HISTORY OF PHIL INDIGENOUS COMMUNITES

American Contribution
1. Sphere of Labeling
2. Providing political or administrative structures

Two Labels of the Population

1. “Civilized” or “Christians”
2. “Wild” or “non-Christians”

They cannot be called pagan, some are Mohammedan, others have religious worship.
They cannot be called wild, some are gentle and highly civilized

Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes

- Conducted investigations to ascertain the name of each tribe, territorial limits, approx.
no. of individuals, their social organization, languages, beliefs, manners and customs.
- Purpose: to learn the most practical way of bringing about their advancement in
civilization and material prosperity.

Civilized and Christian Tribes

- Bicol, Cagayan, Ilocano, Pampanga, Pangasinan, Tagalog, Visayan, and Zambales.

Local males enlisted in the Philippine

Constabulary – it is highly desirable to police the wild man’s country with wild men.
Ex. Bontoc Igorots and Ifugaos are excellent constabulary soldiers; they are faithful,
efficient, absolutely loyal and implicitly obedient.
Bates Agreement [first] – the Sultan acknowledged the sovereignty of the Us government
in his capacity as the spiritual head of Islam was in turn recognized by the US
gov’t.
Second Agreement – the Sultan of Sulu to ratify and confirm “without any reservation of the
sovereignty of the USA.

MORO PROVINCE
Act No. 39 - Creation Tribal Wards and Tribal Ward Courts
Appointment of District Governor- given power to enact ordinances for the ward government.
- to try cases involving violation of ordinances
- keep peace in his bailiwick
- He is paid a small salary
- to wear a gorgeous badge of office
Commonwealth Act No.75 [October 1936] - abolished the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes
- The shift from the policy of attraction to that of complete equality before the law.
Policy of attraction – toleration of differences and privileges.
Quezon – to directly deal with the people instead of with the datus, sultans, leaders or caciques
[bosses].
REGALIAN DOCTRINE VS. ANCESTRAL DOMAIN
The Regalian doctrine has been and is still enshrined in the Phil Constitutions of 1935, 1973
and 1987.

Regalian Doctrine
 -the state declares itself the sole owner of what is called state domain and reserves the
right to classify it for purposes of proper disposition to its citizens.
-Regalian Doctrine is regarded as a legal fiction because no such law ever existed.

Two Classifications of Lands

1. Alienable and disposable – may be owned privately, and titled to themselves, by
individuals or corporations
2. Inalienable and non-disposable – state-owned and are not open to private ownership;
may be leased for a specified period. Ex. forest areas, mineral lands and bodies of water

SPAIN’S DISCOVERY OF THE PHIL

The King stood for the Spanish State. The King or the State reserves the right and authority to
dispose of lands therein to its subjects and in accordance with its laws.

To the US government, the Treaty of Paris effected a transfer of title of ownership, or of

sovereign rights over the entirety of the Phil. Archipelago.

Extent of the Regalian doctrine to the minoritization of the indigenous communities

- The state took away the lands that should properly belong to these communities.
- Very extensive territory amounting to about one-half of the total land area.

Act No. 718 of 1903 was entitled “An Act making void land grants from Moro Sultans or datus
or from chiefs of non-Christian tribes when made without governmental authority or consent”.

Regalian doctrine the state owns all lands of public domain.

Alienate to transfer or revoke ownership of property.

REGALIAN DOCTRINE; FOREST LAND NON-REGISTERABLE AS PRIVATE LANDS;

HOMESTEAD
All lands of the public domain belong to state and those lands not appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to the state. Lands of the public domain are classified
into agricultural, Forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks. alienable and disposable
lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands

Responsible mining
constitutional provision
article XI I: national economy and patrimony
1. regarding doctrine - All-natural resources belong to the state.
2. State aims
A. Equitable distribution of opportunities
B. Raise quality of life specially the underprivileged

Land Registration Act of 1902 – it mandated and provided for the guidelines for the
registration and titling of privately-owned lands.

DISCRIMINATORY PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC LAND LAWS

1. US acquisition of sovereignty did not carry with it the recognition of the communal ancestral
domains of the indigenous communities.
2. Act No .718 making void “land grants from Muslim sultans or datus or from chiefs of non-
Christian tribes when made without governmental authority.”
3. The Land Registration Act of 1902 requires the registration of lands. The application shall be
“in writing, signed and sworn to by the applicant.”
Under the present property law, communal ownership is a mere fiction of the mind; it is
unregistrable and deserves no legal protection.
4. The Public Land Act No. 926 of 1903 – allowed individuals to acquire homesteads not
exceeding 16 hectares each, and corporations 1,024 hectares each of “unoccupied, unreserved,
unappropriated agricultural public lands.”
5. Public Land Act No. 926 amended through Act No. 2874 of 1919 – provided that the 16
hectares was increased to 24 hectares, but the non-Christian was allowed an area w/c shall not
exceed 10 hectares with very stringent conditions. Permit to cultivate and improve the land, if
cultivation has not begun w/in 6 months, the permit will be cancelled.
6. Commonwealth Act No. 41 [1936] – withdrew the privilege earlier granted to the settlers of
owning more than one homestead at 24 hectares each and reverted to only one not exceeding
16 hectares. But the non-Christians who were earlier allowed a max of 10 hec were now
permitted only 4 hec
• Mateo Carino vs. Insular Government Case
GR No. L-2746
December 6, 1906
Required:
1. Summarize the antecedent facts of the case.
[use 7 bullets only]
2. State the issue or bone of contention.
[one sentence only. Start sentence with “Whether or not….”
3. Discuss the Supreme Court Decision
[at least 5 sentences to justify the judgment]
4. Who is the ponente/author of the case?