Tungtongantiumili

IPRA: A detailed look of what they are saying and how we should
respond.
Only a law of such breadth, depth and scope as R.A. 8371 can provide our
indigenous peoples with the seeds of their empowerment and social equity.
- Philippine President Fidel V. Ramos during the signing of the Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act, 29 October 1997
Or so we thought? Indigenous peoples are among the most disadvantaged
and marginalized human beings on earth. Centuries of colonization have
made them victims of exploitation, and some are even on the verge of
extinction after getting forced out of their ancestral territories.
The modern world has continued this pattern with the introduction of socalled economic development projects such as dams, mining operations,
plantations, eco-tourism, and geothermal plants that have led to the massive
displacement of indigenous peoples. Along with the loss of their land is the
gradual deterioration of their culture and identity.
Recognizing their sad plight, the United Nations spearheaded the drafting of
the Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples in the 1980s. The UN
General Assembly also declared 1995-2004 as the International Decade of
the Worlds Indigenous Peoples and in December 2000, created a Permanent
Forum on Indigenous Issues. All these developments are milestones for
indigenous peoples who have been struggling for decades to win official
recognition in the global community.
In

June

1989,

the

General

Conference

of

the

International

Labour

Organization (ILO) adopted the Convention Concerning the Indigenous and

Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. Known as ILO Convention 169, it is
considered as the only international legal document devoted purely to
indigenous peoples so far. It recognizes their aspirations to exercise control

over their own institutions, ways of life, and economic development and to
maintain and develop their identities, languages and religions, within the
framework of the States in which they live.
In the Philippines, Republic Act No. 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
(IPRA) of 1997 was passed in accordance with the constitutional mandate.
The law defines indigenous cultural communities or indigenous peoples as
descendants from populations that inhabited the Philippines at the time of
colonization and continue to live as homogenous societies in communally
bounded ancestral territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs
and other distinctive cultural traits(Retrieved information: www.ilo.org;
November 15, 2014).
There are no accurate figures on the population of indigenous peoples
because of the lack of any formal census. The most recent figures based on
an unofficial survey conducted by the National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (NCIP) estimates the population of indigenous peoples in the
Philippines to be between 1215 million, but the actual population may be
higher. Indigenous peoples roughly constitute between 1015 per cent of the
total population of the Philippines and are present in 65 of the countrys 78
provinces (Retrieved information: www.ifad.org; November 15, 2014).

POPULATION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES BY REGION

Source: National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
REGION
CAR
Region I
Region II
Region II
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII

POPULATION
1,252,962
1,039,447
1,014,955
227,675
717,122
185,488
145,959
29,150
36,987

Region IX
Region X
Region XI
Region XII
Region XIII
ARMM
TOTAL

1,137,197
1,444,503
2,539,767
855,760
874,456
313,749
11,778,190

While the tribal groups shared a common cultural history, individual groups
developed distinct customs depending on their abilities to adjust to their
respective environment and outside contacts through international trade,
supplies and ideas. Some groups developed more sophisticated societies
than other tribes, especially those in the hinterlands. The Butuanos and
Manobosin the northeastern part of Mindanao became major players in
regional and international trade in the 10th and 11th centuries due to their
superior entrepreneurial drive, seafaring skills and political organization.
Over the centuries, inter-island and inter-tribal trade between lowland
dwellers and highland minorities were common features in the archipelago.
Still, in pre-colonial times, tribal warfare and slave raiding were common
practice.
Throughout Philippine history, the political attitude towards indigenous
peoples and their rights have undergone many changes. During the colonial
period, from 1521, indigenous peoples who were not assimilated into
Christianity were then called and identified as the non-Christian(Rubi vs.
Provincial Board of Mindoro 39 Phil. 660)or savage tribes (Cario v. Insular
Govt.GR No. 2689 March 25, 1909) and thus are the less enlightened
minorities of our population.While the direction seemed clear, it was widely
accepted that the journey to achievetangible results for all indigenous
peoples

would

require

sustained

and

concerted

efforts

by

theIPs,

government, civil society and the international community. Nearly a decade

after the passageof IPRA, it is opportune to take stock of the achievements

and shortfalls of this legislation and themeasures undertaken for its

implementation.
The government uses pecentage higher than 10% (13%-15%), though there
is no clear basis of this percentaging as well. This is a clear indication of the
level of serious interest the government has in identifying the Indigenous
Peoples, and the lack of programmatic approach in identifying the various
forms of discrimination they experience the lack of basic services and
appropriate economic development projects, the overlapping of almost twothirds of extractive projects with ancestral territories, and the state of
poverty of indigenous communities. Indigenous peoples are also victims of
continuous and systematic human rights violations, including community
displacement, torture and extrajudicial killings.
Over generations, the indigenous peoples have been engaged in various
forms of struggles organizing into community organizations, to national
formations representing different indigenous communities; there were groups
who were part of the armed struggle, there were intense international
solidarity work, and there were those who engaged the government and got
involved in policy advocacy work. There were groups, the Indigenous Peoples
groups and the advocates, who were strategically involved in all of these
forms of struggle, at different levels and intensity.
The struggle to have a law that recognized indigenous peoples rights to their
lands was not an easy one. At first, the draft law that was submitted to
Congress sought to remove from the public and private commercial domain
the lands of indigenous peoples. At that time, different indigenous
organizations were consulted. The dictator Marcos was just overthrown, and
it was under the Presidency of Corazon Aquino when the draft law was first
submitted. While the draft was still pending, an administrative order was
issued by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources that
recognized claims by communities, and thus, their territories were delineated

