Table of Contents

Foreword
Preamble
Article I: (Bugis) Territory of the Bodong
Article II: Declaration of Policies
Article III: Bodong Holder
Article IV: Binodngan
Article V: Rights of the Binodngan
Article VI: Specific Crimes and Their Penalties
Article VII: Crimes committed in the violation of the Bugis
Article VIII: Crimes against Womanhood
Article IX: Crimes against Property
Article X: Criminal Negligence
Article XI: Other Crimes
Article XII: Civil Obligations under the Bodong
Article XIII: Final Provisions
Article XIV: General Provisions
Article XV: Amendments
Article XVI: Effectivity
Codification Committee
FOREWORD
Except for those which have been preserved in stone tablets like the Code of Hamurabi (about 2 B.C.),
King of Babylon, the Abrahamic books and other Ante-Deluvian books of history which were all in cuneiform
writing, all primitive laws of mankind have been handed down to the generations lex non scripta (unwritten laws).
Even after the invention of the printing press, many laws of states were unwritten, the most notable of which is the
English Constitution of Great Britain, although there are other British laws which have been written.
Closer to us here in the Philippines are primitive laws, which, too, have been written. Although some were
written like the Code of Kalantiaw, it is known that this law is written in brief, commandment form. Studies
likewise show that in the Philippines, the Kalinga Pagta is one of the primitive laws preserved and practiced for
Kalinga Pagta is the only primitive constitution which has been preserved since time immemorial, alive and
practiced by the ethnic Kalinga themselves.
For years, since the Kalinga Bodong (peace pact) system came into existence as a rule of law by ancient
indigenous Kalingas, the Pagta was the code that governed their lives. It is not yet known whether or not the
primitive Kalingas had their own form of writing. But present day studies on their culture does not seem to show
any trace of writing form preserved, even in stone tables as in the Abrahamic and Babylonian ear of history
The Kalinga Pagta (or literally translate, Law of the Bodong) of the Kalingas has been among human laws in
this world which had remained lex non scripta since time immemorial. Historians during the Spanish period,
apparently, had no encounter with the Kalinga Pagta because in those available writing on Filipino cultural heritage,
no mention has been made on the indigenous laws of the Kalingas. It was only before the outbreak of World War II
that American sociologist had made studies on the Kalingas. Rot F. Barton had recorded in his book on the Kalingas
the bodong practice and had also touched on the Pagta of the Bodong.

Although many writers had attempted to write about the Kalinga Bodong institution, efforts to codify the
bodong laws was only started in 1974 during the administration of Governor Rolando T. Puzon. The last provincial
governor of the Pre-Martial Law era called for a tribal convention to tackle, among other things, the standardization
and writing of the Kalinga Pagta. The plan was aborted wit5h the sudden replacement by President Marcosw of
Governor Puzon with Governor Tanding B. Odiem taking over the governorship.
The plan was pursued by Governor Amado T. Almazan when he took over the governorship from Odiem
in 1981. Almazan first convened tribal leaders for consultation at the Tabuk National High School. Later in 1982, the
first serious attempt at writing the Kalinga Pagta was made during the Kalinga Bodonfg Conference at the BIBAK
National Agricultural School compound. A draft of the Pagta produces by the Pagta Committee headed by Board
Member Castro B. Lammawin was the work paper of the conference during which it was discussed in open
debates by prominent Kalinga tribal leaders (peace pact holders) and professionals. A style committee was also
formed to put the Pagta in its codified form. Among the professionals who were in that style committee were Court
of First Instance Judge Honorio Salvatiera and former Municipal Judge Pablo M. Gupa-al, Board Member Castro B.
Lammawin, former Deputy Governor Jose Chaclag, among others.
Although the working draft of the Pagta was approved in principle by the Convention, work on the
codification was hampered by prolonged debates on other provisions, notable of which was the provision of instant
retaliation. The Kalinga Bodong Federation headed by ExGovernor Tanding B. Odiem tried to end all debates on
the issue until the EDSA Revolution temporarily shelved the issues and conventions held for the purpose.
The administration of Governor Laurence B. Wacnang gave the Pagta issue a chance to be brought to the
mainstream of the Provincial Government agenda on cultural policies. Board Member John B. Dongui-is, a former
college instructor on history, spearheaded the move to resuscitate the project on the codification of the Kalinga
Pagta. On Governor Wacnangs instruction, Board Member Dongui-is headed a Committee which prepared the
program for the convening of a Kalinga Bodong Congress. The congress would give emphasis to the codification
of the Prototype Pagta.
On December 19, 1988, the Honorable Laurence B. Wacnang mandated Board Members John B. Donguiis, David Banson, Gavino Mosing, and Elpidio B. Tubban, to call for a preparatory conference towards the conduct
of a Bodong Congress. Among others, to prepare and formalized the plans and programs of the forthcoming 1989
Kalinga Bodong Congress.
On April 1989, the first Bodong Congress called by Governor Laurence B. Wacnang was held at the BIBAK
National Agricultural School Conference Hall with Kalinga tribal elders/leaders and bodong holders in attendance.
In that congress, the Kalinga Bodong Council was formed. Alongside with the Council was the organization of the
Kalinga Bodong Congress, Inc.
The Prototype Pagta as an output of the Firsat Bodong Congress and amended on the Second Bodong
Congress was compiled and put into style by Atty. Basilio A. Wandag as the Secretary General assisted by Atty.
Arthur G. Kub-ao as Assistant Secretary General.
The Second and Third Bodong Congress were held in 1991 and 1993, respectively with further modifications
of the Prototype Pagta. It was further amended as a result of the Third Kalinga Bodong Congress in 1993, which was
the basis for the Committee on Codification on the codified Kalinga Pagta.
In 1995, a Committee was formed to Codify the Pagta with the Hon. John B. Dongui-is as the Over-all
Coordinator, Judge Victor A. Dalanao as Chairman of the Committee, with the following members namely, Judge
Josephine B. Gayagay, as Vice Chairman and Secretary, Arthur G. Kub-ao, Alfredo A. Tombali, Pablo D. Gabit,
Placido T. Alsiyang, Jr. and Geronimo Donaal as researchers, Augustus U. Saboy as technical staffs.
The codification started in 1997 and was finished and presented during the Fourth Bodong Congress held
on September 11-13, 1998 at the BIBAK-NAS conference hall. The said codified Pagta was unanimously approved.

It should be explained that new provisions were inserted on the Pagta, These new provisions were based
on actual decisions of elders in various conflict resolutions, and also on new developments to keep the Pagta attuned
and responsive to new situations.
Meantime, the Codification Committee was again tasked to annotate the Codified Pagta composed of the
Kalinga Lawyers and Professional Leaders. Their work started right after the fourth Kalinga Bodong Congress and
was finished last December 31, 1999. This is now the fruit of their labor.
It is hoped that with this annotation of the Pagta, the people will come to appreciate the merits of the
Bodong.

- The Pagta Codification Committee *********************************************************************

********************
PREAMBLE
We the Kalinga people of the Cordillera, Philippines, invoking the guidance of almighty Kabunyan,
exercising our inalienable rights to preserve, promote and maintain the bodong system of governance which our
people have practiced since time immemorial, to guarantee and ensure to each and every kalinga the protection of
life, liberty, property, freedom, equality, justice, peace and the development and sustainability of our patrimony, for
our general well being and that of our posterity do hereby adopt this pagta of the bodong.

Purpose and effect of the preamble:

The preamble is strictly not a part of this pagta. It sets down the origin, scope and
purpose of the pagta, the mood, the aspirations of the people, hence it is
useful as an aid in
ascertaining the meanings of the ambiguous provisions.
The preamble bears witness to the aspiration of the binodngan to preserve, promote and
maintain the indigenous system of governance, guarantees the protection of life, property,
freedom, equality and justice and peace and sustainable development in one harmonious society
under the guidance of Kabunyan.
The inclusion of sustainable development is to address the issue of conservation in the
exploitation of our rich natural resources for our own benefit and that of our posterity....

ARTICLE I: BUGIS (Territory of the Bodong)

Section 1: The bugis of the bodong is the territorial jurisdiction of an ili as defined in their
respective pagta which include all lands and natural resources owned, occupied and possessed
since time immemorial by the members of the sub tribe, by themselves or through their
ancestors, communally or individually in accordance with their customs and traditions. It
encompasses ancestral lands, private properties, forests, pasturelands, agricultural lands,
residential lands, hunting grounds, burial grounds, bodies of water, mineral deposits including
the airspace and the subterranean resources
Section 1 contains the definition of Bugis. The definition is very encompassing. It is also known as kais or piglis.
This Pagta affirms the existing territorial boundaries of each ili as defined by the umili and recognized by other sub
tribes.

It is very important to know the boundary or extent of a territory on which this pagta finds application,
especially so in resolution of conflicts between sub tribes. The determination of which peace pact (Bodong) is
affected when a crime has been committed within a certain bugis is very necessary in conflict resolution.
As defined, the bugis has a horizontal reach consisting of land and waters; a vertical reach (upward) consisting
of the air space and downward consisting of subteranean resources.
Land is life to binodngan of any subtribe, so that where another subtribe or any one for that matter usurps their
possession and ownership over a portion or part of their bugis (territory), the binodngan is ready to lay down his life
for it. Its importance cannot be over emphasized.
All sub tribes have delineated their respective territories, which they term bugis or piglis, and this is respected
by other sub tribes; otherwise, there shall be lots of conflict arising out of boundaries.
Bugis has been and is a source of conflict between subtribes
Example:
The people of Dacalan considered as included in their bugis and as their hunting ground
the mountain ranges called Lubu-ung. The people of Basao tried to lay claims over the said land
but the people of Dacalan would not allow. Tribal war ensued between the two subtribes
because of that boundary disputes.
Banagao, which is an area between Mangali and Lubo is another irritant between the two
subtribes. The people of Lubu claimed is as part of their bugis, even as the people of Mangali
laid claims on it.
As regards fishing rights, the people of Tinglayan and Bangad had a running dispute over a
portion of the Chico River.

Section 2: The domicile and real properties of a binodngan located outside any bugis shall
be deemed included within the bugis of said binodngan under the principle of kulligong.
Section 2 contains the principle of kulligong.
This provision simply means that the residence and real properties of a binodngan located outside the bugis of
his own ili is deemed a part of the territory of the bugis of the owner or the sub tribe. Literally, it means to "encircle"
the residential house and lands of a binodngan and make it in the eyes of the pagta as an integral part of the bugis.
This fact must be explicitly informed and accepted by the other bodong.
The Principle of the kulligong is akin to the principle of international law
The concept of kulligong is akin to the provision of international law, which considers as the territory of each
country the place where their respective embassies are established, i.e. the compund of the US embassy is owned by
the US government. Any crime committed within the area of the kulligong is a crime against the bugis of the owner
of the house or realty.

Section 3: When the bodong between two sub tribes is severed, all places outside the bugis
shall be deemed the Matagoan area.
Matagoan area
The old pagta of the bodong states: Any place outside any bugis is called "pupulligan"- killing field or no-mans
land. This is so by expressed unwritten pagta for there is no bodong to enforce the bodong in the area.
Some areas of Tabuk, i.e. Dagupan, Appas, Magsaysay, San Juan and Bulanao, to mention a few, are areas not
protected by any bodong. It is not covered by any bugis.

This made it easier for binodngan to take revenge here in Tabuk- with impunity- thus disturbing the peace and
order situation of this progressive town- as the educational, economic and political center of Kalinga Province.
To remedy this sad turn of events, the leaders and bodong holders declared Tabuk as a "Matagoan" (Zone of
Life) area during the bodong congress in 1989 under bodong congress Action No. 12-89. The third bodong congress
in 1993 emphasized this and finally this provission was placed under Sec. 3, Art. I of this pagta.
There are some apparent misunderstanding of the "Matagoan Concept". Some construe this provision to mean
that crimes will not be commited here in Tabuk and other matagoan areas. Far from it, this provision does not apply
when the bodong is still subsisting and effective; for the existing bodong will apply "aabbaon ta din bodong"
(literally- each is carrying the bodong (peace pact) on his back), wherever a binodngan lives.
The declaration of Tabuk and other places i.e. schools, boarding houses and places of work of binodngan as
matagoan area, only comes into effect when the existing bodong is severed. There is no more bodong to protect the
binodngan. There is fear, there is imminent danger of revenge upon students, workers and innocent children. To
prevent this from happening, Tabuk and other areas outside the bugis is now declared as matagoan area.

ARTICLE II : DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES OF THE BODONG

Section 1: The bodong recognizes the rule of law
The bodong is a social institution recognized by the Constitution, Local Government code and IPRA Law. In
the bodong is the pagta, which is the governing law. The bodong recognizes the rule of law, meaning, that the
national laws prevail over the provisions of the pagta.
The Bodong recognizes the supremacy of the national Criminal Justice System.
During the American time up the late 60's, the has always been implemented despite the bodong. The offenders
were place behind bars while the bodong system took care of the customary laws.
For instance, in 1939, the people of Lubo and Tulgao had fought it out face to face at Battit, Tinglayan (bank of
the chico river). The Police got all these people involved in the fight both from Tulgao and Lubo and they were
sentenced by the court. They served their prison terms in the National penitentiary. When war broke out, all of them
left for Kalinga and they only parted ways in Tinglayan like brothers.
When the Bodong is restored, the two subtribes gave only the pakan/gusgus and other customary requirements
for the restoration of the bodong to the relatives of the victims from both sides. There were no indemnities paid for
the deaths and injuries sustained during the fights because the bodong was already severed.
Conflict resolutions under the bodong system is based on the following principles
1. It is purely mediation, conciliation and/or arbitration as the case maybe;
2. There is no "judge" who is tasked to decide and resolve issues submitted to him; No police to enforce it.
3. "Decisions" are based on well-meaning suggestions of the leaders and elders;
4. "Decisions" are based on what is reasonable under the circumstances;
5. It is purely a process of concessions from each party involved so that any decisions arrived at is the
decission of the parties themselves;
6. The "decision" is immediately executory;
7. The procedure are simple;
What happens if the parties to a case who are binodngan cannot settle the case within the parameters of the bodong?
The parties are free to go to court
cases:
In one case, a student from Calagdao, Tabuk, Kalinga was killed by his co-student at DEMPHS. Conciliat6ions
were conducted under the auspices of the bodong but the offended parties refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the
bodong. It was decided that the case be brought to court The accused pleaded guilty and placed on probation.
Because they could not collect the civil indemnities awarded by the court, the offended party came again to the
bodong for the award of customary danages.
It was decided that in as much as the case was decided by the court, they were precluded from claiming under
the bodong. However, the assailant gave pagikna to the offended bodong holder.

Suppose a case has been filed in court first?

When a case has been filed in court and the bodong comes in and the case was settled by the bodong, the case
filed in court is usually dismissed on the ground of insufficiency of evidence based on the affidavit of desistance.
In our example above, when the case has been setled by the bodong but the prosecution has presented all their
evidences in court, the criminal aspect may go on and the setlement will be as regards the civil aspect only. This was
what happened in the Beda Addawe case. The accused was sentenced by the court but their is a pending petition for
new trial.
When a case was filed in court, the offender must still pay the customary damages
cases:
Col. Manuel Banggawan was killed in Baguio city by a man from poswoy. The wife of the victim did not want
the case settled under the bodong. The case was instead filed in court.
However in as much as there are remedies under the bodong system, which are not available in the court, the
bodong still came in. The Banao sub tribe claimed 2 carabaos as papod, one carabao each to the bodong holders,
gusgus was paid by the Poswoy sub tribe. Usuk was paid to the relatives of Col. Banggawan from the Guinaang sub
tribe. These customary damages were given in order to maintain peace and harmonios relationship between the two
sub tribes.

Section 2: The bodong promotes peace and order, guarantees the welfare, safety and
interest of the binodngan and the non-binodngan where applicable.
What is noteworthy is that even non-binodngan are guaranteed the protection and benefits of the bodong
"where applicable".
The bodong is a social institution where the members have rights, obligations and social concern. Much of the
social benefits and protection of the bodong are extended to non-binodngan such that they will not go hungry in
binodngan areas, thus they are protected by it.
But when it comes to conflict resolution between a binodngan and a non-binodngan, the provisions of this
pagta is not applicable for the reason that the latter is not a member of the bodong. However, they are not expected
to be bound by it, much less compelled to comply with the pagta, except where they voluntarily submit themselves
to its jurisdiction.
cases:
A minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo was killed in Lubuagan by someone who was not allegedly in his right mind.
No case was filed in court. However, the parents of the assailant were not at peace within themselves without
having the case be settled and justice under the bodong system done. What they did was to voluntarily sit down with
the INC and the case was settled to the satisfaction of both parties applying the pagta of the bodong.
There are other benefits derived from the bodong. A case in point is the transfer of sick people or the cadaver of
the dead to the residence of the sick or dead person.
To illustrate, in 1982, a certain Amazona belonging to the Saclit tribe of Mt. Province was killed in an
encounter with the PNP/Military in Taloctoc. The bodong of Taloctoc caused the cadaver to be brought to Mangali,
the people of Mangali brought it to Lubo, the people of Lubo brought it to Ga-ang, the people of Ga-ang brought the
cadaver to Dacalan, and from Dacalan it was brought to Betwagan, Mt. Province, until the cadaver finally reached
Saclit.
Without the bodong, the transfer of the cadaver to Saclit, Mt. Province, would have been a sheer impossibility,
considering that it has to be carried along mountain ranges.

