42823 i © 2007 The World Bank Group June 2007 Printed in Manila, Philippines. All rights reserved. The World Bank Group 1818 H Street, N.W. World Bank Office Manila Washington DC 20433, USA 23rd Floor, The Taipan Place Tel: (202) 473-1000 Emerald Avenue, Ortigas Center Fax: (202) 477-6391 Pasig City, Philippines www.worldbank.org Tel: (632) 637-5855 to 64 Fax: (632) 637-5870 www.worldbank.org.ph 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, EastAsia 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 Permissions The 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. ii 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 iii i 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 iv ii FIGURES Figure 1 Organizational Structure of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples 19 Figure2 SchematicDiagramoftheCP/FPICProcess 25 Figure3 DistributionofMOOEAllocationoftheNCIPin2004 38 Figure4 AverageDurationofProcessingCertificateofNon-Overlapin ARCDP2Subproject(workingdays) 43 Figure5 AverageDurationofProcessingCertificationPreconditionWithin AncestralDomainArea 43 TABLES Table1 BudgetaryAppropriationfortheNCIPforFiscalYears2002-05 20 Table2 RegionalDistributionofIndigenousPeoplesinthePhilippines 35 Table3 ActualBudgetReleasedbytheDepartmentofBudgetand Management to the NCIP in Fiscal Year 2004 38 Table4 IssuedCP/FPICfrom2004-2006 42 Table5 CertificatesIssuedvs.IPPopulationfrom2004-2006 42 Table6 NumberofCertificatesofComplianceIssuedbytheNCIPby Region from 2004-2006 45 Table7 FormulatedandOfficiallyRecognizedADSDPPs 48 Table 8 Action Plan 55 BOXES Box1 HistoryofGovernmentAgenciesandPoliciesonIndigenousPeoples 7 Box 2 Protected Area Management in Mt. Kitanglad 31 Box3 TheB'laansandtheTampakanCopper-GoldProject 32 Box4 LegalDefinitionsofIndigenousPeoples,AncestralDomains, Ancestral Lands 34 Box5 TheTasadays:ACaseofInventedEthnicity 35 Box 6 Ethnic Tension in Mount Kanlaon 37 Box7 TheMangyansandthePhilippineEISSystem 44 Box8 StabilityoftheFPICProcess 47 Box9 GiftsandHospitality,BriberyandCoercion 54 iii v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ThisreportwaspreparedbyaWorldBankTeamcomposedofJosefoB.Tuyor(Task TeamLeader,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).TheTeamworkedundertheguidanceofJoachimvon Amsberg(PhilippinesCountryDirector),MariaTeresaSerra(AdvisortotheRegionalVice President),MagdaLovei(SectorManager,OperationsandPolicy),CyprianFisiy(Sector Manager,SocialDevelopment)andRahulRaturi(SectorManager,RuralDevelopment, NaturalResourcesandEnvironment).PeerreviewerswereJonathanMillsLindsay(Senior Counsel,LegalDepartment),NavinRai(EAPRegionalIPCoordinator,QualityAssurance andControlUnit)andAsgerChristensen(LeadSocialScientist,SocialDevelopment). ThereportalsobenefitedfromtheStocktakingExerciseonthePhilippineIndigenous PeoplesRightsActconductedbyJoseTiburcioNicolas,JosefoTuyor,MayaGabriela Villaluz,EncarnacionRaralioandSocorroPatindolin2005.CommentsfromSvendJensby andMariaTheresaG.Quinonesarealsogratefullyacknowledged. TheTeamislikewisethankfultotheNationalCommissiononIndigenousPeoples(NCIP) foritsverystrongsupportandforfacilitatingthereviewprocess,aswellastheissuance of Special Order assigning the NCIP counterpart staff to work with the Team. Thanks are duetoChairpersonJanetteCansingSerranoandExecutiveDirectorRoseBistoyong,NCIP Commissioners,DirectorMyrnaCaoagasoftheNCIP-AncestralDomainsOffice,Grace Pascua,MarionSakai,NoelaParedesandFrederickWilliamCrespillo. The team also acknowledges the comments and suggestions received from Agnes de Jesus of the Philippine National Oil Company Energy Development Corporation and the contributions of Ranelisa Samiano of the Second Agrarian Reform Communities DevelopmentProjectoftheDepartmentofAgrarianReformandReenaBuenaofthe LagunadeBayInstitutionalStrengtheningandCommunityParticipationProjectofthe LagunaLakeDevelopmentAuthority. iv vi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ADO AncestralDomainsOffice ADSDPP AncestralDomainSustainableDevelopmentandProtectionPlan AO Administrative Order ARCDP2 SecondAgrarianReformCommunitiesDevelopmentProject ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao BNCT Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes CADC CertificateofAncestralDomainClaim CADT CertificateofAncestralDomainTitle CALC CertificateofAncestralLandClaim CALT CertificateofAncestralLandTitle CARL Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law CLOA CertificateofLandOwnershipAward CNI Commission on National Integration CPH Census of Population and Housing CPPAP ConservationofPriorityProtectedAreasProject CRBDP ChicoRiverBasinDevelopmentProject DAR DepartmentofAgrarianReform DIA DirectImpactArea DENR DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources DILG DepartmentoftheInteriorandLocalGovernment DOJ DepartmentofJustice ECA EnvironmentallyCriticalArea ECC EnvironmentalComplianceCertificate ECP EnvironmentallyCriticalProject EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMB Environmental Management Bureau EO Executive Order ESSC EnvironmentalScienceforSocialChange,Inc. FBI Field-Based Investigation FPIC Free and Prior Informed Consent FTAA Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement ICCs Indigenous Cultural Communities IEC Information,EducationandCommunication ILO International Labour Organization IPs Indigenous Peoples IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan IPRA Indigenous Peoples Rights Act IRR Implementing Rules and Regulations vii v KPLN Kalipunan Para sa Lupaing Ninuno LGC LocalGovernmentCode LGU LocalGovernmentUnit LNKMI LupangNinunoKabiloganMangyan,Incorporated LRA LandRegistrationAuthority MNP Mindoro Nickel Project MOA Memorandum of Agreement MOOE Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses MTDP Medium-TermDevelopmentPlan NAMRIA NationalMappingandResourceInformationAuthority NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples NGO Non-GovernmentOrganization NIPAS NationalIntegratedProtectedAreasSystem OMA OfficeofMuslimAffairs OMACC OfficeofMuslimAffairsandCulturalCommunities ONCC OfficeofNorthernCulturalCommunities OP OfficeofthePresident OSCC OfficeofSouthernCulturalCommunities PAMB Protected Area Management Board PANAMIN Presidential Assistance for National Minorities PANLIPI Tanggapang Panligal ng Katutubong Pilipino PD PresidentialDecree PEDCA PrivateEnterpriseDevelopmentCorporationofAsia PEISS PhilippineEnvironmentalImpactStatementSystem PNOCEDC PhilippineNationalOilCompanyEnergyDevelopmentCorporation PS Personnel Services RA Republic Act SMI SagittariusMines,Incorporated SPDA SouthernPhilippinesDevelopmentAuthority TMD TechnicalManagementDivision UNDP UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme WMC WesternMiningCorporation viii vi FOREWORD TheWorldBankhaslongrecognizedthatIndigenousPeopleshaveuniqueidentitiesthat differ from mainstream societies in their strong reliance on and relationship with their lands, traditional knowledge bases, complex social organizations, and their distinct economic-politicalsystems.Associalgroupswithidentitiesseparablefromthedominant mainstream,IndigenousPeoplesfaceenormousdevelopmentchallenges:theyareamong thepoorestmembersofsociety;theyareamongthemostvulnerableandmarginalgroups, withlimitedeconomic,social,andlegalassets. Overadecadeago,thePhilippinespassedRepublicAct8371whichofficiallyrecognized the 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.Basedontheknowledge ofindigenouspeoples'culturalspecificitiesandvulnerabilities,IPRAseekstodirectly improvedevelopmentoutcomesbyaddressingissuesrelatingtoethnicdiscrimination, politicalrepresentation,aswellasrightsintheareasofancestraldomains,self-determination, andthepracticeofcustomarylaws.Thislawfurtherrequiresthatindigenousgroupsbe consulted on development interventions which affect their lives. FollowingadecadeofthepassageofRepublicAct8371,thePhilippineGovernment, togetherwiththeWorldBank,engagedinadiagnosticreviewtoassessthesuccessesand challenges 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 indigenous communities,ourhopeisthatthisreviewprovidesstrategicguidancetoboththeBank andthePhilippineGovernmenttostrengthensocialsafeguardsapplicationasameansto improve 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,thisreviewrepresentsakeyfirststeptowardsachievingthelongtermgoalof harmonizingthePhilippines'existingsystemsforsafeguardapplicationwithstandards espousedbytheParis Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. ChristianDelvoie MaryseGautier Director ActingCountryDirector,Philippines SustainableDevelopmentDepartment EastAsiaandthePacificRegion EastAsiaandthePacificRegion vii ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ThePhilippinesisoneofthecountriesthatestablishedacomprehensivesystemforthe protectionoftherightsofitsindigenouspeoples/indigenousculturalcommunities(IPs/ ICCs),asembodiedinthePhilippineIndigenousPeoplesRightsAct(IPRA)of1997. AmongtherightsbeinggrantedtoIPsincludeterritorialdomain,self-determinationand therighttopracticetheircustomarylaws,culturalintegrityandproperty,andconsentover developmentinterventionsintheircommunity.Therearereportedlymorethan100ethnic groupsinthePhilippinesthatareconsideredtobelongtotheIPs.Theagencyresponsible fortheimplementationofIPRAistheNationalCommissiononIndigenousPeoples(NCIP) whichhasfieldofficesin12regionsand46provinces. Programs and projects that overlap with the territorial domain of the IPs are required to obtainconsentfromtheconcernedIPcommunitythroughtheprocessofCertification Precondition/Free and Prior Informed Consent (CP/FPIC) that is administered by the NCIP'sAncestralDomainsOffice(ADO).TheCP/FPICistheIPRA'ssafeguardsystem for the protection of IPs in development interventions that fall within the IPs' domain. BasedonNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.3,aproponentsubmitsaProjectOperational Plan,amongotherrequirements,andbeginsaprocessofconsultationandnegotiation between 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)isthensigned betweentheconcernedIPgroupandtheprojectproponent.TheNCIP,asacollegialbody, thenreviewsandissuesacertificateofcompliancetotheFPICprocessandrequirements. Otherwise,theIPs/ICCsissueacertificateofrejectiontotheproposal. ThisreviewwasconductedtoidentifystrengthsandweaknessesoftheIPRAandtohelp theNCIPdevelopandimplementaprogramtoachieveamoreefficientandeffective safeguardsystemfortheIPs.Thereviewfocusedonthelegalandinstitutionalframework oftheIPRAandtheCP/FPICinrelationtoprojectsanddevelopmentinterventionsfalling within 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,there are several other Philippine laws and issuances that contribute to the protection of IP rights,suchastheNationalIntegratedProtectedAreasSystem(NIPAS)Act,thePhilippine MiningAct,theOrganicActofMuslimMindanao,thePhilippineEnvironmentalImpact Statement(EIS)System,andtheadministrativeordersoftheNCIPandtheDepartmentof EnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR).However,thereareconflictingprovisions ofthesevariouslegalinstrumentsandtheirimplementingrulesandregulations,including substantive,jurisdictionalandproceduralissuesthatareaffectingtheimplementationof the IPRA. 1 Adequacy of Institutional Framework and Organizational Effectiveness ­ The review found that there is an adequate institutional framework to implement the IPRA. The NCIP hasthepolicy-makingbodyatthecentralofficecomposedofsevenCommissionerscoming frommajorethnographicareas,oneofwhichisappointedastheChairperson.Ithassix officesatthecentraloffice,includingtheADO.TheNCIPalsohas12regionaloffices,46 provincialofficesand108servicecentersatthecityandmunicipallevels. The NCIP, however, has experienced several organizationalchallenges because of its inadequatehuman,logisticsandfinancialresourcestoeffectivelycarryoutitsfunctions. TheCP/FPICisjustoneofthemanyfunctionsassignedtoitsADO,whichissaddled withtheenormoustasksofdelineatingancestraldomainareasandissuingthecertificate ofancestraldomaintitlesandthecertificateofancestrallandtitles.TheNCIPdoesnot havetrainedanthropologiststoundertakeethnographicresearchandanalyzeandrespond tocross-culturalproblems.Givenitsenormousmandate,thereisaneedtoincreasethe NCIP's regular budget for additional plantilla positions. Most importantly, the NCIP requiresresourcestocarryoutitsfundamentaltasktowardstheIPRA'seffectiveand efficientimplementation,suchasthedelineationofancestraldomainareas,identification andprofilingofIPs,anddocumentationoftheircustomarylawsanddecision-making processes. Adequacy of the Safeguard Process­TheCP/FPICprocessincorporatesmostofthe keyelementsofuniversallyacceptedconceptsontheprotectionofIPs.Theseinclude:(i) screeningforthepresenceofIPsthroughfield-basedinvestigation;(ii)broaddefinitionof IPswhichembracestheconceptsofself-ascriptionorself-identification,differentiation fromthemainstreamFilipinosociety,attachmenttolandandnaturalresources,separate socio-culturalandpoliticalinstitutions,anddistinctlanguage;(iii)consultationwithIPs whicharevoluntary,freefromexternalmanipulation,iterativeandbroad-basedaccording tocustomarylaws;(iv)broadcommunitysupportamongIPs;(v)environmentalandsocio- cultural impact assessment; (vi) culturally-appropriate benefits for the IPs/ICCs; (vii) recognitionofcustomarylandtenure;(viii)recognitionofIPrightswithinprotectedareas; and(ix)recognitionofIPrightstonaturalandculturalresources.TheIPRAevengoes beyondconsultationbyrequiringproponentstosecureconsentfromIPsfortheproposed program,projectandotherbusinessorprofit-orientedinvestmentsthatfallwithintheir domains. 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.Asarelativelyyoungagencywithmeager resources,inefficiencieswerenotedinimplementingtheCP/FPIC.TheNCIPdoesnot haveasystemofprioritizingprojectsforprocessingtheCP/FPICapplications.Italsodoes not make use of existing knowledge on the general location of tribal population. There also appearstobeinequitabledistributionofitslimitedresourcesamongitsvariousofficesand mandates,withmoregoingtopersonnelservicesandscholarshipsandlesstoimplementing programsandprojects,includingactivitiesrelatedtoCP/FPICanddelineationofancestral domain.Amongothers,thescreeningsystemforthepresenceofIPsisquiteinefficient, resultinginagreatnumberofprojectsbeingsubjectedtofield-basedinvestigationeven 2 thoughtheyarefarawayfromoroutsideofIPareas.Morethan90percentofcertificates issuedbytheNCIPfrom2004-2006areforprojectsoutsideIPareas.Thereviewalsofound thattheCP/FPICprocessistakingtoolong,eveninareasoutsideofancestraldomain. SomeprojectsappeartohaveuncertainCP/FPICresultswithchargesofmanipulations beinghurledbysomeinterestgroupsclaimingtorepresenttheIPs. ThereviewalsoindicatedthattheIPRA,throughtheCP/FPIC,hastrulyprovidedavenue forandempoweredIPstofreelyexercisetheirrightstoself-determinationwithintheir domain.However,itseffectivenessandexpectedoutcomesarecompromisedbymany factors,includingthecapacityandabilityoftheNCIPtoimplementthelaw,thecapacity ofIPstoparticipatemeaningfullyandbenefitfromtheprocess,theabsenceoflegitimate andfunctioningIPorganizationsthattrulyrepresenttheIPs,theincompletedelineation ofancestraldomainandidentificationofIPgroups,themanipulativeactionsandbribery ofproponentstosecuretheconsentfromtheIPs,andthedifferentinterpretationsofwhat constitutesaconsent,dueprimarilytothelackofwrittenparameters. Recommendations. The review recommends the following to improve the implementation oftheIPRAandtheCP/FPICprocessesandoutcomes: 1. Harmonizing the IPRA with other existing laws. The NCIPshould initiate coordination withotheragenciesandpursueinter-agencydiscussionstoharmonizetheIPRAwith existinglaws.OfurgencyaretheNIPASAct,theMiningAct,theLocalGovernment Code 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 prioritizetheseoverotheractivitiesconsideringthattheimplementationoftheCP/ FPICdependsontheexistenceoflegitimateandfunctioningIPorganizationsthattruly represent their communities. The decision-making process in each IP group must be identifiedandwrittendownandmustbemadeclearatthestarttotheproponentandthe NCIP.Otherwise,consultationsandnegotiationscanbecomeanendlessprocess.The NCIPshouldlinkupwiththeNationalStatisticsOfficeandthePhilippineanthropological communityinfine-tuningamechanismforproperidentificationandprofilingofIP groupsandwiththeIndigenousLawProjectoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesCollege of Law. The NCIP should also strengthen its existing agreements with institutions involvedinthedelineationofIPterritoriessuchastheDENR,DepartmentofAgrarian Reform(DAR),NationalMappingandResourceInformationAuthority(NAMRIA), theLandRegistrationAgency(LRA)andtheNationalMuseum. 3. Organizing IPs and accrediting IP organizations. These activities should also be prioritizedbytheNCIPoverothers.Withtraditionalleadershipandpoliticalsystems already disappearing or, in some cases, replaced by the barangay system, project proponents are sometimes faced with no legitimate organizations and/or hastily 3 organizedgroupstonegotiatewith.SinceIPsarethedecision-makersthemselves, capacitybuildingeffortsshouldbefocusedonIPs.TheNCIPalsoneedstorecognizethe customary-politicalstructuresthatexistorhavepreviouslyexisted,andshouldformalize thisbyissuingguidelines.TheguidelinesontheaccreditationofIPorganizationsalso needtobefinalized. 4. Pre-screening of municipalities, cities and provinces or areas not subject to CP/FPIC process. The NCIPhas recognized the need to pre-screen when it introduced the concept ofcertificateofnon-overlapinthe2006FPICguidelines,whichspecificallymentioned thatoverlapsornon-overlappingareaswillbedeterminedbasedonthedulyapproved masterlistofAncestralDomainAreas.However,thecurrentmasterlistcontainsonly thecertificateofancestraldomaintitles,certificateofancestraldomainclaimareas,and thelistofbarangayswithIPsaccordingtoexistingrecords.Therefore,thereisaneed to 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,itneedstostrengthen its capacity to recognize and analyze social and cultural issues associated with development projects in IP areas and present these for the consideration of the IPs. It alsoneedstobalanceresponsibilitiesofeachoffice.TheADOisalreadysaddledwith toomanyresponsibilitieswhileotherofficesareunderutilized.Similarly,thereisonly onepersoninchargeoftheCP/FPICprocessineachprovincialandregionaloffice. TheNCIPshouldhavetrainedanthropologiststoaugmentitsfieldpersonnelwhocome mostlyfromthehealthandeducationprofessions,ortheNCIPpersonnelshouldat leastbegiventraininginanthropologicaltechniques/methods.Inaddition,theNCIP also 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 Domain SustainableDevelopmentandProtectionPlan(ADSDPP)and/orthosesolicitedbythe IPs themselves should no longer be subject to the FPIC process. Much as the proponents aresubjecttostringentrules,specialinterestgroupsclaimingtorepresenttheinterests oftheIPsmustalsobesubjecttoclearproceduresonhowandwhentheypresenttheir sidetotheIPs.AlsotheprovincialofficesoftheNCIPaswellasitsservicecenters should be given a greater role in the implementation of the FPIC process. 7. Assessing the long-term impacts of the IPRA.Asystematic,careful,andlong-term impactassessmentofhowtheIPRAhasactuallyworkedonthegroundintermsof achievingitsoverallobjectivesisnecessarytoknowwhetheritreallymadeapositive differencefortheIPsinthePhilippines.Thisimpactassessmentwillrequireasystematic monitoring of how the IPRA has transformed or failed to transform the lives of its intendedbeneficiaries. 4 Action Plan. Toachievetheaforementionedrecommendations,anActionPlanisproposed totheNCIPandotherconcernedagencies.Thisplanidentifiestargetsthatmaybeachieved intheshort-termaswellasthosethatmayberealizedinthemedium-andlong-term. Source: William Azucena of Conservation International. 5 I N T R O D U C T I O N 1. T hePhilippinesisoneofthecountrieswithanestablishedsystemfortheprotection oftherightsofitsindigenouspeoples(IPs).Accordingtorecentestimates,there aremorethan100groupsinthePhilippinesbelongingtotheIPcategorywiththeir populationtotalingaround12million.ThePhilippinesystemfortheprotectionofIPrights ascontainedintheIndigenousPeoplesRightsAct(IPRA)of1997,iscomprehensiveand highlyprotectiveoftheIPsandgrantsthemtherightsovertheirterritorialdomain,the righttoself-determinationincludingtherighttopracticetheircustomarylawsandgive consentoverdevelopmentinterventions,specificallyprojects,plans,programsandpolicies affecting their communities and those that fall within their ancestral domains. 