Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 78

REX T. LINAO, Ph.D.

Prepared for the VOICE Netherlands Project


▪ Who are the IPs?
▪ The drivers of change
▪ Government agencies in-charge of the IPs and the Moros
▪ The 1987 Constitution
▪ The IPs in their Ancestral Domains
▪ Realities on the ground
▪ IPs: Where are we going to?
WHO ARE THE IPS?
(AS DEFINED IN THE PHILIPPINES)

▪ Continuously lived as an organized community on communally-bounded and


defined territory;

▪ Occupied, possessed and utilized such territories under claims of ownership


since time immemorial;
Who are the IPs?
(As Defined in the Philippines)

▪ Shared common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinct


cultural traits; and

▪ Become historically differentiated from the majority of the Filipino through


resistance to political, social, cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous
religions and cultures.
WHO ARE THE IPS?
(AS DEFINED ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD)

▪ A high degree of isolation and independence from the rest of the society;

▪ A largely self-subsistent economy based on hunting, fishing, gathering of forest


products and shifting cultivation or slash-and-burn horticulture;
WHO ARE THE IPS?
(AS DEFINED ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD)

▪ An often itinerant or semi-nomadic lifestyle, which, given the low carrying


capacity of many tropical ecosystems, requires relatively vast territories;

▪ An often extremely simple material culture;


WHO ARE THE IPS?
(AS DEFINED ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD)

▪ A loosely knit political organization, based on relatively small and


independent villages, combined with an often complex social and kinship
structure;

▪ Highly specific language, culture and religious belief systems;


WHO ARE THE IPS?
(AS DEFINED ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD)

▪ A unique relationship to the land that is determined not only by the groups’
economic adaptation to the specific environment they inhabit but also by the
social and kinship system, cosmology, religion and ritual.
The Farming Diwatas of the Manobos Show a
“Different” Religious Belief

• Ponoyangan, the guardian of the trees, the forest and the minerals;

• Olimugkat, the guardian of the water sources in the upper portion;

• Gamowhamow, the in-charge of the water sources in the lower portion and the fishes;

• Kaayag, the guardian of the rice and the soil;

• Pommuwa, the in-charge of all kinds of plants;

• Tohovikaa, the spirit who inspires and strengthens farmers;

• Pomulingan, the spirit who is in-charge of fire, of blacksmith and bolos.


The Manobos Practice
Cosmic Farming

• Panikapan. The grouping of small but bright stars. When they spot panikapan in the
east at around 10:00 pm; they would know that it’s time for the suksok sa kallo. It is in
the month of January;

• Batik. The grouping of stars that forms like letter “L”. The appearance of these stars
in the east at around 10:00 - 11:00 PM signals the start of the clearing of the fields or
the kaingin activities. It is in the month of February;

• Maliha. The grouping of stars that appears like letter “V”. When maliha starts to
appear in the East at around 9:00 – 11:00 PM, IPs know that it’s the time for sowing;

• Ibang. A bright big star, when IPs spot them in the East, they know that rainy season
starts.
A Manobos' Prayer Before Planting (in their language)

Pommuwa, Kaayag, Gamowhamow, Olimugkat…


Sikao kod omawon ko sow ad pamowa-a
Kaong kay na alaw kas
Pammuwa nad tanod sikao oway kas
Kayag nad pabunga kaay ta pinamowa ko

Oway kas Olimugkat, Gamowhamow


sikao kad umaowan ko.
Amaid pauranon do na
pakatabo edos pinammowa ko.

Kairiin taman panubad ko… Salamat…


A Manobos' Prayer Before Planting (Translated in English)
Pammowa, Kaayag, Gamowhamow, Alimugkat…

I call upon you


This day I sow some seeds
Pommuwa, Kayag you let these seeds
Sprout and bear fruits.

Gamowhamow, Alimugkat
I call upon you, guardians of the waters
So that it would rain
And the seeds would sprout.

These are all I ask…


Thank You...
BUT THINGS WERE BOUND TO
CHANGE..

The following slides present what happened in


Agusan del Sur and in Zamboanga areas:
▪The Coming of Muslim Missionaries
▪The Coming of Ferdinand Magellan
▪The Treaty of Paris
▪The Manila Government
▪The Coming of Muslim Missionaries

Arab and Gujarati traders and missionaries introduced Islam to the


Philippines in the 14th century. Overtime, Islam became a dominant
religion and, in the Southern Philippines the Sultan of Sulu carried
the title “The Shadow of God on Earth.” Sultans also claimed to
implement Islamic law and retained the services of Middle Eastern
Muslims as qadis (judges).
▪The Coming of the Spaniards

The Coming of the Spaniards in 1521 introduced the so-called


Regalian Doctrine, among others. Regalian Doctrine basically
states that all resources in the Philippines are owned by the King
of Spain.
▪The Treaty of Paris

A treaty concluding the Spanish-American War, signed by


representatives of Spain and the United States in Paris on Dec. 10,
1898. It paved the way for the possession on the Philippines by the
United States from the previous colonizer, Spain.
▪The Land Registration Act of 1902

