Documentation Report

CSR Assessment and Strategic Planning Workshop

for IPO-APSSOL and APSA 102 Stakeholders
April 29-30, Supreme Hotel, Baguio City

I Introduction

Thirty-four members of the indigenous peoples organization APSSOL and stakeholders of APSA 102 in
Camp 3, Tuba participated in a 2-day workshop on corporate social responsibility and strategic planning
to protect ancestral land claims/stakes and achieve their vision as IPO-APSSOL. Representatives from
NCIP, DENR, Benguet LGU and Philex Mining Corp (PMC) also attended the event as resource persons
and observers.

Designed as a peace building process, the workshop, held on April 29-30, aimed specifically to:

1 Bring about a better understanding of corporate social responsibility

2 Increase knowledge on IPRA, Mining Act and related laws and government regulations on
mining and the environment
3 Identify stakeholders of APSA 102 and how best to use royalty fees to benefit IP
communities affected by Philex’ APSA 102
4 Identify issues and concerns of APSSOL as an organization and ways to address these.

Small workshop groups were formed to discuss and deliberate on the above topics and to clarify issues
and concerns. Resource persons from government agencies and PMC gave inputs on pertinent
government and company policies and programs as well as answered questions raised by participants.

Three workshop sessions were conducted, each followed by an open forum. The workshop culminated
with a plenary session where participants drew up a strategic plan to address stakeholder and
organizational issues towards APSSOL unity and better IP welfare.

II Workshop Results and Discussion

1 Corporate social responsibility and laws affecting APSA 102/MPSA 276

1.1 Workshop 1 results

The objective of the first workshop was to raise understanding on corporate social responsibility and the
laws affecting APSA 102. The results are shown below:

Workshop 1: Corporate Social Responsibility and Laws affecting MPSA 276

Guide Question Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

What do you know CSR of PMC is to comply CSR includes all social Compliance with any
about CSR of PMC with mining laws responsibilities of PMC law affecting
like health, stakeholders and in
infrastructure, addition responsibilities
education (SDMP), dictated by conscience
environment, livelihood
and royalty
1

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
 How do you achieve Through compliance Through development - Affected parties
CSR with IPRA, mining law programs should negotiate,
and environmental laws coordinate w/ PMC to
avail of benefits due
them
- seek assistance of
concerned agencies if
necessary

How should this be Through socioeconomic - SMDP Affected stakeholders

done development like Social and PMC should work
Management - mandatory programs: together
Development Plan health (medical),
(SMDP) education
(scholarships), infra
projects like water
system, livelihood

- Royalty: should go to
claims and affected
families
What are the laws that IPRA on rights of IP, - Mining Act chapter III Mining Act 7942
affect MPSA 276? mining law, DENR Sec 16 on AL
regulations/permits, Sec 17 on royalty
NCIP for welfare of payments for ICC
IP/ICC - civil law on rights of
individual
- constitutional law
- IPRA especially Chap II
Sec 3 on AL

1.2 Presentation on CSR

In her presentation, Philex Mining Corp consultant Inday Arcenas clarified that corporate social
responsibility is not mandatory and is purely a company’s decision. CSR is a business concept where a
company takes responsibility towards citizens, going beyond providing jobs and donations to helping
develop communities to be good partners. It is good business and in the company’s own interest for
communities to be safe, healthy and developed, since it is they who serve as workers and customers.

In terms of MPSA 276, she said PMC’s legal compliance is not only with IPRA but all Philippine and
international laws and those relating to IP/ICC. And it goes beyond this, adopting what it calls a
quadruple bottomline: a) economic development (e.g. (HELP), b) environmental programs (e.g.
reforestation and erosion control), c) social equity or non-discrimination in job hiring, and d) values
formation or the equal application of the law.

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
PMC also aspires for governance – that is, royalties should go to the social development of communities,
and not to a few persons. It will continue to pay royalty and will always respect what the communities
agree on.

