1

Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Consolidated 2017 Report

on the Human Rights Situation of

Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines

Chapter 1.

Background

It has been twenty years since the Philippines enacted Republic Act No. 8371 or the

Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA), and ten years since the international community

adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Conscious of this fact, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (CHR) inquires on

the current situation of the Filipino Indigenous Peoples and has launched the National Inquiry on

this subject on May 25-26, 2017 at Iloilo City, where the first public hearing was also held. The

National Inquiry is intended to:

• Identify adherence of laws, policies, rules, regulations, programmes, and projects

concerning Indigenous Peoples with the standards of human rights;

• Settle issues of facts relevant to the human rights situation of Indigenous Peoples (IPs)

with focus on the three main thematic concerns: 1) the protection and promotion of the

Indigenous Peoples' land and cultural rights, 2) the effectiveness of the current

government process to obtain the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of Indigenous

Peoples; and 3) the state of economic and social development of Indigenous Peoples in

the Philippines;

• Review the impacts of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 and identify areas of

improvement; and

• Increase understanding of human rights generally and commitment to better human rights

observance through collaborative efforts that the Indigenous Peoples, as rights-holders,

and the duty-bearers shall identify through the guidance of the Commission on Human

Rights as lead convenor of the National Inquiry.

Several public hearings were also convened in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan (August 15-

16, 2017), Tagaytay City, Cavite (August 22-23, 2017), Davao City (September 27-28, 2017),

and Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental (October 26-27, 2017).

The National Inquiry Approach

The national inquiry process is developed and applied by National Human Rights

Institutions (NHRIs) within the Asia Pacific region.1 It has been found to be especially useful in

enabling a broad examination of a complex, systemic pattern of human rights violations. It deals

1 Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions and Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and

Humanitarian Law September 2012 (updated May 2017). Manual on Conducting a National Inquiry into

Systemic Patterns of Human Rights Violations.

2

with large situations rather than individual complaints. While it can still result in

recommendations that provide remedies for individuals, its principal focus is the systemic pattern

of violation. “Systemic” or “historic pattern of human rights violation” refers to a complex

situation subsuming two or more continuing or recurring instances of reported human rights

violation resulting from causes attributed to the action or inaction of either state or non-state

actors over a certain period of time. Action or omission of the state pertains or refers to certain

policies and programs that have impacts on a large group or sector of the population or

community deemed marginalized, disadvantaged, or vulnerable.

Having this in mind, the national inquiry has high educational value. It introduces,

exposes and explains a complex situation to the broad community, offering an analysis based in

human rights law and providing recommendations for systemic responses.2 As such, the current

process has been more of an inquiry on the solutions to the problems – Philippine style.

The report on the National Inquiry provides the threshold information on the situation of

the Filipino Indigenous Peoples for the particular period, and the recommendations shall be

translated into policies and programs. The report guides the operationalization of the Indigenous

Peoples' Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO), a structure under the auspices of the CHR, which

monitors the status and progress of implementation of the recommendations. The monitoring

function is a cooperative and shared effort between and among CHR, the Indigenous Peoples, the

government agencies, and other support groups. More importantly, CHR has established more

direct linkage with the IPs through the national inquiry, serving as CHR's ground monitors. The

inquiry does not end in the publication of one report. Sustained efforts are necessary to follow-up

and improve the human rights conditions of the Filipino IPs, thus ascertaining that CHR will

issue annual reports on the topic.

During the public hearings nationwide, resource persons who are members of the

Indigenous Peoples (IPs) are present. They are the Akeanon Bukidnon, Ati Tumalalod, Ati Tina

Hamtic, Iraynon Bukidnon, Panay Bukidnon, Sulod Bukidnon, Eskaya, Ata/Ati, Tribu Bukidnon,

Tagbanua, Cagayanen, Palaw'an, Buhid, Sibuyan Mangyan, Taubuid, Mangyan Tagabukid, Ati,

Bantoanon, Cuyonan, Batac, Dumagat, Ayta/Agta, Dumagat-Remontado, Kankanaey, Abeling,

Bago, Ilongot, Manide, Kalanguya, Ayta Abellen, Teduray, Lambangian, T'boli, Erumanen ne

Menuvu, Tagakaulo, Matigsalog, Dulangan Manobo, Bagobo-Tagabawa, Manobo-B’laan,

Dibabawon, Mansaka, Mandaya, Ata-Manobo, Kalagan, Ata, Obu-Manobo, Bagobo-Klata,

Sama, Sama of Tandubas, Sama-Dilaut of Sitangkai, Sama of Jolo, Yakan of Basilan, Sama of

Simunul, Tausug of Jolo, Bajau of Bangas Island, Kolibugan of Zamboanga Sibugay, Sama

Bajau of Zamboanga City, Sama Banguingui of Zamboanga City, Kolibugan of Zamboanga del

Norte, Talaandig of Talakag, Bukidnon, Umayamnon of Bukidnon, Mamanwa/Kaotawan of

Surigao del Sur, Banwaon of Agusan del Sur, Higaonon.

Also in attendance as resource persons during the hearings are representatives from the

government, such as the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), National

Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA), Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), Department

of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Land Management Bureau (LMB),

Environmental Management Bureau (LMB), Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB),

2 Ibid.

3

Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of the

Interior and Local Government (DILG), National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA),

National Anti-Poverty Commission (NAPC), Department of Education (DepEd), Department of

Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), Palawan Council for Sustainable Development

(PCSD), Department of Tourism (DOT) and Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA).

There were several other government agencies; such as the Department of Labor and

Employment (DOLE), National Housing Authority (NHA), Social Security System (SSS),

Department of Health (DOH), Philippine National Police (PNP), the Armed Forces of the

Philippines (AFP), and Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives (IPMRs) from the

regions of Luzon, who earlier participated during the March 2-3, 2017 Baguio Conference on the

Indigenous Peoples' Right to Development where the design of the National Inquiry was

originally deliberated.

Towards an Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO)

As part of the process of the national inquiry, we consolidated the various comments and

recommendations of resource persons from both the Indigenous Peoples (IP) rights holders and

key state duty bearers on the proposal for an INDIGEOUS PEOPLES HUMAN RIGHTS

OBSERVATORY or IPHRO. A conceptual framework of the IPHRO was developed from the

analysis of the situation of the Filipino Indigenous Peoples as well as the analysis of the gaps

from the responses and commitments of key state duty bearers.

From this conceptual framework, we identified the operative elements of the proposed

IPHRO including the key set of issues that affects the fulfillment of IP rights that will be the

focus of its monitoring & evaluation, its possible component programs as well as an initial

design for a Results-Based Management (RBM) and Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA)

M&E system and tool with a set of proposed outcome and impact indicators. The proposed M&E

system and tool were developed utilizing the O.PE.R.A. (Outcome, Policy Efforts, Resources &

Assessment) framework of ESCR (Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights) monitoring as well as

the Indigenous Navigator tool recommended by the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

Participants of the IP National Inquiry which included relevant national government

agencies, leaders of IP communities and IPMRs (IP Mandatory Representatives) were consulted

through three (3) main workshops, as follows:

a) Workshop 1-A was on the government agencies mandates vis-a-vis promotion & protection

of IP rights. In parallel, the concurrent workshop 1-B for the IP representatives focused on

their human rights situations per locality, relevance of the government agencies IP-related

programs & projects and challenges encountered in demanding services and support from

the state for IP-related needs.

b) Workshop 2 was on monitoring fulfillment of IP rights, including existing M&E systems

used by state and non-state actors to monitor fulfillment of IP rights

c) Workshop 3 was on the initial notions of an IP Rights Observatory and the national inquiry

4

on IP rights focusing on issues and concerns that these will covered as well as proposed

operative elements and processes that should be incorporated in the IPHRO.

The results of all these public hearings and workshops were presented to representatives of major

IPOs and national government agencies in a final validation workshop held last 20 November

2017 where the preliminary findings were presented on the situation of Filipino Indigenous

Peoples as well as the operative elements of a proposed IPHRO. Major commitments of NGAs

were validated as well as part of this process.

Understanding Indigenous Peoples (IP) Rights

Under Republic Act 8731 otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 and as

reiteration of several provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Filipino Indigenous Peoples

(IPs)/ Indigenous Cultural Communities (ICCs) are endowed by 4 bundles of rights as follows

with the following key provisions:

Table 1: Details of the 4 Bundles of IP Rights in IPRA

Right to

Ancestral

Domain &

Land

• Right to Ownership

• Right to Develop Land & Natural Resources

• Right to Stay in Territories and Not to be Displaced Therefrom

• Right to Regulate Entry of Migrants & Other Entities

• Right to Safe and Clean Air and Water

• Right to Claim Parts of Reservation

• Right to Resolve Conflicts According to Customary Laws

• Right to Transfer Land or Property (only between and among

members of IPs/ICCs)

• Right to Redemption

• Option to Secure Patents Under Commonwealth Act No. 141, as

amended

Right to Self-

Governance

and Empowerment

• Recognition of Authentic Leadership

• Authentication of Indigenous Leadership Titles and Certificates of

Tribal Membership

• Indigenous Political Leadership Development

• Recognition of Socio-Political Institutions and Structures

• Support for Autonomous Regions

• Mandatory Representation in Policy Making Bodies

• Right to Determine and Decide Own Development and Right to

Develop as Peoples

• Tribal Barangays

• Right to Organize and Associate for Collective Actions

• Registration Requirements for Indigenous Peoples Organizations

(IPO)

• Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)

5

Right to

Social Justice

& Human

Rights

• Equal Protection Before the Law

• Rights During Armed Conflict

• Freedom from Discrimination

• Right to Employment

• Right to Basic Services

• Rights of Women

• Rights of Children and Youth

• Right to Education

Rights to

Cultural

Integrity

• Protection of indigenous culture, traditions and institutions;

• Right to establish and control educational and learning systems;

• Recognition of cultural diversity;

• Right to name, identity and history;

• Community intellectual property rights;

• Protection of Religious, Cultural Sites and Ceremonies

• Right to indigenous spiritual beliefs and traditions;

• Protection of Indigenous Sacred Places

• Right to protection of indigenous knowledge systems and practices;

• Right to science and technology.

Under the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), besides

the right to enjoyment of all human rights & what are similarly provided in the IPRA, IPs are

endowed further with the following additional rights:

1. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct

peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence,

including forcibly removing children of the group to another group (Article 7)

2. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or

destruction of their culture (Article 8)

3. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish their own media in their own languages and to

have access to all forms of non-indigenous media without discrimination.(Article 16)

4. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for

exercising their right to development. In particular, indigenous peoples have the right to be

actively involved in developing and determining health, housing and other economic and

social programs affecting them and, as far as possible, to administer such programs through

their own institutions (Article 23)

5. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual

relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories,

waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future

generations in this regard.(Article 25)

6. States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous

6

Figure 1 : 4-Bundles of IP Rights as Pre-Requisites

for the Fulfillment of IPs Rights to Development

materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free,

prior and informed consent. (Article 29)

7. Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples, unless

justified by a relevant public interest or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the

indigenous peoples concerned.(Article 30)

8. Indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by international borders, have the right to

maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation, including activities for spiritual,

cultural, political, economic and social purposes, with their own members as well as other

peoples across borders.(Article 36)

9. Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and technical assistance from

States and through international cooperation, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this

Declaration (Article 39)

In Article 23 of UNDRIP & other related provisions on Right to Development of IPs, it is clear

that the nature of the RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT as an

“…inalienable human right by virtue of which every human

person and all peoples are entitled to participate in,

contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and

political development, in which all human rights and

fundamental freedoms can be fully realized”, are first

subjected to what constitute IP Rights.

Thus, in the context of the Philippines and considering

UNDRIP, before the RIGHT TO DEVELOMENT of IPs is

pursued, the nature and definition of what development

means to Filipino Indigenous Peoples must first be

established through the substantial fulfillment of the 4

bundles of IP rights.

Methodology, Scope and Delimitation

The national inquiry comprises several methodologies such as desk research, review of

existing records, individual case conferences, submission and evaluation of written inputs,

individual key informant interviews, focus group discussions, workshops, community dialogues,

immersions, ocular inspections and follow-up sessions. Conduct of public hearings is a very

important part of the whole inquiry process, albeit it is not by itself the national inquiry. In

addition, while originally developed as a mechanism to inquire on systemic human rights

violations, the national inquiry also included workshop sessions to identify the specific solutions

to the problems and to plan for their implementation. The invited resources persons, particularly

the complainants, were also asked to provide recommendations, while good practices were

shared and recognized. Being a consensus-building mechanism, the national inquiry is truly a

venue for both the rights-holders and the duty-bearers to engage in a partnership to resolve the

issues.

7

The conference, public hearings, and workshops held from March to November 2017,

were avenues for a rapid assessment of the human rights situation of the IPs. Primary data were

obtained from oral testimonies and written submissions of resource persons who were invited

from IP communities and government agencies. The IP resource persons in attendance during the

public hearings have been confirmed by the NCIP. CHR selected them on the basis of the

following considerations:

• Traditional tribal leaders from their respective Indigenous Political Structures (IPS)

• Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPOs) representing certain tribes

• IPs involved in resolved, closed, or terminated cases filed with CHR

• Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives (IPMRs) covering the geographical areas

and coming from the respective tribe

The process of public hearings has been guided and summarized in the following

parameters and approaches:

1. The resource persons, particularly from the IP communities who are being categorized as

Rights-Holders, provided information on the issues that they deemed significant for the

Duty-Bearers to address. They publicly pronounced under oath during the hearings their

complaints about the status quo, thus providing leads to systemic gaps in policy that must

be addressed.

2. The Duty-Bearers, either admitted, denied or provided a different information about a

particular issue. The Duty-Bearers did this under oath also.

3. Repetition of the same issues, if raised in different locale or setting, further strengthened

the view that the issues are systemic, thus establishes a pattern that leads to determination

of the causes, effects and the probable solutions. Triangulation method has been applied

all throughout the inquiry process when hearings were held to cover all regions of the

Philippines.

4. The issues are arranged and classified into major thematic areas. Themes that are

distinctive for IPs alone, given their special situation, are being emphasized herein.

5. The issues are evaluated using human rights standards and verified through other

references. As an added value of this report, human rights principles are mainstreamed

and brought forth into the consciousness of the reader. The report provides answers to the

questions: When are there human rights violations? When are there none? When are there

concerns that could be prevented from becoming a full blown human rights violation?

The hearings in Iloilo City covers the IPs in Visayas, while the IPs of MIMAROPA

Region were included during the hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan. IPs of Regions III,

IV-A, and V were involved during the public hearing in Tagaytay City, Cavite; IPs of Regions

XI, XII and Maguindanao during the Davao City public hearing, and the IPs of Regions IX, X,

XIII, and BaSulTa during the public hearing in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental.

8

The whole National Inquiry has been patterned after the reporting cycle of the human

rights treaty bodies, as illustrated in the figure3 below:

Figure 2 : Reporting Cycle of the Human Rights treaty bodies

Still in the second phase of the cycle, this 2017 Report provides information wherein the

National Human Rights Institution in this case presents the list of issues. The 2017 Report

consolidates the statements of the IP Resource Persons and how the Duty-Bearers responded

during the public hearings, among others. Since this is primarily an inquiry on solutions, five

public hearings were sparing, because searching for effective and lasting solutions would involve

a perpetual circular process so long as problems arise. Chapter 4, of this Report describes the

next steps of the National Inquiry, such as the conduct of continuing dialogues on specific issues.

3 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2015) Handbook for Human Rights Treaty Body Members

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/HR_PUB_15_2_TB%20Handbook_EN.pdf (accessed Nov. 23,

2017)

9

Chapter 2.

Findings and Assessment

Through the National Inquiry, the CHR has found facts that are presented under the

following interrelated themes: a.) Indigenous identity is threatened; b.) Non-IP's encroachment

into ancestral domains as a threat to the indigenous identity; c.) Limitations to the right of

ownership over ancestral domains; d.) Scope of free, prior and informed consent of IPs; e.) IPs'

decision-making processes and governance structures; f.) Right to Development of IPs; g.)

Opportunities for development provided by Duty-Bearers; h.) Development, discrimination and

the vulnerable sectors of the IP Community (i.e., women, children, elderly); i.) Right to cultural

integrity. We now elaborate each themes below:

Indigenous identity is threatened

Section 21 of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) refers to the State's

commitment to give due recognition to the Indigenous Peoples' distinct characteristics and

identity. It accords to them the rights, protections and privileges enjoyed by the rest of the

citizenry in the Philippines. The question of indigenous identity is one that only the IPs

themselves are competent to decide. Indigenous identity is the condition for one to enjoy the

rights and protection under the law.

However, there are threats to the native identity of IPs as recognized in the IPRA.4 The

government relies on estimated and outdated figures as to how many are the IPs in the

Philippines. The classification is based on the 1996 list of the defunct Offices of the Southern

Cultural Communities and Northern Cultural Communities.5 The 2010 Philippine Census of

Population and Housing (CPH) remains to be the reference for the IP population in the country,

as the next CPH will be in 2020.

There are no universal standards on what would constitute native identity. Other

government agencies also rely on the Certificate of Confirmation6 that NCIP issues. For the

4 Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples refer to a group of people or homogenous societies

identified by self-ascription and ascription by others, who have continuously lived as organized community on

communally bounded and defined territory, and who have, under claims of ownership since time immemorial,

occupied, possessed and utilized such territories, sharing common bonds of language, customs, traditions and

other distinctive cultural traits, or who have, through resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of

colonization, non-indigenous religions and cultures, became historically differentiated from the majority of

Filipinos. ICCs/IPs shall likewise include peoples who are regarded as indigenous on account of their descent

from the populations which inhabited the country, at the time of conquest or colonization, or at the time of

inroads of non-indigenous religions and cultures, or the establishment of present state boundaries, who retain

some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions, but who may have been displaced

from their traditional domains or who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains (Sec. 3h, Indigenous

Peoples Rights Act of 1997)

5 Explanatory note of Rep. Maximo B. Rodriguez, Jr. to House Bill No. 4545 filed on Nov. 29, 2016

http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HB04545.pdf (accessed Dec. 4, 2017)

6 It is a written Certification issued by the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) to bonafide

Indigenous Peoples confirming their authenticity and ethnicity as an IP as defined/prescribed in Republic Act

10

purposes of the 2010 CPH however, ethnicity is considered a primary sense of belonging to an

ethnic group. Ethnic group is consanguine in nature, meaning, the ties are reckoned by blood and

traced through the family tree. Thus, ethnicity refers to the household member's identity by blood,

and not by choice nor by adoption/confirmation for any ethnic group.

Generally, ethnic grouping denotes genealogical and paternal lineage to any of the

Philippines's group of native population. For the purpose of the 2010 CPH, ethnic grouping also

includes maternal lineage. Anybody whose consanguinity with both parents or any of them, who

is/are member/s of an IP group, is an Indigenous Person.7 The literal question posed for the

census is: “What is ________'s ethnicity by blood? Is he/she a /an _________?” Responses may

not be as clear cut, however. For instance, one respondent may have parents who belong to

different tribes. As mentioned, the 2010 concept of ethnicity excludes adoption or confirmation

as mode of ascribing membership in a tribe, which could be allowed by the community's

customary laws or practices.

On the other hand, language, or “mother tongue”, is only one of the several factors that

determine native identity. One IP said, “In our place, the DepEd makes their survey to children

only asking 'What is your tribe?' Then the children cannot answer. They change the question,

'What language is used in your home?', then the children answered 'Tagalog' and therefore they

are no longer belonging to an IP community.”8

Existing rules on registration9 of vital events (e.g., birth, marriage, death) of IPs are not

implemented to the fullest extent. There are many IPs who do not have birth certificates.10 It is

not common practice for IPs to register their vital events and NCIP does not have budget for a

program to address this concern.11 The IPs could not afford the costs of civil registration, such as

when procuring certificates from the local civil registry office or the National Statistics Office

(NSO). For example, in the two sitios of Brgy. Dalagsaan, Libacao, Aklan, there are at least 265

school children whose births are not registered.12 Each one would then need to pay at least

Php140 for a certification of no birth record (a.k.a. negative certificate) as one of the

prerequisites for delayed registration of birth, aside from the costs of obtaining other documents

(e.g., affidavits of disinterested persons, cedulas, etc.) and the registration fees that the local

8371 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. This certification entitles IPs to enjoy all the rights, benefits

and privileges guaranteed under R. A. 8371 and all other laws, decrees, executive orders and legal issuance

promulgated for the Indigenous Peoples. This program validates and confirm Certificates of Tribe Membership

conferred to members of Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) only for the intent

and purpose it was issued, e. g. tribal identification, scholarship, local employment, travel abroad, land matters,

NAPOLCOM, AFP (PAF, PA, PN, PM), BFP, BJMP and others.

https://www.ncipro67.com.ph/services/application-to-certificate-of-confirmation-coc/ (accessed November 8,

2017)

7 Philippine Statistics Authority (2010) Census of Population and Housing

http://psa.gov.ph/psada/index.php/catalog/64/datafile/F9/V139 (accessed November 8, 2017)

8 Per statement of Satur Bugnay (IPMR-Nueva Viscaya) during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to

Development

9 NSO Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2004 and A.O. No. 1, Series of 2007 (for IP Solemnizing Officers)

10 Per statement of Joel Lumis (Tagbanua) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

11 Per statement of Pilar Mendoza (PSA) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan and

Thelma Aumentado's (Dumagat-Remontado) statement during the 3rd Public Hearing in Tagaytay City

12 Per statement of Sonny Estelloso (CHR-VI) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

11

government unit (e.g., city or municipality) collects.13 Some births are not registered because the

babies were not born in a hospital or authorized birthing facility.14 IPs consider such policies as

discriminatory for not taking into account their location in Geographically Isolated and

Disadvantaged Areas (GIDA) and the fact that births are traditionally attended by hilots or

paltera.

Tribal chieftains or elders15 must first be accredited by the PSA, upon certification by

NCIP, before they can solemnize marriage. Mere reference to customary law that a tribal chief

can solemnize marriage is not sufficient authority. While some IPs believe that mere customary

law is enough, others give value to government regulation on who must solemnize marriage

because each tribe are different. If for the Tagbanuas, only one can solemnize, it may not be true

for the Molbog or the Palaw'an.16 PSA reported that it engages tribal chieftains and capacitate

them in the performance of their duty as such. 17 The NCIP had issued Certificates of

Confirmation of Tribal Marriage,18 an area of concern that was identified in the IP Master Plan

(2012-2016) as requiring immediate attention.19

There is no system that instantly generates data on IPs' vital events upon mere registration

with the local civil registrar, such that PSA conducts the CPH. Inaccurate database for IPs result

in confusion particularly in the government's delivery of services. It is observed that, separately

from PSA, the DSWD conducts census where some IPs are not included, resulting to some IPs

not getting the right incentives or services.20 More so, non-IPs take advantage of the lack of

credible and accurate database for IPs. There are instances where non-IPs usurp the IP identity

and the corresponding rights and privileges, such as the waiver of height requirements for

applicants in the PNP and AFP.21

Specifically, IPs of Maguindanao, having asserted rights under IPRA, also expressed

concerns that their indigenous identity will be affected by the enactment of the proposed

Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), which does not recognize IPRA as governing law for the IPs

who at present are at the territories concerned. The draft BBL makes further classification

between Bangsamoro IPs and non-Moro IPs.22

The lack of an NCIP regional office in the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao

13 Under, existing rules on civil registration, a Certificate of Confirmation from NCIP is not required for delayed

registration of birth.

14 Per statement of John Michael Calumba (Tribu Bukidnon) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

15 For the Tagbanua, they call him “Masikampo.”

16 Per statement of Victoriano Colili (CALG Palaw'an) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City,

Palawan

17 Per statement of Pilar Mendoza (PSA) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

18 Cabreza, Vincent (Nov. 26, 2013) Giving Indigenous Peoples a Face.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/535431/giving-indigenous-peoples-a-face (accessed (Dec. 5, 2017)

19 http://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Indigenous-Peoples-Master-Plan-2012-

2016.pdf (accessed Dec. 5, 2017)

20 Per statement of Satur Bugnay (IPMR-Nueva Viscaya) during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to

Development

21 Per Thelma Aumentado's (Dumagat-Remontado) statement during the 3rd Public Hearing in Tagaytay City and

Bae Edith Mansayagan's (Mansaka) statement during the 4th Public Hearing in Davao City

22 Per Alim Bandara 's (Teduray) statement during the 4th Public Hearing in Davao City

12

(ARMM) is also indicative of such threat to the non-Moro IP identity. The IP resource person

said:

“Unang una, ang gusto kong pahayag sa CHR, na mula pa noon na

isabatas ang IPRA, hanggang ngayon, hindi pa fully maimplement ito sa ARMM.

Bunga nito, wala pong office ang NCIP sa ARMM lalong lalo na sa Maguindanao.

Ang napiling opisina para sa katutubo ay yung OSCC or Office for Southern

Cultural Communities na dapat sana ay wala na after maisabatas ang IPRA.23

Dahil dito, yung binanggit kanina na Four Bundles of Rights ng mga katutubo,

medyo nagkaproblema ang mga katutubo sa loob ng ARMM lalo sa usapin ng

FPIC ng mga katutubo sa loob ng ARMM. May problema pa rin sapagkat walang

IPRA, walang NCIP na siyang parang magpapapatupad sa usaping FPIC sa

panahong may programa na apektado ang IP communities.

xxx xxx xxx

Dahil sa problema ng IPRA, sa peace process, nagkaproblema sa

identity namin. Para samin, malinaw ang definition ng indigenous peoples sa

IPRA pero nang mapagusapan ang GPH at MILF, lalong lalo na ang issue ng

BBL, contentious issue ng identity ng katutubo. Sa ngayon, may Bangsamoro IP at

non-moro indigenous peoples. Itong mga issue na ito gusto naming linawin,

sapagkat tinatanong kami sa freedom of choice, pinapapili kami kung anong

identity namin samamantalang para sa amin, alam na alam na namin.”24

On the other hand, it is a positive development that the Office of the Presidential Adviser

on the Peace Process (OPAPP) recently convened on April 26, 2017 the IP Peace Panel,

particularly the Mindanao IP Legislative Assembly (MIPLA) that will craft, deliberate, and

propose provisions in the BBL with due consideration to all the aspirations of the IPs, both Non-

Moro and Moro. The legislative proposal is still pending in Congress.

Indeed, customs and traditions of each tribe are decisive in the determination of who are

the IPs in the Philippines, inclusive of their vital statistics, civil and even political status. So far,

there is insufficient comprehensive, updated and consolidated documentation or study about such

customs and traditions.

