ANDRES BONIFACIO COLLEGE

College Park, Dipolog City

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

Learning Module
SSP 122 –PHILIPPINE INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

First Semester, S.Y. 2020-2021

Name of Student

Course and Year

DR. ARCHIE T. BANGCALE

Instructor

1
 Module I – Preliminary Examination Coverage

Introduction/Background

Before the advent of Spanish colonialism, the people of the islands in the archipelago were independent

communities or villages of tribes or clans. Spanish colonization from 1521 to 1896 succeeded in subjugating most

of the islands of the archipelago, which eventually formed the Philippines. However, within the islands some

communities remained independent from Spanish colonial rule. Throughout the 300 years of Spanish colonial

rule, these communities were able to defend their territories and evade the colonizers, maintaining their relative

independence while continuing to practice their own systems and ways of life.

This disparate historical experience created a dichotomy between the colonized lowland Filipinos and the

uncolonized peoples. Thus evolved a distinction between the majority Filipino population who were colonized

and subjugated early during the Spanish colonial period, and those who resisted and withdrew to remote and

inaccessible areas where they retained their original ways of life. It is this latter group of peoples who today

comprise the indigenous peoples of the Philippines.

The Philippines has a total land area of 30 million hectares. Half of the country is hilly and mostly

categorized as a forest zone and part of the public domain. As of the year 2005, the country has a population of

85 million. There are 112 ethnolinguistic groups in the country who comprise nearly 15% of the total population of

the country.

The Philippines is slowly losing its forest cover and has to cope with an influx of mining activities in the

uplands. Furthermore, demand for land and natural resources continue to rise with the unabated migration of

lowland families into the mountains. Thus there exists a very volatile mix of stakeholders who are in a very strict

competition for the limited resources of the uplands.

A vast majority of the 12 million population of indigenous peoples in the Philippines reside in the uplands

which they claim as part of their traditional territories. Most of the remaining natural resources in the country

are found within the traditional lands of the indigenous peoples

2
 The last census of 2010 included an ethnic variable for the first time. The indigenous peoples in the

Philippines are officially recognized by the Philippine Constitution and the Indigenous Peoples Rights Acts

(IPRA). The most recent figures based on an unofficial survey conducted by the National Commission on

Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) estimates the population of indigenous peoples in the Philippines to be 12-15 million.

But the actual population may be higher than the results of government surveys.

Indigenous peoples roughly constitute 10-15 per cent of the total population of the Philippines and are

present in 65 of 78 provinces of the country. The majority of indigenous peoples (61 per cent) are found in

Mindanao, 33 per cent are found in Luzon, and 6 percent are in Visayas (NCIP, 2009).

The indigenous peoples in the Philippines are defined by the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of

1997 as “A group of people or homogeneous societies identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who

have continually lived as organized communities on community-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, become

historically differentiated from the majority of Filipinos”.

Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs) shall likewise include peoples who are

regarded as indigenous on account of descent from the populations which inhabited the country at the time of

conquest or colonization or the establishment of present state boundaries and 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.

With over 7,600 islands in the Philippines and three major island groups are home to more than five

hundred indigenous people communities. It is no wonder that different cultural practices, traditions, and groups

are present in the country.

Among the existing communities in the Philippine archipelago, are the indigenous tribes who have

managed to keep their cultural identity, despite the non-recognition and marginalization they are facing.

3
Indigenous peoples in the world remain one of the poorest, most excluded and disadvantaged sectors of

society. They continuously face different issues including discrimination, poverty and human rights abuse.

Indigenous peoples communities displayed a variety of social organization, cultural expression and

artistic skills. They showed a high degree of creativity, usually employed to embellish utilitarian objects, such as

bowls, baskets, clothing, weapons and spoons. The tribal groups of the Philippines are known for their carved

wooden figures, baskets, weaving, pottery and weapons.

Likewise, indigenous peoples communities are found in the forest, mountains, lowlands and coastal areas

of the country and are in varied levels of socioeconomic development. They engage in a mix of production

systems including sweden farming, settled agriculture, hunting and gathering, livestock raising, fishing and

production and trade in local handicrafts. A common characteristics of indigenous peoples is their close

attachment to ancestral land, territory and resources. The worldview that “land is life” is deeply embedded in

their existence.

In response to these challenges, the Philippine government has passed the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act

(IPRA) of 1997, which affirms Indigenous Peoples rights to ancestral domains, self-governance and

empowerment, social justice and human rights, and rights to cultural identity.

In the year 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which provides a framework for the survival, dignity, well-being and rights of

Indigenous Peoples in the world, and strengthens their rights to identity, education, health, employment and

language, amongst others.

Moreover, the United Nations adopted Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals, which also

include the rights and well-being of Indigenous Peoples.

National Legislation on Indigenous Peoples

The Philippine Constitution of 1987 recognizes the rights of indigenous cultural communities. On

October 22, 1997, President Fidel V. Ramos officially signed Republic Act No. 8371 known as Indigenous People’s

4
Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997, which aims to "Recognize, Protect and Promote the Rights of Indigenous Cultural

Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPS) and for other Purposes."

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997 has been praised for its support for the cultural

integrity of indigenous peoples, the right to their lands and the right to self-directed development of these lands.

The IPRA also recognizes indigenous peoples right to self-determination, ancestral domain, customary laws, self-

determined development and free, prior and inform consent.

The Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8371). “An Act to Recognize, Protect and

Promote the Rights of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples, creating a National Commission of

Indigenous Peoples, establishing implementing mechanisms, appropriating funds therefore and for other

purposes”.

A more substantial implementation of the law is still sought, as the indigenous peoples of the Philippines

continue to live in geographically isolated areas with lack of access to basic social services and few opportunities

for widespread economic activities, education or political participation.

The Philippine Indigenous Peoples struggle as the basis for their continued existence as peoples in

accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.

The United Nations (U.N.) Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of

Minorities (1971) relies on the following definition; Indigenous communities, peoples, and nations are those

which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed in their

territories, considered themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories,

or parts of them. They form at present non-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop

and transmit to future generations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity.

In the Philippines, these groups have been referred to, through the years mainly by the government, as

indigenous cultural communities, cultural minorities, tribal Filipinos, ethnic minorities, and highlanders. The

United Nations (U.N.) popularized the use of the term “indigenous people,” especially after the declaration of

5
1993 as the Year of the Indigenous People. There have been objections to the use of the term “indigenous people,”

considering that one can also refer to Ilocano, Tagalog, Cebuano, and other lowland communities as indigenous

peoples.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) (1996) uses a purely empirical guide to identifying

indigenous groups; Indigenous people are descendants of the aboriginal population living in a given country at

the time of settlement or conquest by some of the ancestors of the non-indigenous groups in whose hands

political and economic power at present lies.

In general, those descendants tend to live more in conformity with the social, economic and cultural

institutions which existed before colonization or conquest than with the culture of the nation to which they

belong; they do not fully share in national economy and culture owing to barriers of language, customs, creed,

prejudice, and often to an out-of date and unjust system of worker-employer relationships and other social and

political factors.

The Philippine Constitution of 1987 explicitly recognizes the rights of indigenous cultural communities.

As stated in the Constitution Section 22, Article II: “The State recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous

cultural communities within the framework of national unity and development”.

Section 5, Article XII of the Philippine Constitution stated that “The State, subject to provisions of this

Constitution and national development policies and programs shall protect the rights of the 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”.

Furthermore, Section 15, Article X of the said constitution stated that “There shall be created autonomous

regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities and geographical

areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other

relevant characteristics within the framework of this Constitution.”

6
 In addition, Section 18, Article X of the said constitution stated that “The Congress shall enact an organic

act for each autonomous region with the assistance and participation of the regional consultative commission.

The organic act shall define the basic structure of government for the region consisting of the executive

department and legislative assembly. The organic acts shall likewise provide for special courts with personal,

family and property law jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of this Constitution and national laws”.

In 1997, the Philippine Government enacted Republic Act No. 8371, known as the Indigenous Peoples

Rights Act (IPRA), to give effect to the constitutional recognition of indigenous peoples rights. The IPRA

recognizes indigenous peoples inherent rights, including their right to self-determination, to ancestral domains

and the applicability of customary laws governing property rights, to self-determined development and to the

requirement that free prior informed consent be obtained in relation to any developments that have impact on

them.

It also recognized ancestral domain rights, acknowledging indigenous peoples time immemorial

collective possession of their ancestral domains and establishing mechanisms for these to be delineated and

formalized.

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) provides for the creation of the National Commission on

Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as its implementing agency.

It is an agency under the office the President that is composed of seven commissioners appointed by the

President representing the seven ethnographic regions in the country as defined by the IPRA. The NCIP is the

primary government agency that formulates and implements policies, plans and programs for the recognition,

promotion and protection of the rights and well-being of indigenous peoples and for the recognition of their

ancestral domains and their rights thereto (IPRA, Chapter 7 Sec. 38 & 44a).

In recent years, the Philippine Government has made major policy reforms in order to address the serious

problem of the lack of tenurial security among Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and local communities. The Philippines

has led the way in the South East Asian region as it had pioneered the use of long-term stewardship agreements

as a tenurial instrument to recognize the resource management rights of IPs within forestlands in the early 1980.
7
 In 1997, as result vigilance and the sustained advocacy of the IP sector and its partners, the Indigenous

Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) was enacted. This provided venues and legal backbone for the recognition of the

traditional rights of communities over their ancestral domain. In a nutshell, the IPRA provides for the

recognition of the traditional rights of Indigenous Peoples over their ancestral domains through the issuance of

Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT).

It recognizes the rights of ICCs to define their development priorities through their own Ancestral

Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP) and exercise management and utilize the

natural resources within their traditional territories. Ten years hence, only 41 Titles covering half a million

hectares of land have been awarded to indigenous communities. To that date, very limited development

activities in support of the Ancestral Domain Ancestral Domain Management Plans have been implemented in

the IPO areas.

Problems in the implementation of the IPRA continue to fester and severely limit the capacity of

Indigenous Communities to truly benefit from the mandate of IPRA. The inability of the government to fully

implement the IPRA in order to address the problems and concerns of the indigenous communities is rooted in

conflicting policies, capacity gaps and a questionable commitment to empower indigenous communities.

The urgency of the problem is underscored by overt encouragement on the part of government of the

entry of large-scale commercial investment into traditional lands to install extractive industries which include

open-pit mining, palm oil plantations and industrial forest farms.

But perhaps the most radical policy reform with regards to Tenurial Security of Indigenous Peoples in the

region was the enactment of the Indigenous People Rights Act (IPRA) by the Philippine Government in 1997.

The IPRA goes beyond the contract-based resource management agreements between the state and the

community as it recognizes the “ownership” of the Indigenous Community over their traditional territories

which include land, bodies of water and all other natural resources therein.

8
 Furthermore, the IPRA provides tenurial security to the community with issuance of an ownership Title

(Certificate of Ancestral Domain/Land Title) to the concerned Indigenous clan or community. With the passage

of IPRA in 1997, the law recognized the rights of Indigenous peoples over their ancestral domains and provided

for a process of titling of lands through the issuance of Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT).

The law gave jurisdiction of all ancestral domain claims to the National Commission on Indigenous

Peoples (NCIP) including those previously awarded by the DENR and all future claims that shall be filed. The

new law provided the basis for filing new claims which included the submission of a valid perimeter map,

evidences and proofs, and the accomplishment of an Ancestral Domain Sustainable Protection Plan (ADSPP).

All existing ancestral domain claims previously recognized through the issuance of CADCs are required

to pass through a process of affirmation for titling. IPRA included "Self Delineation" as the guiding principle in

the in the identification of Ancestral Domain (AD) claims.

The Arroyo administration through the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) has

committed to fully implement the IPRA and has promised to issue at least 100 domain titles by mid-2002.

However, the budgetary allocation for the NCIP and its ancestral domain management activities remain at a

paltry .07% of the national budget.

More ominously the situation is not expected to improve as the trend in budgetary allocation for

Government services towards ancestral domain allocation including community resources management

continues to decrease. In its first three (3) years of existence the NCIP was not able to issue a single CADT, rather

it certified community consent for dozens of mining applications, an act which it had no legal power to effect

under the IPRA.

Initial findings of the Office of the President’s Performance Audit of the NCIP reveal that the agency is ill

equipped, the staff poorly trained and lacking field experience or appropriate cultural sensitivity to handle land

conflicts and issues of resource access affecting indigenous communities. With a budget of P530 million for its

national operations and a staffing pattern beleaguered by a lack of capacity and skills, the NCIP faces severe

constraints in serving the aspirations of the indigenous peoples sector.

9
 Thus it is actively seeking the help of the private sector in particular members of the civil society who

have had extensive experience in the field of Ancestral Domain Claims and Community Mapping. However, the

Indigenous Peoples (IP) in the Philippines remain as the most marginalized sector of society.

This status continues despite the tremendous inroads achieved by communities, partners and advocates

through years of struggle.

Module II – Preliminary Examination Coverage

International Treaties, Declarations and Conventions Ratified by the Country

The Philippine is a signatory to numerous international conventions and declarations that are relevant

for indigenous peoples. The Philippines is also a signatory to other international treaties designed to protect or

manage biological resources and the environment.

The Philippines holds the distinction of being the 1st Country in the SEA region to enact a law

recognizing the traditional rights of Indigenous Peoples over Ancestral Domains with the passage of IPRA in the

past decade. This should have established the framework for its international policy direction in dealing with

issues pertaining to Indigenous Peoples rights.

The Philippines is a signatory to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) which lays the internationally

accepted standards on the protection of the rights and welfare of Indigenous Peoples in the conservation of

natural resources within their territories. The CBD also provides a framework for the recognition of Traditional

Knowledge Systems as an acceptable and viable option for the management of natural resources and the

environment.