To avail of programs under PMC’s CSR, the community should let the company know what programs
they need or want. Only the communities know what they need and should decide what to do with the
royalty. They should be guided by their customs and traditions, and the same should also be used in the
resolution of conflicts. But she stressed there is a need for a vision for the IP/ICC in MPSA 276 and
right/fair mechanisms in using the royalties. The royalty should only be for ICC/IP for MPSA 276, not the
barangay.

1.3 Reaction to CSR presentation and workshop results

NCIP Commissioner Zenaida Hamada-Pawid noted that the participants should know how to
differentiate between responsibilities of government and those of PMC. Basic social services are
government’s responsibility and not corporate social responsibility. But as the company has used the
resources of the area, it should share the benefits from the use of these resources. The taxes paid by the
company should be used by the government to meet the social and economic needs of communities
such as health and education, not to salaries of government employees.

The mining company has to follow all laws; and if it follows its conscience, should give more. It has many
responsibilities mandated by law. Under the Mining Act, it has the task to return the mined land to as
close as possible to its original state.

CSR is not for corporations, but for people. People are the center of CSR, and they should use the
benefits wisely. CSR should include downstream and upstream communities.

Ms Pawid also noted that participants know some of the relevant laws but not all. She enjoined them to
understand better the laws that directly affect their lands and communities, IPRA, Mining Act 1995 and
all other laws and Administrative Orders that came after 1995 that concern mine operations,
Environment Code and Local Government Code. She stressed that although IPRA is a very young law,
unlike MA or Land Code, it is a very strong one. It has only 1 principle – before the Spaniards arrived or
even before the Philippine Republic was established, the IP were already on their lands, that is why
there are ancestral domains/lands. The land had original inhabitants.

She said In Philex there were people in the open pit area long ago. The Nugal were one of the early
families, and in Benguet history they may be one of the missing connections in the family line of those
who first migrated southward from Tinek. The early families should be recognized and there are ways to
identify them: from the list of Fr Andres, Tuba municipal history, list of FPIC, list of those in buffer zone.
This can be seen in the map -- who is the direct and indirect beneficiaries. The people know who the
original families are.

Open forum

Q. Is PMC complying with mining laws?

Ms Arcenas: To my knowledge, yes; if not tell me what provisions they are not complying with. If there
are complaints, write them down and we will ensure that these will reach the right people.

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
PMC went through the FPIC process. On the downstream communities, under the MOA there is only 1
FPIC for the MPSA. Your problem is not with Philex; your problem is how to integrate with APSSOL.

Q/reaction. There is only 1 royalty for 1 MPSA. If that’s another APSA, then it can have another FPIC but
it’s the same MPSA.

Ms Pawid: The position of NCIP is that there cannot be 2 FPICs for 1 CADT or operation; or 2 FPIC for 1
APSA, but wait for the map to see exactly where downstream and outlying communities are in APSA
102.

Q: IP have many rights but some are not aware of their rights and are thus taken advantage of by other
IP.

Ms Pawid: No one can fight for your rights; know your rights, that is why you have this workshop; your
organization should be as closely knit and unite to fight for those rights

Q. What if we know our rights but when we go to government offices, they don’t do their work.

Ms Pawid: Fifty percent of problems are from NCIP and the many confusing laws that need to be
harmonized, but don’t fight among yourselves. NCIP is trying to fix the papers on the cases and we will
respect what the community decides on.

Q. Royalty is provided for under MA; would there still be royalty if there were no MA?

Ms Pawid: IPRA cemented that; in IP areas CSR should redound to IPs.

Ms Arcenas: If you’re not IP but own the land, you will also be given royalty.

Ms Pawid: If there’s a claim in MPSA, the mines are mandated to give royalty to the surface claimant.
This is recognized under IPRA.

Q. Royalty under the MA is not less than 1%; is the royalty the same for IP?

Ms Pawid: The law says at least 1%; you can ask for more than 1% but this depends on your program. So
you should know what is in the MOA with PMC; it is not for the officers but for the communities that
went into MOA with PMC.

Q: PD 512 provides royalty for surface owners of mineral lands. Does IPRA erase this?

Ms Pawid: IPRA heightened it as it says IP have priority rights; the original inhabitants should be priority.
But it is important to see the whole affected area to see who are the priority beneficiaries and other
beneficiaries. You can then decide on the projects to be undertaken so all will be benefited.

