Roy Franklin Barton

The Ifugaos have two punishments for crime: the death penalty and fine. These punishments are inflicted and executed by the offended person and his kin.

75. Nature and reckoning of fines.—Fines are of two sorts: fines of “tens,” bakid, and fines of “sixes,” na-onom, each unit of the ten or six being a portion of the whole fine. The different parts of the fine go to different people. Oftentimes sticks, knots, or notches are used to assist in calculation. In Banaue and neighboring districts these aids to calculation are also kept as a record. The unit payments grow successively smaller from the first to the last.

The first unit of any series is called pu-u, meaning “base.” It is of the greatest value, and goes to the injured individual. The second payment, sometimes, goes to the go-between. In that case, the kin of the injured man take all the rest. If the fee of the go-between be provided for outside of the fine, the kin of the injured man take all except the pu-u, the first unit. This is but just, since they have backed their kinsman in his action against the offender, have perchance risked their lives in his cause, and also stand ready at all times to help pay any fines that others may assess against him.

The second, and sometimes the third and fourth units, are called haynub di pu-u, meaning “followers of the base.” They are of less value than the pu-u. Then follow units consisting, each, of four irons (spear-heads, axes, knives). These units are called natauwinan. Then come units of three irons each, called natuku; then units of two irons each, called nunbadi; then units of one iron each, called na-oha. In the case of fines composed of six units, there is usually no haynub.

The Malay does nothing without first thoroughly talking it over. After a payment has been tentatively consented to by the offender and his family, there yet remain many conferences with the go-between before everything is arranged. An uninitiated white man on seeing a group of these people, squatted in a circle, moving little sticks about, and in heated discussion, might think they were playing some primitive but absorbing native game. And, I am not sure that the attitude of their minds is very different!

The following tables of fines assessed for the four degrees of adultery illustrate the manner of reckoning fines, their amounts, the value of the units, as well as the fines proper to the three classes of society in the Kiangan district.

Tabulation Showing the Payment Exacted for Adultery in Its Various Degrees and for Individuals of Different Rank

For adultery committed after the mommon (first ceremony) and before the bango (second ceremony)

For the Wealthy Na-onom or “six” fine Divisions of the fine Article exacted Appraisal 1. Pu-u 1 death blanket ?8.00 2. Haynub 1 kettle 5.00 3. Natauwinan 4 irons 1.00 4. Natauwinan 4 irons 1.00 5. Natuku 3 irons .50 6. Natuku 3 irons .50 Liwa (fee of the go-between) 1 ceremonial clout 2.00 Total, ?18.00

For the Middle Class Na-onom or “six” fine Divisions of the fine Article exacted Appraisal 1. Pu-u 1 kettle ?5.00 2. Natauwinan 1 kettle 1.00 3. Natauwinan 1 kettle 1.00 4. Natuku 1 kettle .50 5. Natuku 1 kettle .50 6. Na-oha 1 kettle .20 Liwa (fee of the go-between) 1 natauwinan 1.00 Total, ?9.20

For the Poor Na-onom or “six” fine Divisions of the fine Article exacted Appraisal 1. Pu-u 1 kettle ?2.00 2. Natauwinan 1 kettle 1.00 3. Natuku 1 kettle .50 4. Natuku 1 kettle .50 5. Nunbadi 2 irons .40 6. Na-oha 2 irons .20 The go-between takes the first natuku listed above Total, ?4.60

For adultery committed after the bango (second ceremony) and before the bubun (final ceremony)

For the Wealthy Hin-bakid or “ten” fine Divisions of the fine Article exacted Appraisal 1. Pu-u 2 death blankets ?16.00 2. Haynub 1 death blanket 8.00 3. Haynub 1 death blanket 4.00 4. Haynub 1 death blanket 4.00 5. Haynub 1 kettle 4.00 6. Haynub 1 kettle 2.00 7. Natauwinan 1 kettle 1.00 8. Natauwinan 1 kettle 1.00 9. Natauwinan 1 kettle 1.00 10. Natauwinan 1 kettle 1.00 Liwa (fee of the go-between) 1 kettle 5.00 Total, ?47.00

For the Middle Class Hin-bakid or “ten” fine Divisions of the fine Article exacted Appraisal 1. Pu-u 1 death blanket ?8.00 2. Haynub 1 kettle 5.00 3. Haynub 1 kettle 2.00 4. Natauwinan 1 kettle 1.00 5. Natauwinan 1 kettle 1.00 6. Natauwinan 1 kettle 1.00 7. Natauwinan 1 kettle 1.00 8. Natuku 1 kettle .50 9. Natuku 1 kettle .50 10. Na-oha 1 kettle .20 Liwa (fee of the go-between) 1 kettle 4.00 Total, ?24.20

For the Poor Na-onom or “six” fine Divisions of the fine Article exacted Appraisal 1. Pu-u 1 kettle ?5.00 2. Haynub 1 kettle 2.00 3. Natauwinan 1 kettle 1.00 4. Natauwinan 1 kettle 1.00 5. Natuku 1 kettle .50 6. Nunbadi 1 kettle .40 Liwa (fee of the go-between) 1 kettle 2.00 Total, ?11.90

For adultery committed after the bubun (final ceremony) the penalty is doubled for the higher classes, and increased to a fine of “ten” for persons of the lower class. That is, a poor man pays for adultery after the bubun what a middle-class man would pay for adultery before the bubun.

For adultery in the aggravated degree known as hokwit (see sec. 94) the fines just mentioned are doubled; so that a wealthy man would pay 188 pesos, a middle-class man 96.80 pesos, and a poor man 48.40 pesos.

Certain circumstances, namely, criminal responsibility, alienship, kinship, confession, and the relative rank of offender and offended, affect penalty, either as to its severity or as to the likelihood of its being inflicted at all.