23 The Office of Southern Cultural Communities – Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (OSCC-ARMM)

that currently exists was created by virtue of Executive Order No. 462 (May 17, 1991), which devolved to the

Autonomous Regional Government of ARMM the powers and functions of the Office for Southern Cultural

Communities that was created by virtue of Executive Order No. 122-C (Jan. 30, 1987). IPRA took effect on Nov.

22, 1997, or after such devolution was made in 1991. The merger of the ONCC and OSCC that IPRA mandated

only affected regions outside ARMM (e.g. Regions IV, V, VI, VII, IX, X, XI, and XII).

24 Ibid.

13

Non-IPs' encroachment into ancestral domains as a threat to the indigenous identity

Non-IPs' encroachment into ancestral domains25 is also a threat to the IP identity. IPs

have intimate connection with their ancestral domains, including all natural resources found

therein, being regarded as the sacred source of their lives, a heritage from their ancestors, and for

which they are obliged to preserve for the generations to come.26 The UNDRIP does not use the

term “ancestral domains,” but provides in Article 26 that:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they

have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands,

territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other

traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.

3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and

resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs,

traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

Only IPs are legally entitled to own ancestral domains in the Philippines, which are areas

under their private communal ownership since time immemorial and that had never been part of

public lands, hence exempt from the coverage of the Regalian Doctrine. As of March 31, 2016,

206 Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) were issued, which represent 5,110,393.22

hectares and 1,108,223 IPs, or about 7.92% of the total estimated IP population pegged at

14,000,000.27

It is a question of fact to determine where ancestral domains are located. Unlike the

UNDRIP, the IPRA has gone further in elaborating the process of determining ancestral domains

and the required proofs include the testimony of elders or community under oath, and other

documents directly or indirectly attesting to the possession or occupation of the area since time

immemorial by such IPs in the concept of owners which shall be any one of the following

25 Ancestral domains refer to all areas generally belonging to ICCs/IPs comprising lands, inland waters, coastal

areas, and natural resources therein, held under a claim of ownership, occupied or possessed by ICCs/IPs, by

themselves or through their ancestors, communally or individually since time immemorial, continuously to the

present except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a

consequence of government projects or any other voluntary dealings entered into by government and private

individuals/corporations, and which are necessary to ensure their economic, social and cultural welfare. It shall

include ancestral lands, forests, pasture, residential, agricultural, and other lands individually owned whether

alienable and disposable or otherwise, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of water, mineral

and other natural resources, and lands which may no longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from

which they traditionally had access to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home

ranges of ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators; (Sec. 3[a], Indigenous Peoples Rights Act

of 1997)

26 United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2010) Minority Rights: International

Standards and Guidance for Implementation

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/MinorityRights_en.pdf (accessed Nov. 15, 2017)

27 Per presentation of NCIP Commissioner Basilio A. Wandag during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to

Development

14

authentic documents:

• Written accounts of the IPs customs and traditions;

• Written accounts of the IPs political structure and institution;

• Pictures showing long term occupation such as those of old improvements, burial

grounds, sacred places and old villages;

• Historical accounts, including pacts and agreements concerning boundaries entered into

by the IPs concerned with other IPs;

• Survey plans and sketch maps;

• Anthropological data;

• Genealogical surveys;

• Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional communal forests and hunting grounds;

• Pictures and descriptive histories of traditional landmarks such as mountains, rivers,

creeks, ridges, hills, terraces and the like; and

• Write-ups of names and places derived from the native dialect of the community.28

The NCIP Chairperson has the authority to certify that the area covered is an ancestral

domain. The secretaries of the DAR, DENR, DILG, and DOJ, the Commissioner of the National

Development Corporation, and any other government agency claiming jurisdiction over the area

shall be notified thereof. Such notification shall terminate any legal basis for the jurisdiction

previously claimed.29

Still, complaints about encroachment come up when non-IPs, and even IPs from other

tribes, pursue tenurial claims over lands and resources that are also covered at certain ancestral

domains. Overlapping tenurial claims are based on several laws on modes of acquiring

ownership, use of natural resources, mineral extraction, land classifications and concessions that

are separately implemented by different government agencies, such as DAR, LMB, MGB, and

DA, with several database.

As such, DAR, DENR, LRA and NCIP issued Joint Administrative Order No. 1, Series of

2012 (JAO 1) to clarify, restate, and interface the respective jurisdictions, policies, programs and

projects of said agencies to address jurisdictional and operational issues among them. It applies

to the coverage of lands and/or processing by DAR, DENR and NCIP and registration with LRA

of Land Titles embracing lands or areas which are contentious or potentially contentious, such as

the following:

• Untitled lands with Approved Survey Plans claimed as covered by IPRA by the NCIP

and ICCs/IPs to be part of their AD/AL and likewise being claimed by DAR and the

DENR as covered by CARP and the Public Land Act, respectively;

• Titled lands covered by registered Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs),

Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Patents that overlapped with

CADTs/CALTs/CADCs/CALCs;

28 Section 52 (d) of IPRA

29 Section 52 (i) of IPRA

15

• Resource access/development instruments issued by the DENR over lands within

Ancestral Land/Domain Claims such as, but not limited to, Community Based Forest

Management Agreement (CBFMA), Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA),

- Socialized Forest Management Agreement (SIFMA), Protected Area Community -

Based Resources Management Agreement (PACBRMA), Forest Land Grazing

Management Agreement (FLGMA), Co-Management Agreement, Certificate of

Stewardship Contract (CSC), Certificate of Forest Stewardship Agreement (CFSA) Wood

Processing Plant Permit (WPPP), Special Land Use Permit (SLUP), Special Forest Land

Use Agreement (FLAG), Forest Land Use Agreement for Tourism Purposes (FLAGT),

Private Land Timber Permit (PLTP), Special Private Land Timber Permit (SPLTP) and

Foreshore Lease Agreement/Permit (FLA/FLP);

• Exploration Permit (EP), Financial or Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA), Mineral

Agreement (Production Sharing; Co-Production or Joint Venture), Small Scale Mining

Contract and Quarry Permit issued within CARP-covered areas;

• Reservations, proclamations and other special law-declared areas a portion or the entirety

of which is subsequently issued a CADT/CALT;

• Areas with existing and/or vested rights prior or after the registration of the

CADTs/CALTs but for any reason not segregated/excluded, and

• Other jurisdictional and operational issues that may arise between and amongst DAR,

DENR and NCIP as may be determined by the Joint National/Regional/Provincial

Committees, as created under Section 19 of JAO 1 and Section 5 of JMC No. 8 Series of

2012.30

Contested areas/issues also contemplates formal complaints filed by concerned ICCs/lPs

or by the NCIP in behalf of the ICCs/IPs over those identified titled areas found within the

AD/AL.

JAO 1 formalized the composition of Joint Committees at the provincial, regional and

national levels comprised of key technical personnel from NCIP, LRA, DAR, and DENR. The

Joint Provincial/Regional Committees serve as the venues for the resolution of jurisdictional,

operational and policy issues on the contentious areas within their territorial jurisdiction. In

special cases, the Joint National Committee (JNC) may create Special Teams to handle specific

contentious issues. The Special Teams shall submit their findings and recommendations to the

JNC for resolution of the issue.

It is also provided that upon the effectivity of JAO 1 on February 11, 2012, the

implementation of Land Acquisition and Distribution (LAD) and issuance of CLOA by DAR,

30 Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Memorandum Circular No. 08, Series of 2012 (JMC No. 8) was subsequently

issued to implement the provisions of JAO 1.

16

ancestral domain/ancestral land titling by NCIP, processing/issuance of patents by DENR, and

registration of titles by LRA over identified contentious areas shall remain suspended unless

resolved by the concerned Joint Provincial/Regional or National Committee. 31 That is why

during the public hearings, IP resource persons called for the revocation of JAO 1, as they

believe it has resulted in undue delay in the issuance and registration of CADTs.

The origin of JAO 1 came about when the LRA refused to register CADTs/CALTs,

unless NCIP, DAR or DENR issued the corresponding Certificate of Non-Overlap (CNO).32 The

intention of the agencies in implementing JAO 1 is to ensure that private land titles would be

segregated prior to the issuance and registration of the CADT/CALT.

The premise is Section 56 of IPRA that recognizes and respects property rights within the

ancestral domains that are already existing and/or vested upon effectivity of said law on

November 22, 1997. Vested right is some right or interest in the property that has become fixed

and established, and is no longer open to doubt or controversy. It is an immediate fixed right of

present and future enjoyment, which must be contradistinguished from a right that is expectant or

contingent.33 However, the DENR said that delineation is a process that requires meticulous care

to prevent or address overlapping of land titles, and that land surveys would take some time to

complete to be accurate.34

NEDA is conducting its study on the impacts of JAO 1 since 2016. They found that

choke point in the processing of CADT is at the level of DENR. To quote NEDA35:

“Lumabas sa data na ang DENR ang nagpapatagal ng process. Last

administration po ang one of the thrust nila ay ang mag-issue ng Patent. Malaki

ang target sa pagdistribute ng Patent. Every time na magpapasa ang NCIP ng

survey plan para sa pagbibigay ng Certification of Non-Overlap, meron na

namang ibang application, so hanggang sa hindi na maisyuhan ng certificate.

Ibabalik ulit sa NCIP tapos for validation ulit. Paulit-ulit lang po, ang nangyayari.

Ang accomplishment lamang ng NCIP ang naaapektuhan. Hindi po naaapektuhan

ang accomplishment ng iba. Nagtatagal lamang po. Isa po ito sa findings namin.

Isang findings pa po, iba ang definition ng “survey plan” ng NCIP sa

DENR. Ang NCIP definition ay base sa approved plans, or limited only by

approved plans of DENR before 1997. Ang definition ng DENR sa survey plans ay

lahat ng land classification plans, e.g. timberland, cadastral lands, A and D,

government resettlement areas, government protected areas. Ang NCIP ay yoong

nakalagay lamang sa RA9970. Ang isang recommendation namin ay sana parehas

sila ng definition ng survey plan.

31 Section 26, Joint DAR-DENR-LRA-NCIP Memorandum Circular No. 08, Series of 2012

32 Per statement of Leandro Caymo (DAR) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

33 Heirs of Gabriel Zari and Heirs of Hermenegildo Concepcion vs. Jose Santos, G.R. Nos. L-21213 and L-21214,

March 28, 1968 http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1968/mar1968/gr_l-21214_1968.html (accessed November

8, 2017)

34 Per statement of Vicente Tuddao, Jr. (Assistant Regional Director, DENR-MIMAROPA) during the 2nd public

hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

35 Per statement of Judy Mae Masangkay (NEDA) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

17

Kapag nagsurvey sila ng ancestral domain, ang magle-lead ay NCIP na

naka-base sa AO 2007, na kahit po magsurvey sila ito ay base sa guidelines ng

DENR na 2007.”

The above statement shows that processing of patents were pursued up to their registration,

whereas the processing of CADTs were not, hence the statement: “Ang accomplishment lamang

ng NCIP ang naaapektuhan. Hindi po naaapektuhan ang accomplishment ng iba.”

NAPC also leads an inter-agency review of JAO 1. There were case studies in Oriental

Mindoro, Benguet Province, and Zambales. It has identified that the JAO is not implemented to

the regional and provincial levels due to gap in communicating instructions and information

from the national offices.36

While the act of registering CADTs/CALTs with the Registry of Deeds is not the mode

for IPs to acquire ownership over ancestral domains, pursuant to the principle of native title, the

registered CADT/CALT is still necessary for them to avail funding source for development

projects and even to obtain other government permits such as for cutting trees and for using other

natural resources within their domains.37

Stated otherwise, a registered CADT/CALT is the single most important proof of

ownership for IPs that non-IPs, and even IPs belonging to other tribes, would look for. Based on

NCIP records there were 206 CADTs approved as of 2012, but until 2017 only 43 are registered

with the respective Registry of Deeds due to JAO 1.38

In particular, the relevant instances highlighted during the public hearings concerning

ancestral domains are as follows:

• CADT of the Akeanon Bukidnon, covering more of less 19,000 hectares, could not be

registered due to overlap of boundaries with military reservation in Capiz;39

• Clamor of the Akeanon Bukidnon to apply for CADT for domains that include Barangays

Medina and Panipiason, Madalag, Aklan, but lack knowledge on how to initiate the

process;40

• The original area of the Ati Tamulalod's ancestral domain, including Barangays

Tamulalod, Bungsuan, Aglalana, Agsirab, Kuligli, in Damurao, Capiz, was about 1,225

hectares but when it was surveyed, the area was reduced to 500 hectares losing almost

36 Per statement of Judith Maranes (NAPC) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City and during the 2nd public

hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

37 Section 11 of IPRA provides: “The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains by virtue of Native Title shall

be recognized and respected. Formal recognition, when solicited by ICCs/IPs concerned, shall be embodied

in a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), which shall recognize the title of the concerned ICCs/IPs

over the territories identified and delineated.” (Emphasis ours)

38 Per statement of Judith Maranes (NAPC) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

39 Per statement of Guillermo Colas (Akeanon) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

40 Per statement of Lester Agapito (Akeanon Bukidnon) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

18

half to CLOA holders;41

• Nomadic IPs such as the Atis of Anini-y, Hamtic, Dau, San Jose and Sibalom

Municipalities in Antique clamor for a permanent resettlement site, but could not claim a

particular ancestral domain;42

• Panay Bukidnon Tribe has pending CADT application, inclusive of Barangay Tacayan,

Tapaz, Capiz, and during such pendency, various government agencies have also laid

counter-claims to parts of their ancestral domain, such as the Armed Forces of the

Philippines, claiming parts as military reservation;43

• Boundary dispute derails the processing of the CADT application of the Panay Bukidnon

Tribe, covering certain barangays in Tapaz, Capiz. The survey from NCIP is still

forthcoming and this is the main reason why this process have lagged behind. The subject

ancestral domain overlaps with a military reservation, known as Camp Peralta;44

• Lack of budget for the continuation of the CADT application of the Bukidnon Tribe in

Janiuay, Iloilo;45

• Pending registration and award of the CADT of the Dumagat-Remontado in General

Nakar, Quezon;46

• On-going relocation of the Dumagats of San Jose, Bulacan due to overlapping claims of

the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);

• Non-registration of CADT for the Aeta Abelle of Sitio Maporac, Cabangan, Zambales;

• On-going relocation of the Abelling ethnic group in Brgy. Maamot, San Jose, Tarlac due

to overlapping land claims of the National Irrigation Authority (NIA) and the

construction of the Balog-Balog Dam Project;

• Discrepancies of the area as stated in the registered CADT of the Aetas in Mabalacat,

Pampanga, where 300 hectares more or less are not covered;

• Displacement of Agtas from their ancestral lands in Casiguran, Aurora due to

overlapping land claims of CLOA (Certificate of Land Ownership Award) holders in the

same area;

• Land disputes between the IPs (i.e., Bago, Ibaloi, Dumagat, Aplai, Bukidnon, Isneg and

Kankanaey) and the other non-IP occupants of lands deemed as military reservation in

Palayan City, Nueva Ecija;

• Overlapping of the ancestral domains of the Matigsalog and Obo Manobo;47

The IP resource persons maintained that they should not be adversely affected by JAO 1,

and demanded that their CADTs must be duly registered and immediately awarded.

41 Per statement of Pablito Escona (Ati Tamulalod) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

42 Per statement of Perlita Oyong (Ati) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

43 Per statement of Concepcion Diaz (Panay Bukidnon) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

44 Per statement of Hermino Sapeda (Panay Bukidnon) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

45 Per statement of Carlos Moreno (Tribal Chieftain, Brgy. Kuyot, Iloilo) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo

City

46 This and succeeding incidents are highlighted in the Statement of Partnership of the participants that was

adopted by acclamation during the 3rd public hearing in Tagaytay City

47 Per statement of Bae Magdalina Herbilla (Matigsalog, Arakan, Cotabato Province) during the 4th public hearing

in Davao City

19

Limitations to the right of ownership over ancestral domains

JAO 1 also illustrates a mechanism that could impede the full recognition of IPs' native

title. While the law recognizes the IPs' right of ownership over ancestral domains and all

resources found therein, such right is limited by, or otherwise subjected to, conditions provided

in other national laws and regulations on the environment.

For example, the IPs cannot cut trees without first obtaining the permit from the CENRO.

Kaingin is prohibited even if it is practiced within their ancestral lands. The IPs cannot engage in

small-scale mining in ancestral lands that are not declared by the government as “People's Small-

Scale Mining Areas” or “minahang bayan”. 48 The Wildlife Resources Conservation and

Protection Act49 allows IPs to collect wildlife for traditional use and not primarily for trade.

While generally killing and destroying wildlife is prohibited, it may be allowed when done as

part of the religious rituals.

IPRA and environmental laws are consistent in using the term “priority rights” to

describe the nature of rights that IPs have on how they are entitled to utilize natural resources in

their ancestral domains. The law does not treat such right as exclusive for the IPs. Section 57 of

IPRA provides:

“Natural Resources within Ancestral Domains. — The ICCs/IPs shall

have priority rights in the harvesting, extraction, development or exploitation of

any natural resources within the ancestral domains. A non-member of the

ICCs/IPs concerned may be allowed to take part in the development and

utilization of the natural resources for a period of not exceeding twenty-five (25)

years renewable for not more than twenty-five (25) years: Provided, That a formal

and written agreement is entered into with the ICCs/IPs concerned or that the

community, pursuant to its own decision making process, has agreed to allow such

operation: Provided, finally, That the NCIP may exercise visitorial powers and

take appropriate action to safeguard the rights of the ICCs/IPs under the same

contract.” (Emphasis ours)

Still, the IPs have pointed out the unequal and discriminatory application of the laws,

where big private companies and non-IP personalities are deemed favored. As one Tagbanua50

would say: “Napakasaklap po, ang mga katutubo, kapag namutol ng isang kapirasong puno o

isang kapirasong kahoy, diretso na sa pulis. Samantalang ang mga mining firm na bultu-bultong

kahoy, napaka-lalaking kahoy na tinatabunan lamang ng lupa ay hindi nila nakikita.”

The IPs, while recognized as such, are integrated in the legal and socio-economic

framework of the Philippines. They cannot live exclusively on their own as were their ancestors.

48 Section 7, Republic Act No. 7076

49 Section 27(a)(i) Republic Act No. 9147

50 Per statement of Joel Limsa (Tagbanua, IPMR-Narra, Palawan) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa

City, Palawan

20

In such cases where they find themselves in legal dispute with non-IPs, and IP from other tribes,

the NCIP is not the proper forum to try and decide the case, but rather the regular courts as

pronounced in the recent rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of Loloy Unduran, et al. vs.

Ramon Aberasturi, et al., (G.R. No. 181284, October 20, 2015), Ben Y. Lim vs. Sulpicio

Gamosa (G.R. No. 193964, December 2, 2015), and Thomas Begnaen vs. Spouses Caligtan (G.R.

No. 189852, August 17, 2016).

Scope of free, prior and informed consent of IPs

Non-IPs must obtain the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) 51 of IPs for

development projects and activities that will be implemented in their ancestral domains. FPIC is

indicative of the IPs' right to self-determination that is already recognized in law. It is a distinct

form of consent, different from how non-IPs would understand the term in a more individualistic

sense. Not only is FPIC the consensus of all members of the IP community to be determined in

accordance with their respective customary laws and practices, it must also be free from any

external manipulation, interference and coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent

and scope of the activity, in a language and process understandable to the community.52

The process starts after the concerned government agency forwards the application to the

NCIP to verify if the project will be located on an ancestral domain (AD). Thereafter, the

application is forwarded to the NCIP Regional Office that oversees the area. The regional

director (RD) will form the Field Based Investigation (FBI) Team. They will conduct a

conference together with the IP community, IP elders, and the applicant.

If after the field investigation, the FBI Team finds out that the area is not within AD, they

make a report and recommend for the issuance of a Certificate of Non-Overlap (CNO). However,

if the land is within the AD, the FBI Team recommends for the undertaking of the FPIC process.

The applicant will be informed and Pre-FPIC Conference will follow through.

During the Pre-FPIC Conference, the FBI Team will prepare the Work and Financial Plan

(WFP). Questions will be clarified during the Pre-FPIC Conference. It is during the first

community assembly when the IP elders and leaders will be identified or recognized. A

discussion of their rights will then be made. During the second community assembly, the

applicant presents the project to the community. The IPs thereafter conduct their own activity,

such as consensus building. They are given enough time to discuss the pros and cons of the

project, before deciding whether or not to allow it.

If the project is not allowed, the IPs will issue the Resolution of No Consent (RNC). The

Proponent will be given the copy of the Resolution, and he will be given the chance to request

for reconsideration. If the project is approved, the IPs will issue the Resolution of Consent

(ROC). Negotiations begin, which may eventually lead to the execution of the Memorandum of

Agreement (MOA) that would be signed by the IP leaders, NCIP and the proponent. The

proponent shoulders all the costs appurtenant to the FPIC process. Documents will be processed

51 The current reference for FPIC process is NCIP Administrative Order No. 3, series of 2012

52 Section 3(g), IPRA

21

and forwarded to the Regional Review Team (RRT). They are tasked to review all the

documents. The regional director (RD) endorses the documents to Ancestral Domain Office

(ADO) in the NCIP Central Office.

The MOA signed by the parties will be forwarded to the Legal Affairs Office (LAO),

which presents copied thereof to the NCIP Commission En Banc (CEB) for approval. If

approved, a Certificate of Precondition (CP) will be issued. A copy of the Certificate will be

given to the endorsing government agency. The process flow for FPIC is presented in the figure53

below:

Figure 3 : Process Flow of Securing Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)

However, specific concerns and complaints on violations of FPIC are narrated by the

resource persons during the public hearings, as follows:

• DENR's National Greening Program (NGP) is implemented in ancestral lands without

FPIC, because per DENR records the lands are deemed under public domain, such as in

Capiz;54

• There are comprehensive land use plans that did not consider ancestral domains, resulting

to the pursuit of ecotourism in areas near Montillano Falls, Iloilo without FPIC;55

• LGU Bohol has not recognize FPIC of the Eskaya peoples for implementing Bottom-Up

53 Based on the presentation of Mr. Frederick William Crespillo, Jr. from the Ancestral Domains Office, NCIP,

delivered during the focus group discussion with CHR held on August 18, 2016

54 Per statement of Atty. Rosette Ferrer (DENR Central Office) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

55 Per statement of Val Talavero (DENR-Region VI), during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

22

Budgeting (BUB), such as when it constructed and commercialized water reservoir;56

• The policies and implementing regulations of BUB or what is now called the Assistance

to Disadvantaged Municipalities (ADM) program57 do not contain explicit provisions to

cover the situation of IPs and how they should be consulted;58

• San Andres Corporation, Lionheart, Green Palawan Power Agriculture Corporation and

Agumil Philippines (owned by certain Mr. Ong and Mr. Lim) pursue agribusiness (palm

oil, corn, coconut) in certain parts of Palawan without FPIC;59

• Mining operations of Citinickel Mines and Development Corporation in Sofronio

Española and Narra, Palawan violates FPIC; more so, an apparent concern in relation to

FPIC within this context is their claim for royalties under their Memorandum of

Agreement with Citinickel;60

• Pursuit of the geothermal project by Aboitiz in San Marcelino, Zambales where the Aetas

reside;61

• Mining operation of Ore Mining and Development Corporation in Doña Remedios

Trinidad, Bulacan where the Dumagats' ancestral lands are located;

• Quarrying operations in Mabalacat, Pampanga as reported by the Aeta communities who

are impacted;

• Utilization of Masungi Georeserve in Brgy. Cuyambay, Tanay Rizal and the National

Greening Program in locations such as Montalban, Rizal affecting the Dumagat-

Remontado from Tanay and Montalban, Rizal;

• Pursuit of tourism project in the crater of Mt. Pinatubo in Botolan Zambales by the LGUs

without FPIC of Aeta communities affecting some 3000 families;

• Quarry operations in Montalban, Rizal must undergo FPIC process with the Dumagat-

Remontado;

• Renewal in 2016 of Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) covering

Saranggani, Bagumbayan, Ezperanza, and Sultan Kudarat that did not undergo FPIC

process of Dulangan Manobo;62

• Collaboration of some tribal leaders to manipulate FPIC process in favor of the National

Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) during negotiation for a road/right of way

over the ancestral lands of Tagakaulo and B'laan;63

• Sagittarius Mines, Inc. that has exploration activities in Tambacan and Malungon,

Sanranggani undertook a dubious FPIC process with collaboration of some of the tribal

leaders.64

On the other hand, non-IPs would cite the alleged tedious and costly process to obtain

56 Per statement of Roberto Datahan (Eskaya) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

57 http://www.dilg.gov.ph/news/DILG-rolls-out-Assistance-to-Disadvantaged-Municipalities-program/NC-2017-

1119 (accessed November 15, 2017)

58 Per statement of Dino Ponsaran (DILG-Region VI) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

59 Per statement of Motalib Kemil (Tagbanua) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

60 Per statement of Joel Limsa (Tagbanua, IPMR-Narra, Palawan) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa

City, Palawan

61 This and succeeding incidents are highlighted in the Statement of Partnership of the participants that was

adopted by acclamation during the 3rd public hearing in Tagaytay City

62 Per statement of Rubin Dalimbang (Dulangan Manobo) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City

63 Per statement of Leo Ingay (Tagakaulo) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City

64 Ibid.

23

FPIC and, for them, it is not clear with who among the IPs should they deal with. Even more

problematic is the situation when IPs without CADT would insist for the conduct of FPIC, since

in the records of other government agencies the lands involved do not overlap with ancestral

domains. NCIP believes that it can only initiate the FPIC process upon endorsement of the

project or activity by the relevant government office.65

The NCIP guidelines on FPIC is currently being reviewed and one of the proposal is to

require a clear description of the decision-making process in the IP community, who are often

not homogenous. It is further observed that factions among the community would emerge once

the issue is about monetary gains, such as on royalties that would be paid in view of development

projects in the ancestral domain.66 The FPIC process is deemed impractical due to the policy of

“one CADT, one unit,” wherein the FPIC of all other IPs would be obtained even if the direct

beneficiary of the project or activity is only a small portion thereof.67

The DENR and NCIP need to clarify what plans, activities and programs must undergo

the process. For example, DENR believes that no FPIC is needed if the lands covered under an

IFMA would be integrated, consolidated or merged, since it has undergone a previous FPIC

process, in contrast to the position of NCIP.68 DENR does not view integration, consolidation

and merger of IFMA as equivalent to its renewal. The government is also of the view that in case

the IPs themselves are the ones who solicited the projects and activities, the usual and tedious

FPIC process could be modified.69

IPs' decision-making processes and governance structures

Where there is confusion in the FPIC process, the situation indicates insufficient or lack

of understanding about the decision-making and governance structures of the IPs. Often there are

state agents and non-IPs that would raise the question: “Who are the IPs and where are they

located?” The situation shows the threat to the indigenous identity as it is being doubted and

questioned.

