A Critique on “Rethinking Sustainable Development Indigenous Peoples and

Resource Use Relations in the Philippines ”

By: Levita Duhaylungsod
In: Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, The Philippines Historical
and social studies 157(2001), no: 3, Leiden, 609-628

Submitted to: Dr. Cecilia T. Medina

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in PS 233
Mid-year, 2019-20
Submitted by: Macrina A. Morados
Student, PS 233

Before dissecting the article of Miss Levita Duhaylungsod, it should be helpful for us to look into the
whole context of the matter at hand (sustainable development). The following statements will show the
complete metamorphosis of this term; how it started to be used; where it was first used; and how it evolved
until it caught the attention of the entire civilized world, principally with the major backing of the United Nations
itself. It will be seen how this all started with the necessity of sustainable forest management, as it was first
applied in Europe, as early as during the 17th and 18th century. From there onwards, it caught on the attention
of the world and spread like wildfire, until this term would encompass the overall context of sustainable
development in all aspects of life – from politics, to human resources, and the whole of human eco-systems,
but this would even include economic development – thus narrowing it all in four basic domains, such as:
ecology, economics, politics and culture.
Sustainable development is the organizing principle for meeting human development goals while
sustaining the ability of natural systems to provide the natural resources and the ecosystem services upon
which economy and society depend. The desired result is a state of society where living conditions and
resources are used to continue to meet human needs without undermining the integrity and stability of the
natural system. Sustainable development can be defined as development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations. ( UN SDG, 2003)
While the current concept of sustainable development is derived mostly from the Brundtland Report
(1987), it is also rooted on earlier ideas about sustainable forest management and twentieth century
environmental concerns. As the concept developed, it has shifted to focus more on economic
development, social development and environmental protection for future generations. It has been suggested
that "the term 'sustainability' should be viewed as humanity's target goal of human-ecosystem equilibrium
(homeostasis), while 'sustainable development' refers to the holistic approach and temporal processes that
lead us to the end point of sustainability". Modern economies are endeavoring to reconcile ambitious
economic development and obligations of preserving natural resources and ecosystems, as the two are
usually seen as of conflicting nature. Instead of holding climate change commitments and other sustainability