from

other

lands

information:www.customarylandrightssea.wordpress.com

(Retrieved
November

15,2014).
The Promises of IPRA
In 1997, after ten years of lobbying and campaigning, the Indigenous Peoples
Rights Act (IPRA) was passed by the Philippine Congress. The IPRA was
meant to be a corrective legislation, meaning, it sought to address historical
injustices perpetuated against indigenous peoples, and thus contained four
significant aspects: (1) the articulation of the recognition of the right to selfgovernance; (2) the recognition of the bundle of rights held by indigenous
peoples, (3) the establishment of a process for the formal recognition of land
rights through the introduction of the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
(CADT) or Certificate Ancestral Land Title (CALT); and, (4) the establishment
of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the agency
mandated to protect the interest of indigenous peoples. The IPRA more
importantly, translated and applied into law the Supreme Courts decision
in Carino and the recognized the legality of native titles.
Expanding this list, IPRA therefore provided, first, the articulation of
numerous rights that should be afforded to indigenous peoples, which
includes:
1. right of ownership over land and natural resources;
2. right to develop lands and natural resources;
3. right to stay in territories;
4. right in case of displacement;
5. right to regulate the entry of migrants;
6. right to safe and clean air and water;
7. right to claim parts of reservations;
8. right to resolve conflicts;

9. right of redemption;
10. freedom from discrimination in labor;
11. freedom from conflict; and
12. other rights analogous to the foregoing.
This list of rights, as well as other rights found in different laws, have been
used

by

communities

and

non-government

organizations

to

protect

indigenous peoples rights from encroachment. In this way, IPRA was a sentry
that delayed or hampered the entry of unwanted projects into ancestral
territories.
IPRA was also the only legislation that specifically provided for the right of
indigenous peoples to determine their own development, even if there was a
qualification in the 1987 Constitution that such development of communities
must be in accordance with national development. The law specifically states
The State recognizes the inherent right of ICCs/IPs to self-governance and
self-determination and respects the integrity of their values, practices and
institutions. Consequently, the State shall guarantee the right of ICCs/IPs to
freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Ideally, this
would mean that indigenous peoples do not only have the power to
participate in decision-making processes of the State, but going beyond that,
they themselves have the power to determine the fates of their territories
and their lives.
Another introduction of the IPRA that remains to be used as a strategy to
secure land security is the establishment of a formal system that will
recognize ancestral territories. Though in the past land laws in the
Philippines, reference is made to the territories of cultural minorities, and
these laws have always given restrictions on ownership on territories. Some
land laws do not even recognize indigenous ownership, instead, considers
the land as part of agrarian reform or resettlement reservations. Others
would impose limits on the size and expanse of ownership. With IPRA,

communities can apply for a formal title that can be as much as tens of
thousands of hectares, as long as the community can prove time immemorial
possession.
The last, and maybe the most controversial element, of IPRA is the creation
of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples or NCIP. The NCIP has the
mandate to protect and promote the rights of communities. It has the power
to formulate policies and regulations for the proper implementation of IPRA.
It was supposed to be an independent agency whose members were
representatives of indigenous peoples themselves. It also had the power to
determine cases that involved indigenous peoples.
The passage of IPRA was indeed historical. It is a progressive law, moving
away from the regalian doctrine the state control and ownership of land
and other resources.

Thus, IPRA received broad support, with a lot of

indigenous communities and advocates being hopeful that this law can
actually have positive impacts on the lives of the indigenous communities.
There were, some, however, who remained cynical and suspect of how this
law, a product of long and hard negotiations and compromises, can actually
effect meaningful and fundamental changes in the political, economic and
social conditions of the indigenous peoples.
Challenges
In the course of its lifetime, the IPRA has met some very serious challenges,
one of which was the contest to its constitutionality filed by a former
Supreme Court Justice. A year after its passage, in 1998, Justice Isagani Cruz
claimed that the IPRA was contrary to the Regalian Doctrine contained in the
Philippine Constitution, specifically because the IPRA states that indigenous
peoples own the natural resources found within their territories. The
Supreme Court reached a split decision in the case in December 2000. And

by virtue of this ruling deadlock, the IPRA remained to be constitutional. It is

the position of our organization, however, that it is not IPRA that is at the
core of this case. Nor the rights of indigenous peoples, as these rights have
not ceased to exist, and are only awaiting societys ability to recognize them.
What is on trial was the willingness of the State and its people to finally rid
themselves of prejudices and misplaced fears.
Aside from this legal challenge, IPRA faces other challenges which can be
categorized into two: that at the policy-level, and at the implementation
level. At the policy level, government has issued a number of administrative
regulations on the implementation of IPRA. As the years pass, we have seen
in particular, the executive department systematically watering down the
rights

