Beyond Policy, Toward Kinship: Rethinking Indigenization in Philippine Higher Education

Richelle Diane P. Claros, M.Ed. ◼HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH AND POLICY REFORM PROGRAM Beyond Policy, Toward Kinship Rethinking Indigenization in Philippine Higher Education Discussion Paper Series 2025-39 Richelle Diane P. Claros, M.Ed. ◼HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH AND POLICY REFORM PROGRAM Beyond Policy, Toward Kinship Rethinking Indigenization in Philippine Higher Education UP CIDS Discussion Paper Series is published by the University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies Lower Ground Floor, Ang Bahay ng Alumni Magsaysay Avenue, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City 1101 Telephone: (02) 8981-8500 loc. 4266 to 4268 / (02) 8426-0955 Email: [email protected] Website: cids.up.edu.ph Copyright 2025 by the UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies. The views and opinions expressed in this discussion paper are those of the author/s and neither reflect nor represent those of the University of the Philippines or the UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies. No copies can be made in part or in whole without prior written permission from the authors/editors and the publisher. ISSN 2619-7448 (Print) ISSN 2619-7456 (Online) Cover image credit "Alab" A volunteer teacher sat with the Sama Bajao youth around a glowing bonfire in Cebu, the Philippines. Their faces softened by warmth and quiet light, the circle became a space where time slowed. Stories rose and settled like embers, each one a bridge connecting them to their ancestry, to the sea that shapes their lives, and to the memory of those who came before them. Across many Indigenous Peoples, storytelling is a way of carrying identity, history, and ways of living in harmony with land, water, and community. Stories do not simply tell. They root, they guide, and they remind. This moment shows that education becomes meaningful when it honors the wisdom already held by communities. Here, learning grows from relationship, presence, and care. Sa alab ng samahan, sumisibol ang mga tinig na matagal nang nananahimik. Ang tunay na edukasyon ay yaong kumikilala at nagbibigay-daan sa boses ng mga Katutubo, upang ang kanilang kaalaman, kultura, at karanasan ay maging tanglaw sa loob at labas ng akademya. (Claros, Richelle Diane P. Field notes, Alcantara, Cebu, November 5, 2024.) DISCUSSION PAPER SERIESUP CIDS 2025-39 cids.up.edu.ph Table of Contents 2 Abstract 2 Key Takeaways 3 Introduction 3 The Policy Landscape and the Question of Presence 3 The Need for a Relational Approach to Indigenization 5 Statement of the Argument and Research Questions 5 Review of Related Literature 5 Relational Foundations of Knowing 6 Global Conversations on Indigenizing the Academy 7 Philippine Scholarship and Policy Landscapes 8 Methodology and Framework 8 Research Orientation: Learning as Relationship 8 Research Setting and Participants 9 Gathering Knowledge: Conversations, Reflection, and CoInterpretation 10 The Reframed Four-Dimension Framework 11 Ethical Considerations and Reflexivity 12 Limitations and Relational Boundaries 13 Findings 13 Tracing the Currents of Indigenization 13 Ways of Teaching and Sharing Knowledge 14 Stories and Learning Pathways 14 Languages of Belonging 15 Nurturing Educators’ Cultural Grounding 16 Interlacing Learning, Culture, and Belonging 16 Discussion and Argumentation 16 Reclaiming Education as Relationship 17 From Policy Frameworks to Relational Praxis 17 Decolonizing Knowledge Systems 18 Rethinking Indigenization in Non-Ancestral Contexts 18 The Ethical Dimension of Indigenization 19 Toward a Relational Paradigm for Higher Education 19 Conclusion 20 Indigenization as a Relational Ethic 21 Reinterpreting Policy Through Relationship 21 Decolonizing Learning in Non-Ancestral Contexts 21 Reclaiming the Educator’s Role 22 Continuing the Journey 23 Policy Recommendations 23 Strengthening Institutional Support for Indigenization 23 Faculty Development and Cultural Formation 24 Enhancing Policy Coherence and Collaboration 25 Promoting Multilingual and Culturally Responsive Education 25 Deepening Community Partnerships 26 Sustaining Indigenization Beyond the Study 26 Concluding Note on Policy Integration 27 References Download related policy papers for free cids.up.edu.ph/collection-database Deterritorializing Pedagogy and Learning Navigating/Negotiating the Lifelong Learning Terrain in the Philippines The Philippine Journal of Public Policy: Interdisciplinary Development Perspectives (PJPP), the annual peer-reviewed journal of the UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS), welcomes submissions in the form of full-length policy-oriented manuscripts, book reviews, essays, and commentaries. The PJPP provides a multidisciplinary forum for examining contemporary social, cultural, economic, and political issues in the Philippines and elsewh ere. Submissions are welcome year-around. For more information, visit cids.up.edu.ph. All issues/articles of the PJPP can be downloaded for free. Join our mailing list to get our publications delivered straight to your inbox! Also, you’ll receive news of upcoming webinars and other updates. bit.ly/signup_cids Have our publications been useful? Tell us what you think. bit.ly/dearcids Get your policy papers published. Download open-access articles. Get news and the latest publications. We need your feedback. BEYOND POLICY, TOWARD KINSHIP Rethinking Indigenization in Philippine Higher Education Richelle Diane P. Claros, M.Ed.1 1 She is a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Indigenous Studies student at the University of the Philippines Baguio. She founded Lakbay-Aral Workforce for Indigenous Groups (LAWIG) PH Inc., a community-rooted initiative that uplifts Indigenous and coastal peoples through culture-grounded learning, collective empowerment, and relational leadership. 