Chapter 2

Layers of Cordillera Identity

Stanley F. Anongos Jr.

Source: Keesing, Felix and Marie Keesing. Taming Philippine Headhunters: A Study of Government and of Cultural
Change in Northern Luzon. Stanford University Press, 1934, 40.
 Unit 1. Peopling of the Cordillera and Colonial Labeling

Overview
This part of the chapter presents theories of how the region was populated. The bigger part of it
dwells on labeling and naming that happened during the colonial periods. Of particular focus is on the
label Igorot, which began as a neutral geographic label and ended with numerous but mostly negative
connotations.

Pre-assessment
Multiple Choice. Choose the letter of the best answer. Write your answers on the blank space provided before
each number.
1) Who were the first inhabitants of Cordillera Central?
a) Austronesians c) Indonesians
b) Negritos d) Igorots
2) Which language pair are closest to each other?
a) Bontok-Kalinga c) Itneg-Ibaloy
b) Ifugao-Kalanguya d) Bontok-Kankanaey
3) It is popularly known that the Cordillera was not colonized by Spaniards. What does this mean?
a) No Spaniards ever set foot in Cordillera territory.
b) Occupation and influence by Spaniards on the region are limited.
c) Inhabitants of the Cordillera resisted every Spanish entry to the region.
d) Only the area of Benguet was occupied and ruled by Spaniards.
4) Ifugao terraces were constructed how many years ago?
a) 2000 years ago c) 200-300 years ago
b) 1000-2000 years ago d. 100 years ago
5) A label used by both Spaniards and Americans that applied to all Cordillera Central inhabitants.
a) Tingguian c) Ifugao
b) Mandaya d) Igorot
6) During Spanish rule, which of the following labels was NOT used for the inhabitants of Central
Cordillera?
a) Infieles c) Indios
b) Igorot d) Salvajes
7) On record, the use of Igorot as a label started when?
a) Spanish colonial period c) After/post-colonialism
b) American colonial period d) Japanese colonial rule
8) The Cordillera Central was organized as Mountain Province in .
a) 1900 c) 1905
b) 1902 d) 1908
9) The label used by Americans for people who clung to cultural traditions is .
a) Non-Christians c) Tribes
b) Infieles d) Indigenous Peoples
10) Under colonial times, the bases of labeling/naming include the following EXCEPT one.
a) geographical location c) political/administrative affiliation
b) ethnolinguistic features d) economic conditions
Lesson 1: Origins and Migrations
I. Introduction
This section presents known theories on the peopling of the Cordillera region. It shows that the
region was populated by way of migration.

II. Lesson Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
1) articulate migratory and linguistic relations of the various groups of people in the region.

Mode of delivery
Lecture with electronic presentation

III. Reading Resources and Instructional Activities

Central Cordillera is believed to have been peopled by migrants. The earliest are Negritos whose
descendants are still found in Apayao and Abra. A major migration after was the Austronesian movement
from Taiwan to the Philippines, which occurred between 4000
B.C. and 1000 A.D (Bellwood, 1985). All people in the Cordillera Central, except the Negrito descendants,
descended from the Austronesian migrants (Reid, 2018). Figure 1 shows linguistic relations of the
different languages in the Cordillera, indicating diversions in the Austronesian language over time.
Austronesian movements within northern Luzon are unclear but Keesing (1962) writes that Ibaloys are a
result of migration from Pangasinan, and Kankanaey of Benguet and Mountain Province, Bontoks, and
Tingguians came from Ilocos. Isneg came from coastal Cagayan. Southern Apayao and Kalinga came from
the lower Chico River in the border of Kalinga and Cagayan. Mining activities explain the movement to
Lepanto area and Itogon in pre-Spanish times. Others moved to the mountains of Cordillera as “runaways”,
or to avoid Spanish rule, such as the case of Isneg in Apayao, some Tingguians in Abra, as well as Kalinga
and Ifugao in the east (Keesing, 1962). Other studies argue based on linguistic similarities that Kankanaey,
Bontok, and Ifugao entered Luzon by the Cagayan River and remained together in some way until they
arrived at the Chico river, which the Kankanaey-Bontoc subgroup followed, while Ifugao continued along
the Cagayan river and established themselves first in the Magat region before following Alimit and Ibulao
rivers (Lambrecht).
In the mountains, some practiced wet-rice agriculture while others survived on dry farming. Wet
rice agriculture may have been adopted from the lowlands but rice terracing was developed by “Central
Cordillera speakers” who moved into the mountain region (Reid, 1994). The Ifugao terraces were earlier
assumed to have been built thousands of years ago, but new archeological evidence proves that the
terraces were built at the onset of Spanish colonialism, or from 200 to 300 years ago (Acabado, 2019).
Other groups, particularly those in Benguet, relied on mining.
At the time of Spanish arrival, highlander territories extended to the lowlands of today’s Nueva
Vizcaya, Cagayan, Isabela, Pangasinan, La Union, and Ilocos. Highlanders were scattered as numerous and
autonomous villages, a condition the Spaniards described later as “tribus independientes”.
Activities
Activity 1. Self-check
Instruction: Reconstruct peopling of the Cordillera by making a migration map.

Lesson 2: Colonialism and Ethnic Classification

I. Introduction
This lesson shows that the Philippine experience of colonialism greatly defined ethnic classification
in the region. Spanish colonialism adopted labels such as “Igorrotes”, “Tingguians”, “Mandayas” and added
dishonorable meanings to these labels. At the end of Spanish rule, “Igorrotes” was synonymous with being
uncivilized, savagery, and paganism.

II. Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:
1) trace the context of labeling during colonial periods; and
2) identify labels used for highlanders.

Mode of Delivery
Lecture/Reading assignment/Guided classroom discussions.