There are efforts to integrate the IPs in the mainstream structure of the Philippine polity.

The law requires that the indigenous political structures (IPS), IP mandatory representatives

(IPMRs), and peoples organizations (IPOs) must first be duly validated and recognized by NCIP.

The selection process of IPMRs are also assailed.70 Non-IP LGU officials prevent IPMRs from

performing their duties. Stated otherwise, the law and corresponding regulations 71 are not

65 Per statement of Roberto Almonte (NCIP Region IV) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City,

Palawan

66 Per statement of Dexter Precioso (NCIP Region X) during the 5th public hearing in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental

67 Per statement of Geronico Aguio (NCIP Region XI) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City

68 Per statement of Hadja Didaw Piang Brahim (DENR-LMB, Region XI) during the 4th public hearing in Davao

City

69 Per statement of Ronald Papag (DSWD) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City

70 Per statement of Conrado Quioang (IPMR Ilocos Sur) during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to

Development

71 These regulations are: DILG-NCIP Joint Circular No. 001, Series of 2011 (Guidelines for the Determination

of the Minimum Threshold of IP/ICC Population in a Local Government Unit to Allow Mandatory

24

properly implemented because the local officials could easily and conveniently resist the IPMRs

from assuming their positions in local sanggunians. The local sanggunians must still enact the

ordinance appropriating funds for the salaries and other emoluments that would be paid to the

IPMRs. The NCIP does not have authority over LGUs, hence it cannot compel them to recognize

IPMRs.72

The IPMRs are at risk of losing their nature as holders of a public office that should be

independent. One IP said, “Aminin man natin o hindi, mapulitika ang ating bansa. Kapag hindi

ka kay Mayor, walang magagawa ang IP. 'Bata-bata system' – buddy-buddy system of the

politicians. Kung tagapagsalita ka ni Mayor, 'tropa-tropa' ka ni Mayor, kahit wala kang dugo ng

IP, magiging IPMR ka na.”73 Still, there are conflicts between IPS and IPOs, particularly in

Mindanao, because there are IPOs that are not recognized by IPS. Under Sections 3(f), 4, 7(15)

and 8 of NCIP Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2012, the IPS creates the IPOs and

determines their functions as such. The IPS has the power to convene the community and in

accordance with local processes to lead the selection of the lPMRs in all policy making bodies

and in local legislative councils.

Right to Development of IPs

The IPRA is clear that IPs will freely pursue 74 their economic, social and cultural

development through the medium of their indigenous political structures (IPS). The IPs have the

right to determine and decide their own priorities for development affecting their lives, beliefs,

institutions, spiritual well-being, and the lands they own, occupy or use.75 They are entitled to

participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of policies, plans and programs for

national, regional and local development which may directly affect them.

On the other hand, the IP resource persons are not fully satisfied with the development

efforts of the government. There are no national data that show whether or not the IPs are poor,

but there are Listahanan reports in 2015 from NEDA Region V that there are 796 IP households

who are poor in said region.76 The IPs narrated the challenges they face in availing government

programs on livelihood, work opportunities, education, health, housing, and the corresponding

facilities (e.g., access roads that would connect the IPs to the town proper). While some IPs are

not informed on how to avail the programs, others lament that the conditions to avail the

programs are formulated without properly considering their situation, hence restrictive.

There are two modes by which development is intended to be realized for IPs, i.e. in case

Representation in the Local Sanggunians); NCIP Administrative Order No. 2 Series of 2012 (The General

Guidelines on the Confirmation of Indigenous Political Structures and the Registration of Indigenous Peoples'

Organizations); NCIP Administrative Order No. 001 Series of 2009 (National Guidelines for the Mandatory

Representation of Indigenous Peoples in Local Legislative Councils)

72 Per statement of NCIP Commissioner Basilio A. Wandag during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to

Development

73 Per statement of Egmidio Gonzales, Jr. (IPMR Olongapo City) during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to

Development

74 Section 13, IPRA

75 Section 17, IPRA

76 Per statement of Liz Bellen (NEDA Region V) during the 3rd public hearing in Tagaytay City

25

they initiate the program (e.g. through the IPs' Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and

Protection Plan), and when they avail those intended even for non-IPs (e.g., DSWD's three-core

social protection programs: Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program/Conditional Cash Transfer

Program; Sustainable Land Program; and KALAHI-CIDDS, National Community-Driven

Development Program). IPs are located in remote areas (also known as “Geographically Isolated

and Disadvantaged Areas” [GIDA]) and it is a challenge for the duty-bearers to physically reach

them. Still, one IP who now holds a government position said to his fellow IPs, “Do not take

everything to be given to you like 'manna' from heaven.” 77 On a positive note, it is a

pronouncement recognizing that IP communities must be self-sufficient and self-sustaining. The

duty-bearers should do their part of the work in realizing that goal. Development is a cooperative

effort of both the rights-holders and the duty-bearers. He also reported that there are 138 groups

that have formulated their own ADSDPP,78 but there are no sustainable funding source to fully

implement them.79

NCIP Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 200480 provides that the IPs have the option

to present their ADSDPP for funding thereof before government agencies and instrumentalities,

the private sector, international aid agencies, and other donor groups. There is no categorical

commitment in law on the part of government to provide the budget to implement the programs

in the ADSDPP. Even IPRA merely mandated the NCIP “to negotiate for funds and to accept

grants, donations, gifts and/or properties in whatever form and from whatever source, local and

international, subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines, for the benefit of

ICCs/IPs and administer the same in accordance with the terms thereof; or in the absence of any

condition, in such manner consistent with the interest of ICCs/IPs as well as existing laws.”81

Royalties (minimum of 1%) from the mining companies are sources of funding to implement the

ADSDPP.82

Opportunities for development provided by Duty-Bearers

The government asserts that it provides the opportunity for IPs to realize their right to

development. It is a declared policy that economic opportunities created by the state shall be

extended to IPs on the basis of freedom of initiative and self-reliance. The IPs shall freely pursue

their economic, social and cultural development of their own choice and at their own pace in a

manner determined by themselves towards national unity and development.83

77 Per statement of NCIP Commissioner Basilio A. Wandag during the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to

Development

78 The ADSDPP is a long term comprehensive spatial and development plan with at least five years programming

of activities with the purpose of identifying and implementing programs and projects to strengthen self-

governance, alleviate poverty, protect the environment and cultural integrity, and build lasting peace and

genuine development within ancestral domains of particular ICCs or IP groups. (Section 7, Article II, Guidelines

on the Formulation of the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan)

79 Ibid.

80 Guidelines on the Formulation of the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan

(ADSDPP), Article II, Section 7(c)(4)

81 Section 44 (g), IPRA

82 Per statement of Constancio Paye (DENR-MGB, Region IX) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City

83 Guidelines on the Formulation of the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan

(ADSDPP), Article 1, Section 4 (d)

26

a.) During the Baguio Conference on the IP Right to Development (covering the situation of

IPs in Regions CAR, I, II, III, IV, and V as taken from the perspective of regional and

national government agencies, including the IPMRs) –

The government agencies reported that their existing development programs for IPs, or at

least benefit them, include the following:

• NCIP – Human, Economic and Environmental Development and Protection Services,

Education Assistance Program, Merit-based Scholarship, Health Programs

• NAPC – Representation of IPs and IPOs in the Bottom-Up Budgeting (BUB) Grievance

Redress Committee and the Local Poverty Reduction Action Team (LPRAT) in their

respective cities and municipalities

• NEDA CAR-Regional Development Council – Program for social preparation of

Cordillera into an Autonomous Region

• DA – Special Agricultural Area Development Project, wherein priority beneficiaries are

IPs

• SSS – Accreditation Program under Cooperatives and Informal Sector Group, including

IPs; subsidy program; AlkanSSSya Program; JO-KaltaSSS Program

• DOH – IP Health Program

• NHA – Resettlement assistance programs in partnership with LGUs

• MGB – Administration and disposition of mineral resources

• DepEd, NCIP – IP Education (IPEd)

• DOLE – IP Desks

b.) During the Public Hearing in Iloilo City, covering the IPs' situation in the Visayas –

The government agencies reported that their existing development programs for IPs, or at

least benefit them, include the following:

• DA – promotion of agricultural and fisheries development

• DENR – IP Desks; conduct of surveys of alienable and disposable lands; National

Greening Program; Community-Based Forest Management; Integrated Social Forestry;

Integrated Natural Resources and Environment Management Project; Forestland

Management Project; B+WISER Philippines Biodiversity & Watersheds improved for

Stronger Economy & Ecosystem Resilience; Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and

Forest Degradation-Plus; Indigenous Peoples and Communities Conserved Areas;

Protected Area Management Enhancement

• DSWD – Pantawid Pamilya; Kalahi-CIDSS; Sustainable Livelihood Program (SLP);

Listahanan; Social pension; Supplementary Feeding Program; Disaster Response

Operation; Recovery and Reintegration Program for Trafficked Persons (RRPTP);

Payapa at Masaganang Pamayanan (PAMANA); Protective Services Program; Adoption

and Foster Care; Gender and Development Program (GAD)

c.) During the Public Hearing in Tagaytay City, covering IPs in Regions III, IV-A, and V –

The government agencies reported that their existing development programs for IPs, or at

27

least benefit them, include the following:

• DA – distribution of the farm inputs, livestock, farm machineries and equipment; conduct

of trainings, extension support services; and research and development

• PSA – deliver relevant, reliable statistics and civil registration services for equitable

development towards an improved quality of life for all; generate official & general

purposes statistics; and carry-out Civil Registration Laws in the country

• DSWD – lead in the formulation, implementation and coordination of social services;

Protective Services (Assistance to Individuals and Families in Crisis Situation,

Supplementary Feeding Program, Social Pension, Disaster Mitigation and other

community-based programs); Sustainable Livelihood Program; KALAHI CIDSS

(Kapitbisig Laban sa Kahirapan): Comprehensive & Integrated Delivery of Social

Services; Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program; and Modified Conditional Cash

Transfer for IPs

• DENR – Enforcement of 5 Environmental Laws: PD 1586 – Environmental Impact

Statement System; RA 8749 - Philippine Clean Air Act; RA 9275 - Philippine Clean

Water Act; RA 9003 - Ecological Solid Waste Management Act; RA 6969 - Toxic

Chemical and Hazardous Waste Management Act

d.) During the Public Hearing in Davao City, covering IPs in Regions XI, XII, and

Maguindanao –

The government agencies reported that their existing development programs for IPs, or at

least benefit them, include the following:

• DENR – Conservation of protected Areas Program; Management and Development of

River Basins; Integrated Coastal Residence Management Program; Forest Protection;

Resource Use Regulation; Ecotourism Development and Management; Resource Use

Regulations; Water shed Management and Development; Delineation of Protection and

Production Forest Program; Forest Land Use Planning; Foreshore Development and

Management Planning; National Greening Program

• DAR – Land Tenure Improvement Services; Program Beneficiaries Development

(Support Services); Agrarian Legal Services; Land Distribution and Acquisition

• DA – Rice Program; Corn Program; High Value Commercial Crops Development

Program; Organic Agriculture Program; Agribusiness and Marketing Assistance;

Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund Scholarship Program

• DSWD – Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program; Modified Conditional Cash Transfer –

IP; SLP; KALAHI CIDDS; Supplemental Feeding; BUB; Resource Augmentation to

Relief Operations and Rehabilitation of LGU (Cash For Work/Food For Work);

Recovery and Reintegration Program for Trafficked Persons; Travel Clearance for

Minors; AICS Assistance to Individual to Crisis Interventions; Social Pension Program;

Center Based – Reception and Study Center for Children, Regional Rehabilitation Center

for Youth

• NEDA – Investment programming and budgeting; Policy Formulation; Socio Economic

Development and Physical Planning; Project Development and Monitoring

28

• NCIP – Flagship program: Pipes 2017-2022; Ancestral Domain; ADSDPP Formulation

Scholarship; Education; IPMRs/ IPS / IPOs; Capacity Building; ADSDPP

Implementation; Monitoring of IP Rights Violation

e.) During the Public Hearing in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental, covering IPs in Regions IX,

X, XIII, and the Provinces of Basilan, Sulu, and Tawi-Tawi –

The government agencies reported that their existing development programs for IPs, or at

least benefit them, include the following:

• NCIP – Issuance of CADT; ADSDPP formulation

• DENR – CBFMP; NGP; INREWIP; FLGMA; Issuance of Certificate of Non-overlap for

areas without ICCs/IPs to all mining applicants; Issuance of PreCondition from NCIP for

areas with ICCs/IPs to all mining applicants

• DOT – Infrastructure; Promotion and Marketing

• DSWD – Pantawid Pamilya Program or MCCT; KC; NCDDP; SLP (Sustainable

Livelihood Program

• DAR – Infrastructure facilities; Marketing assistance; Credit programs; Technical support

The aforesaid agencies engage with the IP Communities to a certain extent. The actions

taken by government that provide opportunities for the IPs to realize their right to development

are the manifestation of how it intends to address the gaps in the development agenda. However,

it appears that in some of the government's programs, the IPs are mere recipients of aid from the

government. If that is solely the case, it is contrary to the context of sustainable development, or

one that puts emphasis on the inter-generational responsibility of the present generation to

comprehensively and sustainably manage their ancestral domain and all resources found therein

so that future generations may enjoy them.

A resource person pointed out: “Each IP has a difference, you deal with them separately,

hindi pwedeng as one, as one Mindanao na IP, dapat according to tribe. Iba-iba talaga sila.”84

Hence, the better approach to realize the IPs' right to development is through their own planning

and programming process that would result to the formulation of their ADSDPP. The option of

the IPs to adopt a sustainable development and protection plan shall be respected under the

principle of free pursuit of development as a people.85

Unfortunately, the IPs lack capacity to formulate plans, programs, and projects.86 In such

case, those who have the capacity, financial resources and technology (whether IPs or non-IPs)

have an advantage. An IP resource person's narration encapsulates the situation thus:

“Tungkol sa ancestral domain fund, we have 18,000 hectares yet we are

relying on convergence ng different NGA at LGU. Hindi siya uunahing linangin

84 Per statement of Cecilia D. Trino (Mindanao Development Authority) during the 4th public hearing in Davao

City

85 Op. cit., Note 43

86 Per statement of Chito Balintay (Provincial Board Member, Zambales, IPMR-Aeta) during the 3rd public

hearing in Tagaytay City

29

ng LGU. Hindi nangyayari. Isa yun sa inaasahan kong mabigyan ng ancestral

domain fund for the development, using ADSDPP as a framework of the

implementation for project and programs because everything is in place. May

plano pero walang pera para sa implementasyon. Yan ang isang problema sa

implementasyon. Kapag walang pera. Ang pagpasok ng mga migrant settlers and

other peoples continue, pati mga organizations na gustong pumasok, kumukuha o

nagpopokus ng atensyon dahil marami na sila, masisira ang integridad sa lupaing

ninuno. Ang influx ng migrants, minsan kapag may problema, binebenta ko na at

ito ay nasa loob ng ancestral domain. Anyway that is internal problem. Kailangan

sana ng intervention kung hindi na namin kaya. Then yung protection ng

ancestral domain. That is why kailangan ibigay ang pondo, we have 18,000

hectares. How could we protect an entire area kung ang kumpanya pumasok at

dala ang kanilang sariling army just to put them in the area. Mayroong illegal

logging, mayroong migrants, paano naman ang simpleng tribo lamang?”87

Development, discrimination and the vulnerable sectors of the IP Community

(i.e., women, children, elderly)

The IPs felt discriminated against by non-IPs, even by the government, in terms of

economic opportunities and accessing of programs. Their non-inclusion in government programs

are deemed discriminatory, as they are left behind. They consider themselves powerless since the

government immediately penalize them for violation of certain laws, such as on environmental

protection, while big companies could go scot-free. They believe that non-IPs and even other IP

groups consider them as having lesser capacity, such as in the classroom88 and work setting.

They are mere tools for some, who would befriend them whenever convenient to the latter's

interest.89 The Sama Bajaus and nomadic Atis are treated as “eye sores” for being mendicants

and due to their dirty physical appearance.90 It is observed that IPs, such as those in far-flung

areas are prone to be influenced by leftist groups.91

The IPs clamor to be self-sufficient and self-sustaining communities, and they expect the

full support of the government, who in certain instances is not fully cognizant in implementing

the IPRA and other laws loosely recognizing the indigenous identity, or one that has tendency to

insist its ideas from top to bottom.92 IPRA is categorical in recognizing the IPs' right to special

measures for the immediate, effective and continuing improvement of their economic and social

conditions, including in the areas of employment, vocational training and retraining, housing,

87 Per statement of Eleutrio Manaytay (Mandaya, Provincial Tribal Chieftain, Davao Oriental) during the 4 th public

hearing in Davao City

88 Per statement of Ruel Morfing (Youth leader, Teduray) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City

89 Per statement of Jeorge Largado (Bukidnon Karulano, IPMR-Kabankalan, Negros Occidental) during the

1st public hearing in Iloilo City

90 Per statement of Philip Salvador Acuna (IP Focal, DSWD Region III) during the 3rd public hearing in

Tagaytay City

91 Per statement of B/Gen. Noelito Albano (AFP Northern Luzon Command) during the Baguio Conference

on the IP Right to Development 92 Per DOLE's identification of issues and concerns in monitoring the right to development of IPs, during the

Baguio Conference on the IP Right to Development

30

sanitation, health and social security. Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special

needs of indigenous women, elderly, youth, children and differently-abled persons.93 It is only

after 20 years of IPRA when the ethnographic survey would be conducted to gather

disaggregated data on IP women, children, elderly, and that would once and for all clarify the

scope and meaning of ethnicity.94 Still, there has been the legal basis for the IPs' demand for

special attention.

IP women raise the young at home. The primary concern of IP women is about their

health conditions, particularly reproductive health. The IPs have in mind the DOH's “no home

birthing policy”. This policy is also considered to have an effect on the customs and traditions of

the IPs. For instance, a male IP should not approach a pregnant woman IP while giving birth, but

in health centers there are male nurses.95 The IP women could not afford the cost of giving birth

in health centers. They are accustomed to pay their traditional birth attendant (“hilot”, “paltera”)

in kind (e.g., chicken, food). The government implements the “no home birthing policy” to

address the rising number of maternal deaths since 2011 and local government units enacted

local ordinances penalizing delivering through the assistance of traditional birth attendants.96

Meanwhile, health facilities in Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas (GIDA) are not

established. Mainstream medical practices also conflict with the IPs' traditional health system.

Municipalities and provinces considered to have a large GIDA and IP population have poor

health indicators compared to municipalities and provinces that are more accessible. The

delivery of health services are devolved to the LGUs. But delivery of health service to IPs may

be complex. IP communities are geographically defined by their ancestral domains that may be

covered by geographic areas of various sizes and at times under several LGUs.97 IP women

would want to have more active involvement in the decision-making process of their group.

IP youth and children ask for more opportunities to develop their potential, particularly

through education. They are conscious of their role to preserve their groups' cultural heritage.

However, they believe that the scholarship programs of the government, primarily based on the

mainstream grading system as NCIP requires, 98 are deemed not considerate of their socio-

cultural background. Schools are located far from the children's homes. Also, the IP Youth

resource persons from Maguindanao and Compostela Valley Province are bothered in what they

know as continuing efforts of certain groups to recruit the IP youth to join the armed struggle.99

The same situation occurs in Sitio Sambisan, Brgy. Poypoy, Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro,

93 Section 25, IPRA

94 Per statement of NCIP Commissioner Basilio A. Wandag and presentation of Dahlialyn Dait-Cawed during the

Baguio Conference on the IP Right to Development

95 Per statement of Roldan Babelon (Erumanen ne Menuvu) and Linda Midal (Lambangian) during the 4th public

hearing in Davao City

96 House Resolution No. 1531

http://gabrielawomensparty.net/sites/gwp/files/HR1531%20Investigate%20DOH%20No%20Home%20Birthing

%20Policy.pdf (accessed November 28, 2017)

97 DOH-NCIP-DILG Joint Memorandum Circular No. 2013-01 (April 19, 2013). Guidelines on the Delivery of

Basic Health Services for Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples http://ncipro67.com.ph/wp-

content/uploads/2015/09/DOH-NCIP-DILG-JOINT-MC-NO-2013-01-dtd-19-April-2013.pdf (accessed

November 28, 2017)

98 Per statement of Bae Nena Lindaan (Mandaya) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City

99 Per statement of Ruel Morfing (Youth leader, Teduray) during the 4th public hearing in Davao City

31

concerning a youth Taubuid who is allegedly recruited by the military.100 Most IP children are

not registered at birth. For instance, in two sitios of Brgy. Dalagsaan, Libacao, Aklan, there are

already 265 IP children who are not registered and do not have birth certificates.101 Children who

are not born in hospitals or health centers are not registered.102 During the 2nd public hearing in

Tagaytay City, the youth sector of the Dumagat-Remontado from Rizal, the Aytas from Limay,

Bataan and Botolan, Zambales specifically recommended the following:

• Feeding Program para sa Malnutrisyon – meron naman po kasi puro lugaw at lugaw na

may itlog. Kung mapataaas pa ang nutritional content para mapunan ang nutrisyon ng

bata

• IEC Materials para sa tamang nutrisyon

• Awareness seminar para sa mga magulang – family as the most basic unit kaya sila ang

magtuturo sa mga bata. Example, ang sexual reproduction, aware tayo sa sex, ang anak

dapat nagguide natin sila pero mismo ang parents ay hindi aware sa ganitong issues. Ang

youth ngayon ay naooverwhelm sa technology, pag pumasok ang curiosity ng isang bata,

kung walang guidance ng magulang, may tendency na mapahamak siya.

• Tulong sa Pagpaparehistro o birth

• Pagtulong sa pagkuha ng requirements

• Panawagan sa NCIP para sa tamang dokumentasyon.

IPs have high regard for their elders. The IP youth look up to their elders for guidance on

how to continue and preserve their customs and traditions. Being an elder in the IP community

does not necessarily mean reaching the age of 60 years old. There are IP senior citizens who are

not included in the list of beneficiaries of the social pension, monthly stipend and other

benefits.103 They are not aware about the criteria and process to avail the government programs

for senior citizens.

Right to Cultural Integrity

The IPs manifested during the hearings that their culture and way of life must be

respected by non-IPs, particularly their ancestral domains. Encroachment to ancestral domains

are considered as disrespect. The implementation of government projects, such as the NGP,

education, health and livelihood services are deemed not sensitive to the cultural context of the

IPs and their native identity

100 Per statement of Kalib Macapagal (Taubuid) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

101 Per statement of Guillermo Colas (Akeanon Bukidnon, Brgy. Dalagsaan, Libacao, Aklan) during the 1st public

hearing in Iloilo City

102 Per statement of Lettie Magango (representing Bantuanon and Ati Group, Odiongan, Romblon) during the 2nd

public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

103 Per statement of Valentin Regla (Tagabukid) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

32

In order to assess the key findings above, we applied a problem tree analysis of the non-

fulfillment of IP rights as summarized here:

Figure 4 : Problem Analysis on the Non Fulfillment of IPs Rights in the Philippines

1. Main Effects

Throughout the inquiry, it was noted that there were recurring issues brought forward that were

summarized into four (4) key issues representing the MAIN EFFECTS of non-fulfillment of IP

rights, to wit:

• First, unsecured or threatened ancestral domain & land, violation of FPIC (Free, Prior,

Informed Consent) process, displacement & dispossession of IPs and loss of ecological

integrity;

• Second, non establishment of the self-governance mechanisms and non maximization or

threatened representation of IPs (by their IPS-Indigenous Political Structures, IPOs-

Indigenous Peoples Organizations, and now also their IPMRs-IP Mandatory

Representatives in LGUs);

33

• Third, insufficient support to the IPs socio, economic and cultural development through

full implementation of their ADSDPP (Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development

Protection Plan);

• Fourth, non consideration of IP rights in autonomy & peace efforts (Cordillera,

Bangsamoro and other parts of the Philippines); and

• Fifth, insufficient protection of the most vulnerable IP sectors including IP women, IP

youth, IP children, IP elders, IP IDPs (internally-displaced people) and IP nomads.

In the discussion, it was clear that these five (5) key main issues do not stand independent of

each other but are actually interlinked. This is clearly shown in this hierarchy of effects:

Figure 5 : Hierarchy of Effects of Non-Fulfillment of IP Rights in the Philippines

When ancestral domains (ADs) are not secured or are threatened as manifested by intrusion of

non-IPs due to violation of FPIC and as a direct results of conflicting claims within the ancestral

domain , IP communities tend to be displaced from their own lands becoming internally

displaced people (IDP). This displacement are often due to force, intimidation or deceit. In many

reported cases, when displaced IPs attempt to return to their original lands, they find their lands

already occupied by non IP settlers resulting in their eventual dispossession.

When ADs are not secured or under threat the overall situation of the IP community becomes

very insecure as well.This is never conducive to consolidating the IP communities and leads to

not establishing properly the IPs mechanisms for self-governance and representation to critical

governance bodies such as LGUs and Regional Development Council (RDCs). These

34

representations are not maximized or become susceptible to threats of disenfranchisement.

Because the territory is not secured, self-governance and representations are weakened, IPs

ability to claim their share of programs, projects & activities (PPAs), services due them,

including related resources to support these PPAs & services, relevant policies, implementing

structures & mechanisms from the state (both LGU and national government) are heavily

affected.

The result is insufficient support to socio-economic and cultural development needs of these IP

communities. This is glaringly clear in the lack of support to the development and full

implementation of each IP communities’ ADSDPP.

All these inevitably results in the weak capacity to protect the rights of the most vulnerable

sectors in each IP communities; namely IP women, IP youth, IP children, IP elderly (senior

citizens), IP internally displaced persons (IP-IPDs) and IP nomads.

IP IDPs are a direct result of a growing number of cases of displacement of IPs from their

ancestral domains. These are caused by several reasons; from armed conflicts to natural disasters

to intimidation, violence or deceit by various groups and individuals; who in most instances end

up manifesting their interest to claim the lands of the IPs and/or exploit their natural resources.