1 © CENTER FOR INTEGRATIVE AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES Cebu’s teachers exemplify this shift. They transform their classrooms into ceremonial grounds, translating legal mandates into gestures of care— through storytelling, multilingual dialogue, and reflection. Through these acts, Indigenization moves from the realm of compliance to that of covenant. The literature thus situates this study within a continuum of thought that treats education as a ceremony and policy as a relationship. METHODOLOGY AND FRAMEWORK Research Orientation: Learning as Relationship This study upholds relational accountability. As Wilson (2008) teaches, research is to “fulfil a set of relationships.” The researcher does not stand apart from the inquiry but moves within it—responsible to the people, stories, and places that make knowledge possible. Similarly, Chilisa (2012) describes Indigenous methodologies as those that “speak to the community’s heartbeat,” affirming that research is not data extraction but the restoration of harmony. Guided by these teachings, the present inquiry approached Indigenization as a living conversation between educators, institutions, and the migrant Indigenous communities dwelling within Cebu’s urban landscape. The goal was never to evaluate compliance, but to listen for relationship: How do educators translate law into care? How do classrooms become sites of reciprocity? The research itself became a ceremony of listening—an act of sitting with educators in humility, learning from the currents of their experiences, and allowing meaning to emerge through dialogue. Relational accountability demanded reflexivity at every step. The researcher entered each conversation conscious of her own positionality as a Cebuana scholar working alongside fellow teachers, and mindful that her interpretations carry ethical obligations. People do not own the knowledge shared here; they hold it in trust and offer it back to the communities and institutions that inspired it. Research Setting and Participants Cebu—long celebrated as a crossroads of migration—served as the relational ground for this study. Although it holds no formally recognized ancestral domain, it shelters communities whose roots reach across the seas: the Sama 8 Bajau of Barangay Mambaling and the Ati of the City of Naga. Their stories of movement and endurance remind us that indigeneity is not fixed to soil but carried through kinship and practice. Participants were volunteer educators, administrators, and students from several HEIs who had engaged in programs related to cultural inclusion and Indigenous education. Each participant entered the study through invitation rather than recruitment, embodying Chilisa’s principle of Ubuntu research— “I am because we are.” They were not respondents but relational partners, co-creating understanding through conversation. Every encounter unfolded in the language most natural to the participant— Cebuano, Filipino, or English—affirming linguistic dignity as part of ethical method. Informed consent was treated not as a form to be signed, but as an ongoing dialogue of trust. Participants could withdraw or revisit any statement; their words were verified and returned for confirmation. This iterative consent honored Wilson’s insistence that Indigenous research establishes validity through relational continuity rather than statistical reliability. Gathering Knowledge: Conversations, Reflection, and Co-Interpretation The study gathered knowledge through semi-structured dialogues, group reflections, and document review. Rather than rigid interviews, these were conversational encounters guided by shared curiosity. Educators spoke of their experiences integrating Indigenous perspectives into curricula, recounting both possibilities and tensions. Some narrated classroom practices—story circles, multilingual activities, community visits—while others reflected on institutional policies that either nurtured or constrained their efforts. Engaging with institutional reports, curriculum guides, and CHED directives alongside educators’ stories illuminated convergences between policy and lived practice. Each conversation was followed by reflective journaling, allowing the researcher to record emotional resonances and contextual meanings. Consistent with Chilisa’s (2012) notion of participatory validity, interpretations were returned to participants for affirmation—ensuring that the knowledge emerging from these dialogues remained theirs as much as the researcher’s. 9 This relational method transformed the data-gathering phase into a communal process of sensemaking. Participants and collaborators did not extract knowledge; they developed it together as part of a shared process. The Reframed Four-Dimension Framework To weave coherence from these relationships, the study adapted and localized