10
 The Philippine Government’s participation in the CBD is viewed as a very progressive step towards the

institutionalization of Indigenous Knowledge Systems in the framework of bio-diversity conservation.

The Philippines joined a growing number of developing countries as member of the Patent Cooperation

Treaty (PCT), a highly successful international filing system for patents that enables inventors and companies to

apply for patent protection in multiple countries by submitting a single "international" application. The

Philippines became the 112th Contracting State of the PCT when it deposited its instrument of ratification at

WIPO on May 17, 2001.The Treaty became effective in the Philippines in August 17, 2001.

Upon the ratification of the WIPO administered treaty on patents, the Philippine Government

established an Intellectual Property Office (IPO) which shall be mainly responsible for the enforcement of the

terms of the treaty. The local IPO office officially conducted a consultation session specifically with indigenous

leaders and support groups to enable the IPO office and the stakeholder to fully comprehend the impact of the

WIPO treaty in the area of Traditional Knowledge Systems.

However, in spite of the tremendous advances made by the Indigenous Communities along with its

support groups and advocates, the Philippine Legislature has yet to ratify the International Labor Organization

Convention 169.

The convention (ILO 169) is a legal international treaty that provides the basic legal standards to protect

Indigenous Workers within the framework of respect for indigenous and tribal peoples’ cultures, and their

distinct ways of life, and their traditions and customs. Currently, the ILO advocates for the ratification of the

convention through its INDISCO program in the Philippines.

While the Philippine has received numerous accolades for passing the landmark law IPRA, its behavior in

the international arena leaves a lot to be desired.

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

provide the international framework for the recognition of indigenous peoples rights. In addition, the Philippines

11
is a signatory to numerous international conventions and declarations that are relevant for indigenous peoples.

Among these are the eight (8) core international treaties on human rights, including:

1. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR-OP1), which is

administered by the Human Rights Committee. The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights (ICCPR-OP2), aimed at the abolition of the death penalty.

2. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

3. International Convention on the Abolition of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)

4. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)

The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against

Women (CEDAW-OP)

5. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC-OP-AC) on the involvement of

children in armed conflict. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC-OP-SC) on

the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography

6. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

7. International Convention on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (CMW)

8. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The Philippines has not ratified ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.

12
 The Philippines is also a signatory to other international treaties designed to protect or manage biological

resources and the environment.

These include; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), CBDs Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety,

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Ramsar Wetlands Convention,

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, Convention on the Prevention of

Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matters, Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the

Ozone Layer, Chapter 17 of Agenda 21,Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements, Basel

Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, United

Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of

Plants (UPOV),Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping Wastes and Other Matter,

International Tropical Timber Agreement, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto

Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Montreal Protocol on Substances

that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and

Under Water, United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Counties Experiencing Serious

Drought and or Desertification, Particularly in Africa and Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES).

It has also signed the following treaties in relation to intellectual property, which are relevant in the

protection of traditional knowledge and genetic resources of indigenous peoples; Convention Establishing the

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO),Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property,

Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, International Convention for the Protection

of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, Patent Cooperation Treaty, Budapest

Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure,

WIPO Copyright Treaty,WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty and Agreement on Trade-related Aspects

of Intellectual Property Rights.

13
 Module III – Preliminary Examination Coverage

Regional, National and grass-roots organizations/networks in the country

The indigenous peoples sector in the Philippines enjoys a very broad base of active support groups. These

form a wide spectrum of organizations representing the academe, civil society and the church. Assistance comes

in varied forms ranging from policy advocacy, community development, technical assistance and education. It

can be said that IP support groups in the Philippines have gained a certain level of sophistication and

specialization in their respective fields of work.

The enactment of the IPRA has ignited a substantial growth in the number of Non-Government

Organizations (NGO) and other social development organizations working with IP communities. Prior to the

passage of the law there was dearth of capable groups specializing on IP issues. While the increased number of

NGOs working on IP issues bodes well for the future, this has also raised the incidence of conflicts with

communities.

There have been numerous instances where well-meaning NGOs with little or no exposure to the cultures

and ways of IP communities but very eager to implement projects have generated local conflicts among

community members.

Furthermore, pressure form funding donors to adhere to tight project schedules and to produce results

have pushed many groups to resort to shortcuts and thus marginalizing critical community processes.

Indigenous Communities have clearly benefited from the assistance and support provided by NGOs and

other advocates. There are hundreds of Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPO) in the country actively engaged

in various activities and are in partnership with the civil, development agencies including government.

There still divisions among the indigenous peoples movement in the Philippines. This is expected due to

the volatility of the issues that are being tackled by the sector and the intensity of the personalities involved in

14
the sector. However, it must be said that there instances where the civil society and government must share the

blame in the furtherance of the divisions among the ranks of the IP sector.

IPOs see support groups as a resource thus they will naturally gravitate to groups that offer logistical,

financial and material support. However, in many instances these are tied up to activities that may run counter

or are in direct conflict to other IP groups.

The government on the other hand, require IPO partners to adopt governmental policy positions and

demand that IPs be less critical of its policies, thus putting the IPO in a very difficult and compromising

situation.

There are several active national coalitions of IP communities, under these national aggrupations are

several layers of regional, provincial as well as local IPOs all over the Philippines;

1. Kalipunan ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas (KAMP) / (National Federation of Indigenous

Peoples Organizations in the Philippines) -is composed of ten regional-level indigenous peoples organizations

covering provincial and community level grass-roots organizations. It has four regional formations in Luzon, one

in Visayas and five in Mindanao that are united in the principle of upholding their basic rights to ancestral land

and self-determination.

2. Koalisyon ng Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas (KASAPI) / (National Coalition of Indigenous

Organizations in the Philippines -represents 64 ethno-linguistic groups from 127 indigenous cultural

communities. It is a network of 16 regional and sub-regional federations comprising 250 community-based

indigenous peoples‟ organizations.

3. BAI National Network of Indigenous Women in the Philippines serves as a campaign center for

indigenous women’s issues, it strengthens the capability of its network members in terms of organizing,

education, research and campaigns, builds links with other indigenous women’s organizations in the Philippines

and overseas, and facilitates sharing of and access to resources to meet BAI’s objectives.

15
 4. Inter-Peoples Exchange (IPex) is a national indigenous peoples institution that facilitates the

extension of its services to indigenous peoples in some areas of the Philippines; these services include an

ancestral domain support program, cultural exchange, youth development and community empowerment.

5.Cordillera Peoples Alliance for the Defense of the Ancestral Domain and for Self-determination (CPA) is

an independent federation of grass-roots indigenous peoples organizations in the Cordillera region that is

committed to promoting indigenous peoples rights, human rights, social justice, national freedom and

democracy through information, education, capacity-building, advocacy and campaigns on indigenous peoples

concerns.

6. Kusog sa Katawhang Lumad sa Mindanao (Alliance of Indigenous Peoples in Mindanao-

KALUMARAN) is an alliance of various Lumad organizations in Mindanao.

16
 Module IV – Preliminary Examination Coverage

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP)

IPRA provides for the creation of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as its

implementing agency. It is an agency under the office of the President that is composed of seven commissioners

appointed by the President representing the seven ethnographic regions in the country as defined by the IPRA.

The NCIP is the primary government agency that formulates and implements policies, plans and programs for

the recognition, promotion and protection of the rights and well-being of indigenous peoples and for the

recognition of their ancestral domains and their rights thereto (IPRA Chapter 7 Sec. 38 & 44a).

MANDATE

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples shall protect and promote the interest and well-being of the

Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples with due regard to their beliefs, customs, traditions and

institutions.

VISION

As enabling partner and lead advocate, the NCIP envisions genuinely empowered Indigenous Cultural

Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) whose rights and multi-dimensional well-being are fully

recognized, respected and promoted towards the attainment of national unity and development.

MISSION

The NCIP is the primary government agency that formulates and implements policies, plans and programs due

regard to their ancestral domains and lands, self-governance and empowerment, social justice for the
17
recognition, promotion and protection of the rights and well-being of Indigenous Peoples with and human

rights, and cultural integrity.

Powers and Functions of NCIP (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8371, IPRA Law, Section 44)

To accomplish its mandate, the NCIP shall have the following powers, jurisdiction and function:

a.)To serve as the primary government agency through which ICCs/IPs can seek government assistance and as

the medium, through which such assistance may be extended;

b.)To review and assess the conditions of ICCs/IPs including existing laws and policies pertinent thereto and to

propose relevant laws and policies to address their role in national development;

c.) To formulate and implement policies, plans, programs and projects for the economic, social and cultural

development of the ICCs/IPs and to monitor the implementation thereof;

d.) To request and engage the services and support of experts from other agencies of government or employ

private experts and consultants as may be required in the pursuit of its objectives;

e.) To issue certificate of ancestral land/domain title;

f.) Subject to existing laws, to enter into contracts, agreements, or arrangement, with government or private

agencies or entities as may be necessary to attain the objectives of this Act, and subject to the approval of the

President, to obtain loans from government lending institutions and other lending institutions to finance its

programs;

g.) 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;

18
h.) To coordinate development programs and projects for the advancement of the ICCs/IPs and to oversee the

proper implementation thereof;

i.) To convene periodic conventions or assemblies of IPs to review, assess as well as propose policies or plans;

j.) To advise the President of the Philippines on all matters relating to the ICCs/IPs and to submit within sixty

(60) days after the close of each calendar year, a report of its operations and achievements;

k.) To submit to Congress appropriate legislative proposals intended to carry out the policies under this Act;

l.) To prepare and submit the appropriate budget to the Office of the President;

m.) To issue appropriate certification as a pre-condition to the grant of permit, lease, grant, or any other similar

authority for the disposition, utilization, management and appropriation by any private individual, corporate

entity or any government agency, corporation or subdivision thereof on any part or portion of the ancestral

domain taking into consideration the consensus approval of the ICCs/IPs concerned;

n.) To decide all appeals from the decisions and acts of all the various offices within the Commission;

o.) To promulgate the necessary rules and regulations for the implementation of this Act;

p.) To exercise such other powers and functions as may be directed by the President of the Republic of the

Philippines; and

q.)To represent the Philippine ICCs/IPs in all international conferences and conventions dealing with indigenous

peoples and other related concerns.

Definition of Terms. (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8371, SECTION 3)- For purposes of this Act, the following
terms shall mean:

19
a.) Ancestral Domains — Subject to Section 56 hereof, 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.

b.) Ancestral Lands — Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to land 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 except 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.

c.) Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title — refers to a title formally recognizing the rights of possession and

ownership of ICCs/IPs over their ancestral domains identified and delineated in accordance with this law.

d.) Certificate of Ancestral Lands Title — refers to a title formally recognizing the rights of ICCs/IPs over their

ancestral lands.

e.) Communal Claims — refer to claims on land, resources and rights thereon, belonging to the whole

community within a defined territory.

20
f.) Customary Laws — refer to a body of written and/or unwritten rules, usages, customs and practices

traditionally and continually recognized, accepted and observed by respective ICCs/IPs.

g.) Free and Prior Informed Consent — as used in this Act shall mean the consensus of all members of the

ICCs/IPs to be determined in accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, 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.

h.) 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.

i.) Indigenous Political Structures — refer to organizational and cultural leadership systems, institutions,

relationships, patterns and processes for decision-making and participation, identified by ICCs/IPs such as, but

not limited to, Council of Elders, Council of Timuays, Bodong Holders, or any other tribunal or body of similar

nature.

j.) Individual Claims — refer to claims on land and rights thereon which have been devolved to individuals,

families and clans including, but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies and tree lots.

21
k.) National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) — refers to the office created under this Act, which shall

be under the Office of the President, and which shall be the primary government agency responsible for the

formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to recognize, protect and promote the rights of

ICCs/IPs.

l.) Native Title — refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and domains which, as far back as memory reaches, have

been held under a claim of private ownership by ICCs/IPs, have never been public lands and are thus

indisputably presumed to have been held that way since before the Spanish Conquest.

m.) Nongovernment Organization — refers to a private, nonprofit voluntary organization that has been

organized primarily for the delivery of various services to the ICCs/IPs and has an established track record for

effectiveness and acceptability in the community where it serves.

n.) People’s Organization — refers to a private, nonprofit voluntary organization of members of an ICC/IP which

is accepted as representative of such ICCs/IPs.

o.) Sustainable Traditional Resource Rights — refer to the rights of ICCs/IPs to sustainably use, manage, protect

and conserve a) land, air, water, and minerals; b) plants, animals and other organisms; c) collecting, fishing and

hunting grounds; d) sacred sites; and e) other areas of economic, ceremonial and aesthetic value in accordance

with their indigenous knowledge, beliefs, systems and practices.

p.) Time Immemorial — refers to a period of time when as far back as memory can go, certain ICCs/IPs are

known to have occupied, possessed in the concept of owner, and utilized a defined territory devolved to them, by

operation of customary law or inherited from their ancestors, in accordance with their customs and traditions.

According to the United Nations, there are approximately 400 million indigenous people worldwide,

making up more than 5,000 distinct tribes. Together we are one of the largest minority groups in the world,

spanning over 90 countries. While indigenous peoples total only about 6% of the world’s population, we

represent 90% of cultural diversity.

22
 Module V – Preliminary Examination Coverage

THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THE PHILIPPINES

General Profile of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines

The Philippines is composed of 7,107 islands and islets spanning 1,854 kilometers from north to south and

stretches from China in the north to the Indonesian archipelago in the south. It is an archipelago endowed with

abundant natural resources, a rich history, diverse cultures, and many ethno-linguistic groups.

The Philippines is the only country in Asia that has officially used the term indigenous peoples. Of the

more than 75 million Filipinos, about 12 to 15 million are indigenous peoples or about 17-22% of the total

population in 1995.

They are among the poorest and the most disadvantaged social group in the country. Illiteracy,

unemployment and incidence of poverty are much higher among them than the rest of the population. IP

settlements are remote, without access to basic services, and are characterized by a high incidence of morbidity,

mortality and malnutrition.

