The IndIgenous PeoPles and The unIversal PerIodIc revIew

A Compilation of Situationers onthe IPs’ Human Rights as Submitted

to the UPR (2nd Cycle, 2012)

A publicAtion of the

Ateneo humAn Rights centeR

2012

the indigenous peoples And the univeRsAl peRiodic Review

A Compilation of Situationers on the IPs’ Human Rights as Submitted to the UPR (2nd Cycle, 2012)

copyright © 2012 by Ateneo Human Rights Center

Ateneo Human Rights CenterG/F Ateneo Professional Schools Building20 Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center1200 Makati City, PhilippinesT: (63 2) 899.7691 loc. 2109F: (63 2) 899.4342E: info@ahrc.org.phhttp://www.ahrc.org.ph

Any part of this publication may be reproduced or quoted fornon-commercial purposes with appropriate acknowlegment.

ISBN 978-971-8899-18-2

Printed with the support of the European Union and the Minority Rights Group International.

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the respective authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

the indigenous peoples And the univeRsAl peRiodic Review

A Compilation of Situationers on the IPs’ Human Rights as Submitted to the UPR (2nd Cycle, 2012)

copyright © 2012 by Ateneo Human Rights Center

Ateneo Human Rights CenterG/F Ateneo Professional Schools Building20 Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center1200 Makati City, PhilippinesT: (63 2) 899.7691 loc. 2109F: (63 2) 899.4342E: info@ahrc.org.phhttp://www.ahrc.org.ph

Any part of this publication may be reproduced or quoted fornon-commercial purposes with appropriate acknowlegment.

ISBN 978-971-8899-18-2

Printed with the support of the European Union and the Minority Rights Group International.

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the respective authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

iii

ProjecT coordInaTor

Ryan Jeremiah D. Quan

research & edITorIal sTaff

Ryan Jeremiah D. QuanMa. Patricia R. CervantesMyra Vita C. YacapinPatrick Jason P. AtilanoDan Kevin C. MandocdocJosephine R. SandovalKatrina C. MuliTanggapang Panligal ng Katutubong Pilipino (PANLIPI)Alternative Law Groups, Inc. (ALG)

layouT

Ma. Cristina V. Lobregat

PhoTos

Ryan D. Andres

iv

foreword

The plight of the Philippine indigenous population traces its roots to the 16th Century — the era when ethnic inhabitants were displaced by Spanish exploration activities. More than 400 years henceforth, the indigenous peoples (IPs) of the Philippines, presently consisting 15% of the country’s population, still forbear different forms of human rights violations. The violations, however, often remain unknown to the public; they remain undocumented in the government’s official records.

These undocumented violations are some of the evils that the United Nations (U.N.) Universal Periodic Review (UPR) seeks to prevent. Under the UPR, a cooperative mechanism is applied in reviewing each Member State’s compliance with its human rights obligations. The review is done through the use of three documents: the Member State’s national report, a review by the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and the OHCHR’s summary of the shadow reports submitted by civil society organizations.

The shadow reports presented in this publication aim to offer the perspective of civil society organizations — one that seeks to reflect the real, and often undocumented, troubles of the IPs in the Philippines. Due to the close interaction with the IPs of the organizations that synthesized these reports, the data presented herein reflect specific human rights violations that IPs experience. These violations usually remain absent in a Member State’s national report during UPRs, the national reports being often being written in general terms and context. Also, due to the 20-page limitation on the national reports, the discussion of these specific cases most of the time give way to the presentation of information that demonstrate the general condition of IPs in the country.

The two shadow reports presented in this publication are faithful reproductions of reports submitted by civil society organizations to the UN Human Rights Council for the second cycle of the UPR for the Philippines, save for minor editorial corrections. A short backgrounder on the UPR is likewise included in this compilation. More than just making the general public more aware of the human rights situation of Filipino IPs, this publication also seeks to popularize the UPR, the innovative international human rights mechanism where human rights concerns can be brought so that the Philippine government will, hopefully, address them.

v

Table of conTenTs

foRewoRd

iv

InTroducTIon

1

shadow rePorTs submITTed To The uPr (2nd cycle, 2010)Joint Submission on the Human Rights Situation

of Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines9

The Human Rights Situation ofIndigenous People in the Philippines

and related Annexes24

uPr 2008 recommendaTIons and governmenT resPonses

49

cerd recommendaTIons In 200951

excerPTs from TraIlIng InjusTIce

59

1

InTroducTIon To The

unIversal PerIodIc revIew

and shadow rePorTs

[The Universal Periodic Review] has great potential to promote and protect human rights in the darkest corners of the world. - U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon

On 15 March 2006, an innovative and unique human rights review mechanism was created in the Human Rights Council (HRC). Through General Assembly Resolution 60/251, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was established and the HRC was given the duty “to undertake a [UPR], based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfillment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States.”1 With the UPR, a United Nations (U.N.) Member State is scrutinized based on its compliance with the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human rights instruments to which it is a signatory, and the voluntary commitments that said Member State made.2

For the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the UPR is unique in the sense that it does not only provide Members States the opportunity to present the measures they have taken in improving the human rights conditions in their respective territories, it also allows Member States to share the “best human rights practices around the globe.”3 It would seem, therefore, that the UPR derives its uniqueness from the fact that it allows Member States to present their experiences and to learn from the experiences of other Member States. This short Article intends to give an overview on how this sharing-and-learning process takes place during UPRs. The Article will also provide a general overview of the participation

1 G.A. Res. 60/251, ¶ 5 (e), U.N. Doc. A/RES/60/251 (Apr. 3, 2006).2 Human Rights Council Res. 5/1, Rep. of the Human Rights Council, 5th Sess., June 11-18, 2007, U.N. GAOR, 62d Sess., Supp. No. 53, A/62/53, at 50-51 (June 18, 2007).3 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Universal Periodic Review, available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx (last accessed Jan. 31, 2012) [hereinafter Basic Facts].

2

of the stakeholders in the UPR through the submission of shadow reports.

II. The Universal Periodic Review Process

The UPR, which reviews a Member State once every four years,4 has been described as a state-driven process.5 While the review is primarily conducted by the UPR Working Group, any Member State can participate in the discussion with the Member State being reviewed.6 The entire review process may be divided into five phases: (1) information gathering, (2) review proper, (3) the UPR Working Group’s report, (4) the Council’s adoption of the report, and (5) follow-up on the implementation of the outcome.7

1. Information Gathering

The UPR is based on three submitted sources of information: the national report of the State under Review, a review by the OHCHR based on UN information regarding the State under Review, and the OHCHR’s summary of the shadow reports submitted by the stakeholders of the State under Review.8 These three sources of information are intended to provide objective and realistic data regarding the human rights conditions in the jurisdiction of the State under Review.

2. Review Proper

During review sessions, the State under Review engages in a dialogue with other Member States. In the course of the dialogue, Member States are at liberty to ask questions and to give their comments and recommendations. Three Member States serving as rappeorteurs or “troikas” assist in the State review.9

4 Id.5 Theodor Rathgeber, The HRC Universal Periodic Review: A preliminary assessment, in diAlogue on globAl-izAtion, at 1, 2 (Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Geneva Briefing Paper No. 6, 2008).6 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, supra note 3.7 Michal Davala, Universal Periodic Review: Effective Monitoring of Human Rights Standards?, in DNY PRÁVA – RÁVA VA AYS OF LAW: SBORNÍK PŘÍSPĚVKŮ, at 306, 313 (2009) (citing Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Information and Guidelines for relevant stakeholders on the Univer-sal Periodic Review mechanism, available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/ Documents/TechnicalGuide EN.pdf (last accessed July 10, 2009)).8 H.R.C. Res. 5/1, supra note 2, ¶ 1.9 Id. at ¶ 18 (d). The troikas are formed through draw lots that happen prior the UPR Working Group Session. The troikas are tasked to “group issues or questions to be shared with the State under review to ensure that the interactive dialogue takes place in a smooth and orderly manner.” Basic Facts, supra note

3

3. UPR Working Group’s Report

After the review proper, the Working Group dedicates time for the adoption of the report containing the results of the review. The reports contain the “presentation by the State under Review, summary of interactive dialogue and responses by the state, and conclusions and recommendations. ... The report includes [the] variety of recommendations made individually by states, [though] recommendations do not express position of Working [G]roup as a whole.”10

4. Council’s Adoption of the Report

While sitting in plenary during the annual session, the Council adopts the report concluded by the Working Group.11 Note that the only action that the Council may take is to adopt the report which contains “a summary of the proceeding, conclusions, recommendations, and the voluntary commitments of the state concerned. It may also include assessment of human rights situation in the country and sharing of best practices.”12

5. Follow-up on the Implementation

As mentioned, the report adopted by the Council includes the recommendations gathered during the UPR. Generally, the follow-up on the implementation of these recommendations are undertaken during the succeeding UPR for the Member State involved or after four years since the last review.13 This, however, should not be interpreted as precluding the Council to conduct a follow-up whenever it deems necessary.

III. Shadow Reports

As mentioned earlier, one of the sources of information of the Working Group in conducting the UPR are the shadow or alternate reports or those submitted by the stakeholders of the State under Review. These shadow reports are compiled and summarized by the OHCHR in a 10-page document that is used in the review of the Member State.

3.10 Davala, supra note 7, at 315.11 Id. at 316.12 Id. (citing H.R.C. Res. 5/1, supra note 2, ¶¶ 16-27).13 Id. at 317 (citing H.R.C. Res. 5/1, supra note 2, ¶ 34).

4

Stakeholders are encouraged to include the following pieces of information in their shadow report submissions:

(a) The methodology and the broad consultation process followed nationally for the preparation of information provided to the UPR by the country under review;

(b) The current normative and institutional framework of the country under review for the promotion and protection of human rights: constitution, legislation, policy measures such as national action plans, national jurisprudence, human rights infrastructure including national human rights institutions...;

(c) The implementation and efficiency of the normative and institutional framework for the promotion and protection of human rights as described at subparagraph (b) above[;]

(d) Cooperation of the country under review with human rights mechanisms, and with national human rights institutions, NGOs, rights holders, human rights defenders, and other relevant national human rights stakeholders, both at the national, regional and international levels;

(e) Achievements made by the country under review, best practices which have emerged, and challenges and constraints faced by the country under review;

(f) Key national priorities as identified by stakeholders, initiatives and commitments that the State concerned should undertake, in the view of stakeholders, to overcome these challenges and constraints and improve human rights situations on the ground[;]

(g) Expectations in terms of capacity-building and technical assistance provided and/or recommended by stakeholders through bilateral, regional and international cooperation.14

14 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Information and Guidelines for Relevant Stakeholders on the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism (A Paper Containing General Guidelines Regarding the Submission of Stakeholders’ Reports) 4-5, available at http://www.ohchr.org/ EN/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/TechnicalGuideEN.pdf (last accessed Jan. 31, 2012).4

Stakeholders are encouraged to include the following pieces of information in their shadow report submissions:

(a) The methodology and the broad consultation process followed nationally for the preparation of information provided to the UPR by the country under review;

(b) The current normative and institutional framework of the country under review for the promotion and protection of human rights: constitution, legislation, policy measures such as national action plans, national jurisprudence, human rights infrastructure including national human rights institutions...;

(c) The implementation and efficiency of the normative and institutional framework for the promotion and protection of human rights as described at subparagraph (b) above[;]

(d) Cooperation of the country under review with human rights mechanisms, and with national human rights institutions, NGOs, rights holders, human rights defenders, and other relevant national human rights stakeholders, both at the national, regional and international levels;

(e) Achievements made by the country under review, best practices which have emerged, and challenges and constraints faced by the country under review;

(f) Key national priorities as identified by stakeholders, initiatives and commitments that the State concerned should undertake, in the view of stakeholders, to overcome these challenges and constraints and improve human rights situations on the ground[;]

(g) Expectations in terms of capacity-building and technical assistance provided and/or recommended by stakeholders through bilateral, regional and international cooperation.14

14 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Information and Guidelines for Relevant Stakeholders on the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism (A Paper Containing General Guidelines Regarding the Submission of Stakeholders’ Reports) 4-5, available at http://www.ohchr.org/ EN/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/TechnicalGuideEN.pdf (last accessed Jan. 31, 2012).

