Page 1303
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Indigenous communities have long depended on culturally rooted systems to manage disputes and sustain social
harmony. This study examined the historical development of land conflict resolution in Liwon, Asipulo, Ifugao,
focusing on traditional mechanisms, their transformation, and the cultural values that continue to guide
community-based justice. Using a historical research design, data were collected through interviews with elders
and supported by secondary sources. Findings revealed that land disputes were traditionally resolved through
elder mediation, bultong or ritual wrestling, and uggub or dart ordeal, all of which emphasized ancestral
authority, communal participation, and reconciliation. These mechanisms gradually changed after Asipulo
became an independent municipality in 1992 and as cadastral surveys, land titling programs, and formal legal
procedures were
introduced. Ritual-based systems shifted from judicial use to cultural expression, while the tongtongan emerged
as a hybrid process combining traditional dialogue with barangay-level legal requirements. Despite these
transformations, values such as pihyew or moral restraint, binnaddang or collective cooperation, respect for
elders, and the prioritization of harmony remain central to resolving conflicts. Future research may explore how
other Indigenous communities adapt their conflict resolution systems amid changing legal and cultural
environments.
ancestral practices, conflict resolution, cultural values, indigenous justice, reduced inequalities
Conflict is a universal aspect of social life and, when managed constructively, can promote cooperation and
social transformation (Ragandang, 2018). Conflict resolution therefore plays a critical role in maintaining social
harmony, encompassing negotiation, mediation, and other processes aimed at de-escalation and mutual
understanding (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2019). Recent research emphasizes the importance of culturally grounded
and community-based approaches, particularly in Indigenous settings where traditions and relationships shape
the dynamics of dispute settlement (Rakgwata & Tumelo, 2024).
Across the world, informal and restorative systems have gained recognition for their participatory and
reconciliatory nature. Restorative justice frameworks prioritize accountability and relationship repair over
punishment, with studies demonstrating their effectiveness in reducing recidivism and strengthening community
cohesion (Herman, 2017; Shem-Tov et al., 2024; Hobson, 2022). These principles closely align with the long-
standing dispute-resolution practices of Indigenous Cultural Communities, where dialogue, ritual, and elder
mediation remain central and resilient despite modernization pressures (Ubink, 2018; Tohari, 2025).
In the Philippines, numerous Indigenous groups continue to uphold customary justice traditions. The bodong of
the Kalinga operates as a peace pact system (Ragandang, 2018), while mankusjon among the Ibaloi relies on
elder-led settlements recognized alongside state mechanisms (Panaten et al., 2023). Similarly, the tampuda hu
balagen of the Manobo employs ritualized reconciliation between clans (Ragandang, 2018). These practices
emphasize consensus-building, elder authority, and restorative values—elements also embedded in the
Indigenous justice systems of the Cordillera. Their continued relevance is affirmed in national frameworks such
as the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997.
Page 1304
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Despite this significance, Indigenous conflict resolution remains underexplored in Philippine scholarship, with
existing studies focusing more on heritage and ritual than on dispute-management systems that sustain social
order. There is a need for deeper historical analysis, as Indigenous mechanisms evolve in response to
colonization, state law, and local governance.
Guided by this gap, the present study examines the historical development of land conflict resolution in Liwon,
Asipulo, Ifugao. By documenting traditional mechanisms, tracing their transformation, and identifying the
cultural values that persist, the study contributes to cultural preservation, community empowerment, and broader
discussions on restorative and Indigenous justice. More importantly, it affirms that Indigenous conflict resolution
is not a relic of the past but a living system that continues to guide communities toward harmony and resilience.
This study aimed to examine the historical development of land conflict resolution in Liwon, Asipulo, Ifugao.