Most of the indigenous peoples depend on traditional swidden agriculture utilizing available upland

areas. However, most of these traditional cultivation sites and fallow areas have now been degraded and are

further threatened by the influx of migrant farmers who have introduced unsustainable lowland commercial

farming practices. Furthermore, most indigenous communities do not have legal recognition over their

traditional lands, thus limiting their ability to freely conduct their livelihood activities and are denied access to

other natural resources in their communities.

The population data regarding the indigenous peoples in the country vary according to who has

conducted the research. The Episcopal Commission on Tribal Filipinos (ECTF) distinguishes approximately 40

23
ethno-linguistic groups with a population of about 6.5 to 7.5 million (10-11% of the country’s population in

1995).The National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP) estimates some 60 such groups.

The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) identifies 95 distinct tribes, which includes the

Islamic or Muslim groups, in 14 regions of the country with an estimated population between 12-15 million

members (17-22% of the total population in 1995).But the detailed report and breakdown of this figure is not

available from the NCIP office.

Indigenous people’s communities can be found in the interiors of Luzon, Mindanao, and some islands of

Visayas. They either withdrew to the hinterlands in the face of colonization or they stood their ground

successfully and have maintained a close link to their ancestral past. These communities comprise a diverse

collection of more than forty ethno-linguistic groups, each with a distinct language and culture.

The indigenous peoples in the Philippines continued to live in their relatively isolated, self-sufficient

communities, at the time when most lowland communities had already been integrated into a single colony

under Spain in the 1700s and 1800s. They were able to preserve the culture and traditions of their “ethnos” or

“tribe” as reflected in their communal views on land, their cooperative work exchanges, their communal rituals,

their songs, dances, and folklore.

Instead of hierarchical governments, each of these communities had its own council of elders who

customarily settled clan or tribal wars to restore peace and unity. But with the long years of colonial rule in the

Philippines, from the 1700s to the early 1900s, and the influx of migrants into indigenous peoples’ territories,

many influences have been introduced that gradually changed the indigenous way of life. Indigenous

communities at present are still characterized by these phenomena but are definitely no longer in their pure and

natural state, showing varying degrees of influence from outside culture.

During the American colonial rule from the 1890s to the early 1900s, the forces of market economy and

central government slowly but steadily caught up with most indigenous communities. Lowlanders, backed by

24
government legislation, seized communal lands, and eroded local self-sufficiency in the process. Lowlanders also

brought in a barrage of Western cultural influences that undermined tribal ways of life to varying degrees.

In the 1970s pressure upon indigenous communities land base intensified as the national economy

became increasingly foreign-dominated and export-oriented. Because they occupy areas rich in natural

resources, indigenous communities have been besieged by a growing number of foreign and local corporations

engaged in mining, logging, plantations, and other export industries.

To support these industries, past and present governments have constructed massive dams and other

foreign-funded infrastructure projects that have continually diminished the extent of indigenous peoples’

ancestral domain. The military has also participated in this onslaught against indigenous communities. It has

forcibly relocated tens of thousands of indigenous peoples, comprising entire indigenous communities, in an

attempt to counteract the growing resistance in the upland areas.

These attacks on indigenous peoples are directed against their ancestral lands. Depriving indigenous

peoples of their ancestral lands will mean the complete loss of their identity as distinct peoples. Thus, no less

than the question of survival is now at stake for the indigenous peoples in the Philippines.

Geographic distribution of Philippine Indigenous Peoples

The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act identifies eight (8) ethnographic regions in the country, namely: the

Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR), Region I, Region II, Region III and rest of Luzon, Island Group,

Southern and Eastern Mindanao, Central Mindanao, and Northern and Western Mindanao. However, these

ethnographic regions were designated by the government.

Primarily for administrative purposes and for representation in its National Commission on Indigenous

Peoples (NCIP), rather than based on actual ethno-linguistic groupings. The Philippine indigenous peoples are

made up of widely diverse cultures. The estimated total number of distinct indigenous ethnic groups ranges from

70 to 140. The NCIP website presents a list of 90 entries, while a compilation from various sources shows 109

indigenous ethno-linguistic groups and subgroups.

25
 Each indigenous group has its own distinct identity, language and indigenous socio-political and cultural

systems and practices, with some similarities between and among others.

Although there are quite a number of indigenous tribes or ethnic groups in the country, they remain some

of the most poor, least privileged, and impeded members of society. They mostly reside in the mountains, and

hence were not affected by Spanish or American colonization, which is the primary reason they were able to

retain their customs and traditions.

There are two main ethnic groups comprising several upland and lowland indigenous tribes living within

the Philippines – from the northern and southern parts of the Philippines. The indigenous people living in the

northern part of the country are called the Igorots, whereas those non-Muslim indigenous tribes living in the

south are referred to as Lumad.

Particular generic terms are used to refer to indigenous peoples in different regions of the country,

although the indigenous peoples usually identify themselves as belonging to a particular ethno-linguistic group

or subgroup.

Among the major groupings of indigenous peoples in the Philippines are the following:

The Igorots, which comprises numerous tribes in the northern part of the country, are mostly residing in

the mountain ranges of the Cordillera Region. They are popularly known for being rice cultivators. An

assortment of the group called the Ifugaos built the Banaue Rice Terraces – frequently called the ‘eighth wonder

of the world’. The ancestors of this indigenous tribe carved a system of irrigated rice terraces in the mountains

of Ifugao more than 2,000 years ago.

The Igorot tribe also includes the Bontoc, Ibaloi, Isneg, Kalinga, Kankanaey and Tinguian groups. Other

tribes living in the north are Isnag from Apayao, Gaddang (found between Kalinga and Isabela provinces), and

the Ilongots living within the east mountains of Luzon called the Sierra Madre and the Caraballo Mountains.

The Ilongots are known for their intense aggressiveness and cultural conservatism.

Igorot is the generic and collective term for the indigenous peoples of the Cordillera mountain range in

northern Luzon. Igorot is derived from the prefix i- (people from) and golot (mountain) to literally mean “people

from the mountains”.

26
 This term was for a long time considered derogatory, but it has increasingly been accepted and

appropriated by indigenous activists as a term of pride in their identity as indigenous peoples.

The Igorot make up 99 per cent of the population in the Cordillera region and live in the highlands,

foothills, plateaus and river valleys of the Cordillera mountain range. They currently total about 1.5 million in

population and are composed of various ethnic groups and subgroups or tribes. The major ethno-linguistic

groups in the Cordillera are the Kankanaey, Bontoc, Ifugao, Kalinga, Ibaloy, Isneg and Tingguian. However, the

people prefer to identify themselves as belonging to their own “ili”, which is an indigenous community having its

own defined territory or ancestral land and its own indigenous socio-cultural systems.

Meanwhile, in the southern part of the country, indigenous

tribes are mostly found in Mindanao and Western Visayas. In

Mindanao, these existing non-Muslim indigenous groups are

collectively known as the Lumad – a Cebuano term which means

“native” or “indigenous”. There Lumad tribes comprise about 13

ethnic groups which are the Blaan, Bukidnon, Higaonon, Mamanwa, Mandaya, Manobo, Mansaka, Sangir,

Subanen, Tagabawa, Tagakaulo, Tasaday, and T’boli. Their tribe is generally known for tribal music produced by

musical instruments they have created.

Among those mentioned above, the Manobo tribe includes further big ethnic groups such as the Ata-

Manobo, Agusan-Manobo, and Dulangan-Manobo to name a few. The total population of the Manobo group is

unknown as they occupy core areas in main provinces of the Mindanao Region.

Lumad is a generic term used by others to refer to the indigenous peoples of Mindanao, who make up the

largest number of indigenous peoples in the country. It is a Visayan term meaning native, indigenous, “of the

land”. The Lumad are composed of numerous indigenous peoples scattered throughout the Mindanao island.

There are 18 major Lumad groups namely: Subanen, B‟laan, T‟boli, Mandaya, Mansaka, Tiruray,

Higaonon, Manobo, Bagobo, Bukidnon, Tagkaolo, Ubo, Banwaon, Kalagan, Dibabawon, Talaandig, Mamanwa

and Manguangan. They live in the mountainous areas of Davao del Norte, Davao del Sur, Bukidnon, Agusan del
27
Norte, Agusan del Sur, Surigao, Zamboanga, Misamis Oriental, Misamis Occidental, Cagayan de Oro, North

Cotabato, South Cotabato and Saranggani Province (KAMP, 2002).

To simplify, the Lumad may be clustered as follows: the Manobo cluster, the BlaanT‟Boli-Tiduray cluster,

the Mandaya-Mansaka cluster, the Subanen who live largely in the hinterlands and coastal areas of the

Zamboanga Peninsula; the Higaonon or “mountain dwellers” in the plateaus of Bukidnon; and the Mamanwa in

Surigao del Norte (Erni, 2008).

In Mindanao, a distinction is made between the Lumad or

non-Muslim indigenous peoples and the islamized population or

Moro peoples. Many do not recognize the Moro people as

indigenous, although some of the Moro ethnic groups are listed by

the NCIP in its list of indigenous peoples. There are seven major

ethnic groups among the Muslims in the Mindanao-Sulu area. These are the Maranaw, Maguindanao, Tausug,

Yakan, Samal, Iranun and Kalagan.

Mangyan is a generic term for the indigenous peoples of the island of Mindoro and in Sibuyan island. They

are usually clustered into the northern Mangyan (Tadyawan, Alangan and Iraya) and the southern Mangyan

(Buhid, Taobuid and Hanunuo). There are also several indigenous peoples living in the islands of Palawan. These

are the Tagbanua (Kalamianen), Palaw-an, Molbog and Batak.

Other major tribes in the country

Apart from the two main indigenous groups mentioned above, the following tribes have also kept their

customs and traditions.

Badjaos

Originally from the islands of Sulu in Mindanao, they’re known as

the sea tribes living on houseboats. They try to make ends meet by

28
depending on the sea as divers, fishermen, and navigators. Because of conflicts in the region, the majority of

them has migrated to neighboring countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, whereas those who stayed in the

Philippines moved to some areas in Luzon.

Ati and Tumandok

One of the few clans in Visayas, the Ati and Tumandok tribes of Panay Island are the first to call the island

their home. Genetically related to other indigenous groups in the country, they mostly resemble

the Aetas or Negritos who are characterised by their dark skin. While some adopted Western religions, they still

carry some animistic beliefs and rituals passed down by their ancestors.

Palawan Tribes

Palawan is also home to various tribes such as the Batak, Palaweño, Palawano, and the Tagbanwa. Mostly

living in mountains or lowland dwellings, some of these groups have also been included in the

large Manobo tribe of the South. They have not totally embraced urban living, with the majority living in more

rural settings.

Mangyan

The Mangyans of Mindoro are well-known clans in

the Philippines because they have the biggest populace.

Comprising eight different Mangyan groups, they have a

peaceful reputation, unlike the headhunting tribes of the

North and warrior tribes from the South. While some has

already converted into Christianity, there’s still a large

percentage of those who practice animistic religious beliefs.

Negrito

29
Negrito is used as a generic term for indigenous peoples with distinct physical features; short, dark skin, curly

hair, living in different regions of the Philippines from north to south. Around 30 groups of Negrito have been

identified. They live in dispersed groups throughout the country, including the Agta in the remote forested areas

of Cagayan in northern Luzon, the Dumagat people in the Sierra Madre Mountains in eastern Luzon and along

the Pacific coast down to the Bondoc and Bicol mountains.

Others are found in western and southern Luzon, with larger populations living in the Zambales-Bataan

mountains (sometimes called Hambal, Aeta. Still other Negrito groups are the Ati in Panay and Negros, Palawan,

Guimaras, Romblon and northern Mindanao. Other smaller groupings of indigenous peoples are the Bugkalot or

Ilongot, Ibanag, Gaddang, Ikalahan and Isinai in the Caraballo Mountains of Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Nueva

Ecija and the Remontado of Rizal, Quezon, Negros and Sibuyan, and the Tumanduk of Panay (IWGIA, 2008: 427-

432; ADB 2002: 7-8; Tebtebba ,2004).

The Aetas (or Agta or Ayta) are one of the earliest known inhabitants of the Philippines who are now

living in scattered mountainous areas of the country. They were called by the Spanish colonizers as the

“Negritos”because of their dark to dark-brown skin.

They are nomadic but are very skilled in weaving and plaiting,

and Aeta women are considered experts in herbal medicine.

Today, the indigenous groups in the country remain in their

original ancestral lands as they preserve their cultural practices and traditions. And while the Philippine

government passed the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, there are still issues left unsolved, including their

right for inclusion.

According to the Tunay na Alyansa ng Bayan Alay sa Katutubo (TABAK), there are more than forty ethnic

groups that comprise the Philippine indigenous population, and these can be classified into six groupings

excluding the Islamic groups. The NCIP, on the other hand, identifies ninety-five distinct tribes of indigenous

peoples in fourteen regions of the country and includes the Islamic groups. The data of KAMP include forty

30
ethno-linguistic groups and three major groups of Islamic or Muslim Filipinos, and these tribes may be roughly

classified into seven groupings:

(1.) Mindanao Lumad: This is a generic term embracing all non-Muslim hill tribes of Mindanao. Lumad is a

Visayan term that means “born and grown in the place”. The Lumad peoples are composed of some eighteen

ethnic groups and they form the largest grouping of indigenous peoples in the country. They have a total

population today of 2.1 million and are concentrated in varying degrees in the hilly portions of the provinces of

Davao, Bukidnon, Agusan, Surigao, Zamboanga, Misamis, and Cotabato. They can be found in almost all

provinces of Mindanao and they include the Subanen, Manobo, B’laan, T’boli, Mandaya, Mansaka, Tiruray,

Higaonon, Bagobo, Bukidnon, Tagkaolo, Banwaon, Dibabawon, Talaandig, Mamanua, and Manguangan.

