amicably and not to revenge. Literally, papod means “to stop/prevent” revenge or severance of the bodong.
If as a result of the intentional killing and the victim dies, the minimum amount of papod is one (1) carabao or its equivalent value in cash.
2.b if no settlement is reached, after consultation with the offender, his relatives and tribesmates, he shall inform his kasupang.
2.c upon receipt of the notice of non-settlement, the bodong holder will inform the aggrieved party who is given the option to go to court or to have the bodong severed.
2.d If the aggrieved party, after consultation with the bodong holder and the umili opt for the severance of the bodong, then the bodong, then the bodong holder will now send to his kasupang the gopas (notice of the severance) duly approved by the umili;
Gopas / porting - This is the formal ritual of the intent to severe the peace-pact. It is done be sending a notice of severance of the bodong with a coin wrapped in a piece of red cloth personally delivered.
Take note that the other subtribe must formally accept the gopas and a grace period of thirty (30) days as provided in subsection 2(e) of Art. VI, Sec. 5.
This procedure was placed to highlight the importance of the bodong being in place. Every stumbling blocks are placed to give ample time for both parties to amicably settle the case.
2.e When the gopas is properly and formally accepted by the offending party, bodong holder and the umili, then the bodong is finally severed effective 30 days from receipt of the acceptance of the severance;
2.f Should the bodong be restored, the offending party will pay the damsak.
This provides for the procedure before the bodong is severed due to intentional killing or infliction of injuries.
The sending of the busdung/bugsung di butu is a ritual performed to report the incident to the kasupang.
This does not mean severance of the bodong (gopas)
It is done by sending a piece of red cloth (condiman). Literally, busdung/bugsung mean “wrap of the groin” together with a letter narrating the facts. This could be the equivalent of a formal complaint.
Butu is used because of the “life-giving” characteristic of the bodong.
Mabutuan (to have an enlarged scrotum) symbolizes death - symbolic of the violation of the pagta - and if the bodong holder will not work out for the immediate settlement of the case, he is looked down with disdain.
Section 6. Sarmak/sarsa/solma/losob - when a binodngan killed was not the intended victim, there is no bug-uy. By way of amicable settlement, the offender will pay ten (10) carabaos plus reasonable damages. If there is only injury, then the penalty shall be those penalties prescribed under Art. X, Section 1.
This provision embodies the principle of “mistake in identity”. The penalty is also ten (10) carabaos because from the outset, the offender had the intention to kill. He is made liable for the consequences of his voluntary acts.
But because there was no intention to kill his victim, this provision excuses him from paying the butu and he is deemed in the eyes of the bodong not to have violated the pagta (no bug-uy).
There was no intention to insult the bodong holder and no disrespect or disregard to the bodong.
Reasonable damages is explained earlier. For injuries as a result of saramak, etc., see annotation on physical injuries.
Saramak/sarsa/solma/losob are one and the same terms and of the same import. These are different appellations given by subtribes
The situation contemplated in saramak is where a person with intent to kill a person whom he thought was an enemy subtribe but it turned out later that said victim is not from the enemy subtribe. This is also true with losob.
The subtribes of A and B are in conflict with each other. A saw C and thinking that he is from the subtribe of B, inflicted injuries on him.
Solma and Sarsa
In this situation, the intended victim is known by the assailant from the very beginning but because of poor marksmanship or other reasons, another person was injured other than the intended victim.
“A” saw “B” whom he knows very well to be an enemy. He run after him but mixed himself with the crowd. “A” already pressed the trigger and what was hit was a bystander, named “C”.
Is “A” liable for the civil indemnity. YES, he is liable for the consequences of his voluntary act. Besides, he was negligent. But the bodong between B and C if C is a binodngan will not be affected. The concept is like that of solma.
Subtribes A and B are at war with one another. Five persons from subtribes “A” went within the bugis of subtribe B on a kayaw expedition and laid an ambushcade. Someone came in hiking along the trail where they waited and was ambushed by those from the subtribe A killing him. It turned out that the victim is from subtribe C covered by another bodong.
It was held that this is a case of saramak. The reason is that before they went for a kayaw, the other subtribes were duly informed not to go within the bugis of their enemy subtribe.
Under present day bodong jurisprudence, it seems that the concept has been broaden, for even killing in the bugis of other subtribes are claimed to be Saramak. This should not be the case, for the people from any subtribe have the right to be safe within their bugis.
Case: Tulgao vs. Bangad
Subscribes A and B were at war with one another. C was tending his kaingin which is within their (“C”) bugis. C was killed by men from subtribe A.
It was held that this is saramak which should not have been the case. At any rate, the indemnities were paid in accordance with his provision as the parties voluntarily agreed for settlement.
Whether saramak, solma, losob/sarsa, the penalty is ten (10) carabaos plus other customary damages if the victim dies.
If the result is injury, only the penalty is dependent on the gravity of the injury.
Section 7. Where offenders who belong to different bodong kill or injure any binodngan and it could not be ascertained who actually killed or injured the victim, then said offenders shall be penalized like patoy, share and alike. The case will be treated as one case only. They shall likewise contribute for the expenses of the settlement and customary damages, provided however, that where it is found out that the group belongs to an organized syndicate, they shall individually answer for the butu.
This contemplates of a situation where there was a tumultuous affray (free-for-all fight) and it could not be determined with certainty who among them inflicted the fatal would. Under this circumstance, all of them are liable to pay the indemnity in equal shares. There will be only one case. However, all of those who joined in the fight will answer individually for the indemnity (butu) due the bodong holder. They will share the expenses for the settlement of the case.
A, B, C, D & E are from different subtribes. They were all eating at the Emilia’s Kitchenette. Trouble erupted and after the fight F was found dead on the floor and it could not be ascertained who inflicted the fatal wound. Are they liable? Yes, all of them are guilty of killing F. They will pay ten (10) carabaos, plus damages share and share alike.
A, B, C, D & E are liable to pay the butu individually payable to the offended bodong holder from their respective subtribe, in addition to their share of the penalty. Each offender shall give one carabao to the offended bodong holder.
Section 8. Serious Physical Injuries - Where the victim did not die due to any reason, the offender is liable to pay five (5) carabaos. In addition thereto, he shall pay the medical and hospitalization expense, plus the customary tingiting, botok and songa where applicable. He shall likewise pay one (1) carabao to the offended peace pact holder and P1,000.00 as pagikna.
Elements of the crime:
1. A binodngan inflict injury to another binodngan
2. The injury must be serious.
Under the pagta, there are no frustrated or attempted killings. Frustrated killings are included in serious physical injuries. If the killing is only on its attempted stage, the crime is treated as am-am or layat, which is punishable by a multa, the highest of which is a carabao or it could be a pig.
What is meant by the phrase “serious”?
As used in this pagta, the seriousness of a crime is not measured strictly on the number of days of confinement or disability. For as long as a deadly weapon is used, the crime committed is serious.
Note: In determining the penalty, the “seriousness” of the crime is determined by the kind of wound and its location and how fatal it is. But for as long as a person is confined for more than a month, then it is reasonable to assume that it is serious.
Section 8 provides that the penalty for serious physical injuries is five (5) carabaos, or its equivalent value in cash or ricefields or heirlooms.
In addition to said penalty, the offender must pay the following:
1. Hospitalization expense;
2. Tingiting (one chicken) and a pig (songa);
4. One carabao to the offended bodong holder; and
5. P1,000.00 as pagikna to be given to his kasupang.
In actual conflict resolution, these provisions are used mainly as guidelines in the settlement.
The elders usually consider the ability to pay of the offending party and for how much the offended party would accept freely as satisfactory settlement of the case.
Section 9. Where the injury is less serious, the offender shall give to the victim by way of penalty two (2) carabaos and shall likewise shoulder the medical expenses including the customary tingiting, songa, batok/sipat where applicable and P500.00 as pagikna.
The penalty for less serious physical injury is two (2) carabaos. However, the offending party must shoulder also the medical and hospital expenses. In addition, he will provide the tingiting, songa, botok and pagikna, where applicable.
For violating the pagta, he is made to pay one (1) carabao to the offended bodong holder, and another P1,000.00 to his kasupang.
It should be noted that the physical injuries treated in Sections 8, 9 & 10 are all intentional felonies as distinguished from injuries inflicted through reckless imprudence.