Section 3: The bodong recognizes the indispensable role of the women and the youth in the
attainment of peace, security and development To hasten their leadership potentials, they are
encouraged to become bodong holders and to actively participate in all bodong activities.
This provision was included to highlight the recognition by the bodong of the rights and the indispensable role
of women and the youth in peace and nation building.
It used to be that women were relegated to the kitchen and the youth were only to provide the entertainment
aspect of the bodong. The trend now is the empowerment of women and youth in decision- making. They ought to
be involved and be available in all bodong matters and activities.
Under the bodong, youth and women have equal rights to be a bodong holder. There is no disqualification for
them whatever the mode of acquisition of the bodong in their favor either by inheritance or they were chosen by the
people. However, where a minor is the chosen bodong holder, his immediate relatives assist him in the discharge of
his functions.

Section 4: The provisions of this pagta shall be enforced to all binodngan regardless of
creed, status, rank, station in life and filial relationship.
Our forefathers have expressed this provision aptly when they said "maidpun/ maid sunud di bodong" (The
bodong has no brother). It means the pagta must be equally enforced on all binodngan.
Cases:
A teacher from Dao-angan was assigned to teach in Tanudan. He stayed in the house of the bodong holder. One
of his student injured the said teacher. The peace-pact holder wants the case to be settled under the bodong but the
offender refused.
What the bodong holder did in retribution of the wrong done was to inflict injury upon the person of his distant
relative, who is at the same time an aunt of the assailant. For avenging such wrong, the assailant was personally
obligated to pay Dusa.
Another case is that of Ludan. He was the bodong holder for Mangali. A carabao belonging to the people of
Mangali was stolen and it was proven that the suspects were from Lubo. For their refusal to settle the case, Ludan
was constrained to injure the relatives of the offender.
Note that the examples above were decided under the Old pagta where the only mode of complying with his
obligation as a bodong holder, was through the infliction of injury to the offender. This is now discouraged!

Section 5 : Revenge is hereby prohibited except in cases where the bodong was
severed as provided under Section 5 Article VI of this pagta, in which case, the
retaliation of the aggrieved party shall solely rest on the person of the offender.
Violation of this provision shall constitute "pot-ak/ patoy "
Our folks, like any people in the world are prone to retaliate. To the Jews, they say "a tooth for a tooth, an eye
for an eye" It is also known as "Lex Taliones".
But what makes the kalingas stand out in this regard is the indiscriminate revenge that is happening. Many
victims of subtribal conflicts are innocent. Their only fault is that they are from the same sub tribes as the
offended/offender.
In the past, the people of each sub tribe are confined within the same bugis. This is the call of necessity for
common security purposes. When the people were in conflict with their neighbors, everybody is called upon to make
a decision, so much so that if they decide to go to war, the decision is a community decision. To revenge, therefore
on any member of the sub tribe is justified in that he was part of the decision making. He is partly responsible. This
argument does not hold water now. First, the usual victims of tribal wars are innocent students, workers who have no
part in the decision-making, much less were they consulted. Second, we claim to be Christians, but are we believing
and practicing Christianity?

To those who still insist on the need for revenge, This pagta has explicitly allowed that the said revenge "shall
be solely on the person of the offender"
When revenge is allowed
Revenge is allowed as a last resort and after complying with Sec. 5, Art. VI- The procedures for Gopas- the
intention was to give more cooling-off-time and discourage any would-be-retaliation.
Another hurdle is that the revenge shall be solely on the person of the offender to the exclusion of his family
members, relatives and sub tribe mates.
Consequences of violation of this provision
The violator of this provision will be guilty of pot-ak/patoy- It will be treated as intentional killing.

Section 6: There shall be no immediate severance of the bodong. When the

bodong was napot-akan, the procedures outlined in Sec. 5, Art. VI, shall be strictly
followed.
This must be read in relation to procedures as outlined in Sec. 5 Art. VI..
When the blood is spilled, the bodong is severed seems to be the prevailing practice until
the present time. This was never the intention of the farmers of the pagta. This is one of the
developments which must be purged from the bodong. Precisely, they provided for the mechanisms
wherein the busdung/bugsung di butu will be sent to the kasupang to give time for the latter to
investigate, hear and settle the case and ultimately to notify his kasupangof the settlement by
sending the pagikna.
This was placed here to revert to the old provision of the pagta and to highlight the fact that
is not that easy to severe a bodong. Most of the bodong were inherited and the pain of just severing
that ligament of brotherhood that lies the parties is too much to bear.
Moreover, the bodong is there as a bridge for the settlement of the Conflicts and if
the bodong is severed, it is harder to settle the dispute. A
new sipat has to be established.
What happens if the bodong is immediately severed?

The immediate severance of the bodong effectively removes the butu - the responsibility
of the bodong holder to redress the wrong done. The offended party has emasculated him
as a bodong holder.
Cases:
A was accidentally hit when a shotgun went off which was in the possession of
B. The gun went off when its butt was bumped by the revolving gate. A died on the
spot.
The tribesmates of A immediately revenged, killing two of the companions of B.
It was held that the butu no longer applies inasmuch as there was immediate
revenge. What should have been done by the party made of A was to send the butu first
to give time to the other bodong holder to property attend to the case.

In another case, a man from Bangad and Dananao were both under the influence
of liquor. The man from Dananao said something which the man from Bangad resented.
He boxed the mouth of the man from Dananao who immediately drew out his bolo from
its scabbard, but the man from Bangad wrestled with him and sustaining injuries in the
process. Seeing what was
going on, another man from Bangad went to help his
tribesmate, but in the process he was wounded. The man from Dananao ran away but he
was hit with a stone on his head by another man from Bangad.
The people of Bangad send the busdung di butu to Dananao and the bodong
holder answered by saying we will sit down and talk.
The sending of the butu was misunderstood as the gopas by the people of Bangad.
The KBC met with the people of Bangad and it was decided that the bodong is
actually not severed. The sending of the busdung di butu is not tantamount to gopas.
What constitute the gopas is the porting.

Section 7. The following acts of a binodngan shall not constitute bug-uy:

i) When he acted to defend his person, honor, relative and companion;
ii) When the act of the binodngan was in fulfillment of a duty or lawful performance of his right
or office;
iii) When the act of the binodngan was in obedience to a lawful order for some lawful purposes;
However, the binodngan may defray the expenses of the offended parties where it is deemed appropriate
under the circumstances.
This provision deals with mitigating circumstances.
The opening sentence of this section announces that there is no bug-uy (violation of
the pagta), under the circumstance enumerated above. It simply means that the act of binodngan is
said to be in accordance with the pagta, so that the said binodngan is not deemed to have violated
or transgresses the pagta.

However, under existing jurisprudence of the bodong, the offender may pay the
appropriate consequential damages depending upon the circumstances of the case. Here
is a way of appeasing the wrath of the person up-high born out of a belief in the justice
of Kabunyan.

Concept of the bug-uy/pot-ak

In its general sense, bug-uy or pot-ak simply means the violation of any provision of
the pagta. As a technical term, pot-ak strictly refers to a violation of the pagta concerning crimes
against person. In short, there is pot-ak if there is patoy. (Intentional killing which includes
physical injuries).

Import of the Criminal Justice System of the bodong

When there is bug-uy there are three parties involved. The offender has obligations to the
offended party; he has distinct obligation to the bodong and he is accountable for his acts
to Kabunyan.

To the offended party, he has to pay the dusa (the main specific indemnity for every crime);
to the bodong holder, he has to pay the butu and the pagikna. These things he has to pay lest he be
made to account beforeKabunyan. It is believed that God will dispense retributive justice.
Under this section, there is no bug-uy if the killing or injuries were inflicted through any of
the acts enumerated above. But the offender is still liable for the consequential damages.

Example:
A policeman who is in the performance of his duty may not be liable to
the bodong. He is not required to pay the butu. The said act does not affect the bodong,
meaning, the bodong is still effective and subsisting.
If he was, however, found out to be negligent in the performance of his job or if he
violated human right of the victim, then he is made to pay for the consequences of his
acts.

I. In defense of his person, honor, relative and companion:

I.a) Defense of person
Examples:
A was stabbed while passing along a street. A drew his knife and stabbed his
assailant who died instantaneously. The assailant turned out to be a binodngan. Is A
liable?
YES. A is liable for the life of his victim. He however, is not deemed to have
violated the bodong which is still effective.
How much does A have to pay?
It depends on the circumstances of each case but not to exceed P50,000.00 as per
provisions of this pagta.
1.b) In Defense of Honor
A was passing along the street. She was suddenly accosted and with the use of a
gun at her nape, she was led to a grassy place to be raped. A wrestled with her assailant
and taking the gun, shot her attacker who died.
A is not excused from paying for the life of her attacker. However, she is not
liable to pay the butu and the bodong still subsists.
1.c) In Defense of a Relative
A heard a gun report from the direction of their house. He immediately rushed
to their house and found his father B who was sprawled on the floor in a pool of his
own blood. Beside him standing was C A
A heard a gun from the direction of their house. He immediately rushed to their
house and found his father B who was sprawled on the floor in a pool of his own blood.

Beside him standing was C. A hacked C who died of hack wounds. Held: There is
no bug-uy
The term companion as used here, refers to anyone wether binodngan or not.
If he did not defend his companion, he is stigmatized as less than a man yet
He can still claim for putut.
II. In fulfillment of a duty or lawful performance of his right or office:
II.a) In fulfillment of a duty.
Since the 1980s, the PNP, Military and other law enforcement agencies were afraid to
perform their job because they were allegedly apprehensive of the sanctions of the
bodong. This is sheer misconception of the true essence of and intent of the bodong.
The bodong has been in existence when the law reigns supreme during the
Spanish, American and Japanese time. The bodong has never been interpreted to
contravene the national laws. There was/is really no conflict. If not the instrument for the
implementation of the national laws. The fact that during the American and Japanese
occupation, it was found out that the bodong was used in their pacification drive.
A single policeman can arrest a criminal then, with the help of the umili through the
bodong and bring him to justice. But now, it is not the case at times, sad to say, even a
battalion or soldiers cannot arrest a binodngan.
This goes to show that something in the system went wrong.
Indde, there has been cases of abuse of the bodong system - where even the person doing his job is
sanctioned by the bodong. Certainly, this malpractice and abuses must not be tolerated and must be put to
a stop
Examples:
A is a security Guard hired to guard the NFA, B and companions entered the
NFA warehouse. A saw them but he was fired at by B and companion, A unslung his
12 gauge shotgun and fired back. B died on the spot. It was held that there is no bug-uy.
II.b) Lawful Performance of a Right or Office
A is a tenant of B. C a squatter threatened to expel A from his possession
thru force. A drew his bolo and in the process injured C. There is no bug-uy.
III. Obedience to a Lawful Order for some Lawful Purposes
Note that the Order must be Lawful and for Lawful Purposes.
Examples:

A is an amazona. She ordered B to kill C without any justifiable reasons. Is

A liable. YES. There is also bug-uy because the order was not lawful.
Elements of Self-defense:
i. unlawful aggression comes from the victim
ii. reasonable necessity of the means employed
iii. the person defending has not started the fight.

Section 8. There shall be no retaliation where injuries or killing results from

an accident. Should there be any retaliation, it shall constitute pot-ak/patoy.
This section refers to injuries or homicide resulting from accidents. Inasmuch as
the killing or injury arose out of an accident, with more reason should retaliation be
disallowed. However, it happened that many relatives of victims of accidents have
retaliated in the near past and it is precisely for this reason that this prohibition was
included.
The case of Bishop Carlito J. Cenzon and his driver comes to mind. It happened
on August 19, 1994. While they were passing through the Highway in Nambaran, their
ride sideswept a child.
Instead of helping to bring the child to the hospital, a relative of the victim hacked
the driver and was going to finish him but the good Bishop received the blow in his hand.
The assailant paid fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to the driver of the Bishop
and butchered one (1) carabao when the Bishop said Mass in Nambaran. Being a man of
God, the good Bishop only asked to say Mass. He did not asked for damages. He
forgave his assailant.
Note that the incident happened in 1994. Under the pagta then in force, the
penalty for pot-ak is One hundred Thousand pesos (P100,000.00), if death results
therefrom.
The provision of the pagta was applied to non-binodngan.
In early part of March 1994, Samson Donggayao sideswept the son of Paquitos
Mamecao at Magsaysay, Tabuk, Kalinga while he was driving a motor vehicle. The son
was dead-on-arrival (DOA) at the Provincial Hospital.
Samson Donggayao provided the clothings (gaga-om/gangon), provided some
cases of gin, rice and pig for the bagungun. This was objected to by the Mamecaos yet
the things were reluctantly received. The case was settled using the pagta of the bodong.
The existing damages then
was Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for death
resulting from accident
When all expenses were totaled, Samson Donggayao paid a total of Sixty
Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00), inclusive of the other expenses during the wake.

Section 9. The maintenance of peace and order is every citizens duty.

The bodong holder, members of the Philippine National Police and the law
enforcement agencies must support and coordinate with each other when the
exigency for the protection of life, liberty and property and honor arises.
This section mandates that every citizen must help in the maintenance of peace the word used is every citizen. The term therefore
makes no distinction whether
one is binodngan or not.
The bodong was the only justice system before the Spaniards arrived. The
Spaniards have never subjugated Kalinga yet the Kalingas have lived with their neighbors
peacefully because of the bodongsystem.
With the coming of the Americans, the bodong was extensively used in the
pacification drive of the Americans. The bodong was still very effective and was made an
instrument of the Pax Americana.
All the people who committed crimes were submitted by the bodong to the law.
The bodong was and is never an impediment towards the full implementation of the law.
It was only during the 1970s when the Philippine Constabulary (now PNP)
started blaming the bodong for every crime committed. They alleged that
the bodong coddles the criminals. This attitude still subsists
which is very
unfortunate.
But we cannot blame these people being critical of a system they know little of or
nothing at all.
Instead of blaming the bodong, efforts should be exerted to learn more what are
the merits of the bodong in order to appreciate it.

The bodong compliments the national Criminal Justice System.

We have to admit that the bodong is a part of the cultural heritage of the Kalingas.
It is the bodong that serves as the binding force in the Kalinga community. It provides a
mechanism and an avenue for the resolution of conflicts. This is very evident if you look
into the court dockets of several courts where bodong is strong. MCTC TinglayanTanudan has a zero docket as of this time. MTC Lubuagan has but a few cases. This is
true with MCTC Balbalan-Pasil and MCTC Pinukpuk-Rizal.
Why is this so? The explanation is that the people thereat trust more
the bodong justice system and despite criticism, it still works. This is not to say that it is
perfect. It has its flaws and defects like any other legal system.
If instead of blaming the bodong system, it may be to the best interest of peace if
the peace officers will coordinate their efforts with the bodong to stump out criminality.
The law enforcers should touch base with the binodngan commuity and the people.

ARTICLE III
NANGDON SI BODONG

Section I. The binodngan must recognize and affirm the authority of

the bodong holder of each ili as chosen by them.
The bodong holders are the visible symbol of the bodong. As such, they deserve
to be respected. To them is the authority to execute every decision affecting their bodong.

How the bodong holder is selected

Oral historical accounts of the origin of the bodong points to the
following circumstances that led to the establishment of the bodong:
1) One school of thought states that the bodong came from
necessity of protecting games.

the

Hunters could not follow their hunting dogs whenever they went
beyond the village territory. Their games and their dogs are always in
danger, not to mention their personal safety. This necessitated the
establishment of the bodong thru the sipat. So a
hunter gives
a sipat to anyone in the village becoming thereby a bodong holder.
2) People have to trade with other villages. So what the traders did
whenever they went to any village was to give their bolos and/or
spears and take the bolos/spears of one from another village. Upon
arrival in his ili, he would announce the establishment of the sipat. He
becomes a bodong holder.
Formal establishment of the bodong by the sipat holder
Each bodong holder then invites his counterpart and formalizes
the bodong through festivities. The surdip/singlip is celebrated followed
by the inum. It is during this feast that the pagta is formally agreed upon.
Bodong holders hold the bodong for pure service
To be a bodong holder entails a lot of personal sacrifice. He has
nothing to gain as he is not paid for his services. In fact he uses his
personal money to procure animals to be butchered during celebrations.