of

indigenous

peoples,

especially

that

of

the

right

to

self-

determination.
Part and parcel of the right to self-determination is the right to free, prior,
and informed consent (FPIC). Since 1997, the National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples or NCIP has revised the rules on FPIC twice, with the
underlying objective to make the entry of extractive projects easier and
faster. The 2006 FPIC Guidelines, for example, was issued to give way to the
commitments made under the Mineral Action Plan of the Philippines,
facilitating the rapid and easy entry of mining projects in ancestral domains
through the so-called harmonization of IPRA with the Philippine Mining Act of
1995. In fact, as of February 2008, almost 60% of projects that have required
FPIC were mining projects, thus, making mining a very relevant issue for
communities.
The government has even further provided for sub-categories within the
indigenous peoples sector that has resulted to more discrimination. FPIC, for
example, is not a right that is afforded to all indigenous peoples. Immigrant
IPs, by default, are not afforded FPIC, for the simple reason that they cannot

claim the land as their ancestral territories. Such is the struggle of the
Ifugaos in Didipio, Nueva Vizcaya, when their FPIC was not taken upon the
entry of a mining project by the simple fact that they are immigrants.
Meanwhile, despite the introduction of the CADT/CALT as mere paper or
formal recognition of indigenous right to land, indigenous peoples still suffer
from tenurial insecurity. This is partly due to the fact that there is either a
real or perceived conflict of land laws and policies, and most often than not,
these laws and policies are interpreted in favor of big businesses, the rich,
and the powerful despite IPRAs requirement that any doubt or ambiguity
in the application of laws shall be resolved in favor of the indigenous
communities.
Throughout Philippine history, various land laws were passed that resulted to
a systematic taking of ancestral territories. The underlying cause of such
laws was to rid government and transnational corporations of communities
that were roadblocks to more profit. As Prof. Owen Lynch pointed out, land
laws were passed during the American era because, Taft and Worcester
were, first and foremost, eager to lure capital into the colony. They believed
that this required them to have total control over the allocation of legal rights
to natural resources. The key elements of their hidden agenda were to keep
the estimates of public land occupants low and ensure that the processes
for recognizing and allocating legal rights to land resources were inefficient
and bureaucratically cumbersome. Section VI of the PLA (Public Land Act)
went even further. It provided the regime with a mechanism for rolling back
recognition of private rights granted during the Spanish era for failure to
secure proper official records or documents or to comply with necessary
conditions [CA 141, Sec. 54, par. 8]. Thus, these laws mandated that failure
for communities to register or file a formal claim over these lands would
operate as a loss of real rights by virtue of prescription. Ancestral territories
were thus, with one stroke of the pen, have been classified as forestlands,

protected areas, agricultural lands or mineral lands, depriving communities

their right to due process. The strategy employed by our colonizers to take
lands of communities has unfortunately been used up until present by the
Philippine government.
Registration, which is a foreign concept for indigenous peoples, has been
unfortunately projected by different groups to be equivalent to land security,
when the same has been shown to be seldom true. The Subanons of Mt.
Canatuan, in Zamboangadel Norte were among the first communities to be
issued a CADT in 2003. The instrument, however, was only registered in
2008. Despite the existence of the CADT, their leaders could not even enter
his own lands because of the operations of TVI Resource Development, Inc.,
the subsidiary of Canadian TVI Pacific Inc. The Subanons have brought their
case in 2007 to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination for redress, failing to get any from domestic remedies.
The lack or absence of appropriate legal mechanisms for indigenous peoples
to regain their lands has also greatly limited the corrective characteristic of
IPRA. This is added to the fact that IPRA mandates indigenous peoples to
respect vested titles, with the burden of proof to prove otherwise on these
poor communities.

The struggle for recognition of ancestral domain has

been bureaucratized reduced to paper submissions, fulfillment of forms and

checklists.
Judicial rulings have also glaringly favored the interests of the mineral
industry over those of indigenous peoples, which have been labeled as
parochial claiming that mining is an industry for the publics benefit.
Customary laws, meanwhile, remain to be at the outskirts of the legal fora,
waiting for recognition from the legal community.

