After the fall of the Marcos regime in 1986, Philippine policymakers became the first in Asia to recognise indigeneity and Indigenous rights. By law, Indigenous groups throughout the archipelago now have priority rights to their ‘ancestral domains’, but in return they are expected to maintain an ‘ecological balance’ and cooperate with environmental regulations. As in many other parts of the world, the conditionalities of recognition mean that invocations of Indigenous rights often serve to initiate ever-deeper entanglements with governmental power. At the same time, however, Indigenous Peoples and their advocates do not approach the dilemmas of recognition as hapless bystanders; rather, they negotiate them in strategic and often unexpected ways. This article considers how members of Indigenous Palawan communities in the southwestern Philippines have used dominant policy assumptions to intervene in dispossessory processes. Specifically, I examine instances in which they have: (1) codified a ‘tradition’ of inheritance to influence legislative outcomes; (2) performed the policy narrative of ‘ecological balance’ to shape the outcome of conservation interventions; and (3) filed a civil case tacitly challenging official expectations that they govern themselves as homogenous collectivities. These examples, I argue, offer broader insights into the paradoxical and at times unexpected consequences of legislating Indigenous rights.

中文翻译：

---

解开附加条件：菲律宾在法律和实践中的本土化

1986 年马科斯政权倒台后，菲律宾决策者成为亚洲第一个承认土著和土著权利的决策者。根据法律，整个群岛的土著群体现在对其“祖传领地”享有优先权，但作为回报，他们应该保持“生态平衡”并与环境法规合作。与世界上许多其他地方一样，承认的条件意味着对土著权利的援引往往会引发与政府权力的更深层次的纠葛。然而，与此同时，土著人民及其拥护者并没有将承认作为不幸的旁观者的困境；相反，他们以战略性且通常出乎意料的方式进行谈判。本文探讨菲律宾西南部巴拉望原住民社区成员如何利用主导政策假设干预剥夺性进程。具体来说，我研究了他们的例子：（1）编纂了继承的“传统”以影响立法结果；(2) 执行“生态平衡”的政策叙述以塑造保护干预的结果；(3) 提起民事诉讼，默认挑战官方期望他们作为同质集体来管理自己。我认为，这些例子为土著权利立法的矛盾和有时意想不到的后果提供了更广泛的见解。(1) 编纂继承的“传统”以影响立法结果；(2) 执行“生态平衡”的政策叙述以塑造保护干预的结果；(3) 提起民事诉讼，默认挑战官方期望他们作为同质集体来管理自己。我认为，这些例子为土著权利立法的矛盾和有时意想不到的后果提供了更广泛的见解。(1) 编纂继承的“传统”以影响立法结果；(2) 执行“生态平衡”的政策叙述以塑造保护干预的结果；(3) 提起民事诉讼，默认挑战官方期望他们作为同质集体来管理自己。我认为，这些例子为土著权利立法的矛盾和有时意想不到的后果提供了更广泛的见解。