International Journal of


EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
line decor

 Volume 10, Issue 6 (June 2023), Pages: 89-99


 Original Research Paper

Comprehensive government programs for indigenous peoples in the Philippines


 Ignie V. Baco Jr. *


 Public Administration Department, College of Management, Northern Iloilo State University, Estancia, Iloilo, Philippines

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile:

 Digital Object Identifier:


This mixed-method study explores government programs aimed at the development of indigenous peoples (IPs) in Panay Island, Philippines. The research examines the socio-demographic profile of IPs, their level of awareness, satisfaction, and attitude towards government programs. It also investigates the significant relationships between the level of awareness, satisfaction, and attitude of IPs towards these programs. Additionally, the study identifies the challenges encountered by the government and IPs in implementing development programs through interviews. Quantitative data were collected using a questionnaire with field inquiries. The results reveal that IPs in Panay Island are comprised of two major ethnic groups. The majority of IPs are married, have an elementary level of education, are in their fifties, self-employed, and hold temporary land status with minimal earnings. IPs demonstrated moderate awareness of Republic Act 8371, their rights to the ancestral domain, the rights of women and children, cultural integrity, and their right against discrimination, as well as other government programs addressing health and gender issues. The level of awareness towards government programs was associated with variables such as sex, income, educational attainment, and employment status. Satisfaction levels varied according to the province of residence, land status, and ethnic group. IPs generally welcome government support and interventions, particularly in the titling of their ancestral domain, but exhibit reservations regarding their customary practices and beliefs. Attitudes toward the government were influenced by variables such as sex, age, educational attainment, income, province of origin, land status, and ethnic group. Significant correlations were found between awareness, satisfaction, and attitude. Insufficient fund allocation was identified as a hindrance to the implementation of government programs.

 © 2023 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (

 Keywords: Indigenous peoples, Implementation, Satisfaction, Government, Ancestral domain

 Article History: Received 25 November 2022, Received in revised form 5 April 2023, Accepted 12 April 2023


No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.


 Baco Jr. IV (2023). Comprehensive government programs for indigenous peoples in the Philippines. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(6): 89-99

 Permanent Link to this page


 No Figure


 Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10


 References (22)

  1. Abowitz DA and Toole TM (2010). Mixed method research: Fundamental issues of design, validity, and reliability in construction research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(1): 108-116.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Capistrano RCG (2010). Reclaiming the ancestral waters of indigenous peoples in the Philippines: The Tagbanua experience with fishing rights and indigenous rights. Marine Policy, 34(3): 453-460.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Cuaton GP and Su Y (2020). Local-indigenous knowledge on disaster risk reduction: Insights from the Mamanwa indigenous peoples in Basey, Samar after Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 48: 101596.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Doyle C (2020). The Philippines indigenous peoples rights act and ILO convention 169 on tribal and indigenous peoples: Exploring synergies for rights realisation. The International Journal of Human Rights, 24(2-3): 170-190.   [Google Scholar]
  5. Doyle L, Brady AM, and Byrne G (2009). An overview of mixed methods research. Journal of Research in Nursing, 14(2): 175-185.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Duarte A and Krajsic AV (2015). The theory of planned behaviour, micro-growers and diversification: An exploratory study. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 9(2): 94-113.   [Google Scholar]
  7. Gamil Y and Abd Rahman I (2023). Studying the relationship between causes and effects of poor communication in construction projects using PLS-SEM approach. Journal of Facilities Management, 21(1): 102-148.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Godoy R, Reyes-García V, Byron E, Leonard WR, and Vadez V (2005). The effect of market economies on the well-being of indigenous peoples and on their use of renewable natural resources. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34: 121-138.   [Google Scholar]
  9. Horn P (2018). Indigenous peoples, the city and inclusive urban development policies in Latin America: Lessons from Bolivia and Ecuador. Development Policy Review, 36(4): 483-501.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Inman D (2016). From the global to the local: The development of indigenous peoples’ land rights internationally and in Southeast Asia. Asian Journal of International Law, 6(1): 46-88.   [Google Scholar]
  11. Luke J, Verbunt E, Zhang A, Bamblett M, Johnson G, Salamone C, and Jones A (2022). Questioning the ethics of evidence-based practice for Indigenous health and social settings in Australia. BMJ Global Health, 7(6): e009167.   [Google Scholar] PMid:35680132 PMCid:PMC9185488
  12. Lynch G (2012). Becoming indigenous in the pursuit of justice: The African Commission on human and peoples' rights and the Endorois. African Affairs, 111(442): 24-45.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Maldonado JK, Colombi B, and Pandya R (2016). Climate change and Indigenous peoples in the United States. Springer, Cham, Switzerland.   [Google Scholar]
  14. Malina MA, Nørreklit HS, and Selto FH (2011). Lessons learned: Advantages and disadvantages of mixed method research. Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, 8(1): 59-71.   [Google Scholar]
  15. Mika JP, Felzensztein C, Tretiakov A, and Macpherson WG (2022). Indigenous entrepreneurial ecosystems: A comparison of Mapuche entrepreneurship in Chile and Māori entrepreneurship in Aotearoa New Zealand. Journal of Management and Organization: 1-19.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Muir S and Dean A (2017). Evaluating the outcomes of programs for Indigenous families and communities. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, Australia.   [Google Scholar]
  17. Paulson N, Laudati A, Doolittle A, Welch-Devine M, and Pena P (2012). Indigenous peoples' participation in global conservation: Looking beyond headdresses and face paint. Environmental Values, 21(3): 255-276.   [Google Scholar]
  18. Richards P (2005). The politics of gender, human rights, and being indigenous in Chile. Gender and Society, 19(2): 199-220.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Shaffril HAM, Ahmad N, Samsuddin SF, Samah AA, and Hamdan ME (2020). Systematic literature review on adaptation towards climate change impacts among indigenous people in the Asia Pacific regions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258: 120595.   [Google Scholar]
  20. Thresia CU, Srinivas PN, Mohindra KS, and Jagadeesan CK (2022). The health of Indigenous populations in South Asia: A critical review in a critical time. International Journal of Health Services, 52(1): 61-72.   [Google Scholar] PMid:32787539 PMCid:PMC7611999
  21. Williams C (2011). Research methods. Journal of Business and Economics Research, 5(3): 65-72.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Yusoff MSB (2019). ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Education in Medicine Journal, 11(2): 49-54.   [Google Scholar]