He receives visitors, he feeds them and provide their needs. He has a lot
of social functions.
While it is true that he is the symbolic head of the tribe
on bodong matters and as such is lavished with honor, more often to be
a bodong holder carries with it much responsibilities.
When for any reason the bodong is severed, the new bodong
holder is usually chosen from the clan of the victim and the clan of the
offending party.
The reason is obvious. He is the last victim and it is
assumed
that he would not revenge for to do so would be for
him to commit makmak/ngos-ngos. The irony is that the bitter enemies
are now the best of friends when the bodong is established.
How does a binodngan recognizes and affirms the authority of
the bodong holder?
a) Whenever a binodngan goes for trade to other binodngan areas, such
transaction must be done in the presence of or through the bodong
holder.
For every consummated business transaction, the bodong
holder receives the su-ur (a token given in the form of cash, a piglet,
a dog or other things of value).
b) Whenever a case is settled, he must be given pagikna.
c) Recognition ands affirmation of the authority would best be shown if
each binodngan will respect the right of other binodngan.

Section 2. The bodong holder shall discharge the functions and duties which
includes but not limited to:
a) He is the eyes, ears, and mouth of the bodong;
b) He shall faithfully enforce and execute the provisions of the
pagta and all decisions in cases brought before it;
c) He shall prosecute with dispatch cases brought to his attention until the same shall have
been settled to the satisfaction of both parties;
d) He shall not allow the severance of the bodong without complying with the provisions
of Article VI, Section 5 of this pagta;

e) He must consult the Umili and the elders in making decisions;

f) He shall arrest or cause the arrest of the bummug-uy (violator).
The listed functions and duties of the bodong holder is not exclusive. The bodong
holder has other function not included here.
He has social functions. He has to feed the visitors, he has to bring the dead of
his kabodong or the latters subject to their place of origin.
Eyes, Ears and Mouth
In the set-up of the bodong, the bodong holder of each ili has as his wards the
people from the opposite subtribe.
To illustrate:
A is the bodong holder from Laya. B is he bodong holder from Bangad. A
has to look after the welfare of the ili of Bangad while B will look after the welfare of
the ili of Laya.
In conflict resolution, the working of the bodong is very much different from the
courts where the truth will depend on the strength of the evidence. So much so that even
if a person was killed but no evidence or witnesses are available, the accused will go scotfree.
The workings of the bodong do not have the complicated rules and procedures in
court. The bodong holder as the eyes, ears and mouth of the bodong, his relative and the
people investigate silently and nothing could be hidden from them.
We have customary beliefs, rituals and practices which a person who kills another
has to perform. This always gives him away. Beside, as among one subtribe, there is
really no secret. It is under this jurisdiction that hearsay evidence carries with it the truth.
The bodong holder has eyes that he may look after the welfare of his people, ears
for him to listen to their problems and concerns and mouth to speak out for
the Binodngan in search for what is true. He is the investigator, prosecutor and judge
rolled into one.
Cases:
A man from Dananao was declared missing. Nobody knows whether he was
killed or not. The bodong holder from Basao was informed that a man from Dananao is
missing.
Silently, he must have known from his people and it was not long before the
information came out that the missing man from Dananao was killed and the suspects are
from Basao.
The KBC/CCN came to the picture and it was not long before the place where he
was buried was pointed to. It came out that the man from Dananao was invited by a
Basao tribesman for a picnic at the river. The group took with them a dog to butcher but

instead of killing the dog, it was their companion from Dananao that they killed. The
reason for the killing was that they avenged the death of their kinsman who was shot at
Conner, Apayao by one from Dananao. When the case was settled, the killing by revenge
was treated as a separate offense pot-ak.
He shall faithfully enforce and execute the provisions of the pagta and all
decisions in cases brought before it.
The bodong holder has a dual function:
1. He must see to it that the pag ta is enforced;
2. If there are violations, he must see to it that the culprit must be brought to
justice;
3. He must hear and decide cases brought before him with the help of elders and
other leaders;
4. He must execute the decision to the letter.
In extreme cases where decisions are not obeyed, the bodong holder may be
forced to avenge the wrong done by himself.
He shall prosecute with dispatch cases brought to his attention until the same shall have
been settled to the satisfaction of both parties.
The case under the bodong system is initiated when the busdung/bugsung di
Butu is sent by the complaining bodong holder. Upon receipt of the busdung/bugsung,
negotiation ensues until the case is settled. After which, a pagikna is given to the
complaining bodong holder.
The sending of the busdung/bugsung di butu (wrap of the butu) does not mean the
severance of the bodong. The bodong still subsists and effective while the negotiation is
going on.
He shall not allow the severance of the bodong without complying with the provisions of
Article Vi, Section 5 of this pagta;
This was included to correct the practice of bodong holders who just severe
the bodong without consulting the umili.
The bodong holder is not allowed to act according to his whims. He is only the
spokesman of the umili from whom he derives his power. It is the umili to decide whether
to severe the bodong or not.
He must consult the umili and the elders in making decisions
As was already stated, elders and village leaders and members from neutral
subtribes bring the parties (the complainant and respondent) together in one venue. If this
is not feasible, then the elders will consult the parties separately beginning with the
offended party and then to the party of the offender.
The elders would hear both parties, then make suggestions and there are concrete
proposals and then they will go to the other party to present the proposed settlement.

This is the hardest part of the shuttle diplomacy. Much tact and convincing power
has to be employed. The negotiators have to bear and be contented of being shock
absorbers.
Under this system, the bodong holder will just listen and not to speak out and
leave the negotiations to the elders, leaders and other people. His suggestions may be
misunderstood as the decisions. It is only after the parties have come to an amicable
settlement that he makes the formal announcement.
He shall arrest or cause the arrest of the bummug-uy (violator)
In the past, when a person commits pot-ak / patoy, the bodong holder and his
relatives must kill or inflict injury to the perpetrator or to his nearest kin, tit for tat.
This old provision contravenes our national laws as it authorizes killing. The
wrong cannot be rectified by the commission of another wrong. On top of that, it
contravenes our basic tenets as Christians.
So as not to take the law in his own hand, this provision was inserted. In lieu of
killing to remove the butu, the bodong holder is now empowered to cause the arrest of the
perpetrator and submit him to the authorities.
Under Section 5, Article III, the bodong holder is considered a person in
authority. He is therefore empowered to arrest the offender.
To illustrate how the bodong could supplement our criminal justice system, the
case of Pangol and Bacari (Paracelis) comes to mind.
It happened that a man from Pangol has committed crimes against the people of
Bacari. Gabriel Gassingga is the bodong holder and to comply with his obligation as
such, he made an arrangement with the officers of the law whereby he would invite the
criminal in a certain house for a drinking spree. At the pre-arranged signal, the PNP
swooped down on the criminal and arrested him. The criminal is presently detained at the
National Penitentiary.

Section 3. The bodong holder and his family shall have the respect,
assistance, cooperation, support and loyalty of all bodong members in
all bodong affairs.
Section 4. The bodong holder may seek assistance from the government for
the conciliation and settlement of bodong cases where proper.
It has been said that the bodong holder is only the symbol of the pagta. He
stands for the community in all bodong activities, the bodong holder shoulders all
expenses, of course the community contributes by giving rice, gifts (atod) and others.
The bodong holder may seek assistance from the government sector, since this
job is the promotion of peace and order which are governmental function.

Assistance here is used in its broad sense. It may include financial, material and
other forms of assistance such as government vehicles and facilities.

Section 5. The bodong holder by virtue of his functions and responsibilities

in the maintenance of peace and order shall be deemed a person in authority.
The purpose of this provision is to cloth the bodong holder with authority so that
he could be effective in the advocacy for peace.

Section 6. The bodong holder in recognition of the importance of his

functions in the discharge of his duties without remuneration should be given the
appropriate civil service eligibility, and insurance when feasible.
This is to provide some sort of incentive in consideration of the importance
of his functions.

ARTICLE IV
BINODNGAN

Section 1. The following are the binodngan

a. Bonafide members of the subtribe;
b. Those born to bonafide members of the subtribe;
c. Non-tribe members married to members of the subtribes;
d. Non-tribe members who permanently resides in the ili and who elect to
become members and accepted as such in a manner provided for by
the bodong.
Bonafide members of the subtribe
The phrase bonafide members of the subtribe refers to children born to parents
of the same subtribe.
Example:
A and B are from Guinaang, Pasil, Kalinga. They married each other and
begot 3 children C, D, & E.
To what bodong C, D, & E belong? They belong to and are subjects of
the bodong of Guinaang.
Non-tribe members married to members of the subtribe

A is from Salegseg. He married B who is from Gattaran, Cagayan. They

established residence in Salegseg.
To what bodong does B belong? He belongs to the bodong of Salegseg by
express provision of this section.
Suppose, in our example, B was injured in a scuffle by one from Dao-angan. Is
the bodong between Dao-angan and Salegseg affected?
YES, the bodong is affected because upon his marriage to a woman from
Salegseg, he is covered by the bodong of Salegseg by express provision of this section.
If A and B had children, the said children belong to the bodong of Salegseg.
This is so by express provision of Section 3, Article III.
Non-tribe members who permanently resides in the ili and who elect to become
members and accepted as such in a manner provided for by the bodong.
Elements:
a. Husband and wife are non-binodngan;
b. They reside in any binodngan ili;
c. They elect to be members of the bodong of their residence;
d. They must have been accepted as members after giving lo-om.
Examples:
A and B are from Manila who permanently reside at Naneng. They elected to
join the bodong of Naneng by performing the lo-om in all occasions and were accepted ad
included in all the bodong.
What bodong do they belong? They belong to the bodong of Naneng.
If one or both of them are injured by an Iguilayon, is the bodong between Naneng
and Guilayon affected?
YES. The bodong holder from Naneng will ask his kasupang from Guilayon to
settle the case with the assailant.
Suppose in our example above, it is A who violated any of the provision of
the pagta, say he committed rape of a woman from Guilayon?
Is the bodong of Guilayon and Naneng affected? YES. As one who elected to be
a Binodngan, he accepted to be bound by the bodong and he has the obligation to respect
the bodong.
How about the children of A and B in our example above, to
what bodong they belong?

They belong to the bodong of Naneng. There is no need for the children of A
and B to elect the bodong they want to join. This is so because of Section 1, Subsection
(b), Article III.

Section 2. Children of binodngan who resides in any of the ili of their

parents shall be members therein, provided that in case where they reside in a nonbinodngan area, they shall follow the bodong of their father.
Children of binodngan residing in either the ili of their parents, which bodong will
cover them? The bodong of the parent of their place of residence.
The reason is that double citizenship is not allowed. Another reason is that they
have lived in the place (naparatan) and its just right that they belong there.
Where the family lived outside the bugis of their parents, they are deemed covered
by the bodong of the father.

Example:
A is from Lubuagan, Kalinga. He married a woman named B from Sumadel,
Tinglayan, Kalinga, They choose to reside in Sumadel, Tinglayan. They had a son named
C.
Whose bodong does C belong? C is now covered by the bodong of Sumadel.
If in our example, C committed acts of lasciviousness on the person of D who
hails from Balbalasang, to which bodong shall the Balbalasang direct their complaint and
which bodong is affected?
The bodong affected is the bodong of Sumadel with Balbalasang.
that bodong which will settle the case.

It is

What about the bodong of Lubuagan and Balbalasang. Is it affected?

NO. The reason is that the pagta say so and no one is allowed to collect twice for
an offense. This would be unjust enrichment.
Suppose the relatives of A are all mingor and they do not accept the settlement?
What remedy do they have?
The pagta allows that they could ask the bodong to exclude them temporarily
from the coverage of the bodong of Lubuagan and Balbalasang for a short period of time.
This is called lasin.
What is the implication of Lasin?
They are now allowed by the bodong to avenge the wrong done to A but the
revenge shall be solely to the offender.

They are free to revenge but if they are killed or injured in the process, then they
are not allowed to claim under the bodong.
If after the period given has lapsed without any untoward incident, then they are
brought back to the coverage of the bodong, they are no longer at liberty to revenge,
otherwise they will be liable under the bodong.
What is meant by the phrase reside in a non-binodngan area
Example:
Juan is from Pangol and Maria is from Lubuagan. They reside in Philex Mines,
Padcal, Tuba, Benguet. They had a son called Danny.
While Danny and his companion were drinking in a Videoke bar in Baguio City, a
misunderstanding arose between Dannys group with another group and trouble ensued.
One of Dannys companion is good in Karate and gave a blow to one of the
members of the other group and the latter fell on the floor. Danny got a knife in their
table and stab the person on the floor and the victim died. It turn out that the victim is
from Tulgao.
What bodong is deemed violated?
The bodong of Pangol and Tulgao. This is so because this section provides that
the children of Binodngan spouse where the parents live in a non-binodngan area shall
follow the bodong of their father. The father of Danny is from Pangol, hence
the bodong which has jurisdiction of the case will be the Pangol-Tulgao bodong.
Example:
Mr. Oman is from Lubo and he married Daruwa from Mabongtot and resided in
Mabongtot. They had children. What bodong do their children belong?
It was decided that they are Imabungtot by residence, hence they are not ilubo.

Section 3. Where one of the spouses is a binodngan and the other spouse is
a non-binodngan, the children shall be covered by the bodong of
the binodngan spouse.
Elements that must concur for this provision to apply:
1. One of the spouses is a binodngan while the other is ibaliwon
(non-binodngan);
2. They have children;
3. The spouses live in a binodngan or non-binodngan area.

What bodong do their children belong? They belong to the

bodong of the binodngan spouse by express provision of the pagta.
Example:
Mike is from Mabaca, Balbalan, Kalinga. He married Susan from
Pampanga. They had four (4) children and they are residents of Baguio
City.
What bodong do their children belong? They belong to
the bodong of Mabaca, Balbalan.
Suppose in our example, one of the spouses son Michael
befriended and impregnated a woman from Balatoc, Pasil, Kalinga, who
died of abortion upon the instigation of Michael. Whose bodonghas
jurisdiction?
The bodong of Balatoc and mabaca. This is so because the
father of Michael is the Binodngan spouse.

ARTICLE V
RIGHTS OF THE BINODNGAN

Section 1. The binodngan shall have a right to his life, his property and his
honor and shall do every reasonable means to defend it.
This section covers the basic right to defend his person, property and honor. Note
that the provision uses the term reasonable means. What is reasonable depends on the
circumstances of each case. Read this in connection with Art. II, Sec. 5.
Rights protected under this section:
1.a. This is self-defense
The Kalinga believe that life is a gift from Kabunyan. It is something very
precious. No one except Kabunyan can get life from him.
If said life is threatened, he will use every means to protect it, to preserve it and
even if he has to kill in the process. Based on this principle, the practice of revenge has
find justification. Life taken has to be paid with another life.

1.b.Meaning of reasonable means to defend it

Under the pagta, if a binodngan uses his hand to injure another binodngan, the
offender can only use his hand in defense of himself. If he is boxed, he can only defend
himself by boxing the culprit. He is not
allowed to use any deadly weapon
(patadom).
Example:
A and B are both binodngan. In a heat of anger, A boxed
B on his
face wounding him in the process. B kicked A fell to the
ground. Is A liable?
YES. A is liable. He was the one who started the fight. The penalty is multa.
How about B, is he liable? NO. He was only defending himself.
Suppose in our example above, instead of kicking A, B drew out his fan knife
and stabbed A who was hit on his shoulder. Is B liable under the bodong inspite of
the fact that he was only defending himself?
YES. B is clearly liable. Under the pagta, he is not allowed to use knife
(patadom). The means used to defend himself is not reasonable - therefore, he is liable for
the injury inflicted.
Suppose, in our example, instead of boxing B, A stabbed B with a knife.
B retaliated by drawing his gun and he shot A, wounding the latter in the process. Is
B liable? NO. The reason is that he was defending himself and the means he used in
defending himself is reasonable.
Under bodong jurisprudence, it is A who violated the pagta (Bummug-uy). In a
sense, each will be responsible for the injuries he inflicted but the penalty for A being
the violator is higher. He is liable to pay the Butu.
2. Right to his property
2.a This contains the principle of defense of property.
Every Kalinga is entitled to a decent life in accordance with his means. In the
Kalinga social order, a person is entitled to acquire properties and is entitled to their
beneficial use, in a manner he sees it.
There are communal properties to which he has equally same right to use. But
there are properties that properly belong to him and no one is allowed to get them from
him without his consent or authority.
We have various concepts expressive of these values:
a) Paniyaw - to claim as your own something that property belongs to another
is paniyaw (taboo). He who does will not have a long life.
b) Agum - this refers to one who would accumulate properties, by foul means.