Specifically, it sought to:
1. Describe the traditional land conflict resolution mechanisms practiced in Asipulo;
2. Analyze how these traditional mechanisms have changed or transformed over time; and
3. Identify the cultural values that have persisted despite these transformations.
This study is grounded in the understanding that conflict resolution is both a cultural and social process that
evolves across time while remaining deeply rooted in the moral, spiritual, and communal values of Indigenous
societies. In Liwon, Asipulo, Ifugao, traditional mechanisms of dispute settlement serve not only as practical
means of resolving disagreements but also as instruments for preserving social order, transmitting moral values,
and strengthening cultural identity. To analyze the continuity, evolution, and relevance of these practices, the
study draws on four complementary frameworks: Restorative Justice Theory, Conflict Transformation Theory,
Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs), and Legal Pluralism. Together, these perspectives
illuminate how indigenous conflict resolution systems remain culturally grounded, socially significant, and
resilient amid shifting legal and societal contexts.
Restorative Justice Theory provides a lens for understanding how indigenous mechanisms emphasize healing,
accountability, and the restoration of relationships rather than punitive action. Herman (2017) argued that
restorative justice seeks to repair harm and rebuild trust through inclusive dialogue, while Pavlacic, Kellum, and
Schulenberg (2022) demonstrated that restorative processes promote empathy and cohesion by actively
involving all affected parties. These principles resonate strongly with Indigenous contexts, where rituals,
communal participation, and moral responsibility are central to dispute settlement. As noted by Hewitt (2016)
and further illustrated by studies such as those published in the California Law Review (2023), Indigenous justice
practices predate colonial systems and reflect longstanding cultural traditions that prioritize harmony,
reconciliation, and collective well-being.
Conflict Transformation Theory reinforces this culturally grounded perspective by framing conflict as a dynamic
process that can lead to constructive social change. Lederach (1997, 2014) emphasized that sustainable peace
emerges not from suppressing conflict but from transforming the relationships, structures, and historical tensions
that produce it. This involves addressing emotional, relational, and cultural dimensions of disputes while
fostering dialogue and rebuilding trust. Bloomfield, Fischer, and Schmelzle (2006) similarly argued that genuine
peacebuilding requires long-term transformation rather than temporary settlement. In the context of Liwon, the
community’s use of rituals, consensus-building, and dialogue exemplifies how indigenous practices go beyond
resolving immediate disputes to restore social balance and reinforce enduring communal harmony.
Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices (IKSPs) further ground the study by highlighting the
intergenerational knowledge, moral values, and governance traditions that shape community life. Abdo (2024)
described IKSPs as holistic epistemologies transmitted through oral tradition, lived experience, and collective
participation. These systems guide community relationships, resource management, and mechanisms of social
regulation. Rakgwata and Tumelo (2024) and Nakyam (2023) showed that IKSP-based conflict resolution
Page 1305
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
emphasizes reciprocity, empathy, and mutual responsibility, underscoring its restorative and relational nature.
Scholarship by Garing et al. (2023) and Teshale (2014) added that indigenous governance systems foster
resilience, solidarity, and cultural legitimacy, enabling communities to sustain social cohesion even amid external
pressures.
Legal Pluralism also provides the analytical lens for understanding how indigenous conflict resolution systems
persist within the broader Philippine legal framework. This perspective recognizes the coexistence of state law
and customary law, allowing Indigenous communities to exercise their own culturally grounded mechanisms
alongside formal institutions. Legal pluralist approaches explain how traditional practices adapt to changing
contexts without losing their moral authority or cultural significance. This framework is essential for examining
the contemporary relevance of Liwon’s practices, particularly in navigating the interplay between customary
norms, national legislation, and modern governance structures.
Taken together, these four frameworks offer an integrated and culturally sensitive foundation for examining the
conflict resolution mechanisms of Liwon. Restorative Justice highlights the healing-oriented nature of
indigenous practices; Conflict Transformation illuminates their capacity to rebuild relationships and foster long-
term harmony; IKSPs situate these practices within rich cultural and epistemological traditions; and Legal
Pluralism explains their endurance and adaptability within a modern legal environment. Through these
interconnected perspectives, the study provides a nuanced understanding of how the people of Liwon sustain
peace, resolve disputes, and preserve cultural identity through their enduring and evolvingindigenous conflict
resolution practices.
The framework illustrates how traditional land conflict resolution mechanisms in Liwon serve as the foundation
from which contemporary transformations emerged. It shows that while these mechanisms have adapted over
time in response to social, legal, and cultural changes, their core principles remain intact. The lower component
highlights the enduring values such as harmony, respect for elders, and communal dialogue that continue to
guide conflict resolution despite these transformations. Overall, the diagram emphasizes both change and
continuity within the community’s indigenous justice practices.
