Course: Plan 203 C – Land Use Planning

Professor: Ernesto M. Serote

Submitted by: Janeille Aloha B. Kasala
Student Number: 202320090
Subject: Essay no. 3: The State as Manager of the National Patrimony: The Case of
Ancestral Domain

A. The State as Manager

Since its colonization from the Spaniards and Americans, the Philippines has
undergone substantial changes and efforts to manage the allocation of rights to natural
resources, particularly with the ancestral domains of existing indigenous communities. To
further support the legalization of rights of the Indigenous Peoples, two essential
provisions were enacted in the 1987 Constitution. As written in Article XII (Section 5) 1,
the State is obliged to protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their
ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being. Whereas in
Article XIV (Section 17) 2, the State is committed to recognizing, respecting and protecting
the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures,
traditions, and institutions.
Moreover, the alarming rate of forest degradation and unsustainable resource
management in the country within the state’s control has allowed the recognition and
implementation of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA, otherwise known as
Republic Act No. 8371 of 1997) that governs ancestral lands and ancestral domains. This
law that recognizes, protects, and promotes all the rights of Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) to ancestral domain/lands, self-governance
and empowerment, cultural integrity, and the right to social justice and human rights was
also legislated in 1997 – The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA). Through IPRA,
Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) are issued to formally recognize
Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) rights of possession
and ownership over their ancestral domains as identified and delineated under the law,
whereas Certificates of Ancestral Land Titles (CALTs) formally recognize ICCs/IPs rights
over their ancestral lands.
B. Ancestral Domain and Ancestral Land Defined
Definitions are mostly adopted from the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997
(IPRA).
As stated in the RA No. 8371 (Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997), “the
term ‘ancestral domain’ refers to all areas generally belong to Indigenous Cultural
Communities (ICCs)/ Indigenous Peoples (IPs) comprising lands, inland waters, coastal
areas and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied
possessed by ICCs/IPs by themselves 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 and private individuals/ corporations and which are necessary to
ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall include ancestral lands, forest,
pasture land, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether
alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting ground, burial grounds, worship areas,
bodies of water, mineral and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be
exclusively occupied by ICCs/P 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 ad or shifting cultivators.” 3
On the other hand, “Ancestral Land 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.” 4
C. The Indigenous Peoples
The Philippine archipelago is made up of 7,107 islands with a total area of 300,000
square kilometers. As of the year 2014, it has a current population of approximately 100
million people. Out of the total population census, at least 12-15% (percent) or 12-15
million inhabitants comprises the 110 ethnic tribes and cultural minorities. Who are the
Indigenous Peoples?
As defined in RA No. 8371 (Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997),
“Indigenous Cultural Communities /Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) pertains to a group of
people or homogenous societies identified as self-ascription and ascription by others, who
have continuously lived as organized community or 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, costumes,
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 in 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 religion and cultures or the establishment or present
state boundaries, who retain some or allow their own social, economic, cultural and
political, traditions, but who have been displaced from their traditional domains or may
have resettled outside their ancestral domains.” 5
 D. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Responsibilities on Ancestral
Domains/Lands
The IPs can apply for legal ownership of their Indigenous territories. According to the
National Commission on Indigenous People (NCIP), the agency tasked to convert the
CADs issued by the DENR into ancestral domain titles, a resurvey order was issued to
cover the domain to be included in the application for Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title
(CADT).
The NCIP also established laws with regards to development and protection plans of
the indigenous peoples’ ancestral domains stated on the Guidelines on the Formulation
of the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP), NCIP
Administrative Order no.1 series of 2004. The important provisions are as follows:
 Article V. Section 13. Ancestral Lands within Ancestral Domains. Members of
ICCs/IPs may opt to secure formal recognition or Certificate of Ancestral Land
(CALT) of their individually owned lots within ancestral domains.

 Section 14. Migrants within Ancestral Domains. The rights of migrants in ancestral
domains to their private properties will be respected and protected. The migrants
shall also recognize the rights of the ancestral domain owners. Migrants occupying
specific areas as distinct community within an ancestral domain can formulate their
own development plan.

 Section 16. Resource Utilization. The traditional utilization of resources by

ICCs/IPs within their ancestral domains that is governed by customary laws,
traditions and practices of the IP/IC community shall be recognized and respected.