76. Moral turpitude not a factor.—Moral turpitude, which plays no small part in our own law in determining punishment, seems not to enter into the consideration of Ifugao law. Thus, such crimes as incest between brother and sister, parricide, matricide, fraticide, and treason against one’s family, all go unpunished. Even the betrayal of a co-villager into the hands of the enemy subjects the offender to only a third degree of likelihood of being punished (see sec. 80). These crimes probably go unpunished in accordance with the following correlated fundaments of Ifugao society: Legal procedure is conducted by and between families; the family unit is the most precious thing in Ifugao social life; family unity must, at all hazards, be preserved. In the case of a murder accomplished by treachery, as for example, the killing of a guest, the moral turpitude involved might perhaps hasten punishment—it might even increase its severity in that the kin of the murdered person might retaliate on a greater number of those concerned in the murder. But such an abuse of hospitality appears never to have occurred.

Another reason why what we consider moral turpitude does not enter into punishment is that treachery, ambush, and accomplishment by superior force are the rule, not only in commission of crime, but also in perfectly legal capital executions and seizures of property.

As between principals and their accomplices and accessories, Ifugao law recognizes only gradations in likelihood of punishment. The penalty is the same for all of them; but very frequently the offense is considered as having been expiated by the punishment of those whose responsibility for it is greatest, and the rest go free.

77. The nungolat, or principal.—The nungolat (he who was strong) is the conceiver, planner, and director of an offense. He may or may not take an active part in its commission. Whether or not he does so, he is considered to be responsible for it in the highest degree. He is, of all who take part in the offense, the most likely to be punished.

The following example, continued through several succeeding sections, shows the various degrees of criminal responsibility, and the corresponding degrees of likelihood of punishment:

78. The tombok, or “thrower.”—In offenses in which a spear is thrown, he who throws the effective spear is called the tombok. His responsibility for the crime is second to that of the nungolat, as is also his likelihood of being punished.

79. Iba’n di nungolat, the “companions of the one who was strong.”—Those who assist in the commission of a crime by reinforcing, accompanying, assisting, backing, giving aid and comfort to the committer thereof, or furnishing anything needful to the consummation of the crime incur the next lesser degree of criminal responsibility and of likelihood of being punished to those of the conceiver and committer of the crime.

80. The montudol, “shower,” or informer.—One who gives a person in the act of committing a crime information necessary to the successful carrying out of his intent, is guilty in the same degree as are persons of the preceding paragraph.

81. Servants who commit crimes at the bidding of their masters.—Retainers incur a lesser degree of criminal responsibility than does the master. They will be punished if the master cannot be punished. Sometimes both are punished.

82. Likelihood of punishment.—

83. Drunkenness and insanity in relation to criminal responsibility.—Except in the case of murder, drunkenness mitigates the severity of punishment, provided there be no evidence to show that the culprit became intoxicated with the intent to commit the crime, and provided he sincerely repents on becoming sober. Even insanity is not an alleviating circumstance in the case of murder; but it is one in all other crimes.

84. The relation of intent to criminal responsibility.—Gulad or intent, is probably the greatest single factor in determining penal responsibility. Thus:

A deed committed without intent, and without carelessness, is excused. One has not, usually, even to make restitution for the injury done. Thus, in the case of a bolo flying out of a man’s hand, and putting out the eye of another, no damages were assessed. An enormous number of men, every year, are injured in the free-for-all scrambles over sacrificed carabaos. Many of these injuries result in stiff joints; some of them in deaths. In no case, not even in the case of death, is a payment demanded. Suppose that in the chase a number of hunters have surrounded a wild boar. The boar charges one of them. This man leaps backward, and, at the same time, draws back his spear to throw it at the boar. In so doing, he stabs a companion behind him with the shod end of the spear handle. This is not an uncommon accident. The others of the party are witnesses that the killing was purely accidental (naloktat). No fine is assessed; but the killer, to show that he is sorry, usually assists in the funeral feast. Of course, if there were no witnesses, and if there were a possible motive to complicate matters, the ending of the case might not be so happy.

Suppose that a number of men are throwing at a target with their spears. A child runs in the way, and is killed. One-half the usual fine for manslaughter is assessed on the ground that the thrower was careless in that he did not make sure before he threw the spear that such an accident could not occur. In this case there was an absence of intent; but carelessness was present.

A man kills a neighbor at night, acting under the impression that he is killing an enemy seeking his life. He is subjected to a much heavier fine than if he had killed him through carelessness, since there is present both the intent to kill, although not criminal, and carelessness in that he did not make sure at whom he was casting his spear.1

85. Alienship.—If the culprit be of a foreign village, the fact that he is a foreigner is a strong aggravating circumstance. If found in delicto, he is almost sure to be killed, in cases of theft or the more serious crimes. In such crimes as insult, the same fine might be demanded of the foreigner as of a co-villager, but not so much effort would be made to arrange matters peaceably. If the fine demanded be not paid and paid quickly, a kidnapping would ensue, or the culprit would be killed. A man committing a minor crime in a foreign village if not killed would be caught, tied, and held prisoner until redeemed.

86. Confession.—Confession before steps have been taken to inflict punishment alleviates to a considerable degree except in murder and adultery. In the latter case, if the adulterer made a voluntary confession of guilt to the offended spouse, without having been confronted with the evidence, it would be taken as brazen boasting, and of the nature of an insult.

87. Kinship.—Kinship is so strong a mitigating circumstance as often to excuse crime altogether. It has already been stated that crimes of one brother or sister against another are not punished. Inasmuch as all procedure is conducted by and between families, and since the family of the two brothers is identical, procedure in such cases is impossible. In the case of relatives of remoter degree, kinship is a strong extenuating circumstance in the event of the more serious crimes. In minor crimes, while the usual amount of the fine might be demanded, it would very frequently not be collected; especially, if the offender were very poor.

It has previously been said that the family is the only organization, political or social, that the Ifugao has, and that, in proportion as it is precious and necessary to him, he cherishes it; that Ifugao law, consequently looks with the greatest disfavor upon anything that would divide a family or destroy its unity.