(2.) Cordillera Peoples: This is the indigenous population of the Cordillera mountain range, which covers six

provinces in the middle of Northern Luzon – Abra, Apayao, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga, and Mountain Province.

They are collectively called Igorots, meaning “mountain people” although some groups like the Kalingas and

Ifugaos refuse to be called Igorots except by their own tribes. There are eight ethno-linguistic groups in the

Cordillera, namely, Bontoc, Ibaloi, Ifugao, Isneg, Kalinga, Kankanaey, Tingguian, and Yapayao, numbering a total

of 988,000.

(3.)Caraballo Tribes: These are the five ethnolinguistic groups – Ibanag, Ilongot, Gaddang, Ikalahan and Isinai –

who together with the Agta peoples inhabit the Caraballo mountain range in Eastern Central Luzon. This range

connects the provinces of Nueva Vizcaya, Quirino and Nueva Ecija. The Caraballo tribes number roughly

500,000.

(4.) Agta and Aeta/Negrito: These short, dark-skinned and kinky-haired peoples are considered the earliest

inhabitants of the Philippines. Aside from having been perpetually pushed into the hinterlands of Central Luzon,

mainly in the provinces of Zambales, Bataan and Pampanga, and in other parts of the country, they also suffer

from racial discrimination. With a population of about 160,000, they are the most widely distributed among

indigenous peoples.

31
(5.) Mangyan of Mindoro: This is a generic name for the six ethno-linguistic groups spread over the mountains

and foothills of Mindoro, an island southwest of Luzon, namely, Batangan, Iraya, Hanunoo, Alangan, Ratagnon,

Buhid, and Tadyawan. They are described as the first inhabitants of the island, and until today, they are one of

the few groups that still practice a pre-Spanish form of writing. Their present population is about 150,000.

(6.) Palawan hill tribes: These are the non-Muslim tribal people of Palawan island located further west of

Mindoro. This group is composed of four ethnic groups – Tagbanua, Batak, Kalamianes,Cuyonin, and Ken-uy,

and they number at least 120,000.

(7.) Muslim Groups: These are the Muslims in Mindanao composed of fourteen groups, namely, Maranao,

Maguindanao, Tausug, Samal, Yakan, Sangil, Palawani, Badjao, Kalibugan, Jama-Mapun, Ipanun, Kalagan,

Molbog, and Muslim.

Economic Activities

Across Asia indigenous and local communities share a common situation where traditional resource use

and land tenure arrangements are not recognized, often undermined and labeled as “unscientific” and primitive,

and at times directly challenged and opposed by competing interests such as commercial enterprises including as

mining and logging interests and pressure groups.

The access of local communities and Indigenous groups over land, seas and natural resources have

gradually decreased and become limited while control over the same have been partially or completely been

transferred to non-traditional resource managers led by the state and at times private individuals and entities

including NGOs.

In most cases, local and Indigenous communities have been completely disempowered where the

dominant societies have been successful in imposing other resource-use and tenurial arrangements through legal

decrees or at times by physical force and occupation of traditional territories.

Indigenous peoples communities are found in the forests, mountains, lowlands and coastal areas of the

country and are in varied levels of socioeconomic development. They are engaged in a mix of production systems

including swidden farming in mountain slopes, settled or sedentary agriculture of rice, corn and vegetables,
32
hunting and gathering in forests, livestock raising, fishing along coastal areas and rivers and producing and

trading local handicrafts.

Some indigenous peoples, like the Dumagats of Quezon and Aetas of Zambales, have retained their

nomadic way of life – hunting and gathering in the forest and engaging in swidden agriculture at the marginal to

subsistence level. Others, like the Igorots in the Cordillera and many of the other indigenous peoples in the

country, are also now engaged in a mix of off-farm and non-farm activities, such as handicrafts production,

small-scale mining, construction, service and other occasional or seasonal labor.

Many indigenous peoples engage in cash-generating activities, such as operating small businesses and

trading local products, to augment their farm produce and meet their basic needs. A few are employed in

government or private institutions and earn a regular salary, while others are dependent on remittances of family

members who are regularly employed in urban centers or abroad. Some cash income also comes in the form of

pensions from insurance institutions.

Outside influences have caused changes in the economic systems of the indigenous peoples. We can

generally say that today, most of the indigenous peoples are engaged in subsistence agriculture but, by necessity

of survival, are increasingly being integrated into the wider market economy in the whole country (Carino, 2007).

33
 Module I – Midterm Examination Coverage

Characteristics of Indigenous Peoples

A common characteristic of indigenous peoples in the Philippines is their close attachment to ancestral

land, territory and resources. The world view that “land is life” is deeply embedded in their existence. Land is the

“territorial base that is indispensable as the living space for the community and its sources of food and other

needs” and is directly related to their culture and immediate environment (Fernandez, V: 1983 in Montillo-

Burton: 2003).

Land is life to indigenous peoples. It is their abode since time immemorial. It is the material basis of their

collective identity and survival as indigenous peoples. Ancestral domain to the indigenous peoples is a holistic

concept encompassing not only the land but including its resources: the rivers, forests, the flora and fauna, the

minerals underneath and the air above. It is not a commodity to be sold or exchanged but a resource to be

nurtured for future generations.

There is broad diversity and flexibility in the forms of land ownership among indigenous peoples, from

communal to semi-communal to private. Rights to land are derived primarily through inheritance, investment of

labor and actual improvements on the land. Access to and control of land and resources are traditionally

regulated through customary laws, which the communities themselves evolved. Land is viewed as a collective

legacy to be maintained across many generations since it is the source of life and livelihood for its occupants.

34
 Indigenous peoples communities are generally situated in areas that are rich repositories of high

biodiversity. This is largely due to their sustainable practices in natural resource management which have

conserved the natural wealth of the land. Distinct indigenous knowledge systems on sustainable management of

resources continue to persist in varying degrees. Indigenous knowledge serves as a collective set of guides in the

use and management of resources within their ancestral domain (Carino, 2007).

There is a general consensus that the distinct characteristics of the indigenous peoples are:

(1.) the conservation (to some extent) of their vernacular languages, traditional socio-economic institutions, and

cultural and religious practices;

(2.) Self-identification as distinct societies

(3.) subsistence-oriented economies; and

(4.) a special relationship with their ancestral lands. The last two characteristics are crucial because they define

the struggle of the indigenous peoples for self-determination.

What essentially distinguishes the indigenous peoples from the rest of the population is their concept of

land as granted and entrusted by one Creator for everyone to harness, cultivate, sustain, and live on. This land

concept has become distinct because it adheres to the spirit of collectivism and rejects the idea of private

property. Land is a central issue to indigenous peoples because it defines their very existence.

Because of this, the similarities and differences of their concept and world view of land and the conflict

arising from it will be discussed extensively to show the significance of land and its complexities to the

indigenous peoples.

Since time immemorial, Philippine ancestors believed in a cosmology where the Creator (known by various

names such as Bathala, Kabunian, Magbabaya, and Apo Sandawa) was linked with other deities and spirits.

In Philippine origin myths the land and everything connected to it were created by this deity. Because land

was of divine origin, it was sacred. Being sacred, it was not subject to ownership, sale, purchase, or lease. Among

indigenous peoples in the Philippines, there was a widespread belief that land was held usufruct; it could not be

removed from the use of community.

35
 The interaction of the ancestors with the land varied according to how they produced what they needed for

food. When they were nomadic and sea-foragers, they shifted their habitation from place to place and gathered

whatever food they could from the land and the waters. When they settled into a life of sedentary agriculture,

they established a system of communal ownership. The indigenous peoples still possess this belief in the sanctity

of the land, especially when confronted with the threat of losing control over their homeland.

Situation of Indigenous Peoples

Indigenous peoples are among the poorest and most marginalized sectors of Philippine society. They

experience neglect and discrimination in the provision of basic social services by the government.

The 2008 budget shows that regions with the highest concentrations of indigenous peoples get the

smallest allocations from the national Government (CAR – 1.22 per cent, CARAGA – 1.38 per cent, Region IX –

1.58 per cent). Thus, social service provision in indigenous territories is far below that of the rest of the country

(Asian Development Bank, 2001).

The lack of budget has resulted in generally poorer living conditions and higher incidence of poverty in

regions where indigenous peoples are found or concentrated. This is seen, for instance, in the fact that

Mindanao, where 61 per cent of indigenous peoples live, contributes 31 per cent of the total poverty incidence in

the country and has the highest poverty and subsistence incidence among the major island groups in the

country.

Poverty incidence in Mindanao reaches 38.8 percent, an increase of 1.1 per cent from 2003 figures.

Poverty incidence rate of Mindanao is 11.9 percentage points higher than the national average of 26.9 percent.

Subsistence incidence the proportion of families and individuals not earning enough to meet basic food needs –

is also highest in Mindanao at 19.2 per cent.

The Cordillera region, where 99 per cent of the population is indigenous, is one of the poorest regions in

the country with the lowest budget allotment despite its large contribution to the national wealth. Four out of

six Cordillera provinces are among the country’s poorest, and three towns in two of its other provinces belong to

the poorest 100 towns in the Philippines.

36
 The National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB) lists Apayao province as the fourth and Abra province

the ninth among the poorest provinces in the country. Kalinga and Ifugao are eleventh and sixteenth

respectively.Apayao has the highest poverty incidence in Cordillera with 57.5 per cent, followed by Abra at 50.1

per cent and Ifugao at 30.9 per cent (Northern Dispatch).

The general health situation in regions and provinces with the largest concentrations of indigenous

peoples is below the national average. A study on the health situation was conducted among indigenous peoples

of the Cordillera, Agta of Northeastern Luzon, Aetas of Mt. Pinatubo, Mangyans of Mindoro, Batak of Palawan,

Negritos of Negros Oriental, and the Lumads of southern Mindanao.

It was found that the infant mortality rate and the maternal mortality rate were high for the Lumads of

southern Mindanao. Health and nutrition problems, which should be preventable and treatable, continue to

persist. This is due to the continued absence or lack of basic health personnel, facilities, resources and

information in these extremely poor upland groups.

The study also found that for many indigenous peoples, poor nutrition, especially among children and

mothers, is often a direct or indirect cause of their common illnesses and deaths. They have deficient food intake

and diet due primarily to the poverty conditions in these areas, aggravated by the rapid depletion of their natural

resources. The nutrition value in their food is unbalanced, with more carbohydrates and starchy foods that are

deficient in protein, vitamins and minerals.

Meanwhile, a 2004 study conducted in eight indigenous communities across the country showed that one

out of three indigenous children entering primary school will most likely drop out and fail to graduate. The

indigenous peoples‟ chance of availing of a secondary school education is around 27 per cent and completing it,

a mere 11 per cent. College education appears out of reach for most of them, with just about a 6 per cent chance.

Graduating from college would indeed be an achievement, with only 2 per cent of the population having the

chance of doing so (EED-TFIP, 2004: 33-34).

Food security is more a goal than a reality for indigenous peoples. A major factor causing food insecurity

and poverty among indigenous peoples is the loss of ancestral land because of displacement by development

projects and extractive industries such as mining, dams and logging or natural causes like the eruption of Mt.
37
Pinatubo. Another factor is environmental degradation – destruction of forests, pollution of waters and loss of

agrobiodiversity as a result of impacts of extractive industries and agriculture modernization. These factors have

undermined the capacity of the indigenous peoples to survive because they are very dependent on their land and

resources.

For instance, the Ibaloy and Kankanaey of Itogon, Benguet have endured more than a century of large-

scale mining that has denuded their forests, destroyed their mountains and drained their natural water sources.

The mining companies undertook no restoration of the environment after the mines were abandoned.

Most of the people in mining-affected areas are now dependent on irregular cash-generating income for survival

(EED-TFIP, 2004).

Modern agriculture is seen as the factor that has most extensively constrained indigenous peoples food

systems. It has caused loss of agrobiodiversity and the emergence of new types of pests and diseases, and has

threatened the continued practice of indigenous sustainable agriculture.

The Department of Agriculture has introduced and promoted high-yielding varieties, which require

massive use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides; this has reduced soil fertility in farmlands, leading to a

diminishing yield.

The shift from traditional to hybrid and genetically-modified crops has also caused the extinction of

superior traditional varieties of crops.

This is clearly seen in the case of the Kankanaey village of Dandanac in Besao, Mountain Province where

the number of traditional rice varieties decreased within a period of eight years from 16 traditional varieties in

1996 to only 7 traditional varieties in 2004, because of the introduction of high-yielding varieties (EED-TFIP/

MRDC,2004).

In some regions, armed conflict in indigenous peoples communities has led to the loss of their

livelihoods. Many indigenous communities, particularly in Mindanao, have been forced to evacuate from their

homes and farms because of military operations against Muslim and other armed groups.

Indigenous peoples invariably experience seasonal to chronic food shortages during the year. Seasonal

food shortages are reflected in language; in Aeta, the word is tigkiriwi, and in Erumanen it is kawad-on. These
38
shortages usually happen during the dry season when the crop farms are not utilized because of the low viability

of crops.

A longer yet recurrent cycle of food shortages occurs when dry spells are considerably extended and

pronounced. Temporary food shortages occur during natural calamities, more particularly during typhoons.

Chronic food shortages, ranging from moderate to severe, are experienced when food stocks are continually

inadequate within the household (EED-TFIP,2004).

During times of food shortage, members of indigenous households use a variety of strategies in order to

augment household food stocks to be able to survive. Some of these coping mechanisms are; diversifying food

crops and sources, hunting and gathering, engaging in menial labor in nearby urban areas to earn a daily wage

and increasing the size of cultivated land. Emergency measures taken by the family during times of shortage

include reducing consumption or eating lower quality foods, borrowing food or money from neighbors or kin,

selling assets such as farm land, stinting the number of meals per day, evacuation, out-migrating and

mendicancy.