5

Through the submission of shadow reports, stakeholders such as non-government organizations (NGOs) working in the field of human rights are able to provide information that may be used during UPRs to check the accuracy of the national report submitted by the State under Review.15 The information embodied in the shadow reports of these stakeholders may also be used “by any of the [Member] States taking part in the interactive discussion during the review at the Working Group meeting.”16

The shadow reports submitted for UPR purposes have been likened to the shadow reports submitted under the U.N. treaty system.17 Under the U.N. treaty system, a shadow report has been defined as “information submitted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to the treaty monitoring bodies that address omissions, deficiencies, or inaccuracies in the official government reports. The shadow reporting process plays a critical role in holding governments accountable to their obligations.”

IV. Conclusion

The potential of the UPR to address human rights challenges and issues around the world has been recognized by no less than the U.N. Secretary General. The process involved in the conduct of the UPR has no precedent. Its uniqueness in being primarily a State-driven action places on Member States more pressure to implement their human rights obligations and more opportunities to learn from the best human rights practices of the world. In addition to this, another unique characteristic of the UPR is the myriad of opportunities that the review system gives to stakeholders, such as NGOs, to participate and provide counter-perspective to the submissions of Member States under review. For these reasons, the organizations involved in the publication of this compilation are hopeful that one day, with the aid of the UPR, the indigenous peoples of the Philippines will fully enjoy their human rights.

15 Note, however that the participation of NGOs are not limited to the submission of shadow reports. In addition to this, NGOs may also participate in the national consultation held by the Member State in creating the national report, lobby members of the Working Group, participate in the plenary session before the outcome is adopted by the Council, and monitor the implementation of the UPR recommendations. See H.R.C. Res. 5/1, supra note 2, ¶ 15.16 Basic Facts, supra note 3.17 See Human Rights Project at the Urban Justice Center, A Practical Guide to the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review (UPR) (A Toolkit on UPR Shadow Reports) 16, available at http://www.hrpujc.org/documents/UPRtoolkit.pdf (last accessed Jan. 31, 2012).

6

shadow rePorTs

submITTed To The uPr(2nd cycle, 2012)

8

9

joInT submIssIon on The human rIghTs sITuaTIon of IndIgenous

PeoPles (IPs) In The PhIlIPPInes

submitted to the united nAtions office of the high commissioneR foR

humAn Rights

foR the univeRsAl peRiodic Review of the philippines (2nd cycle, 13th session, 2012)

submitted by:

alTernaTIve law grouPs, Inc. (alg)aTeneo human rIghTs cenTer (ahrc)

envIronmenTal legal assIsTance cenTer, Inc. (elac)IndIgenous PeoPles rIghTs monITor (IPrmon)

composed of:KAlipunAn ng mgA KAtutubong mAmAyAn ng pilipinAs (KAmp)

KoAlisyon ng KAtutubong sAmAhAn ng pilipinAs (KAsApi)Kusog sA KAtAwhAng lumAd sA mindAnAo (KAlumARAn)

coRdilleRA peoples AlliAnce (cpA)AnthRopology wAtch (AnthRowAtch)

coRdilleRA indigenous peoples legAl centeR – dintegphilippine AssociAtion foR inteRcultuRAl development (pAfid)

philippine tAsK foRce indigenous peoples Rights (tfip)tebtebbA foundAtion (indigenous peoples’ inteRnAtionAl centRe foR policy)

KAtRibu pARtylist

mIddlesex unIversITy (uK) deParTmenT of law

TanggaPang PanlIgal ng KaTuTubong PIlIPIno (PanlIPI)(legAl AssistAnce centeR foR indigenous filipinos)

PhIlIPPIne IndIgenous PeoPles lInKs (PIPlInKs)

10

Contact Organizations:

aTeneo human rIghTs cenTer

G/F Ateneo Professional Schools Bldg.,20 Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center,Makati City 1200, Philippineshttp://www.ahrc.org.phinfo@ahrc.og.ph / rquan@ahrc.org.ph alTernaTIve law grouPs, Inc.Rm. 216, Institute of Social Order, Social Development Complex, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippineshttp://www.alternativelawgroups.orgsecretariat@alternativelawgroups.org / icc.ip.cluster@gmail.com

IndIgenous PeoPles rIghTs monITor

c/o Cordillera Indigenous Peoples Legal Center – DINTEG: 55 Ferguson Road, Baguio City, Philippinesdinteg.cordillera@gmail.com / rdalang@yahoo.com

PhIlIPPIne IndIgenous PeoPles lInK

225-229 Seven Sisters Road, Londonhttp://www.piplinks.orggeoff@piplinks.org

11

JOINT SUBMISSION ON THE HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION OF

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (IPs) IN THE PHILIPPINES

I. Introduction

1. This is a joint submission from various indigenous peoples organizations and support NGOs, namely the Alternative Law Groups, Inc. (ALG),1 the Ateneo Human Rights Center (AHRC),2 the Environmental Legal Assistance Center, Inc. (ELAC),3 the Indigenous Peoples Rights Monitor (IPRMon),4 Middlesex University (UK) Department of Law,5 the Tanggapang Panligal ng Katutubong Pilipino/Legal Assistance Center for Indigenous Filipinos (PANLIPI),6 and the Philippine Indigenous Peoples Links (PIPLinks).7

2. This submission provides information, burning issues, and corresponding recommendations regarding the compliance of the Philippine Government with its international human rights obligations, in particular those affirmed under the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimiantion (ICERD). The report is primarily organized based on the list of Universal Periodic Review (UPR) recomendations, specifically, paragraph 58 (1), (6), (12) and (14) in 2008 and identical recommendations by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimintion (CERD) in 2009.

3. The joint submission emphazises that the IP stuggle for the defense of their ancestral homelands, their right to self-governance and right

1 ALG is a nationwide coalition of 20 legal resource NGOs that adhere to the principles of developmental lawyering and cater to marginalized sectors of Philippine Society.2 AHRC is a university-based institution engaged in promotion and protection of human rights of women, children, indigenous peoples, and migrant workers.3 ELAC is an environmental NGO which seeks to protect and assert the environmental rights of communities in Palawan and the Visayas. 4 IPRMon is an IP rights monitoring network comprised of two national alliances of indigenous peoples organizations, one island-wide alliance, one regional alliance and six support NGOs (one is an international NGO) and one partylist group.5 Middlesex University (UK) Department of Law has a particular focus on education and research pertaining to the realization of human rights and their promotion in practice.6 PANLIPI is a nationwide organization of lawyers and IP rights advocates which engage in development work among IPs in the Philippines.7 PIPLinks is a United Kingdom and Philippine-based organization which seeks to uphold and promote the collective and individual human rights of IPs and other land-based communities.

12

to self-determination can never be captured in words nor reduced to a ten page report. This report, however, picks up from where the UPR recommendations to and commitments on the part of the Philippine Government left off ― placing due focus on the compliance, non-compliance, and instances, perhaps, even gross violations thereof. In the process it addresses issues such as, the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of indigenous peoples, ancestral land issues, mining- related human rights violations, data disaggregation, civil and political rights related to extrajudicial killings, and human rights violations in the context of militarization and counter-insurgency, especially those relating to children and women.

4. Jointly, we submit that the Philippine Government, despite its expression of support to various UPR recommendations in 2008, has not adequately taken decisive steps to address the recommendations set forth in the said UPR and in the 2009 CERD recommendations.

II. Existing Institutional and Legal Framework for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights

5. The Philippines has been a forerunner in establishing institutional and legal framework for human rights. The Philippines “adopts generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land[.]”8 It is a signatory to many international instruments, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the ICERD.

6. Accordingly, the Philippine Constitution mandates the state to value the dignity of every human person and to accord full respect for human rights.9 More specifically, it directs the state to guarantee the protection of the rights of IPs “to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social, and cultural well-being.”10 It also ensures the applicability of customary laws in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain.11

8 CONST. (1987), art. II, sec. 2 (Phil.).9 CONST. (1987), art. II, sec. 11 (Phil.).10 CONST. (1987), art. XII, sec. 5 (Phil.).11 CONST. (1987), art. XII, sec. 5 (Phil.).

13

7. Moreover, the Philippine Government has enacted several laws that recognize and protect the rights of IPs. Foremost is the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA),12 which mandates the recognition of ancestral domains and the right to self-determination and the associated requirement to consult and obtain FPIC, and provides for the creation of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP). The Philippine Mining Act of 199513 continues to be operative and recently, the Anti-Torture Act of 200914 was enacted to law.

8. The current administration of the Philippines has notably taken cautious steps towards promising directions by appointing progressive IP women leaders at the helm of the NCIP. The report also appreciates the vigor and commitment of the National Cultural Communities Committee of the House of Representatives.

In the interest of calling on the Philippine Government to comply with its obligation to protect, promote, and fulfill the human rights of IPs, we respectfully hereby present this joint submission for the Council’s consideration.

III. Issues and Concerns in Relation to UPR (A/HRC/8/28) Conclusions and Recommendations Affecting IPs

58 (1) To continue to develop a gender-responsive approach to issues of violence against women and continue to build supportive environment for women and children within the judicial system; this environment should take into account the special needs for rehabilitation and post-conflict care of women and children in vulnerable situations and conflict areas (New Zealand);

9. We acknowledge that the state party expressed its support on the matter.

12 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, Republic Act No. 8371 (1997) (Phil.).13 An Act Instituting a New System of Mineral Resources Exploration, Development, Utilization, and Conservation, Republic Act No. 7942 (1995) (Phil.).14 An Act Penalizing the Commission of Acts of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Prescribing Penalties Therefor and for Other Purposes (2009) (Phil.).

14

It is submitted, however, that experiences about to be cited marginalize the situation of IP women and children further.

10. Two schools especially built for the Manobo tribe in Mindanao – the Alternative Learning Center for Agriculture and Livelihood Development and the Tribal Filipino Program of Surigao del Sur were branded by the military as “communist fronts,” consequently the children are regarded as members of the communist New People’s Army (NPA). These schools are intermittently used by the Armed Forces of the Philippines as military camps.

11. In the Cordillera, a team from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has verified two schools that were turned into barracks by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) for more than a year.15 Despite submission of official report of the UNICEF to the AFP, the two schools still remain as AFP barracks.

12. In the B’laan Literacy School and Learning Center (BLSLC), seven teachers and their five colleagues were forced to leave the school due to fear from persistent “red-baiting” and threats from the AFP. BLSLC caters to 205 Indigenous B’laan children.16

13. In Compostella Valley in Mindanao, several indigenous children are required to report to the “Barangay Defense System,” a civilian network of the AFP tasked to spy on the NPAs.17 A similar case was monitored in the Cordillera where the AFP required children aged 14-16 to attend a seminar after which they were compelled to report the names of leaders in their communities.

14. In the course of leading a campaign for the right to education of indigenous children, Mildred Salang-ey,18 an indigenous youth leader, is now evading arrest for complaints filed in court for murder, frustrated and attempted murder related with a rebel attack against AFP troops.

15 Arthur L. Allad-Iw, AFP violate children’s rights in areas under armed conflict, available at http://www.nordis.net/?p=10969 (last accessed November 26, 2011).16 Carlos H. Conde, Children and Schools caught in Philippine Conflicts, and the UN is concerned about AFP tactics, available at http://www.interaksyon.com/article/3407/children-and-schools-caught-in-philippine-conflicts-and-the-un-is-concerned-about-afp-tactics (last accessed November 26, 2011).17 Id.18 Salang-ey is a leader of the Mountain Province Youth Alliance-AnakBayan Chapter in the province, a national youth organization tagged as communist front by the AFP.

15

15. The cases cited illustrate the continued relevance of the observation made in the report of the Secretary General to the Security Council (A/65/820-S/2011/250) that the soldiers use school facilities for military purposes, unlike in other countries where the insurgents are the parties that use children and children facilities. The report further stated that “counter-insurgency strategy, ‘Oplan Bantay Laya’ (Operation Freedom Watch), permits and encourages soldiers to engage civilians, including children, for military purposes, using them as informants, guides and porters.”19

16. Sexual violence and sexual exploitation likewise persist amidst state- sanctioned counter insurgency campaigns. Wooing women and girls has become a macho soldier subculture and sly strategy to build and maintain rapport with the community. In the Cordillera alone, there were seven unplanned pregnancies involving soldiers in 2010. Of the seven, one case involved rape.

