“UGPAANAN” OR “SANLIBONGAN”:
A SANCTUARY FOR WOMEN IN THEATRE



Dr. Belen Calingacion
Research 299
College of Arts and Letters
University of the Philippines, Diliman




By Marilie Fernandez-Ilagan
2008






INTRODUCTION
Theatre performances, whether mainstream or alternative, are generally seen as interpretation of the director’s intentions. “The alternative theatre companies have been largely performer-managed; a feature which highlights the fact that in traditional theatre work the performer is the least powerful in the creative process.” [1] In the Philippines, the mainstream theatre performer has generally come to be seen as an interpreter of the text’s and/or director’s intentions. That is true, too, in alternative theatre. But in alternative theatre, the performer is more than an interpreter. The performer is very much in the creative process. But what is alternative theatre? According to Epskamp, alternative theatre is one name given to a movement of a handful of professional theatremakers who rebelled against dependence on commercial interests and started performing avant-garde plays.[2] These theatremakers, in the Mindanao context, speak of their kind of theatre as experimental theatre.
Most, if not all, established theatre companies in Mindanao are into experimental theatre. Experimental theatre is aimed at activating the audience, persuading the people to change their behaviour and to become more involved in what was going on both inside and outside the theatre.[3] This is the theatre of a group of artists based in Davao City, the Kaliwat Theatre Collective which emerged from the Mindanao Community Theatre Network (MCTN)’s secretariat in 1988.
Kaliwat’s theatre workers immerse themselves in grassroots communities to produce plays for their repertoire and to produce cultural events in the settlement. All of its plays are tales gathered from the communities as trainers, researchers and organizers for cultural action. Kaliwat plays sculpt the people’s sentiments and aspirations with the people’s popular aesthetic traditions. Thus, Kaliwat refers to its work as people’s theatre.
The members of Kaliwat come from varied ethnic backgrounds, class origins and performing traditions. The collective derives its strength from its diversity. It is, however, united to protect the land as cultural sanctuary.[4]

Statement of the Problem

Doreen Fernandez’ book, Palabas: A Historical Survey of Philippine Theater, refers to Kaliwat’s theatre in the First National Theatre Festival as “unique, interactive theatre that makes social and artistic statements”.[5] Arakan: Where Rivers Speak of the Manobo’s Living Dreams meanwhile affirms Kaliwat’s motto: land is the ultimate source of culture and is a cultural sanctuary; land, therefore, should be protected.[6] And Mga Piling Dulang Mindanao: Unang Aklat (Mindanao Selected Plays: First Book) describes Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan (Sanctuary), a notable indigenous and women production of Kaliwat, as an advocacy theatre.[7]
The problem therefore of this study is to reveal Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan as more than an advocacy theatre by and for the indigenous women. This study aims specifically a) to describe and analyze Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan using the Mindanao cultural work frameworks, and b) to assess its contribution to the so-called people’s theatre in the Philippines.
Significance of the Study
Very little has been written on Kaliwat despite its significant theatre productions for the people. Most of its productions have been performed in different parts of Mindanao, and even in other parts of the country. This study hopes to contribute to the understanding of the hardly known theatre for indigenous peoples’ and women’s rights in Mindanao. It is also hoped that this study will encourage further research on the subject.

Scope and Limitation of the Study
The bulk of the research data to be used shall encompass the period 1993-2003. Kaliwat mounted around 20 theatre productions. Many others were just ‘asides’ or scriptless improvisations that live only in the memory of the members or audiences. Some of them are one-act plays but this study deals only with the play written, directed and acted by women. One of them is Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan. The presentation will be historical and analytical, highlighting Kaliwat’s Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan, and juxtaposing it with Kaliwat’s sociopolitical milieu. Primary sources are limited to the movers who were active in the mounting of this production during the period indicated, as well as the production’s partner organizations at the time.
Within its scope is drama as text and performance. Reception of the artists who were at the actual performance, play discussion with the audience, and theatre reviews, however, are the data that support the study.
The writer’s essays are referred to as they provide background material on the play. The conclusions arrived at may not necessarily reflect on the status of Kaliwat beyond the time frame of the study.

Research Methodology and Procedures
Most of the primary materials for this study are taken from the box of Kaliwat documents of the researcher. The materials for the Luzon performances are retrieved from the Concerned Artists of the Philippines (Cap) and the Cultural Center of the Philippines (CCP), institutions that were involved in the organization of the Luzon shows.
The researcher, who is also the writer-director, interviewed the people who were involved in the play – actors and stage managers. Photographs and video of the performances were borrowed from the Cap. Interviews with the Tunay na Alyansa ng Bayan Alay sa Katutubo (Tabak), an organization involved in the production of the Luzon performances, was also done for additional data.
Research was done on Kaliwat and MCTN to provide the cultural work milieu of
Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan. As to the theoretical framework, I believe that to date, no theoretical framework or any conceptual formulation can approximate the complexity of creating with the indigenous peoples. For this reason, I want to subscribe to the cultural work frameworks used in Mindanao since 1978.