IP nomads on the other hand, is a phenomenon that has been with us from the beginning but not

clearly understood or acted upon. The nomadic lifestyles of some IPs were noted and explained

during the inquiry. These includes the sea-fearing nomadic lifestyles of the various Bajau tribes

and the nomadic herders of the plains of central Visayas such as the Ati and others.

When their poverty reaches a certain worsening degree, these naturally nomadic tribes begin to

manifest their movement within cities where the only thing that most Filipinos who hardly

understand their plight nor their culture would see are acts of mendicancy by some of these IPs.

Due to varying extend of the impacts of these four (4) earlier effects; IP rights are sometimes not

considered in efforts and processes of other stakeholders asserting autonomy and pursuing of

peace talks to end various armed struggles, . This despite that fact that these efforts at autonomy

and peace negotiations have direct implications to IPs because they share boundaries and/or their

territories are part of or these claims and negotiations.

2. Main Causes

After analyzing the hierarchy of effects, the inquiry of the CHR then focused on the top causes of

the non-fulfillment of IP rights. The following were determined as the top three causes:

(1) Slow processing of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs);

(2) Non-recognition of Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives (IPMRs) by some Local

Government Units (LGUs); and

35

(3) The taking for granted of CADTs and the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development &

Protection Plans (ADSDPPs)

a. Slow processing of Certificated of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs)

In violation of the right to ancestral domain & land, the processing of CADTs (Certificates of

Ancestral Domain Titles) have been painstakingly slow and have slowed down even further with

the deadlock of the process of implementation of the JAO (Joint Administrative Order)-1 Series

of 2012. Ironically this JAO was originally intended to fast tracked the release of the proof of

these native titles. The dynamics of these root cause is expressed in this further problem tree

analysis prepared by IP leaders themselves during the inquiry:

Figure 6 : Problem Tree Analysis on the Slow Processing of CADTs (Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claims)

They testified that in processing CADTs from application, to delineation, to approval and

registering the CADT with the Land Registration Authority (LRA) , the process takes too long.

When asked why they think this is happening, they provided two (2) main reasons. One is

because of the delays in completing the surveys and mapping to properly delineate the actual

coverage of the ADs. The other reason of the delay is because of many cases involving

conflicting claims of the ADs

36

Delay in the delineation is fundamentally caused by the insufficient funding of the NCIP to

conduct these delineation. In recent years, they were limited by funding to deliver only one (1)

AD for delineation per year. This funding limitation of the NCIP is of course because the

General Appropriations Act (GAA) covering said years have not sufficiently provided the

required funds for this critical task. This reflects the low priority of the state as well as the weak

lobbying for this allocation in Congress.

This slow processing of CADTs directly results to IP communities not having in their hands a

proof of ownership of their ADs that they can use against other claims which in turn limits them

from controlling migrants from intruding into their domains.

Not having this proof also limits them from negotiating favorably with NGAs and LGUs for the

entry of PPAs and other mechanisms (e.g. NGPs, BuBs-Bottom Up Budgeting for several

projects) to support their needs in the ADs. Furthermore, without proof of ownership in their

hands, IPs are also limited; in negotiating to their favor, land re-classification efforts within or

affecting their ADs. All of these effects contribute to increasing conflicts (actual and legal

conflicts) among IPs and between IPs and non IPs.

b. Non-recognition of Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives (IPMRs) by some Local

Government Units (LGUs)

In violation of the right to self-governance & empowerment, the non-recognition of IPMRs by

some LGUs disenfranchises them from fulfilling their mandate to represent the interests of the IP

communities in local governance. The dynamics of these root cause is expressed in this further

problem tree analysis prepared by IP leaders themselves during the inquiry:

Figure 7 : Problem Tree Analysis of Non Recognition of IMPRs by some LGUs

They testified that the non-recognition of some LGUs for the full representation of IPMRs in

their respective local legislative councils (Sangguniang Bayan/ Panglungsod) is primarily due to

partisan politics. Despite that IPMRs are meant to be non-partisan, key LGU officials hesitate or

outright refuse to allow endorsed IPMRs duly certified by the NCIP to sit as a regular member of

the local legislative council because they perceived some of them as not supportive of their

37

administration of their political party’s interests or that they prefer some other IP leaders Loyal

to them.

When partisan politics is not in play; sometimes, it is merely an issue of insufficient or lack of

understanding and appreciation on the privileges of IPs to be represented in local legislative

councils as part of their right to social justice and self governance & empowerment. In this case,

the concern LGU officials merely needs to be oriented more. However’ in some cases with

deeply rooted discrimination against IPs, some LGU officials simply refuse to understand or

appreciate.

These results to IPMRs not able to sit as regular member of local legislative councils and

eventually delay in the development or re-development & proper implementation of PPAs that

may be supportive of the implementation of targets set in the ADSDPP that sitting IPMRs are

suppose to push. In this situation, the interest of the IPs are not protected because LGU support is

not properly and sufficiently directed to IPs through their ADSDPP.

c. The taking for granted of CADTs and the Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development &

Protection Plans (ADSDPPs)

In violation of the right to social justice & human rights as well as the right to cultural

development, the disregard for the integrity of CADTs as well as the ADSDPP representing the

development aspiration of IP communities further hinders the fulfillment of IP Rights. The

dynamics of these root cause is expressed in this further problem tree analysis prepared by IP

leaders themselves during the inquiry:

Figure 8 : Problem Tree Analysis of Disregard for CADTs and the ADSDPP

They testified that the disregard for the integrity of the CADTs and the ADSDPPs is directly

caused by two main reasons. One is that the CADTs continue to be challenged by other

conflicting claims because other National Government Agencies (NGAs) like the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)

38

and others continue to issue other tenurial instruments within or overlapping parts of ADs. This

is happening even where CADTs or CADCs have previously been issued; and not withstanding

recognition of vested rights per IPRA, even issuing these post 1997 or after the enactment of

IPRA. In many instances, this happens because of connivance between some DENR, DAR

personnel and interested parties who want to claim these lands for their own without regard for

respecting the rights of IPs to these ADs and lands.

These results to PPAs not identified in the ADSDPP (which means PPAs that may not be

appropriate for the IP community concern) to be set and implemented in the AD. On the other

hand, those PPAs that are appropriate based on the ADSDPP often do not get prioritized for

support and implementation. As such, the effect is either implementation of mal-targeted PPAs

for IPs or insufficient; and in some cases, outright lack of implementation of proper PPAs for IPs

in their respective domains.

3. Rooting the Causes

When inquired further, reflecting on the three (3) main causes identified and looking into

common factors that cuts across all three, the inquiry came to the conclusion that the root causes

of these may further be summarized into the following:

Figure 9 : Root Causes of the Non-Fulfillment of IP Rights in the Philippines

a. Continued discrimination of IPs in

various forms and in day to day life

experiences

Box 1: Two-Faced Dimension of IP Discrimination While the culture of discrimination against IPs is still perceived to be happening, the nature of the discrimination is two-faced. It is not only about IPs being discriminated by non-IPs but there is also a reverse discrimination when IPs through some of their cultural practices also has the effect of discriminating against the ways of life of non IPs as applied to them or even among affected IPs. A case in point is when IP elders intervene to circumvent prosecution for crimes such as rape, murder of IPs in favor or amicable settlements. In this case it is the IPs that discriminates against mainstream value systems for justice sacrificing rule of law.

39

In as much as the state commits fully to eradicate discrimination against IPs, there is still

continued discrimination of IPs in various forms and in their day to day experiences aggravating

the slow processing of CADTs, the non recognition of IPMRs by some LGUs and the taking for

granted of the ADSDPP and the integrity of the CADT.

While there is a need to further determine whether these acts or omissions are really driven by

actual discrimination, the fact is that they are perceived by the IPs as such and should therefor be

investigated fully.

b. Insufficient capacity of key state duty bearers to fulfill obligations for IP rights promotion,

protection & fulfillment

The insufficient capacity of key state duty bearers to perform their obligations for IP rights

protection, promotion and fulfillment is not only prevalent in the case of the National

Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and its PPAs. It is a problem across many key

national government agencies and relevant LGUs that while reported by many in the inquiry

during the various testimonies, a full accounting and analysis of this lack of capacity across

government as a whole is non existent to date.

With the exception of NCIP whose mandates are clearly focused on IP Rights, almost all of the

concern national government agencies and even LGUs consulted considered IPs’ needs and

public service requirements as part of their overall programs and services, However, very few

have dedicated comprehensive plans and programs for IP communities. The Inquiry in fact

opened the door for these agencies to be more aware of the need for them to have focus plans

and programs for IPs and how they can evolve more culturally-appropriate programming for IPs.

What is needed is a thorough review of the few dedicated IP-focus programs of key state actors

(e.g. MindA IP Development Plan, DepEds IPEd, DENR IP Desk & IP Program, NCCAs

school of living traditions and others).

Also the key government policies and initiatives that have figured prominently in the recurring

issues identified in the inquiry like: a) DoH’s & LGUs no home birthing policy, b) JAO of

NCIP, LRA, DENR, DAR to expedite resolution of overlapping claims of various tenurial

instruments towards registration of actual titles of CADT, c) DENR’s national greening program

and its interpretation of the nature of ancestral domain vis a vis timberlands, d) DepEd’s IPEd

relevant guidelines on accrediting teachers for IPs and IP schools, e) DSWD’s expanded

coverage of the 4Ps program in geographically difficult areas, f) DPWH’s funding for IP school

buildings for LGUs, g) IP focus special civil registration mechanisms of PSA as well as special

arrangement of accrediting traditional IP leaders as solemnizing officials of weddings,

h) inclusion of IP related considerations in collecting relevant information on the Barangay

information systems of DILG, i) the imposition of 1% of investments through the RDCs to be

dedicated for IPs as well as the representation mechanism in RDCs open for IPs must all be

carefully reviewed.

This should also cover an analysis of how other NGA programs that have bearing on how

effectively services may be rendered or extended to IPs if only they can be enhanced to give

40

dedicated emphasis on IPs with full cultural sensitivity. These include: a) the GAD programs and

utilization of GAD budget being monitored and promoted by the PCW, b) the agricultural and

fisheries development program of DA and DAR, c) the ecotourism programs of DOT and

DENR and now even DA, and d) the seal of excellence incentive mechanisms of DILG.

On the fiscal side as it relates to the issue of capacity of state duty bearers, it is crucial that both

demand and supply side of financing for PPAs to achieve progressive realization of the 4 IP

bundles of rights are thoroughly reviewed.

On the demand side, funding and investment requisites of ADSDPP or similar development

aspirational plans of IPs for their own development within the principle of self governance and

empowerment and right to self determination ought to be consolidated and made known. This

may be further gleaned by analyzing and monetizing the values represented in the ADSDPP

(Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development & Protection Plan) for every Ancestral Domain

(AD) per IP tribe. Consolidated, these will represent the total value of aspirations of Filipino

Indigenous Peoples.

On the supply side, a thorough review of the allocation and utilization of budget for the NCIP

for direct IP services; including delineation and titling of ADs across the past 20 years of their

existence, ought to be done. Also, a whole government tagging of IP-related PPA budget

allocation and utilization covering the past 20 years of IPRA implementation ought to be done to

get a complete picture of the supply side of IP-related financing by the state.

Comparing the aspirational values over that of public expenditures (current and projected) will

provide an overall assessment of adequacy of funding for IP-related PPAs.

c. Conflicts within the Ancestral Domain due to: a) development aggression driven by resource

conflicts, b) external conflicts of opposing armed groups brought in the ADs causing

division among IP community members

The role and impacts of private corporate entities entering into ancestral domain; compliance to

FPIC processes notwithstanding, and how they affect internal conflicts, displacement and

dispossession of IP communities as well as how royalty systems for mining projects in ADs

affects the way IP communities assert their right to self determination and self governance and

how in some cases this itself has cause major division within the IP communities should all be

reviewed.

Another issue is how the computation of actual and potential royalties has become sometimes the

sole basis for determining the investment requirements of ADSDPP. This may be interpreted as

the states’ abdication of their obligation to support the ADSPP as a manifestation of securing

social justice for IP communities. In a sense this may be interpreted as a form of privatization of

services the state owes IP communities for historical injustices they have endured in the past and

still today.

Resource conflict analysis shows that the Philippines is one of the most mineralised countries in

the world. Unfortunately, much of these minerals lie within key biodiversity areas, and recent

data show that 38 out of 63 government priority mining projects fall within the ancestral domains

41

of indigenous peoples, 69% of which have had their Free Prior Informed Consent circumvented,

and 44% have reported of land-related conflict.

These mining operations, protected areas and reforestation projects within or adjacent to

ancestral domain have led to aggravating intrusions and conflicting claims in ADs. This amidst

the potential of IPs ways with their uniquely cultural mechanisms to imposing protection

compliance of natural resource management and climate change actions.

Finally on the issue of armed conflicts being brought inside the ADs, most prominent among

Mindanao IPs (particularly the Lumads) and also reported to some extend in the Northern Luzon

and Central Visayas regions, the divide among IP communities; sometimes down to the level of

families and clans being split in the middle and forced to choose sides between two armed

groups is a growing phenomenon that is reaching critical levels. This is causing conflicts within

the AD. On one end are the law enforces (PNP and others) and the protector of the people (AFP

units) while on the other are armed rebel groups including from the NPA of the CPP-NDF and

the secessionist armed groups of the MILF and even segments of the MNLF. Reported in the

inquiry were cases of recruitment of IP members from both camps that unfortunately also covers

reported cases of child soldier.

Summing up the analysis of these myriad of issues of non-fulfillment of IP rights, the inquiry

testimonies affirmed the continuing validity of an earlier analysis of the NCIP of the various

issues affecting IPs as summarized in their 14-point challenges.

When compared to the 5 recurring key issues surfaced in the CHR’s 2017 National IP Rights

Inquiry, we are able to cover all 14-point challenges in these 5 key issues and it remains

consistent with the 3-prong root causes identified. Table 2 shows this.

This final part of the problem analysis is important as it was able to simplify along 5 key issues

and 3 root causes but still covers all major elements of previous and current identified challenges.

This will facilitate more manageable planning & programming.

Table 2: Comparison of the NCIP’s 14-Thematic Challenges and the 5-Key Issues of Non Fulfillment of IP Rights

Reported in the CHR’s 2017 National IP Rights Inquiry

42

From the problem tree analyses, the inquiry workshops then proceeded in transforming these into

a series of solution trees to guide actions to remedy these problem of non fulfillment of IP rights.

In order to mobilize the state actors as primary duty bearers of IP rights, the proposed MAIN

SOLUTION to respond to the main problem of non-fulfillment of IP rights is the conduct of a

Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) to monitoring & evaluation of IP rights fulfillment.

The identified effects were then transformed into target ends while the identified causes were

transformed into means. To illustrate this:

Figure 10 : Solution/Objective Tree on Human Rights Based Approach to Monitoring & Evaluation of IP Rights

Fulfillment

The identified ends; just like in the case of the identified effects, are not isolated elements but are

interlinked. As shown in the next figure (Figure 11), When ancestral domains are secured and

FPIC is enforce, displaced IPs are resettled and they are able to repossess their ancestral lands.

Once more consolidated and secured in their respective ADs, IP communities will now be able to

establish self governance mechanisms and maximize their representation in local governance

with threats minimized or removed. With proper representation and control over their domain,

sufficient support for socio-economic & cultural development of IP communities through the full

implementation of their respective ADSDPP will follow. And, once all of these is done,

sufficient protection for the most vulnerable IP sectors can now be assured. This will also result

in the full consideration of IP rights in ongoing autonomy and peace talks in some areas.

43

Figure 11 : Hierarchy of Ends in Successfully Applying HRBA in Monitoring & Evaluation of Fulfillment of IP

Rights in the Philippines

E. Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) to Monitoring & Evaluation of IP Rights

Fulfillment

It is important to note that an HRBA monitoring & evaluation system fully implemented will

bring about the concerted actions by key state duty bearer (LGUs and NGAs alike) to fulfill the

rights of indigenous Filipinos.

The elements of an HRBA is complied with in the proposed monitoring & evaluation of IP rights

fulfillment through the IPHRO.

HRBA is focus on process and outcomes. The IPHRO with its O.PE.R.A. based system will be

process-based and will focus on key outcomes as defined by its indicators.

It emphasizes on realizing rights; in this case as defined by the 4 bundles of IP rights and IPs

right to development. Furthermore, it recognizes individual and group rights as claims towards

moral and legal duty bearers. Defined in the IPHRO as right holders are the IPs through their IPS

(Indigenous Political Structures), IPOs (Indigenous Peoples Organizations) and IPMRs

(Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives). On the other hand, duty bearers are defined as

key state actors (covered LGUs, key NGAs led by the NCIP and CHR). Also considered state

duty bearers are IPMRs with their dual nature as government officials. Non state duty bearers are

identified as IP-focused CSOs, private corporations.

44

Individuals are entitled to assistance under an HRBA and in the IPHRO, we will set up a network

of partners & service providers among duty bearers to provide these assistance.

Finally, HRBA focuses on structural causes and their manifestation. In the IPHRO we will focus

on systemic issues that results to violations of IP rights. Again these systemic issues are: a)

securing ancestral domain and ecological & cultural integrity, b) self-governance &

representation (through IPS, IPOs and IPMRs), c) supporting socio-economic and cultural

development through full implementation of ADSDPPS, d) protecting the mot vulnerable IP

sectors and e) ensuring IP rights in autonomy and peace talks efforts.

Table 12: Comparative Table on the Elements of HRBA and the Elements of an M&E for IP Rights Fulfillment

The resulting solution or objective tree applied with HRBA identified the KEY MEANS as

follows: a) Extensive Information, Education and Communications to combat culture of

discrimination of IPs, b) Capacity Building on IP Rights Promotion, Protection & Fulfillment

including on IP Rights M&E and c) Direct IP Communities – CHR Knowledge Management

System LINK to IP Rights Protection Services Referral & Follow Through.

These KEY MEANS identified in the solution tree are also deemed consistent responses to the

ROOT CAUSES earlier identified.

The root cause of continued discrimination of IPs in various forms and in their day-to-day

experiences can aptly be remedied with extensive information, education and communications to

combat the culture of discrimination of IPs. Further analysis on the capacity gaps of state duty

bearers in this area of work requires we look into IEC (information, education & communication)

related issues.

The root cause of insufficient capacity of key state duty bearers to implement their obligations

45

can aptly be remedied with building the capacity on IP promotion, protection & fulfillment,

including capacity for effective monitoring & evaluation. Further analysis on the capacity gaps

of state duty bearers in this area of work requires we look into implementation related issues.

Finally, the root cause of conflicts within the ancestral domain due to: a) development aggression

driven by resource conflicts, b) external conflicts of opposing armed groups brought in the ADs

causing division among IP community members can aptly be remedied by setting up a fully

operational direct IP communities – CHR knowledge management system that LINK to IP rights

protection services referral & follow through system. Further analysis on the capacity gaps of

state duty bearers in this area of work requires we look at monitoring & evaluation related issues.

Figure 13 : Confronting the Root Causes with the Identified Key Ends in the Problem Tree Analysis of Fulfilling the

Rights of IPs in the Phils

When the above reports of the actions of state duty bearers are subjected to a Gap Analysis,

the resulting assessment are as follows:

A. Right to Land & Ancestral Domain

These covers the issues on securing ancestral domain, enforcing free, prior and informed

consent and ensuring ecological integrity. For this, the following specific problems were

identified:

1. Delays in the issuance of CADTs & development of ADSDPP due to insufficient funding for

timely delineation and unresolved conflicts in tenurial claims in the ADs including those with

dragging legal cases;

46

2. Non-recognition on the nature of ADs by IPs, non IPs, private entities (including business

corporations) and some NGAs/LGUs resulting to intrusion of non IPs in ADs causing

displacement & dispossession (land grabbing) of IPs through force, intimidation & deception;

3. Violation or lack of full enforcement of Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC) by way of

deception,& connivance or by implementation of policies & conduct of practices that

circumvent or weakens FPIC processes and

4. Insufficient natural resource management and weak enforcement & monitoring of

environmental laws in various development activities within ADs (especially by private

companies in extractive industries like mining) resulting to ecological damage (e.g. pollution,

biodiversity loss)

On the delays of issuances of CADTs and development of ADSDPP, the relevant government

agencies reported on the following interventions: a) Issuance of JAO 1 Series of 2012 by DAR,

DENR, NCIP and LRA to resolve conflicting tenurial claims in ADs, b) Increase funding of

NCIP through its PIPE project to complete pending delineation & ADSDPP formulation and c)

the issuance of a JAO between DoJ and NCIP on legal assistance on cases involving conflicting

tenurial claims.

However, despite all these interventions; several gaps were identified:

According to a study reported by NEDA during the IP national inquiry, the JAO 1 Series of 2012

implementation had the reverse effect of slowing down issuance of CADTs primarily by delays

with the DENR processes. This is currently being resolved.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court decision on Unduran vs Aberasturi case has significantly

clipped the jurisdiction of the already limited capacity of the NCIP to resolve or provide legal

support in IP legal cases involving conflicting tenurial claims in ADs. Thus, the JAO between

DoJ and NCIP on legal assistance involving conflicting tenurial claims in ancestral domains

becomes even more crucial

Involvement of IPs representatives in monitoring the work of the inter agency committee on the

JAO 1-12 & the JAO on legal assistance and the utilization of the NCIP PIPE project to ensure

transparency & accountability are not clear. No representation among IP leaders on these were

reported during the inquiry. Furthermore many IP groups are not aware of the JAO on legal

assistance and the NCIP legal services and how to avail them for their cases involving

conflicting tenurial claims on ADs

Finally while the increase in the NCIP budget is a welcome development, the sufficiency of the

increase in NCIP budget for CADT delineation need to be established.

On the on-recognition on the nature of ADs by IPs, non IPs, private entities (including business

corporations) and some NGAs/LGU, it was reported that NCIP conducts continuous IEC on the

nature of ADs as native titles with collective ownership among NGAs, LGUs and IPs to help

47

solve this problem. This problem stems directly from the delay in issuing CADTs as proof of

collective ownership of IPs of their ADs that hinders them from controlling entry of non-IPs in

their ADs.

A major implementation problem here is the insufficient presence of NCIP in the localities of

LGUs at the municipal/city level limits their efforts at conducting more IECs. This is aggravated

by the insufficient investments of most LGUs & other NGAs on IEC work on IP rights. This is

compounded with the insufficient monitoring and remedial actions to counter displacement of

IPs by force, intimidation & deception that have directly resulted in the dispossession of IPs of

their part of their ADs.

Unfortunately, many IPs, NGAs and LGUs are still not properly oriented about the nature of

native titles. IPs have been misled in attempts to illegally sell their portion of the ADs. Some ill-

informed LGUs and NGAs have become prone to executing programs and creating policies that

are not supportive of IP rights fulfillment.

On the violation of or lack of full enforcement of Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC), it was

reported that review of implementation of waiver clauses in DENR DAO 2012-07 that

circumvents FPIC is currently on its way and that the development of appropriate guidelines &

mechanisms for varying procedures for FPIC of different types of projects and activities within

ADs is also being pursued to respond to this problem.

Despite this, the following gaps were identified. First, due to lack of resources by government, in

increasing number of cases, project proponents often end up paying for the cost of conducting

the FPIC and gaining undue control or influence over the process favorable to their application.

Secondly, there is insufficient monitoring and remedial actions to counter these violation or

circumvention of the FPIC process Finally, for the public and other stakeholders, the processes in

securing the FPIC processes remains mostly unclear and limits 3rd party from monitoring to

ensure transparency & accountability

On insufficient natural resource management and weak enforcement & monitoring of

environmental laws in various development activities within AD, the concern NGA reported that

natural resource management & conservation are part of ADSDPP but have not been fully

implemented. Also that DENR & LGU natural resource management & conservation PPAs are

often also applied to a limited extend in ADs. There is also a pending Bill on Indigenous

Community Conserved Areas in congress that will govern climate actions and conservation

within the ADs.

Of these, the following gaps were identified: One, some DENR conservation efforts like

protected area management, the National Greening Program results to conflicting claims in

ancestral domains. Secondly, there is insufficient regular consultations between companies

operating in ADs & IP communities

Also, there is insufficient monitoring system for culturally-driven conservation & natural

resource management interventions of IPs in their ADs. There is also no complete and systematic

monitoring system on climate change adaptation & mitigation-related interventions in ADs.

48

Another gap is the insufficient research on Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS) on natural

resource management & consultation including climate change actions of IP communities

preserve for and under the control of concern IPs

B, Right to Self-Governance & Empowerment

This focuses on the issues concerning establishing self-governance & empowerment of

Indigenous Peoples. For this , the following specific problems were identified:

1. Non recognition of IPMRs by some LGUs

2. Inadequate knowledge and skills of IPMRs on IP rights and local legislation including fiscal-

related functions

3. IP representation in RDCs is lacking

On the Non recognition of IPMRs by some LGUs, DILG and NCIP monitors implementation of

the Memorandum Circular of DILG on IPMRs. However, the identified gap is in the Lack of

assertiveness on the part of DILG and NCIP to force LGUs to comply due to limits of mandates

and jurisdictions.

On the Inadequate knowledge and skills of IPMRs on IP rights and local legislation including

fiscal-related functions, it was reported that DILG and NCIP are designing and testing training

programs for IPMRs. Also, CHR with UNDESA support will be providing IPMR Trainings.

However, until these trainings are done widely and effectively, the gap remains in the low

capacity, whereby IPMRs have not yet been able to optimize their representation to access

resources for their respective ADs using their ADSDPPs.

For both of these problems, It does not help that a monitoring mechanism with appropriate

indicators on the level of participation of IPMRs in local governance is lacking.

Finally, there is insufficient; and in some localities; lack of orientation/re-orientation and

conscientization process among LGU officials on IP rights, especially relevant IPRA provisions

on the mandatory nature of IPMRs

C. Right to Social Justice & Human Rights & Rights to Cultural Development

This covers the issues on supporting social, economic and cultural development of IPs in their

Ancestral Domain through the full implementation of the ADSDPP (Ancestral Domain

Sustainable Development Protection Plan). For this, the main problem is insufficient social

services for IPs due to access issues being in geographically isolated & disadvantaged areas

(GIDAs), mismatched PPAs for IPs due to insufficient data on their situation & special

considerations in programming owing to the unique cultural contexts of IPs.