Use the royalty to benefit the whole community. The Commission en banc passed a resolution creating a
Committee of 3 which I will head to look into APPSOL and the whole problem of cases brought before it.
We will stand by your decision. Don’t let it go to court, discuss and plan ahead but also look at the past
problems and deal with them.

Q. What should we do to resolve this problem when the APSSOL officers are not around?

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
Ms Pawid. Invite and convince them to come so you can talk; the decision will be yours. Ms Arenas gave
the assurance that she got the commitment of the officers to come.

Or call them, use bridges; if this is not resolved, the money will go down the drain. NCIP might be forced
to put the fund in escrow; it can grow but cannot be withdrawn. An extreme option would be to give the
fund to the provincial or municipal government to administer. You can fight it in court. But while you
plan for the future you should deal with and correct past problems.

2 Identifying Stakeholders in APSA 102

2.1 IPRA and Background of APSA 102

Atty Severino Lumiqued of the NCIP Benguet office gave a background on IPRA, focusing on the four
major rights of indigenous peoples. These are the rights to ancestral lands/domain, governance and self-
empowerment, social justice and human rights, and cultural integrity and the sub-rights that fall under
each category.

He also presented the following facts/chronology of events on APSA 102:

PMC submitted an application for a production sharing agreement (APSA) to MGB, which
endorsed it to the NCIP central office (CO) for the certificate of pre-condition as required under
IPRA and based on FPIC Guidelines 2002. The CO Ancestral Domain Office (ADO) instructed the
Cordillera regional office to conduct a field based investigation (FBI) with Atty Lumiqued as team
leader to determine who the affected IP/ICC are.

The APSA coverage was for 98 hectares in Camp 3. The FBI team visited the sitios in the area and
found 2 creeks traversing the open pit. The FBI report recommended FPIC to be done in
immediate and adjacent sitios; and then an FPIC in downstream communities. NCIP formed an
FPIC team to facilitate and document mandatory activities of the FPIC process - notice of
preliminary consultations and consultation meetings where PMC discussed its APSA.

At the end of the consultations, the affected IP gave their decision: reject APSA 102. NCIP
Cordillera then recommended a statement of non-consent. But this was later overruled by CO
resolution 51 ordering a dialogue between PMC and concerned communities to explain their
respective positions. The communities suggested the open pit area but PMC insisted on another
venue so the dialogue did not push through.

A meeting between the parties was held at the Capitol but no TOR was agreed on for a MOA. At
that point NCIP- Benguet had no longer any participation.

Some people then negotiated with PMC, resulting in a MOA signed in John Hay between PMC
and APSSOL. APSSOL stood for IP. Before APSSOL was formed, it was different clans that
participated in consultations.

The MOA gives consent for processing of APSA 102/MPSA 276.

5

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
 On FPIC in downstream communities, the regional office wrote the CO asking for a
recommendation on the matter. In a letter to the NCIP regional director, the CO instructed NCIP
to coordinate with PMC to conduct an FPIC process in downstream communities. NCIP Cordillera
sent a formal notice to PMC to coordinate with its Benguet office for a field investigation to
identify downstream communities. But PMC declined, saying it had finished complying with the
requirements.

2.2 Local Government Code

Atty Johnny Waguis of the Benguet Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) and APSSOL legal officer discussed
the role of local government. He focused on the general welfare clause which provides that government
has the duty to protect and promote the people’s welfare and to give basic services like health,
education, sports and development, among others.

He also informed the workshop group that based on a complaint submitted by some APSSOL members
to his office, as head of SP Committee on Indigenous Peoples he invited all stakeholders in the
controversial APSA 102/MPSA 276 to a dialogue at the Capitol. But this failed as no one showed up at
the meeting. While the SP is still willing to help, it has asked NCIP assistance to address the complaint.

2.3. Mining Act

Engr Roland Aquino of the Mining and Geosciences Bureau presented the mining permits issued by
MGB, among these, MPSA, financial and technical assistance agreement, and exploration permit. He said
APSA 102 underwent processing, and the payment of royalty is in recognition of CSR.