III. Reading Resources and Instructional Activities

Igorrotes and Spanish Colonialism (1600s-1898)
During Spanish colonialism, Cordillera region was penetrated by Spaniards from both east and
west. The colonial interests combined gold, proselytization campaigns, extension of conquered territories,
and punitive expeditions. Such interests brought to the Cordillera
Spanish soldiers, lowlander recruits and carriers, Spanish missionaries, miners and gold prospectors, and,
much later, Spanish colonial administrators (Scott, 1987).
Igorot responses were varied but most are expressions of refusal to be colonized. A common
reaction to Spanish military expeditions was retreat into deeper parts of the mountain, which resulted in
population dispersions and muddled ethnic distinctions. Such a response also redefined Igorot territory as
Igorot in the lowlands and close to the lowlands eventually abandoned these areas. As for Christian
conversion, there were successful cases where highlanders were relocated to the lowlands like those in the
La Union-Ilocos areas and Nueva Vizcaya-Cagayan areas (Scott, 1993). Others saw the connection of
Christian conversion to tribute collection and forced labor, as well as the whole inconvenience of
colonization, thus rejecting offers of conversion. By the time the Spaniards were driven out in the late
1890s most highlanders remained pagans, and free.
There was no systematic identification of ethnic groupings during the Spanish rule but scattered
classifications during this period were consolidated in the works of Blumentritt (1890) who listed 36
“tribes” of Northern Luzon, around 29 of which are found within the Cordillera. These include, among
others, Igorrotes, Busaos, Panuipuy, Mayoyaos, Ifugaos, Gaddanes, Itetepanes, Guinaanes, Calingas,
Tinguianes, Apayaos, Ilamut, and Ileabanes. The Jesuit mission of Manila also came up with a list of 26
tribes in Northern Luzon, with around
10 from the Central Cordillera (Worcester, 1906).
In general, though, Spaniards adopted
geographic identifications, which they apparently
learned from lowlanders, such as Ygolottes (gold
traders-Benguet, Kayan, Ifugao), Tingguianes (Abra,
Ifugao) and Mandaya (Apayao). Ygolotte, which was
later respelled as Igorrotes, was consistently applied
to Benguet people, particularly the Ibaloy, but was
also used on other and all people of the Cordillera
region. The term literally means “people from the
mountain” in an old Malay language. Tingguians, from
an old Malay word tinggi meaning “high” or
“elevated,” also persisted as a group label for
Itneg-speaking people of Abra. Mandaya literally
means “those up above” and was applied to some
Apayao groups (Scott, 1987).
Others were just labeled as infieles (pagans)
and salvajes (savages) owing to the refusal of
mountaineers to adopt Christianity. Igorot resistance
also prompted Spaniards to attribute repugnant
characteristics on them like “bandits, and murderers
who killed for
purposes of revenge, robbery, intimidation or extortion and mutilated the bodies of their victims.” They
were also charged with preventing “other Filipinos from becoming Christians, kidnapped baptized
children to be raised as pagans and gave refuge to ex-convicts,
lawbreakers and delinquents” (Scott 1987). These descriptions were eventually attached to the infieles and
Igorrote identities, so that during the Spanish period, to be Igorrote is not only to be from the mountains,
but also as infieles, bandits, murderers, robbers, kidnappers, and wild.
By the mid-1800s, the Spaniards set up their first political divisions in the form of
Commandancia-Politico-Miltares (CPM), or military posts. Following successful campaigns of Guillermo
Galvey, military posts were organized in Benguet (1854), Tiagan (1847), Lepanto (1852), Bontoc (1857),
and Saltan (1859). Other Commandancia Politico-Militares like Amburayan, Kayapa, and Apayao were set
up in 1891, while Kiangan was made one in 1892. The creation of the CPM did not entail complete
colonization, however, as CPM’s influence is limited to tax collection within its immediate location (Scott
1987). These CPMs would define later provincial and sub-provincial organizations under the next
colonizer and provide another basis for group identification. Despite the establishment of CPMs, most
highlanders enjoyed their independence up to the end of Spanish rule in the late 1890s.
Sadly, highlander resistance to Spanish rule eventually resulted in an estranged relationship with
lowlanders surrounding Cordillera Central. The lowlanders succumbed to Spanish rule and influence while
the Cordillera highlanders defended their freedom and remained unhispansized. The lowlanders became
more and more Spanish while the highlanders maintained their indigenous ways.

Ethnic Classification and American Colonialism (1898-1941)