1
measures as a drug to economic development, turning and leveraging them into market opportunities will do
greater good. Economic development brought by such organized principles and practices in an economy is
called Managed Sustainable Development (MSD).
The concept of sustainable development has been, and still is, subject to criticism, including the
question of what is to be sustained in sustainable development. It has been argued that there is no such thing
as a sustainable use of a non-renewable resource, since any positive rate of exploitation will eventually lead
to the exhaustion of earth's finite stock, this perspective renders the Industrial Revolution as a whole
unsustainable. It has also been argued that the meaning of the concept has opportunistically been stretched
from 'conservation management' to 'economic development', and that the Brundtland Report promoted
nothing but a business-as-usual strategy for world development, with an ambiguous and insubstantial
concept attached as a public relations slogan.
Sustainability can be defined as the practice of maintaining world processes of productivity
indefinitely—natural or human made—by replacing resources used with resources of equal or greater value
without degrading or endangering natural biotic systems. Sustainable development ties together concern for
the carrying capacity of natural systems with the social, political, and economic challenges faced by
humanity. Sustainability science is the study of the concepts of sustainable development and environmental
science. There is an additional focus on the present generations' responsibility to regenerate, maintain and
improve planetary resources for use by future generations.
Sustainable development has its roots in ideas about sustainable forest management which were
developed in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. In response to a growing awareness of the depletion
of timber resources in England, John Evelyn argued that "sowing and planting of trees had to be regarded
as a national duty of every landowner, in order to stop the destructive over-exploitation of natural resources"
in his 1662 essay Sylva. In 1713 Hans Carl von Carlowitz, a senior mining administrator in the service of
Elector Frederick Augustus I of Saxony published Sylvicultura Oeconomica, a 400-page work on forestry.
Building upon the ideas of Evelyn and French minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert, von Carlowitz developed the
concept of managing forests for sustained yield. His work influenced others, including Alexander von
Humboldt and Georg Ludwig Hartig, eventually leading to the development of a science of forestry. This in
turn influenced people like Gifford Pinchot, first head of the US Forest Service, whose approach to forest
management was driven by the idea of wise use of resources, and Aldo Leopold whose approach to land
ethic was influential in the development of the environmental movement in the 1960s.
Following the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962), the developing environmental
movement drew attention to the relationship between economic growth and development and environmental
degradation. Kenneth E. Boulding in his influential 1966 essay The Economics of the Coming Spaceship
Earth identified the need for the economic system to fit itself to the ecological system with its limited pools of
resources. One of the first uses of the term “sustainable” in the contemporary sense was by the Club of
Rome in 1972 in its classic report on the Limits to Growth, written by a group of scientists led
by Dennis and Donella Meadows of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Describing the desirable
"state of global equilibrium", the authors wrote: "We are searching for a model output that represents a world
system that is sustainable without sudden and uncontrolled collapse and capable of satisfying the basic
material requirements of all people."
Following the Club of Rome report, an MIT research group prepared ten days of hearings on "Growth
and Its Implication for the Future" (Roundtable Press, 1973) for the US Congress, the first hearings ever held
on sustainable development. William Flynn Martin, David Dodson Gray, and Elizabeth Gray prepared the
hearings under the chairmanship of Congressman John Dingell.
2
 In 1980, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature published a world conservation
strategy that included one of the first references to sustainable development as a global priority and
introduced the term "sustainable development". Two years later, the United Nations World Charter for
Nature raised five principles of conservation by which human conduct affecting nature is to be guided and
judged. In 1987 the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development released the
report Our Common Future, commonly called the Brundtland Report. The report included what is now one of
the most widely recognised definitions of sustainable development is: “the development that meets the needs
of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs ( UN SDG,2003)
Since the Brundtland Report, the concept of sustainable development has developed beyond the
initial intergenerational framework to focus more on the goal of “economic growth that is socially inclusive
and environmentally sustainable.” In 1992, the UN Conference on Environment and Development published
the Earth Charter, which outlines the building of a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st
century. The action plan Agenda 21 for sustainable development identified information, integration, and
participation as key building blocks to help countries achieve development that recognises these
interdependent pillars. It emphasizes that in sustainable development everyone is a user and and provider
of information. It stresses the need to change from old sector-centered ways of doing business to new
approaches that involve cross-sectoral co-ordination and the integration of environmental and social
concerns in all development processes. Furthermore, Agenda 21 emphasizes that broad public participation
in decision making is a fundamental prerequisite for achieving sustainable development.
Under the principles of the UN Charter, the Millennium Declaration identified principles and treaties
on sustainable development, including economic development, social development, and even
including environmental protection. Broadly defined, sustainable development is a systems approach to
growth and development and to manage natural, produced, and social capital for the welfare of their own and
future generations. The term sustainable development as used by the United Nations incorporates both
issues associated with land development and broader issues of human development such as education,
public health, and standard of living. A 2013 study concluded that sustainability reporting should be reframed
through the lens of four interconnected domains: ecology, economics, politics and culture.
In September 2015, the United Nations General Assembly formally adopted the "universal, integrated
and transformative" 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a set of 17 Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs). The goals are to be implemented and achieved in every country from the year 2016 to 2030.
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is defined as education that encourages changes
in knowledge, skills, values and attitudes to enable a more sustainable and equitable society. ESD aims to
empower and equip current and future generations to meet their needs using a balanced and integrated
approach to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.
The concept of ESD was born from the need for education to address the growing and changing
environmental challenges facing the planet. In order to do this, education must change to provide
the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that empower learners to contribute to sustainable development.
At the same time, education must be strengthened in all agendas, programmes, and activities that promote
sustainable development. Sustainable development must be integrated into education and education must
be integrated into sustainable development. ESD is holistic and transformational education and
concerns learning content and outcomes, pedagogy and the learning environment.

3
 With regards to learning content such as curricula, the complex sustainability challenges facing
societies cut across boundaries and multiple thematic areas. Education must therefore address key issues
such as climate change, poverty and sustainable production. ESD promotes the integration of these critical
sustainability issues in local and global contexts into the curriculum to prepare learners to understand and
respond to the changing world. ESD aims to produce learning outcomes that include core competencies such
as critical and systemic thinking, collaborative decision-making, and taking responsibility for the present
and future generations.
In order to deliver such diverse and evolving issues, ESD uses innovative pedagogy,
encouraging teaching and learning in an interactive, learner-centered way that enables exploratory, action-
oriented and transformative learning. Learners are enabled to think critically and systematically develop
values and attitudes for a sustainable future. Since traditional single-directional delivery of knowledge is not
sufficient to inspire learners to take action as responsible citizens, ESD entails rethinking the learning
environment, physical and virtual. ESD applies to all levels of formal, non-formal and informal education as
an integral part of lifelong learning. The learning environment itself must adapt and apply a whole-institution
approach to embed the philosophy of sustainable development.
Building the capacity of educators and policy support at international, regional, national and local
levels helps drive changes in learning institutions. Empowered youth and local communities interacting with
education institutions become key actors in advancing sustainable development. Launching the UN Decade
of Education for Sustainable Development started a global movement to reorient education to address the
challenges of sustainable development. Building on the achievement of the Decade, stated in the Aichi-
Nagoya Declaration on ESD, UNESCO endorsed the Global Action Programme on ESD (GAP) in the 37th
session of its General Conference. Acknowledged by a UN General Assembly Resolution and launched at
the UNESCO World Conference on ESD in 2014, the GAP aims to scale-up actions and good practices.
Along wth its partners, UNESCO has a major role in bringing about key achievements to ensure the principles
of ESD are promoted through formal, non-formal and informal education.
International recognition of ESD as the key enabler for sustainable development is growing steadily.
The role of ESD was recognized in three major UN summits on sustainable development: (1) the 1992 UN
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; (2) 2002 World Summit
on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa; and (3) the 2012 UN Conference on
Sustainable Development (UNCSD) in Rio de Janeiro. Other key global agreements such as the Paris
Agreement (Article 12) also recognize the importance of ESD. Today, ESD is arguably at the heart of
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The
SDGs recognize that all countries must stimulate action in these key areas - people, planet,
prosperity, peace and partnership in order to tackle the global challenges that are crucial for the survival
of humanity. ESD is explicitly mentioned in Target 4.7 of SDG4, which aims to ensure that all learners acquire
the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development and is understood as an important
means to achieve all the other 16 SDGs.