10

These are only some of the policy issues that continuously plague indigenous
peoples. The implementation of IPRA is altogether a different matter.
Government claimed that the constitutional challenge to IPRA greatly
delayed the implementation of the law. It uses this reason as an excuse for
the numerous criticisms on the delay in the delivery of services and
delineation of ancestral territories. For example, ancestral territories are
estimated to cover 7.5 million hectares out of the 30 million hectares that
make up the Philippines. After eleven years since the passage of IPRA, as of
May 2009, only 38% of these territories were delineated, representing 107
CADTs and 207 CALTs. Out of these 107 CADTs, only 24 have been formally
registered.
It has come to a point that communities themselves have questioned the
relevance of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the
institution that was created supposedly to protect the rights of indigenous
peoples. NCIP has recently been called as inutile and self-serving. Some
groups and communities have called for the abolition of the agency because
of the real and perceived corruption of some of its officers and workers. It
has time and again been criticized as toeing the line of transnational
corporations, implementing the law differently in different communities,
depending on the demands of these corporations. NCIP, in the cases of the
Mangyans in Mindoro and the Subanons of Zamboanga del Norte, among
many others, have created non-traditional leadership structures to ensure
the entry of mining.
The NCIP itself, on one hand, has made it easy for transnational corporations
to exploit indigenous communities, while on the other, made it difficult for
communities to secure their territories and to access justice. It has issued
regulations

that

are

difficult,

unwieldy

and

almost

impossible

for

communities to comply with. The regulations that are supposed to facilitate

11

the enjoyment of communities to their rights are the same ones that hamper
and hinder community development. Some of these regulations would
include the Rules on Pleadings and Practices, the Delineation of CADTs/CALTs,
and the FPIC Guidelines.
The NCIP has been shown also to be weak in asserting its political will. As an
agency that has been tossed around the bureaucracy for a number of times,
first being attached to the Office of the President, then to the Department of
Agrarian Reform, then to the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, then back again to the Office of the President, it has not proven
its integrity and independence on issues that challenge the jurisdiction of
other government offices, despite the fact that IPRA has already given
primary jurisdiction to the NCIP.
These things are all made possible because it is evident in the law that, not
only does its implementation depend on the initiatives of the NCIP, but it has
made the NCIP a super body which enjoys not only executive powers, but
also quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial as well.
The challenges that communities face with regard to the implementation and
interpretation of the law comes from the fact that they hold the key to socalled national development. As mentioned earlier, development projects
overlap with about 60% of ancestral territories; and, in a country that offers
unabashedly its natural resources for investments, it does not wish to
compromise the economic opportunities that foreign investments bring
because of something as simple as the free, prior and informed consent.
Public statements, research studies and occasional media reports suggest
that problems of
IP discrimination still persists. For instance, in a speech delivered at an antipoverty conference in2001, former Chairperson Evelyn Dunuan of the NCIP

12

noted: Today, when one speaks of indigenous peoples, it is not so much

about their beautiful story as peace-loving communities bound to Mother
Nature and Father Spirit of the Universe; nor their talents and skills and
accomplishments. For the term indigenous peoples has been made
synonymous to oppression, exploitation, discrimination and poverty. They,
whose ancestors were once the proud rulers of this land, are now the scum
of the earth, the so-called poorest of the poor in the Philippines.
Official statistics confirm such critical observations. According to the
Philippine Human Development Report in the year 2000, provincial regions
with a large ICC/IP population accounted for nine out of the ten provinces
with the lowest HDI (Human Development Index) rating; the only exception
was Western Samar in the Visayas. The ten provinces with the highest HDI
are all located in the main island of Luzon and, except for Isabela province,
have no significant ICC/IP population.
IP Problems (aside from the ones which are apparent)
Food security is more a goal than a reality for indigenous peoples. A major
factor causing food insecurity and poverty among indigenous peoples is the
loss of ancestral land because of displacement by development projects and
extractive industries (e.g. mining, dams and logging) or natural causes (e.g.
the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo). Another factor is environmental degradation
destruction of forests, pollution of waters and loss of agro biodiversity as a
result of impacts of extractive industries and agriculture modernization.
These factors have undermined the capacity of the indigenous peoples to
survive because they are very dependent on their land and resources. For
instance, the Ibaloi and Kankanaeyof Itogon, Benguet have endured more
than a century of large-scale mining that has denuded their forests,
destroyed their mountains and drained their natural water sources. The
mining companies undertook no restoration of the environment after the

13

mines were abandoned. Most of the people in mining-affected areas are now
dependent on irregular cash-generating income for survival (EED-TFIP 2004).
Modern agriculture is seen as the factor that has most extensively
constrained indigenous peoples food systems. It has caused loss of agro
biodiversity and the emergence of new types of pests and diseases, and has
threatened the continued practice of indigenous sustainable agriculture. The
Department of Agriculture has introduced and promoted high-yielding
varieties, which require massive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides;
this has reduced soil fertility in farmlands, leading to a diminishing yield. The
shift from traditional to hybrid and genetically-modified crops has also
caused the extinction of superior traditional varieties of crops. This is clearly
seen in the case of the Kankanaey village of Dandanac in Besao, Mountain
Province where the number of traditional rice varieties decreased within a
period of eight years from 16 traditional varieties in 1996 to only 7 traditional
varieties in 2004, because of the introduction of high-yielding varieties.
In some regions, armed conflict in indigenous peoplescommunities has led
to the loss of their livelihoods. Many indigenous communities, particularly in
Mindanao, have been forced to evacuate from their homes and farms
because of military operations against Muslim and other armed groups.
Indigenous peoples invariably experience seasonal to chronic food shortages
during the year. Seasonal food shortages are reflected in language: in Aeta,
the word is tigkiriwi, and in Erumanen it is kawad-on. These shortages
usually happen during the dry season when the crop farms are not utilized
because of the low viability of crops. A longer yet recurrent cycle of food
shortages

