1

The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) 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 On Indigenous Peoples, Establishing Implementing
Mechanisms, Appropriating Funds Therefor, and For Other Purposes

OVERVIEW

As of November 2022 the Philippines has an estimated One

hundred sixteen million (116,000,000) Filipinos, in the Philippine
islands, there are group who are recognized as indigenous people which
composed between 10-20% of the total population with 134 ethnic
groups recognized by the state.

In 1523, upon colonization when the Spaniards conquered the

Philippines, they used the Regalian Doctrine which is “All lands of the
Philippines became the property of the King of Spain” and forcibly took
the properties of the inhabitants. As a result of the colonization, those
who did not convert to christianity or recognized the Spanish Rule are
labeled as indigenous people. This doctrine is ensconced under Art 12
sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution

Before the end of governance of Spain, they enacted the Maura

Law in 1895 proposed by Manuel Bernaldez, this law had the purpose
in order to reduce controversy and litigation over land ownership,
Bernaldez had called for Spain to require landowners to acquire official
documentation of their land ownership and implemented a one year
grace period to title application.

During the American Era several laws were passed which are:

Philippine Bill of 1902 which set the ceilings on the hectares of

private individuals and corporations may acquire: 16 has. for private
individuals and 1,024 has. for corporations.
 2

Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) which provide for a
comprehensive registration of land titles under the Torrens system
 1

Public Land Act of 1903 which introduced the homestead system

in the Philippines. Superseded by Act 2874 in 1919, recognized the right
of ownership of any native of the country who, since July 4, 1907, or
prior thereto, has continuously occupied and cultivated, either by
himself or through his predecessors-in-interest, a tract of agricultural
public land.

The enactment of the Mining Act of 1905 allowed acquisition of

public land including IP territories, which the refuted land and
ownership of the IP’s non-existent. The landmark case of Cariño v.
Insular Government (1909) tackled the use of indigenous land for
public and military purposes, ruled in favor of indigenous culture
communities in 1909 due to the recognition of IPs’ rights which later
known as “Native Title Doctrine” which put doubt to the applicability of
the Regalian Doctrine because it holds that land regarded by the tribal
people as their own by native customs and long association had ceased
to be public land, which the US Supreme court held in its ruling:

“It is hard to believe that the United States was ready

to declare in the next breath that ‘any person’ did not
embrace the inhabitants of Benguet, or that it meant by
‘property’ only that which had become such by ceremonies
of which presumably a large part of the inhabitants never
had heard, and that it proposed to treat as public land what
they, by native custom and by long association, - one of the
profoundest factors in human thought, - regarded as their
own.”

Mateo Cariño vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S 449

Facts:

Mateo Cariño is an Igorot of the province of Benguet. For

more than 50 years before the Treaty of Paris, April 11, 1899, he and
his grandfather had lived upon it, and had maintained fences sufficient
for the holding of cattle. His father had cultivated parts and had used
parts for pasturing cattle, and he had used it for pasture in his turn.
They all had been recognized as owners by the Igorot and he had
 2

inherited or received the land from his father, in accordance with Igorot
custom. He applied for the registration of a certain land.

There was no document of title issued for the land when he

applied for registration. The government contends that the land in
question belonged to the state. Under the Spanish Law, all lands
belonged to the Spanish Crown except those with permit private titles.
Moreover, there is no prescription against the Crown.

In 1893 -1894 and 1896 -1897; he made an application but with

no avail. In 1901, the plaintiff filed a petition, alleging ownership,
under the mortgage law, and the lands were registered to him, that
process, however, establishing only possessory title. Even if the
applicant have title, he cannot have it registered, because the Philippine
Commission's Act No. 926, of 1903, excepts the Province of Benguet
among others from its operation

Issue:

Whether the land in question belonged to the Spanish Crown

under the Regalian Doctrine

Ruling:

No. Law and justice require that the applicant should be granted
title to his land. The United States Supreme Court, through Justice
Holmes declared:

“It might perhaps, be proper and sufficient to say that when, as

far as testimony or memory goes, the land has been held by individuals
under a claim of private ownership, it will be presumed to have been
held in the same way from before the Spanish conquest, and never to
have been public land.”