1.1 Historical Background PriortotheenactmentoftheIPRA,IPswerereferredtobymanyotherlabels,including infieles, tribus salvajes,non-Christiantribes,nationalminorities,culturalminorities,ethnic minorities,tribalFilipinosandindigenousculturalcommunities(ICCs). TheSpanishcolonizersreferredtothemasinfieles(infidels)ortribussalvajes(savagetribes) becausethesepeopleshadnotembracedChristianityandtheyresistedthecolonization oftheSpaniards.Continuingthistradition,theAmericancolonialgovernmentreferred tothesepeopleas"non-Christiantribes."TheBureauofNon-ChristianTribes(BNCT), establishedinOctober1901andheadedbyanthropologistDavidP.Barrows,wasincharge oftheethnicclassificationofthepeopleofthePhilippinesduringthe1903Philippine Census.TheFilipinosthenweredividedintotwogeneralcategories:the"Christianand civilized tribes" and the "non-Christian and wild tribes." ThenewPhilippineRepublicpracticallycontinuedtheAmericanpoliciesonIPs.Therewere justchangesinthenamesofthegovernmentagencyassignedforIPs,i.e.,fromBNCTto theCommissiononNationalIntegration(CNI),tothePresidentialAssistanceforNational Minorities(PANAMIN),totheOfficeofMuslimAffairs(OMA)andCulturalCommunities (OMACC),andthentotheOfficeofNorthernCulturalCommunities(ONCC)andthe OfficeofSouthernCulturalCommunities(OSCC).Alongsidewerethechangesinthelegal parlanceforIPs:fromnon-Christiantribes,toculturalminorities,tonationalminorities,to culturalcommunities,andtoICCs. SeverallawswerepassedthataddressedtherightsofIPs,suchasPresidentialDecree No.410,ortheAncestralLandLaw,andtheNationalIntegratedProtectedAreas System(NIPAS)Act,whichcontainedspecificprovisionsprotectingtherightsof IPs/ICCs to their ancestral domain.Among the administrative issuances was the DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)AdministrativeOrderNo. 2,whichrecognizedancestrallandsandancestraldomainclaims.TheDENRissued 181certificatesofancestraldomainclaimsandseveralcertificatesofancestralland 6 claimsfrom1992-97.In1997, the Philippine CongressenactedRepublicActNo. 8371,alsoknownastheIPRA.Underthislaw,theterm"indigenouspeoples"was usedsynonymouslywith"indigenousculturalcommunities."Thesaidlawalsocalled fortheestablishmentoftheNationalCommissiononIndigenousPeoples(NCIP)by merging 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. Anew 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. 7 1.2 Objectives of the Review ThisreviewwasconductedtoidentifystrengthsandweaknessesoftheIPRAandtohelp theNCIPdevelopandimplementaprogramtoachieveamoreefficientandeffective safeguardsystemfortheIPs.Thereviewfocusedonthecertificationprecondition/free andpriorinformedconsent(CP/FPIC)processinrelationtodevelopmentandinvestment projects. It examined the legal and institutional framework as well as the implementation oftheIPRA.ItalsoutilizedtheresultsfromtherecentlycompletedWorldBankstudy onstocktakingthecountrysafeguardsystems,includingtheIPRA,andotherstudies conducted by the Tanggapang Panligal ng Katutubong Pilipino (PANLIPI) and the UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(UNDP). 1.3 The Review Process Thisreportisaproductofanincrementalreviewprocessthatlastedfortwoyears.It startedwithaseriesofdialoguesandworkshopswithgovernmentagencies,international financinginstitutions,non-governmentorganizationsandlocalgovernmentunitsfrom FebruarytoMayof2005totakestockofthePhilippinesafeguardsfortheIPsincluding the implementation capacities and track records of national government agencies.1 The resultsofthatstocktakingexerciseprovidedtheimpetusforarapidassessmentinearly 2006whichproducedapreliminaryassessmentreportandatermsofreferencefora moredetailedreview.Thetermsofreference,alongwiththepreliminaryreportwas thenpresentedtotheNCIPforcomments.UndertakeninJunetoDecember2006,the assessment included extensive review of the IPRA and the various laws and issuances affectingthesafeguardsystemfortheIPs,interviewwithprojectproponentsandkey staff of the NCIP. Case studies were also conducted on selected projects. 1.4 Organization of the Report Thenextthreesectionsprovidebriefdescriptionsofthecountrycontext.Sections2and 3describethelegalandinstitutionalframeworks,respectively,Section4specifically describes the process that has to be followed to ensure the protection of the rights of theIPsinanyactivitythatfallswithintheirdomainsthroughtheCP/FPIC.Theformal assessmentofthesystemstartsinSection5wheretheadequacyofthePhilippinesafeguard systemfortheprotectionofIPswasexaminedvis-à-visuniversallyacceptedconcepts ontheprotectionofIPs,includinganassessmentoftheefficiencyandeffectivenessof theimplementationofthesystem.Section6laysoutthestudy'srecommendationsand proposed action plan to strengthen the implementation of the IPRA. 1 international financing institutions, and 40 local government units were able to participate in the dialogues and Approximately 80 individuals, representing 16 government agencies, five non-government organizations, two workshops. 8 T H E L E G A L F R A M E W O R K 2. T he legal framework of the safeguard system for the IPs is the Philippine Constitution,theIPRA,andallotherlawsandordinancespertainingtothe rights 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); TheState,subjecttotheprovisionsofthisConstitutionandnationaldevelopment policiesandprograms,shallprotecttherightsofICCstotheirancestrallandstoensure theireconomic,socialandculturalwell-being(Section5,ArticleXII); The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicableinaccordancewithlaw,inthedispositionorutilizationofothernatural resources,includinglandsofthepublicdomainunderleaseorconcessionsuitableto agriculture,subjecttopriorrights,homesteadrightsofsmallsettlers,andtherightsof ICCstotheirancestrallands(Section6,ArticleXIII);and TheStateshallrecognize,respectandprotecttherightsofICCstopreserveanddevelop theircultures,traditionsandinstitutions.Itshallconsidertheserightsintheformulation ofnationalplansandpolicies(Section17,ArticleXIV). 2.2 Indigenous Peoples Rights Act RepublicAct No. 8371 or the IPRAis 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.TheIPRAidentifiesandassignsfourdistinct clustersofIPrights.Theseare: Rights to ancestral domainsincludingtherightofownership;righttodeveloplandand naturalresources;righttostayintheterritories;rightincaseofdisplacement;rightto regulateentryofmigrants;righttosafeandcleanairandwater;righttoclaimpartsof reservations;andtherighttoresolveconflict; Right to self-governance and empowerment including the right to use their own justicesystem,conflictresolutioninstitutions,andpeacebuildingprocesses;rightto participateindecision-making;andtherighttodetermineanddecideprioritiesfor development; Social justice and human rights including State provision of equal protection and non-discrimination; rights during armed conflict; right to equal opportunity and treatment;righttobasicservices;andtheguaranteeoftherightsofwomen,children andyouth;and 9 Cultural integrity including State protec- tion of indigenous culture, traditions and institutions; right to control and establish their own educational system; community intellectualrights;rights to religious, cultural sites and ceremonies; right to indigenous knowledgesystemsand practices and to develop their own sciences andtechnologies;rightofaccesstobiologicalandgeneticresources;andtherightto sustainable agro-technical development. Ingeneral,theIPRAgrantsownershiprightstoaterritorycomprisingoftheareaorareas thattheycanclaimastheirancestraldomainaswellasthenaturalresourceswithinthe domain.Italsograntsrighttoself-governance;socialjusticeandhumanrights;andthe righttoculturalintegrity.Underthislaw,IPsshallhavetherighttoacceptorrejectcertain development interventions in their particular communities. The following are some of the specificrequirementsoftheIPRA: 1. Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)whichisdefinedastheconsensusofall membersoftheIPs/ICCstobedeterminedinaccordancewiththeirrespectivecustomary lawsandpractices,freefromanyexternalmanipulation,interferenceandcoercion,and obtainedafterfullydisclosingtheintentandscopeofanactivity,inalanguageand processunderstandabletothecommunity.Thisshallfirstbesecuredbytheproject proponentinaccordancewiththeIPs'ownpractices.Thelaw,however,alsoprovides thatonlytheaffectedcommunityorcommunitiesshallgiveFPIC. 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 theusualrequirementofDENRundertheEnvironmentalImpactStatement(EIS) System. 4. Benefits and Compensation ­ The proponent is required to enter into a written undertakingwithIPs,statingclearlytheformer'scommitmentfordamagecompensation andcashorsuretybond,thesharingofbenefits,andmeasurestoprotecttherightsand valuesystemoftheindigenouscommunity. TheIPRAalsomandatestheestablishmentoftheNCIPastheprimarygovernmentagency responsiblefortheformulationandimplementationofpolicies,plans,andprogramsto promoteandprotecttherightsandwell-beingofIPs.Withspecificregardtoancestral 10 domains,theNCIPistaskedtoprocessancestrallandanddomainclaimsandworkforthe issuanceofcertificateofancestraldomaintitle,whichservesasaproofofownershipbya particularindigenousgroupoftheirdomain,includingallnaturalresourcesthatarefound initssurfaceandsubsurface.UnlikeaTorrenstitle,however,thecertificateofancestral domaintitleisheldbytheentireindigenouscommunityandnotbyprivateindividuals.It cannotbesoldtooutsidersandisheldinperpetuitybytheethnicgroup. 2.3 NCIPAdministrative Issuances TheNCIPhasissuedseveraladministrativeorders,circulars,andplans,amongwhichare thefollowing: NCIPAdministrative Order No. 1, series of 1998 is the implementing rules and regulations oftheIPRA.ThemainregulatoryinstrumentforsafeguardistheCP/FPICprocess.The policies,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,medicaland scientificconcerns,biodiversity,bio-prospectingandgatheringofgeneticresources; 3. Displacementandrelocation; 4. Archaeologicalexplorations,diggingsandexcavations,andaccesstoreligiousand culturalsites; 5. PoliciesaffectingthegeneralwelfareandtherightsofIPs/ICCs;and 6. Entryofthemilitaryorparamilitaryforcesorestablishmentoftemporaryorpermanent militaryfacilitieswithinthedomains. NCIP Administrative Order No. 3, series of 1998recognizesandrespectsallleases, permits,licenses,contractsandotherformsofconcessionwithinancestraldomainsthat arealreadyexistingand/orvesteduponpriortotheeffectivityoftheNCIPAdministrative OrderNo.1,s.1998. ThesupplementalguidelineswereissuedbytheNCIPinresponsetothethreatofseveral miningcompaniestopullouttheirinvestmentsduetowhattheyperceiveasdisadvantageous provisionsoftheimplementingrulesandregulation.Thesefirmswereespeciallyconcerned thattheNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.1,s.1998willnullifyexistingcontracts,leases, permits and other forms of concessions within ancestral domains. To address these complaints,theOfficeofthePresidentformedataskforceonminingundertheEconomic MobilizationGroup.Thetechnicalworkinggroupofthetaskforcehadrepresentatives fromtheChamberofMines,DENR,BoardofInvestments(BOI),andtheNCIP.Thus,the NCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.3,s.1998wasacompromisetothemininglobbygroup. Withthesenewguidelines,miningfirmswithapprovedcontracts,licenses,agreements andotherconcessionspriorto1998cannowlegitimatelycontinuetheirminingactivities without going through the process of obtaining FPIC by just securing a certification precondition from the NCIP. 11 NCIPAdministrative Order No. 1, series of 2002 provides for the organization of a Special CommitteeonReviewandVerificationtoreview,verifyandevaluatethecertificateof ancestraldomaintitlesandthecertificateofancestrallandtitlesthatwereapprovedby the previous set of NCIP Commissioners. The special committee was created because of suspicionsthattherewereanomaliesintheissuanceofthesecertificates.Basedontheir findings,thespecialcommitteewillrecommendtothecommissiontheappropriateaction forthesecertificateofancestraldomaintitles.Theadministrativeorderenumeratesthetypes ofanomalouscasesthattheCommitteeshallreview,suchasmaterialdefects,infirmity, fraud,force,intimidation,andmisrepresentation.Theadministrativeorderexpresslystates thatthecertificateofancestraldomaintitles/certificateofancestrallandtitlesaretobe revoked or rejected if found to be anomalous. NCIP Administrative Order No. 2, series of 2002 requires a review and evaluation of therecordsofDENRissuancesofcertificateofancestraldomainclaimsandcertificateof ancestrallandclaims,andcalledfortheformationofSpecialProvincialTaskForcesunder thesupervisionoftheAncestralDomainsOffice(ADO)toundertakefieldvalidationof theseclaims.Thefieldvalidationshallgivespecialemphasisonthefollowing:authenticity ofthenamesofclaimantsasappearinginthecensuspreviouslymade,ifany;confirmation fromthecommunitiesastowhethertheyhadactuallygivenconsenttotheconversion; validationastotheauthorityoftherepresentativeofthecommunityintheapplication forconversion;andthepresentationofthesurveyplantotheapplicantcommunityfor validation. NCIP Administrative Order No. 3, series of 2002 repeals NCIP Administrative Order No. 3,s.1998andoffersanewsetofguidelinesfortheissuanceofCP/FPIC.Intheprevious administrativeorder,thecertificationpreconditionisissuedfornon-IPareaswhilethe FPICisissuedforIPareas.Therevisedguidelines,however,correctedthisbystatingthat theNCIPissuesthecertificationpreconditionwhiletheIPcommunityissuestheFPIC.The NCIPmayissueacertificationpreconditionforprojectswhethertheyarewithinoroutside of IP areas. NCIP Administrative Circular No. 1, series of 2003statesthattheNCIP,throughits RegionalHearingOfficer,shallexerciseoriginalandexclusivejurisdictionovercases involvingdisputesandcontroversiesoverancestrallands/domainsofIPs/ICCs;violations oftherequirementofFPICofIPs/ICCs;actionsforenforcementofdecisionsofIPs/ICCs involvingviolationsofcustomarylawsordesecrationofceremonialsites,sacredplacesor rituals;actionsforredemption/re-conveyanceunderSection8(b)ofRepublicAct8371; andsuchothercasesanalogoustotheforegoing.ItalsoemphasizesthattheIPcommunity throughtheircouncilelders,shallresolvecasesattheirlevelandmayelevatesuchcasesto theRegionalHearingOfficeruponwrittencertificationoftheirfailuretoresolvethecase. NCIP Administrative Order No. 3, series of 2003 seeks to constitute a multi-level consultativebodytobeorganizedattheprovincial,regional,andnationallevels.Italso providesforthesettingupofsimilarstructuresatthecommunitylevel.Coordinating committeesintheprovincial,regionalandnationallevelsshallbecreatedtoassistthe NCIP in convening the consultative bodies. 12 NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2004outlinesthestep-by-stepprocedures intheformulationofAncestralDomainSustainableDevelopmentandProtectionPlans (ADSDPPs).TheADSDPPembodiesthegoalsandobjectivesaswellaspoliciesand strategies of the IPs for the sustainable management and development of their ancestral domainandallresourcestherein,includingthehumanandculturalresources,suchas theirindigenousknowledgesystemsandpractices.TheADSDPPalsocontainsthelist and 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.TheADSDPPisalong-termplanthatwillserveasthebasisforthe Five-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.2002andinstitutesanewsetofFPICguidelines.Thenewguidelinesmakea distinctionbetweenthecertificationpreconditionandthecertificateofnon-overlap.The formerreferstothecertificateofcomplianceissuedbytheNCIPattestingthattheapplicant hascompliedwiththerequirementsforsecuringtheaffectedIPs/ICCs'FPICwhilethe certificateofnon-overlapreferstothecertificateissuedbytheconcernedRegionalDirector oftheNCIPattestingtothefactthattheareaaffectedbyaparticularplan,program,project oractivitydoesnotoverlapwithanyancestraldomain.Bothcertificatesareissuedbythe NCIPRegionalDirectorunlikeinthepreviousadministrativeorderwhichpointstothe ADOastheofficethatissuesacertificationprecondition.Non-overlapswithancestral domainareaswereverifiedbycomparingtheproposedprojectareawiththeapproved masterlistofAncestralDomainAreas.Ontheotherhand,theIPcommunity'sconsentto aplan,program,projectoractivityisreflectedthroughaResolutionofConsentwhilethe denial of the FPIC is formalized through a Resolution of Non-Consent. Insummary,theNCIPissuedalltheseissuancestoserveasimplementingrulesand regulationsoftheIPRA.Fouroftheissuances(AdministrativeOrder1,Administrative Order3of1998;AdministrativeOrder3of2002;AdministrativeOrder3of2006)dealt mainlywithclarifyingtheCP/FPICprocessby:(i)clearlylistingthetypesofprojects withoutapprovedcontractlicensesandagreementsafter1998thatwillrequireCP/FPIC; (ii)clarifyingthatFPICisforissuancebytheIPcommunitywhilecertificationprecondition isfortheNCIPissuanceandthatitisforprojectsthathavemetalltheFPICrequirements, whilecertificateofnon-overlapisforprojectsthatdonotaffectIPsorthosethatfall outsideancestraldomains;(iii)specifyingthestreamlinedstepsandacceptabletimeframe tocompletetheCP/FPICprocess;and(iv)decentralizingtheissuanceofcertificateofnon- overlapandcertificationpreconditiontotheNCIPRegionalDirector. SincetherightsoftheIPsareheavilyintertwinedwiththeirancestraldomains,theNCIP issued three administrative orders pertinent to the creation of bodies and prescribing the proceduresforthefollowing:(i)validationofcertificateofancestrallandtitles/certificate ofancestraldomaintitlesinresponsetoaccusationsthatsomeofthemarefraudulent;(ii) conversionofcertificateofancestraldomainclaims/certificateofancestrallandclaimsto certificateofancestraldomaintitles/certificateofancestrallandtitles;and,(iii)formulation oftheADSDPPwhichisafive-yearplanoftheIPsintheirancestraldomains. 13 The NCIP has also issued administrative orders to address grievances and consultative mechanismsspecifyingtheprocedureandbodyexpectedtoresolvethem.Thistakeson issuesbetweenIPtribesthatmaysometimeshaveconflictingclaimsandinterestaswellas advocacyissuesneedingthecreationofaunitedfrontamongthem. Medium-TermPhilippineDevelopmentPlanforIndigenousPeoples,2004-2008concretizes theIPsector'sagendaintospecificandmeasurablegoals,programsandtargetsforthe years2004to2008thatcanserveasthebasisformedium-termplanning,investment and implementation. It serves as input to the Philippine government's Medium-Term DevelopmentPlan(MTDP)andasaguideforinternationalpartners,civilsocietygroups andIPsfordesigningsupportanddefiningcoverageareas. 2.4 Other Philippine Laws ThereareotherlawsthatpartlydiscussIPsandtheirrights.Theselawscontributeto the overall Philippine jurisprudence on IPs' rights. These different laws can be clustered into10generalcategories,namely:(i)landlaws;(ii)forestrylaws;(iii)agricultureand fisherieslaws;(iv)lawsonmining;(v)lawsonenvironmentalprotectionandconservation; (vi)lawsonEISSystem;(vii)lawsongeneticandbiologicalresources;(viii)lawson culturalproperties;(ix)lawsonlocalgovernanceandautonomy;and(x)lawsontheNCIP. (Please refer to Annex A for a list of these Philippine laws.) Commonwealth Act No. 141 (Public Land Act),althoughpassedduringthetimeofthe PhilippineCommonwealth,isstillinplace.AccordingtoSections7and8ofthesaid law,theconfirmationofincompleteorimperfecttitlesmaybedoneintwoways:either byjudiciallegalization(entailingcourtprocess)orbyadministrativelegalization(called thefreepatent).Inordertocomeunderanyofthesetwoways,theapplicantmustshow thathe/shehasbeeninopen,continuousandexclusivepossessionofthelandsince1945. However,fortheformer,thelimitforthesizeoftheareathatmaybelegalizedis144 hectaresandforthelatter,therequirementisnottoownmorethan24hectaresofland.IPs mayutilizeanyofthesetwomodes. PD 1586 (Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System of 1978) declares environmentally critical projects and projects within environmentally critical areas as projectswhichrequirethesubmissionofanEIS.Section4statedthat"noperson,partnership orcorporationshallundertakeoroperateanyinpartsuchdeclaredenvironmentallycritical projectsor projectwithin anenvironmentallycriticalareaswithout firstsecuringan environmentalcompliancecertificate." RA 4846 (Cultural Properties Preservation and Protection Act)asamendedbyPD374, mandatesthatonlytheNationalMuseumofthePhilippinescanundertakearchaeological explorations,assessmentsandexcavations.Anyoneviolatingthislawwillbefined.The NationalMuseumbelievesthatthelawappliesthroughoutanypartofthecountry.Agencies and/orindividualswantingtoengageinarchaeologicalpractice(e.g.thoseintheacademe), have to seek a permit from the National Museum to be able to practice their craft. 