The DepEd reported that it has the IPEd program that manages schools where in some cases are

for 100% IP students & have relevant guidelines on accrediting teachers for these schools

DSWD report that they are Expanded coverage of the 4Ps in GIDAs. On the other hand, DPWH

funding for IP school buildings for LGUs. Also IP focus special civil registration mechanisms

49

was reported by the PSA while NHA's Resettlement Assistance Program providing for

10M/LGU for IP housing was also noted. Furthermore, Inclusion of IP related data on the Brgy

information systems was reported by the DILG.. The imposition of 1% of investments through

the RDCs to be dedicated for IPs was reported by NEDA. And the NCIP’s continuously

expanding scholarship program for deserving IP students. Finally, DA's Special Agricultural

Area Development Project with IP as priority beneficiaries and the IP Health Program through

RIAC guided by IP Health Strategic Plan of DoH and the LGUs were likewise reported as key

responses of state duty bearers.

Despite these several gaps remain. The hiring of IPEd teachers still uses the same LET board

passer requirement that limits education graduate IPs who are more familiar with the culture

from being allowed to teach simply because they cannot pass the LET.

Surveys conducted for the expended 4Ps in GIDA for IPs need to be reviewed since many

reports surveyors did not complete coverage because of several reasons. On the other hand,

NHA’s IP housing project requires that the LGU or the IP community provides land counterpart.

With the delay of CADT registration, this becomes limiting for IP communities. Furthermore

there is no IP representation in the LIAC (Local Inter Agency Committee) for the NHA IP

Housing Support to ensure that the concerns of IPs are fully considered.

NCIP scholarship for IPs; on the other hand is not universal and only for those who can maintain

a certain grade average requirement limiting many disadvantaged IPs to get higher education.

Because of their extreme poverty situation and isolation, it is inherently very difficult for

ordinary IP student to excel academically and maintain the grade average required to be able to

join this scholarships.

Insufficient dis aggregated data on IPs aggravated by the lack of capacity for IP-based program

development by many NGAs remains a major problem. This is currently being remedied with the

PIPE project of NCIP and PSA initiatives NCIP conducts IEC on IP rights to raise awareness on

how IPs ADDPPS are integrated in development planning & programming despite its

insufficient budget. Most LGUs with IPs lacks similar IECs

Guidelines on accessing the DPWH funding for IP Schools is not widely known and therefore

most IPs and LGUs are not aware of it and are not able to access it.

There is also insufficient integration of ADSDPP in local public administration processes

(CLUP, ELA, CDP, CIP) by challenged IPMRs limiting access of IP communities to LGU

resources for development PPAs

Finally, there is a need for more analysis of how other NGA programs that have bearing on how

effectively services may be given to IP with better cultural sensitivity like: a) GAD programs

and utilization of GAD budget, b) agricultural and fisheries development program of DA and

DAR, c) ecotourism programs of DOT and DENR and now even DA, f) seal of excellence

incentive mechanisms of DILG.

50

D. Right to Vulnerable IP Sectors to be protected

This is still under the Right to Social Justice & Human Rights & Rights to Cultural Development

but focused on protecting IP Women, IP Children, IP Elders, IP IDPs (Internally-displaced

people) & IP Nomads. For this the main problems are:

1. Among IP women there is a high incidence maternal deaths and some of the lowest pre natal care rates

2. Difficulty in IP youth in getting jobs despite vocational education and training or even a full bachelor’s degree

3. Many situation of deprivation and discrimination have been reported on IP nomads (eg Bajaos in the city) but no

comprehensive plan of action are implemented

4. There were sporadic reports of child soldiers recruited, girl child trafficked for prostitution but no comprehensive

date was recorded

For the issue on high incidence of maternal deaths and low prenatal care rates among IP women,

DoH and some LGUs have no home birthing policies to ensure safe delivery.. However, no home

birthing policy is widely opposed by IPs as it is perceive going against their cultural practices as

well as it impractical given the access situation. Alternative implementations as a middle ground

for this issue must be planned and implemented such as: a) training the hilots for safer delivery, b)

putting up birthing facilities nearer the IP communities, etc. Among medical practitioners, a need

for cultural conscientization is crucial for better understanding of IPs women's predisposition

when it comes to reproductive health

On the issue of difficulty in IP youth in getting jobs despite, it was noted that government

agencies provide priority for hiring eligible IPs.The gap is that IP youth remain subjected to the

same regular illegibility requirements for getting jobs when he/she may have an inherent

disadvantage because of poverty and isolation.

On the many situation of deprivation and discrimination that have been reported on IP nomads

(eg Bajaos in the city) with no comprehensive plan of action in place DSWD conducted small

studies and surveys on the plight of these IP nomads in the cities. Gaps identified include: proper

cultural conscientization for DSWD staff including City/Municipal SWDs on the nomadic IPs as

well as insufficient well designed social protection programs that should be implemented for

them. Also, LGUs must adopt programs to provide for nomadic IPS when they venture into their

territories with full cultural sensitivity of their situation. Finally, Public IEC on the nature of

nomadic lifestyles of IP nomads is important to reduce ignorance that often lead to

discrimination

On the sporadic reports of child soldiers recruited, girl child trafficked for prostitution but with

no comprehensive data recorded, several NGOs and media outfits have documented these cases

with IP leaders including them in their testimonies during the inquiry. Gaps; however, include:

lack of systematic monitoring of IP girl child and IP children in conflict currently in place

although occasional report of this have been done. Also There is a need for more comprehensive

inquiry on this subject on IP rights . This ought to be included as a special component of the

IPHRO

These are all summarized in table 3:Gap Analysis of State Duty Bearers on Fulfillment of IP

Rights in the Philippines (as of 2017) on Right to Land & Ancestral Domain

51

Table 3: Gap Analysis of State Duty Bearers on Fulfillment of IP Rights in the Philippines (as of 2017)

Right to Land & Ancestral Domain

Area 1: Securing Ancestral Domain, Enforcing Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Ensuring Ecological Integrity

CHALLENGES:

a) Formal Recognition of Ancestral Domains d) Non-compliance & violation of FPIC (Free, Prior, Informed Consent)

b) Control & Management of Ancestral Domains e) Lack of information on IP Rights

c) Overlapping claims over Ancestral Domains f) Discrimination

d) Displacement of IPs from their Ancestral Domains g) Lack of NCIP capacity to deliver its mandates Specific Problems Responses

(mandates, PPAs, policies &

proposals)

Current

M&E systems &

mechanisms

Gap Analysis

Implementation M&E IEC

1. Delays in the issuance of CADTs

& development of ADSDPP due

to insufficient funding for timely

delineation and unresolved

conflicts in tenurial claims in the

ADs including those with

dragging legal cases

JAO 1 Series of 2012 by

DAR, DENR, NCIP and

LRA to resolve

conflicting tenurial

claims in ADs

Increase funding of NCIP

through its PIPE project

to complete pending

delineation & ADSDPP

formulation

JAO between DoJ and

NCIP on legal assistance

on cases involving

conflicting tenurial

claims

JAO 1-12 Inter

Agency

Committee

Project

Development

Monitoring of

NCIP (for PIPE

implementation)

JAO TWG

According to a study

reported by NEDA

during the IP national

inquiry, the reverse

effect of slowing down

issuance of CADTs

because of the JAO 1-

12 is due primarily by

delays with the DENR

processes. This is

currently being resolved

The SC decision on

Unduran vs Aberasturi

has significantly

clipped the jurisdiction

of the already limited

capacity of the NCIP to

resolve or provide legal

support in IP legal

cases involving

conflicting tenurial

claims in ADs

Sufficiency of the

increase in NCIP

budget for CADT

delineation has not yet

been established

Involvement of IPs

representatives in

monitoring the work

of the inter agency

committee on the

JAO 1-12 & the JAO

on legal assistance

and the utilization of

the NCIP PIPE

project to ensure

transparency &

accountability are not

clear

Many IP groups are

not aware of the

JAO on legal

assistance and the

NCIP legal

services and how to

avail them for their

cases involving

conflicting tenurial

claims on ADs

52

Specific Problems Responses

(mandates, PPAs, policies &

proposals)

Current

M&E systems &

mechanisms

Gap Analysis Specific Problems Responses

(mandates, PPAs,

policies & proposals)

2. Non-recognition on the nature of ADs

by IPs, non IPs, private entities

(including business corporations) and

some NGAs/LGUs resulting to

intrusion of non IPs in ADs causing

displacement & dispossession (land

grabbing) of IPs through force,

intimidation & deception

NCIP conducts continuous

IEC on the nature of ADs as

native titles with collective

ownership among NGAs,

LGUs & IPs

This problem stems directly

from the delay in issuing

CADTs as proof of

collective ownership of IPs

of their ADs that hinders

them from controlling entry

of non-IPs in their ADs.

Thus, the actions in item 1

under duty bearer responses

are equally relevant here

QRM (Quick

Response

Mechanism) of

NCIP together

with other NGAs

for IPRVs (IP

Rights Violations)

Reports of

Regional Hearing

Officers of NCIP

IEC Projects are

monitored by

Project Devt

Monitoring of

NCIP

The insufficient presence

of NCIP in the localities

of LGUs at the

municipal/city level limits

their efforts at conducting

more IECs. This is

aggravated by the

insufficient investments of

most LGUs & other NGAs

on IEC work on IP rights

There is insufficient

monitoring and

remedial actions to

counter displacement of

IPs by force,

intimidation &

deception that have

directly resulted in the

dispossession of IPs of

their part of their ADs.

Many IPs, NGAs and

LGUs are still not

properly oriented

about the nature of

native titles. IPs have

been misled in

attempts to illegally

sell their portion of

the ADs. Some ill-

informed LGUs and

NGAs have become

prone to executing

programs and

creating policies that

are not supportive of

IP rights fulfillment

3. Violation or lack of full enforcement

of Free, Prior, Informed Consent

(FPIC) by way of deception,&

connivance or by implementation of

policies & conduct of practices that

circumvent or weakens FPIC

processes

Review of implementation

of waiver clauses in DENR

DAO 2012-07 that

circumvents FPIC

Development of appropriate

guidelines & mechanisms

for varying procedures for

FPIC of different types of

projects and activities within

ADs

QRM (Quick

Response

Mechanism) of

NCIP together

with other NGAs

for IPRVs (IP

Rights Violations)

Due to lack of resources

by government, in

increasing number of

cases, project proponents

often end up paying for

the cost of conducting the

FPIC and gaining undue

control or influence over

the process favorable to

their application

There is insufficient

monitoring and

remedial actions to

counter these violation

or circumvention of the

FPIC process

For the public and

other stakeholders the

processes in securing

the FPIC processes

remains mostly

unclear and limits 3rd

party from

monitoring to ensure

transparency &

accountability

4. Insufficient natural resource

management and weak enforcement

& monitoring of environmental laws

in various development activities

within ADs (especially by private

companies in extractive industries

like mining) resulting to ecological

damage (e.g. pollution, biodiversity

loss)

Natural resource

management & conservation

are part of ADSDPP but

have not been fully

implemented

DENR & LGU natural

resource management &

conservation PPAs are often

also applied to a limited

extend in ADs and Bill on

Indigenous Community

Conserved Areas pending.

Regular

monitoring by

DENR and LGUs

on safe water and

clear air from AD

areas.

IP Desk and an IP

Program across the

DENR

Some DENR conservation

efforts like protected area

management, National

Greening Program results

to conflicting claims in

ancestral domains

There is insufficient

regular consultations

between companies

operating in ADs & IP

communities

There is insufficient

monitoring system for

culturally-driven

conservation & natural

resource management

interventions of IPs in

their Ads

There is also no

systematic monitoring

system on climate

change adaptation &

mitigation-related

interventions in ADs

There is insufficient

research on

Indigenous

Knowledge System

(IKS) on natural

resource management

& consultation

including climate

change actions of IP

communities

preserve for and

under the control of

concern IPs

53

Right to Self-Governance & Empowerment

Area 2: Establishing Self-Governance & Empowerment of Indigenous Peoples

CHALLENGES:

a) IP Governance is Weak d) Discrimination

b) No recognition of some government agencies & LGUs of some IP leaders e) Lack of NCIP capacity to deliver its mandates

c) Lack of information on IP Rights Specific Problems Responses

(mandates, PPAs, policies &

proposals)

Current

M&E systems &

mechanisms

Gap Analysis

Implementation M&E IEC

1. Non recognition of IPMRs by

some LGUs

DILG and NCIP

monitors implementation

of MC on IPMRs

Reported in the

regular program

monitoring of

NCIP and DILG

Lack of assertiveness

on the part of DILG and

NCIP to force LGUs to

comply due to limits of

mandates

A monitoring

mechanism with

appropriate

indicators on the

level of participation

of IPMRs in local

governance is lacking

There is

insufficient in

some localities lack

of orientation/re-

orientation and

conscientization

process among

LGU officials on

IP rights, relevant

IPRA provisions

the mandatory

nature of IPMRs

2. Inadequate knowledge and skills

of IPMRs on IP rights and local

legislation including fiscal-related

functions

DILG and NCIP

designing and testing

training program for

NCIP

CHR with UNDESA

support will be providing

IPMR Trainings

Reported in the

regular program

monitoring of

NCIP and DILG

Due to low capacity,

IPMRs have not yet

been able to optimize

their representation to

access resources for

their respective ADs

using their ADSDPP

3. IP representation in RDCs is

lacking

RDC provides for

representation of

vulnerable sectors

No systematic

monitoring on IP

representation in

RDC

Most IPMRs are not

yet federated to aid

their engaging RDCs

(e.g. IPMR leagues)

54

Right to Social Justice & Human Rights & Rights to Cultural Development

Area 3: Supporting Social, Economic and Cultural Development of IPs in their Ancestral Domain through the full implementation of the ADSDPP (Ancestral

Domain Sustainable Development Protection Plan)

CHALLENGES:

a) Loss of Culture & Traditions of Indigenous Peoples d) Discrimination

b) Impacts of Government Services not felt by IPs e) Lack of NCIP capacity to deliver its mandates

c) Lack of information on IP Rights Specific Problems Responses

(mandates, PPAs, policies &

proposals)

Current

M&E systems &

mechanisms

Gap Analysis

Implementation M&E IEC

1. . Insufficient social services for IPs due

to access issues being in Geographically

Isolated & Disadvantaged Areas (GIDAs),

mismatched PPAs for IPs due to

insufficient data on their situation &

special considerations in programming

owing to the unique cultural context of IPs

DepEd has the IPEd program

that manages IP schools &

have relevant guidelines on

accrediting teachers for IP

schools

Expanded coverage of the 4Ps

in GIDAs

DPWH funding for IP school

buildings for LGUs

IP focus special civil

registration mechanisms of

PSA

NHA's Resettlement

Assistance Program providing

for 10M/LGU for IP housing

DepEd IPEd has

monitoring system

at all levels

including IP focal

persons & even

including IP elders

as cultural bearers

chosen by the IPs

themselves

PSA produces

special reports

monitoring IP

related registration

efforts

LGU reports

monthly to the

LIAC (Local Inter

Agency Committee)

The hiring of IPEd teachers

still uses the same LET

board passer requirement

Surveys conducted for the

expended 4Ps in GIDA for

IPs need to be reviewed

since many reports

surveyors did not complete

coverage

NHA IP housing project

requires that the LGU or the

IP community provides

counterpart. With the delay

of CADT registration, this

becomes limiting

IPEd monitoring systems

adhere to HRBA's

PANTHER principles

No IP representation in

the LIAC for the NHA IP

Housing Support

Insufficient dis

aggregated data on IPs

lack of capacity to for IP-

based program

development. Currently

being remedied with the

PIPE project of NCIP

and PSA initiatives

NCIP conducts IEC on

IP rights to raise

awareness on how IPs

ADDPPS are

integrated in

development planning

& programming

despite its insufficient

budget. Most LGUs

with IPs lacks similar

IECs

Guidelines on

accessing the DPWH

funding for IP Schools

is not widely known

Inclusion of IP related data on

the Brgy information systems

The imposition of 1% of

investments through the

RDCs to be dedicated for IPs

NCIP continuously expanding

scholarship program for

deserving IP students

Compliance

monitored by

DIILG

Currently not

properly monitored

NCIP monitors

what happens to IP

scholars after

graduation

NCIP scholarship for IPs

not universal ad only for

those who can maintain a

certain grade average

requirement limiting many

disadvantaged IPs to get

higher education

Insufficient integration

of ADSDPP in local

public administration

processes (CLUP, ELA,

CDP, CIP) by challenged

IPMRs limiting access of

IP communities to LGU

resources for

development PPAs

There is a need for more

analysis of how other

NGA programs that have

bearing on how

effectively services may

be given to IP w /better

cultural sensitivity like: a)

GAD programs and utilization of GAD

budget, b) agricultural

and fisheries development

program of DA and DAR,

c) ecotourism programs

of DOT and DENR and

now even DA, f) seal of

excellence incentive mechanisms of DILG.

55

Specific Problems Responses

(mandates, PPAs, policies &

proposals)

Current

M&E systems &

mechanisms

Gap Analysis

Implementation M&E IEC

DA's Special Agricultural

Area Development

Project w/IP as priority

beneficiaries

IP Health Program

through RIAC guided by

IP Health Strategic Plan

No specific

monitoring for

IPs treating them

similar to other

sectors

Most Livelihood and

RDC Inter agency

monitoring committee

develop HRBA

monitoring FW &

validate, mainstream IP

FW in Reg

Development Plans

enterprise development

programs are not

specifically designed

for IPs limiting its

access by IPs

Right to Social Justice & Human Rights & Rights to Cultural Development

Area 4: Protecting IP Women, IP Children, IP Elders, IP IDPs (Internally-displaced people) & IP Nomads and Preparing the Next Generation of Indigenous

People Leaders

CHALLENGES:

a) Peace & Security Concerns for IPs c) Discrimination

b) Lack of NCIP capacity to deliver its mandates d) Lack of information on IP Rights Specific Problems Responses

(mandates, PPAs, policies &

proposals)

Current

M&E systems &

mechanisms

Gap Analysis

Implementation M&E IEC

1. Among IP women there is a high

incidence maternal deaths and some of

the lowest pre natal care rates

DoH and some LGUs have

No home birthing policies

CHR conducted an

inquiry on this for

reproductive health

concerns but there is

no systematic

monitoring on this

No home birthing policy is

widely opposed by IPs as it

is perceive going against

cultural practices of IPs as

well as it impracticality

given the access situation.

Alternative

implementations as a

middle ground for this

issue must be planned

and implemented such

as: a) training the hilots

for safer delivery, b)

putting up birthing

facilities nearer the IP

communities, etc

Among medical

practitioners, a need

for cultural

conscientization is

needed for better

understanding of IPs

women's

predisposition when it

comes to reproductive

health

2. Difficulty in IP youth in getting jobs

despite Voc Teach Training or even a

degree

Government Agencies

provide priority for hiring

eligible IPs

IP Youth

Employment is not

systematically

monitored except

those NCIP scholars

who have graduated

This difficulty of IP youth

in securing jobs despite

trainings is because they are

subjected to the same

regular illegibility where

he/she may have an inherent

disadvantage

56

Right to Social Justice & Human Rights & Rights to Cultural Development

Area 4: Protecting IP Women, IP Children, IP Elders, IP IDPs (Internally-displaced people) & IP Nomads and Preparing the Next Generation of Indigenous

People Leaders

CHALLENGES:

a) Peace & Security Concerns for IPs c) Discrimination

b) Lack of NCIP capacity to deliver its mandates d) Lack of information on IP Rights Specific Problems Responses

(mandates, PPAs, policies &

proposals)

Current

M&E systems &

mechanisms

Gap Analysis

Implementation M&E IEC

3. Many situation of deprivation and

discrimination have been

reported on IP nomads (eg

Bajaos in the city) but no

comprehensive plan of action

DSWD conducted small

studies and surveys on

the plight of these IP

nomads in the cities

No regular

monitoring on

this

Proper cultural

conscientization for

DSWD staff including

City/Municipal SWDs

on the nomadic IPs as

well as well designed

social protection

programs should be

implemented for them

LGUs must adopt

programs to provide

for nomadic IPS

when they venture

into their territories

with full cultural

sensitivity of their

situation

Public IEC on the

nature of nomadic

lifestyles of IP

nomads is

important to reduce

ignorance that

often lead to

discrimination

4. There were sporadic reports of

child soldiers recruited, girl

child trafficked for prostitution

but no comprehensive date was

recorded

Several NGOs and media

documented these cases

with IP leaders including

them in their testimonies

There is no

systematic

monitoring of IP

girl child and IP

children in

conflict

currently in place

although

occasional report

of this have been

done

There is a need for more comprehensive inquiry on this subject od IP

rights . This ought to be included as a component of the IPHRO

57

On the part of the Commission on Human Rights, we conducted prior to the IP Rights National

Inquiry a survey among our regional offices on our work with Filipino Indigenous Peoples from

2010-2017. The preliminary data came from CAR, Regions 3, 7,8, 9, 11, 12 and Negros Island

Region,

Table 4: CHR-Serviced IPs and their Key Issues

Regions IP Communities TOP 3 ISSUES of IP Communities

Cordillera

Administrative Region

(CAR)

Tinggians from Abra,Isneg from

Apayao, (Kankanaey, Iyaplay,

Ibaloi, Yfugao, Karao from

Benguet), Kalinga (limos, limos-

liwan-kalinga) from kalinga,

(Kankanaey, Iyaplay, Bontoc) from

Mt. Province

1) Extreme Poverty

2) Slow and improperimplementation of the provisions of the

indigenous peoples rights act

3) Inadequate health services

Central Luzon (Region

III)

Aeta, Dumagats, Badjao 1) Displacement due to developmental agression

2) Lack of support from the Office of National Commission

for Indigenous People

3) Insufficient knowledge about RA 8371 (IPRA Law)

Bicol Region (Region

V)

Kabihug, Dumagats, Agta-Cimaron,

Agta-tabangnon, Agta-taboy,Ati-

atihan

1) Insufficient budget in education

2) Lack of access to social services e.g. roads, schools, water

supply and elecricity

3) Bullying of IP's in school

Negros Island Region

(NIR / Region XVIII)

Bukidnon 1) Access to basic services, Justice and Development

Programs of the government

2) Acces to well-meaning and quality education that would

enhance Indigenous People’s culture

3) Displacement due to development aggression

Central Visayas

(Region VII)

Bajau (Bohol and Cebu), Ati (Bohol

and Cebu), Eskaya (Bohol),

Bukidnon (Negros Oriental)

1) Discrimination

2) Mendicancy

3) No permanent dwelling

Eastern Visayas

(Region VIII)

Mamanwa, Tausug, Maranao 1) Land and Housing

2) Livelihood

3) Education

Zamboanga Peninsula

(Region IX)

Subanen,

Kalibugan ,Badjao,Bangingi, Yakari

1) Ancestral Domain/fishing ground issues

2) Lack of cultural sensitivity of government interventions

3) Limited access to basic services

Davao Region (Region

XI)

Lumad (Manoba, Mandaya, B'Laan,

Mansaka and etc)

1) Alleged Militarization with Alamara being recruited by

armed groups

2) Development aggression over Ips rights over ancestral

domain

3) Displacementy either by natural or manmade causes

SOCCSKSARGEN B’laans, T’bolis, Manobo,

Teduraysa

1) Land grabbing/Ancestral Domain - Lack or insufficient

solution to their continued assertion to what they call their

“ancestral domain” specifically, on land ownership and

boundary tensions

2) Armend Conflict- Prevailing threats to their peaceful

settlement due to existence of armed groups in their area,

especially those affected by mining and resource conflicts

from people and entities occupying or encroaching their

ancestral domains

3) Lack, No equal access and inconsistency in the delivery of

basic services (particularly among IP women and girls)

58

Of these many critical issues of IPs, the responses of the CHR included the following actions and

activities:

Table 5: CHR Actions and Responses to IP concerns per regional office

REGIONS Significant Activities by CHR Offices

Cordillera

Administrative

Region

(CAR)

1) Human Rights Community Development Project in Kibungan, Benguet. This was

in partnership with the New Zealand Human Rights Commission for a period of 3

year which ended in the fourth quarter of 2010. it involved the whole indeginous

Peoples Community of the Municipality of Kibungan, the Kankanaeys. In this

project, the community were asked to identify their pressing issues and come up

with their own solutions to such problems. the problem that were identified were

practically the problems besetting the whole Cordillera. Likewise, there were

several lectures that were undertaken with regards to human rights. with these

lectures, the people became aware of their rights and were able to protect them from

abuses as shown in one of the barangays where residents protested the

establishment of hydro-electric power plant without consultation among the people

and the irregularities among the conduct of Free Prior Consent process.

2) Membership in the Community on the Indigenous Peoples Concern (CIPC), a sub-

committee of the Regional Development Council makes thnis office active in the

promotion and protection of the rights of the Indigenous Peole in Cordillera

3) The regional office is also active in the quest for the Regional Autonomy having

two staff as members of the Speakers Bureau for Autonomy. this is the 3rd attempot

for the autonomous region and is a continuing activity being incorporated in our

regular promotion activities in partnership with the Cordillera Regional

Development Council and the Special Project for the Cordillera Autonomous

Region

Central Luzon

(Region III)

PROTECTION:

(2010) Coordinated with the Local Government Unit of Apalit, Pampanga for the

relocation of several Badjaos family living under the Sulipan Bridge in Apalit,

Pampanga.

(2011) Conduct exhumation on the cadaver of Maximino, member of dumagat tribes

in Dingalan, Aurora.

(2012) Participate in the International Solidarity Mission at Casiguran, Aurora

regarding the effect of APECO to the residents and environment of the place.

(2013) Coordinated with the NCIP RO3 for the settlement of disputes between MATA

and BATA, two groups of Aetas in Pampanga

(2014) Conduct fact-finding mission regarding militarization at Camias, Porac,

Pampanga

(2015) Conducted public Dialogue in Palayan City, Nueva Ecija

(2016) Conduct Fact-finding investigation regarding the killing of Jojo Puno, an aeta

by members of the same tribe.

