View
3
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Republic of the Philippines
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Consolidated 2017 Report
on the Human Rights Situation of
Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines
Chapter 1.
Background
It has been twenty years since the Philippines enacted Republic Act No. 8371 or the
Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and ten years since the international community
adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
Conscious of this fact, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHR) inquires on
the current situation of the Filipino Indigenous Peoples and has launched the National Inquiry on
this subject on May 25-26, 2017 at Iloilo City, where the first public hearing was also held. The
National Inquiry is intended to:
• Identify adherence of laws, policies, rules, regulations, programmes, and projects
concerning Indigenous Peoples with the standards of human rights;
• Settle issues of facts relevant to the human rights situation of Indigenous Peoples (IPs)
with focus on the three main thematic concerns: 1) the protection and promotion of the
Indigenous Peoples' land and cultural rights, 2) the effectiveness of the current
government process to obtain the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous
Peoples; and 3) the state of economic and social development of Indigenous Peoples in
the Philippines;
• Review the impacts of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 and identify areas of
improvement; and
• Increase understanding of human rights generally and commitment to better human rights
observance through collaborative efforts that the Indigenous Peoples, as rights-holders,
and the duty-bearers shall identify through the guidance of the Commission on Human
Rights as lead convenor of the National Inquiry.
Several public hearings were also convened in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan (August 15-
16, 2017), Tagaytay City, Cavite (August 22-23, 2017), Davao City (September 27-28, 2017),
and Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental (October 26-27, 2017).
The National Inquiry Approach
The national inquiry process is developed and applied by National Human Rights
Institutions (NHRIs) within the Asia Pacific region.1 It has been found to be especially useful in
enabling a broad examination of a complex, systemic pattern of human rights violations. It deals
1 Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions and Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and
Humanitarian Law September 2012 (updated May 2017). Manual on Conducting a National Inquiry into
Systemic Patterns of Human Rights Violations.
2
with large situations rather than individual complaints. While it can still result in
recommendations that provide remedies for individuals, its principal focus is the systemic pattern
of violation. “Systemic” or “historic pattern of human rights violation” refers to a complex
situation subsuming two or more continuing or recurring instances of reported human rights
violation resulting from causes attributed to the action or inaction of either state or non-state
actors over a certain period of time. Action or omission of the state pertains or refers to certain
policies and programs that have impacts on a large group or sector of the population or
community deemed marginalized, disadvantaged, or vulnerable.
Having this in mind, the national inquiry has high educational value. It introduces,
exposes and explains a complex situation to the broad community, offering an analysis based in
human rights law and providing recommendations for systemic responses.2 As such, the current
process has been more of an inquiry on the solutions to the problems – Philippine style.
The report on the National Inquiry provides the threshold information on the situation of
the Filipino Indigenous Peoples for the particular period, and the recommendations shall be
translated into policies and programs. The report guides the operationalization of the Indigenous
Peoples' Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO), a structure under the auspices of the CHR, which
monitors the status and progress of implementation of the recommendations. The monitoring
function is a cooperative and shared effort between and among CHR, the Indigenous Peoples, the
government agencies, and other support groups. More importantly, CHR has established more
direct linkage with the IPs through the national inquiry, serving as CHR's ground monitors. The
inquiry does not end in the publication of one report. Sustained efforts are necessary to follow-up
and improve the human rights conditions of the Filipino IPs, thus ascertaining that CHR will
issue annual reports on the topic.
During the public hearings nationwide, resource persons who are members of the
Indigenous Peoples (IPs) are present. They are the Akeanon Bukidnon, Ati Tumalalod, Ati Tina
Hamtic, Iraynon Bukidnon, Panay Bukidnon, Sulod Bukidnon, Eskaya, Ata/Ati, Tribu Bukidnon,
Tagbanua, Cagayanen, Palaw'an, Buhid, Sibuyan Mangyan, Taubuid, Mangyan Tagabukid, Ati,
Bantoanon, Cuyonan, Batac, Dumagat, Ayta/Agta, Dumagat-Remontado, Kankanaey, Abeling,
Bago, Ilongot, Manide, Kalanguya, Ayta Abellen, Teduray, Lambangian, T'boli, Erumanen ne
Menuvu, Tagakaulo, Matigsalog, Dulangan Manobo, Bagobo-Tagabawa, Manobo-B’laan,
Dibabawon, Mansaka, Mandaya, Ata-Manobo, Kalagan, Ata, Obu-Manobo, Bagobo-Klata,
Sama, Sama of Tandubas, Sama-Dilaut of Sitangkai, Sama of Jolo, Yakan of Basilan, Sama of
Simunul, Tausug of Jolo, Bajau of Bangas Island, Kolibugan of Zamboanga Sibugay, Sama
Bajau of Zamboanga City, Sama Banguingui of Zamboanga City, Kolibugan of Zamboanga del
Norte, Talaandig of Talakag, Bukidnon, Umayamnon of Bukidnon, Mamanwa/Kaotawan of
Surigao del Sur, Banwaon of Agusan del Sur, Higaonon.
Also in attendance as resource persons during the hearings are representatives from the
government, such as the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), National
Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), Department
of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Land Management Bureau (LMB),
Environmental Management Bureau (LMB), Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB),
2 Ibid.
3
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of the
Interior and Local Government (DILG), National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA),
National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC), Department of Education (DepEd), Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Palawan Council for Sustainable Development
(PCSD), Department of Tourism (DOT) and Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA).
There were several other government agencies; such as the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), National Housing Authority (NHA), Social Security System (SSS),
Department of Health (DOH), Philippine National Police (PNP), the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP), and Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives (IPMRs) from the
regions of Luzon, who earlier participated during the March 2-3, 2017 Baguio Conference on the
Indigenous Peoples' Right to Development where the design of the National Inquiry was
originally deliberated.
Towards an Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO)
As part of the process of the national inquiry, we consolidated the various comments and
recommendations of resource persons from both the Indigenous Peoples (IP) rights holders and
key state duty bearers on the proposal for an INDIGEOUS PEOPLES HUMAN RIGHTS
OBSERVATORY or IPHRO. A conceptual framework of the IPHRO was developed from the
analysis of the situation of the Filipino Indigenous Peoples as well as the analysis of the gaps
from the responses and commitments of key state duty bearers.
From this conceptual framework, we identified the operative elements of the proposed
IPHRO including the key set of issues that affects the fulfillment of IP rights that will be the
focus of its monitoring & evaluation, its possible component programs as well as an initial
design for a Results-Based Management (RBM) and Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA)
M&E system and tool with a set of proposed outcome and impact indicators. The proposed M&E
system and tool were developed utilizing the O.PE.R.A. (Outcome, Policy Efforts, Resources &
Assessment) framework of ESCR (Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights) monitoring as well as
the Indigenous Navigator tool recommended by the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.
Participants of the IP National Inquiry which included relevant national government
agencies, leaders of IP communities and IPMRs (IP Mandatory Representatives) were consulted
through three (3) main workshops, as follows:
a) Workshop 1-A was on the government agencies mandates vis-a-vis promotion & protection
of IP rights. In parallel, the concurrent workshop 1-B for the IP representatives focused on
their human rights situations per locality, relevance of the government agencies IP-related
programs & projects and challenges encountered in demanding services and support from
the state for IP-related needs.
b) Workshop 2 was on monitoring fulfillment of IP rights, including existing M&E systems
used by state and non-state actors to monitor fulfillment of IP rights
c) Workshop 3 was on the initial notions of an IP Rights Observatory and the national inquiry
4
on IP rights focusing on issues and concerns that these will covered as well as proposed
operative elements and processes that should be incorporated in the IPHRO.
The results of all these public hearings and workshops were presented to representatives of major
IPOs and national government agencies in a final validation workshop held last 20 November
2017 where the preliminary findings were presented on the situation of Filipino Indigenous
Peoples as well as the operative elements of a proposed IPHRO. Major commitments of NGAs
were validated as well as part of this process.
Understanding Indigenous Peoples (IP) Rights
Under Republic Act 8731 otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 and as
reiteration of several provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Filipino Indigenous Peoples
(IPs)/ Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) are endowed by 4 bundles of rights as follows
with the following key provisions:
Table 1: Details of the 4 Bundles of IP Rights in IPRA
Right to
Ancestral
Domain &
Land
• Right to Ownership
• Right to Develop Land & Natural Resources
• Right to Stay in Territories and Not to be Displaced Therefrom
• Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants & Other Entities
• Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water
• Right to Claim Parts of Reservation
• Right to Resolve Conflicts According to Customary Laws
• Right to Transfer Land or Property (only between and among
members of IPs/ICCs)
• Right to Redemption
• Option to Secure Patents Under Commonwealth Act No. 141, as
amended
Right to Self-
Governance
and Empowerment
• Recognition of Authentic Leadership
• Authentication of Indigenous Leadership Titles and Certificates of
Tribal Membership
• Indigenous Political Leadership Development
• Recognition of Socio-Political Institutions and Structures
• Support for Autonomous Regions
• Mandatory Representation in Policy Making Bodies
• Right to Determine and Decide Own Development and Right to
Develop as Peoples
• Tribal Barangays
• Right to Organize and Associate for Collective Actions
• Registration Requirements for Indigenous Peoples Organizations
(IPO)
• Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
5
Right to
Social Justice
& Human
Rights
• Equal Protection Before the Law
• Rights During Armed Conflict
• Freedom from Discrimination
• Right to Employment
• Right to Basic Services
• Rights of Women
• Rights of Children and Youth
• Right to Education
Rights to
Cultural
Integrity
• Protection of indigenous culture, traditions and institutions;
• Right to establish and control educational and learning systems;
• Recognition of cultural diversity;
• Right to name, identity and history;
• Community intellectual property rights;
• Protection of Religious, Cultural Sites and Ceremonies
• Right to indigenous spiritual beliefs and traditions;
• Protection of Indigenous Sacred Places
• Right to protection of indigenous knowledge systems and practices;
• Right to science and technology.
Under the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), besides
the right to enjoyment of all human rights & what are similarly provided in the IPRA, IPs are
endowed further with the following additional rights:
1. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct
peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence,
including forcibly removing children of the group to another group (Article 7)
2. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or
destruction of their culture (Article 8)
3. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and to
have access to all forms of non-indigenous media without discrimination.(Article 16)
4. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for
exercising their right to development. In particular, indigenous peoples have the right to be
actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and
social programs affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programs through
their own institutions (Article 23)
5. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual
relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories,
waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future
generations in this regard.(Article 25)
6. States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous
6
Figure 1 : 4-Bundles of IP Rights as Pre-Requisites
for the Fulfillment of IPs Rights to Development
materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free,
prior and informed consent. (Article 29)
7. Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless
justified by a relevant public interest or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the
indigenous peoples concerned.(Article 30)
8. Indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by international borders, have the right to
maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation, including activities for spiritual,
cultural, political, economic and social purposes, with their own members as well as other
peoples across borders.(Article 36)
9. Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and technical assistance from
States and through international cooperation, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this
Declaration (Article 39)
In Article 23 of UNDRIP & other related provisions on Right to Development of IPs, it is clear
that the nature of the RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT as an
“…inalienable human right by virtue of which every human
person and all peoples are entitled to participate in,
contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and
political development, in which all human rights and
fundamental freedoms can be fully realized”, are first
subjected to what constitute IP Rights.
Thus, in the context of the Philippines and considering
UNDRIP, before the RIGHT TO DEVELOMENT of IPs is
pursued, the nature and definition of what development
means to Filipino Indigenous Peoples must first be
established through the substantial fulfillment of the 4
bundles of IP rights.
Methodology, Scope and Delimitation
The national inquiry comprises several methodologies such as desk research, review of
existing records, individual case conferences, submission and evaluation of written inputs,
individual key informant interviews, focus group discussions, workshops, community dialogues,
immersions, ocular inspections and follow-up sessions. Conduct of public hearings is a very
important part of the whole inquiry process, albeit it is not by itself the national inquiry. In
addition, while originally developed as a mechanism to inquire on systemic human rights
violations, the national inquiry also included workshop sessions to identify the specific solutions
to the problems and to plan for their implementation. The invited resources persons, particularly
the complainants, were also asked to provide recommendations, while good practices were
shared and recognized. Being a consensus-building mechanism, the national inquiry is truly a
venue for both the rights-holders and the duty-bearers to engage in a partnership to resolve the
issues.
7
The conference, public hearings, and workshops held from March to November 2017,
were avenues for a rapid assessment of the human rights situation of the IPs. Primary data were
obtained from oral testimonies and written submissions of resource persons who were invited
from IP communities and government agencies. The IP resource persons in attendance during the
public hearings have been confirmed by the NCIP. CHR selected them on the basis of the
following considerations:
• Traditional tribal leaders from their respective Indigenous Political Structures (IPS)
• Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPOs) representing certain tribes
• IPs involved in resolved, closed, or terminated cases filed with CHR
• Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives (IPMRs) covering the geographical areas
and coming from the respective tribe
The process of public hearings has been guided and summarized in the following
parameters and approaches:
1. The resource persons, particularly from the IP communities who are being categorized as
Rights-Holders, provided information on the issues that they deemed significant for the
Duty-Bearers to address. They publicly pronounced under oath during the hearings their
complaints about the status quo, thus providing leads to systemic gaps in policy that must
be addressed.
2. The Duty-Bearers, either admitted, denied or provided a different information about a
particular issue. The Duty-Bearers did this under oath also.
3. Repetition of the same issues, if raised in different locale or setting, further strengthened
the view that the issues are systemic, thus establishes a pattern that leads to determination
of the causes, effects and the probable solutions. Triangulation method has been applied
all throughout the inquiry process when hearings were held to cover all regions of the
Philippines.
4. The issues are arranged and classified into major thematic areas. Themes that are
distinctive for IPs alone, given their special situation, are being emphasized herein.
5. The issues are evaluated using human rights standards and verified through other
references. As an added value of this report, human rights principles are mainstreamed
and brought forth into the consciousness of the reader. The report provides answers to the
questions: When are there human rights violations? When are there none? When are there
concerns that could be prevented from becoming a full blown human rights violation?
The hearings in Iloilo City covers the IPs in Visayas, while the IPs of MIMAROPA
Region were included during the hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. IPs of Regions III,
IV-A, and V were involved during the public hearing in Tagaytay City, Cavite; IPs of Regions
XI, XII and Maguindanao during the Davao City public hearing, and the IPs of Regions IX, X,
XIII, and BaSulTa during the public hearing in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental.
8
The whole National Inquiry has been patterned after the reporting cycle of the human
rights treaty bodies, as illustrated in the figure3 below:
Figure 2 : Reporting Cycle of the Human Rights treaty bodies
Still in the second phase of the cycle, this 2017 Report provides information wherein the
National Human Rights Institution in this case presents the list of issues. The 2017 Report
consolidates the statements of the IP Resource Persons and how the Duty-Bearers responded
during the public hearings, among others. Since this is primarily an inquiry on solutions, five
public hearings were sparing, because searching for effective and lasting solutions would involve
a perpetual circular process so long as problems arise. Chapter 4, of this Report describes the
next steps of the National Inquiry, such as the conduct of continuing dialogues on specific issues.
3 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2015) Handbook for Human Rights Treaty Body Members
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/HR_PUB_15_2_TB%20Handbook_EN.pdf (accessed Nov. 23,
2017)
9
Chapter 2.
Findings and Assessment
Through the National Inquiry, the CHR has found facts that are presented under the
following interrelated themes: a.) Indigenous identity is threatened; b.) Non-IP's encroachment
into ancestral domains as a threat to the indigenous identity; c.) Limitations to the right of
ownership over ancestral domains; d.) Scope of free, prior and informed consent of IPs; e.) IPs'
decision-making processes and governance structures; f.) Right to Development of IPs; g.)
Opportunities for development provided by Duty-Bearers; h.) Development, discrimination and
the vulnerable sectors of the IP Community (i.e., women, children, elderly); i.) Right to cultural
integrity. We now elaborate each themes below:
Indigenous identity is threatened
Section 21 of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) refers to the State's
commitment to give due recognition to the Indigenous Peoples' distinct characteristics and
identity. It accords to them the rights, protections and privileges enjoyed by the rest of the
citizenry in the Philippines. The question of indigenous identity is one that only the IPs
themselves are competent to decide. Indigenous identity is the condition for one to enjoy the
rights and protection under the law.
However, there are threats to the native identity of IPs as recognized in the IPRA.4 The
government relies on estimated and outdated figures as to how many are the IPs in the
Philippines. The classification is based on the 1996 list of the defunct Offices of the Southern
Cultural Communities and Northern Cultural Communities.5 The 2010 Philippine Census of
Population and Housing (CPH) remains to be the reference for the IP population in the country,
as the next CPH will be in 2020.
There are no universal standards on what would constitute native identity. Other
government agencies also rely on the Certificate of Confirmation6 that NCIP issues. For the
4 Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples refer to a group of people or homogenous societies
identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as organized community on
communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial,
occupied, possessed and utilized such territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and
other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of
colonization, non-indigenous religions and cultures, became historically differentiated from the majority of
Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent
from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of
inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain
some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced
from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains (Sec. 3h, Indigenous
Peoples Rights Act of 1997)
5 Explanatory note of Rep. Maximo B. Rodriguez, Jr. to House Bill No. 4545 filed on Nov. 29, 2016
http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HB04545.pdf (accessed Dec. 4, 2017)
6 It is a written Certification issued by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) to bonafide
Indigenous Peoples confirming their authenticity and ethnicity as an IP as defined/prescribed in Republic Act
10
purposes of the 2010 CPH however, ethnicity is considered a primary sense of belonging to an
ethnic group. Ethnic group is consanguine in nature, meaning, the ties are reckoned by blood and
traced through the family tree. Thus, ethnicity refers to the household member's identity by blood,
and not by choice nor by adoption/confirmation for any ethnic group.
Generally, ethnic grouping denotes genealogical and paternal lineage to any of the
Philippines's group of native population. For the purpose of the 2010 CPH, ethnic grouping also
includes maternal lineage. Anybody whose consanguinity with both parents or any of them, who
is/are member/s of an IP group, is an Indigenous Person.7 The literal question posed for the
census is: “What is ________'s ethnicity by blood? Is he/she a /an _________?” Responses may
not be as clear cut, however. For instance, one respondent may have parents who belong to
different tribes. As mentioned, the 2010 concept of ethnicity excludes adoption or confirmation
as mode of ascribing membership in a tribe, which could be allowed by the community's
customary laws or practices.
On the other hand, language, or “mother tongue”, is only one of the several factors that
determine native identity. One IP said, “In our place, the DepEd makes their survey to children
only asking 'What is your tribe?' Then the children cannot answer. They change the question,
'What language is used in your home?', then the children answered 'Tagalog' and therefore they
are no longer belonging to an IP community.”8
Existing rules on registration9 of vital events (e.g., birth, marriage, death) of IPs are not
implemented to the fullest extent. There are many IPs who do not have birth certificates.10 It is
not common practice for IPs to register their vital events and NCIP does not have budget for a
program to address this concern.11 The IPs could not afford the costs of civil registration, such as
when procuring certificates from the local civil registry office or the National Statistics Office
(NSO). For example, in the two sitios of Brgy. Dalagsaan, Libacao, Aklan, there are at least 265
school children whose births are not registered.12 Each one would then need to pay at least
Php140 for a certification of no birth record (a.k.a. negative certificate) as one of the
prerequisites for delayed registration of birth, aside from the costs of obtaining other documents
(e.g., affidavits of disinterested persons, cedulas, etc.) and the registration fees that the local
8371 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. This certification entitles IPs to enjoy all the rights, benefits
and privileges guaranteed under R. A. 8371 and all other laws, decrees, executive orders and legal issuance
promulgated for the Indigenous Peoples. This program validates and confirm Certificates of Tribe Membership
conferred to members of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) only for the intent
and purpose it was issued, e. g. tribal identification, scholarship, local employment, travel abroad, land matters,
NAPOLCOM, AFP (PAF, PA, PN, PM), BFP, BJMP and others.
https://www.ncipro67.com.ph/services/application-to-certificate-of-confirmation-coc/ (accessed November 8,
2017)
7 Philippine Statistics Authority (2010) Census of Population and Housing
http://psa.gov.ph/psada/index.php/catalog/64/datafile/F9/V139 (accessed November 8, 2017)
8 Per statement of Satur Bugnay (IPMR-Nueva Viscaya) during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to
Development
9 NSO Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2004 and A.O. No. 1, Series of 2007 (for IP Solemnizing Officers)
10 Per statement of Joel Lumis (Tagbanua) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
11 Per statement of Pilar Mendoza (PSA) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan and
Thelma Aumentado's (Dumagat-Remontado) statement during the 3rd Public Hearing in Tagaytay City
12 Per statement of Sonny Estelloso (CHR-VI) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
11
government unit (e.g., city or municipality) collects.13 Some births are not registered because the
babies were not born in a hospital or authorized birthing facility.14 IPs consider such policies as
discriminatory for not taking into account their location in Geographically Isolated and
Disadvantaged Areas (GIDA) and the fact that births are traditionally attended by hilots or
paltera.
Tribal chieftains or elders15 must first be accredited by the PSA, upon certification by
NCIP, before they can solemnize marriage. Mere reference to customary law that a tribal chief
can solemnize marriage is not sufficient authority. While some IPs believe that mere customary
law is enough, others give value to government regulation on who must solemnize marriage
because each tribe are different. If for the Tagbanuas, only one can solemnize, it may not be true
for the Molbog or the Palaw'an.16 PSA reported that it engages tribal chieftains and capacitate
them in the performance of their duty as such. 17 The NCIP had issued Certificates of
Confirmation of Tribal Marriage,18 an area of concern that was identified in the IP Master Plan
(2012-2016) as requiring immediate attention.19
There is no system that instantly generates data on IPs' vital events upon mere registration
with the local civil registrar, such that PSA conducts the CPH. Inaccurate database for IPs result
in confusion particularly in the government's delivery of services. It is observed that, separately
from PSA, the DSWD conducts census where some IPs are not included, resulting to some IPs
not getting the right incentives or services.20 More so, non-IPs take advantage of the lack of
credible and accurate database for IPs. There are instances where non-IPs usurp the IP identity
and the corresponding rights and privileges, such as the waiver of height requirements for
applicants in the PNP and AFP.21
Specifically, IPs of Maguindanao, having asserted rights under IPRA, also expressed
concerns that their indigenous identity will be affected by the enactment of the proposed
Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), which does not recognize IPRA as governing law for the IPs
who at present are at the territories concerned. The draft BBL makes further classification
between Bangsamoro IPs and non-Moro IPs.22
The lack of an NCIP regional office in the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao
13 Under, existing rules on civil registration, a Certificate of Confirmation from NCIP is not required for delayed
registration of birth.
14 Per statement of John Michael Calumba (Tribu Bukidnon) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
15 For the Tagbanua, they call him “Masikampo.”
16 Per statement of Victoriano Colili (CALG Palaw'an) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City,
Palawan
17 Per statement of Pilar Mendoza (PSA) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
18 Cabreza, Vincent (Nov. 26, 2013) Giving Indigenous Peoples a Face.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/535431/giving-indigenous-peoples-a-face (accessed (Dec. 5, 2017)
19 http://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Indigenous-Peoples-Master-Plan-2012-
2016.pdf (accessed Dec. 5, 2017)
20 Per statement of Satur Bugnay (IPMR-Nueva Viscaya) during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to
Development
21 Per Thelma Aumentado's (Dumagat-Remontado) statement during the 3rd Public Hearing in Tagaytay City and
Bae Edith Mansayagan's (Mansaka) statement during the 4th Public Hearing in Davao City
22 Per Alim Bandara 's (Teduray) statement during the 4th Public Hearing in Davao City
12
(ARMM) is also indicative of such threat to the non-Moro IP identity. The IP resource person
said:
“Unang una, ang gusto kong pahayag sa CHR, na mula pa noon na
isabatas ang IPRA, hanggang ngayon, hindi pa fully maimplement ito sa ARMM.
Bunga nito, wala pong office ang NCIP sa ARMM lalong lalo na sa Maguindanao.
Ang napiling opisina para sa katutubo ay yung OSCC or Office for Southern
Cultural Communities na dapat sana ay wala na after maisabatas ang IPRA.23
Dahil dito, yung binanggit kanina na Four Bundles of Rights ng mga katutubo,
medyo nagkaproblema ang mga katutubo sa loob ng ARMM lalo sa usapin ng
FPIC ng mga katutubo sa loob ng ARMM. May problema pa rin sapagkat walang
IPRA, walang NCIP na siyang parang magpapapatupad sa usaping FPIC sa
panahong may programa na apektado ang IP communities.
xxx xxx xxx
Dahil sa problema ng IPRA, sa peace process, nagkaproblema sa
identity namin. Para samin, malinaw ang definition ng indigenous peoples sa
IPRA pero nang mapagusapan ang GPH at MILF, lalong lalo na ang issue ng
BBL, contentious issue ng identity ng katutubo. Sa ngayon, may Bangsamoro IP at
non-moro indigenous peoples. Itong mga issue na ito gusto naming linawin,
sapagkat tinatanong kami sa freedom of choice, pinapapili kami kung anong
identity namin samamantalang para sa amin, alam na alam na namin.”24
On the other hand, it is a positive development that the Office of the Presidential Adviser
on the Peace Process (OPAPP) recently convened on April 26, 2017 the IP Peace Panel,
particularly the Mindanao IP Legislative Assembly (MIPLA) that will craft, deliberate, and
propose provisions in the BBL with due consideration to all the aspirations of the IPs, both Non-
Moro and Moro. The legislative proposal is still pending in Congress.
Indeed, customs and traditions of each tribe are decisive in the determination of who are
the IPs in the Philippines, inclusive of their vital statistics, civil and even political status. So far,
there is insufficient comprehensive, updated and consolidated documentation or study about such
customs and traditions.
23 The Office of Southern Cultural Communities – Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (OSCC-ARMM)
that currently exists was created by virtue of Executive Order No. 462 (May 17, 1991), which devolved to the
Autonomous Regional Government of ARMM the powers and functions of the Office for Southern Cultural
Communities that was created by virtue of Executive Order No. 122-C (Jan. 30, 1987). IPRA took effect on Nov.
