User:Tbart1994/sandbox

= Indigenous Peoples' Rights in the Philippines = The indigenous peoples in the Philippines are groups which enjoy special protection based on their cultural distinctiveness and their historical ties to specific territories within the Philippines. Legislation exists both locally and internationally in acknowledgement of these group's experiences of exploitation and marginalization throughout history. While not all indigenous peoples in the Philippines rely on subsistence-based farming of their ancestral lands with a fair number of groups like the Badjao being nomadic in nature, many indigenous peoples are particularly vulnerable to the loss of their sovereign lands as modes of documentation of land claims are often oral and conflicted with the State's historical documents.[1]

The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, Republic Act No. 8371, is the law passed by the government in order to address their needs such protection of their culture, traditions and ancestral domains. This is also in accordance to the UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous People.

Demographics
There are no recent figures on the population of indigenous peoples. Both proper documentation and the nomadic nature of some tribes have made a full census difficult to implement An unofficial survey conducted by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) estimated the population of indigenous peoples in the Philippines to be between 12–15 million, but the actual population may be higher.

Indigenous Peoples make up nearly 14 - 17% of the Philippines’ population. There are 110 ethnolinguistic groups who reside mostly in Northern Luzon (Cordillera Administrative Region, 33%), in Mindanao (61%) and in Visayas (6%).

Distribution
As of 1998, this is the list of the identified Indigenous People in the Philippines and their location.  These indigenous peoples' groups exhibit varying social, cultural, political and linguistic features.

Economic
Asian Development Bank's report on indigenous peoples and poverty reduction in the Philippines showed that the incidence of poor families within the indigenous minorities did not decrease significantly between 1988 and the passing of the IPRA despite the overall growth of income in the country. They remain among the poorest and most disadvantaged. The incidence of poverty for IPs worsened in regions which had the most IP tribes, despite these regions experiencing a large increase in their average income. This implies that the poverty gap between IPs and the rest of the country is quite high. Inequality in access to economic development is still a pressing issue today for the indigenous peoples of the Philippines.

Social
They have been subject to historical discrimination and marginalization. They often face exclusion, loss of ancestral lands, displacement, pressures to and destruction of traditional ways of life and practices, and loss of identity and culture. In some cases it is marked with armed conflict such as the 40 year old conflict in Mindanao, involving communist insurgents and secessionists.

International Legislation on IP Rights
The United Nations acknowledges the rights of the indigenous people all over the world. The article on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is recognized in the international sphere and was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly during its 61st session at UN Headquarters in New York City on 13 September 2007.[37]

The Declaration is structured as a United Nations resolution, "with 23 preambular clauses and 46 articles concerning the collective and individual rights of the indigenous peoples in different parts of the world including protection of their cultural heritage and manifestations of their cultures including human and genetic resources."[37]

The Philippines did not immediately support the draft. It abstained when the first votes were called, despite the existence of the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997. The Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General expressed their opposition to the adoption, as they still had to study whether this was consistent with the Philippine Constitution. Furthermore, the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, which was the representative organization of the Philippine IPs did not endorse it at first. However, after reviewing the declaration for many times, the Philippines supported and voted a yes.[38]

In the end, the final result of the votes for the passing of the charter resulted to 143 yes votes, 4 no votes (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and U.S.) and 11 abstentions.

Early Beginnings
Early beginnings of the establishment of laws for the indigenous people are focused on their right on the land. This is because the land is the most tangible means to ensure the survival of the indigenous communities and culture.

Our legal system regarding lands is influenced by the colonization of the Spaniards. The Regalian Doctrine, first introduced to our legal system by Spain or the Maura Law, was reinstated in the Constitution of the Philippines. This legitimized the wholesale land grabbing of the government and provided for easy titling or grant of lands to migrant homesteaders within the traditional areas of the ICCs.