Community-based systems are also used as adaptive strategies during food shortages. Systems of mutual

help among kin and community members include the Erumanen sawit, Eskaya hongos and alayon, Igorot ub-

ubbo and innabuyog and other similar practices. There is also the practice of reducing waste in crop harvests,

such as the Erumanen kulipog (picking up fallen rice grains during harvest). Community-based seed

conservation methods are also being developed in order to expand the genetic base of food stocks and buffer

food stocks for the community.

Module II – Midterm Examination Coverage

VIEWS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ON LAND USE, OWNERSHIP, AND LAND CONTROL

Land tenure is key piece of conservation management. Management of the territory cannot proceed

without securing tenure. It must also be acknowledged that traditional resource management has big

contribution to conservation.
39
 However, indigenous peoples/local communities can only practice traditional management in a territory.

If access and control of the territory is not secured, they cannot exercise traditional resource management.

Opportunities for partnership or sense of ownership or stake are limited if they do not themselves have tenure,

control or access to the resource.

Communities who do not have tenure will most often tend to view the conservation interventions as just

another conservation project. Participation in such an initiative will be limited to employment opportunities

provided by the project and the coercive nature of the government partner. Community initiated participation

and commitment can never be gained if tenure is not properly addressed. If tenure is not adequately addressed,

external conservation interventions may unintentionally facilitate external arrangements that will have dire

consequences for them such as ecotourism.

In the case of Coron, the island was marketed so much for investment, a development that led land

speculators to begin grabbing lands for resort development, to a situation which the community found

overwhelming and eventually generated competing claims from outsiders. However, it must be noted that even if

the effect was unintentional, the community will be dealing with the consequences of the intervention long after

the project has terminated.

What is the impact of facing these consequences without tenure, without legal rights and legal protection?

Local initiative to negotiate and engage other stakeholders will be severely limited is tenure is not adequately

addressed. Successful outcomes in negotiations happen if the IPs have collective land tenure and control the

speed and process of the negotiations process and deal with the outside world along with hybrid institutions

with legal personality which nevertheless remains underpinned with customary law. The contribution of support

groups such as NGOs has to be recognized. Current arrangements, requirements and processes that will allow

communities to secure tenure are not within the experience of most indigenous communities. Most communities

still lack the capacity to engage the government bureaucracy and the organizational demands once they are

required to legally negotiate with the state or other entities and stakeholders. However, their role must be

strictly within what is identified by the community as their specific task.

40
 Conservation projects will be supported and embraced by indigenous peoples/local communities if they see

a direct link with their ability exercise control and gain access to their resources. Major activities in conservation

projects such as resource inventories, planning can be easily packaged to accommodate and address the need for

tenure security of the local people.

For instance, resource inventories could be used to identify the local names of the resources and the places

where they are located. The documentation could then be used as evidences and proofs to strengthen the

traditional rights and/or claims of the local people. Planning activities can be done along with the traditional

leaders where their role as facilitators for consensus building is utilized. Action Planning should also include a

clear target and schedule that shall address the tenurial security issue. At all times conservation initiatives should

not shy away and skirt the tenurial security issue if the support of the community is required.

Indigenous Communities and Land Tenure Numerous studies have shown that indigenous people operate a

well-developed land allocation and land management system that relies on communal decision making through

traditional structures. Communal forms of land tenure allow for the rotation of upland agriculture fields, and for

the equitable distribution of land among community members.

However, the ability of a community to sustain traditional resource management structures depends on

their capacity to exercise control over the resources. Thus the recognition of their rights over their lands and

other natural resources is directly linked with their continued application of sustainable resource utilization and

management systems.

Tenure and Conservation: The Tagbanwa and Ikalahan Experience The region is rife with experiences of

conservation initiatives that failed due to the non-recognition of tenure as a prerequisite to foster collective

community action and support. At the same time there have been good examples of Communities making full

use and optimizing the benefits of the recognition of their land rights to initiate conservation. Case 1. Tagbanwa

of Coron Island, Northern Palawan.

Tagbanwa of Coron Island, Northern Palawan Missed Opportunities: The Calamian Tagbanwa inhabit the

beautiful limestone Coron Island, one of the Calamianes islands of North Palawan, surrounded by water once

rich in marine resources, the main source of their livelihood. In the 1980s, declining fisheries in the adjoining
41
Visayas islands and southern Luzon coasts triggered the movement of fishers westward into Calamianes waters,

which resulted in over-fishing, illegal fishing, and an increased human population. To cope with the sudden

population growth, the deficit-ridden municipal government of Coron attempted to increase revenues through

taxes on the trade of natural resources. It strictly regulated indigenous lands and local resources traditionally

traded by the indigenous communities and declared them properties of the municipal government.

By the mid-1980s the waters surrounding the island were being degraded at an alarming rate by dynamite,

cyanide, and other illegal and destructive fishing methods. The situation was so serious that the Tagbanwa began

facing food shortages. In response to this ecological assault, in 1985 the Tagbanwa organized the Tagbanwa

Foundation of Coron Island, which applied to the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR)

for a Community Forest Stewardship Agreement. The Stewardship Agreement would provide a 25-year legal

tenure to the Tagbanwa people and allow them to manage their natural resources through a community forest

management plan.

In 1990 the community was awarded the Agreement covering the whole of Coron Island and a small

neighboring Island, Delian. Since the Agreement was part of a national social forestry program implemented by

DENR Not satisfied with what amounted to no more than a 25-year lease on their ancestral home, the Tagbanwa

Foundation then went on to use a new law— known as Administrative Order Number 2 of 1993—to pursue a

permanent title to their land. Administrative Order Number 2, which proved to be the precursor of the

Indigenous People’s Right Act, cleared the way for the Tagbanwa to gain control over both land and marine

resources through a rights-based approach to community resource management. With the help of the Philippine

Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID) a national NGO, the Tagbanwa obtained their Certificate of

Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) in 1998—the first such certificate in the country that included both land and

marine waters. The Tagbanwa had secured their land rights not a moment too soon.

In 1998, Coron Island was selected as one of eight sites in the Philippines to be incorporated into the

National Integrated Protected Areas System. While it has long been the goal of the Department of Environment

and Natural Resources to gazette the whole of Coron Island as a protected area, the Tagbanwa have resisted.

They fear losing control over the island despite promises of majority participation in the protected area’s
42
management board. And they have good reason to be skeptical: When Coron Island was selected for inclusion in

the NIPAS, it was done so without consultation with the local community and without seeking its prior consent.

Furthermore, the proponents of the proposed conservation program expressed ambiguity and were non-

committal when pressed by the Tagbanwa for their position and institutional support for the Ancestral Domain

Claim.

In spite of the inherent lack of local support for the conservation project, activities were launched and

substantial resources were poured into the island. The results were not encouraging, participation was limited to

community members who were directly employed with the project. Factions among the closely-knit families

began to emerge. There were instances when community members participated mainly due to the coercive

nature of the Government and felt that they had no choice but accept the conservation project. Clearly there was

no incentive to actively participate in an undertaking that failed to address the most basic need of the Tagbanwa,

which was to secure legal recognition of their rights over the lands and seas in Coron.

In a general assembly of the Tagbanwa of Coron, they officially demanded that the Island be stricken off

as a conservation area and removed from the target sites of the DENR. After 3 years, the widely advertised and

substantially funded project ended with a whimper. The Island was not declared as an “official” park nor was it

integrated into the National parks System. Project assets were quietly turned over to the local government. To

this day, very few Tagbanwa remember the project and its objective to conserve the resources of the island. And

in 2001, the Tagbanwa successfully obtained a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT). It was the first

successful claim and Title that included parts of the ocean in the ancestral domain.

The Tagbanwa take pride in the fact that the initiative to secure tenure over the land and seas came from

them and their active participation in the whole process illustrated their intense desire to gain recognition of

their rights over their ancestral domain As the Tagbanwa. Foundation’s chairman, Rodolfo Aguilar, explains, “We

are a living example of how IPRA can be used successfully by indigenous peoples.”

With the issuance of the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Certificate (CADC) in 1998 and the consequent

awarding of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), the Tagbanwa have since been able to achieve major

gains. They were able to convince the Government to recognize the local traditional leadership as an “interim
43
Protected Area Management Board”. They have drafted and finalized and are now currently implementing their

Ancestral Domain management Plan which provides guidelines for the utilization and management of the land

and seas. Curiously, a recurring theme of the Ancestral Domain management Plan was the conservation of the

natural resources within the island.

Today, most of Coron’s forests are still intact, and the ADMP of the Tagbanwa has been recognized by the

Local Government, and more importantly the local tourism industry operators are now required to secure annual

permits from the Tagbanwa community before they could bring tourists to the island. Enforcement of the

traditional rules of resource utilization in the ocean has not been as successful as that in the terrestrial areas.

While there has been a noticeable decrease in illegal fishing within the reefs covered by the Tagbanwa title, the

limited capacity of the community to physically enforce their rules and policies have enabled some unscrupulous

individuals to take advantage of the situation.

The success of the Tagbanwa in securing tenure over their traditional territories has inspired eleven other

Tagbanwa communities to file claims over their territories. Furthermore, the CADT has provided the Tagbanwa

community of Coron the wherewithal to be respected and be at par with other stakeholders in the area. This new

arrangement will go a long way in enabling the Tagbanwa to pursue their identified development and

conservation priorities.

Case 2. The Ikalahan of Sta. Fe Nueva Vizcaya From adversaries to partners: In 1974, the Ikalahan

community in Northern Philippines were granted exclusive rights to use and manage at least 15,000 hectares of

forestlands through a Communal Forest stewardship agreement. The contract would last for 25 years and was

renewable for another 25 years. The awarding of the CFSA capped years of struggle by the Ikalahan people to

gain land tenure security over their traditional lands. The initiative to secure legal recognition and land tenure

security was incited by a Government policy that declared state ownership over all forestlands. As such it had the

sole prerogative to allocate, distribute and determine the development activities that could be conducted in

these areas.

The Philippine government initially had plans to “develop” the Ikalahan domain; however the people

opposed the plan and instead negotiated with the Government and offered their services to “protect” the forests.
44
Predictably, the Government resisted the offer of the people citing their lack of “legal personality” to negotiate

with the government. Furthermore, their capacity to manage the forestland was questioned and their lack of

managerial and technical expertise was pointed out.

With persistence and continuous follow-up, the Ikalahan people were able to slowly convince the

Government of the wisdom of recognizing their authority and capacity to manage the forests within their

ancestral domains. The Ikalahan successfully pushed the argument that it would be to the best interest of the

Philippine Government to recognize them as the forest stewards as they will now own the responsibility of

protecting a very critical watershed at no cost to the government.

The problem of a legal personality was easily addressed by organizing a local Peoples Organization which

adopted the traditional leadership as its officers and had the same registered with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC). With the help of support groups and other Non-Government Organizations, community

elders and the local Government the Kalahan Educational Foundation established forest management rules and

policies that addressed both conservation and livelihood issues and concerns. The overriding aim was to provide

enough opportunities for the community members to sustainably engage in livelihood activities but at the same

time conserve the remaining resources. The domain was delineated into several zones where the livelihood areas

were designated to spare the primary forests from further degradation. The KEF board composed of elders

established community rules on resource use.

All rules and policies were presented before the community in various assemblies in order to gain the

required consensus. All rules were enforced in coordination with the local Government so as not to create

conflicts and establish support. Traditional conflict resolution structures such as the Tong-tongan were adopted

to resolve conflicts in resource use. Other traditional systems of mediation were continuously tapped to settle

problems within the community. The Ikalahan today through the KEF have developed a simple but sustainable

agro-forestry system where sustainable livelihood can still be undertaken within the secondary forests. The old-

growth forests continue to exist and large sections of the domain are currently being reforested. Clearly the

Ikalahan of Nueva Vizcaya confirms the principle that the recognition of the rights of local communities and

45
indigenous peoples over their traditional territories is central in fostering collective action for resource

conservation.

The CFSA of the Ikalahan people which in 1974 was simply known as MOA No. 01 (Memorandum of

Agreement No. 1) has since evolved into many forms through countless programs and projects aimed at securing

the support and providing tenure for local communities in the conservation the environment.

The Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) is one of the land tenure instruments that traces its roots

to the initiative of the Ikalahan people in securing MOA No. 01.

Module III – Midterm Examination Coverage

The Concept of Land Among the Cordillera Peoples

1. The Cordillera, a mountain range comprising one-sixth of the total land area of Luzon Island, is home

to around 1.2 million indigenous peoples collectively known as Igorots. The Igorots include a number of ethno-

linguistic groups, among the major groups of which are the Bontok, Kankanaey, Ibaloy, Kalinga, Tinggiuan, and

Isneg.

Like other indigenous territories, the Cordillera is rich in natural resources but its indigenous peoples

remain poor. Over the past decades, the Cordillera has been a major recipient of development projects, many of

these funded by foreigners. But these projects have brought an aggressive philosophy of development

characterized largely by displacement of peoples and treatment of Cordillera as a mere “resource base.” In the

1970s the Cordillera indigenous peoples widely rejected a World Bank-funded series of dams along the Chico

River that would have displaced 90,000 Bontok and Kalinga people.

Earlier in the 1950s the construction of the Ambuklao and Binga dams in the province of Benguet had

already dislocated hundreds of indigenous Ibaloy families, who up to the present have never been properly

compensated. But there have been new commitments to indigenous peoples both at the national and

international level. The discourse in land and resources among the Cordillera peoples can only be understood

46
within the context of their beliefs and day-to-day practices. To claim a place is the birthright of every man. The

lowly animals claim their place, how much more man. Man is born to live. Apu Kabunian, lord of us all, gave us

life and placed us in this world to live human lives. And where shall we obtain life? From the land.

