i

42823

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

ii

© 2007 The World Bank GroupJune 2007Printed in Manila, Philippines.All rights reserved.

The World Bank Group1818 H Street, N.W. Washington DC 20433, USATel: (202) 473-1000Fax: (202) 477-6391www.worldbank.org

This study was prepared by the Social Development Sector and the Rural Development, Natural Resources and Environment Sector of the Sustainable Development Department, East Asia Pacific Region of the World Bank.

This publication is available online at http://www.worldbank.org/.

Suggested citation:Josefo B. Tuyor, et al. 2007. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act: Legal and Institutional Frameworks, Implementation and Challenges in the Philippines. Discussion papers, East Asia and Pacific Region. Social Development, and Rural Development, Natural Resources and Environment Sectors. Washington DC: World Bank.

Cover photos by the World Bank and Joel D. Adriano.

This volume is a product of the staff of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent.

The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

Rights and PermissionsThe material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.

For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA, telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, www.copyright.com. All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax 202-522-2422; e-mail pubrights@worldbank.org.

World Bank Office Manila23rd Floor, The Taipan PlaceEmerald Avenue, Ortigas CenterPasig City, PhilippinesTel: (632) 637-5855 to 64Fax: (632) 637-5870www.worldbank.org.ph

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS v

FOREWORD vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 6

1.1 Historical Background 6

1.2 Objectives of the Review 8

1.3 The Review Process 8

1.4 Organization of the Report 8

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK 9

2.1 The 1987 Philippine Constitution 9

2.2 Indigenous Peoples Rights Act 9

2.3 NCIP Administrative Issuances 11

2.4 Other Philippine Laws 14

THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 17

3.1 The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples 17

3.2 Organizational Structure 17

3.3 Human and Financial Resources 19

3.4 Powers and Mandates 21

3.5 Major Programs 22

SAFEGUARD SYSTEM FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE IPs: CERTIFICATION PRECONDITION/FREE AND PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT 23 ASSESSMENT 27

5.1 Legal Framework 27 ConflictsBetweentheIPRAandOtherLaws 27 Substantive Issues 28 Jurisdictional Issues 29 Procedural Issues 32

i

iv

5.2 Institutional Framework and Organizational Effectiveness 33 IPsandTheirTerritoriesNotYetIdentified 34 Inadequate Representation from Non-IPs 36 Resource Constraints of the NCIP 37 Safeguard Process 39 Implementation Performance 40

5.3 Other Safeguard-Related Activities 47

RECOMMENDATIONS 49

6.1 Harmonizing the IPRA with Other Laws 49

6.2 Organizing and Accrediting IP Organizations 49

6.3 IdentifiyingandProfilingofIPs,DelineatingTheirTerritories, andDocumentingTheirCustomaryLawsandDecision-Making Process 50

6.4 Pre-screeningofMunicipalities,Cities,Provincesand/orAreasNot SubjecttoCP/FPIC 52

6.5 EnhancingNCIP’sOrganizationalandTechnicalCapacity 52

6.6 ImprovingtheEfficiencyoftheFPICProcessWhileStrengthening theCredibilityoftheFPIC 53

6.7 Assessing the Long-Term Impacts of the IPRA 54

6.8 Action Plan 55 REFERENCES 58

ANNEXES 60

Annex A. Philippine Laws on the Indigenous Peoples 60

AnnexB.NCIPRegionalandProvincialOffices 63

Annex C. Comparison of the Lists of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines 67

ii

v

FIGURES

Figure 1 Organizational Structure of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples 19Figure2 SchematicDiagramoftheCP/FPICProcess 25Figure3 DistributionofMOOEAllocationoftheNCIPin2004 38Figure4 AverageDurationofProcessingCertificateofNon-Overlapin ARCDP2Subproject(workingdays) 43Figure5 AverageDurationofProcessingCertificationPreconditionWithin AncestralDomainArea 43

TABLES

Table1 BudgetaryAppropriationfortheNCIPforFiscalYears2002-05 20Table2 RegionalDistributionofIndigenousPeoplesinthePhilippines 35Table3 ActualBudgetReleasedbytheDepartmentofBudgetand Management to the NCIP in Fiscal Year 2004 38Table4 IssuedCP/FPICfrom2004-2006 42Table5 CertificatesIssuedvs.IPPopulationfrom2004-2006 42Table6 NumberofCertificatesofComplianceIssuedbytheNCIPby Region from 2004-2006 45Table7 FormulatedandOfficiallyRecognizedADSDPPs 48Table 8 Action Plan 55

BOXES

Box1 HistoryofGovernmentAgenciesandPoliciesonIndigenousPeoples 7Box 2 Protected Area Management in Mt. Kitanglad 31Box3 TheB’laansandtheTampakanCopper-GoldProject 32Box4 LegalDefinitionsofIndigenousPeoples,AncestralDomains, Ancestral Lands 34Box5 TheTasadays:ACaseofInventedEthnicity 35Box 6 Ethnic Tension in Mount Kanlaon 37Box7 TheMangyansandthePhilippineEISSystem 44Box8 StabilityoftheFPICProcess 47Box9 GiftsandHospitality,BriberyandCoercion 54

iii

vi

This reportwas prepared by aWorldBankTeamcomposedof JosefoB.Tuyor (TaskTeamLeader,RuralDevelopment,NaturalResourcesandEnvironment),JonasG.Bautista(Environmental Specialist, Rural Development, Natural Resources and Environment),VictoriaFlorianLazaro(OperationsOfficer,SocialDevelopment),MariaLoretoN.Padua(Civil Society and Participation Specialist, Social Development), Roberto Tordecilla(OperationsOfficerforMindanao,SocialDevelopment),MaryJudd(Sr.SocialScientist,SocialDevelopment),MariaConsueloA.Sy(TeamAssistant,WorldBankManilaOffice)andDr.NestorCastro(Consultant).TheTeamworkedundertheguidanceofJoachimvonAmsberg(PhilippinesCountryDirector),MariaTeresaSerra(AdvisortotheRegionalVicePresident),MagdaLovei(SectorManager,OperationsandPolicy),CyprianFisiy(SectorManager,SocialDevelopment)andRahulRaturi(SectorManager,RuralDevelopment,NaturalResourcesandEnvironment).PeerreviewerswereJonathanMillsLindsay(SeniorCounsel,LegalDepartment),NavinRai(EAPRegionalIPCoordinator,QualityAssuranceandControlUnit)andAsgerChristensen(LeadSocialScientist,SocialDevelopment).

The report also benefited from the Stocktaking Exercise on the Philippine IndigenousPeoples RightsAct conducted by JoseTiburcioNicolas, JosefoTuyor,MayaGabrielaVillaluz,EncarnacionRaralioandSocorroPatindolin2005.CommentsfromSvendJensbyandMariaTheresaG.Quinonesarealsogratefullyacknowledged.

TheTeamislikewisethankfultotheNationalCommissiononIndigenousPeoples(NCIP)foritsverystrongsupportandforfacilitatingthereviewprocess,aswellastheissuanceof Special Order assigning the NCIP counterpart staff to work with the Team. Thanks are duetoChairpersonJanetteCansingSerranoandExecutiveDirectorRoseBistoyong,NCIPCommissioners,DirectorMyrnaCaoagasoftheNCIP-AncestralDomainsOffice,GracePascua,MarionSakai,NoelaParedesandFrederickWilliamCrespillo.

The team also acknowledges the comments and suggestions received from Agnes de Jesus of the Philippine National Oil Company Energy Development Corporation andthe contributions of Ranelisa Samiano of the Second Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project of the Department ofAgrarian Reform and Reena Buena of theLagunadeBay InstitutionalStrengthening andCommunityParticipationProject of theLagunaLakeDevelopmentAuthority.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

iv

vii

ADO AncestralDomainsOfficeADSDPP AncestralDomainSustainableDevelopmentandProtectionPlanAO Administrative OrderARCDP2 SecondAgrarianReformCommunitiesDevelopmentProjectARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim MindanaoBNCT Bureau of Non-Christian TribesCADC CertificateofAncestralDomainClaimCADT CertificateofAncestralDomainTitleCALC CertificateofAncestralLandClaimCALT CertificateofAncestralLandTitleCARL Comprehensive Agrarian Reform LawCLOA CertificateofLandOwnershipAwardCNI Commission on National IntegrationCPH Census of Population and HousingCPPAP ConservationofPriorityProtectedAreasProjectCRBDP ChicoRiverBasinDevelopmentProjectDAR DepartmentofAgrarianReformDIA DirectImpactAreaDENR DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesDILG DepartmentoftheInteriorandLocalGovernmentDOJ DepartmentofJusticeECA EnvironmentallyCriticalAreaECC EnvironmentalComplianceCertificateECP EnvironmentallyCriticalProjectEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentEIS Environmental Impact StatementEMB Environmental Management BureauEO Executive Order ESSC EnvironmentalScienceforSocialChange,Inc.FBI Field-Based InvestigationFPIC Free and Prior Informed ConsentFTAA Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement ICCs Indigenous Cultural CommunitiesIEC Information,EducationandCommunicationILO International Labour Organization IPs Indigenous PeoplesIPP Indigenous Peoples Plan IPRA Indigenous Peoples Rights ActIRR Implementing Rules and Regulations

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

v

viii

KPLN Kalipunan Para sa Lupaing NinunoLGC LocalGovernmentCodeLGU LocalGovernmentUnitLNKMI LupangNinunoKabiloganMangyan,IncorporatedLRA LandRegistrationAuthorityMNP Mindoro Nickel ProjectMOA Memorandum of Agreement MOOE Maintenance and Other Operating ExpensesMTDP Medium-TermDevelopmentPlanNAMRIA NationalMappingandResourceInformationAuthorityNCIP National Commission on Indigenous PeoplesNGO Non-GovernmentOrganizationNIPAS NationalIntegratedProtectedAreasSystemOMA OfficeofMuslimAffairsOMACC OfficeofMuslimAffairsandCulturalCommunitiesONCC OfficeofNorthernCulturalCommunitiesOP OfficeofthePresidentOSCC OfficeofSouthernCulturalCommunitiesPAMB Protected Area Management Board PANAMIN Presidential Assistance for National Minorities PANLIPI Tanggapang Panligal ng Katutubong PilipinoPD PresidentialDecreePEDCA PrivateEnterpriseDevelopmentCorporationofAsiaPEISS PhilippineEnvironmentalImpactStatementSystemPNOCEDC PhilippineNationalOilCompanyEnergyDevelopmentCorporationPS Personnel Services RA Republic ActSMI SagittariusMines,IncorporatedSPDA SouthernPhilippinesDevelopmentAuthorityTMD TechnicalManagementDivisionUNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgrammeWMC WesternMiningCorporation

vi

ix

FOREWORD

TheWorldBankhaslongrecognizedthatIndigenousPeopleshaveuniqueidentitiesthatdiffer from mainstream societies in their strong reliance on and relationship with their lands, traditional knowledge bases, complex social organizations, and their distincteconomic-politicalsystems.Associalgroupswithidentitiesseparablefromthedominantmainstream,IndigenousPeoplesfaceenormousdevelopmentchallenges:theyareamongthepoorestmembersofsociety;theyareamongthemostvulnerableandmarginalgroups,withlimitedeconomic,social,andlegalassets.

Overadecadeago,thePhilippinespassedRepublicAct8371whichofficiallyrecognizedthe need to make special provisions for its indigenous populations. This historic 1997 act – also know as the Philippine Indigenous Peoples Rights Act or IPRA – acknowledges the distinctsocio-culturallifeandwaysofitsindigenouspopulations.Basedontheknowledgeof indigenous peoples’ cultural specificities and vulnerabilities, IPRA seeks to directlyimprove development outcomes by addressing issues relating to ethnic discrimination,politicalrepresentation,aswellasrightsintheareasofancestraldomains,self-determination,andthepracticeofcustomarylaws.Thislawfurtherrequiresthat indigenousgroupsbeconsulted on development interventions which affect their lives.

Following a decade of the passage of RepublicAct 8371, the PhilippineGovernment,togetherwiththeWorldBank,engagedinadiagnosticreviewtoassessthesuccessesandchallenges stemming from IPRA implementation. Success in IPRA implementation is integral to achieving development results and its implementation is aligned with the Bank’s interest in ensuring that projects affecting indigenous peoples are sound and sustainable.

Since the Bank’s safeguard policies are among the main tools to improve project decision-making and to include specific measures to prevent or mitigate harm to indigenouscommunities,ourhope is that this reviewprovidesstrategicguidance toboth theBankandthePhilippineGovernmenttostrengthensocialsafeguardsapplicationasameanstoimprove development impact for this group. A thorough review of IPRA implementation with forward looking guidance on its implementing rules and regulations is an important step towards achieving better results.

Finally, this review represents a keyfirst step towards achieving the long termgoal ofharmonizing the Philippines’ existing systems for safeguard applicationwith standardsespousedbytheParis Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.

ChristianDelvoie MaryseGautier Director ActingCountryDirector,Philippines SustainableDevelopmentDepartment EastAsiaandthePacificRegion EastAsiaandthePacificRegion

vii

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ThePhilippines isoneof thecountries thatestablishedacomprehensivesystemfor theprotectionof the rightsof its indigenouspeoples/indigenousculturalcommunities (IPs/ICCs), as embodied in the Philippine Indigenous Peoples RightsAct (IPRA) of 1997.AmongtherightsbeinggrantedtoIPsincludeterritorialdomain,self-determinationandtherighttopracticetheircustomarylaws,culturalintegrityandproperty,andconsentoverdevelopmentinterventionsintheircommunity.Therearereportedlymorethan100ethnicgroupsinthePhilippinesthatareconsideredtobelongtotheIPs.TheagencyresponsiblefortheimplementationofIPRAistheNationalCommissiononIndigenousPeoples(NCIP)whichhasfieldofficesin12regionsand46provinces.

Programs and projects that overlap with the territorial domain of the IPs are required to obtain consent from the concerned IP community through the process of CertificationPrecondition/Free and Prior Informed Consent (CP/FPIC) that is administered by theNCIP’sAncestralDomainsOffice(ADO).TheCP/FPICistheIPRA’ssafeguardsystemfor the protection of IPs in development interventions that fall within the IPs’ domain. BasedonNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.3,aproponentsubmitsaProjectOperationalPlan, among other requirements, and begins a process of consultation and negotiationbetween the proponent and the concerned IP group. The FPIC process allows a period for the concerned IP groups to consult among themselves and make a decision without external influence.Ifthedecisionisfavorable,amemorandumofagreement(MOA)isthensignedbetweentheconcernedIPgroupandtheprojectproponent.TheNCIP,asacollegialbody,thenreviewsandissuesacertificateofcompliancetotheFPICprocessandrequirements.Otherwise,theIPs/ICCsissueacertificateofrejectiontotheproposal.

ThisreviewwasconductedtoidentifystrengthsandweaknessesoftheIPRAandtohelptheNCIP develop and implement a program to achieve amore efficient and effectivesafeguardsystemfortheIPs.ThereviewfocusedonthelegalandinstitutionalframeworkoftheIPRAandtheCP/FPICinrelationtoprojectsanddevelopmentinterventionsfallingwithin the domain of the IPs.

Adequacy of Legal Framework – The review found that there is adequate legal framework to protect the rights of IPs in the Philippines. The Philippine Constitution and the IPRA serveastheprimarylegalframeworkofthesafeguardsystemfortheIPs.Moreover,thereare several other Philippine laws and issuances that contribute to the protection of IP rights,suchastheNationalIntegratedProtectedAreasSystem(NIPAS)Act,thePhilippineMiningAct,theOrganicActofMuslimMindanao,thePhilippineEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS)System,andtheadministrativeordersoftheNCIPandtheDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR).However, thereareconflictingprovisionsofthesevariouslegalinstrumentsandtheirimplementingrulesandregulations,includingsubstantive,jurisdictionalandproceduralissuesthatareaffectingtheimplementationofthe IPRA.

2

Adequacy of Institutional Framework and Organizational Effectiveness – The review found that there is an adequate institutional framework to implement the IPRA. The NCIP hasthepolicy-makingbodyatthecentralofficecomposedofsevenCommissionerscomingfrommajorethnographicareas,oneofwhichisappointedastheChairperson.Ithassixofficesatthecentraloffice,includingtheADO.TheNCIPalsohas12regionaloffices,46provincialofficesand108servicecentersatthecityandmunicipallevels.

The NCIP, however, has experienced several organizational challenges because of itsinadequatehuman,logisticsandfinancialresourcestoeffectivelycarryoutitsfunctions.TheCP/FPIC is just oneof themany functions assigned to itsADO,which is saddledwiththeenormoustasksofdelineatingancestraldomainareasandissuingthecertificateofancestraldomain titlesand thecertificateofancestral land titles.TheNCIPdoesnothavetrainedanthropologiststoundertakeethnographicresearchandanalyzeandrespondtocross-culturalproblems.Given itsenormousmandate, there isaneed to increase theNCIP’s regular budget for additional plantilla positions. Most importantly, the NCIPrequires resources to carry out its fundamental task towards the IPRA’s effective andefficientimplementation,suchasthedelineationofancestraldomainareas,identificationand profiling of IPs, and documentation of their customary laws and decision-makingprocesses.

Adequacy of the Safeguard Process –TheCP/FPIC process incorporatesmost of thekeyelementsofuniversallyacceptedconceptsontheprotectionofIPs.Theseinclude:(i)screeningforthepresenceofIPsthroughfield-basedinvestigation;(ii)broaddefinitionofIPswhich embraces the concepts of self-ascriptionor self-identification, differentiationfromthemainstreamFilipinosociety,attachmenttolandandnaturalresources,separatesocio-culturalandpoliticalinstitutions,anddistinctlanguage;(iii)consultationwithIPswhicharevoluntary,freefromexternalmanipulation,iterativeandbroad-basedaccordingtocustomarylaws;(iv)broadcommunitysupportamongIPs;(v)environmentalandsocio-cultural impact assessment; (vi) culturally-appropriate benefits for the IPs/ICCs; (vii)recognitionofcustomarylandtenure;(viii)recognitionofIPrightswithinprotectedareas;and (ix) recognitionof IP rights tonaturalandcultural resources.The IPRAevengoesbeyondconsultationbyrequiringproponentstosecureconsentfromIPsfortheproposedprogram,project andotherbusinessor profit-oriented investments that fallwithin theirdomains.

Adequacy of Implementing the IP Safeguard System through the CP/FPIC – The implementation remains the biggest challenge to the NCIP given that it caters to about 12 millionIPsfrommorethan100ethnicgroups.Asarelativelyyoungagencywithmeagerresources, inefficiencieswere noted in implementing theCP/FPIC.TheNCIPdoes nothaveasystemofprioritizingprojectsforprocessingtheCP/FPICapplications.Italsodoesnot make use of existing knowledge on the general location of tribal population. There also appearstobeinequitabledistributionofitslimitedresourcesamongitsvariousofficesandmandates,withmoregoingtopersonnelservicesandscholarshipsandlesstoimplementingprogramsandprojects,includingactivitiesrelatedtoCP/FPICanddelineationofancestraldomain.Amongothers,thescreeningsystemforthepresenceofIPsisquiteinefficient,resultinginagreatnumberofprojectsbeingsubjectedtofield-basedinvestigationeven

3

thoughtheyarefarawayfromoroutsideofIPareas.Morethan90percentofcertificatesissuedbytheNCIPfrom2004-2006areforprojectsoutsideIPareas.Thereviewalsofoundthat theCP/FPICprocess is taking too long,even inareasoutsideofancestraldomain.Someprojectsappear tohaveuncertainCP/FPIC resultswithchargesofmanipulationsbeinghurledbysomeinterestgroupsclaimingtorepresenttheIPs.

ThereviewalsoindicatedthattheIPRA,throughtheCP/FPIC,hastrulyprovidedavenuefor and empowered IPs to freely exercise their rights to self-determinationwithin theirdomain.However, its effectiveness and expected outcomes are compromised bymanyfactors,includingthecapacityandabilityoftheNCIPtoimplementthelaw,thecapacityofIPstoparticipatemeaningfullyandbenefitfromtheprocess,theabsenceoflegitimateandfunctioningIPorganizations that trulyrepresent theIPs, the incompletedelineationofancestraldomainandidentificationofIPgroups,themanipulativeactionsandbriberyofproponentstosecuretheconsentfromtheIPs,andthedifferentinterpretationsofwhatconstitutesaconsent,dueprimarilytothelackofwrittenparameters.

Recommendations. The review recommends the following to improve the implementation oftheIPRAandtheCP/FPICprocessesandoutcomes:

1. Harmonizing the IPRA with other existing laws. The NCIP should initiate coordination withotheragenciesandpursueinter-agencydiscussionstoharmonizetheIPRAwithexistinglaws.OfurgencyaretheNIPASAct,theMiningAct,theLocalGovernmentCode and the EIS Law. Existing steps that are being undertaken to harmonize these laws need to be followed through.

2. Identifying and profiling of IP communities, delineating their territories and documenting their customary laws and decision-making process. The NCIP should prioritize theseover other activities considering that the implementationof theCP/FPICdependsontheexistenceoflegitimateandfunctioningIPorganizationsthattrulyrepresent their communities. The decision-making process in each IP group must be identifiedandwrittendownandmustbemadeclearatthestarttotheproponentandtheNCIP.Otherwise,consultationsandnegotiationscanbecomeanendlessprocess.TheNCIPshouldlinkupwiththeNationalStatisticsOfficeandthePhilippineanthropologicalcommunity infine-tuning amechanism for proper identification andprofilingof IPgroupsandwiththeIndigenousLawProjectoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesCollegeof Law. The NCIP should also strengthen its existing agreements with institutions involvedinthedelineationofIPterritoriessuchastheDENR,DepartmentofAgrarianReform(DAR),NationalMappingandResourceInformationAuthority(NAMRIA),theLandRegistrationAgency(LRA)andtheNationalMuseum.

3. Organizing IPs and accrediting IP organizations. These activities should also be prioritizedbytheNCIPoverothers.Withtraditionalleadershipandpoliticalsystemsalready disappearing or, in some cases, replaced by the barangay system, projectproponents are sometimes faced with no legitimate organizations and/or hastily

4

organized groups to negotiate with. Since IPs are the decision-makers themselves,capacitybuildingeffortsshouldbefocusedonIPs.TheNCIPalsoneedstorecognizethecustomary-politicalstructuresthatexistorhavepreviouslyexisted,andshouldformalizethisbyissuingguidelines.TheguidelinesontheaccreditationofIPorganizationsalsoneedtobefinalized.

4. Pre-screening of municipalities, cities and provinces or areas not subject to CP/FPIC process. The NCIP has recognized the need to pre-screen when it introduced the concept ofcertificateofnon-overlapinthe2006FPICguidelines,whichspecificallymentionedthatoverlapsornon-overlappingareaswillbedeterminedbasedonthedulyapprovedmasterlistofAncestralDomainAreas.However,thecurrentmasterlistcontainsonlythecertificateofancestraldomaintitles,certificateofancestraldomainclaimareas,andthelistofbarangayswithIPsaccordingtoexistingrecords.Therefore,thereisaneedto improve and complete the master list to conform to the requirements of the FPIC.

5. Enhancing the NCIP’s organizational and technical capacity and building the capacity of IPs.AlthoughNCIP’sroleinCP/FPICisfacilitative,itneedstostrengthenits capacity to recognize and analyze social and cultural issues associated withdevelopment projects in IP areas and present these for the consideration of the IPs. It alsoneedstobalanceresponsibilitiesofeachoffice.TheADOisalreadysaddledwithtoomanyresponsibilitieswhileotherofficesareunderutilized.Similarly,thereisonlyonepersoninchargeoftheCP/FPICprocessineachprovincialandregionaloffice.TheNCIPshouldhavetrainedanthropologiststoaugmentitsfieldpersonnelwhocomemostly from thehealth and educationprofessions, or theNCIPpersonnel should atleastbegiventraininginanthropologicaltechniques/methods.Inaddition,theNCIPalso needs personnel who are skilled in public administration who can help reconcile the IPRA and its implementing rules and regulations with government procedures for seamless integration.

