Genetic Resources,

Traditional Knowledge, and

Traditional Cultural Expressions
Beyond IP Mastercourse, IPOPhl
20 October 2020

Atty. JEANETTE A. FLORITA

Executive Director
Tanggapang Panligal ng Katutubong Pilipino (PANLIPI)
Biological Resources as defined in Joint
DENR-DA-PCSD-NCIP administrative Order
No.1, series of 2005

´ Includes genetic resources, organisms or parts thereof,

populations, or any other biotic component of
ecosystems with actual or potential use or value for
humanity

GENETIC RESOURCES as used in international covenants refer to all living

organisms (plants, animals and microbes) that have genetic material that
can be useful
1. IN SITU – those found within ecosystems and natural habitats
2. EX SITU – those found in botanical gardens, commercial or university
collections
TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
´ Knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous peoples and local
communities
´ Developed from the experience and practice acquired over the centuries and
adapted to the local culture and environment
´ It is transmitted orally over generations
´ It tends to be the collective property and takes the form of stories, songs,
folklore, proverbs, cultural values, beliefs, rituals, community laws, local
languages and agricultural practices, including the development of plant
species and animal breeds

It plays a fundamental role in the lives of indigenous peoples in view of its

cultural, economic, social and spiritual values. Knowledge about medicinal
plants, seed selections, forests, native species is essential for livelihoods and
identity.

* CBD training materials

TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
ASSOCIATED WITH GENETIC RESOURCES
´Traditional knowledge that relates to use of
biological resources may be an important
source of information to identify new uses of
genetic resources.
TRADITIONAL CULTURAL EXPRESSIONS
´ May be considered as the forms in which traditional culture is
expressed;
´ They form part of the identity and heritage of a traditional or
indigenous community
´ Are passed down from generation to generation

They are fundamental to the identities of indigenous peoples, exemplify

knowledge, systems, practices and skills, and serve as vehicles in the transfer
and/or sharing of a community’s values, morals, ideals, principles and beliefs.

Their protection is related to the promotion of creativity, enhanced cultural

diversity and cultural heritage.

*sourced from the WIPO website

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

Indigenous Peoples refer to Filipinos who have

continuously lived as organized communities in defined territories
(ancestral domains) since time immemorial, and they have
retained some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and
political institutions

IPs include those who may have been displaced from

their domains or may have resettled outside their ancestral
domains
There are 110 ethno-linguistic groups
comprising the Philippine ICCs/IPs with a
population of about 17 million (as of 2010)
THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES…THEN AND NOW

At the time when there

was no country nor
state to speak of, there
was THE COMMUNITY -
governed by rules, with
specific territory,
exercising power and
authority, and
practicing a way of life
distinct from the rest or
other communities,
which way of life
continued to evolve.
DARK AGES CAME WHEN OUTSIDERS SUCCESSFULLY
ACCOMPLISHED THE FORCIBLE TAKING OF WHAT THE
COMMUNITIES OWNED, AND WORSE, THEY WERE DRIVEN
AWAY FROM THE PLACE THEY CALLED HOME

INTEGRATION

ASSIMILATION

PACIFICATION

DIVIDE AND
RULE
RECOGNITION
The 1987 Philippine Constitution expressly provides for
the recognition of and respect for the rights of
indigenous peoples:

Sec. 20, Art. 2 - Recognition & Promotion of IP rights

Sec. 4, Art.12 - Protection of the rights of IPs to their ancestral

domains to ensure their economic, social and cultural well-being
and the recognition of the applicability of customary laws
governing property rights

Sec.6, Art. 13 - Recognition of prior rights of IPs to their ancestral

lands

Sec.15, Art. 14 - IPs right to preserve and develop culture, tradition

and institutions in relation to the formulation of national plans and
policies
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT OF 1997 (IPRA)
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8371

´ Signed into law on October 29, 1997

´ Landmark legislation to correct historical injustice and
enforce constitutional mandates
´ Observe International Norms, i.e. UNDRIP and ILO 169
 RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
• Rights to Ancestral Domains and
Lands
• Right to Self-Governance and
Empowerment
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Cultural Integrity