To work the land is an obligation, not merely a right. In tilling the land you possess it. And so land is a

grace that must be nurtured. Land is sacred. Land is beloved. From its womb springs our Kalinga life. These were

the words of a Kalinga warrior chief, Macliing Dulag, explicitly describing the Cordillera people’s concept of land.

Like most indigenous peoples worldwide, the Cordillera peoples equate land with life, both of which are

given by the Creator (personified in the local context as Kabunian, Lumauig, Umayayong, Mah-nongan, or

Wigan for the Ifugaos). Land in this sense includes all the resources below and above the earth surface.

2. Territoriality

The plurality among the Cordillera peoples can be gleaned not only from cultural variations, but is also

explicitly indicated by each community’s claim to a territory. The ili is the local concept of people and territory

among the Cordillera peoples which may be defined as “the communal territory of an indigenous settlement,”

similar to the concept of homelands among tribal peoples. Prior occupation, use, and development of the land is

the basis for defining the boundaries between ilis. Territorial boundaries (beddeng in Mt. Province, bugis in

peace pact forging areas) have been established between ilis and recorded in collective memories of the people.

Boundary markers are usually the natural geophysical features like mountain ridges and water bodies.

3. Rights to Access and Use

There are three prevailing land and resource access and use patterns in the Cordillera. These are the

communal, the clan or family properties, and the individual private properties. Communal properties: These

refer to the land and resources commonly owned by the tribe or ili. Communal properties usually include the

forests and hunting grounds, water bodies (even if located upon individual private lands), ritual and sacred

grounds, and mineral lands. Although use and access to resources in these types of land are open to all members

of the ili, custom law frowns upon the abuse of these rights. People traditionally partake of the resources as

needed and are all equally responsible for its regeneration.

47
 Clan properties: These include uma (swidden farms), pasturelands and reforested areas (muyung in Ifugao,

batangan and tayan in Mt. Province, etc) acquired from the common properties through prior occupation and

usufruct rights. Individual private properties: These include the rice fields (payew), home lots and backyard

gardens. Private properties may be bequeathed to individual family members.

The nearest kin are given priority when these properties are sold or mortgaged.

4. Land Acquisition In the past, no member of an ili was without a piece of land to till. Land and property

within the ili, especially individual private property was acquired primarily through inheritance. Other modes of

acquisition were sale, barter or compensation. Inheritance: Inherited properties are the most prized possessions

among the Cordillera peoples. These are usually the individual and privately held lands like rice fields and

residential lots. Rights to communal and clan lands are similarly inherited but ownership remains with the clan

(dapay). Sale: This is usually a last resort among the Cordillera peoples. Sale is traditionally permitted only in

times of extreme need and emergency. Only individual private properties can be sold. Priority is given to the

immediate family members when properties are offered for sale. Compensation: Property may also be acquired as

a form of compensation for harm or damage done to another member of the community. Among the peace pact

holding areas, these properties may not necessarily be given to the directly aggrieved party but to the community

as a whole.

5. Indigenous Governance Custom law, which, in the past, was consciously inculcated among the youth,

pervades the day-to-day dynamics in a Cordillera ili. It is intricately woven into the value and belief system. A

rich repository of custom law, which is traditionally oral, is found in the various indigenous socio-political and

justice systems.

Bodong/Pechen: This term literally means peace pact. Among the warring groups in the Cordillera like the

Kalinga and some groups in Bontoc and Ifugao, the bodong is the basic institution by which life, territory and

integrity are protected.

Dap-ay/Abong: This refers to the physical location of the center of governance in the ili which also serves a

social function. It is here where the council of elders usually meets and community matters and affairs are

decided.
48
 Lallakay/Amam-a: This is the traditional council of elders who govern the ili. Membership on the council is

not only based on age but also on elders’ wisdom as a function of their accumulated experiences.

6. Resource Management.

The concept of sustainable development is not new to the Cordillera peoples. It is a principle that their

ancestors inculcated in them. The present abundance of mineral and water resources as well as the biodiversity

in the region in spite of the plunder done by mining companies, the timber industry, and urbanization testifies to

the peoples’ past commitment to sustainable development. Among these indigenous systems of resource

management are the Ifugao muyung, the Bontoc tayan, and the Tinggiuan’s lapat systems;

a. Forest/Watershed Areas

Muyung refers to privately held woodlots among the Ifugao’s Tuali subgroup. The privatization of the

woodlots ensures that forested areas are maintained not only for fuel wood and timber but also, and, most

importantly, for the agricultural economy. Management includes the obliged hikwat or clearing the muyung of

undergrowth and creepers, as protection from encroachment and abuse of resources therein.

Among the Ayangan subgroup, this is called the pinugo. Batangan/Lakon/Saguday are the woodlots

under ownership of a clan, family or the dap-ay in western Mountain Province. Tayan refers to the corporate

property among the Bontok Kankanaeys. It consists of forested lots managed and exclusively used by a clan,

specifically a bilateral descent group.Lapat is the indigenous resource management system among the Tinggian

in Abra and the Isneg of Apayao.

The system is closely associated with death rituals where a family can designate a specific area under

lapat. The lapat is the custom of declaring a specific area (i.e., river, creek, portion of the forest, etc.) closed from

human activities and exploitation for one to two years. Violation is punished under customary law. The

underlying purpose of the lapat is to ensure the regeneration of the biodiversity of resources within the declared

area.

b. Agricultural Land Agriculture has always been the main livelihood of the Cordillera peoples, with rice

and camote (sweet potato) the main staples grown. The skills and knowledge the peoples developed through the

49
ages facilitated their efficient adaptation to their mountain homelands. Many of these adaptations include

traditional agricultural systems and practices that still exist, if somewhat improved upon, today.

A very important aspect of the agricultural practices of the Igorots is their intricate relationship with the

peoples’ belief system. Among all Igorot communities, agriculture, especially rice production, is the focus of most

religious rituals. Fallowing and organic farming are two of the most distinctive features of agriculture among the

Cordillera peoples. Fallowing allows the regeneration of soil nutrients lost during its use for food production. A

fallow period, varying from one to five years, is observed by all the Cordillera peoples in kaingin (swidden)

agriculture.

The Cordillera peoples practice organic farming in both the uma (swidden farms) and the rice fields.

Organic farming includes the techniques we refer to today as multiple cropping, composting, and integrated pest

management.

c. Water Resources Dapat and Mananum technically refer to the traditional irrigators’ associations that

have recognized rights and access to a water resource. Brett traces membership to a dapat in Tukukan, Bontoc

back seven generations. Conceptually, the dapat and mananum are traditional systems of water resource

management that ensure a reliable water supply through cooperative rehabilitation, quality and quantity

maintenance, and above all, respect for life. Customary law dictates the need to regenerate aquatic resources;

this necessarily imposes a mandate to sustain the quality and quantity of water. Potable water sources are

specifically maintained as such by observing pollution prevention regulations. Regulations on fishing and other

aquatic biodiversity are similarly imposed by the dap-ay or abong.

d. Water Resource Management in Besao E. Dictaan-Bang-oa presented a paper entitled “Traditional

Water Management in Besao, Mt. Province” during the World Water Forum in Kyoto, Japan in March 2003. The

issue of water among the iBesao (people from Besao) is an issue of survival for a people who consider themselves

the stewards of the land. Among the iBesao, traditional management of water resources is intricately woven in

the belief of spirits inhabiting elements of nature, nakinbaey, and the morality embodied in the inayan that

governs the peoples’ day-to-day behavior. The spirits or supernatural beings inhabiting water sources are

believed to be the primary forces in the production, and thus, supply of water.
50
 It is therefore necessary for the people not to displease the spirits otherwise they will stop the flow or

production of water. Among the culturally prescribed taboos or inayan in relation to water sources and the

nakinba-ey is the prohibition against grazing or butchering animals near water sources. Animal wastes are

believed to repulse the nakinba-ey.

Another is the avoidance of carrying human or animal corpses along a path near a water source as this

displeases the nakinbaey. Inayan, literally, is sort of a warning equivalent to the English “Be careful!” which, in

Besao, is replete with the moral responsibility to consider the effects of one’s actions on other people. Water is a

resource that cannot be owned by any private individual even if it is found in privately held property. The

landowner can only be accorded the right to prior use. Rights to water according to customary law belong to

those who first tapped the source for their use but does not include a right to divert water from its natural flow

and depriving those who claim ‘natural rights’ by virtue of being located along the natural course of the water. In

agricultural areas, the dumapat system is still being practiced today.

The dumapats are groups of rice field owners sharing a common water source for their irrigation use.

Aside from these, dumapats, today’s equivalent of formal irrigators’ association, claim their right to a water

source based on prior claim and natural flow. Water sources found in privately held lands for example Kapusean

in Suquib, Besao, cannot be privatized. The landowner may have prior right to use the water but not to stop or

divert it from its natural flow. Maintaining water supply involves dumapat cooperation, labor, and resources.

Cleaning, weeding and rehabilitating canals and intakes to facilitate water flow are responsibilities of all

members of a dumapat. Each member family sends a representative to offer labor in cases where major

rehabilitation works are needed like the annual cleaning during the dry season. When the water supply is

depleted, especially during the dry season, the dumapats take turns directing the water flow to their fields as

agreed among themselves and without prejudice to other fields. The process of taking turns is referred to as

banbanes and ensures that each one gets his or her turn. Field owners keep vigil at night to make sure that their

fields are watered according to schedule. Local water disputes are taken to the dumapat level. If not resolved at

this level, they are brought to the dap-ay. Besao residents, however, cannot recall any major water dispute among

51
themselves. Community rebuke and taunting are seen as enough punishment for abusive dumapat members. An

important aspect of the water management in Besao is sustaining the forestlands.

Approximately 69% of Besao’s land area is classified as forestland. This is further sub-classified into two

types based on use. One is the batangan or the pinewood forest and the other is the kallasan or mossy forests.

The batangan is generally used for fuel and timber needs while the kallasan serves as the hunting and gathering

grounds. To sustain these, local ordinances like banning logging for commercial use, have been imposed. People

are also very conscious of preventing forest fires so that even in the cleaning of the uma, fire lines are established

before any burning is done. In cases of fire, community members voluntarily mobilize themselves to put it out

and secure valuable properties like houses, rice granaries and animal pens.

Religious practices contribute to water management as well. Traditionally, the legleg, a sort of a

thanksgiving and propitiating ritual, is performed in water sources yearly in Besao. Performance of the legleg is

believed to please the nakin-baey, and prevent it from leaving. Such traditional rites reinforce the high value and

regard for water, thus, maintaining its quantity and quality through culturally prescribed and environmentally

sustainable use as well as reaffirming man’s relationship with nature.

Module IV –Midterm Examination Coverage

Land Policies of the Philippine State: A Historical Overview

In many cases of indigenous peoples struggle for autonomy or survival itself, land has been the central

issue. Uprooting indigenous peoples from their land denies them their right to life and identity. They have

continuously related to and enhanced the environment they are in as the material basis of their existence. They

also have been successful in creating indigenous laws prior to the coming of the colonizers or the advent of the

so-called modern nation states. The existence of the indigenous peoples prior and, hence, “vested rights” have

been widely acknowledged even at the international level. In recognition of this state of affairs, modern nation

states have become increasingly conscious of the importance of the land issue to indigenous populations and

have worked, at least on paper, to acknowledge these rights, as the following discussion will illustrate.

52
 The state’s definition of indigenous peoples emphasizes their ties to the land they occupy. It states that

“indigenous peoples refer to a group of people sharing common bonds who have under claims of ownership since

time immemorial occupied, possessed and utilized a territory. Yet even with this apparent state recognition of

indigenous peoples’ rights, displacement and various forms of violations of rights have been common in

indigenous peoples’ territories.

This present day treatment of indigenous peoples is rooted in the country’s colonial history. The

colonizers brought with them their own concepts of land use and ownership, which were very different from

those of the natives.

Historical perspective, the land policies of the Philippine state that infringe on indigenous lands and

resources.

A. Spanish Colonial Government Land Laws

The superimposition of colonial laws started with a legal fiction – the Regalian Doctrine – that declared

arrogantly that the Crown of Spain owned all lands. This would later become the “theoretical bedrock upon

which Philippine land laws were based. This signaled the start of the undermining of indigenous peoples

concepts of land use and land rights (It should be noted, however, that many indigenous peoples were able to

retain their tribal sovereignty so that their land laws exist independent of Spanish promulgated land laws).

Between 1523 and 1646, it is said that at least twenty-one laws related to the Philippines were enacted by

Spain. Royal decrees and various memoranda would later follow. The Spanish introduced laws that essentially

contradicted and even denied customary concepts of land use and ownership. The royal decrees of October 15,

1754 called for titling of lands on the basis of “long and continuous possession”.

In support of this, the Royal Cedula Circular of 1798 and the Royal Decrees of 1880 followed. By July 1893

the Spanish Mortgage Law that provided for the systematic registration of land titles and deeds was put into

effect. As expected, many did not avail themselves of this opportunity, so in 1894 the Maura Law was issued.

The Maura Law is said to be the last land law under Spain. Article 4 of the Maura Law denied and

contradicted customary laws of land ownership declaring that any lands not titled in 1880 “will revert back to the
53
state. This meant that landowners were given only a year within which to secure title. After the deadline, untitled

lands were deemed forfeited. The Maura Law also reiterated that “all pueblo lands” were protected lands and

could not be alienated because they belonged to the King.”