American colonization of the region began with the organization of Benguet as a province, the first
civil government in the country. An office called the Bureau of Non- Christian Tribes (BNCT) was then
organized “to investigate the actual conditions of the pagan and Moslem peoples, and to conduct scientific
investigation regarding the ethnology of the Philippines” (Fry, 2006).
American pacification campaign combined military and civil approaches. Resistances were
expressed in Lepanto-Bontoc, Ifugao, Kalinga, and specially Apayao. These resistances were, however,
moderate when compared to earlier responses to Spanish intrusion. In a way, a certain level of pacification
has already been achieved by earlier Spanish campaigns, which made it easier for Americans to occupy the
Cordillera Central. Isnag around present-day Kabugao presented the Americans a consistent resistance for
which reason they were attacked by numerous punitive military expeditions from 1907 to 1913. Guenned
and Waga held Americans away until 1913, marking what is perhaps the last resistance against American
occupation in the country.
Trail and road building accompanied military expeditions. Where the military declared as pacified,
schools and political organizations followed. Baguio was particularly developed as it was identified ideal
for a hill station or a territory where Americans would spend time for rest and recreation. Key stations
were placed in Baguio including a Sanitarium, military camp, teachers’ camp, market area, Mansion House,
and cottages for cabinet officials as well as engineers. Benguet Road (Kennon Road) was constructed to
access Baguio and the nearby Itogon mines.
Administrative organization of the region gradually took shape beginning with the creation of
Benguet as a province in November 1900. The next province to be created was Lepanto-Bontoc in May
1902, which included three sub-provinces of Lepanto, Bontoc, and Amburayan (Fry, 2006). Kalinga and
Ifugao were added as sub-provinces of Lepanto-Bontoc in 1907 before Kalinga and Apayao were merged to
make up a separate sub-province in the
same year. Finally, in 1908, a single province was created and was called Mountain Province. The new
province grouped all the former provinces and sub-provinces including Benguet, Amburayan, Alilem,
Lepanto, Bontoc, Ifugao, Kalinga and Apayao. Not surprisingly, the composition followed Worcester’s own
tribal organization in 1906, where Benguet was for Benguet Igorots, Bontoc for Bontoc Igorots, Kalinga for
Kalinga tribe, Ifugao for Ifugao tribe, and Apayao for the Tingguians (Finin 2005). Nevertheless, because
the “tribal” divisions are not really accurate, some ethnolinguistic groups found themselves across separate
provinces. This is the case of Kankanaey, which are spread in the provinces of Benguet, Lepanto, and
Bontoc. The Kalanguya are also found in Benguet, Ifugao, and Nueva Vizcaya.
Being assigned an
administrative label as “Kalinga sub-
province” or “Benguet sub-province” also
added to the layers of identities. Residents
of these sub-provinces began to associate
themselves with these political
organizations as “I- Benguet” or “Ifugao”. In
becoming Mountain Province, labels such as
Igorot, non-Christians, tribes, wild, and
headhunters became politically bounded
and reinforced. Mountain Province was,
therefore, the home of non-Christian tribes
who were perceived as less civilized. It is for
this reason that Abra was excluded from the
province because it was deemed “civilized”
compared to the other groups that made up
the Mountain Province.
Studies conducted under the
BNCT and later the Ethnological Survey did
not contradict earlier
Spanish and other European observations about the highlander. In general, the people of the region were
perceived to be “less civilized” and culturally as well as racially distinct. Ethnic classification of Philippine
population was also formalized under BNCT and Ethnological Survey, the results adopted by the 1903
Philippine Census. The head of the bureau, David Barrows, disregarded the Blumentritt classification and
went on to identify only one ethnic group (Igorot) in the Cordillera region. This Igorot group is made up of
different sub-groups including Gaddang, Dadayag, Kalinga, Banao, Bontoc Igorot (Ipukao), Bunnayan,
Silipan, Mayoyao, Tingguians, Kankanay, and Nabiloi. The use of Igorot for all Cordillera people by Barrows
is a departure from earlier association of the term to Benguet people. And because Igorot as “tribal” name
was used for all inhabitants of Cordillera Central in the 1903 Census, it was formally recognized as a label.
By this time also the Igorot identity was already mired with negative meanings being associated with
backwardness, savagery and paganism, a connotation the American ethnology did not attempt to contest.
 In 1906, Dean Worcester, who was Secretary of Interior and member of the Philippine Commission,
questioned Barrows’ classification and asserted his own to include Kalingas, Ifugaos, Bontoc Igorot,
Lepanto-Bontoc Igorot, and Tinggians. Notice that Worcester applied the label Igorot only to Bontoc,
Lepanto, and Benguet, acknowledging that he included Bontoc as Igorot because he could not find any
appropriate classification for them. Apayao people were not also included in the list but were presented as
part of Kalinga or Tingguian group (Worcester, 1906). Worcester’s classification clearly defined the
administrative division of the newly formed Mountain Province in 1908, and influenced later ethnic
classifications.
Ethnological studies from UP Diliman headed by Otley Beyer adopted Worcester’s list of “tribes”
but corrected the application of Igorot back to Kankanaey and Ibaloy. Beyer also added Apayao and
Gaddang as distinct ethnographic groups (Beyer, 1917). This list and Beyer’s categorization of Philippine
population as Negrito, Indonesian, and Malay were included in the 1918 Philippine Census.
Ethnographic groups Languages
Apayao Apayao or Isneg
Bontok Bontok/Kadaklan-
Barlig/Tinglayan/Dananao-Bangad
Gaddang Gaddang/Yogad/Maddukayang or
Kalibugan/Katalangan/Iraya
Ifugao Pure Ifugao, or Kiangan/Sub-Ifugao,
or Silipan/Lagaui
Igorot Kankanai/Baukok/Malaya/Inibaloi/
I-waak
Kalinga Dadayag/Kalagua or
Kalaua/Nabayugan/Mangali-
Lubo/Lubuagan/Sumadel/Gina-an
Tinggian Itneg or Tinggian
Table 1. Beyer’s Ethnographic groups in Central Cordillera (Source: Beyer, Otley.
Population of the Philippine Islands in 1916. Manila: Philippine Education Co.
Inc. 1917, 19.)

Beyer’s ethnolinguistic groupings remained unchanged up to the end of American rule as