58 (2) To ensure that members of the security forces are trained on human rights and on their responsibility to protect human rights and human rights defenders (Canada);

17. This joint submission notes the initiatives undertaken by the state party to address the issue. The security forces through their respective human rights affairs offices20 embarked on regional community based human rights dialogues as part of their trust building efforts.21 The state party in this regard is likely to point out the adoption of an internal security plan that opens up spaces for the involvement of the Filipino people.22

18. CSOs working on this joint submission have had concrete experiences with extreme cases of failure to protect human rights and human rights

19 U.N. Secretary General, Children and Armed Conflict, U.N. Doc. A/65/820-S/2011/250 (April 23, 2011).20 Among the notable government initiatives related to the effort to curb unresolved cases of alleged extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances was the creation of human rights offices within the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP), on January 12, 2007, and June 29, 2007, respectively.21 Projects Community-Based Dialogue Sessions on Human Rights, available at http://www.alternativelawgroups.org/whatwedo.asp?sec=det&type=projects&id=247 (last accessed Nov. 26, 2011).22 See ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, Internal Peace and Security Plan, available at http://www.afp.mil.ph/pdf/IPSP%20Bayanihan.pdf (Last accessed Nov. 26, 2011).

16

defenders. Other CSOs are cautiously optimistic about taking part in the dialogues. But many have grounded and concrete reasons to be wary. IPs fighting for their collective right to ancestral land and self-determination are unfairly typecasted as members of the NPA, if not NPA supporters.

19. This submission can readily point out five indigenous civilians incarcerated for charges associated with NPA activities, among many other similar cases. Eddie Cruz, a Dumagat, has been detained for more than a year for charges linked with NPA attacks. In October 2011, four23 civilians in the Cordillera were imprisoned for charges of rebellion in the aftermath of a confrontation between the AFP and the NPA. In May 2011, Anelfa Gimelo, a 50-year-old B’laan woman leader was charged with collection of revolutionary taxes. She is out on bail after three months in detention. An IP in Nueva Viscaya was detained for five months on charges of illegal possession of firearms. He was accused by the AFP as an NPA supporter.

20. In Esperanza, Agusan del Sur, Mindanao, the paramilitary group, Wild Dogs, resumed their threats against the Literacy and Numeracy School under the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines, which reopened after it closed down due to heightened militarization. The school was accused of teaching songs of the NPA. The Higaonons were tagged as a community of NPA supporters because of their strong opposition to mining interests in their territory. They likewise refuse to acknowledge the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim issued to Manpatilan, the leader of the Wild Dogs paramilitary group and self-proclaimed leader of the Higaonons.24

58 (6) To completely eliminate torture and extrajudicial killings (Holy See), to intensify its efforts to carry out investigations and prosecutions on extrajudicial killings and punish those responsible (Switzerland) as well as to provide a follow-up report on efforts and measures to address extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, taking into account the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (The Netherlands);

23 Of the four, one was diagnosed as schizophrenic. The other two are women.24 Urgent Alert, KALUMBAY Regional Lumad Organization and Rural Missionaries of the Philippines, June 2011. It is the same Wild Dogs, now called Salakawan, that massacred the family of Datu Lapugotan Belayong leading to his death and Solte An-ogan, wounding of his two children.

17

21. The Special Rapportuer recommended to immediately direct military officers to cease from making public statements linking political or other civil society groups to those engaged in armed insurgencies. The report urged the state party to implement transparency in the “order of battle” and “watch list” of the state security forces. According to the report, vilification is being used by state security forces to legitimize the commission of human rights violations against those they tag as “terrorists” or “enemies of the state.”25

22. James Balao26 of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance was abducted in September 19, 2008, allegedly by the AFP. In a petition for a Writ of Amparo, the Regional Trial Court rendered an order to the AFP to surface Balao. Despite the Writ of Amparo, Balao remains missing until today.

23. The aftermath of NPA attacks on mining areas in Mindanao, the Chamber of Mines released a statement implicating anti-mining movements in Palawan as having “apparently emboldened the NPA to believe that protection of the environment can justify their attacks on mining companies.”27

24. All 15 documented cases of victims of extrajudicial killings from 2008 to the present were tagged as NPA supporters. Those killed since 2008 include three28 Dumagats in Rizal, one29 Agta, one30 Palaw’an, and ten31 Lumads. Two were women. Moreover, of the 15, eight victims32 were active leaders of KATRIBU party list.

25 See Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Addendum, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/8/3/Add.2 (Apr. 16, 2008) (by Philip Alston).26 An indigenous activist who was instrumental in lobbying for the inclusion of provisions on ancestral land and regional autonomy in the 1987 Constitution was a victim of enforced disappearance few months after the Philippines was subjected to the UPR.27 Marianne Go, Chamber of Mines says ‘no to revolutionary tax,’ PHIL. STAR, Oct. 8, 2011, available at http://www.philstar.com/nation/article.aspx?publicationsubcategoryid=67&articleid=735011 (last accessed November 26, 2011).28 Benita San Jose, Demilita Largo, Edward Navarte, July 19, 2010, Rizal.29 Julito Rosal, February 9, 2011, Cagayan.30 Rabinio Sungit, September 5, 2011, Palawan.31 Arpe Datu Lapugotan Belaong, Solte San-ogan, June 30, 2011, Agusan del Sur; Rudyrick and Rudy Dejos, March 2011, Davao del Sur; Datu Mampaagi Belayong, September 9, 2009, Agusan del Sur; Datu Aladino “Mansubaybay” Badbaran, September 28, 2009; Datu Alvie Binungkusan, November 20, 2009, Misamis Oriental; Ludensio Monson; April 29, 2009, Davao Oriental; Kapis Butod, April 14, 2009, Davao del Norte; Datu Domindaro Diarog, April 29, 2008, Davao City.32 June 2010-November 2011.

18

25. Fr. Faustino Tentorio, an Italian priest, was killed in Mindanao in October 2011. He was a prominent environmentalist and advocate of IP rights. He had been actively supporting the local communities in their opposition to mining operations in their territory.The subsequent issues report on select CERD recommendations, which the state party was required to address by January 2012 (CERD/C/PHL/CO/20).

Recommendation (Par) 17: Provision of disaggregated data and use of the census in 2010 to include indicators disaggregated by ethnicity and gender on the basis of voluntary self-identification, and to provide the data obtained in its next periodic report.

26. IPs, IP organizations and support groups await the release of the latest census with anticipation. For the first time, the National Statistics Office, in coordination with the NCIP, included an ethnicity variable in 2010 Census of Population and Housing (CPH). CSOs who were able to witness the process note issues on the preparations, data collection, identification, and survey proper.

27. Despite the reservations and issues, especially the NCIP formula on the ethnicity of children from inter-marriages. The figures when released, will be the first disaggregated data on IP population in the Philippines. The accuracy of the estimate, which is often pegged from 15% – 17%, may not be resolved. The results of the 2010 CPH will, however, officially surface the statistically invisible IP population.

28. The Philippine Government has yet to concretely act on CERD recommendation (23). State recognition of time immemorial ownership of ancestral domains and lands is key to uplifting the economic, social, and cultural well-being of IPs. Such ownership will further enhance IP rights to self-determination and self-governance as enshrined in the IPRA and the UNDRIP. The existing guidelines and processes for the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) and a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT) have not undergone any review for the purpose of streamlining the process and making it less burdensome for IPs to obtain a CADT and/or CALT for their lands. As it stands, while IPs find it hard to prove their ownership of their land since time immemorial, land grabbers who illegally obtain titles to the same lands enjoy the protection of the law given the presumption of validity of the 18

Fr. Faustino Tentorio, an Italian priest, was killed in Mindanao in October 25. 2011. He was a prominent environmentalist and advocate of IP rights. He had been actively supporting the local communities in their opposition to mining operations in their territory.The subsequent issues report on select CERD recommendations, which the state party was required to address by January 2012 (CERD/C/PHL/CO/20).

Recommendation (Par) 17: Provision of disaggregated data and use of the census in 2010 to include indicators disaggregated by ethnicity and gender on the basis of voluntary self-identification, and to provide the data obtained in its next periodic report.

IPs, IP organizations and support groups await the release of the latest 26. census with anticipation. For the first time, the National Statistics Office, in coordination with the NCIP, included an ethnicity variable in 2010 Census of Population and Housing (CPH). CSOs who were able to witness the process note issues on the preparations, data collection, identification, and survey proper.

Despite the reservations and issues, especially the NCIP formula on the 27. ethnicity of children from inter-marriages. The figures when released, will be the first disaggregated data on IP population in the Philippines. The accuracy of the estimate, which is often pegged from 15% – 17%, may not be resolved. The results of the 2010 CPH will, however, officially surface the statistically invisible IP population.

The Philippine Government has yet to concretely act on CERD 28. recommendation (23). State recognition of time immemorial ownership of ancestral domains and lands is key to uplifting the economic, social, and cultural well-being of IPs. Such ownership will further enhance IP rights to self-determination and self-governance as enshrined in the IPRA and the UNDRIP. The existing guidelines and processes for the issuance of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) and a Certificate of Ancestral Land Title (CALT) have not undergone any review for the purpose of streamlining the process and making it less burdensome for IPs to obtain a CADT and/or CALT for their lands. As it stands, while IPs find it hard to prove their ownership of their land since time immemorial, land grabbers who illegally obtain titles to the same lands enjoy the protection of the law given the presumption of validity of the

19

title that they hold. This definitely places IPs at a disadvantage.

29. Similar cases highlighted in the Philippine ICERD Shadow report33 on the formal process for claiming collective land titles remain unduly burdensome. The indigenous communities continue bear the burden of proof when submitting applications.

30. The joint submission reiterates that the occurrences of extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and “red-labeling” of IPs and advocates who work to promote their rights to collective land titles are pieces of evidence that show the failure of the Philippines to put in place effective measures to protect communities from retaliations and violations in relation to the exercise of their land rights. Recommendation 24: Verify that the current structures and guidelines/procedures established to conduct FPIC are in accordance with the spirit and letter of the IPRA and set realistic time frames for consultation processes with indigenous peoples & verify that the apparent lack of formal protests regarding FPIC processes.

31. The ongoing review of the existing FPIC guidelines is a welcome exercise to IPOs, support groups and CSOs in general. The review being undertaken by the NCIP and National Cultural Communities Committee (NCC) of the House of Representatives is generally appreciated.

32. Section 16 of the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 states that “[n]o ancestral land shall be opened for mining-operations without prior consent [FPIC] of the indigenous cultural community concerned.” The common scheme employed by the FPIC applicant to circumvent the consultation and consent provisions of the Mining Act is by fraudulently acquiring the FPIC. Moreover, since the FPIC process is managed and interpreted by government agencies, there is no way that adequate checks and balances may be made, as noted by UN CERD in its 2009 recommendations (par 24. CERD/C/PHL/CO/20).

33 ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., ET AL., Philippines Indigenous Peoples ICERD Shadow Report for the consolidated fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth Philippine ICERD periodic reports, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/ngos/PIP_Philippines75.pdf (last accessed November 26, 2011).

20

33. One of the most controversial conflict-generating projects was that of TVI Pacific, a Canadian mining firm, at Canatuan, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte.

34. In 2007, three Subanon organizations and support organizations lodged an Urgent Action Early Warning appeal to CERD. They raised a number of concerns; the most pressing was the failure to obtain the required FPIC prior to approving the project. A Subanon-recognized sacred mountain– Mt. Canatuan – was reduced to an open pit mine despite local opposition, and without due regard for cultural values, damage, and the spiritual threats to health and well-being. Further, there were extended delays in the legal recognition of Canatuan Subanon’s ancestral domain title. They also made a call for the restoration of the mountain, recognition of their customary laws and institutions, and appeasing of the spiritual pollution.34

35. The Canatuan Subanon have been subjected to repeated pressure to withdraw their appeal, but they have consistently refused, due to the serious and now long unresolved problems. However, through engagement with CERD, the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title covering Mt. Canatuan was finally issued.

36. In 2009, in their report to CERD, paragraph 25 (CERD/C/PHL/CO), the NCIP falsely reported that matters with the Canatuan people were resolved. This was refuted by the tribal elders. There has been no restoration or commitment to restore the mountain in order to address the physical or spiritual impacts. The Philippine Government still fails to publicly acknowledge the violation of its own laws, especially the Mining Act and IPRA that led to the operation of the mine without the required FPIC and against the wishes of the community. Justice or redress for the victims of human rights violations is still unaddressed by the government agencies.

37. The same company is currently seeking to expand into other ancestral land areas of the Subanon, such as those of the Subanen in the Municipality of Midsalip.35 Despite its now proven bad track record, TVI is not being

34 See Early Warning Urgent Action letters issued to the Philippine Government by UN CERD between 2007 to 2010 available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/early-warning.htm (last accessed Nov. 26, 2011). See also ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., ET AL., supra note 33.35 The spelling Subanon/Subanen varies by community.