Review of Primary Sources and Related Literature
Primary Source
Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan is a one-act play of indigenous women -- strangers to each other – who find themselves in company after having been driven from their homes by war and environmental destruction. Overwhelmed by the ambiguities brought about their plight, mutual trust was a struggle until their solemn stories forged an irrepressible bond that would define the future of their people.[8]
Related Literature
The researcher who is also the writer of the subject under study has articles on the indigenous culture. In the book Arakan: Where Rivers Speak of the Manobo’s Living Dreams, she tells about the belief system of the Manobo and their understanding of the cosmic link among all creations. The Manobo belief system is characterized by the felt presence of supreme beings that protect the environment and the people from harm and destruction. She also writes about the social structure of the Manobo, and that, like other indigenous communities, the Manobo communities are always kinship bound. Included in the book, too, are write-ups on the cases of land encroachment and social displacement which are the consequences of the Manobo’s accommodating character and generosity. She, however, adds articles on the development issue in the Manobo community and the ancestral domain claims.[9]
In a paper titled “Random Thoughts of a Mindanaoan Artist,” she reveals a new challenge in writing – like integrating the traditional expressions with the migrant settlers' language and the indigenous vocabularies, or learning an indigenous language and writing in that language with a libon (T’boli woman)or malitan (Manobo woman) editor. In the end, the writings came out mostly as dance—theatre or music—theatre.[10] In the article Glitter or Glamour?, she recounts her interaction with indigenous dance virtuosos in Mindanao, and how the encounters eventually convinced her to use indigenous dance in experimental theatre.[11]
Casanova’s Mga Piling Dulang Mindanao: Unang Aklat features Sanlibongan as a selected Mindanao play and its writers, Marili Fernandez and Theresa Opaon.[12]
Kees Epskamp Theatre in Search of Social Change defines the indigenous people with no political power and are culturally subjected to pressure of the dominant culture. It also describes about alternative theatre.[13] In Bertolt Brecht’s The Development of an Aesthetic, the narrative technique of dramatization is discussed. The narrative form of acting is also always referred to in the discussion of Brechtian theatre.[14]
Eugene van Erven clarifies popular theatre from people’s theatre in his The Contemporary People’s Theatre: A Study of the Radical Popular Theatre from 1968 to the Present.[15] He writes about the ambiguity of the terms. Furthermore, “Some Questions of People’s Theatre” by D. Patterson discusses the characteristics of people’s theatre.[16]
“The Economy of Culture” in Doreen Fernandez’ Palabas: Essays on Philippine Theater
informs us about the Kaliwat Theatre Collective as a drama group in 1984 that explores, expresses and analyzes the problems in a community. It also states that it is a theatre group that has gone beyond performance to cultural action.[17]
Lastly, the artistic process of theatre where group relationships may thrive is explained further by R. Schechner in his Theater and Anthropology.[18]

