The recent decision by the Court of Appeals to uphold the guilty verdict against a group dubbed the 'Talaingod 13' has ignited a fierce debate over indigenous education, state responsibility, and the interpretation of child protection laws in the Philippines.
Rights Network Decries 'Criminalization' of Volunteer Teachers
In a strong statement released on December 30, 2025, the Save Our Schools (SOS) Network denounced the appellate court's ruling. The court affirmed the 2024 decision of the Tagum City Regional Trial Court Branch 2, which found the group guilty of violating the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (Republic Act No. 7610).
The SOS Network, a coalition focused on children's right to education, argued that the ruling represents the continued criminalization of Lumad volunteer teachers and community advocates. "These are individuals who answered a calling to teach, care for, and defend Indigenous children in communities long subjected to neglect, dispossession, and repression by the State," the group stated.
They contend that the conviction occurred "under the guise of child protection" and is a product of the government's historical failure to provide accessible education in remote indigenous communities. The network highlighted that for decades, Lumad children in Talaingod and across Mindanao faced structural exclusion from the public school system due to persistent state neglect.
Indigenous Council Hails Decision, Rejects 'Talaingod 13' Label
In stark contrast, the Indigenous Political Structure (IPS) of Talaingod, the recognized governing body of the Ata-Manobo community, publicly praised the Court of Appeals' affirmation. Datu Allan Causing, the Talaingod Ancestral Domain Management Officer, presented their position on the December 26, 2025 episode of Kapihan sa DavNor on PTV DavNor 48.
The IPS emphasized that the convicted individuals should not be called the "Talaingod 13," as none are residents of Talaingod nor represent the Indigenous community. They stated the label unfairly links the town's name to actions they say harmed local children and culture.
"The Indigenous Political Structure (IPS) of Talaingod wants to make it clear that these criminals are not on a rescue mission as they want the public to believe but are criminals who violated the law of the Philippine Government and our own Customary Law," their statement read. The council rejected characterizing the group as human rights defenders, insisting their actions violated both national law and Indigenous customary law.
Clashing Narratives on Justice and Counterinsurgency
The two sides present fundamentally different interpretations of the legal outcome and its context. The SOS Network frames the ruling as an extension of state repression and counterinsurgency efforts, arguing it legitimizes the dismantling of community-built Lumad schools. They connect the schools' establishment to broader issues of land grabbing, militarization, and the opening of ancestral domains to extractive industries.
Conversely, the IPS underscores its authority under the Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (IPRA) to act as the legitimate voice of the Ata-Manobo people. They criticized misleading narratives in some public statements, aligning themselves with the court's findings. The IPS also acknowledged the role of the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict (NTF-ELCAC) in supporting peace and protecting indigenous communities from exploitation.
The Court of Appeals' verdict, based on evidence from a 2018 mission in remote Talaingod, Davao del Norte, concluded that the defendants exposed indigenous children to danger. This case continues to highlight deep-seated tensions between community-led initiatives, state authority, and the protection of indigenous rights in the Philippines.
