A Philosophical Analysis of the Bangsamoro Autonomy Act 64 Using Wittgensteinian and Habermasian Perspectives

This study provides a rigorous philosophical examination of the legislative language embedded within the Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 64 (BAA 64) and its impact on the recognition and rights of Non-Moro Indigenous Peoples (NMIPs). By employing a conceptual discourse analysis rooted in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Language-Game Theory and Jürgen Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action, the research systematically evaluates the law's semantic and procedural dimensions. Findings reveal that the BAA 64 suffers from critical semantic ambiguity, forcing a singular, state-centric legal framework over distinct indigenous cultural concepts and diluting their meaning. Furthermore, the study identifies severe procedural ambiguity, noting that the law's drafting favored dominant political structures over genuine, uncoerced communicative rationality. To address these shortcomings, the study proposes normative guidelines—semantic pluralism, dialogical formulation, contextual clarification, and ethical communication—emphasizing that marginalized groups must be treated as co-authoring subjects of legal discourse.

Philosophy

1. Åkebo, M. (2019). Coexistence ceasefire in Mindanao. Peace & Change. https://doi.org/10.1111/pech.12372 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Aktay, M. (2023). Digital communication and the erosion of dialogue. Politikos Journal. https://politikos.org/ojs/index.php/content/article/view/19 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Alampay, E. A., & Gaspar, K. M. (2023). Plural identities and ancestral domains: Revisiting non-Moro IP struggles in the Bangsamoro. Mindanao Policy Journal, 12(1), 33–52. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alcantara, M., & Constantino, E. (2020). Indigenous land rights in the Philippines: A continuing struggle. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 51(2), 155–172. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Almeda, M. I., Umil, A. B., & Narag, R. E. (2023). Indigenous peoples and the Bangsamoro: Struggles for recognition in a shared homeland. Institute for Autonomy and Governance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Almeda, V. L., Sy, J. M. C., Aban, A. P., & Tabiola, H. B. (2023). IPRA: Indigenous people's struggle continues. University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and Development Studies (UP CIDS). https://cids.up.edu.ph/discussion_paper/ipra-indigenous-peoples-struggle-continues/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Amnesty International. (n.d.). Indigenous peoples: Overview. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/indigenous-peoples/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Author. (2015). A communicative approach to educational feedback. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(2), 234–251. (Note: If "Author" was a placeholder, replace it with the actual author's name). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Balgos, B. C. (2024). Critical analysis of the Bangsamoro Indigenous Peoples Act of 2024. Institute of Policy Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Balguilat, C., & Pimentel, R. (2024). Policy report on the Bangsamoro Indigenous Peoples Act. Institute of Autonomy and Governance. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Bangsamoro Parliament. (2024). Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 64: An act recognizing, respecting, protecting, promoting, and fulfilling the rights of Non-Moro Indigenous Peoples in the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. https://parliament.bangsamoro.gov.ph/legislation/bangsamoro-autonomy-act-no-64/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bertrand, J. (2004). Nationalism and ethnic conflict in Indonesia. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Biletzki, A., & Matar, A. (2020). Ludwig Wittgenstein. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Chukwuokolo, J., Jeko, C., & Nwankwo, A. (2024). Habermas and deliberative democracy in post-colonial governance. Journal of African Social Sciences and Development. https://acjol.org/index.php/jassd/article/view/5118 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. CNN Philippines. (2018, July 26). Duterte signs Bangsamoro Organic Law. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Conflict monitoring report finds uptick in BARMM violence ahead of 2025 elections. (n.d.). PressOnePH. https://pressone.ph/conflict-monitoring-report-finds-uptick-in-barmm-violence-ahead-of-2025-elections/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Degrowth. (n.d.). State-prescribed (re)productivity: The Philippine legislation on the rights of indigenous peoples and local crisis. https://degrowth.info/en/library/state-prescribed-re-productivity-the-philippine-legislation-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-and-local-crisis [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Ellaway, R. H. (2021). Language games and scholarly writing. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 26(4), 1187–1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-021-10069-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières. (n.d.). Philippines: Experts warn: Infirmities in proposed IP Code could undermine inclusive peace and development in BARMM. https://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article72342 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Fernandez, E. (2024). BARMM chief signs landmark law for indigenous people. Philippine News Agency. https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1239798 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Flynn, J. (2020). Communicative action and public deliberation in digital spaces. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 46(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719872291 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, (25/26), 56–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Funnell, S., Jull, J., Mbuagbaw, L., Welch, V., Dewidar, O., Wang, X., Lesperance, M., Ghogomu, E., Rizvi, A., Akl, E. A., Avey, M. T., Antequera, A., Bhuta, Z. A., Chamberlain, C., Craig, P., Cuervo, L. G., Dicko, A., Ellingwood, H., Feng, C., . . . Young, T. (2023). Improving social justice in observational studies: Protocol for the development of a global and indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-023-01854-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Gaffal, M. (2024). Wittgenstein’s concept of language games from a linguistic and analytical perspective. In J. Padilla Gálvez & M. Gaffal (Eds.), The many faces of language games (pp. 61–90). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111577562-004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Glock, H. J. (2015). A Wittgenstein dictionary. Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Hacker, P. M. S. (2001). Wittgenstein: Meaning and mind (Vol. 3). Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Hacker, P. M. S. (2019). Wittgenstein: Meaning and mind. Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Hallett, G. L. (1970). Notes and comments: Did Wittgenstein really define 'meaning'? The Heythrop Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2265.1970.tb00775.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Honneth, A. (1991). The critique of power: Reflective stages in a critical social theory. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Institute of Autonomy and Governance. (2024). Analysis of the Bangsamoro Indigenous Peoples Act: Implications for Non-Moro IPs. Mindanao Policy Review, 15(2), 45–67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Institute of Autonomy and Governance. (2024). Legal review: BTA Bill No. 273, the Bangsamoro Indigenous Peoples Development Act of 2024. https://www.iag.org.ph/think/1988-legal-review-bta-bill-no-273-the-bangsamoro-indigenous-peoples-development-act-of-2024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Isaac, O. D., Ojukwu, C. C., & Alade, B. A. (2021). Ludwig Wittgenstein on language games: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 5(4), 66–72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Kinsella, S. M. (2023). Wittgenstein and constitutional interpretation: Law as a language-game. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 47(2), 111–130. https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/lawreview/vol47/iss2/1/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Legarda honors Father Tentorio, hails his work for IPs. (n.d.). Loren Legarda. https://lorenlegarda.com.ph/legarda-honors-father-tentorio-hails-his-work-for-ips/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. MacIntyre, A. (1988). Whose justice? Which rationality? University of Notre Dame Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Mapa, D. S. (2023, February 22). Religious affiliation in the Philippines (2020 Census of Population and Housing) [Press release]. Philippine Statistics Authority. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Meehan, J. (2000). Feminist critiques of discourse ethics. In J. Meehan (Ed.), Feminists read Habermas (pp. 1–25). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process. (2015). Panukalang Batas Blg. 4994 [PDF]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Olasunkanmi, A. (2020). Communicative action and peacebuilding in African societies. MAJOP, 3(1). https://bsum.edu.ng/journals/majop/vol3n1/article4.php [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Oxfam Philippines. (2017). Bridging the gap: Land rights and indigenous communities in the Philippines. Oxfam International. https://philippines.oxfam.org/policy_paper/land-rights-IPs [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. PeaceBuilders Community, Inc. (n.d.). Revisiting the GRP-MILF MOA on AD. https://www.peacebuilderscommunity.org/statements/REVISITING%20THE%20GRP-MILF%20MOA%20ON%20AD.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Philippine Congress. (1997). Republic Act No. 8371: Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997. https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1997/10/29/republic-act-no-8371/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Quilala, D. (2020). Minority rights vs. minority rights: The case of indigenous peoples’ rights in the new Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. Social Science Asia, 6(4), 21–37. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Rehg, W. (2022). Between facts and norms in public reasoning: Revisiting Habermas in the 21st century. Journal of Political Philosophy, 30(2), 174–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12235 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Ricoeur, P. (1971). The model of the text: Meaningful action considered as a text. Social Research, 38(3), 529–562. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Skollerhorn, E. (1998). Habermas's theory of communicative action and the cultural politics of environmentalism. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 41(3), 345–363. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Blackwell Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. World Bank. (2023). Indigenous peoples overview. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/indigenouspeoples [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Aristotelian Ethics and Moral Development: A Critical Evaluation
• Decolonising Africa’s Higher Education against violence and social injustices.
• The African Child as a Technological Citizen
• Mathematics as Ontological–Cognitive Participation: Reconstructing Ethical and Metaphysical Foundations within a Humanized Mathematical Universe
• Reason–Emotion Integration in the Context of Artificial Intelligence: The Implications of Aristotle’s Conception of Happiness for Youth Moral Education