Open forum

Q. How do we know that PMC is not expanding its tunnels and operations beyond what it claims?
People are worried as the Sta Fe Fault goes along the Alang area.

Engr Aquino: MGB monitors only what PMC submits in its work program, and thus only the operational
and production areas. It also monitors safety working conditions in the mine.

Sta Fe is not part of the operations area which is the open pit. PMC is still operating within its operations
area.

Q. Who should give consensus and who are the most likely affected communities?

NCIP: Consensus should come from most likely affected communities. The result of the environmental
impact assessment by EMB will determine who will be the most likely affected, and this may not only be
the applied area if the EIA shows a bigger impact.

Q. The consultation process is confusing, who should be followed: LGU or the people? And which
elders/leaders should represent the community?

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
NCIP: Based on the latest 2006 guidelines on FPIC, the decision on proposed activities or projects in IP
area lies with the most likely affected IP within the applied area. And elders should come from this area,
not outside. The affected people will choose the elders/leaders, and they are the responsible leaders of
the community - they will sign for the people.

Atty Waguis: Projects require two separate endorsements from two LGUs. But LGU participation is not
cited in IPRA as the Bakun experience shows where only the IP were consulted in the application for a
mining exploration permit. So NCIP and LGU should strengthen their coordination. Although LGU is now
being invited in FPIC consultations, LGU participation should further be studied. IPRA and the Mining Act
lack provisions on this.

Ms Pawid: There is no general rule on participation of LGU in FPIC process and decision making unless
they are stakeholders or part of the most likely affected community, but LGU are invited to NCIP-
sponsored activities.

Consultation is at the heart of the implementation of IPRA and the development process. Consultation
means tongtong, dialogue, where to meet and agree, and should be inclusive not exclusive. It should be
the same for APSSOL. The royalties from PMC should not be used to pay property damages.

PMC’s interest is only to give the royalty based on people’s claims; people should thus meet PMC
halfway; and if they do not unite, APSSOL can be cancelled as IPO. A resolution for an investigating
committee on the APSA 102 problem has already been signed and it can subpoena papers. So the
affected people should find a solution.

NCIP has received 6 complaints asking for full accounting of royalty payments and reorganization in
APSSOL. The MOA is binding on APPSOL and PMC but payment of royalty appears illegal from the
beginning, as royalty has gone to eco-socio projects, some of which were found to be ghost projects. So
reorganization should be done quickly; the investigating committee will get all the necessary papers on
the case.

The complainants are the Nuclasi clan, Nalibsan family, Carlito Banasan and heirs of Bucal Gavino vs.
IPO-APSSOL.

Atty Waguis: The Nuclasi clan also wrote the Sangguniang Panlalawigan on the same case and this was
referred to the SP Committee on IP. The committee then wrote APSSOL officers inviting them to a
dialogue/meeting but no one came. So SP felt that it failed to address the problem; while it wanted to
mediate no representative of the other party came.

APSSOL secretary, Conchita Fernandez: Even before the problem arose, we went through the process; so
in this case what should be followed as there are many agencies involved like DENR, NCIP, then LGU.

Ms Pawid: IPRA is different; it’s up to IP to stand up for their rights.

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
Q. Most of the APSSOL officers did not attend the workshop so how can there be a dialogue and
discussion about issues like downstream communities and APSSOL?

Ms Pawid: Ms Arcenas promised to bring them here, so the members should unite and decide. You are
not here to elect but to determine who should be called to organize and you cannot wait forever. The
question is who should hold the money (royalty payments); whatever APSSOL decides will be respected
by the agencies. You can look back after moving forward.