20

One of the most controversial conflict-generating projects was that of 33. TVI Pacific, a Canadian mining firm, at Canatuan, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte.

In 2007, three Subanon organizations and support organizations lodged 34. an Urgent Action Early Warning appeal to CERD. They raised a number of concerns; the most pressing was the failure to obtain the required FPIC prior to approving the project. A Subanon-recognized sacred mountain– Mt. Canatuan – was reduced to an open pit mine despite local opposition, and without due regard for cultural values, damage, and the spiritual threats to health and well-being. Further, there were extended delays in the legal recognition of Canatuan Subanon’s ancestral domain title. They also made a call for the restoration of the mountain, recognition of their customary laws and institutions, and appeasing of the spiritual pollution.34

The Canatuan Subanon have been subjected to repeated pressure to 35. withdraw their appeal, but they have consistently refused, due to the serious and now long unresolved problems. However, through engagement with CERD, the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title covering Mt. Canatuan was finally issued.

In 2009, in their report to CERD, paragraph 25 (CERD/C/PHL/36. CO), the NCIP falsely reported that matters with the Canatuan people were resolved. This was refuted by the tribal elders. There has been no restoration or commitment to restore the mountain in order to address the physical or spiritual impacts. The Philippine Government still fails to publicly acknowledge the violation of its own laws, especially the Mining Act and IPRA that led to the operation of the mine without the required FPIC and against the wishes of the community. Justice or redress for the victims of human rights violations is still unaddressed by the government agencies.

The same company is currently seeking to expand into other ancestral land 37. areas of the Subanon, such as those of the Subanen in the Municipality of Midsalip.35 Despite its now proven bad track record, TVI is not being

34 See Early Warning Urgent Action letters issued to the Philippine Government by UN CERD between 2007 to 2010 available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/early-warning.htm (last accessed Nov. 26, 2011). See also ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., ET AL., supra note 33.35 The spelling Subanon/Subanen varies by community.

21

opposed by the MGB or NCIP. The use of violence, intimidation, and misrepresentation had been proven successful. In the Municipality of Bayog, another Subanen community, a mining company has secured the services of a security agency owned by former Gen. Palparan.36 The employment of the security agency has generated fear and intimidation in the residents of Bayog. This was principally caused by the armed skirmishes between the security agency and another claimant company.37 In Midsalip, civil and criminal actions have been taken by a mining company against the Subanen who, following seriously flawed FPIC processes, were using peaceful means to protest the entry of mining operations into their ancestral domains.

38. We thank the Philippine government for recognizing the economic, environmental, and social concerns raised by its citizens with regard to the mining industry. Particularly, recognizing, albeit reluctantly, that mining has often resulted in the displacement of IPs and other rural communities and caused the depletion of natural resources upon which they depend for their livelihoods. There are pending bills in the Philippine Congress that seek to amend the current Philippine Mining Act and address these deficiencies which allow such situations to arise.

39. The Alternative Mining Bill, Mineral Management Bill and Peoples Mining Bill are examples of such existing draft bills in the House of Representatives legislative mill. These bills seek to address the need for an alternative framework for the mining industry. The Indigenous Peoples Rights Acts was blocked time and again in the legislative mills, having had to go through a decade or three congresses before enactment. Game changing bills, which seek to uphold human rights, such as the proposed Philippine Mineral Resources Act – which consolidates the Alternative Mining Bill, Mineral Management Bill, and Peoples Mining Bill, are hardly prioritized and suffer extreme pressure from corporate lobby against their passage.

36 Gen. Palparan was identified in the report of UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions Prof. Philip Alston as associated with cases of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.37 Philippines: Probe into extrajudicial killings in Eastern Visayas, available at http://www.asiapacificforum.net/news/philippines-probe-into-extrajudicial-killings-in-eastern-visayas.html (last accessed November 26, 2011).

22

Recommendations

Through this joint submission, it is respectfully submitted that the following recommendations be referred by the body to the state party for its consideration, support, and implementation:

40. To effect stronger protective complaints mechanisms on violation of human rights of women and children in the context of armed conflict. Ensure effective and speedy investigation, prosecution, and conviction to deter further commission of such violations.

41. To further its efforts in professionalizing its security forces by taking measures to address the practice of criminalizing and branding social activists and the use of school facilities, day care centers for military use, in light of the Children and Armed Conflict report of the Secretary General to the Security Council (A/65/820–S/2011/250) and the continuing issues of abuses by the security forces.

42. To enact a law on mineral management adopting a human rights-compliant framework that: (a) guarantees that the exploration, development, and utilization of mineral resources, while contributing to nation building, does not undermine the rights of IPs to their land and to self-determination; (b) prioritizes livable conditions for the communities, and in particular the physical and cultural well-being and survival of indigenous communities; and (c) ensures that the gains from the mining industry would be maximized while preventing or mitigating its adverse effects.

43. To further recognize the complexity and importance of drafting rights-compliant FPIC guidelines and to further support the review process initiated by NCIP and the NCC of the House of Representatives through a state-funded process that would review and revise the current guidelines on FPIC, ensuring wider participation of IPs in the process.

44. To order an extended moratorium on all FPIC processes while the review of the guidelines is ongoing.

45. To take effective measures holding to account all government officials involved in manipulating FPIC processes by filing the appropriate criminal and administrative cases, following the emphasis placed on good governance by the state party.

23

46. To initiate, as recommended by UN CERD, a state-funded, independent, and credible review enjoying broad confidence of affected peoples of the process and guidelines to obtain CADTs and CALTs, taking into account customary law and wider participation of IPs in the review process, mindful of the ongoing development of new FPIC guidelines and of the resources needed to fully realize meaningful participation in the consultation process.

24

The human rIghTs sITuaTIon of

IndIgenous PeoPle In The PhIlIPPInes

foR the 13th session of the univeRsAl peRiodic Review of the philippine goveRnment in the united

nAtions humAn Rights council in mAy-June 2012

submitted by:

KalIPunan ng mga KaTuTubong mamamayan ng PIlIPInas

nAtionAl AlliAnce of indigenous peoples oRgAnizAtions in the philippines Room 304, nAtionAl council of chuRches in the philippines

building 879 edsA Quezon city,bARAngAy west tRiAngle philippines

telfAx: +632-4125340emAil: KAmp_phils@yAhoo.com

website: www.KAtutubongmAmAmAyAn.oRg

KAlipunAn ng mgA KAtutubong mAmAmAyAn ng pilipinAs is A nAtionAl AlliAnce of indigenous peoples’ oRgAnizAtions in the philippines. it is

the lARgest indigenous peoples’ foRmAtion in the philippines.

25

1. Kalipunan ng mga Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas (KAMP) is the largest alliance of indigenous peoples organizations in the Philippines. It is national alliance of three island-wide organizations,1 ten regional organizations,2 and three provincial organizations.3 Also affiliated with KAMP is a national network of indigenous women’s organizations. Data was collected from documentation of member organizations, fact-finding missions, on-site visits, focused group discussions, and secondary data gathering.

2. The Philippine Government has ratified all the UN Human Rights instruments except for the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and several optional protocols. The Philippines has ratified the optional protocols to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and Convention on the Rights of a Child (CRC). However, it has not yet ratified the optional protocol to the Convention against Torture. The 2008 Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process took note of this and has urged the government to have this ratified. The Philippines also adopted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP.)

3. The Philippines enacted the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) in 1997, an Act recognized by the international community as among the very few progressive laws protecting the rights of indigenous peoples.

4. The government signed on August 7, 1998, the Comprehensive Agreement on the Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL). It was a comprehensive agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippine and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines to guarantee the protection of human rights of all Filipinos under all circumstances and to re-affirm and apply the International Humanitarian Laws in the conduct of the armed conflict between the two parties.

5. KAMP welcomes the recommendations of the UPR process to the Philippine government in its session in 2008, all of which are exceedingly

1 In Palawan, Mindoro and Mindanao2 Regions of Cagayan Valley, Cordillera, Central Luzon, Southern Tagalog, Central Visayas, Caraga, Northern Mindanao, Western Mindanao, Southern Mindanao and SOCSKSARGEN3 Provinces of Rizal, Aurora and Quezon

26

relevant to indigenous peoples. However, we have noted with great concern that there were no recommendations raised specifically on the obligation of the Philippine government to the rights of indigenous peoples. In view of this, KAMP wishes to draw the attention of the UPR mechanism on serious human rights issues faced by our member organizations and by the indigenous peoples we represent.

6. Despite the enactment of the IPRA, indigenous peoples all over the country continue to be subjected to various forms of human rights violations, as individuals and as collective peoples. We appeal to the UPR mechanism to urge the Philippine government to respond to the following issues:

Worsening ‘Development Aggression’

7. The operation and numerous applications of large-scale mining, both by local and transnational corporations, is the biggest threat to the right of the indigenous peoples to ancestral land and to self-determination. Taken from government data, there are at least 184 approved mining applications in areas occupied by indigenous peoples covering an estimated 595,058.11 hectares of ancestral lands in 28 provinces.4 Nationwide, five of the six Financial Technical Assistance Agreements (FTAA),5 118 of the 338 approved Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA),6 39 of the 89 Exploration Permit (EP),7 and 8 of the 49 Mineral Processing Permits (MPP)8 are located within the ancestral lands of indigenous peoples.9

8. For indigenous peoples, large-scale mining activities are threats to their

4 Based on KAMP’s analysis of the data on the Approved Mining Tenements from the Mines and Geosciences Bureau under the Department of Natural Resources accessed on October 2010.5 FTAA is an agreement for large-scale exploration, development and utilization of minerals.6 MPSA is a mineral agreement wherein Government shares in the production of the contractor, whether in kind or value, as owner of the minerals, and the contractor gets the rest. In return, the contractor provides the necessary financing, technology, management and personnel for the mining project.7 EP allows a qualified person to undertake exploration activities for mineral resources in certain areas open to mining.8 MPP is the permit granted to a qualified person for the processing of minerals which includes milling, beneficiation, leaching, smelting, cyanidation, calcination or upgrading of ores, minerals, rocks, mill tallings, mine wastes and/or other metallurgical by-products or by similar means to convert the same into marketable products.9 Based on KAMP’s analysis of the data on the Approved Mining Tenements from the Mines and Geosciences Bureau under the Department of Natural Resources accessed on October 2010.

27

survival and bring about irreparable damage to the environment. In some cases, mining activities impinge on sacred sites, burial grounds, and cultural beliefs and practices. The impact of mining is ethnocide.

9. The inherent right of indigenous peoples to their ancestral land and natural resources therein are undermined by jurisprudence, Mining Act of 1995, regressing interpretation of the IPRA, weakened Implementing Rules and Regulations, Administrative Orders and several other domestic laws and national policies. The right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) legally protected under the IPRA, the UNDRIP and other UN instruments are manipulated, either blatantly or through subtle means, and in many cases, through coercion and use of the military and paramilitary.

10. This is the case of the application for mining in Bakun, Benguet in the Cordillera. Australian mining company Royalco Philippines Inc. was granted a mining exploration permit for more than 5,400 hectares covering Kankana-ey ancestral territories after the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) granted certificate of compliance to the FPIC. Several occasions of congressional investigations, legislative inquiries and a congressional on-site hearing convened by Cong. Teodoro Baguilat Jr., in response to broad and sustained opposition from the community concluded that the FPIC process was flawed. First, there was overwhelming rejection to the mining exploration in the first FPIC meeting conducted by NCIP. Also, in several resolutions and petitions of the Bakun Aywanan people’s organization, submitted to NCIP and Royalco as collective decision of “no consent.” But none of these were recognized as decision-making process. Thereafter, the NCIP repeated the FPIC process, this time dividing the affected communities to three separate processes, effectively weakening the community’s collective decision. Reportedly, Royalco, through the facilitation of NCIP, forged Memorandum of Agreement with selected tribal leaders, in violation of indigenous decision-making processes.

11. Compounding the outright violation of the right to FPIC, corporations engage the use of military, police forces, paramilitary groups, and other state-sanctioned armed groups to quell opposition.

Use of Paramilitary Groups and Arming of Indigenous Peoples

12. The formation and recruitment of indigenous peoples to paramilitary

28

groups to augment military operations or to protect corporate interests is another phenomenon exacerbating the violation of the rights of indigenous peoples.