On Levita Duhanglungsod’s Discourse

Against the whole presentation of the evolution of the term “sustainable development” as seen above,
Miss Levita Duhaylungsod proceeds by starting to propose that a marked shift of attention is currently focused
on indigenous peoples, as far as sustainability issues are concerned. She gave stress to the impetus of
advocacy to search for alternative development models where social justice, equity, and environmental
protection would be assure, considering that indigenous peoples are the prime objects. Using the UN’s

4
WCED activities since the 80’s, she highlights two significant concerns: escalating environmental problems
and emphasis on the community (specifically: indigenous peoples) as the main context of development.
Herein, she even attempts to insert into the picture the issue about women (as integral part of communities).
Future generations of agricultural resources, together with protection of the rights of the unborn and
their share of the benefits of present natural resources, were then given additional emphasis. It is here then
that the world agricultural system and rural development followed because of the inclusion of “sustainable
agriculture” to complete the whole caricature of future development. It is here where Miss Levita stressed
how the FAO has recognized that the world agricultural system will more and more be confronted with
environmental and sustainability questions. She is very keen to show the FAO’s framework for assessing the
prospects for world agriculture within the context of “safeguarding productive potentials and broader
environmental functions for the future generations, as far as agricultural resources are concerned.
With her declaration, however, that sustainable development has a future orientation as a new
strategy, we need to remind her that this she did not introduce this as a new idea. As early as a decade and
a half ago, the idea of “future orientation” had already been plotted out. Among the results of discussions in
the September 2015 UN General Assembly, a concept called “Education for Sustainable Development” was
already born. In that assembly, part of the declaration they proposed about the ESD was something which
“aims to empower and equip current and future generations to meet their needs, using a balanced and
integrated approach to economic, social, and further environmental dimensions of sustainable development.”
Our writer seems to be vague when she gave mention to “revalorizing” traditional societies and
indigenous knowledge into an eco-socialist project (with reference to David Andrew Pepper of Harvard U)
within sustainable development discourse. To be succinct about this, Mr. Pepper had written a book about
Eco-Socialism (1993) which, in a capsule, would present a stand that in this thought, we need to procced to
ecology from social justice and not the other way around. This should mean that nature’s rights (biological
egalitarianism) are meaningless without our human rights (socialism) to precede them.
She gave special honor to how indigenous peoples (where, in her later discourse, she will specify
the T’bolis as good examples) are seen to be naturally inherent with good sustainable resource management
practices, thereby exhibiting ecological sustainability. We really are not sure if she has stayed with these
T’bolis, especially in places where they are concentrated: Lake Sebu, Falel Barangay in Kiamba (Saranggani
Province), and in T’boli Municipality itself. We used to visit all these places, even staying with these peoples
at length for at least one fortnight, and this is the truth of the matter. First, the reason why they are credited
with these amorous practices, as far as ecology and sustainable development are concerned, but this is so
merely because they are not yet privy to the ABC’s of the whole thing; they have not embarked on artificial
fertilizer usage, for instance, because of the costs involved and because they would prefer their traditional
practices (which, of course, run in consonance with sustainable development). Secondly, while the ideas of
sustainable resource management are, indeed, part of their normal agricultural daily practices, it is all
because of their ignorance of modern methods of agriculture and farming. Their adherence to these
admirable practices is still far from perfect. Specifically, it has not yet been ingrained in their knowledge to
avoid “slash and burn” farm practices and it has not yet become a part of their agricultural know-how to
prevent soil erosion as consequence of their farming practices. In other words, there is still much room for
these peoples to improve on sustainability practices. We can only summarize that, in general, these
indigenous peoples, since time immemorial, have stuck to their closeness to nature, hence their traditional
farm practices do not run contrary to the current trend of sustainable development. For one thing,
sustainability issues can also be worded as “going back to nature” in utilizing our natural resources.