Important words and phrases:
Tingiting - It is the ritual where a chicken’s feet is cut (wounded) to draw blood, then the same is applied to the wound, even as a prayer is said that said wound should not get swollen and it should heal immediately.
Songa - on the other hand, is a pig butchered, usually after the victim shall have been discharged from the hospital or have recuperated. Again, the purpose is to offer the pig in prayer for the early recovery of the victim.
Botok - Bead or beads to be tied around the wrist or where the wound is, to prevent the injury from swelling.
Section 10. Where the injury is slight, the penalty is one (1) carabao plus medical expenses incurred and P300.00 as pagikna.
If the injury is slight, the penalty is one (1) carabao.
Pagikna - is the amount given by the peace pact holder to his kasupang. It could be in cash or in kind. This is given as a signal and a token that the case has been finally settled.
In less serious physical injuries and slight injuries, there are still customary damages to be paid including pagikna.
The reason is that, the crime is relatively light to warrant the payment of damages. However, pagikna is given as this is to let the other bodong holder (kasupang) know of the fact of settlement.
Section 11. Where two (2) fought it out and one or both of them is injured or killed, each person shall be liable for the consequent act he inflicted. The person who started the fight (bummog-oy) shall pay the customary expenses, multa and pagikna to the bodong holder.
The section covers a situation where one binodngan has inflicted or is about to inflict injury to another binodngan who reacted and fought it out. If both are killed, then they are even in the eyes of the bodong. However, if one or both are injured, then each shall be liable for the act he inflicted.
However, upon proper investigation by the bodong, the person who started the aggression is liable to pay the butu to the offended bodong holder. In the eyes of the bodong, he was the one who violated the provision of the pagta.
In one case, Johnny (not his real name) from Lubo was with his companions about to board a center car in Dagupan. While waiting, Pedro from Butbut, who was drunk came and was making trouble. Johnny tried to pacify him, but instead of obliging, Pedro drew his fan knife and thrust it upon Johnny who suffered superficial wound. Johnny wrested the knife and stab Pedro who was seriously wounded.
It was settled in a way that Johnny, aside from the tingiting and the songa, paid the medical expenses. Pedro was made to pay the bodong holder of Butbut one (1) carabao for the violation of the pagta (pot-ak) as it was Pedro who started the fight and he was required to provide tingiting and songa.
Section 12. Any person who in defense of his person, a relative or companion, kills the aggressor, shall not be liable and the act does not constitute Bug-uy. However, he may give reasonable financial assistance to the family of the deceased.
This is what we call the principle of self-preservation.
A. Self-Defense: See annotation under Art.II, Sec. 7, (i);
B. Defense of a Relative - we have in the bodong the principle called komkom or putut, which simply means that any law abiding binodngan ought not to injure or kill another (whether binodngan or non-binodngan) when the intended victim is in the company of another binodngan. If he persists in inflicting injury, and he succeeded, the person in whose company the victim was, must be paid one (1) carabao by the offender, in addition to the penalty of the offense he committed.
However, if the person in whose company the victim was, injures or kills the assailant, he is not liable to pay the butu to the bodong for he is only avenging a violation/stigma committed against his honor. This is the basis of the provision. There is no bug-uy.
Why do Section 12 states that the person defending his person or property “may give reasonable damages, when he was defending himself?
The reason is that every Kalinga knows that because of the incident, the harmonious and peaceful relationship between the assailant and the victim is restrained. Legally, he is not required to pay but morally, he knows that he has taken away a life and/or has injured someone and there could never be peace without justice. He therefore pays damages to appease the anger and to assuage the pain of loss and suffering of the other party. By tradition, to have permanent peace, the parties can arrange for the intermarriage of their sons and daughters, so that whatever dusa given becomes the property of both their children given in marriage.
Section 13. When the person robbed under extreme circumstances, kills the thief, robber or hold-upper, there is no bug-uy. However, the offended may extend reasonable financial assistance to the family of the victim.
This section refers to the right of every owner to protect his properties. Under the provision, he may utilize reasonable force to protect his properties. If the robber however fights back, and in the process is killed, there is no liability of the property owner for such death. However, as is the practice here in Kalinga, the assailant may give whatever financial assistance to help defray the expenses incurred in connection with the said death.
One morning at Purok 5, Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga, two persons were discovered dead along the road. It appears that at about 4:00 o’clock in the morning, Edgar allowed the “pandesal” boys to enter their bakery to get “pandesal” fro them to sell. The two armed men, entered and announced a hold-up. Edgar put up a fight and the robbery was foiled. The two robbers scampered away wounded. However, they died.
For such deaths, the parents of the robbers tried to claim for damages, but they were unsuccessful.
“Under extreme circumstances”
This phrase was inserted to safeguard the possibility of any killing done in the guise of protecting one’s property. This is a recognition of the primacy of life over the right to property. In order for the killing to be justified, meaning, for the bodong to be unaffected, the situation must be such that the assailant’s life is in immediate physical danger. In other words, it is a situation where it is either the life of the robber or of the person defending his property.
Section 14. Where two persons agree to a duel and one is killed, then there is no bug-uy and liability. However, he shall give reasonable financial assistance to the family of the deceased. If both are killed, then there is no bug-uy and liability.
This section covers what is called as duel. It is a situation where two persons have agreed to a fight on a preset time and place, and if because of the agreement to fight, both were killed, there is no bug-uy. The bodong is not affected.
This situation does not obtain where a person would go to the house of another person and challenges the latter for a fight. In such a situation, if the challenger is killed or injured, there is no bug-uy. The reason is that the assailant never agreed to a fight. In fact, it was the victim who started the fight or trouble.
A was a bit drunk. He armed himself with a bolo and proceeded to the house of B. While thereat, he challenged B for a fight. B went and they fought and A was killed.
Is A liable to pay the butu? No.
Is the bodong affected? No.
However, B has a limited obligation. He may give damages. The reason is that he has no fault. It is A’s fault.
Section 15. Am-am (gave threat) - Where the offender threatens to kill another binodngan by words or deeds, he shall be penalized (mamulta) with one (1) carabao.
In the olden days, gave threat was not an offense under the pagta. The principal reason is that the person who did it had really no intention to kill or to injure a person he threatens. It may have arose from the heat of anger. Otherwise, if he had the intention, then why did he do it?
Under the new provision, it is now penalized by one carabao, the same to be butchered and for all who are present to eat.
Men from Lubo went to Bangad. While there, a man from the place was very angry at them. In fact, he unsheathed his bolo and with it, struck the ground where the Ilubu were seated, each trying to move a bit further away as the blows comes nearer to them.
The people from Lubo just charged it to experience explaining that they were not hit anyway so why make a case out of it in the bodong.
Section 16. Putut / Komkom - Where a binodngan is killed in the presence of or in the company of another binodngan, the binodngan offender shall pay a fine (multa) of one (1) carabao to the person in whose company a crime was committed, in addition to the penalty of the crime of killing.
See annotation under Sec. 12, this Article.
Section 17. Tuyuk - Where a person through his acts or words induce another to kill or inflict to another person, the penalty shall be a fine (multa) of five (5) carabaos.
Elements of tuyuk:
1. A person induces another person to kill or inflict injury to another person;
2. Through words or deed; and
3. The intended victim was killed or injured by the person induced to commit the crime.
The penalty is pegged at 5 carabaos or its equivalent. It may be asked why the penalty is quite high considering the fact that he was not the one who killed or injured the victim. However, in the eyes of the pagta, he participated in the commission of the crime as principal by inducement.
The penalty provided here is different from the penalty of the principal by direct participation.
A and B are friends. They went to a night club for some drinks. A met his long time enemy named C. A then shot C but because of poor marksmanship, C was not hit. C knows very well A & B to be close friends and tribesmates, and because A ran away, C stab B with whom he has no grudge at all, except that he was only a companion.
Is A liable to the injury inflicted on B? YES. He is liable because if he did not shoot C, then C would not have stabbed B. This is inducement by act.
Section 18. Ibit - Where a person by design unknown to the victim points to the victim or accompany the assailant and points to the person and the victim pointed to was killed, the offender shall pay a fine (multa) of five (5) carabaos.
Under this Article, what is penalized is the inducer - say mastermind, who may have an ax to grind against the intended victim.