Year 1909, in the case of Carino vs. Insular Government, the court has recognized long occupancy of land by an indigenous member of the cultural communities as one of private ownership, which, in legal concept, is termed “native title”. This case paved the way for the government to review the so-called “native title” or “private right.” In the year 1919, the Second Public Land Act was enacted, recognizing the right of ownership of any native of the country who, since July 4, 1907, or prior thereto, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract of agricultural public land.[39]

In 1936, Commonwealth Act No.141, amended by R.A. 3872 of 1964, was passed which provides that members of the national cultural minorities who have resided on agricultural, public land since July 4, 1955 are entitled to recognition of ownership whether or not the land has been certified as “disposable.” They shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all conditions essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title.[4]

In the 1970s, the laws protecting indigenous people’s lands expanded  to territorial and bigger domains. Under Bureau of Forestry Administrative Order No. 11 of 1970, all forest concessions were made subject to the private rights of cultural minorities within the area as evidenced by their occupation existing at the time a license is issued by the government. The Revised Forestry Code of 1975 (Presidential Decree 705 under President Marcos) defines this "private right” of as “places of abode and worship, burial grounds and old clearings.”[40]

In 1978, the Presidential Arm for National Minorities (PANAMIN) was authorized to design, implement and maintain settlements among the National Minorities. Prior to this, a Presidential Decree was issued in 1974, “declaring all agricultural lands occupied and cultivated by members of the national Cultural Communities since 1964 as alienable and disposable, except the islands of Panay and Negros and the provinces of Abra, Quezon, Benguet and Camarines which became effective on March 11, 1984.” [4]

The most recent laws before the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 was passed which recognize the existence of ancestral land right are the Organic Act of Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (RA 6734, 1989), and the Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region (RA 6766, 1989).[4]

Historical Evolution of RA. 8371
The decrees that have been passed fail to encompass all the needs of the indigenous people primarily because of failure in implementation and sole focus on the land and domains only.

Because of this, a more comprehensive law is needed that “seeks to stop prejudice against indigenous people through recognition of certain rights over their ancestral lands, and to live in accordance recognize and protect the rights of the indigenous people not only to their ancestral domain but to social justice and human rights, self-determination and empowerment, and their cultural integrity, [4]” This then gave birth to movements for a comprehensive law that will protect not only the lands, but human rights of the Filipino indigenous people.

CIPRAD or the Coalition for Indigenous People’s Rights and Ancestral Domains is an alliance of Indigenous People’s Organizations (IPOs) and non-government organizations (NGOs) created to pursue the advocacy for IP rights and ancestral domains. The Coalition is participated by IPOs in the Cordillera, Region I, Nueva Vizcaya, Cagayan, Caraballo, Sierra Madre, Quezon, Aurora, Quirino, Nueva Ecija, Zambales, Pampanga, Bulacan, Mindoro Occidental, Palawan, Panay, Davao, Cagayan, Cotabato and Zamboanga. CIPRAD partnered with various NGOs organizations such as Episcopal Commission on Indigenous Peoples, National Peace Conference, Center for Living Heritage and PANLIPI (Legal Assistance Center for Indigenous Filipinos) in order to lobby for the IPRA or Indigenous People’s Rights Act.

IPRA, formerly known as Ancestral Domain Bill, was first filed in the Congress sometime in 1987 under the Senate Bill No. 909 authored by Senator Santanina Rasul, Senator Joseph Estrada and Senator Alberto Romulo, during the 8th Congress, but was never enacted in to law. In the 9th Congress, Senator Rasul introduced Senate Bill No. 1029 and Senator Macapagal-Arroyo introduced Senate Bill No. 1849. However, the bill was never sponsored and deliberated upon in the floor.

Despite these failed efforts, the IPOs decided to give it another try. Decisions have been made during social negotiations among NGOs and POs to rename the bill from Ancestral Domain Bill to Indigenous Peoples Rights Act to emphasize the holistic approach and character of the bill. A consensus was made on December 1995 between IP representatives and NGO representatives. Seven non-negotiable points of the bill that were promoted are the following:

a) recognition of native ttitle and rights of IPs to ancestral domains, b )respect for the right to cultural integrity, c) recognition of indigenous peoples’ political structures and governance, d) delivery of basic services to the indigenous peoples, e) respect for human rights, f) elimination of discrimination, g) and creation of an office that would cater to the IPs needs.[4]