5
 The argument put forth by sustainable development advocates and environmentalists, stating the
values that go with indigenous knowledge through traditional agricultural practices, pointing to indigenous
peoples in the Philippines as “sustainable stewards”, as a highlighter, are laudable. We could also add here
the rapid “saleability” of organic rice from Benguet. The problem remains, however, that all these discourses
would go as far as documentations only. In their documentary work, they even glorify these indigenous
peoples as “bearers of culture and knowledge on resource management,” but nothing is done after this.
These writers should be more pro-active by going out into the field, going to “Ground Zero”, so to speak and
provide more guidance and proper technologies to these indigenous peoples. While the writer herein
mentions “reification” which means making something real (which was originally abstract), positive action to
assist the indigenous peoples seems to be more appropriate and really pro-active.
A more interesting comment by our writer is about how notions of sustainable and community based
resource management is often based on incorrect assumptions. She added that much of the resource base
of indigenous peoples has been diminished significantly. Specifically, we clarify the truth of her statement,
particularly with regards to most indigenous peoples of our country. More and more, they are driven farther
and farther into the highlands precisely because their ancestral domains are being ravished and raped by
“modern developers” and industrialists. In Lake Sebu and in the greater territory of the T’bolis, which is the
T’boli Municipality, as pathetic examples, multinational corporations more and more have encroached on
their domains and the T’bolis are increasingly swept aside. Banana multinational corporations, specifically
are there in the territories of the T’bolis, thus their role as “sustainable stewards” may become a myth not
long from now. This is the most problematic issue against sustainable development. Politicians and
government officials, from the lower up to the highest levels, are actual proxies to obstacles of the utopian
dreams of sustainable development.

Mode of Subsistence of Indigenous Peoples:

Certainly, our writer is able to present how indigenous peoples normally stick to subsistence levels
of production. She accurately pointed out how most indigenous peoples, particularly in all areas within our
archipelago, usually do not go beyond this level of production and most often do not reach out for surplus
production. Well said, especially when she etched an ideal portrait of how appropriation and utilization of
resources are consequently controlled, even extolling the action of subsistence production which supposedly
enables these indigenous peoples to survive as an entire community. The truth of the matter, however, is
rather quite unpleasant to the ears. All the limitations of subsistence production being seen among our
indigenous peoples are due to the incessant rapacious moves of “modern developers and industrialists.” Our
nation’s summer capital itself – Baguio City – a very recent environmental crime has been committed.
Numerous trees were pillaged, with the express and official consent of their local officials when concerned
parties conspired to “provide more industrial development through building infrastructures” to the detriment
of the community itself and the local ecology.
In Mindanao, giant corporations, such as Sumitomo, Dole-Stanfilco, Del Monte, and many more
multinationals that are chiefly owned by US transnational capitalists, have continuously held sway over
shameless unstoppable occupations of more and more lands for surplus production of bananas, pineapples,
vegetables as asparagus and other prime veggie commodities, papaya, and other fruits for export. So much
worse is the fact that 95 percent of whatever they produce from all these lands are exported to many foreign
countries abroad. To give a semblance of selling their produce locally, we can find Del Monte and Dole-
Stanfilco products in so many groceries of malls in many areas around the Philippines, but little do most
people know that these goods comprise only five percent of the total production from all these multinationals.

