Ethnic minorities tend to have a contentious relationship with state institutions and the national majorities the state in effect represents. 'Indigenous peoples'-the global political term for 'tribal' peoples and other comparable sub-regional minorities (hereafter ip's)-are often specifically excluded or otherwise marginalized in their home countries.1 In Southeast Asia and elsewhere, 'tribal' ip's are typically regarded as the weakest link in the nation's socioeconomic advancement, especially where their cultural distinctiveness is explained in nationalist discourse as primitivity or backwardness (Brosius 2003). Even when their legal citizenship is acknowledged, as ethnic minorities they are never sufficiently 'citizenly' in the eyes of the national majorities that control the state.2 As such, it is common to find the concerns of ip's ignored routinely, and their citizenship delegitimized, ultimately driving them to contest the state's cultural hegemony in the context of what anthropologist Peter Brosius (2003:121) has called 'a politics of desperation'. It is a condition of political and cultural exclusion that structures significantly the way ip's experience 'democracy' , and how they understand, as well as practice, their own citizenship. The Philippines is no exception, where the exclusion of its ip's is implicit in its current historiography, and reiterated in the structure of its government. The notion of the 'Filipino' as citizen monosubject is explicit in nationalist discourse, where the majority is Hispanized and Catholicized, whilst tribal minorities are stereotyped as living fossils of pre-colonial culture, and on some level regarded as racially inferior and mentally deficient.3 Reinforcing their exclusion from mainstream society, ip's are administered separately-a setup that, while originally intended to protect this vulnerable population, has