Distinction between tuyuk and ibit:
In tuyuk, the victim may not have any fault at all. It is the inducer who was at fault. The victim is just that - a victim whose only fault was for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
In Ibit, the victim and the assailant may have some misunderstanding or that their subtribes may be at war with each other so that the role of the “mangibit” was to point to the victim who maybe his friend and is known by them. The assailant does not know the identity of his victim personally.
A is from Cagaluan and B is from Lubuagan. Because of the brewing tribal war between the people of Cagaluan and Lubuagan, each is looking for the other to revenge. C who is from Lubo knows B, a person from Lubuagan. C has a grudge against B. So what he did was to accompany A to where B is staying. A injured B.
Under this circumstance, C is liable under this section for without him, who pointed to B, B should not have been killed.
Section 19. Tutuk - Any binodngan with intent to kill points his gun or deadly weapon to another binodngan is liable. The penalty is a fine (multa) of two (2) carabaos or its equivalent in kind or cash.
What is punishable here is the act of pointing a gun or other deadly weapon. There must be intent to kill.
Intent to kill is a pure mental process, so that the surrounding circumstance must be considered if only to arrive at a reasonable conclusion that there is really the intent to kill.
For instance, there could never be tutuk if it is found out that the gun used is but a toy gun. There could never have been any intent to kill under this circumstance. It could have been a practical joke. But it is different where a toy gun is used as a means to commit robbery and in fact he succeeded in divesting the victims of cash and/or valuables. The crime committed is robbery, not tutuk.
CRIMES COMMITTED IN VIOLATION OF THE BUGIS
Section 1. Any binodngan who revenges in the “Matagoan” zone of life, shall pay, in addition to the penalty for the crime committed, a fine (multa) of one (1) carabao payable to the offended bodong holder.
This is a new provision intended to address the tide of criminality in Tabuk. Especially that Dagupan and Bulanao are not within the defined bugis of any bodong, hence any one can revenge there for there is no particular bodong to fear, to go after the culprit. Under the old concept, we call this pupulligan - literally translated as “killing zone” or “place where head rolls”.
We have been witnesses to several killings by binodngan against another binodngan here in the Metropolitan Tabuk, causing so much economic dislocation and disruption on the activities of the binodngan. Students quit schools and workers leaves their places of work whenever subtribal conflict occurs.
This prompted the Kalinga leaders to declare Tabuk, among other places as “Matagoan Zone” or “Zone of life.”
It is provided now, that any violation of the provision is penalized by paying one carabao to the offended bodong holder.
For instance, when there is an existing subtribal conflict between Lubo and Lubuagan, both tribes are prohibited from taking revenge in the “matagoan area” so that if a person from Lubo revenges here in Tabuk, then he must pay one carabao to the bodong holder of Lubo for not being respected as such bodong holder.
Section 2. When a binodngan or mangili (visitor) enters the ili (village) of another binodngan and his property is stolen or lost, the peace pact holder or the host shall return the item lost or its value to the visitor. The bodong holder / host, when the offender is found, shall cause the offender to pay the cost of the items lost and be fined (mamulta).
This provision is the translation of the beautiful practices of our people here in Kalinga where a visitor is respected and treated with much lavish; when a visitor enters a village and he drinks in a house, or partakes of any food, he is protected by the person who offered him the food or water. His life and properties are secured.
Disrespect or insult to the visitor is an insult or disrespect to the host (nammangili).
The provision applies whether a visitor is a binodngan or not. When a personal belonging of a visitor is lost or stolen and despite investigation, it is not found, the host pays the value of the items lost or stolen as the visitor is leaving, and could not await the result of the investigation. However, should the culprit be found out later, the host shall be reimbursed his expenses and the culprit is made to pay a multa.
Section 3. When in the process of trying to recover a stolen large cattle and footprints are last seen within the bugis of another ili, the thief is presumed to be from the ili, in which case, the ili through the bodong holder will pay the value thereof.
We have here a presumption of law that where the last hoofprint is found within the territory of an ili, the pagta states that the thief must be from that ili. But if the community people satisfactorily explain or point out to the thief (for it is impossible for the barrio folks not to have seen the culprits), then said presumption is rebutted.
The reason for this presumption is that the barrio folks would not want to contribute for the payment, hence they are expected to report whoever they have seen trying to transport the carabao or large cattle. Large cattle include carabao, cows, even horses.
The same presumption is applied by analogy when a person is found dead or missing within the bugis of another bodong. If after exhaustive investigation and various circumstances show that he could have not been killed by anybody other than the people from the place, it could be reasonably presumed that the assailant is from the people in whose bugis the person was found dead or missing.
Sometime in the early 1970’s, a group of men and women from the subtribe of Basao went to Dao-angan, Balbalan for a bodong celebration. After the celebration, the councilor from Dao-angan invited and accompanied the group for a pasadang (entertainment) at his residence at Bin-ac, a sitio of Dao-angan. On the way at Sitio Comyaas, while taking their coffee together with the councilor and other, the oldest of the group for unknown reason suddenly hacked the councilor with his bolo at his mouth. Instantaneously, the group scampered and ran away towards different directions of the forested areas of Dao-angan.
Thereafter, all the members of the group were accounted for, except the assailant who was found missing up to this day.
When the councilor recovered, he filed a case in court but the case was amicably settled.
Years after, the subtribe of Basao claimed that the missing assailant was killed by the subtribe of Dao-angan based on the presumption by analogy under this Section and therefore were required by the bodong to indemnify or pay the “apas” as the case may be.
The Dao-angan subtribe settled the case of the missing member of the subtribe of Basao in the amount of P20,000.00. The bodong between the two subtribes was then restored.
Section 4. Dimok di pita (stained or soiled bugis) Where patoy is committed within the bugis, the offender shall pay darus/dimok pita, without prejudice to the claim of banat.
This is akin to the concept in the matagoan area. The territorial integrity of any ili should be respected. It is the “popoyya-awan” (place where to have fresh air) to tribes with tribal war or for subtribes with personal enemies. It is a sanctuary where whoever is there should not be molested while they are there.
If the sanctity of the bugis is violated, by spilling blood therein, the violator has to pay a carabao as multa. The term of the multa is dalus (cleaning of the stains).
Singyao is from Lubo. They have a kaingin in Pangol and they are temporarily residing there. Singyao has a beautiful wife and he suspected that his wife is seeing another man. One day, he got his gun and way laid the man he suspected as paramour of his wife. He shot the man wounding him seriously.
Held: Singyao was made to pay for the darus / dalus for having stained the bugis of Pangol.
Banat - this refers to the place of land where a person was killed. Said land belongs to the victim or the value thereof is reimbursed.
The “darus / dalus” here is not specified as to how much. This was made so to give the elders settling the case some room of discretion. But the darus / dalus is never less than the value of a grown carabao.
Section 5. Wakwak - Any binodngan who kills a visitor whether a binodngan or not at his house or outside the house within the bugis within twelve (12) hours is liable. The offender, in addition to the penalty of the crime committed, shall pay a fine (multa) of one (1) carabao to be given to the host of the victim.
To a Kalinga, killing a visitor who ate and drunk the food and water of his host is tabooed (paniyaw/kaniyaw). It is believed that the offender will not live a long and happy life.
It is the highest form betrayal for you have fed him, only to bring out the food from his stomach. Wakwak literally means “killing a person whereby the food eaten by him is spilled”.
Traders went to Lubuagan to sell goods. They were fed but they were killed. That is wakwak.
Another example of wakwak is the root cause of the tribal war between Lubo and Tulgao. Some men from Tulgao passed through Lubo. They were fed there, after which they proceeded to Mangali. While there, they were killed for unknown reasons. The people of Lubo resented the killing and avenged their death. Thereafter, they went to report the incident to Tulgao for the tumo.
Instead of giving the customary thanksgiving, the people of Tulgao killed them - that sparked the tribal fight in 1939.
That was the way in the past. You have to avenge the killing of your visitors. But Christian as we are, we have to obtain justice in a way consonant to the present view that killing as a way dispensing justice is prohibited. The offender now is liable to pay a fine of one (1) carabao.
Section 6. When a person is killed in the house or yard of a binodngan, the offender, in addition to the penalty for the killing, will pay a fine (multa) of two (2) carabaos, payable to the owner of the house, plus reasonable damages.