22, 1997, or after such devolution was made in 1991. The merger of the ONCC and OSCC that IPRA mandated
only affected regions outside ARMM (e.g. Regions IV, V, VI, VII, IX, X, XI, and XII).
24 Ibid.
13
Non-IPs' encroachment into ancestral domains as a threat to the indigenous identity
Non-IPs' encroachment into ancestral domains25 is also a threat to the IP identity. IPs
have intimate connection with their ancestral domains, including all natural resources found
therein, being regarded as the sacred source of their lives, a heritage from their ancestors, and for
which they are obliged to preserve for the generations to come.26 The UNDRIP does not use the
term “ancestral domains,” but provides in Article 26 that:
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they
have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands,
territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other
traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.
3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and
resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs,
traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.
Only IPs are legally entitled to own ancestral domains in the Philippines, which are areas
under their private communal ownership since time immemorial and that had never been part of
public lands, hence exempt from the coverage of the Regalian Doctrine. As of March 31, 2016,
206 Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) were issued, which represent 5,110,393.22
hectares and 1,108,223 IPs, or about 7.92% of the total estimated IP population pegged at
14,000,000.27
It is a question of fact to determine where ancestral domains are located. Unlike the
UNDRIP, the IPRA has gone further in elaborating the process of determining ancestral domains
and the required proofs include the testimony of elders or community under oath, and other
documents directly or indirectly attesting to the possession or occupation of the area since time
immemorial by such IPs in the concept of owners which shall be any one of the following
25 Ancestral domains refer to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal
areas, and natural resources therein, 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 except 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/corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall
include ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether
alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, 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/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators; (Sec. 3[a], Indigenous Peoples Rights Act
of 1997)
26 United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2010) Minority Rights: International
Standards and Guidance for Implementation
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/MinorityRights_en.pdf (accessed Nov. 15, 2017)
27 Per presentation of NCIP Commissioner Basilio A. Wandag during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to
Development
14
authentic documents:
• Written accounts of the IPs customs and traditions;
• Written accounts of the IPs political structure and institution;
• Pictures showing long term occupation such as those of old improvements, burial
grounds, sacred places and old villages;
• Historical accounts, including pacts and agreements concerning boundaries entered into
by the IPs concerned with other IPs;
• Survey plans and sketch maps;
• Anthropological data;
• Genealogical surveys;
• Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional communal forests and hunting grounds;
• Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional landmarks such as mountains, rivers,
creeks, ridges, hills, terraces and the like; and
• Write-ups of names and places derived from the native dialect of the community.28
The NCIP Chairperson has the authority to certify that the area covered is an ancestral
domain. The secretaries of the DAR, DENR, DILG, and DOJ, the Commissioner of the National
Development Corporation, and any other government agency claiming jurisdiction over the area
shall be notified thereof. Such notification shall terminate any legal basis for the jurisdiction
previously claimed.29
Still, complaints about encroachment come up when non-IPs, and even IPs from other
tribes, pursue tenurial claims over lands and resources that are also covered at certain ancestral
domains. Overlapping tenurial claims are based on several laws on modes of acquiring
ownership, use of natural resources, mineral extraction, land classifications and concessions that
are separately implemented by different government agencies, such as DAR, LMB, MGB, and
DA, with several database.
As such, DAR, DENR, LRA and NCIP issued Joint Administrative Order No. 1, Series of
2012 (JAO 1) to clarify, restate, and interface the respective jurisdictions, policies, programs and
projects of said agencies to address jurisdictional and operational issues among them. It applies
to the coverage of lands and/or processing by DAR, DENR and NCIP and registration with LRA
of Land Titles embracing lands or areas which are contentious or potentially contentious, such as
the following:
• Untitled lands with Approved Survey Plans claimed as covered by IPRA by the NCIP
and ICCs/IPs to be part of their AD/AL and likewise being claimed by DAR and the
DENR as covered by CARP and the Public Land Act, respectively;
• Titled lands covered by registered Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs),
Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Patents that overlapped with
CADTs/CALTs/CADCs/CALCs;
28 Section 52 (d) of IPRA
29 Section 52 (i) of IPRA
15
• Resource access/development instruments issued by the DENR over lands within
Ancestral Land/Domain Claims such as, but not limited to, Community Based Forest
Management Agreement (CBFMA), Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA),
- Socialized Forest Management Agreement (SIFMA), Protected Area Community -
Based Resources Management Agreement (PACBRMA), Forest Land Grazing
Management Agreement (FLGMA), Co-Management Agreement, Certificate of
Stewardship Contract (CSC), Certificate of Forest Stewardship Agreement (CFSA) Wood
Processing Plant Permit (WPPP), Special Land Use Permit (SLUP), Special Forest Land
Use Agreement (FLAG), Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAGT),
Private Land Timber Permit (PLTP), Special Private Land Timber Permit (SPLTP) and
Foreshore Lease Agreement/Permit (FLA/FLP);
• Exploration Permit (EP), Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA), Mineral
Agreement (Production Sharing; Co-Production or Joint Venture), Small Scale Mining
Contract and Quarry Permit issued within CARP-covered areas;
• Reservations, proclamations and other special law-declared areas a portion or the entirety
of which is subsequently issued a CADT/CALT;
• Areas with existing and/or vested rights prior or after the registration of the
CADTs/CALTs but for any reason not segregated/excluded, and
• Other jurisdictional and operational issues that may arise between and amongst DAR,
DENR and NCIP as may be determined by the Joint National/Regional/Provincial
Committees, as created under Section 19 of JAO 1 and Section 5 of JMC No. 8 Series of
2012.30
Contested areas/issues also contemplates formal complaints filed by concerned ICCs/lPs
or by the NCIP in behalf of the ICCs/IPs over those identified titled areas found within the
AD/AL.
JAO 1 formalized the composition of Joint Committees at the provincial, regional and
national levels comprised of key technical personnel from NCIP, LRA, DAR, and DENR. The
Joint Provincial/Regional Committees serve as the venues for the resolution of jurisdictional,
operational and policy issues on the contentious areas within their territorial jurisdiction. In
special cases, the Joint National Committee (JNC) may create Special Teams to handle specific
contentious issues. The Special Teams shall submit their findings and recommendations to the
JNC for resolution of the issue.
It is also provided that upon the effectivity of JAO 1 on February 11, 2012, the
implementation of Land Acquisition and Distribution (LAD) and issuance of CLOA by DAR,
30 Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Memorandum Circular No. 08, Series of 2012 (JMC No. 8) was subsequently
issued to implement the provisions of JAO 1.
16
ancestral domain/ancestral land titling by NCIP, processing/issuance of patents by DENR, and
registration of titles by LRA over identified contentious areas shall remain suspended unless
resolved by the concerned Joint Provincial/Regional or National Committee. 31 That is why
during the public hearings, IP resource persons called for the revocation of JAO 1, as they
believe it has resulted in undue delay in the issuance and registration of CADTs.
The origin of JAO 1 came about when the LRA refused to register CADTs/CALTs,
unless NCIP, DAR or DENR issued the corresponding Certificate of Non-Overlap (CNO).32 The
intention of the agencies in implementing JAO 1 is to ensure that private land titles would be
segregated prior to the issuance and registration of the CADT/CALT.
The premise is Section 56 of IPRA that recognizes and respects property rights within the
ancestral domains that are already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of said law on
November 22, 1997. Vested right is some right or interest in the property that has become fixed
and established, and is no longer open to doubt or controversy. It is an immediate fixed right of
present and future enjoyment, which must be contradistinguished from a right that is expectant or
contingent.33 However, the DENR said that delineation is a process that requires meticulous care
to prevent or address overlapping of land titles, and that land surveys would take some time to
complete to be accurate.34
NEDA is conducting its study on the impacts of JAO 1 since 2016. They found that
choke point in the processing of CADT is at the level of DENR. To quote NEDA35:
“Lumabas sa data na ang DENR ang nagpapatagal ng process. Last
administration po ang one of the thrust nila ay ang mag-issue ng Patent. Malaki
ang target sa pagdistribute ng Patent. Every time na magpapasa ang NCIP ng
survey plan para sa pagbibigay ng Certification of Non-Overlap, meron na
namang ibang application, so hanggang sa hindi na maisyuhan ng certificate.
Ibabalik ulit sa NCIP tapos for validation ulit. Paulit-ulit lang po, ang nangyayari.
Ang accomplishment lamang ng NCIP ang naaapektuhan. Hindi po naaapektuhan
ang accomplishment ng iba. Nagtatagal lamang po. Isa po ito sa findings namin.
Isang findings pa po, iba ang definition ng “survey plan” ng NCIP sa
DENR. Ang NCIP definition ay base sa approved plans, or limited only by
approved plans of DENR before 1997. Ang definition ng DENR sa survey plans ay
lahat ng land classification plans, e.g. timberland, cadastral lands, A and D,
government resettlement areas, government protected areas. Ang NCIP ay yoong
nakalagay lamang sa RA9970. Ang isang recommendation namin ay sana parehas
sila ng definition ng survey plan.
31 Section 26, Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Memorandum Circular No. 08, Series of 2012
32 Per statement of Leandro Caymo (DAR) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
33 Heirs of Gabriel Zari and Heirs of Hermenegildo Concepcion vs. Jose Santos, G.R. Nos. L-21213 and L-21214,
March 28, 1968 http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1968/mar1968/gr_l-21214_1968.html (accessed November
8, 2017)
34 Per statement of Vicente Tuddao, Jr. (Assistant Regional Director, DENR-MIMAROPA) during the 2nd public
hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
35 Per statement of Judy Mae Masangkay (NEDA) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
17
Kapag nagsurvey sila ng ancestral domain, ang magle-lead ay NCIP na
naka-base sa AO 2007, na kahit po magsurvey sila ito ay base sa guidelines ng
DENR na 2007.”
The above statement shows that processing of patents were pursued up to their registration,
whereas the processing of CADTs were not, hence the statement: “Ang accomplishment lamang
ng NCIP ang naaapektuhan. Hindi po naaapektuhan ang accomplishment ng iba.”
NAPC also leads an inter-agency review of JAO 1. There were case studies in Oriental
Mindoro, Benguet Province, and Zambales. It has identified that the JAO is not implemented to
the regional and provincial levels due to gap in communicating instructions and information
from the national offices.36
While the act of registering CADTs/CALTs with the Registry of Deeds is not the mode
for IPs to acquire ownership over ancestral domains, pursuant to the principle of native title, the
registered CADT/CALT is still necessary for them to avail funding source for development
projects and even to obtain other government permits such as for cutting trees and for using other
natural resources within their domains.37
Stated otherwise, a registered CADT/CALT is the single most important proof of
ownership for IPs that non-IPs, and even IPs belonging to other tribes, would look for. Based on
NCIP records there were 206 CADTs approved as of 2012, but until 2017 only 43 are registered
with the respective Registry of Deeds due to JAO 1.38
In particular, the relevant instances highlighted during the public hearings concerning
ancestral domains are as follows:
• CADT of the Akeanon Bukidnon, covering more of less 19,000 hectares, could not be
registered due to overlap of boundaries with military reservation in Capiz;39
• Clamor of the Akeanon Bukidnon to apply for CADT for domains that include Barangays
Medina and Panipiason, Madalag, Aklan, but lack knowledge on how to initiate the
process;40
• The original area of the Ati Tamulalod's ancestral domain, including Barangays
Tamulalod, Bungsuan, Aglalana, Agsirab, Kuligli, in Damurao, Capiz, was about 1,225
hectares but when it was surveyed, the area was reduced to 500 hectares losing almost
36 Per statement of Judith Maranes (NAPC) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City and during the 2nd public
hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
37 Section 11 of IPRA provides: “The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains by virtue of Native Title shall
be recognized and respected. Formal recognition, when solicited by ICCs/IPs concerned, shall be embodied
in a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), which shall recognize the title of the concerned ICCs/IPs
over the territories identified and delineated.” (Emphasis ours)
38 Per statement of Judith Maranes (NAPC) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
39 Per statement of Guillermo Colas (Akeanon) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
40 Per statement of Lester Agapito (Akeanon Bukidnon) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
18
half to CLOA holders;41
• Nomadic IPs such as the Atis of Anini-y, Hamtic, Dau, San Jose and Sibalom
Municipalities in Antique clamor for a permanent resettlement site, but could not claim a
particular ancestral domain;42
• Panay Bukidnon Tribe has pending CADT application, inclusive of Barangay Tacayan,
Tapaz, Capiz, and during such pendency, various government agencies have also laid
counter-claims to parts of their ancestral domain, such as the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, claiming parts as military reservation;43
• Boundary dispute derails the processing of the CADT application of the Panay Bukidnon
Tribe, covering certain barangays in Tapaz, Capiz. The survey from NCIP is still
forthcoming and this is the main reason why this process have lagged behind. The subject
ancestral domain overlaps with a military reservation, known as Camp Peralta;44
• Lack of budget for the continuation of the CADT application of the Bukidnon Tribe in
Janiuay, Iloilo;45
• Pending registration and award of the CADT of the Dumagat-Remontado in General
Nakar, Quezon;46
• On-going relocation of the Dumagats of San Jose, Bulacan due to overlapping claims of
the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
• Non-registration of CADT for the Aeta Abelle of Sitio Maporac, Cabangan, Zambales;
• On-going relocation of the Abelling ethnic group in Brgy. Maamot, San Jose, Tarlac due
to overlapping land claims of the National Irrigation Authority (NIA) and the
construction of the Balog-Balog Dam Project;
• Discrepancies of the area as stated in the registered CADT of the Aetas in Mabalacat,
Pampanga, where 300 hectares more or less are not covered;
• Displacement of Agtas from their ancestral lands in Casiguran, Aurora due to
overlapping land claims of CLOA (Certificate of Land Ownership Award) holders in the
same area;
• Land disputes between the IPs (i.e., Bago, Ibaloi, Dumagat, Aplai, Bukidnon, Isneg and
Kankanaey) and the other non-IP occupants of lands deemed as military reservation in
Palayan City, Nueva Ecija;
• Overlapping of the ancestral domains of the Matigsalog and Obo Manobo;47
The IP resource persons maintained that they should not be adversely affected by JAO 1,
and demanded that their CADTs must be duly registered and immediately awarded.
41 Per statement of Pablito Escona (Ati Tamulalod) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
42 Per statement of Perlita Oyong (Ati) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
43 Per statement of Concepcion Diaz (Panay Bukidnon) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
44 Per statement of Hermino Sapeda (Panay Bukidnon) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
45 Per statement of Carlos Moreno (Tribal Chieftain, Brgy. Kuyot, Iloilo) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo
City
46 This and succeeding incidents are highlighted in the Statement of Partnership of the participants that was
adopted by acclamation during the 3rd public hearing in Tagaytay City
47 Per statement of Bae Magdalina Herbilla (Matigsalog, Arakan, Cotabato Province) during the 4th public hearing
in Davao City
19
Limitations to the right of ownership over ancestral domains
JAO 1 also illustrates a mechanism that could impede the full recognition of IPs' native
title. While the law recognizes the IPs' right of ownership over ancestral domains and all
resources found therein, such right is limited by, or otherwise subjected to, conditions provided
in other national laws and regulations on the environment.
For example, the IPs cannot cut trees without first obtaining the permit from the CENRO.
Kaingin is prohibited even if it is practiced within their ancestral lands. The IPs cannot engage in
small-scale mining in ancestral lands that are not declared by the government as “People's Small-
Scale Mining Areas” or “minahang bayan”. 48 The Wildlife Resources Conservation and
Protection Act49 allows IPs to collect wildlife for traditional use and not primarily for trade.
While generally killing and destroying wildlife is prohibited, it may be allowed when done as
part of the religious rituals.
IPRA and environmental laws are consistent in using the term “priority rights” to
describe the nature of rights that IPs have on how they are entitled to utilize natural resources in
their ancestral domains. The law does not treat such right as exclusive for the IPs. Section 57 of
IPRA provides:
“Natural Resources within Ancestral Domains. — The ICCs/IPs shall
have priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of
any natural resources within the ancestral domains. A non-member of the
ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take part in the development and
utilization of the natural resources for a period of not exceeding twenty-five (25)
years renewable for not more than twenty-five (25) years: Provided, That a formal
and written agreement is entered into with the ICCs/IPs concerned or that the
community, pursuant to its own decision making process, has agreed to allow such
operation: Provided, finally, That the NCIP may exercise visitorial powers and
take appropriate action to safeguard the rights of the ICCs/IPs under the same
contract.” (Emphasis ours)
Still, the IPs have pointed out the unequal and discriminatory application of the laws,
where big private companies and non-IP personalities are deemed favored. As one Tagbanua50
would say: “Napakasaklap po, ang mga katutubo, kapag namutol ng isang kapirasong puno o
isang kapirasong kahoy, diretso na sa pulis. Samantalang ang mga mining firm na bultu-bultong
kahoy, napaka-lalaking kahoy na tinatabunan lamang ng lupa ay hindi nila nakikita.”
The IPs, while recognized as such, are integrated in the legal and socio-economic
framework of the Philippines. They cannot live exclusively on their own as were their ancestors.
48 Section 7, Republic Act No. 7076
49 Section 27(a)(i) Republic Act No. 9147
50 Per statement of Joel Limsa (Tagbanua, IPMR-Narra, Palawan) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa
City, Palawan
20
In such cases where they find themselves in legal dispute with non-IPs, and IP from other tribes,
the NCIP is not the proper forum to try and decide the case, but rather the regular courts as
pronounced in the recent rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of Loloy Unduran, et al. vs.
Ramon Aberasturi, et al., (G.R. No. 181284, October 20, 2015), Ben Y. Lim vs. Sulpicio
Gamosa (G.R. No. 193964, December 2, 2015), and Thomas Begnaen vs. Spouses Caligtan (G.R.
No. 189852, August 17, 2016).
Scope of free, prior and informed consent of IPs
Non-IPs must obtain the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) 51 of IPs for
development projects and activities that will be implemented in their ancestral domains. FPIC is
indicative of the IPs' right to self-determination that is already recognized in law. It is a distinct
form of consent, different from how non-IPs would understand the term in a more individualistic
sense. Not only is FPIC the consensus of all members of the IP community to be determined in
accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, it must also be free from any
external manipulation, interference and coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent
and scope of the activity, in a language and process understandable to the community.52
The process starts after the concerned government agency forwards the application to the
NCIP to verify if the project will be located on an ancestral domain (AD). Thereafter, the
application is forwarded to the NCIP Regional Office that oversees the area. The regional
director (RD) will form the Field Based Investigation (FBI) Team. They will conduct a
conference together with the IP community, IP elders, and the applicant.
If after the field investigation, the FBI Team finds out that the area is not within AD, they
make a report and recommend for the issuance of a Certificate of Non-Overlap (CNO). However,
if the land is within the AD, the FBI Team recommends for the undertaking of the FPIC process.
The applicant will be informed and Pre-FPIC Conference will follow through.
During the Pre-FPIC Conference, the FBI Team will prepare the Work and Financial Plan
(WFP). Questions will be clarified during the Pre-FPIC Conference. It is during the first
community assembly when the IP elders and leaders will be identified or recognized. A
discussion of their rights will then be made. During the second community assembly, the
applicant presents the project to the community. The IPs thereafter conduct their own activity,
such as consensus building. They are given enough time to discuss the pros and cons of the
project, before deciding whether or not to allow it.
If the project is not allowed, the IPs will issue the Resolution of No Consent (RNC). The
Proponent will be given the copy of the Resolution, and he will be given the chance to request
for reconsideration. If the project is approved, the IPs will issue the Resolution of Consent
(ROC). Negotiations begin, which may eventually lead to the execution of the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) that would be signed by the IP leaders, NCIP and the proponent. The
proponent shoulders all the costs appurtenant to the FPIC process. Documents will be processed
51 The current reference for FPIC process is NCIP Administrative Order No. 3, series of 2012
52 Section 3(g), IPRA
21
and forwarded to the Regional Review Team (RRT). They are tasked to review all the
documents. The regional director (RD) endorses the documents to Ancestral Domain Office
(ADO) in the NCIP Central Office.
The MOA signed by the parties will be forwarded to the Legal Affairs Office (LAO),
which presents copied thereof to the NCIP Commission En Banc (CEB) for approval. If
approved, a Certificate of Precondition (CP) will be issued. A copy of the Certificate will be
given to the endorsing government agency. The process flow for FPIC is presented in the figure53
below:
Figure 3 : Process Flow of Securing Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)
However, specific concerns and complaints on violations of FPIC are narrated by the
resource persons during the public hearings, as follows:
• DENR's National Greening Program (NGP) is implemented in ancestral lands without
FPIC, because per DENR records the lands are deemed under public domain, such as in
Capiz;54
• There are comprehensive land use plans that did not consider ancestral domains, resulting
to the pursuit of ecotourism in areas near Montillano Falls, Iloilo without FPIC;55
• LGU Bohol has not recognize FPIC of the Eskaya peoples for implementing Bottom-Up
53 Based on the presentation of Mr. Frederick William Crespillo, Jr. from the Ancestral Domains Office, NCIP,
delivered during the focus group discussion with CHR held on August 18, 2016
54 Per statement of Atty. Rosette Ferrer (DENR Central Office) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
55 Per statement of Val Talavero (DENR-Region VI), during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
22
Budgeting (BUB), such as when it constructed and commercialized water reservoir;56
• The policies and implementing regulations of BUB or what is now called the Assistance
to Disadvantaged Municipalities (ADM) program57 do not contain explicit provisions to
cover the situation of IPs and how they should be consulted;58
• San Andres Corporation, Lionheart, Green Palawan Power Agriculture Corporation and
Agumil Philippines (owned by certain Mr. Ong and Mr. Lim) pursue agribusiness (palm
oil, corn, coconut) in certain parts of Palawan without FPIC;59
• Mining operations of Citinickel Mines and Development Corporation in Sofronio
Española and Narra, Palawan violates FPIC; more so, an apparent concern in relation to
FPIC within this context is their claim for royalties under their Memorandum of
Agreement with Citinickel;60
• Pursuit of the geothermal project by Aboitiz in San Marcelino, Zambales where the Aetas
reside;61
• Mining operation of Ore Mining and Development Corporation in Doña Remedios
Trinidad, Bulacan where the Dumagats' ancestral lands are located;
• Quarrying operations in Mabalacat, Pampanga as reported by the Aeta communities who
are impacted;
• Utilization of Masungi Georeserve in Brgy. Cuyambay, Tanay Rizal and the National
Greening Program in locations such as Montalban, Rizal affecting the Dumagat-
Remontado from Tanay and Montalban, Rizal;
• Pursuit of tourism project in the crater of Mt. Pinatubo in Botolan Zambales by the LGUs
without FPIC of Aeta communities affecting some 3000 families;
• Quarry operations in Montalban, Rizal must undergo FPIC process with the Dumagat-
Remontado;
• Renewal in 2016 of Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) covering
Saranggani, Bagumbayan, Ezperanza, and Sultan Kudarat that did not undergo FPIC
process of Dulangan Manobo;62
• Collaboration of some tribal leaders to manipulate FPIC process in favor of the National
Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) during negotiation for a road/right of way
over the ancestral lands of Tagakaulo and B'laan;63
• Sagittarius Mines, Inc. that has exploration activities in Tambacan and Malungon,
Sanranggani undertook a dubious FPIC process with collaboration of some of the tribal
leaders.64
On the other hand, non-IPs would cite the alleged tedious and costly process to obtain
56 Per statement of Roberto Datahan (Eskaya) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
57 http://www.dilg.gov.ph/news/DILG-rolls-out-Assistance-to-Disadvantaged-Municipalities-program/NC-2017-
1119 (accessed November 15, 2017)
58 Per statement of Dino Ponsaran (DILG-Region VI) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
59 Per statement of Motalib Kemil (Tagbanua) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
60 Per statement of Joel Limsa (Tagbanua, IPMR-Narra, Palawan) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa
City, Palawan
61 This and succeeding incidents are highlighted in the Statement of Partnership of the participants that was
adopted by acclamation during the 3rd public hearing in Tagaytay City
62 Per statement of Rubin Dalimbang (Dulangan Manobo) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City
63 Per statement of Leo Ingay (Tagakaulo) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City
64 Ibid.
23
FPIC and, for them, it is not clear with who among the IPs should they deal with. Even more
problematic is the situation when IPs without CADT would insist for the conduct of FPIC, since
in the records of other government agencies the lands involved do not overlap with ancestral
domains. NCIP believes that it can only initiate the FPIC process upon endorsement of the
project or activity by the relevant government office.65
The NCIP guidelines on FPIC is currently being reviewed and one of the proposal is to
require a clear description of the decision-making process in the IP community, who are often
not homogenous. It is further observed that factions among the community would emerge once
the issue is about monetary gains, such as on royalties that would be paid in view of development
projects in the ancestral domain.66 The FPIC process is deemed impractical due to the policy of
“one CADT, one unit,” wherein the FPIC of all other IPs would be obtained even if the direct
beneficiary of the project or activity is only a small portion thereof.67
The DENR and NCIP need to clarify what plans, activities and programs must undergo
the process. For example, DENR believes that no FPIC is needed if the lands covered under an
IFMA would be integrated, consolidated or merged, since it has undergone a previous FPIC
process, in contrast to the position of NCIP.68 DENR does not view integration, consolidation
and merger of IFMA as equivalent to its renewal. The government is also of the view that in case
the IPs themselves are the ones who solicited the projects and activities, the usual and tedious
FPIC process could be modified.69
IPs' decision-making processes and governance structures
Where there is confusion in the FPIC process, the situation indicates insufficient or lack
of understanding about the decision-making and governance structures of the IPs. Often there are
state agents and non-IPs that would raise the question: “Who are the IPs and where are they
located?” The situation shows the threat to the indigenous identity as it is being doubted and
questioned.
There are efforts to integrate the IPs in the mainstream structure of the Philippine polity.
The law requires that the indigenous political structures (IPS), IP mandatory representatives
(IPMRs), and peoples organizations (IPOs) must first be duly validated and recognized by NCIP.