6
 While our writer may be telling the truth about the ideals of subsistence production among our
indigenous peoples, she fails miserably in telling the stark reality of the forced action by these same tribal
peoples. Any attempt for them to produce more would remain futile because even their ancestral domains
are encroached upon by those so-called “industrialists and developers.” Even in Lake Sebu itself, we can
find increased production of tilapia farming. More and more of this fish is sold in many provinces around
Mindanao and perhaps even as far as the Visayan provinces. The truth behind all these, however, is: none
of the native local T’bolis are owners of these huge fishponds around the lakes of Lake Sebu. These are
owned pathetically by outsiders, those capitalists who are not residents of Lake Sebu. Of course, the T’bolis
of Lake Sebu are thus totally unable even to fish freely in these lakes which they own. Intruders, who are the
outsider capitalists, prevent them from fishing freely and producing their own tilapia in their own lakes!
Miss Levita Duhaylungsod has attempted to present how several indigenous communities try to go
beyond subsistence production. She pointed out how these peoples apparently are undecided, being on the
crossroads of staying within traditional subsistence production practices and that of engaging in agricultural
production geared for the market. She tries to point out how these tribal peoples are facing a tension between
accumulation and subsistence production. These are ideals and theories that she mentions – all because the
stark reality is: they are prevented from having the resource for any production beyond subsistence levels.
Encroachers, mostly of multinational and foreign ownership (and mostly North American capitalists) are the
principal actors that are the real obstacles to any attempts by indigenous peoples to produce good for the
market. They are being physically sidelined perpetually and our government has done nothing to stem the
tide of unlimited ravaging of ancestral domains. Most of all, the law of ancestral domain ownership is there
already as part of the law of the land today. Yet, almost nothing has been done to apply it to the hilt. In most
instances, any case involving ancestral domains will either be a show-off practically toothless or it will be
perpetually sidelined again!
In our country, in particular, the issue of forest conservation is something that is almost a myth. Most
of our mountains have remained bald and devoid of trees. Logging concessions principally stand as the main
culprits to deforestation in the Philippines. High military officers and local politicians are mostly the owners
of many logging concessions. An aging politician who attempted to get re-elected (and failed miserably) is
one of these concessionaires.
In Mindanao itself, at the height of the supposed MNLF struggle for independence, particular high
military officers were in cahoots with MNLF “commanders” who, of course, controlled forested areas and they
engaged in small-scale “illegal logging” business. The national government itself has never been seen to
show naked seriousness to stop logging operations in our country. This is the main reason why nowadays
our forests could only be less that 15 percent of our total land area. This could be compared with Malaysia in
particular. The strident practice of the Malaysian government is to control most lands and classify most areas
as “federal lands.” Such lands can only be released to any individual or any corporation but with great
difficulty. Strict control of these lands has remained a major action of the Federal Government of Malaysia.
As a result, at least 70 percent of the total land area of Malaysia has remained to be forested. Most of all, the
National Forest (Hutan Negara) has remained a virgin forest until these days. This is the same reason why
elephants still roam in great herds in many forests of Malaysia. Motorists have to be careful when they pass
by many of these forest areas at night – there are signs that would tell the motorists to proceed with caution:
“Awas: Gajah Melintas” (Caution: Elephant Herd Crossing). This is the same reason why tigers and orang-
utans are still aplenty in Malaysian forests. In Bohol, the tarsiers are in danger of extinction also in Palawan
many exotic animals and species are alarmingly endangered because of rapid modernization and in the guise
of development.

7
Requisites of Sustainable Development:
Three interlinked elements are proposed by our writer by which the discourse on sustainable use of
sources and knowledge as demonstrated accordingly by indigenous peoples, which are: social organizations
(and self determination); territorial assets, and knowledge. She explains that these three elements are the
preconditions to a community’s sustainable of resource use. This is how she establishes the linkages of these
three elements, as follows: knowledge relates to a particular territory, separate the people from the land, and
knowledge system loses its relevance – if it is maintained at all; social organization cannot just be maintained
without exchange, cooperation, and some form of sustainability without knowledge and collective action –
which also is needed to perpetuate and continue to revise the knowledge system. She then proceeds to say
that people don’t just adapt to environments; they make them and shape them both from possibilities and
materials they can utilize within their own surroundings. She stresses this position as contrary to the classic
anthropological studies in the 1960s which presented analyses that such traditional communities were simply
viewed as “islands unto themselves” where they cannot establish what changes there are and what
processes that constantly occur over time.
Miss Levita Duhaylungsod posits, however, the action of more modern scholars, who embrace a
political economy perspective, in their focus of studies dealing with indigenous people. They are claiming
accordingly that indigenous peoples have often been interacting with different modes of change with
consequences of innovative patterns of relationship with their own environments. Such observation by
modern scholars indicate how these indigenous peoples are incorporating themselves in politics and even in
market economy – thus ending up with changes in resource management. Indigenous peoples in the
Philippines are seen to have undergone innovations in their social organization and economy during the most
recent centuries that passed. Necessarily, many hill tribe Filipino natives needed to institute adjustments in
resource management and also their productive activities. The more they are driven higher into the highland
fastnesses, all the more they need to make innovations in farming and agriculture – all because of the
incessant rapacious moves of “modern developers and industrialists” to steal their ancestral lands. It is so
acutely needed, however, for our writer to acknowledge that the solidarity and cohesiveness of these
indigenous peoples are not consequential in nature (because of increasing pressures placed on them by
industrial land grabbers). Rather, their communal life where everyone shares with one another, even on a
single wild boar that is caught by an individual tribe member as an example, is something that they have
always been an integral part of their daily existence and social interaction. Their freedom of choice and modes
of action showing their self-determination, their methods of mobilization whatever limited resources are
available around them, including all forms of action for survival have all been an integral part of their
existence. All these always have spelled out their ways of living together as compact communities and they
see the need for everyone to show communal cohesiveness borne by all forms of elements and intervening
factors that drive them to maintain sustainability through unity and solidarity .