´ The State shall endeavor to have the

dignity and diversity of the cultures,
traditions, histories and aspirations of the
ICCs/IPs appropriately reflected in all
forms of education, public information
and cultural educational exchange.
Section 32 of IPRA – Community
Intellectual Rights
´ ICCs/IPs have the right to practice and revitalize their
own cultural traditions and customs. The state shall
preserve, protect and develop the past, present and
future manifestations of their cultures as well as the right
to the restitution of cultural, intellectual, religious, and
spiritual property taken without their free and prior
informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions
and customs.
Section 34 of IPRA – Right to Indigenous
Knowledge Systems and Practices and to
Develop Own Sciences and Technologies
´ ICCs/IPs are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership and
control and protection of their cultural and intellectual rights. They
shall have the right to special measures to control, develop and
protect their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations,
including human and other genetic resources, seeds, including
derivatives of these resources, traditional medicines and health
practices, vital medicinal plants, animals and minerals, indigenous
knowledge systems and practices, knowledge of the properties of
fauna and flora, oral traditions, literature, designs, and visual and
performing arts
Section 35 of the IPRA – Access to
Biological and Genetic Resources
´ Access to biological and genetic resources and to
indigenous knowledge related to the conservation,
utilization and enhancement of these resources, shall be
allowed within ancestral lands and domains of the
ICCs/IPs only with a free and prior consent of such
communities, obtained in accordance with customary
laws of the concerned community.
POLICIES RELATING TO GRs, TKs, and TCEs
´ EO 245 (1995) – Guidelines and Regulatory Framework for the Prospecting of Biological
and Genetic Resources, their By-Products and Derivatives, for Scientific and
Commercial Purposes and for other purposes
´ NCCA Schools of Living Traditions (SLT) Guidelines (guidelines are undated, but the
SLT program was established in 1995)
´ RA 8423 – Traditional and Alternative Medicine Act of 1997
´ DENR-DA-PCSD-NCIP JAO 1 s. 2005 – Guidelines for Bioprospecting Activities in the
Philippines
´ RA 10066 – National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009
´ RA 10066 – National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009
´ NCIP AO 3 s. 2012 – Revised Guidelines on the Exercise of FPIC and related processes
´ IPOPHL-NCIP JAO 1 s. 2016 –
´ Rules and Regulations on Intellectual Property Rights Application and Registration
Protecting the IKSPs of IPs/ICCs
EO 245 (1995) – Sets out the State policy of regulating the prospecting of biological
and genetic resources so that these resources are protected and conserved, are
developed and put to the sustainable use and benefit of the national interest.

´ Sec 2 – Prospecting of biological and genetic resources in ancestral lands and

domains shall only be allowed with the prior informed consent of the IPs, obtained in
accordance with their customary laws.
´ Sec 3 – A Research Agreement with the relevant government agency (DENR, DOH,
DA, DOST) is required before any person may begin prospecting of biological and
genetic resources activities, whether for commercial or academic purposes. However,
traditional uses of biological resources by indigenous and local communities shall not
require a Research Agreement.
´ Sec 5 – The Research Agreement must include (among others) a provision for the
payment of royalties to the National Government, local or indigenous cultural
community and individual person or designated beneficiary in case commercial use is
derived from the biological and genetic resources taken. Where appropriate and
applicable, other forms of compensation may be negotiated.
NCCA Schools of Living Traditions (SLT) Guidelines - The SLT program aims to provide
a venue where a culture specialist/master, who embodies the skills and techniques of a
particular traditional art form, imparts to a group of interested youth the skills and
techniques of such form. Specifically, the program aims to identify aspects/components
of traditional culture and art considered to be important to a cultural community and have
to be transferred to the young so that these aspects can be perpetuated.

´ Sec. 1.1 – To establish an SLT, a master/specialist of a traditional craft as well as the young
people who are interested in learning the craft. The NCCA will provide honorarium for the
master and incentives for the students, such as food, transportation and materials needed for
the training. It should be understood, however, that the support for the master is to recognize
him for his primacy and leadership in his field and in elevating further his stature rather than
because he is a salaried government employee.
´ Sec. 1.3 – Directs that a holistic training shall be observed. This means the training shall not
only focus on the practical aspect but also on the philosophical aspect to ensure that everyone
involved in the program understands its objectives. Some sessions may be used to inculcate
cultural awareness and the need to preserve and promote one’s cultural heritage.
´ Sec. 1.4 – Emphasizes that the major concern of the program is to teach the really pure form
of traditional arts; commercial production may be pursued by the participants later but is not
the concern of the program.
RA 8423 Traditional and Alternative Medicine Act of 1997– Sets out the State
policy of seeking a legally workable basis by which indigenous societies would
own their knowledge of traditional medicine. When such knowledge is used by
outsiders, the indigenous societies can require the permitted users to
acknowledge its source and can demand a share of any financial return that may
come from its authorized commercial use