Examples:
It is paniyaw/kaniyaw to steal a chicken for it looks up high when it drinks water
(the act of looking up while drinking water is equated to acknowledgment of Kabunyan).
It is paniyaw/kaniyaw to steal bananas for your stomach will become bloated and
you will die with it.
We have a lot of examples whether the stories are myth or not, one thing is sure be contended with what you have.
If others will steal/get properties from you, the pagta says you can defend your
properties by any means reasonable under the circumstances. The question which may be
asked: what would happen to one who defended himself and his property through any
means reasonable? Does it
constitute Bug-uy?
Case:
A has a grocery store, and a bakery. Every morning at about 4:00 A.M., children
would withdraw pan de sal from said store and bakery for them to sell around the
barangay. One morning, children went to get their usual stock of pan de sal. However,
taking advantage of the presence of the children, B and C entered the store and
announce a hold-up, pointing their guns and grenade to the bakery owner. There was a
little pandemonium. A, the bakery owner took advantage of the situation and shot one
of the hold-uppers. The other one ran away but he sustained mortal wounds at about 7:00
a.m. of the same day, people found the cadaver of the other hold-upper 50 meters away
from the scene.
Is A liable for the life of the two hold-uppers?
Efforts were made for settlement of the case but the general consensus is that, the
weight of opinion would tilt in favor of A - that is, he should not be liable for the death
of the two victims. The reason is, he
was only protecting himself and his property.
A wanted to voluntarily help defray the expenses. However, there was no settlement.
In another case, the carabao of A was stolen. A together with his companion
followed the hoofprints. Eventually, they caught up with the rustlers. A fair fight ensued.
B, one of the cattle rustlers was killed. Is A liable under the bodong? Is
the bodong between the subtribes of A and B affected?
YES. Under the provision of the pagta and jurisprudence of the bodong, A is
liable for the killing, the indemnity is established using the standards of accidental killing.
A may refuse to pay actually said indemnity. However, at the back of his head, is the
apprehension that the offended party may avenge the wrong done. He therefore opted to
pay
something to buy peace. This is the usual practice. However, the bodong is
not affected.
3) Right to his honor.

Dita pun/adita mansamkoy ta paniyaw. Literally, this means it is taboo to

disparage the good name of a person.
To have a good name is the dream of a Kalinga. In the Kalinga society, good
reputation is a desired quality of a pangat, a leader.
Respected members of a community in a Kalinga society are:
a) Pangat - a self-made man, not necessarily rich, a leader.
b) Baknang - a person who is economically well-off.
c) Kadangyan - one who has everything in life, economically.

Section 2. All binodngan shall have the equal protection of the bodong and
the free and speedy disposition of their cases.
Equal protection clause- from the viewpoint of the pagta, everybody is equal
whether one is a pangat, baknang, kapus (poor), a woman, child, old and young. Even
relatives found to be guilty must be imposed the appropriate penalty. The bodong has no
brother.
There is no one above the pagta. Even the bodong holder is sanctioned if he is
found to have violated a provision of the pagta. The violation of the pagta by
the bodong holder or his relative is termedmakmak.
Free and speedy disposition of the case
One of the virtues or merits of the indigenous system of setting cases is the speedy
disposition of cases.
What is the reason why the bodong holder has to settle the case immediately?
Under the bodong system, all cases between the offender and the offended is as
much a community problem, especially if the case involves patoy. The bodong holder is
involved and if the case is allowed to drag, there is the possibility that the offended party
may take the law into his own hand and if that is the case, the bodong may be severed and
the two subtribes may be involved.
It is always to the best interest of the two subtribes to settle the case immediately
if only to prevent the case developing into a tribal conflict, the community has a stake in
the resolution of the case.
Settlements are open to the public
All settlements are open to the public. All those in attendance are free to give
suggestions. They may help by citing jurisprudence of bodong cases. In this way,
decisions are always based on reasons and not on whims.

Section 3. No binodngan shall be held to answer for an offense without due

process under this pagta.

Due process under the bodong

To safeguard a person from being punished without hearing, the pagta has
established a very simple procedure. These procedures are very much like the procedures
outlined in Art VI, Sec. 5.
If there is a violation, the busdung di butu or notice is sent to the bodong holder
where the offender belongs.
The investigation then begins with both bodong holders setting the case for
settlement where the parties come together in a confrontation. The conference goes on
from day to day until it is finished.
Pandaya/Paldaya
Where there are no witnesses but a person is suspected and there is sufficient
ground to believe that he may have committed the act, the case will be settled. The
suspect pays the apas for having been suspected, while the investigation goes on as
regards the identity of the person who committed the act.
If the culprit is found out, the apas shall be refunded by the culprit. Under this
setup, the suspect helps in the further investigation of the case.

Section 4. A binodngan shall have the right and obligation to testify for or
against another binodngan in every case.
This is a new provision. It provides for the right of a binodngan to testify in favor
or against any binodngan. In like manner, he is obligated to testify.
Right to testify
For as long as he is vital witness to a crime, no one is allowed to prevent him from
testifying, on the flimsy ground that the person he is testifying against is a binodngan. In
fact he is obligated to testify. He must be a material witness.
Reason for the inclusion of this provision
The bodong always seek for the truth. The system may be simple, but in almost, if
not all cases, the truth always comes out and the culprit is punished. There is really justice
as it is always based on the truth.
The bodong system has a unique way of finding the truth.

Section 5. Every binodngan has the right to adduce evidence in his favor,
including the right to demand that a binodngan who witnessed the incident shall
testify in his favor.

Right to adduce in his favor and to demand witnesses to testify in his favor.
The right given here may pertain to the offender or the offended. This is to be
distinguished with the provision of Section 4 above. Section 4 deals with the right of a
material witness to testify for or against the accused.
It has been observed that binodngan who witnessed the commission of a crime
against or for a binodngan refuses to testify. The reason is that they might be sanctioned
by the bodong. Not to testify is wrong. After all, any one who tells the truth is free to do
so. Tell the truth and the truth will set you free
To testify for or against is a right as it is an obligation. The penalty for refusal to
testify is one carabao.
In as much as a binodngan has a right and obligation to testify for or against
another binodngan., this pagta also give the binodngan a right to adduce evidence in his
favor and to demand that witnesses will testify in his favor.

Section 6. There shall be equal treatment in the imposition of fines and

penalties and no excessive fines shall be imposed.
The provision complements the provision on equality of all binodngan before
the eyes of the law. It speaks of equal protection in the imposition of fines and penalties.
There has been allegation of inequality among binodngan. People often
pejoratively refer to the people from upper Kalinga subtribes as Kawitan and lower
Kalinga subtribes as Upa.
The accusation is that for the same offense, the people from upper Kalinga would
demand a higher amount of indemnities if they are the offended and would try to reduce
the indemnities if they are the offenders.
This perception, whether correct or not is the evil this provision intends to correct.
The aim is to remove any form of distinction in the imposition of fines and
penalties.
No excessive fines
This provision was inserted with the intention to forestall anyone from demanding
more than what the pagta provides. The key word here is reasonableness of the demand
and/or the ability of the accused to pay.
It would be useless to demand for a penalty very much higher than what
the pagta provides especially so if he accused has no property to pay indemnities. This is
so for if the accused cannot really pay, and if his relatives have also no money to lend to
the accused, then the offended might be tempted to take the law into his own hands.
To a Kalinga, what is important is that the case has been settled.

Section 7. Every binodngan shall have the option to seek justice under
the bodong or the regular courts of justice.
The first sentence gives the offended binodngan the option to go to court or to
avail of the justice system of the bodong. This is highlighted by the double jeopardy
clause.
If the offended chooses the court, the offender is still required to give, provide,
and perform the customary rituals and practices.

Section 8. No binodngan shall be twice put in jeopardy for the punishment

of the same offense. If a binodngan is punished by the bodong or the regular courts
of justice, the conviction or acquittal under any shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same offense. However, the offender may still satisfy the
customary rituals and practices of the bodong.
This provision was included as a new provision. This is a concession to the
national criminal justice system to prevent one from being punished under the bodong and
under national laws.
In view thereof, Section 7 expressly gives the offended party the option to go to
the bodong or to the court. He is precluded from claiming again under the bodong. In like
manner that one cannot go to court after the case shall have been settled in the bodong.
It is elementary principle that one cannot recover twice from the same offense.
This would constitute unjust enrichment.

ARTICLE VI
SPECIFIC CRIMES AND THEIR PENALTIES

Section 1. Patoy (killing) - Any binodngan who shall kill or inflict injury to
another binodngan shall be guilty of patoy.
There is patoy when a binodngan with intent to kill. It includes physical injuries.
But there is distinction when blood is spilled through the use of a bare hand.
Under our penal code, there are qualifying aggravating circumstances. There are
circumstances which elevate the killing to murder. Under the pagta, there are no such
circumstances. For as long as a person is killed with intention without any justifiable
cause,
it is patoy. Was blood intentionally spilled? This is the essence of patoy.
Example:

A and B were drinking in a restaurant at the public market of Bulanao, Tabuk,

Kalinga. A said something which B resented. B boxed A on his face hitting
him in the mouth and As lips was injured and one tooth has to be removed as a result
thereof.
B however is liable for less serious physical injuries and the maximum multa is
for B to butcher a pig.
How about if instead of his bare hands, he used a piece of wood or a stone?
Still there is only physical injury. Only the multa is increased to one carabao.
Examples:
A and B were drinking beer at one of the stalls in the market in Bulanao. A
got a beer grande bottle with its contents and struck B on his head. B sustained
injuries.
It was held that the crime committed is not patoy but physical injuries. B was
therefore made to pay one carabao as multa plus the customary expenses in connection
with the settlement of the case.
Where a bladed weapon is used, the denomination of the offense is patoy
In one case, the facts are follows:
A was a bit drunk. He was inside a jeep. B and C made some jokes to A
which he resented and drew his knife. B and C scampered outside and they were
immediately followed D who was on the top load of the jeep, saw what was happening.
He jumped down and immediately restrained A at his back. A stab D with said
knife by swinging his hand to his back, hitting D who shouted for help from B and
C who both responded
immediately. They wrested the knife from A and
stabbed the latter thrice at the vital parts of his body. A was rushed to the hospital and
he survived.
In was held that A violated the pagta. His crime is patoy. But instead of sending
the butu, the tribesmates of B,C and D agreed among themselves that the case should be
settled among the parties. After confrontation, it was held that A should answer for the
tingiting and songa of D. D and his companion likewise gave a
pig
as songa and a chicken as tingiting to A. in like manner, B, C and D were responsible
for the hospital and medical expenses of A and A likewise pay the medical expenses
of D.
But inasmuch as A violated the pagta, the bodong required him to pay
a multa of two carabaos and D and companions were made to pay a multa of one big
pig.
It was so decided this way for if the butu will be sent and the bodong holder will
drastically act to avenge the wrong done, then trouble will erupt and eventually
the bodong will be severed. (Lubo vs. Butbut).

Where both the parties were injured, each will be responsible for the consequences of his
acts; set off
Case:
It was 9:00 oclock p.m., B was walking along a dimly lit street at Purok 1,
Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga. While walking, A drew out his knife and stabbed B
inflicting injuries on B. B drew out his gun and shot A who died.
The case was settled. A was adjudged as the bummug-uy (violator of
the pagta), but because he is dead and B was only defending himself, B was held
liable to the death of A. he was to pay P 100,000.00. A was the violator and he was to
answer for the injuries sustained by B, A and his tribesmates has to pay Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as mandated by the provision of the pagta. There was set off
and the tribesmates of B paid Fifty Thousand pesos (P 50,000.00). With this settlement,
the bodong was restored. (Mangali vs. Maducayan).
Case: Dananao vs. Bangad
A and some lady companions were on board a kuliglig from Agbannawag,
Tabuk heading for Barangay Lacnog. B who was at the kiosk (waiting shed) whistled at
the lady companions of A. B hearing the remarks of A went near the kuliglig which
momentarily stopped in the middle of the road. Some remarks exchanged between them.
B boxed A who was injured on the mouth. A was about to draw his bolo but B
wrestled with A with the possession of the bolo. B was injured by the bolo on his
hand. The companion of B went to the succor of B and kicked A and his feet was
injured with said bolo. While A was running away, he was stoned on the head.
The parties agreed for amicable settlement and after much debate, it was held that
A has to pay B the sum of Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00).
It was found out that both A and B were at fault. B was adjudged as guilty
for boxing A. Likewise, it was shown that A was also hit with a stone on the head
and was injured.
For having started the fight and for inflicting injuries on A, B was required to
pay the maximum penalty (multa) of one carabao.
For drawing out a bladed weapon (patadom) in retaliation, the act of A is not
justified. The pagta says if you are boxed, you may box- but you are not allowed to use a
bladed weapon (patadom) and because B and his companions were injured with the use
of a bolo, A has to pay the maximum multa of 2 carabaos as provided by Sec. 2, Art. VI
for the two (2) injuries. A has to pay four (4) carabaos but because he was also injured,
one (1) carabao should be deducted.
The value of 3 carabaos is more or less roughly pegged at Fifty Thousand pesos
(P50,000.00). However, because A did not give any amount for medical expenses,
the songa and the customary expenses, the amount of P 10,000.00 would seem reasonable
for said purpose. Hence, the settlement is Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00).

Note: The amount of damages could have been higher if A drew out the bolo
and struck B and his companion with it. The intention to injure is not very clear as he
drew his bolo.

Section 2. If patoy results to death, the penalty (dusa) is ten (10) carabaos or
its equivalent value in terms of land, antique jars (gusi), gold, beads or cash,
inclusive ofpatong-al, paata , imbaluwan/siglot and pinadatong. In addition
thereto, he shall pay three (3) carabaos as butu to the offended peace pact holder,
one to be given to hiskasupang and the other one to be butchered during the
amicable settlement plus reasonable customary damages.
The penalty is pegged in carabaos. The reason for using carabao as exchange of
value is its availability and abundance and inflation is avoided as it is determinable.
It could however be paid in cash, lands and heirlooms. The reason for allowing
this mode of payment is to facilitate easy payment and the early resolution of the case.
Dusa are damages to be given to the offended,
al, paata and inbaluwan/siglot (the amount given to the widow/er;

including patong-

Pa-ata (rootword is ATA - eyes)

Case:
Casiw was killed by Rustom Iwangga et. Al. Aside from paying antique jars,
Rustom has to pay three (3) carabaos to the offended bodong holder (from his own
village), this is to appease his anger for the killing was a direct insult to his authority. This
is called the butu (groin). Likewise, he is required to give one (1) carabao to
his kasupang (counterpart peace-pact holder) as a token and a symbol that the case has
been settled amicably.
Still, the offender has to produce one (1) more carabao to be butchered and served
to the public who came to attend the settlement.
So, all in all, he has to produce Thirteen (13) carabaos. Because this is killing,
some rituals have to be performed such as pakan/sikdug and dalan/pasulkod.
Rituals - any form of action performed according to a prescribed set of rules,
usually with symbolic meaning.
The following are the examples of the rituals:
a) Kabkab - before serving meals, the host will give a pan, put water in it, put
coins or iron instruments/tools and embers into the water together with leaves of reeds
(apin) tied into a knot (purdos/puldos).
Each of those who partakes of the meal will dip their fingers into the water and tip
their stomach. They then get a coin or any iron instrument.

This is done pursuant to the common belief that if the said ritual is not done, the
stomach of those who ate submerged into a pan of water are believed to prevent the
escalation of the conflict and it likewise symbolizes that the conflict ends.
b) Pakan/ gusgus - any amount or material thing to be given by the offender to the
immediate relatives of the victim before they partake of the meals.
Another case:
A shot B his issued armalite rifle. B died as a result thereof. For said killing, A
gave one (1) hectare of irrigated Riceland valued at One Hundred Twenty Thousand pesos
(P 120,000.00).

Section 3. If for any reason the victim survives, the penalty shall be as
provided for under Section 8 of this Article.
Refer to annotation under 8,9 and 10 of this article.

Section 4. Patoy may be committed under any of the following

circumstances, which includes but not limited to: ba-ug, ngosngos, sanob, lomong,
liput, aladas, wakwak, kodot, anud makmak.
This section provides for the manner of and the circumstances under which the
killings were committed.
Ba-ug - when a bodong holder or his relative kill a kabodong.
Makmak/ngosngos are the other terms in Northern Kalinga. This is the ugliest kind
of killing. It entails lifetime stigma (uyaw). The penalty should be higher from that of the
ordinary killing (patoy).
Sanob - ambushcade
Lomong/Liput - killing in secluded place
Kodot - killing by poisoning
Anud - killing by drowning
Cases:

1. A, B and C went to a barangay in Tinglayan, Kalinga.

While in that
barangay, all of them were killed. The crime committed is ba-ug, because they killed
their kabodong. This is the worst kind of killing to a Kalinga. It is taboo

(paniyaw/kaniyaw) and it is believed that the life of the killer is

shortened and his clan shall not prosper in life (makuras/maumas).

2. A is the son of a bodong holder. A stabbed B who is from the

subtribe with whom his father is the bodong holder. It was held that the
crimecommitted is makmak/ngosngos.

Section 5. Procedures when there is patoy (murder) - where a binodngan is

killed or injured, the aggrieved party may avail of the remedies provided for by the
regular courts of justice, or he may go to the bodong. If he chooses the bodong, the
following procedures shall apply:
1. The offended party must report the patoy to the bodong holder;

2. The bodong holder of the aggrieved party shall first refer the case to
his kabodong or kasupang (bodong holder of the other subtribe) by sending
the bugsung/ busdung di butu with the accompanying letter narrating the facts of
the case;
2.a Upon receipt of the bugsung/busdung, the bodong holder will investigate
and work for the settlement of the case. Meantime, he will cause for the giving of
the papod to the offended party to preempt possible vengeance.
Papod - this refers to cash or anything of value given by the offender or subtribe
to the offended party. Once this is accepted, it signals the intention to settle the case
amicably and not to revenge. Literally, papod means to stop/prevent revenge or
severance of the bodong.
If as a result of the intentional killing and the victim dies, the minimum amount
of papod is one (1) carabao or its equivalent value in cash.