Contemporary Conditions of Filipino Indigenous Peoples:

The other term used for the indigenous peoples in this country, other than ethnic minorities, is either
“Lumads” or highlanders, said to constitute around six regional groups. As for Muslims in the Philippines,
which are grouped into 13 different ethnicities, they are differentiated from the prior groups of indigenous
peoples, although these Muslims are also indigenous peoples. The big differentiating factor which separates
the Muslims from all the rest of these indigenous tribes may be the fact that these highlanders or “Lumads”
have been largely Christianized. While our writer will claim that colonial legacy explains the dismemberment

8
and ultimate elimination of their ancestral lands, more than that, it is the respective local and even the national
government that is behind all the land grabbing – in the name of development and industrialization activities.
Certainly, it is also the government that is guilty of all kinds of discrimination that these peoples have been
suffering – even to the point of creating a mindset among the majority communities that these ethnic
minorities, similar to the Muslims themselves, do not desire to gain higher level of education. And this
mentality has stuck through the centuries, probably to justify the neglect being rammed into the mouths of
these two groups of natives. With regards to the uncontrolled encroachment of the lands of these peoples,
the most effective ways of sidelining these natives and driving them farther into the hinterlands and uplands
is to allow, first of all, the majority of the peoples from Luzon and the Visayas to migrate to the localities of
these indigenous peoples. By reason that both the Muslims and the ethnic minority peoples have, through
the centuries, not applied practices of titling their lands, physical encroachment by resettlement had always
been the first mode of displacing these peoples.
In Mindanao, as one best example, the Muslims and the rest of the ethnic minorities used to be the
only dwellers in the south. The ethnic tribal people were mostly occupying the inner portions of the lands in
Mindanao, while the Muslims chose to be nearer the coastal areas. Consequentially, the present ethnic
minorities were the farmers while the Muslims were mostly engaged in marine agriculture ever since. When
the Americans came, they adopted their own effective ways to displace these two groups of Mindanao natives
– like what they did to the American Indians, they resettled scores and scores of natives from the Luzon and
Visayas regions to Mindanao, thereby effectively reducing the two groups of natives to minority status. This
was continued by the Philippine government itself when they were given self-rule (“independence) by USA
since 1946 and even up to the present. This is the same ploy that the Indonesian government applied, by the
way, to Irian Jaya when they claimed about half of it as part of Indonesian territory. To seal the effectuality of
massive resettlements, the Bureau of Lands since then operated actively by placing titles over the entire
Mindanao territory to the ultimate displacement of the present so-called ethnic minorities and the Muslims
themselves.
To demonstrate superficially the Philippine government’s “concern” for the ethnic minorities and the
Muslims, laws on ancestral domain have been enacted by the lawmakers. Further, IPRA (Indigenous
Peoples’ Rights Act) was also enacted in Congress to show that much-vaunted concern for these ethnic
minorities. Yet, these two groups until now cannot easily succeed in their claim of ancestral domain. The
government itself makes it very onerous and almost impossible for these peoples to reclaim their lands
successfully. A dizzying maze of bureaucratic “documentation” processes have to be hurdled that would take
several decades for claimants to obtain their rightful occupation of their ancestral lands. Until the present,
therefore, most of the indigenous peoples and the Muslims would lose their interest to pursue their rightful
claims due to the delaying tactics devised by the government to make it impossible for most claimants to get
back what they legally are supposed to obtain as their lawful territories.
Very true it is that all indigenous natives of the Philippines, including the Muslims themselves do
suffer from absolute uncertainty about being eternally displaced by internal colonizers, greedy developers
and industrialists where the government would either remain silent and distance itself from settling troubles
between two sides or they would be in cahoots with all land encroachers. A case in point is the huge and
increasing expansion of a major banana plantation owner in the areas of Buhangin, Bunawan, Lasang (all
within Davao City jurisdiction) and areas in Panabo City, Carmen, and Tagum City – which lately have
stretched until the areas of Davao del Norte and Compostela Valley. Absolutely nothing has been done to
restrict the continued expansion of this banana plantation. And this banana plantation is owned solely by a
Filipino family who only started to convert vast abaca plantations into banana plantations for export to Japan,
Middle East, and lately to China and even Korea. The same occurrence is currently being done by some