6. Improving the efficiency of the CP/FPIC process while simultaneously strengthening the credibility of the FPIC. Projects that are included in the Ancestral DomainSustainableDevelopmentandProtectionPlan(ADSDPP)and/orthosesolicitedbytheIPs themselves should no longer be subject to the FPIC process. Much as the proponents aresubjecttostringentrules,specialinterestgroupsclaimingtorepresenttheinterestsoftheIPsmustalsobesubjecttoclearproceduresonhowandwhentheypresenttheirsidetotheIPs.AlsotheprovincialofficesoftheNCIPaswellasitsservicecentersshould be given a greater role in the implementation of the FPIC process.

7. Assessing the long-term impacts of the IPRA.A systematic, careful, and long-termimpactassessmentofhowthe IPRAhasactuallyworkedon theground in termsofachievingitsoverallobjectivesisnecessarytoknowwhetheritreallymadeapositivedifferencefortheIPsinthePhilippines.Thisimpactassessmentwillrequireasystematicmonitoring of how the IPRA has transformed or failed to transform the lives of its intendedbeneficiaries.

5

Action Plan. Toachievetheaforementionedrecommendations,anActionPlanisproposedtotheNCIPandotherconcernedagencies.Thisplanidentifiestargetsthatmaybeachievedintheshort-termaswellasthosethatmayberealizedinthemedium-andlong-term.

Source: William Azucena of Conservation International.

6

ThePhilippinesisoneofthecountrieswithanestablishedsystemfortheprotectionof therightsof its indigenouspeoples(IPs).Accordingtorecentestimates, therearemorethan100groupsinthePhilippinesbelongingtotheIPcategorywiththeir

populationtotalingaround12million.ThePhilippinesystemfortheprotectionofIPrightsascontainedintheIndigenousPeoplesRightsAct(IPRA)of1997,iscomprehensiveandhighlyprotectiveof theIPsandgrants themtherightsover their territorialdomain, theright toself-determination including theright topractice theircustomary lawsandgiveconsentoverdevelopmentinterventions,specificallyprojects,plans,programsandpoliciesaffecting their communities and those that fall within their ancestral domains.

1.1 Historical Background

PriortotheenactmentoftheIPRA,IPswerereferredtobymanyotherlabels,includinginfieles, tribus salvajes,non-Christiantribes,nationalminorities,culturalminorities,ethnicminorities,tribalFilipinosandindigenousculturalcommunities(ICCs).

The Spanish colonizers referred to them as infieles (infidels)ortribus salvajes(savagetribes)because thesepeopleshadnot embracedChristianityand they resisted thecolonizationof the Spaniards.Continuing this tradition, theAmerican colonial government referredtothesepeopleas“non-Christiantribes.”TheBureauofNon-ChristianTribes(BNCT),establishedinOctober1901andheadedbyanthropologistDavidP.Barrows,wasinchargeof the ethnic classification of the people of the Philippines during the 1903 PhilippineCensus.TheFilipinosthenweredividedintotwogeneralcategories:the“Christianandcivilized tribes” and the “non-Christian and wild tribes.”

ThenewPhilippineRepublicpracticallycontinuedtheAmericanpoliciesonIPs.TherewerejustchangesinthenamesofthegovernmentagencyassignedforIPs,i.e.,fromBNCTtotheCommissiononNationalIntegration(CNI),tothePresidentialAssistanceforNationalMinorities(PANAMIN),totheOfficeofMuslimAffairs(OMA)andCulturalCommunities(OMACC), and then to theOffice ofNorthernCulturalCommunities (ONCC) and theOfficeofSouthernCulturalCommunities(OSCC).AlongsidewerethechangesinthelegalparlanceforIPs:fromnon-Christiantribes,toculturalminorities,tonationalminorities,toculturalcommunities,andtoICCs.

SeverallawswerepassedthataddressedtherightsofIPs,suchasPresidentialDecreeNo. 410, or theAncestral Land Law, and the National Integrated ProtectedAreasSystem (NIPAS)Act, which contained specific provisions protecting the rights ofIPs/ICCs to their ancestral domain. Among the administrative issuances was theDepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)AdministrativeOrderNo.2, which recognized ancestral lands and ancestral domain claims.TheDENR issued181 certificates of ancestral domain claims and several certificates of ancestral land

I N T R O D U C T I O N

1.1.

7

claims from 1992-97. In 1997, the Philippine Congress enacted RepublicAct No.8371,alsoknownas the IPRA.Under this law, the term“indigenouspeoples”wasusedsynonymouslywith“indigenousculturalcommunities.”ThesaidlawalsocalledfortheestablishmentoftheNationalCommissiononIndigenousPeoples(NCIP)bymerging the ONCC and the OSCC (see Box 1 for the summary).

Box 1. History of Government Agencies and Policies on Indigenous Peoples.

1901-57 – During this period, the BNCT served as the government body in charge of “non-Christian and wild tribes” of the Philippines. From 1927 to 1934, the American colonial government established several “non-Chris-tian reservations” similar to those for Native Americans. The type of religion and the degree of colonization by the Americans were the primary criteria for distinguishing indigenous peoples from the rest of the Filipinos. The newly independent Philippine government inherited this framework in 1946 and continued it until 1957.

1957-72 – The post-colonial period was marked by the replacement of the BNCT by the CNI. The new policy of the Philippine government vis-à-vis the indigenous peoples was that of the latter’s integration into the mainstream Philippine society. This is reflected in the mandate of the CNI, i.e. “bringing about, as rapidly as possible, the moral, material, economic, social and political advancement of the non-Christian Filipinos and of making real, complete and permanent their integration into the body politic.” It was also during this period when the categories “national cultural minorities” or “national minorities” were used in the legal parlance instead of the previous “non-Christian tribes”.

1972-86 – The martial law regime of President Ferdinand Marcos was marked by several protest movements carried out by indigenous peoples against government-initiated development projects that would displace these peoples from their ancestral lands. Among these projects were the Chico River Basin Development Project in Kalinga and Mountain Province and the Cellophil Resources Corporation in Abra. There was a growing realization among the indigenous peoples’ movement and their advocates that IP rights are closely linked with the issue of ancestral lands. During the period, Marcos issued several decrees and issuances that concerned those of indig-enous peoples. In 1974, Marcos signed Presidential Decree No. 410, otherwise known as the Ancestral Land Law. Under this law, all lands occupied by national minorities were classified as “alienable and disposable.” Individual members coming from the national minorities were asked to apply for Torrens titles from the government. Since many members of the national minorities did not bother to apply for individual land titles, the said law did not have any strong impact in providing security of tenure for indigenous peoples.

In the mid ‘80s, the Southern Philippines Development Authority (SPDA) and the PANAMIN were becoming un-popular because of several exposés about their alleged roles in the government’s anti-insurgency campaign as well as the scandals related to the eccentric lifestyle of Secretary Manuel Elizalde of the PANAMIN. In 1985, Exec-utive Order No. 969 dissolved the PANAMIN and the SPDA and created the Office for Muslim Affairs and Cultural Communities (OMACC). The OMACC catered to the needs of both the Muslim and non-Muslim communities.

1986-97 – The newly restored democracy paved the way for several reforms in government policies vis-à-vis indigenous peoples. The OMACC was abolished as part of the Aquino government’s overall effort to revamp the bureaucracy. Three distinct and separate offices under the Office of the President replaced the OMACC namely: the OMA; the ONCC; and the OSCC. A new Philippine Constitution was ratified in 1987 and this contained several provisions on the protection of the rights of “indigenous cultural communities” or ICCs. Since then, the legal jargon “ICCs” was used instead of earlier categories.

The period was also marked by the issuance of several certificates of ancestral domain claims and certificates of ancestral land claims by the DENR pursuant to its Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1991. More specifically, the DENR awarded 181 certificates of ancestral domain claims in the span of 1992 to 1997. Another highlight of this period was the passage of the NIPAS Act in 1992. This law contained specific provisions protecting the rights of ICCs to their ancestral domain.

1997-present – Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act, was enacted in 1997. Under this law, the term “indigenous peoples” or “IPs” was used synonymously with “indigenous cultural communities.” The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples was established in 1998 through a merger of the ONCC and the OSCC.

8

1.2 Objectives of the Review

ThisreviewwasconductedtoidentifystrengthsandweaknessesoftheIPRAandtohelptheNCIPdevelopand implementaprogramtoachieveamoreefficientandeffectivesafeguardsystemfortheIPs.Thereviewfocusedonthecertificationprecondition/freeandpriorinformedconsent(CP/FPIC)processinrelationtodevelopmentandinvestmentprojects. It examined the legal and institutional framework as well as the implementation oftheIPRA.ItalsoutilizedtheresultsfromtherecentlycompletedWorldBankstudyon stocktaking the country safeguard systems, including the IPRA, and other studiesconducted by the Tanggapang Panligal ng Katutubong Pilipino (PANLIPI) and theUnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP).

1.3 The Review Process

This report isaproductofan incremental reviewprocess that lasted for twoyears. Itstartedwithaseriesofdialoguesandworkshopswithgovernmentagencies,internationalfinancing institutions,non-governmentorganizationsand localgovernmentunits fromFebruarytoMayof2005totakestockofthePhilippinesafeguardsfortheIPsincludingthe implementation capacities and track records of national government agencies.1 The resultsofthatstocktakingexerciseprovidedtheimpetusforarapidassessmentinearly2006which produced a preliminary assessment report and a terms of reference for amore detailed review.The terms of reference, alongwith the preliminary reportwasthenpresentedtotheNCIPforcomments.UndertakeninJunetoDecember2006,theassessment included extensive review of the IPRA and the various laws and issuances affecting thesafeguardsystemfor the IPs, interviewwithprojectproponentsandkeystaff of the NCIP. Case studies were also conducted on selected projects.

1.4 Organization of the Report

Thenextthreesectionsprovidebriefdescriptionsofthecountrycontext.Sections2and3 describe the legal and institutional frameworks, respectively, Section 4 specificallydescribes the process that has to be followed to ensure the protection of the rights of theIPsinanyactivitythatfallswithintheirdomainsthroughtheCP/FPIC.TheformalassessmentofthesystemstartsinSection5wheretheadequacyofthePhilippinesafeguardsystemfortheprotectionofIPswasexaminedvis-à-visuniversallyacceptedconceptsontheprotectionofIPs,includinganassessmentoftheefficiencyandeffectivenessoftheimplementationofthesystem.Section6laysoutthestudy’srecommendationsandproposed action plan to strengthen the implementation of the IPRA.

1 Approximately 80 individuals, representing 16 government agencies, five non-government organizations, two international financing institutions, and 40 local government units were able to participate in the dialogues and workshops.

9

2.

The legal framework of the safeguard system for the IPs is the PhilippineConstitution, the IPRA, and all other laws and ordinances pertaining to therights of the IPs.

2.1 The 1987 Philippine Constitution

The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the main legal basis for all laws and ordinances pertaining to IPs. There are four important sections in the Philippine Constitution that pertaintotheState’srecognitionoftherightsofIPs/ICCs,namely: The State recognizes and promotes the rights of ICCs within the framework of national

unityanddevelopment(Section22,ArticleII); The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development

policiesandprograms,shallprotecttherightsofICCstotheirancestrallandstoensuretheireconomic,socialandculturalwell-being(Section5,ArticleXII);

The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, wheneverapplicable in accordancewith law, in the disposition or utilization of other naturalresources,includinglandsofthepublicdomainunderleaseorconcessionsuitabletoagriculture,subjecttopriorrights,homesteadrightsofsmallsettlers,andtherightsofICCstotheirancestrallands(Section6,ArticleXIII);and

TheStateshallrecognize,respectandprotecttherightsofICCstopreserveanddeveloptheircultures,traditionsandinstitutions.Itshallconsidertheserightsintheformulationofnationalplansandpolicies(Section17,ArticleXIV).

2.2 Indigenous Peoples Rights Act

Republic Act No. 8371 or the IPRA is the most important legal framework for the protection of the IPs in the Philippines. This law recognizes the existence of IPs as a distinct sector inPhilippinesocietyanddefinestheirrights.TheIPRAidentifiesandassignsfourdistinctclustersofIPrights.Theseare: Rights to ancestral domainsincludingtherightofownership;righttodeveloplandand

naturalresources;righttostayintheterritories;rightincaseofdisplacement;righttoregulateentryofmigrants;righttosafeandcleanairandwater;righttoclaimpartsofreservations;andtherighttoresolveconflict;

Right to self-governance and empowerment including the right to use their own justicesystem,conflictresolutioninstitutions,andpeacebuildingprocesses;righttoparticipateindecision-making;andtherighttodetermineanddecideprioritiesfordevelopment;

Social justice and human rights including State provision of equal protection and non-discrimination; rights during armed conflict; right to equal opportunity andtreatment;righttobasicservices;andtheguaranteeoftherightsofwomen,childrenandyouth;and

T H E L E G A L F R A M E W O R K

2.

10

Cul tural integri tyincluding State protec-tion of indigenous culture, traditions andinstitutions; right tocontrol and establish their own educational system; communityintellectualrights;rightsto religious, culturalsites and ceremonies;right to indigenous knowledgesystemsandpractices and to develop their own sciences andtechnologies;rightofaccesstobiologicalandgeneticresources;andtherighttosustainable agro-technical development.

Ingeneral,theIPRAgrantsownershiprightstoaterritorycomprisingoftheareaorareasthattheycanclaimastheirancestraldomainaswellasthenaturalresourceswithinthedomain.Italsograntsrighttoself-governance;socialjusticeandhumanrights;andtherighttoculturalintegrity.Underthislaw,IPsshallhavetherighttoacceptorrejectcertaindevelopment interventions in their particular communities. The following are some of the specificrequirementsoftheIPRA:

1. Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)which isdefinedas theconsensusofallmembersoftheIPs/ICCstobedeterminedinaccordancewiththeirrespectivecustomarylawsandpractices,freefromanyexternalmanipulation,interferenceandcoercion,andobtainedafterfullydisclosingthe intentandscopeofanactivity, ina languageandprocess understandable to the community.This shallfirst be securedby theprojectproponentinaccordancewiththeIPs’ownpractices.Thelaw,however,alsoprovidesthatonlytheaffectedcommunityorcommunitiesshallgiveFPIC.

2. Full Access to Records and Information, which provides that the IPs shall have full access to records and information about the project. This shall be ensured through an undertaking on full disclosure and full access to records and information.

3. Submission of Environmental and Socio-cultural Impact Statement along with the usual requirement of DENR under the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)System.

4. Benefits and Compensation – The proponent is required to enter into a written undertakingwithIPs,statingclearlytheformer’scommitmentfordamagecompensationandcashorsuretybond,thesharingofbenefits,andmeasurestoprotecttherightsandvaluesystemoftheindigenouscommunity.

TheIPRAalsomandatestheestablishmentoftheNCIPastheprimarygovernmentagencyresponsible for the formulationand implementationofpolicies, plans, andprograms topromote and protect the rights andwell-being of IPs.With specific regard to ancestral

11

domains,theNCIPistaskedtoprocessancestrallandanddomainclaimsandworkfortheissuanceofcertificateofancestraldomaintitle,whichservesasaproofofownershipbyaparticularindigenousgroupoftheirdomain,includingallnaturalresourcesthatarefoundinitssurfaceandsubsurface.UnlikeaTorrenstitle,however,thecertificateofancestraldomaintitleisheldbytheentireindigenouscommunityandnotbyprivateindividuals.Itcannotbesoldtooutsidersandisheldinperpetuitybytheethnicgroup.

2.3 NCIP Administrative Issuances

TheNCIPhasissuedseveraladministrativeorders,circulars,andplans,amongwhicharethefollowing:

NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998 is the implementing rules and regulations oftheIPRA.ThemainregulatoryinstrumentforsafeguardistheCP/FPICprocess.Thepolicies,programs,projects,plansandactivitiessubjecttoFPICarethefollowing:1. Exploration, development, exploitation and utilization of natural resources within

ancestraldomains/lands;2. Research in indigenous knowledge, systems and practices related to agriculture,

forestry,watershedandresourcemanagementsystemsandtechnologies,medicalandscientificconcerns,biodiversity,bio-prospectingandgatheringofgeneticresources;

3. Displacementandrelocation;4. Archaeological explorations, diggings and excavations, and access to religious and

culturalsites;5. PoliciesaffectingthegeneralwelfareandtherightsofIPs/ICCs;and6. Entryofthemilitaryorparamilitaryforcesorestablishmentoftemporaryorpermanent

militaryfacilitieswithinthedomains.

NCIP Administrative Order No. 3, series of 1998 recognizes and respects all leases,permits, licenses,contractsandotherformsofconcessionwithinancestraldomainsthatarealreadyexistingand/orvesteduponpriortotheeffectivityoftheNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.1,s.1998.

ThesupplementalguidelineswereissuedbytheNCIPinresponsetothethreatofseveralminingcompaniestopullouttheirinvestmentsduetowhattheyperceiveasdisadvantageousprovisionsoftheimplementingrulesandregulation.ThesefirmswereespeciallyconcernedthattheNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.1,s.1998willnullifyexistingcontracts,leases,permits and other forms of concessions within ancestral domains. To address these complaints,theOfficeofthePresidentformedataskforceonminingundertheEconomicMobilizationGroup. ThetechnicalworkinggroupofthetaskforcehadrepresentativesfromtheChamberofMines,DENR,BoardofInvestments(BOI),andtheNCIP.Thus,theNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.3,s.1998wasacompromisetothemininglobbygroup.With thesenewguidelines,miningfirmswith approved contracts, licenses, agreementsandotherconcessionspriorto1998cannowlegitimatelycontinuetheirminingactivitieswithout going through the process of obtaining FPIC by just securing a certificationprecondition from the NCIP.

12

NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2002 provides for the organization of a Special Committee onReview andVerification to review, verify and evaluate the certificate ofancestraldomain titlesand thecertificateofancestral land titles thatwereapprovedbythe previous set of NCIP Commissioners. The special committee was created because of suspicionsthattherewereanomaliesintheissuanceofthesecertificates.Basedontheirfindings,thespecialcommitteewillrecommendtothecommissiontheappropriateactionforthesecertificateofancestraldomaintitles.Theadministrativeorderenumeratesthetypesofanomalouscasesthat theCommitteeshallreview,suchasmaterialdefects, infirmity,fraud,force,intimidation,andmisrepresentation.Theadministrativeorderexpresslystatesthat the certificateof ancestraldomain titles/certificateof ancestral land titles are toberevoked or rejected if found to be anomalous.

NCIP Administrative Order No. 2, series of 2002 requires a review and evaluation of therecordsofDENRissuancesofcertificateofancestraldomainclaimsandcertificateofancestrallandclaims,andcalledfortheformationofSpecialProvincialTaskForcesunderthesupervisionof theAncestralDomainsOffice(ADO)toundertakefieldvalidationoftheseclaims.Thefieldvalidationshallgivespecialemphasisonthefollowing:authenticityofthenamesofclaimantsasappearinginthecensuspreviouslymade,ifany;confirmationfromthecommunitiesas towhether theyhadactuallygivenconsent to theconversion;validation as to the authorityof the representativeof the community in the applicationfor conversion; and thepresentationof the surveyplan to the applicant community forvalidation.

NCIP Administrative Order No. 3, series of 2002 repeals NCIP Administrative Order No. 3,s.1998andoffersanewsetofguidelinesfortheissuanceofCP/FPIC.Inthepreviousadministrative order, the certification precondition is issued for non-IP areaswhile theFPICisissuedforIPareas.Therevisedguidelines,however,correctedthisbystatingthattheNCIPissuesthecertificationpreconditionwhiletheIPcommunityissuestheFPIC.TheNCIPmayissueacertificationpreconditionforprojectswhethertheyarewithinoroutsideof IP areas. NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1, series of 2003 states that the NCIP, through itsRegional Hearing Officer, shall exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction over casesinvolvingdisputesandcontroversiesoverancestrallands/domainsofIPs/ICCs;violationsoftherequirementofFPICofIPs/ICCs;actionsforenforcementofdecisionsofIPs/ICCsinvolvingviolationsofcustomarylawsordesecrationofceremonialsites,sacredplacesorrituals;actionsforredemption/re-conveyanceunderSection8(b)ofRepublicAct8371;andsuchothercasesanalogoustotheforegoing.ItalsoemphasizesthattheIPcommunitythroughtheircouncilelders,shallresolvecasesattheirlevelandmayelevatesuchcasestotheRegionalHearingOfficeruponwrittencertificationoftheirfailuretoresolvethecase.

NCIP Administrative Order No. 3, series of 2003 seeks to constitute a multi-level consultativebodytobeorganizedattheprovincial,regional,andnationallevels.Italsoprovides for the setting up of similar structures at the community level. Coordinatingcommittees in the provincial, regional and national levels shall be created to assist theNCIP in convening the consultative bodies.

13

NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2004 outlines the step-by-stepproceduresin the formulationofAncestralDomainSustainableDevelopment andProtectionPlans(ADSDPPs). TheADSDPP embodies the goals and objectives as well as policies andstrategies of the IPs for the sustainable management and development of their ancestral domain and all resources therein, including the human and cultural resources, such astheir indigenous knowledge systems and practices.TheADSDPP also contains the listand schedule of programs and projects toward the sustainable development and protection of ancestral domains as a tool for IP empowerment and as a blueprint of the IPs’ total developmentplan.TheADSDPPisa long-termplan thatwillserveas thebasis for theFive-Year Master Plan of IPs in their respective ancestral domains.

NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2006 repeals NCIP Administrative Order No.3,s.2002and institutesanewsetofFPICguidelines.Thenewguidelinesmakeadistinctionbetweenthecertificationpreconditionandthecertificateofnon-overlap.TheformerreferstothecertificateofcomplianceissuedbytheNCIPattestingthattheapplicanthascompliedwith the requirements for securing theaffected IPs/ICCs’FPICwhile thecertificateofnon-overlapreferstothecertificateissuedbytheconcernedRegionalDirectoroftheNCIPattestingtothefactthattheareaaffectedbyaparticularplan,program,projectoractivitydoesnotoverlapwithanyancestraldomain.BothcertificatesareissuedbytheNCIPRegionalDirectorunlike in thepreviousadministrativeorderwhichpoints to theADO as the office that issues a certification precondition.Non-overlapswith ancestraldomain areaswere verified by comparing the proposed project areawith the approvedmasterlistofAncestralDomainAreas.Ontheotherhand,theIPcommunity’sconsenttoaplan,program,projectoractivityisreflectedthroughaResolutionofConsentwhilethedenial of the FPIC is formalized through a Resolution of Non-Consent.

In summary, the NCIP issued all these issuances to serve as implementing rules andregulationsof the IPRA.Fourof the issuances (AdministrativeOrder1,AdministrativeOrder3of1998;AdministrativeOrder3of2002;AdministrativeOrder3of2006)dealtmainlywith clarifying theCP/FPICprocess by: (i) clearly listing the types of projectswithoutapprovedcontractlicensesandagreementsafter1998thatwillrequireCP/FPIC;(ii)clarifyingthatFPICisforissuancebytheIPcommunitywhilecertificationpreconditionisfortheNCIPissuanceandthatitisforprojectsthathavemetalltheFPICrequirements,while certificate of non-overlap is for projects that do not affect IPs or those that falloutsideancestraldomains;(iii)specifyingthestreamlinedstepsandacceptabletimeframetocompletetheCP/FPICprocess;and(iv)decentralizingtheissuanceofcertificateofnon-overlapandcertificationpreconditiontotheNCIPRegionalDirector.