Organization of the Paper
The introduction states the problem, the significance and limitation as well as the research methodology of the study. It reviews primary and related literature, and gives the organization of the paper.
Section I will give the theoretical framework on which this study of Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan rests. It will discuss the Mindanao cultural work frameworks: the OAO (orientational-artistic-organizational) framework, and the resource generation framework.
Section II will define briefly popular theatre vis-a-vis people’s theatre. It will also cover a brief background of Kaliwat, a theatre group aligned with the people.
Section III will define the indigenous peoples. Mindanao is peopled by the indigenous and the migrant settlers from Luzon and Visayas. This section will provide the context of the indigenous Mindanao. This context situates Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan.
Section IV will show the challenges faced by the writer. Section V will present the theatre production of Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan in Davao City in 1993. It will also take up the production in Luzon 10 years after.
The conclusion will analyze Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan under the OAO and resource generation (cultural work) frameworks. It will also assess Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan’s contribution to people’s theatre in the Philippines. In its genre, Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan is women and indigenous theatre. It is one of the first theatre productions created by women alone. It carries the indigenous peoples issue on land as sanctuary.
Appendix 1 is a copy of the script Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan in English. It will also include a copy in Filipino. Appendix 2 provides the cultural work schema. Appendix 3 has photocopied pictures of some of Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan’s performances.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This section presents the theory on which this study is built. Two cultural work frameworks are to be used in this study.
The OAO (orientational-artistic-organizational) framework, born in Butuan City in December 1978, will be the basis for the negotiation between theory and practice. The orientational component refers to the ideology and message of a project, and the analysis and understanding of the prevailing conditions and realities. The artistic part relates to the creative aspects of a project, and the artistic strategies in crafting outputs. The organizational element refers to the manner of handling the project, the participation companying the theatre process.
The OAO framework is a software program of the action-reflection-action (process) hardware credited to the liberating education theory in Paolo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed.[19] OAO is a Mindanaoan invention similar to Augusto Boal’s invention of the term theatre of the oppressed as borrowed from Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. It is a framework which has been appropriated by cultural activists here and elsewhere.
Freire’s opinion of education is seen as a cultural action for liberation. His idea of western education is “an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher the depositor... but the true knowledge emerges only through invention and reinvention, hopeful inquiry men pursue in the world and with each other.”[20] He thinks that the educational systems (men and women are accustomed to) are supported and encouraged by the dominant class to keep the dominated in a “culture of silence, of dependence, of violence, of oppression, of exploitation.” He aims to break this culture of silence through his liberating education theory whose purpose is conscientization.
Conscientization is not found in the Encarta and Webster. According to Freire, it is a process of reflection-action-reflection. It is the process in which men and women achieve a deepening awareness of the sociocultural reality and of their capacity to transform that reality.
Freire supports liberation theology and theatre of liberation as effective and valuable practices in the process of cultural action for freedom.[21] In Mindanao, these practices are popular in the decades 60s and 70s when there were worldwide political and social upheavals. Creative dramatics is the tool that the social action centers of the Catholic Church’s identified for its conscientization thrust. It is the mother of theatre of liberation in Mindanao. It is inspired from the theatres of Bertolt Brecht and Augusto Boal.
Radical theatre is used by Brecht to develop critical consciousness just as liberating theatre is for Freire’s conscientization. Radical theatre is also epic theatre. Epic theatre is for pleasure and instruction. “There is such a thing as pleasurable learning, cheerful and militant learning.”[22] In other words, Brecht’s theatre is a balance between education and entertainment.
Brecht’s theatre is transported to its radical conclusion by Boal who is motivated by the Pedagogy of the Oppressed of Freire. Boal asserts that theatre is a weapon of the oppressed for their liberation. He presents that theatre can be put in the hands of the oppressed so that they can express themselves, and can develop critical thinking and a logical worldview. [23]
The liberation theories of Freire, Brecht and Boal are seen in one vista – their ideology in structural change and in people’s liberation from oppression through education. Kaliwat and its Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan, a theatre mounted within the people’s movement, share this belief.
The resource generation framework, conceptualized in Davao City in November 1985,
will guide the researcher in defining the characteristics of a people’s theatre. It gives importance to four factors in people’s theatre production for this study: theatre group, people’s organization, cultural institution and community. It also underscores the importance of four additional factors namely: animators/organizers, resources, method and context.

Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan will be analyzed and assessed using the frameworks of OAO and resource generation.

POPULAR VERSUS PEOPLE’S THEATRE: THE MEANS
Webster says that popular means pertaining to, or intended for, the common people. It adds that popular is generally liked. In popular theatre, it means that the performance must be understandable to the whole community. It must be built on popular forms and expressions and must make positive use of people’s traditions.[24]
According to Epskamp, “popular theatre is that which is concerned with the people, or better yet that which belongs to the people. This is why popular theatre will be that which is capable of communicating with the people in an effective way, by speaking their language and addressing their problems:.[25] A theatre organized by and for the people is one form of popular theatre. The drive normally comes from an NGO or a people’s organization. Socio-drama is the technique used here.
But for van Erven, “the term ‘popular’ has a lot of meanings. To some people it means ‘intended for the general public’. To others, it has a more radical, political significance and means ‘of and for those people who sell their labot’; to this latter group, then, the term ‘popular’ is generic and denominates workers, peasants, students, petty bourgeois employees, office workers and the like”.[26]
The term people’s theatre is first used in the decades of the 60 and 70 as a response of theatremakers to the ambiguity about the term ‘popular theatre’ that occured at that time.[27] The definition of people’s theatre only becomes clear in the early years of the decade 80. Patterson says that people’s theatre definitely is a theatre with a focus on a particular audience, or sometimes a particular political struggle. It is a theatre with a desire to align with the audience. It is a theatre with a progressive political and social consciousness.[28]


