THE

ABORIGINALS-
IPS Kim V. Perez
LEGAL ASSESSMENT ON DETERIORATION TOWARDS THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RIGHTS TO ANCESTRAL DOMAIN
PROVIDED IN R.A. NO. 8371 “THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’
RIGHTS ACT OF 1997”
Indigenous Peoples have lived in harmony with the
Earth for Millenia. They have a great deal to
contribute to harmonious relationship with Mother
Earth. Harmony and equity with the Earth appear
to be unknown concepts in dominant societies.
-Alberto Saldamando, Indian Environmental
Network, 2016- during Taj Rally
“They’re all gone, my tribe is GONE.
Those blankets they gave us, infected
with smallfox, have killed us.”

-Sherman Alexie-(The Lone Ranger and

Tonto Fistfight in Heaven)
MARTIN-COBO …
-IN 90 COUNTRIES WORLDWIDE – 300
MILLION IPS.
-5,000 DIFFERENT GROUPS, SPEAKING
4,000 LANGUAGES
-70% OF THEM LIVING IN ASIA
Under Art. 26 of the United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples;
1. Indigenous Peoples have the rights to the lands,
territories and resources which they have
traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or
acquired.
2. Right to own, use, develop and control the lands
they possess
3. State shall give legal recognition and protection to
these lands, territories and resources.
“EXPECTATION V. REALITY” (G.R. NO.
******) TIME IMMEMORIAL - PRESENT
Indigenous land rights activists face violence and
even murder when they seek to defend their lands.
Human rights abuses related to their land rights and
culture, have prompted growing numbers of
Indigenous Peoples to leave their traditional lands
for towns and cities.
-Amnesty International-

De Vera (2007) shows the IPs represent nearly 14%

of the country’s population. They are among the
poorest and the most disadvantaged social group in
the country. IP settlements are remote, without
access to basic services, and are characterized by a
high incidence of morbidity, mortality, and
Different enthnic groups in the Philippines are beset with many problems
which is still an enormous concern today of our indigenous people. Those
problems are
1. LAND PROBLEM
2. Education and Training
3. Poor Socio- Economic conditions,
4. Peace and Order
(Ronquillo et. al.,1989)
-The RA. No. 8371 IPRA - The National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples. There are also instances where some of the
NCIP personnel have even served as apologist of mining
companies in Palawan. (Capistrano, 2009)
APPLYING THE LEGAL PHILOSOPHY OF GAUIS, Laws must
be reexamined by lawmaking bodies every once in a while. This procedure would
provide then provide the means whereby any abnormality in the legal order could
be adjusted to comply with the end and purpose of the law.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
 To determine the presence of
Deterioration in the course of
implementation of Rights to Ancestral
Domain provided in IPRA
 To show factors which would
determine the deterioration using the
related cases decided by the
Supreme Court
 To serve these factors as the bases of
the Legislative and Executive in
reinforcing the Rights to Ancestral
Domains in IPRA.
STATEMENT OF THE
PROBLEM
 It aims to specifically answer the following questions:

1. How does the Rights to Ancestral Domain run over the years and
maintain its implementation?
1.1 How the deterioration arises on its implementation based on
the Supreme Court Decisions?
1.2 How the Rights to Ancestral Domains were emphasized in the
assigned jurisprudence in the course of this case study?
1.3 How the Legislative and Executive Department can reinforce
the Rights to Ancestral Domains in IPRA based on the given
facts and testimonies laid by the Indigenous Peoples?
 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

-SUPREME -Real related

cases in full Summary of
COURT Information
DECISIONS text
-Information gathered
-LEGAL BASIS/
PROVISIONS Analysis
-Interpretation

I-P-O MODEL
 CHAPTER IV: PRESENTATION AND
INTERPRETATION
Table 1:OF DATA
Case Profiles
LEGAL ASSESSMENT ON DETERIORATION TOWARDS THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF RIGHTS TO ANCESTRAL DOMAIN PROVIDED IN R.A. NO. 8371 “THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ RIGHTS ACT OF
1997”
Case Title Parties Topic Decision
  Petitioner Respondent  
1.     Ancestral Land dispute The case was resolved in favor
G.R. No. 189852 Thomas Begnaen Spouses Leo and between members of of the Petitioner
Elma Caligtan Kankanaey Tribe of Mt.
August 17, 2016  
Province
2.     Claim on the lands belongs The instant case was ruled in
G.R. No. 156022 Aurellano Agnes et. Republic of the to the ICC (Tagbanua IPs in favor of the petitioners
al. Philippines Palawan)
July 6, 2015
3.     Rights to Land Ownership The Supreme Court ruled in
G.R. No. 180206 The City Government Atty. Brain Masweng, of Ibaloi Community in favor of the respondents
of Baguio City NCIP-CAR Baguio City
February 4, 2009
4. Engr. Ben Y. Lim, RBL Hon. Sulpicio G. Unauthorized and Unlawful The court moved to resolve the
  Fishing Corp., Gamosa, and Intrusion; and violation of case in favor of the Tagbanua
Palawan Aquaculture Tagbanua Cultural Rights to Free and Prior Cultural Community
G.R. No. 193964
Corp. Community of Coron, and Informed Consent (respondent)
December 2, 2015 Palawan
 