14 Republic Act 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL) is another law that hassomeimpactonIPsasitprovidessomelegalprotectiontotheancestraldomains/lands. AccordingtoSection2,par.5ofthislaw,"TheStateshallapplytheprinciplesofagrarian reform,orstewardship,wheneverapplicable,inaccordancewithlawinthedispositionor utilizationofothernaturalresources,includinglandsofthepublicdomain,andtheirlease orconcession,suitabletoagriculture,subject to prior rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands."ThislawimpliesthattherightsoftheIPtotheirancestraldomain/ landmustprevailoverthatofthefarmer.Furthermore,thelawprovidesthatinleasingout undevelopedlandsofthepublicdomaintoqualifiedentitiesforthedevelopmentofcapital- intensivefarmsandtraditionalandpioneeringcrops,especiallythoseforexport,prior rightsofIPstotheirancestrallandsshalllikewiseberespected(Section2,par.12). Republic Act 7076 (People's Small-Scale Mining Act of 1991) provides that Filipino citizensmayformcooperativestobelicensedbytheDENRtoengageintheextractionof minerals.However,withindeclaredancestrallands,IPsshallhavepriorityintheawarding ofsuchlicensesorcontracts.RepublicAct7076excludesallactiveminingareas,thus, leavingtheIPshelplessagainstpreviouslyexistinglarge-scaleminerswhohaveencroached ontheirancestraldomains/lands. Republic Act 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) provides that ICCs have the option toestablishtribalbarangays.AccordingtoSection386oftheLocalGovernmentCode,"To enhancethedeliveryofbasicservicesintheindigenousculturalcommunities,barangays maybecreatedinsuchcommunitiesbyanActofCongress"notwithstandingtheminimum requirementsforthecreationofabarangay.ThisoptionisrecognizedbytheIPRA(Section 18),whichstatesthat"theIPs/ICCslivingincontiguousareasorcommunitieswherethey formthepredominantpopulationbutwhicharelocatedinmunicipalities,provincesor citieswheretheydonotconstitutethemajorityofthepopulation,mayformorconstitutea separatebarangayinaccordancewiththeLocalGovernmentCodeonthecreationoftribal barangays." 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 the environmentandnaturalresourcesofPalawan.Itestablishesagradedsystemofprotection anddevelopmentoverthewholeofPalawanknownastheEnvironmentallyCriticalAreas Network. One of the objectives of the network is to ensure the protection of IPs and the preservation of their culture. 15 Republic Act 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995)isthefirstlawwhichveststheICCs withFPICoverproposedminingprojectsintheirareas.ItprovidesadefinitionofICCsand ancestral lands and prohibits opening of mining operations on ancestral lands without the priorconsentoftheconcernedICC.ItalsoprovidesfortheICCstobeentitledtoroyalty paymentsfortheuseofminerals.Thesaidroyaltyshallformpartofatrustfundforthe socio-economic well-being of ICCs. It also provides that "All mineral resources in public andprivatelandswithintheterritoryandexclusiveeconomiczoneoftheRepublicofthe PhilippinesareownedbytheState"(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).ThetheAutonomousRegioninMuslimMindanao shall have powers and jurisdiction over the following: administrative organization; creationofrevenuesources;ancestraldomainandnaturalresources;personal,familyand propertyrelations;regionalurbanandruralplanningdevelopment;economic,socialand tourismdevelopment;educationalpolicies;preservationanddevelopmentofthecultural heritage;eminentdomain;andpowers,functionsandresponsibilitiesbeingexercisedby the departments of the national government. For IPs within the Autonomous Region in MuslimMindanao,thelawprovidesforthecreationof"tribalcourts,"whichmayinclude aTribalAppellateCourt.Thesetribalcourtswilldetermine,settleanddecidecontroversies andenforcedecisionsinvolvingfamilyandpropertyrightsinaccordancewiththetribal codesofindigenouscommunities.Thus,thelawmandatestheRegionalAssemblytoenact alocallegislationmandatingthecodificationofindigenouslawsandthecompilationof customarylawsintheautonomousregion. Department Administrative Order 2003-30 (Philippine EIS System Implementation Guidelines and Procedures) identifies"areaswhicharetraditionallyoccupiedbycultural communitiesortribes"asenvironmentallycriticalareas.AccordingtoPart2.2Eofthe manual,"thisreferstoallancestrallandsofNationalCulturalCommunitiesidentified inSec.1ofPresidentialDecreeNo.410andsettlementsdesigned,implementedand maintainedbythePANAMINfornationalminorities(non-Muslimhilltribesreferredto inPresidentialDecreeNo.719)asmaybeamendedbyRepublicActNo.8371(IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulation. This also refers to all areas that are occupied or claimedasancestrallandsorancestraldomainsbyICCs,orcertifiedassuch(certificateof ancestraldomainclaim/certificateofancestrallandtitle)pursuanttoDENRAdministrative OrderNo.2,seriesof1993regardingtheidentificationanddelineationofancestrallandor domain claims." 16 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 3. T his section looks into the institutional framework within which the Philippine safeguard system for IPs operates.The main area of scrutiny is the NCIP, its organizationalstructure,itspowersandmandates,itsmajorprograms,andhowit concretelyimplementstheFPICprocess. 3.1 The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples TheprimaryagencyinchargewithensuringtheprotectionoftherightsofIPsistheNCIP whosecharterisprovidedforbytheIPRA.In2004,ExecutiveOrderNo.364subsumed theNCIPundertheDepartmentofAgrarianReform(DAR)andrenamedthenewagency DepartmentofLandReform(DLR).ConsultationsconductedbytheNCIPonExecutive Order364reportedlyrevealedstrongoppositionastheexecutiveorderallegedlydiminished thespiritandintentoftheIPRA,furtherdelayingitsimplementation.Apetitionsignedby various sectors urging the recall of Executive Order 364 prompted the issuance of Executive Order379inOctober26,2004,whichamendedExecutiveOrder364.Theamendment specificallyprovidedfortheNCIPtobeanattachedagencyoftheDLRandthattheNCIP Chairmanshallnotsufferdiminutioninrankandsalary. 3.2 Organizational Structure Thepolicy-makingbodyoftheNCIPiscomposedofsevenCommissionersbelongingto IPs/ICCs,oneofwhomservesastheChairperson.TheseCommissionersareappointed bythePresidentofthePhilippinesfromalistofrecommendeessubmittedbyauthentic IPs/ICCs.ThesevenCommissionerscomefromthefollowing"ethnographicareas:"i) RegionI(IlocosRegion)andtheCordilleras;ii)RegionII(CagayanValley);iii)therest ofLuzon;iv)Islandgroups,includingMindoro,Palawan,Romblon,Panay,andtherestof theVisayas;v)NorthernandWesternMindanao;vi)SouthernandEasternMindanao;and vii)CentralMindanao.Section40oftheIPRAprovidesthatatleasttwoCommissioners of 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,and recognitionofancestrallands/domains.Itisalsoresponsibleforthemanagementof ancestrallands/domainsinaccordancewithamasterplanaswellastheimplementation oftheancestraldomainrightsoftheIPs/ICCsasprovidedforinChapterIIIoftheIPRA. Itshallissue,upontheFPICoftheIPs/ICCsconcerned,certificationpriortothegrant ofanylicense,leaseorpermitfortheuseofnaturalresourcesaffectingtheinterestsof IPs/ICCsinprotectingtheterritorialintegrityofallancestraldomains.Itshalllikewise performotherfunctionsastheCommissionmaydeemappropriateandnecessary. 17 2. Office on Policy, Planning, and Research shall be responsible for the formulation of appropriatepoliciesandprogramsforIPs/ICCssuchasthedevelopmentofaFive- YearMasterPlanfortheIPs/ICCs.Suchplanshallundergoaprocesssuchthatevery fiveyears,theCommissionshallassesstheplanandmakeadjustmentsinaccordance withthechangingsituations.TheOfficeshallalsoundertakethedocumentationof customarylawandshallestablishandmaintainaResearchCenterthatwouldserve asadepositoryofethnographicinformationformonitoring,evaluationandpolicy formulation. 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 implementationoftheeducation,culturalandrelatedrightsasprovidedforinthis Act.Itshallassist,promoteandsupportcommunityschools,bothformalandnon- formal,forthebenefitofthelocalindigenouscommunity,especiallyinareaswhere existing educational facilities are not accessible to members of the indigenous group. It shalladministerallscholarshipprogramsandothereducationalrightsintendedforIPs/ ICCsbeneficiariesincoordinationwiththeDepartmentofEducation(DepEd)andthe CommissiononHigherEducation(CHED).Itshallundertakeaspecialprogramthat includeslanguageandvocationaltraining,publichealth,andfamilyassistanceprogram andrelatedsubjects.ItshallalsoidentifyIPs/ICCswithpotentialtraininginthehealth professionandencourageandassistthemtoenrollinschoolsofmedicine,nursing, physicaltherapyandotheralliedcoursespertainingtothehealthprofession.Itshallalso monitor the activities of the National Museum and other similar government agencies generallyintendedtomanageandpreservehistoricalandarcheologicalartifactsofthe IPs/ICCsandshallberesponsiblefortheimplementationofotherfunctionstheNCIP maydeemnecessary. 4. Office on Socio-Economic Services and Special Concernsshallserveastheoffice throughwhichtheNCIPshallcoordinatewithpertinentgovernmentagenciesspecially chargedwiththeimplementationofvariousbasicsocio-economicservices,policies, plansandprogramsaffectingtheIPs/ICCstoensurethatthesameareproperlyand directlyenjoyedbythem.ItshallalsoberesponsibleforotherfunctionsthattheNCIP maydeemappropriateandnecessary. 5. Office of Empowerment and Human Rights shall ensure that indigenous socio- political,culturalandeconomicrightsarerespectedandrecognized.Itshallensure that capacity building mechanisms are instituted and IPs/ICCs are afforded every opportunitytoparticipateinalllevelsofdecision-making.Itshalllikewiseensurethat thebasichumanrightsandsuchotherrightsastheNCIPmaydetermine,subjectto existinglaws,rulesandregulations,areprotectedandpromoted. 6. Administrative OfficeshallprovidetheNCIPwitheconomical,efficientandeffective servicespertainingtopersonnel,finance,records,equipment,security,suppliesand relatedservices.ItshallalsoadministertheAncestralDomainsFund. 7. Legal Affairs OfficeshalladvisetheNCIPonalllegalmattersconcerningIPs/ICCs with legal assistance in litigation involving community interest. It shall conduct preliminaryinvestigationonthebasisofcomplaintsfiledbytheIPs/ICCsagainsta naturalorjuridicalpersonbelievedtohaveviolatedtherightsofIPs/ICCs.Onthebasis ofitsfindings,itshallinitiatethefilingofappropriatelegaloradministrativeactionto the NCIP. 18 Section49oftheIPRAcalledforthecreationoftheOfficeoftheExecutiveDirectorof theNCIP.ThisofficeshallserveasNCIP'ssecretariat.ItshallbeheadedbyanExecutive DirectorwhoshallbeappointedbythePresidentofthePhilippines,uponrecommendation of the NCIP. Allofthenationaloffices Figure 1. Organizational Structure of the National Commission oftheNCIPhavealready on Indigenous Peoples. been organized and are functional (Figure 1). Commission En Banc Section 48 of the IPRA called for the creation of Consultative regionalandfieldOffices Body oftheNCIP.Atpresent, Commission the NCIP has 12 regional on Audit Executive Director Office of the officeseachheadedbya Regional Director. The regions where the NCIP Domains Office Ancestral Planning & Research Office of Policy, hasregionalofficesare:(i) Cordillera Administrative and Special Concerns Economic Services Office on Socio- Region;(ii)RegionI;(iii) Office on Education, Culture & Health RegionII;(iv)RegionIII; (v)RegionIV;(vi)Region Empowerment and Office of Administrative V; (vii) Region VI and Human Rights Office VII;(viii)RegionIX;(ix) RegionX;(x)RegionXI; Legal Affairs (xi)RegionXII;and(xii) Office RegionXIII. Regional Offices The IPRA and its implementing rules and Provincial Offices regulationsdidnotspecify the field offices to be Community organizedbytheNCIP.The Service Centers NCIP, however, organized Source: NCIP. provincialofficesunderits regionaloffices.Asof2006,thereare46provincialoffices.Atthemunicipalandcitylevels,108 NCIP service centers have been established. There are instances where these service centers are underthejurisdictionoftheprovincialofficebuttherearealsocaseswherethereisnoprovincial officeandthus,theservicecenterisdirectlyundertheadministrationoftheregionaloffice. (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(NCIP AnnualReport2001).Thebreakdownofthispersonnelcomplementisasfollows:the 19 centralofficehas118,theregionalofficeshave300,theprovincialofficeshave414,andthe servicecentershave756.Ofthetotalpersonnelcomplement,799belongtothefirstlevel of position while 762 belong to the second level. There are 27 positions belonging to the thirdlevelpositionthatrepresentstheDirectors,ExecutiveDirector,Commissionersandthe Chairperson.However,fivepositionsofthislevelareoccupiedbyOfficers-In-Charge. Regionalofficeshavetwodivisions,namely:theAdministrativeDivisionandtheTechnical ManagementDivision(TMD).OnlyonepersonintheTMDisdesignatedtooverseeall CP/FPICapplicationsandactivities. From2002to2005,theNCIPwassupportedbyaregularbudgetaryappropriationofmore thanPhP400millioneachyear.Thebulkofthebudgetaryallocationgoestopersonnel services,withtherestgoingtoregularmaintenanceandotheroperatingexpenses(MOOE), retirementandlifeinsurancepremiumandimplementationofprogramsandprojects, whereinCP/FPICactivitiesandtitlingofancestrallandsanddomainsarejustpartofthe long list of the NCIP programs and projects. Table 1showsthedistributionofbudgetary appropriation 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 2005 Personal Service 282,549,000 282,475,000 279,270,000 287,765,051 Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses Regular 44,126,000 63,249,000 64,126,000 71,580,520 Socio-economic/Livelihood Projects 3,479,000 10,781,000 10,851,000 7,695,000 Scholarship/Educational Assistance 65,000,000 84,070,000 110,000,000 52,621,000 Program Management/Development of 12,692,000 12,692,000 Ancestral Lands to support SRA PDAF 3,100,000 Special Fund 41,181,850 TOTAL MOOE 125,297,000 158,100,000 229,502,850 131,896,520 Terminal 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, asidefromtheinvolvedpersonnel,allotherlineexpensesincurredduringtheCP/FPIC processareshoulderedbytheprojectapplicantorproponent. 20 3.4 Powers and Mandates The NCIP is endowed with quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative and executive functions. AccordingtoSection44oftheIPRA,thepowers,jurisdictionandfunctionoftheNCIP arethefollowing: ToserveastheprimarygovernmentagencythroughwhichIPs/ICscanseekgovernment assistanceandasthemedium,throughwhichsuchassistancecanbeextended; ToreviewandassesstheconditionsofIPs/ICCsincludingexistinglawsandpolicies pertinent thereto and to propose relevant laws and policies to address their role in nationaldevelopment; Toformulateandimplementpolicies,plans,programsandprojectsfortheeconomic, socialandculturaldevelopmentoftheIPs/ICCsandtomonitortheimplementation thereof; To request and engage the services and support of experts from other government agenciesorprivateexpertsandconsultantsasmayberequiredinthepursuitofits objectives; Toissuecertificatesofancestralland/domaintitle; Subjecttoexistinglaws,toenterintocontracts,agreementsorarrangementswith governmentorprivateagenciesorentitiesasmaybenecessarytoattaintheobjectivesof theIPRA,andsubjecttotheapprovalofthePresident,toobtainloansfromgovernment andlendinginstitutionstofinanceitsprograms; Tonegotiateforfundsandtoacceptgrants,donations,giftsand/orpropertiesinwhatever formandfromwhateversource,localandinternational,subjecttotheapprovalofthe President,forthebenefitofIPs/ICCsandadministerthesameinaccordancewiththe termsthereof;orintheabsenceofanycondition,insuchmannerconsistentwiththe interestofIPs/ICCsandexistinglaws; TocoordinatedevelopmentprogramsandprojectsfortheadvancementofIPs/ICCs andtooverseetheproperimplementationthereof; ToconveneperiodicconventionsorassembliesofIPstoreview,assess,aswellas proposepoliciesorplans; ToadvisethePresidentonallmattersrelatingtotheIPs/ICCsandtosubmitwithin60 daysafterthecloseofeachcalendaryear,areportofitsoperationsandachievements; To submit to Congress appropriate legislative proposals intended to carry out the policiesunderthisAct; To issue appropriate certification as a pre-condition to the grant of permit, lease, grant,oranyothersimilarauthorityforthedisposition,utilization,managementand appropriationbyanyprivateindividual,corporateentity,oranygovernmentagency, corporationorsubdivisionthereof,oranypartorportionoftheancestraldomaintaking intoconsiderationtheconsensusapprovaloftheIPs/ICCsconcerned; Todecideallappealsfromthedecisionsandactsofallthevariousofficeswithinthe Commission; TopromulgatetherulesandregulationsfortheimplementationofthisAct; ToexercisesuchotherpowersandfunctionsasmaybedirectedbythePresident;and TorepresentthePhilippineIPs/ICCsinallinternationalconferencesandconventions dealing with indigenous peoples and other related concerns. 21 3.5 Major Programs ThepresentactivitiesoftheNCIParedividedintothreeprogramareas:landtenuresecurity; developmentofIPcommunities;andenforcementofIPrights. Land tenure security. Underlandtenuresecurity,theNCIPisengagedinculturalmapping ofallIPcommunities;delineationofancestraldomainandissuanceofcertificateofancestral domaintitleandcertificateofancestrallandtitles. Community development program.Underitscommunitydevelopmentprogram,NCIP engages and prepares the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plans (ADSDPPs) in the delivery of livelihood support, educational assistance, health care, shelter and other basic services and the protection and enhancement of cultural heritage in the IP communities by coordinating and securing internationalagencyandinter- governmentagencysupport. Enforcement of IP rights. TheNCIPisengagedintheadjudicationofconflictsthrough customarylaws,traditions,theNCIPadjudicationprocesses,theprovisionoflegalassistance toIPindividualsandgroups,andthepreparationandimplementationofproceduresforthe FPIC. 22 SAFEGUARDCERTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR THE RIGHTS OF IPs: PRECONDITION / FREE AND PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT 4. A s embodied in NCIPAdministrative Order No. 1, series of 1998 (Rules and RegulationsImplementingRepublicActNo.8371),themainregulatoryinstrument tosafeguardtherightsofIPsinprograms,projectsandbusinessorprofit-oriented investmentsistheCP/FPICprocess. TheroleoftheNCIPintheFPICisfacilitative.TheADOistheunitattheNCIPcentral officethatisprimarilyresponsibleforensuringsafeguardswithintheNCIP.NCIP's authoritytoissuecertificationsisprovidedinSection29oftheIPRA,whichenjoins"all departmentsandothergovernmentalagencies...fromissuing,renewingorgrantingany concession,licenseorlease,orenteringintoanyproduction-sharingagreement,without priorcertificationfromtheNCIPthattheareaaffecteddoesnotoverlapwithanyancestral domain" and provides that "...certifications shall only be issued after a field-based investigationisconductedbytheADOoftheareaconcerned." TheguidelinesthathavebeenusedbytheNCIPinthepastfouryearsfortheimplementation oftheFPICprocessandotherconcomitantrequirementsarecontainedinNCIPAdministrative OrderNo.3,seriesof2002.2Amanualofthisadministrativeorderhasalsobeenpublishedby theNCIP.TheregulatoryinstrumentoftheNCIPistheCP/FPIC,whichisissuedtoprojects asaformofclearanceindicatingeithernon-coverage,whichmeansaparticularprojectis outsidetheancestraldomain,orthattheFPIChasbeengivenbytheIPcommunity.3 ThekeyelementsoftheCP/FPICapplicationprocessareasfollows: 1. Endorsements from relevant government agency ­Applications for CP/FPIC mustbeintheformofendorsementsbytherelevantgovernmentagencythathas jurisdictionovertheproject.Forexample,energyprojectsmaybeendorsedbythe DepartmentofEnergy.TheapplicationshallbesubmittedtotheADO. 