2.b if no settlement is reached, after consultation with the offender, his

relatives and tribesmates, he shall inform his kasupang.
2.c upon receipt of the notice of non-settlement, the bodong holder will
inform the aggrieved party who is given the option to go to court or to have
the bodong severed.
2.d If the aggrieved party, after consultation with the bodong holder and
the umili opt for the severance of the bodong, then the bodong, then
the bodong holder will now send to his kasupang the gopas (notice of the
severance) duly approved by the umili;

Gopas / porting - This is the formal ritual of the intent to severe the peace-pact. It
is done be sending a notice of severance of the bodong with a coin wrapped in a piece of
red cloth personally delivered.
Take note that the other subtribe must formally accept the gopas and a grace
period of thirty (30) days as provided in subsection 2(e) of Art. VI, Sec. 5.
This procedure was placed to highlight the importance of the bodong being in
place. Every stumbling blocks are placed to give ample time for both parties to amicably
settle the case.

2.e When the gopas is properly and formally accepted by the offending
party, bodong holder and the umili, then the bodong is finally severed effective 30
days from receipt of the acceptance of the severance;
2.f Should the bodong be restored, the offending party will pay the damsak.
This provides for the procedure before the bodong is severed due to intentional
killing or infliction of injuries.
The sending of the busdung/bugsung di butu is a ritual performed
the incident to the kasupang.

to report

This does not mean severance of the bodong (gopas)

It is done by sending a piece of red cloth (condiman).
Literally, busdung/bugsung mean wrap of the groin together with a letter narrating the
facts. This could be the equivalent of a formal complaint.
Butu is used because of the life-giving characteristic of the bodong.
Mabutuan (to have an enlarged scrotum) symbolizes death - symbolic of the
violation of the pagta - and if the bodong holder will not work out for the immediate
settlement of the case, he is looked down with disdain.

Section 6. Sarmak/sarsa/solma/losob - when a binodngan killed was not the

intended victim, there is no bug-uy. By way of amicable settlement, the offender
will pay ten (10) carabaos plus reasonable damages. If there is only injury, then the
penalty shall be those penalties prescribed under Art. X, Section 1.
This provision embodies the principle of mistake in identity. The penalty is also
ten (10) carabaos because from the outset, the offender had the intention to kill. He is
made liable for the consequences of his voluntary acts.
But because there was no intention to kill his victim, this provision excuses him
from paying the butu and he is deemed in the eyes of the bodong not to have violated
the pagta (no bug-uy).

There was no intention to insult the bodong holder and no disrespect or disregard
to the bodong.
Reasonable damages is explained earlier. For injuries as a result of saramak, etc.,
see annotation on physical injuries.
Saramak/sarsa/solma/losob are one and the same terms and of the same import.
These are different appellations given by subtribes
Saramak
The situation contemplated in saramak is where a person with intent to kill a
person whom he thought was an enemy subtribe but it turned out later that said victim is
not from the enemy subtribe. This is also true with losob.
Example:
The subtribes of A and B are in conflict with each other. A saw C and thinking that
he is from the subtribe of B, inflicted injuries on him.
Solma and Sarsa
In this situation, the intended victim is known by the assailant from the very
beginning but because of poor marksmanship or other reasons, another person was injured
other than the intended victim.
Example:
A saw B whom he knows very well to be an enemy. He run after him but
mixed himself with the crowd. A already pressed the trigger and what was hit was a
bystander, named C.
Is A liable for the civil indemnity. YES, he is liable for the consequences of his
voluntary act. Besides, he was negligent. But the bodong between B and C if C is
a binodngan will not be affected. The concept is like that of solma.
Cases:
Subtribes A and B are at war with one another. Five persons from subtribes A
went within the bugis of subtribe B on a kayaw expedition and laid an ambushcade.
Someone came in hiking along the trail where they waited and was ambushed by those
from the subtribe A killing him. It turned out that the victim is from subtribe C covered
by another bodong.
It was held that this is a case of saramak. The reason is that before they went for
a kayaw, the other subtribes were duly informed not to go within the bugis of their enemy
subtribe.
Note:

Under present day bodong jurisprudence, it seems that the concept has been
broaden, for even killing in the bugis of other subtribes are claimed to be Saramak. This
should not be the case, for the people from any subtribe have the right to be safe within
their bugis.
Case: Tulgao vs. Bangad
Subscribes A and B were at war with one another. C was tending his kaingin
which is within their (C) bugis. C was killed by men from subtribe A.
It was held that this is saramak which should not have been the case. At any rate,
the indemnities were paid in accordance with his provision as the parties voluntarily
agreed for settlement.
Penalty:
Whether saramak, solma, losob/sarsa, the penalty is ten (10) carabaos plus other
customary damages if the victim dies.
If the result is injury, only the penalty is dependent on the gravity of the injury.

Section 7. Where offenders who belong to different bodong kill or injure

any binodngan and it could not be ascertained who actually killed or injured the
victim, then said offenders shall be penalized like patoy, share and alike. The case
will be treated as one case only. They shall likewise contribute for the expenses of
the settlement and customary damages, provided however, that where it is found
out that the group belongs to an organized syndicate, they shall individually answer
for the butu.
This contemplates of a situation where there was a tumultuous affray (free-for-all
fight) and it could not be determined with certainty who among them inflicted the fatal
would. Under this circumstance, all of them are liable to pay the indemnity in equal
shares. There will be only one case. However, all of those who joined in the fight will
answer individually for the indemnity (butu) due the bodong holder. They will share the
expenses for the settlement of the case.
Example:
A, B, C, D & E are from different subtribes. They were all eating at the Emilias
Kitchenette. Trouble erupted and after the fight F was found dead on the floor and it
could not be ascertained who inflicted the fatal wound. Are they liable? Yes, all of them
are guilty of killing F. They will pay ten (10) carabaos, plus damages share and share
alike.
A, B, C, D & E are liable to pay the butu individually payable to the
offended bodong holder from their respective subtribe, in addition to their share of the
penalty. Each offender shall give one carabao to the offended bodong holder.

Section 8. Serious Physical Injuries - Where the victim did not die due to
any reason, the offender is liable to pay five (5) carabaos. In addition thereto, he
shall pay the medical and hospitalization expense, plus the customary tingiting,
botok and songa where applicable. He shall likewise pay one (1) carabao to the
offended peace pact holder and P1,000.00 as pagikna.
Elements of the crime:
1. A binodngan inflict injury to another binodngan
2. The injury must be serious.
Under the pagta, there are no frustrated or attempted killings. Frustrated killings
are included in serious physical injuries. If the killing is only on its attempted stage, the
crime is treated as am-am orlayat, which is punishable by a multa, the highest of which is
a carabao or it could be a pig.
What is meant by the phrase serious?
As used in this pagta, the seriousness of a crime is not measured strictly on the
number of days of confinement or disability. For as long as a deadly weapon is used, the
crime committed is serious.
Note: In determining the penalty, the seriousness of the crime is determined by
the kind of wound and its location and how fatal it is. But for as long as a person is
confined for more than a month, then it is reasonable to assume that it is serious.
Penalty:
Section 8 provides that the penalty for serious physical injuries is five (5)
carabaos, or its equivalent value in cash or ricefields or heirlooms.
In addition to said penalty, the offender must pay the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Hospitalization expense;
Tingiting (one chicken) and a pig (songa);
Botok;
One carabao to the offended bodong holder; and
P1,000.00 as pagikna to be given to his kasupang.

In actual conflict resolution, these provisions are used mainly as guidelines in the
settlement.
The elders usually consider the ability to pay of the offending party and for how
much the offended party would accept freely as satisfactory settlement of the case.

Section 9. Where the injury is less serious, the offender shall give to the
victim by way of penalty two (2) carabaos and shall likewise shoulder the medical

expenses including the customary tingiting, songa, batok/sipat where applicable

and P500.00 as pagikna.
The penalty for less serious physical injury is two (2) carabaos. However, the
offending party must shoulder also the medical and hospital expenses. In addition, he will
provide the tingiting, songa, botok and pagikna, where applicable.
For violating the pagta, he is made to pay one (1) carabao to the
offended bodong holder, and another P1,000.00 to his kasupang.
It should be noted that the physical injuries treated in Sections 8, 9 & 10 are all
intentional felonies as distinguished from injuries inflicted through reckless imprudence.
Important words and phrases:
Tingiting - It is the ritual where a chickens feet is cut (wounded) to draw blood,
then the same is applied to the wound, even as a prayer is said that said wound should not
get swollen and it should heal immediately.
Songa - on the other hand, is a pig butchered, usually after the victim shall have
been discharged from the hospital or have recuperated. Again, the purpose is to offer the
pig in prayer for the early recovery of the victim.
Botok - Bead or beads to be tied around the wrist or where the wound is, to
prevent the injury from swelling.

Section 10. Where the injury is slight, the penalty is one (1) carabao plus
medical expenses incurred and P300.00 as pagikna.
If the injury is slight, the penalty is one (1) carabao.
Pagikna - is the amount given by the peace pact holder to his kasupang. It could
be in cash or in kind. This is given as a signal and a token that the case has been finally
settled.
In less serious physical injuries and slight injuries, there are still customary
damages to be paid including pagikna.
The reason is that, the crime is relatively light to warrant the payment of
damages. However, pagikna is given as this is to let the other bodong holder (kasupang)
know of the fact of settlement.

Section 11. Where two (2) fought it out and one or both of them is injured or
killed, each person shall be liable for the consequent act he inflicted. The person
who
started
the
fight
(bummog-oy) shall
pay
the
customary
expenses, multa and pagikna to the bodong holder.

The section covers a situation where one binodngan has inflicted or is about to
inflict injury to another binodngan who reacted and fought it out. If both are killed, then
they are even in the eyes of thebodong. However, if one or both are injured, then each
shall be liable for the act he inflicted.
However, upon proper investigation by the bodong, the person who started the
aggression is liable to pay the butu to the offended bodong holder. In the eyes of
the bodong, he was the one who violated the provision of the pagta.
In one case, Johnny (not his real name) from Lubo was with his companions about
to board a center car in Dagupan. While waiting, Pedro from Butbut, who was drunk
came and was making trouble. Johnny tried to pacify him, but instead of obliging, Pedro
drew his fan knife and thrust it upon Johnny who suffered superficial wound. Johnny
wrested the knife and stab Pedro who was seriously wounded.
It was settled in a way that Johnny, aside from the tingiting and the songa, paid the
medical expenses. Pedro was made to pay the bodong holder of Butbut one (1) carabao
for the violation of thepagta (pot-ak) as it was Pedro who started the fight and he was
required to provide tingiting and songa.

Section 12. Any person who in defense of his person, a relative or

companion, kills the aggressor, shall not be liable and the act does not
constitute Bug-uy. However, he may give reasonable financial assistance to the
family of the deceased.
This is what we call the principle of self-preservation.
A. Self-Defense: See annotation under Art.II, Sec. 7, (i);
B. Defense of a Relative - we have in the bodong the principle called komkom or putut,
which simply means that any law abiding binodngan ought not to injure or kill
another (whether binodngan or non-binodngan) when the intended victim is in the
company of another binodngan. If he persists in inflicting injury, and he succeeded,
the person in whose company the victim was, must be paid one (1) carabao by the
offender, in addition to the penalty of the offense he committed.
However, if the person in whose company the victim was, injures or kills the
assailant, he is not liable to pay the butu to the bodong for he is only avenging a
violation/stigma committed against his honor. This is the basis of the provision. There is
no bug-uy.
Why do Section 12 states that the person defending his person or property may
give reasonable damages, when he was defending himself?
The reason is that every Kalinga knows that because of the incident, the
harmonious and peaceful relationship between the assailant and the victim is restrained.
Legally, he is not required to pay but morally, he knows that he has taken away a life
and/or has injured someone and there could never be peace without justice. He therefore
pays damages to appease the anger and to assuage the pain of loss and suffering of the

other party. By tradition, to have permanent peace, the parties can arrange for the
intermarriage of their sons and daughters, so that whatever dusa given becomes the
property of both their children given in marriage.

Section 13. When the person robbed under extreme circumstances, kills the
thief, robber or hold-upper, there is no bug-uy. However, the offended may extend
reasonable financial assistance to the family of the victim.
This section refers to the right of every owner to protect his properties. Under the
provision, he may utilize reasonable force to protect his properties. If the robber however
fights back, and in the process is killed, there is no liability of the property owner for such
death. However, as is the practice here in Kalinga, the assailant may give whatever
financial assistance to help defray the expenses incurred in connection with the said
death.
Cases:
One morning at Purok 5, Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga, two persons were discovered
dead along the road. It appears that at about 4:00 oclock in the morning, Edgar allowed
the pandesal boys to enter their bakery to get pandesal fro them to sell. The two
armed men, entered and announced a hold-up. Edgar put up a fight and the robbery was
foiled. The two robbers scampered away wounded. However, they died.
For such deaths, the parents of the robbers tried to claim for damages, but they
were unsuccessful.
Under extreme circumstances
This phrase was inserted to safeguard the possibility of any killing done in the
guise of protecting ones property. This is a recognition of the primacy of life over the
right to property. In order for the killing to be justified, meaning, for the bodong to be
unaffected, the situation must be such that the assailants life is in immediate physical
danger. In other words, it is a situation where it is either the life of the robber or of the
person defending his property.

Section 14. Where two persons agree to a duel and one is killed, then there
is no bug-uy and liability. However, he shall give reasonable financial assistance to
the family of the deceased. If both are killed, then there is no bug-uy and liability.
This section covers what is called as duel. It is a situation where two persons have
agreed to a fight on a preset time and place, and if because of the agreement to fight, both
were killed, there is no bug-uy. The bodong is not affected.
This situation does not obtain where a person would go to the house of another
person and challenges the latter for a fight. In such a situation, if the challenger is killed
or injured, there is no bug-uy. The reason is that the assailant never agreed to a fight. In
fact, it was the victim who started the fight or trouble.
Example:

A was a bit drunk. He armed himself with a bolo and proceeded to the house of
B. While thereat, he challenged B for a fight. B went and they fought and A was killed.
Is A liable to pay the butu? No.
Is the bodong affected? No.
However, B has a limited obligation. He may give damages. The reason is that he
has no fault. It is As fault.

Section 15. Am-am (gave threat) - Where the offender threatens to kill
another binodngan by words or deeds, he shall be penalized (mamulta) with one (1)
carabao.
In the olden days, gave threat was not an offense under the pagta. The principal
reason is that the person who did it had really no intention to kill or to injure a person he
threatens. It may have arose from the heat of anger. Otherwise, if he had the intention,
then why did he do it?
Under the new provision, it is now penalized by one carabao, the same to be
butchered and for all who are present to eat.
Case:
Men from Lubo went to Bangad. While there, a man from the place was very
angry at them. In fact, he unsheathed his bolo and with it, struck the ground where
the Ilubu were seated, each trying to move a bit further away as the blows comes nearer to
them.
The people from Lubo just charged it to experience explaining that they were not
hit anyway so why make a case out of it in the bodong.

Section 16. Putut / Komkom - Where a binodngan is killed in the presence of

or in the company of another binodngan, the binodngan offender shall pay a fine
(multa) of one (1) carabao to the person in whose company a crime was committed,
in addition to the penalty of the crime of killing.
See annotation under Sec. 12, this Article.

Section 17. Tuyuk - Where a person through his acts or words induce another
to kill or inflict to another person, the penalty shall be a fine (multa) of five (5)
carabaos.
Elements of tuyuk:

1. A person induces another person to kill or inflict injury to another person;

2. Through words or deed; and
3. The intended victim was killed or injured by the person induced to commit the
crime.
Penalty:
The penalty is pegged at 5 carabaos or its equivalent. It may be asked why the
penalty is quite high considering the fact that he was not the one who killed or injured the
victim. However, in the eyes of the pagta, he participated in the commission of the crime
as principal by inducement.
The penalty provided here is different from the penalty of the principal by direct
participation.
Example:
A and B are friends. They went to a night club for some drinks. A met his long
time enemy named C. A then shot C but because of poor marksmanship, C was not hit. C
knows very well A & B to be close friends and tribesmates, and because A ran away, C
stab B with whom he has no grudge at all, except that he was only a companion.
Is A liable to the injury inflicted on B? YES. He is liable because if he did not
shoot C, then C would not have stabbed B. This is inducement by act.

