Monday, March 17, 2008 Dacawi: Why Cayat couldn't hold his drink? By Ramon Dacawi Benchwarmer
IT HAPPENED in late January 71 years ago, in the middle of Baguio's coldest season that also precedes its summer. The case was resolved in May, when the temperature up here begins to dip again with the start of the rains.
A man was arrested and brought before the justice of the peace. The court found him guilty and meted out the penalty -- a five-peso fine or imprisonment in case he was unable to pay.
It was not certain whether the fog-and-chill weather then had anything to do with the commission of the crime. What was clear was that the arrest was based on the man's identity as a "native". And his grip on the evidence.
The man had only one name -- Cayat. Its singularity, the fact that it didn't' sound Spanish or colonized, plus his peculiar diction, must have easily given hint to the arresting officer. It was customary then for Igorots to have one name.
Cayat was an Igorot, although his specific tribal affiliation was not reflected in the Supreme Court decision. The decision identified him as "a native of Baguio, Benguet, Mountain Province", in accordance with the political geography of the time.
Sinai Hamada, a young Ibaloi who finished law at the University of the Philippines, took on Cayat's case. Hamada would later tell his daughter, indigenous peoples' rights advocate Bridget Pawid, that he never knew Cayat until the fellow faced a legal problem.
Client and counsel appealed before the Court of First Instance, to seek dismissal of the case on the basis of lack of evidence. The CFI, however, upheld the verdict. It also upped the fine to P50, again with "subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency".
Cayat was found guilty of an offense no longer deemed as such today -- possession of a bottle of locally produced commercial gin.
The information filed before the CFI read: "That on or about the 25th day of January, 1937, in the City of Baguio, Commonwealth of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this court, the above-named accused, Cayat, being a member of the non-Christian tribes, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and illegally receive, acquire, and have in his possession and under his control or custody, one bottle of A-1-1 gin, an intoxicating liquor, other than the so-called native wines and liquors which the members of such tribes have been accustomed themselves to make prior to the passage of Commonwealth Act No. 1639."
Section 2 of Commonwealth Act 1639 made it "unlawful for any native of the Philippines Islands who is a member of a non-Christian tribe to buy, receive, have in his possession, or drink any ardent spirits, ale, beer, wine, or intoxicating liquors of any kind, other than the so-called native wines and liquors which the members of such tribes have been accustomed themselves to make prior to the passage of this Act..."
Cayat's alcohol hold and intake, to be legal, was limited to the rice wine commonly produced by Igorot tribes. It's called "tafey" in Ibaloi, "tapey" in Kanakan-ey, and "bayah" in Tuwali-Ifugao.
Maintaining his innocence, Cayat went to the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of the law that convicted him. His counsel argued that it was discriminatory and denied the equal protection of the laws, that it violated the due process clause of the Constitution, and that it was an improper exercise of the police power of the state.
"Counsel for the appellant holds out his brief as the 'brief for the non-Christian tribes'," the High Tribunal pointed out. "It is said that as these less civilized elements of the Filipino population are 'jealous of their rights in a democracy,' any attempt to treat them with discrimination or 'mark them as inferior or less capable race and less entitled' will meet with their instant challenge."
The SC, however, ruled that the guarantee of equal protection of the laws was not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification. Act 1639, it said, satisfied the requirements for a reasonable classification, in that it must rest on substantial distinctions, must be germane to the purposes of the law, must not be limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally to all members of the same class.
"The classification rests on real or substantial, not merely imaginary or whimsical, distinctions," the final decision said. "It is not based upon 'accident or of birth or parentage,' as counsel for the appellant asserts, but upon the degree of civilization and culture. "The term 'non-Christian tribes' refers, not to religious belief, but, in a way, to the geographical area, and, more directly, to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization, usually living in tribal relationship apart from settled communities."
The court took note that "the exceptional cases of certain members thereof who at present have reached a position of cultural equality with their Christian brothers, cannot affect the reasonableness of the classification thus established".
So the judgment was affirmed, with costs against Cayat the appellant.
Looking back at the case, Baguio lawyer Marvic Leonen, noted in a paper: "The irony was that the most basic principle on non-discrimination -- that no person shall be denied equal protection of the law -- enshrined in no less than the Philippine Constitution was construed to limit the freedoms of significant populations of indigenous groups.
"Legal advocates in the Philippines realized quite early that the more general the textual bases of rights, the less chance there are for an interpretation in favor of 'minority' or 'marginalized cultures'. Judicial tendency might be to treat the usual state of affairs as the norm. Or, quite simply resources of those who are privileged by the dominant interpretation of a legal system simply dwarf the ability of those in the margins."
Leonen noted Cayat was lucky that a young enterprising lawyer took his case, "but the formal adjudicatory system was simply not ready to expand its existing notions of non-discrimination."
Last month, UP president Dr. Emerlinda Roman cited "The People of the Philippines vs. Cayat" in her keynote of the First International Conference on Cordillera Studies at UP-Baguio.
In the same conference celebrating UP's centennial as the country's premiere educational institution, writer and student Roland Rabang used it as a backdrop to his presentation on the photographic works of Eduardo Masferre during the same period.
The colonial milieu in which Masferre worked has since changed. The branded gin used as evidence against Cayat is no longer distilled. Today, any person of legal age, regardless of tribal or ethnic background, can hold his gin -- perhaps as antidote to the recent pre-summer cold spell here in Baguio.
Tapuy, which some drinkers swear is more potent and inebriating than gin, has also come of age. It is now being pasteurized, bottled, sealed, labeled and sold in the market.
Act 1639 was repealed by Commonwealth Act 476 two years after Cayat's conviction. It took effect on June 18, 1939, recalled noted human rights lawyer and law professor Pablito Sanidad, the former Free Legal Assistance Group national chairman.
That law should not have been repealed but amended, said Sanidad, who, for years now, has been a pro bono counsel of Baguio journalists facing legal suits.
"It should not apply to what the colonial government called 'members of non-Christian tribes', but to you, members of media," he said in the wry humor that Hamada was known for among reporters when he was editing the Baguio Midland Courier where Sanidad now writes a column.(email:rdacawi@yahoo.com for comments)