Conflict is a universal aspect of human interaction that emerges when individuals or groups hold differing needs,
values, or interests. Rather than viewing conflict as purely destructive, scholars argue that it can foster
cooperation and social transformation when managed constructively (Ragandang, 2018). This understanding has
led to various approaches to conflict resolution through negotiation, mediation, and arbitration that aim to de-
escalate disputes and prevent future tensions (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2019). Recent studies further highlight the
importance of culturally grounded and context-sensitive approaches, particularly in communities where social
relationships and traditions influence how conflicts unfold (Rakgwata & Tumelo, 2024). Informal and
community-based systems often prove more accessible and participatory than formal legal mechanisms,
allowing communities to address disputes in ways that align with their local norms and values.
Globally, the movement toward reconciliatory and relationship-oriented processes is evident in restorative justice
frameworks, which prioritize healing, accountability, and the repair of social bonds. Empirical studies show that
Page 1306
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
restorative practices can reduce recidivism, promote empathy, and strengthen community cohesion (Herman,
2017; Shem-Tov, Raphael, & Skog, 2024; Hobson, 2022). These principles closely reflect Indigenous justice
systems which have long used rituals, dialogue, and collective decision-making to maintain harmony and restore
balance (Ubink, 2018). According to Tohari (2025), Indigenous conflict resolution mechanisms remain resilient
despite modernization pressures and continue to influence contemporary discussions on justice because they
reinforce community identity and social cohesion.
In the Philippines, Indigenous Cultural Communities continue to uphold customary conflict resolution practices
that work alongside state legal institutions. The bodong peace pact system of the Kalinga, the mankusjon
mediation of the Ibaloi, and the tampuda hu balagen reconciliation ritual of the Manobo illustrate the significance
of elder authority, communal participation, and restorative values in Indigenous dispute settlement (Ragandang,
2018; Panaten et al., 2023). In the Cordillera, elder-led assemblies persist in resolving disputes involving land,
marriage, and interpersonal relationships, reflecting traditions rooted in consensus-building and collective
responsibility (Prill-Brett, 2017). Despite their importance, these mechanisms remain underexamined in
Philippine scholarship, with most studies focusing on heritage and ritual rather than on Indigenous systems of
dispute management. This gap underscores the need for documenting and analyzing conflict resolution practices
in communities such as Liwon in Asipulo, where historical mechanisms have evolved in response to
colonization, state law, and modernization while preserving enduring cultural values that sustain community
harmony.
Research Design
This study employed a historical–narrative qualitative design to document and interpret the evolution of land
conflict resolution practices in Liwon, Asipulo, Ifugao. This design allowed the reconstruction of past events,
customs, and dispute-settlement processes based on community memory and oral tradition, emphasizing
continuity and change in Indigenous mechanisms.
Research Locale
The research was conducted in Barangay Liwon, the newest barangay of Asipulo, located in a mountainous
agricultural area where gardening and rice farming are predominant. Frequent land-related disputes and the
sustained reliance on elders for settlement made the locale suitable for examining Indigenous conflict resolution.
Participants
Using snowball sampling, three (3) elder participants—all aged 60 and above, long-term residents, and
recognized cultural authorities—were identified as key custodians of local history and customary law. Their
involvement in past disputes or community decision-making qualified them as credible sources. All participation
was voluntary.
Data Collection
Data were gathered through semi-structured, face-to-face interviews conducted in the local dialect. Each
interview lasted 45–60 minutes and took place in participants’ homes or customary meeting areas, depending on
their preference. After explaining the study’s purpose, written informed consent was secured. With permission,
interviews were audio-recorded to ensure accuracy and later transcribed verbatim.
Data Analysis
The study used thematic analysis. First, open coding was applied to identify initial concepts from the transcripts.
These codes were then organized through axial coding to connect categories and refine relationships. Finally,
thematic coding was performed to develop overarching themes that captured continuity, transformation, and the
cultural values underlying conflict resolution practices. Themes were compared against secondary literature and
interpreted through restorative justice, conflict theory, and Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Practices.