SincetherightsoftheIPsareheavilyintertwinedwiththeirancestraldomains,theNCIPissued three administrative orders pertinent to the creation of bodies and prescribing the proceduresforthefollowing:(i)validationofcertificateofancestrallandtitles/certificateofancestraldomaintitlesinresponsetoaccusationsthatsomeofthemarefraudulent;(ii)conversionofcertificateofancestraldomainclaims/certificateofancestrallandclaimstocertificateofancestraldomaintitles/certificateofancestrallandtitles;and,(iii)formulationoftheADSDPPwhichisafive-yearplanoftheIPsintheirancestraldomains.

14

The NCIP has also issued administrative orders to address grievances and consultative mechanismsspecifyingtheprocedureandbodyexpectedtoresolvethem.ThistakesonissuesbetweenIPtribesthatmaysometimeshaveconflictingclaimsandinterestaswellasadvocacyissuesneedingthecreationofaunitedfrontamongthem.

Medium-TermPhilippineDevelopmentPlanforIndigenousPeoples,2004-2008concretizesthe IP sector’s agenda into specificandmeasurablegoals,programsand targets for theyears 2004 to 2008 that can serve as the basis formedium-term planning, investmentand implementation. It serves as input to the Philippine government’s Medium-Term DevelopmentPlan(MTDP)andasaguideforinternationalpartners,civilsocietygroupsandIPsfordesigningsupportanddefiningcoverageareas.

2.4 Other Philippine Laws

There are other laws that partly discuss IPs and their rights. These laws contribute tothe overall Philippine jurisprudence on IPs’ rights. These different laws can be clustered into10generalcategories,namely:(i)landlaws;(ii)forestrylaws;(iii)agricultureandfisherieslaws;(iv)lawsonmining;(v)lawsonenvironmentalprotectionandconservation;(vi)lawsonEISSystem;(vii)lawsongeneticandbiologicalresources;(viii)lawsonculturalproperties;(ix)lawsonlocalgovernanceandautonomy;and(x)lawsontheNCIP.(Please refer to Annex A for a list of these Philippine laws.)

Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act),althoughpassedduringthetimeofthePhilippineCommonwealth, is still in place.According to Sections 7 and 8 of the saidlaw,theconfirmationofincompleteorimperfecttitlesmaybedoneintwoways:eitherbyjudiciallegalization(entailingcourtprocess)orbyadministrativelegalization(calledthefreepatent).Inordertocomeunderanyofthesetwoways,theapplicantmustshowthathe/shehasbeeninopen,continuousandexclusivepossessionofthelandsince1945.However, for the former, the limit for thesizeof thearea thatmaybe legalized is144hectaresandforthelatter,therequirementisnottoownmorethan24hectaresofland.IPsmayutilizeanyofthesetwomodes.

PD 1586 (Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System of 1978) declares environmentally critical projects and projects within environmentally critical areas asprojectswhichrequirethesubmissionofanEIS.Section4statedthat“noperson,partnershiporcorporationshallundertakeoroperateanyinpartsuchdeclaredenvironmentallycriticalprojects or project within an environmentally critical areas without first securing anenvironmentalcompliancecertificate.”

RA 4846 (Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act)asamendedbyPD374,mandatesthatonlytheNationalMuseumofthePhilippinescanundertakearchaeologicalexplorations,assessmentsandexcavations.Anyoneviolatingthis lawwillbefined.TheNationalMuseumbelievesthatthelawappliesthroughoutanypartofthecountry.Agenciesand/orindividualswantingtoengageinarchaeologicalpractice(e.g.thoseintheacademe),have to seek a permit from the National Museum to be able to practice their craft.

15

Republic Act 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL) is another law that hassomeimpactonIPsasitprovidessomelegalprotectiontotheancestraldomains/lands.AccordingtoSection2,par.5ofthislaw,“TheStateshallapplytheprinciplesofagrarianreform,orstewardship,wheneverapplicable,inaccordancewithlawinthedispositionorutilizationofothernaturalresources,includinglandsofthepublicdomain,andtheirleaseorconcession,suitabletoagriculture,subject to prior rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.”ThislawimpliesthattherightsoftheIPtotheirancestraldomain/landmustprevailoverthatofthefarmer.Furthermore,thelawprovidesthatinleasingoutundevelopedlandsofthepublicdomaintoqualifiedentitiesforthedevelopmentofcapital-intensive farms and traditional and pioneering crops, especially those for export, priorrightsofIPstotheirancestrallandsshalllikewiseberespected(Section2,par.12).

Republic Act 7076 (People’s Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991) provides that Filipino citizensmayformcooperativestobelicensedbytheDENRtoengageintheextractionofminerals.However,withindeclaredancestrallands,IPsshallhavepriorityintheawardingofsuch licensesorcontracts.RepublicAct7076excludesallactiveminingareas, thus,leavingtheIPshelplessagainstpreviouslyexistinglarge-scaleminerswhohaveencroachedontheirancestraldomains/lands.

Republic Act 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) provides that ICCs have the option toestablishtribalbarangays.AccordingtoSection386oftheLocalGovernmentCode,“Toenhancethedeliveryofbasicservicesintheindigenousculturalcommunities,barangaysmaybecreatedinsuchcommunitiesbyanActofCongress”notwithstandingtheminimumrequirementsforthecreationofabarangay.ThisoptionisrecognizedbytheIPRA(Section18),whichstatesthat“theIPs/ICCslivingincontiguousareasorcommunitieswheretheyform the predominant population butwhich are located inmunicipalities, provinces orcitieswheretheydonotconstitutethemajorityofthepopulation,mayformorconstituteaseparatebarangayinaccordancewiththeLocalGovernmentCodeonthecreationoftribalbarangays.”

Republic Act 7586 (National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992) is designed to safeguard protected areas from further encroachment and to allow development projects which have compatible uses or which enhance the protection of these areas. It includes specificprovisionsprotectingtherightsofculturalcommunitiestotheirancestraldomain.Underthislaw,theIPscannotbeevictedfromprotectedareas.

Republic Act 7611 (Strategic Environment Plan for Palawan) is the framework plan for the island of Palawan. This framework plan serves as a guide to government agencies in the formulation and implementation of plans, programs, and projects affecting theenvironmentandnaturalresourcesofPalawan.ItestablishesagradedsystemofprotectionanddevelopmentoverthewholeofPalawanknownastheEnvironmentallyCriticalAreasNetwork. One of the objectives of the network is to ensure the protection of IPs and the preservation of their culture.

16

Republic Act 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995)isthefirstlawwhichveststheICCswithFPICoverproposedminingprojectsintheirareas.ItprovidesadefinitionofICCsandancestral lands and prohibits opening of mining operations on ancestral lands without the priorconsentoftheconcernedICC.ItalsoprovidesfortheICCstobeentitledtoroyaltypaymentsfortheuseofminerals.Thesaidroyaltyshallformpartofatrustfundforthesocio-economic well-being of ICCs. It also provides that “All mineral resources in public andprivatelandswithintheterritoryandexclusiveeconomiczoneoftheRepublicofthePhilippinesareownedbytheState”(Section2,RepublicAct7942).

RA 9054 (An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao) amends Republic Act 6734 and calls for the creation of the Autonomous RegioninMuslimMindanao(ARMM).ThetheAutonomousRegioninMuslimMindanaoshall have powers and jurisdiction over the following: administrative organization;creationofrevenuesources;ancestraldomainandnaturalresources;personal,familyandpropertyrelations;regionalurbanandruralplanningdevelopment;economic,socialandtourismdevelopment;educationalpolicies;preservationanddevelopmentoftheculturalheritage;eminentdomain;andpowers,functionsandresponsibilitiesbeingexercisedbythe departments of the national government. For IPs within the Autonomous Region in MuslimMindanao,thelawprovidesforthecreationof“tribalcourts,”whichmayincludeaTribalAppellateCourt.Thesetribalcourtswilldetermine,settleanddecidecontroversiesandenforcedecisionsinvolvingfamilyandpropertyrightsinaccordancewiththetribalcodesofindigenouscommunities.Thus,thelawmandatestheRegionalAssemblytoenactalocallegislationmandatingthecodificationofindigenouslawsandthecompilationofcustomarylawsintheautonomousregion.

Department Administrative Order 2003-30 (Philippine EIS System Implementation Guidelines and Procedures) identifies“areaswhicharetraditionallyoccupiedbyculturalcommunitiesor tribes”as environmentallycritical areas.According toPart2.2Eof themanual, “this refers to all ancestral lands of National Cultural Communities identifiedin Sec. 1 of Presidential Decree No. 410 and settlements designed, implemented andmaintainedbythePANAMINfornationalminorities(non-MuslimhilltribesreferredtoinPresidentialDecreeNo.719)asmaybeamendedbyRepublicActNo.8371(IPRA)and its implementing rules and regulation. This also refers to all areas that are occupied or claimedasancestrallandsorancestraldomainsbyICCs,orcertifiedassuch(certificateofancestraldomainclaim/certificateofancestrallandtitle)pursuanttoDENRAdministrativeOrderNo.2,seriesof1993regardingtheidentificationanddelineationofancestrallandordomain claims.”

17

3.3.

This section looks into the institutional framework within which the Philippine safeguard system for IPs operates. The main area of scrutiny is the NCIP, itsorganizationalstructure,itspowersandmandates,itsmajorprograms,andhowit

concretelyimplementstheFPICprocess.

3.1 The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

TheprimaryagencyinchargewithensuringtheprotectionoftherightsofIPsistheNCIPwhosecharterisprovidedforbytheIPRA.In2004,ExecutiveOrderNo.364subsumedtheNCIPundertheDepartmentofAgrarianReform(DAR)andrenamedthenewagencyDepartmentofLandReform(DLR).ConsultationsconductedbytheNCIPonExecutiveOrder364reportedlyrevealedstrongoppositionastheexecutiveorderallegedlydiminishedthespiritandintentoftheIPRA,furtherdelayingitsimplementation.Apetitionsignedbyvarious sectors urging the recall of Executive Order 364 prompted the issuance of Executive Order379 inOctober26,2004,whichamendedExecutiveOrder364.TheamendmentspecificallyprovidedfortheNCIPtobeanattachedagencyoftheDLRandthattheNCIPChairmanshallnotsufferdiminutioninrankandsalary.

3.2 Organizational Structure

Thepolicy-makingbodyoftheNCIPiscomposedofsevenCommissionersbelongingtoIPs/ICCs,oneofwhomservesas theChairperson.TheseCommissionersareappointedbythePresidentof thePhilippinesfromalistofrecommendeessubmittedbyauthenticIPs/ICCs.ThesevenCommissioners comefromthefollowing“ethnographicareas:” i)RegionI(IlocosRegion)andtheCordilleras;ii)RegionII(CagayanValley);iii)therestofLuzon;iv)Islandgroups,includingMindoro,Palawan,Romblon,Panay,andtherestoftheVisayas;v)NorthernandWesternMindanao;vi)SouthernandEasternMindanao;andvii)CentralMindanao.Section40oftheIPRAprovidesthatatleasttwoCommissionersof the NCIP should be women. Section 41 mandates that at least two Commissioners of the NCIP must be members of the Philippine Bar.

Section46oftheIPRAcalledforthecreationofthefollowingofficeswithintheNCIP:

1. Ancestral Domains Office (ADO)isresponsiblefortheidentification,delineation,andrecognition of ancestral lands/domains. It is also responsible for themanagement ofancestrallands/domainsinaccordancewithamasterplanaswellastheimplementationoftheancestraldomainrightsoftheIPs/ICCsasprovidedforinChapterIIIoftheIPRA.Itshallissue,upontheFPICoftheIPs/ICCsconcerned,certificationpriortothegrantofanylicense,leaseorpermitfortheuseofnaturalresourcesaffectingtheinterestsofIPs/ICCsinprotectingtheterritorialintegrityofallancestraldomains.ItshalllikewiseperformotherfunctionsastheCommissionmaydeemappropriateandnecessary.

T H E I N S T I T U T I O N A L F R A M E W O R K

18

2. Office on Policy, Planning, and Research shall be responsible for the formulation of appropriatepolicies andprograms for IPs/ICCs suchas thedevelopmentof aFive-YearMasterPlanfortheIPs/ICCs.Suchplanshallundergoaprocesssuchthateveryfiveyears,theCommissionshallassesstheplanandmakeadjustmentsinaccordancewith the changing situations.TheOffice shall also undertake the documentation ofcustomary lawandshallestablishandmaintainaResearchCenter thatwouldserveas a depository of ethnographic information for monitoring, evaluation and policyformulation. It shall assist the legislative branch of the national government in the formulationofappropriatelegislationbenefitingIPs/ICCs.

3. Office of Education, Culture and Health shall be responsible for the effective implementation of the education, cultural and related rights as provided for in thisAct. It shallassist,promoteandsupportcommunityschools,both formalandnon-formal,for thebenefitof thelocal indigenouscommunity,especiallyinareaswhereexisting educational facilities are not accessible to members of the indigenous group. It shalladministerallscholarshipprogramsandothereducationalrightsintendedforIPs/ICCsbeneficiariesincoordinationwiththeDepartmentofEducation(DepEd)andtheCommissiononHigherEducation(CHED).Itshallundertakeaspecialprogramthatincludeslanguageandvocationaltraining,publichealth,andfamilyassistanceprogramandrelatedsubjects.ItshallalsoidentifyIPs/ICCswithpotentialtraininginthehealthprofessionandencourageandassist them toenroll in schoolsofmedicine,nursing,physicaltherapyandotheralliedcoursespertainingtothehealthprofession.Itshallalsomonitor the activities of the National Museum and other similar government agencies generallyintendedtomanageandpreservehistoricalandarcheologicalartifactsoftheIPs/ICCsandshallberesponsiblefortheimplementationofotherfunctionstheNCIPmaydeemnecessary.

4. Office on Socio-Economic Services and Special Concerns shall serveas theofficethroughwhichtheNCIPshallcoordinatewithpertinentgovernmentagenciesspeciallychargedwiththeimplementationofvariousbasicsocio-economicservices,policies,plansandprogramsaffecting the IPs/ICCs toensure that thesameareproperlyanddirectlyenjoyedbythem.ItshallalsoberesponsibleforotherfunctionsthattheNCIPmaydeemappropriateandnecessary.

5. Office of Empowerment and Human Rights shall ensure that indigenous socio-political, cultural and economic rights are respected and recognized. It shall ensurethat capacity building mechanisms are instituted and IPs/ICCs are afforded everyopportunitytoparticipateinalllevelsofdecision-making.ItshalllikewiseensurethatthebasichumanrightsandsuchotherrightsastheNCIPmaydetermine,subject toexistinglaws,rulesandregulations,areprotectedandpromoted.

6. Administrative OfficeshallprovidetheNCIPwitheconomical,efficientandeffectiveservices pertaining to personnel, finance, records, equipment, security, supplies andrelatedservices.ItshallalsoadministertheAncestralDomainsFund.

7. Legal Affairs OfficeshalladvisetheNCIPonalllegalmattersconcerningIPs/ICCswith legal assistance in litigation involving community interest. It shall conductpreliminary investigationon thebasisofcomplaintsfiledby the IPs/ICCsagainstanaturalorjuridicalpersonbelievedtohaveviolatedtherightsofIPs/ICCs.Onthebasisofitsfindings,itshallinitiatethefilingofappropriatelegaloradministrativeactiontothe NCIP.

19

Section49oftheIPRAcalledforthecreationoftheOfficeoftheExecutiveDirectoroftheNCIP.ThisofficeshallserveasNCIP’ssecretariat.ItshallbeheadedbyanExecutiveDirectorwhoshallbeappointedbythePresidentofthePhilippines,uponrecommendationof the NCIP.

AllofthenationalofficesoftheNCIPhavealreadybeen organized and are functional (Figure 1).

Section 48 of the IPRA called for the creation of regionalandfieldOfficesof theNCIP. At present,the NCIP has 12 regional offices each headed by aRegional Director. Theregions where the NCIP hasregionalofficesare:(i)Cordillera Administrative Region;(ii)RegionI;(iii)RegionII;(iv)RegionIII;(v)RegionIV;(vi)RegionV; (vii) Region VI andVII;(viii)RegionIX;(ix)RegionX;(x)RegionXI;(xi)RegionXII;and(xii)RegionXIII.

The IPRA and its implementing rules and regulations did not specifythe field offices to beorganizedbytheNCIP.TheNCIP, however, organizedprovincialofficesunder itsregionaloffices.Asof2006,thereare46provincialoffices.Atthemunicipalandcitylevels,108NCIP service centers have been established. There are instances where these service centers are underthejurisdictionoftheprovincialofficebuttherearealsocaseswherethereisnoprovincialofficeandthus,theservicecenterisdirectlyundertheadministrationofthe regionaloffice.(Please refer to Annex B for the list of regional and provincial offices of the NCIP.)

3.3 Human and Financial Resources

Asof2001,theNCIPhasatotalpersonnelcomplementof1,588plantillapositions(NCIPAnnualReport 2001).The breakdown of this personnel complement is as follows: the

CommissionEn Banc

Commissionon Audit

ConsultativeBody

AncestralDomains Office

Legal AffairsOffice

AdministrativeOffice

Regional Offices

Provincial Offices

CommunityService Centers

Source: NCIP.

Office on Education,Culture & Health

Office of theExecutive Director

Office of Policy,Planning & Research

Office on Socio-Economic Services

and Special Concerns

Office ofEmpowerment and

Human Rights

Figure 1. Organizational Structure of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples.

20

centralofficehas118,theregionalofficeshave300,theprovincialofficeshave414,andtheservicecentershave756.Ofthetotalpersonnelcomplement,799belongtothefirstlevelof position while 762 belong to the second level. There are 27 positions belonging to the thirdlevelpositionthatrepresentstheDirectors,ExecutiveDirector,CommissionersandtheChairperson.However,fivepositionsofthislevelareoccupiedbyOfficers-In-Charge.

Regionalofficeshavetwodivisions,namely:theAdministrativeDivisionandtheTechnicalManagementDivision(TMD).OnlyonepersonintheTMDisdesignatedtooverseeallCP/FPICapplicationsandactivities.

From2002to2005,theNCIPwassupportedbyaregularbudgetaryappropriationofmorethanPhP400millioneachyear.Thebulkof thebudgetaryallocationgoes topersonnelservices,withtherestgoingtoregularmaintenanceandotheroperatingexpenses(MOOE),retirement and life insurance premium and implementation of programs and projects,whereinCP/FPICactivitiesandtitlingofancestrallandsanddomainsarejustpartofthelong list of the NCIP programs and projects. Table 1showsthedistributionofbudgetaryappropriation for the NCIP during Fiscal Years 2002 to 2005.

Table 1. Budgetary appropriation for NCIP for Fiscal Years 2002-2005 (in Philippine pesos).

Expense Item 2002 2003 2004 2005Personal Service 282,549,000 282,475,000 279,270,000 287,765,051Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses Regular 44,126,000 63,249,000 64,126,000 71,580,520Socio-economic/Livelihood Projects 3,479,000 10,781,000 10,851,000 7,695,000Scholarship/Educational Assistance 65,000,000 84,070,000 110,000,000 52,621,000ProgramManagement/Development of 12,692,000 12,692,000 Ancestral Lands to support SRA PDAF 3,100,000 Special Fund 41,181,850 TOTAL MOOE 125,297,000 158,100,000 229,502,850 131,896,520Terminal Leave Benefits 1,610,817 Capital Outlay 1,000,000 Automatic Appropriation 25,605,000 25,605,000 Special Allotment 74,140,518 50,335,030 Total Additional Allotment 80,351,315 Total Regular Appropriation 408,846,000 440,575,000 Total Allotment 408,846,000 540,320,518 536,383,667 469,996,601

Source: NCIP Annual Reports 2002-2005.

TheNCIPdoesnothaveabreakdownofitsbudgetallocationforCP/FPICactivitiessince,asidefromthe involvedpersonnel,allother lineexpenses incurredduring theCP/FPICprocessareshoulderedbytheprojectapplicantorproponent.

21

3.4 Powers and Mandates

The NCIP is endowed with quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative and executive functions.AccordingtoSection44oftheIPRA,thepowers,jurisdictionandfunctionoftheNCIParethefollowing: ToserveastheprimarygovernmentagencythroughwhichIPs/ICscanseekgovernment

assistanceandasthemedium,throughwhichsuchassistancecanbeextended; ToreviewandassesstheconditionsofIPs/ICCsincludingexistinglawsandpolicies

pertinent thereto and to propose relevant laws and policies to address their role in nationaldevelopment;

Toformulateandimplementpolicies,plans,programsandprojectsfortheeconomic,socialandculturaldevelopmentof the IPs/ICCsand tomonitor the implementationthereof;

To request and engage the services and support of experts from other government agenciesor private experts and consultants asmaybe required in thepursuit of itsobjectives;

Toissuecertificatesofancestralland/domaintitle; Subject to existing laws, to enter into contracts, agreements or arrangements with

governmentorprivateagenciesorentitiesasmaybenecessarytoattaintheobjectivesoftheIPRA,andsubjecttotheapprovalofthePresident,toobtainloansfromgovernmentandlendinginstitutionstofinanceitsprograms;

Tonegotiateforfundsandtoacceptgrants,donations,giftsand/orpropertiesinwhateverformandfromwhateversource,localandinternational,subjecttotheapprovalofthePresident,forthebenefitofIPs/ICCsandadministerthesameinaccordancewiththetermsthereof;orintheabsenceofanycondition,insuchmannerconsistentwiththeinterestofIPs/ICCsandexistinglaws;

Tocoordinatedevelopmentprogramsandprojects for theadvancementof IPs/ICCsandtooverseetheproperimplementationthereof;

To convene periodic conventions or assemblies of IPs to review, assess, aswell asproposepoliciesorplans;

ToadvisethePresidentonallmattersrelatingtotheIPs/ICCsandtosubmitwithin60daysafterthecloseofeachcalendaryear,areportofitsoperationsandachievements;

To submit to Congress appropriate legislative proposals intended to carry out thepoliciesunderthisAct;

To issue appropriate certification as a pre-condition to the grant of permit, lease,grant,oranyothersimilarauthorityforthedisposition,utilization,managementandappropriationbyanyprivateindividual,corporateentity,oranygovernmentagency,corporationorsubdivisionthereof,oranypartorportionoftheancestraldomaintakingintoconsiderationtheconsensusapprovaloftheIPs/ICCsconcerned;

TodecideallappealsfromthedecisionsandactsofallthevariousofficeswithintheCommission;

TopromulgatetherulesandregulationsfortheimplementationofthisAct; ToexercisesuchotherpowersandfunctionsasmaybedirectedbythePresident;and TorepresentthePhilippineIPs/ICCsinallinternationalconferencesandconventions

dealing with indigenous peoples and other related concerns.

22

3.5 Major Programs

ThepresentactivitiesoftheNCIParedividedintothreeprogramareas:landtenuresecurity;developmentofIPcommunities;andenforcementofIPrights.

Land tenure security. Underlandtenuresecurity,theNCIPisengagedinculturalmappingofallIPcommunities;delineationofancestraldomainandissuanceofcertificateofancestraldomaintitleandcertificateofancestrallandtitles.

Community development program.Under its community development program,NCIPengages and prepares the Ancestral Domain SustainableDevelopment and ProtectionPlans (ADSDPPs) in thedelivery of livelihood support,educational assistance, healthcare, shelter and other basicservices and the protection and enhancement of cultural heritage in the IP communities by coordinating and securinginternational agency and inter-governmentagencysupport.

Enforcement of IP rights. TheNCIPisengagedintheadjudicationofconflictsthroughcustomarylaws,traditions,theNCIPadjudicationprocesses,theprovisionoflegalassistancetoIPindividualsandgroups,andthepreparationandimplementationofproceduresfortheFPIC.

23

4.4.

As embodied in NCIPAdministrative Order No. 1, series of 1998 (Rules andRegulationsImplementingRepublicActNo.8371),themainregulatoryinstrumenttosafeguardtherightsofIPsinprograms,projectsandbusinessorprofit-oriented

investmentsistheCP/FPICprocess.