9
expansionist multinational corporations – they have started in all four Davao Areas (Davao del Norte, Davao
Oriental, Compostela Valley, Davao del Sur, Davao Occidental, Makilala and Kidapawan in North Cotabato
and areas in South Cotabato (already). Is there any stopping of their expansionist schemes? Just the same
as the ever-continuing expansionist moves by the Del Monte multinational corporation in Malaybalay and
Bukidnon areas, the government has stayed very silent about these. And the worst thing is: Filipino high
officials in these multinational firms are themselves acting as dummies for their giant American firms by
standing up as owners of so many areas of lands in order to subvert the limitations of expansions by these
multinationals. Some of these high officials become richer, therefore, by standing up in lieu of the
multinational corporations to claim dummy ownership of lands to be cultivated by the same firms.
Our writer, incidentally, may have gone overboard with claims that some ethnic minority people are
resettled on the crossroads where the MILF and the MNLF hold sway. This is something that outsiders cannot
easily know; the truth is territories under the control of the MILF and the MNLF are areas which are strictly
domains of the Muslims themselves. There is no way that the ethnic minorities would be resettled or would
dwell where Muslims also reside. The most that may happen is for these two differentiated tribal groups to
live near each other’s territory, specifically adjacent to each other’s domains, but it would rather be impossible
for ethnic minorities to live exactly where Muslims also live. Rather, most of these indigenous communities
are actually the hotbeds of NPA dominance and even harassment – they are never exempt from any
“revolutionary taxes” that NPAs demand of people who reside near where NPA lairs could be found. Most
indigenous peoples, in fact, are oftentimes forced to become active NPA members in many areas in
Mindanao. A lucid example could be gleaned from one area near Davao City, where the city government
actively protected the rights of the indigenous peoples – here they are found to express their sentiments
against the NPAs because they were assured of protection from the government under the Duterte family.
Another claim of this writer that merits serious review is her statement: “Polarization and social
stratification characterize social structures of the majority of indigenous communities”. This is seemingly too
generalized a statement that may be non-existent at all. If there are, indeed, forms of social stratification
among these peoples, we can say it still is within minuscule proportions, not necessarily worth generalizing.
It is the same with her claims of polarization among these peoples because the truth of the matter is the
stagnant cohesion among community members, so much more with the increasing moves to situate them on
the periphery of areas where they were supposed to enjoy freedom of movement. The more that they are
sidelined by the rest of the Filipino peoples, all the more their internal cohesion and strong adherence to their
traditional practices of active consultation with one another would make them stick together among
themselves. They would refuse to air complaints against several groups who would come and go to convince
them to participate in NGO-sponsored projects; they would demonstrate the usual semblance of docility, as
a rule, but it would be very difficult to really make them pro-active in so many projects that are introduced in
their communities.
Another comment against this writer is her claim of “evident culture of dependence on aid agencies
by these indigenous peoples, adding further that their current economic activity and thinking are reshaped
by the philosophies of these same agencies.” She seems to forget the fact that basically, these indigenous
peoples follow a strong paternalistic mode of living. This we can see in their complete docility and
subservience to the “datus” who are their traditional leaders. These leaders themselves are not elected or
chosen by their community members, but rather such position is passed from one generation to another as
an inherited position. From that original mentality, whenever aid agencies penetrate into their areas and
present projects with promises of benefits to the community members, this is where they regard these groups
as extrinsic “datus” to whom they must also devote absolute allegiance. It means, therefore, that the mentality
of following strict paternalism is the age-old custom of these indigenous peoples.

10
 The other claim of our writer stating “that some individuals among these people desire to lead lives
similar to “progressive lowland Christians” may have some truth in it. But again, such may be isolated cases
which would not merit generalization. Truly, some community members are displaying unusual smartness
and intelligence, borne of their constant contact with lowland peoples, especially if some of them used to be
employed by the latter. By and large, however, the general mentality of these people is one of strict conformity
to a single direction for their own community, docility and submissiveness and outright simple obedience to
their leaders without any question, devoid of any complaints. Their mentality usually runs like this: “if the
majority of our community members agree to the proposed action announced by our “Datu” in consultation
with our elders, then we readily follow, we readily agree.” The general practice among these peoples is one
of full acceptance of what they are and what their situation is – no more, no less.

The Variegated Transformation of Upo in Maitum, Sarangani:

So many ideal transformations have been seen in Upo Village, a part of Maitum Municipality of
Sarangani Province. A deeper understanding needs to be elicited from several decades back in the very
history of the municipality of Maitum. To start, Maitum has been traditionally peopled by the majority
Christians, a large portion of them being Ilocano migrants from Luzon. The next minor group are the Muslims
and the smallest minority are the T’bolis. Since the late 1970’s a continuous reformation and religious
resurgence had transpired among the Muslims in Maitum, due mainly to zealous Islamic preachers who
repeatedly devoted much of their time to preach the ideal Islam which is so much colored by moderation.
Alongside this religious movement in this municipality, Christian groups also joined in a similar tempo of
orchestrating religious reforms among its own adherents. This parallel movement within these two groups
lingered though from the start they acted independently of each other. Later, however, these Christian and
Islamic reformists realized that they have to face each other and ended up with inter-faith dialogues from time
to time. The end result was very ideal – Muslims and Christians in Maitum became so close to each other,
particularly because local Muslim traditional leaders worked alongside the Islamic religious preachers.
Because these traditional Muslim leaders, since the arrival of the Ilocano migrants, offered welcoming
gestures to the Christians, and because the Ilocanos had so little, or even non-existent, prejudice against
Islam, the lively consequence was ideal harmony between the Christian and Muslim communities of Maitum.
Through those years, the Tbolis remained as bystanders who observed all this transformation in
Maitum on the sidelines. But the local Muslims always communicated to these indigenous people and
convinced them that originally in the old, old past of their locality, the T’bolis used to be one with the Muslim
community. Most of the T’boli leaders were easily convinced about this and one of their prominent leaders,
the very municipal mayor himself of T’boli Municipality finally opened his heart to Islam and declared himself
to be a Muslim. Such action was hailed so much by most T’bolis, thereby welcoming Islamic preachers more
and more until some mosques were constructed in Lake Sebu Municipality as a very sound witness to the
religious transformation of the T’bolis. All these developments will have significant ramifications on the
transformation of the T’bolis in Upo, Maitum that will also redound to their own community transformation.
Having achieved active harmony and close interaction among the three communities (Christians who
were mostly Ilocanos, Muslims, and T’bolis) in Maitum, a charismatic leader arose from the traditional
leadership of the Kusin family. With the trust that has transpired through the years among these three groups
in Maitum, and the very active participation of their own community leaders, the Kusins came out freely this
time with the charisma of a Kusin family member who will lead the way to the ideal transformation of the
T’bolis in Maitum.