King and Schielmann’s (2004) parameters of Indigenous education into what it calls a Reframed Four-Dimension Framework. This framework does not prescribe a model; it offers a constellation of guiding relationships through which observers can examine teaching and learning. Each dimension represents a commitment—an ethical pathway through which Indigenization is lived and practiced. The first dimension, Ways of Teaching and Sharing Knowledge, emphasizes collaborative and dialogical learning spaces where respect and interdependence replace hierarchy. Teaching becomes a conversation rather than a performance, echoing Wilson’s call for “knowledge through relationship.” The second dimension, Stories and Learning Pathways, acknowledges storytelling as an epistemic act. Narratives carry memory and moral teaching, connecting academic content to lived experience. Educators in Cebu used migration tales and local histories to bring policy to life, transforming abstract mandates into human stories. The third dimension, Languages of Belonging, recognizes that language is not merely a medium, but a home. When teachers alternate among Cebuano, Filipino, English, and occasionally Sinama or Ati, they enact what Chilisa calls “linguistic hospitality,” affirming identity, inclusion, and the dignity of multilingual expression. The fourth dimension, Nurturing Educators’ Cultural Grounding, underscores the necessity of self-awareness. Teachers must know who they are and where they stand. Cultural grounding transforms Indigenization from a technical reform into a form of spiritual accountability, reminding educators that authenticity begins with self-knowledge. The figure below illustrates these four dimensions as interconnected relationships rather than separate categories. 10 ◼Figure 1. Reframed Four-Dimension Framework of Relational Indigenization These dimensions work together to form a relational map rather than a checklist, and they provide a framework of humility that sustains Indigenization through connection and reciprocity. This guide does not remain static or follow a fixed sequence; it evolves through relationships among educators, learners, and communities. By grounding practice in mutual care and respect, this framework affirms that genuine Indigenization flourishes when education becomes an act of belonging rather than compliance. Ethical Considerations and Reflexivity Ethics in Indigenous research are grounded not in procedural clearance, but in the quality of relationships built throughout the inquiry. The study applied the principles of respect, reciprocity, and responsibility to ensure that participants served as co-creators of knowledge rather than subjects of study. Every stage of the process, from design to interpretation, was approached with care for emotional safety, cultural context, and the rhythms of trust that allow stories to be shared authentically. 11 Reflexivity served as a moral compass. Through continuous journaling and dialogue, the researcher examined how her own position as a Cebuana scholar and educator shaped what she could hear and how she interpreted meaning. Awareness of positionality was not an admission of bias but a recognition of accountability. In Wilson’s (2008) words, “objectivity is replaced by relational responsibility.” The credibility of this study rests on the sincerity of those relationships, on the ability to listen with humility and to return knowledge in ways that sustain rather than consume. Ethical rigor, in this sense, was expressed through presence. It meant being attentive, patient, and answerable to the relationships that gave rise to the research itself. Limitations and Relational Boundaries Every relationship has its limits, and this study is no exception. The inquiry engaged a modest number of participants from select higher education institutions in Cebu. While their narratives were rich and insightful, they do not represent the full range of experiences across the province’s academic landscape. The findings should therefore be viewed as contextual rather than comprehensive, offering an interpretive window into how educators experience and practice Indigenization within their own institutional environments. The study focused primarily on educators' perspectives. Direct collaboration with the Sama Bajau and Ati communities was limited to respectful consultative exchanges within existing institutional boundaries. The reflections of participating educators acknowledged their voices. However, future research should aim to include these communities more directly in the dialogue to ensure a fuller understanding of relational Indigenization. Time and resource constraints also limited the extent of field engagement. The limitations of bureaucratic, time-bound systems reduced opportunities for prolonged immersion and follow-up interactions, reflecting the broader realities of conducting qualitative and relational research. Despite these challenges, the process revealed the importance of building trust and sustaining relationships that continue beyond the project’s formal conclusion. These limitations emphasize a vital lesson rather than diminish the study: meaningful Indigenization requires more than a single research cycle. It requires sustained collaboration, institutional support, and ongoing commitment from both educators and communities. The relationships 12 formed through this study remain