The Kaliwat Theatre Collective
In Mindanao, people’s theatre thrives. Kaliwat Theatre Collective is one group identified as people’s theatre. Kaliwat is a development-oriented organization involved in raising the people’s awareness of the present situation through the use of popular education methods. Its basic mode is people’s theatre. It traces its roots to the late 1970s when theatre artists, researchers, organizers and trainers bond themselves together to establish the MCTN. Since then, it has mounted plays, conducted cultural action researches and organized consultations among practitioners to sustain efforts in consciousness-raising and education in Mindanao. To systematize its aesthetic program and professionalize its pool of theatre artists, MCTN established the Kaliwat.
Members of Kaliwat come from various ethnic backgrounds, class origins and performing traditions. They are, however, one in their motto: to protect the land as cultural sanctuaries. Recognizing the truth that the land issue is a cultural issue and vice-versa, Kaliwat maintains that unless the people trace and seek the wisdom of their indigenous roots and from it, draw meanings in the contemporary realities, the future will be bleak. In view of this, Kaliwat advocates for indigenous people’s welfare and assertion and works with them in their struggle to reclaim their ancestral domain.[29]
“Kaliwat artists have worked and stayed with the community and have become their partners. Although they at first were considered outsiders and entered as facilitators, Kaliwat (members) have since fused their word with that of the Manobo artists. This collaboration has brought benefits to both: the Kaliwat (members) gaining understanding; the Manobos, self-esteem. Kaliwat theatre are ‘popular theatre for empowering the culturally silenced minority... Kaliwat takes these on tour to promote ‘community-to-community linkage’. Behind the performances lie many hours and now years of cultural research, community education, organization and mobilization, exchange and linkages, performance tours, related activities like publication and radio broadcasts, training, cultural action workshops (in fourteen communities in the past year), production management and resource generation.”[30]
Ang Kaliwat ay isa sa mga grupong natagpuang matagumpay na lumilikha ng mga matataas na uri ng dulang tuwirang tumutugon sa pangkasalukuyang pangangailangan ng ating lipunan. They use indigenous movements and music in creating plays inspired (hinango) from the lives of ordinary people – fisherfolk, peasant, indigenous peoples – who are directly affected by the national and international crisis.[31] Yes, most, if not all, of Kaliwat’s theatre productions are stories of or inspired by the indigenous peoples of Mindanao. They are packagings of the outputs and stories from their cultural action experiences, hoping to contribute to the discourse on the dramaturgy of people’s theatre in Mindanao. Each Kaliwat production has an average of 25 shows per season. Some worth mentioning are:
“Belalakaw su Gabon” tells how much can determined Muslim woman Norhaya take before her dream or her death comes knocking at her door? The thin string of personal faith is stretched to its limits in the tug-of-war between the demands of traditions and the pull of a social, feminist conscience.
“Dia To Guyangan” is a tale of ecological destruction and tribal displacement. It is the story of a terrified child to a young tribal rebel that ends with a pact to defend their dying race.
“Pagbati” is a funny and tragic imagery of women portrayed in mythical and contemporary Mindanao. The first written, directed and performed by women.
“Siak sa Duha ka Damgo” is a comedy of dreams (of three families) ingeniously weaving the issues of debt and ecology in a montage of songs, dances, chants and drama.
“Lem-a-feu sa Habagatan” is a mingling of facts and myths grounded on the historical depths of the Arakan-Manobo. It tells of a people in bondage but united by dreams of their ancient paradise.
The Kaliwat experience, according to Doreen Fernandez, “has done what many theatre groups dream of doing: interact with a cultural community, giving to it and learning from it in mutual enrichment, networking with it and other groups national and international, linking and communicating in a growth of national consciousness”.[32] If Patterson were to be asked if Kaliwat’s theatre is popular or people’s theatre, he may say that its theatre has a focus on a particular audience and a particular political struggle. Kaliwat is a people’s theatre indeed.
In partnership with indigenous people’s communities and some NGOs in Mindanao, one of Kaliwat’s goals is to strive to contribute to the advancement of the quality of life in indigenous and indigenized communities.[33] But what/who are these indigenous communities?

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES: THE CONTEXT AND THE END
The first Indigenous People’s Theatre Celebration in Canada in 1980 states that “indigenous people are those who perceived themselves to be the descendants of the original inhabitants of the area represented”. In different contexts, the indigenous peoples are also labelled as native, aboriginal, ethnic, and tribal. Whatever word describes them, they are minorities which live culturally different from the rest of the state or country. They are culturally subjected to pressure from the dominant culture of the state.[34]
The indigenous peoples form the section of the Philippine society who had been forced to the hinterlands during the colonization of Spain (mid-16th century) and the United States of America (early 20th century). They stood against colonial subjugation. Some of them retreated to the mountains as a form of defense from the colonizers. At present, there exists a social dichotomy among the Filipino population: the Filipino majority who have related to and adopted the ways of the colonizers, and the minorities (including the indigenous peoples) who remained the most discriminated against. To date, there are around 140 ethnolinguistic groups comprising about 10 to 12% of the 86 million Filipino population.[35]
For the indigenous peoples, “land is life”. Their communities—the land, bodies of water, forests, minerals and all other resources therein—comprise what the indigenous peoples refer to as their ancestral domain. The ancestral domain is a common entity and a communal property.
The indigenous peoples’ traditional livelihood, socio-political structures and cultural system are deeply rooted in their worldview of their ancestral domain. Even at present, most tribal communities maintain their traditional militia (defense force) who guard the ancestral domain against land-grabbers and other oppressors.
Most of the indigenous peoples’ rituals, dances, chants and songs reflect daily livelihood, reverence to nature and its spirits, their history, and their struggle for the genuine right to ancestral domain and self-determination. Although the political governance was allegedly turned over to the Filipinos in 1946, the social structures that relegated the displaced indigenous peoples into a disadvantaged position did not change. In fact, the succeeding Filipino regimes aggravated and institutionalized their exploitation and oppression. A series of public land and forest laws practically converted the indigenous peoples’ ancestral domain into corporate properties. With the passage of Public Land Act of 1902, big foreign and local businesses were suddenly aided by legal shields such as “land lease” and “joint concessions” in the wholesale expropriation of the Philippine’s natural resources.[36]
Mindanao’s cultural heritage is all about being a melting pot of different peoples. In the early 1900, the government brought in the Northern and Central peoples of our country to occupy Mindanao’s vast lands. These increased the then 4.5 million original inhabitants – the indigenous (the Lumad and the Moro) – of the island. By the middle of the century, these migrant settlers had established their supremacy in Mindanao, at the expense of the indigenous population.[37]
To this day, the remaining indigenous peoples live a destructive cycle of dislocation, forced eviction, harassments and summary executions by the Philippine military, police and private armies to give way to the entry of business corporations in indigenous territories. The Philippine government condones this under the pretext of “national development for the common good”. In the course of defending the lands they inherited from their ancestors, the indigenous peoples who oppose the sell out of their lands are faced by heightened militarization. Up to the present, the indigenous peoples continue to fight against the intensifying “development aggression” and “state terrorism” brought about by globalization.
The indigenous peoples view them as “ethnocide” which will result to the wanton destruction of their resources, their dislocation from their ancestral domain, and their dissolution as unique communities in Philippine society. The indigenous peoples have stepped up and strengthened their ranks in their struggle for ancestral domain and self-determination.
For the theatreworkers, Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan is their contribution to protect the land as cultural sanctuary. The means is theatre, the end is for the indigenous peoples right to their land.