TheroleoftheNCIPintheFPICisfacilitative.TheADOistheunitattheNCIPcentraloffice that is primarily responsible for ensuring safeguards within the NCIP. NCIP’sauthoritytoissuecertificationsisprovidedinSection29oftheIPRA,whichenjoins“alldepartmentsandothergovernmentalagencies…fromissuing,renewingorgrantinganyconcession,licenseorlease,orenteringintoanyproduction-sharingagreement,withoutpriorcertificationfromtheNCIPthattheareaaffecteddoesnotoverlapwithanyancestraldomain” and provides that “…certifications shall only be issued after a field-basedinvestigationisconductedbytheADOoftheareaconcerned.”

TheguidelinesthathavebeenusedbytheNCIPinthepastfouryearsfortheimplementationof the FPIC process and other concomitant requirements are contained in NCIP Administrative OrderNo.3,seriesof2002.2AmanualofthisadministrativeorderhasalsobeenpublishedbytheNCIP.TheregulatoryinstrumentoftheNCIPistheCP/FPIC,whichisissuedtoprojectsasaformofclearanceindicatingeithernon-coverage,whichmeansaparticularprojectisoutsidetheancestraldomain,orthattheFPIChasbeengivenbytheIPcommunity.3

ThekeyelementsoftheCP/FPICapplicationprocessareasfollows:1. Endorsements from relevant government agency –Applications for CP/FPIC

mustbeintheformofendorsementsbytherelevantgovernmentagencythathasjurisdictionovertheproject.Forexample,energyprojectsmaybeendorsedbytheDepartmentofEnergy.TheapplicationshallbesubmittedtotheADO.

2. Field-Based Investigation–OncetheADOreceivestheapplication,itwilldirectthe concerned Regional Director to form a field-based investigation team thatwill conduct the secondarydata assessment and site inspection.Thefield-basedinvestigationteamwillpreparetheirreportwithin15workingdays.TheirreportwilldeterminewhetherFPICisneededandwillbesubmittedtotheRegionalDirectorwhowillforwardittoADOwhoafterevaluationwillactupontherecommendationtoissuetheCertificationprecondition.

SAFEGUARD SYSTEM FOR THE RIGHTS OF IPs: CERTIFICATION PRECONDITION /

FREE AND PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT

2 The 2006 FPIC Guidelines are not yet assessed in this report since it still has to be implemented by the NCIP. 3 The impacts of projects on indigenous peoples found outside of ancestral domains are still protected by law through the Philippine EIS System, which assesses socio-cultural impacts of projects on both IPs and non-IPs. Other laws, such as the Local Government Code, the Right-of-Way law, the NIPAS Act, and the Mining Act, also ensure that the rights of IPs and non-IPs are protected in development interventions.

24

3. Project Operational Plan – If the field-based investigation report recommendsFPIC,theRegionalDirector,within15daysfromreceiptofthereport,willgivenoticetotheproponenttosubmitwithin15daystheProjectOperationalPlanandadvise the proponent to commence the FPIC process.

4. Preliminary Consultative Meeting–OncetheProjectOperationalPlanissubmitted,theFPICprocessmaybeinitiatedbytheNCIPbypostingnoticeatthecommunityatleastfivedaysbeforethePreliminaryConsultativeMeeting.TheNCIPwillalsoservepersonalnoticestotherecognizedeldersorleadersofthecommunity.TheNCIP, IPs/ICCc leaders andmembers, and local non-government organizationsor civil society groupswill attend the preliminary consultativemeeting. In thismeeting,theproponentwillpresenttheprojecttotheIPs/ICCsincludingestimatesof the costs and benefits of the project to the community.Oppositionists to theprojectwillbegiventheopportunitytopresenttheirarguments.Theattendeesofthe meeting will then determine if another consultative meeting is needed.

5. Consensus Building – When theparties have determined that no more consultative meetings are necessary,thentheIPs/ICCsleaderswillbegiventimetoconsulttheirmembers.Duringthis time, the proponent will not beallowedinthecommunity.

6. Community Assembly – After the consensusbuilding,theNCIPwillcallacommunityassemblywhere the IPs/ICCs will vote to accept or reject the project and to articulate the conditions for accepting or the reasons for rejecting the project.

7. Memorandum of Agreement – If the IPs/ICCs accept the project and the

project proponents agree with the conditions,amemorandumofagreementshallbeexecutedbetweentheproponent,host IPs/ICCsandtheNCIP,written inthe dialect or language of the concerned IPs/ICCs,withcorrespondingEnglishandFilipinotranslations.Thememorandumofagreementshallstipulate,amongothers:(i)benefitsduetothehostIPs/ICCs;(ii)measurestoprotecttheIPs’rightsandvaluesystems;and(iii)theresponsibilitiesoftheproponentaswellasthoseofthehostIPs/ICCsandtheNCIP.

8. Issuance of Certificate of FPIC–TheCertificateofFPICwillbeissuedbytheIPs/ICCsafterthesigningofthememorandumofagreement.IncasetheIPs/ICCsrejecttheproponent,itwillissueacertificateofrejection.

AflowchartoftheCP/FPICprocessisgiveninFigure 2.

25

Asidefromundergoingtheaboveprocess,theproponentofanypolicy,program,project,oractivityrequiringtheFPICisrequiredtosubmittotheIPcommunityandtheNCIPthefollowing:(i)anundertakingoffulldisclosureofrecordsandinformationrelevanttothepolicy,program,projectoractivity,andallowfullaccesstorecords,documents,materialinformationandfacilitiespertinenttothesame;(ii)anEnvironmentalandSocio-culturalImpactStatement,detailingallthepossibleimpactsontheecological,economic,socialandculturalaspectofthecommunity;and(iii)anundertakingpledgingthatitwillanswerfordamageswhichtheIPs/ICCsmaysufferresultingfromthepolicy,program,project,planoractivity.Pursuanttothis,theproponentmayberequiredbytheIPs/ICCstodepositacash

Endorsing Agency National Level Regional Level Field Level

No

No

Yes

Yes

RDsubmitsdocumentstoADO

ADOreviewsandendorses documents

to Commission(5days)

Legend:ADO –AncestralDomainsOfficeCP –CertificationPreconditionFBI – Field Based InvestigationFPIC – Free and Prior Informed ConsentIP – Indigenous PeoplesMOA – Memorandum of AgreementNCIP – National Commission on Indigenous PeoplesRD –RegionalDirectorRO –RegionalOffice

NOTE:REQUESTFORCPMAYBESUBMITTEDDIRECTLYTOTHENCIPREGIONALOFFICEINWHICHCASE,THEREGIONALDIRECTORWILLIMMEDIATELYISSUEWORKORDERFORTHECONDUCTOFFBI.

ReceivesCertificate(5days)

Receives andfurnishescopyto

the proponent(7days)

Source: NCIP.

Figure 2. Schematic Diagram of the CP/FPIC Process.

Submits request forCP to NCIP

Chairman directsconduct of FBI

RDissuesWorkOrder to FBI Team

(3days)

Conduct FBI(10days)

FBI Team submitsFBIReporttoRD

(7days)

Need forFPIC?

RDrecommendsCP issuance

ADOaffirmsandissues CP(5days)

SubmitsOperational Plan

RDnotifiesproponenttosubmit Operational Plan

(10days)

IP + NCIP + ProponentpreparesWorkand

Financial Plan(5days)

Consent?

MOA drafting andsigning(5days)

CommunityAssembly(7days)

ADOreviewsandendorses documents

to Commission(5days)

ConsensusBuilding(15days)

PCM(Postingofnotices)(5days)

26

bondorpostasuretybondwiththeNCIPequivalenttoapercentageofitsinvestments.TheamountofbondshallbedeterminedbytheNCIPwiththeconcurrenceoftheIPs/ICCsbasedontheimpactoftheproject.Finally,theproponentisalsorequiredtounderwriteallexpensesattendanttosecuringtheFPICofIPs/ICCs.

AccordingtoNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.3,s.2002,theroleandresponsibilitiesofthevariousNCIPofficeswithregardtotheCP/FPICprocessarethefollowing:

Ancestral Domains Office: 1. Evaluatesandvalidates,ifnecessary,thefield-basedinvestigationandtheconductof

theFPICprocess;2. Monitorsthefield-basedinvestigation/FPICprocess;and3. Keepsduplicatecopyofthememorandumofagreement.

NCIP Regional Office:1. Collectsandissuesofficialreceipttotheproponentfortheinspectionfeeontheconduct

ofthefield-basedinvestigation;2. ConductsthecensusorgenealogicalsurveyofIPs/ICCsconcerned;3. Documents the customary practices on consensus building among the affected IPs/ICCs;4. EvaluatesandcoordinatestheFPICActionPlan;5. Facilitates registration of the authentic indigenous peoples’ organizations, elders,

leaders,andrepresentativesoffamiliesandclans;6. Facilitates the execution of the memorandum of agreement and endorses it to the

CommissionthroughtheDirectoroftheLegalAffairsOfficeforreviewandauthoritytosignasthirdparty;

7. Monitors the compliance of the terms and conditions stipulated in the memorandum of agreement;and

8. Keepscertifiedtruecopyofthememorandumofagreement.

TherolesandresponsibilitiesofotherNCIPnationalofficesandsub-regionalofficesarenotclearlydefinedintheadministrativeorder.Itjustmentionsthatthreemembersofthefive-memberfield-basedinvestigationteamshallcomefromtheconcernedprovincialofficeorthecommunityservicecenterwhilethetwoothermembers,includingitsteamleader,shallcomefromtheregionaloffice.

27

5.5.

5.1 Legal Framework

TheIPRAisconsideredalandmarklegislationthatfinallyaddressesthecenturies-oldproblemsconfrontedbytheIPs,suchasethnicdiscrimination,underdevelopment,and political non-representation. It incorporates the key elements of universally

acceptedconceptsontheprotectionofIPsaffectedbyanyprogram,projectandbusinessor profit-oriented undertaking, among which are: (i) screening for their presence andassessment of the impacts of programs, projects and any business or profit-orientedinvestments; (ii) consultations with IPs prior to any development interventions; (iii)securingbroadcommunitysupportamongIPsfortheprogram,orprojectorundertaking;(iii)provisionof culturallyappropriatebenefits to the IPs; and (iv) recognitionof theircustomarylandtenureandrightstonaturalandculturalresources.TheIPRAevengoesbeyondtheprincipleofconsultationandcallsforthesecuringoffreeandpriorinformedconsentbytheIPs/ICCsonanyplans,program,projectsandactivitiesthatfallwithintheirdomains.Inthissense,itisanadequateframeworktoprotecttherightsoftheIPsinthePhilippines.

InPartII,Section1oftheimplementingrulesandregulation,theNCIPconsidersitselfas“anindependentagencyundertheOfficeofthePresident”andthat“theadministrativerelationshipof theNCIP to theOfficeof thePresident is characterized as a lateral butautonomousrelationshipforthepurposesofpolicyandprogramcoordination…Mattersofday-to-dayadministrationorallthosepertainingtointernaloperationsshallbelefttothediscretionoftheChairpersonoftheCommission,asChiefExecutiveOfficer.”InRuleIX,Section6,itprovidesthat“noinferiorcourtofthePhilippinesshallhavejurisdictiontoissueanyrestrainingorderorwritofpreliminaryinjunctionagainsttheNCIPoranyofitsdulyauthorizedordesignatedofficesinanycase,disputeorcontroversyarisingfrom,necessaryto,orinterpretationoftheActandotherpertinentlawsrelatingtoIPs/ICCsandancestral domains.”

DespitethestrengthsoftheIPRA,therearestillmanylegalissuesthatneedtobeconfronted.Morespecifically,theIPRAhasconflictswithseveralPhilippinelaws.Inmanyinstances,theseconflictshaveaffected the implementationof theCP/FPICprocess.Someprojectproponentshaveopted todelay their investmentswithinancestraldomainspending theresolutionof legal issuesrelevant to theIPRA.Ontheotherhand,othershave invokedontheseotherlawsthatconflictwiththeIPRAinordertocircumventtheprocessesandproceduresoutlinedintheCP/FPICguidelines.

Conflicts Between the IPRA and Other Laws

CertainprovisionsoftheIPRAandtheNCIPissuancesareperceivedtobeinconflictwithother lawsof the land including thosewith theNIPASAct, thePhilippineMiningAct,

A S S E S S M E N T

28

and theNationalMuseumAct.These conflictsmay be classified as substantive issues,jurisdictionalissues,andproceduralissues.

ItisclearinPhilippinejurisprudencethatincaseofconflict,theprovisionofthelawthatis themost recent is theone that is usuallybinding.However, at the agency level, theimplementingrulesandregulationsthatare justsubsidiary lawswilloftenconflictwithother laws and their implementing rules and regulations. These are resolved either through harmonizationoftheagencies’implementingrulesandregulationsorbycourtactionwhenthere is litigation.

Substantive Issues

Ancestral Domain vs. Public Domain

TheIPRArecognizestheIPs’optiontosecureacertificateoftitleunderCommonwealthAct141(PublicLandAct),asamended.AccordingtoSection12oftheIPRA,“individualmembersofculturalcommunities,withrespecttotheirindividually-ownedancestrallandswho, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, have been in continuouspossession and occupation of the same in the concept of ownership since time immemorial orforaperiodofnotlessthan30yearsimmediatelyprecedingtheapprovalofthisActanduncontestedbythemembersofthesameIPs/ICCs,shallhavetheoptiontosecuretitletotheirancestrallandsundertheprovisionsofCommonwealthAct141,asamended,ortheLand Registration Act 496.” The option granted under this section shall be exercised within 20yearsfromtheapprovaloftheIPRA.

However, applying the provisionsof the Public Land Act to ancestral domains/lands lends support tothe idea that these domains/landsare held from the State. Though time immemorial possession is expresslyadmitted,ancestrallandsare still considered as public lands andonlyuponcompliancewiththerequiredperiodofoccupancydoespossession ripen into ownership. The Public Land Act does not in any way recognize original orpre-conquest vested right that is tantamount to a native title. On theotherhand, ancestraldomains/lands can only be owned throughthe State’s administrative grace.

29

Native Title vs. Private Title

Section 9 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) acknowledges thesuperiorityoflandsthathavecomeundertheoperationoftheTorrensSystemoftitlingasagainstancestraldomains/lands.Thelawstates,“ForpurposesofthisAct,ancestrallandsofeachICCshallinclude,butnotbelimitedtolandsintheactual,continuousandopenpossessionandoccupationofthecommunityanditsmembers,provided,thattheTorrensSystemshallberespected.”Thus,incaseofconflictbetweenancestraldomains/landsandTorrenstitles,CARLwillsettleinfavorofthetitledlands.

Ancestral Waters as Part of Ancestral Domain

TheStrategicEnvironmentPlanforPalawanAct(RA7611)definedtribalancestrallandsasthoselandstraditionallyoccupiedbyculturalminorities,comprisingbothlandandseaareas identified in consultation with tribal communities concerned and the appropriateagencies of the government. The IPRA, on the other hand, limits ancestral domain toinlandwatersandcoastalareas,andissilentwithregardtoseaareas.Thetwolawsmust,therefore,beharmonized.

Right to Traditional Practices vs. Right to Modernize

The implementing rules and regulation of the NIPASAct (DepartmentAdministrativeOrder92-25)statethat“thezoningofaprotectedareaanditsbufferzonesandmanagementprescriptions within those zones shall not restrict the rights of indigenous communities to pursue traditional and sustainable means of livelihood within their ancestral domain unlesstheysoconcur;…“traditional”shallmeanusingnopowermachineryinextractionprocessandconsistentwithhistoricallycustomarytechniquesofproduction(Section10).”CertainIPadvocatesperceivethisasrunningcontrarytotheconceptoftherighttoself-determinationofindigenouspeoplesasdefinedbytheIPRA.AdvocatessayitisuptotheIPsthemselveswhethertheywanttomaintaintraditionalsubsistencepracticeswithintheirdomainorwhethertheywouldwanttomodernizetheirtechnologiesjustlikethedominantsegmentsofPhilippinesociety.

Jurisdictional Issues

TheIPRAhasconflictswithseverallawswithregardtojurisdictionalissues,i.e.,whichagencyshouldbeinchargeofrespondingtospecificconcerns. NCIP vs. National Museum

Thereisaconflictonwhichagencyshouldbeinchargeofthecountry’sculturalproperties.AccordingtoRepublicAct4846(CulturalPropertiesPreservationandProtectionAct),asamendedbyPresidentialDecree374,only theNationalMuseumof thePhilippinescanundertakearchaeologicalexplorations,assessmentsandexcavations.Anyoneviolatingthislawwillbefined.Becauseoftheselaws,NationalMuseumpersonnelbelievethattheyhavethemandatetoengageinarchaeologicalworkinanypartofthecountry,includingthosewithin ancestral domains. Agencies or individuals wanting to engage in archaeological

30

practice,e.g.thoseintheacademe,havetoseekapermitfromtheNationalMuseumtobeable to practice their craft.

On the other hand, Section 33 of the IPRA states that “it shall be unlawful to explore,excavate,ormakediggingsonarcheologicalsitesoftheIPs/ICCsforthepurposeofobtainingmaterialsofculturalvalueswithoutthefreeandpriorinformedconsentofthecommunityconcerned.”Section46(c)alsomentionedthattheNCIP,throughitsOfficeofEducation,CultureandHealth,“shallalsomonitor theactivitiesof theNationalMuseumandothersimilaragenciesgenerallyintendedtomanageandpreservehistoricalarcheologicalartifactsoftheIPs/ICCs.”Furthermore,Section37oftheIPRAidentifiedthat“IPs/ICCsshallhavetherighttoreceivefromthenationalgovernmentallfundsespeciallyearmarkedorallocatedfor the management and preservation of their archeological and historical sites and artifacts withthefinancialandtechnicalsupportofthenationalgovernmentagencies.”

Thetwolawsobviouslycontradicteachother.ManyIPsresentthefactthatarchaeologistsfrom the National Museum go to their ancestral domains and engage in archaeological excavations without securing their consent.

NCIP vs. ARMM

One conflict between the the IPRAand theOrganicAct forMuslimMindanao iswithregardtojurisdictionoverancestraldomains/lands.TheIPRAissilentastowhethertheNCIP has jurisdiction over ancestral domains within the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao. ChapterVII, Section 52 (i) of the IPRA states, “Turnover ofAreaswithinAncestralDomainsManagedbyotherGovernmentAgencies –TheChairpersonof theNCIPshallcertifythattheareaisanancestraldomain.TheSecretariesofDAR,DENR,DepartmentoftheInteriorandLocalGovernment(DILG),DepartmentofJustice(DOJ),the Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, and other governmentagenciesclaimingjurisdictionovertheareashallbenotifiedthereof.Suchnotificationshallterminateanylegalbasisforthejurisdictionpreviouslyclaimed.”Sincethereisnomentionof the ancestral domains/landswithin theAutonomousRegion inMuslimMindanao, itcanbeinterpretedthatitwillretainitsjurisdictionoverancestraldomains/landswithinitsterritorial jurisdiction.

Ancestral Domain Holders vs. Protected Area Management Board

The NIPAS Act calls for the establishment of a Protected Area Management Board (PAMB)foreachprotectedarea.ThePAMBshalldecideonmatterspertainingtoplanning,peripheralprotection,andgeneraladministrationoftheprotectedareainaccordancewiththegeneralmanagementstrategy.ThePAMBshallbeheadedbytheRegionalExecutiveDirectorof theDENRand itsmembers shall be composedof: one representative fromtheautonomousregionalgovernment,ifapplicable;theProvincialDevelopmentOfficer;onerepresentativefromthemunicipalgovernment,onerepresentativefromeachbarangaycoveringtheprotectedarea;onerepresentativefromeachtribalcommunity,ifapplicable;and at least three representatives from NGOs/local community organizations; and, ifnecessary, one representative from other departments of national government agenciesinvolved in protected area management.

31

In case theprotected areaoverlapswith an ancestral domain area, there arepotentialconflictsbetweenthePAMB,ononehand,andthetraditionalpoliticalstructureoftheancestraldomainholders,on theotherhand, in termsofmanaging theprotectedarea (Box 2). The issue is whether it is the PAMB or the ancestral domain holders who will decide on matters pertaining to the protected area.

IPRA vs. Mining Act on the Issuance of FPIC

The revised implementing rules and regulation of the Philippine Mining Act (Department AdministrativeOrder96-40)requires“priorinformedconsent” from communities before mineral agreements, Financial orTechnical Assistance Agreements (FTAAs) or mining permits aregranted. Elements of the process include public notification, sectorconsultation through a communityassembly, and royalty paymentsof not less than one percent of the miningandmillingcosts.However,these guidelines were issued prior to the enactment of the IPRA and establishmentoftheNCIP.Assuch,the role of the NCIP is nowhere defined in the implementing rulesand regulation of the Mining Act.

Moreconcretely,severalmemorandumof agreements between IPs and mining companies that were signed prior to the enactment of the IPRA didnot include theNCIPasapartytotheagreement.Insuchinstances,the NCIP is demanding amendment to these memorandum of agreements so that it can be a signatory to theagreements (Box 3). Many miningcompanies,however,pointouttotheIPRA Section 56, which states that“Propertyrightswithintheancestraldomains already existing and/orvestedupontheeffectivityofthisAct,shall be recognized and respected.”

Box 2. Protected Area Management in Mt. Kitanglad.

In2001,theProtectedAreaSuperintendent(PASu)oftheMt.KitangladRangeNaturalPark(MKRNP)chargedsomeofthetribal elders in the area with the violation of the NIPAS Act for engaging in logging activities within the Park. According totheIRRoftheNIPASAct,“Hunting,destroying,disturbingor mere possession of any plant or animal or productsderivedtherefromwithoutapermit,specificallyauthorizingsuch activity, from theBoard or, in the case of indigenousculturalcommunities,withoutamutuallyagreedpolicy”areconsideredasprohibitedacts(Section70).Sincethereisnomutuallyagreedpolicybetweentheindigenouspeoples–theBukidnons,Higaonons, andTalaandigs– and theProtectedAreaManagementBoard(PAMB)onthismatter,theloggingactivities were deemed as illegal acts from the point of view of thePASu.Moreover, the IRRofNIPASActonlyallowsthe indigenous peoples to go into the Strict Protection ZoneoftheParkincaseof“ceremonialorreligioususebyindigenouscommunities”whileintheSustainableUseZone,the “indigenous community members… may be allowedto collect and utilize natural resources using traditional sustainablemethodsthatarenotinconflictwithbiodiversityconservation requirements” (Section 10). Since the use ofchainsawsforloggingisnon-traditional,thePASuconsidersthe act as illegal.

On theotherhand,DatuMigketayVictorinoSawayarguedthat the IPs had the right to engage in timber-cutting activities in the Park based on their rights to ancestral domain as mandated by IPRA. The Bukidnons, Higaonons, andTalaandigs claim the entire MKRNP as their ancestral domain and thus, according to the IRR of IPRA, the IPs have therights of ownership of their ancestral domain and the right to developlandsandnaturalresourceswithinthisdomain(PartI, Sections 1-2). Furthermore, the datu (chieftain) claimedthat the tribal elders of the MKRNP were the real managers of theprotectedareaandnotthePAMB.Inretaliation,thetribalelders imposed a sala (sanction) – equivalent to the deathpenalty–onthePASuforpreventingtheIPsfromexercisingtheirrights.Thesalacanonlybeliftediftheaccusedagreesto pay a fine consisting of several heads of draft animals.Upto thepresent, thissalahasnotbeenliftedandthecaseremains unresolved.

*Compiled by the authors.

32

Procedural Issues

State Law vs. Customary Laws

The Local Government Code states that inbarangays where the majority of the inhabitantsaremembersof ICCs, thecustomsand traditionsof the latter shall be applied in settling disputes amongitsmembers(Section412).InconciliationproceedingsamongmembersofICCs,thecustomsand traditions shall be applied in settling disputes. For the settlement under customary laws to be abartoasubsequentfilingofacaseincourt,theremust be attestation of successful settlement. The attested settlement shall have the same force and effect as that of a settlement arrived at through the procedures provided upon the expiration of 10 daysfromthedatetheattestedcopyofsettlementisreceivedbythePunong Barangay(villagechief).