(2017) Conduct investigation on the internal conflict of Dumagats tribal leaders in

Dingalan, Aurora

PROMOTION:

(2010) Participated in the conduct of multi-stakehlders validation/consultation of the

draft IP Masterplan

(2011) HR Education Orientation on the rights of IP-DDCL-N.H.V coalition Group

(2012) Inter-Agency cooperation on the Rights of the Sama Bajaus

(2013) Inter-Agency cooperation on the Rights of the Sama Bajaus (every quarter)

(2014) Lead the drafting of the resolution for the acquisition of relocation of the Sama

59

Bajaus in Batiawan, Zambales thru inter-agency cooperation

(2015) Resource Person on Dayaw IP Summit October 2015, Inter-agency

cooperation on rights of the IPs, MOA signing with IP Leaders of Pampanga

on BHR

(2016) Basic HR-Orientation to CAFGU-AETA September 2016, HR orientation on

the rights of the IPs

(2017) HRE Katutubong Kaalaman at Karapatan & Celebratory Events Activities

PROMOTION

2010-2013:

A. lectures on Rights of the Indigenous Poeples as part of the sessions on the

following subjects for PNP trainees at RTC 5, to unit: 1. Sectoral rights, 2. Persons

Protected During INternal Armend Conflict, 3. HUman rights in emergency

situation, 4. Intenational Humanitarian Law

B. lectures on the protection and rights of IPs during armed conflict as part of the

seminar on HR and IHL during the celebration of International Humanitarian Law

Month in august (participant: Philippine army)

2013 :

A. 10/16/13 orientation of Human Rights-Based Appraoch to the progressive

realization of IPs in coordination with Department of Education, Albay division

office (participants: teachers/principals

B. lectures on rights of IPs-sectoral rights

C. training on HR and IHL and Protected Persons During Armed Conflict

(prticipants:PNP/army )

2014: Orientation on IPs rights, fun play with kids

2015: Lectures on IPs Rights integrated in the session of Basic HR Concepts, IHL,

persons protected during armed conflict and sectoral rights (participants:

PNP,PA,LGU, academe and students)

2016:

A. Monitoring the status by LGU-Sto. Domingo, Albay on their commitmwent to IPs

on November 2014,

B. Orientation on the rights of IPs and their children

C. Read along session with IP kids

D. Distribution of activity books and toys for kindergarden students(where IP children

were enrolled),

E. Lectures on IP rights during seminar/training on (SECTORAL RIGHTS, HR

FRAMEWORK,IHR for pnp), (HR and IHL) for philippine Navy, F. Oct. 13, 2016

Regional Multi-sectoral Workshop and forum comprehensive anti-discremination

bill(participants: IPs, youths, PWDs,elderly,LGBT)

Negros Island

Region

(NIR / Region XVIII)

PROTECTION

2012: Conduct investigation and legal assistance on CHR-Vi-2012-0950, Conduct

of investigation on the alleged distruction of farm lands in Himamaylan City,

Isabela, Kabankalan City and Sipalay City, ProvidedLegal Assistance to the

IPs accused of Murder and Frustrated Murder

PROMOTION

2011: Consultative Dialogues

2013: Conduct lecture on Human Rights in Brgy. Guimbala-on, Silay City, Negros

Occidental

.

60

Central Visayas

(Region VII)

PROTECTION

2014: Investigated the case of Malael vs Malael (CHR case NO. VII-2014-0173

(CEB), both Bajaus, for alleged violation on the right to life

2015: Attended the meeting of the Inter-Agency Task Force on the Comprehensive

Program for Sama Bajaus

2016: A. Attended the meeting of the Inter-Agency Task Force on the

Comprehensive Program for Sama Bajaus, B. Rendered legal assistance to

female Bajau

PROMOTION

2010: A. Conducted lecture on the rights of children and women (Ati), B. Distributed

bundles of joy

2012: A. Conducted lecture on the rights of children and women (Ati), B. Distributed

bundles of joy

2015: A. Conducted lecture on the rights of children and women (Ati), B. Distributed

gifts, C. Conducted Consultation on ESC in Alaska, Mambaling , Cecu City

2016: A. Conducted forum against child labor during the celebration of the World

Day Against Child Labor

Eastern Visayas

(Region VIII)

PROTECTION:

2010: Investigation of the following HR cases:PRADO, RUSSELDA A. CHR-VIII-

2012-0014 Violatiopn of RA 9262 (TAUSUG), CABADOANGA, YONO

C. CHR-VIII-2012-0436 Torture (MAMANWA)

2016: Investigation of the following HR cases: PRADO, RUSSELDA A. CHR-VIII-

2016-0155 Bigamy and Concubainage (TAUSOG), MAMAKI, ABUSAID A.

CHR-VIII-2016-0386, Arbitrary Arrest/Torture (MARANAO)

Davao Region

(Region XI)

PROTECTION :

(2010-2012) Investigation, Community Dialogue

Investigation of SMI-Tampakan Mining Areas over atrocities

FPIC Process CCA - Observers

Haran Public Inquiry, (2016) FPIC-observer of the Tampakan Mining.

POLICY:

(2013) Supplemental advisory on HR standards on housing , land and proterty rights

(2015) IP Rights over education

Of the above actions and responses of the CHR, the most crucial challenges that acts as GAPS

for our regional offices in providing our human rights promotions, protection and policy services

and proposed way forward that can now be considered in the development of the operative

elements of programming for the proposed IP Human Rights Observatory includes:

61

Table 6: GAP Analysis on CHR IP Interventions

REGIONS Identified GAPS

Proposed Enhancements for

consideration within the IPHRO

Cordillera

Administrative

Region

(CAR)

1. Manpower

2. Financial Resources

3. Communication, difficulty in

communication with local partners

especially in areas where there is no

communication signal and likewise the

geographical terrain of the Cordilleras

⚫ Additional funding for IEC on the benefits

of autonomy efforts in HR rights

fulfillment

Cagayan Valley

(Region II)

1. Uncooperative tribal leaders in the

investigation of cases involving

Indigenous People

2. Accessibility of the area

3. No means of communication

⚫ HR education module development

specific on IP rights & focusing on

relevant provisions of the 4 bundles of IP

rights in the IPRA with emphasis on the

legal basis of the ADs (including where

there is conflict with economic zones)

Bicol Region

(Region V)

1. Lack of special fund to defray expenses of

activities including transportation fares for

IP participants

2. Lack of reader friendly IEC material on IP

rights

⚫ Additional support to IEC including that

on the IPRA provisions on IP rights to

include such outputs as IEC materials,

trainers training, consultation-workshop,

seminars & orientations on IP rights to

various stakeholders including IPs

themselves

Negros Island

Region (NIR /

Region XVIII)

1. Improved Inter-Agency cooperation in the

delivery of basic services between

NCIP,CHRand other line agencies and

Civil Society Organizations.for the

protection and Promotion of IP’s rights

2. Creation of favourable environment for

IP’s schoolm children in terms of trained

IP teachers, IP instruction materials and

improves participation in school extra-

curricular activities

3. Local government Units with IPs to enact

local ordinances for the protection and

promotion of IPs against any form of

displacement.

⚫ Localize educational materials for IP

rights coupled with education and

promotional activities

⚫ Set up a system within the CHR

protection services to prioritize violation

of IP Rights including investigations

Central Visayas

(Region VII)

1. Non-cooperation of male adults during the

conduct of promotion activities

2. Less interaction of the participants during

the conduct of promotion activities

3. Participation to the activities should be

with the knowledge of the tribal leaders or

NCIP

⚫ Additional support to IEC with materials

and activities conducted in local

languages together with an invigorated IP

Day celebrations

Eastern Visayas

(Region VIII)

1. Protection

2. Geographical location

3. Lack of dedicated personnel

⚫ More resources to allow for better

collaboration of the CHR with the LGUs

and NCIP on IP-related concerns

including with the creation and

mobilization of regional network for IPs

Davao Region

(Region XI)

1. Communications barrier

2. Safety and security areas over IP areas

3. Coordination with CSOs over IP concerns

⚫ Regular conduct of national-level

processes such as IP Rights Conventions

to provide a space for IPs to air our their

issues and concerns

62

REGIONS Identified GAPS

Proposed Enhancements for

consideration within the IPHRO

SOCCSKSARGEN (Region XII)

1. Lack of specific policy direction on IP

issues

2. Insufficient resources-Budget constraints

pertaining to their transportation

allowance for reimbursements when they

are invited to come to the venue/activity

far from their place/residence. The costs

of fare allowance need to be ascertained

and allotted, however, due to limited

budget we cannot assure their complete

attendance

3. Low Capacity in terms of IP Rights

⚫ Develop inter-agency coordination with

wide dissemination of the IP Rights law

so that government agencies should

understand fully their role in its

implementation

⚫ Training/Education for IP leaders

⚫ Establish and intensify partnership and

linkages with existing IP organizations

alongside with NCIP

⚫ Budget appropriation for HR activities

where target participants are IPs

⚫ Provide promo collateral and IEC

materials for advocacy, education

⚫ Mapping of IP territories in all regions,

draw out the HR and in case of conflict

areas, the Humanitarian concerns of the

IPs, specially the divergent and peculiar

issues and corners from the areas and craft

democratically a Human Rights-based

long term, medium term plans and annual

work and financial plansCome up an

effective Monitoring and Evaluation

Tools

⚫ Conduct of periodic Program

Implementation Reviews (PIR)

⚫ Sustained support of the IP-related PPAs

⚫ With the advent of the up-going trend in

extractive industries, the Commission

must take a step ahead by strengthening

its regional offices in identified regions

(as priorities) in the field of business and

human rights, rights of the IPs, human

rights and environment, and on the rights-

based approach to disaster mgnt

⚫ Equally important is carrying out PPAs in

addressing gender inequalities and the

inter-sectional discrimination against IP

women and girls.

All of these identified gaps from state duty bearers and the CHR on responding to the needs of

Filipino Indigenous Peoples to promote, protect and fulfill their 4 bundles of rights; including

human rights will now be used as basis for identifying specific actions and policies that should

be undertaken by the duty bearers.

In the proposed IPHRO as described in detail in chapter 4, these gaps become the basis for the

targeting and programming of its operative components that will now be pushed for adoption and

implementation by all concerned government agencies. It will also guide the necessary rights-

based monitoring and evaluation system that all concern government agencies must integrate in

their M&E systems.

63

CHR on our part; through the IPHRO will monitor the compliance of these targets by concerned

government agencies. However, within the whole range of these comprehensive government-

wide monitoring, CHR ought to focus on a key components for its own focus programming that

it can effectively follow through, leaving the bulk of the other monitoring to other concern

government agencies lead by the NCIP.

Proposed here is for the CHR to focus on the protection of the most vulnerable sectors of IP

communities; particularly IP women, children, youth, IDPs, elderly and IP nomads.

FOCUS OF CHR

Monitoring FOCUS of Monitoring of

State Duty Bearers lead by the NCIP

64

Figure 1 : 4-Bundles of IP Rights as Pre-

Requisites for the Fulfillment of IPs Rights

to Development

Chapter 3.

Synthesis and Recommendations

In this Synthesis, we are answering the following key questions?

• How should we understand Human Rights within the context of IP Rights (4 bundles of

rights) in the Philippines?

• What is the Systemic Nature of IP Rights Violations in the Philippines?

The National Inquiry on the Human Rights Situation of Filipino Indigenous Peoples has

provided valuable insights on their current situation and what state duty bearers is currently

doing to promote, protect and fulfill their rights as provided for in the 4 bundles of rights under

IPRA and other entitlements as provided for by the UNDRIP. The analysis set here and more

importantly the specific recommendations; including that of the setting up of the IPHRO and

what it will do and where it will focus on provides a way on how we should move forwards

towards a major paradigm shift in how IP-related programming and enforcement of laws,

policies ought to be done.

How should we understand Human Rights within the context of IP Rights

(4 bundles of rights) in the Philippines?

The present legal system sufficiently provides a framework of the four (4) bundle of rights for

Filipino IPs. Furthermore, Filipino laws and jurisprudence fully recognizes other entitlements as

elaborated further in the UNDRIP.

The IPRA provides the commitment of the government categorically recognizes the right of IPs

to determine and decide their own priorities for development affecting their lives, beliefs,

institutions, spiritual well-being, and the lands they own, occupy or

use. The government also committed to establish the means for the

full development and empowerment of the IPs' own institutions and

initiatives and, where necessary, provide the resources needed

therefor. However, IPRA is not the main source of IP Rights. It is

actually the Philippine constitution. (Refer to

ADMP/CADC/CALC guidelines).

Also, it must be understood that Human Rights; and its normative

standards, are just one of 4 specific rights for IPs provided for in

IPRA. In fact, when viewed from the perspective of IPs rights to

development, article 23 of UNDRIP & other related provisions on

Right to Development of IPs, it is clear that the nature of the

RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT as an “…inalienable human

right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are

entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social,

cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be

fully realized”, are first subjected to what constitute IP Rights.

Thus, in the context of the Philippines and considering UNDRIP, before the RIGHT TO

65

DEVELOMENT of IPs is pursued, the nature and definition of what development means to

Filipino Indigenous Peoples must first be established through the substantial fulfillment of the 4

bundles of IP rights. In this way, the IP communities themselves make the appropriate choice for

the nature and pace of development they want to underake.

In the analysis of the problems of non fulfillment of IP rights, it is also evident that their are clear

hierarchy of actions that ought to be undertaken. Thus, the context of human rights fulfillment

among Filipino IPs must be secured cognizant of these hierarchy of actions as follows:

In fact, connecting the fulfillment of the 4 bundles of IP rights to the right to development would

move the discussion on IP Rights forward and not stuck on land issues alone. IPRA

implementation in the last 20 years has indeed focused on issuance of CADTs as it is the starting

point of succeeding actions that must be undertaken.

\

However, we take notice of the fact that the targeting of one (1) AD per year in the target for

delineation by the NCIP and the current delays in the final registration of approved ADs with the

LRA due to the implementation of the JAO 1-2012; which was ironically originally undertaken

to expedite this very same process, have constituted delays and the further slow down of this first

steps towards fulfilling IP rights.

We also take notice that progressive realization over the succeeding steps in this heirarcy of

actions need not wait for the preceding steps to happen as these needs are urgent and must

already be acted upon.

What is the Systemic Nature of IP Rights Violations in the Philippines?

Based on the admitted facts that CHR has gathered in this national inquiry, it is evident that

indeed there are systemic violation of IP Rights; most of which have been recognized already but

not sufficiently been acted upon. With the exception of several problematic policies that have

been identified in this national inquiry, in general laws and policies to ensure recognition and

protection of IP rights are sufficient at this point. The real problem is in insufficient

implementation as manifested by the numerous gaps identified from the current responses of

state duty bearers to identified needs of Filipino IPs coupled with a lack of comprehensive and

systematic monitoring of the progressive realization of these IP rights across the entire relevant

operations of the state actors.

66

Key issues that constitute this systemic violations include:

a) Indigenous identity is threatened and insufficient protection for the right to cultural integrity

b) Non-IP's encroachment into ancestral domains as a threat to the indigenous identity

c) Limitations to the right of ownership over ancestral domains

d) Wanton violations and confusion on the scope of free, prior and informed consent of IPs

e) Undermining of IPs' decision-making processes and governance structures;

f) Insufficient actions by the state duty bearers to fulfill the Right to Development of IPs

g) Insufficient opportunities for development provided by Duty-Bearers;

h) Insufficient development, continuing discrimination leading to insufficient protection of the

most vulnerable sectors of the IP Community (i.e., women, children, elderly, nomads, IDPs,

youth)

When reviewed further through a problem-tree analysis, the above key issues may further be

categorized along these heirarchy of needs:

When trying to identify the root causes of these systematic problems, we arrived at the following

conclusion on the key elements of the problem:

Once the following root causes are identified, we then proceed in identifying focus interventions

67

which may be summarized as follows:

In view of the foregoing analysis, CHR recommends the following:

1. Stronger legislation is needed, such as the Ethnic Origin Act104, to protect indigenous identity

including those IPs outside their ADs considering that that are most vulnerable outside their on

domain. The flagship project of NCIP, known as the Philippine Indigenous Peoples

Ethnography (PIPE), must be fully implemented to address this concern, and there should be

proper ethnicity questions in the 2020 CPH. 105 Encourage IP participation in MIPLA

(Mindanao IP Legislative Assembly) to ensure their indigenous identity is recognize and

protected in the process of finalizing the BBL. Further that such act must ensure separate local

civil registry office to handle registration of IPs' vital events106 and must compel LGUs to

intensify free mobile registration for IPs in GIDA.

2. Improve the processes under JAO 1. Set a clear guideline for situation when NCIP En Banc

issued a resolution approving the issuance of CADT.107 This report is being submitted to the

National Steering Committee under JAO 1 to verify with its records the cases involving

contentious cases as mentioned during the public hearings.

104 Senate Bill No. 912 introduced by Sen. Loren Legarda on July 28, 2016

https://www.senate.gov.ph/lis/bill_res.aspx?congress=17&q=SBN-912 (accessed November 8, 2017)

105 Per PSA input during the 3rd Public Hearing in Tagaytay City

106 Per statement of Pilar Mendoza (PSA) during the 2nd public hearing in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

107 Per statement of Atty. Rosette Ferrer (DENR Central Office) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

68

3. Capacity building for the IPs to avoid misinformation. For example, some IPs would believe

that ancestral waters could not be covered under IPRA.108

4. Need for stronger agency that will protect the IPs from large businesses. FPIC must be enforce

through police power. Police training is needed to protect IP Rights, and customary law. There

must be database to track FPIC process.109 FPIC must be one consolidated process, and need

to clarify coverage of FPIC.

5. Regular courts must be capacitated to try and decide legal disputes between IPs and non-IPs.

6. NCIP must not only stop in issuing COC for IPMRs. They should assist in seeing through the

full performance of IPMR functions. There must be law that recognition of IPMRs is

mandatory and not discretionary on the part of the LGU. The NCIP must ensure the validity of

the selection process for the IPMR.

7. Engage the Mindanao IPMR league, and formalize IPMR league all throughout the country in

linkage with IPHRO.

8. Full operationalization of IPHRO should be properly and sufficentyly finance through GAA

allocation within CHR and other relevant government agencies as well as funded from

external sources (e.g. UNDESA, others)

9. Fiscal Monitoring of IP-related public expenditures to track budget, net worth and resources of

IPs, including a government-wide tagging of IP-related budget allocation & utilization for the

supply side as well as the full accounting of the financial requirements of all ADSDPP for the

demand side of fiscal monitoring. Related to this is yo inquire from NCIP how it exercise

functions to obtain funding from other sources. Needless to say, ADSDPPs must be funded in

GAA, not only its development.

12. Assign IP Desk/Focal points in all government agencies.

13. Enact a law on ADSDPP. Capacitate IPs for development planning through IPHRO.

14. Include a core group of government agencies in the management of the IPHRO. These

agencies are NCIP, DENR, DAR, DSWD, NEDA, NHA, DOH, DepEd, NCCA, PSA

15. Initiate tribal barangays where it is already necessary

16. Clarify in law the situation of IPs selling lands

17. There are NCIP guidelines on Right to Ancestral Domain, FPIC, IKSP, but not with how IP

Human rights would be observed. The IPHRO will be the venue to develop this.

18. IPHRO will fast track investigation and updating of case of killing of IPs.

108 Per statement of Hamka J. Malabong, Sama Dilaut, during the 5th public hearing in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental

109 Per Statement of Atty. Mary Genevieve Tingson (NCIP) during the 1st public hearing in Iloilo City

69

19. Planning should be per tribe to give due consideration to the cultural context, the indigenous

systems and practices of the concerned communities.

20. CHR to convene a meeting with the LGUs that penalize TBA.

21. Discrimination should be addressed through capacity-building for IPs, beginning with their

rights under the law, domestic or international.

22. CHR, through IPHRO, should render legal assistance

23. Recommend that CHR will require certification from the council of elders are prerequisite of

any action

24. Nomadic IPs need legal protection. (Refer to Sections 3(a) and 51)

25. Participation of CHR in all regional development council, particularly for culture.

26. Gap in the protection of IPs' native title because protection still goes back and determined by

the actual issuance of a registered CADT.

Chapter 4

Towards an IP Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO)

After careful consideration and analysis of the situation of the Filipino indigenous peoples based

from the testimonies received from IPs and key state duty bearers during the 2017 IP National

Inquiry of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), the following operative elements of the

Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO) is hereby proposed.

The IPHRO is a proposed permanent mechanism with the CHR to effectively gauge the

fulfillment of the human rights of Filipino indigenous peoples as defined by the 4 bundles of IP

rights in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (ACT) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of

Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

The realization of the 4 bundles of IP rights hopes to guide the proper articulation of their right to

development as defined by their exercise of self determination. In so doing, a culturally-

appropriate realization of their right to development and the safeguarding of their civil and

political rights as well as their economic, social, cultural rights are the expected results.

Using a problem-solution tree analysis of the non-fulfillment of IP rights, the following root

causes of the problems were identified: a) slow processing of the CADTs (Certificate of

Ancestral Domain Title), b) non recognition of Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives

(IPMR) by some LGUs and c) the taking for granted of their CADTs and their ADSDPPs

(Ancestral Domain Sustainable Development and Protection Plan).

70

These inevitably results to the hierarchy of effects as follows: a) First, unsecured or threatened

ancestral domain & land, violation of FPIC (Free, Prior, Informed Consent) process,

displacement & dispossession of IPs and loss of ecological integrity; b) Second, the non

establishment of the self-governance mechanisms and non maximization or threatened

representation of IPs ; c) Third, insufficient support to the IPs socio, economic and cultural

development through full implementation of their ADSDPP; d) Fourth, non consideration of IP

rights in autonomy & peace efforts (Cordillera, Bangsamoro and other parts of the Philippines);

and e) Fifth, insufficient protection of the most vulnerable IP sectors including IP women, IP

youth, IP children, IP elders, IP IDPs (internally-displaced people) and IP nomads. These

represent the 5 KEY ISSUES that the IPHRO will focus on.

When the further causes of these were analyzed, the following ROOT CAUSES were identified:

1) Continued discrimination of IPs in various forms and in day to day life experiences, 2)

Insufficient capacity of key state duty bearers to fulfill obligations for IP rights promotion,

protection & fulfillment, and 3) Conflicts within the Ancestral Domain due to: a) development

aggression driven by resource conflicts, b) external conflicts of opposing armed groups brought

in the ADs causing division among IP community members. The strategic responses to these

ROOT CAUSES were then considered as the PROGRAM ELEMENTS of the IPHRO as follows:

1) Extensive Information, Education and Communications to combat culture of

discrimination against Indigenous Peoples (IP Rights IEC Program)

2) A Capacity Building on IP Rights Promotion, Protection & Fulfillment including

Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) (IP Rights Capacity Building Program)

3) Direct IP Communities-CHR IP Rights Knowledge Management System LINK to IP

Rights Protection Services Referrals and Follow Through (IP Rights Knowledge

Management & Protection Program

A gap analysis across the current responses (mandates, programs, projects, activities, services) of

key state duty bearers was conducted and these resulted in identification of operative elements

for each of these programs.

To monitor and evaluate these proposed interventions through the IPHRO, an Human Rights

Based Approach (HRBA) and Results Based Management (RBM) Monitoring and evaluation

system using the O.PE.R.A. (Outcomes, Policy Efforts, Resources Assessment) Framework and

the Indigenous Navigator tool is proposed. The designated major outcome and impact indicators

are the following:

71

Table 7: Summary of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Indicator System for the Indigenous Peoples Human Rights

Observatory (IPHRO)

OUTCOME INDICATORS IMPACT INDICATORS Right to

ancestral

domain and

land

% of ADs with

secured CADT,

self governing IPS

& IPOs, functional

IPMR

representation, ,

with FPIC

followed,

implemented

ADSDPP and key

cultural

development

facilities/

mechanisms in

place

% of total number of ADs

where: a) CADTs applied,

b) CADT delineation

conducted, c) CADT

approved, d) approved

CADT registered and e)

ADSDPP developed &

approved

Extend of

fulfillment of

the state of its

obligation to

promote,

protect and

fulfil the

Filipino IPs

rights to

ancestral

domain & land,

rights to self-

governance &

empowerment,

rights to social

justice &

human rights

and rights to

cultural

integrity

% of all ADs owned and in

the possession of IPs

Right to self

governance and

empowerment

% of total LGUs (Brgys,

Mun/City, Provincial)

with sitting IPMRs fully

endorse by the IPS, IPOs

of their representation

with the status of their

level of participation

(using HRBA norms on

level of participation)

% of reduction of

reported violations of

Free, Prior, Informed,

Consent (FPIC)

% of all ADs with self

governance and

appropriate representation

in LGUs and RDCs

Right to social

justice and

human rights

% of adopted ADSDPP

implemented and extent of

implementation and

immediate results (outputs

and immediate outcomes)

% of all AD with ADSDPP

fully supported and all

identified socio-economic,

and cultural needs

provided

Right to

cultural

integrity

% of ADs with school of

living traditions, local IP

language use in vernacular

& school instructions, IP

schools with IP teachers,

functional tribal halls and

extent of IKS researches

with IPR registered &

owned by IPs

% of all ADs where their

culture integrity has been

protected & preserve

Global

Indicators

SDG actions by IPs

Security of IP Rights Defenders

72

The proposed IPHRO will be operationalize through a 3-step process. These include:

Table 8: Proposed IPHRO Operationalization Work Plan

Operationalization Steps Timeframe

1) Signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among key National

Government Agencies establishing a common system of monitoring and

evaluation using a human right based approach on the fulfillment of

Indigenous Peoples rights led by the CHR and NCIP and involving 9 other

key NGAs;

1st quarter 2018

2) Establishing two (2) main Collaborative Mechanisms to implement the

provisions of the proposed MOA; namely: a) A Direct IP Community - CHR

Monitoring Platform and b) An Inter-Agency/ Multi-Sectoral IP Rights

Monitoring Mechanism to include various inter agency TWGs for each of the

4 bundles of IP rights plus a TWG on the autonomy and peace processes; and

a) - rest of 2018

b) - 2nd - 3rd quarter of 2018

3) Institutionalization of the three (3) program components of the IPHRO

within the regular operations of the CHR.

2018-2019

These IPHRO Program Components will provide the following services and will involve the

following key players:

Table 9: Proposed IPHRO Program Components, Services & Key Players

Program

Components

Services Key Players

IP Rights IEC

Program

1. Education Campaign on IP Rights among IP

Communities

2. Orientation on IP Rights to LGUs and NGAs

3. IP Rights and IP Culture Conscientization Campaign in

Schools

4. IP Rights Orientation Among Private Sector (companies

operating in Ancestral Domains)

5. IP Rights Mass and Social Media Campaign

CHR (incl RHRC-ARMM)

NCIP

NCCA

Business Associations

DepEd

IP Rights

Capacity Building

Program

1. Trainings on IP Rights to IPs, IPOs and IPMRs

2. Trainings on IP Rights to NGA IP Desks and

Programs/Projects

CHR (incl RHRC-ARMM)

NCIP

NGOs

IPOs

IP Rights

Knowledge

Management &

Protection

Program

1. Online Database Management System on IP Rights

Monitoring

2. Annual IP Rights Monitoring & Report

3. IP Rights National Inquiry (every 5 years)

4. Regular convening of the Direct IP Community-CHR

Monitoring Platforms at the regional level ( every 6

months

5. Regular convening of the various TWGs of the Inter-

Agency Collaborative Mechanism on IP Rights

Monitoring (at least every quarter or when the need

arises)

a) TWG on AD & Land,

b) TWG on Self-Governance & Empowerment

c) TWG on Social Justice & Human Rights

d) TWG on Cultural Integrity

CHR

NCIP

NEDA

IP and NGA

representatives to the

various TWGs, Task

Forces and Consultative

Forum

73

e) TWG on Autonomy and Peace Talks

6. Regular convening of the CHR-NCIP-DBM-COA Task

Force on IP Rights Fiscal Monitoring (at least once a

year)

7. Regular convening of the BHR Task Force on IP Rights

Monitoring (Inter-Agency, Multi-Sectoral National

Body) complemented with an IP (IPMR Leagues, IPOs) –

CHR – NCIP – Business – CSO Consultative Forum at

the Regional and National Levels on IP Rights and BHR

( at least once a year)

Conceptual Framework of the Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory

Figure 14 : Conceptual Framework of the Proposed Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO)

Building from the gaps identified in the current responses of state duty

bearers, the proposed Indigenous Peoples Rights Observatory (IPRO) is

envisioned to be a permanent RBM & HRBA Monitoring & Evaluation

System of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) to effectively

gauge the fulfillment of the human rights of Filipino Indigenous

Peoples.