B. American Colonial Land Laws

The Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia or Spanish Royal Law) remained in favor throughout the American

administration of the Philippines from 1898 to 1945, providing the American government, like its Spanish

predecessor, legal justification for centralizing and controlling the islands’ natural resources. The Regalian

Doctrine, in effect, endured as land laws were passed which dispossessed the indigenous peoples of all claims to

their lands. Indeed, the Treaty of Paris in 1898 expressly stated that “all immovable properties which in

conformity with law, belong to the Crown of Spain” and were to be ceded and relinquished to the new colonial

master. To further strengthen the colonizer’s hold over the islands’ resources, the Public Land Act was enacted in

1902, giving a mandate to the American government to expropriate all public lands. It subjected all lands to the

Torrens system, a proof of land title, thereby leading to the commodification of land resources. The Philippine

Commission Act No. 178 of 1903 followed. This ordered that all unregistered lands would become part of the

public domain, and that only the State had the authority to classify or exploit the same.

Two years later, the Mining Law of 1905 was legislated. This gave the Americans the right to acquire

public land for mining purposes and revealed the Americans’ goal of extracting resources from indigenous

territories. In the same year, the Land Registration Act of 1905 institutionalized the Torrens Titling system as the

sole basis of land ownership in the Philippines.

The Torrens System of land titling was patterned after the land registration law of the State of

Massachusetts, U.S., which in turn was copied from the Australian model. (Sir Richard Torrens of South Australia

originally conceived the idea of land transfer of ownership by easy alienation of land.) Any lands not registered

under the Spanish colonial government were declared public lands owned and administered by the state. By

virtue of the Public Land Acts of 1913, 1919, and 1925, Mindanao and all other fertile lands that the State

54
considered unoccupied, unreserved, or otherwise unappropriated public lands became available to homesteaders

and corporations, despite the fact that there were indigenous people living on these lands.

Still, in 1918, the Public Land Act No. 2874 was passed providing for the claiming and registration of lands

through a free patent system. This law contained the restriction that “free patents and certificates shall not

include nor convey title to any metal or mineral deposits which are to remain the property of the government.

In 1929, Proclamation No. 217 declared 81.8% of the total land area of the Cordillera as the Central

Cordillera Forest Reserve. This rendered the indigenous peoples “‘squatters in their own land’” according to

formal state laws. Forest lands are inalienable and non-disposable. In 1935, the Mining Act banned indigenous

mining activities; while the Commonwealth Act 137 granted timber and water rights within mining claims for the

development and operation of mining explorations. These land laws denied outright the existence of indigenous

peoples who have controlled and managed their lands since time immemorial.

The 1935 Constitution (of the new self-governed Commonwealth of the Philippines) essentially retained

the colonizers’ view of land. This philosophy is embodied in Article XIII, which states: All agricultural, timber,

and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of

potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition,

exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to the citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or

associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to existing right,

grant, lease or concession at the time of the inauguration of the Government established under the Constitution.

C. Post-Colonial Land Legislation

The Philippines gained political independence from the United States in 1946; however, the postwar

regime essentially upheld the policies of the American colonial government. In the Cordillera region, the land

problem was aggravated by the passage of legislation and Republic Acts and Proclamations declaring Igorot

ancestral lands open for leaseholders, military reservations, watersheds, and resettlement areas.

The Cordillera region could also be used by the government as a “resource base” for its development

endeavors. This meant that the government would take a development philosophy that fully exploited the rich
55
natural resources through extractive development projects like hydropower dams, mining and logging, with the

“minorities” sacrificing for the “majority.” Among the more significant post-colonial pieces of legislation that

would deprive and deny the indigenous peoples their ancestral lands and cultural heritage was the infamous

Revised Forestry Code of 1975.

The Code provides that all lands having a slope of eighteen degrees or more are inalienable and non-

disposable for agricultural and settlement purposes. Paradoxically, the indigenous peoples have traditionally

settled on the slopes in their territories and have long enjoyed sustainable agriculture there as evidenced by the

antiquity of their terraces that, to this day, are thriving. The code also declared, “all lands above 18 degrees slope

automatically belong to the state classified as public forest land.”

The Regional Forestry Master Plan recorded that 57% of the pine forest area in the Cordillera has a slope

greater than 50 degrees – making the people squatters in their own lands. Prior to the Forestry Code, however,

some legislation was passed that seem to have favored the lot of the indigenous peoples.

Apparently, this legislation was aimed at integrating indigenous peoples into the majority society by

giving indigenous peoples a chance to quiet title to their lands. The relevant land legislation in the Cordillera is

summarized below:

1. Republic Act 3872 (Manahan Amendment, 1964), which provided for automatic acquisition of private,

individual title by indigenous people who have for 30 years or more occupied lands of the public domain suitable

for agricultural cultivation.

2.Administrative Order No. 11 (Bureau of Forestry, 1970), which provided that all forest concessions were to be

subject to the private rights of the indigenous people occupying the concession at the time a license is issued.

3.Presidential Decree 410 (Ancestral Land Decree, 1974), which identified all agricultural lands occupied and

cultivated by members of the indigenous peoples since 1964 as alienable and disposable, excluding those in

Panay, Negros, Abra, Quezon, Benguet, and Camarines. However, it required them to acquire land occupancy

certificates to be used in applications for free patents.

4. Presidential Decree 1529 (Property Registration Decree, 1978), which provided for the registration of land

owned by those who by themselves or through their ancestors have been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
56
recognized possession and occupation of all alienable and disposable lands of public domain under a bona fide

claim of ownership since June 12, 1946, or those who have acquired such ownership through any other ways

provided by law.

5. Presidential Decree 1998 (1985), which authorized the classification and/or reclassification of lands with a

slope of 18% or more in the provinces of Cebu and Benguet as alienable and disposable provided certain

conditions and criteria are met.

These conditions are that the area is developed, planted with agricultural crops using effective erosion

control practices like terracing, and that there are basic structures like schools and churches clearly existing. In

the Cordillera region (Northern Philippines), the state legislated policies that favored some of the indigenous

populations.

The indigenous population engaged in vegetable farming in Benguet province is a case in point. Local

history shows that in the 1950s, there was a rush for land along the Halsema stretch because of the promising

vegetable enterprise. Chinese businessmen farmers would scramble for the lands in the area and soon would

monopolize the vegetable farms in the area. In response, Igorot farmers organized themselves and rallied against

Chinese dominance in the vegetable industry. This discontent reached Malacañang, compelling then Presidents

Magsaysay and Macapagal to implement policies favoring the Igorot farmers and to provide indigenous peoples

an opportunity to secure their lands.

Among these policies include the following: Executive Order 180 (Magsaysay Law, 1950), which directed

the Bureau of Lands, Forestry and Soils, and the Mountain Province Development Authority to grant the Igorots

the right to acquire titles for lands they had occupied and cultivated since July 4, 1945, provided that they

completed survey and registration of these lands. This Executive Order also contained important directives

giving some portions of Mt. Data National Park and the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve to landless Igorot

farmers.

Republic Act 782, which was later amended to Republic Act 3872, was enacted during the Macapagal

regime. It granted land rights to landless Igorot vegetable farmers. The act was passed in response to the growing

Chinese monopoly of the vegetable industry in Benguet.

57
 Similarly, President Ferdinand Marcos issued Executive Order 87, which granted rights to Igorots and

required them to complete the technical survey of their landholdings. The 1987 Constitution likewise contains

some provisions regarding the recognition and promotion of “the rights of indigenous cultural communities

within the framework of national unity and development” (Art. II, Section 22) and the creation of autonomous

regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras (Art. X, Section 15-19).

A number of policies have also been developed by government agencies such as the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in an attempt to

provide land tenure to the indigenous people. Through the DENR, Administrative Order No. 2 (Departmental

Administrative Order 2, commonly known as DAO2) Series of 1993, offers the issuance of Certificates of Land

Claims (CALCs) and Certificates of Ancestral Domain Claims (CADCs) as a form of land tenure. The DAR also

provides Certificates of land Ownership Award (CLOA) to selected provinces in the Cordillera.

DAO2 seeks to identify and delineate ancestral lands and ancestral domains, to qualify individuals,

families, clans or entire indigenous communities for CADC or CALC, and to certify that those qualified have the

right to occupy and utilize the land.DAO2 differentiates between ancestral land and ancestral domain.

Ancestral land includes residential lots, agricultural lands, and forests and may be claimed by individuals,

families, or clans. Ancestral domain covers ancestral lands and natural resources therein, including nearby areas

utilized by the indigenous peoples, and may be claimed by the entire community or tribe. Thus, while on one

hand, the ancestral domain concept serves as a bulwark against the negative effects of the Regalian Doctrine

upon indigenous peoples, the differentiation of ancestral land from ancestral domain on the other hand

encourages disunity within tribes.

Filing a claim is tedious for the indigenous peoples, but it is not the bureaucratic procedure that makes

DAO2 unacceptable. DAO2 is still based on the 1987 Constitution, which explicitly recognizes state ownership as

previously described. State ownership means that the state has the sole power to dispense land rights. The

implication of the power to dispense is the power to exclude. All Philippine laws are based on this distinct

imprint of a colonial past.

58
 Module I-Final Examination Coverage

CONFLICTS OVER LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES

A. State Laws v. Indigenous Peoples’ Customary Laws

59
 The indigenous peoples of the Philippines have been classified by Maceda, 1975 according to a typology

based on concepts of land ownership and tenure among various indigenous peoples, with the indigenous peoples

of the Cordillera considered the upland wet rice cultivators. These include the Bontoks, Ifugaos, Kankanaey,

Kalingas, and the other tribes of the Cordillera. Acquisition of land, to these people, remains primarily a matter

of occupying and then cultivating an area cleared of forest growth. These farmers then proceed to terrace the

hillside and plant it with the preferred crop, rice, whenever water is available. The first occupant to build a

terrace on a site is considered its owner. The acquisition of water rights is a necessary complement of land

ownership because without water the terraces would be of little value. Hillside clearings of land used for planting

root crops and vegetables followed the same system in which the land belongs to the first cultivator.

In this case, however, ownership is valid only until the land is reclaimed by forest growth. Once it reverts

to this condition it becomes once more the property of the whole community and, as such, is free for the taking

by the first person who clears it. If a piece of land is allowed to lie fallow, however, anybody intending to

cultivate it will need the permission of the owner or the first cultivator. A forest area may also be claimed by

families as their own. This gives them the exclusive right to whatever firewood, lumber, and other forest

products are derived from it. Land property may be alienated in any of the generally known ways: through sale,

barter, mortgage, or inheritance. Reports indicate that outsiders find it difficult to make land purchases. When

land is disposed of through inheritance, the best and most productive fields are reserved for the eldest son of the

family. Among the upland cultivators, land is considered the most important item among their possessions, and

the position of a person in his society will largely depend on the amount of productive land he can call his own.

B. Conflicts between State and Customary Land Laws

CUSTOMARY LAW OF THE INDIGENOUS PRESENT NATIONAL LAW

PEOPLES

WHO MAY OWN THE LAND

60
No one owns the land except the gods and Any individual who holds a Torrens
spirits. title may own alienable and disposable
land. The State owns all other land.
Those who work the land are its mere
stewards.

CUSTOMARY LAW OF THE INDIGENOUS PRESENT NATIONAL LAW

PEOPLES

TREATMENT OF THE LAND

Communal use and ownership, based on the State law primarily favors an individual’s
concept of communal property, are private ownership through such devices as
emphasized under customary law. This is individual homesteads and patent titles.
especially so in terms of ownership by “a Civil code frowns upon co-ownership. “The
group of individuals or families who are term ‘communal ownership’ is distinct from
related by blood or by marriage, or the civil code concept of co-ownership and
ownership by residents of the same locality the corporation law’s notion of corporate
who may not be related by blood or by ownership.
marriage.” However, there is provision for
individual ownership among indigenous
peoples (e.g., Kalingas and other tribes in the
Cordillera can consider a parcel of terraced
land or residential lot as his own property).
Individual ownership, however, is sanctioned
despite the preference for communal
ownership.

CRITERIA FOR ACQUISITION AND FORFEITURE OF LAND USE RIGHTS

The right to use land is primarily a Land is acquired through perfection of a

matter of actual use and occupancy. Persons Torrens title. Thus, the title can be sold and
assert control over land and acquire land-use bought, used for inheritance purposes, and
rights by virtue of their membership in an can be used as collateral in the event of debt.
indigenous community and the labor they When ownership is transferred from one
expend clearing the land and continuing to person to another, use and control of land is
cultivate it. When persons abandon the land, also transferred to the new owner.
the village, through the leader or council of
elders, has the right to allow someone else to
cultivate the land. In some cases, a piece of
land can be offered as a bride price or its
ownership is transferred to a son or daughter
who gets married. It is very rare (e.g.,
because of illness) that ownership of land is
transferred to someone outside of the
owner’s clan or his village.

CUSTOMARY LAW OF THE INDIGENOUS PRESENT NATIONAL LAW

61
 PEOPLES

AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE ALIENABILITY AND CLASSIFY LAND USES

The indigenous peoples themselves, through The State possesses sole authority to classify
their acknowledged leaders, or council of land uses and to determine the alienability of
elders, or whoever is the recognized land. The Chief Executive holds the
authority among various indigenous peoples authority to classify and declassify land,
in the Cordillera, possess the authority to although such power has been delegated to
declare which land is alienable and to the Director of Environment and Natural
classify land uses. Resources (used to be Forest Development)
who recommends to the President which
lands should be alienable.

PHILOSOPHICAL AND ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE

The underlying philosophy of customary
laws is communal rather than individual
ownership. It is rooted in a way of life and
has evolved out of a kinship-based and
communal mode of reduction; it is
inherently contradictory to the capitalist
economic system. Land is not a mere
commodity but a sacred and valuable
possession. The basic policy is preservation,
rather than alienation, of the property, for
the property is seen as domain rather than
just a piece of land.
The State’s system of land ownership and
registration is based upon a philosophy
rooted in the Western capitalist mode of
economic relationships. Land is treated as an
individual commodity, consistent with the
laissez-faire economic spirit. Land has to be
made easily alienable in order to promote
commerce and trade, as well as the
circulation and accumulation of capital. This
is enhanced by the system of registering land
conveyances. Instead of domain, land is the
object of registration. Legal structures and
concepts are rooted in Western
jurisprudence, and their colonial outgrowth
primarily facilitated the exploitation of
natural human resources.