Page 1307
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
Trustworthiness
Reliability and credibility were enhanced through peer debriefing, cross-checking of codes, and comparison of
emerging themes with existing ethnographic and historical accounts. Member-sense checking was conducted
informally by revisiting key points with participants for clarification.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from community elders and barangay leadership before fieldwork. Participants
were informed of their rights, including confidentiality, anonymity, and the option to withdraw at any point.
Coded identifiers were used in transcripts, and all data were securely stored and used solely for academic
purposes. Cultural protocols were followed throughout data collection to ensure respect for Indigenous
knowledge and avoid misrepresentation.
Results
The findings reveal that traditional land conflict resolution in Liwon continues to rely heavily on customary
mechanisms rooted in ancestral authority, communal participation, and spiritually guided processes.
Respondents consistently emphasized that boundary disputes were historically resolved through elder mediation.
They explained that whenever conflicts emerged, “kamun waday lili ni karuba di puyek, daka paayag ida i
Nangka-ama et pan-uungbalan da nu hipa i pahding da nunta puyek ni daka pan-piliwi,” indicating that
respected elders were summoned to discuss the contested area. Elders familiar with the land were invited to
recall inherited boundaries based on ancestral memory, with testimonies and place-based recollections serving
as the main evidence. Participants noted that the community preferred elders residing near or within the disputed
area because they possessed deeper knowledge of the land’s history and earlier agreements.
When mediation failed to produce reconciliation, the disputants resorted to bultong, a customary wrestling ordeal
used to determine rightful ownership. Respondents recounted, “kamun talagan andi kamanpabigay di
nansinumbangir, ida kamanbultung et nangamung huta mangabak, yaman i maunud,” indicating that whoever
won the wrestling match would establish the boundary. They further described the rules governing the process,
stating, “kamun hipa huta nangabak, mabalin ni higatu i mangitudu ni barbarun pegpeg or weno mabalin
muwan ni nu tula huta nangipikpikan tu nunta kabultung tu, hiyaman law i pangiilawan da nunta barbarun
pegpeg,” referring to two possible outcomes: either the winner drew a new line or the point where the opponent
was pinned became the new marker. Respondents added that for uneven matches, representatives could be
chosen, but only after a ritual performed by the mumbaki, who examined the sacrificed chicken’s bile to
determine divine approval.
Another customary ordeal mentioned by the respondents was uggub, a ritualized dart contest used when both
parties refused to yield. Participants explained that uggub involved each disputant taking turns throwing a pal-
ut dart at one another’s back after invoking the deities. According to their accounts, the representative who
successfully struck the opponent’s back was declared the rightful owner of the contested land. Respondents
emphasized that missing the target invalidated the throw, and the process was repeated until a clear winner
emerged. They stated that this ritual was understood as a sacred test guided by ancestral spirits rather than
violence, and the outcome was accepted as divine judgment.
The results also show that land conflict resolution in Liwon began transforming after Asipulo became an
independent municipality in 1992 through Republic Act 7173. Respondents recalled significant changes
following the establishment of formal administrative structures. One elder noted, “nailugin nasukatan ida ta
datin ugali nunta simukat ni mayor hi Mr. Carlos Gumangan Sr… in-uunud da ta huta kapahding idan i-
Kiangan… in-ayag dad barangyan et diman nan-uungbalan mi,” describing how disputes were increasingly
brought to the barangay rather than settled solely through elder mediation. Participants consistently mentioned
that cadastral surveys, land titling, and tax declarations introduced new standards of evidence. Written documents
prepared by municipal assessors, DENR personnel, and survey teams began replacing ancestral memory as the
Page 1308
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
authoritative basis for determining boundaries.
Respondents observed that traditional mechanisms such as mediation, bultong, and uggub gradually lost juridical
authority and became confined to cultural events, particularly during the Kulpi ad Asipulo festival. They narrated
that these practices were eventually performed as heritage demonstrations rather than dispute-settling rituals.
Elders acknowledged that younger generations preferred barangay procedures, written agreements, and survey-
based documentation. As one respondent explained, “wada law i linteg ni gubilnu ni masapul pa-title iday puyek
isunga nalaklaka law ni maiayus iday pegpeg ni puyek,” indicating that government titling programs now
provided more definitive ways of settling land boundaries.