There is an existence of native title to land, or ownership of land

by Filipinos by virtue of possession under a claim of ownership since
time immemorial and independent of any grant from the Spanish
Crown, as an exception to the theory of (jura regalia) Regalian
Doctrine.
 3

This case also gave the requisites of the Native title which are:

a. The land was not registered, and therefore became, if it was not
always, public land.

b. Spanish Law: "Where such possessors shall not be able to produce

title deeds, it shall be sufficient if they shall show that ancient
possession, as a valid title by prescription." For cultivated land, 20
years, uninterrupted, is enough, for uncultivated, 30 years.

c. Every native who had not a paper title is not a trespasser.

d. Applicant's possession was not unlawful, and no attempt at any such

proceedings against him or his father ever was made.

e. There must be a presumption against the government when a private

individual claims property as his or her own. It went so far as to say that
the lands will be deemed private absent contrary proof.1

As also held in J. H. Ankron vs. The Government of the

Philippine Islands held that “the courts have a right to presume, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, that in each case the lands are
agricultural lands until the contrary is shown. Thus, where the land is
agricultural public land, it may be the subject of a petition for
registration.”

Commonwealth Act No.141, amended by R.A. 3872 of 1964,

which provides that members of the national cultural minorities who
have resided on agricultural, public land since July 4, 1955, are entitled
to recognition of ownership whether or not the land has been certified
as "disposable." They shall be conclusively presumed to have
 4

performed all conditions essential to a government grant and shall be

entitled to a certificate of title.

1. Mateo Cariñ o vs. Insular Government, 212 U.S 449

2. J. H. ANKRON, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS; G.R. No. L-14213 . August 23, 1919

Bureau of Forestry Administrative Order No. 11 of 1970, the law

protecting indigenous people's lands expanded which later added in The
Revised Forestry Code of 1975 (Presidential Decree 705 under
President Marcos) that all forest concessions were made subject to the
private rights of cultural minorities within the area as evidenced by
their occupation existing at the time a license is issued by the
government defining it as a "private right" of as "places of abode and
worship, burial grounds and old clearings.”

The establishment of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, created

salient provisions in favor of the Indigenous peoples which are the
following:

Article II, Sec. 22 provides “The State recognizes and

promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities
within the framework of national unity and development”

This provision as full recognition of the Indigenous peoples as

fellow Filipinos, are also given equal constitutional rights under the
State’s jurisdiction. As embodied by the Bill of rights, the right to life,
liberty and property.

Article XII, Section 5 provides “The State, subject to

the provisions of this Constitution and national
development policies and programs, shall protect the rights
of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral
lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well
being.
 5

The Congress may provide for the applicability of

customary laws governing property rights or relations in
determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain

This provision entrusts Congress in creating and passing laws in

favor of the indigenous peoples that will later on create IPRA Law. The
property ownership of the IP’s also have the bundle of rights to it.

Art XIII Section 6 provides The State shall apply the

principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever
applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or
utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the
public domain under lease or concession suitable to
agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of
small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to
their ancestral lands.

The provision is in pursuit of social justice which also the rights

of indigenous people to ancestral lands, to use for agricultural purposes
and in accordance with their culture and traditions. This right to in

Article XIV, Section 17 provides “The State shall

recognize, respect and protect the rights of indigenous
cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures,
traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in
the formulation of national plans and policies.”

The provision reflects the State’s recognition through national

plans and policies for better communication with the people especially
the Indigenous people, to respect and protection in relation to culture,
traditions and institutions.

Lastly in 1997, Republic Act 8371 “Indigenous Peoples Rights

Act (IPRA)” which was enacted in October 29.1997.

In accordance to Sec. 7, Chapter III of RA 8371, ICCs/IPs have

the right to the utilization, control, development, management, and
conservation of natural resources within their ancestral domain.
 6

The constitutionality of this law as questioned in the case of Cruz

et al vs DENR (2000) where petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa
filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers,
assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No.
8371.They complained, among others, that the provisions amounted to
an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the
public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein,
and that they granted ownership over these natural resources to
indigenous peoples. Thus they were unco

The Supreme Court ruled it’s constitutionality that “to

recapitulate (1) The provisions of the IPRA (specifically Sections 3,
paragraphs (a) and (b), 5, 6, 7, and 8) affirming the ownership by the
indigenous peoples of their ancestral lands and domains by virtue of
native title do not diminish the State’s ownership of lands of the public
domain, because said ancestral lands and domains are considered as
private land, and never to have been part of the public domain,
following the doctrine laid down in Cariño vs. Insular Government; ….