open, inviting future partnerships that deepen understanding and strengthen the shared work of culturally grounded education. FINDINGS Tracing the Currents of Indigenization The findings of this study reveal that Indigenization within Cebu’s HEIs unfolds as an ongoing process of relationship-building and cultural responsiveness. Educators' daily choices shape it as they seek to make learning more inclusive and meaningful, rather than being driven by formal compliance with national mandates. Indigenization in Cebu arises from personal conviction, community interaction, and a shared sense of responsibility. Educators described their efforts as gradual and evolving, often taking the form of intentional yet straightforward practices that reflect empathy and cultural awareness. This aligns with Wilson’s (2008) view that education gains meaning when grounded in relationship, and with Filipino scholars such as Enriquez (1992) and Salva (2022) who locate learning within kapwa or shared identity. While institutional structures remain formal and at times rigid, individual educators act as catalysts of quiet transformation, finding ways to bring Indigenous and local values into their teaching despite administrative constraints. Across institutions, four recurring themes emerged, corresponding to the study’s Reframed Four Dimension Framework: 1) Ways of Teaching and Sharing Knowledge, 2) Stories and Learning Pathways, 3) Languages of Belonging, and 4) Nurturing Educators’ Cultural Grounding. Each dimension illustrates how educators move beyond the procedural to the relational, transforming policy into practice through connection and care. Ways of Teaching and Sharing Knowledge Many participants described a shift in their teaching approach from authority-based instruction to more participatory, dialogical forms of learning. Several educators shared that they encourage students to contribute examples from their communities and to relate academic content to lived experience. One participant observed, “When students tell their stories, the class listens differently. It becomes a shared space rather than a lecture.” 13 These practices mirror the participatory models described by Barnhardt and Kawagley (2005), who emphasized that Indigenous education thrives in collaborative learning environments rooted in cooperation and respect. In the Philippine context, this approach resonates with pakikipagkapwa and bayanihan, reflecting the collective values of Filipino culture. However, participants also acknowledged the difficulty in sustaining such methods within rigid institutional expectations for measurable outcomes. Assessment structures often prioritize standardization over reflection and dialogue. Despite these limitations, many teachers continue to create “learning communities” in which interaction, rather than one-way transmission, shapes how knowledge is shared. Stories and Learning Pathways Storytelling emerged as one of the most consistent strategies among participants. Educators used stories—folk narratives, migration accounts, and family histories—to make lessons culturally resonant. A literature instructor shared that her students “understand identity more clearly when we talk about the journeys of the Sama Bajau.” Stories helped connect learners to broader issues of displacement, resilience, and belonging. This use of narrative aligns with Kimmerer’s (2013) view that stories hold both emotional and ethical weight, allowing knowledge to live in memory, rather than remain confined to text. In the Philippine context, storytelling reconnects students to cultural heritage and community experience, enabling reflection on identity, place, and shared responsibility within the learning process (Cochrane 2023; Dela Cruz et al. 2025). While most educators expressed confidence in integrating stories, some also voiced concern about the risk of misrepresentation. They emphasized the importance of naming Indigenous groups with sensitivity and accuracy, and they recognized that storytellers must honor the origins and meanings of those stories. Despite these challenges, the majority agreed that storytelling humanizes learning and opens pathways for empathy and reflection. Languages of Belonging Language practices in the classroom revealed another form of Indigenization. Participants noted that using Cebuano or Filipino, in addition to English, 14 created a more relaxed and inclusive environment. Students reportedly engaged more freely when instruction began in their mother tongue. As one educator stated, “Language sets the tone of belonging. When I speak in Cebuano, the classroom feels like home.” This practice resonates with the arguments of Ngugi wa Thiong’o (1986) and Brock-Utne (2012), who advocate for linguistic decolonization as a key step toward inclusive education. Filipino scholars such as Salva (2022) and Eduardo and Gabriel (2021) likewise recognize that multilingual teaching affirms identity and democratizes participation. Nevertheless, institutional policies often privilege English as the default language of instruction and assessment. Educators described this as a persistent challenge that limits their capacity to use local languages formally. Despite this, many continue to integrate vernacular languages into class discussions and reflection activities, finding in them a subtle yet powerful form of resistance. Their efforts highlight the role of language