2. Field-Based Investigation­OncetheADOreceivestheapplication,itwilldirect the concerned Regional Director to form a field-based investigation team that willconductthesecondarydataassessmentandsiteinspection.Thefield-based investigationteamwillpreparetheirreportwithin15workingdays.Theirreportwill determinewhetherFPICisneededandwillbesubmittedtotheRegionalDirector whowillforwardittoADOwhoafterevaluationwillactupontherecommendation toissuetheCertificationprecondition. 2The 2006 FPIC Guidelines are not yet assessed in this report since it still has to be implemented by the NCIP. 3 Philippine EIS System, which assesses socio-cultural impacts of projects on both IPs and non-IPs. Other laws, such as The impacts of projects on indigenous peoples found outside of ancestral domains are still protected by law through the 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. 23 3. Project Operational Plan­Ifthefield-basedinvestigationreportrecommends FPIC,theRegionalDirector,within15daysfromreceiptofthereport,willgive noticetotheproponenttosubmitwithin15daystheProjectOperationalPlanand advise the proponent to commence the FPIC process. 4. PreliminaryConsultativeMeeting­OncetheProjectOperationalPlanissubmitted, theFPICprocessmaybeinitiatedbytheNCIPbypostingnoticeatthecommunity atleastfivedaysbeforethePreliminaryConsultativeMeeting.TheNCIPwillalso servepersonalnoticestotherecognizedeldersorleadersofthecommunity.The NCIP,IPs/ICCcleadersandmembers,andlocalnon-governmentorganizations orcivilsocietygroupswillattendthepreliminaryconsultativemeeting.Inthis meeting,theproponentwillpresenttheprojecttotheIPs/ICCsincludingestimates ofthecostsandbenefitsoftheprojecttothecommunity.Oppositioniststothe projectwillbegiventheopportunitytopresenttheirarguments.Theattendeesof the meeting will then determine if another consultative meeting is needed. 5. Consensus Building ­ When the parties have determined that no more consultative meetings are necessary, thentheIPs/ICCsleaderswillbegiven timetoconsulttheirmembers.During this time, the proponent will not be allowedinthecommunity. 6. Community Assembly ­ After the consensusbuilding,theNCIPwillcall acommunityassemblywheretheIPs/ 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,amemorandumofagreement shallbeexecutedbetweentheproponent, hostIPs/ICCsandtheNCIP,writtenin the dialect or language of the concerned IPs/ICCs,withcorrespondingEnglishandFilipinotranslations.Thememorandumof agreementshallstipulate,amongothers:(i)benefitsduetothehostIPs/ICCs;(ii) measurestoprotecttheIPs'rightsandvaluesystems;and(iii)theresponsibilities oftheproponentaswellasthoseofthehostIPs/ICCsandtheNCIP. 8. Issuance of Certificate of FPIC­TheCertificateofFPICwillbeissuedbythe IPs/ICCsafterthesigningofthememorandumofagreement.IncasetheIPs/ICCs rejecttheproponent,itwillissueacertificateofrejection. AflowchartoftheCP/FPICprocessisgiveninFigure 2. 24 Figure 2. Schematic Diagram of the CP/FPIC Process. Endorsing Agency National Level Regional Level Field Level Submits request for Chairman directs RDissuesWork Conduct FBI CP to NCIP conduct of FBI Order to FBI Team (3days) (10days) FBI Team submits NOTE:REQUESTFORCPMAYBESUBMITTEDDIRECTLY TOTHENCIPREGIONALOFFICEINWHICHCASE,THE FBIReporttoRD REGIONALDIRECTORWILLIMMEDIATELYISSUEWORK (7days) ORDERFORTHECONDUCTOFFBI. Receives and furnishescopyto ADOaffirmsand RDrecommends No Need for the proponent issues CP CP issuance FPIC? (7days) (5days) Submits RDnotifiesproponentto Yes Operational Plan submit Operational Plan (10days) IP + NCIP + Proponent preparesWorkand PCM(Postingof Financial Plan notices) (5days) (5days) Legend: ADO ­AncestralDomainsOffice CP ­CertificationPrecondition Consensus FBI ­ Field Based Investigation Building FPIC ­ Free and Prior Informed Consent (15days) IP ­ Indigenous Peoples MOA ­ Memorandum of Agreement NCIP ­ National Commission on Indigenous Peoples RD ­RegionalDirector Community RO ­RegionalOffice Assembly (7days) ADOreviewsand endorses documents RDsubmits No to Commission documentstoADO Consent? (5days) Yes MOA drafting and Receives ADOreviewsand signing Certificate endorses documents (5days) (5days) to Commission (5days) Source: NCIP. Asidefromundergoingtheaboveprocess,theproponentofanypolicy,program,project, oractivityrequiringtheFPICisrequiredtosubmittotheIPcommunityandtheNCIPthe following:(i)anundertakingoffulldisclosureofrecordsandinformationrelevanttothe policy,program,projectoractivity,andallowfullaccesstorecords,documents,material informationandfacilitiespertinenttothesame;(ii)anEnvironmentalandSocio-cultural ImpactStatement,detailingallthepossibleimpactsontheecological,economic,socialand culturalaspectofthecommunity;and(iii)anundertakingpledgingthatitwillanswerfor damageswhichtheIPs/ICCsmaysufferresultingfromthepolicy,program,project,planor activity.Pursuanttothis,theproponentmayberequiredbytheIPs/ICCstodepositacash 25 bondorpostasuretybondwiththeNCIPequivalenttoapercentageofitsinvestments. TheamountofbondshallbedeterminedbytheNCIPwiththeconcurrenceoftheIPs/ICCs basedontheimpactoftheproject.Finally,theproponentisalsorequiredtounderwriteall expensesattendanttosecuringtheFPICofIPs/ICCs. AccordingtoNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.3,s.2002,theroleandresponsibilitiesofthe variousNCIPofficeswithregardtotheCP/FPICprocessarethefollowing: Ancestral Domains Office: 1. Evaluatesandvalidates,ifnecessary,thefield-basedinvestigationandtheconductof theFPICprocess; 2. Monitorsthefield-basedinvestigation/FPICprocess;and 3. Keepsduplicatecopyofthememorandumofagreement. NCIPRegional Office: 1. Collectsandissuesofficialreceipttotheproponentfortheinspectionfeeontheconduct ofthefield-basedinvestigation; 2. ConductsthecensusorgenealogicalsurveyofIPs/ICCsconcerned; 3. Documentsthecustomarypracticesonconsensusbuildingamongtheaffected 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 CommissionthroughtheDirectoroftheLegalAffairsOfficeforreviewandauthority tosignasthirdparty; 7. Monitors the compliance of the terms and conditions stipulated in the memorandum of agreement;and 8. Keepscertifiedtruecopyofthememorandumofagreement. TherolesandresponsibilitiesofotherNCIPnationalofficesandsub-regionalofficesarenot clearlydefinedintheadministrativeorder.Itjustmentionsthatthreemembersofthefive- memberfield-basedinvestigationteamshallcomefromtheconcernedprovincialofficeor thecommunityservicecenterwhilethetwoothermembers,includingitsteamleader,shall comefromtheregionaloffice. 26 A S S E S S M E N T 5. 5.1 Legal Framework T heIPRAisconsideredalandmarklegislationthatfinallyaddressesthecenturies-old problemsconfrontedbytheIPs,suchasethnicdiscrimination,underdevelopment, andpoliticalnon-representation.Itincorporatesthekeyelementsofuniversally acceptedconceptsontheprotectionofIPsaffectedbyanyprogram,projectandbusiness or profit-oriented undertaking, among which are: (i) screening for their presence and assessment of the impacts of programs, projects and any business or profit-oriented investments; (ii) consultations with IPs prior to any development interventions; (iii) securingbroadcommunitysupportamongIPsfortheprogram,orprojectorundertaking; (iii)provisionofculturallyappropriatebenefitstotheIPs;and(iv)recognitionoftheir customarylandtenureandrightstonaturalandculturalresources.TheIPRAevengoes beyondtheprincipleofconsultationandcallsforthesecuringoffreeandpriorinformed consentbytheIPs/ICCsonanyplans,program,projectsandactivitiesthatfallwithintheir domains.Inthissense,itisanadequateframeworktoprotecttherightsoftheIPsinthe Philippines. InPartII,Section1oftheimplementingrulesandregulation,theNCIPconsidersitself as"anindependentagencyundertheOfficeofthePresident"andthat"theadministrative relationshipoftheNCIPtotheOfficeofthePresidentischaracterizedasalateralbut autonomousrelationshipforthepurposesofpolicyandprogramcoordination...Matters ofday-to-dayadministrationorallthosepertainingtointernaloperationsshallbeleftto thediscretionoftheChairpersonoftheCommission,asChiefExecutiveOfficer."InRule IX,Section6,itprovidesthat"noinferiorcourtofthePhilippinesshallhavejurisdiction toissueanyrestrainingorderorwritofpreliminaryinjunctionagainsttheNCIPoranyof itsdulyauthorizedordesignatedofficesinanycase,disputeorcontroversyarisingfrom, necessaryto,orinterpretationoftheActandotherpertinentlawsrelatingtoIPs/ICCsand ancestral domains." DespitethestrengthsoftheIPRA,therearestillmanylegalissuesthatneedtobeconfronted. Morespecifically,theIPRAhasconflictswithseveralPhilippinelaws.Inmanyinstances, theseconflictshaveaffectedtheimplementationoftheCP/FPICprocess.Someproject proponentshaveoptedtodelaytheirinvestmentswithinancestraldomainspendingthe resolutionoflegalissuesrelevanttotheIPRA.Ontheotherhand,othershaveinvoked ontheseotherlawsthatconflictwiththeIPRAinordertocircumventtheprocessesand proceduresoutlinedintheCP/FPICguidelines. Conflicts Between the IPRAand Other Laws CertainprovisionsoftheIPRAandtheNCIPissuancesareperceivedtobeinconflictwith otherlawsofthelandincludingthosewiththeNIPASAct,thePhilippineMiningAct, 27 andtheNationalMuseumAct.Theseconflictsmaybeclassifiedassubstantiveissues, jurisdictionalissues,andproceduralissues. ItisclearinPhilippinejurisprudencethatincaseofconflict,theprovisionofthelawthat isthemostrecentistheonethatisusuallybinding.However,attheagencylevel,the implementingrulesandregulationsthatarejustsubsidiarylawswilloftenconflictwith other laws and their implementing rules and regulations. These are resolved either through harmonizationoftheagencies'implementingrulesandregulationsorbycourtactionwhen there is litigation. Substantive Issues Ancestral Domain vs. Public Domain TheIPRArecognizestheIPs'optiontosecureacertificateoftitleunderCommonwealth Act141(PublicLandAct),asamended.AccordingtoSection12oftheIPRA,"individual membersofculturalcommunities,withrespecttotheirindividually-ownedancestrallands who,bythemselvesorthroughtheirpredecessors-in-interest,havebeenincontinuous possession and occupation of the same in the concept of ownership since time immemorial orforaperiodofnotlessthan30yearsimmediatelyprecedingtheapprovalofthisActand uncontestedbythemembersofthesameIPs/ICCs,shallhavetheoptiontosecuretitleto theirancestrallandsundertheprovisionsofCommonwealthAct141,asamended,orthe Land RegistrationAct 496." The option granted under this section shall be exercised within 20yearsfromtheapprovaloftheIPRA. However, applying the provisions of the Public Land Act to ancestral domains/lands lends support to the idea that these domains/lands are held from the State. Though time immemorial possession is expresslyadmitted,ancestrallands are still considered as public lands andonlyuponcompliancewiththe requiredperiodofoccupancydoes possession ripen into ownership. The Public Land Act does not in any way recognize original or pre-conquest vested right that is tantamount to a native title. On theotherhand,ancestraldomains/ landscanonlybeownedthrough the State's administrative grace. 28 Native Title vs. Private Title Section 9 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) acknowledges the superiorityoflandsthathavecomeundertheoperationoftheTorrensSystemoftitlingas againstancestraldomains/lands.Thelawstates,"ForpurposesofthisAct,ancestrallands ofeachICCshallinclude,butnotbelimitedtolandsintheactual,continuousandopen possessionandoccupationofthecommunityanditsmembers,provided,thattheTorrens Systemshallberespected."Thus,incaseofconflictbetweenancestraldomains/landsand Torrenstitles,CARLwillsettleinfavorofthetitledlands. Ancestral Waters as Part of Ancestral Domain TheStrategicEnvironmentPlanforPalawanAct(RA7611)definedtribalancestrallands asthoselandstraditionallyoccupiedbyculturalminorities,comprisingbothlandandsea areasidentifiedinconsultationwithtribalcommunitiesconcernedandtheappropriate agenciesofthegovernment.TheIPRA,ontheotherhand,limitsancestraldomainto inlandwatersandcoastalareas,andissilentwithregardtoseaareas.Thetwolawsmust, therefore,beharmonized. Right to Traditional Practices vs. Right to Modernize TheimplementingrulesandregulationoftheNIPASAct(DepartmentAdministrative Order92-25)statethat"thezoningofaprotectedareaanditsbufferzonesandmanagement prescriptions 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"shallmeanusingnopowermachineryinextraction processandconsistentwithhistoricallycustomarytechniquesofproduction(Section10)." CertainIPadvocatesperceivethisasrunningcontrarytotheconceptoftherighttoself- determinationofindigenouspeoplesasdefinedbytheIPRA.Advocatessayitisuptothe IPsthemselveswhethertheywanttomaintaintraditionalsubsistencepracticeswithintheir domainorwhethertheywouldwanttomodernizetheirtechnologiesjustlikethedominant segmentsofPhilippinesociety. Jurisdictional Issues TheIPRAhasconflictswithseverallawswithregardtojurisdictionalissues,i.e.,which agencyshouldbeinchargeofrespondingtospecificconcerns. NCIP vs. National Museum Thereisaconflictonwhichagencyshouldbeinchargeofthecountry'sculturalproperties. AccordingtoRepublicAct4846(CulturalPropertiesPreservationandProtectionAct),as amendedbyPresidentialDecree374,onlytheNationalMuseumofthePhilippinescan undertakearchaeologicalexplorations,assessmentsandexcavations.Anyoneviolatingthis lawwillbefined.Becauseoftheselaws,NationalMuseumpersonnelbelievethattheyhave themandatetoengageinarchaeologicalworkinanypartofthecountry,includingthose within ancestral domains. Agencies or individuals wanting to engage in archaeological 29 practice,e.g.thoseintheacademe,havetoseekapermitfromtheNationalMuseumtobe able to practice their craft. Ontheotherhand,Section33oftheIPRAstatesthat"itshallbeunlawfultoexplore, excavate,ormakediggingsonarcheologicalsitesoftheIPs/ICCsforthepurposeofobtaining materialsofculturalvalueswithoutthefreeandpriorinformedconsentofthecommunity concerned."Section46(c)alsomentionedthattheNCIP,throughitsOfficeofEducation, CultureandHealth,"shallalsomonitortheactivitiesoftheNationalMuseumandother similaragenciesgenerallyintendedtomanageandpreservehistoricalarcheologicalartifacts oftheIPs/ICCs."Furthermore,Section37oftheIPRAidentifiedthat"IPs/ICCsshallhave therighttoreceivefromthenationalgovernmentallfundsespeciallyearmarkedorallocated for the management and preservation of their archeological and historical sites and artifacts withthefinancialandtechnicalsupportofthenationalgovernmentagencies." Thetwolawsobviouslycontradicteachother.ManyIPsresentthefactthatarchaeologists from the National Museum go to their ancestral domains and engage in archaeological excavations without securing their consent. NCIP vs. ARMM OneconflictbetweenthetheIPRAandtheOrganicActforMuslimMindanaoiswith regardtojurisdictionoverancestraldomains/lands.TheIPRAissilentastowhetherthe NCIP has jurisdiction over ancestral domains within the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.ChapterVII,Section52(i)oftheIPRAstates,"TurnoverofAreaswithin AncestralDomainsManagedbyotherGovernmentAgencies­TheChairpersonofthe NCIPshallcertifythattheareaisanancestraldomain.TheSecretariesofDAR,DENR, DepartmentoftheInteriorandLocalGovernment(DILG),DepartmentofJustice(DOJ), the Commissioner of the National Development Corporation, and other government agenciesclaimingjurisdictionovertheareashallbenotifiedthereof.Suchnotificationshall terminateanylegalbasisforthejurisdictionpreviouslyclaimed."Sincethereisnomention oftheancestraldomains/landswithintheAutonomousRegioninMuslimMindanao,it canbeinterpretedthatitwillretainitsjurisdictionoverancestraldomains/landswithinits territorial 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,andgeneraladministrationoftheprotectedareainaccordancewith thegeneralmanagementstrategy.ThePAMBshallbeheadedbytheRegionalExecutive DirectoroftheDENRanditsmembersshallbecomposedof:onerepresentativefrom theautonomousregionalgovernment,ifapplicable;theProvincialDevelopmentOfficer; onerepresentativefromthemunicipalgovernment,onerepresentativefromeachbarangay coveringtheprotectedarea;onerepresentativefromeachtribalcommunity,ifapplicable; and at least three representatives from NGOs/local community organizations; and, if necessary,onerepresentativefromotherdepartmentsofnationalgovernmentagencies involved in protected area management. 30 Incasetheprotectedareaoverlapswithanancestraldomainarea,therearepotential conflictsbetweenthePAMB,ononehand,andthetraditionalpoliticalstructureofthe ancestraldomainholders,ontheotherhand,intermsofmanagingtheprotectedarea (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 Box 2. Protected Area Management in Mt. Kitanglad. Act (Department Administrative Order96-40)requires"priorinformed In2001,theProtectedAreaSuperintendent(PASu)oftheMt. consent" from communities before KitangladRangeNaturalPark(MKRNP)chargedsomeofthe tribal elders in the area with the violation of the NIPAS Act mineral agreements, Financial or forengaginginloggingactivitieswithinthePark. According Technical Assistance Agreements totheIRRoftheNIPASAct,"Hunting,destroying,disturbing (FTAAs) or mining permits are or mere possession of any plant or animal or products derivedtherefromwithoutapermit,specificallyauthorizing granted. Elements of the process suchactivity,fromtheBoardor,inthecaseofindigenous include public notification, sector culturalcommunities,withoutamutuallyagreedpolicy"are consultation through a community consideredasprohibitedacts(Section70).Sincethereisno assembly, and royalty payments Bukidnons,Higaonons,andTalaandigs­andtheProtected mutuallyagreedpolicybetweentheindigenouspeoples­the of not less than one percent of the AreaManagementBoard(PAMB)onthismatter,thelogging miningandmillingcosts.However, activities were deemed as illegal acts from the point of view these guidelines were issued prior ofthePASu.Moreover,theIRRofNIPASActonlyallows the indigenous peoples to go into the Strict Protection to the enactment of the IPRA and ZoneoftheParkincaseof"ceremonialorreligioususeby establishmentoftheNCIP.Assuch, indigenouscommunities"whileintheSustainableUseZone, the role of the NCIP is nowhere the "indigenous community members... may be allowed to collect and utilize natural resources using traditional defined in the implementing rules sustainablemethodsthatarenotinconflictwithbiodiversity and regulation of the Mining Act. conservation requirements" (Section 10). Since the use of chainsawsforloggingisnon-traditional,thePASuconsiders the act as illegal. Moreconcretely,severalmemorandum of agreements between IPs and Ontheotherhand,DatuMigketayVictorinoSawayargued mining companies that were signed that the IPs had the right to engage in timber-cutting prior to the enactment of the IPRA activities in the Park based on their rights to ancestral domain as mandated by IPRA. The Bukidnons, Higaonons, and didnotincludetheNCIPasaparty Talaandigs claim the entire MKRNP as their ancestral domain totheagreement.Insuchinstances, andthus,accordingtotheIRRofIPRA,theIPshavethe the NCIP is demanding amendment rights of ownership of their ancestral domain and the right to developlandsandnaturalresourceswithinthisdomain(Part to these memorandum of agreements I,Sections1-2).Furthermore,thedatu(chieftain)claimed sothatitcanbeasignatorytothe that the tribal elders of the MKRNP were the real managers of agreements (Box 3). Many mining theprotectedareaandnotthePAMB.Inretaliation,thetribal eldersimposedasala(sanction)­equivalenttothedeath companies,however,pointouttothe penalty­onthePASuforpreventingtheIPsfromexercising IPRASection56,whichstatesthat theirrights.Thesalacanonlybeliftediftheaccusedagrees "Propertyrightswithintheancestral topayafineconsistingofseveralheadsofdraftanimals. Uptothepresent,thissalahasnotbeenliftedandthecase domains already existing and/or remains unresolved. vestedupontheeffectivityofthisAct, shall be recognized and respected." *Compiled by the authors. 