In case a man steals from his cousin, who is married, restitution is usually demanded, together with half the usual fine, which half goes to the cousin’s spouse—not to himself. Insults on the part of one cousin to another are rare and are more rarely prosecuted.

88. Rank and standing in the community.—This is probably the greatest single factor in determining the severity of punishment in cases where a crime is punishable by fine. But the aggressiveness and the war footing of the two parties to the controversy enter even here to an astounding degree.

In the Kiangan-Maggok area, there are three grades of fines—the highest for the punishment of crimes of one kadangyang or rich man, against another; a medium grade for crimes of persons of the tumok, or middle class, against each other; and a third and lowest grade for the nawatwat, the poverty stricken.2 Each lower grade of fine is a little more than half the next higher one.

In the Kababuyan area, there are five grades of fines—one for the very rich, one for the fairly rich, one for the middle class, one for the poor, one for the poverty stricken. In Sapao and in Asin, there are four grades.

So long as both offender and offended are of the same class, there is no trouble about determining the fine proper in a given case. But when they are of different classes, the case is not so simple, and the factors of fighting strength and personality enter.

It is extremely hard to make a general statement as to fines when offender and offended are of different classes. It may safely be said that the fines assessed average the amount midway between the fines proper to the two classes concerned. Thus, when a poor man offends a rich man, and when a rich man offends a poor man, the average of the fines assessed equals approximately the fine assessed for injuries within the middle class. In questions in which rich and middle class persons are involved, the fines approximate an amount half way between the fines of the rich and of the middle classes.

89. Importance of influential position and personality.—The fact has already been mentioned (see sec. 4) that Ifugao administration of justice is remarkably personal in nature. We have just seen, in the example given in section 88, to what an extent personality and war-footing enter into the infliction of fines when offender and offended are of different classes. Nowhere can a man of magnetism and force reap greater benefit from these qualities, relatively speaking, than in an Ifugao controversy. The fact stares us in the face in every phase of Ifugao law, especially in procedure.

89a. Cripples and unfortunates.—Cripples and those afflicted by disfigurements or disfiguring diseases are often in a desperate mood for the reason that life is not at all precious to them. They are likely to be erratic and to constitute exceptions in punishment of crimes and procedure. I remember a case that happened in Baay District a few years ago which illustrates to what extent determination and absolute abandon to a single purpose are valuable in carrying a point in Ifugao procedure. I did not make note of the names but shall designate the rich man as R and the poor man as P. P was afflicted with the disease hiphip—probably ichthyosis—a skin disease in which the skin becomes white, rough, and scaly. R met P one day and sneered at him, saying, “Although you have neither fields, gongs, nor jewelry, I see that you have become a kadongyang, for you are wearing a white coat” (referring to the skin disease). P became violently angry but restrained himself from assaulting R. He calmly informed R that for this insult he fined him a large and valuable field, R’s property in Dayukong; that life meant little to himself, and that if R resisted and interfered with his taking possession of the field, he would certainly kill him. P further stated that he knew that R’s kin would retaliate and that he would lose his own life but that he did not care since he was miserable anyway. None of the women would deign him their favors and being poor—well, what was the use of living! P carried his point and maintains possession of the field to this day. Having the field, he managed to get a wife, who, although homely, has borne him two or three children who are not afflicted with his disease.

Another case in point is the following: Piklud, a fairly wealthy man of Kurug, was paralyzed from the knees down and in his locomotion he had to crawl on all fours. He loaned a neighbor a chicken. There was a quarrel over the repayment of this which left ill feeling between the two. A little while after the quarrel, the neighbor met Piklud crawling along the path through the village, and called to him as to a dog, “Doa! doa! dÉ-dÉ-dÉ!” Piklud pretended not to notice and even feigned amiability. He gossiped a little about the drought which was parching the rice fields. Finally he said, “Let me see your spear.” He felt the edge and then with the words, “It is pretty sharp, isn’t it?” he thrust it upward into the other’s abdomen.

90. List of offenses.—In the Kiangan-Nagakaran-Maggok area, the principal crimes, in order of their probable frequency, are: sorcery; adultery; theft; murder (or in the case of women and children, kidnapping); the putting of an innocent person in the position of being considered an accessory to crime; manslaughter; rape of a married woman; arson; incest. Minor crimes are: insult; slander; false accusation; rape of a girl.

91. The ayak (soul-stealing) is a series of religious ceremonies in which the sorcerer calls to a feast the ancestral spirits of some man whose death he desires to encompass, together with many maleficent spirits and deities, and bribes them to bring to him, incarnated as a blue-bottle fly, a dragon fly, or a bee, the soul of the man whose death he desires. When one of the insects mentioned comes to drink of the rice wine in front of the sorcerer, it is imprisoned and put into a bamboo joint tightly corked. The enemy, being thus deprived of his soul, will die.

This form of sorcery cannot be practiced unless the sorcerer knows the names of the ancestral spirits of his victim-to-be. For this reason, when the Lamot people, who are famous sorcerers, come to Kiangan and approach a religious feast, the Kiangan people do not invoke their ancestral spirits until after the visitors have gone. Needless to say, sorcery is always practiced in secret. It sometimes happens that it is practiced by a man against his kin. In such a case, kinship does not extenuate his punishment, since the preservation of the family necessitates the extirpation of the sorcerer within its gates. This is the only exception I know of to the general rule that a family may not proceed against one of its members.

92. Other forms of sorcery.—Certain persons have an evil “cut” of the eye, which, whether they wish it or not, brings misfortune or sickness on whomsoever or whatsoever they see. Injury by means of the “evil eye” may be effected intentionally or entirely unintentionally.

The words of certain persons even though innocent and unconnected with evil, and though spoken as they usually are without malicious intent, have the quality of bringing whatever is spoken to an evil end.

The evil eye and the blasting word are frequent afflictions—afflictions that their possessor is the last to learn about. They may be cured by the possessor’s offering sacrifices of the proper sort. In the event of injury unintentionally being done by evil eye or blasting word, no punishment is meted out, although in some cases restitution is demanded.