However, the Local Government Code indicatesthat if there is a dispute between a member and a non-memberofICCs,thegenerallaw–thatis,theStatelaw–andnotthecustomarylawshallapplybecausethelatteronlyappliestosettlingdisputesbetween members of the same cultural minorities. The IPRA, however, does not have a specificprovision on how disputes between a member and a non-member of ICCs will be resolved. On one hand, there is no mechanism that states that theLocal Government Code shall prevail in such asituation,althoughinthePhilippinejurisprudence,newerlawsprevailoverolderlaws.ThustheIPRA,being more recent, may apply but then again itis silent on how the disputeswould be resolved,therebyaddingtotheconfusion.

Philippine EIS System vs. Environmental and Socio-cultural Impact Statement

Presidential Decree 1586 (EIS System) providesthat “no person, partnership or corporation shallundertake or operate an environmentally criticalproject or project within an environmentallycriticalareawithoutfirstsecuringanenvironmental

Box 3. The B’laans and the Tampakan Copper-Gold Project.

Shortly after the passage of the PhilippineMiningActin1995,aFinancialorTechnicalAssistance Agreement was signed between the Philippine government and the Australian-ownedWesternMining Corporation (WMC)allowing the latter to develop the Tampakan Copper-Gold Project in the border areas ofSouth Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat and DavaodelSur.InAugust2002,theSagittariusMines,Inc. (SMI) acquired the rights to the saidprojectfromtheWMC.

Two years later, the SMI forged a PrincipalAgreement (similar to a Memorandum ofAgreement) with the B’laans of Salnaong inSultanKudarat,asrepresentedbytheSalnaongTribal Council, the bong fulong (big man),and the other fulong (traditional headmen)of the Salnaong B’laans. According to this Agreement, “the Community consents to theopening and use of the Schedule One Land for mineraldevelopmentandutilization;andagreesto the compensation, relocation commitment,royalties, community development programand community development commitmentprovided for in this Agreement.” The Mines and GeosciencesBureau(MGB)oftheDENRandthe lawyersof theB’laansactedaswitnessestotheAgreement.TheRegionalOfficeoftheNCIPwanted tobeaparty to theAgreementbutthiswasnotentertainedbytheSMIbecausethe Mining Act does not require the NCIP as asignatorytoanyagreementbetweenprojectproponents and indigenous peoples.

The Principal Agreement also provided that “intheeventofanydisputesordisagreementsarising out of this Agreement the parties shall endeavor to resolve the dispute between themby referring it tomediation by a panelcomprised of a Manila-based representative of each of the NCIP, DENR,MGB and thePresident of the Republic of the Philippines.” This proviso is clearly in conflict with RuleIX,Section1oftheIPRAImplementingRulesandRegulationswhichstatesthat“Allconflictsrelated to ancestral domains or lands where one of the parties is a non-IP/ICC or wherethe dispute… shall be heard and adjudicated in accordance with the Rules on Pleadings,Practice and Procedures before the NCIP to be adopted hereafter.”

* Compiled by the authors.

33

compliance certificate.”The proceduralmanual forDENRAdministrativeOrder 03-30identifiedsocialacceptabilitybystakeholdersasanecessaryrequirementinthegrantingof an environmental compliance certificate. The public participation processes includethe identification and profiling of stakeholders; conduct of information, education andcommunication (IEC); public participation in scopingmeetings; public participation inbaseline data gathering; public participation in impact identification, prediction andevaluation;publicparticipationintheplanningprocessoftheEIS;undertakingofpublicconsultations;andconveningapublichearing.

On the other hand, Rule IV, Section 6b the IPRA implementing rules and regulationcallsforthesubmissionofanEnvironmentalandSocio-culturalImpactStatementbyallproponents.ThisStatementshouldcontaindetailsof“allthepossibleimpactofthepolicy,program,projectoractivityupontheecological,economic,socialandculturalaspectofthecommunityasawhole.”

The relationship between this Environmental and Socio-cultural Impact Statement and the PhilippineEISSystemisnotclear. In thepast, theEnvironmentalManagementBureau(EMB)oftheDENRhasbeenrequiringprojectproponentstosubmitacertificationfromthe NCIP that the proposed project site is not within an ancestral domain. The dominant viewnowfromtheDENRisthatthisrequirementshouldnolongerbeaprerequisiteinthegrantingofenvironmentalcompliancecertificates.

5.2 Institutional Framework and Organizational Effectiveness

The assessment of institutional adequacy evaluated the NCIP as the primary agencymandated to implement the IPRA. The review found that there is an adequate institutional frameworktoimplementtheIPRA.TheNCIPhasthepolicy-makingbodyatthecentralofficecomposedofsevenCommissionerscomingfrommajorethnographicareas,oneofwhomisappointedastheChairperson.Ithassixofficesatthecentraloffice,includingtheADO.Italsohas12regionalofficeseachheadedbyaRegionalDirector,46provincialofficesand108servicecentersat thecityandmunicipal levels.The institutionalsetupensuresthatthereisacentralofficetoissuepoliciesandprovideadviceandguidance,withtheregional,provincialandservicecentersimplementingthepoliciesandissuancesandensuringthatIPsarenotdisadvantagedintheCP/FPICprocess.

TheNCIP,however,hasexperiencedseveralorganizationalchallengesduetoitsinadequatehuman,logisticandfinancialresourcestoeffectivelycarryoutitsdiversefunctions.TheCP/FPICisjustoneofitsmanyfunctionsassignedtoitsADO,whichissaddledwiththeenormoustasksofdelineatingancestraldomainareasandissuingcertificateofancestraldomaintitlesandcertificateofancestrallandtitles.Inregionalandprovincialoffices,thereisonlyoneperson thatoversees theCP/FPICprocess.TheNCIPdoesnothave trainedanthropologists to undertake ethnographic research and analyze and respond to cross-culturalproblems.BasicrequirementstoefficientlyandeffectivelyimplementtheCP/FPICprocessinparticularandtheIPRAingeneral,arenotmetwhichincludefullidentificationof the IPsand their territories, theproper representationofallmajor sectorswithin theancestral domain and providing the NCIP with adequate resources.

34

IPs and Their Territories Not Yet Identified

Aproblem,whichisimmediatelyapparent,isthelackofasystemtospecifywhotheseIPsareandwheretheirancestraldomainsarelocated.ThelawonlyprovidedageneraldefinitionoftheIPs/ICCs,ancestral domain and ancestral land (Box 4). Despite numerousstudies by anthropologists on indigenous ethnolinguistic groups,the law was passed ahead of the full delineation of the IP territories anddeterminationofthestatusoftheintegrityoftheirculturesandsocio-politicalsystems.WithoutproperidentificationandmappingofIPs,thesystemcanbemanipulatedbyvestedgroups(see Box 5 for the case of the Tasadays).

The NCIP claims that there are about 12 million IPs in the Philippines. (Table 2 shows the population of IPs per region.) It is notveryclear,however,as to how these figureswere gathered. It is known that the National StatisticsOffice did notinclude ethnicity as avariable in its census of Population and Housing. The NCIP IP population count reflects that thereare no IPs in Region VIII (Eastern Visayas)although anthropologists and linguists know that there are Mamanwas in Leyte and SouthernLeyte. It is also notclear as to how those coming from mixed ethnic backgrounds are classified (e.g.,a sonofa Tagalog father and an IrayaMangyan). Different sources revealdifferent numbers and ethnic names for IPs and other ethnolinguistic

Box 4. Legal Definitions of Indigenous Peoples, Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Lands (Section 56).

IndigenousCulturalCommunities/IndigenousPeoples–refertoagroupofpeopleor homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others,whohavecontinuouslylivedasorganizedcommunityoncommunallyboundedand defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since timeimmemorial,occupied,possessedandutilizedsuch territories,sharingcommonbondsoflanguage,customs,traditionsandotherdistinctiveculturaltraits,orwhohave, throughresistance topoliticalsocialandcultural inroadsofcolonization,non-indigenousreligionsandcultures,becamehistoricallydifferentiatedfromthemajority ofFilipinos. Likewise, IPs/ICCs includepeoplewho are regarded asindigenous on account of their descent from the populations who inhabited the countryatthetimeofconquestorcolonization,oratthetimeofinroadsofnon-indigenousreligionsandcultures,ortheestablishmentofpresentstateboundaries,whoretainsomeoralloftheirsocial,economic,culturalandpoliticalinstitutions,butwhomayhavebeendisplacedfromtheirtraditionaldomainsorwhomayhaveresettled outside their ancestral domains.

AncestralDomains–refertoallareasgenerallybelongingtoIPs/ICCscomprisinglands,inlandwaters,coastalareasandnaturalresourcestherein,heldunderaclaimofownership,occupiedorpossessedbytheIPs/ICCs,bythemselvesorthroughtheirancestors,communallyorindividuallysincetimeimmemorial,continuouslytothepresentexceptwheninterruptedbywar,forcemajeureordisplacementbyforce, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any othervoluntarydealingsenteredintobygovernmentandprivateindividuals/corporations,andwhicharenecessarytoensuretheireconomic,socialandculturalwelfare.Itshall includeancestral lands, forests,pasture, residential, agriculturalandotherlandsindividuallyownedwhetheralienableanddisposableorotherwise,huntinggrounds,burialgrounds,worshipareas,bodiesofwater,mineralandothernaturalresources,andlandswhichmaynolongerbeexclusivelyoccupiedbyIPs/ICCsbutfromwhichtheytraditionallyhadaccesstofortheirsubsistenceandtraditionalactivities,particularlythehomerangesofIPs/ICCswhoarestillnomadicand/orshifting cultivators.

AncestralLands–refertolandoccupied,possessedandutilizedbyindividuals,familiesandclanswhoaremembersoftheIPs/ICCssincetimeimmemorial,bythemselvesorthroughtheirpredecessors-in-interest,underclaimsofindividualortraditionalgroupownership,continuously,tothepresentexceptwheninterruptedbywar,forcemajeureordisplacementbyforce,deceit,stealth,orasaconsequenceofgovernmentprojectsandothervoluntarydealingsenteredintobygovernmentand private individuals/corporations including residential lots, rice terraces orpaddies,privateforests,swiddenfarmsandtreelots.

35

groups. In particular, the list of IPs/ethnolinguistic groups of the NCIP,theNationalMuseum, and thePrivateEnterprise Development Corporationof Asia (PEDCA) reveal severalincompatibilities. (Refer to Annex C for the comparison of lists of indigenous peoples.) There are some groups that are mentioned in the NCIP list but are absent in the lists of the two other sources. There are also those that are identifiedineithertheNationalMuseumorthePEDCAlistsbutareabsentintheNCIP list. Moreover, there are otherlists done by anthropologists, such asH.OtleyBeyer(1918),MarceloTangco(1951),RobertFox(1974),andF.LandaJocano(1994).Otherinstitutionshavealreadymappedthepresenceof theseIPs.Onesuchagencyis theAteneo-basedEnvironmentalScienceforSocialChange,Inc.(ESSC),whichhasproducedamaprelatingtotheIPsofthePhilippineswithdistinctecosystemtypes.

There are various reasons for the discrepancies found in the lists. One reason lies on whether certain ethnic labels refer to distinct IP groups or are mere subgroups of the sameIPcommunity.Forexample, the Adassen,Binongan, Maeng, andMasadiit are mentioned in the NCIP list as distinct IP groups but are considered as mere sub-groups of the Tinggian in the other lists. Another source of confusion is the different ethnic

namesusedbythepeoplebelongingtothesameculturalarea.Forexample,theIlongotofNuevaVizcayaandQuirinoprefertobecalledas“Bugkalots,”whiletheircounterpartsin Aurora prefer to use the term “Ilongot.” A third reason is whether some groups should beconsideredas“IPs”orasothersocio-culturalgroups.Forexample,theNCIPfieldinBoholclassifiestheEskayaasIPswhilemanyanthropologistsreject thenotionthat theEskayaisanethnicgroupbutamerereligioussect.Moreover,theNCIPconsiderssomegroupsasIPsevenifthesegroupsareverymuchacculturated,haveembracedChristianity,

Box 5. The Tasadays: A Case of Invented Ethnicity.

In 1971, PANAMINDirectorManuel Elizalde announcedto theworld thediscovery inacave inSouthCotabatoofthe Tasadays, an alleged stone-age tribe composed of 26individuals. The discovery attracted the interest of theinternationalscientificcommunity.TheMarcosgovernmentreceivedalotofexternalfundingforresearchontheTasadayandthepreservationoftheirhabitat.In1986,however,theTasadayswereexposedtobeahoax,basedonthefindingsofthenationalandinternationalanthropologicalcommunity.

The Tasaday controversy proved that ethnic identity canbemanipulated by certain individuals or institutions withvested interests. Certain groups can claim to be “indigenous peoples” in order to reap economic and political benefitsfrom the Philippine government and other agencies.

*Compiled by the authors.

Table 2. Regional Distribution of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines.

ESTIMATED IP POPULATIONCAR(CordilleraAdministrativeRegion) 1,252,962RegionI(Ilocos) 1,039,447RegionII(CagayanValley) 1,014,955RegionIII(CentralLuzon) 227,675RegionIV(SouthernTagalog) 717,122RegionV(Bicol) 185,448RegionVI(WesternVisayas) 145,959RegionVII(CentralVisayas) 29,150RegionIX(NorthernMindanao) 1,137,197RegionX(WesternMindanao) 1,444,503RegionXI(SouthernMindanao) 2,539,767RegionXII(CentralMindanao) 855,760RegionXIII(Caraga) 874,456ARMM(AutonomousRegionofMuslimMindanao) 313,749Total 11,778,150 Source: NCIP website 2006.

REGION

36

and/orhavenoconceptsofcommunalpropertyincontradictionwiththeIPRA’sdefinitionofwhoIPsare.Forexample,asearlyas1918,Beyer(inTangco1951)alreadyconsideredthe Ibanags and Ivatans as belonging to the Christian peoples of the Philippines together with other dominant ethno-linguistic groups such as the Tagalogs, Sugbuanons andIlokanos, but the NCIP stillconsiders them as IPs.

A study commissioned bythe Philippine National Oil CompanyEnergyDevelopmentCorporation (PNOC EDC)on the various IPs within and around Mt. Apo revealed that the barangay systemhas already replaced theindigenous socio-political systemsofthesegroups(Castro1995).ManyIPshavealreadyintermarriedwithmainstreamsettlers.SincetheidentificationofIPs/ICCsandthedelineationofancestraldomainsareassignedtotheNCIP,thevalueofthislawintermsofprovidingsocialsafeguardstotheIPsdependslargelyontheeffectivenessandefficiencyoftheNCIPinprofilingandmappingthese IPs and their territories.

TheNCIPuses the frameworkof “self-ascription” in identifying IPswithout a built-inverificationprocess. TheNCIPinheritedtheoldlistof“culturalcommunities”fromitspredecessorinstitutions,i.e.,theONCCandOSCC,andmerelyconvertedthisintoa“listofIPs”evenifmanyofthesegroupsareminorityonlyintermsofpopulationbutbelongtoChristian and acculturated groups.

Inadequate Representation from Non-IPs

The IPRA and its implementing rules and regulations were enacted on the premise that theIPsareunderprivilegedandunrepresentedandthatnon-IPsareminorityandinformalsettlersinancestrallands.AlthoughtheIPRAprovidesthatpropertyrightsalreadyexistingwithintheancestraldomainshallberespected,itdoesnothavespecificprovisionsfortheadequate representation for non-IPs both during the delineation of the ancestral domain and the planning and decision-making for development activities within the ancestral domain. TheimplementingrulesandregulationprovidethatonlytheIPsandtheNCIPcandelineatetheancestraldomain.ThefactthattheNCIPalwaysrepresentstheinterestofIPsandisgiventhelegislative,executive,andjudicialpowersisonegreatsourceofapprehensionofnon-IPs.However,ascurrentlypracticed,non-IPscan register theirobjectionduringtheidentificationanddemarcationofancestraldomains.Pragmatically,theNCIPhasnotprioritized the awardingof certificateof ancestral domain titles in areaswhere there iswidespreadoppositionbymigrantgroups.However,oncecertificateofancestraldomaintitlesareissued,theIPRAisnotexplicitabouttheroleofnon-IPs.

37

This problem is more pressing in many parts of Mindanao where theIPs are theminority evenwithin theirancestral domains. According to the IPRA, “All conflicts pertaining topropertyrights,claimsandownership,hereditarysuccessionandsettlementoflanddisputeswithinancestraldomains/lands shall be resolved in accordance withthecustomarylaws,traditionsandpractices of the IPs/ICCs in the areawhere conflict arises. If the conflictbetween or among IPs/ICCs is notresolved,throughsuchcustomarylaws,traditions and practices, the Councilof Elders/Leaders who participated inthe attempt to settle the dispute shall certify that the same has not beenresolved. Suchcertificationshallbeaconditionprecedentforthefilingofthecomplaint with the NCIP, through itsregionalofficesforadjudication(IPRAimplementing rules and regulations,RuleIII,PartII,Section8).”Thereareseriousdoubts,however,astowhetherthese customary laws can be imposedupon a dominant migrant population. One can ask whether the ancestral domain can be effectively managedin such a situation and without the representation of the non-IPs.

Resource Constraints of the NCIP

TheNCIPhasenormousmandatesthatincludethedeliveryofservicesandtheprovisionofsocialinfrastructureandlivelihoodprojectstoverydiverseIPcommunities.However,beingarelativelyyoungagency,theNCIPisboggeddownbymeagerhuman,logisticalandfinancialresources.

TheprogramofactivitiesoftheNCIPpointstothefactthatsafeguards,throughtheCP/FPICprocess,isjustoneofitsmanyfunctions.ThisfunctionisassignedparticularlytoitsADO,whichissaddledwiththeenormoustasksofdelineatingancestraldomainareasandtheissuanceofcertificateofancestraldomaintitlesandcerticificateofancestrallandtitles.The survey and validation of certicificate of ancestral land titles applications arealreadybyitselfagargantuantaskconsideringanestimated5.11millionhectaresthatneedtobedelineated.Toalimitedextent,the2006FPICGuidelineshasaddressedthisproblem

Box 6. Ethnic Tension in Mount Kanlaon.

“This mountain belongs to the indigenous people! Leave this place at once or something bad will happen to you,”shouted Auring (not her real name) to the Protected AreaSuperintendent (PASu) of theMountKanlaonNatural Parkandhis staffmembersoneday in1998.ThePASucame toinvestigatetheclaimofAuring,aleaderoftheBukidnonsofCodcod,avillagelocatedontheslopesofMountKanlaon,andthe Iliranan Tribal Council. Auring and the members of the Tribal Council are claiming the village as part of the ancestral domain of the Bukidnons.

Twoyearsbeforetheincident,theIlirananTribalCouncilwasnotyet inexistence.TheBukidnonsofCodcodbelonged totheCodcodTribalCouncil.TheOfficeofSouthernCulturalCommunities (OSCC)asked thesaidCouncil toapply foraCertificateofAncestralDomainClaim(CADC)forthearea.Thetribalofficials,however,refusedsincetheydidnotwanttooffendtheVisayanresidentswhocomprisetheethnicmajorityofCodcod.According to them, theyhave intermarriedwiththeseVisayansandhavegoodrelationswiththem.Asamatterof fact, Bukidnon households are interspersed in betweenVisayan households. There is not a single area within thevillagethatishomogenouslyBukidnon.

BecausethetribalcouncildidnotheedtheOSCC’sinstructions,the latter organized a rival tribal council – the Iliranan Tribal Council,whichislocatedinSitioIlirananofCodcod.ItwastheIlirananTribalCouncilthatpursuedthedemandforaCADC.Thisclaim,however,wascontestedbytheVisayanresidentsin the area,whoquestionedwhy theBukidnons, aminorityinthevillage,willbecometheownersoftheentireterritory.Moreover,theydidnotagreethattheentireterritorybesubjecttothecustomarylawsoftheBukidnons.ThisledtotensionsinthepreviouslyharmoniousrelationshipbetweentheVisayansand the Bukidnons. Even the Bukidnons have become divided into those who supported the ancestral domain claim and those who were against it.

*Compiled by the authors.

38

bydelegating thefield-based investigationprocess fromtheADOto theNCIPregionaloffices.However,theapprovalandissuanceofcertificatesisstillcentralized.Moreover,thereisonlyonepersonineachregionalofficethatisdesignatedtooverseeallCP/FPICapplications and activities.

Despitetheurgenttaskofdelineatingancestraldomainsandancestrallands,itisreceivingonlyamodestbudget.In2004,theNCIPhadatotalallocationofPhP536million(Table 3).About57percentoftheNCIPbudgetgoestoPersonnelServices(PS).Therestgoesto maintenance and other operating expenses. (Refer to Figure 3 for the breakdown of the NCIP MOOE allocation in 2004.) The Scholarship Fund received the biggest share because the2003allocationofPhP80millionforthefundwasonlyreleasedin2004.Specialfundsinclude partial releases for Benguet Province funded by the Nat ional PowerCorporation. Due to lackof government support, IPcommunities still depend on support from other entities. TheMt.ApoFoundationInc.,created in 1993 and funded byPNOCEDC,alsosupportseducat ional p r o g r a m s within the Mt. Apo Natural Park, namely: (i) collegiatescholarship; (ii) high schoolfinancial assistance; (iii) lawscholarshipgrant;(iv)masteraleducat ional scholarship project;and(v)teachersback-to-barangayproject.

The NCIP does not have a breakdown on its budget allocation for the CP/FPICact ivi t ies . All expenses incurred in the CP/FPICprocess were charged to the project proponent. The NCIP Administrative Order No.3,s.2002,andreiteratedin Administrative Order No. 1, s. 2006, requires theproject proponent or the FPIC applicantthepaymentoffield-based investigation fees and FPICfeestotheNCIP.While

Table 3. Actual budget released by the Department of Budget and Management to the NCIP in FY 2004.

Particulars PS MOOE Total Per Capita (million (million (million Allocation PhP) PhP) PhP) (PhP/IP)*Central Office 46.16 11.15 57.31 -CAR 42.06 42.86 84.92 67.78Region I 19.23 15.88 35.12 33.78Region II 25.41 23.02 48.43 47.72Region III 22.96 8.00 30.96 135.98Region IV 22.70 10.70 33.40 46.58Region V 14.06 4.88 18.94 102.14Region VI & VII 15.73 4.80 20.53 117.25Region IX 19.29 14.57 33.85 29.77Region X 19.01 14.11 33.12 22.93Region XI 24.10 19.42 43.52 17.13Region XII 16.46 18.49 34.96 40.85Region XIII 19.70 13.69 33.39 38.19Others - 27.93 27.93 -Grand Total 306.88 229.50 536.38 41.62**

*Based on regional IP population given in Table 2.**Based on IP population of 12,887,291.Source: NCIP Annual Report 2004.

Source: NCIP Annual Accomplishment Report 2004.

5%

1%

18%28%

48%

Figure 3. Distribution of MOOE Allocation of NCIP in 2004.

RegularSchoolarshipSocioeconomic ProjectsPDAFSpecial Fund

39

thismeasurehascontributedtotheovercomingoftheNCIP’sbudgetarylimitations,manyIPadvocatesquestionthisarrangementasitallegedlymakestheCP/FPICprocessvulnerabletobribery.According toUy(2004),“Thefact thatcosts incurred in theprocurementoftheFPICaretobebornebytheprojectproponent,thismightencouragecorruptionandisinconsistentwiththeideaofaprocesssupposedtobefreefromundueinfluence.”

Given its enormousmandate, there is a need to increaseNCIP’s regular budget.Mostimportantly,theNCIPshouldspenditsresourcestowardstheIPRA’seffectiveandefficientimplementation, such as the delineation of ancestral domain, identification of the IPs,documentationofcustomarylawsandtheIPdecision-makingprocessineachIPgroup.