Section 7. In the same manner, when a binodngan is killed in a vehicle owned by a binodngan, the offender shall pay two (2) carabaos as multa, payable to the owner of the vehicle, plus reasonable damages.
Section 6 & 7 - Violation of domicile
To a Kalinga, the house and its surrounding (yard) is sacred. A vehicle is treated as extension of the house of the owner. That is his domain and everybody who comes there are automatically brought to the care and responsibility of the owner of the house. Any harm done to a visitor in said place is a harm to the owner of the house.
It is ba-in, a value that is at play here. Penalty for the violation of this provision is two carabaos. What is penalized here is the “act of disrespect” to the owner of the house, hence the phrase “in addition to the penalty for killing.”
As regards the vehicle, it does not matter if the culprit knows or not whether a vehicle belongs to a binodngan. It is his duty to verify before doing anything.
The Bayangan’s from Lubo owns a vehicle plying the Tabuk - Tuguegarao route. A passenger rode therein and was shot by one from Tulgao while near Nambaran. For said violation, the Tulgao people paid one carabao (penalty under their bilateral pagta) to the people of Lubo.
The word is “killed” - Is this exclusive only to killings? No. It includes any other crime such as rape.
Section 8. Where theft or robbery is committed in the house or vehicle of a binodngan as above-mentioned, the binodngan offender shall, in addition to the prescribed penalty of the crime committed, pay a reasonable amount of fine (multa), payable to the owner of the house or vehicle.
What is protected here are the properties of the binodngan. Note that the penalty is restitution and multa, that is the offender will shoulder the expenses of settlement. He must provide the pig, the rice and drinks for the people who are gathered.
CRIMES AGAINST WOMANHOOD
Section 1. Pagod / gobao (rape) - rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstance:
a. Use of force or intimidation;
b. Where a woman is deprived of reason or is rendered unconscious;
c. when asleep.
This section defines rape as having carnal knowledge of a woman by use of force or intimidation; where the woman is otherwise deprived of reason or is rendered unconscious and when the woman is asleep.
The above definition does not distinguish, hence it covers what we have in our national laws as statutory rape.
What must be punishable under this section is the insertion of the male organ to the organ of the woman, not anything.
Elements of rape (pugod/kolas):
1. The offender must be a man;
2. The offender has carnal knowledge with the woman;
3. That said act is accomplished under any of the following, to wit:
a. Use of force or intimidation;
b. Where a woman is deprived of reason or rendered unconscious;
c. When the woman is asleep (gubao).
The equivalent term for rape is pugod / kolas (to restrain with force).
There must be sexual intercourse in Rape
Penetration, even if partial is necessary. The slightest penetration would be enough.
If there is no sexual intercourse and only lewdness was performed, the offense is not rape but could be acts of lasciviousness punished under Section 5 hereof.
Under national laws, rape could be committed by inserting anything to the vaginal canal, not necessarily the male organ. Likewise, a male or female could commit rape. But under the pagta, only a male can commit rape.
1. lloma, a woman of the Tinglayan subtribe married to one from Magnao subtribe, was a passenger in a jeep coming from Tabuk and going to Naneng. When the jeep arrived at Lucog, Tabuk, it was getting a little bit dark and llloma alighted bound for her home. Another passenger, a CAFGU from Magnao also alighted and he offered to accompany the woman until their house because it is already getting darker. Iloma refused but the man insisted. While they were a little bit far from the road, the man suddenly grabbed her. She struggled to get free from his strong hold but in vain. He threatened to kill her if she shouted and resisted. He successfully raped her. The next day, lloma submitted herself to medical examination. Tinglayan proper has no existing bodong with Magnao and so the relatives of the woman threatened to kill if the case is not settled. The case was settled and a bodong relationship established.
2. Tannobong is secluded sitio where houses are from each other. One morning Marcela, an Igorot but married to one from Lubuagan washing clothes while her husband was out at sitio Saudi Bulo to tend their farm. She needed some clips so she went inside their house to get some. She was followed by one Magannon from the Sumadel subtribe and once inside, the man got hold of her and attempted to lay down with her. Marcela struggled with the man at the same time shouting. Afraid that he might discovered, the man ran away. The case was brought to the attention of the bodong. After two or three meetings, the man paid the victim two carabaos as settlement.
Section 2. Penalty - The penalty for rape is 12 carabaos.
The law provides for the specific penalty of twelve carabaos. It is of the opinion that the pagta provides only for the penalty of consummated rape, so in cases where the stages of execution is not consummated, the penalty is multa of not less than one carabao.
Section 3. If as a result of rape, a child is born, the child is entitled to support, in addition to the penalty of rape.
The provision is intended to assure financial support to the child as a result of rape. Support in the olden days consists in giving ricefield and heirlooms where available. Upon living birth, the father must give:
1. Palakson (inheritance) - he must give his ricefield, if he has, or some pieces of land;
2. If he has, he also gives antique jars;
3. Provide for the education of the child.
In short, he must provide the basic needs like food, shelter and clothing, and provide a good future by giving the child the appropriate education.
Section 4. If after the rape, the parties agreed to marry, the penalty is extinguished.
If after the rape, and the rapist marries the girl, there is no liability. The reason is that the victim has forgiven the rapist.
Section 5. Any person who commits acts of lasciviousness, with lewd designs upon the person of a woman under the circumstances provided for in Sec. 1, Art. VIII shall pay a fine (multa) of 1 carabao.
The circumstances contemplated here are the kobbor (mushing of breast of a woman); kawot (inserting a finger on the private part of a woman); kawor (embracing a woman), aprus/appad (touching the woman).
For this to be punishable there must be lewd designs or there must be the intention to do it for the satisfaction of doing it. There must be malice.
Accidental touching of a woman’s part is not covered here.
The penalty is one carabao, it is the opinion of this writer that the carabao must be butchered and nothing goes to the woman. This is in accordance with the old practice of the Kalingas.
Shirley, a young woman of 19 years, single and belonging to the Lubuagan subtribe helped in serving meals at the restaurant of her cousin who was married to one of Lubo subtribe. The restaurant is located at Bulanao, Tabuk,. Juan, a married man and known to be notorious person belonging to the Tinglayan subtribe while being served by Shirley, suddenly touched her breast. The case was referred to the bodong of Tinglayan and Lubuagan and after a series of negotiations, the man paid one (1) carabao to the woman as settlement.
Section 6. Sokwao/daladag - Any married man having an illicit affair (dagdagas) with the wife of another man and their relationship was subsequently discovered, shall be fine (mamulta) of one (1) carabao0 to be butchered, during the settlement. In addition, he shall pay a fine (multa) of three (3) carabaos to be given to the husband of the woman (dagdagas), and the married woman shall also be fined (mamulta) of two (2) carabaos to be given to the wife of the offending husband.
Elements of the offense:
1. The man must be married;
2. The woman is likewise married;
3. There is an illicit relationship; and
4. The relationship was discovered.
Must there be a legal marriage in accordance with national laws? It is not necessary. What is important here is that the man and the woman were married in accordance with the customary practice, for instance:
a) The man and woman agreed to marry;
b) The marriage rituals were performed such as ngilin/palanos.
c) The man and the woman cohabited with one another.
How about illicit relationships that were not discovered?
If there is no discovery of the relationship, there is no crime.
Must the discovery be by the spouse only?
It is opined that for as long as the illicit relationship is discovered, the crime is consummated.
1. The man who carries the relationship must pay 3 carabaos t6o the husband of his paramour (dagdagas);
2. The paramour (dagdagas) must pay 2 carabaos to the wife of the man with whom he had illicit relationship;
3. The offender (man) must produce a carabao to be butchered during the settlement .
Juan and Maria are husband and wife. Likewise Pedro and Petra are husband and wife. Juan and Petra had an affair. When discovered, Juan has to pay 3 carabaos to Pedro. Petra, for her part has to indemnify Maria for 2 carabaos. Juan must produce another carabao to be butchered during the settlement and provide the rice drinks.
All in all, the offending husband must produce 4 carabaos.
Why is it that it is Maria and Pedro who are the recipients of the indemnity?
It is so because they are the offended parties.