THE CHALLENGE TO THE WOMEN IN THEATRE
The context of Mindanao’s indigenous peoples challenges the Mindanao women in theatre. Fe Remotigue, a leading organizer of the MCTN, answered in a recorded interview, “Writing Sinalimba[38] was an act of cultural assertion. I really wanted to say something to the whole country... When I first began working with the Lumad, at first I could not understand and appreciate the very lengthy and repetitive chants and rituals. I had to strain myself to understand and the more I didn’t understand and appreciate, the more colonised and the more alienated I felt. So, that was the driving force. It brought me to the folk tales and stories. I began work on one of the folk tales but I did not agree withits overall structure and development. I decided to change it to reflect my bias and to introduce a political statement into the story. I used the form of the folk tale but added some twists and took some artistic license. Actually, it was a victory for the people’s artists because we were communicating our political agenda within a form that was indigenous. But our colleagues accused us of prostituting our culture. They said that we were stealing the story, but I said no, this tradition should be our social property. Despite the strong reaction, we tried to explain. They said I had stolen the folk tale because I had changed the ending... We reached an understanding and they forgave me because even if I made a mistake, they respected my intentions. When it came to the next production, I was very careful to enter into an agreement before I started... One of the tribal leaders looked me straight in the eye and said, ‘...We just would like to ask you one thing: please do not misrepresent us and please carry our dreams and aspirations’. That was in 1987.”[39]
That same year, this researcher was given by her director Nestor Horfilla a story that she has to perform in her grandmother’s indigenous tongue for regular theatre productions for nationalist advocacy. That was her first use of her mother and grandmother's language. Since childhood, she has listened to her mother talk with her parents and tell stories to her siblings in that language—a strange one that she didn't speak with her father and with her own children. She never understood it, never dared ask what it was. Years passed, and like magic, the language began to unravel, though she never got to speak it. She kept the unraveling to herself until she learned about the "culture of silence and assertion". In that production, she spoke the language and performed it. The researcher later became one of the writers of Ugpaanan/Sanlibongan.
With the Kaliwat program of immersion in the indigenous communities, she took up a new challenge in the field of writing—like integrating the traditional expressions with the migrant settlers' language and the Lumad vocabularies, or learning a Lumad language and writing in the Lumad language with a libon (T’boli woman) or malitan (Manobo woman) editor. In the end, the writings came out mostly as dance—theater or music—theater.[40]
UGPAANAN IN DAVAO
In 1993, the women theatre artists of Kaliwat and women development workers of Davao organized the Women’s Venue (Woven). They conceptualized Ova, a trilogy of women performances. But for starters, some men artists questioned their non-inclusion in the project. The women thought they had to do it on their own to make a specific point.
For Ova, three Kaliwat women – Eden Espejo, Marili Fernandez and Theresa Opaon – wrote and produced the play, Ugpaanan. The three worked with some Lumad groups regarding their right to self-determination. For years, they have immersed themselves in Agusan, Davao, Cotabato, Lanao and Zamboanga. Espejo used to be the training head of the Kaliwat’s cultural action program in Arakan Valley, Fernandez the research head and Opaon the production manager. They gathered stories that demonstrated the oppression, as well as the strength, of the Lumad women. The stories have strong messages and made a deep impression on the three women.[41]
Fernandez wrote the storyline and sequence treatment. Being a collaborative production, Opaon provided the dialogue lines. Both worked on it for several days. Indigenous women – strangers to each other – find themselves in company after having been driven from their homes by war and environmental destruction. Overwhelmed by the ambiguities brought about by their plight, mutual trust was a struggle until their solemn stories forged and irrepressible bond that would define the future of their people. The performers, equally exposed and immersed among the indigenous peoples, were Ligaya Arellano (actor and dancer), Boots Dumlao (director of Kathara Dance Theatre Collective), Ronita Leoncito (actor and researcher) and Opaon. Rehearsals went on for a month. It was performed twice, matinee and gala, in Davao City’s Jaycee clubhouse under Espejo’s direction.[42] There were around 500 audience, mostly artists and development workers.
Ugpaanan comes out as a one-act play integrated with dance and music. Far from being a masterpiece, it somehow fulfilled theater’s basic function of creating a worthwhile impact on the audience. The languages used were a mix of Bisaya and Ilonggo. The story is a moving testament to the unending struggle of the Lumad women, who have been cast aside in society. The narrative carried the stories of three women—a 15-year old Manobo girl, a young lowland-assimilated Bagobo mother, and an old Mandaya shaman. All three lamented the plight of the Lumad who lost their right to their God-given land and its blessings. Strangers to each one, the three found themselves together after having been driven from their homes. The culprits were the logging concessionaires and ranchers. Narrating their stories, the women were drowned in mystification and mistrust. But trust it was that was forged among them in a climax of a powerful tribal dance that signified their collective unity to define the future of their people. Now read this.
Felisa (the mother), carrying her baby and a transistor radio, enters, looking for her brother. She notices the old shaman, approaches her, then sits on a rock. She is about to nurse her baby but finds her turning blue… She hysterically approaches the old shaman. The old shaman is about to help her but Felisa panics. Felisa runs away.
As Felisa runs away, Igay, the young girl, comes running and shouting. She looks for a refuge. Apo Dyamon, the old shaman, is silent in one corner. Twilight comes and a blurred moon appears. Apo Dyamon takes a corn and hangs it to offer to the spirits. Then she lights a bright torch. Apo Dyamon does the ritual for the sick, she dances to drive away the evil spirit. Then she goes into a trance and engages her goddess in a conversation.
Meanwhile, Igay watches Apo Dyamon unnoticed. She tries to move away, fearing that she will be discovered. A house post falls and gives her away. The noise awakens Apo Dyamon from her trance. She sees the girl, crouches on the ground and chews her betel nut. Noting the girl’s fear, she wooes her attention by telling her a story.
Felisa enters weary and beaten from her long search. She switches on her radio. Igay bumps into her. Felisa tries to look for her but can’t find her. She faces Apo Dyamon and stares. Then slowly, she tells her story—about her baby lost from a previous illness, her husband who went off with the armed rebels, and her brother who is said to have been abducted.[43]