Safeguard Process

ThePhilippineIPsafeguardprocess,asenshrinedintheIPRA,goesbeyondtheprincipleof consultationandcalls for the securingofFPIC fromhost IPs/ICCs. Inpractice, thisconsultationprocessisnotasingle,one-timeeventbutratherisacontinuousone,requiringprojectstoconstantlyengagehostIPs/ICCstowardsrenewingtheirongoingconsentforthe project.4

TheIPRAincorporatesmostofthekeyelementsanduniversallyacceptedconceptsontheprotectionofIPs:1. Screening for the presence of IPs is done by the NCIP through a field-based

investigationaspartoftheCP/FPICprocess.ScreeningforthepresenceofIPscanalsooccur during the EIS process and the conduct of the environmental impact assessment (EIA)undertheEISSystem,asthePhilippineEIAscopingprocessissensitivetoIPsand other social issues.

2. Screening for impacts on IPs–TheCP/FPICprocessdoesnothaveaclearmechanismforscreeningprojectsintermsofitsimpactstotheIPs.Sofar,theguidelinesconsiderallprojectsintheancestraldomainashavinganimpacttotheIPcommunity.Forprojectsoutsidetheancestraldomain,theEISprocessisexpectedtoaddressimpactsonIPs.

3. Definition of IPs –TheIPRAhasaverybroaddefinitionofIPs/ICCs,whichembracestheconceptsofself-ascriptionorself-identification,differentiationfromthemainstreamFilipinosociety,attachment to landanditsnatural resources,separatesocio-culturalandpoliticalinstitutions,anddistinctlanguage(see Box 4). The law also recognizes the predicamentofIPsasbeingmarginalizedculturallyandeconomically.

4. Consultation with IPsoccurspriortoanydevelopmentasnoprojectisallowedwithouttheFPIC.TheCP/FPICprocessensuresconsultationwiththeIPcommunityinamannerthatisvoluntary,freefromexternalmanipulation,iterativeandbroad-based.TheFPICguidelines also require that the consultation process shall be conducted according to the customaryprocessesofthecommunity.

4 Forexample,acertificateofcompliancetotheFPICprocessmayhavebeengiventoaparticularcompanyonlyforproject exploration andnot for construction andoperation. In this case, theproponentwill need to secure again theconsentoftheIPsduringconstructionandoperation.Therearealsoinstanceswhen,atthetimeofsecuringtheconsentfromtheIPs,theproponentsdonothavethefullprojectdetailsandthereforecouldonlyprovidetheIPstheinformationat hand. The proponents will need to inform the IPs again and get their consent once the full project details are known. In thisregard,theFPICshouldbeseenasaprocessandnotasanevent.

40

5. Broad community support among IPs – The system requires not only broadcommunity supportbutactualconsentwhich ineffectgives the IPs thevetopoweroverdevelopmentprojects,policies,plansandprograms.

6. Environmental and social assessment – The project proponent is required to submit an Environmental and Socio-cultural Impact Statement to the IPs and to the NCIP.

7. Culturallyappropriatebenefits–AspartoftheFPIC,amemorandumofagreementontheintendedbenefitsisrequiredbetweentheprojectproponentandtheIPs.

8. Recognition of customary land tenure –The IPRAisbasicallya land tenure law.Itnotonlyrecognizesnativeorcustomarytitles;italsorecognizestheIPs’collectiveownershipofaterritorycalledtheancestraldomain.

9. IPs and Protected Areas – The rights of IPs within the protected areas such as natural parks,nationalparks,protectedlandscapes,protectedseascapesandwildlifesanctuariesare recognized and protected under the NIPAS Act.

10. Rights to natural and cultural resources – The IPs’ collective ownership of the ancestral domainincludesnaturalandculturalresourcesincludingindigenousknowledge.Hence,consentfromtheIPsisrequiredforanycommercialornon-commercialexploitationofthese resources.

11. IPs Plans – The proponent is not required to prepare a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan(IPP)similartothatrequiredbytheWorldBankbasedonitsOperationalPolicy4.10.However, the Environmental and Socio-cultural Impact Statement is requiredto include impactmitigation and a SocialDevelopment Plan.Under the IPRA, theNCIPisalsoassistingtheIPsinthepreparationoftheirAncestralDomainSustainableDevelopmentandProtectionPlan.

While the implementing rules and regulation of the IPRA outline the procedures andrequirements for securing FPIC, these remain insufficient and are prone to differentinterpretations.Forexample,someNCIPofficialsbelievethata100percentapprovalbythe entire community is necessary in order to be considered as consent to a particularactivityorproject.Otherofficialsbelievethatamajorityvoteissufficienttobeconsideredas consent. Others have argued that the approval of a tribal chieftain is enough if that is the traditionalmodeofdecision-makingbyaparticular indigenouscommunity.Finally,there are others who believe that a barangay(village)ormunicipalresolutionsupportingaparticularactivityorprojectisequivalenttoconsentincaseswheretheIPsdominatetheaffectedvillageortownandtheLGUofficialsarealsoindigenousleaders.ThesedifferencesofopinionarereflectiveoftheongoingconfusionastowhatreallyconstitutesFPIC.Thus,despitetheimplementationoftheIPRAsince1997,therearestillprojectsthatclaimtohavesecuredconsentbutwhosevalidityarebeingquestionedbecauseofcomplaintsthatconsentshavenotbeenproperlyobtained.

Implementation Performance

The adequacy of implementing the CP/FPIC process is measured in terms of howefficiently it is being carriedout andhoweffective the process and the outcomes are.Theproxyindicatorstomeasuringefficiencyinclude:(i)timelinessintheprocessingandcompletingtheCP/FPIC;(ii)timespentandcostincurredbytheNCIPinadministeringtheprocess; (iii) the selectionandprioritizationof areas andprojectswhere theNCIP

41

hasgivenattentionandfocusgiven its limitedresources;and(iv)cost incurredby theproponentsincomplyingwiththeprocess.

Measuring effectiveness on one hand, appears to be challenging. TheeffectivenessoftheCP/FPICprocesscanbegaugedifthesaidprocessisactuallybeing implemented on the ground byIPs themselves with the support of the various NCIP offices. Another wayof assessing the effectiveness of the CP/FPIC is to look into whether theimplementation of the process meets itsdesiredobjective,whichistoenableIPs to exercise their right to self-determination.Insuchacase,itisimportanttofindoutwhethertheimplementationoftheFPICguidelineshascontributedtotheempowermentofIPs.Unfortunately,theNCIPhasnotidentifiedkeyindicatorsastohowtheaforementionedobjectivecanbemet.Asproxyindicatorsofeffectiveness,onecanthereforelookintotheconcreteoutcomesoftheFPICbasedonthenumberofFPICapplicationsreceivedandprocessedbytheNCIPandthenumberofconsentsgivenbytheIPstodevelopmentinterventionsfallingwithinancestraldomainareas.Otherscouldincluderecordedcomplaintsontheconsentsalreadygivenandincidences of consents being revoked or invalidated due to charges of manipulations.

Efficiency

The Implementation of the CP/FPIC Process Does Not Make Use of Existing Knowledge on the Location of IPs

TheNCIP’s approach to the IP safeguard process through theCP/FPIC, especially thescreeningofprojectsthroughfield-basedinvestigationisinefficientanddoesnotbenefitfrom existing knowledge about the general location of the IP population. Since the formal mappinganddelineationofancestraldomainareashasnotyetbeencompleted,theNCIPpolicyistosubjecteachandeveryprojectinallareastofield-basedinvestigation.Eventhough,byNCIP’sadmission,ancestraldomainclaimsconstituteonly17percentofthetotallandareaofthecountry,AdministrativeOrder3-2002doesnotrequireapreliminaryscreeningofprojectsinareasthataregenerallyknowntobeoutsideIPterritories.ProjectsareonlyclearedfromtheFPICrequirementafterafield-basedinvestigationprovesthatthe area is outside an ancestral domain claim. It is therefore not surprising that between the periods 2004-2006 more than 90 percent of the projects issued with certificationpreconditions are outside the ancestral domain areas (Table 4).

Becauseof thepolicyofnotexcludingprojectsfromobviouslynon-IPareasintheCP/FPICprocess,theNCIPisspendingtoomuchtimeanditsmeagerresourcesonprojectsoutsideIPareasandonthosewithoutanyimpactonIPs.Thisalsocreatestheimpression

42

Table 4. Issued CP/FPIC from 2004-2006.

As of 2004 As of 2005 As of 2006Region Not Covered Total Not Covered Total Not Covered Total Covered (Certificates of Covered (Certificates Covered (Certificates

(CP) FPIC) (CP) of FPIC) (CP) of FPIC)

CAR 1 3 4 1 4 5 2 5 7R-I 6 1 7 29 1 30 37 1 38R-II 5 0 5 27 1 28 44 2 46R-III 10 0 10 27 1 28 47 3 50R-IV 20 2 22 56 6 62 92 8 100R-V 22 0 22 52 1 53 74 3 77R-VI & 40 0 40 131 0 131 178 0 178 VII R-IX 2 0 2 3 0 3 13 0 13R-X 3 0 3 8 0 8 14 1 15R-XI 2 3 5 7 5 12 22 13 35R-XII 4 1 5 16 1 17 20 3 23R-XIII 4 3 7 21 3 24 30 5 35Total 119 13 132 378 23 401 574 45 619 (90%) (10%) (94%) (6%) (93%) (7%)Source: NCIP Annual Accomplishment Report 2006.

thattheCP/FPICprocessisarequirementtotheprojectapprovalprocessinnon-IPareas.TherealsoappearsweaktargetingandprioritizationofprojectsthatundergoCP/FPICasshown in Table 5,wheretoomuchattentionandfocushavebeengiventoregionswiththeleastnumberofIPs(RegionsVI&VIIwithonly1.49%IPpopulation).TheNCIPcouldhavedevotedmoreattentioninregionswhereIPsareclearlyheavilypresent(e.g.,CARandRegionXI).

Table 5. Certificates Issued vs. IP population from 2004-2006. Region Estimated IP Percentage of IP Certificate of Percentage Certificates Percentage Population Population No Overlaps (%) issued within (%) (%) Issued Ancestral Domain

CAR 1,252,962 10.64 4 25 12 75Region I 1,039,447 8.82 72 96 3 4Region II 1,014,955 8.62 76 96 3 4Region III 227,675 1.93 84 95 4 5Region IV 717,122 6.09 168 91 16 9Region V 185,448 1.57 148 97 4 3Region VI and VII 175,109 1.49 349 100 0 0Region IX 1,137,197 9.66 18 100 0 0Region X 1,444,503 12.26 25 96 1 4Region XI 2,539,767 21.56 31 60 21 40Region XII 855,760 7.27 40 89 5 11Region XIII 874,456 7.42 55 83 11 17ARMM* 313,749 2.66 * * * *Total 11,778,150 100.00 1,070 80

*Excluded from ARCDP2 sites, hence data were not collected.Source: Second Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project, Department of Agrarian Reform.

43

The Need to Improve FPIC Processes and Timeliness

There are also complaints about the length of time involved in the processing and approval of the CP/FPIC even forprojects outside of the ancestral domain areas. Records of the CP/FPICapplication and approval ofthesubprojectsfinancedunder the World Bank-financedSecondAgrarianReform Communities Development Project(ARCDP2)showsthattheprocessing and approval of CP/FPIC applicationseven for projects that are outside of ancestral domain areas took much longer (123-557 workingdays)thanwhatisrequiredunder the guidelines of 42 workingdays (Figure 4).

For projects within ances-traldomain, theapprovalis even longer because of the consultations and negotiations with the concerned IP communities (Figure 5).IntheTanayenvironmentalenhancement sub-project, for example, which is financed by theWorld Bank throughthe Laguna de Bay Institutional Strengthening and Community Participation Project,thememorandumofagreementbetweenthelocalgovernmentunitofTanayandtheIPsbelongingtotheRemontadowasonlysignedbyallpartiestwoyearsafterthefield-basedinvestigationwascompleted.Thissub-projecthasacomponentwhosebeneficiariesaretheRemontadosthemselves.ThereareindicationsthattheCP/FPICrequirementisdeterringprojectproponents from investing in IP areas.Developers are alsodiscouragedby thecumbersomerequirementoftheCP/FPICprocessaswellasthefactthattheoutcomeoftheprocessisuncertain.Insomeinstances,evenaftertheFPIChasbeenissued,specialinterest groups coming from outside the ancestral domain or those outside of the direct impactareascontinuetohurlchargesofmanipulation,thusmakingtheoperationoftheprojectpoliticallydifficultforthegovernmentandtheproponents.TheMindexProjectisan example of such a case (Box 7).TheNCIPisawareofthebureaucraticinefficiencyoftheCP/FPICproceduresasoutlinedinAdministrativeOrder3-2002,andthisisthereason

123

Iloco

s N

orte

Num

ber o

f day

s

Provinces

Zam

bale

s

Mas

bate

Neg

ros

Orie

ntal

Que

zon

Alb

ay

Bat

aan

Isab

ela

134

42 days - maxtime toprocess CNO

249.67

175.33

354.2

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

557

242.2

155.75

Figure 4. Average Duration of Processing Certificate of Non-Overlap inARCDP2 Subproject (working days).

Source: Second Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project, Department of Agrarian Reform.

Figure 5. Average Duration of Processing Certificate of Precondition Within Ancestral Domain Area.

Source: Second Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project, Department of Agrarian Reform.

Num

ber o

f day

s

Provinces

Batanes Zamboanga del Norte Mindoro Occidental

*Mindoro Occidental-on-going

500473

279.17

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

44

whyithaspromulgatedAdministrativeOrder1-2006withthehopeofstreamliningandfast-tracking the process.

Cost involved in CP/FPIC

ThereisnobreakdownofthecostincurredbytheNCIPin facilitating theCP/FPIC process. In terms of directmonetarycost, thismaybenegligibleconsidering thatallcostsarebeingchargedtotheproponents.However,translatedintostafftime,thismaybesubstantialgiventhe human resource constraints of the NCIP relative to itshugemandates.InARCDP2,thecostsincurredbytheproponentstosecuretheCP/FPICrangefromPhP4,000to PhP83,000. This may even increase depending onthe number of meetings and consultations. Big projects likeminingand infrastructure thatarestrictly requiredtoadheretotheprocesspresumablyarespendingmuchmore.The costs reflected forARCDP2donot includethebenefitsthataccruetotheIPsasagreedinthesignedmemorandumofagreement.Moreover,costsincurredbytheproponentsforthedelaysinissuingthecertificationpreconditions and/or because of the questions raisedaftertheconsenthasbeengiven,arealsonotmonetized,which could be substantial.

Clearly,thereareinefficienciesintheimplementationoftheCP/FPICprocessprimarilybecauseitsimplementationdoes not make use of existing knowledge on the location of the IPs, the length of time to process and approveapplications,andthegreaterattentionandresourcesbeingspent on projects that are outside ancestral domain areas.

Effectiveness

AsofDecember5,2005,theNCIPhadissued378certificationpreconditionsforprojectsthat do not overlap with ancestral domains and ancestral domain claims. There were no CP/FPIC applications from 1998 until early 2002 due to themoratorium on CP/FPICapplications imposedupon theNCIPwhen the IPRA’s constitutionalitywas challengedbefore the Supreme Court.5 Itwas only in 2002when theNCIP began to processCP/

Box 7. The Mangyans and the Philippine EIS System.

In1998,Mindexapplied foranECCfrom the DENR for its US$650-million Mindoro Nickel Project (MNP) in Sablayan, OccidentalMindoro. To gauge the project’s social acceptability, the EIA ReviewCommittee asked Mindex to submit a proof of FPIC from the IPs found in the Direct Impact Area (DIA).Based on this requirement, MindexsubmittedacopyoftheMemorandumof Agreement that it signed with the LupangNinunoKabiloganMangyan,Inc. (LNKMI) and witnessed by theNCIPRegionalDirector,provingthattheMangyansintheDIAweregivingtheir FPIC to the project.

However, theprovincial federationofMangyanorganizations–theKalipunanPara sa Lupaing Ninuno (KPLN) –contested the claim that Mindex was able to secure a genuine FPIC. The group invoked the IPRA that definedFPIC as “the consensus of all members oftheIPs/ICCs”(IRRRuleII,Section1k).Thus,theKPLNbelievedthattheLNKMIrepresentedonlyaminorityofthe project’s stakeholders. The group argued that all Tadyawan Mangyansand allAlanganMangyans should bethe ones to provide the FPIC and not onlythosefoundwithintheDIA.

*Compiled by the authors.

5 AcasewasfiledonSeptember28,1998byformerSupremeCourtJusticeIsaganiCruzandAtty.CesarEuropaquestioningtheconstitutionalityoftheIPRAbasedonthreemajorissues:(i)thegrantingoftherightofownershiptoIPsoverancestrallands,includingmineralsandotherresources,violatestheConstitutionwhichprovidesthatallmineralresourcesbelongtotheState;(ii)useofcustomarylawswithinancestraldomainviolatesthePhilippinejurisprudencewhichrequiresthatalllawsshouldfirstbepublishedbeforetheseareformalizedintolaws,whereascustomarylawsareunwritten;and(iii)theIPRAprovisionontherightofIPstolimittheentryofmigrantsintotheirdomainsviolatestheFilipinos’basicrighttomobilityandabodewithinthecountry.ThecasewasdismissedbytheSupremeCourtonDecember6,2000becauseofatechnicality,i.e.,theSCjusticesweredividedandvoted7-7,andnotonthemeritsofthecase.

45

FPICapplicationsandonlyayearlaterwhenthefirstcertificationpreconditionissuanceswere released. Thus, the low certification preconditions turnout from 2002-04 is quiteunderstandableascomparedtorelativelymorecertificationpreconditionsin2005.

When it comes to the issuance ofcertificates of compliance (certificateof compliance to FPIC process and certification that the community hasgiven its consent), the NCIP issued58 certificates of compliance from2004 to 2006 (Table 6). The number of certificates of compliance issuedhas improved from 2004 to 2006,and just for the first month of 2007,an additional four certificates ofcompliance were handed out. The performance by region, however, isuneven. Regions XII and XIII haverelativelyhighaccomplishmentswhilemostoftheotherregionshaveverylowaccomplishments.

TherearemanypendingapplicationsforFPICandmanyoftheseapplicationswerefiledwaybackin2000to2002.Whiletheremaybeotherfactorsthatmaycontributetothedelayoftheirprocessing(e.g.,proponentsnotpayingthefield-basedinvestigationfees,communitytakingalongtimetodecidewhethertogiveitsconsent,etc.),theeffectivenessoftheFPICguidelinescanstillbequestionedsincetheFPICprocessingtime(i.e.,fromthetimetheproponentappliesforFPIC)couldgoonforever.TherearealsonocertificatesofcomplianceissuedintheAutonomousRegioninMuslimMindanao(ARMM).WhilethetheARMMisnotunderNCIPjurisdictionbutratherundertheOSCC-ARMM,thisreflectstheidentifiedproblemofconflictbetweentheIPRAandtheOrganicActofMuslimMindanao.ItwouldseemthatIPs,ingeneral,andissuancesofcertificateofancestraldomaintitles/certificateofancestrallandtitlesandCP/FPICsinparticular,arenottheprioritiesoftheARMM.

Thesocio-politicalleveloftheIPgroupmayalsobeafactorintheissuanceofcertificatesof compliance (or giving the consent to FPIC). Semi-nomadic or previously nomadicNegritogroups(e.g.,Mamanwa,Agta,Ati,Ayta)arerelativelymoregenerousingivingtheirconsenttooutsiderscomparedtotraditionallywarriorsocieties(e.g.,B’laan,Itneg,Kalinga,etc.).

Givenitslimitedmanpowerandresources,theNCIPdoesnothaveasysteminplaceforprioritizingprojectsthatneedprocessing.Moreover,theNCIPiscriticizedforprioritizingprojectswithmorefunds.Forexample,priorityisgiventoFPICapplicationsbymining

Table 6. Number of Certificates of Compliance Issued by the NCIP, by Region from 2004-2006.

REGION 2004 2005 2006 TOTALCAR 3 1 2 6Region I 1 0 1 2Region II 0 0 2 2Region III 0 1 3 4Region IV 2 4 4 10Region V 0 1 2 3Region VI-VII 0 0 1 1RegionIX 0 0 2 2RegionX 0 0 1 1RegionXI 3 2 7 12RegionXII 1 1 3 5RegionXIII 3 0 7 10ARMM 0 0 0 0Total 13 10 35 58Source: NCIP Ancestral Domains Office 2007.

46

corporationsthatareabletopayhighfield-basedinvestigationandFPICfeesinsteadofsocialdevelopmentprojectsbyotherproponentsthatdonothaveasmuchfundsasthesecorporations. Such was the case in Zamboanga where there were accusations that the NCIP hasbeentoobusyattendingtoactivitiesundertakenbytheTVI(aminingcorporation)tothedetrimentofotherprojects,suchastheARCDP2ofDAR.

FPIC’s effectiveness on the ground remains unclear due to the presence of several data gapswithinNCIP’sinformationsystem.However,itappearsthatithadbeeneffectiveinsomeareaswhileineffectiveinothers.Forexample,theKankanaeysandBagosofBakun,Benguet,gavetheirconsenttotheoperationsoftheLuzonHydroCorporationtooperateasmallhydropowerprojectinBarangayKayapa.AmemorandumofagreementhadbeenforgedbetweentheIPs,asrepresentedbytheBakunIndigenousTribesOrganization,andtheprivate companywith theNCIPacting aswitness.Thememorandumof agreementstipulatedthatpriorityhiringwillbegiventolocalresidentsandthatapercentageshareofthe income derived from power generation will be given to the IPs.

Ontheotherhand,therearecaseswhereconsentwasalreadygiventotheprojectproponentbytheIPsonlytobewithdrawnbythelatterforvariousreasons.SuchwasthecaseforthecoalminingprojectofMGMiningandEnergyCorporationinSouthCotabato.MGMininghadsecuredanFPICfromtheT’bolisofBarangayNed,LakeSebufortheirexplorationactivitiesinthearea. However, therewereprotestscomingmainlyfromchurchgroupsoutside the mining claim area that forced the T’bolis to reconsider their decision and thus withdrewtheirconsent.Inotherinstances,amemorandumofagreementhadalreadybeenforged between the project proponents and the IPs with the latter deciding later to back out fromtheagreement,asexperiencedbytheWesternMiningProjectinTampakan,SouthCotabato (Box 8).

It canbe said that theCP/FPIChas trulyempowered IPs to freelyexercise their rightstoself-determinationwithintheirdomain.However,thefulleffectivenessoftheprocessandexpectedoutcomesarecompromisedby: theabilityof theNCIP toeffectivelyandefficientlyfacilitatetheprocess;thecapacityoftheIPstoasserttheirrightstomeaningfulparticipationandinformeddecision-making;chargesofmanipulativeactionsandcorruptpracticesbybigcorporationstosecuretheconsentoftheIPs;misrepresentationofsomeIPgroups/organizationsclaimingtorepresenttheIPs;thedifferentinterpretationsofwhatconstitutes consent; and the instability of the consent even after the memorandum ofagreement has been signed.

47

5.3 Other Safeguard-Related Activities

TheimplementationoftheCP/FPICisamongthemanyfunctionsoftheNCIP.Itisalsoengaged in the accreditation of IP organizations, the issuance of certificate of ancestraldomaintitlesandcertificateofancestrallandtitles6thepreparationofAncestralDomainSustainableDevelopmentandProtectionPlans(ADSDPPs),undertakingofculturalmappingandIPcensuses,andthecodificationofcustomarylaws.Thestatusoftheseisasfollows:

1. Accreditation of IP organizations – As of 2005, the NCIP has accredited 34 IPorganizations,includingmunicipalCouncilsofElders,associations,cooperativesandfoundations.

Box 8. Stability of the FPIC Process.