Year 1996, during the 10th Congress, Senator Juan Flavier sponsored the Bill no. 1728 which meant that he has to defend the bill in all the Senate deliberations and discussions. In his sponsorship speech, he discussed the legal bases for the bill which can be found in the 1987 Constitution. He also discussed the basic rights of the ICCs, the contents of the bill itself, and the immediate need of protection of the Filipino Indigenous People.[4]

Despite difficult hurdles and amendments enacted in the Congress which nearly brought the movement to its death, the House of Representatives finally approved the bill late in September 1997. President Fidel V. Ramos signed it on 22 October 1997 officially making it Republic Act No. 8371 Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 which aims to “Recognize, Protect and Promote the Rights of Indigenous cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPS) and for other Purposes.”

National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP)
The National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP) is a government organization, which aims to “protect and promote the interest and well being of indigenous people” in relation to the IPs’ beliefs, institutions, and practices. It is a branch of the Philippines’ Office of the President.

It is composed of seven commissioners, the first of which is the Chairperson. Currently, the NCIP’s Chairperson is Atty. Leonor Oralde-Quintayo. She was assigned as the Commissioner for the Southern and Eastern Mindanao on July 11, 2013.

The NCIP is responsible for putting up policies and programs supporting the policies put up in the new law.

Indigenous Peoples/ndigenous Cultural Communities
The term indigenous cultural communities (ICCs) was used in the Philippine Constitution to describe a group of people sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial, occupied, possessed and utilized a territory. Time immemorial refers to a period of time when as far back as memory can go, certain ICCs/IPs are known to have occupied, possessed and utilized a defined territory devolved to them by operation of custom law/traditions or inherited from their ancestors.

Both the terms IPs and ICCs refer to homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as a community on communally bounded and defined territory, sharing common bonds of customs, traditions and other cultural traits, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads to colonization, non-indigenous religions and culture. Whereas, the Filipino majority learned very well the ways of the colonial masters by adapting to their laws and practices, the minority (IPs), consciously asserted the integrity of their ancestral territories, pre-hispanic native culture and justice systems which are viewed as diametrically opposed to the majority’s world view, but which the IPRA law attempts to recognize and interface with the national legal system.[44]

Ancestral Domains
The 1997 IPRA Law defines ancestral domains as “areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the present even when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals or corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include forests, pastures, residential, agricultural and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable otherwise, hunting grounds, burial rounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs and IPs who are still nomadic and or shifting cultivators."  [45].

Ancestral domains include the spiritual and cultural bonds to the areas which the ICCs/IPs possess, occupy and use and to which they have claims of ownership (inherited from ancestors). This generally refer to areas which they have possessed at a period of time when as far back as memory can go. Proofs of time immemorial possession main may include testimony of elders, historical accounts, anthropological or ethnographic studies, names of places, using dialect or language of indigenous peoples, genealogy, treaties or pacts, between or among indigenous peoples and or other populations.

Ancestral Lands
Ancestral lands, as stated in the law, refer to "lands occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group ownership, continuously, to the present even when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects, and other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots."[45]

Ancestral land owners are given the right to transfer these ancestral lands and the right to redeem ancestral lands lost through vitiated consent. This is different with ancestral domains in a sense that this specifically refers to the land while the domain may include land, water, and aerial territories.

Representation
=== NGO  === Here are some of the organisations that support IRPA law and their functions:
 * Asian Development Bank (ADB)- gives loan to government     to create projects such as Cordillera Agricultural Resource Management      (CHARM) that help the development of IP's. The CHARM project involves      helping the IPs in Cordillera to develop the agricultural resouce of IPs      land. They also helped in project Mindanao Basic Education Development      project to give poor some education


 * International Labor Organization- made some     conventions regarding IPs such as poverty program, regarding on how IPs      can assert more control and development of their own lands, regarding      steps on how can IPs protect and guarantee their right of ownership and      possesion, regarding the responsiblities of government to ensure the      rights of IPs.