SANLIBONGAN IN LUZON: THE TOUR
It was ten years after when Ugpaanan, now Sanlibongan (Manobo term for sanctuary), was shown as one of the two plays in Ang Babae sa Ating Panahon (The Women of Our Times) for the February Arts Month at the Cultural Center of the Philippines. The Cap, together with Tabak, produced the play with Fernandez as director. Alternating for the role of the child were Cora Gormin, a Mangyan member of a cultural group in Mindoro, and Dessa Rizalina Ilagan, a young performer with Mandaya ancestry. Jacqueline Co, a elderly who loves dancing, alternates with Malu Repuno, a human rights worker, for the role of the shaman. The role of the mother was taken solely by Tess Liongson, a singer from Sining Lila.[44]
Three languages were used in the Luzon performances – Ilocano, Mandaya and Manobo. The actors had to learn the languages. There were studies done, workout rehearsals and exposure trips to prepare them for an effective portrayal of their roles. They were all done in three months. Direction was by Marili Fernandez-Ilagan.
On the performance space, dried branches and leaves were scattered. The set design was simple – a major piece of furniture, a big daybed sculpted out of an old traviesa of a known sculptor Rey Contreras. An indigenous tree house was also constructed, so that there were scenes that the audience had to look up. Included in the set were logs that serve as seats for the audience in front. Ed Manalo’s effective lighting was simple. He used some forest shadows and moonlight effects to define the time of the day. Playwright Bonifacio Ilagan suggested an epilogue for a the three women’s clearer action – the mother’s search for her brother’s gun (that symbolizes her search for justice or her joining the armed struggle -- depends on the audience’s interpretation), and the affirmation/declaration of support of the girl and the shaman on such option.[45]

The Tour[46]
On Women’s Day, the Kabataan para sa Tribung Pilipino brought the play to Betyawan, Subic in Zambales. 150 Aetas came to watch. 50 more came from three neighboring sitios and 150 more from student exposurists of Adamson University, De La Salle University, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, University of the Philippines – Manila and College of St. Benilde. The performance space was an open space on a cliff with a lone tree (where the indigenous hut was built on) that serves as the set.
Three days after, the Kalipunan ng mga Katutubong Mamamayan invited the production in solidarity with the delegates and supporters of the Minority Rights Group International workshop on human rights and international standards on the indigenous peoples and minorities rights. Sanlibongan was performed at the garden of Titus Brandsma Center in New Manila, Quezon City with a hundred audience of indigenous leaders, cultural workers, government representatives, academics, foreign advocates of the indigenous peoples movement and development workers.
On April 24, Sanlibongan was shown in Lameg, Quirino of Ilocos Sur for the Cordillera Day. 3,000 indigenous peoples from Mindanao and Northern Luzon, and delegates form the Asia-Pacific, Europe and USA witnessed the show. On the same day, the alternates performed in UP Diliman upon the invitation of the Congress of Teachers for Nationalism and Democracy and the First Quarter Storm Movement. The occasion was a peace forum of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines. Audiences were the students (activists and non-activists) and the academics.