The selection process of IPMRs are also assailed.70 Non-IP LGU officials prevent IPMRs from
performing their duties. Stated otherwise, the law and corresponding regulations 71 are not
65 Per statement of Roberto Almonte (NCIP Region IV) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City,
Palawan
66 Per statement of Dexter Precioso (NCIP Region X) during the 5th public hearing in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental
67 Per statement of Geronico Aguio (NCIP Region XI) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City
68 Per statement of Hadja Didaw Piang Brahim (DENR-LMB, Region XI) during the 4th public hearing in Davao
City
69 Per statement of Ronald Papag (DSWD) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City
70 Per statement of Conrado Quioang (IPMR Ilocos Sur) during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to
Development
71 These regulations are: DILG-NCIP Joint Circular No. 001, Series of 2011 (Guidelines for the Determination
of the Minimum Threshold of IP/ICC Population in a Local Government Unit to Allow Mandatory
24
properly implemented because the local officials could easily and conveniently resist the IPMRs
from assuming their positions in local sanggunians. The local sanggunians must still enact the
ordinance appropriating funds for the salaries and other emoluments that would be paid to the
IPMRs. The NCIP does not have authority over LGUs, hence it cannot compel them to recognize
IPMRs.72
The IPMRs are at risk of losing their nature as holders of a public office that should be
independent. One IP said, “Aminin man natin o hindi, mapulitika ang ating bansa. Kapag hindi
ka kay Mayor, walang magagawa ang IP. 'Bata-bata system' – buddy-buddy system of the
politicians. Kung tagapagsalita ka ni Mayor, 'tropa-tropa' ka ni Mayor, kahit wala kang dugo ng
IP, magiging IPMR ka na.”73 Still, there are conflicts between IPS and IPOs, particularly in
Mindanao, because there are IPOs that are not recognized by IPS. Under Sections 3(f), 4, 7(15)
and 8 of NCIP Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2012, the IPS creates the IPOs and
determines their functions as such. The IPS has the power to convene the community and in
accordance with local processes to lead the selection of the lPMRs in all policy making bodies
and in local legislative councils.
Right to Development of IPs
The IPRA is clear that IPs will freely pursue 74 their economic, social and cultural
development through the medium of their indigenous political structures (IPS). The IPs have the
right to determine and decide their own priorities for development affecting their lives, beliefs,
institutions, spiritual well-being, and the lands they own, occupy or use.75 They are entitled to
participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies, plans and programs for
national, regional and local development which may directly affect them.
On the other hand, the IP resource persons are not fully satisfied with the development
efforts of the government. There are no national data that show whether or not the IPs are poor,
but there are Listahanan reports in 2015 from NEDA Region V that there are 796 IP households
who are poor in said region.76 The IPs narrated the challenges they face in availing government
programs on livelihood, work opportunities, education, health, housing, and the corresponding
facilities (e.g., access roads that would connect the IPs to the town proper). While some IPs are
not informed on how to avail the programs, others lament that the conditions to avail the
programs are formulated without properly considering their situation, hence restrictive.
There are two modes by which development is intended to be realized for IPs, i.e. in case
Representation in the Local Sanggunians); NCIP Administrative Order No. 2 Series of 2012 (The General
Guidelines on the Confirmation of Indigenous Political Structures and the Registration of Indigenous Peoples'
Organizations); NCIP Administrative Order No. 001 Series of 2009 (National Guidelines for the Mandatory
Representation of Indigenous Peoples in Local Legislative Councils)
72 Per statement of NCIP Commissioner Basilio A. Wandag during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to
Development
73 Per statement of Egmidio Gonzales, Jr. (IPMR Olongapo City) during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to
Development
74 Section 13, IPRA
75 Section 17, IPRA
76 Per statement of Liz Bellen (NEDA Region V) during the 3rd public hearing in Tagaytay City
25
they initiate the program (e.g. through the IPs' Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and
Protection Plan), and when they avail those intended even for non-IPs (e.g., DSWD's three-core
social protection programs: Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program/Conditional Cash Transfer
Program; Sustainable Land Program; and KALAHI-CIDDS, National Community-Driven
Development Program). IPs are located in remote areas (also known as “Geographically Isolated
and Disadvantaged Areas” [GIDA]) and it is a challenge for the duty-bearers to physically reach
them. Still, one IP who now holds a government position said to his fellow IPs, “Do not take
everything to be given to you like 'manna' from heaven.” 77 On a positive note, it is a
pronouncement recognizing that IP communities must be self-sufficient and self-sustaining. The
duty-bearers should do their part of the work in realizing that goal. Development is a cooperative
effort of both the rights-holders and the duty-bearers. He also reported that there are 138 groups
that have formulated their own ADSDPP,78 but there are no sustainable funding source to fully
implement them.79
NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 200480 provides that the IPs have the option
to present their ADSDPP for funding thereof before government agencies and instrumentalities,
the private sector, international aid agencies, and other donor groups. There is no categorical
commitment in law on the part of government to provide the budget to implement the programs
in the ADSDPP. Even IPRA merely mandated the NCIP “to negotiate for funds and to accept
grants, donations, gifts and/or properties in whatever form and from whatever source, local and
international, subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines, for the benefit of
ICCs/IPs and administer the same in accordance with the terms thereof; or in the absence of any
condition, in such manner consistent with the interest of ICCs/IPs as well as existing laws.”81
Royalties (minimum of 1%) from the mining companies are sources of funding to implement the
ADSDPP.82
Opportunities for development provided by Duty-Bearers
The government asserts that it provides the opportunity for IPs to realize their right to
development. It is a declared policy that economic opportunities created by the state shall be
extended to IPs on the basis of freedom of initiative and self-reliance. The IPs shall freely pursue
their economic, social and cultural development of their own choice and at their own pace in a
manner determined by themselves towards national unity and development.83
77 Per statement of NCIP Commissioner Basilio A. Wandag during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to
Development
78 The ADSDPP is a long term comprehensive spatial and development plan with at least five years programming
of activities with the purpose of identifying and implementing programs and projects to strengthen self-
governance, alleviate poverty, protect the environment and cultural integrity, and build lasting peace and
genuine development within ancestral domains of particular ICCs or IP groups. (Section 7, Article II, Guidelines
on the Formulation of the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan)
79 Ibid.
80 Guidelines on the Formulation of the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan
(ADSDPP), Article II, Section 7(c)(4)
81 Section 44 (g), IPRA
82 Per statement of Constancio Paye (DENR-MGB, Region IX) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City
83 Guidelines on the Formulation of the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan
(ADSDPP), Article 1, Section 4 (d)
26
a.) During the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to Development (covering the situation of
IPs in Regions CAR, I, II, III, IV, and V as taken from the perspective of regional and
national government agencies, including the IPMRs) –
The government agencies reported that their existing development programs for IPs, or at
least benefit them, include the following:
• NCIP – Human, Economic and Environmental Development and Protection Services,
Education Assistance Program, Merit-based Scholarship, Health Programs
• NAPC – Representation of IPs and IPOs in the Bottom-Up Budgeting (BUB) Grievance
Redress Committee and the Local Poverty Reduction Action Team (LPRAT) in their
respective cities and municipalities
• NEDA CAR-Regional Development Council – Program for social preparation of
Cordillera into an Autonomous Region
• DA – Special Agricultural Area Development Project, wherein priority beneficiaries are
IPs
• SSS – Accreditation Program under Cooperatives and Informal Sector Group, including
IPs; subsidy program; AlkanSSSya Program; JO-KaltaSSS Program
• DOH – IP Health Program
• NHA – Resettlement assistance programs in partnership with LGUs
• MGB – Administration and disposition of mineral resources
• DepEd, NCIP – IP Education (IPEd)
• DOLE – IP Desks
b.) During the Public Hearing in Iloilo City, covering the IPs' situation in the Visayas –
The government agencies reported that their existing development programs for IPs, or at
least benefit them, include the following:
• DA – promotion of agricultural and fisheries development
• DENR – IP Desks; conduct of surveys of alienable and disposable lands; National
Greening Program; Community-Based Forest Management; Integrated Social Forestry;
Integrated Natural Resources and Environment Management Project; Forestland
Management Project; B+WISER Philippines Biodiversity & Watersheds improved for
Stronger Economy & Ecosystem Resilience; Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation-Plus; Indigenous Peoples and Communities Conserved Areas;
Protected Area Management Enhancement
• DSWD – Pantawid Pamilya; Kalahi-CIDSS; Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP);
Listahanan; Social pension; Supplementary Feeding Program; Disaster Response
Operation; Recovery and Reintegration Program for Trafficked Persons (RRPTP);
Payapa at Masaganang Pamayanan (PAMANA); Protective Services Program; Adoption
and Foster Care; Gender and Development Program (GAD)
c.) During the Public Hearing in Tagaytay City, covering IPs in Regions III, IV-A, and V –
The government agencies reported that their existing development programs for IPs, or at
27
least benefit them, include the following:
• DA – distribution of the farm inputs, livestock, farm machineries and equipment; conduct
of trainings, extension support services; and research and development
• PSA – deliver relevant, reliable statistics and civil registration services for equitable
development towards an improved quality of life for all; generate official & general
purposes statistics; and carry-out Civil Registration Laws in the country
• DSWD – lead in the formulation, implementation and coordination of social services;
Protective Services (Assistance to Individuals and Families in Crisis Situation,
Supplementary Feeding Program, Social Pension, Disaster Mitigation and other
community-based programs); Sustainable Livelihood Program; KALAHI CIDSS
(Kapitbisig Laban sa Kahirapan): Comprehensive & Integrated Delivery of Social
Services; Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program; and Modified Conditional Cash
Transfer for IPs
• DENR – Enforcement of 5 Environmental Laws: PD 1586 – Environmental Impact
Statement System; RA 8749 - Philippine Clean Air Act; RA 9275 - Philippine Clean
Water Act; RA 9003 - Ecological Solid Waste Management Act; RA 6969 - Toxic
Chemical and Hazardous Waste Management Act
d.) During the Public Hearing in Davao City, covering IPs in Regions XI, XII, and
Maguindanao –
The government agencies reported that their existing development programs for IPs, or at
least benefit them, include the following:
• DENR – Conservation of protected Areas Program; Management and Development of
River Basins; Integrated Coastal Residence Management Program; Forest Protection;
Resource Use Regulation; Ecotourism Development and Management; Resource Use
Regulations; Water shed Management and Development; Delineation of Protection and
Production Forest Program; Forest Land Use Planning; Foreshore Development and
Management Planning; National Greening Program
• DAR – Land Tenure Improvement Services; Program Beneficiaries Development
(Support Services); Agrarian Legal Services; Land Distribution and Acquisition
• DA – Rice Program; Corn Program; High Value Commercial Crops Development
Program; Organic Agriculture Program; Agribusiness and Marketing Assistance;
Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund Scholarship Program
• DSWD – Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program; Modified Conditional Cash Transfer –
IP; SLP; KALAHI CIDDS; Supplemental Feeding; BUB; Resource Augmentation to
Relief Operations and Rehabilitation of LGU (Cash For Work/Food For Work);
Recovery and Reintegration Program for Trafficked Persons; Travel Clearance for
Minors; AICS Assistance to Individual to Crisis Interventions; Social Pension Program;
Center Based – Reception and Study Center for Children, Regional Rehabilitation Center
for Youth
• NEDA – Investment programming and budgeting; Policy Formulation; Socio Economic
Development and Physical Planning; Project Development and Monitoring
28
• NCIP – Flagship program: Pipes 2017-2022; Ancestral Domain; ADSDPP Formulation
Scholarship; Education; IPMRs/ IPS / IPOs; Capacity Building; ADSDPP
Implementation; Monitoring of IP Rights Violation
e.) During the Public Hearing in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental, covering IPs in Regions IX,
X, XIII, and the Provinces of Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi –
The government agencies reported that their existing development programs for IPs, or at
least benefit them, include the following:
• NCIP – Issuance of CADT; ADSDPP formulation
• DENR – CBFMP; NGP; INREWIP; FLGMA; Issuance of Certificate of Non-overlap for
areas without ICCs/IPs to all mining applicants; Issuance of PreCondition from NCIP for
areas with ICCs/IPs to all mining applicants
• DOT – Infrastructure; Promotion and Marketing
• DSWD – Pantawid Pamilya Program or MCCT; KC; NCDDP; SLP (Sustainable
Livelihood Program
• DAR – Infrastructure facilities; Marketing assistance; Credit programs; Technical support
The aforesaid agencies engage with the IP Communities to a certain extent. The actions
taken by government that provide opportunities for the IPs to realize their right to development
are the manifestation of how it intends to address the gaps in the development agenda. However,
it appears that in some of the government's programs, the IPs are mere recipients of aid from the
government. If that is solely the case, it is contrary to the context of sustainable development, or
one that puts emphasis on the inter-generational responsibility of the present generation to
comprehensively and sustainably manage their ancestral domain and all resources found therein
so that future generations may enjoy them.
A resource person pointed out: “Each IP has a difference, you deal with them separately,
hindi pwedeng as one, as one Mindanao na IP, dapat according to tribe. Iba-iba talaga sila.”84
Hence, the better approach to realize the IPs' right to development is through their own planning
and programming process that would result to the formulation of their ADSDPP. The option of
the IPs to adopt a sustainable development and protection plan shall be respected under the
principle of free pursuit of development as a people.85
Unfortunately, the IPs lack capacity to formulate plans, programs, and projects.86 In such
case, those who have the capacity, financial resources and technology (whether IPs or non-IPs)
have an advantage. An IP resource person's narration encapsulates the situation thus:
“Tungkol sa ancestral domain fund, we have 18,000 hectares yet we are
relying on convergence ng different NGA at LGU. Hindi siya uunahing linangin
84 Per statement of Cecilia D. Trino (Mindanao Development Authority) during the 4th public hearing in Davao
City
85 Op. cit., Note 43
86 Per statement of Chito Balintay (Provincial Board Member, Zambales, IPMR-Aeta) during the 3rd public
hearing in Tagaytay City
29
ng LGU. Hindi nangyayari. Isa yun sa inaasahan kong mabigyan ng ancestral
domain fund for the development, using ADSDPP as a framework of the
implementation for project and programs because everything is in place. May
plano pero walang pera para sa implementasyon. Yan ang isang problema sa
implementasyon. Kapag walang pera. Ang pagpasok ng mga migrant settlers and
other peoples continue, pati mga organizations na gustong pumasok, kumukuha o
nagpopokus ng atensyon dahil marami na sila, masisira ang integridad sa lupaing
ninuno. Ang influx ng migrants, minsan kapag may problema, binebenta ko na at
ito ay nasa loob ng ancestral domain. Anyway that is internal problem. Kailangan
sana ng intervention kung hindi na namin kaya. Then yung protection ng
ancestral domain. That is why kailangan ibigay ang pondo, we have 18,000
hectares. How could we protect an entire area kung ang kumpanya pumasok at
dala ang kanilang sariling army just to put them in the area. Mayroong illegal
logging, mayroong migrants, paano naman ang simpleng tribo lamang?”87
Development, discrimination and the vulnerable sectors of the IP Community
(i.e., women, children, elderly)
The IPs felt discriminated against by non-IPs, even by the government, in terms of
economic opportunities and accessing of programs. Their non-inclusion in government programs
are deemed discriminatory, as they are left behind. They consider themselves powerless since the
government immediately penalize them for violation of certain laws, such as on environmental
protection, while big companies could go scot-free. They believe that non-IPs and even other IP
groups consider them as having lesser capacity, such as in the classroom88 and work setting.
They are mere tools for some, who would befriend them whenever convenient to the latter's
interest.89 The Sama Bajaus and nomadic Atis are treated as “eye sores” for being mendicants
and due to their dirty physical appearance.90 It is observed that IPs, such as those in far-flung
areas are prone to be influenced by leftist groups.91
The IPs clamor to be self-sufficient and self-sustaining communities, and they expect the
full support of the government, who in certain instances is not fully cognizant in implementing
the IPRA and other laws loosely recognizing the indigenous identity, or one that has tendency to
insist its ideas from top to bottom.92 IPRA is categorical in recognizing the IPs' right to special
measures for the immediate, effective and continuing improvement of their economic and social
conditions, including in the areas of employment, vocational training and retraining, housing,
87 Per statement of Eleutrio Manaytay (Mandaya, Provincial Tribal Chieftain, Davao Oriental) during the 4 th public
hearing in Davao City
88 Per statement of Ruel Morfing (Youth leader, Teduray) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City
89 Per statement of Jeorge Largado (Bukidnon Karulano, IPMR-Kabankalan, Negros Occidental) during the
1st public hearing in Iloilo City
90 Per statement of Philip Salvador Acuna (IP Focal, DSWD Region III) during the 3rd public hearing in
Tagaytay City
91 Per statement of B/Gen. Noelito Albano (AFP Northern Luzon Command) during the Baguio Conference
on the IP Right to Development 92 Per DOLE's identification of issues and concerns in monitoring the right to development of IPs, during the
Baguio Conference on the IP Right to Development
30
sanitation, health and social security. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special
needs of indigenous women, elderly, youth, children and differently-abled persons.93 It is only
after 20 years of IPRA when the ethnographic survey would be conducted to gather
disaggregated data on IP women, children, elderly, and that would once and for all clarify the
scope and meaning of ethnicity.94 Still, there has been the legal basis for the IPs' demand for
special attention.
IP women raise the young at home. The primary concern of IP women is about their
health conditions, particularly reproductive health. The IPs have in mind the DOH's “no home
birthing policy”. This policy is also considered to have an effect on the customs and traditions of
the IPs. For instance, a male IP should not approach a pregnant woman IP while giving birth, but
in health centers there are male nurses.95 The IP women could not afford the cost of giving birth
in health centers. They are accustomed to pay their traditional birth attendant (“hilot”, “paltera”)
in kind (e.g., chicken, food). The government implements the “no home birthing policy” to
address the rising number of maternal deaths since 2011 and local government units enacted
local ordinances penalizing delivering through the assistance of traditional birth attendants.96
Meanwhile, health facilities in Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas (GIDA) are not
established. Mainstream medical practices also conflict with the IPs' traditional health system.
Municipalities and provinces considered to have a large GIDA and IP population have poor
health indicators compared to municipalities and provinces that are more accessible. The
delivery of health services are devolved to the LGUs. But delivery of health service to IPs may
be complex. IP communities are geographically defined by their ancestral domains that may be
covered by geographic areas of various sizes and at times under several LGUs.97 IP women
would want to have more active involvement in the decision-making process of their group.
IP youth and children ask for more opportunities to develop their potential, particularly
through education. They are conscious of their role to preserve their groups' cultural heritage.
However, they believe that the scholarship programs of the government, primarily based on the
mainstream grading system as NCIP requires, 98 are deemed not considerate of their socio-
cultural background. Schools are located far from the children's homes. Also, the IP Youth
resource persons from Maguindanao and Compostela Valley Province are bothered in what they
know as continuing efforts of certain groups to recruit the IP youth to join the armed struggle.99
The same situation occurs in Sitio Sambisan, Brgy. Poypoy, Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro,
93 Section 25, IPRA
94 Per statement of NCIP Commissioner Basilio A. Wandag and presentation of Dahlialyn Dait-Cawed during the
Baguio Conference on the IP Right to Development
95 Per statement of Roldan Babelon (Erumanen ne Menuvu) and Linda Midal (Lambangian) during the 4th public
hearing in Davao City
96 House Resolution No. 1531
http://gabrielawomensparty.net/sites/gwp/files/HR1531%20Investigate%20DOH%20No%20Home%20Birthing
%20Policy.pdf (accessed November 28, 2017)
97 DOH-NCIP-DILG Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2013-01 (April 19, 2013). Guidelines on the Delivery of
Basic Health Services for Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples http://ncipro67.com.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/DOH-NCIP-DILG-JOINT-MC-NO-2013-01-dtd-19-April-2013.pdf (accessed
November 28, 2017)
98 Per statement of Bae Nena Lindaan (Mandaya) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City
99 Per statement of Ruel Morfing (Youth leader, Teduray) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City
31
concerning a youth Taubuid who is allegedly recruited by the military.100 Most IP children are
not registered at birth. For instance, in two sitios of Brgy. Dalagsaan, Libacao, Aklan, there are
already 265 IP children who are not registered and do not have birth certificates.101 Children who
are not born in hospitals or health centers are not registered.102 During the 2nd public hearing in
Tagaytay City, the youth sector of the Dumagat-Remontado from Rizal, the Aytas from Limay,
Bataan and Botolan, Zambales specifically recommended the following:
• Feeding Program para sa Malnutrisyon – meron naman po kasi puro lugaw at lugaw na
may itlog. Kung mapataaas pa ang nutritional content para mapunan ang nutrisyon ng
bata
• IEC Materials para sa tamang nutrisyon
• Awareness seminar para sa mga magulang – family as the most basic unit kaya sila ang
magtuturo sa mga bata. Example, ang sexual reproduction, aware tayo sa sex, ang anak
dapat nagguide natin sila pero mismo ang parents ay hindi aware sa ganitong issues. Ang
youth ngayon ay naooverwhelm sa technology, pag pumasok ang curiosity ng isang bata,
kung walang guidance ng magulang, may tendency na mapahamak siya.
• Tulong sa Pagpaparehistro o birth
• Pagtulong sa pagkuha ng requirements
• Panawagan sa NCIP para sa tamang dokumentasyon.
IPs have high regard for their elders. The IP youth look up to their elders for guidance on
how to continue and preserve their customs and traditions. Being an elder in the IP community
does not necessarily mean reaching the age of 60 years old. There are IP senior citizens who are
not included in the list of beneficiaries of the social pension, monthly stipend and other
benefits.103 They are not aware about the criteria and process to avail the government programs
for senior citizens.
Right to Cultural Integrity
The IPs manifested during the hearings that their culture and way of life must be
respected by non-IPs, particularly their ancestral domains. Encroachment to ancestral domains
are considered as disrespect. The implementation of government projects, such as the NGP,
education, health and livelihood services are deemed not sensitive to the cultural context of the
IPs and their native identity
100 Per statement of Kalib Macapagal (Taubuid) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
101 Per statement of Guillermo Colas (Akeanon Bukidnon, Brgy. Dalagsaan, Libacao, Aklan) during the 1st public
hearing in Iloilo City
102 Per statement of Lettie Magango (representing Bantuanon and Ati Group, Odiongan, Romblon) during the 2nd
public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
103 Per statement of Valentin Regla (Tagabukid) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
32
In order to assess the key findings above, we applied a problem tree analysis of the non-
fulfillment of IP rights as summarized here:
Figure 4 : Problem Analysis on the Non Fulfillment of IPs Rights in the Philippines
1. Main Effects
Throughout the inquiry, it was noted that there were recurring issues brought forward that were
summarized into four (4) key issues representing the MAIN EFFECTS of non-fulfillment of IP
rights, to wit:
• First, unsecured or threatened ancestral domain & land, violation of FPIC (Free, Prior,
Informed Consent) process, displacement & dispossession of IPs and loss of ecological
integrity;
• Second, non establishment of the self-governance mechanisms and non maximization or
threatened representation of IPs (by their IPS-Indigenous Political Structures, IPOs-
Indigenous Peoples Organizations, and now also their IPMRs-IP Mandatory
Representatives in LGUs);
33
• Third, insufficient support to the IPs socio, economic and cultural development through
full implementation of their ADSDPP (Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development
Protection Plan);
• Fourth, non consideration of IP rights in autonomy & peace efforts (Cordillera,
Bangsamoro and other parts of the Philippines); and
• Fifth, insufficient protection of the most vulnerable IP sectors including IP women, IP
youth, IP children, IP elders, IP IDPs (internally-displaced people) and IP nomads.
In the discussion, it was clear that these five (5) key main issues do not stand independent of
each other but are actually interlinked. This is clearly shown in this hierarchy of effects:
Figure 5 : Hierarchy of Effects of Non-Fulfillment of IP Rights in the Philippines
When ancestral domains (ADs) are not secured or are threatened as manifested by intrusion of
non-IPs due to violation of FPIC and as a direct results of conflicting claims within the ancestral
domain , IP communities tend to be displaced from their own lands becoming internally
displaced people (IDP). This displacement are often due to force, intimidation or deceit. In many
reported cases, when displaced IPs attempt to return to their original lands, they find their lands
already occupied by non IP settlers resulting in their eventual dispossession.
When ADs are not secured or under threat the overall situation of the IP community becomes
very insecure as well.This is never conducive to consolidating the IP communities and leads to
not establishing properly the IPs mechanisms for self-governance and representation to critical
governance bodies such as LGUs and Regional Development Council (RDCs). These
34
representations are not maximized or become susceptible to threats of disenfranchisement.
Because the territory is not secured, self-governance and representations are weakened, IPs
ability to claim their share of programs, projects & activities (PPAs), services due them,
including related resources to support these PPAs & services, relevant policies, implementing
structures & mechanisms from the state (both LGU and national government) are heavily
affected.
The result is insufficient support to socio-economic and cultural development needs of these IP
communities. This is glaringly clear in the lack of support to the development and full
implementation of each IP communities’ ADSDPP.
All these inevitably results in the weak capacity to protect the rights of the most vulnerable
sectors in each IP communities; namely IP women, IP youth, IP children, IP elderly (senior
citizens), IP internally displaced persons (IP-IPDs) and IP nomads.
IP IDPs are a direct result of a growing number of cases of displacement of IPs from their
ancestral domains. These are caused by several reasons; from armed conflicts to natural disasters
to intimidation, violence or deceit by various groups and individuals; who in most instances end
up manifesting their interest to claim the lands of the IPs and/or exploit their natural resources.
IP nomads on the other hand, is a phenomenon that has been with us from the beginning but not
clearly understood or acted upon. The nomadic lifestyles of some IPs were noted and explained
during the inquiry. These includes the sea-fearing nomadic lifestyles of the various Bajau tribes
and the nomadic herders of the plains of central Visayas such as the Ati and others.
When their poverty reaches a certain worsening degree, these naturally nomadic tribes begin to
manifest their movement within cities where the only thing that most Filipinos who hardly
understand their plight nor their culture would see are acts of mendicancy by some of these IPs.
Due to varying extend of the impacts of these four (4) earlier effects; IP rights are sometimes not
considered in efforts and processes of other stakeholders asserting autonomy and pursuing of
peace talks to end various armed struggles, . This despite that fact that these efforts at autonomy
and peace negotiations have direct implications to IPs because they share boundaries and/or their
territories are part of or these claims and negotiations.