The results further show the emergence of the tongtongan, a hybrid mechanism combining traditional
deliberation with formal barangay documentation. Respondents described it as a process where elders continued
guiding the discussion according to customary ethics while barangay officials ensured that agreements were
documented and aligned with state procedures. This hybrid approach preserved aspects of indigenous
reconciliation but adhered to the requirements of the Katarungang Pambarangay system.
The findings demonstrate that Liwon’s traditional mechanisms—elder mediation, bultong, and uggub—
functioned historically as community-anchored institutions rooted in restorative justice, ancestral memory, and
spiritual sanction. The prominence of elder mediation affirms the centrality of customary authority, reflecting
what Villaluz et al. (2023) also observed among the Talaandig, where elders’ legitimacy derives from cultural
competence rather than formal power. The reliance on ancestral memory and oral testimonies underscores the
role of elders as “living archives,” echoing broader patterns in indigenous justice systems across the Philippines.
The documented use of bultong and uggub aligns with accounts of ordeal-based customs described by
Ragandang (2018), who noted that physical contests historically served as culturally legitimate methods for
determining truth when reconciliation failed. These mechanisms embody restorative justice by producing
outcomes recognized as spiritually sanctioned and publicly witnessed by the community. Their reliance on ritual,
kinship ties, and sacred invocation reveals a worldview in which conflict resolution is inseparable from
spirituality and communal moral order.
The transformation observed after 1992 reflects the impact of legal pluralism, where formal state systems
increasingly overshadow customary authority. The respondents’ narratives coincide with Tanjung’s (2024)
analysis that state law privileges written documents, cadastral maps, and technical measurements, often
marginalizing indigenous oral histories. The introduction of municipal governance, cadastral surveys, and titling
programs reshaped local conceptions of justice by shifting legitimacy from elders’ memory to documentary
evidence. This mirrors global patterns documented in studies such as Reumi (2019), which found that indigenous
communities increasingly view state mechanisms as more transparent and procedurally consistent than
customary systems.
The decline of bultong and uggub as juridical tools and their transformation into cultural heritage performances
illustrate the process of recontextualization, where traditions are preserved symbolically but lose practical legal
authority. This pattern is further supported by Calde (2021) and Britanico et al. (2022), who observed that formal
titling systems weaken customary claims by subordinating oral traditions to state-recognized property
instruments. In Liwon, this has resulted in a gradual shift toward individual documentation, reflecting broader
trends of commodification and bureaucratization of land relations under national legislation, including Republic
Acts 11573 and 11953.
The emergence of the tongtongan as a hybrid mechanism demonstrates community adaptation. By integrating
customary deliberation with barangay documentation, Liwon preserves elements of ancestral ethics such as
dialogue, sincerity, mutual respect, while ensuring that settlements meet legal requirements. This reflects a
pragmatic response to legal pluralism, allowing indigenous values to coexist with the demands of the modern
state. The tongtongan thus represents not only cultural adaptation but also community resilience in navigating
competing systems of legitimacy.
Page 1309
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
The traditional mechanisms of conflict resolution in Liwon were deeply rooted in communal participation,
spiritual grounding, and the moral authority of elders, enabling disputes particularly land-related conflicts, to be
resolved through collective dialogue and mutual accountability. While the introduction of formal state
procedures reshaped these Indigenous systems, they were not displaced; rather, they evolved into hybrid forms
such as the tongtongan, where customary deliberation coexists with barangay-level processes. This adaptive
continuity demonstrates the resilience of Indigenous frameworks in sustaining harmony, justice, and social
cohesion.
Theoretically, the findings illustrate how the Liwon experience enriches the discourse on restorative justice by
showing that restoration in Indigenous contexts extends beyond interpersonal reconciliation to include land
stewardship, kinship ties, and spiritual responsibility. The hybrid model observed in Liwon challenges
conventional restorative justice theory by demonstrating that state mechanisms and Indigenous practices can
coexist, interact, and reinforce each other rather than functioning as opposing systems.