Curses are of two kinds: directly by word, and indirectly by curses laid on food, drink, or betels. Kiangan people are afraid to purchase rice from the Lamot people to the south of them through fear of being affected by curses that may have been laid on the rice.

93. Punishment of sorcery.—Sorcerers are not punished hysterically. To his credit, it must be said that the Ifugao proceeds slowly in condemning a person for this crime. Before he takes action, he demands not merely strong grounds for suspicion, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspected person is a sorcerer. Proof that one has performed the ayak ceremony against a person is sufficient ground for the infliction of the death penalty. But in the case of the evil eye and the blasting word, it must be proved that the death of the pigs, the betel vine, or whatever it be that dies, was due to the glance or words of the bewitched, and that both glance and words were used with evil intent. This would obviously be hard to do; but for the purpose of justifying an injured person in killing such a sorcerer or bewitched one, a record of previous misdeeds of the kind, and a general conviction, in which a portion, at least, of the man’s kin concurred, that the suspect was a malicious sorcerer, would be sufficient.

A curse, by one who has no reputation for supernatural powers, is punishable by the following fine:

A curse by one who had a reputation of being a sorcerer might possibly lead to the death of the sorcerer on the spot. In case he were not killed, and the person or thing cursed died, the death penalty would be inflicted later.

The following instances will be of value as illustrations. Some are recent, others historical:

In cases of strong suspicion, a supposed sorcerer was often openly accused and challenged to an ordeal. The ordeal was usually more in the nature of a duel, the two exchanging spears at twenty steps (20 meters) distance. If the ordeal showed the suspect guilty, he was killed if he stayed in the region. He was not, however, killed on the field of duel—unless killed in the duel or ordeal itself—because such an execution might precipitate a battle with this kin.

94. Forms of adultery.—In its unaggravated form, adultery is called luktap. Luktap signifies sexual intercourse between a spouse and some person other than the one to whom he (or she) be married, uncomplicated by insults and scandalous behavior flaunted in the face of the injured spouse. The intention to abandon the spouse is either not present, or is concealed.

The aggravated form of adultery is called hokwit. It consists of openly and scandalously bestowing one’s love and body upon some other person than the spouse; of insulting the injured spouse; or of repeatedly, while living under the same roof with the spouse, meeting the third person and having sexual intercourse. The intention is present of separating (or effecting a separation) from the injured spouse. The following is an illustration:

95. Punishment of adultery.—In both luktap and hokwit, the offending spouse and the lover (or mistress) are equally guilty. Each is equally liable to punishment. However, the offended spouse may, if he chooses, forgive the offending spouse without forgiving the partner in crime. This frequently happens. A wife is more likely to forgive than is a husband.

The adulterer when taken in delicto is sometimes punished by death. The offended spouse is justified by public opinion in administering this punishment to a considerably greater degree than our laws in the United States would justify him. Several stories are told of persons caught in the commission of this crime who were impaled by a single spear thrust. It should be stated that the kin of those killed for this crime rarely look upon the killing as justified, and often avenge it. They take the stand that the offended spouse ought to have demanded the usual fine; that if this had not been immediately forthcoming no one would have questioned the propriety of the killing. On the other hand, the kin of the offended spouse take the ground, and it may be said that in general public opinion backs them in it that a self-respecting man could not well do otherwise than kill the offender, and that the holding off and demanding money would savor too much of the mercenary.

It is to be noted that a sexual offense committed after the mommon ceremony is punished by a small fine; that an offense committed after the imbango or hingot ceremonies is punished by a larger fine, and that an offense committed after the bubun ceremony is punished by what to the Ifugao is a very large fine. These fines are diagramed Ifugao fashion in sec. 75. Hokwit, aggravated adultery, is punished by twice the greatest fine demanded in the case of simple adultery, luktap.

Adultery being a very hard crime to prove, the Ifugao takes as proof: (1) the confession of either party; (2) evidence that the accused wilfully and intentionally placed themselves in such a position or circumstances that the crime would be presumed by any reasonable person to have been consummated. Thus, the sleeping of the accused together at night in the absence of the spouse would be sufficient evidence.

Both offenders must pay the fine demanded by the circumstances to the offended party or parties. Thus, if both the offenders be married, each must pay a fine to (a) his own offended spouse, and (b) to the offended spouse of the partner in the crime. The pu-u of the fine goes to the offended spouse—the rest to the kin of the offended spouse. In addition to paying the fine, should the offender desire to continue the marriage relation with his offended spouse, he must provide animals and other perquisites for a honga (general welfare feast) in which the kin of both parties take part, and which is supposed to start the spouses anew in domestic harmony and felicity, and in all that the Ifugao considers prosperity, namely, abundance of pigs, chickens, rice, and children.

96. Sex in relation to punishment for adultery.—Although the punishment for adultery is the same for either sex, the likelihood of the adulterer’s being punished is much greater if the offender be a woman than if he be a man. This is for the reason that men are more jealous than women and less attached to their spouses, usually. A great deal of adultery on the part of men goes unpunished. Most women would rather not hear about the peccadillos of their husbands. They do not want to take action unless it be forced upon them. But once the matter is brought to their “official attention,” they have to take action in order to “save face.” Women sometimes tell their husbands “It would be all right for you to have a mistress if you could only do so without my hearing of it.” And when they learn of some such offense on the part of their husbands, they sometimes upbraid them, saying: “Oh, why didn’t you do this thing in such a way that I would not hear of it?”

The husband, on the other hand, usually punishes, and often divorces his offending wife.

Once an offense is known, it must be acted on. Otherwise, the offended spouse is considered to be lacking in self respect. And indeed I believe that the insult involved in adultery is more serious than any other phase of the crime. The Malay’s “face” is exceedingly dear to him.