Section 18. Ibit - Where a person by design unknown to the victim points to
the victim or accompany the assailant and points to the person and the victim
pointed to was killed, the offender shall pay a fine (multa) of five (5) carabaos.
Under this Article, what is penalized is the inducer - say mastermind, who may
have an ax to grind against the intended victim.
Distinction between tuyuk and ibit:
In tuyuk, the victim may not have any fault at all. It is the inducer who was at
fault. The victim is just that - a victim whose only fault was for being at the wrong place
at the wrong time.
In Ibit, the victim and the assailant may have some misunderstanding or that their
subtribes may be at war with each other so that the role of the mangibit was to point to
the victim who maybe his friend and is known by them. The assailant does not know the
identity of his victim personally.
Example:
A is from Cagaluan and B is from Lubuagan. Because of the brewing tribal war
between the people of Cagaluan and Lubuagan, each is looking for the other to revenge.
C who is from Lubo knows B, a person from Lubuagan. C has a grudge against B. So
what he did was to accompany A to where B is staying. A injured B.

Under this circumstance, C is liable under this section for without him, who
pointed to B, B should not have been killed.

Section 19. Tutuk - Any binodngan with intent to kill points his gun or
deadly weapon to another binodngan is liable. The penalty is a fine (multa) of two
(2) carabaos or its equivalent in kind or cash.
What is punishable here is the act of pointing a gun or other deadly weapon.
There must be intent to kill.
Intent to kill is a pure mental process, so that the surrounding circumstance must
be considered if only to arrive at a reasonable conclusion that there is really the intent to
kill.
For instance, there could never be tutuk if it is found out that the gun used is but a
toy gun. There could never have been any intent to kill under this circumstance. It could
have been a practical joke. But it is different where a toy gun is used as a means to
commit robbery and in fact he succeeded in divesting the victims of cash and/or
valuables. The crime committed is robbery, not tutuk.

ARTICLE VII
CRIMES COMMITTED IN VIOLATION OF THE BUGIS

Section 1. Any binodngan who revenges in the Matagoan zone of life,

shall pay, in addition to the penalty for the crime committed, a fine (multa) of one
(1) carabao payable to the offended bodong holder.
This is a new provision intended to address the tide of criminality in Tabuk.
Especially that Dagupan and Bulanao are not within the defined bugis of any bodong,
hence any one can revenge there for there is no particular bodong to fear, to go after the
culprit. Under the old concept, we call this pupulligan - literally translated as killing
zone or place where head rolls.
We have been witnesses to several killings by binodngan against
another binodngan here in the Metropolitan Tabuk, causing so much economic dislocation
and disruption on the activities of thebinodngan. Students quit schools and workers
leaves their places of work whenever subtribal conflict occurs.
This prompted the Kalinga leaders to declare Tabuk, among other places as
Matagoan Zone or Zone of life.
It is provided now, that any violation of the provision is penalized by paying one
carabao to the offended bodong holder.
For instance, when there is an existing subtribal conflict between Lubo and
Lubuagan, both tribes are prohibited from taking revenge in the matagoan area so that

if a person from Lubo revenges here in Tabuk, then he must pay one carabao to
the bodong holder of Lubo for not being respected as such bodong holder.

Section 2. When a binodngan or mangili (visitor) enters the ili (village) of

another binodngan and his property is stolen or lost, the peace pact holder or the
host shall return the item lost or its value to the visitor. The bodong holder / host,
when the offender is found, shall cause the offender to pay the cost of the items lost
and be fined (mamulta).
This provision is the translation of the beautiful practices of our people here in
Kalinga where a visitor is respected and treated with much lavish; when a visitor enters a
village and he drinks in a house, or partakes of any food, he is protected by the person
who offered him the food or water. His life and properties are secured.
Disrespect or insult to the visitor is an insult or disrespect to the host
(nammangili).
The provision applies whether a visitor is a binodngan or not. When a personal
belonging of a visitor is lost or stolen and despite investigation, it is not found, the host
pays the value of the items lost or stolen as the visitor is leaving, and could not await the
result of the investigation. However, should the culprit be found out later, the host shall
be reimbursed his expenses and the culprit is made to pay a multa.

Section 3. When in the process of trying to recover a stolen large cattle and
footprints are last seen within the bugis of another ili, the thief is presumed to be
from the ili, in which case, the ili through the bodong holder will pay the value
thereof.
We have here a presumption of law that where the last hoofprint is found within
the territory of an ili, the pagta states that the thief must be from that ili. But if the
community people satisfactorily explain or point out to the thief (for it is impossible for
the barrio folks not to have seen the culprits), then said presumption is rebutted.
The reason for this presumption is that the barrio folks would not want to
contribute for the payment, hence they are expected to report whoever they have seen
trying to transport the carabao or large cattle. Large cattle include carabao, cows, even
horses.
The same presumption is applied by analogy when a person is found dead or
missing within the bugis of another bodong. If after exhaustive investigation and various
circumstances show that he could have not been killed by anybody other than the people
from the place, it could be reasonably presumed that the assailant is from the people in
whose bugis the person was found dead or missing.
Example:
Sometime in the early 1970s, a group of men and women from the subtribe of
Basao went to Dao-angan, Balbalan for a bodong celebration. After the celebration, the

councilor from Dao-angan invited and accompanied the group for

a pasadang (entertainment) at his residence at Bin-ac, a sitio of Dao-angan. On the way
at Sitio Comyaas, while taking their coffee together with the councilor and other, the
oldest of the group for unknown reason suddenly hacked the councilor with his bolo at his
mouth. Instantaneously, the group scampered and ran away towards different directions
of the forested areas of Dao-angan.
Thereafter, all the members of the group were accounted for, except the assailant
who was found missing up to this day.
When the councilor recovered, he filed a case in court but the case was amicably
settled.
Years after, the subtribe of Basao claimed that the missing assailant was killed by
the subtribe of Dao-angan based on the presumption by analogy under this Section and
therefore were required by thebodong to indemnify or pay the apas as the case may be.
The Dao-angan subtribe settled the case of the missing member of the subtribe of
Basao in the amount of P20,000.00. The bodong between the two subtribes was then
restored.

Section 4. Dimok di pita (stained or soiled bugis) Where patoy is committed

within the bugis, the offender shall pay darus/dimok pita, without prejudice to the
claim ofbanat.
This is akin to the concept in the matagoan area. The territorial integrity of
any ili should be respected. It is the popoyya-awan (place where to have fresh air) to
tribes with tribal war or for subtribes with personal enemies. It is a sanctuary where
whoever is there should not be molested while they are there.
If the sanctity of the bugis is violated, by spilling blood therein, the violator has to
pay a carabao as multa. The term of the multa is dalus (cleaning of the stains).
Case:
Singyao is from Lubo. They have a kaingin in Pangol and they are temporarily
residing there. Singyao has a beautiful wife and he suspected that his wife is seeing
another man. One day, he got his gun and way laid the man he suspected as paramour of
his wife. He shot the man wounding him seriously.
Held: Singyao was made to pay for the darus / dalus for having stained
the bugis of Pangol.
Banat - this refers to the place of land where a person was killed. Said land
belongs to the victim or the value thereof is reimbursed.
The darus / dalus here is not specified as to how much. This was made so to
give the elders settling the case some room of discretion. But the darus / dalus is never
less than the value of a grown carabao.

Section 5. Wakwak - Any binodngan who kills a visitor whether

a binodngan or not at his house or outside the house within the bugis within twelve
(12) hours is liable. The offender, in addition to the penalty of the crime
committed, shall pay a fine (multa) of one (1) carabao to be given to the host of the
victim.
To a Kalinga, killing a visitor who ate and drunk the food and water of his host is
tabooed (paniyaw/kaniyaw). It is believed that the offender will not live a long and happy
life.
It is the highest form betrayal for you have fed him, only to bring out the food
from his stomach. Wakwak literally means killing a person whereby the food eaten by
him is spilled.
Traders went to Lubuagan to sell goods. They were fed but they were killed. That
is wakwak.
Another example of wakwak is the root cause of the tribal war between Lubo and
Tulgao. Some men from Tulgao passed through Lubo. They were fed there, after which
they proceeded to Mangali. While there, they were killed for unknown reasons. The
people of Lubo resented the killing and avenged their death. Thereafter, they went to
report the incident to Tulgao for the tumo.
Instead of giving the customary thanksgiving, the people of Tulgao killed them that sparked the tribal fight in 1939.
That was the way in the past. You have to avenge the killing of your visitors. But
Christian as we are, we have to obtain justice in a way consonant to the present view that
killing as a way dispensing justice is prohibited. The offender now is liable to pay a fine
of one (1) carabao.

Section 6. When a person is killed in the house or yard of a binodngan, the

offender, in addition to the penalty for the killing, will pay a fine (multa) of two (2)
carabaos, payable to the owner of the house, plus reasonable damages.
Section 7. In the same manner, when a binodngan is killed in a vehicle
owned by a binodngan, the offender shall pay two (2) carabaos as multa, payable to
the owner of the vehicle, plus reasonable damages.
Section 6 & 7 - Violation of domicile
To a Kalinga, the house and its surrounding (yard) is sacred. A vehicle is treated
as extension of the house of the owner. That is his domain and everybody who comes
there are automatically brought to the care and responsibility of the owner of the house.
Any harm done to a visitor in said place is a harm to the owner of the house.

It is ba-in, a value that is at play here. Penalty for the violation of this provision is
two carabaos. What is penalized here is the act of disrespect to the owner of the house,
hence the phrase in addition to the penalty for killing.
As regards the vehicle, it does not matter if the culprit knows or not whether a
vehicle belongs to a binodngan. It is his duty to verify before doing anything.
Case:
The Bayangans from Lubo owns a vehicle plying the Tabuk - Tuguegarao route.
A passenger rode therein and was shot by one from Tulgao while near Nambaran. For
said violation, the Tulgao people paid one carabao (penalty under their bilateral pagta) to
the people of Lubo.
The word is killed - Is this exclusive only to killings? No. It includes any other
crime such as rape.

Section 8. Where theft or robbery is committed in the house or vehicle of

a binodngan as above-mentioned, the binodngan offender shall, in addition to the
prescribed penalty of the crime committed, pay a reasonable amount of fine
(multa), payable to the owner of the house or vehicle.
What is protected here are the properties of the binodngan. Note that the penalty
is restitution and multa, that is the offender will shoulder the expenses of settlement. He
must provide the pig, the rice and drinks for the people who are gathered.

ARTICLE VIII
CRIMES AGAINST WOMANHOOD

Section 1. Pagod / gobao (rape) - rape is committed by having carnal

knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstance:
a. Use of force or intimidation;
b. Where a woman is deprived of reason or is rendered unconscious;
c. when asleep.
This section defines rape as having carnal knowledge of a woman by use of force
or intimidation; where the woman is otherwise deprived of reason or is rendered
unconscious and when the woman is asleep.
The above definition does not distinguish, hence it covers what we have in our
national laws as statutory rape.
What must be punishable under this section is the insertion of the male organ to
the organ of the woman, not anything.

Elements of rape (pugod/kolas):

1. The offender must be a man;
2. The offender has carnal knowledge with the woman;
3. That said act is accomplished under any of the following, to wit:
a. Use of force or intimidation;
b. Where a woman is deprived of reason or rendered unconscious;
c. When the woman is asleep (gubao).
The equivalent term for rape is pugod / kolas (to restrain with force).
There must be sexual intercourse in Rape
Penetration, even if partial is necessary. The slightest penetration would be
enough.
If there is no sexual intercourse and only lewdness was performed, the offense is
not rape but could be acts of lasciviousness punished under Section 5 hereof.
Under national laws, rape could be committed by inserting anything to the vaginal
canal, not necessarily the male organ. Likewise, a male or female could commit rape. But
under the pagta, only a male can commit rape.
Cases:
.
1. lloma, a woman of the Tinglayan subtribe married to one from Magnao subtribe, was a
passenger in a jeep coming from Tabuk and going to Naneng. When the jeep arrived
at Lucog, Tabuk, it was getting a little bit dark and llloma alighted bound for her
home. Another passenger, a CAFGU from Magnao also alighted and he offered to
accompany the woman until their house because it is already getting darker. Iloma
refused but the man insisted. While they were a little bit far from the road, the man
suddenly grabbed her. She struggled to get free from his strong hold but in vain. He
threatened to kill her if she shouted and resisted. He successfully raped her. The next
day, lloma submitted herself to medical examination. Tinglayan proper has no
existing bodong with Magnao and so the relatives of the woman threatened to kill if
the case is not settled. The case was settled and a bodong relationship established.
2. Tannobong is secluded sitio where houses are from each other. One morning Marcela,
an Igorot but married to one from Lubuagan washing clothes while her husband was
out at sitio Saudi Bulo to tend their farm. She needed some clips so she went inside
their house to get some. She was followed by one Magannon from the Sumadel
subtribe and once inside, the man got hold of her and attempted to lay down with her.
Marcela struggled with the man at the same time shouting. Afraid that he might
discovered, the man ran away. The case was brought to the attention of the bodong.
After two or three meetings, the man paid the victim two carabaos as settlement.
.

Section 2. Penalty - The penalty for rape is 12 carabaos.

Penalty:
The law provides for the specific penalty of twelve carabaos. It is of the opinion
that the pagta provides only for the penalty of consummated rape, so in cases where the
stages of execution is not consummated, the penalty is multa of not less than one carabao.

Section 3. If as a result of rape, a child is born, the child is entitled to

support, in addition to the penalty of rape.
The provision is intended to assure financial support to the child as a result of
rape. Support in the olden days consists in giving ricefield and heirlooms where available.
Upon living birth, the father must give:
1. Palakson (inheritance) - he must give his ricefield, if he has, or some
pieces of land;
2. If he has, he also gives antique jars;
3. Provide for the education of the child.
In short, he must provide the basic needs like food, shelter and clothing, and
provide a good future by giving the child the appropriate education.

Section 4. If after the rape, the parties agreed to marry, the penalty is
extinguished.
If after the rape, and the rapist marries the girl, there is no liability. The reason is
that the victim has forgiven the rapist.

Section 5. Any person who commits acts of lasciviousness, with lewd

designs upon the person of a woman under the circumstances provided for in Sec.
1, Art. VIII shall pay a fine (multa) of 1 carabao.
The circumstances contemplated here are the kobbor (mushing of breast of a
woman); kawot (inserting a finger on the private part of a woman); kawor (embracing a
woman), aprus/appad (touching the woman).
For this to be punishable there must be lewd designs or there must be the intention
to do it for the satisfaction of doing it. There must be malice.
Accidental touching of a womans part is not covered here.
The penalty is one carabao, it is the opinion of this writer that the carabao must be
butchered and nothing goes to the woman. This
is in accordance with the old
practice of the Kalingas.
Case:
Shirley, a young woman of 19 years, single and belonging to the Lubuagan
subtribe helped in serving meals at the restaurant of her cousin who was married to one of
Lubo subtribe. The restaurant is located at Bulanao, Tabuk,. Juan, a married man and

known to be notorious person belonging to the Tinglayan subtribe while being served by
Shirley, suddenly touched her breast. The case was referred to the bodong of Tinglayan
and Lubuagan and after a series of negotiations, the man paid one (1) carabao to the
woman as settlement.

Section 6. Sokwao/daladag - Any married man having an illicit

affair (dagdagas) with the wife of another man and their relationship was
subsequently discovered, shall be fine (mamulta) of one (1) carabao0 to be
butchered, during the settlement. In addition, he shall pay a fine (multa) of three (3)
carabaos to be given to the husband of the woman(dagdagas), and the married
woman shall also be fined (mamulta) of two (2) carabaos to be given to the wife of
the offending husband.
Elements of the offense:
1. The man must be married;
2. The woman is likewise married;
3. There is an illicit relationship; and
4. The relationship was discovered.
Must there be a legal marriage in accordance with national laws? It is not
necessary. What is important here is that the man and the woman were married in
accordance with the customary practice, for instance:
a) The man and woman agreed to marry;
b) The marriage rituals were performed such as ngilin/palanos.
c) The man and the woman cohabited with one another.
How about illicit relationships that were not discovered?
If there is no discovery of the relationship, there is no crime.
Must the discovery be by the spouse only?
It is opined that for as long as the illicit relationship is discovered, the crime is
consummated.
Penalty:
1. The man who carries the relationship must pay 3 carabaos t6o the husband of
his paramour (dagdagas);
2. The paramour (dagdagas) must pay 2 carabaos to the wife of the man with
whom he had illicit relationship;
3. The offender (man) must produce a carabao to be butchered during the
settlement .
Illustration:
Juan and Maria are husband and wife. Likewise Pedro and Petra are husband and
wife. Juan and Petra had an affair. When discovered, Juan has to pay 3 carabaos to Pedro.

Petra, for her part has to indemnify Maria for 2 carabaos. Juan must produce another
carabao to be butchered during the settlement and provide the rice drinks.
All in all, the offending husband must produce 4 carabaos.
Why is it that it is Maria and Pedro who are the recipients of the indemnity?
It is so because they are the offended parties.
Case:
Valentino, a married man belonging to the Tulgao subtribe was a business
associate of Diana, a married woman of the Lubuagan subtribe. During the constant
companionship of the two in their antique business, a love relationship resulted and Diana
failed to come home to her husband and children. After a long period of time of absence
from home, the relatives of Diana went to look for her and after a long search, they found
them staying in the house of one of the relatives of the man. The husband of Diana
brought a case against Valentino under the bodong. Valentino refused to pay for the reason
that Diana voluntarily went with him and in fact wanted to separate from his husband so
that they will marry each other. But the bodong would not give in to the reasoning of the
man. Up to now, the relatives of Diana are waiting for the payment of the five (5)
carabaos as settlement of the act complained of.