evidenced in the recognition of the same group in the 1938 and 1948 Philippine Censuses. Under US rule,
Igorots were also assigned other tags such as “Non-Christians”, “Tribes”, “headhunters”, “savages”, and
“wild”, a continuation of Spanish labeling. The creation of the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes (BNCT) was
itself revealing of American categorizations. American officials explained that the use of the term
Non-Christian is not purely along religion but more cultural and historical, to refer to those who cling to
their indigenous culture and refuse to submit to Spanish-American ways. The assignation of
“tribal” was also something tentative and misused as there really were no tribal boundaries, nor did
Igorots fight tribal wars or claim descent from common tribal ancestors. American officials acknowledged
that Igorot groups do not qualify as tribes. Tribe was simply used for
the absence of a better word to indicate distinct cultural and linguistic identities.
Boundary realignment in 1920 caused some identity adjustments for some. Alilem, Amburayan,
and Lepanto were dissolved and boundaries between Mountain Province and the lowland provinces were
redefined. Consequently, Cervantes, Tagudin and others parts of
Lepanto and Alilem were added to Ilocos Sur (Act No. 2877, 1920). Much later, Langagan and Allacapan
were transferred to Cagayan. It is from these boundary changes that placed many people in units outside of
their cultural connections. Some of these have been labeled as Bago but continue to align themselves with
their Kankanaey roots.
The boundary rearrangements came a few years after the implementation of the Jones Law in
1916. The Jones Law allowed for the filipinization of numerous government positions. As a result, the
upper house (Philippine Commission) gave way to an all-Filipino senate. Non- Christian provinces were
given special representation in both senate and the lower house, and Mountain Province was represented
at different times by Juan Carino and Henry Kamora of Benguet sub-province, Rafael Bulayungan and
Joaquin Codamon of Ifugao sub-province, Clemente Irving, Hilary Clapp, Rodolfo Hidalgo, and Felix Diaz of
Bontoc sub-province. The Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes (BNCT) was also revived not as a research arm
but as an administrative office in charge of all non-Christians. This was placed under the control of
Philippine legislature. For the first time, Mountain Province was, therefore, under the direct supervision of
Filipinos through the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes (BNCT). Joaquin Luna, from La Union, became its first
Filipino governor.
At the end of American colonial rule, science and census have already classified the people of the
Cordillera Central according to perceived cultural and linguistic features. Despite clarification in
ethnological works, the term Igorot, and all its bad connotations, continued to be applied to the general
population. Such unfavorable connotations were translated into prejudices and discrimination when
Igorots encountered outsiders. Some lowlanders, particularly, have looked down with contempt upon
Igorots, and discriminated against educated natives. Customs, usages, and traditions associated with
Igorotness have also been despised, even by lowlander officials and employees of Mountain Province. The
term Igorot, which was reportedly used by lowlanders to frighten or reprove their children, has by this
time become an opprobrium (Keesing 1934). By the 1930s, Igorot themselves developed a growing
aversion to the term that an alternative label, “mountaineer”, has become more acceptable. An Igorot
organization of professionals that called itself BIBKA, which stands for Benguet, Ifugao, Bontoc, and
Kalinga-Apayao, preferred the term “native” over “Igorot” (Finin, 2005).
Despite this, the Commonwealth government abolished the BNCT in 1936, removing the last
vestige of government special protection for non-Christians.
Overall, inhabitants of the Central Cordillera were labeled in several layers. By virtue of their
geographical location, they were identified as Igorrotes, Mandaya, and Tingguians. Based on their level of
“civilization”, they were branded as salvajes, infieles, non-Christians, tribes, and headhunters. Based on
ethnolinguistic groupings, they were also identified as Bontok, Apayao, Ibaloy, Kalinga, Kankanaey,
Gaddang, Ifugao, and Tingguian. And still based on political affiliation, they were also linked to their
province or sub-province as Benguet, Bontok, Kalinga, Apayao, Ifugao, or Abra.

Activities
Activity 1. Self-check
Instruction: Multiple Choice. Choose the letter of the best answer. Write your answers on the blank space
provided before each number.

1) Of the Cordillera provinces today, which was NOT part of the old Mountain Province created in
1908?
 a) Apayao c) Kalinga
b) Abra d) Ifugao
2) How many sub-provinces were created under the 1908 Mountain Province?
a) 3 c) 6
b) 4 d) 7
3) Igorrote literally means .
a) “from the mountain” c) “Uncivilized”
b) upstream” d) “Savages”
4) How did the term Igorot earn negative meanings?
a) Igorots' resistance to Spanish colonialism was interpreted by Spaniards as expressions
of backwardness, savagery, and paganism.
b) Savage and uncivilized behaviors of Igorots resulted to American attachment of
negative characteristics to the term.
c) Colonial writing mistook the term to mean backwardness and isolation.
d) Lowlanders influenced the Spaniards to associate negative connotations to the term.
5) Which among the following is a term NOT geographically defined?
a) Mandaya c) Igorot
b) Tingguian d) Salvaje
6) The first colonially defined political organization that grouped several villages into single
administrative territories.
a) Sub-provinces
b) Commandancia Politico-Militares
c) Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes
d) Provinces
7) Who are the Igorots, according to David Barrows?
a) Lepanto and Bontoc people
b) Benguet people
c) Lepanto, Benguet, and Bontoc people
d) Includes all people in the Cordillera Central
8) Who are the Igorots, according to Dean Worcester?
a) Lepanto and Bontoc people
b) Benguet people
c) Lepanto, Benguet, and Bontoc people
d) Includes all people in the Cordillera Central
9) Aside from ethnolinguistic labels, people of the Cordillera Central were also identified
based on their “degree of civilization” in the following terms, EXCEPT .
a) Non-Christians
b) Tribes
c) Headhunters
d) Cordillerans
10) Being “Ibaloy” or “Ayangan” is a label based on?
a) Political/provincial affiliation
b) Geographical location
c) Ethnolinguistic grouping
d) Level of civilization
 Unit 2. Confronting and Adopting Identities
Overview
This section covers the post-colonial period. It tells how earlier naming and labeling affected
highlanders. It also tells how earlier naming and labeling were confronted and reinterpreted in the
changing context of Cordillera history. Finally, it touches on the growing assertion of local identities.

Pre-assessment
Multiple Choice. Choose the letter of the best answer. Write your answers on the blank space provided before
each number.
1) What name replaced the Non-Christian Tribes of the Philippines after the war?
a) Cultural Minorities c) Indigenous Peoples
b) National Minorities d) Indigenous Cultural Communities
2) What office is in charge of highlanders in the Cordillera immediately before the NCIP was
organized?
a) Office of Northern Cultural Communities (ONCC)
b) Office of Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC)
c) Presidential Assistant on National Minorities (PANAMIN)
d) Commission on National Integration (CNI)
3) New label for highlanders popularized in the 1980s during the call for autonomy.
a) Igorot c) Indigenous Peoples
b) Cordilleran d) Non-Christians
4) When was the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) established?
a) 1980 c) 1987
b) 1983 d) 1997
5) When was the old Mountain Province divided into four new provinces?
a) 1966 c)1908
b) 1972 d) 1987
6) The following are preferred general identities for Central Cordillera people, EXCEPT
a) Highlander c) Mountaineer
b) Native d) Cultural Minorities
7) Student organization in Metro Baguio that provided a venue for ethnic expression and a haven
for students from all over the region.
a) Igorot Warriors International c) BIBKA
b) BIBAK d) Igorot Global Organization
8) The dam project in the 1970s that ignited oppositions from affected areas.
a) Chico River Dam project c) Ibulao River Dam project
b) Abra River Dam project d) Apayao River Dam project
9) The call for regional autonomy began when?
a) 1990s c) 1980s
b) 2000s d) 1970s
10) What does the acronym CAR mean?
a) Cordillera Autonomous Region c) Cordillera Agrarian Reform
b) Cordillera Administrative Region d) Cordillera Administered Region
Lesson 1: Post-colonial Identity Struggle and the 1966 Division (1950s-1970)
I. Introduction
The end of Second World War officially ended colonial rule in the country. For the first time,
Mountain Province is managed without the paternal help of Americans. Instead, it became a regular
province directly under a national government dominated by lowlanders. It is in this context that
highlanders make sense of their identity as one people as well as multiple ethnic groups.

II. Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you will be able to:
1) identify the effects of colonial naming on highlanders; and
2) explain the nature of the political division of the old Mountain Province.

Mode of Delivery
Chalk and board lecture with electronic presentation

III. Reading Resources and Instructional Activities

The 2nd World War and the Japanese rule in between are generally viewed as difficult years brought
about by the destruction and deaths. It is, however, during this period that the first highlander was
appointed as Governor of Mountain Province. It had been the desire at the beginning of the Commonwealth
government in 1936 that it was time for an Igorot governor. But instead of a highlander, President Quezon
chose another lowlander. It was only during the Japanese rule that
Dr. Hilary Pitapit Clapp, who was from
Bontoc, was designated, only to
disappear and presumed killed by
guerilla members afterward.
The 2nd World War also brought
an end to American colonial rule in the
country, and the issue about the
“non-Christians” was now placed in the
hands of a new republic. A
new term, “Cultural Minorities”,
was introduced as an official state label
of what used to be Non-Christians. The
framework adopted by the government
was to transition these groups to
become part of the mainstream Filipino
population. It was assumed that
education would help make the
mainstreaming possible. A new office,
called Commission for National
Integration (CNI), was created for this, and it became known for its scholarship program. Within the
integration framework, too, highlanders were struggling with discriminations. This
is because they now have to compete with other people on an equal footing without special treatment the
way they were treated under American rule. Schooled Igorot tried their luck in employment, which placed
them against outsiders and in the course of such felt discriminated (Finin, 2005). Apparently, such
different treatment of Igorots stemmed, not from intellectual inferiority, but from their being Igorot and all
the negative connotations attached to it. In 1958, a bill was proposed by Congressman Luis Hora
prohibiting the use of “Igorot” in printed materials. The bill supported the use of “highlander” but failed to
progress into law. Highlander students in Baguio responded to the discrimination by organizing
themselves, exemplified by the BIBAK (Benguet-Ifugao-Bontoc-Apayao-Kalinga) organization that unified
students from all corners of the region. BIBAK allowed cultural expressions for the students, becoming the
sanctuary of highlander students in Baguio and nearby tertiary schools. Alternative labels were also raised
to replace “Igorot” such as “mountaineer”, “native”, and “highlander”, but these were adopted individually
according to one’s liking.
Mountain Province was subdivided into 4 new provinces in 1966. This division created Benguet,
Ifugao, Kalinga-Apayao, and a new Mountain Province, which covered the Bontoc territory. It was believed
that a division would bring administration closer to the people. The proposal was not, however, new as
Benguet leaders have been pushing for this action early on. They felt that Benguet holds the economic
burden for the whole province because it hosts key and productive industries like the mines (Fry, 2006).
The subdivision was followed by another regional breakup under PD No. 1 of 1972. Under this
decree, Ifugao and Kalinga-Apayao were placed under Region II while Benguet and Mountain Province
under Region I. This and the earlier subdivision threatened a regional identity developed earlier. Under
these separations, what kept regional affiliations among the highlanders was a historical similarity and a
common label of being cultural minorities. The contentious “Igorot” label remained acceptable to others
but the political divisions killed the spread of such acceptance.
Meanwhile, scholars continue to iron out ethnic classification in the Philippines. For Cordillera
Central, an authoritative map by Robert Fox and Elizabeth Flory (Fox and Flory map) prepared in 1974
named 12 groups with Balangao, I’wak, Ikalahan, and Amduntog Atipulo being added to Beyer’s list of
1916. The use of “Igorot” as an ethnic classification disappeared in this work and other works including
the government Censuses.
Activities
Activity 1. Self-check
Instruction: Interview a BIBAK member during this period (1960s-1970s) and submit an essay about
their participation as a BIBAK member. Accomplish in groups. (20 points)

Lesson 2: Revival of Igorotism (1970s-1983)

I. Introduction
Two development projects threatened life and livelihood in the region in the 1970s. Community
opposition was countered with combined offers of educational scholarship, dole- outs, and the dispatch of
military people. It is within this condition that an old and controversial name was reused, and
consequently redefined.

II. Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you will be able to:
1) connect the resistance movement to the revival of Igorot identity.