It focuses on the 4 bundles of IP Rights as provided for in the IPRA

(Indigenous Peoples Rights Act) and the UNDRIP leading to the

fulfillment of their right to development and safeguarding their civil &

political rights as well as their economic, social and cultural rights.

Monitoring the ESCR components will utilize the O.PE.R.A.

(Outcomes, Policy Efforts, Resources, Assessment) Framework of monitoring Economic, Social,

Cultural Rights (ESCR) commitments

74

Its program components include:

1) Extensive Information, Education and Communications (IEC) to combat culture of

discrimination against Indigenous Peoples

2) A Capacity Building on IP Rights Promotion, Protection & Fulfillment (incl. M&E)

3) Direct IP Communities-CHR IP Rights Knowledge Management System LINK to IP Rights

Protection Services Referrals and Follow Through

It revolves around the 4 key main issues affecting fulfillment of IP Rights in the Philippines;

namely:

AREA 1:Securing Ancestral Domain & Ensuring Ecological & Cultural Integrity

AREA 2:Establishing Self-Governance & Representation for IP structures (IPS, IPOs, IPMRs)

AREA 3:Supporting development of IPs & their ancestral domain through the full

implementation of ADSDPP (Ancestral Domain Sustainable Protection Plans) and

other similar plans

AREA 4:Protecting IP Women, IP Children, IP Youth, IP Elders, IP IDPs ad IP Nomads and

Preparing the next generation of IP leaders.

AREA 4: Ensuring IP rights considered in autonomy proposals and peace talks

These mechanisms will be built upon a direct monitoring & intelligence gathering mechanism

between CHR and the IP communities.

This amidst a clear analysis of the root causes of their recurring issues; namely: a) Insufficient

Capacity of Key Duty Bearers, b) Development Aggression & Resource Conflicts, c) Internal

Conflicts in Ancestral Domain, and d) Continuing Discrimination Against IPs.

Owing to the recognition by the state of the rights of IPs; including that of their right to self-

determination & self-governance, this M&E system will cut across the participation and

empowerment concerns of the self-governance structure of IP communities; namely the IPS

(Indigenous Political Structure), IPOs (Indigenous Peoples Organizations) and recently the

IPMRs (IP Mandatory Representation).

IPMRs’ mandates are valid

when they emanate directly

from the IPs & IPOs. As they

represent the views of IPs in

governance, they are

both duty bearers and rights

holders

The IPMR; provides a

Figure 15 : Unique Self-Governance Mechanisms of Filipino Indigenous Peoples

75

renewed potential to mainstream the development aspirations of IP communities in local

development planning and programming by carrying through their representation in the

individual ADSDPP of each ancestral domain and lobbying them for appropriate policies,

program/projects/activities, funding, structures & mechanisms in their respective LGUs.

Figure 16 : ADSDPPs Integration in Local Public Administration Planning & Programming

This, through various levels of public

administration governance mechanisms

such as the 10-year CLUPs

(Comprehensive Land Use Plans), the

3-year ELAs (Executive, Legislative

Agenda) and the Annual Development

& Investment Plans the and to some

degree in the regional development

councils or similar mechanisms to

influence both programming, resources

and policies of national government

agencies and other development stakeholders in the region.

While essential to the very nature of Indigenous Peoples is their

cultural assets and ancestral domain, this observatory recognizes

the current predicament of both IP communities who are intact

in their own domain (regardless whether their CADT or titles

have been issued or nor) and those who by choice or

circumstances are considered migrants in other ancestral

domains of other tribes or outside the ancestral domain. This

also included “nomadic” IP communities with no apparent

permanent land-based domains, such as sea-fearing IPs.

VII. Program Elements of the IPHRO

Responding directly to the identified root causes of non-fulfillment of IP rights in the Philippines,

the following are proposed to be the programs for the IPHRO. Thes includes:

1) Extensive Information, Education and Communications to combat culture of discrimination

against Indigenous Peoples (IP Rights IEC Program)

2) A Capacity Building on IP Rights Promotion, Protection & Fulfillment incl. M&E

(IP Rights Capacity Building Program)

4) Direct IP Communities-CHR IP Rights Knowledge Management System LINK to IP Rights

Protection Services Referrals and Follow Through (IP Rights Knowledge Management &

Protection Program)

Figure 17: Coverage of IPHRO

76

The operative elements of each of these proposed programs for the IPHRO were identified

responding to the identified gaps of state duty bearers as discussed and agreed in consensus

during the IP national inquiry.

A. Operative Elements of the IP Rights IEC Program

The proposed IEC Program will focus on ten (10) Key Result Areas directly responding to the

identified IEC gaps of key duty bearers. Here, it is presented in the form of an IEC framework

plan matrix to guide development of specific action plans within the IPHRO.

Table 10: IEC Framework Plan for the Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO) (as of Nov 2017)

77

78

B. Operative Elements of IP Rights Capacity Building Program

The proposed Capacity Building Program will focus on twelve (12) Key Result Areas directly

responding to the identified implementation capacity gaps in the forms of trainers training of

key duty bearers. Here, it is presented in the form of an training framework plan matrix to guide

development of specific action plans within the IPHRO.

Table 11: Capacity Building Framework Plan for the Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO)

(as of November 2017)

79

80

C. Operative Elements of the IP Rights Knowledge Management & Protection Service

Referral Program

The proposed Knowledge Management & Protection Referral Program will focus on seven (7)

Key Result Areas directly responding to the identified M&E gaps in the forms of trainers

training of key duty bearers. Here, it is presented in the form of a knowledge management and

protection service referral framework plan matrix to guide development of specific action plans

within the IPHRO.

Table 12 : Knowledge Management & Protection Service Referral Framework Plan for the Indigenous Peoples

Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO) (as of November 2017)

81

82

M&E Framework of the IPHRO using O.PE.R.A.

While it is true that a results-based management (RBM) system does not focus as much to

process as thus to results compared to a Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA)

However, given that the current planning and M&E language and system of Philippine

government agencies is largely still RBM with some exception to HRBA having been integrated

to some extent in the management systems of NEDA, DepEd and of course CHR, a cross

between RBM and HRBA would probably be the more pragmatic approach at developing a

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system for the IPHRO for the time being.

In this case, we have integrated HRBA framework for measuring and assessing fulfillment of

ESCR (Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) called O.PE.R.A (Outcomes, Policy Efforts,

Resources Assessment) framework within the RBM chain of results. The use of O.PE.R.A. is of

course premised that by large we are measuring here the rights to development of IPs building

from the 4 bundles of IP rights with mostly ESCR concerns.

The designated OUTPUTS remain the individual results of specific government agencies and

LGUs working on fulfilling IP rights, including all KRAs of CHR and other agencies that will

form part of the implementation of IPHRO

.

From here, the designated OUTCOMES will include those key elements identified in the

outcome elements of OP.E.R.A. as well as elements identified in the Policy Efforts and

Resources components of O.PE.R.A. All these agency/organization level outputs as well as

outcomes are the ones subject to regular MONITORING.

On the other hand, the elements of assessment under O.PE.R.A. will be considered the IMPACT

level results and will be the one subject to EVALUATION.

Figure 18: RBM-HRBA O.PE.R.A. and Indigenous Navigator-based M&E System Framework for IP Rights Fulfillment

83

As an HRBA, this M&E system utilizes human rights norms and the monitoring and evaluation

(assessment) elements as defined within the O.PE.R.A. Furthermore, the monitoring techniques

recommended under the O.PE.R.A. were complied with to the extent possible And within the

Philippine context of the IPRA’s 4 bundles of IP rights, the outcome and impact indicator

systems developed for use in this system are further articulated along the 4 bundles of: a) right

to ancestral domain and land, b) right to self governance and empowerment, c) right to social

justice and human rights and d) right to cultural integrity. Each bundle of rights provided with

the one core outcome and one core impact indicator each, as follows:

Table 13: Summary of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Indicator System for the Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO)

OUTCOME INDICATORS IMPACT INDICATORS

Right to

ancestral

domain and

land

% of ADs with

secured CADT,

self governing IPS

& IPOs, functional

IPMR

representation, ,

with FPIC

followed,

implemented

ADSDPP and key

cultural

development

facilities/

mechanisms in

place

% of total number of ADs

where: a) CADTs applied,

b) CADT delineation

conducted, c) CADT

approved, d) approved

CADT registered and e)

ADSDPP developed &

approved

Extend of

fulfillment of

the state of its

obligation to

promote,

protect and

fulfil the

Filipino IPs

rights to

ancestral

domain & land,

rights to self-

governance &

empowerment,

rights to social

justice &

human rights

and rights to

cultural

integrity

% of all ADs owned and in

the possession of IPs

Right to self

governance and

empowerment

% of total LGUs (Brgys,

Mun/City, Provincial)

with sitting IPMRs fully

endorse by the IPS, IPOs

of their representation

with the status of their

level of participation

(using HRBA norms on

level of participation)

% of reduction of

reported violations of

Free, Prior, Informed,

Consent (FPIC)

% of all ADs with self

governance and

appropriate representation

in LGUs and RDCs

Right to social

justice and

human rights

% of adopted ADSDPP

implemented and extent of

implementation and

immediate results (outputs

and immediate outcomes)

% of all AD with ADSDPP

fully supported and all

identified socio-economic,

and cultural needs

provided

Right to

cultural

integrity

% of ADs with school of

living traditions, local IP

language use in vernacular

& school instructions, IP

schools with IP teachers,

functional tribal halls and

extent of IKS researches

with IPR registered &

owned by IPs

% of all ADs where their

culture integrity has been

protected & preserve

Global

Indicators

SDG actions by IPs

Security of IP Rights Defenders

84

As for the HRBA norms on level of participation to be used in tandem with the indicators

identified for the right to self-governance and empowerment, we will be using the “Ladder of

Citizen Participation” by Anstein (1969) which divides the level of participation into three with

key elements each. First is non participation where the approach of manipulation and therapy are

mostly applied. Second is Tokenism where the approach is manifested by informing,

consultation and placation. And finally at the 3rd and highest level, citizen empowerment is

achieve as a level of participation with the following manifestation: partnership, then delegated

power then citizen control.

Manifestations Level of Citizen

Participation

Citizen Control

Citizen Empowerment Delegated Power

Partnership

Placation

Tokenism Consultation

Informing

Therapy

Hon Participation Manipulation

Table 14: Ladder of Citizen Participation, Arnstein (1969)

Appropriate indicators in the Indigenous Navigator tool (both tools for community and national

levels) have also been incorporated in this M&E system. Two global indicators including: a)

SDG actions by IPs as well as b) Security of IP Rights Defenders will be incorporated as

outcome and impacts indicators in the main tool while a Community Scorecard tool has been

refined from the Indigenous Navigator community level tool to be used by IP community

members to assess actual implementation of key national and local policies for IP rights

promotion, protection and fulfillment using the AAAAQ (Availability, Accessibility,

Acceptability. Quality) criteria.

A. O.PE.R.A. (Outcome, Policy Efforts, Resources Assessment) Framework

Table 15: Summary of the Elements of the O.PE.R.A. Framework

The O.PE.R.A. framework follows a logical order of monitoring and evaluation (assessment).

Under the HR norms of minimum core obligations, it will start with measuring aggregate levels

of rights enjoyment of the identified core outcome indicators. In this case these are: a) Securing

85

CADTs, b) IPMR representation, c) Adoption & implementation of the ADSDPP and c)

Securing cultural protection & conservation facilities/ mechanisms. These data will then be dis

aggregated by ancestral domain to measure the disparities in rights enjoyment per area and per

tribe subjecting it to the HR norm of non discrimination. After which this it will be further dis

aggregated across time in the past 5-20 years of IPRA implementation and every year thereafter

applying the HR norm on progressive realization.

Table 16: Summary of the Elements of the O.PE.R.A. Framework (OUTCOMES)

At the policy efforts level, the process will continue with identifying legal and policy

commitments of the state applying the HR norm on obligation to take steps. The key outcome

indicator for this step is: assessment of Local IP-related policies compared to international

standard.

For the right to ancestral domain & land, right to self governance & empowerment, right to

cultural integrity, the relevant IPRA provisions (and all related IRRs, JAOs, AOs) vs relevant

UNDRIP provisions will be covered. As for the right to social justice and human rights,

additional items to be covered will be ESCR normative HR standards, CPR normative HR

standards and normative HR standards on IPs in conflict situations. Then this will be subjected to

a community scorecard from a modified indigenous navigator tool to assess actual

implementation of key national and local policies for IP rights promotion, protection and

fulfillment using the AAAAQ (Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability. Quality) criteria. Finally,

the community scorecard will also include the criteria for PANTHER (Participation,

Transparency, Accountability, & Right to a remedy) to analyze policy processes.

86

Table 17: Summary of the Elements of the O.PE.R.A. Framework (OPOLICY EFFORTS)

At the resources level, the process will begin with evaluating planned and actual resource

expenditures of the state by applying the HR norms on: a) core obligations, b) non-

discrimination, c) progressive realization according to maximum available resources and d)

transparency and accountability.

The key outcome indicator for this step is: % of national budget allocation & utilization per IP

right over benchmark. For the right to ancestral domain & land, the indicators are amount of

budget for AD Surveys, AD titling and support for land dispute-related litigations. These data

will then be dis aggregated by ancestral domain to identify which population groups are

benefiting from spending; contrast spending disparities with disparities in human rights

outcomes. After which this will be further dis aggregated across time in the past 5-20 years of

IPRA implementation and every year thereafter applying the HR norm on progressive realization.

The next 2 steps is to evaluate resource generation and analyze relevant policy processes

Table 18: Summary of the Elements of the O.PE.R.A. Framework (RESOURCES)

87

Finally, at the assessment level, contextual factors that limit enjoyment of the right as well as

understanding the state’s constraints will be the first 2 steps. After which and considering all

previous data and assessment, state compliance on the HR norm of obligation to fulfill using the

last indicator of “extend of fulfillment of the state of its obligation to promote, protect and fulfil

the Filipino IPs rights to ancestral domain & land, rights to self-governance & empowerment,

rights to social justice & human rights and rights to cultural integrity” will be utilized.

Table 18: Summary of the Elements of the O.PE.R.A. Framework (Assessment)

Herewith is the detailed proposed IPHRO M&E Indicator system:

88

B. Proposed IPHRO M&E Indicator System

Table 19 : Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Indicator System for the Indigenous Peoples Human Rights Observatory (IPHRO)

Elements & Human

Rights Norms

Assessment Techniques

& Main Indicators

IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators

Right to Ancestral Domain

and Lands

Right to Self-Governance &

Empowerment

Social Justice and Human

Rights

Cultural Integrity

Measure levels of

enjoyment of the

right

HR Norms:

Minimum core

obligations

Identify relevant outcome indicators that

show the extent to which the right, including

its minimum essential levels, is enjoyed in

the country.

INDICATOR:

% of ADs with secured CADT, self

governing IPS & IPOs, functional IPMR

representation, implemented ADSDPP, with

FPIC followed and key cultural development

facilities/ mechanisms in place

INDICATOR:

% of total number of ADs

where: a) CADTs applied,

b) CADT delineation

conducted, c) CADT

approved, d) approved

CADT registered and e)

ADSDPP developed &

approved

INDICATOR:

% of total LGUs (Brgys,

Mun/City, Provincial) with

sitting IPMRs fully endorse by

the IPS, IPOs of their

representation with the status

of their level of participation

(using HRBA norms on level

of participation)

% of reduction of reported

violations of Free, Prior,

Informed, Consent (FPIC)

INDICATOR:

% of adopted ADSDPP

implemented and extent of

implementation and

immediate results (outputs

and immediate outcomes)

INDICATOR:

% of ADs with school of

living traditions, local IP

language use in

vernacular & school

instructions, IP schools

with IP teachers,

functional tribal halls

and extent of IKS

researches with IPR

registered & owned by

IPs

Measure disparities

in rights enjoyment

HR Norms:

Non-discrimination

Dis aggregated indicators by social groups

to identify disparities in levels of enjoyment

of the right.

INDICATOR:

Situation of key outcome indicators on the 4

bundles of rights dis aggregated per AD

INDICATOR:

Using the same indicators above, dis aggregated per ADs

89

Elements & Human

Rights Norms

Assessment Techniques

& Main Indicators

IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators

Right to Ancestral Domain

and Lands

Right to Self-Governance &

Empowerment

Social Justice and Human

Rights

Cultural Integrity

Measure progress

over time

HR Norms:

Progressive

realization

Examine variations of indicators over time to

assess progress, retrogression and change in

disparity levels.

INDICATOR:

Situation of key outcome indicators on the 4

bundles of rights disaggregated per year

across ADs and within ADs

INDICATOR:

Using the same indicators above, dis aggregated annually (in the past 5 years)

1. Policy Efforts Indicators

Elements & Human

Rights Norms

Assessment Techniques

& Main Indicators

IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators

Right to Ancestral Domain

and Lands

Right to Self-Governance &

Empowerment

Social Justice and Human

Rights

Cultural Integrity

Identify legal and

policy commitments

HR Norms:

Obligation to take

steps

Identify international commitments and

national constitutional and legislative

provisions that give effect to them.

Identify specific laws and policies on the

right and compare their provisions to

international standards.

INDICATOR:

Assessment of Local IP-related policies

compared to international standards

INDICATOR:

Relevant IPRA provisions

(IRRs, JAOs, AOs) vs

Relevant UNDRIP

Provisions

INDICATOR:

Relevant IPRA provisions

(IRRs, JAOs, AOs) vs

Relevant UNDRIP Provisions

INDICATOR:

Relevant IPRA provisions

(IRRs, JAOs, AOs) vs

Relevant UNDRIP

Provisions, ESCR

Normative HR Standards,

CPR Normative HR

Standards and Normative

HR Standards on IPs in

conflict situations

INDICATOR:

Relevant IPRA

provisions (IRRs, JAOs,

AOs) vs Relevant

UNDRIP Provisions

90

Elements & Human

Rights Norms

Assessment Techniques

& Main Indicators

IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators

Right to Ancestral Domain

and Lands

Right to Self-Governance &

Empowerment

Social Justice and Human

Rights

Cultural Integrity

Examine policy

content and

implementation

HR Norms:

AAAAQ

(Availability,

Accessibility,

Acceptability and

Quality) criteria

IIdentify the goods and services needed to

give effect to the right.

Measure the availability, accessibility,

acceptability and quality of these goods and

services (e.g. assessing quantitative and

qualitative data, community score cards).

INDICATOR:

Assessment of Local IP-related policies as it

provides goods & services based on AAAA

criteria by IP community members

INDICATOR:

Assessment by IP community members of above local policies using the AAAAQ Criteria as applied in a

modified Community Indigenous Navigator Survey use a scorecard mechanism

Analyse policy

processes

HR Norms:

Participation,

transparency,

accountability,

right to a remedy

Analyse relevant national laws and policies

(e.g. on access to information, local

participation, complaints mechanisms).

Collect feedback on the extent to which these

principles are applied in practice (e.g.

through interviews or other qualitative

methods and quantitative indicators, if

available).

INDICATOR:

Assessment of Local IP-related policies in

terms of IP participation based on

PANTHER criteria by IP community

members community members

INDICATOR:

Assessment by IP community members of above local policies using the AAAAQ Criteria as applied in a

modified Community Indigenous Navigator Survey use a scorecard mechanism

91

2. Resources Indicators

Elements & Human

Rights Norms

Assessment Techniques &

Main Indicators

IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators

Right to Ancestral Domain

and Lands

Right to Self-Governance &

Empowerment

Social Justice and Human

Rights

Cultural Integrity

Public Resource

Allocation &

Utilization

HR Norms

Core obligations

Non-discrimination

Progressive

realization

according to

maximum available

resources

Transparency and

accountability

Calculate the percentage of

the State’s budget allocated to

social spending relevant to the

specific right, comparing to

relevant benchmarks.

MAIN INDICATOR:

% of national budget

allocation & utilization per IP

Right over benchmark

INDICATORS

Amount of budget for AD

Surveys

Amount of budget for AD

titling

Amount of budget

supporting AD land dispute-

related litigation

INDICATORS

Amount of budget to supporting

IPS (Indigenous Political

Structures)

Amount of budget to supporting

IPOs (Indigenous Political

Organizations)

Amount of budget to supporting

IPMRs (Indigenous People

Mandatory Representatives)

INDICATORS

Amount of budget supporting

socio-economic PPAs &

services to IPs following the

normative rights on education,

food, health, water, social

security, work

Amount of budget supporting

ADSDPP development &

implementation

Amount of budget supporting

reparations of IP HR

violations

Amount of budget in PPAs to

ensure civil & political rights

of IPs

INDICATORS

Amount of budget supporting

cultural development services

for IPs

92

Elements & Human

Rights Norms

Assessment Techniques &

Main Indicators

IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators

Right to Ancestral Domain and

Lands

Right to Self-Governance &

Empowerment

Social Justice and Human

Rights

Cultural Integrity

Public Resource

Allocation &

Utilization

HR Norms

Core obligations

Non-discrimination

Progressive

realization according

to maximum

available resources

Transparency and

accountability

Identify which population

groups are benefitting from

spending; contrast spending

disparities with disparities in

human rights outcomes.

MAIN INDICATOR:

% of national budget

allocation & utilization per

ancestral domain

INDICATOR

Same as above but dis aggregated per Ancestral Domain (ADs)

Compare allocations to

previous budgets to see how

spending has evolved over

time, taking into account

economic growth over the

period

MAIN INDICATOR:

Amount of national budget

allocation & utilization per IP

Right over time (e.g. 5 years)

INDICATOR

Same as above but analyze on trends per year (e.g. over 5 years)

93

Elements & Human

Rights Norms

Assessment Techniques &

Main Indicators

IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators

Right to Ancestral Domain and

Lands

Right to Self-Governance &

Empowerment

Social Justice and Human

Rights

Cultural Integrity

Public Resource

Generation

HR Norms:

Progressive

realization according

to maximum available

resources

Non-discrimination

Track public expenditure (e.g.

using public expenditure

tracking surveys or social

audits).

MAIN INDICATOR:

Social audits on IP-related

expenditures (if any)

INDICATOR

Social Impacts of public

expenditures on securing IP

ADs

INDICATOR

Social Impacts of public

expenditures on supporting IPS,

IPOs and IPMRs

INDICATOR

Social Impacts on public

expenditures on socio, economic

services to IPs

INDICATOR

Social Impacts of public

expenditures on cultural

development for IP

communities

Calculate the State budget as

a percentage of the overall

economy and compare to

similar countries.

MAIN INDICATOR:

% of state budget for IPs to

overall economy

INDICATOR

Amount of budget for securing

ADs over size of appropriate

economic sectors

INDICATOR

Amount of budget to support IPS,

IPOs and IPMRs over size of

appropriate economic sectors

INDICATOR

Amount of budget supporting

socio-economic and political

programs & services over size

of appropriate economic sectors

INDICATOR

Amount of budget supporting

cultural development programs

& services over size of

appropriate economic sectors

94

Elements & Human

Rights Norms

Assessment Techniques &

Main Indicators

IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators

Right to Ancestral Domain and

Lands

Right to Self-Governance &

Empowerment

Social Justice and Human

Rights

Cultural Integrity

Public Resource

Generation

HR Norms:

Progressive

realization according

to maximum

available resources

Non-discrimination

Identify and assess the

adequacy and fairness of the

State’s main revenue sources

(e.g. taxation, borrowing,

international assistance).

MAIN INDICATOR:

% of IP-related public

expenditures over total

borrowings, taxation &

international assistance

INDICATOR

Amount of budget for securing

ADs disaggregated per source

(borrowings, taxation,

international assistance)

INDICATOR

Amount of budget to support

IPS, IPOs and IPMRs

disaggregated per source

(borrowings, taxation,

international assistance)

INDICATOR

Amount of budget supporting

socio-economic and political

programs & services

disaggregated per source

(borrowings, taxation,

international assistance

INDICATOR

Amount of budget supporting

cultural development programs

& services disaggregated per

source (borrowings, taxation,

international assistance)

Evaluate the State’s fiscal

and/or monetary policies

governing the raising of

revenue (e.g. identify tax base

as a percentage of GDP and

track its evolution over time,

taking into account economic

growth over the period).

MAIN INDICATOR:

Review of fiscal & monetary

policy on revenue generation

of IP-related programs &

services

INDICATOR

Qualitative and quantitative assessment of government's fiscal and monetary policies to generate revenues for IP-related

programs and services based on review of policies, interviews with key informants showing distinctions in any of the 4 bundles

of rights; where it shows

95

Elements & Human

Rights Norms

Assessment Techniques &

Main Indicators

IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators

Right to Ancestral Domain and

Lands

Right to Self-Governance &

Empowerment

Social Justice and Human

Rights

Right to Ancestral Domain and

Lands

Public Resource

Generation

HR Norms:

Progressive

realization according

to maximum

available resources

Non-discrimination

Collect feedback on public

participation in the design,

implementation and

evaluation of fiscal and

monetary policies (e.g.

through interviews or other

qualitative methods and

quantitative data, if available).

MAIN INDICATOR:

Assessment of participation of

IPs in fiscal & monetary

policies development (LGUs,

Regional, National)

INDICATOR

Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the quality of participation of IP representatives in fiscal & monetary policies

development of government at 3 levels – LGUs, regional development councils and at the national GAA processes based on

review of policies, interviews with key informants, guided surveys showing distinctions in any of the 4 bundles of rights; where

it shows

Public Fiscal and

Monetary Policy

Processes

Analyse indicators related to

transparency of economic

policy process

.