In1998,theB’laansoftheFoluBatoAncestralDomaininTampakan,SouthCotabatogavetheirfreeandpriorinformedconsent to theWesternMiningCorporation(WMC),an Australian-ownedcorporation, allowing thelatter to explore the area for copper and gold deposits. Based on the implementing rules and regulations of the IPRA,aMemorandumofAgreement–referredtobytheWMCasthe“PrincipleAgreement”–wassignedbetweenthecompanyandtheB’laansonFebruary23,1998.AmongthesalientpointsofthisagreementwasthattheTribalCouncil – ●Shallallowcompanypersonnel,vehiclesandequipmentaccesstothelandandwillnotprevent,harassorhinderthecompanyincarryingoutitsactivitiespursuanttotheFinancialandTechnicalAssistanceAgreement(FTAA)andwillnotdoanythingtoprejudicetheFTAA;

●Willnotobstruct,disturborpreventthefreetravelbycompanypersonnelandcontractorsalongtheroadsandwithintheland;and

●Willnottake,supportorpromoteanyactionsorconductbyanymemberofthecommunitythatmaypreventorimpedethecompany’soperations,therenewalandcontinuanceoftheFTAA,orwhichmayjeopardizeorthreatenfinancial arrangementsmade byWMC in relation to itsmining operations, andwill exercise all reasonableendeavorstodiscourageandpreventanymemberormembersofthecommunityfromtakingsuchaction.

In exchange, theB’laanswould receive the followingfinancial commitments, benefits andprivileges from themining company: operations and administration fund; community development fund; community quota forrotationalworkers;financialassistancetostudentgranteesandscholars;andemergencymedicalassistance.

In2002,theWMCtransferreditsrightstoexploreanddevelopthearea–throughanFTAAwiththePhilippinegovernment–toanothercorporation,namelySagittariusMines,Inc.(SMI).Thus,thePrincipleAgreementwasamendedtoreflectSMIasanewpartytotheagreementwiththeB’laansinlieuofWMC.From2002to2006,SMIclaimsthatithadalreadyspentP8.25millioninfinancialandnon-financialbenefitsforFoluBato.

InOctober2007,however,theFoluBatoTribalCouncildemandedarenegotiationofthePrincipleAgreementwithSMI since it believed that a new agreement was long overdue. Among the demands of the Tribal Council was an increaseintheroyaltiestobereceivedfromtherevenuesofthegold-coppermine.Onthe16thofthesaidmonth,the Tribal Council initiated the establishment of roadblocks to prevent SMI personnel and their contractors from carryingoutdrillingactivitieswithintheareaunlesstheirdemandstothecompanyaremet.SMIconsideredthismovebytheB’laansasaviolationofthePrincipleAgreementandthussuspendedtheprovisionoffinancialbenefitsandotherprivilegesthatareduetotheTribalCouncil.Uptothepresenttime,thesituationhasremainedunresolvedsinceneitherpartyhasgivenintotheother’sdemands.

* Compiled by the authors.

6 TheNCIPissuestwotypesofdocumentsforlandownership.Thefirstisthecertificateofcncestrallandtitle,whichisissuedtoaspecificindividualoraclan.Landcoveredbythismaybesoldbutonlytomembersofthetribetowhichthepresenttitle-holderbelongs.TheotheristhecertificateofancestraldomaintitlewhichisissuedtoaparticularIPcommunity.Thesaidpropertycannotbesoldtoanyoneandanytransactioninvolvingitcannotputtheownershipofthepropertyatrisk.(Source:EdSumangil,NCIP).

48

2. Delineation and issuance of certificate of ancestral domain titles – The NCIP has issuedorapproved29certificateofancestraldomaintitlesfrom2002to2004,witha total land area of 604,143 hectares and involving 150,099 beneficiaries. In 2003to 2004, there were 56 certificate of ancestral domain title applications involving1,091,151hectares.AsofJanuary10,2005,onlyoneofthesesameapplicationshasbeenapprovedwhiletherestwerestillbeingprocessedundertheProvincialDelineationActionPlan.Therewere32othercertificatesofancestraldomaintitleapplicationsunderthe category “Other certificateof ancestral domain titleTargetAreas forCY2004”involving379,186hectares.AsofJanuary14,2005,onlythreeoftheseapplicationshavebeenapproved.For2005,theNCIPlistedatotalof71priorityancestraldomainareasfor titling,coveringa total landareaof1,404,376hectares(NCIP2006).Thisaccomplishment of the NCIP with respect to the issuance of ancestral domain titles isquitesmallconsideringthenumberofancestraldomainclaimsinthecountry.TheNCIPwasboggeddownwithalotofproblemsthatdelayedtheissuanceofcertificateofancestraldomaintitles.Amongtheseproblemswere:(i)thelackoftechnicalexpertiseinboundarydelineation;(ii)thelackoffinancialandlogisticalresourcesinthisendeavor;(iii)ancestraldomainboundarydisputesbetweenIPsandnon-IPsandamongdifferentIPgroups;(iv)absenceofprioritizationwithtoancestraldomaindelineation;andv)beingreactiveinsteadofpro-activeinidentifyingancestraldomainclaims.

3. Preparation of Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plans (ADSDPPs)–In2004,theNCIPwasabletoissueanADSDPPPrimercontainingtheguidelines for the formulationofADSDPPs.TheADSDPP is supposed to facilitatetheconductof theFPICprocessbyexemptingnon-extractiveprojectsfromtheCP/FPICprocess.Asof2005,onlysixADSDPPshavebeenofficiallyrecognizedbytheNCIP (Table 7).TherearemanyotherknownADSDPPsthathavebeeninitiatedandformulatedbyIPsthemselvesbuthavenotyetbeenofficiallyrecognizedbytheNCIP.SomeIPadvocatesquestionthesoundnessofNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.3,s.2002,whichmandatedthattheNCIPshouldassisttheIPsintheformulationofADSDPPsincaseswhere therearependingapplications forCP/FPIC in theancestraldomain.Accordingtothem,thisistantamounttoviolatingtherighttoself-determinationoftheIPsasitisuptothelatterwhethertheywantADSDPPsornotandatwhatpacetheywanttodevelopitiftheysodesire.

Table 7. Formulated and Officially Recognized ADSDPPs.

Individual Year ADSDPP CADT/CALT Beneficiaries Approved DateApprovedBucloc, Abra * * * *Tubo, Abra * * * *Malibcong, Abra * * * *Bakun, Benguet 29,444.3449 17,218 * 07/18/2002Kalanguya-Kalahan 30,758.5822 10,442 * 04/21/2006Ocampo, Bicol 5,099.3430 5,622 * 03/25/2003Source: NCIP Annual Accomplishment Report 2006.

LocationArea

49

6.6.

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

Basedonthereview,thefollowingrecommendationsareherebypresentedtoimprovetheimplementationoftheIPRA:

6.1 Harmonizing the IPRA with other laws

The IPRA needs to be harmonized with other laws that impact on IPs including the Philippine MiningAct,theNIPASAct,theNationalMuseumAct,theEISSystemandtheOrganicAct of Muslim Mindanao. The same is true with the implementing rules and regulations of theIPRAandotherlawsandtheirproceduralguidelines,ordinancesandotherissuances.ThroughitsLegalAffairsOffice,theNCIPshould“reviewandassesstheconditionsofIPs/ICCs including existing laws and policies pertinent thereto and to propose relevant laws andpoliciestoaddresstheirroleinnationaldevelopment(IPRAimplementingrulesandregulations,RuleVII,PartIII,Section1a).”

The NCIP should follow up on its previous coordination with concerned institutions and agenciesinharmonizingtheIPRAwithotherlaws.TheProjectManagementOfficeoftheConservationofPriorityProtectedAreasProjecthadalreadyinitiatedtalkswiththeNCIPin1999 toharmonizeperceived conflicts between the IPRAand theNIPASAct. Inter-agencydiscussionshavealsotakenplaceconcerningconflictsbetweentheIPRAandthePhilippineEISSystemaswellasthelegalitiesofancestraldomain-publicdomainissues.Theoutcomeofthesetalks,however,needstobefollowedup.Fromhere,theNCIPcanexpand its harmonization efforts to other concerned agencies.

The NCIP’s Environmental and Socio-cultural Impact Statement can be integrated into the overall Philippine EIS System. Integrating the review of this documentwithin theEISreviewprocesswithanauthorizedNCIPrepresentativeasaresourcepersonmaybea better proposition.Aside from avoiding the duplication of the review activity, it canalsobenefitfromtheinterdisciplinaryexpertiseoftheEnvironmentalImpactAssessmentReviewCommittee,thusenhancingitsreview.

6.2 Organizing and accrediting IP organizations

Withtraditionalleadershipandpoliticalsystemsalreadydisappearingor,insomecases,replacedbythebarangaysystem,projectproponentsaresometimesfacedwithnolegitimateorganizationstonegotiatewith.Ontheotherhand,hastilyorganizedgroupsorthosethatwereorganizedforspeculativepurposesarealsotakingplace.Inthesesituations,theconsentsareoftenchallengedbyrivalgroupsclaimingtobelegitimate“tribalorganizations.”TheproponentswillthushavetoputupwiththeuncertaintyoftheoutcomeoftheFPICprocessandthepoliticaluncertaintyoftheissuedCP/FPIC.

This is a big challenge on the part of the NCIP as there are more than 100 IP groups identified in thecountryand ithasonlyaccredited34 IPorganizations.Althoughsome

50

represent traditionalbodiesof IPs, anumberof theseorganizationsare special-purposemodern organizations, such as cooperatives and foundations.This is a carry-over fromthe practice of the previous ONCC and OSCC of organizing “tribal councils” even in situationswhenthecommunityhasnotraditionalconceptofa“tribalcouncil,”likeinthecaseofformerhunting-gatheringbands.Theseintroducedorganizationseventuallycausemore problems than solutions because the practice of assigning leadership to a new elite bodyrunscountertotheegalitariantraditionsofthecommunity.7

WhileitisimportanttoorganizeIPcommunitiessothattheycaneffectivelyrespondtopressuresfromexternalforces,theNCIPneedstorespectandrecognizethecustomarysocio-politicalstructuresthatexist,orhavepreviouslyexisted,amongparticularcommunities.ThetendencyfortheNCIPtoinstallCordillera-typeorganizationsalloverthecountry,asreflectedintheproliferationofintroduced“tribalcouncils,”shouldbechecked.

6.3 Identifiying and profiling of IPs, de-lineating their territories, and documenting their customary laws and decision-making process

The implementation of the FPIC depends on the existence of legitimate and functioning IP organizations representing their community,their customary laws and known decision-making, and clearly defined ancestral domainboundaries. Whenever these conditions arenot present, the screening of projects for theFPIC requirement is going to be difficult asthe FPIC process will be long, its outcomedifficult to predict, and its legitimacy proneto be questioned. The varying opinions onwhat makes up “consent” are due to the lack of written parameters. The decision-making processineachIPgroupmustbeidentifiedandwrittendown(e.g.,someIPgroupsdependontheir elders, some on a council, some on thewholeassembly)andshouldbemadeclearatthestarttotheproponentandtheNCIP.Otherwise,consultations and negotiations can be an endless process. An example was the attempt of Caltexin the1970sandbytheDepartmentofEnergy(DOE)inthe1990stodiscusswiththeIPsthegeothermalprospectsinasiteintheCordillera.Everytimetheproponentandthegovernmentgobacktothearea,theymeetwithvaryingtribalcouncilsandpersonalities.

7 Castro (2000)hasdocumentedone suchcaseamong theBukidnonsofMt.Kanlaon inNegros Island.TheOSCCorganized theCodcodTribalCouncil in the community.When the said council refused to apply for a certificate ofancestraldomaintitle,theNCIPorganizedarivalorganization–theIlirananTribalCouncil.TheBukidnonsnowhavetocontend with two rival sets of leadership.

51

GiventhattheseactivitiesarebasicbuildingblockstoeffectivelyandefficientlyimplementtheIPRA,theNCIPshouldthereforeprioritizetheseoverotheractivities.AstepinthisdirectionisfortheNCIPtolinkupwiththeNationalStatisticsOfficeandthePhilippineanthropological community in fine-tuning a mechanism and criteria for the properidentificationandprofilingofIPgroups.Atpresent,ethnicityisnotyetavariableintheconductofPhilippinecensuses.Languageandreligionremainastheproxyindicatorsinidentifyingethnicityalthoughthesecriteriamaynotbetrueforalloccasions.Forexample,the Sama and Badjao of Tawi-Tawi both speak the Sinama language although the former isaMuslimgroup,whilethelatterisbasicallyanimist.

The NCIP should coordinate with various institutions and agencies in the delineation of IP territories. The NCIP has an ongoing pilot project with the National Mapping and Resource InformationAuthority(NAMRIA)forthemappingofancestraldomainsbuttheseeffortsshould further be expanded in coordination with other academic and private entities.8

Withregardtothecodificationofcustomarylaws,theNCIPiscurrentlyundertakinganInternationalLabourOrganization-UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(ILO-UNDP)studyonthedocumentationofthecustomarylawsoftheKalingasofLubuagan.Asidefromthisinitiative,theNCIPshouldlinkupwithothersimilarinitiativessuchastheIndigenousLawProjectoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesCollegeofLaw.ThisprojecthadalreadyinitiatedthedocumentationofmanycustomarylawssuchasthoseoftheIfugaosandtheKankanaeys.However,codificationeffortsshouldonlybeundertakeniftheIPcommunitiesdeemitnecessary.TherearetwoschoolsofthoughtamongIPcommunitiesrelatedtothisendeavor.OnepointofviewisthatthecodificationofcustomarylawswillassisttheIPcommunitiesinthemanagementoftheirancestraldomains.Thus,itwillbebeneficialifmigrantpopulationsareawareofthesecustomarylawssothattheselawscanbefollowedandobeyed.Ontheotherhand,someIPcommunitiesdonotwanttheircustomarylawstobecodifiedbecausetheyfearthattheywillbemorevulnerablefromoutsideforcesasthesegroupsmaymanipulatetheirlawsforself-servingpurposes.Forexample,privatecompaniescaneasilyaffordtopayfinesofcarabaosorstonewarejarswhentheyviolatecustomarylawsunlikeordinary IP citizenswho areburdenedby suchfines. For the acculturatedethniccommunities,however, it isno longernecessary to resurrect thecustomary lawsthatarenolongerpracticed.Instead,themainstreampoliticalprocesses(i.e.,thebarangay system) should prevail in these communities since these are actually the ones that arefollowed and implemented at present.

TheOfficeofPolicy,PlanningandResearchoftheNCIPshouldtaketheleadinundertakingtheseresearchactivitiesrelatedtotheprofilingofIPs,theirtraditionalterritories,andtheircustomarylaws.

8 ThesevenpilotareasoftheNCIP-NAMRIAmappingprojectaretheancestraldomainsoftheIfugaoinKiangan;theBugkalotofKasibu,NuevaVizcaya,theAgta-ItomofIrigaCity;theAtiofDumarao,Capiz;theKamiginofMambajaoandSagay,Camiguin;theManoboofLapaz,AgusandelSur;andtheManoboofArakan,Cotabato.

52

6.4 Pre-screening of municipalities, cities, provinces and/or areas not subject to CP/FPIC

The NCIP requires all projects, plans, programs and business investments to undergotheCP/FPICprocesseven inareas thatareclearlyoutsideanyknownIP territory.Thisunnecessarily contributes tobureaucratic red tape andcontributed to the inefficientuseoftheNCIP’smeagerresources.TheNCIPneedstopre-screenareas,intermsofwholeprovinces,municipalities,cities,orbarangaysthatnolongerneedtoundergotheCP/FPICprocess.AreasthatclearlydonotoverlapwithancestraldomainsneedtobeautomaticallyexcludedfromtheCP/FPICprocess.

TheNCIPhasrecognizedtheneedforthispre-screeningofmunicipalities,cities,provincesand/orotherareaswhenitintroducedtheconceptofcertificateofnon-overlapinthe2006FPICGuidelines.The guidelines specificallymention that overlaps or non-overlappingareaswill bedeterminedbasedon“theduly approvedmaster list ofAncestralDomainAreas”(AdministrativeOrder1,s.2006,Section15i).Thecurrentmasterlist,however,dulyapprovedbytheNCIPonlycontainsthecertificateofancestraldomaintitles,certificateofancestraldomainclaimareas,andthelistofbarangays with IPs according to existing records.There is a need, therefore, to further improve and complete themaster list toconform to the requirements of the FPIC.

6.5 Enhancing NCIP’s orga-nizational and technical capacity

Although its role in the safeguard process is largely facilitative,the NCIP also needs expertise to strengthen its capacity inthe recognition and analysesof social and cultural issues associated with development projects and/or investments inancestral domains and present these for the consideration of theIPs.TherearemanyprovisionsoftheIPRAthataredesignedtoprotectandpreservetheintegrityoftheIPculturesaswellastheenvironmentalandnaturalresourceswithintheancestral domains. These concerns should be the bases for the decision to grant consent or torejectapolicy,programorproject.

One areawhere theNCIPurgently needs to be enhanced is in the realmof improvingthe organization’s cultural competence and the cultural sensitivity of its staff. Culturalcompetencereferstotheprocessbywhichindividualsandsystemsrespondeffectivelyandefficientlytopeopleofallcultures,languages,classes,races,sexes,ethnicbackgrounds,religions, sexual orientations, abilities, and other diversity factors in a manner thatrecognizes,affirmsandvalues theworthof individuals, families,andcommunities,and

53

protectsandpreservesthedignityofeach.Culturallycompetentorganizationsshouldbeable to integrate and transformknowledgeaboutdiversegroupsofpeople into specificstandards,policies,practices,andattributesusedinappropriateculturalsettingstoincreasethequalityofservicesproducingbetteroutcomes.

ThepresentorganizationalstructureoftheNCIPisalreadysufficient.ItisonlyamatterofbalancingtheresponsibilitiesofeachNCIPoffice.TheADOissaddledwithtoomanyresponsibilities while other offices, both at the national and sub-national levels, areunderutilized.Intermsofmanpower,theNCIPshouldhavetrainedanthropologistsamongitsregularpersonneltoreinforcetheorganization’scapabilityinundertakingethnographicresearchandinbeingabletoanalyzeandrespondtocross-culturalproblems.ThepreviousNCIP En Banc Commission recommended the creation of anthropologist positions in the organization’s plantilla but this plan has never been implemented.At present,most ofNCIP’s trainedfieldpersonnelcomefromthehealthandeducationprofessionsbecausedeliveryofhealthandeducationserviceswasthethrustofthedefunctONCCandOSCC.

TheNCIPbudgetneedstobeaugmentedforittoeffectivelyperformitstasks.Aregularbudgetaryallotmentforundertakingfield-basedinvestigationactivitiesisrecommended.TheexpensesincurredduringtheseregularactivitiesshouldbebornebytheNCIPandnotbytheprojectproponents.Insuchmanner,theintegrityoftheprocesswillbeprotectedagainst cooptation and free from external manipulation.

TheNCIPshouldprioritize its scarcefinancial andhuman resourceswith regard to theprojects and areas that it selects for the FPIC process. Examples of these are mining projects wherebenefit-sharingarrangementswouldbeacriticalissue.

6.6 Improving the efficiency of the FPIC process and strengthening its credibility

The NCIP faces a dilemma of streamlining the processing of the FPIC and improving its politicalacceptability.TheNCIPhasalreadyprovidedwaystofacilitateprojectswithintheancestraldomainareasbyhelpingtheIPspreparetheirownAncestralDomainSustainableDevelopmentandProtectionPlans.TheprojectsthatareincludedintheADSDPPshouldnolongerbesubjecttotheFPICprocess.TheprojectsthataresolicitedbytheIPsthemselvesmust no longer go through the same process. The FPIC process includes elaborate safeguards sothattheIPs’decisionsarefreefromexternalmanipulationandinterference.However,therearestillcaseswheretheFPICsobtainedbylargecorporationswerereportedlysecuredthroughmanipulationbyspecialinterestgroupsclaimingtorepresenttheinterestsoftheIPs (Box 9).Muchastheproponentsaresubjecttostringentrules,thesegroupsmustalsobesubjecttoclearproceduresonhowandwhentheypresenttheirsidetotheIPs.

The2006FPICGuidelines isalreadyasubstantial improvement fromthe twopreviousguidelines.Withinayear, thenewguidelinesshouldbeassessedsothat itcanagainbeimproved. Among the areas that need to be re-examined in the guidelines is the requirement forprojectproponentstopayfield-basedinvestigationfees.Moreover,theprovincialofficesof the NCIP and its service centers should be given a greater role in the implementation

54

of the FPIC process. The NCIP should also be assisted in terms of developing practical methodologies for conducting theFPICprocess.Specificmethodologiesand approaches should be developed for IP communities that no longer practice customary laws. These methodologiesand approaches should be distinct from those designed for IP communities that still utilize such laws.

6.7 Assessing the long-term impact of the IPRA

Thereisaneedtoundertakeasystematic,careful,andlong-termimpactassessmentof how the IPRA has actually workedon the ground in terms of achieving its overall objectives. Through this long-termimpactassessment,wemaybeabletoknowwhethertheIPRAreallymadea

positivedifferencefortheindigenouspeoplesofthePhilippines.Presently,however,itisdifficulttoassesstheIPRA’soverallimpactatthegrassrootslevelbecauseoftheseveraldatagapswithinNCIP’sreportingsystem.Thislong-termimpactassessmentwillrequireasystematicmonitoringofhowtheIPRAhastransformedorfailedtotransform,thelivesofitsintendedbeneficiaries.

Tobeabletoimplementtheaforementionedrecommendations,anActionPlanisherebyproposed that will take into consideration the achievement of the said recommendations overtheshort,medium,andlong-termperiod (Table 8).

Box 9. Gifts and Hospitality, Bribery and Coercion.

Despite strong denials by TVI Pacific of Canada, therearereports that thecompanyhasofferedmoneyinreturnfor support. The Christian Aid and PipLinks Report documented a case in which a village captain submitted aswornaffidavit thatTVI’schiefofsecurityofferedhimmoney in return for supportingamotionpromotingTVI.Likewise,membersoftheCouncilofEldersreportedbeingofferedPhP5,000($90)tosupportthepro-TVIresolutionat the meeting in Zamboanga in October 2002. The Council of Elders are paid PhP6,000 ($105) a month by TVI asan honorarium for attending meetings. TVI defends these paymentsonthegroundsthatitisofferedtosupportersandcriticsalike.However,theonlypeoplewhoattendCouncilofEldermeetingsnowthatpaymentsareofferedarepro-TVImembers. InSubanonculture, takingmoney impliesacceptance of and an obligation towards the giver.

Sources: Molintas, JM 2004. “The Philippine Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle for Land And Life: Challenging Legal Texts.” Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law Vol 21, No. 1. 2004.Cariño, J. 2005. “Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Free, Prior, Informed Consent: Reflections on Concepts and Practice.” Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. Vol 22, No. 1. 2005.

55

Harmonization of the IPRA with other laws

Organizing/accrediting IP communities

Identification and profiling of IP communities, delineation of their communities, and codification of their customary laws

Pre-screening of municipalities, cities, provinces, and/or areas not subject to CP/FPIC

Enhancing NCIP’s organizational and technical capacity

Ensuring representation of non-IPs within ancestral domains

Assessing the long-term impacts of the IPRA

Identification of conflict areas between the IPRA and other laws and ordinances.

Development of criteria for organizing and accrediting IP communities. Validation and finalization of existing list of IP groups.Collection of all available literature on IP customary laws.Development of a list of areas that are without IPs.Development of practical methodologies for conducting FPIC.

Prioritization of NCIP’s scarce financial and human resources. Development of criteria for non-IP representation.

Monitoring impacts of the IPRA at ground level.

Revitalization of joint task forces between NCIP and other line agencies on harmonization of conflicting laws.

Administrative order on accreditation of IP organizations issued.

Masterlist of IP groups and their locations approved by NCIP En Banc.Databank on customary laws available at NCIP central office.Masterlist of provinces without IPs prepared by ADO. Different approaches for securing IPs with functional customary laws and for those of acculturated groups identified. NCIP project prioritization plan developed.

