ACTORS, INSTITUTIONS AND STATE-SOCIETY RELATIONS IN THE POLICY PROCESS: THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT*

Introduction
This paper seeks to contribute to the understanding of the dynamics of the Philippine policy process by identifying and examining the role of important policy actors and institutions in the making of a specific policy. It seeks to present a preliminary analysis of the interactions among policy actors and institutions as well as state-society relations in the enactment of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). Specifically, this paper will: (1) identify the different policy actors and institutions involved in the enactment of the IPRA; (2) examine and analyze the interactions among the policy actors and institutions in making the policy; (3) determine the nature of state-society relations in the making of the IPRA and analyze the extent to which such relations had affected the policy outcome; and (4) identify the issues and challenges in state-society relations in the policy process based on the IPRA experience. The policy process is an elaborate and complex process. It involves a large number of choices made by a possibly large number of individuals and organizations (Hill 1997). It also involves complex interactions between state and non-state actors. The policy process is divided into five stages: agenda-setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, policy implementation, and policy assessment (Dunn 1994: 16). To date, various models and approaches in studying the policy process have been proposed. Although scholars have agreed on certain aspects of the policy process, there is no particular model that is considered the best. Those who study the policyRuth Lusterio Rico**process often focus on particular aspects or stages of the process and apply a specific model or approach. This study recognizes the importance of the role of policy actors and institutions in the policy process although one may be more important than the other in specific instances (Howlett and Ramesh 2003: 52-53). Studies on the policy

process have pointed out the crucial roles of actors and institutions in the process. Howlett and Ramesh noted that, individuals, groups, classes, and states participating in the policy process no doubt have their own interests, but the manner in which they interpret and pursue their interests, and the outcomes of their efforts, are shaped by institutional factors (2003: 53). There is no way of knowing in advance which is more important in a particular instance. Therefore, both policy actors and institutions have to be considered and empirical analyses could be done to determine the significance of each factor in specific circumstances. Considering such perspective of the policy process, policy, in this study, is viewed as a product of the interactions among policy actors and institutions. The term policy actors refers to state and societal actors who are involved in the policy process. They may be individuals or groups who are also collectively identified as a policy subsystem (Howlett and Ramesh 2003: 53). Institutions, in this study, refers to the structures and organizations of the state, society and the international system which constitutes the larger context of a policy subsystem, or what is called the policy universe, which may directly or indirectly affect the policy process (Howlett and Ramesh 2003:53). Such view of the policy process that considers the significant role of policy actors and institutions is used in this study to analyze the experience in the enactment of the IPRA. The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act Republic Act 8371 which is more popularly known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) was enacted by the 10th Congress of the Republic of the Philippines and was signed into law by President Fidel V. Ramos on 29 October 1997.1 It is a comprehensive law that recognizes the Philippine indigenous peoples right to self-governance, social justice and human rights, cultural integrity, and to their ancestral domains (CIPRAD 1999). The IPRA was one of the priority bills of the

Ramos administration under its Social Reform Agenda but it actually took more than decade and three Congresses before this law was passed. It has been hailed by advocates of indigenous peoples rights as a landmark legislation that will give indigenous peoples (IP) what has long been due them (Bennagen 1999)