13. Despite the recommendation of then UN Special Rapporteur Rodolfo Stavenhagen for the Philippine government to end the use of paramilitary groups, the current administration of President Benigno Aquino continues to sanction paramilitary groups.

14. The most recent engagement of the Aquino administration in promoting paramilitary groups is an agreement entered into with the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army (CPLA),10 making the CPLA a formal partner of the government in the implementation of socio-economic projects in their communities. The CPLA acknowledged their accountability for the extrajudicial killing of indigenous leaders Daniel Ngayaan of Kalinga and Romy Gardo of Abra in 1987. In spite of this, former President Corazon Aquino forged partnership with the CPLA, while Gloria Arroyo integrated its members into the AFP. The present government of President Benigno Aquino III has once again given the CPLA privileged positions and committed millions of pesos for their socio-economic projects, ignoring their accountability for the killing of indigenous leaders and numerous other violations. Further, the CPLA are widely known as goons to local politicians.

15. The most atrocious paramilitary groups are found in Mindanao: the Wild Dogs, now known as Salakawan in Ezperanza, Agusan del Sur under self-acclaimed Higaonon leader Deo “Datu Macombate” Manpatilan, Bungkatol Liberation Front (BULIF) under Ronald Manhumosay and ALAMARA under Ruben Labawan and Joel Unad. These paramilitary groups are operating in Northern Mindanao11 forested area which is being eyed by corporate firms for plantations and mining business.12 Manpatilan, a former Mayor of Esperanza, is the holder of a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Certificate (CADC) in Agusan del Sur comprising of 74,827 hectares. Manhumosay is, in like manner, the holder of another CADC, covering 8,000 hectares along the boundary between Agusan del Sur and Agusan del Norte. His CADC is adjacent to that of Manpatilan. Labawan is the administrative officer of two CADCs

10 CPLA is a splinter group of the New Peoples Army in 198611 In the quad-boundaries of Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Misamis Oriental and Bukidnon.12 See Annex 2

29

and a 37,000-hectare Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) in Paquibato. Unad is the chair of the Mindanao Indigenous Peoples Conference on Peace and Development (MIPCPD).13 MIPCPD entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Eastern Mindanao Command of the AFP to deal with legitimate movements of indigenous peoples in Mindanao. The leaders of the MIPCPD have also entered into contracts with private companies exploiting natural resources found in ancestral domains of Lumads.

16. In June 2011, Arpe “Datu Lapugotan” Belayong of the Higaonon tribe in Ezperanza and his nephew Solte San-ogan were killed by members of Salakawan.14 Wounded in the incident are his two children. Earlier in 2009, Datu Mampaagi Belayong, brother of Arpe “Datu Lapugotan” Belayong was killed by members of the Task Force Gantangan and Bungkalot Liberation Force. A similar incident happened in 2007 in Agusan del Norte where another Higaonon leader, Somo Senga, was killed by Mahumosay’s Bungkatol Liberation Front over conflict on CADT and logging intrusions. This incident was reported to the UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston. These killings had led to sporadic evacuations of Higaonons. There has been a historical conflict over the issue on CADC, agroforestry, logging operations and mining interests between the Higaonons against Manpatilan.

17. Of note is the formation of the Task Force Gantangan (TFG) by the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The TFG is known for conscripting Lumads into tribal warrior groups for intelligence gathering and military operations against the New People’s Army (NPA), including suspected supporters. Aside from causing human rights atrocities, Gantangan bastardizes indigenous socio-cultural practices and defense systems, such as the pangayaw. Traditionally intended to defend Lumad territory from encroachment and destruction, the pangayaw was used for counter-insurgency and security for businesses, commonly harming other Lumads resisting development aggression.

Extrajudicial Killings

13 MIPCPD was established by the AFP in 2003 and has been the main instrumentalities in the imprementation of the National Internal Security Plan – Indigenous Peoples, a counter-insurgency plan specifically sesigned to deal with indigenous peoples in Mindanao.14 See Annex 1

30

18. The spate of extrajudicial killings among indigenous peoples continues as the Philippine government aggressively encouraged foreign enterprises and transnational companies to invest in the country’s resources. These resources are largely found in indigenous peoples’ territories. From 2008 to November 2011, there had been 33 killings of indigenous peoples from various tribes and geographical regions.

19. From her installment to the presidency in 2001 to the end of her term in 2010, the Arroyo administration accounts for 151 extrajudicial slays of indigenous persons, 20 of these killed from January 2008 to July 2010.

20. Inaugurated in June 2011, Benigno Aquino III extended the implementation of Oplan Bantay Laya, the counter-insurgency program blamed for the spate of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances during the Arroyo administration for six months. It was replaced by Oplan Bayanihan in January 2011. In the one-year old Aquino government, 13 indigenous peoples have been victims of extrajudicial killings, making the total of extrajudicial slays among indigenous peoples to 33 from January 2008 to November 2011.15

21. Rabenio Sungit,16 member of the Palaw’an tribe was slain last October 10, 2011, in Quezon, Palawan by motorcycle-riding gunmen typical of the assassins who executed the extrajudicial slays during the Arroyo administration. Rabenio is brother of Avenio Sungit, also a victim of extrajudicial killing in 2005. Rabenio is a known leader of Pagsambatan, an indigenous organization that is vocal in local struggles against mining and human rights violations.

22. The counter-insurgency program of the Aquino administration, Oplan Bayanihan, is no different, if not potentially more treacherous, than the Oplan Bantay Laya. Oplan Bayanihan purports to work within the human rights framework. On the contrary, it puts lives of civilians in danger through its strategy of “community development teams” and the deployment of military engineering brigades that will be implementing development projects. The strategy of community development under the auspices of the AFP endangers civilians, strips off otherwise

15 See Annex 516 See Annex 3

31

civilian functions from the civil bureaucracy with high probability that development programs will be utilized with non-development objectives.

Forced Evacuation

23. The escalation of military operations in indigenous peoples’ territories had in several cases led to forcible evacuation. We have documented 41 instances of forced evacuations of Lumads since January 2008 to November 2011.17

24. Some communities evacuate repeatedly, such as in Agusan del Norte. Members of the Mamanwa tribe in Kitcharao and Jabonga, Agusan del Norte evacuated four times since May 2010, three of these occurring in six months in 2011. Militarization of the Zapanta Valley is linked to the on rush of mining applications in the mineral-rich land. Agusan del Norte has 15,530.65 hectares of approved mining applications that are being opposed by the indigenous communities. After an NPA attack on the mining company, widely known for its tremendous environmental destruction, an unrelenting bombing from howitzer cannons in Zapanta Valley ensued. The bombings prompted the latest evacuation in November 2, 2011.

25. Repeated military operations in communities pose serious threats to the mental and physical health of residents. Forty-three evacuees have died in evacuation centers, three of which were children. Also, it must be noted that evacuees suffered subhuman conditions in evacuation centers.

Compliance of the Philippine Government with Human Rights Instruments

26. KAMP believes that the Philippine government has failed to comply with core human rights obligations to indigenous peoples as enshrined in the IPRA, UNDRIP and all the UN Human Rights instruments that it has ratified. The Philippine government has failed to protect indigenous peoples from “development aggression,” in particular, mining activities in their territories. In fact, it is the very government that promotes and facilitates entry of these mining activities in violation of the indigenous

17 See Annex 4

32

peoples’ right to FPIC and their inherent and prior right to ancestral lands. The Philippine government promotes and supports paramilitary groups who are notoriously acting without restraint in dealing with legitimate grievances. No prosecution and conviction has been lodged against perpetrators of human rights violations, leading to the conclusion that the government is tolerating impunity among its security forces. The government is not taking concrete steps to address forced evacuation.

Recommendations

27. KAMP strongly believes that the key to long lasting peace for indigenous peoples is the protection of their inherent, prior, existing and inalienable right to their ancestral territories and its indivisible, inter-related, and interdependent right to self-determination. These rights are protected in the domestic law and several international declarations and conventions. In this light, KAMP appeals to the UPR mechanism to urge the Philippine government to provide particular response on how the government is the dealing with the mining activities as this relates with the indigenous peoples inherent, prior, existing and inalienable right to self-determined development and to ancestral territories and natural resources.

28. KAMP supports the recommendation of the UPR 2008 for the Philippines to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the Optional Protocol on the Convention Against Torture.

29. KAMP restates its call for the Philippine government to implement the recommendation of UN Special Rapporteur Rodolfo Stavenhagen to cease using paramilitary groups.

30. Finally, KAMP restates the specific recommendations of UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston for speedy and effective mechanism of prosecuting and convicting perpetrators of human rights violations.

Recommendations to the Government

31. Recognize and uphold the prior rights of indigenous peoples and revoke discriminatory legislation and doctrines, and with urgency, the Mining Act of 1995.

33

32. Abandon the counter-insurgency program, Oplan Bayanihan. Seriously pursue peace negotiations with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) to pave the way in addressing and resolving the roots of the conflict. Implement the Comprehensive Agreement on the Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) to ensure civilians and combatants declared hors d combat are protected in the course of armed conflict.

33. Immediately dismantle paramilitary groups.

34. Pull out State forces in indigenous communities.

35. Carry out prompt and effective investigation of the human rights violations committed against indigenous peoples, which have been documented by human rights organizations and fact-finding missions. Ensure that all responsible for these violations, including officers under whose command such abuse occurred, be prosecuted.

Recommendations to the International Community

36. Conduct international investigative missions to look into gross human violations committed against indigenous peoples in the Philippines.

37. Support the ongoing peace negotiations between the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the NDFP as well as the GPH and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

34

annex 1

facT sheeT

Case Number:

Case: Killing/Frustrated Killing; threat

Victims: Killed in the incident are:1. Arpe “Datu Lapugotan” Belayong, 40 years old, male, Higaonon,

member of the local Higaonon organization Linundigan, married to Mayse Manguanta, with five (5) children ranging in age from one year to fifteen years old, from Mount Manalog, Brgy. Calabu-an, Esperanza, Agusan del Sur. He was a nephew of Datu Mampaagi Belayong, founding chairperson of Linundigan, who was killed in 2009; and

2. Sulte San-ogan, 21 years old, male, Higaonon, nephew of Arpe’s wife Mayse, deaf-mute, also a member of Linundigan, single, neighbor of Arpe Belayong.

Wounded in the incident are two children of Arpe and Mayse Belayong, namely:

1. Michelle Belayong, 14 years old, female

2. Adeb Belayong, 4 years old, male

Harassed were staff of the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines, Datu Man-altuwan, and members of the local Higaonon organization Linundigan-Kalumbay during their formal meeting with Esperanza Mayor Nida Manpatilan

Date of Incident: June 6, 2011June 30, 2011 at around 5 o’ clock in the morning

Place of Incident: Mount Manalog, Brgy. Calabuan, Esperanza, Agusan del Sur

Perpetrator/s: Identified members of the SCAA and paramilitary group known as “Salakawan”

35

meaning enforcer of all laws, formerly known as the Manpatilan private army called Wild Dogs, armed with garrand, M14 and carbine rifles, namely:

1. Laging Binsalan2. Tala Mansinugdan3. Edik Bat-ongan – kadre sa SCAA sa Brgy Salog4. Person known as Ihag, part of the personal security detail of Mayor

Nida Manpatilan, wife of former Mayor Deo Manpatilan

Former Esperanza Mayor Deo Manpatilan and his wife, current Esperanza Mayor Nida Manpatilan and their personal bodyguards

Motive: Clearing operations of the Salakawan to pave the way for the entry of logging and mining companies in the ancestral domain areas of the Higaonon Tribe claimed through the approved CADT by Deo Manpatilan, self-acclaimed Higaonon tribal leader, known warlord and local politician. Manpatilan’s Wild Dogs that is now known as Salakawan, is an armed group that is locally feared, notorious for committing atrocities, including killings, against political opponents and local activists in the guise of anti-communist operations. Salakawan is known to also include the private armies and SCAA under the command of lumad aristocrats Ronald Manhumosay, Benhur Mansulonay and Mario Napungahan.

BackgroundIn 2006, Higaonon communities opposed to self-acclaimed Higaonon tribal leader Ronald Manhumosay’s CADT claim in the Higaonon ancestral domain areas in Agusan del Norte were harassed by his armed Bungkatol Liberation Front (BULIF), a paramilitary group formed by the Kahugpungan sa Nagkahiusang Minorya (KNM), a government-initiated tribal organization as part of the “Zone of Peace” effort under Oplan Lambat Bitag in 1992. It claims representation for the Higaonon in negotiations with the NCIP and TRICOM. Datu Ronald Manhumosay is the current president of the KNM. It is the holder of CADT 18, covering communities from Km.30 onwards along the Nasipit Lumber Company (NALCO) road.