occurs

when

dry

spells

are

considerably

extended

and

pronounced. Temporary food shortages occur during natural calamities, more

particularly during typhoons. Chronic food shortages, ranging from moderate

14

to severe, are experienced when food stocks are continually inadequate

within the household.
During times of food shortage, members of indigenous households use a
variety of strategies in order to augment household food stocks to be able to
survive. Some of these coping mechanisms are: diversifying food crops and
sources, hunting and gathering, engaging in menial labor in nearby urban
areas to earn a daily wage and increasing the size of cultivated land.
Emergency measures taken by the family during times of shortage include
reducing consumption or eating lower quality foods, borrowing food or
money from neighbours or kin, selling assets such as farm land, stinting the
number of meals per day, evacuation, outmigrating and mendicancy.
Community-based systems are also used as adaptive strategies during food
shortages. Systems of mutual help among kin and community members
include the Erumanen sawit, Eskayahongos and alayon, Igorotub-ubbo and
innabuyogand other similar practices.
Despite the IPRAs protective provisions, IP workers tend to be the last in and
the first out of a job. This in itself is a discriminatory practice; IP workers
seem to be the first to be affected when management has to resort to
collective dismissal for economic reasons. Therefore, in order to avoid any
suspicion of discrimination, management should consult staff representatives
regarding the criteria to be applied for termination, well in advance of any
scheduled retrenchment. Complaints over violations of the right to security
of tenure or illegal dismissal are a major cause for individual grievances,
strained labor-management relations, administrative and court cases, and
media coverage. They make up the bulk of cases handled by the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) and the NLRC, but available
statistics do not differentiate cases according to the ethnic origin of the
complainants. Several reasons may explain why there are no court decisions

15

on termination for reasons of ethnicity. For one, the number of IP workers

holding

regular

employment

is

very

small.

Moreover,

discriminatory

termination on grounds of ethnicity is difficult to prove in court. Also, IP

workers may not be aware of their rights or the procedures to follow in filing
a complaint, and finally, IPs may prefer conciliation and mediation through
traditional channels in settling labor conflicts.
Wages: As compensation for services that workers render under various
forms of contractual arrangements, wages are a key element in the overall
employment package. For a majority of workers, wages are the main, often
the only, monetary income; therefore, the role of wages as a source of
livelihood cannot be overestimated.
For the State, wages are important instruments to promote equality, and so
it has taken a strong hand in upholding the principle of equal remuneration
for work of equal value by women and men, both for IPs and non-IPs. The
constitutional provisions on fundamental equality before the law of all
citizens are echoed in the Philippine Labor Code and the IPRA. The IPRA
considers it an unlawful act of discrimination to pay lower wages to IPs than
non-IPs for work of equal value.
National legislation on indigenous peoples at a glance
IPRA provides for the creation of the National Commission on Indigenous
Peoples (NCIP) as its implementing agency. It is an agency under the office
the President that is composed of seven commissioners appointed by the
President representing the seven ethnographic regions in the country as
defined by the IPRA. The NCIP is the primary government agency that
formulates and implements policies, plans and programmes for the
recognition, promotion and protection of the rights and well-being of
indigenous peoples and for the recognition of their ancestral domains and
their rights thereto (IPRA Chapter 7 Sec. 38 & 44a). However, despite the

16

enactment of the IPRA, other laws, doctrines and policies on land and natural
resources continue to be in force, which deny the rights of indigenous
peoples to their ancestral lands. An example is the Regalian doctrine,
introduced by theSpanish colonial government. Applying the theory of jura
regalia, the colonizers declared the entire archipelago as the property of the
King of Spain, while issuing land grants to private individuals. Thus,
communal lands became part of the public domain, unless proven otherwise
by an official property right or legal title. Being independent of Spanish
colonial rule, indigenous peoples did not register their lands nor acquired
titles even though they had occupied their ancestral lands since time
immemorial. Thus, most of indigenous peoples ancestral lands are today
considered as inalienable and indisposable lands within the public domain,
and thus belonging to the State.
The American colonizers essentially retained the concept of the Regalian
doctrine and passed more laws such as Public Land Acts, Land Registration
Acts and Mining Acts that reinforced the States control over the public
domain. Likewise, the 1987 Philippine Constitution effectively retained the
Regalian doctrine in Section 2, Article XII, which states that all lands of the
public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other mineral oils, all
forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and
fauna and other natural resources are owned by the State.
Thus,

the

Philippine

legal

system

of

land

ownership

is

essentially

contradictory to indigenous peoples concepts of land ownership and tenure

over their ancestral territories. In fact, the IPRA itself in Section 56 provides
that property rights within ancestral domains already existing and/or vested
shall be recognized and respected, thereby limiting the rights of indigenous
peoples to their ancestral domains and land and natural resources found
therein.