By authority of the United States, the Philippine Commission enacted


Act 496, An Act to Provide for the Adjudication and Registration of Titles
to Lands in the Philippine Islands
▪The Land Registration Act of 1902

▪ Grants of public land were brought under the operation of a Torrens


system
▪ Placed all public and private land under the Torrens system
▪ Torrens system requires that the government issue an official certificate of
title attesting to the fact that the person named is the owner of the property
described therein, subject to such liens and encumbrances as thereon
noted or the law warrants or reserves
▪The Public Land Act of 1903 (718)

It voided all lands granted by Moro sultans and datus or


non-Christian chiefs without state authority, which
dispossessed the Moros of their ancestral landholdings.
▪The Public Land Act of 1903 (926)

declared all lands registered under Act 496 as public lands, and
were made available for homestead, sale or lease by individuals or
corporations.
▪The Mining Act of 1905

In 1905, the Mining Act declared all public lands free and open for
exploration, occupation and purchase even by US citizens.
▪Public Land Act of 1919 (2894)

allowed non-Moro Filipinos to apply for ownership of 24 hectares of


land, while Moros were allowed only 10 hectares.
▪Public Land Act of 1936 (141)

declared all Moro ancestral landholdings as public lands, with


every Moro allowed to apply for a maximum of four hectares,
whereas a Christian could own six times more, or 24 hectares. A
corporation was allowed to hold 1,024 hectares.
▪The Resettlement Program of the Manila
Government

Mindanao was dubbed as the Land of Promise, in which people


from Luzon and Visayas were given support by the government to
resettle in Mindanao where the Public Land Acts favored them.
▪ 1901 to 1957 –

The Bureau of Non-Christian Tribe (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-Christian reservations” similar to those for Native
Americans.
▪1901 to 1957 –

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.
▪ 1901 to 1957 –

BNCT was replaced by the Commission on National Integration (CNI).

The mandate of the CNI: “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.”
▪ 1901 to 1957 –

It was 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 to 1986

The Martial Law Regime was marked by several protest movements carried out by IPs
against government-initiated development projects that would displace them 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.
▪ 1972 to 1986

There was a growing realization among the IPs’ movement and their
advocates that IP Rights are closely linked with the issue of Ancestral
Lands.
▪ 1972 to 1986

In 1972, Marcos created the:

Southern Philippine Development Authority, which undertook the


implementation of programs for the Muslims
Presidential Assistance on National Minorities (PANAMIN), which
implemented the programs for the non-Muslims or other tribal
groups.
▪1972 to 1986

In 1974, Marcos signed PD 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.
▪1972 to 1986

In the mid ‘80s, SPDA and PANAMIN were becoming


unpopular 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.
▪ 1972 to 1986

In 1985, EO 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.
▪ 1972 to 1986

The newly restored democracy paved the way for several reforms
in government policies vis-à-vis IPs. The OMACC was abolished
and three separate offices under the Office of the President were
created:

-Office of Muslim Affairs


-Office of the Northern Cultural Communities
-Office of the Southern Cultural Communities
▪ 1986 to 1997 –

The new Constitution 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.
▪ 1986 to 1997 –

State recognition and promotion of the rights of ICCs/IPs


within the framework of national unity and development
(Sec. 22, Article II);
▪ 1986 to 1997 –

Protection of the rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral


lands to ensure their economic social and cultural
wellbeing (Sec. 5, Article XII);
▪ 1986 to 1997 –

Application of the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship,


whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or
utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public
domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to
prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of
ICCs/IPs to their ancestral lands (Sec. 6, Article XIII);
▪ 1986 to 1997 –

Recognition, respect and protection of the rights of ICCs/IPs to


preserve and develop their ancestral domains.
▪ 1986 to 1997 –

The period was 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.
▪1986 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 to present

Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous


Peoples Rights Act, was enacted in 1998. 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.
Rights to
Ancestral
Domains
THE
INDIGENOUS Right to Social
Self-
PEOPLES governa
Justice
and
nce and
RIGHTS ACT Empowe
rment
Human
Rights
AND IP
RIGHTS Cultural
Integrity
IPs and Their
ANCESTRAL DOMAINS

Bodies of Water
Hunting grounds

Burial Grounds Residential Worship Areas

Forests Minerals & Natural


Home Ranges
Resources
IP RIGHTS TO ANCESTRAL
DOMAINS
Right to claim
parts of
reservations
Right in case
Right of
of
ownership
Displacement
Right to Right to
Right to develop
lands & regulate
resolve natural entry of
conflict resources migrants
Right to stay
Right to
in the safe and
territories clean air
and water
1. Maintain ecological balance.
2. Restore denuded areas.
3. Observe laws.
1. Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC),
2. Full Access to Records and Information
3. Submission of Environmental and Socio-
Cultural Impact Statement
4. Benefits and Compensation.
▪ Ancestral domain titling remains a burdensome process that
needs to be simplified and streamlined.