 Rule III of The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 and its Implementing Rules
and Regulations (Republic Act No. 8371). Rights to Ancestral Domains/Lands.
As stated in Section 7 of IPRA, the following are the ICCs/IP’s rights to their
ancestral domains: (a) right of ownership over lands, bodies of water that they have
traditionally occupied, sacred sites, traditional hunting and fishing areas, and the
improvements made to them; (b) right to develop lands and natural resources; (c) right to
stay in their territories, unless they have given their free and prior informed consent, and
they are subject to the country’s eminent domain power; (d) right to be resettled in case
of displacement (e) right to regulate entry of migrants; (f) right to safe and clean air and
water; (g) right to claim parts of reservations; and (h) right to resolve land conflicts in
accordance with the customary laws of the area where the land is located. 6
In addition to that, ICC’s/IP’s rights to their ancestral lands shall include the following: (a)
right to transfer land/property rights, subject to their customary laws and traditions; and
(b) the right of redemption within a period not exceeding (15) years from the date of
transfer, should a land transfer to a non-member be tainted with skewed consent. 7
Section 9 of RA 8371, the following responsibilities of the ICCs/IPs occupying a duly
certified ancestral domain: (a) maintaining ecological balance by protecting flora and
fauna, watershed areas, and other reserves; (b) restoring denuded areas, subject to just
and reasonable remuneration; and (c) observing and complying with the provisions of the
IPRA. 8
E. Issues and Concerns
Indigenous peoples belong 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. It is proven by the 2008 budget that shows regions
with the highest concentrations of indigenous peoples get the smallest allocations from
the national Government (CAR – 1.22 per cent, CARAGA – 1.38 percent, Region IX –
1.58 percent). Thus, social service provision in indigenous territories is far below that of
the rest of the country (ADB 2001). The lack of budget has resulted in generally poor
living conditions and higher incidence of poverty in regions where indigenous peoples are
found or concentrated. According to UNICEF, the majority of the illiterates in the
Philippines is the indigenous and tribal people who live in remote and upland areas.
Generally inhabiting mountainous and isolated regions, the tribal people in the country
receive less attention and support from the national government. They lack even the most
basic of educational facilities, such as school supplies, books, school buildings and even
teachers. Furthermore, the general health situation in regions and provinces with the
largest concentrations of indigenous peoples is below the national average. 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.
Furthermore, the country has more than 110 ethnic tribes and cultural communities
whose cultures and traditions are in varying states of extinction. These vanishing
ancestral traditions and customary laws used to define social relationships and values
and promoted the efficiency of economic activities. Unfortunately, environmentally
devastating socioeconomic ventures, large-scale indiscriminate mining and industrial
logging have brought incalculable damage to their primary source of livelihood and
cultural sanctuary. The consequent destruction of their environment resulted in the further
degradation of ancestral cultures which are largely shaped by the indigenous people's
interaction with the natural elements. This resulting loss of their cultural identities, coupled
with the devastation of their environment, has resulted in the serious economic
displacement and cultural disempowerment of these communities. Tribal communities in
various geographical areas are thus among the most impoverished and marginalized
sectors of Philippine society (ACPC 2005).
IPRA included "Self Delineation" as the guiding principle in the in the identification of
AD claims. However, due to the lack of resources and skills in the NCIP, the Government
has not been able to provide the necessary services to the IP sector to realize this
mandate and issue the necessary titles. In its first 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.
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
F. CONCLUSION
The Indigenous Peoples (IPs) are rich in natural resources and cultural biodiversity.
Some of them are present in varying states of extinction due to the rising colonization and
urbanization brought about by the modern era, although there are other communities that
are able to maintain their traditional lifestyle and culture. When it comes to survival, most
of the Indigenous Peoples depend only on traditional farming and hunting utilizing their
ancestral domains whether in upland or coastal areas. However, most of these traditional
cultivation sites have been threatened because they do not have legal recognition over
their lands, thus limiting their ability to freely conduct their livelihood activities and are
denied access to other natural resources in their communities. The IP communities are
in deep need of revitalization. Since they only depend on their natural environment to
survive, the community they live in must be sustainable and efficient. A healthy
community design and sustainable settlement development strategy will help improve the
living condition of the IPs.
Within ancestral domains, communities often practice traditional and community-
based resource management. They establish rules and regulations governing the use of
natural resources, ensuring sustainable practices to maintain ecological balance and
preserve resources for future generations. However, despite these legal provisions, there
have been challenges and issues in the implementation and enforcement of these rights.
Some indigenous communities have faced difficulties in obtaining CADTs, faced
encroachment on their ancestral lands, or experienced conflicts due to competing
interests over natural resources.
Efforts to ensure the effective allocation of rights to natural resources in ancestral
domains involve not only legal frameworks but also active participation, dialogue, and
collaboration between indigenous communities, government agencies, and other
stakeholders to address these challenges and safeguard the rights and interests of
indigenous peoples. In line with that, the Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)
principle is a great tool in engaging with indigenous communities. Before any project or
activity that may affect their ancestral domains is undertaken by external parties (like
corporations or the government), the FPIC process ensures that indigenous communities
are adequately informed about the project, given the opportunity to participate in decision-
making, and provide their consent before any activity proceeds.
In conclusion, the mere awarding of the ancestral domain’s tenurial rights does not
automatically lead to sustainable environmental management, or to social justice (see
also Kuper 2003; Utting 2000). By itself, land security through communal tenure or
collective control may not guarantee sustainable resource use. As suggested by
Colchester (1998), the control and management of resources must be vested in open,
clear, and accountable institutions that respect the principle of equity. Besides, having
long-term sustainable resource can only be achieved if the community believes that their
future only depends on the land for their survival.

References:
1 Section 5, Article XII, 1987 Constitution
2 Section 17, Article XIV, 1987 Constitution
3 Section 3 (a), RA 8371
4 Section 3 (b), RA 8371
5 Section 3 (h), RA 8371
6 Section 7, RA 8371
7 Section 8, RA 8371
8 Section 9, RA 8371
June Prill-Brett, 2007. Contested Domains: The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA)
And Legal Pluralism In The Northern Philippines
David E. De Vera. Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines: A Country Case Study
(Presented at the RNIP Regional Assembly Hanoi, Vietnam August 20-26, 2007)
James F. Eder, March 19, 2010. Indigenous Peoples, Ancestral Lands and Human Rights
in the Philippines
Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines. Undated
National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. Last accessed on November 5, 2013