Unresponsive laws
Trial by ordeal” is the stuff of ancient war sagas, often fictional, like “Game of Thrones,” where disputes that couldn’t be settled by law, reason, or wisdom from the elders were resolved using physical prowess. Fates were determined by a fortuitous mix of brawn, stamina, and what had often been considered a nod of approval from the gods.
That such risky rituals continue to be practiced in parts of the country and recently claimed the lives of two farmers over a land dispute speaks tragically of how some of our laws have remained totally unresponsive to the times and the people who need them.
In a viral video posted two weeks ago, two farmers were shown thigh-deep in the Glamang River in Barangay Datal Anggas, Alabel, Sarangani, poised to settle a dispute via “sulif.” Sulif is an ancestral trial by ordeal practiced by some indigenous communities in southern Mindanao, including the Blaan and Tagakaulo people. The high-risk underwater challenge is resorted to when peaceful dialogue or barangay-level mediation fails. The opposing parties submerge themselves face-down in a body of water at the same time, with the person who stays underwater longer than the opponent considered as being favored by justice, thus winning the claim.
Fatal ordeals
In the October 2026 incident, the two farmers failed to surface after 12 minutes and were pulled out of the water by onlookers. The older man was declared dead on arrival at the hospital, while the younger farmer died shortly after.
Sulif is just one of the many dispute-settlement rituals still being practiced by some indigenous peoples (IPs) in the country. Although the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8371) recognizes the rights of IP communities to use their own customary laws and conflict-resolution mechanisms, such practices must align with the country’s Constitution and national laws that specifically prohibit life-threatening or fatal ordeals. Even with approval by a council of elders, any trial by ordeal is illegal as it involves physical harm or risk to life.
In the sulif incident, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) stressed that indigenous rites and traditions must strictly comply with national laws and human rights standards. Fulung Romy Martin, president of the Sarangani IP Professionals Association, also clarified in a MindaNews Facebook post that while it is part of the process of resolving conflicts among cultural communities, “sulif was traditionally used to settle crimes such as theft, robbery, murder, and other offenses between IPs. Originally, it was not for land conflicts.” Under Section 52 of RA 8371, land disputes must be brought formally to the NCIP Regional Hearing Offices for ancestral domain title verification, or peaceful customary dialogue processes.
Bureaucratic nightmare
And yet a cursory look at the list of requirements to settle a land dispute through the NCIP shows an exhausting multistep process that would definitely faze IP litigants. Like most government transactions, the process involves a bureaucratic nightmare that crawls from local barangay conciliation sessions to administrative agencies, and may even reach the courts. The opposing parties must also show that they have gone through customary remedies that however failed to settle the dispute.
The voluminous documentation is also a steep hurdle for IP title applicants, starting with the requirement of valid government IDs since birth registration has been a perennial problem especially among unschooled IPs. Then there’s the geographical barrier, with IP communities often isolated in areas too distant for them to reach the courts and other government offices.
As Martin pointed out in another Facebook post, IPs often resort to perilous pacts “because of the failure of government and the mainstream judicial system to resolve land conflicts.”
Accessible laws
Rather than consider the sulif deaths as a tragic incident, the NCIP should look at it as a challenge to serve IPs better through accessible laws that consider their particular circumstances and limitations. Maybe sit down with their elders, community leaders, or representatives and thresh out a practical way to reconcile customary law with the existing legal system. Or hold regular legal clinics or outreach programs with other agencies involved in the process of land titling, among them quasi-judicial bodies like the Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems, the Department of Agrarian Reform, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the Land Registration Authority. The presence of local officials down to the barangay level will help ensure that the process is followed through.
When lives are lost because the law has become too abstract, too intimidating, and too difficult to understand and be of use, government must go out of its way to simplify the legal process to give IPs what has always been theirs: the land that defines their whole universe and that of their ancestors and children. And for that, no ordeal is too dangerous to try.