17

The convergence between international and national understanding of

equality at work goes back to the 1950s, after the Philippines became a
member of the UN and the ILO. The Philippine government has successively
ratified some 30 ILO Conventions, including those related to equal
opportunity and non-discrimination in employment. In line with these
international instruments, the Philippines has promulgated an impressive
body of anti-discriminatory legislation. These include the Equal Opportunity
Act of 1984, the 1992 Magna Carta for the Disabled, the 1995 Magna Carta
for Migrant Workers, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law of 1995), the Paternity
Leave Act of 1996),the HIV/AIDS Prevention Act of 1998, and the Solo Parents
Welfare Act of 2000.
The IPRA laws on Social Justice and Human Rights and its Implementing
Rules has detailed provisions on recruitment, working conditions, social
protection, access to education, training and health services for IP workers.
This means that IP equality is addressed in a comprehensive manner
INDIGENOUS FILIPINOS IN THE WORLD OF WORK at various levels through
regulatory, promotional and developmental measures. The integrated
approach is necessary, as equality and non-discrimination of IPs in the areas
of employment cannot be seen in isolation. They are closely linked to other
important areas where ICCs/IPs continues to suffer from deficits in equality.
For instance, the right to self-governance would be meaningless without
cultural integrity. In the same vein, the right to ancestral domains is an
important prerequisite for adequate income and livelihood. For the effective
protection of ICCs/IPs with regard to recruitment and working conditions,
IPRA underlines the paramount role of the State, especially with regard to
special measures such as equal opportunity in education and employment,
health services, social protection, occupational safety and work-related
benefits.

18

The establishment of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)

under IPRA has given IPs a national platform for representing their interests
in national development. It also has opened up formal channels for IP claims,
investigations into infringements of IPRA, and the implementation of
corrective measures. To ensure adequate representation of ICC/IP interests,
strict criteria are applied regarding the qualifications of the Chairperson and
the six commissioners. For example, they must be appointed from
ethnographic regions and have extensive work experience with ICCs/IPs.
As part of social justice, asset reform shall be hastened to expand the
endowments of poor people in order to secure entitlements to food,
education and health care through the completion of agrarian reform,
managing urban land reform, financing socialized housing and intensifying
ancestral domain reform and development.
The effectiveness of ICC/IP representation largely determines the successful
promotion of their political, economic and cultural rights. There is wider
scope for capacity building through the NCIP, various ICC/IP organizations
and networks, mandatory representation in policy-making bodies, and local
legislative councils. Indeed, ICCs/IPs are making decisions that affect their
work, using the mechanisms of customary law for conflict settlement, and
determining their own priorities for development. Their consent is required
for projects in their areas, and ICCs/IPs are entitled to financial and technical
support to fully develop their own institutions and initiatives.
Encouraged by their right to information and prior informed consent,
ICCs/IPs, have become assertive and vocal in defending their human and
labor rights and protecting their livelihood and ancestral domain. In recent
years,

tribal

residents

in

Sinacbatand

Dalipey

in

Benguet

province

successfully made a petition and halted a plan by the Luzon Hydro

19

Corporation to build a tunnel underneath their mountain communities that

would dry up the springs essential for their livelihood.
Many Filipinos suffered during the colonial rule of the Spanish and American
empires.
Under Spanish rule, many of the indigenous people were able to avoid
contact

and

attempts

of

assimilation

by

retreating

to

inaccessible

mountainous areas, particularly on the island of Mindanao and in the

Cordillera region. However, this radically changed under American colonial
policy as is well reflected in a statement of then American President William
McKinley who announced a policy of benevolent assimilation for the native
Filipinos in 1898. As part of this campaign, English was imposed as the
official language of the Philippines. Today the Philippines are the 4th biggest
nation of English speakers in the world (Retrieved information: www.iponphilippines.info; November 15, 2014).
The passage of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) on October 29,
1997 caused similar jubilation that reverberated even from the farthest
outskirts of the Philippine society, home to approximately 14 to 15 million
indigenous peoples sub-divided further into 110 ethno-linguistic groups. The
common understanding then was finally a national law to protect and uphold
the rights of the indigenous peoples has come at last.
More IPRAmises (and some flashes of brilliance)
IPRA with the four bundles of rights it swore to protect upon its passage into
law came like a long awaited rain. A downpour of celebration temporarily
quenched lips that parched from shouting too long in the streets and
legislative halls the aspiration for the recognition and protection of
indigenous peoples rights.