Administrative order on representation of non-IPs in ancestral domains issued. Development of impact indicators.

National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), National MuseumNCIP

NCIP

NCIP, Academe

NCIP, League of Provinces

NCIP, Academe

NCIP

NCIP

NCIP

6.8 Action Plan

SHORT-TERM ACTION PLAN.(Within 1 to 2 Years)

Table 8.

Recommendations Targets Performance Indicators Lead Agency

56

Harmonization of the IPRA with other laws

Organizing/accreditingIP communities

IdentificationandprofilingofIPcommunities,delineation of their communities,andcodificationoftheircustomarylawsPre-screening of municipalities,cities,provinces,and/orareasnotsubjecttoCP/FPICEnhancing NCIP’s organizational and technicalcapacityEnsuring representation of non-IPs within ancestral domains

Assessing the long-term impacts of the IPRA

Draftingofbillsaimed at amending certain laws that conflictwiththeIPRA. Inventoryandclassificationof different IP organizations and political structures. Delineationofancestral domains.

Developmentofalist of areas that are without IPs.

Conduct of cultural sensitivitytrainingsfor NCIP staff. Non-IP representation in ancestral domains in place. Developmentofa regular impact monitoringsystem.

Draftbillsreadyforfiling.

Differenttypologiesof IP organizations and political structuresidentified.

CADTsissued.

Masterlist of cities without IPs developed byADO.

Training reports.

Status report on representation of non-IPs available.

NCIP Management InformationSysteminplace and functional.

NCIP,Congress

NCIP,Academe

NCIP,LeagueofCities

NCIP,Academe

NCIP

NCIP

MEDIUM-TERM ACTION PLAN.(Within 3 to 5 Years)

Recommendations Targets Performance Indicators Lead Agency

57

Harmonization of the IPRA with other laws

Organizing/accreditingIP communitiesIdentificationandprofilingofIPcommunities,delineation of their communities,andcodificationoftheircustomarylawsPre-screening of municipalities,cities,provinces,and/orareasnotsubjecttoCP/FPICEnhancing NCIP’s organizational and technicalcapacityEnsuring representation of non-IPs within ancestral domains

Assessing the long-term impacts of the IPRA

Passing of bills amending the IPRA orlawsthatconflictwith the IPRA. Empowerment of IP organizations.Delineationofancestral lands. Codificationofcustomarylaws.

Developmentofalist of areas that are without IPs.

Professionalization of NCIP.

Resolution of conflictsbetweenIPs and non-IPs in ancestral domains.Identificationof the positive benefitsandnegative impacts of the IPRA at the grassroots level.

Bills passed into law.

IP organizations are functional. CALTs issued.

Customarylawspublished in the Gazette.

Masterlist of municipalities without IPsdevelopedbyADO.Fulltime anthropologists within NCIPregionaloffices.Documentedcasestudiesonconflictresolution in ancestral domains. Socio-cultural impact statement on the IPRA.

Congress

NCIP

NCIP,LandRegistration AuthorityNCIP,Departmentof Justice

NCIP,LeagueofMunicipalities

NCIP

NCIP

NCIP,Academe

LONG-TERM ACTION PLAN.(More than 5 Years)

Recommendations Targets Performance Indicators Lead Agency

58

7.7.

R E F E R E N C E S

Candelaria,Sedfrey.“JurisdictionIssuesConcerningCasesArisingfromtheApplicationofIPRABeforeCourts,theNCIPandtheIndigenousJusticeSystem.”UnpublishedpapersubmittedtotheInternationalLabourOrganization-INDISCO.

Castro,NestorT.1995.“BaselineSocio-PoliticalStudyofTribesinMt.Apo.”UnpublishedresearchreportsubmittedbytheAteneodeDavaoUniversitytothePhilippineNationalOilCompany-EnergyDevelopmentCorporation.

Castro,NestorT.2000.“ThreeYearsoftheIndigenousPeoplesRightsAct:ItsImpactonIndigenous Communities.” Kasarinlan15(2):35-54.

CoalitionforIndigenousPeoples’RightsandAncestralDomains.1999.Guide to RA 8371 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA).QuezonCity:CIPRAD.

Environmental Management Bureau. 2004. Procedural Manual for DENR Administrative Order No. 30 Series of 2003 (DAO 03-30): Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System (PEIS) Implementation Guidelines and Procedures.QuezonCity:EMB.

EnvironmentalScienceforSocialChange,Inc.1998.PhilippineCultureandEcosystemsMap.QuezonCity:ESSC.

Environmental Science for Social Change and Bishops-Businessmen’s Conference. 1999. Mining Revisited.QuezonCity:ESSC.

Jocano,F.Landa,LiliaMarquezandMamertaCaguimbal.1994.ProblemsandMethodsintheStudyofPhilippineEthnicCultures(APreliminaryOverview).QuezonCity:UPAsianCenter.

Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center. 1997. A Compilation of Laws on Natural Resources and Indigenous People’s Rights: A Field Handbook. Volume I (Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, Mining), Volume II (Forestry).QuezonCity:LRC-KSK.

Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center. 2000. A Divided Court: Case Materials from the Constitutional Mandate to the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997.QuezonCity:LRC-KSK.

Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center. 2004. “Notes on NCIP Administrative Issuances,2002-2003,”Issue Paper 2004-02.QuezonCity:LRC-KSK.

Magbitang-Chauhan, Anita. 2005. “Measuring Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in thePhilippines:QuantitativeandQualitativeOutcomes.”UnpublishedpaperpresentedattheMetagoraForum,Paris,France,24May2005.

59

Mercado, CarolynA. 1998. “Legal Research on Laws and Jurisprudence Pertaining toIndigenousPeople.”UnpublishedWorldBankPaper.

National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. 2003. Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan for Indigenous Peoples, 2004-2008.QuezonCity:NCIP.

National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. 2005. CY 2005 Annual Report.QuezonCity:NCIP.

Private Enterprise Development Corporation ofAsia. 2003. “CapacityAssessment forthePreservationandMaintenanceofBiodiversity-RelatedKnowledgeofIndigenousandLocalCommunities.”Unpublishedreportsubmittedto theProtectedAreasandWildlifeBureau-DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources.Pasig:PEDCA.

Tangco,Marcelo.1951.The Christian Peoples of the Philippines.QuezonCity:UPPress.

Tanggapang Panligal ng Katutubong Pilipino. 2004. “Initial Assessment of the Extent and Impact of the Implementation of IPRA.” Unpublished manuscript. PANLIPI.

Tuyor, Josefo B., et. al. 2005. “Review of the Philippine Safeguards on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples.” Unpublished draft manuscript.

Uy,DeniseMoninaF.2003.“CommentsonNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.3,Seriesof2002,”Issue Paper 2004-02:9-14.

60

Annex

APHILIPPINE LAWS CONCERNING

THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

1. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act and NCIP administrative issuances: RA8371(IndigenousPeoplesRightsActof1997) NCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.1(RulesandRegulationsImplementingRepublicActNo.

8371) NCIPAO 3, s. 1998 (Supplemental Guidelines in the Issuance of NCIP Certification

preconditionandFPIC) NCIPAO1,s.2002(GuidelinesfortheReviewandVerificationofCADTsandCALTs) NCIPAO2,s.2002(RevisedGuidelinesfor theConversionofCertificateofAncestral

Domain/LandClaimstoCertificateofAncestralDomain/LandTitles); NCIPAO3,s.2002(RevisedFPICGuidelines) NCIPAdministrativeCircularNo.1,s.2003(RulesonPleadings,PracticeandProcedure

beforetheNCIP) NCIP AO 3, s. 2003 (Guidelines for the Constitution and Operationalization of the

ConsultativeBody) NCIPAO1,s.2004(FormulationoftheAncestralDomainSustainableDevelopmentand

ProtectionPlan) NCIPAO1,s.2006(TheFPICGuidelinesof2006) Medium-TermPhilippineDevelopmentPlanforIndigenousPeoples,2004-2008

2. Land Laws: CommonwealthActNo.141(PublicLandAct) CommonwealthActNo.2874(HomesteadAct) PD512(RulesandProceduresintheAcquisitionandUseofSurfaceRights) DAO2,s.1993(RulesandRegulationsfortheIdentificationandDelineationofAncestral

LandandDomainClaims) DAO34,s.1996(GuidelinesontheManagementofCertifiedAncestralDomainClaims) Memo Circular No. 23, s. 1993 (Revised Procedures on the Transfer of Certificate of

StewardshiptotheNext-of-KinoftheHoldersThereof) RA6657(ComprehensiveAgrarianReformLaw)

3. Forestry Laws: RA7161(ForestryCodeofthePhilippines) PD705(RevisedForestryReformCode) DAO4,s.1989(RevisedRegulationsGoverningRattanResources) DAO4-A,s.1989(SpecialProvisionsfor theProcessingofRattanApplicationswithin

AreasReserved/OccupiedbyCulturalCommunities) DAO59,s.1990(GuidelinesintheConfiscation,ForfeitureandDispositionofConveyances

UsedintheCommissionofOffensesPenalizedUnderSection68,PD705)

61

DAO4,s.1991(RevisedRegulationsGoverningtheIntegratedSocialForestryProgram) DAO24,s.1991(Shift inLoggingfromtheOldGrowthForest to theSecondGrowth

Forest) MemoCircularNo.17,s.1992(DelineationofFunctionsandImplementationoftheISFP

aftertheDevolutionofFunctionstotheLGUs) DAO22,s.1993(RevisedGuidelinesforCommunityForestryProgram) DAO23,s.1993(ForestLandManagementProgram) DAO54,s.1993(AmendingDAO59,s.1990) DAO7,s.1994(RevisedGuidelinesGoverningtheIssuanceofCertificateofOriginfor

Logs,Timber,LumberandNon-timberForestProducts) DAO30,s.1994(ImplementingGuidelinesforNon-governmentOrganizationAssisted

Community-BasedMangroveForestManagement)fortheDENR DAO 15, s. 1995 (Revised General Guidelines in the Implementation of the Sub-

classificationofForestlandsandOtherInalienableLandsofthePublicDomain) DAO17,s.1995(InstitutionalizationoftheMulti-sectoralForestProtectionCommunities

withintheDENRSystem) MemorandumOrder4,s.1995(CreationandConstitutionoftheNationalFederationof

MultisectoralForestProtectionCommittees) DAO 24, s. 1996 (Rules and Regulation Governing the Socialized Industrial Forest

ManagementProgram) DAO 4, s. 1997 (Rules and Regulation Governing the Socialized Industrial Forest

ManagementProgram) ExecutiveOrdinanceNo. 263 (AdoptingCommunity-BasedForestManagement as the

National Strategy toEnsure the SustainableDevelopment of theCountry’s ForestlandsResourcesandProvidingMechanismsforitsImplementation)

DAO29,s.1996(RulesandRegulationsfortheImplementationofEO263)

4. Agriculture and Fisheries Laws: RA8435(AgricultureandFisheriesModernizationAct) RA8550(FisheriesCode)

5. Laws on Mining: RA7076(People’sSmallScaleMiningActof1991) DAO34,s.1992(IRRofRA7076) RA7942(PhilippineMiningActof1995) DAO40,s.1996(RevisedIRRofMiningAct) PD512(DeclaringProspectingandOtherMiningOperationsofPublicUseandBenefit) PD1818(ProhibitingCourtsfromIssuingRestrainingOrdersandPreliminaryInjunctions

inNaturalResourceDevelopmentProjectsbytheGovernment)

6. Laws on Environmental Conservation and Protection: RA7586(NationalIntegratedProtectedAreasSystemAct) DAO25,s.1992(IRRofNIPASAct) RA9072(NationalCavesandCaveResourcesManagementandProtectionAct) RA9147(WildlifeConservationAct)

62

7. Laws on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System: PD1151(PhilippineEnvironmentPolicy) PD1152(PhilippineEnvironmentCode) PD1586(PhilippineEnvironmentalImpactStatementSystem) DAO21,s.1992(AmendingtheIRRoftheNationalEnvironmentalProtectionCouncil) DAO37,s.1996(RevisingDAO21,s.1992,toFurtherStrengthentheImplementationof

theEIS) DAO30,s.2003(PhilippineEISSystemImplementationGuidelinesandProcedures)

8. Laws on Genetic and Biological Resources: RA8423(TraditionalandAlternativeMedicineAct) EO 247 (Prescribing Guidelines and Establishing a Regulatory Framework for the

ProspectingofBiologicalandGeneticResources,TheirBy-ProductsandDerivatives,forScientificandCommercialPurposes;andOtherPurposes)

DAO20,s.1996(IRRontheProspectingofBiologicalandGeneticResources)

9. Laws on Cultural Properties: RA4846(CulturalPropertiesPreservationandProtectionAct) PD374(AmendingCertainSectionsofRA4846) RA8492(NationalMuseumActof1998)

10. Laws on Local Governance and Autonomy: RA6734(OrganicActfortheAutonomousRegioninMuslimMindanao) RA6766(OrganicActfortheCordilleraAutonomousRegion) RA7160(LocalGovernmentCodeof1991) DAO30, s.1992 (Guidelines for theTransferand ImplementationofDENRFunctions

DevolvedtotheLocalGovernmentUnits) RA7611(StrategicEnvironmentalPlanforPalawanAct) RA9054(AmendingRA6734)

11. Laws on the NCIP: EO1(CreatingtheOfficeofthePresidentialAdviserforIndigenousPeoples’Affairs) EO364(SubsumingtheNCIPundertheDepartmentofLandReform) EO379(AmendingEO364)

63

Annex

BNCIP REGIONAL AND PROVINCIAL OFFICES

Cordillera AdministrativeRegion (CAR)

2/F Hillside Square, Km. 4, La Trinidad, Benguet

Region I

2/F Martinez Bldg., Quezon Ave., San Fernando, La Union

Region II

No. 3 Rajah Soliman St., San Gabriel Village, Tuguegarao, Cagayan

Abra

Apayao Baguio City

Benguet

Ifugao

Kalinga

Mt. ProvinceIlocos Norte

Ilocos Sur

La Union

Pangasinan BatanesCagayan

Isabela

Nueva Vizcaya

Quirino

Abra Tingguian Center, Bangued, Abra Eva Garden, Calanasan, Apayao Rm. 410, Centrum Comp., 358 Magsaysay Ave., Baguio City Benguet Provincial Capitol, La Trinidad, Benguet Abul St., Poblacion South, Lagawe, Ifugao KSDA Compound, Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga Bontoc, Mountain Province 3/F Ilocano Heroes Hill, Laoag City Provincial Capitol, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur Tourism Bldg., Sudipen, La Union 2/F Malong Bldg., Lingayen, Pangasinan Basco, BatanesLasam Service Center, Peru, Lasam, Cagayan People’s Coliseum, Santiago City, Isabela Quirino Stadium, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya Engineering Compound, Cabarroguis, Quirino

REGIONAL OFFICE PROVINCIAL ADDRESS OFFICE

64

Region III

K&L Bldg., Consunji St., San Fernando, Pampanga

Region IV

2/F A.B. Sandoval Bldg., Shaw Blvd. cor. Oranbo Ave., Pasig City

Region V

City Hall Annex, San Fernando, Iriga City

AuroraBataanBulacan Nueva EcijaPampangaTarlacZambales Mindoro Occidental

Mindoro Oriental

Palawan

QuezonRizal

Romblon

Albay

Camarines Norte

Camarines Sur

Sorsogon/Masbate

Brgy. Reserva, Baler, Aurora Balanga, Bataan Hilltop, Norzagaray, Bulacan Cabanatuan City, Nueva EcijaFloridablanca, Pampanga Tarlac City Iba, Zambales 91 San Jose St., Payompon, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro 2/F OMPSTA Bldg., A. Ignacio St., Camilmil, Calapan CityBanua Ka’t Katutubo, Provincial Capitol Compd., Puerto Princesa 168 Gomez St., Infanta, Quezon J.P. Rizal St., Brgy. Sampaloc, Tanay, Rizal2/F Old BPI Bldg., Odigiongan, Romblon Sangguniang Bayan Bldg., Centro Occidental, Polangui, Albay 1 Rafer Bldg., Daet, Camarines Norte Municipal Hall Compound, San Juan, Pili, Camarines SurAraceli D. Bote Bldg., Sorsogon City

REGIONAL OFFICE PROVINCIAL ADDRESS OFFICE

65

Region VI and VII

2/F UCPB Bldg., Plaza Rizal St., Jaro, Iloilo City

Region IX

P.L. Urro St., Pagadian City

Region X

3-4/F Halasan Bldg., Cor. Tiano & del Pilar Sts., Cagayan de Oro City

Antique/Aklan

Bohol

CapizCebu

Guimaras

Negros Occidental

Negros Oriental

Basilan

Zamboanga del Norte

Zamboanga del Sur Bukidnon

Camiguin

Lanao del Norte

Misamis Occidental

Misamis Oriental

Biniraya Hills, San Jose, AntiqueRm. 203, Calatrava Bldg., 48 Belderol St., Cogon District, Tagbilaran City Poblacion, Tapaz, Capiz Rm. 206, Teodora Bldg., Cor. Osmeña Blvd., Jacosalen, Cebu CityCapitol Bldg., San Miguel, Jordan, Guimaras Multi-Purpose Activity Center, Aguinaldo St., Bacolod City 2/F MFS Bldg., National Highway, Bayawan City, Negros Oriental 2/F Carlos Stand Tan Bldg., N. Valderosa St., Isabela City, BasilanProvincial Capitol Bldg., Dipolog City P.L. Urro St., Pagadian City Sumpong, Malaybalay, Bukidnon Camiguin Service Center, Poblacion, Sagay, Camiguin 3/F Iglupas Bldg., Quezon Ave., Iligan City Capitol Site, Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental 2/F Halasan Bldg., Cor. Tiano & del Pilar Sts., Cagayan de Oro City

REGIONAL OFFICE PROVINCIAL ADDRESS OFFICE

66

Region XI

E. Valenoso Bldg., Sandawa Plaza, New Matina, Davao City

Region XII

Bautista Bldg., Osmeña St., Koronadal City

Region XIII

Capitol Ave., Butuan City

Compostela Valley

Davao City

Davao del Norte

Davao del Sur

Davao Oriental

North Cotabato

Saranggani South Cotabato

Sultan Kudarat

Agusan del Norte

Agusan del Sur

Surigao del Norte

Surigao del Sur

CES Bldg., Nabunturan, Compostela ValleyToril District Hall, Toril, Davao City Tagum Capitol Bldg., Mangkilam, Tagum City Capitol Compound, Matanao, Digos, Davao del Sur Franco Bldg., Rizal St., Mati, Davao Oriental Masonic Center, National Highway, Kidapawan City Maasim, South Cotabato Lapu-lapu St., General Santos City Monico Gonzalo Bldg., Cor. Peneza & Valencia Sts., Kalawag II, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat T&S Bldg., Curato St., Cabadbaran, Agusan del NorteGovernment Center, Patin-ay, Prosperidad, Agusan del SurProvincial Grandstand, Rizal St., Surigao City Capitol Hills, Tandag, Surigao del Sur

REGIONAL OFFICE PROVINCIAL ADDRESS OFFICE

67

Annex

CCOMPARISON OF LISTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

IN THE PHILIPPINES

Abaknon Abelling/Aborlin Aburlin Adasen Adassen Tinggian Aeta Ayta Ayta Aeta-Abiyan Abiyan Agta Agay Agta Agta Agta Agutaynen Agutaynon Aklanon Aklanon Alangan Mangyan Alangan Alangan Mangyan Amduntug-Antipulu Ifugao Applai Arumanen Ata/Matigsalog Ata Ata Ati Ati Ati Ati/Bantoanon Bantoanon Batak B’laan Blaan B’laan Badjao Bajau Badjao Bago Bago Bagobo Bagobo Bagobo-Guiangan/Clata Bagobo-Giangan Jangan Bagobo Bagobo-Tagabawa Manobo-Tagabawa Tagabawa Balangao Balangao Balangao Balatoc Baluga Banac Banao Kalinga Bangon Bangon Mangyan Bantoanon Banwaon Batak Batak

NCIP (2006)* ESSC (1998)** PEDCA (2003)***

68

NCIP (2006)* ESSC (1998)** PEDCA (2003)*** Batangan Mangyan Batangan Batangan Mangyan Binongan Binongan Tinggian Bontok Bontok Bontok Bugkalot Ilongot Ilongot Buhid Buhid Mangyan Bukidnon Bukidnon (in Negros) Bukidnon (in Negros) Bukidnon (in Mindanao) Bukidnon (in Mindanao) Butuanon Butuanon Cimarron Cuyonon Kuyonen Cuyonen Danao Dibabawon Manobo Dibabawon Dumagat Casiguran/Umiray Dumagat Dumagat Eskaya Eskaya Gaddang Gaddang Gaddang Gubang Gubatnon Mangyan Hanglulo Hanunoo Hanunoo Hanunoo Mangyan Higaonon Higaonon Manobo Higaonon Ibaloi Ibaloy Ibaloy Ibanag Ibanag Ibanag Ifugao Ayangan Ifugao Ifugao Ikalahan Ikalahan/Kallahan Kalanguya Ikaluna Ilianen Ilianen Manobo Inlaud Inlaod Tinggian Ilanun Iranun Iraya Iraya Iraya Mangyan Isarog Isarog Agta Isinai Isinay Isinay Isnag Apayao (Isnag) Isnag Itawes Itawes Itawes Itbayat Itbayat Ivatan Ivatan Ivatan Iwak I-wak I’wak Jama Mapun Jama Mapun Jama Mapun Kagayanen Kalagan Kalagan Kalagan Kalamianen Kalibugan Kolibugan

69

NCIP (2006)* ESSC (1998)** PEDCA (2003)*** Kalingá (in Isabela) Kalinga Tinglayan Kalinga Kalingga (in Kalinga) Kamayo Kamayo Kamigin Camiguin Kankanaey Kankanai Kankanaey Karaga Karao Karao Karolanos Kasiguranin Kasiguranin Katagoan Ke-ney Kiniray-a Kiray-a Kiyangan Ifugao Lubuagan Kalinga Mabaca Mabaka Kalinga Maeng Magahat Magahat Magahat Malaueg Malaweg Malaweg Mamanwa Mamanwa Mandaya Mandaya Mandaya Mandek-ey Manguangan Mangguangan Manobo Mangguangan Mangyan Tadyawan Tadyawan Mangyan Mansaka Mansaka Manobo Blit Manobo Blit Manobo/Ubo Manuvu/Obo Manobo Masadiit Masadiit Tinggian Masbateño Matigsalug Matigsalug Manobo Matigsalug Molbog Molbog Molbog Palananum Paranan Paranan Palawanon Palawan Pala’wan Ratagnon Ratagnon Ratagnon Mangyan Remontado Remontado Romblonanon Sama Sama Sama Samal Isamal Sambal Sambal Sangil Sangil/Sangir Subanon Subanun Subanun Sulod Sulod Sulodnon

70

NCIP (2006)* ESSC (1998)** PEDCA (2003)*** Surigaonon Tasaday Manobo T’boli Tiboli T’boli Tabangnon Taboy Tagakaolo Tagakaolo (Kalagan) Tagakaulo Tagbanua Tagbanwa Tagbanua Talaandig Taubuid Mangyan Tau’t Batu Tao’t Bato Tigwahanon Tigwa Manobo Tingguian Luba Tinggian Tinguian Tiruray Tiruray Teduray Tuwali Banaue Ifugao Ubo Umayamnen Umayamnon Manobo Yakan Yakan Yakan Yogad Yogad Yogad

Sources: * NCIP Website 2006.** Environmental Science for Social Change, Inc. 1998. Philippine Culture and Ecosystems Map. Quezon City: ESSC. *** Private Enterprise Development Corporation of Asia. 2003. Capacity Assessment for the Preservation and Maintenance of Biodiversity-Related Knowledge of Indigenous and Local Communities. Pasig: PEDCA.

71

72