´ Sec 3 – Among the law’s objectives is the formulation of policies for the protection of
indigenous and natural health resources from unwarranted exploitation. These policies
may still need to be adopted by the appropriate agencies.
´ Sec 12 – Creates a traditional an alternative health care advocacy and research
program. The Philippine Institute of Traditional and Alternative Health Care (PITAHC) is
tasked with formulating and implementing a research program on the indigenous
Philippine traditional health care practices performed by traditional healers using
scientific research methodologies.
DENR-DA-PCSD-NCIP JAO 1 s. 2005 – Sets out the State policy of regulating the
prospecting of biological resources so that these resources are conserved, developed
and used sustainably in accordance with the national interest and ensuring that prior
informed consent is obtained from resource providers before allowing any
bioprospecting activity, as well as the fair and equitable sharing with the resource
providers of benefits derived from the utilization of biological resources
´ Sec 6 – Bioprospecting shall be allowed only upon execution of a Bioprospecting Undertaking (BU),
between the resource user and the Secretary of the DA and/or DENR. The NCIP shall sit in the
technical committees whenever the bioprospecting activity involves ancestral domains or lands.
´ Sec 8 – The resource user shall seek the PIC/FPIC of resource providers. The resource user shall
also negotiate for benefit sharing with resource providers, where the grant of the PIC/FPIC may be
conditioned on the terms of the benefit sharing.
´ Sec 10 – Access to biological resources does not imply automatic access to traditional knowledge
associated with these resources. Should the resource user intend to access associated TK, this
should be explicit in the research proposal.
´ Sec 13 – Provides guidelines for prior informed consent, which are suppletory to the relevant
regulations under IPRA
´ Sec 14 – Provides general guidelines for benefit-sharing arrangements
´ Sec 20 – For monetary benefits intended for the IPs, the funds should be used consistent with their
ADSDPP. In the absence of the ADSDPP, the NCIP shall determine the proper disposition of the
funds.
RA 10066 – National Cultural Heritage Act of 2009 sets out the NCIP policy of a)
ensuring and guaranteeing IPs right to FPIC prior to research and documentation
of their IKSPs and customary laws and their derivatives 
and b) regulating the use of
IKSPs and customary laws and ensuring that IPs benefit from research outputs and
outcomes

´ Sec. 8 – Provides a common procedure for research and documentation of IKSPs and
customary laws, except biological and genetic prospecting and commercial research
´ Sec. 9 – Lists benefits that communities may be entitled to from the research, including
royalties, user fees and non-monetary benefits that are acceptable to all parties.
´ Sec. 17 – Establishes a registry of IKSPs and customary laws under the NCIP OPPR
´ Sec. 18 – Establishes that ownership of the research or documentation shall belong to:
a) the community, if initiated, solicited or conducted by the community themselves,
when undertaken within or affecting the ancestral domain or b) the community and the
research proponent, jointly, if the research is conducted by a non-member of the
community. If copyright over the research output is sought, it shall also involve the
community concerned
NCIP AO 3 s. 2012 – Revised Guidelines on the Exercise of FPIC and
related processes sets out the State policy of strengthening the
exercise by IPs of their rights to Ancestral Domains, Social Justice
and Human Rights, Self-Governance and Empowerment, and
Cultural Integrity and recognizing the right of IPs to the management,
development, use and utilization of their land and resources within
their own ancestral domains

´ Sec. 19 – Considers bioprospecting and related activities as

extractive, intrusive and large-scale projects that must undergo
the full FPIC process
IPOPHL-NCIP JAO 1 s. 2016, Rules and Regulations on Intellectual Property
Rights Application and Registration Protecting the IKSPs of IPs/ICCs - The policy
seeks to provide harmonized rules and an institutional arrangement between
IPOPHL and NCIP to prevent misappropriation of IKSPs of IPs/ICCs and encourage
tradition-based creations and innovations