as both an educational tool and a marker of cultural affirmation. Nurturing Educators’ Cultural Grounding Educators consistently reflected that meaningful Indigenization begins with self-awareness. Several described moments of realization that their teaching philosophies mirrored the ways elders or community mentors taught them. This self-recognition led many to explore their own cultural roots and to see teaching as an extension of personal identity. One participant shared: “I began to understand that my culture is already part of how I teach. When I honor that, my teaching feels more authentic.” This echoes the emphasis of De Mesa (2020) and Centeno and Fernandez (2020) on ethical self-understanding as the foundation of cultural education. When teachers are grounded in their own histories and values, they are better able to engage others with openness and respect. Some institutions have started offering workshops on local culture and Indigenous worldviews, helping faculty reflect on their own positionality. Participants observed that these activities encouraged collaboration across disciplines and promoted more relational approaches to teaching. However, they also noted that such programs are often short-term and depend heavily on leadership interest or external funding. Sustaining these initiatives 15 requires institutional recognition that educator formation is central to the success of Indigenization. Interlacing Learning, Culture, and Belonging Taken together, these findings show that Indigenization in Cebu is a process of interlacing: of weaving learning, culture, and belonging into a shared educational fabric. Teachers act as the weavers, bringing together threads of policy, pedagogy, and personal commitment. Their practices translate the spirit of R.A. No. 8371, R.A. No. 10908, and CHED Memorandum Order No. 2, s. 2019 into lived experiences that affirm identity and relationship. Despite structural and policy limitations, educators continue to foster inclusion through storytelling, language diversity, and reflection. Their work affirms Battiste’s (2013) concept of the “learning spirit,” where intellectual and cultural development coexist. In this setting, Indigenization is not a checklist of reforms but a dynamic process of care and connection. Ultimately, Cebu’s educators demonstrate that even in non-ancestral contexts, Indigenization can thrive as a living practice grounded in humanity and respect. They shape their classrooms into spaces where learning is relational, policy becomes a responsibility, and education functions as an act of belonging. DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTATION Reclaiming Education as Relationship The findings reveal that Cebu’s experience of Indigenization is rooted in human connection. Educators’ actions show that inclusion does not arise from policy enforcement alone but from intentional relationships cultivated within classrooms. This finding supports Wilson’s (2008) idea that the strength of relationships determines the quality of education. When teachers and learners co-create knowledge, learning becomes a collective process shaped by care and mutual respect. This emphasis on relationship is also reflected in Filipino thought. Enriquez (1992) and Salva (2022) describe kapwa as a shared self that situates the individual within the community. Education is an ethical encounter rather than a technical task. Cebu’s teachers embody this philosophy by treating 16 their students not as recipients of knowledge, but as partners in reflection and growth. Such practices restore dignity to both teaching and learning, transforming education into an ongoing act of recognition. Indigenization, therefore, is not a supplementary project within higher education. It is a reminder that education itself is a relational practice, one that connects institutions to the lived realities of the communities they serve. From Policy Frameworks to Relational Praxis Philippine laws such as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, the Integrated History Act, and CHED Memorandum Order No. 2, s. 2019, provide a strong legal foundation for Indigenous education. However, as this study demonstrates, policies gain meaning only when interpreted through practice. Cebu’s educators enact these frameworks through storytelling, multilingual teaching, and cultural reflection. These acts may appear modest, but they reflect the ethical spirit of decolonization, which resides in relationships rather than regulations (Battiste 2013). This translation of law into relational praxis shows that policy implementation is not linear. Institutions without recognized ancestral domains must adapt national directives to their specific cultural and geographic realities. In Cebu, this adaptation involves shifting from compliance-driven implementation to engagement-driven practice. Educators become the bridge between legislation and lived experience. Their classrooms transform legal provisions into spaces of connection, where learning becomes a form of participation in the nation’s collective commitment to inclusion. Decolonizing Knowledge Systems Cebu’s experience also underscores the need to re-examine the epistemological assumptions that underlie higher education. Decolonization requires rethinking the very nature of knowledge production rather than inserting Indigenous content into existing frameworks (Smith 2012; Nakata 2007). The educators in this study demonstrate that knowledge can emerge through dialogue, memory, and cultural expression. This shift challenges what Battiste (2013) terms “cognitive imperialism,” or the dominance of Western frameworks in defining what counts as valid learning. When educators validate oral history, spiritual reflection, or 17 2. Faculty immersion and mentorship programs should be developed in partnership with Indigenous and local communities to foster experiential learning. 