Mode of Delivery
Lecture with facilitated discussions

III. Reading Resources and Instructional Activities

The reinvention of “Igorot” consciousness occurred in the context of the opposition to damming
and logging projects in the 1970s. Chico River runs through Mountain Province and Kalinga. In 1973, the
National Power Corporation (NPC) began its survey of a planned dam along this river. The plan was to
build four dams from Sabangan in Mountain Province to Tabuk in Kalinga. The project, which did not care
to secure any consent from the affected areas, was opposed by communities directly affected by the dam
construction. Locals dismantled camps of the exploration group and petitioned government agencies and
Malacanang to discontinue the dam. In response, the government used a new office called Presidential
Assistant on National Minorities (PANAMIN) in an attempt to stop the opposition. PANAMIN took over the
functions of the CNI as overseer of the national minorities. During the Chico controversy, PANAMIN
distributed goods and money to affected areas and facilitated meetings with government authorities. It
also offered similar scholarship grants to selected students as the CNI did earlier. When the strategy failed,
soldiers were brought in to secure the operation.
In nearby Abra, a logging concession was granted by the government to a corporation covering 200
hectares of Benguet pines. Cellophil Resources Corporation (CRC) began its operation also without
consultation with the affected areas. The logging invited Tingguian opposition, which was countered with
militarization of the logging areas.
Non-government organizations, churches and the media joined the opposition against the two
projects. The New Peoples’ Army (NPA), which was just starting its operation in the region, sided with the
affected communities, attracting hundreds of recruits as a consequence. Among those recruited in Abra
were Catholic priests like Conrado Balweg, Bruno Ortega, Cirilo Ortega, and Nilo Valerio.
 It was on the occasion of these oppositions that the traditional Vochong, or peace pact system, was
utilized by affected communities to forge united resistance to the dam project and later to the logging
activities.
Part of the strategies employed by opposition to the dams was to attract attention from the public
and the media. For this it was decided that it was easier to do so by utilizing the “Igorot” as such term
would easily bring to mind the stereotype of a loincloth-wearing man with unkempt hair playing gongs.
The term also was meant to project the warrior spirit of old headhunting practices against a government
enemy. The use also revived historic and successful Igorot resistance to Spanish colonialism. Speeches,
communications, and conferences made use of “Igorot”, and “Kaigorotan” was also coined as an inclusive
name for the entire Igorot population. In a way, the opposition to these projects brought affected
communities closer, bringing Tingguians closer to other highlanders of Mountain Province and Kalinga. In
this context, “Igorot” was somehow redefined as an identity to a resistance.
The projects eventually discontinued but not after it occasioned disunity and violence in Abra,
Mountain Province, and Kalinga. In 1980, a known opposition leader from Kalinga, Macliing Dulag, was
gunned down in his own home in Bugnay. Instead of silencing the opposition, the assassination of Dulag
widened support, including international groups, for the stoppage of the project. The CRC operation finally
halted in 1984 and the Dam project ended a few years after.

Activities
Activity 1. Photo essay
Instruction: Find a photo related to this period in Cordillera history, and write a brief essay about it.
Accomplish in groups. (20 points)
Lesson 3: “Cordilleran” Identity (1983-1987)
I. Introduction
Oppositions to dam and logging projects shifted its attention to uniting the region as well as
creating a framework that would protect the region from easy penetration of destructive development
projects. The answer was an autonomous region. Such direction created another fertile venue for
identity-making.

II. Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you will be able to:
1) identify the shift to “Cordilleran” as identity; and
2) tell the story of how the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) came about.

Mode of Delivery
Lecture/Debate on autonomy

III. Reading Resources and Instructional Activities

An important lesson derived from the two projects and the experience of resistance to the projects
is the realization of how national minorities, an alternative label for cultural minorities, were treated. The
territories of minorities were viewed only as a resource base for the benefit of the majority. Add to that the
absence of serious consultation and consent. These and a shared history of Spanish colonial resistance as
well as having a distinct culture combined to convince highlanders to seek for autonomy. It was not
surprising that activists of the period, later to be led by the Cordillera Peoples’ Alliance (CPA), began the
drive for an autonomous Cordillera. This was reinforced by the Cordillera Peoples’ Liberation Army
(CPLA), led by Father Balweg, and a breakaway group of the New Peoples’ Army (NPA). Because of the
absence of a single administrative unit that would unify the entire region, another geographical term was
adopted to group people of the old Mountain Province and Abra. As a geographic jargon, Cordillera refers
to parallel mountains, and for northern Luzon Cordillera includes Sierra Madre, Malaya range, and
Cordillera Central. It is from Cordillera Central that “Cordillera” and “Cordilleran” were derived as a new
label for the region and its people. The term competed with Igorot as an identity in the 1980s and the
1990s, and a number of key players for the autonomy named their groups with “Cordillera” in it, such as
Cordillera Broad Coalition (CBC), Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA), Cordillera Peoples Liberation Army
(CPLA), Cordillera Peoples Democratic Front (CPDF), and Cordillera Bodong Administration (CBAd). The
decision to name the region “Cordillera” and the title of the advocacy of “Cordillera Autonomy”, as well as
naming related offices with Cordillera like Cordillera Executive Board (CEB) and Cordillera Regional
Assembly (CRA) were all derived from this.
While Igorot and Cordilleran are both geographical words, the latter appealed to many because of
its unadulterated meaning and history. It is also favored over its ethnic neutrality, making it more inclusive
to all residents of the Cordillera Central regardless of their ethnicity. The aspiration for regional autonomy
was successfully lobbied with the Constitutional Commission and was included in Section 14 of Article X of
the Philippine Constitution. At the same time, the Aquino government entered into a peace agreement
(Sipat) with Conrado Balweg’s CPLA. Thereafter, Executive Order No. 220 was signed on July 15, 1987,
establishing a transition regional setup called Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), effectively removing
the provinces from regions I and II.
CAR included the provinces of
Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga- Apayao, Mt.
Province, the chartered city of Baguio,
and Abra, which for the first time
joined its mountain neighbors since the
American ethnic and
administrative classification in the
early 1900s. Common opposition
experience in the 1970s and early
1980s has reconnected Tingguians and
other Abra people to the rest of the
Cordillera communities.
In 1995 another political
division in the region happened
with the separation of Kalinga and Apayao. Through Republic Act 7878, Kalinga and Apayao finally became
distinct provinces.
Philippine Congress passed two laws for Cordillera autonomy, one in 1990 and the second in 1998.
These were supported in a plebiscite only by Ifugao in 1990 and Apayao in 1998. Because the Philippine
Supreme Court decided that a single province cannot constitute an autonomous region, Cordillera regional
autonomy remains elusive.

Activities
Activity 1. Self-check
Instruction: Describe the original ideas of autonomy that emerged out of this period. This may be
accomplished in groups. (15 points)

Lesson 4: IPRA and Ethnicity

I. Introduction
While the general aspirations of autonomy and protection were embedded in the 1987 Philippine
constitution, the passing of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) defined a more detailed favor for
Indigenous Peoples like the Igorots and Cordilleras. Under this law, more and more people came into the
open asserting their indigeneity and the recognition of ethnic group affiliations.

II. Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson, you will be able to:
1) make conclusions about the evolution of naming and labeling in the Cordillera; and
2) develop pride in labels adopted and used among Indigenous peoples in the region.