▪ An additional process put in place by Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-


NCIP Administrative Order No. 01-12 (JAO 01-12), issued in
2012, with the objective to address jurisdictional and
operational issues between and among these land titling
agencies, has resulted in undue delay in the issuance and
registration of CADTs.
▪ Of the 182 CADTs issued by the NCIP to date, less than 50 have
been registered with the Land Registration Authority (LRA).

▪ This is a problem for IPs because when their CADTs are not
registered with the LRA, they are less able to prevent intrusion
into their ancestral domains by migrants and corporations.
▪ Of the 182 Ancestral Domains with CADTs issued by the NCIP
as of June 2015, only 59 have formulated their Ancestral Domain
Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP), a
development plan required by the IPRA.
▪ The communities with ADSDPPs were assisted by various
private and public agencies, the NCIP and local government
units. It is noted, however, that some ADSDPPs were formulated
through the help of mining companies and electric companies.
▪ At present, none of the ADSDPPs formulated have been
incorporated into the Barangay (village) development plans,
resulting in conflicts in development priorities between the
local government unit and the indigenous peoples’ communities,
and in non-implementation of ADSDPPs because of lack of
resources from the government.
▪ Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representation in the Local
Sangunians could help address bad situations but this is another
problematic area.
▪ The following slides are based on personal readings,
experiences and analyses of the author of the current
undertaking...
▪ In RA 7942 (Mining Act of 1995), DENR AO 2010-21
(Revised IRR of the Mining Act) and the FPIC Guidelines
of 2012, royalty due to ICC/IP community is not less
than 1% of gross output.
▪ If IPs own the resources, why only 1% Royalty Share is
required?

▪ Recently, Community Royalty Development Plan is


required by NCIP, who is teaching/supporting the IPs in
crafting the document?
▪ Based on the FPIC Guidelines of 2012, the benefits from
Social Development Management Program, Environmental
Protection and Enhancement Plan and Corporate Social
Responsibility should not be confused with or deducted
from the Royalty Share of the ICC/IP community.

▪ However, In Sec. 16, Chapter IV, of the consolidated


Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Mining Act
(DENR AO 2010-21, a mining contractor or permit holder
may charge or credit expenses for community
development to the royalty.
▪ The following slides are based on the documents
prepared by Mr. Ed Quitoriano, Managing Director of
RiskAsia Consultancy. The documents highlight the
continuing minoritization of IPs in the Philippines in the
context of Extractive Industry.
▪ As of 2010, there were 309 FPIC and MOA cases recorded by the
NCIP. In 2013, the agency supported a study “An Assessment of
the Implementation of the Free and Prior Informed Consent
(FPIC) in the Philippines.” The study examined 34 of the 309
FPIC cases on record. Findings of the study reveal that:

Not more than 50% (of 34 cases examined) attained the


status of full and faithful compliance of the FPIC guidelines;
▪ As of 2010, there were 309 FPIC and MOA cases recorded by the
NCIP. In 2013, the agency supported a study “An Assessment of
the Implementation of the Free and Prior Informed Consent
(FPIC) in the Philippines.” The study examined 34 of the 309
FPIC cases on record. Findings of the study reveal that:

In 38.2% of cases, there were violations in the actual conduct of the


FPIC;
▪ As of 2010, there were 309 FPIC and MOA cases recorded by the
NCIP. In 2013, the agency supported a study “An Assessment of
the Implementation of the Free and Prior Informed Consent
(FPIC) in the Philippines.” The study examined 34 of the 309
FPIC cases on record. Findings of the study reveal that:

In 29.4% of cases, there were violations in the signing


of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and post-FPIC
activities; and
▪ As of 2010, there were 309 FPIC and MOA cases recorded by the
NCIP. In 2013, the agency supported a study “An Assessment of
the Implementation of the Free and Prior Informed Consent
(FPIC) in the Philippines.” The study examined 34 of the 309
FPIC cases on record. Findings of the study reveal that:

There is widespread negative perception regarding the


fulfillment of the agreed-upon terms and conditions of the MOA.
▪ Related case studies by Ed Quitoriano (2016) of FPIC
and MOA between IP communities and large mining
companies in Taganito (Claver, Surigao del Norte) and
Bayog (Zamboanga del Sur)) based on the FPIC
Guidelines of 2006, confirmed earlier findings and
further revealed that:
▪ IP communities entered into MOA negotiations without
adequate preparation either in terms of procedure of
the negotiations, structure of the negotiating parties,
framework of bargaining for the negotiables and clarity
on non-negotiables; and, training of negotiators;
▪ IP communities had little (or none at all) time to review
the contents of the MOA;
▪ IP communities, or even their leaders, do not have copy
of the MOA they signed on; and,
▪ Grievances continue to plague communities due to lack
of transparency on implementation of the MOA
provisions and lack of references (lack of copy of the
MOA) to inform actions towards resolving issues.
QUO VADIS,
DEAR IPs???
WHERE ARE YOU GOING,

DEAR IPs???
MATLASA
YOKAA!!!