(2) … Moreover, the rights granted to indigenous peoples for the

utilization of natural resources within their ancestral domains merely
amplify what has been earlier granted to them under the aforesaid laws

(3) While the IPRA recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples

with regard to their ancestral lands and domains, it also protects the
vested rights of persons, whether indigenous or non-indigenous peoples,
who may have acquired rights of ownership lands or rights to explore
and exploit natural resources within the ancestral lands and domains.

The provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution.

Examining the IPRA, there is nothing in the law that grants to the
ICCs/IPs ownership over the natural resources within their ancestral
domain. Ownership over the natural resources in the ancestral domains
remains with the State and the rights granted by the IPRA to the
ICCs/IPs over the natural resources in their ancestral domains merely
gives them, as owners and occupants of the land on which the resources
are found, the right to the small scale utilization of these resources, and
at the same time, a priority in their large scale development and
 7

exploitation. Moreover, ancestral lands and ancestral domains are not

part of the lands of the public domain. They are private lands and
belong to the ICCs/IPs by native title, which is a concept of private land
title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State. However,
the right of ownership and possession by the ICCs/IPs of their ancestral
domains is a limited form of ownership and does not include the right to
alienate the same.

What is the difference between Regalian Doctrine and Native Title?

In a separate opinion by Justice Leonen in the same case that

“the regalian doctrine's application is not as expansive as it may appear
in the ponencia. I do not agree that it is a fundamental tenet of our land
ownership and registration laws” This position was further affirmed
when the 1987 Constitution limited the State's ownership to lands of
public domain. Contrary to the regalian doctrine, not all lands are
presumed to be owned by the State. 6 Article XII, Section 2.

While 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. To which these properties were never part
of the public domain and owned by the Indigenous people since time
immemorial.

CHAPTER 1

The Indigenous People Rights Act of 1997

Who are Indigenous Cultural Communities /Indigenous Peoples

(ICCs/IPs)?

According to Sec 3 (h) of IPRA it 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,
 8

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;

To reticulate IPs and ICC are Filipinos who forms homogenous

societies that continuously lived as organized community bounded and
defined territory that occupied, possessed and utilized such territories
since time immemorial under claims of ownership. Sharing common
bonds of language, customs, traditions, and other distinct cultural traits
or who have become historically differentiated from the majority of the
Filipinos.

Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Land

Sec. 3(a) defines Ancestral Domain - Subject to

Section 56 hereof, refers 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
 9

alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds,

burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral and
other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be
exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they
traditionally had access to for their subsistence and
traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of
ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators;

Sec 3(b) defines 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;

IP’s and ICC as Filipinos also have the right to ownership to

property which is the Ancestral Domains/ Land which refers to all
areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs, held under a claim of communal
and private ownership by ICCs/IPs since time immemorial .

The Right to ownership of Ancestral Domain or land covers not only

the physical environment but the total environment including the
spiritual and cultural bonds to the areas.

However, Ancestral Domain is private in character but is a

community property, cannot be sold, disposed of or destroyed.

What are the Rights to Ancestral Domain or Ancestral land?

Under Sec 7 of IPRA These are the Right of ownership; Right to

develop lands and natural resources; Right to stay in the territories; and
Right to regulate entry of migrants.
 10

CHAPTER 2

Right to Ownership

How do IP/ICC prove Ownership of Ancestral Domain or Land?

First is the Native Title, which established the right of private

ownership of IP/ICC in the case of Cariño vs Insular Government now
under Sec 3 (l) which 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.

Second is Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) which

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; or

Is the Certificate of Ancestral Lands Title (CALT) that refers to a

title formally recognizing the rights of ICCs/IPs over their ancestral
lands;

The Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT) only recognizes

the rights of the ICCs/IPs to the ancestral land as a dwelling, while the
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) allows ICCs/IPs to use
the ancestral land to profit from it or enrich their cultural heritage.