Section 7. If the relationship is between a married man and an unmarried

woman, the offending spouse shall be fined (mamulta) of one (1) carabao to be
butchered during the settlement. In addition, he and his paramour (dagdagas) shall
pay one (1) carabao each to be given to the offended spouse.
Elements of the offense:
1. There is an illicit relationship between a married man and an unmarried
woman;
2. The relationship is discovered.

Penalty:
1. the married man must produce two (2) carabaos, one to be butchered (multa)
and the other to be given to his wife;
2. the single woman must likewise pay the offended wife one head carabao.
Rationale of the Provision:
The married man is penalized because of his unfaithfulness to his wife. In like
manner, the paramour is penalized for one carabao,
for in accepting the married
man, she has destroyed the family of the man and disgraced her family.
The question may be raised: Suppose the woman does not know her paramour to
be married, is she still liable?

The provision does not distinguish whether she has knowledge or no knowledge of
the marriage. She is still liable.
The reason is that any one can disclaim knowledge of the marriage, hence it is
presumed that she has knowledge of the marriage. Besides, before agreeing to illicit
relationship, she has to exercise prudence.

Section 8. If a married woman carries an illicit affair with a single man, the
single man shall be fine (mamulta) of one carabao to be butchered during the
settlement. in addition, the married woman (dagdagas) and the single man shall
pay one (1) carabao each to be given to the offended husband.
This is the reverse of Sec. 7 above. It is now the married woman who carries an
illicit relationship with a single man.
The basic distinction between Sec. 7 and 8 is that the married woman in Sec. 7 is
not required to produce one (1) carabao as multa (to be butchered). It is the man however,
for her unfaithfulness, she is required to give one carabao to her husband.
It is the single man who is required to produce the one head carabao as multa.
Why? Because it is believed that he is the tempter. Had he not tempt the woman, the
woman could not have been unfaithful. In addition, he is made to pay one (1) carabao to
the offended husband.

Section 9. If a husband or wife abandons permanently his or her spouse and

cohabits with one another, the offender shall pay a fine (multa) of 3 carabaos. If
they have children, the offending spouse shall forfeit his/her share of all their
conjugal properties and provide support to the children.
This section treats of abandonment. The offender here could either be the husband
or wife. The abandonment here must be permanent.
Elements of the offense:
1. Either spouse abandons the other by leaving the family home.
2. He/ She must cohabit with another.
3. No justifiable reasons.
How about if the person abandons his spouse but does not cohabit with another
one? Is she or he liable?
It is believed that the intention of the provision is the abandonment without
justifiable reasons. It is the fact of abandonment that is the gravamen of this offense.
The reasons are these: marriage is a permanent union and under the Kalinga
culture. This union can only be voluntarily dissolved by the parties if they have no

children. One cannot just walk away from marriage without the consent of his partner.
This is the reason why the penalty is quiet heavy - 3 carabaos.
The provision also provides that the offending spouse forfeits his/her share of their
conjugal properties; and must provide support for his/her children - that is, provide for
their basic needs including their education.
The provision speaks of the conjugal properties being forfeited if they have
children. How about his capital/paraphernal properties that he/she brought to the
marriage. Does he get them?
NO. The reason is that he/she has children and whatever inheritance he had must
be transferred to his children. That is the customary law.

Section 10. If the reason for leaving the spouse is due to repeated violence
on his or her person, the spouse who leaves the conjugal home is not liable, but
he/she may give support when warranted.
This provision is an exception to the general rule enunciated in Sec. 9 above. By
express provision of law is the reason for abandoning the home is due to repeated
violence to his or her person, then he/she is not liable. However, he/she is not absolved
of his/her obligation to give support to the children when warranted.

Section 11. The spouse who inflicts injuries on his/her spouse shall be liable
to the extent of the gravity of the injuries inflicted in accordance with the
provisions of thepagta.
Section 12. If as a result of repeated beating or by any acts, the battered
spouse is killed, the offender is liable to pay a fine of ten (10) carabaos by way of
settlement and provide support to the children. If the offender is the one killed by
the battered spouse, there is no liability/bug-oy.
The offending spouse in Sec. 10 above is liable to the injuries he/she inflicted. If
the battered spouse dies as a result of the beating, the offending spouse is liable for his/her
death. He/she is penalized 10 carabaos and must give support to the children.
When however, the battered spouse kills his spouse who beat him, he is
exculpated. He is not liable for such death.
Neither does it constitute bug-uy - meaning it will not be brought to the bodong.

Section 13. Lugung (seduction). When a man has carnal knowledge with a
virgin or a widow committed by any means of deceit, he shall be liable to pay a
fine of two (2) carabaos. If as a result thereof, a child is born, then support shall be

given. If the woman dies at childbirth (nanapil), the offender shall shoulder the
funeral expenses.
Elements:
1. Carnal knowledge with a virgin/widow;
2. By means of deceit;
3. The woman must be a virgin/widow.
Example:
A has a girlfriend named B. A promised to marry B, and because of that promise,
B gave herself to A.
Is A liable? YES because without his promise of marriage, he would not have been
successful in having carnal knowledge of B.
The provision only states that the woman must be a virgin. What does virginity
mean?
It is believed that virginity should not be taken in its technical sense. For as long
as the woman is single and
unmarried, she should be considered a virgin in the context
of the provision.
Penalty:
The pagta provides for the payment of two (2) carabaos. The two (2) carabaos will
be given to the offended woman.
However, as is customary here in Kalinga, the offender must butcher a pig and
provide drinks for the people who settled the case.
If as a result of the seduction, a child is born, the offender must acknowledge the
child and give the customary inheritance and support to the child.
If the woman dies at child birth, the man must pay the funeral expenses, the
amount of which shall be determined by the elders considering the various circumstances
then present. The only guideline here is the reasonability of the expenses claimed.

Section 14. Lukluk/labok/lobak. ( desecrating a widow) - any man cohabiting

with a widow who is still in mourning shall be fined (mamulta) one (1) carabao and
the widow shall pay P 5,000.00 as baba-u to the heirs/relatives of the deceased
husband.
Elements:
1. a man cohabits with a widow;
2. the widow is still in mourning.

Section 15. Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in
the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any one of
them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them
or any of them serious physical injuries shall not be liable, however he shall pay
reasonable financial assistance to the families of the victim. There is no bug-uy.
This provision contains the exempting circumstances- the person who kills or
injures his/her spouse and/or paramour in flagrante delicto or immediately thereafter is
not liable.
Elements:
1. the offender must be legally married;
2. must have surprised his/her spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another man/woman or immediately thereafter;
3. kills or inflicts physical injuries on any or both of them.
1. The offender must be legally married- this phrase must be read in the cultural context
of the concept of marriage. For as long as the man and the woman cohabited with
each other in accordance with the marriage practices of the Kalingas, he is covered by
this provision even if they are not armed with a certificate of marriage.
2. The element of having surprised his/her spouse in the act - this means that the spouse
has discovered them in the act of sexual intercourse of immediately thereafter. There
must be sexual intercourse, otherwise this provision does not apply.
Note that the phrase is immediately thereafter, so that when the circumstances
are such that it could not be stated with certainty that there was sexual intercourse,
then this provision will not be available. For instance, his spouse and the other man
are merely talking to one another, when they were chanced upon. It would be
different if they were chanced upon still naked or are putting in their clothing.
Why is the spouse exempted from liability?
At the moment the man chanced upon his wife committing an infidelity, it could
be said that he was so angered that his/her ability to think of the consequences of his acts
are impaired. He acted on impulse. He was not of his right senses. This is also true with
the wife surprising her husband in the act of committing infidelity.
Penalty:
He/she is exempted of any criminal liability. Interpreted, his/her act does not result
to bug-uy, hence in the eyes of the pagta, he/she did not violate any provision.
He/she however, is obliged by tradition to help defray the expenses in connection
of such death or injury.

While it is true that he/she is not criminally liable and that the peace pact is not
affected, the fact remains that he/she killed someone or injured someone and in order to
save him/herself from possible revenge, he/she has to give financial assistance to buy
peace. Without appeasing the anger of the victim, he/she will never be at ease. Justice in
the bodong demands that whatever wrong done must be compensated.

Section 16. Toddak di babae (Abduction) - It is the taking away of any

woman against her will and with lewd designs. The offender shall be liable to pay
five (5) carabaos. However, if the crime is a means employed in the commission of
the crime of rape, the offender shall be imposed the penalty for rape.
This is a new provision.
Elements:
1. a man takes away a woman against her will;
2. with force; and
3. with lewd designs.
A woman - there is no distinction here- whether married or not.
The taking must be against the will or without the consent of a woman, so that
where the taking is with consent, this provision will
not apply.
There must be lewd design. If there is no lewd design, then it may be kidnapping
Where the taking however is the means to commit rape, then the abductor is liable
for rape.
Penalty:
This provision provides for a penalty of five (5) heads of carabaos.

ARTICLE IX
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Section 1. Pulos (robbery) - is the unlawful taking of personal property of a

binodngan through violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon
things. The offender shall pay triple the value of the thing taken and shall be fined
(mamulta) and pay a reasonable pagikna.
Two (2) kinds of Robbery:
1. Robbery through force or violence against any person;
Examples:

A was walking along the street. B snatched his clutch bag. There is taking here by
force.
In the same example, B poked a gun at A and got his wallet. This is again pulos.
Violence is exerted on A by B.
2. Robbery through force upon things.
Example:
A stored his coffee beans in their house. When A and his family were out of the
house, B and C destroyed the padlock of As house and carted away twenty (20) cavans of
coffee beans. There is robbery by force upon things.
The whole concept of robbery is not found in the old pagta. Robbery with force
and intimidation was unthinkable then. There were no hold-ups.
It was the committee on pagta codification that provided this in the light of the
new incidents of robbery and hold-ups.
What was provided in the old pagta was the provision on akaw or theft as defined
in Sec. 4 hereof.
personal property - these are properties as contra distinguished with real
properties.
Penalty:
This provision pegged the penalty at triple the value of the property taken.
However, where the property stolen was recovered, the said property shall be
returned and the person is made to pay the expenses of settlement, reimburse reasonable
expenses incurred in
the recovery thereof. This is the old provision. However, as
worded now, the provision does not make any distinction whether the stolen item is
recovered or not. The culprit must pay three (3) times the value.
The reason for the heavier penalty was meant to discourage people from
committing robbery. As distinguished for theft, there is the added danger of bodily harm
to the person robbed, whereas in theft, there is no danger to the person of the property
owner.
Pagikna - this is the token which could be in cash given to
the kasupang (counterpart bodong holder) from whose tribe the offended property owner
comes from.
The bodong has laid down the principle that the aggrieved bodong holder is the
tribesmate of the offender, and since said offender is from the same tribe, then the
offender cannot run away from his obligation.
By way of illustration:

A from Lubo is the bodong holder for Balinciagao. B is his counterpart, who is
from Balinciagao.
If C from Balinciagao robs a person from Lubo, say D. D must report the
robbery to A who must formally inform B. B upon receipt of the information must
make C pay. If C pays D, then B now will send a pagikna to A, which amount is
deemed reasonable based on the value involved in the settlement.

Section 2. If as a consequence of or on the occasion of robbery, a person is

killed or injured, then the offender is answerable to such death or injuries as
penalized under Article VI. He shall return the thing taken or pay the value thereof
and shoulder the expenses of settlement plus a reasonable pagikna.
For as long as killing or injury happened as a consequence of or was a result of the
act, the offender is liable for such death or the injury.
Example:
A entered the house of B. A announced the hold-up but B resisted. A killed B in
the process. A run away with Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00)
Is A liable?
YES. A is liable for the death of B. A may not have the intention in the first place
to kill B but because of the resistance, he was forced to do it. He is likewise required to
butchered a pig during the settlement and to give pagikna.
It should be noted that the penalty for robbery is not imposed. The reason is that
he is already punished for the death of the victim. This is also true with physical injuries.
Note:

See annotation on killing and physical injuries.

Section 3. If as a consequence of or on the occasion of robbery, rape is

committed, the offender is liable for rape. In addition thereto, he shall shoulder
the multa and thepagikna.
Rape is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of robbery.
As in section 2, the primary purpose or intention of the offender is to rob. Where
however, as a second thought, rape is committed, the crime or robbery is deemed
absorbed and the offender is liable for rape.

Section 4. Akaw (theft) - is the taking of personal property of

a binodngan without his consent and without violence. The offender shall pay
double the value of the thing stolen and be fined (mamulta). He shall give
reasonable pagikna.

Elements:
1. There is taking of personal property;
2. Without the consent of the owner;
3. There is no violence against person.
Personal properties are properties of a person that could be carried away as
distinguished from real properties such as lands, houses and machineries attached to the
land. So it could be anything.
Penalty:
The imposable penalty is double the value of the thing stolen, moreover, the
offender should shoulder the expenses of settlement and give reasonable pagikna.
The word used is reasonable. That is so for the amount depends on the total
claims due. The bigger the amount, the bigger the pagikna. But it may not exceed one
carabao.
How about if the thing stolen was recovered, would the penalty be double? YES,
that is so because of the express provision of this pagta.

Section 5. Any binodngan who purchases a personal property, knowing it to

be stolen, shall return the same to the owner or pay the value thereof. In addition,
he shall be fined (mamulta). Under no circumstances will the owner of the property
be made to reimburse the payment made by the purchaser.
This is what we call in national laws the anti-fencing law. Why is this punishable?
It has been a recent practice that some people make it their business to buy stolen
items for a very low price and sell it for profits. Or if they are discovered, then they will
demand from the owner a large amount (saka) for them to give back the stolen item.
The committee therefore, inserted this provision to correct this evil. For all
purposes, the people buying stolen items are in a way encouraging thieves from stealing
as they can always buy it. Whereas, if no one buy stolen items, then thieves will have a
hard time disposing of these items.
Penalty:
The buyer of the stolen items must pay the value of the stolen items and is
required to shoulder the expenses of settlement plus pagikna.
He may however run after the thief for reimbursement. He is not allowed to be
reimbursed for the payment he made to the thieves.

Section 6. AKAW DI LUWANG, BAKA unno KABAYO - Penalty - the

offender shall return the carabao or the value thereof. In addition thereto, he shall
give another carabao or its monetary value as gungpur/patun-od and be fined

(mamulta) of one (1) carabao to be butchered and is obliged to give

reasonable pagikna.
This is an old provision of the pagta.
The thief is actually made to pay three (3) carabaos or cattle. One carabao is for
the restitution of the stolen carabao, or if the carabao is recovered, the same is returned.
The thief is required to pay another carabao as gungpur/patun-od. This is meant to
answer for the expense in terms of efforts, money and time spent to look for the carabao.
The third carabao is the multa. This is to be butchered by theumili in addition, he must
give pagikna.
Case:
Balla-ao is from Lubo. He brought to Lubo a stolen carabao. A few days later, Sgt.
Eyadan from Naneng came to Lubo and he laid claims to the carabao. The bodong
holder from Lubo went to get the carabao and gave it to Eyadan, another carabao was
given as gungpur and another one was butchered and a pagikna was given.
Before giving the carabao to Sgt. Eyadan, he was made to certify that the carabao
belongs to him. A few months however, it surfaced that the carabao does not belong to
him.
For falsely claiming as his, what does not belong to him, he was made to account
for said falsehood and aside from returning what he took, he was required to answer for
the multa.
It was agreed that the case in the DAR must proceed and whoever comes out the
winner may take it. In the meantime, there is a temporary truce.

Section 9. SOGOB (arson) - Any binodngan who intentionally and

maliciously burn any property of another binodngan shall pay the value of the
property and a fine (multa) of one (1) carabao as sobsob. In addition thereto, he
shall pay reasonable damages and pagikna.
This provision refers to arson. The element of malice and the intent to burn must
be present, otherwise, this provision may not apply.
The following elements must concur:
1. there is burning of the property of another person;
2. the burning must be done intentionally;
3. there is malice; and
4. damage was sustained.
Suppose the burning was accidental. Does this provision apply? NO. This is by
express provision. What the law excludes, it does not include.

Penalty:
The offender must pay the value of the damage sustained, butcher one carabao
as multa, (sobsob), which literally mean to douse off the fire with water. In addition, he
shall pay reasonable damages and pagikna.
Reasonable expense - this phrase was inserted so that the people who will settle
the case will be provided with discretion as to the amount considering all the
circumstances including the ability of the person to pay.
How about if the burning was accidental? It is believed that the offender will still
have to pay the value of the damage incurred. He may not however be made to pay for
the sobsob or the multa of one carabao.