The conflict between land laws imposed by the State and the customary land laws of indigenous peoples

will be traced from pre-contact times until the present time. National land laws and indigenous laws exist

simultaneously but independent of each other. And as a result of developing from very different historical origins

and evolving from different modes of production, the two systems of land law often contradict each other. The

conflict started with Spain. During its colonization of the Philippines in the 16th century, the concepts of land

ownership, the idea of private property, the volume of agricultural production, and the way the different groups

of people interacted changed drastically. The Spanish conquerors brought with them, among other things, their

own world view of land and its system of ownership and use. They armed themselves with a feudal theory known

62
as Jura Regalia – which later became the infamous Regalian Doctrine – and introduced this into the country

through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas. The Jura Regalia did not automatically mean absolute

ownership of the Philippine islands. But the colonists justified their appropriation of the islands to themselves

and the Crown through this legal fiction, which stated that, “henceforth, by virtue of conquest, all lands in the

archipelago belonged to the sovereign.” This piece of fiction then became and has since remained the theoretical

bedrock upon which Philippine land laws were based and which dealt a fatal blow to Philippine indigenous

concepts of land rights and land tenure.

During the American colonial period from 1898-1945, the American government used the same policy,

requiring settlers on public lands to obtain deeds from the government. This reveals that the Americans

understood the value of the Regalian doctrine as a legal basis for the state to hold property. The colonial

government introduced laws that reinforced the state’s control over the public domain, justifying it by saying

that there was no effective system of land registration during the Spanish period. The laws passed during that

period include the following;

a. The Land Registration Act No. 496 of 1902, which declared all lands subject to the Torrens system of

formal registration of land title and empowered the State to issue to any legitimate claimant secure proof of title

over a parcel of land. This system turned land into a commodity that could be traded by the exchange of a piece

of paper.

b.The Philippine Commission Act No. 178 of 1903, which ordered that all unregistered lands become part

of the public domain, and that only the State had the authority to classify or exploit the same. c.The Mining Law

of 1905, which gave the Americans the right to acquire public land for mining purposes. d.The Public Land Acts

of 1913, 1919 and 1925, which opened Mindanao and all other fertile lands that the State considered unoccupied,

unreserved, or otherwise unappropriated public lands to homesteaders and corporations, despite the fact that

indigenous peoples were living in these lands.

Aside from these laws, the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Carino v. Insular Government

in 1909 protected the vested rights of indigenous cultural communities of the Philippines over ancestral domains

63
that they have occupied since time immemorial. However, even if that holding is valid under present

jurisprudence, the authority of the case is now questionable in light of recent legislation.

Article XII of the Philippine Constitution of 1987 contains the provision that “all lands of the public

domain belong to the State.” State laws have been enacted that have effectively extinguished the right of

indigenous peoples to their lands such as Presidential Decree No. 705 (1975), also known as the Revised Forestry

Code of 1975, which declares all lands 18% in slope or over are automatically considered as forestland and

therefore not alienable and disposable unless released from the forest zone.

Most of the indigenous peoples claiming rights to their lands are found within these areas. Also added to

the 1987 Constitution were some provisions recognizing and promoting “the rights of indigenous cultural

communities within the framework of national unity and development” (Article II, Sec. 22) and creating

autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the Cordilleras (Article X, Secs. 15-19).

With all these laws on land and resources, “the indigenous peoples realized soon enough that, with

respect to land at least, there were now the national written law – rooted in and carried over from the country’s

colonial experience – and the customary unwritten tribal law. To their eternal consternation, they realized that

while it was they who defied colonialism and retained their unwritten indigenous law systems, they would end

up as disenfranchised cultural minorities. A conflict-ridden situation arose out of this historical accident. At the

heart of the problem is the lack of congruence between the customary law and the national law on the ownership

and use of land.

The newest law to protect the rights of the indigenous peoples in the Philippines is the Indigenous

Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA). It was enacted in November 1997 and is considered a landmark in legislation

for indigenous peoples. The IPRA is the first comprehensive law to recognize the rights of the indigenous peoples

of the Philippines. It recognizes the indigenous peoples’ rights to their ancestral lands and domain, and

specifically sets forth the indigenous concept of ownership. The law recognizes that indigenous peoples’

ancestral domain is community property that belongs to all generations. IPRA likewise recognizes the customs of

indigenous peoples and their right to self-governance and empowerment.

64
 However, there have been many criticisms of IPRA, especially in terms of its conflict with other existing

laws like the Philippine Mining Act of 1995. The differences in the concepts of land ownership and management

between the State and the indigenous peoples in the Philippines have led to a massive land grab of indigenous

peoples’ domain. Formal registration of land title has become a tool to convert communal ancestral lands into

individually titled private lands, especially in town centers and cities in the Cordillera, and has led to the

fragmentation of villages in the interior areas. There are many stories told by indigenous communities of

ancestral lands being fragmented and titled through fraud or legal circumvention by individuals and

corporations familiar with the Torrens system. In addition, even without formal title to land, corporations are

able to get licenses from the government to exploit the resources on ancestral lands for their own business

interests, such as mining, logging, and agricultural plantations. In these cases, the state enforces national land

laws to the detriment of those who have prior right to the land by ancient occupation under customary law.

In the Cordillera, classic examples of land grabbing primarily involve multinational corporations

appropriating large tracts of ancestral land from indigenous peoples in order to construct mines, hydroelectric

plants, and other business projects. One may argue that the indigenous peoples have as much a chance as non-

indigenous peoples to apply for a Torrens title to their ancestral land. However, the process of land titling is very

cumbersome, even for literate lowlanders. The procedure is so tedious that a tribal leader once complained,

“applying for a title is like going through the eye of a needle. Only the influential and moneyed go through but

the less moneyed are denied”.

The complaint is valid since the registration process incorrectly assumes that (1) all those interested in

applying for titles are literate and able to grasp Western legal practices; (2) that newspapers are readily available

even in the most isolated places of the country; and (3) that all applicants have the financial means and the time

to go through such costly procedures. In addition, many indigenous peoples are not aware that there is such a

thing as land titling.

The state’s insistence upon formal land laws and policies from the colonial governments to the present

administration reveals the longevity of the government’s efforts to impose the Western system of land ownership

upon all indigenous peoples. The state has made significant progress, especially given the benefit of collaboration
65
from local government officials and some of the indigenous peoples themselves who are gaining from this

process. These people include those educated in the lowlands, business people, local officials, and those who

joined paramilitary troops to advance their own or their families’ interests. This has happened because in the

post-colonial period, “The central, national government, informed by a philosophy of national integration, has

promulgated and attempted to implement land policies which have displaced and or dispossessed the indigenous

communities of their ancestral lands.

There have been several cases in the Cordillera region that show the State’s attempts to enforce the

national land law system through, and on the pretext of development projects. Some of the more celebrated

instances follow.

Granting Cellophil Resources Corporation of Timber and Pulpwood License Agreement No. 261 (under

DENR) in the 1970s. The agreement covered 99,625 hectares, and another 99,230 hectares covering the provinces

of Abra, Kalinga-Apayao, Mountain Province, Ilocos Sur and Norte, which was granted to a sister company. This

agreement, in effect, rendered the indigenous peoples of the Cordillera nonexistent, for it declared these areas

unoccupied.

Moreover, these areas were theoretically inalienable because they lie within the Cordillera Forest

Reservation.

Granting the Chico River Basin Hydro electrification Complex Project in the 1970s, despite its being

aggressively opposed by the Kalingas and the Bontocs. At the height of the indigenous peoples’ resistance,

President Marcos directed the Philippine Constabulary to arrest those who opposed the project. This led to the

killing of Macliing Dulag, a prominent indigenous leader. Building the Ambuklao and Binga dams in the 1950s,

which displaced 300 families in Benguet. In the 1970s, the Magat dam construction in Isabela submerged 5,100

hectares and affected 304 families.

Those displaced once more did not receive full payment for their lost land and were not relocated as

promised. The construction of the Marcos Park and Highway in Benguet also displaced 81 Ibaloy families without

fair compensation for their lands. Implementing the National Integrated Protected Areas Program (NIPAP) in

66
Mount Pulag in Benguet in the 1990s effectively deprived the Ibaloy, living in and around the mountain, of their

right to utilize the natural resources that had traditionally sustained them.

The NIPAS Act endeavors to map and zone areas to be preserved for ecological reasons. It limits the entry

of indigenous peoples and their economic activities into areas such as watersheds and national parks. It

effectively curtails the rights of indigenous peoples to utilize the natural resources that sustain them.

The Mining Act of 1995 facilitates the entry of large foreign and local mining corporations to enter the

mineral-rich territories of indigenous peoples. It opens up the mining sector to 100% foreign control. Most of the

exploration permits applications for Financial and Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAA) and Mineral

Production Sharing Agreements (MPSA), and mining operations cover ancestral lands of the indigenous peoples.

The law further entrenches continued mining operations in the Cordillera which hosts two of the biggest mining

corporations, namely, Philex Mining Corporation and Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company. Mining

companies already cover about 18,392 hectares, but existing and potential mining firms are still engaged in

further exploration and expansion. Mining applications in the Cordillera cover roughly 1.4 million hectares, or

more than three-fourths of the region’s total land area.

Module II-Final Examination Coverage

IPRA: Landmark Legislation?

The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), or Republic Act 8371, is considered a landmark law. It is a

comprehensive piece of legislation that includes not only the rights of indigenous peoples over their ancestral

domain but also their rights to social justice and human rights, self-governance, and empowerment as well as

cultural integrity. In the discussions below, key concepts like indigenous law, state law, and custom law will be

used to frame the initial assessment of the IPRA. L.A. Gimenez’ work proved to be very useful here as the study

focused on an Ibaloy community in Benguet.

For Gimenez, customary law is something that is “evolved, defined, transformed or innovated by the

people/community over time.” In her study of Itogon, a mining community in the province of Benguet, Northern
67
Philippines, she found that the people have their own definitions, descriptions and classification of lands and

land rights.

State Law, on the one hand, was defined by Wiber as a “rule-centered approach” that is utilitarian and

focused on self-interest. She further distinguished indigenous law and customary law as follows: Indigenous law

refers to local traditions which, although influenced by outside contacts throughout their history, were until

recently part of a ‘totalitarian ideal’ of their own. Customary law refers to the transformed normative orders

which resulted in local communities when indigenous law and state law interacted over time.

The Cordillera Peoples’ Alliance, a regional alliance of indigenous people’s organizations, holds a similar

view – that indigenous law cannot be reconciled with national land law (state law). The two bodies of law

originate from disparate contexts that involve different histories and views on land issues and land rights. This

view is supported in Karl Gaspar’s study of the Lumads in Mindanao when he states that “there is lack of

congruence between customary law and national law on the ownership and use of land which results in a

conflict-ridden situation. “He goes on to describe the many ways in which customary law and national law differ,

including the concept of land ownership, the treatment of land acquisition, the right to use lands, mechanisms of

forfeiture, land classification, alienation, and, finally, the philosophy and economic theory underlying each

system of law.

As Gimenez would say, customary law therefore could incorporate elements of state law. In many cases

though, customary law is equivalent to indigenous law, which is also equivalent to tradition. What is interesting

to note is that the indigenous peoples, in an effort to secure and protect their lands and the resources therein,

have learned to take the middle ground by using state law instruments but at the same time adhering to the

customary law. The indigenous peoples’ experiences with state laws have much to say about this growing

phenomenon:

The IPRA Law

The IPRA echoes the “progressive” provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as found in Section 2 of

IPRA. The 1987 Constitution, Sec. 22, Article II recognizes and protects the rights of indigenous peoples; Section
68
4, Article XII protects the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral domains in order to ensure their

economic, social, and cultural well-being. This section also recognizes customary laws governing property rights

or relations and their validity in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domains. Section 6, Article

XIII and Section 17, Article XIV are also found in Section 2 of the IPRA. IPRA likewise upholds the U.N. Draft

Declaration on the Indigenous Peoples, which emphasizes the collective rights of indigenous peoples, as well as

the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169, or the Convention Concerning Indigenous and

Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. Certain groups, however, hold a different view. The Cordillera Peoples’

Alliance sees the IPRA as a law that was “hastily” signed by President Fidel Ramos in October 1997 just before his

term was about to end. The Cordillera Peoples’ Alliance would label this law and other land instruments as

deceptive, because these devices still operate on the principles of the Regalian Doctrine imposed during the

Spanish regime, which places ownership of public lands in the State. Because the doctrine has never been

formally invalidated, it continues to deny indigenous peoples’ rights to their ancestral lands and resources to this

day.

REFERENCES

Asian Development Bank. (2002). Indigenous Peoples/Ethnic Minorities and Poverty Reduction in the

Philippines. Manila, Philippines.

Cariño, Jacqueline K. (2012).Country Technical Notes on Indigenous Peoples Issues. Republic of the Philippines.

De Vera, David E. (2007). Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines: A Country Case Study. Presented at the RNIP

Regional Assembly Hanoi, Vietnam August 20-26, 2007

International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA). (2009). The Indigenous World 2009. Copenhagen,

Denmark.

Molintas, Jose M. (2004).The Philippine Indigenous Peoples Struggle for Land and Life: Challenging Legal Texts.

Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law.Vol 21, No. 1 2004.

National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) http://www.ncip.gov.ph/

69
Ocampo-Tan, Marco C. and Frances C. Roberto. (2019). IP Inclusion in Nationalized Spaces of Learning. The

Guidon. Published on December 21, 2019 at 5:25 PM from the November - December 2019 print issue.

Valdeavilla, Ronica. (2018). A Guide to the Indigenous Tribes of the Philippines.

70