20

These four bundles of rights include the right to ancestral domain and lands,
right to self-governance and empowerment, social justice and human rights,
and right to cultural integrity.
IPRA provides for the establishment of the National Commission for the
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) which the law mandates to protect and promote
the interest and well-being of the ICCs/IPs with due regard to their beliefs,
customs, traditions and institutions.Unfortunately, as to what extent the
NCIP has lived up to its mandate or how IPRA has been implemented since its
passage in 1997 is another continuing sad story of the grievances of the
indigenous peoples.
The indigenous peoples in the Philippines continue to figure in social
discrimination, economic marginalization and political disempowerment,
albeit the presence of IPRA and the existence of NCIP. Subject to socioeconomic

and

political

exclusion,

they

have

remained

the

most

disadvantaged peoples representing the poorest of the poor and the most
vulnerable sector (Retrieved information: www.kas.de; November 15, 2014 )
Ergo, more challenges
In an article from the Cordillera Peoples Alliance website entitled: IPRA and
NCIP: 17 years of IP rights violation, it said that:
Under the framework of the Regalian Doctrine, State laws and policies of the State
contradict indigenous laws and practices on land and resources. These were
imposed, resulting to the outright violation of indigenous peoples collective rights
over their ancestral lands, resources and territorial integrity. State imposed
development beneficial only to the ruling elite and their imperialist masters is
tantamount to the violation to indigenous peoples right of self-determination. With
this, indigenous peoples have been historically marginalised. For one, the Cordillera
region has long been regarded by the State as a resource base for plunder, profit
and exploitation, in stark contrast to indigenous peoples view that land is life, and
thus must be nurtured and protected.

21

It even cited the findings of UP Baguio College of Social Sciences in a study

that validated the basis of CPAs rejection of the IPRA. To wit:
a. that NCIPs institutional performance and behavior is greatly affected
by presidential leadership and commitment to specify policy options
the susceptibility or vulnerability of government bodies and decision
makers to external pressures from the interest groups and other
political actors.
b. Almost complete budgetary dependence to the State; personnel-heavy
bureaucracy; persistently weak financial control measures.
c. Related to financial resources is the availability of Official Development
Assistance (ODA), which generally aimed to integrate or mainstream
indigenous peoples into the neoliberal development frameworkthat
this situation has led to State, capital and elite capture of the
indigenous peoples movement agenda of empowerment
d. That the implementation of titling as well as NCIPs performance of its
quasi-judicial functions resulted in the strengthening of State powers
within ICC (indigenous cultural communities) through the NCIP, with
the ostensible aim of incorporating the IPs within the framework of the
States legal system that these footprints nonetheless manifest
increasing penetration into the lives and affairs of the IPs.
e. That while the government claims that no complaint in FPIC
implementation exists, various case studies and newspaper accounts
have documented serious problems and flaws related to the FPIC
process in indigenous communities all over the Philippines.
f.
That State institutionalisation and bureaucratisation of the Human
Rights Based Approach (HRBA) paradoxically pose constrains to the
agenda of indigenous peoples empowerment.
g. That community-based and rights bearer

based

activities

and

approaches are not evident in the accomplishment reports of NCIP.

h. That there is growing empirical evidence that the process and politics
of land titling may in fact lead to market (corporate) and elite capture
of the resources and benefits resulting from land exploitation due to

22

the asymmetrical power relations among the corporations, State and

indigenous peoples, with the latter usually losing out in a complicated
bureaucratic process that is alien and alienating to them.
i. That mainstreaming or assimilationist direction of State programs
and policies is a clearly a continuity of the colonial an post-colonial
tack of assimilating and integrating indigenous communitie sinto the
economic, social, political and cultural life of the Philippine nation state
and its development agenda (Retrieved information: www.cpaphils.or;
November 16, 2014 )
j.
In Baguio City for instance, the issue is way beyond the Casa Vallejo case,
because the NCIP has granted CALTs and Certificates of Ancestral Domain
Titles or CADTs to what the city government claims as government property.
Early this year, some claimants were put into the limelight when they tried
reclaiming a former American colonial government employees home-turned
hotel atop Session Road. An NCIP adjudication office granted descendants of
Cosen Piraso, a Baguio Ibaloi pioneer, permission to take hold of the citys
oldest hotel, Casa Vallejo, which, they say is within their CALT coverage.
Had they succeeded, the Piraso descendants would have been a showcase
for IPRA. Under new management, the citys oldest hotel would have been
possibly renamed BaleiPiraso, which sounds more indigenous than the
hotels Spanish name.
Last October, Baguio Rep. NicasioAliping Jr. filed Resolution 419, directing the
House Committee on Indigenous Peoples to probe titles issued by the NCIP
over city government lands, public places, and reservations.
This included portions of Wright Park now covered by 29 Transfer Certificate
of Titles (TCTs); Forbes Park and Teachers Camp reservations, three TCTs;

