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”.
 Figure 1. “Sub-groupings of Cordillera languages”
(Source: Reid, Lawrence A. “On Reconstructing the Morphosyntax
of Proto-Northern Luzon.” Philippine Journal of Linguistics, vol. 37,
No. 2, December 2006, 4).

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 Figure 2. Ethnographic map of Philippine
attribute repugnant characteristics on them Archipelago” (Ferdinand Blumentritt)
like “bandits, and murderers who killed for (Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic
purposes of revenge, robbery, intimidation or extortion and mutilated the bodies of their
s_of_the_Philippines
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
Figure 3. Mountain Province, 1908
BNCT and later the Ethnological
(Source: Fry, 1983, 50)
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 Figure 4. The right map is the old Mountain Province with
help make the mainstreaming 5 sub-provinces, while the left is the new provinces
possible. A new office, called created in 1966. (Source: Baguio Midland Courier, May
29, 1966, 5)
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.

Figure 5. Ethnic groups in the Cordillera Central (Source: Reconstruction from Fox
and Flory map of 1974)
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.

Figure 6. Macliing Dulag and two other Kalinga leaders in the resistance versus
the Chico dam are memorialized in a monument in Bugnay, Kalinga (Source:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidstanleytravel/47973887321)

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 Figure 7. Mount Data Sipat, 1986 between President
of the Cordillera communities. Corazon Aquino and Conrado Balweg of the CPLA
In 1995 another political (Source: https://peace.gov.ph)
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
provided a venue for the redemption of the term when it became more associated to
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, Igorot and 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.
ANSWER KEYS
Unit1
Pre-assessment Activity
1. b 6. c 1. b 6. b
2. d 7. a 2. d 7. d
3. b 8. d 3. a 8. c
4. c 9. a 4. a 9. d
5. d 10. d 5. d 10. c
Unit2
Pre-assessment Activity (Keypoints)
1. a 7. b 1. Consult IPRA
2. a 8. a 2. See Carino, Jacqueline, Country Technical Notes
3. b 9. c on Indigenous Peoples, 39.
4. c 10. b
5. a
6. d

SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT
1. a 11. a
2. c 12. d
3. a 13. d
4. b 14. a
5. a 15. a
6. b 16. b
7. a 17. b
8. d 18. a
9. d 19. b
10. a 20. a
 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.