97. General considerations.—It is extremely difficult to unravel the law, if there be a law, with respect to murder, executions, and war. The Ifugao has no tribunals to sentence, and no government to execute. He makes no declarations of war. Doubtless no two nations or tribes of the world ever engaged in a warfare in which each did not consider the other the aggressor, or at least, the offender. The same is true with respect to feuds between families, which were almost as numerous as the families themselves. In spite of the years of American occupation during which comparative peace has prevailed, these feuds still exist. We must substitute, however, for patriotism, fraternal and filial love; the sense of duty to the unavenged dead, love of vengeance, and intense hatred engendered and justified by a well learned catalogue of wrongs and assassinations inflicted on the family by the enemy family. Once started, a blood feud was well nigh eternal (unless ended by a fusion of the families by means of marriage), for the reason that what was a righteous execution to one family was a murder (usually treacherous) to the other.

Outside of manslaughter, to be treated of later, it may be stated as a general tenet of Ifugao practice that the taking of a life must be paid by a life. Considering, too, that a member of an Ifugao family rarely if ever effected or accomplished any except the most ordinary and elemental acts without previous consultation with his family, and that nearly all killings were effected pursuant to a decision of a family council, it was not without a fair show of reason that Ifugao law held that a murder might be punished almost as well by the execution of some member of the murderer’s family as by the execution of the murderer himself. For, if not principals in the commission of the crime, other members of the family were at least accomplices or accessories. Indeed Ifugao law held the whole family guilty, looking upon the crime, quite correctly, as an offense for which the whole family was responsible.

War, murder, and the death penalty exacted in execution of justice, in the Ifugao’s society are so near each other as to be almost synonymous terms. We have already seen that a capital execution for crime is nearly always looked upon by the kin of the executed as being a murder; it is retaliated by them, by what to them is a justifiable execution; but by what, to the killers, is considered as a murder to be punished by another execution, and so on ad infinitum.

The Ifugao has one general law, which with a few notable exceptions he applies to killings, be they killings in war, murders, or executions, which public opinion would pronounce justifiable and legal. That law is: A life must be paid by a life. Let us pass now to a consideration of various classes of the takings of human life.

98. Executions justifiable by Ifugao law.—Public opinion or custom, or both, justify the taking of a life in punishment for the following crimes: sorcery; murder; persistent and wilful refusal to pay a debt when there is the ability to pay; adultery discovered in flagrante; theft by one of a foreign district; refusal to pay a fine assessed for crime or for injury suffered. But even though custom and public opinion justify the administration of the extreme penalty in these cases, the kin of the murdered man do not, in most cases, consider the killing justified. There are innumerable circumstances that complicate a given case. Was the sorcery proven or only suspected? Was it a murder that the man committed; or was he justified in the killing? Would not the debtor have come to his right mind had his creditor waited a little longer; and did the creditor approach him in the right way with reference to the debt? Did not the woman make advances in the adultery case that no self-respecting male could turn down? Was not the indemnity assessed too large or otherwise improper; or did the injured party wait long enough for the payment? These and a thousand other questions may arise with respect to the various cases.

If the death penalty be inflicted by persons of a foreign district, it is sure to be looked upon as a murder.

At feasts and gatherings about the “bowl that cheers” and especially in drunken brawls, an unavenged killing, no matter what the circumstances, is likely to be brought up as a reflection upon the bravery or manhood of the living kin, and so urge them to the avenging of what was really a justified execution.

Murder, sorcery, and a refusal to pay the fine for adultery justify the infliction of the death penalty even on a kinsman if he is not too close a relative. An execution of one kinsman by another is not so likely to be avenged as is justifiable execution by one outside the family. This is in accordance with the principle of Ifugao law: The family must at all hazards be preserved.

99. Feuds.—A feud is a series of takings of human life as vengeance, in which the heads may or may not be taken. There are some hundreds of ways in which feuds may start. As a rule they begin with a taking of life that is not justified in the eyes of the kin of him whose life was taken. They may begin from a retaliation for a kidnapping or even from an accidental killing. Feuds exist between neighboring districts, or districts not far distant between which to a certain extent ties of blood and marriage exist. It is exceedingly rare—if it ever occurs—that entire villages or districts are involved. The feud is an affair between families only. It consists of a series of vengeances and “returning of vengeances.” Feuds may even start within the district: but as a rule, they are short lived, being stopped by the counsel of the influential. Feuds between districts are well nigh interminable usually, but may come to an end by means of intermarriage or when one or two of the leaders of each family are afflicted by certain diseases3 thought to be inflicted by certain deities that desire the peace ceremony. As has been hitherto stated, each killing in a feud is considered by the killers to be an entirely justifiable execution in punishment of crime. The deities of war and justice are called to witness that the debt is not yet paid. Contemporaneously, the kin of the slain are calling on the same deities to witness that their family is sorely afflicted; that no debt was owed the others; that no chickens or pigs, or rice had been borrowed; that no theft or other crime had been committed, and so on; yet, that innocent, they are being slaughtered.

100. War.—Before the American occupation, districts that were far distant might be said to be continually at war with each other. The war was carried on as a series of head-takings. There was no formal declaration of war. As a rule there were no large expeditions to the enemy country, and heads were taken from ambush, on the outskirts of an enemy village or along much traveled paths. Women’s heads were taken in these exploits; but not as a rule, in feuds. To avenge lives taken in war, while no doubt the life of the actual head-taker was preferable, the life of any person of the enemy village might be taken; just as in feuds, the life of any member of the enemy family might be taken.

101. Head-taking.—Heads were not taken in the case of executions for injury. In feuds within a district, heads were not taken. In feuds between families of different districts, heads might or might not be taken. Usually they were taken if there were no ties of kinship between the districts. It should be emphasized, however, that there was no definite boundary between districts, and consequently, no well-defined line beyond which heads might be taken. Families from the southern part of a district would take heads in territory from which those in the northern part of the district would not take them. Heads were always taken in the case of those killed in war, if circumstances permitted.