23

Philippine Military Academy and Loakan Airport airstrip, six TCTs; Baguio
Dairy Farm, six TCTs; and Casa Vallejo, eight TCTs.
After

the

noise

created

by

the

Casa

Vallejo

case,

the

House

of

Representatives Committee on Indigenous Peoples announced in February it

would investigate land titles the NCIP issued.
North Cotabato Rep. Nancy Catamco had written Baguio City Mayor Mauricio
Domogan, requesting him to provide his comment or position on the
reported controversial issuance of ancestral land titles in the city.
But even before House inquiries could proceed and produce results, reports
about titled ancestral lands being sold are disturbing. Titled ancestral lands
inside the reservations of Camp John Hay and the Baguio City Economic Zone
are being sold indiscriminately, according to reports quoting the DENRCordillera.
Elsewhere, indigenous peoples take pride in claiming that if one looks at
Google Earth, the green patches of the earth, where forests have remained
intact, are found in indigenous territories. Reason: IPs have managed their
forests in a sustainable manner so much so they would not extract more than
what they need, always considering the needs of the next generations (at
least until the seventh generation).
Closer to home, the clan-managed muyong woodlot in Ifugao and the
community-protected pine forests of Sagada and other towns in Mountain
Province are good examples. Unfortunately, the areas within the vegetable
belt of Benguet, where mossy and pine forests have been transformed into
vegetable plots, are bad models.

24

The reports about Baguios ancestral lands being sold, especially to nonindigenous business people, are giving the IPRA a bad name. If this is so,
IPRA is practically facilitating the sale of ancestral lands to private
individuals, who are free to transform the property into subdivisions or
commercial centers, for example (Malanes, 2014).
Kept calm and moved on. So the Constitution contradicts with the
IPRA. Now, what?
First, IPRA, though progressive, was far from a perfect law. There are so many
community stories which tell the tale of NCIP or the IPRA being used to
facilitate the violation of indigenous peoples rights. For some, IPRA became
the instrument by which rights were manipulated to suit the demands of the
global market for raw materials. The formal processes that IPRA introduced
became the same processes that were used to violate indigenous peoples
rights while legitimizing the encroachment of big businesses something
that has not changed since Spain settled on our lands. This was possible
because law is susceptible to as much as many people that would want to
interpret it and use it for their benefit.
Second, the institution that IPRA created, the NCIP, was not so different from
the institutions that it abolished because it was composed of the same
people and thus used the same culture of corruption and bureaucracy.
Third, the IPRA, though it contained a long list of rights and provisions which
sought to protect the rights of the communities, was hardly used in cases
before the courts. Instead, other laws were used to challenge violations of
indigenous peoples rights.
Fourth, the titling and registration of lands sometimes distracted the
communities in achieving genuine land security.

25

Fifth, community cohesion and organization has achieved more ground than
the mere passage of the law. We have seen communities assert their rights
with or without IPRA, and instead have looked at laws as only part and parcel
of the political context.
And finally, the advocacy of indigenous peoples rights do not end with the
passage of a law. It is a continuous struggle to rid our countries the
discrimination introduced by colonizers. It is about changing mindsets and
prejudices.
The law is either a tool of opportunities or challenges and the IPRA is no
different from other laws. The law and its implementation, are, after all,
influenced by the political, socio-economic context of a country. In the words
of Justice MarvicLeonen:
The IPRA, perhaps even if fully implemented, could not be the last word on the
recognition of IP rights. Writing and legislating policy has been significant but
definitely not enough for the communities that still struggle for genuine recognition,
and full and authentic participation. In the end, it is our collective ability to reflect
and act on our experiences that will really matter.(A Study in Political Compromise,
Philippine Natural Resources Law Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2001.)

The IPRA has definitely been used for the good and for the bad by different
parties, as is the nature of law.
Thus, after more than a decade from the passage of IPRA, it is timely that a
comprehensive assessment be made on IPRA. It is imperative that we hear
the experiences, reflections and lessons from the communities who actually
engaged and used the law in their assertion of rights, as well as from those
who have maintained distance from the law and have continued in their
struggle for their land, and against encroachment. For us advocates, it is

26

critical at this juncture that we take a deep breath and look how has the
law been relevant to the lives of the communities? How has the law been
able to correct the historical injustices it meant to address? Or has there
been too much hope pinned on a law, when we all know that the passage of
IPRA does not automatically translate into justice and change, instead, it is
the collective struggle, at the community level all the way at the national
level that achieves justice and catalyze fundamental changes in the lives of
the indigenous peoples, and in our societies(Muhi and Pansimio, 2014).
The IPRA is considered as a curative law Congress shaped to help IPs
regain what government formerly declared as public lands. Following the
tongtong tradition (which is similar to the dap-ay of Mountain Province), the
city can continue what UP Baguio began early this year at the height of the
Casa Vallejo uproar a public forum, which UP Baguio Chancellor
RaymundoRovillos calls continuing conversations.
For example, University of the Cordilleras College of Law Dean Reynaldo
Agranzamendez put to task the NCIP to come out with an inventory of
pending

CALTs

and

CADTs

so

the

public

will

be

informed.

Such

recommendation, if acted upon, will definitely help the city in mapping its
territory, which is much-needed in urban planning. Through these forums,
government and private sector and experts in various fields law, urban
planning,

engineering,

management,

culture,

history,

arts,

ecology,

medicine, farming, and others can work and collaborate together in

salvaging what has remained of this city which every concerned citizen calls
his or her home. (Malanes, 2014).

27