2. Main Causes
After analyzing the hierarchy of effects, the inquiry of the CHR then focused on the top causes of
the non-fulfillment of IP rights. The following were determined as the top three causes:
(1) Slow processing of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs);
(2) Non-recognition of Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives (IPMRs) by some Local
Government Units (LGUs); and
35
(3) The taking for granted of CADTs and the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development &
Protection Plans (ADSDPPs)
a. Slow processing of Certificated of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs)
In violation of the right to ancestral domain & land, the processing of CADTs (Certificates of
Ancestral Domain Titles) have been painstakingly slow and have slowed down even further with
the deadlock of the process of implementation of the JAO (Joint Administrative Order)-1 Series
of 2012. Ironically this JAO was originally intended to fast tracked the release of the proof of
these native titles. The dynamics of these root cause is expressed in this further problem tree
analysis prepared by IP leaders themselves during the inquiry:
Figure 6 : Problem Tree Analysis on the Slow Processing of CADTs (Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims)
They testified that in processing CADTs from application, to delineation, to approval and
registering the CADT with the Land Registration Authority (LRA) , the process takes too long.
When asked why they think this is happening, they provided two (2) main reasons. One is
because of the delays in completing the surveys and mapping to properly delineate the actual
coverage of the ADs. The other reason of the delay is because of many cases involving
conflicting claims of the ADs
36
Delay in the delineation is fundamentally caused by the insufficient funding of the NCIP to
conduct these delineation. In recent years, they were limited by funding to deliver only one (1)
AD for delineation per year. This funding limitation of the NCIP is of course because the
General Appropriations Act (GAA) covering said years have not sufficiently provided the
required funds for this critical task. This reflects the low priority of the state as well as the weak
lobbying for this allocation in Congress.
This slow processing of CADTs directly results to IP communities not having in their hands a
proof of ownership of their ADs that they can use against other claims which in turn limits them
from controlling migrants from intruding into their domains.
Not having this proof also limits them from negotiating favorably with NGAs and LGUs for the
entry of PPAs and other mechanisms (e.g. NGPs, BuBs-Bottom Up Budgeting for several
projects) to support their needs in the ADs. Furthermore, without proof of ownership in their
hands, IPs are also limited; in negotiating to their favor, land re-classification efforts within or
affecting their ADs. All of these effects contribute to increasing conflicts (actual and legal
conflicts) among IPs and between IPs and non IPs.
b. Non-recognition of Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives (IPMRs) by some Local
Government Units (LGUs)
In violation of the right to self-governance & empowerment, the non-recognition of IPMRs by
some LGUs disenfranchises them from fulfilling their mandate to represent the interests of the IP
communities in local governance. The dynamics of these root cause is expressed in this further
problem tree analysis prepared by IP leaders themselves during the inquiry:
Figure 7 : Problem Tree Analysis of Non Recognition of IMPRs by some LGUs
They testified that the non-recognition of some LGUs for the full representation of IPMRs in
their respective local legislative councils (Sangguniang Bayan/ Panglungsod) is primarily due to
partisan politics. Despite that IPMRs are meant to be non-partisan, key LGU officials hesitate or
outright refuse to allow endorsed IPMRs duly certified by the NCIP to sit as a regular member of
the local legislative council because they perceived some of them as not supportive of their
37
administration of their political party’s interests or that they prefer some other IP leaders Loyal
to them.
When partisan politics is not in play; sometimes, it is merely an issue of insufficient or lack of
understanding and appreciation on the privileges of IPs to be represented in local legislative
councils as part of their right to social justice and self governance & empowerment. In this case,
the concern LGU officials merely needs to be oriented more. However’ in some cases with
deeply rooted discrimination against IPs, some LGU officials simply refuse to understand or
appreciate.
These results to IPMRs not able to sit as regular member of local legislative councils and
eventually delay in the development or re-development & proper implementation of PPAs that
may be supportive of the implementation of targets set in the ADSDPP that sitting IPMRs are
suppose to push. In this situation, the interest of the IPs are not protected because LGU support is
not properly and sufficiently directed to IPs through their ADSDPP.
c. The taking for granted of CADTs and the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development &
Protection Plans (ADSDPPs)
In violation of the right to social justice & human rights as well as the right to cultural
development, the disregard for the integrity of CADTs as well as the ADSDPP representing the
development aspiration of IP communities further hinders the fulfillment of IP Rights. The
dynamics of these root cause is expressed in this further problem tree analysis prepared by IP
leaders themselves during the inquiry:
Figure 8 : Problem Tree Analysis of Disregard for CADTs and the ADSDPP
They testified that the disregard for the integrity of the CADTs and the ADSDPPs is directly
caused by two main reasons. One is that the CADTs continue to be challenged by other
conflicting claims because other National Government Agencies (NGAs) like the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
38
and others continue to issue other tenurial instruments within or overlapping parts of ADs. This
is happening even where CADTs or CADCs have previously been issued; and not withstanding
recognition of vested rights per IPRA, even issuing these post 1997 or after the enactment of
IPRA. In many instances, this happens because of connivance between some DENR, DAR
personnel and interested parties who want to claim these lands for their own without regard for
respecting the rights of IPs to these ADs and lands.
These results to PPAs not identified in the ADSDPP (which means PPAs that may not be
appropriate for the IP community concern) to be set and implemented in the AD. On the other
hand, those PPAs that are appropriate based on the ADSDPP often do not get prioritized for
support and implementation. As such, the effect is either implementation of mal-targeted PPAs
for IPs or insufficient; and in some cases, outright lack of implementation of proper PPAs for IPs
in their respective domains.
3. Rooting the Causes
When inquired further, reflecting on the three (3) main causes identified and looking into
common factors that cuts across all three, the inquiry came to the conclusion that the root causes
of these may further be summarized into the following:
Figure 9 : Root Causes of the Non-Fulfillment of IP Rights in the Philippines
a. Continued discrimination of IPs in
various forms and in day to day life
experiences
Box 1: Two-Faced Dimension of IP Discrimination While the culture of discrimination against IPs is still perceived to be happening, the nature of the discrimination is two-faced. It is not only about IPs being discriminated by non-IPs but there is also a reverse discrimination when IPs through some of their cultural practices also has the effect of discriminating against the ways of life of non IPs as applied to them or even among affected IPs. A case in point is when IP elders intervene to circumvent prosecution for crimes such as rape, murder of IPs in favor or amicable settlements. In this case it is the IPs that discriminates against mainstream value systems for justice sacrificing rule of law.
39
In as much as the state commits fully to eradicate discrimination against IPs, there is still
continued discrimination of IPs in various forms and in their day to day experiences aggravating
the slow processing of CADTs, the non recognition of IPMRs by some LGUs and the taking for
granted of the ADSDPP and the integrity of the CADT.
While there is a need to further determine whether these acts or omissions are really driven by
actual discrimination, the fact is that they are perceived by the IPs as such and should therefor be
investigated fully.
b. Insufficient capacity of key state duty bearers to fulfill obligations for IP rights promotion,
protection & fulfillment
The insufficient capacity of key state duty bearers to perform their obligations for IP rights
protection, promotion and fulfillment is not only prevalent in the case of the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and its PPAs. It is a problem across many key
national government agencies and relevant LGUs that while reported by many in the inquiry
during the various testimonies, a full accounting and analysis of this lack of capacity across
government as a whole is non existent to date.
With the exception of NCIP whose mandates are clearly focused on IP Rights, almost all of the
concern national government agencies and even LGUs consulted considered IPs’ needs and
public service requirements as part of their overall programs and services, However, very few
have dedicated comprehensive plans and programs for IP communities. The Inquiry in fact
opened the door for these agencies to be more aware of the need for them to have focus plans
and programs for IPs and how they can evolve more culturally-appropriate programming for IPs.
What is needed is a thorough review of the few dedicated IP-focus programs of key state actors
(e.g. MindA IP Development Plan, DepEds IPEd, DENR IP Desk & IP Program, NCCAs
school of living traditions and others).
Also the key government policies and initiatives that have figured prominently in the recurring
issues identified in the inquiry like: a) DoH’s & LGUs no home birthing policy, b) JAO of
NCIP, LRA, DENR, DAR to expedite resolution of overlapping claims of various tenurial
instruments towards registration of actual titles of CADT, c) DENR’s national greening program
and its interpretation of the nature of ancestral domain vis a vis timberlands, d) DepEd’s IPEd
relevant guidelines on accrediting teachers for IPs and IP schools, e) DSWD’s expanded
coverage of the 4Ps program in geographically difficult areas, f) DPWH’s funding for IP school
buildings for LGUs, g) IP focus special civil registration mechanisms of PSA as well as special
arrangement of accrediting traditional IP leaders as solemnizing officials of weddings,
h) inclusion of IP related considerations in collecting relevant information on the Barangay
information systems of DILG, i) the imposition of 1% of investments through the RDCs to be
dedicated for IPs as well as the representation mechanism in RDCs open for IPs must all be
carefully reviewed.
This should also cover an analysis of how other NGA programs that have bearing on how
effectively services may be rendered or extended to IPs if only they can be enhanced to give
40
dedicated emphasis on IPs with full cultural sensitivity. These include: a) the GAD programs and
utilization of GAD budget being monitored and promoted by the PCW, b) the agricultural and
fisheries development program of DA and DAR, c) the ecotourism programs of DOT and
DENR and now even DA, and d) the seal of excellence incentive mechanisms of DILG.
On the fiscal side as it relates to the issue of capacity of state duty bearers, it is crucial that both
demand and supply side of financing for PPAs to achieve progressive realization of the 4 IP
bundles of rights are thoroughly reviewed.
On the demand side, funding and investment requisites of ADSDPP or similar development
aspirational plans of IPs for their own development within the principle of self governance and
empowerment and right to self determination ought to be consolidated and made known. This
may be further gleaned by analyzing and monetizing the values represented in the ADSDPP
(Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development & Protection Plan) for every Ancestral Domain
(AD) per IP tribe. Consolidated, these will represent the total value of aspirations of Filipino
Indigenous Peoples.
On the supply side, a thorough review of the allocation and utilization of budget for the NCIP
for direct IP services; including delineation and titling of ADs across the past 20 years of their
existence, ought to be done. Also, a whole government tagging of IP-related PPA budget
allocation and utilization covering the past 20 years of IPRA implementation ought to be done to
get a complete picture of the supply side of IP-related financing by the state.
Comparing the aspirational values over that of public expenditures (current and projected) will
provide an overall assessment of adequacy of funding for IP-related PPAs.
c. Conflicts within the Ancestral Domain due to: a) development aggression driven by resource
conflicts, b) external conflicts of opposing armed groups brought in the ADs causing
division among IP community members
The role and impacts of private corporate entities entering into ancestral domain; compliance to
FPIC processes notwithstanding, and how they affect internal conflicts, displacement and
dispossession of IP communities as well as how royalty systems for mining projects in ADs
affects the way IP communities assert their right to self determination and self governance and
how in some cases this itself has cause major division within the IP communities should all be
reviewed.
Another issue is how the computation of actual and potential royalties has become sometimes the
sole basis for determining the investment requirements of ADSDPP. This may be interpreted as
the states’ abdication of their obligation to support the ADSPP as a manifestation of securing
social justice for IP communities. In a sense this may be interpreted as a form of privatization of
services the state owes IP communities for historical injustices they have endured in the past and
still today.
Resource conflict analysis shows that the Philippines is one of the most mineralised countries in
the world. Unfortunately, much of these minerals lie within key biodiversity areas, and recent
data show that 38 out of 63 government priority mining projects fall within the ancestral domains
41
of indigenous peoples, 69% of which have had their Free Prior Informed Consent circumvented,
and 44% have reported of land-related conflict.
These mining operations, protected areas and reforestation projects within or adjacent to
ancestral domain have led to aggravating intrusions and conflicting claims in ADs. This amidst
the potential of IPs ways with their uniquely cultural mechanisms to imposing protection
compliance of natural resource management and climate change actions.
Finally on the issue of armed conflicts being brought inside the ADs, most prominent among
Mindanao IPs (particularly the Lumads) and also reported to some extend in the Northern Luzon
and Central Visayas regions, the divide among IP communities; sometimes down to the level of
families and clans being split in the middle and forced to choose sides between two armed
groups is a growing phenomenon that is reaching critical levels. This is causing conflicts within
the AD. On one end are the law enforces (PNP and others) and the protector of the people (AFP
units) while on the other are armed rebel groups including from the NPA of the CPP-NDF and
the secessionist armed groups of the MILF and even segments of the MNLF. Reported in the
inquiry were cases of recruitment of IP members from both camps that unfortunately also covers
reported cases of child soldier.
Summing up the analysis of these myriad of issues of non-fulfillment of IP rights, the inquiry
testimonies affirmed the continuing validity of an earlier analysis of the NCIP of the various
issues affecting IPs as summarized in their 14-point challenges.
When compared to the 5 recurring key issues surfaced in the CHR’s 2017 National IP Rights
Inquiry, we are able to cover all 14-point challenges in these 5 key issues and it remains
consistent with the 3-prong root causes identified. Table 2 shows this.
This final part of the problem analysis is important as it was able to simplify along 5 key issues
and 3 root causes but still covers all major elements of previous and current identified challenges.
This will facilitate more manageable planning & programming.
Table 2: Comparison of the NCIP’s 14-Thematic Challenges and the 5-Key Issues of Non Fulfillment of IP Rights
Reported in the CHR’s 2017 National IP Rights Inquiry
42
From the problem tree analyses, the inquiry workshops then proceeded in transforming these into
a series of solution trees to guide actions to remedy these problem of non fulfillment of IP rights.
In order to mobilize the state actors as primary duty bearers of IP rights, the proposed MAIN
SOLUTION to respond to the main problem of non-fulfillment of IP rights is the conduct of a
Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) to monitoring & evaluation of IP rights fulfillment.
The identified effects were then transformed into target ends while the identified causes were
transformed into means. To illustrate this:
Figure 10 : Solution/Objective Tree on Human Rights Based Approach to Monitoring & Evaluation of IP Rights
Fulfillment
The identified ends; just like in the case of the identified effects, are not isolated elements but are
interlinked. As shown in the next figure (Figure 11), When ancestral domains are secured and
FPIC is enforce, displaced IPs are resettled and they are able to repossess their ancestral lands.
Once more consolidated and secured in their respective ADs, IP communities will now be able to
establish self governance mechanisms and maximize their representation in local governance
with threats minimized or removed. With proper representation and control over their domain,
sufficient support for socio-economic & cultural development of IP communities through the full
implementation of their respective ADSDPP will follow. And, once all of these is done,
sufficient protection for the most vulnerable IP sectors can now be assured. This will also result
in the full consideration of IP rights in ongoing autonomy and peace talks in some areas.
43
Figure 11 : Hierarchy of Ends in Successfully Applying HRBA in Monitoring & Evaluation of Fulfillment of IP
Rights in the Philippines
E. Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) to Monitoring & Evaluation of IP Rights
Fulfillment
It is important to note that an HRBA monitoring & evaluation system fully implemented will
bring about the concerted actions by key state duty bearer (LGUs and NGAs alike) to fulfill the
rights of indigenous Filipinos.
The elements of an HRBA is complied with in the proposed monitoring & evaluation of IP rights
fulfillment through the IPHRO.
HRBA is focus on process and outcomes. The IPHRO with its O.PE.R.A. based system will be
process-based and will focus on key outcomes as defined by its indicators.
It emphasizes on realizing rights; in this case as defined by the 4 bundles of IP rights and IPs
right to development. Furthermore, it recognizes individual and group rights as claims towards
moral and legal duty bearers. Defined in the IPHRO as right holders are the IPs through their IPS
(Indigenous Political Structures), IPOs (Indigenous Peoples Organizations) and IPMRs
(Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives). On the other hand, duty bearers are defined as
key state actors (covered LGUs, key NGAs led by the NCIP and CHR). Also considered state
duty bearers are IPMRs with their dual nature as government officials. Non state duty bearers are
identified as IP-focused CSOs, private corporations.
44
Individuals are entitled to assistance under an HRBA and in the IPHRO, we will set up a network
of partners & service providers among duty bearers to provide these assistance.
Finally, HRBA focuses on structural causes and their manifestation. In the IPHRO we will focus
on systemic issues that results to violations of IP rights. Again these systemic issues are: a)
securing ancestral domain and ecological & cultural integrity, b) self-governance &
representation (through IPS, IPOs and IPMRs), c) supporting socio-economic and cultural
development through full implementation of ADSDPPS, d) protecting the mot vulnerable IP
sectors and e) ensuring IP rights in autonomy and peace talks efforts.
Table 12: Comparative Table on the Elements of HRBA and the Elements of an M&E for IP Rights Fulfillment
The resulting solution or objective tree applied with HRBA identified the KEY MEANS as
follows: a) Extensive Information, Education and Communications to combat culture of
discrimination of IPs, b) Capacity Building on IP Rights Promotion, Protection & Fulfillment
including on IP Rights M&E and c) Direct IP Communities – CHR Knowledge Management
System LINK to IP Rights Protection Services Referral & Follow Through.
These KEY MEANS identified in the solution tree are also deemed consistent responses to the
ROOT CAUSES earlier identified.
The root cause of continued discrimination of IPs in various forms and in their day-to-day
experiences can aptly be remedied with extensive information, education and communications to
combat the culture of discrimination of IPs. Further analysis on the capacity gaps of state duty
bearers in this area of work requires we look into IEC (information, education & communication)
related issues.
The root cause of insufficient capacity of key state duty bearers to implement their obligations
45
can aptly be remedied with building the capacity on IP promotion, protection & fulfillment,
including capacity for effective monitoring & evaluation. Further analysis on the capacity gaps
of state duty bearers in this area of work requires we look into implementation related issues.
Finally, the root cause of conflicts within the ancestral domain due to: a) development aggression
driven by resource conflicts, b) external conflicts of opposing armed groups brought in the ADs
causing division among IP community members can aptly be remedied by setting up a fully
operational direct IP communities – CHR knowledge management system that LINK to IP rights
protection services referral & follow through system. Further analysis on the capacity gaps of
state duty bearers in this area of work requires we look at monitoring & evaluation related issues.
Figure 13 : Confronting the Root Causes with the Identified Key Ends in the Problem Tree Analysis of Fulfilling the
Rights of IPs in the Phils
When the above reports of the actions of state duty bearers are subjected to a Gap Analysis,
the resulting assessment are as follows:
A. Right to Land & Ancestral Domain
These covers the issues on securing ancestral domain, enforcing free, prior and informed
consent and ensuring ecological integrity. For this, the following specific problems were
identified:
1. Delays in the issuance of CADTs & development of ADSDPP due to insufficient funding for
timely delineation and unresolved conflicts in tenurial claims in the ADs including those with
dragging legal cases;
46
2. Non-recognition on the nature of ADs by IPs, non IPs, private entities (including business
corporations) and some NGAs/LGUs resulting to intrusion of non IPs in ADs causing
displacement & dispossession (land grabbing) of IPs through force, intimidation & deception;
3. Violation or lack of full enforcement of Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC) by way of
deception,& connivance or by implementation of policies & conduct of practices that
circumvent or weakens FPIC processes and
4. Insufficient natural resource management and weak enforcement & monitoring of
environmental laws in various development activities within ADs (especially by private
companies in extractive industries like mining) resulting to ecological damage (e.g. pollution,
biodiversity loss)
On the delays of issuances of CADTs and development of ADSDPP, the relevant government
agencies reported on the following interventions: a) Issuance of JAO 1 Series of 2012 by DAR,
DENR, NCIP and LRA to resolve conflicting tenurial claims in ADs, b) Increase funding of
NCIP through its PIPE project to complete pending delineation & ADSDPP formulation and c)
the issuance of a JAO between DoJ and NCIP on legal assistance on cases involving conflicting
tenurial claims.
However, despite all these interventions; several gaps were identified:
According to a study reported by NEDA during the IP national inquiry, the JAO 1 Series of 2012
implementation had the reverse effect of slowing down issuance of CADTs primarily by delays
with the DENR processes. This is currently being resolved.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court decision on Unduran vs Aberasturi case has significantly
clipped the jurisdiction of the already limited capacity of the NCIP to resolve or provide legal
support in IP legal cases involving conflicting tenurial claims in ADs. Thus, the JAO between
DoJ and NCIP on legal assistance involving conflicting tenurial claims in ancestral domains
becomes even more crucial
Involvement of IPs representatives in monitoring the work of the inter agency committee on the
JAO 1-12 & the JAO on legal assistance and the utilization of the NCIP PIPE project to ensure
transparency & accountability are not clear. No representation among IP leaders on these were
reported during the inquiry. Furthermore many IP groups are not aware of the JAO on legal
assistance and the NCIP legal services and how to avail them for their cases involving
conflicting tenurial claims on ADs
Finally while the increase in the NCIP budget is a welcome development, the sufficiency of the
increase in NCIP budget for CADT delineation need to be established.
On the on-recognition on the nature of ADs by IPs, non IPs, private entities (including business
corporations) and some NGAs/LGU, it was reported that NCIP conducts continuous IEC on the
nature of ADs as native titles with collective ownership among NGAs, LGUs and IPs to help
47
solve this problem. This problem stems directly from the delay in issuing CADTs as proof of
collective ownership of IPs of their ADs that hinders them from controlling entry of non-IPs in
their ADs.
A major implementation problem here is the insufficient presence of NCIP in the localities of
LGUs at the municipal/city level limits their efforts at conducting more IECs. This is aggravated
by the insufficient investments of most LGUs & other NGAs on IEC work on IP rights. This is
compounded with the insufficient monitoring and remedial actions to counter displacement of
IPs by force, intimidation & deception that have directly resulted in the dispossession of IPs of
their part of their ADs.
Unfortunately, many IPs, NGAs and LGUs are still not properly oriented about the nature of
native titles. IPs have been misled in attempts to illegally sell their portion of the ADs. Some ill-
informed LGUs and NGAs have become prone to executing programs and creating policies that
are not supportive of IP rights fulfillment.
On the violation of or lack of full enforcement of Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC), it was
reported that review of implementation of waiver clauses in DENR DAO 2012-07 that
circumvents FPIC is currently on its way and that the development of appropriate guidelines &
mechanisms for varying procedures for FPIC of different types of projects and activities within
ADs is also being pursued to respond to this problem.
Despite this, the following gaps were identified. First, due to lack of resources by government, in
increasing number of cases, project proponents often end up paying for the cost of conducting
the FPIC and gaining undue control or influence over the process favorable to their application.
Secondly, there is insufficient monitoring and remedial actions to counter these violation or
circumvention of the FPIC process Finally, for the public and other stakeholders, the processes in
securing the FPIC processes remains mostly unclear and limits 3rd party from monitoring to
ensure transparency & accountability
On insufficient natural resource management and weak enforcement & monitoring of
environmental laws in various development activities within AD, the concern NGA reported that
natural resource management & conservation are part of ADSDPP but have not been fully
implemented. Also that DENR & LGU natural resource management & conservation PPAs are
often also applied to a limited extend in ADs. There is also a pending Bill on Indigenous
Community Conserved Areas in congress that will govern climate actions and conservation
within the ADs.
Of these, the following gaps were identified: One, some DENR conservation efforts like
protected area management, the National Greening Program results to conflicting claims in
ancestral domains. Secondly, there is insufficient regular consultations between companies
operating in ADs & IP communities
Also, there is insufficient monitoring system for culturally-driven conservation & natural
resource management interventions of IPs in their ADs. There is also no complete and systematic
monitoring system on climate change adaptation & mitigation-related interventions in ADs.
48
Another gap is the insufficient research on Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS) on natural
resource management & consultation including climate change actions of IP communities
preserve for and under the control of concern IPs
B, Right to Self-Governance & Empowerment
This focuses on the issues concerning establishing self-governance & empowerment of
Indigenous Peoples. For this , the following specific problems were identified:
1. Non recognition of IPMRs by some LGUs
2. Inadequate knowledge and skills of IPMRs on IP rights and local legislation including fiscal-
related functions
3. IP representation in RDCs is lacking
On the Non recognition of IPMRs by some LGUs, DILG and NCIP monitors implementation of
the Memorandum Circular of DILG on IPMRs. However, the identified gap is in the Lack of
assertiveness on the part of DILG and NCIP to force LGUs to comply due to limits of mandates
and jurisdictions.
On the Inadequate knowledge and skills of IPMRs on IP rights and local legislation including
fiscal-related functions, it was reported that DILG and NCIP are designing and testing training
programs for IPMRs. Also, CHR with UNDESA support will be providing IPMR Trainings.
However, until these trainings are done widely and effectively, the gap remains in the low
capacity, whereby IPMRs have not yet been able to optimize their representation to access
resources for their respective ADs using their ADSDPPs.
For both of these problems, It does not help that a monitoring mechanism with appropriate
indicators on the level of participation of IPMRs in local governance is lacking.
Finally, there is insufficient; and in some localities; lack of orientation/re-orientation and
conscientization process among LGU officials on IP rights, especially relevant IPRA provisions
on the mandatory nature of IPMRs
C. Right to Social Justice & Human Rights & Rights to Cultural Development
This covers the issues on supporting social, economic and cultural development of IPs in their
Ancestral Domain through the full implementation of the ADSDPP (Ancestral Domain
Sustainable Development Protection Plan). For this, the main problem is insufficient social
services for IPs due to access issues being in geographically isolated & disadvantaged areas
(GIDAs), mismatched PPAs for IPs due to insufficient data on their situation & special
considerations in programming owing to the unique cultural contexts of IPs.
The DepEd reported that it has the IPEd program that manages schools where in some cases are
for 100% IP students & have relevant guidelines on accrediting teachers for these schools
DSWD report that they are Expanded coverage of the 4Ps in GIDAs. On the other hand, DPWH
funding for IP school buildings for LGUs. Also IP focus special civil registration mechanisms
49
was reported by the PSA while NHA's Resettlement Assistance Program providing for
10M/LGU for IP housing was also noted. Furthermore, Inclusion of IP related data on the Brgy
information systems was reported by the DILG.. The imposition of 1% of investments through
the RDCs to be dedicated for IPs was reported by NEDA. And the NCIP’s continuously
expanding scholarship program for deserving IP students. Finally, DA's Special Agricultural
Area Development Project with IP as priority beneficiaries and the IP Health Program through
RIAC guided by IP Health Strategic Plan of DoH and the LGUs were likewise reported as key
responses of state duty bearers.
Despite these several gaps remain. The hiring of IPEd teachers still uses the same LET board
passer requirement that limits education graduate IPs who are more familiar with the culture
from being allowed to teach simply because they cannot pass the LET.