102. Hibul or homicide.—The Ifugao law clearly recognizes several grades of homicide.

The burden rests upon the slayer in the above cases to show that the killing was accidental or that he was so drunk as to have utterly lost his reason. The absence of a motive is a great help to him in this. If he has ever had a serious altercation with the slain, in the absence of controverting evidence, the presumption is likely to be that the killing was intentional, and that he has been “feigning friendship in order to kill by ug (treachery).”

103. Attempts to murder.—An attempt on the part of an enemy of another district on the life of a person is punishable by death. An attempt by one of the same district may or may not be punished by death; in most cases peace would be arranged by mutual friends and kinsmen. In such a case, he who made the attempt would be required to furnish animals for a peace feast.

104. Wounding.—Wounds inflicted accidentally and without intent or carelessness are not punished. In case the element of intent or carelessness be present, he who inflicts the wounds must furnish animals for sacrifice, pay the wounded man and his kin a fine, and stand the expense of a feast to make peace. The following is a typical list, for the kadangyang (wealthy)class, of the expenses of animals for sacrifice and fine:

In case the wounded man lives, the following fine is paid him and his kin:

105. Special liability of the givers of certain feasts.—The givers of uyauwe or hagabi feasts (glorified general welfare feasts to which great numbers of people come) are responsible for wounds or deaths that occur at these feasts. When a man decides to initiate himself and his wife into the ranks of the kadangyang by giving one of these feasts, he appoints one of the old priests of his family to perform the tikman ceremonies. These ceremonies are sacrifices to the various classes of deities whose special function is the “tying up” of men’s stomachs and passions. Prayers are addressed to these deities that a little food satisfy the guest that attends the feast, to the end that the giver be not eaten out of house and home; that a little rice wine suffice to intoxicate the people; that the passions of men be tied up to the end that no quarrels or frays occur; that no rice-wine jars or gongs be broken; that no accidents occur—in short, that the whole feast pass off smoothly. The duties of the manikam (the priest who performs these ceremonies) are rather arduous. To say nothing of the ceremonies he conducts, he must fast for a number of days and must observe a number of taboos. He receives rather a large fee for these services. And, indeed, their importance, in the eyes of the Ifugaos, and the legal responsibility he incurs, certainly justify a large fee.

The manikam priests are jointly responsible with the giver of the feast for accidents or violence that may occur. This liability of the giver of the feast for wounds or loss of life is based on the supposition that if he had not given the feast the wound would not have occurred; and possibly that he gave the feast with the motive of bringing about such an occurrence. The liability of the manikam is based on the supposition that there must have been a remissness on his part in his religious duties, else the accident or loss would never have occurred. The following is an actual instance that would indicate that this provision of the law is an incipient employer’s liability provision.

It should be stated that brawls and accidents are much more common in feasts of this character given in parts of Ifugao other than the Kiangan-Nagakaran-Maggok area. This is due to the fact that in the area named above only relatives and persons invited by relatives attend, while in other regions the event is not so exclusive. There is the further consideration that in this area, on the night before the general drink-fest begins, an old man makes a speech in which he tries to put the crowd assembled in a good humor, and in which he warns each and every one to seize and hold any person who begins to disgrace hospitality by unseemly brawling.

106. The labod, fine assessed for homicide.—This fine is paid to the family of the slain. For the kadangyang, or wealthy class, the full fine consists of ten portions or divisions, totaling 975 pesos in the case tabulated below. These divisions may be briefly described as follows:

The rank of the slain has something to do with the amount of the labod. The amounts given above are those that would be collected in the case of the killing of a Kiangan man of the kadangyang class. If the slain were a middle class or poor man the amounts would not be so great.4 If the slayer were a middle class, or poor man, the amounts above might be lessened somewhat, but not very much. If the slayer be unable to pay, he is saddled with the rest as a debt. If he cannot pay the debt during his lifetime, his children must pay it.

107. Accidental killing of animals.—The accidental killing of an animal is not a crime. Sometimes even the value of the animal is not demanded or accepted if tendered.

If a dog runs out threatening to bite a passer-by, and the latter kills it, he is required to pay the value of the dog. If a dog bites a passer-by, the latter may kill the dog and need not pay a fine. If the dog bites him, and he does not kill it, he may demand a payment from the owner. It was a provision of primitive Roman law that “If an injury were done by a slave, the person injured had the right to exact vengeance against the slave personally, thus injuring the master’s property; and the master or owner was consequently allowed to prevent this vengeance by making compensation for the injury done.”5

Should a pig, at that period of the year when rice is stacked below the granary to dry out, enter through the fence and eat of the rice, it may be killed by the owner of the granary; but he must give the owner another pig in place of it. Such a killing is not considered malicious, for the pig was spoiling the “miraculous increase” of the year’s harvest.

A pig that enters a rice field and eats of the unharvested rice is usually returned to the owner with the request that he tie the pig up. Should it again enter the field, the damage it does must be paid for. Should the owner refuse to pay this indemnity, and should the pig again enter the field, the owner of the field would be likely to kill the animal. The owner of the pig might consider such a killing malicious and improper. Public opinion would sustain the owner of the field.

108. Malicious killing of animals.—This is a serious crime. Its seriousness is due partly to the fact that domestic animals are to a great extent considered members of the household and as such loved and protected, and further to the fact that the intentional and malicious killing of such a member of a household would have a tendency to bring a like fate on the human members thereof, owing to the mystic power and force of analogy.

A labod fine is demanded for the malicious killing of a pig. The fine, in case a wealthy family is concerned, is as follows:

109. The tokom, or fine for compromising another.—He who, voluntarily or involuntarily, puts another in the position of an accomplice, or in such a light that he might be regarded as being an accomplice in the commission of a crime, and so be liable to punishment as such, must pay the person so injured a fine, called tokom. It may almost be said that he who causes another person’s name to be prominently mentioned or bandied in connection with a crime must pay this fine.