Mode of Delivery
Lecture with electronic presentations
III. Reading Resources and Instructional Activities
The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) is considered a landmark law in favor of Indigenous
Peoples. Passed in 1997, it promised protection and advancement of the rights and privileges of
indigenous people, particularly to finally have a definitive ownership to their land. Before the IPRA, the
state recognized ancestral land claims through the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) Administrative Order No. 2 (DAO 2) of 1992. This right was reinforced in 1997 by the passage of
the IPRA, which granted a collective right to land through the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT)
and of individual rights through the Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT). These opportunities
encouraged registration and assertions of ethnic identities.
IPRA also created an office to oversee the affairs of the Indigenous Peoples. Named National
Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP), it replaced the old offices of the Office of Northern Cultural
Communities (ONCC) and the Office of Southern Cultural Communities (OSCC).
Finally, IPRA formalized the use of “Indigenous Peoples” as another label for most highlanders. It is
defined to include people who have lived in a defined territory they call their own, share cultural and
linguistic relations, and were differentiated from the rest of the bigger population by virtue of their
resistance to colonialism (IPRA, 1997). In effect, this label replaced the “cultural/national minority” label
even if the IPRA itself still uses “Indigenous Cultural Communities” as another name for Indigenous
Peoples.
In the 1990 national census, there are only 9 ethnic groups in the Cordillera included. Ten years
after, the government census recognized 22! This continued to grow in the government census after 2000.
IPRA, and the perceived benefits it created, appear to have attracted open assertions of distinct and
separate ethnic identities.
Other recognizing offices like the National Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), Cultural
Center of the Philippines (CCP), and the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) remain
conventional in their recognition of ethnicities, but government censuses, supported by linguistic studies,
are bold enough to acknowledge more ethnicities. Most of the ethnicities added are those previously
categorized as sub-groups, such as the Mabaka, Majukayang, Guinaang, and more of Kalinga, as well as
Adasen, Inlaud, Masadiit, and others in Abra.

Activities
Activity 1. Self-check
1) Enumerate three benefits provided by the IPRA for Indigenous Peoples.
2) Name two ethnolinguistic groups for each province and two cities.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter traced the evolution of labels and names used for the general Cordillera
population as well as the emergence and reemergence of ethnolinguistic groupings. Under colonial
rule, efforts were directed towards understanding and defining groups of people who resisted
colonial introductions. Igorot persisted as a common identification for all, even if its application
shifted at different times. Under
colonialism, the term Igorot also changed its meaning, from its literal association to location and
geography, to cultural and racial traits. Igorot was defined as backwardness and uncivilization,
which consequently invited prejudices and discrimination. As a result, its acceptance also shifted.
Events of the 1970s and 1980s

resistance and bravery. At present, the label remains contested but those who have accepted this
identity do not feel as defensive as their parents and grandparents. Igorot is an identity that many
inhabitants of this region have been associated with, and it continues to be reinvented and
reinterpreted. “Cordilleran” is an offspring of the 1980s historical events that is adopted for its
neutral denotation and more encompassing application. As such it is the identity used in the
campaign for regional autonomy. Setting aside technicalities, Igorotand
Cordilleran are labels interchangeable for some.
Cordillerans and Igorots are also labeled as Indigenous Peoples, a name inscribed in the
IPRA for people who were treated differently because of their resistance to Spanish colonialism.
Old labels like national or cultural “minorities” and “non-Christians” are things of the past. Even
labels associated with levels of civilization like “backward” and “uncivilized” became eclipsed,
except to outsiders who remain innocent or ignorant of the developed status of Cordillera
Indigenous Peoples. “Tribe” has been appropriated to mean ethnic group despite its negative
association with “headhunting” and backwardness.
Still in another layer of identity, Cordillerans and Igorots are also connected to their
provincial affiliation or municipal and village (Ili) membership. Through this, people became
“Imontanyosa” or “taga-Abra” or “taga-Apayao”. This began as early as Spanish Commandancia
Politico-Militares (CPM), and sustained by American special provinces. The creation of Mountain
Province in 1908 was an attempt to keep the non-Chrisitans in one administrative territory. It was
ended in 1966 division but revived in the call for an autonomous Cordillera and the temporary
creation of the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR).
Culturally they are also identified with their ethnolinguistic affiliations as Ibaloy, Tingguian,
Baliwon, Kalanguya, and many others. Various groups have recently asserted their own
ethnolinguistic identities. Many of these were sidelined for some time by earlier ethnological
research, but new studies and the perceived benefits under the IPRA have placed the issue in the
limelight. From 12 recognized ethnolinguistic groups, data from linguistic research, and
self-identification reflected in the recent government census (2020), there are as many as 92
groups in the region.
The history of identity formation is not over, but the labels and names etched in colonial
scholarships remain influential.
 CHAPTER SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT
Multiple Choice. Choose the letter of the best answer. Write your answers on the blank space provided
before each number.

1) Who were the earliest migrants of Cordillera Central?