31 Procedural Issues Box 3. The B'laans and the Tampakan Copper-Gold Project. State Law vs. Customary Laws Shortly after the passage of the Philippine MiningActin1995,aFinancialorTechnical The Local Government Code states that in Assistance Agreement was signed between barangays where the majorityof theinhabitants the Philippine government and the Australian- ownedWesternMiningCorporation(WMC) aremembersofICCs,thecustomsandtraditions allowing the latter to develop the Tampakan of the latter shall be applied in settling disputes Copper-Gold Project in the border areas of amongitsmembers(Section412).Inconciliation South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat and Davao delSur.InAugust2002,theSagittariusMines, proceedingsamongmembersofICCs,thecustoms Inc. (SMI) acquired the rights to the said and traditions shall be applied in settling disputes. projectfromtheWMC. Forthesettlementundercustomarylawstobea bartoasubsequentfilingofacaseincourt,there Twoyearslater,theSMIforgedaPrincipal Agreement (similar to a Memorandum of must be attestation of successful settlement. The Agreement)withtheB'laansofSalnaongin attested settlement shall have the same force and SultanKudarat,asrepresentedbytheSalnaong effect as that of a settlement arrived at through Tribal Council, the bong fulong (big man), and the other fulong (traditional headmen) the procedures provided upon the expiration of 10 of the Salnaong B'laans. According to this daysfromthedatetheattestedcopyofsettlementis Agreement,"theCommunityconsentstothe receivedbythePunong Barangay(villagechief). opening and use of the Schedule One Land for mineraldevelopmentandutilization;andagrees tothecompensation,relocationcommitment, However,theLocalGovernmentCodeindicates royalties, community development program that if there is a dispute between a member and a and community development commitment provided for in thisAgreement."The Mines and non-memberofICCs,thegenerallaw­thatis,the GeosciencesBureau(MGB)oftheDENRand Statelaw­andnotthecustomarylawshallapply thelawyersoftheB'laansactedaswitnesses becausethelatteronlyappliestosettlingdisputes totheAgreement.TheRegionalOfficeofthe between members of the same cultural minorities. NCIPwantedtobeapartytotheAgreement butthiswasnotentertainedbytheSMIbecause The IPRA, however, does not have a specific the Mining Act does not require the NCIP as provision on how disputes between a member and asignatorytoanyagreementbetweenproject a non-member of ICCs will be resolved. On one proponents and indigenous peoples. hand,thereisnomechanismthatstatesthatthe The Principal Agreement also provided that LocalGovernmentCodeshallprevailinsucha "intheeventofanydisputesordisagreements situation,althoughinthePhilippinejurisprudence, arising out of this Agreement the parties shall endeavor to resolve the dispute between newerlawsprevailoverolderlaws.ThustheIPRA, thembyreferringittomediationbyapanel being more recent, may apply but then again it comprised of a Manila-based representative issilentonhowthedisputeswouldberesolved, ofeachoftheNCIP,DENR,MGBandthe President of the Republic of the Philippines." therebyaddingtotheconfusion. ThisprovisoisclearlyinconflictwithRule IX,Section1oftheIPRAImplementingRules Philippine EIS System vs. Environmental and andRegulationswhichstatesthat"Allconflicts related to ancestral domains or lands where Socio-cultural Impact Statement oneofthepartiesisanon-IP/ICCorwhere the dispute... shall be heard and adjudicated PresidentialDecree1586(EISSystem)provides in accordance with the Rules on Pleadings, that"noperson,partnershiporcorporationshall Practice and Procedures before the NCIP to be adopted hereafter." undertake or operate an environmentallycritical project or project within an environmentally * Compiled by the authors. criticalareawithoutfirstsecuringanenvironmental 32 compliancecertificate."TheproceduralmanualforDENRAdministrativeOrder03-30 identifiedsocialacceptabilitybystakeholdersasanecessaryrequirementinthegranting ofanenvironmentalcompliancecertificate.Thepublicparticipationprocessesinclude theidentificationandprofilingofstakeholders;conductofinformation,educationand communication(IEC);publicparticipationinscopingmeetings;publicparticipationin baseline data gathering; public participation in impact identification, prediction and evaluation;publicparticipationintheplanningprocessoftheEIS;undertakingofpublic consultations;andconveningapublichearing. Ontheotherhand,RuleIV,Section6btheIPRAimplementingrulesandregulation callsforthesubmissionofanEnvironmentalandSocio-culturalImpactStatementbyall proponents.ThisStatementshouldcontaindetailsof"allthepossibleimpactofthepolicy, program,projectoractivityupontheecological,economic,socialandculturalaspectof thecommunityasawhole." The relationship between this Environmental and Socio-cultural Impact Statement and the PhilippineEISSystemisnotclear.Inthepast,theEnvironmentalManagementBureau (EMB)oftheDENRhasbeenrequiringprojectproponentstosubmitacertificationfrom the NCIP that the proposed project site is not within an ancestral domain. The dominant viewnowfromtheDENRisthatthisrequirementshouldnolongerbeaprerequisiteinthe grantingofenvironmentalcompliancecertificates. 5.2 Institutional Framework and Organizational Effectiveness The assessment of institutional adequacy evaluated the NCIP as the primary agency mandated to implement the IPRA. The review found that there is an adequate institutional frameworktoimplementtheIPRA.TheNCIPhasthepolicy-makingbodyatthecentral officecomposedofsevenCommissionerscomingfrommajorethnographicareas,oneof whomisappointedastheChairperson.Ithassixofficesatthecentraloffice,includingthe ADO.Italsohas12regionalofficeseachheadedbyaRegionalDirector,46provincial officesand108servicecentersatthecityandmunicipallevels.Theinstitutionalsetup ensuresthatthereisacentralofficetoissuepoliciesandprovideadviceandguidance,with theregional,provincialandservicecentersimplementingthepoliciesandissuancesand ensuringthatIPsarenotdisadvantagedintheCP/FPICprocess. TheNCIP,however,hasexperiencedseveralorganizationalchallengesduetoitsinadequate human,logisticandfinancialresourcestoeffectivelycarryoutitsdiversefunctions.The CP/FPICisjustoneofitsmanyfunctionsassignedtoitsADO,whichissaddledwiththe enormoustasksofdelineatingancestraldomainareasandissuingcertificateofancestral domaintitlesandcertificateofancestrallandtitles.Inregionalandprovincialoffices,there isonlyonepersonthatoverseestheCP/FPICprocess.TheNCIPdoesnothavetrained anthropologiststoundertakeethnographicresearchandanalyzeandrespondtocross- culturalproblems.BasicrequirementstoefficientlyandeffectivelyimplementtheCP/FPIC processinparticularandtheIPRAingeneral,arenotmetwhichincludefullidentification oftheIPsandtheirterritories,theproperrepresentationofallmajorsectorswithinthe ancestral domain and providing the NCIP with adequate resources. 33 IPs and Their Territories Not Yet Identified Aproblem,whichisimmediatelyapparent,isthelackofasystem tospecifywhotheseIPsareandwheretheirancestraldomainsare located.ThelawonlyprovidedageneraldefinitionoftheIPs/ICCs, ancestral domain and ancestral land (Box 4).Despitenumerous studiesbyanthropologistsonindigenousethnolinguisticgroups, the law was passed ahead of the full delineation of the IP territories anddeterminationofthestatusoftheintegrityoftheirculturesand socio-politicalsystems.Withoutproperidentificationandmapping ofIPs,thesystemcanbemanipulatedbyvestedgroups(see Box 5 for the case of the Tasadays). Box 4. Legal Definitions of Indigenous Peoples,Ancestral Domain The NCIP claims and Ancestral Lands (Section 56). that there are about 12 million IPs in the IndigenousCulturalCommunities/IndigenousPeoples­refertoagroupofpeople Philippines. (Table 2 orhomogenoussocietiesidentifiedbyself-ascriptionandascriptionbyothers, whohavecontinuouslylivedasorganizedcommunityoncommunallybounded shows the population and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time of IPs per region.) It is immemorial,occupied,possessedandutilizedsuchterritories,sharingcommon notveryclear,however, bondsoflanguage,customs,traditionsandotherdistinctiveculturaltraits,orwho astohowthesefigures have,throughresistancetopoliticalsocialandculturalinroadsofcolonization, non-indigenousreligionsandcultures,becamehistoricallydifferentiatedfromthe were gathered. It is majorityofFilipinos.Likewise,IPs/ICCsincludepeoplewhoareregardedas known that the National indigenous on account of their descent from the populations who inhabited theStatisticsOfficedidnot countryatthetimeofconquestorcolonization,oratthetimeofinroadsofnon- indigenousreligionsandcultures,ortheestablishmentofpresentstateboundaries, include ethnicity as a whoretainsomeoralloftheirsocial,economic,culturalandpoliticalinstitutions, variable in its census of butwhomayhavebeendisplacedfromtheirtraditionaldomainsorwhomayhave Population and Housing. resettled outside their ancestral domains. The NCIP IP population AncestralDomains­refertoallareasgenerallybelongingtoIPs/ICCscomprising countreflectsthatthere lands,inlandwaters,coastalareasandnaturalresourcestherein,heldunderaclaim are no IPs in Region ofownership,occupiedorpossessedbytheIPs/ICCs,bythemselvesorthrough theirancestors,communallyorindividuallysincetimeimmemorial,continuously VIII (Eastern Visayas) tothepresentexceptwheninterruptedbywar,forcemajeureordisplacementby although anthropologists force,deceit,stealthorasaconsequenceofgovernmentprojectsoranyother and linguists know that voluntarydealingsenteredintobygovernmentandprivateindividuals/corporations, there are Mamanwas andwhicharenecessarytoensuretheireconomic,socialandculturalwelfare.It shallincludeancestrallands,forests,pasture,residential,agriculturalandother in Leyte and Southern landsindividuallyownedwhetheralienableanddisposableorotherwise,hunting Leyte. It is also not grounds,burialgrounds,worshipareas,bodiesofwater,mineralandothernatural clear as to how those resources,andlandswhichmaynolongerbeexclusivelyoccupiedbyIPs/ICCs butfromwhichtheytraditionallyhadaccesstofortheirsubsistenceandtraditional coming from mixed activities,particularlythehomerangesofIPs/ICCswhoarestillnomadicand/or ethnic backgrounds are shifting cultivators. classified(e.g.,asonof AncestralLands­refertolandoccupied,possessedandutilizedbyindividuals, a Tagalog father and an familiesandclanswhoaremembersoftheIPs/ICCssincetimeimmemorial,by IrayaMangyan). themselvesorthroughtheirpredecessors-in-interest,underclaimsofindividualor traditionalgroupownership,continuously,tothepresentexceptwheninterrupted bywar,forcemajeureordisplacementbyforce,deceit,stealth,orasaconsequence Differentsourcesreveal ofgovernmentprojectsandothervoluntarydealingsenteredintobygovernment different numbers and andprivateindividuals/corporationsincludingresidentiallots,riceterracesor ethnic names for IPs and paddies,privateforests,swiddenfarmsandtreelots. other ethnolinguistic 34 groups. In particular, the list of IPs/ ethnolinguistic groups of the NCIP, Box 5. The Tasadays: A Case of Invented Ethnicity. theNationalMuseum,andthePrivate In1971,PANAMINDirectorManuelElizaldeannounced Enterprise Development Corporation totheworldthediscoveryinacaveinSouthCotabatoof of Asia (PEDCA) reveal several theTasadays,anallegedstone-agetribecomposedof26 incompatibilities. (Refer to Annex C for individuals. The discovery attracted the interest of the the comparison of lists of indigenous receivedalotofexternalfundingforresearchontheTasaday internationalscientificcommunity.TheMarcosgovernment peoples.) There are some groups that andthepreservationoftheirhabitat.In1986,however,the are mentioned in the NCIP list but Tasadayswereexposedtobeahoax,basedonthefindingsof are absent in the lists of the two other thenationalandinternationalanthropologicalcommunity. sources. There are also those that are The Tasaday controversy proved that ethnic identity can identifiedineithertheNationalMuseum bemanipulatedbycertainindividualsorinstitutionswith orthePEDCAlistsbutareabsentinthe vested interests. Certain groups can claim to be "indigenous peoples"inordertoreapeconomicandpoliticalbenefits NCIP list. Moreover, there are other from the Philippine government and other agencies. listsdonebyanthropologists,suchas H.OtleyBeyer(1918),MarceloTangco *Compiled by the authors. (1951),RobertFox(1974),andF.LandaJocano(1994).Otherinstitutionshavealready mappedthepresenceoftheseIPs.OnesuchagencyistheAteneo-basedEnvironmental ScienceforSocialChange,Inc.(ESSC),whichhasproducedamaprelatingtotheIPsof thePhilippineswithdistinctecosystemtypes. Therearevariousreasons Table 2. Regional Distribution of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines. for the discrepancies ESTIMATED found in the lists. One REGION IP POPULATION reason lies on whether CAR(CordilleraAdministrativeRegion) 1,252,962 certainethniclabelsrefer RegionI(Ilocos) 1,039,447 to distinct IP groups or RegionII(CagayanValley) 1,014,955 aremeresubgroupsofthe RegionIII(CentralLuzon) 227,675 RegionIV(SouthernTagalog) 717,122 sameIPcommunity.For RegionV(Bicol) 185,448 example, the Adassen, RegionVI(WesternVisayas) 145,959 Binongan, Maeng, and RegionVII(CentralVisayas) 29,150 Masadiit are mentioned RegionIX(NorthernMindanao) 1,137,197 RegionX(WesternMindanao) 1,444,503 in the NCIP list as RegionXI(SouthernMindanao) 2,539,767 distinct IP groups but are RegionXII(CentralMindanao) 855,760 considered as mere sub- RegionXIII(Caraga) 874,456 groups of theTinggian in ARMM(AutonomousRegionofMuslimMindanao) 313,749 Total 11,778,150 the other lists. Another Source: NCIP website 2006. source of confusion is the different ethnic namesusedbythepeoplebelongingtothesameculturalarea.Forexample,theIlongot ofNuevaVizcayaandQuirinoprefertobecalledas"Bugkalots,"whiletheircounterparts in Aurora prefer to use the term "Ilongot." A third reason is whether some groups should beconsideredas"IPs"orasothersocio-culturalgroups.Forexample,theNCIPfieldin BoholclassifiestheEskayaasIPswhilemanyanthropologistsrejectthenotionthatthe Eskayaisanethnicgroupbutamerereligioussect.Moreover,theNCIPconsiderssome groupsasIPsevenifthesegroupsareverymuchacculturated,haveembracedChristianity, 35 and/orhavenoconceptsofcommunalpropertyincontradictionwiththeIPRA'sdefinition ofwhoIPsare.Forexample,asearlyas1918,Beyer(inTangco1951)alreadyconsidered the Ibanags and Ivatans as belonging to the Christian peoples of the Philippines together with other dominant ethno- linguistic groups such as the Tagalogs, Sugbuanons and Ilokanos, but the NCIP still considers them as IPs. A study commissioned by the Philippine National Oil CompanyEnergyDevelopment Corporation (PNOC EDC) on the various IPs within and around Mt. Apo revealed that the barangay system has already replaced the indigenous socio-political systemsofthesegroups(Castro1995).ManyIPshavealreadyintermarriedwithmainstream settlers.SincetheidentificationofIPs/ICCsandthedelineationofancestraldomainsare assignedtotheNCIP,thevalueofthislawintermsofprovidingsocialsafeguardstotheIPs dependslargelyontheeffectivenessandefficiencyoftheNCIPinprofilingandmapping these IPs and their territories. TheNCIPusestheframeworkof"self-ascription"inidentifyingIPswithoutabuilt-in verificationprocess.TheNCIPinheritedtheoldlistof"culturalcommunities"fromits predecessorinstitutions,i.e.,theONCCandOSCC,andmerelyconvertedthisintoa"list ofIPs"evenifmanyofthesegroupsareminorityonlyintermsofpopulationbutbelongto Christian and acculturated groups. Inadequate Representation from Non-IPs The IPRA and its implementing rules and regulations were enacted on the premise that theIPsareunderprivilegedandunrepresentedandthatnon-IPsareminorityandinformal settlersinancestrallands.AlthoughtheIPRAprovidesthatpropertyrightsalreadyexisting withintheancestraldomainshallberespected,itdoesnothavespecificprovisionsforthe adequate 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. TheimplementingrulesandregulationprovidethatonlytheIPsandtheNCIPcandelineate theancestraldomain.ThefactthattheNCIPalwaysrepresentstheinterestofIPsandis giventhelegislative,executive,andjudicialpowersisonegreatsourceofapprehension ofnon-IPs.However,ascurrentlypracticed,non-IPscanregistertheirobjectionduring theidentificationanddemarcationofancestraldomains.Pragmatically,theNCIPhasnot prioritizedtheawardingofcertificateofancestraldomaintitlesinareaswherethereis widespreadoppositionbymigrantgroups.However,oncecertificateofancestraldomain titlesareissued,theIPRAisnotexplicitabouttheroleofnon-IPs. 36 This problem is more pressing in many parts of Mindanao where the Box 6. Ethnic Tension in Mount Kanlaon. IPsaretheminorityevenwithintheir "This mountain belongs to the indigenous people! Leave ancestral domains. According to the this place at once or something bad will happen to you," IPRA, "All conflicts pertaining to shoutedAuring (not her real name) to the ProtectedArea propertyrights,claimsandownership, Superintendent(PASu)oftheMountKanlaonNaturalPark andhisstaffmembersonedayin1998.ThePASucameto hereditarysuccessionandsettlementof investigatetheclaimofAuring,aleaderoftheBukidnonsof landdisputeswithinancestraldomains/ Codcod,avillagelocatedontheslopesofMountKanlaon,and lands shall be resolved in accordance the Iliranan Tribal Council. Auring and the members of the Tribal Council are claiming the village as part of the ancestral withthecustomarylaws,traditionsand domain of the Bukidnons. practices of the IPs/ICCs in the area where conflict arises. If the conflict Twoyearsbeforetheincident,theIlirananTribalCouncilwas notyetinexistence.TheBukidnonsofCodcodbelongedto between or among IPs/ICCs is not theCodcodTribalCouncil.TheOfficeofSouthernCultural resolved,throughsuchcustomarylaws, Communities(OSCC)askedthesaidCounciltoapplyfora traditions and practices, the Council CertificateofAncestralDomainClaim(CADC)forthearea. Thetribalofficials,however,refusedsincetheydidnotwantto ofElders/Leaderswhoparticipatedin offendtheVisayanresidentswhocomprisetheethnicmajority the attempt to settle the dispute shall ofCodcod.Accordingtothem,theyhaveintermarriedwith certify that the same has not been theseVisayansandhavegoodrelationswiththem.Asamatter of fact, Bukidnon households are interspersed in between resolved.Suchcertificationshallbea Visayan households. There is not a single area within the conditionprecedentforthefilingofthe villagethatishomogenouslyBukidnon. complaintwiththeNCIP,throughits BecausethetribalcouncildidnotheedtheOSCC'sinstructions, regionalofficesforadjudication(IPRA the latter organized a rival tribal council ­ the Iliranan Tribal implementing rules and regulations, Council,whichislocatedinSitioIlirananofCodcod.Itwasthe RuleIII,PartII,Section8)."Thereare IlirananTribalCouncilthatpursuedthedemandforaCADC. Thisclaim,however,wascontestedbytheVisayanresidents seriousdoubts,however,astowhether inthearea,whoquestionedwhytheBukidnons,aminority thesecustomarylawscanbeimposed inthevillage,willbecometheownersoftheentireterritory. upon a dominant migrant population. Moreover,theydidnotagreethattheentireterritorybesubject tothecustomarylawsoftheBukidnons.Thisledtotensionsin One can ask whether the ancestral thepreviouslyharmoniousrelationshipbetweentheVisayans domain can be effectively managed and the Bukidnons. Even the Bukidnons have become divided in such a situation and without the into those who supported the ancestral domain claim and those who were against it. representation of the non-IPs. *Compiled by the authors. Resource Constraints of the NCIP TheNCIPhasenormousmandatesthatincludethedeliveryofservicesandtheprovision ofsocialinfrastructureandlivelihoodprojectstoverydiverseIPcommunities.However, beingarelativelyyoungagency,theNCIPisboggeddownbymeagerhuman,logistical andfinancialresources. TheprogramofactivitiesoftheNCIPpointstothefactthatsafeguards,throughtheCP/ FPICprocess,isjustoneofitsmanyfunctions.Thisfunctionisassignedparticularlyto itsADO,whichissaddledwiththeenormoustasksofdelineatingancestraldomainareas andtheissuanceofcertificateofancestraldomaintitlesandcerticificateofancestralland titles.Thesurveyandvalidationofcerticificateofancestrallandtitlesapplicationsare alreadybyitselfagargantuantaskconsideringanestimated5.11millionhectaresthatneed tobedelineated.Toalimitedextent,the2006FPICGuidelineshasaddressedthisproblem 37 bydelegatingthefield-basedinvestigationprocessfromtheADOtotheNCIPregional offices.However,theapprovalandissuanceofcertificatesisstillcentralized.Moreover, thereisonlyonepersonineachregionalofficethatisdesignatedtooverseeallCP/FPIC applications and activities. Despitetheurgenttaskofdelineatingancestraldomainsandancestrallands,itisreceiving onlyamodestbudget.In2004,theNCIPhadatotalallocationofPhP536million(Table 3).About57percentoftheNCIPbudgetgoestoPersonnelServices(PS).Therestgoes to maintenance and other operating expenses. (Refer to Figure 3 for the breakdown of the NCIPMOOEallocationin2004.) TheScholarshipFundreceivedthebiggestsharebecause the2003allocationofPhP80millionforthefundwasonlyreleasedin2004.Specialfunds include partial releases for Benguet Province funded Table 3. Actual budget released by the Department of Budget by the National Power and Management to the NCIP in FY 2004. Corporation. Due to lack Particulars PS MOOE Total Per Capita of government support, IP (million (million (million Allocation communities still depend on PhP) PhP) PhP) (PhP/IP)* support from other entities. Central Office 46.16 11.15 57.31 - TheMt.ApoFoundationInc., CAR 42.06 42.86 84.92 67.78 created in 1993 and funded Region I 19.23 15.88 35.12 33.78 Region II 25.41 23.02 48.43 47.72 byPNOCEDC,alsosupports Region III 22.96 8.00 30.96 135.98 educational p r o g r a m s Region IV 22.70 10.70 33.40 46.58 within the Mt. Apo Natural Region V 14.06 4.88 18.94 102.14 Park, namely: (i) collegiate Region VI & VII 15.73 4.80 20.53 117.25 scholarship; (ii) high school Region IX 19.29 14.57 33.85 29.77 Region X 19.01 14.11 33.12 22.93 financial assistance; (iii) law Region XI 24.10 19.42 43.52 17.13 scholarshipgrant;(iv)masteral RegionXII 16.46 18.49 34.96 40.85 educational scholarship Region XIII 19.70 13.69 33.39 38.19 project;and(v)teachersback- Others - 27.93 27.93 - to-barangayproject. 