Practically, the study suggests that the tongtongan can serve as a viable community-based approach for land
governance, particularly in rural or upland settings where state processes may be slow, inaccessible, or culturally
misaligned. Its emphasis on dialogue, consensus, and relational repair provides a culturally grounded model that
can complement barangay and municipal conflict-resolution bodies.
In terms of policy, the findings point to the need for stronger institutional support from the National Commission
on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and local government units to formalize and protect hybrid mechanisms. This
includes recognizing customary mediators, integrating Indigenous processes into barangay-level dispute
systems, and ensuring that land-related policies do not undermine cultural practices.
Limitations of the study include its small sample size, reliance on three key elders, and the specificity of the
Liwon context, which may limit generalizability to other Indigenous communities. The historical–narrative
design also depends heavily on memory-based accounts, which may be influenced by recall gaps or personal
interpretations.
Future research could explore comparative studies among other Ifugao or Cordillera communities to assess
variations in hybrid mechanisms, evaluate the effectiveness of tongtongan in resolving contemporary land
disputes, and examine how younger generations perceive and participate in customary conflict resolution.
Further investigation into the legal interface between Indigenous governance and state law would also deepen
understanding of how hybrid systems can be strengthened and institutionalized.
Overall, the study affirms that Indigenous conflict resolution practices in Liwon remain vital, adaptive, and
culturally grounded, offering valuable insights for both theoretical development and practical application in land
governance and community-based justice.
The author expresses profound gratitude to the elders of Liwon, Asipulo, whose wisdom, narratives, and
generosity in sharing their lived experiences provided the cultural foundation of this study. Their contributions
enriched the research with depth and authenticity.
Sincere appreciation is extended to Dr. Fe Yolanda G. Del Rosario for her guidance, encouragement, and critical
insights, which greatly strengthened the development and completion of this work.
The author also acknowledges the support of the community members, local leaders, and all individuals who
offered their time, trust, and cooperation. Their assistance and openness made this research possible.
The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest related to the research titled “From Ritual to Dialogue:
Page 1310
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
The Evolution of Indigenous Land Conflict Resolution Mechanisms”. The study was conducted independently,
without any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that could be perceived as influencing the research
design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of findings.
1. Abdo, M. R. (2024). Conflict resolution through Indigenous knowledge systems: The case of the
Gumuz community in northwest Ethiopia. Africa Review, 16(4), 353–367.
https://doi.org/10.1163/09744061-00000001
2. Bercovitch, J., & Jackson, R. (2009). Conflict resolution in the twenty-first century: Principles, methods,
and approaches. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.106467
3. Bloomfield, D., Fischer, M., & Schmelzle, B. (2006). Social change and conflict transformation. Berghof
Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management. https://berghof-
foundation.org/library/social-change-and-conflict-transformation
4. Calde, N. L. (2021). Customary laws, ancestral land titling and the NCIP’s quasi judicial powers. The
Cordillera Review. https://thecordillerareview.upb.edu.ph/abstract/customary-laws-ancestral-land-
titling-and-the-ncips-quasi-judicial-powers/
5. Dayson, C. J. P., Ayo, J. P. D., Equipado, B. D., Polon, J. H., Buban, R. G., & Digo, G. S. (2024). A
systematic review and meta-synthesis of Indigenous Filipino values in educational leadership.
Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences), 17(4), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.14456/jcdr-hs.2024.24
6. Garcia, M. A. (2019). Restorative justice in action: The Kalinga experience. International Journal of
Research and Development Organization,5(1),45–56.
https://www.ijrdo.org/index.php/sshr/article/view/3030
7. Garing, J., Firdaus, W., Herianah, H., Ridwan, M., Erniati, E., Budiono, S., & Pariela, T. D. (2023).
Identifying and resolving conflicts using local wisdom: A qualitative study. Journal of
Intercultural Communication, 23(4), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.36923/jicc.v23i3.156
8. Herman, D. H. J. (2017). Restorative justice and retributive justice: An opportunity for cooperation or an
occasion for conflict in the search for justice. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 16(1), Article 11.