THE ASSESSMENT
Ugpaanan’s success is half-baked, according to the minutes of the Woven meeting on November 3, 2003. Two reasons: As far as the artists are concerned, it is successful. But as far as the audience reach is concerned, it is a loser. In the assessment, most of the women say it must be the accessibility and capacity of the venue. But some say, “We are underwomened. We lack audience study. We have a short marketing period. We have no funding.” Though the production is featured in the local entertainment television show, the marketing period would have been three months instead of just one month.
The production delivers aesthetically, both in content and form. It has a clear impact on the audience because the audience are the organized (have social consciousness) audience. But why are the audience dumbfounded? Why are they quiet? Must it be the languages used? Do we need a comedy for our next production? Or do we need a theatre concert? More questions come unanswered.
As a whole, Ugpaanan stirs the audience. Expression of interests to join the regular discussion of Woven comes after the show, even days after the show. With this positive response, the core group is bent on doing another production four months after. Eventually, it is realized. This time, it is a theatre concert.[47]
If Ugpaanan is half-baked, Sanlibongan is well done. With enough funding and time to prepare, everybody is satisfied. CCP is happy that the performance venue is always a full house in all three shows. Reviews also come out in a number of publications.
The organized and unorganized audience are bubbly and curious in the open forum. More questions are raised by them than those by the cast and crew. Some of the feedback from them are:[48]
“Ibang klase ang tema. Matindi ang social relevance.”
“It’s a new experience to me.”
“Thank you for allowing us to see what is happening to the indigenous peoples and the women.”
“I like very much the line... (referring to the shaman’s “... We learned about the market, where to bring our produce to sell cheap. Schools were built. Our children learned to be ashamed of our race and origins...”)
“Matindi. May kirot.”
“Congratulations! We need more venues like this for our artistry and issue. Galing ‘nyo!”
Though everything goes well and good, the producers want to cut some dialogue lines of the shaman. “... Aahh! Time is what we must pay for what they claim is progress...Then the Bisaya came and asked to till the land in exchange for tobacco and the wine Kulafu. They made us withdraw to the mountains. More of the Bisaya arrived. Then the logging...” It is a difficult time for the artistic staff who, for the first time, experience such censorship. But they stand on their ground and defend the artistic license.