Section 10. Swindling or Estafa - is the defrauding of a binodngan by

taking undue advantage of or abusing his or her confidence by converting into
ones personal benefit the money or property which the victim had given in trust or
deposited to the offender. The offender shall pay double the value of the thing
swindled and shall be fined(mamulta).
This is a new provision.
In the past, the people traded with one another by entrusting their heirlooms or
anything of value to another for a definite price and for said person to sell it with the
agreement that the goods shall be returned when unsold or the price agreed upon be paid
when the item is sold.
The difference between the selling price and the amount agreed upon by the
parties belong to the agent. And on those days, no problem whatsoever cropped up
regarding this provision.
It was only recently that binodngan begun to renege on their promises and this
spawned a lot of problems. This led the committee to include this provision in the pagta.
This partakes of what we call sale by commission or consignment (sakbal/angkat).
Elements:
1. there is defraudation;
2. committed either with abuse of confidence; or
3. by taking advantage of the trust of confidence;
4. there is conversion by personal use/benefit; and
5. cash or property given in trust.
Penalty:
The offender shall pay double the amount of what was deposited or given in trust.
Example:

A is from Lubo and he went to Pinukpuk. He was entrusted by B, a strand of

precious beads worth Twenty Five Thousand pesos (P25,000.00). A sold it for Thirty
Thousand pesos (P30,000.00). Instead of remitting Twenty Five Thousand Pesos
(P25,000.00) to B, he spent it for the education of his children. B demanded payment but
A failed to pay. Is A liable?
YES. He has to pay Fifty Thousand pesos (P50,000.00) and to shoulder the multa.

Section 11. YAM-AN (Malicious Mischief)- Any person who shall

deliberately cause to the property of another any damage shall pay double the value
of the damage done and be fined (mamulta).
This provision concerns the intentional destruction of property/ies belonging to
another person or the causing of damage to properties, i.e., destruction of fences, plants
other improvements, etc.
Penalty:
The penalty is double the value of what was destroyed and in addition, the
perpetrator will answer for the multa.

Section 12. IJUNJUN / IYAD-ADANI DI KIGAD (alteration of boundaries)

- Any person who shall deliberately alters boundaries or transfer monuments or
boundaries shall return the possession thereof and be fined (mamulta).
What is penalized here?
1. Alteration by transferring of fences to enlarge the area of ones property;
2. Alteration by transferring of monuments (mohon);
This must be intentional with the aim of usurping the property of another adjacent
owner.
The offender shall return the possession of what was taken and in addition
shoulders the multa.

ARTICLE X
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

Section 1. Any person who by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act
which, had it been intentional constitutes a grave crime against person, shall be
liable for death or injuries. Where death results therefrom, the offender shall pay
five (5) carabaos. If injuries results therefrom, he shall shoulder the hospitalization
expenses. If the result of the acts constitute damage to property, the offender shall

repair the damages incurred. In all the above, the offender shall shoulder the
customary expenses of settlement (aliglo).
Killing resulting from reckless imprudence
This is what we call in the local dialect dipun nigagara
or bokon na nagagara.
Elements:
1. There is killing or physical injuries; and
2. Killing resulted from accident/reckless imprudence .
Examples:
1. Killing as a result of car accident.
2. A, a member of the PNP was cleaning his gun. In the process,
the gun went off and B, a neighbor was hit and he died. Is A
liable? YES. Because, he was negligent.
3. A and B went to hunt for wild animals. They went on separate
ways. In the evening, something moved in the bush. A,
thinking that it was a wild pig, shot at the place where the
movement was. It turned out that B was hit and killed.
In all the above examples, the person who is responsible for the
killing is liable to pay the damages as provided in this section.
ARTICLE XI
OTHER CRIMES

Section 1. LIBEL/SLANDER - Any binodngan who shall maliciously and

publicly impute to another the commission of a crime, vice or defect, or any act or
omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause dishonor, discredit or
contempt of another, shall be fined (mamulta). The fine (multa) shall depend upon
the gravity of the crime imputed.
Elements:
1. The offender maliciously impute to another the commission of a crime, vice or
defect, act or omission, condition, stature or circumstances;
2. In public;

3. Which acts/imputation/vice or defect;

4. Tends to cause dishonor/discredit or contempt; and
5. It is not truthful.
Malicious - not any imputation of acts, vice or defect is punishable. It must be
done with malice and in a formal forum.
An act is malicious when the intent of the person making the imputation is to
destroy the good name of a person and there is no truth in the statement. When however,
the person is stating the truth, then he may not be held liable.
Example:
Rustom Ewangga is a known criminal in Tabuk - declared as Public Enemy No. 1.
When the bulldozers of OCDC were burned in Mapaoay, Tabuk, Kalinga, somebody from
Nambaran was arrested and he alleged that Rustom Ewangga was the one who burned the
equipment, when the truth is that he is not. When brought to the attention of the bodong,
the people of Tulgao fined (minulta) their tribemate who made the imputation.
Note that all the elements of the crime were present.
Public - by public, it is meant that the statement is said in the presence of the other
people; when and was published or copies were distributed for people to read.
Penalty:
The penalty is not specific. It is dependent on the gravity of the act considering all
the obtaining circumstances.

Section 2. TRESPASS TO DWELLING - Any person who enters the

dwelling of another with intent to commit a crime shall be fined (mamulta). If he
committed a crime therein, he is liable for the crime he perpetuated.
This provision punishes a person who enters the dwelling of another person
without his consent and knowledge and with intent to commit a crime.
Elements:
1. There must be entry into the dwelling of another one;
2. Without the consent or knowledge of the owner of the house;
3. And the person who entered has the intention to commit a crime.
Intent to commit a crime
It is very hard to determine the presence of the intent to commit a crime. The
reason is that the intent to commit a crime is a mental process.
In order to determine, therefore, the presence or lack of intent to commit a crime,
the surrounding circumstances and the time of the entry, and the character of entry must
be analyzed.

If for instance the entry is affected be breaking a wall or passing through the
window or through the roof; at nighttime and/or the person who entered did not inform
the neighbor of the owner of the house, then it could be reasonably stated that the person
is a trespasser, and is therefore liable under this paragraph. He is required to give/pay
multa, the exact amount being left to the discretion of the elders.
If after entering the house, the person took away cash and other personal
belongings of the owner of the house, said person is liable for the offense of theft.
Trespass is absorbed in said crime.

Section 3. Tuli / Mantuli - Any person who gives false testimony against
any binodngan in a bodong forum or in any proceedings of the agencies of the
government, shall pay a fine (multa) of two (2) carabaos.
The following are the elements of the crime:
1. A person testifies against a binodngan;
2. In a bodong forum or in any proceedings of any agency of the government;
3. Said testimony is false.
How about if the false testimony is against a non-binodngan?
It is opined that this rule does not apply because of the bilateral nature of
the bodong. The pagta only applies to the members of the bodong.
If however, the parties submit their case voluntarily to the jurisdiction of
the bodong, then this provision may apply. Moreover, be express provision of the pagta,
this section applies only to binodngan.
The non-binodngan, of course may avail of the provisions of our national laws.

Section 4. Any binodngan who is a material witness to the commission of

the crime defined in this pagta who refuses to testify without any valid reasons
shall pay a fine of one (1) carabao.
This provision was inserted by the committee to prevent the practice
of binodngan material witnesses who refused to testify on the pretext that they will be
sanctioned by the other party if they come out and testify.
The bodong is for the truth and no person who is telling the truth may be
sanctioned by the bodong. It is for these reasons that the binodngan who is a material
witness to a crime is penalized.
Elements:
1. A binodngan witnessed the commission of a crime;
2. He must be a material witness;
3. The crime is defined in this pagta;

4. He refuses to testify without justifiable reasons.

Penalty:
This provision mandates that said person must pay one head carabao for said
refusal to testify.
Material witness - the witness must have seen the occurrence of the crime. His
testimony must not be hearsay.
Example:
A is from the subtribe of Tanglag. He was present when B from Lubuagan
killed C, who is from Naneng. If during the settlement, A refuses to recount what he
saw when the incident happens, he is liable to pay one head carabao. However, if he was
sick during the settlement or was otherwise out-of-town, then he may not be punished.
What is punishable here is refusal to testify, not failure to testify.

ARTICLE XII
CIVIL OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE BODONG

Section 1. TOPOL / KABAW - Any binodngan who claims ownership and

takes into possession the personal property belonging to another when proven false
shall return what was taken or pay the value thereof plus multa.
Elements:
1. A binodngan claims ownership and takes possession;
2. Of personal property belonging to another;
3. Said claim is proven false.
Examples:
A and B have adjoining pasture lands. The cows of A crossed over the
fence of B. B branded said cows and had them registered in his name. A found out
what B had done and filed his complaint in the bodong.
Is B liable under this provision?
YES. B has to return the cows belonging to B. In addition, he has to pay
a multa or butcher a pig during settlement.
If in our examples, B sold those cows, then he will pay the value thereof.
The subject matter of the claim must be personal property - It does not apply to
real properties as lands as the same is punished under different sections of this pagta.

Section 2. Hired Labor - When a person is hired to do some manual labor,

and is accidentally injured or killed while in the performance of his job, the person
who hired him shall not be liable under the bodong. However, this is without
prejudice for the person who hired him to help defray the expenses incurred in
connection thereto.
This section deals on accidental killing or injury while said laborers are working
or doing what they were hired to and met an accident. The person who hired them is not
liable to the bodong for said death but they are required to help defray the expenses in
connection with said death or injury.
Example:
Mr. Awingan from Lubo hired a person from Ga-ang to level their land and turn it
into a ricefield. Said laborer excavated the lower portion of the land (subjacent support)
and the soil caved in trapping him in the process. When rescued, the laborer is dead.
When the elders gathered, they decided as follows:
1. Mr. Awingan provided one carabao as utung;
2. He also provided a pig, rice and drinks for one night during the wake
(bagungon);
3. He likewise provided a blanket and cloth for the dead person (gagaom).

Section 3. TUKUN / BAUN - When a person is sent to do some errands and

he met an accident, the preceding paragraph shall apply.
Examples:
The case between Suyang and Laya.
One of the claimants of the land in the Susana Realty Hacienda at Rizal has
convinced a certain Bilit from Suyang to accompany them to Rizal.
While they were in Rizal, their group was ambushed and Bilit was killed.
The case was settled. The people of Laya paid P150,000.00 pesos for the death of
Bilit.
The people who called Bilit (to do the errand for them) agreed to help defray the
medical and hospitalization expenses before said Bilit died - The total expenses was
pegged at P306,000.00.

Section 4. Any person who enters into the property of another and introduce
improvements therein without the knowledge and consent of the owner, shall not be

entitled to reimbursement of his expenses. If he claims ownership, he shall be

ejected outright and be fined (mamulta).
Beginning in the middle of 80s, people started occupying land belonging to other
people. Their intention is obvious - to squat on the land. However, if a person comes out
and shows proof that he is the owner of the land, the squatters would not turn-over the
possession of the land unless they are paid their expenses in improving the land - which
expenses are usually exorbitant.
This is the evil which this provision is aimed to address.
By this provision, any person who enters the land and introduces improvements on
the land of another person is precluded from asking for reimbursement. He has to vacate
immediately the area. If he claims ownership, then he is ejected and penalized
(mamulta). The exact multa to be determined by the elders and leaders of both tribes and
other neutral tribal leaders called for the purpose of settling the case.
This provision is based on the revered principle of the bodong that no man shall
enrich himself at the expense of another man (agum). This practice is tabooed
(paniyaw/kaniyaw).

ARTICLE XIII
FINAL PROVISIONS

Section 1. The provision of this pagta shall supersede all other pagta adopted
in duly authorized bodong forums or conventions, including all existing
bilateral pagtabetween subtribes, provided, that such bilateral pagta shall continue
to govern them for as long as it does not contravene this pagta. Any provision
contravening this pagta is void.
This pagta as a general rule supercedes all other bilateral pagtas. Should there be
other provisions of the pagta between subtribes that are deemed important to them which
were not provided by thispagta, said provision may still continue to govern them, so long
as they are not contrary to the provisions of this pagta. Any provision contravening
this pagta is void.
This provision was deemed important as it was the aim of this pagta to have one
uniform pagta of the bodong. In that way, the implementation of the pagta is facilitated
and we will achieve uniformity of penalties for all the same offense.

ARTICLE XIV
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1. This pagta shall be officially promulgated in Filipino and English and
translated into the Kalinga dialect. In case of conflict, the English text shall prevail.
Some people may wonder why the pagta is officially promulgated in the Filipino
and English, only to be translated in the Kalinga dialect. This provision was meant to
facilitate its writing. The different subtribes of Kalinga have their own dialect and to
forestall any debate as to what dialect to use, this provision was included. Besides, we
have different nomenclature for some acts or things and other subtribes may not
understand what is being spoken about. Hence, said pagta may be translated to as many
dialects.
Should there be any conflict in the translation, the English text shall prevail.

Section 2. Interpretation. In case of ambiguity of the provision of this pagta, the rules
on statutory construction shall apply.

Section 3. When a case, through the initiative of the parties involved has been settled
amicably, said settlement is valid and binding and the case is deemed finally closed.
The old pagta has provided that cases may be settled by parties concerned to their
full satisfaction. Said settlement is deemed final, executory and binding on all parties.
There are instances however, where the bodong holder of the offended subtribes
would disregard said settlement and make further demands.
This is contrary to the old pagta. It is for this reason that this section was placed
so that cases once settled should be treated as terminated whether the bodong were
involved or not.
Example:
While pupils from Lubo and Tulgao were having their work education at Bulanao
South Elementary School, a boy from Lubo accidentally injured a boy from Tulgao.
The case was settled with the parents of the victim. The people of Lubo
shouldered the medicines and the songa and tingiting.
One month later, the bodong holder from Tulgao resented what happened and reopened the case. They (Tulgaos) demanded for additional consideration of the
settlement. The people of Lubo had to comply.
This is the practice which should be discouraged, hence this provision.

Section 4. The offenders in all cases settled under the bodong shall pay the pagikna and
other customary practices where applicable.

This provision provides for the things the offenders have to pay.
enumerations are not exclusive. Spoken of here are the following:

The

Pagikna - (rootword is gikna - to feel). This is the amount given to the bodong
holder.
The amount is not specified and the amount depends on the penalty. The graver
the penalty, the bigger the amount.
This takes the place of a formal notice that the case which was brought to the
attention of the bodong has been settled.
When a bodong holder receives said amount, he does not keep it for himself. He
will gather the community, buy a jar of wine or some bottles of gin and while it is being
passed around to the community to drink it, he announces the result of the case. He
proclaims to everyone that this particular case has been settled and closed.
This is another way of telling the binodngan concern that the case is finally
settled.
Moreover, it is a matter of respect due to the bodong holder.
Examples of pagikna:
1. Bayangan and his companion from Lubo killed and injured a man and injured another
one, both from the Laya tribe. After the case was settled, the offenders give two (2)
carabaos to the kasupang, thebodong holder of Laya from Lubo.
2. When a student of DEMPHMNS was killed, the offended did not go for settlement but
went to Court. As the offenders were convicted, the case was deemed closed and
terminated. The offenders gave to Miguel Ludan two (2) carabaos as pagikna.
In less serious physical injuries and other minor offenses, pagikna may be
dispensed with. However, since we have now the pagta, where the provision specified
that pagikna must be given, the giving of pagikna becomes compulsory.

ARTICLE XV
AMENDMENTS
Section 1. Proposal to Amend or Revise - Proposal to amend or revise this pagta may
be made directly by a simple majority of the members present, there being a quorum in a
meeting called for the purpose.
Proposal to amend or revise - how made?
Any proposal to amend or revise this pagta could be initiated by any member with
the concurrence of the majority of those members who are present in a meeting called for
that purpose, when there is a quorum.

By simple majority, what is meant here is one-half plus one (1/2 + 1) of the
members present in a meeting.
Notice:
To be binding, there must be a notice to all the members, and the notice must state
that the agenda of the meeting is to consider proposals for amendment and/or revision of
this pagta.

Section 2. Effectivity - Amendments or revisions of this pagta shall take effect upon
approval or ratification by a simple majority of the members present in a meeting called for the
purpose.
This speaks of the effectivity of the amendment or revision of the pagta.
As provided, it shall be effective upon:
1. Approval by simple majority;
2. Or ratification of the simple majority of the members present.

ARTICLE XVI
EFFECTIVITY

Section 1. Effectivity - This pagta shall be effective ninety (90) days after its
approval.
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED on September 13, 1998, at BIBAK-NAS, Bulanao,
Tabuk, Kalinga.
This pagta was unanimously adopted and approved by the bodong holder under
Resolution No. 98-01, of the 13th day of September, 1998 at BIBAK-NAS Conference
Hall, Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga.
CODIFICATION COMMITTEE
Over All Coordinator: Hon. John B. Dongui-is
Chairman: Judge Victor A. Dalanao
Vice Chairman: Judge Josephine B. Gayagay
Researchers:
Arthur G. Kub-ao
Alfredo A. Tombali
Pablo D. Gabit
Placido T. Alsiyang Jr.
Geronimo Donaal
Copy Reader:
Augustus U. Saboy
Technical Staffs:

Richard A. Daliyong
Anarita A. Alvarez

.....................Contributed by: MCTC Tanudan Staffs..................