Q. Who will determine most likely affected?

Ms Pawid: You

Q. Information on workshop was not fully disseminated.

Ms Pawid: Go from house to house to disseminate the workshop results

Q. what are the impact areas?

A. This will be taken up in the workshop.

2.4 Workshop 2 results

In Workshop 2, the participants identified the stakeholders of APSA 102/MPSA 276, what benefits they
should receive and how these benefits should be utilized. The following are the results:

Workshop 2: Identifying stakeholders and benefits

Guide Question Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4

Who are the -Those who are in -Most likely - communities of -those affected by
stakeholders of MOA affected and IP of APSSOL apsa 102
mpsa 276/apsa - IP/ICC of concerned IP/ICC directly and most - IP of APSSOL –
102 affected areas of mpsa 276/apsa likely affected by those affected
102 (can become apsa 102 as well
stakeholders if as downstream
they buy communities
shares/stocks of
PMC
-includes
displaced,
landowners,
house owners
covered by mpsa
276

What are the -socioeconomic - royalty Royalty Royalty

Benefits benefits as - ADSDPP – SDMP

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
 identified by Employment
parties – NCIP, Education
PMC, IPO-APSSOL Livelihood
-projects for Infrastructure
upliftment of development
IP/ICC Medical assistance
Disaster/emergency
Other social
responsibilities; ex.
IP who are not
stakeholders can be
given loans or
assistance

How should these should be Should be used -health, medical Based on IRR of
benefits be categorized for socioeconomic assistance appropriate laws,
utilized according to development with (emergency ex. ADSDPP – SDMP
group, such as plans purpose) scheme
directly and Livelihood through
indirectly affected -education such as cooperatives or
scholarships for investments
children

-livelihood, ex.
Entrepreneurship
Infrastructure –
farm to market
roads and farm-
related
development

Open forum

Issues on downstream communities and most likely affected communities

1 There is APSA 156 for downstream communities that should undergo the FPIC process, so why
should they be included in APSA 102/MPSA 276?
 PMC does not want to bring out APSA 156; even NCIP seems not interested.
 We should define who really are the affected families.
 Those downstream whose farms or water supply are affected by PMC operations, even if not
within APSA 102 or 256, should be included.

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
  Assistance under royalty payments should also be given to other IP who are not stakeholders,
such as those in Ligay. While not mandatory, it can come in as a concern or social responsibility,
for example, livelihood, cooperative, mutual benefit/assistance funds for calamity or disaster.
 Set aside funds from royalty to develop creeks
 We cannot give funds for this (creek development) because these are outside APSA 102. And
what portions of the creek will be included? The tunnel is 1.5 k from APSA 102
 PMC can set aside an amount from the mine rehabilitation fund to pay damages on properties
covered by its mine operations
 A list of names per family in the affected sitios or those who have paid the membership fee
should be submitted to the organization. A map should also be requested from DENR/MGB to
have a clearer view of the impact area and who the stakeholders really are.

NCIP: APSA 102 is also affected by APSA 156. Near APSA 102 is an exploration permit application (078)
of PMC that is undergoing process. When the FPIC process was conducted in Camp 3, some of the
people said that before they give a decision, the issue of APSA 156 should first be decided on.

Engr Soriano: 156 have already been awarded.

NCIP: The 2006 FPIC guidelines give the definition of area affected. This refers to areas which will most
likely be affected by a project or activity as determined by the field investigating team. Impact area is
defined on p 10 Section 11 of the guidelines. The guidelines are currently being reviewed, so
participants’ suggestions can be considered.

Atty Lumiqued: The field based investigation of APSA 102 identified 14 sitios in Camp 3 as affected
areas. These are: Pokis, Alang, Bastian, Camait, Agpay, Camarin, Loakan, Mansumang, Clifton, Alapang,
Aguing, Torre, Kimmabab, Balayan

The 98 ha covered by APSA 102 are all in one sitio: Pokis. During the ocular investigation of the 98 ha,
the FBI team prepared a rough sketch map – the open pit and subsidence area is inside Pokis. On the
northern part outside this area are Agpat, Loakan, Mansumang, Camarin; western side – Clifton,
Alapang, Torre, southern part – Alang, Bastian, Camait.

Two creeks traverse the OPM and subsidence area. The community said waste flows through these
creeks, so the team included it in the impact area. In the consultation held in Torre, the 14 sitios plus Sta
Fe (Ampucao) were presented, and there was no objection from the community. Elders from the 15
sitios were also identified. But during the organization of APSSOL, only 6 sitos were included, 2 were
added but these were not identified in the FBI.