Surveys conducted for the expended 4Ps in GIDA for IPs need to be reviewed since many
reports surveyors did not complete coverage because of several reasons. On the other hand,
NHA’s IP housing project requires that the LGU or the IP community provides land counterpart.
With the delay of CADT registration, this becomes limiting for IP communities. Furthermore
there is no IP representation in the LIAC (Local Inter Agency Committee) for the NHA IP
Housing Support to ensure that the concerns of IPs are fully considered.
NCIP scholarship for IPs; on the other hand is not universal and only for those who can maintain
a certain grade average requirement limiting many disadvantaged IPs to get higher education.
Because of their extreme poverty situation and isolation, it is inherently very difficult for
ordinary IP student to excel academically and maintain the grade average required to be able to
join this scholarships.
Insufficient dis aggregated data on IPs aggravated by the lack of capacity for IP-based program
development by many NGAs remains a major problem. This is currently being remedied with the
PIPE project of NCIP and PSA initiatives NCIP conducts IEC on IP rights to raise awareness on
how IPs ADDPPS are integrated in development planning & programming despite its
insufficient budget. Most LGUs with IPs lacks similar IECs
Guidelines on accessing the DPWH funding for IP Schools is not widely known and therefore
most IPs and LGUs are not aware of it and are not able to access it.
There is also insufficient integration of ADSDPP in local public administration processes
(CLUP, ELA, CDP, CIP) by challenged IPMRs limiting access of IP communities to LGU
resources for development PPAs
Finally, there is a need for more analysis of how other NGA programs that have bearing on how
effectively services may be given to IP with better cultural sensitivity like: a) GAD programs
and utilization of GAD budget, b) agricultural and fisheries development program of DA and
DAR, c) ecotourism programs of DOT and DENR and now even DA, f) seal of excellence
incentive mechanisms of DILG.
50
D. Right to Vulnerable IP Sectors to be protected
This is still under the Right to Social Justice & Human Rights & Rights to Cultural Development
but focused on protecting IP Women, IP Children, IP Elders, IP IDPs (Internally-displaced
people) & IP Nomads. For this the main problems are:
1. Among IP women there is a high incidence maternal deaths and some of the lowest pre natal care rates
2. Difficulty in IP youth in getting jobs despite vocational education and training or even a full bachelor’s degree
3. Many situation of deprivation and discrimination have been reported on IP nomads (eg Bajaos in the city) but no
comprehensive plan of action are implemented
4. There were sporadic reports of child soldiers recruited, girl child trafficked for prostitution but no comprehensive
date was recorded
For the issue on high incidence of maternal deaths and low prenatal care rates among IP women,
DoH and some LGUs have no home birthing policies to ensure safe delivery.. However, no home
birthing policy is widely opposed by IPs as it is perceive going against their cultural practices as
well as it impractical given the access situation. Alternative implementations as a middle ground
for this issue must be planned and implemented such as: a) training the hilots for safer delivery, b)
putting up birthing facilities nearer the IP communities, etc. Among medical practitioners, a need
for cultural conscientization is crucial for better understanding of IPs women's predisposition
when it comes to reproductive health
On the issue of difficulty in IP youth in getting jobs despite, it was noted that government
agencies provide priority for hiring eligible IPs.The gap is that IP youth remain subjected to the
same regular illegibility requirements for getting jobs when he/she may have an inherent
disadvantage because of poverty and isolation.
On the many situation of deprivation and discrimination that have been reported on IP nomads
(eg Bajaos in the city) with no comprehensive plan of action in place DSWD conducted small
studies and surveys on the plight of these IP nomads in the cities. Gaps identified include: proper
cultural conscientization for DSWD staff including City/Municipal SWDs on the nomadic IPs as
well as insufficient well designed social protection programs that should be implemented for
them. Also, LGUs must adopt programs to provide for nomadic IPS when they venture into their
territories with full cultural sensitivity of their situation. Finally, Public IEC on the nature of
nomadic lifestyles of IP nomads is important to reduce ignorance that often lead to
discrimination
On the sporadic reports of child soldiers recruited, girl child trafficked for prostitution but with
no comprehensive data recorded, several NGOs and media outfits have documented these cases
with IP leaders including them in their testimonies during the inquiry. Gaps; however, include:
lack of systematic monitoring of IP girl child and IP children in conflict currently in place
although occasional report of this have been done. Also There is a need for more comprehensive
inquiry on this subject on IP rights . This ought to be included as a special component of the
IPHRO
These are all summarized in table 3:Gap Analysis of State Duty Bearers on Fulfillment of IP
Rights in the Philippines (as of 2017) on Right to Land & Ancestral Domain
51
Table 3: Gap Analysis of State Duty Bearers on Fulfillment of IP Rights in the Philippines (as of 2017)
Right to Land & Ancestral Domain
Area 1: Securing Ancestral Domain, Enforcing Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Ensuring Ecological Integrity
CHALLENGES:
a) Formal Recognition of Ancestral Domains d) Non-compliance & violation of FPIC (Free, Prior, Informed Consent)
b) Control & Management of Ancestral Domains e) Lack of information on IP Rights
c) Overlapping claims over Ancestral Domains f) Discrimination
d) Displacement of IPs from their Ancestral Domains g) Lack of NCIP capacity to deliver its mandates Specific Problems Responses
(mandates, PPAs, policies &
proposals)
Current
M&E systems &
mechanisms
Gap Analysis
Implementation M&E IEC
1. Delays in the issuance of CADTs
& development of ADSDPP due
to insufficient funding for timely
delineation and unresolved
conflicts in tenurial claims in the
ADs including those with
dragging legal cases
JAO 1 Series of 2012 by
DAR, DENR, NCIP and
LRA to resolve
conflicting tenurial
claims in ADs
Increase funding of NCIP
through its PIPE project
to complete pending
delineation & ADSDPP
formulation
JAO between DoJ and
NCIP on legal assistance
on cases involving
conflicting tenurial
claims
JAO 1-12 Inter
Agency
Committee
Project
Development
Monitoring of
NCIP (for PIPE
implementation)
JAO TWG
According to a study
reported by NEDA
during the IP national
inquiry, the reverse
effect of slowing down
issuance of CADTs
because of the JAO 1-
12 is due primarily by
delays with the DENR
processes. This is
currently being resolved
The SC decision on
Unduran vs Aberasturi
has significantly
clipped the jurisdiction
of the already limited
capacity of the NCIP to
resolve or provide legal
support in IP legal
cases involving
conflicting tenurial
claims in ADs
Sufficiency of the
increase in NCIP
budget for CADT
delineation has not yet
been established
Involvement of IPs
representatives in
monitoring the work
of the inter agency
committee on the
JAO 1-12 & the JAO
on legal assistance
and the utilization of
the NCIP PIPE
project to ensure
transparency &
accountability are not
clear
Many IP groups are
not aware of the
JAO on legal
assistance and the
NCIP legal
services and how to
avail them for their
cases involving
conflicting tenurial
claims on ADs
52
Specific Problems Responses
(mandates, PPAs, policies &
proposals)
Current
M&E systems &
mechanisms
Gap Analysis Specific Problems Responses
(mandates, PPAs,
policies & proposals)
2. Non-recognition on the nature of ADs
by IPs, non IPs, private entities
(including business corporations) and
some NGAs/LGUs resulting to
intrusion of non IPs in ADs causing
displacement & dispossession (land
grabbing) of IPs through force,
intimidation & deception
NCIP conducts continuous
IEC on the nature of ADs as
native titles with collective
ownership among NGAs,
LGUs & IPs
This problem stems directly
from the delay in issuing
CADTs as proof of
collective ownership of IPs
of their ADs that hinders
them from controlling entry
of non-IPs in their ADs.
Thus, the actions in item 1
under duty bearer responses
are equally relevant here
QRM (Quick
Response
Mechanism) of
NCIP together
with other NGAs
for IPRVs (IP
Rights Violations)
Reports of
Regional Hearing
Officers of NCIP
IEC Projects are
monitored by
Project Devt
Monitoring of
NCIP
The insufficient presence
of NCIP in the localities
of LGUs at the
municipal/city level limits
their efforts at conducting
more IECs. This is
aggravated by the
insufficient investments of
most LGUs & other NGAs
on IEC work on IP rights
There is insufficient
monitoring and
remedial actions to
counter displacement of
IPs by force,
intimidation &
deception that have
directly resulted in the
dispossession of IPs of
their part of their ADs.
Many IPs, NGAs and
LGUs are still not
properly oriented
about the nature of
native titles. IPs have
been misled in
attempts to illegally
sell their portion of
the ADs. Some ill-
informed LGUs and
NGAs have become
prone to executing
programs and
creating policies that
are not supportive of
IP rights fulfillment
3. Violation or lack of full enforcement
of Free, Prior, Informed Consent
(FPIC) by way of deception,&
connivance or by implementation of
policies & conduct of practices that
circumvent or weakens FPIC
processes
Review of implementation
of waiver clauses in DENR
DAO 2012-07 that
circumvents FPIC
Development of appropriate
guidelines & mechanisms
for varying procedures for
FPIC of different types of
projects and activities within
ADs
QRM (Quick
Response
Mechanism) of
NCIP together
with other NGAs
for IPRVs (IP
Rights Violations)
Due to lack of resources
by government, in
increasing number of
cases, project proponents
often end up paying for
the cost of conducting the
FPIC and gaining undue
control or influence over
the process favorable to
their application
There is insufficient
monitoring and
remedial actions to
counter these violation
or circumvention of the
FPIC process
For the public and
other stakeholders the
processes in securing
the FPIC processes
remains mostly
unclear and limits 3rd
party from
monitoring to ensure
transparency &
accountability
4. Insufficient natural resource
management and weak enforcement
& monitoring of environmental laws
in various development activities
within ADs (especially by private
companies in extractive industries
like mining) resulting to ecological
damage (e.g. pollution, biodiversity
loss)
Natural resource
management & conservation
are part of ADSDPP but
have not been fully
implemented
DENR & LGU natural
resource management &
conservation PPAs are often
also applied to a limited
extend in ADs and Bill on
Indigenous Community
Conserved Areas pending.
Regular
monitoring by
DENR and LGUs
on safe water and
clear air from AD
areas.
IP Desk and an IP
Program across the
DENR
Some DENR conservation
efforts like protected area
management, National
Greening Program results
to conflicting claims in
ancestral domains
There is insufficient
regular consultations
between companies
operating in ADs & IP
communities
There is insufficient
monitoring system for
culturally-driven
conservation & natural
resource management
interventions of IPs in
their Ads
There is also no
systematic monitoring
system on climate
change adaptation &
mitigation-related
interventions in ADs
There is insufficient
research on
Indigenous
Knowledge System
(IKS) on natural
resource management
& consultation
including climate
change actions of IP
communities
preserve for and
under the control of
concern IPs
53
Right to Self-Governance & Empowerment
Area 2: Establishing Self-Governance & Empowerment of Indigenous Peoples
CHALLENGES:
a) IP Governance is Weak d) Discrimination
b) No recognition of some government agencies & LGUs of some IP leaders e) Lack of NCIP capacity to deliver its mandates
c) Lack of information on IP Rights Specific Problems Responses
(mandates, PPAs, policies &
proposals)
Current
M&E systems &
mechanisms
Gap Analysis
Implementation M&E IEC
1. Non recognition of IPMRs by
some LGUs
DILG and NCIP
monitors implementation
of MC on IPMRs
Reported in the
regular program
monitoring of
NCIP and DILG
Lack of assertiveness
on the part of DILG and
NCIP to force LGUs to
comply due to limits of
mandates
A monitoring
mechanism with
appropriate
indicators on the
level of participation
of IPMRs in local
governance is lacking
There is
insufficient in
some localities lack
of orientation/re-
orientation and
conscientization
process among
LGU officials on
IP rights, relevant
IPRA provisions
the mandatory
nature of IPMRs
2. Inadequate knowledge and skills
of IPMRs on IP rights and local
legislation including fiscal-related
functions
DILG and NCIP
designing and testing
training program for
NCIP
CHR with UNDESA
support will be providing
IPMR Trainings
Reported in the
regular program
monitoring of
NCIP and DILG
Due to low capacity,
IPMRs have not yet
been able to optimize
their representation to
access resources for
their respective ADs
using their ADSDPP
3. IP representation in RDCs is
lacking
RDC provides for
representation of
vulnerable sectors
No systematic
monitoring on IP
representation in
RDC
Most IPMRs are not
yet federated to aid
their engaging RDCs
(e.g. IPMR leagues)
54
Right to Social Justice & Human Rights & Rights to Cultural Development
Area 3: Supporting Social, Economic and Cultural Development of IPs in their Ancestral Domain through the full implementation of the ADSDPP (Ancestral
Domain Sustainable Development Protection Plan)
CHALLENGES:
a) Loss of Culture & Traditions of Indigenous Peoples d) Discrimination
b) Impacts of Government Services not felt by IPs e) Lack of NCIP capacity to deliver its mandates
c) Lack of information on IP Rights Specific Problems Responses
(mandates, PPAs, policies &
proposals)
Current
M&E systems &
mechanisms
Gap Analysis
Implementation M&E IEC
1. . Insufficient social services for IPs due
to access issues being in Geographically
Isolated & Disadvantaged Areas (GIDAs),
mismatched PPAs for IPs due to
insufficient data on their situation &
special considerations in programming
owing to the unique cultural context of IPs
DepEd has the IPEd program
that manages IP schools &
have relevant guidelines on
accrediting teachers for IP
schools
Expanded coverage of the 4Ps
in GIDAs
DPWH funding for IP school
buildings for LGUs
IP focus special civil
registration mechanisms of
PSA
NHA's Resettlement
Assistance Program providing
for 10M/LGU for IP housing
DepEd IPEd has
monitoring system
at all levels
including IP focal
persons & even
including IP elders
as cultural bearers
chosen by the IPs
themselves
PSA produces
special reports
monitoring IP
related registration
efforts
LGU reports
monthly to the
LIAC (Local Inter
Agency Committee)
The hiring of IPEd teachers
still uses the same LET
board passer requirement
Surveys conducted for the
expended 4Ps in GIDA for
IPs need to be reviewed
since many reports
surveyors did not complete
coverage
NHA IP housing project
requires that the LGU or the
IP community provides
counterpart. With the delay
of CADT registration, this
becomes limiting
IPEd monitoring systems
adhere to HRBA's
PANTHER principles
No IP representation in
the LIAC for the NHA IP
Housing Support
Insufficient dis
aggregated data on IPs
lack of capacity to for IP-
based program
development. Currently
being remedied with the
PIPE project of NCIP
and PSA initiatives
NCIP conducts IEC on
IP rights to raise
awareness on how IPs
ADDPPS are
integrated in
development planning
& programming
despite its insufficient
budget. Most LGUs
with IPs lacks similar
IECs
Guidelines on
accessing the DPWH
funding for IP Schools
is not widely known
Inclusion of IP related data on
the Brgy information systems
The imposition of 1% of
investments through the
RDCs to be dedicated for IPs
NCIP continuously expanding
scholarship program for
deserving IP students
Compliance
monitored by
DIILG
Currently not
properly monitored
NCIP monitors
what happens to IP
scholars after
graduation
NCIP scholarship for IPs
not universal ad only for
those who can maintain a
certain grade average
requirement limiting many
disadvantaged IPs to get
higher education
Insufficient integration
of ADSDPP in local
public administration
processes (CLUP, ELA,
CDP, CIP) by challenged
IPMRs limiting access of
IP communities to LGU
resources for
development PPAs
There is a need for more
analysis of how other
NGA programs that have
bearing on how
effectively services may
be given to IP w /better
cultural sensitivity like: a)
GAD programs and utilization of GAD
budget, b) agricultural
and fisheries development
program of DA and DAR,
c) ecotourism programs
of DOT and DENR and
now even DA, f) seal of
excellence incentive mechanisms of DILG.
55
Specific Problems Responses
(mandates, PPAs, policies &
proposals)
Current
M&E systems &
mechanisms
Gap Analysis
Implementation M&E IEC
DA's Special Agricultural
Area Development
Project w/IP as priority
beneficiaries
IP Health Program
through RIAC guided by
IP Health Strategic Plan
No specific
monitoring for
IPs treating them
similar to other
sectors
Most Livelihood and
RDC Inter agency
monitoring committee
develop HRBA
monitoring FW &
validate, mainstream IP
FW in Reg
Development Plans
enterprise development
programs are not
specifically designed
for IPs limiting its
access by IPs
Right to Social Justice & Human Rights & Rights to Cultural Development
Area 4: Protecting IP Women, IP Children, IP Elders, IP IDPs (Internally-displaced people) & IP Nomads and Preparing the Next Generation of Indigenous
People Leaders
CHALLENGES:
a) Peace & Security Concerns for IPs c) Discrimination
b) Lack of NCIP capacity to deliver its mandates d) Lack of information on IP Rights Specific Problems Responses
(mandates, PPAs, policies &
proposals)
Current
M&E systems &
mechanisms
Gap Analysis
Implementation M&E IEC
1. Among IP women there is a high
incidence maternal deaths and some of
the lowest pre natal care rates
DoH and some LGUs have
No home birthing policies
CHR conducted an
inquiry on this for
reproductive health
concerns but there is
no systematic
monitoring on this
No home birthing policy is
widely opposed by IPs as it
is perceive going against
cultural practices of IPs as
well as it impracticality
given the access situation.
Alternative
implementations as a
middle ground for this
issue must be planned
and implemented such
as: a) training the hilots
for safer delivery, b)
putting up birthing
facilities nearer the IP
communities, etc
Among medical
practitioners, a need
for cultural
conscientization is
needed for better
understanding of IPs
women's
predisposition when it
comes to reproductive
health
2. Difficulty in IP youth in getting jobs
despite Voc Teach Training or even a
degree
Government Agencies
provide priority for hiring
eligible IPs
IP Youth
Employment is not
systematically
monitored except
those NCIP scholars
who have graduated
This difficulty of IP youth
in securing jobs despite
trainings is because they are
subjected to the same
regular illegibility where
he/she may have an inherent
disadvantage
56
Right to Social Justice & Human Rights & Rights to Cultural Development
Area 4: Protecting IP Women, IP Children, IP Elders, IP IDPs (Internally-displaced people) & IP Nomads and Preparing the Next Generation of Indigenous
People Leaders
CHALLENGES:
a) Peace & Security Concerns for IPs c) Discrimination
b) Lack of NCIP capacity to deliver its mandates d) Lack of information on IP Rights Specific Problems Responses
(mandates, PPAs, policies &
proposals)
Current
M&E systems &
mechanisms
Gap Analysis
Implementation M&E IEC
3. Many situation of deprivation and
discrimination have been
reported on IP nomads (eg
Bajaos in the city) but no
comprehensive plan of action
DSWD conducted small
studies and surveys on
the plight of these IP
nomads in the cities
No regular
monitoring on
this
Proper cultural
conscientization for
DSWD staff including
City/Municipal SWDs
on the nomadic IPs as
well as well designed
social protection
programs should be
implemented for them
LGUs must adopt
programs to provide
for nomadic IPS
when they venture
into their territories
with full cultural
sensitivity of their
situation
Public IEC on the
nature of nomadic
lifestyles of IP
nomads is
important to reduce
ignorance that
often lead to
discrimination
4. There were sporadic reports of
child soldiers recruited, girl
child trafficked for prostitution
but no comprehensive date was
recorded
Several NGOs and media
documented these cases
with IP leaders including
them in their testimonies
There is no
systematic
monitoring of IP
girl child and IP
children in
conflict
currently in place
although
occasional report
of this have been
done
There is a need for more comprehensive inquiry on this subject od IP
rights . This ought to be included as a component of the IPHRO
57
On the part of the Commission on Human Rights, we conducted prior to the IP Rights National
Inquiry a survey among our regional offices on our work with Filipino Indigenous Peoples from
2010-2017. The preliminary data came from CAR, Regions 3, 7,8, 9, 11, 12 and Negros Island
Region,
Table 4: CHR-Serviced IPs and their Key Issues
Regions IP Communities TOP 3 ISSUES of IP Communities
Cordillera
Administrative Region
(CAR)
Tinggians from Abra,Isneg from
Apayao, (Kankanaey, Iyaplay,
Ibaloi, Yfugao, Karao from
Benguet), Kalinga (limos, limos-
liwan-kalinga) from kalinga,
(Kankanaey, Iyaplay, Bontoc) from
Mt. Province
1) Extreme Poverty
2) Slow and improperimplementation of the provisions of the
indigenous peoples rights act
3) Inadequate health services
Central Luzon (Region
III)
Aeta, Dumagats, Badjao 1) Displacement due to developmental agression
2) Lack of support from the Office of National Commission
for Indigenous People
3) Insufficient knowledge about RA 8371 (IPRA Law)
Bicol Region (Region
V)
Kabihug, Dumagats, Agta-Cimaron,
Agta-tabangnon, Agta-taboy,Ati-
atihan
1) Insufficient budget in education
2) Lack of access to social services e.g. roads, schools, water
supply and elecricity
3) Bullying of IP's in school
Negros Island Region
(NIR / Region XVIII)
Bukidnon 1) Access to basic services, Justice and Development
Programs of the government
2) Acces to well-meaning and quality education that would
enhance Indigenous People’s culture
3) Displacement due to development aggression
Central Visayas
(Region VII)
Bajau (Bohol and Cebu), Ati (Bohol
and Cebu), Eskaya (Bohol),
Bukidnon (Negros Oriental)
1) Discrimination
2) Mendicancy
3) No permanent dwelling
Eastern Visayas
(Region VIII)
Mamanwa, Tausug, Maranao 1) Land and Housing
2) Livelihood
3) Education
Zamboanga Peninsula
(Region IX)
Subanen,
Kalibugan ,Badjao,Bangingi, Yakari
1) Ancestral Domain/fishing ground issues
2) Lack of cultural sensitivity of government interventions
3) Limited access to basic services
Davao Region (Region
XI)
Lumad (Manoba, Mandaya, B'Laan,
Mansaka and etc)
1) Alleged Militarization with Alamara being recruited by
armed groups
2) Development aggression over Ips rights over ancestral
domain
3) Displacementy either by natural or manmade causes
SOCCSKSARGEN B’laans, T’bolis, Manobo,
Teduraysa
1) Land grabbing/Ancestral Domain - Lack or insufficient
solution to their continued assertion to what they call their
“ancestral domain” specifically, on land ownership and
boundary tensions
2) Armend Conflict- Prevailing threats to their peaceful
settlement due to existence of armed groups in their area,
especially those affected by mining and resource conflicts
from people and entities occupying or encroaching their
ancestral domains
3) Lack, No equal access and inconsistency in the delivery of
basic services (particularly among IP women and girls)
58
Of these many critical issues of IPs, the responses of the CHR included the following actions and
activities:
Table 5: CHR Actions and Responses to IP concerns per regional office
REGIONS Significant Activities by CHR Offices
Cordillera
Administrative
Region
(CAR)
1) Human Rights Community Development Project in Kibungan, Benguet. This was
in partnership with the New Zealand Human Rights Commission for a period of 3
year which ended in the fourth quarter of 2010. it involved the whole indeginous
Peoples Community of the Municipality of Kibungan, the Kankanaeys. In this
project, the community were asked to identify their pressing issues and come up
with their own solutions to such problems. the problem that were identified were
practically the problems besetting the whole Cordillera. Likewise, there were
several lectures that were undertaken with regards to human rights. with these
lectures, the people became aware of their rights and were able to protect them from
abuses as shown in one of the barangays where residents protested the
establishment of hydro-electric power plant without consultation among the people
and the irregularities among the conduct of Free Prior Consent process.
2) Membership in the Community on the Indigenous Peoples Concern (CIPC), a sub-
committee of the Regional Development Council makes thnis office active in the
promotion and protection of the rights of the Indigenous Peole in Cordillera
3) The regional office is also active in the quest for the Regional Autonomy having
two staff as members of the Speakers Bureau for Autonomy. this is the 3rd attempot
for the autonomous region and is a continuing activity being incorporated in our
regular promotion activities in partnership with the Cordillera Regional
Development Council and the Special Project for the Cordillera Autonomous
Region
Central Luzon
(Region III)
PROTECTION:
(2010) Coordinated with the Local Government Unit of Apalit, Pampanga for the
relocation of several Badjaos family living under the Sulipan Bridge in Apalit,
Pampanga.
(2011) Conduct exhumation on the cadaver of Maximino, member of dumagat tribes
in Dingalan, Aurora.
(2012) Participate in the International Solidarity Mission at Casiguran, Aurora
regarding the effect of APECO to the residents and environment of the place.
(2013) Coordinated with the NCIP RO3 for the settlement of disputes between MATA
and BATA, two groups of Aetas in Pampanga
(2014) Conduct fact-finding mission regarding militarization at Camias, Porac,
Pampanga
(2015) Conducted public Dialogue in Palayan City, Nueva Ecija
(2016) Conduct Fact-finding investigation regarding the killing of Jojo Puno, an aeta
by members of the same tribe.