Procedure and Requirements for the issuance of CADT/CALT

The process of acquiring a CADT/CALT are:

1. Filing of Application/Petition;
2. Initial Review and Evaluation;
3. Preparation of Work and Financial Plan;
4. Notification of Delineation Activities to Stakeholders;
5. Community Wide Information, Education, Consultation;
6. Validation of the List of Elders/Leaders or Authorized Reps;
7. Data Gathering and Documentation;
8. Ocular Inspection
 11

9. Resolution of Conflicts/Disputes
10.Validation of Proofs
11.Preparation of Social Preparation Accomplishment Report
(SPAR) for Issuance of Work Order/Survey Authority
12.Commencement of Survey Activities
13.Survey Returns; Initial Verification and Projection
14.Community/Applicant Survey Plan Validation
15.Notice and Publication of CADT/CALT Application
16.Approval of the Survey Plan
17.Preparation of Recognition Book
18.Review by the RRB (Regional Review Body)
19.Endorsement by the Regional Director
20. Review by the ADO (Ancestral Domains Office)
21.Deliberation by the Commission (by Division and En Banc)
22.Preparation and Signing of CADT/CALT
23.Registration of CADT/CALT in Register of Deeds
24.Awarding of CADT/CALT

Responsibilities of the IP/ICC

Maintain Ecological Balance: To safeguard the native flora and

wildlife, watershed areas, and other protected places to preserve,
restore, and maintain a balanced ecosystem in the ancestral realm;

Restore Denuded Areas: To actively start, take on, and participate

in reforestation efforts in denuded areas as well as other development
projects, with fair and acceptable compensation;

Observe Laws: To adhere to the requirements of RA No. 8371’s

provisions and any rules or guidelines that may be necessary for its
proper execution.

What are the other rights of IP/ICC as to property?

As to Ancestral Domain Owners, these are the right of ownership,

right to develop and manage lands and natural resources, right to stay
in territories, right in case of displacement, right to regulate the entry of
 12

migrants, right to claim reservations, right to safe and clean air and
water, right to resolve conflicts through customary law.

While as Ancestral Land Owners they have the Right to transfer

ancestral lands (within members of the same ICCs/IPs and pursuant to
customary law) and Right to redeem ancestral lands lost through
vitiated consent or was obtained by bad faith by non-IP members.

Ownership under the IPRA Law and the New Civil Code (which is old)

Ownership as defined by Atty. Enrique C. Rodriguez Jr. from the

New Era University College of Law defines it as:

“An independent right of a person to the exclusive

enjoyment, possession, use, control and disposition of the property for
the purpose of deriving therefrom all the reasonable advantage required
reasonable needs of the owner or holder of the rights and protection of
the general welfare, subject only to restrictions imposed by law and the
rights of the other people.”

Indigenous people as to the concept of ownership in relation to

the New Civil Code (which is old) are also bestowed the bundle of rights
as owners of the Ancestral Domain/Land but as a community or co-
owners.

As an independent right, the different bundle of rights can be

used independently from one another.

Right to possess or jus possidendi where IP/ICC’s have the right

to possess everything within the territory of the Ancestral domain/land
from the ground below and the sky above it which is shared by their
community.

Right to use and enjoy or jus utendi where IP/ICC’s have the
right to use the resources of the land, below it, in its waters and within
the territory in ways they see fit. This also includes the right to exclude
others who are non- indigenous members. They can also assign the
right to use as to entering of the Community with another person or
corporation in an agreements to use its resources not contrary to law
 13

with approval of NCIP, DENR and other government agencies required

approval.

Right to receive the fruits and accessories or jus fruendi and

accessionis they are entitled to the Natural, Artificial and Civil Fruits of
the Ancestral Domain/Land.

Right to consume or jus abutendi, they can consume or use the

resources within the territory such as wild animals and plants. In cases
of wildlife marked as endangered and prohibited by law for possession
or consumption, it can still be allowed for IP/ICC’s as long as it is
deemed part of their culture and tradition.

Right to dispose or alienate or jus disponendi, this right is limited

in Ancestral Domain/Land as transfers or disposition of can only be
done for members of the IC/ICC community.

Lastly, the Right to recover possession and/or ownership or jus

vindicandi, which gives them the right to recover properties and rights
over the Ancestral Domain/Land, to use the doctrine of Self-Help and
Self Defense. The right to redeem ancestral lands lost through bad faith
or fraud from non-indigenous members through the help of NCIP.