Valentino, a married man belonging to the Tulgao subtribe was a business associate of Diana, a married woman of the Lubuagan subtribe. During the constant companionship of the two in their antique business, a love relationship resulted and Diana failed to come home to her husband and children. After a long period of time of absence from home, the relatives of Diana went to look for her and after a long search, they found them staying in the house of one of the relatives of the man. The husband of Diana brought a case against Valentino under the bodong. Valentino refused to pay for the reason that Diana voluntarily went with him and in fact wanted to separate from his husband so that they will marry each other. But the bodong would not give in to the reasoning of the man. Up to now, the relatives of Diana are waiting for the payment of the five (5) carabaos as settlement of the act complained of.
Section 7. If the relationship is between a married man and an unmarried woman, the offending spouse shall be fined (mamulta) of one (1) carabao to be butchered during the settlement. In addition, he and his paramour (dagdagas) shall pay one (1) carabao each to be given to the offended spouse.
Elements of the offense:
1. There is an illicit relationship between a married man and an unmarried woman;
2. The relationship is discovered.
1. the married man must produce two (2) carabaos, one to be butchered (multa) and the other to be given to his wife;
2. the single woman must likewise pay the offended wife one head carabao.
Rationale of the Provision:
The married man is penalized because of his unfaithfulness to his wife. In like manner, the paramour is penalized for one carabao, for in accepting the married man, she has destroyed the family of the man and disgraced her family.
The question may be raised: Suppose the woman does not know her paramour to be married, is she still liable?
The provision does not distinguish whether she has knowledge or no knowledge of the marriage. She is still liable.
The reason is that any one can disclaim knowledge of the marriage, hence it is presumed that she has knowledge of the marriage. Besides, before agreeing to illicit relationship, she has to exercise prudence.
Section 8. If a married woman carries an illicit affair with a single man, the single man shall be fine (mamulta) of one carabao to be butchered during the settlement. in addition, the married woman (dagdagas) and the single man shall pay one (1) carabao each to be given to the offended husband.
This is the reverse of Sec. 7 above. It is now the married woman who carries an illicit relationship with a single man.
The basic distinction between Sec. 7 and 8 is that the married woman in Sec. 7 is not required to produce one (1) carabao as multa (to be butchered). It is the man however, for her unfaithfulness, she is required to give one carabao to her husband.
It is the single man who is required to produce the one head carabao as multa. Why? Because it is believed that he is the tempter. Had he not tempt the woman, the woman could not have been unfaithful. In addition, he is made to pay one (1) carabao to the offended husband.
Section 9. If a husband or wife abandons permanently his or her spouse and cohabits with one another, the offender shall pay a fine (multa) of 3 carabaos. If they have children, the offending spouse shall forfeit his/her share of all their conjugal properties and provide support to the children.
This section treats of abandonment. The offender here could either be the husband or wife. The abandonment here must be permanent.
Elements of the offense:
1. Either spouse abandons the other by leaving the family home.
2. He/ She must cohabit with another.
3. No justifiable reasons.
How about if the person abandons his spouse but does not cohabit with another one? Is she or he liable?
It is believed that the intention of the provision is the abandonment without justifiable reasons. It is the fact of abandonment that is the gravamen of this offense.
The reasons are these: marriage is a permanent union and under the Kalinga culture. This union can only be voluntarily dissolved by the parties if they have no children. One cannot just walk away from marriage without the consent of his partner. This is the reason why the penalty is quiet heavy - 3 carabaos.
The provision also provides that the offending spouse forfeits his/her share of their conjugal properties; and must provide support for his/her children - that is, provide for their basic needs including their education.
The provision speaks of the conjugal properties being forfeited if they have children. How about his capital/paraphernal properties that he/she brought to the marriage. Does he get them?
NO. The reason is that he/she has children and whatever inheritance he had must be transferred to his children. That is the customary law.
Section 10. If the reason for leaving the spouse is due to repeated violence on his or her person, the spouse who leaves the conjugal home is not liable, but he/she may give support when warranted.
This provision is an exception to the general rule enunciated in Sec. 9 above. By express provision of law is the reason for abandoning the home is due to repeated violence to his or her person, then he/she is not liable. However, he/she is not absolved of his/her obligation to give support to the children “when warranted”.
Section 11. The spouse who inflicts injuries on his/her spouse shall be liable to the extent of the gravity of the injuries inflicted in accordance with the provisions of the pagta.
Section 12. If as a result of repeated beating or by any acts, the battered spouse is killed, the offender is liable to pay a fine of ten (10) carabaos by way of settlement and provide support to the children. If the offender is the one killed by the battered spouse, there is no liability/bug-oy.
The offending spouse in Sec. 10 above is liable to the injuries he/she inflicted. If the battered spouse dies as a result of the beating, the offending spouse is liable for his/her death. He/she is penalized 10 carabaos and must give support to the children.
When however, the battered spouse kills his spouse who beat him, he is exculpated. He is not liable for such death.
Neither does it constitute bug-uy - meaning it will not be brought to the bodong.
Section 13. Lugung (seduction). When a man has carnal knowledge with a virgin or a widow committed by any means of deceit, he shall be liable to pay a fine of two (2) carabaos. If as a result thereof, a child is born, then support shall be given. If the woman dies at childbirth (nanapil), the offender shall shoulder the funeral expenses.
1. Carnal knowledge with a virgin/widow;
2. By means of deceit;
3. The woman must be a virgin/widow.
A has a girlfriend named B. A promised to marry B, and because of that promise, B gave herself to A.
Is A liable? YES because without his promise of marriage, he would not have been successful in having carnal knowledge of B.
The provision only states that the woman must be a virgin. What does virginity mean?
It is believed that virginity should not be taken in its technical sense. For as long as the woman is single and unmarried, she should be considered a virgin in the context of the provision.
The pagta provides for the payment of two (2) carabaos. The two (2) carabaos will be given to the offended woman.
However, as is customary here in Kalinga, the offender must butcher a pig and provide drinks for the people who settled the case.
If as a result of the seduction, a child is born, the offender must acknowledge the child and give the customary inheritance and support to the child.
If the woman dies at child birth, the man must pay the funeral expenses, the amount of which shall be determined by the elders considering the various circumstances then present. The only guideline here is the reasonability of the expenses claimed.
Section 14. Lukluk/labok/lobak. ( desecrating a widow) - any man cohabiting with a widow who is still in mourning shall be fined (mamulta) one (1) carabao and the widow shall pay P 5,000.00 as baba-u to the heirs/relatives of the deceased husband.
1. a man cohabits with a widow;
2. the widow is still in mourning.
Section 15. Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any one of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them or any of them serious physical injuries shall not be liable, however he shall pay reasonable financial assistance to the families of the victim. There is no bug-uy.
This provision contains the exempting circumstances- the person who kills or injures his/her spouse and/or paramour in flagrante delicto or immediately thereafter is not liable.
1. the offender must be legally married;
2. must have surprised his/her spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another man/woman or immediately thereafter;
3. kills or inflicts physical injuries on any or both of them.
1. The offender must be legally married- this phrase must be read in the cultural context of the concept of marriage. For as long as the man and the woman cohabited with each other in accordance with the marriage practices of the Kalingas, he is covered by this provision even if they are not armed with a certificate of marriage.
2. The element of having surprised his/her spouse in the act - this means that the spouse has discovered them in the act of sexual intercourse of immediately thereafter. There must be sexual intercourse, otherwise this provision does not apply.
Note that the phrase is “immediately thereafter”, so that when the circumstances are such that it could not be stated with certainty that there was sexual intercourse, then this provision will not be available. For instance, his spouse and the other man are merely talking to one another, when they were chanced upon. It would be different if they were chanced upon still naked or are putting in their clothing.
Why is the spouse exempted from liability?
At the moment the man chanced upon his wife committing an infidelity, it could be said that he was so angered that his/her ability to think of the consequences of his acts are impaired. He acted on impulse. He was not of his right senses. This is also true with the wife surprising her husband in the act of committing infidelity.
He/she is exempted of any criminal liability. Interpreted, his/her act does not result to bug-uy, hence in the eyes of the pagta, he/she did not violate any provision.
He/she however, is obliged by tradition to help defray the expenses in connection of such death or injury.
While it is true that he/she is not criminally liable and that the peace pact is not affected, the fact remains that he/she killed someone or injured someone and in order to save him/herself from possible revenge, he/she has to give financial assistance to buy peace. Without appeasing the anger of the victim, he/she will never be at ease. Justice in the bodong demands that whatever wrong done must be compensated.