The following are instances in which a tokom would be demanded:

The following is the amount of the tokom usually demanded in the case of murder, head-hunting, or slaughter:

One who is put in a position in which a tokom is due him must collect the tokom. It is not sufficient that he demand the payment of it—he must enforce the payment. Otherwise he will be considered by the kin of the injured as having been an accomplice, and liable to punishment accordingly.

Should the culprit refuse to pay the tokom, the obligation rests on those to whom the tokom is due to take the leading part in the punishment of the crime. Thus, in the first example given above, if C does not pay the tokom to B, the obligation rests on B more heavily even than it rests on A’s relatives to kill C, and so avenge A’s death. Should he not do this, he would be held liable to punishment by A’s relatives along with C.

110. Of theft in general.—There is a considerable degree of difference in the severity with which theft is punished in different parts of Ifugao. The following is the general law with respect to the theft of articles of medium or slight value:

In the case of the theft of heirlooms of great value, such as rice-wine jars, or gansas, the thief must repay, besides the stolen articles, their tokop, or equal, and in addition must furnish a certain number of pigs or other articles of medium value. The following shows how the Ifugao visualizes a payment of this sort.

• The stolen article.
• Its equal or equivalent.
• Honga, a full-grown pig.
• Yubyub, a full-grown chicken.

Theft should not be confused with improper or illegal confiscation. This latter is commonly effected by members of the kadangyang class. It is punished in much the same way as theft, but is not so disgraceful.

A thief discovered in delicto is likely to be punished by death if the thief be of a different district. If not punished by death, the culprit is caught and tied and kept prisoner until his kin in the other district pay the fine demanded. This fine, needless to say, is somewhat larger than would ordinarily be assessed for the crime. If a member of the home district be caught in an unaccomplished theft, the case is not altered in any way from an ordinary, consummated theft.

111. Theft of rice from a granary.—The theft of rice is considerably more serious than would be theft of any other article of equal value, because it ruins the miraculous increase of the rice that the Ifugao as well as all other Malay tribes in these islands so thoroughly believe in. If the thief confesses and shows himself docile, he may wipe out his guilt with the following payment:

• Hulul-na, 1 large pig, payment of the stolen rice.
• Honga, 1 large pig and 1 large chicken, for granary feast to secure return of the miraculous increase.

If, however, the accused persistently deny his guilt, he is challenged to an ordeal. If by this he is proven guilty, he is fined one bakid or one “ten”—in Kiangan about thirty pesos—in addition to the payment above. If he refuse to submit to the ordeal, he is adjudged guilty, and has to make the same payments as if he had submitted to the ordeal and had been adjudged guilty. The fee of the monkalun is included in, and is not additional to, the bakid in this case.

112. Theft of unharvested rice.—In a case of this sort, the amount of rice stolen can be determined by estimating it from the number of headless stalks. The punishment is:

• The return of the stolen rice or its equivalent value.
• A full-grown pig for the owner’s harvest feast.
• The fee for the monkalun.

113. Illegal confiscation.—What the Ifugao recognizes as legal confiscation is treated below under Procedure, sections 134 to 138. The following is a case of illegal confiscation in the district of Banaue.

Illegal confiscation lacks the elements of disgrace that theft carries with it, and, in the mind of the confiscator and his relatives at least, is justifiable. It may be that it is for this very reason that this crime is punished more severely than ordinary theft.

114. Fines assessed for goba or arson.—One caught in the act of setting fire to a house or granary would be likely to be killed on the spot. Should he consummate the act and escape, demand would probably be made upon him and his kin for two granaries full of rice and for the animals necessary to consecrate them by the usual feasts. This would be the probable punishment. The crime of arson is rare, and consequently there is no penalty or restitution well defined by law. The punishment might be death, or the kidnapping and selling into slavery of a member of the culprit’s family, or a fine as above. Which of these it would be would depend very much on the personality of the injured party.

115. Circumstances under which kidnapping may occur.—If performed to cover a debt for which payment had been repeatedly demanded, or to cover an injury for which a proper fine had been repeatedly demanded in due form, kidnapping was a legal seizure, although the victim and his kindred might not consider it so.

But there were a good many cases in which the kidnapper’s motive was utterly different. He might wish, for example, to display his valor, or to profit financially by the sale of his captives. Sometimes, too, a head-hunting party, failing to get a head, would capture a woman and carry her back with them to their village. In some parts of Ifugao the woman was ravished for a period of five days by the party of head-hunters. She was then sold into slavery.

The penalty inflicted by the kin of the kidnapper was either death or retaliation by kidnapping.

116. Rarity of such offenses.—Incest is a very rare crime in Ifugao. It seems to be becoming more frequent, for there has undoubtedly been a growing laxity in morality ever since the establishment of foreign government. A case recently occurred in Mongayan, in which a father, on humane grounds as he put the matter to her, deflowered his own daughter. This case was not punished.

117. Both parties being unmarried.—The unmarried Ifugaos, from earliest childhood, are accustomed to collect in certain houses, using them as dormitories. Usually both sexes sleep together in these dormitories. Naturally, too, there is a great deal of sexual intercourse each night, for sexual intercourse takes the same place among the Ifugaos that embraces and kisses do in the courtship of some other peoples. The nature of the female human being, says the Ifugao, is to resist the advances of the male. He naÏvely points out that the hens, the cows, and, in fact, the females of any species resist the male in this respect, notwithstanding they may be quite as anxious for the sexual act as the male himself. It is so with women, he says. It is considered shocking in some sections of Ifugao for a girl to yield herself to her lover the first time without resistance. This idiosyncracy of feminine nature being a fact, it is sometimes difficult to be certain as to whether the resistance offered by a girl is bona fide or not—as to whether she is willing for the sexual act to occur, half willing, or entirely opposed to it. There may or may not be doubt in the mind of the male—usually there is none—but friends of the girl, by distorting or by putting a slightly different interpretation on what occurred, could make a case of rape in the white man’s courts out of almost any of these common events. Furthermore, a girl on the advice of her parents, were such a rape punishable by fine, might and frequently would, entice some youth into forcing her, in order that her family might benefit financially.