CHAPTER 3

Other Rights of the Indigenous People/ Indigenous Cultural

Communities

The Right to Self-Governance and Empowerment

As provided by Sec 13 of IPRA:

 14

Section 13 Self Governance – The State recognizes

the inherent right of the ICCs/IPs to self-governance and
self determination and respects the integrity of their
values, practices and institutions.

The IPRA upholds the right of IP/ICC’s to self-governance and

empowerment, with the IRR further defines the range of the exercise of
these rights. These are the right to pursue their economic, social, and
cultural development; to use commonly accepted justice systems,
conflict resolution mechanism, peace building process, and customary
laws; to participate in decision making; to maintain and develop
indigenous political structures; to have mandatory representation in
policy making bodies; to determine their own priorities for development;
to establish their tribal barangays and equivalent voting procedures;
and to organize people’s organizations.

They may now also utilize a vital instrument for their

empowerment—the principle of free and prior informed consent under
Section 3, Part III of the IPRA states that:

The [indigenous peoples] shall, within their communities,

determine for themselves policies, development programs, projects and
plans to meet their identified priority needs and concerns. The
[indigenous peoples] shall have the right to accept or reject a certain
development intervention in their particular communities. The
indigenous peoples’ decision to accept or reject a proposed policy,
program, or plan shall be assessed in accordance with their
development framework and their value systems for the protection of
land and resources.

Right to Social Justice and Human Rights

This refers also as Filipinos to fundamental human rights as to

Equal protection and non-discrimination, rights during armed conflict,
equal opportunity and treatment, basic services, the protection to
 15

women, children and youth and the right to integrated system of

education. covered under Chapter V of IPRA.

As Filipinos they are also protected by the Constitution and other

laws and special laws for the interest and protection of Indigenous
people.

As held in SAMA v PEOPLE, G.R. No. 224469, January 5, 2021

FACTS:

Diosdado Sama, Demetrio Masanglay and Bandy Masanglay are

residents of Brgy. Basco, Oriental Mindoro and were convicted by the
Regional Trial Court of violation of Presidential Decree no. 705, which
penalizes unauthorized logging of dita tree.

Two of the defendants, Sama and Masanglay appealed the ruling

of the trial court to the Court of Appeals, they argued that they are part
of the Iraya-Mangyan tribe hence they enjoy the rights of Indigenous
people. According to Republic Act 8371 or the Indigenous People’s
Right Act of 1997, which have communal dominion over the fruits and
natural resources of ancestral lands where the dita tree which the
defendants harvested.

ISSUE/S

Whether or not Sama and Masanglay can be acquitted of

violation of P.D. No. 75 because the circumstance of their act is not
covered by the police power of the state.

RULING:

The Petition is granted, Petitioners Diosdado Sama, Bandy

Masanglay, and accused Demetrio Masanglay are acquitted based on
reasonable doubt in the criminal case.

The general rule is that all the lands of public domain and other
natural resources are owned by the state and are subjected to police
power through regulation and control.
 16

However, the goal of the state’s regulation of natural resources,

through enforcement of PD 705, is for the protection and promotion of
a healthy and clean ecology and the environment through sustainable
use of timber and other forest products. The purpose for requiring state
authority to log timber is claimed to have been satisfied by the sui
generis ownership that the indigenous people possess.

The present case shows that the acts of defendants, cutting and
collecting dita tree, within their ancestral domain is an exception to the
general application of state’s police power.

Right to Cultural Integrity

The IPRA and its IRR created procedures and mechanisms for
the recognition of their rights to cultural integrity as covered by Chapter
VI of IPRA.

It is incorporated in such provisions as the constitutional and

legal framework for the right to cultural integrity, conceptual
framework , specific rights pertinent thereto, and the procedures in
recognition of these rights, including the right to indigenous culture,
customs, and traditions; right to establish and control educational
learning systems; recognition of cultural diversity; right to name,
identity, and history; community intellectual rights; protection of
indigenous sacred places; right to protection of indigenous knowledge;
and the right to science and technology.

These provisions under Chapter VI are for the purpose to protect

and respect their cultural diversity and indigenous knowledge systems
and practices.

CHAPTER 4
 17

Indigenous People / Indigenous Cultural Communities Activities

Generally, IP/ICC’s are engaged in primitive activities for

purpose of survival as defined under Sec 3 of IPRA on activities they do
in the ancestral domain.