11
 The different transformations from subsistence farming to agricultural intensification; opening of
different agricultural development schemes; forest protection management schemes; being made replete
with full and active cooperation of the T’boli indigenous peoples of Maitum with many development agencies
actually came about only after so many years of active interaction of three communities therein: the
Christians, the Muslims, and the T’bolis themselves. The main spark that catalyzed this transformation,
however, should be credited to the Ilocanos who were so open-minded, free of tribal or religious prejudices
that would create a domino effect of ideal transformation of communities in Maitum.
This ideal social phenomenon in Maitum could hardly be duplicated in other areas where T’boli tribal
peoples also form a big community (as in Lake Sebu Municipality, T’boli Municipality, in Surallah, and in
Polomolok). The simple reason why things could not easily transpire in these four municipalities is the
absence of active interaction among three groups: Christians, Muslims, and T’bolis themselves. Social walls
of separation between these groups are rather strong and hard to eradicate within these four municipalities.
The most impossible dream to be seen could be in Surallah where the majority of the Christians are Ilonggo
migrants from the Visayas. Their age-old religious prejudices against the Muslims are among the strongest
among all Filipinos. It is all because during the Spanish conquest of our archipelago, Ilonggos were always
used by the Spaniards to fight against the Moro peoples of the far south (Sulu). In Polomolok, the Christians
are so occupied with engagement on work opportunities with Dole-Stanfilco which pineapple cannery is
situated in that municipality. Like Surallah, the political leaders of Polomolok and Surallah sadly do not have
similar interest about Muslim-Christian (and further T’boli inclusion) dialogues and interaction. T’boli
Municipality itself could not easily follow the transformations seen in Maitum Municipality – the T’boli political
leaders are often occupied largely with their schemes of accommodating development interventionists as
banana multinational corporations. A large portion of the lands in T’boli town is now occupied by these
American firms, yet their very presence may not give rosy promises of consequential development in areas
where they are found. Panabo City and Kapalong Municipality have long been the permanent venues of giant
American multinational corporations but nowhere could anyone find concrete and positive changes geared
towards development even on the physical aspect (as improved roads and other infrastructures). It is the
same with Polomolok which has become lately a city; its improvement and current development may not be
attributed to the presence of Dole-Stanfilco therein. Even the main roads connecting the huge cannery and
the residences of American bigwigs farther up the ranges of Polomolok have remained unconcreted through
all these years, which identically is the same with Panabo City and Kapalong. Of course, one could never
expect that T’boli town in a few or later years roads and bridges within this municipality will be improved by
the presence of several multinationals, notably Sumitomo and Dole-Stanfilco.

Conclusion:

Active manipulation of locals that would redound to the perennially precarious position of many
indigenous peoples around our whole archipelago find politicians, local and national, to be the main culprits
of destruction. Attempts for sustainable development among indigenous people will always remain an
impossible dream. The majority community members (Christians in particular) are, likewise, active
participants who dance with the music of these politicians. To complete the whole portrait, outside
interventionists that are mainly industrialists and multinationals provide the impetus for these politicians to
forget about benefits that should be accorded to indigenous communities. If the Philippines will always be

12
lagging behind all other Southeast Asian member nations in development due to massive corruption in all
levels of government (which may not be altered at least ten decades from now), what more could be expected
of the dreams of developing our cultural communities genuinely? This will explain why subsistence practices
and traditional ways of living among indigenous communities all around our archipelago shall always remain
as it has always been through all these times.

References used online:

Ulrich Grober: Deep roots — A conceptual history of "sustainable development" (Nachhaltigkeit),
Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, 2007
^ "Growth and its implications for the future" (PDF). ^
World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development (PDF).
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 1980.

13