Many Higaonon died in connection with this conflict, among them Somo Senga, whose killing was among those reported to UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston when he visited Mindanao in 2007.

Despite reports of killings and harassment perpetrated by private armed

36

groups in claiming territories in the resource-rich Higaonon ancestral domain, the PNP and AFP has tolerated the continued arming of groups such as the BULIF and Manpatilan’s Wild Dogs. With the addition of the AFP’s Task Force Gantangan – Bagani Force, more rogue armed bands are roaming the mountains of these areas.

As the harassment escalated in 2007 that resulted in the closure of literacy-numeracy schools in Lawan-Lawan, Las Nieves Agusan del Norte, small Higaonon communities opposed to Manhumosay’s claim were displaced deep into the mountains in the quadri-boundary of Agusan del Norte, Agusan del Sur, Misamis Oriental and Bukidnon. Those who relocated from Las Nieves, Agusan del Norte to escape Manhumosay’s BULIF and went to the hinterland communities in Esperanza, Agusan del Sur are now prey to Manpatilan’s Wild Dog.

In 2009, Datu Mampaagi Belayong, elder and founding chairman of progressive Higaonon organization Linundigan, was killed in his home in Brgy. Kinamaybay, Esperanza in Agusan del Sur by known members of the TFG-BF and BULIF in a joint operation. Despite first hand witnesses to the killing, no arrests were made in connection with this case. One of the known perpetrators in Datu Mampaagi’s killing, Commander Bawang, has verbally attacked progressive organizations and their leaders and has vowed to wipe out their ranks.

As big investors in palm oil plantation and mining target the forest areas in Esperanza, CADT claims of lumad dealers Manpatilan, Manhumosay, Mansulonay and Napongahan become more valuable and stand to personally benefit them to the detriment of the lumad communities they claim to protect. Exploiting the prescriptions of the defective Indigenous People’s Rights Law and its corrupt National Commission on the Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), instead of genuinely respecting the right to self-determination and concretely recognizing their ancestral domain, these instruments have become tools for further exploitation and sellout of the natural resources that they have preserved for generations.

CircumstancesIn March 2011, local Higaonon organization Linundigan, through their elder Datu Man-altuwan requested the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines (RMP) to establish a community school in Semontanan, Brgy. Calabuan in the mountains of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur. Understanding the need for such a lumad school and with the community’s cooperation, RMP decided

37

to respond positively to the request.

Arpe Belayong supported Linundigan’s initiative to have the RMP school in their community. He was a father of three school-age children and also a member of the Parent-Teacher-Community Organization of their community school in Lawan-Lawan, Las Nieves from where they were displaced two years ago. Although he lived four-days-hike away from the village center of Semontanan in the middle of the forest, he welcomed the building of the school.

On May 11, 2011, Arpe was visited by Bontula, younger brother of Tala Mansinogdan, who told him that Tala was being held captive by Laging Binasalan, a known member of Manpatilan’s Wild Dog, now Salakawan. On May 14, Tala himself visited Arpe and warned him that Laging released him on the condition that Tala convince Arpe to leave his Mansalog home and farm because it is Laging’s territory. Arpe’s wife Mayse asked that they be allowed to harvest their crop before leaving the area.

Meanwhile, on June 6, 2011, staff of RMP with Datu Man-altuwan, Brgy. Captain of Brgy. Calabuan and local members of Linundigan from Semontanan visited the office of Mayor Nida Manpatilan in Brgy. Poblacion, Esperanza, Agusan del Sur. Former Mayor Deo Manpatilan was also in Mayor Nida’s office at the time. Only RMP staff, Datu Man-altuwan and Calabuan Brgy. Captain were allowed an audience with the Mayor.

During the interview, Deo Manpatilan repeatedly warned Datu Man-altuwan’s decision to allow the RMP to start a school in Semontanan, saying that the children would be taught anti-government and subversive songs. He warned the Brgy. Captain and Datu Man-altuwan that should anything happen to the community related to RMP’s running of the school, the Esperanza LGU cannot be held responsible and cannot intervene. In his parting shot, Deo Manpatilan reminded the RMP to strictly follow legal procedure with the Department of Education with regard to the opening of the school.

After their interview, Datu Man-altuwan was brought to Deo Manpatilan’s home and was further warned about allowing the RMP into Semontanan. He was presented with the alternative of allowing a logging firm to help them build a school instead.

Despite the threats, RMP was able to get the support of Linundigan through their resolution, affirming their desire to have a community school in

38

Semontanan.

On the third week of June, Tala returned to Arpe’s home to inform him that Laging Binasalan and his Salakawan group was going to launch an operation to clear Mount Manalog.

On June 30, at around 5am, while Arpe was lying on the floor of his house with his wife Mayse and children Jea Mae, 1 year old, Adeb, 4 years old and Edjon, 8 years old, they heard men lying on the ground outside their house. About two meters from their house, Arpe’s daughter Michelle, 14 years old and his nephew Solte, 21 years old were asleep in a neighboring house. All of a sudden, gunfire was directed at the house where Michelle and Solte were sleeping. Solte jumped out of the house and was followed by gunfire. Michelle saw Solte fall to the ground as she was hit on the left leg and rolled down the hillside to hide below.

Men also entered Arpe’s house and as he tossed Jea Mae to Mayse’s arms, he was shot twice on the chest, falling over Adeb, who was still lying on the floor. After seeing Tala Mansinugdan and Laging Binsalan among the armed men who shot Arpe, Mayse jumped out of the house with Jea Mae and rolled down the hill to their farm plot below. She saw wounded Michelle and told her to hide while she ran two kilometers for help to house of Lagdam Hanghadon, her cousin and their nearest neighbors.

Learning of the events in Arpe’s house, Lagdam’s children Dexter, Donie and Jun-Jun Hangadon returned to the place of the incident at around 9am and saw Arpe’s dead body lying over Adeb who was found alive with a leg wound and covered in his fathers blood. They saw the things in Arpe’s house scattered all over the house and some piled over his body. They also retrieved Solte’s dead body 3 meters away from Arpe’s house. They also brought back Michelle whom they saw hiding in the nearby farm at the foot of the hill where their house was situated.After placing the two dead bodies side by side inside the Belayong house, tying and wrapping them in cloth and plastic sheeting, they were not able to bury the bodies because they were worried that the armed men would go back for them. After arranging the corpses in the house, the Hangadon brothers took Michelle and Adeb back to Lagdam’s house where they were reunited with their family. For fear of the members of the Salakawan patrolling the mountains, it took 10 days for the family to find assistance and seek sanctuary in the lowlands.

39

In the meantime Michelle and Adeb are currently being treated for their bullet wounds. Mayse, Jea Mae and Edjon are recovering from their experiences.

/nsc 16July2011/

40

annex 2

Case Study: A REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PHILIPPINE LAWS AND POLICIES ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, 2010Dinteg, the Cordillera Indigenous Peoples’ Law Center

Higaonon communitiesMunicipality of Esperanza, Province of Agusan del Sur(Based both on information gathered on field and documentary data accessed from the Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office of Agusan del Sur)

In the provinces of Agusan del Norte and Agusan del Sur, where 75% of the land is classified as forest land, the DENR is promoting the conversion of both primary and cultivated forests into tree farms through Industrial Forest Management Agreements (IFMA) with big corporations and Community-Based Forest Management (CBFM) arrangements with cooperatives that local public officials have organized among the indigenous Higaonon, Banwaon, and Manobo communities.

The Mayor of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur says that she thought of having her fellow Higaonon apply for inclusion in the DENR’s CBFM program because this was the only way they could legalize their tenure of their forests. She says her goal is to bring investments and progress to her people, and she cannot achieve this if her people do not have legal instruments of tenure to negotiate with. Asked whether they had applied for a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) or a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), she says no but does not explain why.

The Mayor’s husband, who had preceded her in her post, and who claims the title of Datu Mancombate1 among the Higaonon, is the holder of a CADC to 74,827 hectares of land – more than 55% of the land area of Esperanza. Adjacent to his CADC is that of Ronald Manhumusay, a self-proclaimed Datu, covering 8,000 hectares of forest and

1 Datu is commonly translated as chieftain or headman, but in the social structure of the Higaonon, there are different levels and types of datu. The highest level of datu holds authority over numerous clans occupying a wide territory; the lowest merely represents his section of village in a village council of datus. At every level from the village upward, there is a datu for every major field of community concern – dispute settlement, customary law, agriculture, health, defense and warfare, etc. And each datu is given a name to describe either his qualities as a person or his function. The Higaonon of Esperanza say that the original Datu Mancombate, grandfather of the present one, was in charge of defense and warfare, and given a name derived from the English word combat. The present Datu Mancombate simply took his grandfather’s name. But he does lead an army of his own, known as the Wild Dogs.

41

swidden cultivation sites along the municipal boundary between Esperanza, Agusan del Sur and Las Nieves, Agusan del Norte. Neither datu has yet applied for the conversion of his CADC into a CADT. But it is these datus’ claims that stand in the way of the titling of ancestral domains to the Higaonon communities who actually cultivate and occupy the land, and manage its forests. Other datus hold CADTs and CADCs covering 29,725 hectares of the ancestral domains of Banwaon and Manobo communities in neighboring municipalities.

Esperanza, Las Nieves, and contiguous municipalities in the two Agusan provinces are within a 120,000 hectare zone that the DENR is developing into an industrial forest complex which will feature monocropped tree farms, factories, and a biomass-powered electricity plant. The DENR is undertaking this in collaboration with Datu Mancombate, Datu Manhumusay, other politically prominent datus, and five big corporations – the biggest of them Shannalyne, which operates from New Zealand and Singapore.

The development project has divided Higaonon communities especially in Esperanza, where the Mayor and the DENR are encouraging the people to enter into palm oil and falcata tree farming contracts. Traditionalists in Esperanza argue against tree farming because it will individualize forest use and management, threaten the collective subsistence security they now enjoy with rotational-shifting cultivation, and destroy the relationship their community has maintained with the creatures and spirits of the forest. Would be modernists among them argue in favor of tree farming because it will yield them cash, which they can use for the formal education of their children and for raising their overall standard of living.

It may turn out that they have no choice in the matter. The infantry of the Philippine Army have overrun the Higaonon’s forests, claiming that these host base camps of the insurgent New People’s Army, which must be eliminated in order to attract investment and progress to the Philippines. The military operations have compelled forest dwellers to relocate their houses in clustered villages either at the center of their own barangays or in neighboring centers of trade. From here, they must walk at least two hours to their swidden cultivation sites – if they can muster the courage to maintain these at all, given the military operations. A few have already lost the courage and are now living off dole-outs from the Department of Social Welfare Development (DSWD).

42

annex 3

Case: SUMMARY EXECUTION

Victim: RABENIO SUNGIT, 44 years old. A resident of Ladayon, Soangan, Quezon, Palawan. A husband of Trinidad C. Sungit with nine (9) children. A brother of Avenio Sungit , a victim of extra-judicial killing in 2005. An active lay leader of Tagusao Outreach Congregation of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Ladayon Saongan, Quezon, Palawan. He was an interpreter of the Pelaw’an tribe. A leader of the indigenous group PAGSAMBATAN (Pagkakaisa ng mga Katutubo) in Palawan. A member of the sectoral group of farmers, workers and urban poor ANAKPAWIS. Date of Incident: September 5, 2011, at around 1:30pm

Place of Incident: Public Market along Pagayona Street, Municipality of Quezon, Palawan Province

Perpetrators: Unidentified two motorcycle-riding men wearing bonnetVehicle: 125 CC Red XRM Honda motorcycleUsing .45 caliber Pistol

Account of Incident:On September 5, 2011, at around 1:30pm, Rabenio Sungit was shot dead by unidentified motorcycle-riding men wearing bonnet using a .45 caliber pistol in the public market along Pagayona Street, Municipality of Quezon, Palawan Province. Rabinio was with his wife, Trinidad and son Rocky when the incident happened.