Section 16. Toddak di babae (Abduction) - It is the taking away of any woman against her will and with lewd designs. The offender shall be liable to pay five (5) carabaos. However, if the crime is a means employed in the commission of the crime of rape, the offender shall be imposed the penalty for rape.
This is a new provision.
1. a man takes away a woman against her will;
2. with force; and
3. with lewd designs.
“A woman” - there is no distinction here- whether married or not.
The taking must be against the will or without the consent of a woman, so that where the taking is with consent, this provision will not apply.
There must be lewd design. If there is no lewd design, then it may be kidnapping
Where the taking however is the means to commit rape, then the abductor is liable for rape.
This provision provides for a penalty of five (5) heads of carabaos.
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Section 1. Pulos (robbery) - is the unlawful taking of personal property of a binodngan through violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. The offender shall pay triple the value of the thing taken and shall be fined (mamulta) and pay a reasonable pagikna.
Two (2) kinds of Robbery:
1. Robbery through force or violence against any person;
A was walking along the street. B snatched his clutch bag. There is taking here by force.
In the same example, B poked a gun at A and got his wallet. This is again pulos. Violence is exerted on A by B.
2. Robbery through force upon things.
A stored his coffee beans in their house. When A and his family were out of the house, B and C destroyed the padlock of A’s house and carted away twenty (20) cavans of coffee beans. There is robbery by force upon things.
The whole concept of robbery is not found in the old pagta. Robbery with force and intimidation was unthinkable then. There were no hold-ups.
It was the committee on pagta codification that provided this in the light of the new incidents of robbery and hold-ups.
What was provided in the old pagta was the provision on akaw or theft as defined in Sec. 4 hereof.
“personal property” - these are properties as contra distinguished with real properties.
This provision pegged the penalty at triple the value of the property taken.
However, where the property stolen was recovered, the said property shall be returned and the person is made to pay the expenses of settlement, reimburse reasonable expenses incurred in the recovery thereof. This is the old provision. However, as worded now, the provision does not make any distinction whether the stolen item is recovered or not. The culprit must pay three (3) times the value.
The reason for the heavier penalty was meant to discourage people from committing robbery. As distinguished for theft, there is the added danger of bodily harm to the person robbed, whereas in theft, there is no danger to the person of the property owner.
Pagikna - this is the token which could be in cash given to the kasupang (counterpart bodong holder) from whose tribe the offended property owner comes from.
The bodong has laid down the principle that the aggrieved bodong holder is the tribesmate of the offender, and since said offender is from the same tribe, then the offender cannot run away from his obligation.
By way of illustration:
A from Lubo is the bodong holder for Balinciagao. B is his counterpart, who is from Balinciagao.
If C from Balinciagao robs a person from Lubo, say “D”. D must report the robbery to “A” who must formally inform B. B upon receipt of the information must make “C” pay. If C pays D, then B now will send a pagikna to A, which amount is deemed reasonable based on the value involved in the settlement.
Section 2. If as a consequence of or on the occasion of robbery, a person is killed or injured, then the offender is answerable to such death or injuries as penalized under Article VI. He shall return the thing taken or pay the value thereof and shoulder the expenses of settlement plus a reasonable pagikna.
For as long as killing or injury happened as a consequence of or was a result of the act, the offender is liable for such death or the injury.
A entered the house of B. A announced the hold-up but B resisted. A killed B in the process. A run away with Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00)
Is A liable?
YES. A is liable for the death of B. A may not have the intention in the first place to kill B but because of the resistance, he was forced to do it. He is likewise required to butchered a pig during the settlement and to give pagikna.
It should be noted that the penalty for robbery is not imposed. The reason is that he is already punished for the death of the victim. This is also true with physical injuries.
Note: See annotation on killing and physical injuries.
Section 3. If as a consequence of or on the occasion of robbery, rape is committed, the offender is liable for rape. In addition thereto, he shall shoulder the multa and the pagikna.
Rape is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of robbery.
As in section 2, the primary purpose or intention of the offender is to rob. Where however, as a second thought, rape is committed, the crime or robbery is deemed absorbed and the offender is liable for rape.
Section 4. Akaw (theft) - is the taking of personal property of a binodngan without his consent and without violence. The offender shall pay double the value of the thing stolen and be fined (mamulta). He shall give reasonable pagikna.
1. There is taking of personal property;
2. Without the consent of the owner;
3. There is no violence against person.
Personal properties are properties of a person that could be carried away as distinguished from real properties such as lands, houses and machineries attached to the land. So it could be anything.
The imposable penalty is double the value of the thing stolen, moreover, the offender should shoulder the expenses of settlement and give reasonable pagikna.
The word used is “reasonable”. That is so for the amount depends on the total claims due. The bigger the amount, the bigger the pagikna. But it may not exceed one carabao.
How about if the thing stolen was recovered, would the penalty be double? YES, that is so because of the express provision of this pagta.
Section 5. Any binodngan who purchases a personal property, knowing it to be stolen, shall return the same to the owner or pay the value thereof. In addition, he shall be fined (mamulta). Under no circumstances will the owner of the property be made to reimburse the payment made by the purchaser.
This is what we call in national laws the anti-fencing law. Why is this punishable?
It has been a recent practice that some people make it their business to buy stolen items for a very low price and sell it for profits. Or if they are discovered, then they will demand from the owner a large amount (saka) for them to give back the stolen item.
The committee therefore, inserted this provision to correct this evil. For all purposes, the people buying stolen items are in a way encouraging thieves from stealing as they can always buy it. Whereas, if no one buy stolen items, then thieves will have a hard time disposing of these items.
The buyer of the stolen items must pay the value of the stolen items and is required to shoulder the expenses of settlement plus pagikna.
He may however run after the thief for reimbursement. He is not allowed to be reimbursed for the payment he made to the thieves.
Section 6. AKAW DI LUWANG, BAKA unno KABAYO - Penalty - the offender shall return the carabao or the value thereof. In addition thereto, he shall give another carabao or its monetary value as “gungpur/patun-od” and be fined (mamulta) of one (1) carabao to be butchered and is obliged to give reasonable pagikna.
This is an old provision of the pagta.
The thief is actually made to pay three (3) carabaos or cattle. One carabao is for the restitution of the stolen carabao, or if the carabao is recovered, the same is returned. The thief is required to pay another carabao as “gungpur/patun-od”. This is meant to answer for the expense in terms of efforts, money and time spent to look for the carabao. The third carabao is the multa. This is to be butchered by the umili in addition, he must give pagikna.
Balla-ao is from Lubo. He brought to Lubo a stolen carabao. A few days later, Sgt. Eyadan from Naneng came to Lubo and he laid claims to the carabao. The bodong holder from Lubo went to get the carabao and gave it to Eyadan, another carabao was given as gungpur and another one was butchered and a pagikna was given.
Before giving the carabao to Sgt. Eyadan, he was made to certify that the carabao belongs to him. A few months however, it surfaced that the carabao does not belong to him.
For falsely claiming as his, what does not belong to him, he was made to account for said falsehood and aside from returning what he took, he was required to answer for the multa.
It was agreed that the case in the DAR must proceed and whoever comes out the winner may take it. In the meantime, there is a temporary truce.
Section 9. SOGOB (arson) - Any binodngan who intentionally and maliciously burn any property of another binodngan shall pay the value of the property and a fine (multa) of one (1) carabao as sobsob. In addition thereto, he shall pay reasonable damages and pagikna.
This provision refers to arson. The element of malice and the intent to burn must be present, otherwise, this provision may not apply.
The following elements must concur:
1. there is burning of the property of another person;
2. the burning must be done intentionally;
3. there is malice; and
4. damage was sustained.
Suppose the burning was accidental. Does this provision apply? NO. This is by express provision. What the law excludes, it does not include.
The offender must pay the value of the damage sustained, butcher one carabao as multa, (sobsob), which literally mean “to douse off the fire with water”. In addition, he shall pay “ reasonable” damages and “pagikna”.
Reasonable expense - this phrase was inserted so that the people who will settle the case will be provided with discretion as to the amount considering all the circumstances including the ability of the person to pay.