Ms Fernandez: APSSOL is an IPO name only; it does not mean or is limited to the 6 sitios but includes all
14.

There are families in affected sitios who moved their residence to Sta Fe, that’s why this sitio is
included.
10

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
Arrival of APSSOL President
Newly elected APSSOL president Adam Ventura spoke very briefly when he arrived. He gave his
apologies, saying he could not attend the workshop because of a scheduled meeting of APSSOL. He said
there was no proper coordination with him on the workshop, and thus the scheduled meeting.

Mr Baoaoan strongly objected to Mr Ventura’s statement, saying he had given the invitation for the
workshop (others had to calm him down) during a meeting at Brod Pit.

Reactions

 The APSSOL president was changed without the knowledge of members.

 Can interim officers be changed?
 Council of elders (COEL) is tasked to disseminate information on scheduled meetings to
members of APSSOL

2.5 Workshop 3 results

In workshop 3, the participants identified the issues/concerns of APSSOL as an organization.

Workshop 3: Issues/concerns of APSSOL

Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
What are -How to properly -No transparency -14 sitios and -
issues/concerns of determine on management downstream areas misrepresentation
APSSOL as an stakeholders of and and other sitio – of beneficiaries
organization mpsa 276 implementation Sta Fe during FBI and
FPIC
-what are the - valid -what are the
criteria to beneficiaries of most likely -non-transparency
determine and APSA 102 not affected areas of APSSOL officers
qualify a identified
stakeholder of -map of impact -falsification of
apsa 102 -no conflict area SPA (special power
resolution (thus, of attorney)
-how to consider all problems -Listing of APSOL
IP in areas submitted are still members
qualified by unresolved)
different - beneficiaries –
ordinances -no definite list of who really are
members of they
-is it proper to APSSOL
categorize -what about
stakeholders -improper residents w/o tax
according to implementation of declaration? Those
impact MOA (violated by displaced?
parties) Involuntarily
-the 14 sitios resettled?
11

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
 should be properly - officers are close
validated relatives -occupancy of area
according to
concerned agency - members do not -sharing of royalty
assessment know if there are – should share of
existing bylaws directly affected
-How to vote and policies or if it stakeholders be
officers – should is registered the same as
we tolerate indirectly affected
nepotism -interim officers ones
are not
-qualifications of recognizing their -Who should vote?
elders/leaders misrepresentation Who should be
of IP elected?
-it should not only
be council of -why was APPSOL
elders who should president changed
vote officers
-
-areas included in
the organization
should be
validated; if it
causes conflict, it
would be better to
exclude them like
Sta Fe

-how to categorize
IP w/o tax
declaration (TD)
but stayed in
community and IP
w/ TD but did not
stay in community
Request assistance -some through -downstream -validation of
from concerned customary law areas should have qualified members
agencies like NCIP separate FPIC and or beneficiaries of
and LGU -through own devt projects mpsa 276/apsa
reorganization and 102
election of valid - Sta Fe should be
officers (some excluded; APSSOL -reorganization –
members not should be APSOL election of new set
aware of of officers
appointment of -should also be
new president) addressed by
12

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
 concerned
agencies and
validated by
council of elders

-map of impact
area – survey
plans should be
produced by
directly and
indirectly affected

-listing should be
submitted by
Tuesday May 3

-beneficiaries –
should be IP/ICC
present before
PMC operation up
to 2008; those
who came after
that should not be
recognized

- they (above
cited) would be
considered and
can have a share
but they should be
validated as
residents by fellow
IP; their
occupancy should
be justified by
fellow IP

-sharing should be
discussed and
agreed on

-representation
(qualified
members)
By sitio
By clan

13

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
 By family
What kind of -skills, knowledge, -capability building - EMB – provide -Skills, knowledge,
assistance is human/technical of officers and map of impact human/technical
needed to address resources members area
issues and -DENR (EMB/MGB)
concerns -financial -management -NCIP – should – to provide map
assistance for seminars present of identified
capability building especially requirements impact areas
seminars financial
management -LGU – IP rights -LGU – to conduct
and welfare dialogue or
-financial tongtong to trace
assistance for -Elders – problems and
capacity building customary law come to a good
seminars decision

-NCIP assistance to -NCIP – to help

resolve these and assist IP/ICC
issues/concerns for betterment of
the organization
Open forum

Q. Council of elders were worried in attending the workshop as they may be questioned on handling of
the money, so what is the reconciliatory proposal?