“……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;”

In the tourism industry, the Local Government and IP/ICC’s

work hand in hand. some IP/ICC’s like in Baguio, as part of their
tourism in Baguio Botanical Garden, visitors can take pictures with
native Igorot people and dress up in their traditional clothing. In
Buscalan, visitors can get tribal tattoos from the oldest tattoo artist Apo
Wang Od. Products such as clothes, goods native to IP/ICC’s are sold
as souvenirs and gifts as part of the industry for them to earn money
and promoting tourism.

Photo with Native Ifugao in Baguio Rhian Ramos getting

Botanical Garden tribal tattoo from Apo
Wang Od in buscalan
 18

For industries such as mining, logging, or other extractive

industries purpose which if in ways can affect the native residents of
this area, which at time result to abuse and infringement of the
IP/ICC’s right to the land.

Before these industries may explore or use the land of the

Natives, they must secure a Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)

What is a Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)

It is defined as the consensus of all members of the IPs/ICCs 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 an
activity, in a language and process understandable to the community.
This shall first be secured by the project proponent in accordance with
the IPs’ own practices. The law, however, also provides that only the
affected community or communities shall give FPIC.

Under the NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1998 is the

implementing rules and regulations of the IPRA. The main regulatory
instrument for safeguard is the CP/FPIC process. The policies,
programs, projects, plans and activities subject to FPIC are the
following:

1. Exploration, development, exploitation and utilization of natural

resources within ancestral domains/lands;

2.Research in indigenous knowledge, systems and practices related to

agriculture, forestry, watershed and resource management systems and
technologies, medical and scientific concerns, biodiversity, bio-
prospecting and gathering of genetic resources;

3.Displacement and relocation;

4. Archaeological explorations, diggings and excavations, and access to

religious and cultural sites;

5.Policies affecting the general welfare and the rights of IPs/ICCs; and
 19

6. Entry of the military or paramilitary forces or establishment of

temporary or permanent military facilities within the domains

What if there is no FPIC issued yet?

With these new guidelines, mining firms with approved contracts,

licenses, agreements and other concessions prior to 1998 can now
legitimately continue their mining activities without going through the
process of obtaining FPIC by just securing a certification precondition
from the NCIP.

IP/ICC’s in sustaining the needs of their community engaged in

agricultural farming of crop and livestock. As a result some natives
engaged in the method of Kaingin or burning of the land for
agricultural purpose. As prohibited by RA3701, this may not apply to
IP/ICC’s if it is part of their culture and tradition.

Part of their activity is conservation and reforestation which is

monitored DENR and NCIP. Under a joint resolution circular No. 01-
02. DENR educates and educate IP communities on methods of
conservation of their Ancestral Domain such as what animals should
not be hunted, what trees should not be used as protection to native
species dormant in the Philippines. However, this creates conflict if
such is part of their tradition and culture.
 1

CHAPTER 5

IPRA AND PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT

What government agencies are involved in relation to IPRA?

The National Commission for Indigenous People ( NCIP) is the

primary agency in mandated for the IP/ICC’s to protect and promote
the interest and well-being of the ICCs/IPs with due regard to their
beliefs, customs, traditions and institutions. They also function as a
quasi-judicial body to adjudicate conflict in the interest of IP/ICC’s, to
construe and apply the law on cases brought within its jurisdiction.
Appeal from its decision maybe brought to the Court of Appeals.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

is mandated as the primary government agency responsible for
conservation, management, development and proper use of the
country's environment and natural resources, specifically forest and
grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in reservation and
watershed areas, and lands of public domain. as well as the licensing
and regulation of all natural resources as may be provided for by law in
order to ensure equitable sharing of the benefits derived therefrom for
the welfare of the present and future generations of Filipinos.

As to the aspect in relation to IPRA, the education and

management of the biodiversity of ancestral domain/lands of the
indigenous people on conservation, management and reforestation
projects. The Philippine Indigenous Communities Conserved Territories
and Areas (ICCA) project as part of the IP communities’ bid to protect
important cultural and biological sites within their ancestral domains
from destruction and degradation by designation.

The commission on Human Rights (CHR) is mandated to conduct

investigations on human rights violations against marginalized and
vulnerable sectors of the society, involving civil and political rights. This
also includes the rights and protection of Indigenous People as
Filipinos.
2