(2017) Conduct investigation on the internal conflict of Dumagats tribal leaders in
Dingalan, Aurora
PROMOTION:
(2010) Participated in the conduct of multi-stakehlders validation/consultation of the
draft IP Masterplan
(2011) HR Education Orientation on the rights of IP-DDCL-N.H.V coalition Group
(2012) Inter-Agency cooperation on the Rights of the Sama Bajaus
(2013) Inter-Agency cooperation on the Rights of the Sama Bajaus (every quarter)
(2014) Lead the drafting of the resolution for the acquisition of relocation of the Sama
59
Bajaus in Batiawan, Zambales thru inter-agency cooperation
(2015) Resource Person on Dayaw IP Summit October 2015, Inter-agency
cooperation on rights of the IPs, MOA signing with IP Leaders of Pampanga
on BHR
(2016) Basic HR-Orientation to CAFGU-AETA September 2016, HR orientation on
the rights of the IPs
(2017) HRE Katutubong Kaalaman at Karapatan & Celebratory Events Activities
PROMOTION
2010-2013:
A. lectures on Rights of the Indigenous Poeples as part of the sessions on the
following subjects for PNP trainees at RTC 5, to unit: 1. Sectoral rights, 2. Persons
Protected During INternal Armend Conflict, 3. HUman rights in emergency
situation, 4. Intenational Humanitarian Law
B. lectures on the protection and rights of IPs during armed conflict as part of the
seminar on HR and IHL during the celebration of International Humanitarian Law
Month in august (participant: Philippine army)
2013 :
A. 10/16/13 orientation of Human Rights-Based Appraoch to the progressive
realization of IPs in coordination with Department of Education, Albay division
office (participants: teachers/principals
B. lectures on rights of IPs-sectoral rights
C. training on HR and IHL and Protected Persons During Armed Conflict
(prticipants:PNP/army )
2014: Orientation on IPs rights, fun play with kids
2015: Lectures on IPs Rights integrated in the session of Basic HR Concepts, IHL,
persons protected during armed conflict and sectoral rights (participants:
PNP,PA,LGU, academe and students)
2016:
A. Monitoring the status by LGU-Sto. Domingo, Albay on their commitmwent to IPs
on November 2014,
B. Orientation on the rights of IPs and their children
C. Read along session with IP kids
D. Distribution of activity books and toys for kindergarden students(where IP children
were enrolled),
E. Lectures on IP rights during seminar/training on (SECTORAL RIGHTS, HR
FRAMEWORK,IHR for pnp), (HR and IHL) for philippine Navy, F. Oct. 13, 2016
Regional Multi-sectoral Workshop and forum comprehensive anti-discremination
bill(participants: IPs, youths, PWDs,elderly,LGBT)
Negros Island
Region
(NIR / Region XVIII)
PROTECTION
2012: Conduct investigation and legal assistance on CHR-Vi-2012-0950, Conduct
of investigation on the alleged distruction of farm lands in Himamaylan City,
Isabela, Kabankalan City and Sipalay City, ProvidedLegal Assistance to the
IPs accused of Murder and Frustrated Murder
PROMOTION
2011: Consultative Dialogues
2013: Conduct lecture on Human Rights in Brgy. Guimbala-on, Silay City, Negros
Occidental
.
60
Central Visayas
(Region VII)
PROTECTION
2014: Investigated the case of Malael vs Malael (CHR case NO. VII-2014-0173
(CEB), both Bajaus, for alleged violation on the right to life
2015: Attended the meeting of the Inter-Agency Task Force on the Comprehensive
Program for Sama Bajaus
2016: A. Attended the meeting of the Inter-Agency Task Force on the
Comprehensive Program for Sama Bajaus, B. Rendered legal assistance to
female Bajau
PROMOTION
2010: A. Conducted lecture on the rights of children and women (Ati), B. Distributed
bundles of joy
2012: A. Conducted lecture on the rights of children and women (Ati), B. Distributed
bundles of joy
2015: A. Conducted lecture on the rights of children and women (Ati), B. Distributed
gifts, C. Conducted Consultation on ESC in Alaska, Mambaling , Cecu City
2016: A. Conducted forum against child labor during the celebration of the World
Day Against Child Labor
Eastern Visayas
(Region VIII)
PROTECTION:
2010: Investigation of the following HR cases:PRADO, RUSSELDA A. CHR-VIII-
2012-0014 Violatiopn of RA 9262 (TAUSUG), CABADOANGA, YONO
C. CHR-VIII-2012-0436 Torture (MAMANWA)
2016: Investigation of the following HR cases: PRADO, RUSSELDA A. CHR-VIII-
2016-0155 Bigamy and Concubainage (TAUSOG), MAMAKI, ABUSAID A.
CHR-VIII-2016-0386, Arbitrary Arrest/Torture (MARANAO)
Davao Region
(Region XI)
PROTECTION :
(2010-2012) Investigation, Community Dialogue
Investigation of SMI-Tampakan Mining Areas over atrocities
FPIC Process CCA - Observers
Haran Public Inquiry, (2016) FPIC-observer of the Tampakan Mining.
POLICY:
(2013) Supplemental advisory on HR standards on housing , land and proterty rights
(2015) IP Rights over education
Of the above actions and responses of the CHR, the most crucial challenges that acts as GAPS
for our regional offices in providing our human rights promotions, protection and policy services
and proposed way forward that can now be considered in the development of the operative
elements of programming for the proposed IP Human Rights Observatory includes:
61
Table 6: GAP Analysis on CHR IP Interventions
REGIONS Identified GAPS
Proposed Enhancements for
consideration within the IPHRO
Cordillera
Administrative
Region
(CAR)
1. Manpower
2. Financial Resources
3. Communication, difficulty in
communication with local partners
especially in areas where there is no
communication signal and likewise the
geographical terrain of the Cordilleras
⚫ Additional funding for IEC on the benefits
of autonomy efforts in HR rights
fulfillment
Cagayan Valley
(Region II)
1. Uncooperative tribal leaders in the
investigation of cases involving
Indigenous People
2. Accessibility of the area
3. No means of communication
⚫ HR education module development
specific on IP rights & focusing on
relevant provisions of the 4 bundles of IP
rights in the IPRA with emphasis on the
legal basis of the ADs (including where
there is conflict with economic zones)
Bicol Region
(Region V)
1. Lack of special fund to defray expenses of
activities including transportation fares for
IP participants
2. Lack of reader friendly IEC material on IP
rights
⚫ Additional support to IEC including that
on the IPRA provisions on IP rights to
include such outputs as IEC materials,
trainers training, consultation-workshop,
seminars & orientations on IP rights to
various stakeholders including IPs
themselves
Negros Island
Region (NIR /
Region XVIII)
1. Improved Inter-Agency cooperation in the
delivery of basic services between
NCIP,CHRand other line agencies and
Civil Society Organizations.for the
protection and Promotion of IP’s rights
2. Creation of favourable environment for
IP’s schoolm children in terms of trained
IP teachers, IP instruction materials and
improves participation in school extra-
curricular activities
3. Local government Units with IPs to enact
local ordinances for the protection and
promotion of IPs against any form of
displacement.
⚫ Localize educational materials for IP
rights coupled with education and
promotional activities
⚫ Set up a system within the CHR
protection services to prioritize violation
of IP Rights including investigations
Central Visayas
(Region VII)
1. Non-cooperation of male adults during the
conduct of promotion activities
2. Less interaction of the participants during
the conduct of promotion activities
3. Participation to the activities should be
with the knowledge of the tribal leaders or
NCIP
⚫ Additional support to IEC with materials
and activities conducted in local
languages together with an invigorated IP
Day celebrations
Eastern Visayas
(Region VIII)
1. Protection
2. Geographical location
3. Lack of dedicated personnel
⚫ More resources to allow for better
collaboration of the CHR with the LGUs
and NCIP on IP-related concerns
including with the creation and
mobilization of regional network for IPs
Davao Region
(Region XI)
1. Communications barrier
2. Safety and security areas over IP areas
3. Coordination with CSOs over IP concerns
⚫ Regular conduct of national-level
processes such as IP Rights Conventions
to provide a space for IPs to air our their
issues and concerns
62
REGIONS Identified GAPS
Proposed Enhancements for
consideration within the IPHRO
SOCCSKSARGEN (Region XII)
1. Lack of specific policy direction on IP
issues
2. Insufficient resources-Budget constraints
pertaining to their transportation
allowance for reimbursements when they
are invited to come to the venue/activity
far from their place/residence. The costs
of fare allowance need to be ascertained
and allotted, however, due to limited
budget we cannot assure their complete
attendance
3. Low Capacity in terms of IP Rights
⚫ Develop inter-agency coordination with
wide dissemination of the IP Rights law
so that government agencies should
understand fully their role in its
implementation
⚫ Training/Education for IP leaders
⚫ Establish and intensify partnership and
linkages with existing IP organizations
alongside with NCIP
⚫ Budget appropriation for HR activities
where target participants are IPs
⚫ Provide promo collateral and IEC
materials for advocacy, education
⚫ Mapping of IP territories in all regions,
draw out the HR and in case of conflict
areas, the Humanitarian concerns of the
IPs, specially the divergent and peculiar
issues and corners from the areas and craft
democratically a Human Rights-based
long term, medium term plans and annual
work and financial plansCome up an
effective Monitoring and Evaluation
Tools
⚫ Conduct of periodic Program
Implementation Reviews (PIR)
⚫ Sustained support of the IP-related PPAs
⚫ With the advent of the up-going trend in
extractive industries, the Commission
must take a step ahead by strengthening
its regional offices in identified regions
(as priorities) in the field of business and
human rights, rights of the IPs, human
rights and environment, and on the rights-
based approach to disaster mgnt
⚫ Equally important is carrying out PPAs in
addressing gender inequalities and the
inter-sectional discrimination against IP
women and girls.
All of these identified gaps from state duty bearers and the CHR on responding to the needs of
Filipino Indigenous Peoples to promote, protect and fulfill their 4 bundles of rights; including
human rights will now be used as basis for identifying specific actions and policies that should
be undertaken by the duty bearers.
In the proposed IPHRO as described in detail in chapter 4, these gaps become the basis for the
targeting and programming of its operative components that will now be pushed for adoption and
implementation by all concerned government agencies. It will also guide the necessary rights-
based monitoring and evaluation system that all concern government agencies must integrate in
their M&E systems.
63
CHR on our part; through the IPHRO will monitor the compliance of these targets by concerned
government agencies. However, within the whole range of these comprehensive government-
wide monitoring, CHR ought to focus on a key components for its own focus programming that
it can effectively follow through, leaving the bulk of the other monitoring to other concern
government agencies lead by the NCIP.
Proposed here is for the CHR to focus on the protection of the most vulnerable sectors of IP
communities; particularly IP women, children, youth, IDPs, elderly and IP nomads.
FOCUS OF CHR
Monitoring FOCUS of Monitoring of
State Duty Bearers lead by the NCIP
64
Figure 1 : 4-Bundles of IP Rights as Pre-
Requisites for the Fulfillment of IPs Rights
to Development
Chapter 3.
Synthesis and Recommendations
In this Synthesis, we are answering the following key questions?
• How should we understand Human Rights within the context of IP Rights (4 bundles of
rights) in the Philippines?
• What is the Systemic Nature of IP Rights Violations in the Philippines?
The National Inquiry on the Human Rights Situation of Filipino Indigenous Peoples has
provided valuable insights on their current situation and what state duty bearers is currently
doing to promote, protect and fulfill their rights as provided for in the 4 bundles of rights under
IPRA and other entitlements as provided for by the UNDRIP. The analysis set here and more
importantly the specific recommendations; including that of the setting up of the IPHRO and
what it will do and where it will focus on provides a way on how we should move forwards
towards a major paradigm shift in how IP-related programming and enforcement of laws,
policies ought to be done.
How should we understand Human Rights within the context of IP Rights
(4 bundles of rights) in the Philippines?
The present legal system sufficiently provides a framework of the four (4) bundle of rights for
Filipino IPs. Furthermore, Filipino laws and jurisprudence fully recognizes other entitlements as
elaborated further in the UNDRIP.
The IPRA provides the commitment of the government categorically recognizes the right of IPs
to determine and decide their own priorities for development affecting their lives, beliefs,
institutions, spiritual well-being, and the lands they own, occupy or
use. The government also committed to establish the means for the
full development and empowerment of the IPs' own institutions and
initiatives and, where necessary, provide the resources needed
therefor. However, IPRA is not the main source of IP Rights. It is
actually the Philippine constitution. (Refer to
ADMP/CADC/CALC guidelines).
Also, it must be understood that Human Rights; and its normative
standards, are just one of 4 specific rights for IPs provided for in
IPRA. In fact, when viewed from the perspective of IPs rights to
development, article 23 of UNDRIP & other related provisions on
Right to Development of IPs, it is clear that the nature of the
RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT as an “…inalienable human
right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are
entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social,
cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be
fully realized”, are first subjected to what constitute IP Rights.
Thus, in the context of the Philippines and considering UNDRIP, before the RIGHT TO
65
DEVELOMENT of IPs is pursued, the nature and definition of what development means to
Filipino Indigenous Peoples must first be established through the substantial fulfillment of the 4
bundles of IP rights. In this way, the IP communities themselves make the appropriate choice for
the nature and pace of development they want to underake.
In the analysis of the problems of non fulfillment of IP rights, it is also evident that their are clear
hierarchy of actions that ought to be undertaken. Thus, the context of human rights fulfillment
among Filipino IPs must be secured cognizant of these hierarchy of actions as follows:
In fact, connecting the fulfillment of the 4 bundles of IP rights to the right to development would
move the discussion on IP Rights forward and not stuck on land issues alone. IPRA
implementation in the last 20 years has indeed focused on issuance of CADTs as it is the starting
point of succeeding actions that must be undertaken.
\
However, we take notice of the fact that the targeting of one (1) AD per year in the target for
delineation by the NCIP and the current delays in the final registration of approved ADs with the
LRA due to the implementation of the JAO 1-2012; which was ironically originally undertaken
to expedite this very same process, have constituted delays and the further slow down of this first
steps towards fulfilling IP rights.
We also take notice that progressive realization over the succeeding steps in this heirarcy of
actions need not wait for the preceding steps to happen as these needs are urgent and must
already be acted upon.
What is the Systemic Nature of IP Rights Violations in the Philippines?
Based on the admitted facts that CHR has gathered in this national inquiry, it is evident that
indeed there are systemic violation of IP Rights; most of which have been recognized already but
not sufficiently been acted upon. With the exception of several problematic policies that have
been identified in this national inquiry, in general laws and policies to ensure recognition and
protection of IP rights are sufficient at this point. The real problem is in insufficient
implementation as manifested by the numerous gaps identified from the current responses of
state duty bearers to identified needs of Filipino IPs coupled with a lack of comprehensive and
systematic monitoring of the progressive realization of these IP rights across the entire relevant
operations of the state actors.
66
Key issues that constitute this systemic violations include:
a) Indigenous identity is threatened and insufficient protection for the right to cultural integrity
b) Non-IP's encroachment into ancestral domains as a threat to the indigenous identity
c) Limitations to the right of ownership over ancestral domains
d) Wanton violations and confusion on the scope of free, prior and informed consent of IPs
e) Undermining of IPs' decision-making processes and governance structures;
f) Insufficient actions by the state duty bearers to fulfill the Right to Development of IPs
g) Insufficient opportunities for development provided by Duty-Bearers;
h) Insufficient development, continuing discrimination leading to insufficient protection of the
most vulnerable sectors of the IP Community (i.e., women, children, elderly, nomads, IDPs,
youth)
When reviewed further through a problem-tree analysis, the above key issues may further be
categorized along these heirarchy of needs:
When trying to identify the root causes of these systematic problems, we arrived at the following
conclusion on the key elements of the problem:
Once the following root causes are identified, we then proceed in identifying focus interventions
67
which may be summarized as follows:
In view of the foregoing analysis, CHR recommends the following:
1. Stronger legislation is needed, such as the Ethnic Origin Act104, to protect indigenous identity
including those IPs outside their ADs considering that that are most vulnerable outside their on
domain. The flagship project of NCIP, known as the Philippine Indigenous Peoples
Ethnography (PIPE), must be fully implemented to address this concern, and there should be
proper ethnicity questions in the 2020 CPH. 105 Encourage IP participation in MIPLA
(Mindanao IP Legislative Assembly) to ensure their indigenous identity is recognize and
protected in the process of finalizing the BBL. Further that such act must ensure separate local
civil registry office to handle registration of IPs' vital events106 and must compel LGUs to
intensify free mobile registration for IPs in GIDA.
2. Improve the processes under JAO 1. Set a clear guideline for situation when NCIP En Banc
issued a resolution approving the issuance of CADT.107 This report is being submitted to the
National Steering Committee under JAO 1 to verify with its records the cases involving
contentious cases as mentioned during the public hearings.
104 Senate Bill No. 912 introduced by Sen. Loren Legarda on July 28, 2016
https://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=17&q=SBN-912 (accessed November 8, 2017)
105 Per PSA input during the 3rd Public Hearing in Tagaytay City
106 Per statement of Pilar Mendoza (PSA) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan
107 Per statement of Atty. Rosette Ferrer (DENR Central Office) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
68
3. Capacity building for the IPs to avoid misinformation. For example, some IPs would believe
that ancestral waters could not be covered under IPRA.108
4. Need for stronger agency that will protect the IPs from large businesses. FPIC must be enforce
through police power. Police training is needed to protect IP Rights, and customary law. There
must be database to track FPIC process.109 FPIC must be one consolidated process, and need
to clarify coverage of FPIC.
5. Regular courts must be capacitated to try and decide legal disputes between IPs and non-IPs.
6. NCIP must not only stop in issuing COC for IPMRs. They should assist in seeing through the
full performance of IPMR functions. There must be law that recognition of IPMRs is
mandatory and not discretionary on the part of the LGU. The NCIP must ensure the validity of
the selection process for the IPMR.
7. Engage the Mindanao IPMR league, and formalize IPMR league all throughout the country in
linkage with IPHRO.
8. Full operationalization of IPHRO should be properly and sufficentyly finance through GAA
allocation within CHR and other relevant government agencies as well as funded from
external sources (e.g. UNDESA, others)
9. Fiscal Monitoring of IP-related public expenditures to track budget, net worth and resources of
IPs, including a government-wide tagging of IP-related budget allocation & utilization for the
supply side as well as the full accounting of the financial requirements of all ADSDPP for the
demand side of fiscal monitoring. Related to this is yo inquire from NCIP how it exercise
functions to obtain funding from other sources. Needless to say, ADSDPPs must be funded in
GAA, not only its development.
12. Assign IP Desk/Focal points in all government agencies.
13. Enact a law on ADSDPP. Capacitate IPs for development planning through IPHRO.
14. Include a core group of government agencies in the management of the IPHRO. These
agencies are NCIP, DENR, DAR, DSWD, NEDA, NHA, DOH, DepEd, NCCA, PSA
15. Initiate tribal barangays where it is already necessary
16. Clarify in law the situation of IPs selling lands
17. There are NCIP guidelines on Right to Ancestral Domain, FPIC, IKSP, but not with how IP
Human rights would be observed. The IPHRO will be the venue to develop this.
18. IPHRO will fast track investigation and updating of case of killing of IPs.
108 Per statement of Hamka J. Malabong, Sama Dilaut, during the 5th public hearing in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental
109 Per Statement of Atty. Mary Genevieve Tingson (NCIP) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City
69
19. Planning should be per tribe to give due consideration to the cultural context, the indigenous
systems and practices of the concerned communities.
20. CHR to convene a meeting with the LGUs that penalize TBA.
21. Discrimination should be addressed through capacity-building for IPs, beginning with their
rights under the law, domestic or international.
22. CHR, through IPHRO, should render legal assistance
23. Recommend that CHR will require certification from the council of elders are prerequisite of
any action
24. Nomadic IPs need legal protection. (Refer to Sections 3(a) and 51)
25. Participation of CHR in all regional development council, particularly for culture.
26. Gap in the protection of IPs' native title because protection still goes back and determined by
the actual issuance of a registered CADT.
Chapter 4
Towards an IP Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO)
After careful consideration and analysis of the situation of the Filipino indigenous peoples based
from the testimonies received from IPs and key state duty bearers during the 2017 IP National
Inquiry of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), the following operative elements of the
Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO) is hereby proposed.
The IPHRO is a proposed permanent mechanism with the CHR to effectively gauge the
fulfillment of the human rights of Filipino indigenous peoples as defined by the 4 bundles of IP
rights in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (ACT) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
The realization of the 4 bundles of IP rights hopes to guide the proper articulation of their right to
development as defined by their exercise of self determination. In so doing, a culturally-
appropriate realization of their right to development and the safeguarding of their civil and
political rights as well as their economic, social, cultural rights are the expected results.
Using a problem-solution tree analysis of the non-fulfillment of IP rights, the following root
causes of the problems were identified: a) slow processing of the CADTs (Certificate of
Ancestral Domain Title), b) non recognition of Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives
(IPMR) by some LGUs and c) the taking for granted of their CADTs and their ADSDPPs
(Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan).
70
These inevitably results to the hierarchy of effects as follows: a) First, unsecured or threatened
ancestral domain & land, violation of FPIC (Free, Prior, Informed Consent) process,
displacement & dispossession of IPs and loss of ecological integrity; b) Second, the non
establishment of the self-governance mechanisms and non maximization or threatened
representation of IPs ; c) Third, insufficient support to the IPs socio, economic and cultural
development through full implementation of their ADSDPP; d) Fourth, non consideration of IP
rights in autonomy & peace efforts (Cordillera, Bangsamoro and other parts of the Philippines);
and e) Fifth, insufficient protection of the most vulnerable IP sectors including IP women, IP
youth, IP children, IP elders, IP IDPs (internally-displaced people) and IP nomads. These
represent the 5 KEY ISSUES that the IPHRO will focus on.
When the further causes of these were analyzed, the following ROOT CAUSES were identified:
1) Continued discrimination of IPs in various forms and in day to day life experiences, 2)
Insufficient capacity of key state duty bearers to fulfill obligations for IP rights promotion,
protection & fulfillment, and 3) Conflicts within the Ancestral Domain due to: a) development
aggression driven by resource conflicts, b) external conflicts of opposing armed groups brought
in the ADs causing division among IP community members. The strategic responses to these
ROOT CAUSES were then considered as the PROGRAM ELEMENTS of the IPHRO as follows:
1) Extensive Information, Education and Communications to combat culture of
discrimination against Indigenous Peoples (IP Rights IEC Program)
2) A Capacity Building on IP Rights Promotion, Protection & Fulfillment including
Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) (IP Rights Capacity Building Program)
3) Direct IP Communities-CHR IP Rights Knowledge Management System LINK to IP
Rights Protection Services Referrals and Follow Through (IP Rights Knowledge
Management & Protection Program
A gap analysis across the current responses (mandates, programs, projects, activities, services) of
key state duty bearers was conducted and these resulted in identification of operative elements
for each of these programs.
To monitor and evaluate these proposed interventions through the IPHRO, an Human Rights
Based Approach (HRBA) and Results Based Management (RBM) Monitoring and evaluation
system using the O.PE.R.A. (Outcomes, Policy Efforts, Resources Assessment) Framework and
the Indigenous Navigator tool is proposed. The designated major outcome and impact indicators
are the following:
71
Table 7: Summary of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Indicator System for the Indigenous Peoples Human Rights
Observatory (IPHRO)
OUTCOME INDICATORS IMPACT INDICATORS Right to
ancestral
domain and
land
% of ADs with
secured CADT,
self governing IPS
& IPOs, functional
IPMR
representation, ,
with FPIC
followed,
implemented
ADSDPP and key
cultural
development
facilities/
mechanisms in
place
% of total number of ADs
where: a) CADTs applied,
b) CADT delineation
conducted, c) CADT
approved, d) approved
CADT registered and e)
ADSDPP developed &
approved
Extend of
fulfillment of
the state of its
obligation to
promote,
protect and
fulfil the
Filipino IPs
rights to
ancestral
domain & land,
rights to self-
governance &
empowerment,
rights to social
justice &
human rights
and rights to
cultural
integrity
% of all ADs owned and in
the possession of IPs
Right to self
governance and
empowerment
% of total LGUs (Brgys,
Mun/City, Provincial)
with sitting IPMRs fully
endorse by the IPS, IPOs
of their representation
with the status of their
level of participation
(using HRBA norms on
level of participation)
% of reduction of
reported violations of
Free, Prior, Informed,
Consent (FPIC)
% of all ADs with self
governance and
appropriate representation
in LGUs and RDCs
Right to social
justice and
human rights
% of adopted ADSDPP
implemented and extent of
implementation and
immediate results (outputs
and immediate outcomes)
% of all AD with ADSDPP
fully supported and all
identified socio-economic,
and cultural needs
provided
Right to
cultural
integrity
% of ADs with school of
living traditions, local IP
language use in vernacular
& school instructions, IP
schools with IP teachers,
functional tribal halls and
extent of IKS researches
with IPR registered &
owned by IPs
% of all ADs where their
culture integrity has been
protected & preserve
Global
Indicators
SDG actions by IPs
Security of IP Rights Defenders
72
The proposed IPHRO will be operationalize through a 3-step process. These include:
Table 8: Proposed IPHRO Operationalization Work Plan
Operationalization Steps Timeframe
1) Signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among key National
Government Agencies establishing a common system of monitoring and
evaluation using a human right based approach on the fulfillment of
Indigenous Peoples rights led by the CHR and NCIP and involving 9 other
key NGAs;
1st quarter 2018
2) Establishing two (2) main Collaborative Mechanisms to implement the
provisions of the proposed MOA; namely: a) A Direct IP Community - CHR
Monitoring Platform and b) An Inter-Agency/ Multi-Sectoral IP Rights
Monitoring Mechanism to include various inter agency TWGs for each of the
4 bundles of IP rights plus a TWG on the autonomy and peace processes; and
a) - rest of 2018
b) - 2nd - 3rd quarter of 2018
3) Institutionalization of the three (3) program components of the IPHRO
within the regular operations of the CHR.
2018-2019
These IPHRO Program Components will provide the following services and will involve the
following key players:
Table 9: Proposed IPHRO Program Components, Services & Key Players
Program
Components
Services Key Players
IP Rights IEC
Program
1. Education Campaign on IP Rights among IP
Communities
2. Orientation on IP Rights to LGUs and NGAs
3. IP Rights and IP Culture Conscientization Campaign in
Schools
4. IP Rights Orientation Among Private Sector (companies
operating in Ancestral Domains)
5. IP Rights Mass and Social Media Campaign
CHR (incl RHRC-ARMM)
NCIP
NCCA
Business Associations
DepEd
IP Rights
Capacity Building
Program
1. Trainings on IP Rights to IPs, IPOs and IPMRs
2. Trainings on IP Rights to NGA IP Desks and
Programs/Projects
CHR (incl RHRC-ARMM)
NCIP
NGOs
IPOs
IP Rights
Knowledge
Management &
Protection
Program
1. Online Database Management System on IP Rights
Monitoring
2. Annual IP Rights Monitoring & Report
3. IP Rights National Inquiry (every 5 years)
4. Regular convening of the Direct IP Community-CHR
Monitoring Platforms at the regional level ( every 6
months
5. Regular convening of the various TWGs of the Inter-
Agency Collaborative Mechanism on IP Rights
Monitoring (at least every quarter or when the need
arises)
a) TWG on AD & Land,
b) TWG on Self-Governance & Empowerment
c) TWG on Social Justice & Human Rights
d) TWG on Cultural Integrity
CHR
NCIP
NEDA
IP and NGA
representatives to the
various TWGs, Task
Forces and Consultative
Forum
73
e) TWG on Autonomy and Peace Talks
6. Regular convening of the CHR-NCIP-DBM-COA Task
Force on IP Rights Fiscal Monitoring (at least once a
year)
7. Regular convening of the BHR Task Force on IP Rights
Monitoring (Inter-Agency, Multi-Sectoral National
Body) complemented with an IP (IPMR Leagues, IPOs) –
CHR – NCIP – Business – CSO Consultative Forum at
the Regional and National Levels on IP Rights and BHR
( at least once a year)
Conceptual Framework of the Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory
Figure 14 : Conceptual Framework of the Proposed Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO)
Building from the gaps identified in the current responses of state duty
bearers, the proposed Indigenous Peoples Rights Observatory (IPRO) is
envisioned to be a permanent RBM & HRBA Monitoring & Evaluation
System of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to effectively
gauge the fulfillment of the human rights of Filipino Indigenous
Peoples.