Ms Pawid: This will be decided on in GA

Q. They may not appear in GA; they feel the validation of members is an exercise to remove them.

Ms Pawid: The group will furnish them the workshop results.

Q. We are not excluding those in MOA but determining who can be additional members.

Ms Arcenas: This is being done for equitable distribution of royalty. Some clans have several members,
and with tenants; will they be considered entitled to royalty?

Q. We do not have tenants, we’re all IP.

Ms Arcenas: I beg to disagree; there were workers who eventually stayed there.

Q. Who will get royalty; who can be considered a member of APSSOL – the landowner?

A: This is exactly the issue being resolved in the workshop because it’s a problem. The GA will be
inclusive.

Q: When APSSOL was organized, there were many claimants; the list should be cleaned and we should
look at the criteria to see who should be members.
14

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
Q: Actual members of APSSOL still need to be validated. A reference is the Resolution issued by Atty
Alexander Degyem on April 4, 2011.

NCIP: Affected IP are identified in the FBI.

Ms Pawid: Go back to the bylaws and constitution of the organization.

Q: The organization has a constitution and bylaws but these have not been ratified. A meeting for
ratification was discontinued and has not been called again.

Q: Bylaws definition /qualification of member: authentic/recognized ICC/IPs of APSSOL, resident, 18 yrs

and above, property owner, able to pay membership dues

This should be done in 14 sitios plus 1 sitio and for all recognized clans

List all – AL claimants, tax declarants, residents - those who have paid membership as of March 28, 2011

Listing should be due May 3.

NCIP: Make a matrix and present to GA

Other issues

 Some landowners only have a tax declaration (when were TD issued – before or after PMC?)
And what about IP without TD?
 In MOA, clans from 15 sitios are recognized with SPA, but the SPA is the root of the problem.
 DENR can provide maps: on impact area, MPSA/APSA 102

IV Strategic Plan

In a plenary session, the participants formulated the following plan towards strengthening APSSOL as an
organization and unifying its members.

Activity People responsible Date

1 listing of APSSOL Organizing committee: To be decided by
members, area Renato Agpai, Gina Pili, organizing committee
coverage Conchita Fernandez,
Ana Bestre, Linda
Jacinto, Leon Mocate,
Norma Gabon, Baoanan
Waguis; focal person:
Ms Fernandez because
she has the list
2 Validation of Submit by May 3
identified members for
GA
3 General Assembly Suggested date and
15

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
 venue: May 6, Smith
Hall, Philex

Other points agreed on:

1. GA agenda:

a. validation - identify who are qualified to vote/list of voters

b. decide qualifications of officers

c. decide criteria for council of elders

d. hold election

2. Members/electors - use criteria on membership in bylaws: those who have paid membership fee as
of April 29, 2011; 18 yrs old and above, members of clans, SPA holders, sitio representative

 Submit sitios- names to be validated in GA

3. Attendees in GA

a. APSSOL members – qualified members in 14 sitios

b. agencies (support, observer): NCI P –region, province and national; TIPO

4. Composition of electoral committee: should have 5 members – chair, vice, secretary and 2 members:
the committee will draft procedures and process of elections and to be appointed/approved by GA

5. Mode of elections GA – as provided in bylaws

6. Organizing committee to meet with APSSOL officers to present proposals and workshop results and
unite on GA – Conching, Renato, Blas Daluz, Gina, and Baoanan

7. Organizing committee will also prepare, disseminate invitations to GA including for agencies

 Suggested NCIP personnel to be invited: those who have been following up APSA 102 case since
the start
 Members should give phone numbers to organizing committee to facilitate communication

8. Prepare matrix, get maps from DENR

Recorded by Ms. Ann Loreto C. Tamayo

(With reports from Paul L. Fianza)

I certify to the truthfulness of the above documentation report.