MAIN INDICATOR:

Assessment of transparency

indicators for economic

policies related to raising

resources for the development

of IPs and their ancestral

domains

INDICATOR

Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the quality of transparency of economic policies related to raising resources for IP-

related developments based on review of policies, interviews with key informants, guided surveys showing distinctions in any

of the 4 bundles of rights; where it shows

96

Elements & Human

Rights Norms

Assessment Techniques &

Main Indicators

IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators

Right to Ancestral Domain and

Lands```

Right to Self-Governance &

Empowerment

Social Justice and Human

Rights

Right to Ancestral Domain and

Lands

Identify contextual

factors that limit

enjoyment of the

right

HR Norms:

Indivisibility and

interdependence of

rights

Right to a remedy

Identify the social, economic,

political or cultural conditions

that prevent people from

enjoying the right or seeking

redress for violations of the

right (e.g. through capacity

gap assessment).

INDICATOR:

Social, economic, political &

cultural conditions that hinders

IPs to secure their CADTs,

have self governing IPS &

IPOs, have functional IPMR

representation, fully

implemented ADSDPP and

key cultural development

facilities/ mechanisms in place

OR from seeking redress for

not being able to exercise/

enjoy these rights

INDICATOR:

Social, economic, political &

cultural conditions that prevent

IPs from fully exercising their

right to own and possess AD

and land OR from seeking

redress for not being able to

exercise/ enjoy these rights

INDICATOR:

Social, economic, political &

cultural conditions that prevent

IPs from fully exercising their

right to govern their own affairs

within their respective ADs and

to be fully represented in LGUs

and RDCs that covers and/or

adjacent to their ADs or where

IPMRs are required to be

represented OR from seeking

redress for not being able to

exercise/ enjoy these right

INDICATOR:

Social, economic, political &

cultural conditions that prevent

IPs from receiving sufficient

support from the state to full

implement their ADSDPP and

provide fully for their socio,

economic, cultural development

needs OR from seeking redress

for not being able to exercise/

enjoy these rights

INDICATOR:

Social, economic, political &

cultural conditions that prevent

IPs from receiving sufficient

support from the state to enjoy

the cultural protection &

conservation facilities/

mechanisms they require OR

from seeking redress for not

being able to exercise/ enjoy

these rights

97

Elements & Human

Rights Norms

Assessment Techniques &

Main Indicators

IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators

Right to Ancestral Domain and

Lands```

Right to Self-Governance &

Empowerment

Social Justice and Human

Rights

Right to Ancestral Domain and

Lands

Understand the

State’s constraints

HR Norms:

Obligation to respect

and protect rights

against abuse by third

parties

Extraterritorial

obligations of other

States to respect,

protect and fulfil

ESCR

Identify how the acts or

omissions of third parties or

structural dysfunctions impact

on the State’s ability to fulfil

the right.

INDICATOR:

Explain how acts or omissions

of third parties or structural

dysfunctions hinder the state

from protecting the rights of

IPs to own & possess their

respective ADs, to govern

their own affairs within their

respective ADs, to be fully

represented in LGUs and

RDCs that covers and/or

adjacent to their ADs or where

IPMRs are required to be

represented, to receive

sufficient support to full

implement their ADSDPP and

provide fully for their socio,

economic, cultural

development needs AND to

receive sufficient support to

enjoy the cultural protection &

conservation facilities/

mechanisms they require

INDICATOR:

Explain how acts or omissions

of third parties or structural

dysfunctions hinder the state

from protecting the right of IPs

to own and possess their

respective ADs

INDICATOR:

Explain how acts or omissions

of third parties or structural

dysfunctions hinder the state

from protecting the right of IPs

to govern their own affairs

within their respective ADs and

to be fully represented in LGUs

and RDCs that covers and/or

adjacent to their ADs or where

IPMRs are required to be

represented

INDICATOR:

Explain how acts of omissions

of third parties or structural

dysfunctions hinder the state

from protecting the rights of IPs

to receive sufficient support to

full implement their ADSDPP

and provide fully for their

socio, economic, cultural

development needs

INDICATOR:

Explain how acts of omission of

third parties or structural

dysfunctions hinder the state

from protecting the rights of

IPS to receive sufficient support

to enjoy the cultural protection

& conservation facilities/

mechanisms they require

98

Elements & Human

Rights Norms

Assessment Techniques &

Main Indicators

IPRAs 4 Bundles of IP Rights & Specific Indicators

Right to Ancestral Domain and

Lands```

Right to Self-Governance &

Empowerment

Social Justice and Human

Rights

Right to Ancestral Domain and

Lands

Determine State

compliance

HR Norms:

Obligation to fulfil

Draw together findings from

previous steps, in light of the

above elements.

INDICATOR:

Extend of fulfilment of the

state of its obligation to

promote, protect and fulfil the

Filipino IPs rights to ancestral

domain & land, rights to self-

governance & empowerment,

rights to social justice &

human rights and rights to

cultural integrity

INDICATOR:

% of all ADs owned and in the

possession of IPs

INDICATOR:

% of all ADs with self

governance and appropriate

representation in LGUs and

RDCs

INDICATOR:

% of all AD with ADSDPP

fully supported and all

identified socio-economic, and

cultural needs provided

INDICATOR:

% of all ADs where their

culture integrity has been

protected & preserve

99

Operational Mechanisms of the IPHRO

Figure 19: IPHRO Operational Mechanism Framework

A. Establishing a Permanent IPHRO Program

The proposed IPHRO; while operationally lodge with the Commission on Human Rights as

to ensure that it remains to be an independent monitoring and evaluation mechanism, will

operate in collaboration with the NCIP and other key state duty bearers.

1. Key Steps in Operationalization

The IPHRO will be formally established through three (3) main steps:

First, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among key National Government Agencies

establishing a common system of monitoring and evaluating using a human right based

approach on the fulfillment of Indigenous Peoples rights in the country will be finalized. This

will be led by the CHR and NCIP and the following key state duty bearers:

1. National Economic Development Authority (NEDA)

2. Philippines Statistics Authority (PSA)

3. National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA)

4. Mindanao Development Authority (MinDA)

5. Palawan Council for Sustainable Development (PCSD)

6. Regional Human Rights Commission - ARMM

7. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

8. Department of Social Welfare & Development (DSWD)

9. Department of Education (DepEd)

100

Second, establishing two (2) main Collaborative Mechanisms to implement the provisions of

the proposed MOA; namely: a) a direct IP Community - CHR monitoring platform and b) an

inter-agency/ multi-sectoral IP Rrights Mmonitoring mechanism. Setting up these

mechanisms will include sufficient training, orientation and building the systems of

operations; particularly on monitoring and evaluation. Details of these mechanisms are

described below.

Third, is the institutionalization of the three (3) program components of the IPHRO within

the regular operations of the CHR. This will be subjected to an Organizational Development

(OD) process to ensure smooth change management in CHR adopting this new program.

It will be operationalize based on this workplan:

Table 20: Proposed IPHRO Operationalization Work Plan

Operationalization Steps Timeframe

1) Signing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among key National

Government Agencies establishing a common system of monitoring and

evaluation using a human right based approach on the fulfillment of

Indigenous Peoples rights led by the CHR and NCIP and involving 9 other

key NGAs;

1st quarter 2018

4) Establishing two (2) main Collaborative Mechanisms to implement the

provisions of the proposed MOA; namely: a) A Direct IP Community - CHR

Monitoring Platform and b) An Inter-Agency/ Multi-Sectoral IP Rights

Monitoring Mechanism to include various inter agency TWGs for each of the

4 bundles of IP rights plus a TWG on the autonomy and peace processes; and

c) - rest of 2018

d) - 2nd - 3rd quarter of 2018

5) Institutionalization of the three (3) program components of the IPHRO

within the regular operations of the CHR.

2018-2019

2. Services, Clientele, Staffing & Organizational Requirements of the IPHRO

The three (3) program components of the IPHRO lodge with the CHR in tandem with the 2

collaborative mechanisms will provide the following key services:

Table 21: Proposed IPHRO Program Components, Services & Key Players

Program Components Services Key Players

IP Rights IEC Program 6. Education Campaign on IP Rights among IP

Communities

7. Orientation on IP Rights to LGUs and

NGAs

8. IP Rights and IP Culture Conscientization

Campaign in Schools

9. IP Rights Orientation Among Private Sector

(companies operating in Ancestral

Domains)

10. IP Rights Mass and Social Media

Campaign

CHR (incl RHRC-ARMM)

NCIP

NCCA

Business Associations

DepEd

101

IP Rights Capacity

Building Program

3. Trainings on IP Rights to IPs, IPOs and

IPMRs

4. Trainings on IP Rights to NGA IP Desks

and Programs/Projects

CHR (incl RHRC-ARMM)

NCIP

NGOs

IPOs

IP Rights Knowledge

Management &

Protection Program

Online Database Management System on IP

Rights Monitoring

Annual IP Rights Monitoring & Report

IP Rights National Inquiry (2 x every term of

government)

Regular convening of the Direct IP

Community-CHR Monitoring Platforms at

the regional level ( every 6 months)

5. Regular convening of the various TWGs of

the Inter-Agency Collaborative Mechanism

on IP Rights Monitoring (at least every

quarter or when the need arises)

TWG on AD & Land,

TWG on Self-Governance & Empowerment

TWG on Social Justice & Human Rights

TWG on Cultural Integrity

TWG on Autonomy and Peace Talks

6. Regular convening of the CHR-NCIP-

DBM-COA Task Force on IP Rights Fiscal

Monitoring (at least once a year)

7. Regular convening of the BHR Task Force

on IP Rights Monitoring (Inter-Agency,

Multi-Sectoral National Body)

complemented with an IP (IPMR Leagues,

IPOs) – CHR – NCIP – Business – CSO

Consultative Forum at the Regional and

National Levels on IP Rights and BHR ( at

least once a year)

CHR

NCIP

NEDA

IP and NGA representatives to the

various TWGs, Task Forces and

Consultative Forum

While the final staffing may be guided by the result of the OD review, it is likely that given

the above level of programming and expected services that the following staffing may be

necessary:

Table 22: Matrix of Roles of Staffing Requirements for the IPHRO

Position Tasks and Responsibilities

Coordinator

⚫ Acts as overall Program Coordinator for IPHRO

⚫ Coordinates directly with the Directorate, CEB and Focal

Commissioner on matters re: IPHRO operations

Focal person on IEC

⚫ In charge of implementation of all IEC-related services

⚫ Coordinates with appropriate offices in CHR and NCIP on IEC

concerns

⚫ Takes change or media & communications relations

102

Focal person on Capacity

Building

⚫ In charge of implementation of all Capacity-Building services

⚫ Coordinates with appropriate offices in CHR and NCIP on Capacity

Building concerns

⚫ Works with the HRD to develop and implement staff development for

CHR on IPHRO

Focal person on Knowledge

Management & Protection

Services

⚫ In charge of implementation of all KM and Protection services

referrals

⚫ Coordinates all collaborative mechanisms of the IPHRO

⚫ Provindes Policy Research and Advocacy Support to IPHRO

Database Management Specialist ⚫ Develop and manages the database including its online system and

integration with MIS and other similar systems with CHR and NCIP

⚫ Maintains and develop the M&E system of the IPHRO

Administrative Support ⚫ Provides all administrative support for IPHRO

3. Funding and Sustainability

It would be inevitable for the CHR and the NCIP to incorporate the cost of regularly

sustaining IPHRO as part of its regular operations the various program components . This

will be complemented with accessing external donors or special projects within the GAA for

support projects, especially at the initial stages of setting up the systems and programs of the

IPHRO. This will include the NCIP’s PIPE Project and the CHR’s Go Just Project

A voluntary fund & other support mechanism for any interested party with no vested interests

on IP-related concerns may also be considered to allow for the general public to pitch in to

provide financial, technical and voluntary support. This may be developed in collaboration

with key NGOs and IPOs.

4. Information & Knowledge Management

A central IPHRO Database Management System will be set-up and maintained at the CHR.

Efforts will be made to ensure complementation of this system with that of the NCIP’s own

database monitoring system.

This system will be accessible online with various degrees of access depending on the nature

of the information. This will incorporate an internet-based online public platform to share

information and receive feedback; including case reporting.

Through the various regular processes of the proposed collaborative mechanisms for the

IPHRO a systematic collection of data and feedbacking of processed information generated

by the IPHRO O.PE.R.A.-based M&E system, direct access by the concern IP communities

through their representatives (IPOs, IPMRs, IPs) in these processes will be ensured.

An internal system for the CHR linking this online database with its own Information

Management System (IPS) for IPHRO; including our existing database monitoring system

for status human rights violation cases filed and manage by the CHR will also be developed

for monitoring operational effectiveness and efficiency. The system should be accessible both

at the national and regional offices of the CHR

As CHR has the mandate to report human rights situation to various international human

rights bodies, part of this knowledge management system is the generation of reports using

data and analysis generated from the IPHRO to these international human rights mechanisms.

These reports will regularly be shared with the other concern state duty bearers and IP rights

103

holders for purposes of transparency and accountability.

B. Regular National IP Rights Inquiry

The 2017 National IP Rights Inquiry has gathered preliminary information and data enough

to start an initial database for the regular monitoring and evaluation work of the IPHRO.

However, the regular conduct of succeeding National IP Rights Inquiry processes will be

made integral to the regular functioning of the IPHRO. To be determined later is the

frequency of the conduct of this inquiry but it must at least be done twice in the period of six

(6) years following the term of every government elected and the timeline of every national

mid-term development plan or the Philippine Development Plan.

The convening of the regular National IP Rights Inquiry may also be done back-to-back with

appropriate capacity building interventions as earlier identified in the gap assessment on

capacity building needs.

C. Collaborative Mechanisms for the IPHRO Operationalization

Two collaborative mechanisms are proposed to full operationalize the IPHRO. There are:

1. Direct IP Community - CHR IP Rights Monitoring Platform

Prominent during the discussions of the inquiry was the offer of IP leaders to have a direct

mechanism between their IP community and the CHR that will establish a secure mechanism

for gathering information and feedback on human rights situation and human rights violations

of IPs at the community level as well as providing a direct link between these information

and feedback system to direct referrals to various IP rights protection services that can follow

through.

2. Inter-Agency/ Multi-Sectoral IP Rights Monitoring Mechanism

As identified in the gap analysis of the current responses of state duty bearers under the item

of monitoring and evaluation system, it is recommended that the IPHRO maintains three (3)

Inter-Agency/Multi-Sectoral coordination and collaborative mechanisms and where

applicable, the necessary sub-groups. These are:

1. Proposed Inter-Agency / Multi-Sectoral TWGs Monitoring Key Thematic Areas of the 4

Bundles of IP Rights

1.1. TWG on AD & Land,

1.2. TWG on Self-Governance & Empowerment

1.3. TWG on Social Justice & Human Rights

1.4. TWG on Cultural Integrity

1.5. TWG on Autonomy and Peace Talks

2. Proposed CHR-NCIP-DBM-COA Task Force on IP Rights Fiscal Monitoring

3. Proposed BHR Task Force on IP Rights Monitoring (Inter-Agency, Multi-Sectoral

National Body) complemented with an IP (IPMR Leagues, IPOs) – CHR – NCIP –

Business – CSO Consultative Forum at the Regional and National Levels on IP Rights

and BHR

104

D. IPHRO Information Flow

As for the information flow within the IPHRO, Figure 20 shows how this might happen.

The regular IP National Inquiry process consisting of public hearings, workshop and event

community visits/investigation is the regular starting point of the information flow. From

here, Human Rights Situation Report of Filipino IPs will be developed evolving from its

current baseline of national level information to what that would eventually encompass per

tribe, per domain and per issue.

Regular reporting of state duty bearers (LGUs and NGAs) will be a another source on a very

regular basis. This regular feedback mechanism will continue to get assessment from all

stakeholders, primarily IP leaders on the operations and programming of the IPHRO for

continues improvement Information generated for CHR will be used for: a) Case Monitoring

and Investigation – both for new and old cases, b) Promotion – Information, Education and

Communication (IECs), c) developing proposed policies through specific policy advisories. It

will also be used to guide the convening of Inter Agency Technical Working groups to

respond to thematic/recurring issues and issuance of CHR letters to relevant agencies per

issues raised calling on them to fulfill their individual obligations, as identified.

105

Figure 20: IPHRO Information Flow

106

Next Steps on the Development & Operationalization of the IPHRO in CHR

The development of the identified operative elements of an IPHRO that will be

integrated in the regular operation of CHR will be pursued as next steps. Reflecting

from various elements identified in the IP National Inquiry, the following operational

systems and their relevant tools will be developed

A. Organizational Development (O.D.) on the IPHRO in CHR

An Organizational Development (O.D.) assessment including a systems review of

CHR operations leading to an O.D. plan that once fully implemented will ensure

proper change management in developing IPHRO as a new program and its

implication to current operational systems, policies, structures and staffing will be

conducted

It is a systematic and planned change or restructuring that will likely affect all levels of the

organization. It is typically used to manage change in an organization, especially when a new

program is introduced that will change many aspects of its regular operations.

An OD Assessment is a preliminary process for OD interventions to determine which part of

the current operations of the organization; including its guidelies/procedures/rules,

structures/mechanisms and systems needs to be subjected to the desired change as the new

program is integrated. It this case, the OD Assessment for the CHR IP Rights Observatory

will be done through a targeted survey among key personel & other stakeholders

The IP Rights Observatory proposed for the CHR is an innovation that will allow this

national human rights institute to be able to systematically and effectively perform its

mandate to promote, protect and & recommend policies to ensure the human rights of all

indigenous Filipinos. While in the past, CHR has investigated; and to some extent, resolve

some HR violations against IPs, it has yet to do this optimally and systematically. This

introduction of a new program that will affect a substantial part of the regular operations of

CHR must be manage through an OD process. Thus, the need for this OD assessment.

This proposed OD assessment process will follow this conceptual framework:

Figure 21: Conceptual Framework for the OD Assessment of IPHRO

CONCEPTUAL

FRAMEWORK

OF AN

IP RIGHTS OBSERVATORY

MECHANISM

IN CHR

ORGANIZATIONAL

DOMAINS OF CHR ⚫ Mission & Vision ⚫ Leadership & Governance

⚫ Strategic & Operations Planning

and Management Systems ⚫ Management of People

⚫ Linkages, Networking &

Communications

⚫ Research & Information

Management

⚫ Financial Management &

Resource Mobilization

Key

Personnel

External

Stakeholders

O.D. Assessment Survey

using OD Assessment Tool

ORGANIZATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

OF THE IP RIGHTS

OBSERVATORY IN CHR

107

The operative elements of the IPHRO will be communicated to the respondents of the OD

Assessment before they respond to the survey. The respondents will then be asked to look

into the 7 organizational domains covering the current regular functions of the CHR and try

to assess to what extent this will be affected by the change management that will occur as the

IP Rights Observatory mechanism is integrated into the CHR work. The results of the study

both assess the OD level of CHR in each of its 7 organizational domains to integrate the IP

Rights Observatory by way of an index and it will also identify the areas of OD interventions

that will be necessary afterwards.The OD rating for IP Rights Observatory that will be

established can be used for regular monitoring nd evaluation of the implementation of the OD

plan.

Another aspect of the OD assessment is the operational systems review of CHR to manage

IPHRO integration in existing programs and services.

A systems review as applied in organizational development (or change management) looks

into the way the regular operations of an organization functions and proposes changes and

innovations to facilitate the introduction of new programs, projects and mechanisms. In this

case, the new mechanism being introduce to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is the

proposed Indigenous Peoples (IP) Rights Observatory. In doing a quick systems review of the

relevant CHR operational mechanisms, the Omnibus Rules of Procedures of the CHR

adopted on April 2012 was the subject of the review.

Reviewing the above relevant rules of the Omnibus Rules of Procedures reveals that the CHR

currently has two distinct but complementary main systems to perform its power and mandate

to investigate and monitor on one hand, Civil and Political Rights (CPR) and on the other

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR).

Sub-systems to these are special considerations that require additional protocols and

standards for dealing with human rights cases involving women and children. Cross cutting

also both systems and sub-system are the special procedures for such processes and

mechanisms as the public inquiry, fact finding missions, quick response operations, the use of

conciliation & mediation, use of forensics science in aid of investigation, immediate course

of actions (protection remedies, witness protection w/ immunity, legal assistance &

counseling) & issuance of CHR clearances to ensure integrity of the results of the system.

Within the context of these systems and sub-systems of the regular operations of the CHR, it

may be feasible to integrate the IP Rights Observatory sub-system as an additional cross-

cutting system in tandem with the public inquiry, fact finding mission and quick response

action. Likewise, similar to how the sub-system of special protocols on how to investigate

properly human rights cases against women and children, it may also be feasible to

incorporate special protocols for handling IP related cases across the various processes in

investigating and monitoring human rights violations in both the civil, political rights (CPR)

area as well as the economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) area as well.

108

Figure 22: IPHRO Systems Review of CHR Investigation

Scope of CHR

Jurisdiction

Civil, Political Rights

ESCR especially of the

marginalized

Monitor GRPs

compliance w HR

treaties and instruments

Power to Investigate & Monitor

Initial

Investigation

> upon

complaint

> motu propio

24-48 hrs

Endorse to NGA

or other entity w

jurisdiction

RD or

CeB

decides jurisdiction

If NO

Dialogue/

Preliminary

Conference of all

parties incl duty

holders

If YES

w/ 3 days notice

Immediate Course of Actions

Protection Remedies

Alternative dispute

resolution (conciliation,

mediation)

Investigation Proper (starts w/in 15 days after complaint

and as recommended by the

preliminary investigation)

Case resolved

amicably

(* w/ limits)

Process issued to parties.

Affidavits submitted Counter affidavit w/in 3-10dys

Conduct of hearing/ review of

affidavits, counter affidavits

Investigation Reports 10 days

after termination of investigation

Final Evaluation &

Preparation of Resolution within 15 days after submission of

Investigation Reports. Motion for

reconsideration within 14 days

Investigation

reports 10 dys

after

terminations of

investigation

If YES

Archived w/out

prejudice to re-

opening.

Mandatory

revisiting

Summary dismissal after

3 years with

exceptions

If NO

For CPR

Cases

FINDINGS of

Human Rights

Violations

If YES If NO

Case Dismissed

CHR Clearance may be issued.

With excemptions

For ESCR

Cases

Institutional

Actions by CHR

Investigation &

Monitoring Reports

Endorsement for filing

appropriate legal cases Endorsement for appropriate

policy measures Grant of reparations

Conduct of Public Inquiry, Quick Response Action,

Fact-Finding Mission

IP RIGHTS OBSERVATORY

Special Protocols for

handling HR cases of

women

Special Protocols for

handling HR cases of

children

Special Protocols for

handling HR cases of

women

Special Protocols for

handling HR cases

of children

Forensic

science in aid

to investigation

where

necessary

Special Protocols

for handling HR

cases of IPs

Special Protocols

for handling HR

cases of IPs

109

B. Capacity Building for the IPHRO in CHR

Reflecting from the Capacity Building Gaps identified an assessment of the capacity building needs of

CHR for an IP Rights Observatory will be conducted. This assessment will be conducted through a

FGD – Focus Group Discussions of a representation of all major stakeholders as well as sampling of

various related offices in the CHR that will eventually be involve in the IP Rights Observatory

mechanism. A Guided survey questionnaire will be developed as a tool for this assessment.

A KSA (Knowledge, Skills and Attitude) Learning Objectives matrix will then be prepared covering

the programmatic elements of the proposed IPHRO, as follows:

Table 23: CHR KSA Learning Objective Matrix for IPHRO

Operative Elements

of an IP Rights

Observatory

Mechanism

Capacity Building

Needs

Learning Objectives

Knowledge Skills Attitudes

A Regular M&E and

Knowledge

Management System

A Capacity Building

on IP Rights M&E

System

An Information,

Education &

Communications

System

After which, specific Capacity Building interventions tailor fitted to various unit of the CHR operations

will be designed; following this matrix:

Table 24: CHR Coverage of IPHRO Capacity Building Intervention per Unit

CHR Offices COVERAGE of Capacity Building Interventions

Commission En Banc

Office of the Director

General Administration

Finance

Strategic

Communications

Promotions Office

Protections Office

Policy Office

HR Centers

Field Operations

Regional Offices

C. Strategic Communications for the IPHRO in CHR

Reflecting from the IEC Gaps identified an assessment of the communication needs of CHR for an IP

110

Rights Observatory will be conducted. This assessment will be conducted through a FGD – Focus

Group Discussions of a representation of all major stakeholders as well as sampling of various related

offices in the CHR that will eventually be involve in the IP Rights Observatory mechanism. A Guided

survey questionnaire will be developed as a tool for this assessment.

A IEC (Information, Education & Communication) Plan matrix will then be prepared covering the

programmatic elements of the proposed IPHRO, as follows:

Table 25: CHR IPHRO IEC Plan Matrix

Operative

Elements

Communication

Needs Based on

IEC Gaps

TARGET

AUDIENCE

KEY

MESSAGING

DATA

SOURCES

COMMUNICATION

METHODS FREQUENCY

A Regular

M&E and

Knowledge

Management

System

A Capacity

Building on IP

Rights M&E

System

An

Information,

Education &

Communicatio

ns System

This matrix will then become the basis for formulating a strategic communications plan for IPHRO to

be manage for implementation by CHR.

D. Knowledge Management System for the IPHRO in CHR

An IPHRO Knowledge Management system consisting of a results-based monitoring &

evaluation (M&E) mechanism with workable indicator systems and tools based on the

O.PE.R.A. (Outcomes, Policy Efforts, Resources, Assessment) framework of ESCR

(Economic, Social, Cultural Rights) monitoring together with a database management system

accessible publicly online will be developed. The proposed key IP Rights Indicators will be

utilized for this system

111

REFERENCES:

1. Defending Dignity: A Manual for National Human Rights Institutions on Monitoring Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights. APF. 2015

2. Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) to Development Planning Toolkit. NEDA & UNDP.

2012

3. Human Rights Based Approach to Public Finance in the Philippines. CHR and NEDA. 2013

4. 2017 Consolidated Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Filipino Indigenous Peoples’.

Commission on Human Rights (CHR). DRAFT

5. Concept Paper of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Observatory (IPRO). Commission on Human

Rights. 2017. DRAFT

6. Comparative Analysis on the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention No. 169, UN

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and the Indigenous Peoples' Rights

Act (IPRA) 2012. ILO. Sedfrey Candelaria