How about if the burning was accidental? It is believed that the offender will still have to pay the value of the damage incurred. He may not however be made to pay for the sobsob or the multa of one carabao.
Section 10. Swindling or Estafa - is the defrauding of a binodngan by taking undue advantage of or abusing his or her confidence by converting into one’s personal benefit the money or property which the victim had given in trust or deposited to the offender. The offender shall pay double the value of the thing swindled and shall be fined (mamulta).
This is a new provision.
In the past, the people traded with one another by entrusting their heirlooms or anything of value to another for a definite price and for said person to sell it with the agreement that the goods shall be returned when unsold or the price agreed upon be paid when the item is sold.
The difference between the selling price and the amount agreed upon by the parties belong to the “agent”. And on those days, no problem whatsoever cropped up regarding this provision.
It was only recently that binodngan begun to renege on their promises and this spawned a lot of problems. This led the committee to include this provision in the pagta.
This partakes of what we call sale by commission or consignment (sakbal/angkat).
1. there is defraudation;
2. committed either with abuse of confidence; or
3. by taking advantage of the trust of confidence;
4. there is conversion by personal use/benefit; and
5. cash or property given in trust.
The offender shall pay double the amount of what was deposited or given in trust.
A is from Lubo and he went to Pinukpuk. He was entrusted by B, a strand of precious beads worth Twenty Five Thousand pesos (P25,000.00). A sold it for Thirty Thousand pesos (P30,000.00). Instead of remitting Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) to B, he spent it for the education of his children. B demanded payment but A failed to pay. Is A liable?
YES. He has to pay Fifty Thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and to shoulder the multa.
Section 11. YAM-AN (Malicious Mischief)- Any person who shall deliberately cause to the property of another any damage shall pay double the value of the damage done and be fined (mamulta).
This provision concerns the intentional destruction of property/ies belonging to another person or the causing of damage to properties, i.e., destruction of fences, plants other improvements, etc.
The penalty is double the value of what was destroyed and in addition, the perpetrator will answer for the multa.
Section 12. IJUNJUN / IYAD-ADANI DI KIGAD (alteration of boundaries) - Any person who shall deliberately alters boundaries or transfer monuments or boundaries shall return the possession thereof and be fined (mamulta).
What is penalized here?
1. Alteration by transferring of fences to enlarge the area of one’s property;
2. Alteration by transferring of monuments (mohon);
This must be intentional with the aim of usurping the property of another adjacent owner.
The offender shall return the possession of what was taken and in addition shoulders the multa.
Section 1. Any person who by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act which, had it been intentional constitutes a grave crime against person, shall be liable for death or injuries. Where death results therefrom, the offender shall pay five (5) carabaos. If injuries results therefrom, he shall shoulder the hospitalization expenses. If the result of the acts constitute damage to property, the offender shall repair the damages incurred. In all the above, the offender shall shoulder the customary expenses of settlement (aliglo).
Killing resulting from reckless imprudence
This is what we call in the local dialect “dipun nigagara” or “bokon na nagagara”.
1. There is killing or physical injuries; and
2. Killing resulted from accident/reckless imprudence .
1. Killing as a result of car accident.
2. A, a member of the PNP was cleaning his gun. In the process, the gun went off and B, a neighbor was hit and he died. Is A liable? YES. Because, he was negligent.
3. A and B went to hunt for wild animals. They went on separate ways. In the evening, something moved in the bush. A, thinking that it was a wild pig, shot at the place where the movement was. It turned out that B was hit and killed.
In all the above examples, the person who is responsible for the killing is liable to pay the damages as provided in this section.
Section 1. LIBEL/SLANDER - Any binodngan who shall maliciously and publicly impute to another the commission of a crime, vice or defect, or any act or omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of another, shall be fined (mamulta). The fine (multa) shall depend upon the gravity of the crime imputed.
1. The offender maliciously impute to another the commission of a crime, vice or defect, act or omission, condition, stature or circumstances;
2. In public;
3. Which acts/imputation/vice or defect;
4. Tends to cause dishonor/discredit or contempt; and
5. It is not truthful.
Malicious - not any imputation of acts, vice or defect is punishable. It must be done with malice and in a formal forum.
An act is malicious when the intent of the person making the imputation is to destroy the good name of a person and there is no truth in the statement. When however, the person is stating the truth, then he may not be held liable.
Rustom Ewangga is a known criminal in Tabuk - declared as Public Enemy No. 1. When the bulldozers of OCDC were burned in Mapaoay, Tabuk, Kalinga, somebody from Nambaran was arrested and he alleged that Rustom Ewangga was the one who burned the equipment, when the truth is that he is not. When brought to the attention of the bodong, the people of Tulgao fined (minulta) their tribemate who made the imputation.
Note that all the elements of the crime were present.
Public - by public, it is meant that the statement is said in the presence of the other people; when and was published or copies were distributed for people to read.
The penalty is not specific. It is dependent on the gravity of the act considering all the obtaining circumstances.
Section 2. TRESPASS TO DWELLING - Any person who enters the dwelling of another with intent to commit a crime shall be fined (mamulta). If he committed a crime therein, he is liable for the crime he perpetuated.
This provision punishes a person who enters the dwelling of another person without his consent and knowledge and with intent to commit a crime.
1. There must be entry into the dwelling of another one;
2. Without the consent or knowledge of the owner of the house;
3. And the person who entered has the intention to commit a crime.
Intent to commit a crime
It is very hard to determine the presence of the “intent to commit a crime”. The reason is that the “intent to commit a crime” is a mental process.
In order to determine, therefore, the presence or lack of intent to commit a crime, the surrounding circumstances and the time of the entry, and the character of entry must be analyzed.
If for instance the entry is affected be breaking a wall or passing through the window or through the roof; at nighttime and/or the person who entered did not inform the neighbor of the owner of the house, then it could be reasonably stated that the person is a trespasser, and is therefore liable under this paragraph. He is required to give/pay multa, the exact amount being left to the discretion of the elders.
If after entering the house, the person took away cash and other personal belongings of the owner of the house, said person is liable for the offense of theft. Trespass is absorbed in said crime.
Section 3. Tuli / Mantuli - Any person who gives false testimony against any binodngan in a bodong forum or in any proceedings of the agencies of the government, shall pay a fine (multa) of two (2) carabaos.
The following are the elements of the crime:
1. A person testifies against a binodngan;
2. In a bodong forum or in any proceedings of any agency of the government;
3. Said testimony is false.
How about if the false testimony is against a non-binodngan?
It is opined that this rule does not apply because of the bilateral nature of the bodong. The pagta only applies to the members of the bodong.
If however, the parties submit their case voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the bodong, then this provision may apply. Moreover, be express provision of the pagta, this section applies only to binodngan.
The non-binodngan, of course may avail of the provisions of our national laws.
Section 4. Any binodngan who is a material witness to the commission of the crime defined in this pagta who refuses to testify without any valid reasons shall pay a fine of one (1) carabao.
This provision was inserted by the committee to prevent the practice of binodngan material witnesses who refused to testify on the pretext that they will be sanctioned by the other party if they come out and testify.
The bodong is for the truth and no person who is telling the truth may be sanctioned by the bodong. It is for these reasons that the binodngan who is a material witness to a crime is penalized.
1. A binodngan witnessed the commission of a crime;
2. He must be a material witness;
3. The crime is defined in this pagta;
4. He refuses to testify without justifiable reasons.
This provision mandates that said person must pay one head carabao for said refusal to testify.
Material witness - the witness must have seen the occurrence of the crime. His testimony must not be hearsay.
“A” is from the subtribe of Tanglag. He was present when “B” from Lubuagan killed “C”, who is from Naneng. If during the settlement, “A” refuses to recount what he saw when the incident happens, he is liable to pay one head carabao. However, if he was sick during the settlement or was otherwise out-of-town, then he may not be punished. What is punishable here is refusal to testify, not failure to testify.
CIVIL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE BODONG
Section 1. TOPOL / KABAW - Any binodngan who claims ownership and takes into possession the personal property belonging to another when proven false shall return what was taken or pay the value thereof plus multa.
1. A binodngan claims ownership and takes possession;
2. Of personal property belonging to another;
3. Said claim is proven false.
“A” and “B” have adjoining pasture lands. The cows of “A” crossed over the fence of “B”. “B” branded said cows and had them registered in his name. “A” found out what “B” had done and filed his complaint in the bodong.