3. Peer learning circles should be institutionalized to encourage interdisciplinary dialogue on inclusive and culture-based pedagogy. 4. Scholarships and incentives will be provided for faculty who conduct community-engaged research and curriculum development related to Indigenous education. Such initiatives not only enhance educators’ skills but also nurture their personal awareness of relational ethics and responsibility in teaching. Enhancing Policy Coherence and Collaboration The study underscores the need for greater synergy among national agencies implementing education and Indigenous policies. Overlapping mandates often result in fragmented or inconsistent approaches at the local level. To address this, the following are recommended: 1. The Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Department of Education (DepEd), and National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) should establish a joint framework for monitoring and evaluating Indigenization initiatives in both basic and higher education. 2. Regional and provincial clusters may be formed to contextualize policies, allowing flexibility for areas without ancestral domains to localize implementation. 3. Cross-agency coordination mechanisms should include community representatives to ensure that Indigenous voices are heard in decisionmaking. 4. Regular national and regional dialogues among educators, policymakers, and Indigenous leaders should be institutionalized to share practices and resolve implementation challenges. Such coordination will ensure that Indigenization remains consistent, inclusive, and grounded in the realities of diverse local contexts. 24 Promoting Multilingual and Culturally Responsive Education Language emerged as one of the most effective entry points for Indigenization. To strengthen linguistic and cultural inclusivity, policies should prioritize: 1. Recognition of multilingual teaching as a legitimate pedagogical approach in higher education. 2. Development of local-language instructional materials that align with Indigenous perspectives and community knowledge systems. 3. Collaboration with regional language centers and cultural institutions to provide linguistic resources and capacity-building workshops. 4. Incentives for bilingual and multilingual teachers who create accessible and culturally relevant learning environments. Language inclusion reinforces cultural identity, reduces barriers to participation, and fosters a sense of belonging among learners from diverse backgrounds. Deepening Community Partnerships Genuine Indigenization requires long-term partnership with communities rather than short-term outreach. The study found that educators in Cebu build these relationships informally, often without institutional support. To strengthen this foundation: 1. Universities and colleges should adopt partnership frameworks that recognize Indigenous and local communities as equal collaborators. 2. Memoranda of understanding (MOUs) may be developed to guide research, curriculum development, and service programs that benefit both institutions and communities. 3. Participatory monitoring and evaluation systems should be implemented to enable communities to assess whether projects reflect their priorities and values. 4. Institutional ethics committees should include community representatives to ensure accountability in culturally sensitive engagements. 25 Such partnerships transform education from an extractive system into a collaborative and restorative process that builds mutual trust and shared learning. Sustaining Indigenization Beyond the Study Finally, sustaining Indigenization requires long-term planning, consistent leadership, and the integration of relational values into the institution's very identity. To ensure continuity, it is recommended that: 1. CHED and university councils institutionalize annual reviews of indigenization practices to assess progress and address emerging challenges. 2. Institutions adopt relational leadership models that emphasize empathy, inclusiveness, and shared decision-making in educational management. 3. National and local governments allocate stable funding mechanisms to support Indigenous and local knowledge programs within higher education. 