[1] Michelle Wandor, Theatre and Sexual Politics Great Britain: Methuen London Ltd, 1981; reprint ed., Great Britain: Richard Clay, 1982: 50
[2] Kees P. Epskamp, “Popular Theatre from a Theatre Historical Point of View” Theatre in Search of Social Change. CESO, The Netherlands, 1989: 66
[3] Ibid.
[4] Nestor Horfilla. “Complementation and Tensions in the Delivery of Cultural Services: Challenges and Lessons Learned from the Local Experience of a Mindanao-based Cultural Organization” National Conference on Sustainable Culture and Arts Development Cultural Center of the Philippines and the National Commission for Culture and the Arts, Laguna, January 1997: 11
[5] Doreen Fernandez. “The Playbill after 1983” Palabas: A Historical Survey of Philippine Theater Ateneo de Davao University Press, Quezon City, 1996: 147
[6] Kaliwat Theatre Collective. Arakan: Where Rivers Speak of the Manobo’s Living Dreams, Davao City, 1996: 222
[7] Arthur Casanova. Mga Piling Dulang Mindanao: Unang Aklat UST Publishing House, Manila, 2007: 106
[8] Marili Fernandez-Ilagan. “Ugpaanan” The 2nd Conference for Asian Women and Theater: A Compilation of Plays The Japan Foundation Asia Center, Manila, 2000: 23-32.
[9] Kaliwat Theatre Collective. Arakan: Where Rivers Speak of the Manobo’s Living Dreams: 49-83, 125-141, 191-232.
[10] Marili Fernandez-Ilagan, “Random Thoughts of a MIndanaoan Artist” 2nd Conference on Asian Women and Theatre, Laguna, 2000
[11] Marili Fernandez-Ilagan, “Glitter and Glamour?” Mr. and Ms., Quezon City, December 2003
[12] Arthur Casanova. Mga Piling Dulang Mindanao: Unang Aklat: 103-112, 307-311.
[13] Kees P. Epskamp, “Popular Theatre from a Theatre Historical Point of View” Theatre in Search of Social Change. CESO, the Netherlands: 44, 66
[14] Bertolt Brecht, “Theatre for Pleasure or Theatre for Instruction” Brecht on Theatre. Hill and Wang, New York, 1964 April: 70-71
[15] Eugene van Erven, The Contemporary People’s Theatre: A Study of the Radical Popular Theatre from 1968 to the Present. Ph.D. dissertation, Nashville, Vanderbilt University, 1985
[16] D. Patterson, “Some Theoretical Questions of People’s Theatre” In Theaterwork 3. No. 2, p. 5-9
[17] Doreen Fernandez. “The Economy of Culture” Palabas: A Historical Survey of Philippine Theater Ateneo de Davao University Press, Quezon City, 1996: 156-158
[18] R. Schechner, Between Theater and Anthropology University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1985
[19] Laura Samson et al., eds., A Continuing Narrative on Philippine Theater: The Story of PETA Quezon City, PETA, 2008: 211-213
[20] Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed trans. Myrna Bergman Ramos, New York, Seabury Press, 1979: 56
[21] Eugene van Erven “Theatre and Liberation: Political Theatre that Works (for a Change)” Illusions 1, no. 4, October 1986: 7
[22] Bertolt Brecht Brecht on Theatre: The Development of anaesthetic, trans. and notes John Willet (London: Methuen & Co. Lt., 1964, p. 73
[23] Augusto Boal, Theatre of the Oppressed, trans. Charles A. And Maria-Odilia Leal Mcbride (London: Pluto Press, 1979, p. 184-186)
[24] Leis (1979: 12-13)
[25] Kees P. Epskamp, “Popular Theatre from an Educative Point of View” Theatre in Search of Social Change. CESO, the Netherlands: 56
[26] Eugene van Erven, The Contemporary People’s Theatre: A Study of the Radical Popular Theatre from 1968 to the Present. Ph.D. dissertation, Nashville, Vanderbilt University, 1985
[27] Kees P. Epskamp, “Popular Theatre from a Theatre Historical Point of View” Theatre in Search of Social Change. CESO, the Netherlands, 1989: 63
[28] D. Patterson. “Some Theoretical Questions of People’s Theatre” In Theaterwork 3 no. 2, p. 5-9
[29] Kaliwat Theatre Collective. Arakan: Where Rivers Speak of the Manobo’s Living Dreams, p. 228
[30] Doreen Fernandez. “The Economy of Culture” Palabas: A Historical Survey of Philippine Theater, p. 157
[31] Fernando Josef. “May Sariling Puso at Kaluluwa Tayo”. Apolonio Chua, ed. Unang Tagpo 1992: Kalipunan ng mga Dulang Rehyunal sa Pambansang Pistang Pandulaan. Manila, Sentrong Pangkultura ng Pilipinas, 1992, p. 7
[32] Doreen Fernandez. “The Economy of Culture” Palabas: A Historical Survey of Philippine Theater, p. 163
[33] Nestor Horfilla. “Complementation and Tensions in the Delivery of Cultural Services: Challenges and Lessons Learned from the Local Experience of a Mindanao-based Cultural Organization” National Conference on Sustainable Culture and Arts Development, p. 12
[34] Kees P. Epskamp, “The Historical Antecedents of ‘Theatre for Development’” Theatre in Search of Social Change. CESO, the Netherlands, 1989: 44
[35] Mai Andin, The Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines, Tunay na Alyansa ng Bayan Alay sa Katutubo, Quezon City, November 2003
[36] Ibid.
[37] Marili Fernandez-Ilagan. “Random Thoughts of a Mindanaoan Artist” A paper read at the 2nd Conference for Asian Women and Theater: National Arts Center, Mt. Makiling, Laguna. 2000
[38] Sinalimba is is production of MCTN’s Davao Association for Popular Aesthetics and Traditions that deserves attention. It is a journey to the roots using indigenous movements, myths and symbols. It is the legendary airboat of Mindanao that features the legendary characters – the monster, the hero, and the princess.
[39] Joanne Tompkins and Julie Holledge “Crafting Theatre” Performing Women/Performing Feminisms: Interviews with International Women Playwrights University of Queensland, Australiasian Drama Studies Association Academic Publications No. 2, 1997: 95-96
[40] Marili Fernandez-Ilagan, “Random Thoughts of a MIndanaoan Artist”
[41] Arthur Casanova. Mga Piling Dulang Mindanao: Unang Aklat: 106
[42] Kaliwat Theatre Collective’s program on Ova, October 1993 (printed)
[43] Marili Fernandez-Ilagan, “Random Thoughts of a MIndanaoan”
[44] Concerned Artists of the Philippines, “Ang Babae sa Ating Panahon” program (printed)
[45] Arthur Casanova. Mga Piling Dulang Mindanao: Unang Aklat: 106
[46] Cap. Project Report to the NCCA. June 2003
[47] Minutes of Ugpaanan assessment. 8 Nobyembre 1993.
[48] Minutes of Sanlibongan forum. 15-16 Nobyembre 2003.