a) Austronesians c) Indonesians
b) Igorots d) Negritos
2) Languages in the Cordillera are related to each other as part of Central Cordillera languages.
Which language pair are closest to each other?
a) Bontok-Kalinga c) Bontok-Kankanaey
b) Ifugao-Kalanguya d) Itneg-Ibaloy
3) Based on latest carbon dating, Ifugao terraces were constructed around what time?
a) 2000 years ago c) 100 years ago
b) 1000-2000 years ago d. 200-300 years ago
4) When one says that the Cordillera was not colonized by Spaniards, what does this mean?
a) No Spaniards ever set foot in Cordillera territory.
b) Occupation and influence by Spaniards on the region are limited.
c) Inhabitants of the Cordillera resisted every Spanish entry to the region.
d) Only the area of Benguet was occupied and ruled by Spaniards.
5) A label applied to all Cordillera Central inhabitants during the colonial period.
a) Igorot c) Ifugao
b) Mandaya d) Tingguian
6) The first colonially defined political organization that grouped several villages into single
administrative territories.
a) Sub-provinces
b) Commandancia Politico-Militares
c) Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes
d) Provinces
7) Which among the following groups identified in Blumentritt list is found in Kalinga?
a) Guinaanes c) Panipuipuy
b) Itetepanes d) Ilamut
8) The Cordillera Central, except Abra, was organized as Mountain Province in what year?
a) 1900 c) 1905
b) 1902 d) 1908
9) Under colonial times, the bases of labeling/naming include the following EXCEPT one.
a) geographical location c) political/administrative affiliation
b) ethnolinguistic features d) economic conditions
10) What does Igorrote literally mean?
a) “from the mountain” c) “Uncivilized”
b) “upstream” d) “Savages”
11) How did the term Igorot earn negative meanings?
a) Igorots' resistance to Spanish colonialism was interpreted by Spaniards as
expressions of backwardness, savagery, and paganism.
 b) Savage and uncivilized behaviors of Igorots resulted to American attachment of
negative characteristics to the term.
c) Colonial writing mistook the term to mean backwardness and isolation.
d) Lowlanders influenced the Spaniards to associate negative connotations to the
term.
12) Who are the Igorots, according to David Barrows?
a) Lepanto and Bontoc people
b) Benguet people
c) Lepanto, Benguet, and Bontoc people
d) Includes all people in the Cordillera Central
13) People of the Cordillera Central were also identified based on their “degree of
civilization” in the following terms, EXCEPT .
a) Non-Christians
b) Tribes
c) Headhunters
d) Cordillerans
14) What name replaced the “Non-Christian Tribes” of the Philippines after the war?
a) Cultural Minorities c) Indigenous Peoples
b) National Minorities d) Indigenous Cultural Communities
15) When was the old Mountain Province divided into four new provinces?
a) 1966 c)1908
b) 1972 d) 1987
16) Regional identity popularized in the 1980s during the call for autonomy.
a) Igorot c) Indigenous Peoples
b) Cordilleran d) Non-Christians
17) Student organization in Metro Baguio that provided a venue for ethnic expression and a haven
for students from all over the region.
a) Igorot Warriors International c) BIBKA
b) BIBAK d) Igorot Global Organization
18) The dam project in the 1970s that ignited oppositions from affected areas.
a) Chico River Dam project c) Ibulao River Dam project
b) Abra River Dam project d) Apayao River Dam project
19) What made up the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) when it was created in 1987?
a) Abra, Apayao, Baguio, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga, Mountain Province
b) Abra, Baguio, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga-Apayao, Mountain Province
c) Baguio, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga-Apayao, Mountain Province
d) Apayao, Baguio, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga, Mountain Province
20) Expressed “Igorotness” in T-shirts like the “Igorotak” reflects pride in
a) historical resistance to colonialism and cultural distinctiveness.
b) the state of savagery and barbarism expressed versus Spanish colonizers.
c) being from the mountains.
d) having numerous and layered identities.
1.
 REFERENCES

A. Printed Materials
Afable, P. (2004). Notes for an Ethnohistory of the Southern Cordillera, Northern Luzon: A Focus on Kalanguya.
The Journal of History, 50(1-4), 152-174.
Bagadion, B. (1991). The Rise and Fall of a Crony Corporation. Philippine Sociological Review,
39(1/4), 24-29
Baguio Midland Courier. (1966, May 29).
Bellwood, P. (1984-1985). A hypothesis for Austronesian origins. Asian Perspective, 26(1).
Blumentritt, F. (1890). List of the Native Tribes of the Philippines and of the Languages spoken by them.
Zeitschrift der Gesselshaft fur Erdkunde zu Berlin, 25, 127-146. (O.T. Mason, Trans.)
Finin, G. (2005). The Making of the Igorot: Contours of Cordillera Consciousness. Ateneo de Manila
University Press.
Fry, H. (2006). A History of Mountain Province (Revised Edition). New Day Publisher. Harrison, F. (1922).
The Corner-stone of Philippine Independence: A Narrative of Seven Years.
The Century Company.
Keesing, F. (1962). Ethnohistory of Northern Luzon. Stanford University Press.
Keesing, F., & Keesing, M. (1934). Taming Philippine Headhunters. Stanford University Press. NCIP. (2021).
Pagkilala, Indigenous Cultural Communities.
Peralta, J. T. (2000). Glimpses: Peoples of the Philippines. NCCA.
Reid, L. A. (1994). Terms for Rice Agriculture and Terrace Building in Some Cordilleran Languages of the
Philippines. In Austronesian Terminologies: Continuity and Change (363-388). Pacific Linguistics,
C-127.
Reid, L. A. (2018). Modeling the Linguistic Situation in the Philippines. Senri Ethnological Studies.
Reid, L. A. (2006). On Reconstructing the Morphosyntax of Proto-Northern Luzon. Philippine Journal of
Linguistics, 37(2).
Scott, W. H. (1987). The Discovery of the Igorots: Spanish Contacts with the Pagans of Northern Luzon (Revised
Edition). New Day Publisher.
Scott, W. H. (1994). The Defense of Igorot Independence. In Of Igorots and Independence. A- Seven Publishing.
Worcester, D. C. (1906). The non-Christian tribes of Northern Luzon. The Philippine Journal of Science, 1(5),
415-498.

B. Electronic Sources
Acabado, S. B., Koller, J. M., Liu, C.-h., Lauer, A. J., Farahani, A., Barretto-Tesoro, G., Reyes,
M. C., Martin, J. A., & Peterson, J. A. (2019). The Short History of the Ifugao Rice Terraces: A Local
Response to the Spanish Conquest. Journal of Field Archaeology.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2019.1574159.
Act No. 2877. (1920, February 4). Retrieved from
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/36130.
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, RA 8371 (1997). Retrieved from
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1997/10/29/republic-act-no-8371/.
Ordillo, et al. (1990, December 4). v. The Commission on Elections. G.R. No. 93054. Retrieved from
https://lawyerly.ph/digest/c96cb?user=1715.
Philippine Government. (1987). Executive Order No. 220. Official Gazette.
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1987/07/15/executive-order-no-220-s-1987/.
Republic Act No. 7878. (1995, February 14). Retrieved from
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1995/02/14/republic-act-no-7878/.
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Legislative districts of Mountain Province. Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_districts_of_Mountain_Province.