It focuses on the 4 bundles of IP Rights as provided for in the IPRA
(Indigenous Peoples Rights Act) and the UNDRIP leading to the
fulfillment of their right to development and safeguarding their civil &
political rights as well as their economic, social and cultural rights.
Monitoring the ESCR components will utilize the O.PE.R.A.
(Outcomes, Policy Efforts, Resources, Assessment) Framework of monitoring Economic, Social,
Cultural Rights (ESCR) commitments
74
Its program components include:
1) Extensive Information, Education and Communications (IEC) to combat culture of
discrimination against Indigenous Peoples
2) A Capacity Building on IP Rights Promotion, Protection & Fulfillment (incl. M&E)
3) Direct IP Communities-CHR IP Rights Knowledge Management System LINK to IP Rights
Protection Services Referrals and Follow Through
It revolves around the 4 key main issues affecting fulfillment of IP Rights in the Philippines;
namely:
AREA 1:Securing Ancestral Domain & Ensuring Ecological & Cultural Integrity
AREA 2:Establishing Self-Governance & Representation for IP structures (IPS, IPOs, IPMRs)
AREA 3:Supporting development of IPs & their ancestral domain through the full
implementation of ADSDPP (Ancestral Domain Sustainable Protection Plans) and
other similar plans
AREA 4:Protecting IP Women, IP Children, IP Youth, IP Elders, IP IDPs ad IP Nomads and
Preparing the next generation of IP leaders.
AREA 4: Ensuring IP rights considered in autonomy proposals and peace talks
These mechanisms will be built upon a direct monitoring & intelligence gathering mechanism
between CHR and the IP communities.
This amidst a clear analysis of the root causes of their recurring issues; namely: a) Insufficient
Capacity of Key Duty Bearers, b) Development Aggression & Resource Conflicts, c) Internal
Conflicts in Ancestral Domain, and d) Continuing Discrimination Against IPs.
Owing to the recognition by the state of the rights of IPs; including that of their right to self-
determination & self-governance, this M&E system will cut across the participation and
empowerment concerns of the self-governance structure of IP communities; namely the IPS
(Indigenous Political Structure), IPOs (Indigenous Peoples Organizations) and recently the
IPMRs (IP Mandatory Representation).
IPMRs’ mandates are valid
when they emanate directly
from the IPs & IPOs. As they
represent the views of IPs in
governance, they are
both duty bearers and rights
holders
The IPMR; provides a
Figure 15 : Unique Self-Governance Mechanisms of Filipino Indigenous Peoples
75
renewed potential to mainstream the development aspirations of IP communities in local
development planning and programming by carrying through their representation in the
individual ADSDPP of each ancestral domain and lobbying them for appropriate policies,
program/projects/activities, funding, structures & mechanisms in their respective LGUs.
Figure 16 : ADSDPPs Integration in Local Public Administration Planning & Programming
This, through various levels of public
administration governance mechanisms
such as the 10-year CLUPs
(Comprehensive Land Use Plans), the
3-year ELAs (Executive, Legislative
Agenda) and the Annual Development
& Investment Plans the and to some
degree in the regional development
councils or similar mechanisms to
influence both programming, resources
and policies of national government
agencies and other development stakeholders in the region.
While essential to the very nature of Indigenous Peoples is their
cultural assets and ancestral domain, this observatory recognizes
the current predicament of both IP communities who are intact
in their own domain (regardless whether their CADT or titles
have been issued or nor) and those who by choice or
circumstances are considered migrants in other ancestral
domains of other tribes or outside the ancestral domain. This
also included “nomadic” IP communities with no apparent
permanent land-based domains, such as sea-fearing IPs.
VII. Program Elements of the IPHRO
Responding directly to the identified root causes of non-fulfillment of IP rights in the Philippines,
the following are proposed to be the programs for the IPHRO. Thes includes:
1) Extensive Information, Education and Communications to combat culture of discrimination
against Indigenous Peoples (IP Rights IEC Program)
2) A Capacity Building on IP Rights Promotion, Protection & Fulfillment incl. M&E
(IP Rights Capacity Building Program)
4) Direct IP Communities-CHR IP Rights Knowledge Management System LINK to IP Rights
Protection Services Referrals and Follow Through (IP Rights Knowledge Management &
Protection Program)
Figure 17: Coverage of IPHRO
76
The operative elements of each of these proposed programs for the IPHRO were identified
responding to the identified gaps of state duty bearers as discussed and agreed in consensus
during the IP national inquiry.
A. Operative Elements of the IP Rights IEC Program
The proposed IEC Program will focus on ten (10) Key Result Areas directly responding to the
identified IEC gaps of key duty bearers. Here, it is presented in the form of an IEC framework
plan matrix to guide development of specific action plans within the IPHRO.
Table 10: IEC Framework Plan for the Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO) (as of Nov 2017)
77
78
B. Operative Elements of IP Rights Capacity Building Program
The proposed Capacity Building Program will focus on twelve (12) Key Result Areas directly
responding to the identified implementation capacity gaps in the forms of trainers training of
key duty bearers. Here, it is presented in the form of an training framework plan matrix to guide
development of specific action plans within the IPHRO.
Table 11: Capacity Building Framework Plan for the Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO)
(as of November 2017)
79
80
C. Operative Elements of the IP Rights Knowledge Management & Protection Service
Referral Program
The proposed Knowledge Management & Protection Referral Program will focus on seven (7)
Key Result Areas directly responding to the identified M&E gaps in the forms of trainers
training of key duty bearers. Here, it is presented in the form of a knowledge management and
protection service referral framework plan matrix to guide development of specific action plans
within the IPHRO.
Table 12 : Knowledge Management & Protection Service Referral Framework Plan for the Indigenous Peoples
Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO) (as of November 2017)
81
82
M&E Framework of the IPHRO using O.PE.R.A.
While it is true that a results-based management (RBM) system does not focus as much to
process as thus to results compared to a Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA)
However, given that the current planning and M&E language and system of Philippine
government agencies is largely still RBM with some exception to HRBA having been integrated
to some extent in the management systems of NEDA, DepEd and of course CHR, a cross
between RBM and HRBA would probably be the more pragmatic approach at developing a
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system for the IPHRO for the time being.
In this case, we have integrated HRBA framework for measuring and assessing fulfillment of
ESCR (Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) called O.PE.R.A (Outcomes, Policy Efforts,
Resources Assessment) framework within the RBM chain of results. The use of O.PE.R.A. is of
course premised that by large we are measuring here the rights to development of IPs building
from the 4 bundles of IP rights with mostly ESCR concerns.
The designated OUTPUTS remain the individual results of specific government agencies and
LGUs working on fulfilling IP rights, including all KRAs of CHR and other agencies that will
form part of the implementation of IPHRO
.
From here, the designated OUTCOMES will include those key elements identified in the
outcome elements of OP.E.R.A. as well as elements identified in the Policy Efforts and
Resources components of O.PE.R.A. All these agency/organization level outputs as well as
outcomes are the ones subject to regular MONITORING.
On the other hand, the elements of assessment under O.PE.R.A. will be considered the IMPACT
level results and will be the one subject to EVALUATION.
Figure 18: RBM-HRBA O.PE.R.A. and Indigenous Navigator-based M&E System Framework for IP Rights Fulfillment
83
As an HRBA, this M&E system utilizes human rights norms and the monitoring and evaluation
(assessment) elements as defined within the O.PE.R.A. Furthermore, the monitoring techniques
recommended under the O.PE.R.A. were complied with to the extent possible And within the
Philippine context of the IPRA’s 4 bundles of IP rights, the outcome and impact indicator
systems developed for use in this system are further articulated along the 4 bundles of: a) right
to ancestral domain and land, b) right to self governance and empowerment, c) right to social
justice and human rights and d) right to cultural integrity. Each bundle of rights provided with
the one core outcome and one core impact indicator each, as follows:
Table 13: Summary of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Indicator System for the Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO)
OUTCOME INDICATORS IMPACT INDICATORS
Right to
ancestral
domain and
land
% of ADs with
secured CADT,
self governing IPS
& IPOs, functional
IPMR
representation, ,
with FPIC
followed,
implemented
ADSDPP and key
cultural
development
facilities/
mechanisms in
place
% of total number of ADs
where: a) CADTs applied,
b) CADT delineation
conducted, c) CADT
approved, d) approved
CADT registered and e)
ADSDPP developed &
approved
Extend of
fulfillment of
the state of its
obligation to
promote,
protect and
fulfil the
Filipino IPs
rights to
ancestral
domain & land,
rights to self-
governance &
empowerment,
rights to social
justice &
human rights
and rights to
cultural
integrity
% of all ADs owned and in
the possession of IPs
Right to self
governance and
empowerment
% of total LGUs (Brgys,
Mun/City, Provincial)
with sitting IPMRs fully
endorse by the IPS, IPOs
of their representation
with the status of their
level of participation
(using HRBA norms on
level of participation)
% of reduction of
reported violations of
Free, Prior, Informed,
Consent (FPIC)
% of all ADs with self
governance and
appropriate representation
in LGUs and RDCs
Right to social
justice and
human rights
% of adopted ADSDPP
implemented and extent of
implementation and
immediate results (outputs
and immediate outcomes)
% of all AD with ADSDPP
fully supported and all
identified socio-economic,
and cultural needs
provided
Right to
cultural
integrity
% of ADs with school of
living traditions, local IP
language use in vernacular
& school instructions, IP
schools with IP teachers,
functional tribal halls and
extent of IKS researches
with IPR registered &
owned by IPs
% of all ADs where their
culture integrity has been
protected & preserve
Global
Indicators
SDG actions by IPs
Security of IP Rights Defenders
84
As for the HRBA norms on level of participation to be used in tandem with the indicators
identified for the right to self-governance and empowerment, we will be using the “Ladder of
Citizen Participation” by Anstein (1969) which divides the level of participation into three with
key elements each. First is non participation where the approach of manipulation and therapy are
mostly applied. Second is Tokenism where the approach is manifested by informing,
consultation and placation. And finally at the 3rd and highest level, citizen empowerment is
achieve as a level of participation with the following manifestation: partnership, then delegated
power then citizen control.
Manifestations Level of Citizen
Participation
Citizen Control
Citizen Empowerment Delegated Power
Partnership
Placation
Tokenism Consultation
Informing
Therapy
Hon Participation Manipulation
Table 14: Ladder of Citizen Participation, Arnstein (1969)
Appropriate indicators in the Indigenous Navigator tool (both tools for community and national
levels) have also been incorporated in this M&E system. Two global indicators including: a)
SDG actions by IPs as well as b) Security of IP Rights Defenders will be incorporated as
outcome and impacts indicators in the main tool while a Community Scorecard tool has been
refined from the Indigenous Navigator community level tool to be used by IP community
members to assess actual implementation of key national and local policies for IP rights
promotion, protection and fulfillment using the AAAAQ (Availability, Accessibility,
Acceptability. Quality) criteria.
A. O.PE.R.A. (Outcome, Policy Efforts, Resources Assessment) Framework
Table 15: Summary of the Elements of the O.PE.R.A. Framework
The O.PE.R.A. framework follows a logical order of monitoring and evaluation (assessment).
Under the HR norms of minimum core obligations, it will start with measuring aggregate levels
of rights enjoyment of the identified core outcome indicators. In this case these are: a) Securing
85
CADTs, b) IPMR representation, c) Adoption & implementation of the ADSDPP and c)
Securing cultural protection & conservation facilities/ mechanisms. These data will then be dis
aggregated by ancestral domain to measure the disparities in rights enjoyment per area and per
tribe subjecting it to the HR norm of non discrimination. After which this it will be further dis
aggregated across time in the past 5-20 years of IPRA implementation and every year thereafter
applying the HR norm on progressive realization.
Table 16: Summary of the Elements of the O.PE.R.A. Framework (OUTCOMES)
At the policy efforts level, the process will continue with identifying legal and policy
commitments of the state applying the HR norm on obligation to take steps. The key outcome
indicator for this step is: assessment of Local IP-related policies compared to international
standard.
For the right to ancestral domain & land, right to self governance & empowerment, right to
cultural integrity, the relevant IPRA provisions (and all related IRRs, JAOs, AOs) vs relevant
UNDRIP provisions will be covered. As for the right to social justice and human rights,
additional items to be covered will be ESCR normative HR standards, CPR normative HR
standards and normative HR standards on IPs in conflict situations. Then this will be subjected to
a community scorecard from a modified indigenous navigator tool to assess actual
implementation of key national and local policies for IP rights promotion, protection and
fulfillment using the AAAAQ (Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability. Quality) criteria. Finally,
the community scorecard will also include the criteria for PANTHER (Participation,
Transparency, Accountability, & Right to a remedy) to analyze policy processes.
86
Table 17: Summary of the Elements of the O.PE.R.A. Framework (OPOLICY EFFORTS)
At the resources level, the process will begin with evaluating planned and actual resource
expenditures of the state by applying the HR norms on: a) core obligations, b) non-
discrimination, c) progressive realization according to maximum available resources and d)
transparency and accountability.
The key outcome indicator for this step is: % of national budget allocation & utilization per IP
right over benchmark. For the right to ancestral domain & land, the indicators are amount of
budget for AD Surveys, AD titling and support for land dispute-related litigations. These data
will then be dis aggregated by ancestral domain to identify which population groups are
benefiting from spending; contrast spending disparities with disparities in human rights
outcomes. After which this will be further dis aggregated across time in the past 5-20 years of
IPRA implementation and every year thereafter applying the HR norm on progressive realization.
The next 2 steps is to evaluate resource generation and analyze relevant policy processes
Table 18: Summary of the Elements of the O.PE.R.A. Framework (RESOURCES)
87
Finally, at the assessment level, contextual factors that limit enjoyment of the right as well as
understanding the state’s constraints will be the first 2 steps. After which and considering all
previous data and assessment, state compliance on the HR norm of obligation to fulfill using the
last indicator of “extend of fulfillment of the state of its obligation to promote, protect and fulfil
the Filipino IPs rights to ancestral domain & land, rights to self-governance & empowerment,
rights to social justice & human rights and rights to cultural integrity” will be utilized.
Table 18: Summary of the Elements of the O.PE.R.A. Framework (Assessment)
Herewith is the detailed proposed IPHRO M&E Indicator system:
88
B. Proposed IPHRO M&E Indicator System
Table 19 : Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Indicator System for the Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO)
Elements & Human
Rights Norms
Assessment Techniques
& Main Indicators
IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators
Right to Ancestral Domain
and Lands
Right to Self-Governance &
Empowerment
Social Justice and Human
Rights
Cultural Integrity
Measure levels of
enjoyment of the
right
HR Norms:
Minimum core
obligations
Identify relevant outcome indicators that
show the extent to which the right, including
its minimum essential levels, is enjoyed in
the country.
INDICATOR:
% of ADs with secured CADT, self
governing IPS & IPOs, functional IPMR
representation, implemented ADSDPP, with
FPIC followed and key cultural development
facilities/ mechanisms in place
INDICATOR:
% of total number of ADs
where: a) CADTs applied,
b) CADT delineation
conducted, c) CADT
approved, d) approved
CADT registered and e)
ADSDPP developed &
approved
INDICATOR:
% of total LGUs (Brgys,
Mun/City, Provincial) with
sitting IPMRs fully endorse by
the IPS, IPOs of their
representation with the status
of their level of participation
(using HRBA norms on level
of participation)
% of reduction of reported
violations of Free, Prior,
Informed, Consent (FPIC)
INDICATOR:
% of adopted ADSDPP
implemented and extent of
implementation and
immediate results (outputs
and immediate outcomes)
INDICATOR:
% of ADs with school of
living traditions, local IP
language use in
vernacular & school
instructions, IP schools
with IP teachers,
functional tribal halls
and extent of IKS
researches with IPR
registered & owned by
IPs
Measure disparities
in rights enjoyment
HR Norms:
Non-discrimination
Dis aggregated indicators by social groups
to identify disparities in levels of enjoyment
of the right.
INDICATOR:
Situation of key outcome indicators on the 4
bundles of rights dis aggregated per AD
INDICATOR:
Using the same indicators above, dis aggregated per ADs
89
Elements & Human
Rights Norms
Assessment Techniques
& Main Indicators
IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators
Right to Ancestral Domain
and Lands
Right to Self-Governance &
Empowerment
Social Justice and Human
Rights
Cultural Integrity
Measure progress
over time
HR Norms:
Progressive
realization
Examine variations of indicators over time to
assess progress, retrogression and change in
disparity levels.
INDICATOR:
Situation of key outcome indicators on the 4
bundles of rights disaggregated per year
across ADs and within ADs
INDICATOR:
Using the same indicators above, dis aggregated annually (in the past 5 years)
1. Policy Efforts Indicators
Elements & Human
Rights Norms
Assessment Techniques
& Main Indicators
IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators
Right to Ancestral Domain
and Lands
Right to Self-Governance &
Empowerment
Social Justice and Human
Rights
Cultural Integrity
Identify legal and
policy commitments
HR Norms:
Obligation to take
steps
Identify international commitments and
national constitutional and legislative
provisions that give effect to them.
Identify specific laws and policies on the
right and compare their provisions to
international standards.
INDICATOR:
Assessment of Local IP-related policies
compared to international standards
INDICATOR:
Relevant IPRA provisions
(IRRs, JAOs, AOs) vs
Relevant UNDRIP
Provisions
INDICATOR:
Relevant IPRA provisions
(IRRs, JAOs, AOs) vs
Relevant UNDRIP Provisions
INDICATOR:
Relevant IPRA provisions
(IRRs, JAOs, AOs) vs
Relevant UNDRIP
Provisions, ESCR
Normative HR Standards,
CPR Normative HR
Standards and Normative
HR Standards on IPs in
conflict situations
INDICATOR:
Relevant IPRA
provisions (IRRs, JAOs,
AOs) vs Relevant
UNDRIP Provisions
90
Elements & Human
Rights Norms
Assessment Techniques
& Main Indicators
IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators
Right to Ancestral Domain
and Lands
Right to Self-Governance &
Empowerment
Social Justice and Human
Rights
Cultural Integrity
Examine policy
content and
implementation
HR Norms:
AAAAQ
(Availability,
Accessibility,
Acceptability and
Quality) criteria
IIdentify the goods and services needed to
give effect to the right.
Measure the availability, accessibility,
acceptability and quality of these goods and
services (e.g. assessing quantitative and
qualitative data, community score cards).
INDICATOR:
Assessment of Local IP-related policies as it
provides goods & services based on AAAA
criteria by IP community members
INDICATOR:
Assessment by IP community members of above local policies using the AAAAQ Criteria as applied in a
modified Community Indigenous Navigator Survey use a scorecard mechanism
Analyse policy
processes
HR Norms:
Participation,
transparency,
accountability,
right to a remedy
Analyse relevant national laws and policies
(e.g. on access to information, local
participation, complaints mechanisms).
Collect feedback on the extent to which these
principles are applied in practice (e.g.
through interviews or other qualitative
methods and quantitative indicators, if
available).
INDICATOR:
Assessment of Local IP-related policies in
terms of IP participation based on
PANTHER criteria by IP community
members community members
INDICATOR:
Assessment by IP community members of above local policies using the AAAAQ Criteria as applied in a
modified Community Indigenous Navigator Survey use a scorecard mechanism
91
2. Resources Indicators
Elements & Human
Rights Norms
Assessment Techniques &
Main Indicators
IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators
Right to Ancestral Domain
and Lands
Right to Self-Governance &
Empowerment
Social Justice and Human
Rights
Cultural Integrity
Public Resource
Allocation &
Utilization
HR Norms
Core obligations
Non-discrimination
Progressive
realization
according to
maximum available
resources
Transparency and
accountability
Calculate the percentage of
the State’s budget allocated to
social spending relevant to the
specific right, comparing to
relevant benchmarks.
MAIN INDICATOR:
% of national budget
allocation & utilization per IP
Right over benchmark
INDICATORS
Amount of budget for AD
Surveys
Amount of budget for AD
titling
Amount of budget
supporting AD land dispute-
related litigation
INDICATORS
Amount of budget to supporting
IPS (Indigenous Political
Structures)
Amount of budget to supporting
IPOs (Indigenous Political
Organizations)
Amount of budget to supporting
IPMRs (Indigenous People
Mandatory Representatives)
INDICATORS
Amount of budget supporting
socio-economic PPAs &
services to IPs following the
normative rights on education,
food, health, water, social
security, work
Amount of budget supporting
ADSDPP development &
implementation
Amount of budget supporting
reparations of IP HR
violations
Amount of budget in PPAs to
ensure civil & political rights
of IPs
INDICATORS
Amount of budget supporting
cultural development services
for IPs
92
Elements & Human
Rights Norms
Assessment Techniques &
Main Indicators
IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators
Right to Ancestral Domain and
Lands
Right to Self-Governance &
Empowerment
Social Justice and Human
Rights
Cultural Integrity
Public Resource
Allocation &
Utilization
HR Norms
Core obligations
Non-discrimination
Progressive
realization according
to maximum
available resources
Transparency and
accountability
Identify which population
groups are benefitting from
spending; contrast spending
disparities with disparities in
human rights outcomes.
MAIN INDICATOR:
% of national budget
allocation & utilization per
ancestral domain
INDICATOR
Same as above but dis aggregated per Ancestral Domain (ADs)
Compare allocations to
previous budgets to see how
spending has evolved over
time, taking into account
economic growth over the
period
MAIN INDICATOR:
Amount of national budget
allocation & utilization per IP
Right over time (e.g. 5 years)
INDICATOR
Same as above but analyze on trends per year (e.g. over 5 years)
93
Elements & Human
Rights Norms
Assessment Techniques &
Main Indicators
IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators
Right to Ancestral Domain and
Lands
Right to Self-Governance &
Empowerment
Social Justice and Human
Rights
Cultural Integrity
Public Resource
Generation
HR Norms:
Progressive
realization according
to maximum available
resources
Non-discrimination
Track public expenditure (e.g.
using public expenditure
tracking surveys or social
audits).
MAIN INDICATOR:
Social audits on IP-related
expenditures (if any)
INDICATOR
Social Impacts of public
expenditures on securing IP
ADs
INDICATOR
Social Impacts of public
expenditures on supporting IPS,
IPOs and IPMRs
INDICATOR
Social Impacts on public
expenditures on socio, economic
services to IPs
INDICATOR
Social Impacts of public
expenditures on cultural
development for IP
communities
Calculate the State budget as
a percentage of the overall
economy and compare to
similar countries.
MAIN INDICATOR:
% of state budget for IPs to
overall economy
INDICATOR
Amount of budget for securing
ADs over size of appropriate
economic sectors
INDICATOR
Amount of budget to support IPS,
IPOs and IPMRs over size of
appropriate economic sectors
INDICATOR
Amount of budget supporting
socio-economic and political
programs & services over size
of appropriate economic sectors
INDICATOR
Amount of budget supporting
cultural development programs
& services over size of
appropriate economic sectors
94
Elements & Human
Rights Norms
Assessment Techniques &
Main Indicators
IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators
Right to Ancestral Domain and
Lands
Right to Self-Governance &
Empowerment
Social Justice and Human
Rights
Cultural Integrity
Public Resource
Generation
HR Norms:
Progressive
realization according
to maximum
available resources
Non-discrimination
Identify and assess the
adequacy and fairness of the
State’s main revenue sources
(e.g. taxation, borrowing,
international assistance).
MAIN INDICATOR:
% of IP-related public
expenditures over total
borrowings, taxation &
international assistance
INDICATOR
Amount of budget for securing
ADs disaggregated per source
(borrowings, taxation,
international assistance)
INDICATOR
Amount of budget to support
IPS, IPOs and IPMRs
disaggregated per source
(borrowings, taxation,
international assistance)
INDICATOR
Amount of budget supporting
socio-economic and political
programs & services
disaggregated per source
(borrowings, taxation,
international assistance
INDICATOR
Amount of budget supporting
cultural development programs
& services disaggregated per
source (borrowings, taxation,
international assistance)
Evaluate the State’s fiscal
and/or monetary policies
governing the raising of
revenue (e.g. identify tax base
as a percentage of GDP and
track its evolution over time,
taking into account economic
growth over the period).
MAIN INDICATOR:
Review of fiscal & monetary
policy on revenue generation
of IP-related programs &
services
INDICATOR
Qualitative and quantitative assessment of government's fiscal and monetary policies to generate revenues for IP-related
programs and services based on review of policies, interviews with key informants showing distinctions in any of the 4 bundles
of rights; where it shows
95
Elements & Human
Rights Norms
Assessment Techniques &
Main Indicators
IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators
Right to Ancestral Domain and
Lands
Right to Self-Governance &
Empowerment
Social Justice and Human
Rights
Right to Ancestral Domain and
Lands
Public Resource
Generation
HR Norms:
Progressive
realization according
to maximum
available resources
Non-discrimination
Collect feedback on public
participation in the design,
implementation and
evaluation of fiscal and
monetary policies (e.g.
through interviews or other
qualitative methods and
quantitative data, if available).
MAIN INDICATOR:
Assessment of participation of
IPs in fiscal & monetary
policies development (LGUs,
Regional, National)
INDICATOR
Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the quality of participation of IP representatives in fiscal & monetary policies
development of government at 3 levels – LGUs, regional development councils and at the national GAA processes based on
review of policies, interviews with key informants, guided surveys showing distinctions in any of the 4 bundles of rights; where
it shows
Public Fiscal and
Monetary Policy
Processes
Analyse indicators related to
transparency of economic
policy process
.