16

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
 Paul L. Fianza

LIST of PARTICIPANTS
Date: April 29, 2011
Venue: Supreme Hotel, Magsaysay Avenue, Baguio City
NAME ADDRESS AGENCY/OFFICE
Divina C. Litaoen Beckel NUCLASI/APSSOL
Pastor I. Yagyagan Philex Mines TIHCAPOSI
Anna D. Bestre Bekkel NUCLASI/APSSOL
Johnny B. Esteban Ansagan, Tuba NUCLASI/APSSOL
Blas L. Dalus    TIPO
Renato B. Agpay Alang PMC-MMM-IP REP
Baoanan M. Waguis Alang  
Mario C. Baniaga Sta. Fe  
Romeo Palubos Sta. Fe  
Gina M. Pili Daynet, Ampucao NUCLASI/APSSOL
Julio Galbay Sta. Fe  
Celia Palubos Sta. Fe  
Severino Manuel G. Lumiqued   NCIP-BENGUET
Lynn Madalang Baguio Facilitator- Ebgan
Paul L. Fianza   NCIP-R1 & CAR
Zenaida H. Pawid   NCIP
Etot Tamayo    
Daisy M. Asprer Beckel NUCLASI/APSSOL
Diomedes M. Asprer Beckel NUCLASI/APSSOL
Abelino Cirilo   NCIP-Itogon
Alfredo Donato Camait  
Leon Mocate Alang  
Christy Campilan Beckel NUCLASI
Helen Sapul Philex NUCLASI
Tessie S. Antonio Sablan Sinakey Clan
Norma Gabol Alang  
Mary Gavino Alang/Pokis APSSOL
Johnny D. Waguis Alang IPO-APSSOL
Linda Jacinto    
  April 30, 2011 Attendance
Name Address Agency/Office

17

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
Digna Litaoen Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet NUCLASI/APSSOL
Anna D. Bestre Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet NUCLASI/APSSOL
Daisy M. Asprer Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet NUCLASI/APSSOL
Gina M. Pili Daynet, Ampucao, Itogon NUCLASI/APSSOL
Cristy C. Campilan Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet NUCLASI/APSSOL
Helen C. Sapul Philex NUCLASI/APSSOL
Linda G. Jacinto Alang  
Leticia W. Colingan Alang  
Norma Gabol Alang  
Tessie Antonio Sablan Clan Sinakey
Mario Antonio Sablan Clan Sinakey
Ordon Sinakey   Sinakey Clan
Julius Gabol Alang  
Roland Aquino   MGB-CAR
Maria Willy Camp 3  
Maria Morag Camp 3  
Teresita Calansi Camp 3  
Johnny D. Waguis Camp 3  
Lynn Madalang Quezon Hill EBGAN
Johnny B. Esteban Ansagan, Tuba NUCLASI
Celia P. Palubos Sta. Fe  
Celia P. Tostos Sta. Fe  
Dulia Lubos    
Diomedes M. Asprer Beckel, La Trinidad, Benguet  
Renato B. Agpay Alang, Camp 3, Tuba  
Alfredo B. Donato Camait  
Pastor I. Yagyagan   TIHCAPOSI/IP
Mario C. Baniaga    
Blas L. Dalus   TIPO
Severino Manuel G. Lumiqued   NCIP-BENGUET
Mary F. Gavino    
Julio P. Galbay    
Romeo Palubos    
Leon Mocate    
Baoanan M. Waguis   APSSOL
Etot Tamayo   Process Documentor
Paul L. Fianza   NCIP-OCRICAR
Prescilla Marcelo Tirso    
Constancia Fernandez    
Recto Alawas   NCIP-CAR

18

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011
Lilia Nugal Koh    
Zenaida H. Pawid   NCIP-Commissioner for
Region 1 & CAR
Nora Ramos   NCIP-Benguet Province

19

Process Documentation, APSA 102 Stakeholders Peace Building Seminar-Workshop

Supreme Hotel, Baguio City April 29-30, 2011