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. The NCIP does not have a Source: NCIP Annual Report 2004. breakdown on its budget allocation for the CP/FPIC Figure 3. Distribution of MOOE Allocation of NCIP in 2004. activities. All expenses incurred in the CP/FPIC process were charged to 18% the project proponent. The 28% NCIP Administrative Order 1% 5% No.3,s.2002,andreiterated in Administrative Order Regular No. 1, s. 2006, requires the Schoolarship Socioeconomic Projects project proponent or the FPIC 48% PDAF applicantthepaymentoffield- Special Fund based investigation fees and FPICfeestotheNCIP.While Source: NCIP Annual Accomplishment Report 2004. 38 thismeasurehascontributedtotheovercomingoftheNCIP'sbudgetarylimitations,manyIP advocatesquestionthisarrangementasitallegedlymakestheCP/FPICprocessvulnerable tobribery.AccordingtoUy(2004),"Thefactthatcostsincurredintheprocurementof theFPICaretobebornebytheprojectproponent,thismightencouragecorruptionandis inconsistentwiththeideaofaprocesssupposedtobefreefromundueinfluence." Givenitsenormousmandate,thereisaneedtoincreaseNCIP'sregularbudget.Most importantly,theNCIPshouldspenditsresourcestowardstheIPRA'seffectiveandefficient implementation,suchasthedelineationofancestraldomain,identificationoftheIPs, documentationofcustomarylawsandtheIPdecision-makingprocessineachIPgroup. Safeguard Process ThePhilippineIPsafeguardprocess,asenshrinedintheIPRA,goesbeyondtheprinciple ofconsultationandcallsforthesecuringofFPICfromhostIPs/ICCs.Inpractice,this consultationprocessisnotasingle,one-timeeventbutratherisacontinuousone,requiring projectstoconstantlyengagehostIPs/ICCstowardsrenewingtheirongoingconsentfor the project.4 TheIPRAincorporatesmostofthekeyelementsanduniversallyacceptedconceptsonthe protectionofIPs: 1. Screening for the presence of IPs is done by the NCIP through a field-based investigationaspartoftheCP/FPICprocess.ScreeningforthepresenceofIPscanalso occur during the EIS process and the conduct of the environmental impact assessment (EIA)undertheEISSystem,asthePhilippineEIAscopingprocessissensitivetoIPs and other social issues. 2. Screening for impacts on IPs­TheCP/FPICprocessdoesnothaveaclearmechanism forscreeningprojectsintermsofitsimpactstotheIPs.Sofar,theguidelinesconsiderall projectsintheancestraldomainashavinganimpacttotheIPcommunity.Forprojects outsidetheancestraldomain,theEISprocessisexpectedtoaddressimpactsonIPs. 3. Definition of IPs ­TheIPRAhasaverybroaddefinitionofIPs/ICCs,whichembraces theconceptsofself-ascriptionorself-identification,differentiationfromthemainstream Filipinosociety,attachmenttolandanditsnaturalresources,separatesocio-cultural andpoliticalinstitutions,anddistinctlanguage(see Box 4).The law also recognizes the predicamentofIPsasbeingmarginalizedculturallyandeconomically. 4. Consultation with IPsoccurspriortoanydevelopmentasnoprojectisallowedwithout theFPIC.TheCP/FPICprocessensuresconsultationwiththeIPcommunityinamanner thatisvoluntary,freefromexternalmanipulation,iterativeandbroad-based.TheFPIC guidelines also require that the consultation process shall be conducted according to the customaryprocessesofthecommunity. 4Forexample,acertificateofcompliancetotheFPICprocessmayhavebeengiventoaparticularcompanyonlyfor projectexplorationandnotforconstructionandoperation.Inthiscase,theproponentwillneedtosecureagainthe consentoftheIPsduringconstructionandoperation.Therearealsoinstanceswhen,atthetimeofsecuringtheconsent fromtheIPs,theproponentsdonothavethefullprojectdetailsandthereforecouldonlyprovidetheIPstheinformation at hand. The proponents will need to inform the IPs again and get their consent once the full project details are known. In thisregard,theFPICshouldbeseenasaprocessandnotasanevent. 39 5. Broad community support among IPs ­ The system requires not only broad communitysupportbutactualconsentwhichineffectgivestheIPsthevetopower overdevelopmentprojects,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. Culturallyappropriatebenefits­AspartoftheFPIC,amemorandumofagreementon theintendedbenefitsisrequiredbetweentheprojectproponentandtheIPs. 8. Recognition of customary land tenure ­TheIPRAisbasicallyalandtenurelaw. Itnotonlyrecognizesnativeorcustomarytitles;italsorecognizestheIPs'collective ownershipofaterritorycalledtheancestraldomain. 9. IPs and Protected Areas ­ The rights of IPs within the protected areas such as natural parks,nationalparks,protectedlandscapes,protectedseascapesandwildlifesanctuaries are recognized and protected under the NIPAS Act. 10. Rightstonaturalandculturalresources­TheIPs'collectiveownershipoftheancestral domainincludesnaturalandculturalresourcesincludingindigenousknowledge.Hence, consentfromtheIPsisrequiredforanycommercialornon-commercialexploitationof these resources. 11. IPs Plans ­ The proponent is not required to prepare a separate Indigenous Peoples Plan(IPP)similartothatrequiredbytheWorldBankbasedonitsOperationalPolicy 4.10.However,theEnvironmentalandSocio-culturalImpactStatementisrequired toincludeimpactmitigationandaSocialDevelopmentPlan.UndertheIPRA,the NCIPisalsoassistingtheIPsinthepreparationoftheirAncestralDomainSustainable DevelopmentandProtectionPlan. WhiletheimplementingrulesandregulationoftheIPRAoutlinetheproceduresand requirements for securing FPIC, these remain insufficient and are prone to different interpretations.Forexample,someNCIPofficialsbelievethata100percentapprovalby theentirecommunityisnecessaryinordertobeconsideredasconsenttoaparticular activityorproject.Otherofficialsbelievethatamajorityvoteissufficienttobeconsidered as consent. Others have argued that the approval of a tribal chieftain is enough if that is thetraditionalmodeofdecision-makingbyaparticularindigenouscommunity.Finally, there are others who believe that a barangay(village)ormunicipalresolutionsupporting aparticularactivityorprojectisequivalenttoconsentincaseswheretheIPsdominatethe affectedvillageortownandtheLGUofficialsarealsoindigenousleaders.Thesedifferences ofopinionarereflectiveoftheongoingconfusionastowhatreallyconstitutesFPIC.Thus, despitetheimplementationoftheIPRAsince1997,therearestillprojectsthatclaimto havesecuredconsentbutwhosevalidityarebeingquestionedbecauseofcomplaintsthat consentshavenotbeenproperlyobtained. Implementation Performance The adequacy of implementing the CP/FPIC process is measured in terms of how efficientlyitisbeingcarriedoutandhoweffectivetheprocessandtheoutcomesare. Theproxyindicatorstomeasuringefficiencyinclude:(i)timelinessintheprocessingand completingtheCP/FPIC;(ii)timespentandcostincurredbytheNCIPinadministering theprocess;(iii)theselectionandprioritizationofareasandprojectswheretheNCIP 40 hasgivenattentionandfocusgivenitslimitedresources;and(iv)costincurredbythe proponentsincomplyingwiththeprocess. Measuring effectiveness on one hand, appears to be challenging. The effectivenessoftheCP/FPICprocesscan begaugedifthesaidprocessisactually being implemented on the ground by IPs themselves with the support of the various NCIP offices. Another way of assessing the effectiveness of the CP/FPIC is to look into whether the implementation of the process meets itsdesiredobjective,whichistoenable IPs to exercise their right to self- determination.Insuchacase,itisimportanttofindoutwhethertheimplementationofthe FPICguidelineshascontributedtotheempowermentofIPs.Unfortunately,theNCIPhas notidentifiedkeyindicatorsastohowtheaforementionedobjectivecanbemet.Asproxy indicatorsofeffectiveness,onecanthereforelookintotheconcreteoutcomesoftheFPIC basedonthenumberofFPICapplicationsreceivedandprocessedbytheNCIPandthe numberofconsentsgivenbytheIPstodevelopmentinterventionsfallingwithinancestral domainareas.Otherscouldincluderecordedcomplaintsontheconsentsalreadygivenand incidences 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'sapproachtotheIPsafeguardprocessthroughtheCP/FPIC,especiallythe screeningofprojectsthroughfield-basedinvestigationisinefficientanddoesnotbenefit from existing knowledge about the general location of the IP population. Since the formal mappinganddelineationofancestraldomainareashasnotyetbeencompleted,theNCIP policyistosubjecteachandeveryprojectinallareastofield-basedinvestigation.Even though,byNCIP'sadmission,ancestraldomainclaimsconstituteonly17percentofthe totallandareaofthecountry,AdministrativeOrder3-2002doesnotrequireapreliminary screeningofprojectsinareasthataregenerallyknowntobeoutsideIPterritories.Projects areonlyclearedfromtheFPICrequirementafterafield-basedinvestigationprovesthat the 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 certification preconditions are outside the ancestral domain areas (Table 4). Becauseofthepolicyofnotexcludingprojectsfromobviouslynon-IPareasintheCP/ FPICprocess,theNCIPisspendingtoomuchtimeanditsmeagerresourcesonprojects outsideIPareasandonthosewithoutanyimpactonIPs.Thisalsocreatestheimpression 41 thattheCP/FPICprocessisarequirementtotheprojectapprovalprocessinnon-IPareas. TherealsoappearsweaktargetingandprioritizationofprojectsthatundergoCP/FPICas shown in Table 5,wheretoomuchattentionandfocushavebeengiventoregionswiththe leastnumberofIPs(RegionsVI&VIIwithonly1.49%IPpopulation).TheNCIPcould havedevotedmoreattentioninregionswhereIPsareclearlyheavilypresent(e.g.,CAR andRegionXI). Table 4. Issued CP/FPIC from 2004-2006. As of 2004 As of 2005 As of 2006 Region 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 7 R-I 6 1 7 29 1 30 37 1 38 R-II 5 0 5 27 1 28 44 2 46 R-III 10 0 10 27 1 28 47 3 50 R-IV 20 2 22 56 6 62 92 8 100 R-V 22 0 22 52 1 53 74 3 77 R-VI & 40 0 40 131 0 131 178 0 178 VII R-IX 2 0 2 3 0 3 13 0 13 R-X 3 0 3 8 0 8 14 1 15 R-XI 2 3 5 7 5 12 22 13 35 R-XII 4 1 5 16 1 17 20 3 23 R-XIII 4 3 7 21 3 24 30 5 35 Total 119 13 132 378 23 401 574 45 619 (90%) (10%) (94%) (6%) (93%) (7%) Source: NCIP Annual Accomplishment Report 2006. 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 75 Region I 1,039,447 8.82 72 96 3 4 Region II 1,014,955 8.62 76 96 3 4 Region III 227,675 1.93 84 95 4 5 Region IV 717,122 6.09 168 91 16 9 Region V 185,448 1.57 148 97 4 3 Region VI and VII 175,109 1.49 349 100 0 0 Region IX 1,137,197 9.66 18 100 0 0 Region X 1,444,503 12.26 25 96 1 4 Region XI 2,539,767 21.56 31 60 21 40 Region XII 855,760 7.27 40 89 5 11 Region XIII 874,456 7.42 55 83 11 17 ARMM* 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. 42 The Need to Improve FPIC Processes and Timeliness There are also complaints about the length of Figure 4.Average Duration of Processing Certificate of Non-Overlap in ARCDP2 Subproject (working days). time involved in the 600 557 processing and approval 500 oftheCP/FPICevenfor projects outside of the 400 354.2 days ancestral domain areas. of 300 242.2 249.67 Records of the CP/FPIC 200 155.75 175.33 application and approval Number 123 134 100 ofthesubprojectsfinanced 42 days - max under the World Bank- time to 0 process CNO financedSecondAgrarian Norte Isabela Bataan Albay Quezon Oriental Reform Communities Zambales Masbate Ilocos Development Project Provinces Negros (ARCDP2)showsthatthe Source: Second Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project, Department of Agrarian Reform. processing and approval Figure 5.Average Duration of Processing Certificate of CP/FPIC applications of Precondition Within Ancestral Domain Area. 500 even for projects that 473 450 are outside of ancestral 400 domain areas took much 350 longer(123-557working 300 279.17 days)thanwhatisrequired days of 250 under the guidelines of 42 200 workingdays (Figure 4). Number 150 100 For projects within ances- 50 *Mindoro Occidental- traldomain,theapproval 0 on-going Batanes Zamboanga del Norte Mindoro Occidental is even longer because Provinces of the consultations and Source: Second Agrarian Reform Communities Development Project, Department of Agrarian Reform. negotiations with the concerned IP communities (Figure 5).IntheTanayenvironmental enhancementsub-project,forexample,whichisfinancedbytheWorldBankthrough theLagunadeBayInstitutionalStrengtheningandCommunityParticipationProject, thememorandumofagreementbetweenthelocalgovernmentunitofTanayandtheIPs belongingtotheRemontadowasonlysignedbyallpartiestwoyearsafterthefield-based investigationwascompleted.Thissub-projecthasacomponentwhosebeneficiariesarethe Remontadosthemselves.ThereareindicationsthattheCP/FPICrequirementisdeterring projectproponentsfrominvestinginIPareas.Developersarealsodiscouragedbythe cumbersomerequirementoftheCP/FPICprocessaswellasthefactthattheoutcomeof theprocessisuncertain.Insomeinstances,evenaftertheFPIChasbeenissued,special interest groups coming from outside the ancestral domain or those outside of the direct impactareascontinuetohurlchargesofmanipulation,thusmakingtheoperationofthe projectpoliticallydifficultforthegovernmentandtheproponents.TheMindexProjectis an example of such a case (Box 7).TheNCIPisawareofthebureaucraticinefficiencyof theCP/FPICproceduresasoutlinedinAdministrativeOrder3-2002,andthisisthereason 43 whyithaspromulgatedAdministrativeOrder1-2006withthehopeofstreamliningand fast-tracking the process. Cost involved in CP/FPIC Box 7. The Mangyans and the ThereisnobreakdownofthecostincurredbytheNCIP Philippine EIS System. infacilitatingtheCP/FPICprocess.Intermsofdirect monetarycost,thismaybenegligibleconsideringthat In1998,MindexappliedforanECC from the DENR for its US$650- allcostsarebeingchargedtotheproponents.However, million Mindoro Nickel Project translatedintostafftime,thismaybesubstantialgiven (MNP) in Sablayan, Occidental the human resource constraints of the NCIP relative to Mindoro. To gauge the project's social acceptability, the EIA Review itshugemandates.InARCDP2,thecostsincurredbythe Committee asked Mindex to submit proponentstosecuretheCP/FPICrangefromPhP4,000 a proof of FPIC from the IPs found to PhP83,000.This may even increase depending on in the Direct Impact Area (DIA). Based on this requirement, Mindex the number of meetings and consultations. Big projects submittedacopyoftheMemorandum likeminingandinfrastructurethatarestrictlyrequired of Agreement that it signed with the toadheretotheprocesspresumablyarespendingmuch LupangNinunoKabiloganMangyan, Inc. (LNKMI) and witnessed by the more.ThecostsreflectedforARCDP2donotinclude NCIPRegionalDirector,provingthat thebenefitsthataccruetotheIPsasagreedinthesigned theMangyansintheDIAweregiving memorandumofagreement.Moreover,costsincurredby their FPIC to the project. theproponentsforthedelaysinissuingthecertification However,theprovincialfederationof preconditions and/or because of the questions raised Mangyanorganizations­theKalipunan aftertheconsenthasbeengiven,arealsonotmonetized, Para sa Lupaing Ninuno (KPLN) ­ contested the claim that Mindex was which could be substantial. able to secure a genuine FPIC. The groupinvokedtheIPRAthatdefined Clearly,thereareinefficienciesintheimplementationof FPIC as "the consensus of all members oftheIPs/ICCs"(IRRRuleII,Section theCP/FPICprocessprimarilybecauseitsimplementation 1k).Thus,theKPLNbelievedthatthe does not make use of existing knowledge on the location LNKMIrepresentedonlyaminorityof of the IPs,thelength oftime to process andapprove the project's stakeholders. The group argued that all Tadyawan Mangyans applications,andthegreaterattentionandresourcesbeing andallAlanganMangyansshouldbe spent on projects that are outside ancestral domain areas. the ones to provide the FPIC and not onlythosefoundwithintheDIA. Effectiveness *Compiled by the authors. AsofDecember5,2005,theNCIPhadissued378certificationpreconditionsforprojects that do not overlap with ancestral domains and ancestral domain claims. There were no CP/FPICapplicationsfrom1998untilearly2002duetothemoratoriumonCP/FPIC applicationsimposedupontheNCIPwhentheIPRA'sconstitutionalitywaschallenged before the Supreme Court.5Itwasonlyin2002whentheNCIPbegantoprocessCP/ 5AcasewasfiledonSeptember28,1998byformerSupremeCourtJusticeIsaganiCruzandAtty.CesarEuropaquestioning theconstitutionalityoftheIPRAbasedonthreemajorissues:(i)thegrantingoftherightofownershiptoIPsoverancestral lands,includingmineralsandotherresources,violatestheConstitutionwhichprovidesthatallmineralresourcesbelong totheState;(ii)useofcustomarylawswithinancestraldomainviolatesthePhilippinejurisprudencewhichrequiresthat alllawsshouldfirstbepublishedbeforetheseareformalizedintolaws,whereascustomarylawsareunwritten;and(iii) theIPRAprovisionontherightofIPstolimittheentryofmigrantsintotheirdomainsviolatestheFilipinos'basicright tomobilityandabodewithinthecountry.ThecasewasdismissedbytheSupremeCourtonDecember6,2000because ofatechnicality,i.e.,theSCjusticesweredividedandvoted7-7,andnotonthemeritsofthecase. 