Is “B” liable under this provision?
YES. “B” has to return the cows belonging to “B”. In addition, he has to pay a multa or butcher a pig during settlement.
If in our examples, “B” sold those cows, then he will pay the value thereof.
The subject matter of the claim must be personal property - It does not apply to real properties as lands as the same is punished under different sections of this pagta.
Section 2. Hired Labor - When a person is hired to do some manual labor, and is accidentally injured or killed while in the performance of his job, the person who hired him shall not be liable under the bodong. However, this is without prejudice for the person who hired him to help defray the expenses incurred in connection thereto.
This section deals on accidental killing or injury while said laborers are working or doing what they were hired to and met an accident. The person who hired them is not liable to the bodong for said death but they are required to help defray the expenses in connection with said death or injury.
Mr. Awingan from Lubo hired a person from Ga-ang to level their land and turn it into a ricefield. Said laborer excavated the lower portion of the land (subjacent support) and the soil caved in trapping him in the process. When rescued, the laborer is dead.
When the elders gathered, they decided as follows:
1. Mr. Awingan provided one carabao as utung;
2. He also provided a pig, rice and drinks for one night during the wake (bagungon);
3. He likewise provided a blanket and cloth for the dead person (gaga-om).
Section 3. TUKUN / BAUN - When a person is sent to do some errands and he met an accident, the preceding paragraph shall apply.
The case between Suyang and Laya.
One of the claimants of the land in the Susana Realty Hacienda at Rizal has convinced a certain Bilit from Suyang to accompany them to Rizal.
While they were in Rizal, their group was ambushed and Bilit was killed.
The case was settled. The people of Laya paid P150,000.00 pesos for the death of Bilit.
The people who called Bilit (to do the errand for them) agreed to help defray the medical and hospitalization expenses before said Bilit died - The total expenses was pegged at P306,000.00.
Section 4. Any person who enters into the property of another and introduce improvements therein without the knowledge and consent of the owner, shall not be entitled to reimbursement of his expenses. If he claims ownership, he shall be ejected outright and be fined (mamulta).
Beginning in the middle of 80’s, people started occupying land belonging to other people. Their intention is obvious - to squat on the land. However, if a person comes out and shows proof that he is the owner of the land, the squatters would not turn-over the possession of the land unless they are paid their expenses in improving the land - which expenses are usually exorbitant.
This is the evil which this provision is aimed to address.
By this provision, any person who enters the land and introduces improvements on the land of another person is precluded from asking for reimbursement. He has to vacate immediately the area. If he claims ownership, then he is ejected and penalized (mamulta). The exact multa to be determined by the elders and leaders of both tribes and other neutral tribal leaders called for the purpose of settling the case.
This provision is based on the revered principle of the bodong that no man shall enrich himself at the expense of another man (agum). This practice is tabooed (paniyaw/kaniyaw).
Section 1. The provision of this pagta shall supersede all other pagta adopted in duly authorized bodong forums or conventions, including all existing bilateral pagta between subtribes, provided, that such bilateral pagta shall continue to govern them for as long as it does not contravene this pagta. Any provision contravening this pagta is void.
This pagta as a general rule supercedes all other bilateral pagtas. Should there be other provisions of the pagta between subtribes that are deemed important to them which were not provided by this pagta, said provision may still continue to govern them, so long as they are not contrary to the provisions of this pagta. Any provision contravening this pagta is void.
This provision was deemed important as it was the aim of this pagta to have one uniform pagta of the bodong. In that way, the implementation of the pagta is facilitated and we will achieve uniformity of penalties for all the same offense.
Section 1. This pagta shall be officially promulgated in Filipino and English and translated into the Kalinga dialect. In case of conflict, the English text shall prevail.
Some people may wonder why the pagta is officially promulgated in the Filipino and English, only to be translated in the Kalinga dialect. This provision was meant to facilitate its writing. The different subtribes of Kalinga have their own dialect and to forestall any debate as to what dialect to use, this provision was included. Besides, we have different nomenclature for some acts or things and other subtribes may not understand what is being spoken about. Hence, said pagta may be translated to as many dialects.
Should there be any conflict in the translation, the English text shall prevail.
Section 2. Interpretation. In case of ambiguity of the provision of this pagta, the rules on statutory construction shall apply.
Section 3. When a case, through the initiative of the parties involved has been settled amicably, said settlement is valid and binding and the case is deemed finally closed.
The old pagta has provided that cases may be settled by parties concerned to their full satisfaction. Said settlement is deemed final, executory and binding on all parties.
There are instances however, where the bodong holder of the offended subtribes would disregard said settlement and make further demands.
This is contrary to the old pagta. It is for this reason that this section was placed so that cases once settled should be treated as terminated whether the bodong were involved or not.
While pupils from Lubo and Tulgao were having their work education at Bulanao South Elementary School, a boy from Lubo accidentally injured a boy from Tulgao.
The case was settled with the parents of the victim. The people of Lubo shouldered the medicines and the songa and tingiting.
One month later, the bodong holder from Tulgao resented what happened and re-opened the case. They (Tulgaos) demanded for additional consideration of the settlement. The people of Lubo had to comply.
This is the practice which should be discouraged, hence this provision.
Section 4. The offenders in all cases settled under the bodong shall pay the pagikna and other customary practices where applicable.
This provision provides for the things the offenders have to pay. The enumerations are not exclusive. Spoken of here are the following:
Pagikna - (rootword is “gikna” - to feel). This is the amount given to the bodong holder.
The amount is not specified and the amount depends on the penalty. The graver the penalty, the bigger the amount.
This takes the place of a formal notice that the case which was brought to the attention of the bodong has been settled.
When a bodong holder receives said amount, he does not keep it for himself. He will gather the community, buy a jar of wine or some bottles of gin and while it is being passed around to the community to drink it, he announces the result of the case. He proclaims to everyone that this particular case has been settled and closed.
This is another way of telling the binodngan concern that the case is finally settled.
Moreover, it is a matter of respect due to the bodong holder.
Examples of pagikna:
1. Bayangan and his companion from Lubo killed and injured a man and injured another one, both from the Laya tribe. After the case was settled, the offenders give two (2) carabaos to the kasupang, the bodong holder of Laya from Lubo.
2. When a student of DEMPHMNS was killed, the offended did not go for settlement but went to Court. As the offenders were convicted, the case was deemed closed and terminated. The offenders gave to Miguel Ludan two (2) carabaos as pagikna.
In less serious physical injuries and other minor offenses, pagikna may be dispensed with. However, since we have now the pagta, where the provision specified that pagikna must be given, the giving of pagikna becomes compulsory.
Section 1. Proposal to Amend or Revise - Proposal to amend or revise this pagta may be made directly by a simple majority of the members present, there being a quorum in a meeting called for the purpose.
Proposal to amend or revise - how made?
Any proposal to amend or revise this pagta could be initiated by any member with the concurrence of the majority of those members who are present in a meeting called for that purpose, when there is a quorum.
By simple majority, what is meant here is one-half plus one (1/2 + 1) of the members present in a meeting.
To be binding, there must be a notice to all the members, and the notice must state that the agenda of the meeting is to consider proposals for amendment and/or revision of this pagta.
Section 2. Effectivity - Amendments or revisions of this pagta shall take effect upon approval or ratification by a simple majority of the members present in a meeting called for the purpose.
This speaks of the effectivity of the amendment or revision of the pagta.
As provided, it shall be effective upon:
1. Approval by simple majority;
2. Or ratification of the simple majority of the members present.
Section 1. Effectivity - This pagta shall be effective ninety (90) days after its approval.
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED on September 13, 1998, at BIBAK-NAS, Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga.
This pagta was unanimously adopted and approved by the bodong holder under Resolution No. 98-01, of the 13th day of September, 1998 at BIBAK-NAS Conference Hall, Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga.
Over All Coordinator: Hon. John B. Dongui-is
Chairman: Judge Victor A. Dalanao
Vice Chairman: Judge Josephine B. Gayagay
Arthur G. Kub-ao
Alfredo A. Tombali
Pablo D. Gabit
Placido T. Alsiyang Jr.
Augustus U. Saboy
Richard A. Daliyong
Anarita A. Alvarez
.....................Contributed by: MCTC Tanudan Staffs..................