3.

Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) (RA 8371)

The Philippine’s Indigenous People's Rights Act of 1997 is a regulation that recognize and promote all
the rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities or Indigenous People of the Philippines. The Philippines is
a culturally diverse country with an estimated 14- 17 million Indigenous Peoples (IPs) belonging to 110
ethno-linguistic groups. The term indigenous cultural communities (ICCs) were used in the Philippine
Constitution to describe a group of people sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and
other distinctive cultural traits, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial,
occupied, possessed and utilized a territory. ICCs/IPs are known to have occupied, possessed and utilized
a defined territory devolved to them by operation of custom law/traditions or inherited from their
ancestors.

Indigenous People or ICC’s refer to homogenous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by
others, who have continuously lived as a community on communally bounded and defined territory,
sharing common bonds of customs, traditions and other cultural traits, through resistance to political,
social and cultural inroads to colonization, non-indigenous religions and culture. 

Section 3 of the 1997 IPRA Law defines ancestral domains as "areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs
comprising lands, inland waters, coastal areas, and natural resources held under a claim of ownership,
occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually
since time immemorial, continuously to the present even when interrupted by war, force majeure or
displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects or any other voluntary
dealings entered into by government and private individuals or corporations, and which are necessary to
ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include forests, pastures, residential,
agricultural and other lands individually owned whether alienable and disposable otherwise, hunting
grounds, burial rounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources and lands
which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access to
for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of ICCs and IPs who are still
nomadic and or shifting cultivators.”

Ancestral lands, as stated in the Section 2(b) of the IPRA Law, refers to "lands occupied, possessed and
utilized by individuals, families and clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs since time immemorial, by
themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under claims of individual or traditional group
ownership, continuously, to the present even when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by
force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of government projects, and other voluntary dealings entered
into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not limited to residential lots, rice
terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots."

The law provides for alternative modes of dispute involves the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA)
(Rep. Act No. 8371 [1997]), which recognizes, among others, indigenous people’s ownership rights over
lands they have held since time immemorial. This law was challenged as unconstitutional barely a year
after it was enacted on the ground that it allegedly violated the Regalian Doctrine, which provides, in
essence, that absent a showing of some form of state grant, all lands belong to the State.

Among other things, IPRA allows indigenous peoples to define their ancestral domains. Section 57 of the
law further provides that indigenous peoples “shall have the priority rights in the harvesting, extraction,
development or exploitation of any natural resources within the ancestral domains” and that outsiders
may only exploit resources with the consent of the community through a “formal and written agreement”
or “pursuant to its own decision-making processes.”
Evidently, dispute resolution mechanisms are now built into laws that are likely to generate animosity
between resource users. In the Philippine context, this usually pertains to communities that directly use
the resources such as small-scale miners and fishing communities, and large-scale resource extractive
industries like mining and logging. The provisions on the IPRA were included because ancestral domains
are presently being eyed by large-scale miners from all over the world as a potential source of income.

IV. Experiences in Dispute Resolution

One case to be noted is the Ancestral Lands and Waters of the Indigenous Tagbanwa Communities of
Northern Palawan. It involves the depletion of Coastal Resources in Coron, Northern Palawan. the
Tagbanwa, an indigenous fishing community faced serious environmental problems when dynamite and
cyanide fishing threatened to deplete their resources. The struggle of the Tagbanua in reclaiming their
ancestral title to the land and sea.

In the 1970s, local officials auctioned off caves from where the Tagbanwa traditionally harvested swiftlet
nests and reduced them to hired hands for their new owners. Tourist resorts and cattle ranchers were
slowly encroaching into their territories. In response to these threats to their livelihood, the Tagbanwa met
among themselves to determine the range of their ancestral domains. They laid their claim to their
territories through DENR Administrative Order No. 2 (1993), which was the precursor of the IPRA. They
agreed that the coral reefs formed the backbone of their traditional fishing grounds and then set out to
map their claims using global positioning systems. They used the data they gathered to generate their own
maps to explain the importance of recognizing their claims for their survival.

IPRA provides the legal basis for the inclusion of “ancestral waters” in the filing of Ancestral Domains
Claims. As provided for in the RA 8371 or the IPRA of 1997.

V. Some Observations

Tagbanwa’s ancestral domains shows that the application of IPRA is stuck in politics. Other regulations
are still in tolerance of mining activities in the IP’s domain. The level of understanding and appreciation
of the nature of the ancestral waters with the greater community and among the stakeholders of IP’s is
still very limited. Unsettled policy struggles of the IPRA with the Local Government Code and will
continue to undermine implementation of the progressive of the above-mentioned laws.

VI. Conclusion

The ADR mechanisms can help pave the way through tiresome litigation process. The community’s
influence to question local government agreement to resource extractive activities awaits the decision of
the Supreme Court. Voluntary Guidelines must be set to ensure responsible and sustainable environment
for the Indigenous People.
Indigenous peoples are said to comprise 15 percent of the Philippines’ population of 110 million, or some 16.5
million people. Collectively, they are often referred to as Lumad and are commonly distinguished from
lowland Christian Filipinos, the dominant majority, and Muslim Filipinos.

The Philippines’ Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 is said to be one of the most progressive laws of its
kind with respect to the treatment of indigenous people in the Philippines. It was a direct result of a progressive
provision that was enshrined in the Constitution of 1987. Section 5 of Article 12 which states: “The State,
subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national development policies and programs, shall
protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their
economic, social, and cultural well-being…The Congress may provide for the applicability of
customary laws governing property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of
ancestral domain.”
indigenous peoples had the following rights to their ancestral domain: 
1. right of ownership over lands, bodies of water traditionally and actually occupied by them,
2. right to develop lands and natural resources, subject to pre-existing property rights within the ancestral
domains;
3. right to stay in their territories, except when they have given their free and prior informed consent, and
subject to the Philippines’ power of eminent domain;
4. right to be resettled in suitable areas should they be displaced through natural catastrophes;
5. right to regulate entry of migrants;
6. right to safe and clean air and water;
7. right to claim parts of reservations; and
8. right to resolve land conflicts in accordance with the customary laws of the area where the land is
located.2

The law provides for alternative modes of dispute involves the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA)
(Rep. Act No. 8371 [1997]), which recognizes, among others, indigenous people’s ownership rights over
lands they have held since time immemorial. , dispute resolution mechanisms are now built into laws that
are likely to generate animosity between resource users. In the Philippine context, this usually pertains to
communities that directly use the resources such as small-scale miners and fishing communities, and
large-scale resource extractive industries like mining and logging. The provisions on the IPRA were
included because ancestral domains are presently being eyed by large-scale miners from all over the
world as a potential source of income.

The ADR mechanisms can help pave the way through tiresome litigation process. Voluntary Guidelines
must be set to ensure responsible and sustainable environment for the Indigenous People.