44 FPICapplicationsandonlyayearlaterwhenthefirstcertificationpreconditionissuances werereleased.Thus,thelowcertificationpreconditionsturnoutfrom2002-04isquite understandableascomparedtorelativelymorecertificationpreconditionsin2005. When it comes to the issuance of Table 6. Number of Certificates of Compliance certificates of compliance (certificate Issued by the NCIP, by Region from 2004-2006. of compliance to FPIC process and certification that the community has REGION 2004 2005 2006 TOTAL given its consent), the NCIP issued CAR 3 1 2 6 58 certificates of compliance from Region I 1 0 1 2 2004 to 2006 (Table 6). The number Region II 0 0 2 2 of certificates of compliance issued Region III 0 1 3 4 has improved from 2004 to 2006, Region IV 2 4 4 10 and just for the first month of 2007, Region V 0 1 2 3 RegionVI-VII 0 0 1 1 an additional four certificates of RegionIX 0 0 2 2 compliance were handed out. The RegionX 0 0 1 1 performance by region, however, is RegionXI 3 2 7 12 uneven. Regions XII and XIII have RegionXII 1 1 3 5 relativelyhighaccomplishmentswhile RegionXIII 3 0 7 10 mostoftheotherregionshaveverylow ARMM 0 0 0 0 accomplishments. Total 13 10 35 58 Source: NCIP Ancestral Domains Office 2007. Therearemanypendingapplicationsfor FPICandmanyoftheseapplicationswerefiledwaybackin2000to2002.Whiletheremay beotherfactorsthatmaycontributetothedelayoftheirprocessing(e.g.,proponentsnot payingthefield-basedinvestigationfees,communitytakingalongtimetodecidewhether togiveitsconsent,etc.),theeffectivenessoftheFPICguidelinescanstillbequestioned sincetheFPICprocessingtime(i.e.,fromthetimetheproponentappliesforFPIC)couldgo onforever.TherearealsonocertificatesofcomplianceissuedintheAutonomousRegion inMuslimMindanao(ARMM).WhilethetheARMMisnotunderNCIPjurisdictionbut ratherundertheOSCC-ARMM,thisreflectstheidentifiedproblemofconflictbetweenthe IPRAandtheOrganicActofMuslimMindanao.ItwouldseemthatIPs,ingeneral,and issuancesofcertificateofancestraldomaintitles/certificateofancestrallandtitlesandCP/ FPICsinparticular,arenottheprioritiesoftheARMM. Thesocio-politicalleveloftheIPgroupmayalsobeafactorintheissuanceofcertificates ofcompliance(orgivingtheconsenttoFPIC).Semi-nomadicorpreviouslynomadic Negritogroups(e.g.,Mamanwa,Agta,Ati,Ayta)arerelativelymoregenerousingiving theirconsenttooutsiderscomparedtotraditionallywarriorsocieties(e.g.,B'laan,Itneg, Kalinga,etc.). Givenitslimitedmanpowerandresources,theNCIPdoesnothaveasysteminplacefor prioritizingprojectsthatneedprocessing.Moreover,theNCIPiscriticizedforprioritizing projectswithmorefunds.Forexample,priorityisgiventoFPICapplicationsbymining 45 corporationsthatareabletopayhighfield-basedinvestigationandFPICfeesinsteadof socialdevelopmentprojectsbyotherproponentsthatdonothaveasmuchfundsasthese corporations. Such was the case in Zamboanga where there were accusations that the NCIP hasbeentoobusyattendingtoactivitiesundertakenbytheTVI(aminingcorporation)to thedetrimentofotherprojects,suchastheARCDP2ofDAR. FPIC's effectiveness on the ground remains unclear due to the presence of several data gapswithinNCIP'sinformationsystem.However,itappearsthatithadbeeneffectivein someareaswhileineffectiveinothers.Forexample,theKankanaeysandBagosofBakun, Benguet,gavetheirconsenttotheoperationsoftheLuzonHydroCorporationtooperate asmallhydropowerprojectinBarangayKayapa.Amemorandumofagreementhadbeen forgedbetweentheIPs,asrepresentedbytheBakunIndigenousTribesOrganization,and theprivatecompanywiththeNCIPactingaswitness.Thememorandumofagreement stipulatedthatpriorityhiringwillbegiventolocalresidentsandthatapercentageshareof the income derived from power generation will be given to the IPs. Ontheotherhand,therearecaseswhereconsentwasalreadygiventotheprojectproponent bytheIPsonlytobewithdrawnbythelatterforvariousreasons.Suchwasthecaseforthe coalminingprojectofMGMiningandEnergyCorporationinSouthCotabato.MGMining hadsecuredanFPICfromtheT'bolisofBarangayNed,LakeSebufortheirexploration activitiesinthearea.However,therewereprotestscomingmainlyfromchurchgroups outside the mining claim area that forced the T'bolis to reconsider their decision and thus withdrewtheirconsent.Inotherinstances,amemorandumofagreementhadalreadybeen forged between the project proponents and the IPs with the latter deciding later to back out fromtheagreement,asexperiencedbytheWesternMiningProjectinTampakan,South Cotabato (Box 8). ItcanbesaidthattheCP/FPIChastrulyempoweredIPstofreelyexercisetheirrights toself-determinationwithintheirdomain.However,thefulleffectivenessoftheprocess andexpectedoutcomesarecompromisedby:theabilityoftheNCIPtoeffectivelyand efficientlyfacilitatetheprocess;thecapacityoftheIPstoasserttheirrightstomeaningful participationandinformeddecision-making;chargesofmanipulativeactionsandcorrupt practicesbybigcorporationstosecuretheconsentoftheIPs;misrepresentationofsome IPgroups/organizationsclaimingtorepresenttheIPs;thedifferentinterpretationsofwhat constitutesconsent;andtheinstabilityoftheconsentevenafterthememorandumof agreement has been signed. 46 Box 8. Stability of the FPIC Process. In1998,theB'laansoftheFoluBatoAncestralDomaininTampakan,SouthCotabatogavetheirfreeandprior informedconsenttotheWesternMiningCorporation(WMC),anAustralian-ownedcorporation,allowingthe latter to explore the area for copper and gold deposits. Based on the implementing rules and regulations of the IPRA,aMemorandumofAgreement­referredtobytheWMCasthe"PrincipleAgreement"­wassignedbetween thecompanyandtheB'laansonFebruary23,1998.AmongthesalientpointsofthisagreementwasthattheTribal Council ­ Shallallowcompanypersonnel,vehiclesandequipmentaccesstothelandandwillnotprevent,harassorhinder thecompanyincarryingoutitsactivitiespursuanttotheFinancialandTechnicalAssistanceAgreement(FTAA) andwillnotdoanythingtoprejudicetheFTAA; Willnotobstruct,disturborpreventthefreetravelbycompanypersonnelandcontractorsalongtheroadsand withintheland;and Willnottake,supportorpromoteanyactionsorconductbyanymemberofthecommunitythatmaypreventor impedethecompany'soperations,therenewalandcontinuanceoftheFTAA,orwhichmayjeopardizeorthreaten financialarrangementsmadebyWMCinrelationtoitsminingoperations,andwillexerciseallreasonable endeavorstodiscourageandpreventanymemberormembersofthecommunityfromtakingsuchaction. Inexchange,theB'laanswouldreceivethefollowingfinancialcommitments,benefitsandprivilegesfromthe mining company: operations and administration fund; community development fund; community quota for rotationalworkers;financialassistancetostudentgranteesandscholars;andemergencymedicalassistance. In2002,theWMCtransferreditsrightstoexploreanddevelopthearea­throughanFTAAwiththePhilippine government­toanothercorporation,namelySagittariusMines,Inc.(SMI).Thus,thePrincipleAgreementwas amendedtoreflectSMIasanewpartytotheagreementwiththeB'laansinlieuofWMC.From2002to2006,SMI claimsthatithadalreadyspentP8.25millioninfinancialandnon-financialbenefitsforFoluBato. InOctober2007,however,theFoluBatoTribalCouncildemandedarenegotiationofthePrincipleAgreementwith SMI 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.SMIconsideredthis movebytheB'laansasaviolationofthePrincipleAgreementandthussuspendedtheprovisionoffinancialbenefits andotherprivilegesthatareduetotheTribalCouncil.Uptothepresenttime,thesituationhasremainedunresolved sinceneitherpartyhasgivenintotheother'sdemands. * Compiled by the authors. 5.3 Other Safeguard-Related Activities TheimplementationoftheCP/FPICisamongthemanyfunctionsoftheNCIP.Itisalso engagedintheaccreditationofIPorganizations,theissuanceofcertificateofancestral domaintitlesandcertificateofancestrallandtitles6thepreparationofAncestralDomain SustainableDevelopmentandProtectionPlans(ADSDPPs),undertakingofculturalmapping andIPcensuses,andthecodificationofcustomarylaws.Thestatusoftheseisasfollows: 1. Accreditation of IP organizations ­As of 2005, the NCIP has accredited 34 IP organizations,includingmunicipalCouncilsofElders,associations,cooperativesand foundations. 6TheNCIPissuestwotypesofdocumentsforlandownership.Thefirstisthecertificateofcncestrallandtitle,which isissuedtoaspecificindividualoraclan.Landcoveredbythismaybesoldbutonlytomembersofthetribetowhich thepresenttitle-holderbelongs.TheotheristhecertificateofancestraldomaintitlewhichisissuedtoaparticularIP community.Thesaidpropertycannotbesoldtoanyoneandanytransactioninvolvingitcannotputtheownershipofthe propertyatrisk.(Source:EdSumangil,NCIP). 47 2. Delineation and issuance of certificate of ancestral domain titles ­ The NCIP has issuedorapproved29certificateofancestraldomaintitlesfrom2002to2004,with atotallandareaof604,143hectaresandinvolving150,099beneficiaries.In2003 to 2004, there were 56 certificate of ancestral domain title applications involving 1,091,151hectares.AsofJanuary10,2005,onlyoneofthesesameapplicationshas beenapprovedwhiletherestwerestillbeingprocessedundertheProvincialDelineation ActionPlan.Therewere32othercertificatesofancestraldomaintitleapplicationsunder thecategory"OthercertificateofancestraldomaintitleTargetAreasforCY2004" involving379,186hectares.AsofJanuary14,2005,onlythreeoftheseapplications havebeenapproved.For2005,theNCIPlistedatotalof71priorityancestraldomain areasfortitling,coveringatotallandareaof1,404,376hectares(NCIP2006).This accomplishment of the NCIP with respect to the issuance of ancestral domain titles isquitesmallconsideringthenumberofancestraldomainclaimsinthecountry.The NCIPwasboggeddownwithalotofproblemsthatdelayedtheissuanceofcertificateof ancestraldomaintitles.Amongtheseproblemswere:(i)thelackoftechnicalexpertisein boundarydelineation;(ii)thelackoffinancialandlogisticalresourcesinthisendeavor; (iii)ancestraldomainboundarydisputesbetweenIPsandnon-IPsandamongdifferent IPgroups;(iv)absenceofprioritizationwithtoancestraldomaindelineation;andv) beingreactiveinsteadofpro-activeinidentifyingancestraldomainclaims. 3. Preparation of Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plans (ADSDPPs)­In2004,theNCIPwasabletoissueanADSDPPPrimercontainingthe guidelinesfortheformulationofADSDPPs.TheADSDPPissupposedtofacilitate theconductoftheFPICprocessbyexemptingnon-extractiveprojectsfromtheCP/ FPICprocess.Asof2005,onlysixADSDPPshavebeenofficiallyrecognizedbythe NCIP (Table 7).TherearemanyotherknownADSDPPsthathavebeeninitiatedand formulatedbyIPsthemselvesbuthavenotyetbeenofficiallyrecognizedbytheNCIP. SomeIPadvocatesquestionthesoundnessofNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.3,s.2002, whichmandatedthattheNCIPshouldassisttheIPsintheformulationofADSDPPs incaseswheretherearependingapplicationsforCP/FPICintheancestraldomain. Accordingtothem,thisistantamounttoviolatingtherighttoself-determinationofthe IPsasitisuptothelatterwhethertheywantADSDPPsornotandatwhatpacethey wanttodevelopitiftheysodesire. Table 7. Formulated and Officially RecognizedADSDPPs. Bucloc, LocationArea Beneficiaries Individual Year ADSDPP Approved DateApproved CADT/CALT Tubo, Abra Abra Malibcong, Abra Bakun, Benguet 29,444.3449 *** 17,218 *** 07/18/2002 *** Kalanguya-Kalahan Ocampo, Bicol 30,758.5822 5,099.3430 10,442 5,622 ****** 04/21/2006 03/25/2003 Source: NCIP Annual Accomplishment Report 2006. 48 R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 6. B asedonthereview,thefollowingrecommendationsareherebypresentedtoimprove theimplementationoftheIPRA: 6.1 Harmonizing the IPRA with other laws TheIPRAneedstobeharmonizedwithotherlawsthatimpactonIPsincludingthePhilippine MiningAct,theNIPASAct,theNationalMuseumAct,theEISSystemandtheOrganic Act 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(IPRAimplementingrulesand regulations,RuleVII,PartIII,Section1a)." The NCIP should follow up on its previous coordination with concerned institutions and agenciesinharmonizingtheIPRAwithotherlaws.TheProjectManagementOfficeofthe ConservationofPriorityProtectedAreasProjecthadalreadyinitiatedtalkswiththeNCIP in1999toharmonizeperceivedconflictsbetweentheIPRAandtheNIPASAct.Inter- agencydiscussionshavealsotakenplaceconcerningconflictsbetweentheIPRAandthe PhilippineEISSystemaswellasthelegalitiesofancestraldomain-publicdomainissues. Theoutcomeofthesetalks,however,needstobefollowedup.Fromhere,theNCIPcan expand its harmonization efforts to other concerned agencies. The NCIP's Environmental and Socio-cultural Impact Statement can be integrated into theoverallPhilippineEISSystem.Integratingthereviewofthisdocumentwithinthe EISreviewprocesswithanauthorizedNCIPrepresentativeasaresourcepersonmaybe abetterproposition.Asidefromavoidingtheduplicationofthereviewactivity,itcan alsobenefitfromtheinterdisciplinaryexpertiseoftheEnvironmentalImpactAssessment ReviewCommittee,thusenhancingitsreview. 6.2 Organizing and accrediting IP organizations Withtraditionalleadershipandpoliticalsystemsalreadydisappearingor,insomecases, replacedbythebarangaysystem,projectproponentsaresometimesfacedwithnolegitimate organizationstonegotiatewith.Ontheotherhand,hastilyorganizedgroupsorthosethatwere organizedforspeculativepurposesarealsotakingplace.Inthesesituations,theconsents areoftenchallengedbyrivalgroupsclaimingtobelegitimate"tribalorganizations."The proponentswillthushavetoputupwiththeuncertaintyoftheoutcomeoftheFPICprocess andthepoliticaluncertaintyoftheissuedCP/FPIC. This is a big challenge on the part of the NCIP as there are more than 100 IP groups identifiedinthecountryandithasonlyaccredited34IPorganizations.Althoughsome 49 representtraditionalbodiesofIPs,anumberoftheseorganizationsarespecial-purpose modernorganizations,suchascooperativesandfoundations.Thisisacarry-overfrom the practice of the previous ONCC and OSCC of organizing "tribal councils" even in situationswhenthecommunityhasnotraditionalconceptofa"tribalcouncil,"likeinthe caseofformerhunting-gatheringbands.Theseintroducedorganizationseventuallycause more problems than solutions because the practice of assigning leadership to a new elite bodyrunscountertotheegalitariantraditionsofthecommunity.7 WhileitisimportanttoorganizeIPcommunitiessothattheycaneffectivelyrespondto pressuresfromexternalforces,theNCIPneedstorespectandrecognizethecustomarysocio- politicalstructuresthatexist,orhavepreviouslyexisted,amongparticularcommunities. ThetendencyfortheNCIPtoinstallCordillera-typeorganizationsalloverthecountry,as reflectedintheproliferationofintroduced"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,andclearlydefinedancestraldomain boundaries. Whenever these conditions are notpresent,thescreeningofprojectsforthe FPIC requirement is going to be difficult as the FPIC process will be long, its outcome difficult to predict, and its legitimacy prone to be questioned. The varying opinions on what makes up "consent" are due to the lack of written parameters. The decision-making processineachIPgroupmustbeidentifiedand writtendown(e.g.,someIPgroupsdependon theirelders,someonacouncil,someonthe wholeassembly)andshouldbemadeclearatthe starttotheproponentandtheNCIP.Otherwise, consultations and negotiations can be an endless process. An example was the attempt of Caltexinthe1970sandbytheDepartmentof Energy(DOE)inthe1990stodiscusswiththeIPsthegeothermalprospectsinasiteinthe Cordillera.Everytimetheproponentandthegovernmentgobacktothearea,theymeet withvaryingtribalcouncilsandpersonalities. 7Castro(2000)hasdocumentedonesuchcaseamongtheBukidnonsofMt.KanlaoninNegrosIsland.TheOSCC organizedtheCodcodTribalCouncilinthecommunity.Whenthesaidcouncilrefusedtoapplyforacertificateof ancestraldomaintitle,theNCIPorganizedarivalorganization­theIlirananTribalCouncil.TheBukidnonsnowhaveto contend with two rival sets of leadership. 50 Giventhattheseactivitiesarebasicbuildingblockstoeffectivelyandefficientlyimplement theIPRA,theNCIPshouldthereforeprioritizetheseoverotheractivities.Astepinthis directionisfortheNCIPtolinkupwiththeNationalStatisticsOfficeandthePhilippine anthropological community in fine-tuning a mechanism and criteria for the proper identificationandprofilingofIPgroups.Atpresent,ethnicityisnotyetavariableinthe conductofPhilippinecensuses.Languageandreligionremainastheproxyindicatorsin identifyingethnicityalthoughthesecriteriamaynotbetrueforalloccasions.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)forthemappingofancestraldomainsbuttheseefforts should further be expanded in coordination with other academic and private entities.8 Withregardtothecodificationofcustomarylaws,theNCIPiscurrentlyundertakingan InternationalLabourOrganization-UnitedNationsDevelopmentProgramme(ILO-UNDP) studyonthedocumentationofthecustomarylawsoftheKalingasofLubuagan.Asidefrom thisinitiative,theNCIPshouldlinkupwithothersimilarinitiativessuchastheIndigenous LawProjectoftheUniversityofthePhilippinesCollegeofLaw.Thisprojecthadalready initiatedthedocumentationofmanycustomarylawssuchasthoseoftheIfugaosandthe Kankanaeys.However,codificationeffortsshouldonlybeundertakeniftheIPcommunities deemitnecessary.TherearetwoschoolsofthoughtamongIPcommunitiesrelatedtothis endeavor.OnepointofviewisthatthecodificationofcustomarylawswillassisttheIP communitiesinthemanagementoftheirancestraldomains.Thus,itwillbebeneficialif migrantpopulationsareawareofthesecustomarylawssothattheselawscanbefollowed andobeyed.Ontheotherhand,someIPcommunitiesdonotwanttheircustomarylawsto becodifiedbecausetheyfearthattheywillbemorevulnerablefromoutsideforcesasthese groupsmaymanipulatetheirlawsforself-servingpurposes.Forexample,privatecompanies caneasilyaffordtopayfinesofcarabaosorstonewarejarswhentheyviolatecustomary lawsunlikeordinaryIPcitizenswhoareburdenedbysuchfines.Fortheacculturated ethniccommunities,however,itisnolongernecessarytoresurrectthecustomarylaws thatarenolongerpracticed.Instead,themainstreampoliticalprocesses(i.e.,thebarangay system)shouldprevailinthesecommunitiessincetheseareactuallytheonesthatare followed and implemented at present. TheOfficeofPolicy,PlanningandResearchoftheNCIPshouldtaketheleadinundertaking theseresearchactivitiesrelatedtotheprofilingofIPs,theirtraditionalterritories,andtheir customarylaws. 8ThesevenpilotareasoftheNCIP-NAMRIAmappingprojectaretheancestraldomainsoftheIfugaoinKiangan;the BugkalotofKasibu,NuevaVizcaya,theAgta-ItomofIrigaCity;theAtiofDumarao,Capiz;theKamiginofMambajao andSagay,Camiguin;theManoboofLapaz,AgusandelSur;andtheManoboofArakan,Cotabato. 51 6.4 Pre-screening of municipalities, cities, provinces and/or areas not subject to CP/FPIC TheNCIPrequiresallprojects,plans,programsandbusinessinvestmentstoundergo theCP/FPICprocesseveninareasthatareclearlyoutsideanyknownIPterritory.This unnecessarilycontributestobureaucraticredtapeandcontributedtotheinefficientuse oftheNCIP'smeagerresources.TheNCIPneedstopre-screenareas,intermsofwhole provinces,municipalities,cities,orbarangaysthatnolongerneedtoundergotheCP/FPIC process.Areasthatclearlydonotoverlapwithancestraldomainsneedtobeautomatically excludedfromtheCP/FPICprocess. TheNCIPhasrecognizedtheneedforthispre-screeningofmunicipalities,cities,provinces and/orotherareaswhenitintroducedtheconceptofcertificateofnon-overlapinthe2006 FPICGuidelines.Theguidelinesspecificallymentionthatoverlapsornon-overlapping areaswillbedeterminedbasedon"thedulyapprovedmasterlistofAncestralDomain Areas"(AdministrativeOrder1,s.2006,Section15i).Thecurrentmasterlist,however, dulyapprovedbytheNCIPonlycontainsthecertificateofancestraldomaintitles,certificate ofancestraldomainclaimareas,andthelistofbarangays with IPs according to existing records.Thereisaneed,therefore,tofurtherimproveandcompletethemasterlistto conform to the requirements of the FPIC. 6.5 Enhancing NCIP's orga- nizational and technical capacity Althoughitsroleinthesafeguard process is largely facilitative, the NCIP also needs expertise to strengthen its capacity in the recognition and analyses of social and cultural issues associated with development projectsand/orinvestmentsin ancestral domains and present these for the consideration of theIPs.TherearemanyprovisionsoftheIPRAthataredesignedtoprotectandpreserve theintegrityoftheIPculturesaswellastheenvironmentalandnaturalresourceswithinthe ancestral domains. These concerns should be the bases for the decision to grant consent or torejectapolicy,programorproject. OneareawheretheNCIPurgentlyneedstobeenhancedisintherealmofimproving theorganization'sculturalcompetenceandtheculturalsensitivityofitsstaff.Cultural competencereferstotheprocessbywhichindividualsandsystemsrespondeffectivelyand efficientlytopeopleofallcultures,languages,classes,races,sexes,ethnicbackgrounds, religions, sexual orientations, abilities, and other diversity factors in a manner that recognizes,affirmsandvaluestheworthofindividuals,families,andcommunities,and 52 protectsandpreservesthedignityofeach.Culturallycompetentorganizationsshouldbe abletointegrateandtransformknowledgeaboutdiversegroupsofpeopleintospecific standards,policies,practices,andattributesusedinappropriateculturalsettingstoincrease thequalityofservicesproducingbetteroutcomes. ThepresentorganizationalstructureoftheNCIPisalreadysufficient.Itisonlyamatter ofbalancingtheresponsibilitiesofeachNCIPoffice.TheADOissaddledwithtoomany responsibilities while other offices, both at the national and sub-national levels, are underutilized.Intermsofmanpower,theNCIPshouldhavetrainedanthropologistsamong itsregularpersonneltoreinforcetheorganization'scapabilityinundertakingethnographic researchandinbeingabletoanalyzeandrespondtocross-culturalproblems.Theprevious NCIP En Banc Commission recommended the creation of anthropologist positions in the organization'splantillabutthisplanhasneverbeenimplemented.Atpresent,mostof NCIP'strainedfieldpersonnelcomefromthehealthandeducationprofessionsbecause deliveryofhealthandeducationserviceswasthethrustofthedefunctONCCandOSCC. TheNCIPbudgetneedstobeaugmentedforittoeffectivelyperformitstasks.Aregular budgetaryallotmentforundertakingfield-basedinvestigationactivitiesisrecommended. TheexpensesincurredduringtheseregularactivitiesshouldbebornebytheNCIPandnot bytheprojectproponents.Insuchmanner,theintegrityoftheprocesswillbeprotected against cooptation and free from external manipulation. TheNCIPshouldprioritizeitsscarcefinancialandhumanresourceswithregardtothe projects 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.TheNCIPhasalreadyprovidedwaystofacilitateprojectswithinthe ancestraldomainareasbyhelpingtheIPspreparetheirownAncestralDomainSustainable DevelopmentandProtectionPlans.TheprojectsthatareincludedintheADSDPPshouldno longerbesubjecttotheFPICprocess.TheprojectsthataresolicitedbytheIPsthemselves mustnolongergothroughthesameprocess.TheFPICprocessincludeselaboratesafeguards sothattheIPs'decisionsarefreefromexternalmanipulationandinterference.However, therearestillcaseswheretheFPICsobtainedbylargecorporationswerereportedlysecured throughmanipulationbyspecialinterestgroupsclaimingtorepresenttheinterestsofthe IPs (Box 9).Muchastheproponentsaresubjecttostringentrules,thesegroupsmustalso besubjecttoclearproceduresonhowandwhentheypresenttheirsidetotheIPs. The2006FPICGuidelinesisalreadyasubstantialimprovementfromthetwoprevious guidelines.Withinayear,thenewguidelinesshouldbeassessedsothatitcanagainbe improved.Among the areas that need to be re-examined in the guidelines is the requirement forprojectproponentstopayfield-basedinvestigationfees.Moreover,theprovincialoffices of the NCIP and its service centers should be given a greater role in the implementation 53 of the FPIC process. The NCIP should Box 9. Gifts and Hospitality, Bribery and also be assisted in terms of developing Coercion. practical methodologies for conducting Despite strong denials by TVI Pacific of Canada, there theFPICprocess.Specificmethodologies arereportsthatthecompanyhasofferedmoneyinreturn and approaches should be developed for for support. The Christian Aid and PipLinks Report documented a case in which a village captain submitted IP communities that no longer practice aswornaffidavitthatTVI'schiefofsecurityofferedhim customary laws. These methodologies moneyinreturnforsupportingamotionpromotingTVI. and approaches should be distinct from Likewise,membersoftheCouncilofEldersreportedbeing offeredPhP5,000($90)tosupportthepro-TVIresolution those designed for IP communities that at the meeting in Zamboanga in October 2002. The Council still utilize such laws. ofEldersarepaidPhP6,000($105)amonthbyTVIas an honorarium for attending meetings. TVI defends these paymentsonthegroundsthatitisofferedtosupportersand 6.7 Assessing the long-term impact of criticsalike.However,theonlypeoplewhoattendCouncil ofEldermeetingsnowthatpaymentsareofferedarepro- the IPRA TVImembers.InSubanonculture,takingmoneyimplies acceptance of and an obligation towards the giver. Thereisaneedtoundertakeasystematic, Sources: careful,andlong-termimpactassessment Molintas, JM 2004. "The Philippine Indigenous Peoples' Struggle for Land And Life: Challenging Legal Texts." Arizona Journal of International and ofhowtheIPRAhasactuallyworked Comparative Law Vol 21, No. 1. 