According to Trinidad, earlier that day, her family together with Rabenio and the children of Avenio “Abe” Sungit, (Rabenio’s brother) gathered at the UCCP local church in Quezon to receive the support from the UCCP national office for the children of the Abe Sungit. After the said meeting they went to the market to buy some goods for the family. Trinidad, who was not far from Rabenio heard two gunshots and in an instant saw her husband fall to the ground. Trinidad saw that the long haired triggerman hurriedly left the scene immediately using a motorcycle driven by another person. According to Rocky, he saw the perpetrators flee towards the North.

Prior to the incident, Rabenio attended a Basic Human Rights Orientation

43

Seminar in Puerto Princesa, Palawan organized by the UCCP South Luzon Jurisdiction. Trinidad and Winio (Rabenio’s brother) said that when Rabenio was still alive, they were frequently visited by elements from the Philippine Marines. Likewise, Rolbing, a nephew of Rabenio and chieftain of the Palaw’an tribe, believed to be an informer of the military, was noticed of always inquiring about the latter’s whereabouts.

Members of the family and the whole bereaved Palaw’an indigenous tribal communities are in query and awe on who are the perpetrators of Rabenio’s killing and what are the motives behind it. According to them, the victim was known to be a simple and gentle person. He doesn’t engage in vices like liquor drinking and gambling, but instead focused his energies on working daily to make ends meet for his family. He was a kind, just and a respected figure- he was a leader of their community who stood up in defense of people’s rights. He championed the indigenous rights for ancestral lands against encroachments of large scale mining companies and other environmentally-destructive projects.

Families and friends are further disturbed and angered by the incident as this is not the first to happen in their family and tribal community. Rabenio’s elder brother, Abe Sungit, one of the Palaw’an leaders, a known staunch opposition and organizer against destructive mining operations and human rights violations, was also a victim of extrajudicial killing. Their steadfast and active involvement in just social causes for their rights as indigenous peoples solicited ill-will from the military who tagged them as “leftists” or “communists”. Abe Sungit was shot dead also by unidentified motorcycle-riding men in 2005.

44

annex 4

summary: mass evacuaTIon

IndIgenous PeoPles january 2008-november 2011(PrePared by KamP as of nov2011)

Summary: Number of incidents per province per yearProvince IP Group Year

2008 2009 2010 2011 TOTAL1. Davao City Obo Klata

(Lumad)1 1 0 0 2

2. Davao Oriental

Mandaya/ Mansaka(Lumad)

3 0 0 0 3

3. Davao del Norte

Ata-Manobo (Lumad)

2 3 0 0 5

4. Davao del Sur

Blaan (Lumad)

0 1 0 0 1

4. Compostela Valley

Ata-Matigsalug (Lumad)

3 0 0 0 3

5. Agusan del Sur

Higaonon (Lumad)

0 7 0 0 7

6. Agusan del Norte

Mamanwa (Lumad)

0 0 1 4 5

7. Surigao del Sur

Manobo (Lumad)

1 5 1 3 10

8. Ifugao Ifugao (Igorot)

0 1 0 0 1

9. North Cotabato

Blaan (Lumad)

0 2 1 0 3

10. Sultan Kudarat

Blaan (Lumad)

0 1 0 0 1

Total:10 provinces

10 IP Groups

10 21 3 7 41 Incidents

45

annex 5

summary exTra-judIcIal KIllIngs

IndIgenous PeoPles from january 2008-november 2011(PrePared by KamP)

Tally of IP vIcTIms of ejK

GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO: 151 persons2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201010 27 22 6 12 44 10 4 9 7BENIGNO SIMEON “NOYNOY” AQUINO 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20153 10

46

uPr 2008 recommendaTIons and governmenT resPonses

48

recommendaTIons To The PhIlIPPInes and governmenT resPonse

unIversal PerIodIc revIew (1sT cycle, 2008)comPIled by rhoda dalang, dInTeg

member sTaTes recommendaTIons governmenT resPonse

To continue to develop a gender-responsive approach to issues of violence against women and continue to build supportive environment for women and children within the judicial system; this environment should take into account the special needs for rehabilitation and post-conflict care of women and children in vulnerable situations and conflict areas (New Zealand);

Enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

To ensure that members of the security forces are trained on human rights and on their responsibility to protect human rights and human rights defenders (Canada);

Enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

To enable the visit by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism as soon as possible (Slovenia);

Do not enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

To sign and ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (Slovenia, Mexico, United Kingdom and the Netherlands) and the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (Slovenia, Mexico);

Noted by the Government of the Philippines and will be the subject of further study (Pending)

To report regularly to the Committee against Torture (Slovenia);

Enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

49

To completely eliminate torture and extrajudicial killings (Holy See), to intensify its efforts to carry out investigations and prosecutions on extrajudicial killings and punish those responsible (Switzerland)

as well as to provide a follow-up report on efforts and measures to address extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, taking into account the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (The Netherlands);

Enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

Do not enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

To protect children in the womb, notwithstanding undue pressure from certain groups (Holy See);

Noted by the Government of the Philippines and will be the subject of further study. (Pending)

To establish an organic legal framework for eliminating gender-based discrimination and promoting gender equality (Italy);

Enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

To address legislative gaps in the field of children rights in order to fully comply with the 2005 recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child (Italy);

Enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

To share with other countries, especially developing countries, its experience in the area of justiciability of economic and social rights (Sudan);

Enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

To strengthen the witness protection programme and address the root causes of this issue in the context of the reform of the judiciary and the armed forces (Switzerland);

Do not enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

While noting the involvement of civil society in the preparatory process of the national report, to fully involve civil society in the follow-up to the review (United Kingdom);

Enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

To continue its successful policy in combating trafficking in human beings at the national level and to play a leading role at the international level on this matter (Belarus);

Enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

50

To step up efforts to continue to meet the basic needs of the poor and other vulnerable groups (Nigeria);

Enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

To consider extending a standing invitation to special procedures (Brazil);

Do not enjoy the support of the Government of the Philippines.

That the second National Human Rights Action Plan should take into account the recommendations formulated by treaty bodies and special procedures (Mexico);

Noted by the Government of the Philippines and will be the subject of further study. (Pending)

That national legislation and customs and traditional practices should be harmonized with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Mexico).

Noted by the Government of the Philippines and will be the subject of further study. (Pending)

commITTee on The elImInaTIon of racIal dIscrImInaTIon recommendaTIons In 2009

52

53

recommendaTIons In The 2009 concludIng observaTIons of The commITTee on The elImInaTIon of

racIal dIscrImInaTIon (cerd) ThaT relaTe To The PhIlIPPInes and ITs

IndIgenous PeoPles1

comPIled by caThal doyle

mIddlesex unIversITy deParTmenT of law

x x x

14. The Committee notes that it did not receive adequate clarifications regarding the status of the Convention in the national legal system. While also noting that the Convention is regarded by the State party as “part of the law of the land”, the Committee observes that many provisions in the Convention are not self-executing and require national legislation to take effect at the national level.

The Committee urges the State party to ensure that the Convention becomes fully applicable in the national legal system, including through adoption of the necessary legislation.

x x x

17. The Committee regrets the lack of disaggregated statistical data regarding the de facto enjoyment by members of indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities and non-citizens, of the rights protected under the Convention, as without such data, it is difficult to assess the socio-economic situation of different groups in the State party. The Committee notes, however, that in the context of the 2010 national population census it is intended to include ethnicity as a variable. The Committee also notes the efforts undertaken within the framework of the Metagora Project to measure

1 Contained herein are excerpts of Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Philippines) on its 75th Sess., Apr. 3-28, 2009, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/PHL/CO/20 (Sept. 23, 2009).

54

the level of awareness and fulfilment of Indigenous People’s rights to their ancestral domains and lands.

Recalling the importance of gathering accurate and up-to-date data on the socio-economic situation of the population, the Committee encourages the State party to use the census in 2010 to include indicators disaggregated by ethnicity and gender on the basis of voluntary self-identification, and to provide the data obtained in its next periodic report. In this regard, the Committee draws the State party’s attention to paragraphs 10 to 12 of its guidelines on the form and content of reports (CERD/C/2007/1). The Committee also recommends that the State party consult with relevant communities in the preparatory process leading up to the census and encourages initiatives such as the Metagora project.

18. The Committee appreciates the information provided by the State party that peace processes in the different regions of armed conflict are resuming and takes note of the many initiatives taken to protect indigenous peoples including children in conflict zones. It welcomes the intention to establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism on the situation of children and the establishment of other committees monitoring different peace processes. The Committee is, however, concerned over reports of persisting human rights violations against indigenous peoples, who continue to be disproportionately affected by armed conflict. The Committee is concerned that leaders of these communities continue to be victims of extrajudicial executions as well as of disappearances and detention and over reports indicating occupation of indigenous territories by the armed forces and armed groups.

The Committee urges the State party to continue efforts to restore peace in the regions affected by armed conflict, to protect vulnerable groups from human rights violations, notably indigenous peoples and children of ethnic groups and to ensure that independent and impartial investigations are conducted into all allegations of human rights violations. The Committee, recalling a recommendation from July 2008 by the CRC under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, recommends the enforcement of the 1997 Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) to ensure that indigenous children and children from other ethnic groups are not recruited by armed forces or armed groups

55

(CRC/C/OPAC/PHL/CO/1, paragraph 19). The Committee seeks further information on the follow-up to the reports of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions (A/HRC/8/3/Add.2) and of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people (E/CN.4/2003/90/Add.3).

19. The Committee is concerned about the effects of internal displacement as a consequence of armed conflict especially on indigenous peoples in relation to their livelihoods, health and education.

In light of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2), the Committee recommends that the State party adopts adequate measures in order to ensure the enjoyment by internally displaced persons of their rights under article 5 of the Convention, especially their right to security and their economic, social and cultural rights.

x x x

22. The Committee notes that IPRA is an impressive piece of legislature containing a welcome definition of Indigenous Peoples accounting both for self-definition and ascription by others. The Committee is concerned that the Regalian doctrine as applied to indigenous property seems to run counter to the notion of inherent rights under the IPRA. The Committee is also concerned by information that the IPRA is significantly undermined by the Republic Act 7942 (Mining Act of 1995).

The Committee recommends that the State party conduct an independent review, in consultation with indigenous peoples, of the legislative framework in relation to indigenous property, with particular regard to the question of consistency between the IPRA, its implementing guidelines, the Regalian doctrine and other related doctrines, as well as the Mining Act of 1995. The Committee, recalling a recommendation of CESCR from December 2008 (E/C.12/PHL/CO/4, paragraph 16), urges the State party to fully implement the IPRA, in particular by securing the effective enjoyment by indigenous peoples of their rights to ancestral domains, lands and natural resources, and ensuring that

56

economic activities, especially mining, carried out on indigenous territories do not adversely affect the protection of the rights recognised to indigenous peoples under the aforementioned Act.

23. The Committee is concerned that the formal process for claiming collective land titles seems unduly burdensome, and is concerned over the fact that the indigenous communities bear the burden of proof when submitting applications.

The Committee seeks further clarification on the time frames for obtaining Ancestral Domains/Lands certificates and the number of applications filed and certificates issued for claiming collective land titles. The Committee recommends that the State party streamline the process for obtaining land rights certificates and take effective measures to protect communities from retaliations and violations when attempting to exercise their rights.

24. The Committee, while noting the increasing efforts of the National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) to implement IPRA, is nevertheless concerned that consultation processes are not always adequately implemented when securing the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of indigenous peoples (FPIC) with regard to infrastructure and natural resource exploitation projects.

The Committee recommends that the State party verify that the current structures and guidelines/procedures established to conduct FPIC are in accordance with the spirit and letter of the IPRA and set realistic time frames for consultation processes with indigenous peoples. It recommends that the State party verify that the apparent lack of formal protests is not the result of a lack of effective remedies, the victims’ lack of awareness of their rights, fear of reprisals, or a lack of confidence in the NCIP.

25. The Committee welcomes the State Party’s statements that it wishes to respect the customary practices and rights of the Subanon people of Canatuan within their ancestral territory and to address the community divisions associated with the Subanon Mt. Canatuan case, which concerns mining operations at Mount Canatuan, a sacred site of the Subanon people, undertaken without prior consent by the Subanon people. The case was considered by the Committee under its early warning and urgent action procedure. The Committee remains concerned that contradictory

57

information continues to be presented to it with regard to the status of actions taken to address the violations of the Subanon people’s rights and destruction of their sacred mountain.