4. Documentation and dissemination of good practices should be prioritized through research publications, conferences, and openaccess repositories. By embedding Indigenization into institutional systems and leadership culture, higher education can continuously evolve toward greater inclusivity and responsiveness. Concluding Note on Policy Integration The Cebu experience demonstrates that Indigenization is a collective responsibility shared among educators, institutions, communities, and policymakers. To move forward, policies must recognize education as both relational and transformative. Strengthening collaboration, providing adequate support, and upholding respect for local identities will ensure that Indigenization becomes an enduring foundation for Philippine education. When policy aligns with relationship, and when teaching aligns with care, Indigenization ceases to be a program. It becomes the very way education 26 fulfills its purpose—to connect, to include, and to sustain life through learning. REFERENCES Albia, Joclarisse Espiritu, and Sheng-Ju Chan. 2017. “Understanding Regionalisation in Philippine Higher Education.” Higher Education Evaluation and Development 11 (2): 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-07-2017-0003. Anderson, Jane. 2010. Indigenous/Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property: Issues Paper. Centre for the Study of the Public Domain, Duke University School of Law. https:// www.law.duke.edu/cspd/pdf/ip_indigenous-traditionalknowledge.pdf. Barnhardt, Ray, and Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley. 2005. “Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Alaska Native Ways of Knowing.” Anthropology & Education Quarterly 36 (1): 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2005.36.1.008. Battiste, Marie. 2013. Decolonizing Education: Nourishing the Learning Spirit. Saskatoon: Purich Publishing. Brock-Utne, Birgit. 2012. Language and Power: The Implications of Language of Instruction for Education. Dar es Salaam: Mkuki na Nyota Publishers. Cochrane, Thandeka. 2023. “The Power of Stories: Oral Storytelling, Schooling, and OntoEpistemologies in Rural Malawi.” Oxford Review of Education 49 (4): 478–95. https://doi. org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2218609. Centeno, Reginald Paul R., and Karina Therese G. Fernandez. 2020. “Effect of Mindfulness on Empathy and Self-Compassion: An Adapted MBCT Program on Filipino College Students.” Behavioral Sciences 10 (3): 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs10030061. Commission on Higher Education (CHED). 2019. Memorandum Order No. 2, Series of 2019: Integration of Indigenous Peoples’ (IP) Studies/Education into the Relevant Higher Education Curricula. April 2. Quezon City: Commission on Higher Education. https:// ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/CMO-No.-02-Integration-of-Indigenous-peoplesstudies-into-the-relevant-Higher-Education-Curricula.pdf. Chilisa, Bagele. 2012. Indigenous Research Methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Covar, Prospero. 1998. Larangan: Seminal Essays on Philippine Culture. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. Dela Cruz, Lynard, I. A. Aguinaldo, Leizl J. Alzate, C. Camero, K. R. Abiado, and B. Gumpal. 2025. “Fostering Intercultural Competence through Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: Practices and Perspectives in Philippine Higher Education Institutions.” International Journal on Culture, History, and Religion 7 (SI 2): 36–50. https://doi.org/10.63931/ijchr. v7iSI2.187. 27 De Mesa, José. 2020. “Ethical Responsibility in Education: Revisiting the Filipino Teacher’s Vocation.” Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints 68 (3): 403–422. Enriquez, Virgilio G. 1992. From Colonial to Liberation Psychology: The Philippine Experience. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. Flores, Kenedy, Aniza Gadaza, Don Galdonez, Joemar Pihnuton, Ronie Soriano, and Alexander Jr. Killip. 2025. “Decolonizing Pedagogy: Integrating Indigenous Knowledge and Philippine Historical Narratives in Higher Education Curricula.” International Journal on Culture, History, and Religion 7 (1): 333–56. https://doi.org/10.63931/ijchr. v7i1.130. Grande, Sandy. 2015. Red Pedagogy: Native American Social and Political Thought. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. King, Linda, and Sabine Schielmann. 2004. The Challenge of Indigenous Education: Practice and Perspectives. Paris: UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/ pf0000134773 Kimmerer, Robin Wall. 2013. Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge, and the Teachings of Plants. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions. Eduardo, Jose Paulo, and Althea G. Gabriel. 2021. “Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Education: The Dumagat Experience in the Provinces of Nueva Ecija and Aurora, in the Philippines.” SAGE Open 11 (2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211009491. Nakata, Martin. 2007. Disciplining the Savages, Savaging the Disciplines. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. 1986. Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. London: Heinemann. Republic of the Philippines. 1997. Republic Act No. 8371: The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997. Approved October 29. Manila: Congress of the Republic of the Philippines. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/2562. Republic of the Philippines. 2016. Republic Act No. 10908: An Act Mandating the Integration of Filipino-Muslim and Indigenous Peoples History, Culture, and Identity in the Study of Philippine History in Both Basic and Higher Education. Approved July 21. Manila: Congress of the Republic of the Philippines. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/ thebookshelf/showdocs/2/70320. Salazar, Zeus A. 1999. Pantayong Pananaw: Ugat at Kabuluhan. Quezon City: Palimbagan ng Lahi. Salva, Roberto S. 2022. “Kapwa Child Participation, Kapwa Childhood, and a Path towards the Indigenisation and Expansion of International Agreements.” Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal 7 (1–3): 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802014.2022.2043772 Simpson, Leanne Betasamosake. 2014. Dancing on Our Turtle’s Back: Stories of Nishnaabeg ReCreation, Resurgence, and a New Emergence. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Publishing. 28 Wilson, Shawn. 2008. Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publish Younging, Gregory. 2018. Elements of Indigenous Style: A Guide for Writing by and about Indigenous Peoples. Toronto: Brush Education, 32–33. 29 THE UP CIDS DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES The UP CIDS Discussion Paper Series features preliminary researches that may be subject to further revisions and is circulated to elicit comments and suggestions for enrichment and refinement. They contain findings on issues that are aligned with the core agenda of the research programs under the University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS). CENTER FOR INTEGRATIVE AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Established in 1985 by University of the Philippines (UP) President Edgardo J. Angara, the UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS) is the policy research unit of the University that connects disciplines and scholars across the several units of the UP System. It is mandated to encourage collaborative and rigorous research addressing issues of national significance by supporting scholars and securing funding, enabling them to produce outputs and recommendations for public policy. The UP CIDS currently has twelve research programs that are clustered under the areas of education and capacity building, development, and social, political, and cultural studies. It publishes policy briefs, monographs, webinar/conference/ forum proceedings, and the Philippine Journal for Public Policy, all of which can be downloaded free from the UP CIDS website. THE PROGRAM The Program on Higher Education Research and Policy Reform (HERPRP) aims to chart a research agenda, systematically build an evidence base for policy analysis, and create a network of experts and researchers doing work in this sector. HERPRP also serves as a convening body seeking to build partnerships and working collaborative networks among stakeholders. EDITORIAL BOARD Rosalie Arcala Hall EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Honeylet L. Alerta DEPUTY EDITOR-IN-CHIEF PROGRAM EDITORS ◼EDUCATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING CLUSTER Dina S. Ocampo Lorina Y. Calingasan EDUCATION RESEARCH PROGRAM Fernando dlC. Paragas PROGRAM ON HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH AND POLICY REFORM Romylyn Metila Marlene Ferido ASSESSMENT, CURRICULUM, AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH PROGRAM Ebinezer R. Florano PROGRAM ON DATA SCIENCE FOR PUBLIC POLICY ◼DEVELOPMENT CLUSTER Annette O. Balaoing-Pelkmans PROGRAM ON ESCAPING THE MIDDLE-INCOME TRAP: CHAINS FOR CHANGE Antoinette R. Raquiza Monica Santos POLITICAL ECONOMY PROGRAM Eduardo C. Tadem Ma. Simeona M. Martinez PROGRAM ON ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT Leonila F. Dans Iris Thiele Isip-Tan PROGRAM ON HEALTH SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ◼SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND CULTURAL STUDIES CLUSTER Rogelio Alicor L. Panao PROGRAM ON SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CHANGE Darwin J. Absari ISLAMIC STUDIES PROGRAM Herman Joseph S. Kraft Francis Rico C. Domingo STRATEGIC STUDIES PROGRAM Marie Aubrey J. Villaceran Frances Antoinette C. Cruz DECOLONIAL STUDIES PROGRAM ◼NEW PROGRAMS Maria Angeles O. Catelo FOOD SECURITY PROGRAM Weena S. Gera URBAN STUDIES PROGRAM Benjamin M. Vallejo, Jr. CONSERVATION AND BIODIVERSITY Rosalie B. Arcala Hall LOCAL AND REGIONAL STUDIES NETWORK EDITORIAL STAFF Jheimeel P. Valencia COPYEDITOR Alexa Samantha R. Hernandez EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Jessie Feniquito Mikaela Anna Cheska D. Orlino LAYOUT ARTISTS UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES CENTER FOR INTEGRATIVE AND DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Lower Ground Floor, Ang Bahay ng Alumni, Magsaysay Avenue University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City 1101 Telephone (02) 8981-8500 loc. 4266 to 4268 (02) 8426-0955 Email [email protected] [email protected] Website cids.up.edu.ph Get your policy papers published. Download open-access articles. The Philippine Journal of Public Policy: Interdisciplinary Development Perspectives (PJPP), the annual peer-reviewed journal of the UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS), welcomes submissions in the form of full-length policy-oriented manuscripts, book reviews, essays, and commentaries. The PJPP provides a multidisciplinary forum for examining contemporary social, cultural, economic, and political issues in the Philippines and elsewh ere. Submissions are welcome year-around. For more information, visit cids.up.edu.ph. All issues/articles of the PJPP can be downloaded for free. Get news and the latest publications. Join our mailing list: bit.ly/signup_cids to get our publications delivered straight to your inbox! Also, you’ll receive news of upcoming webinars and other updates. We need your feedback. Have our publications been useful? Tell us what you think: bit.ly/dearcids.