2004. Cariño, J. 2005. "Indigenous Peoples'Right to Free, Prior, Informed Consent: on the ground in terms of achieving its Reflections on Concepts and Practice." Arizona Journal of International and overall objectives. Through this long- Comparative Law. Vol 22, No. 1. 2005. termimpactassessment,wemaybeable toknowwhethertheIPRAreallymadea positivedifferencefortheindigenouspeoplesofthePhilippines.Presently,however,itis difficulttoassesstheIPRA'soverallimpactatthegrassrootslevelbecauseoftheseveral datagapswithinNCIP'sreportingsystem.Thislong-termimpactassessmentwillrequire asystematicmonitoringofhowtheIPRAhastransformedorfailedtotransform,thelives ofitsintendedbeneficiaries. Tobeabletoimplementtheaforementionedrecommendations,anActionPlanishereby proposed that will take into consideration the achievement of the said recommendations overtheshort,medium,andlong-termperiod (Table 8). 54 6.8 Action Plan Table 8. SHORT-TERM ACTION PLAN. (Within 1 to 2 Years) Recommendations Targets Performance Indicators Lead Agency Harmonization of the IPRA with other laws Identification of conflict areas Revitalization of National Commission between the IPRA joint task forces on Indigenous and other laws and between NCIP and Peoples (NCIP), ordinances. other line agencies on harmonization of Department of conflicting laws. Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), Organizing/accrediting Development National Museum IP communities of criteria for Administrative order NCIP organizing and on accreditation of IP accrediting IP organizations issued. Identification communities. and profiling of Validation and Masterlist of IP NCIP IP communities, finalization of groups and their delineation of their existing list of IP locations approved by communities, and groups. NCIP En Banc. codification of their Collection of all Databank on NCIP, Academe customary laws available literature on IP customary customary laws available at NCIP Pre-screening of laws. central office. municipalities, cities, Development of a Masterlist of NCIP, League of provinces, and/or areas list of areas that are provinces without IPs Provinces not subject to CP/FPIC without IPs. Development prepared by ADO. of practical Different approaches NCIP, Academe methodologies for for securing IPs with conducting FPIC. functional customary laws and for those of acculturated groups Enhancing NCIP's identified. organizational and Prioritization of NCIP project NCIP technical capacity NCIP's scarce financial and prioritization plan developed. Ensuring representation human resources. of non-IPs within Development of Administrative order NCIP ancestral domains criteria for non-IP representation. on representation of non-IPs in ancestral Assessing the long-term Monitoring impacts domains issued. impacts of the IPRA of the IPRA at Development of NCIP ground level. impact indicators. 55 MEDIUM-TERM ACTION PLAN. (Within 3 to 5 Years) Recommendations Targets Performance Indicators Lead Agency Harmonization of the Draftingofbills Draftbillsreadyfor NCIP,Congress IPRA with other laws aimed at amending filing. certain laws that conflictwiththe IPRA. Organizing/accrediting Inventoryand Differenttypologies NCIP,Academe IP communities classification of IP organizations of different IP and political organizations and structuresidentified. political structures. Identification Delineationof CADTsissued. andprofilingof ancestral domains. IPcommunities, delineation of their communities,and codificationoftheir customarylaws Pre-screening of Developmentofa Masterlist of cities NCIP,Leagueof municipalities,cities, list of areas that are without IPs developed Cities provinces,and/orareas without IPs. byADO. notsubjecttoCP/FPIC Enhancing NCIP's Conduct of cultural Training reports. NCIP,Academe organizational and sensitivitytrainings technicalcapacity for NCIP staff. Ensuring representation Non-IP Status report on NCIP of non-IPs within representation in representation of non- ancestral domains ancestral domains IPs available. in place. Assessing the long-term Developmentof NCIP Management NCIP impacts of the IPRA a regular impact InformationSystemin monitoringsystem. place and functional. 56 LONG-TERM ACTION PLAN. (More than 5 Years) Recommendations Targets Performance Indicators Lead Agency Harmonization of the Passing of bills Bills passed into law. Congress IPRA with other laws amending the IPRA orlawsthatconflict with the IPRA. Organizing/accrediting Empowerment of IP organizations are NCIP IP communities IP organizations. functional. Identification Delineationof CALTs issued. NCIP,Land andprofilingof ancestral lands. Registration IPcommunities, Authority delineation of their Codificationof Customarylaws NCIP,Department communities,and customarylaws. published in the of Justice codificationoftheir Gazette. customarylaws Pre-screening of Developmentofa Masterlist of NCIP,Leagueof municipalities,cities, list of areas that are municipalities without Municipalities provinces,and/orareas without IPs. IPsdevelopedby notsubjecttoCP/FPIC ADO. Enhancing NCIP's Professionalization Fulltime NCIP organizational and of NCIP. anthropologists within technicalcapacity NCIPregionaloffices. Ensuring representation Resolution of Documentedcase NCIP of non-IPs within conflictsbetween studiesonconflict ancestral domains IPs and non-IPs in resolution in ancestral ancestral domains. domains. Assessing the long-term Identification Socio-cultural impact NCIP,Academe impacts of the IPRA of the positive statement on the benefitsand IPRA. negative impacts of the IPRA at the grassroots level. 57 R E F E R E N C E S 7. Candelaria,Sedfrey."JurisdictionIssuesConcerningCasesArisingfromtheApplication ofIPRABeforeCourts,theNCIPandtheIndigenousJusticeSystem."Unpublishedpaper submittedtotheInternationalLabourOrganization-INDISCO. Castro,NestorT.1995."BaselineSocio-PoliticalStudyofTribesinMt.Apo."Unpublished researchreportsubmittedbytheAteneodeDavaoUniversitytothePhilippineNationalOil Company-EnergyDevelopmentCorporation. Castro,NestorT.2000."ThreeYearsoftheIndigenousPeoplesRightsAct:ItsImpacton Indigenous 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.PhilippineCultureandEcosystems Map.QuezonCity:ESSC. Environmental Science for Social Change and Bishops-Businessmen's Conference. 1999. Mining Revisited.QuezonCity:ESSC. Jocano,F.Landa,LiliaMarquezandMamertaCaguimbal.1994.ProblemsandMethodsin theStudyofPhilippineEthnicCultures(APreliminaryOverview).QuezonCity:UPAsian Center. 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 the Philippines:QuantitativeandQualitativeOutcomes."Unpublishedpaperpresentedatthe MetagoraForum,Paris,France,24May2005. 58 Mercado,CarolynA.1998."LegalResearchonLawsandJurisprudencePertainingto IndigenousPeople."UnpublishedWorldBankPaper. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. 2003. Medium-TermPhilippineDevelopment Plan for Indigenous Peoples, 2004-2008.QuezonCity:NCIP. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. 2005. CY 2005 Annual Report.Quezon City:NCIP. PrivateEnterpriseDevelopmentCorporationofAsia.2003."CapacityAssessmentfor thePreservationandMaintenanceofBiodiversity-RelatedKnowledgeofIndigenousand LocalCommunities."UnpublishedreportsubmittedtotheProtectedAreasandWildlife Bureau-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,JosefoB.,et.al.2005."ReviewofthePhilippineSafeguardsontheRightsof Indigenous Peoples." Unpublished draft manuscript. Uy,DeniseMoninaF.2003."CommentsonNCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.3,Seriesof 2002,"Issue Paper 2004-02:9-14. 59 Annex A PHILIPPINE LAWS CONCERNING THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 1. Indigenous Peoples Rights Act and NCIP administrative issuances: RA8371(IndigenousPeoplesRightsActof1997) NCIPAdministrativeOrderNo.1(RulesandRegulationsImplementingRepublicActNo. 8371) NCIPAO3,s.1998(SupplementalGuidelinesintheIssuanceofNCIPCertification preconditionandFPIC) NCIPAO1,s.2002(GuidelinesfortheReviewandVerificationofCADTsandCALTs) NCIPAO2,s.2002(RevisedGuidelinesfortheConversionofCertificateofAncestral Domain/LandClaimstoCertificateofAncestralDomain/LandTitles); NCIPAO3,s.2002(RevisedFPICGuidelines) NCIPAdministrativeCircularNo.1,s.2003(RulesonPleadings,PracticeandProcedure beforetheNCIP) NCIPAO 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) MemoCircularNo.23,s.1993(RevisedProceduresontheTransferofCertificateof StewardshiptotheNext-of-KinoftheHoldersThereof) RA6657(ComprehensiveAgrarianReformLaw) 3. Forestry Laws: RA7161(ForestryCodeofthePhilippines) PD705(RevisedForestryReformCode) DAO4,s.1989(RevisedRegulationsGoverningRattanResources) DAO4-A,s.1989(SpecialProvisionsfortheProcessingofRattanApplicationswithin AreasReserved/OccupiedbyCulturalCommunities) DAO59,s.1990(GuidelinesintheConfiscation,ForfeitureandDispositionofConveyances UsedintheCommissionofOffensesPenalizedUnderSection68,PD705) 60 DAO4,s.1991(RevisedRegulationsGoverningtheIntegratedSocialForestryProgram) DAO24,s.1991(ShiftinLoggingfromtheOldGrowthForesttotheSecondGrowth 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-BasedForestManagementasthe NationalStrategytoEnsuretheSustainableDevelopmentoftheCountry'sForestlands ResourcesandProvidingMechanismsforitsImplementation) 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) 61 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,for ScientificandCommercialPurposes;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(GuidelinesfortheTransferandImplementationofDENRFunctions DevolvedtotheLocalGovernmentUnits) RA7611(StrategicEnvironmentalPlanforPalawanAct) RA9054(AmendingRA6734) 11. Laws on the NCIP: EO1(CreatingtheOfficeofthePresidentialAdviserforIndigenousPeoples'Affairs) EO364(SubsumingtheNCIPundertheDepartmentofLandReform) EO379(AmendingEO364) 62 Annex B NCIP REGIONAL AND PROVINCIAL OFFICES REGIONAL OFFICE PROVINCIAL ADDRESS OFFICE Cordillera Administrative Abra Abra Tingguian Center, Region (CAR) Bangued, Abra Apayao Eva Garden, Calanasan, Apayao Baguio City Rm. 410, Centrum Comp., 358 2/F Hillside Square, Km. 4, Magsaysay Ave., Baguio City La Trinidad, Benguet Benguet Benguet Provincial Capitol, La Trinidad, Benguet Ifugao Abul St., Poblacion South, Lagawe, Ifugao Kalinga KSDA Compound, Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga Mt. Province Bontoc, Mountain Province Region I Ilocos Norte 3/F Ilocano Heroes Hill, Laoag City Ilocos Sur Provincial Capitol, Vigan City, 2/F Martinez Bldg., Ilocos Sur QuezonAve., San La Union Tourism Bldg., Sudipen, Fernando, La Union La Union Pangasinan 2/F Malong Bldg., Lingayen, Pangasinan Region II Batanes Basco, Batanes Cagayan Lasam Service Center, Peru, Lasam, Cagayan No. 3 Rajah Soliman Isabela People's Coliseum, Santiago St., San Gabriel Village, City, Isabela Tuguegarao, Cagayan Nueva Vizcaya Quirino Stadium, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya Quirino Engineering Compound, Cabarroguis, Quirino 63 REGIONAL OFFICE PROVINCIAL ADDRESS OFFICE Region III Aurora Brgy. Reserva, Baler, Aurora Bataan Balanga, Bataan K&L Bldg., Consunji St., Bulacan Hilltop, Norzagaray, Bulacan San Fernando, Pampanga Nueva Ecija Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija Pampanga Floridablanca, Pampanga Tarlac Tarlac City Zambales Iba, Zambales Region IV Mindoro Occidental 91 San Jose St., Payompon, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro Mindoro Oriental 2/F OMPSTA Bldg., A. Ignacio 2/F A.B. Sandoval Bldg., St., Camilmil, Calapan City Shaw Blvd. cor. Oranbo Palawan Banua Ka't Katutubo, Ave., Pasig City Provincial Capitol Compd., Puerto Princesa Quezon 168 Gomez St., Infanta, Quezon Rizal J.P. Rizal St., Brgy. Sampaloc, Tanay, Rizal Romblon 2/F Old BPI Bldg., Odigiongan, Romblon Region V Albay Sangguniang Bayan Bldg., Centro Occidental, Polangui, Albay City Hall Annex, San Camarines Norte 1 Rafer Bldg., Daet, Fernando, Iriga City Camarines Norte Camarines Sur Municipal Hall Compound, San Juan, Pili, Camarines Sur Sorsogon/Masbate Araceli D. Bote Bldg., Sorsogon City 64 REGIONAL OFFICE PROVINCIAL ADDRESS OFFICE Region VI and VII Antique/Aklan Biniraya Hills, San Jose, Antique Bohol Rm. 203, Calatrava Bldg., 48 2/F UCPB Bldg., Plaza Belderol St., Cogon District, Rizal St., Jaro, Iloilo City Tagbilaran City Capiz Poblacion, Tapaz, Capiz Cebu Rm. 206, Teodora Bldg., Cor. Osmeña Blvd., Jacosalen, Cebu City Guimaras Capitol Bldg., San Miguel, Jordan, Guimaras Negros Occidental Multi-Purpose Activity Center, Aguinaldo St., Bacolod City Negros Oriental 2/F MFS Bldg., National Highway, Bayawan City, Negros Oriental Region IX Basilan 2/F Carlos Stand Tan Bldg., N. Valderosa St., Isabela City, P.L. Urro St., Basilan Pagadian City Zamboanga del Norte Provincial Capitol Bldg., Dipolog City Zamboanga del Sur P.L. Urro St., Pagadian City Region X Bukidnon Sumpong, Malaybalay, Bukidnon Camiguin Camiguin Service Center, 3-4/F Halasan Bldg., Cor. Poblacion, Sagay, Camiguin Tiano & del Pilar Sts., Lanao del Norte 3/F Iglupas Bldg., QuezonAve., Cagayan de Oro City Iligan City Misamis Occidental Capitol Site, Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental Misamis Oriental 2/F Halasan Bldg., Cor. Tiano & del Pilar Sts., Cagayan de Oro City 65 REGIONAL OFFICE PROVINCIAL ADDRESS OFFICE Region XI Compostela Valley CES Bldg., Nabunturan, Compostela Valley Davao City Toril District Hall, Toril, E. Valenoso Bldg., Davao City Sandawa Plaza, New Davao del Norte Tagum Capitol Bldg., Matina, Davao City Mangkilam, Tagum City Davao del Sur Capitol Compound, Matanao, Digos, Davao del Sur Davao Oriental Franco Bldg., Rizal St., Mati, Davao Oriental Region XII North Cotabato Masonic Center, National Highway, Kidapawan City Saranggani Maasim, South Cotabato Bautista Bldg., Osmeña South Cotabato Lapu-lapu St., General St., Koronadal City Santos City Sultan Kudarat Monico Gonzalo Bldg., Cor. Peneza & Valencia Sts., Kalawag II, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat Region XIII Agusan del Norte T&S Bldg., Curato St., Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte Agusan del Sur Government Center, Patin-ay, Capitol Ave., Butuan City Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur Surigao del Norte Provincial Grandstand, Rizal St., Surigao City Surigao del Sur Capitol Hills, Tandag, Surigao del Sur 66 Annex C COMPARISON OF LISTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE PHILIPPINES NCIP (2006)* ESSC (1998)** PEDCA (2003)*** Abaknon Adasen Abelling/Aborlin Aburlin Aeta Adassen Tinggian Ayta Ayta Aeta-Abiyan Abiyan Agta Agta Agay Agutaynen Agta Agta Aklanon Agutaynon Alangan Mangyan Aklanon Amduntug-Antipulu Ifugao Alangan Alangan Mangyan Applai Arumanen Ata/Matigsalog Ati Ata Ata Ati/Bantoanon Ati Ati Batak Bantoanon B'laan Badjao Blaan Bajau B'laan Badjao Bago Bagobo Bago Bagobo-Guiangan/Clata Bagobo Bagobo-Tagabawa Bagobo-Giangan Jangan Bagobo Balangao Manobo-Tagabawa Balangao Tagabawa Balangao Balatoc Baluga Banac Bangon Banao Kalinga Bantoanon Bangon Mangyan Batak Banwaon Batak 67 NCIP (2006)* ESSC (1998)** PEDCA (2003)*** Batangan Mangyan Binongan Batangan Batangan Mangyan Bontok Binongan Tinggian Bontok Bontok Bugkalot Buhid Ilongot Ilongot Bukidnon Buhid Mangyan Bukidnon (in Mindanao) Bukidnon (in Negros) Bukidnon (in Mindanao) Bukidnon (in Negros) Butuanon Cimarron Butuanon Cuyonon Danao Kuyonen Cuyonen Dibabawon Manobo Dibabawon Dumagat Eskaya Casiguran/Umiray Dumagat Dumagat Eskaya Gaddang Gubang Gaddang Gaddang Hanglulo Gubatnon Mangyan Hanunoo Higaonon Hanunoo Hanunoo Mangyan Ibaloi Higaonon Manobo Higaonon Ibanag Ibaloy Ibaloy Ifugao Ibanag Ayangan Ifugao Ibanag Ifugao Ikalahan Ikaluna Ikalahan/Kallahan Kalanguya Ilianen Inlaud Ilianen Manobo Ilanun Inlaod Tinggian Iranun Iraya Isarog Iraya Iraya Mangyan Isinai Isarog Agta Isnag Isinay Isinay Itawes Apayao (Isnag) Itawes Isnag Itawes Itbayat Ivatan Itbayat Iwak Ivatan I-wak Ivatan I'wak Jama Mapun Kagayanen Jama Mapun Jama Mapun Kalagan Kalamianen Kalagan Kalagan Kalibugan Kolibugan 68 NCIP (2006)* ESSC (1998)** PEDCA (2003)*** Kalinga Kalingá (in Isabela) Kamayo Tinglayan Kalinga Kamayo Kalingga (in Kalinga) Kamigin Kankanaey Camiguin Karaga Kankanai Kankanaey Karao Karao Karolanos Kasiguranin Kasiguranin Katagoan Kiniray-a Ke-ney Kiray-a Kiyangan Ifugao Lubuagan Kalinga Mabaca Maeng Mabaka Kalinga Magahat Malaueg Magahat Malaweg Magahat Malaweg Mamanwa Mandaya Mamanwa Mandaya Mandaya Manguangan Mandek-ey Mangyan Mangguangan Manobo Tadyawan Mangguangan Tadyawan Mangyan Mansaka Manobo Blit Mansaka Manobo/Ubo Manobo Blit Masadiit Manuvu/Obo Manobo Masbateño Masadiit Tinggian Matigsalug Molbog Matigsalug Manobo Matigsalug Palananum Molbog Molbog Palawanon Paranan Paranan Ratagnon Palawan Ratagnon Pala'wan Ratagnon Mangyan Remontado Romblonanon Remontado Sama Sama Sama Samal Sambal Isamal Sambal Sangil Subanon Sangil/Sangir Subanun Subanun Sulod Sulod Sulodnon 69 NCIP (2006)* ESSC (1998)** PEDCA (2003)*** Tasaday Manobo Surigaonon T'boli Tiboli T'boli Tabangnon Taboy Tagakaolo Tagbanua Tagakaolo (Kalagan) Tagbanwa Tagakaulo Talaandig Tagbanua Tau't Batu Taubuid Mangyan Tigwahanon Tao't Bato Tingguian Tigwa Manobo Tiruray Luba Tinggian Tiruray Tinguian Teduray Tuwali Banaue Ifugao Umayamnen Ubo Yakan Umayamnon Manobo Yogad Yakan Yogad Yakan 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. 70 71 72