5.        
      The ancestral land claimed The instant case was ruled in
G.R. No. 161881 Nicasio I. Alcantara DENR, Heirs of Datu by the B’laan and favor of the respondent.
Pendatun Maguindanao People
July 31, 2008
 
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Thomas Begnaen vs. Spouses Leo Caligtan and Elma Caligtan - G.R No. 189852
The NCIP as the main agency who has jurisdiction of the complaints regarding land dispute among IPs,
has also the duty to secure the lands of every IP member. In this case, Begnaen’s right over the land was
intruded by the respondents because there is lacking in terms of land security or marking. This problem
primarily must be in the cognizance of the NCIP.
Aurellano Agnes et. al. vs, Republic of the Philippines – GR No. 156022
The precious provisions of the law clearly stated all inviolable rights of the Indigenous Peoples over their
ancestral domains but suppression is still at hand given that the creation of NCIP will cater the IPs protection from
violence wherein the main defenders of the state are the culprits, where ancestral land, as a would-be industry, is the
primary subject of dispute here. Also, government was founded no good consideration towards the Tagbanua ICC who
really deserves to have sufficient basic services from the former.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I P
Engr, Ben Y. Lim, RBL Fishing Corp. vs. Hon. Sulpicio The City Government of Baguio vs. Atty. Brain Masweng,

G. Gamosa, OIC, NCIP-Regional Hearing Office – GR. Regional Officer-NCIP – GR. No. 180206

No. 193964 December 2, 2015 The government, usually the local government units, always

Tagbanuas had the same case where ancestral lands became the intruder in those protected lands of the IPs in

became the subject of unlawful intrusion of the lowlanders. consideration of their commercial projects which totally affect

In this case, it is a corporation that interfered their lands the lives of the same. It clearly shows lack of appreciation of

without a prior consent from the community, which is a IPRA by the government mostly, in recognizing the right to

clear evidence of violating IP Rights to Free and Prior and ownership of the Indigenous Peoples.

Informed Consent.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1.1 How the Deterioration arises on its implementation

using the Supreme Court Decisions?

Nicasio I. Alcantara vs, DENR, Heirs of Datu  

Abdul B. Pendatun – G.R. No. 161881 July 31, Directly, deterioration starts from the main

2008 implementer of R.A No. 8371 IPRA , the NCIP who has the

The rights of most ICCs/IPs went largely sole jurisdiction over disputes and problems among indigenous

peoples. Lack of effort and strict compliance in the demand of

unrecognized despite these laws was not due to the
the said law becomes evident especially in the cases of
laws’ inadequacies, but due to government
Indigenous Cultural Communities- Tagbanuas, Kankanaeys,
indifference and the political inertia in their
Ibalois, and B’laan Tribe.
implementation.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1.3 How the Legislative and Executive Department can

reinforce the Rights to Ancestral Domains in IPRA

1.2 How the Rights to Ancestral Domains were
based on the given facts and testimonies laid by the
emphasized in the assigned jurisprudence in the
Indigenous Peoples?
course of this case study?
The legislative department may amend following
Certain cases which were ruled by the Court
favors the Indigenous Peoples. Citing important provisions in IPRA – Rights to Ancestral Domain (Section
provisions in the IPRA, basically Sections 7 and 8
which focuses on the rights to ownership, right to 7 and Section 8). To secure the rights to ownership of the
stay, right to regulate entry of migrants, right to
transfer property, and right to redemption. Indigenous Peoples. The executive department, mainly the

NCIP, should review its Implementing Rules and

Regulations and the law itself to make rights to ancestral

domain more realistic to Indigenous Peoples.

CONCLUSIONS
1. Based on the given findings, the researcher concludes that the
implementation of Rights to Ancestral Domain were being
deteriorated mainly by the Local Government Units, particularly, in
some popular Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) such as
Kankanaey, T’blaan and Tagbanua Tribe.
2. The National Commission on Indigenous Peoples is not strictly
complying with the demands of Rights to Ancestral Domain. The
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles were not distributed and
granted immediately, and so the IPs were denied also to ownership as
these titles should be their proof to own subject lands.
3. Subjects lands to Ancestral Domain are not clearly marked for the
purpose of land security. This became a factor why they are
much very prone to suppression, exploitation and
marginalization.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The NCIP may create Another common
 The Congress may strengthen
approach is to expose
the provision of IPRA in terms special task force, who will and oppose the negative
of imposing certain period in
granting Ancestral Land Titles
serve as the guardian of effects of development
to Indigenous Cultural IPs’ home. Mandatory and commercial projects
Communities. This certain fixed that entail large-scale
visitation every week to displacement. This
period will help the IPs, as the
NCIP- Ancestral Domains Office actually observe and approach is used in
would have to follow this maintain peace in the campaigns against dam
recalibration as a new mandate projects, commercial
of law. To insert procedural subject lands, especially logging, plantations,
provisions in the IPRA will be a on those tribes formerly mining, and other related
great resort to remove experienced suppression activities.
confusion on the part of the
NCIP, in the performance of its from lowlanders. This will
functions. The NCIP local help the IPs to fully exploit
offices will also have to
undergo monthly evaluation, the lands for residential,
and secure that their farming, and other
functioning well and remains to
reachable to the IPs.
activities for cultural
integrity.
 “Pacem in terris”
THANK YOU!

“As future lawyers, let us

help them to protect their
rights, so they can live in
paradise.”