Consequently if a girl be “caught” in a sleeping house by a youth who habitually sleeps there, the Ifugaos do not look upon it as a case of rape, even though force be used. By following this principle a great many questions and “put-up-jobs” are avoided. If a girl be seized and raped by one who does not habitually sleep in or frequent the girl’s dormitory, and the evidence establishes a case of bona fide resistance on the part of the girl, a fine of “six” is assessed against the raptor as follows:

It will be noted that the above are very light fines. In some parts of Ifugao they would be considerably higher—notably in the Silipan country.

The committing of the crime of rape in broad daylight, as, for example, the “catching” of a woman in a camote field, constitutes an aggravating circumstance. Such a rape as that punishable by a fine of “six” above would be punishable by a fine of “ten” of a value for the three classes respectively of about thirty-two pesos, sixteen pesos, and eight pesos, if committed in broad daylight. This is owing to the greater “shame” which the woman feels on account of the unwonted hour.

118. Rape of a married woman by an unmarried man.—This is a serious offense. It is punishable by a fine equivalent to twice the fine assessed for luktap, or unaggravated adultery. One-half of this fine goes to the husband of the outraged woman and his kin and one-half to the woman and her kin.

119. Rape of a married woman by a married man.—This is a case still more serious for the offender, since in addition to paying the afore-mentioned fine, he must pay to his own wife an additional fine as penalty for luktap.

Minor fines are punishable by fines called hailyu. The rape of an unmarried woman by an unmarried man, considered in the preceding section in connection with the more serious forms of rape, is a minor crime.

120. False accusation.—He who accuses another falsely or he who, accusing another of crime, challenges him to an ordeal, which ordeal proves the accused to be innocent, must pay the following fine:

Hailyu Paid by the Accuser to the Falsely Accused

The amount of the fine depends to a great extent on the seriousness of the offense of which one is accused.

121. Baag or slander.—This offense is punishable by a somewhat smaller fine than that above. The following is an instance to illustrate what trivial statements may be considered as slanders. At an uyauwe feast Bahni of Tupplak made remarks derogatory to Bumidang of Palao, the principal of which was to the effect that Bumidang would never have been a kadangyang had it not been for the fees that he received from the Palao people for acting as go-between in buying back the heads of their slain from their Silepan enemies. Bumidang considered this as slander, and seized a carabao belonging to Bahni, holding it until payment of the fine assessed for insult was made.

122. Threats of violence.—Ongot, or threat, is punished by about the same fine as slander.

123. Insult.—The saying to another person of anything reflecting on his honor, prestige, or rank; the use of abusive language to an equal or superior; insinuations as to improper relations with kinswomen; improper language and behavior in the presence of people of opposite sexes who are related to each other within the forbidden degrees; breaking of various taboos—all of these constitute insults, and are punishable by a fine varying in size from the fine for slander to that for false accusation.

There exist a considerable number of taboos, for breaking of which a penalty is exacted.

First. There are taboos relating to exogamy. In the presence of male and female kin that are of the degrees within which marriage is forbidden it is taboo: (a) to look fixedly at the woman’s breasts or hips; (b) to speak of the dormitory of the unmarried; (c) to mention the love affairs of an unmarried couple except most guardedly; (d)to break wind; (e) to blackguard; (f) to play the bikong, lover’s harp. Matters connected with sex must not be referred to unnecessarily; whenever it is necessary to refer to them, the most delicately veiled euphemisms must be used. Thus an unborn babe must be called “the friend”; the placenta must be termed a “blanket”; the short plank that constitutes the Ifugao’s bed must be designated as a “level”; even an egg must be referred to as a “soft stone” or “stone of the chickens.” It is a very grave insult, knowing two people to be of the forbidden degrees of kinship, to ask them if they are married. Even if asked in ignorance of the kinship, such a question is considered to show exceeding ill breeding. On my first arrival among the Ifugaos I was several times made to feel like a boorish lout by having asked the question of the wrong people. I then hit upon the scheme of asking two people if they were brother and sister before asking if they were married. This, however, was equally a faux pas in case the two were husband and wife, since to the Ifugao it amounted to asking a man if he had married his sister. I then learned to do as a well-bred Ifugao does in such cases: to observe and deduce from the conduct of the two what their relationship might be. This was never a difficult matter.

Second. Acts which savor of adultery are tabooed. Among such are the intentional touching of the body of a married woman. If a man meets a married woman on a rice-field dike, the proper thing for him to do is to step off into the mud and water and let her pass. He may not grasp her body in order to squeeze past her and thus avoid stepping into the water. It is forbidden, too, to enter a house in which a married woman is alone.

Third. It is taboo, knowing a person to be dead, to ask his sons or near kin if he is dead.

Fourth. Certain acts are believed to be injurious to others because they are bad in their magic influence. Thus trying to collect a debt when a member of the debtor’s household is ill is taboo. The penalty for this act is the loss of the debt, be it large or small. It is believed that any subtraction from the sick person’s or his family’s possessions is bound to react injuriously on his health.

Passing near or through a field of rice in a foreign district during harvest is taboo, because it is a disturbing factor and interferes with the miraculous increase.

1 In one case, to be hereafter considered, the absence of both intent and carelessness do not excuse (see sec. 105).

2 Kadangyang: an upper-class person. In most parts of Ifugao persons must give expensive feasts to attain this rank. Tumok: persons who have enough rice to last them throughout the year, but who do not sell rice. Nawatwat: persons who are poverty stricken.

3 Tuberculosis and persistent cough (see sec. 141).

4 Compare the practice of our Saxon forefathers among whom the “life of a king’s thane was worth 1200 shillings, while that of a common free man was valued only a sixth as high,” and that of a slave at only his property valuation.

5 R. R. Cherry, The Growth of Criminal Law in Ancient Communities (London, 1890). Dr. Cherry shows how masters’ liability for injuries done by their employees has arisen from this principle (pp. 4 ff.).