The Committee urges the State Party to consult with all concerned parties in order to address the issues over Mt. Canatuan in a manner that respects customary laws and practices of the Subanon people and welcomes information from the State party in relation to further developments.

x x x

58

excerPTs from TraIlIng InjusTIce

60

61

TraIlIng InjusTIce1

Indigenous peoples rights and the Oplan Bantay Laya extension in Aquino’s first hundred days

x x x

Benigno Simeon Aquino III became the Head of State after the May 2010 polls, following the widely unpopular Arroyo regime. Under the Arroyo government, corruption, electoral fraud, human rights abuses, and impunity worsened the blows of the chronic economic crisis on the Filipino people.

x x x

For indigenous peoples, Aquino’s rise to Malacañang did not provide respite from attacks made against their collective and human rights. Ancestral territories persist to be threatened by development aggression and militarization; and red baiting terrorizes indigenous people and communities.

By all indications, Aquino is treading the same path of injustice.

revIsITIng The obl’s warPaTh

a bluePrInT for Terror and ImPunITy

The Oplan Bantay Laya (OBL) is imputed for the spate of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances of activists, union members, peasants, media workers, and national minorities during the Arroyo administration. The OBL is considered the bloodiest, most brutal counter insurgency scheme ever unleashed upon Filipinos, its ferocity surpassing even the Marcos’s witch-hunt for communists during the Martial Law.

x x x

An AFP document called ‘Knowing the Enemy’ lists several progressive

1 This is an abridged version of the Presentation Paper of the Kalipunan ng mga Katutubong Mamamayan ng Pilipinas (KAMP) during “Trailing Injustice: a forum on indigenous peoples rights and the Oplan Bantay Laya Extension” on October 9, 2010, at Claret School, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. The full version of the article is available at KAMP’s official website: http://katutubongmamamayan.org/node/295.

62

people’s organizations, church formations, and party list groups as front organizations of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP.) As a result, members of these organizations have been killed, forcibly disappeared, or suffered harassments and other violations of civil and political rights. Among those listed as communist fronts were indigenous peoples’ organizations KAMP and the Cordillera People’s Alliance (CPA).

x x x

exTrajudIcIal KIllIngs

KAMP has accounted for 142 extrajudicial killings of indigenous peoples from January 2001 to June 2010.

The spate of killings of indigenous persons intensified over the years, at a time when the Philippine government aggressively encouraged foreign enterprises and transnational companies to invest on the country’s resources, which are largely found in indigenous peoples’ territories.

One highlight case is the killing of Datu Mampaagi Belayong in 2009, amid the incursion of agri-businesses and mining.

Bukidnon is eyed by multi-national corporations to expand their asparagus, banana, and pineapple plantations. Also, the world’s largest mining company BHP Billiton is on “exploration stage” in Malitbog, Bukidnon. Recently, the region was tagged as the nation’s “mining capital”’ These areas are highly militarized, and infested by paramilitary groups.

Datu Mampaagi Belayong, Higaonon-Lumad and founding member and Chair of a progressive Lumad organization Linundigan, was opposed to the incursion of businesses in their ancestral territories.

In September 2, 2009. Datu Mampaagi was shot four times in the back and face by two members of Task Force Gantangan. A few months before his death, the community leader led his tribe-members to denounce the terror caused by aerial bombardment done by the 26th Infantry Battalion of the 4th Infantry Division in their area. He was 66 years old.

Killings of indigenous peoples were also in context of counter-insurgency operations in villages wherein civilians have been tagged as either rebels or rebel supporters. The victims, especially those who held prominent positions

63

in their respective communities and organizations, were placed under intensive surveillance before physical elimination. Vilification also preceded the extrajudicial slays, such as the cases of Markus Bangit and Dr. Chandu Claver, both part of the red-labeled Cordillera People’s Alliance.

x x x

Dense military deployment has also resulted in extrajudicial slays, such as the case of Mindoro and Davao wherein whole families were massacred during military operations. Indigenous tribes, whose communities are in the battleground between two warring groups, are vulnerable to violations of human rights.

Mindoro Island: OBL testing ground In 2001, the AFP identified Southern Luzon as a ‘priority area’, because of the alleged strength of communist rebels in the region. Military personnel were deployed massively in the region since 2001, which resulted in the widespread violations of human rights. The carnage, and the impunity that followed it, made human rights workers and media to dub the region as the Philippine “killing fields.” Mindoro Island, part of the South Luzon, was used as a test area for OBL implementation. The indigenous Mangyan people who live in the remote areas of the Mindoro were among the first victims of the OBL. In May 7, 2001, the government launched Task Force Tamaraw, a military plan tailor-made for Mindoro. Two battalions were immediately deployed under the leadership of then Colonel Jovito Palparan. Task Force Tamaraw was later transformed into the 204th Infantry Brigade on August 15, 2001, after which four more battalions were deployed in the area in a span of a month. In total, nine battalions operated in Mindoro Oriental alone.Massacre of a Mangyan family In July 2003, a burst of gunfire from different directions riddled the house of Roger Blanco, immediately killing his two sons, John Kevin, 5, and Dexter, 3, in San Nicolas, Magsaysay Oriental Mindoro. His wife, Olivia, who was 8 months pregnant, died of gunshots as well. Witness Crispin Encabo watched one of the soldiers kick Roger, who was already grimacing in pain from bullet wounds. Crispin was prevented by the soldiers from helping, and was strongly warned not to intervene. Roger died soon afterwards. Elements of the Charlie Company, 16th IB, 2nd ID, Philippine army based at the San Roque II, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro headed by 1L Danilo Escandor are the alleged perpetrators.

Box 1. Mindoro Island: OBL Laboratory

64

The cases of the Blanco Family and Untoy Agaw provide us a depiction of the state of human rights in Mindoro and the whole nation during the implementation of OBL 1 & 2.

enforced dIsaPPearance: james balao

James Balao has been missing for two years.

James Moy Balao is a native of Benguet, an indigenous Kankana-ey, and founding member of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) in 1984. He has dedicated most of his life in the people’s movement, making significant contributions to the struggles of indigenous peoples to ancestral land and self-determination.

On September 17, 2008, at around 7 AM, James left his house in Fairview, Baguio City for his family home in La Trinidad, Benguet. He even sent a text message to his family, who expected his arrival. However, James never arrived.

Eyewitnesses report that armed men took James into a parked van in Tomay, La Trinidad, a few kilometers from his home.

James’ abduction is part of the systematic attacks on members of the CPA, which was branded as a communist front. Before his abduction, James reported of surveillance and harassments from alleged military elements.

mass evacuaTIons

A recurring phenomenon in the promulgation of the OBL is forcible evacuation. The use of military force to quell resistance of indigenous communities to development aggression has in many cases caused displacement of indigenous peoples.

Mass evacuations became commonplace in several indigenous communities in Mindanao. For example, in Lianga, Surigao del Sur, thousands of Banwaon, Mandaya, and Mansaka peoples evacuated 6 times in 8 years, after repeated and massive military operations caused many forms of human rights violations against the tribes.

The mass evacuations also has incalculable impacts upon adults and children,

64

The cases of the Blanco Family and Untoy Agaw provide us a depiction of the state of human rights in Mindoro and the whole nation during the implementation of OBL 1 & 2.

enforced dIsaPPearance: james balao

James Balao has been missing for two years.

James Moy Balao is a native of Benguet, an indigenous Kankana-ey, and founding member of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) in 1984. He has dedicated most of his life in the people’s movement, making significant contributions to the struggles of indigenous peoples to ancestral land and self-determination.

On September 17, 2008, at around 7 AM, James left his house in Fairview, Baguio City for his family home in La Trinidad, Benguet. He even sent a text message to his family, who expected his arrival. However, James never arrived.

Eyewitnesses report that armed men took James into a parked van in Tomay, La Trinidad, a few kilometers from his home.

James’ abduction is part of the systematic attacks on members of the CPA, which was branded as a communist front. Before his abduction, James reported of surveillance and harassments from alleged military elements.

mass evacuaTIons

A recurring phenomenon in the promulgation of the OBL is forcible evacuation. The use of military force to quell resistance of indigenous communities to development aggression has in many cases caused displacement of indigenous peoples.

Mass evacuations became commonplace in several indigenous communities in Mindanao. For example, in Lianga, Surigao del Sur, thousands of Banwaon, Mandaya, and Mansaka peoples evacuated 6 times in 8 years, after repeated and massive military operations caused many forms of human rights violations against the tribes.

The mass evacuations also has incalculable impacts upon adults and children, Indigenous Peoples Rights Monitor reports that the repeated militarization

65

Indigenous Peoples Rights Monitor reports that the repeated militarization poses serious threats to the mental and physical health of residents. Two children died in the course of evacuation, and many more suffer in sub-human conditions in evacuation centers.

TraIlIng InjusTIce

So far, Aquino has done nothing of significance to distance himself from the detested Arroyo regime. From echoing economic policies of liberalization, to the flippant attitude towards peace negotiations, he seems to trail the same path as the Arroyo’s administration.

x x x

Contrary to a respite from attacks against their political and collective human rights, the indigenous peoples find themselves in the same quandaries as in the Arroyo administration. In the final days of the Arroyo regime and early into Aquino’s, assaults against indigenous peoples persisted.

Angela Doloricon (Igorot), Ray-um Among (Mangyan), and Mark Barrientos (Dumagat), remain detained with the rest of the forty-three community health workers illegally arrested in Morong, Rizal last March. Their military jailers subjected the “Morong 43” to relentless interrogation, solitary confinement, physical abuse, sexual harassment, and inhumane punishments. x x x

x x x

forcIble evacuaTIons conTInue

On August 7, 2010, intense militarization of Lumad communities in Marihatag, Surigao Del Sur forced villagers to flee their homes. Prior to their evacuation, villagers were tortured, harassed, physically assaulted, and threatened by the 36th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army when they refused to succumb to the military’s allegations that they are NPA members or supporters. On August 27, in fear of further harassment and their lives, a second wave of evacuations occurred. Around 745 individuals from 150 families sought sanctuary in Marihatag Municipal Gym.

Even in the evacuation site, police and military continue to harass the Lumads and other evacuees, preventing them from asking help from the local government and Church. Women, infants, and children compose most of the

66

evacuees.a dumagaT Pogrom2

x x x

Eastern Rizal is the training ground of the 2nd Infantry Division of the AFP. Camp Capinpin, a major military camp, established satellite bases around Rizal especially in areas affected by the Laiban Dam project. The Laiban Dam is poised to dislocate nine barangays of indigenous Dumagat and Remontado in the Sierra Madre range. For several decades, the indigenous communities have defended their ancestral territories and prevented the dam construction.

In the last few months, the Dumagat people suffered heavy blows on their human rights. From June 2010, three Dumagat have been extrajudicially executed while another is being held as a political prisoner. In addition, the resumption of negotiations on the Laiban Dam project is causing turmoil in affected communities because of increased military presence.

At the height of military operations, indigenous peoples are subjected to military appraisal, oftentimes suffering from gross human rights violations in the process. Yet, indigenous peoples are not merely bystander victims of militarization; the OBL also specifically targets indigenous peoples for liquidation, especially community leaders and members of local struggles or progressive political parties.

Last June, three Dumagats, Benita San Jose, Demilita Largo, and Edward “Galman” Navarte were gunned down by two masked men riding in tandem in Tanag, Rodriguez, Rizal. The three were members of indigenous peoples’ party Katribu Party-list. Preceding his death, Galman was apprehended by the Special Action Force military unit based on a nearby village, coercing him to admit that he has a gun. Benita was tagged as an NPA supporter beforehand.

x x x

a conTInuIng crIme agaInsT humanITy

2 Usually referring to Jewish persecution, a ‘pogrom’ is an organized or systematic persecution of an ethnic group.

67

An affront to democracy, the Oplan Bantay Laya trampled upon the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples and other Filipinos.

x x x

For indigenous peoples, the OBL extension is a grim development. With the influx of development projects and businesses on ancestral territories, defense for indigenous peoples’ rights to land and self- determination will continue to be countered by military might and violence. Already, several communities affected by big business and government interests are experiencing a resurgence of human rights violations.

The AFP’s pronouncement that the OBL would be reconciled with human rights by providing the military a human rights handbook and training is hypocrisy—because the OBL’s is centered on the elimination of the people’s movement, unheeded by their vulnerability and their civil rights. Its extension alone is an attack on the democratic rights of the people.

x x x

The blame for the expected rise of extrajudicial killings and other human rights atrocities that has constantly accompanied the Oplan Bantay Laya will be placed squarely upon President Noynoy Aquino’s shoulders. In adopting and creating repressive and oppressive military and economic policies, Aquino will eventually lose his persona of democracy and decency.