https://www.antoniocasella.eu/restorative/Hermann_2017.pdf
9. Hobson, J. M. (2022). Unmasking the racism of orthodox international relations/international political
economy theory. Security Dialogue, 53(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/09670106211061084
10. Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United States
Institute of Peace Press. https://www.usip.org/publications/1997/01/building-peace-sustainable-
reconciliation-divided-societies
11. Lederach, J. P. (2014). The little book of conflict transformation: Clear articulation of the guiding
principles. Good Books. https://professorbellreadings.wordpress.com/wp content/uploads/2017/10/the-
little-books-of-justice-peacebuilding- john-lederach-the-little-book-of-conflict-transformation-good-
books-2014- 1.pdf
12. Panaten, G. B., Fabian, J. P., Almoite, J. C., Sagalla, A. J. S., & Rufino, Z. V. (2023). Mankusjon—
Traditional Ibaloi settlement of disputes in aid of the Philippine criminal justice system.
International Journal of Novel Research and Development,
8(9).https://www.ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2309164.pdf
13. Pavlacic, J. M., Kellum, K. K., & Schulenberg, S. E. (2022). Advocating for the use of restorative
justice practices: Examining the overlap between restorative justice and behavior analysis.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 15(4), 1237– 1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00632-1
14. Perez, P. L. (2021). Governing Indigenous people: Indigenous persons in government implementing the
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act. The Cordillera Review, 1(2), 53–85.
https://thecordillerareview.upb.edu.ph/abstract/governing- indigenous-people-indigenous-persons-in-
government-implementing-the-indigenous-peoples-rights-act/
15. Ragandang, P. I. C. (2018). Philippines: A review of the traditional conflict resolution practices among
indigenous cultural communities. Conflict Studies Quarterly, 23(4), 78–90.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324911820_Philippines_A_Review_of_the_Traditional_Conf
lict_Resolution_Practices_Among_Indigenous_Cultural_Communities
Page 1311
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue XI November 2025
16. Rakgwata, P. A., & Tumelo, S. (2024). Conflict resolution in Indigenous communities: A social work
perspective. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 13(10), 68–77.
https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v13i10.3789
17. San Jose, A., Sarno, J. M., Magonalig, C., Laro, A., & Deseo, J. A. (2019). Customary conflict
resolutions among tribes: Young Indigenous Peoples’ perspectives in focus. SPAMAST Research
Journal, 2(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.64656/spamastrj.v2i1.10
18. Shem-Tov, Y., Raphael, S., & Skog, A. (2024). Can restorative justice conferencing reduce
recidivism? Evidence from the Make-It- Right program. Econometrica, 92(1), 61–78.
https://www.capolicylab.org/wp- content/uploads/2024/01/Can-Restorative-Justice-Conferencing-
Reduce-Recidivism-Evidence-from-the-Make-it-Right-Program-1.pdf
19. Syaufi, A., Zahra, A. F., & Mursidah. (2021). The criminal settlement through customary law from
a restorative justice perspective. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 1–12.
https://www.abacademies.org/articles/the-criminal-settlement-through- customary- law-from-
restorative-justice-perspective-11469.html
20. Tanjung, M. A. (2023). Legal pluralism and indigenous justice systems: An anthropological analysis.
Jurnal Ar Ro’is Mandalika (ARMADA),3(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.59613/armada.v3i2.2838
21. Teshale, T. (2014). The role of Indigenous knowledge systems and institutions in conflict resolution
among pastoralists of Kenya-Uganda border area [Doctoral dissertation, Addis Ababa University].
https://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/12345678/386
22. Tohari, A. (2025). The role of local wisdom in creating peace and social harmony in villages:
Cultural and traditional perspectives. Jurnal Konseling dan Pendidikan, 13(1), 316–325.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394908077_The_role_of_local_wi sdom_i
n_creating_peace_and_social_harmony_in_villages_cultural_and_traditional_perspectives
23. Ty, E., & Bibon-Ruiz, S. (2015). Indigenous peoples, conflicts, and peacebuilding: A case study of the
Aetas of Central Philippines. Asia Pacific World, 6(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.14227/apw/6.1.2015.5
24. Ubink, J. (2018). The complexity of legal pluralist settings. In O. Zenker & M. V. Hoehne (Eds.), The
state and the paradox of customary law in Africa (pp. 213–226). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315552491-9