MAIN INDICATOR:
Assessment of transparency
indicators for economic
policies related to raising
resources for the development
of IPs and their ancestral
domains
INDICATOR
Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the quality of transparency of economic policies related to raising resources for IP-
related developments based on review of policies, interviews with key informants, guided surveys showing distinctions in any
of the 4 bundles of rights; where it shows
96
Elements & Human
Rights Norms
Assessment Techniques &
Main Indicators
IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators
Right to Ancestral Domain and
Lands```
Right to Self-Governance &
Empowerment
Social Justice and Human
Rights
Right to Ancestral Domain and
Lands
Identify contextual
factors that limit
enjoyment of the
right
HR Norms:
Indivisibility and
interdependence of
rights
Right to a remedy
Identify the social, economic,
political or cultural conditions
that prevent people from
enjoying the right or seeking
redress for violations of the
right (e.g. through capacity
gap assessment).
INDICATOR:
Social, economic, political &
cultural conditions that hinders
IPs to secure their CADTs,
have self governing IPS &
IPOs, have functional IPMR
representation, fully
implemented ADSDPP and
key cultural development
facilities/ mechanisms in place
OR from seeking redress for
not being able to exercise/
enjoy these rights
INDICATOR:
Social, economic, political &
cultural conditions that prevent
IPs from fully exercising their
right to own and possess AD
and land OR from seeking
redress for not being able to
exercise/ enjoy these rights
INDICATOR:
Social, economic, political &
cultural conditions that prevent
IPs from fully exercising their
right to govern their own affairs
within their respective ADs and
to be fully represented in LGUs
and RDCs that covers and/or
adjacent to their ADs or where
IPMRs are required to be
represented OR from seeking
redress for not being able to
exercise/ enjoy these right
INDICATOR:
Social, economic, political &
cultural conditions that prevent
IPs from receiving sufficient
support from the state to full
implement their ADSDPP and
provide fully for their socio,
economic, cultural development
needs OR from seeking redress
for not being able to exercise/
enjoy these rights
INDICATOR:
Social, economic, political &
cultural conditions that prevent
IPs from receiving sufficient
support from the state to enjoy
the cultural protection &
conservation facilities/
mechanisms they require OR
from seeking redress for not
being able to exercise/ enjoy
these rights
97
Elements & Human
Rights Norms
Assessment Techniques &
Main Indicators
IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators
Right to Ancestral Domain and
Lands```
Right to Self-Governance &
Empowerment
Social Justice and Human
Rights
Right to Ancestral Domain and
Lands
Understand the
State’s constraints
HR Norms:
Obligation to respect
and protect rights
against abuse by third
parties
Extraterritorial
obligations of other
States to respect,
protect and fulfil
ESCR
Identify how the acts or
omissions of third parties or
structural dysfunctions impact
on the State’s ability to fulfil
the right.
INDICATOR:
Explain how acts or omissions
of third parties or structural
dysfunctions hinder the state
from protecting the rights of
IPs to own & possess their
respective ADs, to govern
their own affairs within their
respective ADs, to be fully
represented in LGUs and
RDCs that covers and/or
adjacent to their ADs or where
IPMRs are required to be
represented, to receive
sufficient support to full
implement their ADSDPP and
provide fully for their socio,
economic, cultural
development needs AND to
receive sufficient support to
enjoy the cultural protection &
conservation facilities/
mechanisms they require
INDICATOR:
Explain how acts or omissions
of third parties or structural
dysfunctions hinder the state
from protecting the right of IPs
to own and possess their
respective ADs
INDICATOR:
Explain how acts or omissions
of third parties or structural
dysfunctions hinder the state
from protecting the right of IPs
to govern their own affairs
within their respective ADs and
to be fully represented in LGUs
and RDCs that covers and/or
adjacent to their ADs or where
IPMRs are required to be
represented
INDICATOR:
Explain how acts of omissions
of third parties or structural
dysfunctions hinder the state
from protecting the rights of IPs
to receive sufficient support to
full implement their ADSDPP
and provide fully for their
socio, economic, cultural
development needs
INDICATOR:
Explain how acts of omission of
third parties or structural
dysfunctions hinder the state
from protecting the rights of
IPS to receive sufficient support
to enjoy the cultural protection
& conservation facilities/
mechanisms they require
98
Elements & Human
Rights Norms
Assessment Techniques &
Main Indicators
IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators
Right to Ancestral Domain and
Lands```
Right to Self-Governance &
Empowerment
Social Justice and Human
Rights
Right to Ancestral Domain and
Lands
Determine State
compliance
HR Norms:
Obligation to fulfil
Draw together findings from
previous steps, in light of the
above elements.
INDICATOR:
Extend of fulfilment of the
state of its obligation to
promote, protect and fulfil the
Filipino IPs rights to ancestral
domain & land, rights to self-
governance & empowerment,
rights to social justice &
human rights and rights to
cultural integrity
INDICATOR:
% of all ADs owned and in the
possession of IPs
INDICATOR:
% of all ADs with self
governance and appropriate
representation in LGUs and
RDCs
INDICATOR:
% of all AD with ADSDPP
fully supported and all
identified socio-economic, and
cultural needs provided
INDICATOR:
% of all ADs where their
culture integrity has been
protected & preserve
99
Operational Mechanisms of the IPHRO
Figure 19: IPHRO Operational Mechanism Framework
A. Establishing a Permanent IPHRO Program
The proposed IPHRO; while operationally lodge with the Commission on Human Rights as
to ensure that it remains to be an independent monitoring and evaluation mechanism, will
operate in collaboration with the NCIP and other key state duty bearers.
1. Key Steps in Operationalization
The IPHRO will be formally established through three (3) main steps:
First, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among key National Government Agencies
establishing a common system of monitoring and evaluating using a human right based
approach on the fulfillment of Indigenous Peoples rights in the country will be finalized. This
will be led by the CHR and NCIP and the following key state duty bearers:
1. National Economic Development Authority (NEDA)
2. Philippines Statistics Authority (PSA)
3. National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA)
4. Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA)
5. Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD)
6. Regional Human Rights Commission - ARMM
7. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
8. Department of Social Welfare & Development (DSWD)
9. Department of Education (DepEd)
100
Second, establishing two (2) main Collaborative Mechanisms to implement the provisions of
the proposed MOA; namely: a) a direct IP Community - CHR monitoring platform and b) an
inter-agency/ multi-sectoral IP Rrights Mmonitoring mechanism. Setting up these
mechanisms will include sufficient training, orientation and building the systems of
operations; particularly on monitoring and evaluation. Details of these mechanisms are
described below.
Third, is the institutionalization of the three (3) program components of the IPHRO within
the regular operations of the CHR. This will be subjected to an Organizational Development
(OD) process to ensure smooth change management in CHR adopting this new program.
It will be operationalize based on this workplan:
Table 20: Proposed IPHRO Operationalization Work Plan
Operationalization Steps Timeframe
1) Signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among key National
Government Agencies establishing a common system of monitoring and
evaluation using a human right based approach on the fulfillment of
Indigenous Peoples rights led by the CHR and NCIP and involving 9 other
key NGAs;
1st quarter 2018
4) Establishing two (2) main Collaborative Mechanisms to implement the
provisions of the proposed MOA; namely: a) A Direct IP Community - CHR
Monitoring Platform and b) An Inter-Agency/ Multi-Sectoral IP Rights
Monitoring Mechanism to include various inter agency TWGs for each of the
4 bundles of IP rights plus a TWG on the autonomy and peace processes; and
c) - rest of 2018
d) - 2nd - 3rd quarter of 2018
5) Institutionalization of the three (3) program components of the IPHRO
within the regular operations of the CHR.
2018-2019
2. Services, Clientele, Staffing & Organizational Requirements of the IPHRO
The three (3) program components of the IPHRO lodge with the CHR in tandem with the 2
collaborative mechanisms will provide the following key services:
Table 21: Proposed IPHRO Program Components, Services & Key Players
Program Components Services Key Players
IP Rights IEC Program 6. Education Campaign on IP Rights among IP
Communities
7. Orientation on IP Rights to LGUs and
NGAs
8. IP Rights and IP Culture Conscientization
Campaign in Schools
9. IP Rights Orientation Among Private Sector
(companies operating in Ancestral
Domains)
10. IP Rights Mass and Social Media
Campaign
CHR (incl RHRC-ARMM)
NCIP
NCCA
Business Associations
DepEd
101
IP Rights Capacity
Building Program
3. Trainings on IP Rights to IPs, IPOs and
IPMRs
4. Trainings on IP Rights to NGA IP Desks
and Programs/Projects
CHR (incl RHRC-ARMM)
NCIP
NGOs
IPOs
IP Rights Knowledge
Management &
Protection Program
Online Database Management System on IP
Rights Monitoring
Annual IP Rights Monitoring & Report
IP Rights National Inquiry (2 x every term of
government)
Regular convening of the Direct IP
Community-CHR Monitoring Platforms at
the regional level ( every 6 months)
5. Regular convening of the various TWGs of
the Inter-Agency Collaborative Mechanism
on IP Rights Monitoring (at least every
quarter or when the need arises)
TWG on AD & Land,
TWG on Self-Governance & Empowerment
TWG on Social Justice & Human Rights
TWG on Cultural Integrity
TWG on Autonomy and Peace Talks
6. Regular convening of the CHR-NCIP-
DBM-COA Task Force on IP Rights Fiscal
Monitoring (at least once a year)
7. Regular convening of the BHR Task Force
on IP Rights Monitoring (Inter-Agency,
Multi-Sectoral National Body)
complemented with an IP (IPMR Leagues,
IPOs) – CHR – NCIP – Business – CSO
Consultative Forum at the Regional and
National Levels on IP Rights and BHR ( at
least once a year)
CHR
NCIP
NEDA
IP and NGA representatives to the
various TWGs, Task Forces and
Consultative Forum
While the final staffing may be guided by the result of the OD review, it is likely that given
the above level of programming and expected services that the following staffing may be
necessary:
Table 22: Matrix of Roles of Staffing Requirements for the IPHRO
Position Tasks and Responsibilities
Coordinator
⚫ Acts as overall Program Coordinator for IPHRO
⚫ Coordinates directly with the Directorate, CEB and Focal
Commissioner on matters re: IPHRO operations
Focal person on IEC
⚫ In charge of implementation of all IEC-related services
⚫ Coordinates with appropriate offices in CHR and NCIP on IEC
concerns
⚫ Takes change or media & communications relations
102
Focal person on Capacity
Building
⚫ In charge of implementation of all Capacity-Building services
⚫ Coordinates with appropriate offices in CHR and NCIP on Capacity
Building concerns
⚫ Works with the HRD to develop and implement staff development for
CHR on IPHRO
Focal person on Knowledge
Management & Protection
Services
⚫ In charge of implementation of all KM and Protection services
referrals
⚫ Coordinates all collaborative mechanisms of the IPHRO
⚫ Provindes Policy Research and Advocacy Support to IPHRO
Database Management Specialist ⚫ Develop and manages the database including its online system and
integration with MIS and other similar systems with CHR and NCIP
⚫ Maintains and develop the M&E system of the IPHRO
Administrative Support ⚫ Provides all administrative support for IPHRO
3. Funding and Sustainability
It would be inevitable for the CHR and the NCIP to incorporate the cost of regularly
sustaining IPHRO as part of its regular operations the various program components . This
will be complemented with accessing external donors or special projects within the GAA for
support projects, especially at the initial stages of setting up the systems and programs of the
IPHRO. This will include the NCIP’s PIPE Project and the CHR’s Go Just Project
A voluntary fund & other support mechanism for any interested party with no vested interests
on IP-related concerns may also be considered to allow for the general public to pitch in to
provide financial, technical and voluntary support. This may be developed in collaboration
with key NGOs and IPOs.
4. Information & Knowledge Management
A central IPHRO Database Management System will be set-up and maintained at the CHR.
Efforts will be made to ensure complementation of this system with that of the NCIP’s own
database monitoring system.
This system will be accessible online with various degrees of access depending on the nature
of the information. This will incorporate an internet-based online public platform to share
information and receive feedback; including case reporting.
Through the various regular processes of the proposed collaborative mechanisms for the
IPHRO a systematic collection of data and feedbacking of processed information generated
by the IPHRO O.PE.R.A.-based M&E system, direct access by the concern IP communities
through their representatives (IPOs, IPMRs, IPs) in these processes will be ensured.
An internal system for the CHR linking this online database with its own Information
Management System (IPS) for IPHRO; including our existing database monitoring system
for status human rights violation cases filed and manage by the CHR will also be developed
for monitoring operational effectiveness and efficiency. The system should be accessible both
at the national and regional offices of the CHR
As CHR has the mandate to report human rights situation to various international human
rights bodies, part of this knowledge management system is the generation of reports using
data and analysis generated from the IPHRO to these international human rights mechanisms.
These reports will regularly be shared with the other concern state duty bearers and IP rights
103
holders for purposes of transparency and accountability.
B. Regular National IP Rights Inquiry
The 2017 National IP Rights Inquiry has gathered preliminary information and data enough
to start an initial database for the regular monitoring and evaluation work of the IPHRO.
However, the regular conduct of succeeding National IP Rights Inquiry processes will be
made integral to the regular functioning of the IPHRO. To be determined later is the
frequency of the conduct of this inquiry but it must at least be done twice in the period of six
(6) years following the term of every government elected and the timeline of every national
mid-term development plan or the Philippine Development Plan.
The convening of the regular National IP Rights Inquiry may also be done back-to-back with
appropriate capacity building interventions as earlier identified in the gap assessment on
capacity building needs.
C. Collaborative Mechanisms for the IPHRO Operationalization
Two collaborative mechanisms are proposed to full operationalize the IPHRO. There are:
1. Direct IP Community - CHR IP Rights Monitoring Platform
Prominent during the discussions of the inquiry was the offer of IP leaders to have a direct
mechanism between their IP community and the CHR that will establish a secure mechanism
for gathering information and feedback on human rights situation and human rights violations
of IPs at the community level as well as providing a direct link between these information
and feedback system to direct referrals to various IP rights protection services that can follow
through.
2. Inter-Agency/ Multi-Sectoral IP Rights Monitoring Mechanism
As identified in the gap analysis of the current responses of state duty bearers under the item
of monitoring and evaluation system, it is recommended that the IPHRO maintains three (3)
Inter-Agency/Multi-Sectoral coordination and collaborative mechanisms and where
applicable, the necessary sub-groups. These are:
1. Proposed Inter-Agency / Multi-Sectoral TWGs Monitoring Key Thematic Areas of the 4
Bundles of IP Rights
1.1. TWG on AD & Land,
1.2. TWG on Self-Governance & Empowerment
1.3. TWG on Social Justice & Human Rights
1.4. TWG on Cultural Integrity
1.5. TWG on Autonomy and Peace Talks
2. Proposed CHR-NCIP-DBM-COA Task Force on IP Rights Fiscal Monitoring
3. Proposed BHR Task Force on IP Rights Monitoring (Inter-Agency, Multi-Sectoral
National Body) complemented with an IP (IPMR Leagues, IPOs) – CHR – NCIP –
Business – CSO Consultative Forum at the Regional and National Levels on IP Rights
and BHR
104
D. IPHRO Information Flow
As for the information flow within the IPHRO, Figure 20 shows how this might happen.
The regular IP National Inquiry process consisting of public hearings, workshop and event
community visits/investigation is the regular starting point of the information flow. From
here, Human Rights Situation Report of Filipino IPs will be developed evolving from its
current baseline of national level information to what that would eventually encompass per
tribe, per domain and per issue.
Regular reporting of state duty bearers (LGUs and NGAs) will be a another source on a very
regular basis. This regular feedback mechanism will continue to get assessment from all
stakeholders, primarily IP leaders on the operations and programming of the IPHRO for
continues improvement Information generated for CHR will be used for: a) Case Monitoring
and Investigation – both for new and old cases, b) Promotion – Information, Education and
Communication (IECs), c) developing proposed policies through specific policy advisories. It
will also be used to guide the convening of Inter Agency Technical Working groups to
respond to thematic/recurring issues and issuance of CHR letters to relevant agencies per
issues raised calling on them to fulfill their individual obligations, as identified.
105
Figure 20: IPHRO Information Flow
106
Next Steps on the Development & Operationalization of the IPHRO in CHR
The development of the identified operative elements of an IPHRO that will be
integrated in the regular operation of CHR will be pursued as next steps. Reflecting
from various elements identified in the IP National Inquiry, the following operational
systems and their relevant tools will be developed
A. Organizational Development (O.D.) on the IPHRO in CHR
An Organizational Development (O.D.) assessment including a systems review of
CHR operations leading to an O.D. plan that once fully implemented will ensure
proper change management in developing IPHRO as a new program and its
implication to current operational systems, policies, structures and staffing will be
conducted
It is a systematic and planned change or restructuring that will likely affect all levels of the
organization. It is typically used to manage change in an organization, especially when a new
program is introduced that will change many aspects of its regular operations.
An OD Assessment is a preliminary process for OD interventions to determine which part of
the current operations of the organization; including its guidelies/procedures/rules,
structures/mechanisms and systems needs to be subjected to the desired change as the new
program is integrated. It this case, the OD Assessment for the CHR IP Rights Observatory
will be done through a targeted survey among key personel & other stakeholders
The IP Rights Observatory proposed for the CHR is an innovation that will allow this
national human rights institute to be able to systematically and effectively perform its
mandate to promote, protect and & recommend policies to ensure the human rights of all
indigenous Filipinos. While in the past, CHR has investigated; and to some extent, resolve
some HR violations against IPs, it has yet to do this optimally and systematically. This
introduction of a new program that will affect a substantial part of the regular operations of
CHR must be manage through an OD process. Thus, the need for this OD assessment.
This proposed OD assessment process will follow this conceptual framework:
Figure 21: Conceptual Framework for the OD Assessment of IPHRO
CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
OF AN
IP RIGHTS OBSERVATORY
MECHANISM
IN CHR
ORGANIZATIONAL
DOMAINS OF CHR ⚫ Mission & Vision ⚫ Leadership & Governance
⚫ Strategic & Operations Planning
and Management Systems ⚫ Management of People
⚫ Linkages, Networking &
Communications
⚫ Research & Information
Management
⚫ Financial Management &
Resource Mobilization
Key
Personnel
External
Stakeholders
O.D. Assessment Survey
using OD Assessment Tool
ORGANIZATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
OF THE IP RIGHTS
OBSERVATORY IN CHR
107
The operative elements of the IPHRO will be communicated to the respondents of the OD
Assessment before they respond to the survey. The respondents will then be asked to look
into the 7 organizational domains covering the current regular functions of the CHR and try
to assess to what extent this will be affected by the change management that will occur as the
IP Rights Observatory mechanism is integrated into the CHR work. The results of the study
both assess the OD level of CHR in each of its 7 organizational domains to integrate the IP
Rights Observatory by way of an index and it will also identify the areas of OD interventions
that will be necessary afterwards.The OD rating for IP Rights Observatory that will be
established can be used for regular monitoring nd evaluation of the implementation of the OD
plan.
Another aspect of the OD assessment is the operational systems review of CHR to manage
IPHRO integration in existing programs and services.
A systems review as applied in organizational development (or change management) looks
into the way the regular operations of an organization functions and proposes changes and
innovations to facilitate the introduction of new programs, projects and mechanisms. In this
case, the new mechanism being introduce to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is the
proposed Indigenous Peoples (IP) Rights Observatory. In doing a quick systems review of the
relevant CHR operational mechanisms, the Omnibus Rules of Procedures of the CHR
adopted on April 2012 was the subject of the review.
Reviewing the above relevant rules of the Omnibus Rules of Procedures reveals that the CHR
currently has two distinct but complementary main systems to perform its power and mandate
to investigate and monitor on one hand, Civil and Political Rights (CPR) and on the other
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR).
Sub-systems to these are special considerations that require additional protocols and
standards for dealing with human rights cases involving women and children. Cross cutting
also both systems and sub-system are the special procedures for such processes and
mechanisms as the public inquiry, fact finding missions, quick response operations, the use of
conciliation & mediation, use of forensics science in aid of investigation, immediate course
of actions (protection remedies, witness protection w/ immunity, legal assistance &
counseling) & issuance of CHR clearances to ensure integrity of the results of the system.
Within the context of these systems and sub-systems of the regular operations of the CHR, it
may be feasible to integrate the IP Rights Observatory sub-system as an additional cross-
cutting system in tandem with the public inquiry, fact finding mission and quick response
action. Likewise, similar to how the sub-system of special protocols on how to investigate
properly human rights cases against women and children, it may also be feasible to
incorporate special protocols for handling IP related cases across the various processes in
investigating and monitoring human rights violations in both the civil, political rights (CPR)
area as well as the economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) area as well.
108
Figure 22: IPHRO Systems Review of CHR Investigation
Scope of CHR
Jurisdiction
Civil, Political Rights
ESCR especially of the
marginalized
Monitor GRPs
compliance w HR
treaties and instruments
Power to Investigate & Monitor
Initial
Investigation
> upon
complaint
> motu propio
24-48 hrs
Endorse to NGA
or other entity w
jurisdiction
RD or
CeB
decides jurisdiction
If NO
Dialogue/
Preliminary
Conference of all
parties incl duty
holders
If YES
w/ 3 days notice
Immediate Course of Actions
Protection Remedies
Alternative dispute
resolution (conciliation,
mediation)
Investigation Proper (starts w/in 15 days after complaint
and as recommended by the
preliminary investigation)
Case resolved
amicably
(* w/ limits)
Process issued to parties.
Affidavits submitted Counter affidavit w/in 3-10dys
Conduct of hearing/ review of
affidavits, counter affidavits
Investigation Reports 10 days
after termination of investigation
Final Evaluation &
Preparation of Resolution within 15 days after submission of
Investigation Reports. Motion for
reconsideration within 14 days
Investigation
reports 10 dys
after
terminations of
investigation
If YES
Archived w/out
prejudice to re-
opening.
Mandatory
revisiting
Summary dismissal after
3 years with
exceptions
If NO
For CPR
Cases
FINDINGS of
Human Rights
Violations
If YES If NO
Case Dismissed
CHR Clearance may be issued.
With excemptions
For ESCR
Cases
Institutional
Actions by CHR
Investigation &
Monitoring Reports
Endorsement for filing
appropriate legal cases Endorsement for appropriate
policy measures Grant of reparations
Conduct of Public Inquiry, Quick Response Action,
Fact-Finding Mission
IP RIGHTS OBSERVATORY
Special Protocols for
handling HR cases of
women
Special Protocols for
handling HR cases of
children
Special Protocols for
handling HR cases of
women
Special Protocols for
handling HR cases
of children
Forensic
science in aid
to investigation
where
necessary
Special Protocols
for handling HR
cases of IPs
Special Protocols
for handling HR
cases of IPs
109
B. Capacity Building for the IPHRO in CHR
Reflecting from the Capacity Building Gaps identified an assessment of the capacity building needs of
CHR for an IP Rights Observatory will be conducted. This assessment will be conducted through a
FGD – Focus Group Discussions of a representation of all major stakeholders as well as sampling of
various related offices in the CHR that will eventually be involve in the IP Rights Observatory
mechanism. A Guided survey questionnaire will be developed as a tool for this assessment.
A KSA (Knowledge, Skills and Attitude) Learning Objectives matrix will then be prepared covering
the programmatic elements of the proposed IPHRO, as follows:
Table 23: CHR KSA Learning Objective Matrix for IPHRO
Operative Elements
of an IP Rights
Observatory
Mechanism
Capacity Building
Needs
Learning Objectives
Knowledge Skills Attitudes
A Regular M&E and
Knowledge
Management System
A Capacity Building
on IP Rights M&E
System
An Information,
Education &
Communications
System
After which, specific Capacity Building interventions tailor fitted to various unit of the CHR operations
will be designed; following this matrix:
Table 24: CHR Coverage of IPHRO Capacity Building Intervention per Unit
CHR Offices COVERAGE of Capacity Building Interventions
Commission En Banc
Office of the Director
General Administration
Finance
Strategic
Communications
Promotions Office
Protections Office
Policy Office
HR Centers
Field Operations
Regional Offices
C. Strategic Communications for the IPHRO in CHR
Reflecting from the IEC Gaps identified an assessment of the communication needs of CHR for an IP
110
Rights Observatory will be conducted. This assessment will be conducted through a FGD – Focus
Group Discussions of a representation of all major stakeholders as well as sampling of various related
offices in the CHR that will eventually be involve in the IP Rights Observatory mechanism. A Guided
survey questionnaire will be developed as a tool for this assessment.
A IEC (Information, Education & Communication) Plan matrix will then be prepared covering the
programmatic elements of the proposed IPHRO, as follows:
Table 25: CHR IPHRO IEC Plan Matrix
Operative
Elements
Communication
Needs Based on
IEC Gaps
TARGET
AUDIENCE
KEY
MESSAGING
DATA
SOURCES
COMMUNICATION
METHODS FREQUENCY
A Regular
M&E and
Knowledge
Management
System
A Capacity
Building on IP
Rights M&E
System
An
Information,
Education &
Communicatio
ns System
This matrix will then become the basis for formulating a strategic communications plan for IPHRO to
be manage for implementation by CHR.
D. Knowledge Management System for the IPHRO in CHR
An IPHRO Knowledge Management system consisting of a results-based monitoring &
evaluation (M&E) mechanism with workable indicator systems and tools based on the
O.PE.R.A. (Outcomes, Policy Efforts, Resources, Assessment) framework of ESCR
(Economic, Social, Cultural Rights) monitoring together with a database management system
accessible publicly online will be developed. The proposed key IP Rights Indicators will be
utilized for this system
111
REFERENCES:
1. Defending Dignity: A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions on Monitoring Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights. APF. 2015
2. Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) to Development Planning Toolkit. NEDA & UNDP.
2012
3. Human Rights Based Approach to Public Finance in the Philippines. CHR and NEDA. 2013
4. 2017 Consolidated Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Filipino Indigenous Peoples’.
Commission on Human Rights (CHR). DRAFT
5. Concept Paper of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Observatory (IPRO). Commission on Human
Rights. 2017. DRAFT
6. Comparative Analysis on the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169, UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and the Indigenous Peoples' Rights
Act (IPRA) 2012. ILO. Sedfrey Candelaria
Recommended