´ Rule 5 – Recognizes the right of IPs/ICCs to regulate access to their IKSPs for research
and documentation, and their right to own, control, develop and protect the past,
present and future manifestations of their cultures
´ Rule 6 – Provides for rules on disclosure of IKSPs in intellectual property rights
applications. The rule also allows IPOPHL to refer the application to the NCIP for
purposes of verifying the use and ownership of the IKSP and compliance with FPIC.
´ Rule 8 – Establishes a registry of IKSPs for IPOPHL to use in its evaluation of
applications
´ Rule 9 – Authorizes the NCIP to certify ownership of the IKSP by IPs/ICCs
House Bill 2163 (2016) – Access and Benefit Sharing from the Utilization of Philippine
Genetic Resources Act – Sets out the State policy of securing the fair and equitable
sharing of benefits from the utilization of genetic resources in the country in order to
generate wealth for poverty alleviation

´ Sec. 6 – Directs the appropriate agency to enact policy and administrative measures
to provide that traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources utilized within
the Philippines have been accessed in accordance with FPIC and mutually agreed
terms required by domestic legislation or the UNCBD and Nagoya Protocol
´ Sec. 8 – Provides that customary laws and community protocols of IPs shall apply
the first instance in matters relating to access and benefit sharing from the utilization
of IKSP, including traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources.
Draft NCCA Guidelines on the Emergency Registration of Cultural Properties to the
Philippine Registry of Cultural Property (2020) – seeks to protect cultural properties
especially those that are exceptionally at risk due to imminent threat and natural and man
made disasters, by undertaking the identification of unaccounted cultural properties and
facilitating their registration

´ Sec. 6 – The guidelines would apply to (among others) presumed cultural

properties initially unaccounted for by LGUs and other interested parties which are
especially in significant risk of being damaged, lost, or compromised due to natural
and man-made detrimental effects
´ Sec. 7 – Emergency registration of cultural properties would apply if: 1) in case of
built structures, there are signs of imminent threat, such as demolition or relocation;
2) it is situated in a danger zone, as confirmed by the community, LGU or relevant
government agencies (PhiVolcS, NAMRIA, NDRRMC etc.) or 3) it is situated in an
area with armed conflict (among others)
The NEEM TREE of India – a classic case of
biopiracy
´ More than a dozen US patents have been granted since 1985 US and
Japanese firms on various formulae for neem-based solutions and
emulsions, including toothpaste, of these patents, at least four are owned
by W R Grace.
´ Grace was very aggressive in securing information on Indian neem
production which provoked a chorus of objections from Indian scientists,
farmers and political activists.
´ In one of its patent applications, W R Grace was granted by European
Patent Office. Six years after the grant, however, the patent was revoked
for having been challenged by Green party politicians in the European
Parliament and other pressure groups.
…NEEM TREE

´ Oppositors argued who assert that, “multinational companies have no right to

expropriate the fruit of centuries of indigenous experimentation and several
decades of Indian scientific research. This has stimulated a bitter
transcontinental debate about the ethics of intellectual property and patent
rights.”

´ It was reported that at a hearing in Munich, it was proved by the manager of

an Indian agriculture company “that he had been using an extract of neem
tree oil for the same purpose as described in the patent several years before it
was filed.”

´ Consequently, the EPO said the method couldn't be patented.

Philippine Sea Snail and Biopiracy
´ “The drug, called SNX 111, was considered the most powerful painkiller ever
discovered—being 1,000 times stronger than morphine—is a product of peptides
from the Philippine sea snail (Conus magus) found in Palawan. It was pirated
allegedly with the help of researchers from a government state university for the
US-based pharmaceutical Neurex Inc. and University of Utah. It was reported that
sales of the painkiller have reached $80 million annually with nary a centavo for
the Philippines.”

´ “SNX 111 is worth more outside the United States as it is highly in demand in
battlefields that dot so many spots in the world today.”

´ “Neurex has, likewise, patented the use of the snail toxins to treat victims of stroke
under US patent numbers 5,189,020, 5,559,095 and 5,587,454, Fowler and Mooney
bared in their 270 page book.”

*sourced from Bengwayan

MARAMING SALAMAT PO!
AG YAMANAK!