BENCHWARMER

What it takes to be human sometimes
RAMON DACAWI

BAGUIO CITY -- The case of Cayat, the Igorot who was convicted in 1937 for having in his possession a bottle of commercial gin – other than the “tapuy” that the then “non-Christian tribes” were accustomed to brewing -- helped open a window to the Philippine legislature ofthe commonwealth period.

The effort of Igorot lawyer Sinai Hamada in questioning the constitutionality ofthe prohibition before the Supreme Court must have led to the repeal of the law prohibiting tribals like Cayat from buying, possessing or tasting commercial liquor.
Commonwealth Act 1639, the basis for Cayat’s conviction, was repealed by Act 476 which took effect on June 18, 1939. It was a one-sentence repealing act, with no explanation why. It would be interesting to read the transcript of the debates in the legislature that led to the abrogation of the previous law patterned after the American colonial policy in dealing with the Native Americans Columbus found when he landed.
It’s most likely that Hamada’s taking on Cayat’s case did open the window to for the legislature to see things from the indigenous view. It helped shatter the one-way mirror through which the colonizing West saw the "Third World" it labeled as such, and wanted it to see itself as such.

It’s true – the real voyage of discovery lies not in seeking new lands but in seeing with new eyes- that of the indigenous and colonized. That reminds me of an anecdote from Paeng Gayaso an advocate in the cooperative movement. A resource person from the west used the label “Third World” in his presentation in an international conference. A delegate from India questioned him.

What gave you the right to label us “Third World”, the delegate asked. He pointed out that his country’s degree of civilization was already at its peak when that of Europe was still in the medieval stage.

That brings to mind how the office of then Mayor Luis Lardizabal was swamped by letters condemning our practice up here of butchering and eating dog meat.Over generous shots of gin and sautéed dog meat for “pulutan”, the late secretary to the mayor Willy Cacdac and newsman Freddie Mayo framed a letter eventually sent to the bristling animal rights activists.

You need not look far, the reply said. There should also be a stop to the cruel fox hunts wherein the prey is chased, shot, its body sometimes ripped by hound dogs, to satisfy the hunter’s urge to experience the thrill of the hunt.

Fox hunting, considered by advocates as part of rural culture, was eventually outlawed in the United Kingdom by the controversial Hunting Act of 2004. Four yearsearlier, the Congress of the Philippines passed the Animal Welfare Act which banned the killing of dogs and animals except “cattle, pigs, goats, sheep, poultry, rabbits, carabaos, horses, deer and crocodiles”.

The Philippine law, however, exempts the killing of animals, including dogs, except “when it is done as part of the religious rituals of an established religion or sect or a ritual required by tribal or ethnic custom of indigenous communities”.

Of interest is that repartee between two senators during the deliberations. Senator Juan Ponce Enrile asked whether the Animal Welfare Act would include human beings, as humans belong to the animal kingdom. Taking the drift, Senator Edgardo Angara qualified they are not, stressing that humans have already enacted enough laws to protect themselves against each other.

Three years ago, I read about a case of a man in California who was arrested for possession of marijuana. He argued that the MJ was intended for use in a religious ritual, not a pot session.

Whatever. Cayat’s case brings to mind the experience of Albert Namatjira, the Australian Aborigine noted for his beautiful paintings done, not in the tribalform but in watercolor and according to Western tandards of aesthetics that he was introduced to by visiting non-Aboriginal artists.

In recognition of his artistic work and stature, Namatjira was granted Australian citizenship in 1957, the first for a Northern Territory Aborigine. As such, he was allowed to vote, own land and buy and drink alcohol.

As an Aborigine, he was expected by custom to share what he had. He was charged of providing alcohol to non-citizens and was sentenced to six-month imprisonment. Conflicts between customary and state laws left him a broken man.

When he got out of jail after two months, he could no longer paint. He died a year after in 1959./ e-mail:rdacawi@yahoo.com for comments.