 * Philippine Action for     Intercultural Development- helped the IPs regarding community mapping,      where they help IPs in legalizing the boundaries of their respective lands


 * National Confederation of     Indigenous Peoples - aims to unite the different IP rights organization to      fight for their rights. Their past projects includes Ancestral Domain      Sustainable Development Protection Plan (ADSDPP), demarcation of      Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) on the ground in favor of the      Ati in Boracay Island etc.


 * Tribal Communities Association of the Philippine- provides legal assistance to IPs

Current Issues and Concerns
The Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines are deteriorating in numbers particularly those in Mindanao because they are robbed of their ancestral domains thus becoming exposed to poverty; they are also facing violence from other groups; and they are being led to turn their back on their culture as a result of progress and development.

In August 9, 2010, World Indigenous People’s Day in the Philippines, indigenous communities issued a call to the government. Gathered at the University Hotel in UP Diliman were 65 indigenous people’s organizations with the purpose of drafting a “Indigenous Peoples’ Agenda” and submit this to the new president. Exactly two years later, in August 9, 2012, headed by the Philippine Task Force for Indigenous Peoples’ Rights (TFIP), IP groups wrote an open letter to the president whom, according to Jill K. Cariño, TFIP convenor, have not responded to their earlier efforts.

The concerns they issued in 2010 were the following:

·      National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), the titling of ancestral lands and domain, Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP);

·      Indigenous peoples and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs);

·      The peace talks between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the Bangsa Moro Juridical Entity (BJE), and the National Democratic Front (NDF);

·      Human rights abuses and violations inflicted upon indigenous peoples;

·      Mining and other development projects; and

·      Conflicts between the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) and other laws.

This therefore raised the question of whether the Republic Act No. 8371 was able to fulfill its intent of providing rights to the country’s indigenous peoples.

Ancestral Domains Claims
Chapter III, section 7 of the Republic Act No. 8371 of 1997 covers the 8 Rights to Ancestral Domain. This chapter focuses on the identification and protection of the entitlement of the Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICC), and the Indigenous Peoples (IPs) as the proper owners of their ancestral land.

This was implemented in order to stop the historical injustices experienced by the IPs. Despite the implementation of the law since the year 1997, the IPs of the Philippines still persistently experience injustices. The IPs are struggling fighting for their rights because they feel like the government has continued to neglect them.

The main criticism concerning R.A. 8371 is that it is ambiguous. One of the issues it encountered was that it is inconsistent and conflicting with the Philippines’ constitution.

This has become the case because of the doctrine of jura regalia, which means that “all lands of the public domain belong to the state”. The next problem encountered was that the ancestral domain rights’ legal characterisation as “private but communal” differentiated from the Philippines’ civil law’s idea of co-ownership of real property. This meant that areas in ancestral domains is shared by the members of the community, but that does not mean that they are considered as co-owners of the said property according the the New Civil Code.

Section 57 of chapter VIII of the Republic Act No. 8371 of 1997 is seen as problematic because being given the right to be prioritised in terms of development, exploitation, extraction, or harvesting of natural resources belonging in ancestral domains does not necessarily mean that an IP member is given the right of ownership of the said natural resources. Section 57 does not really reject the jura regalia, also known as the Regalian Doctrine or the Doctrine of Discipline expressed in the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Philippine Constitutions. According to the constitutions mentioned, the Regalian Doctrine expresses that “all lands of the public domain, as well as all natural resources enumerated therein, whether private or public land, belong to the State.” Most argue that the IPRA is flawed because it violates this. Instead of protecting the rights of the IPs, Section 57 strengthens argument that all natural resources found in ancestral domains belong to the State.

Mindanao Non-Moro Tribes
See also: Moro insurgency in the Philippines

The Mindanao region continues to experience bouts of armed conflict which puts IP members at risk of losing their ancestral domains and lives. The violence alongside State regulated Land Tenure Laws have resulted in the gradual displacement of indigenous tribes from their territories. The current Republic Act 9054 which created the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao has rendered the NCIP inoperational within the region, which consequentially resulted to the lack of any legal and structural bases protecting the rights of the non-Moro or Lumad tribes. Many of these non-Moro tribes do not identify with the Bangsamoro and have spoken out multiple times on their exclusion from the peace-process talks. The history of violence in Mindanao along with the lack of supporting legislation has placed IPs in the Mindanao region in a particularly vulnerable position compared to indigenous peoples located in different areas of the country.

Bangsamoro Basic Law
The Bangsamoro Basic Law has been greatly criticised by indigenous peoples' organizations and advocates as falling short in meeting the human rights standards set by both local and international law. UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples', Victoria Tauli-Corpuz has pointed out that provisions in the BBL for indigenous peoples has diminished the foundational right to self determination as it subjects the traditional possession of lands and resources by IPs to judicial affirmation by the would be installed government. Tauli-Corpuz writes that this "presumes that the ancestral domains or ancestral lands of non-Moro indigenous peoples are public lands which they are only occupying and, thus, need judicial affirmation to confirm their rights over these lands."

Casiguran Agta
There are documentation of violent homicide cases of Casiguran Agta caused by conflicts between them and non IP farmers in the area known to be the center of conflict between the New People's Army and the Philippine Military. Conflicts between state land regulations and the ensuing violence have exacerbated tensions between Agta tribes and non indigenous peoples farmers. This often results with the displacement of Agta tribes. Thomas N. Headland also documents several other alleged human rights violations including the massacre of at least 23 Agta adults and several children by nonIP farmers in the 1940s.

IPRA and Commercial Sector
Several organizations representing the agribusiness, logging, mining, and multinational interests are against the implementation of IPRA. These organizations are said to be well-represented in the Congress. This has resulted to the Eighth and Ninth Congress to express resistance towards the IPRA. A lumber magnate-Congressman in the year 1992 then deemed the bill as unconstitutional. This therefore received a resolution from the Speaker, which caused the discussion of the bill to be suspended indefinitely. Two years after, the Chair of the Senate Committee on National Cultural Communities rejected the bill. However, due to the then president, Fidel V. Ramos’ support, the opposition of the bill was then muted in the Tenth Congress.

Implementation of the IPRA has then pushed through in the year 1997. After doing so, organizations against IPRA then reappeared. Members of the mining industry have then expressed apprehensions, threatening to withdraw their investments because the NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, s. 1998 might void their existing contracts with ancestral domains. This then caused the formation of NCIP Administrative Order No. 3, series of 1998. This served as a form of compromise. This acknowledges the existence of all contracts, leases, licenses, permits, and other forms of rights to own lands or properties within ancestral domains already existing before the NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, s. 1998 was put into effect.

Despite the execution of IPRA, several tribes of the Philippines have continued to  deprivation from the rights given to them.

Surigao del Sur Mamanwa Tribe
In the year 2010, the Ancestral domain resource managers of the members of the Mamanwa tribe of Surigao del Sur have failed to protect the tribes’s rights. Development projects such as logging, and mining have pushed through in their territories, thus failing to comply with their consent process, governance, and right to self-determination.

Zamboanga Peninsula Subanen Tribe
During the same year, Subanen leaders in the Zamboanga Peninsula were disappointed with the government because they failed to protect the Subanen ancestral domains. This caused the Subanen leaders to approach members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) for advice on protecting their lands against international and local mining companies. One company that stood out was TVI Resource and Development, which is a Canadian mining firm. Subanen leaders were strongly against the mining firm because the firm was said to ruin the few remaining habitats for the future generations of the Subanen tribe. It also caused a great damage in the lies of the Subanen tribe, and polluted their air and waters.

Zamboanga Sibugay Lumad Group
On October 2008, the Lumads organized a conference in Naga, Zamboanga Sibugay involving several indigenous people groups. In this summit, the indigenous people groups questioned the utility of IRPA in protecting their rights described in the IRPA. In this summit, the indigenous people groups discussed the instances the Philippine Law hindered their rights promised by IRPA. Primarily, the inconsistencies lie in how the Philippine Law prohibited them from following their customs and traditions that is centered around the indigenous people's governance of their land.

The limitations and prohibitions extends not only to their basic needs but also prevents them from performing important rituals in their lives. This includes wedding ceremonies that are normally held without cost but costs around 50 to 500 pesos when NCIP officials conduct it that is burdensome to IPs who lack sources of funds.